Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Wraithgate question

 Post subject: Re: Wraithgate question
PostPosted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 6:06 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 9346
Location: Manalapan, FL
Well the only exodite list I am familiar with is elsmore's Exodite Maiden World Armylist which allows 2 gates to be taken
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=20748

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wraithgate question
PostPosted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:06 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 8:54 pm
Posts: 2279
Location: Cornwall
There's a bit of a fluff paradox with Exodites IMHO - on one hand they are supposed to be isolationist Luddites (sp? - predictive text) and on the other they are supposed to use the web way exclusively to travel... I kinda imagine they have them but only use them in exceptional circumstances and see them more as mystical relics of the old days. As I said in the other threat I like to think of them as the eldar Amish.

it's a bit like the wraith bone question and knights...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wraithgate question
PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:46 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:30 am
Posts: 1486
Location: Örebro, Sweden
The whole debate concerning open ground is very important to me as a dark eldar player.

How does everyone play gates when it comes to LV's and walker AV's. If an opponent places both T&H objectives in terrain designated as houses, can I then use them to enter with my formations in raiders (LV's)?

There's allways the blitz, but it still seems like a rather big disadvantage. A lot of DE lists will dependen on a gate strategy.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wraithgate question
PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 11:07 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 4:38 pm
Posts: 49
Thanks for the replies.

The actual situation was that a Reaver Titan advanced right on top the Wraithgate, and I had a Guardian formation with 3 Wraithlords and 3 Wraithguards waiting to enter the board. If we were to play that the formation could exit the gate but had to engage the titan, how would you play it? Could the eldar player position his troops as he would like, as long as one unit was in basecontact with the titan, or should you place as many units in basecontact as possible, or something third?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wraithgate question
PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:10 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5478
Location: London, UK
Borka wrote:
The whole debate concerning open ground is very important to me as a dark eldar player.

How does everyone play gates when it comes to LV's and walker AV's. If an opponent places both T&H objectives in terrain designated as houses, can I then use them to enter with my formations in raiders (LV's)?

There's allways the blitz, but it still seems like a rather big disadvantage. A lot of DE lists will dependen on a gate strategy.
A common tactic is to place the two T&H objectives on opposite flanks to reduce the impact of Eldar forces issuing from them.

Placing the T&H objective in terrain that is "impassable" or even "difficult" to vehicles is a valid tactic, and I have heard of it happening in games, though this is *very* rare. Units entering the battlefield under these circumstances would have to take DT tests where appropriate as they would be 'entering' dangerous terrain even if they were skimmers.

However this is not really in the spirit of the game; the Eldar would be unlikely to set up their Wraithgate somewhere that they could not easily use (remember that these T&H objectives are 'owned' by the Eldar even though they are placed by the opponent). Under these circumstances, I would suggest that the opponent is requested to place the objective in clear terrain beside such obstacles, or at least *not* in "impassable" terrain.

Note, even so the DE player has the option of entering the battlefield using "cautious" movement (5cm) per move to avoid taking DT tests, or alternatively (though much more controversially) of discarding all the transport before leaving the webway. Also, if the transport is destroyed by a DT test the formation does not get a BM, so the formation could still "march" using the three moves to exit on foot, mount up and then dismount some distance away. The point is, the DE player still has possibilities though assaulting out of a 'gate in 'dangerous' terrain is much more of a gamble.

Finally, using the Blitz as the 'gate is not so much of a problem if you anticipate this. I have seen many people use a Blitz gate to keep relatively cheap defending formations off-table to avoid them being shot / bombarded. Indeed a reasonably strong formation can provide a strong counter-attack to airborne assaults, and if at the centre of a 'castle' (to prevent the gate being occupied) the Eldar triple retain can prove quite devastating . . .


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wraithgate question
PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:38 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5478
Location: London, UK
Pille wrote:
Thanks for the replies.

The actual situation was that a Reaver Titan advanced right on top the Wraithgate, and I had a Guardian formation with 3 Wraithlords and 3 Wraithguards waiting to enter the board. If we were to play that the formation could exit the gate but had to engage the titan, how would you play it? Could the eldar player position his troops as he would like, as long as one unit was in basecontact with the titan, or should you place as many units in basecontact as possible, or something third?
If the whole formation may exit the 'gate, then, yes, the 1st unit must move into B-B removing the ZoC. It is then a matter of debate as to how you allow the rest of the formation to be placed. There are two alternatives;
  • As the Reaver is on top of the webway exit, all units enter the battlefield in B-B with the titan up to it's DC allowance (12 units). This will end up *very* badly for the Guardian / WG all of whom use their CC stats.
  • Because of Wraithgate technology and 'physics', the Reaver is occupied by the 1st unit allowing the remaining units to escape up to 15cm in any thus direction surrounding the Reaver. This gives the Guardians a big boost, and with an average of 4x 'normal' and 3x MW hits, this could inflict damage on the Reaver.
Either way, the Guardians / WG will still lose the assault unless there are some really spectacular dice rolls - in which case the Reaver stays put (Fearless) and does the whole thing again, and again. . . . .
(Guardians with WG and WL might just be a different story)

Moral, don't put your 'gate anywhere near a Fearless titan, unless you have the means and plans to *assassinate* it with extreme prejudice . . . :D


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wraithgate question
PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 1:20 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6399
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
Dark Eldar players... This exact situation came up last week when I played Ron's Dark Eldar. I set up his one objective on the far edge of the table, and the other one in dangerous terrain. However, he anticipated my doing this and preceded those placements by placing his blitz in open ground on one far end of the board. It was his back up for the gate and it worked.

He then placed every formation on the far opposite end of the board. When the Kashnarak came out, I had the closest unit and it stormed toward me.

I don't think there is anything wrong with screwing your opponent by placing his gate someplace awful. Those gates have supposedly been around for thousands (millions?) of years, so what was good placement then might be a lake now. The Eldar/Dark Eldar player should anticipate using his blitz as the gate, and potentially not using the gate at all.

_________________
Current Fan-made Epic Supplements
[url=http://www.tacticalwargames.net/resources/raiders2.zip]Epic: Raiders 2.0

Epic: Siege
Making your own Epic Supplement
Syncing Forward


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wraithgate question
PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 1:59 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:37 am
Posts: 568
Location: Manchester UK
Moscovian wrote:
Dark Eldar players... This exact situation came up last week when I played Ron's Dark Eldar. I set up his one objective on the far edge of the table, and the other one in dangerous terrain. However, he anticipated my doing this and preceded those placements by placing his blitz in open ground on one far end of the board. It was his back up for the gate and it worked.

He then placed every formation on the far opposite end of the board. When the Kashnarak came out, I had the closest unit and it stormed toward me.

I don't think there is anything wrong with screwing your opponent by placing his gate someplace awful. Those gates have supposedly been around for thousands (millions?) of years, so what was good placement then might be a lake now. The Eldar/Dark Eldar player should anticipate using his blitz as the gate, and potentially not using the gate at all.


True that. Nothing easy in Epic (Except for the rules - yay!). Objective placement is where you begin to out-play or be out-played by your opponent. You've to consider and think and plan for everything to be a champion in this game. Probably why I've never won anything! The likes of Steve and Tim could write you a small instruction manual just on the tactics of objective placement.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wraithgate question
PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 2:34 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:32 pm
Posts: 4867
Location: North Yorkshire
stompzilla wrote:
True that. Nothing easy in Epic (Except for the rules - yay!). Objective placement is where you begin to out-play or be out-played by your opponent. You've to consider and think and plan for everything to be a champion in this game. Probably why I've never won anything! The likes of Steve and Tim could write you a small instruction manual just on the tactics of objective placement.

Tried that, it was not a small manual.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wraithgate question
PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 3:20 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5478
Location: London, UK
Totally agree guys, for tournament games. "Friendly" games might be a little more 'gentle'.
Though as we have all pointed out, anticipating this and using the Blitz is all part of the game.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wraithgate question
PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 3:26 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36726
Location: Ohio - USA
I going with what Ginger said ! ;D Tanx Bro ! O0

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wraithgate question
PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2014 9:51 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 4:38 pm
Posts: 49
Ginger wrote:
If the whole formation may exit the 'gate, then, yes, the 1st unit must move into B-B removing the ZoC. It is then a matter of debate as to how you allow the rest of the formation to be placed. There are two alternatives;
  • As the Reaver is on top of the webway exit, all units enter the battlefield in B-B with the titan up to it's DC allowance (12 units). This will end up *very* badly for the Guardian / WG all of whom use their CC stats.
  • Because of Wraithgate technology and 'physics', the Reaver is occupied by the 1st unit allowing the remaining units to escape up to 15cm in any thus direction surrounding the Reaver. This gives the Guardians a big boost, and with an average of 4x 'normal' and 3x MW hits, this could inflict damage on the Reaver.
Either way, the Guardians / WG will still lose the assault unless there are some really spectacular dice rolls - in which case the Reaver stays put (Fearless) and does the whole thing again, and again. . . . .
(Guardians with WG and WL might just be a different story)

Moral, don't put your 'gate anywhere near a Fearless titan, unless you have the means and plans to *assassinate* it with extreme prejudice . . . :D[/quote]

Those two options are also the ones I have thought of. The problem is that one favours the Eldar and the other favours their opponent. So which one should you use?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wraithgate question
PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2014 10:07 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 02, 2013 3:12 pm
Posts: 831
Tiny-Tim wrote:
stompzilla wrote:
True that. Nothing easy in Epic (Except for the rules - yay!). Objective placement is where you begin to out-play or be out-played by your opponent. You've to consider and think and plan for everything to be a champion in this game. Probably why I've never won anything! The likes of Steve and Tim could write you a small instruction manual just on the tactics of objective placement.

Tried that, it was not a small manual.


Want to come on the Fools Daily podcast by having a 15 min conversation with me about it?

You know you want to ;)

_________________
@MephistonAG for all sorts of twitter madness


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wraithgate question
PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2014 11:29 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5478
Location: London, UK
Pille wrote:
Quote:
Ginger wrote:
If the whole formation may exit the 'gate, then, yes, the 1st unit must move into B-B removing the ZoC. It is then a matter of debate as to how you allow the rest of the formation to be placed. There are two alternatives;
  • As the Reaver is on top of the webway exit, all units enter the battlefield in B-B with the titan up to it's DC allowance (12 units). This will end up *very* badly for the Guardian / WG all of whom use their CC stats.
  • Because of Wraithgate technology and 'physics', the Reaver is occupied by the 1st unit allowing the remaining units to escape up to 15cm in any thus direction surrounding the Reaver. This gives the Guardians a big boost, and with an average of 4x 'normal' and 3x MW hits, this could inflict damage on the Reaver.
Either way, the Guardians / WG will still lose the assault unless there are some really spectacular dice rolls - in which case the Reaver stays put (Fearless) and does the whole thing again, and again. . . . .
(Guardians with WG and WL might just be a different story)

Moral, don't put your 'gate anywhere near a Fearless titan, unless you have the means and plans to *assassinate* it with extreme prejudice . . . :D


Those two options are also the ones I have thought of. The problem is that one favours the Eldar and the other favours their opponent. So which one should you use?
There is actually little *strategic* difference between the two options. Consequently, because the result of the two options is broadly similar and there is no guidance on this at all, IMHO it is best to discuss in the 5 min warm up, or at worst to dice for the result at the time.

The bigger question (alluded to in Meph's post above) is whether the Wraithgate can be blocked or not and what the Eldar player can do about it - and even here, much can be anticipated and thus planned for . . .

(Reasoning, for those who like the 'detail')
The 1st option favours the opponent leaving the Guardians broken and slightly damaged, while the 2nd option is roughly neutral assuming no other support or factors (Reaver achieves 2x kills, Guardians achieve 1x kill and outnumber). Either way it is most likely the Reaver will stay put, so the state of the Guardians (broken or not) is less relevant. Given the Reaver is Initiative 1 it is quite likely to rally - especially if the Marines SC roll is unused by the end phase. This means that the objective is contested or controlled by the Marines unless the Eldar player can kill the Reaver, or break it using other formations in the 3rd turn.

Given that the Reaver is also the BTS, the game will revolve around whether the Eldar concentrate on the Reaver or not, which is the 'standard' strategic question in such games anyway. As this involves the placing of the T&H objectives and the decision to use one as a 'gate, much of this can be anticipated / decided before the game starts . . . . . :D


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 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

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net