Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mannahnin wrote:

His gargoyles then pile in. The Hammer of Wrath from the chariot's charge then kills 3 gargoyles. This, however, kills all 3 gargoyles in base with my chariot and since at normal initiative there is no one in base contact, the combat is effectively over. Damn! I was hoping to kill more more gargoyles with mindshackles and my regular attacks.

This isn't right. At I10 the gargs die. Then at the Gargoyles' Init, they would make a 3" pile in before swinging. If, with that 3" Pile In, none of them can make base contact, THEN the combat would end. If both sides are attacking at the same Init step, BOTH sides attempt to pile in before you determine whether the combat has ended.

Yeah, what Janthkin said.

We actually made a mistake here, but the end result was correct. He actually piled in his units before I make my I10 Hammer of Wrath attack. We didn't realize this until after the combat.

Had we played it correctly, it would have gone like this: my chariot charges. It kills the closest 3 gargoyles with Hammer of Wrath. Then his gargoyles pile in 3" but still doesn't make it into base contact. Because the chariot is a vehicle, I don't get to pile-in and so the combat is still over.

And the reason why he piled-in before my Hammer attacks was because I forgot about them initially. Lol.

Painnen wrote:good report so far, and yeah, i'm sure mannahnin is right about the INT steps you took being wrong.


those terrain buffs are Item 00001 on the long list of what makes 6th ED "fluffy edition". going to be frustrating watching you try to kill all those fortune and shrouded-ish buffed nids.

I agree that it can add a little flavor to the battles. The reason why we tried them out was because we wanted to see how large of an impact they could have on the game. And in this particular game, the impact that they had was actually quite game-changing.

Mannahnin wrote:Totally understood; we're all still learning, and you guys are displaying some balls by putting it online. I don't think the outcome wouldn't be the same, though. Fewer models would have been in base contact at I10, thus fewer models would be killed by the HoW attacks, then the next set of Gargs would reach base contact on their Init, swing, and combat would continue.

No, there's no "kill zone" effect - the models just die in order of who's closest, and everyone who had range to get to BtB was dead.

Ah; my mistake. I was thinking they got one hit per model in base contact for some reason, rather than d6. Okay, so it worked out then. Good deal.

Painnen wrote:i think there is some fairly fair (really?) balance in the fact that First Player Turn you can't assault but your opponent can in his first game turn.

You get to shoot first and get your flyers first. They get to assault first and make potential last turn objective grabs. You also get first crack at First Blood and they (in theory) would have an easier go in both scoring Linebreaker as well as denying you of it.

Yeah, some of that is going 1st vs. going 2nd but the balancing act is kinda there to understand between shooting first and assaulting first.

Also, another 2 things to consider.

Say you go second and infiltrate. I then move 6-12" and run towards your infiltrators. Now with just regular moving, you should be able to assault me on your turn. However, if Infiltrate disallowed assault for the game turn as opposed to just a player's turn, then now you wouldn't be able to assault me with your infiltrators whereas your regular guys can? That doesn't really make sense.

Also, in an aerial dogfight between 2 armies with flyers, the one who goes 2nd has a major advantage. You go first and shoot at some of my ground forces. I then come in and shoot down your flyers.

But mainly, I think it's mainly more advantageous to go 2nd due to most missions being objectives-based unless you are playing against a really shooty army. Then you may want to consider going first.

how long did the battle take? i've only built 1k, and 1.5k lists for 6th ED due to them looking like they'll take more time. add allies to that and i think any game 1850 and up will be full of craziness.

that eeks of "balance" as you can expect pretty much anything with that many points and so many allied combinations.

back on point, i just think 1500 is a terrific balancing point to keep most codex' pure. (not that i'm opposed to allies, just that i think combos can be unexpectedly bizarre).

wondering if you felt the same way after the first video I saw you post on your website.

Turn 2 updated on p. 1.

Painnen wrote:how long did the battle take? i've only built 1k, and 1.5k lists for 6th ED due to them looking like they'll take more time. add allies to that and i think any game 1850 and up will be full of craziness.

that eeks of "balance" as you can expect pretty much anything with that many points and so many allied combinations.

back on point, i just think 1500 is a terrific balancing point to keep most codex' pure. (not that i'm opposed to allies, just that i think combos can be unexpectedly bizarre).

wondering if you felt the same way after the first video I saw you post on your website.

It took a little over 4 hours, maybe 4 1/2 hours. It's a little slow at first, but I'm sure we will pick up the pace once we get more familiar with the rules.

With the ally rules, it becomes really hard to prepare for any single army as allies can just throw everything off. But in time, I'm sure we will find out about the power combos out there.

I agree that 1500 is a good balancing point, especially for tournaments. Logistically, it also makes more sense, as a 2K battle will probably take at least 3 hours to complete and time is usually something tournaments are short on.

I never posted any video, unless you are talking about my last battle reports against Reece and Frankie from Frontline Gaming. They were the ones who posted the battle reports online, but those were 5th edition battles.

Nice read, I can't wait to get back to the Game Kastle in August!

If you want your wraiths to be more killy you actually want to take the pistols now since wraiths count as having 1 ccw by default now adding the pistol gives you +1 attack for 5 pts.

greenbay924 wrote:Nice read, I can't wait to get back to the Game Kastle in August!

Cool. Always good to see more players here at the Kastle!

Tarrasq wrote:If you want your wraiths to be more killy you actually want to take the pistols now since wraiths count as having 1 ccw by default now adding the pistol gives you +1 attack for 5 pts.

I'm not so sure about this. The wraith profile never states that it has a melee close-combat weapon. Giving it a pistol doesn't mean it now has 2 melee cc weapons. If it did, then all tactical marines squads will have +1A just because they have pistols.

Anyone want to chime in on this?

No +1. You only get the non-specific CCW if you have no other close combat weaon (such as a pistol). It's just there as a way of explaining why models with no listed CCW can still attack in CC.

As you said, if you got to add it to the pistol, every tactical marine would now have 2 CCWs and +1A.

Tacticals come with a pistol so they dont get the nonspecific ccw because they have one in their profile (the pistol).

Pg 51 of the BRB says "If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon."

Pistols have the same profile in CC as the CCW described on pg 51 as well, so in the case of tacticals they do have a weapon with the melee type so they don't get a weapon for having no specified CCW and therefore no +1 bonus.

Whereas a wraith gets the CCW under the non specified rule, and since the particle caster doest replace anything you get to keep the CCW if you buy the pistol.

Man, this isn't looking good for necrons....

Turn 3 updated (on p.1).

wow, these nids look strong, I think they've been quite lucky so far though, great read! The italics with notes on the new edition rules are helpful and informative

Turn 4 updated.


Sorry, need to head out. Will conclude the report tomorrow (or maybe even tonight if I get back early).

Very helpful batrep to learn the new rules. Thanks.

Like the format jy, helpful for everyone in this new age, and also helps you remember for next time

I think this'll be an example to everyone that alot of mysterious terrain can complelty change the outcome of a game....

Yeah the terrain can really sway the battle. It could work for you or against you. I think that it's fun to play with, and really adds something to a good game. So what if it's not always fair. If everything in this game was 100% fair it would be no fun at all.

Oddly enough, I think heavy Wraithwing in 6th Edition may not always be the best way to go. 6th Edition is very "shooty" and with a lack of shooty elements on the board, all Jy had to deal with those charging bugs was Wraiths. And while I think Wraiths are a great unit, when it comes to dealing with Genestealers and other nasty 'Nid lists, they just aren't going to hold enough firepower to stop a wall of nasty, especially not with some terrain rolls going in their favor.

More and more I think that more shooty forces, supported by some counter-attack CC elements might be a better way to run. I think Wraiths still have a strong position in that defensive and counter attack role, but I think running 3 full squads of them might not be the strongest play anymore. Time and time again I am hearing folks running CC units in our local area saying that they are just getting brutalized by shooting armies that are just gunning down CC squads.

Necrons were designed as a shooty army and I think we are now seeing why. For too long in 5th Edition Necron players were forced into using CC elements as primary attack method because it was so strong.

Also Jy, if you guys are playing allies and you have extra points, putting an Astropath w/ an IG Command Squad in your army might be worth it if you have 3+ flyers. Officer of the Fleet will help as well for delaying opponent's reserves.

Battle report completed on p.1!






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dozer Blades wrote:Very helpful batrep to learn the new rules. Thanks.

You're welcome. I try to be as informative as possible in this introduction report, though my future reports probably won't be as detailed.

Zid wrote:Like the format jy, helpful for everyone in this new age, and also helps you remember for next time

Thanks. Just wanted to make my 1st 6th edition report a little different and also to help introduce people to how 6th edition plays.

Exalted Pariah wrote:I think this'll be an example to everyone that alot of mysterious terrain can complelty change the outcome of a game....

To be honest, most of the effects of mysterious terrain isn't too bad. They are actually kind of situational depending on the power and the army. In this case, Janthkin's army totally maximizes the effects of the mysterious terrain since 1) most of his units can really use the improved cover and 2) re-rollable armor saves makes a huge difference against an opponent with little to no power weapons. Also, his flyrant was the perfect unit to take advantage of the terrain as he could just leap from pool to pool.

But yeah, I think the game would have been a lot closer and also a lot harder for my opponent had we not played those terrain as mysterious.

Necronboy wrote:Yeah the terrain can really sway the battle. It could work for you or against you. I think that it's fun to play with, and really adds something to a good game. So what if it's not always fair. If everything in this game was 100% fair it would be no fun at all.

I agree that it can be fun sometimes to add a little variety to gameplay. I don't mind if the advantages or disadvantages it creates were relatively minor. However, it's when the powers give a big advantage to one side where I take issues with. That just unbalances the game. Those 2 powers were just huge. Imagine if one was to bring a terminator army with re-rollable 2+ armor or an assault-based army take advantage of 3+ cover against a shooty army. Those powers there can completely win you the game.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

drakkenj wrote:Oddly enough, I think heavy Wraithwing in 6th Edition may not always be the best way to go. 6th Edition is very "shooty" and with a lack of shooty elements on the board, all Jy had to deal with those charging bugs was Wraiths. And while I think Wraiths are a great unit, when it comes to dealing with Genestealers and other nasty 'Nid lists, they just aren't going to hold enough firepower to stop a wall of nasty, especially not with some terrain rolls going in their favor.

More and more I think that more shooty forces, supported by some counter-attack CC elements might be a better way to run. I think Wraiths still have a strong position in that defensive and counter attack role, but I think running 3 full squads of them might not be the strongest play anymore. Time and time again I am hearing folks running CC units in our local area saying that they are just getting brutalized by shooting armies that are just gunning down CC squads.

Necrons were designed as a shooty army and I think we are now seeing why. For too long in 5th Edition Necron players were forced into using CC elements as primary attack method because it was so strong.

Also Jy, if you guys are playing allies and you have extra points, putting an Astropath w/ an IG Command Squad in your army might be worth it if you have 3+ flyers. Officer of the Fleet will help as well for delaying opponent's reserves.

The 6E meta has definitely changed. I myself will probably move away from my 15-18-wraith build to probably 12 wraiths at most (or maybe even less). It's true that shooting is a very important aspect of 6E. However, don't discount assault. The majority of the armies out there will still be ground-and-pound armies. It is here where assault will still thrive now that you can more reliably kill tanks with assault. The key for them, though, is resiliency. Assault-based armies that will do well are ones that can survive a lot of shooting. Of course it doesn't hurt when you have Ironbark forests all over the place.

Yeah, you will probably see more shooting in my armies. And I agree that in many armies, assault will probably be relegated to more counter-assault roles. I do, however, think that certain assault-based armies with some shooting for support can still do well (armies such as orks, tyranids and even daemons). The reason is that these armies can really control the board. In the predominantly objectives-based 6E, that is an inherent advantage they will always have. Bringing a flyer army? Good luck trying to capture an objective with 30 ork boyz or termagants on it, not to mention that you need to disembark your troops in order to capture it. Daemons are an exception as they can run a very good flying monstrous creature build (and with Fateweaver there, good luck trying to shoot them down).

About the crons, I too was somewhat puzzled as to how a shooty necron build can be really competitive in 5th. Now I see why in 6E. Yes, you will definitely see people returning to their roots with shooty necrons in 6th.

I don't think I will ally any IG advisors into my army because as Allies of Desperation, they can are never a scoring or a denial unit. Thus, you'll just end up paying probably 200+ pts for the reserves bonus.

Great report jy2! Very well designed and easily followed. Glad to see the inclusion of so many unique terrain features. I can see your point on them being game tipping in balance but I feel this was an extreme example ha ha. normally I would personally only treat a limited amount of terrain (1 maybe 2) features and make certain they are in neutral territory at game start. Fliers performed well, but much as I suspected foot armies need only to ignore them as they won't impact them nearly as much. I know this won't always be the case but with bugs or demons I feel like they should be less of a priority.



As for the game, it was a good display of the mechanics, most errors really would not have had a large impact aside from the re-embarking of the immortals. I feel that is really the only flaw the night scythe has and in this case I think had the immortals been left on the board it would have really reshaped last turn. You probably would have distanced yourself from assault but still fire on the stealers and the NS probably would have contributed but I am not sure you would have captured an objective with them. Not sure it would be very hard to pull out the win though IMO so for me that was the biggest error in regards to games result, but by no means would I consider it a huge rules mistake, for m the hive tyrant changing its facing on the spot was a bigger mistake. Either way edition change, rules practice, game results are largely unimportant. Learning is more the victory condition

Oh and in regards to the hive tyrant, he can still shoot 360 regardless of swooping so his front facing mattered more in regards of his future swooping movement. I was curious why he didn't try vectored strikes ever also btw, I was hoping he would target a NS maybe.



Again great read! Thanks much!

jy2 wrote:

I don't think I will ally any IG advisors into my army because as Allies of Desperation, they can are never a scoring or a denial unit. Thus, you'll just end up paying probably 200+ pts for the reserves bonus.

Edited: I am more sure now that this wouldn't even work because of the Allies of Desperation. So yeah, nix that whole idea. Basically you have to be Battle Brothers to get any kind of "armywide" benefits like this across forces.

jy2 wrote:

I don't think I will ally any IG advisors into my army because as Allies of Desperation, they can are never a scoring or a denial unit. Thus, you'll just end up paying probably 200+ pts for the reserves bonus.

Not to mention with you being considered an "enemy unit" to your allies, I doubt that you would be able to utilize the reserve bonus in the first place.

Maelstrom808 wrote:

jy2 wrote:

I don't think I will ally any IG advisors into my army because as Allies of Desperation, they can are never a scoring or a denial unit. Thus, you'll just end up paying probably 200+ pts for the reserves bonus.

Not to mention with you being considered an "enemy unit" to your allies, I doubt that you would be able to utilize the reserve bonus in the first place.

Edit: Checked and you are right. It is battle brothers only! Damn new editions.

Nice reading as alwais JY2, many complimets to both of you for this first approach to the new rules. Solid and pro as in all yours br, even with the little mistakes that are usual with new rules.

I have a question for both of you:

does the back-to-shooting mood of the game will push yours 2 army vs:

- Destroyer Lords, for some preferred enemy shaenanigans instead of the pricy Overlords on CCB? especially now that chariots aren't so interesting? D Lords, even if less resilient without phase shifter, may be more effective in collaboration with the rest of the army.

- Does Ymgarls still deserve their place? Does instead a third unit of Hive Guards cuold better compliments the needs regarding high ST shooting? Or even, does eventually some cheap unit of Biovovres? Even the Tyrannofex sound a little pricy if we consider how a Trygon could be better with the bonuses on reserves rolls.

Both of questions especially in 1500-1750 pts level? basically for the theoretical new tournaments medium level?

a little extra question for Kevin, I do liked how the Parasite had generated extra wounds on the table but do you think it's a very reliable investment? Especially as a Warlord?

Just wanted to point out, you dont have to hop out of a CCB to charge anymore, its a chariot so you can charge while still embarked. So sweep over the top then turn around and charge. The chariot gives you d6 S 6 Hammer of Wrath hits then they fight you then you come back with S7 AP1 hits toward anything in base contact with the barge.

Great report, Jim and Kevin! Good to see you guys working through the rules, it helps to bring us all up to speed.

Great report yet again jy2 I think you made a really minor mistake (not even anything to do with rules ) around turn by saying Scarabs rather than Rippers which confused me for a second, but other than that its really brilliant!

I completely understand why you decided to treat all the ponds/rivers and forests the same way but it did give Janthkin a really considerable advantage, knowing for certain that he could move freely between all the mysterious terrain with no risk whatsoever is massive. Even if my bizarre luck you did roll the same effect for every area, not knowing what could happen would probably have changed his approach

Really nice. Thanks very much.