Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I don't think that's necessarily true either. There can be subtle benefits or disadvantages to various squad sizes depending on the edition.

True, but that's not the same as making certain units arbitrarily stronger.

Your answer speaks of a nebulous indeterminate 'sloppy' concept of balance that makes it - as you say - a fool's errand to solve. All i'm saying is that pink marines shouldn't arbitrarily get a point off their power mauls for because the lore says they like them. If there is a trade-off somewhere else then fine, otherwise players who want to follow the lore can take the mauls and those who don't don't - no penalty, no bonus either way.

A.T. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I don't think that's necessarily true either. There can be subtle benefits or disadvantages to various squad sizes depending on the edition.

True, but that's not the same as making certain units arbitrarily stronger.

Your answer speaks of a nebulous indeterminate 'sloppy' concept of balance that makes it - as you say - a fool's errand to solve. All i'm saying is that pink marines shouldn't arbitrarily get a point off their power mauls for because the lore says they like them. If there is a trade-off somewhere else then fine, otherwise players who want to follow the lore can take the mauls and those who don't don't - no penalty, no bonus either way.

The different color marines already get different free bonuses, and despite point costs not being involved, it's obvious that that's not exactly foolproof guard against imbalance. You're getting caught up on points arbitrarily. Points are just as viable a tool for incentive as different special bonuses, Relics, Stratagems, whatever. There's no difference.

Greetings
just got a little epic scale action in tonight. using index 8th ed rules with halved ranges.

400PL game of salamanders VS tau

i was running a bunch of detachments but i won't bore you with all that.

Since this is index version we used no stratagems other than CP re-rolls & army build buffs- no doctrines for the marines.

My list
.jump chapter master
.jump captain
.X3 techmarines
.5 man hell blaster squad
.6X6 inceptor squads (bolters)
.X6 venerable dreads X3 in lucius drop pods
.X2 storm hawks
.X2 xiphons
.X2 storm eagle ROC
X3 thunderhawks (turbo lasers)



His force
.Ra'ali
.R'myr
.Farsight
.long strike in hammerhead
.6X12 firewarrior squads with devilfish
.X6 riptides
.X4 tech drones
.X5 hammerheads
.X4 tetra
.X4 TX 42 heavy piranha
.X5 baracudas
.X2 tiger sharks





The table






The start





The middle



The end





Special thanks to vanguard and onslaught minis for making the game possible.

Another little 5th ed update


First i picked up some 3d printed dawn of war style defense turrets to use as vengeance defense bunkers (stronghold assault )
from tabletop game supplies

the first one was a twin linked assault cannon looking one, pretty good for $15 the second cost a few dollars more but it came with barrel bits for -battle cannon, demolisher cannon, twin linked auto cannon, punisher cannon, leman russ plasma cannon, and one that looks kind of like a giant grav cannon.

We ended up using the first one as part of the game objectives.




i mixed things up a bit with this game replacing my land speeder scouts with a full squad of snipers.

the list
5th ed marines,/7th ed mechanicus)
HQ
.master of the forge
.tech priest dominus (allied detachment)
Troops
.scout squad
.dread talon (ironclads)
.cataphhron breachers (allied detachment)
FAST
.assault squad
.storm hawk interceptor
.storm eagle gunship.
30 infantry
5 vehicles.




He was mixing and matching units as well since he got his land raider and defiler assembled


Khorne(3.5 dex)
HQ
blood thirster
Troop
.berserkers in rhino
.berserkers in rhino
Elite
.chosen terminators
.obliterators
Heavy
.land raider
.defiler
24 infantry, 4 vehicles.

The highlights

.turn 1 i killed the bloodthirster-moral victory, i just had to dump all my HKs into him and throw the snipers at him as well to get it done.

kharn and his squad managed to score the objective and moved away from me, next turn they blood frenzied and brought it right back to me.

I only managed to kill kharn, his unit and their rhino with an oblit and a few terminators in the mix. i got pretty mauled in return. lost all my infantry save the master of the forge, 2 of my ironclads got immobilize, the third destroyed and the storm eagle got destroyed when it went to hover so the master could get out to grab the objective on turn 5. still had fun watching the berserkers getting drug around by their blood frenzy.

The table



The start



The middle




the end




Until next time

I go back to second edition, which had a few things I’d like to see return- More than the D6. Back the. They used D4, D6, D8, D10, D12, and D20 I believe.

Terminators used two D6 for armor checks and started on a 3+ vs armor mods.

We had psychology rules, which were awesome.

RT and 2nd ed are still my faves. But nowadays I'm thinking that something like SG Necromunda or current edition Kill Team might take the cake for me.

Overall, I think my preference is for Kill Team, strikes a decent balance between complexity and fast-to-play'ness.. But also love the ammo rolls and the pinning mechanic of Necromunda. Would be pretty lopsided for 40K though, as certain factions would be basically immune to both ammo rolls and being pinned (like marines). At the end of the day, alternative activations without any sort of squad coherency is where the sweet spot lies for me. Has made me realize how much I Go U Go and squad blobbing reduces depth and narrative experience in gameplay.

I'm a skirmish player at heart I guess. Space Hulk, Advanced Space Crusade etc scale feels better to me than cramping 30-70 models per side on a tiny board and pretending there is a sense of scale in there somewhere. That just feels like a meat grinder. IMO Epic is a better scale for representing forces of that size on the tabletop.

If I'm being overly critical, I don't think any of the 40K rulesets are really successful in bringing the grimdark to the tabletop. Cruel and sociopathic behaviour like shooting into CC aren't allowed ("the risk of hitting your own troops is too great" - doesn't sound terribly grimdark to me). Reaction mechanics are practiclly nonexistent outside of Space Hulk / Advanced Space Crusade.. But it is what it is.

I kinda like the whole "Action Points" paradigm where a model can do several things in a single turn but has to prioritize their actions, making a choice between shooting lots, preparing to react to the enemy, running as fast as possible, or combining all those things at the expense of doing less of any of them. Wish something like that existed for 40K as well.

I also think that major power creep has the game on a chokehold. Players avoid taking troops because they are "underpowered". Well, what if you were forced to take mostly troops as your army? And could only field a handful of other things? Might be interesting. Like in Space Hulk, where mostly every model is just a "regular" trooper. Makes the special model or two in your force feel much more indispensable, while at the same time forcing you to play more by troop synergy and cooperation instead of singular "death star" units and "expendable chaff".

Getting back to the editions of 40K.. I'd love seeing Rogue Trader being played with modern minis! Now we finally got all those weird and wonderful things as GW miniatyres that only existed as illustrations in the venerable 1st edition.. We got Jokaeros, Ambulls, AdMech monstrosities, "Sister Sin" (Sisters of Silence), Primaris Inceptors etc. Its one of my miniature gaming fantasies. But got nobody who'd be into it except for myself.

All things old….
Simple and effective terrain rules… 5E seemed to be in a good place for this simplicity of often strong cover saves (before they got watered down in 6E/7E). I liked that being obscured = got cover, and that it didn’t matter whether it was terrain or another unit (friend or foe) that did the obscuring.
Fine there was always the discussion of if a ‘big’ unit was obscured enough to get it.

Target Priority, was… interesting

I really, really miss flamer templates, the D6 auto hits these days is nowhere near as satisfying as when you positioned a flamer to get an entire squad (and possibly some stragglers of another).

RT was full of many a funky thing, some of which seem to have come back...

I am firmly in the belief that the not that unique ability to pull off a T1 charge by the 1st player is a very bad thing. It’s always been hard, and a bit of a seesaw to balance melee and shooting. Having units be able to reliably cross no-man’s land and charge the opposition before they’ve even had a chance to do anything, I think only compounds this issue.

That said not all progress is bad, finally re-unifying the system for monsters and vehicles is a hugely beneficial.

As for something I don't miss, the old, old vehicle targetting grid.

That said not all progress is bad, finally re-unifying the system for monsters and vehicles is a hugely beneficial.

I find that to be terrible and not immersive at all. it's rather silly in 8th that my tank can fire every gun at you because my right front tread can see you.

The previous system made them unique in their behavior the only thing i think could have been interesting is a degradation for monsterous creatures-down to 1 wound-you can only fire 1 gun and move at half speed- or something to that effect to show damage like the vehicle damage chart did to weapons/mobility.

All in all though even without that i find the distinction between the two to be far better than the wounds system introduced in 8th. i think it could be done right, DUST 1947 does it right. GW just seems to often miss the mark with implementation.

As for something I don't miss, the old, old vehicle targetting grid

Well it was a skirmish game back then., they lend themselves to more detailed rules .

All i know is i am having a heck of a fun time playing 5th and so is the group of players with me. even when i get wrecked like i did in this game.

Late 8th and now 9th seems to put to much focus on serious tourney style game play, of course i have the same attitude towards warmachine...steamroller? no thanks

My biggest gripe with 40K rules systems is the way it deals with the notion of "elapsed time". Stuff either counts as having moved or not etc. Something like the AP paradigm breaks this down to a much more interesting level, where pivoting or slight movement isn't nearly as restricting as the all or nothing approach.

Also the fact that an advancing foot slogger is almost as fast as a vehicle feels weird.

The way that gameplay is capped to a few turns also seems a bit funny. I guess its there to enforce a finite duration to a single game, but anyhoo.. In 40K, both time and space are weirdly unintuitive but LOS still exists. Its a bit of a mess innit

 aphyon wrote:

That said not all progress is bad, finally re-unifying the system for monsters and vehicles is a hugely beneficial.

I find that to be terrible and not immersive at all. it's rather silly in 8th that my tank can fire every gun at you because my right front tread can see you.

The previous system made them unique in their behavior the only thing i think could have been interesting is a degradation for monsterous creatures-down to 1 wound-you can only fire 1 gun and move at half speed- or something to that effect to show damage like the vehicle damage chart did to weapons/mobility.

All in all though even without that i find the distinction between the two to be far better than the wounds system introduced in 8th. i think it could be done right, DUST 1947 does it right. GW just seems to often miss the mark with implementation.

Would agree that compared to earlier editions the current LOS rules are more generous and less immersive, for things both large and small.

With respect to Vehicles vs Monstrous Creatures it isn't that the 8E/9E system is better, more that to me it is definatley preferential than having the gulf in mechanics between the two being vast - I could never see why not only was a vehicle only ever a single penetrating hit away from destruction, but that even if a penetrating hit didn’t destroy the vehicle it could easily cripple the vehicle or it’s ability to act next turn…. Whilst a MC had a small handful of wounds, a high toughness and an armour save. There was no degradation, you had to simply chew through those wounds. That said there was something for armour facings, it usually handsomely rewarded manoeuvring to get rear or side shots, but again why only vehicles? I would happily have a system where both MCs and Vehicles had facings, traced LOS to weapon mounts, had damage tables etc...

On this note I think the changes to melta bombs, krak grenades and similar that 8E brought weren’t for the best. To me it made sense you could you these in melee against the big stuff. It could well be edition inertia but trading all your melee attacks to plant an anti-tank charge of somesort to me makes more sensible then only being able to hurl them a short distance and then being unable to use them once melee commences.

 aphyon wrote:

Late 8th and now 9th seems to put to much focus on serious tourney style game play, of course i have the same attitude towards warmachine...steamroller? no thanks.

I liked 8E Maelstome of War, and the random Tactical Objectives. Yes sometimes the deck woud not be kind to you, but equally sometimes you could achive victory despite being blown off the table by playing to the drawn objectives. Never quite knowing what you'd need to me meant building versitile flexible lists rather than just ones focuses on removing your oppenents models from the field of play.

An interesting side note on this conversation, i have now run into 2 groups in my local area that have decided to step off at different points. 2 weeks ago i talked with players i didn't know who said they were stopping with 8th. and a couple i know came by yesterday to pick up my 7th edition core rules book set as they are stopping there and now have just about if not every codex for 7th ed(although they refuse to use formations at all).

Rather this is just a preference for the rules or some other thing like having to constantly buy new books, or both, i am curious as to how many people are getting tired of GWs antics and jumping off the train now. i mean as a company they really don't care about the veteran players as they are always focused on the new player and the new sales i don't see it really hurting them in the short term.

I think that will come later as 3d printing improves in quality/cost over actual GW plastics. i mean i just picked up a fantastic set of 3d printed defense turrets that look more in line with dawn of war designs, but the one has an IG leman russ turret on a bunker base with 6 different modular weapon options for a mere $17 US

I think Games Workshop always intended for players to come up with their own interpretations of 40K. Many people may only think GW encouraged you to do this for the fluff and models, but why not think of this in broader terms as well? As in, take everything that exists so far and "kitbash/convert" it to your preference - rules etc included.

That is the ultimate hobbyist IMHO. Taking what exists and making it yours. "The most important rule" and all that.

40K cannot ever graduate to a "classic game" status without freezing the playsystem to one specific edition. I can totally understand the appeal in doing so. But for me personally, that edition still hasn't arrived. I need alternating activation or some reactions mechanic at least. Such a thing totally opens the game up in terms of dynamics.

BTW - I just remembered some fun wacky melee system which was introduced in a White Dwarf magazine back in the day.. It involved some sort of playing cards? And you could parry with sword somehow? Anyone remember what that was all about?

tauist wrote:


BTW - I just remembered some fun wacky melee system which was introduced in a White Dwarf magazine back in the day.. It involved some sort of playing cards? And you could parry with sword somehow? Anyone remember what that was all about?

I think that might be the Warhammer Gladiator/Pitfight game they did. They suggested putting the hit location on cards. The attacker secretly selects a body location card and the defender secretly selects a body location card. And then the reveal. If the locations are the same it is an automatic miss. If the defence location is next to the attack location roll to hit. If the location is not next to the attack location it is an automatic hit.

I might be misremembering as it was a long time ago and I did not look it up. I have the White Dwarf somewhere. They did something similar for the jousting game they had.

tauist wrote:
I think Games Workshop always intended for players to come up with their own interpretations of 40K. Many people may only think GW encouraged you to do this for the fluff and models, but why not think of this in broader terms as well? As in, take everything that exists so far and "kitbash/convert" it to your preference - rules etc included.

That is the ultimate hobbyist IMHO. Taking what exists and making it yours. "The most important rule" and all that.

Absolutely agree. Third definitely has this feeling throughout the core rules at times, and I believe the fourth edition (could be 5th?) book actually has a battle report where the players invent a house rule or two on the fly.

But for me personally, that edition still hasn't arrived. I need alternating activation or some reactions mechanic at least. Such a thing totally opens the game up in terms of dynamics.

So you are looking for something akin to new kill teams or perhaps the new apocalypse rules for game play above skirmish level?

Personally i think the DUST system would work especially with 8th ed and forwards.

It has both alternating activation with a reaction mechanic

.every unit gets 2 actions-they can be any combination of move/shoot/assault/special action. and some can be used twice like move/move or shoot/shoot (re-roll misses so effectively twin linked)
.you roll initiative every turn and players take turns alternately activating units
.every unit has a 16" reaction range(24" for anti-air mounts), so if an enemy unit activates/takes and action within that range and can be seen the non-active players unit rolls 2 dice to see if he can interrupt the active player. 1 success he gets a single action , 2 and he gets both that units actions. doing so counts that unit as having acted for the defending players turn
.close combat is always simultaneous unless a unit has a special rule that says they strike first.
.terrain is all TLOS with one exception-area terrain like ruins/forest block LOS unless you are in them and within 4" of the facing edge.
.the system uses a symbol based D3 dice setup bullseye(1&2) for special actions, shield-cover saves(3&4-vehicles only ever get cover at best) and army symbol-success/infantry saves(5&6-infantry saves can always be taken unless a special weapon specifically ignores it like fire or artillery). so lethality is greatly reduced.

There are other AA systems out there of course but most of them are scaled a bit differently. i know heavy gear, bolt action and star wars legion use the AA mechanic.

That sounds cool! Something like that DUST mechanic might just be my ideal for 40K as well.

Tygre wrote:

tauist wrote:


They did something similar for the jousting game they had.

Oh that was fun. It got my dad into collecting and painting if not actual playing. Still got his models.

There are two difficulties with alternating activations in 40k: people are used to units that can do a lot of different things every turn (in 8e units may be able to move, cast psychic powers, shoot, charge, fight, deny psychic powers, fire overwatch, and fight again) that they resist the kind of restrictions on quantity of actions you need to make alternating activations flow smoothly, and the unit count varies much more between armies than it does in most alternating activation systems, which means you need to address the issue of taking more units to game the alternating system.

With all of the hate that is happening for the new edition, perhaps there will be a resurgence of older editions. As I started with the 5th that is more or less my preferred edition, with some tweaks.
I Never played the 4th but it does look interesting.

One of the best rules sets from 4th is one we brought into 5th that forces tactical play with vehicles against assaults. it is a direct tactical trade off-the more you move the harder you are to hit in CC, but at the expense of less accurate shooting. add in snap fire and the vehicle can at least contribute something to the game while being stunned/shaken or moved to fast to shoot normally (unless you go flat out then driving is all the crew can do, not even pop smoke). it also helps balance out it's comparison to monsterous creatures who suffer no penalties from being wounded to movement or shooting. doing all these positive things to gameplay while also being immersive to what people realistically know. hitting a moving vehicle is much harder to do the faster it is moving VS one that has not moved at all.

3rd and 4th also had the better rule for all sniper weapons-always hits on 2+ and wound on 4+ ignoring BS and toughness of target, rends on a 6+ to wound/pen. but at S3 they were limited to damaging medium vehicles (max damage AV 12) and tough things.

The other big thing about the older editions (mostly 3rd-5th) is the lore side of gameplay, for those of us who enjoy that side of the 40K universe it is a much more immersive experience than the current game represents. I am putting together an allied force of 3rd ed grey knights to assist my marines against our chaos player who is using the 3.5 dex because it is what would happen in universe as the rules for both forces are directly meant to play off of each other.

I think much of the hate for 9th is directed at GWs mishandling of the launch-the indomitus box fiasco, the constantly changing rules for look out sir, and points etc... there are still an army of players who want to play the newest edition as obedient GW fanboys or even players who never experienced anything before 8th or late 7th formation spam. that missed out on how fun the game was in prior editions, even if it wasn't completely perfect.

Back with another 5th ed house rules game 2k points

chaos 3.5 dex VS 5th ed demon hunter/inquisitorial force.

The chaos side
lord in terminator armor
.dark apostle/chaplain
terminator squad
land raider
.helldrake
decimator dread(contemptor model)
.X2 berserker squad in rhinos
.havock squad las tank hunter
.2 obliterators

inquisition side
.cortez
.inquisitor
.X2 death cult assasin squads
.X2 jakero squads
.land raider redeemer
.land raider crusader
.vindicare assassin

There was some heavy proxy going on, all i had was am achillies to stand in for the crusader for them to borrow, and since this list was written so many year ago nobody was willing to put out the kind of money GW was charging for jakero or assassin., so marines and IG stood in for them.

The game was a simple 12" deployment pitched battle, no objectives...well other than killing

the decimator was the saddest unit on the table, getting it's arm taken off twice and getting immobilised twice before dying in turn 5. the only thing keeping it going was the parasitic possession.

The terminators really saved the day after the assassins tore through the berserker squads

At the end chaos won but only barely. down to 1 obliterator, 3 terminators (including the lord), the land raider, helldrake, and a single havock that had to slog halfway across table to get LOS to anything as the battle shifted.


The table




Early game



mid game

 aphyon wrote:
.X2 jakero squads

Did the guy actually blow 840pts on two dozen flying monkeys?

Thinking back 2nd edition was probably my favourite. It's clunky by modern standards, but there were a lot less miniatures on the tabletop so you could get away with it. The game was also quite easily breakable in terms of ridiculous unit options, but TBH back before the internet net-listing days you didn't see a lot of that and if you played a list that 'meant you were a nob' (units of Wolf Guard terminators with cyclone missile launchers etc.) then you would just struggle to find a game or be mocked remorselessly by your friends for doing it.

Unit1126PLL wrote:Some people are out there who wish for more simulationism.

They call it "realism" but essentially, there are people who want units to function the way they "should" in the lore. They're just not people who are playing right now (and therefore won't be on this forum or at other community nexi).

I watched, just this sunday, a gentleman who was playing his first game give up on 40k. The thing that broke it for him? The enemy player moved infantry through a solid Ruin wall. That's normal to old hats of 40k, but this guy didn't get it, and I don't really blame him. He was confused, not because the rules weren't simple enough, but because they weren't intuitive enough. They didn't match his picture of "how things should be" in the reality that the game represents, so he went back to only reading the novels.

Yep this is something I have always struggled with when coming back to 40k after playing games that are more intuitive. I just re-read this battle report which was written shortly before 6th edition (I think). It's really funny to read now because you can tell I was getting sick of the rules and how poorly they represented what was happening in your head from an imagination perspective.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/444245.page

6th edition did finally break me, having Tomix toy aircraft fly overhead and wreck £100 of miniatures with pie plate bombs, it just stopped being fun. I haven't played for a few editions now but the battlereports in WD and reading online makes me think I'm not missing anything; the models of titans, knights, superheavies are lovely, but they have no place on a 28mm tabletop IMO and the scale of warfare just doesn't fit. Epic on the other hand..

Iracundus wrote:2nd edition allowed for shooting into melee. Sure make it a morale test or something but given how callous and desperate the 40K universe should be, many factions should have the option to try. Certain factions like Tyranids shouldn't even hesitate to do so (of course they also auto-pass morale tests). I remember shooting a barbed strangler at a melee between a surviving Termagant and a Terminator. Clearly the Termagant was doomed sooner or later so I shot into the melee, hit and killed the Termagant, and the resulting strangler blast killed the Terminator. The Hive Mind would clearly consider that a profitable trade.

Awesome, one of the great things that worked so well in 2nd edition. That and turrets flying off and landing on people, the psychic phase (I used to love the WHFB magic-style duelling) and the much more concise squad-level combat.

@AT

Yes and they are damn scary, especially with cortez babysitting them. now that i think of it the death cult assassins are just as scary.

 aphyon wrote:
Yes and they are damn scary, especially with cortez babysitting them. now that i think of it the death cult assassins are just as scary.

From my little time playing GK in 5th that it seems a slightly 'soft' list. The jokaero are mortar bait (god help them against a 6e eldar or renegades army), and against parking lot lists of the era they are probably putting 420 points of shooting into a 35pt rhino.

I guess it's just weird seeing casualhammer played with 3.5 chaos and helldrakes vs 5e gk and inquisition spam.

When my buddy made the list back in 5th there were a bunch of people at the time that said the jakero/assassin list wouldn't work, but perception is sometimes not reality on the table. it has turned out to be a hard list to fight. it only lost 2 times, once against FW eldar corsairs in 5th and in this game. i have had it beat the heck out of my army several times. a space wolf player in 5th didn't fair much better, he even did a rematch with a stormshield wolfguard heavy force and got wrecked.


playing the combined codexes in 5th may seem weird at first. but the cross compatibility is actually super easy.
in the manner of the helldrake we just took it's normal points cost from 7th, then added in the cost/abilities of vehicle upgrades in the 3.5 chaos codex.

Because we also add in a few of the old FW rules for flyers(removing vector lock-old rules=immobilized flyer crashes) we put back in the blanket aircraft upgrades of armored cockpit (ignore stunned/shaken-not that the helldrake cares being demon possessed does the same thing) and chaff/flare launchers (once per game force a re-roll on an immobilized damage result) at cost.


When it comes to GK/inquisitors i actually prefer my 3rd ed codex. it wasn't really good to run as a complete army, but the special allies rules they had made them an excellent special operations force you could add to any imperial force. also the fact the rules for their abilities were mirror to the lore rules in the chaos dex of the time.

Another buddy of mine has some 5th ed GKs sitting around and he agreed to sell me a grand master and terminator retinue super cheap. so they will be in a future battle. it will be so nice to have shrouding and good hammerhand back,

 aphyon wrote:
When my buddy made the list back in 5th there were a bunch of people at the time that said the jakero/assassin list wouldn't work, but perception is sometimes not reality on the table. it has turned out to be a hard list to fight.

Must be doing something I hadn't accounted for.

A semi-serious 2k in 5th i'd be thinking ~12 hulls and 70 bodies packed with literally dozens of flamers, meltas, and missiles. Half way across the board turn 1 and just bum-rushing, losing a couple of tanks a turn for the first few turns is just cost of business for a parking lot list.

Yeah well the other list he lost against was a vehicle heavy build, it was a hard army to fight no matter what you brought...so much S8/AP2

it was a corsairs list
.2 prince's
.X2 dire avenger squads with falcons (dedicated transports
.3 warp hunters
.a squad of 3 hornets with pulse lasers
.2 eldar aircraft.


i think there might have been another unit, hard to remember more than that since it has been like 8 years since i last played against it, the guy was a huge eldar mono faction player so he had a bit of everything. great friend, sadly for our group he moved a few hours away for work, got married the usual life stuff, have not seen him in years.

Although for some reason the dice gods saw fit that more than not my dreadnought themed army took him to a tie game more than wins or losses.

 aphyon wrote:
chaos 3.5 dex

 aphyon wrote:
.helldrake

Huh?

 aphyon wrote:
.X2 jakero squads

This makes my eye twitch.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 aphyon wrote:
chaos 3.5 dex

 aphyon wrote:
.helldrake

Huh?

 aphyon wrote:
.X2 jakero squads

This makes my eye twitch.

If you look back a couple posts you can see how easy it is to put a helldrake in with the 3.5 dex



and yes 22 jakero, it works in combination with other stuff. my friend is actually a master of breaking 40K army builds for fun. we try them out see how dumb they are. the all bike 8th ed custodes list is another of his creations that has never lost a game.