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.

Abaddon303 wrote:
Got a game coming up against an Ork player who tends to run ridiculous hordes. I'm thinking volume of fire is the way forwards and largely gunline around Abaddon.
Lots of flamers. Unit of five chosen with combi flamers. I see the point about chosen above but the extra couple of S4 attacks with the chainsword could be useful against orks. Should kill double figures even in overwatch.
Might try running my heldrake for once?
Berserker bus that I'll probably not move but try to hide out of LOS to keep them safe until he's in my lines.
I only have a couple of heavy bolter havocs, maybe a missile launcher too
Then I'm thinking fight fire with fire and go with my own horde of cultists. Rapid fire with votlw should do well.
Any other ideas? I'm currently building a maulerfiend so can try to hurry that along, not sure if he's likely to get overrun tho...

Avoid melee as long as possible. If you can force them into a shooting game, you'll win. Run Berzerkers to be your front force for when they finally get to you. If they run more than just Boy hordes (stuff with 2+ wounds) consider a Autocannon Forgefiend. It wounds on a 2+, puts Nobz to 6+ to save, and does exactly enough damage to kill one. Use the stratagem to reroll hits and wounds and watch heads fly, from a very safe distance...And when they finally DO reach the Fiend? You got yourself a competent melee bruiser statline.

 Raichase wrote:
If I'm reading correctly, the theory behind the Chosen was to use them as a speedbump - present them as a viable charge target, have a large unit charge them and lose a lot going in to flamer overwatch, then (if you survive) falling back and trying to shoot the overextended unit to pieces.

Why sink so many points into a speed hump unit then? Assuming no other upgrades, 5 Chosen with Combi-Flamers (assuming the champion gets one too) is 135pts. Hardly expensive, but I doubt you'll be killing 135pts worth of orks with that strategy, unless you trick him into charging in with an expensive but fragile unit. A unit of 5 Havocs with 4 flamers is only 101pts, which will have a similar damage output on overwatch (you could also give the champion a combi-flamer I suppose), but for fewer points?

A unit of 5 Havocs with 4 heavy bolters would be my pick though - it's 105pts and if you use Veterans of The Long War to that unit, you're going to be wounding on a 2+ against T4 enemies. If you're shooting at lightly armoured enemies, they're likely not going to get much (if any) armour saves either. Combine that with the Mark of Slaanesh ability to shoot twice in a phase - for 3CPs you're getting a very high anti-horde damage output. If I'm reading it correctly, VotLW also affects BOTH sets of shooting, because it simply states "until the end of the phase".

Given the choice between spending 105pts for the HB Havocs and 135pts for the Combi-Flamer suicide squad, I know where I'd rather throw my points. Heck, with the spare 30pts, that's almost a unit of Cultists to fulfill the speed-hump role anyway.

Forget about the talk of Combi-Flamers (Chaos knows why it was even being discussed as valid) and go straight for Combi-Bolters. That's 108 points for 6 Chosen with Combi-Bolters.

Niiru wrote:

Niiru wrote:

While I'm on the subject of Alpha Legion, what do people actually think of the warlord trait?

It's very fluffy, and I like it in theory, but as you get random traits on top of the warlord switcheroo, if runs the risk of you getting fairly unhelpful traits (such as extra death to the false emperor rolls, when you're playing against tau).

It also requires you taking at least 3 Alpha Legion HQ's to really get the most from it, and that's fine if you're doing mono-Alpha but it's a points sink if you're planning to play some varied detachments like daemons or something.

Just wondered if people play with it, or pick a different fixed trait for their warlord.

Another question to add on to this (though not really related at all, I just didn't wan't my previous question to get lost) -

What do people think of Bloodcrushers?

I know that Bloodletters are the usual option, one big blob of them with a banner of blood being deepstriked for a 3D6 charge. But as always, blobs of units bore me (both to paint and to play), and I noticed that the Bloodcrushers can -also- be deepstriked and get a banner of blood.

Is a tempting unit to do a conversion for.

A third question to add on to this little queue of questions -

Screamers, Plague Drones, Beasts of Nurgle.

Are any of these good? Are any of these bad?

Screamers seem pretty lacklustre with low attacks and low toughness/saves, but their attacks are pretty strong compared to the Drones (weak attacks but very tough to kill).

I use Plague Drones. They rock.

Support them well, though, if you want them to kill anything.

Screamers are suprisingly good in my experience. Most non-nurgle daemons are made of paper, but the 4++ rocks. It has incredibly long movement and itts attacks are fantastic.

Mind, thats from a LFGS perspective, not a tournament one.

So if I drop the flamer chosen overwatch speed bump, how do people feel about flamers on my cultist screen instead? Worth it?

Abaddon303 wrote:
So if I drop the flamer chosen overwatch speed bump, how do people feel about flamers on my cultist screen instead? Worth it?

Meh, it is quite low flamer saturation and you still pay astarte price so, not really, especially when you get 1 3/4 more cultists for a flammer, if i am not mistaken.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Forget about the talk of Combi-Flamers (Chaos knows why it was even being discussed as valid) and go straight for Combi-Bolters. That's 108 points for 6 Chosen with Combi-Bolters.

Now this, I like. Give them free chainswords as well for the inevitable combat too.

So I was considering adding in a screamer unit (converted from canoptek wraiths), or a bloodcrusher unit.

Mathhammer between the two units (3 crushers vs 5 screamers) shows that the roughly equivalent points of bloodcrushers is always doing more damage against all types of targets on a turn where it charges (and bloodcrushers will always be charging).

The screamers will have a couple extra wounds, and a 4++, so I guess will be slightly harder to kill.

The screamer special mortal wounds rule seems pretty poor, but might put out a couple wounds in a game.

I do have flamers in the list though, so potentially room for more tzeentch based synergy with screamers if I go for a full detachment (or at least a tzeentch HQ).

However I definitely have a Daemon Prince of Khorne in the list too, so the bloodcrushers would also get synergy there.


Would be interested in any opinions

 Raichase wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Forget about the talk of Combi-Flamers (Chaos knows why it was even being discussed as valid) and go straight for Combi-Bolters. That's 108 points for 6 Chosen with Combi-Bolters.

Now this, I like. Give them free chainswords as well for the inevitable combat too.

Chainswords were implied of course. It's a free upgrade!

Niiru wrote:


A third question to add on to this little queue of questions -

Screamers, Plague Drones, Beasts of Nurgle.

Are any of these good? Are any of these bad?

Screamers seem pretty lacklustre with low attacks and low toughness/saves, but their attacks are pretty strong compared to the Drones (weak attacks but very tough to kill).

I didn't have much success with beasts unfortunately. They're simply too slow. I could imagine a full unit of them deep striking to tie something up, as 5wounds each is quite nasty. They lack the support other Nurgle units can get, snail guy is even slower than them and one PL too expensive to be woth deep striking.

I can see a Beast or three being worth taking if you’re already sending Horticulous up the table planting trees. If we get AoS 2.0 Summoning, that’ll be a very interesting play, but that’s just speculation.

Plague Drones seem to be doing okay. They benefit a lot more from spells and auras than they do from Epidemius, so you don’t need a lot of moving momentum for them to hit hard. You can quite happily add them to a battalion with DP & Poxbringer or Scrivener, and have no other Nurgle stuff.

Hmm. Movement 10. Thirteen, if you advance with an instrument near a Scrivener. Start next to a tree, and that’s first turn charging material. Iiiiinteresting.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Chainswords were implied of course. It's a free upgrade!

I like the way you think - it also makes the Chosen slightly better value for their points, as you're paying 3pts more than a basic marine for an extra Ld and TWO extra attacks (since the normal CSM can't get chainswords anymore).

All very good points about Chosen. Combi-bolters are probably a better investment if your opponent is coming to you. That said, if you want a unit that gets 5d6 hits on overwatch, and can't be outranged because they still carry bolters...

See. Thats where the idea came from. 135 pts to deter charges. Not a bad choice, but it takes some planning, and a clever tactician.

Niiru wrote:

So I was considering adding in a screamer unit (converted from canoptek wraiths), or a bloodcrusher unit.

Mathhammer between the two units (3 crushers vs 5 screamers) shows that the roughly equivalent points of bloodcrushers is always doing more damage against all types of targets on a turn where it charges (and bloodcrushers will always be charging).

The screamers will have a couple extra wounds, and a 4++, so I guess will be slightly harder to kill.

The screamer special mortal wounds rule seems pretty poor, but might put out a couple wounds in a game.

I do have flamers in the list though, so potentially room for more tzeentch based synergy with screamers if I go for a full detachment (or at least a tzeentch HQ).

However I definitely have a Daemon Prince of Khorne in the list too, so the bloodcrushers would also get synergy there.


Would be interested in any opinions

Bloodcrushers are fairly poor in my experience. They're just slightly faster, slighter tougher bloodletters, who end up giving you less wounds and less overall damage output.

I think you aren't giving enough credit to the screamer. The fact they fly and have a ridiculously high movement allows them far more flexibility in how they attack. Heck, set them behind LoS blocking terrain and charge over it, as a nice suprise attack.

 vaklor4 wrote:

Niiru wrote:

So I was considering adding in a screamer unit (converted from canoptek wraiths), or a bloodcrusher unit.

Mathhammer between the two units (3 crushers vs 5 screamers) shows that the roughly equivalent points of bloodcrushers is always doing more damage against all types of targets on a turn where it charges (and bloodcrushers will always be charging).

The screamers will have a couple extra wounds, and a 4++, so I guess will be slightly harder to kill.

The screamer special mortal wounds rule seems pretty poor, but might put out a couple wounds in a game.

I do have flamers in the list though, so potentially room for more tzeentch based synergy with screamers if I go for a full detachment (or at least a tzeentch HQ).

However I definitely have a Daemon Prince of Khorne in the list too, so the bloodcrushers would also get synergy there.


Would be interested in any opinions

Bloodcrushers are fairly poor in my experience. They're just slightly faster, slighter tougher bloodletters, who end up giving you less wounds and less overall damage output.

I think you aren't giving enough credit to the screamer. The fact they fly and have a ridiculously high movement allows them far more flexibility in how they attack. Heck, set them behind LoS blocking terrain and charge over it, as a nice suprise attack.

I mean, I think you're simplifying the Bloodcrushers a little. Bloodletters don't get 3x S7 attacks on the charge (per bloodcrusher) for a start, 9x S7 attacks can put a dent in most things that bloodletters would just scratch at. Bloodcrushers being S5 at default also means they wound most things a lot easier than bloodletters too.

Bloodletters do get a lot more attacks on the charge though... lets do some math!

...
...
huh, weird. They work out about the same, except against vehicles, where the bloodletters end up better for... some reason.

I'm not even sure why, as 20 bloodletters have 23 attacks and 3 bloodcrushers have 22 attacks that are stronger. But I guess its because 9 of those attacks only have AP-1.

Crushers are tougher and faster though, and you get fairly similar damage out of 3 models instead of having to paint 20 models, which in my book is a pretty big bonus. And the bloodcrusher models are way cooler, which is another big win. (Especially if you use skullcrusher models instead, where they look more like Berzerkers riding rhinos. The bloodletter model in general is awful.)


Screamers flying and being fast is a pretty good ability for sure, but funnily enough, when you compare them to something like raptors (which are considered to be very bad), they actually deal pretty much the same amount of damage (if you take into account plasma+melee). All the screamers get extra is 4" of movement, while the raptors can deepstrike for free. And yet screamers are considered to be good while raptors are apparently awful. (There's also a difference in a 3+ vs a 4++ but against most weapons they pretty much seem to balance out).

It's strange to me how some of these units change from good to garbage with such a tiny difference!

 Warpy0013 wrote:
All very good points about Chosen. Combi-bolters are probably a better investment if your opponent is coming to you. That said, if you want a unit that gets 5d6 hits on overwatch, and can't be outranged because they still carry bolters...

See. Thats where the idea came from. 135 pts to deter charges. Not a bad choice, but it takes some planning, and a clever tactician.

There's nothing clever about how bad Flamers and Combi-Flamers are. Either way, if you wanted that much Overwatch, Havocs would be better as a denial unit.

Niiru wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:

Niiru wrote:

The bloodletter model in general is awful.)

How dare you. You take that back.

Niiru wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:

Niiru wrote:

So I was considering adding in a screamer unit (converted from canoptek wraiths), or a bloodcrusher unit.

Mathhammer between the two units (3 crushers vs 5 screamers) shows that the roughly equivalent points of bloodcrushers is always doing more damage against all types of targets on a turn where it charges (and bloodcrushers will always be charging).

The screamers will have a couple extra wounds, and a 4++, so I guess will be slightly harder to kill.

The screamer special mortal wounds rule seems pretty poor, but might put out a couple wounds in a game.

I do have flamers in the list though, so potentially room for more tzeentch based synergy with screamers if I go for a full detachment (or at least a tzeentch HQ).

However I definitely have a Daemon Prince of Khorne in the list too, so the bloodcrushers would also get synergy there.


Would be interested in any opinions

Bloodcrushers are fairly poor in my experience. They're just slightly faster, slighter tougher bloodletters, who end up giving you less wounds and less overall damage output.

I think you aren't giving enough credit to the screamer. The fact they fly and have a ridiculously high movement allows them far more flexibility in how they attack. Heck, set them behind LoS blocking terrain and charge over it, as a nice suprise attack.

I mean, I think you're simplifying the Bloodcrushers a little. Bloodletters don't get 3x S7 attacks on the charge (per bloodcrusher) for a start, 9x S7 attacks can put a dent in most things that bloodletters would just scratch at. Bloodcrushers being S5 at default also means they wound most things a lot easier than bloodletters too.

Bloodletters do get a lot more attacks on the charge though... lets do some math!

...
...
huh, weird. They work out about the same, except against vehicles, where the bloodletters end up better for... some reason.

I'm not even sure why, as 20 bloodletters have 23 attacks and 3 bloodcrushers have 22 attacks that are stronger. But I guess its because 9 of those attacks only have AP-1.

Crushers are tougher and faster though, and you get fairly similar damage out of 3 models instead of having to paint 20 models, which in my book is a pretty big bonus. And the bloodcrusher models are way cooler, which is another big win. (Especially if you use skullcrusher models instead, where they look more like Berzerkers riding rhinos. The bloodletter model in general is awful.)


Screamers flying and being fast is a pretty good ability for sure, but funnily enough, when you compare them to something like raptors (which are considered to be very bad), they actually deal pretty much the same amount of damage (if you take into account plasma+melee). All the screamers get extra is 4" of movement, while the raptors can deepstrike for free. And yet screamers are considered to be good while raptors are apparently awful. (There's also a difference in a 3+ vs a 4++ but against most weapons they pretty much seem to balance out).

It's strange to me how some of these units change from good to garbage with such a tiny difference!

I've done the math, and the bloodletter and crushers are generally fairly close, but Bloodletters are actually more durable for the same cost. They get far more wounds, and in my experience i'd much rather take +4 wounds over +1 toughness. Plus, bloodletters are 1 wound models, where Crushers are vulnerable to multi-damage guns. Also, you take that back you loyalist, Bloodletters are great.

Also, Screamers get a 4++ invuln, which is /pretty good/ compared to the standard marine 3+ armor save. Additionally, if you have a unit with high movement, you don't need to even deepstrike. In how many situations is it really any better to deepstrike when you can get 28" (not counting advancing)? It generally means you can just run right up into the face of the enemy, getting you far closer to your chosen charge victim.

The other thing about Bloodcrushers is their opportunity cost. A unit of Bloodletters is a command point, and we eat them like popcorn.

As we work out the damage of Daemon units, we ought to factor in with/without Herald. Screamers can become S7, and a flying Herald of Tzeentch is not an extortionate moving part. (One that’s not uncommon if you’re already investing in Tzeentch daemons.) Main problem I have is their poor accuracy. 4+ to hit, on a predatory can opener that preys on voidships?

Likewise, Bloodcrushers charging with a Herald nearby hit at S7. Again, notable against medium sized tanky stuff.

It’s not AAA stuff, and it’s got some moving parts, and none of them are an Epidemius, but if you want to do a monogod list, or love the models, or play friendlies, there’s tactics that can be brought in to play there.

 lindsay40k wrote:
The other thing about Bloodcrushers is their opportunity cost. A unit of Bloodletters is a command point, and we eat them like popcorn.

As we work out the damage of Daemon units, we ought to factor in with/without Herald. Screamers can become S7, and a flying Herald of Tzeentch is not an extortionate moving part. (One that’s not uncommon if you’re already investing in Tzeentch daemons.) Main problem I have is their poor accuracy. 4+ to hit, on a predatory can opener that preys on voidships?

Likewise, Bloodcrushers charging with a Herald nearby hit at S7. Again, notable against medium sized tanky stuff.

It’s not AAA stuff, and it’s got some moving parts, and none of them are an Epidemius, but if you want to do a monogod list, or love the models, or play friendlies, there’s tactics that can be brought in to play there.

But the Crushers are only doing 1 damage a piece (2 on a 6). You generally don't want to be even going after tanks with them in my experience. Use them to bully smaller targets, in my experience they're fantastic biker and terminator hunters.

Niiru wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Niiru wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Niiru wrote:

 lindsay40k wrote:
If you’re going to get within 12” of an Ork horde, it seems sensible to assume you’re going to get charged by them. Auto hits on overwatch vs saving 90pts. Hmm.

Very good point too.

Why would you ever infiltrate this close?

Aren't like ... 90% of all infiltrate plans all about infiltrating within 12"? Either for the ability to have a guaranteed charge, or for rapid-fire plasma? (Or I guess even Melta, but I would expect that to be impossible with proper screens set up).

Of course, half the time you don't get first turn, so the plans have to change. But if you do get first turn, it's all about the 9"/12" infiltrate.

At least thats what I thought, are a lot of people somehow infiltrating 24"+ away and making use of it?

A) you infiltrate after determinig who goes first. (armies aswell as who has the first turn advantage determines how much you will infiltrate or how deep.)
B) you often infiltrate that way to eliminate key targets as part of an alpha strike, a green tide however has it's key component hidden and or is so numerous that combi weaponry will not have enough burst rof to dent it.
Which leads to to the possibility of C) defense in depth.

I'm not sure how your point about infiltrating after the dice roll relates to what I was saying. I know that's how it works. But when you make a list, and have units planned, and you plan ahead with what you'd like to do with those units, it's always with the hope of getting first turn.

Hence 90% of plans being, essentially, "get first turn, infiltrate within 12", blast/charge the enemy".

Of course if you don't get first turn, then you use plan B. But that doesn't change was your initial plan WAS, it just means your plan failed due to not getting first turn.

Which is one reason I kinda dislike the Alpha Legion stratagem. Its very powerful in 50% of games, and fairly useless in the other 50%. You do still get to place those units after your opponent has finished deployment, so there is some value in that to put things in decently defensive positions, but its nowhere near as good as "First turn 60 berserkers guaranteed charge".

Edit:
While I'm on the subject of Alpha Legion, what do people actually think of the warlord trait?

It's very fluffy, and I like it in theory, but as you get random traits on top of the warlord switcheroo, if runs the risk of you getting fairly unhelpful traits (such as extra death to the false emperor rolls, when you're playing against tau).

It also requires you taking at least 3 Alpha Legion HQ's to really get the most from it, and that's fine if you're doing mono-Alpha but it's a points sink if you're planning to play some varied detachments like daemons or something.

Just wondered if people play with it, or pick a different fixed trait for their warlord.

I personally find AL's trait to be excellent and I enjoy playing with it. If your running a warlord like lord arkos for example then almost every trait is beneficial. Particularly since not giving up StW is what the trait really says. Its just a delay in picking your trait for the actual warlord.. or from another angle if taking this trait on a sui character then select what you would have otherwise once the character is dead.

On the topic of speed bumps why the chosen again? As opposed to say.. 30 cultists with 3 flamers. These will control board space and dictate pile in better plus tide of traitors..
If chosen are for cool factor maybe consider them for another task like infiltrating plasma and/or take noise marines. BM and blasters over combi bolters with doom siren for a bit of overwatch. I'm using these dudes as AL headhunters since its the closest thing I could find to suit the models I could think of.

Just some thoughts.

I wouldn't even bother with flamers, tbh. 3 measly flamers won't stop any charging unit worth its point value.

dominuschao wrote:
I personally find AL's trait to be excellent and I enjoy playing with it. If your running a warlord like lord arkos for example then almost every trait is beneficial. Particularly since not giving up StW is what the trait really says. Its just a delay in picking your trait for the actual warlord.. or from another angle if taking this trait on a sui character then select what you would have otherwise once the character is dead.

On the topic of speed bumps why the chosen again? As opposed to say.. 30 cultists with 3 flamers. These will control board space and dictate pile in better plus tide of traitors..
If chosen are for cool factor maybe consider them for another task like infiltrating plasma and/or take noise marines. BM and blasters over combi bolters with doom siren for a bit of overwatch. I'm using these dudes as AL headhunters since its the closest thing I could find to suit the models I could think of.

Just some thoughts.

Yeh, I've had others say that the ability to throw a warlord at the enemy without risking losing slay the warlord is a pretty decent effect, which makes sense, I just wasn't sure how much of an advantage that was. Seems it's not so bad. HOWEVER you seem to be saying that you still get to select your warlord trait on top of Alpharius, but you can't, you HAVE to roll the dice for it you can't select one. So you could get the Eternal Vendetta one, which only works against Astartes, even if your opponent is Tau.

On the subject of Chosen, I can only assume that the person who originally asked was someone who wanted to take a unit of 5/10 marine models, instead of having to paint 30 identical cultists. Which leads on to my next reply quite nicely...

vaklor4 wrote:

I've done the math, and the bloodletter and crushers are generally fairly close, but Bloodletters are actually more durable for the same cost. They get far more wounds, and in my experience i'd much rather take +4 wounds over +1 toughness. Plus, bloodletters are 1 wound models, where Crushers are vulnerable to multi-damage guns. Also, you take that back you loyalist, Bloodletters are great.

Also, Screamers get a 4++ invuln, which is /pretty good/ compared to the standard marine 3+ armor save. Additionally, if you have a unit with high movement, you don't need to even deepstrike. In how many situations is it really any better to deepstrike when you can get 28" (not counting advancing)? It generally means you can just run right up into the face of the enemy, getting you far closer to your chosen charge victim.

Yeh, Bloodletters are probably the better choice, but for myself personally I would much prefer an army with a variety of small units with cool models, than painting a bloodletter bomb of 60 identical 'letters.

I know there are people out there (and on here) who have 60 bloodletters and 120 cultists and 200 horrors... but personally I couldn't think of anything more boring to paint or to play. Just my personal preferance.

It's just a shame that 8th is heavily biased in favour of horde armies, to the point where a non-horde based army like marines and chaos -still- tries to find ways to play spammed hordes.

I know my approach won't ever win tournaments, but I only play with friends so I just want a decent fun army that can wont get steamrolled every game.

Which I assume links up with the guy who wants to play chosen. Less models, try and get the most out of them, put up a fight even though the competitive option is 40 cultists.

Niiru wrote:

dominuschao wrote:
I personally find AL's trait to be excellent and I enjoy playing with it. If your running a warlord like lord arkos for example then almost every trait is beneficial. Particularly since not giving up StW is what the trait really says. Its just a delay in picking your trait for the actual warlord.. or from another angle if taking this trait on a sui character then select what you would have otherwise once the character is dead.

On the topic of speed bumps why the chosen again? As opposed to say.. 30 cultists with 3 flamers. These will control board space and dictate pile in better plus tide of traitors..
If chosen are for cool factor maybe consider them for another task like infiltrating plasma and/or take noise marines. BM and blasters over combi bolters with doom siren for a bit of overwatch. I'm using these dudes as AL headhunters since its the closest thing I could find to suit the models I could think of.

Just some thoughts.

Yeh, I've had others say that the ability to throw a warlord at the enemy without risking losing slay the warlord is a pretty decent effect, which makes sense, I just wasn't sure how much of an advantage that was. Seems it's not so bad. HOWEVER you seem to be saying that you still get to select your warlord trait on top of Alpharius, but you can't, you HAVE to roll the dice for it you can't select one. So you could get the Eternal Vendetta one, which only works against Astartes, even if your opponent is Tau.

On the subject of Chosen, I can only assume that the person who originally asked was someone who wanted to take a unit of 5/10 marine models, instead of having to paint 30 identical cultists. Which leads on to my next reply quite nicely...

vaklor4 wrote:

I've done the math, and the bloodletter and crushers are generally fairly close, but Bloodletters are actually more durable for the same cost. They get far more wounds, and in my experience i'd much rather take +4 wounds over +1 toughness. Plus, bloodletters are 1 wound models, where Crushers are vulnerable to multi-damage guns. Also, you take that back you loyalist, Bloodletters are great.

Also, Screamers get a 4++ invuln, which is /pretty good/ compared to the standard marine 3+ armor save. Additionally, if you have a unit with high movement, you don't need to even deepstrike. In how many situations is it really any better to deepstrike when you can get 28" (not counting advancing)? It generally means you can just run right up into the face of the enemy, getting you far closer to your chosen charge victim.

Yeh, Bloodletters are probably the better choice, but for myself personally I would much prefer an army with a variety of small units with cool models, than painting a bloodletter bomb of 60 identical 'letters.

I know there are people out there (and on here) who have 60 bloodletters and 120 cultists and 200 horrors... but personally I couldn't think of anything more boring to paint or to play. Just my personal preferance.

It's just a shame that 8th is heavily biased in favour of horde armies, to the point where a non-horde based army like marines and chaos -still- tries to find ways to play spammed hordes.

I know my approach won't ever win tournaments, but I only play with friends so I just want a decent fun army that can wont get steamrolled every game.

Which I assume links up with the guy who wants to play chosen. Less models, try and get the most out of them, put up a fight even though the competitive option is 40 cultists.

An army is only a non-horde army if it can operate without hordes. So far, that's not true for Daemons, and most CSM. It's like saying Tau isn't a gunline because last edition you could play nothing but suits and make it work.

Yeh, I've had others say that the ability to throw a warlord at the enemy without risking losing slay the warlord is a pretty decent effect, which makes sense, I just wasn't sure how much of an advantage that was. Seems it's not so bad. HOWEVER you seem to be saying that you still get to select your warlord trait on top of Alpharius, but you can't, you HAVE to roll the dice for it you can't select one. So you could get the Eternal Vendetta one, which only works against Astartes, even if your opponent is Tau.

On the subject of Chosen, I can only assume that the person who originally asked was someone who wanted to take a unit of 5/10 marine models, instead of having to paint 30 identical cultists. Which leads on to my next reply quite nicely...

That is what I was saying. However I've been out of the game for awhile playing T9A until recently. The early consensus was subsequent traits are chosen not randomly selected.. is that no longer the case?

You "generate" a new warlord trait. The wording would suggest you just choose, but the only wording for warlord traits that suggest a "generation" is the random roll. But I think that's going way too far into semantics. I'd say you choose.

...Wow, i've been posting a LOT on this thread.

 vaklor4 wrote:
You "generate" a new warlord trait. The wording would suggest you just choose, but the only wording for warlord traits that suggest a "generation" is the random roll. But I think that's going way too far into semantics. I'd say you choose.

...Wow, i've been posting a LOT on this thread.

Interesting, I had assumed that 'generate' means rolling for the trait, simply because otherwise the Alpharius trait is straight up better than taking any normal trait (as you get a normal trait of your choice, plus the alpharius trait!)

I'm happy to play it as a choice though, makes it way more consistent!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vaklor4 wrote:

An army is only a non-horde army if it can operate without hordes. So far, that's not true for Daemons, and most CSM. It's like saying Tau isn't a gunline because last edition you could play nothing but suits and make it work.

That may well be true for 8th, but it doesn't mean we have to like it.

I mean by that logic, every army is a horde army other than... Knights, and Custodes.

And even Knights and Custodes armies that end up taking a CP battery and/or horde of IG end up being stronger for it.

Niiru wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:
You "generate" a new warlord trait. The wording would suggest you just choose, but the only wording for warlord traits that suggest a "generation" is the random roll. But I think that's going way too far into semantics. I'd say you choose.

...Wow, i've been posting a LOT on this thread.

Interesting, I had assumed that 'generate' means rolling for the trait, simply because otherwise the Alpharius trait is straight up better than taking any normal trait (as you get a normal trait of your choice, plus the alpharius trait!)

I'm happy to play it as a choice though, makes it way more consistent!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vaklor4 wrote:

An army is only a non-horde army if it can operate without hordes. So far, that's not true for Daemons, and most CSM. It's like saying Tau isn't a gunline because last edition you could play nothing but suits and make it work.

That may well be true for 8th, but it doesn't mean we have to like it.

I mean by that logic, every army is a horde army other than... Knights, and Custodes.

And even Knights and Custodes armies that end up taking a CP battery and/or horde of IG end up being stronger for it.

Outside of tournaments, that logic that I presented is far less true. Hell, I just won a game today with a Mastodon. In non-competitive tournaments or just friendly games, almost anything can work...But this is the tactics thread, where generally you're trying to find the best for your army's needs.

In the best terms, for the strongest results, go horde in most situations for almost any army in the game...Except for T-sons, because their HQs are freakin' nuts right now.

 Brometheus wrote:


I don't use Obliterators, but other guys do. They are more effective as a shield for a buffing character in your deployment zone. With a 24" weapon and no bonus to being closer to the enemy, there is no reason to teleport in. With their small footprint, you can easily fit them in cover (and should). 9 wounds at 1+ isn't going anywhere unless you suck at rolling saves. Teleporting them closer is just giving them to your enemy.

Might as well teleport them in on T1 in your deployment zone if you're going to do that. That way you get to position them after your opponent's T1 move if you end up going second. In fact I can't see any scenarios where teleporting isn't the right move. Unless somehow your character literally has no other screen. You can always drop them on top of your buffing character as soon as it's your turn.