Warhammer 40K Video Bat Rep 7th ed Eldar vs Necrons


Raw Dogger busts outa Necron commission we recently completed in a video bat rep vs. Reecius’ Mighty, Mighty Footdar in a 1750pt Video Bat Rep, testing out Maelstrom mission 6 of the new 7th ed rules. Also, the terrain you see in the video was created by our new terrain studio! As always check out the Tactics Corner for more great videos!


About Reecius

The fearless leader of the intrepid group of gamers gone retailers at Frontline Gaming!

36 Responses to “Warhammer 40K Video Bat Rep 7th ed Eldar vs Necrons”

  1. Jason Brown May 26, 2014 8:57 pm #

    Ok, them cards is whack like crack. I like the idea of random objectives, but they need to be narrowed down and made so that the game cant be won on the draw of a card. If I wanted to play poker, I would play poker.

    • Reecius May 28, 2014 12:33 pm #

      Exactly. They’re too random as is.

  2. Charles Tracy May 26, 2014 9:47 pm #

    Ok nice fight. You can drop a card you don’t like and redraw, no matter the mission your playing. Once you do that you must get your deck back to the max number, whether that’s to continue to draw or discard. At this point he could have dropped another bad card, So he could have gotten rid of his shit hand. Also if you don’t have planes, or building and the like the don’t use them cards. Pull them out your deck or ignore the roll on the table. Simple. Just an idea.

    • Reecius May 28, 2014 12:34 pm #

      You are right but in this mission, you can only have a certain number of cards. As he dropped one, he couldn’t get another because his hand was at max. He was stuck with his shit hand until he could score a card, it was really bad.

  3. gorkamorker May 26, 2014 11:30 pm #

    It’s almost like 7th edition is a rotten fetus that needs to be aborted.

  4. gorkamorker May 26, 2014 11:32 pm #

    Put that in your forge and narrate it.

    • Reecius May 28, 2014 12:32 pm #

      Lol, I don’t smoke rotten fetuses…only fresh ones! Muahahaha! =P

  5. Massive Dynamic May 26, 2014 11:55 pm #

    We played a couple of missions over the weekend. One solution we came to is that you can pick 5 cards (of the player choice) before the game. Shuffle and that’s your deck. You get 1 card per turn at random, and have to discard it at the end of the turn. If the game goes on pick a new random card for every extra turn up to 7. This way players always got useful cards but perhaps not at the perfect moment so keeping some of the randomness while stopping the crazy wracking up of points via cards.. Also brought in a whole new level of list and deck building. Just a suggestion.

    • Reecius May 28, 2014 12:35 pm #

      That is a good idea, I like it. You need to modify the system in some way to have them be at all fair.

  6. Joshhodg May 27, 2014 12:38 am #

    So how much does the awesome new terrain with the bridges and stuff cost?

    • Joshhodg May 27, 2014 11:16 am #

      Nevermind. Emailed you.

  7. Fabio Fiorentino May 27, 2014 4:30 am #

    Would the cards be a little better if you have to reveal the card a turn in advance? so essentially you could not collect any on turn one. Also you could add a limit to how many you could play a turn to help with the lop-sided-ness that could occur.

    • Reecius May 28, 2014 12:35 pm #

      You do show your opponent your cards, yes. On turn 1 it made no difference though as the other guy can’t do anything to stop you.

  8. Anomander Rake May 27, 2014 4:57 am #

    Just a little tweak to the Mealstormmissioncards:
    – You can immediately discard a card and draw a new one, if u can never ever achieve this card. Like killing a flyer with non around.

    Second i think the Mission you played was dumb not the cards in it self. From the 6 Maelstrommissions there are two that just dont work. (the one you played and the one you draw cards based on the Objektivs you controll)

    Personal i really like the Cards because they change the way you play the game. Its more like a Chessgame with dice ;). Raw Dogger could have avoid some of your VPs in this game, by boostin around and secure the objetcivs. At least it looks like he could in the Batrep.

    Thx for the BatRep! I alway enjoy them!

    • Reecius May 28, 2014 12:35 pm #

      I agree on discarding a card you can’t play, 100%.

  9. DCannon4Life May 27, 2014 5:46 am #

    I like the idea of semi-stacking 5 turns worth of cards (1 card per turn). I like it very much actually. Stacking 7 cards would do just as well. Are the cards supposed to mutually exclusive or does each player bring his own deck? I’m hoping each player can bring his own deck.

    Also: the D3+3 has got to go. Make the D3+3 cards a straight +3. Make all of the D3 cards a straight +2. That would (potentially) align the value of the card with the difficulty in achieving that ‘objective’. Random scoring smells like randomness for the sake of randomness.

    • DCannon4Life May 27, 2014 5:53 am #

      “…supposed to *be* mutually exclusive…” wtb edit feature.

    • Reecius May 28, 2014 12:36 pm #

      Yeah, the random bonus cards is nuts! You get such a huge bump.

  10. Castle May 27, 2014 6:37 am #

    Seems going first has a HUGE advantage this edition.

    You get to see both deployments then decide to go first or second, you get first attempt to secure objectives before your opponent can do anything.

    So deploying second means you have to whether your opponents alpha strike and then somehow comeback from your opponent having a free turn to objective grab empty objectives since when it`s finally your turn you now have to shoot people off the objectives and you don`t get the easy points.

    Seriously I a change that is needed to make these games playable is that you have to control and objective for 2 player turns to secure it and play a card, or rather you have to control it at the end of your opponents player turn, that way at least your opponent has a chance to do something and prevent you from scoring.

    I was really looking forward to these cards changing up games from 6th standard last turn objective grab to a tug of war for objectives, but now it just looks like whoever gets their first has a HUGE advantage.

    • No_wegian May 27, 2014 7:18 am #

      Hey Castle, that deployment rule is only applied to two of the new Maelstrom missions not the others or even the Eternal War missions.

      • Reecius May 28, 2014 12:38 pm #

        No, all of them use standard deployment now, which is the way we did it.

  11. No_wegian May 27, 2014 7:17 am #

    OK, I know I’ve been sounding like a troll lately but I seriously am not trying too. Please know I love you guys, and I think I just desperately want the new rules to work. The real reason behind it is because I don’t think the BRB is the only thing that needs to change. Not all codices are created equal, but no one ever talks about “nerfing” rules in them. If you make changes to the new BRB for your tournaments I think you limit my ability to compete with Tyranids. Limiting multiple FoC detachments, LoW’s, WC dice amounts, etc. limits the number of competitive builds I can make with Tyranids; as the current things we have access to (including dataslates) is not enough. What the new rules did is say “OK, now all armies are good”. I think GW did this partly so people could buy models or play codices they wanted to without feeling like they were going to lose before they put models on the table.

    Do you even agree with me a little bit? If not, will you concede that Tournaments will continue to only include the normal Eldar, Tau, and Daemons build along with those three armies allying with the weaker codices? To me that sounds boring to see only those three armies representing a hobby that has twice as many to choose from.

    • Reecius May 28, 2014 12:40 pm #

      You’re not a troll, bro, just passionate about the game which is cool!

      We still allow Formations which makes Nids really solid, and gives them essentially allies. But yeah, poor Nids did get hit hard with this edition, I agree with you.

      I see your point about making all allies powerful, but, I think it opens the door too much to abuse and we will end up with tournaments where people don’t have fun and don’t want to come back.

  12. iNcontroL May 27, 2014 4:11 pm #

    cards are obv unplayable in competition as they stand.. I think that much was clear but this bat rep made that very clear.

    • Reecius May 28, 2014 12:39 pm #

      Yup. We have to illustrate the point, though.

  13. jadedknight May 27, 2014 6:30 pm #

    I’ve played two Maelstrom missions so far and they were great, close games.

    A few observations

    This scenario is the most punishing since you get all the objectives upfront. The other are more balanced and use fewer cards per turn so you can ditch a higher percentage. It seems like objectives were placed very favoreably for Eldar too.

    The Necron list was a poor list for Maelstrom, the Eldar one was optimized. You have to have mobile units and be willing to throw them away. As soon as I saw the aegis I thought ‘uh oh’.

    We pretty quickly established a house rule that cards that couldn’t be achieved are rerolled.

    I think maybe letting players pick a half of the table or even the first # results has some potential.

    Anyway long winded way of saying I hope you don’t dump the idea from just this one trial run.

    • Reecius May 28, 2014 12:41 pm #

      I like rerolling cards you can’t use. I think you have to do that to be fair.

      But all of our games with the cards have been super unfair so far. It hasn’t even been close, honestly.

      I think if you changed it though, to have all objectives in no man’s land (maybe limit it to 3 objectives) and drop some of the wonkier ones, if can be a fair competition.

  14. Mike Zulu May 27, 2014 7:38 pm #

    “… if you’re just in your mom’s basement, playing with the one guy you know who plays 40k, play him; If you’re a normal person, and want to go out and play in a tournament and be social, you’re not going to get to play them.”

    What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

    Tournament games are the “normal” way to play?

    Tournament games are the only way to be social?

    • Reecius May 28, 2014 12:43 pm #

      Raw Dogger has a very snarky sense of humor, he was just joking around. If you don’t know him it is easy to think he is being offensive but it isn’t meant that way at all.

      And there is no way to play normally, of course. Any way you choose to play is fine.

  15. MarkCron May 27, 2014 8:29 pm #

    Great report, thanks! They are always enjoyable so keep them coming.

    I’ve played a couple of Maelstrom missions, and this one seems like the most unbalanced. Spoils of war is great, because either player can score objective cards from any player in their turn. This balanced out the first turn advantage, because the second player doesn’t draw cards until the beginning of their turn.

    Taking out the cards/ditching ones that can’t be achieved is already a house rule, unsurprisingly.

    I think that everyone is overlooking a key advantage of Crons….If you take Zandhrek or Deathmarks, you can come in from reserve on the opposing player turn (assuming that they bring in a reserve). This obviously helps because you can bring in the flyer, dump the troop and contest the objective before the other player scores it (assuming you don’t get blasted off).

    • Reecius May 28, 2014 12:45 pm #

      It seems like everyone is in agreement that you redraw cards you can’t use. I wonder why GW didn’t add that in? Seems obvious.

      Good point on Zandrehk, too!

  16. Weidekuh May 27, 2014 11:47 pm #

    Why not change the mission rule to: start with 1 card. Each turn, draw one more up to a total of 6 (7) ?

    • Reecius May 28, 2014 12:44 pm #

      Yeah, something like that needs to happen. You have to be able to draw cards you can actually use or the game isn’t fun at all.

    • jadedknight May 28, 2014 6:27 pm #

      That is in fact one of the other mission types

  17. Joseph May 28, 2014 6:42 pm #

    Here’s an idea, when you draw a “Secure Objective X” card, if you control it at the end of your turn, instead of getting a point you place a counter next to the objective. If at the end of the game, you still control the objective, you get one point for every counter you placed during the game. So if Reece had 4 objectives secured his first turn, he wouldn’t get 4 points he would place 4 counters and need to continue to control them to the end of the game to get the victory points.
    This would allow a player to tailor his strategy, if his opponent had several counters next to an objective he may try to drive him off it, thereby denying his opponent several needed victory points. While the player with the counters would do his best to secure that objective.

  18. Nick May 29, 2014 4:18 am #

    What about if you just change the scoring of the cards till the end of the Game turn for fairness and balance. Also, ignoring cards/rolls that don’t apply seems like an easy fix, draw that flyer card and ur enemy has none, roll again. Keep it simple. I know its not what they put in the rules but it seems to make a little more sense to me.

Leave a Reply