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.

ERJAK wrote:

It's boring because you just spiderweb out onto objectives and then pass turns until the game's over. You're not going to kill but maybe 500pts of your opponent's army and their turns are so irrelevant that you honestly don't even need to stick around for them. Also, just because a castle takes up 3/4ths of the board doesn't make it not a castle.

I dont know man, waiting 2 hours because you tabled the other guy in one turn is boring for me


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MacPhail wrote:

I guess it's more that we'll want one somewhere... I was thinking one in the rear could modify middling MDs into something worth using on early damage, saving actual MD 5s and 6s for the forward elements later in the game. But I don't have my head around quite how fast they'll come and go...

Yeah me neither, I feel like if you are paying attention to all conditions, using your stratagem to gain more of them when your suicide canonesses die, ect. ect. you should be swimming in them, but turn 1-2 when you need them the most, you won't have many

 Grundz wrote:
Yeah me neither, I feel like if you are paying attention to all conditions, using your stratagem to gain more of them when your suicide canonesses die, ect. ect. you should be swimming in them, but turn 1-2 when you need them the most, you won't have many

Yeah, T1 going first you could have 4, but that's with Triumph, Sanctum, and Beacon of Faith... Quite the investment! That said, Beacon for 2 and the Sanctum for 3 isn't actually very punishing, and on T1 how many rolls will you need the dice for? One or two damage rolls from Exorcist and a SimImp Retributor or Dominion squad, and then maybe an armour save on your opponents' turn.

I think if you lean into MD at all you'll end up with a lot of them, which makes Ebon Chalice seem more appealing

Rynner wrote:
I'm going to try it but I'm personally having a hard time justifying taking Exorcists with the Marine Meta and their points hike. If Marines get toned down in CA then I could see them being worth more. I'm also having a hard time justifying Repetina and Flagents (both of which look amazing) because they need a ride. Taking 1-2 Rhinos and the rest just infantry is also an awful idea.

I think you right on the 2+ cover save vs most things. It's just miserable and boring to play. At least it will be cheaper to build than it was in all pewter?

Yes 1-2 rhinos full of melee death squads are guna get blasted off the board because they are a obvious target. Which is why you need saturation when you take melee, those rhinos become much less of a obvious target when theres like 4+ Mortifiers/engines running up next to them. If 1-2 squads of repentia/arcos is all the melee you have it’s probably better used defensively.

The problem with Mortifers is that they don't get to ignore -2 ap. They will just get shot off the board. Your better off just taking a large squad of HB retributors and backing them with bloody rose Zeraphim.

Rynner wrote:
The problem with Mortifers is that they don't get to ignore -2 ap. They will just get shot off the board. Your better off just taking a large squad of HB retributors and backing them with bloody rose Zeraphim.

I mean somthing is guna get shot off the board, the point is to make it so somthing will get into melee. If they take out the rhino with repentia theres still Mortifiers running at them, if they take out the Mortifiers theres still Repentia.

Rynner wrote:
The problem with Mortifers is that they don't get to ignore -2 ap. They will just get shot off the board. Your better off just taking a large squad of HB retributors and backing them with bloody rose Zeraphim.

Every time ive run pen engines i've been surprised with how resilient they are in practice, I dont see mortifiers as that different, they aren't for sitting back and shooting they are for taking pot shots with assault heavy bolters as they bear down on the enemy

 Grundz wrote:

Rynner wrote:
The problem with Mortifers is that they don't get to ignore -2 ap. They will just get shot off the board. Your better off just taking a large squad of HB retributors and backing them with bloody rose Zeraphim.

Every time ive run pen engines i've been surprised with how resilient they are in practice, I dont see mortifiers as that different, they aren't for sitting back and shooting they are for taking pot shots with assault heavy bolters as they bear down on the enemy

they are also nearly half the pts cost as they used to be

Danit wrote:

 Grundz wrote:

Rynner wrote:
The problem with Mortifers is that they don't get to ignore -2 ap. They will just get shot off the board. Your better off just taking a large squad of HB retributors and backing them with bloody rose Zeraphim.

Every time ive run pen engines i've been surprised with how resilient they are in practice, I dont see mortifiers as that different, they aren't for sitting back and shooting they are for taking pot shots with assault heavy bolters as they bear down on the enemy

they are also nearly half the pts cost as they used to be

5x T5 wounds with a 4+ isn't exactly paper thin for a 56 point model

not to just echo everyone else here, but it really sounds like either flooding our opponents with targets or turtling up is the best way to go here.

.. i guess its time to plan a flood, because there no way my list could handle the turtling, and im just not going for bloody rose or Valourous heart unless i truly must.

i had a feeling the adjustments to pengines along with the new one would make them more ideal for the new lists, even without the overlapping synergies the other models get.

Bdrone wrote:
not to just echo everyone else here, but it really sounds like either flooding our opponents with targets or turtling up is the best way to go here.

.. i guess its time to plan a flood, because there no way my list could handle the turtling, and im just not going for bloody rose or Valourous heart unless i truly must.

i had a feeling the adjustments to pengines along with the new one would make them more ideal for the new lists, even without the overlapping synergies the other models get.

I feel like argent shroud, the full army advancing down the field while firing is possibly goodish as you aren't giving up really any firepower, but you need to be sure you have enough mortifiers/pen engines/whoopings left when you get there will require experimenting with mixing the cc options up and what weapons you get the most mileage out of

Rynner wrote:
The problem with Mortifers is that they don't get to ignore -2 ap. They will just get shot off the board. Your better off just taking a large squad of HB retributors and backing them with bloody rose Zeraphim.

10 retributors with simulacrum and 4 HB is 145pts.
10 Zephyrim is 170pts total is 315. Also they'd don't ignore AP-2

All told that's 31 melee attacks, 12 HB shots, and 6 bolter shots.

3 Moritfiers with HB and Flails is 185pts.

That's 45 melee attacks and 18 heavy bolter shots.

It all comes down to whether the additional defenses of the rets+zeph combo makes up for their tragically inefficient output.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, anyone else looking at the point changes in CA and feelin a bit put out that they A. Went so incredibly conservative with the power of the SoB book and B. Ended up releasing us at a time where we're stuck with what we've got for a year?

ERJAK wrote:

Rynner wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, anyone else looking at the point changes in CA and feelin a bit put out that they A. Went so incredibly conservative with the power of the SoB book and B. Ended up releasing us at a time where we're stuck with what we've got for a year?

Not really since it means we have a year to try stuff out. Despite your concerns theres always the chance that some janky build could win a tournament with exorcist spam (HYPOTHETICALLY, just stop that rant before it starts) and they could over-nerf exorcists by sticking 50pts onto them as a kneejerk reaction, then we're stuck with actually over-costed exorcists for a year.

 Sim-Life wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Rynner wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, anyone else looking at the point changes in CA and feelin a bit put out that they A. Went so incredibly conservative with the power of the SoB book and B. Ended up releasing us at a time where we're stuck with what we've got for a year?

Not really since it means we have a year to try stuff out. Despite your concerns theres always the chance that some janky build could win a tournament with exorcist spam (HYPOTHETICALLY, just stop that rant before it starts) and they could over-nerf exorcists by sticking 50pts onto them as a kneejerk reaction, then we're stuck with actually over-costed exorcists for a year.

Ya it prevents a knee-jerk reaction and at the end of the day its way better than what we had in the beta codex.

I'm thinking the battle sanctum is going to be an auto-include. I hope it's big enough to grant cover to 3 exorcists.

 deviantduck wrote:
I'm thinking the battle sanctum is going to be an auto-include. I hope it's big enough to grant cover to 3 exorcists.

I just can't wait to see what it looks like.

I've picked up the sisters box on pre order and am really excited about the beautiful new models. The rules don't seem overly incredible however when you put them next to things like marines etc

It seems the strength of the sisters is to throw everything forward and flood the enemy with masses of flamer shots and then follow up with glass cannon melee units. I'm used to sitting back and peppering the enemy to death with my Crimson fists so playing with sisters is going to be a big challenge!

So, I haven't played since previous editions. Can I now have multiple Orders in the same detachment or is your ability to mix and match them going to be limited by the detachment limits?

One order per detachment, but multiple detachments in an army. 2 detachments in 2000 points isn't hard to pull off.

The bigger the sanctum the $ it is, so i actually hope that it is something rhino sized.

Plus, big fortifications can be hard to actually place on the field, so being too big is an issue.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Plus, big fortifications can be hard to actually place on the field, so being too big is an issue.

That's a good point.

I just want it to be glorious.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Plus, big fortifications can be hard to actually place on the field, so being too big is an issue.

Terrain rules have always been interesting when it comes to fortifications. I know why but... it's why I thin you dont see more of them. Just too big a hassle for the return.

Mavnas wrote:
So, I haven't played since previous editions. Can I now have multiple Orders in the same detachment or is your ability to mix and match them going to be limited by the detachment limits?

Unless you're playing in a tournament there are no detachment limits. Its like the "Rule" of 3. Its a suggestion competitive types take as gospel then spread as misinformation.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Mavnas wrote:
So, I haven't played since previous editions. Can I now have multiple Orders in the same detachment or is your ability to mix and match them going to be limited by the detachment limits?

Unless you're playing in a tournament there are no detachment limits. Its like the "Rule" of 3. Its a suggestion competitive types take as gospel then spread as misinformation.

It's a rule suggestion from GW for organised events. If you're making such events you're free to include them in your games.
Unfortunately, these are such bad suggestions that a lot of people not playing in tournaments are also using them.

Without the detachment limit nor "the rule of 3", the game allows you to make an army entirely comprised of canoness for exemple (with +1CP per 3 canoness), even in matched play.

And to be clear, I don't imply it would be extremely strong but rather that it is extremely absurd.

dhallnet wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Mavnas wrote:
So, I haven't played since previous editions. Can I now have multiple Orders in the same detachment or is your ability to mix and match them going to be limited by the detachment limits?

Unless you're playing in a tournament there are no detachment limits. Its like the "Rule" of 3. Its a suggestion competitive types take as gospel then spread as misinformation.

It's a rule suggestion from GW for organised events. If you're making such events you're free to include them in your games.
Unfortunately, these are such bad suggestions that a lot of people not playing in tournaments are also using them.

Without the detachment limit nor "the rule of 3", the game allows you to make an army entirely comprised of canoness for exemple (with +1CP per 3 canoness), even in matched play.

And to be clear, I don't imply it would be extremely strong but rather that it is extremely absurd.

But that only applies if your local group is a giant pile of douchenozzles. A lot of people just play with friends who aren't idiots.

 Sim-Life wrote:

dhallnet wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Mavnas wrote:
So, I haven't played since previous editions. Can I now have multiple Orders in the same detachment or is your ability to mix and match them going to be limited by the detachment limits?

Unless you're playing in a tournament there are no detachment limits. Its like the "Rule" of 3. Its a suggestion competitive types take as gospel then spread as misinformation.

It's a rule suggestion from GW for organised events. If you're making such events you're free to include them in your games.
Unfortunately, these are such bad suggestions that a lot of people not playing in tournaments are also using them.

Without the detachment limit nor "the rule of 3", the game allows you to make an army entirely comprised of canoness for exemple (with +1CP per 3 canoness), even in matched play.

And to be clear, I don't imply it would be extremely strong but rather that it is extremely absurd.

But that only applies if your local group is a giant pile of douchenozzles. A lot of people just play with friends who aren't idiots.

A lot of people have a lot of different views on a lot of different things. That's why there are rules.

 Sim-Life wrote:

dhallnet wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Mavnas wrote:
So, I haven't played since previous editions. Can I now have multiple Orders in the same detachment or is your ability to mix and match them going to be limited by the detachment limits?

Unless you're playing in a tournament there are no detachment limits. Its like the "Rule" of 3. Its a suggestion competitive types take as gospel then spread as misinformation.

It's a rule suggestion from GW for organised events. If you're making such events you're free to include them in your games.
Unfortunately, these are such bad suggestions that a lot of people not playing in tournaments are also using them.

Without the detachment limit nor "the rule of 3", the game allows you to make an army entirely comprised of canoness for exemple (with +1CP per 3 canoness), even in matched play.

And to be clear, I don't imply it would be extremely strong but rather that it is extremely absurd.

But that only applies if your local group is a giant pile of douchenozzles. A lot of people just play with friends who aren't idiots.

Many groups use it and aren't 'giant piles of douchenozzles'. These people are even friends, and not idiots.

So anyway, I'm picturing something slightly smaller than a bastion, with multiple floors, that looks like a church apse.

But my money is it looks like the one in the background of this image:

 Sim-Life wrote:

dhallnet wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Mavnas wrote:
So, I haven't played since previous editions. Can I now have multiple Orders in the same detachment or is your ability to mix and match them going to be limited by the detachment limits?

Unless you're playing in a tournament there are no detachment limits. Its like the "Rule" of 3. Its a suggestion competitive types take as gospel then spread as misinformation.

It's a rule suggestion from GW for organised events. If you're making such events you're free to include them in your games.
Unfortunately, these are such bad suggestions that a lot of people not playing in tournaments are also using them.

Without the detachment limit nor "the rule of 3", the game allows you to make an army entirely comprised of canoness for exemple (with +1CP per 3 canoness), even in matched play.

And to be clear, I don't imply it would be extremely strong but rather that it is extremely absurd.

But that only applies if your local group is a giant pile of douchenozzles. A lot of people just play with friends who aren't idiots.

eh...

 Sim-Life wrote:

dhallnet wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Mavnas wrote:
So, I haven't played since previous editions. Can I now have multiple Orders in the same detachment or is your ability to mix and match them going to be limited by the detachment limits?

Unless you're playing in a tournament there are no detachment limits. Its like the "Rule" of 3. Its a suggestion competitive types take as gospel then spread as misinformation.

It's a rule suggestion from GW for organised events. If you're making such events you're free to include them in your games.
Unfortunately, these are such bad suggestions that a lot of people not playing in tournaments are also using them.

Without the detachment limit nor "the rule of 3", the game allows you to make an army entirely comprised of canoness for exemple (with +1CP per 3 canoness), even in matched play.

And to be clear, I don't imply it would be extremely strong but rather that it is extremely absurd.

But that only applies if your local group is a giant pile of douchenozzles. A lot of people just play with friends who aren't idiots.

Okay, so I'm torn between my hatred of the rule of 3 (a lazy patchjob GW gakked out to avoid actually balancing units within a codex) and my problem with people who don't realize that the vast majority of people don't play 40k in a tiny little circle-jerk where they can just make up rules whenever they want, and thus require an accepted baseline in order to communicate and set up games effectively.

I also hate the idea that playing an efficient army (or even just a nonsensical army ala 40 canonesses)is automatically 'douchenozzle' just because it doesn't fit someone's preconceived and totally arbitrary notion of what the game 'should' be. The game is what it is, if the rules let you do something then it's part of the game. Sorry that it doesn't conform to some sub-header in a dubiously canon black library book you listened to on your way to family vacation in Boca 8 years ago, but it's fun and it's legal so get off your high horse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rogerio134134 wrote:
I've picked up the sisters box on pre order and am really excited about the beautiful new models. The rules don't seem overly incredible however when you put them next to things like marines etc

It seems the strength of the sisters is to throw everything forward and flood the enemy with masses of flamer shots and then follow up with glass cannon melee units. I'm used to sitting back and peppering the enemy to death with my Crimson fists so playing with sisters is going to be a big challenge!

For your own sake, heavy flamers. Regular flamers are worse than stormbolters in 80% of cases.