|
parabolic posted:Am I a bad person if I just like tanks and want to run a whole lot of them? Are there even any other games people actually play with ~28mm scifi tanks? There's an entire army list (Imperial Guard Armored Battlegroup from the Imperial Armor series of add-on books) that is nothing but tanks for HQs, tanks for troops, and tanks for Elites, because infantry is for sissies. I've played it myself, it's pretty great.
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 23:31 |
|
|
It does mean that The Emperor's Benediction is completely useless, however, as the only things that can take it can already allocate on a 6-unless, of course, they changed if Characters automatically get Precision Shot.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
SUPER NEAT TOY posted:Characters and Shooting: Characters shoot just like ordinary models of their type. And so they did! Well, it's not like I ever remembered to invoke Precision Shots anyway.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
HiveCommander posted:I'm not sure I read that battle report right, but can you really make a superheavy your warlord? That is unbelievably stupid and another way to gently caress Tyranids and Orks who find it harder and harder to kill vehicles with each new rulebook and codex. Escalation and Superheavies have been officially rolled into the standard FOC, so yep. I hope you brought your Baneblade!
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
HiveCommander posted:I know that Lords of War are in, I thought that only a HQ model with the 'Character' rule could be a Warlord though. Is that really gone? Can I really no longer deny Slay the Warlord by fielding Tervigons as my HQ choices? If I remember the Escalation rules correctly (And assuming they're unchanged for 7th), if you take a Lord of War they automatically become your Warlord. I'd never heard the thing about characters, though, but I don't think it's true-otherwise, Tank Commanders from the new IG book couldn't be your warlord, but they're specifically mentioned in the book with regard to what Warlord traits they can have.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
Rapey Joe Stalin posted:40k is, was, and probably always will be a d6 based game. Random bullshit has always been a thing. This poo poo is checkers, it's never been chess. There's an area for nuance, however, between "This unit does everything the way I want all the time" and "Roll for literally everything." Since the very first tabletop wargame was invented by bored Prussians, dice have been used to simulate the natural uncertainty of battlefield events-if a unit's shooting is effective, if their morale holds or if they decide to break and run, those sorts of events that simply can't be predicted. In this way, you have to control for what you can't rely on through superior tactics or list-building. The issue with 40K randomness, however, is that in the past two editions what they've begun to do is randomize what the commander of the theoretical battlefield of the 41st Millennium SHOULD be able to control. Psychic powers, warlord traits, now the new objective system-these are all things that I should be able to recognize and understand BEFORE the battle happens, so I can try and plan for it in my list building and in how I maneuver my army around the table. Randomness will always be a part of the system, but it doesn't have to be the be-all end-all of the game.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
panascope posted:I want to try a guard blob with Tigurius so he can cast Invisibility on them. Something about making 50+ guys only getting hit on 6s seems pretty good. Has anybody else done this yet? I wonder how obscene you could make this. Play Unbound so you can take Azrael as well for the 4++, take a Priest so you can re-roll that save, maybe a Primaris Psyker or two to roll on Sanctic and see if you can increase the Invuln to a 3++...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Arven posted:This is what I thought when I asked the question. Yeah, I REALLY don't like the new codex organization. I only have the ebook version of the Guard book right now, but compared to the old one actually trying to find point costs, upgrades, and statlines is just intensely frustrating. Even when I have access to the physical book, having to flip between two different sections of the book to hash out a list is just needlessly frustrating. Not to mention being told to refer to the main book for information on my army's most basic weapons.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:You're utterly failing to grasp the point I'm making. GW felt that their facebook pages were pointless, due in large part to the fact they were constantly hijacked by dick wads. They then removed these pages as they didnt feel it was worth the hassle of managing them. See, here's the problem with that line of thinking-for a company, having a social media presence isn't just a way to tell people "Hey, we exist," though it often can be. What they primarily serve as for many companies is a way to control information about their company and their product. Think about this-one of the biggest complaints made of this thread and its predecessors, particularly in the week before the last thread became unbound, was that with every blurry scan of half a page of an Italian copy of White Dwarf half the posters in the thread would start screaming about how the game was ruined forever and they were selling all their models and going to go play Warmachine. Now, this reaction is for a variety of reasons-people don't trust GW after all these years, their experience with new releases (Tyranids) hasn't been great, but really it comes down to people trying to read the most they can out of an exceptionally small bit of information. What this tells me is that GW is awful at controlling information, which should be one of the primary focuses of a profit-driven company. For the two other games I play, Flames of War and X-Wing Miniatures, the vast majority of time I get my information about new releases straight from the source, through news articles and postings on their website, to which links are posted on Facebook. So, when Battlefront (The company behind Flames of War) announced the new Late-War book Bridge at Remagen, I immediately could share it on my wall, read about the new army lists and units in the book, and then tell my friends about the cool new stuff in the book. This is complete with developer diaries and model previews posted on the site, and the company even gave a fansite (What Would Patton Do?) a pre-release copy they could review and talk about on their site. Likewise, when Fantasy Flight Games announced Wave IV of its X-Wing miniatures, I could see and respond to it immediately, as well as learn about the new units on its site. So, while I follow the Historicals and X-Wing threads here on SA, I get my news about the games primarily from the companies themselves-which allows them to carefully craft how much I'll be seeing, when I'll see it, and maximize the chance I'll tell others through the ease of using the "Share" or "Like" button on Facebook. With GW, it's the exact opposite. I have never bought a White Dwarf in my life, and even if I were in the habit of doing so I don't go to game stores that sell them often enough to get regular information about upcoming releases. I'm pretty much dependent on coming here or elsewhere for news on what GW's doing, and that information itself can vary greatly depending on what's being leaked, who's sharing it, and the over tone of the discussion. Like I said, I'm pumped as hell for the new FFG and FoW releases, because I know what's coming and I'm excited for them. When the new IG book was announced I was actively apprehensive about it, because I was sure they'd gently caress it up-and in a way they sort of did, but that's an entirely different discussion altogether.* What matters is GW hardly has any role in actually telling me about their products-all information gets to me secondhand at best, which is a terrible way to advertise and a terrible way to get people excited about their new releases. That's why GW should have a Facebook page, and that's why they're complete fools for getting rid of it-no matter how terrible the people posting the comments were, they were only a minority of the people actively reading and sharing the information GW was giving them, and I can guarantee you that audience was far larger than the number of people who actively purchase White Dwarf every week. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face in the worst way, and will only hurt GW and the game overall in the long run. *Edit: I'm not saying the new IG book (I refuse to call it AM out of stubbornness) is bad-far from it. It's good, almost too good, but it's good in a disappointing manner because they made every character except Pask worse, didn't really change or address any of the issues that the old book had, and added what is possibly the most under-costed unit in the entire game. I still love Guard, and the book is good, it's just somewhat disappointing that this is what it comes down to: A few OP units, a few staples that got slightly better, and not much else. Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Jun 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
AbusePuppy posted:Rough riders are fragile, obviously, but they are at least cheap and hit fairly hard (S5 I5 AP3 with multiple attacks on the charge.) Ogryn are just a great big pile of middling that don't actually do anything well and are slow and hard to hide to boot. In an environment full of S6+ guns with lots of shots, Ogryn are actually less survivable than Rough Riders are- compare how much damage Broadsides, Wave Serpents, Thunderfire Cannons, etc, will do to them (relative to their cost) and you'll see what I mean. There's also the fact that even with all their toughness and wounds, they're still only Ld 6 (7 with a Bone 'ead) and I2, so there's a good chance if they lose combat they'll end up getting Sweeping Advance'd. Of course, Rough Riders also suffer from the fact that while they can hit hard, that only counts for the first turn they're in assault. After that they turn back into
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
Slimnoid posted:67 point killcannon. That is a lot of dakka for a very low price. On the other hand, having a 1/6 chance of having to go Flat Out instead of shooting sounds just awful, so I guess it remains to be seen how useful it'll be.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
starkebn posted:
That is so painfully arbitrary I don't even know where to begin. I mean good lord, a US Codex is worth 2 Painboyz but an Australian Codex is worth 3? 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2014 07:12
|
|
GW Price whinge
|
Raphus C posted:What are the minimum wages of the two countries in question? I'm pretty tired so I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but there is no possible explanation beyond "We pick prices by throwing darts at numbers" why a book in the US would cost the equivalent of 2 models from the same manufacturer in US currency whereas the same book in Australia would cost the equivalent of 3 of those same models in their own Australian currency. Edit: I mean hell, just look at all the other relative conversions between books and models. UK Painboy is 15.50, book is 30. EU Painboy is 20, book is 39. Canadian model is 31, book's about 60. It all follows the ~2 models are equivalent in price to a single book, until we hit Australia and New Zealand where it suddenly turns into a 3-1 ratio. What, does shipping books to Australia suddenly cost a hell of a lot more than shipping plastic now? It just doesn't make any realistic or economic sense. Edit Edit: What's even more ridiculous is that the Australian Painboy is priced about the same as the British one, with a rate of 15.50 British Pounds equating to 28.09 Australian Dollars. But when the codex comes into play, the economics fly completely out the window-were the Australian codex to be priced the same as the British one, it would only cost 54.37. Instead it's priced at 83 dollars, a thirty dollar markup in Australian dollars or ~16 pounds. And even ignoring the sane(er) pricing on the Painboy, the "higher minimum wage is the reason why Australian costs are so high" argument is a load of bunk, as the purchasing power parity of the Australian dollar and the Pound Sterling are pretty much the same. It's flat-out highway robbery by GW, and it's no reason why they're getting the poo poo kicked out of them there. Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 08:32 on Jun 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2014 08:07
|
|
|
One of the things I found frustrating in the new Guard codex was that, in addition to Plasma Pistols getting more expensive by 5 points to make them not worth taking, all the power weapons and power fists got much more expensive, by 5-15 points, respectively. I mean, I can understand why a power fist might be worth 25 points when it's on a S4 Space Marine, but on a S3 Guardsman it's a bit of a kick in the teeth. "Oh, you wanted to stand a chance if you get into Melee? Sorry, gotta pay the same price as Space Marines, even though they get to hit at 2 points higher strength and probably have higher weapons skill and/or power armor." I mean, I can understand consolidating point costs across all the Space Marine armies, but Guard aren't Space Marines and making us pay the same price for a weapon that's less effective when we use it, particularly when the weapons were priced much more reasonably in the last book, seems pretty misguided to say the least.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
Discospawn posted:Worked out pretty well for Necrons. By that logic of course Guard would be the first 7th ed codex, which... would actually fit well, considering the specific inclusion of Tank Commanders as characters and the whole "Take Aim!" and Precision Shot rule shenanigans.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:He also has no invulnerable save but he does have eternal warrior which he's always had, he gets some sort of special save once a game. Not only that, but it's also pretty much giving your opponent a free VP for "Dealt 3 wounds to a LoW" on top of "Slay the Warlord" if he's killed, which isn't exactly a great trade-off.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
SUPER NEAT TOY posted:IG was going to be a bad codex too, wasn't it? It doesn't have Marbo so therefore it is in fact objectively terrible. 
Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 05:10 on Jun 21, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
All I can say is that my dislike for GW is purely fueled by the fact that every poor business decision and every sub-par codex they made brings us closer and closer to a world where FW won't be able to come out with IA8:2E with a full Elysian Drop Troop list complete with Warlord Traits and special characters. I want this game to continue so badly, yet they keep making such counter-productive decisions it's hard to take anything positively.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
AbusePuppy posted:This is correct. Explosions have slowly been nudging up in lethality since 5E. quote:ESCALATION SECONDARY OBJECTIVE Yeah, it's looking like that'll be the case, since the rule is just for Lords of War, not just Super-Heavies or Gargantuan Creatures. With that being said, a single VP isn't USUALLY going to be a deciding factor in a game, so aside from the free HW slot I doubt it's going to amount to much. Of course, that makes the choice to put him in that slot all the more baffling, but :GW: SUPER NEAT TOY posted:Why do half of you even play the loving game? Every month it's just more 'GW is poo poo' and 'the game is ruined'. This is an awfully expensive hobby especially if you're not even loving enjoying yourself. Instead of staring in impotent rage at GWs poo poo rules, why don't you play a game with good rules (literally anything else is better than this) or try to actually have fun playing the game without freaking out about how Codex: Orks dragged your dog out back and shot it? If you're going to have fun playing 40k it's going to be in spite of the rules writing, not because of it. Put on power glove and deep strike 10 vanguard veterans in the middle of your enemies army and see what happens (it will be cool). A book of toy rules is not worth being this negative about. Oh, gently caress off. People are talking about the new release, which doesn't look that great from what we've heard. Should we just sit and not talk about the new 40K release in the 40K thread just because some people are disappointed their army isn't getting the update they had hoped they would get? And for god's sake, you can despise the company and enjoy the game-hell, I despise the company BECAUSE I enjoy the game! I play 40K on a weekly basis, and I have a good time with my friends more often than not, which is why I get so upset that the company is doing their best to gently caress everything up. My dream is to have a full Elysian Drop Troop army one day, and every month that GW releases a half-baked new edition or a sub-par codex is a day closer that the company collapses before I can field it. So yeah, I think I'm fully justified being negative, especially after the last update to my codex wiped out half of the coolest characters in the book, nerfed the rest but one into nigh-unusability, and in return we got a unit that's so staggeringly undercosted I feel guilty when I even think about using it, while the rest of the long-running issues in the book weren't even addressed. But I'm not going to stop playing, because I enjoy the game, I enjoy discussing it, so gently caress you for telling me I shouldn't be playing or talking about the game I put so much effort and money into over the last three years.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2014 07:55
|
|
|
OB_Juan posted:I dig the "Storm Penguin" there. Also, in a coming soon thing, they showed the TornaDodo: Man, that'd make a kickass Vulture.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
LordAba posted:6s would be more fluffy; nids generally suppress normal warp activities hence the "shadow in the warp". That would be a net benefit to psyker-heavy armies though, as they could throw as many dice as they wanted to at a problem without having to worry about Perils. Discarding 4s works better in that regard, since it's more difficult to cast a power, meaning Psykers have to push harder, which naturally results in Perils.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
I've got to stop putting my Valks/Vendettas in Hover Mode. TW: Un/Barely painted and slightly busted-up models. I know, I know, still getting around to painting them. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
Killgore Trout posted:Couple of quick questions as I'm looking to possibly start an almost entirely deep striking AM/MT army: 1) Yes and no. Unbound is "There is no force org", but the way Platoons work is that you HAVE to take the PCS and two guard squads in order to take anything else, as it's the cost of the entire platoon only counting as a single troop choice. With that being said, there are multiple FW Guard Armies that allow you to take Heavy Weapon Teams by themselves as a HS choice, and at least one of them (Armored Battlegroup IIRC) even allows them to take a Vox. So, that's always an option there, since Guard has THE most potential for Unbound cheese picking and choosing from the dozen different valid FW lists. 2) If a Valkyrie comes in on the table, you have two options to deploy the guys inside. The first is to deploy normally, which as you suggested requires the Valkyrie to be in hover-mode. The second, and far more exciting way is to use Grav-Chute Insertion, which is effectively the squad being punted out the back with exceptionally unreliable parachutes. How it works is that you nominate a point on the board that the Valkyrie passed over that movement phase, and then deep strike the squad onto that point. If they scatter at all, everyone has to make a dangerous terrain test, and if any model can't be deployed they're all destroyed. It can be pretty risky, but well worth it for putting Meltaguns exactly where they need to be in a pinch. Edit-if you're deep striking Valkyries, which older Guard lists, Elysians (Who are THE go-to army for deep strike shenanigans, since every single unit in the army list has Deep Strike) and MT (Since Scions have Deep Strike and can confer it onto DT Valkyries, IIRC) can do, it's pretty simple*-if a Flyer Deep Strikes, you choose if it's in Flyer Mode or in Hover mode when it comes in (If it has the option), and if it's Flyer Mode then it counts as having moved Combat Speed. Thus, the only way to deploy troops is through hover-mode, as you can't deploy anyone through GCI as you haven't actually moved anywhere on the board. *This is how it worked in 6th, not sure if it was changed for 7th. Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 14:32 on Jun 26, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
Springfield Fatts posted:Minimum 1, max 5 per squad. The fact that half the artwork in the new Guard book was poorly-colorized versions of the portraits in the 5th ed book was incredibly disappointing.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
I mean, I guess. Hell, I haven't even spent $1000 on my entire army in the three years I've been playing, though that's mostly because a good half of it was bought used.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
Has there been any information on the Elysian list? The list in IA3 2nd Edition was pretty bare-bones, and I was hoping the D-99 list might have some more substance.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
I managed to pick up two full squads of Karskins with Meltaguns and Plasma Guns used just before the new codex came out, so I've been using them as my vets. Works pretty well, though I need another Karskin Plasma Gunner at some point since I've only got two at the moment. Ugly John posted:You know, I understand why they did it, but "Astra Militarum" still sounds like the dumbest goddamn thing ever and I can't see that army as anything but IG. Yeah, it really is, and I can't help but cringe every time someone refers to them as AM. They're Guard, drat it! 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Hey Ghost Hand, would you mind sharing any more information on the Elysian list in IA4? I'm looking forward to trying it out, but I haven't seen any information about it anywhere else.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
Everything contained in those two posts is exceptionally rad. Edit-I just remembered what the Thagomizer is and that's brilliant. Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Jul 27, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:They're missing 2 inquisitors from the current codex, everything else has a model. Didn't save Marbo. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
SRM posted:My Valhallans (styled like WW2 Russians) have these tiny dice where the numbers are in a Soviet-looking font and have a hammer and sickle for sixes. There was a kickstarter for custom dice a while ago and I chipped in because I want blue dice with white pips and omegas for sixes for my Ultramarines. My Iron Warriors (and my Necromunda gang and my Ultramarines until they get their dice) use gold and silver Koplow dice, and my Orks and old IG army used this mass of green dice I have. Matching dice to an army is just one of those things you do. I play Flames of War, so in a similar vein I often use my American dice with the allied star for the 6 whenever I need to make an important roll. Sadly, they don't usually help. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
ghetto wormhole posted:The Colossus/Medusa/Griffon are all gone and only available in IA1, a bunch of special characters are gone too (not a huge loss there though). We also lost Penal Legionnaires, though if I'm going to be perfectly honest that probably effected maybe 7 people worldwide, 8 tops. Shame they just flat-out got rid of them though, instead of trying to do something cool with them. (Exploding bomb collars?)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2014 08:23
|
|
|
SRM posted:Oh yeah, I guess I forgot they removed some of the random artillery pieces from the IG codex while only introducing the Wyvern, which is more or less a Griffon substitute. To be fair they didn't have plastic models, and it's GW's MO to have plastic for everything these days. They still have Imperial Armour rules at least. As for special characters removed, aside from Marbo it's no great loss. Losing Marbo did suck though. Would've been nice if they had buffed the remaining special characters instead of nerfing them into poo poo, though. Poor Straken, the manliest Guardsmen around and he can't even justify half his point cost.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
So what's new with the Vindicare? Inquiring minds (My friend reading over my shoulder) wish to know.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Killgore Trout posted:I'm rapidly putting together an IG army and was wondering what some people thought about Bullgryns. I bought a couple of boxes because I think they look amazing. The one thing that kills me about them is that they're "very bulky". I'd like to drop them out of a valkyrie but with only 3 models in there, i'm not sure how big of an impact they'd make. The problem with Ogryn is that even though their statline looks fearsome, their leadership is awful and their lack of armor and low initiative means that they're never going to accomplish nearly as much in close combat as they'd have to in order to justify their ludicrous points cost. Bullgryns have a cute gimmick and better armor, but they still suffer from many of the same problems and are waaaaaaay overcosted for what they do. Personally, I wouldn't take them, but I'm also terrible at this game so take my word with a grain of salt. With that being said, if you have your heart set on taking Elysian Drop Ogryns, you are in luck-the transport capacity of a Valkyrie is actually 12, so you can take four Ogryn in a single Valk as opposed to 3. Valkyries aren't the greatest choice-you're gonna have to use Grav-Chute insertion if you want to deploy the Ogryns and keep the Valkyrie alive, which can lead to hilarious/disastrous consequences, but if you want to get them into combat without getting shot up first it's not a terrible option.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
SRM posted:If Necrons were going to get Pylons, they probably would have gotten them with the last codex update. I don't get why people ever get/got excited about Pylons though. They look tremendously boring and aren't as cool as something like the Tomb Stalker or whatever. A friend of mine occasionally runs the pylons from IA12 and they are horrifying, let me tell you. Many a Leman Russ has lost to their bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
Master Twig posted:After 9 days and using pretty much all of my free time on it, I got the Hive Knight completed. I know it's not perfect, but I love it dearly. Dude that thing looks wicked awesome.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:I'm quite sure they realize this, but it likely doesn't happen for a couple of reasons. One is the business mindset of "any cut in prices means people will think our product is inferior", which is often coupled with "if you lower prices once, people will just wait until you lower them again". Both are mindsets that a lot of businesses operate under when trying to push a "premium" product, even when it has been shown in comparable industries that lowering prices and having sales are often highly beneficial, spur impulse buys, create return customers, etc. The crazy thing is, this wouldn't be as much of a problem if GW wasn't simultaneously trying to encourage people to play bigger and bigger games at higher point values. One of my friends who used to have a huge amount of Necrons and Grey Knights got into Mercs and X-Wing in a big way last year, and those are both games where you have to pay a fair amount per model, even by GW standards. The difference being, of course, is that you're never going to need more than five models in either of those games-whereas in 40K, the only army you're going to ever get away with using 5 models with is Imperial Knights, and that's gonna cost you easily an order of magnitude in cash more than other games. 40K, Mercs, and X-Wing are all very different games with different appeals, obviously, but Mercs and X-Wing can get away with high model price because of the low model count. 40K really can't, and GW's inability to understand this is really the core of their degradation over the last few years, I believe.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:because only command and commissar vanquishers can take beast hunter shells. The Commissariat Vanquisher also has a neat effect that gives everybody around it Ld 10, which is never a bad thing. Not to mention all the other options they can take, like Artificer Hulls that give them +1 HP. My favored loadout is to give them Beast-Hunter Shells, Hull-Mounted Lascannons, Co-Axial and top-mounted Heavy Stubbers, Plasma Sponsons, Camo Netting, and Artificer Hulls if I can afford it. Very expensive, but overall the upgrades give it the ability to deal with anything on the table, and if you hide it behind a ruin or a defense line it becomes exceptionally survivable. Extra Leman Russes in the troop slot are always nice as well, but they do come with the downside of being a fair amount more expensive than regular Russes from C:AM, save for the Battle Tank and Demolisher. Either way, I say keep the Commissariat Vanquisher for sure.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 23:31 |
|
|
Sir Teabag posted:E2: Drop the Chimera on the CCS. Put them in a bunker. That should leave you enough points for 2-3 Priests and the Heirloom of Conquests that allows your orders to automatically succeed on a double. One priest with the conscripts to man the quadgun, one to go with Yarrick and the Flamer/Power Axe blob to make them an even nastier CC unit. That's actually really bad advice-orders can't be issued when the ordering unit is embarked on a transport* or in a building, so you'd effectively be neutering the effectiveness of the squad, unless you're planning on leaving them exposed on top of the battlements. *The Chimera is an exception to this, as it has a special rule that allows orders to be issued out of it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2014 00:00
|
|