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.

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

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

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

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

Glad you guys like it, though!

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

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

where the feth are the guard?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Loved the bat rep, keep 'em coming!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Painnen wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Painnen wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

tetrisphreak wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Painnen wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the whole though, these are still great rules.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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