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.

Is it?

not really, depends on how you play and what lists are used, eg for defence you could take 18 leman russ's, i think that's geared towards the defender

i think it definitely is. if you take a look at the planetstrike campaign prolly about 80% of the special rules benefit the attacker

I dunno. We played our first planetstrike games last night.

Game 1: My daemons versus Guard - it was a massacre, at the end of my second turn, he had two small squads of guys left. BUT, it was our first planetstrike game, and he spread out trying to defend 5 bastions - probably unwise. Also, daemons attacking probably benefit more from planetstrike than anyone else, especially with Forward Observer as an asset.

But, here's why I say I'm not convinced that it's weighted to the attacker;

Game 2 was Marines w/ allied sisters defending against Space Wolves.

The marine player did his best to defend only one corner of the table, and started with only the sisters and two marine combat squads on-table, leaving the rest in reserve. The Space Wolves made a push for the bastions, but the marine reserves really went to town on them. It ended up a very tightly contested game that came down to the last turn.

I think that the second game showed more appropriately how to play the defender.

A better general than anyone posting here once said, "Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man." (That would be Patton). So, if you take the game as expected, and try to set up the perfect trap, the attacker will simply have to solve the puzzle to win. And, with their advantages, they'll probably be able to do that...

On the other hand, if you don't over-defend the fixed fortifications, and have your defense as a fluid, reactive reserve force, you'll probably be able to beat the attacker at their own game. They're compelled to move towards the objective, and 2/3rds of their forces will be placed by the end of their first turn. The defender can turn the tables on the attacker by not being there, and getting the drop on the attacker as your reinforcements arrive. The attacked is still forced to silence the empty bastions, or face the free automated guns each turn, and the defender gets to pick the nature of the battle.

Anyway, we've opted to switch roles for our next game, so I'll be putting this approach to the test, probably with an Eldar defense force.

Yeah, most of the rules advantages are geared towards the attacker...but they're all there to work against how big an advantage the defender gets by setting up the terrain.

If you and your fellow player are playing to win (which is fine, nothing wrong with that) then terrain setup is a massive advantage and requires those sorts of rules widgets to make a fair-ish game.

Jack

But everything the attacker has either deepstrikes or deepstrikes + assaults on the same turn. I just don't see how that's fair against armies that simply don't do close combat. What do all those Russes matter if first turn some terminators charge in and power fist like 5 of your tanks. Once the enemy is in your ranks, you're screwed. Or am I overreacting?

I lost a game of Planetstrike as the defenders on the weekend. Of course, the game fell apart when 8 Berzerkers tore up 10 Assault Marines an 4 Tactical Marines in a single round... and I charged the Berzerkers!!!

If you aren't very good at CC, you probably shouldn't be holing up in an objective waiting to get jumped on by stuff that is. 40k does a great job of making every battle look like an entrenched gunline vs hordes of dumb baddies, but that sort of battle is a perfect storm that requires planning and luck on the defenders part and stupidity on the attackers part. Try Redbeards idea.

TheBog wrote:Or am I overreacting?

You're overreacting. You KNOW your opponent is going to be deep striking in, and you get to set up terrain. If you leave him plenty of wide open spaces to drop his troops in on top of your forces, and have your units deployed so they're all in easy assault range with no fortifications or barriers to slow things down, then you have no one but yourself to blame.

Let's see, the attacker gets tons of cool tricks.....and you get the ability to declare the entire board except for where your models are standing to be a sea of lava, whickedly pointy rocks, a Chuck E Cheese's, +insert impassable terrain here+.


No way the attacker can lose!

If the defender is just going to declare every single bit of the board dangerous/difficult/impassable terrain, why even bother playing?

Planetstrike isn't made for competitive gaming, and you cannot play it competativley just like you can't play Apoc competativley. It doesn't work.

I dunno about seas of Lava, but moats of magma seem like a fun idea if you have the appropriate terrain...

Jack

We played a couple more Planetstrike games last night, and the defender won both.

Game 1 was Pete's Iron Hands versus Ken's Deathwing. Pete took full advantage of the altered force-org chart and his Forge-father put no fewer than eight iron-clad dreadnoughts defending a lone bastion in a corner of the board. He also had 10 sniper-scouts. Ken had three deathwing terminator units, each led my a character (belial, azrael, and gargamel?), and two vindicators. 19 models defending, 20 attacking, and nearly one dreadnought per terminator. The Deathwing arrived somewhat piecemeal, and while they ate a sacrificial scout squad, the dreadnought's combined melta-fire and assaults really wrecked them. At games end, two vindicators were running away from the objective, chased by all eight dreads. The Iron Hands had lost 7 scouts and two dreadnought's meltaguns.

Game two was my Eldar versus Art's Mortifactors.

I had one objective, in the very middle of the table, but it wasn't a bastion, it was a webway gate portal (not a building, no guns). I put it on the top of a tall, but gradually sloped hill, with no other terrain on the table, enough to cause difficult terrain tests to anyone trying to walk up the hill, but not so much that it would provide much in the way of cover to anyone on top of it.

My eldar force (1500 points) was six skimmers, 3 fire prisms, 2 dire avenger units in wave serpents, 1 banshee unit in a wave serpent w/ farseer & Jain Zar. His force had 10 assault marines led by a chaplain, 5 SS/TH marines, 5 shooty marines w/ assault cannon, 3 MM attack bikes, 5 scout bikers and 2 squads of tac marines w/ rhinos and plasmacannons.

I played this one like Eldar should, pinpoint strikes, target priority, dismounting aspect warriors when necessary, but staying mobile as much as possible. And, at games end, there were about 12 marines and two rhinos (one immobile) left, looking at a Wave Serpent wall floating over the objective. The Eldar lost a Fire Prism, a Prism Cannon, and 5 Dire Avengers.


These games, to me, showed that the point of being a defender is to consider what you're defending against, and how you should best do that. Case 1, Iron Clad dreadnoughts are tough nuts to crack, especially for most assault units. By ringing his objective with these Dreads, Pete risked losing some to the firestorm, but with few bastions to defend, the firestorm ended up only taking one's arm, and left Ken in the position of having a low model-count anti-infantry assault army having to lock up against multiple AV13 walkers, that would slowly grind them down.

In my game, I took advantage of the Planetstrike tennet that the defender sets up terrain to ensure that my eldar's firepower and mobility could be used to its best advantage. With no cover on the table, save the couple of craters created by the firestorm, Art had to either face the prism cannons removing entire squads at a time, or cower in the craters, not scaling the hill. As defender, I knew I'd have the last turn, so having the ability to tank-shock my opponent off an objective was more advantageous than hunkering down trying to stay in one - that's not how Eldar go to war...


In short, after these games, I don't think that Planetstrike favors the attacker at all, and may, in fact, be geared to the canny defender. The ability to set up terrain is huge - if you consider your army's strengths as you do it. The fact that you can limit what stratagems the attacked takes by limiting the number of objectives you're fighting over means that you can ensure that they don't take the ones that hurt you the most. Knowing that you go second means that you have the last move, the last opportunity to wrest an objective back from the attacker. And, because you know your strategy, you have a far better chance of dictating how the battle will play out.

A defender who foolishly camps in a fixed position, waiting for the attacker to come to them, and hoping that they can kill them before they get there will probably lose more than they win. A defender who approaches the game thinking how to optimize their advantages and neutralize the attackers advantages should win more than they lose. (And no this doesn't mean Win-at-all-costs, with stupidity like impassable terrain everywhere.)

No offense but all that really tells me is that the defender wins if he either A: takes the strongest thing in his army multiple times or B: sets up the terrain in a just...crippling kind of way. Which in my opinion is poor sportsmanship on the defenders part in both cases, I agree with those people who have said that this expansion isnt meant to be competetive, and treating it as such just makes people do just.....lame things like that to win. I'd much rather prefer a game where we took a fun fluffy list and duked it out not caring who won because it's not a expansion that's meant to be completely balanced in anyway.
Just different and fun.
Anyway that's my opinion.

I'm going to side with what LordRavvage has said here. Defender wins if he sets up crippling terrain.

Where's the fun in that?

Isnt it the point of a defensive position to throw off attackers?

The FUN is in the hands of those who play.

So, games like PS will rely on the player to keep it balanced. I doubt a board of impassable terrain gets you a second game.
Maybe, if i take an ordinatus in the other room and level your defenses....





PS: Those AA guns (PS) and the guard Hydra (40k) should lead to flyer-rules...

1hadhq wrote:Isnt it the point of a defensive position to throw off attackers?

Two things:

1. Planetstrike already ruins that by allowing 1st turn assaults. You're not attacking a defensive position in Planetstrike, you're just playing a regular objective mission where combat starts from the word go.
2. It's also a game, and a game needs to be fun for both players. Setting up terrain that makes things impossible for the attacker isn't fun. Who wants to play on tables that are all difficult, dangerous and impassable terrain?

The answer is right there:

games like PlanetStrike will rely on the player to keep it balanced.

I am sorry, a certain company didnt provide an opponent to play.

They sit on their little foggy island and still believe in the existence of reasonable gamers, whilst we all know there is only one way to play.


You got 2 options:

Join the casual gamer mafia, NOW.

buy more bastions

I am a little disappointed that he who uses his own set of 40k rules cannot be bothered to alter PS.

I've only played one game so far. Give us time.

And we wouldn't play it competitively in the first place because, like Apoc, Planetstrike falls apart when you try to do it that way.

LordRavvage wrote:
No offense but all that really tells me is that the defender wins if he either A: takes the strongest thing in his army multiple times or B: sets up the terrain in a just...crippling kind of way. Which in my opinion is poor sportsmanship on the defenders part in both cases

In rebuttal, I'd like to say that Iron clad dreads are far from the strongest thing in the marine codex, and they're easily defeated at range (their threat radius is 18", with a 6" move and a meltagun). A rhino with meltagunners would have made quick work of them, as would several other things. It's just that the attacker didn't have any greater range (2 vindicators and 2 assault cannons were his highest strength weapons).
In our gaming group we make our lists in advance, and he was expecting to have to flush troops out. (And, in further defense of the defender, he's played Iron Hands for years, and it's actually kind of fluffy for them to have lots of dreads).

As to the assertion that the terrain was crippling, I think that's a ludicrous assertion, and I'll see if I can take a picture. Leaving open killing ground is something that is incorporated into all defenses - the prospect of having to run around out in the open is far scarier to most troops than anything else. The most fundamental Planetstrike advantage to the defender is that they get to set up the terrain. You're accusing me of poor sportsmanship because I only used one large hill - one that was scalable, could be deep striked onto, and that I actually had to force the attacker off of at the game's end.

You're not even there, and you accuse me of poor sportsmanship over the internet...

I agree with those people who have said that this expansion isnt meant to be competetive, and treating it as such just makes people do just.....lame things like that to win. I'd much rather prefer a game where we took a fun fluffy list and duked it out not caring who won because it's not a expansion that's meant to be completely balanced in anyway.

So rather than actually think about how your race would defend a position, and set up appropriately, you'd rather that the defender just plop down a couple of bastions and hide in them and have the attacker show up and roll dice. Seriously? Why are you playing a strategy game at all if you don't think that there is any value in thinking about your moves (which in Planetstrike would involve setting up the terrain). You think that the defender should just roll over and defend an entrenched position with infantry so that the attacker can feel good about themselves? BS

H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm going to side with what LordRavvage has said here. Defender wins if he sets up crippling terrain.

Where's the fun in that?

...

2. It's also a game, and a game needs to be fun for both players. Setting up terrain that makes things impossible for the attacker isn't fun. Who wants to play on tables that are all difficult, dangerous and impassable terrain?

I agree with your point 2 there, but you're agreeing with LordRavvage that the table I described was "crippling terrain"? There was no impassable terrain on the table. There was a line of dangerous terrain that was due to my lasmaze stratagem. And the total terrain coverage was between 20-25% - which is reasonable by any 40k standard. Did the terrain favour my strategy - of course, I'm the defender, that's my right. Was it crippling? Obviously not, as I had to force the attacker off the objective at the end of the game, so it certainly didn't stop him getting there. And, as attacker, he took his opportunity to use his initial bombardments to create craters to hide in as well, so it isn't like the attacker has no recourse on an emptier table.

Since you're already offended I wont bother with a long or lengthy response, i'll just say that if my friend(who plays Eldar) who I play often had the right to set up terrain and he put nothing much more than a hill on the board, was defending, and gave me no terrain to speak of, I'd flip him the bird.

Well maybe it is you who are the poor sport then. Planetstrike clearly states that the defender has a right to set up the terrain in a manner advantageous to them. An army with low model count and low AP weapons is clearly not going to hide in a network of trenches, ensuring that their opponent can negate their strength, just like an ork army wouldn't defend an open field, they'd make sure that all 150 boyz got a 4+ cover save.

The attacker has full opportunity to alter the terrain with their initial salvo. They can target empty space with their firestorm attacks and drop craters to hide in, and they can do that after they know which table edge they're taking. They can also take stratagems that force certain turns of the game to be played in night fight, if they wish to negate a defender's range advantage.

The attacker has no compulsion to hold back. No one is going to complain if, as I've seen at least three times now, they destroy all of the defender's bunkers with their initial firestorm. Should we say, "well, if you're just going to destroy all my bunkers, I'll flip you the bird?"

Of course not. It's part of the game. The defender wants to strand you in the open with nothing to hide behind - use your firestorm to make yourself craters (as my opponent did), don't be a whiny git and complain about how unfair that is.

LordRavvage wrote:Since you're already offended I wont bother with a long or lengthy response, i'll just say that if my friend(who plays Eldar) who I play often had the right to set up terrain and he put nothing much more than a hill on the board, was defending, and gave me no terrain to speak of, I'd flip him the bird.

You can bet your bonnet if I'm playing my White Scars-wannabe Bikers as a defender, I'm not going to have tons of difficult terrain on the board. I'm going to throw a few boulders out there to make deep-striking a dangerous proposition and give myself a few places to play LOS games and setup ambushes... something a smart defender would do in "the real world". The benefit of defending a location is that it's your home ground: you know it well and you have (hopefully) either tailored your force to best defend it, or have tailored it (with fortifications/tank traps/fire lanes/etc) to best fit the force you do have. Anything less and yeah, you're just handing it to the attacker. Likewise, as the attacker, you should set up your army to be able to handle multiple terrain types.

Where I get a little miffed, however, is when I see people go nuts with impassible/dangerous terrain, simply because any Codex that doesn't have skimmers out the wazoo simply can't do anything about it (unlike using Deepstriking, Firestorm craters, vehicles, your own long-range weapons, etc to counteract open ground). Terrain should be helping the defender... not doing ALL the work for him. There's a difference between advantageous terrain and crippling/unplayable terrain. So I agree, both sides have to be reasonable about the terrain selection, and I definately agree that PS is for casual/story games only.

TBH, I think lists should be set beforehand and kept secret until the defender has deployed his terrain. That way the defender can tailor it for himself, but can't do too much to royally screw the attacker. For example, he might leave lots of open ground for shooting, only to find himself up against a Demon/Deathwing player deepstriking right in his face.

Gornall hit it right on the head, thanks for putting to words what I decided to explain with a crude example.

The point of what I said was that my Eldar buddy, knowing that it's a friendly game. Would give me -something- on my side, not much and it would definately benefit him. But he wouldnt cripple me before i even got to deploy, he uses Eldrad for that.