Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts

[Cheesegear]

Warhammer 40,000 in the Playground

This OP is currently full of placeholder answers. Check back in a week.

I'm new to the hobby. Which army should I start?
It really depends on what you want to play. And how your meta-game shapes up. Find out what everyone else is playing near you, and play anything not those armies for best results. Otherwise, if you're starting from scratch with no-one really to play with - or, you've got a friend who is also starting from scratch - buy a Start Collecting! box and your favourite Index.
Or, if you're specifically into Primaris Marines or Death Guard, GW has conveniently set up a number of 'beginner boxes' to get you started.

What's Dark Imperium?
Dark Imperium contains a rulebook and a bunch of dice.

Comments on Dark Imperium forces.

How much does it cost?
Placeholder Answer.

Is WH40K expensive? Yes. I suppose it is. We all know it is. But, practically speaking, it's no more expensive than any other hobby.

Okay, I've got everything. What next?
Play some games. Playing some actual games, is a far, far better learning experience than anything you could glean from the internet. Although we really would appreciate some stories and how you're finding your army. Find out what works for you, find out what doesn't (just because the internet likes something, doesn't mean you will too). You, more than anyone know who your opponents are and what they're putting on the table. You are in the best position to find out what you need to bring to the table.

However, if you're still stuck. Just ask.

How many points do I need? What size board do I need?
The recommended minimum is 750.
However, in other meta-games, find out what the local tournament standard is. Most people in your area should be playing at that points level. While you're at it, here's How to write an army list. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8702512&postcount=1358)

As for board size; a 4x4' table can accommodate up to 1000 Points with reasonable room left for movement. But, after that you should probably look at finding a 6x4' area. The floor is never a bad start.

Comments on Power Rating.

What's the difference between Power Rating and Points Cost?
...A lot.

I did what you said and I still lost. What gives? :smallfurious:
First, this game is all about dice. Dice are random (most of the time anyway), sometimes you just get bad rolls all game and there's nothing you can really do about it. It's best to accept it, otherwise you're not going to have a very fun time.

Sometimes your opponent can make a minor change in his list - like changing from Plasma Cannons to Lascannons. That can totally alter the flow of the game and what happens when they next play you.

Sometimes the terrain placement is just bad (or the terrain itself is bad) and right from Deployment you can find yourself getting shot at and there's nothing you can do about it. Really, this can only stress how important terrain can be to how the game gets played.

And, lastly, maybe you just 'did it wrong'? Maybe you used [X] to shoot [Y] when they should have been shooting [Z]. Maybe you Charged, when the better move could have been moving backwards and Rapid Firing instead? There are all sorts of ways you can be out-played. You didn't just lose because your opponents' Queens are overpowered.

Terrain? You said this hobby was only as expensive as any other.
Yes and no. Most of your 'starting' terrain can be household items. Books. Soda-cans. Small boxes. Whatever.

If you look around the internet, you can also find a few tutorials on how to make some really decent-looking terrain. Made out of what you essentially would have otherwise thrown in the bin.

Only GW Terrain actually costs you any significant money. Making your own should only cost a few dollars tops - and your time and effort.

How much terrain do I need?
Anywhere between 25-33% of the board should be covered by terrain. On a standard 6x4' table, you would want at least anywhere between 6-8' square of terrain. It seems like a lot. But if you divide that up to 7-12 pieces, it doesn't look like much. Or you could just put a 2x3' block in the centre of the board. Don't forget that not all Terrain is 'equal', and you will definitely want a few pieces of terrain that block Line of Sight.

I don't like using Unique Characters, and I think Allies are dumb.
Your opponents probably don't. Unique Characters are pretty powerful and there's no real reason that you shouldn't be using them if your opponents are. That's not to say that all Unique Characters are good - they aren't - and certainly don't get the impression that just because it's a Unique Character that you need to use it - you don't. But some of them are still good and they do make certain armies a lot better.

However, Allies, on the other hand. Are often a required part of the game. Especially if you play Imperium, Chaos or Aeldari. Some armies just don't have the units required to fend off other units. Does this make the game unfair? Kind of. But, GW doesn't update their entire range at once (it's a big range), and so some units are always going to be better than others. But, allowing Allies is a big step to evening the playing field.

So which Allies should I pick?
Depends on your army, and what units you already have. Ask in the thread.

I can't paint.
Like any skill worth having, you get better if you practice. 90% of a good paint job is just brush control - how much paint you put on your brush and where you put it. The other 10% is just colour theory (yeah, it's a thing). The most important tool this author has is a $5 Colour Wheel (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20355942&postcount=1425). :smallwink:

But, on a more serious note, the only real reason that you need to paint is if you want to participate in tournaments. Well, that and painted models just look better - if you've practised, of course.

Unfortunately, painting is a practical skill, not knowledge. The only person who can get you better at painting is you. Wraith has put together how you can go about Painting your army without losing your mind. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8722344&postcount=1421)

Is there such a thing as a 'Bad' Codex?
Not exactly. There are certainly bad, individual units. But, on the whole, every Faction is playable. However, you must remember that Allies are an intended part of the game - even if you, personally don't like them. If your Faction's entire army list is lacking in a certain area, you may have to consider whether or not it was intended to be that way, and you will have to consider whether or not to bring Allies into your army.

Helpful Army Building Guides
Adeptus Custodes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23089844&postcount=368) Out of date
Adeptus Mechanicus (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23212682&postcount=799) Out of date
Astra Militarum (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23229442&postcount=860) by LeSwordfish
Chaos Space Marines (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22323358&postcount=680) by LeSwordfish
Craftworlds (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23102387&postcount=394) by Forum Explorer
Dark Angels (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22682254&postcount=1287) Out of date
Death Guard (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22425277&postcount=1268) by LeSwordfish
Deathwatch (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23067706&postcount=257) Out of date
Drukhari (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22979092&postcount=1056) by Gauntlet
Grey Knights (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22290159&postcount=518)
Necrons (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22958139&postcount=936) by Requizen
Officio Assassinorum (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23783027&postcount=880) (White Dwarf, March 2019)
Space Marines Part I (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23046630&postcount=154) - Part II (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23046633&postcount=155)

Building on a Budget
Adeptus Mechanicus (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22952114&postcount=902) Outdated
Space Marines (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22611520&postcount=1068)

30K/Heresy Guides
30K Relics (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18500576&postcount=1350) by Vaz
Solar Auxilia (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18471119&postcount=1234) by Vaz
Taghmata Omnissiah Army List (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18522411&postcount=1421) by Vaz
Questoris Knights (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18471124&postcount=1235) by Vaz

30K/Legion Rules
Legion Crusade Army List (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17232158&postcount=1308)
Legion Special Rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17243267&postcount=1322)
The Primarchs (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17250802&postcount=1330)

Previous Threads
* Warhammer 40K Tactics (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29297)
* II: Tactics for the Tactics God (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101608)
* III: Hats for the Hat Throne (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119333)
* IV: The Enemy of Your Enemy is Still Your Enemy. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133984)
* V: Everyone Is On Fire. Some Moreso Than Others. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=141538)
* VI: Chaos Bringing Eternal Darkness? I brought my flashlight. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=149084)
* VII: Common Sense is not RAW. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156779)
* VIII: You're Gonna have To Face It, You're Addicted To Maths (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=165820)
* IX: "Mech Is King? I Never Voted For It!" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=175990)
* X: "Everybody expects the Inquisition!" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=184538)
* XI: "More Threads than your Tactical Squad has Room for!" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=193025)
* XII: "Now in Rapid Fire range!" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=199750)
* XIII: "Ironclads, Furiosos and Soul Grinders, oh my!" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=208838)
* XIV: "Pray for 6s!" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=221858)
* XV: "More People Should Be Punched In The Head." (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=232277)
* XV: "Terminator? I hardly know 'er!" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=248423)
* XVII: "Tyranids Don't Have Friends." (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=265917)
* XVIII: "Fortune Favours the Careless!" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=282842)
* XIX: Understand the Gravity of the Situation (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?303801-Warhammer-40K-Tabletop-XIX-quot-Understand-the-gravity-of-the-situation-quot)
* XX: Barrage is the new Precision Shot (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?341687-Warhammer-40K-Tabletop-XX-quot-Barrage-is-the-new-Precision-Shot-quot)
* XXI: Preferred Enemy (Dice) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?359820-Warhammer-40k-Tabletop-XXI-Preferred-Enemy-(Dice))
* XXII: I C'Tan Has Cheese? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?388399-Warhammer-40K-Tabletop-XXII-I-C-Tan-Has-Cheese#post18535364)
* XXIII: I Do Not Like Green Tides and 'Hann (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?411374-Warhammer-40K-Tabletop-XXIII-I-Do-Not-Like-Green-Tides-and-Hann)
* XXIV: ...And They Shall Know No Fluff. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?444969-Warhammer-40K-Tabletop-XXIV-And-They-Shall-Know-No-Fluff&p=19863366&viewfull=1#post19863366)
* XXV: Friends Are Better Than Wraithknights
* XXVI: Frequently Asked, Frequently Ignored (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?476885-Warhammer-40K-Tabletop-XXV-Friends-Are-Better-Than-Wraithknights)
* XXVII: Tyranids Finally Found a Friend (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?503224-Warhammer-40K-Tabletop-XXVII-Tyranids-Finally-Found-A-Friend)
* XXVIII: Drasius Can't Have Nice Things (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?509492-Warhammer-40K-Tabletop-XXVIII-Drasius-Can-t-Have-Nice-Things)
* XXIX: Ro, Ro, Ro Your Boute (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?517336-Warhammer-40K-Tabletop-XXIX-Ro-Ro-Ro-Your-Boute)
* XXX: Imperium After Dark (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?525424-Warhammer-40K-Tabletop-XXX-Imperium-After-Dark)
* XXXI: Haters Gonna Burn (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?530992-Warhammer-40K-Tabletop-XXXI-Haters-Gonna-Burn)
* XXXII: I Got 99 Guardsmen and Morale Killed One (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?538281-Warhammer-40K-Tabletop-XXXII-I-Got-99-Guardsmen-and-Morale-Killed-One)
* XXXIII: Only in Nerf Does Duty End (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?546769-Warhammer-40K-Tabletop-Thread-XXXIII-Only-in-Nerf-Does-Duty-End)
* XXXIV: Situation Normal, All FAQ'd Up (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?557261-Warhammer-40K-Tabletop-Thread-XXXIV-Situation-Normal-All-FAQ-d-Up)
* XXXV: 4 Pages of Rules, 46 Pages of Pointless Bickering (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?568998-Warhammer-40K-Tabletop-Thread-XXXV-4-Pages-of-Rules-46-Pages-of-Pointless-Bickering)
* http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?578886-Warhammer-40K-Tabletop-Thread-XXXVI-If-it-Ain-t-Broke-Nerf-It

Here's a bunch of Battle Reports (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22597012&postcount=924) for you to read. Plenty of army lists in there.

[Cheesegear]

Last time in the Eternal Darkness...

Warhammer Fest was a thing. Lots of things happened. Did you care about any of it?
Renegade Paladin was back at Mission Design (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23915571&postcount=1471) again, looking for feedback.
...We now return you back to your Darkness.

[Turalisj]

That new thread smell.


Wish they'd get those Admech transports out here already.

[LansXero]

Sylvaneth is next week? I know it got pushed back but dont know when it would leave them.

Also, GW is apparently reacting to overstock issues. Elite boxes were heavily allocated, as were Forbidden Power boxes (to the tune of 2 per store). Even the new terrain set had shortages. Oh, and no more Looncurse anywhere, and not enough to cover demand.

I wonder what all of this means, if anything. Are people just not buying enough? Are they going to shift rules to move dead stock? Are they going to bloat their SKUs even more to allienate outlets again? (trade range isnt even everything and is already at over 1400 items. Stocking that is a royal PITA).

[Destro_Yersul]

Could be they're pulling a Nintendo, and creating artificial shortages in order to drive demand and be able to say they sold out really fast.

[Brookshw]

Reposting question from last thread.

Had a new scenario tonight. Kastellan rebounded a missle shot from a tankbusta embarked in a Wagon. We figured the rebound got cancelled out by the embarked rules. Anyone have thoughts on how it should have played out?

[Destro_Yersul]

It's a weird rule interaction.

Personally, I'd say the Embarked unit takes the wound. Here's my reasoning:

Embarked means the unit can't normally do anything or be affected. Open topped means embarked units can shoot. This overrides the 'embarked units can't do anything or be affected' rule, allowing them to make attacks. Kastelan robots make the unit that attacked them take a wound if they roll a 6. Therefore, the embarked unit takes the wound, because 'normally can't do anything' has already been specifically overriden.

[Renegade Paladin]

The main thing I was looking for is to make sure I didn't mess up any of the secondaries. I edited them slightly to remove references to doubling up (since each partner can only pick one, and they can't achieve each others' secondaries) and swap around some things to accommodate doubles format (removing Last Strike from the Old School objective in favor of doubling up Slay the Warlord). Seize Ground
Drive into enemy territory and seize the area to permit forward landing of reinforcements. Hold until relieved.

The Armies
Each team fields the combined 2000 point army submitted to the tournament organizer.

The Battlefield
Use the pre-set terrain on the table for this mission. Arrange objectives as shown on the deployment map.


Deployment
Use the Hammer and Anvil deployment type (pg. 216) for this mission. The teams roll off – whoever rolls highest picks one of the deployment zones on the map for their army. The opposing team uses the other deployment zone.

The teams then alternate deploying their units, one at a time, starting with the team who did not pick their deployment zone. A team’s models must be set up within their own deployment zone. Continue setting up units until both sides have set up their armies.

First Turn
When both teams finish deploying, they roll off. The team that finished deploying first gains a +1 to this roll. The winner of this roll can choose to take the first or second turn. If the winner of this roll off decides to take the first turn, their opponent can roll a die; on a roll of 6, they manage to seize the initiative, and they get the first turn instead!

Battle Length
The mission will last for 6 battle rounds or the end of the battle round that time expiration falls upon, whichever comes first.

Victory Conditions
At the end of the game the team that has scored the most Victory Points is the winner. If both teams have the same number of Victory Points, the game is a draw. Victory points are achieved by the following:

Seize Ground: At the end of each player turn, the team whose turn it is scores 1 victory point if they hold any objective marker, and 1 additional victory point if they have destroyed an enemy unit during the turn. Additionally, at the end of each battle round, the team that holds more objectives scores a victory point, the team that has destroyed more enemy units during that battle round scores a victory point, and if a team controls five or more objective markers they score an additional victory point..

Personal Objectives: Each player (not each team) selects a single secondary objective from the list overleaf. These objectives can only be scored by that player’s units (in an exception to treating the teams as a combined force), to a maximum of 4 points per objective


Headhunter: 1pt for each enemy Character that is destroyed.

Kingslayer: Choose an enemy model that is a Character.
• Earn 1 point for every 2 wounds of damage it loses, cumulatively.
• In the instance where a Character may regenerate wounds or resurrect during the course of the game, total wounds it loses over the course of the game are counted towards this mission.
• If the model selected has the Character and Vehicle or Monster keywords, you earn 1 point for every 4 wounds it loses instead of 1 for every 2.
• If the Character is also an opponent’s Warlord, earn 1 additional point (to a maximum of 4 total) if it is destroyed.

Marked for Death: Choose 4 of your opponents’ units with a Power Level of 7+. Earn 1 pt for each of these units destroyed. In order to score this point against a unit that splits into multiple units during the course of play, you must destroy each individual component unit. If a unit joins with another unit during the course of play, to earn this point you must destroy the entire conjoined unit.

Titan Slayers: For every 8 wounds lost by enemy units with the Titanic keyword in total throughout the course of the game, earn 1 point regardless of wounds being “healed” or “regenerated” etc.

Gang Busters: For every 6 wounds inflicted on a unit that contains more than 1 model with 3 or more wounds, score 1 point. Units with the SWARM keyword do not count towards this mission.

Big Game Hunter: 1 point for every enemy model with the Monster or Vehicle keyword and 7+ wounds destroyed.

Pick Your Poison: Pick up to four keywords from the following list: psyker, fly, biker, vehicle, monster, titanic. You cannot pick a keyword more than once. For each keyword you pick, nominate an enemy unit with that keyword, you cannot nominate a unit for more than 1 keyword. Score 1 point for each nominated unit that is destroyed.

The Butcher’s Bill: Destroy 2+ enemy units during a player turn to earn 1 Point.

The Reaper: For every 20 enemy models destroyed, earn 1 point. You count each model when they are destroyed. In the instance of models coming back into play after being destroyed during the course of a game, you may count them each time they are destroyed.

Recon: Have a unit at least partially in each table quarter at the end of your player turn. A unit may only count as being in one table quarter at a time for the purposes of this rule. 1pt per turn.

Behind Enemy Lines: If at least one of your units is entirely in the enemy Deployment Zone at the start of your turn, earn 1 Point. A unit is entirely within if every model in the unit is at least partially in the enemy Deployment Zone.

Ground Control: Earn 1 point for each objective held at the end of the last Battle Round played.

King of the Hill: At the end of the Battle Round the player who chose this secondary scores 1 point if they have two non-character, multi-model units wholly within 6 inches of the center of the table. Multi-model in this instance means a unit that began the game with more than 1 model.

Engineers: Select two non-character/non-fortification units from your army to be Engineers. Starting from Battle Round 2, if either of these units starts and ends your turn within 3” of an objective marker you control, and it did not make any attacks or manifest any psychic powers during your turn, earn 1 point at the end of that turn. These units may not score this objective if they join other units during the course of play or split into multiple units. Units chosen to be Engineers may never benefit from a rule that keeps them from being the target of attacks, Cloud of Flies, for example. They can benefit from terrain blocking Line of Sight to them.

Old School: Earn 1 point for the following:
• First Strike: An enemy unit is destroyed in the first Battle Round.
• Slay the Warlords: One point for each enemy Warlord destroyed at game’s end.
• Linebreaker: Have one of your models within your opponent’s deployment zone at the end of the game.

[LansXero]

Reposting question from last thread.

Had a new scenario tonight. Kastellan rebounded a missle shot from a tankbusta embarked in a Wagon. We figured the rebound got cancelled out by the embarked rules. Anyone have thoughts on how it should have played out?

Why would it get cancelled? It doesnt have to make sense, the rule is that the shooting unit takes a wound, it doesnt interact with embarked at all.

[Saambell]

Personally I would have gone with the Wagon takes a wound. The unit is in it, and it seems cool that an ork would fire and his shot bounces back at his ride. I have no clue if the rules would support that, but it would be the fun thing to do.

[Wraith]

Maybe this time I'll remember to update the OP at some point. :smalltongue:

For reference; Guide to building a Thousand Sons' army. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23838843&postcount=1174)

I'm going to do Grey Knights at some point. There's rumours that it might be one of the books redone over the next year or so, but in the mean time it's not going to be too hard to type "It's bad, don't bother" 12 times and end with a :smallsigh: emoticon. :smallbiggrin:

[Cheesegear]

I'm going to do Grey Knights at some point. There's rumours that it might be one of the books redone over the next year or so, but in the mean time it's not going to be too hard to type "It's bad, don't bother" 12 times and end with a :smallsigh: emoticon. :smallbiggrin:

If you want Storm Bolter-wielding Deep Striking idiots, play Deathwatch.
If you want Psychic Power engines, play Thousand Sons.

If you want both, don't play Grey Knights.

[Turalisj]

If you want both, use scarab terminators

[Cheesegear]

Another argument broke out today...

Abaddon, one of the best models in the <Chaos> Faction, especially if you're running Cultists and/or Tzaangors. Which the guy, was.

Now, clearly, the way to shut down Abaddon, is to just spam attacks/Powers that target <Characters>, kill him, and then the Cultists/Tzaangors aren't Fearless anymore, and the entire thing falls apart.
...That's even more viable under the new Codex, because Abaddon is the size of Guilliman.

Except, the model was the old one, on the 40mm base.

This caused a huge problem as the guy was clearly modelling for advantage. Abaddon has a new model, buy it. The fact that Abaddon is such a powerful model, is represented by the fact that he's such a huge model (and yet still <Infantry>). There is a way to beat Cultist/Tzaangor spam, and it's represented in the soft-nerfing of making Abaddon bigger (and the hard nerfing of Cultists).

Unfortunately, we're in Australia, so Abaddon is $105 AUD. It's a bit of an...Ask...To ask someone to shell out that much.

Overheard at the Table
...Well, could you at least put the model on a 60mm and build up the base?
"No."
...In that case you're modelling for advantage and you're not gonna get games anymore.
"That's not fair."
...It's not fair that you're modelling for advantage.
"But Abaddon is $100!"
...Sure, and 60mm bases are $7 for three. You wouldn't even have to remodel your existing base, because you can just use the existing base to add height, and then model around it. Like Celestine.
"No."
...In that case you're modelling for advantage, on purpose.
"But Abaddon is $100."
You need a new argument, mate*.

I walked over to see what was going on, and of course, I agree.

*Used colloquially, 'mate' in the Australian vernacular does not mean 'friend'. What is this, the '80s? In fact, what 'mate' does mean, is what Australians really call their friends.

[LansXero]

60mm bases are $7 for three

Like damn, australia tax is real. We throw bases around because they are worthless, cents at most. Are those scenic bases or something?

Also, being a nation in the pacific rocks. All hail our chinese overlords.

[Avaris]

Yikes, yeah, that must be a frustrating argument. Ties a bit into a thing I’ve been wondering if GW will try someday actually: note I’m not suggesting they should try the below, but speculating that they might.

So, a longer term problem GW has is that current models are good enough it will be difficult to justify further ‘upgrades’ to kits, particularly special characters. For example, while you can slowly roll them out over a fairly long period of time, eventually you’ll run out of Daemon Primarchs: there are 6 active in the Universe, so if you release a new one every couple of years we’ll see the last round about 2027. By that point I’d be very surprised if modelling technology has moved along enough such that the first, Magnus, appears particularly dated. So you have now exhausted that ‘resource’: you can no longer make new daemon primarch models.

Same goes with space marines. Now they’ve done Primaris Marneus Calgar, how would they ever justify releasing a new sculpt of him? One approach they might choose is what I think of as the ‘silly hat’ approach. Make a new version of a special character that is distinctive in some way, such as wearing a silly hat, and give them a different ruleset for that version of the character. Ideally keep the old version available as well: if you’re using the old model you use the older rules, you need the new model for the new rules. You could even drive sales a bit by having one kit be able to make multiple versions who all have different rules: Magnus with staff, Magnus with his shirt off, etc.

If the rule were that the version of a model matters, and older ones are still useable but not with new rules, it would prevent the scenario Cheesegear describes where someone wants to proxy with an old version, unless their opponent agreed to it. I’m not at all sure if this is a good idea, but think it’s an interesting thing to think about.

[LansXero]

1. State in the datasheet the base size, like WMH and infinity do.
2. Lose True LoS, move to either cylinders (WMH) or silhouettes (Infinity). That way your model can be whatever you want, wont have any rules effects.

Done, the above scenario can never again ocurr, and you've cut a ton of 'I can see its arm, does that count?' arguments.

Of course, it will never happen, but thats the simplest solution.

[Cheesegear]

Same goes with space marines. Now they’ve done Primaris Marneus Calgar, how would they ever justify releasing a new sculpt of him? One approach they might choose is what I think of as the ‘silly hat’ approach. Make a new version of a special character that is distinctive in some way, such as wearing a silly hat, and give them a different ruleset for that version of the character.

This is exactly what I said towards the end of last thread with how M:tG keeps redefining its characters - specifically Planeswalkers, the main characters. And new rules are constantly added when Wizards knows that cards will be phased out. When the Standard cycle phases out the existing version of Garruk, they make sure to include a new version of Garruk in the next set. It boggles my mind that after 20 years, Wizards is still creating new stories for Karn...Even Teferi came back!

But, I don't think GW should constantly release new kits. The reason that M:tG does it, because old versions are phased out. GW doesn't phase out models if they can help it. Which means that in order to keep releasing new kits that people will buy, they would have to introduce massive power creep. Otherwise why buy the new model, when your existing one already works?

What I do think, is that GW should encourage conversions. Calgar did a thing, time to make a conversion out of it. If you want to upgrade any model to Primaris, do it. Calgar said it can be done. I've seen a converted Lysander. It was fine. From the fluff - Malodrax - I know that Darnath Lysander can basically survive anything. If anyone should be made Primaris, it's him. Unfortunately, Primaris Captains can't have Thunder Hammers or Storm Shields, so it's bad. But why not give Lysander an extra Wound and extra Attack? As with Pri-Marneus, we know it doesn't cost any extra Points to 'upgrade' someone...They lose the ability to Deep Strike and ride in Land Raiders, and gain the ability to ride in Repulsors.

So why not just encourage conversions for any rules you make up? Why make new models at all, when you can give your players the ability to do hobby?

Because Chapterhouse.


Done, the above scenario can never again ocurr, and you've cut a ton of 'I can see its arm, does that count?' arguments.

8th Ed. removed those scenarios.
The model is the model. No exceptions.
That's why the size of your model, matters.
That's why I don't put unit Banners on my models anymore.
That's why Land Raiders can shoot over terrain using their antennae.

It's stupidly abusable. But it is the rules.

[Forum Explorer]

I hate the whole modelling thing. My meta basically houserules in common sense.

[Avaris]

I hate the whole modelling thing. My meta basically houserules in common sense.

The problem is that one person’s common sense is another person’s clear abuse of the system.

This sort of thing is a large part of why I personally don’t think 40k is at all a good system for players who play with winning as their primary concern (to use Magic the Gathering archetypes, the Spikes: I’m not saying winning isn’t important to anyone else, but it isn’t necessarily the focus), and clearly it isn’t a focus for GW designers either. Though given the Spike crowd is a large part of the community, they should try to improve in this regard.

Actually, applying the magic archetypes to GW: the game is written by Timmy/Tammy and Johnny/Jenny types, who want to create an experience and allow people to express themselves in their army, playing for the satisfaction of playing that thing even if it doesn’t win all the time: they’ll collect e.g. Grey Knights because they’re cool, not because they win. This tendency is emphasised by the game design being driven by the models coming out of the studio, with the modellers focus being even more on the Timmy/Tammy archetype by making awesome models. Yet a large part of the community, particularly online, are Spikes, who aren’t well served by the design philosophy adopted by GW.

[Cheesegear]

The problem is that one person’s common sense is another person’s clear abuse of the system.

Sure is. That's why having a clear set of rules is so important. So that everyone is on the same page.
There can't be room for error, because once people start 'interpreting' the rules, it goes wrong.


This sort of thing is a large part of why I personally don’t think 40k is at all a good system for players who play with winning as their primary concern

Then why play the game at all if you don't want to win?
As I've expressed numerous times, all the way down to the 'casual' level, there is nobody playing the game who wants to lose games. The aim of any game, is always to win.

Everybody wants to have fun. Nobody wants to lose.
It's not the same thing.

Being willing to lose games, isn't the same as designing your list to lose. Nobody does that.
What people do, is design their list to have fun...They don't design to lose. This is why people get mad, because What They Like != What Is Good.


who want to create an experience and allow people to express themselves in their army

Yep. And if you do that, then it will sit on your shelf and never see the light of day, save through photos you may post on the internet.


they’ll collect e.g. Grey Knights because they’re cool, not because they win.

Collecting, is not the same as playing.
You can collect anything you want.

The instant you put your army on the board, it becomes a game that you can win at, and a game you can lose at.

For fun to the be the primary concern, you must force a situation in which the end result is that you can't lose.

[Wraith]

Same goes with space marines. Now they’ve done Primaris Marneus Calgar, how would they ever justify releasing a new sculpt of him? One approach they might choose is what I think of as the ‘silly hat’ approach. Make a new version of a special character that is distinctive in some way, such as wearing a silly hat, and give them a different ruleset for that version of the character. Ideally keep the old version available as well: if you’re using the old model you use the older rules, you need the new model for the new rules. You could even drive sales a bit by having one kit be able to make multiple versions who all have different rules: Magnus with staff, Magnus with his shirt off, etc.

They have precedent for this with Blood Angels - Captain Tycho had different rules depending on what colour you chose to paint him between Red and Black. Admittedly it was the same model that you had to buy twice, but the principal is sound.

With their increasing use of Push-To-Fit miniatures, it might not be all that hard to design a model with intentionally detachable arms/heads/accessories that each represent a different ruleset, especially in the bigger models like Primarchs and Daemon Princes.
They're already experimenting with action figures and their Kung-Fu Grip action holding on to boltguns and the likes; all it would take is a note in the assembly instructions to "DO NOT GLUE THIS PART" and then sell and upgrade pack with a new head/weapon in it or something. Or be GW and just sell the same model twice, that's always plausible so long as each version is more or less balanced with each other so there isn't one runaway favourite.

[Avaris]

Then why play the game at all if you don't want to win?
As I've expressed numerous times, all the way down to the 'casual' level, there is nobody playing the game who wants to lose games. The aim of any game, is always to win.

Everybody wants to have fun. Nobody wants to lose.
It's not the same thing.
I said PRIMARY concern. I absolutely don’t mind losing, so designing to win isn’t the main focus of my list building. But that’s not the same as saying winning isn’t important to some extent. Not doing everything I can to win isn’t the same as designing to lose.

And you’re fundamentally wrong that the aim of any game is always to win. Every game will indeed have a way of determining the vistor, and people will be pursuing that goal, but that’s not the same as the aim being always to win. I’ve played many games where winning is of secondary concern. I’ve had games where I’ve enjoyed losing, or where the totting up of scores at the end is more ‘that’s interesting’ than really caring about who won.

This is why the MtG psychographics are useful. They highlight that it’s not always about winning as the primary motivator. For some people it is, they’re the Spikes. For others it’s about having an experience or winning in a particular way. All are valid.

The problem GW has, which I am trying to express, is that it’s clear the games designers are not in the Spikey way of thinking. So I’m not sure they’ll ever be able to design a version of 40k that satisfies the criteria of those with a Spike mindset. They craft a game that is an experience, with winning a secondary concern in their minds. But they absolutely should find other ways to create experiences that do suit the Spike mindset: that’s why things like Underworlds are interesting, I think that’s where they’re putting their Spike focus.

[Cheesegear]

I said PRIMARY concern. I absolutely don’t mind losing, so designing to win isn’t the main focus of my list building.

Like others, you're choosing to read my point in the way you want to read it.
If given the choice, would you choose to lose?

"This list is ****, I know it's ****, and I'm going to put it onto the table and lose ten times in a row."
No-one designs lists to lose on purpose.


I’ve played many games where winning is of secondary concern.

Then you aren't playing the game properly.


I’ve had games where I’ve enjoyed losing

Did. You. Choose. To. Lose? Or, did you lose because your opponent was better at the game than you?
When you lost, did you play the game a second time, and then adamantly refuse to improve your game? Did you see the reasons for why you lost, and then make the same choices you made last time, despite knowing that those choices led you to lose the game last time?

Nobody plays any game that way. Because losing, in and of itself, isn't fun. Winning, is. That's just how endorphins work.

When you lose, and still have 'fun'...It's usually something else that made the game fun. Most likely, it's the fact that you were simply playing the game with your friend. Anything done with your friends is more fun.
Great. I play games with my friends all the time. We both try to win.

Playing 'Memes with Mates', isn't the same as playing 40K.

[Destro_Yersul]

Then why play the game at all if you don't want to win?
As I've expressed numerous times, all the way down to the 'casual' level, there is nobody playing the game who wants to lose games. The aim of any game, is always to win.

Everybody wants to have fun. Nobody wants to lose.
It's not the same thing.

Being willing to lose games, isn't the same as designing your list to lose. Nobody does that.
What people do, is design their list to have fun...They don't design to lose. This is why people get mad, because What They Like != What Is Good.

For fun to the be the primary concern, you must force a situation in which the end result is that you can't lose.

You've said things like this before, and I disagree.

Lots of games are not about winning. There are some games where you can't win. How do you win Minecraft? How do you win SimCity, or Roller Coaster Tycoon, or Dungeons and Dragons?

Why is the motto of Dwarf Fortress "Losing is Fun" if the objective is always winning?

To continue with the MtG example, back when I played I built decks that weren't good, because the purpose of the decks was not necessariy to win; it was to get some stupid combo to work. Sometimes getting the combo to work resulted in winning, but winning wasn't the point. The point was the stupid combo. I lost innumerable games. But I always had fun.


Then you aren't playing the game properly the way I would play it

Fixed that for you.

[Cheesegear]

Lots of games are not about winning. There are some games where you can't win. How do you win Minecraft? How do you win SimCity, or Roller Coaster Tycoon, or Dungeons and Dragons?

It's upsetting 'cause you even quoted the part where I explicitly addressed this...


For fun to the be the primary concern, you must force a situation in which the end result is that you can't lose.

[Destro_Yersul]

It's upsetting 'cause you even quoted the part where I explicitly addressed this...

You can absolutely lose those games. You just can't win.


...Contrastingly, forcing a situation where you can't win, is simply the opposite side of the coin. But still the same thing.

The only problem I have, is that all of your examples were single player games, and not competitive games where human interaction becomes a factor.

Except for D&D. Which you can win and lose at.

This is why doing tons of edits is a problem.

Anyways. I like single player games. I don't like multiplayer. I don't like competition. I played hearthstone for a while, and it was my favourite competetive multiplayer game ever because it removed basically all interaction with the opponent, allowing me to think of them as an especially good AI - which sometimes they were, to be fair. Bots were a thing.

So why the heck would someone like me, by your metric, want to play 40k?

[Cheesegear]

You can absolutely lose those games. You just can't win.

Oops. What I meant was, your examples are not competitive.
If you can win at it, and you can lose at it. Then it's competitive. If you can't win and lose, you are not playing a competitive game.

Secondly - and perhaps more importantly - your examples don't include games that involve other players, except for D&D. And in D&D, there definite is a win state, and a lose state. As a DM, I definitely know when a player has 'lost'. And 'winning', is essentially retiring your character in a way that you're happy with. There are many, many ways to retire a character that you can be unhappy with, and you can very well have 'lost'.


So why the heck would someone like me, by your metric, want to play 40k?

My guess is that you are treating the game as a social encounter. In which case the game is basically irrelevant.
You can do anything with other people and have it be fun.

Playing a game with friends, and losing. Is most definitely not the same as playing the game with someone who isn't neccessarily your friend, and then actively trying to lose.

[Destro_Yersul]

My guess is that you are treating the game as a social encounter. In which case the game is basically irrelevant.
You can do anything with other people and have it be fun.

Which doesn't answer why I want to play 40k specifically. I could do other things with my friends, that's true enough. Why might I want to play 40k, but not some other game?

I'll certainly allow that I don't want to play it competetively, in tournaments and whatnot. That's not especially interesting for me. I might play at the local game store, or whatever, but I'm not going to go signing up for tournaments any time soon.

[Cheesegear]

I skipped over this. I shouldn't have.


To continue with the MtG example, back when I played I built decks that weren't good, because the purpose of the decks was not necessariy to win; it was to get some stupid combo to work. Sometimes getting the combo to work resulted in winning

...Then you aren't talking about what I'm talking about. If your 'combo deck' ever won, then your idea was a good idea and it has merit. You won games built around a combo you found interesting. You noticed some mechanics that interacted well, and you utilised them.

What was the purpose of the combo? If the combo gave yourself an advantage, or your opponent a disadvantage, you were playing to win. Stupidly, maybe, depending on the combo. But I guarantee you that the purpose of the combo wasn't to make you lose games. Losing may have been a possible - or even expected - outcome. But it certainly wasn't the intent.

An old Dredge deck, for example, isn't the same as 'I'm going to deck myself out and lose every game on purpose.' Because Dredge isn't necessarily a mechanic that makes you lose - there's a point to it. Milling yourself out of the game, on the other hand, without Dredge, is just dumb.

[Destro_Yersul]

...Then you aren't talking about what I'm talking about. If your 'combo deck' ever won, then your idea was a good idea and it has merit. You won games built around a combo you found interesting. You noticed some mechanics that interacted well, and you utilised them.

What was the purpose of the combo? If the combo gave yourself an advantage, or your opponent a disadvantage, you were playing to win. Stupidly, maybe, depending on the combo. But I guarantee you that the purpose of the combo wasn't to make you lose games. Losing may have been a possible - or even expected - outcome. But it certainly wasn't the intent.

There were a lot. One of them drew the entire deck, killing the opponent in the process. One generated arbitrarily large amounts of mana. One generated ludicrous numbers of 1/1 tokens. One tried to cheat huge monsters into play.

One of them had no real win condition. It was just a card I thought was cool, and a deck built around getting to play that card so I could warp the fabric of the big mutliplayer games we liked to do at the time. It wasn't built to try and lose, but it wasn't really built to try and win, either. I don't think it ever did win. Not that I really wanted it to. If I lost, or won, either way the game was over and I had to stop having fun with my card.

[Cheesegear]

One of them had no real win condition. It was just a card I thought was cool, and a deck built around getting to play that card so I could warp the fabric of the big mutliplayer games we liked to do at the time. It wasn't built to try and lose, but it wasn't really built to try and win, either. I don't think it ever did win. Not that I really wanted it to. If I lost, or won, either way the game was over and I had to stop having fun with my card.

So, basically, you created a new objective for yourself; "Play the card."
That's a fairly objective goal. It may not necessarily be the aim of the game (i.e; Make your opponent lose). But it's still a tangible goal, and you built your deck around making it happen. What you didn't do, was build the deck around not making it happen.

That is still very, very different from the extremely nebulous and subjective goal, 'Have fun.'


Which begs the question; Why did you go out and buy Tzaangors? Why not stick with Rubrics?

[Destro_Yersul]

Which begs the question; Why did you go out and buy Tzaangors? Why not stick with Rubrics?

After the earlier discussion, I went looking for pictures of them that weren't the GW studio minis. I found a bunch on CMON that I actually really liked, and decided that the problem wasn't the models, it was the way GW had painted them. I looked around at some painting tutorials people had done. Then I went and read through all of the fluff sections in the new codex, to see what their deal was and why they were around. Then I decided that a unit of them might be fun to paint, and would give me some variety. I've still got Rubrics, but now I also have Tzaangors. Currently I'm trying to figure out what colour I should paint their tabards in order to fit them in with my army fluff.

Also, I've never liked doing complete proxies, probably because of the old WYSIWYG thing. Which means that if I want to try some out and see how they work, I need to buy them.

[Manticoran]

So, basically, you created a new objective for yourself; "Play the card."
That's a fairly objective goal. It may not necessarily be the aim of the game (i.e; Make your opponent lose). But it's still a tangible goal, and you built your deck around making it happen. What you didn't do, was build the deck around not making it happen.

That is still very, very different from the extremely nebulous and subjective goal, 'Have fun.'


Which begs the question; Why did you go out and buy Tzaangors? Why not stick with Rubrics?


Cheese, how do you feel about things like tribal decks in mtg?

Back when I was playing competitively, I'd have my good decks that won games... And then I'd have my "this desk is not going to win" decks that were for doing something like being all elves at a time elves were bad, or repeatedly blowing up everything to the point where the deck couldn't win really, it just also tended to not lose (people tended to quit at the point both players had no cards in hand and nothing on the field, including lands.)

Obviously for no one is losing a goal. But in a lot of situations, the way people have fun is by setting their own goals that have nothing to do with winning or losing. So I find that's usually what people mean when they say their goal is to have fun. And if a player whose goal is winning shows up, it gets kind of awkward for both players, as they're not really playing the same game.

[Cheesegear]

it just also tended to not lose (people tended to quit at the point both players had no cards in hand and nothing on the field, including lands.)

...You know a concession counts as a win, right? The winner in that scenario would simply be the one who doesn't deck out first.


But in a lot of situations, the way people have fun is by setting their own goals that have nothing to do with winning or losing.

Great. What are those goals?


So I find that's usually what people mean when they say their goal is to have fun.

Which is meaningless.

"My goal is to have fun."
Great. How?
Define the steps you're going to take to achieve your goal.

Destro pointed out the way he won. By objectively playing his card. It doesn't matter whether he wins or loses the game. He wins, personally, when he plays the card.
I appreciate that answer very much.

When is something not fun?


And if a player whose goal is winning shows up, it gets kind of awkward for both players

Why? If nobody is actively trying to lose, then both players, by default, should be trying to win.
Why would it be awkward?

Unless what you're saying, is that it's awkward because one player has no chance of winning regardless of what they do, and if you can't win, why play?

[Saambell]

Cheese, how do you feel about things like tribal decks in mtg?

Back when I was playing competitively, I'd have my good decks that won games... And then I'd have my "this desk is not going to win" decks that were for doing something like being all elves at a time elves were bad, or repeatedly blowing up everything to the point where the deck couldn't win really, it just also tended to not lose (people tended to quit at the point both players had no cards in hand and nothing on the field, including lands.)

Obviously for no one is losing a goal. But in a lot of situations, the way people have fun is by setting their own goals that have nothing to do with winning or losing. So I find that's usually what people mean when they say their goal is to have fun. And if a player whose goal is winning shows up, it gets kind of awkward for both players, as they're not really playing the same game.

Except that's more Redefining what Winning is. Its setting your own win state, then working to that effect.
There's the classic "achieve the games stated objective" and there's "set your own goal of what winning is, then work to that". In that list of games posted before of "no win state" all of them you go in with a thing you want/plan to do, or a point you try to reach, and you judge if you did well by if you achieved that state. Even Dwarf Fortress, you go into it to make the fort last as long as you can, or to do a particular thing with this fort. "Winning" in a "losing is fun" game is more about how able you are to postpone that losing. "If this fort lasts longer then the last one" or "If i can set up this strategy" or any other things you may plan to do with a fort, if you can achieve a personally stated goal, you are Winning. The example of building a combo deck, the actual Winning of that deck is to pull off the combo, that's a personal stated Win State, and you don't build a combo deck, then try to not do the combo.
So again, you don't go into a thing, then try to "lose". You go in with a predefined notion of winning, whether that's achieving the stated goals of the game or a personal goal for this particular session, and do your best to achieve said thing. "I play for fun" doesn't mean you have absolutely no goal, it just means you have a goal that isn't listed in the mission rules and you are still working to achieve it. Like, "I want to try this unit" and then not taking that unit is directly playing to lose your own personal goal. If you take the unit, and have fun, you won, so thus you played to win, in your own personal way.
So yes, making a fun combo deck, or trying a not that great unit in 40k is still playing to win, just your own personal state of winning. But when talking about games in general, its far easier to use a blanket definition of what winning is, so people look to the core rules of the game. Each person goes into a game to win, in their own way, but when talking of "how to win at this game" its far easier to go with the stated win state in the rule set then tell people "find your own win state". And if you go in with your personal win state, then achieve the games stated win state too, bonus. Its also possible you achieve the games win state without achieving your personal win state and that's when you can feel you had a hollow victory as you didn't win by your personal goals.
Point is, everyone plays to win, but each persons win state can be different. And actively trying to avoid your personal win state is something no one ever does.

[Cheesegear]

Point is, everyone plays to win, but each persons win state can be different. And actively trying to avoid your personal win state is something no one ever does.

That's where the problem is. No two players will have the same win state - except for both players playing by the rules, and trying to win the game, as written. The problem is when one player has decided what the game is, in their own head, outside of the rulebook, that the other player couldn't possibly comprehend (e.g; A player arbitrarily refusing to play anyone with a Red Deck Wins deck).

This is where I have an issue with Avaris' statement, that the game needs to focus on something other than winning. Like what? You mean like Golden Daemon, where the focus is on hobby? But the win condition for Golden Daemon, is still 'be the best painter', and if you can't paint, why did you even bother entering? Golden Daemon is definitely something you 'win and lose at', and it's purely about hobby. I don't understand what other goal for the game that there can be, other than winning. Either you win, or you don't. What's the middle ground? ...Well, inb4 Draws, I guess.
...Unless Avaris' point is that human behaviour is ****ed. Why is winning better than losing? And why can't people just lose all the time and be happy about it? Why can't people just be happy that their army sucks? ...But I don't think that is his point.
Goof'd hard. That wasn't Avaris' point at all. Sorry Thread.

But let's say you do have a personal goal? A personal win state:
Do you win, personally, when 3x20 <Alpha Legion> Berzerkers all make their Turn 1 Charges? If you've already won - in your own head - why keep playing Turn 2 onwards? If your 60 Berzerkers don't make their T1 Charges, have you already lost? Do you concede?

The game needs to focus on Narrative? Cool. I play Narrative battles all the time. How many VPs can I score before the Gretchin horde wipes me out through sheer attrition? If I score more VPs than the Orks do, the Space Marines win gloriously. If the Orks score more than I do, then it's a defeat for the Imperium this day!
...Just kidding. That's a normal Matched Play Space Marines vs. Orks game in the current meta.

I understand where Destro is coming from, with his combo deck. But, with his own personal win condition, I also have to point out that he's not playing the same game as everyone else, because 'his part in the game' is effectively over once he plays his combo - whether he wins or loses.

...How do you play that kind of game, when everyone's win condition is different? How do you have online discussions when no-one is on the same page? That's why the online discussions focus on it. 'Cause playing competitively is the same for everyone.
If you want to optimise your D&D character, go to the internet.
If you don't want to optimise your character, how hard is it, really, to just play what you want?

How do you play a game, where 'fun' is subjective, and someone playing by the rules can be ostracized for playing by the rules?

[Manticoran]

This is where I have an issue with Avaris' statement, that the game needs to focus on something other than winning. Like what? You mean like Golden Daemon, where the focus is on hobby? I don't understand what other goal for the game that there can be, other than winning. Either you win, or you don't. What's the middle ground? ...Well, inb4 Draws, I guess.
...Unless Avaris' point is that human behaviour is ****ed. Why is winning better than losing? And why can't people just lose all the time and be happy about it? Why can't people just be happy that their army sucks? ...But I don't think that is his point.


This sort of thing is a large part of why I personally don’t think 40k is at all a good system for players who play with winning as their primary concern (to use Magic the Gathering archetypes, the Spikes: I’m not saying winning isn’t important to anyone else, but it isn’t necessarily the focus), and clearly it isn’t a focus for GW designers either. Though given the Spike crowd is a large part of the community, they should try to improve in this regard.

I think the above statement is what you're talking about? And I don't think that's what Avaris said. I think Avaris said that they think GW is currently focusing on something other than winning in a lot of their design decisions, and they need to do MORE focusing on the game winning as a state, i/e cater to the Spikes more?

Otherwise why would we get new models that suck?

[Saambell]

I think the above statement is what you're talking about? And I don't think that's what Avaris said. I think Avaris said that they think GW is currently focusing on something other than winning in a lot of their design decisions, and they need to do MORE focusing on the game winning as a state, i/e cater to the Spikes more?

Otherwise why would we get new models that suck?

Yeah, I think what Avaris's trouble is, is hes still focused on "Win by the Game Rules" as what winning is, yet keeps talking of playing for fun where hes trying to win by way of his personal goals. And his line there is him saying he thinks GW keeps trying to shape the game as a "win by your own goals" yet markets as "win by the rules of the game". That's the issue I feel. He likes the "Win by Personal Goals" and thinks Games Workshop is designing to that end, and hes saying they keep trying to market to the "Win by Game Rules" and the people who only think of games that way will never be happy.

[Cheesegear]

I'm pretty sure I misread or straight up didn't read a key sentence in one of Avaris' posts. He wasn't talking about playing to win. He was talking about designers not designing their game for players who want to win. Now that I know what he was trying to say 'cause I went back and read it...I disagree.

...Ah well, the conversation has progressed way too far from that point. Still, everything I said about players playing to win still stands. Even if it turns out that I wasn't even talking about what Avaris was talking about. I was talking about what Destro was talking about.
****.
Oops. Sorry Thread. I goof'd real hard. I'll stop now.
Derailed on the first page. Is that a record? :smallconfused: :smalleek:

...:smallfrown:



If we're saying that people who want to win, shouldn't play 40K, because the game in inherently unbalanced. Then...No. Because 8th Ed. trends towards balance.

Most points adjustments trend downwards - buffs - because units aren't as good as the designers thought they were in the meta.
Most rules adjustments trend towards nerfs, because particular units and armies aren't intended to interact with the rules in the way that they...Do.

I think if you want to win games, then 40K is a good game. GW trends towards balance...Eventually. You should get a good game against most players who aren't intentionally taking the worst units in the game, or players running cutting-edge net-lists that are ahead of the nerf curve. You will almost always have a chance of winning if you even remotely play to your Factions' strengths, and use Allies which are an intended part of the game. (Unless you're Necrons or Grey Knights. :smallmad:)
This is why Chaos Daemons weren't nerfed into oblivion, despite placing several times at Adepticon. They're working as intended, without being broken (though I'm still not certain that Plaguebearers with -1 to hit, 5+ Invulnerable, 5+ Ignore Wounds is intended...Though, to be fair, they are slow and do take Morale tests). Whilst Knight Castellans were not working as intended.

By adding Guardsmen into my Space Marines' list. I've started winning a lot more games. I read that GW intends for Guardsmen to remain at 4 Points each, and I read that GW intends that <Imperium> armies should have Guardsmen in them. Once I stopped fighting what GW clearly wants me to do, I started winning games with Space Marines.

If you want to WAAC, then you're likely going to be SooL, because GW tends to hard nerf the things that you're likely to buy. Though, to be fair, you've probably got around six months of 'fun time'...If you get the Codex or model the day of release.

If you're a casual...GW markets towards you. But arguably in the worst way possible, in a way that doesn't reflect your likely player-base at all. People like winning, and as such will design their lists to win or at the very least, 'not lose'. Your 'one of everything' or 'fluffy and balanced list' approach that GW convinces you is the way to build your army, is likely to lose you several games in a row with no chance of improvement. Especially because of how you win the game, doesn't actually line up with certain models' strengths (if they have any strengths at all :smallmad:), and as such, those models are useless insofar as the game is concerned.

[Avaris]

I'm pretty sure I misread or straight up didn't read a key sentence in one of Avaris' posts. He wasn't talking about playing to win. He was talking about designers not designing their game for players who want to win. Now that I know what he was trying to say 'cause I went back and read it...I disagree.

...Ah well, the conversation has progressed way too far from that point. Still, everything I said about players playing to win still stands. Even if it turns out that I wasn't even talking about what Avaris was talking about. I was talking about what Destro was talking about.
****.
Oops. Sorry Thread. I goof'd real hard. I'll stop now.
Derailed on the first page. Is that a record? :smallconfused: :smalleek:

...:smallfrown:



Just to say, thank you for acknowledging that you misinterpreted my point! You are completely right that I have previously argued about playing to win, so it's an understandable goof to make!

The point I was trying to discuss was that the designers are poor at designing their game for people who want to play at a tournament level with strangers because that isn't their personal focus (not 'playing to win', you rightly say everyone is trying that in some way). They mostly don't participate in that scene, so their metric of what is necessary for it is skewed. They don't have a rule for whether you can draw line of sight from a banner peaking over the top of a building because to them there are a lot of unwritten rules to how they play, such that it doesn't even cross their mind to do so.

This is a problem, given there is a fairly thriving tournament scene, and while 8th is definitely tending towards balance it still has weaknesses in this regard. As an interesting contrast to Age of Sigmar, in AoS design studio they have a clear templating document, so that when they want to write a new rule they look at how they worded it last time and stick with that to avoid ambiguity. This is why AoS has far more 'unmodified roll of a 6' type thing. I'm willing to bet that when writing the plasma rules for example the 40k designers never even considered what happens with +1 to hit, or interactions with re-rolls. They meant 'unmodified roll of a 1', but they didn't write that, and later when they realised they needed to they couldn't go back and change it.

So for me I can think 'great', this is an interesting game, I understand it, and I follow my intuition on how the rules 'should' work because I've got a similar mindset to the game designers. But I can almost guarantee that I play the game wrong by the rules, because the little interactions which are vitally important in trying to eke out every advantage for victory simply don't occur to me or my opponent. And this is a massive problem, because it means that if I go to a tournament or whatever I'm more likely to have a negative experience because I make mistakes or feel my opponent isn't playing by the spirit of the rules. The way to fix this is to ensure the letter matches the spirit, as people at tournaments absolutely should be playing by the letter of the rules, but I'm not convinced GW has the skillset to do this at present.

[DataNinja]

I'm willing to bet that when writing the plasma rules for example the 40k designers never even considered what happens with +1 to hit, or interactions with re-rolls. They meant 'unmodified roll of a 1', but they didn't write that, and later when they realised they needed to they couldn't go back and change it.

I mean, in theory, isn't that what errata is for? "We wrote all this stuff under the interpretation of this rule, but didn't notice it actually reads differently, so here's how it's actually supposed to read."

[Forum Explorer]

The problem is that one person’s common sense is another person’s clear abuse of the system.



To elaborate, by common sense it's: 'could I see this model if it was modeled correctly? Yes? then I can see it. Can I only see the extra completely optional doo-hicky hanging off the top? Yes? Then I can't see it.'

My win condition is often basically to have a close game. Which is pretty hard to define. Basically a game where I have to try to win I suppose. Or perhaps I'd call it a game where I have a decent chance of losing.

[Avaris]

I mean, in theory, isn't that what errata is for? "We wrote all this stuff under the interpretation of this rule, but didn't notice it actually reads differently, so here's how it's actually supposed to read."

In theory yes, but I suspect that it's the sort of thing they're unwilling to blanket errata to the extent it is necessary. It isn't game breaking, it's just not what they planned, and passes across many different codexes in order to fix it. The fallout from printing such errata would probably be more than it is worth.

[Renegade Paladin]

At this point I'll just pipe up and say that while, yes, I play to win, I play to win using my army, not some other army that did well at the last ITC major. Yeah, pre-nerf I could have bought a Knight Castellan and perhaps done better, but that's not the point. I play Imperial Guard, and I play Imperial Guard to win. That's fine this edition (though not as good as Imperial Soup; I say again look at ITC tournament results posted after they changed faction reporting requirements to see what I mean), but I did the same thing in 7th and 6th. I won a lot less then, but I didn't swap armies to Eldar jetbike spam or a Space Marine Gladius because that's not the point. Doing "everything I can to win" would include buying the latest and greatest OP stuff and optimizing detachments to support it. Does that make me a scrub by the definition of competitive fighting games? Sure does; I'm consciously choosing not to use certain combos because of personal taste, but I'm still making an honest attempt to win with tanks and guns.

[bluntpencil]

I had a fun game on Friday with my Deathwatch.

We called it a draw because my buddy had to go, but it was great fun and I learned a lot.


Going second is great if you intentionally deploy all your guys out of the enemy's movement + range.
It's even better when you've positioned Teleport Homers forward (but not too far forward), so your cowardly deployment becomes a counter-attack.
Beacon Angelis is amazing, as it's easy to drop a jump packer down and have him move to some place to drag storm bolters forward.
Deathwatch Bikes, whilst good shooters, decent in melee, and can have their Sgt tank lascannon shots on his shield... are very fragile in comparison to the mixed save Veteran squads, and therefore draw all the fire and promptly die.
The nerf to Bolter Discipline was, honestly, a good decision, but not crippling, when teleportation is used effectively.
Chaplain Dreadnoughts are okay. Not great, but they don't get shot and can therefore lay down anti-armour shots, or get in folks' faces to punch them.

[Renegade Paladin]

The shop I run for wants me to try to run a Kill Team tournament. I know that Kill Team is grossly unbalanced. That said, any ideas on how to do it? I'm kind of inclined to ban the Commanders supplement on the grounds that a lot of HQ units are radically unbalanced at extremely low points levels, but even aside from that, the sheer amount of content that's locked inside boxed sets (stratagems, etc) makes it very hard for me to know what to do. I'm not going to even think about finalizing rules until the Elites supplement is in my hands next week, but pending that, I'm willing to take suggestions.

[LansXero]

For us Commander is an auto-ban. Not sure about Elites yet.

We focused on asimetric missions that where flavorful but sort of balanced, varied and huge focus on terrain variability and interaction, to set it apart from 40k. We used the NOVA Open rules GW put out as a guideline.

As for the stuff 'locked' in boxed sets, we went with just rulebook tactics for everyone. If the store wants to give an edge to those who bought stuff thats a valid aproach, but it also risks bad feels from those whose faction doesnt even have a boxed set they can buy.

[Renegade Paladin]

We don't have much incentive to give advantage to people who bought boxed sets, since they certainly didn't buy them from us. (I tried to get the Imperial Guard/Storm Troopers starter back when the game was new and GW didn't allocate us any copies; pretty sure everyone else is in the same boat.) We have gotten and sold a couple of Killzone expansions, but I'm inclined to ban those simply because not every table is going to cater to any given Killzone.

I'm willing to consider Elites simply because it's introducing faction traits to Kill Team, which I like. If Custodes or something looks like it'll completely dominate the game, though, I'll reluctantly ban it.

[LansXero]

We don't have much incentive to give advantage to people who bought boxed sets, since they certainly didn't buy them from us. (I tried to get the Imperial Guard/Storm Troopers starter back when the game was new and GW didn't allocate us any copies; pretty sure everyone else is in the same boat.) We have gotten and sold a couple of Killzone expansions, but I'm inclined to ban those simply because not every table is going to cater to any given Killzone.

I'm willing to consider Elites simply because it's introducing faction traits to Kill Team, which I like. If Custodes or something looks like it'll completely dominate the game, though, I'll reluctantly ban it.

You can allow faction traits and not the new units though. But yeah, better to wait for the book (although I thought it had already been leaked online? I remember seeing costs and stats for Custodes earlier).

[Renegade Paladin]

You can allow faction traits and not the new units though. But yeah, better to wait for the book (although I thought it had already been leaked online? I remember seeing costs and stats for Custodes earlier).
I haven't been paying attention to leaks. I'll look around for it tomorrow.

[9mm]

I know that Kill Team is grossly unbalanced.
it really isn't.


That said, any ideas on how to do it? I'm kind of inclined to ban the Commanders supplement on the grounds that a lot of HQ units are radically unbalanced at extremely low points levels, but even aside from that, the sheer amount of content that's locked inside boxed sets (stratagems, etc) makes it very hard for me to know what to do. I'm not going to even think about finalizing rules until the Elites supplement is in my hands next week, but pending that, I'm willing to take suggestions.

Honestly just use Arena, it is what it's for. The big thing about Elites is it appears to add most of the box set exclusive stratagems into the Arena space other wise it might shake up some rosters, but I doubt it. (A single terminator is worth 2 interccesors lol)

[LansXero]

it really isn't.

So the lack of internal balance, the clearly superior options and factions and the all-over-the-place costs are not imbalance? :O

Its not unplayable, by any stretch, but balanced it aint.


Honestly just use Arena, it is what it's for.

Corridors and junk is boring if its all you get to play. For 'no terrain type matters but this one' you already have regular 40k.


A single terminator is worth 2 interccesors lol

Faction traits are bound to make a larger impact indeed.

[Wraith]

The shop I run for wants me to try to run a Kill Team tournament. I know that Kill Team is grossly unbalanced. That said, any ideas on how to do it?

If it's your first Tournament, I would advise that you make it as simple on yourself as possible; just use the Main Rule Book and don't add anything else yet.

While not as horribly unbalanced as some folks have made it out to be, there are clearly some factions which are better than others, and some more that have a clear gimmick that is great if they can pull it off but not much else going for them if they can't. That's on your players - if they want to run Necrons, then that's up to them and they know what they're getting into :smalltongue:

Everything else, until you know how balanced or unbalanced they are, adds complications and isn't available to all of your players, so don't bother with it in the beginning.
If things are going well later, then you can add a plot twist and allow access to Elites or something if people had time to play enough games to really consider whether or not they want to buy them. If that turns out to be a fuster-cluck, no worries; they can be gone again in the next mission as "their plot has been successfully resolved", with the minimum of disruption. It's harder to do that if you allow them all in the beginning and need to roll them back later. :smallsmile:

I would probably allow players to use the Faction boxed sets as I don't think any of them are particularly or outrageously over-or under-powered, but that's just me and while I wouldn't mind refusing to let a player use "1 Terminator" in their team I would feel pretty bad if I told them that they couldn't use their ENTIRE team. If nothing else, everyone with a boxed set if going to be able to provide their own rules for it, unlike asking everyone to play Commanders.

[Requizen]

So... there's just no preview for next week's preorder? Maybe it was blocked out for that Sylvaneth book that got held up on the border or something. Feels weird to have no previews whatsoever, though.

[LansXero]

What goes on pre-order friday? Its all blood bowl and necromunda.

[Requizen]

What goes on pre-order friday? Its all blood bowl and necromunda.

Weren't those Forgeworld preorders? Maybe I skimmed over that part.

[LansXero]

Weren't those Forgeworld preorders? Maybe I skimmed over that part.

We get a weekly update on mondays. Not supposed to be public info until friday. Nothing new for AoS / 40k this week.

[LeSwordfish]

GW confirmed on facebook that the forgeworld previews are the only ones for this week: presumably this was the slot the Sylvaneth were meant to take.

[LansXero]

https://scontent.flim5-4.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-0/p280x280/60523216_292056415031601_225151282397052928_n.jpg? _nc_cat=108&_nc_ht=scontent.flim5-4.fna&oh=ef62a5b6c767f80b4b8e004d669b4d9a&oe=5D691150

Anyone knows where to find a list for that Necrons guy? I know nothing about the event, but Necrons making top 2 seems amazing.

[Cheesegear]

Anyone knows where to find a list for that Necrons guy?

If the guy setting up the BCP doesn't allow players who weren't there to read lists, there's not much you can do except wait and see if anyone from the event posts the lists.

[Sizzlefoot]

Hey, so would it be a good idea to start a separate Kill Team thread?

[Renegade Paladin]

Hey, so would it be a good idea to start a separate Kill Team thread?

Probably not. We don't really have that much traffic about it; my question started an aberrant tangent, but not enough to demand a dedicated thread. Heck, we used to have more 40k threads than we do now; there used to be a separate painting and hobby thread, but it died out years ago (and it would be hard to bring it back with the relatively recent demise of free photo sharing sites that allow hotlinking).

[peacenlove]

Anyone knows where to find a list for that Necrons guy? I know nothing about the event, but Necrons making top 2 seems amazing.


From the necron facebook group where he posted it
https://scontent.fath4-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/60771387_2369656469920667_2757886088029667328_n.jp g?_nc_cat=106&_nc_ht=scontent.fath4-2.fna&oh=be7894090634b6d25310991a9e961748&oe=5D9C5CFA

[Wraith]

Anyone knows where to find a list for that Necrons guy? I know nothing about the event, but Necrons making top 2 seems amazing.

All of the Alamo GT lists are also available on IMGUR - I was personally amazed to learn that the Thousand Sons list who took 1st Place actually had Rubric Marines in it rather than 1200 points of Tzaangors. Here's the link. (https://imgur.com/a/KTSdeYR)

[EDIT] Apparently Mathew Allee brought them along just to troll people (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/tizcan-podcast-mathew-allee-dallas-open-2019-interview/id1450676638?i=1000435514869), thinking MSU with defensive psychic powers would just be annoying... And then "accidentally" won two majors back to back. The guy is my hero, I recommend the podcast interview just for his sense of humour. :smalltongue:

If you check on Reddit, there's a bit list of 40k events that took place this weekend, all with their top 4 lists attached. Necrons actually appear twice, in different formats, in a sea of Chaos Daemons and Guard/Knights. Full thread here: (https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/bqw4q5/pandas_weekend_rundown_may_1819/)

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

The second placing at #1 was a 1500pt tournament, which makes a little more sense. RP doesn't suck as much at that point level, though it still isn't great yet.

Not entirely surprised by the #2 placement with Teslammortals, Tomb Blades, Doomsday Arks and Doom Scythes. I've been seeing lists similar to that float around (although most I've seen go 3 D-Scythes and 2 DDAs, not 3 and 3 but still). Necrons, I think, aren't as completely useless as some of you seem to think. Sure, they're definitely one of the weakest armies in the game, but you still see them pop up here and there in tournaments and do well.

[Cheesegear]

Necrons, I think, aren't as completely useless as some of you seem to think.

They're exactly as useless as I think.
...Unless you're in the ITC, where castling up for 5 turns is a viable strategy because you make all of your points in the first two turns. This is the same reason why T'au can place in ITC tournaments but turn to **** in Maelstrom or even new!Eternal War Missions.

ITC isn't 40K.

Necrons are terrible.
Next.

The trick to ITC lists, and thinking "Would this be viable in Eternal War/Maelstrom?"
Why the **** does everyone want Mortars to go up in points? They're S4, AP-. That's ****! Mortars don't do anything. Ohhh... I see, you're playing ITC where the bottom level of Ruins always blocks LoS even if you can very definitely see through the windows? Ohhh... I see. You're playing in a format where the rules of the game have literally been changed to validate certain playstyles over others. WOW. META FIXED AMIRITE!?

If you aren't recognising that everything coming out of major tournaments (especially US ones) isn't going by the rulebook - let alone Chapter Approved - than you've failed in basic reading comprehension.

That's why it's so weird to people outside the ITC bubble to see Necrons place in a tournament - not a GT, but still. Everyone's experience of Necrons - by the Rulebook - is that they're pretty piss-poor at doing anything except not dying. That's not...Anything. Except in ITC where it shines. Again, see Mortars. Mortars are ****ing useless. Unless, of course, your opponent can't ever target them. Somehow invincible units that can fire back - even as badly as they do - are really, really good. Strange, that.

How the ITC works;
Can you destroy at least two units per turn?
Can you hold at least one - but preferably two - Objectives per turn?
If you answered 'yes' to both of these, you have a viable army for the ITC. The easiest way to achieve both of those things, is to castle.

How Maelstrom works; Hold these specific three Objectives this turn, and destroy as many units as possible in a single turn. It requires that your army actually be mobile and have viable combat efficiency.

I'm not totally sure how '18!Eternal War works, I've literally never played any Eternal War Missions since CA'18 came out.

ITC allows many different Factions to play (as seen by the variety of winning Factions outside major GTs), but they're all playing the same archetypal play-style. Which gets real boring after you've spotted the pattern. That's why I no longer go to ITC tournaments. They're boring as ****.

ITC doesn't fix the meta. It merely changes it to a new one - Castling, wins.

When I see tournament lists being posted, by first question is "Is it an ITC tournament?"
If the answer is 'yes', I tamp my expectations way down.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Right, I keep forgetting ITC is a thing. Yeah, two different Metas for sure. Still think that the all-Tomb Blade armies can do decently in Maelstrom though.

[bluntpencil]

They're exactly as useless as I think.
...Unless you're in the ITC, where castling up for 5 turns is a viable strategy because you make all of your points in the first two turns. This is the same reason why T'au can place in ITC tournaments but turn to **** in Maelstrom or even new!Eternal War Missions.

ITC isn't 40K.

Necrons are terrible.
Next.

The trick to ITC lists, and thinking "Would this be viable in Eternal War/Maelstrom?"
Why the **** does everyone want Mortars to go up in points? They're S4, AP-. That's ****! Mortars don't do anything. Ohhh... I see, you're playing ITC where the bottom level of Ruins always blocks LoS even if you can very definitely see through the windows? Ohhh... I see. You're playing in a format where the rules of the game have literally been changed to validate certain playstyles over others. WOW. META FIXED AMIRITE!?

If you aren't recognising that everything coming out of major tournaments (especially US ones) isn't going by the rulebook - let alone Chapter Approved - than you've failed in basic reading comprehension.

That's why it's so weird to people outside the ITC bubble to see Necrons place in a tournament - not a GT, but still. Everyone's experience of Necrons - by the Rulebook - is that they're pretty piss-poor at doing anything except not dying. That's not...Anything. Except in ITC where it shines. Again, see Mortars. Mortars are ****ing useless. Unless, of course, your opponent can't ever target them. Somehow invincible units that can fire back - even as badly as they do - are really, really good. Strange, that.

How the ITC works;
Can you destroy at least two units per turn?
Can you hold at least one - but preferably two - Objectives per turn?
If you answered 'yes' to both of these, you have a viable army for the ITC. The easiest way to achieve both of those things, is to castle.

How Maelstrom works; Hold these specific three Objectives this turn, and destroy as many units as possible in a single turn. It requires that your army actually be mobile and have viable combat efficiency.

I'm not totally sure how '18!Eternal War works, I've literally never played any Eternal War Missions since CA'18 came out.

ITC allows many different Factions to play (as seen by the variety of winning Factions outside major GTs), but they're all playing the same archetypal play-style. Which gets real boring after you've spotted the pattern. That's why I no longer go to ITC tournaments. They're boring as ****.

ITC doesn't fix the meta. It merely changes it to a new one - Castling, wins.

When I see tournament lists being posted, by first question is "Is it an ITC tournament?"
If the answer is 'yes', I tamp my expectations way down.


Fully agree on ITC, especially frickin' windows. If you want more LoS blockers, all power to you, but make sure they actually block IRL LoS, dammit. Having chest high walls not block LoS, but having massive windows block it isn't intuitive at all.

[Wraith]

Right, I keep forgetting ITC is a thing. Yeah, two different Metas for sure. Still think that the all-Tomb Blade armies can do decently in Maelstrom though.

Necrons are really bad in the format that is designed to make them bad at it, as opposed to some lists which are merely "adequate" or just "always bad in everything". In my experience they tend to be niche and a little bit of a mono-build, but what they CAN do, they do reasonably well and there is, at least, some hope for them. Sometimes.

[Forum Explorer]

I'm not totally sure how '18!Eternal War works, I've literally never played any Eternal War Missions since CA'18 came out.


It's 'hold as many objectives as you can, starting from turn 2. Kill all your opponent's units that are holding objectives.' To elaborate, most of the new Eternal War Missions give points per objective held at the start of your turn, beginning turn 2. That means you need to get to an objective, and survive holding it until your next turn.

As for Necrons? Well it depends which one you are playing. Did you get the one with 6 objectives? They are going to struggle, even if that one gives Objective Secured to everything with fly. But the ones with 3 or less are doable. Particularly stuff where the objective in the enemy DZ is worth more, since they can teleport a big blob of something tough on them.

So they can handle the new missions, but it depends on the mission.

[Renegade Paladin]

I will say this for the ITC: Being on the circuit has made our shop a lot of money. :smalltongue: And we don't even use their format (except I'm rotating in a SINGLE ITC-style mission this time).

[Cheesegear]

I will say this for the ITC: Being on the circuit has made our shop a lot of money. :smalltongue: And we don't even use their format (except I'm rotating in a SINGLE ITC-style mission this time).

Any organised tournament structure will almost guarantee bank.
People like competition. People like organised competition.
The only time this falls apart, is when your meta is full of ****heads.
Competition doesn't ruin tournaments.
People, do.

[Requizen]

Look, I know 7 layers of blending and highlighting will always look better, but you can't look at this and tell me Contrast paints are horrible:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7LbgkoW0AAVKib.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7LbgknXoAAXCuE.jpg

Everything other than the metals is Contrast. That's pretty darn impressive.

[LansXero]

Look, I know 7 layers of blending and highlighting will always look better, but you can't look at this and tell me Contrast paints are horrible:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7LbgkoW0AAVKib.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7LbgknXoAAXCuE.jpg

Everything other than the metals is Contrast. That's pretty darn impressive.

A close friend of mine who is super into D&D is a stomach surgeon. He is one of the first people to start painting in our store, back when we used to sell craft store acryllics worth like 1$ each (and thats retail, wholesale it was like 0.60c). He has made pretty amazing things because his eye-to-hand control is absurdly good, and has great attention to detail. He also spent forever getting them to thin properly. It doesnt make those paints any less trash though.

Im sure a skilled painter can make contrast work. But thats not what they are being advertised as. They are being advertised as ideal for first time painters and people who dont want to bother getting better. And its just not the case. Sure, its faster but you need to know what you are doing. And them being thicker and coming twith the 'you dont need to thin anymore!' tagline isnt going to help, in the numerous painting classes we've run through the years one of the hardest things to teach people is volume control. Even I get it wrong at times, sploshing too much paint where I shouldnt.

[Requizen]

A close friend of mine who is super into D&D is a stomach surgeon. He is one of the first people to start painting in our store, back when we used to sell craft store acryllics worth like 1$ each (and thats retail, wholesale it was like 0.60c). He has made pretty amazing things because his eye-to-hand control is absurdly good, and has great attention to detail. He also spent forever getting them to thin properly. It doesnt make those paints any less trash though.

Im sure a skilled painter can make contrast work. But thats not what they are being advertised as. They are being advertised as ideal for first time painters and people who dont want to bother getting better. And its just not the case. Sure, its faster but you need to know what you are doing. And them being thicker and coming twith the 'you dont need to thin anymore!' tagline isnt going to help, in the numerous painting classes we've run through the years one of the hardest things to teach people is volume control. Even I get it wrong at times, sploshing too much paint where I shouldnt.

Haha what are you trying to say here? "It's not easy enough to do with a blindfold so it's not worth it"? "It's false advertising because you can't do it with your toes"?

Obviously it's going to require some learning like anything else but according to the person who posted those pictures those are literally one coat each for skin, tail, cloth, armor, smoke, bones, pipe, and eyes. Having to figure out how much paint to put on a brush is not even close to a downside, it's way easier than learning to do multiple steps and blending. If I can get that cloth effect in one step for 30 Dark Angel robes, that's an insane amount of time saved.

[LansXero]

Haha what are you trying to say here? "It's not easy enough to do with a blindfold so it's not worth it"? "It's false advertising because you can't do it with your toes"?

Obviously it's going to require some learning like anything else but according to the person who posted those pictures those are literally one coat each for skin, tail, cloth, armor, smoke, bones, pipe, and eyes. Having to figure out how much paint to put on a brush is not even close to a downside, it's way easier than learning to do multiple steps and blending. If I can get that cloth effect in one step for 30 Dark Angel robes, that's an insane amount of time saved.

And if those were the selling points that stuck with my community, instead of "one thick coat" that would be great. People who are good at stuff tend to vastly understimate how sucky new people can be. Part of getting good at things is not thinking about that stuff, so it comes automatically and then you think its really simple and quick, but would take someone new a lot of time (and a lot of messed up minis) to get it that way.

Have they come out with a release date yet? Paint sales are likely to hurt as the date closes, since people will be waiting on the new hotness to try it out.

[Wraith]

Have they come out with a release date yet? Paint sales are likely to hurt as the date closes, since people will be waiting on the new hotness to try it out.

Nothing confirmed by GW, but popular rumour says early/mid June. It also says that Contrast paints are going to be in an 18ml pot (as opposed to the normal paints which are 24ml) and might cost something like $8 each; hopefully those are exaggerations, but this is GW we're talking about so maybe not.....

[Cheesegear]

Look, I know 7 layers of blending and highlighting will always look better, but you can't look at this and tell me Contrast paints are horrible:

So, an 'invited' (i.e; Probably pro) painter comes in, spends what is clearly more than 'one thick coat' worth of time on a model, has masterful use of brush control, and clearly pushes the paint around to get the desired effect.

I'm impressed 'cause the guy is good at painting, not at the quality of the Contrast paints.

EDIT: Judging from the robe, it just looks like every other time I've seen a pro painter use poor quality paints. It doesn't mean that the paints are good. It means that the painter is a pro.

'One. Thick. Coat.' ...Isn't that picture. That's the picture that they shell out to 'real' painters to make it seem like Contrast paints are more than they are.
i.e; Advertising to bad painters didn't get the good painters on board. Let's try something else.

[JNAProductions]

Idle question: How many AP-5 weapons are there?
And are there any AP-6?

For AP-5, I have the Volcano Cannon, the Volcano Lance, and the Culexus' Animus Speculum. (That's off memory, so I might be wrong.) Anything else?

[Ionbound]

I believe Monstrous Rending Claws's rend is -6 AP but only on a 6+ to wound roll. IDK if that counts for your purposes or not.

[JNAProductions]

I believe Monstrous Rending Claws's rend is -6 AP but only on a 6+ to wound roll. IDK if that counts for your purposes or not.

Nah, that counts.

Thank you!

[Turalisj]

Idle question: How many AP-5 weapons are there?
And are there any AP-6?

For AP-5, I have the Volcano Cannon, the Volcano Lance, and the Culexus' Animus Speculum. (That's off memory, so I might be wrong.) Anything else?

The Red Axe, a Mars specific omnissian axe for Adeptus Mechanicus, is AP-5.

[JNAProductions]

So far, I have:

AP-5
Animus Speculum (Culexus)
Volcano Lance (Knight Castellan)
Volcano Cannon (Shadowsword)
High Power Doomsday Cannon (Doomsday Ark)
Tachyon Arrow (Anrakyr the Traveler)
Deathray [If Mephrit in half range] (Doomscythe)
Heavy Gauss Cannon [If Mephrit in half range] (Heavy Destroyer)
Fusion Blasters [With Advanced Targeting System] (XV25 Stealth Suits, XV8 Crisis Suits)
Heavy Rail Rifle (XV88 Broadsides)
Grav Flux Bombard (Hellforged Leviathans, Relic Leviathans)
Lance Prism Cannon (Fire Prism)
The Red Axe (Mars Power Axe Relic)

AP-6
Monstrous Rending Claws [On 6s to wound] (Patriarch, Broodlord)
High Power Doomsday Cannon [If Mephrit in half range] (Doomscythe)

AP Infinity-Ignores Armor, but not Invulnerables
Life Drain [Melee Attacks] (Culexus)

[Yaktan]

Tau can also get AP -5 fusion blasters on Ghostkeels, Riptides, and all sorts of commanders. I even used to run my ghostkeels with them, before the codex and delicious, delicious 8 point shield generators.

[Cheesegear]

Idle question: How many AP-5 weapons are there?

How many viable targets for AP-5 are there, that wouldn't then fall back onto some kind of Invulnerable save?

This is why in order to destroy a Knight, you don't need anything more than AP-2. Or, rather, anything over -2 is a waste of points...Which is why the best weapon for killing Knights is a Knight Warden/Crusader with a Gatling Cannon that does 3 Damage per hit.
...Unless you're running Death Hex, which is amazing for this exact reason.

[LeSwordfish]

How many viable targets for AP-5 are there, that wouldn't then fall back onto some kind of Invulnerable save?


He did say it was an idle question: AP-6 doesn't even come up unless the unit's got a 2+ save and some other bonus like cover.

[bluntpencil]

He did say it was an idle question: AP-6 doesn't even come up unless the unit's got a 2+ save and some other bonus like cover.

Bullgryns with Slabshields, with any of the following active: Cover, Take Cover!, Psychic Barrier are complete nightmare to shift. Of course, if you get them down to 5+ or worse, they take the hits on the Brute Shields instead of the Slabshields. Need AP-6 and Null Zone or something, I guess.

[LansXero]

Bullgryns with Slabshields, with any of the following active: Cover, Take Cover!, Psychic Barrier are complete nightmare to shift. Of course, if you get them down to 5+ or worse, they take the hits on the Brute Shields instead of the Slabshields. Need AP-6 and Null Zone or something, I guess.

At that point just rain shots on them so they'll die by volume of 1s. T5 right? not that hard to wound.

Alternatively, Mortal Wounds for everyone.

[jguy]

Burning Blade relic from Space Marine Codex. +2 str, -5 AP, 1 damage. Replaces power sword or master crafted power sword.

[JNAProductions]

Burning Blade relic from Space Marine Codex. +2 str, -5 AP, 1 damage. Replaces power sword or master crafted power sword.

Updated list:

AP-5
Volcano Lance (Knight Castellan)
Volcano Cannon (Shadowsword)
High Power Doomsday Cannon (Doomsday Ark)
Tachyon Arrow (Anrakyr the Traveler)
Deathray [If Mephrit in half range] (Doomscythe)
Heavy Gauss Cannon [If Mephrit in half range] (Heavy Destroyer)
Fusion Blasters [With Advanced Targeting System] (XV25 Stealth Suits, XV8 Crisis Suits)
Heavy Rail Rifle (XV88 Broadsides)
Grav Flux Bombard (Hellforged Leviathans, Relic Leviathans)
Lance Prism Cannon (Fire Prism)
The Red Axe (Mars Power Axe Relic)
Shokk Attack Gun (Big Meks)
Bubblechukas [AP-1d6] (Mek Guns)
Mega Choppa (Stompa)
Killsaw [Proppa Killy Warlord, on the charge/being charge/Heroically Intervened only] (Warboss)
Heat Lance (Scourges, Talos Pain Engine, Reaver Jetbikes)
Mori Quake Cannon (Warlord Battle Titan)
Reaver Volcanno Cannon (Reaver Battle Titan)
Saturnyne Lascutter [Melee] (Warlord Battle Titan)
Arioch Titan Power Claw (Warlord Battle Titan)
Reaver Chainfist (Reaver Battle Titan)
Reaver Power Fist (Reaver Battle Titan)
Dreadhammer Siege Cannon (Relic Typhon Heavy Siege Tank)
Laser volley cannon [Overcharge fire] (Deimos Pattern Vindicator Laser Destroyer)
Ghost Razors (Lugft Huron)
Monstrous Scything Talons (Hierophant Bio-Titan)
Mega Klaw (Kustom Stompa)
Heavy rail cannon (KX139 Ta'unar Supremacy Armour, Tiger Shark AX-1-0, Manta Super-Heavy Dropship)
D-Impaler (Cobra)
Dire Pulsar (Phantom Titan)
D-Bombard (Phantom Titan)
Wraith Glaive (Phantom Titan)
Blade Of Shadows (Be'Lakor)
Acid Maw (Carnifex)
Nemesis Quake Cannon (Warbringer)
Twin Volcano Cannon (Hellforged Falchion)
Burning Blade (Space Marine Power Sword Relic)

AP-6
Monstrous Rending Claws [On 6s to wound] (Patriarch, Broodlord)
High Power Doomsday Cannon [If Mephrit in half range] (Doomscythe)
Bubblechukas [AP-1d6] (Mek Guns)
Thundercoil Harpoon (Knight Valiant)
Belicosa Volcano Cannon (Warlord Battle Titan)
Malignas Beam Cannon (Hellforged Contemptor)

AP Infinity-Ignores Armor, but not Invulnerables
Life Drain [Melee Attacks] (Culexus)

[Bobby Baratheon]

The monstrous acid maw upgrade for carnifexes is also AP5. Also, Hive Tyrants also have access to the Monstrous Rending Claws.

[Bobby Baratheon]

I played in round 2 of our escalation league today, which was at 750 points. My opponent brought AdMech, which are always fun to see.


It was a battalion for I forget which Forgeworld (not Graia, which ended up being important)
Tech Priest Dominus
Enginseer

10x vanguard w/ plasma calivers
10x vanguard w/ plasma calivers
10x rangers w/ 1 arquebus

5x kataphrons
1x dunecrawler
5(or 6)x infiltrators


Jormungandr Battalion
Hive Tyrant w/ 2x devourers and the Maw Claws of Thyrax (relic monstrous rending claws)
Tyranid Prime w/ boneswords, adrenal glands and a deathspitter[W]

Rippers x3
Tyranid Warriors x3 w/ boneswords, deathspitters and a venom cannon
Tyranid Warriors x3 w/ boneswords, deathspitters and a venom cannon

Carnifexes x2 w/ 2x scything talons and spore cysts
Carnifex w/ 4x devourers, enhanced senses and spore cysts

Like me, he was a player from last edition getting into 8th. It seemed like he was a little fuzzy on some of the rules (both in general and for AdMech), so I had to correct him on a few points but overall it was a fun, friendly game (if not a close one).

The mission was (I think) a custom one from the TO with five objectives whose value shifts every turn (becoming active), with the player controlling an objective at the end of the battle round getting 1 vp (or two, if the objective was 'active' that turn). First Blood, Linebreaker and Slay the Warlord were also available, and the game technically would continue even if a player was tabled. We played on a 4x4 board with some ruins in three of the corners and craters in the center.

He went first and shot one of the melee carnifexes off the board. I had hid my hive tyrant in a building out of sight (thankfully). He rolled well, but the -1 to hit and autocover from Jormungandr soaked up a lot of firepower. He also definitely wasted his small arms fire on the carnifex. My turn went pretty poorly, with most of my shooting missing and me only killing a few Skitarii. At the end of the round he controlled 2 objectives to my three (but he had First Blood), so we were tied at 3-3.

Turn two he poured almost all his firepower into the carnifexes and flopped pretty hard thanks to the -1 to hit and autocover. He took two wounds off the shooty carnifex and wounded one warrior, but other than that my guys were able to keep advancing. The warriors whittled down the vanguard to a squad of three and a squad of five (also killing a kataphron with the venom cannon), while the Hive Tyrant shot the squad of three down to one guy. The shooty fex, thanks to the pathogenic slime stratagem that adds +1 damage, managed to kill three kataphrons. The hive tyrant got off onslaught, allowing the melee fex to pull off a charge and wipe the squad of five vanguard. I then used Overrun to position it 1.1" away from the Dunecrawler. At the end of this turn, we each controlled two objectives (but I controlled the active one), leaving the score at 6-5.

On turn three he put virtually all of his shooting into the meleefex and charged his last kataphron, his tech priest and his enginseer into it, but he failed to kill it, only getting it down to 3 wounds. He also killed the injured warrior, causing me to lose one to unit coherency thanks to stupid placement. His infiltrators (previously hiding behind buildings) multi-charged my shooty fex and a squad of warriors, losing a guy to overwatch (32 shots will do that) before getting the dakkafex down to 1 wound and failing to hurt the warriors. The meleefex killed the tech priest dominus (his warlord) fighting back, and then I used the fight again strategem to kill the last kataphron and get the enginseer down to 1 wound. The warriors managed to kill two infiltrators, while the dakkafex didn't do anything thanks to not having a melee weapon. On my turn, I charged the Tyranid Prime and the lone unengaged warrior into the infiltrators while double teaming the dunecrawler with the Hive Tyrant (onslaught once again paying off) and the meleefex. The charging Hive Tyrant solo'd the dunecrawler thanks to rolling two six's to wound and max damage on his other two attacks, but he then used the stratagem to explode it, killing his own enginseer, dropping the meleefex to one wound and shaving off one wound from the hive tyrant. My rippers also came down to claim an objective this turn, putting me in control of three total to his one (which was the active one for that round), bringing the score to 10-7.

On turn four his only units left were the ranger unit with the arquebus (which had done nothing the entire game). Since both my carnifexes were at one health, he tried to kill both of them before conceding. He did kill one with massed galvanic rifle fire, but the arquebus failed to scratch the other one. At this point he conceded, since I could control four objectives at the end of the turn and would have probably ended the game with linebreaker. He was probably also going to get tabled on my turn, since I had all of my shooty units except two warriors still on the battlefield.

Observations:
-For 92 points, 2x scything talon carnifexes with spore cysts are kind of nasty. He spent probably 90% of his shooting trying to kill those two carnifexes, and it took him most of the game to finish off the second one. The autocover was also very nice, making the carnifexes virtually invulnerable to small arms fire and giving them a shot at saving wounds from higher AP weapons. I previously was more in the camp of 4x devourer carnifexes w/ acid maws as the most generally useful carnifex, but I can see the appeal of 92 point battering rams that take a disproportionate amount of shooting to take down.
-He literally didn't once target the hive tyrant with shooting attacks. I did get catalyst on it every turn, but I thought he would prioritize over the carnifexes. I guess the distraction carnifex effect is real?
-The warriors performed pretty well at this level - they comfortably out-meleed the infiltrators while also killing a bunch of skitarii grunts with their deathspitters. The venom cannons were also kind of helpful for picking off the Kataphrons. I can see why they don't do as well at higher point levels, but at 750 two squads of three for ~180 points (and the obligatory prime for ~80 points) seems like a bargain. They also benefit quite a bit from the autocover, since their natural 4+ save is pretty mediocre.
-I think the acid maw is a probably better investment for the dakkafex than enhanced senses, considering the two are mutually exclusive. Enhanced senses adds 4 hits on average for the double devourers 'fex (24*.5 vs 24*.667), which is nice but not really a gamechanger. Acid maw, on the other hand, gives it a legitimate melee weapon (S6 AP5 D3 damage is kind of nasty for a ten point weapon) and much more flexibility on the battlefield; the devourer's short range means they're going to be close to the enemy anyway. The enhanced senses dakkafex was pretty helpless against the infiltrators, while I think a dakkafex with the acid maw would have easily killed two of them. It's not quite as good as the double scything claws, but the flexibility upgrade is real.
-I do think the game would have gone very differently with better threat recognition on his part. The melee carnifexes, while efficient for their cost, are vulnerable to being tarpitted (they hit on 4+'s except when they charge) and he definitely squandered his shooting on them instead of killing my guys on the objectives.

The next round is 1000 points, and I kind of want to try this out:

Jormungandr Battalion
Old One Eye
Tyranid Prime (W) w/ boneswords, flesh hooks, deathspitter and adrenal glands

Rippers x3
Rippers x3
Tyranid Warriors x5 w/ deathspitters, boneswords, adrenal glands and a venom cannon

Carnifexes x3 w/ spore cysts and 2x scything talons
Carnifexes x2 w/ 4x devourers, monstrous acid maw and spore cysts

I look forward to abusing Old One Eye's status as a regenerating character with 9 wounds while he and the boys roll over stuff. I do quite like the Hive Tyrant, but it'll be fun to try a game without him. I can always spring out triple tyrants + carnifexes the round after at 1250. Not having psychic powers will kind of suck, though.

[Cheesegear]

BAO (n=150) happened:

Rusted Claw, Battalion
(FC) Acolyte Iconward; Icon of the Cult Ascendent
(W) Patriarch; Shadow Stalker
(BC) Primus; Bonesword, Alien Majesty

Acolyte Hybrids (x15); x4 Heavy Rock Saws
Acolyte Hybrids (x15); x4 Heavy Rock Saws
Neophyte Hybrids (x10); Webbers (x2), Web Pistol

Aberrants (x10); Power Picks (x8)
Clamavus
Kelermorph
Nexos

Deliverance Broodsurge
Field Commander
Broodcoven
Gransire's Gift (x2)

Genestealer Cults, Battalion
(BC) Magus; Inscrutable Cunning <Four Armed Emperor>
Patriarch; Familiar, Amulet of the Voidwyrm <Rusted Claw>

Brood Brothers Infantry (x10)
Brood Brothers Infantry (x10)
Brood Brothers Infantry (x10)

Sanctus; Silencer Sniper Rifle, The Gift From Beyond <Four Armed Emperor>

Brood Brothers Heavy Weapons; Mortars (x3)
Brood Brothers Heavy Weapons; Mortars (x3)

Brood Brothers, Air Wing
Vulture Gunship (FW); Heavy Bolter, Twin Punisher Cannon
Vulture Gunship (FW); Heavy Bolter, Twin Punisher Cannon
Vulture Gunship (FW); Heavy Bolter, Twin Punisher Cannon

Triple Vultures will definitely do the thing. It's also got a Deliverance Broodsurge with the four Warlord Traits, and it also brought the Rock Saws. Nice list.

Adeptus Custodes, Spearhead
Captain-General Trajann Valoris

(W) Vexillus Praetor; Misericordia, Storm Shield, Vexilla Magnifica, Superior Creation

Caladius Grav-Tank (FW); Twin Illiastus Accelerator Cannon, Twin Lastrum Bolt Cannon
Caladius Grav-Tank (FW); Twin Illiastus Accelerator Cannon, Twin Lastrum Bolt Cannon
Caladius Grav-Tank (FW); Twin Illiastus Accelerator Cannon, Twin Lastrum Bolt Cannon

Adeptus Custodes, Outrider
Shield-Captain on Dawneagle Jetbike; Hurricane Bolter, Misericordia, Auric Aquilas

Vertus Praetors (x3); Hurricane Bolters
Vertus Praetors (x3); Hurricane Bolters
Vertus Praetors (x3); Hurricane Bolters

Reinforcements; 85 Points

Pure Custodes? In my Horde 40K? Wait...Hold up.
*Looks up rules for Caladius*
Oh. Okay. Be a horde, or be able to deal with hordes. This army has a lot of shots per model and that's how it did so well. Got it. Chuck in the sneaky Assassin and you're good to go.

Tzeentch Daemons, Battalion
Kairos Fateweaver
(W) Lord of Change; Baleful Sword, Bolt of Change, Boon of Change, Gaze of Fate, Incorporeal Form, The Impossible Robe
Changecaster

Pink Horrors (x24); Icon, Instrument
Brimstone Horrors (x10)
Brimstone Horrors (x10)

Thousand Sons, Battalion
Ahriman
Daemon Prince of Tzeentch with Wings; Malefic Talons (x2)

Tzaangors (x24); Blades, Brayhorn, Twistbray
Tzaangors (x10)
Tzaangors (x10)

Thousand Sons, Super Heavy Auxiliary
Magnus the Red

Reinforcements; 48 Points

Is 24 a special number for some reason? Dude's rocking x3 Greater Daemons (including Magnus), and that's how you have to do it if you're going to run any at all. Not having Ahriman on Disc (i.e; Being a <Daemon>) seems extremely weird to me. But hey, top 10% at BAO so I'll be quiet. I like the 7th Ed. vibes of the Magnus & Fatey Power Hour. I'm not even remotely a fan of The Impossible Robe.

Kraken, Battalion
(W) Hive Tyrant with Wings; Devourers with Brainleech Worms (x4), Chameleonic Mutation, Catalyst, Psychic Scream
Old One Eye

Genestealers (x18); Scything Talons (x18), Acid Maws (x3)
Genestealers (x18); Scything Talons (x18), Acid Maws (x3)
Hormagaunts (x28)

Venomthropes (x3)

Kraken, Battalion
Hive Tyrant with Wings; Devourers with Brainleech Worms (x4), Paroxysm, The Horror
The Swarmlord; Catalyst, Onslaught

Termagants (x12)
Ripper Swarms (x3)
Ripper Swarms (x3)

Hive Guard (x6); Impaler Cannons

Kronos
Biovore

Impaler Cannons do the thing. The Biovore just hangs out of line of sight and drops The Deepest Shadow when neccessary. Shooting Kraken Genestealers up the board to win. And then let's have the Hive Tyrants chill out in Reserve so that they don't die immedately. Solid mono-Codex list - and no Forge World!

Ultramarines, Battalion
(FC) Captain with Jump Pack; Thunder Hammer, Storm Shield, Warden of Ultramar
Chief Librarian Tigurius

Intercessors (x5); Bolt Rifles, AGL, Chainsword
Intercessors (x5); Bolt Rifles, AGL, Chainsword
Intercessors (x5); Bolt Rifles, AGL, Chainsword

Redemptor Dreadnought; Heavy Onslaught Gatling Cannon, Onslaught Gatling Cannon, Storm Bolters (x2)
Redemptor Dreadnought; Heavy Onslaught Gatling Cannon, Onslaught Gatling Cannon, Storm Bolters (x2)
Relic Contemptor Dreadnought (FW); Twin Lascannons (x2)
Relic Contemptor Dreadnought (FW); Twin Lascannons (x2)

Relic Leviathan Dreadnought; Heavy Flamers (x2), Hunter-Killer Missiles (x3), Storm Cannon Arrays (x2)
Thunderfire Cannon; Flamer, Plasma Cutter

Victrix Guard
Field Commander

Ultramarines, SHAD
Roboute Guilliman

My guess is the Thunderfire Gunner is the Warlord as has Storm of Fire, maybe? Or maybe Guilliman is the Warlord for +3 CPs? I dunno. Anyway, this list has Forge World in it so I dislike it on principle. Although, spending two CPs just to get a Warden is a bit much. So maybe Guilliman is the Warlord? ...I'm guessing Relic is Shield Eternal. Whatever. It's a Space Marine list. Guilliman & Forge World Dreadnoughts. Welcome to a **** Codex.

Four Armed Emperor, Battalion
Acolyte Iconward
(BC) Primus

Acolyte Hybrids (x15); Heavy Rock Saws (x5)
Brood Brothers Infantry (x10)
Brood Brothers Infantry (x10)

Clamavus
Kelermorph
Nexos
Sanctus

Deliverance Broodsurge
Broodcoven

Four Armed Emperor, Battalion
(BC) Magus; Familiar
(W) Patriarch; Familiar

Brood Brothers Infantry
Brood Brothers Infantry
Brood Brothers Infantry

Aberrants (x10); Power Picks (x8)
Aberrants (x10); Power Picks (x8)
Biophagus

Annointed Throng

Brood Brothers, Battalion
Company Commander
Company Commander

Infantry Squad
Infantry Squad
Infantry Squad

Vulture Gunship (FW); Heavy Bolter, Twin Punisher Cannon
Vulture Gunship (FW); Heavy Bolter, Twin Punisher Cannon

Hooray for Guard Armies with a different heads!

Thousand Sons, Supreme Command
Ahriman on Disc of Tzeentch
Daemon Prince of Tzeentch with Wings; Malefic Talons (x2)
(W) Daemon Prince of Tzeentch with Wings; Malefic Talons (x2), High Magister, Helm of the Third Eye
Sorcerer in Terminator Armour; Inferno Combi-Bolter, Force Sword, Familiar

Chaos Daemons, Battalion
Fluxmaster; Flickering Flames, Gaze of Fate
Daemon Prince of Chaos with Wings; Daemonic Axe, Skullreaver, <Khorne>

Pink Horrors (x27)
Brimstone Horrors (x10)
Nurglings (x3)

Nurgle Daemons, Battalion
Poxbringer; Miasma of Pestilence
Sloppity Bilepiper

Plaguebearers (x30); Icon
Plaguebearers (x30); Icon
Nurglings (x3)

Nothing I see here is surprising. This is exactly what the average Chaos list looks like these days.

Catachan, Battalion
Colonel 'Iron Hand' Straken
Company Commander

Infantry Squad
Infantry Squad
Infantry Squad

Chimera; Heavy Flamers (x2)
Chimera; Heavy Flamers (x2)
Chimera; Heavy Flamers (x2)

Emperor's Blade Assault Company

Catachan, Battalion
Tank Commander; Battle Cannon, Heavy Bolter, Heavy Stubber, Plasma Cannons (x2)
Tank Commander; Battle Cannon, Heavy Bolter, Plasma Cannons (x2)

Infantry Squad
Infantry Squad
Infantry Squad

Emperor's Fist Tank Company

Catachan, Battalion
Tank Commander; Battle Cannon, Lascannon, Plasma Cannons (x2)
Company Commander

Infantry Squad
Infantry Squad
Infantry Squad

Bullgryns (x9); Bullgryn Mauls, Brute Shields (x4), Slabshields (x5)
Astropath
Ministorum Priest

Wyvern; Heavy Bolter
Basilisk; Heavy Bolter

Emperor's Wrath Artillery Company

...And this list, boys and girls, is how you make friends.

[Cheesegear]

BAO Top 8:

Four Armed Emperor, Battalion
Acolyte Iconward
Patriarch; Familiar

Acolyte Hybrids (x15); Heavy Rock Saws (x4)
Acolyte Hybrids (x15); Heavy Rock Saws (x4)
Acolyte Hybrids (x20); Hand Flamers (x20)

Clamavus
Nexos
Sanctus; Silencer Sniper Rifle

Deliverance Broodsurge

Four Armed Emperor, Battalion
Patriarch; Familiar
Primus; Bonesword

Brood Brothers Infantry (x20)
Brood Brothers Infantry (x20)
Brood Brothers Infantry (x20)
Brood Brothers Infantry (x20)
Brood Brothers Infantry (x10) Ow my brain.

Aberrants (x10); Power Picks (x8)

Annointed Throng

Tyranids, Battalion (Kraken?)
Broodlord
Broodlord

Termagants (x10)
Termagants (x10)
Termagants (x10)

Daemon Princes get the shaft. Meanwhile, Broodlords and Patriarchs definitely aren't the same thing.

The Purge, Vanguard
Lord Discordant; Autocannon, Techno-Virus Injector, <Nurgle>
Lord Discordant; Autocannon, Techno-Virus Injector, <Nurgle>

Hellforged Contemptor Dreadnought (FW); Butcher Cannons (x2), Havoc Launcher, <Nurgle>
Hellforged Contemptor Dreadnought (FW); Butcher Cannons (x2), Havoc Launcher, <Nurgle>
Hellforged Contemptor Dreadnought (FW); Butcher Cannons (x2), Havoc Launcher, <Nurgle>

The Purge, Spearhead
Lord Discordant; Autocannon, Techno-Virus Injector, <Nurgle>

Hellforged Deredeo Dreadnought (FW); Butcher Cannon Array, Greater Havoc Launcher, Twin Heavy Bolter, <Nurgle>
Hellforged Deredeo Dreadnought (FW); Butcher Cannon Array, Greater Havoc Launcher, Twin Heavy Bolter, <Nurgle>
Hellforged Deredeo Dreadnought (FW); Butcher Cannon Array, Greater Havoc Launcher, Twin Heavy Bolter, <Nurgle>

The Purge, Air Wing
Heldrake; Baleflamer, <Nurgle>
Heldrake; Baleflamer, <Nurgle>
Heldrake; Baleflamer, <Nurgle>

...My god.

Graia, Battalion
Tech-Priest Enginseer; Power Axe
Tech-Priest Enginseer; Power Axe

Skitarii Rangers (x5)
Skitarii Rangers (x5)
Skitarii Rangers (x5)

Custodes, Outrider
Shield-Captain on Dawneagle Jetbike; Hurricane Bolter

Aquilon Custodians (x5; FW); Lastrum Storm Bolters, Solarite Power Gauntlets

Vertus Praetors (x5); Hurricane Bolters
Vertus Praetors (x5); Hurricane Bolters
Vertus Praetors (x3); Hurricane Bolters

Hawkshroud, Super-Heavies
Knight Gallant; Heavy Stubber, Reaper Chainsword, Thunderstrike Gauntlet
(C) Knight Warden; Avenger Gatling Cannon, Heavy Flamer, Heavy Stubber, Reaper Chainsword, Endless Fury
(W) Knight Valiant; Shieldbreaker Missiles (x2), Twin Siegebreaker Cannons (x2), Traitor's Pyre

Exalted Court
Heirlooms of the Household

Battalion, Cadian
Primaris Psyker; Force Stave, Nightshroud, Psychic Maelstrom
Primaris Psyker; Force Stave, Psychic Barrier, Terrifying Visions

Infantry Squad
Infantry Squad
Infantry Squad

Cadian, Battalion
Company Commander
Company Commander

Infantry Squad; Mortar
Infantry Squad; Mortar
Infantry Squad; Mortar

Heavy Weapons Squad; Mortars (x3)
Wyverns (x2); Heavy Bolters (x2)

Emperor's Wrath Artillery Company

Big yellow Knights, go! Yeah. Castellan gets nerfed. Just switch to Valiant. Not much changes.

T'au, Outrider
Cadre Fireblade; Markerlight
+Shield Drones (x2)

(W) Commander in Enforcer Armour; Cyclic Ion Blasters (x3), ATS
+Shield Drones (x2)

Pathfinders (x5); Markerlights (x5) + Pulse Drone + Grav Drone + Recon Drone + Shield Drones (x2)
Pathfinders (x5); Markerlights (x5) + Pulse Drone + Grav Drone + Recon Drone + Shield Drones (x2)
Shield Drones (x6)
Shield Drones (x5)
Shield Drones (x5)

T'au, Battalion
Cadre Fireblade; Markerlight
+Shield Drones (x2)

Commander Shadowsun
+Shield Drones (x2)
+Command-link Drone

Ethereal; Honour Blade
+Shield Drones (x2)

Strike Team (x5) + Shield Drones (x2)
Strike Team (x5) + Shield Drones (x2)
Strike Team (x5) + Shield Drones (x2)

T'au, Vanguard
Commander in Enforcer Armour; Cyclic Ion Blasters (x3), ATS
+Shield Drones (x2)

Darkstrider

Riptide; Heavy Burst Cannon, SMS (x2), ATS, VT
Riptide; Heavy Burst Cannon, SMS (x2), ATS, VT
Riptide; Heavy Burst Cannon, SMS (x2), ATS, VT

38 Shield Drones with 15 ObSec models total. Welcome to ITC, and what makes T'au good when you don't actually play by the rules.

Catachan, Battalion
(W) Company Commander; Grand Strategist
Company Commander; Kurov's Aquila

Infantry Squad; Mortar
Infantry Squad; Mortar
Infantry Squad; Mortar

Wyvern; Heavy Bolter
Basilisk; Heavy Bolter

Emperor's Wrath Artillery Company

Custodes, Spearhead
Captain-General Trajann Valoris

Vexilla; Castellan Axe, Vexilla Magnifica
Aquilon Custodians (x3; FW); Infernus Fire Pikes (x3), Misericordias (x3)

Caladius Grav-Tank (FW); Twin Illiastus Accelerator Cannon, Twin Lastrum Bolt Cannon
Caladius Grav-Tank (FW); Twin Illiastus Accelerator Cannon, Twin Lastrum Bolt Cannon
Telemon Heavy Dreadnought (FW)

Graia, Battalion
Tech-Preist Enginseer
Tech-Preist Enginseer

Skitarii Rangers (x5); Transuranic Arquebus, Omnispex
Skitarii Rangers (x5); Transuranic Arquebus, Omnispex
Skitarii Rangers (x5); Transuranic Arquebus, Omnispex

Reinforcements - 85 Points

This list is sick. Unfortunately, it's got Forge World in it so I have to be sad.

Craftworlds, Battalion
(W) Farseer Skyrunner; Singing Spear, Twin Shuriken Catapult <Biel-Tan>
Warlock Skyrunner; Singing Spear, Twin Shuriken Catapult <Biel-Tan>

Rangers (x5) <Alaitoc>
Rangers (x5) <Alaitoc>
Rangers (x5) <Alaitoc>

Windriders (x9); Scatter Lasers (x9) <Biel-Tan>

Alaitoc, Battalion
(FC) Farseer Skyrunner; Singing Spear, Twin Shuriken Catapult, Wild Rider

Warlock Skyrunner Conclave (x9); Singing Spears (x9), Twin Shuriken Catapults (x9)

Rangers (x5)
Rangers (x5)
Rangers (x5)

Windrider Host

Alaitoc, Air Wing
Crimson Hunter Exarch; Starcannons (x2)
Crimson Hunter Exarch; Starcannons (x2)
Crimson Hunter Exarch; Starcannons (x2)

Well, if Ynnari Shinging Spears are gonna be dead, just switch to Warlocks.


Undefeated

Thousand Sons, Supreme Command
Ahriman
Daemon Prince of Tzeentch with Wings; Malefic Talons (x2), High Magister
Daemon Prince of Tzeentch with Wings; Malefic Talons (x2), Warptime
Sorcerer in Terminator Armour; Inferno Combi-Bolter, Force Sword, Familiar

Hellforged Contemptor Dreadnought (FW); C-Beam Cannons (x2)

Nurgle Daemons, Battalion
Poxbringer
Sloppity Bilepiper

Plaguebearers (x30); Icon, Instrument
Plaguebearers (x30); Icon, Instrument
Nurglings (x3)

Chaos Daemons, Battalion
Changecaster
Daemon Prince of Chaos with Wings; Daemonic Axe, <Khorne>

Bloodletters (x15); Icon, Instrument
Pink Horrors (x25)
Brimstone Horrors (x10)

Sure. I guess it says something about the game being pretty close to balanced when there can be this many various Factions in the Top 10%, and, that rather than all the same list being Top 3, a list, that's nearly identical to this one, didn't place Top 8. So, yeah. I think ITC has pretty much made a game in which every Faction can participate. But, the problem is that they all participate in the exact same way. Which IMO makes the ITC really, really boring. Because while Faction selection might be diverse, the list archetypes are all basically the same.

I think the thing that disappoints me the most about this GT is the amount of Forge World seen at the top tables - lots of people effectively being priced out of the meta.
...That, or Forge World East is making a killing and FW is running themselves into the ground.

[LansXero]

BAO Top 8:

I think the thing that disappoints me the most about this GT is the amount of Forge World seen at the top tables - lots of people effectively being priced out of the meta.
...That, or Forge World East is making a killing and FW is running themselves into the ground.

ChinaForge cant stop, wont stop. FW models being stronger just kills independent retailers like myself, since we are priced out of the 'where do I buy stuff' meta. Fortunately, good recasters are hard to find, for obvious reasons.

Also, that craftworlds list is great. I always said Rangers were good (not that I think anyone disagreed) and Crimson Hunters can put the hurt when it counts. Hemlocks are great, but that short range is ugh.

[Avaris]

With the prevalence of Forge World stuff, do we think this is because the Forge World game designs are ‘better’ (by which I mean, they appear because they add things which were missing to the game which could/should be in core codexes), or ‘worse’ (not as balanced as core 40k stuff, so more likely to be overpowered, due to lower quality rules design). I think Cheesegear’s view is clear, what do others think? Is there anything that the core 40k designers can learn (either what to do or what not to do) from the forge world stuff?

[Wraith]

Have to admit, I'm mildly surprised at how many of the top 16 are mono-codex lists. I've spent so long adjusting to the necessity of needing allies that it's a bit strange to be seeing something that was last fashionable at the start of 6th edition.

[LeSwordfish]

With the prevalence of Forge World stuff, do we think this is because the Forge World game designs are ‘better’ (by which I mean, they appear because they add things which were missing to the game which could/should be in core codexes), or ‘worse’ (not as balanced as core 40k stuff, so more likely to be overpowered, due to lower quality rules design). I think Cheesegear’s view is clear, what do others think? Is there anything that the core 40k designers can learn from the forge world stuff?

GW rolls a 2D6 for balance, Forgeworld rolls a D12. If you choose only the highest results, you'll see a lot more Forgeworld, but they're not any better overall.

[Cheesegear]

With the prevalence of Forge World stuff, do we think this is because the Forge World game designs are ‘better’ (by which I mean, they appear because they add things which were missing to the game which could/should be in core codexes), or ‘worse’ (not as balanced as core 40k stuff, so more likely to be overpowered, due to lower quality rules design).

Both.
If Forge World models could be found in the Codex, there'd be no problem.
If Forge World models were worse than models found in the Codex, then people wouldn't take them.

You're not seeing anyone taking bad FW models, are you?

The Forge World units are not found in the Codex, and they are better than things found in the Codex.


Have to admit, I'm mildly surprised at how many of the top 16 are mono-codex lists.

If your Codex has good Troops, and good HQs, you don't really need Allies, do you?
If you're playing ITC, the scope of 'what you need' becomes significantly smaller.

[Wraith]

First look at plastic Sisters of Battle Retributors (https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/05/27/battle-sister-bulletin-part-8-retributors-first-lookgw-homepage-post-4/). They look..... like the old Retributors, weirdly enough. Less emphasis on the boobplate, but there's still an implication of femininity going on.


If your Codex has good Troops, and good HQs....

Considering what has come before, this in itself is a small miracle in many places.

[bluntpencil]

Both.
If Forge World models could be found in the Codex, there'd be no problem.
If Forge World models were worse than models found in the Codex, then people wouldn't take them.

You're not seeing anyone taking bad FW models, are you?

The Forge World units are not found in the Codex, and they are better than things found in the Codex.


I wouldn't have bothered converting my Chaplain Dreads (very easy) or Leman Russ Annihilators if I didn't have a use for them, yeah.

[Blackhawk748]

First look at plastic Sisters of Battle Retributors (https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/05/27/battle-sister-bulletin-part-8-retributors-first-lookgw-homepage-post-4/). They look..... like the old Retributors, weirdly enough. Less emphasis on the boobplate, but there's still an implication of femininity going on.

The look near exactly like the old ones, just in plastic. Which I guess I'm fine with. Also, the old Rets didn't really emphasis boobplate all that much.

Actually looking at the old metal models it really was only the Seraphim and the Sergeants who had any real emphasis on it and that primarily because they had their arms really sticking out.

[LansXero]

The look near exactly like the old ones, just in plastic. Which I guess I'm fine with.

Lets hope them being plastic makes them cheaper. Still, considering what someone above said above GW rolling 2d6 for balance, the beta codex was them rolling a 1 and the other dice rolling under the table. Look at all the recent diversity in lists all over tournaments, not a single feature by Sisters, not even as token allies. Depressing.

[Blackhawk748]

Lets hope them being plastic makes them cheaper. Still, considering what someone above said above GW rolling 2d6 for balance, the beta codex was them rolling a 1 and the other dice rolling under the table. Look at all the recent diversity in lists all over tournaments, not a single feature by Sisters, not even as token allies. Depressing.

I was never really expecting them to be included, as they exist in this weird halfway point between Guard and Marines, sorta like Ad Mech. Ad Mech show up because they're new and have unique units that do weird stuff.

Sisters are expensive and have like...two unique things, one of which is Celestine who can just get dumped into any old Imperium list with little effort. Sister's need more than Bolters to get them out of their spot.

A really good Stratagem could pull it off.

[LansXero]

I was never really expecting them to be included, as they exist in this weird halfway point between Guard and Marines, sorta like Ad Mech. Ad Mech show up because they're new and have unique units that do weird stuff.

Sisters are expensive and have like...two unique things, one of which is Celestine who can just get dumped into any old Imperium list with little effort. Sister's need more than Bolters to get them out of their spot.

A really good Stratagem could pull it off.

Realistically during beta feedback I just asked them for three things: 1. to get rid of either two of the Faith Point cost (needing to rework strats, relics and a sub-faction), the roll (needing to rework ebon chalice and imagifiers) or the 1/round attempt limit; 2. to add the FW Repressor to the Codex, and 3. for Sister Superiors to get access to the same Wargear as the rest of their squad. Sadly I dont think we're getting either, but oh well.

You dont even see Celestine anymore, or at least I havent. When it was just the index fine, but after a 'beta' codex it shouldnt be this sad

[Cheesegear]

I was never really expecting them to be included, as they exist in this weird halfway point between Guard and Marines, sorta like Ad Mech. Ad Mech show up because they're new and have unique units that do weird stuff.

Graia is coming up in the ITC - as shown in the lists above - because Tech-Priest Enginseers got a buff, so that even if you include the Power Axe - which you have to - they're still dirt cheap.

Tech-Priest Enginseer; Power Axe - 35 Points
Tech-Priest Enginseer; Power Axe - 35 Points

Skitarii Rangers (x5) - 35 Points
Skitarii Rangers (x5) - 35 Points
Skitarii Rangers (x5) - 35 Points

Total: 175 Points

Meanwhile, the 32, are 180. :smallwink:

But you only have half the models!? ...That's okay, because the ITC meta doesn't really play that game. If you can hold two Objectives in your own DZ, you're doing fine. If your opponent isn't ever going to enter your DZ except with non-ObSec units, what have you got to worry about? This is why T'au can stack the front of their DZ with Shield Drones and have a total of 15 models holding two Objectives, and still win games - 'cause ITC. If the rest of your army can, well, hold the line, 15 Troops models is perfectly fine.

Skitter Rangers (Graia) have a 4+ Save, with 6+ Invulnerable, and 6+ Ignore (final) Wounds. Their guns have 30" range with S4, and the option for AP-1. They do just fine in the ITC meta. Not to mention, Graia also comes with the extremely valuable 'Deny on 4+ with any <Infantry> unit' Stratagem.

Also...


BAO Results
Graia, Battalion
...

Hawkshroud, Super-Heavies
...

I *KNEW* I was onto something (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23624862&postcount=1281) for dealing with Thousand Sons and Daemons. The problem is that I'm not in the top 10% in the world, threw my first game, and decided it was ****.

I knew my idea was real. I knew it was viable. But I ****ed up my first game and cried about it.
*headdesk*

I knew. In my heart. That big yellow Knights were real units.

...Let's look at the same thing, with Sisters.

Valourous Heart
Canoness - 45 Points
Canoness - 45 Points

Battle Sisters (x5) - 45 Points
Battle Sisters (x5) - 45 Points
Battle Sisters (x5) - 45 Points

Total: 225 Points :smallconfused:

So, pay +50 Points for Acts of Faith over Canticles (not an even trade, IMO), and get 3+ Armour.
As opposed to +6" range on your guns and the chance for AP-1, in 4+ Armour.
Also, Canonii hand out rr1 to hit... Which would be good if S4, AP- was worth anything.

[Turalisj]

Which would be good if Admech weren't swimming in rr1 to hit you mean, right?

[Cheesegear]

Which would be good if Admech weren't swimming in rr1 to hit you mean, right?

Like I said, AoF for Canticles is not even close to an even trade.
If you're talking about Dominii, well, they're not part of the Battalion - they're too many points for the purposes of switch out Guard for AdMech.

[Wraith]

Also, the old Rets didn't really emphasis boobplate all that much.

Actually looking at the old metal models it really was only the Seraphim and the Sergeants who had any real emphasis on it and that primarily because they had their arms really sticking out.

The old Sisters of Battle Retributor models had a "brassiere" trim to emphasize the position of their breasts (https://i.imgur.com/cmaXbVT.jpg?1), because their ribs and stomachs were modelled to look like corsets (you can kind of see the 'zip' running down from her breastbone). The new ones look to be almost completely featureless, with a little bit of topography to suggest a shape.

[Blackhawk748]

The old Sisters of Battle Retributor models had a "brassiere" trim to emphasize the position of their breasts (https://i.imgur.com/cmaXbVT.jpg?1), because their ribs and stomachs were modelled to look like corsets (you can kind of see the 'zip' running down from her breastbone). The new ones look to be almost completely featureless, with a little bit of topography to suggest a shape.

*squints* Aaawww all my shiny brass bits!

[druid91]

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/305386313060974595/582033441994965022/IMG_20190525_222828.jpg

First attempt at Alpha Legion colors... Unfortunately came out too dappled. Any tips for getting solid coats without making layering pointless?

[Turalisj]

Try Tamiya gloss, but be warned the stuff is noxious as hell and you need to really watch how you thin it.

[JNAProductions]

So, has anyone here played Heralds of Ruin?

And, if yes, thoughts on it?

[Blackhawk748]

So, has anyone here played Heralds of Ruin?

And, if yes, thoughts on it?

Haven't played their updated 8th version, but their 7th Ed version was great. I glanced through their 8th version and it still looks solid.

[hamishspence]

The look near exactly like the old ones, just in plastic.

The flamethrower component looks different - presumably, inspired by the Inquisitor's hand flamer?

From Lexicanum:
https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/mediawiki/images/d/d8/Hereticus_Inquisitor.jpg

It does say that vehicle exhausts, braziers, etc. in the new range will have the same visual theme,

[LansXero]

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/305386313060974595/582033441994965022/IMG_20190525_222828.jpg

First attempt at Alpha Legion colors... Unfortunately came out too dappled. Any tips for getting solid coats without making layering pointless?

Wait for Contrast?

Pricing info went out today. At 7.80 US$ a pot, they are pricey; however, this was necessary to not make regular paints obsolete. Be warned that, even though they come in 18 ml. pots, their consistency is closer to shades than to regular paint, so its likely to have as much mileage as a regular small pot.

Several new base colors too, which is odd, because there are no contrast base colors aside from Seer Grey and Wraithbone.

Textures have been rebranded as technical, edge paints are going away, glazes are rumoured to follow soon, and Air paints now all come in 24 ml. pots.

[Avaris]

Wait for Contrast?

Pricing info went out today. At 7.80 US$ a pot, they are pricey; however, this was necessary to not make regular paints obsolete. Be warned that, even though they come in 18 ml. pots, their consistency is closer to shades than to regular paint, so its likely to have as much mileage as a regular small pot.

Several new base colors too, which is odd, because there are no contrast base colors aside from Seer Grey and Wraithbone.

Textures have been rebranded as technical, edge paints are going away, glazes are rumoured to follow soon, and Air paints now all come in 24 ml. pots.

I’m surprised the air paints are sticking around, given GW doesn’t currently sell an airbrush!

Any word on price/contents for a contrast starter box? I’ll be very surprised if there isn’t one!

[LansXero]

I’m surprised the air paints are sticking around, given GW doesn’t currently sell an airbrush!

Any word on price/contents for a contrast starter box? I’ll be very surprised if there isn’t one!

Be surprised then, there isnt nor are there any hints there will be one, at least for trade range. Wouldnt surprise me if they give those 'bundles' in their website where its just the same as buying each separate, though.

Also, Contrast has no metallics, so consider that. And they brush off really easy, so keep varnish on hand. Ah, and you cant paint light over dark, like, at all. So if you mess up you need to re-base the mess then re-contrast it. So its better for models with a large majority various shades of the same color.

[Cheesegear]

Also, Contrast has no metallics, so consider that. And they brush off really easy, so keep varnish on hand. Ah, and you cant paint light over dark, like, at all.

I find this to be a problem.

If your goal is to paint a model with multiple colours, contrast paints just aren't good. If you've got the kind of brush control that allows you to not make any mistakes with contrast paints, then you've got the brush control to do layering and highlighting.

Which is what baffles me; In order to get a good coat with Contrast paints, you're gonna have to be a good painter in the first place. Meanwhile, it's basically being advertised as a wash, and basically as 'liquid talent'.

Basically, advertising is lies.

[LansXero]

I find this to be a problem.

If your goal is to paint a model with multiple colours, contrast paints just aren't good. If you've got the kind of brush control that allows you to not make any mistakes with contrast paints, then you've got the brush control to do layering and highlighting.

Which is what baffles me; In order to get a good coat with Contrast paints, you're gonna have to be a good painter in the first place. Meanwhile, it's basically being advertised as a wash, and basically as 'liquid talent'.

Basically, advertising is lies.

They sound really close to gem paints imho. Oh, the Nighthaunt paints are said to be an early experiment of what contrast are, so expect to constantly be shaking those pots, or they'll get ruined (much like hexwraith and gloomhaunt do).

Also, they cant be mixed with water or lahmian, you need their own Contrast medium. Which is also said to be good for wet blending with regular paints. Ah, you cant mix colors with regular paint, and unless your volume control is on point dont do vehicles with contrast, it'll get streaky over large flat surfaces. They are also high pigment, so be ready to stain yourself, not that its much of a concern.

Basically, they are specialty paints for specialty painters, or quick slap jobs for mono-colored models like Marines or Poxwalkers. The choice of base color makes quite a bit of difference also, but you dont need the new primers; they are just meant as a neutral base. Since Contrast is see-through, the base hue will greatly affect your end color; its how they said you should make metallics, so i figure there is potential for great things there with experimentation later on.

Edit: Advertising it as a wash is correct, thats what they are, stickier washes sort of like what the ghost paints were. What they are not is 'One Thick Coat' or a good fit for novice painters. They are also quite expensive so trying and failing is going to lead to bad feelings and burning out.

[Avaris]

I find this to be a problem.

If your goal is to paint a model with multiple colours, contrast paints just aren't good. If you've got the kind of brush control that allows you to not make any mistakes with contrast paints, then you've got the brush control to do layering and highlighting.

Which is what baffles me; In order to get a good coat with Contrast paints, you're gonna have to be a good painter in the first place. Meanwhile, it's basically being advertised as a wash, and basically as 'liquid talent'.

Basically, advertising is lies.

A lot of the advertising is also time: it should be much quicker to get a model painted with contrast than otherwise. I personally will reserve judgment on how good they are for beginners until I’ve actually used them!

[9mm]

Also, Contrast has no metallics, so consider that. And they brush off really easy, so keep varnish on hand. Ah, and you cant paint light over dark, like, at all.

I'm going to steal from Kris at miniwargaming here: adjust your color theory with Contrast. Contrast paints is like using your inkjet printer: CMYK. Base paints with layers is RGB.



So if you mess up you need to re-base the mess then re-contrast it. So its better for models with a large majority various shades of the same color.
Which is why they sell the primers in pots as well, so you can do touch ups.



If your goal is to paint a model with multiple colours, contrast paints just aren't good. If you've got the kind of brush control that allows you to not make any mistakes with contrast paints, then you've got the brush control to do layering and highlighting.


or you do what I do, Prime the sprue, paint the bits individually, then assemble. painting a guardian's head, body, and gun separately is not what I'd call a challenge.

[LansXero]

I'm going to steal from Kris at miniwargaming here: adjust your color theory with Contrast. Contrast paints is like using your inkjet printer: CMYK. Base paints with layers is RGB.


Which is why they sell the primers in pots as well, so you can do touch ups.



or you do what I do, Prime the sprue, paint the bits individually, then assemble. painting a guardian's head, body, and gun separately is not what I'd call a challenge.

Depends on the kit, some models dont glue together properly after painting them in the sprue. I know they sell the primers in pots, but succesive re-basing is bound to take away detail, specially if you also mess up the re-basing. Its all down to eye-hand coordination, there is nothing special or magic about contrast; if anything its more runny than regular paints, so that should also be taken into account.

[Cheesegear]

What [Contrast Paints] are not is 'One Thick Coat' or a good fit for novice painters. They are also quite expensive so trying and failing is going to lead to bad feelings and burning out.


I personally will reserve judgment on how good they are for beginners until I’ve actually used them!

Everything I've seen so far - except in GW's initial 'One Thick Coat' video - indicates that Contrasts are extremely technical paints to use correctly. Slopping on a single coat indiscriminately - what novice painters will do, as that's what it's advertised for - leads to IMO some pretty awful results. Very similar to Glaze-painting a white-undercoated model. It's quick. It's easy. But it looks like **** and it's very easy to make mistakes with.

All of the good results coming out of Contrast Paints are coming from professional and semi-professional painters...Because they're pros.

Of course a Golden Daemon contestant is going to say that Contrast Paints are good. It gives him another option in his paintbox. I've seen pro-painters get fantastic results out of $2.50 tubes of canvas paint. It's not 'cause the tubes of paint are designed for miniatures, or they do something that regular Citadel paint can't do. It's because the painter is literally that good with colour theory, paint mixing and thinning, and has fantastic fine motor skills.

I, personally, will reserve judgement on Contrast paints until I watch my Blackshirt push Contrast Paints onto a 14 year-old 'because it makes painting quick and/or easy', and see how well the beginner does.

[Avaris]

I, personally, will reserve judgement on Contrast paints until I watch my Blackshirt push Contrast Paints onto a 14 year-old 'because it makes painting quick and/or easy', and see how well the beginner does.

Games Workshop in trying to sell products to customers shocker!

Yes, the beginner painter’s results won’t be perfect, but the same is true of the standard approach, and I don’t think anyone’s first results with contrast will be any worse than the equivalent with a classic base/shade/highlight approach. The beginner painter using contrast who gets a poor result would have also got a poor result with normal paints. Sure, you can overall get better results with normal paints, but I’ve not seen any evidence that, in the hands of a 14 year old beginner, contrast is worse than they would otherwise produce (and it may in fact be better).

And then contrast has other advantages to the beginner painter:
- Time. Contrast is quicker to use by far, so even if the first results are ‘bad’ you can iterate more quickly than with other paints. That helps develop skills faster. Say it takes three models to get your brush control to an ok level: that applies to both standard approach and contrast. Yet by replacing base/shade/highlight with a single step you can get to the three model level much quicker. And it needs to be complete models, not just time spent, so that you can understand how things look when you finish. Someone painting three models with contrast will learn far more basic brush control than someone who spent the same time doing one model.

- Money. On the surface, Contrast paints are more expensive. But looking at the total cost they’re likely to be cheaper. To paint a three colour contrast model you need primer plus three paints. To paint the same colour scheme with normal paints you need primer, 3 base paints, 3 shade paints and 3 paints for highlighting. You can probably get away with using a shade over multiple colours, and not everything will need highlighting, but it’s probably still more paints and cost overall, especially when you add even more colours.

So what you’re getting with contrast is the same quality as a beginner for a lower investment in both time and money. It won’t be great, but it should be good enough: I have friends who were at Warhammer fest, and are not professional painters, and they got decent results. I’d ecpect beginners will manage similar.

[Blackhawk748]

Games Workshop in trying to sell products to customers shocker!

Yes, the beginner painter’s results won’t be perfect, but the same is true of the standard approach, and I don’t think anyone’s first results with contrast will be any worse than the equivalent with a classic base/shade/highlight approach. The beginner painter using contrast who gets a poor result would have also got a poor result with normal paints. Sure, you can overall get better results with normal paints, but I’ve not seen any evidence that, in the hands of a 14 year old beginner, contrast is worse than they would otherwise produce (and it may in fact be better).

And then contrast has other advantages to the beginner painter:
- Time. Contrast is quicker to use by far, so even if the first results are ‘bad’ you can iterate more quickly than with other paints. That helps develop skills faster. Say it takes three models to get your brush control to an ok level: that applies to both standard approach and contrast. Yet by replacing base/shade/highlight with a single step you can get to the three model level much quicker. And it needs to be complete models, not just time spent, so that you can understand how things look when you finish. Someone painting three models with contrast will learn far more basic brush control than someone who spent the same time doing one model.

- Money. On the surface, Contrast paints are more expensive. But looking at the total cost they’re likely to be cheaper. To paint a three colour contrast model you need primer plus three paints. To paint the same colour scheme with normal paints you need primer, 3 base paints, 3 shade paints and 3 paints for highlighting. You can probably get away with using a shade over multiple colours, and not everything will need highlighting, but it’s probably still more paints and cost overall, especially when you add even more colours.

So what you’re getting with contrast is the same quality as a beginner for a lower investment in both time and money. It won’t be great, but it should be good enough: I have friends who were at Warhammer fest, and are not professional painters, and they got decent results. I’d ecpect beginners will manage similar.

Except noone is telling people that the normal paints are "One thick coat" to make it look good. They tell you it's three paints and that it's not super easy. Thats the issue.

[LansXero]

Games Workshop in trying to sell products to customers shocker!

They are actually holding Contrast paints hostage for independent stockists, forcing you to get a full rack of the newer, larger, just as unsellable Air paints. Its been a regular flustercuck, since they got their reps threatening with "no-restocks for the foreseeable future if you dont get the rack".


Yes, the beginner painter’s results won’t be perfect, but the same is true of the standard approach, and I don’t think anyone’s first results with contrast will be any worse than the equivalent with a classic base/shade/highlight approach. The beginner painter using contrast who gets a poor result would have also got a poor result with normal paints. Sure, you can overall get better results with normal paints, but I’ve not seen any evidence that, in the hands of a 14 year old beginner, contrast is worse than they would otherwise produce (and it may in fact be better).


We've run several painting demos, paint-and-takes and painting workshops over the years, so yes there is a huge difference. Not being able to quickly touch up over errors is a HUGE difference. Not being able to mix and tone-shift paints is also huge. Having glaze-like consistency is also very diferent. Its not just about poor results, its about inflated expectations. You get on a bike, you fall, you try again. You get on a bike with training wheels thats supposed to be idiot proof, you fall, you feel like trash, because this was super-easy-mode and yet you failed.


And then contrast has other advantages to the beginner painter:
- Time. Contrast is quicker to use by far, so even if the first results are ‘bad’ you can iterate more quickly than with other paints. That helps develop skills faster. Say it takes three models to get your brush control to an ok level: that applies to both standard approach and contrast. Yet by replacing base/shade/highlight with a single step you can get to the three model level much quicker. And it needs to be complete models, not just time spent, so that you can understand how things look when you finish. Someone painting three models with contrast will learn far more basic brush control than someone who spent the same time doing one model.


Thats not how motor skills work. Your wrists and fingers dont care about number of models at all, they care about how many times you repeat the same motions. Perhaps your color theory or understanding of where light goes could go faster, but your muscle memory is built upon repetition, so unless you somehow move your hands three time as fast using Contrast, it will take the same amount of time to develop them on either method.

I do agree it will be a faster way to go from unpainted grey models to slapped-on shaded mono-color models with a few bits of detail thrown in. But then all that Contrast is is just a fancier basecoat, not very different from a color spray + agrax / nuln or a quickshade dip. And if you do your detailing with Contrast, there is all the rebasing required, so the time difference goes out the window.


- Money. On the surface, Contrast paints are more expensive. But looking at the total cost they’re likely to be cheaper. To paint a three colour contrast model you need primer plus three paints. To paint the same colour scheme with normal paints you need primer, 3 base paints, 3 shade paints and 3 paints for highlighting. You can probably get away with using a shade over multiple colours, and not everything will need highlighting, but it’s probably still more paints and cost overall, especially when you add even more colours.

This is elementary school level of color theory, but you just need white, black, and like 4 colours to get a full palette. We've done it when we've run wet-blending and wet-pallette workshops, the results can be really good. Shades are just watered-down paint at heart, so you could do lahmian + what you already have (or 'ardcoat for glossy). Or just good old distilled water. Then again, most of what Contrast does can be replicated with Agrax / Nuln so 3 is a bit too much. 3 for highlighting is also exagerated.

Contrast paints are almost twice as much as regular paints, and they mix very poorly with each other, and also their consistency makes them more prone to drying up (but thats also on GW's choice of bottle). More than that, you still need some regular paints, as Contrast has no metallics and re-basing fine detail work is ugh.


So what you’re getting with contrast is the same quality as a beginner for a lower investment in both time and money. It won’t be great, but it should be good enough: I have friends who were at Warhammer fest, and are not professional painters, and they got decent results. I’d ecpect beginners will manage similar.


We'll wait and see. When managing other people's money and expectations we tend to err on the safe side. Better to be seen as late adopters or change-resistant grognards than the jerks who overhype the new hotness and sucker people out of their money.

[Corsair14]

I saw a video on youtube of an expert paint playing with contrast paints. He disproved the one thick coat theory doing a couple primaris blood angels. The one thick coat method looked horrible. Then he decided to use actual skills for the second model and it looked as awesome as one would expect a propainted model to look. Looked like crap on vehicles except for smears and oil stains, that looked pretty cool.

[Requizen]

I saw a video on youtube of an expert paint playing with contrast paints. He disproved the one thick coat theory doing a couple primaris blood angels. The one thick coat method looked horrible. Then he decided to use actual skills for the second model and it looked as awesome as one would expect a propainted model to look. Looked like crap on vehicles except for smears and oil stains, that looked pretty cool.

Which video? I'd be interested to see.

My question isn't "Does 1 thick coat of contrast paint look as good as hours painstakingly painted by a mediocre or better painter?", my question is "does one thick coat look passable for someone who would otherwise not have painted their models?". This isn't about a revolution in paint technology that gives you one simple trick that pro painters hate, it's about giving people who otherwise would put grey plastic on the table the incentive to say "hey it looks pretty meh, but at least it's not fresh off the sprue!", which is all I'm asking out of it. I don't think it needs to change the game forever to be a win, and if it is a technical paint skill that people can level up over time as well, but start from a relatively ok point, that's even better.

[Avaris]

They are actually holding Contrast paints hostage for independent stockists, forcing you to get a full rack of the newer, larger, just as unsellable Air paints. Its been a regular flustercuck, since they got their reps threatening with "no-restocks for the foreseeable future if you dont get the rack".

That really sucks. The independent stockists I’ve spoken to in the UK seem able to go off piste a bit more in what they order, but being tied into particular stock must be a pain.



This is elementary school level of color theory, but you just need white, black, and like 4 colours to get a full palette. We've done it when we've run wet-blending and wet-pallette workshops, the results can be really good. Shades are just watered-down paint at heart, so you could do lahmian + what you already have (or 'ardcoat for glossy). Or just good old distilled water. Then again, most of what Contrast does can be replicated with Agrax / Nuln so 3 is a bit too much. 3 for highlighting is also exaggerated.
Yeah, it’s possible to mix paints etc, which will suit some people, but has never been in my particular interest or skillset. It’s a similar thing with dry paints: I use them a lot, but could probably get the same results using other paints for cheaper. I’m lucky in that I can afford to do so, it’s certainly reasonable to see contrast as far less suited to your particular context, particularly with the mixing and touching up concerns.


We'll wait and see. When managing other people's money and expectations we tend to err on the safe side. Better to be seen as late adopters or change-resistant grognards than the jerks who overhype the new hotness and sucker people out of their money.

That’s definitely a reasonable approach! I’ll admit I tend more towards the excitement for a new thing, though in this case I’m definitely uncertain if this will be a good product for me. I just wish the tone from folk critical of contrast (or indeed, many releases) was more ‘wait and see’ than ‘this is terrible’!

[Cheesegear]

I have a feeling that some people are missing my point.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Fest2019-Sat10-Flowchart4ujd.jpg

What's wrong with this advertisement?
What is wrong with saying 'One Thick Coat', in addition to the above picture?

What is the consumer's expectation?

Hint: The answer is not 'time saved'.

[Requizen]

I have a feeling that some people are missing my point.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Fest2019-Sat10-Flowchart4ujd.jpg

What's wrong with this advertisement?
Nothing. It's base + Shade, so it's showing combining those steps into one.

What is wrong with saying 'One Thick Coat', in addition to the above picture?
Nothing. It will be a thick coat compared to what most people are used to.

What is the consumer's expectation?

Hint: The answer is not 'time saved'.

The expectation is that you can put on one coat, regulated but without thinning with water (aka t h i c c) and end up with the same effect as basing and washing. Which I would argue is relatively true, depending on how crazy you get with base coats, blending, and multiple layers.

"One Thick Coat" does not mean "scoop it out with a spoon and slap it on haphazardly". But it sure is a lot easier to put on an advertisement than "one coat, thicker than your usual coat but still applied with a measure of accuracy and restraint so as to not haphazardly slop overmuch". I don't think it's false advertising, it just sounds like you're trying to poke holes in a three-word slogan that accurately, if imprecisely, describes the point of the product.

[Blackhawk748]

I have a feeling that some people are missing my point.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Fest2019-Sat10-Flowchart4ujd.jpg

What's wrong with this advertisement?
What is wrong with saying 'One Thick Coat', in addition to the above picture?

What is the consumer's expectation?

Hint: The answer is not 'time saved'.

Lies. Lies and Heresy! I know nuln oil when I see it! And that bottom one totally has Nuln Oil on it!

Also, who base coats blue? I thought everyone either base coated white or black.

[Cheesegear]

Also, who base coats blue? I thought everyone either base coated white or black.

GW has coloured primers now!
(Well, they advertise that they're primers, and they're bad at it)

Unless my models are black (Deathwatch) or yellow (everything else), I almost always undercoat with Mechanicus Grey these days.

[Blackhawk748]

GW has coloured primers now!
(Well, they advertise that they're primers, and they're bad at it)

Unless my models are black (Deathwatch) or yellow (everything else), I almost always undercoat with Mechanicus Grey these days.

Huh, most of my armies are dark colors so I go with Abbadon Black (or whatever its called now) out of a spray can. Speeds things along wonderfully

[druid91]

Yeah... No offense to GW but I think I'm gonna give contrast a wide berth.

My granddad always said not to trust magic potions. Though at the time he was talking about those 'Pour this into your engine to fix it.' potions.

[Requizen]

Yeah... No offense to GW but I think I'm gonna give contrast a wide berth.

My granddad always said not to trust magic potions. Though at the time he was talking about those 'Pour this into your engine to fix it.' potions.

Then you'll want to steer clear of the technical paints, because Typhus Corrosion + Ryza Rust gave me rusted weapons with literally no effort and Blood for the Blood God is the easiest way to get a blood effect on a model that I've come across so far.

It's not like Citadel has put out useful painting tools in the past, better just assume this one is trash :smallbiggrin:

[Cheesegear]

Yeah... No offense to GW but I think I'm gonna give contrast a wide berth.

Do you:
Find painting tedious and/or difficult?
Have an army that is predominantly a single colour with very few - preferably no - colour-breaks in the predominant areas of the model?
Not actually care if it definitely looks like you put little-to-no effort into painting your models?

If 'No' to all, then you don't want or need Contrasts. Carry on. This is who Contrasts are actually for.

Alternatively, do you paint models to win painting competitions? Do you want to do what you're most likely doing anyway, except faster? In that case, Contrast Paints are just a worse way of zenith highlighting and not using an airbrush.

How GW is marketing:
Do you find painting tedius (but not necessarily difficult)?
Do you have any models at all?
Do you want to put almost no effort into painting your models and then get [result which definitely isn't achieved by 'One Thick Coat' of Contrast paint alone doing all the highlighting and shading with a single colour and very good fine motor skills]?

BUY NOW PLZ.

[Blackhawk748]

I'm really only seeing this stuff working right with a few armies:

Mono Color Space Marines
Necrons
Maybe mono color Chaos Marines

I'm not sure about the CSM simple because they have so many extra bits hanging on them. This doesn't work right for Orks as their body is split between being green for skin and brown for the vest and pants and its a fairly equal split. Everyone else tends to have too many colors mixed up.

[LeSwordfish]

I'm not sure why you all think "being more careless with paint" and "putting more than one colour on a model" are mutually exclusive. I was plenty sloppy when basecoating the skin and trousers on my bloodreavers this week, and then could tidy it up with more carefully-applied colours for straps, metal, etc. The difference would be, in theory, that that sloppy basecoat is all I need for a good effect. Similarly, if you can't paint, say, power armor trims over a contrast basecoat, you'd have difficulty doing it with standard paints. The all-contrast models are neat but I don't think they're how it's meant to be used.

[druid91]

Then you'll want to steer clear of the technical paints, because Typhus Corrosion + Ryza Rust gave me rusted weapons with literally no effort and Blood for the Blood God is the easiest way to get a blood effect on a model that I've come across so far.

It's not like Citadel has put out useful painting tools in the past, better just assume this one is trash :smallbiggrin:

As someone who lives in a junkyard. Rust is basically just one color. And blood is just rust that came from inside you.

[LansXero]

This isn't about a revolution in paint technology that gives you [I]one simple trick that pro painters hate

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/05/26/coming-soon-paint-revolutionisedgw-homepage-post-1fw-homepage-post-1/

"Paint Revolutionised" as a tagline seems to disagree with you, GW has totally made it about it a revolution in paint technology :v.

[LansXero]

I have a feeling that some people are missing my point.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Fest2019-Sat10-Flowchart4ujd.jpg

What's wrong with this advertisement?
What is wrong with saying 'One Thick Coat', in addition to the above picture?

What is the consumer's expectation?

Hint: The answer is not 'time saved'.

Lets see.

Picture one is missing the primer step. Perhaps.
Picture two is also missing the primer step. Contrast doesnt work without their specialty base paints, so thats the one thick coat of wraithbone or seer grey already. Which cant be too 'thick' because you need clear recesses for Contrast to work its magic, except you cant use water, so use Contrast Medium™.
Its also missing the fact that those yellow and reds either aren't contrast paints or required an additional step of re-basing those areas to apply another coat of contrast on top.
I also think thats much more time consuming than the brushing of nuln the upper model has.

Also:


Nothing. It's base + Shade, so it's showing combining those steps into one.
Its also very runny, its missing the additional step of clean up before the technical.


Nothing. It will be a thick coat compared to what most people are used to.
How? They are already at glaze-like consistency. They take up to half an hour to dry properly. How is that 'thick' compared to current regular paints? How is requiring re-basing to paint lighter colours 'one coat'?


I'm not sure why you all think "being more careless with paint" and "putting more than one colour on a model" are mutually exclusive. I was plenty sloppy when basecoating the skin and trousers on my bloodreavers this week, and then could tidy it up with more carefully-applied colours for straps, metal, etc. The difference would be, in theory, that that sloppy basecoat is all I need for a good effect. Similarly, if you can't paint, say, power armor trims over a contrast basecoat, you'd have difficulty doing it with standard paints. The all-contrast models are neat but I don't think they're how it's meant to be used.

Yeah, you need to do detailing with regular paints or re-base to do it with contrast. Which means that all contrasts does is help you save on Nuln Oil / Agrax. Which is something, I guess?

[Ionbound]

Kraken, Battalion
(W) Hive Tyrant with Wings; Devourers with Brainleech Worms (x4), Chameleonic Mutation, Catalyst, Psychic Scream
Old One Eye

Genestealers (x18); Scything Talons (x18), Acid Maws (x3)
Genestealers (x18); Scything Talons (x18), Acid Maws (x3)
Hormagaunts (x28)

Venomthropes (x3)

Kraken, Battalion
Hive Tyrant with Wings; Devourers with Brainleech Worms (x4), Paroxysm, The Horror
The Swarmlord; Catalyst, Onslaught

Termagants (x12)
Ripper Swarms (x3)
Ripper Swarms (x3)

Hive Guard (x6); Impaler Cannons

Kronos
Biovore

Impaler Cannons do the thing. The Biovore just hangs out of line of sight and drops The Deepest Shadow when neccessary. Shooting Kraken Genestealers up the board to win. And then let's have the Hive Tyrants chill out in Reserve so that they don't die immedately. Solid mono-Codex list - and no Forge World!

Just wanted to comment here that there are some list building choices that I just don't get here; Specifically running 3 Acid Maws on the Stealers instead of the 4 allowable, and taking Scything Talons instead of Rending Claws on the Stealers and not the Broodlord.

[JNAProductions]

Just wanted to comment here that there are some list building choices that I just don't get here; Specifically running 3 Acid Maws on the Stealers instead of the 4 allowable, and taking Scything Talons instead of Rending Claws on the Stealers and not the Broodlord.

You get Rending Claws automatically-Scything Talons are an upgrade, but one that costs 0 points. They are IN ADDITION to Rending Claws.

[Cheesegear]

Specifically running 3 Acid Maws on the Stealers instead of the 4 allowable

My guess is he didn't have the models.


and taking Scything Talons instead of Rending Claws on the Stealers and not the Broodlord.

Broodlords can't have Scything Talons. What are you talking about?

[Ionbound]

I'm saying he doesn't have a Broodlord at all, which surprised me. Also, I see JNA. I genuinely didn't know that, thought it was an either/or. That's...Really weird to me, but whatever.

[JNAProductions]

So, a question I feel is quite appropriate given the title of the thread:

How important do you think painting is to the hobby?

[Forum Explorer]

So, a question I feel is quite appropriate given the title of the thread:

How important do you think painting is to the hobby?

I'd say it's important. I may not like painting, but it really does create a connection between you and your models. And seeing the amazing jobs some people do is always a pleasure.

Similarly, if someone doesn't have their stuff painted for a long time and is making no progress it kinda seems disrespectful to the effort the other players are putting in.

[Cheesegear]

How important do you think painting is to the hobby?

Painting (and building/converting) is the hobby.

What painting isn't, is the game. This is GW's major problem. Where they try and equate the game, and the hobby, as the same thing.
"We're a models company!" implies that the rules don't matter.
"Rules sell models." implies that the models don't matter.

At no point in the rulebook, does it say "If you have a fully painted army, gain 7 VPs."
That's a 'soft score' invented by TOs to force 'gamers' to actually 'do hobby'.

In reality, however, if you can afford to have an on-meta list, you can afford to have it commissioned.

Do I, personally, like painting? Yes.
Do I, personally, like when my opponent puts effort into painting their army? Absolutely.
Do I think it's important? Hell no. If my opponent has the correct models - or makes it clear when their models aren't correct - then that's all I care about.

Do I want painted armies? Yes. It's what the hobby is about, after all.
Do I need painted armies? No. It has no effect on gameplay at all. Painted armies is 'just cosmetic'.

[Avaris]

So, a question I feel is quite appropriate given the title of the thread:

How important do you think painting is to the hobby?

It’s a component, as equally important and unimportant as any other. It’s possible to participate in and enjoy the hobby without it, just as one can participate while rarely playing or not caring about the lore, but having all these components enhances the experience.

A specific challenge/problem with painting is that it presents a seemingly significant barrier to entry. This creates an accessibility problem for new players: if they feel they HAVE to have a painted army, and realise this is a significant time and skill commitment, they may just not bother with the hobby at all. We don’t hold any other component of the game to this level: no-one HAS to have a tournament level army or a deep understanding of the lore, but I feel people are much more likely to be criticised for an unpainted army.

For this reason, I don’t think thinking about unpainted armies as ‘disrespectful’ of opponents is a particularly good way of thinking about it, though I 100% understand where Forum Explorer is coming from. We all like games with fully painted armies on both sides, and it can be galling if we’ve put effort in and others haven’t. I just prefer a ‘look what you could have’ attitude (positive reinforcement), rather than a ‘you’re not putting enough effort in’ one (negative reinforcement).

For this reason, I oppose a blanket ‘your models must be painted in every game’ attitude. This should be an aspiration, sure, but not a requirement. Note that this applies to pick up games in FLGS: for a specific event, it is the absolute right of an organiser to insist on this if they feel it is important to the event they want to run (though ideally this should be a consious choice rather than just going with a default painted models policy). If an organiser does choose to insist on painted models, I like to see it be an active part of the competition in the event, with some prize going to well painted armies: this creates a thing to aspire to, rather than a minimum standard to resent having to reach in order to participate in the bits of the hobby you like.

It’s the accessibility point which is why contrast paints, and the other things before them that also lowered the bar of entry, are important. Thanks to shade paints I’m achieving results I’d never have dreamed of when I first got into the hobby, the same will be true of others with contrast. And that’s great!

[DataNinja]

I know for me, though I've admittedly not really done the hobby in earnest in several years, I never really found the painting as satisfying as the building and converting part of the hobby. That's not to say that I got no satisfaction out of painting... but, honestly, in an ideal world, I'd be able to just have them assembled already in colours I wanted. The painting was always tertiary to everything else in the hobby. I loved seeing what others had done with their stuff... but it wasn't usually super-engaging for me.

[Voidhawk]

So, a question I feel is quite appropriate given the title of the thread:

How important do you think painting is to the hobby?

Warhammer looks like one hobby, but it's not. It's four hobbies in a trenchcoat.

1) Collecting - Some people get a kick from having a large collection,
2) Building/Converting - Some people like to custom build models from bits,
3) Painting - Some people get a sense of pride from having everything well painted,
4) Gaming - Some people enjoy the challenge of battling others to the death.

The trenchcoat that covers them all is the Fluff, the shared universe of insanity and skulls-on-everything without which the other four couldn't co-exist.

Of course, every person values each of the five differently for their own enjoyment.
Personally I enjoy the gaming first, fluff second, converting third, and painting/collecting doesn't really make the list at all.

You tend to get issues when one person's enjoyment of one aspect, interferes with another persons enjoyment of a different aspect.
"Your models must be painted." "But I just want to game!"
"Your Looted Wagon is on the wrong base." "But I converted it specially!"

[The Patterner]

Warhammer looks like one hobby, but it's not. It's four hobbies in a trenchcoat.

1) Collecting - Some people get a kick from having a large collection,
2) Building/Converting - Some people like to custom build models from bits,
3) Painting - Some people get a sense of pride from having everything well painted,
4) Gaming - Some people enjoy the challenge of battling others to the death.

The trenchcoat that covers them all is the Fluff, the shared universe of insanity and skulls-on-everything without which the other four couldn't co-exist.



This.

This was one of the best analogies I've seen regarding 40k and us, it's fanbase.

Personally I'm a solid builder/converter, followed by fluff and then gaiming. One of my gaming buddies is a number one, obsessed with expanding his collection, and he always try to get me to buy new stuff. Like "Oh you are thinking about starting a daemon army! There is a guy selling a 4000 points army at ebay, it's already painted!"

Before I could'nt really say why I disliked that, but I collect because I want to build models, not because I want to own a huge collection of models.

Thanks!

[Tome]

I like building and gaming, personally. It's nice to have a collection, but while I certainly would like to have everything painted, actually painting it is a chore I just don't have the energy or time for.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Speaking of painting, I'm at a crossroads. I'm doing up a Necron Monolith (I know, worst model in the worst faction, but I got it for chump change so) and I've been doing some pretty heavy green stuff on it, primarily making it look like it's built of rough-hewn stone blocks. Painting the stone is being tricky though. I've done it in Eshin Grey, and then a wash of Agrax Earthshade, but I'm wondering if it needs another Agrax Earthshade wash, I'm not sure if the contrast in the crevices will stay after I do the Karnak Stone highlight on the ridges. Advice? (click for larger image)

https://images.dakkadakka.com/gallery/2019/6/5/1013092_sm-.jpeg (https://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/1013092-.html)

Don't worry about the other colours, the only part that I've finished yet is the green.

[Grim Portent]

I think it might need a drybrush with an inbetween colour before another wash. I use a different palette for stone, but I usually go black base -> skavenblight dinge -> drybrush administratum grey -> nuln oil wash -> highlight of more administratum grey or ceramite white.

Done a few other types before, but I settled on this sort of slate-like colour. Doesn't look particularly real, but very eye catching.

I find that three colours helps make the ridges in stone pop. Deepest recesses stay very dark, then it fades up lighter and the very edges are bright and pop.

[JNAProductions]

Warhammer looks like one hobby, but it's not. It's four hobbies in a trenchcoat.

1) Collecting - Some people get a kick from having a large collection,
2) Building/Converting - Some people like to custom build models from bits,
3) Painting - Some people get a sense of pride from having everything well painted,
4) Gaming - Some people enjoy the challenge of battling others to the death.

The trenchcoat that covers them all is the Fluff, the shared universe of insanity and skulls-on-everything without which the other four couldn't co-exist.

Of course, every person values each of the five differently for their own enjoyment.
Personally I enjoy the gaming first, fluff second, converting third, and painting/collecting doesn't really make the list at all.

You tend to get issues when one person's enjoyment of one aspect, interferes with another persons enjoyment of a different aspect.
"Your models must be painted." "But I just want to game!"
"Your Looted Wagon is on the wrong base." "But I converted it specially!"

I love this explanation. Kudos to you!

And, I asked this since I'm (once again) getting arguments with people on Dakka Dakka about whether or not painting is mandatory. Mind if I quote you over there?

[LansXero]

I think it might need a drybrush with an inbetween colour before another wash. I use a different palette for stone, but I usually go black base -> skavenblight dinge -> drybrush administratum grey -> nuln oil wash -> highlight of more administratum grey or ceramite white.

Done a few other types before, but I settled on this sort of slate-like colour. Doesn't look particularly real, but very eye catching.

I find that three colours helps make the ridges in stone pop. Deepest recesses stay very dark, then it fades up lighter and the very edges are bright and pop.

That sounds more like fur than stone though (its pretty much what we did for black fur on Circle models, back when WarmaHordes was alive). Doesnt it come out a bit too black?

We've seen some result with eshin base into dawnstone drybrush into administratum edging into a light brush-over of longbeard, with a nuln wash but not all over, very specific / splotchy. It was for a present though, because it was stupid time consuming.

[Voidhawk]

I love this explanation. Kudos to you!

And, I asked this since I'm (once again) getting arguments with people on Dakka Dakka about whether or not painting is mandatory. Mind if I quote you over there?

Quote away. :smallsmile:

[JNAProductions]

Quote away. :smallsmile:

Much appreciated, friend Voidhawk!

[LordDavenport]

Thought this question through the whole contrast paint furor in the last thread: Would people play entirely with paper silhouettes on appropriate sized bases? You could but art of the unit on the silhouette, heck you could list the wargear on it if you want to be really WYSIWYG.

I imagine if you are in to any of the hobby aspects(painting/modeling), the answer is obviously no.

Also, since most of the places to play are in games stores, were such behaviour undermines their whole buisness model, this would not be an option. Further, people that have already invested(time and money) in building a model army probably are opposed for similar reasons.

I've just been contemplating making up a few 1500 point silhouette armies to take to university in the fall, given college has a combination of free table space and other poor college students. I personally find the painting/modeling aspect of the game to be like having to paint your own magic cards and manufacture your own sleeves.

[Grim Portent]

That sounds more like fur than stone though (its pretty much what we did for black fur on Circle models, back when WarmaHordes was alive). Doesnt it come out a bit too black?

We've seen some result with eshin base into dawnstone drybrush into administratum edging into a light brush-over of longbeard, with a nuln wash but not all over, very specific / splotchy. It was for a present though, because it was stupid time consuming.

Usually comes out a dusty grey colour, quite dark in the middle but fading to pale grey and/or white at the edges. Administratum tends to stay quite light ime, so it makes a decent fade colour between the skavenblight and the highlight.

I sometimes swap out the white highlight for a fenrisian grey one if I want to suggest a blue-ish hue, or just use a touch more administratum.


I do use a similar scheme for fur, but that's usually base black, layer of dark brown, doesn't matter which, drybrush skavenblight, either drybrush or highlight grey or white. Sometimes add a wash of agrax or nuln, but not always. Winds up with a more earthy tone than the previous.

[Avaris]

Thought this question through the whole contrast paint furor in the last thread: Would people play entirely with paper silhouettes on appropriate sized bases? You could but art of the unit on the silhouette, heck you could list the wargear on it if you want to be really WYSIWYG.

I imagine if you are in to any of the hobby aspects(painting/modeling), the answer is obviously no.

Also, since most of the places to play are in games stores, were such behaviour undermines their whole buisness model, this would not be an option. Further, people that have already invested(time and money) in building a model army probably are opposed for similar reasons.

I've just been contemplating making up a few 1500 point silhouette armies to take to university in the fall, given college has a combination of free table space and other poor college students. I personally find the painting/modeling aspect of the game to be like having to paint your own magic cards and manufacture your own sleeves.

This is an interesting question, particularly in light of the ‘4 hobbies in a trenchcoat’ analogy. It’s not as if this hasn’t been done in the past, 2nd ed had a cardboard cut out ork dreadnought after all, but my instinctive reaction is that it’s a step too far? I feel the presence of models in some form is important. Though then again, I think I’d be ok with an opponent proxying in this way if they needed to, so the ‘too far’ metric is more ‘I wouldn’t do that’.

A large part of me though is also thinking ‘why bother’: there are better games to proxy! I play because I have the models, instead of having the models because I’m desperate to play the game. Other people’s mileage may vary.

[Artanis]

Thought this question through the whole contrast paint furor in the last thread: Would people play entirely with paper silhouettes on appropriate sized bases? You could but art of the unit on the silhouette, heck you could list the wargear on it if you want to be really WYSIWYG.

I imagine if you are in to any of the hobby aspects(painting/modeling), the answer is obviously no.

Also, since most of the places to play are in games stores, were such behaviour undermines their whole buisness model, this would not be an option. Further, people that have already invested(time and money) in building a model army probably are opposed for similar reasons.

I've just been contemplating making up a few 1500 point silhouette armies to take to university in the fall, given college has a combination of free table space and other poor college students. I personally find the painting/modeling aspect of the game to be like having to paint your own magic cards and manufacture your own sleeves.

I mean, that's kinda what Vassal does, isn't it?

[LordDavenport]

This is an interesting question, particularly in light of the ‘4 hobbies in a trenchcoat’ analogy. It’s not as if this hasn’t been done in the past, 2nd ed had a cardboard cut out ork dreadnought after all, but my instinctive reaction is that it’s a step too far? I feel the presence of models in some form is important. Though then again, I think I’d be ok with an opponent proxying in this way if they needed to, so the ‘too far’ metric is more ‘I wouldn’t do that’.

Yeah, people get weird about proxies. Mostly this question was for the one guy largely playing with grey plastic...

Which is better: Grey plastic models, or paper with art of the thing the model represents on a base.


A large part of me though is also thinking ‘why bother’: there are better games to proxy! I play because I have the models, instead of having the models because I’m desperate to play the game. Other people’s mileage may vary.

I think 40k has a really good base engine, especially this edition. Most of the issues are unit balance and horrid rules formatting. The first can be solved with spot patches, the latter with rules cheat sheets.

Better games I might proxy are generally hard to get people into. Getting people exited about squad leader for instance.


I mean, that's kinda what Vassal does, isn't it?

Playing with people on a computer is A) a different experience and B)Far more of a pain to organize anything more then one off games. Even that in a consistent time frame is a raging pain.

[Requizen]

Warhammer is such a strange community in this way. It's almost like high school, everybody is part of a clique and they all think they're doing it right, and have tiffs with everyone else who does it any way differently.

A: "I just wanna play the game so I'll borrow armies or just put minimal effort in."
B: "That's not playing it right! Your armies should be your own."
C: "Right, you should only buy the models you want and paint them perfectly."
B: "Well no, you should buy the models that are good and get them to tabletop standard, though you can go farther."
C: "That's just powergaming!"
A: "Why would you ever play a game not to win? Also I found some non-GW models that I like better."
B: "That's fine, as long as you paint them."
C: "Why would you use different models?!"
D: "Hey guys I painted mine as a concept army, just primed and washed with no details picked out."
A: "Even I know that looks like crap."
D: "Don't shame my hobby, I tried really hard on this! They're all ghosty! There was even a GW video on it!"
C: "SPACE MARINES AREN'T GHOSTS!"


In my area alone, there are:
-People who play teeth kick lists, but say they're only in it for the hobby while walking away with Generalship trophies
-People who want to play ITC competitive but refuse to buy netlists or models they don't like
-People who just play casually but insist on going to tournaments and then complain about "powergamers"
-People who embrace their Spike status and bring crap painted FOTM armies
-People who bring hyper hobby armies and just have fun while getting drunk (high key the best people to play against, even if I'm not as good as hobby and more focused on gaming)

And they all refuse to play each other outside of big events, or go to events that other groups are running. It's... catty.

[LordDavenport]

Another question: If you didn't have to care about tournament point values, what is the best point values to play at the moment? 2K seems to big and drags games on. From previous editions I know 500 tends to be all hordes all the time, since you need to score. There a good middle ground? 1250? 1500?

[LansXero]

I run a store. Im probably top 3 in my country in hobby sales. We have a cardboard-cut Magnus right on the shelf, from a friend who used it as proxy this weekend.

We do gray plastic vs gray plastic, IG subbing in as nighthaunt because building and painting hordes takes forever, cardboard cutouts because buying an horde army then finding out you dont like playing hordes is stupid. We even had a guy top our previous tournament with a 100% borrowed army, because he didnt own anything beyond the IG Start Collecting! box.

Stores are not your enemy. They are places where people of all sorts can learn and love the game. They should, ideally, be the common ground for all subsets of the hobby population. Our sundays are a couple of guys painting, another couple of guys playing (maybe 4, we have the space), random chats about the lore, latest big tourney, latest cool model someone got or painted, etc. We all know what the meta looks like, and many have made a conscious choice to go as far as their hobby will take them. Thats fine, but we had to get them the info first, so they coulld choose on their own.

[Wraith]

Another question: If you didn't have to care about tournament point values, what is the best point values to play at the moment? 2K seems to big and drags games on. From previous editions I know 500 tends to be all hordes all the time, since you need to score. There a good middle ground? 1250? 1500?

1,250 points is quite fashionable in my local meta, it allows a reasonable number of miniatures and is just big enough for some variety in your lists - 1,000 can be a little bit restrictive to some armies who have expensive models, like Grey Knights, Custodes, Deathwing and similarly limited forces. It also plays reasonably quickly, whereas 2000pts can be a drag.

1000 points is a little better for 2 vs 2 games, simply because it seems to fit neatly on a standard 6x4 table without again causing the game to drag. It's also a handy size for collecting - you get a reasonable sized force that's convenient to upgrade or swap some units in and out around a solid core.

There is not yet a proven way to prevent people from playing hordes at any points amount. Whether you're playing at 500 points or 5000, someone will come along and work out how many Grots that number will get them.

[Manticoran]

Yeah, people get weird about proxies. Mostly this question was for the one guy largely playing with grey plastic...

Which is better: Grey plastic models, or paper with art of the thing the model represents on a base.

Playing with people on a computer is A) a different experience and B)Far more of a pain to organize anything more then one off games. Even that in a consistent time frame is a raging pain.

I think that was me! I'm actually quite happy with paper, especially if it's using actual artwork and looks nice.

The line of sight rules in eighth are stupid anyway. The folks I play with are often using things like a coke can on an appropriate base for dreadnoughts, and actual art is way better than that.

Also yeah vassal just isn't the same. It actually takes way longer and is more frustrating to play in my experience.

I'll note an additional hobby that's part of the game, which is theory crafting. My priority list is something like :

Lore
Theory Crafting
Gameplay
...
...
...
Models and collecting I guess?

[Cheesegear]

Would people play entirely with paper silhouettes on appropriate sized bases?

It only works when you're firing at the model front-on. The instant you turn sideways and you start firing at literally cardboard-thin cutouts, LoS goes out the window.


I mean, that's kinda what Vassal does, isn't it?

Speaking from experience, Vassal games are some of the worst experiences playing 40K I've ever had.
The biggest issue being, when you can spend literally 0 dollarydoos building your army, why doesn't everyone run the same net-lists over and over and over again - oh wait!

That's even before you factor in how agonising the UI is.


Which is better: Grey plastic models, or paper with art of the thing the model represents on a base.

Grey plastic models. Every time.
'Just Undercoated' is even better. But if you're <18 in Australia you can't buy spray paint (on your own) which causes problems for some of the younger players in my meta.


I think 40k has a really good base engine

Cover is wrong.
The to wound table is wrong.

The win conditions of the game, are wrong. When the win conditions of the game are wrong, how you play the game, becomes wrong. The game is...Bad...For beginners and casuals because there is only one right way to win - holding Objectives. Which Chapter Approved '19 breaking or fixing - depending on your PoV - how tabling works, the game now clusters around large, hard-to-kill units of <Infantry>, that move very little - if at all - away from Objectives, unless they're 'teleporting'. Alternatively, small units of Infantry that stay out of LoS (by never moving) on an Objective.
Contrasting to popular pinion from ITC players, The ITC doesn't fix this. It only exacerbates it.

Everything wrong with 40K is tied to the win conditions of the game.

Here's the kicker; How do we fix it? Easy. Remove 'Most models holds the Objective', and bring back Contested Objectives.

I don't like that 1KP = 1KP.
But the other way is that a unit is worth a number of VPs equal to its points cost. Which means an even harder swing to models that cost less winning games.


Most of the issues are unit balance

What makes a unit unbalanced?
...It's interaction with the rules.


D: "Don't shame my hobby, I tried really hard on this! They're all ghosty! There was even a GW video on it!".

If something looks ****. I'm going to say so.
Whether the person chooses to feel shamed, is on them.

If they tried hard, and they feel proud of it, then why give a **** what I say?

[LeSwordfish]

If something looks ****. I'm going to say so.
Whether the person chooses to feel shamed, is on them.

If they tried hard, and they feel proud of it, then why give a **** what I say?

This is an excellent example of how consistently obnoxious to people you appear to be, both here on the forums and clearly IRL. (It's possible a lot of this is an exaggeration - IIRC it turned out to be the last time I called you out on it. If so, I would consider thinking carefully about why you are so proud of appearing odious.) A key member behaving in this way would be sufficient reason alone for me to stop coming to a store or club, I suspect.

Of course, whether you choose to feel insulted is up to you.

[LordDavenport]

It only works when you're firing at the model front-on. The instant you turn sideways and you start firing at literally cardboard-thin cutouts, LoS goes out the window.
...you can rotate the silhouette to simulate width. The LOS issues are no worse then crouching models at worst.

For bigger issues like vehicles you have to add another paper to simulate width, and for flying models a third to difine the spherical area.


Speaking from experience, Vassal games are some of the worst experiences playing 40K I've ever had.
The biggest issue being, when you can spend literally 0 dollarydoos building your army, why doesn't everyone run the same net-lists over and over and over again - oh wait!

That's even before you factor in how agonising the UI is.

Because it is boring to play, and you can't stop people from quiting at any time. Also admittedly problems, but generally people I have played on there actually want people to stay in the tiny community.

UI is UI, they are always a pain till you learn them.



Cover is wrong.

Better then invuls.


The to wound table is wrong.

Better then the old table. The not quite a function was a pain to keep straight. WS table was worse.


The win conditions of the game, are wrong. When the win conditions of the game are wrong, how you play the game, becomes wrong. The game is...Bad...For beginners and casuals because there is only one right way to win - holding Objectives. Which Chapter Approved '19 breaking or fixing - depending on your PoV - how tabling works, the game now clusters around large, hard-to-kill units of <Infantry>, that move very little - if at all - away from Objectives, unless they're 'teleporting'. Alternatively, small units of Infantry that stay out of LoS (by never moving) on an Objective.
Contrasting to popular pinion from ITC players, The ITC doesn't fix this. It only exacerbates it.

An issue, sure. That isn't the engine. I was talking about the roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save. The very basic engine that I like.

[Cheesegear]

This is an excellent example of how consistently obnoxious to people you appear to be

Okay, let's include the caveat. No. I don't treat everyone the same.

If you are a functional adult. You should be able to handle criticism. If you don't feel that criticism is valid, we can have a conversation.

Reality
Guy: Hey [Cheese], what do you think of my army?
Me: *Takes one look* The colours are discordant. I don't like looking at it. I hate it.
Guy: Discordant colour scheme was the point.
Me: In which case well done.
Guy: So it's good?
Me: If a discordant colour scheme was the point, then you did it.
Guy: So...It's not good. But that's what I was going for...So...It's good?
Me: I guess?
Guy: Rad.

#2
Me: I hate Ghost Knights. In fact, I don't even like the way GW paints Nighthaunt. I don't like when people paint their army like Ghosts, because it looks like you put no effort into it. Wash. Drybrush. Second Wash. Second Drybrush. Done. Right?
Guy: Well, it's quick and it gets the effect I want. It's what I want my army to look like. 1500 Points in two weeks is pretty good.
Me: *Shrug* It's your army. Did you say 1500? Want a game?

#3
Me: I'm not a fan of the colours.
Guy: Well I am.
Me: Well then my opinion means nothing. You like it. So who cares what I think?
Guy: I'll ask someone else. Your advice is 'Do exactly what you did, but with colours I like and not what you like.' I'm guessing...Yellow?
Me: lol. Pretty much.
Guy: lol. *Walks away to show other people. We have a game three hours later.*

Those are recent, real examples.

If you are non-functional and/or not an adult, that should be pretty apparent, and you will get treated differently; Not everyone is the same. Not everyone gets treated the same. Your 'criticism' will be different because people - including myself - will treat you differently.

We've already had several of the same conversations in this very thread regarding Contrast Paints.
I hate them. I think their use is limited. I think the effect they give, is bad, even when used properly.

But, if it gives the effect that other people want, quickly and easily, why does what I think matter?
You got the effect you asked for, in a relatively short span of time. Job's a good'un. Who cares if I don't like it?
...Unless you're the kind of person who treats criticism as a personal attack.
...Unless you're the kind of person who demands praise for effort, rather than results.
...Unless you're a child, and the praise of your role models is important to you.
...Unless you're disabled, and it's the best you can do.

...And several more caveats that I'm not going to include because I'm just going to assume that people will know that I treat people like people, because I'm a person.


Of course, whether you choose to feel insulted is up to you.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. There's very little - if anything - anyone on this forum could say to offend me. Partly because anything that I would probably find actually offensive would probably be banned from the Playground. ...And for everything else? ...I don't know you. You don't know me. If I don't like your opinion of me or something I do, I can pretty safely ignore it because I will never interact with you IRL.

If you were in my meta, and it was made known to me, that you weren't coming around anymore because of me (and only me, which seems very rash), then I would at least try to work something out. At worst, the only thing that should happen, is that you stop talking to me (like I said, physically not showing up at all because of one person of about 30 seems very rash), unless we're playing a game. In which case our games are fairly game-centric with little-to-no bantz. That is, of course, providing that you're a person who doesn't only play games with people they like.

[Artanis]

*gets home from work* *notices he put his foot in his mouth earlier*

Just to clarify, I meant my Vassal comment more as, "There are people who use Vassal, so I assume that there are people who would be fine with using cutouts in place of models", and not really as a suggestion or trying to hold up Vassal as a good way to do things, necessarily.

[Avaris]

Okay, let's include the caveat. No. I don't treat everyone the same.

If you are a functional adult. You should be able to handle criticism. If you don't feel that criticism is valid, we can have a conversation.

I think the fundamental difference in approach being seen here is between a positive, building others up attitude and a negative, tearing them down attitude. This isn’t just a conflict here, it’s a thing I see all over the place online, though 40k communities often seem prone to it.

Realistically, when people ask for opinions on things in the hobby, particularly things they’ve spent time and effort on, they aren’t asking ‘is this good or bad’ they’re asking ‘how can I improve this?’ It’s not what they said, sure, but it’s what they want. So saying ‘it’s terrible’ isn’t exactly helpful, even if it’s your honest opinion. More helpful is what comes after, where you explain why you think it’s terrible, but getting to that point in a conversation requires combating negative energy.

Should people be able to accept outright criticism? Yes: there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with your approach or the opinions you hold. You’re allowed to dislike something and you are open to people disagreeing with you. But given the nature of the hobby my personal preference is to take the more positive attitude, so as to create a positive space, so I don’t think outright criticism is exactly helpful!

Clearly your approach works fine in your local community: more power to you! I just personally wish the attitude of the global Warhammer Community tended towards a more positive outlook: in a lot of places people react by expressing extreme negative emotion: ‘this is the worst thing ever’, ‘this is broken’, and it’s just exhausting to wade through. This is a hobby and game that exists purely for fun, it doesn’t need that negative emotion attached to it!

[Cheesegear]

So saying ‘it’s terrible’ isn’t exactly helpful, even if it’s your honest opinion. More helpful is what comes after...

Exactly? We're agreed. :smallconfused:

8-9/10 times, when I say that I don't like something, the immediate follow up question, is why.
If I say something is terrible. Why? Don't do the thing you're doing.
Hell, if I say something is good...Why?

It's not just enough to have an opinion. In any reasonable discussion, you need to be able to back your opinion up with...Something. Positive or negative.
Some people will have an opinion (on anything) and they wont even be able to tell you why they have that opinion. Happens all the time. That doesn't mean it's helpful feedback.

I like the model [...] Because you've got two different blacks on the same model (Eshin to Dawnstone, and Dark Reaper to Thunderhawk), and you've edge highlighted them both really well so that the reflective surfaces (e.g; Armour) reflect, and the non-reflectives (e.g; Leather-like materials), don't. But, both parts of the model are definitely black, just not the same black. Well done.
or
I don't like the model [...] because you've tried to drybrush black, you've turned the model grey, and now your model isn't black. Next time, drybrushing only really works when you have surface edges and raised areas. You can't drybrush a flat surface (e.g; The majority of a vehicle's armour plating).

I don't like when people do basecoat, wash, done. Is it quick? Sure. Is it easy? Absolutely. Would it totally be a 3-colour minimum in a tournament setting? Sure is! I still don't like it, and I don't like it because throwing a wash on your model and calling it a day makes your miniatures darker (unless you started with a white undercoat and a bright colour to begin with [e.g; Moot Green, Flash Gitz Yellow], even then, you're better off line-shading if you want to keep the vibrancy), which makes it harder to pick out the details, which means I don't like it.
I don't really care how long it took you.

I still don't like it. But I can give you a reason for why I don't like it. Can you highlight your models properly? Cool. Come back to me when you do. I like the colour scheme you've got going. It would look better if it was highlighted.
Can you not highlight your models because of poor motor skills, lack of proper sized brushes, or lack of finances? That's a shame. But if you're happy with what you've got, and you can't go any further because of a limitation? Then if you know, and I know, then whatever.

Unfortunately, nobody I've met starts with...
"What do you think of my model, bearing in mind that I have six paints and a single wash (it's always Nuln)?"


But given the nature of the hobby my personal preference is to take the more positive attitude, so as to create a positive space, so I don’t think outright criticism is exactly helpful!

That's the thing that makes IRL criticism so effective. People who actually know me, know what I look for on a model. People who know me IRL, also know me IRL - and I know them, and what they can handle. If they're looking for Feel Goods, they're not asking my opinion. They're asking me to tell them that they're pretty. They're looking for validation for reasons. That's a whole 'nother thing.

If they're asking for my opinion, then they get it.
If they're asking for criticism (i.e; how did I form my opinion). Then they should get it.


Clearly your approach works fine in your local community

Criticism should always be valid from people you ask it from. If you ask for criticism, and then reject it, something goes wrong in the relationship.
What I've found - especially online - is that people are not asking for criticism. They're saying "Look at this thing, and tell me it's good."

That's where the 2/10 non-functionals and/or children come in. They don't get the response they were looking for, and instead of engaging in a reasonable discussion about improvements, missed highlights, poor colour choices, THIN YOUR PAINTS, etc., they lash out and get defensive. They're not interested in improvements. They're interested in validation.
Why? Who knows.
But, IRL, you can spot it most of the time. Online, you can't.


I just personally wish the attitude of the global Warhammer Community tended towards a more positive outlook

I think when you're dealing with a merit-based community, you're gonna get merit based answers.

This post made me die inside. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22970896&postcount=997)

Pink cape. It's what I wanted. Criticism invalid.
Bright yellow armour. It's what I wanted. Criticism invalid. My armies (plural) have been compared to Angry Marines several times.
White wings. It's what I wanted. Criticism invalid.
Wraith then points out he's not a fan of bright colours anyway. Cool. Now I know it also has to do with personal taste. I like yellow. He doesn't. Fantastic. We're not going to agree. Probably ever.

Wraith then points out mold lines.
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
That is 100% legitimate criticism. I see it. You see it. I'm bad at life.

Now, being that the model is fully painted at this stage, the only way I can fix huge and unmissable mold line, is by putting in several hours work back into a model that I've already finished.
Am I going to do that? ...No.
If I'm not willing to fix it, I have to accept that that's the way the model is going to be.

If I pull out my Celestine (don't know why I would, she's barely useful anymore), and my opponent says "Nice mold line. I thought you were good at hobby."
I have to be okay with that trash talk, because I've chosen to keep the mold line.
If I don't want that said about my models anymore...I have to remove the mold line. That's just how it is.

[Wraith]

This post made me die inside. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22970896&postcount=997)

Pink cape. It's what I wanted. Criticism invalid.
Bright yellow armour. It's what I wanted. Criticism invalid. My armies (plural) have been compared to Angry Marines several times.
White wings. It's what I wanted. Criticism invalid.
Wraith then points out he's not a fan of bright colours anyway. Cool. Now I know it also has to do with personal taste. I like yellow. He doesn't. Fantastic. We're not going to agree. Probably ever.

Wraith then points out mold lines.
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
That is 100% legitimate criticism. I see it. You see it. I'm bad at life.

Hey, you leave *me* out of this one! You asked for an opinion and I offered one, and I did everything I could to offer it politely and justify it by admitting that, while technically excellent, I just didn't like the colour, and that was *my* failing and not yours.
Were I sat at the table in your FLGS and asked the same question, you would probably have expected something more along the lines of "Technique is fine, but your colour-scheme is ****" and *I* didn't do that because *I* am not a jerk in this small and specific area of conversation. :smallwink:

Although one thing I would like to suggest, possibly for the benefit of everyone in the current discussion, is the difference between an opinion being invalid and it just being irrelevant.

I don't like seeing models that have been painted in glow-in-the-dark green because I think it looks it looks bad; and I have seen that too, a whole army of Eldar Guardians that literally glowed in the dark and under black-lights.
I hated that colour. That's not "invalid" criticism because for it to be invalid it would have to be "wrong", and an observer's preferences are subjective, not wrong.
It's just irrelevant, because that's the colour that the owner wanted to paint them, so my opinion of the scheme is not important compared to critique of his brushwork or innovative basing, which admittedly were pretty good.

My opinion that "pastel pink and fluorescent yellow don't look good together" isn't invalid/wrong, it's just not the opinion that you're interested in. I made it clear that it was personal preference, you made it clear that you preferred technical criticism rather than aesthetic, we both understood that we were commenting at cross-purposes, and we left it at that with no hard feelings.

At least, I thought we did, except that it's been brought up again 14 months on.... :smallredface:

[Cheesegear]

You asked for an opinion and I offered one, and I did everything I could to offer it politely and justify it by admitting that...

Woah woah woah.
That was my point. I think you're being defensive about something we agree with each other on. Hopefully this'll clear it up.

My point wasn't to call you out.
The reason I used your post is because I had anecdotal evidence on this very forum to back myself up.

My point was that you get to decide which criticisms about your models, from someone else, matters.
- I'm ignoring the part about the yellow paint job.
- I'm ignoring the part about the pink and white wings.
Those are what I want. Those bits are what I like. If you have a problem with my models, tough ****.

I choose what matters, to me. Why would I care about someone complaining about the parts of the model I actually want/like?

The mold line? I didn't intend. I don't want. And it's really obvious. My model would be better - objectively - if it didn't have a huge mold line on it. I agree. The truth hurts.
Requizen, same model, said that it would be better if there was more contrast in the wings. You know what? As a detail-orientated guy myself...He's right! I took that criticism on board and reshaded the wings a bit more.
These are criticisms I took on board because it highlights aspects of the model I don't want...Even if I didn't notice the bit about the wings until after it was pointed out to me.

Another guy in my meta, was really happy with his Nurgle Predator, until someone pointed out...
"Uhh...You know the barrel looks like a giant ****?"
Oops. It was not the converter's intent to make a ****-mobile. Scrap the barrel, start again.

Contrastingly, my Deathwatch Guilliman. I, didn't like it. It felt too much Black Legion, not enough Deathwatch. Essentially, the model was too dark. Given that I paint yellow models, maybe my bar is too high? But not the point.
A lot of people, when I showed them the problem, didn't understand what I was talking about. The model looks great! Nice minor conversion. If it looks good, there's no problem? ...Uhh...No.
Missing the point. I need to know how to fix this problem I have. I, me, am not happy with it. It's not what I want...Even if it looks good to other people.
So I brightened him up. Some people didn't even notice the difference. I did. Because it's my model.


Although one thing I would like to suggest, possibly for the benefit of everyone in the current discussion, is the difference between an opinion being invalid and it just being irrelevant.

Listen to Wraith. He's a cool guy.

[Wraith]

Woah woah woah.
That was my point. I think you're being angry about something we agree with each other on.


I assure you, it's faux outrage for comedic (?) effect. We're cool. :smallsmile:

[LansXero]

Unfortunately, nobody I've met starts with...
"What do you think of my model, bearing in mind that I have six paints and a single wash (it's always Nuln)?"


Like thats a thing? I could show such great models and busts done with exactly that. Sure, I couldnt paint that well if you gave me a full Citadel rack, but being poor doesnt mean being bad at things. You just need to get more creative. WAY more creative, sometimes. Wet palletes and color mixing have been a thing, so as long as you have the right 6 paints and 1 wash you can do almost anything.

On the matter of criticism, I dont think anyone is harsh on purpose. I do think some people are just way too sensitive, but its a given if you expect people to put care and love into what they do. Cant have one without the other; but rubbing against each other is the only way to smooth out differences (not literally, unless thats your thing).

For our little community for example, everyone tends to prop up those who try. We love when our peers get better, because then we have to step up our own game, so its motivating. Newbies are to be embraced and lovingly cared for. But people who think they are big shots and fail get mocked into the dirt. All in good spirits though, its just to show nobody is untouchable and even 'pros' screw up from time to time.

[druid91]

Cover is wrong.
The to wound table is wrong.

The win conditions of the game, are wrong. When the win conditions of the game are wrong, how you play the game, becomes wrong. The game is...Bad...For beginners and casuals because there is only one right way to win - holding Objectives. Which Chapter Approved '19 breaking or fixing - depending on your PoV - how tabling works, the game now clusters around large, hard-to-kill units of <Infantry>, that move very little - if at all - away from Objectives, unless they're 'teleporting'. Alternatively, small units of Infantry that stay out of LoS (by never moving) on an Objective.
Contrasting to popular pinion from ITC players, The ITC doesn't fix this. It only exacerbates it.

Everything wrong with 40K is tied to the win conditions of the game.

Here's the kicker; How do we fix it? Easy. Remove 'Most models holds the Objective', and bring back Contested Objectives.

I don't like that 1KP = 1KP.
But the other way is that a unit is worth a number of VPs equal to its points cost. Which means an even harder swing to models that cost less winning games.

Or just don't play those scenarios. Shocking idea I know... But we literally decided objectives were stupid in literally our first game playing with them and happily have gone on playing out tiny wargames ever since.

Objectives are lazy nonsense distractions from the actual game.

[Cheesegear]

Objectives are lazy nonsense distractions from the actual game.

So what is the actual game? 'Let's just kill each other'?
In which case Mathhammer becomes King. Just like it did pre-5th Ed.
Which leads directly to an arms race in your meta around one or two Codecies because every other Codex doesn't have certain units.

The fact that you need Troops (the majority of the time), is currently what's keeping the game balanced at all.

[Forum Explorer]

Or just don't play those scenarios. Shocking idea I know... But we literally decided objectives were stupid in literally our first game playing with them and happily have gone on playing out tiny wargames ever since.

Objectives are lazy nonsense distractions from the actual game.

So do you just do kill points or do you come up with your own scenarios?

[Avaris]

Random thought that occurred to me just now, and am interested in other people’s views: is it a good decision on behalf of GW to have chapter traits etc tied so explicitly to certain colour schemes?

What I mean is, in the current SM codex, and in many others, there are chapter rules for Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, Salamanders etc. These forces all use the same codex, but with minor tweaks from these chapter traits. The rules state that you are free to use a sucessor chapter, so don’t need to use the colour scheme, but in practice anyone who wants to use Salamanders rules will feel they need to use the Salamanders colour scheme, and anyone who wants to use the Salamanders colour scheme absolutely has to use their rules.

This feels like a problem? Given the disparity in the effectiveness of chapter rules there are some that are definitely better than others, so you have some players not choosing the army they like the colour style of because it’s not good, and others who are disappointed because the army they spent effort on making look good doesn’t have good rules.

Is there therefore an argument for detaching the subfaction rules from the fluff that defines what an army looks like? Keep the rules, perhaps with modifications, but call them ‘codex tactics’ or something and explicitly allow a player free range to choose between them depending on the army style they want. Perhaps say that certain chapters favour certain tactics, but don’t limit them to those. Then, when GW want to specifically support a chapter, they could release a supplemental codex in WD or wherever that contains a much more tailored list, so that the fully themed army has much more unique things to play with than just a single chapter trait.

[Cheesegear]

is it a good decision on behalf of GW to have chapter traits etc tied so explicitly to certain colour schemes?

In one phrase; Paint schemes don't matter.

Related to previous question;
Is it important that your - or your opponent's - army is painted? No.
Is it important that your - or your opponent's - army is painted 'in the right colours'? Uhh...
Are you telling me that not only do I have to paint, but I have to paint the way you - or a book - tell me to? **** off, mate.

Tying your paint scheme to rules is absolutely oppressing someone's hobby. My Celestine is yellow and pink. And if you don't like it, I'm going to ignore everything you have to say about it.

I like yellow. Imperial Fists are arguably the worst Chapter in the book. I am being punished - rules wise - because I like yellow, instead of blue. Thanks, GW.

Your Keywords are anything you want them to be. End of story.


These forces all use the same codex, but with minor tweaks from these chapter traits.

Which would be fine, if the 'tweaks' were all equally useful - they are not.


but in practice anyone who wants to use Salamanders rules will feel they need to use the Salamanders colour scheme

Nope. Because even the GW Blackshirt behind the counter will say that if you don't like the colour green, you absolutely do not have to paint your models green.


and anyone who wants to use the Salamanders colour scheme absolutely has to use their rules.

*Looks at Imperial Fists army that in the last ten years has been used as Black Templars, Ultramarines, White Scars, Crimson Fists, Salamanders - and sometimes even Imperial Fists!*


Is there therefore an argument for detaching the subfaction rules from the fluff

Yes. The fluff and the game are two different things.
The only time your paint scheme matters, is if you're playing a narrative game and want to take a lot of photos.


Keep the rules, perhaps with modifications, but call them ‘codex tactics’ or something and explicitly allow a player free range to choose between them depending on the army style they want.

This is exactly the wrong reason to come up with your own Chapter's paint scheme.
'My Chapter can be anything I want them to be...Which I will change every week or so. Can you show me what Chapter Tactics I have to use for Celestial Loins? Didn't think so."


Perhaps say that certain chapters favour certain tactics, but don’t limit them to those.

Hell, certain Companies favour certain tactics. Which is how I do it. Tournaments demand that different Detachments be clearly differentiated from each other.
Cool. My models with Red shoulder rims (3rd Company) are Blood Angels. That also makes it easy, because in your head, you also know that Red = Blood Angels anyway. Not only are my models differentiated, but they are easily identified in a way that makes sense to my opponent. As I can denote that my army consists of elements from the 2nd and 3rd Companies, my army is also fluff-tastic, and due to everything being painted in roughly the same style, my army looks cohesive and I win best painted.

Easy.

This is the same reason I ended up slightly converting and painting my Guilliman as Deathwatch. He fits in with my army better.
Does he lose his Keywords because he's painted 'wrong'? Again, if you're telling me what colours I have to paint my model, you can **** off.

[Avaris]

@Cheesegear: great, it sounds like you’re already playing/collecting in much more sensible way than seems to be portrayed in GW publications! Do you ever have any push back from opponents, either in tournaments or otherwise, saying you ‘have’ to use the rules that match your colour scheme?

I imagine your experience of being able to say ‘your keywords are what you want them to be’ isn’t universal: certainly, this thought was sparked by someone elsewhere saying they would be playing Alpha Lagion except that their CSM are painted as Red Corsairs. I really like your spin on it of ‘different companies have different styles’, and feel that would be a perhaps better way for GW codexes to approach things.

[Cheesegear]

Do you ever have any push back from opponents, either in tournaments or otherwise, saying you ‘have’ to use the rules that match your colour scheme?

I have had a number of issues with my Ultramarines, because they are painted literally the way that Deathwatch are.
This causes a lot of people to believe I play Deathwatch.
But, when you actually get to the table, I make it very clear that there are no actual Deathwatch on the table. After all, Deathwatch don't have Scouts (they do, but not in the rules), and they definitely don't have Guilliman...And there's certainly no Thunderfire Cannon in the DW Codex.

As long as you make it clear to your opponent, there shouldn't be a problem.

There would be a problem if I had actual Deathwatch in my list as well (i.e; Models in differing Detachments should be clearly identifiable). But I don't, and now that Storm Bolters and Special Ammo don't mix, I'm unlikely to in the future, either.


I imagine your experience of being able to say ‘your keywords are what you want them to be’ isn’t universal:

It isn't amongst the casual player base. Because as you said, GW markets their product in such a way that the thing you paint, is the thing you have.
When you've played for a number of editions - especially as a Space Marine player, where almost all of the models across four different Codecies are pretty much identical - the idea that if GW happens to buff or nerf a certain Codex or even just a unit...The idea that you'd have to paint your entire army all over again - even using the exact same models - is pretty...Bad.

This is shown in later Codecies, after GW realised that the idea was stupid and bad.
In the Imperial Guard Codex, your Regiment Doctine can be anything you choose.

The problem is rather specifically a Space Marine problem, as they were the first-printed Codex, before GW realised that tying rules to paint schemes was frittata'd.

[Forum Explorer]

Random thought that occurred to me just now, and am interested in other people’s views: is it a good decision on behalf of GW to have chapter traits etc tied so explicitly to certain colour schemes?

What I mean is, in the current SM codex, and in many others, there are chapter rules for Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, Salamanders etc. These forces all use the same codex, but with minor tweaks from these chapter traits. The rules state that you are free to use a sucessor chapter, so don’t need to use the colour scheme, but in practice anyone who wants to use Salamanders rules will feel they need to use the Salamanders colour scheme, and anyone who wants to use the Salamanders colour scheme absolutely has to use their rules.

This feels like a problem? Given the disparity in the effectiveness of chapter rules there are some that are definitely better than others, so you have some players not choosing the army they like the colour style of because it’s not good, and others who are disappointed because the army they spent effort on making look good doesn’t have good rules.


It's not a problem. I've seen people run 'Red Ultramarines' with their Blood Angel models before, and no one cares. So long as you tell your opponent, and don't have multiple factions using the same color scheme.

I've never heard of a meta where it is a problem to be frank.

[Cheesegear]

It's not a problem. I've seen people run 'Red Ultramarines' with their Blood Angel models before

Gabriel Seth called it. :smalltongue:

[JNAProductions]

First crack at an Eldar list.

Battalion 1

HQs
119-Autarch Skyrunner-Banshee Mask, Laser Lance, Fusion Gun
132-Farseer Skyrunner

Troops
60-5 Rangers
60-5 Rangers
60-5 Rangers

Heavy Support
111-3 Support Weapons with Shadow Weavers
111-3 Support Weapons with Shadow Weavers
111-3 Support Weapons with Shadow Weavers

Total Points
764

Battalion 2

HQs
80-Ilic Nightspear
140-Maugan Ra

Troops
60-5 Rangers
60-5 Rangers
60-5 Rangers

Heavy Support
157-Fire Prism with Twin Shuriken Catapult
157-Fire Prism with Twin Shuriken Catapult
157-Fire Prism with Twin Shuriken Catapult

Total Points
871

Spearhead
55-Warlock

Heavy Support
102-3 Dark Reapers
102-3 Dark Reapers
102-3 Dark Reapers

Total Points
361

Overall Total
1,996 Points, 14 CP

I own none of these models yet, so nothing's final.

[LeSwordfish]

I tried out Contrast. You can just slop it on and it looks perfectly solid.

[Avaris]

I tried out Contrast. You can just slop it on and it looks perfectly solid.

Similarly, I tried out contrast today. Don’t think it will be my default, as I enjoy getting into the mediative painting state and don’t mind the time, but it’s certainly another tool in the arsenal.

I was most interested in the white effects, so tried out a couple of White Scars. Wasn’t convinced as the paint was going on, but once it had and it had other colours around it it was perfectly serviceable. It won’t work for a ‘clean’ white, but apothecary white over the wraithbone base is a fine shade for armour.

I suspect my approach will be to use contrast for base colours, then fill in the details with normal paints. It’s also a standard I would be perfectly ok with if I were a new painter; I was using a shade brush standing up and controlled the paint just fine.

[Cheesegear]

I used Contrast a few times. I think I'll call it what LansXero did earlier; It's a base & wash in the same step.
A lot of people are okay with 'Base and Wash' and calling it a day.

I - and many others - found best results with two more edge highlights over the top - just like GW does.

Basecoat > Wash > Highlight > Highlight, becomes
Contrast > Highlight > Highlight.

Overall, you'd save between 5-10 minutes per model. Provided that you don't do two thin coats of Contrast (which looks way better) and/or don't waste time cleaning up pools 'cause you slapped it on thick like GW told you to. On a single centrepiece model (or a single trial model), you wont even notice the difference.
Over a 30 model unit? You save yourself 2.5-5 hours on the first day of painting. Which isn't bad at all, if that's what you're doing. To have your entire Plaguebearer (x30) unit basecoated and washed before lunch definitely has practical value.

Contrast, by itself holds little value to me.
If I'm going to end up highlighting the model traditionally anyway...It's cheaper than buying a base paint plus a wash.

GW wins this round...With the very low bar they have to reach wobbling 'cause they hit it on the way over.

[LansXero]

A lot of people are okay with 'Base and Wash' and calling it a day.

Contrast, by itself holds little value to me.
If I'm going to end up highlighting the model traditionally anyway...It's cheaper than buying a base paint plus a wash.


Its the same; you need the new base plus contrast, which comes out the same as an old base + a wash. "but you use the base for many models" duh, same for the wash.

Its still slower than colour spray + wash though, for the largely monochromatic models its good for.

Id say if its the first thing you are learning, sure, it may work, but then you probably wont ever get past that stage. Which is allright, just not whats advertised. Also, people who peak at what they do or who are a chasm away from the next step tend to quit rather than try harder.

[Cheesegear]

Its the same; you need the new base plus contrast, which comes out the same as an old base + a wash.

lol...So GW even managed to fail that bar.
In that case, consider me thoroughly unimpressed by Contrasts...Except for people who are painting upwards of 20 models at a time.

[Avaris]

Its the same; you need the new base plus contrast, which comes out the same as an old base + a wash. "but you use the base for many models" duh, same for the wash.


That’s not entirely a fair comparison, unless you’re genuinely only considering a single base colour.

Normal paints are Undercoat + base paint + shade. You can combine the undercoat with the base paint for one colour, but any other colours will be a different base colour.

Contrast are Undercoat + shade paint. If you want multiple colours you don’t need another base paint, so contrast paint value starts adding up.

Ultimately, contrast paints are good value if they’re being used for what they’re intended for: doing many models in a short space of time. Even simple colour schemes, like Ultramarines, have enough large areas of different colours that they’ll benefit from a couple of different colours of Contrast: blue over most of the model, black on the gun and a few other details. Even if you want to do finer control details like shoulder pad edges in normal paints you are using two colours of contrast as a quick base, and thus saving a bit of money over the normal paints. That effect escalates as you use more colours.

[LansXero]

That’s not entirely a fair comparison, unless you’re genuinely only considering a single base colour.

Normal paints are Undercoat + base paint + shade. You can combine the undercoat with the base paint for one colour, but any other colours will be a different base colour.

Contrast are Undercoat + shade paint. If you want multiple colours you don’t need another base paint, so contrast paint value starts adding up.

Ultimately, contrast paints are good value if they’re being used for what they’re intended for: doing many models in a short space of time. Even simple colour schemes, like Ultramarines, have enough large areas of different colours that they’ll benefit from a couple of different colours of Contrast: blue over most of the model, black on the gun and a few other details. Even if you want to do finer control details like shoulder pad edges in normal paints you are using two colours of contrast as a quick base, and thus saving a bit of money over the normal paints. That effect escalates as you use more colours.

Contrast also already costs twice what a regular paint does; equating it to the old paints is disingenous. Also, most people do fine with agrax / nuln; specially if all you want to do is match the result of Contrast. Finally, for any given job you will only use 1 color of basecoat, as whats being discussed are large lots of models with a single majority color.

Its also more expensive than just going coat+base with a TAP spray of Ultramarine Blue or Angel Green and then spot wash with either Nuln or Agrax. Which achieves the same result, but faster.

[Cheesegear]

So, Contrasts in the hands of non-invitational, non-professional and semi-professional painters...

Pros
It's fast.

Con(trast)s
Contrast paints are finnicky to use.
Similar to washes, it's better to go with less than you think you need, otherwise pooling happens. Which is in direct opposition to 'One Thick Coat'.
It's better with two thin coats - one coat is likely to be inconsistent and leave splotches. Doing two coats means no time saved. Especially as a Contrast basecoat takes longer to dry than a normal Base...Uh...Coat.
It's very, very difficult to fix mistakes.
It makes your model look washed (like Glaze-painting does). So it looks even better with traditional edge highlighting or drybrushing afterwards, which is how you'd normally paint a model after washing it anyway. So it's not actually faster if you actually want your models to look good.
It doesn't taste nice - for those who lick their brushes :smallwink:


So...Trade quality for speed. Somehow I'm pretty sure I saw that coming.

[Avaris]

It doesn't taste nice - for those who lick their brushes :smallwink:.

Well that’s a complete deal breaker then :smalltongue:

While it’s right that two coats can give better effect, I think a large part of what is good about contrast is that it gives better results in a single coat, unthinned, than with normal paints used in that way. Won’t be perfect, will be acceptable to many. Having used contrast I found them no more finnicky than normal paints, though I wouldn’t want to do fine detail work with them.

[Voidhawk]

I am someone who doesn't enjoy painting, and wish it was faster, and as a result often plays with grey plastic and/or black-spray-only. I am the (primary) target market for Contrast paints.

For my Necrons my method, such as it is, is this:
1) Spray black.
2) Silver for most surfaces, leaving black exposed on the joints.
3) Nuln Oil wash. To highlight the joints and silver bits.
4) Red for "armour" (pauldrons mostly). This means Warriors only have red on the shoulders, while more important 'crons get more red. Hierarchy!
5) Green for glowy bits (eyes, gun barrels, etc)
6) Maybe some Agrax on the base if I feel like it. (That's the grey-rubble one, right?)

So my question to the forum is: will Contrast paints in any way reduce my time/expense? They way I'm hearing things, it would let me condense 2) and 3) together perhaps?

Remember, I don't care about quality at all.

[Avaris]

I am someone who doesn't enjoy painting, and wish it was faster, and as a result often plays with grey plastic and/or black-spray-only. I am the (primary) target market for Contrast paints.

For my Necrons my method, such as it is, is this:
1) Spray black.
2) Silver for most surfaces, leaving black exposed on the joints.
3) Nuln Oil wash. To highlight the joints and silver bits.
4) Red for "armour" (pauldrons mostly). This means Warriors only have red on the shoulders, while more important 'crons get more red. Hierarchy!
5) Green for glowy bits (eyes, gun barrels, etc)
6) Maybe some Agrax on the base if I feel like it. (That's the grey-rubble one, right?)

So my question to the forum is: will Contrast paints in any way reduce my time/expense? They way I'm hearing things, it would let me condense 2) and 3) together perhaps?

Remember, I don't care about quality at all.

In your specific case I don’t think it will, as there aren’t metallic contrast paints (though you might decide some of the others give the result you want). For you I’d actually suggest just spraying them silver to start with and then nuln oil, though that loses the black joints.

[Cheesegear]

For my Necrons my method, such as it is, is this:
1) Spray black.
2) Silver for most surfaces, leaving black exposed on the joints.
3) Nuln Oil wash. To highlight the joints and silver bits.

There's no metallic Contrast Paint (don't even know how you would do that). The best you'll find is a very dull grey, which they've already previewed - with a Necron, in fact.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ContrastPaintRange-May24-GreyExample9jw.jpg

...If you ask me, it's also been cleaned up as well with Nuln Oil, and the Black gun...I'd bet has an edge highlight on it as well.

But yeah. The best you're gonna get is what used to be called 'Ceramic' Necrons.


6) Maybe some Agrax on the base if I feel like it. (That's the grey-rubble one, right?)

That's Astrogranite.
Agrax is the brown wash, one of the two 'Liquid Talents' - the other being Nuln, of course.


As someone who paints Necrons too, I haven't found them too difficult to paint as is. Their monochromatic bodies with many edges and raised areas makes them perfect for drybrushing.
Leadbelcher > Nuln > Drybrush > Drybrush.
Not including the dry-time on the wash, I have an entire 12-man Warrior box done in less than an hour. 60 minutes divided by 12 models? Yeah...Less than 5 minutes per model sounds about right for Necrons to get the bright silver.
...The hard part on my Necrons is painting the yellow armour plates after the black undercoat. :smalltongue:

One of my favourite models I've ever painted

https://i.imgur.com/LjD8UQo.png

https://i.imgur.com/zV6uGLW.png

...All of the blue orbs have a coat of 'Ardcoat, which is kind of annoying with the lighting 'cause it looks like I've painted two white dots....Which would be dumb. I should take another photo in natural lighting...In fact I will do that...Tomorrow.

[Requizen]

From what I've seen, it will be extremely good for cloth, fur, and skintones (the Guilliman Flesh in particular gives a good look that was previously quite finnicky) and mostly useless for large swaths of armor or plates. The stupid thing is that the stores are previewing it on Stormcast and Primaris which have... armor and plates.

The Fellowship models they showed on the Community site done with Contrasts look solid, because cloth done with just base + wash previously was already most of the way to done depending on how much you enjoy highlighting folds. My Savage Orruk army for Sigmar I could see just slapping on the Camo Contrast and then handpainting tattoos. A horde of Termagants can probably be done entirely in Contrast since there's few wide flat plates, but you'll want to spend more time on Carnifexes and Tyrants... which you were probably going to do anyway for your big centerpiece models.

I'm getting some just to knock out the small backlog of board games I have - Warhammer Quest (both), Underworlds, maybe a Blood Bowl starter.


As an aside, has anyone flipped through Kill Team Elites or are we just completely done with KT for the time being? It's kinda died out over here other than a casual game when you don't have a full 40k/AoS night.

[Cheesegear]

As an aside, has anyone flipped through Kill Team Elites or are we just completely done with KT for the time being? It's kinda died out over here other than a casual game when you don't have a full 40k/AoS night.

I have literally not looked through Commanders or Elites. Not even once.
I meant to go through the Kill Team results from BAO (they're also up to 125 Points)... I just...Didn't.

[Requizen]

I have literally not looked through Commanders or Elites. Not even once.
I meant to go through the Kill Team results from BAO (they're also up to 125 Points)... I just...Didn't.

This is my fear with Warcry as well... Anything that isn't 2000 point 40k or AoS just doesn't last around here (or from the sounds of it, much anywhere else). Everything else ends up niche at best, other than the hardcore anti-GW people still trying to make Kings of War, Infinity, and Malifaux work.

Sometimes I look at my Kill Team Arena box and sigh melodramatically to myself.

[LansXero]

Sometimes I look at my Kill Team Arena box and sigh melodramatically to myself.

We just played last week, used Custodes and sub-factions rules, stuck with mostly same old KT. It needs a lot of championing, but 'casual wargaming' is a niche within a niche, so its hard for it to survive long. Which is why I dislike sub-games so much, it ends up with people getting stuck with unused junk.

Then again, "Kill Team in corridors only, no vertical fun allowed" supporters deserve what they get :v.

[Requizen]

We just played last week, used Custodes and sub-factions rules, stuck with mostly same old KT. It needs a lot of championing, but 'casual wargaming' is a niche within a niche, so its hard for it to survive long. Which is why I dislike sub-games so much, it ends up with people getting stuck with unused junk.

Then again, "Kill Team in corridors only, no vertical fun allowed" supporters deserve what they get :v.

Hey, don't make fun of Arena, it's actually a really good game :smallfrown: Verticality is cool and thematic, but unbalanced AF unless someone meticulously builds good tables for every game, it gets really screwy real fast.

I've enjoyed championing for some games - Underworlds being the main one, and it's come and gone - but at some point you don't want to be the guy trying to make things work when no one seems interested. If KT crops up again, I'm more than happy to participate, but I just don't have it in me to shill another game.

Though KT is a great reason to snag some Contrast paints and have some small painting projects every now and then :smalltongue:

[LansXero]

The thing with Arena is twofold; we must all be frustrated architects or something, but we LOVE making complicated terrain and scenarios, so not having verticality sucks for us.

But thats the other half: Its not a competitive game, and it doesnt work as a competitive game. Its cool unbalanced fun with stuff you already own and trying to break each scenario to your favor; once you start making well-thought, dedicated KT lists and restricting oddball objectives / playstyles, you find out there isnt really all that much depth, and for all the added complication you could just play regular 40k instead. Tryhardism kills it really fast, so we always tried to keep it fresh and casual, even though we dont aproach 40k / AoS that way.

[Avaris]

The thing with Arena is twofold; we must all be frustrated architects or something, but we LOVE making complicated terrain and scenarios, so not having verticality sucks for us.

But thats the other half: Its not a competitive game, and it doesnt work as a competitive game. Its cool unbalanced fun with stuff you already own and trying to break each scenario to your favor; once you start making well-thought, dedicated KT lists and restricting oddball objectives / playstyles, you find out there isnt really all that much depth, and for all the added complication you could just play regular 40k instead. Tryhardism kills it really fast, so we always tried to keep it fresh and casual, even though we dont aproach 40k / AoS that way.

It’s a shame Kill Team didn’t reach it’s initial potential as a much tighter highend competitive game. As is, I get the impression it doesn’t really know what it is as a game, and is pulled in different directions by other games that are better in their niche. Want a campaign focussed skirmish game? Play Necromunda. Want a deep, finely balanced competitive game? Play Underworlds. Want a thing to while away a few hours in a friendly pick up game? Play 40k. What is Kill Team’s niche?

I wonder how much of Kill Team’s problem is it’s open roster approach. Underworlds can really pin things down by specifying the exact warbands in play, whereas Kill Team has much more variety. Problem is this variety is also available in 40k, which has abigger range of options, so Kill Team loses out.

I kind of think Kill Team would be better if it specified teams to some sxtent, perhaps offering each faction a few build choices and a bit of weapon flexibility, but otherwise specifying that a guard kill team, say, is always 10 models, including a sergeant, a medic and a specialist. Offer a few different styles of platoons, e.g replacing the specials with grenadiers, but otherwise be quite prescriptive, so you know roughly what is available to players and can balance around that.

[Requizen]

It’s a shame Kill Team didn’t reach it’s initial potential as a much tighter highend competitive game. As is, I get the impression it doesn’t really know what it is as a game, and is pulled in different directions by other games that are better in their niche. Want a campaign focussed skirmish game? Play Necromunda. Want a deep, finely balanced competitive game? Play Underworlds. Want a thing to while away a few hours in a friendly pick up game? Play 40k. What is Kill Team’s niche?

I wonder how much of Kill Team’s problem is it’s open roster approach. Underworlds can really pin things down by specifying the exact warbands in play, whereas Kill Team has much more variety. Problem is this variety is also available in 40k, which has abigger range of options, so Kill Team loses out.

I kind of think Kill Team would be better if it specified teams to some sxtent, perhaps offering each faction a few build choices and a bit of weapon flexibility, but otherwise specifying that a guard kill team, say, is always 10 models, including a sergeant, a medic and a specialist. Offer a few different styles of platoons, e.g replacing the specials with grenadiers, but otherwise be quite prescriptive, so you know roughly what is available to players and can balance around that.

KT's niche seems to be "40k for lazy people". Don't want to bring a lot of models? Don't want to play for 2+ hours? Don't want to set up a 4x6 board? Don't want to paint anything bigger than a pill bottle, or more than a handful of sculpts? Kill Team is the game for you! Less commitment, similar (but not same) ruleset, quick and small.

The thing is... people who want to play 40k are just gonna play 40k. And people who want to play a small skirmish wargame have a glut of other options to play on the market right now - Freeblades, Wild West Exodus, Batman, Arena Rex, Malifaux, Infinity, etc. Now, I can't speak to the balance or viability of those games, and KT has felt more up my alley from the times I've tried various ones, but... there's really keeping people engaged with Kill Team compared to other games, especially when GW treats it like a red-headed step child compared to every other game they produce.

Didn't mean that to sound as rant-y as it did, but yeah, Kill Team is a game I want to love but just doesn't seem to stick, between minimal players in the area and various frustrations with the game itself. Really hoping Warcry gets it right.

[LansXero]

Commanders was a horribly timed release with poorly thought out rules and models and a price point that was a joke. If you switched things around and we'd had sub-factions and Elites at the time, Im sure the game would've gotten the second wind it so sorely needed.

[Wraith]

I think my initial suspicions about Kill Team have been confirmed. Whatever we - the players - ever thought it would be, GW have only ever seen it as an 8th edition update to Shadow War, which itself was a quick and shameless cash-in to sell off a few blister packs which were slow moving in 40k.

There wasn't ever a plan to make it a viably competitive skirmish game, not alongside a nostalgic fan-favourite like Necromunda, whose update schedule has been way more consistent and better planned. There was never a plan to make it into the tactically sound and competitive boardgame like Underworld, which has (as far as I know) proven way more popular than even GW could have hoped for.

It's just their "we had one of these last edition, so we'd better pump out a new rulebook and some overpriced characters to stop people from complaining too much" game that is nominally a gate-way into 'real' 40k, but was quickly priced out of that niche by the necessity of boxes like Arena.
Which is a shame; I like Kill Team and I think that had it been released at the start of 8th edition, preventing it from being eclipsed by Necromunda and allowing it to actually be a gateway into the new ruleset rather than an add-on to an already established one, it would have been a lot more popular. Hell; they should have released it 6 months before 8th edition, and everyone would have scrambled to buy it for their first taste of the "new game", albeit in miniature.

Instead, 'Specialist Games' is quickly getting oversaturated again and Kill Team is the first game to suffer for it. I reckon that Underworlds/Warcry will be next, cannibalising each others' playerbases. God forbid that some bright spark also decide to bring back Mordheim and really put all three of them down... And I *LOVED* Mordheim!

[Cheesegear]

It’s a shame Kill Team didn’t reach it’s initial potential as a much tighter highend competitive game.

I don't know what you think it was ever going to be that. With its twice-watered down Necromunda rules, it was doomed from the start. It's highest potential was always the garbage fire.


I wonder how much of Kill Team’s problem is it’s open roster approach.

As a game, the Open Roster is the only thing that makes it competitive. Automatically lose because your opponent is playing a certain Faction? Nope. Tailor hard, son.
As a product, casuals don't know they have to invest a ****load if they want to make the game even - which they don't - because the game doesn't feel fair (because they haven't invested because GW made them think they didn't have to), they quit, rather than try and make the game better.


Underworlds can really pin things down by specifying the exact warbands in play

...Which is great. Because your 'army list' is actually your deck.
...In which case you have to buy every single warband and you have something like 200 options to make your deck and now casuals are overwhelmed by the amount of money that they have to spend and even if they do, they're overwhelmed by the amount of choices they have.

Your Warband is irrelevant. It's your deck that matters.

[Avaris]

I don't know what you think it was ever going to be that. With its twice-watered down Necromunda rules, it was doomed from the start. It's highest potential was always the garbage fire.

It’s more that it’s a clear niche it could have filled: potential, not execution. If they’d gone down a route of fixing the issues that became apparent early on they could have ended up with a quick to play game that both allowed 40k players to use part of their collection in a tightly balanced game and provided a ramp up for new players into 40k. As is, they just added bloat without fixing on a particular identity for the game.



As a game, the Open Roster is the only thing that makes it competitive. Automatically lose because your opponent is playing a certain Faction? Nope. Tailor hard, son.
As a product, casuals don't know they have to invest a ****load if they want to make the game even - which they don't - because the game doesn't feel fair (because they haven't invested because GW made them think they didn't have to), they quit, rather than try and make the game better.
Closed rosters would help prevent this imbalance in the first place though: if you know how many models a given faction will have, it gives you a balance knob to tweak. Note I’m not suggesting fully closed rosters: give people a points allowance for weaponry, tactics cards and skills for example. But from my understanding the biggest potential imbalance is sheer weight of bodies some factions can take, so controlling THAT would give a basis for bslancing from.




...Which is great. Because your 'army list' is actually your deck.
...In which case you have to buy every single warband and you have something like 200 options to make your deck and now casuals are overwhelmed by the amount of money that they have to spend and even if they do, they're overwhelmed by the amount of choices they have.

Your Warband is irrelevant. It's your deck that matters.

The deck is the customisation mechanic Underworlds has chosen to focus on, and by choosing that it has a basis for balancing on. Kill Team’s problem is it has too many vectors for variance: faction, model choice, weapons choice, tactics cards, specialist skills, freedom of movement around the battlefield. With so many variables it’s very difficult to have a well-balanced game: there will be more unbalanced combinations than the designers can reasonably account for. Underworlds has a chance to be well-balanced as it shut many of these variables down and focussed on one (the deck) that is easier to control.

It’s a similar problem with 40k, and why I believe it will never be a well-balanced game. There is absolutely some balance, but the variability derived from unit choice, weapons load outs, movement considerations, strategems etc etc, not to mention the high buy in cost for new units, is more than can be reasonably designed for, so easily broken by a WAAC approach. For some people this is absolutely fine, and tournaments remain exciting, but in my opinion it creates too much of a gulf in experiences: someone looking to graduate from a local play scene to a larger tournament will have a bad time. As an example, recall the GW studio’s surprise when two tournament level players were conga lining guard to control space and use auras: it’s a fundamentally different game to what they design for! (Which incidentally is why AoS often feels better designed: they have a much closer control on the appropriate rules wording, e.g always using ‘wholly within’ for auras).

Trying to control 40k, eg by restricting unit choice in an army, is impossible and goes against what the game is for many people: the variability is a huge part of the appeal, so the designers need to aim for ‘good enough’ balance alongside all these variables. Kill Team feels like a missed opportunity to design a game controlling some more of the variables and so enabling greater balance, but has ended up as a ‘mini 40k’ with all of the problems that entsils, while gaining few advantages from its smaller size.

Incidentally, this is why Apocalypse is intriguing to me. Despite the size of games, I’m curious to see whether it dnds up better balanced than 40k, given it is a whole new ruleset.

[Cheesegear]

If they’d gone down a route of fixing the issues that became apparent early on they could have ended up with a quick to play game that both allowed 40k players to use part of their collection in a tightly balanced game and provided a ramp up for new players into 40k.

Sweep & Clear
Auto-win if your opponent Breaks, otherwise
3 VPs per Objective.
1 VP per enemy model OoA.

The Objective is to Break/Table my opponent. If not, just stand on my opponent's Objectives.

Take Prisoners
3 VPs to Capture enemy Leader
1 VP every other model Captured.
Capturing = Taking enemy models OoA in Melee.

The Objective is to Table my opponent in Melee.

Recover Intelligence
5 Objectives.
1 VP per round for the Objectives closest to you.
2 VPs per round for the for the Objectives in your opponent's DZ.
3 VPs per round for the centre Objective.

Charge onto the centre Objective and control it. You can't move after Shooting, so what's the point?

Terror Tactics
Auto-win if your opponent Breaks, otherwise
2 VPs per each model that breaks through enemy lines
1 VP for each model OoA.

Table your opponent. If not, Charge your opponent as quickly as possible, then run off the board.

The win conditions of the game strongly favour Melee armies (especially with the small board size). This is why the game strongly favours models like Veteran Specialists and Genestealers, etc. This is why Harlequins were so broken at launch. Because people didn't realise that they could tailor their armies every time. You know your opponent is going to run at you as fast as they can. This is why models like Cultists, Tzaangors and Poxwalkers became so strong early on. They're okay in Melee. But your opponent only has so many 'elite' Melee models, so if they Charge you, you can just drown them in bodies.

Which opens up for ranged Deathwatch and Grey Knights with Storm Bolters. Each model has four shots each. If you cluster your models together - because your DZ only has so much Cover in it and you don't have much room - you open up the possibility to cut down hordes before they do anything.

Which opens up for Genestealers, who can Charge you before you have the oppurtunity to shoot them.

For obvious reasons, Asuryani Howling Banshees dominated at BAO.

The ability to tailor to your opponent's Faction is what makes the game competitive.
You know - roughly - what your opponent is going to do.
Counter it.
Your opponent knows what you can do to counter their list. Can you counter that?

The ability to bluff and double-bluff your opponent is what keeps the game even remotely fair.

Melee armies were also hard-countered by verticality of terrain. Except GW decided to split the already-small player-base by offering a format that didn't have verticality. :smallmad:


Note I’m not suggesting fully closed rosters: give people a points allowance for weaponry, tactics cards and skills for example.

Tournaments do.
You have 200 Points (I think BAO went to 250 with Elites)
Before the game, your opponent tells you their Faction.
Choose 100 Points out of your Roster (I know for a fact BAO was 125).
Both players reveal their lists at the same time.
(I meant to check BAO army lists when they were available...But I forgot. However, I do know that Howling Banshees dominated both days)

The only difference is that the rulebook doesn't put a limit on your roster.
The tournament system gives you options, without being literally everything you can choose.

Read the Missions. You choose your Kill Team after knowing what Faction your opponent has.
You don't just rock up to your gaming table with a pre-made Kill Team and ask for a game.
You rock up to a gaming table with your entire Roster, and ask for a game.

But, again, I have to stress again that putting a points limit on your Roster is something the ITC did, not GW.


But from my understanding the biggest potential imbalance is sheer weight of bodies some factions can take

You know what your opponent's Faction is. Do you have access to Rapid Fire weapons? I don't understand the problem.


With so many variables it’s very difficult to have a well-balanced game:

The single most balancing factor of any game, is the win conditions.


It’s a similar problem with 40k, and why I believe it will never be a well-balanced game. There is absolutely some balance, but the variability derived from unit choice

The win conditions are Objectives.
How do you hold Objectives?
How do you stop your opponent holding Objectives?

Choose models based on those two things.

[Requizen]

In which case you have to buy every single warband and you have something like 200 options to make your deck and now casuals are overwhelmed by the amount of money that they have to spend and even if they do, they're overwhelmed by the amount of choices they have.
I have it on fairly reliable sources that they are aware of this issue and you can expect some changes going into Season 3 of Underworlds from the Cards/Models drama. Nothing more than that, and as always it's possible they try to fix it and drop the ball, but they're apparently working on something, which is good for people who don't want to mass buy like myself.

Your Warband is irrelevant. It's your deck that matters.

Except the mechanics of your warband shape your deck, especially with a lot of the crazy stuff being on the BAR list. But your deck sets your Objectives and the Power cards that get you those objectives, so the deck is the thing that matters, except your warband needs to mesh well with it... it's kinda both?


As a game, the Open Roster is the only thing that makes it competitive. Automatically lose because your opponent is playing a certain Faction? Nope. Tailor hard, son.
As a product, casuals don't know they have to invest a ****load if they want to make the game even - which they don't - because the game doesn't feel fair (because they haven't invested because GW made them think they didn't have to), they quit, rather than try and make the game better.

This I super agree with though. Kill Team has the only version of "sideboarding" that really has seemed to work for miniatures games in my experience. I keep trying to make sideboarding a thing in 40k/AoS but it's always "oh that neuters the viability of TAC lists" and "oh but then my gimmick will always be countered" style of whining, which I seriously don't understand.

I love Open Roster picking. That's the part of KT I love the most, honestly, but everyone just ignores it.



I think my initial suspicions about Kill Team have been confirmed. Whatever we - the players - ever thought it would be, GW have only ever seen it as an 8th edition update to Shadow War, which itself was a quick and shameless cash-in to sell off a few blister packs which were slow moving in 40k.

There wasn't ever a plan to make it a viably competitive skirmish game, not alongside a nostalgic fan-favourite like Necromunda, whose update schedule has been way more consistent and better planned. There was never a plan to make it into the tactically sound and competitive boardgame like Underworld, which has (as far as I know) proven way more popular than even GW could have hoped for.

It's just their "we had one of these last edition, so we'd better pump out a new rulebook and some overpriced characters to stop people from complaining too much" game that is nominally a gate-way into 'real' 40k, but was quickly priced out of that niche by the necessity of boxes like Arena.
Which is a shame; I like Kill Team and I think that had it been released at the start of 8th edition, preventing it from being eclipsed by Necromunda and allowing it to actually be a gateway into the new ruleset rather than an add-on to an already established one, it would have been a lot more popular. Hell; they should have released it 6 months before 8th edition, and everyone would have scrambled to buy it for their first taste of the "new game", albeit in miniature.

Instead, 'Specialist Games' is quickly getting oversaturated again and Kill Team is the first game to suffer for it. I reckon that Underworlds/Warcry will be next, cannibalising each others' playerbases. God forbid that some bright spark also decide to bring back Mordheim and really put all three of them down... And I *LOVED* Mordheim!

GW honestly has everything necessary for a fantastic small-level skirmish game. Great miniatures, great lore from multiple worlds/settings, a huge community, an online presence, app developers (apparently, though they could use more). But they either just don't care about making those types of games, or don't know how to support it. I think it's the latter.

They've never really been great about "support". Up until the late 00s, there really was no such thing as a "tightly supported miniatures game", since everything was still based on waiting for publications that might come out whenever. Now, everyone has realized that you can actively support a rulebase and update rules without waiting for a new model release to go alongside it. And GW is dipping their toes in - General's Handbook and Chapter Approved, better/more regular FAQs, playtesters and tournament feedback - but they have yet to apply that to something like Kill Team. Underworlds, sure, but that game is kind of a different beast, more controlled and curated than a true "your dudes" skirmish game like people want.

They could do it with Necromunda. They could do it with Kill Team. They could have done it with Skirmish (though that balance was straight trash). They still might get it right with Warcry. Either way, they're basically sitting on free money, there's a load of people out there who would dump tons onto a solid, balanced, supported small-level Skirmish game that isn't just an afterthought.

[9mm]

Ironicly I have an easier time getting a kill team game than a full 40k game.

[Cheesegear]

Ironicly I have an easier time getting a kill team game than a full 40k game.

Ironic? Maybe more like...Statistically, somewhere, Kill Team is actually made for somebody.

A lot like '30K being dead'. That can't be true. Not literally. Someone, somewhere, is still very interested in playing 30K and they are in fact, getting games.

[LansXero]

There's a load of people out there who would dump tons onto a solid, balanced, supported small-level Skirmish game that isn't just an afterthought.

Then why isnt Infinity everywhere and anywhere?
- Solid models. The sculpts are some of the best across the industry.
- Low entry cost. You can have a full Infinity army for less than a full KT roster, adjusting for factions of course.
- Amazing entry level products. The 2 player boxes with the Beyond upgrade give you 2 tournament-size armies, completely viable, without fiddling with single model / unit purchases
- A well mantained lore that is constantly evolving.
- Tight control over the ruleset, enacting changes and fix through constant feedback from the community.
- Worldwide campaigns with impact in the lore AND the release of new models based on that.

So its solid, balanced, supported and not an aftertought. Its also still tiny in the US, dead here and likely wont ever massively break outside of Spain.


Ironic? Maybe more like...Statistically, somewhere, Kill Team is actually made for somebody.

A lot like '30K being dead'. That can't be true. Not literally. Someone, somewhere, is still very interested in playing 30K and they are in fact, getting games.

From our admitedly limited local experience, people who buy 30k barely ever get to play 30k. They tend to use their toys as 'count-as' for 40k (which is fine because some of them are amazing), for conversions (some of the 30k bits are stunning) or due to FW giving them rules in both systems. But 30k is basically 7th.25 and people already had their fill of that. Its also VERY EXPENSIVE 7.25th. But the models are beautiful and a delight to paint, so thats a factor on why it sells despite being 'dead'

[Requizen]

Then why isnt Infinity everywhere and anywhere?
- Solid models. The sculpts are some of the best across the industry.
- Low entry cost. You can have a full Infinity army for less than a full KT roster, adjusting for factions of course.
- Amazing entry level products. The 2 player boxes with the Beyond upgrade give you 2 tournament-size armies, completely viable, without fiddling with single model / unit purchases
- A well mantained lore that is constantly evolving.
- Tight control over the ruleset, enacting changes and fix through constant feedback from the community.
- Worldwide campaigns with impact in the lore AND the release of new models based on that.

So its solid, balanced, supported and not an aftertought. Its also still tiny in the US, dead here and likely wont ever massively break outside of Spain.


I would argue there's a handful of things about it that keep it from being popular, though my experience with it is quite limited. Metal models are a real turn off for some people, especially compared to the quality of plastics nowadays. Ruleset is very in depth, which is both a blessing and a curse with complexity and a glut of options/special rules/etc - great for hardcore players, not as fun for casual/middle of the road players, especially to jump into.

But from my (again limited) experience, the playerbase is a real turnoff. At least here in the states, the pockets of players I've seen have had the level of powergamer/neckbeardiness to put most 40k communities to shame. Maybe it's just in my area, however, I've just gone to a couple game nights and nosed around a few events and never got the impression that it's the type of environment I'd enjoy hanging around in. That doesn't say anything about the game, but it's hard to decouple the two, especially if my experience is not an outlier.

I actually really want to like Infinity, since sci-fi Skirmish game with impactful reactions is right up my alley, but I've just found it hard to commit to.

[LansXero]

Rules-bloat is sadly a consequence of reducing the scale, as you need more granularity or it becomes Rocket Tag. However, I do agree that Infinity could use dialing it way back, and it can be played fine without dealing with all the more complex stuff (linked teams, multiple levels of camo vs visor, etc.). Cant do anything about the community though.

I dont particularly like it, because its very, very easy to unintentionally club seals when you teach to new people. The huge ranges and people's obliviousness to LoS mean their every move trigger a ton of AROs and it feels bad to be under fire all the time.

[Wraith]

The Primaris Marine Funk Pops will be available in bare grey plastic (https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/06/11/diy-primaris-intercessor-funko-popgw-homepage-post-4/), allowing 40k fans to paint theirs in the Chapter colour of their choice.

Someone, somewhere, is going to convert a whole Tac Squad of them, aren't they? I can see it happening right away, and then the doors open to a Chaos Marine version, then Aeldari..... This is just the beginning. :smalltongue:

[Manticoran]

The Primaris Marine Funk Pops will be available in bare grey plastic (https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/06/11/diy-primaris-intercessor-funko-popgw-homepage-post-4/), allowing 40k fans to paint theirs in the Chapter colour of their choice.

Someone, somewhere, is going to convert a whole Tac Squad of them, aren't they? I can see it happening right away, and then the doors open to a Chaos Marine version, then Aeldari..... This is just the beginning. :smalltongue:

Timeline on how long until someone bases it and uses it to proxy a Primarch?

[Blackhawk748]

Timeline on how long until someone bases it and uses it to proxy a Primarch?

5 minutes after they assemble it?

[LansXero]

Timeline on how long until someone bases it and uses it to proxy a Primarch?

too big, but it can maybe make a passable 'naut.

Not painting it and selling it as 'do it yourself' gotta be the laziest cashgrab Ive seen. Its not like we could've just sprayed any of the others and done it anyways, right? no we need this very special unpainted one. ugh.

[EhDerangedMonk]

First crack at an Eldar list.

Battalion 1

HQs
119-Autarch Skyrunner-Banshee Mask, Laser Lance, Fusion Gun
132-Farseer Skyrunner

Troops
60-5 Rangers
60-5 Rangers
60-5 Rangers

Heavy Support
111-3 Support Weapons with Shadow Weavers
111-3 Support Weapons with Shadow Weavers
111-3 Support Weapons with Shadow Weavers

Total Points
764

Battalion 2

HQs
80-Ilic Nightspear
140-Maugan Ra

Troops
60-5 Rangers
60-5 Rangers
60-5 Rangers

Heavy Support
157-Fire Prism with Twin Shuriken Catapult
157-Fire Prism with Twin Shuriken Catapult
157-Fire Prism with Twin Shuriken Catapult

Total Points
871

Spearhead
55-Warlock

Heavy Support
102-3 Dark Reapers
102-3 Dark Reapers
102-3 Dark Reapers

Total Points
361

Overall Total
1,996 Points, 14 CP

I own none of these models yet, so nothing's final.

I didn't see a response to this so I'll give it a crack. As always advice is meta-dependant and highly opinionated.

I have made the assumption that the Autarch is the warlord for the CP regen and that you're probably taking wings on the Warlock so you can use him to jinx the enemy since you don't have any good buff targets for him.

Everyone knows farseers are good. Farseers on bikes are not an exception. Never leave home without doom.

Illic sucks- he can't even ignore invulnerable saves let alone do the laundry list of things a vindicare can do.

Fusion Gun on Autarch can be cut if you need points at some point in the future.

6x5 rangers are fine. I prefer a mix of troops myself since dire avengers have better defensive stats when not in cover, are cheaper, can advance and shoot, and have more wounds. Can't really go wrong with rangers. Both kinds of guardians are also decent but you'll get what you pay for.

MSU Dark reapers are for tempest launcher spam. Where are your tempest launchers? You clearly aren't msu to fill the detachment since you have 6HS slots wasting space. Big blobs of reapers can fire & fade or be buffed to high heavens. Group up or take some tempest launchers.

Support weapons are decent after their points cut. I don't have a lot of experience with them but I did hear of 3x3 Vibrocannons in the top results of a major last week. Make sure to magnetize these.

Maugan Ra? Okay. He's a decent alternative HQ if you have the points and don't need another farseer/warlock.

Not a huge fan of fire prisms myself. They're somewhat lackluster without the stratagem and I find that using the stratagem has a high chance of either wasting one fire prism's shooting or risking a high-priority target's survival.

[Wraith]

Not painting it and selling it as 'do it yourself' gotta be the laziest cashgrab Ive seen. Its not like we could've just sprayed any of the others and done it anyways, right? no we need this very special unpainted one. ugh.

In fairness, normal funko pops are sealed/varnished, which means you needs to sand them down if you want to do a decent paint job of your own on them. The naked ones at least just that step out, which is probably a great time-saver and assurance of quality, compared to accidentally sanding away someone's eye and then falling down the slippery slope of trying to do the other one to match, then going too far, and having to do the OTHER one again....

....I'm being very generous in this suggestion. There is no doubt in my mind that GW had every intention of selling naked pops, if it meant getting people to buy more paint and big brushes for them, too. :smalltongue:

[Bobby Baratheon]

I played the third round in my escalation league last week, and saw a G(M?)orkanaut in action for the first time (at 1000 points, no less). Thanks to it being a week ago and me almost never playing against Orks, I'm a little fuzzy on some of the details on his army, so I may get the specifics wrong. We also played on a 4x4 table with 12" deployment zones, so we started fairly close to each other.


Hive Tyrant w/ devourers, mrc and -1 to hit relic
Tyranid Prime

Warriors x3 w/ deathspitters and a mix of boneswords and scything talons
Warriors x3 w/ deathspitters and a mix of boneswords and scything talons
Rippers

5 Carnifexes w/ 4x devourers, spore cysts and acid maw


Weirdboy
The HQ with a random gun (warlord)
Some sort of Nob

20x slugga boyz
20x slugga boyz
10x gretchin

15ish lootas

Gorkanaut (or Morkanaut, idk)

This scenario was a weird one, with a single objective in the middle with a shrinking zone of control (18", shrinking by 3" every round) being the main way to win. First Blood, Slay the Warlord and Linebreaker were also in effect.


Turn 1
I go first, move forward into range and shoot a bunch. All but five of the boys are dead, the gretchin catching heat and dying thanks to a strategem. I chip a few wounds off the Naut. I get First Blood and control the objective. 2-0.

He goes and mostly just advances. He puts his shooting into my carnifexes, and as it turns out -1 to hit is really nasty when your army is BS5+. The exploding shots helped him, but those also being at -1 meant that, if he rolled a six, he had a 1/6 chance of getting another hit. One carnifex dies to weight of fire from the Naut and the Lootas. He goes to charge phase - the rest of the boyz die in overwatch and the Naut pulls off a 11" inch charge, killing two carnifexes and badly wounding another (putting me down to 2 left). I still control the objective, so no points for him. 2-0.

Turn 2
The wounded carnifex in melee falls back to be 1.1" outside of the Naut. I shoot the Naut with everything except the warriors (who kill ~6 lootas), finally bringing it down a bracket. I charge, sending in the wounded carnifex first to draw fire. It does, but miraculously it doesn't die. I then charge in the Hive Tyrant, the remaining fex and the Warriors. I start with the injured fex, which knocks a few wounds off. He interrupts with the stratagem, killing the injured carnifex and badly wounding the last one. I then fail to do anything with the other carnifex, but the Hive Tyrant straight murders it by rolling three 6's to wound (with each being Ap6 and D3). I consolidate, heading towards his remaining HQs and his looters.

His lootas fall victim to -1 to hit and miss with pretty much everything. He charges with his HQs, but fails to scratch the Hive Tyrant. The Hive Tyrant retaliates by murdering both HQs (his warlord is still alive, parked in a corner). I control the central objective still, so 3-0.

Turn 3
I move towards him and shoot down the rest of the lootas. I control the objective, so 4-0.

He shoots with his HQ, failing to kill the last carnifex, and concedes. I win 4-0.


Definitely one of the fastest games of 40k I've ever played. I was expecting him to bring as many boyz as fit into 1000 points (hence the five dakka fexesand devourers on the hive tyrant), so the Naut was a surprise. It did some damage, but its shooting got shafted pretty hard by the -1 to hit and there just wasn't a way it was going to survive melee with multiple carnifexes and a Hive Tyrant. So far in the league, I've virtually tabled each opponent on turn 3 of every game and most of that has been due to the carnifexes and the Walkrant. I get why the Walkrant is so vulnerable at higher points limits, but at low levels with the -1 to hit relic he's straight murderous. 9" movement with Kraken advance (and the 1CP stratagem to double the advance) and the capability of Onslaughting himself makes him very mobile. He's definitely been fun to use, so much so that I actually mostly finished painting him and named him the Lindwurm.

This week is 1250 points and is a weird custom scenario involving me defending a gate from Dark Angels (my main army in 7th when mechanized infantry was a viable strategy :smallfrown:). If he controls the gate, which is on the middle my side of the table and takes up 2" x 14", he gets to use sustained assault, which I obviously don't want to happen. I get a 12" deployment zone, but he gets a 24" one, so he can start 12" away from me. Crucially, he also automatically gets to go first, so I need screens and defense to survive the first turn onslaught. After messing around with lists, this is what I've arrived at:


Battalion - Kraken
Hive Tyrant w/ heavy venom cannon, mrc and -1 to hit relic
Neurothrope

Termagants x10
Termagants x10
Termagants x10

Carnifexes x3 w/ 2x scything talons and spore cysts

Battalion - Jormungandr
Tyranid Prime w/ deathspitter and boneswords
Tyranid Prime w/ deathspitter and boneswords

Warriors x3 w/ deathspitters, boneswords and a venom cannon
Warriors x3 w/ deathspitters, boneswords and a venom cannon
Warriors x3 w/ deathspitters, boneswords and a venom cannon

Tyrannofex w/ acid spray

The plan is pretty simple - the gants and the carnifexes are going to be our defensive line. If any of the carnifexes live, they can fall back and charge thanks to Kraken. In between that, everything gets to shoot. He has to get up in my face to win, so the limited range on the tyrannofex shouldn't matter and 4d6 S7 AP1 D1d3 auto-hits should do work against marines. The 8 shots from the stinger salvo on the tyrannofex and the warriors should give me a bunch of heavy bolter shots to chew through troops or chip wounds off anything bigger. My assumption is he's bringing bikes, but who knows. The 13 command points should be pretty important - if I can keep at least one melee heavy hitter alive, I can fight twice with it multiple rounds in combination with the reroll wounds stratagem. I also think I might go with mortal wound spam with the psykers - 2 smites and Psychic Scream should be good to mindbullet some fools. Since it's Dark Angels, I also assume that he's bringing plasma spam, so -1 to hit on the Hive Tyrant and the carnifexes should go a long ways towards keeping them alive. I might also burn 2 CP on the Prepared Position stratagem just to get the fexes and Hive Tyrant to 2+ saves for the first turn. The T.O.'s gave us a few custom stratagems for this round, noe of which gives a unit +1 to its save until it moves. Giving the Hive Tyrant +2 to his 3+ save in addition to being -1 to shoot at and having a 4+ invulnerable might be enough to keep him alive the first turn, with Catalyst hopefully picking up the slack once he does.

[Tyracus]

Then why isnt Infinity everywhere and anywhere?
- Solid models. The sculpts are some of the best across the industry.
- Low entry cost. You can have a full Infinity army for less than a full KT roster, adjusting for factions of course.
- Amazing entry level products. The 2 player boxes with the Beyond upgrade give you 2 tournament-size armies, completely viable, without fiddling with single model / unit purchases
- A well mantained lore that is constantly evolving.
- Tight control over the ruleset, enacting changes and fix through constant feedback from the community.
- Worldwide campaigns with impact in the lore AND the release of new models based on that.

So its solid, balanced, supported and not an aftertought. Its also still tiny in the US, dead here and likely wont ever massively break outside of Spain.

Distribution is a big issue as well. I know my local shop has issues getting it and often gets shorted specials/limited items. Also there are a few translation issues (one of the missions in ITS was completely different in English vs. Spanish) but it is well supported and the company puts a lot of effort and care into the game. Said rules also make a sharp spike in the learning curve early on but after that it's a matter of application and practice (I personally find the constant memorization of new codices and rules for 40K to be more tedious). Also impacting it is the limited gaming market and the niche appeal/limited history of Infinity and it's a bit of a struggle to gain market share (but Corvus has been doing well). Really the market is pretty heavily flooded if you look around and disposable income is generally down.

That aside how are other people seeing knights in their meta. It's kind of turned things into a weird rock/paper/scissors meta locally for us and are generally a massive pain to deal with if your codex came out before they were released. As Tau I get "You have railguns" (hint, they don't work well) or "Your line troops wound them on 5s" (had to resist laughing in his face in trying to pass mass firewarriors as an answer to knights) and with Nids it was "Mass Hive Guard, double shoot and pray" which is not really that useful either (I have 0 of said model) so they're generally "Play against and loose because I can't mass enough ommph" or beat knights and don't have enough to work against hordes. Just curious what else other people are seeing and your opinions on how knights have hit the meta in your experience.

[Requizen]

Distribution is a big issue as well. I know my local shop has issues getting it and often gets shorted specials/limited items. Also there are a few translation issues (one of the missions in ITS was completely different in English vs. Spanish) but it is well supported and the company puts a lot of effort and care into the game. Said rules also make a sharp spike in the learning curve early on but after that it's a matter of application and practice (I personally find the constant memorization of new codices and rules for 40K to be more tedious). Also impacting it is the limited gaming market and the niche appeal/limited history of Infinity and it's a bit of a struggle to gain market share (but Corvus has been doing well). Really the market is pretty heavily flooded if you look around and disposable income is generally down.

That aside how are other people seeing knights in their meta. It's kind of turned things into a weird rock/paper/scissors meta locally for us and are generally a massive pain to deal with if your codex came out before they were released. As Tau I get "You have railguns" (hint, they don't work well) or "Your line troops wound them on 5s" (had to resist laughing in his face in trying to pass mass firewarriors as an answer to knights) and with Nids it was "Mass Hive Guard, double shoot and pray" which is not really that useful either (I have 0 of said model) so they're generally "Play against and loose because I can't mass enough ommph" or beat knights and don't have enough to work against hordes. Just curious what else other people are seeing and your opinions on how knights have hit the meta in your experience.
Knights in regular 40k were a mistake. Are they completely dominating the meta? No, but it also kinda depends on your definition of "dominating". They shape it more than any other army imo, their mere existence, as you said, shapes the way you build your army. Armies that can take on Knights and still be TAC do well. Sometimes those armies just have TAC builds that can deal with Knights already, and that's good for them. Other armies can not play around Knights and build the TAC list... and then just get stomped when they have to play Knights.

Superheavies should have stayed in Apocalypse. :smallmad:

[LordDavenport]

Question for the thread: would a battle tech style simultaneous shooting phase make 40k better or worse? As in, both players pick targets for all of their units, then shoot them all. Dead models are removed at the end of the phase.


Knights in regular 40k were a mistake. Are they completely dominating the meta? No, but it also kinda depends on your definition of "dominating". They shape it more than any other army imo, their mere existence, as you said, shapes the way you build your army. Armies that can take on Knights and still be TAC do well. Sometimes those armies just have TAC builds that can deal with Knights already, and that's good for them. Other armies can not play around Knights and build the TAC list... and then just get stomped when they have to play Knights.

Superheavies should have stayed in Apocalypse. :smallmad:

Yeah... Depends how many knights. A single shooty knight can be ignored, and you just kill everything around it. Gallants though have to be fought directly.

DE have a massed dizzies+blasters, Impirium has knights and death company, chaos has knights, and Nids have ambushing abominants pretending to be death company. Dunno if orks have an answer, maybe mek guns, but necrons and Tau seem to be the main ones left hanging. Though just giving necrons a knight would be cool, people seem opposed.

[Manticoran]

Question for the thread: would a battle tech style simultaneous shooting phase make 40k better or worse? As in, both players pick targets for all of their units, then shoot them all. Dead models are removed at the end of the phase.

My friends and I used to do this for in house matches. We'd do movement priority based on initiative, shooting declarations based on reverse initiative but actually happening all at once, and then obz fighting happens in initiative order.

[Requizen]

Question for the thread: would a battle tech style simultaneous shooting phase make 40k better or worse? As in, both players pick targets for all of their units, then shoot them all. Dead models are removed at the end of the phase.

Dollars to donuts this is how Apocalypse will work. AoS has a "variant mode" for large scale games (basically Apoc) where you do this as well.

In regular 40k? I think it would work fine, but that big of a mechanic shift would really shake up the community. Not sure how well it would be received. I quite like the Kill Team alternating players + Readied Units style, which is also quite different from what we have. IGOUGO is not great from a balance perspective, but it does give 40k that easy pick up and play feel.


Yeah... Depends how many knights. A single shooty knight can be ignored, and you just kill everything around it. Gallants though have to be fought directly.

DE have a massed dizzies+blasters, Impirium has knights and death company, chaos has knights, and Nids have ambushing abominants pretending to be death company. Dunno if orks have an answer, maybe mek guns, but necrons and Tau seem to be the main ones left hanging. Though just giving necrons a knight would be cool, people seem opposed.

Dunno about Tau:

The Obelisk is supposed to be a Superheavy, but is terrible.
The TVault is a good superheavy, but is pretty limited in target selection and gets bogged in melee (despite having fly).
The new big walker thing is supposed to be a Necron Knight, but they overpriced it out of anything resembling usefulness.

Edit: Actually the Walker and Vault are both reasonable, but Necrons don't have the unit types to run one of them and still have a reasonable TAC list behind it, due to what the units do and how much they cost.

[Yaktan]

Tau are actually really good against knights. Firewarrior spam is a key part of how I do it too. One key is to be T'au sept, so you get the sweet, sweet, +1 to wound strat.

My army easily trashes a knight a turn, with ghostkeels and my 20 firewarriors with fireblade with Through unity, devestation doing most of the heavy lifting.

The shooty knights are actually a bit harder for me, since they can hang back. A gallant is a joke. It has a good chance of getting bracketed at least on overwatch if it tries charging my stuff. And then it kills a couple breachers or stealth suits? Oh no, whatever will I do?

[Forum Explorer]

Distribution is a big issue as well. I know my local shop has issues getting it and often gets shorted specials/limited items. Also there are a few translation issues (one of the missions in ITS was completely different in English vs. Spanish) but it is well supported and the company puts a lot of effort and care into the game. Said rules also make a sharp spike in the learning curve early on but after that it's a matter of application and practice (I personally find the constant memorization of new codices and rules for 40K to be more tedious). Also impacting it is the limited gaming market and the niche appeal/limited history of Infinity and it's a bit of a struggle to gain market share (but Corvus has been doing well). Really the market is pretty heavily flooded if you look around and disposable income is generally down.

That aside how are other people seeing knights in their meta. It's kind of turned things into a weird rock/paper/scissors meta locally for us and are generally a massive pain to deal with if your codex came out before they were released. As Tau I get "You have railguns" (hint, they don't work well) or "Your line troops wound them on 5s" (had to resist laughing in his face in trying to pass mass firewarriors as an answer to knights) and with Nids it was "Mass Hive Guard, double shoot and pray" which is not really that useful either (I have 0 of said model) so they're generally "Play against and loose because I can't mass enough ommph" or beat knights and don't have enough to work against hordes. Just curious what else other people are seeing and your opinions on how knights have hit the meta in your experience.

Knights are annoying, but can be handled by nearly every army in the game. Especially since Knights can no longer get a 3++. Eldar have Doom and Jinx, Dark Eldar just have a ton of Dizzy cannons, Haywire, and Blasters, Orks have Meganobs, Mek Guns, and double shooting Tank Bustas, Harliquins have Haywire, Tyranids have Old One Eye, melee Carnies, Hive Guard, and Genestealer Cult allies, Genestealer Cults have Abominates and 8 Rocksaws on Acolytes, Space Marines have Smash Captains and Blood Angels, Imperial Guard have Basilisks, and massed Leman Russ fire, all Imperium Armies have Knights to counter Knights, Chaos has Knights. Tau have the Tau Sept, along with High Yield Missile Pods, and Ion Cannons (you are right, Railguns are awful right now.)

Necrons struggle the most I think. But now that Knights can't have a 3++, three units of Destroyers and 3 Annihilation Barges can get the job done.

On the note of Railguns being awful, I really think they either need to be more reliable (give them two shots), or, and this is the one I prefer, make their damage 2D6. Right now they are a Lascannon that might do some extra mortal wounds on a 6. Which is awful and doesn't come up, because you only have like 4 Railguns max in your army. Unlike Lascannons where you can have what? ~30 if you really wanted that many?

So yeah, Railguns need to do more then a piddly D6 damage.

[JNAProductions]

Did you mean Doomsday Arks, not Annihilation Barges? Because ABarges... Not doing much to a Knight, generally.

[Cheesegear]

As Tau I get "You have railguns" (hint, they don't work well) or "Your line troops wound them on 5s" (had to resist laughing in his face in trying to pass mass firewarriors as an answer to knights) and with Nids it was "Mass Hive Guard, double shoot and pray" which is not really that useful either (I have 0 of said model) so they're generally "Play against and loose because I can't mass enough ommph"

Knights are the epitome of 'Buy New Models'.
Every Faction in the game has the ability to shut down a Knight. As we know, when it comes to units dealing and taking damage, the game is the most balanced it's ever been. The problem is that units dealing and receiving damage is secondary to the true Objective of the game - have more models than your opponent on specific parts of the board.

Some Factions can even safely deal with 2 Knights. They're not that hard. T8 with a 4++. There are ways to deal with that.

Most Factions will have trouble dealing with 3. But thankfully, someone running 3 Knights probably wont be able to hold Objectives and Tabling doesn't work anymore. Thankfully, '3+ Knights' doesn't mesh well with 'Have more models than your opponent.'

The issue is that some people can't afford to deal with Knights. There is nothing wrong with your Faction (except for Grey Knights, Necrons and to a lesser extent, T'au). There is a problem, however, with what you have.


or beat knights and don't have enough to work against hordes

If your Troops are over 7 Points per model, you're right.
If your Troops are 7 Points or less, you should be handling hordes just fine.

The only army in the game that has issues with hordes is Necrons.


Just curious what else other people are seeing and your opinions on how knights have hit the meta in your experience.

Knights hit our meta.
Within 2, 4 and 6 months at the outside...Everyone had bought their Faction's counter.

Buy new models.

It's not that people can't deal with Knights. It's that people can't deal with Knights... With what they have.


Question for the thread: would a battle tech style simultaneous shooting phase make 40k better or worse?

Worse. First turn is the only turn that matters. If you have Reserves, you lose, the end.
Castle up and win.

I suppose you might end up selling Fortifications. Is that a plus?

[Manticoran]

Worse. First turn is the only turn that matters. If you have Reserves, you lose, the end.
Castle up and win.

I suppose you might end up selling Fortifications. Is that a plus?

Maybe we just have a ton of Los blocking terrain more than most people, but we generally found that a lot of stuff doesn't get to shoot turn 1.

We have a lot of buildings and giant rocks and dense forest terrain though.

We definitely did have that problem until we started using a lot more terrain.

[EhDerangedMonk]

Question for the thread: would a battle tech style simultaneous shooting phase make 40k better or worse? As in, both players pick targets for all of their units, then shoot them all. Dead models are removed at the end of the phase.

Worse. Imperial Knights can spend 1cp to function as if they were completely undamaged while people without knights will simply have dead or crippled models. In battletech mechs without an arm can't randomly operate at full capacity if they survive the turn. The result of this gameplay would be massive overkill on one knight so that your entire first turn isn't wasted due to a little rng while a knight player can freely spread damage as even a couple wounds diminishes the effectiveness of an army.

This also sucks for melee who have to move, eat an entire shooting phase from their enemy, then charge. Imagine the bloodletter bomb but your opponent gets to have their entire shooting phase to deal with it before you charge.

Your suggestion would require significant rework but I could see it working in apocalypse or if they make killing things a little more challenging in 40k.

[Forum Explorer]

Did you mean Doomsday Arks, not Annihilation Barges? Because ABarges... Not doing much to a Knight, generally.

I did, thank you. :smallsmile:

[Cheesegear]

Maybe we just have a ton of Los blocking terrain more than most people

Define how many pieces you have, and I'll be able to tell you.


We definitely did have that problem until we started using a lot more terrain.

I believe the current standard is 8 pieces of terrain, two of which block LoS. The ITC has added that all of the lowest levels of Ruins always block LoS. This has caused some problems where things like Night Spinners, Basilisks and Wyverns are OP...The bonuses from Vigilus make the problem even worse.

Also, define 'we'. How many tables are you running simultaneously? Do they all have the same amount of terrain?

[Voidhawk]

Only two pieces of LoS blocking terrain as standard? Really? Our table generally has around four, and I've thought for a while it's not enough and we should get some more large pieces to create more interesting fire lanes.

Cheesegear, your metagame continues to be the worst I've ever heard of, while still being technically playable. If everything can see everywhere, of course you're going to get static gameplay.

[Cheesegear]

Only two pieces of LoS blocking terrain as standard?

Sort of?


Cheesegear, your metagame continues to be the worst I've ever heard of, while still being technically playable...

My meta's results line up fairly reasonably with current tournament metrics.
As a competitive meta, we - mostly - follow what the competitive circuit, does. Including terrain set up.

Too much terrain, means that Melee armies dominate.
Too little terrain, means that Shooty armies dominate.

(4) Two pieces per long edge that partially block LoS (e.g; Ruin or Building; IMO, the ITC does this wrong, by 'partially blocking', they mean the entire bottom level of the Ruin, which may as well read 'fully blocks')
(6) Between each two pieces on the long edge, a piece of terrain that does not block LoS (e.g; Forest or Hill).
(8) Two pieces in the middle of the board that fully block LoS (e.g; Impassable Building).
The sum total of the area of all terrain pieces should be 4'x2'.

I guess overall there should be six pieces that block LoS in some fashion...But only two in the middle of the board.

If it's good enough for tournaments, it's good enough for casual games.

[Avaris]

Only two pieces of LoS blocking terrain as standard? Really? Our table generally has around four, and I've thought for a while it's not enough and we should get some more large pieces to create more interesting fire lanes.

Cheesegear, your metagame continues to be the worst I've ever heard of, while still being technically playable. If everything can see everywhere, of course you're going to get static gameplay.

In fairness, there isn’t a lot of terrain around that fully blocks LoS, in the sets produced by GW at least.

Though the idea of using a strict allocation of scenery in casual games, like Cheesegear seems to be suggesting, is utterly alien to me. We just go with what looks cool: often I’ll set up a board before my opponent shows up, and check they’re happy with it before just getting on with the game.

[Cheesegear]

Though the idea of using a strict allocation of scenery in casual games, like Cheesegear seems to be suggesting, is utterly alien to me. We just go with what looks cool: often I’ll set up a board before my opponent shows up, and check they’re happy with it before just getting on with the game.

Yeah. You can do it by eye if you've got enough terrain pieces...One for each corner and four scatter pieces. But again, I'm told that the minimum terrain should be 33% of the board, with the maximum being 50%.

However, as everyone knows, it's not the amount of terrain that matters. It's also the type.
A board with nothing but Forests on it, plays very differently to a board that's all Ruins.
Which is why a board shouldn't be all Ruins or all Forests. But some of both.

The instant you put Impassable Terrain on the board, the game plays very differently.
The instant you put LoS-Blockers on the board, the game plays very differently.

Depending on how many LoS-Blockers and Impassable Terrain you put on the board, can dramatically swing whether your army should be Melee or Shooty.
Too much Impassable Terrain mean that Melee armies that can't teleport are in for a bad time.
Too much LoS-Blockers mean that Shooty armies are in for a bad time.

I deploy my Reserves on Turn 2, over here.
"I use Early Warning."
You can't see me because I deployed behind LoS. Also, I Charge.
"I Overwatch."
Um akshully, you can Charge things you can't see, but you can't Overwatch things you can't see.
"Cool, T'au suck."

How do you decide how much terrain, the type of terrain, and whether or not it blocks Movement and/or LoS? How do you decide what terrain goes on the board insofar that it's fair for both players - whether they realise it or not?

...Easy. You don't decide terrain.
Terrain is decided for you.
Don't worry about terrain. Just play the game.
One of the things that the ITC does right, is that with thousands of hours worth of play-testing from dozens and dozens of tournaments - around the entire world - they have the metrics which allow them to balance the game, insofar as figuring out the fairest way to play the game. One of the easiest ways to balance out the game - for all Factions - is terrain placement.

Why would anyone play a Shooty army in a meta that floods the board with LoS-blockers? Why would you negate an entire phase like that?
Why is that better than playing on a board with no LoS-blocks and letting shooty armies dominate?
Either way, bad terrain placement negates at least one phase of the game, with even worse terrain placement can even negate the movement phase, too.

It doesn't matter if your opponent is happy with the terrain, because they agree to the terrain placement before they even show up to the table, because that's how you organise a meta and make sure everyone's on the same page before they even start playing.

As I said, if it's good enough for competitive game, it's good enough for a casual game.

Player placed Terrain, combined with player-placed Objectives, almost always means that one player has an advantage over the other before Deployment even starts. It's just a matter of rolling for table sides and who gets 'the good side'.

[Forum Explorer]

For terrain, my gamestore has premade boxes. Go in, pull out a box, take terrain out and put on the board. Our tables end up quite crowded, but there's only a few LoS blockers. Usually more than two though.

[Manticoran]

Why would anyone play a Shooty army in a meta that floods the board with LoS-blockers? Why would you negate an entire phase like that?
Why is that better than playing on a board with no LoS-blocks and letting shooty armies dominate?
Either way, bad terrain placement negates at least one phase of the game, with even worse terrain placement can even negate the movement phase, too.

Haha yeah we're using way more terrain. I'd say about a quarter of the board gets Los blocking terrain, and 3/8 to half of the board in other types.

Maybe everyone shooting at once balances some with way more terrain?