Yet another scenario from "EPIC: Total War".  Introduces a new special rule, and is quite a bit different from the standard tournament game.

It's inspired by the 40k mission "cleanse", as talked about in the EA rulebook... just made a little more challenging.

Let me know what you think!

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Tough crowd... *LAUGH*

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Chroma, I absolutely love the whole Epic:Total War project and all you have released yet, and see the locals using bits and parts in most future battles.

I´ll comment on "Cleanse" when I have digested it.



Edit: Comment!

Looks very solid. I´m not sure how many formations will be left to control sectors after four turns, but keeping some intact for just this purpose might add a nice twist.

When setting up there is some choice the second player with regards to starting sector, though I assume it won´t matter much:

X11X
XXXX
2222

1- Player 1 starting sector
X- unclaimed sectors
2- potential Player 2 sectors - P2 could go sideways!

_________________
Visit www.epic-battles.de the ultimate german epic site&forum!

Well, technically, the "directly opposite" is supposed to only be:

X22X

Any other thoughts/comments?

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Once all desired vanguards have been placed, the players take it in turn to set up their remaining formations one at a time, starting with the player with the higher strategy rating.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

For starting sectors:

Gaming Area: Set up the terrain for the game in any mutually agreeable manner.  Divide the battlefield into twelve (12) equal sectors as shown below.  If one player sets up the terrain then their opponent may choose which two adjacent outer sectors they will deploy in, while their opponent will deploy in the two sectors furthest away. If terrain setup was a joint effort then the player with the higher Strategy rating may choose their starting adjacent outer sectors. If both players have the same Strategy rating then roll dice to see who gets their choice of starting outer sectors.

For the Vanguard formations:

They can then be placed in any sector that shares a side with one of the two sectors you've chosen for deployment.

So, if you pick a corner sector and one adjacent (either long or short side), you've got three sectors to potentially put Vanguard formations in.  If you pick the two "middle" sectors on the long edge, you've got *four* potential Vanguard sectors, but they're going to be quite close to the enemy.

Does that make sense?

And "vanguards" are kind of like "garrisons", except they're the "first ones there" instead of "pickets", so they've got different restrictions on what formations can be deployed.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Just a 'quickie'. Suppose we number the sectors :-
1,  2,  3,  4,
5,  6,  7,  8,
9,  10, 11, 12,

If 'A' chooses the two middle sectors (2 & 3), what sectors does 'B' get? If they get 9 & 12, doesn't that put player #B at a large disadvantage?

And on deploying the vanguard, what happens if both people can put their vanguard troops in the same sector?

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

'B' gets 10 & 11 in that diagram.  I'm still working on a way of showing that graphically in one map; perhaps I should add the word "adjacent" in there for the second player as well.

And on deploying the vanguard, what happens if both people can put their vanguard troops in the same sector?

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Why not number the squares? Then you can say if one player chooses two of the adjacent 'corner' squares (1, 2, 5), the opponent gets the opposite two 'corner' squares (11, 12, . If the "middle" squares (2, 3) are chosen, the opponent gets the opposite middle squares (10, 11). Or you could just add three diagrams of the choices.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Played this on Friday; proved a good game. BAttle Report due soon!
R>

_________________
MoK's Painting Blog
Now Showing:
Mok's Modular Modern Messy Guard Army

Played Cleanse against Netepic yesterday.

Eldar
650 Revenants
400 Aspects + Aut + EX
300 Nightwings
250 Storm Serpent
250 Storm Serpent
250 Cobra
200 Jetbikes
175 Night Spinners
150 Guardians
150 Guardians
150 6x Rangers
50  Gate

Imperial Guard
700 Leman Russ + Hydra
550 HQ Company + Hydra
350 Infantry company + support platoon
350 Infantry company + support platoon
200 BaneBlade
200 BaneBlade
200 Shadow Sword
150 Rough Riders
150 Rough Riders
150 Hydra Battery

Eldar decided to choose the two central squares, and then deployed the Rangers ahead in the central squares, while the IG put the Rough Riders on either flank. The rest of the forces were deployed in the central squares.

In summary, fearing the volcano cannon, the Revenants advanced and blew away the Shadow Sword and were in turn broken by an infantry company based in a wood and an adjacent Baneblade. Having exposed the IG flank, the Eldar decided to try to clip the infantry using artillery and a guardian formation assaulting from a Storm Serpent - but the assault failed to poor positioning and worse dice rolling.

The HQ company advanced to cover the center of the table, but failed to dislodge the Rangers. A second attempt at a Guardian assault from the Gate also ended in disaster, and the IG reinforced the center with the Leman Russ company. But the tanks were funnelled by terrain into a narrow area - - - right in front of the Cobra ... Well Netepic isn't going to do that again in a hurry . However, the IG were slowly grinding forwards hemming the Eldar into their initial deployment area.

Conclusions
1) This is a really good scenario requiring more considered deployment than we gave it. The larger deployment zone means that even the weaker 90cm artillery can be placed in range of opponents, while there is even the possibility of 1st turn assaults if forces are placed 40 cm apart.
2) The goals are clear and the game-length is appropriate.
3) The terrain in the two central squares needs to be chosen with care as it dominates the game, allowing access to the inner edges of the outer squares. In our case there were some woods and a ruin which made the game very interesting.
4) We assumed that the Eldar Gate could be deployed along with the Vanguard, though it could be interpreted differently. Notes may need to include other items like this.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Glad you enjoyed the scenario and thanks for trying it out!

4) We assumed that the Eldar Gate could be deployed along with the Vanguard, though it could be interpreted differently. Notes may need to include other items like this.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?