I was thinking about converting a cladiator lancer for my custom space marine chapter Amd im into tanks and armored viecols. So i was wandering what would hapoen if i take for example a "centauro" scale model amd kitbash it with a lancer. I would do this because i dont like the flying tank aesthetic and the wheels would convey the idea off a speedy tank

​

https://preview.redd.it/pcywz30ppmxc1.jpg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7f0234901642145ce0bcebc656dcc3af3d17184c

I've just finished painting this Infernus Squad and I wanted to share.

Hope you like them.

I have sent the following to GW as feedback and thought i'll drop it here using a temp account because i dont feel like being eviscerated on the internet today : )

Hi GW Team,
I have picked up 40k about a year ago and have largely collected and played Tyranids (~3000pts now) although I am familiar with a couple of armies - I have played mostly 10th Edition. I come with years of experience in RPG tabletop gaming so the general structure of play and the use of probability in dice-based games is not foreign to me.

I wanted to give a little bit of feedback as a new player that might give an interesting perspective on a couple of things. Please don't get me wrong, overall I enjoy 40k a great deal.

My observation so far from the year of games that I played is that there is a rather large variance in how a battle goes depending on the randomized elements of the game. What I mean here is a disproportionate unpredictable element interfering with tactics and strategies that goes beyond my experience with dice probabilities in other games.
I believe one of the biggest factor here, and I will be using Tyranids as an example, being random attack characteristics and random damage.

On the example of a unit of 3 Zoanthropes, using the Witchfire profile the Attack Characteristic is D3 and the damage for each attack is also D3.

All other things aside this means the variance in raw damage potential is
3 Attacks at 1 Damage - so 3 wounds total
or
9 Attacks at 3 Damage - so 27 wounds total

I understand that within probabilities this should "buff out" over many rolls to 4.5 attacks with 6.75 wounds total.
"Mathematically" this makes total sense and seems reasonable.

However there are a couple of issues with this as the variance is so high between high and low potential

1. It is practically entirely possible to hit the "jackpot" and vaporize a unit.
2. Alternatively to lose badly on the dice and do absolutely nothing in a turn

i.e. the variance is realistically 0 to 27 wounds per attack sequence at full starting strength.

One of the issues is, from experience, that most units in the game do not survive long enough on the board where the over-time probability equalizes. It leads to situations where even a decent dice roll can decide the tide of an entire battle as armies have pivotal units at any given time (in the way that strength vs toughness and save rolls work within optimal target pairings).

This in turn makes units like Zoanthropes very hard to point-balance as their performance per game could be either severely undercosted or severely overcosted.

An additional issue is that, because of how units and attack characteristics work, taking down just one unit of a smaller squad increases their variance. As an example a 2 Zoanthrope unit below starting strength now has a 2 - 18 wound raw damage potential. This is a double-edged sword as the outcome of a complete attack-roll sequence could either be 0 or 18 wounds as the curve shifts by one third toward the lower end. This is also discounting the shooting and wound rolls themselves, which in addition make their effectiveness fall off quicker.
In effect losing models in this scenario increases variance, which in turn makes combat outcomes less predictable (instead of making the unit just "weaker").Unit losses in such scenarios have an added snowball effect.

While I have been using the Zoanthropes as an example these issues extend to many units in the game and it's why most players will max out a unit in size, as more dice mean more predictable or "median" outcomes, than less dice. Similarly players have a preference for homogenous weapon/equipment choices as they will guarantee more dice and more consistent outcomes.
In turn smaller units with more varied weapons are less optimal to use and are often discarded from list-building, which in turn leads to larger, homogenous units and less varied armies/lists.
A "meta" is established faster because 6 Zoanthropes perform much more consistently than 3 and are logically the better choice, which then has knock-on effects on the rest of the list due to the points increase in the list.

In those situations it also discourages splitting fire or units (2x 3 Zoanthropes vs 1x 6x Zoanthropes) to operate independently as the variance becomes worse with less units. This is especially true with units that have leaders as it additionally pushes into auto-include scenarios when the leader gives some measure of dice control (Necron Plasmancer Criticals on 5+ with Immortals weapons Sustained Hits and Lethal Hits triggering on criticals). Taking the above into account, smaller lists (from experience under 1500 points) push players either into more unpredictability, one-sided engagements or at best do not encourage varied unit compositions.

I understand that damage and "tabling" an opponent aren't necessarily the goal of the game but the experienced level of variance feels like it diminishes the importance of tactical and strategic combat decisions in the game. My thoughts extend the above thoughts to the entire core rules, from charge and advance rolls to armour saving throws - in the attack sequence adding another 2 variables with random attack and damage characteristics compounds the issues.

Personally I find the variance in the game, instead of making it exciting and interesting, is instead making the game often frustrating and unfun for players (whether win or lose). Hands down my best games have been in situations where my and enemy armies have been performing within the median parameters without the extremes of pulverizing each other's units through sheer "luck".

I also believe this is why armies that have in-built dice control generally feel more fun to play and perform much better per battle. The Eldar fate dice would be a prime example but this extends to weapons or unit abilities that allow for dice control as well - like Lokhust Lord's Driven by Hatred or Old One Eye's Alpha Leader ability.

I firmly believe that either less inherent variance in the core game systems OR more army rules, abilities, universal strategems, universal special rules etc to control dice at any phase and for any roll would benefit consistency and make the game more fun for everyone.

I've been wondering if this is just a normal bolter or is it its own pattern

Looking over the codex for 10th edition, do the BTs not get Dreadnoughts and tanks with tracks like rhinos and razorbacks?

I'm trying to find a good quality paint mixer that's worth the price, can anyone help me out with some recommendations please?

Hi I'm new to Warhammer 40k I just like to ask the help of other Warhammer fans to ask where should I start with ultra marine 1000 point army As you can see I have 4 miniatures all ready I would like to ask for recommendations for Mt first army for the ultra marines and what books and date card to get too

Thanks

Hello Warhammer, I swear this is related. I wanted to make a set of 16mm D6 dice from actual animal bones for my Blessings of Khorne rolling needs. I have everything to make a set of fair dice except for material. I wanted to know if any of you deranged, sick, or mental folk have an idea as to where I can get some for this project?

I would love some help with getting to have an actual game that seems even.. we are both using roughly 800 points built from 2 larger starter sets. I have also some reivers and she a biovore. Running simple games like take and hold and no matter how many missions or how much teleporting my 2 terminator squads do I cannot win. She demolishes me in points every time and I can tell usually by turn 2 that I have no hope. Please help me have more fun. I'm using the basic space marine detachment. Should I get new models and what who are the actually good characters I should use. Should I use a different detachment or get tanks or dreadnoughts im at a loss as to how to wisely spend my money to have a more balanced game with my friend.

As mainly a Painter rather than Player I tend to buy the models I like the best rather than what fits perfectly in my army. I'm partial to Orks, collecting over 2k points of the army and mostly all their models are so cool!

There are definitely models from factions/Armies that I would never build a full army list for. For example, my favorite model that's not an Ork is "The Triumph of Saint Katherine". I would never build an Adeptus Sororitas army but that model so cool I must own it! Another are the Armies of Chaos. I have one squad of Plague, Rubrick Marines and Korne Berserkers. Their aesthetic is fun compared to basic Space Marines but again would never build a full army, maybe Death Guard but not yet! Also, The Great Unclean One is just a beautifully disgusting model that I need to paint!

Are there any models NOT from your main army/faction that are your favorite?

I know that in the Movement phase it specifically calls out how units can move through friendly units. My question is two fold, can models within a unit move through each other and does any of the above apply in different phases? Charging, pile-in, consolidating?