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.

http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2011/12/22/40k-video-battle-report-phalanx-necrons-vs-nurgle-chaos-space-marines/

Here we have Frankie taking his tried and true Nurgle forces out against the Phalanx Necrons, this time with a list built for mobility. We also walk through the Bay Area Open Scenario one more time to make sure it is explained fully.

Great report man, haha I felt for you mishap-ping but it was bound to happen. I think that list needs some wraiths, they seem pretty mobile and durable.

How do you find those annihilation barges? I figured that because of their AP - they might suck at AT.

I'm diggin' the idea of the BOA "all 3 missions". Particularly since my DE have 24 KPs at 2k. It'd be a helluva lot easier to win on the objective portion.

Reece, regarding the "hill" terrain piece where the Plaguers held a SeizeGround objective, that's made of polystyrene (insulation stuff) , correct? How'd you paint it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Red Corsair wrote:How do you find those annihilation barges? I figured that because of their AP - they might suck at AT.

I've been on the ass-end of them a few times already, and STR7 is plenty enough for banging rhinos. If you figure in the 'tesla' effect (2 more hits per 6 rolled), they're almost worst (for the opponent) than psyfleman dreads.
EDIT: Aahhhoooh. Wait a minute. That's right. AP- means minus a damage result. Humph, that may have been forgotten a couple times.

pro rep!

Nice rep! I like the all game types at once as well. B/c like you said, even though it may have appeared that the games was long past over once your unit misshaped, it came down to the wire for the win of tie due to the all 3 missions at once. It also made for a very interesting and from the looks of it much more enjoyable/fun game!

Great Rep Reecius! I winced a bit at the Deepstrike Mishap.

Seems like the Veil really paid off, but you have to put a lot into a Veil unit to make it work well. I agree with the Ghost Ark and the Monolith not being as good in this list. You are so Mobile that it doesn't matter near as much. I'm looking forward to seeing your next iteration of the list.

I guess the Nightmare Shroud was pointless, since his entire army was Fearless. Would probably preform better on some other armies, since his template won't always be in range.

I don't know if it was just me, but this video seemed a lot quieter than the others, and I had trouble making out what Frankie was saying a lot.

I really like the BaO Combination of missions. I want to try that in a few games, it seems super fun.

With your Studio Necron Army sold, are you guys going to build another one, so you can have a Necron Army at the store? I'd really miss not seeing any more Necron Batreps!

@Red Corsair
Yeah, I had the game until that misshap! That lost me a scoring unit and 2 KP, ouch! My plan was to misdirect his army and then take out his mobility, which I did. Had the stupid unit not died, I would have won handily. Oh well, it's a risky army!

Actually, the A.Barges do serious work. They are built for wasting Rhinos. With the amount of shots they average, they really shred light tanks and infantry.

@Brothererekose
The BAO mission is super fun. Give it a try sometime!

The hills are 1" thick pink insulation foam cut with a hot wire cutter. We took latex house paint and poured a bunch of fine grit filler in it (we used lizard cage filler from a pet store) into it to give it texture.

Paint two to three coats of that onto it, then highlight it either with a drybrush or a spray gun/can.

Lastly, glue on some patches of static grass and you're good to go! They are really cool, playable (no sloped surfaces) and cheap as chips to make.

@Zid
Thanks!

@Darkcloud92
It is a lot more fun that way as it gives you so many more options. You can always look at changing conditions and see where you need to go to win the game. We think it adds a lot.

@Sasori
I have been experimenting with Veils a lot lately, and love them! They are awesome for tricking your opponent, and redirecting the battle. It is great to just ditch all of his pricey units and teleport to the other side of the table!

The Nightmare shroud is great, but not in this match-up. We don;t change our lists to beat who we are playing here, though. We just go with our standard builds.

The Ghost Ark wasn't needed at all. The Monolith is cool, but when it has to deep strike, it isn't as good as it can (and did here!) scatter into melta range.

We're working on our second studio army, but we've been so busy with other stuff we haven't had time to put any paint on it. It will be ready as soon as we can get it at least base coated! Haha

A very interesting report, and a very strong game played by both players. Reece, you were doomed the moment you lost half your army to a poor mishap roll, which is one of the major weaknesses of this list IMO. When you put so many points into two huge units designed to teleport around the table, the risk of losing one of them skyrockets, even with careful placement. I think you made a good effort toward the end, but the dice just weren't with you and Frankie played an excellent game.

On another note, I was discussing the mission with a buddy of mine yesterday and he had a few criticisms that I think are kinda valid.

The biggest issue is that 2/3 of the mission is objectives and only 1/3 is KP's, meaning it heavily favors an army with large numbers of mobile scoring units that can swarm objectives and contest enemy objectives. If you can dominate objectives all game, it makes absolutely no difference if you lose on KP's because it never hurts you.

To illustrate my point, assume Player A is using a list with 30 KP's and 10-12 scoring units (Imperial Guard or various Space Marine builds), and Player B is using a list with 6-8 KP's and 3 scoring units (Grey Knights or something similar).

Player A's list will lose on KP's in almost every game assuming normal matchups, but his 10-12 scoring units (some of them mounted in fast transports, or perhaps supplemented by fast vehicles) will allow him to dominate the board if he plays well. He only needs to hold 2 objectives and contest 3 to win 2-0, and if he gives up more KP's in the process, he still wins 2-1.

Player B on the other hand is running a list that will win on KP's in most scenarios, but will have difficulty holding objectives. Even if that list is a Draigo-Wing list and he makes everything scoring with Grand Strategy, some of those scoring units will be single vehicles easily destroyed with missile fire, and all his opponent has to do is hold his objectives while trying not to cough up too many KP's and he should win or draw without too much trouble.

If instead the tournament has 3 games, 2 of which are Objectives and 1 of which is KP's, Player A has to count on the fact that he is going to likely lose 1/3 of his games depending on matchup and possibly draw Capture and Control unless he can penetrate his opponents deployment zone, and Player B is likely guaranteed a win in 1/3 of his games, and probably no worse than a draw in any mission that uses Capture and Control. He might even win Seize Ground if a low number of objectives are rolled and he gets the first turn. In the BAO scenario though, he is fighting uphill in every game against someone who tailored specifically for objectives because he is spread too thin trying to hold 2 objectives and contest 3.

It might not be that big of an issue, but in an event like the BAO I would expect to see at least a few players bring lists that are specifically tailored to lose on KP's but dominate objectives.

Would it be too much to ask if I requested a test game between a high KP guard list designed for objective based missions against a low KP Grey Knights list designed around denial? It would illustrate the worst-case scenario and I think it might be a fun challenge for the Grey Knights player at the same time.

@Aldarionn
That list was a fun list, it wasn't really meant to dominate games. We were experimenting with a lot of variables to see what worked. I still am a big fan of the veil, though, as it just adds to much. The misshap was unfortunate, but hey, it was a chance I was willing to take.

As for the BAO mission, I see your point. But honestly, in a game as complex and with as many variables as 40K, you will never have a perfectly level playing field.

The armies are made to be different form one another and as such, will always have certain advantages and disadvantages in certain circumstances. It just can't be avoided.

Our goal was to make a mission that leveled the playing field as much as possible, while not becoming chess. Variety is what makes this game so cool, and we have to accept inequities along with that.

This mission is as close to the book missions as possible, while providing a lot more options. Just as you can build a list to game the current missions, you can build a list to game our mission. It just kind of is what it is. A big part of tournaments is match-ups and if you pull a bad match-up then you just have to play through it, unfortunately.

Aldarionn wrote:To illustrate my point, assume Player A is using a list with 30 KP's and 10-12 scoring units (Imperial Guard or various Space Marine builds), and Player B is using a list with 6-8 KP's and 3 scoring units (Grey Knights or something similar).

Player A's list will lose on KP's in almost every game assuming normal matchups, but his 10-12 scoring units (some of them mounted in fast transports, or perhaps supplemented by fast vehicles) will allow him to dominate the board if he plays well. He only needs to hold 2 objectives and contest 3 to win 2-0, and if he gives up more KP's in the process, he still wins 2-1.

Player B on the other hand is running a list that will win on KP's in most scenarios, but will have difficulty holding objectives. Even if that list is a Draigo-Wing list and he makes everything scoring with Grand Strategy, some of those scoring units will be single vehicles easily destroyed with missile fire, and all his opponent has to do is hold his objectives while trying not to cough up too many KP's and he should win or draw without too much trouble.

If instead the tournament has 3 games, 2 of which are Objectives and 1 of which is KP's, Player A has to count on the fact that he is going to likely lose 1/3 of his games depending on matchup and possibly draw Capture and Control unless he can penetrate his opponents deployment zone, and Player B is likely guaranteed a win in 1/3 of his games, and probably no worse than a draw in any mission that uses Capture and Control. He might even win Seize Ground if a low number of objectives are rolled and he gets the first turn. In the BAO scenario though, he is fighting uphill in every game against someone who tailored specifically for objectives because he is spread too thin trying to hold 2 objectives and contest 3.

If that's the case, it's working as intended. "KP denial" lists are fundamentally gimmicky "spoiler" lists and they shouldn't be favored by scenarios. Note that there are good armies that have low KP counts-- Blackmoor's Draigowing, for instance-- but those lists can make a play for objectives as well.

Fetterkey said it a lot more bluntly than I did! haha

I've gotta say man, you guys do the best battle reps. I always check out the Battle Rep forum to see if you guys have a new one up. Production values are good. I can hear what you guys are saying. Recaps are informative. And you guys are actually having fun while you play! Awesome stuff guys.

If I was ever down in your area, I'd be banging on your door looking for a match. Keep up the good work!

Fetterkey wrote:
If that's the case, it's working as intended. "KP denial" lists are fundamentally gimmicky "spoiler" lists and they shouldn't be favored by scenarios. Note that there are good armies that have low KP counts-- Blackmoor's Draigowing, for instance-- but those lists can make a play for objectives as well.

Well, my point is that a tournament as a whole should ideally not favor any army over another. A mix of objective and kill point missions means you have to play for both, but when you create a mission that combines both in an unbalanced way (IE 2/3 objectives and 1/3 KP's) and use it for every game, it DOES heavily favor some armies over others. KP denial armies are viable because there are three different book missions that use very different sets of victory conditions and board layouts, which is the same reason that objective-dominant lists are viable. A tournament that uses a good mix of these scenarios gives the most balanced playing field possible. A tournament that combines all three into one mission allows a player to instead build his army specifically to dominate two of them while completely sacrificing a third and stand a reasonable chance of winning every game because of it. This fundamentally changes the landscape of the game, and what is viable at the tournament.

Now I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but it IS something that should be considered. It's definitely something I'd expect most top-tier players to consider if they plan to attend the event (I know damn well that I would), and if Reece is OK with that as the event organizer then it's his call. It means lists will be built for a very different purpose. As to whether or not it will lend one codex an advantage over another, I don't know. I haven't spent near enough time on it to really make that call, but I can tell you that running this scenario will in all likelihood have an impact on what lists we will see in the top 10. My suggestion to Reece would be to deviate from the standard tournament builds in the test games and instead build armies specifically designed to game this mission and see how much of an impact they have against some of the common tournament builds. It might not make good battle reports, but it might yield some interesting results, and as an event organizer it's probably a good idea to playtest every aspect of a mission if you are intending to use it. GW failed to do that for 'Ard Boyz and it led to some pretty silly missions, and I'd hate to see the BAO have the same problems.

Just out of curiosity, I wonder how adding Victory Points into the mix would affect things. You would have 4 victory conditions instead of 3 which might make it easier to draw, but now 50% of the mission would be based around board control and 50% would be based around killing your opponent, evening out the disparity. I can't help but wonder if that would be more balanced if you intend to use this mission for every game at the event. It might be worth a game or two at the least.

Anyway, it's just a thought. I don't know for certain that this perceived imbalance is even real, or if it will really make that big of a deal, but it's the kind of thing my mind dwells on at work when I have nothing else to do but wait for customers.

Victory points heavily favor msu lists, so I think adding vp as win condition 4 is a terrible idea.

As for these missions, I find them better for low kp armies than you give credit for. This is because 1 unit can be claiming both the c&c objective and the seize ground objective. Also, because the objectives are different from each other, an opponent with many units has to spread out because they must win BOTH types of objectives. The small kp army can defend a single objective (which must be in their deployment zone) with their entire army, tie that, win kp and lose the 3 objective mission.

Which means at the start both players are looking at a draw, and generalship and dice will determine a winner. Is that not the ideal game mission?

Like it.

@ Reece, good to know. I just assumed as much but it seems like my rhinos always get lucky and survive do to my opposition rolling low on the chart when he glances/pens so I was unsure if the -3 on a glance undermined it's light AT at all. Glad it still works well, the sheer volume of fire obviously does the trick I'm assuming.

@Aldarionn
You make valid points, and we did consider all of those same issues, but our design philosophy is and always will be KISS. Keep it simple, stupid. We like to keep things as close as possible to the book missions and as simple as possible, and this was the easiest solution, in our opinions.

Is it perfect? No.

Is any system perfect? No.

We are comfortable with this as it is, and if we need to change it going forward (probably will, considering 6th ed is around the corner) then we will. But we feel confident that this scenario will suffice to provide a fun, relatively fair and balanced event for all attendees while not taking them too far away from what they know about the game coming into it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Red Corsair
Yeah, the volume of shots is what makes it work. Throw enough dice at a unit, and it goes away!

DevianID wrote:Victory points heavily favor msu lists, so I think adding vp as win condition 4 is a terrible idea.

I disagree here, because if a person builds an MSU list to take advantage of VP's they will also have a disadvantage with KP's.

DevianID wrote:As for these missions, I find them better for low kp armies than you give credit for. This is because 1 unit can be claiming both the c&c objective and the seize ground objective. Also, because the objectives are different from each other, an opponent with many units has to spread out because they must win BOTH types of objectives. The small kp army can defend a single objective (which must be in their deployment zone) with their entire army, tie that, win kp and lose the 3 objective mission.

Which means at the start both players are looking at a draw, and generalship and dice will determine a winner. Is that not the ideal game mission?

You make some valid points here and I guess I just have to do some more testing and then wait for the results of the BAO. As it stands right now I may not even be able to make it up there for the event, as much as I want to, so it probably doesn't even matter for me, but it never hurts to have a discussion and hear the reasoning behind why something is a particular way, especially with Reece since from what I've seen he has already covered most of the issues I've brought up and is able to give good answers to my questions. That shows that he has his ducks in a row as an event organizer, and makes me look forward to playing in events he is hosting.

@Reece - I understand the reasons why you created the mission you did, and the reasons for not changing it are valid so it makes sense. I'll just be very interested to see how things work out when the event happens. I'm really not sure if the bias toward armies with a bunch of scoring units and/or contesting units will really be that big of a deal, and I don't think it heavily favors one codex over another, just the type of army that would be best to bring for any particular codex. I'll just be very interested to see the data when the event is all done with.

How many points are the events at the Open anyhow? In case I'm able to make it I'd like to get some practice in.

We'd love to have you! I know some guys are coming up from SD, so you may be able to get a ride.

1750 points for singles events, 2000pts per team for doubles, 1,000pts per player, you share a single force org slot.

Well I've got about 1,250 points of Dark Eldar coming either late this week or early next week, so if I can come up with another 500 points between now and then I might give them their first outing at the BAO. I'd definitely need to get them painted first though. If I'm traveling to a major event I don't want to show up with unpainted models.

We have a 3 color standard, so as long as you can get them to that point, you're good to go!

Painting and playing are separate awards, so that will also help.