Hi Peter!
I've recently discoverd, via discussion on this board, that "Pete's
Hanovarian square" tactic is not very effective against Skimmers,
Flyers, Jump Troops, and many vehichles. ;)
However,.....I think your idea is VERY good!
A couple of things to possibly add:
1) Make Super Elite Heavily Armed and Armored Units with fixed saving
throws equal to vehicles for pinning.
IE: Terminators, Exarchs, Dark Reapers, etc....
2) Not allow piercing of enemy formations (only where enemy units
would normally be able to pin units moving through,) unless enemy
units have been pinned first. Per the rules from the Adeptus
Titanicus rule book.
Great Idea, Commisar Ramos!
Warprat ;)
--- In netepic_at_egroups.com, "Peter Ramos" <primarch_at_b...> wrote:
> Hi!
>
>
> Nothing engenders conversation than a good ol' discussion about the
core mechanics. The latest one is regarding which interpretation to
follow. As everything in life there's two sides to the coin let's go
in to them regarding the two alternatives:
>
> 1. Attackers can selectively engage troops and gang up on specific
units while not engaging others.
>
> The good.
>
> A certain amount of tactics goes into assaulting a position by this
method, more so if you are attacking with a smaller elite force.
Anything that adds some thought to the game is a good thing and there
is a certain amount of punch and counter punch to be done. Players
must more cautiously use reserve since a small force may attack a
flank of a superior foe and leave the others out to dry. The
resolution is dirty and chaotic, but an aura of uncertainty as to the
outcome keeps players guessing. Also armies that rely on small hard
hitting troops can really maximize what they do best (i.e aspect
warriors)
>
> The bad
>
> The so called "tactics" does permit an unhealthy amount of cheese
mongering since you can by pass a carefully laid out defense by
pinning the few models that compose one flank and take the objective
with a second unit without much risk or loss. This also provokes
cheese from the defense too, since the defending player can use such
infamous tactics as "Pete's Hanovarian square" tactic, where you
place your models side by side in a square (or circle) and place one
unit in the interior of the position to hold the objective. There is
no way the opponent can charge and engage that last stand in one
turn. Many a game has been lost this way with one stand holding the
objective in a sea of enemy models. It's a legal move but cheesy in
extreme. In addition to enengage some and not others leads to highly
unrealistic methods of making VP's. If the game is constantly in
motion, it kinda sucks to see 3 out of 5 models engaged on purpose so
as to break them. also combat tend to drag out to much with the
charge and counter charge that occurs in subsequent turns.
>
> 2. Attackers MUST engage all units within reach once before ganging
up occurs.
>
> The good
>
> Combat is treated more as a group-to-group affair as in essence it
should be. Numbers mean something, as a numerically superior foe
should and can have an edge under these rules. Combat tends to be
slighly more decisive and ends in a turn or two. Its more orderly and
easier to keep track of. It also avoids cheesy ploys regarding
positioning of troops like above.
>
> The bad
>
> A certain amount of thought is lost in this process and thus some
tactics. The group-to-group affair eliminates the wise opponents
capitalizing on the fioes bad deployment. The defender has to think
less on WHERE to place his troops and thus the attacker has more of a
burden in figuring out how much more troops he needs to bring in. You
also eliminate the ability of small groups of elite troops to strike
at one point in the line. Its funny but these troops are actually
better defending that attacking under these rules. A squad of eldar
banshees could never hope to overcome all of a IG platton on the
attack since it can't outnumber it, but an attacker would need to
dilute its superiority in numbers against them before ganging up when
attacking them. Quite odd. Also this method requires clearing up a
lot of specific situations and anomalies
>
>
> Is there a solution?
>
> Perhaps....
>
> Why not MERGE the two? How? Easy....
>
> There has been some thought on elite troops and that there status
isn't much of a boon. Why not designate elite status, in addition to
its current ability versus titans, as troops who can selectively pin?
>
> Thus the bulk of epic troops are the mindless drones the background
makes them to be: IG tactics, ork boys, eldar guardians all would
charge and enegage all before ganaging up.
>
> The elite troops however are smarter, they see teh battlefield and
exploit the holes in the line.
>
> This has the advantage of using something already present in epic
without fancy rules and exceptions.
>
> All good? Not quite.
>
> It requires assigning elite status to a few more units, but not
that many more and this is mainly a editing issue me and Daniel can
handle.
>
> Well? Speak up inquiring minds need to know!
>
> Peter
Received on Sat Nov 04 2000 - 01:22:56 UTC