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.

Cheeslord wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Neophyte2012 wrote:

A horde of Tzaantch Flamer kills Immortals with ease.

Not in reality. Immortals will shoot first and kill half of that squad, so who cares.

The Flamers can deepstrike into shooting range, guaranteeing them first shot (from turn 2 onwards and assuming you can't screen your immortals from every direction - which you are unlikely to do for troops).

I also play daemons though, and the flamers have not so far impressed me with their killing power. Maybe more of them are needed. An equivalent points value of flamers (6) deepstriking in for first shot but otherwise unsupported would kill about half of a squad of 10 immortals. Of course as a daemon player I could buff them with a herald, warp surge, +1 to wound psychic power, more flamers etc. but I am shoving a large investment to kill off a minor troops squad...I could just charge them with 4 greater daemons...


Mark.

Could scarabs succesfully tie them up in combat?

torblind wrote:

Cheeslord wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Neophyte2012 wrote:

A horde of Tzaantch Flamer kills Immortals with ease.

Not in reality. Immortals will shoot first and kill half of that squad, so who cares.

The Flamers can deepstrike into shooting range, guaranteeing them first shot (from turn 2 onwards and assuming you can't screen your immortals from every direction - which you are unlikely to do for troops).

I also play daemons though, and the flamers have not so far impressed me with their killing power. Maybe more of them are needed. An equivalent points value of flamers (6) deepstriking in for first shot but otherwise unsupported would kill about half of a squad of 10 immortals. Of course as a daemon player I could buff them with a herald, warp surge, +1 to wound psychic power, more flamers etc. but I am shoving a large investment to kill off a minor troops squad...I could just charge them with 4 greater daemons...


Mark.

Could scarabs succesfully tie them up in combat?

They fly and their overwatch is 12" D6 auto hit. I seriously doubt the scarab could make the charge and do somthing meaningful.

Raxxamous wrote:
I think Tactical Marines are overcosted as well. People should take intercessors or immortals if they want a troop that can fight and still be a troop. Necrons don't have scouts to make up for their terrible troops though. The problem is cheap troops are so far superior to Tactical Marines equivalent models in a match where anyone can think beyond "wow one space marines can sure beat up a guardsmen". You're honestly just deluding yourself if you think a warrior is worth more than two guardsmen on anything but a straight "can fight" level, which is meaningless as I mentioned before. This is why almost every tournament army is just cheap ass troops and the best units after that.

Tacs have been used in top 3 lists in 8th, intercessors haven't. I never said that a list featuring two big Warriors blobs is going to do well against a Guard list. But I happen to think that a Guardsmen is worth more than 4 pts, what is a Lychguard going to cost in a game where a Guardsman costs 4? 25 pts for a Lychguard? 15? Balance is found in the middle, not at the top. Tac squads are pretty okay and Necron Warriors are pretty okay as well. I think Necron Strats should have been better to reflect the high cost of our detachments and our inability to abuse allies, but that comes back to Guardsmen being OP, but part of the problem is the ITC guys removing all the value in having a low-drop army, leaving the 20 drop armies with a 40% chance of going first instead of 17%.

Neophyte2012 wrote:

torblind wrote:

Cheeslord wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Neophyte2012 wrote:

A horde of Tzaantch Flamer kills Immortals with ease.

Not in reality. Immortals will shoot first and kill half of that squad, so who cares.

The Flamers can deepstrike into shooting range, guaranteeing them first shot (from turn 2 onwards and assuming you can't screen your immortals from every direction - which you are unlikely to do for troops).

I also play daemons though, and the flamers have not so far impressed me with their killing power. Maybe more of them are needed. An equivalent points value of flamers (6) deepstriking in for first shot but otherwise unsupported would kill about half of a squad of 10 immortals. Of course as a daemon player I could buff them with a herald, warp surge, +1 to wound psychic power, more flamers etc. but I am shoving a large investment to kill off a minor troops squad...I could just charge them with 4 greater daemons...


Mark.

Could scarabs succesfully tie them up in combat?

They fly and their overwatch is 12" D6 auto hit. I seriously doubt the scarab could make the charge and do somthing meaningful.

Plus, their flame attack is a Pistol weapon, so even if they get in there and the Flamers for some reason don't just fly away, they can vaporise the scarabs on their turn...

the only real counter is to shoot them . Flamers don't care about AP, so it's Strength, volume of attacks, and Wounds that work. probably gauss weapons are the best. 10 Teslammortals should be about able to kill half their own points value in Flamers in a single round of shooting (about the same ratio as the flamers shooting the immortals unsupported).

Mark.

Doctoralex wrote:
So I wanted to discuss whether to take 3x min troops + HQ just for the battalion CP, or invest some more into them and make them into a proper part of your army.

The way I see it is as follows;

Troops as tax:
Cost: 422 points. This consists of 3x 5 Immortals /w Tesla, a Cryptek and an Overlord, all with minimal/no equipment.

So this is the 'cheapest' way to get a battalion. However, the 5 man Immortal squads aren't going to be doing much apart from sitting on objectives and providing medicore fire support. a 5 man squad isn't worth MWBD anyway.
On top of that, the Overlord and the Cryptek are sup-optimal when it comes to supporting the main powerhouses of our army (AKA Destroyers, DDA's, Wraiths & Tomb Blades).

The other option is this:

Troops filled out:
Cost: 762 points. Now it's 3x 10 Immortals, a Cryptek & Overlord /w Staff of Light and 2x3 Scarabs.

Now the troops can actually join the front and get proper support by the two HQ's. However, with them going forward we need new units to sit on the backline points, hence two units of Scarabs.

So, what do you guys think is better? 422 points of meh troops that provide some fire support, and some wasted HQ's?
Or 762 points of a proper HQ + troops core, but less points for our powerful units.

I go back and forth on this. 10 man Immortal units are good, and can contribute to the fight. 5 man units mostly feel like a tax. On that basis I've mostly been going for 3x 10.
However, beyond what these units do by themselves, there's also what they mean for the play style of the army. Having 3x 10 Immortals means that you are running a list with a slow moving infantry core that opponents can head towards. All our other good choices (Destroyers, Tomb Blades, DDAs, Scarabs, Wraith) are fast, and can feel tied down by an immobile core. When using 3x 5 Immortals I can take more of the fast stuff, and also not have a static fire base. The army is a lot more slippery played this way, able to kite opponents, or do a refused flank, to prevent them getting close with CC units.

A Nephrek battalion of 3x 10 Immortals can provide a happy medium. Using the Translocation Crypt strat, a Veil of Darkness, and MWBD + 7" advance to get some nice mobility. This has worked fairly well when I've tried it although -1 to hit armies have given me some trouble. Deep striking means no MWBD, and advancing with MWBD means you're only getting normal tesla on 6's, so -1 to hit ruins both of these.

I'm considering trying a mixture of the two options: 1x 10 + 2x 5 Immortals, or 2x 10 + 1x 5. One unit of 10 with an Overlord with Veil means you can teleport and trigger tesla on 5's. There's usually a good objective to sit on for one or two "grot squads".

Moosatronic Warrior wrote:
I'm considering trying a mixture of the two options: 1x 10 + 2x 5 Immortals, or 2x 10 + 1x 5. One unit of 10 with an Overlord with Veil means you can teleport and trigger tesla on 5's. There's usually a good objective to sit on for one or two "grot squads".

Actually, if you're going to Veil the Immortals up, it'd probably be best to have them be Gauss, so you can easily get them in RF range.
I say,
1x5 Tesla on an objective
1x10 Tesla walking up w/ Overlord
1x10 Gauss Veil'd in w/ Lord

but part of the problem is the ITC guys removing all the value in having a low-drop army, leaving the 20 drop armies with a 40% chance of going first instead of 17%.

This an excellent point, and not discussed enough. GW has gotten its fair share of flakk over the years on rules design, and deservedly so, but this is one area they got right and it was ill advised of the ITC guys to unilaterally overrule it.

 skoffs wrote:

Moosatronic Warrior wrote:
I'm considering trying a mixture of the two options: 1x 10 + 2x 5 Immortals, or 2x 10 + 1x 5. One unit of 10 with an Overlord with Veil means you can teleport and trigger tesla on 5's. There's usually a good objective to sit on for one or two "grot squads".

Actually, if you're going to Veil the Immortals up, it'd probably be best to have them be Gauss, so you can easily get them in RF range.
I say,
1x5 Tesla on an objective
1x10 Tesla walking up w/ Overlord
1x10 Gauss Veil'd in w/ Lord

I've run 2x 10 Tesla and 1x 10 Gauss quite a few times, with the intention of Veiling the Gauss. I've never been that impressed though, and sometimes end up veiling a Tesla unit. I'm leaning towards pure Tesla for my Immortals now. It's mostly a question of what opponents you normally face as to which is more useful.

Moosatronic Warrior wrote:

 skoffs wrote:

Moosatronic Warrior wrote:
I'm considering trying a mixture of the two options: 1x 10 + 2x 5 Immortals, or 2x 10 + 1x 5. One unit of 10 with an Overlord with Veil means you can teleport and trigger tesla on 5's. There's usually a good objective to sit on for one or two "grot squads".

Actually, if you're going to Veil the Immortals up, it'd probably be best to have them be Gauss, so you can easily get them in RF range.
I say,
1x5 Tesla on an objective
1x10 Tesla walking up w/ Overlord
1x10 Gauss Veil'd in w/ Lord

I've run 2x 10 Tesla and 1x 10 Gauss quite a few times, with the intention of Veiling the Gauss. I've never been that impressed though, and sometimes end up veiling a Tesla unit. I'm leaning towards pure Tesla for my Immortals now. It's mostly a question of what opponents you normally face as to which is more useful.

Along as you have access to mwbd you only ever really need gauss 3+ saves or better

Actually, if you're going to Veil the Immortals up, it'd probably be best to have them be Gauss, so you can easily get them in RF range.

Eh, depends. If you are Mephrit, Tesla beats Gauss even at rapid-fire range. Unless the enemy is -1 to hit, but that should be unlikely at 12" range.

"but part of the problem is the ITC guys removing all the value in having a low-drop army, leaving the 20 drop armies with a 40% chance of going first instead of 17%."

The ITC has nothing to do with it. GW changed all their missions to be +1 to go first instead of auto go first in chapter aproved.

 iGuy91 wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:

 iGuy91 wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:
The way I read it, Nihilakh units should always get to reroll 1's in Overwatch (discounting DM's Interception). Am I wrong?

Its pretty much Textbook the same as the Dark Angels Chapter Tactic, and I do not believe that works that way. You have to stay still in your most recent movement phase.

It reads, "... THE preceding Movement phase."

You know what I DO find interesting though, is using the Nihilak Strategem on a Phalanx of infantry under a chronometron. Turning your warriors into 3+ / 4++ for a turn makes them pretty stupidly survivable. Just thought about that.

Thats a good play, but why not park a chronotek and destroyers on the obj to get a 2+/4++ or on Lychguard (dont need Chrnotek) with sword and board for a 2+/3++. And those guys are getting +1 atk. Great for tarpits, just need to make sure you are near an objective as these guys you will probably be moving to assault with.

Cheeslord wrote:

The Flamers can deepstrike into shooting range, guaranteeing them first shot (from turn 2 onwards and assuming you can't screen your immortals from every direction - which you are unlikely to do for troops).

Why would I let that unit deepstrike within 12" of my Immortals?

I thought this thread assumed we weren't playing like idiots.

Tried this list for a few games. It worked very well for me.



Any thoughts or opinions?

 rvd1ofakind wrote:
"but part of the problem is the ITC guys removing all the value in having a low-drop army, leaving the 20 drop armies with a 40% chance of going first instead of 17%."

The ITC has nothing to do with it. GW changed all their missions to be +1 to go first instead of auto go first in chapter aproved.

Which was a direct result of ITC doing it from day one.

However, this format is much better than the original imbalance where low drop armies always went first.

Fragile wrote:

 rvd1ofakind wrote:
"but part of the problem is the ITC guys removing all the value in having a low-drop army, leaving the 20 drop armies with a 40% chance of going first instead of 17%."

The ITC has nothing to do with it. GW changed all their missions to be +1 to go first instead of auto go first in chapter aproved.

Which was a direct result of ITC doing it from day one.

However, this format is much better than the original imbalance where low drop armies always went first.

I wonder what they were thinking with auto go first. Knight army? First almost every game. MSU army with no transports? (admech) sucks to be you. You'll go 1st 1/6th of all games you play!

Fragile wrote:
"but part of the problem is the ITC guys removing all the value in having a low-drop army, leaving the 20 drop armies with a 40% chance of going first instead of 17%."

The ITC has nothing to do with it. GW changed all their missions to be +1 to go first instead of auto go first in chapter aproved.

Which was a direct result of ITC doing it from day one.

However, this format is much better than the original imbalance where low drop armies always went first.

Only the chapter approved missions get the +1 to initiative roll. The official rule that whoever finishes deploying first has the choice to go first or second has not changed.

 p5freak wrote:
Only the chapter approved missions get the +1 to initiative roll. The official rule that whoever finishes deploying first has the choice to go first or second has not changed.

How many competitive tournaments are playing it that way?
If enough of them are, perhaps that's where Triple Vault Deceiver Bomb™ might be able to do well (as with 8 units you'd be more likely be first to finish setting up).

Actually, what were the common TV³DB builds?
I can't remember if they were Outrider or Vanguard based (I don't think you'd be able to fit a Battalion into 2000 points unless you changed one of the Vaults for an Obelisk, and that doesn't seem like a good idea).

 p5freak wrote:

Fragile wrote:
"but part of the problem is the ITC guys removing all the value in having a low-drop army, leaving the 20 drop armies with a 40% chance of going first instead of 17%."

The ITC has nothing to do with it. GW changed all their missions to be +1 to go first instead of auto go first in chapter aproved.

Which was a direct result of ITC doing it from day one.

However, this format is much better than the original imbalance where low drop armies always went first.

Only the chapter approved missions get the +1 to initiative roll. The official rule that whoever finishes deploying first has the choice to go first or second has not changed.

WTF are you talking about? Pretty much no one plays that way. That's just like saying "oh the FAQ says you can't do this, but the official rules say you can so it's k".

 rvd1ofakind wrote:

WTF are you talking about? Pretty much no one plays that way.

Doesnt change the fact that it only applies to chapter approved missions.

 rvd1ofakind wrote:

That's just like saying "oh the FAQ says you can't do this, but the official rules say you can so it's k".

No, its not. FAQs and CA before rules. But in the matched play section of CA there is no mention of this +1 to the initiative roll.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Cheeslord wrote:

The Flamers can deepstrike into shooting range, guaranteeing them first shot (from turn 2 onwards and assuming you can't screen your immortals from every direction - which you are unlikely to do for troops).

Why would I let that unit deepstrike within 12" of my Immortals?

I thought this thread assumed we weren't playing like idiots.

My apologies for wasting your time.

Mark.

 p5freak wrote:

 rvd1ofakind wrote:

WTF are you talking about? Pretty much no one plays that way.

Doesnt change the fact that it only applies to chapter approved missions.

 rvd1ofakind wrote:

That's just like saying "oh the FAQ says you can't do this, but the official rules say you can so it's k".

No, its not. FAQs and CA before rules. But in the matched play section of CA there is no mention of this +1 to the initiative roll.

Yes but the new CA missions are what you should play and what tournaments play. They are basically updated missions. There is no GT/Major tournament that still uses auto go first. In RTTs anything can happen.

 vict0988 wrote:

Raxxamous wrote:
I think Tactical Marines are overcosted as well. People should take intercessors or immortals if they want a troop that can fight and still be a troop. Necrons don't have scouts to make up for their terrible troops though. The problem is cheap troops are so far superior to Tactical Marines equivalent models in a match where anyone can think beyond "wow one space marines can sure beat up a guardsmen". You're honestly just deluding yourself if you think a warrior is worth more than two guardsmen on anything but a straight "can fight" level, which is meaningless as I mentioned before. This is why almost every tournament army is just cheap ass troops and the best units after that.

Tacs have been used in top 3 lists in 8th, intercessors haven't. I never said that a list featuring two big Warriors blobs is going to do well against a Guard list. But I happen to think that a Guardsmen is worth more than 4 pts, what is a Lychguard going to cost in a game where a Guardsman costs 4? 25 pts for a Lychguard? 15? Balance is found in the middle, not at the top. Tac squads are pretty okay and Necron Warriors are pretty okay as well. I think Necron Strats should have been better to reflect the high cost of our detachments and our inability to abuse allies, but that comes back to Guardsmen being OP, but part of the problem is the ITC guys removing all the value in having a low-drop army, leaving the 20 drop armies with a 40% chance of going first instead of 17%.

Guardsmen too few points, or others too many points, its really semantics at that point. We both agree that a points rebalance needs to happen.

Guardsmen are however broken only in context of allies as CP factory. Mono guard are NOT broken. There's reason you don't see mono guards at top tables. So if you just flat nerf guard mono guard is going fast from middle of the pack to bottom of the pack...

tneva82 wrote:
Guardsmen are however broken only in context of allies as CP factory. Mono guard are NOT broken. There's reason you don't see mono guards at top tables. So if you just flat nerf guard mono guard is going fast from middle of the pack to bottom of the pack...

All that GW really needs to do to fix that issue is say that CP can only be used by the detachment that generated them, but the 3 CP from a battleforged list can be used by anyone in the list. Boom. Allies fixed.

tneva82 wrote:
Guardsmen are however broken only in context of allies as CP factory. Mono guard are NOT broken. There's reason you don't see mono guards at top tables. So if you just flat nerf guard mono guard is going fast from middle of the pack to bottom of the pack...

I agree, mono-imperium books are not overwhelmingly good, but they probably won't change allies because it prints money.

The guard problem is really simple.
1) Guard are great
2) Guard have a crapton of CP
3) Guard have mostly hot garbage stratagems

So you just take a faction with good stratagems (which is most other imperium factions) and GG. Which leads to every army being the same: guardmech, space guard, blood guard, dark guard, sister guard, grey guard, custodes guard... Personally, I hate it.

On the topic of the guard cp farm. The ammount of gain is just absurd. I think it might be less a problem if they limited the ammount you can regain to what was spent and put a cap on it so you cant end up with more than the game started with. One of the blood guard guys i played was able to roll an extra dice every time and he ended the game with more cp than he started with and he was burning strats like crazy. Its a little disapointing that we get hyperlogical strategist but i doesnt get the benefit of almost all the other similar traits where we get to roll for opponents strats too.

No. Guard take a trait for their CP and an artifact for their opponent's CP(or vise versa, I can't recall :p). If something works on both - its only on a 6(like admech)

 EnTyme wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Guardsmen are however broken only in context of allies as CP factory. Mono guard are NOT broken. There's reason you don't see mono guards at top tables. So if you just flat nerf guard mono guard is going fast from middle of the pack to bottom of the pack...

All that GW really needs to do to fix that issue is say that CP can only be used by the detachment that generated them, but the 3 CP from a battleforged list can be used by anyone in the list. Boom. Allies fixed.

I like that idea.

(though careful, folks. Venturing into irrelevant discussion territory).