|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:You could also apply that rule to any unit without a leader, or simplify it to say that measurements are always performed from the model with the highest leadership. That also works thematically with swarms. not sure you're getting the point that there are armies with units where all the models are just identical
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:Since we're asking for unicorns and rainbows... A fair point. GW has never been interested enough in other games to steal really good ideas. Even new GW doesn't seem interested. Their new focus is on having a concise rule set. They've done that well. The fact that competitive games look like Spirograph probably won't be enough to overcome the preference for simplicity. And even if it became inclined, it's not happening before 9th edition.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
Maneck posted:A fair point. GW has never been interested enough in other games to steal really good ideas. Even new GW doesn't seem interested. Their new focus is on having a concise rule set. They've done that well. The fact that competitive games look like Spirograph probably won't be enough to overcome the preference for simplicity. They're definitely capable of different stuff - Shadespire and Epic both have alternating activations for example. 40k is a different beast though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:not sure you're getting the point that there are armies with units where all the models are just identical Yes. And which one of them will have the highest leadership? Any of them. So at that point the players gets to pick a model and use that as the reference.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 20:36
|
|
|
Corrode posted:They're definitely capable of different stuff - Shadespire and Epic both have alternating activations for example. 40k is a different beast though. I can't imagine GW ever doing alternating activations in 40K without pulling an AoS rebrand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 20:36
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:Yes. And which one of them will have the highest leadership? Any of them. So at that point the players gets to pick a model and use that as the reference. So in order to fix conga lines you've created a system where Necrons can spread out 10" on either side of the central model and Orks can be 20-30" from their leader model, while Tyranid swarms of Termagants and Hormogaunts have to be within 5" of whatever leader model is chosen because Synapse doesn't modify their leadership?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
I really do feel like the solution is to force picking modeling in base to base first as casualties in assault and then using the AoS style coherency rule. Let assault armies hit those stretched out lines with a flying wedge and the problem will just sort itself out. The current implementation isn't terrible, there just needs to be some sort of downside.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 20:47
|
|
|
Pendent posted:I really do feel like the solution is to force picking modeling in base to base first as casualties in assault and then using the AoS style coherency rule. Let assault armies hit those stretched out lines with a flying wedge and the problem will just sort itself out. The current implementation isn't terrible, there just needs to be some sort of downside.  It really does work and I was disappointed when GW dropped it in 8th.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 20:50
|
|
|
Safety Factor posted:We could just go back to directional wound allocation. Yeah, I wouldn't hate this tbh. As bloated as 7th was I do find myself missing some stuff like the directional wound allocation and templates. The random number of shots just doesn't feel like it really works that well
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
I think my question from a couple pages back got lost in the sprawl, so let me ask again, but more succinctly: Selling warhams on SA -- is this still a thing? I trawled SA-Mart a little and didn't find any recent threads containing warhams. I have a lot of models from a lot of armies in a lot of conditions and stages of completion that I would like to offload without using ebay. Where are we selling our warhams these days?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 21:02
|
|
|
Sade posted:I think my question from a couple pages back got lost in the sprawl, so let me ask again, but more succinctly: Selling warhams on SA -- is this still a thing? I trawled SA-Mart a little and didn't find any recent threads containing warhams. I have a lot of models from a lot of armies in a lot of conditions and stages of completion that I would like to offload without using ebay. Where are we selling our warhams these days? Yes, people still do this. I've bought armies from goons before as well. A+++, would do it again. You can cross-post in here once your thread is up. Expect people to ask about buying specific items from your collection.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 21:06
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:So in order to fix conga lines you've created a system where Necrons can spread out 10" on either side of the central model and Orks can be 20-30" from their leader model, while Tyranid swarms of Termagants and Hormogaunts have to be within 5" of whatever leader model is chosen because Synapse doesn't modify their leadership? Yup. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 21:12
|
|
|
Pendent posted:Yeah, I wouldn't hate this tbh. As bloated as 7th was I do find myself missing some stuff like the directional wound allocation and templates. The random number of shots just doesn't feel like it really works that well I think random number of shots would be a lot better if they had less variance. Ex/ instead of 2d6 they did 4d3 or something. Or something like [dice roll] + n. I don't think I've come across anything like that. A bit more math could be something like roll a d3 for every x wounds in the target unit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
Zasze posted:death jester special rule is that the attacking player gets to pick which models are removed if i remember right too bad they are terrible. The new codex has made them a bit better. They're cheaper per model, and Jester's weapon's Shrieker profile does -2 leadership on top of the mortal wounds it causes when it kills an enemy model.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 22:02
|
|
|
Corrode posted:Yes, that's exactly what you're meant to do. Buy some different-coloured dice. Oh snap. New player, would have thought someone would have mentioned that to me. The more you learn... Soggy Chips fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Jun 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 22:12
|
|
|
Well. Converting one of these just got WAAAAAAY simpler. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 22:40
|
|
|
I gotta say I know very little of AoS but I’m lovin’ those spoopy brides/maidens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 22:42
|
|
|
PierreTheMime posted:I gotta say I know very little of AoS but I’m lovin’ those spoopy brides/maidens. It also seems like a really good way of diversifying into the "Wedding cake toppers for goths" market?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 22:52
|
|
|
An across the board rule (for combat and shooting) that you have to remove casualties from closest to the attacking unit doesn’t feel like it has any massive problems, and heavily punishes the conga lines by letting you push them back when they’re strung out. The only change i think you might need to make to support it would be to let a unit that has been successfully charged pile in after the unit that charged it piles in but before it gets attacked, because otherwise the attacker is motivated to put their front model exactly 1 inch away from the enemy and form a little wedge behind it in an attempt to kill off the only models close enough to count as in melee. Alternatively, a “charged” unit can get the same thing a “charging” unit currently gets where it can still pile in even if there are no enemies within 1 by the time they fight.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 22:56
|
|
|
I think 8th is in an interesting place where the ruleset is in a great place for casual play between play between friends, and in a miserable place for competition play. The horrors of list building I see come up in this thread sound like what you should expect for a tournament, but why on earth would you play like that all the time?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 23:02
|
|
|
Who can fight who in melee is an entire clusterfuck all by itself and the whole assault system could really use some fine-tuning on these types of things. As an assault-centric horde army player I'm becoming versed in how the mechanics work but holy balls could it use some fine-tuning. Combine a streamlining rework of the assault phase and "one leader model for unit movement, keep coherency within a range of that leader unit however you do it" for moving hordes and I could probably cut my part of the time spent in a game by a third or so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 23:03
|
|
|
Lord_Hambrose posted:I think 8th is in an interesting place where the ruleset is in a great place for casual play between play between friends, and in a miserable place for competition play. The horrors of list building I see come up in this thread sound like what you should expect for a tournament, but why on earth would you play like that all the time? I mean, most of us don't. I could post my lists but the only reaction would basically be "Yup, that's a Blood Angels army there."
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 23:43
|
|
|
One_Wing posted:An across the board rule (for combat and shooting) that you have to remove casualties from closest to the attacking unit doesn’t feel like it has any massive problems, and heavily punishes the conga lines by letting you push them back when they’re strung out. It fucks assault armies even harder. Now not only are 2/3 of my hormagaunts dead, the survivors are also 4 inches further away from anything they want to assault. Overwatch is already unfun and swingy without it also killing the closest models and making charges fail. Being forced to remove the closest models was part of what made 6/7th such a shootingfest, 8th is already shooty enough that it doesn't need the help.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 23:55
|
|
|
ro5s posted:It fucks assault armies even harder. Now not only are 2/3 of my hormagaunts dead, the survivors are also 4 inches further away from anything they want to assault. Overwatch is already unfun and swingy without it also killing the closest models and making charges fail. ...yeah ok fair enough, I’m just wrong. Edit: next idea for people to tell me I haven’t properly thought through - units with more than ten models have a 1” coherency requirement rather than 2”. Go! One_Wing fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Jun 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
 Found another moving box and a ziplock bag labeled “Rippers” with 40+ Rippers to work with. Man the poo poo you forget you did when you’ve been collecting for 18 years. Thanks 2002-era me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
One_Wing posted:...yeah ok fair enough, I’m just wrong. You aren’t wrong. Directional wound allocation was good and it was dumb to remove it. What a shame the guy with a billion gaunts sometimes won’t make it into combat
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 00:14
|
|
|
Basing question. I usually try to leverage contrast in my bases: dark models on light, light models on dark. Not sure what to do with Necrons. They are metallic, which is grey, and somewhat mid-range. Ideas?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 00:31
|
|
|
Hixson posted:You aren’t wrong. Directional wound allocation was good and it was dumb to remove it. What a shame the guy with a billion gaunts sometimes won’t make it into combat I too would love to run biovores to snipe out special weapons again. This time with Mortal Wounds! I thought a lot of auras were going more towards "models" in range and not "units" in range so you don't need to conga as bad. Bump up the range a bit for the ones that are still "unit" and it should be all good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 00:33
|
|
|
GreenMarine posted:Basing question. I usually try to leverage contrast in my bases: dark models on light, light models on dark. Contrast it with texture maybe? Snow?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 00:34
|
|
|
I saw a guy at the local shop the other day who had a tyranid list revolving around 3 forgeworld Malanthropes giving a -1 hit buff to giant swarms of gaunts around them. I felt kinda bad telling him that Malanthropes only gave their -1 hit to MODELS within 3”, not units. It kind of threw off his game plan a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 00:45
|
|
|
So turns out you totally can have an armiger be your warlord with a trait, you just nominate them when you pick the one model in a super heavy detachment. The only thing they're excluded from is exalted court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 00:45
|
|
|
Badablack posted:I saw a guy at the local shop the other day who had a tyranid list revolving around 3 forgeworld Malanthropes giving a -1 hit buff to giant swarms of gaunts around them. I felt kinda bad telling him that Malanthropes only gave their -1 hit to MODELS within 3”, not units. It kind of threw off his game plan a bit. I don't believe this is true, unless this language was added in CA which I do not have handy. They wouldn't be popular units if they didn't shroud big artillery beasts, which would be impossible if the model had to be within 3".
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 00:51
|
|
|
Deified Data posted:I don't believe this is true, unless this language was added in CA which I do not have handy. They wouldn't be popular units if they didn't shroud big artillery beasts, which would be impossible if the model had to be within 3". Within 3" is not the same thing as wholly within 3"
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
Pendent posted:Within 3" is not the same thing as wholly within 3" Ah, makes sense. Battlescribe was fibbing, which might explain his opponent's confusion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 00:55
|
|
|
Badablack posted:I saw a guy at the local shop the other day who had a tyranid list revolving around 3 forgeworld Malanthropes giving a -1 hit buff to giant swarms of gaunts around them. I felt kinda bad telling him that Malanthropes only gave their -1 hit to MODELS within 3”, not units. It kind of threw off his game plan a bit. Eh, had to be done. gently caress expensive power-gaming. Forgeworld is a nice spice to an army but jfc
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 00:57
|
|
|
Hixson posted:You aren’t wrong. Directional wound allocation was good and it was dumb to remove it. What a shame the guy with a billion gaunts sometimes won’t make it into combat A terrible opinion. Are people who have problems with large groups of units taking enough anti-infantry weapons?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 01:04
|
|
|
Badablack posted:I saw a guy at the local shop the other day who had a tyranid list revolving around 3 forgeworld Malanthropes giving a -1 hit buff to giant swarms of gaunts around them. I felt kinda bad telling him that Malanthropes only gave their -1 hit to MODELS within 3”, not units. It kind of threw off his game plan a bit. You really should feel really bad. That was dealt with an errata. He was right. quote:Your opponent must subtract 1 from hit rolls for ranged weapons that target <HIVE FLEET> units within 3" of any friendly <HIVE FLEET> Malanthropes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 01:06
|
|
|
Fair enough really when it's the same aura as the venomthrope in the codex.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 01:14
|
|
|
Its not really, venomthropes aura is 6" which extends to 9" if theres enough bugs in the unit. You get way more coverage with a unit of venomthropes with 3 for 90 points vs a 3" bubble for 140 with the malanthrope, conversely the malanthrope is a 9W character and can hide. (But thats really all it can do its melee is poo poo and it doesnt have any shooting) Its good but hardly "Expensive power gaming"
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 01:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
Artum posted:Fair enough really when it's the same aura as the venomthrope in the codex. It’s slightly better since it affects Monsters without exception. As a 9W Character they’re also insanely survivable. Edit: yeah at 90pts they were good and almost mandatory. At 140pts they’re okay and a good mix for a Synapse support model if you don’t want a Neurothrope and Venomthropes instead. PierreTheMime fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Jun 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 01:18
|
|