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.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'll admit, recent lists have been:

"Ok, Techmarine, Gladiator Lancer, 2 Ballistus Dreads, 2 Land Raiders... now what else can I bring?"

Just got a second Techmarine actually so I can do a Feirros/2 Techmarine Dreadmob.

Well the Primaris units wouldn't be used in my case, but Predators seem like decent firepower for their points. An Annihilator with Lascannons and HK Missile looks like it does reasonably similar AT work as the Lancer for 30 fewer points.

Or just splurge for Vindicators.

I’ve been running a Predator Annihilator (and a Predator Destructor) in local tournaments/competitive league games. It has found a way to stay in my lists. The Annihilator can spike damage and it’s a bit cheaper points wise, but the Gladiator Lancer is just better in terms of reliable output. If someone was asking “Should I buy a Lancer or an Annihilator?” I would suggest the Lancer based on effectiveness.

Still, I have found that the Predator is usable, and it is satisfying to play older pieces from my collection. If you only play First Born then of course the Predator is your tank! As I said, it’s perfectly serviceable. Even the Destructor has done some good work for me. Neither tank was really playable in 8th and 9th, so this is a nice change.

I like the Gladiators because they're like hover Predators.

I've used my Predator quite a bit, and I've been happy with it so far in 10th. Of course, I don't own any Gladiators (those things are expensive $$$-wise), but even if I did chances are I'd run both or sometimes I'd need to cut points and the Pred would get the nod.

If Impulsors were cheaper than 80 a pop for a T9 transport, I'd probably buy more. One of the worst utility-to-dollars ratios of the SM range.

If they held 7-8 models they'd be much better...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
If they held 7-8 models they'd be much better...

What would you want to put in one with more capacity? And 7-8 are unusual numbers, although I can see some use.

6 is a 5 man squad with a character, or 2x3.
7 either a 5 man with 2 HQ, or 2x3, one with a leader.
8 is a 5 man and a 3 man squad.

I’m glad it’s not just a 5 man box, and would have preferred a modern 10 man primaris rhino instead of the open topped razorback wannabe thing. But 6 seems a decent capacity for what it is

Bladeguard with a leader.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Bladeguard with a leader.

That’s fair. With the way GW does squad sizes these days I didn’t remember that your could do a 6 man squad of them. Some of the 3 mans you can, others not so much.

But 6 of them popping out of a transport with someone leading them does sound like a good time.

 RaptorusRex wrote:
If Impulsors were cheaper than 80 a pop for a T9 transport, I'd probably buy more. One of the worst utility-to-dollars ratios of the SM range.

Funny enough, a BT Ironstorm list with 4 just did some work this past week in a list that featured 12 hulls, though I imagine 5 points for an extra MM per Impulsor helped immensely.

 Nevelon wrote:
That’s fair. With the way GW does squad sizes these days I didn’t remember that your could do a 6 man squad of them. Some of the 3 mans you can, others not so much.

What's also fair is that if we had per-model points values and variable squad sizes, then this wouldn't be an issue in the first place and 6 would be totally fine!

But sadly, box-based unit restrictions are this edition's sprue-based weapon limitations, which in turn were last edition's no model/no rule. That's how we end up with Ripper "Swarms" that have 3 models. GW really sucks at this...

 Nevelon wrote:
But 6 of them popping out of a transport with someone leading them does sound like a good time.

Yeah I'm still on the whole Land Raider train, so if I want to take 6 Bladeguard with a Judiciar (Fight First is fun!), that leaves 5 slots in the Land Raider. I feel like experimenting with also putting 5 Infernus Marines in there, for some extra bite.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Yeah I'm still on the whole Land Raider train, so if I want to take 6 Bladeguard with a Judiciar (Fight First is fun!), that leaves 5 slots in the Land Raider. I feel like experimenting with also putting 5 Infernus Marines in there, for some extra bite.

I'm on the land raider train too, but it's the redeemer for me. There are few better uses for 1CP than a redeemer overwatch, though one that sometimes comes close is redeemer armor of contempt.

I'm had a very successful run, going 8-1 at RTTs both online and in person, since the fall of the mighty Wraithknight. This has coincided with me adding the redeemer to my lists. It murders things left and right. I may be posting another theory rant soon...

Land Raiders for melee, Repulsors for ranged.

Land Raiders can do both. Don't need the Repulsor.

 RaptorusRex wrote:
Land Raiders for melee, Repulsors for ranged.

Also, land raiders for when you aren't sure what to put inside ahead of time. Depending on what I'm facing, I'll put my eradicators + death company on foot in my LR Redeemer turn 1, or else my hellblasters if my opponent has something like triple whirlwinds.

Also, land raiders for a 2+ save which makes a huge difference, and redeemers specifically for huge damage output. Against thousand sons in a recent game, the redeemer in the face essentially nullified his movement phase for 2-3 turns. His flamers couldn't move into range safely without burning the cabal points he'd need to turn off my armor save.

Celerior wrote:
. . . if my opponent has something like triple whirlwinds.

It amuses me that Whirlwinds are a thing again. And an anti MEQ thing at that! I haven't used three Whirlwinds since that Formation in 7th ed.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Land Raiders can do both. Don't need the Repulsor.

I'm more and more inclined to agree with this.

Land Raiders are consequently living up to expectations and performing well.
Repulsors are consequently letting me down...

At least they are noticeably cheaper so there's still a spot for them in my lists (and *if* I do bring them, its for ranged units) but that lack of a 2+ save really hurts.

Totally no reason to have any restrictions in play for stuff. Nope, none!


Gee, I wonder what's missing from this Vanguard Spearhead Detachment...

Not the player's fault when GW can't write rules.

Moreover, this won't change anything in regards to detachment composition. All that will change from this is:

1. Aggressors will go up in cost.
2. Centurions will go up in cost.
3. Inceptors will go up in cost.
4. They'll probably add in limits on what Ventris can give his Deep Strike to (or make it so he has to lead the unit).

At least the list has scouts?

Probably see restrictions on Blade Driven Deep.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Probably see restrictions on Blade Driven Deep.

Which will just further highlight how bad they are at this.

"When we created this Enhancement, we did not anticipate that people would use it on units that one might consider the opposite of stealthy..."

If they maybe tested these rules, then perhaps this sort of thing wouldn't happen. Or if they'd put an ounce more thought into the detachment system, and made them actually impact force composition rather than just strats and keywords, then you wouldn't get "Stealth" armies full of fething Aggressors and Centurions.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Probably see restrictions on Blade Driven Deep.

I wonder if they'll restrict it to Phobos and Tacticus (and Jump?). Or just Phobos.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Probably see restrictions on Blade Driven Deep.

Which will just further highlight how bad they are at this.

"When we created this Enhancement, we did not anticipate that people would use it on units that one might consider the opposite of stealthy..."

If they maybe tested these rules, then perhaps this sort of thing wouldn't happen. Or if they'd put an ounce more thought into the detachment system, and made them actually impact force composition rather than just strats and keywords, then you wouldn't get "Stealth" armies full of fething Aggressors and Centurions.

Where is that quote from?

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Probably see restrictions on Blade Driven Deep.

I wonder if they'll restrict it to Phobos and Tacticus (and Jump?). Or just Phobos.

One option to keep it as a useful enhancement would be to limit it to 2 Wound models. So no Aggressors, Terminators or Centurions but you could take Sternguard, Hellblasters etc?

I think every somewhat competitive player instantly thought of 10 x Deathwing Terminators or 6 x Aggressors for Blade Driven Deep when the Vanguard rules came out. Which was probably not on the minds of the GW Devs in their tower.

 Niiai wrote:
Where is that quote from?

It's not from anywhere. It's what I expect their eventual Metawatch comedy article to say when the change is made in January.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Probably see restrictions on Blade Driven Deep.

I wonder if they'll restrict it to Phobos and Tacticus (and Jump?). Or just Phobos.

One option to keep it as a useful enhancement would be to limit it to 2 Wound models. So no Aggressors, Terminators or Centurions but you could take Sternguard, Hellblasters etc?

I think every somewhat competitive player instantly thought of 10 x Deathwing Terminators or 6 x Aggressors for Blade Driven Deep when the Vanguard rules came out. Which was probably not on the minds of the GW Devs in their tower.

I mean, like literally the day of release, I had a list with 6x Aggressors and even had Uriel too. Power gamer inclinations.

GW can't have missed this, right? Maybe they just didn't realize it's strength? Also, is it so pervasive that it even needs to be toned down? Very curious how they're gonna handle it.

What's funny is so many people discounted it early on for the more obvious Ironstorm lists.

They might go with some kind of ham-fisted fix like adding a special exception for Centurions and/or Terminators, or maybe limit it to units of 5 or fewer models.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


If they maybe tested these rules, then perhaps this sort of thing wouldn't happen. Or if they'd put an ounce more thought into the detachment system, and made them actually impact force composition rather than just strats and keywords, then you wouldn't get "Stealth" armies full of fething Aggressors and Centurions.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

GW can't have missed this, right? Maybe they just didn't realize it's strength? Also, is it so pervasive that it even needs to be toned down? Very curious how they're gonna handle it.

Their only issue appears to be that their playtesting lacks the type of player that will seek out degenerate strategies to win at all costs.

They still see it as a game that you play to tell a story. A perfect example is when they saw what happened with doctrines when they introduced 'em. They expected folks would play like they envisioned - moving through them as you tell the story of a battle. Sure, they've paid a lot of attention to the tournament scene, but it almost seems begrudgingly so. I think they're coming around, but they really need to pick up some power gamers in their testing. Maybe even exclusively power gamers. Bring in folks that would look at a set of rules they're told are supposed to represent stealth and have them come up with a list like this without turning their nose up at it.

It all really comes down to the folks who are designing this game aren't actually playing it like, well, this.

Lemondish wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


If they maybe tested these rules, then perhaps this sort of thing wouldn't happen. Or if they'd put an ounce more thought into the detachment system, and made them actually impact force composition rather than just strats and keywords, then you wouldn't get "Stealth" armies full of fething Aggressors and Centurions.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

GW can't have missed this, right? Maybe they just didn't realize it's strength? Also, is it so pervasive that it even needs to be toned down? Very curious how they're gonna handle it.

Their only issue appears to be that their playtesting lacks the type of player that will seek out degenerate strategies to win at all costs.

They still see it as a game that you play to tell a story. A perfect example is when they saw what happened with doctrines when they introduced 'em. They expected folks would play like they envisioned - moving through them as you tell the story of a battle. Sure, they've paid a lot of attention to the tournament scene, but it almost seems begrudgingly so. I think they're coming around, but they really need to pick up some power gamers in their testing. Maybe even exclusively power gamers. Bring in folks that would look at a set of rules they're told are supposed to represent stealth and have them come up with a list like this without turning their nose up at it.

It all really comes down to the folks who are designing this game aren't actually playing it like, well, this.

They need to get some Magic players to help test. I attribute my eye for power gamer options 100% to spending ~15 years playing Magic competitively. It trains the eye for nasty combos and max efficiency.

As far as I can tell that detachment work as intended. True that ultra smurf granting deep strike to the centurion unit is a bit of a loophole. But you could just take shrike and have two units start up in your grill instead. (No Calgar then.)