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.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Am I blind or did that article mention Windrider Hosts, but then immediately show Ork rules instead?

It's just teasing the existence.

They did the same with the broodsurge.

Which is the one I wanna know about.

Gimme gimme the ability to fling hybrids out of my goliaths at speed.

I am awaited in valhalla!

I wonder how many functionality useless CSM special characters we've received in these supplements...instead of a new Abaddon model. No one wants Haarkon the Failure but they'd actually sell Abaddon to most CSM players. He would actually be a danger to Calgar but based on the printed rules he gets completely massacred. Some "WorldClaimer" he is...

the_scotsman wrote:
Gimme gimme the ability to fling hybrids out of my goliaths at speed.

Just apply lascannons liberally. Seems to work.

 Trickstick wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Gimme gimme the ability to fling hybrids out of my goliaths at speed.

Just apply lascannons liberally. Seems to work.

My Goliaths always make their Ruggedness Saves. I've modeled mountain-man beards and painted plaid shirts on all the drivers so now I roll nothing but sixes.

 Carnikang wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
You're missing the nuance of the stratagem, and you're just blindly jumping into "it isn't as good as fighting twice".

That's not what it's about.

You can make tactical choices with those abberants now, and if you can roll well enough on the Ambush table, 2-3 rolls on it for example, and stretch that unit out as to tag a few units who can only shoot, you now make it **Functionally impossible/difficult for them to be slain by shooting, and leaving some armies in TAC lists with only the option to try and charge them, which now you're making a very, very unwise decision.

It's not about overwhelming, it's about control, and that's better.

I think the argument Scotsman and I were backing is it's not OP. I think all of us can agree it's good though. Which is kind of where the argument seems futile. It doesn't matter until we see it all in full.

Every GSC army is likely going to take it though, because it's one of the few good ways for us to access good relics/traits/strategem. At least until January... Hopefully.

See this is where I question your definition of OP. To me, if something is an auto take, then it is OP. This is definitely an auto take on abbs which makes the formation too good. There is literally no draw back to spending the 1CP since even the relic and WLT are good. This is border line OP IMHO, maybe it is a slippery slope fallacy but so far of the 3 formations we have seen it didn't take long for them to escalate. Which was the very valid worry some folks had in regard to bringing formation back. I wish these were for narrative only.

 Red Corsair wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I was hoping that the Wraithost would have been good, I am a bit disappointed. I hope it has some other, better, boosts too. And of course it makes the core problem of the Wraith armies even worse, you need to bring a bunch of boring Guardians or thematically inappropriate Rangers to generate the CP.

yeah, 2cp for a turn of wulfen-ness on a unit of aberrants doesn't seem that crazy. Especially because you can't use it in response to your opponent targetting them, you have to use it before your turn.

"OK, I ambush my unit of aberrants onto the board and attack with them. Now I use the stratagem on them to make them fight when they die."

"Great. I fall back from those aberrants and shoot them."

"Oh."

Reread the stratagem. You use it at the start of the fight phase which is useful with things like the counter offensive Stratagem and multiple combats as well as hitting tougher targets.
I charge a gallant with 5 abberants and pop it off, but get the mileage out of 10 abberants because after I drop it by half it activates and kills the my unit easily so now they all get to beat it to death.

Your making it sound way harder to use then it is.

10 * .5 * .666 * .833 * 3 = 8.3 wounds

I attack with gauntlet and 2 or 3 die.

6 * .5 * .666 * .833 * 3 = 5 wounds

Better hope it's not a hawkshroud gallant you just parked your warlord next to.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Gimme gimme the ability to fling hybrids out of my goliaths at speed.

Just apply lascannons liberally. Seems to work.

My Goliaths always make their Ruggedness Saves. I've modeled mountain-man beards and painted plaid shirts on all the drivers so now I roll nothing but sixes.

Thats hilarious, did you mod the truck so the cab was open or are you talking the gunners? Pics or it didn't happen

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
You're missing the nuance of the stratagem, and you're just blindly jumping into "it isn't as good as fighting twice".

That's not what it's about.

You can make tactical choices with those abberants now, and if you can roll well enough on the Ambush table, 2-3 rolls on it for example, and stretch that unit out as to tag a few units who can only shoot, you now make it **Functionally impossible/difficult for them to be slain by shooting, and leaving some armies in TAC lists with only the option to try and charge them, which now you're making a very, very unwise decision.

It's not about overwhelming, it's about control, and that's better.

I think the argument Scotsman and I were backing is it's not OP. I think all of us can agree it's good though. Which is kind of where the argument seems futile. It doesn't matter until we see it all in full.

Every GSC army is likely going to take it though, because it's one of the few good ways for us to access good relics/traits/strategem. At least until January... Hopefully.

See this is where I question your definition of OP. To me, if something is an auto take, then it is OP. This is definitely an auto take on abbs which makes the formation too good. There is literally no draw back to spending the 1CP since even the relic and WLT are good. This is border line OP IMHO, maybe it is a slippery slope fallacy but so far of the 3 formations we have seen it didn't take long for them to escalate. Which was the very valid worry some folks had in regard to bringing formation back. I wish these were for narrative only.

It's OP then, because we don't have a codex. Let me know when that is out wether or not you are using the relic and warlord trait. Until then, it's probably best to just leave it at that and agree to disagree.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I was hoping that the Wraithost would have been good, I am a bit disappointed. I hope it has some other, better, boosts too. And of course it makes the core problem of the Wraith armies even worse, you need to bring a bunch of boring Guardians or thematically inappropriate Rangers to generate the CP.

yeah, 2cp for a turn of wulfen-ness on a unit of aberrants doesn't seem that crazy. Especially because you can't use it in response to your opponent targetting them, you have to use it before your turn.

"OK, I ambush my unit of aberrants onto the board and attack with them. Now I use the stratagem on them to make them fight when they die."

"Great. I fall back from those aberrants and shoot them."

"Oh."

Reread the stratagem. You use it at the start of the fight phase which is useful with things like the counter offensive Stratagem and multiple combats as well as hitting tougher targets.
I charge a gallant with 5 abberants and pop it off, but get the mileage out of 10 abberants because after I drop it by half it activates and kills the my unit easily so now they all get to beat it to death.

Your making it sound way harder to use then it is.

10 * .5 * .666 * .833 * 3 = 8.3 wounds

I attack with gauntlet and 2 or 3 die.

6 * .5 * .666 * .833 * 3 = 5 wounds

Better hope it's not a hawkshroud gallant you just parked your warlord next to.

You think 2-3 will die from a gallant? I wish. 10/1 it has the banner. Even if it doesn't your looking at more likely 4. You also forgot the exploding 6's on the abbs attacks or the +1 to hit, they are going to have at least one or the other if not both.

 Kirasu wrote:
I wonder how many functionality useless CSM special characters we've received in these supplements...instead of a new Abaddon model. No one wants Haarkon the Failure but they'd actually sell Abaddon to most CSM players. He would actually be a danger to Calgar but based on the printed rules he gets completely massacred. Some "WorldClaimer" he is...

Once again...
We. Don't. Have. All. The. Information. For. Haarkon.

 Virules wrote:
New White Dwarf says new datasheet for Horrors?

A tweak to the Ephemeral Daemons rule, so that Pink Horrors can benefit from Warp Surge again, hopefully? An adjustment to the Split rule or Blue Horrors so that they actually serve a purpose would be nice, but probably expecting too much. The cynic in me fears that it'll just be a price hike on Brimstone Horrors that they forgot to include in CA.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
I wonder how many functionality useless CSM special characters we've received in these supplements...instead of a new Abaddon model. No one wants Haarkon the Failure but they'd actually sell Abaddon to most CSM players. He would actually be a danger to Calgar but based on the printed rules he gets completely massacred. Some "WorldClaimer" he is...

Once again...
We. Don't. Have. All. The. Information. For. Haarkon.

Sure, but a 120 pt model shouldn't have a chance against a 200 pt model. So assuming they didn't royally feth it up he won't be a good match for Calgar, which narratively is lame. I also wish they had made Abbadon. It's becoming a bad meme at this point. He should have been in the gathering storm and he didn't appear, I honestly wouldn't be shocked if he didn't appear in this campaign either. (by appear I mean get a new model that doesn't suck)

 Red Corsair wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
I wonder how many functionality useless CSM special characters we've received in these supplements...instead of a new Abaddon model. No one wants Haarkon the Failure but they'd actually sell Abaddon to most CSM players. He would actually be a danger to Calgar but based on the printed rules he gets completely massacred. Some "WorldClaimer" he is...

Once again...
We. Don't. Have. All. The. Information. For. Haarkon.

Sure, but a 120 pt model shouldn't have a chance against a 200 pt model. So assuming they didn't royally feth it up he won't be a good match for Calgar, which narratively is lame. I also wish they had made Abbadon. It's becoming a bad meme at this point. He should have been in the gathering storm and he didn't appear, I honestly wouldn't be shocked if he didn't appear in this campaign either. (by appear I mean get a new model that doesn't suck)

Narratively, the Swarmlord gets his ass kicked in a lot. Narrative is super inconsistent and you know that.

Sure we can expect a 120 point model to likely not go toe-to-toe with Calgar. However, to say Haarkon sucks is literal ignorance because we only have some tidbits about him.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
I wonder how many functionality useless CSM special characters we've received in these supplements...instead of a new Abaddon model. No one wants Haarkon the Failure but they'd actually sell Abaddon to most CSM players. He would actually be a danger to Calgar but based on the printed rules he gets completely massacred. Some "WorldClaimer" he is...

Once again...
We. Don't. Have. All. The. Information. For. Haarkon.

Thank you! I've been saying this for days now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Red Corsair wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
I wonder how many functionality useless CSM special characters we've received in these supplements...instead of a new Abaddon model. No one wants Haarkon the Failure but they'd actually sell Abaddon to most CSM players. He would actually be a danger to Calgar but based on the printed rules he gets completely massacred. Some "WorldClaimer" he is...

Once again...
We. Don't. Have. All. The. Information. For. Haarkon.

Sure, but a 120 pt model shouldn't have a chance against a 200 pt model. So assuming they didn't royally feth it up he won't be a good match for Calgar, which narratively is lame. I also wish they had made Abbadon. It's becoming a bad meme at this point. He should have been in the gathering storm and he didn't appear, I honestly wouldn't be shocked if he didn't appear in this campaign either. (by appear I mean get a new model that doesn't suck)

But why should he? A lot of people have this idea that certain models need to be able to solo duel each other. But why?

Haarkon vs Calgar might not end up well for Haarkon. But Harkon + 5 Warp Tallons vs. Calgar, makes for not only a very narrative little scene, but a serious threat to Calgar.

 Trickstick wrote:

Lemondish wrote:
Black Crazies, Space Pups, and Vampire Angels won't gain a benefit to their vehicles, which is fine - infantry slashy dudes after all.

Why wouldn't the Black Templar tactic help vehicles? Sometimes tanks want to charge, and dreads definitely do.

Dreads already get Chapter Tactics, no?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Dreads already get Chapter Tactics, no?

Yeah, my mistake.

 Red Corsair wrote:

See this is where I question your definition of OP. To me, if something is an auto take, then it is OP. This is definitely an auto take on abbs which makes the formation too good. There is literally no draw back to spending the 1CP since even the relic and WLT are good. This is border line OP IMHO, maybe it is a slippery slope fallacy but so far of the 3 formations we have seen it didn't take long for them to escalate. Which was the very valid worry some folks had in regard to bringing formation back. I wish these were for narrative only.

Hmm, I wonder why that is. Could it be because there's no alternatives since the codex isn't out yet?

Let's keep the hyperbolic bs to a minimum, especially for Index only forces, eh?

 Galef wrote:
Am I blind or did that article mention Windrider Hosts, but then immediately show Ork rules instead?

We saw the Windrider Host on Monday so why would they show it again?

Lemondish wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

See this is where I question your definition of OP. To me, if something is an auto take, then it is OP. This is definitely an auto take on abbs which makes the formation too good. There is literally no draw back to spending the 1CP since even the relic and WLT are good. This is border line OP IMHO, maybe it is a slippery slope fallacy but so far of the 3 formations we have seen it didn't take long for them to escalate. Which was the very valid worry some folks had in regard to bringing formation back. I wish these were for narrative only.

Hmm, I wonder why that is. Could it be because there's no alternatives since the codex isn't out yet?

Let's keep the hyperbolic bs to a minimum, especially for Index only forces, eh?

To be honest I think Red Corsair's definition is a good one. If you've got an option that's so good you'd always do it, then it's probably OP. It may not be game-breaking, but basically by definition it's too good for what you're paying.

Mandragola wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

See this is where I question your definition of OP. To me, if something is an auto take, then it is OP. This is definitely an auto take on abbs which makes the formation too good. There is literally no draw back to spending the 1CP since even the relic and WLT are good. This is border line OP IMHO, maybe it is a slippery slope fallacy but so far of the 3 formations we have seen it didn't take long for them to escalate. Which was the very valid worry some folks had in regard to bringing formation back. I wish these were for narrative only.

Hmm, I wonder why that is. Could it be because there's no alternatives since the codex isn't out yet?

Let's keep the hyperbolic bs to a minimum, especially for Index only forces, eh?

To be honest I think Red Corsair's definition is a good one. If you've got an option that's so good you'd always do it, then it's probably OP. It may not be game-breaking, but basically by definition it's too good for what you're paying.

Or the other options are so underwhelming, that they are not worth considering. Or that option fills a hole in your force that nothing else can fill.

As mentioned above, GW don't understand the problems with detachments like wraith hosts. They don't generate CPs so now I have to spend a CP just to get this bonus when they are already starved for CPs or need to buy guardians/rangers to get access.

 bullyboy wrote:
As mentioned above, GW don't understand the problems with detachments like wraith hosts. They don't generate CPs so now I have to spend a CP just to get this bonus when they are already starved for CPs or need to buy guardians/rangers to get access.

I think they understand it perfectly fine. CP are a resource, or they are supposed to be, but due to soup making some factions have more access to CP than expected...

What should it cost, in your opinion? Points? Slots? Nothing? Right now, it costs either the CP getting the Vanguard Detachment for Wraiths would provide you... or it costs guardian/ranger points taxes... which you were bringing anyways because +5 CP is really strong.

I'm kinda looking forward to dropping in a Vanguard Detachment from Iyanden, making it a Wraith host detachment, and seeing what I can do with it. 5-10 Wraithblades popping out of Wave Serpents with a Spiritseer totting around that Psytronome or whatever it is... it seems like it could be strong. Keep a Wraithknight around just to have the threat of that guy getting the Psytronome buff, as well, and you can probably control a pretty big area. Plop a Farseer into the mix, and you should be able to move up the table with some durable units (Wave Serpents and a melee Knight), and reasonably push back opposition. Which should allow for more fragile units (those poor tax units that you're forced to bring for CP) to control objectives to go towards the long-term goal of winning the game. Especially with the implementation of Acceptable Losses, or whatever the thing's name that stops Sudden Death.

Mandragola wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

See this is where I question your definition of OP. To me, if something is an auto take, then it is OP. This is definitely an auto take on abbs which makes the formation too good. There is literally no draw back to spending the 1CP since even the relic and WLT are good. This is border line OP IMHO, maybe it is a slippery slope fallacy but so far of the 3 formations we have seen it didn't take long for them to escalate. Which was the very valid worry some folks had in regard to bringing formation back. I wish these were for narrative only.

Hmm, I wonder why that is. Could it be because there's no alternatives since the codex isn't out yet?

Let's keep the hyperbolic bs to a minimum, especially for Index only forces, eh?

To be honest I think Red Corsair's definition is a good one. If you've got an option that's so good you'd always do it, then it's probably OP. It may not be game-breaking, but basically by definition it's too good for what you're paying.

Not necessarily. What if it's an auto include not because it is good, but because every other option is worse? What if an option is an auto-include because it's a per-requisite to a wider strategy or build that isn't overpowered? Drop pods are auto include in a drop pod assault lists. And those are not good. Or you could have a unit that is auto include because it's a good counter to common enemy army types. Or you could have a unit that's auto include because it is good, but it's not overpowered because it isn't better than your opponents equivalent.

Overpowered means it has more power than it should. There's plenty of room for a unit to be powerful, but not more powerful than it should be. And of course people are going to take powerful units.

Purifying Tempest wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
As mentioned above, GW don't understand the problems with detachments like wraith hosts. They don't generate CPs so now I have to spend a CP just to get this bonus when they are already starved for CPs or need to buy guardians/rangers to get access.

I think they understand it perfectly fine. CP are a resource, or they are supposed to be, but due to soup making some factions have more access to CP than expected...

What should it cost, in your opinion? Points? Slots? Nothing? Right now, it costs either the CP getting the Vanguard Detachment for Wraiths would provide you... or it costs guardian/ranger points taxes... which you were bringing anyways because +5 CP is really strong.

I'm kinda looking forward to dropping in a Vanguard Detachment from Iyanden, making it a Wraith host detachment, and seeing what I can do with it. 5-10 Wraithblades popping out of Wave Serpents with a Spiritseer totting around that Psytronome or whatever it is... it seems like it could be strong. Keep a Wraithknight around just to have the threat of that guy getting the Psytronome buff, as well, and you can probably control a pretty big area. Plop a Farseer into the mix, and you should be able to move up the table with some durable units (Wave Serpents and a melee Knight), and reasonably push back opposition. Which should allow for more fragile units (those poor tax units that you're forced to bring for CP) to control objectives to go towards the long-term goal of winning the game. Especially with the implementation of Acceptable Losses, or whatever the thing's name that stops Sudden Death.

I'm, personally, Glad GSC can ally Guardsmen (albeit worse ones) because adding a Brood Brothers Battalion so my Anointed One Vanguard so be made and use it's special strat twice seems like a great trade off. :^)

Mandragola wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

See this is where I question your definition of OP. To me, if something is an auto take, then it is OP. This is definitely an auto take on abbs which makes the formation too good. There is literally no draw back to spending the 1CP since even the relic and WLT are good. This is border line OP IMHO, maybe it is a slippery slope fallacy but so far of the 3 formations we have seen it didn't take long for them to escalate. Which was the very valid worry some folks had in regard to bringing formation back. I wish these were for narrative only.

Hmm, I wonder why that is. Could it be because there's no alternatives since the codex isn't out yet?

Let's keep the hyperbolic bs to a minimum, especially for Index only forces, eh?

To be honest I think Red Corsair's definition is a good one. If you've got an option that's so good you'd always do it, then it's probably OP. It may not be game-breaking, but basically by definition it's too good for what you're paying.

Yeah, like how amazing space marine scouts are, or Necron Warriors, or Tau Cadre Fireblades. All those options that are auto-includes so they're definitely OP.

This detachment is only "so good you'd be dumb not to" because GSC have tons of CP and all of 1 good stratagem to spend them on. This ups that to 2 good stratagems. Also, we have no idea what the deliverance broodsurge is, so it could be an alternative if the stuff in that is good as well.

Mandragola wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

See this is where I question your definition of OP. To me, if something is an auto take, then it is OP. This is definitely an auto take on abbs which makes the formation too good. There is literally no draw back to spending the 1CP since even the relic and WLT are good. This is border line OP IMHO, maybe it is a slippery slope fallacy but so far of the 3 formations we have seen it didn't take long for them to escalate. Which was the very valid worry some folks had in regard to bringing formation back. I wish these were for narrative only.

Hmm, I wonder why that is. Could it be because there's no alternatives since the codex isn't out yet?

Let's keep the hyperbolic bs to a minimum, especially for Index only forces, eh?

To be honest I think Red Corsair's definition is a good one. If you've got an option that's so good you'd always do it, then it's probably OP. It may not be game-breaking, but basically by definition it's too good for what you're paying.

We have threer options with what info we know. Those being

1. Take Throng and all additional gubbins that come with it, perhaps the Banner from CA 2017 for +1 strength to infantry. Build around it.
2. Dont, instead use the CA 2017 Warlord trait (Infantry can intervene in combat within 6" of warlord), maybe take the relic from there as well, build something else.
3. ??? Unknown Flotilla Special Detachment ???

So it's either build with Throng and be pretty beat-stick, let the stars align with dice rolls and mitigation of those, or... Settle for a lacklustre warlord trait, and don't focus on buffing your Abberants and Abominant to all hell.

Not going to lie, tooth and claw made them the new workhorses of almost everyone of my GSC list. They're good, and not taking Throng even in a narrative/relaxed environment is gimping yourself. Maybe that won't be the case when the codex comes out. There really should be more choice to it, but that is the nature of being Index still.

 Carnikang wrote:

Mandragola wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

See this is where I question your definition of OP. To me, if something is an auto take, then it is OP. This is definitely an auto take on abbs which makes the formation too good. There is literally no draw back to spending the 1CP since even the relic and WLT are good. This is border line OP IMHO, maybe it is a slippery slope fallacy but so far of the 3 formations we have seen it didn't take long for them to escalate. Which was the very valid worry some folks had in regard to bringing formation back. I wish these were for narrative only.

Hmm, I wonder why that is. Could it be because there's no alternatives since the codex isn't out yet?

Let's keep the hyperbolic bs to a minimum, especially for Index only forces, eh?

To be honest I think Red Corsair's definition is a good one. If you've got an option that's so good you'd always do it, then it's probably OP. It may not be game-breaking, but basically by definition it's too good for what you're paying.

We have threer options with what info we know. Those being

1. Take Throng and all additional gubbins that come with it, perhaps the Banner from CA 2017 for +1 strength to infantry. Build around it.
2. Dont, instead use the CA 2017 Warlord trait (Infantry can intervene in combat within 6" of warlord), maybe take the relic from there as well, build something else.
3. ??? Unknown Flotilla Special Detachment ???

So it's either build with Throng and be pretty beat-stick, let the stars align with dice rolls and mitigation of those, or... Settle for a lacklustre warlord trait, and don't focus on buffing your Abberants and Abominant to all hell.

Not going to lie, tooth and claw made them the new workhorses of almost everyone of my GSC list. They're good, and not taking Throng even in a narrative/relaxed environment is gimping yourself. Maybe that won't be the case when the codex comes out. There really should be more choice to it, but that is the nature of being Index still.

I have a hard time seeing people easily give up #6 for a single gambit with aberrants.

Those were confirmed fake, no?

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Those were confirmed fake, no?

Not that I saw, but it's possible as it's just a fancier rumor. Still - the book will have 6 traits at least, so, odds are this aberrant thing is not as simple as it seems.

Alien Majesty would easily be a runner up for the best Warlord trait though.