Slips Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Pray that it is 'cuz I'm bringing an Achilles to a game and having that much of a powerful gun on a tank thats only second to the Spartan in toughness would be devastating :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nehekhare Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 since codex lists are generally much more points-efficient, I'd recommend mandatory changes to 40k lists when played against 30k, not the other way around: -no eternal warrior -no and they shall know no fear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dono1979 Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 yeah good luck getting 40K players who are already hesitant to play against 30K to adopt THOSE rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nusquam Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 An added note: Book 4 clarifies scoring as only troops and things that say they score in their rules actually do so. So no "everything scores" from 7th. Though they all deny normally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Memento Of Prospero Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 This discussion just received quite a few clarifications from the December FAQ from forgeworld. I've played 5 cross games so far, and my experience is this : 40k players are not ready for the legions. Their "meta" game is so stiff and different from what we bring to the table that they tend to fumble in the first few games. They don't know how to deal with a Spartan. They also don't know how to deal with 20 man Iron Hands tacticals with an apothecary and a sergeant with a 2+ save. Once they get the hang of it, the games get a lot more interesting - but they need to tailor to us. I haven't come across any issues that need amendments so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galron Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Agreed. I still play my legions solely against 40k armies but I tend to use the same list for each of my two legions with a minor change here and there just to try things out. My opponents for some reason do not like changing their tactics so I tend to maul them. I have even told them how to beat my armies. It is very doable. Then again one player fields a huge DA army, we have gone 7500 vs 7500 before, but he likes his fluffy armies. So do I but fluffy armies in 30k are viable, not so much in 40k. Nusquam- read the FAQ, that situation was resolved along with almost everything else there were questions about that I can think of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hisdudeness Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 What you two are describing is no different than any new codex release. 30k is nothing more than one big new flavor of space marines. Spartans and artificer armor is new but not nearly as hard to deal with as you make it sound. I play mostly mixed games and have had none of the issues I'm seeing here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Memento Of Prospero Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 What you two are describing is no different than any new codex release. 30k is nothing more than one big new flavor of space marines. Spartans and artificer armor is new but not nearly as hard to deal with as you make it sound. I play mostly mixed games and have had none of the issues I'm seeing here. I never said it was a balance issue. I said they are not expecting this kind of stuff (who brings land raiders to competitive play in 40k?). They don't expect you to have a sergeant you can sacrifice up front to soak up AP 3 attacks. They just have to ''work for it'' a little more, as the usual response to a Landraider is '' LOL MELTA '' or to marine blobs, '' LOL HELLDRAKE / BATTLE CANNON! '' Once they get the hang of it the games are actually fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hisdudeness Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Neither did I. It'is your opponents problem for not listening when you mention this stuff before the game...or not noticing these new things for a army list that has been out for over 2 years. Again, I've not encountered these issues with those I play against. I also do not play competitive any more, that is what drove me from 40k. They get on these sites and copy/pasta lists and then think they are competitive players. 30k is not a competitive game. Back on point, as long as you are playing over 2000 points no one will notice a difference besides a new 'codex' on the table. Anything below that and 40k armies will be more than most 30k armies can handle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galron Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 We do have an amazing amount of tools in our bag and there really is no "ONE" competitive build and can build our armies any multiples of ways with fairly strong supporting characters to further screw with their heads and amp up the armies. That's something no other army in the game can say. I love looking through the army list area and seeing people's thoughts on builds, a shame more people don't post there. I toss mine up there from time to time to hope someone else sees a glaring weakness I don't. If anything is OP versus a 40k codex, its just our sheer range of options. In a competitive game(which I haven't played since 5th) at the time you could ask your opponent what are you playing, and for example they said Space Wolves, (note this is just an example) you could expect to be see lots of thunderwolves and Jaws of the World Wolf priests. Like the IG of old with their doctrine system, ask a Legion player that and you have no clue what they will bring until you actually see the list except that it in some way involves marines and you will see a bunch of 2+ and 3+ armor saves. This can be very tactically advantageous. Using my IG reference I had a pickup game with a jerk no one else wanted to play. And one of the other players who knew both of us and what we were fielding actually made a rather lewd bet involving the jerk's model hot gf(why jerks get the smoking hot GFs remains one of the great mysteries of life) . Both of us simply stated we were playing IG. I place some heavy weapons on the field, heavy bolter teams in fact and he was like, "you wont be needing those against my army and can sub them out with something else if you want." At this point I laughed as I realized he was fielding an armored company. Yeah I was fielding an IG Drop troop army, geared for the high numbers of vehicles and walkers in my area, no vehicles, multiple platoons with melta special weapon teams, command squads with melta and plasma, storm trooper squads with melta, and the token heavy weapons platoon I brought as static fire support as I tended to saturate areas with deep strikers. I set up the heavy weapons teams in cover across my deployment zone and said "good and thanks for the wide open terrain". He was confused and I told him what doctrines my army was using. It was a slaughter. He ignored my heavy bolter guys the whole game and his battle line was a confusing disaster as his tanks drove all over and struggled to try and take out my squads landing point blank all over the place. My heavy bolters "I didn't need" took out a sentinel squadron and did the final shots to the rear of a Leman Russ tank for the final shots of the game. I lost more guys to tanks blowing up than I did for his shooting. I never found out if jerk boy ever made good on his end of the bet. What my long winded account from at least 8 years ago was meant to imply is one of the major problems 40k players have is they expect an army to play one or two ways and either deploy based on that or if they tailor, build their armies according to their mental stereotype of the army. Legion does not conform to and codex stereotype except the morale thing and that is minor. The biggest one that can really apply as a stereotype to us is in general our army has small numbers of guys in it with cool toys. But that's only a general statement since if we wanted, at 1600 points we could have 100 marines in 5 twenty man squads with apothecaries and an HQ. This does create a dangerous feeling across the table and a major sense of uncertainty which does tend to translate into a major game advantage. Is there a fix? Nope. Play your armies and hope your opponent catches on, then try something different to throw them for a loop. I find it fun anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hisdudeness Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Nailed it. Do the maths. We will have 18 Legions, with at least 8 or so generic RoW and 2 -3 legion specific RoW, with 4 different FOCs to choose from. That's over 500 different combinations for the same core list. We also have 3 choices of core troops (2-3 more with a RoW) that can dictate how our army is built. And since our HQs can mimic those core troops we can build very focused armies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaborerDNA Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 I played only against 40k(the only HH player around), and i can say that under 1850 points its pretty difficult to balance. I played world eaters against orks(we decided to have melee-oriented lists) and surprisingly i lost, due to huge numbers of bodies. The thing i noticed, if you dont at least cripple enemy unit at the first round of combat(providing you charged), it will be pretty difficult to recover. Lack of stubborn or fearless hurts a lot. Also, charging unit of ork walkers(the smaller ones) with Red Butchers seemed to be a good idea. But then i remembered i roll badly for invul saves and got killed in the second round of combat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.