|
Post by thegoat on Oct 29, 2023 12:38:15 GMT
Played a game yesterday. My Empire vs. Dwarfs. Battleline scenario. As we were doing alternating deployment, my opponent placed a block of thirty giant slayers and an equally large block of clainsmen on the far end of his battleline. I had been planning to put my knights or demigryph knights at the corresponding end of my battleline. But once I saw that slayer block, I packed everything into the other end of the board.
Long story short, the slayers and clansmen never got to engage anything except a ten man handgunner unit. And my two knights units routed the ironbreakers and longbeards along with his general, a rune priest and a thane at the other end of the battle field.
What really won me the game was his lack of armour penetration when attacking both my knight units. I only failed a single 2+ armour save between both knight units all game. It helped that both his cannons misfired turn one with the result that they also couldn't fire on turn two. I also got pretty lucky with my lore of metal magic rolls. Only miscasting once, and my ward save blocked the result.
Regardless it seems kind of cheesy that I just flat out ignored the slayers and clainsmen units at one end of the table. Those units were a significant percentage of his army's points. I try not to play "win at all costs". I want my opponent to have fun. At the same time I am always trying to win the game.
I just feel kind of guilty that the game turned out so massively lopsided. We didn't work out victory points. But It was probably the most lopsided victory I've ever seen in Warhammer. I routed everything except the slayers and clainsmen that I ignored. And I only lost the single ten handgunner unit, plus a few guys here and there. Oh and my rocket battery that blew itself up turn one. That was the only bad dice result I saw all game.
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Oct 29, 2023 13:49:48 GMT
No this is not "cheesy," this is poor deployment by your opponent.
|
|
|
Post by thegoat on Oct 29, 2023 14:57:07 GMT
No this is not "cheesy," this is poor deployment by your opponent. Yes, I can't disagree with that assessment. My opponent is a veteran who started back in 4th edition days. So he should have known better. Though he hasn't played much in that past ten or twelve years. And sometimes the game just turns into a total massacre.
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Oct 29, 2023 17:54:39 GMT
I'd only say it's cheese if one creates at total combat avoidance army, which was a common army type in previous editions of WFB. It's another reason why WFB 8E is the best, combat avoidance armies are challenging to win with in 8E!
|
|
|
Post by sedge on Oct 29, 2023 18:42:41 GMT
It also depends a lot on context - how you and your opponent approach games. If they were new to WFB or your approach is very casual, it would be good to point out the mistake before they commit to it. If you play in a competitive environment, then it'd be totally appropriate to keep quiet and take advantage of your opponent's error. If you play in a fluffy environment, then everyone knows manlings lack honour - what you did was appropriate, and the Dwarfs should have known better. If you'd been avoiding a dangerous combat with Khorne Warriors, Bretonnian Questing Knights, or Blood Knights, that would be another matter.
|
|
|
Post by lordofskullpass on Oct 31, 2023 9:28:02 GMT
It's not cheese, and I wouldn't even say it was poor deployment on your opponent's part, it sounds like he was trying to cover both of his flanks with threatening units which is sensible enough, and because by the sounds of it you deployed afterwards (or at least second in an alternating deployment) down to a dice roll it was simply a tactical decision on your part to go all in on attacking one of those flanks and overwhelm it. Particularly if the Warriors unit had great weapons, it was also the most sound tactic for you to go for the other, less-threatening flank, as great weapon Warrior and Slayer units are much more of a threat to your knights because of the armour save penalties they inflict, plus the sheer number of models in each of those units. Ironbreakers by contrast aren't designed to go up against knights of any form, their speciality is tanking against lightly-armoured units that deal out large numbers of low-Strength attacks, like Savage Orcs and Witch Elves.
All in all, this simply came about all down to good generalship on your part (and some good luck with your Magic), and your opponent having some awful luck with his Cannons, which would otherwise have done a lot of damage to your knights, particularly if you had multi-wound Demigryphs with you.
|
|
|
Post by baaderthegreat on Oct 31, 2023 18:42:57 GMT
An important part of tactics is knowing which enemy units to engage and which to avoid. So no, it's not cheese.
|
|
|
Post by vulcan on Oct 31, 2023 20:36:57 GMT
Agreed. It was bad deployment on his part. You want your units to be able to support each other. Dwarves in particular need to deploy tightly to prevent being destroyed in isolation. That's why using a 'refused flank' deployment along one side of the map is fairly common for dwarves, with the exposed flank being anchored by Slayers or Hammerers.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Oct 31, 2023 20:57:19 GMT
I don't believe it is cheesy at all. Choosing which units to attack (and conversely which not to attack) and when to attack them is the very essence of the game. Warhammer is ultimately a game of movement, and in this case you outmaneuvered your opponent. A good play by you and a lesson learned by him.
|
|
|
Post by knoffles on Nov 1, 2023 6:11:10 GMT
I agree with all of the above. When I play with opponents we often try and have a chat afterwards on what went right/wrong and what we would have done differently if we were in their shoes. Even not playing for a while, your opponent likely knows the initial blunder he made and will learn from it next time. If they’re a more novice player the post match chat can help guide them and make the game better for you both next time you play.
|
|
|
Post by bastardfromhell on Nov 4, 2023 14:42:16 GMT
Just wondering how he ended up with both cannons misfiring. Usually that's a job for the empire. Did he not use runes or was he just extremely unlucky?
|
|
|
Post by thegoat on Nov 4, 2023 17:21:57 GMT
Just wondering how he ended up with both cannons misfiring. Usually that's a job for the empire. Did he not use runes or was he just extremely unlucky? He was just unlucky with the artillery dice rolls and no anti-misfire ruins on the cannons or engineers near by to grant a reroll. I had an engineer with one of my hellblasters and it did help some.
|
|
|
Post by avatarofbugman on Nov 4, 2023 23:47:25 GMT
As a dwarf player since the late 90s I'd say it was poor deployment. With our lack of speed we should not be deploying so that our heavy hitters cannot move to support each other to that extent. I have always deployed in what I call a flexible castle. I am prepared to swing one end around to aid the middle. I also would ignore a unit of handgunners to get this job done as well
|
|
|
Post by thegoat on Nov 5, 2023 1:44:01 GMT
I also would ignore a unit of handgunners to get this job done as well When I stopped placing units on that end of the board, it made the handgunner unit the only target he could reach. Even then it took three turns to get into charge range. He possibly could have maneuvered the slayers to flank charge me after I charged his missile troops in the center of the board. But that would result in the slayers charging through and then standing in a forest. In retrospect that probably would have been the better call sense they are unbreakable anyway.
|
|
|
Post by colonelburton on Nov 8, 2023 12:32:52 GMT
Played a game yesterday. My Empire vs. Dwarfs. Battleline scenario. As we were doing alternating deployment, my opponent placed a block of thirty giant slayers and an equally large block of clainsmen on the far end of his battleline. I had been planning to put my knights or demigryph knights at the corresponding end of my battleline. But once I saw that slayer block, I packed everything into the other end of the board. Long story short, the slayers and clansmen never got to engage anything except a ten man handgunner unit. And my two knights units routed the ironbreakers and longbeards along with his general, a rune priest and a thane at the other end of the battle field. What really won me the game was his lack of armour penetration when attacking both my knight units. I only failed a single 2+ armour save between both knight units all game. It helped that both his cannons misfired turn one with the result that they also couldn't fire on turn two. I also got pretty lucky with my lore of metal magic rolls. Only miscasting once, and my ward save blocked the result. Regardless it seems kind of cheesy that I just flat out ignored the slayers and clainsmen units at one end of the table. Those units were a significant percentage of his army's points. I try not to play "win at all costs". I want my opponent to have fun. At the same time I am always trying to win the game. I just feel kind of guilty that the game turned out so massively lopsided. We didn't work out victory points. But It was probably the most lopsided victory I've ever seen in Warhammer. I routed everything except the slayers and clainsmen that I ignored. And I only lost the single ten handgunner unit, plus a few guys here and there. Oh and my rocket battery that blew itself up turn one. That was the only bad dice result I saw all game. I had this discussion with a friend whose VC I defeated in that match. He wasted a perfectly good corporeal unit staring at my Pistoliers as they circled it. Instead of moving it forward to engage my steam tank. He really spent two rounds just turning to face them. I asked him why he didn't just ignore the Pistoliers because they're not actually that powerful, especially not against corporeal. He said it felt stupid to ignore a unit that had infiltrated behind the lines... Truth is, in warfare, sometimes you do have to ignore individual offensives, sabotages, units or whatever if that is what it takes to implement the strategy required for the "greater good" of winning the battle, campaign or war.
|
|