1750 GK Batrep vs. IG

[Aidoneus]

Played my first game in a while tonight, against my friend TJWyrm and his IG. It was a 1750pt Annihilation mission, with a Spearhead set up.

 

I don't have his list to look at, but it was something like this:

 

HQ Command: CC-equipped, but cheap

---Anti-tank: 3 lascannons

---Anti-tank: 3 Missile

---Fire Support: 3 Autocannons

 

10 Vets: 3 Plasma

 

Platoon Command: Mortar, cheap

---Infantry Squad: grenade, H Bolter

---Infantry Squad: grenade, H Bolter

---Infantry Squad: flamer, H Bolter

Armoured Fist: Flamer, H bolter

---Chimera: H Bolter, Multi-laser

 

Hellhound:

 

Leman Russ: las, H bolter sponsons

Leman Russ: H Bolter, H bolter sponsons

Demolisher: las, plasma cannon sponsons

 

My army was a slight variation of my usual 1750 list that I was experimenting with, and now rather like. Here it is:

 

Brother Captain: Psychic Hood, Storm Shield

 

:)

8 Grey Knights: 2 Psycannons

-Justicar (frags)

8 Grey Knights: 2 Psycannons

-Justicar (frags)

8 Grey Knights: Incinerator

-Justicar (frags, Targeter)

7 Storm Troopers:

-2 Grenade

 

Land Raider:

-Extra Armour, Dozer Blades

Land Raider:

-Extra Armour, Dozer Blades

Land Raider Crusader:

-Dozer Blades

 

Total: 1750pts, 35 models, 50.000 pts/model, 4 Scoring, 8 KPs

 

 

Pre-Game:

 

We rolled to go first, and TJ won and opted to go first. Knowing my list, his very first placement were the lascannons, which he put in the gun emplacement central in his deployment zone. On the right, he put the missile squad in the top of a building, and the chimera and a leman on the ground. On the left, he loaded up another building with the autocannons, the HQ command squad, and all 3 infantry squads, with the demolisher and a leman on the ground. He kept his Hellhound and Platoon Command in reserve, and chose to Flank March the Veterans.

 

Deployment

 

Now, I knew he could pulverize my precious few Grey Knights with all his anti-infantry firepower, which meant the key was to stay in my Land Raiders as long as possible. I wanted to use the Godhammers and multi-melta to kill his tanks, and the heavy bolters, hurricane bolters, and assault cannon to kill off a couple small infantry squads. Basically, I figured I could get a handful of Kill Points more easily than he could punch through my Raiders. Anyway, I decided the best approach would be to flank him, so I could concentrate on killing one or two small squads at a time, and save myself from incoming fire as much as possible. The best way to do that, I decided, was to keep everything in reserve. So I started the game with nothing on the table.

 

Turn 1:

 

Seeing as I wasn't on the board yet, this turn was pretty quick. TJ moved moved his tanks forward a bit, crossing the river with his Chimera. And... yeah, that's about it.

 

End His Turn 1

 

Turn 2:

 

Since nothing of mine was on the table, TJ really hoped none of his reserves came in. Unfortunately for him, all 3 did. The vets came on from the short side near his corner, and but he put them by my board edge, with his Chimera. The other two came on behind his main lines. He shuffled the tanks around again, but pretty much just waited for me.

 

End His Turn 2

 

This was it, my grand entrance. Best case scenario: all three of my raiders come in, but the ISTs stay away. For course, following TJ's luck with reserves, only my crusader (containing incinerator squad and BC) came on. Oh well, better than nothing I suppose. I brought the Crusader on into a forest right by his vets and exactly 1" away from his Chimera. The hurricane bolters and assault cannon shot the vets, but because I was more than 2" into cover (because of the Chimera's placement) he got cover saves and only lost 6 models. I then machine-spirited the multi-melta at his Demolisher, which was within 12", but I missed.

 

End My Turn 2

 

Turn 3:

 

With only one target, TJ didn't have much to do as far as movement. The Demolisher and Chimera backed up a bit, but that's pretty much it. He shot everything S8+ at my Crusader, but couldn't do anything to it. I made cover saves against the only 2 glances he scored, and his ordnances scatter away.

 

End His Turn 3

 

Nervously, I picked up the reserves dice again. To my relief, I rolled perfectly, and both Raiders (but not the IST) came on. One moved into the forest the Crusader was in, and the other was more towards the middle of the board (to get side armour on the Demolisher). The Crusader moved forward 6". The Raider in the woods (from now on, Raider A) shot its heavy bolter at the vets, but they made all their cover saves. It then machine-spirited its lascannon at the Chimera, penned, but only shook it. The Crusader shot hurricanes and assault cannon at the missile launcher squad, killing 5 of the 6. Its multi-melta penned the Demolisher, and I managed to roll another 1, stunning it (but it had EA, so only a shake). My last raider (raider B, from now on) killed the last missile launcher member, and failed to hurt the Demolisher. +1 KP for Aidoneus!

 

End My Turn 3

 

Turn 4:

 

TJ's 2 shaken tanks sped backwards as fast as they could, but that's all his movement. His lascannons opened the shooting phase by targeting my Crusader, and I watched in horror as they hit, penned, and rolled a 6. 1 GK died in the explosion, an the rest got out, with no cover to shield them. I knew right then, I was about to lose another 2 KPs. Sure enough, his plasma vets killed 6, leaving only the BC and Incinerator. His autocannons failed their shrouding. His Leman shot a las and heavy bolter, missing with the las, but the BC failed his 2+ save and died! The incinerator saved a wound from an infantry heavy bolter, but the last shot of the round, from the other infantry squad, felled him at last. +3 KP for TJ.

 

End His Turn 4

 

My ISTs showed up, and entered the board in the woods all the way in the far corner (the part of the table my pictures cut out). Their goal: don't die! Raider A moved out of the forest (dozer blades saved me from immobilizing) into the crater of the late crusader. It positioned itself to block incoming fire, and the GKs disembarked behind it, facing the veterans. I knew this was risky, since his ordnance could still hit me, but I had 4+ saves, and I needed them to kill the vets to net me another KP. Raider B, meanwhile, moved forward a little bit, and positioned itself to have lots of options for shooting. In the shooting phase, the GKs with their psycannons and storm bolters easily wiped out the last of the plasma veterans. Raider A machine-spirited a lascannon at the Chimera and managed to miss twice. Raider B followed up doing the same thing, penned, rolled a 5, and killed it. 5 IG were wounded, but only 2 died, and they bailed out as far around the side of the chimera as they could, to shoot my GKs next turn. They passed their pinning check. Raider A shot the lascannon squad and dealt 3 wounds, but all 3 made their cover saves. Raider B was about 36.25 inches away from the lascannon team, so it shot a lascannon at them, but again they saved. +2 KP for Aidoneus, bring us back to even at 3KP each.

 

End My Turn 4

 

Turn 5:

 

TJ had two goals this turn: his lascannons wanted to kill another Raider, and his Ordnance wanted to kill my disembarked Grey Knights. The lascannons shot Raider B, and to my horror they penned it! However, they only immobilized it, which quite frankly was all right with me. A Leman Russ shot Raider A, and a 1" scatter meant it successfully hit 7 or my 8 GK there. 5 were wounded, but I only passed one 4+ cover save! The other Leman russ shot the same place and hit 3 GK, but only killed 1 after saves. The demolisher's shot scatter away, thankfully, and the armoured fist's shots either missed or were saved.

 

End His Turn 5

 

First off, I was so, so thankful that my gamble had paid off, and my GK squad survived. They quickly scrambled back onboard, to preserve their KP. Now, at this point, I had to look towards the end of the game. There was a 1/3 chance of the game ending this turn, but I decided to bet on at least one more turn. This meant I still had to worry about reprisal. My ISTs moved and ran behind a hill, out of sight. Raider B wasn't going anywhere, but Raider A moved sideways, getting a building between it and the lascannon squad. Unfortunately, between 4 lascannons shooting, all I did was to shake a leman russ. We rolled a die to see if the game would end, and got a 3, meaning I was right, and we would play at least one more turn.

 

End My Turn 5

 

Turn 6:

 

TJ was left, once more, facing only AV 14. He tried shooting my IST with autocannons, but they were about 6-8" too far away. Again, everything S8+ shot land raiders. He stunned Raider B twice, and Raider A once, but did no more lasting damage.

 

End His Turn 6

 

At this point, I felt that the advantage had really shifted in my favor. We had been even in KPs for a turn and a half now, and he hadn't killed anything since his third turn. Also, since the game was going to end soon, I had less to worry about in terms of reprisal. Given this, I decided another gambit was in order. I just had to hope the game ended, or at least that I could kill more in this turn that he could next turn, even given my vulnerability. Shaken, Raider A plowed forward about 10", disgorging the 3 remaining GKs (2 psycannons and the justicar) about 2" away from TJ's huddled armoured fist squad. They blasted away, but he made all 5 of his cover saves! Oh well, that's what assault is for. Raider A machine-spirited a lascannon at the hellhound. A hit, a pen, and 6 later, the hellhound was a smoking pile of debris, and one other IG died in the blast. Raider B tried to follow suit by shooting the demolisher, and did manage to pen, but only immobilized it. Done with shooting, the GK charged into the IG. The Justicar killed 3, and the other two killed 1 more (1 made a save). The IG actually did kill a psycannon in return, but with a Ld of 5 they failed their morale check, ran, and died to my sweeping advance. +2 KP for Aidonues. We rolled the game die again, and got another 3. Game over.

 

End Game

 

 

In the end, I won 5 KP to 3. It was a really close game though, with most of the KPs being the direct result of lucky vehicle-damage rolls.

 

He did a very good job of keeping his army together, and not letting me play the divide-and-conquer game. That meant I could almost never disembark, which seriously limited my anti-infantry offensive power. Really, about the only thing I would have done differently if I had been in his place would have been to bring the Hellhound on near the far short board edge, to chase down my IST when they showed up. But then again, I new they were going to go there, and he didn't necessarily guess it.

 

On my own end, I think I played pretty well given my original plan to flank him. I wonder if I might have done better by starting all three Raiders as close to him as possible, and launching a 1st-turn charge against his building full of infantry. It would have been a very different game, that's for sure. I'm sure I would have lost nearly all my GKs, but I might've racked up enough KPs to make that worthwhile. Oh well, my strategy worked, so I guess I shouldn't second-guess myself at this point.

 

So there you have it, prototypical Earth vs. prototypical Water. I welcome any comments or questions. Thanks for reading all this way! :P

 

-Aidoneus

[Silent Requiem]

Great batrep, and a well played game! It's really interesting to see the "kill-point" thought process in action, though it does not seem all to different from some of the 4th edition objective grabbing games.

 

You rallied well from the horrific turn 3. Losing a Raider is always a blow, and to lose the passengers (including your HQ!) in the same phase has got to hurt. But you didn't let it shake you, and you came back to win the game. Well done.

 

I like the post game analysis too.

 

-Silent Requiem

[Mal]

Good job Brother Grey Knight, an excellent recovery from a potential disaster, it just goes to show, skill and cunning are required to make GK's competative, although 3 raiders helps no ends.

[Silent Requiem]

Good job Brother Grey Knight, an excellent recovery from a potential disaster, it just goes to show, skill and cunning are required to make GK's competative, although 3 raiders helps no ends.

 

Perhaps I'm just twitchy, because of the tone of some of the other posts on this forum. Perhaps I'm just a little overwhelmed by the new "faces" and haven't learned how to "read" the new posters. But what exactly did you mean by this last comment?

 

I'm hoping that you meant that you also play with 3 Land Raiders, and you find that the additional protection and mobility they offer has allowed you to pull off some wins where a slower list would have folded.

 

My fear is that you suggesting that (to use terms that have become disturbingly common on this forum since 5th ed) a cheesy list was used to obtain the win.

 

I would love clarification on this point, and apologise if I am being oversensitive.

 

-Silent Requiem

 

Btw, Mal, your 1200 posts vs your 4 months as a board member, when compared to my own record, makes me feel positively unproductive! :P

 

Keep up the good work!

[Mal]

Lol, well I DO visit the site and read EVERY new post 5-6 times a day....

 

I did mean that the extra protection and mobality is a bonus, any tank that costs 250pts before upgrades IMHO is not cheesy (with the possible exception of the monolith), granted I wouldn't use 3 in one army list, but as a mech force the raider is the ONLY combat tank avaliable to GK's. In this instance i'd be calling him nuts for not taking 3. against an all infantry army that lacked options for anti-tank it'd be different.

 

This is why I very very very rarely call anything cheesy, unless its powerful against ALL opponents, otherwise the game is far to subjective to declare anything cheesy when in one circumstance its nigh invulnerable, but in another its worm bait.

[Eddie Orlock]

I dunno, if I were you, I'd find such a victory very hollow, your guard opponent got 3 of the 8 points you offered for a 37.5 % ratio to your 5 of 17 for a 29.4 % ratio, marginal victory for the guard, but really a draw. Playing absoulte kill point scores against guard seems to me like playing in easy mode, and that it's far more fair to evaluate things in terms of a ratio of offered verses earned. Of course, this would take more than basic addition and thus Gee Dub will never implement such a scoring system.

[Silent Requiem]

I dunno, if I were you, I'd find such a victory very hollow, your guard opponent got 3 of the 8 points you offered for a 37.5 % ratio to your 5 of 17 for a 29.4 % ratio, marginal victory for the guard, but really a draw. Playing absoulte kill point scores against guard seems to me like playing in easy mode, and that it's far more fair to evaluate things in terms of a ratio of offered verses earned. Of course, this would take more than basic addition and thus Gee Dub will never implement such a scoring system.

 

Orrrrrrr... it's one of the factors that IG players have to take into consideration when list building that balances out their insane ability to field (very, very cheap) scoring units.

 

The guard player was neither forced to play that army, nor to use that list, but he did, and I think it's safe to assume that (as a presumably experienced guard player) he took what he thought was at the very least a strong list.

 

The fact is, we play to the rules. The way this battle worked out was not an accident. On two occasions Aidoneus took a calculated risk based on the victory conditions laid out in the rules. If those victory conditions were different, he would have played differently.

 

The mark of a good player (of any elemental persuasion) is his ability to dictate the flow of the battle. Aidoneus had the initative the whole time, and the battle played out the way he intended it to. You may disagree with victory conditions laid out by the rules, and that's your right, but it's a bit unsporting (and, IMHO, ignorant) to denigrate Aidoneus's skills on that basis.

 

For clarity: I use ignorant in it's narrowest and most literal sense (ie, a lack of understanding on this particular issue), rather than as a general slur.

 

-Silent Requiem

[Eddie Orlock]

So really on the standard methodology of rolling for mission type generic guard armies have a two thirds shot of a cake walk and a one in three chance of just getting smoked. Dunno, to me that just seems like redonkulously poor game design. All the work that seems to have been done in an attempt to reduce first turn advantage to stop matches from being decided by one throw at the start of the match would be subverted by the match being decided by one throw before the game even begins.

 

For the record, guard squads aren't exactly cheep. Guardsmen have the same basic cost as Ork boys with demonstrably inferior surival rates and manourverability, an inflexable platoon structure that offers extra kill points, and prohibatively expensive weapon upgrades.

[Silent Requiem]

So really on the standard methodology of rolling for mission type generic guard armies have a two thirds shot of a cake walk and a one in three chance of just getting smoked. Dunno, to me that just seems like redonkulously poor game design. All the work that seems to have been done in an attempt to reduce first turn advantage to stop matches from being decided by one throw at the start of the match would be subverted by the match being decided by one throw before the game even begins.

 

Kinda like pure GK armies suffering from low model counts (and therefore low numbers of scoring units)? The way we come in at a disadvantage when trying to grab objectives?

 

For the record, guard squads aren't exactly cheep. Guardsmen have the same basic cost as Ork boys with demonstrably inferior surival rates and manourverability, an inflexable platoon structure that offers extra kill points, and prohibatively expensive weapon upgrades.

 

You're seriously arguing that IG are expensive in a thread about GK? IIRC, you can buy 2.5 IG squads for the price of one bare-bones GK unit.

 

About price vs surviveability? A GK is no more surviveable than a marine, but costs 1.66 times as much.

 

About lists with poor flexibility that are forced down predetermined lines? Pure GK players get to pick dreads or land raiders for their heavy support, and have no fast attack for all intents and purposes. We have one Elite choice, which happens to be identical to our HQ choice.

 

I'm not saying that your point is invalid. I'm not saying that IG don't have an out of date codex, and don't require a rethink under the new rules. But I think you've chosen your forum poorly, and you've chosen your thread poorly. Neither of which bothers me particularly.

 

But I also think you've also chosen your approach poorly, raising your issue in such a way as to denigrate or minimise the acheivements of another poster. And that does bother me. Not only because Aidoneus may or may not find it offensive (I can't speak for him), but it also encourages that kind of attitude in general, and discourages people from posting batreps. That's a sure way to ruin a good forum.

 

Without meaning to be condecending (which I can't even spell :P ), might it not have been better to say "Hey, nice work Aidoneus. Do you think your opponent was handicapped by the sheer number of KP he had to field?" We could then have all had a nice chat about it until the mods melta'd us for discussing non-powerarmoured lists. :D

 

-Silent Requiem

 

PS. I recognise that I'm quite protective of the B&C, and the Ordos in particualar, but frankly, it's because most other forums are rubbish.

[iamnothere]

Nice Bat Rep, it impressed me so much I'm going to write my last game up and post it later tonight.

 

I've been away from the GK for a while but am once more after a challenge. Winning with Emperors Children is far, far too easy when you've been playing GK for the whole of 4th ed.

[Doomaflatchi]

I gotta say, I agree with Silent Requiem on this one. Just like the Grey Knights are hampered in Objective games, every army has its strong and weak points - that's part of how the game is played, and should be taken into account when armies are chosen. With regards to that, I did think there were a few turns where the Guard player moved his infantry out to score some KP when it might have been better to keep them under cover until his tanks did their jobs and took the Land Raiders down. Regardless, it was a very well played Earth army.

 

A resounding "Well played, sir!" to Aidoneus for your victorious game! You did very well when faced with a withering amount of anti-tank fire, and even kept your cool when losing a Land Raider. That's hard to do, and you should feel proud to have come out on top.

 

The one move of yours that surprised me was your decision to keep all of your Land Raiders in reserve, rather than trying to take some early turn pot shots at his tanks. Would you mind talking a little bit about your thought process on that one? I'm curious to see what went into that decision, and whether or not it's something I might want to do in the future! :D

[Silent Requiem]

The one move of yours that surprised me was your decision to keep all of your Land Raiders in reserve, rather than trying to take some early turn pot shots at his tanks. Would you mind talking a little bit about your thought process on that one? I'm curious to see what went into that decision, and whether or not it's something I might want to do in the future! :wub:

 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess there were two things that Aidoneus was trying to achieve: to scatter his enemy, and to gain the inititive.

 

Scattering the enemy. Very often, when the enemy can't see where you are, he'll try to be strong everywhere, so no matter where you turn up, he'll be ready to fight you. However, being strong everywhere means you have to spread out. If Aidoneus then brings his forces on in one place, he automatically has local superiority. Ie, his 2k points is facing only 500 points of IG. Now, an opponent's mobility and threat footprint (how far they can charge/shoot) can mitigate this, but foot-slogging guard are notoriously low on mobility, so it was worth doing in this case.

 

Gaining the inititive. For some reason, Aidoneus plays a Water style army, which typically wants the second turn. The down side is that (on a table that sounds like it didn't have much cover, and not forgetting the LOS/cover rules in 5th) the enemy gets to shoot at you first. With a list like this, it could cost him a Raider. But by keeping all his forces in reserve, Aidoneus got the second turn AND the first shot! Of course, this would have worked out even better if he had gotten GHLR for his first roll rather than the LRC, but hey, them's the breaks.

 

Now, of course, Aidoneus will tell you he was thinking something completely different, and I'm going to look like a twit, but that's why I would have played it that way. :wub:

 

-Silent Requiem

[Eddie Orlock]

...

 

You're seriously arguing that IG are expensive in a thread about GK? IIRC, you can buy 2.5 IG squads for the price of one bare-bones GK unit.

 

About price vs surviveability? A GK is no more surviveable than a marine, but costs 1.66 times as much.

 

...

 

PS. I recognise that I'm quite protective of the B&C, and the Ordos in particualar, but frankly, it's because most other forums are rubbish.

Last things first here, as a long time B&Cer predating the great crash, I am well aware of the civility and maturity demonstrated on these boards and further consider this site as a model of behaviour that most other forums out their would be well served by emulating, but opinions and credetials like this are besides the point.

 

Yes, yes, I am seriously argueing that Guard are over costed in a Grey Knight thread. To carry on with my previous comparison of Guardsmen against Ork Boyz, not only are they inferior in defence and manouverabilty, but they also have substancially less offencive power for their cost in both shooting and close combat. About the only area the guard might rightfully claim superiority in is static reach, but the cost to buy such arms is prohibatively expensive and on properly terrained boards of limited value.

 

I'll indulge your comparison with Grey Knights, but only after a nod to the fact that the relative values of these troops are at best peripherally related. Just as I likend Guardsmen to a near analog in the form of the equally pointed and similarly lightly armoured ork, We'll look at basic Grey Knights with respect to Imperial Tactical Marines. A basic knight is identical interms of survivability, but, in the absence of additional cost upgrades, strictly superior in terms of manourverability, close combat ability and ranged capability. It is no wonder they cost more, how much more they should cost is a matter of debate, but that it should be more is irrefutable.

 

So, yes, the conclusion can be drawn that I don't think it'd be unfair to allow even more guardsmen per knight, but, as I'll address below, I think the real answer is to modify how guard armies interact with kill points (and maybe how easily they hold objectives)

 

Really, it was an admonishment agaisnt the poor game design of the mission and the lopsided victory conditions. Any disparagement of the original posters skill was and is unintended.

 

I recall back in second edition a great reform away from what I recall being called the 'VP100' system toward the 'VP1000' system. The former encouraged contra-fluffy army builds and distorted armylist design in inintended ways. The existance of 'point breaks' lead to foolish things like 99 point jump pack/votext techmarines capable suicide bombing most units off the board while offering no points in return, and this was just mild gouda compared to the sharp chedder that was the 2 point offering 2000 point harlie army when most forces should have statistically offered around 18. While it didn't solve this problem, 'VP1000' certainly helped eleviate it, and was the basis of the methode carried forward into third and though fourth. This move to kill points is a regression and it will continue to distort force selection until it is repealed as an error in sixth, or hopefully sooner.

 

As a guard player I maintain some hope that these issues will be addressed in the codex I anticipate in Spring 2009. I would suggest that they only offer up kp for every two units taken, but that it also takes two to hold a marker, but based on the rumours I've heard it's too late to get that incorperated in to the new 'dex.

[Silent Requiem]

As a guard player I maintain some hope that these issues will be addressed in the codex I anticipate in Spring 2009. I would suggest that they only offer up kp for every two units taken, but that it also takes two to hold a marker, but based on the rumours I've heard it's too late to get that incorperated in to the new 'dex.

 

First of all, thanks for keeping everything so civil. I just wanted to acknowledge your post, but I don't want to derail Aidoneus's batrep thread any further. If you feel like starting a thread dedicated to this topic I'd be happy to chat further.

 

-Silent Requiem

[Aidoneus]

Wow, I was not expecting so many responses! Thanks for all the interest guys, and thanks especially for the congratulations. I'll try to address everything that's been said.

 

Mal: I heartily agree that the Raiders were key to this victory. I used to play footslogging GK, and was actually quite critical of Raiders, due to my many bad experiences with one in my Chaos army. However, I craved the mobility that Raiders offered, and I slowly began trying them out more and more. Now, I really don't go onto the field without at least two until I get down to around 1000pts, at which point I'll play footsloggers. I do tend to 'turtle' a lot, relying on the AV14, but that's more because of the powerfully-offensive armies I play against than it is because of me relying on overpowered units. I agree, anything over 250pts simply cannot be called cheesy.

 

Eddie: While I do not feel like it was a hollow victory, I do understand and, to a certain extent, agree with your qualms. While I certainly don't agree that Annihilation is an "auto-lose" for IG (I know you didn't use that term, but I believe that was the gist of your point) it is true that they have an inherent disadvantage in that mission. Trust me, TJ's IG are my most common opponent, and they are a powerful enough army to put up a damned good fight in any mission. Not to put to fine a point on it, but if I'd been playing footslogging GK, I honestly don't see how I could have won this game, given the defensive position he was in from the start.

 

As a side note, before the game began, I agreed (in fact, suggested) to not count either of his command squads as 2 VPs. That brought him down to 15 KP, two of which were actually quite hard to get (since the ICs would auto-join nearby squads). Granted, I didn't actually shoot at either of those two units, but that's only because TJ did the smart thing and hid them in his back lines. So again, a smart player overcame a built-in disadvantage through good tactics, which would have been the same even if I hadn't offered to not count two of his potential KPs.

 

Silent: Wow... I didn't realize I had my own, personal advocate on the board. Do you realize, more than 1% of your total posts are in this thread? :P Seriously though, I appreciate your comments and your support. In your first post here, you mention that the KP mentality is actually similar to 4th ed objective mentality. I agree. 4th ed Victory Points games were all about sheer killiness, and felt more like slug-fests than tactical exercises. Kill Points, by contrast, are extremely tactical, and KP games involve a lot of maneuvering, targeting choices, and gambles. I'm not entirely sold on the system on paper, but in practice I absolutely love it!

 

Doomaflatchi: TJ's decisions to move his infantry out to kill mine were definitely tactical gambles, much like my decisions to disembark twice to kill his infantry. In both cases, we took calculated risks by leaving ourselves vulnerable in order to do more damage on offense. I think TJ definitely came out ahead with his plasma veterans, as they were key to killing the GK squad an BC, and only gave up 1 KP in return. On the other hand, I came out ahead with my GK and his armoured fist squad, although who knows what would have happened to those 2 GK if we'd played turn 7. So basically, yes, I was able to capitalize on a couple of his more risky maneuvers, but I certainly don't fault him for taking those risks.

 

As for my decision to keep things in reserves, as I said, I'm still mulling that one over. There were lots of factors that went into that decision, and I'll try to recall them all for you here, in no particular order. First off, in any Dawn of War game, I always go for turn 2 and keep everything in reserve to come on turn 1 (or regular reserves for my IST). That wastes my opponent's 1st turn, essentially giving me one more turn than he gets, and it also lets me spread out or concentrate anywhere I want, after seeing where he wants to go 1st turn. It's a huge advantage. Of course, there were no guaranteed 1st-turn reserves in Spearhead, so that made the decision much harder. I knew he had first turn, and I saw how well he had dug in while still maintaining excellent fields of fire, so I was nervous about letting him get off that first volley before I had done anything. If I had first turn, I almost certainly would have deployed at the front of my lines and rushed him as quickly as possible, playing a Fire style rather than the Air/Earth I ended up playing. I also wanted to flank him, as I usually do, and the only way to really accomplish that was reserves, coming on from the quarter next to him. As to the two reasons Silent mentioned, I definitely agree with the point about initiative, which is what I was talking about with Dawn of War. As for Scattering the enemy, I didn't think TJ would spread out much, so that wasn't a factor in my decision. As it happened though, TJ did spread out slightly, so that did in fact work for me.

 

As for the rest of the IG debate, that not only deserves its own thread, it's not even board appropriate. So let's just drop the IG point-cost debate. Anything people want to say about TJ's guard list specifically, or any advantages/disadvantages he had in this game, or any strategies he did/could have used to take advantage of/mitigate those factors, all that is fine to discuss here.

 

Again, thanks for the comments and support!

[Eddie Orlock]

Eddie: ... Not to put to fine a point on it, but if I'd been playing footslogging GK, I honestly don't see how I could have won this game, given the defensive position he was in from the start.

 

...

 

As for the rest of the IG debate, that not only deserves its own thread, it's not even board appropriate. So let's just drop the IG point-cost debate. Anything people want to say about TJ's guard list specifically, or any advantages/disadvantages he had in this game, or any strategies he did/could have used to take advantage of/mitigate those factors, all that is fine to discuss here.

Whoa, hold on here. I never advocated not taking tanks. I'm a tread-head who's subscribed to the school of mechanised warfare since late second ed inclusive. I almost never take to the field with out at least one vehicle, preferabely four or more. Their superior movement allows an army to be much more fluid in its play, after all, the game really is won in the movement phase.

 

I've had some similar success with an armour intensive force with four raiders out of codex marines, presenting a solid face of armour 14 everywhere can functionally negate a good deal of the points spent in many armies.

 

While I personally hold the stance that guard are about as board appropriate as deamons and they have their own sub-board here, that was really an over blown digression on how the standard victory conditions distort army list design. I could have tied it back into the Inquisition by pointing out that Inquisitorial retinues behave similarly, and that the platoons discussed are inductable units. While it may corrupt people away from their chamber pure lists, have you considered inducting such a platoon to statically hold friendly objectives. Going to ground in cover they're nearly as tough as more expensive troops at a fraction of the cost and would require a concerted effort to dislodge, requiring that they recieve attention, or the objective is conceeded. Further, with armour squadron tactics, and inducted chimera for a command section can take improved comms and increase your odds of a co-ordinated armoured assault.

[Aidoneus]

I didn't mean to say that you were being negative towards my tanks. I'm sorry if it came across that way. I only meant to say that TJ's army, far from being a pushover, was powerful enough to have beaten me if I had not been relying on my three AV14 behemoths. I could have been playing with a different 8 KP list, and he would have beaten me. It's not just about number of available KPs; it's also about how well you can kill the enemy to gain KPs for yourself.

 

Don't get me started on Chaos Daemons. Are they a fun, dynamic, and intriguing army? Absolutely! Should we discuss them on a POWER ARMOUR board, when there isn't a single power-armoured model in the entire codex? :P Not so much.

 

I do see your point about KPs skewing army list design. But then again, so do objectives, especially since only Troops can hold them. I feel like those two factors tend to balance each other out, as you want more units for the one but fewer for the other. In the end, what happens is that people take about as many squads, but more of them are Troops and fewer are anything else. At least, that's what I've been doing, and what I've seen. Another point to consider: I remember in 4th edition where redundancy was king. In fact, I remember specifically reading a tyranid tactica in White Dwarf that explained that two smaller, identical units are almost always better than one larger unit, since they can act as one unit or split up if they want. Don't you remember the armies with six 5-man min-maxed marine squads, 3 individual land speeders, 3 cheap HS tanks, two ICs, and a couple E dreadnoughts. It was advantageous to fill every single slot available. Frankly, I think KPs do a service to balanced list-building by eliminating that mentality.

 

I have tried inducting platoons a couple times. It worked pretty well, actually. I think I had 2 footslogging GK units, a cheap BC, a FAGK unit, two Dreads, either two small platoons or two armoured fist squads, and a leman russ. Something like 1500pts. And yeah, in the two or three games I played, with different versions of the list, I won them all. But I just didn't care for the style of gameplay as much. IG are very static, and very single-minded. They sit, they shoot, and they don't really do anything else. And while that works decently well, it just isn't all that fun. Same with pure assaulty armies, like my old World Eaters. You put them on the board, and the army basically plays itself. I enjoy a more involved, tactic-heavy style of gaming, that really forces me to constantly be on my toes. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with static or assault armies. I certainly enjoy playing against them, and they can be very good and very fun. It's just not my cup of tea.

[Ambro]

Nice battle report, thanks for sharing it with us. Also like Aidenous I think it is usually best to keep the land raiders in reserve, the reason being is so you can avoid being hit on the first turn as having a land raider damaged or destroyed on the first turn is very annoying, the second and probably more important reason for grey knights is that you can wait to see where the enemy positions his heavily armoured units so that when the land raiders come on you can ensure that two TLLC shots are heading towards the heavy units straight away where it is needed most.

[Eddie Orlock]

... I just didn't care for the style of gameplay as much. IG are very static, and very single-minded. They sit, they shoot, and they don't really do anything else. And while that works decently well, it just isn't all that fun. ... It's just not my cup of tea.

Well... You could claim that Deamon Princes have Powerarmour, about as much as Enginseers... :D

 

At some level, I'd submit that redundancy is still king. I'll conceed that the troops only as scoring is a horrific rules kludge put in place by the designers to try to force 'fluffier' armies on people, where they take fluffier to mean more troops. While I disagree with this implementation it's hard to argue that it's not effective in its intent. It's similar to how they 'encouraged' full marine squads in the latest marine 'dex to curb the excesses of rediculous six man las-plas teams. Sure you can take smaller squads, but they lose out on options.

 

To speak of my own experiences when I first discard my power armour in favour of a flak jacket, I attempted what was the vogue of the time, a fairly static 'gun-line' gaurd force, and failed miserably. Either I guessed right during deployment and got a decent field and eked out a minor victory gunning things down before they hit my squishy lines. Or things got fouled up some how and the army pretty much got flushed from the field any attempt at movement was doomed. It wasn't until I started heavily mechanising so I could take some semblance of the fight to the enemy and respond to his manouvers that I started experienceing any kind of consistant success. A fully static army simply didn't work with how I like to play. A few static elements, perhaps, but not the whole thing. Guard can be made to move, but it's certainly not the stereotype.

 

In a Grey Knight parent list, perhaps you've already tried something like the following:

 

550 - 2 ten knight squads

500 - 2 Raiders (Crusaders?)

340 - Guard platoon (Two squads plasma/missile launcher, vet sarg, cmd section w/ four flamers in chimera w/ improved comms)

150 - Hero (attach to guard chimera?)

150 - Dread?

 

11 kp, but might hold markers easier. It's also far more manourverable and agressive than a lot of static guard formations. It also rips a trick off the sororita with a faux easy-bake oven, though that might be substituted for melta guns depending your preferances and tactical needs. The Comms would be key with trying to be consistant.

[boreas]

IG are very static, and very single-minded. They sit, they shoot, and they don't really do anything else. And while that works decently well, it just isn't all that fun. Same with pure assaulty armies, like my old World Eaters. You put them on the board, and the army basically plays itself. I enjoy a more involved, tactic-heavy style of gaming, that really forces me to constantly be on my toes. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with static or assault armies. I certainly enjoy playing against them, and they can be very good and very fun. It's just not my cup of tea.

 

My friends uses doctrines, mainly veterans and drop-troops. It makes for a nice surprise. You can come into the game equipped for a gun-line and suddenly have veterans equipped with plasmaguns or meltaguns pop here and there. Combined with tanks and minimal platoons, it makes for an army with a firing powerbase (the platoons) with very mobile elements (the vets and tanks). He also has a few commissars and senior/junior officers equipped with powerfists. They can, surprisingly help a lot when assaulted.

 

Of course, that's not your standard IG army. But it goes to show that with some daring, you can tool even IG to suit your playstyle! I personally like it even better when playing against that type of army. My playstyle being "in your face" (ie roll those LR until you can disembark your GK and charge!!!), the IG gunline got old quickly.

 

That being said, cool batrep!!!!!

 

Phil

[Aidoneus]

TJ uses doctrines a fair amount too. I've faced mech forces, drop troop forces, flank marchers, infantry gunlines... pretty much everything guard forces can create (other than ratlings or ogryns). It keeps things fun for both of us. Unfortunately, I can't use doctrines with inducted IG. I could always play IG and ally-in daemonhunters, but not only do I not have any particular interest in that, but if I did it would go beyond what we can discuss on this board.

 

Eddie: while I appreciate that platoons would help with taking objectives, I don't understand why you think I need help with objectives. I have 4 scoring units, 3 of which are in land raiders and are fearless, and the last is easily-hidden and meant for backfield objectives. The most objectives there will ever be are 5, which means the most I will ever have to actually take is 3 (or take 2 and contest 2). Admittedly, I haven't played a huge number of objective games in 5th ed with this list yet, but I don't foresee a whole lot of trouble.

[Tauren]

No offense but guard have an advantage in take and hold objectives. Those same kill points suddenly need to be utterly wiped out (not gonna happen) vs holding objective with the sheer weight of numbers.

[Aidoneus]

Okay, no more guard discussion! We're done. The only comments you may make here are about TJ's army in relation to the game we just played. That's it. Talk about guard point costs, guard objective-taking abilities, or anything else like that is off-topic, is board-inappropriate, and frankly I'm just tired of it.

[Mal]

Okay, no more guard discussion! We're done. The only comments you may make here are about TJ's army in relation to the game we just played. That's it. Talk about guard point costs, guard objective-taking abilities, or anything else like that is off-topic, is board-inappropriate, and frankly I'm just tired of it.

 

Im not disagreeing with you, but i'd like to point out there is a reason we have the report button, all in all its better if we freater do not use a pin on plastic mod badge.

[Eddie Orlock]

It's not that I think you need help with objectives, mostly I was just squeezing in the Improved Comms to improve reserves consistancy to help with the 'Everything in Reserves' strategy you employed in this game.