Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Garrisons on Overwatch
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=6611		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  AndyH [ Tue Nov 08, 2005 2:12 am ]
Post subject:  Garrisons on Overwatch
Does anyone still play with the experimental rule where garrisons can start the game on overwatch?
Author:  MemphisMark [ Tue Nov 08, 2005 2:47 am ]
Post subject:  Garrisons on Overwatch
I don't, but when my usual playing buddy SergeantMike garrisons, he usually puts them on overwatch. I'm too busy doing the Orky thing and assaulting.
Author:  Markconz [ Tue Nov 08, 2005 2:55 am ]
Post subject:  Garrisons on Overwatch
Yes my group uses it.
Author:  Jaldon [ Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:02 am ]
Post subject:  Garrisons on Overwatch
Yes, along with most of the other exp. rules.

Jaldon :p
Author:  Chroma [ Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Garrisons on Overwatch
Quote (Hena @ 08 Nov. 2005 (06:30))
I usually garrison with Genestealers so not much use :D.

Hena, just a question for you:  Why do you only garrison with Genestealers?  When I deploy my 'Nids over 75% of my stuff is garrisoned, just to get in quick and shred.

Is there some tactic I'm missing?
Author:  nealhunt [ Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Garrisons on Overwatch
I think the garrison is a bit much, actually.  We don't use it.

As I noted in the CAP air thread, I think there needs to be a limit.  Personally, I favor linking it to Initiative to reflect the discipline of whether a formation will stay alert and ready.
Author:  asaura [ Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Garrisons on Overwatch
We allow Overwatch on Garrisons, but the Overwatch counts as the formation's action for the first turn.
Author:  Chroma [ Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Garrisons on Overwatch
Quote (Hena @ 08 Nov. 2005 (15:02))
Since Hormagaunt and Haruspex (and Bio-Titans) move is over 15cm and they don't have scout ability they cannot garrison. This means that pretty much all of my assault swarms cannot garrison. And I've had tendency to leave my Support swarm (dactos + TW/HT) on or near blitz objective so they don't need to.

Why not garrison them with a Synapse Node and some Warriors or a Tyrant? ?Any formation with a 0cm move unit can garrison.
Author:  Invemaster [ Tue Nov 08, 2005 11:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Garrisons on Overwatch
Not yet. Garrison is still used in old way.
But we use the new barrage table and the new engage rules about "supporting assault with FF", a really nice amendment! :D
Author:  AndyH [ Fri Nov 11, 2005 3:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Garrisons on Overwatch
I noticed that the "Garrison On Overwatch" rule was not included in the experimental rules PDF (the one posted here in EpiComms). Is this intentional, or was it left out by accident?
Author:  CyberShadow [ Fri Nov 11, 2005 6:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Garrisons on Overwatch
I intentionally left it out as I felt that it would benefit from further development and discussion. I would rather keep any rules additions longer in discussion than rush them through, and although this means that development and additions will be slow, it should discourage any uber-rules issues.
Author:  Tactica [ Fri Nov 11, 2005 8:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Garrisons on Overwatch
CS,

No, we do not use the 'may start garrisoned' experimental rule as we thought the always success ability of doing this was a bit much. My group is in favor of the modified initiative test for doing this though... for reasons already sited in the other thread.

We do not use any experiemental rule general game rule except the pop-up right now as without it, skimmers were causing a real problem in our games.

We were planning on adopting all experimental rules in their next revision.

Cheers,
Author:  nealhunt [ Mon Nov 14, 2005 5:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Garrisons on Overwatch
Greg Lane and the EpicenterUS group organized a tourney in Memphis over the weekend.  I built an Ork army to try to abuse the OW Garrison rule and succeeded remarkably.

We used the experimental rules as in the vault, which is the auto-OW, with no restrictions on activation.  I will say unreservedly that it is broken.

Here's the list:

6xBig Guns w/ Zzap upgrade (6x175 = 1050)
Stompa, Kan, Warboss (250)
4xBlitz w/Zzap upgrade (4x200 = 800)
9 FB (450)
3 FB (150)

_12_ activations.  7 Garrisons.  10 TKd3 Weapons.

Anything that even thought about sticking its nose out got hammered.  If there weren't enough Bug Gunz formations to hurt it enough for my taste, the Blitz brigades moved in and finished it off.  I swept 3 games.  The only one that was close was v. IG, but the reason it was close was that I made a couple of major tactical errors that cost me 450 points of units, including my BTS formation, and an objective which would have been a third goal for me.  I won 3-0, 2-1 (would have been 3-0) and had a resignation after the first activation in turn 3.

[Incidentally, it was lopsided enough that I actually apologized to the other players (except Greg Lane) for making them playtesters without their prior consent]

Limiting factors that have been discussed:

1)  OW formations cannot activate turn 1
This wouldn't have slowed me down appreciably.

In 3 games, I had 17 garrisons (terrain restrictions, so I didn't garrison them all) and activated 6 OW formations in Turn 1.  However, I didn't need those activations.

First, if I had to make the choice, a couple of those that activated wouldn't have been on overwatch.  In particular, I had the Stompas behind a hill in one deployment and only had them on OW because I could.  The other was a second-row gun formation that I knew would probably move up to plug a hole in the line.

Second, at least 2, possibly 3 formations chose not to fire at formations when they had the opportunity.  Knowing that I had to "use it or lose it" would have been, at best, a tactical inconvenience in that case.  At least one of those formations activated to fire at the exact formation it had foregone fire at earlier, at a to-hit penalty because of double-moving.

The total difference would have been no more than 2 activations by formations that were 175 points - hardly a restriction.  Heck, some of my formations stayed on OW until turn 2 anyway due to lack of targets or need to move.

2) Roll initiative for the formation to go on OW

This would have been a significant crimp in my plans, but it still would have been nasty.

Odds are that ~1/3 of the formations would have failed.  Once you take out the 6 that did activate and the ones that chose not to fire, the chances are that there would have been enough on OW to do something very similar.

IMHO, the major difference in this would have been that it would have dictated specific tactical choices based on which formations failed - failing formations would be the first to activate, etc..

A significant dent for Orks, but much less so for better initiative ratings.

======

I agree that garrisons need a bit of help.  Despite having practiced with them so that I now feel I get value out of it, garrisoning is a dangerous business that often does not pay off.

I'm not convinced at this point that OW is a viable option without something even more restrictive than the above options.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/