Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)
>I guess I'll put my month 2 stuff here, since the threads seem to be
>exploding everywhere.
It's going to be a nightmare to collate them for month 3. :-(
Lost and the Damned army, month 2:
>Arch Heretic w/ Mark of Nurgle, Bolter, Plague Sword, Nurgle's Rot -
87pts
>Big Mutants x3, with 1 Hvy Stubber - 140pts
>-- Big Boss Mutant w/ Hvy Stubber
>Allied Plague Marines (elite)x5, w/ Bolters, 1 PG - 105 pts
>Traitor Troops (compulsory ) x14, w/ Lasguns, 1 GL, 1 ML team -
170pts
>--Agitator w/ Power Fist, laspistol
>Traitor Troops x14, w/ Lasguns, 1 GL, 1 AC team - 170pts
>--Agitator w/ Power Fist, laspistol
>Traitor Troops x14, w/ Lasguns, 1 GL, 1 Mortar team - 165pts
>--Agitator w/ Power Weapon, laspistol
>Plague Zombies x18 - 162pts
>999 pts, 73 models + 2 "spare" zombies
>From a force selection point of view, I've taken the very un-WD view
of
>trying to expand from a 500 point skirmish force to a larger,
sorta-balanced
>1000 point army. Since the whole point of this army is to be a giant
horde
>of traitors and shambling plague-carriers, I figured to go with more
>Traitors.
Well, it was that or more Shambling Plague-Carriers...
> I bought a single heavy weapons box, and with components I saved
>from month 1 and parts from the second Cadian Shock Troop box I
purchased
>this turn, I should be able to construct 3 acceptable-looking heavy
weapons
>teams, one for each Traitor unit. The Agitators with their PWs or
PFs might
>not wind up being all that useful, but I felt they were thematic, and
I
>guess having some h2h hidden in these 15-strong units couldn't hurt.
I
>added Nurgle's Rot to the Arch-Heretic because it's _very_ thematic
>(implying that his connection to Granddaddy Nurgle is growing), makes
him a
>bit more unpleasant to be around,
You know the nastiness of 40k has been toned down when someone with
Nurgle's Rot is described as being "a bit more unpleasant to be
around"...
>The two main choices I'm looking at for Month 3 will make a big
impact on
>how the army develops, but since current feedback seems to indicate
there's
>no good cheap way to field "normal" looking Rough Riders from GW
plastics, I
>may very well be taking an extreme step and making up my own mutated
RR
>stand-ins.
Cold Ones? A bit more expensive than horses, though.
> As a pure thought experiment this is an uncontroversial step,
>but my problem is that I find this army is growing more and more
interesting
>to me, and I'm currently in the fortunate position of being able to
consider
>actually buying the army I'm planning out here.
Wish I could say the same. The idea of making some of my conversions
(Kourzan especially) appeals and I would like to get hold of the
Manflayers. On the other hand I'd also like to expand my Lizardmen
army and maybe get some HE heroes, and what's that about Epic Eldar
and 40k Tau?
When month 3 arrives, I'll
>let you all know what the decision is and how I think I'll implement
it (if
>any of you are consumed by curiosity and can't wait, I discuss it in
my
>recent thread about converting RRs).
>
>This whole thing is pretty fun, although I might not be appreciating
all of
>it since I don't read White Dwarf. From everyone's comments and
Philip's WD
>reviews, it sounds like the guiding principle behind the "official"
Tale of
>Four Gamers way to grow an army is to buy undersized, overcosted (in
either
>points or cash) units that don't work well together, then spend most
of the
>following months' budgets on bitz to trick out a relatively useless
special
>character. Is that the case?
Mostly, though there's usually one army that shows how things should
be done - don't remember which it was first time round (Wood Elves or
Brets, I'm thinking - I remember the other two started with big
monsters, Verminlord and Minotaur Lord respectively). This time it
seems to be Tomb Kings.
Philip Bowles
>I guess I'll put my month 2 stuff here, since the threads seem to be
>exploding everywhere.
It's going to be a nightmare to collate them for month 3. :-(
Lost and the Damned army, month 2:
>Arch Heretic w/ Mark of Nurgle, Bolter, Plague Sword, Nurgle's Rot -
87pts
>Big Mutants x3, with 1 Hvy Stubber - 140pts
>-- Big Boss Mutant w/ Hvy Stubber
>Allied Plague Marines (elite)x5, w/ Bolters, 1 PG - 105 pts
>Traitor Troops (compulsory ) x14, w/ Lasguns, 1 GL, 1 ML team -
170pts
>--Agitator w/ Power Fist, laspistol
>Traitor Troops x14, w/ Lasguns, 1 GL, 1 AC team - 170pts
>--Agitator w/ Power Fist, laspistol
>Traitor Troops x14, w/ Lasguns, 1 GL, 1 Mortar team - 165pts
>--Agitator w/ Power Weapon, laspistol
>Plague Zombies x18 - 162pts
>999 pts, 73 models + 2 "spare" zombies
>From a force selection point of view, I've taken the very un-WD view
of
>trying to expand from a 500 point skirmish force to a larger,
sorta-balanced
>1000 point army. Since the whole point of this army is to be a giant
horde
>of traitors and shambling plague-carriers, I figured to go with more
>Traitors.
Well, it was that or more Shambling Plague-Carriers...
> I bought a single heavy weapons box, and with components I saved
>from month 1 and parts from the second Cadian Shock Troop box I
purchased
>this turn, I should be able to construct 3 acceptable-looking heavy
weapons
>teams, one for each Traitor unit. The Agitators with their PWs or
PFs might
>not wind up being all that useful, but I felt they were thematic, and
I
>guess having some h2h hidden in these 15-strong units couldn't hurt.
I
>added Nurgle's Rot to the Arch-Heretic because it's _very_ thematic
>(implying that his connection to Granddaddy Nurgle is growing), makes
him a
>bit more unpleasant to be around,
You know the nastiness of 40k has been toned down when someone with
Nurgle's Rot is described as being "a bit more unpleasant to be
around"...
>The two main choices I'm looking at for Month 3 will make a big
impact on
>how the army develops, but since current feedback seems to indicate
there's
>no good cheap way to field "normal" looking Rough Riders from GW
plastics, I
>may very well be taking an extreme step and making up my own mutated
RR
>stand-ins.
Cold Ones? A bit more expensive than horses, though.
> As a pure thought experiment this is an uncontroversial step,
>but my problem is that I find this army is growing more and more
interesting
>to me, and I'm currently in the fortunate position of being able to
consider
>actually buying the army I'm planning out here.
Wish I could say the same. The idea of making some of my conversions
(Kourzan especially) appeals and I would like to get hold of the
Manflayers. On the other hand I'd also like to expand my Lizardmen
army and maybe get some HE heroes, and what's that about Epic Eldar
and 40k Tau?
When month 3 arrives, I'll
>let you all know what the decision is and how I think I'll implement
it (if
>any of you are consumed by curiosity and can't wait, I discuss it in
my
>recent thread about converting RRs).
>
>This whole thing is pretty fun, although I might not be appreciating
all of
>it since I don't read White Dwarf. From everyone's comments and
Philip's WD
>reviews, it sounds like the guiding principle behind the "official"
Tale of
>Four Gamers way to grow an army is to buy undersized, overcosted (in
either
>points or cash) units that don't work well together, then spend most
of the
>following months' budgets on bitz to trick out a relatively useless
special
>character. Is that the case?
Mostly, though there's usually one army that shows how things should
be done - don't remember which it was first time round (Wood Elves or
Brets, I'm thinking - I remember the other two started with big
monsters, Verminlord and Minotaur Lord respectively). This time it
seems to be Tomb Kings.
Philip Bowles
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram