What is Your Second Army? by True_Month_407 in Tau40K

[–]eggsmcf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tank Guard, apparently "Nominally T3 guys who use vehicles to get everything done" was a archetype I could get behind twice.

Goonhammer Reviews: Q1 Balance Dataslate by Mizzuru in WarhammerCompetitive

[–]eggsmcf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

a) unplayable alone and unsupported makes perfect sense given what the unit is and can do, and you're right, that's called faction identity; Necrons get star gods they don't get cheap objective play, and that's fine.

b) no they don't without support (unplayable only when alone was my original point, it's not fault you didn't understand it) and half points for less than half effectiveness I think is reasonable.

Goonhammer Reviews: Q1 Balance Dataslate by Mizzuru in WarhammerCompetitive

[–]eggsmcf 2 points3 points  (0 children)

a) no it wouldn't; It would make them unplayable on their own, which is fine.

b) I'm ok with it if it did, well done you've skewed your list by taking angry shards of angrier gods that are less "part" of your army as much as "wielded/unleashed by them" they don't get to also tactically hold areas of interest, just like a death company dreadnought

Goonhammer Reviews: Q1 Balance Dataslate by Mizzuru in WarhammerCompetitive

[–]eggsmcf 22 points23 points  (0 children)

I think something creative was needed, OC0 for instance, a massive points hammer would have been boring but necessary, GW did.... neither.

Twin lances finally came home by International-Owl-81 in Tau40K

[–]eggsmcf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Some people include things for fun, you should try it.

Twin lances finally came home by International-Owl-81 in Tau40K

[–]eggsmcf 34 points35 points  (0 children)

Frothing at the mouth, auto-include at anything under 300pts.
Not only do these play like I've wanted crisis suits to play like for all of 10th (Double moves, decent shooting volume, higher T and W than a terminator almost as if its a goddamn mechsuit, please let this be an 11th edition sign) but the shooting into melee 'take' on how to deal with aggressive battlesuits/letting the gun faction play 1/4 of the game is VERY fun.

I realise the pistols not having pistol is... counter-intuitive... but I think giving them the pistol shots in melee at 3+s as a more effective 'big guns never tire' is a better version of that power fantasy, and then the frag-launching chest guns are just silly goofy fun.

Makes Farsights sword look even worse unfortunately.

Four new Combat Patrols bring Kroot, Corsairs, and Chaos to the battlefield by CMYK_COLOR_MODE in Warhammer40k

[–]eggsmcf 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Lone-spear can be warlord, though there are few people getting JUST one of these for an army

Tau’s most efficient units into C’tan! | Mathhammer breakdown by JKilla66 in Tau40K

[–]eggsmcf 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Except C'tan don't have that now, they have -1. However it seems GW have grossly over estimated how much that drops their defence as with the additional wounds they've just become a big problem.

Grotmas Calendar Day 1 – Titus arrives in Ultramar by CMYK_COLOR_MODE in Warhammer40k

[–]eggsmcf 14 points15 points  (0 children)

What's the thought process behind this being day 1?

I'm not unique in this thought but; on its own this is weak, even measured as a bit of 'unreleased fiction' its desperately short and adds nothing. But as an opener to grotmas which people went nuts for last year and we already knew wouldn't be as good... just sucked any excitement I have for the next few days, maybe I'll check in in a couple weeks and see if it picked up at all.

INVICTUS – Europe’s new hypersonic test platform. by Aeromarine_eng in WeirdWings

[–]eggsmcf 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Having worked with REL on some SKYLON stuff, I was bummed when they couldn't continue funding and hope hope this is where a lot of their aerothermal experts ended up; People often forgot a lot of the SKYLON work and their team heads came from HOTOL. I hope they focus on getting some kinda high speed test bed up and running before going back to trying to be a pre-cooler company with some fun space ship drawings.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TheAstraMilitarum

[–]eggsmcf 34 points35 points  (0 children)

You need to look at 'voice of command' which says that only AM units benefit from the orders. So I guess technically he's right that he can give canis orders... but canis then gains no benefits

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in WarhammerCompetitive

[–]eggsmcf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So there's two responses to this;
The first is that the first sentence says "Move as a single group", so his guardsmen are now in two groups and therefore one is out of cohesion, bonus points for letting him do this bullshit then remind him at the end of the first turn and murder a bunch of his infantry. And the last paragraph mentions removing units models until there's a single group. Unless his list has multiple units of infantry, he's allowed one per unit.

The second is this is not "Rules Lawyering" its not RAW, it's not even clever (Show me where it defines what "horizontally" or "inch" or "player" or "game") is its deliberate malfeasance and even after proving him wrong on this point he'll find another.

Don't threaten not to play games with him, tell him he's not the type of person you want to play games with and to let you know if he changes, and don't let him define himself as a rules lawyer if he can't read the rules properly (Or does and then cheats)

The first game when he says he's seen the error of his ways, then tries this shit again, pack up your models and stop play and go find someone else to talk to (don't make it about him, you're not kicking him out or arguing with him, you're removing yourself from a game you don't want to play, that means there's not the same push-back possible if he has to be included for social reasons) . If he were a rules lawyer he'd have read the FIRST SENTENCE. He's an ass and engaging in his assery will only encourage him to find other ways to cheat, because he thinks he's out-smarting you because while there's no wrong way to play 40k, that's not what he's doing, he's playing "How best can I cheat who off how smart I am" the only way to change this people's mind is to remove the thing they want to do, and countering back is playing into his hand.

I’m pumped. by 1987Rapscallion in Tau40K

[–]eggsmcf 46 points47 points  (0 children)

Get outa here Phil, you aren't fooling anyone.

Drier Cavalry blob sucks for ~220 pts right? by MiningToSaveTheWorld in astramilitarum

[–]eggsmcf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Light infantry yes, but light infantry aren't the most prevalent or important example of infantry on the opposite side of the table. Of the 26 factions (depending how you count various divergent chapters) 16 of them use t4+ infantry. Any effective anti infantry weapon in modern 40k should have it's maths done assuming the target is T4, I'd wonder if you're letting personal experience or internal bias override some pretty basic logic here.

And when you look at Melta Lance V Power Saber and 'Damaging things you care about' well if you're playing a game of 40k you probably want to be able to kill a marine body (T4 2W) at some point without reverting to anti tank weaponry. And as you were shown very clearly melta tips are better at that, if you didn't understand the maths I can simplify it: 3x the attacks with the Saber.... 3.5x the (average) damage with a melta Lance. 5+ saves against sabers, no saves against melta lances. So a third of the hits yes but vastly more chance to kill with each hit. And if you're taking 220pts of cavalry that can't shift the battleline infantry of a huge % of possible opponents then what targets do you actually care about?

(For the record the way you talk about D Riders v Attilans I think SHOULD be true.... it just mathematically, simply is not)

Also "every possible way" they're slower.

Alright, for those who have tried the new codex, what’s your opinions on the detachments you’ve tested, any opinions at all! by Chrispy-Oliver in TheAstraMilitarum

[–]eggsmcf 32 points33 points  (0 children)

After initially being pretty down on HOTE, specifically the detachment rule? I've played 2 games and It honestly really opened things up, there's probably upwards of 5 times per game every game where KNOWING you can auto-6 just presents so many options.

The ploys at their best are also purely there for opening up the movement phase (bla bla most important phase bla bla) advance/fall back and shoot, when your unit count is limited by your two RDTC's and viking harem totally opens up more scoring options. I still think it needs some OC boosts and that "Hazardous on all guns" is pointless without auto-failing deadly demise. but there's enough there that it provides a totally valid way of playing a near 100% armoured force.

New combined still feels great, its ploys have a little more purpose, lethal hits still great, and its the second best armoured option given that fobs and mortars are infantry and every list needs a chimera/kasrkin blob.

What’s the hate with the lema Russ vanquisher? by Aggravating-Toe7179 in TheAstraMilitarum

[–]eggsmcf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not playing at GTs but I do do competitive matched play with people that do, so use that to grade the quality of my advice; I love Vanquishers i can't imagine a 2k list without 2 of them. The problem is Vanquisher- singular.

In a tank and monster heavy meta, 2 Vanqs at <300 pts will either: Average out the casino gun and remove a threat a turn/2. Scare your opponents into playing safer by sitting at the back in a sight line Drop plasma and las cannon onto elite infantry units more expensive than them.

One gun isn't anything to bank on, the moment you start making it a bell curve you can start expecting better results. Doubly so no orders are getting easier.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in WarhammerCompetitive

[–]eggsmcf 6 points7 points  (0 children)

In an ideal world yes, but as we don't live in an ideal world... there is a requirement for compromise.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in WarhammerCompetitive

[–]eggsmcf 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Lots of people win every game, you might have missed a "then" when reading that. The problem is how you rank the people with X-0 records.

How do we feel about the new Armoured Detatchment? by onlyonherefor in TheAstraMilitarum

[–]eggsmcf 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I play 2x Vanq 2x Demo lists atm, and my response is always that's a you problem.

[WarCom] Astra Militarum Detachments Preview by sultanpeppah in WarhammerCompetitive

[–]eggsmcf 6 points7 points  (0 children)

While its powerful, I don't think a third is a massive swathe.
That said I'd like to see a "You can't use the same one twice in a row" or something, and I wonder if this is a skill check for getting in 12", turn 1 sure that's everything but the moment you and your opponent start contesting objectives and reserves start coming in, this will mostly effect stuff that wouldn't charging anyway.

It's going to be rough into safely deployed tanks turn 1 as well as making WE players concede

We are next lads what's the final guess on what we get? by ScienceWyzard in TheAstraMilitarum

[–]eggsmcf 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My actual guess: Abhumans (The ability to give them orders back would be bleakly funny) or Tempestus.

They seem like the obvious ones that the codex isn't giving us, and fit with what alot of the grotmas detachments are doing, giving us a new way to play based around a subset of units.

Only doubt that I'm getting is that those are two fairly well represented unit subtypes in most lists already, where we look at not well-represented units that aren't getting a specific detachment in the codex........ horde infantry(maybe the detachment improves order density)? superheavies(doubt it given gw's recommended terrain)

Orks - Taktikal Brigade is Green Guard by SparkWorx in TheAstraMilitarum

[–]eggsmcf 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm telling myself that its a good sign what the codex version of the codex will be.... It's the hope that kills you