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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
No point as that detachment thing was made illegal with the new codex.

No it wasn't. The veteran intercessor strats were replaced by what is in the codex. You can still use the rest.

The warlord trait would be my guess for why people still use it. If you are running heavy on Intercessors in one detachment it may be worth it.

Huh, I thought the FAQ said it was completely illegal. My apologies for spreading incorrect information.

Yeah the Warlord Trait is tasty. Making your dudes get THAT many benefits is amazing for Intercessors. They're really some of the best troops in the game.

Mainly you are doing it for the warlord trait yeah. It also affects a few other units...for some reason it affects inceptors too. You can pick up ether the CF or Ironhands CT for a turn (if it works the way I think it does as in the get the new chapter tactics it is pretty huge). Ultras using team over watch strat while hitting on 5's with intercessors is massive and you get a 6+ FNP. While the CF ability would be massive for any other intercessors to have for a turn in any army. Basically its 2 CP to give a heavy base of intercessors a big benefit. Could be worth it. I have never done it as 2 CP could probably be used better. I can get a 6+ FNP Aura from an Apoth now for 1 CP...I think that is better.

Nah you don't want Crimson Fists. You're going straight for Iron Hands + Imperial Fists. Ignore Cover? Exploding Hits? 6+++? Better Overwatch?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nah you don't want Crimson Fists. You're going straight for Iron Hands + Imperial Fists. Ignore Cover? Exploding Hits? 6+++? Better Overwatch?

Yeah I meant IF. Used to them having the same tactic.

 Flavius Infernus wrote:

whirlwindstruggle wrote:
Thinking of adding around 500pts of space marines to a custodes army (supported by eversor and 2x dakka armigers). Would you guys have any suggestions to build a bolt on force for ranged anti-infantry?

This is a plug-in detachment used by Mani Cheema at Glasshammer:

Imperial Fists Spearhead
Captain with the Eye of Hypnoth
3 thunderfire cannons
3 whirlwinds with vengeance launchers

More than 500 points, but you can cut back to fewer artillery pieces and it'll still be effective.

-IF means that you ignore cover
-Eye of Hypnoth makes your captain function like a lieutenant too
-Thunderfire cannons kill and/or slow masses of infantry without needing LoS
-Vengeance whirlwinds kill 2-wound models like intercessors, and also are excellent counterbattery fire against the opponent's Thunderfire Cannons
-Indirect fire means you can completely hide the detachment out of LoS, and it doesn't add vulnerability to your list.

Or, an even more powergamery version making the rounds lately:

Iron Hands Spearhead
Chaplain Dread with all lascannons
Mortis Dread with all lascannons
2 Thunderfire Cannons

Use the strat to make the mortis dread a character, and you get two untargetable dreads.

 Flavius Infernus wrote:

 Flavius Infernus wrote:

whirlwindstruggle wrote:
Thinking of adding around 500pts of space marines to a custodes army (supported by eversor and 2x dakka armigers). Would you guys have any suggestions to build a bolt on force for ranged anti-infantry?

This is a plug-in detachment used by Mani Cheema at Glasshammer:

Imperial Fists Spearhead
Captain with the Eye of Hypnoth
3 thunderfire cannons
3 whirlwinds with vengeance launchers

More than 500 points, but you can cut back to fewer artillery pieces and it'll still be effective.

-IF means that you ignore cover
-Eye of Hypnoth makes your captain function like a lieutenant too
-Thunderfire cannons kill and/or slow masses of infantry without needing LoS
-Vengeance whirlwinds kill 2-wound models like intercessors, and also are excellent counterbattery fire against the opponent's Thunderfire Cannons
-Indirect fire means you can completely hide the detachment out of LoS, and it doesn't add vulnerability to your list.

Or, an even more powergamery version making the rounds lately:

Iron Hands Spearhead
Chaplain Dread with all lascannons
Mortis Dread with all lascannons
2 Thunderfire Cannons

Use the strat to make the mortis dread a character, and you get two untargetable dreads.

I disagree it's more power gamey. You're actually worse off since the Custodes are gonna want more of the anti-horde. For that, I would say to lose the Whirlwinds as the TFCs should be enough, and buy Infiltrators to really help with footprint for Custodes.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Flavius Infernus wrote:

 Flavius Infernus wrote:

whirlwindstruggle wrote:
Thinking of adding around 500pts of space marines to a custodes army (supported by eversor and 2x dakka armigers). Would you guys have any suggestions to build a bolt on force for ranged anti-infantry?

This is a plug-in detachment used by Mani Cheema at Glasshammer:

Imperial Fists Spearhead
Captain with the Eye of Hypnoth
3 thunderfire cannons
3 whirlwinds with vengeance launchers

More than 500 points, but you can cut back to fewer artillery pieces and it'll still be effective.

-IF means that you ignore cover
-Eye of Hypnoth makes your captain function like a lieutenant too
-Thunderfire cannons kill and/or slow masses of infantry without needing LoS
-Vengeance whirlwinds kill 2-wound models like intercessors, and also are excellent counterbattery fire against the opponent's Thunderfire Cannons
-Indirect fire means you can completely hide the detachment out of LoS, and it doesn't add vulnerability to your list.

Or, an even more powergamery version making the rounds lately:

Iron Hands Spearhead
Chaplain Dread with all lascannons
Mortis Dread with all lascannons
2 Thunderfire Cannons

Use the strat to make the mortis dread a character, and you get two untargetable dreads.

I disagree it's more power gamey. You're actually worse off since the Custodes are gonna want more of the anti-horde. For that, I would say to lose the Whirlwinds as the TFCs should be enough, and buy Infiltrators to really help with footprint for Custodes.

More or less is debatable. No question that these are both VERY powergamey. Almost to the extent it should be banned lol.

"Playing units from a legal rulebook should be banned".

Xeno starting out 2020 with little change I see.

Sterling191 wrote:
"Playing units from a legal rulebook should be banned".

Xeno starting out 2020 with little change I see.

Ynnari was legal and obviously needed to be changed or banned. This is no different. It's annoying because now I can't play my marines for a different reason. Such a strong stigma of being super OP because of these 2 factions people wont even play against my Ultras if they have a choice.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ynnari was legal and obviously needed to be changed or banned. This is no different. It's annoying because now I can't play my marines for a different reason. Such a strong stigma of being super OP because of these 2 factions people wont even play against my Ultras if they have a choice.

Demonstrate you're not a dick with your lists and people will play you, especially in a casual environment. Its not difficult.

Ultras are still pretty damn strong.

They're not as strong as Iron Hands, for instance, but hell, Space Marines sans supplements STILL blow a lot of Dexes out of the water.

Sterling191 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ynnari was legal and obviously needed to be changed or banned. This is no different. It's annoying because now I can't play my marines for a different reason. Such a strong stigma of being super OP because of these 2 factions people wont even play against my Ultras if they have a choice.

Demonstrate you're not a dick with your lists and people will play you, especially in a casual environment. Its not difficult.

It's not casual to the extent that people are dumbing down their lists against each other - it's just not tournaments. I'd go back to the day of SM being one of the worst armies in an instant compared to this...IF and IH are gamebreaking - realistically I am dumbing down my list already by not playing these OP factions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Ultras are still pretty damn strong.

They're not as strong as Iron Hands, for instance, but hell, Space Marines sans supplements STILL blow a lot of Dexes out of the water.

They are more than capable and as successors with +3" range are QUITE deadly after turn 2 with agressors and bolt rifles. All marines have access to AP-4 lascannons too which RR all hits rr 1's and MOA as well. Tau players and eldar players complaining in game is mainly coming from the ass whoopings they have gotten from IH and IF though. These armies are more than capable of defeating Ultramarines.

Sterling191 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ynnari was legal and obviously needed to be changed or banned. This is no different. It's annoying because now I can't play my marines for a different reason. Such a strong stigma of being super OP because of these 2 factions people wont even play against my Ultras if they have a choice.

Demonstrate you're not a dick with your lists and people will play you, especially in a casual environment. Its not difficult.

So much this. ^

Have people forgotten how to write lists where you don't squeeze the most points efficiency out of every model you possibly can? Take tactical marines in rhinos, take assault marines, take land speeders and standard dreadnoughts. Create your own captain with a weird loadout and a story.

When you stop worrying about writing a list that has the easiest path to victory and start writing lists that give each player a decent chance at victory, you're taking off some pretty damn heavy shackles man. You can have weaknesses. It's okay.

 ultimentra wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ynnari was legal and obviously needed to be changed or banned. This is no different. It's annoying because now I can't play my marines for a different reason. Such a strong stigma of being super OP because of these 2 factions people wont even play against my Ultras if they have a choice.

Demonstrate you're not a dick with your lists and people will play you, especially in a casual environment. Its not difficult.

So much this. ^

Have people forgotten how to write lists where you don't squeeze the most points efficiency out of every model you possibly can? Take tactical marines in rhinos, take assault marines, take land speeders and standard dreadnoughts. Create your own captain with a weird loadout and a story.

When you stop worrying about writing a list that has the easiest path to victory and start writing lists that give each player a decent chance at victory, you're taking off some pretty damn heavy shackles man. You can have weaknesses. It's okay.

The scrub strikes again!

It's a tactics forum. People ask for tactics. Answering questions and sharing ideas should not be construed as an endorsement of one playstyle over another.

(Personally I don't play Iron Hands or Imperial Fists, and I have no desire to do so. I play both competitive and casual styles.)

If we self-censor or discourage each other from sharing information, then the usefulness of the forum is diminished for everyone. Then people stop coming here, and this is how forums die.

 Flavius Infernus wrote:
It's a tactics forum. People ask for tactics. Answering questions and sharing ideas should not be construed as an endorsement of one playstyle over another.

(Personally I don't play Iron Hands or Imperial Fists, and I have no desire to do so. I play both competitive and casual styles.)

If we self-censor or discourage each other from sharing information, then the usefulness of the forum is diminished for everyone. Then people stop coming here, and this is how forums die.

In a tactics thread we discuss the most efficient tactics and units and methods.

Are there any ways you can buff the nummer of wounds a techmarine heals each turn?
Like a relic, artefact of stratagem perhaps?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Flavius Infernus wrote:
It's a tactics forum. People ask for tactics. Answering questions and sharing ideas should not be construed as an endorsement of one playstyle over another.

(Personally I don't play Iron Hands or Imperial Fists, and I have no desire to do so. I play both competitive and casual styles.)

If we self-censor or discourage each other from sharing information, then the usefulness of the forum is diminished for everyone. Then people stop coming here, and this is how forums die.

In a tactics thread we discuss the most efficient tactics and units and methods.

The most efficient tactics and units and methods in what context? Why is it that your context is the only one that is supposedly legitimate?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Flavius Infernus wrote:
It's a tactics forum. People ask for tactics. Answering questions and sharing ideas should not be construed as an endorsement of one playstyle over another.

(Personally I don't play Iron Hands or Imperial Fists, and I have no desire to do so. I play both competitive and casual styles.)

If we self-censor or discourage each other from sharing information, then the usefulness of the forum is diminished for everyone. Then people stop coming here, and this is how forums die.

In a tactics thread we discuss the most efficient tactics and units and methods.

The most efficient tactics and units and methods in what context? Why is it that your context is the only one that is supposedly legitimate?

If the advice is for "casual" there's no point for discussion because casual means you don't actually care whether or not you have a functioning list.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Flavius Infernus wrote:
It's a tactics forum. People ask for tactics. Answering questions and sharing ideas should not be construed as an endorsement of one playstyle over another.

(Personally I don't play Iron Hands or Imperial Fists, and I have no desire to do so. I play both competitive and casual styles.)

If we self-censor or discourage each other from sharing information, then the usefulness of the forum is diminished for everyone. Then people stop coming here, and this is how forums die.

In a tactics thread we discuss the most efficient tactics and units and methods.

The most efficient tactics and units and methods in what context? Why is it that your context is the only one that is supposedly legitimate?

If the advice is for "casual" there's no point for discussion because casual means you don't actually care whether or not you have a functioning list.

No it doesn't. I can set a self-imposed limit to build a specific archetype, knowing full well that it is sub-optimal, and still strive to make it as functional as possible within the given parameters.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Flavius Infernus wrote:
It's a tactics forum. People ask for tactics. Answering questions and sharing ideas should not be construed as an endorsement of one playstyle over another.

(Personally I don't play Iron Hands or Imperial Fists, and I have no desire to do so. I play both competitive and casual styles.)

If we self-censor or discourage each other from sharing information, then the usefulness of the forum is diminished for everyone. Then people stop coming here, and this is how forums die.

In a tactics thread we discuss the most efficient tactics and units and methods.

The most efficient tactics and units and methods in what context? Why is it that your context is the only one that is supposedly legitimate?

If the advice is for "casual" there's no point for discussion because casual means you don't actually care whether or not you have a functioning list.

No it doesn't. I can set a self-imposed limit to build a specific archetype, knowing full well that it is sub-optimal, and still strive to make it as functional as possible within the given parameters.

Your self-imposed rules have nothing to do with the game.

this is a tactics thread, not a list building thread. personally it gets a bit silly when every tactics thread consists of "take X Y and Z"

that's not tactics. these threads would be MUCH more intreasting if someone posted a list and said "ok what can I do to make this perform as well as possiable?"

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Flavius Infernus wrote:
It's a tactics forum. People ask for tactics. Answering questions and sharing ideas should not be construed as an endorsement of one playstyle over another.

(Personally I don't play Iron Hands or Imperial Fists, and I have no desire to do so. I play both competitive and casual styles.)

If we self-censor or discourage each other from sharing information, then the usefulness of the forum is diminished for everyone. Then people stop coming here, and this is how forums die.

In a tactics thread we discuss the most efficient tactics and units and methods.

The most efficient tactics and units and methods in what context? Why is it that your context is the only one that is supposedly legitimate?

If the advice is for "casual" there's no point for discussion because casual means you don't actually care whether or not you have a functioning list.

No it doesn't. I can set a self-imposed limit to build a specific archetype, knowing full well that it is sub-optimal, and still strive to make it as functional as possible within the given parameters.

Your self-imposed rules have nothing to do with the game.

Yes they do. There is more to 40k than just pick-up games with strangers.

Kryddbov wrote:
Are there any ways you can buff the nummer of wounds a techmarine heals each turn?
Like a relic, artefact of stratagem perhaps?

As of Faith and Fury for 1cp you can make a techmarine a master of the forge so he can heal 3 wounds instead of d3. There are also some pretty good warlord traits you can give to buff nearby vehicles

Qyleterys wrote:

Kryddbov wrote:
Are there any ways you can buff the nummer of wounds a techmarine heals each turn?
Like a relic, artefact of stratagem perhaps?

As of Faith and Fury for 1cp you can make a techmarine a master of the forge so he can heal 3 wounds instead of d3. There are also some pretty good warlord traits you can give to buff nearby vehicles

There's also an Iron Hands strat that allows you to repair twice in the same turn, including the same model.

 Flavius Infernus wrote:

Qyleterys wrote:

Kryddbov wrote:
Are there any ways you can buff the nummer of wounds a techmarine heals each turn?
Like a relic, artefact of stratagem perhaps?

As of Faith and Fury for 1cp you can make a techmarine a master of the forge so he can heal 3 wounds instead of d3. There are also some pretty good warlord traits you can give to buff nearby vehicles

There's also an Iron Hands strat that allows you to repair twice in the same turn, including the same model.

Not any more I'm afraid. Was one of the casualties of their FAQ nerf...

 DoomMouse wrote:

 Flavius Infernus wrote:

Qyleterys wrote:

Kryddbov wrote:
Are there any ways you can buff the nummer of wounds a techmarine heals each turn?
Like a relic, artefact of stratagem perhaps?

As of Faith and Fury for 1cp you can make a techmarine a master of the forge so he can heal 3 wounds instead of d3. There are also some pretty good warlord traits you can give to buff nearby vehicles

There's also an Iron Hands strat that allows you to repair twice in the same turn, including the same model.

Not any more I'm afraid. Was one of the casualties of their FAQ nerf...

Which is bizarre as that's not even broken due to most people focus firing to kill something anyway. It was just something people wanted to complain about for the sake of complaining.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Flavius Infernus wrote:
It's a tactics forum. People ask for tactics. Answering questions and sharing ideas should not be construed as an endorsement of one playstyle over another.

(Personally I don't play Iron Hands or Imperial Fists, and I have no desire to do so. I play both competitive and casual styles.)

If we self-censor or discourage each other from sharing information, then the usefulness of the forum is diminished for everyone. Then people stop coming here, and this is how forums die.

In a tactics thread we discuss the most efficient tactics and units and methods.

The most efficient tactics and units and methods in what context? Why is it that your context is the only one that is supposedly legitimate?

If the advice is for "casual" there's no point for discussion because casual means you don't actually care whether or not you have a functioning list.

No it doesn't. I can set a self-imposed limit to build a specific archetype, knowing full well that it is sub-optimal, and still strive to make it as functional as possible within the given parameters.

Your self-imposed rules have nothing to do with the game.

Yes they do. There is more to 40k than just pick-up games with strangers.

Not when it comes to Tactica discussion. Someone saying "Help me but I don't want to do stuff" means they're not really accepting advice they're not ready to hear. Why waste the time to do that here?

If I say "given these circumstances, what advice would you give me?" and your response is "lol your circumstances don't count scrub, git gud" I'm not the one wasting people's time.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If I say "given these circumstances, what advice would you give me?" and your response is "lol your circumstances don't count scrub, git gud" I'm not the one wasting people's time.

They're circumstances that only exist in parameters you created for yourself, ergo they're not real.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If I say "given these circumstances, what advice would you give me?" and your response is "lol your circumstances don't count scrub, git gud" I'm not the one wasting people's time.

They're circumstances that only exist in parameters you created for yourself, ergo they're not real.

Different people play the game for different reasons, and still need help and advice.

“I love unit XX and want to use it, what’s the best way” is a legitimate question deserving of an answer. If you want to preface your answer with “Unit YY does the job better, but if you want to use XX...” that’s fine. Letting people know they are using a sub-optimal choice is OK. Not every list is going to be top-table tournament quality. For many of us, that’s acceptable. I’d rather play with units I love then ones I don’t. I acknowledge that it’s not the “right” call from a pure win/power POV. But odds are, the people I play against are also making similar sacrifices in their lists, so everyone ends up balanced.

"Bin your army/dreams and play the FOTM" is not helpful, even if it might let people win more. They want to win with their army, not some netlist.

BrianDavion wrote:
this is a tactics thread, not a list building thread. personally it gets a bit silly when every tactics thread consists of "take X Y and Z"

that's not tactics. these threads would be MUCH more intreasting if someone posted a list and said "ok what can I do to make this perform as well as possiable?"

This sounds like a great idea to me.

Do you have a list to share?