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.

And seriously, do you think a competitive IG list will be fun to watch? An entirely static army? Imagine the report! "Yeah, I rolled...and then rolled...I rolled pretty hard that day! Took so many risks...like hurting my wrists. Ye brah! I'm such a pro gunline player, yo. swag swag yolo."

IG armies rarly play static list , there is always movment because of vendettas and ally or so many objectives in 6th.

And dont tell me that people doing stupid stuff like charging their "obejective" to be killed is fun to watch . I get people playing something else then the base 4 codex. I can even understand playing scenarios , just like I can understand people using FW . But when an someone who is playing an army does stuff that would never be done in normal games , then the raport makes no sense . The fact that they didnt use normal FoC [who knows maybe it is normal under the new dex] is just a bonus .

Makumba wrote:

My group has a game like this near-annually where we get everyone together, split up in to teams based on the most sensible alliances and plonk down everything we own. This battle report brought back good memories of those games.

what would you do , if one of those games a prime objective holder of one force would clearly play in favor of the other class. Charging the fallen guy in to a unit that can easily kill him , made as much sens too.

You're referring to the biker's failed charge on the tactical squad? Tactical marines can easily kill Chaos Bikers now? News to me! If you notice that photo, the Chaplain that ends up charging the bikers is off behind a rhino, not in the tac squad getting charged. Had the charge not flubbed and the Chaplain not then proceeded to roll a good charge distance then it would have been a non-issue. Unfortunately he flubbed the charge and then the Chaplain rolled a good charge distance (or at the very least average), caught up and managed to smack the champ down in one go.

A lot of potential points for success/failure in there. Perhaps he could have taken a longer route around the tacticals, though by what I could see, if he didn't charge the tacticals on his turn then they would simply charge on theirs and tie the bikers down while other units caught up. In the photo, after taking a 12" move, they are only just cresting the trench line. The additional movement for turbo-boosting would carry them less than 12" away from the tacticals, no matter where they moved. This would allow the tacticals a free round of shooting and give them the charge. Going any other way would have driven them right in to the middle of the rest of the Dark Angels. Breaking through the tacticals and getting the drop on them seemed like, at the very least, a better idea than running past them and likely getting charged next turn. And if they won the assault that would give them a bit of extra distance and get them out of the likely charge envelope of the Chaplain who could really put the hurt on them. So the BL player risked it and it backfired. But I can guarantee that the whining would have been harder had he driven straight in to the middle of the Dark Angel formation instead of trying to gamble on busting through the flank. Hell the squad he was charging was even the melta-squad and the Sergeant in it wasn't set up for challenges (no proper close combat weapon, just a Storm Bolter) so it was certainly a better squad to charge than most in the DA list.

As to your more general leading question. If a guy on my team was about to make a decision I wasn't sure about I'd ask him if he was sure about it, let him explain and then let him do whatever the hell he still feels is the right move. Because I'm not an uptight control freak. But in the end, people make silly decisions all the time, even people who publish the results of their games in magazines. I'm sure if they rigged everything as some conspiracy theories state, then the players would only ever show perfect judgment. Luckily we get games played by imperfect humans who can make mistakes and bad decisions, just like the rest of us.

The army doesn't have to be a power list, it just has to make sense. Like, you had a plan for what you wanted the army to do. That doesn't mean take multiples of the best unit in every slot, it could be "I want this ork list to have some good anti-infantry, so i'll take squadron of big shoota buggies and one skorcha and give all my nobz Kombi skorchas. For my anti-tank, i'm going to add rokkits on all my trukks and trukk boyz." Obviously, if i was looking to get some hard anti-infantry and anti-tank, these aren't the greatest options. But at least they make some sort of sense, and units are dedicated properly to a task.. Better than, for my anti-TEQ, i'll give my sarges plasma pistols. My anti tank is a marine squad in a rhino, with a sarge with melta bombs.

You're referring to the biker's failed charge on the tactical squad? Tactical marines can easily kill Chaos Bikers now?

because there is a chaplain and other unit nearby and there is no way for chaos bikers to get out of a tactical marines tar pit fast enough . maybe if he had a khorn ax lord and a nurgle mace lord on top of the bikers then plowing in to a tactical with support units would have made more sense.

huge gamble/huge risk moves means that that either the unit was deployed wrong and/or it was moved wrong turn 1 OR the army is bad build [and they kind of a were building armies for this scenario]. The "raport" was stupid because there is nothing to learn from it . And no "if you roll a lot above the avarge" is not a lessons , well unless of course someone wants people to load their dice.

Luckily we get games played by imperfect humans who can make mistakes and bad decisions, just like the rest of us.

not knowing a special rules is an error that can happen . being too used to playing a certain build and then still playing it when your army is different . those can end up with people doing errors . true . But giving your opponent a free obejctive is stupid. in the GW raport example , if he knew he was going to use bikers and that they were going to carry the fallen , why didnt he make the bikers good at it ? a sorc with invisibility casted after turbo boosting or two lords to be sure you can go through almost all units [and with bikes you wouldnt charge 8+ strong storm shield armed termi squads] .

Makumba wrote:
not knowing a special rules is an error that can happen . being too used to playing a certain build and then still playing it when your army is different . those can end up with people doing errors . true . But giving your opponent a free obejctive is stupid. in the GW raport example , if he knew he was going to use bikers and that they were going to carry the fallen , why didnt he make the bikers good at it ? a sorc with invisibility casted after turbo boosting or two lords to be sure you can go through almost all units [and with bikes you wouldnt charge 8+ strong storm shield armed termi squads] .

I got the impression that they did not randomly determine who was the Fallen until after they had already brought their armies to the table.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
OK, just read the White Dwarf battle report and am astonished at how appalling it was. Completely ignoring the FOC and points system in favour of just using 'whatever models we have painted' made a mockery of the whole rule-set. It's creaking and unwieldy and open to huge criticism but we go with it because, well, it's the rules. But then the authors of the rule-set ignore two of the most important rules? That takes the piss. I think I'm gonna try walking into a GW store and saying "Hey, let's just forget about the FOC and the points values and just play with what we've got painted" and see the response I get. Even my mates would tell me to piss off.

The army lists were, even for White Dwarf trying to showcase models, laughable. Chaos take one Heldrake against a power armour army and then equip it with autocannons despite the flamer killing marines on a 2+? Chaos equip themselves to take on a large terminator contingent by... taking plasma pistols? To keep the fallen marine alive and win 3 victory points you charge it towards a powerful enemy unit? For every time you see 'cinematic' just insert 'fething stupid'.

I read battle reports to try and improve my game, list building, and to see two well matched players try to out-think one another. What did I gain from this battle report? I'd rather read about two chimps throwing gak at each other [and I'd probably learn more].

How good White Dwarf used to be under fat bloke and even before is for another discussion but it's become a joke and I'm a mug for buying it

While I agree ingnoring the FOC and points costs to play with what they had available, your other complaints are kind of silly. Sounds like you expect/want everyone to be a list customizer and that is obnoxious. Show up at the store to play games on a Saturday with *your army*. It doesn't matter what is in *your army*, but that is the one you are using regardless of the opponents you are facing. Thus *your army* could have a heldrake with an autocannon on it when facing an opponent's marine army. Also *your army* might need to rely on plasma pistols to deal with terminators. This is how the game works every day for everyone except those who won't pull their minis out of the case until the next opponent comes up, they can see what they have and then pull the "right" army out of the case. In a tourney you have what you have and go from there. People aren't changing out their armies between every game to match their next opponent. Some times your army will be spot on for what you are dealing with, in others you will be at a disadvantage because of what you chose. This is why building balanced forces is smarter in the long run because you have ways of dealing with the most kinds of threats that way.

As for the fallen marine the staff at GW have long held the attitude that it sucks in a game if a specific model in your army is a target so you just hide them in the back the whole game. That really gets boring after a while. Look my objective is to kill as many units as possible, while yours is to kill my leader. So I'll hide my leader all the way in the back in the best cover possible while you can't hide your army at all so I make it nearly impossible for you to complete your objective. Yeah that is so much fun for the opponent. Either way, given that this is the way that the staff ALWAYS play it in their battle reports it is kind of silly to be offended by it.

Skriker