WestRider Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 Okay, so Morkai's Claws look good on paper until I start comparing points and the inability to get a decent invulnerable save on a non-TDA model without huge cost. As far as I can tell, the best route is Armor of Russ+Fangsword+BP+Jump pack. It's a sweet 125pt character kitted for challenges. Wolf Lord has a 4++ stock. My choice for running Morkai's Claws. Can't do Armour of Russ+Fangsword. Unlike CoF, the base SW Dex does have the one Relic per Model restriction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainA Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 Uggh. GG's doing an ITC escalation league starting at 1250pts tonight. I expect to see at least a few triple imperial knight lists....Not exactly friendly units to cope with at 1250. I know we've got at least one player running ranged D eldar, too. Fun times. Though, yeah, my plan of protest for the ITC is to start memorizing and enforcing their FAQ rulings in-game. Since we're using ITC rules, may as well use ITC rules... I've got a strong feeling that I'll be making some players angry if I don't have a physical copy, so I need to get a print out of those rules. As CaptainA says in the facebook thread, the ITC rules "don't come into play all that much." I strongly suspect this is because no one knows what they are. So what was your assessment? Much come into play? Didn't see any tripknights or much ranged D for that matter. :) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 So what was your assessment? Much come into play? Didn't see any tripknights or much ranged D for that matter. :) New guy next to me, brought his mostly wraith guard Eldar. I talked to him a bit, and I think he may have toned down the initial concept after our conversation (seemed like a good potential for Ordo, totally recommended the site to him). Anyway, didn't mean to direct it against you. My mind likes to over think, so less points is worse for me because I have less points to plan for things that rarely happen.... I do think, even within that ITC proofreading thread, that 40k players show a general lack of understanding of the ITC FAQ entries. Personally, captainA, I'd suggest making your own FAQ for our league, that just covers the aspects of the ITC that you actually care about. You don't need to make new rules, just chop up the ITC FAQ to only include the bits that matter to you (or the GG league). As is, I think the ITC is too long and alters too much. Find the bits that really matter and hold firm on your solution. More or less, I really don't care what the rules are, so long as they are consistent. FAQs unknown, rules forgotten, or supplements unread lead to inconsistencies from game to game. Waiting for ITC rulings does not lead to consistent gaming. If there is a rule, formation, or effect that needs an FAQ and ITC doesn't have one, you should have a firm stance as to the answer for that question, as you are the TO and it is your league. I'd really love if you created a set of terrain rules/definitions for the common GG terrain options (forests, ruins and so forth). Again, goal is just consistency. Wolf Lord has a 4++ stock. My choice for running Morkai's Claws. Can't do Armour of Russ+Fangsword. Unlike CoF, the base SW Dex does have the one Relic per Model restriction. Does it? Huh, didn't get that impression. As for wolf lord, he's 4++ stock, and a few better stats, but he's 55pts more expensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 Anyway, tired today. Got the DA book, as planned. Peeked through and built a list just in time for the league. Very lacking, I thought. Bretheran of the Fell Handed -Bjorn (helfrost thing) -Ven Dread (SS+CCW) -Ven Dread (SS+CCW) DA CAD HQ Asmodai ('cause he was all I brought...) Troops Scouts (5, Snipers) Troops Tactical (5, Sword+BP+MB vet) Fast LS Tempest Fast LS Tempest Heavy LR Helios Total should be 1240pts, though I added without pen or paper... Opponent had a TWC list of space wolves and a vindicare. In my experience, Dreads don't last very long against anything in assault, and they haven't since 5th. So, I played very timid, staying in a back corner and barely advancing. Towards the end, opponent decided after securing 4 objectives, he should assault. This is when I learned invulnerable dreads are durable....Bjorn killed two SS TWC in one melee, one SS dread tanked a bunch of S10 fist attacks only sustaining a glance. Opponent said, after the game, that the reason he was playing the way he was playing was that his army was actually fearful of my dreads. It was then that I realized my caution was timidness. I could have probably won if I had played more aggressive. On a side note, vindicare is really inadequate against 3++ dreads, as he has to choose between the armor pen round and the invulnerable pen round. A learning experience there too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 Oh, main reason I played tonight was that GG 20% off for being in the league. With league dues, I got my DA codex at $1.60 off. So, an extra $10 in the prize pool and a slightly cheaper codex. I'll probably be playing firestorm next week. I'll still be working on the 40k army, but I really want to get it more assembled/painted before I start attending league again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 The restriction on Relics isn't worded as clearly there as it is in some other Dexes, and I actually used to argue the other way on the Dexes with this wording, but the more I've discussed and thought about it, the more convinced I've become that when they wrote that you can exchange "one weapon for one of the following", they really did mean one and only one. The extra Wound alone on the Wolf Lord is a really big deal, and in this situation, the extra Attack makes a significant difference as well. Given the kind of Points you're talking about adding on in upgrades, there's no good reason to skimp on the foundation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 I do think, even within that ITC proofreading thread, that 40k players show a general lack of understanding of the ITC FAQ entries. Personally, captainA, I'd suggest making your own FAQ for our league, that just covers the aspects of the ITC that you actually care about. You don't need to make new rules, just chop up the ITC FAQ to only include the bits that matter to you (or the GG league). As is, I think the ITC is too long and alters too much. Find the bits that really matter and hold firm on your solution. 40k players show a general lack of understanding of the rules. ITC doesn't change that. I see no reason to create yet another set of rules for people to have ot learn. Just use ITC. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainA Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 40k players show a general lack of understanding of the rules. ITC doesn't change that. I see no reason to create yet another set of rules for people to have ot learn. Just use ITC. I agree with this. No game of 40k is perfect. We forget things all the time. This is the first time we have tried the ITC rules for the league. We had 18 players for this week so we are doing something right I'd say. That is we keep things different and try out things each month. I'm not saying the ITC rules are here to stay, just wanted to try them as a guideline to help tone down things as a whole, which is their point. ITC does not mean Uber competitive, I've seen crazy powerful lists that were from fluffy players who say they are not "competitive" as I've seen softer lists from competitive players trying to challenge themselves. I guess I don't understand if you don't like the ITC then why play this month? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 I guess I don't understand if you don't like the ITC then why play this month? I don't mind the ITC, per say. I dislike their ruling on D weapons, and a few others. Many of their FAQs are fine, or common sense. Honestly, when you talk of the ITC rules, it seems like you just want ranged D weapons nerfed, so why not just have that one FAQ and ignore the rest? Though I am curious, is the idea of running an ITC league for the purpose of getting players like myself to leave the GG league? the way you ask the question, seems like it could be the intention. As for playing this month, I'm pretty sure I already addressed this: Oh, main reason I played tonight was that GG 20% off for being in the league. With league dues, I got my DA codex at $1.60 off. So, an extra $10 in the prize pool and a slightly cheaper codex. I'll probably be playing firestorm next week. I'll still be working on the 40k army, but I really want to get it more assembled/painted before I start attending league again. Just seems foolish to pay full price for the codex when you don't have to, plus you league players get a bigger prize pool (assuming it's still 100% fee to prizes). I really want to get my Lion Warriors and DA and other armies looking good on the table before I start doing league again. We had 18 players for this week so we are doing something right I'd say. You have the numbers you have because it's summer break. GG league always has more members in the summer. You could ALSO be doing something right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 Though I am curious, is the idea of running an ITC league for the purpose of getting players like myself to leave the GG league? the way you ask the question, seems like it could be the intention. lolwut? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr. Bigglesworth Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 ITC seems to be more favorable than nothing. ITC gives you one thing you keep asking for consistency. Whether it is the best I would think would secondary to the fact it is something. You don't play Eldar, so why would nerf to ranged D target you? The point of league is to try increase player basis and Cap A said he did. That comment seemed a bit off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainA Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 The only reason I'm doing ITC is cause I wanted to try it out for the month. It had nothing to do with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 Reading through that new DA book, plus the SW and GK one. Loads combinations and oddities. -Looks like my cheapest TH/SS terminator unit (of my factions) is the Wolf Guard. 33pts base +15pts for a SS/TH combo, for a 48pt terminator. DA versions are 40pts base, 10pts for TH/SS, for a 50pt terminator. DA version does have some alternate rules. -DA TDA command squad is interesting in that you can field a TDA unit without characters, just 5 terms with SB+Fist. -DA Sacred Standard Confers Relentless to the entire "unit" and is not a DA faction only buff, which means that you could use it to make attached ICs relentless. In example, GK techmarine with conversion beamer would gain relentless if attached (and split fire if attached to DW term command) -Really, really tempted to field a scout sergeant as my warlord...It's just that most of the warlord traits would be pretty awesome on a scout unit. (1: model ignores cover with shooting attacks, 2 all DA within 12" are fearless, 3 unit has furious charge, 4 add or subtract 1 from reserves, 5 +3" to charge and run moves, 6 FNP for unit while within 3" of an objective). Scouts seem like the best unit to be able to benefit from all the results. That said, he'd be a very kill-able warlord...hmm -Non-dedicated transports are neat. I know, the other armies already had them, but I still like them. -As written, looks like the assault marine sarge can take the Eviserator. -TDA cyclones in both books are worded to allow only "storm bolters" to fire in addition to the cyclone. So, I can't fire a comb-melta with one, in example. I had missed this before. -As written, DW Strike force detachment forces DW TDA unit dedicated land raiders to deep strike.... -Azreal is so neat now. GK Storm Ravens or SW storm fangs with 4++...never jink again. -Black Knights can give Draigo +1 toughness. Also, no stipulations about them being infantry or in TDA, so TWC/biker ICs attached to black knight units can gain +1 toughness as long as they have storm shields. Yeah, T6 TWC.... -Dread squadrons are interesting. Normally, it's just not worth it to give them lesser weapons, like TL heavy bolters, because they just lack the volume fire to make them viable. That said, with 3 of them and grim resolve, it might work. I'd probably give them better weapons, but this is the first incarnation where I even considered it. -Arjac's thrown hammer or Stormfang's/stormraven's Storm strike missiles have that concussive rule. Could actually wound a Wraithknight, knock it to initiative 1 and then charge it with a dread squadron and realistically kill it in melee before it got to swing. Something to think about. -So, that DA "the hunt" warlord trait is amazing. Precision shots and ignores cover with shooting for the warlord. Really makes me consider grav/plas pistols for my characters. Also makes a few of the ICs with that as a fixed trait (belial, asmodai) have new use in manning building weaponry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 You don't play Eldar, so why would nerf to ranged D target you? I'm positive I've addressed this a dozen times. Answer is a few things. First, my ranged D weapons are my Shadow Sword, the Daemonology (Santic) Vortex of Doom psychic power, and, now, the doubles via the DA Rift cannon. None of the these are unbalanced weapons and all are considerably crippled by the ITC nerf - for no reason. Second, I dislike the inconsistency of having the Destroyer special rule resolved differently by context. If the rule is broken, then nerf it all or nothing. If eldar are the broken party, nerf them, but don't cripple the balanced units in an political maneuver to not appear bias against the eldar. I mean, really, which ranged D weapons are really creating issues in 40k? Are any of them not eldar D weapons? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 4, 2015 Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 Annoying to build lists without DA being in battle scribe. Still not decided on anything, but I think I'm going to attempt a "wading" list. A list that wades through the battle and eventually get's to the opponent. A slow, durable army. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 5, 2015 Report Share Posted July 5, 2015 40 points for furious charge. Also, you get rage on one model, is how you should read that. I mean, go for it if you really want it. So, more thinking about it. First, it has nice value with the Wolf claws (and other SW +1 strength sources, like the TWC) as it allows ID on toughness 3 opponents. Some impressive potential with the power maul on a TWC, as S8 rending isn't horrible if in initiative order (especially with the bonus attack for two weapons). Agree 40pts is steep for that wolf stone. Second, the rage ability is pretty nice if trying to get more action out of one of the lesser HQ choices, especially without swapping weapons. That Rune Priest, in example, doesn't really have any other SW methods to gain more attacks. So if you really wanted that force weapon to have more swings, this is the only real way to do it via SW. Again, price is steep. Anyway, been thinking on it. I think I like unit-wide FC (at least on paper). I noticed that one of Azrael's warlord traits is FC for his entire unit, so I might go that route instead. I'll look into other routes too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 5, 2015 Report Share Posted July 5, 2015 Found this guy on google. Doesn't look too bad. Might break down and go the TWC route.... http://www.40kfightclub.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=22491 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr. Bigglesworth Posted July 5, 2015 Report Share Posted July 5, 2015 An army of those would look nice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted July 5, 2015 Report Share Posted July 5, 2015 Found this guy on google. Doesn't look too bad. Might break down and go the TWC route.... http://www.40kfightclub.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=22491 Come to the dark side! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 Hmm...so at the moment, looking into fleshing out my GK, in particular, getting more PA GK. I want to keep them as allies and they make good allies, but I have about 4 GK models in PA and it means I'm forced to field TDA models, which are spendy and don't always mix well with my other armies. I haven't ditched the Lion Warriors, nor the DA, but I want to include GK in the mix and it isn't working on paper because my troops just cost too much. Those GK troops terms also need transports and it really drives up their cost. I'm also unable to field any of the PA elites/heavy/FA slots due to the PA troops occupying the only PA models... This whole thing is a giant balancing act, with GK, DA, and Lion Warriors all trying to squeeze into a single list, which is also TACT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 Those GK troops terms also need transports and it really drives up their cost.. Hmmm...Doesn't solve anything, but I suppose with FA slot pods, I could field GK terms in pods. It would allow them to arrive turn 1 as a CAD. Interesting. I'll think on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 Battlescribe still doesn't have DA.... Okay, so Demi-company min cost would be Chappy/commander (same base cost): 90 Tact: 70 Tact: 70 Tact: 70 As: 70 Dev: 70 So 440pts, before extra weapons and fleshed out squads. Then if I wanted a Lion's blade Strike Force, it would require that, plus at least a "10th company support" consisting of one unit (55pts) of scout marines. So 495pts minimum, Then an allied GK detachment, minimum 220pts, I think, 110pts for the HQ libby and 110pts for 5 strike GK. So 715pts minimum. Then the SW with a CAD, 50pts for a battle leader, and 120pts for two units of 5 blood claws, for 170pts. So 885pts base cost for the entire army. Right off the bat, 9 objective secured units. Just under 1k to fool around with if I wanted it ITC legal. I think I can make this work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 Found the DA on battle scribe. Not sure if it's been there, or they just updated it, but I've got my battlescribe working now and that's what matters. Though the battlescibe is really buggy for now, as they've got the relic DA sword listed as a heavy weapon option for my tactical squad.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 9, 2015 Report Share Posted July 9, 2015 Lol...so tempting: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 9, 2015 Report Share Posted July 9, 2015 ^ add a storm shield and a power pack.....could work... 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.