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.

Thanks for writing all that up, Jim. (One comment, though - Mr. Flyrant didn't Swoop on turn 5, electing merely to Glide (which allowed him to flap over to the objective).) SabrX & I got in a game yesterday; I'll start on that battle report this evening.

Toban wrote:- 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.

I have neither the experience w/my Necrons nor Jim's love for all things CCB, but I'd prefer the Destroyer Lord. I'm tempted, actually, to add him to a unit in a Night Scythe - fly in fast, disembark with a bunch of Immortals, and wander off the next turn to do scary things.

- 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.

Ymgarls are slightly better than they were, in absolute terms (Reserves arrive earlier than in 5e), and comparatively are fantastic - they're one of the (IIRC) two units in the game that can still Assault out of Reserves (along w/Vanguard Vets). And given the new emphasis on shooting, something popping up in your opponent's backfield to break up the gunlines could be very welcome, particularly as it is easier to hit vehicles in CC now. The opportunity cost is still painful, in that you lose the option of filling that Elites slot with more Hive Guard.

What I did wrong w/the T-Fex was a) charging the chariot (forgot that the character was going to Mind-Shackle Mr. Big Bug before I could swat down the vehicle); and b) not keeping him near the Flyrant for Preferred Enemy boosts to his shooting.

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

TBD. Ymgarl do cost more than Hive Guard, but I suspect I'll keep them.

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?

That was my first experiment with the Parasite (should be obvious, given his not-painted state). I'll play around some more, but I suspect he'll be the first thing dropped to make a lower-point list. He's nice, but not essential. If I paint another 20 Gargoyles, he might return, or if psychic powers become more prevalent.

Tell you what. I actually dropped some Destroyers/H Destroyers into my list. Man, with the Triarch Stalkers, they are nasty and do a ton of damage now with the Preferred Enemy. Twin-Linked, BS 4, re-rolling 1s means you miss only on a 2. Roll that 2? You have to roll it again. So awesome.

drakkenj wrote:Tell you what. I actually dropped some Destroyers/H Destroyers into my list. Man, with the Triarch Stalkers, they are nasty and do a ton of damage now with the Preferred Enemy. Twin-Linked, BS 4, re-rolling 1s means you miss only on a 2. Roll that 2? You have to roll it again. So awesome.

No re-rolling rerolls.

Tarrasq wrote: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.

This sounds like one for YMDC.

You can find it here http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/461173.page#4508482

Red Corsair wrote: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!

You're welcome. Though it took a while to write up, I did have fun writing this report almost as much as playing it.

Yeah, the necrons not being able to re-embark could have made a difference in the game, but IMO it wouldn't have been as bad as most would think. The reason was that I had a veil-tek with them, meaning I could still move them almost anywhere on the board if I needed to. The only risk would have been a mishap onto an enemy unit had I teleported them too close to the objective.

As for the hive tyrant being able to shoot 360, yeah I was aware of that. The only impact would have been a more restrictive movement for him had we played it correctly.

And he didn't vector strike the scythes because there wasn't any in range for him to do so. Even had he moved 24", he wouldn't have been able to move over them as his flyrant was out of position and I had flanked my flyers.

Toban wrote: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?

I will probably give the Dlord another go again. I think the main advantage of my Barge lord, besides the resiliency due to the 3++, is that he can hurt flyers with his sweep attack. The Dlord has no way of hurting a flyer that isn't hovering. Also, Dlords mainly buff up wraiths or destroyers. But if your focus shooting-wise are tesla-destructors, then he doesn't really add too much to the army besides making the wraiths more deadly in combat.

I think Ymgarls still have a place in this game. They are quite a good unit. Their only drawback is that they can't really do anything to flyers. Frankly, I'm more of a Hive Guard person myself and normally run 8-9 hive guards in my standard 5E 2K list.

Biovores are awesome. You'll see soon enough how barrages can bypass stupid wound allocation on some units. In my older 5E list, I actually ran 6 biovores to drop pie plates on guys disembarking from transports that the hive guards cracked open.

Wow, great report!

Dragoon65 wrote: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.

Yeah, I know. The reason why I got out of the transport was:

1. I wanted to hit multiple units. Wraiths on t-fex. Lord on hive guards and command barge on gargoyles. With just 1W left on the t-fex, I felt confident that that wraiths would be able to finish him off despite his 2+. And my lord would tie up his hive guards and prevent them from shooting at my tanks next turn. If my lord charged the t-fex, I would have killed it, but then the wraiths would most likely be unable to reach the hive guards and I definitely didn't want to assault the gargoyle swarm with them, at least not until I've weakened the gargoyles substantially.

2. If I had swept a unit, then I would have had to move at cruising speed to be able to go over them. If I did that, then I wouldn't have been able to disembark my lord.

3. I was concerned about his gargoyles surrounding my barge and then his tyrant wrecking it. That would have meant that my lord would be dead as he wouldn't be able to disembark.

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

Thanks! Yeah, it's going to take more games like this before we get up to speed, and even then we'll probably make mistakes until some of the grey areas get FAQ'd.

We should get a game going next time I go to pick up my wraiths. I think Frankie wants revenge for the way I disrespected his DE last time.

Gorechild wrote: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? Ok, I'm go back and fix it. I'm so used to the term "scarabs" while no one hardly ever uses the term "ripper swarms". Lol.

With 4 forests, 4 pools and 4 objectives, it's going to get overly complicated trying to remember what each of the 12 mysterious objects do. Thus, we just simplified it by grouping the forests together and the pools together. Kevin's army, with Move Through Cover, was really able to take advantage of these buffs. It was just a case of the right power for the right army in the right position at the right time. And it definitely altered both of our strategies.

@Jy2

Hahaha, yeah, he does want revenge, but then, you may want some for the last time my Nids beat your Wraiths up and took their lunch money! haha. That was the only time I beat you though!

But yeah, we're all going to be making mistakes until 7th comes out, it doesn't bother me.

Let's get that game in for sure!

Congrats on the victory jy2!

Yeah, vehicle not being able to contest objectives is a huge blue to mech armies. Transports are nothing more than mobile terrain pieces with guns and occasional tank shock. Infantry inside can't contest or control objectives, so it's much more difficult for last minute contests.

Re-rollable saves from mysterious terrain can be a game changer.

Without no retreat from 5th ed, fearless hordes are annoying Tarpits. It's even better for Nids because Tervigon can cast FNP on them, making them more resilient to power weapons or low ap shooting.

One of these days, I'd like to see hordes of Nids go up against Scarab Farm. Two fearless units duking it out.

Thanks for sharing!

Thanks for the great battle report. I really enjoyed all of the detail you put into it. It was a fun read that would be on par with many video reports I've seen. And also, kudos to you guys for putting yourselves out here when you're still learning. Plenty of chances for silly mistakes, so it's great to see you did a full fledged write up. Also great to see what lessons you both learned in the notes

Don't know if it's been brought up, but you didn't tally the victory points for heavy support units.

Janthkin should try experimenting with the Biomancy powers from the rule book with his tyranids. It really buffs FMCs and Tervigons.

Janthkin wrote:Thanks for writing all that up, Jim. (One comment, though - Mr. Flyrant didn't Swoop on turn 5, electing merely to Glide (which allowed him to flap over to the objective).) SabrX & I got in a game yesterday; I'll start on that battle report this evening.

Ok. My bad then. I've changed it.

Yeah, SabrX kind of mentioned your game and but he didn't devulge too much information other than the fact that flyers....wow (in his words).

I've got a game set up with him also. Think flying monsters versus flying saucers. I think it's going to be an interesting game.

Mannahnin wrote:Really nice. Thanks very much.

You're welcome!

drakkenj wrote:Tell you what. I actually dropped some Destroyers/H Destroyers into my list. Man, with the Triarch Stalkers, they are nasty and do a ton of damage now with the Preferred Enemy. Twin-Linked, BS 4, re-rolling 1s means you miss only on a 2. Roll that 2? You have to roll it again. So awesome.

Sigvatr wrote:No re-rolling rerolls.

Right. With Preferred Enemy, the buff that the destroyers are getting from the Triarch Stalkers are minimized since the effects of PE and twin-link do not stack.

But while destroyers got buffed up, I question their survivabiltiy to missiles, lascannons, etc. now that their cover save would only be 5+ standard (not counting any Ironbark forests that they hide in) ).

pretre wrote:Wow, great report!

Thanks!

Thanks guys for the great battle report!
Jim... why did you choose to disembark your lords? The only reason I can see it to get them tied-up in combat so they can't be shot, but shooting goes against the vehicle.
It's a good reminder though that the CCBarge can still Hammer of Wrath when riderless!

Reecius wrote:@Jy2

Hahaha, yeah, he does want revenge, but then, you may want some for the last time my Nids beat your Wraiths up and took their lunch money! haha. That was the only time I beat you though!

But yeah, we're all going to be making mistakes until 7th comes out, it doesn't bother me.

Let's get that game in for sure!

Ouch! I hope I've grown older and wiser the next time we meet. And next time, I'm bringing my own lunch.

Actually, I think mistakes in this case is actually good. It helps to educate the public on how to play the game and also what some of the grey areas are. So I encourage you to make more mistakes in our games.

SabrX wrote:Congrats on the victory jy2!

Yeah, vehicle not being able to contest objectives is a huge blue to mech armies. Transports are nothing more than mobile terrain pieces with guns and occasional tank shock. Infantry inside can't contest or control objectives, so it's much more difficult for last minute contests.

Re-rollable saves from mysterious terrain can be a game changer.

Without no retreat from 5th ed, fearless hordes are annoying Tarpits. It's even better for Nids because Tervigon can cast FNP on them, making them more resilient to power weapons or low ap shooting.

One of these days, I'd like to see hordes of Nids go up against Scarab Farm. Two fearless units duking it out.

Thanks for sharing!

My pleasure!

Yeah, the entire 6E was meant to nerf mech armies (with the exception of flyers). I think GW wanted to return to the basics of the game, which is foot soldiers vs foot soldiers instead of bumper cars. Because in any real war, infantry still plays a vital role. Because of this, you will see a resurgence of the horde army and in particular, the xenos armies.

Horde nids vs scarab-farm will be an interesting battle. Though I think the winner will be the dakkarant and his TL-devourers. Now that they no longer have stealth and cover is only 5+, a lot of scarabs are going to die from those devourers which may just give tyranids a slight advantage. Of course, this is not taking into consideration what other units are in the necron army.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Son 0f Dorn wrote:Thanks for the great battle report. I really enjoyed all of the detail you put into it. It was a fun read that would be on par with many video reports I've seen. And also, kudos to you guys for putting yourselves out here when you're still learning. Plenty of chances for silly mistakes, so it's great to see you did a full fledged write up. Also great to see what lessons you both learned in the notes

Don't know if it's been brought up, but you didn't tally the victory points for heavy support units.

Oops! No, we didn't count the VP for the Heavies. I was not aware (that's what I get for skimming parts of the book) and I don't believe Janthkin was aware either. Otherwise, he'd probably go after my annihilation barges until they were dead.

Thanks for pointing it out. I will go back and fix that in the report.

My "lessons learned" will be coming out in my Post-game a little later today.

CaptKaruthors wrote:Janthkin should try experimenting with the Biomancy powers from the rule book with his tyranids. It really buffs FMCs and Tervigons.

I think we will get to that in due time. This first game was just to get a feel for the game. As we get a little more experience, I'm sure we are going to use a lot more of the new stuff (i.e. psychic powers) from the book.

Anpu-adom wrote:Thanks guys for the great battle report!
Jim... why did you choose to disembark your lords? The only reason I can see it to get them tied-up in combat so they can't be shot, but shooting goes against the vehicle.
It's a good reminder though that the CCBarge can still Hammer of Wrath when riderless!

For the following reasons:

1) To be able to charge multiple targets and to hit the units I wanted. If I stayed on the barge, I could only hit 2 units. When I disembark, I can now hit 3 units because the barge can charge a separate unit.

2) You have to be very careful when playing against swarm armies. Had I stayed in the barge, this is probably what would have happened. Gargoyles surround the barge. Flyrant then assaults it and very likely wrecks it. Lord has no where to disembark and so he dies.

I just didn't want to take that risk.

Hey, cool report!

Just a quick note re: flying MC's - they can fire 360 so doesn't really matter which way they're facing when they're shooting.

@Jy2

I agree, mistakes we make in these formats help to educate everyone, which is awesome. So many things have very subtly changed that is takes a close eye to detail to see some of it.

After reading all the comments and all the post game analisys-update-update again and again it really pop out how a new ed. can fastly confuse even the finest players. Imagine an occasional, I'm more a modelling hobbist, like my self.

Again thank for the very useful battle reports, extremely funny to read non the less.

Continue this way guys.

I'm looking for your first new-ed GK battle report jy2, I'm curious to see how you'll try to adapt your purifiers (paladins will require some changes but anything huge I think).

Tob

POST-GAME ANALYSIS:

Necrons:
I'm going to split this up into 2 sections. The first part will be my analysis of the game. The 2nd would be an evaluation of 6th Edition so far.


Analysis of the Game - How Necrons Were Able to Pull Off the Win.
The outcome of this game was totally unexpected for me. Yes, I did expect to win the game. I also expected to possibly dominate Kevin's army. What I didn't expect was to be dominated by his army....and then to be able to still win the game! There was a couple of factors that should have led to my downfall:

1) The Mysterious terrains. Their impact on the game was huge. Originally, I was planning on killing off his flyrant and genestealers first. You know, eliminate the biggest threats and then it would be an easy game, right? Wrong. Now with re-rollable armor saves and the fact that they were both supporting each other - daring my wraiths to charge them - it would be just too inefficient to try to kill them off, especially with a portion of my army in reserves. Thus, I had to scratch that plan.

Then I was thinking about shooting down his support units (gargoyles) and his ability to hurt my transports (the hive guards), Hello, 3+ (2+ with Night-fight) Ironbark cover! Now I couldn't even do that! Thus, I had to change my strategy yet again.

Basically the only way to kill his units (his gargoyles) was to combo-assault them with my command barge and wraiths. And then both wraiths fail their charges....

2) Inexperience with the rules. Had I been better versed in the rules, I wouldn't have made some of the mistakes that I made. While most of my rules gaffes were minor, 2 were major mistakes.

- Had I been more aware of how models were removed, I would have went after his termagants a little differently. I would have shot at the ones out of cover first to get them away from the objective cover-buff (Mysterious objective which provided +1 to the unit's cover save).

- I should have taken advantage of Focus-fire had I remembered about it.

- This one was a "cheat" mistake because we were not aware of it at the time, but I shouldn't have been able to embark onto the night scythe with my Immortals. How that would have affected the game, it's hard to say. With a veil-tek (Cryptek with Veil of Darkness), I could have still moved my immortals almost anywhere via teleportation.

- This rules gaffe was made by both me and my opponent and it ended up hurting my opponent more than it did me. We both failed to realize that Heavy Support choices were worth Victory Points in this mission. Fortunately, killing his tyrannofex was part of my "new" strategy and I was helped to it by my opponent forgetting about Mindshackles on my Overlord. On the other had, had my opponent know, he probably could have gotten 2 easy VP's by going after my annihilation barges.

- Finally, the huge mistake that I made was in thinking that I could deny objectives with my flyers! This could have been disastrous for me, and if Kevin hadn't said anything, I would have probably looked like the biggest fool on dakka. Lol. Just for this, I should have lost.


Now despite the beating I was taking and all the mistakes I made, I was carefully laying out the groundwork for a possible comeback win or draw. From my own experiences as a tyranid player, I knew that mobility was a weakness of theirs. Other than the flyrant, ymgarls, the gargoyles and outflanking stealers, my opponent didn't really have much mobility. And because he deployed his genestealers already, I knew exactly where they were and could use that to my advantage. Thus, a new strategy formulated in my head.


1. Go after his mobile units. His genestealers supported by his tyrant was just too dangerous. If I could get off the charge against them with multiple wraith units, I could probably win. However, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to do so, so I had to find another way to deal with them (see below). As for his ymgarls, I knew they were going to come after me and that there's nothing I can really do about that, so no use worrying about them. Now the flyrant, I had to make a tough decision regarding him. I felt that it would take just too much firepower to shooting down a swooping flyrant with re-rollable saves and thus, I just decided to ignore him as well. So the only unit left that I wanted to go after....that I could go after....were his gargoyles.

2. Dealing with his deathstar - the genestealers. Now I know that if I didn't get the charge off against them, I wouldn't be able to beat them. I also knew that I wouldn't be able to get the charge off them, at least not on the 1st turn and probably not before they charged me. Also, his stealers were getting re-rollable armor saves as well as FNP. So instead of fighting them, I decided to throw them a "distraction" unit - my Overlord. I moved him as far away from the action as possible in order to draw his stealers away. I knew he would go after my lord because if he hadn't, I would have went after his tervigon next turn. Thus, I essentially took them (his stealers) out of the fight and out of position, though it would cost me my Overlord.

3. Take out his ability to hurt my flyers. Basically, he only had 4 units that could damage them - flyrant, 2 hive guards and the t-fex. The flyrant was just too tough to take out being hit on 6's and with re-rollable saves so I had to ignore him. Janthkin helped me out a little by sending his t-fex after my Warlord. After that, I knew my wraiths could finish him off so I sent my lords after his hive guards. And while I didn't kill his hive guards, I did manage to prevent them from shooting for most of the game. And although the far-right hive guards could shoot after the stealers "rescued" them, they didn't have many targets as they were way out of position.

4. Utilize my main advantage - my mobility. Even though my initial plan of contesting the objectives was flawed, what saved me was the ridiculous mobility of my flyers. Sure I couldn't contest, but I could still make it to the objectives. Now it just became a matter of trying to dislodge at least 1 of his scoring units off of an objective....and then pray that the game would end.


Thoughts on 6th Edition.
So far, I like the new rules. It will take some getting used to, but I think that is normal for any new major rules changes. You just need to spend the time to "re-learn" the rules. Now keep in mind that the following opinions are just mainly my personal beliefs and preferences. Don't take them as absolute truths and please don't take offense if my opinions are different from your own.

Some of the things I like about the new rules are:

- The de-emphasis on mech. Mech was much too dominant in 5th to the point that it discouraged foot lists and variety. Well, now that mech is no longer king, I'm hoping to see more players try out a wider variety of different builds. Not only that, but I'm hoping to see people try out different armies that don't really rely on mech - armies such as tyranids, daemons and other foot-infantry builds. Hopefully people can get a glimpse of their potential in this game. Here we have tyranids, who many actually thought got worse in 6th, not only be able to compete, but to be able to dominate one of the more powerful armies in the new edition - necrons.

- Flyers. Flyers are awesome! Both vehicle flyers and flying monstrous creatures. They are strong....maybe even a little too strong against some armies....but they bring an element to the game that just opens up the game, both in terms of variety and in tactical challenges. They are a breath of fresh air. However, on the downside, you are going to see more and more armies migrate towards more flyer-based armies because they are a little too good. Also on the negative side, the meta has just shifted from mech to flyers.

- Mission objectives. I like the fact that there are more missions now. I also like the fact that there is more than 1 way to win that mission with Primary objectives and Secondary objectives. And the fact that so many missions are objectives-based will hopefully force people to build more balanced armies that can not only shoot or assault, but takes into consideration mobility as well.

- Removing the closest models. I actually like this. It adds a whole new dimension of tactical play to the game. Now it does matter how you move and position your models. Sure it's more complicated and sure, it slows down the game, but over time, once people get used to the concept, I think it will be almost second-nature. While some may disagree, I think that if the game forces you to use your brains (and hopefully, doesn't confuse you too much), then I think that is a good thing, especially for players who want to improve their game.

But we were fortunate that we were only playing with simple, homogenous units. Once we start getting into more complicated, mixed-save, mixed units with characters, then that may become a different story. We shall see when we cross that bridge.

- Chariots are fun! There's nothing quite like running over the enemy. Unfortunately for everyone else, the crons are the only ones to have chariots at this time.

- Overwatch and Snapshot mode. I actually like these new rules, even though they basically benefit shooty armies only. The only thing is that I think they should give assaulting units a slight buff to offset Overwatch because as it is right now, there is no downside to firing in overwatch mode. What's more, overwatch may even actually prevent a unit from charging if they lose the closest model to overwatch fire.


Now some of the 6E changes that I'm not too particularly fond of:

- Random charge range - I am not a big fan of the random charge. Whereas before, charging was guaranteed as long as you were within range. Now charging is anything but guaranteed. 1 failed charge could potentially lose you the game. Personally, I am not a big fan of randomness because the more randomness you have in the game, the more you take the outcome of the game out of your hands and into fate. It's enough that you have to roll to hit, damage, saves, morale and random game length but now you have to roll to see if you can make the charge as well? I guess there is the element of risk to making the charge, but personally I would prefer the risk to be in your strategy rather than on pure dice.

- Fearless. The absence of No Retreat have made Fearless armies very good now. Almost maybe too good. I prefer it when there was a more substantial drawback to such a powerful special rule. I shouldn't really complain because this rule has just made my necrons, daemons and tyranids that much better....but I will because I think it unbalances the game somewhat. But I must admit, it's still early. Maybe the improvement to ATSKNF will balance out with the new Fearless rule. I just feel sorry for those armies that are neither fearless nor have ATSKNF.

- Mysterious terrain. I don't mind if the effects they have are relatively minor, but in this case, some of their effects can be rather game-changing. It's ok to include the Mysterious terrain but I think they should have toned this down a little.

- Flyers. These units are a double-edged sword. It's fun to run them (including flying monstrous creatures) when your army has access to them. It sucks to play against them when your army doesn't and you can't reliably take them down. There is an inherent unbalance to flyers that will make some games more of a rock-paper-scissors matchup and that, in my opinion, is not a good thing. That's just something you have to be aware of when playing your army....that some armies will have trouble dealing with flyers just because they don't have the tools in their codices to do so.

Tyranids:

Well, THAT was interesting. The entirety of my game plan essentially went out the window when we rolled up the random terrain, which was definitely a mistake on my part - I got too conservative at that point, and it led to some tactical mistakes. Not to mention the mistakes inspired by the new rules.

Here's what went wrong, in some semblance of order:
1) Misuse of the T-fex: This one was a rules mistake - at the time, I just completely forgot that he would be affected by the MSS of the Overlord on the CCB; I was too excited about charging a vehicle with him & hitting it really hard. In retrospect, this alone might have cost me the game - it would have been easy to screen him off behind termagants, and protect him. On a lesser note, I should have paired him more closely with the Tyrant; I'm not used to Preferred Enemy having an effect on shooting.
2) Misuse of the Hive Guard: While getting one or the other assaulted off the CCB was likely inevitable, there was no reason to allow it to happen to both units as early as it did. I was overly-dependent on the 3+ cover, and forgot the basic bubble-wrap philosophy that has worked for Tyranids so well since 3e. They were my best chance of dealing with the Flyers, after all.
3) Misuse of the Flyrant: Frankly, I'm just not sure what to do with him yet. Vector Strike is the best-available answer to Flyers...if you're in the right position to make use of it; and it's not really a "good" answer, either. Definitely some more practice required!
4) End-game Genestealer positioning: Not a lot that I could have changed here, but a note: in 5e, I could have arranged those 'stealers so that even the ones up front had 4+ cover saves. The "closest models die first" rule is going to take a lot of getting used to.

And in spite of misusing such a large portion of my army, I'm fairly sure I would have won had the game gone to turn 6. So, what went right:
1) Gargoyles! These are the champs - they soaked a lot of enemy attention, and still killed 2 units of Wraiths off. I'm not certain about the Parasite yet (yes, he made a lot of extra wounds, but those wounds didn't really accomplish anything), but Gargoyles are still a fantastic bargain for 8 pts/model, and a good answer to the random threat ranges of 6e.
2) Termagants: The end of "no retreat" takes these little guys over the top. They were already my preferred answer to 2+/3+ units like the Overlord or TH/SS termies in 5e; getting rid of "No Retreat" means that not only will they tarpit forever, they also have a better chance to eventually win. I may have to paint up some more - in some cases, they can take over some of the heavy lifting from Genestealers.

If I could stomach the idea of painting another 60 'gaunt bodies, I'd want to try out a Hormagaunt list. I think the removal of "No Retreat" was exactly what all Swarm-based Tyranid armies needed to really excel. They're also a good answer to Flyers - that many bodies can simply screen off objectives completely, and most Flyers don't have the firepower to dislodge them.

jy2 wrote:
Now some of the 6E changes that I'm not too particularly fond of:

- Random charge range - I am not a big fan of the random charge. Whereas before, charging was guaranteed as long as you were within range. Now charging is anything but guaranteed. 1 failed charge could potentially lose you the game. Personally, I am not a big fan of randomness because the more randomness you have in the game, the more you take the outcome of the game out of your hands and into fate. It's enough that you have to roll to hit, damage, saves, morale and random game length but now you have to roll to see if you can make the charge as well? I guess there is the element of risk to making the charge, but personally I would prefer the risk to be in your strategy rather than on pure dice.

Amen to this. I agree with you 100%.

Reecius wrote:

jy2 wrote:
Now some of the 6E changes that I'm not too particularly fond of:

- Random charge range - I am not a big fan of the random charge. Whereas before, charging was guaranteed as long as you were within range. Now charging is anything but guaranteed. 1 failed charge could potentially lose you the game. Personally, I am not a big fan of randomness because the more randomness you have in the game, the more you take the outcome of the game out of your hands and into fate. It's enough that you have to roll to hit, damage, saves, morale and random game length but now you have to roll to see if you can make the charge as well? I guess there is the element of risk to making the charge, but personally I would prefer the risk to be in your strategy rather than on pure dice.

Amen to this. I agree with you 100%.

*shrug* To each their own. I like the random charge distances, both in Fantasy & in 40k. There are actions you can take to mitigate the risk of failure (both on the tabletop and during list generation), and it holds open the door for improbable success. And as has been previously observed, we've dealt with random distance for charges through Difficult Terrain for more than a decade.

I'll point out that jy2's two failed charges here on my Gargoyles were both charges that were impossible under the old rules - the Wraiths started the turn more than 18" away.

I understand that some people like it and some don't (me being one of those) and that is just the way it is going to be.

I just don't find it to be a fun mechanic at all, in fact I find it to be the opposite of fun. But that's just me.

In the last game Frankie and I played, we failed 4 charges under 6", one under 3". It was really frustrating. I could have lived with a charge of 5+D6".

I've had my fair share of bad random charge rolls.

Rolling snake eyes sucks!

evilbishop wrote:Hey, cool report!

Just a quick note re: flying MC's - they can fire 360 so doesn't really matter which way they're facing when they're shooting.

Yeah, we know. It wasn't so much the shooting as it was the limitation on his movement when he swooped again.

Toban wrote:After reading all the comments and all the post game analisys-update-update again and again it really pop out how a new ed. can fastly confuse even the finest players. Imagine an occasional, I'm more a modelling hobbist, like my self.

Again thank for the very useful battle reports, extremely funny to read non the less.

Continue this way guys.

I'm looking for your first new-ed GK battle report jy2, I'm curious to see how you'll try to adapt your purifiers (paladins will require some changes but anything huge I think).

Tob

Yeah, most of us are still in the 5th Edition frame of mind. I think that's very common. The newer rules that you don't know or don't remember, you instinctively think about the 5th edition rule for it.

Ironically, the people who aren't as familiar with 5E rules wil probably adapt better to 6E.

And my next battle report is going to be a real treat - GK versus the Necron Air Force!

Janthkin wrote:

Reecius wrote:

jy2 wrote:
Now some of the 6E changes that I'm not too particularly fond of:

- Random charge range - I am not a big fan of the random charge. Whereas before, charging was guaranteed as long as you were within range. Now charging is anything but guaranteed. 1 failed charge could potentially lose you the game. Personally, I am not a big fan of randomness because the more randomness you have in the game, the more you take the outcome of the game out of your hands and into fate. It's enough that you have to roll to hit, damage, saves, morale and random game length but now you have to roll to see if you can make the charge as well? I guess there is the element of risk to making the charge, but personally I would prefer the risk to be in your strategy rather than on pure dice.

Amen to this. I agree with you 100%.

*shrug* To each their own. I like the random charge distances, both in Fantasy & in 40k. There are actions you can take to mitigate the risk of failure (both on the tabletop and during list generation), and it holds open the door for improbable success. And as has been previously observed, we've dealt with random distance for charges through Difficult Terrain for more than a decade.

I'll point out that jy2's two failed charges here on my Gargoyles were both charges that were impossible under the old rules - the Wraiths started the turn more than 18" away.

Like I said, this is more of an issue of personal preference. Some people will like it. Some just won't. It just gets kind of frustrating when you fail a charge, especially if it's a charge that should have been automatic under the older rules (less in 6" and not in difficult terrain). It's true that my wraiths would have been out of range to assault under the older rules, but knowing that, I could have done something like stick them in terrain or possibly even try to make it into the pool in preparation of the gargoyles charging. Yeah, being able to charge 2D6" is pretty cool. Failing that charge roll isn't.

jy2 wrote:Like I said, this is more of an issue of personal preference. Some people will like it. Some just won't. It just gets kind of frustrating when you fail a charge, especially if it's a charge that should have been automatic under the older rules (less in 6" and not in difficult terrain). It's true that my wraiths would have been out of range to assault under the older rules, but knowing that, I could have done something like stick them in terrain or possibly even try to make it into the pool in preparation of the gargoyles charging. Yeah, being able to charge 2D6" is pretty cool. Failing that charge roll isn't.

But you had a choice. You still could have stuck them in terrain, or tried to make it into the pool. The 2d6" charge range added another tactical option. Risky? Sure is. But I think something that gives more options is positive, at least in some ways.

I think it's still early yet, under the old rules you wouldn't have known you were over 18" for sure and may have attempted the charge anyways, thus still failing. So from where I am viewing it, it was all a cost benefit ratio and you took the gamble rather then going for the sure bet in the terrain strategy you were weighing. This is what I feel justifies an argument that the random charges still take player skill. Only now it takes more form in risk management and judgement.

I have to say I agree with janthkin at this point because as he said, you can mitigate the cost and risk in your list building. Now assault marines aren't such a stupid choice gaining HoW and re-rolling that charge. Same with bikes, give it time and I am sure each book will have a consistent assault build, just don't expect it to look the same as it did in 5th

I want to note I am not trying to convince others or say their your opinion(s) is(are) wrong, heck maybe in a month I will see it from your stance but for now I think it needs a fair chance and some more time is the only remedy to that.

I know Reece has said they have played a dozen games or so, but heck, the rules are still new and even if you doubled that number it doesn't mean you are grasping the rules fully or making 6th edition decisions. I would argue that champions of 5th will have the hardest time making the shift. I can speak from my own experience that the rules may be understood easy having 15+ years under my belt but the strategy is the hardest to develop and breaking old habits and tricks takes time.

What was it that made the Genestealer's consolidate move in turn 3 negate the Overlord's ever living rule?

Chaospling wrote:What was it that made the Genestealer's consolidate move in turn 3 negate the Overlord's ever living rule?

Ever living characters leave a token where they die. If they succeed in their roll, they can get up anywhere within 3" of the token, that ISN'T within 1" of an enemy model.

By consolidating in a spread out formation, the nids made it impossible to place the Overlord within 3" of the token without it being too close to an enemy.

Net result: Overlord has to be removed.


"If the returning model cannot be placed, for whatever reason, it is lost and does not return"
Necron codex p29

Good batrep. Thanks.

I agree on the random charge distance, and while people say it's the same as in fantasy, I'd like to point out that fantays has very VERY little shooting, comparatively, fewer objective-based missions, and they add their movement value to their charge range.

In 40k if you fail your charge, you are now in very real danger of just being gunned down in the following turn, rather than just charged yourself. And since many a game has ended by charging the enemy to get the extra distance to contest an objective, that changes everything. Also, having SOMETHING to add to the 2d6 would be nice, just to avoid the failed charge from 3" away.

Plus, it's happened twice now, an overwatch with a meltagun that blows up a walker. I really see a lot of walkers disappearing, unless a lot of melta disappears as well.

You mentioned that other fliers disembark if they move 18", but I believe this is false. As far as I know zooming fliers can't disembark troops at all, and hover-mode fliers act like any other skimmer, wherein they can only disembark if they move 6" or less.

Of course the only other flying transports I know of are the valkyrie/vendetta and stormraven, both of which have special rules that allow a deepstrike out of them - which has been FAQ'ed to say that anytime you're moving more than 6", any disembark will be via the grav-chute or skies of blood rules.

However, here's some things you can do with that that you couldn't before.

Say you have a squad of CC Scouts 11" away, and a squad of TH/SS Termies 5" away from, say, a Shootaboy mob. You could have the Scouts 'charge' first, and soak up the Overwatch fire, possibly failing (probably, actually) so the Termies can go in unmolested. Or do the same with Assault Marines, or whatever. Use the 'disadvantage' to your advantage.