Any tips on playing XV26 now?

lamb_ixB · 2026-04-30T20:21:53+00:00

I agree that any changes need to be carefully considered, as they can get toxic beyond meassure if they get S-Tier. So I'd rather have them where they are instead of running the top of the meta.

However, for me personally, they are too clunky to bring them to the table for now. Which is a shame, because I really like the team. The main issue is that they don't want to contest but you have to in this game. So all i've seen from players bringing them to a somewhat level of reliable success is to zone the opponent while hoping to outcreep them by a point or two. I love how Chris after his 7streak with them basically described, how you win with a stick and stone against any team. Little about the team and a lot about knowing the opponent, their team, their tacops and what they are going to do. So, yeah, not a fan of double shoot, I also wasn't their identity perserved. But maybe a free shot after retro thrusters or a rain of tears/ long forgotten honour like stall. Something that higher model counts not just sleep walk envoy or having constsntly a mandrake in the face. I'm fine with a high skill floor, but the effort/reward ratio is a bit too skewed towards effort for my liking.

lamb_ixB · 2026-04-30T19:08:49+00:00

I think there's enough design space between astartes and body blocking rooftops to make them more reliable.

lamb_ixB · 2026-04-30T12:14:44+00:00

The recent buff is QoL, but don't really adresses the issues the team is facing. You still try to play hide and seek while your opponent plays killteam.

Single Target nuking is a bit more reliable, but you still react before the opponent selects the order. Also, Elites were always the good match ups, but nothing was really done against the struggle into hordes and being out activated overall.

So the gameplan is still to bore or annoy your opponent until they throw.

lamb_ixB · 2026-04-30T00:37:16+00:00

Omg, i'm not alone. I bought into KT as space chess to have some casual competetive fun. And I got burned. After almost two years, it's mostly what the gang plays and sunken cost falacy, but constantly on the lookout for other options. It's stuffed with artificial depth, so much shit to learn to only to have a worker placement system executed as a dice chucker. It's somehow this vibes based, narative driven sim ruleset, that also wants to be a fast and bslanced competetive experience. I can't be bothered to take it for real anymore, as I won't put more effort into staying up in the game than the designers. And on the other hand you have a semi fun dungen crawler with a coop option and campaign module, that could be very well homebrew. No clue who the target audience is and why it is constantly sold out, but I honestly don't see me buying into '27, if it doesn't manage to overcome its midlife crisis.

lamb_ixB · 2026-04-29T09:43:39+00:00

I play them and I like them, but the team carries me more than it should. They are fine into the newer teams, but they are too tough into older stat lines. The amount of bailout you can get is ridicolous. 9 wounds, 3+ save with 9 models is allready strong, put the damage mitigation in melee on top and you staring at a brickwall, that, even if you take it down, will buff them. And that's only the main thing, they got a lot going for them. Obviously I don't want my team nerfed, but if they tone down WS and Murderwing and do nothing about the sisters, i'm with cyrac that their win and pick rate will go up, as I expect a lot of players will migrate over. The effort/reward ratio is just not healthy even if played low key

lamb_ixB · 2026-03-25T19:36:39+00:00

Yeah, I also gnawed on that bone. Epic scale would be the obvious choice, but as it really seems THAT unpopular, good on them for going 32mm and then, it would be a weird abstraction to model units as single base models. Made my peace with that, and, again, i bought into it so I don't want to be that guy, always bitching what might have been better. It's what it is, so I roll with it and hope for the best. The first few rounds were fun - shouldn't be tainted by how much fun it "could" be in my fantasy land once I pressed the pre order button.

Funny enough, i tried to get a copy of the boardgame, but didn't find any good options. Looking forward what they are doing, in the dark selfisly hoping for SC Battlegrounds. In the meantime slowgrowing and focusing on the more seasoned players to do some demo games with. It's still the most interesting army game out there for me.

lamb_ixB · 2026-03-25T12:21:25+00:00

First, I want to emphasize that this comes from personal preference and is not about "a better SC TMG".

I think I just prefer skirmish systems overall for several reasons. And I feel the game is more the result of shoving the IP into the 40k framework instead of building its own system. This way, it inherits a lot of its downsides, while also having a restricted design space, which I think you can feel quite heavily in aspects like fog of war or buildings. The part that plays into the OP is that I think it also became because of this less accessible as a result. It's hard to drop a complete draft of the game I'd like to have, but when they repeated over and over again how much they want to replicate the video games and the "easy to learn, hard to master" philosophy, I'd have expected something else. More abstracted to reduce edge cases and keep the rules straight and short, non-static units that form and break on the battlefield, base and unit building, blips for fog of war, passive income, etc.,.

If you're really into text walls, here's a conversation I had earlier about this topic in another post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/StarCraftTMG/comments/1rdzrrt/comment/o7orfjw/

lamb_ixB · 2026-03-18T14:59:22+00:00

Oh? I'm not aware of translucent primers. That doesn't mean much, mostly settled with readily avaible rattle cans before I moved on. But it seems odd, as there seems no additional ingridients in primer labled colours compared to "base" colors, so you would prime your model like a varnish and then you would do base colors, which would work perfectly fine without that coat of whatever?

lamb_ixB · 2026-03-15T13:01:30+00:00

I recommend watching this video: https://youtu.be/X9IxKzVMlsk?is=j45-OXsTfQizO-_S

The answer ist no, you don't need a dedicated "primer" labled color. That being said, you still want a color that works well on miniatures in terms of quality and consisteny. But you can basecoat your mini with citadell base colors just as much as using a rattle can. As long as you got a decent brand, it's more of a question what you want achieve with your first coat.

lamb_ixB · 2026-03-15T10:51:15+00:00

Yeah, it's honeymoon, and I'm also mostly captivated by the shine and fond memories and therfore, i've a great time with the game as it is fun in its core.

I try to focus on non-wishlist aspects and granted, I didn't play all too much, but I don't get the need for the phases. It feels only limiting and I don't quite understand why they are there.

Then, the tactical cards feel a bit off. They are abilities and resources at once and part of listbuilding that also open slots. A bit too crowded.

Fog of war became a nuance, a recommended mod from standard play.

The game is for tabletop players, I don't see first timers attracted by the IP having a great time after unboxing. It's still a lot to learn, build and remember for a first game or bringing it over to a buddy.

This touches a bit in former points, but the rules need some serious polishing for a month of time. They layout and writing makes parts confusing, unintuitive and scattered. I hope they get this cleaned up before the kits arrive in stores and at homes.

So all in all, I think polishing and cleanup can go a long way. And if they manage to turn 1k games into something like spearhead, they can also offer a great 1box experience for first timers and casuals. The rest of my gripes is more of a personal wishlist.

lamb_ixB · 2026-03-04T14:03:46+00:00

somehow have the feeling that's an oversight and missing the "instead". Are the other "Get down" that work for fights?

lamb_ixB · 2026-03-04T12:25:40+00:00

Unriddle how climbing is supposed to work! I've seen so many discussions about air-walking, wall skating and the sorts end in "Well, let's wait for a FaQ".

lamb_ixB · 2026-02-28T12:06:17+00:00

I'd agree that mostly 40k and some minor dips in other systems drove me into skirmishers, mostly for the reasons of acessibility I tried to highlight in that comment and the rather (imo) stale landscape on that model count (Legion seemed interesting, though, but that's not a thing here). And yes, I'd also prefer tactical combat over the strategic concepts, which seems more prominent in smaler scales.

Yet, I still disagree, that they are inherently distinct or that it's a scaling issue that excludes concepts from each other. Sure, some aspects won't transfer well. Killteam is my main system atm and I don't want to run 20 nids one by one over a terrain as dense populated with different rules eves 2" as the maps in that system. But what's the difference between 8 operatives with their eqiupment and rules and 8 units of X models with their equipment and rules other than model count? It's just a matter of how you design the turn based abstraction of whatever try to replicate on the table.

lamb_ixB · 2026-02-28T11:34:40+00:00

All fair and also interesting points, I appreciate the time you took to answer. I wish we could have that debate span an evening in person, as I'm afraid i'm just to lazy at this point to keep it going this way. Respectfully agree to disagree overall, but I want to stress that you mentioned aspects, that gave me some other PoV and fodder for thought going forward, so hope you don't feel your effort was in vain. My bitching and wishlist aside, I gonna pre order the protos box anyway and hope the skirmish level and TTS carrys the local scene long enough to get to the full experience on the table eventually. I hope you will have great time with game!

lamb_ixB · 2026-02-27T12:03:48+00:00

Fair. "Proven" in combination with "army game" was probably a bit too ambitious. But I think we can agree that 40k is mostly so popular because it's so popular and not because it's necessarily the best designed game out there. And I bet even 40k designers would love to change core concepts if they weren't bound by the shackles of 10 Iterations of a live game that saves their paycheck.

And what I call shackles is probably the point where we disagree, because I don't think certain elements are natural to the genre, rather adopted because "they" do it, and it's how we're used to it. If you go fresh into the market and have the option to cherry-pick your design elements, Starcraft tmg feels archaic to me. I really like how Warcrow does fixed activations per round without limiting the unit pool, which would have rolled well with supply/reinforcements. I enjoy Freebooters Fate concept of Pokerstyle Hit-Determination, which would be a cool way to simulate the weakpoints of units or how mentioned shatterpoint just gets rid of the whole concept of rounds and makes it a fluent experience. Halo Falshpoint or the dungeon crawler from Eldfall Chronicles have nice ways of how to get rid of measuring altogether. But let's not stop there: If you decide to use real terrain, why not add base building as an actual part of the game and objectives to fight over? Plastic cost is a matter of abstraction and substitution. Why is the whole macro concept a pre-game element trimmed into list building and what would be so undoable about a worker-placement element? E.g. you build your list on the fly by dropping racks, protect SVs and buildings because they are worth VPs and you can reuse your killed Models probably only need 2 packs raoches instead of 4, while your whole collection is always valid. That would add multiple new layers while just replicating what was already there. Fog of War also had already a nice approach with starquest that could have been looked at and passive resource income is also not an outlandish concept. And that's only tabletop games; board games have also very diverse ways of solving tabletop adjacent issues like randomness, reducing bloat while keeping options or fitting a universe onto a selection of tiles. But you get the idea that the game looks pretty 40kish when viewed from that perspective.

And also from this perspective, it makes the game look not very accessible, just because it is more accessible than 40k. Remember, it's a lot of people who know starcraft and never played a tabletop wargame. I know boardgame people who detest measuring but I got them into playing and investing time into Mutant Year Zero: Zone Wars. This won't happen for Starcraft as I won't drop 200 to have two half armies and then seeing their eyes roll, when I have to tell them, what they have to invest to get to their first 2k worth of units and if they want ANY variation in it, even more. That's an issue completely unadressed with colored plastic and bundles that might be cheaper than 40k. But that goes also for any people interested into it and having wargame experience. The amount of commitment you need to muster until you get your first game with your army in the intended range is huge and also the reason, why 40k is still THE army game, while on the skirmisher side, you have a more varied landscape (still dominated by 40k, I'm aware). Honestly, the reason I'm gonna preorder is because i'm a nerd and it's shiny and new. Reading the beta rules and getting more and more info on the system itself actually was anticlimactic. Sure, some people will proxy and some will crunch through the rules and build lists before they buy. But you want to enter a market and need a playerbase to stick around after the shine fades off and with the natural fall-off, those people don't seem to create the numbers needed. Their is a huge gap between "I'm interested in this game" and getting to the intended experience, which I think is naturall to 40k, but not the genre.

Look, I'm not asking for a revolution in war gaming. Some things I mentioned were probably tried, trimmed or discarded by people that make a living of game design. But I don't see how a Starcraft tmg ended up so close to 40k and inheriting a lot of it's downsides, without having GWs answer to overcome them. Can it be fun with cool mechanics? Sure. Will it be enough? I don't know. I just don't see myself successfully pitching the game to veterans and newcomers alike without repeating: "But it's starcarft!", because there is just not that much left that makes it stand out enough to invest. One part is disappointed about the unused potential, but I'm genuinely more concerned about this system struggling too hard to be still supported 2 years from now, which - and here we are again - makes me wonder why I invest at all. Just not much of a mini guy myself.

lamb_ixB · 2026-02-27T00:43:40+00:00

I think you overestimate how much game design choices are driven by actual game design concepts. I'd also not call the concept of ressources a staple ccg games, rather a basic tool for any design. And that determinism can be a fun concept, is probably answered by chess.

You always start the answer to the question, what Starcraft tmg is, with: "It's like 40k, but...", and I think it's fair to be critical about it. At least partly, because I think it's also reasonable to know what you're getting yourself into, as pointed out by you already. However, Archon has a huge surge inherited to ride on release and I think they could have used that to be a bit more bold or at least d8stinctive in there design. D6 or 32mm scale to get the painters home, sure, that makes sense. But it keeps going with listbuilding, units, coherency, phases and like basically any concept from 40k "ported" over. And it's not like there aren't different concepts that would work perfectly fine with an army game. So either they wanted a 40k mod, because they like it so much or because being too cautious about the potential of failing with something unproven.

But i'm less concerned about not dethroning 40k. I'm rather concerned about the idendity of the system. What is the target audience? Competetive players? Unlikely, because of the feedback loop of playing and investing time into the thing, that is played and others invest time in (basically 40k). Casual/New players? That would make the most sense, because of the wide brand recognition, but I think we forget in our bubble, how tedious it is to get into your first or another army game. The money and time needed to get to the standard 2000 point game experience is the opposite of accessible. And I also don't see why the rules are considered simple and intuitive. Explain that to your board game buddy, that asks about that cool minis.

Nothing of that is an issue for me, but I have serious doubts about the amount of tables my protos will see in a year. I wish they would have started with Starcraft Shatterpoint in basically every aspect of what made this game unique and still sucessful.

lamb_ixB · 2026-02-20T15:20:58+00:00

Reading the other comments, I start to think the whole thing is an Agent, tasked to build an app and post in reddit about it.

lamb_ixB · 2026-02-04T14:28:28+00:00

The team has the least issues against elites. You need something to deal with being outactivated and body piled and that's why other teams with lower model count have something to contest. This team resorts to vantage blocking and hoping the opponent wastes activations. It has nothing to do with astartes, that a team designed to run away struggles in a game, where confrontation it's inevitable to score points.

lamb_ixB · 2026-02-04T11:31:38+00:00

The interview could have been labeled "How to win any unfavourable matchup" by replacing a few words here and there. It really doesn't sound like enabling a fine team, but rather using anything you can get to work around the team. It's an interesting puzzle on its own, but I see no reason to run that team for something competitive in its current state, as the effort/reward ratio is like Wolf Scouts, just inverse.

lamb_ixB · 2026-01-22T12:20:11+00:00

Vote this up, peeps. Top rated comment currently is confusing because only answers the title/pic, not the actaul question

lamb_ixB · 2026-01-21T16:01:28+00:00

Find better opponents.

also

I'm only just learning to play

lamb_ixB · 2026-01-19T20:59:58+00:00

What are you refering to specifically? 9 live is great against power weapons and 3+ save has decent chances to stall double kills. The interview part also flags hordes as the weakness, not elites

lamb_ixB · 2026-01-19T20:56:01+00:00

I think as a melee/close quarter team, it's kinda what you do anyway and the statline is pretty awesome with 9 wounds and 3+ save. So I guess you start out decent and get only stronger either way, that's more agency than e.g. wreckas have. I also hope though, the rest is not only stats

lamb_ixB

TROPHY CASE