pretre Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 Having a good mix of terrain on all tables is kind of important in 40k. :) 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torg Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 Don't let the internet decide what games you play. Let your friends and gaming group decide. currently my regular game is RPGs… with friends :). To war-game - none of my immediate friends play at all. So to play 40k regularly it is me finding a new regular group or go down to WoW or somewhere. I did go down to Wow late last year and played some of the new edition and had fun. Since that time 3 more supplemental rules have come out (maybe more - i lost track) … essentially upping the learning curve time sink and $$ lol ... in 4 months lol. -d Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 currently my regular game is RPGs… with friends :). To war-game - none of my immediate friends play at all. So to play 40k regularly it is me finding a new regular group or go down to WoW or somewhere. I did go down to Wow late last year and played some of the new edition and had fun. Since that time 3 more supplemental rules have come out (maybe more - i lost track) … essentially upping the learning curve time sink and $$ lol ... in 4 months lol. -d Not really. I mean, yeah they came out. But I have 100% confidence that if you want to get a game in at WOW, you can get one without having to worry about that. And even if you wanted to play a game with them, I'm sure someone would just explain them before the game and you would be fine. There is no reason that you should let any of the current releases change anything. They are just books and models. You don't play against books and models; you play against fellow gamers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 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. And that silliness is kind of what I was trying to highlight in Pax's post: He was recommending a strategy that more or less forced the Nid Player to rely on Model-to-Model comparison instead of Point-for-Point comparison, because he was letting the Knight Player pick all the fights. Over in the Knight Thread, I pointed out that 380 Points for a pair of Trygons pretty reliably wrecks a 370-ish Point Knight, tho probably at the cost of one of the Trygons, making that a fairly reasonably balanced match. Fexen, Crones, and Tyrants are all good in their way here, too. The fact that Knights don't have any access to Ignores Cover and rely on Blasts rather than high RoF Weapons also means that Venomthropes are pretty awesome against them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 And that silliness is kind of what I was trying to highlight in Pax's post: He was recommending a strategy that more or less forced the Nid Player to rely on Model-to-Model comparison instead of Point-for-Point comparison, because he was letting the Knight Player pick all the fights. Over in the Knight Thread, I pointed out that 380 Points for a pair of Trygons pretty reliably wrecks a 370-ish Point Knight, tho probably at the cost of one of the Trygons, making that a fairly reasonably balanced match. Fexen, Crones, and Tyrants are all good in their way here, too. The fact that Knights don't have any access to Ignores Cover and rely on Blasts rather than high RoF Weapons also means that Venomthropes are pretty awesome against them. At least someone gets what I'm saying. But to abuse puppy, yeah, you are letting the knights pick the battles. They could stick to long range, but in doing so, they really only dish out a single wound per 370pts. A single wound that doesn't deny cover. So an MC in area terrain is probably 5+. A venom thrope within 6" is a 3+ cover. That might be fine in mission where the objectives happen to be stacking the knight player's favor, like The Scouring with the 4 and the 3 VP objectives on your side, but without lucky objectives, the knight player will likely need to come to you in order to win, even against tyranids. I will also note that with the huge base size, you should be able to "fence" the knights into a spot by spacing the MCs so they can only charge one model if going closest to closest points and they can't move through the fence without doing so. The flyer approach also should work. I've had no end of troubles with daemon FMCs that fly near the baneblade on their turn, I fail to ground them, then they land and charge on their next turn. Even if the knight moves 12" away, the grounded FMC is still going the jump MC 12" in the movement phase. Even if grounded, again, 1 wound with that main cannon even against a harpy or hive crone. Yeah, they could hit it with a bunch of knights, but if the hive crone is killed with ~1200-1600pts of shooting in a turn, do you really feel like it failed? Or does the hive take advantage of that wonderfully engineered distraction.... I will note that the knights have hammer, so the hive crone and harpy could still die to those before getting to swing if they let the knights charge them. These units really need to assault first. Anyway, the idea isn't to defeat the knight with just a single MC in assault, but if you swing first, you should be dealing pretty impressive damage with minimal effort. If you die, no shame losing to a model double your points provided you dish out some damage. If you live, try it again. Here, math. Stock carnifex: 4 defensive attacks at strength 9, you hit twice, you glance/pen. Similar odds if you use the double strength due to the re-rolls to pen. That's 1-4 HP of damage with just the single glance/pen in assault (1/3 pens explode due to smash AP2, adding an extra D3 damage per). If you add Crushing claws, it goes up to 2-8 HP of damage. If you alter the odds to hit, you could further increase this one. Yeah, fexen probably dies after, but a melee fex is sooo cheap compared to that knight. Oh, and another one I've been looking at for this particular threat: Run solo Tyrant Guards with crushing claws. Cheap, should still get to swing if charged through cover, even if simultaneously. Anyway, knight list is just like the paladin spam list of 5th. It allows the player a minimal investment in models and also grants them a functioning list, even if one that is counter-able by most other armies. With IG, same tactic, but an aegis line (or baracades or tank traps, just need that 4+ cover) with camo+demo vets. 3+ cover all with nasty AT melee weapons (melta bombs). Yeah big blast hits harder with that unit, but we should be able to shrug much of it off with the cover saves and proper model spacing. At range, we can get by the invulnerable issue via a mix of direct fire and indirect fire AT weapons mounted on a skyshield land pad or hidden out of TLOS. In vulnerable save only affects a single arc, so barrage weapons which always hit side arc* and direct fire weapons shooting from the (likely) front arc. It's true, he could just march with his side arc in front, but then it's only AV12, so he can get much easier glanced and pened by lascannons and missile launchers. *issue here, doesn't say which side for barrage...which matters with ion shields. Eldar or Dark eldar will probably be able to direct fire two arcs of fire without issue due to their mobility and the lance weapons don't care if they hit front or side. TAU have no end of solutions here - the knight player will be forced to rush assault with TAU, so the Onager fist and EMP grenades are actually very viable options against this particular opponent, as the TAU should be in cover when assaulted, so should get to swing first or at the same time. Orks and CSM will be interesting. Lots of ways these battle could go due to the extreme variance of their unit selections. Both of the escalation super-heavy options would be really nasty if they decided to just wait in cover for the knights to assault them.... The stompa player at I:1 might want to force the knight player to be only able to assault with a single knight at a time, but if properly loaded with mek boyz, the stompa will probably survive 1 on 1 matches with knights if they strike simultaneously. Daemons will be penalized for overpriced MCs, as the D melee weapons really cut through the FMC durability should they make assault. On the other hand, if the daemons happen to roll the armorbane gift on one of their FMCs (like the thirster), the Knight player may need to surrender early on... Knights are a cakewalk for necrons... Marines will probably have the most trouble, if not already relying on cover instead of armor saves. Bike armies will be fine at range, but you'll want to keep it at range, as melee will really suck as the bikers don't have enough melee AT options (1x unwieldy MB or S8 fist per squad won't cut it). Grav weapons are all sort of fail, as they can't imobilize the knights and require 6s for a single HP of damage. Plasma and multi-meltas should be fine on the side and rear arcs (staying at max range, not rapid or Melta ranges), but pure bike forces will likely see LR vs LR type game (low damage output on land raiders, bikes Vs the knights will likely be similar due to similar speeds and the desire to stay out of assault....) Knight on knight action would be very interesting, as the game would become entirely about the knight's allies, luck, and critical failures being exploited. -Pax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casiarius Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 I'm just getting back IN to the hobby in this environment, so It's safe to say that it hasn't scared me away entirely. I like the variety of stuff that's available. In today's rich-but-unbalanced environment, you may need to negotiate to decide what's fair, but I'd rather have that than the opposite. For those who remember early 3rd Edition... a dry, sterile environment where nobody had fun special units or rules. Still, I would prefer to opt out of a lot of the superheavy madness. My ideal 40K game is a skirmish between infantry units, not a game of Epic played with 28mm miniatures. Dataslates can still have a big effect on small games though.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chappy Posted March 2, 2014 Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 Though I really like Escalation and Stronghold Assault, I can understand why people are a wee bit perterbed by it. D weapons can be intimidating. My solution, Torg, is to make sure ahead of time that my expectations for a game are known. I will always let people know if I want to play a standard game or an Escalation/Stronhold Assault game. And I will be sure to ask if my opponent has Knights, Superheavys, etc. I think Pretre has it right. Your local group will always be accomidating. You will always find people who are willing to tone it down and play a standard game. Espescially in PDX and Ordo. Either way, I encourage people to not bail on the hobby, but to ask and clarify their games before hand. That's my $0.02. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottshoemaker Posted March 2, 2014 Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 Though I really like Escalation and Stronghold Assault, I can understand why people are a wee bit perterbed by it. D weapons can be intimidating. My solution, Torg, is to make sure ahead of time that my expectations for a game are known. I will always let people know if I want to play a standard game or an Escalation/Stronhold Assault game. And I will be sure to ask if my opponent has Knights, Superheavys, etc. I think Pretre has it right. Your local group will always be accomidating. You will always find people who are willing to tone it down and play a standard game. Espescially in PDX and Ordo. Either way, I encourage people to not bail on the hobby, but to ask and clarify their games before hand. That's my $0.02. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 2, 2014 Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 Did a game recently. Brought the hellhammer, an IG super heavy with a 7" S10 ap1 ignores cover blast weapon. I did destroy most of his army's threats, but I didn't have enough scoring and couldn't seem to get his IG blobs to flee off his objectives. Ultimately, my hell hammer got destroyed and he held is two starting objectives. That was game, we called it there. The hellhammer was worth 3x VP (9 HP) and his two objectives were worth another 3x VP each. I had two scoring units in my deployment zone, but nothing left (that would last) to contest any of his objectives. To be fair, it was his first game against a super heavy and one of his first games of 40k. I did certainly try to play softer than I could have, as I decided it was more important to retain new players than for me to win this game. Short term vs long term thinking. I didn't let him win, per say, but I did make a point of ensuring I kept some of his units alive which would threaten the super heavy and I made a point of keeping them close enough to threaten it. In general, there are lots of things you can do to make an already powerful super heavy more powerful. While players are not designing lists to counter super-heavies very often, I've been steering clear of those options on purpose. Game balance means more fun for me. I don't enjoy games where I cheat my opponent out of their enjoyment. -Pax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threejacks Posted March 2, 2014 Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 Seems to me that the "Large model" thing that GW is pushing could actually help new players get into the game for the reason that they can make one large purchase when army building instead of several smaller ones for what would be a similar in game point value.Now of course im speaking of the GW SH models and not the Forgeworld stuff Revenants and the like. I know from my point of view it adds a lot of flexibility with the smallish armys I have especially with the forts as now I can easily put together 1000-1500 point lists with even the small amount of models I have in my SM,Tau even CSM and my Sons DA army can even be a threat to some of my more refined Ork builds in the 1500+ point range. As to how competitive these Big masses of plastic will be in the tournament scene only time will tell but im sure it will level out throughout the rest of this year to being the usual 3-5 top armys/builds.I don't ever intend to play in any competitions beyond the clubhouse or local gameshop stuff so im not really concerned with building a hardened tourney list. Theres certainly nothing wrong at all with Coolin it on the game for a while and playing something else..thats what I did last year after having my Orks blown off the board over and over by Tau.I got my little OnG Fantasy army off the ground playing in the fall escalation event and had an awesome time!.And just yesterday my kids and I were trying out Xwing...yeah I think I know what ill be into when 40K goes south for me again,lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aldroud Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 One of my most memorable games was against Karl when I first found Ordo. He was fresh back from 'stan and brought a marine Black Templar army to face my Steel Legion army. Truth be told, it was a massacre. Karl had no AT capability and here I was rolling tanks and Chimeras in formation across the table screaming "death before dismount". It was horribly lopsided, but Karl was a great sport and we had a great time laughing at the absurdity of the situtation. Now that was a good game because we didn't take it seriously. I can really see some folks getting bent is they get surprised by an overpowering list. On the other hand, all this pregame negotiations kinda takes the game meta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 One thing I like about Flames of War: Recreating battles like we did Sunday ( Battle or Kursk) is cool because even though you know the Germans whalloped the Soviets, they basically ran outta bullets and had to retreat. But recreating what was a mismatch is still fun because its the "what if" factor. Thats why i like the alter of war missions. They are fluffy missions that make the actual armies used a little less important. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torg Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 Though I really like Escalation and Stronghold Assault, I can understand why people are a wee bit perterbed by it. D weapons can be intimidating. My solution, Torg, is to make sure ahead of time that my expectations for a game are known. I will always let people know if I want to play a standard game or an Escalation/Stronhold Assault game. And I will be sure to ask if my opponent has Knights, Superheavys, etc. I think Pretre has it right. Your local group will always be accomidating. You will always find people who are willing to tone it down and play a standard game. Espescially in PDX and Ordo. Either way, I encourage people to not bail on the hobby, but to ask and clarify their games before hand. That's my $0.02. I have no doubt about that point Chappy… my worry isn't the big stuff ( I love Apoc more than any other part of 40k)… my worry is the current rate of rule-flow coming from GW --- like I said - over 150$ in rulebooks alone have come out since my last time to play down at wow… Just books and rules… none are really army/codex specific stuff. This is kinda my reference earlier to CCG's… or even the days when we had the battle manual… compendium and the vehicle manual come out in succession… it was maddening to keep up with the rules. That is the core of my fear really - I don't really have the time to keep up with the rulebooks - less the time to read the new rules for things.. lol. -d Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torg Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 on this note — if I was ONLY really playing Apoc… what books do I really need?… (aside from the Apoc and main 40k rule book that is)... -d Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 The codex and main rulebook is all that's needed besides the Apocalypse book itself. and thats a book you can share if someone already owns it. The others are icing i guess (if you like Fetid icing on your cake. =)) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 on this note — if I was ONLY really playing Apoc… what books do I really need?… (aside from the Apoc and main 40k rule book that is)... -d Yeah, LH has it right. Apoc is pretty simple. You need the codex for your army(s), the BRB and the apoc book. You could take the SA book if you wanted additional buildings/building options, but you don't really need it. Apoc is by far more balanced than the present "normal play" 40k groups. It isn't just the escalation supplement. TAU are more balanced in apoc. Eldar are more balanced in apoc. Every army is more balanced in apoc. I will also note that being unbound by the FOC and being able to take multiple super heavies actually goes a long way to balancing 40k. Tyranids can ally too, so a lot of their issues go away. Official apoc rules don't require points to be used at all, though every apoc game I've played did use them. Don't get me wrong, apoc is a terrible game to play with dick players or people that are too competitive or just players that didn't get enough food/sleep/water. If you let it, apoc can quickly become like RISK, a game where either you have fun or you have no fun and gradually deviate to a desire to kill all the opponents in real life....40k isn't really any different, but the games are often shorter, even with very new players. -Pax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 Apoc balanced. I lol'd. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torg Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 I have always liked Apoc… big toys… big blowing up stuff. When you loose 10+ guys to a large D template its expected… and not annoying lol. -d Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 Apoc balanced. I lol'd. Have you tried it under the new apoc book? That book is certainly more balanced than the current "normal play" rules. I'm also not putting FW/apoc supplemental rules in, just talking about that apoc main book. -Pax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 So are you comparing it to 'just the rulebook' 40k as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 So are you comparing it to 'just the rulebook' 40k as well? It's not what your thinking. I haven't had time to read up on the 2 apoc expansion books. So saying they're balanced would be misleading, as I don't really know what they contain. I've glanced at the ultramarine Vs necron one. And can't seem to get a [free] copy of the GK vs CSM one. I'm not comparing FW materials, like the rules from FW books. I am comparing the FW models with rules in the apoc book. Reason is pretty simple, many of the FW rules are redundant with the Apoc rules and usually in sore need of re-writes. Many of the FW models were originally written for 4th edition and they've just been doing minor FAQ patches since. Some have currently written rules and don't really strike me as having any issues, but for a blanket statement, I wouldn't use them with apoc. It also messes with the data sheets, as thing like requiring "3+ dreadnoughts (any variant)" have entirely different meaning with FW added to the mix. Might still be fine, but they would need to be addressed on a case by case basis. I am including SA rules, datasheets and other gw supplemental rules in both apoc and in normal play. In normal play, I'm including escalation instead of apoc, that's the real difference. -Pax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 Its kinda exhausting to discuss the cross-rule mess isn't it? lol. There's a guy who set up a game on Thursday and he had to make like SIX distinctions on what his tourney is allowing just so that people who gave him a practice game would include the right stuff. hehehe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 Its kinda exhausting to discuss the cross-rule mess isn't it? lol. There's a guy who set up a game on Thursday and he had to make like SIX distinctions on what his tourney is allowing just so that people who gave him a practice game would include the right stuff. hehehe. Yeah....I'm thinking GW is trying to wear us down to the point where either it's anyone's game to bring anything, or we just start all playing with house rules and stop expecting GW to provide rules related help. -Pax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 I think GW just doesn't care about the distinctions and keeps putting out stuff because they think it is cool and will sell. :) 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbusePuppy Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.