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.

 Xenomancers wrote:
The argument is pretty weak there. What allows you to deploy a unit normally?

Rules Lawyer's gone be Rules Lawyer's, I'd rather not have to deal with them but sometimes you stumble across them.

Azeroth wrote:
I just bought and assembled one of the warsuits and my only beef with them is that you have to choose which main weapon to build. They don't give you two of the elbow joints (like in the redemptor) so that you can change out the main weapon. Trying to rig something up is much more difficult. I'm not sure if GW thinks that people are really going to buy so many of these that they would buy 2 just so they can use each main weapon.

I built the flame weapon just because I really don't see myself ever use the long range one (just seems if I wanted a long range weapon on a dred that there are better options).

Other than the roll cage being extremely impractical on a dred, the model looks really good.

Hold up.

So you can't friction fit either of the main weapons like on the redemptor?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
The argument is pretty weak there. What allows you to deploy a unit normally?

What even is deployment? How can anything infiltrate at all?

 fraser1191 wrote:

Azeroth wrote:
I just bought and assembled one of the warsuits and my only beef with them is that you have to choose which main weapon to build. They don't give you two of the elbow joints (like in the redemptor) so that you can change out the main weapon. Trying to rig something up is much more difficult. I'm not sure if GW thinks that people are really going to buy so many of these that they would buy 2 just so they can use each main weapon.

I built the flame weapon just because I really don't see myself ever use the long range one (just seems if I wanted a long range weapon on a dred that there are better options).

Other than the roll cage being extremely impractical on a dred, the model looks really good.

Hold up.

So you can't friction fit either of the main weapons like on the redemptor?

I also picked one up myself so I can confirm the kit only comes with one "elbow joint".

 Tamwulf wrote:


As to the original question, "What's the point of dreadnoughts?", the biggest thing in my mind is the damage tracks. A Dreadnought does not degrade as it takes damage. It's always 6" MV, BS/WS 2+ or 3+ which is huge when you have a model armed with a bunch of heavy weapons. Why, oh why, GW does a Dreadnought NOT ignore the -1 to hit penalty for moving and shooting a heavy weapon?

Mine do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

Just a quick heads up before you go buying 3 of these, some people are claiming that the redeploy has to be within your deployment zone, why I don't understand but they claim you can deploy forward them redeploy to your deployment zone but not the other way around. Don't know why but be aware that somepeople have read this very strangely

I was buying three to have three anyway. Might as well assemble and paint assembly line style. Painting multiples of the same model makes it harder to miss a spot/doodad/bi - you might miss it on the first one, and have to go back after seeing it on the second, but that's better than missing it entirely.

As for why they're saying that - its becasue of the wording of "Concealed Positions" or whatever they've named Infiltrate now, plus the wording of the stratagem/WL Trait. The Stratagem says per the mission rules - not "As if it was the deployment phase". The mission rules don't mention infiltrating etc. Concealed Positions specifically calls out the Deployment Phase. The Stratagem (And I assume the Warlord Trait has the same wording) triggers after Deployment at the start of the first turn, too late for Generic Concealed Position rule to trigger.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fraser1191 wrote:

Azeroth wrote:
I just bought and assembled one of the warsuits and my only beef with them is that you have to choose which main weapon to build. They don't give you two of the elbow joints (like in the redemptor) so that you can change out the main weapon. Trying to rig something up is much more difficult. I'm not sure if GW thinks that people are really going to buy so many of these that they would buy 2 just so they can use each main weapon.

I built the flame weapon just because I really don't see myself ever use the long range one (just seems if I wanted a long range weapon on a dred that there are better options).

Other than the roll cage being extremely impractical on a dred, the model looks really good.

Hold up.

So you can't friction fit either of the main weapons like on the redemptor?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
The argument is pretty weak there. What allows you to deploy a unit normally?

What even is deployment? How can anything infiltrate at all?

I thought I saw all the parts to make both gun arms, but I could be wrong, I haven't gotten mine yet. Worst case you magnetize, or buy arm bits from Ebay/resellers. I'm not buying two kits to make the same model twice (i.e. Invictor Warsuit #2 of the 2nd Company) one with the flamer, one with the autocannon

It has all the parts to make both gun arms. I am going to use the autocannons for venerable dreads since I made the flamer version. If it is the join you are missing then just file it down so it fits into both weapons attached to the upper army and put a magnet inside the gun. Will work fine.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
The interesting thing with ultras compared to other marines utilizing the redeploy invictors trick. Ultras have access to Calgar who generates 2 CP for being your warlord and also regens CP on a 5+ for his trait. That's why I am saying the warlord trait for deploy is a steep cost. ESP because phobos HQ's kinda suck. The reiver LT is probably the best of the bunch but he is also pretty easy to kill for slay the warlord.

I think Ultras pull this off the best. Also with the ability to fall back and shoot flamers and even charge with 1 of them for 1 CP is also pretty huge.

I'm kinda mad about this combo because...I wasn't going to buy any of these...Now I am compelled to!

another thing to consider, if you take the redeploy warlord trait folks are GOING to be onguard against the manuver the UM strat is far more likely to catch them off guard

I think this is a good place to ask. In the Spanish Codex, Lord of Deceit only works on Phobos units. Is it the same in the original?
It appears not, as you wouldn't be talking about redeploying Invictus if it was the case.
Thanks!

DanielFM wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
The interesting thing with ultras compared to other marines utilizing the redeploy invictors trick. Ultras have access to Calgar who generates 2 CP for being your warlord and also regens CP on a 5+ for his trait. That's why I am saying the warlord trait for deploy is a steep cost. ESP because phobos HQ's kinda suck. The reiver LT is probably the best of the bunch but he is also pretty easy to kill for slay the warlord.

I think Ultras pull this off the best. Also with the ability to fall back and shoot flamers and even charge with 1 of them for 1 CP is also pretty huge.

I'm kinda mad about this combo because...I wasn't going to buy any of these...Now I am compelled to!

another thing to consider, if you take the redeploy warlord trait folks are GOING to be onguard against the manuver the UM strat is far more likely to catch them off guard

I think this is a good place to ask. In the Spanish Codex, Lord of Deceit only works on Phobos units. Is it the same in the original?
It appears not, as you wouldn't be talking about redeploying Invictus if it was the case.
Thanks!

Same in the English ebook I have. And I checked, the Invictus is not a Phobos unit as well as not a Dread so you can pretty much only LoD Phobos infantry. The Impulsor also doesn't have Phobos, and I don't think anything else new will/would pick it up if it didn't have it before.

So that ends the WT Vs Stratagem debate. The UM stratagem allows you to do the Invictus shuffling, the WT doesn't.
Pretty useless by only redeploying Phobos imho.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:

Azeroth wrote:
I just bought and assembled one of the warsuits and my only beef with them is that you have to choose which main weapon to build. They don't give you two of the elbow joints (like in the redemptor) so that you can change out the main weapon. Trying to rig something up is much more difficult. I'm not sure if GW thinks that people are really going to buy so many of these that they would buy 2 just so they can use each main weapon.

I built the flame weapon just because I really don't see myself ever use the long range one (just seems if I wanted a long range weapon on a dred that there are better options).

Other than the roll cage being extremely impractical on a dred, the model looks really good.

Hold up.

So you can't friction fit either of the main weapons like on the redemptor?

I also picked one up myself so I can confirm the kit only comes with one "elbow joint".

Well that's a little obnoxious. I'll probably be able to figure something out when I pick one up

DanielFM wrote:

Pretty useless by only redeploying Phobos imho.

I was honestly hoping they'd get rid of the Phobos Specific stuff. Either dump the Phobos WT and Obscuration, or remove the Phobos keyword from it.

Breton wrote:

DanielFM wrote:

Pretty useless by only redeploying Phobos imho.

I was honestly hoping they'd get rid of the Phobos Specific stuff. Either dump the Phobos WT and Obscuration, or remove the Phobos keyword from it.

I'm glad they didn't dump it, it means no worrying about hanging onto my vanguard mini dex if I wanna use that stuff

BrianDavion wrote:

Breton wrote:

DanielFM wrote:

Pretty useless by only redeploying Phobos imho.

I was honestly hoping they'd get rid of the Phobos Specific stuff. Either dump the Phobos WT and Obscuration, or remove the Phobos keyword from it.

I'm glad they didn't dump it, it means no worrying about hanging onto my vanguard mini dex if I wanna use that stuff

If they dumped it, it would have been use on a Space Marine-ish unit, not a specifically Phobos unit or just merged and pick the best 6 for the regular WT and Librarius discs. The problem with Phobos keyword abilities is there aren't enough phobos keyword units. They're always going to be a subset - and a small one at that - of your army. Really not worth it for the attentions of your Warlord/Commander or his Librarian assistant.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Totally. Plus you have 0 investment into it as a stratagem so you can deploy them in your lines and make the call after you see the table if you want to be sneaky. Or you can load upfront. Force them to deploy where they don't want to and just bring them back. To be able to do this with infiltrating units seems kinda broken to me but the unit really isn't worth taking over the redemptor without it IMO.

I'm a Wolves player, not a UM player so I don't know what the valid stratagem targets are, but I don't feel that this thing would warrant redeploying; if this thing is dying, then my other units that I care more about aren't [because seriously, it's a twin heavy flamer, I'm expecting the targeting priority he forces to be far more valuable than his own offensive power], and I could use such a stratagem to start Devastators or Predators with a good firing position and then move them to a safe position if I lost the first turn [or do the inverse and start them somewhere safe and redeploy them to get a better fire line].

I think this think is definitely good on it's own without pull-back options. I actually think pulling it back to your lines would lose some of its value since the imperative to destroy it over say, a repulsor or some devastators, isn't there if it's living in your deployment zone.


I don't actually know how much I want to buy one though. It really depends on how much I want to go into a armor-skew Space Wolves list, which would be a hefty investment of cash. I definitely think they're really good, though.

Is it worth pointing out that if the Imperium can build a Battleship (it can) then it could just make a a couple million Invictus Warsuits, put every marine existant in them and win the battle for the galaxy in a few years.

Reemule wrote:
Is it worth pointing out that if the Imperium can build a Battleship (it can) then it could just make a a couple million Invictus Warsuits, put every marine existant in them and win the battle for the galaxy in a few years.

Thats not how logistics work

Reemule wrote:
Is it worth pointing out that if the Imperium can build a Battleship (it can) then it could just make a a couple million Invictus Warsuits, put every marine existant in them and win the battle for the galaxy in a few years.

That makes no sense. In no small part because the Invictus is awful.

Reemule wrote:
Is it worth pointing out that if the Imperium can build a Battleship (it can) then it could just make a a couple million Invictus Warsuits, put every marine existant in them and win the battle for the galaxy in a few years.

With that sort of flawed logic, because the US built the Iowa during WW2, there should have been no reason for every US troop to not have been in a M4 Sherman at the least.

Ignore the game for a sec PM713. If I have 10 Invictus Warsuits, and you have 10 intercessors, I'm going to win.

Now the game to make it realistic is going to make me play less than 2, against all 10 Intercessors due to the point system. As it should It is about fairness.

But in the universe, among all the things that make no sense, not giving each and every marine a Invictus Warsuit is kinda silly.

 Stormonu wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Is it worth pointing out that if the Imperium can build a Battleship (it can) then it could just make a a couple million Invictus Warsuits, put every marine existant in them and win the battle for the galaxy in a few years.

With that sort of flawed logic, because the US built the Iowa during WW2, there should have been no reason for every US troop to not have been in a M4 Sherman at the least.

They tried. They made nearly 50k shermans.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Totally. Plus you have 0 investment into it as a stratagem so you can deploy them in your lines and make the call after you see the table if you want to be sneaky. Or you can load upfront. Force them to deploy where they don't want to and just bring them back. To be able to do this with infiltrating units seems kinda broken to me but the unit really isn't worth taking over the redemptor without it IMO.

I'm a Wolves player, not a UM player so I don't know what the valid stratagem targets are, but I don't feel that this thing would warrant redeploying; if this thing is dying, then my other units that I care more about aren't [because seriously, it's a twin heavy flamer, I'm expecting the targeting priority he forces to be far more valuable than his own offensive power], and I could use such a stratagem to start Devastators or Predators with a good firing position and then move them to a safe position if I lost the first turn [or do the inverse and start them somewhere safe and redeploy them to get a better fire line].

I think this think is definitely good on it's own without pull-back options. I actually think pulling it back to your lines would lose some of its value since the imperative to destroy it over say, a repulsor or some devastators, isn't there if it's living in your deployment zone.


I don't actually know how much I want to buy one though. It really depends on how much I want to go into a armor-skew Space Wolves list, which would be a hefty investment of cash. I definitely think they're really good, though.

Oh I agree youd rather them go after 130 points invitors than 330 point repulsor executioners. However - just handing over 3 dreads to a group of custode jetbikes or something will lose you the game - it also allows you to counter deploy their counter deploy. Basically they are screwed and trapt in their DZ turn 1. This is really freaking powerful.

 Xenomancers wrote:
They made nearly 50k shermans.

And fielded 11 million soldiers give or take. Not the ratio you're looking for.

The Space Marines are the elite though. We ain't talking about giving every guardsman a Invictus, but every spessmarine.. seems doable.

Sterling191 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
They made nearly 50k shermans.

And fielded 11 million soldiers give or take. Not the ratio you're looking for.

One of the old stories [one of those humorous tall tales up there with the fully automatic 25lbr guns, and certainly unverifiable in any case] goes that the German infantry was at one point convinced that each GI was given his own personal jeep .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Oh I agree youd rather them go after 130 points invitors than 330 point repulsor executioners. However - just handing over 3 dreads to a group of custode jetbikes or something will lose you the game - it also allows you to counter deploy their counter deploy. Basically they are screwed and trapt in their DZ turn 1. This is really freaking powerful.

It is definitely really powerful.

Reemule wrote:
The Space Marines are the elite though. We ain't talking about giving every guardsman a Invictus, but every spessmarine.. seems doable.

But an awful idea.

Sterling191 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
They made nearly 50k shermans.

And fielded 11 million soldiers give or take. Not the ratio you're looking for.

True but only about 1 million saw combat. Most of those who saw combat were in some kind of vehical. Beit an aircraft or tank or ship or transport. Foot soldiers see most of the casualties though and it's terrible. We did actually try to put as many vehicles in the field as we could.

Reemule wrote:
The Space Marines are the elite though. We ain't talking about giving every guardsman a Invictus, but every spessmarine.. seems doable.

This seems like one of those things where the appropriate response is “Rocks are not Free, Citizen”

Game wise, how does the Invictus compare to Centurions - as it would seem more sensible to equip every oldMarine with one of those - are these supposed to be the Primaris equivalent?

 Stormonu wrote:


Game wise, how does the Invictus compare to Centurions - as it would seem more sensible to equip every oldMarine with one of those - are these supposed to be the Primaris equivalent?

The Invictor doesnt really have a non-Primaris equivalent. It's as close as you can get to a fast attack mech (emphasis on the FAST), of which...bikes of all things are the nearest comparitor id make.

Reemule wrote:
The Space Marines are the elite though. We ain't talking about giving every guardsman a Invictus, but every spessmarine.. seems doable.

It is doable. In an empire the scale of the IoM, scarcity would not exist for marines, nor scions. Only for the rank and file. There's those that handwave this, but 1K per chapter is a rounding error in such an economy. Under harsh examination, marines wouldn't matter at all, regardless of the bolter porn, just as commandoes didn't significantly change the outcome of WWII. There is no magical enemy "command and control" to smash that stops the entire enemy army. Marines are expensive terror weapons for the Emprah and not true weapons of war. For those SG-1 fans, think of the Jaffa staff vs a P-90.

Martel732 wrote:

Reemule wrote:
The Space Marines are the elite though. We ain't talking about giving every guardsman a Invictus, but every spessmarine.. seems doable.

It is doable. In an empire the scale of the IoM, scarcity would not exist for marines, nor scions. Only for the rank and file. There's those that handwave this, but 1K per chapter is a rounding error in such an economy. Under harsh examination, marines wouldn't matter at all, regardless of the bolter porn, just as commandoes didn't significantly change the outcome of WWII. There is no magical enemy "command and control" to smash that stops the entire enemy army. Marines are expensive terror weapons for the Emprah and not true weapons of war. For those SG-1 fans, think of the Jaffa staff vs a P-90.

Nah - Paton for sure changed the tides of battle more than once. Plus in warfare even slight advances in technology can make numbers matter not - just look at desert storm. As a starcraft player you have to aknowledge that putting the right unit in the right place at the right time and completely dominate a battlefield. That is what marines represent.

It just doesn't happen enough in an actual war to make a difference. How did those German uber tanks work out for them? Slight advances aren't enough to overcome numbers, and marine tech seems pretty gakky actually.

The allies had far superior tech in Desert Storm. Not the best example. A single GENERATION can make a big difference, but there are many, many incremental improvement within a generation. One reason I say IoM's anti-tech model is actually impossible to maintain for 10K years.

Martel732 wrote:
It just doesn't happen enough in an actual war to make a difference. How did those German uber tanks work out for them? Slight advances aren't enough to overcome numbers, and marine tech seems pretty gakky actually.

The allies had far superior tech in Desert Storm. Not the best example. A single GENERATION can make a big difference, but there are many, many incremental improvement within a generation. One reason I say IoM's anti-tech model is actually impossible to maintain for 10K years.

Anti tech model is gone. Gman has unleashed the armory that cawl has been hiding away. I think GW figured out what you have. Antitech is kinda of...anti cool.