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.

I wouldn't take this one too much to heart, Ailaros. The terrain (or lack thereof, rather) in this game was atrocious and the army seemed almost tailored to your list with all the AP4.

As for GK and Necron alliance, I'd be tempted to take the approach of gpfunk. Barring a very good fluff story, I'd say such an alliance is de facto TFG behaviour. However, in fairness to Overlord Zerrtin, at least he made a list with no actual GK so I assume "Coteaz" is supposed to be some sort of radical Ordo Xenos inquisitor. Which I can stomach a little better.

I think what you need to do is find a other player who likes the fluff and fair play you do, and do a themed campaign. Where in the US do you live? I'd love the opportunity to visit for a weekend and do such a campaign once my amry's done (although IG on IG action may not be the best).

I am going to attempt a battle report in your style. My first one was alright I suppose, but doesn't have much of a story.

Good job

 NWansbutter wrote:
I wouldn't take this one too much to heart, Ailaros. The terrain (or lack thereof, rather) in this game was atrocious and the army seemed almost tailored to your list with all the AP4.

As for GK and Necron alliance, I'd be tempted to take the approach of gpfunk. Barring a very good fluff story, I'd say such an alliance is de facto TFG behaviour. However, in fairness to Overlord Zerrtin, at least he made a list with no actual GK so I assume "Coteaz" is supposed to be some sort of radical Ordo Xenos inquisitor. Which I can stomach a little better.

I think what you need to do is find a other player who likes the fluff and fair play you do, and do a themed campaign. Where in the US do you live? I'd love the opportunity to visit for a weekend and do such a campaign once my amry's done (although IG on IG action may not be the best -- I could try working more on my BA). PM me if you're interested. 'twould be a long term plan, though.

the only reason i was even playing this list was because with school and a cross country meet i didnt have alot of time to change armies and decided just to leave what was in my bag already
BACK TO DELDAR IT IS!

Small thing but your opponent can't make the allied HQ his warlord, it had to be one of the overlords.

Also, that was a pitiful lack of terrain, which I think really hampered your army.

 buddha wrote:
Small thing but your opponent can't make the allied HQ his warlord, it had to be one of the overlords.

Also, that was a pitiful lack of terrain, which I think really hampered your army.

My warlord was one of the overlords on barges he killed.

Overlord Zerrtin wrote:the only reason i was even playing this list was because with school and a cross country meet i didnt have alot of time to change armies and decided just to leave what was in my bag already
BACK TO DELDAR IT IS!

Right, so, any internal groanings about this, I'll keep internal. There are lots of reasons people take the armies that they do, and I don't intend to get in a catfight over aesthetics. Especially when reasoning has little to do with aesthetics (in this case, convenience).

The only complaint I can properly level is that it is certainly more difficult to write a battle report when there is more tenuous fluff connections than when there are more solid ones. If I can justify Necron and Imperial Guard, I'm sure anybody can justify anything.

Of course, people using allies for no other purpose than to make their list stronger is, in my opinion, flagrant ally abuse, and against the kinds of sentiments that went into making 6th edition in the first place. Internal groanings, though. I don't think I can bring myself to refuse to play someone solely on fluff grounds.

buddha wrote:Small thing but your opponent can't make the allied HQ his warlord, it had to be one of the overlords.

It was.

If I made mention to Coteaz being a warlord, it was allegorical or metaphorical (or unintentional).

NWansbutter wrote: Where in the US do you live? I'd love the opportunity to visit for a weekend and do such a campaign once my amry's done (although IG on IG action may not be the best).

Illinois, which on first glance is great because its centrally located (not far from anyone), until you realise that it also means you're literally in the middle of nowhere (not close to anyone).

rivers64 wrote:Ailros have you considered playing Eldar?

I'm not actually inherently opposed to running eldar again, but it seems like there are other armies who would do what I'm looking for better. Like, it CAN be made to work, like foot guard probably can be made to work, but I'd rather just get what I want, rather than starting up another entire project of a similar type as the one I'm working on now.

kestril wrote:Perhaps try hiding the vetrans behind one or two AV 14 tanks? After all, the enemy can't destroy what they can't see.

... unless they cause a vehicle explosion result that hits 30 of your own guys...

I'm not really impressed with the options available here. Either you put the tanks in front, which will result in dead, expensive vehicles, a few explosions that kill everybody, and more difficult terrain for my guys to muddle through, or I put the tanks in back, which doesnt' really solve the explosion problem, and which leaves infantry out in front to be murdered while the tanks try to close range.

Anyways, as for my list in general, I'm thinking of moving down to the next prayer bead on the chain, which I believe I said was conscripts. If my infantry keep getting tabled, the solution really may be SiTNW. Take two bare bones infantry platoons and 2 endless conscript squads means that I will ALWAYS have something on a DZ objective. The rest of the entire army would then be focused on taking backfield objectives.

 Ailaros wrote:

NWansbutter wrote: Where in the US do you live? I'd love the opportunity to visit for a weekend and do such a campaign once my amry's done (although IG on IG action may not be the best).

Illinois, which on first glance is great because its centrally located (not far from anyone), until you realise that it also means you're literally in the middle of nowhere (not close to anyone).

Could be further, but unfortunately not very close to where I'm located. And when I take my family from Ontario to Manitoba each summer, we unfortunately take the Michigan Upper Peninsula route so we skip Illinois altogether. I'll definitely drop you a line and bring my army if I ever happen to be in the area, though.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

rivers64 wrote:
Ailros have you considered playing Eldar? I don't know, I feel they have the type of army options you're looking for with fast stuff such as jetbikes, and lots of options and stuff idk. Although I would be sad to see you stop making guard reports. Of course play whatever you like, I'm just sayin Eldar's where it's at man.

This is terrible advice. He likes foot armies and no army is objectively worse on foot than Eldar.

So much wrong in one post. I'm sure Blackmoor and Reecius just get incredibly lucky with their Footday on a consistent basis.

 Griever wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

rivers64 wrote:
Ailros have you considered playing Eldar? I don't know, I feel they have the type of army options you're looking for with fast stuff such as jetbikes, and lots of options and stuff idk. Although I would be sad to see you stop making guard reports. Of course play whatever you like, I'm just sayin Eldar's where it's at man.

This is terrible advice. He likes foot armies and no army is objectively worse on foot than Eldar.

So much wrong in one post. I'm sure Blackmoor and Reecius just get incredibly lucky with their Footday on a consistent basis.

Agreed.

Anyway back to more useful discussions. If you had conscripts in your list. what else would you use to grab objectives? Im really struggling to come up with options not already suggested in your previous battle reports.

Griever wrote:So much wrong in one post. I'm sure Blackmoor and Reecius just get incredibly lucky with their Footdar on a consistent basis.

Firstly, if we can learn anything from my three battle report series, it's that it is indeed VERY possible to have luck bias strongly in one direction or another, even over a hundred games. If I can be as consistently unlucky as I am, it is very possible that someone could be consistently lucky.

Secondly, yeah, footdar was viable in 5th. So was foot guard. We're in 6th ed, though. If foot lists everywhere are hurting, especially foot horde lists, I can't imagine that things are all peaches and cream for footdar at the moment.

TheMicah25 wrote:Anyway back to more useful discussions. If you had conscripts in your list. what else would you use to grab objectives? Im really struggling to come up with options not already suggested in your previous battle reports.

Umm, I'm thinking something like...

CCS - fist, standard, priest (140)

ST - 2x flamers (175)
ST - 2x melta (185)
ST - 2x melta (185)

PCS - 4x GL, chenkov (90)
PIS - melta (60)
PIS - melta (60)
Conscrtips - SINTW (150)

PCS - 2x flamers (40)
PIS - melta (60)
PIS - melta (60)
Conscrtips - SINTW (150)

Deathstrike (165)
Deathstrike (165)
Deathstrike (165)

Or this but with downgrading two of the deathstrikes to 2x hydra batteries (to get more guns in the troops choices, or to upgrade one of the deathstrikes to a russ).

Basically, my objectives would always be held or at least contested by endless conscripts (though I'd like input on that). The rest of my army is geared towards blowing up the other side of the board and contesting things with stormies.

Hmm, perhaps down grade the 2 deathstrikes to hydras as you suggested, but then run the other as a Manticore. I just feel that you'll get more mileage out of it. At least being able to shoot turn 1 and beyond is nice, especially being str10 ord. Then with the extra points throw in some LC HWS to help deal with armor?

I have to wonder why the foot lists are hurting, I'm looking over my rulebook and not really seeing a glaring reason as to why the foot is no longer good, maybe if someone could point it out to me?

My only other offer to you good sir is maybe some allies to help out for guard, not sure which would do best but I think that is make is fun about allies, I myself and trying out many lists with different allies for my marines just to see how goes and what doesn't.

A few things ... by my count, a 20-man conscript unit with "Send in the Next Wave" is 155 pts, not 150.

Also, Deathstrikes are 160, not 165 ... but I'm wondering why you are bringing them in the first place? Sure, they deal some heavy damage if/when they fire, but 160 seems a bit steep for a one-shot weapon on a Chimera chassis. Especially considering your consistently bad luck, and the need for a 5 to be allowed to fire on turn two (assuming no shaken/stunned/weapon destroyed hits), it doesn't seem like a good gamble.

Take it from someone else who has consistently bad luck, you want to take weapons that are less dependent on rolling. My money is with Leman Russ tanks (you only need to roll scatter) or, if you really have to, Manticores (although in my observation, the Manticore like the Vendetta is also a vehicle always used by TFG so I refuse to use it myself).

Further, if you're going to shell out the 75 pts for SINTW, why not make bigger conscript unit(s)? If you went with one conscript unit, you could take an additional 30 guardsmen and still be 35 points to the good compared to the current loadout. You could buy an Astropath to get the stormies in earlier with those points, or more guns.

 Ecstasy in Service wrote:
I have to wonder why the foot lists are hurting, I'm looking over my rulebook and not really seeing a glaring reason as to why the foot is no longer good, maybe if someone could point it out to me?

My only other offer to you good sir is maybe some allies to help out for guard, not sure which would do best but I think that is make is fun about allies, I myself and trying out many lists with different allies for my marines just to see how goes and what doesn't.

One of the major issues is the cover save drop, and the fact it is model by model. Similarly, the random charge range and the overwatch taking men from the front has made it less reliable to use power blobs like Ailaros used to use them in 5th. Apart from that, I'm sure one of his earlier batreps would include a summary of the decline of foot guard.

Another thought: you've said that Power Blobs have been killed by 6th edition, but I did a quick skim of your Hand of the King series and saw that you've never used a power blob in any of those games. I think you should give them another whirl. I don't think there are enough precision shot weapons/characters out there to realistically threaten your commissars, and in close combat you have enough sergeants to throw at challengers. I think it would be at least worth trying.

 NWansbutter wrote:
Another thought: you've said that Power Blobs have been killed by 6th edition, but I did a quick skim of your Hand of the King series and saw that you've never used a power blob in any of those games. I think you should give them another whirl. I don't think there are enough precision shot weapons/characters out there to realistically threaten your commissars, and in close combat you have enough sergeants to throw at challengers. I think it would be at least worth trying.

Power Blob(s) were included in some major tournament wins recently as well.

 motyak wrote:

 Ecstasy in Service wrote:
I have to wonder why the foot lists are hurting, I'm looking over my rulebook and not really seeing a glaring reason as to why the foot is no longer good, maybe if someone could point it out to me?

My only other offer to you good sir is maybe some allies to help out for guard, not sure which would do best but I think that is make is fun about allies, I myself and trying out many lists with different allies for my marines just to see how goes and what doesn't.

One of the major issues is the cover save drop, and the fact it is model by model. Similarly, the random charge range and the overwatch taking men from the front has made it less reliable to use power blobs like Ailaros used to use them in 5th. Apart from that, I'm sure one of his earlier batreps would include a summary of the decline of foot guard.

Not to mention the addition of precision shots allowing characters and units with the rule to pick out and allocate wounds to the commissars that give the blob its stubborn staying power. Barrage weapons have the same ability to character snipe as well which would essentially gut that large unit of troops.

 gpfunk wrote:

 motyak wrote:

 Ecstasy in Service wrote:
I have to wonder why the foot lists are hurting, I'm looking over my rulebook and not really seeing a glaring reason as to why the foot is no longer good, maybe if someone could point it out to me?

My only other offer to you good sir is maybe some allies to help out for guard, not sure which would do best but I think that is make is fun about allies, I myself and trying out many lists with different allies for my marines just to see how goes and what doesn't.

One of the major issues is the cover save drop, and the fact it is model by model. Similarly, the random charge range and the overwatch taking men from the front has made it less reliable to use power blobs like Ailaros used to use them in 5th. Apart from that, I'm sure one of his earlier batreps would include a summary of the decline of foot guard.

Not to mention the addition of precision shots allowing characters and units with the rule to pick out and allocate wounds to the commissars that give the blob its stubborn staying power. Barrage weapons have the same ability to character snipe as well which would essentially gut that large unit of troops.

So basically the only viable way to run a blob is with a Lord Commissar for the 2+ LoS to avoid the sniping.

Ecstasy in Service wrote:I have to wonder why the foot lists are hurting, I'm looking over my rulebook and not really seeing a glaring reason as to why the foot is no longer good, maybe if someone could point it out to me?

So, here is why power blobs are dead. Most of it applies to other hordes as well. It's not that one or two rules came by and broke it, it's that the entirety of 6th ed seems to be one giant attempt to shut down foot hordes.

I haven't played with power blobs yet in 6th, because I really don't have to. Pretty simple deduction shows why they won't work, and experience with non-blobs has largely confirmed my suspicions. It doesn't matter if there's a commissar in the squad if the entire squad is just wiped off the board before your opponent gets into range of the blob.

If people are winning games with blobs, it's either because the blob is huddling around a powerful IC (like an allied rune priest), or because they're being very lucky with them. Lucky enough to override the fundamental brokenness in this rules edition.

NWansbutter wrote:Also, Deathstrikes are 160, not 165 ... but I'm wondering why you are bringing them in the first place?

Well, firstly, like half of my games are nightfighting, so I'm not as concerned about survivability turn 1. Secondly, if my games are going to be be more or less determined by turn 2, then having a unit that puts out a consistent, but tiny amount of damage over several turns doesn't really make sense. Better to go fishing for three 1/3ds chances of a massive screw-over shot.

NWansbutter wrote:Further, if you're going to shell out the 75 pts for SINTW, why not make bigger conscript unit(s)? If you went with one conscript unit, you could take an additional 30 guardsmen and still be 35 points to the good compared to the current loadout. You could buy an Astropath to get the stormies in earlier with those points, or more guns.

A single conscript squad can only hold one objective at a time. Thus I need two conscript squads.

Really, it seems that the only way I can keep guardsmen on the board is by being able to return them after they were thrown off of it. The rest of the infantry platoon is just there to waste space (and hopefully shots) while the conscripts do their thing.

Interesting points. I'm really looking forward to seeing how it all turns out.

For my part, I've just made it my mission to find a way to make power blobs work now that you've said it can't be done barring good luck (which I do not have).

... unless they cause a vehicle explosion result that hits 30 of your own guys...

I'm not really impressed with the options available here. Either you put the tanks in front, which will result in dead, expensive vehicles, a few explosions that kill everybody, and more difficult terrain for my guys to muddle through, or I put the tanks in back, which doesnt' really solve the explosion problem, and which leaves infantry out in front to be murdered while the tanks try to close range.

To each his own, there isn't much that is going to explode AV 14 at range. The trick is to scoot the tank back as your enemy gets into melta range while you rush the vets forward to try and deal with the threat.

To be honest, I liked where you were going with those storm troopers, and an idea that pops to mind is an all-forward sentry veteran army with maxed-out stormies and an astropath to get everything in on turn 2. It will probably be an army which will rely on striking hard turn two, and I don't know if it will work or not, but It could be worth trying out.

You are spending 200 points to get SITNW on two 80 pts conscript squads. Is that really worth it?

Unless you get to use the rule three times in the same game, wouldn't you be better off just buying more troops?

Firstly, it's only 150 points on SiTNW.

Secondly, if I take 4 conscript squads, that's 80 guys that are going to be blown off the table by the end of the game (this is especially easy given their low morale). If I take 2 conscript squads, it will be 40 guys that are always on the board, as far as taking objectives is concerned.

Conscripts on the field are easy to wipe away. Conscripts with the special rule are invincible.

What's kind of interesting about this is that I now have a reason to take strategic warlord traits as I'd have the chance of infinitely outflanking guardsmen.

zoat wrote:
I was looking forward to your next report and I must say I'm sad read that you had such a.... ....disheartening... ...experience.

One thing I thought about was if it would have taken some heat of the infantry if you deployed the tanks alone on the far left instead. Just looking quickly at the deploy pic it seems he was a bit low on AT over there.

Other than that it's a really poor match-up for your list I think and poor rolling doesn't actually help... And you seriously need to get some more terrain on the table! This one would be too open even to play fantasy!

I played a Cron army at Tourny here in Riverside the past weekend and beat them soundly. The only real pain was Necron Lord i had to kill 3 times!

Sorry i qouted the wrong post. I lurk here more than i post, and click the the wrong qoute, Sorry guys.

BladeWalker wrote:something other than dirtiest list they can come up with so you can both have a good time.

bogalubov wrote:That does suggest some WAAC behavior from your opponents.

gpfunk wrote: stick it out with that beard.

NWansbutter wrote:the army seemed almost tailored to your list with all the AP4.

I'd say such an alliance is de facto TFG behaviour.

... the Manticore like the Vendetta is also a vehicle always used by TFG so I refuse to use it myself).

Djezus guys, need some cheese with that whine?

The necron/GK is very far from optimized, and saying that a player is a TFG or WAAC player because he plays an allied list is ridicolous.

The terrain on that board is terrible. You guys should really start using the other way of placing terrain, doing it thematically. It is better for both competitive and fluff gamers IMO. Of course a foot army is totally boned with that kind of terrain.

@Illumini -- you've got it backwards, we already had the cheese and therefore felt the need to add the whine.

Although my complaint (and others' also, I think) is not that an allies list is cheesy per se, but that the Necron/GK combination is so contrary to the fluff and unexplained that it seems at face value to be contrary to the spirit of the allies rules. I have no problems with someone who builds a thematic army around a rogue radical inquisitor who "reprogrammed" a bunch of Necrons or something, but I don't think GW added the allies stuff just to make more powerful armies. Maybe I'm being unfair to the gamer in question -- I'll admit that I've come to like Ailaros through his batreps and the discussions we've had to I'm not viewing this without bias. But I do feel for a guy who gets stomped playing an army like that on what's basically a pool table.

And I'm not saying people can't use Manticores or Vendettas. I think Ailaros did a whole thread on this topic, but the basic gist is using those vehicles does not make you TFG but TFG will ALWAYS take them because they are, quite honestly, undercosted in my view (saying this as a Guard player).

 NWansbutter wrote:
, but that the Necron/GK combination is so contrary to the fluff and unexplained that it seems at face value to be contrary to the spirit of the allies rules.

The Necrons told the GKs these Guardsmen were chaos tainted and fabricated some good evidence. Problem solved.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 NWansbutter wrote:
, but that the Necron/GK combination is so contrary to the fluff and unexplained that it seems at face value to be contrary to the spirit of the allies rules.

The Necrons told the GKs these Guardsmen were chaos tainted and fabricated some good evidence. Problem solved.

Right, because Grey Knights will just A) Believe Necrons over Humans and B) Then decide they should cooperate together perfectly

But hey, whatever makes you feel better and the fluff being completely ignored.

NWansbutter wrote: the Necron/GK combination is so contrary to the fluff and unexplained that it seems at face value to be contrary to the spirit of the allies rules.

And this is really the only private grumble I'll make public here.

It's not like my opponent runs a necron/gk army, and so of course that's what I'd face off against (like, for example, how I run a guard army). It's not a matter of having a necron army, and wanting to get into playing GK, and so using the latter as allies during the transition. It's not a matter of trying something out once just to see what would happen. It's not a matter of making a fluffy combination that just begged to be tried out. In this case, none of these are accurate statements.

Which does sort of make one wonder why the list was put together this way. To me, it seems obvious that it's a GK army that is traditionally seen as weak in long-range high-strength shooting, and with a list that is attempting to shoehorn as much of this in as possible to make up for a weakness. To do this, the primary and secondary factions were switched, but it still seems that the only reason the list was put together as it is is to make the list stronger.

Likewise one of my friends sent me an email a couple of nights ago talking about allying GK with Tau for no other reason than to take a 3x broadside squad because he feels his army lacks the long-range punch. He isn't a tau player. He doesn't want to be a tau player. He doesn't care at all about fluff. He just wants to create his own custom codex in which GK have broadsides. Allies allow a player to make a mockery of game balance if they want to. Wanting to or not has a great deal to say about a person.

If that is the case, then yeah, that defeats the entire purpose of allies. Allies have very few restrictions on powergaming abuse, and it almost seems like they were done that way on purpose. It is said that character is how you behave when no one is looking (or, in this case, when no one is restricting you), and how you choose to ally, possibly more than any other new parts of the game, reveals the most about your character.

Firstly, it's only 150 points on SiTNW.

Secondly, if I take 4 conscript squads, that's 80 guys that are going to be blown off the table by the end of the game (this is especially easy given their low morale). If I take 2 conscript squads, it will be 40 guys that are always on the board, as far as taking objectives is concerned.

Conscripts on the field are easy to wipe away. Conscripts with the special rule are invincible.

What's kind of interesting about this is that I now have a reason to take strategic warlord traits as I'd have the chance of infinitely outflanking guardsmen.

I was rather assuming Chenkov as part of the package as well, but maybe you took him for different reasons. 150 it is then.

Yeah, 4 conscript squads would be silly, I agree. I do think paying 75 pts for SiTNW on a 20 man squad is bordering wasteful though. I always figured you need to max out with 40-50 conscripts per unit to reap the benefits of this rule.