Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

 Ailaros wrote:

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.

Right, and I'd agree with that.

He probably should have stuck around long enough to at least partially demonstrate just how screwed he was.

Indeed

if your going to lose anyway you might as well give me the satisfaction of actually letting me work at it instead of just packing up and leaving.

 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.

I think it depends on the army in question.

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)

Bad sportsmanship? No.
I never win against GK so i feel his pain

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.

 lord limenix wrote:

To be fair ... i can understand this guy.

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.

Is this your first edition change?

Seems like it at times.

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.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

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.

 Kaldor wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

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.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

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.

 Kaldor wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

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.