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.

I think you are confusing a clarifying clause from a qualifying clause. The rule is explaining why named characters cannot take relics (because they have their own artefacts), not laying out the conditions in which they cannot take relics (when they have their own artefacts).

As you correctly point out, they never define artifact, which means there is no good way of testing which named characters can take relics. So, that means that the rule more or less boils down to "Because reasons, named characters cannot take relics." However, because the final clause is a logical and coherent statement, it can and should still be read as a rule.

I think it's an interesting and creative argument, but I would not put a lot of stock in opponents or TOs accepting it.

Technically they also never define named characters. It’s pretty clear what they mean there but it is still gak rules writing

Character is a key word, and is defined in the core rules.

The rules really aren't as poorly written as you contend. As you note, it's usually pretty apparent what is meant.

GW's need for a better proofreader/editor is well known, however.

 Polonius wrote:
I think you are confusing a clarifying clause from a qualifying clause. The rule is explaining why named characters cannot take relics (because they have their own artefacts), not laying out the conditions in which they cannot take relics (when they have their own artefacts).

As you correctly point out, they never define artifact, which means there is no good way of testing which named characters can take relics. So, that means that the rule more or less boils down to "Because reasons, named characters cannot take relics." However, because the final clause is a logical and coherent statement, it can and should still be read as a rule.

I think it's an interesting and creative argument, but I would not put a lot of stock in opponents or TOs accepting it.

Yeah it doesn#t say named character's THAT have. It's named charactars period. But of course what counts as named characters isn't defined. Gw as usual.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:
Character is a key word, and is defined in the core rules.

The rules really aren't as poorly written as you contend. As you note, it's usually pretty apparent what is meant.

GW's need for a better proofreader/editor is well known, however.

If you need to decide what they meant that IS poorly written. No getting around it. As it game has enough places where rules don#t deal that there's high chance game cannot be finished if you insist on raw

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 ph34r wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What's everyone's opinion on the Minotaur Artillery Tank now that it can move and fire it's guns? Is just under 300 points worth it for such a machine?

My thought is the same as before.

Minotaur 280 points, has the firepower of exactly 2 basilisks...
or
2 Basilisks 216 points (77% of 280), has the firepower of exactly 2 basilisks...

Why would you ever pick the more expensive option?

Dramatically higher durability, ability to fire while in CC, better benefits from singe target buffs...

there's more to this game than firepower per point, presumably.

The higher survivability is nice, and I didn't realize it can fire from being in close combat, that is nice.

I just think, well first off you had to take a whole superheavy auxiliary to have the Minotaur in the first place, that is a cost. And unless you go all the way for a Supreme Command or full 3-5 Superheavies, you aren't getting that regimental doctrine either. Taking 3 HQ tax just to give doctrine to your expensive double-basilisk? Sounds like you are throwing good points after bad at this point.

Buffing it is nice so a 40 point searchlight can buff 2 basilisk's worth of firepower instead of one.

Still, seems totally not worth it. If my enemy had Basilisks and a Minotaur, I would ignore the minotaur and kill the basilisks. If they had only a Minotaur, I would still ignore it. I would rather have 5 basilisks than 2 Minotaurs.

I have been considering taking 3 Minotaurs or 2 Minotaurs and a Shadowsword in a 1k point superheavy detachment; that's what I was looking at the viability of.

Is anyone else trying Crusaders in their list? They go well with a priest and an astropath. You do have to keep them away from Mortal Wound dispensers (like exploding Hellhounds).

 JB wrote:
Is anyone else trying Crusaders in their list? They go well with a priest and an astropath. You do have to keep them away from Mortal Wound dispensers (like exploding Hellhounds).

I keep going back and forth on crusaders, they seem like elite killers in everyway except for the s3. I'd love them in almost all my lists if they were s4 at least but the s3 hurts a lot

Wow never saw the minotaur, really interesting alternative. Does anyone have one that they can show a size comparison to the basilisk? If it's much bigger then you might lose out on a lot of opportunities to stay out of LoS depending on your terrain

 ph34r wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 ph34r wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What's everyone's opinion on the Minotaur Artillery Tank now that it can move and fire it's guns? Is just under 300 points worth it for such a machine?

My thought is the same as before.

Minotaur 280 points, has the firepower of exactly 2 basilisks...
or
2 Basilisks 216 points (77% of 280), has the firepower of exactly 2 basilisks...

Why would you ever pick the more expensive option?

Dramatically higher durability, ability to fire while in CC, better benefits from singe target buffs...

there's more to this game than firepower per point, presumably.

The higher survivability is nice, and I didn't realize it can fire from being in close combat, that is nice.

I just think, well first off you had to take a whole superheavy auxiliary to have the Minotaur in the first place, that is a cost. And unless you go all the way for a Supreme Command or full 3-5 Superheavies, you aren't getting that regimental doctrine either. Taking 3 HQ tax just to give doctrine to your expensive double-basilisk? Sounds like you are throwing good points after bad at this point.

Buffing it is nice so a 40 point searchlight can buff 2 basilisk's worth of firepower instead of one.

Still, seems totally not worth it. If my enemy had Basilisks and a Minotaur, I would ignore the minotaur and kill the basilisks. If they had only a Minotaur, I would still ignore it. I would rather have 5 basilisks than 2 Minotaurs.

To each their own, but keep in mind the minotaur is -literally- a few wounds shy of the exact durability of an imperial knight, and 3 minotaurs to fill out a superheavy detachment is only 840 pts, which still leaves plenty of pts for other stuff in a 2k IG army. Throw in the jury rigging strategem and a techpriest (yes I know the techpriests costs pts but totally worth it) and you have a -really- hard to kill artillery line that, unlike an IK, doesn't even have to leave melee to keep firing. Your opponent literally has to kill them (which will take a ton of firepower), or they simply will not stop firing. That is worth quite a bit especially against assault armies and alpha strike armies, especially if you use Defensive Gunners strategem.

I would rather have 6 basilisks that are guaranteed to be firing every turn, than 8 that will certainly be targetted and either destroyed or whittled down using less firepower.

If you really want to be a troll, stick 1 or 2 astropaths behind a minotaur to buff its invul save and/or penalize shooting hit rolls against it. If it still dies? Guess what, the astropath gets to run off and go buff something else. No waste.

That settles it for me; I think I am going to grab a minotaur company for my superheavy siege regiment

I'm going to experiment with Hydra platforms. I don't think they will do much damage as Elder are likely to either have a -2 to hit or -1 with a serpent shields, but with 8 shots they should definitely do a wound and that's all I need to give basilisk overlapping fields of fire.

Plan B in the complete absence of flyers wound a tank or MC with a basilisk and use overlapping field of fire to hit with a 4+ with the Hydras.

Been using the Bullgryn with shields of varying types. Priests and astropath. They are my new favourite unit. Took an entire shooting phase from tau with taking a few models.

Also with the current "meta" Im thinking faster moving units will become more prolific. So I'm opting to use the Banehammer. Love it so far.

The banehammer is a nifty little tank, yeah. Its just got so much utility. It can stop enemy units in their tracks, possibly saving you from a charge, it can deal decent damage, it can transport a significant amount of heavy hitters... especially the big guys. Just a very useful model.

Was considering tossing in some ratlings in there. Just so they can do their thing without getting easily killed off the board turn 1.

Assuming Ratlings can even go in transports....

 rhinoceraids wrote:
Been using the Bullgryn with shields of varying types. Priests and astropath. They are my new favourite unit. Took an entire shooting phase from tau with taking a few models.

Also with the current "meta" Im thinking faster moving units will become more prolific. So I'm opting to use the Banehammer. Love it so far.

I am a huge fan of running bullgryns, but what benefit is the astropath with them? Just for nightshroud?

Psycic Barrier. +1 to saves.

Then use Take cover- strategem when people shoot at them. An additional +1

So you now have some bullgryns with a 2++. And others with (Technically) a 0+.

If you want to hassle people with Bullgryns, why not just take that Custodes guy who gives a 5++ then all your cats can just get a 2+ AND a 3++ then psychic barrier them for 2++.

 Colonel Cross wrote:
If you want to hassle people with Bullgryns, why not just take that Custodes guy who gives a 5++ then all your cats can just get a 2+ AND a 3++ then psychic barrier them for 2++.

Thats how I'm currently running mine. Its mighty expensive but those custodes pack a punch on their own. 2+ 3++ t5 multi wound dudes are a distraction carnifex that can't be ignored. Technically the only way to get inside their invul is to assault at which point you're dealing with bullgryns (supported by a priest) and a custodes who can do a heroic intervention. Tasty.

As I said expensive though. I was running 6 bullgryns with the priest and custodes but in order to make points elsewhere I changed it to 3 bullgryns, a priest and an ogryn body guard with the deathmask that actually does give him 2++ (and regain wounds)

Well. I have the models. Which are probably one of my favourite units in the game.

stodes are fine im sure too!

I’m using converted ogres with bullgryns gas masks. You’re right they do look cool.

Howdy

I just started collecting Astra Militarum and I need to think about what to do/buy next.

Usually I read that Infantry Squad main objective is "to die" and do some "screening". That's it

I'd like to think out of the box and do not treat them as expendable models... for fluff reasons.

How one could achieve AM list where troop choice is something more than body to throw at the enemy?
I was thinking even about using scions exclusively as a troop choice

Gnollu wrote:
Howdy

I just started collecting Astra Militarum and I need to think about what to do/buy next.

Usually I read that Infantry Squad main objective is "to die" and do some "screening". That's it

I'd like to think out of the box and do not treat them as expendable models... for fluff reasons.

How one could achieve AM list where troop choice is something more than body to throw at the enemy?
I was thinking even about using scions exclusively as a troop choice

Infantry squads are even more expendable in the fluff than they are in the game

If what you mean by more use is more damage output, then scions might not be a bad option - I don't have much experience with them tho. But otherwise, I wouldn't underestimate the importance of infantry as screening units / board control. Units with mortars are great for plugging holes in your backfield to deny deepstrikers. Alternatively again, if you're looking for more damage output, give them lascannons - 9 ablative wounds on a lascannon can be nice. I think someone posted a while back about running a heap of Catachan infantry at the enemy with the intent of getting into cc

Has anybody used the Hades drill with any success? Looks like such a cool model. Some pretty good rules. Comes with an entire squad of guardsmen with shotguns.

Thinking something for objective grabbers. Drill charges a vehicle. Troops get on objective.

Thoughts?

Ill be fielding my Venator again. Since the FAQ it means when it deep strikes it has the 5++ since its assumed to have moved the max distance.

Gnollu wrote:
Howdy

I just started collecting Astra Militarum and I need to think about what to do/buy next.

Usually I read that Infantry Squad main objective is "to die" and do some "screening". That's it

I'd like to think out of the box and do not treat them as expendable models... for fluff reasons.

How one could achieve AM list where troop choice is something more than body to throw at the enemy?
I was thinking even about using scions exclusively as a troop choice

Well to be fair that's not just an IG problem, most armies troops are treated that way, space marine scouts being a good example. You'll note many codexes complain that their troops aren't as efficient as guardsmen, and this is often what they're talking about. 8th edition is an insanely deadly edition and ironically guardsmen are more durable per point than tac Marines for example.

For Imperial Guard infantry, your best bet would be an armored fist company of some kind utilizing transports. Simply put there's no sort of infantry army you can run that isn't going to be losing dozens of models a turn. That's why all infantry guard armies are going to be horde armies. Even "elite" lists comprised of Vets or Stormtroopers needs a lot of bodies to ensure at least a few live to the end of the game.

If you insist on not taking transports, your only real option would be some sort of Tallarn outflankers force, and even there you're going to be leaving the larger half of your force on the table to weather the opening storm.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

Well to be fair that's not just an IG problem, most armies troops are treated that way, space marine scouts being a good example. You'll note many codexes complain that their troops aren't as efficient as guardsmen, and this is often what they're talking about. 8th edition is an insanely deadly edition and ironically guardsmen are more durable per point than tac Marines for example.

For Imperial Guard infantry, your best bet would be an armored fist company of some kind utilizing transports. Simply put there's no sort of infantry army you can run that isn't going to be losing dozens of models a turn. That's why all infantry guard armies are going to be horde armies. Even "elite" lists comprised of Vets or Stormtroopers needs a lot of bodies to ensure at least a few live to the end of the game.

If you insist on not taking transports, your only real option would be some sort of Tallarn outflankers force, and even there you're going to be leaving the larger half of your force on the table to weather the opening storm.

And what regiment to use in case of army utilising lots of transports (chimeras)? I thought about tallarn as being able to shoot without penalty after moving can actually help to maintain high mobility of troops.
I saw that lots of people actually prefer armagedon though for such purpouses.

Gnollu wrote:
How one could achieve AM list where troop choice is something more than body to throw at the enemy?

You don't. Even our "elite" infantry are still glass cannons that drop in, do a ton of damage, and die. The first thing you have to get used to as an IG player is removing piles of models at a time, and trusting in the fact that you have plenty more where those came from.

Gnollu wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

Well to be fair that's not just an IG problem, most armies troops are treated that way, space marine scouts being a good example. You'll note many codexes complain that their troops aren't as efficient as guardsmen, and this is often what they're talking about. 8th edition is an insanely deadly edition and ironically guardsmen are more durable per point than tac Marines for example.

For Imperial Guard infantry, your best bet would be an armored fist company of some kind utilizing transports. Simply put there's no sort of infantry army you can run that isn't going to be losing dozens of models a turn. That's why all infantry guard armies are going to be horde armies. Even "elite" lists comprised of Vets or Stormtroopers needs a lot of bodies to ensure at least a few live to the end of the game.

If you insist on not taking transports, your only real option would be some sort of Tallarn outflankers force, and even there you're going to be leaving the larger half of your force on the table to weather the opening storm.

And what regiment to use in case of army utilising lots of transports (chimeras)? I thought about tallarn as being able to shoot without penalty after moving can actually help to maintain high mobility of troops.
I saw that lots of people actually prefer armagedon though for such purpouses.

Nah, Armageddon is a bit too slow I feel. Using their order and transport leads to using your chimeras as immobile bunkers, and moving takes three turns minimum. If you could get out of the transport after moving, it would work. If you could get back in the same turn you got out of your transport, it could work. But as is... Im not a fan. Tallarn all the way. At least I can stay mobile that way.

So I've been noticing a trend of late, at least with Dark Eldar and Necrons that I'm struggling to keep Pask alive, and with that many points nuked on a turn 1 Alpha strike (can't always keep him out of LoS after their maneuvers) I find it a struggle to play catch-up when my turn comes around.

Does anyone else reckon that Pask is no longer competitive due to the fact that he's just as vulnerable as a normal leman russ? Destroyers hurt man.

 Naix wrote:
So I've been noticing a trend of late, at least with Dark Eldar and Necrons that I'm struggling to keep Pask alive, and with that many points nuked on a turn 1 Alpha strike (can't always keep him out of LoS after their maneuvers) I find it a struggle to play catch-up when my turn comes around.

Does anyone else reckon that Pask is no longer competitive due to the fact that he's just as vulnerable as a normal leman russ? Destroyers hurt man.

He's only about 10 points more than a regular command tank for serious bonuses, I would say he is fine. I just wouldnt kit him out to the nines, I'd just leave him with turret weapon and maybe a lascannon. The more weapons you put on him the bigger a target he becomes.