View Full Version: Planetstrike Tactics

The Great Crusade > Army Lists > Planetstrike Tactics


Title: Planetstrike Tactics


Titus Pullo - July 10, 2009 07:01 AM (GMT)
Was wondering on peoples PS thoughts and how many games have been played out there yet. Lots of other forums seem to be raging about imbalance and not playing against power gaming gimps. As I started reading when I read the terrain set up rules I just though that the defender couldn't lose! Then I got to the Firestorm section, Deep Strike and strategem rules and then I thought the Attacker couldn't lose!!

Unfortunately it does seem that if you want to be a successful defender you need to shell out a lot of dosh on the new terrain or need to get scratch building a serious amount of your own. Thinking in a defensive way it seems that a lot of the terrain setup examples (such as sticking a bastion in the middle of the table with a wall round it) won't really do much good. To my mind it seems you must try and set up so that you have at least one flank covered by a table edge and set up multiple defense lines and obstacles otherwise any attacker worth their salt will just land in the convenient open ground next to your men and butcher you senseless. Also setting up walls should really be done in the star shape style of 17th century forts rather than flat on which tends to block your own LoS.

Would welcome comments from peeps who have started playing PS and found anything useful

ShroudFilm - July 10, 2009 08:20 AM (GMT)
Without having played yet, I think it certainly looks like the attacker has the advantage.

Does this hold true for smaller games, anyone? Does a 1000pt Planetstrike even last past the first turn? With Apocalypse, I've given up buying upgrades for characters because everything dies at the same speed whether it has wargear or not... I think the firestorm might prove the same!

Pacific - July 10, 2009 11:33 AM (GMT)
Although I haven't played a game yet there was one going on at my local club the other night. Judging from that, I would say rather than the advantage going to the attacking army, I would say it goes to the more aggressive style force rather than static or long range armies.

I think armies which have mental close combat and assault ability - orcs, chaos, nids etc. do really well with either attack (for obvious reasons) or defense (moment stuff comes down it gets counter assaulted). The game I saw was a guard vs. guard game and pretty funny in the amount of models that were off the board by the end of turn 2.




Hosted for free by InvisionFree