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.

NSFW



So I faced off against LUTNIT's imperial guard, sort of a last hurrah for the dex. I used my deathwatch as count as nurgle for the most part.

Absolutely gorgeous models. I love that carnifex conversion. Cant see the video though because it says its set to private

nidsNguard wrote:
Absolutely gorgeous models. I love that carnifex conversion. Cant see the video though because it says its set to private

Thanks for letting me know , I've set it to public so hopefully it works now.

Great report.

Whats your camera if you dont mind me asking?

The amount of conversion work is amazing. Those models make me drool.

I always look forward to your reports. They are always quite entertaining to say the least.

Fething beautiful models.

We should make a batrep where we are all happy and cheery and don't say a single thing bad about GW.

I also gotta say I really like you guys' play style and agree with everything you guys do in your games. I wish my gaming group would use only "sane" 40K as well.

 Iechine wrote:
Whats your camera if you dont mind me asking?

Don't mind at all, I use a canon S100 point and shoot.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FeindusMaximus wrote:
Great report.

Thanks mang


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 herpguy wrote:
The amount of conversion work is amazing. Those models make me drool.

Thanks guy, me and lutnit have a saying "if you got time to play, you got time to paint". I hate painting so I stick to one thing at a time and never play it till it's done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I always look forward to your reports. They are always quite entertaining to say the least.

Heh, we should probably be more high energy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheSilo wrote:
Fething beautiful models.

Thankyou kind sir


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LUTNIT wrote:
We should make a batrep where we are all happy and cheery and don't say a single thing bad about GW.

There isn't enough prozac or ecstacy on the planet lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 herpguy wrote:
I also gotta say I really like you guys' play style and agree with everything you guys do in your games. I wish my gaming group would use only "sane" 40K as well.

A lot of what get's tacked on to the game is very cultural, the biggest of which is terrain, If everyone at your flgs or club treats all terrain as permeable, it's not likely to ever really change sadly. At least with 6th you need los to assault now, that helped a bit... oh ,,, oh god, I just said something positive about 6th.

Have you guys tried some of the supplement or forgeworld missions. A lot of those are pretty excellent actually (and in fact if you are playing one of the supplement armies you can roll off with your opponent to use a supplement mission). I have found that the addition of alternative mission make this game much much better (it needs an extra much perhaps?), the book missions are the mission that for the lowest common denominator.

It is funny how much time and effort you all have obviously put into your models and yet from the videos you would never imagine you ever liked the game. I imagine you guys just need to mix some red bull in with alcohol. Too many downers and not enough uppers.

The Battlemission book left a really bad taste in all our mouths. I have glanced at some other missions but not too in depth as I've more or less lost faith in GW writers. We play the objective scenario because it is incredibly balanced (assuming you place objectives before you know where you are deploying) all things considered. There are no gimmicks, nothing random, just strategy.

Don't get us wrong, we used to love 40k and GW. When I started playing 40k back in 1995 I thought GW was the best company ever. 3rd ed was probably my most played edition with 2-4 games a week since I was in late elementary school/early highschool at the time and had loads of free time. I didn't play much in 4th ed but fell back into it and fell in love with the game again in 5th. It wasn't until the end of 5th when GW switched to money-for-the-money-gods rather than focusing on the players. 6th ed has been a total joke for me and essentially destroyed the game I loved for over 15 years and turned it into some abomination. We can keep it sane with our restrictions but find less and less people agree with our way of playing. It seems the gong show mentality has taken root.

As always... I enjoyed it and am envious of your relationship with each other and to the game. Keep playing like you do (fair) and keep up the bat reps!!!!!

Also, it was predestined that the armored division would fail vs elite infantry in an urban area like that. IG was at a disadvantage due to terrain. So dude, don't beat yourself up over tactical mistakes... You were frakked from the get go.

 ansacs wrote:
Have you guys tried some of the supplement or forgeworld missions. A lot of those are pretty excellent actually (and in fact if you are playing one of the supplement armies you can roll off with your opponent to use a supplement mission). I have found that the addition of alternative mission make this game much much better (it needs an extra much perhaps?)

Haven't tried them but it's mostly because they seem historical quite often, so if we don't have the corresponding factions it won't really work. Are there some that aren't tied to a specific event?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ansacs wrote:
the book missions are the mission that for the lowest common denominator.

We tend to favour crusade, it's the easiest to balance. Big guns is a second choice, the rest are pretty bad. Kill points isn't really my thing, the relic is just silly and the scouring is far too erratic and silly, I like the fast scoring stuff just not the random ass objectives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ansacs wrote:
It is funny how much time and effort you all have obviously put into your models and yet from the videos you would never imagine you ever liked the game. I imagine you guys just need to mix some red bull in with alcohol. Too many downers and not enough uppers.

We come off a bit cynical or misanthopic but I assure you we're getting something out of it. We've been playing a long time and it's hard to fake enthusiasm for the direction the game is going. We enjoy our games in spite of 6th, certainly not because of it. But ya, if 7th isn't any less bloated I'll have to snag some molly or something lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doktor_g wrote:
As always... I enjoyed it and am envious of your relationship with each other and to the game. Keep playing like you do (fair) and keep up the bat reps!!!!!

Thanks mang, you keep watchin'm and we'll keep makin'm


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doktor_g wrote:
Also, it was predestined that the armored division would fail vs elite infantry in an urban area like that. IG was at a disadvantage due to terrain. So dude, don't beat yourself up over tactical mistakes... You were frakked from the get go.

I had almost none of my army left and that's with lutnit rolling pretty badly, he had the shooting he needed, he just didn't priotize taking ground until it was too late.

You are thinking the Echoes of War which are based on "historical" battles. There are also Altar of War missions in almost all of the supplements which are almost universally not read but the supplement player is always allowed to choose to use (they need the supplement faction of course but the other faction is left independent). Funnily enough they even say if the supplement player wants to play them but the other player wants to roll then the supplement player can roll off for the right to replace the book mission with them.

Crusade is the most balanced if you are using armies that have not been designed to handle all the missions (some of the armies cannot be so fair enough). The random objectives missions work best if you have a great deal of LoS blocking terrain and mobile armies. The relic is mostly wonky due to the number of rules issues that comes up. KP is actually the least balanced IMO due to the difference between deathstar and MSU builds. If you want more fair missions you might want to check out the BAO mission format. It is what I usually prefer to play by as it gives both variety and some degree of fairness. They also have an FAQ which covers a lot of issues GW has not deigned to fix.
http://www.frontlinegaming.org/community/bao-tournament-format/

I have really begun to like campaign style missions based on the forgeworld campaigns. Imbalances in the missions are not bad when they are caused by decisions made. It is the unfairness that makes most people dislike imbalance so much and it is not like you are betting pink slips on the games...right?

6ed has some of the coolest ideas of any edition put into it but it also has some of the most ambiguous rule writing I have ever seen. It could be great with a few tweaks here and there but the tweaks haven't happened.

 ansacs wrote:
they even say if the supplement player wants to play them but the other player wants to roll then the supplement player can roll off for the right to replace the book mission with them.

Yeah.. good luck with that, I'd file that under "you have to play againsts my knights, they have a codex" lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ansacs wrote:
Crusade is the most balanced if you are using armies that have not been designed to handle all the missions (some of the armies cannot be so fair enough).

Yeah it's our baseline scenario and what we play 9 times out of 10 so most of our list building habits are entirely built up around crusade.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ansacs wrote:
The random objectives missions work best if you have a great deal of LoS blocking terrain and mobile armies. The relic is mostly wonky due to the number of rules issues that comes up. KP is actually the least balanced IMO due to the difference between deathstar and MSU builds.

LOS blockers don't really help fix the scouring because right off the bat the objectives and can be so lopsided in value that the game is pretty much lost from the get go. I agree that kp is a terrible mission, never been a fan of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ansacs wrote:
If you want more fair missions you might want to check out the BAO mission format. It is what I usually prefer to play by as it gives both variety and some degree of fairness. They also have an FAQ which covers a lot of issues GW has not deigned to fix.

I like a good portion of the BAO format, not really down on two missions at once though. We've tried it, didn't thrill us. Not sure I like the random objective crap, also, if you're going to mess with how warlord traits work, just let players choose one and put it in the list, I much prefer that to half measures.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ansacs wrote:
I have really begun to like campaign style missions based on the forgeworld campaigns. Imbalances in the missions are not bad when they are caused by decisions made. It is the unfairness that makes most people dislike imbalance so much and it is not like you are betting pink slips on the games...right?

Campaigns are great and there are plenty of missions that only really work in the context of a campaign, mostly because in a good campaign both factions can have very different motivations and goals, something that doesn't work as well in one off games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ansacs wrote:
6ed has some of the coolest ideas of any edition put into it but it also has some of the most ambiguous rule writing I have ever seen. It could be great with a few tweaks here and there but the tweaks haven't happened.

We're all pretty anxious about what 6.5 or 7 or whatever does for the game.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Yeah.. good luck with that, I'd file that under "you have to play againsts my knights, they have a codex" lol

That is a terrible example as I would always play an imperial knights army. I prefer that codex over almost any of the others. The IK are a nicely balanced unit if you actually bother playing them. Honestly the entire game is optional; saying good luck getting someone to follow published rules is like saying good luck getting someone to play your SM army just because it has a codex. Either you agree to a game and figured out terms or you don't.

 Crablezworth wrote:
LOS blockers don't really help fix the scouring because right off the bat the objectives and can be so lopsided in value that the game is pretty much lost from the get go. I agree that kp is a terrible mission, never been a fan of it.

They do if you are not playing a gunline style army. A good example is my bike army where my objectives are always placed out in the middle of nowhere with as most LoS blockers and area terrain as I can get (hopefull a roof, area terrain, solid sided ruin). Games between my bike army and nightscythe armies are a series of small skirmishs that breaks out across the entire field.

 Crablezworth wrote:
I like a good portion of the BAO format, not really down on two missions at once though. We've tried it, didn't thrill us. Not sure I like the random objective crap, also, if you're going to mess with how warlord traits work, just let players choose one and put it in the list, I much prefer that to half measures.

It all comes back to mobility. A lot of the upper table GT armies have huge mobility which makes random objectives more like isolated contention points than fortresses. It also forces at least one player to come to an objective rather than just sit on theirs and try to kill the opponent off theirs. There is an inherent imbalance but that is mostly due to the limitations of some of the factions rather than the fact the game is weighted to one table edge.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Campaigns are great and there are plenty of missions that only really work in the context of a campaign, mostly because in a good campaign both factions can have very different motivations and goals, something that doesn't work as well in one off games.

I am surprised you guys don't do some campaigns. You have essentially 3 buddies who play each other all the time and no actual pick up games as you guys are always playing by previously agreed house rules. You guys could play under any rules and missions you dream of as long as you can agree between yourselves.

 Crablezworth wrote:
We're all pretty anxious about what 6.5 or 7 or whatever does for the game.

Yeah 6.5/7ed could be incredible if they just make the proper tweaks. Even a cleaning of the 6ed rules to remove confusion would make 6ed vastly superior.

Just wanted to say great stuff mate. I really enjoyyour battle reports. I always look forward to seeing a new one, to watch over coffee in the morning!

@ansacs - as you can tell we use a lot of LOS blockers in our games so we know all about the advantages they confer vs gunlines. However if we're playing the souring (because someone gets sour always) and the gunline gets 4,3,3 for objectives then they literally don't need to do anything because theyve won; just concentrate fire on the other person's dangerous things.

This bat rep didn't really show case it, but we usually do play mobile armies (crab has at least 1 unit of bikes and a bike captain and usually a drop pod and storm talon, lutnit plays farsight usually, I have a lot of assault marines, landspeeder storm, drop pod, stormtalon, two of our other friends play eldar and tau) so again we all experience high mobility in an environment with few lanes of fire.

The BAO format imo doesn't accurately show who's the better general, its just there to avoid getting a tie and to set a finer gradient. It became apparent to us very fast that whoever ignores the secondary and just goes for the primary will win, while the other person gets a token reward for trying.

BTW don't take my posts as criticism I enjoy your guys' batreps either way. I would like to see you happier with the games but not for me but for you (ie I don't care if you look happy but you should be happy, whether through drugs or gaming).

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:
@ansacs - as you can tell we use a lot of LOS blockers in our games so we know all about the advantages they confer vs gunlines. However if we're playing the souring (because someone gets sour always) and the gunline gets 4,3,3 for objectives then they literally don't need to do anything because theyve won; just concentrate fire on the other person's dangerous things.

I would not agree that they win. I write lists that have countermeasures that punish players for castling up either in the form of large numbers of barrage large blasts or massive novas. There are also a host of lists that cannot castle up and will just loose for doing so. How does a FMC circus castle up and win? An aircav? Or even a grav biker list? Against almost any opponent they will be outranged and take the full brunt of 5 turns of shooting if they attempt to castle around their 4-3-3 objectives. This is where BAO is nice as it further exacerbates this by making it possible to get 6 pts that are not the primary 4 pts which people might try to castle around. I agree that Scouring would be infinitely better if you make objective have to be deployed 24"+ of each other or a board edge. It would even make more sense as how does an objective you want to use speed to get way behind your slowest units?

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:
This bat rep didn't really show case it, but we usually do play mobile armies (crab has at least 1 unit of bikes and a bike captain and usually a drop pod and storm talon, lutnit plays farsight usually, I have a lot of assault marines, landspeeder storm, drop pod, stormtalon, two of our other friends play eldar and tau) so again we all experience high mobility in an environment with few lanes of fire.

Yep I have seen it. I think I have seen all your batreps so far. The armies are wonderfully painted and the rules are well implemented with your house rules well explained. So far in your matchups I have not seen any battles between two armies that are both highly mobile. The farsight army is probably the most mobile army of the ones I have seen in the batreps and even it is fairly slow. When I say mobile armies I mean rhino raven guard, white scars biker, all scouts, dog pile daemons, FMC circus, etc. if you cannot move 75% of your army to the opponent's board edge by the bottom of turn 1 then you are slow. Of course I got tired of gunline and staying in my deployment zone by the end of the first game I played in 6ed. I saw right away that ADL and fortifications make people want to fortress up and stay still so I went all in for MTO style play.

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:
The BAO format imo doesn't accurately show who's the better general, its just there to avoid getting a tie and to set a finer gradient. It became apparent to us very fast that whoever ignores the secondary and just goes for the primary will win, while the other person gets a token reward for trying.

This literally doesn't make sense. The primary is 4 pts and the secondary is 3 pts. So if I get line breaker, secondary, and first blood and you get primary only, I win. What the BAO missions do is dilute the importance of any single mission on the game.

Honestly though if you want to find the better general you would make a betting system before the game. I used to play with a group that you could bargain away points from your army to gain benefits such as placing the objectives. Fair game boards actually remove most of the strategy from the game but leave the tactics. This is because there is no new overall plans when every game is the same. You design the list and what you took dictates your strategy absolutely. Not that this is a bad thing but it is what it is. Imbalance in aspects of the game is fine, and somewhat desirable, as long as it is redressed elsewhere within the game. This is actually the biggest problem with GW brb missions, the random missions redress the imbalance but not within the context of a single game and possible not ever if there is a run of luck.

Yea our armies in the bat reps tend to be more static so fair enough. However it's still easy to castle when the objectives are 12" away from each other and 6" from the edge, your units are still close enough to support each other while not being barrage fodder. We also have a good amount of protection from barrage on the tables so it can be less damaging then it is otherwise.

As for the bao, I'm just going off the point spread we were given for a local tournament where it was 12 for primary and 6 for secondary and warlord/linebreaker/first blood didn't count towards individual games so you'll be able to understand why we're not the biggest fans.

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:
Yea our armies in the bat reps tend to be more static so fair enough. However it's still easy to castle when the objectives are 12" away from each other and 6" from the edge, your units are still close enough to support each other while not being barrage fodder. We also have a good amount of protection from barrage on the tables so it can be less damaging then it is otherwise.

True enough about barrage. You guys have a good amount of multi level ruins.

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:
As for the bao, I'm just going off the point spread we were given for a local tournament where it was 12 for primary and 6 for secondary and warlord/linebreaker/first blood didn't count towards individual games so you'll be able to understand why we're not the biggest fans.

No wonder. That does make the secondary useless. The actual BAO is 4 primary, 3 secondary, and 3 bonus points. They also limit where the objectives can go so you cannot put 3 objectives in your deployments zone. http://www.frontlinegaming.org/community/bao-tournament-format/

We essentially got fethed; first round was crusade (not locked objectives) with kill points, second was relic with kill points, third was emperor's will with kill poits, fourth was kill points with emperors will. We were also guaranteed relic wouldnt be primary....when it was

Well I can understand why you would have some problems with that...er, "interpretation" of the BAO format.

On a positive note KP only mattered once in that list as the difference between primary and secondary makes secondary essentially not matter.

It also stinks that you went in expecting to not play relic and had to play it with no ability to win on secondaries or bonus pts. Relic is a mission that you either have a plan for or you get owned.

Your common sense approach to rules is great.

I think your battle reports would be more entertaining if they were shot during the turn. I know it takes more editing but it's fun to see the dice rolls.

Your still shots are great. You do a great job of capturing the action and intensity.

Johnnytorrance wrote:
Your common sense approach to rules is great.

I think your battle reports would be more entertaining if they were shot during the turn. I know it takes more editing but it's fun to see the dice rolls.

Your still shots are great. You do a great job of capturing the action and intensity.

Thankyou kind sir

It'd be tough to shoot during the game, as it is now the battery life on the cam is pretty bad, we often need to plug it in from turn to turn.

I love your format and house rules. Your reports are both exciting and entertaining plus I like your lists in particular.

Great report. The additional lighting (not sure if that is new) worked very well.

The house rules you all utilize does keep the game in check quite a bit. I refer to it as 'classic 40K'. But, like many other folks, it is a bit challenging to get folks on board with some house rules. 6th has been a fairly poor edition and showing restraint makes the game more like 40K many of us enjoyed.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I love your format and house rules. Your reports are both exciting and entertaining plus I like your lists in particular.

Thankyou kind sir


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sarigar wrote:
Great report. The additional lighting (not sure if that is new) worked very well.

Thanks, yeah we used the "porno" light this time to light the armies. Gives a pseudo ringlight effect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sarigar wrote:
The house rules you all utilize does keep the game in check quite a bit. I refer to it as 'classic 40K'. But, like many other folks, it is a bit challenging to get folks on board with some house rules. 6th has been a fairly poor edition and showing restraint makes the game more like 40K many of us enjoyed.

I like that "40k classic, we've been calling it 40k light and sane 40k. It's been a challenge getting folks on board with 6th in general, it's so bloated that everyone and every group has their own "way" of playing it and sadly it never lines up too well, 40k needs formatting, badly.