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.

SpankHammer III wrote:Apart from for Fluff/Feel?

Yes, apart from that.

SpankHammer III wrote:You need the AV 14 that the bastion brings to survive the firestorm

No you don't. Just keep your forces off the table. You don't have to deploy anything, so why deploy anything?

SpankHammer III wrote:I think what CT is suggesting is that you pile difficult (dangerous to deepstrikers) terrain around them so your if opponent wants to deep strike without increased chances of mishapping/dying they have to do it further away from your defensive position.

Or they just walk on, possibly from the table edge you've got... which forces you to buy the Stratagem that forbids them from coming on 'behind you', a bit like a Siege. Except it's not a siege, is it... so why does that Stratagem exist? Because GW couldn't decide if this was a siege game or not, so wrote rules for both but forgot/didn't know how to/didn't care if they work/ed together.

SpankHammer III wrote:The problem I have with that is that in order to use the aegis line you need to leave troops out to suffer the storm. Firestorm doesn't adjust for BS but lets face it that unit is going to suffer.

I agree. It makes deploying anything outside of a Bastion pointless, and if the Bastions weren't objectives and if you didn't have to deploy them in order to have an objective, you wouldn't put them down either because they serve no useful purpose. They are not fortifications because you don't use them to resist attacks. The attack appears all around you. It's like fighting Demons, but all the time. Why would these fortifications even exist (in the fluff) if the enemy could always bypass them? It makes no logical sense.

SpankHammer III wrote:I don't have a problem with the enemy deepstriking onto my defences (isn't that what happend to the maginot line), my problem is that they fire storm and then deep strike, meaning you have no time to re-man the denfences. I get that it represent a suprise atttack but doesn't it kind of off balance the game.

Remove the Deep Striking of everything (allow the things that can usually Deep Strike to Deep Strike), have the Attacker pick a table edge to come on from, and tweak the Firestorm and you've got a great thematic attacker vs defender game. Right now you've got some fancy great looking terrain and a rule set that negates their use.

SpankHammer III wrote:Saying that I don't think letting the defender go first would be fair either.

Letting the Defender go first would be pointless, as he'd have very little to do (other than re-man the lines from those who died to the Firestorm). Either way, it'd be a very quick first turn.

No you don't. Just keep your forces off the table. You don't have to deploy anything, so why deploy anything?

Sorry been a while since I played Planet strike and as previously stated I didn't play it that much, dosen't the defender have to start with a unit on the board? Also if you all your forces off the board you are totally relying on reserves, don't get to use interceptors (or though I think they are poor) and your handing over the objectives straight away.

Or they just walk on, possibly from the table edge you've got... which forces you to buy the Stratagem that forbids them from coming on 'behind you', a bit like a Siege. Except it's not a siege, is it... so why does that Stratagem exist? Because GW couldn't decide if this was a siege game or not, so wrote rules for both but forgot/didn't know how to/didn't care if they work/ed together.

Why deploy on an edge you can always deploy in the middle, plus difficult terrain isn't going to get any less difficult they still have to walk through it all. The more i look at planet strike the more I think it was an add on designed to played on a large table at high points with buckets of terain.

Also some times sieges do involve being totally surrounded. In some ways the defender surrounds the attacker because of the funky reserve rule they get which effectively means all your units can potentially outflank.

I do agree with you that it is not a true siege game, but I wonder if that is what GW was actually going for. You always use the scenary and house rules to create a better version.

Why would these fortifications even exist (in the fluff) if the enemy could always bypass them?

Again man look at the maginot line, designed to stop a specific type of attack only. Again I agree to a certain extent the attacker should have to dig you out of the bastion in order to be able to claim it not just next to it, thats stupid.

I think it does need some tweaking but feel you are being over critical, the bastion are the objectives and thats why they are included (you may be right and it may just be GW trying to sell more scenary but hey), the AV 14 helps against the fire storm but isn't full proof (name a defense that is), it also throws in a few extra weapon systems, it the aegis line that is pointless.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

They are not fortifications because you don't use them to resist attacks. The attack appears all around you. It's like fighting Demons, but all the time. Why would these fortifications even exist (in the fluff) if the enemy could always bypass them? It makes no logical sense.

Again this is a case of you as a gamer knowing that you are about to play a game focusing on an orbital/deepstriking/teleporting/air-based assault and then assuming that the defenders would know this as well.

Planetstrike game represent the hypothetical cases in which a defender has thought himself safe in his conventional fortifications and planned for a ground assault unaware that the enemy has orbital/deepstriking resources available, or the game represents a detachment being ORDERED to occupy and defend a ground fotification by their superiors even though they expect it to be a suicide mission due to the enemies orbital/deepstriking, etc. Or they refuse to abandon the fortification due to it having some cultural, religious, historical significance to them, etc., etc.

The 40K fluff and setting is full of and based on such contradictions in logic, and they are in a large part what define the character of the setting. The Imperium in particular does much that makes no tactical or logical sense at all, yet do so because an ancient text, or tradition or a talking skull tells them to do so...

Planetstrike very much captures the brutal ill-logic of warfare in the 40K setting imho.

Problem is many players want to sacrifice the fluff and setting and focus more on winning. Yes I agree that defending ground fortifications in the 40K universe is highly illogical and often tactical suicide, yet the fluff tells us that armies continue to try to do so for any number of reasons on a regular basis and despite thousands of years of history that document the oft-futility of trying to do so.

Welcome to life in the 41st Millennium...

The above is all a fluff based rationale, but it works for me as an explanation of why Planetstrike makes sense in 40K despite it's tactical flaws. Then again I much prefer a good story, scenario or fluffy game then simply seeing if I can pwn my opponent or rack up my win total. Some of my best and most memorable games have been loses playing some cool scenario or story based game/campaign, even ones that I am at a distinct disadvantage in. I guess it all comes down to what motivates you to play, how important winning is in relation to what else you can get out of the gaming experience, etc.

I don't see Planetstrike as a competitive format. I see it as a story driven and fluff based format that adds some game variety and new challenges. I have won some planetstrike games and I have lost some games as both the defender and attacker. I guess I just don't see what all the fuss is about...