Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Aecus Decimus wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheNightWillEnd wrote:
and they tend to try to deal with them first for some reason at the expense at shooting at my squishy objective sitters.

Taking a unit that relies on your opponent making major mistakes is not a good strategy.

Depends.

Are you trying to stratigize vs the nebulous hordes of unknown randos? If so, probably not the best approach.

Or are you taking a unit vs specific opponents whom you know how they'll react (even if you can't fathom thier reasoning for acting that way)?

ccs wrote:

Or are you taking a unit vs specific opponents whom you know how they'll react (even if you can't fathom thier reasoning for acting that way)?

You shouldn't be tailoring your list to gain an advantage over someone you know is a weaker player who makes major mistakes. Just play the game straight.

I play the game casually for fun. When I take sentinels, fun things happen. No need to overthink it.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

ccs wrote:

Or are you taking a unit vs specific opponents whom you know how they'll react (even if you can't fathom thier reasoning for acting that way)?

You shouldn't be tailoring your list to gain an advantage over someone you know is a weaker player who makes major mistakes. Just play the game straight.

If I know I can get a predictable response from an opponent I take that into account when playing or building a list against them.
I do this irrespective of their skill level.

In ideal world you know neither opponent nor army when you design list. That way you improve as a player

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that I did not invent distraction units.

 TheNightWillEnd wrote:
I play the game casually for fun. When I take sentinels, fun things happen. No need to overthink it.

Then why are you in a discussion of tactics, if the only thing that matters is fun and you don't want to think about list or strategy optimization?

ccs wrote:

If I know I can get a predictable response from an opponent I take that into account when playing or building a list against them.
I do this irrespective of their skill level.

Yes, that would be list tailoring, and it's generally considered to be bad behavior. It's really considered bad behavior when you're tailoring against a weaker player you should be able to beat without questionably-ethical gimmicks.

Never said this is a single-opponent tactic. Some units work well for distracting any opponent into attacking them first even though they have less tactical importance than other things on the board. Also the fact that they take up a fair amount of space with their base size means you can position them in a way that they have to be dealt with first, especially with a 9" scout move 9" first turn move and a 2D6" more if you need it through Go Recon!

Especially now that there is typically more terrain on the board these days, you can cram them into choke points at intersections between buildings so that units will have to kill them in order to move anywhere. It's situational, but I've had that be effective against big units of large-base stuff that wants to be fast like bikes. In the right scenario, that unit has to waste its first turn of movement, which could be key to their plans.

I like Hellhounds for that too. With the inferno cannon and HF, it's frankly better for you if they're charged somewhere. And if they're in the way, your opponent might have to.

Hi all, quick question: I just measured my existing sentinel and heavy weapon bases and they're all 65mm. But I see everyone saying the current base size is 60mm. Which is the current correct size?

morpheusgotmeout wrote:
Hi all, quick question: I just measured my existing sentinel and heavy weapon bases and they're all 65mm. But I see everyone saying the current base size is 60mm. Which is the current correct size?

50mm for Heavy Weapons confirmed, and people are guessing 80mm for the Sentinels.

This is actually a blessing and a curse. If the Sentinel is an 80, that's quite a foot print. Especially if they keep the squadron rules, and you can field up to 3 in a unit. That's like an entire back field in 1 unit.

Arcanis161 wrote:


people are guessing 80mm for the Sentinels.

I'm referring to current base sizes. Not future. What is current base size for sentinel? 60 or 65mm?

morpheusgotmeout wrote:

Arcanis161 wrote:


people are guessing 80mm for the Sentinels.

I'm referring to current base sizes. Not future. What is current base size for sentinel? 60 or 65mm?

Should be same base as a killa kan, so 60mm.

Something that might be noteworthy: As Leman Russ tanks seem to go to 13 wounds (implying brakets at 6 and 3 wounds) they do get slightly harder to braket/ kill with d2 and d3 weapons.

1st braket/2nd braket/dead vs. D2:
Old: 3/5/6 unsaved wounds
New: 4/5/7

Vs. D3:
Old: 2/3/4
New: 3/4/5

Not much, but it is... something

Well, with the new Heavy Las cannons being H1 S14 AP4 D6+6 (ignores invulns) I really want to know what they plan on making the fricking Shadow Sword. H6 with 190" range, S25 AP5 and damge (IF IT HITS YOU YOU LOSE THE MATCH)

Mordian Glory has a video with more leaks. Let's say that the Deathstrike is now the ultimate area dennying weapon. up to 16 MWs to all within 3 inches tops any current weapon. (probaly it's been nerfed but still)

M.

 Miguelsan wrote:
Mordian Glory has a video with more leaks. Let's say that the Deathstrike is now the ultimate area dennying weapon. up to 16 MWs to all within 3 inches tops any current weapon. (probaly it's been nerfed but still)

M.

I F ING CALLED IT! (not on this forum, of course, but I called it nonetheless)

I decided to go ahead and build my Manticore/Deathstrike kit as a Manticore, and what do you know, they actually make the Deathstrike viable. Just goes to show, wait until you know what's what before you build, kids. I'll be significantly less salty if the Manticore remains good, but if I know GW it'll be total cabbage in the new book.

Mind you opponent has turn to move away. If object isn't that essential he can move away and be safe

That's the point. Contested objective. Place the marker so it hits your enemy but not your troops.If the enemy doesn't move it might be the end of him, if he does next turn you will score that objective.
Or vs IK with the Defend the Realm pledge stay and keep your honor, or move and get dishonored.

M.

And most scenarios have multiple objectives so abandoning 1 to chase others for 1 turn isn't always end of the world.

Or throw cheap sacrificial unit there

That's why you bring 3. 3 of them and some blocking units and you control the entire board.

tneva82 wrote:
Mind you opponent has turn to move away. If object isn't that essential he can move away and be safe

Is there ever an objective that isn't essential when they all count for primary scoring?

Not exactly sure if that fits here, but I guess the chance for an answer is highest:

Can anybody tell me what the 3rd Edition rule book page 163 states under "Hardened Fighters" and "Steadfast"?

I recently got a 3rd Edition Catachan Codex and while most is self explanatory, I would like to know what these abilities of Catachan Devils meant

Aecus Decimus wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Mind you opponent has turn to move away. If object isn't that essential he can move away and be safe

Is there ever an objective that isn't essential when they all count for primary scoring?

You know right you don't have to hold all to score max right?

tneva82 wrote:
You know right you don't have to hold all to score max right?

If you hold so many objectives that you can give one up and still score max points the game is already over.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
..."Hardened Fighters"...

"The unit may ignore negative modifiers for Morale checks and test for regrouping (eg 50% casualties). In effect, the unit will always use its standard Leadership for these tests."

..."Steadfast"...

"The unit may attempt to regroup even when below 50%."

 waefre_1 wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
..."Hardened Fighters"...

"The unit may ignore negative modifiers for Morale checks and test for regrouping (eg 50% casualties). In effect, the unit will always use its standard Leadership for these tests."

..."Steadfast"...

"The unit may attempt to regroup even when below 50%."

Just to clarify, I do not believe this ignores the daemons -Ld shenanigans as that doesn't modify the morale rolls just your Ld yeah?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 TheNightWillEnd wrote:
I play the game casually for fun. When I take sentinels, fun things happen. No need to overthink it.

Then why are you in a discussion of tactics, if the only thing that matters is fun and you don't want to think about list or strategy optimization?

ccs wrote:

If I know I can get a predictable response from an opponent I take that into account when playing or building a list against them.
I do this irrespective of their skill level.

Yes, that would be list tailoring, and it's generally considered to be bad behavior. It's really considered bad behavior when you're tailoring against a weaker player you should be able to beat without questionably-ethical gimmicks.

You should NEVER tailor against certain opponent unless agreed upon before this(my brother tailors every game to keep it a bit more fair and still loses most) its extremely rude and actually makes your list worse.

As a note, building to defend against certain thing you KNOW is gonna be everywhere isn't tailoring, that's just reading the meta as you aren't doing it to a specific person, just preparing for what you know is gonna be brought(leviathan warrior spam pre nerf or troupe spam for instance)

Ecdain wrote:

You should NEVER tailor against certain opponent unless agreed upon before this(my brother tailors every game to keep it a bit more fair and still loses most) its extremely rude and actually makes your list worse.

As a note, building to defend against certain thing you KNOW is gonna be everywhere isn't tailoring, that's just reading the meta as you aren't doing it to a specific person, just preparing for what you know is gonna be brought(leviathan warrior spam pre nerf or troupe spam for instance)

We had a "TFG" at my old store who would try and tailor vs everyone, so what I would do is bring at least 2 armies with 2 list for each, and I'd choose at random which one I was going to play, but only AFTER he has his list ready. After a few times of doing this he would refuse to play against me and many others quickly picked up on this idea. He stopped coming to play shortly after he couldn't tailor anymore.

Guys, I really don't understand how we're still hung up on this. I don't tailor lists. I always bring at least one sentinel because I have found my opponents, whoever they are, tend to misjudge their importance because the sentinels push up the board quickly. So, they prioritize killing them, which helps me set up other stuff.

If that's tailoring, then literally all tactics are.

Meanwhile, big new tank! Really interested to see what the points cost comes in at for the Rogal Dorn and if Baneblades are back in the playable range with their free wargear.

Indeed. I have to say the idea of a super-heavy tank company as an army is extremely tempting - you don't build an army like that to be super-competitive but the idea that you don't just get meltagunned or small arms-ed to death if you do means you can actually put up a decent fight.