tneva82 wrote: Not like AT points are of relevance. Different rules, different power within game. What is powerful in one game might not be that big in other game.
In AT you field entire squadrons of knights for titan, here couple and you are approaching bigger titans. Warhound is cheaper per marine basic infantry model in LI than in 40k etc etc etc.
Not when its vastly out of sync and lore with other games. Not by a long shot.
tneva82 wrote: Not like AT points are of relevance. Different rules, different power within game. What is powerful in one game might not be that big in other game.
In AT you field entire squadrons of knights for titan, here couple and you are approaching bigger titans. Warhound is cheaper per marine basic infantry model in LI than in 40k etc etc etc.
We have the rules now. It's plain to see several problems, units don't pay for weapons outside of a few exceptions where they are called upgrades, and they are often very oddly priced. The vast majorit of weapons cost no points, so there are obvious winners and losers in loadouts. A lascannon has never been equiv of a demolisher and isn't in this, but is presented the same. It gets much more egregious with titans, as other have mentioned the point cost is on a curve, the psi titan is 75pts more than the warlord and significantly better. The warp missile on he reaver is completely broken. The warmaster is only 150pts more than the warlord and has twice the voids, a 1+ save and more weapons than i have fingers. Planes point costs are very suspect as well. It's a very good thing the stronger units like knights and titans are indexed to point level 70/30 or it'd be a real nightmare.
Add to that expanding detachments point cost also get cheaper the more you buy, so there's also a hellish crossover between msu and giant units of everything from tanks to walker to infantry. Again people have the books now so the who knows things doesn't work.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Points also take into account Wider Context of the force a given unit, model or what have you, belongs to.
Especially where Allies are a limited points percentage, and extend to such things as Titans and Knights.
It all adds up and changes what one can and can’t include.
Yes but but point costs being off on a particular unit type get made worse because adding more models of that type to a detachment also sees points curve/discount the more you add. This "lifts all boats" in that it combats msu/more activations with smaller units by rewarding players who increase unit size of existing detachments with a point discount, but if a unit is already very good for its points, say for example it just has a lot of really good firepower and already feels better than equiv costed units, adding more really really makes the problem worse in terms of discounting an already undercosted unit. Again, there are units that have the option to take upgrades either in the form of changing a weapon, a bonus weapon or an entirely different loadout/statline/special rules. So it is odd when you get to like titans and see you're still not paying for any weapons. 70/30 keeps them largely in check thankfully, but the similar problems persist, especially in units with a lot of loadout choice/variance. Malcadors have 4 huil options. 3 turret and 3 sponson options. With the hull options for example presenting a demolisher cannon up against heavy bolters/autocannon/lascannon. You also see strange discrepancies with the kratos where one could have hull bolters and sponson las, but have the same loadout on another kratos with simply the location of the bolters and las swapped and all of a sudden the hull las get accurate. Which also makes parsing out dice extra granular the less people unify their detachment's weapon loadouts.
The thing that I find a shame with this is that there was no effort to community outreach by the guys that developed this game (and I've asked - creators of NetEpic, Imperialis Dominatus etc.) to the people who have literally lived and breathed Epic for the past 20 years. And that really could have helped with this sort of thing.
If you play NetEpic now Vs SM2 lots of the point values have been adjusted, so you no longer have 'must have' units or ones which are useless because they cost too many points. But that's only come from lots of playtesting and many years of community feedback.
Just seems nuts to me that you had that great resource available there, and it evidently wasn't used.
Pacific wrote: The thing that I find a shame with this is that there was no effort to community outreach by the guys that developed this game (and I've asked - creators of NetEpic, Imperialis Dominatus etc.) to the people who have literally lived and breathed Epic for the past 20 years. And that really could have helped with this sort of thing.
If you play NetEpic now Vs SM2 lots of the point values have been adjusted, so you no longer have 'must have' units or ones which are useless because they cost too many points. But that's only come from lots of playtesting and many years of community feedback.
Just seems nuts to me that you had that great resource available there, and it evidently wasn't used.
The only way GW would contact fanmade stuff like that is for a cease and desist
A shame, maybe. But not unexpected. This wasn’t Jervis writing.Epic: Armageddon on an open forum, it’s the same company that rewrote Blood Bowl and Necromunda.
On the other hand, I downloaded Net Epic Gold once and ran away screaming.
Its interesting looking at the scenarios, I think this may be worth keeping in mind with points, especially infantry
games seem to be all five turns, and all have progressive scoring, thus mobility and deployment tricks to get on the objectives fast matters - one side getting the jump, even for one turn could swing this
in some ways a units killing power isn't that important, and none of the infantry are overly survivable anyway so in practice the bit that makes marines better is the higher CAF, the save may not matter much with what looks like the volume of fire available in the anti infantry role.
e.g. the Sicaran will always have the 2 dice hull heavy bolter, and then the sponsons, which if I'm reading this right are a further 2 dice total.
which seems odd in itself (given the sponsons should have a wider arc, and there are two of them) but the stat list doesn't indicate they double up.
regardless, a single Sicaran has 4 heavy bolter dice, ok a 5+ to hit. but marines only have a 5+ save, SA a 6+ so not a lot between them really.
a few tanks will go "DEL-ETE" in a mechanical voice thats probably copyrighted, and good by infantry in the open, a bit better in buildings
so the points for infantry essentially can ignore the save, as both will be in buildings, transports, out of sight of seriously out of luck.. Movement is the same, las-rifles and bolters are pretty similar except at half range (and why they called that [ASSAULT] and not [RAPID FIRE] for sanity is beyond me)
so yes marines cost more, a bit, but the infantry I suspect will end up remarkably similar regardless
which seems odd in itself (given the sponsons should have a wider arc, and there are two of them) but the stat list doesn't indicate they double up.
That's keeping dice amount and thus survivability down
so the points for infantry essentially can ignore the save, as both will be in buildings, transports, out of sight of seriously out of luck.. Movement is the same, las-rifles and bolters are pretty similar except at half range (and why they called that [ASSAULT] and not [RAPID FIRE] for sanity is beyond me)
so yes marines cost more, a bit, but the infantry I suspect will end up remarkably similar regardless
SA does have bit longer range so can get first volley without other firing possible.
Marines looks to beat the crap out of SA in open but buildings will even the score.
And yes transports valuable. Common in epic games
Like the 12 scenarios and the secondary system.
Thunderhawks looks potentially real scary dumpping 4 contemptors or 8 melee infantry straight into charge order range T1 but of course alternative actions means it's not QUITE so easy even without factoring interceptors and overwatch with potentially point defence weapons.
Titans will be good at smashing ruins. Especially with melee weapons. There's practically bound to be rules later for REALLY tough buildings as ATM there's no point taking reaver power fist. Powerfist has less ability vs super heavies but will do more damage to buildings. Except chainfist already one shots any building in rulebook that fails save.
Reaver with twin chainfist. Your building has 2+ save? Well take -8 and if fail be destroyed twice over!
(albeit unlikely anybody wastes 2 gun slots for that)
Not used to knights costing so much related to titans. I doubt I could fit all my knights even in 3k all knight list...Bummer! And I don't even have armigers etc 18 questor knights for example costs "couple" points nevermind rest...
Guess I better treat knights as melee warhounds. Seems to be about that and not that much cheaper than warhound.
Can't wait to start painting whenver FLGS might get the boxes. And then to wait for jetbikes and drop pods(my primary wish list for next releases. Feels like fit for both blood angels and sons of horus very well thematically)
Starting to look at weapon load outs and firing. Seems that in general terms a detachment picks a target, and all guns go at that target.
exceptions being units able to split fire and the "point defence" weapons
seems to be a moderator on unit size, no point going too large and wasting shots, remains to be seen what "too large" is in practice.
however what it does mean for tank detachments is you want all the primary guns probably to be the same, or at least the same target focus - e.g. pick shooting at armour or infantry and stick to it. then maybe look at secondary weapons to have at least some point defence.
e.g. a Predator Squadron, say three tanks, if going for anti armour I think the las cannon turrets are a must, and the same for the sponsons on say two of the three, then the third gets heavy bolters to at least have some point defence (or its going to need an escort)
if going anti infantry then all heavy bolters makes sense, not 100% convinced on the autocannon though, think las cannons are still a better bet as the unit is better duel role then.
As for the units not yet released, I'm thinking of the initial release as a chance to get some stuff painted, on a table and to learn the rules, I'm not considering the game "complete" as yet, needs more transport options, scout options etc for both factions
tneva82 wrote: Then again does every marine player have cash to buy everything at once...
not sure thats bothered GW previously, especially given the tendency to have "optional" stuff thats buy it now or never get it
was more thinking though of a better starter set, all water under the bridge now of course
It bothers them enough they often space out releases...
Their point is getting people buy it all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pacific wrote: Looking at some of the photos on Social Media, which I thought initially were deliveries of Legions stock to a store, I will say some definitely do
If anyone is interested, the Mighty Minis store has some plastic order tokens for sale.
so the points for infantry essentially can ignore the save, as both will be in buildings, transports, out of sight of seriously out of luck.. Movement is the same, las-rifles and bolters are pretty similar except at half range (and why they called that [ASSAULT] and not [RAPID FIRE] for sanity is beyond me)
so yes marines cost more, a bit, but the infantry I suspect will end up remarkably similar regardless
Even if you ignore the different save: marines have way better CAF (extremely important stat as condenses attack and defense in HtH), higher Morale (extremely important too) + positive Legion rules, while Solar get negative faction rule.
so the points for infantry essentially can ignore the save, as both will be in buildings, transports, out of sight of seriously out of luck.. Movement is the same, las-rifles and bolters are pretty similar except at half range (and why they called that [ASSAULT] and not [RAPID FIRE] for sanity is beyond me)
so yes marines cost more, a bit, but the infantry I suspect will end up remarkably similar regardless
Even if you ignore the different save: marines have way better CAF (extremely important stat as condenses attack and defense in HtH), higher Morale (extremely important too) + positive Legion rules, while Solar get negative faction rule.
yes, however they have to actually assault for that to matter, and quite a few will be dead before they do, or should be. morale helps without a doubt and some of the faction rules are good, some less so
need to get models on the table and see how it shakes out
Sa have pretty mean melee units though. Yeah caf 2-4 nice. Rend with 1 blip lower caf better though. Sprinkling those will make sa units hell of a pain in assault
They already uploaded an errate here which answers a few questions.
In short:
Engine Killer also works against vehicles now, not just super heavy vehicles so no baneblade dies but malcador lives.
The warp trait only gives you one dice against Knights and Titans now instead of as many as they have wounds left, very nice they responded this fast on that.
Storm Eagles no longer have the Tempest rockets they stole from the Fire raptors
The correct Aerial Force compulsory slots are from the physical book so two core slots in compulsory, the digital and cards had one core and one vanguard instead which is wrong according to the card errate. But it doesn't specify about the optional detachments which are one core and one vanguard in the physical book and two core in the digital. No idea how its on the cards but since the physical was correct for the compulsory ones its likely to be one core and one vanguard for the optional ones too.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Quick question for anyone who bought SM infantry box since nobody seems to be doing an unboxing of those. Do they have any decals inside and if so is it the same sheet as the one in the starter?
Because the starter set decal sheet only has banner decals for four legions/cohorts and the vehicle transfer sheet doesn't have any banners. And it would be sad to not get any banners for the other legions/cohorts
leopard wrote: its actually interesting when you see the probabilities, a 2d6 roll means +/- 1 actually matters, but the change between +4 and say +5 is minor.
the way units can gang up on smaller is also interesting, getting 2d6+0 for one and 3d6+0 for the second can overcome a base 2d6+2 etc
again needs to see how it shakes out but I think SA units if they get into combat in size will be quite nasty
My experience of playing a lot of Guard through 2nd edition and then later NetEpic is that you don't want to end up in close combat with your generic guardsmen the doubling-up does have a massive impact with the extra dice, but the problem is a canny player will leave that charging unit to move until last and make sure it is 1-1 match-ups. Especially when you quite often have terrain and other factors which mean you can't have an ideal 'on paper' result, and that favours the small/elite units. They lost that first combat, fail a morale test and then that's it..
I see they have added a new rule in this game though where Guard units can support each other when ranked up, which should change things a bit especially if they are garrisoned in buildings.
As for the Aerial formation, might have been another case where whoever designed the formations wasn't aware that vnaguard detachments wouldn't get rules in the core book.. We'll know for sure when vanguard detachments get models and rules, if the formation gets changed back, this was indeed the case
Automatically Appended Next Post: was this already posted:
Was just drafting some lists and man, it's not easy getting even 1000 points worth of Astartes from the currently available models! You need to max out almost every slot in the formation, including all optional ones..
As such, I feel like the second LI model wave cannot be far really. We are lacking a lot of flavour ATM, almost feels like HH2 launch all over again..
tauist wrote: Was just drafting some lists and man, it's not easy getting even 1000 points worth of Astartes from the currently available models! You need to max out almost every slot in the formation, including all optional ones..
As such, I feel like the second LI model wave cannot be far really. We are lacking a lot of flavour ATM, almost feels like HH2 launch all over again..
Hopefully jan-march sometime. Till then you likely need some kratos and an armoured formations for breathing room on detachment sizes.
tauist wrote: Was just drafting some lists and man, it's not easy getting even 1000 points worth of Astartes from the currently available models! You need to max out almost every slot in the formation, including all optional ones..
As such, I feel like the second LI model wave cannot be far really. We are lacking a lot of flavour ATM, almost feels like HH2 launch all over again..
Hopefully jan-march sometime. Till then you likely need some kratos and an armoured formations for breathing room on detachment sizes.
I haven't started collecting an army just yet, have only bought the digital rules and one Astartes infantry kit to get a feel for the scale and the new models. I want to start with Adeptus Titanicus first, since that is already considered a mature game, and it comes with stuff that is easier to slot into "proper" LI games than just the two warhounds that come in the LI starter. Was just thinking GW needs to come out with more stuff soon, every list will basically be very samey until they do.
But yeh, a box of Kratos is a solid chunk of points for an Astartes player.
I haven't started collecting an army just yet, have only bought the digital rules and one Astartes infantry kit to get a feel for the scale and the new models. I want to start with Adeptus Titanicus first, since that is already considered a mature game, and it comes with stuff that is easier to slot into "proper" LI games than just the two warhounds that come in the LI starter. Was just thinking GW needs to come out with more stuff soon, every list will basically be very samey until they do.
But yeh, a box of Kratos is a solid chunk of points for an Astartes player.
With LI out now I'm selling my AT compendiums and terminals/cards if you're getting into AT. Books are a bit on the heavy side and I think most are digital so its really only a collecting thing, but terminals for AT are a necessity and sadly the kits only come with thin unpunched paper terminals if at all. LI I'm still trying to figure out how necessary unit cards are to track casualties/wounded/when formations break but I'm glad I didn't pre order the detachment cards. Was hoping LI needed less sideboard than AT does.
Good news is it seems it's not fixed to 5x4, can be played on smaller boards at smaller point levels so gonna start at 4x4. Really wanting havoc lanchers for all my rhinos now.
tauist wrote: Was just drafting some lists and man, it's not easy getting even 1000 points worth of Astartes from the currently available models! You need to max out almost every slot in the formation, including all optional ones..
As such, I feel like the second LI model wave cannot be far really. We are lacking a lot of flavour ATM, almost feels like HH2 launch all over again..
I trust you know you aren't limited in formations right? Apart from more mandatory choices can take more and indeed are heavily encouraged to do so.
I have made 2k lists and not even maxing out upgrades(mainly as don't have more than 3 inf box coming so just 6 terminators etc)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
leopard wrote: its actually interesting when you see the probabilities, a 2d6 roll means +/- 1 actually matters, but the change between +4 and say +5 is minor.
Well depends on what the opponent has for his CAF.
CAF1 vs CAF0 is 63% vs 37%. Same as CAF5 vs CAF4.
Vs CAF0 CAF4 to 5 goes from 90% to 95%.
The rend is huge and is why SA will be surprisingly mean in melee. Power axe infantry already superior to terminators in melee and with ogryns it just get plain mean.
I thought its only one Formation per 1500 points? Since 1500 points is the army size I'm initially aiming for, that leaves me with 1 Formation max.. unless I am mistaken?
Anyhoo, like I said, taking my time with LI so all this will be moot by the time I'm ready to start collecting. I was planning on going drop pod & flyer heavy anyway, because I want more "Space" for my Space Marines, and a drop pod/flyer heavy army will be way cheaper and easier to pull off in Epic scale than in 28mil
It’s one primary formation per 1500 points, not of 1500. So you could have as many formations as you squeeze in, with the proviso that allies can’t exceed 450 points (the 30%)
MarkNorfolk wrote: It’s one primary formation per 1500 points, not of 1500. So you could have as many formations as you squeeze in, with the proviso that allies can’t exceed 450 points (the 30%)
To clarify a bit further its not that you can only take 1 formation per 1500, its you must take at least 1 per 1500 pts.
So for 3000pts you would need at least 2 and for 4500pts at least 3 but there is no upper limit.
Titan section of the book says you must have 1 Titan maniple or Knight lance in your army if you include them, and it didnt say this would add in to your main army's formations, so I never thought I'd be limited to just 1 formation for everything, just one for my main army for every 1500 points.
But if I can just spam Formations, that changes things considerably. Thanks for setting me straight Now, I don't want to take too many, since then those formations will then be easy to break, but a couple seems the way to go
I'll still need a bunch of Tactical stands though if I add in formations.. but I reckon I'll be better off going with 2 formations for my 1500 point list. MSU will make more sense for stuff like Kratos etc, that melta cannon thingy will be great for deleting buildings at close range with a unit of 2
Think you still want 4. 1 shot hitting 4+. You preferably want to shoot the building semi-reliably in one go.
Oh and myself bit off in that allied formations indeed dont count for 1/1500 but are separate things. And you can only take 1 per primary so no 1 main and 2 knight detachment even if points allow.
Well. So far my lists haven't broken that rule yet.
With two Kratos firing, a 50% chance to hit should make it quite likely for at least one hit to the building. 4 would absolutely guarantee it no doubt, but since splitting fire is only a thing for point defence, you'd be wasting quite a lot of firepower IMHO just taking down one building with 4. Also, 4 Kratos will make a more tempting target for the opponent. I'd much rather have 4 long range AT Kratos in one detachment, and 2 Bunker smashers than the other way around
tneva82 wrote: One hit has no effect though. You need 2 to take down even smallest building. 1 means you have to spend next turn as well shooting at it.
Not that 4 is quarantee either. Odds of missing 3 4+ out of 4 isn't THAT small. 2 is average amount. You still score 0 or 1 hits about 30% times
It might be just a building...or building with bunch of infantry inside.
Crap, I totally forgot buildings have wounds! In that case, 4 Kratos with meltas is required for any reasonable chance of downing a 2 wound building in one turn. Perhaps a better solution is just to spam Frag Missiles into infantry detachments garrisoned in buildings, they mitigate most of the benefits of being in buildings, right?
Matrindur wrote: So i have a question if I understood the withdrawing rules correctly:
When a detachment loses a combat and fails the save role it has to withdraw D6 plus movement value on the shortest possible route to the controlling players board edge. You can move through enemy units during that move and you have to roll saves if you do unless you are 3 sizes larger than them (Knights vs infantry for example). But that is only if you move through them, if you end your move overlapping an enemy model your model is just destroyed.
So lets say you have an Acastus Knight that has to withdraw. You can't control the move as you have to go the whole distance on the shortest path to the board edge so a straight line unless terrain is in the way. So if there is a single infantry base where you would end up you are just unlucky and your Knight is instantly killed?
So, loser fails a morale check: withdraws 1d6+M.
- Directly to own edge.
- Ignoring basically any model and engagement zone.
- But moving though any other Det. forces a save (unless scale 3 larger).
- Ending on top of friend: no problem, just move aside. Moving on top of ANY enemy: destroyed, so yes, an big knight can be destroyed by infantry.
So you can't divert around the enemy while withdrawing? That is going to result in some very odd set ups where your units are trying to line up the board edge and enemy units in straight lines in case they break so you can try and force saves on them.
What it means is that there is some proper reason to maneuver, as you can set up killing bands of troops behind enemies you're trying to break through clipping assaults. That somewhat compensates the lack of crossfires, escalating engagements and such, if not exactly stealing the show.
I'm not saying 2+ is bad. I'm wondering what is the point of ion shields. As is ion shield 4+ and 5+ have super limited use. Questor gets to save on 5+ vs AP3 but beside that invulnerable save 6+ would do the same job.
I dont think you're missing anything. I think someone just didn't think through the mechanical design all that well. They cooked up an ability that seemed ok, threw it on their, and moved on without doing any real mechanical analysis or playtesting to validate it.
chaos0xomega wrote: I dont think you're missing anything. I think someone just didn't think through the mechanical design all that well. They cooked up an ability that seemed ok, threw it on their, and moved on without doing any real mechanical analysis or playtesting to validate it.
If I don't misunderstand there is one more advantage to the ion save in that the armourbane rule doesn't work against it as it only works against armour saves.
So for example the Acastus gets shot at by a -1 armourbane weapon so its normal save is reduced to 3+ and the ion save stays at 4+. Normally you'd say why have the ion save in the first place then but if you use the normal armour save you would have to reroll the save due to armourbane which isn't the case for the ion save.
So with that shot you'd have a 44% chance to save at your normal 3+ with a reroll but a 50% chance to save at the 4+ ion save.
Same for higher AP:
AP2: 25% chance to save on 4+ save vs 33% chance to save on 5+ ion save
AP3: 11% chance to save on 5+ save vs 33% chance to save on 5+ ion save
AP4: 2.7% chance to save on 6+ save vs 16.6% chance to save on 6+ ion save
And AP5 and up you will only have the ion save anyway
chaos0xomega wrote: I dont think you're missing anything. I think someone just didn't think through the mechanical design all that well. They cooked up an ability that seemed ok, threw it on their, and moved on without doing any real mechanical analysis or playtesting to validate it.
This.
Half the special rules are useless bloat.
Ion shield? just give them invulnerable.
It's insane how some are incredibly to the point and others are like 10 paragraphs. I tend to agree I wish they just had an invul save at this point.
Got my Baneblades today. They're tiny compared to the variants I printed myself, haha, I did print mine huge because I was trying to hit the point where they felt like they were worthy of their rules.
Now to decide whether I reprint my Baneblade-variants smaller or just leave it.
Matrindur wrote: If I don't misunderstand there is one more advantage to the ion save in that the armourbane rule doesn't work against it as it only works against armour saves.
So for example the Acastus gets shot at by a -1 armourbane weapon so its normal save is reduced to 3+ and the ion save stays at 4+. Normally you'd say why have the ion save in the first place then but if you use the normal armour save you would have to reroll the save due to armourbane which isn't the case for the ion save.
So with that shot you'd have a 44% chance to save at your normal 3+ with a reroll but a 50% chance to save at the 4+ ion save.
Same for higher AP:
AP2: 25% chance to save on 4+ save vs 33% chance to save on 5+ ion save
AP3: 11% chance to save on 5+ save vs 33% chance to save on 5+ ion save
AP4: 2.7% chance to save on 6+ save vs 16.6% chance to save on 6+ ion save
And AP5 and up you will only have the ion save anyway
Good point. Vanquisher cannon take that!
Also works with cover save too. Take cover if facing armour bane.
One could see it in the points of both, but after another game involving Knights and SuperHeavies, it saddens me the turn in relative power.
I mean, in all previous versions of Epic, a Superheavy was more powerful than a Knight (hey, not the big Acastus). Now it is the other way around? Was it like that in the background/fluff?
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Got my Baneblades today. They're tiny compared to the variants I printed myself, haha, I did print mine huge because I was trying to hit the point where they felt like they were worthy of their rules
My Baneblades are on the way, and are going to be painted in Death Guard colours
A bit annoying with the 2 tank pack, if I want to play a company of them in original Epic I will need another box or to pick up a spare 2nd hand.
SU-152 wrote: One could see it in the points of both, but after another game involving Knights and SuperHeavies, it saddens me the turn in relative power.
I mean, in all previous versions of Epic, a Superheavy was more powerful than a Knight (hey, not the big Acastus). Now it is the other way around? Was it like that in the background/fluff?
In earlier versions a super-heavy was just a tank that could take 2 hits and had a bunch of extra guns. A bit like now, in fact. It's a toss up whether Andy Chamber's early rules for knights were more or less powerful, with their off-centre shield. It was in Epic 40,000 super-heavy tanks got promoted to 'War Engine', with a critical hit chart (but since a lot of the results were 'vehicle destroyed' it wasn't a great leap in power).
SU-152 wrote: One could see it in the points of both, but after another game involving Knights and SuperHeavies, it saddens me the turn in relative power.
I mean, in all previous versions of Epic, a Superheavy was more powerful than a Knight (hey, not the big Acastus). Now it is the other way around? Was it like that in the background/fluff?
In earlier versions a super-heavy was just a tank that could take 2 hits and had a bunch of extra guns. A bit like now, in fact. It's a toss up whether Andy Chamber's early rules for knights were more or less powerful, with their off-centre shield. It was in Epic 40,000 super-heavy tanks got promoted to 'War Engine', with a critical hit chart (but since a lot of the results were 'vehicle destroyed' it wasn't a great leap in power).
In epic 40kSHTs were way more powerful than standard Knights. Same in Epic Armageddon (with both SHTs and Knight having a Critical : Destroyed).
It feels weird now, is it like that in the fluff? I doubt it but anyways
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Got my Baneblades today. They're tiny compared to the variants I printed myself, haha, I did print mine huge because I was trying to hit the point where they felt like they were worthy of their rules
My Baneblades are on the way, and are going to be painted in Death Guard colours
A bit annoying with the 2 tank pack, if I want to play a company of them in original Epic I will need another box or to pick up a spare 2nd hand.
I had already printed up some falchions, but yeah, they're big boys
Are Legion operated Baneblade variants still in the fluff? I thought they only existed until GW released the SM-specific Baneblade variants (Falchion, Glaive, Fellblade).
I am not sure if it's canon, pretty sure there is some artwork in Collected Visions but then there are also giant open top rhinos full of about a dozen space wolves so know it is not generally thought to be completely kosher
HH 2.0 still has marine-operated Baneblade variants in the Legacies document, yes, just like Perturabo has his Tormentor. They are hilariously overpriced in the game, but haven't been excised from the background.
I think it's kinda refreshing of knights to go from being the perennial whipping boys in AT to seeming much more more resilient in LI. I do find the wound count a bit puzzling though, would have thought a baneblade would have 3 wounds before a questoris.
tneva82 wrote: One hit has no effect though. You need 2 to take down even smallest building. 1 means you have to spend next turn as well shooting at it.
Not that 4 is quarantee either. Odds of missing 3 4+ out of 4 isn't THAT small. 2 is average amount. You still score 0 or 1 hits about 30% times
It might be just a building...or building with bunch of infantry inside.
Guys, you are forgetting firing at structures gives a +1 to hit. p73, Targeting Structures.
However in this case, you 'd still want 4 rather than 2. But it improves the odds.
4 Kratos with Melta Blastguns and all Heavy Bolters would make for quite the bunker buster squadron. You'd have 16 dice of 5+ point defence to throw at any infantry trying to get to you before you take out the building, too!
tauist wrote: 4 Kratos with Melta Blastguns and all Heavy Bolters would make for quite the bunker buster squadron. You'd have 16 dice of 5+ point defence to throw at any infantry trying to get to you before you take out the building, too!
24 dice, if the internet majority interpretation is right. Ie you don't count the sponsons twice, they are represented by one row on the profile. The detachment entry lists one set of " ... SponsonS" and the sponsons weapon entry has 2 shots.
LC sponsons have 1 shot, same as a single hull Russ LC. Plural of Cannon is Cannon, so this is even less clear. Abstracted weapon efficiency, same as 1 marine base Bolters have 1 shot, not 5 although there are 5 boltgubs present on the model (base). Not always logical I know, but RAW.
And if LC sponsons had 2 shots the Predator & Sicaran would be a bit broken, and sponson weapons better than main weapons. This is where the Kratos shines as it has "Two" hull weapons and one set of sponsons.
Pretty amazing they did not make this more clear or consistent tbh, its item #1 for the coming FAQ.
tauist wrote: 4 Kratos with Melta Blastguns and all Heavy Bolters would make for quite the bunker buster squadron. You'd have 16 dice of 5+ point defence to throw at any infantry trying to get to you before you take out the building, too!
Well, if you were going to fire a Warp Missile at a non-Titan target, that would be the one.
tauist wrote: 4 Kratos with Melta Blastguns and all Heavy Bolters would make for quite the bunker buster squadron. You'd have 16 dice of 5+ point defence to throw at any infantry trying to get to you before you take out the building, too!
24. Each kratos has 2 hull weapon and sponson. 3x2 so 6 shot per kratos. 4 thus 24 shots.
That's how i built 1st box. 8" range also means infantry can get close so gomd overwatch handy.
tauist wrote: 4 Kratos with Melta Blastguns and all Heavy Bolters would make for quite the bunker buster squadron. You'd have 16 dice of 5+ point defence to throw at any infantry trying to get to you before you take out the building, too!
12 dice, if the internet majority interpretation is right. Ie you don't count the sponsons twice, they are represented by one row on the profile. The detachment entry lists one set of " ... SponsonS" and the sponsons weapon entry has 2 shots.
LC sponsons have 1 shot, same as a single hull Russ LC. Plural of Cannon is Cannon, so this is even less clear. Abstracted weapon efficiency, same as 1 marine base Bolters have 1 shot, not 5 although there are 5 boltgubs present on the model (base). Not always logical I know, but RAW.
And if LC sponsons had 2 shots the Predator & Sicaran would be a bit broken, and sponson weapons better than main weapons. This is where the Kratos shines as it has "Two" hull weapons and one set of sponsons.
Pretty amazing they did not make this more clear or consistent tbh, its item #1 for the coming FAQ.
Even if you count hull once and sponson once that's 2 for 4 shots. 4x4=16. How you get 12?
But not really uncllear if you follow these 2 steps:
A) read rule
B) apply it literally without "i think" like "there's 2 sponsons so i think you count twice".
People don't apply literally enough. Sheet says weapons and quantities. Apply those literally without "i think's" and not unclear.
tauist wrote: 4 Kratos with Melta Blastguns and all Heavy Bolters would make for quite the bunker buster squadron. You'd have 16 dice of 5+ point defence to throw at any infantry trying to get to you before you take out the building, too!
24. Each kratos has 2 hull weapon and sponson. 3x2 so 6 shot per kratos. 4 thus 24 shots.
That's how i built 1st box. 8" range also means infantry can get close so gomd overwatch handy.
tauist wrote: 4 Kratos with Melta Blastguns and all Heavy Bolters would make for quite the bunker buster squadron. You'd have 16 dice of 5+ point defence to throw at any infantry trying to get to you before you take out the building, too!
12 dice, if the internet majority interpretation is right. Ie you don't count the sponsons twice, they are represented by one row on the profile. The detachment entry lists one set of " ... SponsonS" and the sponsons weapon entry has 2 shots.
LC sponsons have 1 shot, same as a single hull Russ LC. Plural of Cannon is Cannon, so this is even less clear. Abstracted weapon efficiency, same as 1 marine base Bolters have 1 shot, not 5 although there are 5 boltgubs present on the model (base). Not always logical I know, but RAW.
And if LC sponsons had 2 shots the Predator & Sicaran would be a bit broken, and sponson weapons better than main weapons. This is where the Kratos shines as it has "Two" hull weapons and one set of sponsons.
Pretty amazing they did not make this more clear or consistent tbh, its item #1 for the coming FAQ.
Even if you count hull once and sponson once that's 2 for 4 shots. 4x4=16. How you get 12?
But not really uncllear if you follow these 2 steps:
A) read rule
B) apply it literally without "i think" like "there's 2 sponsons so i think you count twice".
People don't apply literally enough. Sheet says weapons and quantities. Apply those literally without "i think's" and not unclear.
Yeah, my morning Maths were based on two Kratos. 6 HB shots per Kratos. So 12 HB dice from all 2 HB Kratos, 24 from 4 Kratos.
GW do wrote such wordy rules though, most people have trouble reading them clearly.
Predators are lovely. But whoever decided the exhausts were to be separate pieces is a sadist.
Sicarans however are a dream. Just be aware the turrets are weapon system specific.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Kratos is a lovely kit.
Whilst one could magnetise to have swappable hull weapons, I went with Autocannon as a nice jack of all trades, able to engage Infantry and Light Vehicles with reasonable affect, and can at least force a save on heavier vehicles.
Best of all? You don’t need to magnetise the main turret weapon. The two cannons nestle quite nicely. Though of course, give the cannon sub-assemblies time to dry before fitting them, lest overspill of glue interfere.
Predators are lovely. But whoever decided the exhausts were to be separate pieces is a sadist.
Sicarans however are a dream. Just be aware the turrets are weapon system specific.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Kratos is a lovely kit.
Whilst one could magnetise to have swappable hull weapons, I went with Autocannon as a nice jack of all trades, able to engage Infantry and Light Vehicles with reasonable affect, and can at least force a save on heavier vehicles.
Best of all? You don’t need to magnetise the main turret weapon. The two cannons nestle quite nicely. Though of course, give the cannon sub-assemblies time to dry before fitting them, lest overspill of glue interfere.
If only solar aux plastic were so lucky. I think you maybe swap malc turrets but need to magnetize the top of the hull. The rest it seems like you get weapon options but just one turret so may be able to magnetize where the barrels mount maybe.
I think with the Malcador main gun you could, maybe, make it interchangeable but removing the pivot bit so the whole assembly can slide in/out from the front. hull weapon perhaps with a hole drilled in the hull and a bit of wire on the guns
to be honest I'm not sure if its worth the effort, model a few and make a note what they are armed with push comes, at this scale while WYSIWYG is nice I think so long as its clearly noted and consistent e.g. "all leman russ are vanquisher pattern" don't lose much sleep over it
leopard wrote: I think with the Malcador main gun you could, maybe, make it interchangeable but removing the pivot bit so the whole assembly can slide in/out from the front. hull weapon perhaps with a hole drilled in the hull and a bit of wire on the guns
to be honest I'm not sure if its worth the effort, model a few and make a note what they are armed with push comes, at this scale while WYSIWYG is nice I think so long as its clearly noted and consistent e.g. "all leman russ are vanquisher pattern" don't lose much sleep over it
I've seen pics where they magnetize the top of the hull on malc and are able to swap, not sure if they had to do a lot of modification to get that far though.
Disagree, wysiwyg is essential at this scale imo. There are units previewed that are literally a or b like the tarantulas las/aa. It's a binary, you really can't toss out wyswyg because it will be the only distinction between the two tarantulas. An example with the starter, contemptor dreads are a or b build, the only difference is the weapon. I don't get to just decide it's a lascannon or kheres when convenient, its the only distinction. Can run it as a mixed unit but are only given the parts on sprue to make 2 las and 2 kheres.
1) How easy can you actually tell the weapons at game distance. Eg the Knights have a few small defensive shoulder guns, the difference between them is insanely tiny at normal viewing. This means that either you have to remember anyway; lean down to check every time; or have some way to mark the different units.
2) If you can mark units to stand apart in another way.
Eg a symbol or base colour are often used to denote different specific squads/units (harder here because a lot of tanks don't have a base). If you can mark the yellow based models as being X unit; not only is it good for combat resolution and board viewing; but it also means you can more easily proxy weapons and still have quick referencing without getting mixed up.
Broadly speaking I do agree with WYSIWYG as much as possible. However I also believe in being practical about it and some units will have so many possible weapon options that aren't magnetizable; that modelling every option would be cost and time prohibitive. So if you can mark out those models in another way so they can be easily referenced; that's ok in my view and very practical
1) How easy can you actually tell the weapons at game distance. Eg the Knights have a few small defensive shoulder guns, the difference between them is insanely tiny at normal viewing. This means that either you have to remember anyway; lean down to check every time; or have some way to mark the different units.
2) If you can mark units to stand apart in another way.
Eg a symbol or base colour are often used to denote different specific squads/units (harder here because a lot of tanks don't have a base). If you can mark the yellow based models as being X unit; not only is it good for combat resolution and board viewing; but it also means you can more easily proxy weapons and still have quick referencing without getting mixed up.
Broadly speaking I do agree with WYSIWYG as much as possible. However I also believe in being practical about it and some units will have so many possible weapon options that aren't magnetizable; that modelling every option would be cost and time prohibitive. So if you can mark out those models in another way so they can be easily referenced; that's ok in my view and very practical
Asking someone to remember a single bolter is a lascannon is so different than asking someone to remember a series of colours and symbols one has cooked up. There's a point where you really are just putting the burden on your opponent. If someone isn't trying to correct these things from game to game and its only getting worse, or asking me to remember more and more stuff is other stuff is other stuff, its just not tenable, its not a fair ask. Especially if every one of my models corresponds to the list I have.
I'll again use the contemptor example, its not my fault the opponent didn't read the rules and built one with two fists or two las arms or two kheres arms, they litereally only have a and b options for on arm. It's like a tank with mismatched sponsons, nothing about this is fair to ask. It's all fine for a display or diorama or just for fun but he rules just don't allow for it. That's so not on me. I didn't write them
As a Tyranid player I've seen GW mess with legal weapon options almost every single edition of the codex.
Carnies can take 2 heavy weapons this edition; next one they can't; then they can again; then they can't.
So on one level GW can mess with what's legal in the game and take a legal army and make it illegal.
Furthermore, as I noted, many of those weapon options at 8mm are going to be darn tiny when 1ft away. Chances are both players will consult their army list more often than in a 40K game where weapons are pretty big.
So again there are situations where you can denote the unit and then simply refer to the unit card/sheet during the game.
As I also noted there are practical situations where this is just sensible; eg shoulder weapons on knights.
Finally, as I noted, being able to tell different units on the board is helpful not just for weapon/gear; but also just telling which is which.
In the end I'm not outright disagreeing with you; just applying what I consider is a practical approach to WYSIWYG which accounts for tiny detail differences; hard to see variations and the reality of collecting models where someone cannot magnetize every single weapon; not build models to suit every single possible combination of armourments just-incase they want to vary things.
There's room for accommodation or compassion "my left sponson broke off"but "my lascannon spons sare bolters and all my bolters are flamers and all flamers are lascannons except this one" yeah... no
Even if we can get past the miracle of wyswyg as an expection in terms of an ask on everyone's part to have the models correlate to what's in one's list. Even if we get past that, there very much likely needs to be some kind of home rule about mixed weapon loadouts. I can't even count the variations of weapon loadouts a malcador could have, so even with strict wyswig i'd have to get real close if out of 6 malcadors all 6 have a different weapon combination of hull, sponsons and turrets of which there are 3-4 options in each spot. So already a lot of dice, trying to parse out those dice and which weapons are firing, oh the person wants to fast dice and correlate 5 different colours.... like its a game where the crunchiness can be really cool or absolute poison that grinds everything to a halt to account for 7 different weapons firing in 6 different range bands.
So I guess its pick our battles, I already find the accounting for formations breaking points incredibly frustrating on a very limited sideboard where we also have to account for which units are in which structures. Game has a lot of potential and is fun, but has its fun sponges.
I think I’m happy with Lascannon Sponsons, as I can’t ever imagine me fielding less than Loads of infantry, who ought to provide all the small arms fire I need.
Crablezworth I will say you possibly need to have a more 'understanding' view on WYSIWYG in this game. Let me explain: your terrain and modelling at Epic scale is exceptional, I will say it's probably some of the best I have ever seen (and I have played Epic since the 90s). Definitely a lot of people on of this forum, and there are some very very skilled, dedicated hobbyists here, probably couldn't match it. Outside of this asylum, probably 99% view that in the same way they would painted minis in a Golden Demon comp, in that it's something people don't have the time, energy or ability to try and replicate. But you have to be cognisant that the vast majority of people will not have the ability, time/patience to do similar to you, and that includes mass-magentise their vehicle collections.
I was watching some magnetising of turrets for this game and a lot of it looks like a nightmare - 1 x 1mm magnets, I've been doing 8"-length battleship turret magnetisation, I found even that almost impossibly fiddly and I've spent a lot of time doing that sort of thing. What chance does casual, one game-every-two-weeks Joe public have? Or do we expect them to buy and paint up new miniatures for each loadout they want to use? GW might want us to do that, but I don't think it's fair.
I think if you are expecting people to WYSIWYG between Battlecannon/vanquisher turrets for their little Leman Russes, you are going to be butting heads with a lot of people in this game. A quick conversation before the game starts over what each weapon loadout is should be sufficient and thats all I, or anyone I am playing, expect to do.
This is definitely one of the 'fun sponges' that you have mentioned, but GW have made that decision by some mentalist deciding 8mm scale should have a ton of different weapon loadouts.
I think I could probably design some 3D printable bits to make magnetising a lot easier with minimal impact on how the models look.
Do I want to? No. Will I? Probably not, if I were going to go to the effort I'd probably just 3D print entire tanks, I'm already finding some of the LI vehicles excessively fiddly to build.
If they'd made it so that entire detachments had to be equipped the same, it'd make life easier in terms of "pretending" that different units have different weapons to what they are modelled with, but when you have to keep track of each individual unit? Urgh, no thanks.
tauist wrote: 4 Kratos with Melta Blastguns and all Heavy Bolters would make for quite the bunker buster squadron. You'd have 16 dice of 5+ point defence to throw at any infantry trying to get to you before you take out the building, too!
24. Each kratos has 2 hull weapon and sponson. 3x2 so 6 shot per kratos. 4 thus 24 shots.
That's how i built 1st box. 8" range also means infantry can get close so gomd overwatch handy.
tauist wrote: 4 Kratos with Melta Blastguns and all Heavy Bolters would make for quite the bunker buster squadron. You'd have 16 dice of 5+ point defence to throw at any infantry trying to get to you before you take out the building, too!
12 dice, if the internet majority interpretation is right. Ie you don't count the sponsons twice, they are represented by one row on the profile. The detachment entry lists one set of " ... SponsonS" and the sponsons weapon entry has 2 shots.
LC sponsons have 1 shot, same as a single hull Russ LC. Plural of Cannon is Cannon, so this is even less clear. Abstracted weapon efficiency, same as 1 marine base Bolters have 1 shot, not 5 although there are 5 boltgubs present on the model (base). Not always logical I know, but RAW.
And if LC sponsons had 2 shots the Predator & Sicaran would be a bit broken, and sponson weapons better than main weapons. This is where the Kratos shines as it has "Two" hull weapons and one set of sponsons.
Pretty amazing they did not make this more clear or consistent tbh, its item #1 for the coming FAQ.
Even if you count hull once and sponson once that's 2 for 4 shots. 4x4=16. How you get 12?
But not really uncllear if you follow these 2 steps:
A) read rule
B) apply it literally without "i think" like "there's 2 sponsons so i think you count twice".
People don't apply literally enough. Sheet says weapons and quantities. Apply those literally without "i think's" and not unclear.
Yeah, my morning Maths were based on two Kratos. 6 HB shots per Kratos. So 12 HB dice from all 2 HB Kratos, 24 from 4 Kratos.
GW do wrote such wordy rules though, most people have trouble reading them clearly.
6 HB shots per Kratos? My epub claims its 4 HB shots per Kratos, assuming you equip both sponsons and the hull with em.. what am I missing?
Re-read it just now and both wepon profiles state "Heavy Bolters" ie plural.. by my logic this means that you get 2 dice of HB from sponsons and 2 dice of HB from the hull mounts. Nowhere does it state I would multiply these numbers due to anything..?
6 HB shots per Kratos? My epub claims its 4 HB shots per Kratos, assuming you equip both sponsons and the hull with em.. what am I missing?
Re-read it just now and both wepon profiles state "Heavy Bolters" ie plural.. by my logic this means that you get 2 dice of HB from sponsons and 2 dice of HB from the hull mounts. Nowhere does it state I would multiply these numbers due to anything..?
Its here in the weapon loadout, it says two hull mounted HB and a single sponson mounted HB Since both those profiles have two dice each thats six dice in total.
The stats sheet for the hull HB says "Hull Mounted heavy bolters", but the weapon load out says "Two Hull Mounted heavy bolters or two Kratos lascannon or two Kratos autocannon".
It's poorly written. Calling them "Hull Mounted heavy bolters" would imply to me that it should include both hull heavy bolters in the profile, but since the weapon load out options specifically say "Two" where the weapons stats don't, I'd say that you get 2x the HB profile for the hull but only 1x for the sponsons.
That's super confusingly worded, hopefully we'll get a FAQ about it.
If that's the case, then the best weapon to equip to hull mounts would be Autocannons for 4 dice with rerolls, no doubt about it..
24 dice of 5+ HB's for overwatching will delete most infantry for sure, maybe one wouldn't even need that much.. Perhaps the best "goldilocks" loadout for dealing with infantry, buildings and tanks would be Melta Blastgun, 2x hull HBs and Lascannon sponsons, you could threaten buildings & superheavies up close, would still get 16 dice of 5+ overwatch against chargers, and could lascannon/autocannon stuff at longer ranges. Against tanks and light vehicles at range, you'd go Battlecannon, 2x hull autocannons and sponson lascannons
A Kratos is a very flexible gun platform, it seems..
Got my LI coin sorted BTW! I wanted one for denoting which player has the iniative in any given turn.. I'm a sucker for metallic tokens hehehe! If someone made metallic order counters for LI, they'd be an instabuy for me
It seems like for the Baneblade, the hull lascannon turrets are 2 shots, but for the Kratos instead of giving it 2 shots in the profile, they have one shot in the profile and say "two" in the loadout options.
So it's weird, but I guess the end result is consistent?
Effectively in any shooting phase only 1 of the side sponsons will fire, but if it's a hull turret both of them can fire.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I think I could probably design some 3D printable bits to make magnetising a lot easier with minimal impact on how the models look.
Do I want to? No. Will I? Probably not, if I were going to go to the effort I'd probably just 3D print entire tanks, I'm already finding some of the LI vehicles excessively fiddly to build.
If they'd made it so that entire detachments had to be equipped the same, it'd make life easier in terms of "pretending" that different units have different weapons to what they are modelled with, but when you have to keep track of each individual unit? Urgh, no thanks.
I won't do it myself, I'm into the game and scale enough that I'll either get duplicates or make sure I go for the correct profile and build those. I'm just saying if I go to my local club on a weeknight and someone points at their Russ armoured company that 'these are vanquishes, not battle cannons' I won't mind that.
The more I see of this game the more I think it's again, like Necromunda, designed for people who are either massively into something (i.e. us on forums) so we spend a significant amount of our free time on it, or students/the unemployed. Or I suspect, the guys who designed it and are up most evenings until midnight 4 or 5 times a week playtesting. They got bored running through stuff after 40 attempts at one scenario and then so decide to add multiple weapon profiles for a single tank. "For us, not for them". You actually have to hope that the casual players who want a game once or twice a month haven't joined the Facebook groups which have multiple discussions/arguments on lascannon Vs HB, or the detailed photo diagrams of where someone has used 1x1mm magnets on something that looks like it will require the same dexterity of performing open heart surgery - because if they do, they probably will cancel their purchase and not effing bother.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: It seems like for the Baneblade, the hull lascannon turrets are 2 shots, but for the Kratos instead of giving it 2 shots in the profile, they have one shot in the profile and say "two" in the loadout options.
So it's weird, but I guess the end result is consistent?
Effectively in any shooting phase only 1 of the side sponsons will fire, but if it's a hull turret both of them can fire.
It seems like kratos and baneblade are a bit weird in terms of sponsons.
Though that one had horrendous rule error they did. No rend was used. Caused "bit" havoc when solar auxilia doesn't use one if it's main strength at all.
Yeah. Have noticed there are still quite alot of errors people do when playing. Understandable as the game is still brand new. Here's some of the issues I've witnessed:
• People never seem to use point defence weapons during their movement? This can be potentially very powerful against infantry, assuming your vehicles are close enough
• People seem very confused about walkers - many players mistakenly treat them as vehicles, when they are not. Dreads have the ARMOURED trait, so get to reroll saves against light weapons, but Light AT should still introduce AP mod to them
• Tactical dets with attached Assault stands can issue separate orders for the Assault models, but they must remain within 6" of the main detachment
• Tactical dets with Terminator stands assigned to them gain the IMPLACABLE rule, so will not fail morale when losing CC. Also, terminators have "Accurate" so they will choose which targets they remove from successful shooting damage
• Ogryns rending
those are just some of the things that come to mind right now
Thought "accurate" was just re-rolling failed to hit rolls, its "precise" that allows the firing player to pick the targets
implacable though is a good reason to add a terminator pair to an assault infantry unit
the bit on assault troops is interesting, not sure how useful unless you add a fair few to a unit though, but its certainly a thing
point defence when moving I agree is good, likely not used much as "internet wisdom" is take anti tank weapons not heavy bolters. I think all armoured detachments should have at least one with some point defence capability
need to get my Ogryn on the table, however the SA currently, infantry at least, seem to be rear area defence troops until they get a decent transport option. Ogryn in the backfield to deter deep strike seems nice. they can just sit on charge orders out of sight
have noted errors in rules and unspecified "house rules" seems to be a common thing in battle reports
not seen stuff with precise as yet, think its going to be nasty when it arrives though
its a good list of observations, its also why watching such to learn the game is a bad idea, better to just stick a few models down and ask yourself "now what can they do?" and just walk through stuff
leopard wrote: Thought "accurate" was just re-rolling failed to hit rolls, its "precise" that allows the firing player to pick the targets
implacable though is a good reason to add a terminator pair to an assault infantry unit
the bit on assault troops is interesting, not sure how useful unless you add a fair few to a unit though, but its certainly a thing
point defence when moving I agree is good, likely not used much as "internet wisdom" is take anti tank weapons not heavy bolters. I think all armoured detachments should have at least one with some point defence capability
need to get my Ogryn on the table, however the SA currently, infantry at least, seem to be rear area defence troops until they get a decent transport option. Ogryn in the backfield to deter deep strike seems nice. they can just sit on charge orders out of sight
have noted errors in rules and unspecified "house rules" seems to be a common thing in battle reports
Even Contemptors have point defence bolters, everybody seems to forget they exist
I've been thinking about point defence a bit lately. I think its one of those things that only becomes really meaningful when you get enough dice for it. 4 Sicarans with HB sponsons get 16 dice of point defence, anything less than 10 dice of point defence doesnt feel too reliable
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: Why assault marines in tac det can get own orders?
When added to a tactical det, they gain the INDEPENDENT (pg 91) keyword, on their own det they do not.. Unless I misunderstood how that particular keyword works? Possible, I mean the rule takes a full page FFS
quote:
"If the controlling player wishes, each Independent Unit may be issued its own Order during the Order phase - this can be a different Order from the rest of its Detachment. In addition, models within the Independent Unit may choose a different target than the rest of their Detachment when firing - all models within an Independent Unit must fire at the same target unless specified otherwise.
Though it has its own Order, the Independent Unit is still part of the larger Detachment, and thus activates and reveals its Order at the same time, is issued with a Fall Back Order if the Detachment is, etc. If the Detachment calls an Overwatch, an Independent Unit only discards its Advance Order or First Fire Order if one of its models fired during the Overwatch, not if other models from the Detachment did so."
Small heads-up, a buch of LI stuff just got restocked in the webstore including the core box and the bases.
Also the Administratum sector now shows "sold out online" instead of the "temporarily out of stock" before so doesn't seem like that one will be coming back. Of course the individual sets will be coming but a discount is always nice.
I shudder to think how much a decked out LI board would cost now.. 360€ on the floor tiles alone, plus 50€ for each building kit, which you probably need at least 4-6 plus some ruins..
Makes the armies themselves feel affordable doesnt it
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Say, would anyone else on this board be interested in having metallic tokens for LI?
I am looking into having metallic order tokens made, and the volumes required for custom designs is actually quite reasonable (I've found one place that can produce any amount from 50 pieces and up).. Although the smallest size they offer is 1,5" (38.1mm) - do you reckon that's too large to be practical? Whats the diameter of the GW paper tokens? 25mm?
How many tokens do you suppose one would typically need for a 3000 points army? 20? 30? 40?
Now, I don't want to take too many, since then those formations will then be easy to break, but a couple seems the way to go
