Mort's 5thEd. 10 Game Challenge

[njm3]

I split the tacticals for this as usual since I knew id be grabbing up 5 objectives...

 

Have you had a situation where you wanted a full group of ten tacs on the table (non-split)? Seems the cover/targeting/casualty rules would favor smaller groups. I.e., having just one guy out of ten visible means the whole squad is vulnerable vs. an easier to hide group of five. Sure, with the new pile-on type scrum CC rules, large groups are great, but for shooting... maybe not so much.

 

Dunno, haven't played any 5th edition yet but looks like the ease of seeing, hitting, and killing off big blocks of troops makes baby mephiston cry.

[Angelust]

Full 10-man squads are great for kill-point games. Quite resilient, and only giving 1 pt away when they get genked.

[Morticon]

njm3 - As noted by Angelust, killpoint games are where I would not split. (Even though I did in my first KP game). Additionally, i didnt split when i played the 2 objective game (Game 3). I have definitely found that when I did not split them, they were near impossible to hide.

[njm3]

Its not really a 5th ed. thing but in 5th its as/more powerful - The Plasma cannon is just crazy cool The partials = fulls makes it such a potent weapon.

 

Was looking over the rules for blast/scatter and contemplating vindicators and plasma cannons.....

 

Are you liking the new scatter rule 2d6-BS vs 1d6? Looks like shots can scatter farther but will not scatter 1/6 of the time you don't roll a hit (2,3,4 rolled on the 2d6). So shots land on target more often. Are you seeing that enough to justify going blast/large blast heavy in a list?

 

But then again, the 8" possible scatter for marines just guarantees I'll scatter on top of my troops from an even greater distance :huh:

[Morticon]

The 2d6-BS scatter has offered mixed blessings. The chances to scatter are now higher, but the potential to hit *something* rather than nothing is higher. Additionally, the potential to do much more damage is MUCH higher. I don't know if i would say go blast heavy- but definitely worth looking into.

[njm3]

Mort, another thing in your 5th edition games with combat squads:

 

Have you tried intermixing units to where both get a cover save from the other unit? Easiest example is with two separate 5 man squads, say 5 DC and 5 VAS:

 

 

____DC____DC__

 

_VA___VA____VA

 

_DC___DC____DC

 

___VA___VA__

 

(you get the point: a row of 2, a row of 3, a row of 3, a row of 2, each unit in coherency with its other members).

 

Or, for the combat squad aspect, split a 10 man into two 5 man for the save as two separate units. You'd prolly get dice thrown at you for that, but appears valid.

 

From the front and back both units get a 4+ cover save (from the sides you can see 3 guys unblocked and from straight on the sides no one is blocked). Different from 3rd edition screening or 4th edition priority checks, I can see this being a good tactic for screaming across the table and not worrying about lots of shots (assuming I'm understanding the rules correctly). DC would get 3+ armor, 4+ cover, and FNP even in the open, and 3+ cover if they go to ground. Yes, this just screams out to get plasma cannoned or vindicator'd, but against an all direct fire non template army would work.

 

This could also work for static gun-line tac squads at the back of the table.

 

Just a thought.

[Shodo]

Mort, another thing in your 5th edition games with combat squads:

 

Have you tried intermixing units to where both get a cover save from the other unit? Easiest example is with two separate 5 man squads, say 5 DC and 5 VAS:

 

 

____DC____DC__

 

_VA___VA____VA

 

_DC___DC____DC

 

___VA___VA__

 

(you get the point: a row of 2, a row of 3, a row of 3, a row of 2, each unit in coherency with its other members).

 

Or, for the combat squad aspect, split a 10 man into two 5 man for the save as two separate units. You'd prolly get dice thrown at you for that, but appears valid.

 

From the front and back both units get a 4+ cover save (from the sides you can see 3 guys unblocked and from straight on the sides no one is blocked). Different from 3rd edition screening or 4th edition priority checks, I can see this being a good tactic for screaming across the table and not worrying about lots of shots (assuming I'm understanding the rules correctly). DC would get 3+ armor, 4+ cover, and FNP even in the open, and 3+ cover if they go to ground. Yes, this just screams out to get plasma cannoned or vindicator'd, but against an all direct fire non template army would work.

 

This could also work for static gun-line tac squads at the back of the table.

 

Just a thought.

 

 

Only problem with doing that is once you start deploying your army like that, no one is going to want to play against you anymore.

[DevianID]

Only problem with doing that is once you start deploying your army like that, no one is going to want to play against you anymore.

 

But sadly its no different then measuring 2 inches EXACTLY between every single model so that a plasma cannon can only kill a single model per shot. Is it fluffy or in the spirit of the game? I personally dont think so. Is it legal? Absolutely. If you were playing for a million dollars, would you do it? You bet you would.

 

In a friendly game, perhaps you wouldnt do it, but then again in a friendly game maybe you let every space marine on one side have 36 inch assault cannons for bolters and be as tough as a tyrant guard for a mere 100 points. Its all about what people find fun.

[Morticon]

Im not so worried about people no playing me as much as im worried about them hitting me with blast/template weapons >_<

 

Ill try that formation out this weekend.

[Kalrik]

Why not go all the way Jerk and use a Checkerboard formation

 

 

TS1 --- TS2 --- TS1

---- TS1----TS2----

TS2 --- TS1 --- TS2

 

 

TS= Tactical Squad

 

yeah always get 4+ interceding squad save forever.

 

 

jerky, but you know you're gonna face an ork army that does it =/

[Citizen _Of_BAAL]

But if you are getting a 4+ cover save doesn't every thing that you are shooting at also get a 4+ cover save?

 

In which case I say checkerboard away ... I will bring my WW and PC's

[njm3]

TS1 --- TS2 --- TS1

---- TS1----TS2----

TS2 --- TS1 --- TS2

 

Models in a unit do not provide a cover save to models in that unit, so the checkerboard doesn't work from a 45' angle. If you can see down the diagonals, you can see more than half the unit unblocked.

 

But if you are getting a 4+ cover save doesn't every thing that you are shooting at also get a 4+ cover save?

Probably, but not necessarily. Just like shooting out of cover or over a barricade, it depends on the board situation. The angles, the range, you'd have to check.

 

edit: removed a line about coherency issues with checkerboard; no different than the hexagon of doom, both patterns have to squish the models together pretty tightly anyway.

[Kalrik]

But if you are getting a 4+ cover save doesn't every thing that you are shooting at also get a 4+ cover save?

 

In which case I say checkerboard away ... I will bring my WW and PC's

 

obviously, but if your foe can beat a bolter with armor anyway, and they're toting plasma cannons, as you pointed outyou'd be doing... a 4+ cover is better then nothing.

 

Dumb move on GW's part, they should make it if you "pass" your cover save the interviening squad takes the shot... that was REALLY stupid.

 

This is why we'll see an increase in whirlwinds and flamers, coversave, screw your coversave.

[Remmah]

Think of this:

 

Not only do you get a cover save, wich is really really odd, if both squads are right in the open, you also have to position those models like that, taking up valuable gametime, then you have to move them, taking up more time, then you spenmd a lot of time at casualty removal to take away the models to keep your cover safe. and then when you charge or shoot you also spend a lot of time because you need to messure everyhting because you are in such a formation. Then multipl it by the amount of squads you do this.

 

That is a lot of game time wasted on shananigans.

 

I like to think my time having fun is much more valuable then that.

 

And I don't think this helps orks much in a tournament. You only got 2 hours. Good luck positioning 60 or even 120 orks like that the whole time. You won't get past turn 2.

 

I personally will be houseruling in, that cover saves can hurt the cover you are using.

[njm3]

...you also have to position those models like that...

 

Movement trays. seriously. Why not?

 

I like to think my time having fun is much more valuable then that.

 

You obviously haven't met my associate mr. win at all costs tournament stinky gaming guy :(

 

 

Anyway, will be nice to see how many dice Mort gets thrown at him when he tries it in his 10 game challenge.

[Kalrik]

...you also have to position those models like that...

 

Movement trays. seriously. Why not?

 

I like to think my time having fun is much more valuable then that.

 

You obviously haven't met my associate mr. win at all costs tournament stinky gaming guy :)

 

 

Anyway, will be nice to see how many dice Mort gets thrown at him when he tries it in his 10 game challenge.

 

 

better idea, you know those floppy rubber coasters used to open jars sometimes, they're just thin rubber sheets? yeah all my troops have magnets on the bottom of them, for the display board they go on, glue some of those floppy sheets together, put some metal bits on them, flexible movement trays for hilly gaming surfaces, good game =)

 

also to the comment of the there being no intervening save on the 45's you can always curve it a little, its completely jerky, and I PERSONALLY would never do it, but I just wanted my fellow B&C players to know about it and know they may face it someday

[Morticon]

Firstly - Apologies for the Chaos game again guys >_< My scheduled Eldar player wasnt able to meet up and the Ork guy is also unavailble at the moment >_< Havent been able to track down nids either- but ill make it happen!

 

 

GAME 5

1750 Points vs. Chaos

Mission- Annihilation

Set Up Style – Dawn of War

Result- Defeat BA. (5 vs. 2 KP)

 

My list -

 

1 Corbulo

6 DC - No JPs

10 Tactical Marines – PF, Melta gun, Lascannon – RAZOR BACK – 2LHB.

10 Tactical Marines – PF, Melta gun, Plascannon – RAZOR BACK – 2LHB.

10 Tactical Marines – PW, Flamer – RHINO.

10 Tactical Marines – PW, Melta – RHINO.

1 Baal - HB

1 Vindicator

1 Landraider

 

 

HIS LIST -

 

Demon Prince - Wings 'n Bling

Sorc. - Lash 'n stuff.

 

6 CSM - PF, Melta, Khornei mark

5 CSM - PW, Melta, Slaaneshi mark

5 CSM - PW, Flamer, Slaaneshi mark

5 CSM - PW, Melta, Slaaneshi mark

Rhino - Havoc

5 T Sons - Sorc - Bolt of Change

Rhino - Havoc

5 T Sons - Sorc - Bolt of Change

Rhino - Havoc

 

Predator - Autocannon, HB

Vindicator

6 Havoc Squad - 3 MLs, Chaos Glory

**********************************

 

General thoughts:

 

Big Problem 1.

 

I believe that there is going to be an oncoming storm in a teacup with regards to one rule in this book. Generally things are fantastic. Really clear (or, much clearer than before with most of the problem areas). However, page 41 leaves us with an interesting rule.

 

"Models that were engaged with just one of the enemy units at the beginning of the combat (before any model attacked) must attack that unit."

 

This is a big change that implies that we cannot attack models that charge us, if we were engaged with another squad previously. Now, whilst some people may disagree with some of the wording in that, it is for the most part- clear, even though its a marked change- but here's the biggest problem.

 

The biggest problem arises here-> Lets take a look at a situation:

 

Unit A and Unit B are engaged with Enemy A.

Enemy B then charge unit A and unit B.

Unit A has higher init. than unit B.

 

With me so far? Now, lets say Unit A wipes out Enemy A. The result?

 

Unit B left holding their chainswords in hand unable to attack ANYONE, forgoing all their attacks.

 

 

This will only negatively affect us in the case where characters (ie: the only units with consistently higher Init. ) kill off the (Enemy A) unit- so its not too bad. But, Xenos are a lot more affected by this rule.

Why I say it will create a storm is because rule sets are usually always permissive. Unless it says we can do it, we cant.

The only rule its given us is: "Models that were engaged with just one of the enemy units at the beginning of the combat (before any model attacked) must attack that unit."

 

There is no provisor allowing us to attack the charging unit (Enemy B)even if Enemy A is wiped out.

 

While it seems fairly clear rules wise, its decidedly counter intuitive and is likely to lead to arguments as a result.

 

 

On to the thoughts!

 

 

Overview:

 

My army in retrospect was lacking long distance firepower. I figured the raider and the lascannon would be okay to start while the Vindy and baal would handle mid range stuff and the tacs short range.

 

I made some very juvenile errors in my game that night. Poor board choice, poor decisions and the weirdest, weirdest brainfart to think that it was good to go first in DoW. (Which its not really). (We also forgot nightfight). I also compounded my poor board choice by bottle-necking myself into nothingness allowing my opponents army to slowly shoot the hell out of me.

I immobed my LR on a tiny bit of DT. >_< silly.

I left 2 squads of 10 Tacs in rhinos for the first half of the game....just dumb.

Overall- i shouldnt have been trying to watch Prison Break and play 40k at the same time :) I wont make that mistake again.

 

++

 

+ Wow the landraider is tough - obviously.

 

+ Vindy ordnance is not bad - the 2d6 pick highest is nice with S10.

 

+ Ramming is great for vehicles that get their guns blown off. Especially BA rhinos.

 

- - - - - -

 

- While combat is so much more decisive, I failed to do much of anything. My whole 10man squad of marines charged 6 zerks and killed 1. Not so impressive. Dante or Corbs will be a necessity I feel. Our piddly 2 attacks on the charge are no match for Chaos or Orks. Though to be fair I did one wound (that got saved) off 18 attacks.

 

- Vindy scatter is a bit heavy >_< But, counter balanced by no partials. Still okay.

 

- AV11 Vehicles that count for KP is rough

 

- Once again- i should have no combat squadded my shooty tacs!!

 

- Ive tried a list with 1090 out of 1750 (62%) troops and while its great in theory - As Alessio says in the most recent WD, you really need to balance your troops with your killy stuff. I didnt have enough killy stuff in this list.

 

Back to playtesting!!

[Foreigner]

General thoughts:

 

Big Problem 1.

 

I believe that there is going to be an oncoming storm in a teacup with regards to one rule in this book. Generally things are fantastic. Really clear (or, much clearer than before with most of the problem areas). However, page 41 leaves us with an interesting rule.

 

"Models that were engaged with just one of the enemy units at the beginning of the combat (before any model attacked) must attack that unit."

 

This is a big change that implies that we cannot attack models that charge us, if we were engaged with another squad previously. Now, whilst some people may disagree with some of the wording in that, it is for the most part- clear, even though its a marked change- but here's the biggest problem.

 

The biggest problem arises here-> Lets take a look at a situation:

 

Unit A and Unit B are engaged with Enemy A.

Enemy B then charge unit A and unit B.

Unit A has higher init. than unit B.

 

With me so far? Now, lets say Unit A wipes out Enemy A. The result?

 

Unit B left holding their chainswords in hand unable to attack ANYONE, forgoing all their attacks.

 

 

This will only negatively affect us in the case where characters (ie: the only units with consistently higher Init. ) kill off the (Enemy A) unit- so its not too bad. But, Xenos are a lot more affected by this rule.

Why I say it will create a storm is because rule sets are usually always permissive. Unless it says we can do it, we cant.

The only rule its given us is: "Models that were engaged with just one of the enemy units at the beginning of the combat (before any model attacked) must attack that unit."

 

There is no provisor allowing us to attack the charging unit (Enemy B)even if Enemy A is wiped out.

 

While it seems fairly clear rules wise, its decidedly counter intuitive and is likely to lead to arguments as a result.

 

 

 

I think you and your opponent are taking a slightly incorrect view on that rule.

 

As I understand it, and based entirely on the wording given, the rule implies: Units that are engaged with only 1 enemy group prior to models attacking ie. post charge, post reaction, may fight with said unit.

 

I believe this rule is intended two ways: 1) Keep two units from making the reaction move to get into the fight with a new charging enemy when only 1 unit was charged. 2) Prevent a unit from attacking an enemy that is not engaged (4th edition style rules)

 

A unit that is engaged with the second (charging) unit at the point in time that attacks would begin (after the charge, after the reaction move) can and should be able to place attacks on the newly charged unit. The wording does not seem to indicate that they would, as it simply says "just one" of the enemy units, meaning that if they are engaged with two, they may choose to split attacks as normal.

 

Some of the local players here have read the rule and agree with my take, as long as your unit is engaged with the new charging unit, you may attack said unit. Its poorly written, poorly worded, and poorly clarified, but any other reading of the rule seems abusive of game mechanics, and intended to be used in a "I must win" fashion, fully deserving of a punch to the face

[Morticon]

Some of the local players here have read the rule and agree with my take, as long as your unit is engaged with the new charging unit, you may attack said unit. Its poorly written, poorly worded, and poorly clarified, but any other reading of the rule seems abusive of game mechanics, and intended to be used in a "I must win" fashion, fully deserving of a punch to the face

 

Thats horribly unfair and narrow minded to say as the majority of people I know that have read the rules came to the same conclusion I did.

 

That's not to say however I disagree with your point, as personally that makes MUCH more sense.

 

But yeah, that rule is horribly worded and gonna take another look at and discussion with people!

[Morticon]

I believe this rule is intended two ways: 1) Keep two units from making the reaction move to get into the fight with a new charging enemy when only 1 unit was charged. 2) Prevent a unit from attacking an enemy that is not engaged (4th edition style rules)

 

Could you clarify this a bit.

 

1. Why would either make a reaction move? You're not allowed to if you're already in combat, and this rule doesnt bring reaction moves into it at all. >_< Im not following what you mean.

 

2. How could you attack an enemy that is not engaged in 4th?

[njm3]

"(before any model attacked)"

 

is after models have been moved. note it says "attacked" rather than "charged" or "at the start of the phase", as you pointed out. But also note its before any model in the combat, on both sides, has attacked.

 

Also remember models in BTB with more than one unit are engaged with both units after charging. Or in BTB with unit A and within 2" of a model within BTB of unit B. Easy to get lots of "engaged with both"s.

 

So I don't really see the confusion or the poor wording. Just re-read 35 and 41.

 

Don't get "locked in combat" and "engaged confused :D

 

 

Unit A and Unit B are engaged with Enemy A.

Enemy B then charge unit A and unit B.

Unit A has higher init. than unit B.

Unit A wipes out Enemy A. The result?

Unit B [is] unable to attack ANYONE

 

Enemy B was engaged with unit B at the start of combat, after chargers were moved and before anyone attacked.

 

To get the situation you are fearing, Enemy B couldn't be engaged with Unit A. If I understand your concern.

[njm3]

Anyway, back to the battle reports.

 

I had a flash of insight earlier today about putting DC in a LR for all the reasons you mentioned on your list. That and I got another 1st ed. LR off ebay.

 

So in the grand scheme of things, other than poor play, DC in a LR is a good thing? LR or LRC?

 

Was thinking about if you tank shocked or rammed, you couldn't really use the front access (too close to enemy), right?

[Morticon]

I'll be using the regular LR I think - cause i need the extra lascannons - though this may change. Also, im expecting we'll get the new POTMS rule come september

[Setomidor]

Very interesting as always, looking forward to the next installment!

[Mdigibou]

@Mort

you are reading it correctly.

 

Enemy models cannot fight a "new" enemy charging into combat, they must fight ones that have been there, making "chump" attackers a very potent strategy (for orks) being held in place while nobs come in and smack you around (for only one turn, however) is still really rough.