| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| AMTL vs SMs http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=5304 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | semajnollissor [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 6:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | AMTL vs SMs |
Daryl and I finally found time to run another playtest game between his warlords and my SMs. Here's how it went: 2700pt AMTL Warlord with 2xturbolaser destructors, 1xVolcano Cannon, 1xGatling Blaster + Legate 950pts Warlord with 2xQuake Cannon, 1xGatling Blaster, 1xCarapace Landing Pad 850pts Warlord with 3xVolcano Cannon, 1xGatling Blaster + Veteran Princeps 900pts Space Marines 375pts Whirlwind detachment + Hunter 475pts Tactical detachment + Hunter + Supreme Commander 375pts Tactical detachment + Hunter 250pts Land Speeder detachment + Librarian 200pts Land Speeder detachment 250pts Devastator detachment 225pts Assault Marine detachment + chaplain 350pts Land Raider detachment 200pts Thunderhawk Terrain (6?x4? table) There were lots of hills, but no forest or ruins or anything that would hide units inside. At first I thought the number of hills used would be unbalanced, but most of them were oriented so that you could only hide behind the short sides of the hills (most of my hills are longer than they are wide). Even with that, the height of the warlords meant that only units hugging the perimeter of the hills were hidden from sight. There was also a dry riverbed that cut the table in half, so that our forces had to straddle it (that?s why we called it dry). Most of the length of the river was flanked by cliffs, so that it was basically a canyon. This meant that units in the river were mostly protected on their flanks, but since both armies could fire down the length of the river, it didn?t matter too much. Objectives Blitz objectives were placed across from each other, mine being placed at the 2? mark on the right of the river, his being placed at about the 2?6? mark on the same side of the river. The other objectives on the SM half of the board were grouped as close as possible to the blitz objective (forming a rough triangle), while the objectives on the AMTL half of the table were placed as far away from the blitz objective as possible on opposite ends of the board, in positions that would allow for some cover to occupying units. |
|
| Author: | semajnollissor [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 6:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | AMTL vs SMs |
Goals We played the game using a different set of Goals than the GT scenario typically uses. This was done to test out suggestions made on the forums. We had a long discussion about how things should work, and to avoid confusion we wrote up a list of what counted for what goal for each side. BTS for the AMTL player: destroy the 2 most expensive enemy formations for the opposing player: destroy any Legio formation T&H for the AMTL player: normal for the opposing player: normal, except that titan wrecks also count as objectives that count toward this goal DTF for the AMTL player: control all titan wrecks, the normal objectives do not count toward this goal. If there are no wrecked titans, the AMTL player gets this automatically. for the opposing player: normal TSNP ? normal Blitz ? normal So, if you?re keeping track, my SC tactical detachment was the main BTS objective, while either the 2nd tactical detachment or the whirlwinds were the second BTS objective. Also, we didn?t count titans lost to critical hit effects to be ?wrecks.? We figured that if they exploded in this way, then there wouldn?t be any titan left to salvage. We also said this so that a lucky hit wouldn?t derail the game for the AMTL. These conditions we played under may need to be adjusted, but they worked out fine in this case. Other special rules First, we assumed that the 3BP entry on the barrage table would be changed to AP4+/AT5+. Second, we played with a 50pt discount on the LR detachment (350pts, not 400pts). Finally, we used the modified goals as stated above. Also, we used the new assault rules (as far as we knew them, it didn?t matter all that much, as there was only the one assault). Setup Daryl set up his artillery titan behind a cliff tall enough to hide it from enemy fire, at about the middle of his table edge near the blitz objective. The other two titans were placed near it on the same side of the river as most of the objectives. I spread my forces out as much as I could, with a tactical detachment on the far left, a land speeder detachment on the middle left, the SC tactical in the center, the LRs and whirlwinds in on the middle right, and the other speeders on the far right. My assault marines and devastators were held in reserve in the T-hawk. My plan was to keep a couple formations in range of the T&H objectives, and try to set up a strongly supported assault on one of the titans. Daryl?s plan was to go straight for the three objectives on my half on the table with two of his warlords, while the artillery warlord sat on the blitz objective, raining MW death on one formation per turn. |
|
| Author: | semajnollissor [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 6:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | AMTL vs SMs |
1st turn SM?s won the initiative, and sent the tacticals on the far left up behind a hill about 30cm directly in front of where they were initially positioned, where they set up in a way to avoid taking too many casualties if they were targeted by the quake cannons. I let Daryl go, and he activated his artillery warlord, and its guns caught my whirlwinds and LRs under the two templates; one hunter was killed and both detachments picked up a BM for coming under fire. Daryl retained initiative, doubled his 3xVolcano cannon warlord and again fired at the whirlwinds. He only managed to kill one, but that meant that the whirlwinds had 4 BMs for three tanks. The SM?s then marshaled the whirlwinds, which moved forward about 15cm to hide behind a hill and got rid of all of their BMs. Once again I let Daryl have the initiative, and he marched his remaining titan (the one with the SC) down the river, so that it was approximately in the center of the board. Now I was free to go about my business. I marched one group of speeders over to claim the farthest T&H objective, hiding them behind a hill. I tried to double the LR?s up to attack the SC titan, but failed the activation, and so just moved them into the canyon to avoid the Volcano titan bearing down in front of them. I then doubled the 2nd tacticals up to fire at the SC Titan, which managed to down a few shields. I then marched the 2nd speeder detachment over to surround the same titan (they couldn?t support during this turn, but I planned to sustain fire with then in turn 2. Finally, I decided to go ahead air assault the SC titan, noting that I had an advantage for the outcome. I landed my T-hawk, with the assault marines getting into CC, and the Devs hanging back by the T-hawk. Also, 4 tactical stand and 2 rhinos were in range to support. The results of this combat were that I lost 5 stands (3 aslts and 2 Devs) while he lost all shields and 3 DC (+1 crit). After roling for the outcome, we tied. In the second round, I lost my last three infantry stands, but he also lost another DC (and got another crit). This time I lost the role off, so the T-hawk bought it and the speeders and tacticals picked up a BM. In the end phase, the SC titan rolled 2 dice for the critical hits (I assume that?s how multiple crits are handled), getting a 6 and a 1 ? so good bye titan. However, I only managed to rally the LR?s, and they only lost one of their two BMs. |
|
| Author: | semajnollissor [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 6:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | AMTL vs SMs |
2nd Turn SM?s win the initiative (we both rolled 1s). I sustain with my whirlwinds into the volcano cannon warlord, taking out 2 shields. Daryl gets the initiative, sustains fire with his artillery warlord, killing two more whirlwinds, breaking them. He then doubled his Volcano Cannon Warlord forward, on top of the hill that my whirlwinds were hiding behind, still just out of sight. So, he opted to fire at my SC tactical detachment, doing just enough damage to break them (four units remained). Now, I was again free to activate my heart out, so I advanced my Land Raiders out of the canyon and back to the top of the same hill that the Volcano Warlord occupied, stripping 3 more shields. I then doubled my unbroken Tacticals from the far left of the board, over to take a few shots at the same warlord, but they had no luck. Finally, I advance the closest land speeder detachment and fired into the embattle warlord, taking out the last shield and scoring a point of damage. In the end phase, I managed to rid the land speeder detachment of BMs, but nothing else rallied. Daryl failed to rally the warlord, so it started the 3rd turn with 5 BMs. 3rd Turn Daryl won the initiative, and started out by doubling his Volcano Warlord up to finish off the last Whirlwind, which it did easily. He then used the artillery Warlord to try wipe out the SC tactical detachment (which would give him the BTS objective), but he fell short by one stand (my SC remained firm). I then proceeded to ensure that I would win through Goals. I sustained fire with my land raiders into the warlord in range, doing 1 point of damage for 6 hits (which gave the titan a crit). Noticing that I only needed a single BM to break the titan, I doubled my nearside land speeders to grab the second T&H objective, then doubled my remaining tacticals to contest/control both my blitz and another objective. They then fired at and broke the warlord. |
|
| Author: | semajnollissor [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 6:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | AMTL vs SMs |
Results 3-1 SM victory Daryl managed to rally his broken titan in the end phase, so I didn?t get the TSNP goal, but I did have control over all the objectives on my side of the board, plus the two T&H objectives on his side, plus the BTS goal for killing his SC titan. Daryl got his DTF objective, since there were no wrecked titans to hold (we didn?t count plasma crit kills as wrecks). Daryl was one stand away from achieving his BTS objective, but had he got that, I would have played for a fourth turn instead of the win in the third. All in all, it was a good day for the SMs. I?m not sure how useful this game was, since it once again showed the weaknesses in an all warlord list (not enough boots on the ground). However, the game was very close, and Daryl could have pulled out a victory had things played slightly differently. |
|
| Author: | Dwarf Supreme [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 6:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | AMTL vs SMs |
Good read. Thanks! |
|
| Author: | Hojyn [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | AMTL vs SMs |
Hi, excellent read, thanks for the report. Just one question, though. BTS for the AMTL player: destroy the 2 most expensive enemy formations for the opposing player: destroy any Legio formation T&H for the AMTL player: normal for the opposing player: normal, except that titan wrecks also count as objectives that count toward this goal DTF for the AMTL player: control all titan wrecks, the normal objectives do not count toward this goal. If there are no wrecked titans, the AMTL player gets this automatically. for the opposing player: normal TSNP ? normal Blitz ? normal | |
| Author: | semajnollissor [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 3:41 pm ] | ||
| Post subject: | AMTL vs SMs | ||
Well, we talked about that, and I would have agreed with you, initially. But, I think it really depends on what army you are playing against. It certainly didn't seem to be too difficult for Daryl, he only lacked 1 stand by the end of the 3rd turn. Perhaps you should try it in a game before you discount it. That being said, I can imagine that against orks, who can field more units in a formation than there are guns in an AMTL army, it may be difficult. However, it seems to me that, realative to the other armies in the game, the AMTL have an easier time achieving the normal BTS goal (I think it has to do with the amount of fire they can muster in a single activation, plus their immunity to suppression). So, the fact that this makes it more difficult for the AMTL player is by design. Like I said, give it a go in a general GT setting, it might not be as bad as you think (or, it might be exactly as bad as you think). This is just one data point, I'd say we need 20-30 more to identify any trend. BTW, Daryl and I might get to play agin this weekend. Any suggestions on what variations of the GT goals we should try? |
|||
| Author: | LDADAMS12 [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 4:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | AMTL vs SMs |
I was Jim's opponet. Right now I think that the 2 biggest formations for Break Their Spirt feels right. That may change as we play with it a little more. It was a close game, and I am happy with the way my titans peformed. If anyone is wondering all three titans had Sacred Icon on the as well (all of my titans have WWII inspired nose art on one leg).  Daryl |
|
| Author: | Dwarf Supreme [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 5:17 pm ] | ||
| Post subject: | AMTL vs SMs | ||
I would love to see pics of these. 
|
|||
| Author: | dysartes [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 6:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | AMTL vs SMs |
If all the titans had Sacred Icons, then you were using more than the agreed limit of 2700 - Warlord is 850pts, Vet Princeps is 50 & Legate 100pts. Sacred Icon is 50pts a pop, as you weren't giving up any weapons for it. By my reckoning, that makes 2850pts, and you were playing a 2700pt game, going by the OP. |
|
| Author: | semajnollissor [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 7:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | AMTL vs SMs |
Well, the only difference that any of the the sacred icons made was in the assault in the first turn. Granted, it would have meant that the SMs would have won the assault in the first round, but, I think the overall result was a wash, since the second round resulted in an addition crit hit to the titan, which destroyed it in the end phase. It's hard to say how exactly it affected the game, but I doubt it had that much impact. |
|
| Author: | LDADAMS12 [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 10:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | AMTL vs SMs |
Let me go back and check my math.  Daryl By the way Jim, we can play Saturday. |
|
| Author: | LDADAMS12 [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 10:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | AMTL vs SMs |
Opps I used the points off V1 which the warlords are 800pts. I will make sure that I use the correct list next time. (I know that I printed it off, now were did I put it? )Daryl |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|