Random 40k-specific thought thread

[Guest]

Is the joke with nurgle models having big grins that they have infectious smiles?

[Munkie]

On 4/27/2019 at 1:50 PM, paxmiles said:

Is the joke with nurgle models having big grins that they have infectious smiles?

And gut-busting laughter. 

[WestRider]

Malanthropes should be easy to get out of their forms. I mean, they are mold release agents.

[Guest]

Forgot dice recently and was at the GW store. Asked if they had any dice under $35. They actually had affordable dice:

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Citadel-Dice-Green

Whats more, these dice rolled very average. Wasn't like past GW tiny dice that roll ones more than anything, these seemed pretty average.

 

Very impressed with GW.

[WestRider]

7 hours ago, paxmiles said:

Forgot dice recently and was at the GW store. Asked if they had any dice under $35. They actually had affordable dice:

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Citadel-Dice-Green

Whats more, these dice rolled very average. Wasn't like past GW tiny dice that roll ones more than anything, these seemed pretty average.

 

Very impressed with GW.

There have been a few occasions when they've done good ones. I have a couple of sets that I got at the start of 6th or 7th that I really like. Nice square corners, large numerals, I think they were only like $12 a set or something. I was bummed when they stopped making those.

[Guest]

Wish there was an easy way to get battlescribe to filter out the INDEX options. That Warhammer legends thing is coming up and I need to make sure I have legal options for the future. That battlescribe mixes without sourcing and it's quite annoying. 

For example, I have a pair of LS Storms I've been working on. The codex only gives them a heavy bolter option, but the index gives them the standard land speeder array (Heavy bolter, Heavy flamer, Multi-Melta). No mention in battlescribe that the other options are index only. 

On 8/23/2019 at 10:04 PM, WestRider said:

There have been a few occasions when they've done good ones. I have a couple of sets that I got at the start of 6th or 7th that I really like. Nice square corners, large numerals, I think they were only like $12 a set or something. I was bummed when they stopped making those.

I think I paid $8.25 for my GW dice set. Not that many dice, but it was enough. Very generic, with basic dots for 2-6 and a skull for 1. Quite happy with them. 

[andy]

6 hours ago, paxmiles said:

Wish there was an easy way to get battlescribe to filter out the INDEX options. That Warhammer legends thing is coming up and I need to make sure I have legal options for the future. That battlescribe mixes without sourcing and it's quite annoying. 

It's indicated clearly in the OSX version -- I take it you are running it on a mobile/tablet?

[Guest]

Just now, andy said:

It's indicated clearly in the OSX version -- I take it you are running it on a mobile/tablet?

OSX?

[dalmer]

8 minutes ago, paxmiles said:

OSX?

(I believe it's the Mac operating system)

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, dalmer said:

(I believe it's the Mac operating system)

Well, never used that version.

I have the PC and the mobile, but the PC version hasn't seemed like it was designed for 8e. It worked well with previous editions, but I feel the focus is the mobile version in this edition and it does work quite well on the mobile version.

[andy]

Hunh. So the Windows version doesn't have some thing like this?

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, andy said:

Hunh. So the Windows version doesn't have some thing like this?

 

It does that, but it's not consistent.

For example, the Interrogator Chaplain in terminator armor for my Dark Angels is a Codex unit. But the stormshield option is part of the index. According to the FAQ, that means if I want the stormshield version, I must take the Index datasheet. Battlescribe has a single combined datasheet for both, and doesn't mention that the stormshield is index only.

Furthermore, the index version of that unit has a higher power level than the codex version. So when we revert to the index version, we have to increase the power level. This isn't covered by battlescribe at all.

I've created two battlescribe threads on their forums to attempt to get this addressed. They don't address my issue (though they claim it is) and lock the thread. I can take a hint that feedback isn't wanted, but it's annoying.

Another example is the Land Speeder Storm. It's a codex unit, but the index version has more weapon choices than the codex version (which has no weapon choices). But battlescribe doesn't mention that the weapon choices are index only.

Anyway, it's petty little stuff, but it's annoying to have to near-constantly double check the army builder to make sure it isn't giving you false options.

[andy]

Oof. Yeah, that's pretty complex. I suspect that supporting that kind of cascade would require a LOT of work on both the Battlescribe side, and on the data files. Hopefully the move to 'Warhammer Legends' will make it easier for them... if less-good for us.

[Guest]

Given that match play has a fixed number of detachments per x number of points, what about a bonus CP for NOT using all of the them?

Like maybe +3 CP for each unused detachment. So at 2k, +6 cp for going mono-detachment or +3 cp for just taking a single detachment.

Just a 40k thought. Anyone tried something like this? Does it work?

Rather than feeling pressured to have 3 detachments for CP, encourages players to only take extra detachment if they really want the models.

[Munkie]

38 minutes ago, paxmiles said:

Given that match play has a fixed number of detachments per x number of points, what about a bonus CP for NOT using all of the them?

Like maybe +3 CP for each unused detachment. So at 2k, +6 cp for going mono-detachment or +3 cp for just taking a single detachment.

Just a 40k thought. Anyone tried something like this? Does it work?

Rather than feeling pressured to have 3 detachments for CP, encourages players to only take extra detachment if they really want the models.

It wouldn't work. It would make armies that can fit neatly into a Brigade way too good.

A single brigade would give you 21 CPs.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Munkie said:

It wouldn't work. It would make armies that can fit neatly into a Brigade way too good.

A single brigade would give you 21 CPs.

But an opponent with two brigades is already more CP than that. 

The advantage/disadvantage is that the player only has one faction and one set of relics and one set of stratagems.

Plus it means players don't need CP battery detachments.

But it also doesn't ban multiple factions or make CP batteries useless.

[Ish]

I’ve long thought that everyone should start with an identical org chart, a larger pool of CP, and then have to pay some CP to add slots.

Make everyone switch back to the two HQ, six Troops, three Heavy/Fast/Elite chart that served us so well for many years. Give everyone a pool of CP based on the game’s size (say 3/6/9 for 1k, 1.5k, 2k...). Then have it cost 3 CP to add an HQ slot, 2 CP to add an Elite/Heavy/Fast slot, 1 CP to a Troops slot.

This would open up some design space for differentiation in armies, say by allowing White Scars to add Fast slots that can only be used for bikes for a discount. That sort of thing.

 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Ish said:

I’ve long thought that everyone should start with an identical org chart, a larger pool of CP, and then have to pay some CP to add slots.

Make everyone switch back to the two HQ, six Troops, three Heavy/Fast/Elite chart that served us so well for many years. Give everyone a pool of CP based on the game’s size (say 3/6/9 for 1k, 1.5k, 2k...). Then have it cost 3 CP to add an HQ slot, 2 CP to add an Elite/Heavy/Fast slot, 1 CP to a Troops slot.

This would open up some design space for differentiation in armies, say by allowing White Scars to add Fast slots that can only be used for bikes for a discount. That sort of thing.

 

So hordes would have to buy troops slots for 1cp each?

And do knights get to play at all?

I definitely see how your idea would work well for Marines, but dunno on the other armies.

[Ish]

I’m just spitballing here, obviously there’d have to be more work done to iron out all the details.

Off the top of my head, horde armies could work by rejiggering their unit sizes and/or granting them discounts on adding Troop slots used for specific units (say, two-for-one Termagants?)

Knights... Well, I dunno. 

 

[VonVilkee]

1 hour ago, Ish said:

 

Knights... Well, I dunno. 

 

They already have their own detachment rules ... To fit with the spit balling I'd say assign actual force orgs to them and say that Lords of war occupy three slots each...

This would solve other Lord of wars as well. You want a Lord of war HQ? You are spending CP, other slots you are just fine.

[Ish]

That would work pretty well, actually... 

[Guest]

@Ish

What about stratagem access? Like with a 3 detachment limit, I have my base rulebook 3, plus any scenario/event specific ones, plus up to 3 faction ones gained per detachment, plus bonus faction stratagems gained via campaign books.

Maybe in your spitballed detachment rules, something about capping or just buying access to stratagem sets?

[Ish]

Ideally, I’d just throw most of them out.

[Guest]

People keep talking about getting us Primaris Terminators. Been thinking about it, they'd basically be Centurions. I kinda wonder if they'll re-do the centurion kit so instead of marines on stilts, just regular primaris marines. That kit could use an update anyway (I very much like the kit, but it's awkward).

[Munkie]

3 hours ago, paxmiles said:

People keep talking about getting us Primaris Terminators. Been thinking about it, they'd basically be Centurions. I kinda wonder if they'll re-do the centurion kit so instead of marines on stilts, just regular primaris marines. That kit could use an update anyway (I very much like the kit, but it's awkward).

You'll have to wait for the Primaris Centurions.