|
I played some Necrons over TTS a few weeks ago. It was a 1000 point game so the 'cron were actually incredibly miserable for my opponent, since there's some tipping point below which "deleting entire squads of immortals" becomes improbable. That said, even at that point level, I didn't feel like the Reanimation Protocols were much more than 'inconvenient.' Things that I'd say were great -Extermination Protocols gives Destroyers "reroll all hits and wounds," which lets out an incredible amount of hurt -Quantum Shielding is comical and incredibly frustrating for your opponent, not sure about actually good. -C'tan are, sincerely, good. Goonhammer has done a bunch about it. -On a list that is otherwise incredibly point inefficient, Scarab Swarms are great at screening and holding objectives. Corrode posted:Drukhari are a bit behind the pace, their book is increasingly aged and their Psychic Awakening release was dogshit. They're not hopeless though, they have good fundamental design they're just showing their age. Craftworlds are strong as hell, again, and you can certainly do a mixed list of both and have reasonable success with it. In a bunch of the last tournaments, Eldar soup builds were in top positions, and generally were "Crafts + a minimum Patrol of Druks so you can use Vect."
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 14:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 01:42 |
|
|
Cooked Auto posted:Armored IG was pretty much the only reason I ever wanted to play 40k and back then there was only the FW armor list. Sadly I never got around to realize that dream and contended myself I never will because I'm bad at the game and a sour loser. Back in 3rd, 'mech Guard was the poo poo. Take all your Troops as Armored Fist squads so everyone had their own Chimera. You could pop the top and fire your squad's heavy weapon and special weapon from inside the Chimera, as well as get six lasguns from the squad inside. Between that, the Chimera's own guns, and having AV12 on the front making you immune to small arms fire as long as you could keep them from getting to your flanks or rear, and each Chimera turned into a little bunker of pain. Back up your Chimera line with Russes, Hellhounds, and Basilisks and you only ever needed to put boots on the ground if someone managed to blow up one of the Chimeras or you needed to grab an objective or something. It wasn't perfect, mind you. The way gauss weapons worked back then made Necrons a hard counter to the list since every single gauss shot had a chance to blow your tanks. Fast melee like 'Nids or Chaos could be problematic, as could a fast Eldar or Dark Eldar vehicle list. But a surprising number of other match ups were near auto-wins. Foot Orks, foot Eldar, and surprisingly, most Marine lists would have a bitch of a time blowing enough tanks up before all their own heavy weapons were concentrated on and killed. Nowadays, of course, they've welded the top hatches shut, T7 W10 3+ isn't particularly hard to kill, and the guns on a Chimera aren't all that effective anymore, especially since you can't give orders to one. But back in the day? It was glorious. Corrode posted:Drukhari are a bit behind the pace, their book is increasingly aged and their Psychic Awakening release was dogshit. They're not hopeless though, they have good fundamental design they're just showing their age. Craftworlds are strong as hell, again, and you can certainly do a mixed list of both and have reasonable success with it. Tulip posted:I played some Necrons over TTS a few weeks ago. It was a 1000 point game so the 'cron were actually incredibly miserable for my opponent, since there's some tipping point below which "deleting entire squads of immortals" becomes improbable. That said, even at that point level, I didn't feel like the Reanimation Protocols were much more than 'inconvenient.' Un-souped Dark Eldar and Necrons are, surprisingly, in a fairly similar place in the competitive meta in that both armies do have some effective units but a lot of units that aren't. Which means that in both cases, for competative play anyway, you only see the effective percentage of their choices. So every DE list is flyers and Venoms with Experimental Weapons, every Necron list max Destroyers and tesla Immortals. The fact that Drukhari can soup and Necrons can't does mean you see DE much more often as a component of successful lists, but usually just as a component, rarely as a pure list anymore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 15:11
|
|
|
Space Marines are strong, and their power armor boots stomp the necks of many other factions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 17:24
|
|
|
Cross posting my current projectZuul the Cat posted:Currently working on a Tomb King as a Necron Lord.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 18:03
|
|
|
Just bring back Pariahs, how is this so hard? Such a sick model.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 18:35
|
|
|
BaronVanAwesome posted:Just bring back Pariahs, how is this so hard? Such a sick model. The Necron PA book is called Pariah, so there may be some hope. Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 19:56
|
|
|
Midig posted:From looking at competitive lists. Most of them look kinda boring with loads of the same stuff and spam. Every list that brings Lord discordant brings 3 of them. I wish there were more "diminishing returns" mechanics to maybe incentivize more balanced lists. The issue you're going to have is that Lords Discordant and Keepers of Secrets are targetable from the jump thanks to having 10+ wounds. The reason you take 3 is so you can have redundancies, because your opponent isn't as likely to kill three of them before they can act, giving you better threat saturation than a balanced list. You'll find the same issue running Helrakes - I run two when I run them. Tulip posted:I played some Necrons over TTS a few weeks ago. It was a 1000 point game so the 'cron were actually incredibly miserable for my opponent, since there's some tipping point below which "deleting entire squads of immortals" becomes improbable. That said, even at that point level, I didn't feel like the Reanimation Protocols were much more than 'inconvenient.' Necrons are incredibly good at 1000 points and below, where armies lack the concentrated firepower to actually remove whole squads and prevent Reanimation Protocols from repairing things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 20:44
|
|
|
Talk to me about Harlequins. I love their models and lore, but they seem like a bland (in terms of options), underperforming, badly supported army unto themselves on the tabletop. Is there a good way to use them as part of a more diverse or viable Craftworld, Drukhari, or Ynnari list? If you had a troupe sitting around for KT or whatever and wanted to play them in 40k, what kind of force would you work on?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 21:20
|
|
|
No. 1 Apartheid Fan posted:Talk to me about Harlequins. Take an Outrider detachment and grab Skyweavers with Zephyrglaives and Haywire Blasters. The former will make you a threat in melee, the latter a real pain to tanks. The mandatory HQ is kind of a pain, but a Troupe Master could be a decent melee threat as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 21:37
|
|
|
Technowolf posted:The Necron PA book is called Pariah, so there may be some hope. I doubt Pariahs will get new models. The token Necron model for the book has already been teased. They're not Space Marines so I highly doubt they'll get more than that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 22:30
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:The issue you're going to have is that Lords Discordant and Keepers of Secrets are targetable from the jump thanks to having 10+ wounds. The reason you take 3 is so you can have redundancies, because your opponent isn't as likely to kill three of them before they can act, giving you better threat saturation than a balanced list. You'll find the same issue running Helrakes - I run two when I run them. Having multiple of one thing can also be important to retain the fluff of an army. Such as having multiple raptors and warp talon units for night lords. I wish there was some sort of mechanic to prevent spam of one unit. 2x of something like Heldrakes makes sense, both tactically and fluffy. You cant always depend on something to succeed at rolling or not dying from sheer bad luck. Having enough of X thing can also be important for fluff. A raven guard unit would have at least 3 squads of something with jet packs. However, having 3x Discordant, Raven guard centurion spam, Invictus Tactical Warsuit in every SM list isn't the players being strategical as much as finding something that is really good and spamming it. IMO there should be some sort of diminishing return mechanic where it costs X points if you got more than X amount of a unit (depending on if its infantry, heavy support etc.) to promote balanced lists. I guess I am basically arguing for making fluffy lists a bit more competitive by nerfing X good thing spam. To take what I dislike about those lists to the extreme, imagine you could have multiple Primarchs in one army and people found out that having 4 Gullimans in a 2000p army was actually really good and everyone just ran that until he got a massive nerf. Midig fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Apr 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 23:21
|
|
|
That already happened. In a 2000 point matched play game you're limited to three of a given unit, after a GW team got loving tarred by seven Flyrants at Adepticon 2018 lol.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 23:42
|
|
|
I still believe that you should have 2x max of an HQ unless it's just a generic lord or psyker. They didn't go far enough. Also, to get my last rant out of my way. I appreciate that GW wants to create cool and dynamic figures, but it should not be a business model to create figures that will inevitably break upon transporting it anywhere, making you desperately fix it or have to buy a new one. I still get nightmares about my Dark Elder flying units. Magnets should be included at the very least. Just look at it, the wings, sure. But the feet and flails as well. Is an absolute nightmare for anyone owning cats. 
Midig fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Apr 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 23:47
|
|
|
Midig posted:I still believe that you should have 2x max of an HQ unless it's just a generic lord or psyker. They didn't go far enough. I like the GSC/Tau approach that limits characters by detachment. It's just a shame no other factions are subject to it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 23:52
|
|
|
The T'au approach applies to Commanders keyword only, Farsight Enclaves can take two each detachment (a very recent change), and that particular limit has been bullshit since it happened because there are like four different kinds of Commander and all of them got dicked by it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 23:58
|
|
|
xtothez posted:I like the GSC/Tau approach that limits characters by detachment. It's just a shame no other factions are subject to it. Sisters of Battle can only have one missionary/priest per detachment. In fact, limiting HQs to 2 units at 2000 points would hurt certain armies way too much. Sticking with the SoB example, they only have 2 HQs that aren't named. Then of the two named HQs, one is Martyred Lady only and the other is Celestine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 00:49
|
|
|
Midig posted:I still believe that you should have 2x max of an HQ unless it's just a generic lord or psyker. They didn't go far enough. Meh. If they're gonna limit you to three detachments then limiting non-Troop/non-DTs to 3 per is fine
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 01:35
|
|
|
There's some visceral desire (And I know, I feel it too sometimes) to want armies to 'look' fluffy on the table, and nine of the same HQ or whatever isn't it. Even if they get it balanced, it just feels wrong when you look at the table, especially knowing 'Oh, and that'd just mulch the poor bastard who does drop one that looks right on the other side'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 01:49
|
|
|
Shockeh posted:There's some visceral desire (And I know, I feel it too sometimes) to want armies to 'look' fluffy on the table, and nine of the same HQ or whatever isn't it. So what about an imperial fists army with a captain, lieutenant, chaplain, and techmarine, one squad of centurions, a couple whirlwinds and thunderfires, and a bucket of intercessors. That army is also going to mulch a great many armies and absolutely looks "fluffy".
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 02:33
|
|
|
Shockeh posted:There's some visceral desire (And I know, I feel it too sometimes) to want armies to 'look' fluffy on the table, and nine of the same HQ or whatever isn't it. I feel like the better answer to that is using different sculpts. It would be nice if GW didn't make all new HQ models mono-pose, but we can make due with kitbashes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 02:34
|
|
|
Floppychop posted:I feel like the better answer to that is using different sculpts. I thought Saint Katherine could be taken by anybody? She doesn't have the ORDER OF OUR MARTYRED LADY keyword. Just going on the codex that is. I don't know if that's been FAQd or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 03:28
|
|
|
Endman posted:I thought Saint Katherine could be taken by anybody? She doesn't have the ORDER OF OUR MARTYRED LADY keyword.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 03:30
|
|
|
Safety Factor posted:They're talking about the canoness on the hovering flamethrower pulpit. She's locked to Our Martyred Lady. Ahh, I completely forgot about her. She looks like she stole an Abeyant from the 30k Mechanicum
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 03:40
|
|
|
Booley posted:So what about an imperial fists army with a captain, lieutenant, chaplain, and techmarine, one squad of centurions, a couple whirlwinds and thunderfires, and a bucket of intercessors. That army is also going to mulch a great many armies and absolutely looks "fluffy". I'd argue it's more the outlier in that example.  My post was just to suggest I get 'why' people feel that way. It doesn't bother me personally anywhere near as much as it did when I was younger, now I'm Officially Old I just want to play a game. It's just this hard to define, subjective per person feeling that an army should 'look' right on the table. When you walk up to look at a game of 40k and there's a bunch of Slam Captains all hiding in bushes or whatever, you start wondering why you're not playing The Anime Game or whatever. (And I stay in 40k because despite thinking the mechanical ruleset is archaic and needs a total overhaul at this point, I adore the canon and the models too much.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 03:49
|
|
|
Shockeh posted:(And I stay in 40k because despite thinking the mechanical ruleset is archaic and needs a total overhaul at this point, I adore the canon and the models too much.) Seems like a lot of folks feel the way you do. Most people recognize the rules, balancing, and proofreading leave a lot to be desired. But there’s just that je ne sais pas quoi about the wonderful lore and aesthetic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 04:42
|
|
|
TURGID TOMFOOLERY posted:Seems like a lot of folks feel the way you do. Most people recognize the rules, balancing, and proofreading leave a lot to be desired. But there’s just that je ne sais pas quoi about the wonderful lore and aesthetic. That's the boat I'm in. There are many other games with better rulesets. But between the cool universe and the ease of getting games I stick with 40k.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 05:09
|
|
|
I'm behind by 626 pages. Miss anything important?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 07:31
|
|
|
Kilo147 posted:I'm behind by 626 pages. Miss anything important? Yeah there’s like a pandemic or something happening
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 07:41
|
|
|
Kilo147 posted:I'm behind by 626 pages. Miss anything important? Death Guard are currently really OP in the global meta.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 08:21
|
|
|
Texmo posted:Death Guard are currently really OP in the global meta. Well, regretting not getting that old lot when I had a chance. Tyranids still suck?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 08:24
|
|
|
Part of the problem with saying you want to limit stuff further than three is for some units it totally makes sense. Hell, for some units the rule of three makes no sense. Imperial Guard Ogryns, Bullgryns, and Ratlings can a be deployed as entire regiments in theory, it isn't weird to have more than three units of scout sentinels etither. There's also miles of difference between fielding three space marine captains (of which let's remember most chapters only have ten of them) and fielding three Imperial Guard Platoon Commanders. I mean even seeing some special characters in 40K doesn't really make a lot of sense when you consider even they probably have better things to be doing than getting involved in skirmishes. It's just one of those things that balance between game design and fluffy design. I still remember the first guard codex I had having loads of stuff that would have 0-1 listed in the options, and I think Platoons were 1+ meaning you always needed one. While in theory I could see it being interesting to restrict certain models from being spammed, it's just another complication that I don't think is really required.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 11:09
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:
40k is generally not a skirmish, it's a snapshot of a small part of a larger battle. I think this was talked about in the third or fourth edition rulebook.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 14:53
|
|
|
Endman posted:Ahh, I completely forgot about her. "Canoness on Abeyant" would have been so loving nice. Legit don't understand why they took a model that neat and faction-locked it (to a bad faction, no less).
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 15:30
|
|
|
Booley posted:40k is generally not a skirmish, it's a snapshot of a small part of a larger battle. I think this was talked about in the third or fourth edition rulebook. I think it heavily depends on the narrative description of the mission. In 5th ed I seem to recall a lot of the missions mentioned you were some sort of advance force, and the new rulebook doesn't really mention it either way outside of mission descriptions, such as: "You have been detailed to patrol no man’s land and drive off any enemy forces encountered. Additional forces are near at hand to secure victory, but be warned – the enemy have their own reserves and will attempt to do the same to you." Likewise one of my favourite mission descriptions was from the 5th ed supplement they did where each army had a selection of special missions and the IG one mentioned how a classic IG tactic is to start with a small skirmish and escalate it as fast as possible to try and draw more enemies into the battle and thus deplete their reserves faster. Had rules similar to Meat Grinder with troops that recycle. Ultimately you can explain it either way, because even with that patrol nearly every leader in 40K can be explained as leading from the front or whatever. The patrol being so important they lead it themselves or something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 17:49
|
|
|
I would rather they not make battles look fluffy because I don't want to have to buy and field an entire guard infantry company for every tac squad a marine player brings. Compromises have to be made for the sake of gameplay because "eh, this looks kind of odd thanks to me being submerged in the fluff for 10+ years" is a lot better than "this game is almost completely unplayable because the balance makes no sense" because they went too heavy handed with limiting certain factions for "fluff" reasons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 22:26
|
|
|
I've always felt that one of the things 40K does well is leave its sense of scale nebulous. Nowhere does it specify how much time a turn represents or how much distance an inch on the table represents. You're left free to imagine a 2000 point battle as a skirmish between patrols and a 1000 point battle as an abstraction of a massive clash as you wish.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 22:51
|
|
|
ThoraxTheImpaler posted:I would rather they not make battles look fluffy because I don't want to have to buy and field an entire guard infantry company for every tac squad a marine player brings. Compromises have to be made for the sake of gameplay because "eh, this looks kind of odd thanks to me being submerged in the fluff for 10+ years" is a lot better than "this game is almost completely unplayable because the balance makes no sense" because they went too heavy handed with limiting certain factions for "fluff" reasons. Also, it's not like that stuff is universal across the lore over time. This poo poo isn't as constant and tightly-controlled as, like, the Pokemon brand. How many guardsmen is a single marine equivalent to? 2? 5? 10? 100? Which guardsmen? What if you gave those guardsmen bolters, power armor, and the appropriate training in their use? Nerds love to argue about poo poo like that - the relative size of starships in different games, which fantasy swordsman would win in a fight, how you could kill Wolverine - but at the end of the day even "canon" sources don't agree on this poo poo. Letting the lore guide the gameplay to the point that it interferes with game balance or makes certain armies prohibitively expensive or unbeatable or whatever is madness.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 23:03
|
|
|
My personal wishlist was always make Force Org charts Codex specific, and ditch the generic ones entirely. It's almost like each Force might Organise their army differently, and trying to shoehorn them into one mold doesn't really work. Who loving knew? (Comedy side option I don't really mean - Ditch them entirely and bring back percentages you cowards!) As I appear to be one of the proponents of this: No. 1 Apartheid Fan posted:Nerds love to argue about poo poo like that - the relative size of starships in different games, which fantasy swordsman would win in a fight, how you could kill Wolverine - but at the end of the day even "canon" sources don't agree on this poo poo. Letting the lore guide the gameplay to the point that it interferes with game balance or makes certain armies prohibitively expensive or unbeatable or whatever is madness. 
Shockeh fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Apr 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 23:26
|
|
|
I don't think a strict limit is good either. Especially for troops. But for HQs, I think it is fair. I do, however, think that instead there should be a cost increase for specific units if above X amount. So then that player can consider if that loss of point efficiency is worth it to bring X unit into the army. Such as maybe having more than 3 of a unit if it means blowing up vehicles. At that point it becomes a tactical decision instead of just exploiting one good unit to the max.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 23:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 01:42 |
|
|
No. 1 Apartheid Fan posted:Talk to me about Harlequins. I have always enjoyed seeing harlies on the the table. They are great models with fun rules. The models are lethal in CC and can be backed up with some great shooting (I'm thinking Death Jester...). Their vehicles are quick, shoot pretty well, and can hold a surprising number of models (I guess they hang off every railing). I don't play very competitive games so I wouldn't dare speak to their 'place in the meta', but from a casual perspective they do what they should and play very thematically, hitting and dodging very well. I would definitely not describe them as bland. They certainly are a small codex, but I think they pair thematically well with all other elves
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 00:00
|
|
