AbusePuppy

Yeah but then they make the Pyrovore worse and get all confused about why people aren't buying their sweet model. Rule do actually kinda matter.

The Knight is actually a bit taller than the Stompa and roughly as wide. I haven't handled a Mecha-Dread in person so I couldn't compare there. The Orkiest way to do it would be to buy one Knight (or Leviathan) kit and one Stompa and combine the two at random. :P

I was just picking an example off the top of my head- there's also the Heldrake formation that lets them start on the table (and perform a pregame Vector Strike), the Riptide one that lets them reroll Nova attempts as well as other stuff, etc.

Moreover, many of the Apocalypse formations refer to rules that don't exist in 40K, like strategy points, scheduled breaks, etc. You certainly could modify them so that they functioned, but those are pretty clear indicators that they aren't really intended to be part of the normal game.

Introducing Apoc Formations to fix the problem with superheavies is  taking one problematic element in the game and adding another problem to try and solve it, which is rather backwards thinking.

Tooling up IG guys to do fancy things always sounds good, but then they get shot by two Bolters, fail a morale check, and suddenly your costs-more-than-a-Tactical Squad is booking it for the table edge. Or they assault something Sergeant Fist gets challenged and either A, dies to a chainsword or B, declines and also dies to a chainsword. Or their ride blows up and they all die instantly. Or their ride doesn't blow up and you realize you have to disembark and stand out in the open for a full turn before you can do anything. Or... well, you get the picture.

Just take the Meltaguns or Flamers. The biggest advantage of IG is that their guys are cheap and completely expendable.

Functionally they are relatively similar- they involve taking a certain combination of units and grant several abilities to the units in the formation.

However, there are some important differences in them. The Apocalypse Formations have a number of additional special rules attached to them involving reserves, unit combinations, etc. (For example, many Apocalypse formations combine different units into squads, even when they couldn't normally do so.)

The Apocalypse formations are also balanced very differently, which shouldn't be surprising; they typically hand out much larger bonuses to normal units, since these bonuses are needed in order to be effective on the huge battlefields they fight in. Witness the Wraithknight formation, which adds the number of models in the formation to their movement rate, charge range, WS, and BS. Even just a basic formation of them means that they are threatening pretty reliable first-turn charges (15" move, 2d6+3" charge range) and are suddenly WS/BS7.

Yeah, gargoyles are a pain, but I ran 40-60 of them alongside 60+ 'Gants quite a number of times and didn't time out on games particularly often. It's definitely doable.

Skyblight is probably the strongest of those, because it lets you bring more of two of the best things in the codex (FMCs and Gargoyles) as well as shoring up your scoring potential. Artillery one is pretty decent and does help with some issues, although the Warrior tax is annoying it's probably something you'd end up paying anyways in order to hold backfield Synapse. In both cases the real advantage is that you're getting extra "free" slots more so than any abilities that are part of the dataslate.

I did specify "single" MC. The whole point is that, if taking Pax's strategy and hanging back to force the Knights to Charge you in Cover, the Knight Player can arrange things so that there never is a fair fight, because the Nids have completely surrendered the initiative.

Right, but I'm just saying that comparing a single MC to a Knight is silly- it's like saying "there's no way a single Guardsman can bring down Draigo!" Well duh, one of them costs a lot more than the other, so it only makes sense. If you compare more equal point values, Nids actually come out pretty okay.

I will agree that playing defensively is probably not a good plan, though- Nids don't really have a good defensive posture. Making good use of FMC maneuverability to snipe and selectively engage the Knights, combined with screening from small bugs, will go a long ways, and I5 on the relevant units (Harpy, Crone, Tyrant) likewise helps. Amusingly enough, a Knight would actually be better off without its weapon when fighting a Harpy/Crone- S10 will instagib them, but the Destroyer table just causes d3+1 wounds most of the time.

There isn't a single Nid MC that I wouldn't Charge with an undamaged Knight, Cover or no. A Trygon is probably the worst-case scenario, and even one of those doesn't kill a Knight in a single round on average, while a Charging Knight does kill a Trygon in one round on average, especially if the Trygon's taken a couple of Wounds from Battle Cannon fire already.

I can't imagine how you would get anything like a fair fight, given that a Knight costs more than 100pts more than even the most tricked-out of MCs. Against a pair of Carnifexes (240-270pts, depending) should cause ~5HP of damage to it- a Harpy in combination with one of the other fighty MCs should likewise cause enough damage to bring it down, or nearly so. (Carnifexes on the charge will be exceptionally unpleasant due to large numbers of S9 HoW hits.)

Nids in their basic build actually fair relatively well against Knights.

I just see no Void Shields as the logical counterpart to no ranged D, which is what really makes shields at all necessary. Defense Networks was less a balance issue and more a logistical one; most tournaments have pre-placed terrain, getting one fort down is enough headache already, try 4+ of them.

I think that fix is too light. Even with the 2nd roll nerfed to 4+, Seer Council still won LVO.

I think the difference is that Str D has a major impact on the game, whereas Void Shields really don't. Why ban something if it's not a problem? I've seen the same argument against both defense networks and the GI.I. JOE PLAYSET/Skyshield Landing Pad, but I don't cop to it- either just let the player remove a piece of terrain to make room or make them deal with the hassle of deploying everything inside the available space.

I'm mystified how the Seerstar guy managed to win. Without Fortune, it's just a bunch of fast Terminators with weak attacks, and 25% of the time (even with two Farseers) he should've been missing Fortune. I just don't get how he didn't get rolled by someone at some point because of bad luck with rolling up/activating psychic powers.

(As far as my fix goes, keep in mind that with that version of it, a Riptide blast or some other Ignores Cover shot is just looking at punching through a 4+ (rather than a 4+ rerolled or 2+/4+), which should be doing a lot of damage.

That's probably true, we haven't had anyone super competitive bust out a LoW. I think, as best as I can figure, the least limiting, most beneficial tournament rules go something like this:

2+ re-roll nerf ala LVO (4+ on 2nd roll)

2 Codex limit ala LVO (No Primary+Ally+Inquisition+Formation+Knight+LoW)

Allow Escalation and Stronghold Assault, but no ranged weapons with D allowed (even SM can have Knights then, and everyone else has non-D options).

No defense networks (multi forts) or void shields.

No non-Escalation FW LoW.

Allow Formations (Unique) and Inquisition, but they count to two Codex limit.

Why no Void Shields? Absent apocalypse, the VSG isn't particularly powerful in my experience- you're paying 100pts for three AV12 HP. 110pts gets you two Chimeras, which have 6HP, come with guns, and are protecting two troop squads in a pretty similar way to how the VSG protects units. (Plus the Chimeras can get cover saves, are mobile, and aren't automatically negated by getting within 12".)

I don't see the problem with the defense networks, either. Barring possibly the Void Relay Network, none of them are anything resembling competitive.

The fix for 2+ with rerolls is actually a lot simpler than most people tend to think, and it requires two very small bits of errata to enact: Grimoire of True Names only affects your Daemonic save (meaning it can't get any better than a 3+ on any model except Fateweaver) and Fortune affects one type of saving throw (armor, cover, invulnerable) each time it is cast. With both of those in force, there's basically no chance that Screamerstar or Seerstar are going to dominate anything.

I will also note that the so called "compeditive" lists are really just a bunch of lists designed to specifically counter each other.

 

All-comers lists aren't extinct, they just don't appear in the tournament setting much because the kind of player that plays games with the intention of a balanced and fun against all opponents, isn't welcome amongst the tournament players.

Two things here. One, that isn't true at all- a good competitive list usually has to be prepared to deal with lots of different kinds of threats. Unsurprisingly, most of them will focus on making sure they have answers to the most powerful expected opponents (Riptides/Broadsides, deathstars, Wave Serpents, bike marines, etc) but a list that comes only expecting to have to win against any of those is a list that will do poorly at any large tournament. You WILL end up fighting things outside the usual suspects, and if you aren't ready for that, you WILL lose.

Also, you seem to be using a very different definition of "all-comers list" than I usually see. A "take all comers" list is one designed to be able to handle a wide variety of enemies, with tools to deal with each of them- generally speaking, this is how tournament lists are designed. it has nothing to do with making the game "balanced and fun against all opponents," because there's no such thing as a list that makes the game fun. (That's dependent on the players themselves.) I'm also confused by why you think that a particular list would be "unwelcome against the tournament players" because, in talking to other competitive players, I have never heard of a legal list that would be unwelcome. If you aren't cheating or intentionally mangling the rules, you have the right to bring any list you choose to take.

I've been playing every week with everything allowed for two months and it really isn't that big of a deal (though no one has broken out a Revenant). The players using super heavies and big forts have lost most of their games actually. I've been loving the pace of rules releases, and not necessarily knowing them all; how long has is been since that was true? It reminds of 3rd ed when you didn't know what random White Dwarf article your opponents list came out of and you had to learn on the wing.

My experience has been very much the opposite- a well-constructed list with a superheavy in it will roll over most comparable lists without. Not every time, but more often than not. The Warhound, Revenant, and Transcendent C'tan in particular can basically only be dealt with by armies specialized for fighting them- and even these often fall short of the mark, if the Escalation player knows what they're doing.

The Dakkajet is pretty solid right now, it's arguably one of the best anti-infantry airplanes and can do a reasonable job on light tanks as well. The two Bomber variants both kinda suck, though.

2: How did you conclude that non-walker vehicles can't take impact tests?

Agreed on both points. Impact Tests are not Dangerous Terrain tests, even though they work very similarly, and if you manage to survive the fall, you can embark on a vehicle.

Jumping down- and thus incurring an Impact test- is a part of movement and can only be done when the model is moving. You can thus do it during the movement phase, when Running, when Falling Back (in fact, you may be forced to do it here), etc, etc, but you can't simply elect to do so in the middle of the enemy's shooting phase.

KFF still affects units, not models.

Big Mek (with KFF or not, depending on how you're using them) + Lootas + Big Gunz + 2x Shoota Boy Mobs is a really solid ally slot. Don't worry too hard about Shootas vs Sluggas in the modeling sense, most people can't tell the difference anyways. Oh, and scrape up the points for Big Shootas, they're handy.

There actually are no rules for a superheavy walker moving through terrain- they have the Move Through Cover rule, but in 6th edition there aren't any actual units with a 12" move that are slowed by terrain, so there's no guideline for how to resolve it. One could presume that the 5th edition system (make a normal DT test and double the distance) is still in force, but that's really just a guess- it's just as arguable that they aren't slowed by it at all.

Now if I can just get people to stop spelling my last name "Morgon" I'll be all set. :P Although that does make me sound pretty sweet, like some sort of robotic overlord.

"ALL BOW BEFORE MOR-GON! ALL KNEEL TO MOR-GON! THE POWER OF MOR-GON IS INFINITE AND CANNOT BE CONTESTED! MOR-GON WILL RULE OVER YOUR PUNY WORLD!"

Realistically, the MCs that are likely to be assaulting it are Flyrants, Harpies, Crones, and Wraithknights- things that are as fast or faster than it, and all of them get to swing before it does. If the Knight player is playing aggressively- which they pretty much have to, as their shooting is rather mediocre- it's very possible to support the assault with other MCs thanks to a Harpy's Screech, as mentioned, and if you can get three or more such units into assault with it, it's pretty much guaranteed dead. However, you've got to be careful of that Str D explosion when it dies.

I remain unclear if vertical movement is counted for skimmers. I've heard arguments that vertical movement isn't counted for jump infantry, and they have very similar wording of rules, though I don't have any quotes that specifically address this one or the jump infantry one.

Vertical movement is only counted when moving into the upper levels of ruins, essentially, which in this case applies.

 

As for impact tests, two notes. First, impact tests specifically ignore modifiers for jump and jet pack units, it would be reasonable, though not covered, to extend this to skimmers. Second, failing an impact test as a vehicle just means immobilized and 1 HP loss. Impact tests deny armor saves, but invulnerable saves could still be taken (like flicker fields or a PFG located at the base of the building).

Keep in mind that the only vehicles that are able to take Impact tests are walkers- there is no situation in which a skimmer can be forced (or choose to) take one.

 

As for void shields, there are some ways to manipulated those a bit. In example, a void shield on the tower would effectively cover the walk way too, as D blast weapons would be hard pressed to hit the walkway and not the tower. Still, each void shield is very expensive and one of the very valuable features of this fortification is it's inexpensive cost. At stock price, I'm paying an average of 55pts per AV14 building section. I plan to do trials with the fortress before deciding which sections to void shield, as I'm not sure which sections will be targeted the most or if weapons are enough of a threat to really pay 25pts per shield

If you want to get good mileage out of your PLAYSET, make sure you're taking advantage of the features of each of the sections. The walkway has six fire points on the front- find a unit with enough guns to use a significant number of them and give it the Ammo Dump upgrade so they can reroll 1s. (This is particularly helpful with Plasma, obviously.) In my experience the Icarus bunker is the most commonly targeted section of the PLAYSET, since it presents a major threat to flyers; a Void Shield there wouldn't be inappropriate, though the Krakstorm bunker also tends to make a very tempting target. Having an Escape Hatch somewhere on the PLAYSET can also add a lot of flexibility to it, since it can give you significantly more "reach" than people might assume in terms of spreading forces across the battlefield. The 10pt upgrade to allow firing with all sections of the PLAYSET if any one is occupied is also well worth its cost- generally, by turn 2-3 you've lost enough models that you can't hold onto all the sections easily.

With Init 4, very few MCs will swing ahead of them. And not many weapons will punch through AV13 at initiative- even MCs are generally only going to be doing 2-4 HP to one of them before getting completely mulched by that Str D sword.

Keep in mind that the skimmer would have a hell of a time getting down if you put it up there, as 14" from the ground is more than you can move normally- you'd have to be Fast and go Flat Out (or move down to one of the lower levels of the PLAYSET to get off.) Standing on top is also pretty much always fatal if someone wrecks the tower, as you're taking an Impact test with a -4 penalty.

And yeah, the G.I. JOE PLAYSET is absolutely enormous. Even the bunkers, merely small buildings under the rules, are easily 10" across.

You're going to want to convert it to add a door to each of the sections- the stock model only has a single entry point for the entire fortification, meaning it can take as much as four full turns of movement to get all the way to the battlements on the far end from there.

For clarification..can we still manual fire the weapons at different targets? or would the "one model,one target rule apply?

All weapons that a particular unit manually fires will have to shoot at their target, as usual- you treat those weapons just as you would a weapon the model is carrying, for the most part.

The other interesting one in the SA book is that models on the battlements cannot fire emplaced weapons because they are considered being in ruins, not in the building. The building is the one with the emplaced weapons.

Do remember, however, that a unit on the battlements can fire any weapon emplacements (such as a Quad Gun or such) that happen to be mounted on the battlements.

Models on the battlements can fire weapons on the battlements just fine- they ARE part of the building, but when on them, you are not EMBARKED on the building. Important distinction.

As for the issue with the Aquilla's missiles... yeah, sadly they don't really work very well. You can probably hash out some kind of solution with your group, but RAW the missiles basically can't ever be fired.

It's really not clear at all. My guess would be that no, you can't- it says you can direct attacks against it, but there's nothing giving you permission to actually charge it. (This would mean that you would have to engage another enemy unit, presumably the one manning it, and them aim some of your attacks at it- remember, since it's not an enemy unit, you are allowed to move into base contact with it via pile-in moves.)

Definitely #3. The normal rules prevent a unit from shooting at multiple targets, but there are plenty of exceptions to those rules, and buildings are one of them- Stronghold Assault explicitly specifies that you check the nearest unit from each gun individually. However, the building is still only one firer, since no particular exception is given there, so all of the weapon fire is resolved simultaneously against its various targets.

Sure, you just lose out on a point each of AV, BS, WS, and I.