Tactical Command | View topic - BatRep: 1.6 Eldar vs 1.1 Marines.

Page 1 of 2

[ 20 posts ]

Go to page 1, 2 Next

View unanswered posts | View active topics View unread posts | View new posts | View your posts

BatRep: 1.6 Eldar vs 1.1 Marines.

Markconz

Post subject: BatRep: 1.6 Eldar vs 1.1 Marines.

Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 6:04 am

Purestrain

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

Another game today - only got one game in because we did a lot of thinking in later turns, slowing things down. ?

It was 5K, but as I set up I remembered I'd forgotten to pay for my wraithgate - but my marine opponent said he was 25 under so he would buy a hunter and we'd call it even. So 5050 points total.

Changes used were all exp rules including some of the recent air proposals from the 4.2 discussion thread:

1. Remain on CAP.
2. +1 to hit on CAP/intercept.
3. BM from CAP/intercept.
4. Only units on OW and Sustain orders(marked with ! on order dice) ?can fire at disengaging aircraft.
5. Aircraft cannot capture objectives, or snipe (casualties allocated from direction of incoming attack before it reaches target formation).
6. One or both of your garrisons on overwatch can be aircraft set on CAP (not sure if this has actually been proposed - my opponent asked and I agreed it made sense so we used it).

Eldar used all 1.6 * changes, and effectively all ** changes except jump packs for jetbikes ( :angry:

), and hit and run 15cm limitation.

Marines used the 1.1(?) changes of reduction in points of armoured formations (none present though), increase in points to Landing Craft and Termis, and leaders remove 2 rather than 1 BM.

Forces involved were:

Marines: 5050 points

Reaver Titan
Tacs with SC, Hunter, Razorback (HB), 3 rhinos.
Tacs with Librarian, 3 Rhinos.
Whirlwinds with Hunter
Termis with Captain
Termis with Chaplain
Termis with Librarian
Scouts
Landspeeders
Landspeeders
Landing Craft carrying:
-Tacs with Captain, 3 Rhinos
-Tacs with Chaplain, 3 Rhinos
Thunderbolts
Thunderbolts

Eldar: 5050 points.

Phantom Titan
Wraithgate
Avatar
Warp Spiders with Autarch, Exarch.
Swooping Hawks with 2 Exarchs
Fire Dragons with 2 Exarchs, Wave Serpents
Guardians with WG (vampire)
Guardians with 3 HW, SW, WG.
6 Falcons
6 Falcons
2 Cobras
Jetbikes
Jetbikes (1 vyper)
3 Nightwings
3 Phoenix Bombers
1 Vampire

Table was 140cm square - terrain generated using mix of old Epic40k terrain tables (agriworld and forgeworld).

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

Top

Markconz

Post subject: BatRep: 1.6 Eldar vs 1.1 Marines.

Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 6:12 am

Purestrain

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

Setup

Should be fairly self - explanatory. Another formation of jetbikes is off to the left of the photo. ?Eldar nightwings, marine scouts and one thunderbolt formation are on CAP/overwatch.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

Top

Markconz

Post subject: BatRep: 1.6 Eldar vs 1.1 Marines.

Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 6:55 am

Purestrain

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

Turn 1

All termies teleport next to the Phantom and Warpspiders... ?

Strategy Roll - Marines (and the Marine player stops shaking!! ?

)

The termies engage the phantom and warp spiders, losing three of their number, doing 2 damage to the phantom, killing the Autarch and all warpspiders bar 1 Exarch. The termis consolidate into cover.

Then, retaining initiative, the landing craft approaches. Nightwings CAP, and are in turn CAP'd by Thunderbolts. The Thunderbolts miss their targets but so do the Nightwings! The landing craft and marines engage the Phantom destroying it, and losing 3 rhinos and a marine stand. The marines consolidate towards cover.

'Ouch' say the eldar... Phantom, Warp Spiders and Autarch all dead in moments.

Time for revenge. The Cobras then the Fire Dragons move and fire upon the marine landing zone. 3 Terminators, 2 rhinos and a marine go down. The Blast markers start to stack up.

The Marines march another Tactical formation to the fray.
Eldar falcons doulble and shoot the garrisoned landspeeders killing two, but are in turn broken by Whirlwinds and more landspeeders.

The other falcons shoot up the marine landing zone some more killing 1 marine and 3 rhinos of the marched in tacticals.

The Reaver marches towards the landing zone. Thunderbolts shoot up one of the jetbike units. ?The other jetbike unit tries to double but fails, settling for a single move towards the marine landing zone. ?

The shot up landspeeders double after the broken falcons and kill another one of them.

Guardians gate on and shoot at the Captains Tactical company reducing it down to the Captain and 3 marines - who retreat back towards the reaver.

The marine SC moves to his blitz.

The remaining jetbikes engage - they are wiped out but all terminators bar the Captain and Chaplain are elminated thanks to the masive amount of support fire the eldar have in the area. ?The Captain and Chaplain fall back towards the Reaver.

The Vampire ground attacks, and destroys the landing craft with a lucky critical! ?The landing zone has almost been regained...

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

Top

Markconz

Post subject: BatRep: 1.6 Eldar vs 1.1 Marines.

Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 7:04 am

Purestrain

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

Ok time to do a Hena (

) and bugger off leaving this unfinished. Will be back in a few hours to complete this report... (damn real life intervening!).

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

Top

Lion in the Stars

Post subject: BatRep: 1.6 Eldar vs 1.1 Marines.

Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 7:32 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455

Looks like the Marines had some bad luck there in the end, but with some more support on the Marine side (and less on the Eldar's), it could have gone the other way.
***************************
It's a time-honored literary technique, called the cliff-hanger.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

Top

Markconz

Post subject: BatRep: 1.6 Eldar vs 1.1 Marines.

Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 12:50 pm

Purestrain

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

Ok conclusion to the cliffhanger marketing ploy

Turn 2

Avatar is summoned near the marine landing zone.

Strategy Roll goes to Eldar. The Avatar engages the tacticals in front of him bringing the jetbikes and guardians with him. The Tacticals are eliminated but they critical the Avatar and down he goes!! All Eldar formations on the table have LOS and take a blast marker!! (Mistake here - reading this later I realised my broken warpsider should have been eliminated here). ?The Guardians and Jetbikes consolidate fowards.

I retain with the Fire Dragons engaging and eliminating the other tactical formation, and losing a wave serpent in the process. The Fire Dragons consolidate back to their starting positions out of LOF of the Reaver.

The marines turn - on the eldar right the marine Landspeeders attack. One squad sustains fire and breaks the rallied Falcon formation taking it down to two units. The other Landspeeders engage and break the other formation of 6 falcons (the blast marker recieved from the Avatar dying is the critical factor). 3 Landspeeders are lost for 2 falcons.

The phoenix bombers then ground attack the Marine SC formation which is still in their transports (mistake on the marine players part). Both Hunters miss the incoming bombers. Two rhinos and two marines are killed.

The Reaver sustains fire into the guardians killing 3 of them.

The Cobras move and fire killing 1 LandSpeeder - the remaining Landspeeder falls back behind a building.

The Thunderbolts shoot up the broken falcons killing two more. Nightwings destroy a thunderbolt formation, and the vampire destroys the other LandSpeeder formation (which was down to 2 units).

The marine SC takes the hint and his formation jumps out of their transports and into cover to defend the blitz.

The Whirlwinds sustain fire killing 3 Jetbikes, the remainder flee back behind the Fire Dragons.

The Marines pull back and set up to defend their objectives...

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

Top

Markconz

Post subject: BatRep: 1.6 Eldar vs 1.1 Marines.

Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 1:09 pm

Purestrain

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

Turn 3

The marines win the strategy roll and the Reaver sustains fire - breaking the guardians, who fall back.

The marine supreme commander goes on overwatch.

The phoenix bombers fail to activate.

Thunderbolts shoot up the still broken falcons killing another unit. Nightwings shoot the thunderbolts killing one of them.

The cobras fail to activate, so just move towards the Reaver, behind cover.

Marines do some minor position changes to strengthen their hold on their objectives.

Things are starting to look desperate for the eldar - the marines are on 3 obectives to the eldar two. I gate on the Swooping Hawks and firefight the scouts and marine tacticals, killing two marines for the loss of one hawk. I consolidate forward to contest both marine objectives to cancel the marine 'They shall not pass' and Defend the flag' objectives'.

The whirlwinds fire killing another swooping hawk.

The marine devastators engage, supported by the Reaver (dumb of me to get so close to the Reaver). I lose the Swooping Hawks, but take down 2 Devastators and a rhino.

I engage the lone terminator chaplain with my 3 jetbikes, but am wiped out.

The terminator chaplain moves back to the marine objectives.

The remaining ?Landspeeder rushes onto my side of the board. I have to use the Vampire to kill it ?otherwise I lose 'They shall not pass' objective.

I double the Fire Dragons towards the marines shooting the Reaver and placing blast markers. Desperate stuff to stop marines achieving 'They Shall Not Pass' objective and game end.

End of Turn 3 Objectives: Eldar have Defend the Flag, and They Shall not Pass. Marines have Defend the Flag and Break Their Spirit. 2 all.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

Top

Markconz

Post subject: BatRep: 1.6 Eldar vs 1.1 Marines.

Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 1:23 pm

Purestrain

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

Turn 4

Strategy Roll - Marines.

The Reaver and Whirlwinds pound the Fire Dragons, killing 4 units.

The cobras move and shoot the Reaver - stripping all its shields.

The phoenix bombers fail to activate again...

The terminator chaplain sustains fire, kills a fire dragon and breaks the formation.

The thunderbolts shoot and kill the warpspider (who should have already been dead earlier of course). My Nightwings elminate the thunderbolts.

I ground attack the Reaver with the Vampire hoping for a miraculous critical, but in vain.

I am out of actions - all my remaining units are broken, the marines have plenty left... It's a 3-0 to the marines already and they have more actions to come...

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

Top

Markconz

Post subject: BatRep: 1.6 Eldar vs 1.1 Marines.

Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:25 pm

Purestrain

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

Conclusions and Impressions:

Mutter mutter turn 3-4 wilt 'bring back spirit stones' etc... ?

?

Actually the marine player just worked out his list to check with the new points etc, and stated apologetically that he was 200 over (not quite 4% extra points). Still I don't want to blame such a big defeat ALL on that... plus I kept a Warp Spider Exarch when it should have died (and it sat there holding my blitz ?

), and he didn't use the 'halve blast markers' in assault bonus.

All things considered the marines played well. The marine player was uncertain about the wisdom of such a massive commitment of forces in the first turn against basically my whole army, and of course it would have gone badly wrong had I won initiative. ?He probably would have been better to wait for another turn so I was more extended... BUT! losing my Autarch first turn REALLY hurt with the host of failed activations I suffered. ?And those Landspeeders!! Just continual pressure everywhere and I just couldn't avoid taking casualties (even with hit and run goodness). Unlucky to lose my Avatar, but I can hardly complain considering I blew up the Marine Lander with one hit!

Playtest Changes

-Spirit Stones. Yes still necessary even after this...

-Jetbikes save: 4 extra casualties this game (11 jetbike stands used). A very noticeable downgrade this game. They could have done a lot more if they were still at 4+ saves.

-Ignore cover loss by Cobras: Would have done more damage to infantry if they didn't have this, but I don't think the cobras should do lots of damage to infantry, so not an unwarranted change. Still I am beginning to feel that I would much rather have something else for my 500 points (only 3 games so far but will be interesting to see what other people think of them).

-Wraithguard: Yes good downgrade, formation was still effective, but killable by the marines. The other guardians with 2 WG in vampire (is this legal?) didn't come into action. Potential LZ's were too well defended or not valuable enough, or the vampire had to do something else.

-Pulse: Was hoping to try out the phantom but it died turn 1 move 1. Same comments as previously... still happy with it on all units it applies to.

-SoV: Two six strong Falcon Troops were used, they did not feel unreasonable, especially with the SS changes. They spent a lot of the game getting an exceptionally hard time from Landspeeders and Thunderbolts.

-Marine Changes - (points cost changes not used as it turns out), but neither was the half blast markers in assault bonus - oops.

-Air Changes - all worked well. ?

Overall:

It was certainly a memorable and fun game - the combo of Autarch and Avatar deaths really screwed up my activations turn 2 onwards... can't win if you can't pass lots of activation tests! ?

?The marine strike at the head and heart of the eldar force was very in character and deadly. ? Good stuff! ?

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

Top

Ginger

Post subject: BatRep: 1.6 Eldar vs 1.1 Marines.

Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 2:38 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK

Interesting initial moves with the use of "garissoned" CAP on both sides. However, it did raise one small question - I thought that CAP could only be used to engage enemy formations performing a "Ground Attack", which the Nightwings were not doing in this instance.

Personally I quite like this approach that models the provision of an escort to a bomber / transport, but am advised by others in the community that this considerably increases the complexity of the air rules.

Could you outline the steps you took here, and any difficulties it caused or observations on the mechanics.

Many thanks

Ginger

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Top

Markconz

Post subject: BatRep: 1.6 Eldar vs 1.1 Marines.

Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 4:08 am

Purestrain

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(Ginger @ Sep. 03 2006,01:38)

QUOTE

OMG! You're right Ginger - how ridiculous, what is the point in having fighter escorts for your bombers/transports if you cannot CAP interceptors? ?

What we did was just use the epic40k mechanism which we assumed was still in the rules - ie you alternate CAP'ing when air missions are declared. I wouldn't say it is complex at all, the epic40k air rules are probably the epitome of clean, simple and elegant rule mechanisms. (Neal Hunt please note - what issues are there around this??)

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

Top

Ginger

Post subject: BatRep: 1.6 Eldar vs 1.1 Marines.

Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 6:31 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK

Hi Markonz

As I understand it, the complexities of multi formation combats arise around the question of who shoots / supports etc. two examples might illustrate this

A=Attacker, D=Defender
---> = direction of flight . . . ?= spacing (to display correctly)
----------------------------------------------------------------

1) The simple case is usually

A2 --> D1 ---> A1 ---> D(target)

So resolve A2 vs D1 first:-
Any Defensive ground AA on A2, then D2 defensive AA if in arc, then A2 combat damage on D1 (including any suppression BMs gained).
- - - - But can A1 join in if in range and arc?? (Here, resolving this later does not actually change the results)

Then resolve the survivors of D1 on A1 :-
Any Attacking ground AA on D1, then A1 defensive AA if in arc, then D1 combat damage on A1 (including any suppression BMs)

Than finally the survivors of A1 on the ground target / assault (Defensive AA, and any suppression BMs)
--------------------------------------------------------------

2) The complex case is where A/c are positioned where more than one formation is in arc etc, because of the rule that allows AA to engage any a/c in arc (4.2.4 second para) so:-

D2 ---> ?A1 ---> D(target)
. . . . A2 ---> <--- D1

While the example is somewhat forced, it illustrates the point that D1 and D2 are allowed to engage both A2 and A1 (assuming they are in range and arc). So, which order do we resolve this (the usual Last in First engage rules can work, but the process rapidly gets messy. especially when the aircraft have long weapon ranges).

As you can see, the complexities can mount rapidly with just two formations per side - add any others (eg a second Ground attack with an escort on the same area) which happen to come within arc of any of these formations and life gets really ugly.

Cheers

Ginger

PS - A gut reaction, but I really like the idea of counting CAP "O/W" as part of the garrison set-up. So in effect you may have a total of 3x formations either on O/W or CAP - which increases the choices to be made.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Top

Markconz

Post subject: BatRep: 1.6 Eldar vs 1.1 Marines.

Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 4:55 am

Purestrain

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

Ginger looking at your examples I still do not see what the big problem is... those ?complexities of multiple AA sources basically already exist with the current aircraft rules - they are not unique to extended CAP. The theoretical example you give just looks like a case of someone getting into a bad position with their planes and getting punished - not a problem. The second ground attack issue - that can happen anyway. ?

Have other people actually played this or are they just arguing that it is a problem for (very abstract?) theoretical reasons? ?

Case in point, we have been using this extended CAP rule in practice with no problems since EA's release (continuing obliviously with the elegant epic40k mechanism we assumed was still in the rules - for the obvious reason that you should be able to escort bombers). Many of us are aircraft fans (I have over 50 aircraft in my various epic armies), so aircraft feature most games.

Last in first resolved is what we have been doing and it works very well. Ie last formation into the fray - resolve all AA attacks against it, then its own AA attacks. ? Next last formation into the fray - resolve all AA attacks against it ?then its own AA attacks, etc, and down the line until you get to the formation which started it all. ?(Of course you have to remember that no formation is allowed to shoot AA at another formation more than once a turn as per normal - which may be seen as the complex bit for some people I guess... but then this is an already existing complexity in the current air rules). If your planes do end up in a position where they are going to take AA from?multiple aircraft groups (or another aircraft group is going to hit mulitples of your aircraft groups) that is unfortunate but tough (same as if you end up taking supporting fire from multiple sources).

Also very importantly, there are natural and practical ?limits to just how complex things can get due to available points and the actual armament of the planes themselves. In a typical tournament game it is very rare to have more than 4 formations involved (bomber formation with fighter escort formation vs two fighter formations (plus the usual ground AA and planes already in the area)). Given actual weapon ranges and arcs and consequent positioning of planes by players - in our experience it is also rare to have multiple targets for your aircraft AA (we have been using Marine, Guard, Ork and Eldar aircraft, so not sure about Tau). ?If you want to play bigger games (eg 10K+) things do get more complex (but so does everything, eg you really have to start ?marking which units have activated already).

In short I disagree that this extended CAP is really that much more complex (we've used it for ages with no sign of trouble). Furthermore the presence of a small extra degree of complexity does not justify removing the capacity for escorting bombers and snowballing dogfights. If people want ?simple perhaps they should play 40k, not aerospace operations in Epic (which are already complex - a tiny bit more won't hurt anyone!). To quote Einstein - "things should be made as simple as possible - but not simpler.".

Edit - one other point, we played up to two formations on overwatch/CAP total, not three.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

Top

Ginger

Post subject: BatRep: 1.6 Eldar vs 1.1 Marines.

Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:06 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK

Agreed that there are natural limits imposed by the lists, what the player possesses etc, but in some respects, that is not the point.

Part of the issue as we agree is to ensure that each unit can only fire once at a given formation during the turn - markers can simplify this a bit, as can strict adherence to the LIFO principles propounded. (this is now also simplified by the proposal to limit AA in the disengagement moves)

However, the LIFO method also causes timing inconsistencies. Consider the (slightly contrived) example above (reproduced here)

D2 ---> A1 ---> D (target)
. . . . A2 ---> <--- D1

We agree that D2 can shoot at A1 & A2 (after suffering attackers AA shots etc), possibly damaging A1, and placing at least one BM for coming under fire. When D1 attacks A1 (as well as A2), A1 now finds that it has been at least partly suppressed by D2, a formation that arrived after it ought to have completed the engagement with D1.

Furthermore, the artificially static nature of the models means that aircraft can be set up to attack multiple formations that would not actually be in the same airspace so close together. In practice this 'force multiplier' can render a/c much more effective than they were intended to be.

A solution to these dilemmas might be to restrict A/c AA either to that formation it is intercepting, or the formation that is firing on it.
Thus D2 --> A2 --> D1 --> A1 --> D (target).
In this way, the LIFO rule works properly, D2 fires only at A2, A1 gets a full defensive shot against the remnants of D1, etc. This simplification also largely returns the game back to the current version which considers only one attacking and one defending formation at a time, (so A1 gets to fire at D1 before anything else happens to it), but would also allow multiple A/c formations and escorts (which I agree is sensible). (I also suspect that in practice this is actually what you have been doing in your multi-formation combats.)

With respect to ranges, there has been a long debate over the ranges and efficiency of Tau and Eldar A/c, many of which have 30cm AA, and the TigerShark Strike craft having 45cm Ion cannons (the longest AA range in E:A); with these ranges, it becomes increasingly likely that other a/c could "wander" into arc and become fired upon (IMO unfairly). The above suggestion would also eliminate this issue.

To be fair, I am only hearing some of these "complexities" at second hand, not having enough A/c to actually create the situations, and certainly not having 10K+ points worth, and I agree that the need to clarify does not always mean simplify.

Finally I did understand that you had limited yourselves to 2x O/W and / or CAP for this game - but the proposed experimental rule was originally for three such formations, with no more than one per objective (check the first post in the discussion thread) - and seems to have been reduced and simplified as well - ?

Cheers

Ginger

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Top

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Page 1 of 2

[ 20 posts ]

Go to page 1, 2 Next

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:

BatRep: 1.6 Eldar vs 1.1 Marines.

Who is online