HH 2.0 The Hekatonystika: Ist Legion Tactica

[FashaTheDog]

I have been wanting to test out my Dreadwing for a while now.  It is themed to be mechanized so I am not abusing the graviton and phosphex.  Once I am in better health I can get a better read on the list and how to expand the collection so it reads the Geneva Convention as War Crimes for Dummies.  I figure the mechanized list saps my foe of their mobility while presenting a wall of armor.  I have the Siege Breaker, the Tactical Marines, and the Spartans plus a regular Whirlwind not in use by the list, but the rest I will have to proxy from my 40K Dark Angels.  Only the Arquitor would not have a good proxy, although maybe I can find something in the Guard motorpool.  I will also be purchasing the Forge World Lion as I like the resin sculpt better than the plastic one that travels the 100 Acre Woods from place to place.

 

I am a fan how the RoW moves Interemptors out of the Elites so I can free up Elites for other choices.  My Night Lords make use of this to have room for a Terror Squad with four Elites and I can always use a Herald to add the line sub-type to a given unit.  Not in the mechanized list below, but in the list of exploiting dangerous terrain where the transports are replaced by Rapier Batteries and maybe a Contemptor or two with a pair of Graviton Guns in a Drop Pod along with a few more Arquitors I can see using a Herald or two to hand out line as needed.  I can also add a Retinue for a line HQ. For that direction I am less sure of how to get the most out of the RoW, but I like the idea of several multi-Rapier Batteries tossing exotic death and dangerous terrain around. 

 

I am not really attached to getting the most out of the models from list I am building (below) being reused in a more streamlined list so I could use some help on a fresh list that really makes the RoW shine.  The previous posts gave some help, but I would like to hear more of what really works for Eskaton RoW, especially from an unanticipated angle like the double Graviton Gun Speeder idea.  It is a shame they never gave Vindicators and Falchions the Warp cannon option from Dreadwing.  I would take those in a heartbeat.  I like the Excindio as well, but the points for one make me hesitant and it is Ironwing, not that such a thing would stop them if the Lion handed one over and said "go nuts".  What other unconventional ideas and combos are there to surprise the enemy with?

• Redloss or Marduk
• Siege Breaker - Volkite Charger, Terranic Great sword
• Cenobium (Order of Broken Claws) - Paragon Blade, Vex, 1 Thunder Hammer, 3 Avex-Mors Great swords
  • Spartan Dedicated transport
• 6 Interemptors - 1 Phosphex, Vex, Scanner, Incinerator
  • Land Raider Dedicated transport
• 5 Interemptors - 1 Phosphex, Vex, Scanner, Incinerator
  • Land Raider Dedicated transport
• 10 Breachers - 8 w/ Volkite Chargers, Thunder Hammer, 2 Graviton Guns, Vex
• 10 Tac Marines - Power Claw, Vex
  • Rhino w/ Multi-Melta Dedicated transport
• 10 Tac Marines - Calabanite Warblade, Vex
  • Rhino w/ Multi-Melta Dedicated transport
• Arquitor - Phosphex
• Spartan

[MichaelCarmine]

Hello there =]

Quick question, my apologies if already answered - Deathwing hexagrammaton gives every sword-user +1 to hit.

It specifically says, that models wielding Close Combat Weapons modelled as swords also benefit from this bonus.

Since "Close Combat Weapons" have no rules and all Melee weapons are per definition Close Combat Weapons as shown in the Armoury on Pg 136 in the Liber Books - i could modell a Gravis Powerfist to be a (giant) Sword, or holding a (giant) sword and would therefore benefit from the +1 to hit for a Dreadnought, am i right?

I mean, i think they meant to say all basic close combat weapons modelled as swords, but since ther is no errata (that i know of), it would be RaW?! 

Would also make sence, that an Deathwing Veteran entombed in a Dreadnought still knows how to wield a Sword. ^^

And aren't all Dreadnoughts part of the Deathwing anyway fluffwise?Thought i heard/read that somewhere...

 

What do you think about that?

Offcourse, that would open the door to Thunderhammer-swords and stuff like that, but i think a Deathwing Dreadnought holding a Sword isn't that far off... ^^

[Dagoth Ur]

1 hour ago, MichaelCarmine said:

Hello there =]

Quick question, my apologies if already answered - Deathwing hexagrammaton gives every sword-user +1 to hit.

It specifically says, that models wielding Close Combat Weapons modelled as swords also benefit from this bonus.

Since "Close Combat Weapons" have no rules and all Melee weapons are per definition Close Combat Weapons as shown in the Armoury on Pg 136 in the Liber Books - i could modell a Gravis Powerfist to be a (giant) Sword, or holding a (giant) sword and would therefore benefit from the +1 to hit for a Dreadnought, am i right?

I mean, i think they meant to say all basic close combat weapons modelled as swords, but since ther is no errata (that i know of), it would be RaW?! 

Would also make sence, that an Deathwing Veteran entombed in a Dreadnought still knows how to wield a Sword. ^^

And aren't all Dreadnoughts part of the Deathwing anyway fluffwise?Thought i heard/read that somewhere...

 

What do you think about that?

Offcourse, that would open the door to Thunderhammer-swords and stuff like that, but i think a Deathwing Dreadnought holding a Sword isn't that far off... ^^

Dreads being solely a Deathwing thing isn't a 30k think and afaik never was. Hell, I'm pretty sure it's not a 40k thing either.

 

As for the whole sword business - I guess RaW it would work but considering how strong dreadnoughts already are and how rules lawyer-y it is, I can't imagine it'd make you very popular at the gaming table.

[MichaelCarmine]

7 hours ago, Dagoth Ur said:

Dreads being solely a Deathwing thing isn't a 30k think and afaik never was. Hell, I'm pretty sure it's not a 40k thing either.

 

As for the whole sword business - I guess RaW it would work but considering how strong dreadnoughts already are and how rules lawyer-y it is, I can't imagine it'd make you very popular at the gaming table.

Well, then i must've misread/heard that ^^

 

If you compare that to other dreads - Wolves get +1 WS on the charge, EC get +1 Ini on the Charge, SoH reduce str. by 1 in the first round of Combat, World eaters get +1 Attack on Charge, IW get +1 Str. against other Dreads/Vehicles, RG reroll 1s to wound on Charge, BA get +1 to wound on Charge, Custodes have WS6 Base...

I really don't think, +1 to hit in Combat is that much more powerfull in comparison or will make someone "unpopular". =]

 

Edit: and since the Rule clearly states, CCWs that are modelled as Swords and not CCWs that are Swords - i don't think there is much "lawyering" to do. 

To me, that looks pretty clear, i'm only asking around, since there might be some rule i missed that forbids it. ^^

Edited November 12, 2023 by MichaelCarmine

[WrathOfTheLion]

7 hours ago, MichaelCarmine said:

Well, then i must've misread/heard that ^^

 

If you compare that to other dreads - Wolves get +1 WS on the charge, EC get +1 Ini on the Charge, SoH reduce str. by 1 in the first round of Combat, World eaters get +1 Attack on Charge, IW get +1 Str. against other Dreads/Vehicles, RG reroll 1s to wound on Charge, BA get +1 to wound on Charge, Custodes have WS6 Base...

I really don't think, +1 to hit in Combat is that much more powerfull in comparison or will make someone "unpopular". =]

 

Edit: and since the Rule clearly states, CCWs that are modelled as Swords and not CCWs that are Swords - i don't think there is much "lawyering" to do. 

To me, that looks pretty clear, i'm only asking around, since there might be some rule i missed that forbids it. ^^

Close-combat weapon refers to the extra weapon you'd use if you didn't have any dedicated melee weapon, such as Tactical Marines with no bayonets. So CCW is a specific profile, shown on page 176 of the core rulebook. The Dreadnought weapon profiles are dedicated profiles, so don't count as CCWs.

 

Modeled as swords basically means you're using a combat knife or bladed weapon to model the CCW on those sorts of models.

Edited November 13, 2023 by WrathOfTheLion

[Dagoth Ur]

8 hours ago, MichaelCarmine said:

Well, then i must've misread/heard that ^^

 

If you compare that to other dreads - Wolves get +1 WS on the charge, EC get +1 Ini on the Charge, SoH reduce str. by 1 in the first round of Combat, World eaters get +1 Attack on Charge, IW get +1 Str. against other Dreads/Vehicles, RG reroll 1s to wound on Charge, BA get +1 to wound on Charge, Custodes have WS6 Base...

I really don't think, +1 to hit in Combat is that much more powerfull in comparison or will make someone "unpopular". =]

 

Edit: and since the Rule clearly states, CCWs that are modelled as Swords and not CCWs that are Swords - i don't think there is much "lawyering" to do. 

To me, that looks pretty clear, i'm only asking around, since there might be some rule i missed that forbids it. ^^

I mean, I'd argue that it very much *is* bad faith lawyering considering that the weapon in question is literally called a gravis power *fist*, not a gravis power *sword*. At that point you might as well argue that you could just model Thunderhammers as swords and that the principle would still apply. I'd be surprised if anyone would let that fly at a table.

 

WrathOfTheLion is also absolutely correct. On p.176 of the core rulebook a close combat weapon (refered to as a Basic Close Combat Weapon on P. 136 of the Liber Astartes: Loyalists) has a defined profile and that is what the DA Deathwing rule applies to when it points to Close Combat Weapons. 

 

So not only would it be bad faith arguing at best, its also flat out against the rules :)

[ChargingSoll]

Yeah I always read it as the close combat weapon for basic melee, was also why alot of characters have to have a disclaimer that their unique sword counts for the deathwing rule.

[Dagoth Ur]

3 hours ago, ChargingSoll said:

Yeah I always read it as the close combat weapon for basic melee, was also why alot of characters have to have a disclaimer that their unique sword counts for the deathwing rule.

Yeah that, and the fact that the Deathwing rule also lists a bunch of actual swords it applies to. If CCW in this context just meant any ol' melee weapon, then surely there'd be no need to have a full blown list of specific gear the rule applies to.

[MichaelCarmine]

13 hours ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

Close-combat weapon refers to the extra weapon you'd use if you didn't have any dedicated melee weapon, such as Tactical Marines with no bayonets. So CCW is a specific profile, shown on page 176 of the core rulebook. The Dreadnought weapon profiles are dedicated profiles, so don't count as CCWs.

 

Modeled as swords basically means you're using a combat knife or bladed weapon to model the CCW on those sorts of models.

Well, the Liber book(s) on Pg. 136 seem to overrule this, because they specifically refer to the Rulebook entry and "re-name" them Basic close combat weapons, since Close Combat Weapons is now the reference name to all weapons with the Melee-Type in the Armoury. =]

 

So RaW, the Deathwing Hexagrammaton refers to all Weapons in the Armoury, modelled as a Sword.

 

As i Said earlier, i also do think, that the rule refers to basic CCWs, but it didn't get an errata and both the Rules/Profiles for CCWs and the Hexagrammata are in the same book.

 

Maybe me being german lets me miss-translate the wording "modelled as". xD

 

[MichaelCarmine]

12 hours ago, Dagoth Ur said:

I mean, I'd argue that it very much *is* bad faith lawyering considering that the weapon in question is literally called a gravis power *fist*, not a gravis power *sword*. At that point you might as well argue that you could just model Thunderhammers as swords and that the principle would still apply. I'd be surprised if anyone would let that fly at a table.

 

WrathOfTheLion is also absolutely correct. On p.176 of the core rulebook a close combat weapon (refered to as a Basic Close Combat Weapon on P. 136 of the Liber Astartes: Loyalists) has a defined profile and that is what the DA Deathwing rule applies to when it points to Close Combat Weapons. 

 

So not only would it be bad faith arguing at best, its also flat out against the rules :)

To be clear, i don't argue that it is a Crystalclear case. Thats why i ask for rules that clear this up. =]

And as mentioned by me previously (^^) - i also think, that Thunderhammer-swords are nuts. 

But there is not much lawyering, if a rule tells me any CCWs moddeled as a sword gets +1 to hit, when all Melee-Weaposn are labled CCWs.

The question is, what does "moddeled as" specifically stand for? Existing weapons that look like swords, or existing weapons that i like to model/display as swords like, for example the fluff-text for Paragon Blade even mentions that they may take "many forms", so i could call an axe or a Klingon Bat'leth a Paragon Blade and receive the +1 bonus, although they are clearly not moddeled as swords!? =]

 

They could've just said "basic close combat weapons" instead of "close combat weapons modelled as a sword" or am i wrong? Why overcomplicate things that much?

[MichaelCarmine]

4 hours ago, Dagoth Ur said:

Yeah that, and the fact that the Deathwing rule also lists a bunch of actual swords it applies to. If CCW in this context just meant any ol' melee weapon, then surely there'd be no need to have a full blown list of specific gear the rule applies to.

They also could've just said - a Model armed with any kind of Sword gets +1 to hit! ^^

[Dagoth Ur]

I'm sorry but no. That's one of the most confounding rules interpretations I have seen in years. The Deathwing rule specifically says that "close combat weapons modelled as swords" count. A close combat weapon, as per the main rulebook on page 176 is clearly (contrary to your initial assertion) defined as a weapon with the S: User, AP - and Type: Melee and every model that "is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon as shown above." Close Combat Weapon is not a nebulous concept that somehow encompasses all forms of melee weapons, because A.) the term Close Combat Weapon is a clearly defined term in the rulebook and B.) if the term applied to all melee weapons then the Deathwing Unit Sub-Type rule wouldn't bother to list "chainsword, force sword, power sword, Terranic greatsword, Calibanite warblade, Charnabal sabre, and Paragon blades of close combat weapons modelled as swords," it would simply contract it all as "all melee weapons modelled as swords." By calling out every single weapon by its name as per rulebook listing, the rule makes expressly clear what it refers to. It refers to a list of specific melee weapon profiles of which one is the Close Combat Weapon. Which is found on page 176 of the core rulebook.

 

Even the Liber Astartes: Loyalists on page 136 specifically says "As stated in the Horus Heresy: Age of Darkness rulebook, all models are considered to have some form of basic close combat weapon." (Emphasis mine).

 

If we read the whole core rulebook, the ONLY weapon to ever be mentioned as being provided to ALL models, is the Close Combat Weapon. There is not a SINGLE thing in any errata, pdf, email or otherwise that suggests that the Close Combat Weapon and the Basic Close Combat weapon are not the same thing, or that the latter could refer to anything else but the former. They share the same profile, are provided under the same circumstances and the Liber Astartes specifically refers back to the core rulebook as the main instance of authority on the matter. Unless you are trying to suggest that the Liber Astartes: Loyalists isn't referring to anything in the core rulebook, then there is nothing else that by simple exclusion it could refer to.

 

This doesn't need an errata because the rules are actually crystal clear - a close combat weapon is a specifically defined piece of kit. We have rules for it. The generic term the rules use to encompass all melee weapons is "weapon(s) with the melee type" or a "Melee weapon" (see p.176 and p.184 of the core rulebook, as well as the Liber Hereticus and Liber Astartes FAQs). In not one instance in the rules is the melee category of weapons ever encompassed as a Close Combat weapon, as far as I am aware. A Gravis Power Fist isn't a Close Combat Weapon, its a weapon with the melee type/melee weapon (see p.137 Liber Astartes: Loyalists). Or to put it simply, all Close Combat Weapons are Melee Weapons, but not all Melee Weapons are Close Combat Weapons in the Horus Heresy ruleset. You seem to think that they are for some reason, but there is not one instance that would suggest as much in the rules and yet plenty - as you can see above - instances where distinctions are clearly made in the design language of the game.

 

Your issue with the Paragon Blade is resolved once you look at the operative conjunction in the Deathwing rule: "(...) and Paragon blades or close combat weapons modelled as swords." The answer is clear, the "modelled as swords" portion doesn't refer to just close combat weapons, but to Paragon blades as well because they are part of the same conjunction. So a Paragon 'axe' doesn't get that benefit, but a Paragon 'sword' does - I can understand how this might be unclear if English isn't your first language but as far as grammar and sentence sub-clauses go, there is no ambiguity there. If the rule applied to ALL Paragon blades (be they axe, sword or spear) then - grammatically and syntactically - it would have been written as "(...) Paragon blades, and close combat weapons modelled as swords." The comma in-between the two would clearly and unmistakeably communicate that the "modelled as swords" only applies to CCW.

 

I am a native German speaker as well, I have no idea how you are translating "modelled as" in order for your interpretation to make sense.

 

For your interpretation of RaW to work, one would have to ignore english reading comprehension and the actual precedence set by the rules text itself.

 

When you initially posed your question, you seem to have mentioned that something on page 136 of the Liber Astartes implies/states that all melee weapons are close combat weapons. I am seeing nothing of the sorts here. Could you please specifically cite the rule that, in your understanding, says as much? I think this might be one of the interpretation problems.

 

If it helps you, I have just written an email to the relevant instance at GW asking for clarification, but I am willing to bet dollars to dimes that nobody in their wildest dreams would actually entertain that interpretation at a gaming table.

Edited November 13, 2023 by Dagoth Ur

[MichaelCarmine]

1 hour ago, Dagoth Ur said:

I'm sorry but no. That's one of the most confounding rules interpretations I have seen in years. The Deathwing rule specifically says that "close combat weapons modelled as swords" count. A close combat weapon, as per the main rulebook on page 176 is clearly (contrary to your initial assertion) defined as a weapon with the S: User, AP - and Type: Melee and every model that "is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon as shown above." Close Combat Weapon is not a nebulous concept that somehow encompasses all forms of melee weapons, because A.) the term Close Combat Weapon is a clearly defined term in the rulebook and B.) if the term applied to all melee weapons then the Deathwing Unit Sub-Type rule wouldn't bother to list "chainsword, force sword, power sword, Terranic greatsword, Calibanite warblade, Charnabal sabre, and Paragon blades of close combat weapons modelled as swords," it would simply contract it all as "all melee weapons modelled as swords." By calling out every single weapon by its name as per rulebook listing, the rule makes expressly clear what it refers to. It refers to a list of specific melee weapon profiles of which one is the Close Combat Weapon. Which is found on page 176 of the core rulebook.

 

Even the Liber Astartes: Loyalists on page 136 specifically says "As stated in the Horus Heresy: Age of Darkness rulebook, all models are considered to have some form of basic close combat weapon." (Emphasis mine).

 

If we read the whole core rulebook, the ONLY weapon to ever be mentioned as being provided to ALL models, is the Close Combat Weapon. There is not a SINGLE thing in any errata, pdf, email or otherwise that suggests that the Close Combat Weapon and the Basic Close Combat weapon are not the same thing, or that the latter could refer to anything else but the former. They share the same profile, are provided under the same circumstances and the Liber Astartes specifically refers back to the core rulebook as the main instance of authority on the matter. Unless you are trying to suggest that the Liber Astartes: Loyalists isn't referring to anything in the core rulebook, then there is nothing else that by simple exclusion it could refer to.

 

This doesn't need an errata because the rules are actually crystal clear - a close combat weapon is a specifically defined piece of kit. We have rules for it. The generic term the rules use to encompass all melee weapons is "weapon(s) with the melee type" or a "Melee weapon" (see p.176 and p.184 of the core rulebook, as well as the Liber Hereticus and Liber Astartes FAQs). In not one instance in the rules is the melee category of weapons ever encompassed as a Close Combat weapon, as far as I am aware. A Gravis Power Fist isn't a Close Combat Weapon, its a weapon with the melee type/melee weapon (see p.137 Liber Astartes: Loyalists). Or to put it simply, all Close Combat Weapons are Melee Weapons, but not all Melee Weapons are Close Combat Weapons in the Horus Heresy ruleset. You seem to think that they are for some reason, but there is not one instance that would suggest as much in the rules and yet plenty - as you can see above - instances where distinctions are clearly made in the design language of the game.

 

Your issue with the Paragon Blade is resolved once you look at the operative conjunction in the Deathwing rule: "(...) and Paragon blades or close combat weapons modelled as swords." The answer is clear, the "modelled as swords" portion doesn't refer to just close combat weapons, but to Paragon blades as well because they are part of the same conjunction. So a Paragon 'axe' doesn't get that benefit, but a Paragon 'sword' does - I can understand how this might be unclear if English isn't your first language but as far as grammar and sentence sub-clauses go, there is no ambiguity there. If the rule applied to ALL Paragon blades (be they axe, sword or spear) then - grammatically and syntactically - it would have been written as "(...) Paragon blades, and close combat weapons modelled as swords." The comma in-between the two would clearly and unmistakeably communicate that the "modelled as swords" only applies to CCW.

 

I am a native German speaker as well, I have no idea how you are translating "modelled as" in order for your interpretation to make sense.

 

For your interpretation of RaW to work, one would have to ignore english reading comprehension and the actual precedence set by the rules text itself.

 

When you initially posed your question, you seem to have mentioned that something on page 136 of the Liber Astartes implies/states that all melee weapons are close combat weapons. I am seeing nothing of the sorts here. Could you please specifically cite the rule that, in your understanding, says as much? I think this might be one of the interpretation problems.

 

If it helps you, I have just written an email to the relevant instance at GW asking for clarification, but I am willing to bet dollars to dimes that nobody in their wildest dreams would actually entertain that interpretation at a gaming table.

To answer most of this - look on the top of the Page, mentioned by me in the liber books ^^ The title of the Armoury section concerning all Melee Weapons - called Close Combat Weapons.

And right below that, in reference to the part in the rulebook, the weapons are "renamed" Basic CCWs.

 

You're right with the paragon weapon, although it just leans more towards my point - you have a Weapon with a profile (Paragon Blade) and as long as you model it like a sword, you get the bonus of +1 to hit.

So here i have the freedom of choice to let a weapon look like a sword.

in the same sentence, CCWs that are modelled as a sword get the same bonus, so another intmstance, where i can choose the look of a weapon, even though it is not called a sword - you see where i'm getting here? =]

And since all weapons in the Armoury, that have the melee type are under the Title Close Combat Weapons, as previously said, they are part of that written Hexagrammaton rule.

 

And in this specific instance "modelled" is in my eyes clearly describing "if you choose the weapon to look that way", since it gives you the choice of looks - thats what i meant by maybe "mistranslating". ^^

 

Just to be sure - I'm not trying to build that, i don't even play DA (yet), i simply saw that rule and asked about it to get clearance as for RaW.

I know that they probably meant to say "all basic CCWs modelled as swords", as previously mentioned.

But RaW, with them renaming the CCW in the Rulebook Basic CCW, they opened that Rulesinterpretation up to Rules as Written and Rules as Intended.

All i'm trying to get from you guys is a rule, that clearly states, that a CCW is only Basic CCW, which is not the case anymore, because GW renamed the same profile from the main RB in the same Book as the Hexagrammata rule. Which lets it take preference over the rule in the main RB.

I know what the Intend is, but how can i argue against it with 100% clear ruling? =]

[Dagoth Ur]

Alright, then let's go with the assumption that it indeed applies to all CCWs written in that section - to play devil's advocate.

 

The reason it works for Paragon Blades and Basic Close Combat weapons is because those weapons - as described in their little blurbs - are meant to cover a wide variety of different types of weapon. They expressly cover a wide variety of things. So you could model a Paragon blade as a whip, and as a sword - but only one of the two gets the +1 to hit. Similarly, a Basic Combat Weapon could be anything from a pipe to a gladius - in which case only the latter gets the +1 to hit. 

 

That doesn't apply to Thunderhammers or Gravis Fists though, does it? Its specifically a thunder hammer, not a thunder weapon. Its specifically a gravis fist, not a gravis blade. Nothing explicitly says that they can be swords. There is no blurb attached granting you that sort of flexibility. If we really want to be this literal with this exercise, then we have to apply in equal measure. You can choose, where that option is given. A blade could be many things. So could a Basic Combat Weapon.

 

A hammer is a specific thing. As is a fist. One is a hammer. One is a fist. Neither are a sword, or can be a sword.

 

Just because some CCW can be expressly modelled as swords, doesn't mean that all can implicitly. If anything, the fact that it needs to be pointed out when that is possible would indicate that as a baseline it is not.

 

The explanation, then, reveals itself in the lack of ambiguity. A thunderhammer is unambiguous in what it is. Its a hammer. Not a sword.

 

Can we now lay this nonsense to rest?

Edited November 14, 2023 by Dagoth Ur

[WrathOfTheLion]

The rule was written originally in 1E heresy, and was never meant to be applied to any weapon then, just as is the case now. It specifically calls out CCWs and Paragon Blades because they can be represented or modeled as anything, and they want them specifically to be swords.

 

There's a category error in attempting to be transitive here, in that it lists an explicit set of weapon entries, but then it's being attempted to be applied to an overarching weapon category. If they intended it to apply to the category of all melee weapons, then they wouldn't have to list out Paragon Blades, Chainswords, etc. as individual items beforehand. So it's clear they're referring to what is called the Close Combat Weapon in the core rulebook with wording inherited from the first edition of the game, which doesn't 100% line up with calling it a 'basic close combat weapon' in the Liber armories. However, in the description of the basic close combat weapon, they state it is 'repeated here for ease of reference', so it is the 'close combat weapon' in the core rulebook, not a separate entity.

Edited November 14, 2023 by WrathOfTheLion

[Brother Sutek]

And now for something completely different... Anyone having success with Ravenwing? I'm finally getting a little free time and wanted to try running my bike/jetbike list again but wanted to get some advise first. I'm looking to run bikes, jetbikes and speeders specifically.  

[Unknown Legionnaire]

On 11/14/2023 at 9:55 PM, Brother Sutek said:

And now for something completely different... Anyone having success with Ravenwing? I'm finally getting a little free time and wanted to try running my bike/jetbike list again but wanted to get some advise first. I'm looking to run bikes, jetbikes and speeders specifically.  

 

The main issue with the 'Seeker's Arrow' RoW is, that while it moves Outriders and Jetbikes to the troops slot, it doesn't bestow line upon those units.

Thus, you're still bound to include infantry (Recon Squads come to mind) for scoring purposes, OR to run a Command Squad on (jet)bikes plus 2 Heralds on (jet)bikes (to attach them to Outrider / Jetbike units), to get at least three scoring units.

You might want to include a Fire Raptor for your sole heavy support slot, and maybe a Master of Signal (on (jet)bike) for reserve manipulation.

[Iron Bars]

I was wondering if someone had succes with despoilers, with Deathwing or would I be better of with one of the other wings?

[Brother Sutek]

I was pushing for command squad so far but only one Herald. It's annoying and frustrating that they nerf bikes and then double down with not giving line for so many units in the special rite. See also destroyers for not being given line in their rite. 

[Razorblade]

On 11/17/2023 at 3:55 PM, Iron Bars said:

I was wondering if someone had succes with despoilers, with Deathwing or would I be better of with one of the other wings?

Deathwing is definitely best for Despoilers, in fact none of the other Wings do much of anything for them.

Deathwing Despoilers are also among the best in the game, second only to World Eaters really.

[Galron]

With the Vow coming up and I have a pile of vehicles sitting primed on a shelf behind my desk. I already have Marduk in my initial vow for 40k and finished his body guard during the last vow. Will have to print some more rhinos but I have time, anything here will be vow#3.

Anyway, here is my own version of a Warcrimes Escaton Imperative 3k list

Marduk-(Vow)

retinue- 5 Cenobium with T-swords in a land raider--dreadwing (raider is vow3)

 

5 interempters in a rhino(rhino is vow3)

5 Interempters in a rhino(Rhino is vow3)

Contemptor plasma cannon, fist with plasma, havok launcher--Iron wing?

 

Destroyer Squad x10 dudes with bolt pistols(its the models I have) and 2 missile launchers (Vow3) Dreadwing

5 recon marines with nemesis rifles -firewing

10 tacticals in rhinos (Rhino is vow3) dreadwing

10 tacticals in Rhino (rhino is vow3) dreadwing

 

Sky hunters x3 art armor, vexillia, multi-meltas - dreadwing?

 

Deredeo with plasma + aoles missile launcher --(vow 3)- Ironwing

Leviathan- grav bombard, claw, phosphex discharger, 2 flamers- Iron wing

--Dreadnought drop pod- iron wing (vow3)

Scorpius- firewing

 

Questions and justifications:

I have the various dread wings assigned so my dudes can get across no mans land with no penalty. I believe and I could be mistaken that dedicated transports have to be the same wing as its parent squad. I would prefer my transports not get bogged down. I would like to have my jet bikes as Ironwing but would prefer they not die from moving either. 

 

The Destroyer squad, levie and the scorpius job is to clear the opponent's back line units due to the ROWs penalty and I think they can achieve this goal in a general pick up game. Technically I could run this judging by slots with no RoW at all but I like the idea of screwing with the board.

 

Any suggestions, comments? Experiences in using the escaton imperative? 

[Razorblade]

1. You have too much Plasma, and then an additional pseudo-plasma weapon in the Scorpius. I think at the very least the contemptor needs an anti-armour loadout (Las-/Meltacannon) 

2. You have way too little line and in particular no Melee line units that can "push" enemies off objectives. This partly brings me to

3. Unfortunately the Cenobium Retinue is rather terrible as these guys get nothing from being a retinue. In fact I think they get worse as they can't take Deathwing. Deathwing Companions or even a generic Cataphractii Command Squad would be much better for this role.

4. Do the Destroyers have Jump Packs? 

5. Eskaton Imperative is a bad RoW and your list has like 3 units that are actually going to benefit from its upside. I think you might be considerably better of just playing without one.

 

Edited June 7 by Razorblade

[Heir of Sigismund]

Marduk can sweep too, definitely companions or maybe a tartaros command squad in dreadwing drip if trying to be fluffy?

[Brother Sutek]

I suggest one t hammer in the cenobium, those weapons are great but the t hammer really helps.

[Galron]

Swapped the Cenobium out with Deathwing Companions. I would add a thunderhammer but I dont want to cut up the resin lol

Swapped the Contemptor out with a meltacannon contemptor since I still have a few monopose ones left from BaC.

Destroyers do have jump packs

Not sure what kind of line I can add that has assault ability besides assault marines. Dropping a tac squad really only gives me enough points for a 10 man assault squad geared up with power fist and 2 axes and sgt with art armor. Is a ten man worth the effort?

 

Going to print up some tartaros and great swords. Weirdly enough battlescribe doesnt have Marduk capable of taking tartaros terminators as companions so I will have to finger fudge it I suppose

Edited June 7 by Galron