Grey Knights v Tyranids (1000).

[Silent Requiem]

Sorry I've been gone so long. I have not really liked the new edition of 40k, and this has made my (already new and exciting) fantasy army more appealing. To make it up to the community, I decided to write a batrep. :D

 

My list:

 

Brother captain with psycannon

Six man PAGK squad with incinerator

Six man PAGK squad with incinerator

GHLR with extra armour, smoke, dozer blades

GHLR with extra armour, smoke, dozer blades

 

His list:

Hive tyrant (extended carapice, toxin sacs, twinlinked devourers, enhanced senses)

Brood lord

3 Warriors (rending claws)

3 Warriors (death spitters)

20 Gaunts (spinefists)

16 Termagaunts

12 Termagaunts

6 Genestealers

Carnifex (scything talons, barbed strangler)

Carnifex (twin scything talons, tusks, strength upgrade, 5 wounds)

 

Terrain: I am in the south. Large shell of a building in the centre. Ruins in the north-east and south-west corners of the table. Smaller ruin in the south-east. Hills in the north west. Setup is dawn of war.

 

Mission: Seize ground, 3 objectives. One objective in the north-east ruins, one in the south-east ruin, and one just west of the centre of the table, just outside the central ruins.

 

Deployment: I start with nothing on the table. Hive tyrant with 20 gaunts deploys in the far east of his deployment zone as two of the objectives are in the eastern half of the table.

 

Turn 1:

 

I bring everything on directly across from the tyrant/gaunts. I have a very dissappointing round of shooting, however, as I only put one wound on the tyrant with the GHLR (he makes two 6+ invulnerable saves). I kill 7 gaunts with the PAGK.

 

On his turn the two units of termagaunts enter the table in the middle of his table edge. They are clearly going for the central objective. The warriors with rending claws also come on in that area, as does the barbed strangler carnifex.

 

The carnifex fails his shrouding test. The gaunts run towards the GK, adding an extra 2", and the tyrant moves south too. In exchange for his amazing invulnerable saves the tyrant rolls three "1" for his shrouding test, giving him a 9" spotting range.

 

Turn 2:

 

My GK kite back and to the west. GHLR reduce the tyrant to 1 wound, while other shooting reduces the gaunt squad to one model. I am very dissappointed with these results, as I had counted on being able to wipe out the gaunts and the tyrant in two turns. Failing to do so has cost me precious time.

 

The remaining carnifex, warriors and stealers all come on in reserve. The carnifex comes on in the north-east, along with the warriors.

 

The broodlord and stealers would have come on with "outflanking" (which would have completely destroyed me), but a check of the rules indicates that you have to declare the outflank when you place them in reserves. My opponent hadn't (and I would have played differently if he had), so they had to come on normally, between the termagaunt squad and the warriors.

 

Hive tyrant kills 3 PAGK from on of my two squads (which are standing side-by-side between the GHLR) in the shooting phase. Unfamiliar with the rules, I forget to allocate before rolling. I offer to reroll after allocating, but my opponent prefers to keep my unallocated (but exceptionally poor) armour saves.

 

The termagaunts all run forward towards the central ruins, and shrouding fails to save my BC from the shooting of the carnifex, and of course I roll a "1" for my armour save. Freaking typical. Everything else pretty much runs forward. This has not been a good turn for me.

 

Turn 3:

 

My GK move forward slifghtly, gambling that I will kill both the gaunt and the tyrant this turn. I get snake eyes to wound the tyrant with one GHLR, but the second one seals the deal and takes the tyrant down. PAGK kill the gaunt. I am disgusted that it took me 3 turns (nearly 4) to kill these two units with my whole army, but hey, that's life.

 

Thy tyrand forces move south again. They form a nearly solid line from the centre table to the eastern edge, and are not quite half way across the table. His shooting does nothing.

 

Turn 4:

 

Because I wasted so much time killing his advance units I need to take some bigger risks to secure the game. My troops hop into the GHLR, which then scatter. The (slightly) western GHLR moves due west at full speed, while the eastern GHLR heads 12" north and pops smoke. It is now about 6" from the stealers, the brood lord, the tusking carnifex, the warriors and one unit of termagaunts.

 

In his turn, he takes the bait. Almost his entire army swarms towards my eastern raider. His ranged carnifex does shoot at my "western" raider, but fails to glance (my raider is actually due south of the table centre, but is my western-most asset).

 

Thanks to smoke (and moving 12") my eastern raider survives the melee.

 

Turn 5:

 

The eastern raider then backs up 6". I would have gone 12", but I wanted to have it's guns available if I needed them. The three troopers then get out, and burn the nicely racked termagaunts to a crisp. I wipe them out completely, but I do need the raiders guns to do it (I rolled many "1"s to wound :) ).

 

The western raider moves another 12" around the central ruins, towards the central objective.

 

In his turn, everything in the east moves to wipe out my PAGK and the GHLR, and does so quite compellingly. In the west, his termagaunts have realised that they are his only remaining scoring unit, and move towards the objective, along with their warrior bodyguard. They don't quite get there, however, as they roll poorly for terrain (they had entered the ruins to head towards my raider the previous turn). The ranged carnifex tries to run around the eastern side of the ruins to get a shot at my remaining GHLR, but cannot get LOS.

 

Turn 6: The dice gods tell us that we play a turn 6. If we had not, the game would have been a draw, and it would have been a win for him if he had played more conservatively, and kept his termagaunts nearer the central objective.

 

My GHLR drives 6" up to the objective and my PAGK disembark. I kill 9 termagaunts in the shooting phase, and then wipe them out in assault. The GHLR kills a warrior.

 

He stays out of assault with his warriors, as he knows that if he gets wiped out and the game ends this turn I will win. As things stand, he will pull a draw. The rest of his army rushes west, pointlessly.

 

Turn 7: The dice gods give us a turn 7.

 

I wipe out his warriors. He can't reach the central objective in time to contest it. Victory for the Grey Knights.

 

Post game analysis:

 

I really don't like this edition. The random game length, along with other rules (such as LOS through area terrain in exchange for a cover save) deminishes the impact of skill and increases the impact of luck in the game. If I had been unlucky, the game would have ended in a turn 5 draw. Against a more canny opponent, that would have been a turn 5 loss.

 

If the game had ended on turn 6, it would have been a fair draw. But as the game ended on turn 7, I get to chalk up another win. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, though, as I do not feel that the game result says anything particularly valid about my qualities as a general, or lack thereof. I do not want to win because I am lucky, and resent a game system that consistently pushes me to be made or broken by a single, rather arbitrary, dice roll.

 

That aside, I had initially intended to take the south-eastern objective (because it was closest) and contest the other two. Poor performance meant that I had to change plans. I lured him east and then took the more isolated objective in the centre. For this to work, though, I had to kill all his (very large) scoring units. I was able to do this, but only by sacrificing half my army.

 

-Silent Requiem

[Twin .44]

hey, you do much better than me, I can guarantee that. I'm trying to mock up your list to give it a shot, but my laziness and obsession for my normal space marines gets in the way. Don't give up on 40K because we're overly outdated. that just makes victory so much sweeter.

[Mal]

The thing to remember with the random game length, its not meant to be a game decider, its meant to stop people doing rather foolish and completly unrealistic tactics on the last turn, such as turboboosting a biker unit onto an objective where they would be completly wiped out the next turn, if there was a next turn...

 

Its supposed to make you think more about your strageties since you don't know if there will be a next turn until after your turn.

 

All in all, I like it, it makes the game less rigid and add a certain element of suprise to the game.

[Silent Requiem]

The thing to remember with the random game length, its not meant to be a game decider, its meant to stop people doing rather foolish and completly unrealistic tactics on the last turn, such as turboboosting a biker unit onto an objective where they would be completly wiped out the next turn, if there was a next turn...

 

Its supposed to make you think more about your strageties since you don't know if there will be a next turn until after your turn.

 

All in all, I like it, it makes the game less rigid and add a certain element of suprise to the game.

 

I understand what you are saying, but ultimately, I think set game length was better. This is because 40k is, by it's very nature, artificially constrained. We have spatial constraints (table size) which hurt fast, long ranged and/or maneuverable armies, but we accept these constraints because we know what those constraints are going in, and can plan for them. Imagine, on the other hand, that table size could change by up to 12" each turn to prevent fast units from hugging the edges (they might just dissapear if the table size shinks). It would force armies to bunch up into the centre, overly favouring assault builds.

 

Random game length is the same thing, in a temporal way. Lets think about it. Suppose I have 10 dark reapers that magically count as troop choices. They are sitting in a bunker 12" from the objective. On the objective is a squad of standard marines. Now, game rules say that the marines "control" the objective, but in "real life" that's just not the case, as the dark reapers can kill anything that goes near it. In order to "control" that objective, they have to leave the bunker, forgo shooting, and advance on the marines. If the game ends before the marines counter attack, it is a tie (they contest). If the game continues, the marines will wipe them out, winning the game. If the dark reapers do not advance, they will wipe out the marines, but the game may end before they can claim the objective. If it does not, they can claim the win the following turn.

 

If both players know when the game will end (turn 6) or can influence when the game ends (when the other player is wiped out) then they can make informed decisions which will lead to a win or a loss. If the game ending is a suprise, then all they can do is ask themselves, "do I feel lucky this turn?". There is no more skill to this than if the table dimensions changed or the objective randomly scattered each turn.

 

-Silent Requiem

[Krieghammer]

Surely, but one could also prepare for the worst and hope for the best ;)

great batrep!! As said you have truly mastered those two Land Raiders.. I have no success what so ever with that kind of list haha.. :)

[DEMOLISHER]

Great battle report. Thanks! -_-

Bugs can be hard too beat, even though it was not a squeaky clean win,

it's still a win. :D

[Prathios]

The thing to remember with the random game length, its not meant to be a game decider, its meant to stop people doing rather foolish and completly unrealistic tactics on the last turn, such as turboboosting a biker unit onto an objective where they would be completly wiped out the next turn, if there was a next turn...

 

Its supposed to make you think more about your strageties since you don't know if there will be a next turn until after your turn.

 

All in all, I like it, it makes the game less rigid and add a certain element of suprise to the game.

 

I understand what you are saying, but ultimately, I think set game length was better. This is because 40k is, by it's very nature, artificially constrained. We have spatial constraints (table size) which hurt fast, long ranged and/or maneuverable armies, but we accept these constraints because we know what those constraints are going in, and can plan for them. Imagine, on the other hand, that table size could change by up to 12" each turn to prevent fast units from hugging the edges (they might just dissapear if the table size shinks). It would force armies to bunch up into the centre, overly favouring assault builds.

 

Random game length is the same thing, in a temporal way. Lets think about it. Suppose I have 10 dark reapers that magically count as troop choices. They are sitting in a bunker 12" from the objective. On the objective is a squad of standard marines. Now, game rules say that the marines "control" the objective, but in "real life" that's just not the case, as the dark reapers can kill anything that goes near it. In order to "control" that objective, they have to leave the bunker, forgo shooting, and advance on the marines. If the game ends before the marines counter attack, it is a tie (they contest). If the game continues, the marines will wipe them out, winning the game. If the dark reapers do not advance, they will wipe out the marines, but the game may end before they can claim the objective. If it does not, they can claim the win the following turn.

 

If both players know when the game will end (turn 6) or can influence when the game ends (when the other player is wiped out) then they can make informed decisions which will lead to a win or a loss. If the game ending is a suprise, then all they can do is ask themselves, "do I feel lucky this turn?". There is no more skill to this than if the table dimensions changed or the objective randomly scattered each turn.

 

-Silent Requiem

 

For a person who is clearly a fan of military history and the art of war I am surprised by your analytical approach to the battlefield. I believe that despite the limitations set forth by the rules and the constraint placed by the terrain size the object is to simulate real world battlefield conditions. A random game length is absolutely the way to go for accurately simulating this.

 

You said you wish to know how long it is so you can form an intelligent decision on what to do next, but unfortunately this is not how war works in the real world. You don't get to know that those reinforcements will arrive on time, you don't get to know if the enemy is going to stay or retreat, chaos is the rule of thumb. Commanders in the field have to make informed decisions based on the information on hand that they have at the time. Unfortunately because of the way any kind of military engagement is fought this information is almost always inaccurate and dated by the time it is implemented. So the gamble every commander takes is that his intelligence is better and his judgment is more sound than the enemies.

 

The random element in every real life military engagement is in fact astounding. War fought between equally equipped armies commanded by equally intelligent generals will fall to the person with the better terrain advantage and luck. For instance the D-day invasion was only made on the basis of luck. The weather decided when it would occur and had the weather continued to be horrible it would have had to be canceled. However luck was with the allies and they were given a break in the weather to launch their invasion.

 

So a couple of examples to further elaborate my point. Say for instance that the game is on turn 5 and the space marines are holding one of the three objectives. At this point you as a commander realize that the game may not end this turn (for instance lets say a transport containing food and supplies is inbound to the planet and the objectives are simulating controls for orbital defense platforms.) The marine commander knows without the supplies the people will starve and the PDF will be routed by chaos and the world will fall. The ship could arrive any minute and the marine commander needs to take an objective or the transport will be destroyed, do you push with everything you have at the moment on the objective or try a more sure fire maneuver but risk that extra turn? Thats the gamble a real commander would have to make. It forces you to make tough decisions based on the information at hand.

 

Any number of a thousand factors can force a battle to be concluded before one side is wiped out and most of the time a commander will not have an excel spreadsheet with exact dates and times on it for his convenience. I abhor the random factor as well, but I have to bend my preferences for informed strategic approach to the reality that war, and warhammer are greatly dependent on the luck of the draw.

[number6]

Once again, SR, I must thank you for a masterful and instructive batrep. As an earlier post put it, you have truly "mastered" this army, and it's really fun to read your report and imagine it in action.

 

On the topic of random game length: I too am a big fan. I came into 5th edition knowing about that rules change and expecting to dislike it, when it has become one of my favorite things about the game. What I enjoy so much about it is that I feel far more challenged, that winning a game is actually much more challenging.

 

You have to put yourself in a position to win a game in just 5 turns, one full turn less than the previous editions. That is not always easy. In your game here, for example, you may not have been able to do it. But you have to play that way in the current rules edition if you want to play competitively. If you're not prepared to win a game in 5 turns, you'll lose most of them.

 

And then, assuming you've done your best to secure a victory in just 5 turns, you have to be prepared to hold onto it for another two. If you're not prepared to continue the campaign, to extend your grip -- or, at the very least, to defend your current position -- then I would say you didn't truly earn your win! You must be capable not only of seizing victory quickly, but also holding onto it for as long as required.

 

I really like this dynamic, and it has had a great impact on my army builds and tactics. The game had started to go stale (and like you, I was turning more and more to my Fantasy and my Skaven), but overall I feel like 5th edition games are the most challenging and interesting, tactically-speaking, of any 40K yet.

[Aidoneus]

I dunno, I sort of see both sides.

 

On the one hand, Number6 and others are right about the tactical aspect. I was not a fan of the last-turn grabs that people could pull off in 4th edition, and much prefer the dynamic of needing to get there early and be prepared to hang on.

 

On the other hand, I find myself ending most games with a sort of hollow feeling. Generally, against a good opponent, the outcome of the game will be different depending on how many turns the game lasts. I can't help thinking, "if only the game had ended that turn," or, conversely, "if only the game hadn't ended so early." It really makes me feel intensely at the mercy of that one roll, over which I have absolutely no control.

 

So I'm not really sure. Virtually every single other change GW made in 5th I like very much, but I'm not entirely sold on random game length.

[Silent Requiem]

Hmmm. When so many of the brightest minds on the forums are disagreeing with you, it is perhaps time to take another look at why you feel the way you do.

 

Perhaps I AM too stuck in my 4th edition mindset. I've played only 3 games of 5th, versus probably close to a thousand games of 4th, so it's not hard to see why.

 

I shall try "bullying" people at my club into 1500 point games. Perhaps if I can avoid using my typical build I can shake of the 4th edition habits more easily. I have relatively few games with GK at 1500 points, so it will be a bit of a fresh start.

 

 

-Silent Requiem

[Aidoneus]

I shall try "bullying" people at my club into 1500 point games. Perhaps if I can avoid using my typical build I can shake of the 4th edition habits more easily. I have relatively few games with GK at 1500 points, so it will be a bit of a fresh start.

Another 500pts, huh? Knowing you that's, what? A third Land Raider, seven PAGK, incinerator, extra armour, dozer blades, smoke, and, I dunno, maybe 2 frag grenades?

 

I know Raiders are your thing, but if you really want to shake things up, perhaps try a different build? Or maybe that would be too much all at once. And after all, Land Raiders are pretty fantastic in 5th.

[FunkyEntropy]

While you're at it, maybe you could playtest the rules we've cooked up in Aidoneus' thread?

 

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.p...howtopic=163454

 

It would be helpfull (to say the least) to have a person of your...ahem "stature" to give them a quick run around the block to let us know what you think.

 

It might be a bit difficult convincing your gaming group to go along with it, given your win record, but then again, if it means you'd be taking a new list maybe they'd be willing to play along.

 

------------------------

 

But speaking of the batrep, the one thing that really pops out at me is how much of an effect the Dice Gods can have on your list. Specifically, I noticed how frustrated you were having to wait almost until turn 4 to kill off the tyrant and gaunts.

 

The list seems requires absolute precision (which you seem to have no problem with) and has very, very little room for error. But man, one lucky (or unlucky - depending on how you look at it) penetrating hit and there goes a significant chunk of the armies effectiveness.

[Inquisitor =D=]

As always SilentRequiem I lurve your BatReps. They are informative, precise, and a good read ;) . I know how you feel about 5th ed though, I still have yet to play it but I've an ominous feeling of it.

[number6]

The other point SR brought up was the change in terrain/line of sight rules. This is probably the single most drastic change in the game from previous editions, I myself admit that I'm on the fence about it. I feel there was nothing at all wrong about the terrain abstractions, and that the new rules but an undue burden on people to spend even more time and money to update their terrain collections.

 

SR, if you're still playing in a store that is using "old" terrain, with very little TLoS-blocking elements on the table, you will definitely have substandard games, tactically-speaking. My local game group runs about four leagues a year (not all of them 40K, FWIW), and we always pitch in a nominal fee to help pay for little prizes to "winners" of various categories. This last summer, the fee wasn't monetary, it was terrain. Every participant was asked to donate a piece of sight-blocking terrain to the shop to help keep our games more tactically diverse and interesting. It has made all the difference. I've played in two tournaments since 5th edition (last February's Con of the North and Chicago's Adepticon this past weekend), and the differences in terrain were drastic and had a massive impact on the games. CotN had wonderful terrain, very diverse, lots of tactical possibilities. Adepticon's was decent quality, but there was a severe shortage of sight-blocking terrain, and as you pointed out, that skews the games considerably.

 

IMHO, the best way to make 5th edition work is to get proper terrain built, purchased, whatever. Think of what you need in terms of how much line of sight was blocked in 4th edition and work to approximate that goal with 5th edition pieces.