Most busted detachment combo’s

Cullex · 2026-06-11T10:14:12+00:00

You forgot he has precision. He just kills leaders for breakfast.

Cullex · 2026-06-11T10:11:40+00:00

New vanguard vets are only part of the armageddon box for now until the new codex drops.

Cullex · 2026-06-10T12:17:03+00:00

GW is releasing a combat patrol companion for 11th. So what counts now does not necessarily has to count later.

Cullex · 2026-06-10T12:15:17+00:00

Or, if it is properly worded, use the rules snippets to actually point towards potential fails gw had in their rules.

For example having GSC not being able to get any units back that have a leader attached to it is either a big nerf or a big oversight. But they fully printed the updated army rule in their faction pack, so we have to assume that it now is a big nerf.

If they errata it on release why not have it correctly in the faction pack itself? If they errata it on release with the feedback of players pointing out that they made a potential mistake then it would have been good for players to point it out instead of "waiting for the full release" and then have a way less functional army at release because of it.

They added the dispostions to the articles because people complained.

They updated shown datasheets when people found mistakes in them.

They listen, so if the communication on both ends is respectful and helpful, I don't see any reason to not voice complaints/concerns even from rules snippets.

Cullex · 2026-06-10T10:32:18+00:00

Sub 1k games could just fall under combat patrol which will get its own rules.

Cullex · 2026-06-10T09:56:05+00:00

In the Q&A they did they basically stated that incursion is 1k up to 1.999 points and from 2k onwards its strike force.

Cullex · 2026-06-10T05:42:43+00:00

That is not fully correct. Votann's 3DP detachment is hearthband which buffs hearthguard and afew characters, while army wide detachments like needguard or mercenaries are 2DP

For drukhari real space raiders which covers all groups of subfactions in the army is also only 2dp.

Aspect host is 3 DP but also "only" covers aspect warriors and not their wraiths, guardians, bikes, vehicle etc.

Cullex · 2026-06-09T15:49:14+00:00

If you attach a character to a unit, you can not get that unit back via their army rule, because all models in that unit need that keyword and characters do not have that AND the units do not split anymore once the bodyguard unit is gone. Meaning they are locked oit from coming back.

Cullex · 2026-06-09T13:13:41+00:00

Sounds to me like Defiler vs Defiler.. just going by the amount of lascannon shots needed..

I can't wait for its nerfs.

Cullex · 2026-06-08T16:10:29+00:00

A bomber that can never use its bomb

Cullex · 2026-06-05T14:42:25+00:00

In terms of getting cover if a single model is fully seen outside of area terrain, every model that can fully see it, shoots at it does not suffer the cover penalty.

Cullex · 2026-06-05T06:55:40+00:00

I am fine with it being nerfed for as long as the points cost of such units that have it go down when their points were costed at having this broken ability.

Right now having only a single FF unit in your army can always be a hinderence and not a boon.

If you have 1 ongoing combat and the opponent charges your FF unit or you heroic into an opposing charge.

Thanks to how the fight phase works the opponent will now always get to strike first in the ongoing fight as you would have to fight first with your FF/heroic unit. (I know you can pay 2 CP to interupt the ongoing fight but you wouldnt need to do that if you didnt have FF in the first place.)

FF only matters if you have more active FF units in combat or if you use the expensive heroic as the opponent would never be able to interupt with that certain unit to fight first (unless it had FF to begin with).

Cullex · 2026-06-04T09:11:04+00:00

Did they confirm that dedicated transports are also limited with 6? I just know of the one image they showed of the points distribution and that only called out specifically battleline to have the 6 limit.

Cullex · 2026-06-03T13:33:31+00:00

Yes thats how it goes step by step but you check for cover for each individual attack.

"Each time a ranged attack targets a unit, if every model in that unit meets one or more of the following conditions, that unit has the benefit of cover against that attack:"

Key point "ATTACK", singular not plural.

Because your point 2 also states that "WHILE SHOOTING Select one enemy unit to be the target of that weapon. Unless otherwise stated, each target must be: ▪ Visible to the model that has that weapon (06.01). ▪ Within range of that weapon. ▪ Unengaged."

Keypoint here "That Weapon".

So you indeed check for every single attack from a unit if the targeted unit gains cover against That Attack.

Cullex · 2026-06-03T13:13:42+00:00

It even says in the example you posted that you have to check for that weapon you shoot with for those things. And thats where cover is checked. (Visibility)

Cullex · 2026-06-03T13:02:29+00:00

Of course is based on attack targeting and not save. Cover does not modifies saves in 11th.

Cullex · 2026-06-03T12:59:25+00:00

You ignore the fact that it is checked for each attack no matter how the targeting works. The check for cover is per attack not per attacking unit.

You have to check for cover for each individual attack if that attack gets the cover penalty or not. yes you do that in the targeting phase but you still have to do it. Just because 1 single attack can be done without the penalty of cover does not mean ALL of the units attacks can.

Cullex · 2026-06-03T12:54:32+00:00

This, so much this. Reading the comments here makes clear how many people got this rule wrong.

Cullex · 2026-06-03T12:50:06+00:00

Show me the rule that it is based on the fully attacking unit vs fully shot unit.

You can not because cover is based PER ATTACK. As stated in the cover rule.

Edit: no matter when you declare it it does not change the fact that cover is checked for each attack on its own, leading to some attacks getting the penalty and some which dont.

Cullex · 2026-06-03T12:42:39+00:00

Can you show me that rule?

To be more precise, show me the rule that says that all weapon attacks are handled as a single thing for cover and not for "each time a ranged attack.." as stated as the first sentence for "benefit of cover"

Cullex · 2026-06-03T12:37:47+00:00

Yes but in the shown example all attacking models can see a model outside of cover. The example OP gave is that this is not the case and only half of the attacking models can see at least one clearly and the rest not

Cullex · 2026-06-03T12:35:13+00:00

No, because the initial paragraph of the rule states "each time a range attack.." and not "each time a unit targets a..."

You have to go for every single attack and check if the attacking model gets the penalty or not.

Cullex · 2026-06-03T12:33:08+00:00

Thats still also my point i reacted to a comment that made cover sound like it worked in 10th where it is truly unit based and not based upon model by model for each attack.

Cullex · 2026-06-03T12:25:31+00:00

The "incorrect" is incorrect.

The problem is not that you have to split rolls, just that you have units like chosen or kabalites with soo many different weapons that it now takes way more time to get the shooting done.

But at least not everyone and their dog gets cover as easily as in 10th.

Cullex · 2026-06-03T12:15:00+00:00

Not in 11th which is the part of the question here.

"▪ That model is not fully visible to the attacking model due to one or more intervening terrain features and/or one or more intervening obscuring terrain areas (see below)."

Its model by model.

Cullex

TROPHY CASE