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.

Planetstrike is a groundbreaking 40K supplement imho because for the first time I can recall it gives one player total control over setting up the battlefield as part of the pre-game sequence and with free license to do so in a way that favors his own force and mission goals.

Not only that, but Planetstrike in fact describes and encourages the defending player to make it as unhealthy of an environment for his opponent's army as his imagination and terrain collection will allow.

"balanced" and "neutral" battlefield are NOT the stuff of Planetstrike, and the defender has free reign to build a deathtrap of a fortification to defend.

So with this in mind I thought it would be cool to have a thread that discusses defensive table set ups and strategies for Planetstrike both hypothetical and perhaps reports of things you have seen or discovered in games of Planetstrike.

Please sound off with your thoughts on defensive terrain strategies, but lets keep this on-topic.
This isn't a thread to complain about GW, or the unfairness of some codex in Planetstrike or the cost of GW terrain, or any other such stuff, it is a discussion of Planetstrike for those interested in Planetstrike.

To start off to things have jumped out to me when thinking about table design and I have experimented with both to good effect in the games i have played thus far:


1. Refused drop zone:

Nothing sucks more then having enemy reserves walking into your carefully constructed base through the back door. This can be negated by setting up impassable terrain all along one board edge and then building your fortifications along/in front of it. A nice mountain range or massive city wall will suffice for this though don't make it too high, you need to be able to reach over it to move your models, etc. Personally I'm working on a 6' long cliff/mountain strip (two 3' pieces actually) for this purpose and also some high city walls with built in buildings, etc.

Combine this with the "drop zone denial" stratagem and you can effectively refuse two of the four table edges of your choice from your opponent. this can really be a boon as you can make the terrain near the other two edges sparse so he has no cover, or put diff/dangerous terrain near them to make it rough going for any reserves right from the get go.


2. Pay for every inch of ground with blood:

Another thing that seems like a no-brainer is to have a zone of dangerous terrain ringing your fortification (if your using the castle formation for example) or right across the whole table in front of your defense lines in the refused drop zone setup in 1. above. Perhaps 6-8" wide and don't forget to put a line of barb wire in front of that. Rarely is a unit going to check less then twice moving through this area as they are checking for diff terrain moving into it through the barbwire and most likely again as they stand in it and attempt to go over the defense line/assault you rline defenders.

In the games I have played thus far this has caused a fair number of casualties ( I lost 13 orcs in my last game to such tactics) making it a worthwhile defensive ploy if you have or are willing to make the terrain to represent it which could take the form of lava pools, minefields, brood pits, squig pens, tentacle maws for you chaos types, death world plants, whatever you desire. I'm working on a mine/boobytrap field myself.

Those are just a couple of things that seem to be rather effective based upon the games of Planetstrike I have player thus far. Anyone else have any cunning defensive terrain tactics they want to share?

I'm surprised you haven't had more replies to this thread. I am participating in a 2000 point PS tournament at the end of the month and I have spent some considerable time thinking about what sort of tactics I will be using. PS is really brutal which is very liberating! I am yet to finish a game with more than ten models alive on the table. It's great fun and makes a real change from typical games of 40K!

I have found that leaving at least twelve inches around your terrain pieces to stop move on charges is really useful. Those are my two cents.

All I have to say is don't get too crazy with terrain. Yes the defender can set things up however he or she wants, but getting carried away can hack people off. My store did a mini PS event last weekend, and I could not believe the kind of stuff people were trying to pull. I saw a 1500 point game where the defender had 2 bastions completely ringed by AV12 bunkers (not objectives) and then ringed with impassable terrain with 4 small entry points. Over half the board was impassable terrain/buildings. Another game had a guy choose 5 bastions and 9-10 large hills that he declared as dangerous terrain. Stuff like that seems epic and cool until you're the attacker, so just remember what goes around, comes around.

That's illegal.

All fortifications in PS must be objectives. Anything with a defence weapon must also be an objective. That's in bold in the rule book.

Also, what else is the firestorm for if it isn't for blowing up the most annoying parts of the landscape...

As for declaring large parts of the table as impassable? Why not. Funnelling you foe is a good idea, that's why taking some skimmers is a good idea.

Finally I would insist on WYSIWYG for PS terrain. If they say it's impassable it better look that way too. I wouldn't accept counts as hills...

So far I have not encountered anything truly ridiculous and the rule we have adhered to is that you can only ever claim a victory after a pair of games, one as defender the other as attacker so if you face an extreme set up, just respond in kind...

Have some people forgotten that this is a game?

Well, today we played 2 vs. 2, Tau and SM (defenders) vs. DE and Nids (attackers).
Each army was 1750 pts.
We had four fortified buildings, all in line, with impassible terrain on both sides and dangerous terrain in front.
After 7 rounds we almost completely annihilated the attackers. It was a funny game.

Our Gaming Group mutually limits itself to difficult terrain and buildings . . . we've never had anyone try making random areas of the board dangerous, because that would be cheesy.

So far, my best defense was a 2 vs. 2 game, Orks (Me) and Necrons vs. Space Marines and IG, 3000 pts a side. We deployed our bastions in a corner, close enough so that a drop pod couldn't fit between them, deployed all of our infantry inside the bastion, and a force of vehicles ( Monolith, KFF Battlewagon) in approximately the center of the table. This forced the SM's to drop farther out and basically stalled them the entire game.

I set mine up board like this I have 2 bastions on opposite table edges. with defence walls protecting em. then I have a line of defence walls connecting them. Them i split my forces to protect each of the bastions. Its not crossing the line over to cheesy but its effective. My attacker has to also split his forces so if he takes one bastion hes stuck there when my other one is on the other side of the board.

Also I play a long range shooty army (no not tau!) so my bastions can help each other out.

Zarahemna wrote:
Have some people forgotten that this is a game?

Exactly. Yeah, just because the rules say you can set up terrain however you want, doesn't mean you nessecarily SHOULD. It's technically legal to surround a bastion with impassable terrain... but doing so will leave you with 0 people to play against really fast.

interesting thread here. I've only played a little planetstrike myself but I do find it quite fun. As a defending IG army, I personally set up large defensive area with a small ring of aegis defense lines. I've always been a huge fan of starship troopers and the last stand mentality. This is how I am playing with my guard. And I've found it works out pretty well. I don't litter the board with terrain, because I prefer to have large kill areas without to much cover for my opponents. I wouldn't mind trying out the impassable terrain strategy but I do find it a bit cheesy. But then again it may be fun to actually recreate starship troopers.

I think PS is VERY fun (and in some ways better than a normal 40k game) if both people don't go overboard.

Gornall wrote:

Zarahemna wrote:
Have some people forgotten that this is a game?

Exactly. Yeah, just because the rules say you can set up terrain however you want, doesn't mean you nessecarily SHOULD. It's technically legal to surround a bastion with impassable terrain... but doing so will leave you with 0 people to play against really fast.

Really?

I guess you play with tools?

My group is a group of close knit friends and we understand that the game is just that: a game.

Planetstrike (like apocalypse) is about setting a cool cinematic scene full of death and carnage. Don't lose sight of the goal.

The last game I played I surrounded my ork fort with a ring of dangerous terrain to represent an area of mines/boobytaps/gnasher squigs, etc. and had terrain to represent it. Given that my opponent had 14 ordnance templates in his firestorm I don't really feel too bad about it...

Planetstrike is deadly on both ends and meant to be so. If your someone that is gonna gripe about a ring of dangerous terrain when your potentially dropping 12+ free ordnance templates on me.as well as potentially first turn assaulting me with a whole army then maybe your not the type of person that I'm gonna play a game against to begin with...

I got an alright Tau strategy (for vs nids). But, to work you must start on it before the actual game. First get some foam doesn't matter on the quality on it, but the good stuff will make it less annoying later when you want to do it again. Then make a lot of small 6" walls, roughly 6-8" tall. Next when it's the actual game set them up around the table edge you have chosen. Mostly on the edges though to stop them from eating most of the army on turn one.

Don't cover all the table edges though

Basically just make yourself a box on one side of the table. Flying stuff will still get over it though. Then you leave a doorway at the front (unless you decide to stop them entirely) to allow them to get in and for you to shoot out. You need to work something out with your opponents though. When I used them I said they would act as impassible terrain, but be armour 14 to balance that out; the opponent agreed. Walls are fun, but it does make more sense if a fex just come marching through them. This was 3 (two tau and SM) v 3 (Orks, Daemons and Orks), 500 points each person.

WarhammerTabletop wrote:I set mine up board like this I have 2 bastions on opposite table edges. with defence walls protecting em. then I have a line of defence walls connecting them. Them i split my forces to protect each of the bastions. Its not crossing the line over to cheesy but its effective.

Nothing about that is in any way cheesy, in fact just such a tactic is shown in the book as an example.

Are All of you that are complaining about terrain cheesiness complaining as well that your opponent is using the firestorm? Because the balancing factor of the firestorm and being able to assault with some units the same turn they deepstrike is the defenders total freedom to design the battlefield to be as deadly as possible.

This ISNT cheesy, it is encouraged in the book and is considered in the balance design of the planetstrike rules.



The whole concept behind Planetstrike is for the defender to use terrain to stymie the attacker and make him pay in blood for every inch gained. Planetstike isn't about "fair/balanced" terrain. It is about building a death trap as a defender ans seeign if a the attacker you can overcome it. that IS the point of the planetstrike supplement.

That beign said every piece of terrain should be modeled and look like what you want it to be, but that goes without saying...

great thread. sorry i didn't get here sooner. I've played a lot of planetstrike, primarily as the defender and I've discussed and pondered PS even more than I've played it.

The wheels can fall off of a PS game pretty quick when 'impassable terrain' is used.

In playing and kibitzing the half dozen full fledged PS games, it has come to my attention that the advantage is slightly with the defender. In the 4 games that I've personally played in, I have not seen a defender lose.

With that said. The easiest way to steer clear of the dark path that is 'god mode' I HIGHLY recommend not using any impassable terrain as the defender, aside from your own models. If you stick to that rule of thumb, then you can go as crazy as you want, and the attacker won't be completely locked out of a chance of winning. The problem with impassable terrain is that with even a cursory amount of shrewdness, a defender can make it impossible for the attacker to win. Disagree if you want, but I would hope you'd be staging your argument from a position of experience with the expansion.

Ok, now that I've got that off my chest. Here are my two base deployments that function well.

First, some rules of thumb.

Always take lascannons and always take quad cannons. I tend to mount my quad cannons on bastions. Always make sure that each objective is within 48" of eachother, unless you are making a defensive line (option 2)

My first base set up is the triangle.

On each long edge, right on the center line, but in contact with the board edge, place one bastion (or a cluster of bastions). Dead center of one of the short edges, in contact with the edge place a third bastion or cluster. All three bastions are now within 48" of each other, there is sort of an infinite symmetry, there is no obvious drop zone for the attacker to choose. This option works really well when you plan to use a lot of reserves as the defender. Since your objectives are close to table edges, it makes your reserves coming in very dangerous, they can launch assaults from reserve or shoot close range shots at attacker units loitering on table edges.

The second set up is the defensive line.

Take a minimum of 5 bastions, 6 is preferable and space them along a long table edge, about 5 inch gaps between each should give you the spacing you need. Then you can say "I really wouldn't do that if I were you." when your opponent chooses that long edge as his drop zone. Make sure you have chosen at least 4 vehicles that will likely survive a firestorm, and plop them into the gaps during deployment. If your opponent chose the long table edge with the bastions on it despite your warning, tell him he lost and that you can redeploy and start the game over. If the attacker chooses a short edge, then he will have an easy run on one or two objectives, but physically covering the distance to any more than that is next to impossible. So he'll likely be forced to take the long edge opposite your own line of bastions. Now you get to play a traditional fixed position attack. Run three complete rows of defense lines, populate them with stubborn or fearless troops, cover all deep strike locations with cheap men, take minefields, make lots of razorwire, and grind it out. That is also a really fun and successful way to play. Unfortunately, you can't use reserves that effectively with this set up. Since you've blocked off a table edge. That's fine, this set up lends itself more to having tons of infantry troops to choke up the advance, and all your heavy tanks need to be on the table to block the back door.


A couple more lesser known tricks to defending...

If you want to have units of infantry outside of bastions during the firestorm, then make sure that you have two rows of defense line instead of one. rather than stretching your units long ways along a row of defenses, make sure that half of each unit is behind the second row, and the other half is behind the first row. That way, you can go to ground and collect your 2+ cover save even when the LOS of the firestorm is measured from the center of the template.

Deploy shooty units that you don't want in assault far away from objectives. Put a little defense line shield around a devastator squad or some heavy weapons squads, in the middle of nowhere. Attackers are on the clock to physically move to the objectives, so its likely that you'll only take light fire as they run right past you, letting you unload all game on them.

A single attacking unit can only score one bastion. This means that it isn't really that risky to have two bastions in nearly base to base contact. Once you have planned your defensive spread, you can place one two or even three bastions in each 'spot'.

You've got last turn, if attackers have a unit scoring an objective, but not all of their models are in base to base, then simply charging the unit might snap them off of the objective. It isn't fool proof, if you lose and run, they can consolidate which might take them back, but if you win or hold, you may have just won back an objective.


I'll think of some more later.

Shep wrote:

With that said. The easiest way to steer clear of the dark path that is 'god mode' I HIGHLY recommend not using any impassable terrain as the defender, aside from your own models. If you stick to that rule of thumb, then you can go as crazy as you want, and the attacker won't be completely locked out of a chance of winning. The problem with impassable terrain is that with even a cursory amount of shrewdness, a defender can make it impossible for the attacker to win. Disagree if you want, but I would hope you'd be staging your argument from a position of experience with the expansion.

Let me start by saying that I have spent a fair amount of time studying and thinking about the playing of Planetstrike for both sides (attacker and defender) as well and played my share of games. I am also an avid terrain builder and spend a lot of time thinking about terrain, and put a lot of thought into terrain and it's impact on games in general. I prefer cinematic battlefields that have a theme and that offer interesting tactical challenges. I'm not a fan of "mirror image" battlefiedls in which everything has to be balanced and standardized. War is hell, and the battlefield should represent that. If I wanted regimented playing fields I can play chess.

Planetstrike is an interesting supplement in that it is designed around and plays best with a certain degree of meta-gaming/pre-planning on the part of both roles(attacker/defender). Unlike in regular 40K this suppliment is done a disservice by simply throwing out a cookie cutter/balanced terrain set up or if the players get stuck thinking about it's play as if it is standard 40K in which we are all conditioned to make sure terrain is impartial and balanced, etc. That mentality is NOT at the design core of Planetstrike and players that try to impose their hangups and concerns regarding standard 40k onto planetstrike are missing the boat.


Lets be sure to make a few distinction:

One can use impassable terrain in a reasonable and justified way as opposed to using it to intentionally break a game. The only complaints I have seen are ones with examples of extremes and asshatery. Lets not confuse this.

Lets take my example of "drop zone denial" in which you put impassable terrain along one edge (w/ appropriate terrain modeled as say a cliff face/mountain range or whatever) in which to build your fortifications against without fear of enemy coming on from behind.

To start with the use of edge denial is mentioned in writing by GW which seems to suggest it is not forbidden and certainly part of the balance equation.

Secondly not being able to choose that drop zone as a result of terrain is no different then being denied said drop zone via the stratagem that does same as far as actual game play.

For those that might argue that that requires spending stratagem slots, I'll point out that the stratagem that gives you additional firestorm templates can give you up to six additional firestorm templates for only two points compared to my needing to spend three stratagem points to simply make you choose a different edge for your reinforcements. Potentially having 12+ the number of objectives in ordnance blasts that fall pregame has a huge potential for game altering impact, far more so then my precluding you as attacker from having a certain table adge for reinforcements that you may or may not even have...

My choice as a defender to use drop zone denial terrain placement along one edge do so not really knowing enemy force composition so my doing so may have no actual tactical/game benefit as the attacker has the ability to take a totally deepstriking force which requires no drop zone at all to function. My denying one edge as drop zone choice to an opponent that will have no need of a drop zone to begin with is cheesy? I am setting up a refused edge as a way to guard against attack from one vector, but that vector may never need be used by my opponent with a lot of attacker army builds.

Likewise as defender if I put anything in reserve it comes on from random edge. I have eff3ectively also denied myself a potential edge for reserves to arrive from, and since i build my fortifications along that blocked edge my reserves are in some cases going to take longer to get where they are needed, so its a double edged sword really...

Also ALL terrain needs to be appropriately modeled and represented. If an opponent takes the time, effort and money to build a huge modeled cliff face with a fortification built out of it then I have no issue playing him or him using it as part of his choice as Planetstrike defender. It will make for a challenging and cinematic battle.

Planetstrike isn't about predictable, regimented, tourney-style play. It is not meant to mirror "fair and balanced" standard play. It is about massacres of flesh and the hellish destruction associated with attacking a heavily fortified and well planned strongpoint. If you want predictable and "fair" then Planetsrike may not be for you and you may be utterly missing the point, design of and fun of the suppliment on a fundamental level. Loosen up, role some dice and enjoy the sight of mass slaughter (yours and your opponents).

A lot of throwing hands in air and crying foul for no reason me thinks.

Now that is the kind of impassable terrain use I am talking about, setting up a cool and cinematic scene such a a fortress built on the side of a cliff face, etc. Helmsdeep was cheesy I guess?

Now people simply putting impassable terrain everywhere and surrounding fortifications with it in an attempts to break the game is a far different issue and not the same as what I am discussing, but the difference is easily spotted and has mor to do with some one being a donkey cave in general and trying to play a relaxed format in a competitive fashion. I suggest finding new people to play with if this is what you are encountering. One should not need house rules and artificial limitations imposed to curb people's behavior. IF you find the need to do this with this suppliment you are not playing it in the right spirit and may want to consider findign some new friends...

I agree completely with you CT. You can be trusted to make a fun gaming experience for your friends...

My only point....

as a "rule of thumb" (read: not really a rule at all) skip impassable terrain. I think most players new to planetstrike see the being able to charge after deep strike and tie goes to attacker rules, and they assume they are hugely disadvantaged as defenders, when thats just not the case. I have never used any impassable terrain, and I'm undefeated as a defender, it won't be long before i start dialing back the power level of my defender lists to make it a game. If I included shrewd placement of impassable terrina, I'd just about need to play at a handicap of a couple hundred points. And I'm not a star player in my gaming group. We have some very smart players.

I absolutely agree that planetstrike is built to be open ended, and that players need to explore and find the edges of the envelope for their games. But for people reading tht haven't gotten a game in yet. Put the glue and foam down, stop makign that cliff face, and try your hand at defending, you might find that you won't want to include the terrain at all after a few convincing wins.

If you are playing an underpowered army, or are an unskilled player, adding terrain to control the attacker might be perfect to make your games against friends an even 50/50.

It continually amazes me the kind of things people do to win this game. If there's no chance of loosing, what's the point?

Anyway - sorry for a basically useless post, except to agree with the sportsmanship sentiment here.

The best quote I've seen on this board is something like;
"A successful game is 2 parts co-operation to 1 part competition."

I wholeheartedly agree.

I've lost as the defender and won as the attacker. I will say, each side has juicy bonuses though. Let's put this in context: if you had a planet you were defending with an unlimited budget, how would you defend it? Would you half-ass it to make it more fair? I say when setting up as the defender, the rules are set it up how you choose. If the opponent wants to whine he can play someone else. You can use impassable terrain or dangerous without being TFG, it's called strategy. Why not take more jump pack troops or things that are better suited for what you think you might be running into? I would, and do, expect the worst as the attacker. A half-way intelligent defender won't declare the entire board is impassable out of decency and actually wanting to play a game, and a half-way sporting attacker won't whine when something seems challenging.

GeneralRetreat wrote:It continually amazes me the kind of things people do to win this game. If there's no chance of loosing, what's the point?

Anyway - sorry for a basically useless post, except to agree with the sportsmanship sentiment here.

The best quote I've seen on this board is something like;
"A successful game is 2 parts co-operation to 1 part competition."

I wholeheartedly agree.

Could you clarify your post because it is sort of incoherent.

I have both won and lost as the defender in Planetstrike as have other members of my group. I also suggests that if you haven't already to read the Planetstrike book and play a few games.

The set up of terrain for Planetstrike is 100% NOT intended to be a cooperative activity and it's set up solely by the defender is an inherent part of the design of the Planetstrike rules. This is fully detailed in the Planetstrike book.

Zarahemna wrote:That's illegal.

All fortifications in PS must be objectives. Anything with a defence weapon must also be an objective. That's in bold in the rule book.

The book says "should" not "must".

Great stuff guys. I'm becoming an avid fan of PS games myself, and have played 2 games with my nids thus far (both of which I was on the offense). Heres a few things I recommend for defensive players:

1. SPREAD OUT. The firestorm in the beginning of the game can be very devastating if you do not spread your forces. Also, don't be afraid to keep some stuff in reserve! As attacker I almost always take the extra D6 firestorm strategm. Yeah, theres the possibility to roll low, or have 4-5 of your firestorms hit an area with no models. But killing off 45 kroot and 6 crisis suits one game opened up that area for my nids to deep strike and wreck.

2. Drop Zone denial. Like the OP said, try and deny your opponents drop zones on your base if you take a side. Using the strategm and impassible terrain is a must. Theres nothing that sucks more than having 40 genestealers run behind your lines and tear thru all those squishy fire warriors!

3. Dangerous terrain. Try and line in front of your base with dangerous terrain. Also, try and pick terrain that makes sense. One of my fights my opponents filled the entire front of their fort with water... against nids. So I just dropped in behind him to circumvent it.

4. Bastion Placement. Try and spread bastions out evenly and try not to keep them clustered. Clustering bastions allows things to get from one bastion to the next with relative ease. one game I was able to send a carnifex from one bastion to the next in assault over 3 turns, knocking out 2.

5. Victory. Remember, for attackers to win they just need to knock out the bastions and have a unit there. Theres no contesting objectives. Kill off the things that can easily blow up your bastions. Also, try and set up defenses to keep the opponent from getting to the bastions easily. Lining the outside of the walls with troops or fortifications, for example, to help slow and prevent assaults from MC's or guys with Meltabombs. This can be HUGE in games.

6. Have fun! This is the biggest suggestion i can make for the defender, make the board fun, but effective. Give the attacker a run for their money. Also try different scenerios, layouts, and numbers of players. I normally do 2v1 or 2v2 for my PS games, and this weekend I intend to try my CSM. Also try out different strategems every game and see what works for your army. Certain strategms work wonders vs certain armies (force pylons kick tyranids asses).

Those are my tips. PS I think is a great addition and more fun than a barrel of monkeys!

First Rank Fire.....Second Rank Fire..........Enough Said ............. But that isn't what you are looking for , i would suggest getting a good amount of Guardsmen ( im talking Guard ATM ) with minimum upgrades because they are going to die in droves , thats what they are good at so use them in that manner I.E i had a unit of 50 Conscripts , had them Bayounet Charge a Group of Chaos Dameons ..........10 Dameons vs 50 Consripts many would argue that it is a gross miss application of resources but i would agrue that it is a great diversion , sure it's not worth the poitns and the amount of shots you could pour out are much better aplicated toward other tasks BUT in any Guard Army ( IMHO ) you need to have solid Veteran platoons with 2 plasma guns or Flamers . The volume of fire the platoon could produce is extremely effective , and with Daemons tied up with the Consripts but having 50 models charge your 10 has a VERY intemmidating pressance on the opposing player hince forth if you are fighting any player he will be feeling slighlyt rushed towards objectives , then he runs straight into your Veterans Lasgun fire as he tries for objectives ...... But this is VERY situational ..... A more solid tactic that i have Seen is Placing my Veteran platoons in a gun line on a Sheild landing platform with the Barriers up 4+ invun save which i think is worth the slight disadvantage of firepower that you have in ccovering objectives ........hjust my 2 cents

If you don't cheese out impassable terrain, PS can be a lot of fun. In both of the games I've played I went pretty nuts with WYSIWYG defenses. Fortress of Redemption with everything from the Imperial Strong point box(2 bastions, 2 aegis), but no impassable terrain. In my opinion the attacker has superior assets and has the advantage in victory conditions for most of the scenarios. I had a lot of firepower on the board, but was mostly automated and dumb( bs 2 and fires at the closest target).

Holy frakkin threadomancy batman!!!

My buddy has an airplane hangar (he pulls banners) and he's connected 4 6-by-4 tables in a cross shape. We've played PS games using 1 table + the center section. 5000pts, I played SMs and he had Necrons. Lots of fun. He has a buttload of terrain (GW and homemade), it's a lot of fun but can get a bit saturated, so some level of moderation does help keep the game flowing (specially on that point scale).

He has a table that has a third sectioned off by a river of lava connected by a single bridge. As a defender I blocked off the sides of that section with bastions and some impassable terrain (the attacker can still use the long board edges, just not within that section) and use the DZ denial stratagem to prevent him deploying from the short board edge within that section. I used the indomitable fortress, a couple of bastions and a couple of gun points to defend this area.

It makes for a nice stronghold but with his night rule and a lot of flyers/skimmers he still has ways in.

Very fun battle so far, we're on turn 2 (gotta spread out over a few days) and it's fairly even. He failed his roll for night rule so my next round of shooting should do some damage!

As a defender I would say terrain is your friend, be creative with it (without necessarilly choking the game). Also fearless troops are great to prevent falling back (as you fall back towards nearest edge); I'm using Calgar to good effect!

Have fun!

Dawn Assault strat can really screw over range based defenders.

I like to place my towers at the side middle, and put dangerous terrain between them and the main part of the board. Then, I place my infantry in the open at both ends of the board, so the enemy can't concentrate their forces, can only through huge effort attack your towers and have to walk the "corridor of death" to get from one end to the other.

This is contingent, however, on the quantity/size of the terrain available to you, and on your opponent not managing to break your towers. When It works, it REALLY works, but usually it just doesn't.