Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Kvekan

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
1
General Discussion / Counting primaris as terminators for transports
« on: August 30, 2017, 08:50:13 AM »
As the topic states in my meta we have now begun counting primaris marines as terminators for transport purposes, meaning they can go in for example a land raider or storm raven.

Surprisingly the one who suggested it is an eldar player (kudos for sportsmanship!) but it has only been met with positivity so far.

The rule preventing primaris from going in the old vehicles is a blatant money grab and I've not been able to find any previous case as silly is this so I'm all for it. It neither makes sense from a rules, size or lore perspective in my view.

What I'm really  wondering is what the rest of the community thinks of the house rule?

I'm also kind of curious about why there hasn't been more complaints about the primaris transport issue, thoughts? I'm sure GW would change the rule if they get enough stick for it.

2
I've been running my old 7th list with some very slight tweaks and it's not worked out at all. Here's the list:

2000p Batallion detachment

HQ

Sanguinor

Sanguinary priest (jump pack, thunder hammer)

Troops

10 tacticals (SGT combi-melta+chainsword, melta, heavy flamer) Dedicated Rhino

10 tacticals (SGT combi-melta+chainsword, melta, heavy flamer) Dedicated Rhino

5 close combat scouts

Elites

4 Sanguinary guards (angelus bolters, 3x swords, 1x axe)

5 Sanguinary guards (plasma pistols, 3x swords, 2x axes)

Sanguinary ancient (angelus, sword)

Fast

3 bikes (combi-grav, 2x grav)

3 bikes (combi-grav, 2x grav)

Heavy

Predator (autocannon, las sponsons)

Vindicator

Some lessons I've learned so far:

Vindicators barely ever achieve anything, even when ignored by my enemy.

Tacticals are only worth it because of their weapon options and mustn't ever get into close combat where they are utterly useless. Are easily nullified and have poor range.

Sanguinary guards lack weight of attacks and the new rend system makes them much more vulnerable despite having 2 wounds each. The lack of attacks goes for pretty much every close combat unit... Deepstriking is also barely ever a viable tactic in my experience.

Characters die so easily. Especially to psykers...



3
Discussion: Blood Angels / How would you run blood angels now in 8th?
« on: July 11, 2017, 08:17:56 AM »
I'm 20-ish games, mostly 1000-1500 points, into 8th edition now and have completely revised my thoughts on how 8th would play out.

Making assault armies that aren't horde variants (orcs, tyrannies) viable seems hard to me. In all my games the shooty elements of my list have done all the heavy lifting. This disturbs me to no end as I didn't choose to play blood angels back in 3rd to be some back field bullet slinger but feel more and more shoehorned into that play style.

How would you run Blood angels now in 8th? I think I need an entirely new angle.

4
General Discussion / Re: My thoughts on 8th editio
« on: July 11, 2017, 08:04:26 AM »
I can only report on my own experiences and assault based armies crushed me every single time in games between 4th and 7th edition. Even if I knew what  I was going up against and could plan for it (something I've tried with opponents agreement), once those tyranids or massed orks hit my lines I am screwed. Sheer weight of attacks wins out every single time. I've always found assault far too good in a game that is really about shooting more than anything.

I don't know what meta you've been in. But Orcs, Tyranids or Blood angels haven't been competitive at all since 5th edition. Look at any tournament and you'll see that. Especially not if you've tried to run an assault based list. Tyranids were only useful spamming flying hive tyrants with twin-linked devourers for example.

I also find it strange that people say that 40k is mainly about shooting? Why? All the books and artworks depict brutal close combat engagements. To say that assault is secondary is somewhat offensive to me as a blood angels assault player. Half the space marine type units are also assault oriented, are they not as important? Terminators, vanguards and all the heroes of the imperium beg to differ.

I'd agree that assault is even more important now just as you say Celerior, but to me it is important for all the wrong reasons. Close combat should be a gory and heroic maelstrom. Not about preventing a vehicle from shooting a turn. I couldn't be more disappointed in the close combat mechanics after my first 20 odd games.

5
General Discussion / Re: My thoughts on 8th editio
« on: July 08, 2017, 11:42:37 AM »
Properly balanced out? Assault hasn't been good since 5th edition. It's still super weak compared to shooting. Even as a Blood Angel I perform much better just spamming bikes and intercessors staying at medium-long range rather than taking underperforming assault units.

6
General Discussion / Re: My thoughts on 8th editio
« on: July 06, 2017, 02:24:37 PM »
I feel like the hype for assault armies that GW tried to push really hasn't converted to table top performance. It's too hard to get enough volume of dice to kill stuff while also being too hard to get morale into effect. Losing the extra attack on the charge is a huge cut. And since enemies can just fall back you are never safe from shooting either.

Sad Blood angel thus far.

7
Discussion: Blood Angels / Re: The new 8th Ed. BA Units
« on: July 02, 2017, 03:56:33 PM »
After playing almost a dozen games I've come to the following conclusions:

Sanguinary guards with warlord sanguinor are good, but they really need that 1 extra attack to be viable, as well as the to hit rerolls. And they most definitely need to pick their targets with care.

"Deep striking" is still a tool to be handled with caution. I had way more success with my jump troops starting them on the table.

The vindicator is indeed bad (I was way off on that one), the only thing it's good for is killing vehicles and monsters and a predator does that better. The auto cannon las cannon pred however has been my MVP almost every game.

Tacticals are even less tactical. Losing the extra attack on the charge and str 5 (for now) means they're only really good for shooting, and they never were very good at that in the first place. Flamers are also really not what they used to be...

Bikes are still a great unit even though they're more expensive.

Priests are great both for healing and strength.

Close combat scouts went from a unit that could be really hit or miss to being just very.. meh. Once again the lack of dice volume kills their effectiveness. All 1 attack base units are super gimped in assaults, chain sword or no.

Psykers are really dangerous...

All in all this edition still shows all signs of shooting still being king. Morale very rarely comes into effect, while before I swept people right and left. I'm tempted to try more death company units but they don't really fit thematically with my Lamenters, but for now even in my assault army the shooting does the heavy lifting which I hate.

8
Discussion: Blood Angels / Re: The new 8th Ed. BA Units
« on: June 22, 2017, 03:44:53 AM »
Sanguinary guards look really good to me now, especially with plasma pistols. I'm gonna take 5 with plasma pistols and 5 with angelus and Sanguinor as warlord dropping near them together with an ancient. The heirs of azkaellon is a great rule, 2 wounds make them much more durable and the best of all, their weapons do d3 wounds each, that is huge.

I think they will be a killer unit. I'm also thinking preds with the new auto cannon will be sweet doing 3 wounds a pop. The vindicator will probably perform a lot better than it did before as well, considering I usually got 1 shot off per game before being shaken or destroyed.

Dante is really lackluster in my view. He has no special rules appart from the generic chapter master rule. Compare him to Azrael of the dark angels and he looks even worse.

Edit: I'm thinking the +1 strength aura is awesome for now, until we know what kind of chapter rules we get in the codex. the difference between str 4 and 5 is huge, 5 and 6 not so much.

9
Discussion: 40K Rumors / Re: Im sorry Fritz, your wrong.
« on: May 12, 2017, 10:28:28 AM »
He can't really be wrong before we have the new rules, nor can you be right. Right now it's all speculation based on very few details. Hopefully it will be balanced, but we don't know yet.

We don't know if points costs will be shuffled around massively, as a major gap in everyones' guesstimations so far.

We will see when it drops, and in the months that follow when people try to break the system.

10
General Discussion / Re: Which assault themed army is most consistent?
« on: April 22, 2017, 08:50:39 AM »
I'd really wait until 8th edition to make any kind of decision like this. For all we know we're in for a major shake up.

Currently I'd agree that no assault army works very consistently. I play blood angels and have moved from an all out assault approach to take all comers due to the limitations in 7th.

11
Discussion: Space Marines / Re: Guilliman is back!
« on: March 09, 2017, 03:37:05 AM »
He is a beast! However, his monstrous creature status will mean that he is incredibly immobile as he can't get transported.

12
Discussion: Eldar / Re: WOW... the new Gathering storm book
« on: March 07, 2017, 06:43:44 AM »
After seeing Tabletop tactics video of his scat bike + reaver army ynnari list against a rather powerful Tau army I can only say that this is even more broken than I first imagined. He himself said that if he was a TO he would probably not allow the ynnari faction at the end of the video.

Absolutely crazy stuff. I have no idea what GW were thinking when they designed this. Imagine playing chess where your opponent got to do twice the amount of moves...

13
Really cool and original conversion, love it!

14
Discussion: Eldar / Re: WOW... the new Gathering storm book
« on: February 14, 2017, 05:06:41 AM »
I have to say that I really hate the new soul burst rule. For a game that is already complex enough and that many claim needs streamlining this adds so many new strange situations and rules conundrums. Not to mention being ridiculously overpowered...

15
Discussion: Tournaments / Re: Are tournaments even playing 40K?
« on: February 11, 2017, 07:12:39 AM »
I really like the format that SN battle reports use for no retreat. It is very limited though.

1 CAD-like detachment and one formation from the same faction. 1750 points.

You play for a primary mission (eternal war), a secondary (maelstrom where you discard all cards and draw new ones for objectives that are unavailable) and a tertiary (first strike, warlord kill, line breaker). If you only win the primary and lose the two others you draw.

Means you can focus on what your army is good at and you get no silly Taudar, Spacecrons or other silliness. Admittedly it does limit some things that I would still consider fluffy and balanced. But on the upper hand the format does seem to make the weak codexes perform a lot better. No one likes a tournament of all eldar wraith knights and gladiuses.

I think a tournament should still contain some semblance of 40k narrative and the armies "make sense". Otherwise you might just as well play something else that's balanced competitively to start with.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8