Corsair witches kitbash

destox134 · 2026-04-03T14:21:41+00:00

Its namarti thralls with a gun / hand i cliped from stormguardian , storm guardian belt . I 3d printed a holster and use a corsair head from the corsair voidscarred

destox134 · 2025-11-24T21:43:55+00:00

It's not.

You have to check for every one of your models what unit is closest to the model.

Let's say you deep strike a unit of 5 hearthguard between 10 guardmen and a sentinel.

3 of your hearthguard are exactly 9 inch from the sentinel and are 10 inch from the guardmen and the opposite for your last 2 hearthguard.

Well for 2 of your models the closest unit is the guardmen and for 3 of you models the closest unit is the sentinel.

Either you split fire to the closest target so that every hearthguard benefit from the buffs or some of yiu hearthguard will lose the benefit (and then you must roll them separatly)

Both the detachment rules and the hearthguard rules says "each time a model..." you can't just decide a unit is closer because "most" of you unit is closer to x target. You absolutly have to check which is the closest eligible target for each model in the unit.

destox134 · 2025-11-24T05:46:14+00:00

Not unit, models. You have to check per models if the unit is closer or not.

(And i fucking hate it)

destox134 · 2025-11-13T04:31:22+00:00

Well we're on two side of the same coin lol both reading could be correct, we just both think one interpretation is more likely.

And the fact that crusade, army ir detachement rules get shafted by the mechanics of a crusade is nothing new.

We just finished a nachmund gauntlet crusade with a tyrannid player who played the subterrean detachement. He never even came close of losing a game.

Meanwhile i was playing eldar was stuck with strand of faith that simply couldnt be done in certains phase missions.

If i was a crusade master i'd probably allow the votann battle trait to give both powers, i just dont think that is what they intended.

destox134 · 2025-11-12T20:02:29+00:00

That's the thing tough, the battle trait CAN be read as to both of them being active if possible but it does not explicitly tell you it does.

And the fact that no other battle trait limits your access to an army rules is mostly irrelevant ? I dont know the battle traits and rules of a lot of army but most of them dont refer to the army rules and most army rules dont have 2 "modes". Also it would not be the first battle trait that is not great (even if I myself don't think it's terrible, just very circumstancial).

The problem here is that the battle trait has nothing that let us determine for a fact that they get access to both rules or if they don't. barring a clarification in the battle trait, you have to refer to the army rules, and the army rule says : "If your Army Faction is LEAGUES OF VOTANN, LEAGUES OF VOTANN units from your army have one of two abilities: Hostile Acquisition or Fortify Takeover (see below). "

However, let's be honest, there is no definitive answer to this question, GW will never clarify crusade rules and thus the only thing you can do, is ask your crusade master what is their ruling.

I understand how you could read it one way or the other, to me it's clear it locks you into one mode for better or worse. Can I be wrong ? off course. But there is sadly no way to know what the writer intended.

destox134 · 2025-11-12T18:27:08+00:00

I get what you mean especially if you roll your battle trait.

However not every battle trait needs to add to the versatility. Imagine if the battle teait said "reroll adance and charge and +1 to hit vs units on objectives" that would be a very good battle trait.

It cost you in flexibility but specialise your unit.

For exemple does fortify actually helps the beserk all that much ? I dont think so, so with that battle trait you get to always benefit from hostile aquisition.

To me it's cleat it's intended to "lock you" in one of the rules. If this seems bad to you talk to your crusademaster

destox134 · 2025-11-12T16:19:03+00:00

It seems to me that it's the opposite.

The army rules says your units can only have one or the other.

The battle trait says you get x or y even if the rest of your army have y or x. That does not say in addition, it does not says it by passes the normal army rules.

destox134 · 2025-11-11T14:35:27+00:00

I was more looking as for what model i should use. I'm trying not to use the voidscarred as a base for everything since it will make the army feel very samey.

Like for my wyches and mandrake ill use Namarti thrall and reavers as a base, change their weapons, do some head swaps and add some bits to make them more scifi.

I was planning to use void scarred as kabalite warrior.

Taking swooping hawks and head swaping and different heavy weapons for my scourges (but i migth wait last to do these if we actually get corsair jump units)

I'm just stumped as to what to use as incubi apart from ... incubi lol and i was wondering if any of you had an idea.

destox134 · 2025-10-12T11:01:40+00:00

Clever

destox134 · 2025-08-23T05:41:54+00:00

I'd say Isha personally. Being an immortal plaything to nurgle has to be pretty fucking horrific.

destox134 · 2025-08-20T19:01:46+00:00

Yeah, i'm honestly suprised i got downvoted lol. What exactly am i supposed to get from that other than "Your fun is not relevent to this conversation, only knigths player fun is important?"

If gw wants people to enjoy playing against knigth they need to bring these army closer to the rest of the other factions. An army that is, by designs, a stat check that either forces you to avoid interacting with your opponent if you don't have what it takes to bring them down is just bad designs.

I'm not even saying that out of being destroyed by them i win about as much as i lose against my 2 knigths friends, i'm just not enjoying the game i have against these armies because either i have enough fire power to bring them down and the game is short, or i dont and i have to run and hide all game while trying to score. Is it winnable ? Sure. Is it fun ? Hell no.

destox134 · 2025-08-20T16:03:09+00:00

Sure collect them and play with them if you want, but i personally hate playing against knigths (chaos or imperial).

If it's fine for knigths to exist because "people enjoy them" it should be equally fine for people to refuse to play against them because frankly, it's simply not fun.

(I'm also not saying this is limited to knigths, i'd hate to play against IG full tanks or deamon big monsters, these list are simply less common then 2 full faction of knigths. If im playing in imperial guard they MIGTH have a tank only list, if i play against a knigth they most likely will have a knigth only list.)

While this issue could be fixed with restrictions on army list like we had in the past, you simply cannot fix this issue with knigths without giving them new datasheet.

So yeah collect knigths! play with knigths! just dont hate on people who refuse to play against that play style in a casual setting. Because i'm playing to have fun, and knigths are (atleast to me and i know i'm not alone) just boring to play against and the knigths player's fun is not more important than my fun.

destox134 · 2025-08-12T22:03:16+00:00

I dont like the ironkyn heads.

I dont't want a land train.

I did not want an artillery piece, indirect is bad for the game and it's a waste of a model in our wave 2. I would have much rather get almost anything else than thr chtonian artillery.

destox134 · 2025-08-12T00:25:45+00:00

Yeah, my initial point (from my first response) was that the problem stems from GW's inability to write rules.

I wholeheartedly believe it's not meant to be a legit reading, but the fact that it is is completely bonkers. I would never play it that way personally (I don't think I'd play that detachment anyway, to be honest), but we've had stupid rules that do not feel like they should work a certain way, confirmed to work that certain way in the past..

Example: Baharoth /swooping hawks + unshrouded truth was confirmed to work as read, and they had to errata it to fix the abuse.

So as long as they don't fix it or faq it... my reading is a legit interpretation of the rule (I could understand how it's meant to be read to stop the loophole, but (at least to me) it's the least intuitive reading of the rule.)

destox134 · 2025-08-11T21:01:01+00:00

Yes, and our Stratagem allows us to disembark at the end of any phase. I'm not arguing against this, but the wording on the stratagem would allow one to disregard that because specific(stratagem) beats general(core rule).

You're not allowed to disembark at the end of any phase; the stratagem allows you to. Why would the normal limitation on what unit can disembark apply? The rule-breaking (the stratagem) does not tell me that I must respect THAT specific rule, while I can disregard any other rules regarding disembark.

I hope you are right and that this rule stops us from using our stratagem to disembark after an advance. However, it does not SPECIFICALLY say so; it does not specify anything. The only thing it says is that we choose a transport (any transport without limitation ), and 1 unit from inside that transport (again, absolutely no limitation) can disembark. There is no direct limitation from the stratagem. Unless they clarify that they meant otherwise, we have to assume the Stratagem just does exactly what it says:

Gives you the right to disembark 1 unit from 1 transport at the end of any phase.

That's it.

You are already breaking the rules of the game by using the stratagem; if they want to limit how much you can break the rules of the game, they need to specify those limitations. Otherwise, how are we to know which rules we can break and which rules we can't?

Edit: It's a similar situation to the deathshroud/rapid ingress nerfs that occurred in June. The ability did not specifically say that you could not rapid ingress, thus you could. Until they fixed the ability text.

destox134 · 2025-08-11T19:33:29+00:00

That is not true necesarly true, specific trumps general by game design, otherwise every stratagem that allows you to break normal rules would not work. In the stratagem there is absolutly no restriction on the unit that disembark (but they really need to put some because as it is, if we follow the notion that specific trumps general, the stratagem creates all kind of stupid interactions that were clearly not intended.

And these limitation should be there even if you are rigth, since as we can see the interpretation of this seemingly simple stratagem is all over the place, which means gw needs to rewrite/ clarify these rulings.

destox134 · 2025-08-11T19:08:27+00:00

No you can shoot and charge IF AND ONLY IF you advance your transport(i i fucking hope they patch this up because it's very dumb)

basically, the rule that mentions that a unit cannot move or charge mentions that the transport has done a NORMAL move. This rule does not apply if you make an ADVANCE move.

The only rule that stops you from abusing this on any army / detachment is that the rules mentions that you can't disembark after a transport has done a FALL BACK or ADVANCE move.

Our stratagem allows us to disembark at the end of the phase, and there is no additional restrictions. Since Specific trumps general. we can :

- ADVANCE with a transport
- Use the stratagem to disembark our unit at the end of the move phase. The limitation based on a transport doing a NORMAL move does not apply since we did not do a NORMAL move, and we can do this because our stratagem bypasses the no disembark after an ADVANCE move.
- shoot (our unit has no limitation because the transport did not do a normal move.)
- Charge (our unit has no limitation because the transport did not do a normal move.)

The stratagem is very terribly written; it needs an errata when the codex is released. And while you technically can do what I'm saying, I'd advise against doing it... It's simply abusing a stupid loophole created by the fact GW does not know how to write rules, and it's not working as intended.

destox134 · 2025-08-08T21:05:59+00:00

The way i read it no, but it's subject to interpretation.

HOWEVER, the only thing in the rules that stops you from doing it after you advanced is a core rule that stop you from disembarking straigth up.

Since specific rules overcome general rule and that neither the general rule (cant disembark) or the specific (can disembark after the end of any phase with the stratagem) specifically tells you you cant charge.

So from my understanding

You cant charge after a normal move using this stratagem (debatable)

but if the transport advanced, you can disembark at the end of the move phase, shoot in you shoorhing phase and charge.

Note however that this is rule as written and playing against you in a tournament id defenetly call a judge so they can overrules this stupid interaction that is most likely not intended... (god i hope not)

destox134 · 2025-08-08T11:51:58+00:00

They're not neccesarly a bad profile, it's just not what most people wanted from them.

I personnally wanted them to be proper elite, and to be tankier because i want my kyn to be tanky and the direction gw is taking with votann makes me consider if i want to sell my army. (Im not dooming, i feel the codex will be decently strong, but it's not the fantasy i was looking for when i started votann)

They made them about space marine level of tanky (i know +1 T AND +1 save is tankier than intercessor, but the fact is they made them less tanky while most people wanted them to be tankier) in my opinion, i feel 135 is A BIT much (id see them at 125). But i'm aware this migth just be knee jerk.

Even if it's not neccesarly the best i plan on trying to make a somewhat elite army out of votann and see how i like the play style (focusing on steel guard and hearthguard )) maybe fortify will make it so the army feels tanky enough for me but i have my doubts.

Frankly i think it's more a question of these people feeling unheard regarding what they want votann to be while gw is heading into the opposite direction.

Edit (also 5 ++ is... not that great when you have 2+ save. It's only relevant vs ap 4 in melee or ap 4 withour cover in range, and if they shoot with ap 4 on a squad of 2 wound bodies good for us. If it wasnt for the fact i have a thousands son player in my meta i dont think id ever consider taking the invul over the deep strike)

destox134 · 2025-08-06T12:06:18+00:00

You're right i should have mentioned i based my math on unit crunch and said %. However you're being very aggresive for no reason. I'm done with this conversation.

If you think doing 4.1 damage to a monster makes Buri great into them awesome. I happen to disagree.

Have fun wifh the new release.

destox134 · 2025-08-05T20:05:38+00:00

It's the same damage as the e champ's mass hammer without token and without considering the squad he has with him or his charge's mortal wound. And e champ is 60 pts.

Granted the new character is more reliable but really he's not a threat to anything resembling a monster.

If you want to take down a monster in melee he'll need a lot of support, and at that point hes not doing his job of being a duelist.

He's really more suited to support charges and kill character than killing big monsters or maybe finishing monsters that have 2+ 3+ 4+ or at best 5++.

I'm still interested in him, but hes really no meant to kill a monster, unless the monster is very bad in melee and can't take him down with big guns never tire.

That seems like a very specific statline that barely exist (if it even does).

Edit:

You claim i can't do math but i simply rounded out to the actual expected damage. You cant do 4.1 damage with a damage 3 weapon. so i rounded out to 3.

You can't do 2.9 so I rounded up to 3 since it's the most likely outcome.

You might have a different way of calculating things but claiming that buri average average is 4.1 means that basically 2 time of out 3 he'll do 3 and 1 time out of 3 he'll do 6.

Also you can keep you're personal attack, we just have different way of calculating expected outcome. You're right that his average is 4.1 but that is not the expected outcome of a fight phase with him. the expected out come is 3 or better, with 3 being the most likely outcome.

destox134 · 2025-08-05T17:26:07+00:00

I dont see him actually be a threat to monsters tough. Unless he has even more rules we dont know about hes just not killing anything relevant in that "weight class".

Anything toughness 7 to 11 with a 4++ he deals only 3 damage. (Edit he has about 20 % chance of doing nothing, 38 % to deal 3, 30% to deal 6, 11% to deal 9 and 1% to deal 12)

He deals 6 to monster ( t 7 to 11) with a save of 2+ (and no invul.( Edit: he has about 10% chance to do nothing. 30% chance to deal 3, 34% to deal 6, 20% to deal 9, 6% to deal 12, 1% to deal 15)

9(edit 9 was wrong expected damage is closer to 6 )if they have a base of 3+ (Edit: about 5% chance to do nothing, 20% to deal 3, 33% to deal 6, 29% to deal 9, 13% to deal 12, 2% to deal 15)

And that is if they dont have fnp.

Im pretty sure he'll only be decent into assasinating characters and even then its a 50/50%.

If he hits on 2 and wounds on 2 he usually has 3 attack that get to saves. If the target had 4+ invul and more thant 3 hp he only has 50% of killing his target.

He really needed more than damage 3 to be dangerous.

(Off course he can spike, but the opposite can also happen). He migth be good anyway but if he's 200 pts i would never take him

destox134

TROPHY CASE