Tonight’s Live 40k Game: Space Marine Battle Company vs. Mech Orks!


Join us on our Twitch Channel, tonight, at 7:00pm PST. Click here to join the fun!

So, we’ve got a fun game planned for this evening! We’re busting out the new Space Marine Battle Force to see what’s what. Frankie will be piloting the Marines, Reece will be taking his trusty Orks, Da Sons of AnOrky out to face them. Orks a pretty mildly powerful army, so this will be a good test! Plus, damn near everything is mechanized or fast, so the game will be very fun.

da sons of anorky


Orks 1850pts
Unit Description Size Cost
Zhardsnark 1 150
Painboy Bike 1 75
Bikers Nob, Klaw, Pole 5 125
Bikers Nob, Klaw, Pole 12 251
Tank Bustas 10 130
Trukk Ram 1 35
Tank Bustas 10 130
Trukk Ram 1 35
Tank Bustas 10 130
Trukk Ram 1 35
Great WAAGH! Detachment
Warboss Bike, Big Bosspole, Klaw 1 130
Mad Dock 1 160
Bikers 3 54
Bikers 3 54
Tank Bustas 10 130
Trukk 1 30
MANZ 4 160
Trukk Ram 1 35
Totals 76 1849

Be warned! The Space Marines are not fully painted, and there are a few proxies (that we will point out and are easily identified). We simply didn’t have the models on hand to run the full Battle Company list.

Captain _ 1
Chaplain _ 1
Tactical Squad melta, Combi-melta, Multi-melta, melta bomb 10
Rhino 1
Tactical Squad melta, Combi-melta, Multi-melta, melta bomb 10
Rhino 1
Tactical Squad melta, Combi-melta, Multi-melta, melta bomb 10
Rhino 1
Tactical Squad melta, Combi-melta, Multi-melta, melta bomb 10
Rhino 1
Tactical Squad melta, Combi-melta, Multi-melta, melta bomb 10
Rhino 1
Tactical Squad melta, Combi-melta, Multi-melta, melta bomb 10
Rhino 1
10th Company Task Force
Scouts 5
Scouts 5
Scouts 5
Fast Attack
Assault Squad Flamer 1
Drop pod 1
Assault Squad Flamer 1
Drop pod 1
Heavy Support
Devastators Lascannons x4 1
Razorback 1
Devastators Lascannons x4 1
Razorback 1



About Reecius

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

71 Responses to “Tonight’s Live 40k Game: Space Marine Battle Company vs. Mech Orks!”

  1. iNcontroL June 16, 2015 4:48 pm #

    Frankie vs Reece… my fav 🙂

  2. fluger June 16, 2015 6:31 pm #

    I’m soooooooooooo rooting for the Orks.

  3. Zombiedon77 June 16, 2015 7:06 pm #

    How is battle company legal in itc? I thought you couldn’t take duplicate formations?

    • Sawyer Z June 16, 2015 8:06 pm #

      It’s being ruled legal as of now because the 2 duplicate formations combine to create 1 single unique detachments, so your list would now only include 1 formation. It’s order of operations.

      • Adam ( June 16, 2015 9:29 pm #

        Despite the rules not actually working that way… It’s just a command bonus for the Gladius.

        That game showed that it’s not very good anyhow. 😉

      • Kartr June 17, 2015 4:20 am #

        Except the Battle Company isn’t actually a formation in any way, shape or form. It’s a blatant rules exception in favour of Space Marines.

      • Zombiedon77 June 17, 2015 6:03 am #

        Ok… So are they allowing other armies to take duplicate formations? Or is this just playing favorites?

        • Adam ( June 17, 2015 6:14 am #

          Just the marine Demi-company. I think it’s pretty annoying because the argument against duplicate formations was that it would encourage spamming, and two Demi-companies is practically the definition of spam, with 10 free Obsec transports. Just call a spade a spade, you need 2 Demi-companies to use the command benefit, it is in no way combined to make a single formation by the rules…

          • D-ManA June 17, 2015 7:51 am

            I agree with you Adam. They spend all that time letting community vote on other things but made a “snap” decision on this one. Whether the detachment is OP or not they are willing to break their own rules for one army, which I’m sorry to say looks like favoritism for that particular army. If favoritism is not the case then they need to make the “snap” decision to allow duplicate formations to the other armies. I’m preparing for an ITC event but decisions like this that favors only one army makes me not want to go.

          • Reecius June 17, 2015 9:40 am

            You guys do realize we’ve made an exception for every single codex that has come out so far, right? It has not just been Marines. Eldar got their D weapons back, Knights got to break the 1 LoW rule, Necrons got to use multiple sub-formations in their Decurion detachment, AdMech got to use a multiple Faction Formation, etc. This is nothing new. And yes, we had to make a snap decision as Wargames Con is in 2 days, and folks needed to know what they could play. This was the Space marine special deal in their book, and we went with it. We do not see this as the same thing as using multiple duplicate formations in other armies. You are free to see it differently, of course.

          • Zombiedon77 June 17, 2015 8:36 am


          • Chris June 17, 2015 9:31 am

            i also agree, however have to point out there are a lot of SM players it would have been voted up anyway…

          • Reecius June 17, 2015 9:50 am

            I agree, here. In all likelihood, putting this to a vote would have had the same result and we simply didn’t have time for it with Wargames Con looming so closely. This is, IMO, a lot of fuss over something that won’t be that relevant, anyway. It is largely a fluff list. You can make much more powerful Marine lists without it.

          • Reecius June 17, 2015 9:42 am

            Sure, you can see it that way and that is fine. It is 2 Demi-Companies and we made the exception to the rule for Space Marines to give them their special, cool thing. No other book has something like this, at least not yet. We felt that it was a unique circumstance and we made the call, just as we made the call to allow Knights to be the exception to the rule and take more than 1 LoW. I am sure you are thankful for that exception as a Knight player, so consider that before casting stones at this exception.

          • Mike June 17, 2015 10:42 am

            A lot of people just hate marines and get mad anytime they’re thrown a bone.

            I for one like the precedent, knowing that when another book comes out that has some new thing that’s technically not legal in ITC, like say if chaos undivided made you have four different detachments for the four chaos gods for some special effects to the army, like “all marks are free and free daemons every turn” or something, the ITC crew would allow it in.

            If you guys keep yelling that Timmy the marine player gets his toy, then when your book comes out and you face a similar situation, they might be like “well we want to allow this in, but last time we did that for an army there was a nuclear explosion of hissy fits.”

          • Reecius June 17, 2015 10:49 am

            Exactly, Mike. And the irony of this situation is that many of those here yelling the loudest have already benefited from the exact same treatment. It makes me laugh, as they have already gotten “special treatment” for their armies and just seem to forget that fact. The glass is half full for everyone, but some folks choose to focus only on what they perceive to be not getting. It just boils down to perspective.

          • Kartr June 17, 2015 11:13 am

            My problem Mike isn’t that they’re allowing it, it’s how they’re allowing it. As someone who plays Imperial Fists/Sentinels of Terra exclusively I want to be able to use the “Battle Company” but I think it’s unfair that Marines get an exception. I understand D, but that change was applied to all armies not just one. I understand the Knights, but they were literally unplayable as an army. The Battle Company could have been dealt with by applying the combi-detachment ruling evenly across both detachment limits and duplication. If it doesn’t count against one, it doesn’t count against the other, problem solved.

          • D-ManA June 17, 2015 11:30 am

            Reese I’m just trying to wrap my mind around your logic. You stated that every codex got something special for their codex so should marines. The difference being that those special rules were voted on and not just made a rule (except for the knights). The necrons got the decurion detachment but still have to follow the “no duplicate formations” rule. Isn’t the gladius strike force a decurion style detachment? I say it should have been left up to a vote, it may have been voted yes but at least the community would have its say. I play marines and even I didn’t think this was the right move. You also have to think about it from another perspective. Necron players got told that they can use their decurion detachment as a single detachment but can’t take duplicate formations within that detachment. Now a new book comes along with a decurion style datachment which counts as a single detachment for ITC purposes and now gets to take duplicate demi-company formation. That is kind of a slap in the face to other armies with that style of detachment. Just disappointed you didn’t give the community a say.

  4. Papucs June 16, 2015 7:28 pm #

    Can you guys do a battle-company vs Eldar/Deldar hardcore competitive bat-rep please? You know that’s what everyone wants 🙂 Some sort of ‘Is the Sky Falling?’ special episode. I volunteer the following SM list (White Scars):

    Command squad with apothecary and grav guns on bikes
    5 tac in razor with meltagun
    5 tac in razor with meltagun
    5 tac in razor with meltagun
    4 devastators with lascannons in drop pod
    attack bike with multi-melta
    Chaplain on bike with auspex
    5 tac in razor with melta
    5 tac in razor with melta
    5 tac in razor with melta
    4 devastators with lascannons in drop pod
    attack bike with multi-melta
    5 scouts with combi-grav
    5 scouts with combi-grav
    5 scouts with combi-grav
    Chapter Master with bike, fist, shield eternal, artificer armour, auspex

    Should be 1850. All this formation nonsense is making me a bit sad. Especially as ‘free points!’ isn’t exactly a strategically complicated approach to list building.

    • Kartr June 17, 2015 4:25 am #

      Drop the melta on all the tacticals and use the points to upgrade one devastator squad to grav cannons. Trade the las devs pod for another Razorback.

  5. bigpig June 16, 2015 8:20 pm #

    Looks almost identical to the list I am finishing up. Running Salamanders instead of White Scars though

  6. Malekith June 17, 2015 1:15 am #

    I don’t know, why Frankie was so afraid of the bikers on turn 1. They couldn’t have charged, as they already had scout moved. Should have brought the flamer pod over there and grilled some orks.

  7. Chris June 17, 2015 9:04 am #

    This Battle Company list was complete garbage, sry Frankie, or Reece, whoever wrote it. Its almost like you were trying to prove the Battle company isnt that OP??

    • Kartr June 17, 2015 9:11 am #

      What’s your idea of a good battle company? As an Imperial Fists player with a few ideas I’d like to see what you’re thinking. Especially since I thought this list was ok, if not tuned to the max. I think the biggest thing was Frankie not being familiar with this list, or the new Doctrines as he didn’t re-roll a bunch of one’s while tactical doctrine was active. Put me in the driver’s seat and that list would have spanked Reece’s Orks like they were a naughty school girl!

      • Adam ( June 17, 2015 9:45 am #

        The big glaring thing I see is that it’s a melta spam list, but not in pods, and without Vulkan. Also, the 10-man squads seem excessive, dropping them to 5-mans and ditching the melta bombs would have freed up 510 points, which could have given the army a lot more to work with in terms of firepower. Free rhinos is possibly the worst use of the formation, taking 10 razorbacks and giving them all assault cannons or las/plas would have only cost 200 points, giving that list a crap ton more firepower, and also still leaving him 310 points to buy a Librarius Conclave or something.

        I know they were using what they had on hand, but it really didn’t do much to prove the effectiveness of the army. Nor did playing against a tailored Ork list, or playing a KP game for that matter (I didn’t notice, but were the tac marines in combat squads? Either way, that’s 25-31 KP on the board)… If this was Eldar, it would have involved playing as OP of an Eldar army against a totally gimped opponent played someone who’s never even heard of Eldar, nor ever played the army they’re using. 😉

        • Reecius June 17, 2015 10:39 am #

          Sigh, my goodness, you are in a mood over this, aren’t you? Go back and watch the Eldar videos before you make inaccurate accusations. I played some VERY soft Eldar lists in those bat reps, I always tried to make the list appropriate to who I was playing which is how I lost my $250 in the challenge match. You are objectively wrong in stating that we tied to show Eldar as crazy OP, that is observably untrue, and shame on you for saying that as you are implying that we behaving unethically which quite frankly, is insulting. And the opponent’s were gimped? You realize a lot of those individuals read this blog, right? They may not enjoy being spoken of in those terms, and some of them are excellent players. Think before you say things like that as we would not level the same accusations against you. You may not like Frankie’s list, but he felt he wrote a good one. You disagreeing with that does not give you the right to hurl accusations. Secondly, a tailored Ork list….seriously? That is a TAC list I have had our studio working on for me for a few months now and it just came in the mail Saturday, I wanted to play it. And it is Orks, one of the weakest armies in the game, with only 2 ObSec units for crying out loud. If we wanted to cream the Marines we would have put the War Convocation, Eldar or Necrons on the table, Orks would have been one of the last choices. I chose Orks on purpose to try and create a more level playing field, not the other way around. Seriously, check yourself, Adam. You are free to express your opinions here, but think before you go too far out of hand with some of these unfounded accusations as they come across as very insulting.

          • Adam ( June 17, 2015 11:56 am

            Actually, the game I was thinking of when I wrote that was the time you played the Revenant against Keno (?) who wasn’t aware of the rules, then it was deemed that it was OP because it wrecked him despite him not having written the list for a time where super-heavies would be part of the game. I probably should have cited that specifically, I didn’t keep track of your more recent eldar games.

            I think I’m most frustrated with the trend, of saying “deal with it” when rules affect armies which are widely complained about on the internet, but then when it comes to an army which you play, and has a bonus for outwardly breaking ITC rules, you make the snap decision to allow it. Even if you didn’t mean for it to be bias, it doesn’t look good.

            Where was the snap-decision to not have IK give up 2 VP’s per knight for Malestrom in ITC events? The response you gave was pretty much that it wasn’t your fault that GW called them LoW, despite GW removing the bonus VP’s from the game for hurting LoW, and ITC keeping the bonus in a Maelstorm format where it’s hugely more of a penalty than even in standard Maelstrom.

            When Eldar came out, you didn’t like destroyer weapons and jetbikes so bad you held an emergency vote to nerf them (fortunately jetbikes barely made the cut).

            Now Marines come out where they get a bonus for breaking ITC rules in a way that breaks the spirit of that rule (you’ve said many times that it’s there to prevent spamming), and you let it through. Other armies you’ve either flat out said to deal with it, or had a vote to try and disallow it.

            The inconsistency on how rulings are made is what’s getting incredibly annoying.

            Sorry if that was your TAC ork list, but it looks pretty incredibly well suited for dealing with marines, which might have just been the strategy when coming up with it, but that marine list is definitely not what most people would consider a good example of what can be accomplished with the dual-demi Gladius.

            Sorry if I came off insulting, I’m just really annoyed with the most recent rulings with ITC and it’s kind of killing the fun of playing the format. Originally it was there to keep things balanced and fair, but now there are so many changes it’s like playing a totally different game. 🙁

        • Raw Dogger June 17, 2015 11:39 am #

          Adam, being insulting and adding a smiley face at the end of your post doesn’t stop it from being insulting. You obviously aren’t happy with a lot of the ITC rulings and have made it abundantly clear. Your negativity is really getting annoying. Instead of making passive aggressive comments how about putting together an event and running it how you see fit?

          • Adam ( June 17, 2015 12:06 pm

            It was a winky face, and it’s essentially the only tool the internet gives you for contextualizing what you say as being a bit on the sarcastic side on the internet. I didn’t think anything I said was passive aggressive, I felt it was all pretty direct.

            Sorry if you’re not happy with my negativity, as you would know if you’ve read what I usually say, I try to keep things as positive and light as possible. The recent negativity comes from my frustration in that 100% of the people in my area play by ITC rules, but the rulings that the ITC council have been making lately are making the game quite un-fun for me, and seem to be inconsistently written and enforced.

            I’m sure Reece doesn’t intend to be bias in his rulings, but when you penalize some armies, then flat out allow others to ignore restrictions, it’s going to look bias, especially when the army you allow to ignore those restrictions is the one you’re most known for playing.

            I was a huge fan of Team Zero-Comp, when they were Zero-Comp. I prefer to play the game as it’s written, where most of the fun was learning to deal with the new threats which come out with each book, perhaps with some mixed up scenarios, and ITC started off strongly going that direction, though recently, it’s done a total 180, and is moving towards some of the most restricted 40k there is.

          • D-ManA June 17, 2015 12:45 pm

            I agree with Adam’s reply post to yours Raw Dogger. Don’t get me wrong I like you guys and enjoy watching you guys play. The problem is is what Adam has pointed out, ITC is not fun to play. When rules that break ITC rules are forced in without the community’s opinion because you guys like it but yet try to have the community vote to change a unit in a codex (scatterbikes) is not cool in my book. It just looks wrong even if it wasn’t intended to look that way. I’m trying to prep for the Iron Halo tournament in Oklahoma but at this point I’m thinking of getting a refund. My group normally play buy the rules in the books and discuss any rules quarries. We started playing ITC for Iron halo and have a few issues with it. Now with this new enforcement of the gladius detachment, which goes against the not duplicate formation rules, and the ‘deal with it” attitude makes me not want to play anyone wanting to play with ITC rules and make us feel we are no longer playing 40k. We all have opinions and we not always agree with one another.

          • Anony-Mouse June 17, 2015 1:00 pm

            It’s exactly this kind of negativity that makes so much of the 40k community so awful to be around. Too many people display this “I’m special and my opinion is gospel” attitude. It’s driven my wife away from the hobby almost completely, definitely away from the community, and if I were ever to quit it would be because of this kind of constant insulting behaviour and pointless complaining. Frontline gaming is one of the last bastions of positive experience left in this hobby, and Adam has spent the last few days on a one-man campaign to turn the discussion as toxic as possible, with personal attacks on some of the only people (the Frontline gaming crew and Reece in particular) that are actually doing something positive and actively working to make the game as fun and exciting as it can be.

            The Ork list is clearly a Tac list, it’s almost identical to the list that won Storm of Silence. The marine list looks really scary to me as an ork player, because all those meltaguns are nearly guaranteed to blow up a trukk and kill half or more of what’s inside. Accusing the people that wrote the lists of trying to make the battle company look weak on purpose because the result doesn’t agree with your pre-existing belief that the formation is OP strongly suggests that you would rather make ad hominem attacks than change your views to fit the evidence and maybe acknowledge that you’re mistaken.

          • Adam ( June 17, 2015 1:21 pm

            I’ll totally concede that the list was probably his TAC list, I don’t assume that Reece makes a habit of stacking the games in favor of the opinion he wants to present (my Eldar mention above was a jab at an old battle report with the Revenant titan, but the reference was lost). Though you have to admit that there were a number of coincidences which could easily lead someone to assume that the game was less than a good representation:

            • It was a so-so marine list, sorry Frankie!.
            • Played by someone who has never run vanilla marines.
            • Against an ork list which just so happened to be perfectly suited for dealing with large number of 3+ models and low armoured vehicles.
            • In a scenario which just happened to be the worst scenario for the marines bringing 25-31 Kill Points.
            • Shortly after the ITC decided to allow a list which breaks ITC rules, that people (not just me) have been complaining about.

            It’s a really unfortunate of a pile of circumstances. All I’ve been trying to express is that it’s incredibly annoying for the community to have inconsistent rulings. IK were told to deal with it because ITC didn’t force them to be LOW, Eldar were given some significant nerfs and had a close-call to further nerf their jetbikes, meanwhile SM are told that they can ignore the restriction.

            I’m not generally one to be negative, quite the opposite actually if you bother reading what I write elsewhere, I do however believe that the rulings lately, while I’m assure are not intended to be bias, look very bias. Hell, I’ve always argued against nerfing eldar, against nerfing destroyer, and for allowing duplicate formations, despite me actually benefiting a ton from all these restrictions.

            Actually, I’m totally in favor of allowing the Battle Company, but I think at the same time, I think it’s unfair to disallow other armies to duplicate formations, if you’re going to allow marines to take two demi-companies.

      • Chris June 17, 2015 10:25 am #

        If i was doing an IF Battle company i would go with something like this:

        Captain w/ combi-grav
        Chaplain w/ combi-grav

        6x Tac with grav/combi-g
        6x las/plaz Razorbacks

        2x Assault squads dual-flamers drop pods
        2x devestators combi-grav cherub
        2x las/plaz razorbacks

        1st Company Task Force
        3x sternguard in drop pods
        15x combi-melta

        Obviously the battle company isnt ideal for kill point missions but i think this list would take advantage of IF chapter tactics as much as possible. Also i think it has enough teeth to shoot a lot of armies off the table with an alpha or beta strike. For most ITC missions u park 20 obsec units on objectives and shoot shit that comes near you. Putting heavy weapons on Devestators is like giving an ork boy a vortex missile= stupid. Sorry to burst anyones bubble devestators still suck ballz, even more than before! Think grav-cannon devs are good? lol 210 points u better kill something worth while when you blow your load…

    • Reecius June 17, 2015 9:47 am #

      Lol, I love it when these accusations come up, as they always do. Yes, in our nefarious plot to prove the Battle Company isn’t too powerful, we pit them against….Orks. Yeah. We were going to play them against the War Convocation, but I thought that might be too much, so I busted out my Orks to make it a more interesting game and the Orks went right through them with a mid-tier list. Frankie and I were both playing to win, big time, too. Frankie wrote that list to beat me, he felt it was good. YMMV, of course, but we never try stack the odds, so to speak. It is pretty actually insulting when people insinuate that, because you are (perhaps unintentionally) questioning our integrity, which is not something to be done lightly.

      • Kartr June 17, 2015 10:50 am #

        I don’t think his list was bad, he’s just not used to playing bolter spam mech. He really should have been more aggressive, as the secret to success is double tapping twin linked tacticals. Especially against orks! You pin those green bastards in the middle of the table, catch them in the open and fire 18-20 twin linked shots per Tac squad and annihilate the boyz. Tie up the bike star and kill everything else.

        If I could make a suggestion, trade the assault marines for attack bikes with MM, 2 squads of 2, (should get tl with assault doctrine), drop two squads of tacticals to 5 man in Razorbacks with upgraded weapons. Try Imperial Fists CTs for tank hunters and twin linked bolters regardless of which doctrine is in use. Should be enough points left to flavor your chaplain and captain to taste.

  8. Chris June 17, 2015 10:41 am #

    I apologize Reece, i wasnt trying to question your integrity or be insulting. I was jokingly trying to make a point but i could have been nicer about it. My first language is sarcasm which isnt translated well through the internet. I appreciate your guys work and all the streaming and battle reports immensely. I know Frankies not a super SM expert and its not his main army but it did kind of look bad all things considered. Maybe it was all accidental, i know sometimes everything seems to stack up against one player in a random match up but it just kind of looked bad. Sorry for the confusion

    • Reecius June 17, 2015 10:44 am #

      It’s all good, I get touchy about that sometimes because those accusations fly every single time we show off something new. Frankie has never played Marines before, so I am sure he made some mistakes. We will continue to play the army, I will try it, too, and I have a lot more experience with them. But, we were not trying to stack the odds, I seriously thought I was going to have a crazy tough game going into it with Orks. But, I wanted to play my new list our studio just got done painting up. We play everything straight up and just show the results, we try our best not to color it with our own bias (although of course, that still happens a bit). No hard feelings or anything, it’s just that we take our integrity seriously. We have the shit job of making calls on this stuff and getting blasted for it, but someone has to do it. It’s easy to criticize decisions, but tough to make them. So, anyway, just touched a nerve a bit, no hard feeling though, like I said.

      • bugsculptor June 17, 2015 1:47 pm #

        Yeah, I think you’re in a tough spot. Every codex throws up a new “special case” that you have to deal with.

        It’s really tricky as a player to keep up with the pace of GW codex releases. It’s even more tricky to keep up with the dual whammy of codex releases and ITC rulings. You have to read the books, keep up with all the e-pubs and exclusives, then cross reference against the ITC FAQ to see if what you think is a good idea is allowed or not, or works in a different way to the way GW wrote it.

        The trouble is that you’re now having to match GW’s pace and make rulings so fast they’re piling up and making the ITC metagame pretty different to the 40k metagame. D weapons are nerfed… but 20+ obsec unit marine armies with free transports are in. Some factions can take duplicate formations, some can’t. Some factions are limited to 3 detachments, others can take formations of formations. Some units are banned, but increasingly there are permitted units or formations that are more effective creeping into the game.

        I’ll be honest – I miss the old policy of balancing the game with missions and not rules changes. At least it was simple enough to explain to a beer and pretzels player and kept the tournament game very close to the GW game.

  9. Will Grant June 17, 2015 11:55 am #

    Haven’t been able to watch as of yet.

    Was joining independent characters to sky hammer formation discussed for wargames con? Jury still out?

    • Will Grant June 17, 2015 11:56 am #

      Clarification: can they join and still assault?

  10. fluger June 17, 2015 12:43 pm #

    Reece, I’m an ITC apologist in most things, and, I don’t play competitively anymore, so perhaps my opinion doesn’t even really matter; however, I really disagree that the battle company isn’t a crazy broken.

    I understand you guys had to make a snap decision because of the crazy release schedule and tournaments already planned. So, I don’t think that’s an issue. But, I gotta say, the Battle Company is bananas, and you had a baked in reason for not allowing it already (no duplicates) that shouldn’t’ve ruffled feathers in the same way as the D weapon “nerf” did.

    Whatever people vote, I think that the battle company is probably the craziest thing GW has released yet.

    • vercingatorix June 18, 2015 12:02 pm #

      I think they should schedule a vote after this tournament. I prefer them keeping as hands off as possible as other people have mentioned.

      I don’t think there is a problem with spamming in this or decurian so I think I’m letting that affect how I feel about it.

      There isn’t really a great gaming tradition to fall back on so they make it up as they go. Oh well.

  11. Ghost Valley June 17, 2015 1:36 pm #

    Was a fun battle report to watch, and I’m still loving the ITC format. I wish the design team could come up with something other than free stuff as formation bonuses and I can certainly see the battle company being not a ton of fun to play against for a lot of different lists. There are certain missions that are going to be pretty easy for Battle Company to hold objectives on and I think that this list in this game certainly is not the nastiest version. 12 razorbacks feels harsh to me.

    What I really dont like is the new pay to play scarcity formations, like the skyhammer, that “sell out” after a weekend. Every event or game at a store I’ve played in required players to have rules in hand – not scans or screenshots from teh interwebz. I dont like a formation or ruleset being allowed that I cant purchase the rules for myself and own an official copy of. Especially since most people using it will have never seen the official rules for themselves but grabbed a screen shot or summary from somewhere online. But people seem to feel differently about it…

    • vercingatorix June 18, 2015 11:56 am #

      I think they have the rules straight up on their website so you can have an official copy. I saw a link to it on DakkaDakka somewhere, sorry I can’t be more help. Look on the two discussions on skyhammer in the tactics section.

      • Ghost Valley June 18, 2015 2:21 pm #

        Thanks for the lead. It looks like most of pics are from people opening the JPEG on the GW site in a new tab and then saving the image and then blowing it up. But that is more a case of GW being bad at the Internet then actually giving gamers access to the rules. I’m still not a fan of limited release rules that most of us don’t have access to own in any official format.

  12. vercingatorix June 17, 2015 7:58 pm #

    Great Game, I wish a regular ork could hurt armor 10 with a multi-assault!

    If that was true, the green tide would go up a huge amount in competitiveness. All it would take would be either base str 4, allowing furious charge on a multi-assault, or just somehow allowing them to hurt vehicles.

    Rules stuff- The painboy is S4 which means his wounds are on a 4 and re-rolling for poison! could have gotten a a few more wounds through the game with that.

    Meg-armored nob squad has a nob that is a character. So you can choose to accept with either one of the nobs or with Mad Dok.

    • Reecius June 18, 2015 3:37 am #

      All great info, thanks!

    • abusepuppy June 18, 2015 2:39 pm #

      He does only get the reroll on the charge (since you need to be higher Str than their T), but it’s nice when you get it.

  13. ChosenOfKhorne June 19, 2015 9:06 am #

    The problem is they should have disallowed the battle company initially, and then had it voted in if people wanted it. You have already stated that it is harder to take away toys that you have already allowed people to use, compared to allowing them to add additional options later on. By allowing the battle company as default, there will be people who have bought, modeled, and painted this up, and will now be upset that it is taken away from them. For example, I thought this was one of the reasons that Imperial Knights were allowed to break the “one lord of war” rule, even though no other army can do so, even though their codex allows it. Taking away this exception from IK would punish IK players after they have spent money and time on making this army playable, and the same will now happen to all those marine players that buy 10 Razorbacks, etc. to play this list, that won’t fit into a list where they aren’t free.

    • D-ManA June 19, 2015 11:03 am #

      I totally agree with you.

  14. Sam June 19, 2015 7:50 pm #

    This formation is no where near that bad.
    The sky hammer formation if it actually allows characters would of been much more game breaking lucky itc knows it’s not allowed.

    If Reece really was showing favoritism to space marines he would of allowed that ruling which I agree should not be allowed.

    D weapons is an across the board nerf so stop crying about eldar being nerfed. They are still ridiculously overpowered and I fully expect them to win this tournement.

    • Adam ( June 19, 2015 11:11 pm #

      The point is that there is a restriction on duplicate detachments for all armies now except for space marines, that’s why people, including myself, are annoyed. Taking 2 formations of helbrutes isn’t that OP either… There are tons of not OP formations that nobody else can duplicate, why do marines get to duplicate formations in a way that grants them 350+ points of free units? Like you said about blanket rules, it’s a blanket restriction now with the exception of marines.

      • Sam June 20, 2015 5:14 am #

        That rule was placed long before decorian type detachments. It was made for things like tau fire base cadre. If you honestly don’t understand how things can need to change then you don’t understand why this is fine. Itc tries not to ban any codexs or detachments or formations. They actual try not to ban particular models unless there is a huge issue. When decorian came out for necrons an exception to the rule of two formations were made. I didn’t see you here crying how it’s unfair necrons get an exception to the 2 formation rule. Instead you started your rant because your op codex was nerfed and your being bitter.

        • Sam June 20, 2015 5:48 am #

          Btw the battle company isn’t even a single codex formation. It already is seen in the dark angles codex. So banning a particular formation across several codexs when it isn’t even that strong of a list is silly.

          • Adam ( June 20, 2015 6:38 am

            The point isn’t that it’s good, the point is that it’s a special exception for space marines and nobody else. If it’s not even that good, then why blow off your own community voted on rule to allow it? I can’t take 2 Helbrute formations, is that too good to allow? Like I said, it has nothing to do with effectiveness, and everything to do with fairness.

        • Adam ( June 20, 2015 6:25 am #

          Actually it was also voted on explicitly after Decurion detachments were added to the game.

          • Adam ( June 20, 2015 6:35 am

            Additionally I’ve voted entirely against things that are in favor of knight armies. I’m against the ranged D nerf, against the restriction of duplicate formations (not enough points in a knight army to take advantage), against nerfing eldar, against nerfing 2+ rerollable and against nerfing invisibility… None of that is stuff that I use. So before you think it’s me being bitter about my army getting nerfed maybe you should actually read my stance on the issue.

            The most recent vote EXPLICITLY mentioned banning duplicate formations, including for decurion style detachments, and the community voted in favor of the ban. It is unfair to lift the restriction for one army for the sole purpose of them being able to get 350+ points of free models. I’m 100% in favor of allowing it, if the restriction is lifted for everyone, not just space marines, and even though I have no intention of even taking duplicate formations.

          • Adam ( June 20, 2015 6:40 am

            And finally, the necron decurion never broke the 2 Detachment rule, as it is a single detachment regardless of how many formations are in it. The Decurion wasn’t the first formation to be made up of formations, it was just the first one in common play.

          • Sam June 21, 2015 5:38 am

            This is wrong. Formations are a type of detachment stated directly in the brb. And decoran was the first detachment that broke the 2 detachment ruling. Just because you say it’s not multiple detachments doesn’t make it the truth. And while there was people against decorian I never saw you claiming it should be banned because it was already voted on no more then 2 detachments. The itc made an exception to decorian since it was the first detschment made up of several detachments. This was clearly an exception which is why people were arguing about it. The itc said the same thing then as they do now. They didn’t want to ban a new detschment. Just like they did with knights and not wanting to ban the entire codex. And now with space marines and not wanting to ban specific detschments. Again it just appears you are bitter because of elder.

          • Adam ( June 21, 2015 6:34 am

            I don’t play Eldar, so I’m not sure why you think I’m bitter about the nerfs to them. ITC has said from Day 1 that the Decurion is only one detachment, much like how the previous formations made of multiple formations are only one detachment (there was already a Tyranid formation that was doing this). They have also enforced decurion-style detachments could never take multiple of the same formation (which is the problem here). Also remember that I am against a limit on the number of detachments allied, and against restricting duplicate detachments, so the advent of the decurion was in line with my agenda anyhow.

            The bigger issue here is that Necrons are not allowed to take two Reclaimation Legions, despite them being 1+ in the decurion, as well as any army taking duplicates of any formation, but a special exception is being made to allow space marines to take two Demi-Company formations, despite them being 1-2 in the Gladius detachment, it is by no means mandatory to take the second one.

            Just so you are aware, the Battle Company is not a detachment, there is COMMAND BONUS for the GLADIUS detachment which gives you extra bonuses when you take TWO DEMI-COMPANIES. There is no such detachment or formation called a Battle Company, the way you get the bonus transports is by buying a totally optional SECOND demi-company formation. That’s how the rules work to get what represents a full battle company. ITC wouldn’t be banning anything that wasn’t already restricted under their rules. By allowing them to take two Demi-Company formations to receive that additional bonus they are ignoring the rules that their community voted on.

            All I’m saying is that it’s pretty lame to let space marines have multiple of the same formation, and not allow other faction, just to reiterate the second Demi-company is OPTIONAL, and not actually required by any formation composition. And just so there’s no confusion, I play Chaos (Marines, Daemonkin, and renegades) and used to play Imperial Knights until recently, none of which would really benefit well from being allowed to take the duplicate formations.

          • Reecius June 21, 2015 7:16 am

            Adam, for crying out loud, you’ve made your point. Let it go, dude. The salt is flowing so thick out of your post I need to put lotion on due to the moisture being sucked out of me. We made a choice to allow the most iconic army in the game into the ITC. Sorry that upsets you or that you think it’s unfair. But seriously, these lame accusations of rigging the bat reps or what have you need to stop as they are you seeing what you want to see and are not in any way based on reality. As the ITC develops, we will continue to evolve and provide opportunities for change. We may see duplicate detachments down the road, but for now,we had to make a decision in the short term of whether or not to allow the Battle Company and we said yeah, as it is cool, fluffy, and fun. You are reading so much more into it than is there, and my advice to you is to chill out for the time being. It really isn’t that big of a deal.

          • D-ManA June 22, 2015 6:31 am

            Reese, first let me state, like Adam, I’m a firm believer to let the game be played as is. I understand that at the beginning you were trying to make it a little more balanced and fun for tournament players. Unfortunately at this point ITC has put so many restrictions that it seem like we are no longer playing 40k. Now saying that, ITC has a set of rules and guidelines that can be followed for ITC events to be included in the rankings. Like Adam I don’t think it is right that this decision was made to brake the “no duplicate formations” rule and not put to a vote like other things were (you should have put the multiple knight to a vote too). If you are willing to make a ‘snap’ decision on this for marines then you should be able to make the same ‘snap’ decision for the other armies. I’m going to my first ITC event and it will probably be my last. I will probably refuse to play anyone wanting to use ITC format until you decide if you want to make rulings for ITC or give the people a voice and not flip flop whenever it suits you.

  15. Laughterofgods June 21, 2015 6:07 am #

    This might get lost in the absurdity of this conversation, but Reece, two clarifications.

    1. Warbikers actually don’t have frag grenades (stikkbombs). Yeah, I don’t know why but they are not listed on the unit entry.

    2. Unless there is a specific ITC ruling, when you multi-assault the rules are actually pretty clear that “a charging model is not permitted to move into base contact with a model in a secondary target, unless it cannot move into base contact with an unengaged model in the primary target.” So multi-assaulting a vehicle and something else actually is quite easy. You only need to put one model in contact with the vehicle and after that just keep coherency and charge the other things.

    • Laughterofgods June 21, 2015 6:10 am #

      Got farther along and you figured that out. Sorry for the somewhat redundant post.

    • Reecius June 21, 2015 7:09 am #

      I saw they didn’t have grenades, yes, but thanks for the reminder. I don’t know why they don’t, though, haha.

      And yeah, Multi-Assaulting is easy with units with big bases like Bikers as you can cut off the movement of other units and “force” them to hit other targets. That’s one of my favorite things about them, they can net a bunch of units in a complex assault and with the Fearless banner and Klaws, will hang in there and grind things down.

Leave a Reply