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.

skoffs wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

skoffs wrote:Also, if I take out the driver and seat of the Stalker and replace it with the guns from the belly, do you think people would pack a tantrum? (at the tournament level, anyway. Really, it would be for aesthetic purposes, but I have a feeling changing the placement of the guns on a model affecting LOS for targeting could rub people the wrong way).

May God have mercy upon you, because tournament players won't.

Ah. Okay.
(._. )

(wasn't sure how tournaments work as far as custom models go... so I take it re-positioning weapons on a vehicle is a major no-no)

True Line of Sight. Let one person go, you have to let others as well ( including TFG ) and before you know it, complete mess from abuses

Actually, now that I think about it, you may be able to get away with it, because the Stalker isn't a vehicle; it's a walker. So I don't believe that TLOS is measured from the guns themselves. If that is the case, then I don't think there will be any problem with it.

However, if TLOS is affected, then do not even attempt this.

For a Walker you measure for the base or hull for range but the TLOS for shooting is from the weapon.

Azazel, Walkers are a subset of Vehicles.

You could build the stalker with the guns on top but tell your opponent where they should be and measure from there. This way they can't have a go at you for cheating and you have the model you want.

Or you could tell them to find a good surgeon for the stick up their ass. Now yes it could be modeling for advantage as you are increasing the height of the gun making it easier to negate cover saves but meh, Just know where it is supposed to go and you should be fine.

LunaHound wrote:

skoffs wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

skoffs wrote:Also, if I take out the driver and seat of the Stalker and replace it with the guns from the belly, do you think people would pack a tantrum? (at the tournament level, anyway. Really, it would be for aesthetic purposes, but I have a feeling changing the placement of the guns on a model affecting LOS for targeting could rub people the wrong way).

May God have mercy upon you, because tournament players won't.

Ah. Okay.
(._. )

(wasn't sure how tournaments work as far as custom models go... so I take it re-positioning weapons on a vehicle is a major no-no)

True Line of Sight. Let one person go, you have to let others as well ( including TFG ) and before you know it, complete mess from abuses

Would TO's and others really make a huge fuss about this? I know i'll be doing something similar, myself. The guns on the bottom are rather meh, and I also will not be having a pilot.

ALSO I'm concerned about my wraith conversions, they're GW legal currently and look like sentinels from the matrix, most are just barley shorter (few mm) than the old wraith models, but at least one of the new wraith models looks absolutely huge...

IronfrontAlex wrote:Would TO's and others really make a huge fuss about this? I know i'll be doing something similar, myself. The guns on the bottom are rather meh, and I also will not be having a pilot.

Well, if it were possible to attach a flagpole to a Razorback and then model the gun on the top so that the Razorback could completely be hidden by a wall and yet still shoot over, then every power gamer at a tournament would do that.



@Slowpoke: thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure how it actually worked with Dreads, 'cause mine tend to not hide behind rocks

azazel the cat wrote:

IronfrontAlex wrote:Would TO's and others really make a huge fuss about this? I know i'll be doing something similar, myself. The guns on the bottom are rather meh, and I also will not be having a pilot.

Well, if it were possible to attach a flagpole to a Razorback and then model the gun on the top so that the Razorback could completely be hidden by a wall and yet still shoot over, then every power gamer at a tournament would do that.

Just to be safe, I think I'll look into magnetizing it (so if anyone does have a fit over my "improperly placed weapon", I can just stick it back on the bottom (all the while, giving them the "I've already said I'm going to be measuring LOS from the bottom, are you f*cking seriously going to be this much of a baby over the way my model LOOKS?" look, aka. ಠ_ಠ )

skoffs wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

IronfrontAlex wrote:Would TO's and others really make a huge fuss about this? I know i'll be doing something similar, myself. The guns on the bottom are rather meh, and I also will not be having a pilot.

Well, if it were possible to attach a flagpole to a Razorback and then model the gun on the top so that the Razorback could completely be hidden by a wall and yet still shoot over, then every power gamer at a tournament would do that.

Just to be safe, I think I'll look into magnetizing it (so if anyone does have a fit over my "improperly placed weapon", I can just stick it back on the bottom (all the while, giving them the "I've already said I'm going to be measuring LOS from the bottom, are you f*cking seriously going to be this much of a baby over the way my model LOOKS?" look, aka. ಠ_ಠ )

Y'know, if you want to be on the safe side...

What you could do is take the optic section on the Stalker and move it down to where the guns normally would be. That way if anyone chooses to object, you use the optics for the reference point--and make a subtle joke about "true line of sight" to boot.

Kanluwen wrote:

skoffs wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

IronfrontAlex wrote:Would TO's and others really make a huge fuss about this? I know i'll be doing something similar, myself. The guns on the bottom are rather meh, and I also will not be having a pilot.

Well, if it were possible to attach a flagpole to a Razorback and then model the gun on the top so that the Razorback could completely be hidden by a wall and yet still shoot over, then every power gamer at a tournament would do that.

Just to be safe, I think I'll look into magnetizing it (so if anyone does have a fit over my "improperly placed weapon", I can just stick it back on the bottom (all the while, giving them the "I've already said I'm going to be measuring LOS from the bottom, are you f*cking seriously going to be this much of a baby over the way my model LOOKS?" look, aka. ಠ_ಠ )

Y'know, if you want to be on the safe side...

What you could do is take the optic section on the Stalker and move it down to where the guns normally would be. That way if anyone chooses to object, you use the optics for the reference point--and make a subtle joke about "true line of sight" to boot.

Thanks, I do actually like that idea, and if someone objects to the modeling that is a really easy segway. I was also thinking of putting the gun somewhere directly underneath the optics and not under the hull itself.

Question though, would an enemy be able to shoot at this thing's legs, or assault them? or should i take it as "measure from the hull" sorta mentality. If we take the whole model as a target it will be rediculous not to be able to shoot it, if its just the hull then that makes things a bit easier.

IronfrontAlex wrote:Question though, would an enemy be able to shoot at this thing's legs, or assault them? or should i take it as "measure from the hull" sorta mentality. If we take the whole model as a target it will be rediculous not to be able to shoot it, if its just the hull then that makes things a bit easier.

I believe the way it works for Defilers/Soulgrinders is that all of those legs count, as one really oddly-shaped base. The legs count as the model as much as the 'hull' does.

Another option for removing the pilot from the Stalker is to simply remove him, then use greenstuff/plasticard to seal the cockpit into a solid hull

Hold on a sec, don't Tomb Blades come in a max unit size of five? Why would they put three of them in a box?
What's with GW and placing awkward number of models into boxes? First fantasy cav and now this.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Hold on a sec, don't Tomb Blades come in a max unit size of five? Why would they put three of them in a box?
What's with GW and placing awkward number of models into boxes? First fantasy cav and now this.

You obviously want to by 15 of them, don't you?

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Hold on a sec, don't Tomb Blades come in a max unit size of five? Why would they put three of them in a box?
What's with GW and placing awkward number of models into boxes? First fantasy cav and now this.

Good question. For Wraiths it's 6, but it is indeed 5 for Tomb Blades (and Destroyers)

Zweischneid wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Hold on a sec, don't Tomb Blades come in a max unit size of five? Why would they put three of them in a box?
What's with GW and placing awkward number of models into boxes? First fantasy cav and now this.

You obviously want to by 15 of them, don't you?

Was there any doubt about that in the first place? xD

There's a Mr Anderson on the phone, he wants his robots back..

seriously, they ARE from the Matrix aren't they?

What's New Today has an article up of showing how 'best' to make an army using a relatively small amount of purchases.

vorpalhit wrote:There's a Mr Anderson on the phone, he wants his robots back..

That would be Mr. Smith. (Mr. Anderson doesn't like robots).


Besides, these are clearly Egyptian T-800 Terminators... who just happen to drive Cylon vehicles and have Matrix Sentinels as pets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:What's New Today has an article up of showing how 'best' to make an army using a relatively small amount of purchases.

Only THREE Wraiths?!
A Stalker and no big guns?
Three Spyders, but all you've got is five Scarab bases?
Ugh, who taught these guys how to build lists?

Kanluwen wrote:What's New Today has an article up of showing how 'best' to make an army using a relatively small amount of purchases.

They have an article on the Infinity game?

Kroothawk wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:What's New Today has an article up of showing how 'best' to make an army using a relatively small amount of purchases.

They have an article on the Infinity game?

You're posting in the wrong thread I think. The Infinity thread is further down the page.

I don't think it was focused on making a low-priced army, it was just on making a well balanced force at 1k and 1.5k points.

They did point out you could use an Overlord model instead of the Nemesor or his Vargard, which was big of them.

So far as how feasible tactically these lists are, I'm not a tournament player so I'll leave that to others, but to a average gamer these look like OK lists. But you wouldn't really expect to see the company that makes the game doing such cheesy crap as scarab farms, would you?

Kanluwen wrote:What's New Today has an article up of showing how 'best' to make an army using a relatively small amount of purchases.

I'm also surprised that the first purchase isn't 2 Battleforces and a CCBarge and a couple cryptek models. That would give you a better basis for an army at 1k and up to 1250 points.

Jeez do GW even know how to play their own game? Those lists are terrible. As posted above, 2 Battle Force Boxes and 1 - 3 CCB/A Barge + Crypteks and you have a good base from which to make a list.

As a side note, consider taking Illuminator Szeras in the army if you can squeeze him in

Lol worst IC in the dex. I know they want to sell models but at least they could give half decent advice.

Nakor The BlueRider wrote:

As a side note, consider taking Illuminator Szeras in the army if you can squeeze him in

Lol worst IC in the dex. I know they want to sell models but at least they could give half decent advice.

Well, to be fair, anybody who would be reading that for ACTUAL LIST BUILDING ADVICE probably doesn't know anything about the game (see: new players), so they can say anything they want, knowing that those inexperienced will just take what they say at face value as "real advice".
Eg.
"This model looks cool, and has an ability that buffs your guys. You got all those Warriors in your Battleforce, right? Well if you use this guy, they won't suck as much! You should totally buy him!"
(I can see this monologue becoming a sales pitch Black-shirts at GW stores would be required to say to new customers as an up-sell technique)

To be fair, I like the Illuminor simply because he does look cool.

Nakor The BlueRider wrote:Lol worst IC in the dex. I know they want to sell models but at least they could give half decent advice.

To be honest he's an interesting choice for low-point games.
At 800 pts. I had a blob of 20 warriors buffed by this guy and rolled +1T. A wall of Warriors with T5, standing up on 4+ is VERY resilent.
Same goes to +1BS = hitting on 2+ TBH, only rolling +1S sucks. In certain builds he's a really useful.

Not to mention he looks badass Though I will replace his head with that of normal finecast cryptec as the big eye is some poor joke.
I'm not using any failcast crypteks in my army (I make mine from lychguard kit) so he's still gonna look unique.

If you consider szeras himself is a 45pt lancetek with gaze and then his extra attacks and armor save is worth about 5pts then his augmentations are worth a full half of his 100pt cost at 50pts. So over a unit of 20 warriors you're paying 2.5pts a guy for s, t, or bs 5 which isn't a bad deal. His major problem is that he cuts off a second royal court but in smaller games he can be a value.

Actinium wrote:If you consider szeras himself is a 45pt lancetek with gaze and then his extra attacks and armor save is worth about 5pts then his augmentations are worth a full half of his 100pt cost at 50pts. So over a unit of 20 warriors you're paying 2.5pts a guy for s, t, or bs 5 which isn't a bad deal. His major problem is that he cuts off a second royal court but in smaller games he can be a value.

To me, not getting a Royal Court takes you out of the running for a competitive list at anywhere above 1000 points.