Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The one thing I don't understand is the total dedication (it seems) to Fire Dragons in Falcons.  Yes, it's a lovely combination...However, it can't be relied upon in all scenarios.

Anything that forces units into reserves can mess with the plan.  In Escalation games, you have the dragons starting on the table (Depending on your interpretation of the escallation rule) and the falcons off.  You have to roll for the falcons to come in, then spend a turn jumping in, then speeding off.  Limiting the Fire Dragons actually shooting time to 1-2 turns only, and having them vulnerable to being shot to pieces.

 

Other missions have weird starting forces, so it's possible to have the falcons start on, but the dragons off...And even if you start them both off, you may not always get a 1:1 ratio.

So what do you do when your falcons aren't around for your Dragons in this case?

Alpha/Gamma there's no problem.

If you hit an Omega 'like' mission then hide the dragons till the Falcon arrives (or advance a little if you've got the cover to do so so the Falcon can pick them up 'en route).

I think it's just an uncommonly good 'oh shoot' button in the eldar player's back pocket.  There are so many hard targets in the game that you might need to deal with - this is a very nasty answer to most all of them (especially with S8 fusion guns... yum).

 

Escalation is rare enough, and with an autarch chances are you only have to hide them for a turn or so. Not too hard to do. The fire dragons are just so good and so cheap, and nothing else uber that you want in your elites except Harlequins (maybe).

So if you're a fast/shooting type army, there is no better choice.

Rare enough? Escalation is the only way I'll play this game. It's balanced.

I find Escalation to be extremely irritating and un-fun.

One issue it creates is that it makes a comparitively small number of die rolls matter a huge amount. Most of the game is dependant on lots and lots of rolls. 24 dice to hit, 16 to wound, 8 saves... That's 48 dice to resolve one squad's shooting. With Escalation and Reserves rolls, you only need, say a dozen bad rolls to make the game totally unwinnable for one player. That's not balanced. That is, ironically, the exact opposite of balanced.

It also biases the game in favor of armies that depend on units considered "basic infantry." For example, Black Templars with a lot of big Crusdader squads will start on the table, and be off and running. The Ultramauleens would be another example (I can't think of a single unit that wouldn't start on the table in that list). Whatever the matchup is, this can create a severe imbalance. Unless, of course, the game is already imbalanced and biased against armies that have a lot of great basic troops choices. Oh, wait. It's not. At all.

Even when it does happen (by random chance) to be balanced, and neither player's list is particularly disadvantaged, neither players reserve rolls go particularly horrible, it still often leads to ridiculous half hour long games, where the first three turns are "ok, I'll move... Well, nah... Ok, this squad shoots at... Oh, out of range. Well, I guess I'm done." So, ok, I guess that's balanced, in that both players are having an equally uninteresting experience.

I'll never forget the game in which my Vindicator got on so late it couldn't even drive within 24" of an enemy unit before the game ended, and the other guy's Falcon never even saw the table.  "I sure am glad I spent a dozen or so hours painting that model!  Thanks Escalation!"

I will certainly play Escalation... I wouldn't object to, say 1 Escalation game in a 5 round tourny, but I would be just as happy not to play it at all. It's an obvious idea to mix up how the game plays, and I can't begrudge GW for including it. But if somebody wants to play Escalation every game? I'll just toss them a tube of KY, cause they're gonna be playing with themselves.

I'm really curious to hear from anybody who has actually tried transported fire dragon squads. So far I hear a lot of theoryhammer, but nobody has owned up to actually trying to make it work yet.

That was my point of the topic exactly.

Then you really need to learn how to play. I love escalation with an all vehical army. Its a HUGE tactical advantage.

You need to learn how to play it to your advatage. I'd play it each an every game.

I gave a number of reasons why I don't like Escalation, and none of them involved "cause I lose and it's not fair, I wish I was as totally manly as Carmen!" Then again, if I've ever seen a post of yours that wasn't a comment on how cool you are, and how disappointed you are with everyone else's shortcomings, I don't know when that was.



Oh, I know, nothing helps an army out like starting with nothing on the table. Well, nothing besides having a model or two never even come into the game. You really can take lemons and make lemonade, guy. I wish I was as smart as you are...

Do 6 Firedragons pack enough of a punch to really dent squads?

Against Marines, sure you're killing 3-4 (3.33) MEQ's, but if they're in cover or it's against Terminators it goes down to 2-3 (2.22). Assuming the marines hold you're looking at either rapid fire or being charged, or worse taking 8 Assault Cannon shots and then being charged. It seems to me that Firedragons would be better off hunting tanks and then supporting a charging squad of Banshees or Harlies.

@ Escalation: It really only hurts armies that have a mix of vehicles and more importantly need those vehicles for support. It actually favors all-mech armies as Carmachu alluded to.  My Codex Orks get screwed when Escalation runs around, but my Kult of Speed army thrives.

Phryxis I see your point, but disagree with most of it.

Escalation is fine, and often very fun, if you know it is coming when writing your list. That said, if you are trying to be competitive in a tournament and you know escalation is a reality, your list should be prepared. Taking away the risk of the unbalanced factor you are complaining about.

I think some of the best games my group play is 1,200pt patrol mission night. Games are fast, furious, and let you use units that would normally be useless, like Razorbacks.

On topic, I would like to hear input from someone who has actually tried/tested the snakes on the plane tactic. To me it seems like alot of points embarking, disembarking that should be shooting.

Personally I don't see why one would want more than 1-2 Fire Dragon squads. They're only really efficient against 2+ save, vehicles and high T targets, against everything else they seem to be a horrible over kill where you'd be far better off with banshees or harlies.
Correct me if I'm wrong though.

Escalation becomes a lot more fun when you use the interpretation of 'deployment zone board edge' to include the side edges of your zone.

Then, instead of just being a nerf on non-basic-infantry units, it just makes things different. Personally I love bringing jump infantry or cavalry on from 15" up the side in Recon.

I *do* think that reserves should come on automatically in turn 5. Ie the rolls should be:
1st turn: -
2nd turn: 4+
3rd turn: 3+
4th turn: 2+
5th turn: automatic

At least then your indirect fire tanks would get one turn of shooting after moving on, and you'd never end up with your (eg) nicely painted Falcon getting lost on the way to the battle.

Everyone wishes that they were as smart as me.

Yes, BTDT, had models NOT show up until, well, never. Had it done in 3rd too with reserves. It happens.

But since you cant see anything in front of your face, lets demonstrate:

You start with nothing on the board. Let your opponent go first.

First turn, he has no targets.
Your first, you grin and do the monkey dance, and go to the next turn.

His second turn he....still has no targets.
YOUR second turn, you should get half your army. It comes on on whichever flank you want, towards his weak point, unless he totally castled, in which case you creep up via terrain...


And so on. You've done two things: shortened his effectiveness by 1/3, and now your dictating the terms of engagement. Making him react to you.

*shrug* You will occassionally have a unit never show. It happens. Like lasguns killing a bloodthirster, or other odd statistics.

And thats just with mech sisters. With skimmer armies like tau, DE and eldar, it gets even better.

But if you want to whine and say "wow is me" approach, feel free.

Posted By Flavius Infernus on 11/25/2006 10:04 AM
I'm really curious to hear from anybody who has actually tried transported fire dragon squads. So far I hear a lot of theoryhammer, but nobody has owned up to actually trying to make it work yet.

My 3rd edition Eldar Army had 2 units of fire dragons in Serpents, with a farseer to Guide them. With reapers, rangers, and some scorpions and some guardians, I did really well with them. I realized too late that the Banshee with Str 5 would have been a better assault support unit then the Scorps.

But without a meatshield, the reapers died too fast, so I put the army in mothballs. I should sell it and restart my Eldar.

The Dragons would wipe out whole units in one single blaze of glory, and whatever was left could be assaulted and destroyed through weight of numbers or witchblades or the old flaming fist.

Bascially I would keep the army far away from the enemy, using my longer ranged weapons to make them come to me....then I'd shoot transports, then pop out the WS's and hit them with the dragons, usually all on one flank, and I'd shield them with the serpents. Again, another trick snuffed out by 4th edition.

If anything, I think 3rd edition allowed alot more use of creative tactics then 4th, but thats probably just me.

Yes, you can work to mitigate it, but the point remains that some armies don't get their strength from their basic troops. Escalation hurts that sort of list disproportionately. In order for Escalation to be "balanced" in that situtation, then the normal game would have to be imbalanced.

Put simply, what's more "balanced" than everyone starting with their whole army on the board?

Ultimately what you're saying is that Escalation is ok, because you can just design your list to not have to deal with the Escalation rule much or at all. So, Escalation is ok if you can get around it? Huh? So is slamming your dick in a door good because it can be avoided if you're careful?



There's no accounting for taste, so I don't mean to suggest you HAVE to hate Escalation. I would never presume to tell people what they enjoy more... But if somebody tells me that Escalation is more balanced, I have to laugh. If the argument in favor of Escalation is that it's avoidable, again, I'm not sure how that's an argument in favor of...

All I can tell you is that in my experience Escalation games aren't as much fun for either side, and I also feel that the stuff I outlined earlier, particularly the issue of a small number of die rolls having a major impact, will always be a problem.



Yeah, wonderful. I was fully aware of what you were going to say, it's not rocket science at all. It's the obvious thing to do in order to mitigate the problems of Escalation. It's also delusional to pretend it's an advantage.

All sarcasm aside, I have a hard time respecting a general who can't tell the difference between mitigating a disadvantage and having an advantage. When your ego is effecting how you judge your tactical situation, when your need to inflate your own tactical prowess distorts your view of reality, I'd say that's the very definition of poor generalship.

But, on to your "demonstration..." Let's assume you're facing off against Ultramauleens, a very competitive list that would also totally (or nearly totally) ignore the Escalation rules, and deploy normally.

He doesn't get to shoot at you in Turn 1 or 2? Wow. He didn't get to shoot you on turn 0 or turn -1. Basically you've just turned a 6 turn game into a 4 turn game in which you might not ever even see some of your models, and you spot the other guy 2 turns to go set up on top of objectives and in the choicest cover. That's not to your advantage, Colonel Selflove.

Now, sure, I get the whole idea of coming onto the table, effectively deploying after he does. Deploying second is an advantage, as even lesser minds like me are aware. So you can respond to what he's done. Only problem here is that he's had two turns to move up into better spots, two turns to escape the limitations of his deployment zone, two turns to build firebases right on top of the objectives. He's had two turns to position himself to his liking. And he knows he's getting this. He's not going to deploy all his models, confused as can be as to where you are. He's not going to spend two turns sitting there like a tard, wondering if there's even going to be a game. He knows that he can deploy without ANY fear of getting shot at, and then he can move for a turn or two, STILL with no fear of getting shot at. And you get to respond to it by moving in off a table edge. That's hardly an advantage.

Also, as you said, you're getting about half your army on your second turn. That's only half your army. No matter how well you choose his "weak point" you're still at half his strength, which translates to losing about four times as fast. Plus, he's had 2-3 turns to set up so there's no "weak point."

ALSO, you only MIGHT get half your army. You might get none of it. And you don't know. So, incredibly intelligent as you are, you're planning around unknowns, while he's planning around certainties, and that's not an advantage for you either.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that there're not aspects of Escalation that favor a mech force, but in sum total, you're at a disadvantage, and fighting uphill to even that out. You can pull it off... You can even win handily... You may enjoy it immensely... But you're not the one with the advantage.



This, in a nutshell, demonstrates how wrong you are. You didn't shorten his effectiveness by 1/3rd. You shortened the GAME by 1/3rd, and gave him two free turns to position himself. He's not reacting to you, you're reacting to him. You're the one picking edges, looking for weak spots, aren't you? You're reacting to his placement, not vice versa. You're trying to catch up to the two turns he spent getting ready for your entirely predictable emergence from the edge of your own deployment zone.

I'll make it easy for you.  Ask yourself this question, then when you notice what the answer is, feel free to get angry and call me a "pussy."  When you were playing 3rd edition rules, and missions allowed you to keep models in Reserve as you saw fit, did you keep your whole army off the table whenever you could?  No?  Gee, why would you give up such an advantage?

I don't think I'd take that approach, but if I did, I think I might spell it "woe is me" since that's what English speaking human beings say. As I said, though, I'm not very smart. I still play 40K to have fun, to see my models on the table. I haven't yet mastered the advanced and intellectually lofty art of basing my testicular self-worth on how stoicly and manfully I can tolerate rules I find irritating and unfun.

Take a Ritalin, Phryxis.

Eldar, more than anybody, benefit from shortening the game. With Eldar I'm usually winning at the bottom of turn 4. The turn 5 and 6 challenge for me is not turning my win into a loss through attrition.

Anyway, when did this thread turn into a rant against escalation?  I'm still waiting to hear the snake cult devotees tell about their great successes with fire dragons.  Anyone?  Anyone?

My thoughts exactly. The people that don't like escalation are usually the ones who don't have any idea how to play the game. I couldn't agree more.

If your army looks like that, you should make another army list. If you MUST rely on your vehicles to win, you would be a joke to play against anyway.

So once again, escalation is a great format. It is balanced in favor of both armies in that one side with vehicles doesn't auto win. It helps levelling the playing field. If your army can't win without it, you need to make another army list...you know, one that's balanced?

I totally agree with you there.

The key in my opinion is to randomize if you are playing escalation or not. The purpose of the rule is to prevent players from building unbalanced lists. All escalation or no escalation doesn't accomplish that. Mech lists and vehicle heavy lists should be among the most adaptable. If escalation makes it hard to get the most of of your snakes on a plane, Tough S**t, they are still awesome. The question becomes, 'Does my army still work if my main killer unit can't be relied on so heavily?' Using the Ultramauleen list as a straw man really doesn't work because it is not representative of all the armies out there. There are way more mixed marine armies than stand and shoot marine lists. Probably because static armies have problems dealing with mechanized lists that can use speed and terrain to protect themselves while they smash a portion of the less mobile army. If neither player is sure to get exactly what they want before deployment they need to plan for both eventualities. If the mech player doesn't want enemy infiltrators crawling all over objectives, then he better get some rangers or pathfinders OR he should figure out a way to use his speed and firepower to make the other guy regret breaking the castle formation. This lack of certainty and forced contingency planning is at the heart of why I think escalation adds to the game. It also has been mentioned that certain armies (notably marines)have excellent and powerful troops choices while other lists don't. Is this an advantage for Marines? Yes, but it isn't a totally ridiculous one. Most armies have weapons that excel at killing marines and in non-escalation matches lists like Iron Warriors, Zilla Nids, and Deamon Bomb can often eat a Las/Plas Marine army for lunch. Besides I've won firefights against well-designed static marine lists with Imperial Guard. Theoryhammer helps create lists that use a single rule and follow a set plan like clockwork. All infiltrating Alpha Legion is a good example. If that list gets the first turn (something that really has the capacity to make or break the game) it will steamroll certain armies. Alpha-Gamma-Omega insecurity prevents one-trick lists. I think that any rule that throws a wrench in those plans is a welcome addition.

Interesting comparison. Again I see your point... again I disagree...

Escalation is a rule in the game of Warhammer 40k. I suggest you learn how to deal with it.



Amen, and while you are at it read the subject and maybe try to stay on topic.

On Topic:
I think my Fire Dragons will come with Wave Serpents. I will definately use Falcons, 2 at least, but they will probably keep a support role vs. transport. Unless someone would kindly show me different.

Very well said. My opinion exactly.

Dude, pay attention. You guys are telling me I need ritalin, and yet you don't have the attention span to actually read the thread.

You just applauded carmachu for saying that an all mechanized Sisters list has an advantage in Escalation... Then you fail to notice you did that, and criticize an all vehicle list and say it's a joke to play against...



And reading is a skill that's useful in the workforce. I suggest you learn how to deal with that. I know I use a lot of words in my posts. If you don't have the time to read them all, then maybe you shouldn't respond to my posts?

As I already said, I will play Escalation if it's part of a tournament. I know how to deal with it from a tactical perspective. I just don't enjoy playing it. I don't enjoy it when one of my critical units spends the whole game in reserves, I don't enjoy it when of my opponent's units spends the whole game in reserves. I want both armies on the table having a chance to effect the game.

I agree with Samwise... I have already said the same basic thing. But I wasn't objecting to a game or two of Escalation. I was objecting to playing ALL Escalation, to the notion that Escalation is the most balanced way to play.

You guys are all relying heavily on the false conclusion that "not enjoying Escalation" equals "stupid loser who can't play 40K."

L2P. Lern 2 Play. The smug, shallow admonition of infantile haters everywhere.

Back on topic.. Ahem. I'm going to take my brand spankin' new E-bay Eldar Army for a ride tomorrow. I'll make sure to check out how the Snakes on a Plane perform and post about it then. Hopefully I'll even get a battle report with pics up.

Hmm yeah I definitely agree with Phryxis here. Escalation is not the most entertaining game. It's generally shorter, and if you don't build your army list right, can rely too heavily on a few dice rolls (especially the dice rolls that result in extending the game length if playing omega).

However I will still continue to play escalation if I roll for it, as it encourages a different kind of balance.

I read your post. Read mine... I DISAGREE.

I am sorry you seem to take offense and get upset about my repls to your posts. Please do not assume my intent or put words in my mouth.

Again I understand you do not like escalation or think it is balanced. I think differently, should I not be able to post this?

Lighten up.

Samwise158 I look forward to the report.

Yes, and I fully respect your right to disagree. I don't mind being disagreed with.

If you had actually read my posts, you'd see me agreeing with Samwise. In fact, I stated more or less what he did previous to his post.

Read what I write. Don't look over, see my name, say "oh, I don't like this guy, he's 'angry'" and then just skim my post looking for something to wrap in quotes so you can tell me to "L2P." I thought I gave up that juvenile crap when I stopped playing WoW.

I'm not angry at you, I'm just begging you to actually pay attention to what's being said, and have a useful discussion. You don't agree with me? Ok, why? I told you why I feel like I do. You just say "I disagree. L2P." That's not helping.

If you like Samwise's post so much, why not write one with as much opinion and support?

Um back to the topic at hand even though it keeps getting derailed by escalation arguments, Start a new fragging thread if you want to argue those points!  I never thought I would be one to try to keep a thread steady on...

Snakes on a plane sounds so reasonably synergistic, its hard to accept that it wont work.

That said, I dont plan on using that route myself. It doesnt seem to fit my style of play. But, it sounds damn good in writing. It has since the day it has been leaked as rumours.

Fire Dragons in 3rd ed were always excellent, whether it was the 6 man team in a Falcon (5 FDs, Exarch + Fire Pike) or a 9 man unit with Exarch (Fire Pike) and a Farseer to Guide them (and he got a SS for good measure). The latter was always total overkill against vehicles, but made a very decent anti-MEQ unit. Despite being about 1pt overpriced (I always found 17pts per model odd), they were always a good buy as they were effective in most situations. Granted, they were usually slaughted in short order, but at least they would definitely annhiliate whatever they targeted in the previous turn.

In 4th ed, we have no Guiding in transports (silly FAQ, but anway). This means that the larger squads lose some of the anti-MEQ effectiveness (where number of shots/hits is the key, hence the Guide). Also, the S8 of the basic Fusion Gun means that relying on the Exarch + Fire Pike is not quite as necessary anymore for AT work, especially given that Tank Hunters benefits the whole squad.

Right now, my favoured configuration would be 5 Fire Dragons, Exarch with Dragon's Breath, Crack Shot, Tank Hunters, riding in a Falcon with the works. This would be useful in COD and standard games. 5 BS 4 Fusion Guns are enough to deal with most targets (especially combined with S8 + 2D6 AP (at 6") + 1 for Tank Hunters) and a single Dragon's Breath that rerolls to wound is utter murder to anything that isn't an MEQ. And even then, S5 rerolled is quite reasonable, especially with Fusion Guns as backup.

Given the Falcon's power vs standard infantry (and MEQs for that matter), this seems to be the most versatile config. for the pts. Granted, versatility in 40K is usually a bad thing (confused unit role and all that), but a Falcon can usually munch infantry of most sorts (esp. when Guided by a jetbike Farseer) and the Fire Dragons can jump out and either toast most vehicles in the game (even AV 14 on a good day/positioning) and can instil much fear into those who rely on cover, or indeed units such as Terminators.

Other obvious confiigs are to drop the Crack Shot and add a Firepike to the Exarch or go for a full 10 man squad. My biggest concern about the latter is when they are (almost) inevitably destroyed, its that many more pts down the drain (as it were) and if those extra pts spent for those extra Fusion Guns wasn't actually necessary in the end to kill the target...

Also, the non-scoring nature of the Wave Serpent and the lack of Holo-fields also makes the Falcon the better choice. If I could Guide the FD's whilst in the Serpent as before, I'd think about it. Otherwise, 6 man units in the Falcon seem to be the most efficient. The question simply seems to be whether you want them to *really* kill tanks or to receive a rather decent anti-infantry capability.

I'm going to test these out in a few games in the not-so-distant future. We'll see what happens :-)