-
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts
Isn't that the whole point of Apocalypse? To use your existing collection of individual toy soldiers at a scale where it's pretty unsuitable to represent things at the level of individual soldiers, for the sake of the spectacle?
You could play Apocalypse with a more streamlined miniature system as well as a more streamlined rule system. You could even exploit the fact that your miniatures represent whole squads rather than individuals to make the miniatures take up less space, so that you could play it on a smaller board. And then you'd have Epic.
-
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LCP
To use your existing collection of individual toy soldiers at a scale where it's pretty unsuitable to represent things at the level of individual soldiers, for the sake of the spectacle?
That's why Epic 40K used its units the way it did. Representing an army at that scale was essentially impossible. So models were much, much smaller (and thus, affordable). And, y'know...An entire unit came on a single base.
Quote:
You could even exploit the fact that your miniatures represent whole squads...
That's what I was kind of getting at. If I have 5 Intercessor models, why not just say I have 5 Intercessor units? What difference does it make if the unit always rolls the same number of dice? The reason it matters, is for line of sight and footprint purposes.
At least Kings of War writes directly into its rule set that you don't actually need the number of physical models. All's that matters is the unit's footprint. This leads to a boatload of conversions and cool unit fillers. Because the number of models you actually have, is irrelevant, 'cause it's not important.
I remember towards the end of WHFB people were doing it too. 'Cause units of 80 Goblins were expensive. But I don't remember if that was frowned upon or not. But I know KoW has it baked in.
-
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Forum Explorer
Like I said, I reject the idea of page counts as a valid argument. Particularly that one, because as Saambell points out, Thousand Sons is one of the smallest armies that didn't even exist back in 4th edition. While the Space Marine codex basically doubled in size.
And yes please. That is something that I would consider valid. I would do it myself, but I don't have my 4th edition rulebook anymore.
Those are just the codexes I happened to have on hand. I think I've got Chaos Marine ones somewhere, and could do a direct comparison of those two. But if you're rejecting total page count of rules in the first place (I disagree) it hardly matters. I'll not have a chance to go through the actual rules until later tonight. When I do, I'll likely limit myself to just the turn phases, since covering everything would take a long time.
-
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cheesegear
If X-Wing has taught me anything, cheating will be rampant.
As will honest screw ups. Seriously, controlling 5 individual ships could be bad enough, I don't wanna see what Apocalypse will turn into.
-
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts
Quote:
Why can't I just put one model of the type on the board, get a piece of cardboard to represent the unit's footprint, and done? Since the actual amount of models I have, appears to be meaningless.
See, in the real game, the difference between 5 and 6 models, is two more dice, two more wounds. It's not much. But it is a tangible difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LCP
Isn't that the whole point of Apocalypse? To use your existing collection of individual toy soldiers at a scale where it's pretty unsuitable to represent things at the level of individual soldiers, for the sake of the spectacle?
You could play Apocalypse with a more streamlined miniature system as well as a more streamlined rule system. You could even exploit the fact that your miniatures represent whole squads rather than individuals to make the miniatures take up less space, so that you could play it on a smaller board. And then you'd have Epic.
Yeah, I mean, forget "what's the point of placing your infantry". What's the point of playing Apocalypse if not to place all your infantry? Genuinely: these rules seem to be based around the assumption that the basic reason you are here is to maximise the volume of plastic on the table: the design process is to start on that basis, and build a ruleset that makes that not take whole weekends to resolve. If you're not willing to buy into that basic assumption, then accept it's not for you and move on.
If "putting lots of models on the board" isn't a draw for you, then sure, don't bother with Apocalypse. (Just accept that's a mismatch between your desires and the ruleset, rather than the rules being Objectively Bad).
Quote:
The only reason to put Infantry models actually on the board, is if you're gonna take photos.
Same is true for basic 40k. I was being flippant about "go play chess" earlier, but if the emotional/narrative connection you have with your little plastic men is entirely nil, then there are better-designed rulesets out there that don't also kill your wallet and require you to paint the tokens.
EDIT: I'm still curious to see how you can cheat the token system without some really impressive sleight of hand, in case you missed that.
-
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cheesegear
At least Kings of War writes directly into its rule set that you don't actually need the number of physical models. All's that matters is the unit's footprint. This leads to a boatload of conversions and cool unit fillers. Because the number of models you actually have, is irrelevant, 'cause it's not important.
Cardboard cutouts of units is how me and a buddy play kings of War most of the time. It's also great for testing. I see a bunch of this happening for Apocalypse once people fully catch on.
-
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LeSwordfish
If "putting lots of models on the board" isn't a draw for you, then sure, don't bother with Apocalypse. (Just accept that's a mismatch between your desires and the ruleset, rather than the rules being Objectively Bad).
No, no, no.
See, putting your models on the board is hard. Packing them up, even moreso. However, when a Tyranid or a Daemon player puts 150 models on the board, there is a point to it; More dice rolled. I don't mean 1 extra dice...I mean, each, individual model puts another dice in your hand.
However, I feel like the rules aren't Bad per se. I feel that the models themselves - the way that GW makes money - are...Uhh...Unnecessary...In the way that the rules are designed. Like I said, Kings of War. The game is unit-centric, rather that model-centric, which, ultimately, means that individual models, don't matter. Convert up your unit fillers. Make it look cool. Put one model on a correctly sized piece of cardboard and you're basically done (not at the tournament level, but the game is absolutely playable using cardboard sheets).
Apocalypse, is a unit-centric game...Where individual models matter?
...I'm kind of...Confused.
Quote:
but if the emotional/narrative connection you have with your little plastic men is entirely nil
Well yeah. Because it's Apocalypse. Older editions of Apocalypse were 'big 40K'. Individual models still mattered, despite being such a scaled game... That's probably why it took so ***-damned long to play.
Quote:
EDIT: I'm still curious to see how you can cheat the token system without some really impressive sleight of hand
Really impressive? As long as you can hide your ring and pinky finger from someone on the other side of the table looking at a downwards angle, you're good. Like any manual skill, just practice. Tokens are nowhere near as big as cards, and they're not even as big as Poker Chips. If I've seen people manipulate those huge X-Wing counters, they can manipulate Apocalypse tokens.
But who would do that!? Isn't this just a game about toy soliders?
...Yeah. It is...Right up until you start putting up prizes for competitive play. Then it's no longer a game. It's an actual competition.
-
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cheesegear
No, no, no.
See, putting your models on the board is hard. Packing them up, even moreso. However, when a Tyranid or a Daemon player puts 150 models on the board, there is a point to it; More dice rolled. I don't mean 1 extra dice...I mean, each, individual model puts another dice in your hand.
However, I feel like the rules aren't Bad per se. I feel that the models themselves - the way that GW makes money - are...Uhh...Unnecessary...In the way that the rules are designed.
Well, sure. Because the base level assumption that the game is designed around is that you like the models. They don't need to be necessary, because why would you be doing this if you don't care about them?
Quote:
Really impressive? As long as you can hide your ring and pinky finger from someone on the other side of the table looking at a downwards angle, you're good. Like any manual skill, just practice. Tokens are nowhere near as big as cards, and they're not even as big as Poker Chips. If I've seen people manipulate those huge X-Wing counters, they can manipulate Apocalypse tokens.
So, yeah, you can cheat at apocalypse with, uh, coin magic? Sounds no easier to reliably manipulate than any card or dice system. Why not just weight your dice?
Quote:
...Yeah. It is...Right up until you start putting up prizes for competitive play. Then it's no longer a game. It's an actual competition.
Okay. And who is doing that?
-
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts
Why cardboard? use an official movement tray to represent a whole unit :v. It doesnt matter if I like them or not, moving models is hard, and I'd like to play often, not once every three months at my friend's house. Thats the selling point, no? THat you can now play Apoc more often and more quickly. So in a way, making models unnecesary is good.
-
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cheesegear
No, no, no.
See, putting your models on the board is hard. Packing them up, even moreso. However, when a Tyranid or a Daemon player puts 150 models on the board, there is a point to it; More dice rolled. I don't mean 1 extra dice...I mean, each, individual model puts another dice in your hand.
No, your opponent agreeing you can represent demons with empty bases with paper stuff on them lets you roll just as many dice.
Or cardboard cut outs. That's no different 40k normal to apocalypse.
-
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts
It's the flip side to Power Rating...
(Again, still using Intercessors)
See, in Power Rating - or in AoS - you pay the same points, whether you have 6 or 10 models, because you pay in bulk for the whole bracket. It makes sense to take the most models possible, because it's all positives with no negatives. You could only add 1 model to the unit for the cost of 5...But that makes no sense. So why do it? ...You wouldn't.
In Apocalypse, conversely, the units' #wounds and damage output is the same, whether you have 1 model, or 5 models. So why not have 1 model? It's just as effective as five. The rules just don't make sense. Why must an Intercessor unit be 5 models? ...Dunno.
It's just weird.
-
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts
Quote:
So why not have 1 model?
Why use models at all?
-
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cheesegear
This rule forces you to castle around Characters. Sounds ****.
Yeah, though the fact units can operate independently of their character helps a bit I think. If you want a unit to strike out on their own by moving out of range of their character they can do so for at least two turns: turn 1 they move out of 12” range, do whatever they want to do. Turn 2 they gain the ‘out of range marker’, do whatever they want to do, then disappear IF they took a blast counter.
Quote:
How big is the board? How big are Deployment Zones? What does chance to Fight, mean?
So...The Move and Charge phases are different?
...When do models declare Charges?
Sorry, I explained poorly.
When a detachment activates it takes actions based on its orders. All units in the Detachment either move then shoot or fight (if in close enough contact), shoot with added bonus, or double move and fight in close combat. There is no charge phase, or declaring of charges. And if you move into contact with a unit they don’t automatically fight back as in normal 40k.
Quote:
Seems like an arse-load of book-keeping.
Not only are the rolls to hit and wound using different dice (i.e; You can't roll to hit, pick up the successes, and roll the same dice again), but you are trading Blast markers for wound counters, double-dipping on the number of tokens on the board, which surely wont lead to annoyance.
Tokens, the game.
Seems as reasonable approach as any, and they look to be keeping numbers of tokens on a unit low: most units we’ve seen have 1 or 2 wounds, so won’t have more than a handful. And they’re visually distinctive: blast markers are round and damage triangular.
Also I’ll point out that having tokens isn’t any more book keeping than in normal 40k, where you need to keep track of how many models a unit has lost in a turn for morale purposes and how many wounds a character or vehicle has taken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cheesegear
So, here's a thing that's bothering me about Apocalypse...
Why do number of physical models in a unit, matter?
I can't figure out why a unit (e.g; Intercessors) has to have 5 models, or even 10. If you have 5 models in the unit, the unit still rolls 1 attack, it still has the same wounds, and due to how Damage works in Apoc, an entire unit is wiped out in a single go, right?
...I'm going to assume that a unit of 10 just doubles everything. Still the same process.
So why does the number of physical models I have on the board, actually matter?
Why can't I just put one model of the type on the board, get a piece of cardboard to represent the unit's footprint, and done? Since the actual amount of models I have, appears to be meaningless.
See, in the real game, the difference between 5 and 6 models, is two more dice, two more wounds. It's not much. But it is a tangible difference.
The only reason to put Infantry models actually on the board, is if you're gonna take photos.
This bothers me a bit as well. I suspect the REASON is to better handle your earlier point about different types of dice to hit and to wound: most units only roll 1 or 2, so it’s easy to see results of each and process individually. Rolling two dice per model would rapidly become unwieldy.
The problem is that it means we aren’t rolling bucketfuls of dice, which feels fairly fundamental to the appeal of Apocalypse and helps to ensure the bell curve of results occurs: any one dice rolled in Apocalypse is more significant, so good or bad luck means more.
On balance, I think I like the use of D12s and the various other innovations that I’m happy to abstract away the impact on individual models in a unit to allow for a smooth game experience. But I do wish there was a way of having the number of individual models matter. Ideally I’d have a system with Apocalypse’s system for damage and saves, but 40k’s stats for number of attacks and wounds.
Edit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LeSwordfish
Okay. And who is doing that?
Regarding using Apocalypse as a competitive game: me, theoretically, in that while I don’t ever expect I would run a tournament myself, almost everything I’ve seen suggests that Apocalypse is a superior game to 40k and could be run in this way. If this turns out to be true, I wouldn’t be surprised to see people running Apocalypse tournaments.
Personally, I have faith in my fellow gamers, and don’t think the risk of someone using sleight of hand to change tokens is any better or worse than the risk already existing of using sleight of hand to manipulate dice results. Cheaters gonna cheat: we should not use a good mechanic just because we fear them. If it turns out to be a significant concern in a tournament there are ways to counter it, e.g. having everyone write down their orders at the start of the turn: it is harder to sleight of hand write a new order than change a token.
-
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts
The how to play video they put out today has a shot of the Intercessor datasheet with two lines; one for a unit of 5 models and one for a unit of 10, and says that if the unit is ever at half or less of its starting Wounds it cuts its Attacks in half. So there's that.
-
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cheesegear
So, here's a thing that's bothering me about Apocalypse...
Why do number of physical models in a unit, matter?
I can't figure out why a unit (e.g; Intercessors) has to have 5 models, or even 10. If you have 5 models in the unit, the unit still rolls 1 attack, it still has the same wounds, and due to how Damage works in Apoc, an entire unit is wiped out in a single go, right?
...I'm going to assume that a unit of 10 just doubles everything. Still the same process.
Well done, you have successfully understood the nature of the "Stand of Infantry" imported from Epic. A squad is a single model, and just like in normal 40k the most important part is the base size. Oh hey, see those new Movement Trays they're selling? That's your new bases. I recommend blue-tack to stop your nicely painted models falling off when you pick up the whole squad.
Quote:
So why does the number of physical models I have on the board, actually matter?
Why can't I just put one model of the type on the board, get a piece of cardboard to represent the unit's footprint, and done? Since the actual amount of models I have, appears to be meaningless.
See, in the real game, the difference between 5 and 6 models, is two more dice, two more wounds. It's not much. But it is a tangible difference.
In the various 40k RPGs, a chainsword is a marked improvement over a knife. When you zoom out to 40k itself, they both have the same stats because it doesn't make that much of a difference at the larger scale. And when you zoom out again to Apocalypse/Epic scale, a single dude doesn't make enough difference to be worth keeping track of. What matters is the Unit's effectiveness, their ability to function as a cohesive fighting force within the rest of the army.
If you want to understand how the zoom-out has worked: Each Detachment is the equivalent of a 40k Unit. The detachment's Warlord is like the unit's Sergeant. Each Squad in the detachment is like each Model in the unit. In the same way you might add a Heavy Weapon to a Tactical Squad, you add a Devastator Squad to a Battalion of Marines.
Quote:
The only reason to put Infantry models actually on the board, is if you're gonna take photos.
That's my line! :smalltongue: I'm the one normally arguing on the side of "just slap down some plastic", or something vaguely the right shape. Are you coming over to the Grey Side of the gaming Force? :smallwink:
The real answer to "why would I need more than 1 dude per stand?" is:
1) We have had no indication yet that True Line of Sight isn't still a thing. Or any idea how/if cover works.
2) The spectacle. Which is what Apocalypse is (apparently) about.
-
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Renegade Paladin
The how to play video they put out today has a shot of the Intercessor datasheet with two lines; one for a unit of 5 models and one for a unit of 10, and says that if the unit is ever at half or less of its starting Wounds it cuts its Attacks in half. So there's that.
Interestingly, it doesn’t seem to suggest removing models to indicate this: either you have 10 models on the battlefield, or none.
Part of me actually quite likes the abstracting away from individual model count, with wounds reflecting a units morale and fighting ability, rather than direct casualties. It always felt a wierd disconnect with the lore to be removing so many Space Marines as distinct casualties: with the Apocalypse approach it much more feels like ‘this unit is damaged beyond fighting effectiveness’. Not everyone will be dead or injured, but the unit is not in a fit state to fight.
-
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts
It seems like you think you've stumbled on something profound here Cheesegear, when really it's something trivial. You're asking why such streamlined rules require masses of models - they don't. The game devs started from the idea of people wanting to use masses of models (that they mostly already own) and came to the very sensible solution of streamlining the rules to make that a playable experience.
Wheels don't need a car, but a car needs wheels.
-
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts
I mean if you keep asking "why" you start asking "why did we all spend so much money on plastic men at all?" and lets not open that door.
One of the things I like about the new ruleset is that it looks sufficiently simple that people can join in easily, and that you can have large total numbers of points - previously whenever I've played apocalypse, we've had to choose between "lots of people" and "lots of points each" if we want it to be reasonably scaled at all - now I can deploy my whole army and play with all my friends.
-
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cheesegear
What I do know, is that if you go fast-and-melee, you're not far wrong. So, however your Faction-of-choice does that, I guess
Huh. I knew shooting was weaker, due to the various penalties, but I didn't really expect melee to be that desirable. I mean, we're still talking something like an Ork Boy going 1v1 with a Space Marine. They don't really have much of an advantage. But, hey, let's throw together some lists.
Spoiler: List 1
Show
Grot
+Leader
Kaptin Flash Git
-Gitfinda Squig
+Comms
Flash Git
+Heavy
Nob's Nob (4+ Sv)
-Big Choppa, Kombi-Skorcha
+Demolitions
Ammo Runt
Ammo Runt
Kommando Nob
-Power Klaw
Kommando
Kommando
Ork Boy Gunner
-Big Shoota
Spoiler: List 2
Show
Grot
+Leader
Kaptin Flash Git
-Gitfinda Squig
+Heavy
Flash Git
+Comms
Flash Git
+Demolitions
Ammo Runt
Ammo Runt
Kommando Nob
-Power Klaw
Kommando
Kommando
Kommando
Grot
Both lists are 125pts, use Elites, and most likely use the Freebootaz Clan Kultur: Each non-Grot unit gets +1 to-hit per enemy model taken Out Of Action during this phase by any other Freeboota model. So, trying to snowball my shooting and/or CQC attacks into near-guaranteed hits.
Also, using the Sneaky Gits stratagem to set up any 3 Kommando models at 5" away. They can't charge that turn, but have Stealth, so they're harder to hit from in cover. THEN charge next turn.
The two lists are basically the same, but I'm not sure which is better, or if I've assigned my Specialisms correctly. Any suggestions?
-
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LeSwordfish
Why use models at all?
True Line of Sight. Hence why I said you need one. You just move the model around on the cardboard/tray to see if your opponent has LoS to any point on the tray.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Avaris
Also I’ll point out that having tokens isn’t any more book keeping than in normal 40k, where you need to keep track of how many models a unit has lost in a turn for morale purposes and how many wounds a character or vehicle has taken.
Who keeps track of Morale? Don't you just auto-pass? :smalltongue:
Quote:
Regarding using Apocalypse as a competitive game: me, theoretically, in that while I don’t ever expect I would run a tournament myself, almost everything I’ve seen suggests that Apocalypse is a superior game to 40k and could be run in this way. If this turns out to be true, I wouldn’t be surprised to see people running Apocalypse tournaments.
If games between two people who both know what they're doing can be run within 2.5 hours, you'll get tournaments for it. If the game is as streamlined as I think it is, it's definitely possible.
Even if they're larger, I'm willing to bet that a lot of the 2 and 3-day tournaments will have Apoc tournaments anyway.
I've been to an Apocalypse tournament back when rules weren't streamlined. 5 hours per game (half hour turns, 5 turns). 10K Points. 2 games on Saturday, 1 on Sunday.
If you can win at it, and you can lose at it...You can make a tournament out of it...If you have the playerbase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Voidhawk
That's my line! :smalltongue: I'm the one normally arguing on the side of "just slap down some plastic", or something vaguely the right shape. Are you coming over to the Grey Side of the gaming Force? :smallwink:
Only for unit-centric games where individual models don't matter. :smalltongue:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hootman
Huh. I knew shooting was weaker, due to the various penalties, but I didn't really expect melee to be that desirable.
I was talking about it earlier in the week.
Shooting isn't neccessarily weaker. If you fail a few of your Charges, your opponent Readies their entire Team, and shoots you off the board on Turn 1. But, that's why you have a Roster, not a Kill Team...Which I see you've immediately fallen into that trap. Unless I'm misunderstanding something - is your Roster limited to 125 Points?
If you're playing Matched Play, your Roster should consist of no less than 20 models. 20 models is the maximum you can have, which makes it the minimum you should have. I don't know if Commanders and/or Elites changes how Rosters are made (as I said, I haven't bought in), but at the very least, Core Rules means your Roster should have 20 models on it, no less.
So, that's one tip I can give you straight off the top of my head.
EDIT: Straight off the bat, any Roster you make should include a Boss Nob (a Kommando one works too) with Veteran.
EDIT II:
This Roster is what I would run with 100 Point Kill Teams.
Spoiler: Ork Roster
Show
Ork Boyz (x14); Shootas (x6), Combat, Demolitions - 14x6 Points
Boss Nob; Big Choppa, Veteran - 12 Points
Boss Nob; Big Choppa, Leader - 12 Points
Gretchin; Leader - 3 Points
Kommando Boss Nob; Power Klaw, Veteran - 16 Points
Burna Boys (x2); Demolitions, Zealot - 2x12 Points
Total Models: 20
Total Roster: 151 Points
...I don't know what Elites offers Orks, and I don't know how 125 Points changes things. But yeah. That's what Kill Team 'Army Lists' actually should look like. It's not like 40K where you build a Kill Team and you're expected to take that same Team to every game.
...Unless your meta soft-bans Rosters because that actually requires more than a one-box investment which isn't what GW advertises the game as.
-
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts
I kinda feel like going in on a Primaris Kill Team, how terrible of an idea would that be to mixing in Firstborn Marines? I much prefer the new scale (incoming crucifixion), and just want to pick up some of the new models.
Either that or leaning towards Tyranids. They'd also be super quick with Contrasts :smallbiggrin:
-
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Requizen
I kinda feel like going in on a Primaris Kill Team, how terrible of an idea would that be to mixing in Firstborn Marines? I much prefer the new scale (incoming crucifixion), and just want to pick up some of the new models.
In what format? Commander? Elites? Arena? Neither?
In Vanilla Kill Team (up to 100pts, no expansions) it's quite hard to make an Primaris team with more than 6 models in it, and having more models is hugely important. Adding Astartes into a Primaris team is cheaper than pure Primaris, so you might just about squeeze in they 7th model, if you go half-and-half... That can only be a good thing.
Unfortunately, the difference between 6 and 7 really doesn't amount to much when your opponent has 12. So long as you understand that - that neither Astartes or Primaris are bad, but neither are they top tier - then you'll be fine. :smalltongue:
Arena doesn't really change that, you're just playing the same game but on a grid.
In Elites, I have yet to see a single Elite miniature that I would prefer to take over instead having 3 more guys equipped with meltaguns who would happily annihilate them for the same points cost. This means that Astartes are great, because they can take meltaguns. :smalltongue:
Commander I haven't played.... But from what I gather, I'd still rather have 3 guys with meltaguns who would murder any of the Commanders in one turn, too.
The bottom line, I think, is: Astartes/Primaris will work fine and you won't be unhappy to play with them, but Tyranids will probably win you more games. Do you want fun, thematic, and sometimes successful or do you want fun, basic and usually successful? :smalltongue:
-
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wraith
In what format? Commander? Elites? Arena? Neither?
In Vanilla Kill Team (up to 100pts, no expansions) it's quite hard to make an Primaris team with more than 6 models in it, and having more models is hugely important. Adding Astartes into a Primaris team is cheaper than pure Primaris, so you might just about squeeze in they 7th model, if you go half-and-half... That can only be a good thing.
Unfortunately, the difference between 6 and 7 really doesn't amount to much when your opponent has 12. So long as you understand that - that neither Astartes or Primaris are bad, but neither are they top tier - then you'll be fine. :smalltongue:
Arena doesn't really change that, you're just playing the same game but on a grid.
In Elites, I have yet to see a single Elite miniature that I would prefer to take over instead having 3 more guys equipped with meltaguns who would happily annihilate them for the same points cost. This means that Astartes are great, because they can take meltaguns. :smalltongue:
Commander I haven't played.... But from what I gather, I'd still rather have 3 guys with meltaguns who would murder any of the Commanders in one turn, too.
The bottom line, I think, is: Astartes/Primaris will work fine and you won't be unhappy to play with them, but Tyranids will probably win you more games. Do you want fun, thematic, and sometimes successful or do you want fun, basic and usually successful? :smalltongue:
I think my area plays a mix, based on what both players want.
I'll probably end up getting at least a bit of both (yay small-ish buy in!), but thanks for the insight! My KT experience is kinda limited, and I'm fine with Primaris being not great as long as they're not objectively terrible.
I am quite amused by the "one Terminator + one Custodes" army for AC, though. Just... lol.
-
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Requizen
I'm fine with Primaris being not great as long as they're not objectively terrible.
For starters, how are you going to make a 20-man Roster without using Scouts or Tacticals? Besides, it's Scouts and Tacticals with all the Special and Heavy Weapons.
Having 2 I-Gunners is dumb, because Intercessors' only option is the AGL, and you have two of 'em...But your Team can only fire one Grenade per turn. :smallsigh:
Reiver Sergeants are great. But Tactical Sergeants have access to Power Fists.
Scouts give you your horde...Of 9 models. :smallsigh:
The thing about Primaris Marines is that combined with Transhuman Physiology and two wounds, they're very tough. But you know what? So are Plague Marines. Every time I see someone playing a Primaris Kill Team (because they never use a Roster!), I always think they could be playing Death Guard or Thousand Sons, instead. You're relying so heavily on those two wounds and your opponent not rolling Flesh Wounds instead of OoAs. 2 Damage weapons take you to 0 immediately and they get two chances to roll OoA.
I've seen people have success using Primaris Marines (including someone on this forum...But I can't remember who).
...But like...I don't know how. Are there opponents not using Rosters? Switch out the Team for the Marine-killers (e.g; Plasma Guns).
-
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts
Deathwatch has tricks, so thats not nothing.
-
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cheesegear
For starters, how are you going to make a 20-man Roster without using Scouts or Tacticals? Besides, it's Scouts and Tacticals with all the Special and Heavy Weapons.
Having 2 I-Gunners is dumb, because Intercessors' only option is the AGL, and you have two of 'em...But your Team can only fire one Grenade per turn. :smallsigh:
Reiver Sergeants are great. But Tactical Sergeants have access to Power Fists.
Scouts give you your horde...Of 9 models. :smallsigh:
The thing about Primaris Marines is that combined with Transhuman Physiology and two wounds, they're very tough. But you know what? So are Plague Marines. Every time I see someone playing a Primaris Kill Team (because they never use a Roster!), I always think they could be playing Death Guard or Thousand Sons, instead. You're relying so heavily on those two wounds and your opponent not rolling Flesh Wounds instead of OoAs. 2 Damage weapons take you to 0 immediately and they get two chances to roll OoA.
I've seen people have success using Primaris Marines (including someone on this forum...But I can't remember who).
...But like...I don't know how. Are there opponents not using Rosters? Switch out the Team for the Marine-killers (e.g; Plasma Guns).
I'm mostly more interested now that they got the Shadowspear stuff in Elites. I'm a sucker for the "tacticool" Eliminators and the weapon on the Suppressors is super dope (though 30 pts a dude is nuts).
I think the consideration will be how hardcore the area is, I haven't played much around here.
-
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Requizen
I'm mostly more interested now that they got the Shadowspear stuff in Elites. I'm a sucker for the "tacticool" Eliminators and the weapon on the Suppressors is super dope (though 30 pts a dude is nuts).
30 Points a dude is where Scouts come in. :smallwink:
If an Eliminator can see through walls, are targets still Obscured?
Astartes Roster (100 Point KTs, no Expansions)
Scouts (x6); Boltguns/Shotguns/Combat Blades, Comms - 6x10 Points
Scout Gunners (x2); Heavy Bolters, Heavy, Sniper - 2x14 Points
Scout Gunner; Missile Launcher, Camo Cloak, Sniper - 17 Points
Scout Sergeant; Chainsword, Leader - 11 Points
Tactical Marine Gunner; Flamer, Demolitions - 16 Points
Tactical Marine Gunner; Grav-Gun - 15 Points
Tactical Sergeant; Boltgun & Auspex, Comms - 14 Points
Tactical Sergeant; Boltgun & Power Fist, Veteran - 17 Points
Reiver Sergeant; Heavy Bolt Pistol, Combat Knife, Veteran - 17 Points
Intercessors (x3); Bolt Rifles - 3x15 Points
Intercessor; Bolt Rifle, Auspex, Comms - 16 Points
Intercessor Gunner; Bolt Rifle, AGL, Sniper - 16 Points
Model Count: 20/20
Total Roster: 272 Points
Once again, I don't actually know if '250 Point Limit' is actually part of Elites ruleset, or if its a rule made by the ITC tournament format.
-
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cheesegear
...I don't know what Elites offers Orks, and I don't know how 125 Points changes things. But yeah. That's what Kill Team 'Army Lists' actually should look like. It's not like 40K where you build a Kill Team and you're expected to take that same Team to every game.
...Unless your meta soft-bans Rosters because that actually requires more than a one-box investment which isn't what GW advertises the game as.
No, we are supposed to have rosters, I was just thinking I should build a core force that is my baseline before adding different units to swap in to fight off specific threats. But that's probably a bad way to think of things, as it makes my planning too rigid.
Incidentally, what is the Veteran Nob for? I'd heard there was some kind of pre-game movement stratagem that only worked on Veteran models, so I assume that's what you were going for? Just bum-rush them with the choppiest guy I have?
Elites granted Clan Kulturs (almost identical to their 40k version, as seems to be normal), Flash Gits (23+), Actual Nobz (16+, 4+ Armor Save standard), Ammo Runts (3, Grots with Guardsman stats that can give 1 model/turn a reroll to hit with shooting, and throw stikkbombs), and Meganobz (42+), with Boss versions of all the orks for +1/+1/+4 respectively, which mostly isn't worth it. That's all I remember for that.
I really enjoyed the Flash Gits and Ammo Runts in the matches I played to learn the game, so I had originally planned to build my core list around them, and play them as basically being Deffwotch. But they're so expensive in points compared to just fielding 15 Boys and drowning my foes in charging Evil Sunz bodies....
Edit: Oh, right, the strategems. There's one where you Infiltrate up to 3 Kommandos that seems amazing. Or you can give a burna 1d6 shots. Meh. Or Waaagh! and gain more move/advance/charge. Or roll to ignore mortal wounds. Or...gain bonus attacks based on how many models you're in melee with. So, at least +1 attack, which I guess is nice.
Edit 2: Made a new roster.
Spoiler: Da Deffwotch
Show
Clan Kultur: Freebootaz, "Competitive Streak"
Boss Meganob [46pts]
-Kustom Shoota, Power Klaw
+Leader
Gretchin [3pts]
+Leader
Flash Git [27pts]
-Gitfinda Squig, Slugga
+Heavy
Flash Git [23pts]
+Comms
Flash Git [27pts]
-Gitfinda Squig
+Demolitions
Meganob [44pts]
-Two killsaws
+Veteran
Nob [23pts]
-Kombi-Skorcha, Power stabba
+Veteran
Ork Boy [6pts]
-Slugga and Choppa
+Combat
Ammo Runt [3pts]
Ammo Runt [3pts]
Gretchin [3pts]
Gretchin [3pts]
Kommando [8pts]
Kommando [8pts]
Kommando Boss Nob [16pts]
-Power Klaw
Ork Boy [6pts]
Ork Boy [6pts]
Ork Boy [6pts]
Ork Boy [6pts]
Ork Boy [6pts]
-all Slugga and Choppa
++ Total: [273pts] ++
I don't know if the roster has a point limit, but I asked, so if I have to I can trim things down once I get an answer.
-
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hootman
I was just thinking I should build a core force that is my baseline before adding different units to swap in to fight off specific threats.
Your core force should be the most models possible for your points limit.
So for Orks, at 125 Points, straight off the bat you should start with...
Ork Boyz (x16) - 96 Points
Ork Boy Gunners (x2); Big Shootas - 14 Points
Boss Nob; Big Choppa - 12 Points
This list alone will solve most of your problems... You even have room for a 3 Point Rokkit if you want it.
Now you start adding in solutions to common problems.
(In my Astartes example, above, I start with 6 Scouts, 2 Gunners and a Sergeant for 99 Points [for a KT of 100 Points]. That is my core force. Now I start adding in models that are solutions to problems that Scouts can't solve...I have 11 models to play with.)
The obvious problem is that you've pretty much used up your entire 20-model allowance, and if your opponent knows that you're playing Orks, they'll just throw in Storm Bolters and Flamers.
What does your Team do if they fail their Charges? ...Throw in a very strong Melee model with Veteran that wont fail the Turn 1 Charge.
What do you do if your opponent is playing a gunline, and just Readies up their entire Team? What do you have that can Ready, so you can activate more-or-less with your opponent? Throw in strong ranged models that don't move.
What do you do, if your opponent Charges you, first? Throw in a couple of models that you can use to counter, how do you counter, say, Harlequins or Genestealers?
Quote:
Incidentally, what is the Veteran Nob for? I'd heard there was some kind of pre-game movement stratagem that only worked on Veteran models
A Rank 1 Veteran can use a Tactic before the game begins; Make an Advance before Turn 1. Then, on Turn 1 actual, you can use your Move to Charge. This disrupts your opponent's gunline immediately, as before they even get to shoot - not counting Overwatch - they have an enemy model in their DZ. If your model is choppy and/or survivable, it can wreak havoc on your opponent. If your opponent has models clumped together for whatever reason, you just start consolidating into the next unit, etc.
...Also, the win conditions of the game strongly favour Melee models. So there is that. :smallwink:
Above all, if your Roster doesn't have 20 models on it, you've already failed at Kill Team.
-
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cheesegear
Above all, if your Roster doesn't have 20 models on it, you've already failed at Kill Team.
Well, I made a 20 model roster, as you suggested. Edited it into the post above, since that's where I was working. As for your other advice, I'll have to think on that stuff tomorrow, and double-check that I think I can handle different opponent types.