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.

 bullyboy wrote:
On the fortis team loadouts, since you can swap out variants within the team, why not make a distance combat squadded KT with 3 stalker BR and 2 hvy plasma incinerators in one, and 3 auto bolter (plus sgt with melee) and 2 assault plasma incinerators in the other. 2 special weapons per squad keeps them a little cheaper while still dishing reasonable firepower.

I keep wanting to run a 5 intercessor and 5 hellblaster team (265 points) because I like the models, but I still can't justify it over the following.

10 vets with plasma guns, 3 with storm shields and 7 with chain swords (265 points). You get better shooting output because of the additional plasma shots (although it's less shots overall), significantly better melee results from the additional attacks and ap, a significant durability upgrade with the stormshields that you can use as needed against both small arms fire and shots requiring an invul save, and better morale to top it off. I think I'm also going to add a black shield to each unit with a plasma gun and a thunder hammer, so that'll increase the cost, but I like the ability to heroically intervene and the melee output of the black shield too much to pass that up.

The one thing I'll give the primaris unit as the assault weapons advantage that could be pretty pivotal if you swap them to white scars tactics and pull off a long advance and charge too.

I think if I'm taking a couple vets units with plasma, then I don't need to worry about gravis units after all. I am probably going to run a couple venerable dreads too since I already have them painted up and I'm considering the heavy plasma cannon there will which will me some additional damage 2/3 options in the field though.

But then that gets back to the issue of spamming weapons and moving away from what kill teams should look like. I'd rather take a mixed unit.
I have 5 auto bolt intercessors already built, and plan to add a single assault intercessor and 4 auto hellblasters. The assault intercessor will act as my pseudo Sgt of the combat squad not containing the actual sergeant.

Does anyone know if Deathwatch can run "relic Terminators" ?

Yes they can, although not in kill teams

 bullyboy wrote:
Yes they can, although not in kill teams

okay so they could be run in the Elite unit squad. I really think they look better than regular Indomitus especially now they have lost SIA on stormbolters.

Do relic terminators look decent for DW and how would most people run them?

I have 5 but may keep them for Deathwing or Ravenguard. Combi bolter and lightning claw seems popular with possibly chainfist on Sgt.

I mean, as long as it’s the same kit out, you can just run the relic terminator models in your kill teams in place of regular terminators.

 Leth wrote:
I mean, as long as it’s the same kit out, you can just run the relic terminator models in your kill teams in place of regular terminators.

Pretty much this. Conversion potential for daaaaaaaaaaays.

 bullyboy wrote:
But then that gets back to the issue of spamming weapons and moving away from what kill teams should look like. I'd rather take a mixed unit.
I have 5 auto bolt intercessors already built, and plan to add a single assault intercessor and 4 auto hellblasters. The assault intercessor will act as my pseudo Sgt of the combat squad not containing the actual sergeant.

Is that loadout any more mixed actually? You're describing 10 intercessor bodies, 4 with a different gun and 1 with a different melee weapon.

I'm describing 10 vet bodies, 4 with a shield, 1 with a different melee weapon (thunder hammer). Vets just don't get a new name for every weapon change.

If you want to stick with a unit that has a diverse loadout, it seems it would be more about getting a jetpack, a bike, and a terminator in the squad. A hellblaster seems as different from an intercessor as a vet with a shield is from a vet with a sword.

 lessthanjeff wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
But then that gets back to the issue of spamming weapons and moving away from what kill teams should look like. I'd rather take a mixed unit.
I have 5 auto bolt intercessors already built, and plan to add a single assault intercessor and 4 auto hellblasters. The assault intercessor will act as my pseudo Sgt of the combat squad not containing the actual sergeant.

Is that loadout any more mixed actually? You're describing 10 intercessor bodies, 4 with a different gun and 1 with a different melee weapon.

I'm describing 10 vet bodies, 4 with a shield, 1 with a different melee weapon (thunder hammer). Vets just don't get a new name for every weapon change.

If you want to stick with a unit that has a diverse loadout, it seems it would be more about getting a jetpack, a bike, and a terminator in the squad. A hellblaster seems as different from an intercessor as a vet with a shield is from a vet with a sword.

It's using 3 out of the 4 options in a mixed team, and no spamming plasma. Now, 4 plasma guns or combis in a 10 man vet unit wouldn't be so bad. Then dash in a melee weapon, DW bolters, etc then not too bad. But throwing plasma on everyone, even if you add shields, is still spamming.

My statement was that there’s little reason to go the intercessor route over the vets because the vets are strictly better, cheaper, and have more options. If you only want 4 plasma guns in each unit, then do that with the vets instead. It’s totally fine to pick the intercessor units because you like them more, but it doesn’t make sense to me to do it because they’re somehow more mixed.

I know some people prefer to make one unit mix like what you’re describing and then apply it to all their units, but I prefer to give different loadouts to each unit so they all have their own role and then you also don’t have to deal with 5 stat lines and weapon profile for each activation. Ironically, you could end up with more models wielding the same weapon in your army if that is the route you choose. I don’t think either approach is more or less spammy than the other, myself.

 lessthanjeff wrote:
My statement was that there’s little reason to go the intercessor route over the vets because the vets are strictly better, cheaper, and have more options. If you only want 4 plasma guns in each unit, then do that with the vets instead. It’s totally fine to pick the intercessor units because you like them more, but it doesn’t make sense to me to do it because they’re somehow more mixed.

I know some people prefer to make one unit mix like what you’re describing and then apply it to all their units, but I prefer to give different loadouts to each unit so they all have their own role and then you also don’t have to deal with 5 stat lines and weapon profile for each activation. Ironically, you could end up with more models wielding the same weapon in your army if that is the route you choose. I don’t think either approach is more or less spammy than the other, myself.

How does a plasmagun compare to a hellblaster plasma?

Are you asking about damage output/efficiency? If so, the numbers will change depending on which plasma weapon you’d use and against which target, but I’ll show a quick comparison for reference.

The easiest to compare would be the plasma gun and the plasma incinerator shooting a common target like an intercessor. If that’s what you mean, here is the breakdown:

4 Vets with plasmagun and chainsword (100 points): 3.7 dead

3 hellblasters with plasma incinerators (99 points): 3.3 dead

Pretty close in the shooting output, but the vets are more durable since you get 2 extra wounds for the same cost. The vets would also get 16 melee attacks at ap1 vs the hellblasters 9 ap0. Then there’s also a leadership difference between them. The hellblasters would have slightly more range and that’s about it.

Assault plasma kills more Intercessors point for point than plasma vets, but it’s close, unless you add melee.

In most situations, yes, but not all. In tactical mode the vets actually pull ahead again.

I was wondering if anybody could point me toward the costs and choices a Xenos Inquisitor comes with?

The app shows the 60pt cost but nothing for being a psyker or the force weapon upgrade? Between grabbing up Warlord Traits and rerolling early charges I thought the potential to regen some more CP could help me turn some decisive moments my way mid-late game. Spending the CP to bring one with Esoteric Lore and Mental Interrogation and putting her either in a Corvus or Rhino to pop out second turn and try doing a thing. I have a Librarian slinging his two powers putting in good work, but I haven’t faced many psyker heavy lists, I worry I wouldn’t do much against these kinds of armies. If she comes in under 100 pts I think it’s worth it if she can net me more than 2 or 3 CP though, plus a couple interesting Stratagem choices.

Right now I’m trying to work with 2 x 10 vet squads and about 7-8 Vanguard. I’ve been using a chapter champion with the warlord trait, a termi Libby and termi Chaplain. With the Corvus and Rhino mentioned earlier and some combat squads coming out of the Teleportarium I really think the inquisitor has a place, too bad the Xenos psychic power only covers Ordo units. I’m having a good time taking objectives but have struggled at holding them, especially anything in my backfield. I don’t have the rule book so I tend to take weird Secondary choices that don’t quite work all the time for my list.

If my psyker is in a Transport can I deny the witch? Do I need to be in a certain range to use it? Sorry for the rules Q’s but my indomitus set still hasn’t arrived.

As of now, you may not want to run an inquisitor at all because you lose your doctrines if you include one. I'm not sure that was intended because the strat to give doctrines to a unit gives permission to including an "agents of the imperium" unit while the army wide rules only specify allowing an "unaligned" unit. It does suck though because I first built my army to be a support for an inquisitor and I liked to use assassins too.

When a model is in a transport they count as being off the table though. That means no auras and no denies.

Neither Inquisitors nor Assassins negate doctrines. Rules have been updated since their initial implementation to permit them to be taken without borking armies.

https://www.goonhammer.com/hammer-of-math-special-issue-ammunition/

Electing to only compare SBs versus Vengeance SIA, not discussing combi-weapons and then baking in a stalker and setting the range outside of rapid fire muddies that chart to an absurd degree.

The article leaves a lot to infer.

I only read it once so far, but I don't think rapid fire range would make a difference in the outcome of calculating potential/average kills.
-Storm bolters (rapid fire 2) always get twice as many shots as boltguns (rapid fire 1) regardless of range, bolter discipline, etc.
-So storm bolters are always going to come out ahead of boltguns firing SIA in terms of average kills, because the potential to kill 3 or 4 models will mathematically overwhelm mods to AP, cover, and so forth that you get from SIA.

It's not at all clear from the formatting, but I believe the chart shows that boltguns firing Vengeance rounds always average more kills than other SIA rounds versus something with more than 1 wound. It's in the text, if not in the chart.

So there's no point in comparing Stalkers to SIA boltguns. Here, I think, is one of the inferences: Stalkers have better kill numbers than SIA boltguns firing a single shot. But the second shot inside of rapid-fire range, again, overwhelms the kill potential of the Stalker. -Stalkers never get more than one shot, regardless of range, so their kill potential is never greater than one dead target model per weapon.

The article does mention that if the target is a 3-wound model, then Stalkers firing vengeance rounds have the best kill numbers.

But a storm bolter is a good comparison because--with a potential 2 damage for every 1 damage potential of a boltgun--a storm bolter is, in effect, always firing double vengeance rounds regardless of range/rapid fire compared with a boltgun

2 shots from a storm bolter = 1 vengeance round shot from an SIA boltgun in terms of their potential damage.

The odds of hitting, wounding, effects of cover, doctrines, AP, are the same for both shots. The difference is that, against single-wound models, storm bolters have the potential to kill twice as many models as a regular SIA boltgun.

I think talk of SBs' demise is a bit exaggerated: with the right mission and doctrine, 40 shots at ap-1 and rerolling all wounds is still a legit anti-infantry option for some choppy vets.

Yeah, I think that's one of the takeaways from the article. I'm really keen to try to explain this more concisely:

1. SIA makes small, 1-in-6 adjustments to your odds of getting a wound through to the target. Dragonfire gives you an extra 1 in 6 of hitting a model in cover. Hellfire gives you an extra 1 in 6 of scoring a wound.

2. Against 2-wound models, vengeance rounds kill more target models. Even though your vengeance shot has slightly less chance of hitting or wounding than another SIA round, the fact that every shot that gets through kills a whole model swamps the small advantages of SIA modifiers on 1-damage shots.

3. Similarly, Storm Bolters swamp those little 1 in 6 modifiers by doubling the number of shots. Which would you rather have: a +1 to hit a model in cover, or a whole extra shot? Even if the 2 shots don't ignore cover, they still kill more models on average than the one shot that ignores cover.

4. A storm bolter against 2-wound model targets is, in effect, like an SIA boltgun with vengeance ammo always turned on. The profile of the two weapons is identical (except for number of shots and damage, which are a wash), and the maximum potential damage (4 wounds max at rapid fire range or 2 at long range) is identical.

5. The difference comes in with 1-wound target models. Vengeance ammo is less good against single wound targets because the extra point of damage gets lost. But a storm bolter doesn't have that problem--it can potentially kill up to 4 single-wound models without losing any efficiency.

6. So a storm bolter is better than SIA against 1-wound models and as good as SIA against 2-wound models.

7. The one place where Stalkers are better is against 3-wound models, because the potential to take out a whole model with one shot swamps the kill potential of a storm bolter.

Sterling191 wrote:
Neither Inquisitors nor Assassins negate doctrines. Rules have been updated since their initial implementation to permit them to be taken without borking armies.

Am I misreading the text on page 33 then? The new codex specifies that you can exclude agents of the imperium and unaligned units for counting as a deathwatch detachment but then only specifies unaligned models for your army getting combat doctrines.

Is the storm bolter improvement worth the 2ppm that it costs, is the question to be asked.

 lessthanjeff wrote:

Am I misreading the text on page 33 then? The new codex specifies that you can exclude agents of the imperium and unaligned units for counting as a deathwatch detachment but then only specifies unaligned models for your army getting combat doctrines.

You're not reading Authority of the Inquisition or Agent of the Imperium rules for Inquisitors or Assassins respectively.

Niiru wrote:
Is the storm bolter improvement worth the 2ppm that it costs, is the question to be asked.

The better question is is the SBs ability in the context of other weapons worth the cost. Equally important to ask is what the platform for said SB is. Deathwatch isnt hurting for infantry killing capacity.

Sterling191 wrote:

Niiru wrote:
Is the storm bolter improvement worth the 2ppm that it costs, is the question to be asked.

The better question is is the SBs ability in the context of other weapons worth the cost. Equally important to ask is what the platform for said SB is. Deathwatch isnt hurting for infantry killing capacity.

True, but then if you're specialising units (which may well be the case with deathwatch) then you might be better off with one unit of storm bolters (furor?) and one unit of plain plasma or melta guns (malleus?). Or combat a 10-man unit into 5x SBs and 5X meltas and go Aquila on them.

Of course if they're going vs elites, then combi-plasma is probably the best option as both profiles would be useful...

Or maybe combiplasma is always better, I dunno. It seems odd that adding the combi-bolter is 5pts more than just plain plasma, when the bolter is normally free. Its what makes me want to go for the basic plasma or melta or storm bolter instead of a combi, as we are already tight on points.

I think you've misunderstood me. Veterans are not the only platform to deploy storm bolters (and their equivalents) on.

Sterling191 wrote:
I think you've misunderstood me. Veterans are not the only platform to deploy storm bolters (and their equivalents) on.

Ohh yeh, I see what you mean I guess, though losing storm bolters on terminators is what I was remembering. I know you can take them on bikes, but I'm unlikely to run bike squads, so vets are the only unit that I'd be likely to run storm bolters on (that I can think of)

It seems like maybe mono-weapon builds for the entire army are the thing that is rebalanced out of the Deathwatch meta. Storm bolter and storm shield used to be the most competitive, most efficient veteran loadout pretty much no matter what.

But now you kind of want SIA boltguns for their cheapness-range, storm bolters for extra killiness against hordes, Stalkers for 3-wound targets. Then the whole universe of combi weapons. Seems like there’s actually a reason now to take a mix.