|
Have they got Warhammer Quest for a device that isn't Apple, yet? No? Welp.
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 08:55 |
|
|
JcDent posted:Plastic is pricey because of thr mold, at least that's what blessed Leperflesh told us two GW Death Threads ago. Yeah. Injection-molded plastic requires high strength steel molds which are very very expensive to produce. But, once made, they last a very long time and the plastic injection molding process itself is less labor intensive than making resin or even metal models, and the material couldn't be cheaper. So you make injection-molded plastic molds for models you expect to sell in high volume, and you stick to resin for low-volume products. That said, GW seems to just decide in advance that some stuff can't possibly sell well as plastic so send it to forgeworld, and other stuff will obviously sell great so let's do it with the citadel brand in plastic. And forgeworld clearly has a team with more leeway for artistic input. And there's stuff that is just "traditionally" forgeworld (like chaos dwarves) so there are entrenched practices that are probably completely immune to the input of sales projections. It's messy. The fact that GW owns its own injection molded plastic production lines further complicate matters, because in all likelihood their process for making their plastic molds is far more expensive than it has to be. Certainly the Chinese seem to manage to do it far more cheaply, and I don't think that's entirely down to labor costs. One more thing to note: "finecast" was an innovation to permit GW to use molds made for pewter models, to produce resin models. That allowed them to use a cheaper material than the tin-based pewter without having to recreate their molds. Their R&D was clearly incomplete when they first started producing finecast, evidenced by the massive QA problems. Anyway, finecast doesn't fit neatly into the above split between cheap resin molds with high per-model labor and medium per-model material costs vs. expensive plastic molds with low per-model labor and low per-model material costs.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Chinese are doing good plastics? Of what? Because every chinese ham poo poo I ever ordered feels like resin and smells like cancer. Recasts are always going to suck, yeah. They're making mold masters by casting plastic parts, you have to lose some resolution doing that. But like... practicaly everything made of plastic is made of chinese plastic, man. Think outside of wargames models, I'm talking about iphones and food containers and tv casings and laptop keys and printer parts and plastic fabrics etc. etc. etc. But also a lot of other companies that make plastic miniatures, have them made in China. I'm including Taiwan as "China" here. berzerkmonkey posted:I thought the same thing until I saw some Finecast still on the sprue (Settra, to be precise). Having done my own metal centrifugal casting, there is no way they could have recut a metal mold to add the sprue sections they needed in that layout. I'm not sure what GW did, but they sure did not repurpose the old metal molds, My understanding is that they used the metal molds, or the masters used to make them, as masters for making the finecast molds. And, that the finecast is a resin technology that uses sprues, so it's not standard resin process. Obviously GW has a very strong interest in keeping their technology innovations secret so we will not find out unless there is a serious breach of their security. Finecast is not exactly like normal resin and not exactly like old metal, but some sort of compromise that let the company reproduce metal models using cheaper material. Naturally they charge far more for their finecast models than they did for the original metal ones, but that's a separate issue. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Jan 27, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Shadin posted:I'm not familiar with their sculpts but I will point out that practically every science fiction or fantasy miniatures are much more expensive than historicals. They're not three times more expensive to produce. They're three times more profitable.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
Having a beard three feet longer than you are tall is also just really loving stupid and not cool at all. You'd be tripping over it with every step and in a game of bloodbowl (or any fight) it'd be a massive liability. It's like OK, dwarves have beards, so let's take this beard up to 11! A defensible idea, but the execution is moronic.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
So I'm the only one that is a little put off by the model already gripping a goblin holding the ball? It makes for a fun miniature to just look at, but when you put it on a pitch with the rest of your team, his eternally-tossing-a-goblin pose will probably look out of place most of the time. Especially if you bought the troll for your Orcs team and don't even have a goblin rostered. It's an objection I have with a lot of minis intended for use in a game - if you portray them in a more "generic" pose that might not be as visually interesting when you stick them on a shelf to stare at, but in-game, it feels more like a gaming piece that is representing a character doing any of a variety of activities that happen in that game. That's the same reason I don't like e.g. skaven with a ball clutched in their tail. The classic blood bowl troll minis, like this one:  are certainly less dynamic and not as interesting to display. But on the pitch, the neutral pose doesn't imply a specific action, which makes it better to me as a game piece. He could block, or he could just move, or he could try a TTM action, and you won't see anything incongruous about that mini being the piece doing that action.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
I actually don't mind the body mechanics much. We can assume (and the rules reinforce) that the troll is a really bad thrower, he just as often spikes the goblin into the ground as tosses him, and using a stunty guy as an offensive weapon (that is, targeting a group of opponents and hurling a goblin or halfing at them) is also a legit game tactic. Plus you can imagine he's having to maneuver his throw around defenders up in his grill or whatever. Trolls are also misshapen beasts who might have really odd anatomical mechanics. I expect an orangutan throwing a football would look very different from a human, for example.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
I think GW is maybe aware that a huge percentage of their models are sold to non-gamers and aspirational-gamers who are much more focused on owning a jewel-like object of wonder, and possibly painting it, and thinking a lot about just how cool it's gonna be to play the game, rather than actually playing games with the model a lot. E.g. a staticly posed troll will sell one troll each to Orc and two each to Goblin players, and that's all; but a model of a troll that is awesome because lol look it's throwing a goblin! might sell to those guys and a whole bunch of people who just like it, or who aspire to eventually finish and paint up that orc team they've been meaning to do eventually one of these days.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Epic got started in the first place with Adeptus Titanicus, right?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
OK posting about posters and their posting failings is over now. Feel free to discuss games workshop and its failings if you want, but it's unnecessary to resort to digging through rap sheets etc.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2021 01:23
|
|
|
Hey guys. I understand that factual statements about Games Workshop's legal obligations and the ordinary customs of retail business are easy to read as "bootlicking for GW" but that doesn't make them incorrect. Yes, it would be much much better customer service if GW backed up its products with a like-for-like exchange guarantee; but either they can't or won't, at least in this case, and it is absolutely correct to state that they have no more actual legal obligation than to provide a pathway for a refund, as with any retail purchase. Feel free to report posts for being "bootlicking" but I'm not going to actually punish someone for being correct in a way that you find disappointing to accept.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2021 00:29
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:Is this too long to be a thread title ? That entire post? It's too long. Thread titles can be maximum 50, 70, or 100 characters, depending on which interface is being used to set them (lol radium) but I'm happy to update titles for folks whenever.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2021 20:03
|
|
|
I have like ten thousand plus points of tomb kings rotting away on my shelf. Someday maybe I'll play some kings of war with them, but I invested in magnetic trays that were the right size for 8th edition fights but aren't the right size for Kings of War, and that really irritates me too. I bought into 8th edition by starting with a purchase of someone else's large, 3/4 unpainted 7th edition Tomb Kings army. I figured as the first 8th edition army book to be printed, the faction would surely get lots of support and be great! Also I really loved the story and aesthetic of them. They lost every battle I ever played with them, IIRC, because they sucked rear end on the table, in part becuase I didn't know how to play well, part because I didn't necessarily have the right models, but mostly because I played players who had one of the good army books. The game was wildly unbalanced. GW persisted in not supporting with new models or army books any army that was selling poorly, which was self-defeating for that army as the lack of support inevitably reduced sales for it. 8th edition had serious rules problems (like all GW games of that era lol), was too random especially in the magic phase (again, too much randomness being a recurring problem with GW rulesets), and with different writers writing each army book, the wild imbalance could shift with any new release. But the way it randomly seemed to favor some armies over others just came off as so capricious as to be malicious. The same time as they were slashing staff to run one-man stores, eliminating support for playing WHFB in stores or at their own conventions, killing their online forums, and otherwise just being a terrible company, they were just randomly loving over long-time players over and over again, and tons of us just... hit a limit. For me the limit was The End Times, in which they weren't satisfying with just deciding to not do Tomb Kings any more and maybe apologizing and explaining it as a necessary business decision, they had to actually have the Tomb King's eternal enemy Nagash win and destroy the faction. Supposedly we tomb kings players were supposed to play Undead/Vampires afterward, like, happily play as the faction that destroyed our faction. No apology, no admission of fault, just "haha isn't this awesome?" It's real, real hard to think of ever supporting that company again, after that. Despite all of its flaws, I really enjoyed playing 8th edition. And despite rumors and posts that GW is doing sooo much better now, I'll never buy in heavy into any GW product again. I'm happy to keep playing Epic Armageddon (although it's been 1.5 years+ of course), I'll try and play some Kings of War if I can find a friendly opponent, but I've got zero interest in Sigmar as a game or as a setting, and that's not going to change, so, welp.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2021 21:36
|
|
|
MCPeePants posted:Where are you located? Happy to point you in the right direction for some KoW. Concord, California. I'm sure I could get a pick up game over at Black Diamond Games, or on Facebook or something. I rarely feel like I have the time to go out on a weeknight to hang out at the game store around dinner time to play a nerd game with strangers, though. I have a goon friend who would play with me, maybe soonish now we're all vaccinated, we shall see. I also bought into the kickstarter for Vanguard, although it's all still in the box it arrived in. Might give that a go.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2021 22:25
|
|
|
Xlorp posted:Bay area gooney bird with a stupidly huge collection I'd be into trying Warmaster if you'd loan me some khemri for a few hours, hmm. My epic eldar have been gathering dust for a long time now, too! I forget if you've got/learned the Kings of War rules? Maybe we could have a KoW Movement Tray Construction Party in my garage, I've got all the tools and materials to do that, and then follow up with a KoW match in a later month or something. That'd be sweet. Or hell I'd still play warhams 8th edition too if you're into it.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2021 18:43
|
|
|
I have Dreadfleet. Back in the day, my wife and I saw it in a game store and she got it for me for my birthday. It's an absolutely gorgeous game, really really nice components. I spent ages painting a bunch of the models. I've never played it, for two reasons: the starting intro scenario uses the two most complex ship models, both of which pretty much demand that you paint them before assembly in order to get the details of the inner parts the internet informed me of the several ways in which the rules are total garbage, after I'd already Oathed a bunch of the components and spent loads of time painting them That was really disheartening. I don't have just unlimited time for painting nor for board gaming, so I'm not gonna bring a game I know is crap to the table. I've been meaning to check out those alternate rules, so thanks for the reminder. All that said, if you see an opportunity to pick up the set for cheap, do it. The ships may be re-usable, at least some of the smaller ones would fit into several other naval games, the battle mat is actual cloth and really nice, and the scatter terrain is also very nice and might work in a wide range of scales. e. excuse my bad paint jobs, here's what I'd painted for oaths, 2012 through 2016      
Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 02:21 on May 16, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 16, 2021 02:14
|
|
|
TheDiceMustRoll posted:whats the trick for painting the water? These pics might help (click for big). I did this in 2014 so my memory isn't perfect, but this particular oath involved explaining everything I did so I can more or less recreate the whole process, I even had paint color notes in my pics! Also keep in mind I'm using citadel paints from ~1990, back then they made pots that sealed fully so almost all my oldest paints are still good 30 years later. Primed a flat light gray. Basecoat diluted Blue Gray  Green ink. Dry brush blue gray  lightly drybrush space wolf gray hand-highlight a mix of skull white & space wolf gray  Pick out the tiny brown ship, dab nearly pure skull white into the very tips of some waves  the lighting for all of these pics is poor, so the colors aren't exactly faithful, but I think the key things are to use both blues and greens, and to aggressively highlight "foam" onto the high waves. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 23:58 on May 16, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 16, 2021 23:54
|
|
|
Hah! that's very kind, but A) I haven't painted a mini in 4 years, and B) I'm really not very good. I've been focusing on woodworking as a hobby lately. Might get back into painting this year, we'll see.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2021 06:22
|
|
|
with a rebel yell she QQd posted:Oh hey, I just got my first primaris two days ago, with the idea to join the latest 28mag challenge. And when I mentioned this to my otherwise really decent small gaming group (4 people) all poo poo broke lose and I got such stuff yelled at me by all of them about destroying the lore and how this leads to "poo poo like black Thor" and other racist and misogynistic poo poo that I lost all my will to do anything with this hobby. In addition to the two or three TG discords hanging around, we've got multiple threads here in trad games where you will find the consensus is whatever you wanna do with your models is cool and good, including especially making female marines and otherwise being more representative within the hobby. That includes our general painting & modeling thread, the 40k and 30k threads, and others. This is generally a really progressive community and the occasional exception gets dogpiled pretty fast. I'm also telling you as a TG mod that I don't tolerate bullshit gatekeeping, the use of racist or misogynistic slurs, etc. anywhere in the subforum. If you see that stuff please report it. We're a rowdy bunch and there's a certain level of smack talk and so on that is normal and part of the posting culture, but there's limits, and in particular a firm bright line when it comes to bigotry.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2021 19:05
|
|
|
It's about symbolism, closely-held tropes, and fear of change. The european male monk tradition, the idea that women are worse at fighting, and being terrified that if one foundational aspect of the fiction they obsess and base their personal identities on shifts, all of them will inevitably do so and they'll be literally destroyed, respectively. Basically: insecurity, the same place most conservatism comes from. There's not much you can hope to do about it by yourself. If you're the minority in a group like that, you've got no hope of prevailing and pretty much have to just bail, yup.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2021 21:02
|
|
|
Sisters of Battle/Adeptus Sororitas, as originally conceived and still visible in their portrayal today, are an answer to the "how can we get sexualized catholic nuns into our game" way more than an answer to the representation question. Although they may have also been looking for a "army for girls to play" angle too, because of course, the thing repelling girls away from warhammer 40k in ~1997 was that none of the armies were girls, and nothing else, lol. And the sexualized/nun aspect really originates in much older artwork - the first SoB codex has this John Blanche artwork on the cover: But I suspect you're right in that over time, the existence of the Sisters models/army and their place in the lore became part of the rationalization for why we simply don't "need" to alter the lore to have female space marines be possible within it.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2021 21:45
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:there were female space marines in the earliest 40k fluff, and they existed at the same time as sisters of battle. Rogue trader era materials mention both. Worth pointing to this BoLS article which elaborates on this aspect of things: https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2020/10/warhammer-40k-the-real-story-of-female-space-marines.html
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2021 21:50
|
|
|
I can understand the temptation to follow the logic of the science fiction in the game to its own conclusions and say that the women space marines just look exactly like the men. The problem with using that approach to 'fix' the female space marine problem is that it still leaves women as essentially invisible, but adds in some questionable declarations about the nature of transgender people into the mix. It's thin cover. It says: "We don't have to change our models. We still are presenting that the ultimate warrior archetype is a male presenting archetype. Superhero = masculine. And, of course, women who undergo the training to become strong enough aren't really women any more. To become a supreme athlete is to de-feminize." These are not progressive messages. IMO the right way to fix it is to directly address it in the lore and in the model range by making female-presenting space marines. That doesn't mean their armor should have huge tit plates or whatever, a female-presenting head option would likely be sufficient. It doesn't mean you have to erase vast parts of previous lore, you can just say "there's always been female space marines but for a long time for terrible paternalistic reasons the imperium intentionally hid that fact, and now it's admitting it and openly recruiting women." Or, fix it by addressing the other elephant in the room, that space marines are actually bad guys. The space fascists could just be sexists too. I'd appreciate a full recognition in the lore and in how the faction is marketed that these aren't heroic people just doing what's necessary. Admit that the fanatical ubermenschen fascists are also male-supremecists whose reasons for rejecting women entirely from their forces (and their lives) are gross. If you explicitly acknowledge this poo poo you'd be also helping to resolve the problem that presenting the space marines as the heroes tacitly endorses the "tough times require harsh measures" justification for brutal militarized oppression that real-world fascists have always leveraged in their rhetoric and propaganda.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2021 18:56
|
|
|
Yeah it's a fine line to walk of course. There's historicals-players who field german WWII armies, and some of them are fine, just people playing a game, and some of them are, obviously not fine. A game company can make german panther and halftrack models without necessarily presenting the faction for their wargame as "the good guys," and while I've ran into the occasional weirdo about it, it's fairly rare for people playing, say, dark eldar or necrons or chaos armies to claim that "these are the good guys actually" so it's not necessarily the case that GW has to do that with the marines. An all-these-factions-are-cool approach that abandons the Ultramarines as the face of the game would be healthier for the game, even if it might give the marketing folks at GW more of a challenge.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2021 20:09
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:you're a hosed up weirdo and i'm going to beat you up irl As threats of violence go, this is pretty milquetoast and likely a joke, but it's still not allowed and we're going to enforce that rule here in trad games. If either of the TG mods see you doing it again here the next probation will be much harsher.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2021 19:27
|
|
|
Alright, moderator hat on. TheDiceMustRoll sent me a PM because he received an interesting response from the guy he reached out to, one of the designers for the new adeptus titanicus. potatocubed and I are reluctant to quash that information because it reads as useful (albeit not especially encouraging) for us Epic players; on the other hand, we do not want to appear to be giving permission for the way that TDMR went about getting it. So we've decided to allow TDMR to post it, since we don't think further harm will result. But we want to be 100% clear; it's fine to reach out and talk to game designers online, of course! But copying someone's SA post, name, avatar, etc. and putting it out somewhere without their permission to try to epically own them isn't cool. You don't need to try to win internet arguments by exposing your foes like that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2021 17:12
|
|
|
Yes, I permitted posting those because I don't think Hewitt is necessarily contradicting what RJS said, but it adds some context and information that maybe folks didn't have. And, I wanted to honor Hewitt's willingness to talk about titanicus and share what he asked to be shared. I hope we can consider the matter settled now. Will there be another release of Epic? We don't know, it's possible, the rules don't preclude it and have actually been written with the intention of making it possible in the future, it'd take some doing, and 5 years ago there were no plans to do it but that doesn't shut the door.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2021 04:17
|
|
|
I've got an absolutely ridiculous amount of epic eldar, along with a smattering of other stuff. One of the things I love about the game is that you need objective markers and can make them as "important piece of terrain" scratchbuilt stuff as long as they have the right base size. It makes it feel good when you're having a battle and the things you're trying to capture look like "things an army would want to try and capture." A buddy of mine has one that's a half-built Titan, and of course as Eldar I get to swap a gate out for one of the objective markers so I get to have a cool looking wraith gate. I also really like how the aero rules work. Your fast aircraft swoop onto the field, shoot poo poo, and fly off, all during the same turn; opponents get to shoot AA at them or attempt to intercept them with interceptors, but (unless you want them to) aero don't derp around a battlefield hovering over poo poo all the time, they feel like what they should feel like, off-map assets that come in to execute quick strikes or perform combat air patrol and have a fast dogfight. I will caution though that the official rulebook is poorly laid out. It's a great set of rules but if you sit down with the rulebook and try to just read it and figure out how everything works, you'll find yourself asking lots of questions in play later that you maybe can't easily find because the rule you want isn't necessarily where you expected it. One example is the interactions/rules for big weapons - invulnerable save, reinforced armour, thick rear armour, macro weapons, titan killer weapons, and (for my eldar) lance and pulse weapons, each have interactions that take some learning to work out, and you'll find some in the rules for war engines and some elsewhere. I wound up making myself a cheat sheet for some stuff like that. Here's an excerpt (all rules written in my own paraphrasing): Invulnerable Save: You get an additional 6+ save with no modifiers, after the first save. You get a 6+ save even against effects that ignore all armour, including MW and TK hits. Reinforced Armour: You get your armour save even aganst MW attacks. Against normal attacks, you get to reroll your armour (or cover) save, including in an assault. If you are rerolling a cover save (taken instaead of an armour save), your reroll is against your armour save value. Thick Rear Armour: ignore -1 save modifier when caught in a crossfire Macro-Weapons: Only units with reinforced armour and/or invulnerable saves get a saving throw. Cover saves are also negated, although the -1 to hit for cover does apply. They can affect any type of target (AA/AT/AP). Allocate hits from normal weapons to a formation first, then MW. Titan Killer: Units hit by TKs cannot take cover or armour save, even if they have reinforced armour. Some TKs can do multiple "wounds" on a hit: these apply to WEs with DCs higher than 1. Otherwise treat as a MW. Lance (Eldar): units hit by Lance weapons don't get their Reinforced Armour reroll. Pulse (Eldar): Roll for two hits. In the Compendium, this is shown already as 2x <attack>
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2021 07:09
|
|
|
Most of my Epic stuff was second-hand so I have a mix of square and strip bases. The key thing is the min 5mm max 40mm dimensions. It mostly matters in-game two ways: Formation cohesion requires most formation types to have every base in the unit to be within x cm of another base in the unit, measured from the base. Strips let you space a large unit of troops out to a marginally wider stance than square bases would. This almost never matters but you can contrive to make it matter in some edge cases - that is, technically you could make your unit "stretch" a bit farther with strips. I have seen one occasion where a formation was able to contest an objective while having more of itself in cover by maximizing spacing like this. There is a game combat mode called a "firefight" which is what happens when two or more opposing formations get to within IIRC 15cm of each other and then have a battle. There's extra movement phases where the units in the formation can choose to sort of barge into each other more tightly, and get more bases into base-to-base contact. Close combat weapons only get used in B2B, so if your formation has lots of good close combat units, you want them to be able to touch opponent bases a lot. I find that square bases are sometimes easier, especially when facing an opponent's strip bases. With my Eldar, I tend to field one or two aspect warrior formations with a mix of different aspect warriors, and some of my bases are optimized for CC while some are better to hold at firing range. My square-based aspect warriors seem to be a little easier to manage that with. But, in both cases these are minor considerations. You won't find your army to be significantly better or worse if you go with one or the other or a mix of both. There is maybe one more consideration: I find that when I'm placing units on a sloped piece of terrain, square-based ones don't fall over but strip-based ones tend to tip over more easily. But this happens so rarely that again I wouldn't really worry about it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2021 17:51
|
|
|
It's five infantry per base by the rules, which wouldn't let you do that sort of thing easily, but you can cram a LOT of bases onto a little hill and then have a firefight with another formation and say "pew pew pew" while masses of your idiots get murdered in seconds. I feel like that fits the spirit of the thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2021 17:59
|
|
|
MCPeePants posted:My understanding is that you can also use round bases as long as you abide by not less than 5mm or more than 40mm, correct? Perfect for stuff like this https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4439394 (Moola is correct, cram as many on as look good) That is absolutely correct. And while it might reduce your ability to min/max stuff like getting one stand of close combat troops into base2base contact with two enemy stands of wimpy cc troops, that's very minor in the grand scheme of things and really not likely to be decisive in a game. All of my titans are on big round bases (which seems to be standard), and my Avatar & Court of the Young King unit is on a round base too. I think some of my war walkers or wraithlords might be as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2021 18:40
|
|
|
So I don't know for the mini epic, but I can talk generally about E:A. There is a tradeoff between formation size and number of formations. As others have already said: more formations is very beneficial. The game works by default as alternating activations, and generally, there's a benefit to getting to string multiple activations in a row before your opponent acts again. There are ways to do this regardless, via commander abilities that let you roll to try to "retain the initiative" and make a second activation in a row. But, regardless of abilities, if you have more formations than your opponent, they'll run out of activations while you still have 2+ left and you get to activate all of your remaining formations in a row. That's very good. But The game also has a suppression mechanic. Each time a new formation shoots at your formation, it takes a "blast marker" (even if it takes no casualties). It takes additional BMs when it takes casualties, fight in assaults, or fail initiative tests. Each BM suppresses a unit, so if you have 10 units in your formation and 4 BMs, only six of the units can shoot (you get to decide which of your units are suppressed). BMs also make it harder for the formation to carry out actions, win assaults, or rally (an activation used for recovering from being broken and suppressed etc.). So, the more units there are in a formation, the more resilient the formation is to being shot at. And the more chaff units the formation has, the more useless dudes you can choose as your suppressed units, leaving the good units still able to fight when you activate the formation. (Note that you do this by keeping the poo poo units at the back, since you assign BMs from back to front - but this means your good units are more exposed to being killed, since you take casualties from front to back.) This is not inconsequential. Yes, having more, smaller formations is still, on balance, often "better" than having fewer, larger formations. In addition to getting more activations, you can attempt to control more objective markers, you have more ability to set up flanking attacks/crossfires, etc. But it does you little good to start a game with your five formations to your opponents' three, and then have two of your formations broken on turn 1 because they were too small to handle being shot at. I loving love this, by the way. The suppression mechanic on the whole, the way it affects your in-game decisions, the way you have to balance many different considerations in the game, it's all such a wonderful system. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Jul 8, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2021 23:32
|
|
|
Yeah, Epic has rules for loading dudes in and out of transports as part of a move activation that work reasonably well. Given the full game likes to be played on at least a 6' x 4' table (and I generally go for 8x4), mobilized infantry actually functions the way mobilized infantry functions in real life armies, which is really cool. But also yes you can arrange to arrive at the objective you want to hold, unload your dudes, and then shove their lovely transports at the back so they'll be the suppressed ones. But also two up front to take the first casualties. Or whatever. Arranging the units in your formation on the table actually matters in several ways, so it's another way to immerse yourself in the tactics of the game... but also you don't have to know a lot about it to get started playing, either.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2021 00:37
|
|
|
Xlorp posted:Horus has his chapter too! It's black and gold scheme, despite the photo hah I've been thinking "what an interesting choice, making all your armies shades of purple" e. is this more color accurate? It looks like your camera is going hog on magenta to the tune of like +50% 
Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Jul 9, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2021 23:52
|
|
|
I suspect a part of why GW tends to do a limited run of a new game and then abandon it has to do with their 100% in-house miniature production. They have a given number of huge, mega-expensive injection mold machines. They make new injection molds for a game, halt production of other stuff in order to do a production run of this new game on a few of their machines, and then store those molds and retask the machines to their regular products. Doing a second run means another disruption to their production of regular product. BUT: why don't they just get more machines? Well, that would make sense only if they can justify the cost permanently (well, really, on a ten-year depreciation schedule), which means having the confidence that they can sell that much extra product (regardless of product line) going forward. This is all speculation. But other companies can do additional runs via contracting their product production out to e.g. factories in china. GW mostly doesn't do that, I guess for product quality reasons or something.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2021 21:00
|
|
|
I haven't played minigeddon, but my e:a army is biel-tan, so I have some comments that might be helpful. I'd be a bit concerned by the lack of ranged shooting. Guardians are assault-fodder, basically, and with no unit upgrades like heavy weapons/support platforms, they're likely to get shot to pieces without being able to respond. The 15cm speed is less of an issue on a smaller play table, so that's fine. Note that you can replace up to three Guardian stands with heavy weapons platforms for free (by NetEA rules, which I assume you're using) so maybe do that for one or two stands per guardian warhost? The war walkers are IMO a good unit, with the Scout attribute they can spread out a lot which is nice for claiming objectives while still being partly in cover and other such shenanigans. Their shooting is all at 5+, though, so just 4 of them won't place a ton of BMs on enemy units. The high mobility and scout attribute might be less of a factor on a small table, though. I assume minigeddon rules let you reduce this unit size to 4, normally it's 6 walkers for 200pts. Revenant titans are IMO fantastic and I can definitely see why you wanted to get one into your list. Pulse weapons are great. This titan has no business getting into melee with another titan, but it has sufficient range and mobility to avoid assaults you don't want it to get into. This is your only accurate shooting in your list, though, with the 2x MW3+ pulse lasers (which roll 2 dice each). Overall I think this might be an OK list to experiment with but you've sacrificed shooting and durability to get both a revenant and five activations. If you do bring it to a table, let us know how it works out!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2021 01:47
|
|
|
Good to hear the list worked out! Definitely need to play a couple or three times to see how swingy dice can be. A few notes:
The game expects you to play with lots of terrain, including Dangerous and Impassible Terrain, cover, buildings, hills, etc. If you found your titan easily getting shot by everything all the time, you may not have enough blocking terrain on the board. One of the key things about orks is that although they get a lot of cheap troops, they're really bad at activating and tend to fail activation rolls. Eldar are good at activation and retaining the initiative, and they tend to be highly mobile as well (guardians notwithstanding). I tend to play eldar vs. orks by kiting around as fast as possible, especially with hover tanks and jetbikes, using terrain as best I can to avoid getting shot at, and retaining the initiative to set up crossfires and positioning formations to be brought into multi-formation assaults. Anyway I'm glad you had fun and definitely give it another go!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2021 06:38
|
|
|
Virtual Russian posted:War Walkers get a 6+ reinforced save, which until tonight I thought was a joke. Serves me right for going from memory! I should have checked before mouthing off. War Walkers having Reinforced Armour is indeed hilarious given that they're baby-carrier style. And I can't remember which thing I was fielding with Lance weapons that made me have to look that up over and over again. Maybe Fire Prisms. Or... heyyyy, war Walkers' Bright Lance guns. And yeah every army list I run always inevitably has falcons. They work fine on their own, but also serve as transports in a pinch, and they're an available upgrade for aspect warriors.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2021 22:09
|
|
|
Virtual Russian posted:I took that list for another spin - got absolutely slaughtered this time. Right on. Yeah for assaults, aspect warriors are a big upgrade over guardians, especially if you pick the assault-focused ones. But then you're trading off a lot of points cost. Space marines are just a really good tough army in Epic though, keep that in mind, and assault marines in particular are... good at assaults. I've always struggled against a good Marine list. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Aug 20, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2021 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 08:55 |
|
|
Virtual Russian posted:Got another game in, swapped out 2 guardians for aspects, managed a win. Was up vs orks, they did a lot of damage, wiping the guardians in an assault, but the aspect warriors had three successful assaults. At the end of turn 3 all I had left was 3 dire avengers, so they took some serious hits, but they punched way above their weight. I'm really liking the wraithgate for minigeddon. The smaller map really adds utility to it. Right on! I'm glad you're enjoying eldar. Yeah, the wraithgate is a great way to slam a reserved formation out into the fray where its needed without your opponent being able to necessarily account for it on turn one. Have you tried hoverbikes at all? I used to use them to good effect in setting up crossfires cheaply.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2021 20:24
|
|