|
Post by commandersasha on Mar 7, 2016 0:41:50 GMT
Hi Davor, I certainly want one of those Verminlords, although whether he gets to steal the Flyrant role from my Doomwheel Biplane remains to be seen!
|
|
|
Post by commandersasha on Mar 5, 2016 23:44:07 GMT
In a very friendly, but generally highly skilled gaming group, with hundreds of members, of whom I have played dozens, I have had above average success with my single CAD list, as the sheer speed of an MSU DE army means I am still picking up VPs in turn 5. I have generally found killing the enemy a bad tactic, running rings round them and picking off the stragglers is much more fun, for both myself and my opponents!
I am looking forward to a different playstyle now though!
|
|
|
Post by commandersasha on Mar 5, 2016 23:25:28 GMT
Interesting, thanks guys. I have a game of Overkill with a buddy on Wednesday, and have got the Stealer Cult rules; definitely seeing potential there.
I am trying to overcome my aversion to anything but a single FOC list; to my decade of playing, it seems cheating to ally, use unbound, or buy-to-win formations etc, but I guess I have to convince myself that this is the new way of doing things.
There's certainly a lot to catch up on! Dark Eldar, having only a codex and a single unimaginative detachments book, is a lot easier! (And by that I mean severely limited!)
|
|
|
Post by commandersasha on Mar 5, 2016 21:59:42 GMT
Hi everyone, I used to be on here a lot, you may remember either my avatar, or the fact that I played Skaven counts-as-Tyranids. I built my horde during 5th edition, triggered by the new WHFB Skaven codex (I don't play fantasy), and the Doomwheel in particular. Who wouldn't want a magical hamster wheel with axle scythes?! After amassing about 2,500pts of lovingly crafted and modified Skaven on round bases to create a Skaven-counts-as-Tyranids army, 6th edition and the new codex really spanked my lists, and the slew of new MCs forced my Skavenids on to the shelf. A few aspects of the way GW worked, and the abusive way I felt it treated its fanbase, made me vote with my wallet: not so much a ragequit, as a "walk away, find something new". I did: Malifaux, X-Wing, and board games. I returned to 7th with Dark Eldar, and I have had a very enjoyable year: a new gaming club with my preferred level of competitiveness, and a proxy army of lovely French models from Raging Heroes to count-as DEldar. The introduction of Maelstrom missions appeal to my chaotic, cinematic, and hopelessly untactical playstyle! The recent developments with GW and what seem to be changes in their approach have attracted me back to the shop, and the forthcoming Cult has really whetted my appetite: the prospect of a load of Wererats, ratty mutants, and subservient humans with a cheese fetish is too exciting! I picked up the Tyranid codex today, and have *cough cough* seen the Leviathan dataslates, and am ready to start dusting off models. Please can you help?! A couple of questions: 1) I prefer a mixed, all-comers list as opposed to specific anti-opponent building; my DE are MSU, penknife load-outs rather than specialists, as I only play Maelstrom, and with friendly/narrative more important than optimised/winning. With that in mind, are Tyranids a viable army for run-around point scoring, or do they play more as "stomp your opponent, or lose"? 2) With a large proxy army, infantry are the easy conversions; creating war engines and transports to represent MCs is the tricky part (I take WYSIWYG very seriously, my Screaming Bell Wagon is the same size as its Tervigon equivalent, my catapults as dakkafexen etc). Can Tyranids play troop-heavy with any success? The impression I got from forums after the 6th codex and BRB came out and new MCs were released were that troops were next to useless, the only way to play was twin Flyrant, loads of HS gunline MCs, and various 'Crines up the front. 3) I loved my Genestealers (Storm Vermin), and the idea of a Vermincult, using the rumoured Genestealer Cult rules sounds like a lot of wonderful conversion and painting challenges. Are Genies viable at the moment? When 6th started, I cried at how weak they had become! My DE Wyches, being assault-only, are next to useless. Though I wouldn't be so crass as to ask for a list, here are the models I currently have; regarding biomorphs, they are much more subject to the choices I write down than the models themselves; all my shooty Tyranids are represented by rats with weapons that look projectile or magic zappers; all my combat 'Nids have daggers, flails etc. What are your views on how 'Nids play at the moment? Are they fun or hard work? Are there must- and never-includes? My list of models is: 1 Walkrant 1 Flyrant 1 Hive guard 4 Zoeanthropes (plus one character/Doom of Malantai) 10 Ymgarls 20 Genestealers, plus a broodlord 50 Termagants (3 groupings) 20 Hormagants 20 Gargoyles 1 Harpy 3 Shrikes 6 Raveners 3 Biovores 1 Dakkafex Years ago I wrote a long blog article about how and why I built my proxy army, with loads of photos attached, but it got lost in a Proboards hardware update. Should you be interested, the photobucket album they were drawn from is HereIt's great to be back and see some familiar faces (well, avatars and names!); here's hoping the Skavenids get a rebirth in 2016! Thanks for listening, Sasha xx
|
|
|
Post by commandersasha on Mar 5, 2016 21:23:51 GMT
Interesting, I have come to TTH tonight with almost exactly the same questions, and with the same history! 6th and the codex pushed me away, Genestealer cults have me pining!
|
|
|
Post by commandersasha on May 20, 2014 23:46:14 GMT
I have had great fun over the past 7 years, and don't regret getting in to it at all, so if I could turn back time and advise myself, I'd say yes,yes,yes. (But don't bother with Battlefleet Gothic!)
Now, however, if a young wannabee gamer asked for my advice, or if burglars broke in, ignored the computers and TVs, and stole my whole gaming cupboard so that I had to start again from scratch, I wouldn't.
Malifaux for the models, Dreadball for the tactics, and X-Wing for the pew-pew. GW have driven me away!
|
|
|
Post by commandersasha on May 19, 2014 9:16:44 GMT
I personally think that in the case of Hormagants, it WOULD make a difference: as they will often be deployed as a large group, maybe the full 30, if they are spread out to maximum coherency, a 20% increase in base size will be quite an increase in the width of a line, and fewer Gaunts underneath a blast template.
When it is only a few models, or one MC/Dread, there is little or no gaming difference, but in a swarm? My vote is that it would be significant.
(BTW, official small round bases are 25mm; the model size is referred to as 28mm, supposedly the eye height of a standard proportional adult male human)
|
|
|
Post by commandersasha on May 19, 2014 9:09:24 GMT
The only thing about D10s upwards is that they are MUCH harder to read, as you need digits not dots, so when you are rolling 120 attacks for your Ork boys on the charge, numerals would be unreadable!
I DO agree that the WS chart should be as complex as the Wound chart: as an untrained pacifist, I reckon I would be WS2, slightly worse than a rookie Guardsman. If I picked up a sword against Lelith Hesperax, Logan Grimnar or Jaime Lannister, there is NO WAY I would land a blow on them, or prevent them from wounding me! It should read exactly as the Wound chart: some matches are just to different to allow for luck.
The Strength scale could afford to be revised, although that would require Errata for EVERY CODEX; doubling all the values, then nudging them a bit up and down as necessary, would double the accuracy.
The problem with Space Marines and their vulnerability to S3 soldiers comes from an unfortunate entrenched statline: 1 wound, and T4S4 does not represent the fluff at all.
To my mind, the only Army List that comes even CLOSE to representing an Astartes force, was Draigowing in 5th edition: 1) Although still T4, the second wound reflects their healing abilities and ignoring mortal wounds. 2) 2+ is what power armour would really be like against swords, knives, claws and teeth 3) Power weapons are what Chainswords should be like: even if I am wearing Kevlar, have you ever seen a chainsaw in action???it may skitter off a really tough, smooth surface, but once it finds an armpit, a waist etc, it is ripping through whatever it finds! 4) One guy wounded? Of COURSE his trained buddies will re-arrange the squad to protect him from a second wound.
I don't think 40K can handle the changes that would be necessary to make it much more reflective; if you want that level of realism, skirmish games will serve much better; Warmachine reflects loss of a limb, for example.
|
|
|
Post by commandersasha on May 18, 2014 22:08:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by commandersasha on May 18, 2014 17:44:57 GMT
£50, only 2 years after the last one, when I bought both a big book on release, and then DV for the small one, offends me.
Furthermore, I play non-40K lore proxy armies, so have little interest in fluff, and none in pictures of models by other people.
I just want the rules, so am considering buying an eReader, and getting the digital version. Please can you tell me what my experience will be like, and whether I will be frustrated?!
How easy to read are they? More importantly, how easy to flick back and forth? When you can't remember if the question should be in USRs, the Charging section, the unit type bit or the terrain chapter, are you having to scroll, scroll, scroll...or is it a linked jump?
I don't own a tablet, and don't want to invest over GBP100, so should I look at budget Android tablets, or dedicated eReaders?
I feel my phone would be too small (Sony Experia Z), and my wife's first generation Kindle might be too, would you recommend a big eReader, or a small tablet.
I think Black&White would be fine, but how well do the illuminated text boxes in GW's books come out (or are they just converted to text)?
I put a shareware ePub reader program on my laptop, for pirated codecii; I find it awful, everything has to be done by scrolling.
I would greatly value your opinions and experiences, both good and bad!
Thanks, Sasha
|
|
|
Post by commandersasha on May 17, 2014 18:27:19 GMT
I'm sure Wraithbone skull inserts could be used to control non-Synapse Tyranids, and my Archon would love her Beastmasters to run flocks of gargoyles, and packs of raveners!
|
|
|
Post by commandersasha on May 12, 2014 22:38:59 GMT
My Skaven-Counts-As-Tyranids are going to be REALLY confused now...
|
|
|
Post by commandersasha on May 7, 2014 8:32:22 GMT
I am looking at the big pile of expensive books on my shelf that are now worthless. I am thinking about how few of the games I have played recently due to other life commitments, maybe one game a month, and thinking "can I REALLY be bothered to start all over again and learn a new system?" I am also thinking about how many of those few games have ended up being disappointing as my opponents' armies have felt stupidly unfair, as GWs policies have left players such as myself who cannot afford the time or money to chase the latest super-power.
The fun I have had could also have been gleaned from my Malifaux, the Dreadball set I own, or from my Battlestar Galactica game.
If 7th solves all the balance problems, and allows me to play my pure-codex existing models against my friends in a strategy-based game of shooting and melee, then I will pick up the mini rulebook off eBay.
I will not buy the Big Book of The Same Pictures. I will not buy plastic I don't want.
I certainly am NOT looking forward to 7th, just waiting to see how bad it is. This is not Chicken Licken, it is just a tired player who is at the end of his enthusiasm pool. Let's see if 7th throws D6 enthusiasm points back in for me.
|
|
|
Post by commandersasha on May 7, 2014 8:21:59 GMT
Brucelich: I can pretty much agree with everything you say. My point isn't that GW has done a good job, nor to excuse their bad execution. I just want to be clear that when you are comparing them to Malifaux or Warmachine or DZC, or whatever.... it isn't even close the the same thing. GW has done a poor job, but we need to at least recognize that they set their sights *much* higher than most of these other game companies. I'm not sure I agree. Certainly GW are a much bigger company, many more products, more employees, more variety in models and rules etc; but if we separate the company into various divisions, we can still judge them by their peers: Business and retail: awesome, dwarfs every competitor Models: Vastly greater range, and fairly high quality (though not the best); obviously quantities also vastly greater. But if we look at their rules department, this is still just a small office of English-speaking games designers; there is NO excuse for bad wording due to the language barrier, at least for us English as a first language players. The fundamental problem with GW's rules is that they made a mistake that is lesson one in games design: Don't Break The Core Mechanics. If you give a unit the power to ignore cover, for example, you have to ensure that it can't spread. Give it a weak weapon, or one with only a few shots, or other limitations; certainly don't allow it to confer that ability elsewhere, nor allow it to be spammed. By allowing these absurd combos, and multiples of them, we have ended up with these huge imbalances. If GW had limited them in the rules, there would be less of a problem. "A Heldrake is an astonishingly rare magical creature; of COURSE you don't see three turning up at once" I think it is ENTIRELY fair to judge the office at Nottingham who write the rule books against Malifaux, Dropzone, Mantic et al. The size of the factory is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by commandersasha on May 6, 2014 20:58:04 GMT
"Great news for all football fans: with the new rules, you can choose to either play "match-hardened", where you use a traditional 11-man line-up, but you get to use a metallic ball and your goalie has magnetised gloves...or you can play "Soccer Unbound" where you can have 11 goalkeepers, or your defenders can all carry tasers."
|
|