rubber-police
 
News: Clark has announced that he has started to post old LoS content (in the Media Gallery section), and will be posting more plus new content!

Author Topic: Battle Report - Quarterback Sneak scenario  (Read 3712 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hoboman

  • Nightmare
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: Battle Report - Quarterback Sneak scenario
« Reply #15 on: April 25, 2012, 01:47:23 PM »
I think we're going to try and introduce another friend to the game in a couple weeks, and I was thinking we'd go for the "Into The Mix" scenario from the Alien Sourcebook. It's basically a King of the Hill setup, and works with 2-6 players. I'll try and grab some pictures and notes from that game, too.
Playing more then one game in the same month? Sounds wonderful. Another AAR with pictures would be great.  ;D
What do you mean I lost another battle?

Offline bobloblah

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Mk III Assault Fiend
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
Re: Battle Report - Quarterback Sneak scenario
« Reply #16 on: April 25, 2012, 02:34:42 PM »
If it actually happens (the game, that is) it'll be the most of played in probably two years.
Best Regards,
Bobloblah

Offline SgtHulka

  • Predator
  • **
  • Posts: 78
Re: Battle Report - Quarterback Sneak scenario
« Reply #17 on: April 26, 2012, 10:33:17 PM »
I'm loving these after action reports with pictures. And I, also, didn't realize there were pictures before you fixed it. Thanks!

Regarding K-Pulse: Bleh. Sure you can hit a square even if you miss. But then you *also* have to roll a kill. There are usually better actions to take, in my experience. But maybe that's because I remember trying to throw them at heavily armored guys.

Regarding Nachtmachers: These things RULE.

Regarding Forcewall: Way more awesome than K-Pulse. But have a tendency to get blown down at the exact wrong moment.

Regarding suppressing down that long corridor: I'm not sure that was actually a mistake on your part. Commandos don't generally win those long-range suppression contests; the machines can just maneuver back to 16+ squares, throw a nachtmacher, and step inside, and stationary fire to break the suppression. Commando suppressing needs a 7+ (6+ with leadership); machine only needs a 5+. Generally, I think Commandos are better off staying mobile, trying to hit and run, while the machines are better off setting up suppression and fire corridors. But maybe that's because most of my memory is Commandos on the attack and machines on the defense. And because Commandos can use leadership to break up covering fire.

Regarding initiative and leadership: Isn't the first thing you do in a turn regain your leadership? I thought you basically could only use unspent leadership on initiative, and then you get it right back when your turn starts. Perhaps I misunderstood, but it seems like you spent leadership on initiative, and then didn't have that leadership in the following turn. Or perhaps I've been playing it wrong all along!

Anyway, thanks for the batrep. And I hope my commentary doesn't come off as "know it all" or offensive. It's not meant in that way, at all. It's been decades since I played this game, regularly, after all, so you're definitely more an expert than me! I'm just trying to express my enthusiasm and commiseration with your various tactical plights and your opponents' complaints. =)

Offline bobloblah

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Mk III Assault Fiend
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
Re: Battle Report - Quarterback Sneak scenario
« Reply #18 on: April 27, 2012, 11:16:57 AM »
I'm loving these after action reports with pictures. And I, also, didn't realize there were pictures before you fixed it. Thanks!
No problem! I find pictures make an AAR sooo much better, and a lot easier to understand. That's only the second time I've taken pictures for one, and I think I need to work on technique. I've been looking around at cool shots I've seen in AARs elsewhere, so I'll try and improve for next time.

Regarding K-Pulse: Bleh. Sure you can hit a square even if you miss. But then you *also* have to roll a kill. There are usually better actions to take, in my experience. But maybe that's because I remember trying to throw them at heavily armored guys.
I'm with you here! Although I do think they can be effective against Nightmares, but you have to get lucky enough to have a few together. It still took 2 K-pulse grenades to off 2 Nightmares in our game. I probably could've taken both with a single Blaster Autofire Spread-Fire, but my Sergeant didn't have LOS for 2 Leadership I and didn't want to risk the Covering Nightmares.

Regarding Nachtmachers: These things RULE.

Regarding Forcewall: Way more awesome than K-Pulse. But have a tendency to get blown down at the exact wrong moment.
We're in total agreement here, too.

Regarding suppressing down that long corridor: I'm not sure that was actually a mistake on your part. Commandos don't generally win those long-range suppression contests; the machines can just maneuver back to 16+ squares, throw a nachtmacher, and step inside, and stationary fire to break the suppression. Commando suppressing needs a 7+ (6+ with leadership); machine only needs a 5+. Generally, I think Commandos are better off staying mobile, trying to hit and run, while the machines are better off setting up suppression and fire corridors. But maybe that's because most of my memory is Commandos on the attack and machines on the defense. And because Commandos can use leadership to break up covering fire.
Yup, pretty much bang on. If we're talking about the same point in the game, it was little more than desperation at that point. I feel like I screwed up fairly early, and suffered for my mistakes (and the missed Initiative phase).

Regarding initiative and leadership: Isn't the first thing you do in a turn regain your leadership? I thought you basically could only use unspent leadership on initiative, and then you get it right back when your turn starts. Perhaps I misunderstood, but it seems like you spent leadership on initiative, and then didn't have that leadership in the following turn. Or perhaps I've been playing it wrong all along!
Nope, you are correct! I'm the one who played that wrong. What can I say? It's been a while since I was playing regularly, and I was working almost entirely from memory. There are a few other things I've realised we did wrong, including moving past corners and the penalty for displaced throwing. Good catch, though!

I think I'm going to try and do up some nice cheat sheets for the game. If I do, I'll post them here.

Anyway, thanks for the batrep. And I hope my commentary doesn't come off as "know it all" or offensive. It's not meant in that way, at all. It's been decades since I played this game, regularly, after all, so you're definitely more an expert than me! I'm just trying to express my enthusiasm and commiseration with your various tactical plights and your opponents' complaints. =)
Not at all! I appreciate all the feedback! Glad to hear you enjoyed the AAR, too.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 11:24:38 AM by bobloblah »
Best Regards,
Bobloblah

Offline Clark

  • Overlord
  • *****
  • Posts: 500
Re: Battle Report - Quarterback Sneak scenario
« Reply #19 on: April 27, 2012, 11:58:11 AM »
I consider this - and I think Marco would agree - to be THE iconic Legions of Steel scenario.

Here's a few points to point out to your buddy about the rules.
You can get multiple kills from suppression if you have set up "enfilade fire" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enfilading  Firing past a figure is at -1 so if you lay suppression on top of an advancing column you roll for the closest target and if you don't take it out then you get -1 for the targets behind it.  That is a current kink in the rules. In a world of automatic weapons, conveniently lining your troops up to be shot by one guy is just asking for it.

As for grenades, keep in mind that your basic M67 has a kill radius of 18 metres, or 9" rather than having a middling chance out to a mere 3".  Of course, powered armour changes the tactical situation.  There were limitations in terms of a gaming system for deviation on AOE attacks, especially when you are in a narrow corridor.  The point value of the commando grenade load is about the same as one extra Nightmare (with blaster justifying the other, and leadership balancing out the Assault Fiend).

In terms of tactic, as discussed in part in the Scenario Pack, Humans shouldn't waste leadership on initiative for the first couple of turns but rather use it to move troops into position.  Then use it to force the Machines to go first, then flip flop and go first yourself.  Spending one leadership on initiative is very rare, in my experience.

Maybe I missed it: who had the bomb?  My advice is to never give it to the sergeant and giving it to the corporal is a crap shoot.  It's better to keep your leaders behind the bomber and use the leadership to save his ass, and pick up the bomb if you can't.  Push on the great hall and then deke right or left as a matter of opportunity.

For the Machines, I think Bon Jovi committed too many too fast.  Once they are on the board the Humans can deke, as mentioned above.  Everything off the board can basically "teleport" to whichever flank you need them.  Because of the Assault Fiend's speed, he can get into position particularly fast.  He probably shouldn't come on the board until the third turn or later.  Did you tell Bon Jovi about Death in the Dark?  Most of the games I have played end up with a gun battle in the Great Hall, and the Fiend runs in to score at least one DITD kill.

11-11-11 didn't happen, but maybe we can have the Doomsday Edition released on December 21st, 2012.  Any suggestions about the rules?

Offline bobloblah

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Mk III Assault Fiend
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
Re: Battle Report - Quarterback Sneak scenario
« Reply #20 on: April 29, 2012, 01:51:44 PM »
I consider this - and I think Marco would agree - to be THE iconic Legions of Steel scenario.
As I mentioned off the top, I'd never played this one before. Looking forward to trying it again!

Here's a few points to point out to your buddy about the rules.
You can get multiple kills from suppression if you have set up "enfilade fire" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enfilading  Firing past a figure is at -1 so if you lay suppression on top of an advancing column you roll for the closest target and if you don't take it out then you get -1 for the targets behind it.  That is a current kink in the rules. In a world of automatic weapons, conveniently lining your troops up to be shot by one guy is just asking for it.
Yeah, we got all that right. And I pointed out to him the issues with lining up a bunch of troops. As for the -1 LOF modifier being a "kink" in the rules, I'm not so sure...in the real world, yes; but real world troops aren't actually hard enough to stop most ballistic fire, even with body armor. Powered armor appears to offer significantly more protection than that, hence I can suspend my disbelief when it comes to the idea that someone in front might actually block some of the fire for compatriots in the rear - assuming they don't get toasted.

As for grenades, keep in mind that your basic M67 has a kill radius of 18 metres, or 9" rather than having a middling chance out to a mere 3".  Of course, powered armour changes the tactical situation.  There were limitations in terms of a gaming system for deviation on AOE attacks, especially when you are in a narrow corridor.  The point value of the commando grenade load is about the same as one extra Nightmare (with blaster justifying the other, and leadership balancing out the Assault Fiend).
I hadn't gone over the point calculations for the worth of grenades, but I specifically pointed out that real world fragmentation grenades have an 18 meter kill radius. I also (and maybe someone with actual grenade-tossing experience can correct me if I'm wrong) have trouble with most games scatter distances for grenades thrown relatively short distances. Without any practice with a specific object, I can land an object tossed 8 meters + or - 3 meters of where I want it. Pretty much anyone who has grown up throwing things can. Is getting a grenade in the general vicinity really that hard? Moreover (and this goes back to another argument that was raised), how many people actually screw up to the point of dropping it at their feet? This is also a significant worry in a number of systems, but I always suspected that the risk of doing so was wildly overblown by various rulesets.
In terms of tactic, as discussed in part in the Scenario Pack, Humans shouldn't waste leadership on initiative for the first couple of turns but rather use it to move troops into position.  Then use it to force the Machines to go first, then flip flop and go first yourself.  Spending one leadership on initiative is very rare, in my experience.
Yeah, if I wan't teaching the game, I don't think I would have spent Leadership on a flip-flop quite as early as I did. At the time I was thinking it would give him a better feel for the game, and let me advance some key troops past most of his approaching forces.
Maybe I missed it: who had the bomb?  My advice is to never give it to the sergeant and giving it to the corporal is a crap shoot.  It's better to keep your leaders behind the bomber and use the leadership to save his ass, and pick up the bomb if you can't.  Push on the great hall and then deke right or left as a matter of opportunity.
A private (Pvt. Swift) in the middle of the pack was carrying the bomb. I kept my Corporal and Sergeant in the rear for the reasons you mentioned (protection, Leadership, and last ditch grab 'n' run).

For the Machines, I think Bon Jovi committed too many too fast.  Once they are on the board the Humans can deke, as mentioned above.  Everything off the board can basically "teleport" to whichever flank you need them.  Because of the Assault Fiend's speed, he can get into position particularly fast.  He probably shouldn't come on the board until the third turn or later.  Did you tell Bon Jovi about Death in the Dark?  Most of the games I have played end up with a gun battle in the Great Hall, and the Fiend runs in to score at least one DITD kill.
Yup, I told him about Death in the Dark, as well as gave him a run down on the relative strengths and weaknesses of our two forces. Hence the reason he picked up on (not to take anything away from him; he's a clever player) nailing me at longer ranges with Surpression.

11-11-11 didn't happen, but maybe we can have the Doomsday Edition released on December 21st, 2012.  Any suggestions about the rules?
There are some things, but I need to start some new threads for those, I think. I'll try and get to that over the next little while. In the meantime, I've sent you a couple PMs regarding the masters for the miniatures and molds. Drop me a reply when you get a chance, Clark.
Best Regards,
Bobloblah

Offline grendeljd

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Mk III Assault Fiend
  • ****
  • Posts: 365
    • My Deviantart Gallery
Re: Battle Report - Quarterback Sneak scenario
« Reply #21 on: March 26, 2013, 12:29:19 AM »
Hey bobloblah, I never did comment on this great battle report of yours... fantastic pictures, they still get me all inspired to play. I really like the look of your figures too. I'm seeing a few counters I don't recognize though - is there some non-LoS ones in use?
I hate people generally, but I like them specifically - John Malkovich

Offline Warchariot

  • Nightmare
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • ~Good Cheer to All~
Re: Battle Report - Quarterback Sneak scenario
« Reply #22 on: March 26, 2013, 11:43:39 AM »
I can see the images just fine, of course I'm Johnny Come-Lately to the AAR. You said a third player. We often play with three and do a round-robin style so everyone can play twice and play each side. That way someone can look up rules, see what works etc. This game runs fine in about 90 minutes, so if you have 4-5 hours it works great.
Larry
Cheyenne, WY