Fascinating report and battle. I really enjoyed the narrative and the way that SM forces 'appeared' on the flanks of the Eldar - very reminiscent of the allied spearhead attempting to reach the paratroopers at Arnhem in WWII.

Some questions:-

1. Did both sides know the race they were facing before the game (the nature of both lists seems to indicate this)? Also, was the lack of air-power a deliberate choice? (given the way the scenario played out, it may have been an inspired choice . . . )
2. What forces did the SM player have on the table to start with? It seems that there were only the scouts and single Warhound which only totals 775, rather less than the stipulated 1000 points (1/4 of the force).
3. What were your thoughts on whether the SM player is forced to move his 'hidden' forces in the preliminary activations of the 1st turn?
4. It seems that the SM were allowed to deploy their reserves on three sides of the table. What other restrictions were imposed, if any, apart from the need to pass the 'deployment' dice roll?
   For example;
   • Did the SM have to secretly specify where the reserves were to appear, or were these locations also randomised in some way?
   • Also, it seems that the SM were allowed to appear in the corner of the Eldar deployment zone. Does this seem appropriate?
5. Finally, what are your thoughts on the placement of objectives? There seems to be no constraint here, is this an issue? Given the nature of the scenario it would seem appropriate for the "defender" to place one objective on each of the 'long' sides and the last centrally on the the edge of his 'deployment' zone (20 cm from his 'short' side edge). Equally the "attacker" should probably place his objectives in a line up the middle of the table indicating his line of advance.

Some observations for future reports

1. The battle was always going to be confusing given its nature. This tended to make it hard to orientate the forces in some of the photos, which was further exacerbated by the initial "Layout" photos being taken lengthwise from a 'short' side, while the majority of the photos of various engagements were from one or other 'long' sides. Perhaps you could attempt to take all photos from one side of the table, or alternatively make (or add) a "North" arrow to those photos taken from a different perspective.
2. I believe the objectives were the small blue pegs, but could not readily identify the initial SM 'markers'. Larger markers together with a small narrative at the start of the report to explain such things would greatly assist.
3. These uneven scenarios are brilliant, but I wonder if it would also be appropriate to fight them twice with the roles reversed for the 2nd battle. In this case, the Eldar capability for pop-up and hit-&-run shooting might well make it difficult for the SM to advance.
4. I agree with you that each scenario may suit some races better than others. In your view, does the length of this scenario (6 turns) entirely offset the slower armies? Fighting against 'Nids would seem give an ideal scenario of either advancing into a hoard to capture the "Brain bug", or fighting to hold off a major 'Nid incursion. But would either of these actually work in practice?

Hi Ginger,
Here's my slant on the scenario and battle to answer your questions. (Having computer trouble at the moment but hopefully it'll stay on for a bit):
1. No. In truth I was expecting Tyranids. But the set up insures some balance in that you don't know whether you'll be the attacker or defender.
2. The SM had 3 Scouts, a Predator, and a Warhound. The warhound wasn't hidden as per the rules.
3. The 'Hidden Unit" idea was in the original E40K Battle Book. Keeps the attacker on their toes. Whether to defend forward or back is a critical decision.
4. Again, from the E40K Battles Book. They could come on anywhere except the side the Eldar arrived, provided they came on at all. The SM's didn't come on in the Eldar deployment area. Eldar were off board and had none, though the Marines couldn't deploy their initial force on the furtherist 20cm of the table.
5. If you'll recheck 'set-up' you'll see both players put down 3 markers on the Defenders 1/2 of the table, THEN roll 2D6 to determine the attacker. Keeps everyone honest. I'd already set them up, but Greg was free to switch around how he liked.
Observations:
1. As Greg said, our Friday games are a lot more structured and played to Tournament rules. Still, I come from historical games and enjoy refighting a battle or doing a scenario. Both are great fun and we don't get locked into doing the same thing.
2. Objectives were the blue or green (3 each) pegs. 3 placed by each player before sides were determined.
3. We will, but not right away. I have about a dozen scenarios to go through yet. Maybe around the end of July. With the aid of Greg's photos, it'll be easy to reconstruct the battlefield.
4. Other factors apply. Usually, if an army is going to make it to the objectives, 6 turns should be enough (as per the E40K Battles Book). 6 turns are also about all the time we have for a game (3.5 to 4 hours).
Scenarios can be much more challanging than the usual "meeting engagement/Tournament game", but can also go belly up more easily as well. I just try to make things as even as possible given the victory conditions, and let my opponent choose the side. Like a kid cuting a pie, it's amazing how fair you can make things if you know you're getting the last slice