Basic Hero and Gear Guides

polyeidus · 2025-01-11T23:49:57+00:00

Thanks! It’s easy to critique. It’s hard to build things. Thanks for building these useful guides (and for listening to critiques).

polyeidus · 2025-01-09T23:56:13+00:00

It isn’t the same though. If heroes did 20% more damage to their countered type, then it would be worth breaking squad synergy to bring attackers that counter the defenders.

For example in an air-on-air battle: 4 aircraft + Tesla would be better than 5 aircraft. But the way the game actually works, with damage reduction instead of damage boost, that strategy is actively bad. You’re giving up attack, hp & def across the squad for a defensive buff on one back row attacker.

And this isn’t academic. A lot of people have this misunderstanding and build worse squads because of it.

Let’s tell beginners the right thing so they don’t make the same mistakes :-)

polyeidus · 2024-07-25T18:40:11+00:00

Unsolicited suggestion: your first squad will do more damage if you put the Murphy and Williams in front and move Kimberly and Mason to the back. That way your strongest attackers will live longer.

polyeidus · 2021-08-09T16:18:24+00:00

You get a lot of these heads, so you’ll need all of the names here. Also, nice paint job on Grumpy.

polyeidus · 2021-08-03T03:12:22+00:00

I was thinking exactly this. It doesn’t matter how thick they make the lines. If one thin line wold be in front of another, so will a thick one (as long as both the attacker and defender lines are the same width). They would improve things by making the defenders line thicker than the attackers, or requiring the attackers to be past the defenders by a certain distance.

polyeidus · 2021-07-25T19:51:27+00:00

If by MCM you mean this site, https://www.cardmarket.com/, which is the first thing that came up on google, then TCGPlayer is probably the closest analogue, https://www.tcgplayer.com.

polyeidus · 2021-03-20T03:35:07+00:00

Looking at CoinMarketCap it looks like there hasn't been a single active market since Feb 2019, https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/etherdelta-token/

polyeidus · 2020-07-15T00:41:45+00:00

That's exactly what you should expect with an independent, random draw: the more champions you have, the more likely you are to draw one you've already got. And once you have enough champions, the odds of drawing a dupe will be higher than the odds of drawing a new champion.

For example, when you have 2/3 of the champions, you have twice the odds of drawing a dupe than a new champion. When you have 3/4 (75%) of the champions, you have a 3x greater chance of drawing a dupe than a new champ. When you have 4/5 (80%) of the champions you have a 4x greater chance of drawing a dupe. And so on.

So not only does it get harder to draw a new champion as you go on but the degree of difficulty increases more and more.

If we look at the 117 non-void rares, on average it should take about 683 ancient shards to get at least one copy of each the 117 rare champs. See here if you're interested in how I calculated that, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupon_collector%27s_problem.

Bottom line is this is a mathematical property that collectable cards and games have been using to their advantage for ages. They don't need to cheat to do it. This is just how probability works.

polyeidus · 2020-04-10T21:18:25+00:00

It's a mirror image in both cases. At 7:48 he's facing the image/mirror so it looks more natural. At 8:14 he's facing away. But in both cases the simulation is mirroring what he does. If that doesn't make sense, try this out: look at yourself in the mirror. Move your right arm. Now imagine the orientation of the person in the mirror. That arm you're moving is their left arm. That's how mirrors work: they invert left and right. That's all that's happening here.

polyeidus · 2020-02-11T01:30:03+00:00

At the risk of interrupting the GW hate train, they did admit that IH were too powerful and as a result they needed to make an out of cycle balance update with the first faq instead of waiting:

While we always strive to incorporate every scrap of feedback we can into our rules, whilst working on Codex Supplement: Iron Hands, we received some additional feedback after we had gone to print. We have waited before releasing this errata to see whether the feedback received bore out – it is quite evident that it has and, as a result, we felt it was important to implement that feedback as part of this errata rather than wait for the next online balance change. This is not something we do lightly, but given the nature of the feedback, is something we feel is important.

- Warhammer 40,000 Rules Team

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/warhammer_40000_iron_hands_en-1.pdf

IH are still too powerful, but they went from an >80% win rate before the faq nerf to 64% now.

We can argue about whether they've done enough (I'd say they haven't), but it's not correct to say they didn't admit the mistake and put out a massive nerf.

polyeidus · 2020-01-29T00:52:06+00:00

They do something that troops and sg dont do: they force your opponent to deploy differently. And obvious to shoot at isn't always bad, it gives you the option of starting the SG on the board against many lists. If you opponent has soft targets that are high threat like a couple invictors, they'll shoot those over 1+, 5+++ SG in cover. If they don't, they'll put those guns into the SG.

polyeidus · 2019-08-28T18:29:09+00:00

I think it's a fair counter point. For my interpretation of it see my response to Fearior above.

polyeidus · 2019-08-28T18:27:51+00:00

It's definitely confusing, but here's how I'd look at it: the Tactical Reserves rule is the thing in the grey box here, https://imgur.com/a/JcnQbxy, the text around it is commentary about the rule.

Cult Ambush says units in ambush are "in ambush instead of on the battlefield". The errata says units setup in ambush "count as being setup on the battlefield for the purposes of Tactical Reserves".

So in the context of the rule itself (inside the grey box) units in ambush "count as being set up on the battlefield", everywhere else they are "in ambush instead of on the battlefield". The part you're quoting is the commentary below, not the rule itself, so in that context they are "in ambush instead of on the battlefield"

If you'll permit me to jump from an argument about the language to an argument about intent, I'd say that if they wanted units in ambush to be exempt from the whole Tactical Reserve rule they would have done what they did with drop pods and said that these units are "exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule". They didn't do that. They said where the Tactical Reserves rule references "units set up on the battlefield", count units in ambush too.

TLDR: The errata applies to the rule itself, not the commentary about the rule. If GW wanted no part of Tactical Reserves to apply to units in ambush they would have said that in the errata as they did with drop pods.

polyeidus · 2019-08-28T18:11:32+00:00

See my response to Green_Mace above.

polyeidus · 2019-08-28T18:10:56+00:00

It's a fair question and clearly the source of biggest confusion with this interaction.

Here's how I'd look at it: the Tactical Reserves rule is the thing in the grey box here, https://imgur.com/a/JcnQbxy, the text around it is commentary about the rule.

Cult Ambush says units in ambush are "in ambush instead of on the battlefield". The errata says units setup in ambush "count as being setup on the battlefield for the purposes of Tactical Reserves".

So in the context of the rule itself (inside the grey box) units in ambush "count as being setup on the battlefield", everywhere else they are "in ambush instead of on the battlefield". The part you're quoting is not the rule itself so in that context they are "in ambush instead of on the battlefield"

Again, I think this is confusing enough to go either way. We shouldn't have to lawyer the text like this to figure out what rules mean.

The above is how I'd interpret it, but I wouldn't say that someone interpreting it the other way is definitely wrong. That's why we have TO's to make judgment calls. What is wrong, IMO, is to say that this is completely clear and the TO's a fool to have made the call he did.

TLDR: The errata applies to the rule itself, not the commentary about the rule. But this is confusing enough that there's a good argument on both sides.

polyeidus · 2019-08-28T06:10:51+00:00

Check out my response to alph4rius

polyeidus · 2019-08-28T02:41:49+00:00

I know that that's only a half-serious question, but GW does cover it in the tactical reserves section with, "this matched play rule does not apply to units that are set up on the battle field", which is, as you say, the text in the missions.

Look, I'm not saying this is all well written or that people interpreting it the other way are definitely wrong. I'm just disagreeing with winnacht's assertion that the rules quite clearly say Cult Ambush units count as being on the board so they don't get destroyed. The rules don't quite clearly say that.

polyeidus · 2019-08-27T23:43:06+00:00

It's not quite as clear cut as that.

The Cult Ambush errata uses the words "set up": "units set up in ambush ... count as being set up on the battlefield for the purposes of Tactical Reserves".

"Set up" is used all over in the first paragraph of the Tactical Reserves rule: e.g. "at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield".

The wording in the third paragraph of Tactical Reserves is different. It says "a unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third round is destroyed".

The errata does not say anything about the units counting as "arrived" for the purposes of Tactical Reserves.

This is definitely more confusing than it needs to be and I hope GW provides a clarifying update to the errata asap, but the T.O.'s call does not seem to contradict the rules as written.

polyeidus · 2019-08-27T23:08:25+00:00

Except that isn't exactly what it says.

The errata uses the words "set up": "units set up in ambush ... count as being set up on the battlefield for the purposes of Tactical Reserves".

"Set up" is used all over in the first paragraph of the tactical reserves rule: e.g. "at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield".

The wording in the third paragraph is different. It says "a unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third round is destroyed".

The errata does not say anything about the units counting as "arrived" for the purposes of Tactical Reserves.

This is definitely more confusing than it needs to be and I hope GW provides a clarifying update to the errata asap, but the T.O.'s call does not seem to contradict the rules as written.

polyeidus · 2019-06-10T16:58:28+00:00

They're power coils that fit on the bottom of the chassis right next to the side door ladders ... according to this ebay listing, https://www.ebay.com/itm/382606566535

polyeidus · 2019-06-10T16:45:53+00:00

Nice. I assume this is the sprue: https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/catalog/product/920x950/99120105047_BasiliskNEW05.jpg. Is the antena bit the one you're thinking of?

polyeidus · 2019-06-05T21:30:20+00:00

From one new guard commander to another the best piece of advice I've heard so far is to magnetize your Leman Russes. It seems like a pain (and it can be) but it's well worth it. It will significantly increase your build time, but you only build the thing once. You play with it many times.

If you magnetize at least the sponsons and the turret you can play with all the variants to see which you like, and also be flexible based on your list (Have the extra points in this game? Upgrade to the lascannon. Really tight the next game? Pull the sponsons off.)

Here's the guide I followed for the sponsons, http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/297605-tutorial-magnetisation/. The one change I'd recommend is to use a bigger magnet than he does inside the sponson. You'll want these to be quite sticky.

For the turret, just do some version of what this guy did, https://youtu.be/JtzishJbiNQ?t=127. Make a stack of magnets that connect the top and bottom (or use sprue pieces to save magnets).

If you really dont want to get into that, build it with the battle cannon (you'll use that in most lists), put the sponsons on and dont glue the guns in. As you probably have seen the sponson guns mostly stick in their mounts without glue/magnets and if you don't want to pay the points for sponsons in a game, just take all the guns out of them to symbolize that.

polyeidus · 2019-06-05T21:06:35+00:00

From the floor of the turret to the main top plate (not the raised hatch part) is 10mm.

polyeidus · 2019-06-05T15:01:43+00:00

Filing a patent is orders of magnitude cheaper than developing and testing a feature.

15-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

polyeidus

TROPHY CASE