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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

:
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,

 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.

 daedalus wrote:

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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 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.

Totally, in small games it can be easy to have a turn 1 concession. Only having 3-4 units really makes any loss hurt much more.

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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

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.

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.

Right, of course I still don't consider henchmen to be a GK army. Codex sharing aside

You can enjoy the game a lot more once you just simply accept that GW Games Designers are basically incompetent.

It's like a weight off your shoulders where you can just enjoy the game.

 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.

 Fafnir wrote:

 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:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 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 . SW msu 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!

The probabilities show that 1 out of every million people will have their dice do that.

There is no luck in warhammer, only statistics.

 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.

Edited to show friendly jesting.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The probabilities show that 1 out of every million people will have their dice do that.

There is no luck in warhammer, only statistics.

Well then, (un)lucky me I guess?!

No, somebody was going to get stuck with it. Random chance determined it would be you.

@ 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.

Makumba wrote:

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 . SW msu 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. SW MSU 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.

 DeffDred wrote:

 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.

 Jidmah wrote:

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.

Getting blasted away in one round is not tension.

 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.

 Necroshea wrote:

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..