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.

With the T6 buff to Armored Sentinels and their 3+ vs 4+ on the Scout Sentinels, are they now worth considering or are Scout Sentinels still auto-take for FA?

I think it's still auto-take on the Scouts until you've got a comfortable anti-deepstrike screen, which is probably at least 3, if not 5. So probably all the sentinels you want to take.

I don't really understand what the scout move gets you. If you camp out in the back of your deployment in a gun line, do you need the scout move to deepstrike screen?

 crimsondave wrote:
I don't really understand what the scout move gets you. If you camp out in the back of your deployment in a gun line, do you need the scout move to deepstrike screen?

Yes b.c thats an extra 5-10" they have to be away from the rest of your army. Making all Rapid weapons single shot and out of range of anything important. I like to give them heavy flamers as anti-charge units at the same time and keeps them a little cheaper.

ALso if not against DSing army you can use them to go out and gain objectives turn 1, of just keep for anti-charges. Some like to put bigger guns on them, thats fine but not how i would play them is all.

Why bring an armoured sentinel when tauroxes exist? And it's not as if tauroxes are great.

Ultimately armoured sentinels don't do anything special for you. They are just another gun platform, without much to recommend them.

Scout sentinels do a great job of pushing the enemy back so you are much safer against deep strikers. So they do do something really useful - while also bringing the same firepower for less cost.

 crimsondave wrote:
I don't really understand what the scout move gets you. If you camp out in the back of your deployment in a gun line, do you need the scout move to deepstrike screen?

Abso-frikkin-lutely. Pushing deepstriking enemies further back is great. I play Tau and Scout Sentinels have been a real nuisance blocking my intended drop zones and effectively mitigating damage I could do.

Thanks for the explanations. Looks like I'm building scouts.

I'm rather tempted by the old multilaser scout sentinels. They are the cheapest you can get them and will do an ok job. Plus, as I am playing Tallarn they don't get a penalty when moving. I can understand other forces using flamers to avoid this but it does cost 8 ppm more.

 Trickstick wrote:
I'm rather tempted by the old multilaser scout sentinels. They are the cheapest you can get them and will do an ok job. Plus, as I am playing Tallarn they don't get a penalty when moving. I can understand other forces using flamers to avoid this but it does cost 8 ppm more.

I'm gonna magnetize, but I will be trying the ML first as it is the cheapest.

I've been running three ML scouts in my brigade, and I use them solely for deep strike blocking and objective grabbing. The gun doesn't do anything, but I'm not asking it to.

If you want offense out of your FA slot, look at the hellhound, which for less than two HF sentinels has a longer range, higher strength, double shot flamer, plus a heavy flamer, on an even more durable (and faster, scout move not included) chassis.

Armored Sentinels are not fragile, which is true, and can absorb a ton of small arms fire. However, at only six wounds, dedicated anti-tank weapons are going to wreck them quickly. For the cost of an Armored sentinel with autocannon, you can have a heavy weapon squad with two heavy bolters and a lascannon. Hell, an armored sentinel costs exactly the same as an infantry squad!

armored sentinels with lascannons make for sturdy anti-tank platforms in cover, much more than a heavy weapon team. Also armored can get plasma cannons, which with cadia doctrine are actually quite nice for the points when camping in cover.

 generalchaos34 wrote:
armored sentinels with lascannons make for sturdy anti-tank platforms in cover, much more than a heavy weapon team. Also armored can get plasma cannons, which with cadia doctrine are actually quite nice for the points when camping in cover.

The thing is, a lascannon armoured sentinel is 60 pts. A lascannon HWS is 78 pts. For those extra 18 pts you get triple the firepower and can be affected by orders and many things that affect infantry. It really comes down to deciding whether durability or firepower is more important to you. It also depends what sort of list you are running. A sentinel in an infantry list is going to eat all of the opponent's lascannons, a HWS in a tank list is going to get boltered off the field. Both units have their place really.

 Trickstick wrote:

 generalchaos34 wrote:
armored sentinels with lascannons make for sturdy anti-tank platforms in cover, much more than a heavy weapon team. Also armored can get plasma cannons, which with cadia doctrine are actually quite nice for the points when camping in cover.

The thing is, a lascannon armoured sentinel is 60 pts. A lascannon HWS is 78 pts. For those extra 18 pts you get triple the firepower and can be affected by orders and many things that affect infantry. It really comes down to deciding whether durability or firepower is more important to you. It also depends what sort of list you are running. A sentinel in an infantry list is going to eat all of the opponent's lascannons, a HWS in a tank list is going to get boltered off the field. Both units have their place really.

I have to fill fast attack slots and my opponents know to one shot my HWS, so I have had a lot of luck with armored sentinels and Las/plasma so far, but you are def right, it depends on your army needs and your opponents.

 generalchaos34 wrote:
I have to fill fast attack slots and my opponents know to one shot my HWS, so I have had a lot of luck with armored sentinels and Las/plasma so far, but you are def right, it depends on your army needs and your opponents.

True, filling fast attack slots is a good reason. I know I am breaking out the sentinels for that purpose, although I also like the idea of ambushing with devildogs.

 Trickstick wrote:

 generalchaos34 wrote:
armored sentinels with lascannons make for sturdy anti-tank platforms in cover, much more than a heavy weapon team. Also armored can get plasma cannons, which with cadia doctrine are actually quite nice for the points when camping in cover.

The thing is, a lascannon armoured sentinel is 60 pts. A lascannon HWS is 78 pts. For those extra 18 pts you get triple the firepower and can be affected by orders and many things that affect infantry. It really comes down to deciding whether durability or firepower is more important to you. It also depends what sort of list you are running. A sentinel in an infantry list is going to eat all of the opponent's lascannons, a HWS in a tank list is going to get boltered off the field. Both units have their place really.

Yeah, that's really the crux of it. I don't really think either unit justifies the high cost of the weapons, and keep both as cheap as possible. Heavy flamers are only 3 points cheaper than a lascannon/missile launcher. Other than the multi-laser, if we're talking about points efficiency, I think regardless of the loadout other units are better choices for all of the sentinel's and HWS's gun options. I'm not great at mathhammering, so I could be totally wrong, but I get that impression.

Lanchester's square law also kicks in, such that if you have, say, a super heavy, a couple of LRBTs, and some artillery, then the armored sentinel will be more valuable, because all the good anti-tank will be busy, and it really can shrug off even heavy bolter grade firepower. However, at that point, the devil dog or hellhound also look great.

I ran scouts in an otherwise all infantry list, and the enemy heavy weapons were definitely more interested in my heavy weapon squads, so the scouts lived far longer than I would otherwise expect.

Armored sentinel plasma doesn't excite me, if only because plasma is readily available on LRBTs, and essentially, on basilisks. (the earthshaker is S9, AP-3, D;d3, which tracks nicely with the plasma cannon with less risk)

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
Yeah, that's really the crux of it. I don't really think either unit justifies the high cost of the weapons, and keep both as cheap as possible. Heavy flamers are only 3 points cheaper than a lascannon/missile launcher. Other than the multi-laser, if we're talking about points efficiency, I think regardless of the loadout other units are better choices for all of the sentinel's and HWS's gun options. I'm not great at mathhammering, so I could be totally wrong, but I get that impression.

I think that it really comes down to a few things:

- How often are you seeing deepstrike/infiltrate/ambush or something similar? If it is very common for you, are the points spent on scout sentinels worth investing, or would more infantry bubble wrap be more efficient?
- Do you need to fill fast attack slots? I know I want all the command points I can get, so brigades are the way to go. Scout sentinels are the cheapest way to fill those.
- Are you using a regiment that benefits sentinels? I would argue that a Catachan force would be doing itself a huge disservice without a few flamer scouts around. Quite a fluffy addition too.
- If you are running all infantry, they will get shot off the board. I guess you would be much better using rough riders, although they aren't great. It would probably be easier to just take 3 battalions than stretching for the brigade.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:
Armored sentinel plasma doesn't excite me, if only because plasma is readily available on LRBTs, and essentially, on basilisks. (the earthshaker is S9, AP-3, D;d3, which tracks nicely with the plasma cannon with less risk)

I would never run plasma now. The chance to blow up a 6w model with a single roll seem too bad. The same thing applies to my officers too. Plasma on multi-wound models seems like a huge risk, only the Leman Russ can manage it with the vents it has.

Yes, very good points. The DS denial seems like the only worthwhile use, other than filling out slots. Using power levels instead of points, I'd run heavy flamers for sure.

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 generalchaos34 wrote:
armored sentinels with lascannons make for sturdy anti-tank platforms in cover, much more than a heavy weapon team. Also armored can get plasma cannons, which with cadia doctrine are actually quite nice for the points when camping in cover.

The thing is, a lascannon armoured sentinel is 60 pts. A lascannon HWS is 78 pts. For those extra 18 pts you get triple the firepower and can be affected by orders and many things that affect infantry. It really comes down to deciding whether durability or firepower is more important to you. It also depends what sort of list you are running. A sentinel in an infantry list is going to eat all of the opponent's lascannons, a HWS in a tank list is going to get boltered off the field. Both units have their place really.

Yeah, that's really the crux of it. I don't really think either unit justifies the high cost of the weapons, and keep both as cheap as possible. Heavy flamers are only 3 points cheaper than a lascannon/missile launcher. Other than the multi-laser, if we're talking about points efficiency, I think regardless of the loadout other units are better choices for all of the sentinel's and HWS's gun options. I'm not great at mathhammering, so I could be totally wrong, but I get that impression.

Well now that russes are good im less likely to take HB HWS, and autocannons just dont feel as good as they used to. I do like Lascannons and Missile launchers on HWS but im more inclined to include those in an infantry squad for some ablative wounds.

As for scout sentinels, they are one of the only sources of deepstrike denial in the entire codex (them and ratlings) to widen that 9" bubble. If I do take them for that purpose I usually take them with heavy flamers so they get in and tie things up.

By my napkin math, 3 sentinels can, optimally, protect 8.4 sqft of a 24 sqft table from deep strike. That's for around 120 points.

Pretty hard to dismiss something like that. I think they're mandatory for the current game. Just about every army has nasty deep strikers they want to throw at you.

I personally think the heavy flamers are a worthwhile investment on the scouts. You're going to be in charge range for a lot of things, so this way your overwatch is a little more useful. They're likely to get killed pretty quickly regardless, but T5 6W with a 4+ is surprisingly viable in my experience. And any shots your opponent spends on them are shots that aren't hitting your tanks and basilisks.

If your opponent ignores them, they're perfect for charging in vehicles to slow down and advance, or roasting marching infantry. I consider them a sacrifice either way, but several times my opponents have fixated on them and got themselves seriously distracted by a tiny fragment of my army.

Meanwhile the big guns never tire.

I'm chiming in to say Scout is unnecessary for screening if you've set up your army well in the first place. Put your artillery in a corner with a couple of meat shields then sprinkle your other stuff around to deny 1st/2nd turn strike opportunities. its all bout layering your army so that the enemy has to peel the onion rather than slice it.

WatcherZero wrote:
I'm chiming in to say Scout is unnecessary for screening if you've set up your army well in the first place. Put your artillery in a corner with a couple of meat shields then sprinkle your other stuff around to deny 1st/2nd turn strike opportunities. its all bout layering your army so that the enemy has to peel the onion rather than slice it.

K... you say that when 20+ Khorne zerkers are 6" on turn one away from your army and can fight 2 or 3x, or 90 Orks, or 25 Harlequins, etc...

Scout sentinels also have the ability to move 10-27" in a single turn. If they somehow survive until late game they can make a last attempt at denying an objective or something.

My thought on armoured sentinels is pretty simple: they're a basic fighting chassis, but the weakest of the ones available.

Compared to the Armored sentinel:
Taurox: +4 Wounds, +6" Move
Chimera: +1 Toughness, +4 Wounds, +4" Move
Hellhound: +1 Toughnes, +5 Wounds +4" Move
Basilisk: +5 Wounds, +4 Move
Manticore: +1 Toughness, +5 Wounds, +4" Move
LRBT: +2 Toughness, +6 Wounds, +2" Move

In terms of cost, compared to the Armored Sentinel, the Taurox is +5, the Chimera is +35pts, the Hellhound is +33pts, and the LRBT is +82pts. The basilisk always comes bundled with the earthshaker, but that's easily a 30pt gun, right? Back calculating from the Wyvvern, which has essentially four mortars, that chassis is basically 65 pts, or 20pts more than the Armored sentinel.

So what, you ask? regardless of what weapon you put on the armored sentinel, there's probably a more efficient, if more expensive, option. And if you're trying to go cheap, go Scout Sentinel, which also adds increased mobility and flexibility.

For example, a Hellhound with heavy flamer is 53 more points than an Armored sentinel with heavy flamer... but has three times the fire power at the same range, twice the fire power and twice the range otherwise, 50% more speed, and essentially double the durability. So... two to three times the firepower, twice the durability, AND greater range and mobility... that's a clearly more efficient option!

The humble Taurox runs 20 pts more than an Armored Sentinel with Autocannon, but has a second Autocannon, four more wounds, and nearly double the movement. Again, 50% more in cost, but twice the fire power, nearly twice the durability, and nearly twice the movement.

The multilaser is garbage, and if you take it on an armored sentinel you should feel bad.

If you like the plasma cannon, compare two Armored Sentinels with plasma to a basilisk. Slightly fewer total wounds, but a much better gun. (One earth shaker has +2 S, same AP, and double damage compared to the basic plasma cannon doubled, If you overcharge, You still have more strength but the rest is the same. Of course, the earthshaker has far more range and can fire outside of LOS. 2d3 is roughly the same as 2d6, drop the lowest).

That leaves the heavy hitters of Missile and Lascannon. These are freely available in the troops choice for exactly the same cost, albeit with more, but far weaker wounds. The best comp here is probably the Taurox Prime, which can rock two autocannons and two Missile Launchers at BS3+ at admittedly over twice the price.

So... I think if you really, really like armored sentinels, you could do a lot worse than a trio of them with lascannons in an armor spam list. At T6/3+, you need to hit them with heavy fire power, but that means they aren't shooting your Russes or other heavier armor.

I still stand by taking hellhounds in an armor skew list for the anti-infantry punch (especially if running catachans, which you should), but YMMV.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Trickstick wrote:
Scout sentinels also have the ability to move 10-27" in a single turn. If they somehow survive until late game they can make a last attempt at denying an objective or something.

Go Recon! is arguably one of the most niche strategms, but it's not the worst. A 2d6" sprint for an objective or linebreaker won't help often, but when it does, it can help a lot.

I think that armoured sentinels need a "Stable firing platform" rule, letting them move and shoot without penalty. That would give them a bit of a niche, as light backup to a Russ line.

I'm thinking about finishing the scout sentinels I have had in a box for years. So long that they are the old fixed leg joint versions. However, as a Tallarn lover I can't help but feel that flamers are a waste of the doctrine. That is the problem I have really, not using a special rule seems weird to me. It's why I was always tempted to keep vehicles still to avoid the -1 to hit, or would never take Cadian now as not moving is far too tempting to me.

 Trickstick wrote:
I think that armoured sentinels need a "Stable firing platform" rule, letting them move and shoot without penalty. That would give them a bit of a niche, as light backup to a Russ line.

If they were Stable instead of T6, I'd give the green light for them with lascannons or even plasma. I think they are trying to be sparing with upgrades like that however.

Alternatively, I would have liked their Missile Launcher to be more specialized. Maybe only Range 36", but Assault instead of heavy.

I'm thinking about finishing the scout sentinels I have had in a box for years. So long that they are the old fixed leg joint versions. However, as a Tallarn lover I can't help but feel that flamers are a waste of the doctrine. That is the problem I have really, not using a special rule seems weird to me. It's why I was always tempted to keep vehicles still to avoid the -1 to hit, or would never take Cadian now as not moving is far too tempting to me.

Yeah, I think it's easy to get boxed in by a theme, even one as simple as regimental doctrines. I'm not as hardline about HF scouts being the only choice, as I think that saving the points and running MLs for a brigade tax is fine.

the thing with Tallarn is... I think that's the one time I'd put heavy bolters on a hell hound. Here's my pitch: 101 points, 18" range, you get 2d6 S6 AP1 autohits, and plus a move and shoot heavy bolter. This allows you keep far more range from what you're shooting at, and hopefully avoid getting assaulted immediately after shooting.

Tallarn Tauroxes are also a really tasty little unit. 123pts buys you a squad with plasma, and the taurox with two autocannons and a storm bolter. This can hang back for firepower/counter fire, it can sweep up a side to grab objectives, or it can support an armored advance. Autocannons aren't multi-lasers: they are incredibly niche, but they aren't terrible. Against targets with good invulnerable saves or exactly two wounds, autocannons actually punch their weight. (against primaris, Autocannons out perform lascannons) In a meta with a lot of small, unsupported shooting squads, you'll be shooting them up turn two!

How do some of those vehicles compare to two armored sentinels in separate squads? Particularly those vehicles that are close to double one sentinel's points?

 Trickstick wrote:
I'm thinking about finishing the scout sentinels I have had in a box for years. So long that they are the old fixed leg joint versions. However, as a Tallarn lover I can't help but feel that flamers are a waste of the doctrine.

Im thinking of doing something similar, my sisters need some anti-elite infantry shooting and Tallarn scouts with a bane wolf seem like they'd be really fun to play.

Definitely magnetizing those weapon mounts though.

 Polonius wrote:
the thing with Tallarn is... I think that's the one time I'd put heavy bolters on a hell hound. Here's my pitch: 101 points, 18" range, you get 2d6 S6 AP1 autohits, and plus a move and shoot heavy bolter. This allows you keep far more range from what you're shooting at, and hopefully avoid getting assaulted immediately after shooting.

You have read my mind, I was actually pondering this combo earlier. 16" range and cheaper than the melta devildogs I was considering. A flamer hellhound feels natural from a 7th edition perspective, but in 8th it is really hurting you. With a bolter you have a lot more targeting options. you could also put a stubber on to for a bit more fire power. There is just something iconic about a hellhound too, such a cool unit. You get that super explode too, in case you want to melee. Track Guards are rather tempting too, keeping your kiting power up for longer. For 5 points I probably would but 10 seems too much.

I'm thinking a pair of hellhounds with bolters may go in my ambushing force.

Now with regards to scout sentinels I am really not convinced about running them as singletons. They get a lot more board coverage, sure, but they are just asking to give up first blood and also increase your drops. Sure, if you are just filling a brigade it is ok but if I am taking 2 hellhounds I don't need it so much. Perhaps taking 4, in pairs, would be a reasonable compromise? That way I can also run my hellhounds as a pair and save an ambush slot for something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Captain Joystick wrote:
Definitely magnetizing those weapon mounts though.

Eh, you barely need to. The weapons are pretty much push fit anyway. Magnets seem a lot of work for something that could be less sturdy. I am rather weird though, I have practiced my usage of blu-tac into an art form. So many of my weapon options are held on that way. I just find magnets have a habit of rotating at the connection. I know you can fix that but I just don't see the need when my low-tech solution works perfectly.

 Captain Joystick wrote:
How do some of those vehicles compare to two armored sentinels in separate squads? Particularly those vehicles that are close to double one sentinel's points?

Well, most vehicles start to degrade after losing half plus one of their wounds, which is five six wounds on most hulls. Sentinels don't degrade at all, which is a lot fun if you ever have a sentinel lose five wounds but keep kicking at full strength. If your opponent is foolish, and shoots both equally, the pair can take a pummeling before losing any efficacy. If they target one only, then after six wounds, you lose half your firewpoer, while other vehicles get a -1 to hit.

Two sentinels can split fire of course, but so can most comparable vehicles, the basilisk being a big counter example.

For me, it boils down to Armored Sentinels only really being worth taking because they fill a fast attack slot. Even lascannon sentinels, which don't look bad, aren't as efficient as some other choices. (three lascannon Armored Sentinels cost the same as a "codex" LRBT with battle cannon, lascannon, heavy bolter sponsons, and a storm bolter.) however, if you have a lascannon, you will always shoot the LRBT (it takes just over six lascannon hits to wreck an LRBT, but just over three to smoke a sentinel, and a badly wounded LRBT is damn near worthless while the sentinel is at full steam. So... while they don't accomplish as much, they will likely stick around, especially when there is something more enticing to shoot at. the flip side, again, is that a hellhound has basically the same defensive profile agains the lascannon, with one less wound, and with a meltacannon and multi-melta will 2/3 the cost of the LRBT, while doign way more work than two lascannons.)

There is a best way to run them, and that's as part of an armor skew list, but I htink you go all in with lascannon/hunterkiller missile, especially if running cadia or tallarn. If you're running catachans, then don't be a hero and take hellhounds or heavy flamer scouts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Trickstick wrote:
Now with regards to scout sentinels I am really not convinced about running them as singletons. They get a lot more board coverage, sure, but they are just asking to give up first blood and also increase your drops. Sure, if you are just filling a brigade it is ok but if I am taking 2 hellhounds I don't need it so much. Perhaps taking 4, in pairs, would be a reasonable compromise? That way I can also run my hellhounds as a pair and save an ambush slot for something.

I've played around with sentinel units, and every time I wish I had a hellhound instead. A pair of heavy flamer sentinels is only six points less than a hellhound, for a lot less firepower. Hell, I'd take a banewolf with HF over two HF scouts. I usually have so many drops that I'm conceding kill points and first turn anyway

I think the main point I'd make is that with a few tweaks, a stealth price drop, and the doctirnes, the hellhound chassis vehicles are good enough that we dont' need to look at FA simply as a tax. They work very well with Tallarn or Catachans, although admittedly come up short for cadians. (who, honestly, might be able to justify Plasma Cannon Armored Sentinels)

 Captain Joystick wrote:
Definitely magnetizing those weapon mounts though.

Eh, you barely need to. The weapons are pretty much push fit anyway. Magnets seem a lot of work for something that could be less sturdy. I am rather weird though, I have practiced my usage of blu-tac into an art form. So many of my weapon options are held on that way. I just find magnets have a habit of rotating at the connection. I know you can fix that but I just don't see the need when my low-tech solution works perfectly.

I push fit my hellhounds, and they work just fine.

Multi laser should be changed to either rapid fire 2; or assault 3. Right now it’s just crummy.