IA13: Dedicated Transport Dreadclaws, and More!

[King Jackal]

 

This mindset is frustrating to me. Adapt or Die.

 

 Look: it doesn't help anybody if we ignore the facts and act like the stuff is more than it really is. There are some good things, there are some stupid things and lots of meh in between. However, regardless of the rules, I have lots of fun with the list, because:

 

Can you explain to me the benefit of saying "don't take x because the loyalists have better rules?"

[Iron_Within]

TBH, 40k these days in terms of competitiveness is ludicrous and shouldn't be discussed, the separation in power levels is complete madness. Renegades and Heretics is line with the power levels of new armies such as AM IG (yes it is, I'll explain in a mo), Orks, Dark Eldar and to some extent Tyranids (if you don't take the bendy beyond reason flying armies).

 

Vs IG, R&H lose out a lot, but gain a lot. We don't have orders and our line troops aren't as good as IG and they're not meant to be. Renegades are meant to die, I'm fine with that, even with Bloody handed Reaver R&H armies don't have the resources of the Imperium so do not have such chains of command, so cannot coordinate fire. But each unit does have self reliance, but the cost is the lack of buffing from commands. But, R&H have things IG wish they had. Spawn, 5 per slot Wyverns, super cheap troops, expendable fodder (that can do something, like respawn!), easily available fearless units (Zombies, Spawn) and masses of artillery, far more I think than even IG can field easily as we have a lesser tax from troops. There are some downright head scratcher units such as Ogryns whose pricing is crazy. But every Codex has useless units, every dammed one. 

Can R&H be jimmied to ultra competitive? No, it has limits, big ones, but I like that, it's a decent power level with decent option that doesn't make me feel dirty. If IG cheese to the max I don't think R&H would work against them, but then again I'm a strong believer in the traffic light coding of army list power levels, and one just should not play a person far outside your armies power level (as it's just not a fun game).

 

aaaanyway

It's obvious to a blind man what I have in mind for the R&H list, Iron Warriors mortal troops, which is something R&H do really well. but I was wondering what other legions/renegades mortal elements would look like.

 

Iron Warriors - basic troops, lots of Artillery and things for defending artillery. Then some more artillery.

Word Bearers - big mobs of troops, badly trained (BS2 all round WOOOO!) and plenty of mutant hordes. Reminds me of the Word Bearer novels where the Imperial citizens where brain washed into culists (blood mortar and a big thing).

Death Guard - Zombies & Drones, 

Black Legion - classic lost and the damned list, pretty open with lots of cheap troops. So mix of renegade troops and mutants with support.

Thousand Sons - Psychic Magus types with backed up troops and increasing numbers of Spawn.

Alpha Legion - plenty of well trained Cultists, probably have the best organised units, Bloody Handed Reaver. Anything with Infiltrate and Outflank.

Night Lords - Someone help me out here.

Red Corsairs - Skull Harvest (Honsou novels) types. A real mix of units possible as it would have every malcontent out there rubbing shoulders with one another, most likely to have mercs I think.

Crimson Slaughter - no idea

Emperors Children - again no idea.

[the jeske]

Ok this I dont understand. You compare IG to FW renegads as stand alone [and not cheezed what ever that means for IG, because mono IG sucks super hard in 7th], but then go on how they should be played with different csm legions. That makes no sense at all to me. There are no stand alone armies anymore, aside for eldar[doesn't mean they don't like some of the DE stuff] or nids[becasue GW hates them and gave them no BBs]. All armies are build out of multiple codex, with formations and more often then not multi CAD. So if we are to check how they work we have to compare our stuff to other factions stuff. Even gold fish armies for testing aren't mono codex nowadays.

 

 

 

I liked how you skiped the GK and SW in the "just as good" codex line up :D

[Nehekhare]

 

Can you explain to me the benefit of saying "don't take x because the loyalists have better rules?"

 

Sure. Short answer: it's better to use the better rules instead of the worse rules.

 

Long answer: Firstly, you decide what kind of fluff/units/combos you like to play (because this is a matter of personal taste one cannot rationally discuss). Then, by comparison, gaming experience and statistical analysis, we can work out which set of rules/codices is the best for representing your choice on the battlefield (because this is a matter we can indeed rationally discuss). This makes much more sense than making up stuff contrary to the facts and consequently getting disappointed after throwing lots of money out of the window.

[Hellios]

 

 

Can you explain to me the benefit of saying "don't take x because the loyalists have better rules?"

 

Sure. Short answer: it's better to use the better rules instead of the worse rules.

 

Long answer: Firstly, you decide what kind of fluff/units/combos you like to play (because this is a matter of personal taste one cannot rationally discuss). Then, by comparison, gaming experience and statistical analysis, we can work out which set of rules/codices is the best for representing your choice on the battlefield (because this is a matter we can indeed rationally discuss). This makes much more sense than making up stuff contrary to the facts and consequently getting disappointed after throwing lots of money out of the window.

 

 

Say I want my army to be lead by a sorcerer, have 30 CSMs, and be backed up by 3 Obliterators. For arguments sake that is a 1,500pt army.

 

However let's say for 1,500pts I could take a Librarian, 30 space marines, and 3 Centurions. If that was a better list I'd use those rules, but use the Chaos models to represent them. Sometimes the difference is more apparent. Maybe in 1,500pts I could fit in 6 Centurions, rather than 3 Obliterators.

[King Jackal]

 

Can you explain to me the benefit of saying "don't take x because the loyalists have better rules?"

 

 

Sure. Short answer: it's better to use the better rules instead of the worse rules.

 

Long answer: Firstly, you decide what kind of fluff/units/combos you like to play (because this is a matter of personal taste one cannot rationally discuss). Then, by comparison, gaming experience and statistical analysis, we can work out which set of rules/codices is the best for representing your choice on the battlefield (because this is a matter we can indeed rationally discuss). This makes much more sense than making up stuff contrary to the facts and consequently getting disappointed after throwing lots of money out of the window.

But that has got nothing to do with what we have at our disposal. We can lament, swap codex or get on with it.

It is unhelpful to say, "don't take a land raider in a Chaos army, because in a Space Marines army you get a land raider that has POTMS"

[Hellios]

 

 

Can you explain to me the benefit of saying "don't take x because the loyalists have better rules?"

 

Sure. Short answer: it's better to use the better rules instead of the worse rules.

 

Long answer: Firstly, you decide what kind of fluff/units/combos you like to play (because this is a matter of personal taste one cannot rationally discuss). Then, by comparison, gaming experience and statistical analysis, we can work out which set of rules/codices is the best for representing your choice on the battlefield (because this is a matter we can indeed rationally discuss). This makes much more sense than making up stuff contrary to the facts and consequently getting disappointed after throwing lots of money out of the window.

But that has got nothing to do with what we have at our disposal. We can lament, swap codex or get on with it.

It is unhelpful to say, "don't take a land raider in a Chaos army, because in a Space Marines army you get a land raider that has POTMS"

 

 

It is if you can create a better army, that you still feel represents your force. FORGE THE NARRATIVE, BRA! You have other rule sets at your disposal; you only restrict yourself by not using them, and it is your right to do so. There is no magic key to making things work in the CSM codex. As you say we have three options, or a combination of any of the three.

[King Jackal]

 

 

 

Can you explain to me the benefit of saying "don't take x because the loyalists have better rules?"

 

 

Sure. Short answer: it's better to use the better rules instead of the worse rules.

 

Long answer: Firstly, you decide what kind of fluff/units/combos you like to play (because this is a matter of personal taste one cannot rationally discuss). Then, by comparison, gaming experience and statistical analysis, we can work out which set of rules/codices is the best for representing your choice on the battlefield (because this is a matter we can indeed rationally discuss). This makes much more sense than making up stuff contrary to the facts and consequently getting disappointed after throwing lots of money out of the window.

But that has got nothing to do with what we have at our disposal. We can lament, swap codex or get on with it.

It is unhelpful to say, "don't take a land raider in a Chaos army, because in a Space Marines army you get a land raider that has POTMS"

 

It is if you can create a better army, that you still feel represents your force. FORGE THE NARRATIVE, BRA! You have other rule sets at your disposal; you only restrict yourself by not using them, and it is your right to do so. There is no magic key to making things work in the CSM codex. As you say we have three options, or a combination of any of the three.

And that's your prerogative. But personally - for better or worse, I play Chaos

[Nehekhare]

yeah me too - even while using the space wolves codex ;)

[Lagrath]

I think R&H are pretty competitive. I'm excited about my new army combining CSM and R&H. My renegades provide the swarm of scoring troops, anti-tank, and artillery, while the CSM give me anti-air and melee.

[Iron_Within]

Ok this I dont understand. You compare IG to FW renegads as stand alone [and not cheezed what ever that means for IG, because mono IG sucks super hard in 7th], but then go on how they should be played with different csm legions. That makes no sense at all to me. There are no stand alone armies anymore, aside for eldar[doesn't mean they don't like some of the DE stuff] or nids[becasue GW hates them and gave them no BBs]. All armies are build out of multiple codex, with formations and more often then not multi CAD. So if we are to check how they work we have to compare our stuff to other factions stuff. Even gold fish armies for testing aren't mono codex nowadays.

I liked how you skiped the GK and SW in the "just as good" codex line up

Yes I did, because they are two separate subjects relevant to this thread and I didn't want to double post. I completely forgot about SW and GK codexes TBH and I don't know their power level.

You are flat out wrong on your complete generalization on what people play, maybe in your neck of the woods but not where I play, so don't assume everyone takes allies. I can only assume that you are completely ignorant of theming if you do not understand what I talking about.

[Kilofix]

I just realized that Coven of Tzeentch Infantry (without Militia upgrade) shoot Flyers, Overwatch, Heavy weapons on the move, etc. all the same - which is as well as they shoot normally - all at BS2.

[Iron_Within]

which is why I want covenant of Tzeentch on infantry and Bloody Handed Reaver if I'm taking an infantry shooty force, Autocannons aplenty and shoot everything. Spawn for the counter attack.

[Emperors Immortals]

CoT is looking pretty decent, but im still trying to think of the best set up considering the ArchDemagogue is IC and can join a Rapier  battery or a large Sentinal squad with lascannons for pretty cheap. He can also join an allied Rapier Hades Autocannon team for laughs. Very tempting.

 

Im just holding off commenting on to much until I can finally sit down and read the book properly. Kids and work = no time.

[Nehekhare]

ArchDemagogue is IC and can join a Rapier  battery or a large Sentinal squad with lascannons for pretty cheap. He can also join an allied Rapier Hades Autocannon team for laughs.

 

ICs cannot join units that contain monstrous creatures or vehicles, but CoTz on 3 hades is a nice idea. Stick them in a wall of martyrs defense emplacement for added overwatch hilarity (re-roll to hit), stubborn and 4+ cover for ~rhino cost.

[Cheex]

Edit: I can't read, ignore me.

[King Jackal]

 

ArchDemagogue is IC and can join a Rapier  battery or a large Sentinal squad with lascannons for pretty cheap. He can also join an allied Rapier Hades Autocannon team for laughs.

 

ICs cannot join units that contain monstrous creatures or vehicles, but CoTz on 3 hades is a nice idea. Stick them in a wall of martyrs defense emplacement for added overwatch hilarity (re-roll to hit), stubborn and 4+ cover for ~rhino cost.

 

 

At that point, I can't really imagine anyone charging it...

[Nehekhare]

to be fair, your artillery getting charged is a clear sign of tactical mistakes in the first place.

[King Jackal]

Completely agree. So the CoTz is all but wasted on the Rapiers

 

The problem with putting a Demagogue with CoTz in a specific squad is that it's so easy to ignore the effect or shoot it to death, at least the Covenant of Khorne and Slaanesh are proactive.

[Nehekhare]

with BS2 skyfire and 0-3 spawn unlocks, CoTz is much more proactive than Kh/Sl imo. Problem is: you don't want your squishy Arch-demagogue warlord to be where those other covenants make sense.

[King Jackal]

Proactive in the sense that Fleet or 1st round Shred is on your terms. Waiting on flyers and unlocking spawn is not "proactive" if you get what I mean.

Easy fixed, don't have him as your Warlord, have (for example) Berzerkers tank the wounds, and other characters for challenges

[Nehekhare]

there is not much use for an Arch-demagogue that isn't your warlord, and a shred/fleet upgrade for that pricetag isn't one.

[King Jackal]

Eh. Difference of opinion. 55 points isn't that steep to add shred to Khârn and pals when you take into consideration that's not all you get.

[brother_contagion]

I don't know if this has been asked and answered, but can you have multiple of the same Legacies of Ruin in you detachment? Or do you have to run an allied detachment for that?

[Warsmith Aznable]

I don't know if this has been asked and answered, but can you have multiple of the same Legacies of Ruin in you detachment? Or do you have to run an allied detachment for that?

 

 

 

One vehicle per full 1,000 points may take one or more Legacies of Ruin, but only one of each Legacy may be taken within the entire army.