Tactical Command :: View topic - Assault Scenario Consensus

Also, I couldn't see anything about the old-style "entrenchments" in the NetEpic Gold rules. Have these been replaced by the artillery emplacements?

From what I've read in the battle reports, many players think that the defender doesn't stand much of a chance. Is there any agreement about what adjustments should be made to make the scenario more balanced?

Would I be right to suggest that under those rules there would be no hidden set-up for the defender?

What about victory conditions? Is it still double VPs for defenders breaking enemy units and double VPs for attackers capturing the 4 objectives in the defenders side of the board?

My board is 120cm wide by 180cm long ( 4 ft x 6ft ); therefore with the defender deployment zone 80cm and attacker set up 30cm in, the forces could potentially start within 10cm of one another.

Having said that, as a defender I'd be thinking about putting all my defences to the back of the board which would be more like 70 - 90cm apart...

On a seperate note, I thought I'd share this with you all; it has been absolutely pouring down here in Glasgow all day which is why I decided it was a good night to paint my rough rider company. I've got music on random play and what comes on but The Doors "Riders on the Storm"! I like when these strange little things happen in life!

By the way, I'll make a point of playing The Doors' "The End" during the battle!

The Bissler wrote:

By the way, I'll make a point of playing The Doors' "The End" during the battle!

Reminds me the last pic in my old assault battle report

Author:	The Bissler [ Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:59 am ]
Post subject:	Assault Scenario Consensus
Hello! I'm going to be playing an Assault scenario in just over a week's time. After having a nosey through some battle reports I noticed there are differing opinions on how the Assault (or in my day "Attack / Defend") scenario should be played. I checked the NetEpic optional rules to see what it said about the scenario but this isn't one of the ones covered there. This is pretty much my recollection of how the scenario is run; When the board gets set up, the defender can choose his* half to deploy in. He can then rearrange the terrain in his half of the board to his liking. He then creates his army by buying the defences at normal cost and all units double cost. Attacker buys army as normal. When deploying, the defender gets to use hidden set up and gets 2D6 (or is it 1D6?) dummy hidden set up counters to add to confuse the enemy. Hidden units must be revealed if an enemy unit gets within 25cm of a counter (presumably fliers are banned in this scenario). He also places 4 objective counters anywhere he likes (so long as it doesn't break the rule about being within 25cm of each other). All defending units count as "dug-in" and gain an additional -1 to hit mod. Defenders get double VPs for breaking enemy units, while attackers only get standard points but double VPs for capturing objectives. The game goes on until one player gets the required number of VPs. From what I've read in the battle reports, many players think that the defender doesn't stand much of a chance. Is there any agreement about what adjustments should be made to make the scenario more balanced? Also, I couldn't see anything about the old-style "entrenchments" in the NetEpic Gold rules. Have these been replaced by the artillery emplacements? Thanks! *I recognise that there may be some female players reading this - apologies for the highly sexist and incredibly lazy use of "he" rather than "he/she".

Author:	scream [ Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:08 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Assault Scenario Consensus
The Bissler wrote: Also, I couldn't see anything about the old-style "entrenchments" in the NetEpic Gold rules. Have these been replaced by the artillery emplacements? Check page 30 of NetEpic Gold Book (in the Terrain & Structures chapter), you'll find trenches/bunkers rules and costs.

Author:	ulric [ Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:14 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Assault Scenario Consensus
Quote: From what I've read in the battle reports, many players think that the defender doesn't stand much of a chance. Is there any agreement about what adjustments should be made to make the scenario more balanced? We played it with houserules. -Attacker gains 1500 points for every 1000 points defending so attacker owns 150% points -Terrain gets set up defender choose side and sets up entrechments(without extra point costs) ect. but defending area is always more than half of the table about 2 3rds -Defender sets up army -attacker sets up army in his deployment zone between 30-50 cm depending on battlefield size Its well balanced we had winners from both sides though the attacker pulls of a little more victories

Author:	The Bissler [ Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:30 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Assault Scenario Consensus
That sounds good Ulrich! Is it ok to clarify a few points? Would I be right to suggest that under those rules there would be no hidden set-up for the defender? What about victory conditions? Is it still double VPs for defenders breaking enemy units and double VPs for attackers capturing the 4 objectives in the defenders side of the board? My board is 120cm wide by 180cm long ( 4 ft x 6ft ); therefore with the defender deployment zone 80cm and attacker set up 30cm in, the forces could potentially start within 10cm of one another. Having said that, as a defender I'd be thinking about putting all my defences to the back of the board which would be more like 70 - 90cm apart... Very excited at the prospect of trying this out! Cheers!

Author:	ulric [ Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:59 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Assault Scenario Consensus
Quote: Would I be right to suggest that under those rules there would be no hidden set-up for the defender? Yes no hidden counters but they could be included Quote: What about victory conditions? Is it still double VPs for defenders breaking enemy units and double VPs for attackers capturing the 4 objectives in the defenders side of the board? No we change that from game to game for example: -attacker has to take 4 out of 6 objektives -attacker has to take special building within 4 turns Quote: My board is 120cm wide by 180cm long ( 4 ft x 6ft ); therefore with the defender deployment zone 80cm and attacker set up 30cm in, the forces could potentially start within 10cm of one another. I think 20 cm should be the minimum difference maybe 20/20/80 Quote: Having said that, as a defender I'd be thinking about putting all my defences to the back of the board which would be more like 70 - 90cm apart... Sure it depends where the objektives (if used) are placed It could be a bit boring just to sit at the back waiting on FF Playing these scenarios is a lot of fun for me first you can use a really big army on one side without crowding the battlefiled "too" much on the other hand units get useful which have hard times during normal battles. e.g. warwalkers they have nice firepower but lack of armour next to a guardian stand they would be the first target but in a defending scenario you could place them next to the frontline in cover on FF now they will get their targets I really really like those scenarios many fun and blood

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

Assault Scenario Consensus http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=24126	Page 1 of 1

Author:	The Bissler [ Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:57 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Assault Scenario Consensus
That's brilliant, cheers Ulrich! I'm champing at the bit to try out this scenario now! A week on Friday can't come quick enough! The war walkers point is really interesting; along with dreadnoughts they are units which I basically never use! I'll definitely keep this in mind. Given that their forces are a closer match (points-wise) than under the old rules I reckon it's right not to give the defenders hidden set-up. Wouldn't stop the defender putting some nasty close-combat units in woods to jump the attacker quickly... On a seperate note, I thought I'd share this with you all; it has been absolutely pouring down here in Glasgow all day which is why I decided it was a good night to paint my rough rider company. I've got music on random play and what comes on but The Doors "Riders on the Storm"! I like when these strange little things happen in life!

Author:	ulric [ Fri Oct 19, 2012 10:14 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Assault Scenario Consensus
Quote: On a seperate note, I thought I'd share this with you all; it has been absolutely pouring down here in Glasgow all day which is why I decided it was a good night to paint my rough rider company. I've got music on random play and what comes on but The Doors "Riders on the Storm"! I like when these strange little things happen in life! Great story also a fantastic song

Author:	The Bissler [ Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:11 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Assault Scenario Consensus
5 more days till I try out this scenario! Have turned my thoughts to figuring out which forces to use. One side will definitely be Eldar, but I haven't decided yet whether to field them against Marines/I.G./Squats. I do have Ork & Chaos armies, but they are far from ready to be fielded. Perhaps a joint Marine/I.G. force may be the way to go... The countdown to battle is well under way! By the way, I'll make a point of playing The Doors' "The End" during the battle!

Author:	scream [ Mon Oct 22, 2012 6:27 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Assault Scenario Consensus
The Bissler wrote: By the way, I'll make a point of playing The Doors' "The End" during the battle! Reminds me the last pic in my old assault battle report

Author:	The Bissler [ Mon Oct 22, 2012 7:57 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Assault Scenario Consensus
scream wrote: The Bissler wrote: By the way, I'll make a point of playing The Doors' "The End" during the battle! Reminds me the last pic in my old assault battle report ...I wish! I have to say that looked magnificent and really was an Epic battle! By the way, I love that fortress! I'm incedibly envious! I'll try and put up a battle report either at the weekend or early next week! Cheers!

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/