Switch Theme:

Do You Like Facing Knights with TAC Lists?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Just trying to get a feel for whether or not I'm the only one who still feels that imperial/chaos knights are kind of a bad fit for 40k. In the past, I've found their tendency to produce skew lists (lists that basically ignore all my S4 and lower weapons) to be rather frustrating. Similarly, I've found it rather unpleasant to ignore many units in my codex for the sake of fitting in knight killers when knights happen to be in vogue.

But admittedly, I haven't played against knights much recently. Maybe GW's recent rules for them have finally allowed them to slot into 40k without being a huge pain for those of us that want our bolters and shuriken catapults to be relevant.

How do you all feel about imperial/chaos knights at the moment? Do you like seeing them across the table from you? Or are they still awkward and best left to apoc?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

I haven't played against the new Codex or any Chaos, knights, nor any FW nights. But in the past 10 weeks against the old Codex + Balance my armored Grot force has chewed up 3 Armiger heavy forces, badly damaged a Warden(? they all look alike to me & I scramble their names) & blown a Castellan to bitz (it exploded, robbing me of extra scrap points).
2 very solid wins & a narrow loss.

Before that I faced off & won against large imperial knights twice:
Once in a 75pl Crusade game using my Necrons.
And right near the end of 8th with my Dark Angels.
These two games were largely decided by victory points. The knights simply couldn't kill enough of my forces to prevent me from out-scoring them & this was well before the scoring changes for them. It also didn't help that every knight that fell put the players further behind both score & killing wise....

TAC lists? All my lists are TAC. Whatever I've brought is 100% able to take on anything across the table from me. I just don't skimp on the AT. Ever. Although I'd imagine my DA would come the closest to what your envisioning.

My thoughts on Knights?
*Cool models.
*Not really my style of force. Sometimes I'm in the mood to play just a few big things, but not often.
*I don't really care if my opponent uses them. Nor do they need to tell me ahead of time.
*I'm certain I can win against them.
*Do they belong in 40k? Sure. But then I'm also one of the people who has no problem with actual Titans being present....






   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






I think that they can work in 40k, and should, but that their integration could be a lot better/more interesting (locational targeting and damage of Superheavies), and other previously existing mechanics (all models in a squad be able to use AT grenades against vehicles) would have been much more ideal.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought






Yeah they work fine in the game as a concept, its basically running a super elite army. the problem is they dont feel very elite.

surviving on a 3+ and a 5++ is not that big of a deal in the game any more. They should overall be more durable but loose obsec.

HH did knights the best IMO.

To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

I hate playing against LoWs of any kind, no matter what. I simply loath the models. But I compromise with other players' desire and I accept playing against knights, primarchs and such anyways.

Playing against knights as a faction is a whole different thing though, that's something I find totally unfun, no matter what list I bring and it's not a matter of game balance. Typically I refuse to play those games.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 Blackie wrote:
I hate playing against LoWs of any kind, no matter what. I simply loath the models. But I compromise with other players' desire and I accept playing against knights, primarchs and such anyways.


But I'll bet you were just fine playing against Necrons with Monoliths 3e-8e.
   
Made in fi
5th God of Chaos (O'rly?)





Vehicle and LOW are wee bit different. DUCY?

2022 painted/bought: 307/419 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

ccs wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
I hate playing against LoWs of any kind, no matter what. I simply loath the models. But I compromise with other players' desire and I accept playing against knights, primarchs and such anyways.


But I'll bet you were just fine playing against Necrons with Monoliths 3e-8e.


I accept playing a single LoW, any of them, but I still despise them all .

Now some units have only become LoWs recently. Monoliths were something like land raiders in older editions, so were ork nauts probably. Still not a fan of massive models in general but it's the 500+ single models that bother me concept wise. And aesthetically I don't like them either.

 
   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





 Blackie wrote:
ccs wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
I hate playing against LoWs of any kind, no matter what. I simply loath the models. But I compromise with other players' desire and I accept playing against knights, primarchs and such anyways.


But I'll bet you were just fine playing against Necrons with Monoliths 3e-8e.


I accept playing a single LoW, any of them, but I still despise them all .

Now some units have only become LoWs recently. Monoliths were something like land raiders in older editions, so were ork nauts probably. Still not a fan of massive models in general but it's the 500+ single models that bother me concept wise. And aesthetically I don't like them either.


What about malcadors? They were LoW, but dropped out of that status, but did you still hate riveted (worse) big leman russ for the price of two leman russes?

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






tneva82 wrote:
Vehicle and LOW are wee bit different. DUCY?
Monolith is bigger than a Knight and has a similar number of wounds.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

Not Online!!! wrote:


What about malcadors? They were LoW, but dropped out of that status, but did you still hate riveted (worse) big leman russ for the price of two leman russes?


Are they FW, right? In my whole 20+ years of experience I haven't met many players who bring FW models, I certainly don't, so I never gave a damn about FW to be honest .

But I googled them and they're basically leman russes as you said, so I definitely wouldn't mind them. When I say LoWs I generalize, I mean 400-500+ points massive models, not actual units listed under the LoW section.

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 Blackie wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:


What about malcadors? They were LoW, but dropped out of that status, but did you still hate riveted (worse) big leman russ for the price of two leman russes?


Are they FW, right? In my whole 20+ years of experience I haven't met many players who bring FW models, I certainly don't, so I never gave a damn about FW to be honest .

But I googled them and they're basically leman russes as you said, so I definitely wouldn't mind them. When I say LoWs I generalize, I mean 400-500+ points massive models, not actual units listed under the LoW section.


I don't think you and I would have gotten along. Baneblades used to be some of my favorite units in the lore and on the tabletop. Now? I don't play them much, because their rules don't abstract them that well IMO (though Steel Behemoth is pretty spot on). But that 3+ save just makes me a sad panda.

But I can't imagine not playing them *ever*. They're super cool.

Edit:
I haven't had a chance to play Knights with their new book but I haven't been bothered by it in the past. They have usually been better when brought in a TAC of their own (Castellan + Guard) rather than when brought standalone.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/17 11:54:07


 
   
Made in us
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'




Crescent City Fl..

ccs wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
I hate playing against LoWs of any kind, no matter what. I simply loath the models. But I compromise with other players' desire and I accept playing against knights, primarchs and such anyways.


But I'll bet you were just fine playing against Necrons with Monoliths 3e-8e.


I have to laugh at this. 3rd edition Monoliths were a whole different monolith to those of later editions. If you understand the damage chart then you already know why that is.
On more than one occasion a single Ork rikkit destroyed one with a hit a 6 to glance and a 6 on the glance table. Monoliths back then were at best an annoyance.

I personally dislike playing against knights or super heavies now, in older editions it was a lot more reasonable in larger points games. Super heavies in a 2K list is just not very fun an army made up of them is even less fun.

"Pathetic earthlings. Hurling your bodies out into the void, without the slightest inkling of who or what is out here. If you had known anything about the true nature of the universe, anything at all, you would've hidden from it in terror."
My blog http://warhead01.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-art-of-ork.html 
   
Made in de
Ladies Love the Vibro-Cannon Operator






Hamburg

Here the Lanchester square law comes in.
If the enemy doubles the armor, you have to fourfold your anti-armor.

Former moderator 40kOnline

Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!

Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."

Armies: Eldar, Necrons, Blood Angels, Grey Knights; World Eaters (30k); Bloodbound; Cryx, Circle, Cyriss 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 wuestenfux wrote:
Here the Lanchester square law comes in.
If the enemy doubles the armor, you have to fourfold your anti-armor.


Not quite, because the Lanchester equation is only intended to measure rough equals (1 tank vs 2 tanks, the 1 tank has to work 4 times harder).

For specialists, like anti-tank weapons specifically designed to destroy tanks, the cost equation is much better. Look at the Javelin in Ukraine. Any given engagement probably does not include 4x as many javelin launchers as there are Russian armored vehicles in the same engagement, and yet the Javelin is crushing it.

Now, you are more correct in modern 40k, because the damage model for tanks is basically the same as for everything else (meaning the idea of a specialist weapon destroying it with a single shot doesn't exist).

This may be influencing those who didn't like Baneblades et al; likely, if you never played against them in 4th, you missed playing against the best damage model they have ever had.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/17 12:40:11


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 Blackie wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:


What about malcadors? They were LoW, but dropped out of that status, but did you still hate riveted (worse) big leman russ for the price of two leman russes?


Are they FW, right? In my whole 20+ years of experience I haven't met many players who bring FW models, I certainly don't, so I never gave a damn about FW to be honest .

But I googled them and they're basically leman russes as you said, so I definitely wouldn't mind them. When I say LoWs I generalize, I mean 400-500+ points massive models, not actual units listed under the LoW section.


See, when you generalize like that? Then we don't have any idea of what you're actually saying...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 warhead01 wrote:
ccs wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
I hate playing against LoWs of any kind, no matter what. I simply loath the models. But I compromise with other players' desire and I accept playing against knights, primarchs and such anyways.


But I'll bet you were just fine playing against Necrons with Monoliths 3e-8e.


I have to laugh at this. 3rd edition Monoliths were a whole different monolith to those of later editions. If you understand the damage chart then you already know why that is.
On more than one occasion a single Ork rikkit destroyed one with a hit a 6 to glance and a 6 on the glance table. Monoliths back then were at best an annoyance.


You're laughing because you missed the point of the comment.
It wasn't anything about the damage tables etc. It was: Yesterday (up until the last day of 8e) Monoliths were fine. But today(1st+ day of 9e)? They aren't - because NOW we call them Lords of War!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/17 16:02:01


 
   
Made in us
Deadshot Weapon Moderati




The thing about Knights is that they don't really work like infantry squads, as in you can't really chip away at them as they don't lose members or weapons as they lose members, they can't be locked down, and they aren't affected by morale (not that morale really does anything anymore). They're just a brick wandering around the table deleting more interesting units.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Nomeny wrote:
The thing about Knights is that they don't really work like infantry squads, as in you can't really chip away at them as they don't lose members or weapons as they lose members, they can't be locked down, and they aren't affected by morale (not that morale really does anything anymore). They're just a brick wandering around the table deleting more interesting units.


I mean, they do degrade over time. The difference between a 12 man Sm squad with the same weapons as a Knight and a Knight itself is just the toughness stat.

The infantry squad may lose Bolters (or nothing, if you truly give the squad the same weapons as a Knight) but as soon as you do 12 wounds (about 6 of the 12 Marines) the Knight loses BS on its big weapons, while the Marines still have exactly the same firepower until you kill ~10 (20 wounds). By then you are killing the secondaries (like the stubber) and about to kill primaries (battle cannon marine and chainsword marine).

You can lock down the Marines ... kinda (there are many ways to do fall back and shoot). They also aren't affected by Morale (well, barely).

Biggest differences are damage spillover (Knight is less tough) and Toughness stat (Knight is more tough).

I think people overstate the difference between vehicles and infantry this edition.
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

ccs wrote:


See, when you generalize like that? Then we don't have any idea of what you're actually saying...



No? It wasn't actually that hard to understand.

If there's a 300 points LoW that look like a leman russes and no one plays it and that I completely ignored it existed until today, sure you can go full "lawyer mode" to make a (useless) point. Congrats.

But what I meant was obvious and it was pretty clear that my perspective has nothing to do with balance, or at least balance isn't the main factor about my dislike towards those massive toys. In fact even your monolith example completely missed the point.

 
   
Made in us
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta






I have no problem playing against knights. honestly if you play to the mission they have a hard time beating most take all comers lists. work on bracketing them and move blocking them with screening units.

All that said I do prefer them as an auxilary faction. I would love 1 knight detachment to not break chapter tactics, regiment bonuses etc to bring an allied knight or 2 vs playing against pure knights. That is more to do with how I specifically want to play my imperial knights, I have only ever allied them forgoing doctrines because I like seeing them aside imperil forces.

10000 points 7000
6000
5000
5000
2000
 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

ccs wrote:

It wasn't anything about the damage tables etc. It was: Yesterday (up until the last day of 8e) Monoliths were fine. But today(1st+ day of 9e)? They aren't - because NOW we call them Lords of War!



No. I didn't change my perspective about ork nauts just because they were 250 points heavy support in 7th and now they are 380 points LoWs. Same models. I didn't like them then, I don't like them now .

Monoliths to me were fine just like a single knight or the modern monolith is fine, as I explained in my first post. I loath the models and I know that balance wise they don't break the game. That's it. The thread was about liking to face this kind of models, which is entirely subjective. I don't, regardless of balance, but I compromise because one of those things I can bear, a full army is just something I'm not interested to experience.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Unit1126PLL wrote:
Edit:
I haven't had a chance to play Knights with their new book but I haven't been bothered by it in the past. They have usually been better when brought in a TAC of their own (Castellan + Guard) rather than when brought standalone.

This makes me want to point out that I personally don't really mind playing against knights when they're taken as allies alongside less tough units. If I'm facing knights + guardsmen, then all my small arms/anti-infantry units have guardsmen to interact with. Even if such a list is technically more powerful than an all knight/armiger list, it's still less frustrating (for me) to play against because it's less of a skew list.

ccs wrote:
But I'll bet you were just fine playing against Necrons with Monoliths 3e-8e.

I know that this is kind of missing your point, but I actually did sometimes feel similar frustrations when playing against ye olde triple monolith lists. In the same way that it was frustrating to have all your S6 and lower weapons not matter against a 7th edition knight (s6 could glance rear armor technically), it was frustrating to have the monolith be immune to almost all of my attacks back in the days of AV14 that ignored a bunch of anti-tank rules. But then, Phase Out was a thing until late 5th edition, so at least I could still potentially win the game by sending my anti-infantry units infantry hunting.

G00fySmiley wrote:I have no problem playing against knights. honestly if you play to the mission they have a hard time beating most take all comers lists. work on bracketing them and move blocking them with screening units.

All that said I do prefer them as an auxilary faction. I would love 1 knight detachment to not break chapter tactics, regiment bonuses etc to bring an allied knight or 2 vs playing against pure knights. That is more to do with how I specifically want to play my imperial knights, I have only ever allied them forgoing doctrines because I like seeing them aside imperil forces.

See, I know I can play the mission and rack up VP against an all knight list, but that just isn't the game I signed up for, you know? I want my units to be trading blows with the enemy in a roughly even back and forth that highlights each faction's style. Against knights, most of my units aren't fighting so much as they're jogging into position to movement block the knights that are apparently too polite to step on them (until the Fight phase) and patiently waited to be blasted off the table without much hope of contributing much to the actual fighting. I know some people enjoy that, but it's simply not what I signed up for.

But again, knights allied in with less-skewy factions are mostly fine. It's not the statline of an individual knight that bugs me.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 Blackie wrote:
ccs wrote:

It wasn't anything about the damage tables etc. It was: Yesterday (up until the last day of 8e) Monoliths were fine. But today(1st+ day of 9e)? They aren't - because NOW we call them Lords of War!



No. I didn't change my perspective about ork nauts just because they were 250 points heavy support in 7th and now they are 380 points LoWs. Same models. I didn't like them then, I don't like them now .

Monoliths to me were fine just like a single knight or the modern monolith is fine, as I explained in my first post. I loath the models and I know that balance wise they don't break the game. That's it. The thread was about liking to face this kind of models, which is entirely subjective. I don't, regardless of balance, but I compromise because one of those things I can bear, a full army is just something I'm not interested to experience.


Hmm. . .
 Blackie wrote:
I hate playing against LoWs of any kind, no matter what. . .

That didn't come across as "I'm totally fine with it."

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in ca
Perfect Shot Ultramarine Predator Pilot






 Insectum7 wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
ccs wrote:

It wasn't anything about the damage tables etc. It was: Yesterday (up until the last day of 8e) Monoliths were fine. But today(1st+ day of 9e)? They aren't - because NOW we call them Lords of War!



No. I didn't change my perspective about ork nauts just because they were 250 points heavy support in 7th and now they are 380 points LoWs. Same models. I didn't like them then, I don't like them now .

Monoliths to me were fine just like a single knight or the modern monolith is fine, as I explained in my first post. I loath the models and I know that balance wise they don't break the game. That's it. The thread was about liking to face this kind of models, which is entirely subjective. I don't, regardless of balance, but I compromise because one of those things I can bear, a full army is just something I'm not interested to experience.


Hmm. . .
 Blackie wrote:
I hate playing against LoWs of any kind, no matter what. . .

That didn't come across as "I'm totally fine with it."


Quote the rest of that paragraph after where you cut if off. Don't be disingenuous.

I don't really understand why a handful of posters are trying to play some weirdly petty gotcha game with Blackie's subjective opinion of not enjoying playing against Big Models, but who will play against them nonetheless...

A single Big Model (Gorkanaut, Knights specifically) are usually fine for... Let's say a roughly casual TAC list. Whole armies of Big Models stray in to skew lists, where it takes tuned-up lists to handle them. For example, Nids or Eldar or the other top armies, they can handle those armies without specifically building to handle them.

Lower tier armies even in casual-er game settings may struggle against Skew of any kind if they have a TAC list.

Not all TAC are created equal.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/05/17 18:49:19


 Rippy wrote:
When you lose to a 7 year old, it's wise to not come and admit it and then try to blame the armies


Skaven - 4500
OBR - 4250
- 6800
- 4250
- 2750 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 Thadin wrote:
Quote the rest of that paragraph after where you cut if off. Don't be disingenuous.

Don't lead with such a strongly worded statement if you're aiming for nuance. Or at least be aware it's gonna generate some pushback.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I hate playing against LoWs of any kind, no matter what. . .

That didn't come across as "I'm totally fine with it."


Yeah, hate is a strong word . I said I compromise though. In my ideal world they wouldn't exist, but unfortunately they do and I accepted that long ago. Still have fun enough to avoid refusing to play those games.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Thadin wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
ccs wrote:

It wasn't anything about the damage tables etc. It was: Yesterday (up until the last day of 8e) Monoliths were fine. But today(1st+ day of 9e)? They aren't - because NOW we call them Lords of War!



No. I didn't change my perspective about ork nauts just because they were 250 points heavy support in 7th and now they are 380 points LoWs. Same models. I didn't like them then, I don't like them now .

Monoliths to me were fine just like a single knight or the modern monolith is fine, as I explained in my first post. I loath the models and I know that balance wise they don't break the game. That's it. The thread was about liking to face this kind of models, which is entirely subjective. I don't, regardless of balance, but I compromise because one of those things I can bear, a full army is just something I'm not interested to experience.


Hmm. . .
 Blackie wrote:
I hate playing against LoWs of any kind, no matter what. . .

That didn't come across as "I'm totally fine with it."


Quote the rest of that paragraph after where you cut if off. Don't be disingenuous.

I don't really understand why a handful of posters are trying to play some weirdly petty gotcha game with Blackie's subjective opinion of not enjoying playing against Big Models, but who will play against them nonetheless...

A single Big Model (Gorkanaut, Knights specifically) are usually fine for... Let's say a roughly casual TAC list. Whole armies of Big Models stray in to skew lists, where it takes tuned-up lists to handle them. For example, Nids or Eldar or the other top armies, they can handle those armies without specifically building to handle them.

Lower tier armies even in casual-er game settings may struggle against Skew of any kind if they have a TAC list.

Not all TAC are created equal.

That's an external balance problem without Knights existing to begin with.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Not a huge fan of 500~ point models as I feel it really turns the game into worked through statistics. People will no doubt say that's always the case - but even with degrading profiles, there's a huge difference between such a model being alive or not. You get turns where you blow them up, you get turns you do no damage at all. It feels very much in the hands of the dice rather than player decisions.

As said - not all TAC lists are created equal. If your whole army can go punch T7, T8, reasonableish save, then that's fine. Its fairly easy I think though to have a list where large chunks just don't. Especially if its a middle of the road sort of thing rather a tuned up GT winning list.

Not really sure why Knights upset me in a way that say a 10 man brick of Terminators doesn't - and in terms of the game, the terminators might arguably be better right now. Maybe its just the feeling that killing 2-3 terminators is something in a way that doing 6-8 wounds on a knight just feels kind of... incidental until it isn't.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






^Yeah this is why I've always thought that being able to target locations on a Superheavy would have been so much better for their integration in 40K. Like imagine if you could target and knock out a particularly nasty arm weapon, or heavily damage the legs of a CC oriented Knight, making it take longer to get to you and giving your troops more time to eventually bring it down. This would give so much more texture to the battle when facing them.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in ca
Perfect Shot Ultramarine Predator Pilot






@EviscerationPlague

Of course! That's sort of what I was getting at, that the concept of a TAC list, and what it's capable of, varies between factions. It's a question that's a little too broad in 40k's current landscape to give a direct answer, I feel.

One TAC list may be able to protect it's heavy weaponry well enough to bring it to bear for a turn or two against a single big nasty target, but won't have enough to deal with several big nasties. Then you're left with middling shot profiles that might not cut it. Another list, another story all together.

At least, this is with my own perception of what a TAC list is. A 'balanced' list, containing a variety of different tools, that doesn't skew hard in to one or another.

@Tyel, Insectum

Largely agreed with these ideas. Perhaps taking an idea from Warmachine and Hordes. Their Jacks and Beasts have a very simple location-based damage system, but the impacts can be large. Most attacks in the games, their damage is randomly applied to their damage zones, whereas there's a unique rule that allows the attacker to pick one of the damage zones to apply the damage in to. That could even differentiate Tactical Marines with Heavy/Special weapons and Devastators, for example. Allow the Devastators to pick out a part to hit when damage is applied, rather than it being random location.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/17 21:01:07


 Rippy wrote:
When you lose to a 7 year old, it's wise to not come and admit it and then try to blame the armies


Skaven - 4500
OBR - 4250
- 6800
- 4250
- 2750 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: