FollowFurion - your monthly dose of T9A tactica

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

    Our beta phase is finally over. Download The Ninth Age: Fantasy Battles, 2nd Edition now!

    • Woah!

      After good 9 hours of sleep I see 5 posts edited and 11 deleted!
      That must be my personal best for adding workload for @Stunt!

      I'm sad I can't see all the fire in your posts, but - having spoken with mighty @Herminard and being advised by powerful @Stunt, I believe all that what needed to be said has been said, the ETC'19 is over and deliberating on "who killed who" (kudos @DanT) is a moot point.

      So let this thread by a tactica thread by my humble person. See you all at the next ETC, if you have some issues maybe we can explain it at the tables.

      DanT wrote:

      Can we move the "who killed who" and "who started it" discussions to the ETC forum please?
      I came here for interesting gaming plays :)


      Furion wrote:

      A) 3/4 Shabtis is extra stomp and possibly up to 5 more dead seaguards per turn, so in 2 turns of combat that's a difference of 10 models, so over 1/3 the unit.B) In case he wants to kill Fast cav and reform, and I fancy to charge out with a Prince (he could go off LoS from leftmost model)
      C) no
      D) Literally anything else than to block himself with the scorpion. This scorpion was dancing there for good 2 turns, serving as my redirector, until I decided to kill him.
      Ah, I didn't put some of these questions very well.
      E.g.
      (A) Presumably the spears kill at least one shabti before they fight, meaning that the max extra damage from the change in frontage is 4 (3 attacks plus stomp), and the average is close to 2 (25/12 I believe). Is the combat really so tight that such a thing made or broke the game here?
      (B) If the fast cav aren't there, is your opponent's best play to attack the prince or not? Why/why not? Does the cavalry being there change this?
      (C) Did you have any spells off on your unit? Did any of the shabti have regen? If this changes, do you still make the same play?
      (D) Here, I actually meant after you made your play: if you were the UD player, faced with that situation with the elven infantry and cavalry, what would you have done? (I appreciate your answer is kinda "don't be in that situation", but looking for the best way out of a situation when one has made a mistake is a skill that is useful to most players.)

      I realise I'm being a bit difficult, but in writing my own tacticas and coaching people, I've realised that there is a lot that top players do almost subconsciously, and articulating it can be very helpful for players trying to learn. With the level you play at, and how long you've played at that level, I am sure there are things you don't even think about anymore that would blow some player's minds!

      So I'm just trying to tease out as much juicy tactical advice from your story as possible :D
      A) the difference between top 1% of players and top 10% of players is that they make plays that are especially luck invariant. If 8 shabtis are sestroyed, why take the chances and not fight with 6 if it's possible?
      B) The sin was in a turn before, more info will be in the video I'll make.
      C) I think I got unnering strike in and hereditary spell.
      D) thinking on the spot: possible move small shabtis way to the back, bring the big ones a tad closer, forget about scorpion redirecting the block as it is not needed, it better goes and kills some RBT / mage / threatens KoR. big unit of shabtis can hold the spears charge (especially with extra -1 AP on spears when I charge him) and I can't go into counter of 5 shabtis on a flank.



      Persedious wrote:

      @Furion Either you have moved to Canada recently, and are taking part in a very low elo tournament, or someone in my neck of the woods (well, former neck of the woods) is using your exact ETC list. If I were you, I would demand royalties!
      Happens all the time ;)
      my ETC 2019 roster
      750 - High Prince on Dragon, Dragon, Great Weapon, Obsidian Rock
      565 - Mage: Asfad Scholar, Master, Divination, Book of Meladys,
      485 - High Prince: Queen's Companion, General, Spear, Sliver of the Blazing Dawn, Destiny's Call, Longbow, Moonlight Arrows
      280 - 20x Citizen Spears, MC
      190 - 5x Elein Reavers, Bows
      662 - 27x Sea Guard, MSC, Banner of Speed
      360 - 5x Knights of Ryma, M
      180 - 3x1 Sea Guard Reaper
      663 - 21x Lion Guard, MSC, Banner of Becalming
      4500
    • Thanks also from me. I am enjoying the read and keen to learn more.

      After doing some maths it looks like the Shabtis are dead after 2 rounds of combat with a high certainty if they charge the Sea Guard.

      Surrendering ansd accepting the fate would be hardly an option for me, so I came up with the following alternative:
      Charging the Reavers, killing them or trying to restrain (if that fails a 4 should bring me out of line of sight; 1" of the unit spacing rule is ignored If you were already closer, no?) and then reform.
      In the end it would look ike the below (please ignore the Reavers and the sixth Shabti on the left)
      Would you have charged in that Situation? The shabtis will most likely survive the first round, allowing the flank charge for the second unit.
      I think the Elves are still better up, but it depends on buffs and uncertainty is high.




      UDvsHE_1.GIF
    • @LastKnight In that case I'd most likely reform with SG and move 6" in face of small shabtis, walking out of LoS, charging next turn if needed.

      However this is not a full picture: I also had 5 KoR guys on the right from big shabtis, so in that case I'd consider charging out with lord to flank and 5 ryma to flank.

      There are many options to consider.
      my ETC 2019 roster
      750 - High Prince on Dragon, Dragon, Great Weapon, Obsidian Rock
      565 - Mage: Asfad Scholar, Master, Divination, Book of Meladys,
      485 - High Prince: Queen's Companion, General, Spear, Sliver of the Blazing Dawn, Destiny's Call, Longbow, Moonlight Arrows
      280 - 20x Citizen Spears, MC
      190 - 5x Elein Reavers, Bows
      662 - 27x Sea Guard, MSC, Banner of Speed
      360 - 5x Knights of Ryma, M
      180 - 3x1 Sea Guard Reaper
      663 - 21x Lion Guard, MSC, Banner of Becalming
      4500
    • Herminard wrote:

      Will you allow this @Stunt?

      Ivan wrote:

      angle tool
      I measured them to the utmost scrutiny while Feytor was leaving the table. I told people on both sides to keep their tounge while I did my examinations.

      I gave my questions to @Furion while @Rince and @debek were bystanders - also present were ref @KeyserSoze. I were very clear to start the assessment with considerations regarding the _physical_ properties of the tool. Once my long hard look at the physical properties had been completed - there was one thing that had to be made perfectly clear:

      The arguments for this as a cheating device for _own_ gain are null and void.

      ---

      Next, it would be possible - by malicious use - to offer your opponent to use your measurement stick wrongfully. This is why I told them that I would expect the toolstick to have a stronger differentiation of color front to back.

      ---

      Next, there are some factors of emotion. Like fear of being fooled by a tabletop foe - or the fear of a personal attribute like supreme skill of a game suddenly shattering.

      I understand well that these implications matter _more_ than the physical attributes of the measurement stick itself - cuz if you dont like the physical side of it, you can just use your own to double check.

      Hence - it is my argument that the critic of the stick can be boiled down to the amount of time&energy spent for the opponent to understand and accept the function of this stick.

      Considering how understanding complex features are such a monumental part of this level of ETC play - I would imagine it should not require a tremendous part of yer efforts to understand the qualities of this piece of wood.



      Dirty Ivy wrote:

      Yell. 1 hour. 5 repeats of movement.
      That may well be so. Also - emotions were involved. And that is fair. I dont have a great deal of emotions attatched to this, because nothing is at stake for me.

      I have been thinking about how Furion managed to envision this possibility of space and angles, and can only assume that it comes down to his profession in conjuction to his passion.

      Still even as I look at the images today - I must look very slowly and carefully to grasp how things went about. And you can be very sure - that even if a man I would trust to hold my sack while I let the water wanted to do this manouvre in the fields of battle; he would quite likely have to repeat the movements a handful of times.

      Also - @Furion - it is generally counterproductive to increase the volume of your voice to someone not immediately grasping a complex concept. The Limbic system kicks in and reduces cognitive powers. Also - it is generally more trustworthy to be allowed to try to move things yourself instead of having someone show you how they moved. If at all possible.

      Now - show us yer next act, if you please.

      Skàll,
      Hermund Vigerust Endressòn Furu - Savage Sage of the Norse
      Faux-pro player and ETC vagabond.
      Enjoys the company of deluded nerds and women of unquestionably low morale.

      Do not fall to the folly of the best laid of plans - for the mind of man is fickle in the face of the dice gods.
      Give yer high fives where yer opponents dice have been blessed, and in equal give yer handshakes when dice fall in malicious ways.
    • Without wishing to enter into controversies ;) ,
      In my opinion this play he did is a dirty trick to get out of trouble. It has nothing to do with being a good or a bad player. All we now it´s very good player.
      This is twisting the rulebook. :S
      When a player wants to charge another unit, he checks the distance of the redirector, if it does not get in the way of charge, they shouldn´t stop that charge. That's all that should be necessary. The rest is to squeeze the rulebook to try to scape, In this way it is very difficult to get in charge distance because it already requires moving opponent units to know if it is a safe and posible charge, not only anticipate possible movements from threatened unit or units near they, to escape the situation.

      This translates in repetitive try movements of models, bad atmosphere and waste of time. :(

      Legal? It may be, but considering that the unit was moved several times and that maneuver required accuracy to see if they block the charge, it is difficult to know if it can do it or not at the beggining.

      This could be solved by allowing as far as measuring distances, but prohibiting moving or testing movement of models..

      Keep the good work Furion with fair tactics, they are amazing, but in my opinion this trick is not something to bost :)
    • Furion wrote:

      Act I.
      The Setup.

      OP Undying Dynasties, force of 8 Shabtis, 5 Shabtis, Scorpion
      Versus
      Crappy HE with 27 Sea Guards with Lord and 5 fast cav.

      Powerlevel difference: Tier1 vs Tier3
      Playerlevel difference: Spain (Feytor) vs Poland (Furion)

      slide1.jpg

      HE player turn. Sea Guards can't take 13 shabtis. They can't flee from 2 units, since they will hit the board edge.

      Considering option with Ellein Reavers:
      slide2.jpg
      It's more than 24 inches (18 movement + 6 the wideness of shabtis) so I can't redirect them. I need to think of some clever positioning to be able to hold the combat.


      Act II.
      The Play.

      Sea Guards charge, the fast cavalry is positioned like this.
      slide3.jpg

      And after combat reform, the situation is as follows:
      slide4.jpg
      Now let's consider this. First, the unit spacing rule is conserved, and both the shabti units are in the front. This means that only 1 of those units can complete the charge. So maximum number of shabtis in combat is reduced from 13 to 8.

      slide5.jpg
      But this is still too much for me. 8 shabtis with buffs will chew on the Sea Guards. This is where the perfect position of Ellein Reavers comes into play.
      slide6.jpg
      Should the 8 shabtis charge, they have to wheel and then avoid hitting Ellein Reavers. The moment they make contact (as shown on picture) they close the door. Red arrow indicates that in the place of contact less than half of Shabti will be unengaged (= more than 21mm engaged) which will result in 4th shabti out contact (can't corner to corner due to wheel limitations)

      Ok, but what about charging the Ellein Reavers and overruing into Sea Guards?
      Again, I'm a few steps ahead.

      slide7.jpg
      This position is illegal, as it would require to stop on top of my unit or close the door with my unit, both of which are not possible due to other movement being possible, like this:
      slide8.jpg
      And in this position, Shabtis can overrun into nothingness. On a low roll, they will even stay in place since they won't be able to finish their movement within 1" of Sea Guards.

      Act III.
      The Prestige.

      My mighty opponent decided to charge, which resulted in him losing the Shabti unit.
      Edited by mod

      Act IV.
      The Finale.

      1. 75 pts average on UD is out of the sky. Army is easy to play, forgives mistakes and is crazy strong. Should I not play vs UD (resulting in 15, 15, 18 pts) but some less experienced HE player, the average scores would be tipped even more in favour of UD.

      2. I have made some good plays this weekend, I will document them all, hopefully it will be easier for Team Spain players to understand them as they won't have to decipher the ugly handwriting of their coaches.

      3. HE are Tier 3/3, unless you are time bending spacelord (kudos to @Herminard).

      4. I will make some videos from this years ETC and upload them. I really will. This time I give my word - and rest assured that this is a word of a man, and not some tramp whose words mean nothing.






      i see 2 shabti less in the charge, not 4 less. Why was 4 then?
    • Martins9thAge wrote:

      Without wishing to enter into controversies ;) ,
      In my opinion this play he did is a dirty trick to get out of trouble. It has nothing to do with being a good or a bad player. All we now it´s very good player.
      This is twisting the rulebook. :S
      When a player wants to charge another unit, he checks the distance of the redirector, if it does not get in the way of charge, they shouldn´t stop that charge. That's all that should be necessary. The rest is to squeeze the rulebook to try to scape, In this way it is very difficult to get in charge distance because it already requires moving opponent units to know if it is a safe and posible charge, not only anticipate possible movements from threatened unit or units near they, to escape the situation.

      This translates in repetitive try movements of models, bad atmosphere and waste of time. :(

      Legal? It may be, but considering that the unit was moved several times and that maneuver required accuracy to see if they block the charge, it is difficult to know if it can do it or not at the beggining.

      This could be solved by allowing as far as measuring distances, but prohibiting moving or testing movement of models..

      Keep the good work Furion with fair tactics, they are amazing, but in my opinion this trick is not something to bost :)
      Ever heard of this bad boys? :thumbup:
      1.png
    • I chortled at this @AlexCat but we should encourage people to constructively post opposing opinions as it fuels interesting discussion. If this move was being pulled on me, though I see with the help of the images that it is in fact legal, I may well have called bs too.

      This is a pretty sick move, Furion, props for finding it. Some of my questions have already been answered but I would be interested to hear how much game time this move took as it presumably needed some discussion with your opponent to clarify your intention, debate whether it is possible etc. Also, what would you have done if your opponent disagreed and said you couldn't do this (despite it being legal)? Call a judge and explain the situation to them and hope they rule in your favour? Did you get 6 turns finished in this game?

      I find you tactical insight very interesting - despite the delivery sometimes. Looking forward to those videos!
    • AlexCat wrote:

      @Martins9thAge in my humble opinion, with your post you wasted a great opportunity to keep silent.
      Maybe a bit hard, but truly sad. This is tactical game, it has it's own rules, using this rules you can manoeuvre and make some tricks with it, people who know more tricks have advantage in this game! That's why this game is so beautiful tactically! Not because of dice rolling. And moralizing here is awful at my tastе
    • Martins9thAge wrote:

      AlexCat wrote:

      @Martins9thAge in my humble opinion, with your post you wasted a great opportunity to keep silent.
      Can you say why?

      I say something wrong?
      There have been no problems on account of this?There have been no problems on account of this other years?I do not understand your post, I hope you are not in these same situations that I describe

      Each instance must be scrutinized as a sole instance. Mixing the argument by references of other instances is a tarnishing reduction of the argument.
      Hermund Vigerust Endressòn Furu - Savage Sage of the Norse
      Faux-pro player and ETC vagabond.
      Enjoys the company of deluded nerds and women of unquestionably low morale.

      Do not fall to the folly of the best laid of plans - for the mind of man is fickle in the face of the dice gods.
      Give yer high fives where yer opponents dice have been blessed, and in equal give yer handshakes when dice fall in malicious ways.
    • Herminard wrote:

      Martins9thAge wrote:

      AlexCat wrote:

      @Martins9thAge in my humble opinion, with your post you wasted a great opportunity to keep silent.
      Can you say why?
      I say something wrong?
      There have been no problems on account of this?There have been no problems on account of this other years?I do not understand your post, I hope you are not in these same situations that I describe
      Each instance must be scrutinized as a sole instance. Mixing the argument by references of other instances is a tarnishing reduction of the argument.
      or ask the opponent a riddle and if his answer is correct then let him proceed.