Video Battle Report: Reecius’ Take All Comers Marines vs. Jy2’s Purifier Spam Grey Knights 1500pts

Video Battle Report

This was a super fun game! In it, Jy2 and Reecius play the BAO scenario and Reecius tries out his Vanilla Marines with what he thinks will be a true Take All Comers list for their first trial run against Jy2’s tried and true Purifier Spam Grey Knights in a 1500pts battle.

Tags:

About Reecius

The fearless leader of the intrepid group of gamers gone retailers at Frontline Gaming!

28 Responses to “Video Battle Report: Reecius’ Take All Comers Marines vs. Jy2’s Purifier Spam Grey Knights 1500pts”

  1. Son Of Dorn August 16, 2012 10:22 pm
    #

    The question about assaulting after disembarking is a big one. It’s gonna be first and foremost in the rulebook section of my FAQ document. Here’s what the consensus is right now, though.

    http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/465095.page;jsessionid=1A2FACB7B8103AC12BFA33196FCD9768

    • Son Of Dorn August 16, 2012 10:23 pm
      #

      Also, it’s nice to see Vanilla Marines do well against a net list that was dominating everyone, and without any transports, too! Great game. Though I did note the continued absence of buildings 😛

      • Reecius
        Reecius August 17, 2012 2:11 pm
        #

        Thanks! The dice were with me for sure, but I think that list has a fighting chance against anyone out there.

        And yes, we are still working on getting those buildings in! The only one we don’t have here is a Fortress of Redemption, actually.

        • Son Of Dorn August 17, 2012 4:51 pm
          #

          Heck, I mean buildings in general. you could have little bunkers, or shops or anything now! 😀

    • Reecius
      Reecius August 17, 2012 2:10 pm
      #

      Pg. 426 as Neil points out below makes it pretty explicit, IMO.

      And your FAQ project is awesome, BTW! Really cool of you to take the lead on that.

      • Son Of Dorn August 17, 2012 4:53 pm
        #

        It’s argued that that’s a summary. But again, the whole issue needs clarification. I’m of the mind that it’s a disembark as well, but we all need a totally clear explanation of it for absolute certain. The fact it can be argued at all means it needs clarification 🙁

  2. Axientar August 16, 2012 10:41 pm
    #

    And there we were, our Pathfinder game being really loud, making it hard to hear at some points, SUCCESS, HAHA! 😀

    Regarding the video… I think the Balanced Space Marines looks REALLY fun to play, to play against, and seems really solid. I wanna see it against Deathstars!! 🙂

    Once again, awesome batrep, thanks for the footage. 🙂

    • Reecius
      Reecius August 17, 2012 2:12 pm
      #

      It’s all good, you guys were having fun!

      And I am taking the TAC Marines out against Draigowing tonight. We’ll see how it goes!

  3. Neil Gilstrap August 17, 2012 9:38 am
    #

    Pg. 426 I think clear up your rule issue. In the chart there it does state that the unit disembarks.

    • Reecius
      Reecius August 17, 2012 1:56 pm
      #

      There is quite the debate going on over the topic. There are quite a few opinions, but yeah, that makes it pretty dang explicit. Thanks!

  4. Nick August 17, 2012 10:49 am
    #

    Doesnt the Aegis have to be connected when deployed? Or am I seeing how Reece deployed wrong?

    • Reecius
      Reecius August 17, 2012 1:41 pm
      #

      At least two sections have to be connected, but other wise they can be all over the place so long as they are in your half of the table.

    • Son Of Dorn August 17, 2012 1:41 pm
      #

      It can be deployed in several sections, but you have to have at least 2 pieces touching in each section. You can do up to 4 of them if you want 🙂

  5. Amberclad87 August 17, 2012 11:18 am
    #

    Very good batrep. This may be one of the best ones yet that I have seen out of frontline gaming. I especially liked the post game discussion. It’s always good to hear what the players took away from the game afterwards. The only thing I would change on the marine list is swap the twin heavy flamer for a multi-melta. I think this would give you even more versatility. I have found that the dual flamer dread work REALLY well SOMETIMES.

    • Reecius
      Reecius August 17, 2012 2:22 pm
      #

      Thanks!

      Glad you enjoyed it. We try to strike a balance between enough information and not too much.

      I was thinking about the Multi-Melta or even an Ironclad with a Melta/H.Flamer. It’s just that when the H.Flamer is good, it’s REALLY good. When it’s bad, it’s REALLY bad! haha.

      • Son Of Dorn August 17, 2012 4:55 pm
        #

        I loves me the Ironclad. That 13 13 10, move through cover (which now IGNORES difficult terrain), assault/defensive grenades, and extra armor. It’s a lot of fun and that 13 side armor ALWAYS gets my opponents! HAHAHAHA!

  6. Shinkaze August 17, 2012 7:14 pm
    #

    So tying meant no one got the 3? I thought the total should add up to 12.

    Maybe make the 3 goals worth 6,4, and 2 so you can split them. It’s weird when the score doesn’t add up to a fixed total for each game in a tournament. Both of these players would have been at a real disadvantage compared to the rest of the field.

    • jy2
      jy2 August 17, 2012 9:10 pm
      #

      The way to score (and it is randomized each game, I think) is 2pt, 3pt & 4pts. Then you have the 3pt book bonus – Linebreaker, Warlord and First Blood.

      So in this case, KP was randomly determined to be the 4pt mission, Crusade the 3pt and Emperor’s Will 2pts.

      We tied in Emperor’s Will. He got KP for 4pts and I got Crusade for 3pts. He also got First Blood and Warlord for another 2pts, thus giving him 6pts to my 3pts.

      If he can get all 3 mission objectives and all 3 bonus points, then he would have a total of 12 VP’s.

      • Reecius
        Reecius August 18, 2012 10:46 am
        #

        Yup, you got it.

    • Reecius
      Reecius August 18, 2012 10:42 am
      #

      Ah, but it’s not battle points, it is a W/L/D format. It doesn’t matter how many points you win by. Therefore, a win would still be a win.

  7. jy2
    jy2 August 17, 2012 9:21 pm
    #

    I think the the Space Marine army is more of a jack-of-all-trades army that really requires some skill to pull off a win against one of the more extreme builds (let’s call them “power” builds). It’s not too terribly hard to play but at the same time, it isn’t easy to beat a more optimized tournament build with either. Nowadays, all of the “power” builds are usually strong in at least one aspect while being ok in the others. Deathstars will usually overload the Assault phase (though there are shooty deathstars out there like the Farsight bomb), MSU will overload the Shooting phase and flyer-spam overloads the Movement phase. Vanilla marines do none of that (at least this particular build doesn’t). Now that doesn’t mean it isn’t good….it just means that it has to work harder to compensate. That’s why IMO it is at a disadvantage against the more powerful tournament builds. And that is why I actually consider it an underdog army.

    But it feels so good when you win with it against a supposedly “superior” army. Just like it did with my old daemonhunters back in the days when they were considered perhaps the sh*ttiest codex. Oh man, I loved the struggle back then and any win with them was more gratifying wins with my more updated armies.

    • Reecius
      Reecius August 18, 2012 10:49 am
      #

      You hit the nail on the head, Jim. The jack of all trades or TAC (Take All Comers) lists like this Marine list and Footdar for example, don’t dominate at anything but they’re good at everything (although this list is pretty weak in assault) and with clever play you can apply the right tools to any situation and find a way to at least compete.

      it is very rewarding to play these types of armies, they are good fun!

  8. jy2
    jy2 August 17, 2012 9:24 pm
    #

    — Edit —

    Oh man, I loved the struggle back then and any win with them was more gratifying than any wins with my more updated armies.

  9. jim August 22, 2012 1:32 am
    #

    iv read a few comments and it looks like their is a lot of confusion so i thought id clarify it

    its in the rule book its not difficult to read it clearly states that a unit that disembarks from a transport cannot declare a charge in the subsequent assualt phase(ie the turn they get out)

    the exception to this rule is open topped transports and transports with the assualt rule

    • Reecius
      Reecius August 22, 2012 10:27 am
      #

      You are correct, but it was unclear in the main rules section, however the summary in the back of the book makes it very clear, stating that units coming out of exploding vehicles still count as disembarking.

    • Son Of Dorn August 22, 2012 12:36 pm
      #

      It also states ‘their’ subsequent assault phase, not ‘the’
      That’s been the big hangup everyone’s obsessing over.

      • Reecius
        Reecius August 22, 2012 1:35 pm
        #

        Hahaha, good old semantics.