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.

Just wanted to know your feelings on this deployment, I used the drop zone denial stratagem to force the opponent to come from any table edge other than the one in my back.

First Deployment:


And here they come!


All in all a fun game. It was the first time I got to field 6 Heavies. 5 Russes and a Manticore put down a LOT of blasts. Coupled with a Vendetta and a couple of lascannons, autocannons and 2 chimeras with 4 flamers in each they really took their toll on all the T6 models and the resulting Tervigon spawned hordes.

Results: Win for Guard with two objectives vs. one for the swarm.

Looks Great

Looks like you had a fun game

It was.

I usually don't field all those tanks since squadroning is death for tanks and in all seriousness, I think that guard as defender in planetstrike is somewhat overpowered with all the heavy slots you're allowed. As attacker it's more balanced since guard they don't really have all that many good elite choices.

Looks great. Especially that coffee mug on the table edge, heija sverige!

Ruzto wrote:Looks great. Especially that coffee mug on the table edge, heija sverige!

mystic spore eh?

Ruzto wrote:Especially that coffee mug on the table edge, heija sverige!

That was the first thing I saw!!!

Makes for an excellent defensive line up though - 3 Bastions. Landing Pad. Coffee Cup.


It's just a shame that no matter how cool your terrain and 'Fortress' set up, the Planetstrike rules shoot themselves in the foot by allowing your opponent to bypass your defences completely and just Deep Strike inside it. Shame really - could've been a great expansion.

Nice to see someone playing Planet strike

When I played I felt the Attacker always had the advantage. I mean they get fire storm, first turn, the ability to deepstrike, anything that could already deepstrike can assault from deepstrike and they only have to be in contact with and objective to claim it. Thats just the basic Planetstrike, in the second mission they get a bastion as well.

Saying that playing with a friend its alway fun and very bloody. I really want to try it at high points levels.

Well we are doing a 6,000 point game Saterday, If the camera shows I will take Pictures.

SpankHammer III wrote:When I played I felt the Attacker always had the advantage. I mean they get fire storm, first turn, the ability to deepstrike, anything that could already deepstrike can assault from deepstrike and they only have to be in contact with and objective to claim it. Thats just the basic Planetstrike, in the second mission they get a bastion as well.

The biggest problems with Planetstrike all stem from the fact that the concept was great, but the implementation was terrible. This is a reoccurring theme with GW - they come up with wonderful ideas, but just can't ever really get them to work properly.

Everything you mentioned is true:

1. Firestorm - makes setting up anything outside the Bastions by the defender virtual suicide, leading to most of your army being in Reserve.
2. Deep Strike - Makes any sort of defensive line/fortress moot. Why have a defensive line if your opponent can just bypass it automatically?

So you end up with a fortress layout on a table that looks great, but serves no actual purpose. The attacker isn't crashing against the walls of a mighty bastion, they're bypassing the enemy's defences and using artillery bombardments to completely chase off the opponent's army before the game even starts. How is that fun? Would have worked so much better if it terrain set up had been the same, but the attacker comes in from a table edge and actually attacks the fortress, rather than just auto-ignoring it on the 1st turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Anpu42 wrote:Well we are doing a 6,000 point game Saterday, If the camera shows I will take Pictures.

Please do. No matter how flawed Planetstrike is as an expansion - the game does look cool.

I think thats why they have the Interspter guns, it makes droping in dangerios.

They don't really do enough, and at AV10 anyone with a brain drops their Firestorms on the Auto-Cannon one before they get to be used.

That's part of the reason I didn't use any Interceptor guns, well, that and I didn't want to give away any more objectives and stratagem points. I just wanted enough to sport the drop zone denial one.

The only thing that used deep strike in this game was a spore pod (no, not the mug, a proper model) with zoanthropes.

Come to think of it, it would have been a lot nastier if all those MC:s would've deep striked in. Sure, the chance for mishap are pretty high if you scatter, but for those that don't... Ouch.

I'm not accusing you of doing anything wrong berglin, I'm just saying that, as a game system, Planetstrike does not work as advertised (or as intended). It's own rules break the concept behind it.

No. no. That's not at all what I meant. Or thought. Sorry if it came across like that.

I agree on the failings of planetstrike, but sometimes it's interesting to do something different, if only to be able to field six heavy slots.

I like the deployment. Looks like you can still shoot with almost all your weapons. Was a good use of the area denial strategy and when he comes down you have a little wall between you both.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I'm not accusing you of doing anything wrong berglin, I'm just saying that, as a game system, Planetstrike does not work as advertised (or as intended). It's own rules break the concept behind it.

From my experience, there's quite a simple way to fix it, at least for guard or orks. Take cheap infantry squads, and fill in the courtyard of your castle. It adds the dramatic element of your opponent either having to clear a landing zone inside your castle (Which is an awesome concept) or using his Firestorm on actual hard targets. Also, keeping some hard tanks outside of your defenses generally works fairly well. As long as your side armor is up to snuff, of course.
Also, infantry squads manning the cover line work very well.

Cool pictures. I like the huge bugs on the defensive line.

Looks good, I thought that you could only land something like a valk on the skyshield when the crenelations were down...I could be wrong though...

You can land however the crenelations are. It they're up, they confer a 4+ inv save to any models on top of the platform and if they are down models may disembark regardless of how far a transport has traveled.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
2. Deep Strike - Makes any sort of defensive line/fortress moot. Why have a defensive line if your opponent can just bypass it automatically?

So you end up with a fortress layout on a table that looks great, but serves no actual purpose. The attacker isn't crashing against the walls of a mighty bastion, they're bypassing the enemy's defences and using artillery bombardments to completely chase off the opponent's army before the game even starts. How is that fun? Would have worked so much better if it terrain set up had been the same, but the attacker comes in from a table edge and actually attacks the fortress, rather than just auto-ignoring it on the 1st turn.

i think a lot of it has to do with embracing the actual concept of the expansion.

I can not say enough "Defender gets Advantage" enough in Deep Strike, 1 Augus cannon, 3 Interceptor cannons vs. Drop Pod assault is the bomb. I killed 2 drop opds in my 6,000 pt game with these "Orbital Bombardment" hurt taking out 2 of my Stratagems the Command Bunker and Generator in turn 1. But in all it was my Traitor Guard who held the Emperors finest assualt troops at bay for 3 turns with minimal casulalties.
Use those free defensive weapons as I forgot that each building 4 in total had 3 hvy bolters free to fire before my opponent moved. The attacker is at a great disadvantage if he does not take and hold objectives as soon as he can. Turn 4 comes around and he see's him/herself is a great deal of trouble as enemy reserves come into play as in my game.
Hell I was scarred untill turn 3 and even my opponent knew he could not win if his HQ Squad did not win a close combat then, he lost and turn 4 he pulled back saving his assualt troops which had me very worried as my castle was defended only by Guard troops and 1 Nurgle Chosen squad.
Best way to win is focus on one point if your assualting and always move forward, not back as my opponent was destracted by teleporting termies behind then a 5-man squad HQ team with a Chaos Lord. His Assault troops turned to attack them instead of assisting their brother assualt unit attacking the objective. Planet Strike is a monster game if you have your stratagems right and used effectivly. If not they can win a very easy game I forgot to use my Krak Attack my 3rd Stratagem the whole game darn it. But my opponent gave me a great fight that had me worried 3 turns until my armor showed up turn 4.

LordWynne wrote:I can not say enough "Defender gets Advantage" enough in Deep Strike

I don't disagree. There are many elements of the Planetstrike rules that give the Defender the advantage (being able to set up terrain is one of them), but the Bastions they have are not one of them because they serve no purpose beyond being objectives (and ramping up the amount of Firestorms your opponent gets). If you could defend them and use them as strong points, rather than just sitting around hoping the Alpha Strike that your opponent gets in the first turn doesn't reduce them to complete rubble, then Planetstrike might be worth a damn.

CT GAMER wrote:If you imagine that the defenders are awaiting a ground based attack when suddenly the enemy drop upon their heads it makes a lot more sense. The defenses haven't been built with the expectation of stopping an airborne attack, they are present to stop a ground attack that never comes...

Which defeats the purpose of having defences. And if the central concept behind the entire game is "A heavily fortified defensive line that is taken completely by surprise and negated within the first few seconds of combat", then why bother? Besides, it's not just the granting of Deep Strike to infantry units that renders Planetstrike a great concept/failed execution - the Firestorm adds to this, as I mentioned already, by making deployed units be they infantry or vehicles virtually useless and forcing the defender to either keep things off the table or inside Bastions.

So really, going off of what you said, the central concept behind the game should be "A heavily fortified yet completely unmanned defensive line is taken by the enemy within a few seconds via orbital drop and then the previous owner has to take their fortress back". Yay? I consider any game that introduces the concept of Bastions, Defensive Lines and Automated Guns yet fails to capitalise on them by creating a rule set that negates their use to be a failed rule set.

Yeah, I completely agree, Planetstrike was a good idea but they made it fail in certain ways.

Like, as you said, the Firestorm. Me and my friends have completely discounted it because it's so OP and defeats the point of most things in Planetstrike.

grayspark wrote:Yeah, I completely agree, Planetstrike was a good idea but they made it fail in certain ways.

Like, as you said, the Firestorm. Me and my friends have completely discounted it because it's so OP and defeats the point of most things in Planetstrike.

And I respectfully think both of you are looking at what Planetstrike is supposed to represent from the wrong perspective.


I think Planetstrike is going for fluff based representation: The concept of small fixed fortifications in the 40K setting being sort of archaic and extremely risky due to the readily available drop ship, teleport, warpgate, and air transport technology available as well as the proliferation of jet pack/flying assets.

Yet like many things in the 40K setting armies use them because they have always done so and tradition is hard to break. On the one hand they need them as a strongpoints against ground based attacks, but at the same time are fully aware that if the enemy decides to commit an orbital/teleport/flying attack against them that they will most likely fall as they are a sitting duck. It is never a good idea to be a fixed target while orbitial assets hover overhead...

It is meant to be a risky proposition at best.

Also it seems both of you are assumign that the defending army knows what the defending player knows. This is "game-think". The hypothetical being presented is that the defending army is unaware of the coming surprise orbital attack and thinks their position secure, no enemy in orbit, etc. Planetstrike represents those surprise orbital/teleport attacks that fill the 40K fluff, and I think it helps if players understand this and keep this mindset in mind. Planetstrike is not supposed to be easy as the defender because it is rarely the gratest idea tactically in the fluff.

Sieges are not the norm, see saw battles back and forth over vital ground positions are, and that is what Planetstrike represents.



Now for my "game-speak":


1. As for the Firestorm, make it eat up a stratagem to get it at all initially, to at least make it cost something.

2. I thonk most defenders don't put enough effort and time into having proper terrain and setting up a nasty table. For instance in this batrep I would have had a ring of dangerous terrain around the fortification, etc. Most people plop down a few bunkers and walls and then do very little else to set up an unfriendly table beyond that, which I think is missing out on a whole area of defender control of the flow of the game...

I don't know how lucky you guys are with your firestorms, but I've never had it seriously mess with my battle plan. Bear in mind I mainly play orks and IG. I can see how a marine player would get owned by AP 3. However, you have bastions for a reason.

You are missing the point of a defensive line. It has to be manned! With squads on the line, your opponent will have to assault into cover and drop farther out from your bastions. Make them double sided and you'll even get a decent cover save from the firestorm.

CT GAMER wrote:2. I thonk most defenders don't put enough effort and time into having proper terrain and setting up a nasty table. For instance in this batrep I would have had a ring of dangerous terrain around the fortification, etc. Most people plop down a few bunkers and walls and then do very little else to set up an unfriendly table beyond that, which I think is missing out on a whole area of defender control of the flow of the game...

Or how about a ring of impassable terrain just outside your front line walls. Or, better, declare the whole table (other than your fortified area) impassible.

No, you'd never actually do that, but you can. Playing sillybuggers with terrain is just as bad as the Firestorm.


And at it's core, 40K is still a Science Fantasy game, not Science Fiction. There as many ships in orbit as there are men charging at one another with sharp sticks. The idea of legions of men storming out of transports to overwhelm a defensive line, or siege tanks blasting away at high walls is far more evocative than "OH-LOLS! I can deep strike my Slugga Boyz! All 200 of them!". Why even have the pretence of fortifications if the game is just going to be about a see-saw back-and-forth battle over a patch of ground?

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Or how about a ring of impassable terrain just outside your front line walls. Or, better, declare the whole table (other than your fortified area) impassible.

No, you'd never actually do that, but you can. Playing sillybuggers with terrain is just as bad as the Firestorm.

The defender is given free reign to make the table as he sees fit. Most Planetstike games I have seen or played the defender has done little or anything to shape a challenging battlefield beyond what fortifications he plops down. This is short-sighted and a failure to embrace the power the defender has in this regard.

If he has the terrain to represent what he wishes present he is free to do so.

I know posting extremes is your thing, but seriously if you can see no middle ground between spending some time and effort to make a defendable table that is hostile/hindering to an attacker and doing what you describe above, then I don't see that any sort of intelligent and worthwhile conversation on this topic is going to take place.

Enjoy.

My experience of Planetstrike is some what limited. I've played four time and never at a high points level.

I plan to keep playing it because I do like the fluff of it. Personally I found the inceptor guns a little weak, most of mine seemed to get destroyed by fire storm and if you miss you can't fire in your go

My opinion about the attacker having the advantage may be biased as I play guard and seem to always end defending but it based on my expereince of the expansion. I found the attacker stratagem where they get to completely replace a troop choice when it wiped out a little annoying especially against orks.

I can see how good terrain placement would be advantageous and in the games i've played i've tried but to be honest there wasn't alot of terrain for me to move.

I can see what H.B.M.C is saying though it is a little annoying that your opponent doesn't even have to dig you out of the bastion to be able to claim it.

I think we can all agree that is a flawed expansion but with enough study of the stratgems and with tactical use of terrain it can be competive and fun.

CT GAMER wrote:...then I don't see that any sort of intelligent and worthwhile conversation on this topic is going to take place.

How nice of you.

But you haven't answered my earlier point:

Why bother with the Bastions, Landing Pads, etc. at all if they're not meant to represent a fortified position? If they are not fortified because the enemy can simply skip over them, why have them at all?

Why bother with the Bastions, Landing Pads, etc. at all if they're not meant to represent a fortified position? If they are not fortified because the enemy can simply skip over them, why have them at all?

Apart from for Fluff/Feel?

You need the AV 14 that the bastion brings to survive the firestorm, defensive lines are a little trickier. 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.

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 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.

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