Darkness Rising - Charlie's Mission #1

[Nnelg]

The problem is that only the PCs have freedom of movement. Not to mention, they're our most valuable troops (and so we don't want them to be the first to die).

They need to stay back to act as a mobile reserve, able to move to wherever they are needed the most. (Don't worry, they will see combat, unless the giant dwarves turn out to be complete whimps.)

[bob the 6th]

The thing is, the gobwins are really weak individually. All the PC heavies have much better stats, which seems to me to suggest we should have them be in part of the front so we don't run out of shield wall to quickly.

[Nnelg]

Of course they won't last long. I don't expect them to.

Their job is primarily to die, but if you want to take their place...

[WhirdCheese]

Next time we go on a merc mission I want imps with us.

[MarbitChow]

are their positions to be considered to be next to chester ?

The golems must be next to Chester at all times, and will only guard him.

[bob the 6th]

But if they die fast, we don't have a wall. Without a wall, the archers have to be in melee. Archers are in melee, we all die and the mission is a flop.
Additionally, the fact PC units have independent movement means they can run if they are low on hits. gbwin mooks can't do that...

[Nnelg]

The archers have more than one layer of protection, so the PCs can always move in if (or when) the first layer croaks.

But if we put PCs on the front line, who would fill the holes they left when they retreated? Using gobwins instead, we can always just let them die. Or kick them out of the stack, so that they'll fall back.

Basically, the way I see it is this: the front line will be the first to die. Might as well put the expendable units there.

[Werebiscuit]

As far as I can tell both Bob's & nNelg's plans are both variations on the rolling defence.


Nnelg the problem about setting up across the N-S section is that you're easily spotted. Thats why the group was initially hidden at the West treeline to ensure that Chester and our archers get shots against unprepared targets ( read non -dodging) They are positioned so they can set up like that once the ranged have fired and the Iron Dwarves are alerted. My intital targets specified any ranged..which hopefully the dwarves won't have as you dont send in archers with the initial vanguard. If we take out any ranged it removes the "their archery concentrates on our strung out line of individuals" objection.
Hopefully we also have spear length advantage too and can use that to effect by cycling before death...The more attacks we keep in the game the more advantage we have on the enemy.

Yes it will be difficult to have a rolling unit defence...but not impossible if we set up units correctly.

[Werebiscuit]

are their positions to be considered to be next to chester ?

The golems must be next to Chester at all times, and will only guard him.

Thanks Marbit. That's exactly what I thought ! it will take some manouvering if we want to use the golems as part of the "rolling defense" or any other static lineup.

P.S. I'm in agreement that PC's should be 3rd rank but we shouldn't be elininating the first rank by allowing them to die. The gobwin 1st rank should retreat as a unit when wards are in danger of going down. Note they can still strike from 2nd rank. Only on the 4th change of rank should we consider losing units. PC's will then only have to worry about death on their 2nd cycle through the front rank.

[Werebiscuit]

Sekan I suggest you spend on well armed and either well defended or skilled if you're allowed to spend those points.

Well, actually we could use more archers with Leadership; or if he wants to take Heavy, that's fine too.

As far as I'm aware Sekan only has 2AP to spend- leadership or heavy requires 3 , no ?

[Nnelg]

Werebiscuit, I understand what you're going on about, but frankly I think it's unworkable. We just don't have as fine a control over our units' positions as you did under the old rules.

Nnelg the problem about setting up across the N-S section is that you're easily spotted.

I suppose we could keep most of the gobwins (and the melee PCs) in reserve to start with. It would increase the risk if the enemy has many ranged units, though.

If we take out any ranged it removes the "their archery concentrates on our strung out line of individuals" objection.

We have two archers and a shockamancer. It wouldn't be unreasonable for the enemy to have a full stack of archers. We can't guarantee that we'll be able to take out the enemy archers.

Yes it will be difficult to have a rolling unit defence...but not impossible if we set up units correctly.

If we had two command units, I'd agree with you here. (Napier doesn't count.) But as it stands, Jaeger is the only one who can form stacks, and he only has one action a round.

We simply don't have enough leadership to set up a rolling defence. So, a phalanx is the next best thing.

P.S. I'm in agreement that PC's should be 3rd rank but we shouldn't be elininating the first rank by allowing them to die.

Of course we shouldn't, but we may not have that option.

The gobwin 1st rank should retreat as a unit when wards are in danger of going down.

I'd very much like to know how you intend to achieve this.

Sekan I suggest you spend on well armed and either well defended or skilled if you're allowed to spend those points.

Well, actually we could use more archers with Leadership; or if he wants to take Heavy, that's fine too.

As far as I'm aware Sekan only has 2AP to spend- leadership or heavy requires 3 , no ?

Exactly why it's perfectly fine for him to bank those 2 AP, so he'll be able to take one of those at Level 2.

[Werebiscuit]

Yes it will be difficult to have a rolling unit defence...but not impossible if we set up units correctly.

If we had two command units, I'd agree with you here. (Napier doesn't count.) But as it stands, Jaeger is the only one who can form stacks, and he only has one action a round.

We simply don't have enough leadership to set up a rolling defence. So, a phalanx is the next best thing.

Why doesn't Chester count ?
Give him 1 unit of 4 Gobwin spearmen he only has to be stacked with them not next to them... Jaeger has another unit and the PC's are a third unit. 3 rolling units each capable of moving or being instructed to move as the wards are in danger of failing.

Or are we still stuck in the 'there MUST be 8 units in a stack' frame of mind ?

If the enemy has a full stack of archers...we are hosed anyway, since then it's we who must press the attack into a fire zone.

[Nnelg]

Why doesn't Chester count ?

Because he'd be shooting every round, not spending actions to regroup! And putting him in his own stack but not adjacent to any other of his units is a horrible idea, since enemy ranged will concentrate fire on him (and quickly eat through his bodyguards' health). (Although, I just remembered that all PCs can act as command units...)

But anyways, I don't think a rolling defence of the variety your describe (with sparsely spaced units) will work out well in the end. The enemy can just concentrate on individual units, with melee or with ranged, and take them out.

What if we tried moving around individual units instead? If we have a PC command a second squad (presumably the one with the archers in it), we could have wounded gobwins destack from the front-line squad, and join the second-line one. (I'm assuming we can change formation during a Regroup action; right, Marbit?)

Then we'd never have to force anyone into a position where they could get killed until everyone has been wounded.

[Werebiscuit]

Why doesn't Chester count ?

Because he'd be shooting every round, not spending actions to regroup! And putting him in his own stack but not adjacent to any other of his units is a horrible idea, since enemy ranged will concentrate fire on him (and quickly eat through his bodyguards' health). (Although, I just remembered that all PCs can act as command units...)

But anyways, I don't think a rolling defence of the variety your describe (with sparsely spaced units) will work out well in the end. The enemy can just concentrate on individual units, with melee or with ranged, and take them out.

What if we tried moving around individual units instead? If we have a PC command a second squad (presumably the one with the archers in it), we could have wounded gobwins destack from the front-line squad, and join the second-line one. (I'm assuming we can change formation during a Regroup action; right, Marbit?)

Then we'd never have to force anyone into a position where they could get killed until everyone has been wounded.

Your main objection seems to be enemy archery... lets see if the dwarves have any. if they have a stack we're dead no matter what we do as they can then hold off and pick us off at will.

[MarbitChow]

(I'm assuming we can change formation during a Regroup action; right, Marbit?)

Regroup doesn't change the position of anyone in it. It just changes who's in the stack. The units will not be able to move to a new formation until they can take a move action. The act of regrouping can specify a new layout, but the units don't immediately move to that layout until they're able to. If they don't have delayed moves, that could be many phases away.

You can give squads simple orders at any time, and they'll follow them as soon as they can - including entering a new, simple formation (2-row, square, single line, etc.). Does that answer your question?

[Nnelg]

(I'm assuming we can change formation during a Regroup action; right, Marbit?)

Regroup doesn't change the position of anyone in it. It just changes who's in the stack. The units will not be able to move to a new formation until they can take a move action. The act of regrouping can specify a new layout, but the units don't immediately move to that layout until they're able to. If they don't have delayed moves, that could be many phases away.

You can give squads simple orders at any time, and they'll follow them as soon as they can - including entering a new, simple formation (2-row, square, single line, etc.). Does that answer your question?

That's pretty much exactly what I expected. Thanks, Marbit.

Your main objection seems to be enemy archery... lets see if the dwarves have any. if they have a stack we're dead no matter what we do as they can then hold off and pick us off at will.

No, we're not dead no matter what!

My plan gives them only two or three stacks to shoot at. Any shots will be randomized among the stack members (according to Marbit, this will be weighted towards front-rank units). So, our melee troops can "screen" for our ranged, and soak up hits. Even if the enemy has an entire stack of archers, we'll have enough bodies to soak hits while Napier and our own archers pick them of... If we go with my plan.


I understand what you're talking about with not giving the enemy an opportunity to prepare, though. Give me a bit and I'll post a modified plan, taking your concern into account.

[Werebiscuit]

Strangely my plan has 3 stacks Jaeger and gobwins, Chester and gobwins, and PCs...so how is it different ?
If and it's a big IF the enemy have a stack of ranged, our Pc's and Chester's stack will be their targets as they'll try to take out our ranged. Note those 2 stacks will have our biggest hit point soaks in them ( the golems and Warrior PC's).

The stack leaders CAN issue a fall back order ...free of charge (since there is no re-stacking involved). Thus Chester is free to fire EACH and EVERY round.

I'm just not seeing your objections have any weight.

[Nnelg]

Strangely my plan has 3 stacks Jaeger and gobwins, Chester and gobwins, and PCs...so how is it different ?

Because you want gaps in the line, allowing the enemy to concentrate fire on single units. Say... Napier.

With a measly 1 defence, even zeds deal 13 damage on average. That's 7 on each Bodyguard. Meaning they're down in 2 rounds... And so is Napier.

If and it's a big IF the enemy have a stack of ranged, our Pc's and Chester's stack will be their targets as they'll try to take out our ranged.

If the enemy doesn't have ranged... We've already won!

Have you taken a look at Napier's power? He is our real damage-dealer. Odds are, whatever he hits is going to die. And he'll be hitting at least 3 units a round with Ickypron, probably more with his 3x3 blast of Hobobarbie...

I'm just not seeing your objections have any weight.

I suppose you're right. Your plans has no flaws in principle, but we do need to make sure of certain details.

First off, we need to make sure that the enemy can't concentrate fire on vulnerable units. This means stacking the archers and Napier with other units, which they are adjacent to.

Second, we need to use Jaeger's Leadership Bonus to its fullest extent. This means that he needs to be in a full stack, preferably one on the front line.

So, I propose the following stacking order:

Spoiler: show

Squad 1:
Jaeger
Napier
6 Gobwins

Squad 2:
The rest of the PCs
2 Golems
1 Gobwin

Unstacked:
1 Gobwin

This way, the enemy's primary target (Napier) is screened by all our Gobwins (whom are most in need of Leadership). We can still accomplish your fighting retreat plan, just in a different way (Jaeger would use a regroup action to change their formation). The PCs would be able to use mutual combat modifiers to beef themselves up.

So, the disposition:

Code: Select all

Initial:
............
...SAGNg....
...ZgGJggg..
#.g##BT##gg#
############

Stage 1:
############
.##..##..##.
.........g..
........g...
.....T...g..
....AZB.g...
....SGN..g..
....gG.Jg...
#.g##..##..#
############

Stage 2:
############
.##..##..##.
.......g....
........g...
.....T.g....
....AZB.g...
....SGNg....
....gG.Jg...
#.g##..##..#
############

(The exact position of PCs is flexible.)


Stage 3 would be where we unleash the PCs, and start mopping up. Given Napier's power, this should be more than enough rotation to last the battle. (If not, the back row can fall back a bit and we'd repeat stage 1 and 2.)

[Werebiscuit]

Strangely my plan has 3 stacks Jaeger and gobwins, Chester and gobwins, and PCs...so how is it different ?

Because you want gaps in the line, allowing the enemy to concentrate fire on single units. Say... Napier.

Fire doesn't work that way, it now targets stacks not individuals...as long as the stack holds a unit formation (even with gaps). I wan't to retreat as units. I've already said so.

If the enemy doesn't have ranged then it depends on how fast they can close and how much damage they can deal...not a foregone conclusion.
if they have a full stack of ranged it'll take chester at least 3 rounds to get through them IF ( and I stress if) he retains LOS. Thats the first thing I would do, work out how to break LOS and retain valid targets were I an enemy commander. Meanwhile I'd have my melee closing with him. Does he thin the melee or decimate the ranged ? tough choice !

This means stacking the archers and Napier with other units, which they are adjacent to.

Stacking does not need adjacency... stacking only needs retaining formation. ( assuming were not having units miles apart for gaming the scenario purposes) Note I have chester stacked with 4 gobwins . That's a 1 in 5 chance of hitting him via fire actions. His bodyguards do not need to be stacked with him only adjacent if I'm reading the rules right. If they are adjacent they can soak any random chance hits.
If they are stacked they reduce that chance to a 1 in 7 but they then have to move with the formation. Chester as a Pc does not. So they may not be able to retain adjecency if they ARE stacked with him. It's a tough call but I'd say have them adjacent unstacked. Yes that means they can be individually targetted but any shot at them is not a shot at Chester.

I note your 2 squads as proposed have chester in 1 squad and his golems in the other. The golems will not move with the squad but stay adjacent to Chester thus the squads will either move as 1 squad or the golems will break squad movement thus breaking the unit...and we don't have command in the unit to restack.

[MarbitChow]

From the other thread:

(Neat little squad trick: As written, the rules would allow 8 stacked command units to go to each corner of the battlefield as pairs and still not allow individuals to be targeted with a >1/8 chance because they're all adjacent to another member of the squad. Could be useful under right circumstances. A leader and a paragon could order 6 non-command units forward and stay back themselves.)

You guys never cease to amaze me. Looks like I've got to issue a clarification:

If a squad is split into 'sub squads' spatially, units with Fire cannot target individual members of each subgroup, but they can select which *subgroup* they're firing at. There's no way I'd allow a rule that allows for an arrow to be fired randomly at a squad and not know whether the arrow will go North, South, East or West from the archer until after he fires.

As long as all units in a group are adjacent to at least one other unit (even diagonally), Fire can't target them individually. If there is a distinct gap between the two subgroups, the Firing unit can pick which subgroup to target.

I'll update the rules with these clarifications.