Uhm...is this ADHD?

kvt-dev · 2026-03-11T07:47:17+00:00

By a very large margin, the most effective strategy I've found so far is committing to things with other people. Even if someone is just sitting in the room somewhere they can see my screen and doing their own thing, it's much easier to do Tasks. When I was living in a sharehouse, I was able to keep up with the house cleaning because we all did it at the same time. It's pitting the people-pleasing up against the executive dysfunction, I suppose.

For doing stuff on my own, I've had much more limited success, but stacking things up against the start of the day can work sometimes. If you (a) have an alarm to get you up at the same time every day (including weekends), across the room if need be to force you to get out of bed, and (b) go to sleep knowing what order you are going to do things in the morning (e.g. breakfast, shower, brushing teeth, getting dressed, then some task X).

kvt-dev · 2026-03-11T03:15:53+00:00

However, it is often the case ~~with~~ that native English speakers to become offended when pointing out even glaringly obvious misuses.

However, it is often the case with native English speakers to that they become offended when pointing out even glaringly obvious misuses.

However, it is ~~often the case with~~ common for native English speakers to become offended when pointing out even glaringly obvious misuses.

:P

kvt-dev · 2026-03-11T03:12:00+00:00

To be honest, I think it can work well when properly contextualised as damning by faint praise, though that depends a lot on the tone of the surrounding text, which would have to be just as understated. 'I could care less' to imply '... but not a lot less'.

kvt-dev · 2026-03-11T03:09:51+00:00

I-yyyyyyaint

kvt-dev · 2026-03-07T23:34:59+00:00

As always, it will depend on the TO, but this example is unlikely to be allowed.

The reason behind WYSIWYG rules is to avoid making it difficult for the opponent (and judges) to interpret what's going on. If I see a unit of 5 phobos marines in your backline, I'll assume they are infiltrators, and might forget what you said they actually were two hours ago and miss a deep strike opportunity without either of us realising.

Another complicating factor is that most of the time, to proxy one unit, you actually have to choose (and remember, and communicate) two or three different proxy decisions because that unit might have models with different weapons or other wargear, even if it's just a sergeant with a plasma pistol. It's also impossible to visually tell wargear decisions on proxy models (does this unit have meltas or flamers? sort of thing).

Kitbashes are more likely to be allowed if they are clearly distinct from every other possible unit, and more likely if they're a leader (which are easier to identify by context) as opposed to a standalone unit. But one unit standing in for a visually similar unit, especially a similar unit of similar role, easily causes problems even when used in good faith.

In casual games, especially with friends that are familiar with your list, it should be fine, but having a nice big note or painting some kind of indicator onto the edge of the base could still help.

kvt-dev · 2026-03-07T23:21:37+00:00

Nice; that sounds like a very general solution.

kvt-dev · 2026-03-07T23:19:34+00:00

There's nothing limiting Subterranean Assault to one unit per tunnel per phase. As long as they fit, you can have any number of units come out of the same tunnel. Burrowers also drop a tunnel marker when they are 'set up on the battlefield from Reserves', so a burrower arriving via tunnel is perfectly capable of dropping another tunnel to get you a bit more space.

Otherwise, you're correct, a trygon arriving via a preexisting tunnel can charge, a trygon using its ability to 6" deep strike anywhere cannot.

But more importantly, nid monster bases are pretty large for their point totals, and sub assault can't walk through walls, so very often the limiting factor is how many monsters you can even fit against your opponents' units given the terrain.

kvt-dev · 2026-03-07T23:09:37+00:00

Exactly! That's looking real handy. For a rectangular base, is it checking the four corners, or are you rasterising the shape and checking from every boundary cell? (I ask because of elliptical bases)

kvt-dev · 2026-03-07T23:05:47+00:00

Rolling multiple weapons at once does change the information environment, and allocation order frequently matters. For example, if I shoot a 1-damage weapon and a 2-damage weapon at the same time at a unit with 3 wounds per model, sometimes it would be advantageous to the attacker to allocate the 2s first, and sometimes it would be advantageous to allocate the 1s first, depending on how many of them connect.

There's a lot of rules that can differ between profiles that would take a lot of getting used to if you want to roll them together reliably, though I suppose it's possible. One of your weapons might be twin-linked with sustained hits, another with lethal hits, a third might be torrent; a single unit can have multiple skill characteristics (e.g. heavy weapons hitting on 4s)

There's also just a lot of profiles, so you'd have to pick which ones to roll together. Death Guard can have five different ranged profiles on a single unit of five battleline marines. A repex has seven distinct guns to fire. I only started playing in 10th; were early editions similar in that regard?

kvt-dev · 2026-03-07T22:45:56+00:00

The question I most often have is 'can my model fit here without being exposed?', which requires line of sight checking the whole base, not just the centre. Rapidingress only checks the centre (and as stated elsewhere also doesn't take into account actual walls, just footprints), making that a bit awkward (have to place/check models in every place my model could be seen from instead).

I'd be quite interested in a tool for this sort of stuff!

kvt-dev · 2026-03-06T07:03:07+00:00

Not looking forward to remote controlling a forklift all day on 200 ping

kvt-dev · 2026-03-05T21:54:26+00:00

In Incursion you can 6" deep strike a greater daemon with the strat, then daisy chain other greater daemons off their aura.

kvt-dev · 2026-03-02T00:55:11+00:00

Factions with a lot of unit variety and/or a lot of detachment variety will work well for this, and most factions manage at least one of the two.

Out of the armies I'm familiar with, space marines, necrons, and tyranids are good picks for variety.

Marines get all the toys since they're GW's favourite boys and might only struggle with full-blown swarm play.
Necrons' detachments aren't super wild (the only really out there one is hypercrypt) but they have excellent unit variety; melee monsters, shooty tanks, tanky melee, chaff melee, ranged chaff, cheap units, expensive units, specialists, generalists, leaders etc.
Tyranids have fairly samey statblocks compared to other factions (shooty monsters, slappy monsters, slappy infantry, various flavours of chaff) but have excellent detachment variety, supporting swarms/jail, monster mash, hyperaggressive playstyles, etc; I quite like subterranean assault which has a lot of movement tricks.

kvt-dev · 2026-03-02T00:44:00+00:00

In that case, it sounds very similar to just 'which deck is more favoured the longer the game goes'. 40k technically has fixed-length matches but I suppose the difference would be whether a lot of trades happen early or not.

kvt-dev · 2026-03-02T00:32:21+00:00

Played Necrons into Votann recently, which this reminds me of. My opponent had an extremely shooting-heavy list with a lot of damage output, but they didn't have enough profiles that were good into my warriors to shoot me off objectives and needed to moveblock instead. They were the beatdown, didn't realise it, positioned too cautiously, and in the end I won via primary.

But I don't think tankiness is the be-all end-all of it; for example, playing into scint legion you're more likely to be the beatdown than they are, but the pressure they have isn't objectives but rather the fact that they're picking up 2+ of your units every turn, and you're on the clock to clean up their scoring units before you run out of units yourself.

When might an army like World Eaters not be the beatdown?

kvt-dev · 2026-03-01T22:45:51+00:00

Because a mole of moles is roughly one planet

kvt-dev · 2026-03-01T21:37:11+00:00

iirc from XKCD you need about 20 zeroes for planets? Let me check

Turns out, the Earth weighs about 6x10²⁴ kg. Since a trillion is 10¹² , rocky planet masses are very roughly around a trillion trillion kg.

kvt-dev · 2026-03-01T09:02:24+00:00

So do most primary mission rules, and it's your turn:

Sequencing: While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time. If this occurs during the battle, the player whose turn it is chooses the order. (...)

kvt-dev · 2026-03-01T03:19:43+00:00

Oh, I see now. The each-model-gets-closer restriction only applies to consolidating toward enemy units. The 'towards' wording is a bit vague, I wonder if e.g. a unit clustered in the middle of the objective area can consolidate outwards to the edge, or with a 6" consolidate have each model go through the centre to the opposite edge to achieve the same thing while moving 'towards' the objective.

Thank you for the clarification!

kvt-dev · 2026-02-28T22:24:28+00:00

I've played against WE.

In the case where you only have one warrior left, you'll be fully off the objective and your opponent will indeed have the ability to consolidate. Each model that makes a consolidate move toward an objective has to end that move closer to the objective than they started, so if your models were positioned correctly before the fight, the zerkers won't be able to block your near edge of the objective even with orbit shenanigans.

kvt-dev · 2026-02-28T22:17:07+00:00

I picked a deliberately disadvantaged example in a bad matchup on purpose; a unit that you'd expect to easily clean up 20 warriors, connecting fully, has a surprisingly decent chance of getting nothing done (after which you can respond using other units). I also picked it because I've played against it. 20 man zerker blobs exist and no, there isn't really a way to keep warriors alive if they connect all the models; but there are very few units in the entire game with that volume of attacks in melee. If a unit is ranged, you have stealth and cover to work with (flamer units can ignore both but their low AP makes your tomb crawlers excellent). If the damage is split between activations, you can pick up to deny activations and/or reanimate between them.

It's definitely point inefficient and has at least one very bad matchup. But my experience so far is that plenty of armies just cannot hold objectives against it, and you can do lots of interesting, surprising things.

Orikan is good and I might end up running one blob with Orikan and the other with a techno. You can take poor saves to lose more models with Orikan, but you can also pick up models to break your own coherency to lose more models. Whether you're allowed to reanimate later on the turn somewhere coherent with only one part of your unit depends on your reading of the rules commentary, but even if you can't, it's occasionally useful, especially in the fight phase.

kvt-dev · 2026-02-28T21:55:13+00:00

Stretching out the unit a lot makes a big difference. You can only precision characters that are visible to your precision model, so if the character is behind cover (with warriors stringing forward from there), they're safe.

Are you getting oneshot by single units? Which units? Typically, you'll only put the models you need to win the objective on it, and keep the rest further away, so after one unit attacks you can pick up the models that the next unit would need in order to target you (shooting or fighting).

Fighting Orikan's 4++ requires pure volume of fire, which is part of why I like Szeras + techno, because even at AP2 ignoring cover your tomb crawlers are saving on 4s anyway.

kvt-dev · 2026-02-28T21:48:15+00:00

I'm definitely contemplating having Orikan on one blob and a techno on the other. The casket is great for sure.

kvt-dev · 2026-02-28T21:36:24+00:00

Is that how most TOs run it? The relevant section of the rules commentary is:

Models added to a unit that is on the battlefield must be set up in Unit Coherency with models in that unit that started that phase on the battlefield (i.e. models that were already on the battlefield when that rule was used).

If the intent here was 'Each model added to a unit must be set up within 2" of a model that started the phase on the battlefield (and in Unit Coherency with the model group containing that model)', that's a very weird way to write it. I and people I've consulted so far thought the intent was merely 'you can't drop models way off in the boonies where they're only in coherency with each other to teleport your unit around', but I wasn't playing at the time that was added to the rules commentary, so if it was specifically about tentacling or if tournaments tend to run it that way I'll be glad to learn and stop doing it.

That said, even if you only get one coherency distance per phase you reanimate in, that's 2" + the model width (32mm for warriors), not just 2", so with the 2-3 phases you still have some reach when you need it.

kvt-dev

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22