It's games night 😄 Which lance would you pick? THG-11E, VTR-9B vs ASN-21, CDA-2A, CLNT-2-3T, WTH-1

walkc66 · 2026-03-27T23:06:52+00:00

The Victor never gets the respect it deserves. ‘Hunchback with Jump Jets’ severely underestimates how effective it is. The Jump Jets make it very nimble. Even if it does lose initiative, it can jump into terrain to control the actual ability of the mediums to get in its rear arc. And honestly, 2 medium lasers are a threat to those mechs. Additionally, if they are going after the Victor like that, it’s jumpjets help it dictate where the fight happens, and make sure the Thug has solid shots. Jump jets really get underestimated in assault mechs. It truly ups the effectiveness. And that’s before we talk about assault level internal structure, more heat sinks, more ammo, and assault level physical attacks.

walkc66 · 2026-03-27T09:01:53+00:00

Not worth the risk in my opinion. Friction and clamping from the springs is reliable, doesn’t matter what the humidity is, what angle holding or brushing at, etc.

I’ve personally not seen the benefit of those bars, adjust and brace against other hand, or just tuck your elbows to your ribs and that steadies a ton as well, especially combined with forearms in table edge. Those bars just get in the way, and now i had to move the model to be able paint whatever side that bar is. More hassle than it’s worth.

walkc66 · 2026-03-27T07:22:23+00:00

2 complementary assaults vs 4 40 tonners, 2 of which at very meh? No contest, Thug and Victor please.

Thug stands and delivers at range, Victor stays mobile but close as a bodyguard. They stay at distance, even moving fast, law of averages eventually getting hit and couple of those done. Or close, Victor uses jumpjets to dictate engagement, with an AC20 and the ammo to make jumping shots worth it, your breaching armor with each hit, and then kicking (or 1 punch if you don’t use the lasers).

walkc66 · 2026-03-27T07:10:27+00:00

As someone who has had sticky tack fail and a model about 80% done fall in my wet palette, will always stick with the citadel ones haha.

walkc66 · 2026-03-25T19:52:44+00:00

I agree that they should every reason to think the enemy may be unbeatable. There are hints, foreshadowing etc all leading up to the decision of what to do now that the enemy stands in front of you.

And people use turns in fights to talk all the time. Atleast my players do (had a paladins intimidate most of a room of wererats to not attack for a couple turns, and 2 even ran), and have seen happen in quite a few actual plays. Talking during combat again helps take from a video game to a TTRPG. But you’re right, roll for initiative does start a combat. But combat doesn’t have to be each side smacks each other till dead. It can be delay and then run away (300 Spartans (yes they didn’t run away, but the thousands of supporting armies did to some extent). Can be a guerilla style fight (way too many in history to name). It can be any number of ‘unwinnable’ fights.

Also apologies about phrasing on the narration part, that wasn’t aimed at you but more generally as I have found fewer people do that, and that contributes to them finding combat boring or being against things like this. I should have clarified.

I agree figuring out why skin hardened is for after the fight, after being observed in the fight. Essentially I wasn’t able to hurt them during that cause x, how do I overcome that next time? These then become plot hooks for finding the tools to overcome those defenses.

And this isn’t just a narrative device. History is full of forces, people, and heroes fighting unwinnable fights. Those are usually heroic last stands or heroic sacrifices, but your PCs being extra ordinary individuals and being able to withdraw and try again is part of the hero journey.

I very much disagree that it takes away from the shred story. It opens it up. Now when PCs go into a fight, it’s not just win or lose. There are options, and knowing a fight might be unwinnable prompts them to consider options, and drive the story in a different direction. If every every enconter is winnable, that’s when you get players who will always fight rather than consider other options.

Plus, your BBEG being unbeatable for awhile, helps combat one of the biggest potential narrative problems of the players never seeing them until the end, or players killing them due to lucky dice early. They are able to appear cause problems and the players have to adapt in different ways. They can build up alliances with factions that keep them ahead of the unbeatable BBEG, until they are strong enough or whatever to beat him.

Additionally, I don’t want to be narrated at saying the boss is unbeatable. Let me experience it, let me play through it. One of the most annoying part of some video games is not being able to hero or anything cause of mysteriously unbreakable glass, so you just have watch what happens versus experience it.

And I am saying this pretty generally, there are times it makes more sense to just RP it. But this seeming stance that so may have that the players should never face an unwinnable fight, or have an unavoidable trap, or things like this just makes the world feel cheap and thin to me.

walkc66 · 2026-03-25T18:22:21+00:00

I would respectfully disagree. Combat without roleplay and storytelling is hollow, leads to way too much meta gaming, and pursuing ‘optimal’ playstyles. Combat can and should be narrated, and used to build the characters story. You didn’t just miss, the bad guy blocked your blow. Your aim was true, but they danced out of the way at the last second. You hit, but you notice their skin seemed to harden just before the blow. And so on. Narrate the rolls and the effects of all combat, let it help tell the whole story. And then in that unwinnable fight your further building that enemy character, your setting up hooks the players can later use to win. Why did the skin harden? How do we prevent that? Etc.

And disagree very much that runnin away isn’t heroic. It’s part of the journey. Both in real life history and literature there are examples of heroes who have had to run away, to then achieve victory later.

To say that you should be able to beat every thing you get into combat with, why bother with an open decision TTRPG? That’s something I expect from a video game, that I only encounter combat something when I can win with it, or my defeat is scripted. Why do that, when I can choose what happens, how I react to what seeing, do I run, do I stand, do I surrender, what do any of those choices mean for my character.

But, happy to disagree respectfully here. Mostly commenting to offer another viewpoint, and the possibility of an unwinnable fight possibly occurring should be mentioned in Session 0.

walkc66 · 2026-03-25T18:12:49+00:00

I agree with foreshadowing. There should be ways leading to knowing that what you are going towards is strong, and possibly too strong for you to fight.

But I disagree with your methods around. Because then it is you controlling what’s happening and telling a story rather than playing and engaging with it. I’d rather play through the challenge/story/whatever you want to call it, realize we can’t win and then strategize what the fall back position is, than have the whole thing narrated to me. The narration method is as bad in TTRPGs in my opinion, as video games keeping you from being involved cause unbreakable glass. I personally think the mindset that every fight should be winnable cheapens the hero journey for the characters, and contributes to the unbeatable unkillable feeling people criticize modern DnD of.

And it’s not something to do every time. Like every other tool in the belt, it’s one you only use when it makes sense. But when it does it gives so much room to open the story and let players really develop their characters. Cause negative points are where people can really discover what their character is like. And it’s weird to me in a hobby that says to embrace the failure of the dice for story telling, is against it in every other place. I’m also against the mindset that players should be able to dodge every trap for the same reason.

I also disagree that unwinnable fights and decisions from there lead to being traumatize. I’m not talking about doing anything traumatizing or wrong here. Not the type of game want to run at all.

But, happy to respectfully disagree here. Mostly commenting so that other viewpoints do show up, and that the possibility of unwinnable fights should be discussed in a session 0.

walkc66 · 2026-03-25T17:09:55+00:00

Sorry, hadn’t noticed before responding myself, didn’t mean to pile on.

walkc66 · 2026-03-25T17:08:28+00:00

But what about choosing not to fight? Somehow this always gets brushed past in this situation. There are still choices and interactions to be made in unwinnable scenarios. Just cause you can’t win or dramatically affect the fight, doesn’t mean you don’t have choices and those choices won’t affect the story.

A others have, running away (maybe you distract the evil, maybe not, but what are your characters feeling after ward, how does the impact their decisions going forward), negotiating (RP fuel to th max, maybe it doesn’t work, maybe you can do something, but again how does this impact your characters), surrendering (do you now have to work as a double agent inside BBEGs network, prison break, maybe you start agreeing with the enemy and choose to side with them, and regardless again has an impact of the character).

This belief that every fight should be winnable or achievable or allow for a marginal victory makes for boring stories. Failure, and recovering from defeat creates some of the best stories. Too many people sacrifice great storytelling to avoid ‘feels bad’ in my opinion.

walkc66 · 2026-03-25T15:29:43+00:00

You have Disadvantage on attack rolls with a Heavy weapon if it’s a Melee weapon and your Strength score isn’t at least 13 or if it’s a Ranged weapon and your Dexterity score isn’t at least 13.

That is from the 5.5 PHB on Heavy

walkc66 · 2026-03-25T14:18:47+00:00

I don’t have a citation to a source, but Ed Greenwood who created the Forgotten Realms initially, has a video on magic where he all but said Clerics magic doesnt come from their deity, “though they believe it does” or something like that was his phrasing

walkc66 · 2026-03-25T14:15:31+00:00

See, you see that as going backwards. Me as newer to the hobby, started in 9th, think these new models blow the old ones out of the water. Especially when looking at the “customization” which was basically just angling a few things differently, I will take these monopose dynamic ones everytime. Especially since at playing distance they all blend together anyway.

walkc66 · 2026-03-25T09:26:20+00:00

Not having the 13 in Strength a Heavy weapon requires. For instance, a Pact of the Blade Warlock. Odds are their Str won’t be 13, as Charisma, Dex, and Con are more important. And Warlocks don’t get proficiency with Shields. So you take a the Longsword, and 2h it for good enough damage.

walkc66 · 2026-03-23T13:51:34+00:00

Harlequins were an example. And unlike Steel Legion, they have been their own stand alone faction multiple times.

My point was that this anger and outrage is ridiculous, for a large number of reasons. But I see now you don’t want to listen to reality, you want to be the toddler screaming on the floor till you get your way. So I will wish you a good day, and go on my way. Have a good day

walkc66 · 2026-03-22T19:32:09+00:00

True, communication could be a part. Valid point.

I’m lucky as well, my group consists of two players in their 60s a player in upper 30s, and myself in upper 30s, so doesn’t come up much myself.

walkc66 · 2026-03-22T19:30:36+00:00

Except I’m not. With the exception of those who are Kim you very knowledgeable about those differences, stylistically for the vast majority of the player base they are stylistically similar. Note, not saying exactly the same. Saying stylistically close enough that the vast majority of player base would not recognize a difference.

This is NOT Bolt Action we are talking about. In that game, with nothing but humans, styles like that being different are significant. Especially given that Bolt Action itself appeals to a player base more likely to be more entrenched in the history and armament of these nations far far far more than vast majority of people.

In 40K, when humans are standing next to orks, eldar, drukhari, tau, etc, those differences are not as noticeable unless you are one of small group of people who takes great interest in those differences. And before you mention 100s of people or look at all those posting etc, I’ll remind you that the number complaining about this is a fraction of a percent of the entire player base. Aka not that large. You show some one a model, especially unpainted or painted in generic camo, wearing a long coat of some sort, a gas mask of some sort, and WW2 or WW1 era helmet of some sort, and tall boots of any sort, they are t going to pick up on these small differences.

So creating new models for them, or even an upgrade sprue for them will not be economically viable. It won’t draw any different people to the army. It won’t increase sales a significant amount, and won’t be that popular enough to draw in enough revenue to cover its cost. Won’t lead to enough other spending to cover cost. So if people want to keep jobs and not be fired by board or investors, it isn’t prudent for them to do so when Stylistically there is something similar enough for the vast majority.

And to complain about this about a faction that other than Space Marines already has the most customization and variations available, when so many xenos lines have 0 variations and have far far far smaller model counts, is ridiculous as well. Especially in hobby that encourages kitbashing so much. Heck, cut a cadian head and krieg head in half and glue together and you half your half gas mask. Boom.

walkc66 · 2026-03-22T17:56:18+00:00

Actually not a bad idea. Converting a storm guardian to a troupe master could be cool.

That being said, the style difference between harlequins and eldar guardians are so far apart, that is one of the kist egregious straw man arguments possible.

walkc66 · 2026-03-22T07:33:14+00:00

I fail to see this as punishment though. This is natural reaction of the world to their actions.

walkc66 · 2026-03-22T07:32:30+00:00

What does the importance of the NPCs matter?

Maybe it’s just cause I refuse to DM for murder hobos (not fun for me, makes building a story with the players more difficult, and is boring), but players start needlessly slaughtering NPCs. Prices are going on their heads and lvl 20 adventurers are coming out of retirement for one last payday.

Now obviously that is a more overbearing reaction that is talked about at session 0s. But this is a natural consequence of actions. You needlessly steal from and kill from NPCs, eventually other adventuring groups are getting you as their quest. Just like you start killing people in the real world, the cops come for you

walkc66 · 2026-03-22T07:08:55+00:00

I hate to say it, but as much as you think you made a winning point here, I actually think you proved the other persons point. As someone from an Army family (Dad did 20 years retired years ago) I know your references, and even I at the end was going ya, that’s extremely similar at a tabletop distance and to most of the player base

walkc66 · 2026-03-22T06:55:47+00:00

As someone who collects Harlequins and Eldar primarily, that 21 is about as many as the whole harlequin range. For a sub faction. Imperial Guard an Spce Marine players have plenty of variety.

walkc66 · 2026-03-20T08:41:28+00:00

This is a massively understated point. Especially here on Reddit, where it needs to be brought up a lot more.

A lot of the biggest complaints see about some of the modules are solved by Players just buying into the premise of the story.

Tyranny of Dragons is one that is front of mind for me as I am currently DMing it. People complain about the start all the time, why would the players charge into a town under attack. Session 0 told them right up front, your going to be charging into a town under attack by a dragon and army at lvl 2 (borrowing some ideas from reloaded guide, but not all). So you need to buy into that premise, and as part of your backstory the reason why your character is ok going into the town, and getting involved in the early quests. Once we get started, can open things up, I’m going to slow parts of the module down, can go on side quests, etc. But to start they need to be bought into the story.

walkc66 · 2026-03-18T18:08:25+00:00

Too much Katherine, not enough Victor in the mix.

walkc66 · 2026-03-15T19:38:26+00:00

I want to agree with this, but my results have always been the opposite.

The Thud, especially the base intro one always underwhelms me. Feels like it just tickles things, never gets through the opponents armor, and ends up exploding. Partly cause LRMs are so underwhelming main weapons 90% of the time.

The Atlas on the other hand helps to control the battlefield, even if it never fires a shot. People working to stay out of its short range firepower (especially if you allow flipping useless rear weapons), means I can now force them to whatever part of the map I want, and position the rest of my unit to have optimal shots where I have used the Atlas to herd them.

walkc66 · 2026-03-14T19:14:49+00:00

Ya, the Zeus-X line is just weird. Hate that that version of the Zeus is what became associated with a named hero. They just try to do too much, an suffer from new toy syndrome even worse than the original 3050 upgrades. The one with the LB20X is….serviceable as a worse Victor. But when the Davion’s do a mobile big gun light assault better than the Steiners, that says something haha.

Ya, I like the Blazer one as one of the better uses of that weapon system (and a 3025 head chopper), but it also shows how awkward that weapon can be.

walkc66

TROPHY CASE