Topic: Tactical Exposition Game 1: Civil War Community Thread

[Holy Hand Grenade]

Tactical Exposition Game 1:  Civil War

This Tactical Exposition Game (TEG) is a modification to our popular Tactical Decision Game (TDG).  In this game, forum members will be able to sit "table-side" to two of our experienced forum members-  Rothgar and Zif. 

Empire normally doesn't face itself on the field of battle-  but there is some benefit to seeing two different list building philosophies go head-to-head.

Just like in a TDGs, a TEG will be a way to explore Empire strategy and tactics as a forum.  The goal is to share ideas and learn. 

The Lists

Faith, Steel, and Gunpowder 2500

Rothgar has a cavalry-based list with lots of 1+ AS.  He has a total of 4 cannons on the field with 2 GC and 2 STanks.  His primary hammer is a decent sized Demi block backed by WAltar buffing love and Lvl 4 Light Wiz.


Arch Lector on WAlatr with Horn Gen  (GW, Armour of Destiny, Van Horst)

10 Archers 
     Wizard Lord, Light Lvl4  (Dispel Scroll, Talismen of Pres)
     Witch Hunter  (Brace of Pistols)

5 Demigrpyhs (FC)

2x 5 Vanilla Knights (Musician)

39 Halbediers  (FC)
     Captain  BSB  (Sword of Might, Ench Shield)
     5 Archer det
     5 Archer det

2x Great Cannon

2x Steam Tank



Men and Magic 2500
 
Zif has an infantry-based list with Halbs and Greatswords.  For arty, he has 2 GC and 2 HVBGs with Engies.  He also has a WAltar for buffing love and a Lvl 4 Light Wiz.


Arch Lector on WAlatr no Horn Gen  (HW, Charmed Shield, Talisman of Pres)

10 Archers 
     Wizard Lord, Light Lvl4  (Dispel Scroll)

39 Greatswords  (FC)
     Captain  BSB  (FPA, Shield, White Cloak)

40 Halberdiers  (FC)
     5 Archer det
     5 Archer det

15 Spearmen

14 Spearmen

10 Archers

Celestial Hurricanum

2x Greatcannon 

2x Helblaster Volley Gun
2x Master Engie


--------------------------------------------------

The lists have similar magic, support, and diverters. 

The two main differences are:  one is infantry-based with more short range arty support; while the other is cavalry-based with all long range arty support. 

As in all games, luck will play a factor...but hopefully the luck is balanced enough so that the true strengths and power of each list is exposed.  We are going to do a straight up Pitched Battle.

May the best list win.   

The Terrain:

I rolled randomly for terrain and in random locations-  with minor adjustments so the map would look presentable.

In the center is a Wizard's Tower and a Mysterious Forest.  Each side has a building.  Otherwise, there is one Mysterious Lake to the NW, a Mysterious Forest to the SW, and a Anvil of Vaul hill to the east.

Warmachines can be placed on top of either building in the deployment zones-  they are 1 level high (6 inches up).  The Tower is 2 levels high (12 inches) and the hill is 4 inches high.

Rolling for Magic

[1] 13-03-24 12:40:41 EDT
Zif Magic
4d6
6 + 4 + 6 + 3 = 19

[2] 13-03-24 12:41:47 EDT
Rothgar Magic
4d6
3 + 5 + 3 + 1 = 12

Rothgar and Zif-  I need to know what you want to pick for spells.  Also, Rothgar you need to pick which side you want.  You won the roll-off.

[3] 13-03-24 12:42:25 EDT
Zif roll for side
1d6
4

[4] 13-03-24 12:42:47 EDT
Rothgar roll for side
1d6
6


------------------------------------------------------

Still working out the permissions/thread issues and format.  For now, we will start with this one thread.  I may branch it into two, one for each side, if I can get it all to work.

If you want access to the original dice log, register for an account on https://dicelog.com/logdice and join Dice Log 244.

 
HHG

[b0007452]

This is going to be awesome. Really looking forward to this getting going.

Could even potentially do a series of these if HHG has the time, although that is a big commitment. Would give people the chance to try out different things.

Big respect for volunteering to organise it bro, you are th best of us.

[sammay23]

 

Looking forward to it!

And thank you three for putting the time in to benefit the rest of us. Very much appreciated.

[zifnab0]

Zif Magic
4d6
6 + 4 + 6 + 3

(3) Light of Battle
(4) Net of Amyntok
(6) Birona's Timewarp
(1) Pha's Protection

With this roll I had one spell that I could take for free and the option to drop one of my spells for a magic missile.  I considered taking Shem's, but I've got a magic missile built in with the War Altar and the Hurricanum comes with a direct damage spell of its own.

Speed of Light is a decent spell, but the choice between that and Pha's Protection is a no brainer.

[rothgar13]

I'll go with the following spells:

(1) Pha's Protection
(3) Light of Battle Shem's Burning Gaze
(5) Banishment
(Choose) Birona's Timewarp

My rationale here is that ASF and +1A gives my Demigryphs plenty of offensive juice. I have the ranged edge, so Shem's will help me enforce it more often, and Pha's can help me try and win the artillery war. I like having 2 castings of a magic missile to clean out light units.

I'll also take the bottom side of the board.

[Holy Hand Grenade]

I rolled for who starts deployment first.  After several ties, Rothgar places the first unit.

[5] 13-03-24 21:13:10 EDT -
Zif roll for who starts deployment
1d6
3

[6] 13-03-24 21:13:29 EDT
Rothgar roll for who starts deployment
1d6
3

[7] 13-03-24 21:13:46 EDT
Zif 2nd deploy roll
1d6
2

[8] 13-03-24 21:13:58 EDT
Rothgar 2nd deploy roll
1d6
2

[9] 13-03-24 21:14:17 EDT
Zif 3rd deploy roll
1d6
4

[10] 13-03-24 21:14:27 EDT
Rothgar 3rd deploy roll
1d6
5
 
-------------------------------------------

Zif & Rothgar-  I think the easiest thing to do is to PM me a basic idea of the order you want to place the units and where you want to place them.  Also give me some ideas of things that are important to you for placement-  like line of sight, attempt to get certain matchups, etc.

I can send you the Battle Chronicler game file if you have the program and give me an email address-  then you could more easily communicate to me what you want.

Rothgar-  you place first on the south side.

[Holy Hand Grenade]

Note-  I am working with them over PMs to get the first batch of drops figured out.  I will post that tonight after work, then we will work the next batch. 

Be patient if you are watching in already-  deployment is a big part of the game and we can't just rush over it!

HHG

[Noght]

Be patient if you are watching in already-  deployment is a big part of the game and we can't just rush over it!

HHG

It's ultra critical. Take it slow and get it right.

[Baluc]

What are win conditions?

100 vps as per the book, would be a better indication of GWs internal balance

Might I suggest this setup however, to get a better understanding of the armies full abilities to score battle points and win games in a broader spectrum of games or events.

vps 200 pts minor, 300 points major, 500 points crushing victory

half vps for units, single models reduced to half wounds count as half points

fleeing units at the end of the game count as dead (we want to see how these armies function, most of us know to flee a charge on turn 6 if this condition doesn't exist)

characters at half count for half points (the is to counter act close calls or unlikely situations where a character survies where he/she should not)

must kill character and mount to claim full points just one or the other give half points (an armies ability to retain its abilties and special rules is key. losing vps in this situation represent a loss of utility in the list)

table quarters count as 50 vps at end of the game, you must have more units in a quarter to claim it. We want to see how flexible these armies are in a greater context, and table quarters/ board control are a good way to determine this.

With these conditions the battle will be less about smashing the opposition for as many vp as possible and more an exercise in demonstrating the abilities of each archetype. Which is what we actually want to see.

Of course we can add vps both ways for discussion sake,

[rothgar13]

I'm under the assumption that victory conditions are as per the BRB. I think most of these alternate VP suggestions are (a) silly (I wouldn't play under any of them, as I am a staunch anti-comp proponent) and (b) outside the scope of this simulation. "Smashing the opposition for as many vp as possible" is exactly what I came here to do.

[Noght]

I'm under the assumption that victory conditions are as per the BRB. I think most of these alternate VP suggestions are (a) silly (I wouldn't play under any of them, as I am a staunch anti-comp proponent) and (b) outside the scope of this simulation. "Smashing the opposition for as many vp as possible" is exactly what I came here to do.

+1. 100 points is a win. 

[Baluc]

I'm under the assumption that victory conditions are as per the BRB. I think most of these alternate VP suggestions are (a) silly (I wouldn't play under any of them, as I am a staunch anti-comp proponent) and (b) outside the scope of this simulation. "Smashing the opposition for as many vp as possible" is exactly what I came here to do.

Yes but this isn't limited to you. Its about a wider Empire experience. Most people play under some sort of comp or win conditions. Who won under ordinary 100 vp win conditions while important, is a) fairly obvious but also b) is of little use to what is likely a large portion of "competitive" players on the internet.

Even for myself I play in a largely no comp environment, but the largest local even uses 500 vps for a win, plus secondary objectives modified blood and glory for its events.

If your premise is that your list is only good in straight from the rulebook hammer, its only a good list in that context and premise of the thread would therefore provide no useful information that couldn't be done with a calculator.

However my alternative vp presents you with ways to prove the inherent flexibility and utility your list may, that the other does not. It also does not supplant the rule book win conditions.

I've, and I'm sure most good players seen enough games to know Demis fluff and break, Stanks can't claim vps in rulebook hammer and that magic is fickle. What good players need to see is that your list has potential beyond that.  If it doesn't then the discussion can stop there, and it can be labeled a powerful but ultimately flawed garage hammer list.

I'm not judging either player or their lists, as we on W-E are patiently awaiting results. But information is vital, and this is as good an opportunity to get as much information as possible. Even if you never play in a comp event in your life what you learn having to deal with these conditions will make you a more thoughtful player for the experience, as you see holes or inefficiencies in your own list that you may not have had to experience yet.

Recently I had to play an extremely defensive player, as my group of friends are all dominant agressive personalities I hadn't had any experience with this sort of set up. That is not to say the army was defensive but deployment and movement were both defensive. And I struggled for a few turns to come up with ideas. My Chaos list has changed to reflect that already, and my Empire list has changed as well after this new experience.

[rothgar13]

If you think it will be useful, perhaps we can run another game with the list with your alternate VP conditions. But first I want to attempt to prove my point using the ruleset as written. I can't speak for others, but that second game will provide me with no real insights, because we never alter the VP conditions in the book.

[Baluc]

If you think it will be useful, perhaps we can run another game with the list with your alternate VP conditions. But first I want to attempt to prove my point using the ruleset as written. I can't speak for others, but that second game will provide me with no real insights, because we never alter the VP conditions in the book.

Ah ha! You might not have been rewarded in straight victory points. However consider this.

Have you have ever played a game, and just found yourself out maneuvered?

Or found you couldn't get all the wounds off that monster or kill a vital support character?

My suggested vp conditions don't alter the game at all, you will win the game if you straight up kill the opponent, there is no way to alter that. What I want to see is and what I think gives us real thought for discussion is finding where there is room for improvement, or what things we can take from both armies to make a better empire army.

Lets say we find that the war alter too often gives up half points. We can see that while effective there is a good or some chance of the war alter dying, and based off that we will have to confront a possibility of finishing the match without it.

If we see that your army consistently gives up table quarters, we can take from that your army lacks board control, and might find its self stymied, but lists that utilize a lot of fast chaff 3+ van gaurd dogs or units that can get behind your general advance. We could also find that the oppositions army is good as dispersing in the final 2 turns and retaining its VPs (in an uncomped environment), and there for pulling a draw or retaining a win, where your army could in fact draw or lose because of an inability to disengage. A vital ability given the fighty nature of the most recent books and potentially the upcoming elf books, who both are fast and fight with few models as it stands.

A Solid list of all the vps that were collected by both sides will help us have a deeper understanding, which will direct discussion in a more constructive manner than a cod piece measuring contest.

[Noght]

Even for myself I play in a largely no comp environment, but the largest local even uses 500 vps for a win, plus secondary objectives modified blood and glory for its events.

That's not the rules for Warhammer, sorry Baluc.  I play Wood Elves a bunch in tournaments.  Those that play it straight from the book vp's, I do great.  This win by 400 or more is bullshit.   

However my alternative vp presents you with ways to prove the inherent flexibility and utility your list may, that the other does not. It also does not supplant the rule book win conditions.

There are no alternate vp's.  If you want alternate vp's, you should do it before lists are built.  Besides this just smells of ETC silliness.

[rothgar13]

If you think it will be useful, perhaps we can run another game with the list with your alternate VP conditions. But first I want to attempt to prove my point using the ruleset as written. I can't speak for others, but that second game will provide me with no real insights, because we never alter the VP conditions in the book.

Ah ha! You might not have been rewarded in straight victory points. However consider this.

Have you have ever played a game, and just found yourself out maneuvered?

Or found you couldn't get all the wounds off that monster or kill a vital support character?

But if I win, none of that matters. You do what you have to do in order to win. Full stop. I'm not looking to do trick shots or any other fancy things, just getting at least 100 more VPs than zifnab0 (in this game's case).

[Holy Hand Grenade]

The winner of this game will be as per the BRB-  +100 VPs.

I don't mind if we calculate the "winner" via your modified VP calculating system just to see how it is different...

Based on the info I have from Zif & Rothgar here is how I see the first drops going down.  Please let me know if you want different formations or nudged a little to the left or right.

As long as both players are happy, Zif is up next.  I have an idea of what you want next, Zif, but it would be helpful if you could give me approximate locations in relation to the terrain of where you want them it would help.

[Baluc]

But if I win, none of that matters. You do what you have to do in order to win. Full stop. I'm not looking to do trick shots or any other fancy things, just getting at least 100 more VPs than zifnab0 (in this game's case).

But it does matter if you lose the next match because of something you chose to reamain ignorant of because you "won". There is just as much to learn from a win as their is from a loss. Its how the best athletes become better, as generally growing up they keep winning. Wayne Rooney isn't the same soccer player he was when he won the league with Man U years ago, he's won a lot, he's also learned a lot and has a lot to show for it.

This is a tactica board where players presumably come to learn, and get better. Having a scientific way to dissect the match provides a better basis to learn and provide advice.

Call it VPs, talking points, call it tactical points doesn't matter no one is winning an tournament here the Victory point system is already given to us to use so lets us it. I'm not here to advocate for Comp, as I'm pretty ambivalent to it, generally the same people win both events and I've not found either more or less difficult, and I not played in any event with army list comp.

Personally I don't really have anything to learn from this, I can do simple maths, and I have enough experience on how to pick my battles. What I'm trying to provide is a method with which more levels of players will learn something. Win or loss is for new players, experienced players need more to improve their own game and lists.

Feel free to ignore me of course, I just don't see the point of the whole exercise without measuring anything. You can win or lose a game on luck or circumstance. You will win an event through preparation, which is what I have found most players are lacking.

[rothgar13]

Looking good on my end, HHG.

@Baluc: Sure, but that assumes that I (1) haven't already been preparing myself to play this match and (2) am incapable of dissecting the information without the aid of other metrics, neither of which is the case. If I weren't prepared to put my ideas on the line, I wouldn't have thrown down the gauntlet in the first place. The only thing an alternate set of VPs does is encourage me (or zifnab0, depending on the circumstances) to do things I would normally not do, which in turn tells me nothing about how my following games will go, because I won't do those things unless there are VPs to be collected (and there won't be). You can use your alternate set of metrics to analyze the match after the fact (much like a statistician would analyze a sports game after the fact by collecting numbers on it), but I will not be adhering to them as win conditions, because they don't affect what I have to do to win any of the games I will play using this army.

[Baluc]

Looking good on my end, HHG.

@Baluc: Sure, but that assumes that I (1) haven't already been preparing myself to play this match and (2) am incapable of dissecting the information without the aid of other metrics, neither of which is the case. If I weren't prepared to put my ideas on the line, I wouldn't have thrown down the gauntlet in the first place. The only thing an alternate set of VPs does is encourage me (or zifnab0, depending on the circumstances) to do things I would normally not do, which in turn tells me nothing about how my following games will go, because I won't do those things unless there are VPs to be collected (and there won't be). You can use your alternate set of metrics to analyze the match after the fact (much like a statistician would analyze a sports game after the fact by collecting numbers on it), but I will not be adhering to them as win conditions, because they don't affect what I have to do to win any of the games I will play using this army.

Its not about you, its about the community. Play your game, if you don't the information collected will be flawed, and worse will lead to incorrect assertions.

You seem to think to you think I'm asking something of you. I'm not, play the game as best you can and well talk about it after. We're looking for gaps or weakness in both lists. So that people who play in different environments can take from it what they can find useful. For instance if your list is incapable of collecting table quarters, but wins others can use what works and determine for themselves where its worth changing the list to leaving it as it and play with the intention of tabling the enemy.

The idea is to make it more useful, for more people.

Otherwise is just an exercise in math and movement, which is great for new players but less useful for advanced players. Presumably the idea is that you as they would, make the most correct decision most of the time. Which basically does nothing but confirm the "internet list" is superior, but doesn't give us any idea on how to fix any weaknesses or gaps the list might have.

[b0007452]

While I do agree with some of Baluc's points and I want to see these become the great learning tool for the less eperienced players in the community, like myself. I think if it's what the two players want to just play this per BRB. then it's what we should do. It should still be interesting for the majority and at the minute this discussion over Victory Conditions kinda seems like it's tripping up the TEG before it even gets going.

This Tactica Board is still very young and this is only the first TEG, we'll not just learn about the lists from this but will also learn about how a TEG works. If there are any future TEGs I'm sure they will run smoother without us even realising, maybe then we can start introducing other victory conditions and special rules. I think we should see this as a long term project rather than cramming as much in as we can to one TEG, to create something which could potentially ruin the learning experience for some.

In the long term I see the Tactica Board as a place where Empire Generals can go to look for guide's to each fantasy Army; similar to the Lizardman thread. Where there are links to varying Tactical based threads written by different users based on their first hand experience and hopefully if the community was committed enough several TEGs/TDGs running at once (With multiple people running them). If anyone knows of a good guide/would be willing to write one for Battle Chronicler it may be useful to sticky it in here possibly. So that if anyone does have the time to help HHG and Noght in the future, they also have the know how.

[Holy Hand Grenade]

As long as both players like the way I placed these units, we can move on.  Not sure if Roth wants the Demis 5x1 or 3 & 2.

Zif is up again.

[rothgar13]

5 x 1 is ideal, because then I can sneak the War Altar in the back. Good stuff on my end, HHG.

[Holy Hand Grenade]

Here are the next 2 drops:  Zif's Halbs and one Rothgar Steam Tank.

Zif-  need you to confirm you want the Halbs in a horde with the detachments 3x2 on the sides.

Roth-  need you to confirm the Steam Tank placement is where you want.

[rothgar13]

Looks good to me.