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

Wraithgate question

 Post subject: Re: Wraithgate question
PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:52 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2542
Location: UK
I don't think there's a marginal difference - not sure how you came to those numbers* nor why you'd assume that the situation is stacked against the eldar, personally I think it makes a big difference precisely BECAUSE it might be BTS and is occupying an important objective. The only way to get BTS is with damage, and a guardian+WL+WG formation in the webway is about the most ideal Eldar formation available to help do that with. It has an ideal mix of normal and MW hits and thus will do more damage to a reaver in one action than almost any other formation in the army AND will break it at the end of it AND be in a good position for objectives. To quote a famous movie, "it doesn't get to look any better than that".

So IMO it is better to know how you'd play it before you place your objectives - both whether it can block, and if not how you would count it's ZoC/BtB status.

*An average of 4 hits for the reaver all on 4+ RA is 1 dead wraithlord. And in reply 2 CC hits, 2 macro CC hits, 5-6 FF hits and 1-2 FF macro hits. Even if you assume it is completely unharmed with full void shields (and there's no reason it has to be if it's sitting on the Eldar player's objective...), and even without support (again, this would be totally up to the eldar player - the guardians are biding their time in the webway), the guardians are likely to be up on damage by 1-2, 1-2 for numbers and almost certainly 2 for blast markers. That means at least +4 on resolution. After this it's killable IMO, maybe even before the end of the turn.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wraithgate question
PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:09 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5478
Location: London, UK
I did try to say there was no real *strategic* difference.

Note, the example given was only Guardians + WG.
With WL, I agree the situation will favour the Eldar under either option - but this still ends up with a Broken and damaged Reaver occupying the objective. After that, we both agree that the Eldar definitely has possible options against the Reaver providing they have the right tools and decide it is worth it - both decisions that are made before the 1st turn happens. Hence the initial observation.

Do you have any firm views either way on whether 'Gates may be blocked or not, and if not, how the Eldar formation may exit the webway?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wraithgate question
PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:21 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 8:54 pm
Posts: 2279
Location: Cornwall
On a slightly related note - provoked as this example includes guardians - probably the best option would be for the eldar player to summon the avatar in b2b with the reaver... I would argue the answer is "no" but for completeness, can the eldar player summon through a gate but while off board?

As I say, I would have said no until I saw a comment about summoning chaos daemons while in thunderhawks awaiting air assaults in the thread about off board rule usage...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wraithgate question
PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:39 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5478
Location: London, UK
You are correct, the answer is "no".

The Avatar must be 'summoned' within 15cm of a Farseer, which by that definition must already be on the table. As summoning is done at the start of the turn, this particular Guardian formation is still in the webway so cannot summon the Avatar.

Furthermore, even if the Avatar is summoned by another Farseer that is in range of the Reaver, the "Commander" rules still requires the two formations to be within 5 cms, which excludes anything in the webway.

Finally, to re-iterate another FAQ the abilities in an *off-table* formation (SC, Farseer etc) can only affect that formation and no other.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wraithgate question
PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2014 2:55 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2542
Location: UK
Ginger wrote:
I did try to say there was no real *strategic*

Note, the example given was only Guardians + WG.
With WL, I agree the situation will favour the Eldar under either option - but this still ends up with a Broken and damaged Reaver occupying the objective. After that, we both agree that the Eldar definitely has possible options against the Reaver providing they have the right tools and decide it is worth it - both decisions that are made before the 1st turn happens. Hence the initial observation.

Ah yeah, I was just using the OP's real example.

Quote:
Do you have any firm views either way on whether 'Gates may be blocked or not, and if not, how the Eldar formation may exit the webway?

I wouldn't say "firm", but I do think physically blocking it is a bit beardy since it is purely a construct of an omission in the rules and otherwise fails the "what one would expect" test IMO. In the specific example of a war engine it seems more acceptable, but remember that the same thing can be achieved with a single stand of grotz.

Personally if it were up to me, I would treat it as a standard case of entering ZoC - that is, you have to BtB until the unit loses its ZoC. But in general I tend to go with whatever my opponent feels is the most realistic thing.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wraithgate question
PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2014 3:14 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5478
Location: London, UK
Ha - we agree here then as well :D

I would tend to disallow any enemy from blocking the gate since it is difficult to allow a grot (or other unit) to actually 'block' the wraithgate, and moreover it is more interesting to permit it than ban it.

So, given the gate cannot be blocked, how about the question on exiting the gate when 'in contact' with the enemy unit? Would you rule that the units must enter into B-B with that unit until the max of 2x unit is met (so making WE much more effective)?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wraithgate question
PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2014 5:07 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2542
Location: UK
Ginger wrote:
Ha - we agree here then as well :D

I would tend to disallow any enemy from blocking the gate since it is difficult to allow a grot (or other unit) to actually 'block' the wraithgate, and moreover it is more interesting to permit it than ban it.

So, given the gate cannot be blocked, how about the question on exiting the gate when 'in contact' with the enemy unit? Would you rule that the units must enter into B-B with that unit until the max of 2x unit is met (so making WE much more effective)?

No what I meant by "until they lose their ZoC" was more like a standard situation where moving into an enemy unit's ZoC from outside of it. That is, the enemy unit loses their ZoC when contacted by one unit, but for WE it is DC * units.

Rulebook wrote:
3.1.2 War Engine Zones Of Control
War engines have a zone of control like any other unit. In an assault they only lose their zone of control once they have been charged by a number of units equal to their starting damage capacity.


So WE are still much better at it than grotz. Basically I'd play it so that they're not really "on" the wraithgate but next to it. I figure this is a more natural and simple way of doing it - as is implied by your question, if you play it so that the units "appear" in base contact already, it raises a separate question of "what about if there are too many units in base contact, do you let them move OUT of base contact or are they stuck in the webway?"

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wraithgate question
PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2014 5:56 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5478
Location: London, UK
I think it is fairer (and much more interesting) to allow the entire formation to exit the webway. If we allow this, in principle there are three situations;
  • I agree that we should use the standard ZoC rules where the gate is not 'occupied', so once the ZoC is removed from the nearest unit, then the next Eldar unit must move towards the next nearest unit whose ZoC covers the gate (the Eldar choose when there is a tie) etc. This occurs until all Eldar units have exited the 'gate

  • Where an enemy unit 'occupies' the gate, I suggest that the Eldar units exit into contact with that enemy unit until the ZoC is removed. I also like Kyrt's implied suggestion that to 'occupy' a gate means that a *single* enemy unit is allowed to be placed in B-B with the gate.

    I was unaware of the requirement for DC* units to move into B-B to remove the ZoC of a WE :-[ , though it makes sense in this context. So this would mean that in the case of the Reaver, 6x Eldar units would be placed in B-B with the rest being placed nearby - which seems a nice compromise on the two options discussed.

  • Where the enemy has clustered many units around the webway leaving no space for the Eldar to deploy, I suggest that the Eldar units are placed in B-B with those enemy units on the outside of the group that are closest to the gate.

In this last point I am reminded of the game that Tim alluded to, where a force of 50+ speed Freaks occupied my 'gate giving me no chance of shifting them. I was relatively new to E:A at that point and got severely trounced - though Tim did go on to take 1st place.

Hence the moral to anticipate this kind of possibility and plan accordingly.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wraithgate question
PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2014 7:24 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 9:53 pm
Posts: 374
Nice little discussion, I think I arrived late :D

I totally agree that no unit is allowed to block the gate (I always imagined the Wraithgate, as the one in Stargate -with the blue bubbles)! As an eldar player, i think you choose which side of the gate you want to arrive with your formation -if there's one, which is outside of the ZoC of the Reaver ,you can act freely. If not, you have to engage it in CC according to the normal ZoC rules! :)

BTW objectives are not terrain features -why not? Because, if I want, I can use small flags to mark my objectives, or something like a 10cm x 10cm mountain, which is of course impassable terrain! What if I want to use a Bunker as on of my objectives? there's a big difference between them, and that's why it should'nt be allowed to players to treat their objectives as terrain pieces! They are small artworks of their owner, but in reality it makes sense to use their center point as the real objective of an army! I'm not sure it's actually in the rules, but if not, it's time to mention it in the 2014 Tournament Pack topic :D


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wraithgate question
PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:26 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 3:43 pm
Posts: 1328
Location: Devon, UK
pati wrote:
I'm not sure it's actually in the rules, but if not, it's time to mention it in the 2014 Tournament Pack topic :D


Exactly my point from earlier - if it's not in the core rules and it's the standard assumption at tournaments it needs to be in the tournament packs somewhere.

_________________
The Wargaming Trader
NetEA Death Guard Army Champion


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wraithgate question
PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:01 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 4:38 pm
Posts: 49
I thank you very much for your thoughts. I wasn't aware that the WEs zone of control is its DC either, so that was good to know. I will talk it over with my opponent the next time we meet, and I'm sure we will reach the same conclusion you have.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wraithgate question
PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:02 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5478
Location: London, UK
If the Eldar player can be sure that the Wraithgate may not be blocked and that the entire formation can exit (subject to the ZoC rules), then army list can be adjusted accordingly. This in turn means that there are also possibilities against titans.

The usual practice when using a titan is to place at least one of the two T&H objectives on the centreline of the table in line with the opposing Blitz, with the other nearby. Now the Eldar player may consider using one of them as the Wraithgate, tempting the opponent to 'occupy' the 'gate where it can be ambushed by a completely upgraded Guardian formation assaulting out of the 'gate.

This assault is not foolproof by any means and requires the Eldar army to be built with this strategy mind. WraithLords are rarely used in my experience but this definition would encourage them, (after all they are really best in B-B with things like titans), and it would provide more interesting battles.


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


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