Tactical Command :: View topic - Too much Planetfall?

It's definitely a risky tactic if you do it wrong. If the enemy isn't prepped for assault (BMs) it's a bit of a nightmare, for example. Intermingling can also make it awkward and risky. Placement of your drop and what you actually choose to hit makes a big difference as well. Most important is what the enemy has to hit your drop force with in counter.

Dobbsy wrote:

Well then I'd say his choice of targets was his ultimate downfall. Trying to assault skimmers probably wasn't the best direction to take if it's not playing to your strength (CC). :tut

In my experience, the game tends to become more binary as the Marines commit more forces to the "air assault"; one or other side tends to get a big win. This is because the intention is to cripple major enemy formations before they can be used; if this strategy fails, the enemy tends to have the opportunity to destroy piecemeal those forces that marines have deployed, leaving the marines at an increasing disadvantage for the rest of the game.

Just out of interest- why would you put termies in a T-Hawk rather than simply teleporting them? Is it to avoid chance of blast markers from a roll of one when teleport?

Were teleporting troops used and if so, did they also arrive turn 1?

It all depends what he will assault those skimmers with really. If he'd prepared his force for a FF engagement with Devastators etc then it's not such a bad choice as in general you can effect more hits in a FF as everything in range can fight (CC troops only hit in base to base, for example).

frogbear wrote:

Were teleporting troops used and if so, did they also arrive turn 1?

Yes teleporting Termies were used on turn 1 and 2

Author:	EpicBattleBaggz [ Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:45 pm ]
Post subject:	Too much Planetfall?
Been a while since I posted, but I've been wanting a general consensus on this. Had a game over the weekend with my tournament army for Adepticon vs. my opponent's Marines. I set up my blitz objective in a corner and spaced out my other objectives. My opponent set both his objectives as close to my Blitz as possible. I could already see that he's going to stack deployment and of course he dropped his entire force within that area to be uber aggressive and to go after my BTS (which so happens to be conveniently near my Blitz) during the first turn. Needless to say, things got ugly real quick and the game was over by turn 3 with me winning 4-1. Thank you dice gods for the extremely ridiculous amounts of saves on my BTS and bad saves for him through the entire ordeal. I have to wonder though, did his tactic of committing everything too soon doom him from the beginning? Or was I just lucky that the dice were going my way, not entirely mind you.

Author:	Dobbsy [ Wed Apr 04, 2012 12:08 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Too much Planetfall?
It's definitely a risky tactic if you do it wrong. If the enemy isn't prepped for assault (BMs) it's a bit of a nightmare, for example. Intermingling can also make it awkward and risky. Placement of your drop and what you actually choose to hit makes a big difference as well. Most important is what the enemy has to hit your drop force with in counter. Committing everything too soon can go either way for all the above reasons but I wouldn't say it "doomed him from the beginning." It's the risk you choose to take when deploying from space and he's elected to chance his arm (or the dice as it were). Given the dice helped you if the rolls(& roles) had been reversed is it fair to say he would have obliterated you? If yes, then his risk would have paid off.

Author:	EpicBattleBaggz [ Wed Apr 04, 2012 5:04 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Too much Planetfall?
Dobbsy wrote: It's definitely a risky tactic if you do it wrong. If the enemy isn't prepped for assault (BMs) it's a bit of a nightmare, for example. Intermingling can also make it awkward and risky. Placement of your drop and what you actually choose to hit makes a big difference as well. Most important is what the enemy has to hit your drop force with in counter. Well then I'd say his choice of targets was his ultimate downfall. Trying to assault skimmers probably wasn't the best direction to take if it's not playing to your strength (CC).

Author:	frogbear [ Wed Apr 04, 2012 6:17 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Too much Planetfall?
Were teleporting troops used and if so, did they also arrive turn 1?

Author:	Ginger [ Wed Apr 04, 2012 9:20 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Too much Planetfall?
In my experience, the game tends to become more binary as the Marines commit more forces to the "air assault"; one or other side tends to get a big win. This is because the intention is to cripple major enemy formations before they can be used; if this strategy fails, the enemy tends to have the opportunity to destroy piecemeal those forces that marines have deployed, leaving the marines at an increasing disadvantage for the rest of the game. Alternatives are to try to commit the forces when and where they are needed, or to deploy slightly removed from the enemy behind cover etc. Delaying the big drop to turn #2 where the enemy are more dispersed is also a viable tactic, but arriving on turn #3 is usually a very very difficult game for the marines to win.

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

Too much Planetfall? http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=95&t=22969	Page 1 of 2

Author:	Dobbsy [ Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:22 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Too much Planetfall?
EpicBattleBaggz wrote: Dobbsy wrote: It's definitely a risky tactic if you do it wrong. If the enemy isn't prepped for assault (BMs) it's a bit of a nightmare, for example. Intermingling can also make it awkward and risky. Placement of your drop and what you actually choose to hit makes a big difference as well. Most important is what the enemy has to hit your drop force with in counter. Well then I'd say his choice of targets was his ultimate downfall. Trying to assault skimmers probably wasn't the best direction to take if it's not playing to your strength (CC). It all depends what he will assault those skimmers with really. If he'd prepared his force for a FF engagement with Devastators etc then it's not such a bad choice as in general you can effect more hits in a FF as everything in range can fight (CC troops only hit in base to base, for example).

Author:	Ginger [ Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:39 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Too much Planetfall?
Assaulting skimmers with drop podding devastators, especially with a Librarian / Chaplain and support can prove quite 'devastating' irrespective of whether the target is skimmers or not. Equally, they can make a very effective support force in their own right to a THawk full of Terminators; there are various tactical combinations available depending on circumstances. BUT - you must have the "dice gods" on your side. (As most of us know from bitter experience)

Author:	wargame_insomniac [ Wed Apr 04, 2012 1:04 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Too much Planetfall?
Just out of interest- why would you put termies in a T-Hawk rather than simply teleporting them? Is it to avoid chance of blast markers from a roll of one when teleport?

Author:	Ulrik [ Wed Apr 04, 2012 2:16 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Too much Planetfall?
Teleporting terminators have to be placed at the start of the turn (vulnerable to shooting and the target moving away) while a T-Hawk will appear where and when it is needed?

Author:	nealhunt [ Wed Apr 04, 2012 3:48 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Too much Planetfall?
Ginger wrote: In my experience, the game tends to become more binary as the Marines commit more forces to the "air assault"; one or other side tends to get a big win. This is because the intention is to cripple major enemy formations before they can be used; if this strategy fails, the enemy tends to have the opportunity to destroy piecemeal those forces that marines have deployed, leaving the marines at an increasing disadvantage for the rest of the game. QFT wargame_insomniac wrote: Just out of interest- why would you put termies in a T-Hawk rather than simply teleporting them? Is it to avoid chance of blast markers from a roll of one when teleport? Flexibility. As Ulrik points out, Termies have to come in at the beginning of the turn. Thawks can decide when and if to come in during the turn.

Author:	EpicBattleBaggz [ Wed Apr 04, 2012 6:12 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Too much Planetfall?
frogbear wrote: Were teleporting troops used and if so, did they also arrive turn 1? Yes teleporting Termies were used on turn 1 and 2

Author:	Azazel [ Thu May 17, 2012 5:55 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Too much Planetfall?
Hello there Begginers question, from the previous discussion I understood that units with planetfall or teleport can enter the battlefield on turn 1 once all forces are deployed EpicBattleBaggz wrote: frogbear wrote: Were teleporting troops used and if so, did they also arrive turn 1? Yes teleporting Termies were used on turn 1 and 2 Is this true? I recently played a game my SM vs Adeptus Mechanicus (if someone is interested soon I can post a battle report On turn 1 I teleported 2 detachments of terminators (one with captain) and crushed his artillery company from behind and ripped havoc in his entire forces for the rest of the game. Since victory came rather ... easy my question is was that a valid move, shouldn't I had to wait to turn 2 to teleport?

Author:	MikeT [ Thu May 17, 2012 6:09 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Too much Planetfall?
Units with teleport can choose to teleport in at the beginning of any turn, before strategy is rolled for that turn. So, assuming that you and your opponent both deployed first garrisons, then the rest of your forces and then, before rolling for strategy for turn 1, you decided to teleport your terminators, then yes, you did it within the rules.

Author:	Ginger [ Thu May 17, 2012 10:34 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Too much Planetfall?
It sounds as though you played the correct process, though perhaps your opponent did not adopt the best strategies. The whole point of air-assault and teleporting is to arrive suddenly at a critical point and destroy stuff before your opponent can react. However, this can be made much harder by deploying formations in supporting distance of each other, and through the use of 'screening' formations; cheap formations that can be sacrificed if necessary to soak up the assaults, thus preserving the more vital formations. This is where the game can tip dramatically one way or the other; if the initial assaults can be weathered or nulified, this gives the defender the chance to repair holes in the defences and to concentrate on those nearby enemy formations.

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/