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.

 Otto Weston wrote:
Anyone got the data regarding the Stormblade and/or Macharius Omega?

How are they this edition?

Both are very expensive but they seem fairly similar. The stormblade is better in melee and can take more guns, it also has more range, but it's a little more expensive.

Are the Cerastus Knights worth taking? I was thinking about getting a Castigator.

This book is a debacle. The number of errors in here is appalling. There are problems with the regular indices, but the forge world index xenos is on another level. I can't help but think that absolutely no play testing was done whatsoever in the rush to get this book out.

The Castigator particularly got hit with the nerf bat. I did not look hot its points matched up. But its melee vs hordes is significantly weaker. 4 attacks with the sword or 12 with its foot. Like any other titan.

He seems better geared towards tank popping to be honest, I mean if all 4 sword hit land anything short of a super heavy is gone.

Utterly underwhelmed by the eldar titans.

They were always at the least the equal of their imperial counterpart, if not just plain superior.

And here we have them being nerfed into the ground. The warlord is almost twice the price of the phantom with insane stats.

Kneel before the might of the Imperial Warmachine!

Hellebore wrote:
Utterly underwhelmed by the eldar titans.

They were always at the least the equal of their imperial counterpart, if not just plain superior.

And here we have them being nerfed into the ground. The warlord is almost twice the price of the phantom with insane stats.

It's not just the titans. Compare the Vampire transport to a Thunderhawk and be sad. A Thunderhawk has the firepower of the Vampire gunship while also having the transport ability of the Vampire transport bird. Also, it's just as fast as them, just as tough or tougher and iirc, cheaper.


At first glance though, some of the other stuff looks solid. The Specters look workable. I think I might break down and get a Scorpion now, always wanted one. Shame it doesn't get the same gun as the Vampire gunship though.

I really don't get the AM fliers. The BS penalty for a compulsory move just is super weird. The whole thing just strikes me as odd, some fliers getting infinite ammo and others being gimped down to 4 o.O

Edit: Wait a second...

Certain missiles - like the Manticore , HK and the bombs - are explicitly labeled as one-time-use. So...does that mean if it doesn't SAY it's burned on use... you get to fire that number per shooting phase?

 ncshooter426 wrote:
I really don't get the AM fliers. The BS penalty for a compulsory move just is super weird. The whole thing just strikes me as odd, some fliers getting infinite ammo and others being gimped down to 4 o.O

Edit: Wait a second...

Certain missiles - like the Manticore , HK and the bombs - are explicitly labeled as one-time-use. So...does that mean if it doesn't SAY it's burned on use... you get to fire that number per shooting phase?

I believe that is correct.

 Otto von Bludd wrote:

 ncshooter426 wrote:
I really don't get the AM fliers. The BS penalty for a compulsory move just is super weird. The whole thing just strikes me as odd, some fliers getting infinite ammo and others being gimped down to 4 o.O

Edit: Wait a second...

Certain missiles - like the Manticore , HK and the bombs - are explicitly labeled as one-time-use. So...does that mean if it doesn't SAY it's burned on use... you get to fire that number per shooting phase?

I believe that is correct.

That completely changes my view on some of the fliers then.... yessssssss....I can deal with BS4 if I'm shooting a ton of ordnance down range

Hellebore wrote:
Utterly underwhelmed by the eldar titans.

Yeah, compared to the Imperials they do seem oddly poor. Have to move some significant distances to get the most out of those fields so I'd expect to see the big models flying up and down the battlefield. Void fields are far nicer. Funny how to get the best out of a Phantom you'd need to field multiple titans.

Surprised at how relatively weak the big d-weapons are when compared to the other options. Cobra seems pointless next to the Scorpion, although it looks like we'll need to wait for an errata on the Scorpion's pulsar before we know what damage it does.

Sad to see the firestorm is gone. Vampires are still around though so presumably the models are going to return to sale eventually. Maybe they'll even update them instead of just sending out the old models.

God knows what's going on with the Corsairs. Presumably we are just expected to field them in a craftworld army until they get a proper update.

Cosmic Schwung wrote:

Hellebore wrote:
Utterly underwhelmed by the eldar titans.

Yeah, compared to the Imperials they do seem oddly poor. Have to move some significant distances to get the most out of those fields so I'd expect to see the big models flying up and down the battlefield. Void fields are far nicer. Funny how to get the best out of a Phantom you'd need to field multiple titans.

Surprised at how relatively weak the big d-weapons are when compared to the other options. Cobra seems pointless next to the Scorpion, although it looks like we'll need to wait for an errata on the Scorpion's pulsar before we know what damage it does.

Sad to see the firestorm is gone. Vampires are still around though so presumably the models are going to return to sale eventually. Maybe they'll even update them instead of just sending out the old models.

God knows what's going on with the Corsairs. Presumably we are just expected to field them in a craftworld army until they get a proper update.

Eldar titans and I own a revenant are straight dumpster tier. Sure they are cheaper than a warhounds but no invul if you don't go first is awful. Even worse for a revenant to get the 4++ you need to advance because the 32 move doesn't get you into the 4++ gap.

I like the vampires but they are still over costed for sure compared to thunderhawk they really need the collosal flier rule got one of them to at least I'm going to use it as it brings more firepower and the 6+++ that a revenant doesn't have.

The cobra and phantom look next to useless for their costs a reaver is way better than a phantom and the cobra does hilariously awful damage for a 2+ to wound t8 but nothing heavy.

Corsairs are just rip you have to pay for the sergeants to and hilariously the cloud dancer one can't actually take weapon upgrades as it says it may exchange his non existent.lasblaster.

I think most of the eldar units came out pretty awful from fw even hornets straight doubled in price and are less effective than the previous edition especially vs tanks.

I think the only units that came out relatively okay are the pheonix and nightwing they are cheap enough and bring some damage but for some reason aren't flyers and the fw blurb about them specifically talks about defense shields they don't have. Wasp assault walkers aren't bad either as they are just war walkers +1 for more cost. Otherwise shadow spectre look good but that's because hawks and spiders are awful this edition. We didn't cone out good from this our main book units are honestly better and they really don't look that good.

The only other unit that looks good compared to main codex is the skathach but that's because the normal one is god awful but even the fw is insanely expensive at as much as the most expensive fw daemon lords.

The quad Heavy launcher looks interesting, but maybe mortar heavy weapon squads are better since you get 5d6 shots more for the same price basically. S 5 over s 4 for the launcher, and it has higher toughness.

PUFNSTUF wrote:
The quad Heavy launcher looks interesting, but maybe mortar heavy weapon squads are better since you get 5d6 shots more for the same price basically. S 5 over s 4 for the launcher, and it has higher toughness.

A Heavy Quad Launcher costs 85 points per gun with crew, compared to 27 points per HWS with mortar, so you get 3 mortar squads per quad launcher, or 9d6 vs 4d6 shots. S5 is 33,3% more effective against T4, 50% more effective against T5-T7 and 100% more effective against T8-T9. So even in the best case scenario, it's deal less damageon average. T7 W6 Sv4+ vs T3 W18 Sv5+ is a little tougher against some weapons, and although it will not deteriorate due to damage, you could lose 3 teams before you HWS are worse against lighter targets. But this is still not as good as it seems, because you can (and should) just hide them behind terrain, preventing enemy from shooting at them as easily.

I think mortars could survive a small nerf because of how many shots they put out, but due to their survivability they should have more damage output than similar units (Quad Launchers, Wyverns...) as they can be easily removed.

I think the mediocrity of the Eldar rules stems from the fact that I think FW is primarily composed of Imperial fans so they may have limited understanding of some of the implications of their Xenos rules. Sometimes I think particularly their Xenos rules are done in an uninspired half hearted fashion just so the model has rules with relatively little consideration to how good the rules are, whereas FW seems to spend more time lavishing attention on gimmicks for the Imperial rules.

Iracundus wrote:
I think the mediocrity of the Eldar rules stems from the fact that I think FW is primarily composed of Imperial fans so they may have limited understanding of some of the implications of their Xenos rules. Sometimes I think particularly their Xenos rules are done in an uninspired half hearted fashion just so the model has rules with relatively little consideration to how good the rules are, whereas FW seems to spend more time lavishing attention on gimmicks for the Imperial rules.

It was only a month ago when the Eldar titans were so OP most people banned them from the table ha. Seems they swung the nerf bat quite furiously, but c'mon now.

Curiously, A Ta'unar costs more or less the same of a Revenant, but is less killy (for some passive durability, but needs drones). If you Eldar guys are complaining about its capacity, imagine how meh a Ta'unar must be

 Gunzhard wrote:

Iracundus wrote:
I think the mediocrity of the Eldar rules stems from the fact that I think FW is primarily composed of Imperial fans so they may have limited understanding of some of the implications of their Xenos rules. Sometimes I think particularly their Xenos rules are done in an uninspired half hearted fashion just so the model has rules with relatively little consideration to how good the rules are, whereas FW seems to spend more time lavishing attention on gimmicks for the Imperial rules.

It was only a month ago when the Eldar titans were so OP most people banned them from the table ha. Seems they swung the nerf bat quite furiously, but c'mon now.

Eldar stuff swings from OP to being overly nerfed and back again because it seems there is no one truly familiar with the Eldar over at FW so they do not have a good feel for how good (or bad) the rules they are pumping out are. The old original OP version of the Eldar Lynx is an example. I get the sense they spend all their effort over the Imperial or Chaos stuff then pump out the Eldar stuff as an afterthought, and it is this afterthought approach that leads to potential OP stuff, which they then belatedly hit with a nerf, and possibly nerf it too hard. The Phantom Titan for example has always from its earliest Epic days been an equal to the Imperial Warlord class, and surpassed the Reaver, and paid for it in points and in its holo-field vulnerability to potentially even the first shot. Yet even in previous editions FW screwed up its rules when its rules allowed a Reaver to output more Destroyer shots on average than a dual Pulsar Phantom.

The FW Eldar stuff also for the most part also tends to have fewer gimmicks and interesting rules. This has good and bad points. Good because it helps avoid paying a tax for useless gimmicky special rules, but bad in a sense because the Imperial releases have the potential for more synergy due to so many releases and the potential of their special rules interacting.

 Aenarian wrote:

PUFNSTUF wrote:
The quad Heavy launcher looks interesting, but maybe mortar heavy weapon squads are better since you get 5d6 shots more for the same price basically. S 5 over s 4 for the launcher, and it has higher toughness.

A Heavy Quad Launcher costs 85 points per gun with crew, compared to 27 points per HWS with mortar, so you get 3 mortar squads per quad launcher, or 9d6 vs 4d6 shots. S5 is 33,3% more effective against T4, 50% more effective against T5-T7 and 100% more effective against T8-T9. So even in the best case scenario, it's deal less damageon average. T7 W6 Sv4+ vs T3 W18 Sv5+ is a little tougher against some weapons, and although it will not deteriorate due to damage, you could lose 3 teams before you HWS are worse against lighter targets. But this is still not as good as it seems, because you can (and should) just hide them behind terrain, preventing enemy from shooting at them as easily.

I think mortars could survive a small nerf because of how many shots they put out, but due to their survivability they should have more damage output than similar units (Quad Launchers, Wyverns...) as they can be easily removed.

Thanks for the math! Kinda what I was thinking anyways.

 Zingraff wrote:
I received my Imperial Armour Index today, and I've had a brief look at it.

Am I correct to assume that DKoK can no longer use the Earthshaker carriage, and if I want to use an Earthshaker carriage, I would have to include it as an ally with a generic IG crew?

Same kind of goes for the Hades, it becomes pretty meaningless if I have to purchase it with a generic squad of veterans. It's like they didn't proof-read this at all.

Correct, but not only that, my Gorgon and Malcadors are not useable by Krieg units anymore either....but the AM get them...why DKK get the units listed but not ones that have been part of their core lists since Vraks amazes me. So much for them supporting existing armies.

 gungagreg wrote:

 Zingraff wrote:
I received my Imperial Armour Index today, and I've had a brief look at it.

Am I correct to assume that DKoK can no longer use the Earthshaker carriage, and if I want to use an Earthshaker carriage, I would have to include it as an ally with a generic IG crew?

Same kind of goes for the Hades, it becomes pretty meaningless if I have to purchase it with a generic squad of veterans. It's like they didn't proof-read this at all.

Correct, but not only that, my Gorgon and Malcadors are not useable by Krieg units anymore either....but the AM get them...why DKK get the units listed but not ones that have been part of their core lists since Vraks amazes me. So much for them supporting existing armies.

It's an update of the Assault Brigade army list from Imperial Armour 12 - The Fall of Orpheus. That list never had fixed heavy artillery nor tanks heavier than Leman Russ, and to save space FW did not include Combat Engineers with Hades Breaching Drills Combat Engineers with Rapier Laser Destroyers.

Titanicus wrote:

I think the only units that came out relatively okay are the pheonix and nightwing they are cheap enough and bring some damage but for some reason aren't flyers and the fw blurb about them specifically talks about defense shields they don't have.

What do you mean that Ngihtwings aren't Flyers, they have the Fly keyword, they have the Wings of Khaine rule, the Airbourne rule, the Crash and Burn rule and the Hard to Hit rule, not sure how much more Flyer a thing can be. It also has defense fields (5++) that it can swap for +1 to hit and an extra fast turn. Am I missing something?

Drager wrote:

Titanicus wrote:

I think the only units that came out relatively okay are the pheonix and nightwing they are cheap enough and bring some damage but for some reason aren't flyers and the fw blurb about them specifically talks about defense shields they don't have.

What do you mean that Ngihtwings aren't Flyers, they have the Fly keyword, they have the Wings of Khaine rule, the Airbourne rule, the Crash and Burn rule and the Hard to Hit rule, not sure how much more Flyer a thing can be. It also has defense fields (5++) that it can swap for +1 to hit and an extra fast turn. Am I missing something?

If you look at the unit entry the symbol they have is the fast attack lighting bolt they forgot to make them actually take up a flyer slot.

 BaconCatBug wrote:


*We had to fire all the editors.

He thinks they have editors.
That's really cute

 Aenarian wrote:

 gungagreg wrote:

 Zingraff wrote:
I received my Imperial Armour Index today, and I've had a brief look at it.

Am I correct to assume that DKoK can no longer use the Earthshaker carriage, and if I want to use an Earthshaker carriage, I would have to include it as an ally with a generic IG crew?

Same kind of goes for the Hades, it becomes pretty meaningless if I have to purchase it with a generic squad of veterans. It's like they didn't proof-read this at all.

Correct, but not only that, my Gorgon and Malcadors are not useable by Krieg units anymore either....but the AM get them...why DKK get the units listed but not ones that have been part of their core lists since Vraks amazes me. So much for them supporting existing armies.

It's an update of the Assault Brigade army list from Imperial Armour 12 - The Fall of Orpheus. That list never had fixed heavy artillery nor tanks heavier than Leman Russ, and to save space FW did not include Combat Engineers with Hades Breaching Drills Combat Engineers with Rapier Laser Destroyers.

The Assault Brigade had the Gorgon.

 NivlacSupreme wrote:

 Aenarian wrote:

 gungagreg wrote:

 Zingraff wrote:
I received my Imperial Armour Index today, and I've had a brief look at it.

Am I correct to assume that DKoK can no longer use the Earthshaker carriage, and if I want to use an Earthshaker carriage, I would have to include it as an ally with a generic IG crew?

Same kind of goes for the Hades, it becomes pretty meaningless if I have to purchase it with a generic squad of veterans. It's like they didn't proof-read this at all.

Correct, but not only that, my Gorgon and Malcadors are not useable by Krieg units anymore either....but the AM get them...why DKK get the units listed but not ones that have been part of their core lists since Vraks amazes me. So much for them supporting existing armies.

It's an update of the Assault Brigade army list from Imperial Armour 12 - The Fall of Orpheus. That list never had fixed heavy artillery nor tanks heavier than Leman Russ, and to save space FW did not include Combat Engineers with Hades Breaching Drills Combat Engineers with Rapier Laser Destroyers.

The Assault Brigade had the Gorgon.

It sure as gak ain't listed in the index of the book.



The book was also written during 6th, before lords of war become a standard unit in the codices, nor can I ever remember seeing it there. If you're referring to the pdf they released, it was just an addon and we might as well complain about any of the units the DKoK could ever take (which, as they counted as IG, was more or less everything IG could take).

 ncshooter426 wrote:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:

 ncshooter426 wrote:
I really don't get the AM fliers. The BS penalty for a compulsory move just is super weird. The whole thing just strikes me as odd, some fliers getting infinite ammo and others being gimped down to 4 o.O

Edit: Wait a second...

Certain missiles - like the Manticore , HK and the bombs - are explicitly labeled as one-time-use. So...does that mean if it doesn't SAY it's burned on use... you get to fire that number per shooting phase?

I believe that is correct.

That completely changes my view on some of the fliers then.... yessssssss....I can deal with BS4 if I'm shooting a ton of ordnance down range

It is pretty sweet currently but there is no way it is going to survive a FAQ. If it was intended to be infinite missiles, why is it 'take 4' of a heavy 1 missile, instead of Hellfire Missiles -- Heavy 4? They have never been multi use before and I doubt they are supposed to be now... almost always if a missile weapon is multi use it is described as a launcher of some kind, not as just the missile. I'd be floored if that is RAI.

 Silverthorne wrote:


It is pretty sweet currently but there is no way it is going to survive a FAQ. If it was intended to be infinite missiles, why is it 'take 4' of a heavy 1 missile, instead of Hellfire Missiles -- Heavy 4? They have never been multi use before and I doubt they are supposed to be now... almost always if a missile weapon is multi use it is described as a launcher of some kind, not as just the missile. I'd be floored if that is RAI.

I think almost certainly it is intended, actually. A lot of missile weapons on flyers that were previously one-use lost that designation in 8th, and making them 'heavy 4' doesn't account for the fact that different planes get different amounts of them and with them as separate weapons each missile can target something different. Plus, they're obscenely over-costed at 20 points a pop if they are one-use, but quite accurately costed as roughly as good as a Lascannon if they can be used unlimited times. I'll be floored if they FAQ them to be one-use (at least, without a points-cost amendment as well).

And note that the missile thing follows the precedent for the same weapon on the Valkyrie. They aren't one shot weapons there either.