|
Post by Nick P on Apr 11, 2014 6:58:15 GMT -6
Don't worry guys, the primarchs are Lords of War, and around 600pts each.
Josh I'll bring out Angron for my burgeoning 30k world eaters force...and watch him eat mortarion's dick for lunch
|
|
|
Post by jefferestinpeace on Apr 11, 2014 7:22:09 GMT -6
PS - Russell showed me this GIF first, duh.
|
|
Josh
initiate
Posts: 57
|
Post by Josh on Apr 11, 2014 10:49:34 GMT -6
Well there closer to 400 except hours who is more. The death reaper is the toughest primarch but angron is built more as a unit killer. Horus is just a badass who can do most things. Fulgrim is a monster in a challenge. Still from the numbers I think any of the four primarchs I have the stats for could bet the others.
|
|
|
Post by Nick P on Apr 11, 2014 11:46:49 GMT -6
Someone did the math over at Bolter and Chainsword, and across all 3 books, Angron comes out on top - since he gets attacks added as he kills characters and units in CC, maxed out he'll have 10 attacks at WS9 with hatred, S8 I7 AP2, S9 on the charge...I don't think even Horus is surviving that barrage bud
|
|
|
Post by Ah crap it's him on Apr 12, 2014 0:26:47 GMT -6
Jeff if you want a co-mod id be down to ride your 6. Since I can't play and won't live in the state, I'll have to live vicariously through all your battle reports.
|
|
|
Post by Russell on Apr 12, 2014 0:52:14 GMT -6
id be down to ride your 6. come on man
|
|
|
Post by jefferestinpeace on Apr 12, 2014 7:14:08 GMT -6
I would very much welcome that Kyle. I don't know exactly what I'll need, but I've always wanted a Goose.
And yes, running this campaign will probably murder you.
|
|
Andy
initiate
Posts: 219
|
Post by Andy on Apr 12, 2014 9:24:21 GMT -6
...I don't know exactly what I'll need, but I've always wanted a Goose... Get a room, fags.
|
|
|
Post by jefferestinpeace on Apr 13, 2014 17:53:11 GMT -6
Hey turds, We've had a couple new additions recently (read: CC), so for the sake of a bump and a bit of TL;DR: If anyone is interested in participating in a hard-narrative-forging 40k campaign, please take this survey and let me know your preferences for how it would play out. It will be light on additional rules and largely dependent on player direction. For where I've gotten a considerable amount of inspiration, look here. For everyone who has already participated in this conversation and survey, I'm looking to come to some hard decisions (hard) by the end of the week so shut up.
|
|
Josh
initiate
Posts: 57
|
Post by Josh on Apr 13, 2014 18:05:16 GMT -6
I do have a question about sides. Is it going to be a free for all or are we going to have teams with some sort of common goals. My thought is if we have teams it would be easier to for different factions to fight each other.
|
|
|
Post by jefferestinpeace on Apr 13, 2014 18:39:17 GMT -6
I'm certainly not against that, especially if everyone is on board, but I was kind of hoping everyone participating would post their own stake in the campaign. I might do a second survey after I narrow things down a bit, but if more direction is needed, then I'd be happy to provide that. I was also thinking that the campaign might have a self-sustaining function in regards to those feeling like they might lack direction; there's wouldn't be any real reason you couldn't jump on someone else's goal. It'd probably increase the chances of succeeding and be easier to construct a narrative around the battles you play. There would also be opportunity for backstabbing and treachery, which is highly recommended.
Again, I'd like it to remain as free form as possible while remaining true-ish to the fluff. Obviously, Nids are going to be Nids and Space Marines will never ally with Chaos, but I'd ask those interested in things like this to refer to the allies chart in the rule book for a general guideline.
Except that SM and Tau Battle Brothers stuff. That's fucking dumb.
|
|
|
Post by Joelercoaster on Apr 16, 2014 6:59:00 GMT -6
I like the idea of the ability to form/keep/break whatever alliances you please... although they should make some sort of sense. On the table-top, 4 players would be 4 separate armies, completely. You are free to target whomever you so choose - and likewise free to *not* target whomever you so choose. This is war, people. Just because you agreed with those Kroot that you'd fight off these orks together doesn't mean they won't nip that heavy weapon's team in the butt because they got hungry.
Yes, you can accidentally scatter your stuff onto your "friends"/clip them with flamers. They're "an enemy" army.
One thing that would need to be addressed initially is Psy-powers. Can BB's still cast on other "friendly" BB armies? Or do we nip that completely? I'd be down for keeping the current Ally matrix rules, so that friendly BB's could hide a character in my squad, etc.
And no, you still can't shoot into a combat even if your guys aren't involved. No, you don't get to argue "the fluff says...". The GAME MECHANICS function around units locked in combat *not* being targeted by shooting. The game is already fairly imbalanced toward shooting armies, getting locked in is one benefit of being an assault unit. So chill your face, take some time to reload, and wait til your friend's squad gets slaughtered before you go avenging them.
My "Eldar Corsairs" will be happy to act as a mercenary force, for those willing to pay some questionably exorbitant contracting fees.
|
|
|
Post by jefferestinpeace on Apr 16, 2014 7:23:38 GMT -6
Yeah, all alliances will be pretty much off-table with the ally matrix as a guide, but your alliances should be formed to better your position in the narrative, not combo out on the tabletop. Unless your narrative calls for both armies to be on the table at the same time, it should operate as most real-world and 40k-fluff alliances do: in the warroom. Your allies should assist in completing objectives of operations and furthering goals, there will not be any additional rules to change the core mechanics of the game. This whole campaign should be primarily an excuse to play more 40k, a motivator that will hopefully get you excited for your next game because, not only do you get to play, but you get to decide what happens to the story.
With that in mind, I should have something more concrete by the end of the week. Don't expect any crazy charts or graphs or roll-tables or anything; we're just playing games here.
|
|
|
Post by jefferestinpeace on Apr 22, 2014 7:44:21 GMT -6
Who wants to read what I've got an tell me what I'm missing?
Bear in mind, the innovation stage is largely over. I'm looking for places that need more clarity or should be rearranged.
Thanks dudes!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2014 9:11:10 GMT -6
I'd love too read what you've got thus far sir.
|
|