what shoudl i add to my lsit

so am building a 1500P list for a tournament and I have 97 points spare and really don't know what to d o with them, upgrade stuff?, add more units, that kinda stuff maybe some of you experienced players know what is missing in my list and or what i should add

-Vanguard detachment-

-Archon
splinter rifle
Agonizer
(he will be in the back holding an Obj)

-5x incubi
no upgrades
(they will be in a raider)


-5x incubi
no upgrades
(they will be in a raider with the other incubi squad)

- 5 Blastborn
dracon splinter rifle
( they will be in a venom)

- 5 Blastborn
dracon splinter rifle
( they will be in a venom)

- 5 Blastborn
dracon splinter rifle
( they will be in a venom)

-Air wing detachment-

razoriwng JF
twin splinter rifle
DL's

razoriwng JF
twin splinter rifle
DL's


razoriwng JF
twin splinter rifle
DL's

You could always add in a squad of mandrakes. They're good all around units and don't need a transport. Plus having the option to deepstrike something is always nice and so are mortal wounds. This should probably be in the Army List forum though btw.

Just a point - the Archon can't take a Splinter Rifle.

Did you mean Splinter Pistol?

Now this might sound silly, but do not put both incubi in the same raider.
It means your opponent can focus 1 vehicle in turn 1 and all your melee support has to walk up the board.
Your blasterborn need to be reasonably close to the action anyway to be in blaster range, so you might wish to put one unit with the incubi and let the other incubi unit have their venom.

My advice would be the exact opposite--keep them in the same Raider. That way you aren't throwing away points for another vehicle you don't need. With as tough as vehicles are this edition, it's unlikely your Incubi will end up having to hitchhike.

Jimsolo wrote:

My advice would be the exact opposite--keep them in the same Raider.  That way you aren't throwing away points for another vehicle you don't need.  With as tough as vehicles are this edition, it's unlikely your Incubi will end up having to hitchhike.

What if he upgrades one of the Venoms to a Raider and put 5 Incubi and 5 Trueborn in each Raider?

An additionnal raider, with disintegrators is never (rarely) a waste

Jimsolo wrote:

My advice would be the exact opposite--keep them in the same Raider.  That way you aren't throwing away points for another vehicle you don't need.  With as tough as vehicles are this edition, it's unlikely your Incubi will end up having to hitchhike.

I never told him to get another vehicle. So there is not throwing away points for another vehicle.
I said to mix the units inside his raider so that if one unit is more important the enemy will have o destroy multiple transports to stop their mobility.
And I find that while not everything will die turn 1 if an enemy wants to he can often kill one of our transports turn 1.

the thing would be that the raider would be out of position for either unit if i would take incubi and blastborn in a raider because their targets are very different.

Darkin wrote:

the thing would be that the raider would be out of position for either unit if i would take incubi and blastborn in a raider because their targets are very different.

Possibly, but the Blasterborn have an 18" range, which should compensate somewhat.

More importantly though, the Incubi have to disembark before it moves anyway. So once it drops them off it still has a 14" move to get the Blasterborn in position.

Can't put incubi in the same raider as anything else.

Seshiru wrote:

Can't put incubi in the same raider as anything else.

You can, in 8th edition, mix units in transports.

I think he's interpreting the line "can transport <infantry> or <Incubi>" to mean transports are exclusive to one or the other. Not that you can mix and match them

Archon_91 wrote:

I think he's interpreting the line "can transport <infantry> or <Incubi>" to mean transports are exclusive to one or the other. Not that you can mix and match them

I can see where he's coming from, actually.

However, where it gets a bit weird is that Incubi *are* Drukhari Infantry. At the very least, you could make a reasonable argument that 5 Incubi + 5 Trueborn isn't breaking any rules because the Raider can transport up to 10 Drukhari Infantry and both Incubi and Trueborn are Drukhari Infantry.

Possibly this isn't RAI, but that's what you get for correctly categorising models.

Either way though, I don't understand what purpose this distinction could possibly serve. Has our army not been split enough without also singling out Incubi as not being allowed to travel with anyone else - including a sodding Archon - for . . . no reason whatsoever.

Archon_91 wrote:

I think he's interpreting the line "can transport <infantry> or <Incubi>" to mean transports are exclusive to one or the other. Not that you can mix and match them

The quote is not correct:
"can transport 10 <Incubi> or <Drukhari Infantry>"
The "or" means 10 of this or 10 of that to show the capacity of the transport and not to stop mixing them.

However, to be honest I don't know why they separate "Incubi" (which are Drukhari Infantry) from (all the other) "Drukhari Infantry".
Page 183 of the rule book does not help with the interpretation [FAQ adjustement does not help neither].

purple wrote:

The quote is not correct:
"can transport 10 <Incubi> or <Drukhari Infantry>"
The "or" means 10 of this or 10 of that to show the capacity of the transport and not to stop mixing them.

You wouldn't just use 'or' for that though. You'd use 'and/or'. 'Or' refers to a choice - you can have one or the other but not both. If you want to allow for mixing them, then you need 'and/or'.

No. It literally depends on whether you go by the most restrictive or most liberal interpretation. If you take everything to be as restrictive as possible you could read it as it can only transport units of 10 drukhari infantry or 10 incubi since it doesn't say "up to".

It's unfortunately context-dependent whether "or" means the logical operation "OR" (one, the other, or both) or "XOR" (one, the other, not both) but c'mon, by that reading CWE transports couldn't transport phoenix lords and other infantry at the same time.

If they wanted it to be exclusive and thus very bizarre then it's reasonable to assume they would have emphasized the point and written "either 10 incubi or 10 other drukhari infantry", possibly followed by "but not both". Because it's reasonable to assume that if it can transport an archon and his trueborn it can also transport an archon and his incubi.

Or, the most logical thing is simply that during the designing process, incubi were not infantry at the beginning, so they needed to specificly add the incubi in the allowing units in raiders. They then changed it and forgot about the raider rule.

I'd be curious as to what Incubi were originally if not infantry. To my knowledge the only alternatives would seem to be monsters or vehicles.

What's possible is that Incubi were not Drukhari in the early design process (which is totally absurd, and thus very likely considering it's GW we're speaking of).
Maybe they wanted to shift the Incubi away from the Drukhari keyword in order to make them closer to Ynnari, then changed their minds ?
Or maybe, just maybe, a percentage of the GW staff has no idea of how to write a rulebook.


Another possibility : they wanted to write "can transport Drukhari Troops OR Incubi", but then realized it was stupid since it prevented Trueborns and Bloodbrides, and changed "Troops" into "Infantry", but forgot about it. Which is as shameful as every other interpretation.

I'm going to bet it was that last thing you said.

The CWE part "Phoenix Lords or Craftworld Infantry" is probably for beginners or less technical people because they might not realize those are infantry.

Although it would be hilarious to take the most literal, restrictive possible view and argue with a CWE player that his vehicle can only transport exactly 16 phoenix lords - no more and no less. And no infantry in the same vehicle. Actually it can't even transport phoenix lords at all because the phoenix lords are infantry and you can't have phoenix lords AND infantry in the transport, it says "or". It can only transport non-infantry lords.

But not really since I like my transports too.

Edit: also yeah if it were an exclusive or then it would be literally impossible to transport incubi at all because they are also drukhar infantry, so if you put them in you would have both incubi and drukhari infantry in the transport which is not allowed.

Mppqlmd wrote:

What's possible is that Incubi were not Drukhari in the early design process (which is totally absurd, and thus very likely considering it's GW we're speaking of).
Maybe they wanted to shift the Incubi away from the Drukhari keyword in order to make them closer to Ynnari, then changed their minds ?
Or maybe, just maybe, a percentage of the GW staff has no idea of how to write a rulebook.


Another possibility : they wanted to write "can transport Drukhari Troops OR Incubi", but then realized it was stupid since it prevented Trueborns and Bloodbrides, and changed "Troops" into "Infantry", but forgot about it. Which is as shameful as every other interpretation.  

Those sound very plausible.

The Shredder wrote:

I'd be curious as to what Incubi were originally if not infantry. To my knowledge the only alternatives would seem to be monsters or vehicles.

Maybe an additionnal type that got removed. It's GW, everything is possible.

OORRRR

They put it on purpose to confuse people, because GW is fueled by the discord of their players.

dumpeal wrote:

They put it on purpose to confuse people, because GW is fueled by the discord of their players.

They are afflicted by one old curse that drives them to madness and confusion (which explains a lot), but have discovered a way to prevent their minds from going insane : inflicting insanity and confusion to others.
Sounds familiar ?

did you just leak the biggest mysteries regarding GW?
all these stupid prizes
finecast
color-name switches
it explains everything!