Don't know if this goes here or not since I'm asking a few questions, but since I'm describing a battle I guess it does?
So today was the first game I played with my Draigowing since the 1.1 nerf . The guy I played against used Orks and was very nice, agreeing to play a game of 2055 to accommodate my wishlist. My list consisted of:
Draigo - 275
Libby Master Level 3 - 200 ( chose to take all divination powers for him, ended up with Prescience, Forewarning, and Perfect Timing)
2 units of 10 paladins, with 4 psycannons (all master crafted), brotherhood banner, psybolt ammo, 1 warding stave, 2 hammers, apothecary, and 6 halberds) - 790 x 2 = 1580
I do not know the point values of his list, but he had 1 units of 30 boyz, 1 unit of 30 hardboyz, 20 or so stormboyz (I forget the exact count), 2 warbosses with powerclaws, one warboss was with one of the boyz unit, the other was in a Trukk(?) with 8 nobz, finally he had 5 deffkoptas that were in reserve and a what may have been a battle wagon (dont know enough about orks to tell). He may have had some more units in reserve, but I forget (and because he quit at the end of turn 1, it doesn't really matter.)
We got mission 4 and hammer and anvil formation. I got to deploy and go first. We both put our units right up to our deployment line. I put Draigo in one unit and the libby in another, then line up my paladins in a zig zag line across my deployment zone (with draigo in front obviously. My opponent places one unit of boys facing each of my paladins units, with stormboyz behind the unit facing my libby paladins and the warboss trukk behing the unit facing draigos. I use Draigo's Grand Strategy and scout ahead. He fails to seize.
My first turn I use libbys Prescience on Draigo's unit. With it I manage to kill all but 9 boyz in one unit (pretty much every shot went through). They fail their leadership and start to retreats. The other unit with my Libby does almost as good, killing 13 boys in the other unit. That ends my turn since I scouted and I couldn't assault.
His turn he has his battle wagon charge up to my Draigon unit, and uses it as a shield blocking the warboss trukk from my line of sight. He then has his stormboyz use their jump packs and move in of his regular boyz. He it at most 5 inches from my paladins. He forgoes shooting (why?) and declares an assault with his stormboyz. I overwatch and managed to kill two. He rolls for his assault...
And rolls a snake eyes.
He sighs, says I win and begins to pack up. I ask him to reconsider and offer to let him re roll the assault dice. He does so, and gets a three. He says I win again and continues to pack up despite my best efforts to ask him to continue. He says that since he can't tarpit me with his stormboyz there it nothing he can do to keep me from tabling him, so he might as well quit.
So the battle was over before it really began, and I have to ask, was what he did fair, to me or to himself? I don't know much about Orks, but was there anything he could have done to win at that point. I feel he should have continued playing against me, at least from the sake of sportsmanship, but was there really any hope for him to win at all? I'd like to hear from anyone whose been in a similar situation whose opponents quick so early, and from ork players as well...
Alright, He wasn't into wasting his time. Frankly his ork list would be hardpressed to deal with two units of 2 wound terminators. It sounds like he fielded 4 units... 1 you shot up and the 2nd failed to hit the charge... From you first turn shooting, he was expecting the 2nd unit to be shot up and charged and at I 2 S3 he wasn't going to take out too many paladins. Now no position but if you did your same prescience and shot up his hard boys, he would be left facing about 18 to 20 terminators with 8 nobz.
The writing was on the wall. He could have given you the satisfaction of beating the crap out of him in turn 2 but he knew any hope he had went out the window with the failed charge.
That guy, in saving himself some time, also denied himself the opportunity to learn how the Grey Knights army works. If you think you're going to lose a game, then you already have.
I credit you with half the fault. Draigo-wing is a very cheesy list.
It might be fun for you but its never for your opponent.
His loss was 99% sure but he played you nevertheless.
He gets points for that.
In my gaming commuity , players with uber lists are not very popular and soon nobody plays them.
I dont say that you are a .. ehh sorry ... bastard for playing such a list but it wont get you any new friends.
Add bad dice rolls to this guy and off he goes.He saw o reason tho waste precious time while you butcher him.
Its understandable... bad sportmanship ... but understandable.
Personaly i have a wife,a job and 2 children so my time for warhammer is very little.
I would not waste it in a such a game also.
Im sorry but this is how i see it.
He could have tried to play more laterally, that is, go after the mission objectives instead of after your pallies (unless this was Purge the Aliens), but honestly, it appeared that he didn't have much left after that first turn. He saw just how much damage and how deadly your army was and decided that he could only deal with it had things gone more his way. They didn't and so he felt there was no point in him losing so badly.
Yeah, quitting so early wasn't too cool, but some people just don't like to waste their time on a game they perceive to have very little chance of winning and a large chance of getting beaten badly.
I've lost a lot of games of 40k. I always stick around at least until the end of turn 4. I understand why he quit but don't think I would have if I was in his place.
I'm one of those backwards people who views forfeiting as a sign of GOOD sportsmanship.
If you can recognize when you're honestly, genuinely beat, why go through the pointlessness of continuing the game? This is assuming that you're doing it with grace, and not flipping tables or anything on your way out. It's something you should graciously accept too: I'd consider trying to drag someone through a one-sided asskicking poor sportsmanship also.
Contrast this with one of my friends, who will argue he's not beaten until the bitter end ("I can still beat you, I just have to have every last one of my guys left hit AND wound AND you fail all your armor saves AND I get these guys to fleet 6" AND they wind up getting the assault on you") and argue with you on the post-mortem such useless things as "I would have had you if I just had one more turn...", when in reality, he had half a squad of something like Scorpions left.
Sportsmanship is not necessarily dependent on what you do, but rather how you do it.
1. Conceding shouldnt be confused with ragequitting
2. playing on does not necessarily mean suffering and whining and complaining
I think no one has a problem if you accept your fate and congratulate your opponent for his victory honestly and friendly and ask for his pardon.
If you just go packing as your opponent did, I consider this ragequitting, which is the behaviour of a coward.
But you can as well continue with the game and have a good time although that it is a one sided match. It is always a bigger challenge to be on the wrong side of a superior army than it is being on the right side. You can learn good lessons for later games, you can improve your skills as well on how to act under pressure.
But if each action is connected with whining and complaining about how imbalanced the game is, how much bad luck is in play and what else can be brought out to deny the opponent his earned victory, there is absolutely no point in going on.
To sum it up:
1. I would rather have my opponent ragequitting than have him in a game of useless whining
2. I would offer my opponent his free choice if he is a good guy. If I am on the receiving end, I won't concede most of the time, because I always want to practice. And I tend to deny defeat for a long time. I only concede when no actual game is going to be played after a certain point. (i.e.: having an objective game and I have no troops left and maybe one unit I can now try to hide from half of his army for 3 turns or so)
In tournaments I never concede though since it means max. defeat.
The only list that I have ever thrown in the towel before was against the old 5th ed imperial guard list with 3 manticores and scouting vendettas with vets and demolition charges. He got first turn and killed every single one of my vehicles with his manticores and his scouting vendettas dropped his vets and they demolitioned me off the table.
Eh, Draigowing, cheesy? They've got counters, and they're not completely invincible. Yes, I will admit that this Ork list would have been hard pressed to deal with 2 wound FNP Termies, but in a dice game like this, there's always room for major upsets and ridiculous victories.
As a whole, though, I agree with Nazdreg. Politely saying something like "Look, dude, I don't think there's any point in continuing this; I'd like to call the game, thanks!" in a friendly manner is perfectly fine. Whining, sulking, or slinking away really is the sign of a poor sport.
Forfeiting turn 4+ when things are clearly up a creek? ok.
Forfeiting turn 1, come on.
Bad luck hit his dice and good luck hit yours. Stick it out another turn or two and man up to see if the dice shift. If anything you'll just learn something about your own tactics or your opponent's.
I've gone into PLENTY of one sided games like 18 wraiths vs my firebase eldar. When you lose, you at least learn what you could do better.
Since it's just a game that you play for fun, why make him continue to play when he is clearly having no fun at all? Just so you can have fun?
I have been in his shoes. Granted, I've never given up turn one, but sometimes you can just tell how your day of 40k will go by some dice rolls, and it sounds like with those failed charges he was going to be hard pressed to do anything. He saved you time of having to mop up and saved some grey hairs on his part.
It's just a game, and when it becomes a chore then you have to decide if it's worth it or, as an example, if you're trying to practice for a tournament or something.
He was doing you a favor by playing with a very specific points limit that you have obviously tailored, which is fine; you want to play your dream list and that's great. However, he was doing you a favor by indulging you so I would not fault him for his actions, personally.
I recently played a game versus Space Wolves where my opponent blew up most things of importance turn 1 with long fangs, as well as forcing my kroot to run off the board. I played on, but I knew I had lost. The rest of the game was fun though, as I managed to make an absurd number of 4+ Fire Warrior saves, and wiped out a couple squads of Grey Hunters.
Then there was a game I played against Death Wing, and I killed all 10 Terminators + Belial right as they dropped. This was actually quite hilarious, as Belial ate a railgun to the face. This was mostly due to the fact that my opponent rolled something like 7 1's in a row on armor saves. My opponent threw his dice in the trash from across the room and cussed and shouted for a while, it had the rest of the store laughing pretty hard.
I'd say; don't be like my friend and start throwing dice or anything, but if there's a good reason you know you can't win (like, losing your synapse as nids t1/2, no troops left in an objective mission etc), or if you're simply in a position where you *will* lose next turn (paladins 2" from everything I hold precious), don't drag it out unnecessarily. Sometimes you can get another game in - I usually leave my table set up in those cases. It's often more fun to play 2 games of 1250 than one of 2k.
I credit you with half the fault. Draigo-wing is a very cheesy list.
It might be fun for you but its never for your opponent.
His loss was 99% sure but he played you nevertheless.
He gets points for that.
In my gaming commuity , players with uber lists are not very popular and soon nobody plays them.
I dont say that you are a .. ehh sorry ... bastard for playing such a list but it wont get you any new friends.
Add bad dice rolls to this guy and off he goes.He saw o reason tho waste precious time while you butcher him.
Its understandable... bad sportmanship ... but understandable.
Personaly i have a wife,a job and 2 children so my time for warhammer is very little.
I would not waste it in a such a game also.
Im sorry but this is how i see it.
I'm with him. I don't have a wife or kids or anything but I still understand what he is saying.
You brought a Draigo-wing list, so we could assume winning is important to you and you won fair and square. The guy just helped you do it a lot faster.
I would never again play anyone who quit on Turn 1.
At that point, you've probably invested an hour into getting the little men out, making a battlefield for them, and pushing them around some. Quitting on turn 1 means that person is ok with murdering an hour of my life away.
I credit you with half the fault. Draigo-wing is a very cheesy list.
It might be fun for you but its never for your opponent.
His loss was 99% sure but he played you nevertheless.
He gets points for that.
In my gaming commuity , players with uber lists are not very popular and soon nobody plays them.
I dont say that you are a .. ehh sorry ... bastard for playing such a list but it wont get you any new friends.
Add bad dice rolls to this guy and off he goes.He saw o reason tho waste precious time while you butcher him.
Its understandable... bad sportmanship ... but understandable.
Personaly i have a wife,a job and 2 children so my time for warhammer is very little.
I would not waste it in a such a game also.
Im sorry but this is how i see it.
I'm with him. I don't have a wife or kids or anything but I still understand what he is saying.
You brought a Draigo-wing list, so we could assume winning is important to you and you won fair and square. The guy just helped you do it a lot faster.
First off, thank you everyone for your responses.
Second , to the person in the quote, no, I didnt start Draigowing because I want to WAC. Please do not make that assumption about me. I started Draigowing because it was the cheapest way to start GK and let me get a feel for the army in general. I would rather have started a purifier army with 60 purifiers, rhinos/ razorbacks, and storm ravens, but no way I could afford that. Until recently I had no steady income and Draigowing was all I could afford when it came to starting a new army.
And if you must know, this is actually only the second time I've won with my Draigowing list. Every other time I'm fought against and Eldar guy who takes DE allies and by the end of turn one either Draigo is dead and/or half my paladins are.
DarknessEternal wrote:I would never again play anyone who quit on Turn 1.
At that point, you've probably invested an hour into getting the little men out, making a battlefield for them, and pushing them around some. Quitting on turn 1 means that person is ok with murdering an hour of my life away.
This is all true. It's also only half of the total truth.
Think about it from the ork player's perspective for a moment. He just invested an hour unpacking his army, setting up a battle field, and did a tiny bit of movement. The dice have decided that the rest of the game is going to consist of little more than picking his models back up off the table, and packing them back in his army case. It's not just that he no longer has a chance of winning, it's that he isn't going to be able to field an army, do a bunch of movement, some shooting, and some chopping. He's not actually going to be PLAYING, he's going to be sitting there slowly repacking his army while the other player rolls some dice.
The hour that's been wasted is a fixed cost. The choice that now faces the ork player is if he is going to put away his army slowly and go home, or if he's going to concede and either pack up his army quickly and go home, or perhaps try and get another game in. One where there's an actual game in the game that he can actually play while he plays.
I think conceding in this case is more an act of mercy to both people involved, at least in this case.
It's one of the problems I'm starting to notice with 6th ed. It very much feels like the game is determined by the time the second player gets to the start of his second turn. By the time turn 2 is over, you know who has won. Furthermore, one of the armies is likely so damaged that there aren't many inlets for player skill, and there isn't many opportunities presented by the player's ruined army to actually DO stuff. The element of the game that is a game seems to vanish pretty quickly in a game of 6th edition.
It's kind of like Monopoly or Axis and Allies. Once one player starts losing (which usually becomes apparent pretty quickly), it becomes a matter of the winner slowly choking off the loser's ability to do anything, and the inevitability of the result is only finalized after a joyless slog of a few hours rolling dice. It's becoming clearer to me that this is a real flaw of 6th edition.
In 5th, nobody's stuff died very quickly, and missions were easy to accomplish (and could thus be accomplished by just a few models - a nearly-tabled player could always go for a draw), and assault was real, which meant you had killing power and stuff happening over the course of the entire game. None of this feels like a way to describe 6th edition so far. If the game is really only one or two turns long, then why bother playing the game after turn 2 if you're not actually playing after that because it's rather ceased to be a game?
I'm not going to jump down the OP's throat here, as there are several reasons other than sociopathy to play an army that's not fun to play against. If an opponent can't get satisfaction from the game, it's usually more the game's fault than the opponent's. That said, I think it would be worthwhile to be considerate of the kind of gaming experience you offer to your opponent when you play (I don't mean just you in specific, but everybody). Nobody wants to spend an hour unpacking things just to get tabled without really getting to do anything, and then packing up again. All players have almost a moral responsibility to be and to behave in a manner that makes you worth playing against.
It's really not a matter of "who is right?" or "what qualifies as good sportsmanship?" These concepts are both secondary to the whole point of a game in the first place - the play, and to have fun doing it.
This is always a touchy subject as it does depend partly on why/how you play.
I play for fun, if I see someone across the table with the mindset of 'must use best meta army to table my opponents' I do sometimes think 'Ugh... why do I even bother?'
Although this isn't a fair opinion for me to give because while we are playing each other we are playing very differently and with different aims in mind.
I would rather have fun games and lose 1 million times in a row, than play 1 serious/uber competitive game where I feel like I'm ruining it or making it less fun for my opponent.
It's not about winning or losing for me, its for enjoyment, although luck can be a factor in enjoyment too, as if you have an unlucky game or your opponent does, you sometimes do feel like quitting or understanding why your opponent might, or be at the very least disheartened with the game and hence enjoy it less.
Some people get their fun from the competitive edge though and there is nothing wrong with it, it's a healthy attitude and if its the part of the game that they enjoy then they should do what they can to enjoy it.
So in this case, I can understand why the guy didn't want to carry on, if a game isn't going to be fun for you then I understand its tempting to quit. (I've personally never quit, I'd rather try and learn something or even try and get the other person to begin enjoying it more.)
Although it does suck for you too because his quitting has taken away your fun.
It's one of those areas where both sides can be right, but no one side is more right than the other.
The best advice I can give is to try and play people with a similar mindset, this is obviously easier to do amongst friends or regulars, but if it's a random at your LGS I guess theres not much you can do.
By the way I'm not implying that you are one of these uber competitive guys or that, it's only for the purpose of an example. From the sounds of things and the fact that you are asking for opinions, makes me think that your main aims were to have a fun game but that was also a bit of a challenging/competitive game, which is a good attitude to have too.
Just my 0.02 USD though, and again I'm not trying to imply anything horrible about either player here, it's just you did seem to have different goals in mind.
Rysaer wrote:Some people get their fun from the competitive edge though and there is nothing wrong with it, it's a healthy attitude and if its the part of the game that they enjoy then they should do what they can to enjoy it.
Well, and it's not just a matter of being competitive.
It's not a competition unless there is a reasonable chance that either player could win. If a game continues past this point, it continues without also still being a competitive exercise.
It's the challenge that provides the interest. It's being faced with a set of difficult circumstances and then acting with the greatest of your ability to overcome them. Competition is just a way to ensure that challenges stay fresh over repeated attempts.
If there is no challenge, though, because you no longer have serious obstacles to overcome, or because the game doesn't offer you the ability to apply your player skill in a way that will actually give you the chance of success, then what really is the point?
If anything, this should be frustrating properly competitive players more than anyone. The competition is much better if the game is close to the end than if it's done right away and the rest is just the mechanics of wrapping things up.
Of course it sounds like he really didn't know how to face a Paladin list in the first place. Stormboys arn't going to tarpit a Paladin squad for any amount of time for one. Secondly, you need to play the mission and not go bash your brains out on a brainmasher.
Ailaros wrote: It's one of the problems I'm starting to notice with 6th ed. It very much feels like the game is determined by the time the second player gets to the start of his second turn. By the time turn 2 is over, you know who has won. Furthermore, one of the armies is likely so damaged that there aren't many inlets for player skill, and there isn't many opportunities presented by the player's ruined army to actually DO stuff. The element of the game that is a game seems to vanish pretty quickly in a game of 6th edition.
This has never happened to me in 6th edition-- it was much more common in 5th edition. Alpha strikes are much less effective now thanks to improved vehicle cover, fortifications, and Night Fighting on turn 1 much of the time. What is true is that you have to take objectives a lot more seriously in 6th edition than you did in 5th-- you can't just Tank Shock to contest on turn 5 every game-- but honestly I think that's a good thing!
Took part in a local tournament back in 5th, together with a friend of mine though he just watched as he did not have his models painted yet and did not want to play without painted models.
In the second match, I knew gak hit the fan when I was to play our local TFG. Rolling 1 dice at a time, measuring every single 1/10th of an inch, re-reading everything the other codex, several times throughout the game etc.
Long story short: he pulled off a Draigowing (vs. Oldcrons.). He started getting his minis off the box and on the board (yes, he put them in there after every game.) and saw what he was going for. Checked his army list...full cheesewing. Laughed, called a TO, told him I'd surrender. He looked at me, asked if I was sure and did not want to at least try playing and I told him I'd rather have some fun instead of playing that list. He got a victory, I went go eat something with my friend, chatting a bit, had a good time.
Back at the store, he just stood there alone, waiting on a chair. In his 3rd game, he played against a total first-timer with Eldar and seriously, wow. He mocked him all the time, made fun of his moves etc. Total donkey-cave. Even the TO asked him to step down the trashtalk.
Anyway, he won the tournament (feth you Matt Ward!) but at the same time..well, lost. Best fething moment in my warhammer history!
TOs declared the standings, some little prizes for rank 3, then a blister for the second place. Everyone cheered at them , handshakes etc. And then...haha. People turned away from the scene, started packing their stuff, chatting, talking about their games etc. TOs were confused but proceeded to call out the winner, but...nobody cared. Noone clapped his hands, most did not even look at the "stage". TFG got his prize while my friend was just about to play a game with my Necrons vs another guy. TFG then packed his stuff and left.
Saw him a few times afterwards, playing WHF, afterwards.
Was that bad sportsmanship by me? Yes, probably. It's a tournament and you have to expect facing ass lists like Draigowing. But at that time, I simply saw no point in playing a game with someone who wasn't fun to play against with a list that's a single big red win-button.
The ending ceremony thingy was pretty donkey-cave-ish, gotta admit that, and I did feel a bit bad afterwards, but the pretty unisone reaction showed that I wasn't the only one angry about that guy.
I still consider not playing / turn 1 surrendering a viable option. Some people want to play unfun games and imo, they aren't worth the hassle.
My advice, however, is not doing what I did and rather talk with the other person (not in a tournament ofc). Say what you feel being in such a situation, ask him why he brought a list and try to find a compromise. If you can't, hey, you tried. Look for other people to play.
I've felt that way before. Like losing 6 tanks turn 1 with my Eldar vs a drop pod melta gun army. It happens.
But playing is way more fun than giving up, and I've run some games way past the point of reason, because I want to take that daring long-shot pigs-flying hail mary chance and laugh as it doesn't work.
Ailaros wrote: If an opponent can't get satisfaction from the game, it's usually more the game's fault than the opponent's.
That's patently absurd. If someone doesn't like something, the only conclusion you can draw is they don't like it. I don't like soccer, therefore the billions who do just don't understand how fundamentally flawed the game is? Ridiculous.
Back to the regular topic: agreeing to play a game is a social contract. Bailing on that game is a breach of that contract. Quitting that early means he only cares about games he's winning. Well tough crap, sometimes other people win. Torpedoing their victory with your pouting is the definition poor sportsmenship.
i disagree with it being bad sportsmanship. (unless he flipped the table, turned his face into that of the trollish style and screamed about it) but really it sounds like he built a list on the spot to deal with a prebuilt/tailored/carefully crafted list that happens to be in one of the most powerful codex/factions in the game, and he did it with an older codex (not saying orks are not competative, far from it!) he coulda brought dakkajets if he had em, but it sounded alot like he just wanted to be all orky with odd things here and there. The point though, is sometimes people dont add up all the damage a draigowing/grey knights army can dish out and they dont have alot of good ways to deal with it. His packing up sounded like he was defeated not only on the table (honostly it sounded like you may of had to spend two whole turns taking out everything he had left, so it saved time packing now) but defeated in his mind, and at that point trying to force him to keep going isnt going to actually help. sitting down afterword and discussing how things work in both armys and what options and whatnot are different could.
Also, on leaving early being a breach of contract? thats pretty specific man, almost lawyer like talk. if the game isnt enjoyable by both partys then why in the holy fragnar is YOUR enjoyment worth more then MINE (if im the one who lost 60-80% of my army before i could even GO with them)
Also, you stated you wished to play 60+ Purifiers with razors and stormravens and whatnot? you mean the second most competative grey knight build? how are you not aiming for specific wins? I am kinda a fluffbunny (who sets that aside to bring out horrible doom at tournaments mind you) but you do know there are about that many purifiers in the entire imperium of man right? all of them magically showed up to one battle? That being said, that list really is not any better for the ork player.
6th edition has been pretty rough on alot of the players in my meta, not alot are playing right now and i think its because the area is focusing to much on tournament play (with restrictions like no over 2k points) but hasnt spent alot of time just playing for fun and enjoyment. Alot of us right now are just tired of every game being vs Draigowing, or the 100% nob bikers, or purifierspam or wraithwing, or loganwing...yadda yadda. some of us just wanna sit down and try to play a decent game.
So was it bad sportsmanship? maybe. i dont think so though i think he just was hoping on having fun and when he relised what it was he faced it wasnt going to be alot of fun (as someone mentioned above) just alot of him "putting models back in his case without actually getting to play them"
Also did he SEE your list before hand? and your army? or did he just get asked to play a specifc point value? cause if he was just asked to play a specific point value i feel he is justified. If he knew the point value and the army, he still isnt showing bad sportmanship, and if he knew everything you were bringing i think he has the right to quit, but what in the heck? he shoulda been able to do good with the knowledge of what you were bringing beforehand
Ailaros wrote: Well, and it's not just a matter of being competitive.
It's not a competition unless there is a reasonable chance that either player could win. If a game continues past this point, it continues without also still being a competitive exercise.
It's the challenge that provides the interest. It's being faced with a set of difficult circumstances and then acting with the greatest of your ability to overcome them. Competition is just a way to ensure that challenges stay fresh over repeated attempts.
If there is no challenge, though, because you no longer have serious obstacles to overcome, or because the game doesn't offer you the ability to apply your player skill in a way that will actually give you the chance of success, then what really is the point?
If anything, this should be frustrating properly competitive players more than anyone. The competition is much better if the game is close to the end than if it's done right away and the rest is just the mechanics of wrapping things up.
Thats is true but at the start of each game you don't know what the chances are, also the very nature of chance could change drastically/very fast.
Also you are right sometimes there is no challenge and the game may seem pointless which I can understand, but the other side of the table the other player may not always feel this way and this can lead to a very different opinion, this Ork player for example, he had some bad luck and maybe wasn't as prepared to face the foe as he could have been, but he could have risen to the challenge instead of just deciding he was wasting time and tried his best to recover and salvage what he could, maybe even turn the game into a win or at least a draw as well as learning from his mistakes. (I don't know the odds obviously as I wasn't there and I don't know either player or their armies.)
I personally think the only way a competitive player can improve is to keep playing and learn what they can through whole games, if you base wether you keep playing on the first turn or two and then quit.... then I don't see the point.
If I quit everytime I felt something wasn't worth doing, wasn't fun or it's just 'going through the motions' I can tell you I probably would be out of a job and have a lot of free time I could do nothing with.
Rysaer wrote:this Ork player for example, he had some bad luck and maybe wasn't as prepared to face the foe as he could have been, but he could have risen to the challenge instead of just deciding he was wasting time and tried his best to recover and salvage what he could
And here is where I think you miss my point. 40k is not a contest of willpower. It's a contest of who rolls better with a layer of who brought the best list draped on top. Put another way, the game mechanics itself only allows so much player skill, and player effort, and player gumption, and moxie, and ability to rise to a challenge, to actually impact the game. You can only "rally" as much as the game itself allows. It seems like 6th edition is even more limited in this regard than before for several good, if unfortunate reasons.
Pluck, character, and good sportsmanship have no transmission system for becoming actions or determining events in a game of 40k, therefore they are ultimately worthless for the purposes of the game, vis. a vis. the game itself.
DarknessEternal wrote:That's patently absurd. If someone doesn't like something, the only conclusion you can draw is they don't like it. I don't like soccer, therefore the billions who do just don't understand how fundamentally flawed the game is? Ridiculous.
So NASCAR is a good sport just because a lot of people watch it on TV? If only one person likes something, does that mean that a game is flawless? Of course not. What's ridiculous here is the logic being used. A reverse ad populum fallacy is just as silly as the usual kind.
Millions of people can enjoy playing soccer, but that doesn't make the game flawless. If you don't particularly care for soccer, that doesn't make you flawed. Neither does refusing to play soccer because you don't enjoy it.
DarknessEternal wrote:agreeing to play a game is a social contract. Bailing on that game is a breach of that contract.
What?
If you buy a hamburger from a fast food joint and it tastes terrible, you don't have to finish eating it. You likewise don't need to go back to that restaurant. Having aesthetics and acting upon them is not, in any way a breach of a contract in itself.
Ailaros wrote: And here is where I think you miss my point. 40k is not a contest of willpower. It's a contest of who rolls better with a layer of who brought the best list draped on top. Put another way, the game mechanics itself only allows so much player skill, and player effort, and player gumption, and moxie, and ability to rise to a challenge, to actually impact the game. You can only "rally" as much as the game itself allows. It seems like 6th edition is even more limited in this regard than before for several good, if unfortunate reasons.
I understand this and I understand your point and I agree with you, but what I'm also trying to get across is that he could have plucked up not just for the sake that a positive attitude could have helped him, after all if you feel crappy about the way a game is going you'll make poorer decisions or possibly adopt the 'I don't care' attitude and just do whatever ends the game quickest. He could have plucked up for the sake of the person he was playing against, by deciding it wasn't worth it and walking away he is inherently taking the fun from other people. Also by plucking up and rallying 'to as much as the game allowed' he still could have made a decent impact and gotten some sense of worth, learning expierience or even fun out of what he was doing.
Some players I've played adopt the 'I'm not going to win, I quit' exit to a game and I must say that in general this tends to leave a pretty hollow sense of satisfaction and fun for the victor and it's hardly his fault, he wants to keep playing, its not his fault he played a good list, luck was on his side or whatever other factors contributed towards his success.
I personally wouldn't have quit in the original scenario for these simple reasons:
A) I would feel awful for robbing both the fun/potential victory from another person.
B) I would never know how it could have ended, maybe luck would turn and I could have won, maybe he would have made some stupid mistake or I found a new effective way to deal with this list or a unit in that list which could help for next time. I couldn't play without a real conclusion to the game.
C) I'm generally not a quitter, I stick it out through the good and bad because I'd rather to be able to hold my head up and say that while I couldn't succeed I gave it a brave attempt. (I'm not saying others shouldn't quit, I'm just saying here that I wouldn't.)
D) Out of respect for my opponent, I feel that a game should reach a conclusion, even if I get no enjoyment out of it, I'd rather there be no doubt or misconceptions about the game and so that at the end of the game when I shake my opponents hand he knows that while I may not agree with his methods, I have respect for him as a player and a person.
Last time this happened to my Orks it was 1500 pts of Iron Warriors that did it.
Deathholydeath (From here on Dakka) and I were playing and on round 1, he seized, and dropped a couple of large plates on my max loota squads and wiped out 500 points of my army on his first two shots of the game. He then proceeded to kill all but one of my Koptas and wreck the Trukk my Nobz were in.
Sure, this meant I was most likely done, and yes, it turns out that I was just sticking around to let him mop up the remnants, but I didn't concede but I could have and would not have felt bad. The decisive round was top of round 1 for that game and it was plainly obvious.
That said, I wouldn't consider what the guy did "Poor Sportsmanship" He was obviously demoralized. This happens. When it happens some times its hard to be the big man and smile and shake hands and be cheerful about it. He may have been mustering all the cheer he could under the circumstances.
Consider that this guy had a fairly fluffy list, from a very aged army. Was up against one of the toughest armies he could have fought. Got hammered at the top of turn one. And failed his big move of the game. That is pretty much a recipe for a bad day of gaming in my mind.
What makes me the most sad about this story is that it's not an unusual situation. I see this happen a lot with casual players. It's the poor balance of this game that makes it this way. It's bad for new players. Bad for casual players. Bad in general. It really fosters bad feelings when it happens.
DarknessEternal wrote:That's patently absurd. If someone doesn't like something, the only conclusion you can draw is they don't like it. I don't like soccer, therefore the billions who do just don't understand how fundamentally flawed the game is? Ridiculous.
So NASCAR is a good sport just because a lot of people watch it on TV? If only one person likes something, does that mean that a game is flawless? Of course not. What's ridiculous here is the logic being used. A reverse ad populum fallacy is just as silly as the usual kind.
Millions of people can enjoy playing soccer, but that doesn't make the game flawless. If you don't particularly care for soccer, that doesn't make you flawed. Neither does refusing to play soccer because you don't enjoy it.
You miss the point completely. You declared that if someone doesn't enjoy a game, the game is flawed.
I stated that the only conclusion you could draw is that one person doesn't enjoy the game. Whether or not anyone enjoys anything is irrelevant to the quality of that thing.
matphat wrote: Last time this happened to my Orks it was 1500 pts of Iron Warriors that did it.
Deathholydeath (From here on Dakka) and I were playing and on round 1, he seized, and dropped a couple of large plates on my max loota squads and wiped out 500 points of my army on his first two shots of the game. He then proceeded to kill all but one of my Koptas and wreck the Trukk my Nobz were in.
Sure, this meant I was most likely done, and yes, it turns out that I was just sticking around to let him mop up the remnants, but I didn't concede but I could have and would not have felt bad. The decisive round was top of round 1 for that game and it was plainly obvious.
That said, I wouldn't consider what the guy did "Poor Sportsmanship" He was obviously demoralized. This happens. When it happens some times its hard to be the big man and smile and shake hands and be cheerful about it. He may have been mustering all the cheer he could under the circumstances.
Consider that this guy had a fairly fluffy list, from a very aged army. Was up against one of the toughest armies he could have fought. Got hammered at the top of turn one. And failed his big move of the game. That is pretty much a recipe for a bad day of gaming in my mind.
What makes me the most sad about this story is that it's not an unusual situation. I see this happen a lot with casual players. It's the poor balance of this game that makes it this way. It's bad for new players. Bad for casual players. Bad in general. It really fosters bad feelings when it happens.
I'd agree with you its not poor sportsmanship and I'm glad to hear that you stuck it out. I agree that you can walk away and not feel bad about it, I'm just saying that If it was me I wouldn't walk away and if I ever did I would feel bad about it as it is not in my nature to quit. It'd be more out of disappointment in myself than the game/rules etc.
You also make a very good point in that this isn't an unusual situation and that is a sad fact of this game, but in a way its that fact that sometimes drives me to make the brave attempt or to try and create what fun I can even when I'm down and encourage others to do the same because at the end of the day if the game were balanced better or luck was on my/their side, these situations could be a completely forgotten or at least a distant memory.
My opinion is that once the game reaches the stage where one player isn't actively able to continue to make effective plays, that player has a right to concede. For example, if one player is playing a drop army and uses turn one pods to take out 3/4's of the other players list, I wouldn't fault that player for conceding, as the remainder of their game will likely consist of them doing next to nothing. There are obviously times when a player concedes and they shouldn't, but just because somebody concedes before their first turn does not mean that they are acting in an unsportsman-like manner.
RegalPhantom wrote: My opinion is that once the game reaches the stage where one player isn't actively able to continue to make effective plays, that player has a right to concede. For example, if one player is playing a drop army and uses turn one pods to take out 3/4's of the other players list, I wouldn't fault that player for conceding, as the remainder of their game will likely consist of them doing next to nothing. There are obviously times when a player concedes and they shouldn't, but just because somebody concedes before their first turn does not mean that they are acting in an unsportsman-like manner.
I agree the turn number doesn't matter. You can concede once its obvious that the game is going one way or another.
But I think the OP's situation was hardly a shoo-in. The ork player was not worse off then he would have been had he made the assault roll. Stormboys ain't gonna do to Paladins. In fact, the Paladins would have loved to get assaulted. They would wipe the Stormboyz in that round of combat and get a consolidation off of them to slingshot themselves into combat on their turn.
The ork list sounds like it was poorly created and was used improperly in the situation. In which case its really the Ork player's fault. It should have been obvious that a spanking was coming in that game. If he didn't want to lose hard he shouldn't have started in the first place.
Ailaros wrote: It's one of the problems I'm starting to notice with 6th ed. It very much feels like the game is determined by the time the second player gets to the start of his second turn. By the time turn 2 is over, you know who has won. Furthermore, one of the armies is likely so damaged that there aren't many inlets for player skill, and there isn't many opportunities presented by the player's ruined army to actually DO stuff. The element of the game that is a game seems to vanish pretty quickly in a game of 6th edition.
This isn't always true. In some cases, I agree. Against my brother Blood Angels, we finished two games in under two hours, because my Tyranids had won on turn 2 - this was due to his army composition. At 1000pts, he had a Land Raider, Bastion and a Vindicator, and his only troops were a 5 man scout squad and a combat squadded tactical squad, one of which was in a Razorback. He counted on my army not being able to deal with the Land Raider and Bastion, underestimated, and as a result, lost quickly.
My games against my friends Eldar and Dark Eldar have been nail biters to the end. My most recent game had him decimating my Tyranids on their way to combat, and I only pulled a victory out because he concentrated on my little bugs and ignored my monstrous creatures, and even then, I only pulled a victory out on turn 6, at 4-2. If the game hadn't gone an extra turn, it would have been his at 2-1 (on turn 6 I grabbed an objective with a small unit of Termagants and a small unit of Warriors, knowing his Vibro Cannons could only kill 1 of the squads).
The game ending on turn 2 happens, but I haven't experienced it being a defining part of 6th edition. Hell, I had games of 5th edition decided on turn 2.
A heavy shooty army might be able to win on turn 1-2 due to cover being worse overall, but this is countered by Nightfighting being present half the time on the first turn of the game(actually slightly more then half the time due to Warlord Traits)
Most people that lose against GKs simply do dumb things.
Like attacking Purifiers in melee with any horde unit or non-2+ save unit.
Attacking Paladins with ANYTHING in melee(except TH/SS terminators and Meganobs)
Those are the most common mistakes I see.
Play the mission, don't engage units with something they are designed to destroy.
GKs are vulnerable to shooting. a 26 point purifier dies just as easily as a 16 point bolter marine and I don't see anyone saying they have trouble killing bolter marines.
That is the main counter to GKs. They have no additional defensive bonuses, they are entirely offensively orientated.
Thank you all for the comments. Anyway, the more I think about it, the main reason I was bummed is that this was the first game I played with my paladins since the 1.1 FAQ and I was really looking forward to seeing what I needed to do different in order to pull through now that LOS is gone for Paladins.
Though after reading all the posts here I can understand why the guy felt demoralized, I'm still bummed because in the end, neither of us had fun. I certainly didn't enjoy "winning" the match, anymore than he enjoyed having his boyz cut down in 1 round of shooting. Call me crazy, but at least when it comes to 40K, my favorite games have always been those where I either just barely win or just barely lose. The tension just makes the game more fun for me. And to be honest I did NOT expect my Paladin's shooting to be as effective as it was.
I know draigowing is seen as cheese, but considering that counting this game I've only won twice with it, I've never seen it that way, though the may be since the guy I regularly play against uses a devastating DE/Eldar combo list with dark lances out the buttocks...
Well, and what you're seeing is another thing I've been seeing more of in 6th. In 5th, the list you brought mattered a lot. In 6th, it's starting to look like that's more or less all that matters.
So in your case, you're going to horribly lose to those lists that are better than yours and horribly defeat anybody that's worse. That you happen to have a gamer with a stronger list that you play against shouldn't shield you to the fact that you're still going to auto-krump an awful lot of other stuff out there.
To me he sounds like a good sport for letting you use a weird point limit in order to shoe-horn as much nasty stuff into a very nasty list. You then proceeded to wipe half his army before he even picks up his tape measure. I wouldn't have kept playing either, I doubt I'd play you again afterwards, unless you were willing to play a standard points value and leave the broken mechanics at home.
I credit you with half the fault. Draigo-wing is a very cheesy list.
TheCrazyCryptek wrote: You brought a Draigo-wing list, so we could assume winning is important to you
Look, I know it's easy to hate on Draigowing but let's examine the lists a little better:
At 2,000 points the OP had two units. Two. Even if both of those units wipes out an enemy unit each turn, the absolute maximum carnage he can inflict is 12 dead enemy units. Realistically we're looking at more like 5 or 6.
Now while both of those units are tough to kill, being 2 wounds apiece with FNP and a 2+ armour save, there is a limit to their abilities. They're walking on foot, can only contest or claim one objective each, and are frankly far too expensive. Charge in a unit of meganobs, and those 55+ point Paladins are going to drop like flies.
I don't know exactly what the Ork player had in his list, but it sounds like he wanted to go toe-to-toe with the Paladins. Like, attempting to charge them with Stormboys. If you charge Paladins with Stormboys, all you've done is suicide your Stormboys and give the Paladins a consolidate move. This is a bad move, and a bad way to fight this army, and he was losing because of it.
He was losing because he didn't know how to combat this type of army, not because this type of army is over-powered. And then when the only way he could think of didn't appear to be working, he quit.
At 2,000 points the OP had two units. Two. Even if both of those units wipes out an enemy unit each turn, the absolute maximum carnage he can inflict is 12 dead enemy units. Realistically we're looking at more like 5 or 6.
He stated at the beginning that he had full psycannons in each 10 unit (16 models killed), and psybolt ammo (12 more). with rerolls due to Prescience, and he crushed the mobs down from full to below fearless strength with one round of shooting.
Needless to say, the only option for the more green tide based orks was to either get them into melee, or be shot to death, and neither option is appealing because he didn't have what it could take to kill two wound paladins, his entire list was not something you'd take to fight Paladins, so it's likely he's never fought them before, or never seen what they could do.
He was losing because he didn't know how to combat this type of army, not because this type of army is over-powered. And then when the only way he could think of didn't appear to be working, he quit.
He lost because he seemed to have an old edition army list, which couldn't beat this level of cheese since it wasn't dedicated to fighting it.
Everything that could be said in this thread is really just meaningless.
The truth is, the guy felt beat, so he ended the pain.
It's his right.
I can't blame him.
It's up to the winner to decide to be the bigger man and accept that the guy was just demoralized and maybe have a little empathy for the poor Ork.
Ailaros wrote: Well, and what you're seeing is another thing I've been seeing more of in 6th. In 5th, the list you brought mattered a lot. In 6th, it's starting to look like that's more or less all that matters.
So in your case, you're going to horribly lose to those lists that are better than yours and horribly defeat anybody that's worse. That you happen to have a gamer with a stronger list that you play against shouldn't shield you to the fact that you're still going to auto-krump an awful lot of other stuff out there.
I can kind of see where this guy was coming from. Though I have yet to play my first game of 40k, I know that it is often hard to have fun when you're in a curbstomp battle, and if you aren't having fun, why are you playing? Still, it's pretty hard to believe that defeat was certain for him by the end of turn 1.
At 2,000 points the OP had two units. Two. Even if both of those units wipes out an enemy unit each turn, the absolute maximum carnage he can inflict is 12 dead enemy units. Realistically we're looking at more like 5 or 6.
He stated at the beginning that he had full psycannons in each 10 unit (16 models killed), and psybolt ammo (12 more). with rerolls due to Prescience, and he crushed the mobs down from full to below fearless strength with one round of shooting.
Needless to say, the only option for the more green tide based orks was to either get them into melee, or be shot to death, and neither option is appealing because he didn't have what it could take to kill two wound paladins, his entire list was not something you'd take to fight Paladins, so it's likely he's never fought them before, or never seen what they could do.
He was losing because he didn't know how to combat this type of army, not because this type of army is over-powered. And then when the only way he could think of didn't appear to be working, he quit.
He lost because he seemed to have an old edition army list, which couldn't beat this level of cheese since it wasn't dedicated to fighting it.
It doesn't matter how well those Paladins can kill one unit per turn. All that matters is that they can. So let them, then claim the rest of the objectives on the board, and win. They're still only footslogging towards you at 6" per turn. Attempting to engage them is futile.
At 2,000 points the OP had two units. Two. Even if both of those units wipes out an enemy unit each turn, the absolute maximum carnage he can inflict is 12 dead enemy units. Realistically we're looking at more like 5 or 6.
He stated at the beginning that he had full psycannons in each 10 unit (16 models killed), and psybolt ammo (12 more). with rerolls due to Prescience, and he crushed the mobs down from full to below fearless strength with one round of shooting.
Needless to say, the only option for the more green tide based orks was to either get them into melee, or be shot to death, and neither option is appealing because he didn't have what it could take to kill two wound paladins, his entire list was not something you'd take to fight Paladins, so it's likely he's never fought them before, or never seen what they could do.
He was losing because he didn't know how to combat this type of army, not because this type of army is over-powered. And then when the only way he could think of didn't appear to be working, he quit.
He lost because he seemed to have an old edition army list, which couldn't beat this level of cheese since it wasn't dedicated to fighting it.
It doesn't matter how well those Paladins can kill one unit per turn. All that matters is that they can. So let them, then claim the rest of the objectives on the board, and win. They're still only footslogging towards you at 6" per turn. Attempting to engage them is futile.
I do not know the point values of his list, but he had 1 units of 30 boyz, 1 unit of 30 hardboyz, 20 or so stormboyz (I forget the exact count), 2 warbosses with powerclaws, one warboss was with one of the boyz unit, the other was in a Trukk(?) with 8 nobz, fi
My first turn I use libbys Prescience on Draigo's unit. With it I manage to kill all but 9 boyz in one unit (pretty much every shot went through). They fail their leadership and start to retreats. The other unit with my Libby does almost as good, killing 13 boys in the other unit.
Two of his main troops were gone by the end of first (One running off, the other getting shot to pieces), and the nobz was about to be shot by two freed up paladins squads (unless one other shot the stormboyz) Unless he had many more troops in reserve, it was unlikely he could even score against the paladin squad.
Prescience is the equivalent of guide for the eldar. So we have 20 S5 shots (not even going to consider the psycannons). So 8 out of 9 shots on average hit. So we'll be a little nice and say 18 hits. 2/3 of those are going to wound... so 12 wounds... That means 1 unit of orks is dead to fire and then if it comes down to a charge, we are talking 30 attacks at (with hammer hand) 10 more dead orks.
So at the end of turn 1, he was looking at the potential of 2 more dead units. Now you can be "game" and play on but the hand writing was on the wall. 8 nobz are not going to defeat 20 paladins and 2 characters.
I don't blame him for picking it up. Why waste both of your time. Shake your hand and tell him it was a good game.
As has been said, 40K is turning into a rock/paper/scissors affare and you definitely had a list that was the rock to the ork scissors.
Only an ork shooty list could have held a chance but getting through 2+ saves would still be a tall order.
I do not know the point values of his list, but he had 1 units of 30 boyz, 1 unit of 30 hardboyz, 20 or so stormboyz (I forget the exact count), 2 warbosses with powerclaws, one warboss was with one of the boyz unit, the other was in a Trukk(?) with 8 nobz, fi
Two of his main troops were gone by the end of first (One running off, the other getting shot to pieces), and the nobz was about to be shot by two freed up paladins squads (unless one other shot the stormboyz) Unless he had many more troops in reserve, it was unlikely he could even score against the paladin squad.
That comes to ~1100 points. Where was the other 950 points?
DAaddict wrote: Prescience is the equivalent of guide for the eldar. So we have 20 S5 shots (not even going to consider the psycannons). So 8 out of 9 shots on average hit. So we'll be a little nice and say 18 hits. 2/3 of those are going to wound... so 12 wounds... That means 1 unit of orks is dead to fire and then if it comes down to a charge, we are talking 30 attacks at (with hammer hand) 10 more dead orks.
So at the end of turn 1, he was looking at the potential of 2 more dead units. Now you can be "game" and play on but the hand writing was on the wall. 8 nobz are not going to defeat 20 paladins and 2 characters.
The question is, why are you letting footslogging Paladins get into assault? Just let them melt two units a turn from shooting (really, it's not going to be that many. Most units will not completely vanish) and then contest/claim all the objectives.
This is especially true of a Hammer and Anvil deployment.
Paladins excel at short range firefights and close combat. If you're running towards them and trying to assault them, you're going to have a bad time.
It's like the last game of 40K I played, with my Paladin/Terminator list against a Dark Eldar list loaded to the brim with skimmers and heaps of S8 AP2 weapons. We got a hammer and anvil deployment. Now, there is absolutely no chance of my Paladins or Terminators being able to footslog the length of the board to catch these skimmers, and the longest range gun I have is 24". So what do I do? Concede because I have no chance?
No, I bunker down in some ruins, blow up a raider that strayed too close, and score a victory on kill points. Because I chose not to do what my opponent wanted me to do.
Paladins want you to get close, and assault them. They'll stomp your face when you do. But they are simply too expensive. All they can do is shoot a unit a turn, and hope to completely wipe it out. Most of the time, that's not going to happen. So, unless you're assaulting them, chance's are they'll manage to wipe out about 6 units over the course of the game. By then, they should have managed to get into position over an objective each. So you just move some models to claim the other objectives, contest the ones they have, and you win. It's not quite that simple, but the flaws inherent with a Draigowing build are massive and easily exploitable.
I do not know the point values of his list, but he had 1 units of 30 boyz, 1 unit of 30 hardboyz, 20 or so stormboyz (I forget the exact count), 2 warbosses with powerclaws, one warboss was with one of the boyz unit, the other was in a Trukk(?) with 8 nobz, fi
Two of his main troops were gone by the end of first (One running off, the other getting shot to pieces), and the nobz was about to be shot by two freed up paladins squads (unless one other shot the stormboyz) Unless he had many more troops in reserve, it was unlikely he could even score against the paladin squad.
That comes to ~1100 points. Where was the other 950 points?
DAaddict wrote: Prescience is the equivalent of guide for the eldar. So we have 20 S5 shots (not even going to consider the psycannons). So 8 out of 9 shots on average hit. So we'll be a little nice and say 18 hits. 2/3 of those are going to wound... so 12 wounds... That means 1 unit of orks is dead to fire and then if it comes down to a charge, we are talking 30 attacks at (with hammer hand) 10 more dead orks.
So at the end of turn 1, he was looking at the potential of 2 more dead units. Now you can be "game" and play on but the hand writing was on the wall. 8 nobz are not going to defeat 20 paladins and 2 characters.
The question is, why are you letting footslogging Paladins get into assault? Just let them melt two units a turn from shooting (really, it's not going to be that many. Most units will not completely vanish) and then contest/claim all the objectives.
This is especially true of a Hammer and Anvil deployment.
Paladins excel at short range firefights and close combat. If you're running towards them and trying to assault them, you're going to have a bad time.
It's like the last game of 40K I played, with my Paladin/Terminator list against a Dark Eldar list loaded to the brim with skimmers and heaps of S8 AP2 weapons. We got a hammer and anvil deployment. Now, there is absolutely no chance of my Paladins or Terminators being able to footslog the length of the board to catch these skimmers, and the longest range gun I have is 24". So what do I do? Concede because I have no chance?
No, I bunker down in some ruins, blow up a raider that strayed too close, and score a victory on kill points. Because I chose not to do what my opponent wanted me to do.
Paladins want you to get close, and assault them. They'll stomp your face when you do. But they are simply too expensive. All they can do is shoot a unit a turn, and hope to completely wipe it out. Most of the time, that's not going to happen. So, unless you're assaulting them, chance's are they'll manage to wipe out about 6 units over the course of the game. By then, they should have managed to get into position over an objective each. So you just move some models to claim the other objectives, contest the ones they have, and you win. It's not quite that simple, but the flaws inherent with a Draigowing build are massive and easily exploitable.
My point is the ork player was behind the 8 ball with his list. Lets just say the ork went first. 30 orks fire 30 sluggas. and manage to hit 20 times. They even manage to wound 10 times. With some poor armor saves he might kill 1 paladin. Now the paladin, 18" away, puts his prescience on the unit and it fires back. 16 hit. of which 10 kill. Now the ork backs off and fires again 40 shots of which 13 hit and 6 wound. 1 more wound on the paladins. The paladins fire again and 10 more orks dead.
Orks versus grey knight paladins is a loosing battle no matter which way you slice it. I fault the ork player not for saying good game after turn one. He was going to lose no matter what he tried. His fault was agreeing to play. I would have said, we aren't going to prove much, this game is going to be over before we start.
It is easy to say he shouldn't get in range but what is an ork to do? The GK have a bunch of accurate 24" range S5 shots. An ork is going to try to counter that with 18" range inaccurate S4 fire. I mean come on, taking stormboyz is not going to win a shooting war, they live to get into HTH and as you say HTH is not the way to beat paladins.
While I am on the Ork player's side here, I gotta admit that his list wasn't going to do jack or gak to your army. Not in the slightest. If he had gotten lucky, he might have been able to pull off a mass-charge and force a ton of saves, but the Paladins would've been cutting down swaths of Orks even before they got to swing. I might have at least waited until the deffkoptas came in, since they at least stand a chance of ID-ing the Paladins, but beyond that...he was kinda fethed from the very beginning.
DAaddict wrote: My point is the ork player was behind the 8 ball with his list. Lets just say the ork went first. 30 orks fire 30 sluggas. and manage to hit 20 times. They even manage to wound 10 times. With some poor armor saves he might kill 1 paladin. Now the paladin, 18" away, puts his prescience on the unit and it fires back. 16 hit. of which 10 kill. Now the ork backs off and fires again 40 shots of which 13 hit and 6 wound. 1 more wound on the paladins. The paladins fire again and 10 more orks dead.
Which is kinda my point. 1,000 points of models, half of his entire army, over the course of two turns, has managed to kill two thirds of one unit.
That's not effective, no matter which way you cut it.
Further, the Hammer and Anvil deployment means you can simply start ~40" away from the Grey Knights, and leave him languishing for two or three turns. And when he gets too close, you run away. Leave some sacrificial unit behind, and run away.
I don't understand how anyone can consider a 2,000 point army that only contains two units is over-powered. Yes, those units will be impossible to kill. Yes, those two units will roflstomp anything and everything in close combat.
So what? If you're playing 'Purge the Alien' sure, you're gonna have a bad day. But any of the objective based scenarios is going to screw that army. Unless, that is, you keep throwing your units into the meatgrinder and then complaining about how grindy it is.
It's like the last game of 40K I played, with my Paladin/Terminator list against a Dark Eldar list loaded to the brim with skimmers and heaps of S8 AP2 weapons. We got a hammer and anvil deployment. Now, there is absolutely no chance of my Paladins or Terminators being able to footslog the length of the board to catch these skimmers, and the longest range gun I have is 24". So what do I do? Concede because I have no chance?
first of all your guns are 30" range at that is not counting the psycannons.
The OP didnt play a shoty orc army he had an assault orc army[stupid , but fluffy] , there was no options for him to hide and not get shot up . And the example of DE vs GK is a bad one . with inv and cover and draigo being lance sponge you take a lot less hits from DE , then orcs take from stormbolters and psycannons and with having those said psycannons you can deal with venoms and raiders a lot better , then orcs can deal with paladins .
The game ended after he rolled the storm boyz charge . After that it would be the orc player picking up his model slowly , instead of fast . And even then the dude was being a sport , because technicly with the build he had he lost as soon as he went second.
Why waste time continuing a not-fun game when he can pack up and go play another game and hopefully have some fun. I don't blame him one bit. Of course I would have never played your cheesy army to begin with.
That guy, in saving himself some time, also denied himself the opportunity to learn how the Grey Knights army works. If you think you're going to lose a game, then you already have.
Spot on, I have yet to win a game as I have only just started playing but in ever game i've learnt a lot about my troops and what to use where, to the point I just gave my opponent a draw last night after winning most of the game,
In each game i have lost I have followed it through to the bitter end and in one game I got beat quite bad by tau and their damn broadsides we replayed another game stright after,
I would say bad sportsmanship as it is a two player game
Kaldor wrote: Further, the Hammer and Anvil deployment means you can simply start ~40" away from the Grey Knights, and leave him languishing for two or three turns. And when he gets too close, you run away. Leave some sacrificial unit behind, and run away.
Given that army, it wouldn't have helped him one bit. Okay, so he can stay safely out of the assault range of the Paladins. Fine. What's his counter-attack? The longest range weapon he could have possibly pulled would have been a handful of Big Shootas on the Boyz squads, Trukk, and battlewagon. I guarantee you that even with a few turns of shooting, 11 big shootas (at absolute max, mind you, assuming that he took 4 on the wagon, 1 on the trukk, and 3 each on the boyz squads) is not going to do more than scuff the armor of the Paladins. Plus, unless you're sitting exactly 36" away, those Paladins can move up 6" then shoot their 24" guns.
I'm thinking blame can be passed out to both sides here. Draigowing is a tough nut to crack in general if you don't have a bunch of high strength, low AP weapons - but the Ork player was also running an awful army at 2000 points for being in 6th edition. Any number of armies would have trounced him quite soundly, not just Draigo.
At that point, you've probably invested an hour into getting the little men out, making a battlefield for them, and pushing them around some. Quitting on turn 1 means that person is ok with murdering an hour of my life away.
What gives you the right to murder his next hour by making him basically stand at the table and pick up models while you butcher his army?
I was up against my brother, almost 2000 point game, I was trying out how to do a hybrid guard list. In his 1st turn, he drops an orbital bombardment. It kills enough men of a blob for me to fail my ld the first time, and again. Kill enough for me to lose my PCS and the 2 HWS's nearby. Kills my 2 LRs and my 2 manticores.
I called it there. He had lost maybe 5 marines to my shooting on my first turn. 5 marines. I could not roll to hit or wound to save my life. There was no reason to continue that game, at all. We weren't going to learn anything from it, it was not going to be fun, it was over.
Games can be over Turn 1. Its not that uncommon. People who quit turn 1 in circumstances when there is no point shouldn't be bashed, but similarly people who want to play on shouldn't be labelled as 'prolonging the pain' or anything, they just want to play a game. Its just an unlucky situation for everyone.
You're lucky he agreed to play a game with you in the first place. If someone walked up to me with a draigo wing wanting to play "2055" points so he could fit what he wanted I'd laugh. Coming up with weird point levels just to fit what you want sounds like a severely one sided game off the bat. Maybe I should make a "1376" point list to maximize my odds and ask opponents to whip a list up on the spot ... -_-
I don't mean to sound harsh, and wouldn't pretend to know your intentions, but you should really know that playing at weird point levels just to make your dream lists for pickup games reaks of WAAC like nothing else ever could. Combine that with a list notorious for being OP and WAAC . . . like I said, lucky he agreed at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You're lucky he agreed to play a game with you in the first place. If someone walked up to me with a draigo wing wanting to play "2055" points so he could fit what he wanted I'd laugh. Coming up with weird point levels just to fit what you want sounds like a severely one sided game off the bat. Maybe I should make a "1376" point list to maximize my odds and ask opponents to whip a list up on the spot ... -_-
I don't mean to sound harsh, and wouldn't pretend to know your intentions, but you should really know that playing at weird point levels just to make your dream lists for pickup games reaks of WAAC like nothing else ever could. Combine that with a list notorious for being OP and WAAC . . . like I said, lucky he agreed at all.
DAaddict wrote: My point is the ork player was behind the 8 ball with his list. Lets just say the ork went first. 30 orks fire 30 sluggas. and manage to hit 20 times. They even manage to wound 10 times. With some poor armor saves he might kill 1 paladin. Now the paladin, 18" away, puts his prescience on the unit and it fires back. 16 hit. of which 10 kill. Now the ork backs off and fires again 40 shots of which 13 hit and 6 wound. 1 more wound on the paladins. The paladins fire again and 10 more orks dead.
Which is kinda my point. 1,000 points of models, half of his entire army, over the course of two turns, has managed to kill two thirds of one unit.
That's not effective, no matter which way you cut it.
Further, the Hammer and Anvil deployment means you can simply start ~40" away from the Grey Knights, and leave him languishing for two or three turns. And when he gets too close, you run away. Leave some sacrificial unit behind, and run away.
I don't understand how anyone can consider a 2,000 point army that only contains two units is over-powered. Yes, those units will be impossible to kill. Yes, those two units will roflstomp anything and everything in close combat.
So what? If you're playing 'Purge the Alien' sure, you're gonna have a bad day. But any of the objective based scenarios is going to screw that army. Unless, that is, you keep throwing your units into the meatgrinder and then complaining about how grindy it is.
You suggest whittling enemy numbers with small arms fire. As Locclo wrote a few posts above me - how does the ork damage Terminators with small arms fire if all he's got are weapons that'd bring him within 24 inches from the Paladins?
Honestly, I think I would have quit too.
When things have gone that badly wrong so fast it's hard to keep going, and frankly pointless.
I have limited time to play.
Why play a game that is going to suck that badly?
The only thing that quitting did was alter the speed of putting the Orks back into the case.
Interesting discussion. I had some quit on me turn 1 after a few dice rolls. The explanation i was give was that they couldnt win as i didnt bring the army i played last week, which they based their list around beating. Lets say i wasnt too pleased, i didnt get another game after and ended up going home early.
Kaldor wrote: Further, the Hammer and Anvil deployment means you can simply start ~40" away from the Grey Knights, and leave him languishing for two or three turns. And when he gets too close, you run away. Leave some sacrificial unit behind, and run away.
Given that army, it wouldn't have helped him one bit. Okay, so he can stay safely out of the assault range of the Paladins. Fine. What's his counter-attack? The longest range weapon he could have possibly pulled would have been a handful of Big Shootas on the Boyz squads, Trukk, and battlewagon. I guarantee you that even with a few turns of shooting, 11 big shootas (at absolute max, mind you, assuming that he took 4 on the wagon, 1 on the trukk, and 3 each on the boyz squads) is not going to do more than scuff the armor of the Paladins. Plus, unless you're sitting exactly 36" away, those Paladins can move up 6" then shoot their 24" guns.
I'm thinking blame can be passed out to both sides here. Draigowing is a tough nut to crack in general if you don't have a bunch of high strength, low AP weapons - but the Ork player was also running an awful army at 2000 points for being in 6th edition. Any number of armies would have trounced him quite soundly, not just Draigo.
The best way to beat Draigowing is to ignore it completely. Don't bother trying to get your guns in range, don't try to assault it, just laugh and remove a few handfuls of models in each of his shooting phase and then claim all the objectives. With only two units, it's impossible for him to target enough units to win the game.
That's the point I'm trying to make here. The Ork player wasn't beaten because of his list, and Draigowing is not over-powered. He chose to use his list in the worst possible way, doing everything wrong. I'm not saying the Ork player had the ability to kill the Paladins, because he very probably didn't. I'm saying the Paladins didn't have the ability to kill more than two units per turn, or get into assault if the Orks didn't want them to. They lacked the ability to dictate the flow of the game, and relied on the opponent doing stupid things like moving closer to them and assaulting them.
This is a nice example of what happens when Orks Play Grey Knights (from 5th ed mind you) from my blog:
My 2 cents is that Grey knights are pretty beast against Orks. It's a bit better now that fearless rules have changed, but short of Meganob spam, Orks tend to have a really difficult time against them.
Well, I decided to stop lurking and make an account so I could weigh in on this thread. Hello, Dakka Dakka!
So I've been on both the giving and receiving ends of first-turn devastation. My primary two armies for 6th are Hammertime! (Deathwing termies) and Dark Eldar. Now, two wound terminators who potentially have FNP are all fine and dandy, but I've found that one wound safeguarded by 2+/3++ is just overall more durable while S8 hammers are immensely useful for bonking everything from mooks, multiwound models (including Paladins), and vehicles. The fact I am allowed to stick missile launchers on these blokes is almost a travesty. While there are so very solid counters to TEQ armies out there, my local metagame is rather lacking in them. As such, my Deathwing are a very hated foe. Though I can rarely muster enough good shots to devastate an enemy by turn 1, I have consistently neutered a number of enemy forces by turn 2's close. And I understand that my Deathwing are vicious when set loose upon the local armies. So if I've BONKBONKBONK'd the enemy into submission by turn 2 it's usually very clear that my opponent is not having much fun and, well, I'm probably not having that great a time either. Really, the only time I felt good about curb-stomping some poor bastard was when I was splattering a very smug player's Draigowing all over the ruins of a city. But I think he had it coming, because he was one of those Draigowing players. Really, not every battle ends like the Alamo anyways. Armies retreat and surrender just as much, if not more, than they fight to the last when the hour is desperate. I'm happy to accept a polite, friendly surrender, and then find another game or get back to painting that massive pile of Dreadnoughts I somehow acquired. So unless he pulls an Angry German Kid, there really shouldn't be any ill will. Hell, I would feel really bad even bringing a competitive army to bear against an army that was both casual AND outdated.
On the other hand I love sticking with a game and I have had a lot of luck in turning them around. Just recently my DE fought my brother's CSM in a massive 2.5k game in which he brought some crazy Forgeworld stuff. He gets to go first despite me having both the Baron and Vect, no night fighting, and a torrent of Chaos firepower ensues. A bunch of really unlucky cover saves later and all my ravagers are either immobilised or destroyed, only two transports are left in operational capacity and dead kabalites are strew about suspiciously raider-shaped craters, and Vect's unit of wyches are left on foot. I lost about 1000 points or so. From there my Hellions and Vect's wyches managed to rampage right across the board. By the end of the game they had chewed apart two vindicators, two rhinos, two CSM squads, and then his lord and termies. While that was going on my last raider managed to deliver a squad of wyches to his backline and annihilate his objective-holders. It was beautiful. However, I will say I sincerely doubt most Ork lists can pull such a recovery off against Draigowing.
Why did a 30 man blob of boyz take a leadership test and break after only taking 9 casualties...they would have been LD10 and Fearless at that point.
As to forfeiting...
Whenever a game appears to have reached the decisive point where continued play will just be unpleasant for one or both parties, I offer the chance to surrender to my opponent. I never give up voluntarily, but if someone offers me surrender when I have half a squad of warriors in an imobilized raider left and no tricks up my sleeve, then sure ill take it.
Considering your depiction of what happened, it was perfectly within his rights to quit, he probably should have waited until turn 2...at least the game would have been almost over by then.
The only time that surrender is completely out of the question in my book is during a tournament where every VP matters.
In short, I would rather surrender/be surrendered to than continue to play when the game is just playing pick the model up off the table.
It's like the last game of 40K I played, with my Paladin/Terminator list against a Dark Eldar list loaded to the brim with skimmers and heaps of S8 AP2 weapons. We got a hammer and anvil deployment. Now, there is absolutely no chance of my Paladins or Terminators being able to footslog the length of the board to catch these skimmers, and the longest range gun I have is 24". So what do I do? Concede because I have no chance?
Deepstrike.
Which is kinda my point. 1,000 points of models, half of his entire army, over the course of two turns, has managed to kill two thirds of one unit.
That's not effective, no matter which way you cut it.
Two units, one which fled and the other which is highly damaged. Though I wish we had the full army composition it seems a bunch was in reserve.
I just quit after IG places thier army. Its funny to watch them deploy an outrageous amount of models from foam and packaging then just scoop before the game begins. But I would never do this to someone I didn't know. Just to troll my IG friend. haha
Well, no offense against any of you GK players, but playing against Draigowing is one of the least enjoyable game there is for orks - even if they totally stomp them. The very nature of draigowing forces you to warp your entire gameplay into something that's completely different from how orks usually play. Most ork players play their army because they enjoy that exact playing style which is denied by draigo and his troops. Not even purifier spam or leafblowers do that.
Add a bad list, some bad rolls and you'll find yourself in a game which is not allowing you to play your army, you can't win and in general can't have any impact on the game anymore.
I have lost games on turn one by fluking dice rolls or doing stupid things and basically giving my opponent enough VP to make it impossible for me to win. A reason to concede? Hardly. However, when the game has reached a point where you no longer have a say in what happens, because your opponent is winning so overwhelmingly, what's the point in continuing the game? What's the point of the opponent continuing to run down every last fleeing grot, if he could just do absolutely nothing during his last two turns and still win the game by a landslide?
From his list, he had no chance to win the game the second he set down his army, but he played you anyway, even to your conditions. He literally didn't bring a single unit which could have handled either of your paladin units - you need about 120 shoota boyz shooting for five turns to kill either of your units. I guess his plan was to at least tarpit one of the units and then try to kill the other with his entire army - still a game loss, but at least a game worth playing. Then you proceeded to kill 21 boyz with 26 shots, he failed a rerollable ld9 check and a necessary charge in order to have any chance in doing anything. I might have conceded at that in his place, too - but only because of the special circumstances described above, not because I'd lose the game. When playing two nigh-invincible units and nothing else, you shouldn't be too surprised when people get frustrated fast. And that's not attacking your army choice or grey knights in general - a marine player bringing triple landraiders or the necron flyer list might cause a similar behavior.
In general, conceding to save time is quite common among all kind of games - at least, as long as the audience is not paying. In magic you usually concede a game when it's only a matter of time till you lose, in most RTS games people surrender before you've hunted down the last peon. Even in WH40k it's quite common to remove your lone last guardsmen without rolling dice after a dakkajet on his Waagh! declared to shoot it.
An entire different boat are sore losers. I had an opponent concede on me when he failed to roll invisibility with his seer council, asking for a new game. I declined, and offered him to just play with whatever he rolled. I better shouldn't have done that, even after weeks he complained that he only lost the game because his bad psychic powers. That his council never actually attacked or was attacked by anything since I stranded their serpent in the middle of nowhere was never taken into account. A similar thing happened during 5th when a BA player managed to crash and burn his Stormraven full of marines and a dread after moving flat-out on top of impassible terrain. Sure, that sucks. But you took the risk and it turned on you. That's why it's called a risk. You shouldn't ever concede a game as long as it's worth playing for both players - winning chances are entirely irrelevant here.
Goat wrote: I just quit after IG places thier army. Its funny to watch them deploy an outrageous amount of models from foam and packaging then just scoop before the game begins. But I would never do this to someone I didn't know. Just to troll my IG friend. haha
I shouldn't laugh at this, but damn mate, thats funny as hell.
Goat wrote: I just quit after IG places thier army. Its funny to watch them deploy an outrageous amount of models from foam and packaging then just scoop before the game begins. But I would never do this to someone I didn't know. Just to troll my IG friend. haha
I couldn't do that, I already pity those guys for spending at least 4 times the amount of money I spent on my army.
...unless they're going for total gunline. That'd be hilarious.
Kaldor wrote: Further, the Hammer and Anvil deployment means you can simply start ~40" away from the Grey Knights, and leave him languishing for two or three turns. And when he gets too close, you run away. Leave some sacrificial unit behind, and run away.
Given that army, it wouldn't have helped him one bit. Okay, so he can stay safely out of the assault range of the Paladins. Fine. What's his counter-attack? The longest range weapon he could have possibly pulled would have been a handful of Big Shootas on the Boyz squads, Trukk, and battlewagon. I guarantee you that even with a few turns of shooting, 11 big shootas (at absolute max, mind you, assuming that he took 4 on the wagon, 1 on the trukk, and 3 each on the boyz squads) is not going to do more than scuff the armor of the Paladins. Plus, unless you're sitting exactly 36" away, those Paladins can move up 6" then shoot their 24" guns.
I'm thinking blame can be passed out to both sides here. Draigowing is a tough nut to crack in general if you don't have a bunch of high strength, low AP weapons - but the Ork player was also running an awful army at 2000 points for being in 6th edition. Any number of armies would have trounced him quite soundly, not just Draigo.
The best way to beat Draigowing is to ignore it completely. Don't bother trying to get your guns in range, don't try to assault it, just laugh and remove a few handfuls of models in each of his shooting phase and then claim all the objectives. With only two units, it's impossible for him to target enough units to win the game.
That's the point I'm trying to make here. The Ork player wasn't beaten because of his list, and Draigowing is not over-powered. He chose to use his list in the worst possible way, doing everything wrong. I'm not saying the Ork player had the ability to kill the Paladins, because he very probably didn't. I'm saying the Paladins didn't have the ability to kill more than two units per turn, or get into assault if the Orks didn't want them to. They lacked the ability to dictate the flow of the game, and relied on the opponent doing stupid things like moving closer to them and assaulting them.
The orc player was dead before he started... So he backs off to stay out of the magic 24" range. Now the ork has some 24" range rokkit lauchas and 36" range big shootas. Given that they are playing on a standard 48" table with a standard deployment of 12" in, the orc can avoid 24" range for more than 2 turns. So lets say you have 10 big shootas and have two turns. 60 shots, 20 hit and 14 wound. Now just going by average, he is going to kill 1 paladin and maybe get lucky ad put 1 wound on another. At that point he has no choice but to engage. He can maybe stay at 12 to 18" but 10 dead orcs to 1 dead paladin makes it a moot point. As I recall, his list had about 80 orks. Assuming the average, he would have killed about 8 paladins and had his army all put away.
I am not saying he played it properly but with his list he was going to die unless his opponent had 1s on 5 of 6 sides of his dice. His list was crap for taking on the paladins. Now perhaps if he had 3 units of lootas or 3 units of tankbustas with a bunch of boomcannons maybe but he had less than 10% of his force that could engage at greater than 24".
Now taking on an IG leafblower with the paladins would be a pain in the a@@, All S8+ and rolling a 1 meaning a dead paladin would be very painful 3 turns until the board edge prevents the IG from staying out of 24" range.
Bottom line, bringing a knife to a gun fight and expecting to have a fair fiight is foolish.
Why did a 30 man blob of boyz take a leadership test and break after only taking 9 casualties...they would have been LD10 and Fearless at that point.
As to forfeiting...
Whenever a game appears to have reached the decisive point where continued play will just be unpleasant for one or both parties, I offer the chance to surrender to my opponent. I never give up voluntarily, but if someone offers me surrender when I have half a squad of warriors in an imobilized raider left and no tricks up my sleeve, then sure ill take it.
Considering your depiction of what happened, it was perfectly within his rights to quit, he probably should have waited until turn 2...at least the game would have been almost over by then.
The only time that surrender is completely out of the question in my book is during a tournament where every VP matters.
In short, I would rather surrender/be surrendered to than continue to play when the game is just playing pick the model up off the table.
I didn't kill only 9 of the first boyz blob, I killed all but 9.
As for your second Q, among my friends and seemingly at my local GW in general, based on what I've seen and overheard, asking your opponent if he wants to surrender or concede is seen as a jerk move and labels you as TFG. Maybe its just the way people say it or something, but asking someone if they want to quit really comes across as arrogance or teasing on your part.
DAaddict wrote: The orc player was dead before he started... So he backs off to stay out of the magic 24" range. Now the ork has some 24" range rokkit lauchas and 36" range big shootas.
First of all, paladins can move and shoot, so 30". Second, you need to shoot 297 big shootas to kill 11 models with W2 T4 2+/FNP in one round of shooting, that's about sixty of them shooting for five full turns. The maximum amount of big shootaz in one Codex:Ork FOC(assuming TL = 2 big shoots) is 9+18+18+12 = 57. So even if you shoot as many big shootaz as possible without ever taking a single hit from the paladins, you wont even wipe out one of the two units.
Given that they are playing on a standard 48" table with a standard deployment of 12" in, the orc can avoid 24" range for more than 2 turns. So lets say you have 10 big shootas and have two turns. 60 shots, 20 hit and 14 wound. Now just going by average, he is going to kill 1 paladin and maybe get lucky ad put 1 wound on another.
Assuming the GK player is an idiot and didn't move the wounded model to the back and/or was unlucky enough to take two wounds from the same squad.
At that point he has no choice but to engage. He can maybe stay at 12 to 18" but 10 dead orcs to 1 dead paladin makes it a moot point. As I recall, his list had about 80 orks. Assuming the average, he would have killed about 8 paladins and had his army all put away.
80 Orks cause 8 wounds to paladins, alright. If they are both slugga boyz and suffer absolutely no casualties before they strike, which is quite unlikely after overwatch against A3 models striking before you with S5 who potentially could have gotten counter-charge. That's only 4 dead paladins, by the way.
I am not saying he played it properly but with his list he was going to die unless his opponent had 1s on 5 of 6 sides of his dice. His list was crap for taking on the paladins. Now perhaps if he had 3 units of lootas or 3 units of tankbustas with a bunch of boomcannons maybe but he had less than 10% of his force that could engage at greater than 24".
Lootaz don't do gak against paladins. Even 45 shots simply disappear against 2+/FNP. The other two might work, but you simply can not out-shoot or out-assault a draigowing unless you tailor against it(SAGs work wonders, by the way). Your best bet is hope for a mission not counting kills and simply have the mission win the game for you.
My point was that the ork has no chance. I won't argue that maybe I am being overly optimistic. But the point was
The orc player was dead before he started...
Of course, as Kaldor pointed out, if the Ork player had a somewhat more competitive build (with more units) and played a bit more defensively, he could still win the game (unless it was Purge the Alien).
I have no problem with people conceding when its obvious the games over, i've done it myself when i've reached the point that there's nothing left i can do to get a draw let alone a win.
Conceding is not bad sportsmanship.
OP you decimated him in your first turn and there was little he could do to come back from that, he knew that and so did you all making him carry on would do is rub salt into the wound.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Don't know if this goes here or not since I'm asking a few questions, but since I'm describing a battle I guess it does?
So today was the first game I played with my Draigowing since the 1.1 nerf . The guy I played against used Orks and was very nice, agreeing to play a game of 2055 to accommodate my wishlist.
I already see the problem here. You asked someone to fight you on your terms. Did you tell him you would be using Draigowing?
My list consisted of:
Draigo - 275
Libby Master Level 3 - 200 ( chose to take all divination powers for him, ended up with Prescience, Forewarning, and Perfect Timing)
2 units of 10 paladins, with 4 psycannons (all master crafted), brotherhood banner, psybolt ammo, 1 warding stave, 2 hammers, apothecary, and 6 halberds) - 790 x 2 = 1580
If I had seen that I wouldn't have bothered playing. That, right there, is the reason I bought a WHFB army (to get away from all these copy-pasta 40k lists, I won't see it in WHFB because I have 2 friends who play).
I do not know the point values of his list....
Didn't the two of you agree to a points value?
... but I forget (and because he quit at the end of turn 1, it doesn't really matter.)
So... what's the problem?
So the battle was over before it really began, and I have to ask, was what he did fair, to me or to himself? I don't know much about Orks, but was there anything he could have done to win at that point. I feel he should have continued playing against me, at least from the sake of sportsmanship, but was there really any hope for him to win at all? I'd like to hear from anyone whose been in a similar situation whose opponents quick so early, and from ork players as well...
I play Orks. I also play for fun. As I've mentioned in other posts I have a horrible army with no synergy. Your internet build would smash my list at any points limit.
However... My army is painted to a very high standard... at least what is painted. Was your army painted? Was his? That would be a huge factor for me.
If you showed up and asked to play a game and dropped the cheapest 40k list with the most (arguably) hated army in the game and hadn't even painted it....
I would find you to be the bad sportsman. If his Orks weren't painted either than I would say he may have leaned towards the bad sportsmanship.
The fact that, you said so yourself, you bought a Draigowing because it was the only 40k army you could afford, is what really makes me grind my teeth.
Just be happy with your win. Be a little upset, that to one gamer out there, you made everything he's heard about Draigowing true.
I hate this so much. Don't quit man. This is a game of reciprocation. You Guys arguing how fun is it for him. Well how fun is it for people who take time out of their week to play only to have the opponent quit after you gain a slight advantage turn 1? What about quitting after turn 2 or 3? I've had a few people try to do this to me and while I'd never berate you for it because it absolutely is your choice. I typically try and talk you back into playing. If you don't continue that's cool. But don't expect me to play you again. And no I don't run a Net list or an OP codex. I run a fairly fluffy C:SM list of salamanders. And typically never refuse a game time permitting. And I never quit because I'm getting beat. Unless its the end of turn 5 and there is 0% chance of me winning ill typically say good game no need for turn 6.
Honestly, I find that what he did was rather distasteful. I've never played a Draigo Wing list, and so I don't know how difficult it is to defeat one, but if he felt that he was justified in quitting in turn one, then he shouldn't have agreed to play in the first place.
Some people have said that he did you a favor by agreeing to play your list at all, but if he is willing to quit turn one under any circumstance, then he's just not a good loser and he hasn't really done any favor at all (other than wasting an hour of time).
I know people that often forfeit when they feel they can't win, and it annoys me that they do because 40K is a game where both people are striving to defeat the other. What's the point of playing if you will just give up when it gets tough? I don't think that your opponent would be happy if you got to turn 4 and he'd had amazing luck and was pulling out an incredible game for his Orks, and then you decided to quit at turn 4 because you didn't think you could win. No, because all you would've done is deny him a well-earned victory.
In short, if you're willing to get your models out to play a game, then you should be willing to play it out for good or poor luck until the bitter end. That's how this game works. If I were you, I wouldn't be playing against this guy again.
Chancetragedy wrote:Well how fun is it for people who take time out of their week to play only to have the opponent quit after you gain a slight advantage turn 1?
But it wasn't a "slight advantage". "Insurmountable advantage" is closer to what happened here.
Which is the problem...
Mannahnin wrote:Of course, as Kaldor pointed out, if the Ork player had a somewhat more competitive build (with more units) and played a bit more defensively, he could still win the game (unless it was Purge the Alien).
... as shown here. There are a lot of ways that a player can want to make an ork list that will not stand a serious chance of winning. If I wanted to play guard where I only took infantry platoons and took absolutely zero upgrades, that style of play is unlikely to win many games.
The problem here isn't that people with strange tastes wrote a bad list lost. The problem is that there are whole, large categories of popular, traditional armies and playstyles that have little chance to win against certain lists. One player with a bad list losing is one thing. Thousands of people losing because foot hordes now can't win games is another.
Lots of people have enjoyed playing assault armies over the decades. If 6th edition has basically made it so that you can't win with an assault army without the perfect list, played exactly right, and with a fair bit of luck, then this specific question becomes broader. Rather than just a single person who can't play the type of list he wants, what if it's whole groups?
Is it bad sportsmanship if people have to quit playing 40k altogether because they want a game with an assault phase? Really, it's the same question, just on a different scope.
Ailaros how is the dude who quit possibly gonna learn anything by quitting turn 1? Seriously, I've been playing for 9 months and have thought about quitting plenty while getting crushed in games. But you take your lumps say good game afterward and move on. All the while trying to get better in list building/tactics. If he's done it once he's probably done it to a bunch of people.
And its not at all the same question. Because there are ALWAYS options. Yes you can quit playing 40k if you want . because GW screwed your army over. Or you change up how you play slightly. But in this instance someone set up a game. Had their opponent take gas, effort, and time out to play them then quit turn 1 and walked away. How is that the same as not even playing because you "think" your army was made obsolete?
Chancetragedy wrote: I hate this so much. Don't quit man. This is a game of reciprocation. You Guys arguing how fun is it for him. Well how fun is it for people who take time out of their week to play only to have the opponent quit after you gain a slight advantage turn 1? What about quitting after turn 2 or 3? I've had a few people try to do this to me and while I'd never berate you for it because it absolutely is your choice. I typically try and talk you back into playing. If you don't continue that's cool. But don't expect me to play you again. And no I don't run a Net list or an OP codex. I run a fairly fluffy C:SM list of salamanders. And typically never refuse a game time permitting. And I never quit because I'm getting beat. Unless its the end of turn 5 and there is 0% chance of me winning ill typically say good game no need for turn 6.
You have completely missed the point of all the posters above you. It's not about losing.
Let's say your are fielding your salamanders list full of flamers, melta and no terminators. Your opponent brought three landraider redeemers and some fire support, and somehow kills all your melta weapons turn one by fluke, you have absolutely no way of harming any of them anymore, except hiding in terrain and hoping for an immobilize. Your opponent then proceeds to slaughter your green marines for five turns, without you having any part in the game. That's pretty much the situation the ork player was in. Even if you play all seven turn, all you've "learned" is that power armor doesn't work against S6 AP3 flamers, about forty times.
I didn't miss the point? If your situation was the case i would continue playing. I would get crushed say good game as long as you weren't a butthead. Then think about how I could have done things differently. I would not quit on turn one and waste everyone's time. Especially time put into playing a game with me by my opponent.
Part of the point of the game being focused on objectives for the 5th and 6th editions is that it often allows you to win even if your army gets trashed by the other guy's, as long as you have superior position and focus on the mission. I used to do this all the time in WHFB, for that matter, playing against big nasty monsters like Greater Daemons with my Wood Elves.
A big part of what makes Draigowing balanced is that you can beat it in the game without having to kill it.
The difficulty with that is that it's not the kind of game a lot of people are looking for, even if they are able to change their play style, and some folks don't even think of it.
Unable to read the whole thread (dakka is wiggin out on me, for some reason the whole page is white?) but I don't see a problem with what the ork player did. He was delaying the inevitable at that point, and to be honest, he probably only quit so he could get another game in that day.
If it was just a unit botched a run roll or something, yes, it would be very poor sport. But when half your army falls apart and the other half just falls flat on its face, there's not much you can do.
Had I been in his spot, I would've politely asked to call it there as well. "Hey man, this game is already over, do you mind if we just do another game or something? I can tell this one is over already. It won't be any fun for me to play out." I've played out many a game where it seemed like I was screwed and I've clawed back a draw, but in an instance like that, I would call it for both our sakes.
However, it has to be something REALLY bad for me to call it. Like, 15 lascannons all miss, half my guardsmen died, and there's 3 full terminator squads about to assault my line. At that point, yeah, may as well call it quits and get another game in
DAaddict wrote: The orc player was dead before he started... So he backs off to stay out of the magic 24" range. Now the ork has some 24" range rokkit lauchas and 36" range big shootas. Given that they are playing on a standard 48" table with a standard deployment of 12" in, the orc can avoid 24" range for more than 2 turns. So lets say you have 10 big shootas and have two turns. 60 shots, 20 hit and 14 wound. Now just going by average, he is going to kill 1 paladin and maybe get lucky ad put 1 wound on another. At that point he has no choice but to engage. He can maybe stay at 12 to 18" but 10 dead orcs to 1 dead paladin makes it a moot point. As I recall, his list had about 80 orks. Assuming the average, he would have killed about 8 paladins and had his army all put away.
I am not saying he played it properly but with his list he was going to die unless his opponent had 1s on 5 of 6 sides of his dice. His list was crap for taking on the paladins. Now perhaps if he had 3 units of lootas or 3 units of tankbustas with a bunch of boomcannons maybe but he had less than 10% of his force that could engage at greater than 24".
Now taking on an IG leafblower with the paladins would be a pain in the a@@, All S8+ and rolling a 1 meaning a dead paladin would be very painful 3 turns until the board edge prevents the IG from staying out of 24" range.
Bottom line, bringing a knife to a gun fight and expecting to have a fair fiight is foolish.
You're still entirely missing my point. Orks will find it very hard to kill Draigowing, but are perfectly suited to beat Draigowing. Just ignore it, remove models in his shooting phase, and laugh as on turn five the Draigowing player realises he's too far away from the objectives, and hasn't killed enough units to win. Yeah, the list posted only had ~80 Orks, but also only came to ~1100 points. There should have been another 950 points worth of stuff in there, and there is simply no way two units can do enough damage to that sized list. They can only target one unit each per turn, and unless they get extremely lucky they aren't going to entirely wipe out that unit. Which means they need to spend two turns shooting at it. So, no shooting for the first two turns, two units destroyed in the next two turns, and maybe one or two other units destroyed in the last few turns. The Draigowing loses not a single model, the Orks lose four or five units, and then claim/contest every objective.
DAaddict wrote: The orc player was dead before he started... So he backs off to stay out of the magic 24" range. Now the ork has some 24" range rokkit lauchas and 36" range big shootas. Given that they are playing on a standard 48" table with a standard deployment of 12" in, the orc can avoid 24" range for more than 2 turns. So lets say you have 10 big shootas and have two turns. 60 shots, 20 hit and 14 wound. Now just going by average, he is going to kill 1 paladin and maybe get lucky ad put 1 wound on another. At that point he has no choice but to engage. He can maybe stay at 12 to 18" but 10 dead orcs to 1 dead paladin makes it a moot point. As I recall, his list had about 80 orks. Assuming the average, he would have killed about 8 paladins and had his army all put away.
I am not saying he played it properly but with his list he was going to die unless his opponent had 1s on 5 of 6 sides of his dice. His list was crap for taking on the paladins. Now perhaps if he had 3 units of lootas or 3 units of tankbustas with a bunch of boomcannons maybe but he had less than 10% of his force that could engage at greater than 24".
Now taking on an IG leafblower with the paladins would be a pain in the a@@, All S8+ and rolling a 1 meaning a dead paladin would be very painful 3 turns until the board edge prevents the IG from staying out of 24" range.
Bottom line, bringing a knife to a gun fight and expecting to have a fair fiight is foolish.
You're still entirely missing my point. Orks will find it very hard to kill Draigowing, but are perfectly suited to beat Draigowing. Just ignore it, remove models in his shooting phase, and laugh as on turn five the Draigowing player realises he's too far away from the objectives, and hasn't killed enough units to win. Yeah, the list posted only had ~80 Orks, but also only came to ~1100 points. There should have been another 950 points worth of stuff in there, and there is simply no way two units can do enough damage to that sized list. They can only target one unit each per turn, and unless they get extremely lucky they aren't going to entirely wipe out that unit. Which means they need to spend two turns shooting at it. So, no shooting for the first two turns, two units destroyed in the next two turns, and maybe one or two other units destroyed in the last few turns. The Draigowing loses not a single model, the Orks lose four or five units, and then claim/contest every objective.
Thats what i noticed too. The ork player seems to be missing about 1000 points from the start...
But... bringing draigowing, then saying that you arent TFG, and that your backup army is purifiers.. What?
People keep carrying on about how the ork player wasn't going to learn how to play GK (or in general) by quiting....Seems to me he knew exactly what to expect from GK and realized that after turn 1, there was no way to recover.
Orks are an all or nothing type army, and when the stars align an Ork army can table anybody, but when a turn like this guy had happens, the wheels have come off entirely and in that situation (facing another round of GK shooting followed by assault), I think he was experienced enough, both in the game and against GKs, to know it was a waste of time to continue. While I probably would have played one more turn just for gaks and giggles, unless Gork and Mork themselves showed up in the battle, its time pack it up after that. Of coure, Draigowing proably would have sent Gork and Mork packin' too
That being said, sometimes you can recover from a disasterous first turn. Just the other day, I was playing in a 5000 point teams battle, my Crimson Fists and my buddy's Eldar against Necrons and Chaos, and my old friend Bubba Hotek unleashed a torrent of lightning bolts that destroyed two wave serpents, immobilized and 2 hull pointed my dreadnaught, and killed the Eldar warlord (Farseer). Needless to say, our battle plan took a major hit and my buddy had a few choice words about the Bubba Hotek Cheese flavored pie. BUT, we kept playing, and while the dice were against us the whole night (seriously, rolled snake-eyes twice, and missed altogether once on point blank melta penetration rolls against the Monolith dropped in our deployment!), we played 6 turns and managed to even things out a bit and we had a good time. We stil lost by about 4 victory points, but my buddy got some retribution when he killed Bubba Hotek in a long running dual with Fuegan.
DAaddict wrote: The orc player was dead before he started... So he backs off to stay out of the magic 24" range. Now the ork has some 24" range rokkit lauchas and 36" range big shootas. Given that they are playing on a standard 48" table with a standard deployment of 12" in, the orc can avoid 24" range for more than 2 turns. So lets say you have 10 big shootas and have two turns. 60 shots, 20 hit and 14 wound. Now just going by average, he is going to kill 1 paladin and maybe get lucky ad put 1 wound on another. At that point he has no choice but to engage. He can maybe stay at 12 to 18" but 10 dead orcs to 1 dead paladin makes it a moot point. As I recall, his list had about 80 orks. Assuming the average, he would have killed about 8 paladins and had his army all put away.
I am not saying he played it properly but with his list he was going to die unless his opponent had 1s on 5 of 6 sides of his dice. His list was crap for taking on the paladins. Now perhaps if he had 3 units of lootas or 3 units of tankbustas with a bunch of boomcannons maybe but he had less than 10% of his force that could engage at greater than 24".
Now taking on an IG leafblower with the paladins would be a pain in the a@@, All S8+ and rolling a 1 meaning a dead paladin would be very painful 3 turns until the board edge prevents the IG from staying out of 24" range.
Bottom line, bringing a knife to a gun fight and expecting to have a fair fiight is foolish.
You're still entirely missing my point. Orks will find it very hard to kill Draigowing, but are perfectly suited to beat Draigowing. Just ignore it, remove models in his shooting phase, and laugh as on turn five the Draigowing player realises he's too far away from the objectives, and hasn't killed enough units to win. Yeah, the list posted only had ~80 Orks, but also only came to ~1100 points. There should have been another 950 points worth of stuff in there, and there is simply no way two units can do enough damage to that sized list. They can only target one unit each per turn, and unless they get extremely lucky they aren't going to entirely wipe out that unit. Which means they need to spend two turns shooting at it. So, no shooting for the first two turns, two units destroyed in the next two turns, and maybe one or two other units destroyed in the last few turns. The Draigowing loses not a single model, the Orks lose four or five units, and then claim/contest every objective.
Thats what i noticed too. The ork player seems to be missing about 1000 points from the start...
But... bringing draigowing, then saying that you arent TFG, and that your backup army is purifiers.. What?
Now thats insulting. Insinuating that all draigo and purifier players are TFGs.
Chancetragedy wrote:Ailaros how is the dude who quit possibly gonna learn anything by quitting turn 1?
What was he going to learn by being tabled on the top of turn 2?
Mannahnin wrote:Part of the point of the game being focused on objectives for the 5th and 6th editions is that it often allows you to win even if your army gets trashed by the other guy's, as long as you have superior position and focus on the mission.
I think this is actually an important part of the problem. In 5th ed, one mission had no objectives, one mission had 2 objectives and one mission had 3-5 objectives. In most games, if you were down and nearly out, you could always kill of one last unit to take a draw with KP, or could still defend your objective in capture and control. There was still a chance you could win, or at least draw, even with just a couple of models on the board.
Now, most missions are 2-6 objectives. If you're playing scouring, and your opponent has 3 objectives and you only have the remaining troops choices to hold two of them, odds are very good that you have no chance whatsoever of winning. If your opponent also takes first blood, the odds of you fighting back to a draw are pretty low on most missions. Put another, way, you know very early on if there is no possible way to win the game because you can really no longer pull off a win if you only have a couple of models left on the board in most missions.
Sometimes you get hurt so bad on turn one it's really not fun. And if it isn't fun then why play? I had a good friend forfeit before he even got his first turn as it was obvious to everyone that he didn't have a chance (He was testing out WWPDE and I had a super shooty army and had first turn). I was totally ok with it because if you're just creaming the guy with him having no chance it isn't fun for either side!
I can't give the guy much fault for it. Half his army got wasted turn one, and the only chance he had to even the playing field was lost due to bad assault rolls. The next turn would have been a repeat of the previous turn, and by the time it got back around to him, there would have been nothing worth mentioning left on the table.
I've quit two games on turn two in recent history, both of those games were due to me having 90% of my army gone by that point. Sometimes you just find yourself wasting time. It's better to pack up, and see if you can get another game in, or just go home and nurse the wounds.
Didn't sound like the guy was a bad sport about it, so not sure what your expecting. I'd say if there is a "being a git" part towards a scenario like this, it would be in getting upset that a guy didn't want to stick around to have his face smashed in repeatedly.
Chancetragedy wrote: I didn't miss the point? If your situation was the case i would continue playing. I would get crushed say good game as long as you weren't a butthead. Then think about how I could have done things differently. I would not quit on turn one and waste everyone's time. Especially time put into playing a game with me by my opponent.
You failed to seize initiative. Then you lost all your melta guns. What could you have done differently?
Chancetragedy wrote: I didn't miss the point? If your situation was the case i would continue playing. I would get crushed say good game as long as you weren't a butthead. Then think about how I could have done things differently. I would not quit on turn one and waste everyone's time. Especially time put into playing a game with me by my opponent.
You failed to seize initiative. Then you lost all your melta guns. What could you have done differently?
Decked your list out to the gills on the off chance you come across a multi-landraider-list. I kid, I agree with your point. I'm just trying to emphasize the lack of things you could 'learn from this' apart from 'spam more melta' which isn't really a good thing to learn, because then you come up against a non-3-landraider-list and get screwed the other way.
That is all assuming that there is actually anything to learn, or the player wants to learn anything.
That's exactly why I used that example. You brought the tools to do the job.
You even spread them across your tacticals, a dread and put a melta bomb on your HQ, just in case. Then lady luck decided that she doesn't like green and simply fethed you over big time. There is nothing left to learn but that dice are random and sometime really unlikely results happen.
The other side of the medal are players that don't care. A good friend of mine always clumps up his orks. When hit by a large blast he loses 12+ models at once. I told him to spread out his models to take less casualties. He told me that he doesn't care, it's only a game.
When someone fielded a leafblower against him he lost 90% of his 2000 points orks before moving a single one. After that turn he went over to the other guy, shook his hand, honestly smiling, and told him that his artillery officer should be awarded by the high lords of terra for saving a colony from his Waagh! without taking a single casualty. He still fields them klumped up, but doesn't play that player anymore, telling him that his Warboss is terrified of that artillery officer, because he brought "enuff dakka".
I'd say he was justified. Sure, he could've handled it better with the classic stiff upper lip, good game to you sir but I must concede speech. But not everyone has that sort of gentlemanly nature or steel will when they get a thourough licking on turn 1.
In this situation, as far as learning from losing is concerned, he probably learned all he needed on turn 1. Something to the effect of "Draigowing is a hard nut to crack, next time I should perhaps build my list to better deal with hardened deathstars." I doubt he could've learned much more than that.
It is a shame you didn't get to crank it into overdrive with your own list (tailored to a specific points value), but this is the risk you run. You may have your own, perfectly valid reasons for bringing draigowing (fluff, cheap to buy, etc) but in the end it still amounts to a very elite army that is very hard to kill with certain other armies.
Best thing you can do at that point is to extend your own sportsmanly nature. Attempt to have a decent conversation with the other player, talk about possible strategies, discuss codex options, etc. Perhaps try to schedule another game ahead of time, and help him build a list that can, at the very least, adequately handle an elite death star army. This way you're contributing to the hobby at your local store. You'll have a bigger challenge next time around, an opponent with a more competent list and knowledge of 40k armies, and perhaps a friend with which to discuss and practice said hobby.
Not saying you have to go out of your way, of course.
I'd say he shouldn't have let the points be 2055. Allowing your opponent to dictate a set value like that insures they get all the toys they wanted without any discernment and you get to try and figure out how to spend 55 points on something you didn't want enough to fit in the list before.
Plus, I can count on one hand how many "fun" games I've had vs. GKs, win or lose.
No problem with the Ork player accepting a loss on turn 1.
He had absolutely nothing to gain by continuing with the game other then giving the OP's e-peen a few more strokes then he already got. The OP knew what his list was capable of and could easily see that he had won with the failed assault. From there nothing left to do but just pack up your models for a new game.
DAaddict wrote: The orc player was dead before he started... So he backs off to stay out of the magic 24" range. Now the ork has some 24" range rokkit lauchas and 36" range big shootas. Given that they are playing on a standard 48" table with a standard deployment of 12" in, the orc can avoid 24" range for more than 2 turns. So lets say you have 10 big shootas and have two turns. 60 shots, 20 hit and 14 wound. Now just going by average, he is going to kill 1 paladin and maybe get lucky ad put 1 wound on another. At that point he has no choice but to engage. He can maybe stay at 12 to 18" but 10 dead orcs to 1 dead paladin makes it a moot point. As I recall, his list had about 80 orks. Assuming the average, he would have killed about 8 paladins and had his army all put away.
I am not saying he played it properly but with his list he was going to die unless his opponent had 1s on 5 of 6 sides of his dice. His list was crap for taking on the paladins. Now perhaps if he had 3 units of lootas or 3 units of tankbustas with a bunch of boomcannons maybe but he had less than 10% of his force that could engage at greater than 24".
Now taking on an IG leafblower with the paladins would be a pain in the a@@, All S8+ and rolling a 1 meaning a dead paladin would be very painful 3 turns until the board edge prevents the IG from staying out of 24" range.
Bottom line, bringing a knife to a gun fight and expecting to have a fair fiight is foolish.
You're still entirely missing my point. Orks will find it very hard to kill Draigowing, but are perfectly suited to beat Draigowing. Just ignore it, remove models in his shooting phase, and laugh as on turn five the Draigowing player realises he's too far away from the objectives, and hasn't killed enough units to win. Yeah, the list posted only had ~80 Orks, but also only came to ~1100 points. There should have been another 950 points worth of stuff in there, and there is simply no way two units can do enough damage to that sized list. They can only target one unit each per turn, and unless they get extremely lucky they aren't going to entirely wipe out that unit. Which means they need to spend two turns shooting at it. So, no shooting for the first two turns, two units destroyed in the next two turns, and maybe one or two other units destroyed in the last few turns. The Draigowing loses not a single model, the Orks lose four or five units, and then claim/contest every objective.
20 terrninators gives you pretty decent coverage of the entire table. 80 orks take up space and the best you can probably do is avoid being fired at for 1 turn. The prescience the draigo player had meant that 17 or 18 hits per turn and 10 - 12 dead orks per turn from one unit firing... He had an on foot green tide basically and that is not going to be able to maneuver out of the way of all the paladins and once he commits to running the paladins are going to run him down. 10 Paladins spread out cover at least 30" of space and reach out and touch with 90% accurate S5 fire to 24" . So turn 1 I have a 72" table covered and I can reach out to 42" across from my table edge. Good luck getting all your orcs within 6" of the edge of the table. Now you can avoid fire from one of my paladins since you set up first but that is going to recover in 2 turns to get into the fight.
So best case, you are going to buy 2 turns of avoiding my fire and you have nothing capable of taking on my one paladin unit.
So 1st turn - assuming nothing gets into range - no dead.
2nd turn - 12 dead orks.
3rd turn - (no I should have both paladins in range.) 24 dead orks
4th turn - 24 more dead orks.
5th turn - 24 more dead orks. ( and this is assuming I never approach and pin him into getting charged.)
The ork has no troop choice that can outmanuever the paladin shooting bubble and has not enough force to get through me... So my objectives are safe. The ork has nothing that can stand up to me in CC so I feel pretty safe that I am going to be able to control 1 objective and prevent him from controlling another with his straggling remnant of orks.
THE ORK WAS DEAD BEFORE THE GAME STARTED. Unless the orks get mighty lucky shooting and the GK player gets into rolling a bevy of 1s.
Generally how I handle things in my group when a complete stomping takes place:
If I am the stomper -
1) I let my opponent decide when they want to give up. If they want to play through to the bitter end then, more power to them. I'm not going to say "Ready to give up yet?" or something to that nature simply to avoid it being taken the wrong way. Generally it becomes not a very fun experience past a certain point (unless we are laughing and joking about the whole thing), but if they want to push through, I have no problems with that.
2) If my opponent decides to give up early in the game, I'll offer them the option of resetting the game or playing another game where one or both of us swap out to a different list. If the list I ran is unfun to play against, I will rarely bring it to the table again. We are a stubborn lot around here though, so generally we don't like to admit that we can't beat a list...we might be happy to take a break from facing it for a few games though
If I am the stompee -
1) I will concede if I can see there is almost no chance for a win. Around here we generally would rather not waste the time than stroke our egos.
So the battle was over before it really began, and I have to ask, was what he did fair, to me or to himself? I don't know much about Orks, but was there anything he could have done to win at that point. I feel he should have continued playing against me, at least from the sake of sportsmanship, but was there really any hope for him to win at all? I'd like to hear from anyone whose been in a similar situation whose opponents quick so early, and from ork players as well...
You went max cheese on a list and then were surprised when you crippled his army in one turn and he wasn't excited to roll dice so you can amuse yourself at his expense?
So 1st turn - assuming nothing gets into range - no dead.
2nd turn - 12 dead orks.
3rd turn - (no I should have both paladins in range.) 24 dead orks
4th turn - 24 more dead orks.
5th turn - 24 more dead orks. ( and this is assuming I never approach and pin him into getting charged.)
Actually, considering that each squad had 4 psycannons and 5-6 storm bolters he would be facing 26-28 shots a turn, most of the hitting, the majority of them wounding and denying any armor save, not counting the character's shooting if any, and you have a game that is just pointless to play. I'm actually surprised that the GK player didn't add 3 psiflemen dreds and run 2500 points.
Biggest mistake was playing to the OP's odd points value instead of playing a standard one, going up against his finely tailored list with a list you have to write on the fly. Orks really don't have a whole lot of options against a wall of 2 wound terminators with a 30 inch threat range marching across a 6x4 table. Ork's can't outshoot GK, not with 2 ballistic skill and having to deal with terminator armor plus feel no pain, plus 2 wounds each. In melee combat, they also come up flat against much higher initiative, very few armor ignoring weapons, terminator armor, feel no pain, and 4+ or 5+ invulnerable saves for the sword boys.
Games are supposed to be fun to play, if you are not having fun due to being completely stomped by the core of a tournament list in a friendly game, horrible dice rolls, and your list being tailored for a fun game rather than WAAC, then pull the plug, call it a day, and look for a game that is more challenging than figuring out which ork boy goes in which slot in your figure case 40+ times a turn.
he should have just packed up as soon as he saw you pull out 20 paladins. orcs vs paladins lol. you probably could have won the game with a single squad of five.
DAaddict wrote: So 1st turn - assuming nothing gets into range - no dead.
2nd turn - 12 dead orks.
3rd turn - (no I should have both paladins in range.) 24 dead orks
4th turn - 24 more dead orks.
5th turn - 24 more dead orks. ( and this is assuming I never approach and pin him into getting charged.)
Assuming blocks of 30, then the Draigowing player hasn't killed any units, and no vehicles at all. Or, the Draigowing player takes some time to finish off damaged units, meaning he scores less kills over-all. His 2,000 points have killed 84 orks.
That's 500 points. How does anyone think that's OP?
Chancetragedy wrote: I didn't miss the point? If your situation was the case i would continue playing. I would get crushed say good game as long as you weren't a butthead. Then think about how I could have done things differently. I would not quit on turn one and waste everyone's time. Especially time put into playing a game with me by my opponent.
You failed to seize initiative. Then you lost all your melta guns. What could you have done differently?
How to deploy your melta guns safely. How to bait the land raiders into doing what you want them to do through maneuvering. How to be a decent non TFG sport and realize its a game and you made a mistake. How to play the mission when you don't have a clear advantage? Seriously, how rediculous is your argument? There are ALWAYS lots of things you can learn from games played winning or losing. How big of a poor sport do you have to be to pull a turn 1 baby quit? To me it's simple. You entered into a verbal contract to play a game against someone who is taking time out of whatever they could be Doing. Only to quit 10 minutes in because your mad you lost some troops. Why even agree to play?
You entered into a verbal contract and got smoked on turn one. I don't see it as a baby manuever to quit. You see the hand writing on the wall after a complete turn 1. So I should sit and burn another hour or two. (I doubt it will take more than an hour.) The GK pllayer smoked one unit on the first turn and the failed charge ensured a second unit's death while the other paladin unit rakes a 3rd unit. He was going to be down to 40 orks real quick. 40 orks vs 20 paladins sounds to me like astute use of his time.
Chancetragedy wrote: I didn't miss the point? If your situation was the case i would continue playing. I would get crushed say good game as long as you weren't a butthead. Then think about how I could have done things differently. I would not quit on turn one and waste everyone's time. Especially time put into playing a game with me by my opponent.
You failed to seize initiative. Then you lost all your melta guns. What could you have done differently?
How to deploy your melta guns safely. How to bait the land raiders into doing what you want them to do through maneuvering. How to be a decent non TFG sport and realize its a game and you made a mistake. How to play the mission when you don't have a clear advantage? Seriously, how rediculous is your argument? There are ALWAYS lots of things you can learn from games played winning or losing. How big of a poor sport do you have to be to pull a turn 1 baby quit? To me it's simple. You entered into a verbal contract to play a game against someone who is taking time out of whatever they could be Doing. Only to quit 10 minutes in because your mad you lost some troops. Why even agree to play?
No...you aren't learning how to deploy your melta guns safely. If there is any point you learn that, it is just as they die. Then there is nothing else to learn, the rest is just a punishment, which is no fun for either player (unless the other guy enjoys a pointless game). There is nothing you can learn from this example after that first turn, apart from just how spaced out your guys can be, and still be flamed to death. Which isn't a lesson worth the time or the effort. Its not a TFG move to call it at a point like in this example, I find it impossible to follow your reasoning as to how it is TFG. I consider myself a good sport, and I've called things turn one, just look at my example earlier in the thread. And you agree to play because it'll hopefully be a good game which you learn something from. The thing you learn could be how better to deploy your meltagunners on turn 1. That is learnt on Turn 1. Then the game is effectively over. You aren't quitting because you are mad you lost your troops, you are quitting because there is no reason to continue. Can you not grasp this?
I've seen quite a few people give up on turn one. If you've got no anti-tank after the first turn and your opponent has land raiders, the whole games just going to be land raiders frying your forces piecemeal. Its no fun for you, and your opponent won't actually be learning any good habits.
So actually yes, I'd say this would be justified. I've had the heavy armour thing happen to me, and I hated it. Every turn having to repack about 10 troops til the end of the game, knowing that I didn't have a chance to return fire or even catch the tanks.
Just gonna say I'm done arguing with brick walls. And I'm glad you guys don't play where I do. Because I'd be fairly ticked if my only game of the week walked off after turn 1. It's fairly unbelievable to me that anyone would do this. But to each his own.
I'm hearing people comparing this to people losing all anti-tank on tun one against 3LRs, but this guy only lost reportedly 300ish points out of 2000, and lost a charge. There is nothing comparable in these examples.
I wasn't aware we were comparing the two cases, I thought we were arguing against people saying 'turn 1 calling of a game is never ok'. Well thats how I was using it anyway. There is a big difference between the two cases, but I still stand by what I said in that the Ork player could have quit as he did without any bad feelings (so long as he did it in a nice way)
Also, is there a reason that people are assuming in their calculations that this will be the standard casualty rate for the entire game? As I read it, the Grey Knights player had very good rolls and the Ork player had very bad rolls. There is no reason to assume that these odds won't be completely reversed in turn two. (bar supersticious nonsense, of course.)
The average math is pretty darn gross when the Paladins have Prescience (which they did in this scenario, and can rely on getting if the have an Inquisitor in the army); then on average dice they only miss 1 in 9 shots.
Mannahnin wrote:Part of the point of the game being focused on objectives for the 5th and 6th editions is that it often allows you to win even if your army gets trashed by the other guy's, as long as you have superior position and focus on the mission.
I think this is actually an important part of the problem. In 5th ed, one mission had no objectives, one mission had 2 objectives and one mission had 3-5 objectives. In most games, if you were down and nearly out, you could always kill of one last unit to take a draw with KP, or could still defend your objective in capture and control. There was still a chance you could win, or at least draw, even with just a couple of models on the board.
Now, most missions are 2-6 objectives. If you're playing scouring, and your opponent has 3 objectives and you only have the remaining troops choices to hold two of them, odds are very good that you have no chance whatsoever of winning. If your opponent also takes first blood, the odds of you fighting back to a draw are pretty low on most missions. Put another, way, you know very early on if there is no possible way to win the game because you can really no longer pull off a win if you only have a couple of models left on the board in most missions.
I disagree entirely. 6th has actually mitigated this matchup issue. In 5th 1/3 of the games were Kill Points, which was a very difficult scenario in which to beat Draigowing. And a single unit of Scoring Paladins could hold multiple objectives at one time. Now Kill Points are only 1/6 of missions, and a given unit of Paladins can only hold one objective. You can still win or draw with only a few models left on the board in 6th, and in fact it's easier than it used to be against lists like Draigowing with a few, very tough units.
Aun Tier wrote: I'm hearing people comparing this to people losing all anti-tank on tun one against 3LRs, but this guy only lost reportedly 300ish points out of 2000, and lost a charge. There is nothing comparable in these examples.
Orks... initiative 2 S3 AP 6 W1 vs Paladins I4( at least S4 AP2 W2.... Go ahead and charge 10 paladins with 30 orks... They will hit you 10 times and kill about 5. You - assuming shoota orks will get 75 attacks hit 38, wound 19 and maybe kill 1.5 paladins. This is the best case scenario. You have not been shot at and not lost 12 orks to fire before you went in. Now comes the next turn... They kill - to keep it good - 4 now your mighty orks take 42 swings, hit 21 times, wound 7 and perhaps you kill that 2nd paladin. You are going to tie him up but again we are assuming 12 orks didn't get shot up before they charged and we are assuming that the ork charged.
I believe he failed a charge with 20 storm boyz... So we go on to turn 2, I am not even going to waste my prescience on the palys that will charge them. I advance closer to ensure the charge hits home. I shoot 20 shots, hit 13 and kill 7 of them. Now I charge 30 attacks, 15 hit, 8 kill. Hmm 5 orks get to swing back 15 attacks 8 hit 3 wound... I think that they are toast. Meanwhile my other unit - with prescience is taking 20 shots of which 18 are going to hit and 12 dead orks. Wonderfull. You have no mobility and 2 or 3 scoring units left of which 2 of them are already at risk of death in shooting.
When 1/3 of the arny is smoked on Turn one and now I am down to 40 orks versus 20 paladins. It is over. We don't need to prove anything. You have won. I will kick myself for playing an overmatched list. I will look at what I could have done different. I might even apologize for giving you such a poor test for your army. But I am not going to waste 2 more hours proving the enevitable.
Part of the point, though, is that unless the Ork player feeds the GK player units foolishly by assaulting the Pallies, the Paladins still, best case scenario, are going to kill 4-5 units each over the course of the game, and hold two objectives at most. If the Orks have more than 8-10 units (which they easily can at that point level), they can hold and/or contest enough objectives to still win, despite massive casualties.
Mannahnin wrote: Part of the point, though, is that unless the Ork player feeds the GK player units foolishly by assaulting the Pallies, the Paladins still, best case scenario, are going to kill 4-5 units each over the course of the game, and hold two objectives at most. If the Orks have more than 8-10 units (which they easily can at that point level), they can hold and/or contest enough objectives to still win, despite massive casualties.
Mannahnin wrote: Part of the point, though, is that unless the Ork player feeds the GK player units foolishly by assaulting the Pallies, the Paladins still, best case scenario, are going to kill 4-5 units each over the course of the game, and hold two objectives at most. If the Orks have more than 8-10 units (which they easily can at that point level), they can hold and/or contest enough objectives to still win, despite massive casualties.
I agree but the ork army - as described- had some high priced units. (stormboys and nobs in a bw) Also - as described the ork play had no speed to zip around and stay out of range.
From the description the ork player took a fluffy CC ork list and was really behind the 8 ball from the beginning. His list dictated he HAD to go for HTH and seeing he was guaranteed losing worse the longer he stalled, he went for it and lost. Now the stormboyz were not going to win the CC but perhaps if it had hit, he could have killed 1 or god forbid 2 paladins. Then - without being shot at - he could have charged in a 2nd unit of foot boyz and tarpitted one of the paladin units without ever getting shot at. That would have allowed him some mobility to get Linebreaker and perhaps preserve something to at least contest an objective.
For what the ork player was described as playing he was plain overpowered by a bunch of terminators with 2 wounds each spitting out 90% accurate S5 fire. If that is all the ork player had, the Draigo wing was OP. If not, shame on the ork player for making an almost guaranteed to lose list.
However, Draigo wing is not OP. I would like to see it face down my Vulkan list that packs 3 vindicators and 18+ meltas. I think the draigo wing would be in trouble.
Now most orks don't have it but it would be interesting to see a Draigo wing take on an Ork Deffwing - Gazzgull and a warboss with 20 or so meganobz. Lots of popping going on.
Hehe.
if i go through the trouble of unpacking 2055(a ludicrous point value designed to circumvent the whole "fit your army to a limit" dynamic) i would never play them again.
on the same token, i would ask you to drop 55 before we played. what's next? a 1369 point game because that's my totally with all of the stuff i want to bring? silly.
So now it comes down to lists. Both players had limitations to their lists, and as much as I'd like to say its fair, draigowing is like a ravendeath list. Its absolute cheese. Yes, you'd have been directed to it, but it is still a hard list to beat for orks, even with pre-knowledge.
Thanks for all the comments everyone! I apologize for not being able to comment more in my own thread but my work schedule had been brutal these past few days. After reading every post thus far, I feel I must clarify a few things:
* When I first met the Ork player, right off the bat the first thing I told him was that I was running a Draigowing army and if he still wanted to battle me, he said sure. I am well aware of Draigowing's reputation, justified or not, and I didn't want to seem like an donkey-cave for not telling him what army I was using. So the point is I did not pull a fast one on him and surprise him with my 20 Paladins, from the beginning he knew I would be using paladins, and he still agreed to fight me.
* About the unusual points value, I know a big deal had been made of this but among my friends we do this sort of thing all the time. Currently I am the only one of my 40k friends with a steady source of income at the moment and thus the only one who can maintain and update his armies whenever I feel like. All my other friends have built their armys sporadically over the months whenever they get enough money saved up. Thus it is a big deal for them when they get a new unit or a new vehicle or whatever, and thus they want to field their new model/unit along with the rest of their army to see what it does. Obviously, this leads to some wonky points values in games, like 1953 or something in one case. Point is, I did not see the big deal playing with a non standard points game, because my friends would do it all the time. Reading the comments here I now see that was an error on my part and I should have played at a flat 2000.
But really, the first thing two players should agree on first on a 40k game is the points, and when I brought up 2055 as a number, he said sure. There was no hesitation, and if he really didn't want to fight me there were two other guys looking for games at the time. If he had said no, and asked to play a different point value or s, be if standard like 2000 or not, I would have agreed. My 2055 "wishlist" was to test out if psybolt ammo and mastercrafted psycannons were ever worth the points (obviously they were in this case), but obviously a bigger concern for me was seeing if Draigowing was even viable at all now that they weren't characters. I would have been fine if he had refused my points limit.
*just one question I feel I should ask here instead of starting a whole new topic: does prescience and master crafted stack with each other? During the game, I only rerolled my prescience Psycannons once, but my friend told me I should have been able to reroll at least one shot per psycannon twice. is this true?
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: *just one question I feel I should ask here instead of starting a whole new topic: does prescience and master crafted stack with each other? During the game, I only rerolled my prescience Psycannons once, but my friend told me I should have been able to reroll at least one shot per psycannon twice. is this true?
As already said, the little section on rolling dice in the start of the rulebook still forbids rerolling more than once, no matter the source of the reroll.
Forfeiting on turn one, while a bit disappointing, was really not a bad call in this instance. You had the firepower to deplete or wipe out both his remaining 10+ model units next turn. Then he'd have nothing capable of dealing with terminators except the Warboss w. Nobz and possibly the other Warboss if he wasn't running away at the time. It would have been one more round of you shooting, then the remaining few orks charging into close combats. And if the Ork characters didn't challenge you had characters there capable of doing so, meaning he'd be unable to direct any power klaw attacks against the Paladins. Partly his own fault for giving you targets ofc, but still a clear loss at that point.
What one could have done different would be to offer a new game, with better setup for the ork player so his units could do something instead of serve as punching bags from the start.
Well, I count 34 dead Orks on turn one (204pts) and a stormboy unit that's in lots of trouble. I'm going to hazard a guess of 200ish points for 20 Stormboys (though it could well have been more like 10, and I may even be overestimating their price), so if the worst case comes about, and he loses just as many orks in turn 2 (even though bad rolls were already mentioned and the first Pali unit can't target anything except the Stormboyz), then at the end of turn 2, he has lost 600 points of Orks out of 2000.
I don't know where you got 1/3 of his army dead on turn one, but I've just roughly calculated a well worse than average result for the ork player; and he hasn't even lost your estimation at the end of turn two. There was every chance that his rolls could have picked up immensely and lost only a handful of Orks in turn two, the Paladins could have had terrible rolls in combat, and the Ork player could have lucked out and blown away a group of Paladins (and before you say it wouldn't happen, I've seen Terminators fail 4/5 armour saves on several occasions).
Going by this positive turn out, he may have only lost another 100pts in his turn (bringing his casualties to a mere 300pts), and taken out two or three paladins, which depending on their cost per model would be over 120pts.
Now we have about 7% separation in casualties, and the Ork player has far more scoring units than the GK player.
The point that I'm making here, is that whilst the luck was certainly against the Ork player in turn one, there was no reason to assume that the situation was hopeless. There was every chance that it could have swung around for him, and so to say forfeiting at this point was justified is essentially saying that it is justified to bail out of a 2000pt game on turn one because your Land Raider got wrecked with a handful of scattered dead marines. (And no, that isn't exaggerating. A Land Raider costs more points than the Ork players losses, and about 5 dead marines brings it not far off of the supposedly damned Stormboyz).
If you still feel that he was justified in a forfeit, then I don't know what else I can say to you except that we have very different values.
If this is the case, I won't bother you any more with my opinion of the matter.
I do not know the point values of his list, but he had 1 units of 30 boyz, 1 unit of 30 hardboyz, 20 or so stormboyz (I forget the exact count), 2 warbosses with powerclaws, one warboss was with one of the boyz unit, the other was in a Trukk(?) with 8 nobz, finally he had 5 deffkoptas that were in reserve and a what may have been a battle wagon (dont know enough about orks to tell). He may have had some more units in reserve, but I forget (and because he quit at the end of turn 1, it doesn't really matter.)
My first turn I use libbys Prescience on Draigo's unit. With it I manage to kill all but 9 boyz in one unit (pretty much every shot went through). They fail their leadership and start to retreats. The other unit with my Libby does almost as good, killing 13 boys in the other unit. That ends my turn since I scouted and I couldn't assault.
As described, the ork pllayer had 80 boyz , 8 nobz and 5 deffcoptas. First turn the draigo wing reduced his mobz by 34 boyz again per description. So by ork turn 1, we have a mob of 9 boyz, a mob of 17 boyz, a mob of 20 stormboyz, 8 nobz and 5 deffkoptas. He fails his charge on the stormboyz. So at this point, I anticipate the stormboyz getting shot and charged, prescience going on the other unit and shooting up the other boyz. The stormboyz should be dead and the other unit - assuming 21 casualties from prescience shotits.
Hmm that means for ork turn 2 I will have 9 boyz, 8 nobz and 5 deffkoptas.
I am saying it is regrettable but I understand where the ork player was coming from. He gave it the best go he could.
I do not fault the ork player for resigning but I do hold him at fault for even dreaming his list had a prayer. He was told he was facing Draigo-wing and brought this POS list to challenge him. As I said, if this were all the orky models I had, I would have declined to even play the game.
After two pages of reading I have to ask, has anyone considered, knowing full well how expensive the hobby is, that perhaps this Ork opponent DIDN'T HAVE an army capable of taking out the Paladins? It sounds kinda like he had AoBR and the Ork Battlebox with some extras. There sounds to be a good chance he put what models he had into the game and just realized he, quite literally, got BOUGHT out of the game.
Nobody wants to wander into a friendly game only to realize that after putting together a sweet looking and fluffy army list of Orks, modeling them, painting them and showing up to have fun that their opponent out spent them on a list meant for competition only. I wouldn't know by looking at or hearing the name of a specified build that I was going to lose immediately. Why is everyone assuming that he had, or should have known better and gotten, tons of experience and combs the forums for tactics. Maybe he just got into the hobby or competition isn't his thing so he doesn't meta game like that.
And I love how people pull the backhanded thing with,"Well, I wouldn't blame him for pulling out of the game BUT I WOULD NEVER HAVE DONE THAT." Such two-faced BS....
ive been in games where its a curb stomping early. sometimes i dish it out, and others i end up taking it. most recently i ended up playing a semi draigo wing / crowe list with my crons. the GK had crowe and some purifiers, a wing of palladins with draigo, a few strike squads, dread and DK, with a SR moving the pallys around. my necrons featured 2 tesla immortals with nightscythes, 2 ccb overlords, 2 annihlation barges 5 wraiths and a doomsday ark. needless to say the dice went very heavy in my favor and the GK couldnt make a save to well...save. at one point i managed to wipe out the 10 man purifer squad with a single tesla immortal squad in a single turn. lots of 6's to hit, lots of 4+ for wounds, and just a raft of 1 or 2's on the GK saves. this game was pretty much over turn 1. (GK went first couldnt do anything, my 1st turn killed the purifers, shot down the SR, the dread was left stunned, immobilized and 1 weapon gone, and the pallys lost 2 guys.) turn 2 for the gk not much better, and at the end of 2 everything but the pallys was dead, and they were engaged with my wraiths and one of my overlords.
gk wanted to call the game here... i asked to continue, and we did, so big credit there. but its definitily not fun "playing out" a battle that really... you cant win. ive had games of fantasy that way... all my warmachines self destruct, my wizards miscast and kill themselves or loose magic levels, then next turn i fail any and all panic checks, get charged and yea.. at that point its game over. ive conceded those a few times - but i always offer an immediate rematch with maybe a diffierent scenario. that way i can redeploy, change dice and maybe have a better game. - and the other guy dosent feel like he gets no game.
Chancetragedy wrote: Just gonna say I'm done arguing with brick walls. And I'm glad you guys don't play where I do. Because I'd be fairly ticked if my only game of the week walked off after turn 1. It's fairly unbelievable to me that anyone would do this. But to each his own.
picking up dead models when you cant do a thing when your opponent is killing you for 2 turns can hardly be called a game . Its like you end up clinched up in hth in WFB and you know neither of you can/will break , but you will win through attrition in 4 turns. technicly you could roll it , but some dont bother . they would rather start a game against someone else.
gk wanted to call the game here... i asked to continue, and we did, so big credit there. but its definitily not fun "playing out" a battle that really... you cant win. ive had games of fantasy that way... all my warmachines self destruct, my wizards miscast and kill themselves or loose magic levels, then next turn i fail any and all panic checks, get charged and yea.. at that point its game over. ive conceded those a few times - but i always offer an immediate rematch with maybe a diffierent scenario. that way i can redeploy, change dice and maybe have a better game. - and the other guy dosent feel like he gets no game
I had one like this week . I was playing a nercon scyth wing .second turn I blowed up all transports the orc player had and made his lootas run 12"[2 turns to get back in to range of shoting my dudes if I didnt move] . I didnt want to get 3 turns of rolling shoting and him doing nothing , so we stoped and played some warmachine .
Chancetragedy wrote: Just gonna say I'm done arguing with brick walls. And I'm glad you guys don't play where I do. Because I'd be fairly ticked if my only game of the week walked off after turn 1. It's fairly unbelievable to me that anyone would do this. But to each his own.
picking up dead models when you cant do a thing when your opponent is killing you for 2 turns can hardly be called a game . Its like you end up clinched up in hth in WFB and you know neither of you can/will break , but you will win through attrition in 4 turns. technicly you could roll it , but some dont bother . they would rather start a game against someone else.
gk wanted to call the game here... i asked to continue, and we did, so big credit there. but its definitily not fun "playing out" a battle that really... you cant win. ive had games of fantasy that way... all my warmachines self destruct, my wizards miscast and kill themselves or loose magic levels, then next turn i fail any and all panic checks, get charged and yea.. at that point its game over. ive conceded those a few times - but i always offer an immediate rematch with maybe a diffierent scenario. that way i can redeploy, change dice and maybe have a better game. - and the other guy dosent feel like he gets no game
I had one like this week . I was playing a nercon scyth wing .second turn I blowed up all transports the orc player had and made his lootas run 12"[2 turns to get back in to range of shoting my dudes if I didnt move] . I didnt want to get 3 turns of rolling shoting and him doing nothing , so we stoped and played some warmachine .
Maybe he just got into the hobby or competition isn't his thing so he doesn't meta game like that.
there is a name for people who arent in to competition in life. they are called losers. He shouldnt have build an army based on looks/conversions/"cool" , if he wants to have an army and not a collection of models.
Your first two points were excellent.
Your third point makes you look stupid. I have an army based on looks/conversions/"cool".
I can get a game in whenever I want. Mainly because my "cool" "looks"ing "conversion" army makes for great day of gaming win or lose.
If at any point you are unhappy with the game and feel like continuing it will be a chore, it's time to quit. If that's turn 1, turn 5, or turn 3,685. Doesn't matter. If both people aren't having fun, it's no longer a game. Respect those who leave turn 1. If they aren't having fun, they are not obligated to play. Anyone who considers it an obligation really needs to rethink their life.
OTOH, often playing through what looks like a losing situation will allow you to actually salvage a hard-fought win or draw, and/or will teach you more about how to beat the army you're facing in future games. In my experience, coming back from an early beating can be extremely satisfying. I had a tournament game last month where I lost my Farseer, 7/9 Harlequins, 6/8 assault marines and their Rhino, and 5/10 assault marines before I even got to move, and still came back to win the primary objective of the mission.
I've come back from seemingly-crippled position on turn one and won or drawn a bunch of times, and had it done to me.
Sometimes people should be encouraged to keep their chin up and not quit too easily. Losing and feeling like you're having a bad game can become a self-fulfilling prophecy easily if you have a negative attitude.
I can get a game in whenever I want. Mainly because my "cool" "looks"ing "conversion" army makes for great day of gaming win or lose.
I have seen people start the game in groups of 4-5 and it was always the dude that picked the wood elfs/tyranids/etc that quit first .I have never seen people quit or be desatisfied with the game while playing IG/SW/Necron type of armies . Never seen one . Picking up army based on how good an army is or how good GW makes it in general , gives a bigger chance for one to have more fun . what ever the fun is B&P or serious .
I mean would you recommend nids to anyone new , when the desing team gives hints like "we have problems with balancing tyranids" [aka "we have no idea how to make them work without breaking the game one way or another"]?
In my experience, coming back from an early beating can be extremely satisfying. I had a tournament game last month where I lost my Farseer, 7/9 Harlequins, 6/8 assault marines and their Rhino, and 5/10 assault marines before I even got to move, and still came back to win the primary objective of the mission
In 2500 this means your probably still have half of your army . the orc player had nothing to dent an untouched army of GKs , he couldnt score , he had line breaker and first blood against him , if he tried to play aggresive it would be slay the warlord too . Yeah he should like totaly go for the 2 more turns of removing his own models from the table . People are forgetting that nids or DE or orcs are not marines . Marines can sometimes lose half an army in a single turn . Happens . But if an orc player loses half his army in a single turn , then there is no place for a come back , because if someone blew up half an orc army in a single turn , then with only half or less orc army returning fire the next turn will see the orcs dieing again .
Mannahnin wrote: I was playing 2k, so I lost about 25% of the army before I moved.
The Ork was playing just over 2k, and suffered what, 10%, 15% casualties?
he lost a lot more . without the tar piting of paladins , before his second turn he would have lost both his boy units , the storm boyz the wagon and would have a lone warboss unit facing the whole untouched GK army . he lost almost the whole whole army on his 1st turn .
No he didn't. The Paladins can only hit two units per turn. In the first turn they didn't wipe out either of the units they crippled. They killed "all but 9" of one unit (so 21 models, and now the guys who fled can rally on a 9, probably with a re-roll), and 13 of another (leaving probably 17). That's still two viable scoring units, which can still hold or contest objectives. So on turn 1 the Paladins failed to kill even one unit. The Storm Boys not making the charge is arguably better for the Ork player, as that forces the Paladins to shoot/charge the storm boys now, instead of hitting a scoring unit, such as finishing off one of the units they damaged on turn 1.
I'm not going to argue whether it was reasonable for him to bail any more. I've made my point about that.
I strongly agree with Mannahnin, however. On turn one, the Ork player had two units damaged. On turn two, he is set to lose his stormboyz (not guaranteed. They could hold his palis for a turn potentially) and have one boys unit finished off. Assuming his Stormboyz die immediately, on turn 3 he loses his second damaged boys squad and let's say his battle wagon. That comes to about 700ish points half way through the game. You say he lost most of his army on turn one, but assuming that he manages to wipe a squad with each of his Pali units every turn ( however that's rather optimistic for the GK player) he has lost a third of his army half way through the game.
As a Tau player. In one of my first games against IG, I lost the innitiative and proceeded to lose a 170pt hammerhead and all battlesuits bar my single wound left commander (300pts worth) as well as had a few infantry units take casualties. That was 1500pts and I lost in one turn what the Ork player would have lost in a bad case in two turns. Not only that, but most of my strong killing power had been wiped. From there, I quickly changed tactics and turned defensive whilst hugging cover and playing guerilla style.
I won that game. There were three objectives, and I had an outflanking Kroot squad grab one in a forest on turn 4 and holding strong against all enemy attacks. A FW team in a DF held another as it came in from reserves On turn 4 ( game ended turn 5). Although I lost just about everything else over the course of the game ( I finished with my two units on objective, though the devilish cacked it leaving my FWs to tough it out, and my crisis commander, the tough little cookie!), I stuck through, changed tactics when faced for the first time with a reasonably strong IG list (and I wasn't even playing cookie cutter Tau. I had 4 battlesuits, a single broadside and a hammerhead for my competitive part - near all of which died before letting out a shot). So, no. I don't think that the Ork players plight was hopeless.
I know I said I was done arguing this, but I had just remembered that inspirational tale, and who could resist telling that! In any case, despite that little anecdote, you're overstating drastically how much he lost, and even if he did lose what you said, if you think there was no way to win that - then you need to learn to play more flexibly.
P.S. @DAaddict, all fair points, but I'll maintain my opinion and leave you to yours. None thing though; he hadn't lost his stormboyz on turn one, so those calculations are probably more apt to he end of turn two.
In sixth edition, models die faster, but the process of removing them from the table is slower and somewhat convoluted. If the process of a game is going to be nothing more than watching one side remove models, it's not going to be much fun for anyone.
People are forgetting that nids or DE or orcs are not marines .
Sorry, but as someone who rather loves DE I must point out that DE and plenty of other non-MEQ armies can take a beating in the opening turn of the game and still consistently recover. It just requires a different response. In the case of DE you lash out like a cornered animal. I believe I have a brief account of a battle where I got hammered first turn by some Forgeworld awfulness and proceeded to tear apart the hardy force vastly outnumbering me floating around page 4 or so. If anything about the first turn usually wins the game it's movement, I would say. Drawbacks happen, but usually things are salvageable.
Now that I am not sleep-deprived and thinking a touch better I would like for there to be a more comprehensive list of the Ork units and their casualties incurred on the first turn. Originally I was under the impression that they had lost well over half, maybe three quarters, of their army. As I keep reading it seems like less of a blow was dealt.
As for the sporadic bursts of bashing Draigowing as cheesy...I think that perhaps it's just that many other armies are old and in need of an update or that certain more-recent ones (*cough*'nids*cough*) were written...badly. Mabye I've just been lucky, but I've never had a problem chewing up Draigowing with Deathwing (as expected, we're still the masters of 'wing armies ) or DE.
I still stand by conceding opponents in general ought to not have anything held against them, save for in tournaments, perhaps. The lose of the chance for a great comeback scene to occur is more than enough punishment for surrender.
Where do you get this gift of prescience that let's you predict the outcome of a dice game?
More importantly, where do you get off saying you will know the outcome on turn 1?
Prescience? If, just by doing the averages you know how many models are likely to die next enemy turn? And you know that what's left won't manage enough of a dent in the enemy to have a chance? Sometimes it really is clear.
A bad first turn is a pretty good sign things are going to hell. Sometimes the guy that goes first pounds the other so hard that he can't recover, sometimes he has so bad luck with rolls that what looked like a losing setup becomes unstoppable. Like our summer tournament where the IG put 12 S6 shots and a S8 large blast against one of my Rhinos and didn't manage to do more than a hull point damage to it. His game was lost right there, even if we played it out anyway. The rest was just my troops getting up in his face and killing hapless guardsmen by the bucketload until they ran out.
This is why random charge is an unnecessary penalty. The cost of failing a charge roll is far greater than the reward or making a slightly longer charge.
I don't play in tournaments or at the game store against strangers.
I only play against my friends. Quitting on turn 1 would be rude as we plan to play at least a week in advance, travel to each others houses, and nearly 100% of the time are playing a campaign game.
If I was playing a new person in a game store and I was losing, I'd still play it out, and expect the other guy to do the same.
HOWEVER, if the guy I was playing was a complete ass/dick/jackass, I'd have no problem stopping the game at any time, turn 1, turn 4, during set-up, whatever. I'm not going to waste my time playing a jerk.
A bad first turn is a pretty good sign things are going to hell. Sometimes the guy that goes first pounds the other so hard that he can't recover, sometimes he has so bad luck with rolls that what looked like a losing setup becomes unstoppable. Like our summer tournament where the IG put 12 S6 shots and a S8 large blast against one of my Rhinos and didn't manage to do more than a hull point damage to it. His game was lost right there, even if we played it out anyway. The rest was just my troops getting up in his face and killing hapless guardsmen by the bucketload until they ran out.
Might I ask, what mathematical principle are you using to determine shoddy rolls on turn one are going to mean the game is over. All I can see in your post is superstition. Though it would be annoying, I have at least some empathy for someone who forfeits due to crippling losses. If someone ditched a game with me turn one because he 'didn't feel like he would win', I can honestly say that they are not who I want to be playing against.
Could you please give me a logical reason that a bad first turn means you CANNOT win? Honestly, if you think the simple fact of dice averages suggesting a loss are reason enough to quit, then you're in the wrong hobby. By that logic, all you have to do is look at your opponents list and leave, because 40K in general is not balanced. Some armies do better than others, but this is a DICE game. Poor odds mean next to nothing. If you're happy to never play anyone with a stronger list, then be my guest, but you won't get very far in he hobby.
Aun Tier wrote:Could you please give me a logical reason that a bad first turn means you CANNOT win?
It's about opportunity cost. If you show up at a 1500 point game, and your opponent blows away 500 points at the top of turn 1, then, really, you've brought a 1,000 point list to a 1500 point game. Those things that happen early on in a game snowball down through the rest of the game as the impact of slain units is felt turn after turn. As shooting tends to happen early in the game (and 6th ed is certainly skewed towards shooting), this makes this snowballing effect more pronounced.
Anyways, the more disproportionate your casualties, the luckier you need to be in order to turn things around. Yes, it's possible that that ork player could have turned around at the top of turn 2 and rolled practically nothing but 6's, but by that point, that's the kind of luck that the ork player would NEED in order to be able to turn the game around. As this isn't terribly likely, you can see why it wouldn't be worth the effort to spend the time playing just fishing for miraculous die rolling (which would have to get more miraculous every turn due to the mechanic in the above paragraph).
Why I personally would have stuck around until turn 2 is over, but by that point, just to see if there was a miracle in store, but after that, the odds are going to be so very finite, that they're not really worth playing anymore.
Chancetragedy wrote: How to deploy your melta guns safely. How to bait the land raiders into doing what you want them to do through maneuvering. How to be a decent non TFG sport and realize its a game and you made a mistake. How to play the mission when you don't have a clear advantage? Seriously, how rediculous is your argument? There are ALWAYS lots of things you can learn from games played winning or losing. How big of a poor sport do you have to be to pull a turn 1 baby quit? To me it's simple. You entered into a verbal contract to play a game against someone who is taking time out of whatever they could be Doing. Only to quit 10 minutes in because your mad you lost some troops. Why even agree to play?
Uh, personal attacks really work well in an argument about people being TFG. You forcing a player who has absolutely no fun playing the game to stay and slaughter every last of his models while calling him names is being TFG. Plus, you know, you could just get someone else to play after those ten minutes. There is usually at least one person hanging around every store who is waiting for an opponent.
There are games you learn absolutely nothing from. But since you obviously did read and/or understand my examples, there really isn't much point to it. Have fun clubbing baby seals
Aun Tier wrote: I'm hearing people comparing this to people losing all anti-tank on tun one against 3LRs, but this guy only lost reportedly 300ish points out of 2000, and lost a charge. There is nothing comparable in these examples.
I made that completely fictional example up for Cancetragedy, as he clearly couldn't grasp that a game could turn completely unfun and not worth playing on turn one. From experience I know that players who never played orks tend to have problem grasping the ork units, so I used marines for the example. Of course, the example is much worse than the actual situation (because the salamanders player didn't do anything wrong), but neither game is really worth playing more than the other. The ork play realized during turn one that his list blows and that he has no way of handling paladins. Turns 2-7 wouldn't have held any new things to learn. The point really is, no matter whether you have 20 or 20.000 points left on the table, if you can't affect the game anymore, the game is not worth playing.
I disagree entirely. 6th has actually mitigated this matchup issue. In 5th 1/3 of the games were Kill Points, which was a very difficult scenario in which to beat Draigowing. And a single unit of Scoring Paladins could hold multiple objectives at one time. Now Kill Points are only 1/6 of missions, and a given unit of Paladins can only hold one objective. You can still win or draw with only a few models left on the board in 6th, and in fact it's easier than it used to be against lists like Draigowing with a few, very tough units.
Is this your first edition change?
Heavy guns never tire is quite easy to win for draigowing as well, but otherwise I agree with you. Paladins are quite easy to get off objectives with tank shocks, and the relic is pretty much an auto-loss for them if you have any troops faster than footsloggers. Even then, Draigowing can't afford to run, as they lose precious shooting that way.
Spetulhu wrote: Then he'd have nothing capable of dealing with terminators except the Warboss w. Nobz and possibly the other Warboss if he wasn't running away at the time.
Both nobz and warboss simply fold to paladins due to NFW, backed by a lot of attacks and WS5. Sad truth is, a warboss is better off shooting than charging a unit with NFW.
Godless-Mimicry wrote: People are saying when you know you have no chance of winning you might as well quit; I've got two important questions.
- Where do you get this gift of prescience that let's you predict the outcome of a dice game?
- More importantly, where do you get off saying you will know the outcome on turn 1?
The same place I learned that I'm never going to win the lottery.
Having looked over my post, I think that I may have been a bit hostile towards you. For that, I apologise.
@Ailaros
It's funny that you should make that specific example. If you would have a look at one of my earlier posts, I actually detailed a game where that exact scenario occurred to me, and I won. So, whilst its certainly a tough spot to be in, I definitely wouldn't call it unwinnable. As for the rest of your post, you made some good points, and I respect that much.
Could you please give me a logical reason that a bad first turn means you CANNOT win?
Well, because you aksed...
Have you ever been the poor b d with their shiny new Daemon army who ends up on the other side of the table from some donkeycave playing with 30+ models capable of using Warp Quake... And they go first because you failed to sieze the initiative?!
Sure, it's a 'perfect storm' example, but that's happen to me more times than I care to count. Being forced to deploy half your army into a tiny little 10"x12" area is never going to happen. Losing perhaps 25%-30% of your initial wave of units to forced auto-mishaps means you've just auto-lost on your first turn. (remember, as a Daemon player, I have no way of stopping Warp Quake and no way to alter/buff my reserve rolls!)
Now what typically happens against the 'average' GK army is there's a full Strike or Interceptor squad present. If the GK player wants to be a dick, they can simply castle up their deployment, throw the Strikes/'Ceptors out in front of their army, spread out the full 2" coherency and then blast off a quake bubble that will force me to drop an average of 24" away from them to ensure I don't auto-mishap!
Considering Daemons outside of Tzeentch builds have the least amount of shooting in the game, the "game" at that point will just involve my units trying to hop from cover to cover while getting blasted off the table by the GK army.
Hence why as a Daemon player, I won't play against GK's. It's not fun in the least, and typically, it's very easy for the GK player to force a Turn 1 or 2 loss.
Could you please give me a logical reason that a bad first turn means you CANNOT win?
Well, because you aksed...
Have you ever been the poor b d with their shiny new Daemon army who ends up on the other side of the table from some donkeycave playing with 30+ models capable of using Warp Quake... And they go first because you failed to sieze the initiative?!
Sure, it's a 'perfect storm' example, but that's happen to me more times than I care to count. Being forced to deploy half your army into a tiny little 10"x12" area is never going to happen. Losing perhaps 25%-30% of your initial wave of units to forced auto-mishaps means you've just auto-lost on your first turn. (remember, as a Daemon player, I have no way of stopping Warp Quake and no way to alter/buff my reserve rolls!)
Now what typically happens against the 'average' GK army is there's a full Strike or Interceptor squad present. If the GK player wants to be a dick, they can simply castle up their deployment, throw the Strikes/'Ceptors out in front of their army, spread out the full 2" coherency and then blast off a quake bubble that will force me to drop an average of 24" away from them to ensure I don't auto-mishap!
Considering Daemons outside of Tzeentch builds have the least amount of shooting in the game, the "game" at that point will just involve my units trying to hop from cover to cover while getting blasted off the table by the GK army.
Hence why as a Daemon player, I won't play against GK's. It's not fun in the least, and typically, it's very easy for the GK player to force a Turn 1 or 2 loss.
So niave.
Thats a tailored army, not a competitive one. It will never show up unless the GK player knows he is going to fight a daemon player.
Against any other matchup, that GK army will do pretty bad.
In fact, the truely competitive Gk armies often have no warp quake at all, or only enough to keep the daemons out of the GK deployment zone. henchmen spam, Draigowing, and Purifier spam all lack Warp quake.
Hmm. I think that I made that question more general than I intended.
I was specifically curious in this case why an IG player failing to kill a Rhino was game over. Was there more to this than I was seeing? Because from what I read, that was the only poor thing to happen in the IG turn. I don't see at all how that failure is anymore than an inconvenience.
Aun Tier wrote:Could you please give me a logical reason that a bad first turn means you CANNOT win?
It's about opportunity cost. If you show up at a 1500 point game, and your opponent blows away 500 points at the top of turn 1, then, really, you've brought a 1,000 point list to a 1500 point game.
Completely ridiculous. If you brought a 1000pt army to that game, you'd be left with 500pts to retaliate. You absorbed a lot of firepower and lost 500pts, that doesn't mean to effectvely brought 1000pts. You still took that punishing turn of firepower. Your argument would make sense if you took a 1000pt army and your opponent didn't get a turn, but that doesn't happen.
Completely ridiculous. If you brought a 1000pt army to that game, you'd be left with 500pts to retaliate. You absorbed a lot of firepower and lost 500pts, that doesn't mean to effectvely brought 1000pts. You still took that punishing turn of firepower. Your argument would make sense if you took a 1000pt army and your opponent didn't get a turn, but that doesn't happen.
500pts vs 1500pts , what kind of a shoty army are we talking about here . must be meq too , if we are talking about absorbtion , because nids/IG/tau in general just die . In the 20 paladins vs orcs example there was so many orcs dead , only because the paladins cant kill more then 2 units/models of orcs per turn . So if the opposing army kills 2/3 or half of your army then the first thing it is going to kill , is the stuff that can return fire or assault back . If I go first and my valks and chimeras get blown up by necron scyths coming in second , then I may technicly have 50 dudes on the ground and some Lemmans , but if this is turn 2 , then the chance of them surviving is rather small .
So niave.
Thats a tailored army, not a competitive one. It will never show up unless the GK player knows he is going to fight a daemon player.
its not tailored it is something GK squad get as basic power . It would be like calling an normal marine army tailored against orcs/nids , because it took the free flamer for its tacs.
In fact, the truely competitive Gk armies often have no warp quake at all, or only enough to keep the daemons out of the GK deployment zone.
and in a tournament he wouldnt probably be playing demons .
s a Tau player. In one of my first games against IG, I lost the innitiative and proceeded to lose a 170pt hammerhead and all battlesuits bar my single wound left commander (300pts worth) as well as had a few infantry units take casualties. That was 1500pts and I lost in one turn what the Ork player would have lost in a bad case in two turns. Not only that, but most of my strong killing power had been wiped. From there, I quickly changed tactics and turned defensive whilst hugging cover and playing guerilla style.
bad example . first of all tau are shoting and you had scoring units left alive . the orc had 7-12 man orc mobs alive [cant shot , cant charge , no longer fearless ] . you had mobility in the form of outflanking units and skimer transports and you were playing against a static army . the orc could play guerilla style with what the 5 choppers or maybe pot shoting with the nob shootas ?
(not guaranteed. They could hold his palis for a turn potentially)
in the open so no cover . 4x4 psycannon shots and 5x2 str5[counting there is a banner in the pally unit] followed up by 10 paladins hiting in hth . overwatch is in , but so is the old pre FAQ wound LoS! wound allocation . there is a green stain left of the stormboyz after 1 turn.
There are many sides to this common question, then of course there is the specific instance you mention.
The crux of the matter is that *most* of the times players who think it is over in turn one are not making wise choices.
I have played many games where it looked very bleak early in the game, and have managed to pull out a good game. I am sure many others have had similar results.
In fact, often, I point out that you don't have to beat your opponents army, you just have to defeat the other player.
Also, all the comments about "learning more" etc. Are all valid.
However, having said all that...some games are just bad match ups, period - either by bad luck or bad planning or just mission + terrain + list combo; what ever. It happens.
While I have seen VERY few games actually decided early (as opposed to players thinking they are) I can admit...there are the rare cases where things may be indeed a lost cause with little recourse.
So, was it good sportsmanship? I don't know - thats highly subjective. I can say from your description it did not seem like bad sportsmanship...but again, that's subjective.
Ailaros wrote: And the new charging through difficult terrain just rubs salt into the gaping wound.
Before, you had a roughly 1 in 6 chance of charging 5" or more, up to 12". Now, you have a roughly 1 in 6 chance of charging 5" or more, up to 6".
Because I guess the game designers still thought that assault was too easy to get into...
Edit: I see what you're saying.
Fortunately that's just a badly worded update. All it says is to insert the bit about "by the shortest path" into that sentence. It doesn't overrule anything about the following sentences which state that you make it on 3D6 drop highest, it just makes it clear that you can't take a longer path to go around the terrain and use your standard assault distance.
Mannahnin wrote: Sometimes people should be encouraged to keep their chin up and not quit too easily. Losing and feeling like you're having a bad game can become a self-fulfilling prophecy easily if you have a negative attitude.
This. Obviously sometimes the game will legitimately be decided early, but I've seen way too many games where one player just gave up after taking losses that were far from crippling. And I know I've been on the losing end of that opening turn, felt like the game was hopeless and I might as well just kill what I can, and then come back to win a solid victory. Sure, the dice can always continue to hate you, but far more often it's just a psychological question of whether you can suffer losses and keep playing, or just give it all up as hopeless the moment you're at a disadvantage.
In short: don't be that guy who loses a unit on turn 1 and ragequits because he's expecting to win the game with no losses.
At that point, you've probably invested an hour into getting the little men out, making a battlefield for them, and pushing them around some. Quitting on turn 1 means that person is ok with murdering an hour of my life away.
It depends on what you did. In this case, his enemy clearly decided to be an arsehole and pull a Draigowing off. In friendlies, people should refrain from playing cheesy WAAC lists and play normal, balanced lists unless everyone agrees on fielding whatever he feels like. Goddamn, just communicate before the game. Say what you want, what you don't want, your expectations of game, etc.
Keep in mind that the 'donkey-cave' as you put him is probably about to read your post. There's no need for insults like that. On top of that, he has already stated that he clearly asked the Ork player if he wanted to play a 2055pt game against his Draigowing army. The Ork player accepted without complaint, and so you cant say that he sprung this list on him. It's simply not what happened.
Aun Tier wrote: Keep in mind that the 'donkey-cave' as you put him is probably about to read your post. There's no need for insults like that. On top of that, he has already stated that he clearly asked the Ork player if he wanted to play a 2055pt game against his Draigowing army. The Ork player accepted without complaint, and so you cant say that he sprung this list on him. It's simply not what happened.
Did not refer to him as a person, but his behavior / choice of army list.
Thanks for the latter point though, missed it. If the Ork really decided to play a Lamerwing with that list...geeez, guys.
Another shameless self-plug here, but its relevant. In one of my blogs I was absolutely smoked by a podding Vulkan list. Sometimes you just have to roll with it and laugh it off.
My opponent seized the initiative on me, and over the first 2 turns proceeded to destroy about 1400 points of my 2000 point army. It was HORRIFIC. But also funny - every player receives one of these beatdowns on occasion.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Don't know if this goes here or not since I'm asking a few questions, but since I'm describing a battle I guess it does?
So today was the first game I played with my Draigowing since the 1.1 nerf . The guy I played against used Orks and was very nice, agreeing to play a game of 2055 to accommodate my wishlist. My list consisted of:
Draigo - 275
Libby Master Level 3 - 200 ( chose to take all divination powers for him, ended up with Prescience, Forewarning, and Perfect Timing)
2 units of 10 paladins, with 4 psycannons (all master crafted), brotherhood banner, psybolt ammo, 1 warding stave, 2 hammers, apothecary, and 6 halberds) - 790 x 2 = 1580
I do not know the point values of his list, but he had 1 units of 30 boyz, 1 unit of 30 hardboyz, 20 or so stormboyz (I forget the exact count), 2 warbosses with powerclaws, one warboss was with one of the boyz unit, the other was in a Trukk(?) with 8 nobz, finally he had 5 deffkoptas that were in reserve and a what may have been a battle wagon (dont know enough about orks to tell). He may have had some more units in reserve, but I forget (and because he quit at the end of turn 1, it doesn't really matter.)
We got mission 4 and hammer and anvil formation. I got to deploy and go first. We both put our units right up to our deployment line. I put Draigo in one unit and the libby in another, then line up my paladins in a zig zag line across my deployment zone (with draigo in front obviously. My opponent places one unit of boys facing each of my paladins units, with stormboyz behind the unit facing my libby paladins and the warboss trukk behing the unit facing draigos. I use Draigo's Grand Strategy and scout ahead. He fails to seize.
My first turn I use libbys Prescience on Draigo's unit. With it I manage to kill all but 9 boyz in one unit (pretty much every shot went through). They fail their leadership and start to retreats. The other unit with my Libby does almost as good, killing 13 boys in the other unit. That ends my turn since I scouted and I couldn't assault.
His turn he has his battle wagon charge up to my Draigon unit, and uses it as a shield blocking the warboss trukk from my line of sight. He then has his stormboyz use their jump packs and move in of his regular boyz. He it at most 5 inches from my paladins. He forgoes shooting (why?) and declares an assault with his stormboyz. I overwatch and managed to kill two. He rolls for his assault...
And rolls a snake eyes.
He sighs, says I win and begins to pack up. I ask him to reconsider and offer to let him re roll the assault dice. He does so, and gets a three. He says I win again and continues to pack up despite my best efforts to ask him to continue. He says that since he can't tarpit me with his stormboyz there it nothing he can do to keep me from tabling him, so he might as well quit.
So the battle was over before it really began, and I have to ask, was what he did fair, to me or to himself? I don't know much about Orks, but was there anything he could have done to win at that point. I feel he should have continued playing against me, at least from the sake of sportsmanship, but was there really any hope for him to win at all? I'd like to hear from anyone whose been in a similar situation whose opponents quick so early, and from ork players as well...
I have conceded on turn 1, but only because I could tell the other guy was a TFGWAAC...I think this is fully justified, since the idea is to enjoy the game despite how everyone loves to win...Losing can be almost as equally as fun as winning as long as you are playing with someone who is friendly and has a good sense of humour....I got my fething ass handed to me constantly in 2nd edition but still kept coming back, because the people I played I was good buds with.
i think with the above case, the guy was either lacking self-confidence or knew GK's and his own list so well that he knew there was absolutely no chance he could win and would learn nothing from the game and wouldn't enjoy it. Nothing wrong with that.
However, if he just ragequit then that's totally different: He should man up a bit and realise you learn from losing games, not winning them. Lose with grace and a sense of humour and learn from it.
However, if he just ragequit then that's totally different: He should man up a bit and realise you learn from losing games, not winning them. Lose with grace and a sense of humour and learn from it.
dude again , what maning up , what kind of a learning . orc player is gaming against a stranger , so his interest in removing dead guys for 2-3 turns without doing nothing is already low . He tries to do something characterable and charges stormboyz in to the paladins , this was his only chance to roll some dice[unless all paladins were halabard armed] , this fails . What would happen after this would be paladins shoting stuff and charging his boyz and blowing up the trukk LoS blocking the nobz . And on the orc player turn [assuming he would get the choppers] he would have 5 bad skimers with low BS and a unit of nobs that die if they try to charge the paladins or shot and do nothing . This is not even a question of fun vs not fun , the game was done .
Another shameless self-plug here, but its relevant. In one of my blogs I was absolutely smoked by a podding Vulkan list. Sometimes you just have to roll with it and laugh it off.
yes , but you want a clip for tube and views for your chanel . Which takes priority over ass whooping . the orc player had non of this . He played against an army he couldnt beat , got owned turn 1 , could do nothing to stop the owning and when I say stop , I dont mean try to win , I mean him being unable to do anything . how much dmg would he do to pre FAQ paladins with LoS! wound allocation , draigo sponging wounds etc with 5 choppers and some shotas ?
Also, all the comments about "learning more" etc. Are all valid.
what did the orc dude learn from the game ? that he has thrown money out of the window , because his army sucks ? or that some part of the community thinks it is ok for him to stand for 10-15 min removing enemy models when he himself , cant do a thing ?
What can I learn from losing early[though that is not easy with IG] , am losing not making the cut to the top tables , I could play to draw , but I still wont make the cut . But If I drop out now I can give the dude that kicked me out of the top tables[probably 2 games lost out of 3 first played] bad small points score and rise the chance that some of my bros will get better scores at the same time ? wup ti du , see me drop out at the speed of light. Specialy if I can play in a side event. .
That guy, in saving himself some time, also denied himself the opportunity to learn how the Grey Knights army works. If you think you're going to lose a game, then you already have.
Makumba wrote: what did the orc dude learn from the game ? that he has thrown money out of the window , because his army sucks ? or that some part of the community thinks it is ok for him to stand for 10-15 min removing enemy models when he himself , cant do a thing ?
What he could have learned is that two enemy units can only kill two of his units per turn. And that feeding his units to Paladins by attempting to assault them is a bad idea, and should be avoided.
He should have learned that, even in a best case scenario, those Paladins simply aren't going to kill enough units to prevent the Orks from contesting/claiming every objective and winning the game.
Part of the point of playing a horde army is being able to absorb enormous casualties and still win the game.
If you're playing an army full of 6pt troops, you SHOULD be expecting to take piles of them off the table every turn. If you're NOT taking them off the table in substantial numbers every turn, you are probably handing out an asswhupping.
Che-Vito wrote: This is quite possibly some of the worst sportsmanship I've read in quite awhile.
"I can drop out, screw over my opponent, and skew the tourney for some of my friends."
Besides that, it's a sign of a broken tournament system. If a player can drop and their opponent gets fewer points than if they actually win the game something is seriously wrong. Either the remaining player should have full points, or they should remove the dropping player's models from the table and play out the rest of the game, giving the remaining player all the points they are able to score (with all of the opponent's units counting as destroyed if it matters).
And of course if "help my friends" means "drop and give my opponent a zero for sportsmanship", well, you're TFG.
Grey Templar wrote: My sig is what I fall back on when people give me crap for playing GKs.
I've always hated your sig. Just because someone's played an army for a long time doesn't justify abusing it when it's overpowered. (Not saying you do, I have absolutely no idea what kind of lists you run). Saying "Oh well my army used to suck so now I get to clear out everyone else" is one of the problems in this game. I'm sure you're a perfectly fine person and all, but man there's a ton of people out there who'd groan as soon as they find out they're playing ANOTHER Grey Knights army
I am an ork and SOB player, I played a grey knights back in 5th, just prior to the release. My opponent asked me to play a high points game, 2200. I utilized a 14 man team of lootas. They brought down two dreadK's & a stormraven. One of the Nobs leading a 20+ mob power klawed a land raider. I didn't give up. My Boyz got shot to hell, but I didn't back down to so formidable an enemy, and that was before power weapons got nerfed. So bad sportsman on how he handled it, concede graciously.
Grey Templar wrote: My sig is what I fall back on when people give me crap for playing GKs.
I've always hated your sig. Just because someone's played an army for a long time doesn't justify abusing it when it's overpowered. (Not saying you do, I have absolutely no idea what kind of lists you run). Saying "Oh well my army used to suck so now I get to clear out everyone else" is one of the problems in this game. I'm sure you're a perfectly fine person and all, but man there's a ton of people out there who'd groan as soon as they find out they're playing ANOTHER Grey Knights army
I groan whenever I find I'm playing another person whining about playing against GKs
Suck it up, I like my army. Invested time and money buying and painting it, to a quite decent standard if I do say so myself. You're going to play against me and you're going to like it. You will have FUN. FUN I TELL YOU! *foams at the mouth with psychotic ramblings...
I groan whenever I find I'm playing another person whining about playing against GKs
One of my good friends would do this incessantly when GK first came out. I put him in front of my GK and I played Nids for a game. After a fairly one-sided victory on my part, he began to realize that maybe they weren't an "instant win button" after all.
Just because someone plays XYZ list doesn't make them a donkeycave. Nor can it be called donkeycave behavior.
You can play the cheesiest list in the world and still be the nicest person ever.
I disagree though it's more of a misunderstanding we're talking about here. You refer to the persisting personality as a whole whereas I refer to a special behavior in a special situation. Playing a list that is clearly cheesy vs. a non-WAAC list is bad sportsmanship (unless it's a tournament). You can still behave nicely in that game, no doubt, and that would rather be an indicator for a good overall behavior, yet as stated above, playing WAAC vs. non-WAAC is poor sportsmanship.
Be aware that we come from two very different points of view. You are clearly biased towards GK as you are a long-term GK player. Your sig makes that pretty clear. I, however, had to face a lot of Draigowings in the past aka 5th, even worse, as a Xenos player and even worse, as a Necron player. Ye know, 3rd Necron codex vs. 5th GK codex. Polar opposites.
Sigvatr wrote: playing WAAC vs. non-WAAC is poor sportsmanship.
I don't think it's that simple. You might not know what the local scene is like, or be preparing for a tournament, or had arranged a game with a different opponent who didn't show up. Mostly, if you build an abusive list because you just don't care about your opponents and only want to win, then you're an donkey-cave.
Sigvatr wrote: playing WAAC vs. non-WAAC is poor sportsmanship.
I don't think it's that simple. You might not know what the local scene is like, or be preparing for a tournament, or had arranged a game with a different opponent who didn't show up. Mostly, if you build an abusive list because you just don't care about your opponents and only want to win, then you're an donkey-cave.
Precisely. There might always be special situations thus I can only refer to the average.
When I've lost, I've lost, there is no point in continuing with all your units reduced to half their strength and no weaponry capable of doing real damage.
You can still play a highly competitive list in such a way that your opponent doesn't feel completely steamrolled. Like charging nob bikers into 40 guardsmen, just to see how many they can kill or having your warboss run straight into your opponents death star and challenge their HQ.
I groan whenever I find I'm playing another person whining about playing against GKs
Suck it up, I like my army. Invested time and money buying and painting it, to a quite decent standard if I do say so myself. You're going to play against me and you're going to like it. You will have FUN. FUN I TELL YOU! *foams at the mouth with psychotic ramblings...
And I invested time and money into buying and painting my beloved Daemon army! How should I react when almost every single GK army I've faced has at least 10 Strikes and/or Interceptors who then simply 'Cheese Quake' me into the back corner and effectively beat me first turn?!
I think I have a right to be pissed off when every single experience I've personally had vs GK's has been horrible and the least fun games I've ever played.
So sure, I groan when I see GK's across the table from me because I've never once had a 'fun' experience against them. I shouldn't be forced to quit my army.
Your sig comes across as rather arrogent. Daemons were the hardest to play in 5th. Now that they've gotten a good boost and some rules revisions, I could technically go out and bomb my opponents with 27 Flamers and then go on about, 'well, my army sucked all through 5th edition so now it's my turn to roflstomp so suck-it-up-buttercup!' I don't take such lists though or brag about how I could, because that attitude is just plain combative.
I don't know, maybe you ment your sig as a bit of a joke or to be a bit more light hearted, (plain text doesn't translate well), but you should expect a bit of hostility from those of us who've been repeatedly nutt-punched by GK players who simply abused their codex to its filthiest maximum.
I groan whenever I find I'm playing another person whining about playing against GKs
Suck it up, I like my army. Invested time and money buying and painting it, to a quite decent standard if I do say so myself. You're going to play against me and you're going to like it. You will have FUN. FUN I TELL YOU! *foams at the mouth with psychotic ramblings...
And I invested time and money into buying and painting my beloved Daemon army! How should I react when almost every single GK army I've faced has at least 10 Strikes and/or Interceptors who then simply 'Cheese Quake' me into the back corner and effectively beat me first turn?!
I think I have a right to be pissed off when every single experience I've personally had vs GK's has been horrible and the least fun games I've ever played.
So sure, I groan when I see GK's across the table from me because I've never once had a 'fun' experience against them. I shouldn't be forced to quit my army.
Your sig comes across as rather arrogent. Daemons were the hardest to play in 5th. Now that they've gotten a good boost and some rules revisions, I could technically go out and bomb my opponents with 27 Flamers and then go on about, 'well, my army sucked all through 5th edition so now it's my turn to roflstomp so suck-it-up-buttercup!' I don't take such lists though or brag about how I could, because that attitude is just plain combative.
I don't know, maybe you ment your sig as a bit of a joke or to be a bit more light hearted, (plain text doesn't translate well), but you should expect a bit of hostility from those of us who've been repeatedly nutt-punched by GK players who simply abused their codex to its filthiest maximum.
Sorry all the GK players you've faced are D-bags.
I don't touch strike squads, they simply arn't worth the points nor do they fit my fluff.
And BTW, the top 2 competitive GK builds don't use Strike Squads. They use Paladins and Purifiers.
The more likely source of Warp Quake is a couple units of Interceptors, which can hardly cover the board.
And I invested time and money into buying and painting my beloved Daemon army! How should I react when almost every single GK army I've faced has at least 10 Strikes and/or Interceptors who then simply 'Cheese Quake' me into the back corner and effectively beat me first turn?!
I think I have a right to be pissed off when every single experience I've personally had vs GK's has been horrible and the least fun games I've ever played.
Your problem is that you play fools who tailor to beat you because they know you have daemons. In a tournament setting, this shouldn't ever happen, because you're not geared up to autobeat an army you probably won't see more than one of at the tournament. I don't think it would be that bad, but I've never heard of an all strike/interceptor "power build". It's all "Draigo this" and "purifier that", neither of which have warp quake.
Your sig comes across as rather arrogent. Daemons were the hardest to play in 5th. Now that they've gotten a good boost and some rules revisions, I could technically go out and bomb my opponents with 27 Flamers and then go on about, 'well, my army sucked all through 5th edition so now it's my turn to roflstomp so suck-it-up-buttercup!' I don't take such lists though or brag about how I could, because that attitude is just plain combative.
Do you remember a year ago? You want to talk about combative attitudes: This time last year people were inches away from calling all Grey Knight players cheaters and declaring their immediate refusal to play anyone who brought the army, sight unseen of the content of their lists.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, as far as hardest army to play in 5th, I think that old Daemonhunters probably deserved that title. Not saying Daemons isn't hard at all, but when your only real anti-tank is Land Raiders or 3rd ed Dreadnoughts (which occupy the same slots) in 5th edition, you're fighting an uphill battle.
:
Also, as far as hardest army to play in 5th, I think that old Daemonhunters probably deserved that title. Not saying Daemons isn't hard at all, but when your only real anti-tank is Land Raiders or 3rd ed Dreadnoughts (which occupy the same slots) in 5th edition, you're fighting an uphill battle.
Stormtrooper Melta
Or Chainfists/Eviscerators/Thunder Hammers
Not to mention all the S6 attacks frrom everyone who holds a NFW due to +2 strength from it meaning they all could hurt weaker AV10 transports.
:
Also, as far as hardest army to play in 5th, I think that old Daemonhunters probably deserved that title. Not saying Daemons isn't hard at all, but when your only real anti-tank is Land Raiders or 3rd ed Dreadnoughts (which occupy the same slots) in 5th edition, you're fighting an uphill battle.
Stormtrooper Melta
Or Chainfists/Eviscerators/Thunder Hammers
Valid point on the first. Melee as primary anti-tank just isn't viable, except for maybe Nids.
:
Also, as far as hardest army to play in 5th, I think that old Daemonhunters probably deserved that title. Not saying Daemons isn't hard at all, but when your only real anti-tank is Land Raiders or 3rd ed Dreadnoughts (which occupy the same slots) in 5th edition, you're fighting an uphill battle.
Stormtrooper Melta
Or Chainfists/Eviscerators/Thunder Hammers
Not to mention all the S6 attacks frrom everyone who holds a NFW due to +2 strength from it meaning they all could hurt weaker AV10 transports.
It really just made up for them not having krak grenades(and not having only 1 attack)
:
Also, as far as hardest army to play in 5th, I think that old Daemonhunters probably deserved that title. Not saying Daemons isn't hard at all, but when your only real anti-tank is Land Raiders or 3rd ed Dreadnoughts (which occupy the same slots) in 5th edition, you're fighting an uphill battle.
Stormtrooper Melta
Or Chainfists/Eviscerators/Thunder Hammers
Not to mention all the S6 attacks frrom everyone who holds a NFW due to +2 strength from it meaning they all could hurt weaker AV10 transports.
It really just made up for them not having krak grenades(and not having only 1 attack)
Well technically they always had 2 attacks what with True Grit and a Storm Bolter,
Your problem is that you play fools who tailor to beat you because they know you have daemons. In a tournament setting, this shouldn't ever happen, because you're not geared up to autobeat an army you probably won't see more than one of at the tournament. I don't think it would be that bad, but I've never heard of an all strike/interceptor "power build". It's all "Draigo this" and "purifier that", neither of which have warp quake.
Do you remember a year ago? You want to talk about combative attitudes: This time last year people were inches away from calling all Grey Knight players cheaters and declaring their immediate refusal to play anyone who brought the army, sight unseen of the content of their lists.
Taking a single 10 man Strike or (the more popular) Interceptor squad is hardly tailoring...
Strikes are cheap as chips as far as a GK scoring unit goes. They also excel at protecting the important bitz of a GK battle line from being hit by the likes of drop podding Sternguard/Furioso Dreads etc...
Interceptors do the same, but are also amazing at last minute contesting due to their 30" shunt move. (which is the main reason most GK players I've met take them). And with a Grandmaster present, they can become scoring as well.
Against a Daemon army, it just plain painful as any competitive player will simply castle-up, put the WQ squad on point, spread 'em out and cast quake. The ONLY defense is to win the roll for first turn and then hope and prey your opponent fails to sieze the intiative! Sorry to say, but that's horrendously crap games design to have such a mechanic so readily availible to screw over so many different armies.
Draigowing, especially in 6th, actually benifits hugely by including some Interceptors who bring numbers and speed for objective contesting. Only a fool thinks Strikes/Interceptors are complete garbage.
daedalus wrote: Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, as far as hardest army to play in 5th, I think that old Daemonhunters probably deserved that title. Not saying Daemons isn't hard at all, but when your only real anti-tank is Land Raiders or 3rd ed Dreadnoughts (which occupy the same slots) in 5th edition, you're fighting an uphill battle.
You still had access to combi-weapons, min/amxed 5 man Storm Troopers with a pair of meltaguns in transports, Dreadnoughts and IG or Witch Hunter allies. GK's were never utterly boned for ranged anti-tank, just that a bunch of people refused to take the availible options.
Daemons on the other hand had to deal with their craptastic ability to get screwed over 33% of the time due to 'rolling for prefered wave' non-sense, an outright lack of ranged anti-tank beyond BS3 Bolts of Tzeentch on Horrors or BS4 Heralds or expensive MC's & Soul Grinders which *never* got cover.
On top of that, we're a dedicated assault army that has to sit around and wait an entire turn before we can even assault!
5th edition was far, far harsher to Daemons than GK's since you guys at least got allies to open up the mech heavy environment. Daemons had to get lucky to compete and were shoehorned into relying on a Fateweaver build to be competitive at tourny levels.
Kaldor wrote: Mostly, if you build an abusive list because you just don't care about your opponents and only want to win, then you're an donkey-cave.
It is not cheating if the rules let you do it.
This, never forget this.
If the rules say something then thats what the rules say. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you can ignore it.
I don't like that my Purifiers can't go to ground anymore. I still have to follow the rules.
Thirded. I want to win, and do so within the rules.
On the original topic, I've had a completely legitimate turn 1 concession. 500 point league game with reduced FOC requirements. He had a ravager, wyches in a raider, and trueborn in a venom. I had Tacticals and Sternguard in rhinos and a Land speeder. 5e, Kill points. His first turn, he decided to keep me at arm's length and tried to kill transports. Blew the stormbolter off the tac rhino and immobilized it. My speeder wrecked the ravager, the sternguard missiles exploded the venom, taking two trueborn with it, and the Tactical's missile took the lance off the Raider. The surviving trueborn broke and fell back off the board, taking his last guns capable of hurting me with them. All his lances dead or fleeing with me fully mechanized meant that if I stayed embarked, he couldn't hurt me and it was game beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Agreed. In a small game it can be different. For one, it's much easier to disable them ( this de player was looking at being tables turn 2 anyway). Also, it's a much smaller time investment. This Grey Knight vs Ork battle was very different in that respect, as firstly, he lost from 2000pts of Paladins pretty much what this de player lost from 500pts of the enemy. This just highlights why the Ork player shouldn't have bailed. Secondly, the time investment is very different. In this game, you both would have spent maybe 15 minutes in setting up a game looking to go for about 30minutes If all went well. The Ork vs GK game had probably already invested an hour, and thrown away several more hours because the Ork player wanted to suffer 0 casualties against Draigowing.
Thank you for mentioning that game. It has very muh helped me to make a comparison.
Kaldor wrote: Mostly, if you build an abusive list because you just don't care about your opponents and only want to win, then you're an donkey-cave.
It is not cheating if the rules let you do it.
No, it's not cheating but it's still wrong. The rules aren't perfect, and some units and builds are more powerful than others. If you, without a thought for your opponent, simply build the strongest list you can and rolfstomp them into the ground because you just don't care about them, then that makes you a donkey-cave.
I don't touch strike squads, they simply arn't worth the points nor do they fit my fluff.
And BTW, the top 2 competitive GK builds don't use Strike Squads. They use Paladins and Purifiers.
The more likely source of Warp Quake is a couple units of Interceptors, which can hardly cover the board.
Actually, the top two builds are Purifiers and Henchmen. Strike Squads are about the third best unit after Henchmen. Terminators are near the bottom, and so are Paladins. Especially after the FAQ nerf.
Jidmah wrote: You can still play a highly competitive list in such a way that your opponent doesn't feel completely steamrolled. Like charging nob bikers into 40 guardsmen, just to see how many they can kill or having your warboss run straight into your opponents death star and challenge their HQ.
Which is silly, since you're sandbagging. I would consider something like that to be highly insulting.
Jidmah wrote: You can still play a highly competitive list in such a way that your opponent doesn't feel completely steamrolled. Like charging nob bikers into 40 guardsmen, just to see how many they can kill or having your warboss run straight into your opponents death star and challenge their HQ.
Which is silly, since you're sandbagging. I would consider something like that to be highly insulting.
Which in turn means that you're a competitive player and shouldn't mind being curb-stomped if you brought an uncompetitive list to face my highly competitive list. Which doesn't bring up the issue in the first place. You can usually tell competitive players from narrative players, beer-and-prezels gamers or people just new to the hobby the second they're done deploying. The chances to actually insult someone by not making the most optimal moves every turn are almost equal to zero.
Due to limitation in the amount of model-carrying containers a single person can carry without growing extra arms, bringing a fluff or fun list and a competitve list at the same time is kind of impossible.
If you are a competitive player and still expect to win against other competitive players while using inferior lists, well... wake up, the world doesn't work that way.
So far I've done just one game with my GK army around the start of the month vs. some IG and four of their flyiers.
We rolled & had gotten Hammer and Anvil, from me getting first blood I pretty much had the win already from just that BUT we still continued playing, By the 5th. turn, the IG had destoryed the two DK's and about 50% of two squads of purifiers and just a few purifiers that were with (NOT attached) to Crowe
The IG had lost two flyiers, & three squads (one of which ran after losing 4 troops and taking a morale check.
To end this the IG player gave me a run for my money, I had at first didn't think I'd be able to beat their army looking at the #'s her had, but we both had a good time & not even a hint of forfieting was seen from either side...
And we did indeed shake hands after the game, while packing up my stuff the IG player & another fellow that had been observing the game were going over a couple of tactics that had not been done during the game
In this situation, yes, it was very bad sportsmanship. It doesn't matter that he was going to lose, calling the game anywhere not close to the end is bad sportsmanship. It doesn't give your opponent to get a decent victory, and wastes their time. While a list may be cheesy and considered inappropriate, quitting like that is even worse.
Quitting on turn one is never acceptable unless your opponent does something really severe to be worth forfeiting over. Driving a Land Raider through a wall is an example of that.
Kaldor wrote: Mostly, if you build an abusive list because you just don't care about your opponents and only want to win, then you're an donkey-cave.
It is not cheating if the rules let you do it.
No, it's not cheating but it's still wrong. The rules aren't perfect, and some units and builds are more powerful than others. If you, without a thought for your opponent, simply build the strongest list you can and rolfstomp them into the ground because you just don't care about them, then that makes you a donkey-cave.
As usual the important part here isn't the list, it's the communication. Making sure you and your opponent have the same expectations and are on the same wavelength, in terms of level of competition.
One of the reasons I was a big supporter of Composition scoring in 3rd ed and 4th ed was because the imbalances in some codices and extraordinary combinations (3.5 Chaos Siren Prince, Codex: Craftworld Eldar Ulthwe unlimited-size Seer Council) were so bad that in tournament events most people wanted some mechanism to reign in the craziest stuff.
With the perspective of that behind me, and the 5th and 6th ed shift to objective-based missions and dumping old-style victory points, the balance of the game and between the codices in the last several years is MUCH closer than it used to be. The number of "you are a dick just for bringing this" combos is vanishingly small, unless you KNOW in advance you're going up against someone who just has a completely uncompetitive army.
6th ed has introduced some new mismatches, particularly in relation to flyers, but IME most of the time when someone's bitching about a given army list being unbalanced, either they have a really bad army themselves and/or they don't understand the rules and are really terrible at playing the game. Same thing as when you hear someone constrantly bitching about their dice, or dismissing 40k as just a dice game and pretending there are no tactics. It reminds me of how the same sort of people think Poker is just a game of luck, and it almost makes me wish 40k was a cash game so I could take their money every week at game night.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote: Quitting on turn one is never acceptable unless your opponent does something really severe to be worth forfeiting over. Driving a Land Raider through a wall is an example of that.
What are you talking about?
The only real justification I can think of for a turn 1 forfeit is that your opponent is abusive and personally offensive. Almost nothing that can happen on the table seems worth getting upset about.
The number of "you are a dick just for bringing this" combos is vanishingly small, unless you KNOW in advance you're going up against someone who just has a completely uncompetitive army.
we must have played in a different 5th ed. Because I do remember stuff like my mystic/inq+IG army being hated by everyone . I remember what orc and nid and marines [non SW] felt when GK came out . SWmsu being clearly superior to all marine armies , probably even GK ones .
To end this the IG player gave me a run for my money, I had at first didn't think I'd be able to beat their army looking at the #'s her had, but we both had a good time & not even a hint of forfieting was seen from either side...
but you were playing a crow wing with NDKs in 6th ed . If you played a normal up tod ate 6th ed GK army he wouldnt have . I understand playing for prizes . I understand playing even a losing game ,when you want to get small points or when you dont want to hurt someone from your friends you played rounds before .But against someone you dont know , play just to roll dice , while getting owned ? why bother . Better to start a different game or do something else.
t's like a weight off your shoulders where you can just enjoy the game.
again . I understand losing , it happens . rolling scenarios , not getting turn 1 , your flyers coming in before the necron ones do etc. stuff happens . But still even in losing games , when you can do something , even play to draw , there is sense in playing .And am not talking about games against close friends or superiors ,just try to stomp the store owners kid and you never get a table in your FLGS to play on. Am talking about normal games aganst strangers. Where is the fun or enjoyment in standing for 15-20 min , removing your models , moving knowing you cant do a thing to win or even draw . that is 20 wasted minutes of gaming , but when one counts the time you have to get to the shop , set up a game , get back it suddenly turns in to wasted hours . Now if someone doesnt work and can play all day , bless him , he is a lucky gamer . But many people dont have such a luxury , it is better to stop something bad and at least try to find someone for a new game .
In a small game it can be different. For one, it's much easier to disable them ( this de player was looking at being tables turn 2 anyway). Also, it's a much smaller time investment. This Grey Knight vs Ork battle was very different in that respect, as firstly, he lost from 2000pts of Paladins pretty much what this de player lost from 500pts of the enemy. This just highlights why the Ork player shouldn't have bailed
dude what are you saying . he had on the board 2 unit of boyz both shot up , one run away witht he warboss , so his wave got broken up , so both units as good as dead , they would never make it in to hth with enough numbers to deal with 10 paladins , not to mention 20 . non of the units would be able to win a shoting match with the paladins either . So while technicly on the board ,both units one including a warboss were dead. He had a vehicle LoS another warboss and nobz. now nobz are a hth unit , which cant deal with 10 paladins , pre or post FAQ , that unit was alive , but unable to do anything alone .countered effectivly so as good as dead. He had a unit of storm boyz in the open in front of a unit of paladin . Dead unit again .All of this turn 1 . He did not have an army on the table . It would be as if an IG player lost his 3 melta vet squads turn 1 and still technicly had 1200pts of stuff , but his opponent had a LR rush army.
@Mannahnin: Sure, alot of people who whine about 40k just being a dice game and their dice sucking being the reason they lost are just being Big Girls, but for a few of us, it's honestly true that the dice lose us games. (and yes, I'm one of those luckless fools!)
The odds say for example, that I should on average only fail 33% of my 3+ saves. I'm lucky if I even pass 33% of my 3+ saves! (hence why I've given up on power armour armies!)
5th edition was the death of me due to the super mech environment. I could spend 5 turns shooting lascannons, krak missiles, autocannons, Bolt of Tzeentch, etc... into a line of Razorbacks or Chimeras and at most I'd have maybe blown off a couple weapons and had one immobilised result.
Hell, the last 5th ed tournament I went to, I played against 5 mech armies. Over those 5 games, my actual kill tally was a paltry 1 Sentinel, 2 chimeras, 1 Valkyrie, an Orky Trukk and a Rhino... (but I did also strip Pask's Leman Russ Punisher of it's main cannon and two side sponsons!)
Almost every single dice roll that did hit would simply come up one short of what I needed to glance, or else just turned up a .
Now, I never quit any of my games, even the one vs my friend's Sisters where I managed to make barely 10% of my saves and fail 3 out of 4 Ld10 psychic tests, (including rolling boxcars twice in a row to kill my Epistolary). But that game was decided solely by my poor dice!
So yes, on rare occasions, people are telling it true when they say that the only reason they lost was the dice!
@ Experiment 626
I hear you about the dice rolling. When I can, I twin link (or as many shots) as much as possible because it just never fails me to roll that damned 2 when trying to hit with my Las gun on my Las/plas razorback. Switched to Twin linked Las cannons or Jesus Guns ( Assault Cannon) or heavy bolters (my favorite).
@Mannahnin.
The game, to me has become less tactical because of the random dice rolling and most of all, the increase time that it takes to finish up a game. Time is important to me and over the years the average game just takes longer for me to play.
Communication with your peers is important as well as what kind of game, and time constraints you are in. Some of the places I do game do not have many tables to game on. If I got steam rolled on the first turn in a casual game, depending on the kind of game I am in, I will concede and shake my opponent's hand
Then hope for another opportunity for a second game or just give someone else to game while I go and work on my models until another table is freed up if possible. There is no malice in my action as I indicated why I would concede in the area I game in. My opponent in my gaming area would have understood this as well.
In a tournament setting I have always fought to the end because that is what I believe is expected from me.
Regarding the OP, I'm with the ork player. For starters, you're running draigo. How fun. He was getting smashed, so what's the point in going on? Instead of the game being a one sided waste of time (let's not kid ourselves here, that would have been the case), he decided to end it there, perhaps to play someone with a different list.
When I play, I want myself and my opponent to be having fun. If one of us is not having fun, then what's the point? At a tourny it's different of course, but friendly play? Yeah no, you stomped my casual list in a single turn, I quit, enjoy your Draigo victory.
The number of "you are a dick just for bringing this" combos is vanishingly small, unless you KNOW in advance you're going up against someone who just has a completely uncompetitive army.
we must have played in a different 5th ed. Because I do remember stuff like my mystic/inq+IG army being hated by everyone . I remember what orc and nid and marines [non SW] felt when GK came out . SWmsu being clearly superior to all marine armies , probably even GK ones .
The Mystic with IG combo was certainly strong, but I don't remember people hating on it too hard, at least here in the US. In 4th ed it was nastier, as the IG could play more defensive and sit back more under coverage. In 5th you often had to move out more for objectives, so the Mystic coverage wasn't as good. SWMSU was good, but a long way from unbeatable. IME any good 5th ed army could take it on reasonably equal terms. Nids were actually more bothered by them (silly Jaws) than by GK. Assaulty Orks were some of the the worst hit by GK, but shooty Orks loved them. SM who fail armor saves just as easily as other marines, but cost more? Woo, yummy! Orks kept winning or contending in big events across the US right up through the end of 5th.
Mannahnin wrote: Almost nothing that can happen on the table seems worth getting upset about.
Me thinks I remember a certain Daemon Prince flying across the room and slamming into a wall.
Certainly not mine. I didn't acquire a daemon prince until years after you stopped coming around. I did once have a league final game of WHFB in which a couple of marauders hit the floor at some
velocity. Not my proudest moment. But I never threw anything where it could harm anyone or anything else. Just that one, acutely-embarassing incident which helped convince me I was taking the game too seriously (and taking out some frustrations about other stuff going on at the time).
Adam LongWalker wrote: @Mannahnin.
The game, to me has become less tactical because of the random dice rolling and most of all, the increase time that it takes to finish up a game. Time is important to me and over the years the average game just takes longer for me to play.
Communication with your peers is important as well as what kind of game, and time constraints you are in. Some of the places I do game do not have many tables to game on. If I got steam rolled on the first turn in a casual game, depending on the kind of game I am in, I will concede and shake my opponent's hand
Then hope for another opportunity for a second game or just give someone else to game while I go and work on my models until another table is freed up if possible. There is no malice in my action as I indicated why I would concede in the area I game in. My opponent in my gaming area would have understood this as well.
In a tournament setting I have always fought to the end because that is what I believe is expected from me.
Sounds very reasonable to me. Makes sense. I do see some more randomness in this edition, and some parts of it are a bit time consuming, that's for certain. I do find that (as usual) stuff gets faster with practice.
At the team tournament I played at today, in the final game, my ally and I got on a hot streak and took the opponents for all they were worth. They wanted to call it by the end of turn 2. I had warp quaked, causing their Malwocs to not be able to come close to hit me. My Tau ally had picked apart their IG guy to rather pitiful remnants at that point. Their genestealers and warriors outflanked onto the side that had my dreadknight (and his incinerator) and they saw when they were beating a dead horse. They wanted to call it at that point, and I told them I understood why. We stopped to look at the score sheet, and then my teammate suggested that they go talk to the TO about it. About 15 minutes later, they come back and tell me that he talked them into continuing on the offchance that we didn't get ever last point legitimately, because the margins in the running were that close.
We played it out to us tabling them at the top of turn 5, and scoring all the points in the process, but there was the possibility that we wouldn't have been able to. I guess the point of the story is that there are certain times I hadn't previously considered where it's important to play games out to their natural conclusion, though my previous opinion still stands for friendly games.
It's the mark of a true gentleman to know when you're beaten, fair and square.
I would say the mark of the gentleman is how you react to it once you know (or think) you're beaten. The fact that they were willing to play it out for the integrity of the tournament speaks to good sportsmanship.
Due to limitation in the amount of model-carrying containers a single person can carry without growing extra arms, bringing a fluff or fun list and a competitve list at the same time is kind of impossible.
What is exactly unfluffy about a deadly, dangerous force scoring a decesive win against the enemy in the world of only war? I have a hard time getting my head around this, especialy that an obvious conclusion from such competitive =/= fluff claims is that a badly composed and incompetent happy bunch of soldiers is what fits 40k best.
Back to OP, I think the guy who forfeited is just a puss too weak to withstand drama and tension of 40k 6th edition and the gritty realism of random charge.
Plumbumbarum wrote: too weak to withstand drama and tension of 40k 6th edition and the gritty realism of random charge.
Tension? What? Tension is a game going back and forth until a victor emerges just barely. Tension was my battle with a guy rocking death company at a last tourny while I had orks. Tension was winning combat, then losing another combat, then winning one, then losing one, until about turn 5 when my fate was sealed as last ditch shot at taking out his death company failed.
Necroshea wrote: Regarding the OP, I'm with the ork player. For starters, you're running draigo. How fun. He was getting smashed, so what's the point in going on? Instead of the game being a one sided waste of time (let's not kid ourselves here, that would have been the case), he decided to end it there, perhaps to play someone with a different list.
When I play, I want myself and my opponent to be having fun. If one of us is not having fun, then what's the point? At a tourny it's different of course, but friendly play? Yeah no, you stomped my casual list in a single turn, I quit, enjoy your Draigo victory.
Except the Ork player knew he was facing a Draigowing list. he agreed to the game and probably knew the exact GK list.
The fact he built a bad list and then quit on turn 1 when nothing had even really happened yet speaks volumes.
Plumbumbarum wrote: too weak to withstand drama and tension of 40k 6th edition and the gritty realism of random charge.
Tension? What? Tension is a game going back and forth until a victor emerges just barely. Tension was my battle with a guy rocking death company at a last tourny while I had orks. Tension was winning combat, then losing another combat, then winning one, then losing one, until about turn 5 when my fate was sealed as last ditch shot at taking out his death company failed.
Getting blasted away in one round is not tension.
"Drama and tension" is official GW excuse for random charge distance in 6th edition..
Well, it's tough to tell if nothing had really happened. The OP gave us too little data to judge for certain. While we can tell that he actually hadn't suffered serious casualties yet, if a lot of his models were actually in Reserve (though poor play) he may have been in a very bad situation, positionally.
Grey Templar wrote: Except the Ork player knew he was facing a Draigowing list. he agreed to the game and probably knew the exact GK list.
This isn't being disputed. At least by me it's not. If I had a super casual list and some guy who's not a complete arse wants to play me with his super hardcore tourny list fine.
Grey Templar wrote: The fact he built a bad list and then quit on turn 1 when nothing had even really happened yet speaks volumes.
You might want to reread the op. Here is the part in particular that you seemed to have glossed over.
My first turn I use libbys Prescience on Draigo's unit. With it I manage to kill all but 9 boyz in one unit (pretty much every shot went through). They fail their leadership and start to retreats. The other unit with my Libby does almost as good, killing 13 boys in the other unit. That ends my turn since I scouted and I couldn't assault.
His turn he has his battle wagon charge up to my Draigon unit, and uses it as a shield blocking the warboss trukk from my line of sight. He then has his stormboyz use their jump packs and move in of his regular boyz. He it at most 5 inches from my paladins. He forgoes shooting (why?) and declares an assault with his stormboyz. I overwatch and managed to kill two. He rolls for his assault...
And rolls a snake eyes.
Now, I've glanced through this thread and never saw a points total listed, or a proper army list posted, however, as far as I know, getting 2 squads of boy obliterated by ranged fire, then having a dedicated assault mob fail at assaulting and stand there waiting for that same ranged fire to be pointed their way next turn doesnt sound like "nothing happened".
A real ork player shouldn't even feel 24 ork boyz, especially at 2000 points.
And a failed assault is simply a risk that might happen. Why did he have only one unit attempting to do that charge(aside from the fact that charging paladins with anything except assault terminators is incredibly stupid)
He also missed that shooting phase, that wasn't very smart either, so it's obvious he's not the greatest ork player.
However, regardless of how he got to that point, he suffered massive casualties. If this were a tournament, simply forfeiting should not be allowed. You signed up for a tourny environment, so deal with it.
But it wasn't. He got stomped by a notorious list in a casual game. Kill/Victory points didn't matter, the outcome of the game didn't mean anything outside of just being the end to a casual game.
I think OP making a thread like this speaks more about his sportmanship than the guy playing the bad list who didn't know what he was doing.
Necroshea wrote: Regarding the OP, I'm with the ork player. For starters, you're running draigo. How fun. He was getting smashed, so what's the point in going on? Instead of the game being a one sided waste of time (let's not kid ourselves here, that would have been the case), he decided to end it there, perhaps to play someone with a different list.
When I play, I want myself and my opponent to be having fun. If one of us is not having fun, then what's the point? At a tourny it's different of course, but friendly play? Yeah no, you stomped my casual list in a single turn, I quit, enjoy your Draigo victory.
Necroshea wrote: Regarding the OP, I'm with the ork player. For starters, you're running draigo. How fun. He was getting smashed, so what's the point in going on? Instead of the game being a one sided waste of time (let's not kid ourselves here, that would have been the case), he decided to end it there, perhaps to play someone with a different list.
When I play, I want myself and my opponent to be having fun. If one of us is not having fun, then what's the point? At a tourny it's different of course, but friendly play? Yeah no, you stomped my casual list in a single turn, I quit, enjoy your Draigo victory.
If I recall in OP that the player they were up against wanted to table them on the first turn?. Now tell me where is the fun in that, hmm? Well where is it?
You recall wrong
The guy I played against used Orks and was very nice, agreeing to play a game of 2055 to accommodate my wishlist.
Unless I just keep missing that part. Besides, it's been pretty much proven the ork player was no tourny winner.
Mannahnin wrote: I would say the mark of the gentleman is how you react to it once you know (or think) you're beaten. The fact that they were willing to play it out for the integrity of the tournament speaks to good sportsmanship.
I absolutely agree with you on that last part. As I said, that's a complication of forfeiture I'd not considered previously. I suppose when I say "mark of the gentleman" along with concession is not simply saying you've been beaten, but sincerely congratulating your opponent on winning, shaking his hand, and pouring everyone a brandy after polishing your monocle. Table-flippers need not apply.
I thanked them after the fact for putting up with the rest of the game, and then we sat there chatting with them for a while afterward about what we felt went wrong and what went right. It all seemed good in spite of the all too frustrating one-sidedness.
Due to limitation in the amount of model-carrying containers a single person can carry without growing extra arms, bringing a fluff or fun list and a competitve list at the same time is kind of impossible.
What is exactly unfluffy about a deadly, dangerous force scoring a decesive win against the enemy in the world of only war? I have a hard time getting my head around this, especialy that an obvious conclusion from such competitive =/= fluff claims is that a badly composed and incompetent happy bunch of soldiers is what fits 40k best.
"a badly composed and incompetent happy bunch of soldiers" is probably the very definition of "orks"
Due to limitation in the amount of model-carrying containers a single person can carry without growing extra arms, bringing a fluff or fun list and a competitve list at the same time is kind of impossible.
What is exactly unfluffy about a deadly, dangerous force scoring a decesive win against the enemy in the world of only war? I have a hard time getting my head around this, especialy that an obvious conclusion from such competitive =/= fluff claims is that a badly composed and incompetent happy bunch of soldiers is what fits 40k best.
"a badly composed and incompetent happy bunch of soldiers" is probably the very definition of "orks"
I wouldn't say incompetent, orks are anything but incompetent at waging war.
Years ago I played in a club tournament and lost without actually getting a chance to take my first turn! My opponent promptly packed up and went somewhere else. How's that for sportsmanship?
). Say what you feel being in such a situation, ask him why he brought a list and try to find a compromise. If you can't, hey, you tried. Look for other people to play.
to Paladins. In fact, the Paladins would have loved to get assaulted. They would wipe the Stormboyz in that round of combat and get a consolidation off of them to slingshot themselves into combat on their turn.
(hence why I've given up on power armour armies!)
.
