Battle Report: http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2012/01/16/video-battle-report-40k-6th-ed-leaked-rules-necrons-vs-tyranids/


Hey everyone, we're having a debate over at our blog: http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2012/01/14/incoming-well-be-posting-a-video-battle-report-using-the-6th-ed-rules-monday-what-armies-to-play/#comment-905

We're going to do a Frontline Gaming Bat Rep using the maybe/maybe not 6th ed rule set to show everyone how it works in practice and we're trying to decide what armies to play.

So far pretty much everyone wants to see Nids, but we wanted to hear what most of you wanted to see for the other army.

Cast your vote if this is something that interests you. The battle is going down on Monday.

Thanks!

Reece

Tau vs Crons :'D

Imperial Guard?

Actually Tyranids are fine too,
there is something about this painting that is just beautiful

can you link where these rules are comming from?

Grey Knights (what some folks believe is the preeminent 5e army) vs. Tyranids

Think that would perhaps best display changes in the meta game.

'nids are a perfect choice for an objective based game. they are always out of vehicles (by not having any) and are going to show how crappy cover is now and how lethal fearless saves are going to be.

chaos daemons are going to show you how deepstrike rules are going to work. not only that but they will highlight how important armor groups are going to be for all squad's special weopons/charactors. (as they can't really do any armor group shenanigans w/out attaching mismatched heralds to units.

chaos daemons will also represent rules like fearless and Instant Death well.

I think you're gonna have to use either Dark Eldar or Imperial Guard as well. Moving vehicles and only shooting 1 guy from an embarked squad needs to be visualized! It's a huge HUGE deal. Would also be cool to see who's got the balls to get out of their vehicles first to start scoring those objectives.

Any army with Rhinos or Razorbacks would be cool too. Preferably Crowe Purifiers. They too have the same problems with being embarked for both shooting and scoring. They have the fearless rules to showcase as well as the spiffy assaulting out of razors/rhinos that is now possible. Having dreds stand still and being able to split fire those TL-Psy/Autocannons vs. Dark Eldar paperairplanes would be nice.

Tau vs. Nids

Defensive Rapid Fire rapetrain!

(I don't think Tau actually get to Defensive Fire as the codex stands now, do they? I'm not too familiar with the new potential rules.)

LunaHound wrote:Actually Tyranids are fine too,
there is something about this painting that is just beautiful

Yes it is the genestealers getting ripped to shreds by pulse carbines

Personally, I think Nids vs. a MEQ army...either wolves or BA as I think they are closer to the core Space Marine concepts, yet are still strong 5th ed dexes.

I am voting for a Tau vs Necrons list solely based on the fact that the Tau codex is one of the oldest Xenos army to have no updates (In terms of codex updates etc) vs Necrons who have the absolute latest codex produced.

This match would show how the new rules and codexes work over multiple editions.

Nids vs Eldar for me.
Really like to see how the Nids perform in 6th considering the work we put into the Fandex.
Eldar because they are sort of one of those forgotten armies and have a codex that is way out of date. Would be interested in seeing how their rules translate over.

Orks vs. Nids

If you are indeed going to play nids, you get to represent nearly every rule change and that's great!

You get to see...
1) Psykers nullifing powers on a 5+
2) Fearless wounds. (as well as the bonus save to negate the fearless wounds)
3) Supersonic moves/bombing runs. (with the harpy)
4) Objective based games where non-mech troops score right away.
5) Outflanking
6) Reserve grouping
7) Deepstriking
8) Flying, Bounding Leap, Fleet bonuses
9) Massive, Instant Death, Feel No Pain, Shielding, and Direct attack changes
10) Intervening troops and the Look Out Sergent rule. (if you screen with a tervigon etc, you can even show the 3+ invuln boost to the rule if they shoot at gants, stealers, hive guard, etc.)


I just ask that you use a Harpy and the Doom in a pod. really looking forward to your interpretation of whether it can be shot after disembarking from the pod by Defensive Fire. If you think it can't...omg, this thing is going to be pretty nasty around turn 3 when units are exposed and trying to score/contest.

Mycetic spore disallows defensive fire when it deep strikes, but also prohibits the model within from assaulting.

Also the doom only activates on the tyranid player's shooting phase now, not both players'.

tetrisphreak wrote:Mycetic spore disallows defensive fire when it deep strikes, but also prohibits the model within from assaulting.

Also the doom only activates on the tyranid player's shooting phase now, not both players'.

Doom gets two wounds though instead of one for Spirit Leech though.

On the Spore Pod...it's up in the air. The pod rules disallow DF against the pod itself, and doesn't mention the unit coming out of it. For the unit, it comes down to the same argument that persisted in the current BRB until they FAQ'd it: Does a unit disembarking from a transport that arrived via deepstrike count as arriving via deepstriking as well? If so, then DF works just fine against them even if they arrived by a pod. I think the intention for the pod rule is for pods to give their units immunity (otherwise what's the point of the rule), but as it's currently worded, it fails to do so.

Maelstrom808 wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:Mycetic spore disallows defensive fire when it deep strikes, but also prohibits the model within from assaulting.

Also the doom only activates on the tyranid player's shooting phase now, not both players'.

Doom gets two wounds though instead of one for Spirit Leech though.

On the Spore Pod...it's up in the air. The pod rules disallow DF against the pod itself, and doesn't mention the unit coming out of it. For the unit, it comes down to the same argument that persisted in the current BRB until they FAQ'd it: Does a unit disembarking from a transport that arrived via deepstrike count as arriving via deepstriking as well? If so, then DF works just fine against them even if they arrived by a pod. I think the intention for the pod rule is for pods to give their units immunity (otherwise what's the point of the rule), but as it's currently worded, it fails to do so.

Just house rule it until the final version comes out. I've already been discussing various things like this with my game group and making notes in the margins of the document.

Another for example - the DE faq says that you always choose a beastmaster as the squad leader in a beastpack. I wrote in there that in addition the beastmaster counts as a character for purposes of regrouping. It plays better/makes more sense that way since that squad has no other access to an upgrade character.

picking the beastmaster at the beginning of the game does make him a character. just if he dies the 'replacement nominee' won't be. at least that's how i get the rules to be.

paladin squads follow the same suit. once you deploy the unit (of say 5 paladins) you gotta pick on to be the acting squad leader. he gains the charactor title and therefore can direct fire as well as perform all his 'squad leader'ly duties such as checking LOS, rallying, etc. i assume all 0-1 MCs follow this rule too. From Kairos to Trygons, as they are in fact "units". Makes them very lethal as a matter of fact...

I know it's not in the list but I'd love to see a Deathwing army have a scarp. I've heard next to nothing about them with respect to 6th and would really like to see how they perform, especially against an assault based army and/or one with lots of 2+ saves (cause the new FNP just makes DW Cyclones even better re AP3).

Edit* if Nids is one of the armies, then that would be great.

ColdSadHungry wrote:I know it's not in the list but I'd love to see a Deathwing army have a scarp. I've heard next to nothing about them with respect to 6th and would really like to see how they perform, especially against an assault based army and/or one with lots of 2+ saves (cause the new FNP just makes DW Cyclones even better re AP3).

Edit* if Nids is one of the armies, then that would be great.

I also want to see Deathwing.

Pretty much any of the current armies that are underpowered in 5th-- Eldar, Tau, Tyranids, Chaos Space Marines and Chaos Daemons are all viable candidates.

I second Tau vs Nids, as its a classic matchup, but I also wouldn't mind seeing Daemons vs Grey Knights, or Chaos Marines vs Space Wolves or Blood Angels.

Nids vs GK; I wanna see how much the new insta-death rules work out!

tetrisphreak wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:Mycetic spore disallows defensive fire when it deep strikes, but also prohibits the model within from assaulting.

Also the doom only activates on the tyranid player's shooting phase now, not both players'.

Doom gets two wounds though instead of one for Spirit Leech though.

On the Spore Pod...it's up in the air. The pod rules disallow DF against the pod itself, and doesn't mention the unit coming out of it. For the unit, it comes down to the same argument that persisted in the current BRB until they FAQ'd it: Does a unit disembarking from a transport that arrived via deepstrike count as arriving via deepstriking as well? If so, then DF works just fine against them even if they arrived by a pod. I think the intention for the pod rule is for pods to give their units immunity (otherwise what's the point of the rule), but as it's currently worded, it fails to do so.

Just house rule it until the final version comes out. I've already been discussing various things like this with my game group and making notes in the margins of the document.

Another for example - the DE faq says that you always choose a beastmaster as the squad leader in a beastpack. I wrote in there that in addition the beastmaster counts as a character for purposes of regrouping. It plays better/makes more sense that way since that squad has no other access to an upgrade character.

Lol, yeah I kinda assume you'd houserule it, rather than everyone put their hands in their pockets and say "Well, I guess that's as far as this game goes" There are plenty of broken/conflicting/missing rules in this so it's gonna take some work to make it 100% playable.

Chaos Marines and Dark Eldar.

Of course, I'm biased because those are the armies I play...

Space Wolf Missile Spam. Show us how the new ID works, plus your "Wolves" are painted the best out of all the other armies represented. ;-)

whitedragon wrote:Space Wolf Missile Spam. Show us how the new ID works, plus your "Wolves" are painted the best out of all the other armies represented. ;-)

His nids and footdar are painted up very nicely as well.

Space Wolves vs Nids!

I voted marines but i figure any faction of marines would be a good way to show the new rules

Tyranids! It'd be best to play them against DE or GKs, as this is basically considered an auto-lose matchup at the moment...

It's gotta be nids vs GK. That way people can either reinforce their whining that GK are OP or say that one game doesn't prove anything.

My nids beat DE at 500 points yesterday. 25-23. It was a tight matchup though. Lists:

DE - Urien Rakarth
10x Wracks
10x Wracks
5x Warriors
Venom, 2x Splinter Cannons

Nids - Hive Tyrant - Armored Shell, 2x Scytals, L.E., Paroxysm
1x Tyrant guard - Lash Whips
5x Genestealers
5x Genestealers
6x Genestealers

Genestealers have a much easier time hitting tanks in CC than they used to - hitting on 4's regardless of movement speed is far better than hitting on 6's if the vehicle cruised.

DE,Eldar,Tau,Orks v.s SM,GW,BA,SW


Automatically Appended Next Post:
DE,Eldar,Tau,Orks v.s SM,GK,BA,SW

My vote is Necrons and Tyranids. Necrons because they were supposedly written with 6th edition in mind, and I'd like to see how that would pan out.

Tyranids because given my reading of the new rules, they seem to no longer be an "inferior" army, and have improved quite a lot. I'd like to see if that turns out to be the case.

Voted for Cron's and GK's. The two most up to date books, both supposedly designed "with 6th ed in mind".

The vote was close, but it came down to Nids vs. Crons!

If you guys like seeing these, we'll do more with some of the other armies.

Working on the report now, we should have it up tonight.

Reece

Dok wrote:It's gotta be nids vs GK. That way people can either reinforce their whining that GK are OP or say that one game doesn't prove anything.

This would be (would have been anyway since the result has already been decided) a great match up but not for the reasons you say, I think, but rather because GK have taken a bit of a hit in 6th and nids have supposedly been handed a big boost so would be an excellent way to test whether 6th has balanced the game imo.

ColdSadHungry wrote:

Dok wrote:It's gotta be nids vs GK. That way people can either reinforce their whining that GK are OP or say that one game doesn't prove anything.

This would be (would have been anyway since the result has already been decided) a great match up but not for the reasons you say, I think, but rather because GK have taken a bit of a hit in 6th and nids have supposedly been handed a big boost so would be an excellent way to test whether 6th has balanced the game imo.

I agree

Just finished the game and both Frankie and I love the rules. It is a more enjoyable game, more tactical depth, more powerful units, more action. Just better all around.

IMO, this is the best edition of 40K yet, if this is what we get.

We'll have the video up ASAP.

Reecius wrote:Just finished the game and both Frankie and I love the rules. It is a more enjoyable game, more tactical depth, more powerful units, more action. Just better all around.

IMO, this is the best edition of 40K yet, if this is what we get.

We'll have the video up ASAP.

Now the question is, if these rules turn out to be fake, do you keep playing them anyway?

Regardless of whether or not they're fake, I love these new rules and I'm planning on fighting for them in all my casual games from now until 6e actually comes out.

extrenm(54) wrote:

Reecius wrote:Just finished the game and both Frankie and I love the rules. It is a more enjoyable game, more tactical depth, more powerful units, more action. Just better all around.

IMO, this is the best edition of 40K yet, if this is what we get.

We'll have the video up ASAP.

Now the question is, if these rules turn out to be fake, do you keep playing them anyway?

Reecius and his crew are much too competitive. IMHO, I would guess they would be playing with the official 6th edition rules when they come out.

Personally, I don't go to anywhere near as many competitive events as them...I still will only be playing with the 6th edition rules when they come out. Until then, I'll be playtesting these rules as well.

ColdSadHungry wrote:

Dok wrote:It's gotta be nids vs GK. That way people can either reinforce their whining that GK are OP or say that one game doesn't prove anything.

This would be (would have been anyway since the result has already been decided) a great match up but not for the reasons you say, I think, but rather because GK have taken a bit of a hit in 6th and nids have supposedly been handed a big boost so would be an excellent way to test whether 6th has balanced the game imo.

Oh, I absolutely agree. I was just being a bit over-sarcastic.

Yeah, you're right Lormax. We like tournaments too much to play something that wasn't official.

Even in our test game to show off the rules, Frankie and I were trying to win! haha, we can't help it.

The rules are awesome though, and I believe they are real. My sources are saying that, too. Only time will tell, but I sincerely hope this is legit.

Enough male genitalia-teasing...where's the vid!

I watched both videos, thanks for doing the report for everyone!

A couple of things I noticed, we all agree these are playtest so this isn't criticism at all.

--Outflanking reserves are -1 to the reserve roll now. Makes it harder to get them in quickly. Reserves are strong now, but remember every turn that you're not on the table, that's a turn you're not scoring objectives. Also you can assign multiple reserve dice to a single unit as long as they're available to get things in quicker, at the cost of leaving others in reserve.

--Objectives! The person who gets to pick deployment zone has to deploy first, and place the first objective -- this is key to strategy. They also have to bid first, and getting first turn is important to avoid getting shot off of said objectives, while the stratagems make going 2nd a strong endeavor as well. Well played on these accounts. Keep note that the person who deploys first will not necessarily be who goes first. An opponent knowing he has first turn and can counter-deploy against you can be a very tricky slope to overcome indeed!

--Monstrous CCWs do indeed increase Str by 2x now.

--Monoliths are tanks and get -1 to the damage chart. The trygon 'exploding' it would only have caused a wreck as the trygon's close combat attacks aren't AP-1.

--Hormagaunts do not have a 27" charge range. In the codex faq that accompanies the 6th rules document it specifies they may use Bounding Leap or Fleet special rules in the movement phase, but not both together. Hormagaunts are still fast - they run 16" with fleet and can charge 18" with bounding leap.

--Moving with Veil of Darkness works similar to a Teleport (as does coming through the monolith's door). Since you can only give each unit 1 move action per turn, Veiling of Darkness near an enemy (or using the monolith door) will not allow you to engage or charge the unit you're after.

--Monoliths are up in the air. As the rules stand now they're classified as Heavy, which in the PDF says they're super-heavies with 1 Structure point. That means -3 to the damage chart until a natural 6 is rolled (which still gets -3 but subsequent rolls only have a -1 on the table), they can repair damage, and have Multi-Targeting (7). Since they always count as stationary, Multi-targeting (14) gives them 14 shooting actions per turn, and with 6 guns (ordnance p-whip, 4x flux arcs, and door to nowhere) that's a TON of shooting actions. Only one gun may fire per shooting phase, though.

--Skimmers move 8" now.. that's not something i noticed that was wrong, I just feel it's worth pointing out that combat speed for skimmers is 2" faster than ground vehicles now. Annihilation Barges not being fast hurts them less in the new rules. Monoliths, too, can move 8" per turn.

Alright and one more thing that might be of help in future games, again not saying you'd do it wrong i just think it's worth mentioning:

Fast units with Multi-Targeting (usually vehicles) can double their shooting actions per turn even when going cruising speed (and may still fire when cruising). So even though a Dark Eldar Venom has MT(1), it can move up to 16" per turn and still fire both splinter cannons, ETC. This will come in handy with a Catacomb Command Barge moving 16" in the shooting phase and still being allowed to fire with it's underslung Gauss Cannon (which ignores Feel No Pain since it's AP3).

Again great video, the quality was not as bad as advertised and I look forward to seeing more of these from you in the future.

Thanks!

AWESOME Battle!! It seems that now was the perfect time for me to give in and play 40K. The new hyper-lethalness of everything fit really well in the fluff and the new dawn of war is fantastic.

@Reecius- As a necron player, I've swarmed over the new rules that apply to us and I would like some clarification on the Mono being destroyed, were natural 6's rolled on the damage table? because a 'Heavy' gets a -3 on said table so the only way to wreck it is to get a natural 6, or maybe ALOT of weapon destroyed, please explain

Edit: pretty much everything tetris said, but again it was a play through, but if these things were realised, in hindsight, how do you see the game being different?

@Reecius- I've watched ALOT of your reports and you dont seem to win alot lol despite being a keen and knowledgeable commander, the less chances for the dice to turn on you in 6th ed the better!

Awesome job boys, can you tell us how long the game took? Maybe a number on play time and a figure on looking up rules?

@tetrisphreak

Thanks for the clarifications. We knew we would get some rules wrong, that was inevitable. You're right, the outflanking we played wrong, but it didn't matter.

The Monolith we forgot the damage table modifier, and it should have just been a wreck.

It was shooting at maximum effect every turn though, which was brutal! That thing was wrecking my face.

I missed that on the Hormagants, but they are still better than they were.

Thanks for pointing all of that out, we'll take note of it and improve the next one.

@Exalted Pariah

It appears we made a mistake on the rules for the Monolith, so sorry for the confusion. It was a lot of information to absorb and we are busy as hell running the store, etc. We'll do another and make it better.

But on the whole, we loved the rules, so much more fun of a game!

@Reecius- Nothing a free, assembled, fully painted monolith can't solve The only reason I pointed that one out so specifically is I had just cackled maniacally to my friends about its return to an unstoppable-pyramid of doom, so seeing it get killed in a turn shocked me, though seeing that MCs now all essentially have power-claws frightens me the way a real-life carnifex would!

One thing I saw you got, but i do see a lot of people making this mistake and i just wanted to reinforce. Who ever wins the bid for tactical gambit chooses who goes first or second, not auto first. I cant think of many reasons why you would win bid and go second, one reason that would still be valid is an all reserve force.

DarbNilbirts wrote:One thing I saw you got, but i do see a lot of people making this mistake and i just wanted to reinforce. Who ever wins the bid for tactical gambit chooses who goes first or second, not auto first. I cant think of many reasons why you would win bid and go second, one reason that would still be valid is an all reserve force.

It's actually a direct conflict in the rules:

Tactical Gambit wrote:The player that has chosen his deployment zone
first bets a number of Strategic Points (SP). He can
begin with a bet of 0 SP. The second player can
either raise the bet or bail out. If he bails out, the
first player decides who goes first. If he raises the
bet, he preserves his chance to go first.

vs

Who Goes First? wrote:The player who won the tactical gambit bid starts
game cycle 1 with his first turn.

I see the direct conflict too but I think choosing first or second is the privilege of the auction winner. At least thats how we're playing it here.

tetrisphreak wrote:I see the direct conflict too but I think choosing first or second is the privilege of the auction winner. At least thats how we're playing it here.

By all means, play it however you think works best. You gotta choose one if you want to play at all. I'm just saying, you can't really tell someone else here that they are playing it wrong.

Great rep! Interesting game, and definitely shows how the game can swing drastically there in the end!

Maelstrom808 wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:I see the direct conflict too but I think choosing first or second is the privilege of the auction winner. At least thats how we're playing it here.

By all means, play it however you think works best. You gotta choose one if you want to play at all. I'm just saying, you can't really tell someone else here that they are playing it wrong.

Yeah, except I didn't call anyone out on that one.

tetrisphreak wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:I see the direct conflict too but I think choosing first or second is the privilege of the auction winner. At least thats how we're playing it here.

By all means, play it however you think works best. You gotta choose one if you want to play at all. I'm just saying, you can't really tell someone else here that they are playing it wrong.

Yeah, except I didn't call anyone out on that one.

"You" was meant generally. I wasn't trying to point fingers

Oh OK. No worries then. Out of curiosity how do you interpret that one?

Now I can't wait to play out these new rules. I am also anxious to see the "Basic rules" that were alluded to in the first paragraph. If they are simpler and quicker, they might be good for really big battles, or regular size battles when time if a factor. Anyway, great battle report. I vote for Orks Vs. Space Marines for the second one, just to see how two of the most fundamental and contrasting armies of the game work against each other.

Great battle report! it was really intresting to see how fast and deadly the new rules were. Great job!!

Very cool to see the pdf in action. Nice job and enjoyed the batrep and discussion.

Questions and comments:

EDIT, i was slow so removing stuff already mentioned

--Can you contest objectives? I didn't see that in my read throughs and pretty sure they expliciting state you get points as long as you are within 3" at the start of the turn. And vehicles have no affect on objectives at all -- can't contest or claim.

--Curious if you took cover saves from the craters. One huge detrimental change for Tyranids and hordes is this (page 21 of the document)

"Being in terrain has no impact on the cover save of a unit (except the unit is shot by an indirect weapon). Cover saves are determined by using the line of sight between shooting and targeted model (see the Shooting phase’s section for details)."

In your game, this was a minor issue, but I can see this being an issue at some events or FLGSs. Frankly the GW craters aren't high enough.

--Nice catch on living metal and deepstrike/stun. That's quite nifty.

--Somethig I noticed. Monstrous creatures get a monstrous close combat weapon. This is true of tyranid MCs as well. Tyranids no longer have the stipulation that they cannot gain attacks from other weapons. Assault shooting weapons can be used as secondary weapons on a turn you assault move. The monstrous CCW is not coarse. So trygons and most tyranid MCs get an extra attack on the turn they assault. Pretty nifty. Its too bad non-MC tyranids only get basic attacks -- means they can't benefit from assault weapons in CC.

Interesting battle. I though for sure nids had it just on objectives alone. Good comeback for the crons.

These new rules, real or not, will have to take some getting used to.

It looks like vehicles don't contest, actually, and that nothing can contest unless we're missing something. It appears to read that multiple units from different armies can score an objective.

Lots of things slipped by us, we're going to do another one to try out some changes and get closer to the rules.

Glad you guys like it, though!

Nice report Reecius; it was interessting to see those rules in action. Can't wait for more.

Glad you liked it! We are still trying to absorb the rules and get it all down.

where the feth are the guard?

Awesome report! I really enjoyed this one. Was really interesting to see them in action. I've read alot of the rules but have not yet put them in action and boy did I mis-read some of it. Most people around where I am have no idea on what's going on for this 6th edition so we have not had a game with it yet. I definately see much bigger games. Things die so fast lol

Demons next time ... really wanna see what they can do.

i like the changes to contesting objectives. always thought scenematically that just because you are standing 15ft away from the loot, doesn't mean that I'm not going to continue to steal or use it.

i like that it really makes the choices your opponent makes important. this set of rules emphasizes killing things but in retrospect, it's what is still alive turn to turn that matters the most.

I wouldn't mind seeing Tau Or Eldar fight against a Dark Eldar or Grey Knight list. See how the new rules change the 'Olde Garde' Codexes Vs. the New ones

I for one think that a rules set such as this one, favor codex creep and continuous sales for the company. it's the unstoppable force vs. the immovable object at every decision.

1) If I get out, do I either have
a) the offencive firepower to clear my threatrange?
b) the defensive charactoristics/advantage to survive what could threaten me this turn?
c) the statistical advantage with reguards to scoring in that I'm unlikely to wipe my opponent, unlikely to be killed, but am a "troop" choice vs. their "elite/fast attack/heavy support/Hq" and therefor I'll outpoint them through sharing an objective.

new units are going to hit harder or live longer. anything else and they will hit the shelf. if they are even remotely good at both then codex creep sinks in and people will flock to the new shiny toys. unbalanced offence/ defence can also have this effect.

games that are 57-53 are deceided by actions and not die rolls, more often than not. that's good for a rule set.

Loved the bat rep, keep 'em coming!

Reecius wrote:It looks like vehicles don't contest, actually, and that nothing can contest unless we're missing something. It appears to read that multiple units from different armies can score an objective.

I am sure that is an over site in these draft play test rules. I am sure the intent is that anything can contest such as vehicles but only non vehicles can score, and that you can only score an objective if you actually own it. I know that is a bit of extrapolation, but my gut tells me that is how it will work out in the end.

BDJV wrote:Loved the bat rep, keep 'em coming!

Reecius wrote:It looks like vehicles don't contest, actually, and that nothing can contest unless we're missing something. It appears to read that multiple units from different armies can score an objective.

I am sure that is an over site in these draft play test rules. I am sure the intent is that anything can contest such as vehicles but only non vehicles can score, and that you can only score an objective if you actually own it. I know that is a bit of extrapolation, but my gut tells me that is how it will work out in the end.

It could very well be apart the the 'basic rules' that are mentioned at the beginning of the document but with different units accounting for different scoring point values (troops =3, everything non-vehicle =1, everything else =0) then you can make a point of them putting an emphasis on actually killing your opponent off an objective to thwart their ability to score against you.

I like the change. Makes going second a tactical gambit and not a winning condition for a mobile army.

Any army is fine with me but I think you should play the game on an Offical Candyland board because there was another "leak" that said that is the new direction GW is taking. Just to cover all the bases you know

what? sarcasm is so hard to detect in text-form.

I like the new scoring system. I think it encourages army engagement rather than turtling on an objective and weathering the storm while hoping for a late-game contest. It also makes armies that rely on reserves-denial a little less attractive (Eldar) since they will have fewer turns to hold objectives.

I always liked the idea of a fixed game length where you scored points each turn for objectives held by your army. That's how Warmachine does it and it works out alright. The fatal flaw that's turned me away from Warmachine is that caster kill is a victory condition, but most tournaments I've played in use total VP's as tournament points (IE the number of points you score in each game added together determins your tournament ranking). The issue there is that since they have the game end immediately after a Warcaster dies, if you assassinate early you lose out on holding the objectives later in the game. I collect Cryx in Warmachine, so for most of my favorite Warcasters that's a big problem.

This set of rules seems to fix that by having a fixed game length, and incorporating the army-kill victory condition into the whole VP's system. You want to hold objectives each turn at the same time you are killing off your opponent, while trying to shift your opponent off objectives he is holding. It makes for a faster game with more engagement and less dancing around early in the game, and it makes movement a much more vital step in the process (or so it appears). If you hesitate you lose out on points you could otherwise be gaining.

I'd be interested in trying the rules out myself but all the links I find to download the thing are broken. Bah.

Painnen wrote:

BDJV wrote:Loved the bat rep, keep 'em coming!

Reecius wrote:It looks like vehicles don't contest, actually, and that nothing can contest unless we're missing something. It appears to read that multiple units from different armies can score an objective.

I am sure that is an over site in these draft play test rules. I am sure the intent is that anything can contest such as vehicles but only non vehicles can score, and that you can only score an objective if you actually own it. I know that is a bit of extrapolation, but my gut tells me that is how it will work out in the end.

It could very well be apart the the 'basic rules' that are mentioned at the beginning of the document but with different units accounting for different scoring point values (troops =3, everything non-vehicle =1, everything else =0) then you can make a point of them putting an emphasis on actually killing your opponent off an objective to thwart their ability to score against you.

I like the change. Makes going second a tactical gambit and not a winning condition

An army’s scoring units are all the units that come
from its Troops allowance. There are only two
exceptions when a unit of Troops does not count
as scoring:
• if it is a dedicated transport.
• if it has a special rule specifying it never counts
as scoring.

Meaning. Dedicated transports don't count, but a Big Mek lead Deff dread troop can. Tried to find something about contesting, but nothing came up for me.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Painnen wrote:

BDJV wrote:Loved the bat rep, keep 'em coming!

Reecius wrote:It looks like vehicles don't contest, actually, and that nothing can contest unless we're missing something. It appears to read that multiple units from different armies can score an objective.

I am sure that is an over site in these draft play test rules. I am sure the intent is that anything can contest such as vehicles but only non vehicles can score, and that you can only score an objective if you actually own it. I know that is a bit of extrapolation, but my gut tells me that is how it will work out in the end.

It could very well be apart the the 'basic rules' that are mentioned at the beginning of the document but with different units accounting for different scoring point values (troops =3, everything non-vehicle =1, everything else =0) then you can make a point of them putting an emphasis on actually killing your opponent off an objective to thwart their ability to score against you.

I like the change. Makes going second a tactical gambit and not a winning condition

An army’s scoring units are all the units that come
from its Troops allowance. There are only two
exceptions when a unit of Troops does not count
as scoring:
• if it is a dedicated transport.
• if it has a special rule specifying it never counts
as scoring.

Meaning. Dedicated transports don't count, but a Big Mek lead Deff dread troop can. Tried to find something about contesting, but nothing came up for me.

If you look in the Seize Ground portion (i believe) it says that vehicles may not claim objectives. Scoring or not, your deff dreads still can't claim points on Objectives.

you also don't have to be a scoring troop to hold an objective. the aforementioned seize ground rules state that if you merely hold an objective you earn a point. it goes on to say that vehicles don't score, and even further down the page it says that troops from the 'troops section' not only hold objectives but score objectives and are worth 3 points.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
so from what I understand...

1) troops bought from the troop section of the FoC, can score an objective if within 3" of it. If they do so, you gain 3 points.
2) vehicles bought from any FoC or as dedicated transports cannot score or hold objectives whether they are 3" of the objective or not.
3) anything else that is bought from the FoC that is not a troop or a vehicle that is within 3" of an objective can hold it. If they do so, you gain 1 point.

All of this scoring is done at the beginning of your turn before reserves or movement and only from the second game turn forward.

At the end of the game, units bought from the troops section that are not vehicles, ("scoring troops") that are holding an objective will score you 6 points and all other units holding an objective (that are not vehicles) will score you 2 points.

tetrisphreak wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Painnen wrote:

BDJV wrote:Loved the bat rep, keep 'em coming!

Reecius wrote:It looks like vehicles don't contest, actually, and that nothing can contest unless we're missing something. It appears to read that multiple units from different armies can score an objective.

I am sure that is an over site in these draft play test rules. I am sure the intent is that anything can contest such as vehicles but only non vehicles can score, and that you can only score an objective if you actually own it. I know that is a bit of extrapolation, but my gut tells me that is how it will work out in the end.

It could very well be apart the the 'basic rules' that are mentioned at the beginning of the document but with different units accounting for different scoring point values (troops =3, everything non-vehicle =1, everything else =0) then you can make a point of them putting an emphasis on actually killing your opponent off an objective to thwart their ability to score against you.

I like the change. Makes going second a tactical gambit and not a winning condition

An army’s scoring units are all the units that come
from its Troops allowance. There are only two
exceptions when a unit of Troops does not count
as scoring:
• if it is a dedicated transport.
• if it has a special rule specifying it never counts
as scoring.

Meaning. Dedicated transports don't count, but a Big Mek lead Deff dread troop can. Tried to find something about contesting, but nothing came up for me.

If you look in the Seize Ground portion (i believe) it says that vehicles may not claim objectives. Scoring or not, your deff dreads still can't claim points on Objectives.

Note that vehicles or broken units cannot fulfill
objectives in some missions. This doesn’t change if
the unit is scoring.

Than what purpose is this, do scoring units get double kill points for murdering things for example? It just doesn't make sense to have it scoring than if it does nothing for something like Deff Dreads.

Though it does mean it kicks gray knights one by making it so that Dreadnoughts can't grab objectives regardless of grand master...I think I'm okay with this.

codex' have always trumped the core rulebook before and i don't see that stopping in 6th.

therefore, i can see how a Mekboy/DeffDred as well as the Dreadnaughts under the grand master buff would count as scoring.

would that be something in a future FaQ? I guess so but on the surface I thought it was a linear concept between codex' and the rulebooks.

Great batrep! keep em coming. I'd love to see sisters in the next one and maybe newest codex VS oldest codex comparision to see if the playing field is a bit more even...(i imagiene that it is still unbalanced towards newer dexs that were designed with 6th ed in mind)

Awesome. I'd love to see more games with Tyranids

tetrisphreak wrote:Oh OK. No worries then. Out of curiosity how do you interpret that one?

The last game we played, we played it that the winner of the gambit went first since we felt that the section that said "Who Goes First" in big bold letters should probably take priority. I think in the future, I'd rather play it so the gambit winner gets to choose as it allows both players to be more invested in the gambit, regardless of the type of army they are playing.

BDJV wrote:Loved the bat rep, keep 'em coming!

Reecius wrote:It looks like vehicles don't contest, actually, and that nothing can contest unless we're missing something. It appears to read that multiple units from different armies can score an objective.

I am sure that is an over site in these draft play test rules. I am sure the intent is that anything can contest such as vehicles but only non vehicles can score, and that you can only score an objective if you actually own it. I know that is a bit of extrapolation, but my gut tells me that is how it will work out in the end.

I don't think its an oversight personally but I could be wrong. I think by virtue of how it gets tabulated you sort of contest by also being within 3" on your turn (assuming you survive). Or you simply remove them by force. It also reinforces the importance of scoring units -- if anything can contest then we are back to 5ed where they try and make scoring units important but end of day you can win games without having many of them simply by contesting and having a more powerful army.

As we've read it/played it, there is no contesting. Scoring units pick up 3 points a turn, non-scoring units (barring vehicles and broken units)pick up 1 point a turn. Two different players can score off the same objective. If you want to stop your opponent from scoring, push them off the objective, otherwise match their unit on it so you get the same points for it. Except for the end of the game, scoring objectives are counted at the beginning of a player's move phase. This means they cannot make a dash onto an objective knowing they are going to get pushed off of it, just to try to grab quick points.

Frankie and I have been noticing that those strategy points can be crazy powerful in certain match-ups, too. Stubborn for Crons is insane. That makes so many of their units so damn good!

I can only imagine what other combos we will see come out of this, but who knows? I hope they tighten that up a bit, because they seem to be a bit much.

On the whole though, these are still great rules.

I agree, as some of the Strategems are oddly priced; Stubborn is 1 point, while army-wide Assault Grenades are 4? Huh...

As for reports, I'd like to make a formal request to see a null deployment Tyranid list... since they fixed Pheromone Trail, and the changes to Reserves in general, I think this could be a very powerful build

odorofdeath wrote:I agree, as some of the Strategems are oddly priced; Stubborn is 1 point, while army-wide Assault Grenades are 4? Huh...

As for reports, I'd like to make a formal request to see a null deployment Tyranid list... since they fixed Pheromone Trail, and the changes to Reserves in general, I think this could be a very powerful build

They are highly dependant on the armies/builds. I know I would gladly pay 4SP for army wide assault grenades on my Nids!

I played an all-reserve Nid list vs Tau. Very strong, but...especially going second, you are essentially giving him 2-3 turns of free objective scoring which is a HUGE gap to try and make up. You also have to be very careful with lictors as they are subject to defensive fire, but I dropped two units of lictors, two harpies, and two mawlocs as a single strike force before everything else which created enough havoc that he coulpn't really focus anything down.

I find it kind of hard to believe GW would allow you to make non stubborn units stubborn. First stubborn is probably the best leadership mechanism and second it goes against the principles designed into a codex. I can understand why a lot of people like it but it just seems like it came out of left field and in a way defeats the purpose in my opinion.

The stubborn/tankhunter rules should probably cost 1 strategic point per 100pts the unit they are put on costs or something. The stratagems in general seem poorly balanced, but I love the concept.

One of my main issues with these rules is objective placement. I would think that objectives will be placed almost identically in 99% of all games - 3 12" from one player's long egde, and 2 12" from the other player's long egde. There are few insentives to do anything else.

I agree - I think objectives need to have the stipulation that they're 18" from the long edges and 12" from the short edges (until there's no room for any more, then you reduce it to 12" and 6")

tetrisphreak wrote:I agree - I think objectives need to have the stipulation that they're 18" from the long edges and 12" from the short edges (until there's no room for any more, then you reduce it to 12" and 6")

That would favor assault armies a lot. I think any of the following might work:
1: Objectives scatter 2-3d6
2: Your roll between 3 different objective setups presented in the book

I think it's fine as is, and have certainly had varied placement in the couple of games I've played. You are going to place objectives based on your army and your opponent's army. An army based on short range or assault is going to want to push those objects as close together as possible to maximize the use of their units.

Illumini wrote:One of my main issues with these rules is objective placement. I would think that objectives will be placed almost identically in 99% of all games - 3 12" from one player's long egde, and 2 12" from the other player's long egde. There are few insentives to do anything else.

I know what you are getting at but it depends on army and matchup and terrain. Some armies will prefer objectives in the middle or short board edges and that can dictate where you put objectives. Say for instance facing a ton of potential outflankers, putting objectives anywhere near board edges could be a mistake, so just lining your long table edge is not ideal. You may try instead for placing objectives near the center table and let your army control the game from there. There's also agressive armies that don't want objectives anywhere near there own table edge. It really just depends.

I think the objective placement is OK. It is tough to manage properly on a table that has only so much space. For a flexible system meant to scale with points, and considering SPs, I think it works.

Yeah, agressive armies love middle of the board objectives. Turn 1 doesnt count, so run up the board 12 or more inches. Start of turn 2 you are scoring the middle objectives. then you run forward turn 2 to score the enemies objectives turn 3, or leave a congo line back to the midfield objectives if you cant reach the enemies objectives.