Frankie continues to hone his Dark Harliestar list and Reece continues to experiment with Ork builds in this 1500pt book mission game. Caution! We rant a little bit about some of the ways you can exploit wound allocation and how it is not fun. We also ask your guys’ opinions on these types of lists.

http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2012/07/20/dark-harliestar-vs-orks-1500/

1) If you don't bring a list like that, someone else will and you'll be paired up against them. simple as that.
2) Competitive really isn't "fun" anymore. You've got to shake that mentality because 6th ed competitive games are going to be brutal, brutal, brutal. I'm not sure GW's thinking on it but i'd have to say that all the random movement, objectives, and terrain was their way of keeping power lists in check. (yeah right)
3) As you said, there are paper-rock-scissors matchups. Air cav and Craft, Black, and Cheeze lists (Craftworld Eldar, Dark Eldar, and of course the cheese that is wound allocation) are Rock and Scissors. I think Coteaz TL-AssCannon Razor spam might prove a worthy Paper but you never know.

I did however play one last game vs. Craft, Black, & Cheeze (Dark Harlistar). This time I took my old 5th ed DE Venomspam List. We rolled up Purge the Alien again but I did get first turn. There was no LOS blocking terrain for my opponent to hide behind and I jumped all over that deathstar 1st turn. Wiping it out besides a 1 wound Eldrad. Did I win? No! Lost 17-14. I really should have spared some shots at his ravagers with my own but I got two good ID shots off on Vect and the other Archon that I couldn't help but try and ID Eldrad. It cost me as he took out my Ravagers and all 3 units of my trueborn. Leaving me without enough anti-tank to control his ravagers and walkers.

Had it been anything but Purge the Alien and I would have won. I wiped all this troops by turn 3 and having 2 units survive myself. (not that it matters when KP was the focus I'm sure).

I added this because I've given up trying to shoot this thing down while under the effects of Fortune (as you stated in your video). It's just madness. You get 1st turn, try it. They fail a psychic test, try it. They get Fortune up...forget about it.

Yeah, don’t take these type of lists to casual games unless your opponent wants to play against them. They are just not fun for the casual gamer (though I don’t mind if you use them on me ) I wouldn’t use my necron-scythe list in casual play unless you agree and I feel that your armies have at least some way to deal with them.

BTW, at the Golden Throne, you’re going to see some competitive armies. I’ll be there with my balanced necron army (with some flyers) and Kevin may perhaps bring his necron scythe army as well. So don’t worry that the deathstar armies will walk all over the competition there.

-- As a "funsies" list don't run these deathstars. It looks REALLY unfun. I simply wouldn't even play against that necron flying cheesewheel in a friendly situation except for laughs.

-- Tournament? You BETTER bring the cheese. If you try to "play nice" that WAAC 10% will just watch your batrep, clone your deathstar list, and laugh as everyone gets mad.

@Painnen

You may be right. Might just have to switch to a Warmachine mentality. Just bring the hammer every time.

I think Venom spam is going to be a good answer to a lot of this stuff. It has the tools, speed and mobility to combat the uber armies.

We've beaten the Dark Harliestars (Craft, Black and Cheese is hilarious, though!) but, like you said, it is always a sort of not fun experience.

@Jy2

Yeah, we just don't want to come to a first 6th ed tournament and monkey stomp people and then they don't enjoy themselves. That would be lame.

But, there will be those folks like you, Janthkin and us that have this stuff figured out already, so I kind of feel like we're either going to be the steam roller or the road.

@TzeentchNet

You may be right. It is going to be very, very hard to play around these things with a "normal" list. I think it can be done and that balance will prevail, but only if you are a VERY good player.

-- BTW thanks for your batreps, I got some really good laughs during your last two (Harliestar vs. Orks and Harliestar vs. IG). I was dying at the IG batrep where the biker fired the quadcannons.

-- And for the comments you guys are too negative - as a counterpoint ,I was REALLY down on my Dark Eldar because of the huge negativity on these boards and elsewhere, and was considering shelving them. Now I have all sorts of ideas for some wierdo combo lists that might be a lot of fun (and yes, I am going to be getting a box of Harlequins because of you guys!)

Hey Reece,

Can you have frankie give this a shot instead?

Vect
Eldrad (whichever psychic discipline that has invisibility I think its telepathy)
Farseer with normal psychics from codex eldar (doom/fortune/guide)

10 wraithguard, spiritseer with conceal

whatever else you can fit...

The things that I see making this at least as strong if not stronger than the harliestar is:

1)Always scoring

2)Majority T6 for wounding

3)conceal+invis gives the unit a comparable coversave to harlies

4)flamers cant really touch it

5)even though slower, it can shoot things with some nasty ap2 guns, and has a shot at downing flyers. This is, IMO the biggest shortfall of the harliestar given the number of flyers all of the necron players are going to be running early this edition.

Its not as good in combat as harliestar, but it gets free doom from shooting because of vects preferred enemy combo'ed with the always wounds on 2+ wraithcannon.

What do you think?

These lists and fliers have sucked what little fun I gained from 40k completely out... Guess that's why I jumped ship for other games lol. Great rep reece!

In all honesty,I find the whole thing kind of crappy but the tournament scene I'd expect this kind of thing and it is making me find other powers kind of more useful like megablasters to bypass the armor. Flamers also more useful for alot of crazy stealth issues. The necron air force I have no counter for until we get more missle launchers with flak. As for orks, I've had some good success with deff dread which no one used to use and try capt badrukk for the plasma shots. Won't help against vect though. I almost exclusively use shoota boys now and zaap guns. Have you guys tried meganobs? Their armor is quite good and can get some benefits from wierdos like grotznik.

FNP + cybork bodies + 2+ armor and fearless.

Definately the old lists are over. These new lists are demanding a brand new set of meta. We've been debating all sorts of wacky combos on the GK thread lately. Stuff we used to laugh at now seem alot more useful than before.

You definitely need to bring these lists to tournaments.

Either enough people will figure out and bring different combos to rock-paper-scissors extremo lists into being nasty, but not good choices to take in order to win overall at a tournament or these lists will utterly dominate and create a situation where everyone thinks the game sucks and needs to be comped.

Regardless of which happens, the only way forward is to bring the worst things possible. Its also the reason I won't be playing any more tournaments as I have no interest in building or playing lists like this, and even though I've never minded playing in tournaments with only modest hopes of doing well, since I don't really even care for the core mechanics of the game so much anymore I don't even feel the need to go and play with even a 'B' or 'C' level list (at least that's where my head is at now).


But wouldn't it be delicious irony for team zero comp to be the people first pushing for comp in 6th edition?

How the worm turns!

Is a "dark harliestar list" anything with vect, eldrad, and harlies? Can't watch the vid, can someone explain what this does / why it's so scary abusive?

Seems like a ton of issues could be fixed by limiting named characters, at least for allies, right?

you got the idea but it's a bit simpler than just named charactors.

what the unit is built around is Fortune and wound alocation. You pack a few 2++ models (Vect, Archons) into an eldar unit (harlies and farseer) and fortune them. Harlies are perfect for this because they have shrouding and stealth. That's a 4+ cover save out in the open. In cover, it's a 2+. Now start shooting that unit and you are forced to target the 2++ archons out on the edges and meticulously placed to be the closest models from about a 180o arc.

the named charactors just make it gravy. along with fortune, you get hit and run (harlies), fearless (vect,karadaras), stealth and shrouding (harlies), perfered enemy (vect), and 4+ IC's that can Look out Sir! when the going gets tough.

it doesn't sound all that bad in theory but just think of this and it will sink in how tough this unit is...how many times a game do you roll snake eyes? insane heroism? not that incredibly often right? well, that's what it takes to kill a single model in that unit more often than not.

I dunno guys, It doesn't seem incredibly strong to me. Here's why. Have you guys checked out the rules for multiple barrage yet? I don't have to target vect or any other 2++ model with multiple barrage weapons. But you do have to take away models killed closest to the center of the blast marker that I just multiple barraged that unit with.

It's a pretty simple, effective, and very common way to get by the wound allocation issues of units like that. 4+ cover saves are the same thing as 4+ armor saves. It would be like shooting at a unit of howling banshee's in the open with weapons that don't have an AP. It doesn't matter that they don't punch armour, they still kill most if not all of your banshee's. And that is one of the main reasons no one runs banshee's anymore.

Many armies have access to multiple barrage weapons and I have a feeling they will be getting more popular with this edition of the rules because of the sniping that can be done with them. In some armies those multiple barrage weapons also ignore your cover saves completely.

I do believe it is fairly strong, but I don't believe it is as strong as you guys have been making it out to be.

just my 2 cents.

only things that can get this combo would be:

null zone (but they probably have runes of warding)
Capt. Stern 's zone of banishment (also problem with runes of warding - but I think you can still get your 4 or 5+ deny the witch
hyperstone maze - inquisitor valeria
tesseract labrynths - quite a few necrons have this
Mind shackle scarabs (but not really killing them though)
crowe's heroic sacrifice (again, runes of warding is a pain)
Can use the boon of mutation from daemons as well as old zogwort's curse. (but you get stopped by runes again for zogwort)

with the nerfs to hoods, only rune priests stand much of a chance. No one else other than another eldar can do much to suppress this combo.

As other non-psych powers are concerned, your luck with barrage weapons may help screw up their wound allocation. Not sure if much else can help. Flamers maybe?

A fully kitted out necron royal court with a bunch of labrynths and MSS can probably laugh these guys off though. The weave is tough for that group to get through other than the kisses though I suppose.

A flyer list (necrons again) can also dominate these guys alot as you can always fly around invincible to charges.

Lastly, you can try challenging with something like a 2++ nemesis staff toon to stay in there and tarpit, or throw like 30 gretchen blocks at them for a while to keep the almost 800 point death star busy. A GK librarian that rolls a 5 on the divination chart will be able to tarpit them for a really long time as well.

well that's all the ideas I have anyway (I only know GK, IG, necrons, orks,and daemons! you other codex players chime in here)

Ironically, MSU can also deal with such an army. Just ignore the deathstar and go after the rest of the army. MSU just has too many targets for the deathstar to handle. Just be sure to feed them 35pt rhinos or 90pt combat squads one at a time.

Wow, Eldar Harlequin Deathstar w/ Karandras!

Crazy luck swinging both ways throughout this game. I didn't expect the Boyz to get wiped out so soon.

While it certainly is an OP Deathstar combo, it won't dominate all games. 6th Ed makes 40k more like rock-paper scissors than one list will rule them all. Flyers, Barrage Snipe, Null Zone, pure horde, MSU, and Plague Bombs are good counters.

Good battle report, thanks for sharing!

Depending on the type of army, I'd actually say that MSU isn't a fantastic counter for this army. As incredible as the deathstar is, it still is only around 800-900 points (no more than 1/2 the army). The units of war walkers will tear through a unit per turn. The scoring jetbikes won't go down to a mere 10-15 shots. And even though they won't be as effective, the MSU player still needs to sacrifice a unit every turn to keep the deathstar occupied.

I would really like to see how "Harliestar" would handle a horde army. I don't think the Harlies would have any trouble killing the models - they could feasibly wipe out 30 boyz on the charge. It would be the multiple assaults...One unit of boyz surrounds all the 2++ characters while a unit of meganobz or nobz hits from another side, where the closest models are all the harlequins.

I understand there are a great many lists that will have no counter to this and that will make the game not fun. However it is not a tourney worthy list. Why haven't you tried it against a Space Wolf list? On a 4+ , or 3+ with Njal, fortune will fail and the Wolves can unleash their shots into the unit and cripple it in one salvo. What am I missing with that?

Thanks for the input, guys! It's much appreciated.

Yeah, We pretty much came to the same conclusions. We don't want to make the game un-fun, but this tournament is billing itself as a very competitive event, so we're just going to run with it.

I am bringing Orks and Eldar which is weird, and definitely odd from a fluff perspective, but it is damn good.

It's weird what the game has become.

@Tzeentch

No worries man, glad you like them!

@Thanatos

We discussed that one, but we thought about the weaknesses: No hitting power from the Wraithguard in HtH, no Hit and Run (getting tar pitted is a big concern for something so expensive), no invul in HtH (other Deathstars will much you). But, if you gear it up as a Shooty Deathstar primarily (give them Maugan Ra or Fuegan) then I think you are onto something, and have it charge secondarily. Not a bad answer to Flyers either (if you can get close) as even with snap shot, the Wraith Cannons will drop a flyer.

It is a good idea, I think it can work, but you would want to alter it somewhat, I think to get the most out of it.

@Zid

Sorry to see you go, bro, hopefully the game'll grow on you. But glad you liked the report.

@Sudojoe

Yeah, we agree. There is now an even bigger divide between the funsies game and the competitive game. And yeah, some of the "bad" units last edition are great, now.

And you got it as to the counters. If you can stop the Fortune, you can fight it. That takes the teeth out of the unit, but with a lot of armies lacking effective counter-psykers, it is tougher to do than it seems. My Orks now take a Farseer just to stop the insanely powerful psychic powers that are now in the game.

@Yak

Hahaha, we'd then have to say the Zero Comp stand for "we have zero competition!" hahaha!

@Roadkill ZOmbie

That is a good point, and one of the only ways we've found to kill this unit. If you have say a manticore, and the unit is in the open, you can waste it with some lucky shots. Not a sure thing, but allows you to fight back, no doubt.

@Jy2

Yup, cheese to fight cheese! hahaha, venom spam is great against Deathstar units. Sigh. As you said, movement blocking and feeding them units can keep them occupied.

@SabrX

Glad you liked it!

And yeah, rolling snake eyes on that morale check was the only thing that saved my ass. The Nob Bikers should have been routed in the first round of combat.

@Siphen

Yeah, as Jy2 said, it would be. Also, MSU can take objectives well and is great at board control.

Plus, MSU is good against Flyers, too.

Man, we just went through the parking lot edition, I don't want to do it again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Darth

Nothing. If you can stop the Fortune, you can stop the unit. Problem is, if you get in range to do it, and you fail to stop it (Eldrad gets two trys), you are dead next turn.

And, of course, the Eldar player will be doing his utmost to take Njal out before he gets in range.

But, it is a good shot at stopping it, probably the best.

We never said the unit was unstopbable, just crazy good and not much fun to play.

Another thing to consider is that Deathstars tend to do much better at lower points because there is less on the table to deal damage to them.

Good point. We agree. At higher points you have more tools to fight them with. However, the game goes so much slower now we aren't getting games done in a tournament time setting above 1500, I think that will change as we get better at it, though.

I guess my only counter point to that though, is that at higher points the Deathstar also gains more support units which helps them too, but like you said, I think the power curve flattens out a bit.

Reecius wrote:Good point. We agree. At higher points you have more tools to fight them with. However, the game goes so much slower now we aren't getting games done in a tournament time setting above 1500.

there is a local tournament in 3 weeks @1850. I don't think there's much chance that they'll get a first time tournament (in our area) done in 2 hour rounds. I'm taking MSU because again, I think it'll go to time and I want as many scoring units out there hoping that a footslogging deathstar won't be able to affect the board much.

On a side note: I do agree that the deathstars will do better at lower point values. 1500 pts seems like the golden spot. that's 50% deathstar, 20% scoring units, and 30% shooty goodness for flyers or anti-tank. (that's the way i've seen it ran around here). 1850 seems like a pure 1500 point list with 350 points worth of allied anti-psych/anti-flyer meta. basically whatever your core faction didn't do well of the two. Hell, perhaps 350pts of fearless road blocks if you want to try and tank the deathstars...

If the unit is relying on cover saves, then wouldn't the rules for focus fire allow you to bypass the uber characters in the front and shoot the models in the rear?

Since you always use your best save. You could say "I want to Focus Fire at 3+ cover saves" and completely ignore the 2+ rerollable in the front and kill everything behind it.

the models in front are using 2++ invulnerable saves. not always a 2+ cover save.

@Painnen

Yeah, we want to bump the points up a bit, but it's moot if games don't finish on time. Let us know how your tournament goes, 2 hour rounds is short, we were running 2hour 15minute rounds in 5th and still about 10-5% of games didn't finish on time.

@bigbabonass

The entire unit has the same cover save (stealth and shrouding confer to the unit) unless some are actually in cover and others aren't.

Good report.

I'm curious how those nobs lost wounds, because once you allocate a wound to a model you have to keep allocating wounds to it until it is dead or the wound pool is empty. did you just cleverly use look out sir?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also a rerollable 5+ isn't that good, how did the huge number of nob attacks not kill more harlies?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also you guys are complaining about the wound allocation and yes that one combo sucks but one nob hidden in 30 boys was bs too. so was 10 nobs all armed differently.

bagtagger wrote:I'm curious how those nobs lost wounds, because once you allocate a wound to a model you have to keep allocating wounds to it until it is dead or the wound pool is empty. did you just cleverly use look out sir?

Look Out Sir allows you to kick wounds anywhere within 6" of the character model being wounded. All Nobs are characters.

Also a rerollable 5+ isn't that good, how did the huge number of nob attacks not kill more harpies?

When it comes time to allocate wounds in close combat, the owning player can begin allocating wounds onto any of his models that are in base contact with an enemy attacker that swung at that Initiative step. So as long as Kandras is in base contact with an enemy model that attacked at that Initiative step, EVERY SINGLE wound can be allocated onto Kandras with his 2+ save that is fortuned. And if the wounds would ignore his 2+ save he is Eternal Warrior or can just kick those wounds out to other models in the unit using 'look out sir'.

Also you guys are complaining about the wound allocation and yes that one combo sucks but one nob hidden in 30 boys was BS too. so was 10 nobs all armed differently.

I don't think anyone would ever say that the 5th edition wound allocation rules didn't have huge gaping issues. However, it doesn't seem like you've grasped quite how bad the new system is either. A Nob Biker squad doesn't even need to be differently armed now, they can just pass the wounds around using the 'look out sir' rules. And the system, as pointed out, totally allows a model getting a 2+ re-rollable save to take every single wound inflicted by a squad of 30 boys, thereby completely negating all those boys ability to do *anything* in combat against that unit.

But that's no different than when a unit of boys charges draigo wing in any edition. i think it's just totally different from what we're used to that it will take some time to adjust to the new wound allocation. in the end, any rule gw puts out is going to be exploited by people. Also this whole edition seems to be based on the concept of you have to take psychic defense or you lose - period.

bagtagger wrote:But that's no different than when a unit of boys charges draigo wing in any edition. i think it's just totally different from what we're used to that it will take some time to adjust to the new wound allocation. in the end, any rule gw puts out is going to be exploited by people. Also this whole edition seems to be based on the concept of you have to take psychic defense or you lose - period.

I don't know why you'd say that.

First off, Paladins have only been around since 5th edition, so this isn't something that happened in every edition (not to mention the wound allocation system has been different in every single edition of the game).


Second, Boyz vs. Paladins in 5th edition would lose the combat sure, but they'd cause damage. There is a HUGE difference between a 2+ save and a 2+ re-rollable save. 1 in 6 vs. 1 in 36 to be exact. In addition, the Powerklaw Nob would get to put his attacks into the Paladins. Now he gets challenged in order to remove him from killing more than one guy max, and now gets essentially 'picked out' by that challenge so he is much more likely to get killed before he swings with his klaw.

So yes, it is a big, big change to be able to put EVERY SINGLE wound onto your toughest model AND combo special rules up in a way that you've never been able to before in order to make that model nigh invincible.


And as for psychic defenses, that's great in theory, but most psy-defenses now work ONLY when the power is being targeted on an enemy unit. This does nothing to prevent psychic powers like fortune that the psyker targets his own unit.

The only psychic defenses that stop that are Runes of Warding and Space Wolves Runic weapons, assuming GW doesn't FAQ those to nerf them at some point, of course...and Tyranid MC's within 12" of course.

So if psychic defense is REQUIRED for any army to survive this kind of crap that means every single army has to have Eldar or Space Wolves as allies just to get the Runes of Warding or Runic Weapon....which sounds tremendously boring from a tournament-field perspective.

You can't hood fortune?

bagtagger wrote:You can't hood fortune?

Not anymore!

See page 68 of the new rulebook. Psy Hoods only allow a psyker to take the 'Deny the Witch' test instead of a targeted unit. But if a friendly unit isn't targeted by a power, then the psychic hood does nothing.

I thought that was just on top of what the codex says a psy hood does and omg you're right the faqs say refer to the rule book now for the hood. That's a huge change I hadn't noticed before.

yakface wrote:

Also you guys are complaining about the wound allocation and yes that one combo sucks but one nob hidden in 30 boys was BS too. so was 10 nobs all armed differently.

I don't think anyone would ever say that the 5th edition wound allocation rules didn't have huge gaping issues. However, it doesn't seem like you've grasped quite how bad the new system is either. A Nob Biker squad doesn't even need to be differently armed now, they can just pass the wounds around using the 'look out sir' rules. And the system, as pointed out, totally allows a model getting a 2+ re-rollable save to take every single wound inflicted by a squad of 30 boys, thereby completely negating all those boys ability to do *anything* in combat against that unit.

Keep in mind that the game developers have openly said that this is an error/misinterpretation by the community, that "units of characters" don't exist, and that Nobs, Paladins, Wolf Guard, etc. are only characters when leading squads.

Fetterkey wrote:
Keep in mind that the game developers have openly said that this is an error/misinterpretation by the community, that "units of characters" don't exist, and that Nobs, Paladins, Wolf Guard, etc. are only characters when leading squads.

I'd love for that to be the case, do you have a link for the post where someone said that ( I totally want to read more)?

If that is the case, it's just really strange because they've labled paladins as characters and paladins are never squad leaders.

But even if that is true, its not really going to change anything because people just put independent characters at the front of the units to pass the wounds around anyway (it's much more reliable that way).

The source was someone who had talked to the designers at the Design Studio Open Day a week or so back-- I think this Warseer thread has most of the relevant information.

As for Paladins, I suppose the intent there was for Paladins to be characters only when they're solo operatives, but I agree that it's weird.

I just tought of something but didn't know if it'd actually work but what if I shot a few mindstrike missles into the harlistar. would that kill the farseer too?

I'm not sure how those things work now. Do I still have to hit the psyker or just the unit now? And does ghosthelm still work on it?

sudojoe wrote:I just tought of something but didn't know if it'd actually work but what if I shot a few mindstrike missles into the harlistar. would that kill the farseer too?

I'm not sure how those things work now. Do I still have to hit the psyker or just the unit now? And does ghosthelm still work on it?

Yeah, Mindstrike missiles will nuke the Shadowseer pretty much automatically. The Farseer will still get its Ghosthelm 'save' though.

But the thing about this deathstar or any deathstar build around comboing special abilities from different characters is that there does seem to be counters to them one way or another, so while they may be super-deadly against a certain army in a specific game, it will be interesting to see how they actually perform in tournaments where they'll have to face a bunch of different army types, one of which will likely contain such a counter.

If I had to place my money down ahead of time I'd put it on a combo army like this played by a good player as the odds-on favorite to win a tournament, although I don't think you can ever count out a more balanced army (also played by a good player, of course).

So I'm not saying that these units will make the tournament scene uncompetitive, but rather that there will be a HUGE gulf between casual players using basically their 5th edition armies with perhaps a few tweaks for 6th edition, and those guys rolling-up with these power combo units.

After the more casual players get there faces stomped by armies like this, you have to wonder if you won't see tournament attendance drop off a bit, as some people may not be interested in building gimmicky armies like this in order to keep up with the joneses.

Not having played vs the Harliestar, my opinion means slightly less than those that have. However, here's a few problems i see that keep this from being an auto-win army --

1.) The harlie-star has units from codex: Eldar and D. Eldar - this means it may never embark upon vehicles when fully formed, and is therefore stuck at infantry speed.
2.) A walking harlie-star has only shuriken pistols for ranged threat.
3.) Aside from the farseer potentially having a shining spear, how does this unit deal with mechanized armies?
4.) In 5/6 of games the unit will not be able to aid in victory w objectives, unless the warlord gets a '6' on personal traits.

The 2++ with a re-roll is inevitably hard (impossible?) to crack, so the unit will have survivability when the opponent is facing it at the proper formation. However, as mentioned before it is slow so a mechanized force will be able to skirt around it.

Also keep in mind that in CC wounds are allocated to models in B2B with who ever is striking at that initiative - when the shadowfield archon kills models, remove those in b2b with him and pile-in with harlequins. That way every wound inflicted in CC will be towards 5++ with a re-roll instead of 2++.

While i agree it's a tough unit i don't think this is the combo that will break tournaments. It's like nob bikerz once were - stunning at first in their survivability and power in CC, then once figured out just became another tough unit but nothing special. Same will go here, except the player has to pay a huge tax away from the primary detachment to do it.

Zid wrote:These lists and fliers have sucked what little fun I gained from 40k completely out... Guess that's why I jumped ship for other games lol. Great rep reece!

There seems to a lot of doom and gloom in this thread! I would normally write this off as typical forum winging but here it is being posted by people whose opinion I have come to respect so I am a little more concerned.

I still don’t see it as all that bad though. Surely an IG army would be able to cope with this Deathstar easily- search light the unit (does this negate the shrouding?) and drop barrage on it so its no different to shooting fortuned Harlies. Its conceivable that IG could go first and bombard the unfortuned unit.
Mobile shooty units should also be able to position themselves so they are hitting the clowns, either by using terrain/models to limit their LOS or attacking from behind.
Deepstriking shooty units would surley be able to land in a position to pick off some harlies- Dakka Gants, Deathmarks, Sternguard, Horrors, ect. Flyers should be able to position themselves for shots and Valks and night scythes can drop units in a position to hit clowns.

CC seems more harsh but different Initiative values can be used to your advantage. If the Archons have higher I then remove models in base to base with them so that the Harlies pile in to base to base and try to avoid piling into the Archon in your I step. Or if you have mixed Initiative in your unit the Archons can only take wounds from the I step of the model in base to base. But not many units will put up a fight against Vect and Harlies!

Some lists (eg Tau gunline) will not be able to cope well with this but you wont win a tournament if some of your other opponents have counters to your deathstar. I actually think this type of unit could be good for the game as it will make people take advantage of directional fire and include more mobile shooting thus making the movement phase more tactical and interesting.

As for flyer spam, I’m not convinced. Flyers seem to have a limited amount of damage potential due to only getting to shoot 3 times in most games and are not able to control the board. A green tide could occupy the objectives and weather the damage from most flyers to win the game. Once again being able to blow most elite armies off the table is no good if you loose your games against hordes that can control the board. I also think that as more armies get flyers and skyfire units this will be less of an issue.


Keep hope alive!

What about units with jump packs against the harlistar. Seems like with the initiative 10 attacks you could put them all on the harlequins, probably kill a good amount of them and then seriously decrease the amaze output of the unit.

Now I might be crazy but couldn't you pin the characters in with one unit and charge a second unit into these types of squads? Thus leaving your second unit to beat the hell out of the models closest to them in CC?

Might not be easy but especially when the unit has limited shooting this should be doable.

Reecius wrote:Thanks for the input, guys! It's much appreciated.



@Thanatos

We discussed that one, but we thought about the weaknesses: No hitting power from the Wraithguard in HtH, no Hit and Run (getting tar pitted is a big concern for something so expensive), no invul in HtH (other Deathstars will much you). But, if you gear it up as a Shooty Deathstar primarily (give them Maugan Ra or Fuegan) then I think you are onto something, and have it charge secondarily. Not a bad answer to Flyers either (if you can get close) as even with snap shot, the Wraith Cannons will drop a flyer.

It is a good idea, I think it can work, but you would want to alter it somewhat, I think to get the most out of it.

Actually... a list that I am building around this is to use Tau as an ally...

Divination is the key though...

BS on Overwatch
4+ invul

The only thing in the Power that doesn't really work is the 3 dice for reserves

Take
10 wraithguard w/ warlock - Conceal
Eldrad - Divination
Fortuneseer
Tau Commander w/ 2+ save, FnP, Hit and Run, Black Sun Filter, and either a Plasma Rifle or a Airburst Frag Launcher

Give TONS of options and a rather large go no go bubble of threat.

yakface wrote:

So I'm not saying that these units will make the tournament scene uncompetitive, but rather that there will be a HUGE gulf between casual players using basically their 5th edition armies with perhaps a few tweaks for 6th edition, and those guys rolling-up with these power combo units.

After the more casual players get there faces stomped by armies like this, you have to wonder if you won't see tournament attendance drop off a bit, as some people may not be interested in building gimmicky armies like this in order to keep up with the joneses.

This. I have no interest in building fluff heresy gimmicky armies. I have a hard enough time not getting tabled by normal lists...

yakface wrote:
So I'm not saying that these units will make the tournament scene uncompetitive, but rather that there will be a HUGE gulf between casual players using basically their 5th edition armies with perhaps a few tweaks for 6th edition, and those guys rolling-up with these power combo units.

After the more casual players get there faces stomped by armies like this, you have to wonder if you won't see tournament attendance drop off a bit, as some people may not be interested in building gimmicky armies like this in order to keep up with the joneses.

Has it really been that different in the past? Even in 5th which some people now apparently reminisce with fondness (which is a HUGE contrast to enormous nerd rage present when that edition surfaced), if you put a casual player against Nob Biker or Draigowing or some other deathstar, casual players had generally little to no way to hurt those units except by luck. In fact, with my casual Tau list, I'd much rather face a 6th edition Dark Harliestar than 5th edition Nob Bikers. At least I have few rounds to shoot them at first, against Bikerz I had one round at best. Sure, I can understand the complaint that with all the mixed save rerolls and/or LOS gimmickry they're slow & annoying to both play and play against.

@Thread

I think a LOT of people are missing the point. We're not saying the Dark Harliestar is unbeatable or an auto-win army (we kill it in a lot of our bat reps) but that it is an example of how stupid the wound allocation and USR rules can make the game. We're not mad because we think the unit itself is broken (although it is) but that the rules allow this kind of thing to happen.

I just don't see how they could have possibly thought this would be fun? It's not even logical that in a giant combat, one guy takes EVERY SINGLE HIT? That isn't even possible, what, every guy lines up and takes turns hitting the lead character? It is seriously idiotic. And a LOT of armies can do this, without allies. A reroll 2+ is easy to get now, and why it is in there, I just don't get.

Our concern is that it makes the game less fun to play.

@bagtagger

No offense man, but I think you just aren't grasping how these rules work right now. Wound Allocation is HORRIBLE when used the way we have been using (and expect people to do it as why wouldn't you?). It makes damn near invincible units. It makes 5th ed wound allocation look like a work of beauty in comparison.

@Yak

You said it, as usual, better than I did.

These rules mean that the skilled players will overpower the casual players SO MUCH, that it will not be an enjoyable game for either player. That is why we we are questioning if we should bring them or not.

@Backfire

This ties in to what we said above. You are right, there were really powerful combos in 5th, but they seriously don't hold a candle to what is possible now. Draigowing and Nob Bikers were rough in 5th, but they are BETTER now. Yeah, and cheaper, too.

The power lists got so much more powerful that they will dominate casual lists unless piloted by an incredibly skilled player.

@Pony Law

Again, people aren't understanding wound allocation. So long as one of the Tanking characters is in B2B with ANY model striking at a certain initiative, then ALL of the attacks at that I step can be allocated to him.

I don't mean to be mean, sorry if I come across that way, you could use that to get around the Tank characters with proper positioning. Hammer of Wraith we've found, is damn near useless though. And, a Jumper squad might kill a Harlie or two doing this, but then would get wiped out in combat. Not a good exchange at all.

@Hulk

That can, and does work. But, hahaha, Harlies by themselves, particularly Fortuned, are no push over. You would need two very powerful units to pull this off, but you have the right idea.

Again though, we aren't saying this unit is unbeatable, just an example of a super bad rule.

@Moosatronic Warrior

You are right, but staying positive in the face of incredibly terribad rules is tough.

@Fetterkey

Be that as it may, unless they FAQ it out, the rules is the rule. This is the game. I genuinely hope you are right and they change it, but that is a core game mechanic being changed in an FAQ, that is pretty big.

Also, we were looking into the rule about the Emplaced gun on a Bastion, it can be targeted separately, unfortunately. It won't last against an Airforce.

Hmm, I disagree with that interpretation regarding the emplaced gun on the Bastion. This is an example of really sloppy rules writing on GW's part, because they use the term "gun emplacement" and "emplaced gun" interchangeably at some points. However, page 97 makes it clear that all the weapons on Bastions or Fortresses of Redemption are "emplaced weapons," despite some of them being referred to as "gun emplacements" at other points.

Regardless of this confusion, though, the important thing to note here is that the rules for gun emplacements on the battlefield are different from the rules for gun emplacements on buildings. While gun emplacements deployed on the field as "battlefield debris" can indeed be targeted separately, there is nothing to indicate that emplaced guns on buildings are subject to these rules or can be targeted in this fashion.

Reecius wrote:
@Backfire

This ties in to what we said above. You are right, there were really powerful combos in 5th, but they seriously don't hold a candle to what is possible now. Draigowing and Nob Bikers were rough in 5th, but they are BETTER now. Yeah, and cheaper, too.

My point is rather that previously almost unkillable units became even more unkillable, yes, but is this really so big meta change? So they are even more unkillable, but they are still bound by same limitations why Deathstars, ultimately, did not dominate 5th Edition.

Fetterkey wrote:Hmm, I disagree with that interpretation regarding the emplaced gun on the Bastion. This is an example of really sloppy rules writing on GW's part, because they use the term "gun emplacement" and "emplaced gun" interchangeably at some points. However, page 97 makes it clear that all the weapons on Bastions or Fortresses of Redemption are "emplaced weapons," despite some of them being referred to as "gun emplacements" at other points.

Regardless of this confusion, though, the important thing to note here is that the rules for gun emplacements on the battlefield are different from the rules for gun emplacements on buildings. While gun emplacements deployed on the field as "battlefield debris" can indeed be targeted separately, there is nothing to indicate that emplaced guns on buildings are subject to these rules or can be targeted in this fashion.

It definitely is very confusing writing the way they have gun emplacements and emplaced weapons, however I don't think most people will end up agreeing with your assessment. The upgrade option for the Bastion clearly says that it is a 'gun emplacement' and there are rules for 'gun emplacements' on page 105 that clearly state that they can be destroyed.

Note that this is different from the Fortress of Redemption which says that it just has an 'emplaced' missile silo & an 'emplaced' twin-linked Icarus Lascannon (pg 117). The Bastion and the Aegis line both say that you are buying a 'gun emplacement' with XXX weapon on it.

So between the casually written (IMHO) example given on page 97 and the precise wording in the actual fortification datasheets, I'll personally err on the side of the datasheet every day of the week, and I'm guessing most other people will too.

@Yak

That is exactly how we read it, too.

Granted, it's confusing, but I think that there isn't much case to be made for it NOT being targetable.

@Backfire

They were killable in 5th.

You stated the answer in your question. Dathstars are now not what they were.

In 5th ed, you could kill Nob Bikers and Paladins with massed strength 8 or making them run away, etc. There were a lot of ways to handle them.

Now, they are a LOT harder to kill. Paladins with Draigo are Fearless, which is huge, and Nob Bikers will rally easily even if you do get them to run away (plus combo them with Ghaz to get around the problem entirely) and strength 8 bounces off of Nob Bikers. Plus, FNP got better for models like this, making them even tougher.

What that all means is that these units can literally just be rammed down the other player's throat with very little skill and be more effective than they were. What few weaknesses they did have, have been shored up making them juggernauts.

Are they beatable? Yes. But you need the right tools to do it. Not a lot of armies have those tools.

So, we are going to see even more of a rock, paper, scissors environment than before, which isn't super fun. The extreme lists will dominate "normal" armies unless they have the tools to take them on, in which case the extreme armies stand a good chance of getting rolled.

I have faith the balanced list will still be the best tool, but ONLY if you are an extremely knowledgeable and skilled player. It is now harder to win with a balanced list than ever before.

yakface wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:Hmm, I disagree with that interpretation regarding the emplaced gun on the Bastion. This is an example of really sloppy rules writing on GW's part, because they use the term "gun emplacement" and "emplaced gun" interchangeably at some points. However, page 97 makes it clear that all the weapons on Bastions or Fortresses of Redemption are "emplaced weapons," despite some of them being referred to as "gun emplacements" at other points.

Regardless of this confusion, though, the important thing to note here is that the rules for gun emplacements on the battlefield are different from the rules for gun emplacements on buildings. While gun emplacements deployed on the field as "battlefield debris" can indeed be targeted separately, there is nothing to indicate that emplaced guns on buildings are subject to these rules or can be targeted in this fashion.

It definitely is very confusing writing the way they have gun emplacements and emplaced weapons, however I don't think most people will end up agreeing with your assessment. The upgrade option for the Bastion clearly says that it is a 'gun emplacement' and there are rules for 'gun emplacements' on page 105 that clearly state that they can be destroyed.

Note that this is different from the Fortress of Redemption which says that it just has an 'emplaced' missile silo & an 'emplaced' twin-linked Icarus Lascannon (pg 117). The Bastion and the Aegis line both say that you are buying a 'gun emplacement' with XXX weapon on it.

So between the casually written (IMHO) example given on page 97 and the precise wording in the actual fortification datasheets, I'll personally err on the side of the datasheet every day of the week, and I'm guessing most other people will too.

I dunno. There's no precedent anywhere in the book for any weapons on buildings being "gun emplacements" in the battlefield debris sense, and I think the intent is pretty clear from page 97, where there is an actual picture of the kit with the gun option on it and it is clearly described as an emplaced gun. Note that the Fortress of Redemption pictured on page 97 has the heavy bolter upgrades-- referred to as "emplaced" rather than "gun emplacements" in the entry-- and these are also referred to as emplaced guns. It seems clear to me that GW is using the terms interchangeably and that gun emplacements on buildings are emplaced guns, not battlefield debris gun emplacements. I do see your interpretation but I'm really not sure that it's the more logical one, especially in the face of the very explicit example on page 97.

Backfire wrote:
My point is rather that previously almost unkillable units became even more unkillable, yes, but is this really so big meta change? So they are even more unkillable, but they are still bound by same limitations why Deathstars, ultimately, did not dominate 5th Edition.

My response to this would be that part of the reason that these Deathstar units weren't completely dominating was exactly the fact that there was stuff that could obliterate them out there and then you're looking at investing too much of your army's points into a single unit. When that unit becomes MUCH more durable in 6th edition, then all of a sudden it is a pretty big change in how useful the unit is, and then factor in that you can take a lot of these units in a bunch of different army types thanks to allies, and now it may well be that the defacto army lists for tournament winners all contain a super-combo deathstar unit of some sort.

The only things I see Deathstars having lost in 6th edition is that:

• They cannot score more than one objective (assuming they're a troops choice like Paladins with Draigo), although they can still deny multiple objectives as far as I can tell from the rules.
• Those that are slow are more susceptible to being outflanked and exposed by faster units (assuming their durability is dependent on one or more units at the front of the unit) and they themselves being slow will have a hard time outflanking other units to maximize their firepower.
• The mission and deployment types tend to put a premium on mobility, which meany Deathstars don't have (although many do, such as Nob Bikers, Thunderwolves, Jetbike Seer Councils, etc).
• The random charge distance means they won't always get into combat when you want them to.


But on the flipside, what have they gained?

• Extreme durability boost both in shooting and in close combat as wounds tend to usually go onto the absolute toughest model.
• Increased precision of wound spreading around the unit, especially if an IC is the closest model.
• In many cases, the ability to utilize precision shots/strikes with every single model in the unit (Nobs, Paladins, Warlocks, etc).
• Drastically reduced psychic defense across the entire game (except for Space Wolves & Eldar).
• The ability to both pass most special rules from a joined IC onto his unit AND to combine two characters from different codexes together in order to combo those rules together. In many cases these combos alleviate the huge weaknesses that the unit previously had (like being able to pass Fearlessness onto a deathstar unit whose main weakness was being forced to run off the table).


Therefore, overall I do think there has been a huge boost in the nastiness of these units. Again, this is not to say they will completely rule the day, but they are worse than before and I completely agree with Reece that they will be much, much more frustrating for the uninitiated.

For example, in 5th edition if you were playing against a Paladin Deathstar you could fire everything you had in your army at the Paladins, and while you were unlikely to kill anyone off the bat, you would still see wounds start to creep into the unit and eventually enough firepower would start to bring them down...you'd still probably lose the game, but you could see the impact of your shooting. This type of thing was still very frustrating to players who had more balanced fluffy armies in tournaments, though (I'd hear it all the time about how stupid it was that they could spread the wounds around to avoid taking casualties).

Now in 6th edition, if you're facing a Deathstar with a 2+ re-rollable save model in the front, you can fire an entire opposing army's worth of shooting at this unit and its not unreasonable to not see a single successful wound caused on the unit at the end of the turn. And with something like Fateweaver running around with Terminators, even outflanking them is going to not do all that much. So if you think that people who aren't super-hardcore into the game got frustrated when their shooting was fairly ineffectual, just wait until they run into the situation where their shooting is completely ineffectual and that Deathstar unit simply walks across the table and crushes their entire army without really anything they can do about it with the models they paid the exact same points to put onto the table.

So while the hardcore tournament players will adapt and bring their own nasty combos to counter other combos, I'm afraid the more casual players will simply be driven to give up on the tournament scene. But only time will tell...

How is vect bennifiting from fortune? The rule says it can only work on eldar units and vect is not an eldar unit.

When joined to an Eldar unit, he's part of an Eldar unit. Same reason if a Farseer joins a unit of Wyches, he himself can't benefit from Fortune; because he's part of a DE unit. This is just part of how ICs work (and have always worked); when an IC is joined to a squad he functions as a member of that unit except where specified otherwise.

Dawnofthedoug wrote:How is vect bennifiting from fortune? The rule says it can only work on eldar units and vect is not an eldar unit.

The Harlequins are an Eldar unit and Fortune is cast on them. Vect is an IC joining that unit (as he is a battle brother) and per the IC joining a unit rules on page 39, he becomes part of that unit and benefits from any ongoing abilities they have.

Ok, here's the deal about wether or not Dark Eldar count as Eldar.

Space Marines are Space Marines...but so are Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, etc.

Eldar are Eldar...And so are Dark Eldar, Corsair Eldar and Exodite Eldar.

The term Eldar refers to the race as a whole, just as the term Space Marine refers to the Adeptus Astartes as a whole.

That's why their powers work on them. They ARE eldar, just with a different alignment.

I feel like you guys are getting the responses you are because you keep claiming that you reports are meant to inform whats broken, but I almost feel it is condescending, I think we all realize the implications of the rules 6th brought and in general are trying to find reasonable solutions. Ranting on whats obviously broken to no end just gets tired after a while. I think there are many, much more annoying lists out there and I think it just takes a little faith in the community to bring lists they enjoy playing. If in 6 months to a year the meta is all the same silly trash then I would say you have a leg to stand on but for feths sake its not been a single month.

I happen to believe as new codexes are released it will make more sense. Currently players are rellying on eldar and demons for most of the broken allied builds I have come across. Thats 2 of the most outdated books, wait a year when skyfire is rampant and fortune and fateweaver are fond memories of a past edition and things will make a lot more sense.

lastly if you think the format is busted why not just continue to run 5th edition events. If the format is so not enjoyable and broken then surely others will agree and attend. Gamers will play 5th in addition to 6th anyway, don't believe me then just google Pathfinder.

On a personal note I thought 5th was just as pitiful in regard to competitive play. Same three top tiered lists rinsed and reapplied until all flavor was lacking. At least now it is possible to have my ass handed to me by 30 UNIQUE power-gamed armies.

Again, not trying to be rude just trying to give you folks perspective from another gamer.

Roadkill Zombie wrote:Ok, here's the deal about wether or not Dark Eldar count as Eldar.

Space Marines are Space Marines...but so are Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, etc.

Eldar are Eldar...And so are Dark Eldar, Corsair Eldar and Exodite Eldar.

The term Eldar refers to the race as a whole, just as the term Space Marine refers to the Adeptus Astartes as a whole.

That's why their powers work on them. They ARE eldar, just with a different alignment.

This is has been debated to death and is taking the rules VERY fluffwise. It is very obvious that they meant for "Eldar" to mean units in "Codex Eldar". If you were to ask any event if you can cast eldar powers on Dark Eldar your would likely quickly get denied as the intention is clear.

that being said, as Yak said the casting limitation for Fortune is that the power must be cast on and Eldar unit. ICs attach to a unit and become part of it, therefor if you can the power on a unit that the IC is a part of he gains the benfits (or ill effects) of the power. There is no limitation on if an attached member can use the benfits of fortune, just merely the targeting restriction.

Roadkill Zombie wrote:Ok, here's the deal about wether or not Dark Eldar count as Eldar.

Space Marines are Space Marines...but so are Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, etc.

Eldar are Eldar...And so are Dark Eldar, Corsair Eldar and Exodite Eldar.

The term Eldar refers to the race as a whole, just as the term Space Marine refers to the Adeptus Astartes as a whole.

That's why their powers work on them. They ARE eldar, just with a different alignment.

This is not true.

Eldar are Eldar and Dark Eldar are Dark Eldar. So if the rules refer to an Eldar unit, that would mean regular old Craftworld Eldar.

However, as has been pointed out, you are free to Fortune an Eldar unit and then have a DE IC join that unit to benefit from the power.

Can the characters pass wounds off using LOS after failing their 2++ save? If so, I think I'm starting to get it...

yakface wrote:

Roadkill Zombie wrote:Ok, here's the deal about wether or not Dark Eldar count as Eldar.

That's why their powers work on them. They ARE eldar, just with a different alignment.

This is not true.

Eldar are Eldar and Dark Eldar are Dark Eldar. So if the rules refer to an Eldar unit, that would mean regular old Craftworld Eldar.

Yup. The most prominent and obvious example is Vect. Who has the special rules, "Preferred Enemy: Eldar", and "Preferred Enemy: Dark Eldar".

RiTides wrote:Can the characters pass wounds off using LOS after failing their 2++ save? If so, I think I'm starting to get it...

No, the way Look Out Sir works changes depending on whether the unit has the same save or whether it has mixed saves.

If it has the same save, you just roll all the wounds together to see which are saved and which are unsaved and then begin applying the unsaved wounds to particular models (starting with the first guy), when you go to allocate a wound to a character, at this point you can use Look Out Sir to pass the wound off, but it is still an unsaved wound that will be going onto somebody else.

In the case of MIXED saves, which is most of the time with specialty units that have ICs attached, you have to allocate the wounds to models FIRST and then roll saves. So in this case LOS is used to pass the wound off BEFORE saves are taken.

What makes things really strong is that even if the IC just has a 2+ re-rollable regular armor save, he can take all the standard wounds himself and pass off any wounds that would ignore his armor save onto pleebs using LOS.

RiTides wrote:Can the characters pass wounds off using LOS after failing their 2++ save? If so, I think I'm starting to get it...

What are you asking here?

You can always attempt using LoS (provided you meet the req)... but, you'd lose the shadow field.

Is that what you're asking?

Edited: Ninja'ed by Yak...

Red Corsair wrote:
I feel like you guys are getting the responses you are because you keep claiming that you reports are meant to inform whats broken, but I almost feel it is condescending, I think we all realize the implications of the rules 6th brought and in general are trying to find reasonable solutions. Ranting on whats obviously broken to no end just gets tired after a while. I think there are many, much more annoying lists out there and I think it just takes a little faith in the community to bring lists they enjoy playing. If in 6 months to a year the meta is all the same silly trash then I would say you have a leg to stand on but for feths sake its not been a single month.

I'm not going to speak for the OP, but in the video it's repeatedly emphasized that these combos aren't unbeatable but they make the game unpleasant to play. Seriously, if you shoot at a unit with a re-rollable 2+ out front and your opponent is rolling saves one at a time, that's annoying. When you consider how much of the game is focused on volume of fire you could be sitting their watching someone roll 20 or 30 individual saves. It's a double whammy of units that are really hard to stop and just really annoying to play against.

It's not ragequit time, but there's no way the "heroic" wound allocation rules are good for the game.

To all of you saying I'm wrong about Eldar being Eldar and Dark Eldar being Eldar as well, remember, that rule for casting only on Eldar was from a 4th edition codex. And that bit in the Dark Eldar codex about preferred enemy for Vect was a 5th edition codex. Both of those codexes were written for a different game set ( as GW blatantly pointed out at the beginning of every FAQ).

6th edition is all about the fluff. Now some of the fluff DOES equal rules.

Having said that, what I did say in my post is a fluff way of explaining why Eldar can cast Eldar only spells on Dark Eldar if Dark Eldar are taken as allies.

But the bottom line is in the actual rule in the book. Under the heading for Battle Brothers it clearly states that "Battle Brothers are treated as `friendly units` from ALL points of view.

That means, yes, you can cast Eldar only on Dark Eldar units because they are still Eldar, by both race and fluff.

Battle Brothers are still units from different codices. From a rules perspective, Eldar and Dark Eldar are two different things.

We're getting off topic, here, though.

Amerikon wrote:

Red Corsair wrote:
I feel like you guys are getting the responses you are because you keep claiming that you reports are meant to inform whats broken, but I almost feel it is condescending, I think we all realize the implications of the rules 6th brought and in general are trying to find reasonable solutions. Ranting on whats obviously broken to no end just gets tired after a while. I think there are many, much more annoying lists out there and I think it just takes a little faith in the community to bring lists they enjoy playing. If in 6 months to a year the meta is all the same silly trash then I would say you have a leg to stand on but for feths sake its not been a single month.

I'm not going to speak for the OP, but in the video it's repeatedly emphasized that these combos aren't unbeatable but they make the game unpleasant to play. Seriously, if you shoot at a unit with a re-rollable 2+ out front and your opponent is rolling saves one at a time, that's annoying. When you consider how much of the game is focused on volume of fire you could be sitting their watching someone roll 20 or 30 individual saves. It's a double whammy of units that are really hard to stop and just really annoying to play against.

It's not ragequit time, but there's no way the "heroic" wound allocation rules are good for the game.

Please reread my post, I know it's very KILLable and I agree the rule sucks, thats not my point. The video just highlights someones gripe, a very obvious gripe might I add. I don't think very many people need to have someone tell them rerolling 20 individual rolls sucks. It's as if they feel like restating that it is a poor rule repeatedly is going to change it somehow. It's not, so either pick up a new game or move on. Otherwise you can keep bitching about the status quo but don't expect people to tolerate it indefinitely.

Amerikon wrote:

Red Corsair wrote:
I feel like you guys are getting the responses you are because you keep claiming that you reports are meant to inform whats broken, but I almost feel it is condescending, I think we all realize the implications of the rules 6th brought and in general are trying to find reasonable solutions. Ranting on whats obviously broken to no end just gets tired after a while. I think there are many, much more annoying lists out there and I think it just takes a little faith in the community to bring lists they enjoy playing. If in 6 months to a year the meta is all the same silly trash then I would say you have a leg to stand on but for feths sake its not been a single month.

I'm not going to speak for the OP, but in the video it's repeatedly emphasized that these combos aren't unbeatable but they make the game unpleasant to play. Seriously, if you shoot at a unit with a re-rollable 2+ out front and your opponent is rolling saves one at a time, that's annoying. When you consider how much of the game is focused on volume of fire you could be sitting their watching someone roll 20 or 30 individual saves. It's a double whammy of units that are really hard to stop and just really annoying to play against.

It's not ragequit time, but there's no way the "heroic" wound allocation rules are good for the game.

I think its too soon to make that judgment.

If this type of deathstar is sufficiently unbeatable that it becomes the most common approach for tourney armies then it will make for very annoying games.

If this type of Deathstar is actually a knee jerk reaction to new rules which people will learn to deal with then it will stop showing up at competitions and the games will be less annoying.

I very much think it will be the second option.

In 5th there were alot of deathstar units that mostly required large amounts of S8 AP2 to bring down, If your list didnt have enough you probably lost. This, combined with the mech heavy meta, lead to S8 spam in most lists.
This new type of deathstar abuses the fact that the direction of attacks is now very important. The way to counter this is to also take advantage of directional attacks. To me this means that there is a much wider variety of ways to counter this type of unit than the ubiquitous S8 spam of 5th and different armies will tackle them in different ways.
In other words; you counter this unit in the movement phase not the shooting phase, which makes the game more interesting. If the advantage goes to the player who is able to make best use of the movment phase then it looks less good for the guy who spent half his points on one unit moving at infantry speed.

yakface wrote:

RiTides wrote:Can the characters pass wounds off using LOS after failing their 2++ save? If so, I think I'm starting to get it...

No, the way Look Out Sir works changes depending on whether the unit has the same save or whether it has mixed saves.

If it has the same save, you just roll all the wounds together to see which are saved and which are unsaved and then begin applying the unsaved wounds to particular models (starting with the first guy), when you go to allocate a wound to a character, at this point you can use Look Out Sir to pass the wound off, but it is still an unsaved wound that will be going onto somebody else.

In the case of MIXED saves, which is most of the time with specialty units that have ICs attached, you have to allocate the wounds to models FIRST and then roll saves. So in this case LOS is used to pass the wound off BEFORE saves are taken.

What makes things really strong is that even if the IC just has a 2+ re-rollable regular armor save, he can take all the standard wounds himself and pass off any wounds that would ignore his armor save onto pleebs using LOS.

Thanks, yak!! That clears it up perfectly for me. Weird the way the order of when to take a LOS roll is changed by whether or not the unit has all the same saves, but I get it now

I'm confused, why would you get to take all those saves on one guy? If your unit is is mob by a bunch of boys it stands to reason that some of them would be in combat with other models. At most your IC would be in contact with what 6 or 7 boys. I thought you had to allocate wounds based on closest to closest. I don't see how you could allocate all 30 boyz wounds on your IC if half the boys are on the other side of the mosh pit from your IC. Some of them would have to go on your other models.

Wounds are allocated for each I step against a model in BtB with an attacker striking at that I step. Once the first model is dead wounds go to another model in BtB. If all the Orks go at I2 then any model in BtB with one ork can take all the wound.

If the attacking unit has a sarge with an unweildy weapon or an IC with higher I their attacks can only be assigned to models in BtB so it is possible to position these models to hit Harlies. Not that I would expect many units to take this unit in HtH. I think its in CC when wound allocation is silliest, and seems odd given the ‘Associative and Disassociative’ rules comments at the GW open day.

wowsmash wrote:I'm confused, why would you get to take all those saves on one guy? If your unit is is mob by a bunch of boys it stands to reason that some of them would be in combat with other models. At most your IC would be in contact with what 6 or 7 boys. I thought you had to allocate wounds based on closest to closest. I don't see how you could allocate all 30 boyz wounds on your IC if half the boys are on the other side of the mosh pit from your IC. Some of them would have to go on your other models.

Alright, here's why "tanking" works in 40K 6th edition:

With wound allocation, you assign wounds to the closest models in shooting and CC. A model that gets allocated a wound must continue to receive them until it is dead, so once you pick your 'tank' to start taking wounds he's the man.

In close combat since many models are base to base, the defending player picks from amongst all eligible models where to put his wounds. This is only limited by the initiative step at which a model is fighting. Therefore if at Initiative 3 you have 8 ork boyz in base to base with harlies, and one with the archon, all the wounds caused vs the unit can be taken on the archon until he dies...with a re-rollable 2++ that is just probably not going to happen.

A quick FAQ on the re-roll save gimmicks like fateweaver and eldar/fortune that limits that specific combination really takes a lot of the 'tank' problems away. They FAQ'd that Blood Angels blood chalices only effect BA models, so i'm hoping GW will see the same needs to be done for Eldar/Fortune and Fateweaver.

@Red Corsair

I understand where you are coming from, but I have a lot of trouble masking my emotion, I am a really straight forward person.

And it isn't quite so simple as just give it up and move on for us.

We do this for a living, we own a game store, run tournaments and put food on the table through gaming, and 40K is our main revenue generator. For us, the impact of a crappy rule set has a LOT more impact than it does for a casual gamer.

And I don't know how many tournaments you have been a part of or run, but trying to run a national level tournament for 5th ed will be about as popular as a fart in an elevator. hahaha, not many people would come and we'd lose a very large amount of money.

Pathfinder is a terrible example because it is not a community driven choice to play D&D 3.5, it is a professionally produced product with constant support by a legitimate game company. That is not at all the same thing.

I am not trying to attack you here, so I hope I don't come across that way. I do understand that people don't want to see negativity, but the way the rules are right now, the game is not as fun to play as it could be and we are pointing that out. Just as you have the right to not watch these if you don't like them, we have the right to create them how we wish. I am doing my damnedest to see the silver lining, and the Golden Throne Tournament will go a long way to proving or disproving a lot of our theories, but I honestly feel that we will see competitive play dominated by these crazy, not so fun lists.

Being primarily a tournament player, that makes me unhappy. Balanced lists will still work when expertly played, but it is a harder prospect than it was.

One of the things Tastey Taste mentioned that I think is a good idea, is that the need for Gaming Events to have both a competitive and Casual event will be paramount.

@Thread

Thanks for clarifying a lot of the rules questions! Beat me to it.

Hey man no need to pull punches with me, I am the exact same way which is why I was hoping you wouldn't take my comments to seem spiteful or as a personal attack (it's tricky on the net at times). I didn't really expect you to run a 5th event as much as I was taking a different approach to try and slap you guys outta the 5th edition days. I know it's hard, and I have played like you since 2nd so trust me, but with each edition it is easiest to take a small break from playing competitively to clear your mind. This way you can approach the next edition without having tainted vision from the previous edition.

Like I said, the rules were poorly designed IMO as well. Any system that takes 2-3 games to find a loophole was not only poorly written, but obviously not play tested with any real regard for the consumer. But we do need to move on if we are to continue playing this game. The best way is to adapt, and form battle plans like others have suggested.

I think my brother said it best during a discussion we recently had. He commented on how GW will changed the 10-15% of the game that we as players all wanted to be changed, and generally makes it better. But then for no reason at all decides to tear up another 30-50% of well written rules to change simply for the sake of, well, change. I think this is what hurts them even in their codex design. Unfortunately, we hard core gamers (and trust me I play the game weekly and would daily if possible) who are competitive also have to swallow this bitter mouth-full.

Again I agree with your sentiment, I am even OK with your griping to an extent. I just feel that after a while you guys not only beat that dead horse, but shot it, burned it and dismembered it in the front yard, ha ha . So we as your gaming sites supporters were merely trying to pull you boys out of your proverbial funk. Sometimes spending more time with the most competitive players isn't better, it's worse, as you all despair and avalanche your feelings in one polar position.

As for those death-stars, I feel they are no worse then draigowing was in 5th. Heck, make them literally Custodes in 7th and unkillable, the solution to any death-star is the same. Out maneuver, period. It doesn't matter if it was slightly easier in 5th, it was still silly to try and shoot them off the table.

Also why hasn't any one brought a mech list from the old meta against those death-stars, I guarantee you tank shock rapes the harlie star, not through morale but by changing it's positioning so shooting is easier. I feel like those D-star on D-star games are like watching two children in a sand box rawr at eachother while smashing their dinosaurs together.

Any way, again I am not trying to pick on you and hope you take this as light hearted as it is intended. Keep up the great work, awesome paintjobs and remember, it's always easier to give up and complain then adapt.

Corsair

No hard feelings here, either. You make some excellent points and I think you are right that we have beat that dead horse to a pulp.

I think you are right in that when you are surrounded by your friends all who hold the same opinion and you feed off of each other it only makes it worse.

Some of the guys on our team (all of whom are super competitive) really like 6th, though, so it really is a matter of perspective.

Funny you mention busting out some of the old Mech Lists because I was just planning to do that with my old Shooty Wolves. They will be just as good, if not better this edition than they were. I just don't like playing the army that much, it gets boring. We have been playing with our Dinosaurs, I mean D-Stars haha, because it is the new, hot thing. Same reason we're playing the Air Force, it is a change of pace. We played those Mech lists to death last edition.

But, you are right that it is easier to wail and cry about something than to nut up and make the most of it. I keep finding myself focusing on the negative aspects of what we have despite the fact that there really is a lot of positive. And who knows, maybe an FAQ will help fix some of the most crazy abusive wound allocation nonsense.

Like you said though, so much of this was unnecessary change and so much of it could have been easily fixed with a play test. GW just refuses to pull their head out of the sand and acknowledge that their player base could help them make a better game, and it is so annoying.

Anyway, as always, the input is appreciated and trust me, no hard feelings on this end at all. We appreciate the support and the honest criticisms.

RiTides wrote:Can the characters pass wounds off using LOS after failing their 2++ save? If so, I think I'm starting to get it...

Opponent allocates precision shot wounds to models
Opponent tells you which wounds from the wound pool to allocate first (high strength group, low AP group, etc)
Owning player must allocate wounds to closest models first per BRB
Look Out Sir opportunity happens when a wound is allocated, before save is made if possible

+ + + +

In the case of a multi-character blob, when first wound comes in, you roll to LoS, if success, the save is made on a new model, repeat...

In the case of a tanking Independent Character with 2++ / 3++ save due to some effect plus his gear, and asked to allocate an Insti-kill AP1 wound, you LoS on 2+ to another model if failed, take a test on 3+ with reroll if he has 3++

+ + + +

All,

There are plenty of counters for all of this. The worry of deathstars and perceived 'abuse' of wound allocation is interesting to discuss, but not really an issue for many folks. The wound allocation isn't broken, it's just different... it is working as designed.... It may not be what we wanted it to be, or what it used to be, but the system works... all be it slower in some cases than what it used to, I agree. Those taking lots of characters with look out sir will have to consider whether they can get their games done in time if they play such things in timed events too...

Generally speaking, some perceive the wound allocation rules as containing a potential to be abused... abused is relative. It's a rule in the new system. However, if counters exist, it is just new tactics to consider. The game is amidst a large overhaul. New BRB and mass faq release, was round 1. The first new codices on the horizon, FW updating all of their books, and a next round of FAQs is likely by end of summer, etc... public playtesting and vetting of the new system is underway. It would be unreasonable to think that the designers are not listening and taking in what they can for consideration of future faq / erratta.

A. If you are worried about the average or common gamer running into this... Then, in friendly games, said individual can always opt to say - good game bud, "I concede to that list before you set up - no need to get your figs out - got anything else?" Said gamer of course doesn't even need to play against Mr. Harlie-star either... Problem solved.... if it's a friendly game, it should be just that - friendly.

B. If a tournament, and sportsmanship, composition scores, and army balance scores, courteous general, etc... are all being scored, then players will penalize those doing these things that are not welcomed in that atmosphere, and they won't win the event as a result, even if they win the mission in each round... non issue for the organizer as he has put in measures to offset pin heads that would try to ruin his event and empowered the players to encourage others to adhere to the spirit of the event. Problem solved...

C. That leaves the tournaments where there are no composition scores, no sportsmanship scores, no army balance requirements... etc... If you opt to play in that climate, then there is some onus on the player to be aware of what they are getting themselves into. Ignorance doesn't hold up in the court of law for a reason... This is a cut-throat competition, where anything goes... OK, be ready for that or suffer. Doesn't mean you have to play a deathstar... doesn't mean you have to cave to them either... The deathstars rerolling saves units allocating one wound at a time are not insurmountable. The fact that they built that into their list means they intend to use the unit - avoid it. If it's bikes, place objectives in ruins on level 3+ they can't get to it. If it's a slow foot unit, place objectives far from each other at board extremes and use your manouverability to take out his scoring units. Learn how to use flyers, drop pods, flamers, spells, etc... to counter elements of these units as well as outflanking them to do damage from a side they are not planning on taking damage from... the list goes on. The units are only a problem if you let the opponent use them as they designed them. They are tricks. They are not auto-win buttons by any stretch. The meta just changes in how you deal with them. If you have opted to play in the climate where these types of units are OK, then you do so at your own risk and should include them into your meta when building. Example: Play some games with enfeebling units and watch your enemy run off the table or attack their own units for a turn... Psykers with Fear the Dark, Hallucinagen, etc... IG psyker squads, allied psykers... it can get nasty. 6th has expanded the game so much that investing heavily in a single high point deathstar could just as easily be your undoing.

The next round of FAQs are not out yet. They may cause a further shake up and errata or faq further which causes new meta.

In the end, it's not really a big deal.... the sky is not falling on all things 40K. Tournaments and their organizers can control their environments if desired with penalties and composition. Players in friendly games can opt to play or not to play opponents. Wound allocation maximizing lists can be countered when you build your own list.

Ironically, in the vid / batrep in this report... the bikes didn't have to allow the Harliquins blob to even charge them.... They wanted to see what happened. So they let them charge the orks... not a wise tactical decision on the orks part anyway.... They were on bikes and had full mobility to marginalize the harli unit and make it effectively neutered. Tactically, the bikes would have been better served going for the troops units on bikes after eliminating the walkers and staying away from the harliquins. They could have pelted them from afar, positioned better so the harliquins were between the boyz on one side and the bikes in the backfield... There were also no flyers in the game which add a whole new dynamic to ground based deathstars and their relative effectiveness...

It's just a new game, with new rules and new opportunities that folks have to get used to.

Cheers,

Very invigorating thread.

To answer your question Reece and Frankie, take the lists. It is a competitive tourney, if you are going to shape a living tournament format, you need to find the stinky turds that GW didn't clean up about their game, so that you can gently shape your tourney missions to compensate.

The problem with GWs rules release model is that their games don't get healthy until about 18 months AFTER an edition comes out. I think this is a good time to look at the 'story so far' with 8th edition fantasy. When 8th edition came out, the casual players were exicted with new tricks and fun times, but the competitive players who enjoyed dissecting games started finding 'bugs'. Suddenly, massive 80+ model units appeared, and people were finding out that going all in on an okkams mindrazor was an instant win. The competitive game devolved into massive deathstars and unbreakable core tarpits clumsily sliding around the table. But then 5 or 6 army books came out. Mournfang cavalry appeared and were the silver bullet to the formerly unbreakable horde of models. Monstrous infantry and cavalry kept appearing over and over, and while the big blocks and deathstars still had game, people needed something to counter these new units popping up in every book. So people actually starting fielding the one thing that units like mournfang or demigryph knights can't handle, heavy cavalry 1+ saves. If you listen to warhammer podcasts, and talk to warhammer focused players, they all say that 8th edition is very healthy.

40K codecies are going to start emerging. Flyer answers will arrive with each book, excellent 2+ save characters will arrive with each book, and new answers to these characters will arise with each book. The health of the game will dramatically improve every time one of the offenders gets a book replacement. For example...

Will this trick even work if fortune ceases to exist?
Will the biker nobs be as resilient when the fact that they aren't all characters gets clarified?

Also, I know you guys have seen this play out multiple times. I've only been theory-crafting my own death-stars, but I'd like to bring a little bit of perspective to this discussion you had.

Eldrad 210
Karandras 215
Vect 240
10x harlies with kisses and a shadowseer 250

total 915

The unit was charged by a boy unit with a nob. Assuming big shootas, 240 points?

The boy unit had zero independant characters in it, and costs 26% of the unit charged. I understand the complaint about watching a person re-roll 30 saves. But, would you have felt any better if one or two harlies died, and then you were destroyed? That troop choice was built to shoot and to win assaults against other troop choices.

Another point I will make. As much as you disliked that mechanic in action. It did require a minimum of 700 points to field. And that unit didn't beat you. The ork list you played didn't have enough long ranged firepower to threaten eldar jetbikes in the last turns. Had you killed a measely 6 jetbikes you win. The matchup was bad to be sure, but many different list types would have been able to really make that reliance on a single 700+ point entity a bad deal.

This game will get healthy after around 4 books come out, give it 8-10 months. In the interim, Do NOT expect to beat a 700-900 point unit, unless you are using a 700-900 point unit. I don't know why we should be expecting that? Ignore it, or put the double warboss biker unit together.

And I'll end with a noob question... isn't that all flyer necron list just incredibly easy to hard counter? How many denial units does it have? How many 2+ cover save models can it kill in the 4 game turns it will be on the board? I haven't played against it, and I doubt I ever will, it seems even more gimmicky than your deathstar lists.

Thanks so much for sharing this. I don't have time to find the edges of 6th edition right now, so I'm getting it through you guys

If Fortune goes away, the harlistar is dead. no question. It'll be shot up over time as it moves to engage w/out it.

I don't see Nobs not being charactors. I think that "C" going away in the BRB is a pipe dream for people not realizing that would allocation shenanigans were not intended to be removed but oddly enough is still very much gear dependant.

As for the hard counter comment, sure, there could be some pretty obvious hard counter lists to the flying circus but the problem so far in list delving is that what's proven to neutralize fliers isn't working well against the deathstar, swarm, or heavy psychic power lists. Your theory of 8 months sounds spot on however. After enough successful lists have made it through a tournament ringer, we'll all get a better picture of what a true all-comers list might be like or how many fliers is "optimal" in a flyers' list. We'll get a better picture of whether a psychic test and die roll of '6' is enough psychic defence.

What I think the thread is trying to get across is that there is alot of HOPING going on that you don't need Quad guns, 1-2 of your own flyers, eldar or space wolf allies for psy defence, and a deathstar of your own to be competitive. If I've gotten anything from these videos it is to search thoroughly for an all-comers list that can do just about everything above average or be stuck playing a list that's a one trick pony (with a laser strapped to it's head and goes by the name of Chuck Norris).

Balance and mobility is the key to victory.

Shep wrote:
And I'll end with a noob question... isn't that all flyer necron list just incredibly easy to hard counter? How many denial units does it have? How many 2+ cover save models can it kill in the 4 game turns it will be on the board? I haven't played against it, and I doubt I ever will, it seems even more gimmicky than your deathstar lists.

Thanks so much for sharing this. I don't have time to find the edges of 6th edition right now, so I'm getting it through you guys

There's pros and cons to pure Necron Airforce. It doesn't handle Deathstars very well, but it has high mobility, which can be crucial for objective games. It's hard to deal with because there's not enough anti-air other than bias IG list. A list focuses purely on anti-air will perform poorly against other lists. Necron Airforce performs poorly against horde armies. While it is gimicky, it will blow away most mech lists.

A less gimicky and more competitive Necron list will half as many flyers, and harder to deal with units such as Wraiths, Scarabs, and Spyders.

Overall, everything you said about 40k becoming healthy again after new codex releases is welcoming news.

Shep wrote:
The problem with GWs rules release model is that their games don't get healthy until about 18 months AFTER an edition comes out. I think this is a good time to look at the 'story so far' with 8th edition fantasy. When 8th edition came out, the casual players were exicted with new tricks and fun times, but the competitive players who enjoyed dissecting games started finding 'bugs'. Suddenly, massive 80+ model units appeared, and people were finding out that going all in on an okkams mindrazor was an instant win. The competitive game devolved into massive deathstars and unbreakable core tarpits clumsily sliding around the table. But then 5 or 6 army books came out. Mournfang cavalry appeared and were the silver bullet to the formerly unbreakable horde of models. Monstrous infantry and cavalry kept appearing over and over, and while the big blocks and deathstars still had game, people needed something to counter these new units popping up in every book. So people actually starting fielding the one thing that units like mournfang or demigryph knights can't handle, heavy cavalry 1+ saves. If you listen to warhammer podcasts, and talk to warhammer focused players, they all say that 8th edition is very healthy.

40K codecies are going to start emerging. Flyer answers will arrive with each book, excellent 2+ save characters will arrive with each book, and new answers to these characters will arise with each book. The health of the game will dramatically improve every time one of the offenders gets a book replacement. For example...

Agree 100%. The same thing happened at the beginning of 5th. Nob Bikers were running all over everything until SM and IG came out.

@Shep

You know I respect your opinion a great deal, and I think that your comparison to Fantasy is most likely a very good one.

They are clearly copying the Fantasy formula and I think it is not at all unreasonable to see a lot of this stuff going away with Codecis to come (in fact, we EXPECT a lot of it to).

My annoyance at the Boyz getting owned by a Deathstar was not at the fact that they lost (and it was only a few of them left at that point, not the full thing but still more points than the boyz) but the fact that the rules allow this kind of nonsense to occur in the first place. That was my real concern, it wasn't fun in any way, and took ages to boot! haha

We're finding the flyer armies are really nasty, and not much fun to play against if you don't have the tools but that movement and board control make it pretty easy to counter them. If you have lots of models, speed or both, you can dictate where the Flyers go. You find situations where you can win without actually doing any damage.

And no worries! Despite our grumbling about rules we think could have been better, we as a group are more invigorated to play the game than we have been in a long time. Allies was a stroke of genius and we're having a blast with crazy army builds.

@Painen and Thread

I want to say again, we are not trying to say that these or any Deathstars are "the unit," people keep thinking that is the point. It isn't, the point is to show the game mechanics and some of the crazier combos. We kill the Deathstars in the videos all the time.

As for Fortune going away and killing the unit? It hurts it, but it doesn't change the fact that the reroll 2+ save is here to stay, and all the crap you can do with it via Tanking wounds, etc.

Some of the core game mechanics (psychic powers, terrain, army powers, etc.) allow you to get a 2+ reroll. The principle remains and isn't going anywhere. That is very, very annoying.

I agree though, that I'll believe the Characters being changed for LoS! when I see it. Not saying it won't happen, but changing a core game mechanic in an FAQ is pretty crazy.

Nob Bikers are crazy, better than they were, but again, not unbeatable. DE and Nids gak on them! haha, they are just a very, very good tool.

Armies that have a lot of tools are best. Deathstars are one such tool, but not the end all, be all of them. They are just crazy good!

Its kinda funny, the game is loose and jacked up now, but I kinda like the deathstar as one type of playstyle, and MSU as another reasonable counter.

If people had been watching your other batreps, they might have noticed that Frankie's deathstar army has a losing record. It has lost to almost every army that had more troops than it had. And lost to a nid deathstar army as well.

A SUPER simple straightforward ungimmicky bike list just surrounded and dissected the death star for a convincing win. I can imagine that a bikes + stormtalon list would have just made it much worse.

As Reece said, wait for the balanced army versus balanced army batreps come out. Those armies are good enough to have no glaring weaknesses between flyer spam and deathstar armies. They might lose some games to those archetypes, but it won't be so wildly swingy and lopsided.

@Reece I just wanted you to acknowledge that your expectation of doing anything at all against a high initiative 700+ cost unit was a little out of alignment. However, your statement about it being a lame game-event is absolutely spot-on.

everyone should acknowledge that this happened, and I think you should have filmed him doing it. Just to see how long it took.

The orks charged, some of them died to karandras and vect, in very easy to resolve ways, the challenge was resolved swiftly and then Reece picked up probably around 60 dice. Those 60ish dice became 30ish hits, then those 30ish hits became 20ish wounds. Then he had to sit and watch Frankie pick up two dice at a time (he could have been a dick and done it one roll at a time) 20 times in a row, and at the end of that 20th pair, say "nope, no wounds" Whether or not that mechanic is balanced by cost or not has no bearing on how unfun of a tabletop gaming moment it was for him.

I wonder if it was as unfun as, let me pick a random example, losing a game of capture and control when an entire army of space wolves shot at a vendetta and failed to wreck it on the final turn of a tourney game on table one...

My point is that miraculously unkillable vehicles was something that made me loathe 5th edition (unless it was allowing me to beat Reece) and thats gone now

Shep wrote:My point is that miraculously unkillable vehicles was something that made me loathe 5th edition (unless it was allowing me to beat Reece) and thats gone now

Except if they're flyers and then they're even harder to kill then before.

@Yak

Haha, so true! I anticpate Flyers will tone down a bit as we get more used to them, but for now, a Flyer heavy list takes movement, patience and playing to objectives to counter.

@Shep

You said it. The Deathstars fail as often as not, and there are a lot of ways to counter them. The same as in 5th ed. The difference now is that they are even better, which makes them even less enjoyable to face by players who don't know how to handle them.

That bike army beat the dark harliestar again in a rematch, and again, did it through movement and smart play. However, we ran it against the Sons of AnOrky twice and it got smashed. It couldn't punch through the Orks fast enough, they were on the Marines too quickly and combat was devastating. The bikers handle slow Deathstars, but the fast ones were too much for them. We're mixing in some allies to see if that will shore up the weaknesses.

I think what a "balanced" army will be now, is not what a lot of folks think it will be. For example, I still don't see a "fluffy" marine army standing up to a tooled list. Last edition a very good player could do it, but this edition with the power levels increased, not so much.

We have been playing everyday and these power builds just roll up and smoke normal lists like they're a joke. As we have shown, only smart play and sticking to the missions gets around this.

A balanced list this edition will have lots of scoring options (often cheap, throw away type units) the ability to contain or fight a deathstar, the ability to fight or contain flyers, and a hammer unit of their own, or MSU firepower.

At this point in time I see that as the safest bet to a take all comers list in 6th ed.

I am really excited for the upcoming Golden Throne tournament to put a lot of these theories to the test outside of our gaming group. We are bringing the heat with our lists and all of us have some sort of Deathstar. It will be interesting to see if they hold up or if others have found ways to circumvent them. Only time will tell.

As for vehicles, hahaha, I remember all too well not being able to destroy that damned Vendetta! That was pretty funny, actually. 6th made vehicles better, IMO. Better from a balance perspective is what I mean. They die more consistently, but are more reliable until destroyed. I think it was a good compromise.

I remember there was one experiment on peoples perception of others. It involved leaving a wallet on the ground and seeing how many people would just take the money. The goal was to compare the % of people who thought they would take the money versus the number who actually did. Don't remember the exact numbers but about 70% of people polled thought that everyone would take the money. In reality I believe it was 20-30% at most.

It is interesting how we talk about the fact that it would not be fun to play against, nor would we enjoy playing it, yet we assume everyone else would(with the same information that it is not fun) and so we are bringing it to counter them.

As you said you make your living from people enjoying the game. Also it is possible to break any system, that is just how it is. I have yet to see any game that cant really be broken short of true randomness. There are just too many combinations that can occur. So I guess the question is should the focus be on how to break the game or how to enjoy it? If it is assumed that the majority are not WAAC but just competitive. Can we also assume that they will be bringing lists that are still fun to play or will the need to win turn 40k into a soccer(football) match(with the same amount of fake crying)

Personally I agree with the take all comers mentality, those are both fun for you, and exciting for your opponent. Tournaments for me are there for the competition that's true, but still I get more out of seeing new armies, paint schemes and the exchange of ideas.

Great report, always interesting to see skilled players in action. As to your question on exploiting that I saw on the website, everyone has the opportunity to exploit any system however the only thing that keeps a system running and functional is when people don't. Something to think about I guess

How many times have people in the financial sector/government gotten away with things that were "Within the rules"

I don't understand how you're getting every wound on to the characters. Some of those wounds are going to have to go on Harlequins and can't be LOS'd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shep wrote: Frankie's deathstar army has a losing record. It has lost to almost every army that had more troops than it had.

Also, this. How much do you really need to complain about something that doesn't actually win?

Eldrad with 10 harlequins by themselves can be pretty formidable ye?

Leth wrote:I remember there was one experiment on peoples perception of others. It involved leaving a wallet on the ground and seeing how many people would just take the money. The goal was to compare the % of people who thought they would take the money versus the number who actually did. Don't remember the exact numbers but about 70% of people polled thought that everyone would take the money. In reality I believe it was 20-30% at most.

It is interesting how we talk about the fact that it would not be fun to play against, nor would we enjoy playing it, yet we assume everyone else would(with the same information that it is not fun) and so we are bringing it to counter them.

As you said you make your living from people enjoying the game. Also it is possible to break any system, that is just how it is. I have yet to see any game that cant really be broken short of true randomness. There are just too many combinations that can occur. So I guess the question is should the focus be on how to break the game or how to enjoy it? If it is assumed that the majority are not WAAC but just competitive. Can we also assume that they will be bringing lists that are still fun to play or will the need to win turn 40k into a soccer(football) match(with the same amount of fake crying)

Personally I agree with the take all comers mentality, those are both fun for you, and exciting for your opponent. Tournaments for me are there for the competition that's true, but still I get more out of seeing new armies, paint schemes and the exchange of ideas.

Great report, always interesting to see skilled players in action. As to your question on exploiting that I saw on the website, everyone has the opportunity to exploit any system however the only thing that keeps a system running and functional is when people don't. Something to think about I guess

How many times have people in the financial sector/government gotten away with things that were "Within the rules"

DarknessEternal wrote:I don't understand how you're getting every wound on to the characters. Some of those wounds are going to have to go on Harlequins and can't be LOS'd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shep wrote: Frankie's deathstar army has a losing record. It has lost to almost every army that had more troops than it had.

Also, this. How much do you really need to complain about something that doesn't actually win?

Sigh.

Once again, people are missing the whole point of the videos. We are not, nor have we ever, said these armies/units/combos are unbeatable or the best, or whatever. People are making that assumption.

What we are saying is that the rules that allow this are bad. Straight up, no question, bad. And, as I have said many, many times, I like a lot more about 6th then i don't like but some of the core game mecahnics are flawed, IMO (random charges, wound allocation, and LoS!). I am having a lot of fun playing 6th, a ton actually, but those rules make the game less enjoyable than it could have been.

And, as you state you don't understand how the rule works, you really aren't in a position to critique it! hahaha, I would think that would be a given, but hey.

I am writing an article on close combat because apparently, a lot of folks don't get it yet, which is understandable because it is seriously illogical and poorly conceived. But here's a summary on how a single model can tank a large number of hits: In assault, since it is impossible to determine who is "closest" to whom, the defending player can choose any model in B2B at a certain initiative step to take EVERY SINGLE wound until he dies if his save is different than the rest of his squad. If said model has the ability to reroll his saves, and his save is good (2+), he becomes an ultra tank. The annoying thing about it is that it takes ages to resolve, and then nothing happens! haha We have had situations where we roll upwards of 100 dice, to have absolutely no wounds as a result. It is not fun.

In essence, you have a single guy taking every hit in a huge combat, which is beyond dumb. For an edition that bills itself as cinematic, this is a big failure in that regard. Two units charging into one another, Braveheart style, and somehow the dude in Terminator armor jumps around getting in the way of every attack in the entire combat while his buddies go unscathed just flat out doesn't make sense.

From a tactical perspective, it means that any weapons that don't punch the armor of the tanking unit, will largely be lost, leaving the rest of your boyz to do their work. Keep your eye on BoLS, I have an article that goes into a lot greater depth on the subject coming up this Wedensday that also explains ways to get around it.

In short: we're not complaining about the unit, we beat it regularly, we're complaining about the rules that allow it to happen.

@Leth

That is a really good point, and I think tournament data would support your theory. Most people bring to tournaments what they have, with only a very small percentage bringing the latest, greatest net list. Also, the best players almost always use lists they themselves developed over time and experience. The whole notion of buying an army and winning with it based on its power alone is largely a myth.

The point Yakface and I were trying to make is that due to the new rules, if you bring an army like this to a tournament, particularly early in 6th ed when people don't know what's going on, it is likely going to result in you smashing them, and them not having a very fun time. That sucks.

I really do believe the best players will win with balanced lists, but that it is harder than ever to overcome the power differential that the extreme list has. For example, if you were playing against the Dark Harliestar and you didn't have barrage weapons, lots of scoring units (or were playing them in KP), psyker defense, etc. you really don't stand much of a chance. However, if you have some of those tools and know how to use them, you can win, for sure, and it can actually be a really fun game. For example, if I were playing Draigowing last edition, I wouldn't even bother shooting at them unless I actually had the firepower to deal them a killing blow. I would just play around them, killing support units and playing to the mission.

A lot of players don't do that, though, and will feel really discouraged in the face of these types of units. Now that they are even better than they were, I think the problem will only be exacerbated.

Either way, we are playing in the upcoming Throne of Skullz GT which will put a lot of this theory to the test, so that will be really interesting.

But anyway, I liked your post, that was a nice analog to what we're doing here. And glad you enjoyed the bat rep!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@SonsofVulkan

Yes, big time! I squad of Harlies with a Fortuneseer is brutal, they don't even need all of the other characters.

@Reece - I get your point, that the tanking ability in CC is amazingly stupid for units with a 2++ re-roll. That is exactly 1 unit in the game, the harliestar. Chaos terminators w Fateweaver and Chronometron escorted Necron Lords have a 2+ re-roll, slightly less powerful but still a tank nonetheless. Are there others? Possibly, though I can't think of any at the time.

The point i'm making is don't let the ability of a single 'trick' make the game have a 'bad set of rules'. A good, smart player will and can see the way around these cc stars the same as 5th - directional shooting, avoidance, and careful placement of models in CC (My powerfist is in B2B with the archon, so he can't take any wounds from my chainswords until harlequins do) will all do wonders to reduce the effectiveness of the star. Also as you agreed to, these lists don't win games in 6th! Even more of a reason for me to ignore the unit, or throw up some fodder for it to assault into while my other scoring units make their way across the board and my elites focus on killing the enemy scoring units.

All i'm saying is good on you and Frankie for putting together a stupid good combo that basically lets an archon never die. However it won't change my play style, and as more flyers come out (come on Harpy and another AA flying beast, nids!) the harliestar will have even less to assault.

Oh, PS - If FAQs take away the ability for fortune's power to effect an archon, fateweaver's to effect chaos terms, and plus the fact that the chrono-tek only gives 1 re-roll per phase and this isn't broken anymore - someone who chooses to tank with their character vs a buttload of attacks will eventually fail enough saves to lose that character. Statistically that is.

@Tetrisphreak

Man, I hope they do FAQ that stuff out.

The other really common combo that gives a 2+ with a reroll are Space Wolves. Grey Hunters with Wolf Guard in Terminator armor and a wolf standard can do it too, which is crappy.

And I think I wasn't being clear enough, which is understandable. I don't think the entire rules set is bad, just some of the rules. I think 6th is pretty damn awesome, actually, allies, the mini-dexes coming out, the updated rules in WD, is all fething awesome. Just a few of the main game mechanics are too easily abused and don't do what they were meant to do and I am afraid it will make people not enjoy the game as much when they encounter it.

I could be wrong of course, wouldn't be the first time! Haha

But if they do FAQ that stuff out, awesome. That would make the game more enjoyable, IMO.

I'm a bit surprised the sentiment is that people want these things FAQ'd to not work as it currently does. I'd think people would be more upset that such sharing of rules is only limited to Brother's in Arms...if you give the sharing rule to more codex' then everyone gets to enjoy wonky rules and just not a few builds here and there.

i don't see them being faq'd. why would they? it seems kinda the point of being brothers in arms in the first place. It's the first thing we all thought of when we heard there were going to be allies. (or at least it was the first thing in my mind). Kairos in paticular, the archons and fateseers a close second.

it's part of 6th edition. i'd stop thinking that they are going to up and change things around just because they are unbalancingly (yeah, there's a word for ya) good. they have a points cost. that's the balance IMO.

I am surprised no one mentioned the assasin that removes war gear saves. hit vect first and remove the shadow field. Then just hit them with ap2 weapons. Without the inv save this unit is no where near as scary.

@Sargow

Don't forget he also has Stealth and Shrouding thanks to the Harlies, which means he can always take a 4+ or 2+ cover save, which can also be rerolled.

And that is a solution only Grey Knights have access to.

@Painnen

The points cost these models have were not written with the knowledge that they would be used with armies from other codices, especially not the 4th ed books we're dealing with. I really don't see an argument to be made that they are balanced as is as they are being used in ways that weren't known to the writers at the time they were written.

Sargow wrote:I am surprised no one mentioned the assasin that removes war gear saves. hit vect first and remove the shadow field. Then just hit them with ap2 weapons. Without the inv save this unit is no where near as scary.

Yeah! And while you're at it, hit Eldrad as well!

Reecius wrote:@Sargow

Don't forget he also has Stealth and Shrouding thanks to the Harlies, which means he can always take a 4+ or 2+ cover save, which can also be rerolled.

And that is a solution only Grey Knights have access to.

Yeah. It won't do much to him in shooting, but it'll help if you have to assault that unit. They won't be nearly as scary without the 2++ and 3++ in combat....though it's still stupid to assault that unit with anything in the GK codex except paladins and psykabroke grenades.


BTW, grey knights can also get re-rollable 2++'s with a warding stave librarian and psychic powers.

Reecius wrote:@Painnen

The points cost these models have were not written with the knowledge that they would be used with armies from other codices, especially not the 4th ed books we're dealing with. I really don't see an argument to be made that they are balanced as is as they are being used in ways that weren't known to the writers at the time they were written.

I'd tend to agree with this other than the fact that the Brothers in Arms alliances and the dirty lil tricks they can pull off had to have been well known to the developers of 6th edition. Someone had to look at Kairos + Tzeench Terminators and say..."yeah, powerful but expensive. low model count but tough. a current codex icon and an old codex unit that gets some new love. print it and we'll make some money from it." Same exact thing could be said about Eldrad, Harlies, and Archons. The only balancing thing that comes to mind when talking about these type of alliances is the relatively high points cost per model/unit. That is what I was getting at when talking about their points cost being balanced. However truely unbalanced they might be by being 1-2 editions old, the only way I justify them being approved for such alliances in the first place is the inherant cost of the models and followed second by their limited function (footslogging, nonscoring) on the tabletop.

Can't look out sir be used to pass off the shield breaker shot anyway?

yakface wrote:
Can't look out sir be used to pass off the shield breaker shot anyway?

Yes. Ironically, while "sniping" has grown easier overall thanks to buffs to barrage and the chance of Directed Attacks from sniper rifles and characters, the only preexisting sniper units in the game-- the Vindicare Assassin and Sergeant Telion-- actually got substantially worse thanks to Look Out, Sir!

"When a wound from this round is allocated to a model, that model loses.... Remaining saves, if any, can then be taken."

- GK codex


I don't think you can use LOS on its special effect. LOS can only be used to deflect a wound (or unsaved wound) and not other effects of a shot, I think. Just like when a stormraven fires mindstrike missiles at a psyker. He may be able to LOS the wound, but he still takes the Perils.

Fetterkey wrote:

yakface wrote:
Can't look out sir be used to pass off the shield breaker shot anyway?

Yes. Ironically, while "sniping" has grown easier overall thanks to buffs to barrage and the chance of Directed Attacks from sniper rifles and characters, the only preexisting sniper units in the game-- the Vindicare Assassin and Sergeant Telion-- actually got substantially worse thanks to Look Out, Sir!

Tell that to the guy holding the Wolf Standard in a Grey Hunters unit.

jy2 wrote:"When a wound from this round is allocated to a model, that model loses.... Remaining saves, if any, can then be taken."

- GK codex


I don't think you can use LOS on its special effect. LOS can only be used to deflect a wound (or unsaved wound) and not other effects of a shot, I think. Just like when a stormraven fires mindstrike missiles at a psyker. He may be able to LOS the wound, but he still takes the Perils.

Yeah, I can definitely see that point of view. But on the counter side the LOS rules do say at one point that you are 're-allocating' the wound, which heavily implies that it is replacing the normal allocation process the way a re-roll replaces an original roll.

I personally think that's rather a different situation than the Mindstrike missile, which causes a perils to be taken when a psyker is HIT by it (which in that case is when they're at least partially covered by the mindstrike blast). In this case, the trigger is on the wound be allocated to a model, which the LOS rule theoretically changes the target of that allocation...or else I think you're stuck in a RAW situation where both the original model and the model who gets the wound allocated to him via LOS *both* suffer the effect of the Shield Breaker, which I would think is a solution most people would find fairly ludicrous (although I could be wrong).

Reecius wrote:
The points cost these models have were not written with the knowledge that they would be used with armies from other codices,

And again, he's using this combo to create an army that loses.

DarknessEternal wrote:And again, he's using this combo to create an army that loses.

the army list doesn't lose every time.

i played an 1850 game today with my version of the list and won vs. a Grey Knight list. GK's had 4 scoring units and I had 7. (one of which I forgot in reserves all game). Actually lost/tied multiple rounds of combat vs. the knights in CC with the harliestar. Had an Archon and Eldrad ID'd but in the end I had enough mobility with the rest of the list to be both evasive and surgical. Oddly enough, turn 5 we would have tied had it ended. Turn 6 was a 4 point swing for me.

@Darkness Eternal

Hahaha, OK, you already said that? What point are you trying to make?

I already told you we aren't showing these lists to win every game, but to show how the rules work. I have also said, multiple times, that I think the best lists will be balanced lists.

And, as pointed out, the army doesn't lost the minute you put it on the table. It is quite easy to win with it, actually.

I do not see your point here, at all.

@Painnen

I think what you said is very logical, however, I had a chance to talk to an individual involved with play-testing 6th and when I asked why they allowed this craziness in to the game I was told that they didn't think people would do it. Just like Jervis said they didn't think people would make 5 man/2 Assault Cannon termie squads in 4th ed since there was only 1 assault cannon in a box of models.

That is one of the reasons I get so mad at GW and bitch about some of the rules as they could have SO easily been fixed. A beta would have eliminated all of this nonsense before the product went to print and the game would have been so much healthier for it.

Also, as I have been told, they are taking a long view with 6th ed, and accepting the fact that some of the books will be out of whack with the overall vision of 6th ed until they get redone. Just like Daemons in 7th ed Fantasy were stupid broken but came into a more realistic power level with 8th ed, etc.

Reecius wrote: What point are you trying to make?

You're trying to fix something you've demonstrably proven isn't broken.

Your series of videos show that you knee-jerk straight into sad-sack Eeyore mode every time things seemingly turn against you despite nothing actually being against you.

You and he even comment on this particular trait of yours in the video. Your objectiveness on the matter completely disappears after you Nob Biker charge and you start whining about how unfair (unfair was your word) this unit is despite your victory.

This is just further mountain-making out of the molehill you imagine you see.

I'd ask you to go watch this video you posted. Don't just try and remember what happened. Then try to objectively state you're not letting your personal bias from something that happened in the moment color your opinion of something that just isn't that big of a deal.

He spent almost half his points on a unit that you ended up beating (by neutering it, outmaneuvering it, and limiting it's impact on the game). You won, not only the game, but the interaction with this unit. You only lost some rounds of assault.

Why is this such a big deal? Something that cost a lot of points is powerful. Shouldn't it be?

DarknessEternal wrote:

Reecius wrote: What point are you trying to make?

You're trying to fix something you've demonstrably proven isn't broken.

Your series of videos show that you knee-jerk straight into sad-sack Eeyore mode every time things seemingly turn against you despite nothing actually being against you.

You and he even comment on this particular trait of yours in the video. Your objectiveness on the matter completely disappears after you Nob Biker charge and you start whining about how unfair (unfair was your word) this unit is despite your victory.

This is just further mountain-making out of the molehill you imagine you see.

There is at least one way this can be abused, and I mean that in it's most literal sense, at tournaments: slow playing.

Last turn objective grabbing is how Eldar usually win games. Anyone who played against double autarch/full reserve Eldar in 5th can tell you it doesn't matter how much damage the army puts out, it is whether or not they survive long enough to turbo onto objectives and contest the game. Jetbikes are cheap scoring troops that can litterally travel the length of the board now.

Now what does that have to do with the price of tea in china?

Since we can no longer fully reserve, we need another insulating tactic for those cheap but fragile jet bikes. One possible way to insulate them would be to drag the game turns out to reduce the number of turns played in any one round of a tournament. In this scenario the Harliestar wouldn't have to do a lot but take up time. If you decide to be TFG and roll every save one at a time, you could very easily take one turn off the game length if not more. Every turn that you take off of the game length, the less fire gets dedicated to those super mobile game winners. While it would be nice to say that you could ignore the harliestar and focus on the jetbikes, the jetbikes are already going to be in reserve. So you are denied at least one turn of shooting via reserves, and at least one from abusing wound allocation. Given that the bikes have absurd range of movement, and so don't need to be anywhere near an objective, this gives an opposing player 3 turns max to shoot them while they huddle in the far corner of the board out of line of sight.

This isn't a full proof strat. What it is, is a demonstration of how to use the worst part of the new wound allocation shenanigans, the amount of time that it eats, to give you an advantage. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe at one point Frank/Reece mentions that at 1500pts, this game is taking around 3 hours? While some of that time is certainly due to unfamiliarity with the new rules, the majority is in dealing with these time sinks.

TL: DR- The new wound allocation rules are almost a good idea. But min/maxing gaming, as you see in a tournament setting, is going to see this mechanic being abused for an advantage.

DarknessEternal wrote:

Reecius wrote: What point are you trying to make?

You're trying to fix something you've demonstrably proven isn't broken.

Your series of videos show that you knee-jerk straight into sad-sack Eeyore mode every time things seemingly turn against you despite nothing actually being against you.

You and he even comment on this particular trait of yours in the video. Your objectiveness on the matter completely disappears after you Nob Biker charge and you start whining about how unfair (unfair was your word) this unit is despite your victory.

This is just further mountain-making out of the molehill you imagine you see.

I'd ask you to go watch this video you posted. Don't just try and remember what happened. Then try to objectively state you're not letting your personal bias from something that happened in the moment color your opinion of something that just isn't that big of a deal.

He spent almost half his points on a unit that you ended up beating (by neutering it, outmaneuvering it, and limiting it's impact on the game). You won, not only the game, but the interaction with this unit. You only lost some rounds of assault.

Why is this such a big deal? Something that cost a lot of points is powerful. Shouldn't it be?

Hahaha, no need to result to insults.

You can think whatever you want of me, our videos, whatever, I don't really care. We never even put forth the pretense that these would be bias free, or scientific analysis, so I don't understand where you're getting the notion that that's what we're trying to do.

These are our OPINIONS of the game along with examples of the mechanics in action. Take what you will form that.

We've said a million times in this thread and others that we are mad about the rules that allow these kinds of things to happen because they aren't fun (again, in our opinions) not because they are OP. People encountering this are going to be upset, and rightly so. You keep seeming to miss that somehow. But whatever.

@Dash2012

Games are going a LOT faster with familiarity, but combats are still slow as mud. You could very easily slow play in this rule set if you were so inclined. With complex units, rerolls, LoS!, moving each individual model as many as 5 times in a combat, etc. they really just drag out.

I think you have a very valid concern that this will be an issue in tournament play.

Reecius wrote:@Sargow

Don't forget he also has Stealth and Shrouding thanks to the Harlies, which means he can always take a 4+ or 2+ cover save, which can also be rerolled.

And that is a solution only Grey Knights have access to.

@Painnen

The points cost these models have were not written with the knowledge that they would be used with armies from other codices, especially not the 4th ed books we're dealing with. I really don't see an argument to be made that they are balanced as is as they are being used in ways that weren't known to the writers at the time they were written.

Not to mention the archon or vect can just 2+ look out sir that shot away and not lose the invuln save.

Reecius wrote:
These are our OPINIONS of the game along with examples of the mechanics in action

We've said a million times in this thread and others that we are mad about the rules that allow these kinds of things to happen because they aren't fun (again, in our opinions) not because they are OP. People encountering this are going to be upset, and rightly so. You keep seeming to miss that somehow. But whatever.

You've just declared them unfair and unfun, but given no justification. And actually proved they had mostly a disadvantageous affect of the person choosing to spend 900 points on one unit.

Who is this unfair to? Who is it unfun for? The person who made the mistake of buying this unit? The person who lost?

You were neither. Why was it unfair and unfun to you?

DarknessEternal wrote:

Reecius wrote:
These are our OPINIONS of the game along with examples of the mechanics in action

We've said a million times in this thread and others that we are mad about the rules that allow these kinds of things to happen because they aren't fun (again, in our opinions) not because they are OP. People encountering this are going to be upset, and rightly so. You keep seeming to miss that somehow. But whatever.

You've just declared them unfair and unfun, but given no justification. And actually proved they had mostly a disadvantageous affect of the person choosing to spend 900 points on one unit.

Who is this unfair to? Who is it unfun for? The person who made the mistake of buying this unit? The person who lost?

You were neither. Why was it unfair and unfun to you?

I wouldn't call it rocket science on who it's unfun to...

Even in 5th I would run my Seer Coucil against an oppoenent and watch them get rage pissed in the face as their entire army fired at the unit for 3 turns and only killed 2-3 model... and that was with a 3+ rerollable. A can't fathom that an opponent would find it "fun" to fire at a unit only to have a 2+ save guy with a reroll laugh at an entire armies worth of shots as he takes the saves one at a time over and over. Unfair I wouldn't go so far to say since there is a pointcost and tactics to counter it, but unfun is a no brainer.

Is there no longer fun to be hand in beating something that is problematic? When did we decide it was no longer fun when things are easy?

Sure, if you beat it.

If you get steam rolled by it because you literally couldn't cause a wound, not fun. Or even sitting there waiting for your opponent to roll 150 hits with rerolls and not wound a single model, gonna go with not fun on that one either.

@Darkness Eternal

I think you are getting defensive and letting it become personal. No reason for that. If I made you feel like you were getting attacked, sorry, I wasn't trying to.

BlueDagger made the point about how it is unfun to watch your attacks do nothing, so I won't remake it.

Just please don't insult anybody else, me included, as it doesn't progress the discussion.

I'm glad this thread is still active, because I've had a couple gaming moments that I want to share with Reece, primarily becuase I am in total disagreement about wound allocation being a crappy rule.

If you don't mind, I'll attempt to paraphrase his point, keep mind these aren't his words...

Wound allocation isn't fun because you are allowed to keep allocating wounds to a single model until it dies at every initiative step. If you have a rerollable 2++ that makes it hard to kill anything.

I thought about this particular instance of wound allocation and wound allocation in general for a long time this week. I also started asking what new rules also came out alongside wound allocation?

For shooting, we have already discussed how balanced wound allocation is. Static armies can use barrage, and mobile armies can just move to a point where they dictate wound allocation. But what about close combat?
The other very important rule that needs to be considered whenever you are considering wound allocation are precision strikes. Every precision strike you land that isn't off of someone in a challenge goes where you want it to.

So what? You might ask.

Well, something I really love about this edition is that independent characters are good, and expensive independent characters can be very good as well. Here is why, then I'll get back to my point. In the olden days of 5th, non independent characters were, for all intents and purposes, unkillable, so buying that eavy armor or storm shield was foolish, and likewise independent characters were infinitely killable, so buying a power fist was generally a no-no as they'd die before they used it. But nowadays, non independent characters are less survivable, and independent characters, particularly in units with multiple independent characters can be much much more survivable.

Ok, so how do you make something like the harlie star combat more interesting and more balanced. Well, a typical harliestar has 3 independent characters in it and the possibility of three more characters. That means that they can tank a challenge with one independent character, tank all the wounds coming in with another, and have a third independent character free to just dole out wounds, with occasional precision strikes, along with all other characters. If there is an unfavorable challenge for an archon (swarmlord for example) then a non independent character like the shadowseer can step in.

What every codex can and should use if they want to combat this wound allocation trick on fair ground, is to stack ICs and characters.

Here is an anecdote.

To prove this theory, I had my blood angels friend come over, and I asked him to make a pure blood angels army that can compete with the dark eldar army using similar tools. As you might imagine, his army had stormravens in it, and assault marine troops, but the deathstar was as follows...

dante
librarian with jump pack rolling twice on divination
sanguinary priest with jump pack
5x sanguinary guard with 3x infernus pistols and a power fist

my deathstar was predictably

farseer runes of warding, runes of witnessing, fortune
archon shadow field agonizer
archon shadow field agonizer
10x harlequins with kisses and a shadowseer

He nailed misfortune on his first roll and kept it, and as he charged he got it to stick past runes and deny the witch. (34% chance)

He issued a challenge with dante which I decided to take with the shadowseer, because, thanks to hammer of wrath and misfortune, one of my shadow fields shorted out. With dante in the challenge, this freed up his librarian and his sanguinary priest to swing away and try to trigger precision strikes, they did, and I lost two harlequins to that. The other archon tried to tank all of the sanguinary guard wounds, but his field shorted out and he died immediately after. When all was said and done, I lost combat by 4. I ran away and got swept in one combat. But that was more of a byproduct of misfortune cancelling fortune...

We did some analysis afterwards, and even with fortune up, the precision strikes coming off of his three characters would have cost me enough harlequins to keep losing combat, and my version of the deathstar isn't fearless.

The point of this discussion is that the combat, while very rules and bookkeeping intensive, did in fact feel "cinematic". It was because there were characters on both sides of the combat, calling shots, cutting off heads, while two of the combatants were focused on each other.

What people aren't going to like, is a fight where there is a unit of 5 characters fighting against an expensive unit of no characters, but really, the new reality of 6th edition is that independent characters are really quite powerful when used correctly. What happens in the movies when 5 named heroes fight against a mob of 30 orks. They each take turns doing something spectacular, maybe one of them is specializing in countering the blows of all of the enemies, while others are smashing through and killing the boys that are carrying big shootas. It just isn't fun when you are the schmuck who didn't bring enough characters, because at that point, you are the dungeonmaster and your opponent brought the adventurers.

I guess I could boil all of that down by saying, the archon tanking all wounds isn't going to be some epidemic that needs to be cured once everyone else figures out that characters are good and that precision strikes are an amazing way to break a stalemate. Participate in the arms race by adding your own death stars, or, go MSU and work to make their unit an overinvestment.

I think we've all come to embrace flyers for the most part, and so it seemed that wound allocation was the last thing I needed to defend (fanboi)

Shep is more eloquent than me. Thank you, Shep, for digging me out of that hole.

Um couple of issues there...

#1. Misfourtune forces rerolling armor saves, not invul saves.
#2. Did doom+harlie kisses do nothing for you? That is a pile of rending attacks...


#1 however pretty much invalidates that whole fight.

Edit: nm just saw you didn't take stones or doom... Both of which are rather crucial there.

Reecius wrote:We've said a million times in this thread and others that we are mad about the rules that allow these kinds of things to happen because they aren't fun (again, in our opinions) not because they are OP. People encountering this are going to be upset, and rightly so. You keep seeming to miss that somehow. But whatever.

.

I think Darkness Eternal is being a little rude but I can see where he is coming from. You say that your point is that the unit is unfun and not OP. It seems that if it is not OP it wont matter how unfun it is because people wont use it.

Essentially this thread has demonstrated that it is possible to create a situation where an assault can take a huge amount of time.

The disscussion and futher testing has shown that there is really no reason for anyone to create this situation other than to prove that it can be done.

The only reason I would expect to see anyone feilding this combo is because they heard some people making a fuss on the internet!

If the wound allocation rules need changing this is not the reason. The game rules do not need to be changed to adress something as pointless as this which will never effect the vast majority of players.

Keep up the good work investigating these things though!

yakface wrote:

jy2 wrote:"When a wound from this round is allocated to a model, that model loses.... Remaining saves, if any, can then be taken."

- GK codex


I don't think you can use LOS on its special effect. LOS can only be used to deflect a wound (or unsaved wound) and not other effects of a shot, I think. Just like when a stormraven fires mindstrike missiles at a psyker. He may be able to LOS the wound, but he still takes the Perils.

Yeah, I can definitely see that point of view. But on the counter side the LOS rules do say at one point that you are 're-allocating' the wound, which heavily implies that it is replacing the normal allocation process the way a re-roll replaces an original roll.

I personally think that's rather a different situation than the Mindstrike missile, which causes a perils to be taken when a psyker is HIT by it (which in that case is when they're at least partially covered by the mindstrike blast). In this case, the trigger is on the wound be allocated to a model, which the LOS rule theoretically changes the target of that allocation...or else I think you're stuck in a RAW situation where both the original model and the model who gets the wound allocated to him via LOS *both* suffer the effect of the Shield Breaker, which I would think is a solution most people would find fairly ludicrous (although I could be wrong).

Someone posted this question on YMDC.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/466897.page

So to sum up my opinion, it really depends on how you define Wound. Is it just a "wound" or is it really a "wound + extras"?

Frankly, I don't really see the difference between getting hit by a Mindstrike and the Shieldbreaker round. You can LOS only the wound, but you still suffer any other extraneous effects of the "Wound".

I suggest we finish this discussion in the YMDC link above so as to not throw this thread OT.



-----------------------------------------



@Shep

But not everyone runs MSU or deathstar armies. I really don't like this "arms race" idea to build a deathstar army just to counter another deathstar. Firstly, I think that the majority of 40k players are more casual players. Then when they come up against this type of list, it can become really frustrating and even discouraging for them. And while the truly competitive players may like the challenge of dealing with such armies, ultimately on the whole I don't think it is good overall for the gaming community.

Take for example, one of the our own dakkalites who used to post here in the battle reports forum, Zid. He played in 1 tournament and afterwards, quit playing 40k. What did he face? 2 Harliestar armies and a necron air force. Now it may be because people were playing them wrong, but it got to point that Zid, who is a fairly competitive player himself, was so frustrated in his games that he decided to give up on it.

I think this type of build is going to polarize the 40k gaming community. The more competitive players may embrace them - partly because we relish the challenge and partly because we will have no choice as everyone start to jump onto the "power build" bandwagon - but the gaming community on the whole may suffer as many people get turned off from such a drastic rift between competitiveness and casual gaming that has suddenly appeared.

Secondly, all these extra steps - wound allocation, Look Out Sir, pile-in, etc. - really slows down the game. And no matter how well you know the rules or how good the players are, the games will be slower because you now have more steps to take when resolving combat (or shooting). In a competitive environment, most people just won't be able to finish the game in time even at the reduced points levels. And as Dash2021 pointed out, slow-playing, whether intentional or unintentional, has just become a bigger factor in tournament play.

Personally, I don't have a big issue with these types of armies (the deathstars). As a competitive player, I actually relish the challenge that these types of army poses. However, I do see the new mechanics and rules as making 6E more extreme than it was probably intended by the games creators. And my concern is that this is may perhaps turn off and discourage a lot of players into our hobby.

BlueDagger wrote:Um couple of issues there...

#1. Misfourtune forces rerolling armor saves, not invul saves.
#2. Did doom+harlie kisses do nothing for you? That is a pile of rending attacks...


#1 however pretty much invalidates that whole fight.

Edit: nm just saw you didn't take stones or doom... Both of which are rather crucial there.

You're wrong about #1:

Misfortune isa malediction that targets asingle enemyunit
within 24". Whilst the power is in effect,the target unit must
re-roll successful saving throws.

Wow, some excellent discussion here!

@Shep

Funny you bring up those points as I just wrote an article covering a lot of the exact some material.

http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2012/08/01/the-manly-art-of-fisticuffs-in-the-41st-millennium/

I agree though, that there are ways around all of this. Labmouse just pointed out to me in a PM that he used Pavane to get around tanking characters, which is true, and an awesome counter tactic. There are lots of these if you look for them, like, as you said, with precision strikes, etc. Tar-pit units are another excellent way to pull this off.

Swarmlord in my Nid list has proven to be the anit-Deathstar by himself. If he get's Iron Arm, he will walk through a lot of these crazy units solo. There are answers there, it is just not something an "average" list will be able to deal with.

Again, we aren't saying this stuff is broken, but as Jy2 pointed out, not fun to those not ready for it. I guarantee at the Golden Throne this weekend when we bring the heavy lists we're bringing, people are going to be disheartened. That stinks. But, as others pointed out, it is an arms race, and you will either be the steam roller, or the road.

@Moosatronic warrior

I think you are right, and that a lot of this discussion will largely be academic as the average gamer doesn't give a hoot about going to a tournament and competing at the highest level, he or she just wants to roll some dice and have a good laugh.

So long as they don't use this kind of stuff, there won't be an issue and the rules run really smoothly.

@Darkness Eternal

No hard feeling on my end man, just wanted you to know that. I like it when people challenge my ideas because they often see things I missed. I just prefer it when a conversation is civil, even if we're disagreeing.

He issued a challenge with dante which I decided to take with the shadowseer, because, thanks to hammer of wrath and misfortune, one of my shadow fields shorted out.

this shouldn't have been a problem unless it happened during a different player turn. Challenges are made in the fight sub-phase and blows are struck at inititative steps during the fighting phase (Hammer of Wrath being Init10 for posterities sake). Not sure what this changes as far as game strategy and what tanks what since he ultimately rolled 1,1, but he could have accepted Dante and then failed miserably to him by failing those impact hits.

i would add that misfortune is absolutely sick vs. the harliestar. hallucinate is a close second. Invisiblility is a nice counter to tank a harliestar (until they H&R from you). Enfeeble is a nice tool to really make failing those shadowfields a horrible price.

I think those are 3 very good reasons to pick Eldrad and give up the Fateseer (fortune). You get 50% (16% more) psychic defence vs. most of the field's psykers as well as tossing Doom out on multiple foes for 100pts more. I honestly don't use him at 1500pts in my Harliestar but he's in my 1850pts (current tournament norm).

Reecius,

Your battle reports and expert analysis has confirmed what I didn't want to accept; Warhammer 40,000 6th Edition is a terrible, screwed up mess of a game.

The fact that you can have 1 character take all of the wounds in a close combat, is beyond stupid. Combine that with Overwatch (which is broken), random charge
distances, and lots of other little things I despise (AP3 Power Weapons, lame transport rules, broken allies, + lots of other stuff) leaves me with a game that I have no
desire to play. It is terrible miniature wargaming ruleset, it's only saving grace is that it has nice models. The game is borderline unplayable in any type of even semi-compeitive
format. It is simply a matter of which player has figured out the cheesiest combos from the existing pool of codexes. Player skill will account for about 10% of a given game.

And that makes me sad. It could have been so much more, but as it stands, is about as fun as making up rules to play legos with my kids.

I am going to stick with 5th edition for my games, and also look at some alternate rulesets to use my figs with like Stargrunt II. I just refuse to participate in this disaster & cash
grab that GW has unleashed.

I know that this is your livelyhood and you have to "play the GW game" to keep food on your table. I can appreciate that.

For me personally, as an old school Grognard that loves a balanced, tactical wargame between 2 generals; this is about the furthest thing from what I wan't to play.

Darklight wrote:Reecius,

Your battle reports and expert analysis has confirmed what I didn't want to accept; Warhammer 40,000 6th Edition is a terrible, screwed up mess of a game.

The fact that you can have 1 character take all of the wounds in a close combat, is beyond stupid. Combine that with Overwatch (which is broken), random charge
distances, and lots of other little things I despise (AP3 Power Weapons, lame transport rules, broken allies, + lots of other stuff) leaves me with a game that I have no
desire to play. It is terrible miniature wargaming ruleset, it's only saving grace is that it has nice models. The game is borderline unplayable in any type of even semi-compeitive
format. It is simply a matter of which player has figured out the cheesiest combos from the existing pool of codexes. Player skill will account for about 10% of a given game.

And that makes me sad. It could have been so much more, but as it stands, is about as fun as making up rules to play legos with my kids.

I am going to stick with 5th edition for my games, and also look at some alternate rulesets to use my figs with like Stargrunt II. I just refuse to participate in this disaster & cash
grab that GW has unleashed.

I know that this is your livelyhood and you have to "play the GW game" to keep food on your table. I can appreciate that.

For me personally, as an old school Grognard that loves a balanced, tactical wargame between 2 generals; this is about the furthest thing from what I wan't to play.

While I'm personally in agreement with some of your sentiments here, I think it is actually highly inaccurate to say that 6th edition isn't balanced or tactical.

I'd actually go ahead and say that it is MORE tactical and MORE balanced than 5th edition...just not in the way that some of us would care to like.

The game is now super tactical in that model placement within unit is absolutely key, so taking advantage of that fact (and protecting your own models) takes massive amounts of skill and focus and the player who does that better will likely win the game.

As for balance, with allies opening things up so wide, there are more tools than ever to make any army competitive by including strong elements from other codexes. It really will come down to players finding the best combinations to work for their play style and plans.

Therefore, 6th edition is actually more balanced, is more tactical, is highly competitive, etc.


However, if you're someone who liked more of the simulation aspect of tabletop warfare in a fictional fantasy/sci-fi world, then 6th edition kind of does fall on its face. The balanced of the game is achieved often through frankenstein combinations of special characters. The tactics revolve around gameplay that doesn't relaly match-up to real world analogies, like single characters taking all of the enemy firepower or barrage weapons doing your sniping, etc.


I don't necessarilly see this as a huge flaw overall, because I think a lot of really competitive players have no problems with dismissing any and all fluff considerations in order to get into exciting list building and gameplay...so for them its not so much about how ridculous it is that every army has Eldrad as it is exciting to see what combinations opposing players are utilizing and how they can combat it...kind of like Warmachine and how you pick different casters and combo them with units to get a unique type of army. That's kind of been infused into 40K now, but through combining abilities from other codexes. And for competitive players, the fact that every model movement is now hugely important does mean that player skill will really be a deciding factor in games, despite all the random elements that are now part of the game.

And on the flip-side, fluffy players who want to just use the ally rules to play thematic ally armies can now do so, and if their gaming group is all on the same page it seems like it would work for them too.

The only real problem will come from players who want the strict theme and want to have a super-competitive army...I don't think those two concepts can mesh much at all anymore (if they ever did).

@ jy2. I understand your point, and accept it. But this isn't a 40k thing, or even a GW thing...

lemme explain.

In the other game, you know the one that everyone touts as being super balanced and tuned for tournament play, if I played my stormwall phaley list, and you decided that you wnted to play a fluffy assault kommando theme force with kossite woodsmen, guess what happens, I cast temporal barrier, essentially disallowing your army to function, I table you, you call the game unbalanced and you quit.

My point on this is that every single tabletop game you EVER buy will have this delta between people playing competitively, and people with little to no idea what they are doing. And frankly, I like it that way. More than half of my gaming group has dialed their interest level down to "casual" and I intend to play many a casual game, with no wound allocation abuse and no spamming of any kind. But a game needs to have room for players who can read rules, read forusm, and playtest ideas to have an advantage over a guy who plays with the models he thinks are cool and doens't bother to put any effort into his competitiveness.

I can dial my game down quite a bit and make even a first time player have a great game, but I also enjoy playing disgusting rules intensive competitive battles with my tourney pals.

On the whole time issue, yeah 40k takes along time, the prime #1reason i don't see it as a tourney game. It doesn't really matter that wound allocation is time consuming to me, because I can play literally 3-4 35 point warmachine games in the time it takes to play one 1850 40k game.

And to the people who mentioned the mistakes in my example...

Misfortune does indeed affect inculnerable saves...

And yeah, the challenge should have been issued before hammer of wrath's were allocated, I realized that as i was posting the write-up. I still lose that combat easily.

And doom is ok, but remember a deathstar with a librarian in it can deny the witch on a 5+, so while it does "help" as would Vect giving me preferred enemy and fearless, it adds to cost, and every time your deathstar deploys against MSU, that cost very quickly leads to bloat.

Shep,

I can't comment on your specific Warmachine example, cause I don't play that game, but what I can say about the issue I have with 6th edition is that the really strong imbalances don't come from because of overall style choices, but rather from specific combinations paired together in ways that are not readily evident within the core rules of the game.

So yeah, in 5th edition for example one player could show up with an all mechanized army and his opponent could show up with absolutely no Anti-tank weaponry and have literally no chance. But within the fictional confines of the world and the game rules, the reasoning behind that was obvious...one player didn't take enough anti-tank weaponry and his opponent had all armor. I think everyone would agree this makes sense, but from a 'real' (using the term 'real' here only to illustrate internally consistent within the given fictional universe) perspective of what we would expect from that macth-up.

However, in 6th edition, a player can take literally his entire army as dedicated anti-infantry weapons, but if his opponent has a nasty combo up his sleeve and has created a deathstar with 2+ re-rollable saves taking every single wound on its most powerful unit then all of a sudden not only does one player not have any chance (just as in the previous example), but the reasoning no longer makes any sense...the guy alreay has anti-infantry units, but its not about units anymore its about combinations of special rules WITHIN each unit and how those models are arranged, etc.

But not only does the player not have a chance and the reason for him not having a chance being non-sensical, but also the PROCESS of resolving that ridiculous situation is now more tedious (and therefore unfun) than ever. I know from experience watching all of your firepower being spread throuhout a Paladin squad so as not to cause a casualty was rather depressing as the player trying to kill them. But in 6th edition, watching someone roll 20-30-40+ saves at 2+ and getting a re-roll ONE AT A TIME is just mind-numbingly terrible. Its almost like having to watch something incredibly grueseome in slow-motion over and over again.

So maybe if GW's literature showed off tacticas explaining how you should have a Fortuned Kandras leading a unit to take all the enemy AP3 and greater firepower, or how you should combo the Baron into a Harlequin unit to get 2+ cover saves, etc, then it would be a different story and more players would be on the same page. But we all know GW isn't ever going to do that, because they don't tend to highlight the things they don't like to see. And while I would like to think that in general players learn to expect nastiness and are prepared ahead of time coming into a tournament, my experiences have proved otherwise. Time and time again you see players either completely unaware of what nastiness exists because they don't troll the internet regularly or they have their own internall 'cheese' standard which is a line they won't personally cross and they wish everyone else wouldn't as well.

Not only will these players get crushed like they would in 5th edition tournaments, but they will also tend to have horrifically unfun games as they discover the joy of 2+ re-rollable saves and will complain bitterly to everyone about how the game is broken, etc. Now you and I can both understand that the game isn't 'broken' in that there are plenty of ways to counter anything, but I don't think those types of players are going to buy it and that could result in an overall reduction in tournament player counts which could impact the ability of tournaments to keep growing.


In addition, for someone like me who has always liked the squad-based nature of 40K since 3rd edition, the new tactics in 6th edition completely shatter this concept, as the game is now no longer about manuevering squads into proper position to crush the right enemy squads, but now it is about what little manuevers and tricks you can within a squad to either gain a massive advantage for yourself or deny such an advantage to your opponent.

So while I can understand and utilize things like barrage sniping, or tanking with combo special-characters, etc, these things don't make consistent internal sense to me within the game universe anymore. I don't understand why the rules no longer represent that another model can simply pick up a fallen plasma gun anymore, etc.

Yeah, I can play the game, utilize the combos and pull of the tricks, but none of it works in my head anymore as cinema, because I cannot reconcile the complete implausibility of a single guy at the front of the unit magically able to suck all the bullets into him.

No allies and no special characters. Is the problem solved?

Yes, of you want to not play 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And dear lord would that break some armies while not stopping others.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sob for example would suffer hard without their special characters because all of their normal hqs are so bad.

@Darklight

Well, I am sorry to hear that. Honestly that last thing I want to do is discourage people from playing the game. Our goal has been to educate people as to what is coming, and how to prepare for it.

I honestly am enjoying playing 6th, no bs there. I would just change a few key rules if I could.

My hope is that over time with FAQ's, and new Codices, some of this stuff will be mitigated.

Reecius wrote:@Darklight

Well, I am sorry to hear that. Honestly that last thing I want to do is discourage people from playing the game. Our goal has been to educate people as to what is coming, and how to prepare for it.

I honestly am enjoying playing 6th, no bs there. I would just change a few key rules if I could.

My hope is that over time with FAQ's, and new Codices, some of this stuff will be mitigated.

Thanks Reecius. I might have over reacted a bit, and I do admit the game is fun - to blow up plastic tanks and army men. It is not fun if someone
is abusing one of these outrageous combinations\poorly playtested & developed mechanics.

I just think a lot of this stuff is a big step back from 5th. 5th was broken in some areas, but it's core mechanics were so much better.
6th almost feels "kiddy" in a lot of ways, like GW is catering to 14 year olds. It is almost like playing comic books in space.

locally we've scaled down to 1500 max lately. Gone are the days of 2000 craziness due to time constraints and in many ways I find this healthier as you really can't take that much stuff to make some of these super death stars work well at these point levels.

Even with no anti-death star unit, I can usually afford to lose 1 object be it vehicle/small squad a turn (starting usually turn 2 but mostly turn 3) and not really care all that much. (I.e. playing the mission and not the death star)

Expendibility has really become a stragety in 6th. I do really hate that I have to try and keep crowe alive to save on 2 VP's but them's the breaks.

Necron flier spam however I think is still the list to beat. More so than even IG fliers, those tesla hurt way too much for a transport with so much survivability. With a well rounded necron list, (i.e. only 4-5 fliers and not 8 or 9, with some strong assault mix and board presence,) I really see that as the list to beat for the next few tourneys. (until new codexes come out)

yakface wrote:Yeah, I can play the game, utilize the combos and pull of the tricks, but none of it works in my head anymore as cinema, because I cannot reconcile the complete implausibility of a single guy at the front of the unit magically able to suck all the bullets into him.

I dunno. Have you seen the movie Captain America? It seems totally cinematic to me to have one guy charging forward blocking shots with his shield while other guys run behind him. Close combat makes a little less sense, but there are tons of movies where one hero fights off dozens of guys at once. I'm also a player who is definitely more into the narrative aspects of the hobby, and I personally have found that a lot of the 6th edition rules enhance this aspect, especially with Overwatch, tanks being easier to kill, the flyer rules in general, etc.

How can one man with a shield expect to block projectiles aimed at a squad of 10, 20 or 30 men, even if said men were all in a conga line? Unless he can transcend time and space, appearing in multiple locations simultaneously, I have trouble seeing that happen.

Fetterkey wrote:

yakface wrote:Yeah, I can play the game, utilize the combos and pull of the tricks, but none of it works in my head anymore as cinema, because I cannot reconcile the complete implausibility of a single guy at the front of the unit magically able to suck all the bullets into him.

I dunno. Have you seen the movie Captain America? It seems totally cinematic to me to have one guy charging forward blocking shots with his shield while other guys run behind him. Close combat makes a little less sense, but there are tons of movies where one hero fights off dozens of guys at once. I'm also a player who is definitely more into the narrative aspects of the hobby, and I personally have found that a lot of the 6th edition rules enhance this aspect, especially with Overwatch, tanks being easier to kill, the flyer rules in general, etc.

I'm only speaking from my own personal feelings on the matter. Obviously if something works for your imagination then it works, no need to even explain further.

But for me, the #1 reason I've been into 40K for 20 years now is because the games play out as little movies in my head. And more than ever the 6th edition rules for me personally have shattered the movie in my head and now I just look at the table and see models I'm pushing around.

I can tell myself that my Tau have hired Ork Freebootas to help them out, but I don't feel it, like I did with my Ork Kan Wallm and no I can't see one guy at the front of the unit taking all of the firepower from 30 Orks. It would be cinemantic for that model to take SOME of the wounds (which they could do in 5th edition)...even the most beneficial wounds (that fits cinematically as heroes never seem to take the deathblow themselves), but for them to take EVERYTHING? No, that doesn't work for my mind cinema at all.

Which is more plausable in your head? A single well-armored dude at the front of a squad taking bullets, or the least valuable dudes disappearing from the back one by one? I'm not sure what the example is here, but even 2+ rerollables will roll ones. Not to mention ignoring, using mobility, using barrage, flyers, etc. And I'm sure things that aren't thought of yet.

The crazy Deathstar combos are disheartening, I'll agree there. I'm still glad people play it (as long as it's not me), and hopefully I can use these reports and lists to make some fun to play with lists that are at least competitive. But oh well, god forbid some people might be forced to house rule and play with friends and gaming clubs, or special events, to get their fix.

Meade wrote:Which is more plausable in your head? A single well-armored dude at the front of a squad taking bullets, or the least valuable dudes disappearing from the back one by one? I'm not sure what the example is here, but even 2+ rerollables will roll ones. Not to mention ignoring, using mobility, using barrage, flyers, etc. And I'm sure things that aren't thought of yet.

The explanation for pulling any casualties from the unit you wanted in 3rd-5th edition was that while it actually represented the guys with the good equipment at the front of the unit getting killed, but the model at the back (that you're actually removing as a caualty) was just running forward and picking up the specailty weapon and taking the place of the guy who died.

So in other words, this was an abstraction used to emphasize squad-based gameplay. I've long said that this one rules abstraction is really what splits 40K players as a community down the middle. Either you always 'got' and liked that abstraction for its elegance in making the game easier to play or you hated it and thought is was stupid that the guys at the back of a squad were getting removed.

I'm not saying one is right and the other is wrong, but rather they are two different styles of game that appeal to different people.

Obviously I'm someone who really likes the elegance of squad-based tactics in 40K, as opposed to model-based tactics. So I really liked where 40K was going 3rd-5th edition because I think that only the placement of the SQUAD in the game is really what should matter, not so much where the models in the squad are at any given time.

But 6th edition has taken a u-turn back to 2nd edition in many ways in this regard and has made model placement within a unit more important than it has been since that edition.


And as for 2+ re-rollable saves, yes you have a 1 in 36 chance to roll double 1s. Of course that can and will happen, but it is incredibly, incredibly unlikely and the characters that players use as tanks like this always have several wounds to burn through, so yeah, firing dead-on into the tank is almost literally an excercise in futility.

We all agree that there are still plenty of ways to combat this tacitc so it doesn't break the game or anything crazy like that, but I do think it is unconscionable that such a mechanic even exists because it is so ridiculously time consuming and frustrating to sit through.

But anyway, I'm really just talking about my personal preferences now. 6th edition is robust enough to provide a great time for a lot of different play styles, both super competitive and super casual. But I just personally don't care for the choices that were made as they've removed a lot of the rules elements that I thought were super positive and replaced them with ones I think are incredibly ridiculous.

@yakface... Your point is taken. It is a little less... intuitive, to figure out how to beat these new gimmicks than before. But it is also very easy to forget the really really stupid elements of 5th edition that are gone. I for one will NEVER miss the old bottom of turn 5 tank shock. 30 boys unable to score from that 35 point empty rhino that is crew shaken and missing its storm bolter. There were anti-climactic events in 5th edition that we just had to grin and bear, and those still exist. I play tabletop games made by other companies, illogical arbitrary annoyance exist there too.

I'm running the risk of sounding like an apologist here. Let me say this. It is fairly unlikely that I will compete in tournaments for 40k until a massive overhaul of some core tenets of the game are revised. I don't hold GW accountable for not making the game that I think is perfect, because the perfect game is defined differently for each person. Before i even concern myself with wound allocation, I need to get over

-180 minute games. Its too much of a time investment to risk playing against someone I don't get along with.

-true line of sight. I played about 10 months of warmachine while waiting for 6th edition to drop. This is not an exaggeration, I got in to more rules arguments in my first game of 6th edition, against a close friend and gaming group member, than I did in 10 months of playing a different game, including playing in tournaments. I'm sorry Jervis, I hate true line of sight. It is a subjective system and you can't use subjective systems in a competitive game.

-infantry moement interactions with vehicles. Not letting infantry get locked in combat with vehicles, nor forcing them to consolidate 1" away has always created a messy rules lockup. It is a different system in use for 6th edition, but I still don't fully understand how exactly we determine where to "replace" the models moved during a vehicle rotation. Yet another subjective rule. I'm sure my opponent will want to seal my vehicle in place, I'm sure that I'll have a different idea.

-random tables. I could live with random tables if the power level of the results were roughly equal, but they aren't and I don't want to lose a 180 minute game to a person I don't like because of a table roll.

-No scoring until turn 5. Nothing encourages funlines and mindless dice rolling more than to have no benefit for being in table center early. Relic is a good start, but self placed objectives and kill points make competitive games feel like non-tactical shootouts.

I have to get back to the actual discussion at hand, because I'm totally rambling...

A core point here is that people who know these dark secrets that break the game should only use these techniques against other jedi masters. I have no problem playing against your fortuned harlequins or your massive nob biker squad, just so long as I understand the terms of our game. No one should have to face a good 40k list unprepared, but belive me that goes for warhammer fantasy, warmachine and just about any wargame I've ever heard of.

I think the 'casual game' took BIG steps forward. Transports are still powerful, but are never frustrating, independent characters are measurably more powerful even without tricks, and characters are the hallmark of a casual fun game in my opinion. Random terrain, random psychic powers, and random objective bonuses inject variety into a matchup that you might have played multiple times against your friend. Flyers can enter the casual game, zoom around and have big impact, without making someone ragequit, and no one is going to lose a game on a final tank shock-contest move, if someone contests an objective in 6th, they earned it. Or their opponent was sloppy. And I love the allies concept on so many levels its not even funny. Primarily I love what it does to the casual game. "lost and the damned" "tau auxilaries" "chaos marines with real daemons" and "IG with marine support" are things this game has been thirsty for for 5 years.

I saw this movie once, and there was a line in it "with great power comes great responsiblity" All of you reading dakka are given power over the noobs and casuals, its your responsibility to not be a hobby-killer to anyone. And it is the responsibility of any TOs out there to clearly define the tone of their tourney. Is it "bring your hardest stuff, and don't whine." or is it, "lets all get together to meet new people, see pretty armies, and make new friends."

And if you are walking into a game store to play a pickup... bring two armies. I don't care if it costs you more money, if you don't have kid gloves in your battlefoam alongside your filthy necron army, you are heading to TFG land, expect difficulty setting up games, and expect low attendance at your birthday party.

I may not agree with the whole post but I think the conclusion is perfect.

/slowclap

Shep wrote:@yakface... Your point is taken. It is a little less... intuitive, to figure out how to beat these new gimmicks than before. But it is also very easy to forget the really really stupid elements of 5th edition that are gone. I for one will NEVER miss the old bottom of turn 5 tank shock. 30 boys unable to score from that 35 point empty rhino that is crew shaken and missing its storm bolter. There were anti-climactic events in 5th edition that we just had to grin and bear, and those still exist. I play tabletop games made by other companies, illogical arbitrary annoyance exist there too.

Of course 5th edition was flawed, but those particular flaws were things that could very easily been solved. In fact, there's so much of 6th edition changes that could have been added onto the core rules of 5th edition to produce what would have been IMHO the best version of the game to date (as I've felt about every edition up until this one).

Not allowing embarked units to score, not allowing vehicles to be scoring denial units, adding Hull Points, flyers, etc, all totally could have been done in the same 5th edition framework.

The key that I personally hate was abandoning the squad-based wound mechanics and replacing them with model-based mechanics.

There is no doubt that the 5th edition wound allocation system was incredibly problematic to say the least, but it really could have been easily fixed in 3 easy steps:


1) Wounds must be allocated onto models in unit by AP value (starting at AP1 and working up to AP- ). This would have stopped players from dumping all the 'nasty' wounds onto a single model if the unit happened to suffer a bunch of 'lesser' wounds as well.


2) Wounds should only be allocated based purely on different saving throws, NOT based on just different equipment carried by models. This would stop 95% of the wound spreading shenanigans that happened in multi-wound units in 5th edition. For example, Nob Bikers would all generally have the same saving throw, so any 2 wounds caused on them would result in a dead model instead of being able to be spread around.


3) The change presented by #2 would result in players being always able to keep alive certain models in the unit that they want (like a powerfist guy since he has the same save as the rest of the models you would be able to ensure he is always the last model to die), so to combat this you simply add in the same exact same 'precision shot/strike' rule you now have in 6th edition, which would add back in that element of not being able to ensure that a specific model is always going to be the last surviving member of the unit.


And with that, the 5th edition wound allocation rules are 'fixed' and work fine and are still based on a squad-based concept which allows cover to be done on squad based level which allows combat to be resolved on a squad based level and means the time involved playing the game doesn't skyrocket and you don't end up with (IMHO) logically stupid situations where a guy with a 2+ re-rollable save takes every single wound for the squad.

And hell, you could even have included allies exactly as they are now, but just simply get rid of the 'battle brothers' classification that allows ICs to join battle brother units or otherwise share their special rules. They could and should have just made a blanket statement restricting allied special rules from affecting their allies. Sure, people would still be taking allied Eldar to get access to Runes of Warding, but overall it would drastically reduce the special ability combo insanity that will be infecting most top-tier tournament armies now I suspect.

So please don't mistake that I think 5th edition was a perfect game or even necessarily 'better' than 6th, but rather I do think that fundamentally the choice to abandon primarily squad based mechanics and implement a bunch of model-based mechanics was a huge step backwards from my own personal point of view.

I'm running the risk of sounding like an apologist here. Let me say this. It is fairly unlikely that I will compete in tournaments for 40k until a massive overhaul of some core tenets of the game are revised. I don't hold GW accountable for not making the game that I think is perfect, because the perfect game is defined differently for each person. Before i even concern myself with wound allocation, I need to get over

-180 minute games. Its too much of a time investment to risk playing against someone I don't get along with.

Well, one thing I think is that the new edition really should be played at much lower point values (like 1,500 points), which should reduce that number back down to a much more reasonable 120-140 minutes.

-true line of sight. I played about 10 months of warmachine while waiting for 6th edition to drop. This is not an exaggeration, I got in to more rules arguments in my first game of 6th edition, against a close friend and gaming group member, than I did in 10 months of playing a different game, including playing in tournaments. I'm sorry Jervis, I hate true line of sight. It is a subjective system and you can't use subjective systems in a competitive game.

Here, I just have to disagree with you. You're right that TLOS is subjective, but I still stand firm that as soon as you remove it, you're basically playing a 2D game with size classifications, which defeats the entire purpose of playing on a 3D terrain table with 3D models. As far as I'm aware, Warmachine for example could be played entirely with felt terrain and flat markers instead of models that just had a description of what models they are on them. Frankly I think that's nuts, because you're missing utilizing the key component of what makes these games unique (3D models on 3D boards).

However, I do think that 5th edition handled this much better than 6th, because in 5th you generally only needed to worry about whether a model was obscured AT ALL in order to get cover, or if it was a vehicle/MC you had to figure out if it was 50% covered. I think 50% is a lot easier to roughly gauge than 25%, and now the 25% benchmark is applied everywhere all the time..

-infantry moement interactions with vehicles. Not letting infantry get locked in combat with vehicles, nor forcing them to consolidate 1" away has always created a messy rules lockup. It is a different system in use for 6th edition, but I still don't fully understand how exactly we determine where to "replace" the models moved during a vehicle rotation. Yet another subjective rule. I'm sure my opponent will want to seal my vehicle in place, I'm sure that I'll have a different idea.

Yeah, this is an odd one. They actually REMOVED clarifying text from the 5th edition rules in the transition about what happens when you're fighting a multi-combat with a vehicle and a non-vehicle unit, so its actually MORE confusing than it was in 5th edition. I actually have noticed this in several places in the rulebook, where they edited out clarifying text from 5th edition presumably to try to cut down the overall size of the rules (for example the rules explaining that you can't move through friendly models is now missing but then still referenced like it is there elsewhere in the rulebook). I think a lot of this hasn't been caught yet because people still in their minds assume that certain rules are still there, but as the years roll on I think we'll find quite a few issues stemming from stuff like this. I just hope they keep updating their FAQs as often as they were in 5th edition!

-No scoring until turn 5. Nothing encourages funlines and mindless dice rolling more than to have no benefit for being in table center early. Relic is a good start, but self placed objectives and kill points make competitive games feel like non-tactical shootouts.

Well, I think that's kind of the point of the random objective abilities. Since most of them are positive, it tends to give incentive to get your models near the objectives during the game. But yeah, I agree it would be nice to have a scoring mechanic that builds during the game, although unless implemented well it does have the potential to create games more often where there is absolutely no way for players to come back and win the game in the final turn because the other side has built up an insurmountable lead. There are ways around that problem (like making the scoring you get for holding an objective increase as the game goes on so the final turn is still the most important), but it is a problem with that kind of scoring system.

I think the 'casual game' took BIG steps forward. Transports are still powerful, but are never frustrating, independent characters are measurably more powerful even without tricks, and characters are the hallmark of a casual fun game in my opinion. Random terrain, random psychic powers, and random objective bonuses inject variety into a matchup that you might have played multiple times against your friend. Flyers can enter the casual game, zoom around and have big impact, without making someone ragequit, and no one is going to lose a game on a final tank shock-contest move, if someone contests an objective in 6th, they earned it. Or their opponent was sloppy. And I love the allies concept on so many levels its not even funny. Primarily I love what it does to the casual game. "lost and the damned" "tau auxilaries" "chaos marines with real daemons" and "IG with marine support" are things this game has been thirsty for for 5 years.

I saw this movie once, and there was a line in it "with great power comes great responsiblity" All of you reading dakka are given power over the noobs and casuals, its your responsibility to not be a hobby-killer to anyone. And it is the responsibility of any TOs out there to clearly define the tone of their tourney. Is it "bring your hardest stuff, and don't whine." or is it, "lets all get together to meet new people, see pretty armies, and make new friends."

And if you are walking into a game store to play a pickup... bring two armies. I don't care if it costs you more money, if you don't have kid gloves in your battlefoam alongside your filthy necron army, you are heading to TFG land, expect difficulty setting up games, and expect low attendance at your birthday party.

I agree with this and I guess the biggest problem I have is just that I do nearly all of my gaming these days in a tournament environment, so I kind of look to tournaments to both fulfill my competitive side AND my fluff side. I've always been okay taking an army that isn't necessarily the most powerful and just enjoying myself in tournaments doing pretty good and just enjoying the 'mind cinema' of each and every game.

But now with 6th edition, I see the writing on the wall that I don't think I can take a mid-level army and do okay anymore, because I think the allied super-armies will just obliterate me. So while I can see exactly the kinds of things I need to add into my armies to make them competitive, all those things involve allies and make my armies into something that no longer sings to my soul. And I think especially with miniature games, if I don't LOVE the army I'm fielding, then the passion to keep playing is not going to be there.

So while I know what I need to do to make my armies competitive, doing so will simultaneously destroy what makes me love my armies and the game. And sadly since I don't play in any casual circles, I don't have many outlets to play fun fluffy games using themed lists either.

Shep wrote:@yakface... Your point is taken. It is a little less... intuitive, to figure out how to beat these new gimmicks than before. But it is also very easy to forget the really really stupid elements of 5th edition that are gone. I for one will NEVER miss the old bottom of turn 5 tank shock. 30 boys unable to score from that 35 point empty rhino that is crew shaken and missing its storm bolter. There were anti-climactic events in 5th edition that we just had to grin and bear, and those still exist. I play tabletop games made by other companies, illogical arbitrary annoyance exist there too.

I'm running the risk of sounding like an apologist here. Let me say this. It is fairly unlikely that I will compete in tournaments for 40k until a massive overhaul of some core tenets of the game are revised. I don't hold GW accountable for not making the game that I think is perfect, because the perfect game is defined differently for each person. Before i even concern myself with wound allocation, I need to get over

-180 minute games. Its too much of a time investment to risk playing against someone I don't get along with.

-true line of sight. I played about 10 months of warmachine while waiting for 6th edition to drop. This is not an exaggeration, I got in to more rules arguments in my first game of 6th edition, against a close friend and gaming group member, than I did in 10 months of playing a different game, including playing in tournaments. I'm sorry Jervis, I hate true line of sight. It is a subjective system and you can't use subjective systems in a competitive game.

-infantry moement interactions with vehicles. Not letting infantry get locked in combat with vehicles, nor forcing them to consolidate 1" away has always created a messy rules lockup. It is a different system in use for 6th edition, but I still don't fully understand how exactly we determine where to "replace" the models moved during a vehicle rotation. Yet another subjective rule. I'm sure my opponent will want to seal my vehicle in place, I'm sure that I'll have a different idea.

-random tables. I could live with random tables if the power level of the results were roughly equal, but they aren't and I don't want to lose a 180 minute game to a person I don't like because of a table roll.

-No scoring until turn 5. Nothing encourages funlines and mindless dice rolling more than to have no benefit for being in table center early. Relic is a good start, but self placed objectives and kill points make competitive games feel like non-tactical shootouts.

I have to get back to the actual discussion at hand, because I'm totally rambling...

A core point here is that people who know these dark secrets that break the game should only use these techniques against other jedi masters. I have no problem playing against your fortuned harlequins or your massive nob biker squad, just so long as I understand the terms of our game. No one should have to face a good 40k list unprepared, but belive me that goes for warhammer fantasy, warmachine and just about any wargame I've ever heard of.

I think the 'casual game' took BIG steps forward. Transports are still powerful, but are never frustrating, independent characters are measurably more powerful even without tricks, and characters are the hallmark of a casual fun game in my opinion. Random terrain, random psychic powers, and random objective bonuses inject variety into a matchup that you might have played multiple times against your friend. Flyers can enter the casual game, zoom around and have big impact, without making someone ragequit, and no one is going to lose a game on a final tank shock-contest move, if someone contests an objective in 6th, they earned it. Or their opponent was sloppy. And I love the allies concept on so many levels its not even funny. Primarily I love what it does to the casual game. "lost and the damned" "tau auxilaries" "chaos marines with real daemons" and "IG with marine support" are things this game has been thirsty for for 5 years.

I saw this movie once, and there was a line in it "with great power comes great responsiblity" All of you reading dakka are given power over the noobs and casuals, its your responsibility to not be a hobby-killer to anyone. And it is the responsibility of any TOs out there to clearly define the tone of their tourney. Is it "bring your hardest stuff, and don't whine." or is it, "lets all get together to meet new people, see pretty armies, and make new friends."

And if you are walking into a game store to play a pickup... bring two armies. I don't care if it costs you more money, if you don't have kid gloves in your battlefoam alongside your filthy necron army, you are heading to TFG land, expect difficulty setting up games, and expect low attendance at your birthday party.

Probably one of the most brilliant and well written posts I have ever read on dakka.

Perfect dude.

One thing I will say about TOS - 99.9% of issues can be solved with a laser pointer. I found it an invaluable tool in 5th, and it will be essential in 6th.

yakface wrote:
So in other words, this was an abstraction used to emphasize squad-based gameplay. I've long said that this one rules abstraction is really what splits 40K players as a community down the middle. Either you always 'got' and liked that abstraction for its elegance in making the game easier to play or you hated it and thought is was stupid that the guys at the back of a squad were getting removed.

I'm not saying one is right and the other is wrong, but rather they are two different styles of game that appeal to different people.

Obviously I'm someone who really likes the elegance of squad-based tactics in 40K, as opposed to model-based tactics. So I really liked where 40K was going 3rd-5th edition because I think that only the placement of the SQUAD in the game is really what should matter, not so much where the models in the squad are at any given time.

But 6th edition has taken a u-turn back to 2nd edition in many ways in this regard and has made model placement within a unit more important than it has been since that edition.

I can see the appeal in squad based mechanics. TBH I would also not have complained if GW chose to refine the game further and make it simple, yet elegant to play.

But on the other hand, while I understand that a lot of visual situations in the game are rationalized in an abstract way (for example squadmembers picking up the special weapons of fallen comrades), the vast majority of changes just produce a visual/tactical level of detail that's better, for example the way combats occur and the way squadmembers are placed visually. You can really see on the tabletop what is supposed to be happening in the game. There is just more of a connect between the creation on the tabletop and the movie that's playing in your head, (until 2+ rerollable saves show up of course).

So I am all for the banning of unfun combos, house ruling, etc.... but I guess the point here is that as a modeller/gamer I think there's more opportunity here. to make cool-looking scenes on the tabletop and be part of them. Probably at lower points costs games, but if you do more with each individual model it's worth it... and maybe even not so expensive. I will admit it... I can finally do a cultist based chaos army with cool looking spiky bastions and that makes me very very happy.

This is my take on a gunline type army for 6th:

How to build a TAC (take all comers) list

gotta have a coverage for a wide variety of problems including

1) Psychic defense / ways to kill psykers ( vs Eldar/GK/SW/BA/tyranids for the most part)

2) Anti-air (just about everyone cept necrons and IG can potentially take out more of your air defences than you have so it's almost vital to have at least some air power yourself )

3) ways to preserve gunline - hold against fast movers/outflank/deep strike

4) at least some anti-horde and ways to get rid of cover.

5) some ways to at least slow down any deathstar / feed them cheap units

6) have some reserves - you really want first blood so keep the squishies off the first turn or so

7) CC tank of somesort with 2+ saves for melee, as well as some ways to deal with challenges and it could be that you just don't have anyone they can challenge

8) survivable objective campers

9) how to deal with 2+ armor

10) mobility

A List really needs to be able to do all of the above in some way shape or form to be good at competing as a TAC list now. Missing one or more of the above really leaves you open to getting curb stomped by some list that goes all out. i.e. if you don't have any psy defense, Nids will eat you whole. No anti-air, necrons will stomp you, no outflank protection, IG got some 8 rhinos and 50 guys that can show up on your door stop or some crazy deep strike crisis suit bomb.

I'd probably swap out #3 with something like how to dance around the gun line for the assault armies

yakface wrote:
But now with 6th edition, I see the writing on the wall that I don't think I can take a mid-level army and do okay anymore, because I think the allied super-armies will just obliterate me. So while I can see exactly the kinds of things I need to add into my armies to make them competitive, all those things involve allies and make my armies into something that no longer sings to my soul. And I think especially with miniature games, if I don't LOVE the army I'm fielding, then the passion to keep playing is not going to be there.

While I have been convinced since hearing the allies rules that there will be some ridiculous combos available I have yet to actually see any.

The eldar list that started this thread is a bad list and I would not worry about facing it with the sorts of balanced, unoptimised lists I have been using to get a feel for 6th. I still expect some shocking combos to come and maybe there is a more effective way to abuse fortune + shadow field but at the moment I see no reason to run for the hills.

The biggest problem with IC tanking in most games (non-competative) will be from much more simple units IMO. Eg. I tried out a unit of S+S Lichguard with a 2+ Over Lord last night in a friendly game. The unit jumped out of a Scythe in front of a blob of IG with lascannons and I put the OL at the front. I explained to my opponent that the OL was going to catch all the las gun fire and pass the Lascannons off to his 4++ guard. My opponent looked puzzled and I felt a bit bad.

Darklight wrote:One thing I will say about TOS - 99.9% of issues can be solved with a laser pointer. I found it an invaluable tool in 5th, and it will be essential in 6th.

I managed to avoid using one for most games in 5th, but now that I have been away, and now that most games seem like they are going to be including infantry (which is harder to TLOS check) I'll be putting one in my bag.

@yakface, You're right. And this is what I mean by 'no perfect game'. You like the TLOS because it is the only system, however flawed, that can really account for model height. And you like the old system for wound allocating better. I think that you wouldn't mind the new wound allocation ina casual setting where it wasn't being used as a tool to bend game outcomes, but rather just the way you do things. I'd be more than happy to play as many casual games as you can handle, because that is mostly what I'm going to be doing, we can either meet at Aero or I can host in my game room. I'll PM you my cell.

Thanks Reece for putting up these batreps and allowing this discussion to be born, I've been wathcing all the batreps and reading all the articles on frontline. Great job!

You lucky people in LA what with your sunny mild weather <_<

*jealous*

Wow, this has seriously been one of the best, most enlightening conversations I've had on-line in a long time. Thanks to everyone for contributing!

First, here are some pretty comprehensive articles on combat as we understand it to work, now, for those interested.

http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2012/08/01/the-manly-art-of-fisticuffs-in-the-41st-millennium/

http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2012/08/03/the-manly-art-of-fisticuffs-in-the-41st-millennium-an-addendum/#comments

As stated, I am gaining more respect for the intricacy of the rules as I learn them better. This really was a pretty well thought out system that truly does reward the skilled player.

However, it is also really, really nuanced. The devil is in the details and the better you are at the game the more of an advantage you will have. This excites me as a competitive player as it gives even more room to improve, but it also means (as others have said) that the gap between the competitive and casual gamer is going to increase.

As I and others have said also, you REALLY need to communicate your intents before the game to avoid a gakky experience.

I am enjoying 6th more as I learn it's nuances but there are a few little tweaks that would make this game AWESOME if they were implemented (at least in my opinion, anyway).

So we'll see. Tomorrow is the Golden Throne tournament which should have a pretty good turnout. I will be VERY interested to see our theories applied to reality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and I agree 100% about 1500. That is what we are playing at and the game is a lot more manageable at that points level. I was told point blank by a game tester that that is the points level the game was designed for.

Just have a question about the situation presented.

When rolling the saves for the model with 2++ rerollable, since he has 3 wounds, does he have to roll 3 of them at a time due to fast rolling? And does his 2++ go away after 1 is failed?

Is fast rolling, as presented in the rule book, required or an option?

So or example, would he roll 3 saves at a time, and if 2 were failed, then reroll the two failed together?

Fast dice states "can" so while not required the rules state you can roll them 3 at a time.

EDIT: NM fast dice is for models of the same save type, nothing is mentioned on a multiple wound model rolling multiple dice.

Frothmog wrote:Just have a question about the situation presented.

When rolling the saves for the model with 2++ rerollable, since he has 3 wounds, does he have to roll 3 of them at a time due to fast rolling? And does his 2++ go away after 1 is failed?

Is fast rolling, as presented in the rule book, required or an option?

So or example, would he roll 3 saves at a time, and if 2 were failed, then reroll the two failed together?

No, Shadow Fields require you to roll saves one at a time, since it goes away after one failure.

Someone post me this "dark harliestar" list so i can netlist it.

All jokes aside, seeing as i dont play anymore i'd like to see what makes the list so special.

With directional fire you can make it so you have a two plus re-rollable as the front man for a unit harlequins. Also they can go into cover and with the stealth and shrouded rules get a 2+ re-rollable. They are an extreamly durable unit. However then clock in at around 1000 points i believe and very vulnerable to mobile armies getting around the dude in front with flame weapons.

@Farmer

the way Frankie currently runs it:

Vect
Eldrad
Fuegan

Jetbikes x 3
Jetbikes x 3
Jetbikes x 3
Warriors x 6: Shredder

Harlies x 10: Kisses, Shadowseer, Tourpe Leader

War Walkers x 3: Scatter Lasers x 6
War Walkers x 3: Scatter Lasers x 6

and as Leth said, it's vulnerable to being outmaneuvered if it doesn't have it's 2+ reroll save, and Barrage weapons that ignore cover can do a number on it.