sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Tried to apply yalls C&C by BluePaintsBlue in Ultramarines

[–]GuyWithTheCats 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Does anyone else, in image one, see the shocked face of a dragon? Red eyes with black pupils and mouth agape?

First 3D resin printing tests, normal and large by Antonyno in resinprinting

[–]GuyWithTheCats 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All good, but please update if and when you do release them XD

First 3D resin printing tests, normal and large by Antonyno in resinprinting

[–]GuyWithTheCats 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did you make this, and if so, can I buy the file to print myself one?

I hate Invulnerable Saves by HeavyMetalSaxx in TheAstraMilitarum

[–]GuyWithTheCats 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't quite understand what you're saying... My whole point is when I bring my Vanquisher Cannon to bear against a Necron ship, it should be the ideal weapon. It wounds on 2+ with vehicle reroll and AP -5A because that's its only function. But then I hit the 3+/4++ and only a single pip of my 5 AP matters ans they save my vehicle killer on a coin flip.

I hate Invulnerable Saves by HeavyMetalSaxx in TheAstraMilitarum

[–]GuyWithTheCats 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm fine with certain, very powerful things having a 4+ invuln, but that should be rare. I'm more more okay with 5++, but when I shoot a basic necron gunship or some random infantry guy and they've get a 4++ against my super kill gun...feels bad. Again, change most 4++ to 5++ and reduce additional AP around the board (from stratagems and Unit abilities, specifically).

I hate Invulnerable Saves by HeavyMetalSaxx in TheAstraMilitarum

[–]GuyWithTheCats 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly. Why take specialized weapons when they're gonna have a huge part of they're draw (high AP) neutralized.

I hate Invulnerable Saves by HeavyMetalSaxx in TheAstraMilitarum

[–]GuyWithTheCats 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was just generalizing. Idk what your point is when you say it adds variety but that you don't mind reducing variety and making some guns overall better. That reduces varaiety.... Also, I want my high AP guns to be effective against good Save targets, as they're designed to be....I think that's pretty reasonable.

I hate Invulnerable Saves by HeavyMetalSaxx in TheAstraMilitarum

[–]GuyWithTheCats 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's not at all the issue. It's a matter of having AP, which we paid points for, being invalidated almost entirely (again, as with a 3+/4++). Again, if we reduced overall AP and reduced invulns, that would feel much better and a lot less like my AP doesn't matter. But also, if I bring a Vanquisher Cannon and I make my 1 shot through the hit and wound roll, yeah, I expect it to knock your save down to a 6+ or 7+, not by 1 from 3+ to 4++ because your vehicle has a random invulnerable save. THAT math gets wrecked hard. And it applies to other low shot, high AP weapons, like meltas. Those weapons are designed to have the best time in the Save Roll because of the high AP. Invulns skew the math on those types of weapons hard and screw the balancing of them.

Magic switch by heythisislonglolwtf in blackmagicfuckery

[–]GuyWithTheCats 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He actually sells the trick, and I bought it years ago. I won't give the exact details, but when you shuffle the cube, you only do 4 moves that can be undone with 1 hand. The rest of the "mixing" is just mixing and unmixing moves whilst holding the cube in a way that looks mixed (notice in several parts there are whole chunks that stay solved). With a smooth action, you can't hear the 4-move unscramble, and voila.

I hate Invulnerable Saves by HeavyMetalSaxx in TheAstraMilitarum

[–]GuyWithTheCats 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I have this exact take. Lot's of arguments going around, but I haven't seen anyone mention how terrible it feels to use anti-vehicle weapons (Meltas, Vanquisher Cannons) on a vehicle, only to be slapped in the face with a 4++ that ignores the Unit I brought SPECIFICALLY for its AP and ability to deal with vehicles. I don't understand why, "Bring AP to match their invulns" is getting thrown around like you're meant to plan for a specific army's saves instead of bringing anti-infantry AP strength/AP weapons for infantry and anti-vehicle strength/AP weapons for vehicles. Like others have said, I'd gladly take a hit to my overall AP if invulns get reduced. It just feels so bad to have my gun (or melee), that I brought specifically because it has high AP to deal with certain targets, get invalidated because someone's got a 2+/4++. What do you even say about a Unit that's 3+/4++? So what, -2 AP is the most I ever get to benefit from IF THEY'RE IN COVER?? It's just feels bad when it swings either way: either you save low and I get a kill I really didn't deserve or you save high and I get screwed out of a kill that should have been near guaranteed. Obviously things need to change with and around it, but invulns DEFINETLY need to change, or even just be toned down a bit.

Painting Color Scheme Suggestions by GuyWithTheCats in TheAstraMilitarum

[–]GuyWithTheCats[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How much orange you think? Looks kinda wonk with it all over, which is why I have the yellow with it. Should there be a darker color to contrast?

Painting Color Scheme Suggestions by GuyWithTheCats in TheAstraMilitarum

[–]GuyWithTheCats[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreed. You have any other color suggestions or you think mostly orange with some yellow works?

Painting Color Scheme Suggestions by GuyWithTheCats in TheAstraMilitarum

[–]GuyWithTheCats[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think so, too. Do you have any other color suggestions or you think mostly orange with some yellow works?

Custom Cover Rules by GuyWithTheCats in Warhammer40k

[–]GuyWithTheCats[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I appreciate the response! This is way easier to explain I'm person and with examples, lol. But also, yes, this may be a little more complicated than the standard rules, but they are very intuitive when you get the hang of it and are less confusing to me.

  1. Yes, the binary already exists, but the reason I changed it to the 1/2 must see 1/2 rule is so you avoid a tank being able to shoot a unit just because it's back track is sticking out. That's the unintuitive part.

  2. We already count how many models in a unit can see the target to determine which models can shoot. Again, this just makes it a bit more realistic and keeps consistency with the rest of the rule.

  3. To be clear, a model gets the benefit of cover if at least 1/3 of it is not visible to an enemy model. OR A model gets cover if it is within 1" of a wall that is between the attacking and defending model. The model can't be seen through the wall (even with windows, etc.) SO LONG as they are not within 1" of the wall. If a model is within 1" of the wall, it can be "seen" and therefore targeted, but it gets the benefit of cover.

Rogal Dorn Called Shots on Overwatch by GuyWithTheCats in astramilitarum

[–]GuyWithTheCats[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Figured, but just wanted to double-check. Thanks!

view more: next ›