Tamwulf

Any words on extra tables yet?

Oh, I don't know. Take a look at the Caladus Grav Tank. BS 2+, T 7, 3+/5++, Fly, ignores heavy weapon penalty, very friendly damage table, Twin Illistrus Accelerator Cannon: Range 60", heavy 8, S8 AP-3, D d3, and Twin Lastrum Bolt Cannon, 36", Heavy 6, S6 AP -2 D 1. Then the Gravitic Backwash: All units charging subtract 2 from the roll. 210 points. Best tank in 30K, and looks like best tank in 40K too. The 30K jet bikes with the big guns and lance don't seem to be as good as the 40K version with the Hurricane Bolters. The Ventariu Custodes (new jump pack guys) have an 18" Pistol2, S6 AP-2 D2. The buckler allows them to ignore a -1 AP value (if a weapon has an AP of -1, a model with a buckler treats it as AP 0 instead). Pretty good for jump pack infantry that can "deepstrike".

From the GW Community Page Custodes Beta rules for all the 30K units for 40K. Now ya'll can feel the OP of the Custodes in 40K!

What are the physical sizes of the objective markers? And if it explodes, do we measure from the edge of the objective marker, or from the closest model part of the objective to the unit? How big is the alter in the middle of the table? Can it be any piece of terrain, or are their limits to its size? Looks fun!

Will we be using the new Beta Rule for Bolters during the League?

The real question, this is a beta rule, so are we going to use it? Are we going to allow it in the Escalation League?

Now I have to rethink Marneus Calgar in Terminator Armor vs. Gravis Armor... Oh, and now I want to use Sternguard and Centurians... maybe even a Storm Raven...

I could buy this, except once the mold is made and paid for, it's making money every time someone orders "Blood Angels Upgrade kit" or "Phobos Pattern Bolters". There is nothing that prevented FW from making these like, two years ago. /shrug

I'm confused by this move. Last year, Forge World [big bad swear word] canned a ton of 30K/40K bits, and said they were "streamlining the catalog", now this? I'm glad we're getting optional bits and all, but...

Looking for a 750 point week 2 game on 1/18, 1/19, or 1/20.

Anyone up for a game this weekend at 750? I still need to get in my game for the week. Saturday would be best, Sunday will work too.

At the dawn of 8th edition, it was postulated that the best Space Marine army was a mix of old and new stuff. So two units of Intersessors walking up the board, supported by two Tactical Squads in a Razorback, and the five man squad is maxed out with special weapons. The Razorback has TLLC. Throw in Bobby G with Hellblasters as a support, and then whatever else you want. Stormravens were used as support too. Then Stormravens/Stormtalons became all the rage, then nerfs to all that, etc. etc. Right now, a pure Primaris force is at a severe disadvantage. It just does not have the proper units to make them worthwhile. They lack some kind fo cheap transport like a Rhino, they lack a dedicated close combat unit, and they are lacking in squad options. An Intersessor Squad needs the melta/plasma/flamer special weapon that Tactical Squads have access to. They should at least be able to take a Hellblaster Plasma. You'll have to go with good old plain Jane Space Marines in a combined arms force. The upside: It's not an extra detachment (unless you want to make it one). The downside: not all Primaris models. Rumor has it that sometime this spring, a Primaris Codex will drop with some new units in it. I hope for a cheap transport and dedicated close combat unit. Even if it's only bolt pistols and chainswords, I'd be happy. Reavers just don't cut it (did you see what I did there?). Or Reviers could cut it if they got access to power swords, p-fists, flamers, combat shields, etc. etc. It would not bother me at all if Primaris basically received all the Space Marine toys, but "Supersized". The Space Marines are dead. All hail the Space Marines!

The Assault variant for the Hellblasters is -6" of range and -1S over the rapid fire version. So you give up 6" of range that you will then have to make up with by rolling a 6 when you advance. Over a 30" move from 30" to 15": 24"-30": 1 Rapid Fire shot, full BS 0 Assault shots 24"-18": 1 rapid fire shot, full BS, 2 Assault shots, -1 BS with an advance 18"-15": 1 Rapid Fire shot, full BS 2 Assault shots, -1 BS with an advance >15": 2 Rapid Fire shots, full BS, 2 Assault shots, -1 BS with an advance You'll get one extra shot with the assault version of the guns while advancing, and hoping you roll 6" for that advance. All those shots will be at -1 BS and -1 S. To me, Hellblaster squads, it's not worth it upgrading (paying points) for assault weapons that have range, BS, and S penalties just so you can move an extra d6" and shoot. Plus, as you move closer to the enemy, it allows them to get into close combat with you, and these guys are not a close combat unit. YMMV, so take the assault version and see if they are worth it for your playstyle and army. I'd love to hear actual results instead of theory and math hammer! As an aside, last week, my Gravis Captain had no problem getting into my opponent's deployment zone by turn five, even after not moving for a turn and flighting in multiple close combats. The captain has 12" pistol 3, so that's 6 pistol shots and 5 powerfist attacks in melee (I kept forgetting the pistol shots...). @paxmiles Can't believe you are actually comparing Tau stuff to Space Marine stuff. LOL Apples and Oranges!

Things are Looking Up Fluff for week 2 of the Escalation League

Lyraeus, I think you give GW far too much credit for rules writing and play testing. I've heard the argument before about "Tournament level players play testing" and I've always asked "Oh yeah? Who?" To my knowledge, GW has never published a list or said who "they" were. No one has ever stepped forward to say "Yeah, I play tested for GW". I do know that some GW guys from the rules studio showed up at Adepticon last year, and they were keenly interested in the non-ITC 40K and AoS tournaments. Talking to the guys that ran the event, the GW guys requested a copy of all the army lists and results (and were given them). They chatted with a lot of the players, and even talked about how certain armies are fun to play, and others not so fun. Couple months later, FAQ comes out, and Deepstrike/Reserves are changed, Bugs get the Nerf bat, and Command Points change. I 100% believe all those changes came from what the GW staff saw at Adepticon, and had nothing to do with "external playtesters". We are starting to see the GW guys show up at more and more events, which is awesome and I'm glad GW is reengaging the gaming community.

Soup already? Makes me sad. 😞

Had a few people ask about my Ultra Ultramarines (as I like to call them). It's a tint painting technique. Loosely referred to as Candy Apple Read or Ghost Tinting. This method requires an airbrush (though you can get similar results with a brush, but it's far, far harder). Undercoat the model black. This is important as the metallic flake in metallic paints has to be able to reflect as brightly as possible. Then, I start with a dark silver metallic. Vallejo Gun Gray the whole model. Next, we start with "semi-zenethal highlighting". Mix some Vallejo Air Silver in with the gun gray, about 50/50, and shoot the model from the top down. This is also an OSL kinda technique where you can decide where the light source is coming from and spray from that direction. Let that all dry, then hit the model with pure silver this time from above. Basically, the bright silver areas are where the light is hitting the most. Let that dry completely. For the next step, you can either varnish the model for oil pin washing, or just be really careful and do line washing (paint the wash where you want it, NOT all over the model). Try to use a dark color in the final color you are using. In my case, I used Druchi Violet GW wash, but not black (unless you are doing a "Ghost Tint Black" scheme, which, come to think of it, could be really cool if you could find the tint color for it...). Let it dry, and now for the fun step. I used Tamiya Clear Blue, though Badger makes a paint line called Ghost Tint that does the same thing. The paint is translucent; it tints the colors underneath the paint. I use about 70% Clear Blue/30% Tamiya Thinner and spray at about 25 psi. One thin coat all over the model. Then I let it sit overnight. Next day, another clear blue layer, wait a day, another clear blue layer. By the third layer, it's about the blue I want. You have to wait for each layer to dry completely before adding another layer. This is critical. Each layer has to dry completely or it does some really weird things to the color. That's my base layer. After that, it's add the details, decals, paint the bolters, etc. etc. and Bob's your Uncle. It's a cool trick to pull off and results in a nice, shiny metallic looking Space Marine.

You are looking at the game as a binary state, one in which you must win, or you lose, and by saying "play to lose", you are reinforcing the WAAC argument. If I am not playing to win, then I am playing to lose. This is a false argument. Others look at it as a chance to meet new people, have a beer, throw some dice, talk about football while moving little toy soldiers around on a make believe battlefield. For them, playing the game is what matters, not the W/L record. If a player wants to win, that's fine. They should be able to recognize that their perspective on the game is not the same as others, and those others have an equal right to play and enjoy the game too. I am much more favorable to a tournament that encourages competitiveness through more than a W/L record like using painting, sportsmanship, handicapping, etc. etc. Competition really brings the ugly out in a lot of people. Have you ever played in a tournament where the W/L record was disregarded for the overall winner? They are some of the best events I have ever attended. The stress of winning the game just goes away, and you can freely make mistakes, take nonoptimized lists, and have fun. WAAC players treat such games/tournaments with disdain and anathema, boycotting the game and trying to convince others how bad they are. They can only see the binary state of W/L, and when you remove that, they don't know what to do. Anyways, this is all just conjecture and opinion. /shrug If I want to play, then I have to accept that others play this game for different reasons then my own, and if I can't handle it, then I won't play. I'm just trying to say that there is more to 40K then W/L and trying to win all the time. I'm not pointing any fingers, not trying to slander or slam anyone, cast disparaging remarks, etc. etc. This is just a good topic to discuss and see what others think about playing 40K. However, the purpose of this thread was about painting, and I think we've derailed it enough, eh? 😉

In the old Grand Tournament days of GW, the overall winner of a tournament had a composite score based on Painting, Sportsmanship, and Generalship. It was around 50% Sportsmanship, 30% Painting, and 20% W/L record. GW recognized the WAAC attitude as far back as the early 90's and attempted to dissuade and/or limit its impact. Unfortunately, a group of players circumnavigated this by deciding before hand which one of them they wanted to win, and then gave low painting and low sportsmanship scores to everyone but the people in their circle who received the highest scores. It's an absurdly low number of people (like 8 out of 64) that can skew the numbers enough such that they can decide who will win the tournament. Then the GT's went out of style, and the idea of sportsmanship and painting became less and less valuable until they where dropped altogether, and only your W/L record matters, and not only a win, but how much did you win by. The overall winner of an ITC tournament is not only the player with the best W/L record, but the one with the highest win spread. Thus, encouraging a WAAC mentality, where how you play, what your models look like, and how you act towards your opponent are disregarded. Only crushing them and maximizing your Victory Points matter.

This is not true. Not all players that participate in a tournament want to "win" the tournament. They want to compete, that want to show off painting skills, they want to have fun, they are there to play a game with friends, etc. etc. The attitude that "Everyone that plays in a tournament wants to win" is a false assumption. That might be why some of the players are there, but not all. Now, for the ones that want to win... if that is the only reason they are playing, then it's a text book definition of Win At All Costs, because to them, painting doesn't matter unless it's required, and then the painting is at the bare minimum, sportsmanship doesn't matter, unless it's carefully spelled out and required to win, "fun" is winning the game, not sharing a joke, or being "loose" with the rules. WAAC drops from the tournament after the first loss. WAAC demands an opponent when they get a bye (because it's a "low level win" and they can't maximize victory points for ties later). WAAC players demand to be shown all "sketchy rules", and they constantly call over the judge for arbitration instead of solving rules disputes between the players. WAAC is the reason why we have "casual" players, and why they are called "Filthy Casuals" because they don't play to win.

Haven't seen one of these yet, so post here if you are looking for an opponent for the 40K Escalation League, post here. I'm looking for a 500 point game this weekend, Friday after 4:00pm, Saturday or Sunday (Jan 11th-13th). I'm planning on being at WoW on Sunday. Would prefer a game in Vancouver (Mythic Realms, Fate and Fury, or Dice Age) over traveling down to Portland area.

So guess we jumped straight from "trying out new things and exploring different army builds" straight to WAAC? I'm sorry I brought a Gravis Captain and promise never to do it again! Wow, never knew that the Gravis Captain was such a bad choice. I'll bring a regular Captain with jump pack, Storm Shield and Thunderhammer next time. Smash Captain, right?

@MexicanNinja I beg your pardon, just read the FAQ again. I disagree about your comment about DoK.

Models look great, but I have no faith in GW balancing AoS armies anymore after the Daughters of Khane. A note about Inspired Presence- you have to declare that during the Hero Phase and you can't use whatever else command ability your general has. It's not like 40K where you can just spend a CP and use the stratagem when you need it. Unless the new Goblins have that ability?

I thought about using the MC Powersword on the Gravis Captain during two phases: Once against an Ork Boys Mob, and once against the Boss Nob. Relevant stats on the Captain: WS: 2+, S: 4 A: 5, rerolling 1's to hit (and with the LT close enough, 1's on wounding). Boltstorm Gauntlets: S 8 AP -3 D d3 User -1 to hit MC Sword: S: 4 AP -3 D 2 For the Boys, T4, and 6++. The Boss: 5++. The AP on both weapons is the same, and the Orks basically received no armor save. Vs. the Boys, I was hitting on a 2+, wounding on a 4+ with the sword, 2 damage each wound, or hitting on 3+, wounding on 2+, and while the damage is d3, each boy has only 1 wound. So Boltstorm Gauntlets used. Vs. the Boss: T5, (or was it 6? Doesn't change the wound roll). Sword: 2+ hit, 5+ wound, 2 damage. Gauntlets: 3+ hit, 3+ wound, d3 damage. Again, Boltstorm Gauntlets are the better choice. The only time I'd probably ever consider using the sword on the Gravis Captain would be against < T4 targets with low wounds. Vs T4 and above, it's the Boltstorm Gauntlets all the way. The other thing I learned about Ultramarines: They can fall back and shoot. Heroic Intervention is a thing, and there isn't any "locked in combat" anymore. Gotta remember that. Oh, and Ork shooting has gotten much, much better after the Codex.