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.

yes, i prefer to use lots of small pieces of terrain down the centre of the board as it prevents large scale troop movement and allows my smaller tactical squads to still move almost unimpeded, as well if they are small and tall like wrecked building it provides cover to my troops but doesn't usually block he line of sight to my heavy weapons.

just a quick question, what do you think of the stormraven, if you are a space marine player or play against one who uses a stormraven

niv-mizzet wrote:
I take a lot of issue with 6th and 7th because of just how much turn 1 offense there is. Drop pod assaults, grey knights and deathwing turn 1 deep strikes, FMC's that start on the ground and suddenly are in front of your deployment zone, along with any of the 500000 guns that can reach any of your guys from the spot they deployed...reserves are easy to get and easy to get buffs to make them even easier to get, so if turn 1 wasn't insane, turn 2 is.

Games basically go like this now:
T1: MASSIVE EXPLOSIONS everywhere
T2: more explosions and deaths
T3: damaged units get close to each other and start smacking each other. Most decent players should be able to call the game result here correctly with 80ish % accuracy.
T4: There are a few tiny remnants of squads here and there.
T5: Someone gets tabled because of the massive damage output of everyone.

The games I used to experience (and wish they were still here) were like this:
T1: Units maneuver into better position, a few expensive long range heavy weapons may fire, but not move.
T2: Units maneuver more, assaulters make approaches, heavier shooting happens.
T3: The battle gets into full swing, similar to what turn 1 is nowadays.
T4: more of t3 with whittled down armies
T5: battle is pretty much settled, and objectives win the day.

We see a ton of tabling in 7e in our group. I barely ever saw any in like...3e. The only ones I can remember was when I was beating up on my necron buddy and caused his army to phase out right before the end of the game.

This is a tactical failing though.

I just played my third game with necrons. The last two games, I started with nothing but a necron Warior Squad on the table with a Cryptek to lead them. I won both games. Turn one offense is cool, but if you're given no target, all you do is reveal your hand to me and give me tyhe jump on you.

So my encouragement to anyone who feels that tablings are common is to explore more unorthodox strategies to take the enemies strengths and turn it against them, like I did in those last two games. There will be a video battle report soon on the last game which you may be interested in, which illustrates the idea. I also offer this link as well for you to check out, in particular the second of the two games on this thread, the one I got pics of:

http://www.ordofanaticus.com/index.php?/topic/24089-muh-first-necron-battles/

True tablings are not common at all (at least in the newer editions). The only time it happens with anything closely resembling regularity is when the skill levels are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

i dont really keeP my things in reserve but i do go all out with hunter killer missiles and ordnance blast generally with a vindicator

 Jancoran wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:
I take a lot of issue with 6th and 7th because of just how much turn 1 offense there is. Drop pod assaults, grey knights and deathwing turn 1 deep strikes, FMC's that start on the ground and suddenly are in front of your deployment zone, along with any of the 500000 guns that can reach any of your guys from the spot they deployed...reserves are easy to get and easy to get buffs to make them even easier to get, so if turn 1 wasn't insane, turn 2 is.

Games basically go like this now:
T1: MASSIVE EXPLOSIONS everywhere
T2: more explosions and deaths
T3: damaged units get close to each other and start smacking each other. Most decent players should be able to call the game result here correctly with 80ish % accuracy.
T4: There are a few tiny remnants of squads here and there.
T5: Someone gets tabled because of the massive damage output of everyone.

The games I used to experience (and wish they were still here) were like this:
T1: Units maneuver into better position, a few expensive long range heavy weapons may fire, but not move.
T2: Units maneuver more, assaulters make approaches, heavier shooting happens.
T3: The battle gets into full swing, similar to what turn 1 is nowadays.
T4: more of t3 with whittled down armies
T5: battle is pretty much settled, and objectives win the day.

We see a ton of tabling in 7e in our group. I barely ever saw any in like...3e. The only ones I can remember was when I was beating up on my necron buddy and caused his army to phase out right before the end of the game.

This is a tactical failing though.

I just played my third game with necrons. The last two games, I started with nothing but a necron Warior Squad on the table with a Cryptek to lead them. I won both games. Turn one offense is cool, but if you're given no target, all you do is reveal your hand to me and give me tyhe jump on you.

So my encouragement to anyone who feels that tablings are common is to explore more unorthodox strategies to take the enemies strengths and turn it against them, like I did in those last two games. There will be a video battle report soon on the last game which you may be interested in, which illustrates the idea. I also offer this link as well for you to check out, in particular the second of the two games on this thread, the one I got pics of:

http://www.ordofanaticus.com/index.php?/topic/24089-muh-first-necron-battles/

Reserve games don't always work though, and not all armies can rely on resiliency to stay in the game. Reserve-gambits can often turn into a turkey shoot.

I had a game weekend before last in a tournament against Dark Eldar with my IG. Mech IG being what they are, he decided to try holding most of his units in reserve and hiding the ones he did deploy to avoid that turn-1 alpha strike.

Unfortunately, all this did was result in me destroying his deployed units even through 3+ jink saves, and then erasing most of his other units as they came on piecemeal from reserves, and at the end of turn 5 he just had a squad of hiding Incubi and maybe half a dozen Warriors left on the board, and had only killed a sentinel and a hellhound.

Now, granted, mech IG vs DE is usually a painful matchup anyway, but I've seen similar events with many other armies.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Reserve games don't always work though, and not all armies can rely on resiliency to stay in the game. Reserve-gambits can often turn into a turkey shoot.

I had a game weekend before last in a tournament against Dark Eldar with my IG. Mech IG being what they are, he decided to try holding most of his units in reserve and hiding the ones he did deploy to avoid that turn-1 alpha strike.

Unfortunately, all this did was result in me destroying his deployed units even through 3+ jink saves, and then erasing most of his other units as they came on piecemeal from reserves, and at the end of turn 5 he just had a squad of hiding Incubi and maybe half a dozen Warriors left on the board, and had only killed a sentinel and a hellhound.

Now, granted, mech IG vs DE is usually a painful matchup anyway, but I've seen similar events with many other armies.

Reserve gambits aren't always called for, but when they are, they are.

Here you say they "often" turn into turkey shoots. I can't say I share that experience. I can't say that those who play me in particular would agree either. =). its my trademark.

It may be true that someone just didn't know what they were doing. It's more likely their army simply isn't built to actually do Null Deployment. Even good Generals, excellent ones in fact, are stymied by the strategy. All the firepower in the world and all the "kill rations' and the "should's" of the world don't really help you when you simply don't have a target and thir only way to get one for a couple of rounds is to move out of good position.

Being able to null deploy starts at army building and takes a little experience, but it is extremely effective when it's called for and if your force is built with the though that you want to be able to do it whenever it becomes advisable.

You're absolutely right that it requires some experience and planning to work well. It can definitely work, but the problem is that it's not something every army can universally do well, and can backfire tremendously if something goes wrong or something mucks with reserves (e.g. officer of the fleet, warlord traits, etc).

As a response to certain types of matchups to avoid that turn 1 alpha strike, it's just not something every army can do well. Most times I've had an opponent try it against me in recent months, it has backfired, the primary exception being Necrons just because the stuff they put on the board can sit around and be largely invulnerable and I usually didn't have enough AA to deal with thee or four flyers at a time once they come on.

I think it worked a lot better in 5th personally, particularly when you could deploy nothing and not auto lose. My Eldar army ran that way, I just wouldn't deploy anything and would aim to go 2nd, and my Autarch bonuses would see just about everything come on turn 2, so my opponent missed two shooting phases and I could catch him out with my own alpha strike.

It'd be interesting to see how that would work now if you wouldn't auto-lose the first turn.

i must admit that when i play imperial guard i generally equip all my vehicles with hunter killers and generally go all out with large blast markers and try to disable the main fighting force my opponents army although i usually play space marines and when i do i dont go for a 'kill the opponent in turn 1' but rather i keep a constant flow of heavy weapon fire

Does anyone else do a 'kill the enemy on turn 1' with ig or another army?

My buddy and I prefer 4th edition rules and codex armies with plenty of cool terrain. But we are both grognards from way back in 3rd (2nd for me), so we have tons and tons of material from back then so why not use it? There are some cool gems from back in 3rd/4th that do not exist now.

Vehicle Design Rules are awesome when both opponents are friends who think on the same page. Then the overpowered aspects simply do not exist.

you have a point, i did like the vehicles rules in 3rd, another thing i like in 3rd was it was less complicated (i do think though they should of just changed rather than totally get rid of 2nd) and a lot quicker to play without all the special rules we have in 7th

what do people think about the layout of the rule books from different editions? i myself think 7th is laid out in a good way but lacks in the integration of the codexes to the rule book, i remember in 5th and 6th they talked a bit about the backstory of each race and put the pics of the models with them but now they have all been put In separate books

i think that for vehicles 5th was quite good, it wasn't to complicated and it didn't take forever to complete a turn but the strong robust tanks such as land raiders still got the right amount of protection (armour facing sides i know wasn't something new but it worked well with the other rules) and the more agile tanks of the eldar could take advantage of their speed

Only played 6 and 7th so 7th it is

7th.

I've played the game since almost the day it came out, and every edition has been an improvement. While a few details may not be as good, the game/ruleset as a whole has been a vast improvement every time.

 the clone wrote:
i think that for vehicles 5th was quite good, it wasn't to complicated and it didn't take forever to complete a turn but the strong robust tanks such as land raiders still got the right amount of protection (armour facing sides i know wasn't something new but it worked well with the other rules) and the more agile tanks of the eldar could take advantage of their speed

5th was indeed the only edition where vehicles were universally useful to every army, the primary issues with vehicles were some were still costed to their 4E balance (Eldar, Tau), and the damage table made it incredibly easy to shut down gun tanks but very hard to shut down transports, some tweaking on that would have saved a lot of headache.

Instead they brought in HP's, making vehicles functionally T/W models without any Sv's, but kept the damage table too, and bringing the Skimmer/Non-Skimmer gap back in a *huge* way.

I think 7th is good for people who havent played the game for as long but i liked 5th as it was the first to bear resemblance to the advanced game of 7th but was still simple enough to have a quick game for an hour or two

I think I already posted in this thread awhile back, but 4th was my favorite.

Started in 3rd, liked 4th, kinda liked 5th, din't like much of 6th, absolutly hate 7th.

How i miss the days where a CC army could turn the tide versus a shooty army in the late game.

Now if 5 of my guys sees any combat its been a good day.

Also liked the old GW policy, where they where geeks that mades rules for models, sometimes unbalanced, lots of times funny and fluff and they had a real touch with their fan base.

Nothing to do with the " people buys our overpriced models because they are the best on the market, rules?, rules are there just because there is a game for it" attitude they have now.

i do admit that if they dropped prices and made more personalised rules that gave the minuatures character

i know i started this thread a while ago but what is the genera consensus towards 7th edition special rules

5th edition pre grey knights

I'm guessing most all of the answers in this post are along the lines of "Nostalgia goggles? what nostalgia goggles?"

I like 7th, if functions unless you try and break it, 5th edition was pretty good, and though it seemed to be hated at the time, I liked a lot of the extra terrain rules that 6th had. Not all of them, but a lot of them.

A yes the terrain rules of 6th. I still use those if I get the chance.

My favorite topic...

I started in 2nd and have played every edition since. In my humble opinion, every edition up till 6th was 40k and made for games of 2000 points or less pitching one codex vs another. 6th started the path of "Apoc is the new 40k" which only got worse in 7th. My issue with 7th has nothing to do with the game mechanics although the Psychic Phase could be a lot smoother. My issue with 6th and 7th have everything to do with list construction and what weapons and such you can have in a 40k game.

Every edition up till 6th scaled up great for tournaments and gave us the competitive feel and a sense of strategy. 6th and 7th are pure beer and pretzel games that are really only entertaining when you play the Malestrom missions. Most everyone I know who truly enjoys 7th, enjoys it because they want the Apoc feel. They want to use the big toys and the Strength-D weapons and that's fine, it just doesn't feel like 40k.

Some of you may remember that I started a thread a while back about going back to 5th edition. I did so, to because I brought a friend into the hobby and from a cost perspective as well as a simpler rule set to learn I chose 5th. Rulebooks and the codex books for 5th are cheap and easy to come by. You don't have to worry about flyers, Forge World, Fortifications, Formations, the Psychic Phase, Detachments, Warlord Traits, and Lords of War options. The special rules in 5th edition take up 2 pages where they take up about 20 in the 7th edition book. If you want to "Forge the Narrative" in 5th edition, you can do it yourself and not worry about being the a$$ hat that uses a Reaver Titan in a small game where it doesn't belong.