Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2017/11/07 20:42:56
Subject: Astra Militarum: More Competitive in 8th Edition?
Requizen wrote: How do people value CPs vs Regimental Doctrines?
I have a Brigade currently that is mostly Scions but with vehicles in FA and HS. I can keep it together and give the Vehicles a good Regiment (thinking Catachan or Valhalla), but then the Scions and Tauroxes get nothing.
I could split them into 1/2 Battalion(s) and a Spearhead, but then I'm giving up CPs that could be quite useful.
How do you guys value the Tempestus Doctrine? It feels really unreliable to me, but occasional extra Plasma shots or Taurox shooting could be quite useful as well.
Something else to consider here - how many uses do you have for CPs?
I ask because, if you're just using vehicles, then the Catachan and Valhallan Stratagems are both useless. And the MT stratagem is rather niche, to say the least. If you take Grand Strategist, then you can potentially stretch your CPs further still, and the Aquila has a good chance of getting you more.
So, it really depends on how many CPs you think you'll need for rerolls or universal Stratagems. If you don't tend to use many, I'd split them to get the MT doctrine. If you use them a lot, keep your army the way it is.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
2017/11/08 07:03:43
Subject: Astra Militarum: More Competitive in 8th Edition?
Requizen wrote: How do people value CPs vs Regimental Doctrines?
I have a Brigade currently that is mostly Scions but with vehicles in FA and HS. I can keep it together and give the Vehicles a good Regiment (thinking Catachan or Valhalla), but then the Scions and Tauroxes get nothing.
I could split them into 1/2 Battalion(s) and a Spearhead, but then I'm giving up CPs that could be quite useful.
How do you guys value the Tempestus Doctrine? It feels really unreliable to me, but occasional extra Plasma shots or Taurox shooting could be quite useful as well.
Something else to consider here - how many uses do you have for CPs?
I ask because, if you're just using vehicles, then the Catachan and Valhallan Stratagems are both useless. And the MT stratagem is rather niche, to say the least. If you take Grand Strategist, then you can potentially stretch your CPs further still, and the Aquila has a good chance of getting you more.
So, it really depends on how many CPs you think you'll need for rerolls or universal Stratagems. If you don't tend to use many, I'd split them to get the MT doctrine. If you use them a lot, keep your army the way it is.
It really depends on your regiment(s) army type, heck even the weapons you use. I know I burn through strategems something fierce, if nothing more for the basic rerolls and 2cp insane bravery. Add "fight to the death", Take cover, combine squads, and even potentially the counterattack one from the main rulebook, and I can potentially burn through 10+ points by the end of turn 1.
I feel like even vehicles would still use a few a turn. Nowhere near as much as an infantry list but hey, extra CP's never hurt.
'I've played Guard for years, and the best piece of advice is to always utilize the Guard's best special rule: "we roll more dice than you" ' - stormleader
"Sector Imperialis: 25mm and 40mm Round Bases (40+20) 26€ (Including 32 skulls for basing) " GW design philosophy in a nutshell
2017/11/09 18:31:39
Subject: Re:Astra Militarum: More Competitive in 8th Edition?
gendoikari87 wrote: Question do tank commanders count toward the limit of command squads?
Any model with the 'Officer' keyword and the appropriate Regiment counts.
So, yes, Tank Commanders also unlock Command Squads.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
2017/11/09 19:18:46
Subject: Astra Militarum: More Competitive in 8th Edition?
Nice that makes things easy. Vanguard two chimera with twin flamers 2 sws with flamers and 2 command squads with meltas or plasma.... leave a hundred points more in a 1000 point army
Requizen wrote: How do people value CPs vs Regimental Doctrines?
I have a Brigade currently that is mostly Scions but with vehicles in FA and HS. I can keep it together and give the Vehicles a good Regiment (thinking Catachan or Valhalla), but then the Scions and Tauroxes get nothing.
I could split them into 1/2 Battalion(s) and a Spearhead, but then I'm giving up CPs that could be quite useful.
How do you guys value the Tempestus Doctrine? It feels really unreliable to me, but occasional extra Plasma shots or Taurox shooting could be quite useful as well.
Something else to consider here - how many uses do you have for CPs?
I ask because, if you're just using vehicles, then the Catachan and Valhallan Stratagems are both useless. And the MT stratagem is rather niche, to say the least. If you take Grand Strategist, then you can potentially stretch your CPs further still, and the Aquila has a good chance of getting you more.
So, it really depends on how many CPs you think you'll need for rerolls or universal Stratagems. If you don't tend to use many, I'd split them to get the MT doctrine. If you use them a lot, keep your army the way it is.
It really depends on your regiment(s) army type, heck even the weapons you use. I know I burn through strategems something fierce, if nothing more for the basic rerolls and 2cp insane bravery. Add "fight to the death", Take cover, combine squads, and even potentially the counterattack one from the main rulebook, and I can potentially burn through 10+ points by the end of turn 1.
I feel like even vehicles would still use a few a turn. Nowhere near as much as an infantry list but hey, extra CP's never hurt.
I'm running Cadian and they will always burn 2 per turn on overlapping fields of fire.
Chaos isn’t a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail, and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some are given a chance to climb, but refuse. They cling to the realm, or love, or the gods…illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is, but they’ll never know this. Not until it’s too late.
2017/11/12 16:47:22
Subject: Astra Militarum: More Competitive in 8th Edition?
Anyone feeling a need to change list setups with all the new Faction bonuses? With so many -1s to hit, extra armor, and CP cost Deep Strikes, mass artillery feels like it'll soon be a bit out of fashion to me. Will there be more of a switch to mobile, decentralized armies? Scions already do this sort of.
2017/11/12 17:19:21
Subject: Astra Militarum: More Competitive in 8th Edition?
Requizen wrote: Anyone feeling a need to change list setups with all the new Faction bonuses? With so many -1s to hit, extra armor, and CP cost Deep Strikes, mass artillery feels like it'll soon be a bit out of fashion to me. Will there be more of a switch to mobile, decentralized armies? Scions already do this sort of.
Well, I don't use artillery-based armies anyway, so I'm probably okay on that front.
In terms of decentralised armies, I made this recently:
The most expensive squad is the 88pt MT Command Squad, and most of the others are around 50pts.
Basically, I've got 3 pseudo-platoons, each with:
3 Infantry Squads (one with just a Plasma Pistol)
2 HWSs
1 Company Commander
1 Astropath or Primaris Psyker
The HWSs will stay at the back, whilst the rest advance (and I do mean Advance ) up the field.
I've got 3 Scout Sentinels to act as mobile turrets (as well as moving to limit Deep Strike and such).
Then there's a Scion Squad and Scion Command Squad to deep strike anywhere.
Finally, there are 4 SWSs who can all outflank (one via the Dagger, 3 via the Tallarn stratagem), and the Company Commander with the dagger can give rerolls to 2 of them.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
2017/11/13 09:40:03
Subject: Astra Militarum: More Competitive in 8th Edition?
TJT wrote: What are our best options for anti-flyer?
Hydra, Hellhounds, Psykers
Bender wrote:* Realise that despite the way people talk, this is not a professional sport played by demi gods, but rather a game of toy soldiers played by tired, inebriated human beings.
I tested out my Catachan Cyclops and heavy mortars for the first time since the codex dropped. The cyclops being able to innately reroll 1 of the 2d6 was extremely solid. I find they are a great deterrent and psychological tool. I think they're worth it for 40pts for sure. I wouldn't pay any more than that though.
The heavy mortars are totally more than they should be, especially considering the Earthshaker Platforms are similarly priced and those can be Cadian and still do well with 2d6 pick highest. I got the heavy mortars within range of Harker and picked off T5 heavy infantry. It was pretty solid due to rerolling that d6 shots for being Catachan. I wish the mortars were a bit cheaper and I'd probably keep using them since they are cool looking and fun.
5k Imperial Guard
2k Ad Mech
2017/11/16 16:15:52
Subject: Astra Militarum: More Competitive in 8th Edition?
I haven't had a chance to fully delve into the Errata. What is the current standing on whether a MT Vanguard detachment loses the MT doctrine if it contains non MT units (in my case two Astropaths)?
I want to run a Tempestor Prime with a MT command squad, two astropaths and a Taurox prime as a vanguard. I was mostly hoping to get some free out of turn shooting from the Taurox Prime if anyone was foolish enough to deep strike close to it. Hopefully the Errata clarified this.
2017/11/16 16:18:45
Subject: Astra Militarum: More Competitive in 8th Edition?
CaptainO wrote: I haven't had a chance to fully delve into the Errata. What is the current standing on whether a MT Vanguard detachment loses the MT doctrine if it contains non MT units (in my case two Astropaths)?
I want to run a Tempestor Prime with a MT command squad, two astropaths and a Taurox prime as a vanguard. I was mostly hoping to get some free out of turn shooting from the Taurox Prime if anyone was foolish enough to deep strike close to it. Hopefully the Errata clarified this.
What do the Astropaths do in the detachment?
EDIT: Oh wait you need them to finish the Vanguard. Derp. I think it's fine, uncertain.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/16 16:19:32
2017/11/16 16:23:11
Subject: Astra Militarum: More Competitive in 8th Edition?
CaptainO wrote: I haven't had a chance to fully delve into the Errata. What is the current standing on whether a MT Vanguard detachment loses the MT doctrine if it contains non MT units (in my case two Astropaths)?
I want to run a Tempestor Prime with a MT command squad, two astropaths and a Taurox prime as a vanguard. I was mostly hoping to get some free out of turn shooting from the Taurox Prime if anyone was foolish enough to deep strike close to it. Hopefully the Errata clarified this.
It says that Astropaths and such don't count against you in terms of getting a doctrine, so I don't see why that wouldn't apply for an MT detachment.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
2017/11/16 16:49:08
Subject: Astra Militarum: More Competitive in 8th Edition?
gendoikari87 wrote: Thinking about running vanguard with units divided like this:
Chimera w 2x heavy flamer
Special weapons squad with 3x flamers
Command squad with 4x plasma
Total: 230
Back a few of these up with either anti tank kitted leman russes or a mechanicus spearhead detachment with neutronagers
Thoughts?
Your Vanguard is missing an HQ choice and a third Elite choice.
That aside, I'd be much more tempted to just stick with Special Weapon squads (giving one or both of them plasma).
At the very least, I'd lean towards putting plasma mostly on SWSs over Command Squads, since the latter have to pay twice as much for their plasmaguns (even with BS3+, I don't think it's remotely worth it outside of Scions).
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
2017/11/16 17:01:55
Subject: Astra Militarum: More Competitive in 8th Edition?
I should note I don’t mean just that for an army just how to organize squads. So the full army would be two of the above two company commanders and three neutronagers with a tech priest in a 1000 point army
Alternatively drop the admech and company commanders add two tank commanders
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/16 17:02:58
CaptainO wrote: I was mostly hoping to get some free out of turn shooting from the Taurox Prime if anyone was foolish enough to deep strike close to it. Hopefully the Errata clarified this.
The MT strategem is restricted to infantry, unfortunately.
2017/11/16 17:11:14
Subject: Astra Militarum: More Competitive in 8th Edition?
HQ Tank commander plasmacutioner
Tank commander plasmacutioner
Elite
Special weapons squad with 3 flamers
Special weapons squad with 3flamers
Special weapons squad with 3 Plasma guns
Special weapons squad with 3 Plasma guns
Transport
Chimera twin flamer
Chimera twin flamer
Total: 872
So missing 128 for a 1000 point list. Suggestions?
HQ Tank commander plasmacutioner
Tank commander plasmacutioner
Elite
Special weapons squad with 3 flamers
Special weapons squad with 3flamers
Special weapons squad with 3 Plasma guns
Special weapons squad with 3 Plasma guns
Transport
Chimera twin flamer
Chimera twin flamer
Total: 872
So missing 128 for a 1000 point list. Suggestions?
Suggestions are use Inquisitorial Acolytes. Since you have no commanders, you're not getting orders anyways, and you can give all 6 special weapons, and they still get re-rolls against CHAOS units and PSYKERS (if they're ordo hereticus) so you don't need orders in those games. They can still ride in the chimeras but you'll have 100% special weapons density. The difference in points should be made up though because they are very expensive.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/16 17:14:56
2017/11/16 17:19:09
Subject: Astra Militarum: More Competitive in 8th Edition?
CaptainO wrote: I haven't had a chance to fully delve into the Errata. What is the current standing on whether a MT Vanguard detachment loses the MT doctrine if it contains non MT units (in my case two Astropaths)?
I want to run a Tempestor Prime with a MT command squad, two astropaths and a Taurox prime as a vanguard. I was mostly hoping to get some free out of turn shooting from the Taurox Prime if anyone was foolish enough to deep strike close to it. Hopefully the Errata clarified this.
It says that Astropaths and such don't count against you in terms of getting a doctrine, so I don't see why that wouldn't apply for an MT detachment.
The rules for MT detachment in the codex stated that they didn't receive the benefits "unless every unit in that detachment is from the MT" which was different to the section on Advisors and Auxilla (both page 132) There was a discussion on this thread prior to the errata's release but I haven't seen anything that removed the ambiguity. Did you see something?
CaptainO wrote: I was mostly hoping to get some free out of turn shooting from the Taurox Prime if anyone was foolish enough to deep strike close to it. Hopefully the Errata clarified this.
The MT strategem is restricted to infantry, unfortunately.
Just saw that. This pretty much removes my whole desire to form an MT detachment. Pity. Is anyone still using Taurox Primes rather than a Leman Russ since the grinding advance rule came in? Points difference is minimal for much the greater survivability of the Russ. T8 and W12 v T6 and W10. The Taurox Prime transport ability is nigh on useless to me as I deep strike my MT units.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/17 18:28:03
2017/11/17 20:20:40
Subject: Astra Militarum: More Competitive in 8th Edition?
The rules for MT detachment in the codex stated that they didn't receive the benefits "unless every unit in that detachment is from the MT" which was different to the section on Advisors and Auxilla (both page 132) There was a discussion on this thread prior to the errata's release but I haven't seen anything that removed the ambiguity. Did you see something?
It comes down to this: Militarum Tempestus says "every unit must be MT," Auxilia and Advisors says "does not prevent others from gaining Doctrines." It just depends on which rule you think supersedes the other.
However, consider that Taurox Primes can transport <Officio Prefectus> models, MT have a strongly established relationship with Valkyries, and that Stormtroopers, Commissars, and Valkyries have been sold as bundles together. I think that paints a pretty clear picture as to which rule is supposed to take priority here. It would be very odd if the Start Collecting! Militarum Tempestus bundle came with a model that caused you to lose your Doctrine.
2017/11/17 20:32:48
Subject: Astra Militarum: More Competitive in 8th Edition?
Just a point but regular IG detachments also say that every unit must be from that detachment.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
2017/11/17 21:13:39
Subject: Astra Militarum: More Competitive in 8th Edition?
CaptainO wrote: Is anyone still using Taurox Primes rather than a Leman Russ since the grinding advance rule came in? Points difference is minimal for much the greater survivability of the Russ. T8 and W12 v T6 and W10. The Taurox Prime transport ability is nigh on useless to me as I deep strike my MT units.
There are a few things I like about the Taurox Prime compared to the Leman Russ, but the biggest one is mobility. To benefit from GA you need to slowly advance (or stay still), which limits what the vehicle can do. The Taurox can either sit still and can pretend to be a Predator, or it can zip around and pretend to be a Venom.
Personally I like playing a fast-moving army, which both MT vehicles (Taurox and Valkyrie) compliment. Given we typically play Maelstrom games, the Taurox has been a real boon for me (gatling cannon and volley gun setup especially).
