Mort's 5thEd. 10 Game Challenge

[Morticon]

Weeeeeelll - Im now in two minds my man >_<. Most of the people ive spoken to have assumed the same as I, but as said- its counter intuitive and leads to problems like I explained. Ill need to look into it more and discuss with a few mates!

 

Lets leave that topic as is for now in this thread so as not to bog down this thread!

[Julius Firefocht]

So we tie up an important unit with a Tac squad, and then charge in the next turn with our DC, and the enemy has no choice but to target the Tac squad it was originally fighting.

 

That was how the rule was interpreted over here, and how we played out our assault phases.

[rodgambit]

I disagree with the above poster. The rule is poorly worded and you have to distinguish an attack from a charge. When they use the word attack they are being very literal, as in the moment you roll your to hit dice for the combat. It clearly states in the paragraph called "Defenders React" that a unit already locked in combat may react as normal and move their units into BtB contact with the new charging enemy unit.

 

Basically the special attack rule is saying that if you are engaged with enemy A and enemy B charges and one of your guys is still only locked in combat with someone from the original combat, that you must continue to fight that target.

 

However, if in your "defenders react" moment you are able to get your guy into range of both enemy A and B, that you can then choose to split attacks right before your to hit dice roll.

 

I originally thought it was the other way when I first read it, but after a closer examination I believe the above explanation is the correct interpretation.

[Librarian Zweig]

Hey Mort, quick question. We are having a debate about corb being deployed in a LR, while the DC are tagging along beside it. They are saying because he is an embarked model he does not count as on the table therefor the DC go nuts. Where in 5th can I back up my point that his ability allows him to control the DC from within a LRC

[rodgambit]

The GM at the Games Workshop in my area told me that a model in a vehicle IS considered to be on the table and that the tactic is completely legal. He said only a model held in reserve is counted off the table. I used the Corb scenario in 5th ed. as the example and he said it's completely fine.

[King_Pash]

That's good news because i'm considering running Corbs with some VAS in a Rhino or a LRC and getting some good carnage on the go! :P My VAS have been performing rather well so I think they deserve a Rhino in their personal colours. :(

[Mdigibou]

Ya, to verify, models in transports are considered to be on the table.

[Morticon]

Hey Mort, quick question. We are having a debate about corb being deployed in a LR, while the DC are tagging along beside it. They are saying because he is an embarked model he does not count as on the table therefor the DC go nuts. Where in 5th can I back up my point that his ability allows him to control the DC from within a LRC

 

 

Sadly this is still a grey area Zweig - unlike 4th however, units can still claim from within transports- so they are not considered off board. Additionally, chaos marines can use their teleport homers from within vehicles. Although its a different rule (and codex) it sets a precedent. There are no rules (like 4th) where it says for sure one way or another.

 

Just discuss with your opponents before. My gaming group plays a small set of house rules. eg: Corbs cant heal outside of vehicle, but his sphere of influence does count.

[BAdragon]

It seems logical as well to not be able to heal whilst inside a vehicle, since he would need to spill his holy grail over the body of the man while he is stuck within the vehicle.

 

 

Back to topic: I have a request for a match VS this army:

 

Daemonhunters:

 

2x LR

1x LRC

2 or 3 large groups of grey knights

Terminators + brother captain or grandmaster (probably chucked in LRC)

 

AArgh my bro is gonna slaughter my BA's with this i reckon.

 

 

Another question: are you allowed to field special characters like the nightbringer in 5th?

[Librarian Zweig]

Hey Mort, quick question. We are having a debate about corb being deployed in a LR, while the DC are tagging along beside it. They are saying because he is an embarked model he does not count as on the table therefor the DC go nuts. Where in 5th can I back up my point that his ability allows him to control the DC from within a LRC

 

 

Sadly this is still a grey area Zweig - unlike 4th however, units can still claim from within transports- so they are not considered off board. Additionally, chaos marines can use their teleport homers from within vehicles. Although its a different rule (and codex) it sets a precedent. There are no rules (like 4th) where it says for sure one way or another.

 

Just discuss with your opponents before. My gaming group plays a small set of house rules. eg: Corbs cant heal outside of vehicle, but his sphere of influence does count.

 

Thanks Mort, appreciate it.

 

Onto another question. 4th ed many BA players I know, and have seen from the army listings, seem to want to max out their DC at the cost of troop choices or better spent elite choices. In your Bat Reps it appears as though your DC is getting smaller and smaller. Are you of the thinking, like myself, that DC are still ridiculous but with the new consolidation rules and brutal close combat, the days of having a maxed out DC are numbered?

[njm3]

Onto another question. 4th ed many BA players I know, and have seen from the army listings, seem to want to max out their DC at the cost of troop choices or better spent elite choices. In your Bat Reps it appears as though your DC is getting smaller and smaller. Are you of the thinking, like myself, that DC are still ridiculous but with the new consolidation rules and brutal close combat, the days of having a maxed out DC are numbered?

 

If I had to guess, using my limited and often wrong powers of mind reading, he is avoiding a complete and total wipeout of the enemy squad on the turn he (Mort) charges. With no consolidate into new units, you want to cripple but not destroy enemy squads on your turn, avoid a round of shooting, then finish them off on the enemy's turn. That way you can charge anew on your turn.

 

Just a thought. Mine, probably not his.

 

edit: Which is basically what you said. I think.

[Librarian Zweig]

Onto another question. 4th ed many BA players I know, and have seen from the army listings, seem to want to max out their DC at the cost of troop choices or better spent elite choices. In your Bat Reps it appears as though your DC is getting smaller and smaller. Are you of the thinking, like myself, that DC are still ridiculous but with the new consolidation rules and brutal close combat, the days of having a maxed out DC are numbered?

 

If I had to guess, using my limited and often wrong powers of mind reading, he is avoiding a complete and total wipeout of the enemy squad on the turn he (Mort) charges. With no consolidate into new units, you want to cripple but not destroy enemy squads on your turn, avoid a round of shooting, then finish them off on the enemy's turn. That way you can charge anew on your turn.

 

Just a thought. Mine, probably not his.

 

edit: Which is basically what you said. I think.

 

Yea it is pretty much what I said. 5th Edition can and will be awesome for us, but we have to learn to get away from our blood frenzied crutch to take advantage of all the gifts GW gave us. I cannot wait for next week and the arrival of my Furioso, Drop Podding Ven DC Furioso makes me have the giggle fits just thinking about the stuff it will kill :)

[Morticon]

Onto another question. 4th ed many BA players I know, and have seen from the army listings, seem to want to max out their DC at the cost of troop choices or better spent elite choices. In your Bat Reps it appears as though your DC is getting smaller and smaller. Are you of the thinking, like myself, that DC are still ridiculous but with the new consolidation rules and brutal close combat, the days of having a maxed out DC are numbered?

 

If I had to guess, using my limited and often wrong powers of mind reading, he is avoiding a complete and total wipeout of the enemy squad on the turn he (Mort) charges. With no consolidate into new units, you want to cripple but not destroy enemy squads on your turn, avoid a round of shooting, then finish them off on the enemy's turn. That way you can charge anew on your turn.

 

 

I think there are going to be different schools of thought on this.

 

I've mentioned it in a few places already, but I think the very nature of 5th is going to provide us with some great variation. Before, it was an easy call. We knew, max your DC or else. Now, we have to rethink how we invest those points firstly and secondly as mentioned already- how willing we are to accept a complete wipe-out.

 

Players will argue, that you should still max the DC with a chaplain and just play smarter. While that is sitll good advice I feel a 10man DC lead by a chaplain can have the tides of battle dictated more via speedbumps for example.

 

However, i didnt make strong enough mention that, in my last two games, i was wishing that I had a Chaplain.

Ive never needed more DC than I had, but the Chaplain would have helped greatly. We definitely need more killy power, so...im going to be moving away from 65% troops and flowing into the more balanced approach. My DC was tied up with his DP in the last game (after charging) and eventually got taken down. That rarely happened before. Not to mention the 7 phase necron combat >_<

 

I think my next list will include Corbulo and a Chaplain.

[SyNidus]

Great Job mort,

 

I was a great fan of your first 10 game challenge because you flew at the face of all the QQ of your fellow blood angels players. I've been watching your 5th Ed games with much interest and i have one question...When is the next one? B)

[Cheesus]

It seems logical as well to not be able to heal whilst inside a vehicle, since he would need to spill his holy grail over the body of the man while he is stuck within the vehicle.

 

 

Back to topic: I have a request for a match VS this army:

 

Daemonhunters:

 

2x LR

1x LRC

2 or 3 large groups of grey knights

Terminators + brother captain or grandmaster (probably chucked in LRC)

 

AArgh my bro is gonna slaughter my BA's with this i reckon.

 

 

Another question: are you allowed to field special characters like the nightbringer in 5th?

 

I play an army list very similar to your brothers (no LRC though), and this is what I think. Lascannon+ML dreads, LC preds and MM bikes. Focus all of your fire on one raider at a time, don't stop till it blows up. Focus on the crusader, as you can probably wipe it before it gets in range if you play defensively. Alternately, try a drop-poding VAS with 2x Meltaguns, 3x Combi-meltas. Drop it right ontop of the raider and pew-pew.

 

If he wants to assault, go there. Grey Knights seem very good in assault, but can't take dedicated assault troopers. Bring Corbs + Dante + Honorguard [Jetpacks, Banner, 2x Power-weapon (or lightning claws if you prefer)] to get the Favored Enemy + Furious Charge, and you will strike before him with 14 I5 S5 on the charge and probably wipe most of the squad, then fearless wounds might kill it.

 

 

Good luck, and remember, shrouding only applies to Grey Knight troops, not dreads or land raiders.

[JamesI]

Onto another question. 4th ed many BA players I know, and have seen from the army listings, seem to want to max out their DC at the cost of troop choices or better spent elite choices. In your Bat Reps it appears as though your DC is getting smaller and smaller. Are you of the thinking, like myself, that DC are still ridiculous but with the new consolidation rules and brutal close combat, the days of having a maxed out DC are numbered?

 

If I had to guess, using my limited and often wrong powers of mind reading, he is avoiding a complete and total wipeout of the enemy squad on the turn he (Mort) charges. With no consolidate into new units, you want to cripple but not destroy enemy squads on your turn, avoid a round of shooting, then finish them off on the enemy's turn. That way you can charge anew on your turn.

 

 

I think there are going to be different schools of thought on this.

 

I've mentioned it in a few places already, but I think the very nature of 5th is going to provide us with some great variation. Before, it was an easy call. We knew, max your DC or else. Now, we have to rethink how we invest those points firstly and secondly as mentioned already- how willing we are to accept a complete wipe-out.

 

Players will argue, that you should still max the DC with a chaplain and just play smarter. While that is sitll good advice I feel a 10man DC lead by a chaplain can have the tides of battle dictated more via speedbumps for example.

 

However, i didnt make strong enough mention that, in my last two games, i was wishing that I had a Chaplain.

Ive never needed more DC than I had, but the Chaplain would have helped greatly. We definitely need more killy power, so...im going to be moving away from 65% troops and flowing into the more balanced approach. My DC was tied up with his DP in the last game (after charging) and eventually got taken down. That rarely happened before. Not to mention the 7 phase necron combat >_<

 

I think my next list will include Corbulo and a Chaplain.

 

I'm likeing the idea of Corbulo and a chaplain. Multiple ways to control DC, still get those rerolls to hit without paying a ton for Dante.

 

I have always run 7-9 DC (in my normal 1850 lists). I intend to cut back to 6 (I get 5 free in my current list) once I start playing 5th edition. 6 should be enough to still allow them to survive to reach combat, but not so many that they wipe out the enemy right off the bat.

[Morticon]

Sorry for the delay guys- been trying to get the orky guy to play!! Heres the report!

 

GAME 5.

1500 Points vs. OrksChaos.

Mission- Counters (3 counters)

Set Up Style – Spearhead

Result- Draw

 

My list:

 

1 Corbulo

7 DC - with JPs (5 bought, 4 inclusive)

5 Terms - AC

8 VAS - ThunderHammer, Flamer, Melta

10 Tactical Marines – PW, Flamer – RHINO.

10 Tactical Marines – PW, Flamer – RHINO.

5 Assaulters - Power Weapon

 

1 Attack Bike, Multi Melta

1 Attack Bike, Multi Melta

1 Attack Bike, Multi Melta

 

 

His list: (excuse the lack of detail >_< )

 

 

1 Mech - Shokk Attack Gun

1 Mech - Kustom FF

 

20 Boys - shootas - claw nob. Bigshootas

20 Boys - shootas - claw nob. Bigshootas

20 Boys - shootas - claw nob. Bigshootas or rokkits

12 Boys - TRUKK - PKlaw

12 Boys - TRUKK - PKlaw

 

6 Lootas

5 Lootas

 

5 Bikers- PKlaw Nob

1 Buggy - TL- Rokkit

1 Buggy - TL- Rokkit

 

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

 

Overview :

 

Once again I was lucky enough to "steal the initiative". However, I am likely to never do this again in an objective game unless I have a decidedly shooty army that has a LOT of very good firing solutions on my opponent. The last minute grab of objectives by my opponent in what turned the game to a loss for me.

 

Also- its very important to note that the 3" distance requirement to claim an objective is quite a marked change from 6" previously.

 

There is also an issue that arose, that was actually brought up by another poster- maybe even BOB. Im not sure. It was regarding ICs and leaving squads.

 

Basically, the rulebook seems to imply that a squad may not move away from an IC - however an IC may move away from a squad. This has a few tactical implications so just a heads up to you guys. Also, rules wise its perfectly arguable that this is the case. Our group has house-ruled it so that the squad can move away from the IC on account of it seeming a bit silly to not be both ways.

 

(For interests sake if you're not sure what the argument is- A: the rules say the IC can leave a unit by moving out of coherency with it. This is in the active voice, not passive - so it does not imply vice-versa is true. Additionally, B: you are not allowed to move out of coherency usually, and if your IC is still part of the squad and you start moving the squad- it means you are attempting to break the rule which states you may not move units out of coherency. )

 

Just remember to take any issues regarding this question to OR - not this thread >_<

 

 

Regarding TLOS - i know there are a lot of concerned people/haters out there, but man....am I really enjoying it. Its a lot more intuitive for me. We used a laser pointer on one or two occasions too- sorted the problem out chop chop!

 

 

+ +

 

This was the first list that I used with a more balanced army. By "more balanced" I mean not going overboard with Troops. I splashed out on two Elite choices. What I found before is that the Tacs as good as they are in their support role, just do not do enough damage in close combat. The VAS however were golden.

 

Corbulo has been doing wonders for my game too. Honestly- I believe my competitive lists will include one of the following 3 Combos ->

 

1. Corbs/Dante (300pnts)

2. Corbs/Lemmy (225pnts)

3. Lemmy/Chappy (245ptns)

 

Dante/Lemmy is a potential option too, but has too much overlap in ability.

 

The reason I reckon this is because even a squad of ten space marines only gets 1 attack each after we charge. Compare this to Orks with 2/3 or Chaos marines with a BASE of 2 we're on the backfoot from the start. And combat in 5th ed. is even more important than ever!!

Corbulo and Dante will become our equalisers. Now if I can find 200 points >_<

 

The VAS need no songs of praise more than they have had already. Everyone knows their ability - it was just nice to have it reaffirmed so unequivocally this game. Flamers on jumpers for the win. The extra attack was also priceless.

 

RAS - Once again in this game, my highly mobile 5man squad was great. Instead of forming part of the attack vanguard, I kept them at the back, on objectives for the most of it. When needed, they came jumping to the help of their buddies and then shot off again to claim an objective.

 

The DC were awesome =D Even without a Chappy.

 

- - -

 

Negative sides....*thinks*

 

My termies I believe could have shone and done wonders against the hordes of orks I faced. However, the 2nd SAG shot of the game saw my opponent rolling his SECOND set of double 6s :tu: So...for those of you that dont know- that means just remove the model from play. No wounds, no saves, no invulns, no nothing. Just remove from play.

He rolled a hit on the scatter too - so 230 points- zoom! Gone. Its unfair to say they suck though, as they would have milked him for everything he's worth had I got him.

 

The attack bikes didnt really get to shine for obvious reasons (Orks) but did provide a decent distraction. Once again I worry about KP games.

 

 

 

 

Brief Synopsis-

 

Game wise as mentioned he was poised to go first. I stole the initiative however in an attempt to move my fragile rhinos (as opposed to lay down fire on him).

Neither of my OCEs worked sadly and couldnt get to exactly where i needed to go- but advanced nevertheless.

 

The game was largely fought in his quarter thanks to the aggression of the BA. I timed my assaults to make sure that I got most of the charges, and when I didnt- man- did not haveing FC hurt >_<. squad of 10 marines- is only 18 attacks + Sarge. Vs. orkies- thats only 4.5 wounds on average for the troopers. (I was rolling 1/5 every damn time). FC makes it a nice even 6 !

 

The game ended with him having 5 lootas, a buggy and 3 bikers left.

 

I had Corbs, 1 Tac marine, 2 DC and 4 RAS (and 1 mobile rhino).

 

His buggy challenged my one objective, and the bikers and RAS where both out of range of the other available loot counter.

 

Great game though.

[Raptor1313]

I'll second you on true LOS. It's a lot more intuitive, and the sheer amount of cover saves you can get off it help to balance out the amount of shooting. (at least, for me, since I play mechanized...)

 

I'll also back you up on the Terminators. The ability to move and pop off a dozen anti-personnel shots at 24" is something solid, especially with true LOS. I was talking with some of the guys, and we decided that storm bolters (and in this context, the assault cannon) was a nasty thing to have, especially with hordes. You should be able get at least a bit of shooting out of backpedaling.

 

I also request another test of the termies. Anything that gets nuked in a turn by a lucky, lucky shot like that...hey, the outliers have to happen some time, but that doesn't represent how a 2+/5++ unit can last against shooting, especially if they can get a 4+ cover save.

[Mdigibou]

Remember what i said before? Timing your assaults against orks is key amirite ;)

 

I'm curios Mort.... Considering this is a 5th ed CHALLENGE and everything =P

Try playing a ravenwing army with 6 squads of assault marines, troops how you like, and shrike with a minimum honour guard. I'd like to see your impressions on them before the codex rotates out :devil:

 

 

Have you played vs a mechanized BT list yet? Or possibly a full armoured company of BA?

[BOBMAKENZIE]

I dont know if I brought up not being able to leave specifically. I did mention that ICs arent tecniquely part of the unit till the end of the movement phase. Which to me becomes a bit of a problem. But otherwise it was an interesting battle report

 

How many are you up to now?

[Pantherrex]

I thought BA troops have a bp/ccw as base gear now, so on the charge they would have 1+1 attacks in HTH?

Or did they change that. I know about the 2 Pfist/LClaw rule, but did they change all the attack bonus rules?

 

BTW: Ever thought of two chappies <Morty and a normal one> instead just for fun?

[Raptor1313]

Negative; Blood Angels have a Bolter, Bolt Pistol, Frags and Kraks as basic gear now. Only the Chaos Space Marines, so far, have a bolter, pistol, and ccw.

[Valerian]

Negative; Blood Angels have a Bolter, Bolt Pistol, Frags and Kraks as basic gear now.

 

Yes, but Blood Angels with a Bolt Pistol alone should still have 2 attacks on the charge. I was wondering about that part of the Battle Report too. Wonder what Mort meant by that?

 

The reason I reckon this is because even a squad of ten space marines only gets 1 attack each after we charge.

 

Valerian

[Mdigibou]

4/4 x 10 -> 6+

4/5 x 60 -> 3+

 

with fewer attacks, the odds dont look good, and you really are better off assaulting them (rather than shooting/counter-charge as you would do with most armies)

[Valerian]

4/4 x 10 -> 6+

4/5 x 60 -> 3+

 

with fewer attacks, the odds dont look good, and you really are better off assaulting them (rather than shooting/counter-charge as you would do with most armies)

 

? I, for one, have no clue about what this post is about/in response to. What are you showing with those enigmatic numbers? What is the context? Mdigibou, can you possibly fill in a few more details?

 

Perhaps I am being daft, but...

 

 

thanks,

 

Valerian