Re: [Epic] Citadel Journal Article

From: Sean A. Upchurch <sau_at_...>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 11:13:24 -0700 (PDT)

I wrote:
>
> > Assuming I've gotten this right. Just found out last weekend we were
> > playing Take&Hold objectives wrong. Sigh, but I think we've worked
> out all
> > the errors now.

Erik wrote:
>
> You too? We just realized recently that take and hold objectives are
> applicable to both sides. Whoever holds 'em gets the d3 morale. Makes
> them make more sense and keeps the morale from dropping too quickly.

Oh no! We just figured out that Take&Holds *only* apply to the one who
places them. Here's the short,short version:

1) Objective only apply for the player who places them unless stated otherwise
[Battles Book]

2) "Bunker" objective states "... the enemy loses 5 morale." i.e. states an
explicit interaction with enemy morale [Battle Book]

3) "Take and hold" states "... the player ... within 15 cm ..." All they had
to do was say "... you ..." and there would be no problem. Who is player?
Jervis? Andy? Allen? [Battles Book]

Reality arguments that say why I'm right :)

1) Armies that have difficulty advancing will want to line their objectives
as far back into enemy territory as they can if both can benefit from them.
This forces the enemy to leave a detachment out of the fight to hold the
objective. This looks silly, feels odd and still doesn't work. This forces
the opponent to seriously consider leaving a single unit back there, out of
command, to claim the points and this tactics is chee.. I won't say it.

2) Assume both "play nice" and put their objectives down normally. This will
probably mean the objectives are about 30-45cm back from the center of the
table. [So far, we've been playing Meeting Engagements] This is fine as long
as both armies can afford to sit on their opponent's objectives and shoot it
out. If somebody needs to close the range then they are moving off of an
objective to maybe capture 1. I don't know about you but this seems to be
penalizing the attacker, and I don't think GW would *ever* write rules to
penalize an attacker.

3) Chaos can't beat Doomweavers and Swooping Hawks. They can't. We've done
7 or 8 games and Dan has driven himself almost insane working it out. Eldar
gain too much from sitting on those 3 or 4 objectives for the two or three
turns it takes Chaos to engage them. Work it out, it's a 20 morale bonus.
I don't want to get into details of this point unless people really want to.
 
> We just played a 2000 point version of the rescue scenario yesterday.
> Orcs defending, Eldar attacking. Very fun - played the full six turns.
> A kult of speed nearly got the Ork spy (?) off the board, but the
> Eldar stopped 'em just in time and killed the infiltrator. The Orks
> then proceeded to pound the snot out of the Eldar until there was only
> one Revenant left (that's IT) at the end of Turn 6 and that one was
> heading for the hills! Win the battle, lose the war and all that...

Ah, reminds me of my first game against Eldar. I had Imperial Guard and the
game didn't end until Turn 7 when the *last* Eldar unit on the table finally
died! Meeting Engagement played to 0 morale no time limit. I could only get
the Eldar to -2 when the last one died -- entirely because of those Take &
Holds, but I got them all ;)

Sean U
Received on Thu Sep 04 1997 - 18:13:24 UTC