|
Re: 32mm chat, it's at least a boon that most fender washer are 1.25" and thus interchangable with a 32mm base. You could probably buy 100 fender washers for $10 or less. I'm... Well, I'm considering it since I play Orks and thus wouldn't mind that little extra oomph in getting into CC but I own something like 225 infantry models for that army. 
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:34 |
|
|
This is it. This is what breaks my spirit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
panascope posted:Welp, I finished my titan Let me tell you all about the apoc game I played three weeks ago where my deathwing Knights came in and did 11 hull points to a war hound Titan in one turn. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
How the gently caress am I even supposed to rebase my space marines anyway?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
koreban posted:Let me tell you all about the apoc game I played three weeks ago where my deathwing Knights came in and did 11 hull points to a war hound Titan in one turn. please tell me more
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
koreban posted:Let me tell you all about the apoc game I played three weeks ago where my deathwing Knights came in and did 11 hull points to a war hound Titan in one turn. How does this even happen?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Star Man posted:How the gently caress am I even supposed to rebase my space marines anyway? Put the smaller base onto the larger base.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Star Man posted:How the gently caress am I even supposed to rebase my space marines anyway? Ignore it, because 1) grandfather clause, and 2) there's literally no way GW can enforce it, as hard as they might try.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:Those are still in production as pewter figures. I don't remember the name of the company. As mentioned a couple pages back, EM4 still make them in plastic - http://www.em4miniatures.com/acatalog/Science_Fiction.html I have a couple dozen knocking around myself, my flgs (long closed sadly) had a sale on and I thought they looked neat so picked up a bunch for a fiver.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
Man I was this close to assembling and gluing all my minotaur infantry to their bases. Guess I'll wait till I get some idea of where GW is going with this base business. I guess bigger bases on assault marines is better for assault but a bit lovely for Deepstriking. What a clusterfuck! Edit: how long till third party sellers make two part rings that sit flush with the old style bases.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
I was just rounding up the last batches of built IG minis I have and I realised I have misplaced or lost 2 mortar squads. I literally cannot remember where they are - certainly not in any of the warhammer boxes in my current accommodation. Where the hell did they go? My predominant feeling is actually relief since they were the bottom priority on the painting list - fuckin' useless models in-game. I think this is a very bad sign that I may just have too much of this poo poo. And yet I also feel like I should buy 2 more platoons, 50 conscripts and at least 3 more russes. Oh, and maybe some hydras.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
panascope posted:How does this even happen? It's actually not that crazy, deathwing knights are awful awful but for one round of close combat they're horrifyingly good. You can supercharge their weapons to be S 10 AP 2 for one turn, hitting at initiative, and as they all have 3+ invulnerable saves titans in close combat aren't too scary for them. 10 WS 5 attacks on a titan, 6-7 hits, you've got a good shot at multiple penetrations all with +1 to damage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
If it's OK for people to bring 2nd edition Terminators on 25mm bases to the GW store here, I'm sure it's more than fine for people to bring their current models on old bases too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
Nobs should also be on bigger bases. I like the new size, I ain't replacing my old bases though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
Yeah actually I do know that Titans are fairly vulnerable vs good melee troops. I'd really like to see a Titan vs Knight Titan battle, also I found this gem from ages ago http://www.3plusplus.net/2013/03/whatswrongwithimperialarmour/
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
Also paging forums poster AbusePuppy to comment on opinions presented in http://www.3plusplus.net/2012/09/unit-reviews-imperial-armor-aeronautica/
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Leo Showers posted:Yeah actually I do know that Titans are fairly vulnerable vs good melee troops. I'd really like to see a Titan vs Knight Titan battle, also I found this gem from ages ago http://www.3plusplus.net/2013/03/whatswrongwithimperialarmour/ I'm probably going to be pitting my Warhound against a Knight this evening, I'll try and take some pictures.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
panascope posted:I'm probably going to be pitting my Warhound against a Knight this evening, I'll try and take some pictures. Yeah please do, I'll be really interested to see how Void Shields vs Flare Shields or whatever the Knights have, however I don't think the Knight's Shields affect Destroyer weapons sooo it'll probably be curtains for the Knight anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Leo Showers posted:please tell me more I was waiting to do a big write up once I got pictures, but basically it was a CSM Titan and I had a Void grenade. So S10 AP1 Bane of the Traitor assault hits and a D strength vortex grenade that hangs around under a massive, massive model.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Raphus C posted:Nobs should also be on bigger bases. I like the new size, I ain't replacing my old bases though. I expect Nobs, Hormagaunts, Necron Warriors and Immortals to also get the 32mm, along with Space Marines.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
It also I believe fucks over all the 3rd party scenic base makers who are 25mm , which is probably a consideration as well.
Hollismason fucked around with this message at 05:14 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
panascope posted:I'm probably going to be pitting my Warhound against a Knight this evening, I'll try and take some pictures. I sent my Tyranid bio-titan up against a Knight last weekend. He knocked the Knight down to its last hull point before dying to a dreadnought joining in the assault. My crone then did a fly-by and killed the knight on the next turn.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
panascope posted:Funnily enough I think the Lucius-pattern looks better. The Turbo-Lasers are the best weapons still I think, D weapons are still ridiculous and pooping out 4 large templates a turn is really good. Second-best weapon is probably the inferno cannon, the template is loving gigantic. I can't decide whether the Plasma Blastgun or Vulcan Mega-Bolter is the worst, I'm leaning towards the Blastgun being the worst just because it's basically a worse Turbo-Laser. At least the Mega-Bolter can blast flyers. I would actually disagree a fair bit here. The Inferno Cannon is probably the best weapon, although you likely wouldn't want two of them- AP3 guns that ignore cover are a pretty big deal, because they can just clean out a squad or two of Marines (or anything else) pretty easily. The Plasma and Turbo-Laser are both vying for second place; Str is very nice for smashing tanks and occasionally getting lucky to absolutely murder something with no rolls of any kind to protect it, but on the other hand the Plasma's two huge templates (or one super-massive one) can pretty easily make a player roll a cover save for every model in their army under some deployments. The Mega-Bolter is the only "bad" choice of the lot, since it doesn't do anything that another gun can't do better (except chewing up MCs on the ground.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
Does anyone know why there is a mysterious difference between the Marauder Bomber in IA: Apoc (2013) and Warzone: Pandorax?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
Different rules for different editions, maybe? What differences are there?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Well the Pandorax Marauder costs 15 points less that the IA: Apoc one, carries less than half the bomb load, has less armour, carries different Hellstorm bombs, and lacks customisation. It's really bizarre given that both these rule sets were generated around the same time period. The Marauder is a little overcosted anyway, dropping down to AV10 all round and halving the bombload doesn't equate to -15 points.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
Cataphract posted:I guess bigger bases on assault marines is better for assault but a bit lovely for Deepstriking. What a clusterfuck! I think it's a wash for deepstriking. It may be harder to squeeze them in a tight spot, but it also makes it easier to deploy them bunched up, and it might even cut down on the number of dudes who get hit by a template.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
Leo Showers posted:Well the Pandorax Marauder costs 15 points less that the IA: Apoc one, carries less than half the bomb load, has less armour, carries different Hellstorm bombs, and lacks customisation. It's really bizarre given that both these rule sets were generated around the same time period. The Marauder is a little overcosted anyway, dropping down to AV10 all round and halving the bombload doesn't equate to -15 points. Well you see one was written by FW and one was written by GW.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
ghetto wormhole posted:Well you see one was written by FW and one was written by GW. Honestly I think I'm alright in using the Imperial Armour one because the GW one really sucks rear end, and not even in a fun way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
Yeesh. Chalk it up to GW and FW being on different wavelengths and the Pandorax one is a shittier STC pattern or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
Leo Showers posted:Honestly I think I'm alright in using the Imperial Armour one because the GW one really sucks rear end, and not even in a fun way. This sounds about right for everything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
Slimnoid posted:Ignore it, because 1) grandfather clause, and 2) there's literally no way GW can enforce it, as hard as they might try. Agree with this 100% - its a stupid and pointless move and does nothing either for or against the game. My group is going to ignore it. If you use it great. If you dont, great. I dont care about playing in tournaments enough to care about rebasing something I have already made.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 08:10
|
|
|
AbusePuppy posted:I would actually disagree a fair bit here. The Inferno Cannon is probably the best weapon, although you likely wouldn't want two of them- AP3 guns that ignore cover are a pretty big deal, because they can just clean out a squad or two of Marines (or anything else) pretty easily. The Plasma and Turbo-Laser are both vying for second place; Str is very nice for smashing tanks and occasionally getting lucky to absolutely murder something with no rolls of any kind to protect it, but on the other hand the Plasma's two huge templates (or one super-massive one) can pretty easily make a player roll a cover save for every model in their army under some deployments. The Mega-Bolter is the only "bad" choice of the lot, since it doesn't do anything that another gun can't do better (except chewing up MCs on the ground.) I'm still sold on the Turbo-Laser being best because of the crazy range, potential to ignore all saves, and the benefit you gain from Prescience/other supporting units. Plus every hit on the Destroyer weapon table is actually D3 wounds/penetrating hits at a minimum which can be super useful against units with good saves. Tonight I basically doubled my points on it with little effort thanks to the long-range weapons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 09:18
|
|
|
The 32mm bases would be cool for my Minotaurs because 1. I don't like the way some poses have feet that hang off the edge, and 2. it would give me more space to work with for scenic bases. But I've already got 25% of my infantry bases done up so gently caress it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 10:05
|
|
|
Leo Showers posted:Does anyone know why there is a mysterious difference between the Marauder Bomber in IA: Apoc (2013) and Warzone: Pandorax? This sort of thing is actually pretty common. Units that get reprinted in more than one book almost always have some pretty arbitrary-seeming differences between them. panascope posted:I'm still sold on the Turbo-Laser being best because of the crazy range, potential to ignore all saves, and the benefit you gain from Prescience/other supporting units. Plus every hit on the Destroyer weapon table is actually D3 wounds/penetrating hits at a minimum which can be super useful against units with good saves. Tonight I basically doubled my points on it with little effort thanks to the long-range weapons. The Turbo-Laser definitely has some advantages, yeah; remember that the d3 wounds from each hit apply ONLY to a single model, however, and one save is rolled against each "group" of d3 of them (not rolling individual saves against each of the d3 wounds) to negate them. It's great for killing heavy tanks, MCs, and other tough targets, but it will typically be inferior to the Inferno Cannon/Plasma Blastgun against many other types of targets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 10:11
|
|
|
D weapons are not the catch all super option any more - they're still seriously loving good but its something you should build your army around rather than think its a panacea. Tanks, MCs, multi wound models - yes. Hordes - waste of the power as for a fraction of the cost you could get flamers or whatever which would do the same job.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 12:33
|
|
|
Nah if you aren't killing trash mobs one at a time with Destroyer weapons then you should give up and go home 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 13:20
|
|
|
The thing is that now inv and cover saves can be taken 5/6 of the time. So destroyer weapons are super effective against elite troops of T5 and under without a good cover/inv, pretty good against MCs, great against vehicles that don't jink, but you are really gambling on a 6 if your opponent has a good inv. Still a real threat to those 3+ inv units because their owner still doesn't want to risk the 1 in 6 chance of a super-hard death star getting wiped. Overall though I think S10 ignores cover, as some baneblade types have, is generally better than Str D, since it is generally a bigger blast. I like that D is now more against heavy vehicles and super-heavies/gargantuans. Makes it a bit less of an auto-take. Before 7th edition it was just absurd. Really, if you are playing apocalypse you should probably use torrent of fire weapons on invulnerable saves, non-blast weapons on MCs, and save the D weapons or other conventional superheavy guns for elite infantry and/or multiple hits on clusters of vehicles. On enemy superheavies, I would imagine a focussed melta drop or a fuckload of lascannons will be more efficient than another superheavy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
Where does it specify what base size a unit requires? AFAIK that isn't specified anywhere, nor has it ever been. You all freakin out about 'required rebasing' and it's not even a real thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:34 |
|
|
LordLobo posted:Where does it specify what base size a unit requires? That's why I base my bikers on 12"x 2" bases. Its all about that post deployment pivot. I think people are afraid of the peer pressure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 15:24
|
|