Crimson Fists vs Deathwatch Warhammer 40k Battle Report Ep 65

To watch the Necrons vs Adeptus Custodes Battle Report, go here

Cullen’s full 2000 point Crimson Fists lead by Pedro Kantor hit the table for a training exercises against Josh’s Deathwatch. Josh and Cullen haven’t had too much experience wit the armies so let see who’s strategy pans out and who’s falls flat.

Some Terrain in this Battle Report:
Games Workshop –
Game Mat –
Green Leaf Terrain –

MWG Silver Vault members gain access to discount codes from terrain and miniatures companies featured in this battle report here:

MiniWarGaming is following the best practices set out by the Ontario (Canada) health and safety guidelines to help prevent the spread of COVID-19. 
Ontario (Canada) Prevention Services Guidance on Health and Safety for Television, Film and Live Performance Sector during COVID-19.


25 thoughts on “Crimson Fists vs Deathwatch Warhammer 40k Battle Report Ep 65”

  1. Not a bad BatRep. If I watch Marines at the moment, I'd prefer it to be a game against other Marines or another strong army. And yay Cullen!

    I am not a fan of the Kill Teams myself because, as Cullen mentioned, they are confusing and I hate that Bikers can make the whole squad T5. To be fair, I never liked the Deathwatch Kill Teams before as it is the very definition of cherry picking. Just a personal thing.

    Thanks for the BatRep, and I think I like seeing Cullen and Josh together. 🙂

  2. Okay maybe you beautiful people can help me. My friend plays death watch and he swears by this that if a kill team has one terminator in the squad they all can deep strike in. And if the same squad has a bike they all can move the rage of the bike (termy and Marines moving the rage of the biker) but I was under the impression you just simply can't mix and match units like that at all. Any help would be beautiful

  3. I don't play Warhammer and have no intention to do so. I do enjoy watching these battle reports though and I have questions that maybe someone here can answer.

    1. These games always have such gorgeous multilevel terrain pieces (such as those buildings), but most of the time the players place their foot soldier models at ground level and ignore the height advantage a unit can have in real-world combat. Are there no advantages to using these buildings as such? It seems a waste of time and money to build and paint these things (or buy them pre-built) if they have the same effect as drawing some lines on a vinyl mat.
    2. Most of these battles follow the same "script." Place your models in cover, shoot at enemy units from there, then charge in for close combat. If you can kill enemy units without exposing yourself unnecessarily, why wouldn't you do that? Most modern combat is distance-based with ranged weapons being used more than bayonets or combat knives. A smart soldier maneuvers into a position where they can destroy their enemy with as little risk as possible to themselves.
    3. Why do some units usually only attack other units of the same general type? Vehicles, tanks, and "mechs" attack other vehicles, tanks, and "mechs." Even in modern warfare, small units like infantry are often equipped with weapons that can damage or outright destroy larger, heavily-armored units. Conversely, tanks are really good at clearing out entrenched units like infantry fighting from a building.
    4. Similar to question 2, but where are the normal military tactics in use since the beginning of warfare? I'm talking about ambushes, flanking maneuvers, envelopments, double envelopments, etc. I realize that the size of the forces limits one's options, but it seems the only "tactics" the players use are spending command points to reroll dice, increase attack strength (or number of attacks), or increase defense strength; or overcharging weapons to increase damage.
    5. Vehicles seem pretty pointless. Many times, they never seem to get where they need to be before they are destroyed. If you place units in a vehicle and that vehicle explodes, one could lose a number of those units. Why not leave the units in cover and use more heavily-armored vehicles like tanks or smaller, more maneuverable units like armored suits?
    6. Why are the objectives just arbitrary spots on the battlefield? Usually these markers are placed in the middle of an open space that has no tactical or strategic value besides victory points. An objective, by definition, is a goal. In warfare, an objective is a goal that either provides a benefit for your side or a detriment to your enemy. For example, a bridge that is the only crossing on a river within 100 miles is an objective. The attacker needs to capture it to invade enemy territory, the defender needs it to destroy it to slow the enemy's advance. It seems that the objectives should be spots on the battlefield that simulate this. Certain buildings, hills, ammo dumps would be better objectives and grant a benefit to the controlling unit (or side) than an empty space between buildings where a unit is vulnerable to attack from all sides.
    7. Lastly, if one side absolutely despises the other side ("filthy xeno scum!"), why not just stay in orbit and lob asteroids from mass drivers into the enemy positions or releasing bioweapons or chemical weapons tailored to the enemy's physiology? I'm assuming genocide is a legitimate option in this universe and some factions (like Chaos) would be fine with this anyway.

  4. Why didn't the crimson fist use transhuman at all? For the aggressors that would have saved them. Death watch player was doing all that and fist guy was just taking everything=/

  5. I might not have been in the loop with the roll out ,emperial wide, of the primaris. But as the Crimson Fists always in the old lore been a chapter that took a massive hit from the orks, have been "rebuilding" to survive. Then its a little strange to me at least to see primaris marines in a chapter that always is on the brink of going extinct.
    But nice paintjob and looking forward to seeing the full report.


Leave a Comment