Codex: Craftworlds Tactics Thread v2.0 - 9th Edition

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.

**ClockworkZion**

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
There is a belief among some players that the blast rule applies per weapon rather than per die. So that the thunderfires would roll 4d3 and if the total is less than 3 then it becomes 3. In other words as far as thuderfires are concerned unless they shoot at a unit of 11+ they just roll as normal.

That's because the rule says "dice" not "die" when discussing the total number of attacks. Plus a Thunderfire Cannon getting 12 shots at a unit of 6+? Not on your life would that be balanced.

EDIT: The rule

I strongly suspect some of the knee jerk reactions are from people reading that you adjust each die to 3 instead of the total number of attacks to 3 if you roll under 3.

**Leo_the_Rat**

I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or not but, I believe the reason people think that way is that the rule is about the weapon and not the number of dice rolled.The rule specifically says the weapon makes a minimum of 3 attacks. Not 3 attacks per die but just 3 attacks. So the number and type of dice used isn't germane to the rule. If a weapon is d3, 2d6 or even, 3d4 if it is shooting at a unit of 6 - 10 models then it makes as many attacks as it rolls with its die/dice or 3 whichever is more.

**ClockworkZion**

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or not but, I believe the reason people think that way is that the rule is about the weapon and not the number of dice rolled.The rule specifically says the weapon makes a minimum of 3 attacks. Not 3 attacks per die but just 3 attacks. So the number and type of dice used isn't germane to the rule. If a weapon is d3, 2d6 or even, 3d4 if it is shooting at a unit of 6 - 10 models then it makes as many attacks as it rolls with its die/dice or 3 whichever is more.

I'm agreeing with you, backing up why you're right, and saying that people are nuts for playing it the other way.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alright, I went back, did a bunch more work and did a write up over on Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/htu09a/blasthammer_blast_mathammer/) which I'll quote below for anyone who doesn't want to pop over there:

This thread is a follow up to the one I started previously about Eldar and Blast weapons ( https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/htb9qp/eldar_vs_blasts/ ).

Long story short so you don't need to read the old thread: some things were pointed out about the math which have been corrected (as was my oversight on Wyverns re-rolling wounds), and I've expanded the target units to include MSU Ork Boyz and Grots as well as both units maxed out to cover some more horde profiles so people can get a look at how this impacts units who don't live with a T3 profile.

The shooting profiles have also been expanded, plasma cannon devastators are now a whole unit to illustrate D3 weapons being employed in a more realistic manner against units of all sizes, and I've also added in 6 new shooting units: Tactical Marines with bolters, Primaris with Bolt Rifles, Guardsman. The Marines come in both MSU and 10 Astartes sized units, and the Guard will be shooting normally, and while buffed with FRFSRF (the points cost for the buffing officer being added in for the bottom chart). This is to highlight the efficeincy of regular units shooting hordes vs blasts to give a better picture of where blasts fall into the mix.

I do want to say that all math was done using an 8th edition calculator (http://40k.ghostlords.com/dice/ ) as no 9th edition ones currently exist, and I'll be honest I'm not going to spend weeks trying to make one in excel to get an idea about this topic, so all average attack numbers with D6 weapons were done manually for 6-10 man units (as well as the Basalisk due to it's "roll 2D6 and take the highest" rule for attacks), and the Dire Avengers saves are all done on the basis of the worst save to smooth things out when dealing with the mixed profile nature of the unit.

Finally the updated data: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uSQOcXYIyX7xh1Bzpf2zQRZSrvpOaI2rpcG2JN6hH1o/edit?usp=sharing

So, after crunching, and re-crunching all the numbers, what do I think?

Well a couple of things: First there was only one instance of a single blast weapon wiping out half a squad on average, and it was against an MSU squad of Dire Avengers. To be fair, it was a Wyvern which averages 12 shots, so that's probably not too much of a shock.

Second, multiple blast weapons being fired at a target (such as the Devastators) was -far- more effective than any single blast weapon (or at least the ones I've seen touted more as the ones to be concerned about), and units like Marines and Guard were far more effective at dealing out wounds just by getting into rapid fire range than blast weapons against most targets. I could probably test out a no-rapid fire option for the units as well, but even if they're not as good we still have unbuffed squads doing more damage by getting close, something to be concerned about with smaller tables since that becomes far easier for them to do.

In actual game play I'd likely combine options (for example, a Whirlwind and an Intercessor squad at half range) to inflict the most casualties. Blasts to soften hordes (or even mid-sized units) first, followed by regular small arms to finish the job. This is because blasts are more effective against undamaged units, while the small arms don't care as much and can finish the job more efficiently.

As for list building, I'd have to say in most cases large units actually benefit you more. You become more resistant to any single shooting attack, and your buffs become more effective (especially important if your army doesn't rely on auras for your buffs, like Craftworlds who get most of their buffs via psychic powers and stratagems). The downside of course is debuffs are more efficient, and you give up slightly more casualties to any single blast weapon, or a whole lot more against units with multiple D3 blast weapons as they can keep getting the max number of attacks for a lot longer.

Long and short of it is that no individual blast weapon is going to break a horde, just give up slightly more casualties on average, and if your army leans into hordes get some games in with them before you decide to shelf the horde and go MSU, or even mid-sized units.

**wuestenfux**

LordoftheSwarm wrote:
I've been playing test games of 9th.

My detachments are
1. A wraithlord and my farseer (home base objective)
2. Specialist detachment spiritseer with 10 Wraithblades
3. Asurmen and 30 Dire Avengers
4. 9 Shining Spears

I have a unit of 10 Dark Reapers that hang back and provide fire support.

The wraithlord is a great body guard. A unit of 5 wraithblades seems great untill you realize they don't provide "look out sir" after 3 losses. The wraithlord saves the farseer until death.

It appears that the overall tactics in the 9th ed will change as one has to pay attention to the primaries and secondaries more than ever.
This makes a whole new game if you ask me.
In former editions, my Eldar advanced gradually with fire support and went for the enemy's throat in the end game giving a damn on objectives - it worked most of the time.

**Sarigar**

wuestenfux wrote:
LordoftheSwarm wrote:
I've been playing test games of 9th.

My detachments are
1. A wraithlord and my farseer (home base objective)
2. Specialist detachment spiritseer with 10 Wraithblades
3. Asurmen and 30 Dire Avengers
4. 9 Shining Spears

I have a unit of 10 Dark Reapers that hang back and provide fire support.

The wraithlord is a great body guard. A unit of 5 wraithblades seems great untill you realize they don't provide "look out sir" after 3 losses. The wraithlord saves the farseer until death.

It appears that the overall tactics in the 9th ed will change as one has to pay attention to the primaries and secondaries more than ever.
This makes a whole new game if you ask me.
In former editions, my Eldar advanced gradually with fire support and went for the enemy's throat in the end game giving a damn on objectives - it worked most of the time.

Seriously? You previously would discount/dismiss people's discussions regarding 9th edition and how it changes the game and are just just now realizing what folks observed weeks ago.

**Galef**

Ok, so I'm still a bit overwhelmed by all the changes, but so far I think Guardian bomb is a good option.
Especially considering that Rangers got nerfed.

This is a bit CP Heavy, but I think it works:
1CP for Webway, drop in turn 2.
Cast Doom on thier Target and Protect on the Gaurdians. Probably need 1CP here for Seer Council.
Shoot the target, then Fire & Fade - 1CP.

When the opponent targets the Guardians, use Celestial Shield- 1CP. Now they have a 3++ against shooting. Allocating wounds to weapon platforms could get you a 1+ (3+ armour + cover + Protect) if you are in Cover or have the Masters of Concealment trait.
But due to thier size and how much damage they may have just done, an opponent may still dedicate a lot of shooting at them, especially if they have Blast weapons.

Expensive and cost up to 4CPs to pull off, but could very well cause an opponent to waste a turn of shooting by over committing. Or they may ignore the Guadians which could let them do it again.

-

**Barbachop**

Galef wrote:
Ok, so I'm still a bit overwhelmed by all the changes, but so far I think Guardian bomb is a good option.
Especially considering that Rangers got nerfed.

This is a bit CP Heavy, but I think it works:
1CP for Webway, drop in turn 2.
Cast Doom on thier Target and Protect on the Gaurdians. Probably need 1CP here for Seer Council.
Shoot the target, then Fire & Fade - 1CP.

When the opponent targets the Guardians, use Celestial Shield- 1CP. Now they have a 3++ against shooting. Allocating wounds to weapon platforms could get you a 1+ (3+ armour + cover + Protect) if you are in Cover or have the Masters of Concealment trait.
But due to thier size and how much damage they may have just done, an opponent may still dedicate a lot of shooting at them, especially if they have Blast weapons.

Expensive and cost up to 4CPs to pull off, but could very well cause an opponent to waste a turn of shooting by over committing. Or they may ignore the Guadians which could let them do it again.

-

I also plan to have a toy around with bombs, perhaps even if Ulthwe but not sure at the moment. The only thing I'd say about the above is that with all that investment, I think you probably want your opponent to waste shots on 20 wounds of 3++, so fire and fade is probably overkill - similar to planes in 8th and wave serpents, you're giving your opponents a juicy but inefficient target. IMO you might be better fire and fading reapers or other heavy fire support unit.

There's debate in places about fire and fade and reserves in 9e. As written the rules prevent F+F from allowing you another normal move after deep striking ( as was the case in 8th.) The rules say that incoming reserves cannot make a "normal move" however F+F specifically states that this movement is not a "normal move," its a fixed valued of 7inches. This might be FAQd and was taken from a discussion by Skaredcast, Richard Sieglar and Nick Nanavatti on Art of War.

**Turnip Jedi**

whilst I dont think a ds guardian blob is bad its still quite the footprint and from the few 9e bat reps ive seen even a half hearted spread can deny a lot of table

**Barbachop**

Turnip Jedi wrote:
whilst I dont think a ds guardian blob is bad its still quite the footprint and from the few 9e bat reps ive seen even a half hearted spread can deny a lot of table

Yup, I agree. That said a list probably has room for one chunky unit to contest and get protect/fortune so right now I'm weighing up wraithblades or the guardian blob. The former might be better as it's a little more resilient and doesn't require the upkeep - however I'm unable to make pew pew noises while rolling my dice when using them and that's a big consideration for me.

**Turnip Jedi**

go Wraithblades ? But its a tough call between ++ saves and lightsabre noises

**Barbachop**

Today's AOW stream features dual Craftworld/Harlequin battalions. It's another objective grabbing footfest. Granted this is just one player's (quite extreme) adaption to a meta that puts so much focus on objective holding, and little on traditional trading of dakka, but I imagine most eldar players will find his list a little bland. Not looking to start a discussion on the merits of 9th as there's plenty of that elsewhere, but fwiw I'd prefer to see more variety in our top tier competitive lists. Hopefully as the edition develops our codex enables a more broad set of options. But hey warp spiders. One interesting thing is that he's gone back to bladestorm and 5mans instead of 6/7 mans plus avenging strikes.

Craftworld battalion- superior shurikens, expert craftsmen
Asurmen 160
Farseer doom, executioner 115
5 avengers- bladestorm, 65
5 avengers- bladestorm, 65
5 avengers- bladestorm, 65
5 avengers- bladestorm, 65
5 avengers- bladestorm, 65
5 avengers- bladestorm, 65
5 spiders- web of deceit 90
5 spiders- web of deceit 90
5 spiders- web of deceit 90
Frozen stars battalion
Shadowseer- -1 to hit, twilight pathways, extra role -6” range
Troupe master- fang, extra pivotal role darkness 65
9 troupes- 5 embrace 151
9 troupes- 5 kiss 156
9 troupes- 5 caress 156
Solitaire- rose 102
Jester- ignore overwatch/-2” move 50
5 sky weavers- 5 haywire, 4 glaives 270

**grouchoben**

I think 6 MSU DA is a pretty nice pick too, but I'm unsure that meets the threshold for bothering with Asurmen @160pts frankly. I think I'd rather keep with the 4++ Exarch power at that point and take more haywire, seeing how MSU avengers will be pretty spread out anyway... In fact that looks like quite a nice list for the Yncarne to do her thing in...

**kingheff**

I'm still not sure about this list Nick is running. It's like he's got the core of two armies without it coming together into a cohesive whole. Granted he's forgotten more about 40k than I've ever known but it looks like he thinks T3 4++ models are hard to kill. I wish they were but they're really not.
I like that he's trying something different but I really don't see this being a list he'd take to a tournament anytime soon.

**slave.entity**

It's the MSU that's making them hard to kill. Splitting fire across that many MSU 4++ squads is horribly inefficient for shooty armies. His opponent ends up wasting a ton of shots overkilling units or wasting a ton of shots underkilling units and being forced to commit more firepower to finish them off.

Not sure how effective it is in the current competitive meta (whatever that is) but it seems like a solid plan.

AoW has also mentioned that they think the top 3 strongest armies are DG, Custodes and Admech. They put Space Marines at 4th, and Eldar/Sisters tied for 5th. So Nick probably isn't planning to win any events with CWE.

**kingheff**

But they seem to be predicting a msu meta so surely min squads of marines with bolters, sisters with bolters etc just eat them up with volume of shots from many small units?

**slave.entity**

Yeah I'd definitely agree there. He mentioned transporting them in a bunch of serpents last week, not sure why we haven't seen any in their streams lately.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I watched his battle report with DA spam + quins against Siegler's Tau'nar last week, and I seem to remember him saying he really didn't like the skyweavers. Is he really taking skyweavers again or is the list posted the one from last week?

**kingheff**

I think he's waiting for new models, but I think he's looking at shadow weavers and d-cannons from what he's been saying.

**slave.entity**

That's somewhat encouraging to hear. I'm really hoping there's a decent way to run support weapons in 9th. The 6 vibro cannons I built for Adepticon this year never made it to the tabletop due to COVID.

**Barbachop**

This was taken from the aow match tonight, so yeah is a refinement of last weeks list. MSU units with a focus on tactical movement. From listening to him talk about the game Nick relies on having sufficient knowledge to trade off objective points/units which is a lucrative strat but not one Im remotely competent enough to try myself. Id much rather go for balance, and have vibros to dust off also. I think another strategy of pinning down enemies and then supporting (a la Skarey) is a more fun playstyle, certainly for new players. That way the serpents and big guns get to come into the mix.

**ClockworkZion**

Honestly I'm less in favor of MSU with T3 bodies as it makes it easier to score Attrition off of us. Additionally removing 10+ of something tends to be harder than removing just 5 of something.

But that is likelt my personal bias speaking.

**kingheff**

I think vibros are still more than fine. 45 PTS for a superior auto cannon with a built in tremor shell type effect is still great with expert crafters.

**grouchoben**

For 1d3 shots? And a capped out +1 to wound? I'm really not sure. Three are more than a tricked out Falcon at this point.

**kingheff**

With expert crafters I'm sure they out damage a falcon, though I don't have the chance to do the maths now. Strength seven with free veterans of the long war is pretty great still. Wounding T6 and lower on a 2+ with a reroll is pretty efficient. Equally effective against T7+ as the pulse laser, though less damage of course. I'd still try to take both to be honest, they're both cheap efficient fire platforms.
More wounds but less toughness, three sets of five wounds probably being more annoying to take out than a single block of 12.

**grouchoben**

Yeah that sounds about right. But the cost of getting that 'free' votlw, or matching a falcon vs T8 is a 1d3 autocannon for 50pts shooting first.

The +2 wound, along with the ludicrously cheap cost, was always the double-whammy with vibros imo. They still have play, but just aren't the bleeding edge pick they were I guess.

**Ordana**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Honestly I'm less in favor of MSU with T3 bodies as it makes it easier to score Attrition off of us. Additionally removing 10+ of something tends to be harder than removing just 5 of something.

But that is likelt my personal bias speaking.

you don't put 1 unit of 5 on an objective. you put 2-3.
Units like Aggressors start to run into overkill/underkill (if you split) issues instead of just pumping all shots into a 10m unit. Feel like that is mostly what it is meant to counter, a limited number of highly effective units rather then many units with moderate effectiveness.

**Turnip Jedi**

Like Grouch Im a bit on the fence about V-Cannons maybe if they can dodge the cut/paste curse come codex time the stacking bonus will get a tweak

Think even as pricey as they are d-cannons might be worth a try, with a whole foot lopped off table length and ( in theory ymmv) more terrain sneaking on behind los blocking and being able being able to hit the middle from the edge could work

**kingheff**

One thing that may well be worth revisiting is the sniping trait dark reaper exarchs with tempest launcher. With the midfield battle ground being so essential that exarch could be a real nuisance for squishy buffers.

**ClockworkZion**

Ordana wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Honestly I'm less in favor of MSU with T3 bodies as it makes it easier to score Attrition off of us. Additionally removing 10+ of something tends to be harder than removing just 5 of something.

But that is likelt my personal bias speaking.
you don't put 1 unit of 5 on an objective. you put 2-3.
Units like Aggressors start to run into overkill/underkill (if you split) issues instead of just pumping all shots into a 10m unit. Feel like that is mostly what it is meant to counter, a limited number of highly effective units rather then many units with moderate effectiveness.

Attrition is a secondary that gives 4VP each turn you kill more units than you lose. In the GT pack it's changed to Grind Them Down:

Making my units easier to pop and giving up free VP feels a bit off.

**Captain Brown**

kingheff wrote:
One thing that may well be worth revisiting is the sniping trait dark reaper exarchs with tempest launcher. With the midfield battle ground being so essential that exarch could be a real nuisance for squishy buffers.

So is there a feeling that the Exarch with a Tempest Launcher is superior to the standard Reaper Launcher with the new Blast rules?

CB

**Turnip Jedi**

Captain Brown wrote:
kingheff wrote:
One thing that may well be worth revisiting is the sniping trait dark reaper exarchs with tempest launcher. With the midfield battle ground being so essential that exarch could be a real nuisance for squishy buffers.

So is there a feeling that the Exarch with a Tempest Launcher is superior to the standard Reaper Launcher with the new Blast rules?

CB

I think in this caseits more the ignoring LOS letting you snipe out characters that you might have trouble getting direct shots at