My crusaders are getting mauls.

[spartan249]

Alright. Currently, us more verbose members are staunchly advocating axes as the weapon of choice next to the sword on CC henchmen for obvious reasons. I have no problem with this reasoning on DCA. However, putting an Axe on a crusader seems to me to be a dangerous proposition.

 

Heresy, you say? Common sense, I say. Axes are unwieldy, which negatively affect the henchmen's ability to close in in a timely fashion. With any other weapon, DCA using axes will be shielded by the crusaders more effectively as they will close ranks first and take the hits more reliably. In the end, that's the only reason crusaders are in the unit, as otherwise, I may as well bring a full unit of DCA.

 

Another thing I've been thinking about is the new rules for FNP. Now, only strength matters, and mauls provide the most bonus to strength of all the weapons available. Perhaps the lackluster AP is enough to drive others away, but I don't think it's all that big a deal, as the DCA are the ones doing the killing anyway. The Saders hardly ever hit, let alone wound, with any regularity using a sword/Axe, so I figure I'll at least make every hit wound reliably, and leave the wholesale slaughter to my killing specialists. This'll have the added benefit of potentially prolonging the fight should I find myself fighting in enemy territory, where an immediate victory will result in a squad wipe most of the time.

 

Besides, mauls seem like a more fitting weapon for a dude totting a shield to use. Mauls are much more effective against armored opponents in reality anyway, so it pleases me more to see more realistic weapon loadouts on my guys :P.

[Gentlemanloser]

I prefer Mauls on Crusaders. S3/AP2 doesn't really excite me. :P

 

Also helps with the unit not having Kraks.

[AnImA8]

I prefer Mauls on Crusaders. S3/AP2 doesn't really excite me. ;)

 

+1 S for the Axes, so S4/AP2. Still not amazing, but definitely keeps the axes in consideration with the maul on Crusaders.

 

Spartan, why do you thinking the pile in order matters in this case? If your Crusaders are up front (relative to the unit you are charging) then they'll necessarily be in b2b with the enemy when you assault, at which point you decide whether wounds get allocated to them or others in b2b (since if I remember rightly, in cases where there's no method of judging who is "closer" to the enemy the controlling player decides. pg 25)

 

The point about FNP is also moot since Crusaders are str 3 and so wouldn't hit the requisite str 6 to ID T3 models anyway.

[spartan249]

I suppose it's just me thinking about when I lose control of positioning and am given an unexpected angle to attack from. I never really had to think like this before, so I'm just thinking about stuff that can go wrong and trying to plan for snags.

 

S5 isn't enough, of course. However, that changes with hammerhand and rad grenades, as that is now enough to IK T4 models. Better with the librarian, as that has the potential to go up to s8 (assuming either techmarine or inquisitor is still there).

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Eh, I'd rather take the axe. S4 brings them into decent MeQ killing range, further augmented by the attached Tech-Marine with his rad grenades and 'Hammerhand'. Crusaders only get 1-2 attacks at best, might as well make em count (they become mini-powerfists under the +1S from the axe, the +1S from 'Hammerhand' and the -1T to the enemy from rad).

 

Remember, Crusaders are only I3 anyway, so its not like the maul is going ahead of the axe usually. You are speedier than...Orks and Tau, and tie with Guard infantry. Meh.

 

I seriously hope they reconsider mauls and staves. AP4 is just not viable. AP3 would at least make them a direct upgrade over say a normal power sword.

[Inquisitor Fox]

Remember Hammerhand, boys and girls. Crusaders with Hammerhand active do meet the requisite S6. DCA's with Mauls also hit S7, which is enough to really threaten walkers. I made the argument for DCA's with Mauls before, much of those same facts work here.

 

The Maul isn't a bad deal. It's really not. Having a few Maul/Axe or Sword/Maul armed DCA's and/or Crusaders in your mix of models may pay off.

[Freman Bloodglaive]

Eh, I'd rather take the axe. S4 brings them into decent MeQ killing range, further augmented by the attached Tech-Marine with his rad grenades and 'Hammerhand'. Crusaders only get 1-2 attacks at best, might as well make em count (they become mini-powerfists under the +1S from the axe, the +1S from 'Hammerhand' and the -1T to the enemy from rad).

 

Remember, Crusaders are only I3 anyway, so its not like the maul is going ahead of the axe usually. You are speedier than...Orks and Tau, and tie with Guard infantry. Meh.

 

I seriously hope they reconsider mauls and staves. AP4 is just not viable. AP3 would at least make them a direct upgrade over say a normal power sword.

 

The mace/stave is not an "upgrade" over the sword, it's an alternative to it. They tried very hard to make the options balanced. Take the sword, you get AP3 but no strength bonus. Take the axe, get a small bonus and AP2, but you have to strike last. Take the mace and you get a good strength bonus, but you're AP4. AP4 is exactly as good against armour 4+ or armour 2+ as AP3, the problem is that there is an awful lot of armour 3+ around after four editions of marketing marines.

 

For putting wounds on models the mace is acceptable, particularly when you look at the unit that carries it. Crusaders aren't that offensive, they just provide pretty good defence.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Remember Hammerhand, boys and girls. Crusaders with Hammerhand active do meet the requisite S6. DCA's with Mauls also hit S7, which is enough to really threaten walkers. I made the argument for DCA's with Mauls before, much of those same facts work here.

 

The Maul isn't a bad deal. It's really not. Having a few Maul/Axe or Sword/Maul armed DCA's and/or Crusaders in your mix of models may pay off.

 

You don't take melee warbands to fight walkers. With the Raven, you can just avoid them wholesale (except BA Librarian Dreads, but they're sorta silly). Anyway, as I pointed out, the Tech-Marine can dismantle an enemy Dread pretty reliably (servo-arms, meltabombs).

 

The maul is terrible. AP4 is meaningless in melee, whatever is in 4+ armour is dead from the DCA already (due to sword, which we all agree should be the first weapon they take). Crusaders only get 1 attack, might as well make it count with the axe.

 

For putting wounds on models the mace is acceptable, particularly when you look at the unit that carries it. Crusaders aren't that offensive, they just provide pretty good defence.

 

It's only slightly better than the axe in that its +1 Strength and goes at Initiative, but you are I3 so neither of those things matter much (between rad, 'Hammerhand' and the axe +1 your Crusaders hit hard enough to wound Marines on a 2+ anyway).

[Inquisitor Fox]

Actually, you fully can take a melee warband against a walker. Let's look at our "Average" warband:

 

Inquisitor, 3 Crusaders, 6 DCAs.

 

Now, the DCA's have 4 attacks on the charge, generating 24 attacks. that's 12 hits or thereabouts. Now lets assume the DCA's (str 4) are under the effects of Hammerhand, and armed with Mauls and something. This makes them Str 7. This means that 1/3rd of their hits will glance or penetrate AV12. That means in one round, before even getting to the Crusaders or the Inquisitor, we've done on average 4 hull points of damage which means a dead Walker.

 

Why NOT take a melee warband against a walker? It's one of the last things they'll expect.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Actually, you fully can take a melee warband against a walker. Let's look at our "Average" warband:

 

Inquisitor, 3 Crusaders, 6 DCAs.

 

Now, the DCA's have 4 attacks on the charge, generating 24 attacks. that's 12 hits or thereabouts. Now lets assume the DCA's (str 4) are under the effects of Hammerhand, and armed with Mauls and something. This makes them Str 7. This means that 1/3rd of their hits will glance or penetrate AV12. That means in one round, before even getting to the Crusaders or the Inquisitor, we've done on average 4 hull points of damage which means a dead Walker.

 

Why NOT take a melee warband against a walker? It's one of the last things they'll expect.

 

I re-iterate, you don't take melee warbands to kill walkers. We have plenty of other, cheaper, reliable ways to doing it from range (psycannons, PsyDreads, Vindicare, even Jokaero, not to mention Allies). It's a waste of their potential to gear them to do so. And the Tech-Marine already murders walkers just fine.

 

Your problem with that build is that it might average a dead walker, but the AP4 means Marines shrug off 2/3rds of the wounds you inflict and Terminators don't care at all. Which defeats the purpose of taking the unit in the first place.

 

Melee warbands are basically a replacement for Paladins in an army, they're both scalpels designed for cleaning up enemy heavy infantry. They trade all the durability and shooting of the Paladins for raw melee damage.

 

People might not expect you to waste that much effort to get rid of their walkers, but 'surprise factor' isn't a valid reason to take something. I'd rather a melee warband that consistently kills Marine units and Terminators. That's why I'd take a melee warband in an army list. I can kill walkers via other means, but getting rid of backfield heavy infantry or intercepting something like Stormhammers means either committing a Knight unit (who might lose) or Henchmen (who will take it down with them).

[Inquisitor Fox]

I actually would rather have something like 2 DCA's with sword and maul, 2 DCA's with maul and axe, 2 DCA's with sword and axe, then you could do some crusaders with swords just because. Technically if they're hoofing it or riding a Chimera you can add another couple of people to the warband (it's sized 10 people in my example for a rhino/land raider). Lets say we're in a Chimera of 12 people, and add 2 more maul and axe DCA's

 

so: Inquisitor (lets say Xenos) with force weapon, pistol and rad grenades, hammerhand.

3 Crusaders with sword and shield

2 DCA's with sword/maul

4 DCA's with maul/axe

2 DCA's with sword/axe

 

against Marines: 4 or 5 Inquisitor attacks, with hammerhand for S4, against T3, all bypass armor

3 or 6 Crusader attacks, with hammerhand for S4, against T3, all bypass armor

12 or 16 DCA attacks with sword, with hammerhand for S5, against T3, all bypass armor

12 or 16 DCA attacks with maul or axe (pick your flavor): assuming maul it's at S7, against T3 (for instagibs), 3+ save. With the axe it's S6 against T3 (still have instagibs) bypassing armor but striking last.

 

likewise against Terminators you can end up with:

4 or 5 Inquisitor attacks, with hammerhand for S4, against T3, 2+ save

3 or 6 Crusader attacks, with hammerhand for S4, against T3, 2+ save

8 or 12 DCA attacks with maul and hammerhand for S7, against T3 (instagib), 2+ save

18 or 24 DCA attacks with axe and hammerhand for S6, against T3 (instagib), no save

 

against a walker you still maintain 18 or 24 maul attacks at S7, then 6 or 8 attacks at S6 (less chances).

 

You can maintain damage output against Marines, while still having the ability to damage walkers or vehicles. It's win-win.

[ValourousHeart]

Nichole,

 

He doesn't get it and probably never will.

The issue is that he is convinced that his plan will always work.

Another fact is that he has yet to face a better player.

 

These aspects are both wonderful and sad in equal measure.

 

The problem that he doesn't see is that control is an illusion.

And if he were to face a more skillful player he would be able to see that.

 

But as it stands he can only expect people to send a 300+ point unit (TDA) that has little chance for survival vs his 200 point unit.

Why would anyone send in a cheaper unit that has only the techmarine to be concerned with?

And why would anyone ever consider downing the techmarine with a vindicare?

 

What he is not considering is that people are figuring out how to deal with his Death Star, and one day the tournament crowd will read about it on the internet and start to catch on.

[BrotherWasted]

Darius' point is "just because you can, doesn't mean you should".

 

Yes, you CAN kit a melee warband to fight a walker. But, why WOULD you when nearly every other unit in the army, nay, the Codex, can take it down with much less effort, and at range?

[ValourousHeart]

Trust me Brother Wasted, I get what point Darius is trying to make.

And one day he may understand our point... but he doesn't today, and that is OK.

[spartan249]

Get off the soapbox and have a drink bro.

 

Henchmen assault squads are not death stars, they never were. If anything, they are one of the best assault units because they are so cheap, yet so effective. As effective as they are at their role though, adding the capability to take on higher durability targets requires HQ investment as well as the techmarine, which may not always be the best place to put your warlord.

 

In effect, all henchmen are doing is clean-up of what the rest of the army is processing. This means that all those high durability units must first weather fire before even becoming a target for a charge. With a henchmen squad (I put mine in a stormraven for the most control over their positioning), you generally decide what they are going to hit and use them either as a hunter killer or as a diversion to take advantage of. If this means that all the opponent's walkers are staying home and not engaging my forces in CQB, fine, I'll bait with/sacrifice my henchmen to maintain that advantage.

 

The disadvantage of arming up to take on a relatively inconsequential threat is still present, and while I'm ok with including new capabilities, I'm not ok with sacrificing other capabilities to do so.

[Inquisitor Fox]

Personally I don't consider building for versatility and redundancy a wasted effort. I've found I get more mileage from my models within games, and overall, by letting them be well rounded and versatile. I've found in my own experience being unconventional and unexpected to be an asset. I point out that we can use the multiple weapons of the DCA's to add versatility without removing effectiveness. That's why I point it out.

 

People are free to consider this approach if they want. Everyone plays their own game after all, I just don't see the math supporting only one weapon combination (sword/axe) being valid. I think the options work out just fine overall without removing from the efficiency of the unit.

[WhoaDirty]

You should give them mauls so you can use Warriors of Chaos and match their cloaks to Coteaz' cloak. :)

[Reclusiarch Darius]

@ INP: I think you are missing my argument. I'm not interested in mauls, because they don't bring anything to the table I want. I don't wanna kill walkers with my melee warband, I want to delete Marines and Terminators when I trade. If I want true flexibility, I'll just take Paladins and mix in hammers like normal.

 

@ VH: I fully understand INP's arguments, I just don't agree with them. See BrotherWasted's post. I have no idea what you are on about with the rest of it (character assassination works better when it is plausible), so I'm just going to ignore the rest of your posts.

 

People are free to consider this approach if they want. Everyone plays their own game after all, I just don't see the math supporting only one weapon combination (sword/axe) being valid. I think the options work out just fine overall without removing from the efficiency of the unit.

 

It really depends on who you fight. We generally hash out tactics and builds on this board with the intention of 'all-comers'. I fight Terminators pretty regularly, and in a tournament situation you'd come across them at least once. That's why I'm not keen on mauls. You are either giving up AP3 at Initiative (which is largely the point of DCA, its how they compare favorably to Paladins), or AP2 when you fight 2+ armour. I know you get more wounds with mauls, but ignoring armour > forcing more saves. The concussive ability doesn't interest me (if you haven't killed them already you are in trouble, Crusader ablative wounds or not), nor does being able to fight walkers somewhat better (which isn't the point of the unit).

 

Having said all that, I don't mind if you take mauls and find success with them. I just prefer the sword+axe combo.

[facmanpob]

This is an interesting topic. Although I'm not a GK player, I am looking at an allied GK Inquisitor and warband, so discussions about weapon loadouts are useful for me! ^_^

 

My view is that weapon loadouts should always be determined by the role of the model. It seems to me that in a combined Crusader/DCA type warband, then it is the DCA that is going to be laying down the major hurt, with its better base WS/S/A and I skills. The Crusader has a storm shield, which immediately puts it in the defensive category. So, the question to me seems to be "what is the best weapon loadout for the defensive part of the unit?"

 

Under the 5th Ed wound allocation rules, it really didn't matter where the crusaders were physically located, as we could simply allocate any wounds to them first. Now, under 6th Ed, we really need to ensure the crusaders are up front when the enemy strikes. If they get into CC in our turn, that is easy to achieve. The issue comes if the enemy gets the charge on us from an oblique angle. Ideally, we want to be able to pile-in our crusaders before the enemy strikes, to make sure that we can allocate wounds on them and take advantage of their storm shields. If we can't guarantee this, then there is an argument against using them at all.

 

The DCA will probably strike first at I6 assuming they are using swords or mauls, after which the order will be dependant upon the enemy. If we are facing Marines or power swords/LCs then they will go at I4; if we are facing unwieldy weapons/TH/fists etc, then they go at I1. Crusaders sit in the middle at I3, but regardless of their weapon choice they are not going to hit before I4. Therefore, we should be looking to our DCA to wipe out I4 enemies before they get to strike. This would mean that the Crusaders are more likely to be engaging in fisticuffs, and therefore providing effective defensive capabilities by using their storm shields, with terminator armour, and so we should kit them out accordingly with AP2 weapons.

 

If we are not facing marines, and are facing say IG or Orks with a lower base I, then we would probably want to lose the AP2 weaponry and ensure that we can hit at our base initiative.

 

Essentially then, my recommendation would be magnetise!

 

Just my tuppence ^_^

[spafe]

While I have no intention of magentizing as I load out power weps with what I think looks cool (ends up with a variety), is there anything in rules to stop you looking at enemy list as switch mauls in if they are orks etc? since it merely says power wep, and no points are affected? seems very unfair/borderline cheating anyway but is there a reason you specifically cant (other than not being a ...erm...heritic :-p)

[spartan249]

In spirit, some would argue that it is still tailoring (most TOs I know are taking that stance on soft list choices like that), but some might allow it. I think it's dbaggery in the finest as I abhor tailoring as a concept in pick up games (campaigns are a different story though).

[Vash]

Interesting arguments here.

I will definitely take mauls on some of my DCA's atleast. Not 100% sure about the crusaders though. As noted before, they strike at I3. And a unit like this with DCA and Crusader combo, it will likely include some kind of character with buffs/de-buffs.

 

I could argue against Darius about the walker issue. A good player would understand the weakness of this henchmen unit, and send in his walker vs this unit of they have no means of taking it down. Sure, the walker only has 2 attacks and is mainly there for fire support, but holding of a deadly unit like this for a turn or two could save alot of models else where.

To flee automatically against the walker I am not sure you can. Since the unit will probably include a character with buffs, making the Axe assassins able to glance it on 6's on the armour penetration roll.

 

One must consider that the enemy player will have strategies to wont agree with your own. Saying "my DCA's and Crusaders will ONLY face 3+ models and terminators" have not met any player with experience. Letting you play your own way all the time. There will be situations where you cant avoid getting charged by something that you cant really handle with only the Axe/sword combo.

 

 

But I do understand both sides. The most common setup is sword/axe, and it is viable for most situations they will encounter most of the times.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

I could argue against Darius about the walker issue. A good player would understand the weakness of this henchmen unit, and send in his walker vs this unit of they have no means of taking it down. Sure, the walker only has 2 attacks and is mainly there for fire support, but holding of a deadly unit like this for a turn or two could save alot of models else where.

To flee automatically against the walker I am not sure you can. Since the unit will probably include a character with buffs, making the Axe assassins able to glance it on 6's on the armour penetration roll.

 

The only Dreads with the speed to engage you that quickly need either Fleet or jump packs. Regular Dreads are just too slow.

I won't be fleeing, the Tech-Marine and Crusaders can tank the 2 claw hits, then he can use meltabombs and servo-arms to dismantle it.

 

One must consider that the enemy player will have strategies to wont agree with your own. Saying "my DCA's and Crusaders will ONLY face 3+ models and terminators" have not met any player with experience. Letting you play your own way all the time. There will be situations where you cant avoid getting charged by something that you cant really handle with only the Axe/sword combo.

 

Sure, but taking awful mauls doesn't really change that picture. I'd rather do my primary job well, and have contingency for bad matchups, than gimp the unit for a cornercase. I can count on one hand the number of armies I've fought where people use assault walkers. Especially in this edition, everyone loads up on guns, not melee. The big exceptions have been CSM and Bangles. Tech-Marine and Raven both have means of breaking walkers, I don't need the DCA or Crusaders to be penalised.

 

My simple answer is take a Raven. It will let you fly right over his walkers and attack what you want. It also packs a multi-melt and a lascannon for breaking high AV. I basically consider the melee warbands job done if they take out their primary target (usually something backfield, like Sternguard, Long Fangs, Tactical Marines etc). If they survive the enemy retaliation and kill someone else, that's a bonus. Tying up a melee walker for a few turns (even if they lose) is perfectly fine by me. It's not like they do especially better with mauls.

[Vash]

Sorry for giving input mate ;)

wont happen again ;)

 

I am just talking about things that could happen and suggestions. Do as you please. You dont like mauls and will probably not see their use in your play style.

You seem to have superior tactics over your opponents, never getting flanked etc, so I guess your fine.

 

I know perfectly well that dreads are not presented as much as before. But there are other things where the maul could do more use.

 

A demon prince with T5 or T6 (not sure what he can have or what he has) usually comes with wings. He will most likely make a charge. Having mauls against him is what I prefer any day over the sword and axe, this due to the fact that the demon prince has a 5++ save (usually dont take the 3+ save due to its cost, at least where I play).

 

But I am expecting a counter answer to this... I dont know why I reply to this really :cuss

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Sorry for giving input mate

wont happen again

 

Not attacking you, just saying, you're not thinking through the full implications. Not being able to engage Terminators is a problem, they're a dedicated melee unit that's very common and they eat most Knight and Henchmen units easily (Paladins don't have enough hammer attacks). It's basically axe DCA and Terminator blob with Banner+multiple hammers for hard-countering, aside from just shooting them with AP2 repeatedly. Sorry if I offended you, I just disagree strongly.

 

I am just talking about things that could happen and suggestions. Do as you please. You dont like mauls and will probably not see their use in your play style.

You seem to have superior tactics over your opponents, never getting flanked etc, so I guess your fine.

 

More meta-game, but yeah, mauls don't appeal.

Not at all, I lose about as often as I win. Low model count is a real issue for my lists. I've had the melee warband fail more than once on me (any terrain really impedes them, and massed fire even with cover saves ends them). Gone back to my TDA blob for a bit for that reason.

 

A demon prince with T5 or T6 (not sure what he can have or what he has) usually comes with wings. He will most likely make a charge. Having mauls against him is what I prefer any day over the sword and axe, this due to the fact that the demon prince has a 5++ save (usually dont take the 3+ save due to its cost, at least where I play).

 

It's T5, they need Nurgle Mark to go to T6.

DCA actually go ahead of the CD one (or same time if he's Slanneshi). My local Daemon player favours Tzeentch Mark with Iron Hide, he doesn't field the CSM one because lack of Eternal Warrior. 4++ still breaks under enough sword hits, between 'Hammerhand' and rad nades I've stabbed it to death (the other one I usually have my DK engage). In the corner-case of them not taking Iron Hide or Mark of Tzeentch, yeah mauls cause more wounds, but I wouldn't call that a common matchup. Most MC's have a 3+ save, combined with their high Toughness you really need AP3 to deal significant damage. AP4 just doesn't cut it, which gets back to my central problem with mauls.

 

But I am expecting a counter answer to this... I dont know why I reply to this really

 

Because its a discussion forum? Lol