Invictor Tactical Warsuit: Incendium vs Ironhail.

[Rommel44]

Hey mates. Personally am loving the new Invictor Tactical Warsuit and as it stands, I plan to field ateast 2x of them in my army for the potential they can bring. That being said, while I personally plan to magnetize mine, I am curious to know which main weapon do you like best between the two of them and why? The Ironhail Autocannon is great for the consistent 6x Autocannon Shots, but the Incendium Cannon has a ton of potential as well with the 2D6 auto-hits.

[Son of Sacrifice]

I like the flamer on this one, as much as I usually dislike random number of shots.

[CCE1981]

The Flamer has a huge draw, it is extremely likely to be in Range turn 1, and that 2d6 hits helps a ton.

[MajorNese]

If I'd add invictors (not happening until all supplements are out, out of principle) then I'd go for the flamer.

 

The autocannon is nice, but inaccurate on the move, and there are lots of ways to get more resilient autocannon platforms out there. No need to go down to T6 and waste Concealed Positions.

This unit is designed to get close and be a threat, not stay back and shoot. For that, the flamer will be in range turn 1, and in range whenever someone decides to charge the dread.

[Toomanyprojects]

Yep, flamer for me too. It will hit extremely hard and the accuracy won’t degrade as wounds are taken.

[CaptainMarsh]

Flamer is the easy pick here, especially if you're being aggressive with them. Assuming the Warsuit moves, you're hitting on 4s. That means, on average, 7 S5 AP-1 D1 attacks versus 3 S7 AP-1 D2 attacks are making wound rolls. 

Flamer, 7 hits average-
T3- 4.66 successful wounds
T4- 4.66 successful wounds
T5- 3.5 successful wounds
T6-T9- 2.33 successful wounds

Autocannons on the Move, 3 hits average-
T3- 2.5 successful wounds
T4-T6- 2 successful wounds
T7- 1.5 successful wounds
T8+- 1 successful wound

The Incendium will never degrade and has decent overwatch deterrent. It has a random shots, meaning it will spike- both positively and negatively.
The Autocannons will always give you a set number of shots and provide some decent long rang power, and their hits and wounds improve if they're immobile. Once the Warsuit has taken enough damage however it degrades, and why bring a Warsuit if it is being immobile?

Whichever one is better depends on how you are using it, but I cannot fathom bringing the Autocannons instead of the Flamer. The real damage potential comes from the melee it carries. Using the firepower on the vehicle to clear as much chaff as possible from the charge lanes seems ideal, and for that the flamer is superior.
 

[PiñaColada]

-SNIP-

Whichever one is better depends on how you are using it, but I cannot fathom bringing the Autocannons instead of the Flamer. The real damage potential comes from the melee it carries. Using the firepower on the vehicle to clear as much chaff as possible from the charge lanes seems ideal, and for that the flamer is superior.

 

Vulkan approves this message. 

 

I'm of the same mind, you want this thing in CC, so it'll be moving. An auto-hitting 12" dual heavyflamer is something I thought GW would've priced insanely high but they didn't so I'm not really seeing the argument for the autocannons. Especially now that supressors are also cheaper than before. The flamer is also practical when it comes to chaff charging it to try and tie it up in CC.

[Toxichobbit]

Whichever one is better depends on how you are using it, but I cannot fathom bringing the Autocannons instead of the Flamer. The real damage potential comes from the melee it carries. Using the firepower on the vehicle to clear as much chaff as possible from the charge lanes seems ideal, and for that the flamer is superior.

 

 

Ultramarines. From turn 2 onwards the autocannon won't be suffering any penalty to hit from moving, which changes the dynamic of the suit and opens up new possibilities.

[Mandragola]

Interesting that there’s such a consensus in favour of the flamer. I’m a lot less sure about it. For me the flamer commits you to rushing the enemy. That’s not always the right thing to do.

 

Something I’ve realised with the Incurvictor is that its other weapons are all pretty long-ranged. The heavy bolter and stubbers are all 36”. This means that it can actually serve reasonably well as a gun platform able to deliver a counter-punch against incoming threats. It actually has more firepower than a dakka predator against most targets, while costing less. 15 shots at ap-2 on turn 1, thanks to devastator doctrine, is pretty serious.

 

There are times when that’ll be the right option. In general, against a lot of infantry horde armies, something like an Incurvictor is not great up close. I’ve had bad experiences with Armigers - which kill infantry better in melee than an Incurvictor does. Blobs can just surround the thing and use it to remain safe and un-shootable on objectives. When they feel like it your opponent can have a smash captain or daemon prince come in and kill the Incurvictor.

 

Edit: stupid insomethingor names corrected.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Invictor, brother. Incursors are an infantry squad.

[Mandragola]

Invictor, brother. Incursors are an infantry squad.

 

Dammit. Have edited.

[Cruor Vault]

 

Whichever one is better depends on how you are using it, but I cannot fathom bringing the Autocannons instead of the Flamer. The real damage potential comes from the melee it carries. Using the firepower on the vehicle to clear as much chaff as possible from the charge lanes seems ideal, and for that the flamer is superior.

 

 

Ultramarines. From turn 2 onwards the autocannon won't be suffering any penalty to hit from moving, which changes the dynamic of the suit and opens up new possibilities.

 

 

Even better would be using concealed positions to deploy hyper aggressively.  If you go second, use Rapid Redeployment to pull back to safety.

[CaptainMarsh]

 

Whichever one is better depends on how you are using it, but I cannot fathom bringing the Autocannons instead of the Flamer. The real damage potential comes from the melee it carries. Using the firepower on the vehicle to clear as much chaff as possible from the charge lanes seems ideal, and for that the flamer is superior.

 

 

Ultramarines. From turn 2 onwards the autocannon won't be suffering any penalty to hit from moving, which changes the dynamic of the suit and opens up new possibilities.

 

Yes, but it also loses out on an AP (fairly, so does everything but the Fragstorm) in the Tactical Doctrine, while turn one everything save that Fragstorm has an AP bonus. Hitting on 3+s is better than not, of course. The extra hit, on average, doesn't really change the dynamic enough IMHO to warrant it over the Flamer, which doesn't quite care about whether it moves or not. 

 

Using it initially as backline support at least initially, perhaps in the manner that Vault suggested, does warrant the autocannon's inclusion. Though IMHO if you're not able to use it as an instant pressure model that is able to threaten the enemy's front with immediacy than it has lost most of its charm anyway. 

 

Additionally, Vulkan Lives *stomp stomp*

[TiguriusX]

 

 

Even better would be using concealed positions to deploy hyper aggressively.  If you go second, use Rapid Redeployment to pull back to safety.

 

 

Rapid redeployment?  Is that a new stratagem in the codex or supplement?

 

I don't have any of those books yet

 

I was theory crafting some hyper aggressive Princeps of Deceit tricks before I learned it got nerfed to phobos units 

 

Maybe this rapid reployment is what I was looking for

[Kallas]

Rapid redeployment?  Is that a new stratagem in the codex or supplement?

 

It's a 2CP Ultramarines Stratagem to redeploy up to three units.

[Cruor Vault]

 

Rapid redeployment?  Is that a new stratagem in the codex or supplement?

 

It's a 2CP Ultramarines Stratagem to redeploy up to three units.

 

 

It's even better than that.

 

It doesn't happen until the start of the first battle round, so you can decide to use if AFTER you find out who is going first.

[TiguriusX]

ya that with 3 tactical flame suits is definitely fun waiting to happen and fits my list perfectly (Bjorn and 3 venerable chaplain dreads for 8 BS2 lascannons with character protection)

 

I play pure SW for ITC points but that might be worth allying in

 

if i go 2nd the tactical suits stay out of LOS and keep dreads safe. if i go first game over essentially

 

*edit

 

wait I'm remembering a rumor that redeployment is in your deployment zone. is that in the rule or can you redeploy using infiltration

 

darn GW might get me buying the UM and SM codex now

[Shadow Captain Vyper]

ya that with 3 tactical flame suits is definitely fun waiting to happen and fits my list perfectly (Bjorn and 3 venerable chaplain dreads for 8 BS2 lascannons with character protection)

 

I play pure SW for ITC points but that might be worth allying in

 

if i go 2nd the tactical suits stay out of LOS and keep dreads safe. if i go first game over essentially

 

*edit

 

wait I'm remembering a rumor that redeployment is in your deployment zone. is that in the rule or can you redeploy using infiltration

 

darn GW might get me buying the UM and SM codex now

 

I was reading this wording today, for both Rapid Redeployment (UM Strat) and Princeps of Deceit (WL Trait)

 

They both have similar wording:

 

"At the start of the first battle round, before the first turn, select up to  X units from your army on the battlefield. Remove them from the battlefield and set them up again as described in the Deployment section of the mission."

 

1) This means that you get to know who has first turn AND if someone is going to Seize, so in that regard, its quite strong.

 

2) Interaction with Concealed Positions is vague at this time. I would say RAW it does NOT work, as Concealed Positions states: "When you set up this model during deployment..."

 

If RR or PoD had the wording "Set up as if it was the Deployment phase, using the deployment section of the mission's restrictions" then I think it would work.

 

RaI I think its pretty clear that its supposed to allow you to redeploy WITH Concealed Positions, otherwise Princeps of Deceit only effecting Phobos units is...pretty dumb.

[Kallas]

Well, a couple of things to bear in mind:

• If you bring in a second Chapter (ie, your Space Wolves) then you'll lose Scions of Guilliman (which I bring up, because you mentioned the UM Supplement, and Rapid Redeployment is for UM/Successors)
• If you use the ITWs as Space Wolves, then they won't be able to utilise Rapid Redeployment, as it's UM/Successor

As for where you can redeploy: there has been an FAQ for some other redeployment effects that does limit them to their deployment zone when doing so. It's uncertain if GW will follow suit for this one, or if they might change their minds.

[Mandragola]

The trick would seem to be to deploy the suits aggressively, then redeploy them if it turns out you're going second.

 

I don't know if you're supposed to be able to redeploy with concealed positions. Until we get a FAQ on that it's safer to assume you can only use it to grab a unit out of trouble.

[CaptainMarsh]

I think you are reading the RAW correctly and I fully believe that to be RAI. The ability to redeploy away from danger if you know you are in a vulnerable position is extremely powerful, even if in the case of this topic (The Invictor) it feels like a lesser utilization of its abilities.

[TiguriusX]

I think you are reading the RAW correctly and I fully believe that to be RAI. The ability to redeploy away from danger if you know you are in a vulnerable position is extremely powerful, even if in the case of this topic (The Invictor) it feels like a lesser utilization of its abilities.

from a balance perspective i think that is actually the better version of the rule as well

 

instead of a gotcha ability it is a fall back and be safer ability

[MajorNese]

I don't know if you're supposed to be able to redeploy with concealed positions. Until we get a FAQ on that it's safer to assume you can only use it to grab a unit out of trouble.

I don't think the wording allows Concealed Positions.

 

Quoting Princeps of Deceit:

"Remove them from the battlefield and set them up as described in the Deployment section of the mission"

It specifically refers to the Deployment section of the mission, not the Deployment phase.

The Deployment section of a mission always includes the following sentence:

"A player’s models must be set up within their own deployment zone."

 

Also it says remove and set up, not deploy (or re-deploy or any wording indicating the Deployment phase). "Remove from the battlefield" and "set up" is the same wording as transports have, so it has nothing to do with deployment. It is a universal game mechanic which does not trigger Concealed Positions by default.

 

Concealed Positions is specifically restricted to deployment, nothing else like removing and setting up outside of Deployment.

"When you set up this model during deployment, it can [...]"

 

Therefore, deployment is over before PoD or similar come into play. CP is linked to deployment, but PoD is not linked to deployment in any way except for refering to the mission Deployment section, which explicitly states they can only be set up in the deployment zone.

 

In short: PoD feels like redeploying and reflects how troops redeploy to outsmart their foe, but the rules have nothing to do with the game mechanic of deployment. And frankly it would be too powerful if it allowed you to see if you go first, then counter the enemy deployment with 3 guaranteed first turn charges. Being able to pull back troops, deny flanks and redeploy heavy weapons is powerful enough if done right.

[Dracos]

How is it any stronger than GSC redeployment ability?

 

GSC can take them off the board and they don’t have to be deployed again until Turn 6.

 

Just suggesting we don’t go looking to nerf things because we are use to Astartes sucking the hind leg of the competitive chart unless it reads RAW specifically.

[CaptainMarsh]

It is RAW and seems to be RAI as well. No one is searching for a nerf.