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.

Is anyone else finding that with mobility on the board being so key, everything becoming scoring, the cheapening of some primarily combat units (e.g. Dreadknights and TWC) and the nerfing of certain shooting armies (notably TAUDAR) - 7th Edition is proving to be more of a combat edition than 6th? Possibly its more my own local meta

I am feeling that mobile combat units definitely have a place on the table in 7th and seem to be seeing more combat focussed armies knocking about. The obvious exception is Beaststar, which has dropped right off due to the missfortunes of the Baron and reduction in unit size. I still reckon that units of 12 Khymaera are a solid pick, though Reavers may be a preferred combat unit for DE with cluster caltrops and objective grabbing Eldar Jetbike turbo boost...

Anyway, I am just curious, what combat units are you rocking in tournament style lists and how has your thinking developed in 7th?

I think there is more emphasis on mobility than combat capability.

Black Knights are very nice in CC, especially with RWGL debuffs. It's all about choosing your battles wisely.

All the units that you mentioned are fast. But I don't think I've got into combat whilst playing my armies (except against Tau who are usually garbage in CC). As UnadoptedPuppy stated, this edition is about mobility.

(and allying with everyone and LoW and the complete breakdown/disregard of the FOC but whatever).

I find myself taking Flyrants, Tyrannocytes and other fast units these days to claim Objectives and outmaneuver the enemy.

When playing DE...well mobility has always been one of their defining aspects.

My SM assault marines have killed at the very least 40 Tau fire warriors.

Kholzerino wrote:
The obvious exception is Beaststar, which has dropped right off due to the missfortunes of the Baron and reduction in unit size. I still reckon that units of 12 Khymaera are a solid pick, though Reavers may be a preferred combat unit for DE with cluster caltrops and objective grabbing Eldar Jetbike turbo boost...

Corpsthief claw. Relatively slow but extremely tough and killy unit of MC that can spam wounds around. Enough to make them a headache vs any army they face.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, i'm running footslogging orkses. Slow and not very durable. But i constantly win games due to board controle. I think that the Largest buff to combat were maelstorm missions. Now you can't just avoid your opponent for 4-5 turns. Thus making your mere presence + ability to deny certain areas for the opponent allready enough to be one of deciding factors of victory.

 koooaei wrote:

Kholzerino wrote:
The obvious exception is Beaststar, which has dropped right off due to the missfortunes of the Baron and reduction in unit size. I still reckon that units of 12 Khymaera are a solid pick, though Reavers may be a preferred combat unit for DE with cluster caltrops and objective grabbing Eldar Jetbike turbo boost...

Corpsthief claw. Relatively slow but extremely tough and killy unit of MC that can spam wounds around. Enough to make them a headache vs any army they face.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, i'm running footslogging orkses. Slow and not very durable. But i constantly win games due to board controle. I think that the Largest buff to combat were maelstorm missions. Now you can't just avoid your opponent for 4-5 turns. Thus making your mere presence + ability to deny certain areas for the opponent allready enough to be one of deciding factors of victory.

Exalt.. there is something to be said for Maelstrom, it changes the game. I really think if tournaments integrated them into the standard missions it could really change the 'tourney' meta.

Sadly, I think it'd still be about mobility and jink : \ .. Mostly because time contraints really hinder good board control lists.

I'm yet to try out Maelstrom, is it fun? It feels like it changes the way the game is played, from killing the opponent and taking objectives secondly to being a game of mobility and objectives mainly.

Mobility helps a lot but it's not mandatory. Take a look at a green tide. A hell ton of footslogging boyz covering half the field. Not mobile but they deny even themost mobile opponent from moving anywhere he wants. Which is allready enough to dominate the mid board which is the key.

Another big thing is that you place objectives first and roll for mission, deployment and board side afterwards. Thus, you can't just place all the points at one table edge and casually sit on them cause you risk getting the wrong side or even angle. So, it opens a new dimension of tactical decisions about objectives before and across the game.

 koooaei wrote:
Mobility helps a lot but it's not mandatory. Take a look at a green tide. A hell ton of footslogging boyz covering half the field. Not mobile but they deny even themost mobile opponent from moving anywhere he wants. Which is allready enough to dominate the mid board which is the key.

Another big thing is that you place objectives first and roll for mission, deployment and board side afterwards. Thus, you can't just place all the points at one table edge and casually sit on them cause you risk getting the wrong side or even angle. So, it opens a new dimension of tactical decisions about objectives before and across the game.

Sounds great. I'm more for aggressive play myself, or at least games where you have to fight to dominate before you can defend... Sometimes I wonder why we need five or so Markers when one in the middle could suffice.

It's definitely more aggressive.

As a side effect, most Guard and Tau players I know absolutely despise it. Do not listen to them. The game is much more lively with Maelstrom, I can barely stay awake when playing the old missions anymore. The outcomes are so predictable I often give up by turn 3 just because I can tell I lost. The new missions add much more flare.

 Fenris Frost wrote:
It's definitely more aggressive.

As a side effect, most Guard and Tau players I know absolutely despise it. Do not listen to them. The game is much more lively with Maelstrom, I can barely stay awake when playing the old missions anymore. The outcomes are so predictable I often give up by turn 3 just because I can tell I lost. The new missions add much more flare.

Had that last game... I was winning big, like 4-1 big. His forces were decimated and he had cover-camped all the way through the game...

And then it happened. It was my seventh turn (due to him wanting to keep the game going and me being unable to roll beneath 4+), and I had lost half my models, so I had to test for Rout (A Ld test to see if your team flees in Kill Team). And I lost it. By one point.

He fething deserved that. I was so annoyed and felt like I had lost by Blue Shell, but oh, did he deserve it.