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 pictures hurt my eyes.

Going past that, if this was the defense what do you do against a Marine Pod force that mainly focuses on Terminators w/ Assault Cannons, with the Tactical Marines/Dreads providing support?

The most important thing to do would be to deepstrike further away, take out the two princes first, maybe throw a tactical in close on one side of the formation to rapid fire the first CSM squad acting as a buffer, and soak up against the retaliatory attack, leaving the terminators to dance 24" away and keep on putting shots down.

When I was playing Pods, the first thing I found was that units like Terminators beat the castles that I ended up fighting against.

See that big pile of terrain in the middle, and those board edges...and how LOS works in 5th?

Yep, that's moronic allright.

No, not the deep strike player.

Please note for the record that concentrating fire on one unit with all of yours is the entire POINT of a deep strike defense.

FFS. You just have zero to offer.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:The pictures hurt my eyes.

Going past that, if this was the defense what do you do against a Marine Pod force that mainly focuses on Terminators w/ Assault Cannons, with the Tactical Marines/Dreads providing support?

The most important thing to do would be to deepstrike further away, take out the two princes first, maybe throw a tactical in close on one side of the formation to rapid fire the first CSM squad acting as a buffer, and soak up against the retaliatory attack, leaving the terminators to dance 24" away and keep on putting shots down.

When I was playing Pods, the first thing I found was that units like Terminators beat the castles that I ended up fighting against.

I'd personally use panzerleaders variation, since it encourages terminators to deep strike further away.

Which means some will land badly.

Of course, against this particular Chaos army, it doesn't matter where you land. It can get to you.

Not all armies can, but most of my armies can stop a terminator army without much effort.

Stelek wrote:See that big pile of terrain in the middle, and those board edges...and how LOS works in 5th?

Yep, that's moronic allright.

No, not the deep strike player.

Please note for the record that concentrating fire on one unit with all of yours is the entire POINT of a deep strike defense.

FFS. You just have zero to offer.

You just don't get it, do you. My point is that your assuming the most favorable conditions possible for your defense - including moronic behavior and unlucky DS rolls by your opponent. The very essence of a straw man argument.

The Drop Storm player is going to be using the drop pods to try and form a wall lining one side of your castle. Even if they're trying to stay away from the table edge, they're still going to be able to form a line, either in front, or on the side (depending on mission parameters).

You're assuming that the Drop Storm player wants to try and "box you in" somehow.

More zeros offered.

Stop calling me a moron.

Unlucky DS rolls? Do you mean the average dice rolls of 66% scatter and the average of 2D6? Who do you think you're talking to? Do you think you're fooling anyone with that straw man argument crap?

If 6 pods drop, 4 will scatter. On average, they'll scatter 5-9". There are ways to minimize some of the scatter, as I showed, and to reduce the risk. Skilled drop pod players understand the percentages on where they'll scatter, and plan accordingly.

You can no longer stack all of your units up and still get shots, 5th edition denies that ability.

YOU are the one who said you wanted to drop everything on one flank. Which is just more terrible advice from you. There is NO worse advice than 'when opponent is castled, attack only ONE area of the castle'. That's what the castling player wants. You obviously don't grasp this defense, and you refuse to post pictures.

Post some with real insights, or shut up already.

Stelek wrote:
I'd personally use panzerleaders variation, since it encourages terminators to deep strike further away.

Which means some will land badly.

Of course, against this particular Chaos army, it doesn't matter where you land. It can get to you.

I was responding more to the quoted image with the corner castle.

You think it can get to me, but with your fast elements so far back, even with the Lash you can struggle. It's too fluid a game to get into specifics. If I see you using a troop screen like this to prevent shots off on your DP's, then I deepstrike back and concentrate on killing the regular Marines, at the edge of the castle. Your assaults moves aren't that far or fast, you can try to move up and lash something, but then you're breaking the castle.

The main goal in that defense would be to make sure the initial drop took out one of the buffer Marine squads at long range; Tactical Marines would either hide or sacrifice themselves, depending on how many terminators I got in on the initial drop. I could set them up as bait so that when you assault, it's overwhelming and you either kill them all or they break, so you're princes and/or Raptors are out for shooting next turn when I drop again, and I hopefully take them out. Goal is to keep the terminators safe - that's where the VP's are (I'm assuming in this scenario VP's are the objective since you can suffer with a corner castle in most objective games).

Not all armies can, but most of my armies can stop a terminator army without much effort.

Well with that paint job, it should be able to stop anything in it's tracks.

Not that I'm some GD quality painter, but that stuff is pretty bad man.

Still, you're right - Good armies can catch the podders. Which is why I eventually switched from it to a normal Shooty Marine list. I found it was better at handling all comers than Pods, at least back when I mostly played Marines.

*shrug*

Slaanesh was an experiment that didn't work.

Thanks for winning me 20$ though! Man, all the money I can make off the predictability of dakka posters.

Now to see if I can collect another 20$. Any other cheap shots? Come on...I got money riding on this!

Stelek wrote:*shrug*

Slaanesh was an experiment that didn't work.

Thanks for winning me 20$ though! Man, all the money I can make off the predictability of dakka posters.

Now to see if I can collect another 20$. Any other cheap shots? Come on...I got money riding on this!

At least I put constructive comments/criticisms in there as to why a Terminator style force would be able to deal with this defense.

And when your army is made out of Air Fresheners as Pods and are painted with some kind of scheme that looks like the wallpaper in the bathrooms at an Aquarium, you couldn't think it would go without getting jazzed.

Or was that all part of the master plan of winning $20?!?

Wait it couldn't be, that would require there to be a Dakka Metagame, which clearly doesn't exist!

Stelek wrote:
Stop calling me a moron.

I'm not calling you a moron. I'm not even calling your argument moronic. I'm saying your plan depends on your opponents playing like morons. Catch the difference?

Stelek wrote:
Unlucky DS rolls? Do you mean the average dice rolls of 66% scatter and the average of 2D6? Who do you think you're talking to? Do you think you're fooling anyone with that straw man argument crap?

Yep. Here's what really happens. The drop storm player places the first one. It has a 33% chance of landing on target. If it scatters, it has a roughly 50% of scattering in a direction that will effectively prevent it from moving at all, because as soon as it moves within 1" of an enemy model, it stops moving. So what you have is roughly a 2/3 chance of the first drop pod not scattering at all. Then the troops deploy out of the drop pod...and again, assuming that the drop storm player has an ounce of sense, they deploy the troops so that not only are the important guns able to shoot at a good target...they deploy the rest of the squad so that the NEXT drop pod that comes in has only one realistic direction to scatter in.

As long as you get 4-5 drop pods coming in on the initial drop, chances are that you're now faced with a wall of at least three drop pods that block LOS from the majority of your army, while allowing the drop storm player to concentrate fire on a portion of your force.

Cent in your analysis, you describe how I deployed but you called it moronic.

You are describing 4th edition drop pod armies, where LOS isn't an issue.

Drop pod armies do not work this way in 5th edition.

That's the problem--you are using your ZERO experience to argue with my YEAR of experience.

Why are you theoryhammering against my actual gameplay experience?

WHERE ARE THE PICTURES?

Oh you trashed my ghost marines. Sigh. They're painted like the ghostly undead in LOTR3, actually. They're unique. Ah well, cheap shots are cheap shots.

As far as the pods...well, I guess I could spend a grand on gakky FW drop pods. I ordered one FOUR years ago. I've never gotten it. Shall I order the other NINE? I'll be dead by the time they all arrive--if they ever do. I'm not poor, ya know. I've been waiting for the plastic drop pods like everybody else, only I want something so I can play. Sure as hell isn't going to be FW models and having helped build just two scratch builds...never again.
At least they are the right size and not 8" by 12" blocks like everybody else uses. :(

Stelek wrote:
That's the problem--you are using your ZERO experience to argue with my YEAR of experience.

You keep saying this. Clearly, many of us don't believe you. Saying it again isn't going to change that. Saying it louder isn't going to change that. SAYING IT IN ALL CAPS ISN'T GOING TO CHANGE THAT.

Besides, 5th ed is still a wargame, and general wargame theories will still apply, regardless of the minutia of whether a squad gets a cover save or not.

WHERE ARE THE PICTURES?

Obviously, none of us have anything better to do than set guys up or create photos just because you demand it.

Stelek wrote:Cent in your analysis, you describe how I deployed but you called it moronic.

Oh really:

Centurian99 wrote:
That picture is an example of the Deep Strike player being a moron. You want to clump the pods so that you're concentrating fire on one side of the castle, with maybe a unit or two on the other side to act as a speed bump.

Centurian99 wrote:
My point is that your assuming the most favorable conditions possible for your defense - including moronic behavior and unlucky DS rolls by your opponent.

Reading is fundamental.

Stelek wrote:
You are describing 4th edition drop pod armies, where LOS isn't an issue.
Drop pod armies do not work this way in 5th edition.

Unsupported assertion.

Stelek wrote:
That's the problem--you are using your ZERO experience to argue with my YEAR of experience.
Why are you theoryhammering against my actual gameplay experience?

Claim of false authority without any real proof to back it up.

I could claim to have been a part of the ultra-super-secret playtesting team used by the Games Dev Studio, and it wouldn't affect any arguments I give one whit. It doesn't change the fact that your argument in this situation (and in a lot of other ones) pretty much depend on favorable mission conditions, opponent matchups, and in general, your opponents having the tactical sense of a rock.

WHERE ARE THE PICTURES?

Honestly, don't have the time.

Somehow I doubt Bill has no experience playing against deep-strikers. What he says is probably based on experience, not just theory. I've played against drop-pods at a tournament too. What he is saying lines up with my experiences playing against drop-pods in a tournament too.

Not only that, but I've played against him, and trust his opinions and approach to the game. This is what you have continually failed to grasp. These forums are just a means for (mostly) strangers to communicate. I don't know you except from what you write.

Shouting louder, acting like a three-year-old, demanding pictures, and being unable to engage in a discussion without pounding your chest doesn't exactly lend any weight to your opinions. You're not laying golden eggs that us plebes should be eternally grateful for.

I'm not saying that your posts have no value either. But, until your prove otherwise, your opinions are just that. You're neither right nor wrong, you're posting opinions. If you want me to value your opinion over Bill's opinion, you're going to have to earn that trust. You don't do that by shouting louder. You don't do it by demanding that you're right. You don't do it by making self-promoting statements that none of us can validate (about your win-record or that you've been playtesting 5e). You do it by making the better argument about the facts at hand. So far, you've failed to do that.

Why should I trust your opinion on a deep-strike defense more than Bill's?

Stelek,

I really appreciate the fact that you've taken pictures to show how the castling defense works. This is precisely the defense I use, keep the things I want alive more than 12" away from the outside of the ring.

Now, this is a DISCUSSION forum which doesn't mean that one person posts and no one can disagree. You are entitled to your opinion just has Cent is entitled to his.

Cent, if you could find the time at some point to show us what you mean with pictures or line drawings, I'd appreciate it. I am familiar and comfortable with the Castle defense and I just don't see how your plan of dispersed deployment works. I am interested though and would like to see it.

Ozymandias wrote:Stelek,

I really appreciate the fact that you've taken pictures to show how the castling defense works. This is precisely the defense I use, keep the things I want alive more than 12" away from the outside of the ring.

Now, this is a DISCUSSION forum which doesn't mean that one person posts and no one can disagree. You are entitled to your opinion just has Cent is entitled to his.

Cent, if you could find the time at some point to show us what you mean with pictures or line drawings, I'd appreciate it. I am familiar and comfortable with the Castle defense and I just don't see how your plan of dispersed deployment works. I am interested though and would like to see it.

If I can find the time, I will...but right now things are quite hectic, between my Day Job and a volunteer gig. It's one thing to post a note here and there. Its another to either take my army down to the local gaming shop, set up some hypothetical scenarios, take pictures, process the pictures, upload them, and then post the thread. Or create a digital drawing with lines going everywhere.

Personally, if I've got that much free time, I'd rather just get a game in.

Who is Bill? If you are gonna support your friends claims you should at least name them so we know who you are supporting.. Even if it biased and your not bringing any reason why. If someone has a superior type of deployment, please show it.. either thru pics or a little more detailed diagrams to back it up.

Steleks defence is really solid for a force of that type, by the reasons he explained(wich is very well described wich is why you should trust it more then someone named Bills). There are other methods for other types of armies, esp mechs with their high mobility.. but that is what everyone seems to agree on.

If you deploy further back to be able to single out the wall of the castle as someone pointed out, all you will do is put more range on your medium-range army against a longer range, lash one.. that would really be bad.

My name's Bill

My names Andy.

Can we all sing koombayaa now?

Voodoo, I'm not shouting. Caps is for emphasis and I'm not going to go back and BOLD what I want emphasis on.

K? Good. I love you too.

Stelek wrote:Voodoo, I'm not shouting. Caps is for emphasis and I'm not going to go back and BOLD what I want emphasis on.

K? Good. I love you too.

I didn't think you were shouting at me, thought that was to the other guys in the thread. I don't really care either way, I'm posting in between jaunts into hell and back at work; so no worries.

Shouldn't have made fun of your painting though, even if I think it's bad it's probably not the right thing to do. And it's not like my stuff is gold either.

I still think I made valid points regarding how I'd tackle your defense there; the castle style defense has trouble vs. long range podding/deepstriking armies. Not that it matters much, SM are about to be limited to 1 Assault Cannon per Termy Squad in a few months and with that the whole thing falls apart.

Can we all sing koombayaa now?

Please do. I'll bring marshmallows. I think we already have a fire.

It's futile arguing with you (or anyone) about whether your posting style up till now is justified or not, but surely you can see that regardless of how justified it may or may not be, it isn't proving to be an effective style. It's at the point where even when you state something totally obvious you get jumped on; whether or not it's your fault, it's within your power to change it.

Stelek we all can't post pictures all day and troll around.

And why do you talk down to cent. it's not like he won a major tourment or anything.

But Your advice is bad some what. You are just hoping the person is dumb as hell.

You said "it's unfair that whole drop army comes in" (or something like that) But thats Life and life aint fair.

And as for lack of experince...Duh every one has that where still in 4th ED

We havnet play tested 1000's of games. And it is the same concept to a degree.