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.

 Commissar Benny wrote:

If the rumors are true, we'll be seeing changes this weekend in the FAQ. I expect we will see a limit or some sort of restriction on company commanders & instead platoon commanders will become HQ choices.

I hope so. Other options in the 'codex can be bought in 'platoons' so it is more than sensible to allow infantry squads to be bought in the same manner, even if the command elements are bought separately.

I am also a bit annoyed that veterans no longer have a carapace option.

I can see GW putting a restriction on Company Commanders, but I highly doubt they'd make Platoon Commanders into HQs.

Are other armies having restrictions put on their H.Qs?

 vipoid wrote:
I can see GW putting a restriction on Company Commanders, but I highly doubt they'd make Platoon Commanders into HQs.

They could just as easily make them a troops choice and tie them to infantry squads, like they have been since 2nd ed (at least to some degree)

Pseudomonas wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I can see GW putting a restriction on Company Commanders, but I highly doubt they'd make Platoon Commanders into HQs.

They could just as easily make them a troops choice and tie them to infantry squads, like they have been since 2nd ed (at least to some degree)

They could, but I doubt it.

Regardless, the point I was making was that I can see them limiting the number of Company Commanders we can take, but I also don't see them giving us a replacement HQ.

 drunken0elf wrote:
I got about 50-60 pewter karskins all unpainted lying around.


So ya'll telling me they 100% worth painting up? Because Their stats look hella good and they seem to be able to bring a lot of firepower to the table, especially for deepstrike plama force or dropping out a valk, moving up and just removing from existence a big thing eith 4 meltaguns.

Please tell me i can finally make a full karskin army and be viable.

Yeah, Scions are troops now, so you can have an army of stormtroopers.
The thing is though is that as they have a specific keyword, abilities that affect guardsmen may not work on them.
A company commander can't issue orders to them, for example. Only a Prime can.
You can still use commissars though, since they affect all Astra Militarum keyword units, which Scions do have.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 drunken0elf wrote:
I got about 50-60 pewter karskins all unpainted lying around.


So ya'll telling me they 100% worth painting up? Because Their stats look hella good and they seem to be able to bring a lot of firepower to the table, especially for deepstrike plama force or dropping out a valk, moving up and just removing from existence a big thing eith 4 meltaguns.

Please tell me i can finally make a full karskin army and be viable.

Yeah, Scions are troops now, so you can have an army of stormtroopers.
The thing is though is that as they have a specific keyword, abilities that affect guardsmen may not work on them.
A company commander can't issue orders to them, for example. Only a Prime can.
You can still use commissars though, since they affect all Astra Militarum keyword units, which Scions do have.

The Tempestor Prime's Voice of Command ability is the same as a Company Commander's. Except that, unlike a Company Commander, his regiment is limited to Militarum Tempestus. So it stands to reason that you can use a Company Commander with Militarum Tempestus as his regiment and then he can use voice of command on Militarum Tempestus.

Lord Castellan Creed, however, would not be able to use his voice of command ability on them because he is Cadian.

If I am correct about all this, then the WAAC plasma Scion Command Squad spam is even better with 10 point less Company Commanders over Tempestor Primes.

jaxor1983 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 drunken0elf wrote:
I got about 50-60 pewter karskins all unpainted lying around.


So ya'll telling me they 100% worth painting up? Because Their stats look hella good and they seem to be able to bring a lot of firepower to the table, especially for deepstrike plama force or dropping out a valk, moving up and just removing from existence a big thing eith 4 meltaguns.

Please tell me i can finally make a full karskin army and be viable.

Yeah, Scions are troops now, so you can have an army of stormtroopers.
The thing is though is that as they have a specific keyword, abilities that affect guardsmen may not work on them.
A company commander can't issue orders to them, for example. Only a Prime can.
You can still use commissars though, since they affect all Astra Militarum keyword units, which Scions do have.

The Tempestor Prime's Voice of Command ability is the same as a Company Commander's. Except that, unlike a Company Commander, his regiment is limited to Militarum Tempestus. So it stands to reason that you can use a Company Commander with Militarum Tempestus as his regiment and then he can use voice of command on Militarum Tempestus.

No you can't.
It explicitly states that you can't make a <regiment> Militarum Tempestus.
You have to use a Prime to give Scions orders. There is no work around.

jaxor1983 wrote:
The Tempestor Prime's Voice of Command ability is the same as a Company Commander's. Except that, unlike a Company Commander, his regiment is limited to Militarum Tempestus. So it stands to reason that you can use a Company Commander with Militarum Tempestus as his regiment and then he can use voice of command on Militarum Tempestus.

There is a specific restriction that you can't use "Militarum Tempestus" to replace the <Regiment> faction keyword.

Oh, nice. I'm glad they covered that.

 Trickstick wrote:

jaxor1983 wrote:
The Tempestor Prime's Voice of Command ability is the same as a Company Commander's. Except that, unlike a Company Commander, his regiment is limited to Militarum Tempestus. So it stands to reason that you can use a Company Commander with Militarum Tempestus as his regiment and then he can use voice of command on Militarum Tempestus.

There is a specific restriction that you can't use "Militarum Tempestus" to replace the <Regiment> faction keyword.

Is there a restriction that let's you replace your regiment's name with "Militarum Auxillia" (and thus letting you order Ogryns and Ratlings?)

Doctoralex wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

jaxor1983 wrote:
The Tempestor Prime's Voice of Command ability is the same as a Company Commander's. Except that, unlike a Company Commander, his regiment is limited to Militarum Tempestus. So it stands to reason that you can use a Company Commander with Militarum Tempestus as his regiment and then he can use voice of command on Militarum Tempestus.

There is a specific restriction that you can't use "Militarum Tempestus" to replace the <Regiment> faction keyword.

Is there a restriction that let's you replace your regiment's name with "Militarum Auxillia" (and thus letting you order Ogryns and Ratlings?)

Huh, there isn't actually.
Well, that's something that needs to be FAQ'd

 vipoid wrote:

Regardless, the point I was making was that I can see them limiting the number of Company Commanders we can take, but I also don't see them giving us a replacement HQ.

I would argue that one is needed though, finding the 4-6 HQ choices required for average sized games is hard enough as it is and if Company commanders are restricted that will leave very few choices without resorting to special characters.

Pseudomonas wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Regardless, the point I was making was that I can see them limiting the number of Company Commanders we can take, but I also don't see them giving us a replacement HQ.

I would argue that one is needed though, finding the 4-6 HQ choices required for average sized games is hard enough as it is and if Company commanders are restricted that will leave very few choices without resorting to special characters.

I never said it wasn't needed. I just don't see GW lifting a finger to give us one.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Doctoralex wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

jaxor1983 wrote:
The Tempestor Prime's Voice of Command ability is the same as a Company Commander's. Except that, unlike a Company Commander, his regiment is limited to Militarum Tempestus. So it stands to reason that you can use a Company Commander with Militarum Tempestus as his regiment and then he can use voice of command on Militarum Tempestus.

There is a specific restriction that you can't use "Militarum Tempestus" to replace the <Regiment> faction keyword.

Is there a restriction that let's you replace your regiment's name with "Militarum Auxillia" (and thus letting you order Ogryns and Ratlings?)

Huh, there isn't actually.
Well, that's something that needs to be FAQ'd

Well, technically the Militarum Auxillia isn't a regiment, it is a subdivision of the Astra Militarum. As it isn't a regiment, can it be a regimental keyword? The rules do state that you can replace the <Regiment> keyword with "the name of your chosen regiment".

I guess putting it in the FAQs is the simplest way to avoid confusion.

 Trickstick wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Doctoralex wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

jaxor1983 wrote:
The Tempestor Prime's Voice of Command ability is the same as a Company Commander's. Except that, unlike a Company Commander, his regiment is limited to Militarum Tempestus. So it stands to reason that you can use a Company Commander with Militarum Tempestus as his regiment and then he can use voice of command on Militarum Tempestus.

There is a specific restriction that you can't use "Militarum Tempestus" to replace the <Regiment> faction keyword.

Is there a restriction that let's you replace your regiment's name with "Militarum Auxillia" (and thus letting you order Ogryns and Ratlings?)

Huh, there isn't actually.
Well, that's something that needs to be FAQ'd

Well, technically the Militarum Auxillia isn't a regiment, it is a subdivision of the Astra Militarum. As it isn't a regiment, can it be a regimental keyword? The rules do state that you can replace the <Regiment> keyword with "the name of your chosen regiment".

I guess putting it in the FAQs is the simplest way to avoid confusion.

It goes in the same place as where the regiment is usually listed though, so it could be interpreted as a regiment.
It is something they will have to FAQ.

To continue the great "is the Battle Cannon crap or not?" debate, I decided to compare it to a bunch of Tau weapons, since they're supposedly the kings of superweapons. It's a generalist weapon, but I'm just going to compare it to anti-tank capability.(average wounds per shot)

Against another Leman Russ (T8 3+)

IG Battle Cannon 1.57
Pulse Driver Cannon 1.95
Pulse Blastcannon (long range) 0.67
Pulse Blastcannon (medium range) 2.69
Pulse Blastcannon (short range) 4.02
Hammerhead Railgun 1.80
Hammerhead Ion Cannon (standard) 0.59
Hammerhead Ion Cannon (overcharge) 1.35
Heavy Rail Rifle 1.92
High-Yield Missile Pods (2) 1.32
Fusion Blaster (not in melta range) 0.88
Fusion Blaster (in melta range) 1.125
Riptide Ion Accelerator (standard) 0.41
Riptide Ion Accelerator (overcharge) 1.45
Riptide Ion Accelerator (nova charge) 2.91

Make of that what you will.








Automatically Appended Next Post:
(well the obvious conclusion is that even the most fearsome weapons in the game don't do that much against a Leman Russ!)

That doesn't seem to bad if I'm honest.

Why do people think this and that need FAQ just because you dont agree with the text in the rule book instead of reading the rules and maybe think yeah that was designed that way.

I see no reason why the Ratling and Ogryns cant receive orders needs FAQ.

They cant receive order period.

The keyword system is there for a reason. And conscripts getting a point increase on day one because some one knows some one that knows someone that is saying now that it wont happen on day one.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
That doesn't seem to bad if I'm honest.

I agree.

Like I said before, the kind of boom-bang-pow! superweapons that people that seem to be expecting just don't exist anymore.

Alcibiades wrote:
To continue the great "is the Battle Cannon crap or not?" debate, I decided to compare it to a bunch of Tau weapons, since they're supposedly the kings of superweapons. It's a generalist weapon, but I'm just going to compare it to anti-tank capability.(average wounds per shot)

Against another Leman Russ (T8 3+)

IG Battle Cannon 1.57
Pulse Driver Cannon 1.95
Pulse Blastcannon (long range) 0.67
Pulse Blastcannon (medium range) 2.69
Pulse Blastcannon (short range) 4.02
Hammerhead Railgun 1.80
Hammerhead Ion Cannon (standard) 0.59
Hammerhead Ion Cannon (overcharge) 1.35
Heavy Rail Rifle 1.92
High-Yield Missile Pods (2) 1.32
Fusion Blaster (not in melta range) 0.88
Fusion Blaster (in melta range) 1.125
Riptide Ion Accelerator (standard) 0.41
Riptide Ion Accelerator (overcharge) 1.45
Riptide Ion Accelerator (nova charge) 2.91

Make of that what you will.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
(well the obvious conclusion is that even the most fearsome weapons in the game don't do that much against a Leman Russ!)

I mean, sure, I guess. As I said, that just means the Tau big guns also got hit with the sledgehammer of impotency.

I mean seriously, is averaging 1.5 wounds a turn is worth 162 points? 6x Lascannons averages almost 6 wounds a turn!

While the 6x Lascannons are a lot more fragile, a 162 point indestructible brick is basically worthless.

As I said before resiliency is overrated. Your ability to withstand fire only becomes relevant if the enemy needs to kill you. If your invincible but toothless brick doesn't need to die, then it's invincibility isn't doing anything.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

I mean, sure, I guess. As I said, that just means the Tau big guns also got hit with the sledgehammer of impotency.

What it means is that nothing in the game turns out high volumes of damage quickly. Every gun is like this, in every faction.

Eldar Heavy Wraithcannon against LR: 3.14

Well, I still remain to be convinced. After all, how do those weapons fair against other targets, and what price does one pay for them?

Alcibiades wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

I mean, sure, I guess. As I said, that just means the Tau big guns also got hit with the sledgehammer of impotency.

What it means is that nothing in the game turns out high volumes of damage quickly. Every gun is like this, in every faction.

Eldar Heavy Wraithcannon against LR: 3.14

This isn't true, though. There are plenty of things that churn out damage at an alarming rate.

The aforementioned 6x Lascannons. Or a squad of Dominions with Meltaguns.

Hell, even the Leman Russ Annihilator, and the Vanquisher, manage to at least perform as advertised. A Vanquisher or Annihilator with Multimeltas is worse than a pair of Devil Dogs or a squad of Dominions in a Multimelta Immolator, but it's not drastically worse and isn't an utter failure at everything.

The Vanquisher cannon is a big meltagun. We've got 3x Multimeltas and a Lascannon on a 220 point platform, versus 240 for 2+2D3 Multimeltas [2 Devil Dogs] or 6 BS3+ Meltaguns with Scout [Dominions].

As far as I can see, 8th is an infantry-based game. Tanks (and this goes for the big Tau suits as well) are there to provide fire support, serve as line-breakers and shields for the infantry, and roll on top of objectives and sit there, denying them to the enemy unless the latter wants to dedicate series firepower to taking it out.

They're really durable -- as you can see, a Tau player has to devote 7-8 broadsides to it (assuming no markerlight support, which reduces it to 5-6 or so -- and that's almost 1000 points by the way). The old strategy of plunking melta down and blowing up a tank, for instance, does not work anymore. You need to dedicate firepower to the task, probably over a couple of turns.

Alcibiades wrote:
As far as I can see, 8th is an infantry-based game. Tanks (and this goes for the big Tau suits as well) are there to provide fire support, serve as line-breakers and shields for the infantry, and roll on top of objectives and sit there, denying them to the enemy unless the latter wants to dedicate series firepower to taking it out.

They're really durable -- as you can see, a Tau player has to devote 7-8 broadsides to it (assuming no markerlight support, which reduces it to 5-6 or so -- and that's almost 1000 points by the way). The old strategy of plunking melta down and blowing up a tank, for instance, does not work anymore. You need to dedicate firepower to the task, probably over a couple of turns.

That's the problem. They're a total failure at providing fire support when infantry can put out better fire support, they're terrible linebreakers because they can't, well, break a line [not to mention the board is way too small for anything like linebreaker to be meaningful], they're terrible shields for infantry, and they can't out-capture an objective. I thought of that, but it doesn't work in practice, because the tank is about a inch and a half too short.

Being durable doesn't matter if you have no teeth, and nobody need to waste firepower killing you.

If I do get into 8th I don't think I'll use vehicles. I may go as far as to not play people with vehicles in their army.

My DKoK was meant to be mainly infantry anyway.

The "aggro factor" is a big part of why I think the Punisher might end up being the best LRBT variant, specifically on a Tank Commander. A Dakka Russ rolling right up into your opponent's face and dishing out what essentially amounts to 29 heavy bolter shots at BS3+ is just scary enough that it might bait your opponent into targeting it. And if they're light on AT due to how 8th's meta seems to be infantry-heavy, you might be able to cause them problems by taking out the AT they do have early.

Would heavy flamers be worth the cost as secondaries?

On the one hand, your dakka Russ is planning to get point-blank with the enemy anyway and those flamers would give it a mean overwatch when combined with the Punisher cannon. They would also play well with the mobility, because they don't roll to hit and the Punisher cannon is ignoring the -1 penalty for moving already.

On the other hand, they cost just over twice as much as the heavy bolters do and don't really benefit from the TC's ballistic skill, so the TC would only benefit the Punisher in that situation (though with 20 shots that's quite a benefit). Of course, heavy flamers could be taken on a non-TC Russ. That would be slightly cheaper than a TC+HB Russ, the flamers wouldn't care because they don't roll to hit, so you'd only be losing the 3+ on the Punisher for a 4+. Maybe a TC+Punisher/HB Russ, and a standard Punisher/Flamer buddy for him to give orders to?

 ross-128 wrote:
The "aggro factor" is a big part of why I think the Punisher might end up being the best LRBT variant, specifically on a Tank Commander. A Dakka Russ rolling right up into your opponent's face and dishing out what essentially amounts to 29 heavy bolter shots at BS3+ is just scary enough that it might bait your opponent into targeting it. And if they're light on AT due to how 8th's meta seems to be infantry-heavy, you might be able to cause them problems by taking out the AT they do have early.

Would heavy flamers be worth the cost as secondaries?

On the one hand, your dakka Russ is planning to get point-blank with the enemy anyway and those flamers would give it a mean overwatch when combined with the Punisher cannon. They would also play well with the mobility, because they don't roll to hit and the Punisher cannon is ignoring the -1 penalty for moving already.

On the other hand, they cost just over twice as much as the heavy bolters do and don't really benefit from the TC's ballistic skill, so the TC would only benefit the Punisher in that situation (though with 20 shots that's quite a benefit). Of course, heavy flamers could be taken on a non-TC Russ. That would be slightly cheaper than a TC+HB Russ, the flamers wouldn't care because they don't roll to hit, so you'd only be losing the 3+ on the Punisher for a 4+. Maybe a TC+Punisher/HB Russ, and a standard Punisher/Flamer buddy for him to give orders to?

My 2c on Flamers? No. If it's trying to be a fire magnet, keep it cheap. Heavy Flamers don't add that much to it, anyway, since Hellhound Inferno Cannons are significantly better. They've got 16" range, 2 damage, and +1 strength. The Devil Dogs aren't that much more amazing than a Leman Russ Vanquisher or Annihilator, but the Inferno Cannons blow away the Russ Heavy Flamer options. I'm thinking of putting "2 Hellhounds" in the #3 slot of my requisition queue.

In terms of Russ vs. Russ comparisons:

Vanquisher: If it's what you've got, go for it. It works as advertised, and is something the enemy is going to want gone. Use Multimelta sponsons. 132 + 25 + 20 + 20 + 20 = 217
Battle Tank: Like the overcharged Executioner, but worse.
Executioner: Go big, or go home. Also, go big at your own risk. Make sure it has a Tank Commander friend and isn't a Tank Commander in and of itself so it can receive Tank Orders to not blow up. Use Plasma Cannon sponsons. 132 + 20 + 20 + 15 +15 = 202
Demolisher: If it's the only thing you've got, okay. I would recommend a Vanquisher first, because it nets you only slightly worse performance for much less points. Use Multimelta sponsons, and go after tanks. 132 + 40 + 20 + 20 + 20 = 232
Eradicator: Like the Battle Tank, but much worse.
Exterminator: Like the Battle Tank, but worse.
Punisher: Take it if you want it. Use Heavy Bolters, keep it cheap. 132 + 20 + 8 + 8 + 8 = 176, pretty decent
Annihilator: Probably like the Vanquisher, but better. Use Multimelta sponsons.
Conqueror: Probably like the Battle Tank, but worse.

Punisher and Vanquisher are good candidates for a Tank Commander, and at least can become a threatening force. A Vanquisher Tank Commander does manage to claw its way up to being better than the Devil Dogs, and a Punisher Tank Commander is good and cheap. A Tank Commander needs a friend for maximum efficiency, otherwise part of his 35 points are going to waste, and you have to figure out what his friend is going to be. Executioner, Vanquisher, and Punisher are really your choices, and all can benefit.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
In terms of Russ vs. Russ comparisons:

I noticed that you matched all your loadouts for similar roles. I am really starting to think that this is a 7th edition mindset. There really is no problem putting bolters on any variant, or a lascannon on a punisher for instance. Spreading weapons around your army means that it is harder for the enemy to focus down the thing most dangerous to them, and lets you fire your AT guns one at a time instead of guessing how many shots a target needs with split fire.

I always find Russ gun options one of the most interesting parts of a new Guard codex, and have gone through many iterations over the years. I think that mixed loadouts are going to be overlooked because they were never something that people considered, yet are now really powerful. The lascannon/bolter is seeming really nice right now. If you have a LRBT with that loadout (pretty much the most classic Russ you can get) then it is a really balanced unit that can deal with anything.