Deep Deployment

[Enioch]

I quote (emphasis mine, Italics my commentary):

 

“Some scenarios allow carriers in fleets to be placed in deep deployment, keeping them off the table and far away from direct attack. In such a scenario, a player may choose to remove one or more of their carriers from the table before the game starts and place them in deep deployment. ANY NUMBER OF THEIR FLIGHTS (not “any number of their LAUNCHED flights”!) may be placed on the table in the fleet’s deployment zone.

ANY FLIGHTS KEPT ON THE CARRIER MAY BE BROUGHT INTO THE BATTLE DURING ANY TURN WITHIN THE GAME. When launched from the carrier, place the flight in contact with the fleet’s table edge. The flight cannot be attacked in that turn and may move normally in the next turn’s Movement Phase.”

 

Rules as written state that Deep Deployment carriers may, if they so desire, lob their entire complement at the enemy ships on-map at turn 1, and follow up with a second / third wave if they’ve kept flights in reserve. This is interesting to me, and makes the question of whether you’ll send your carrier into DeepDep even more tactical.

Keep her in the battlemap: slower plane launching (2 initial, potentially improved by scouting), danger to the CV, but you have the option to re-load the planes and cycle attacks.

Send her to DeepDep: you get ONE strike per plane (no chance to get back to the CV to reload), but you can get a massive strike out on turn 1, no matter if you broke the 7 or 10 point scouting threshold or not.

We played an alternate 1500-point Force Z attack yesterday with the lads, lasted almost 9 hours. PoW + Repulse + 2 Leander class + 2 J-class DDs, vs Shokaku + Zuikaku (both in DeepDep) + Ise + 5 DDs equipped with Type 93s. The Allied force annihilated the IJN DDs (4/5 dead), but got wrecked by counter-torps and airstrikes. Highlights: a single suicidal point-blank torpedo strike on the PoW by little Asagumo which scored 5 devastating criticals for a 50-ish HP total in critical cascades and a hammer-and-anvil strike by Zuikaku that put Repulse down from 0 Engine damage to 6 Engine damage with a single critical.

The wall of planes coming in was terrifying.

Attachments:

1. 

   Screenshot-1723.png
   

[Nat]

We’ve had this discussion with the authors (Matthew Sprange) in the Facebook group… and the wording on Deep Deployment is like that to allow for differing numbers of flights up it doesnt over-ride the rules for CAP (2 flights).  Only the result of 7 & 10 on the scouting points table do that.

Or to put it another way, the ability to put the ship off the table dosent affect the number of flights it has up.

 

• This reply was modified 3 years, 11 months ago by Nat.

Attachments:

1. 

   FB-comment.png
   

[clockwork81]

Which planes were you guys using? Did you house rule bombers or use rules from the beta? The Zero fighter bombers don’t look particularly scary.

[Enioch]

@clockwork Beta statblocks. Those are Kates and Vals going in 🙂

@Nat Rules as currently published seem to disagree; I have consulted Matt myself on interpretations in some other cases, but Warlord seems to have balanced the game against original author proposed rules / stats at some points. The ability to premeasure, for instance, which is strictly forbidden in the beta but explicitly allowed and encouraged in the final game. I would be happy to accept Matt’s ruling, if confirmed by Warlord (if the final version of the rules as published was written by him and not altered at all by Warlord, disregard this, but I would still like to know if that’s the case).

• This reply was modified 3 years, 11 months ago by Enioch.

[clockwork81]

Enioch, I have not seen the beta rules, so my friend and I adapted the planes in V1 to Warlord’s version. My post “Thoughts on the Game so Far” contains the stats for the planes we updated. Would you be able to give these stats a look? I’m curious how close we got to beta.

[Nat]

@enoich -personally I read that deep deployment doesnt allow extra flights being launched but do understand that the English used is (like the whole language :p) open to multiple interpretations…for me its that deep deployment doesnt tell you that you can start with more flights than CAP (unlike results 7 & 10)…. still so long as you and your opponent(s) are on the same page before you start deploying its all good :p

But anyway I’ve mentioned before (and not just with warlord) companies need to have people who play tabletop games but not involved with play testing the game proof read the book /manuals before they go to print :p

[Enioch]

companies need to have people who play tabletop games but not involved with play testing the game proof read the book /manuals before they go to print

Could not agree more. There are so many double-readings possible in the current rules…

Personally, I think there should be an official FAQ here, with players submitting potential errata and getting official (i.e. WARLORD) responses to their questions; it would also allow Warlord to find potential mistakes or vague stuff in their rules and fix them for the big book of niceness that I’m waiting so eagerly for.

I find it absurd that you should be consulting an unofficial Facebook group for this during the high-interest period after game launch.

[Shrokins]

Wow, what program are you using in that screenshot? Is that through Tabletop Simulator? Also, look at all those custom planes and hexagonal coastline tiles. That’s impressive.

[Nat]

yeah…. when I saw that the FB group was getting the same questions every couple of days I wrote that FAQ so there was a single location of answers using the majority (or most compelling)answers .. some I changed 180* in the couple of versions I wrote as the authors and play testers corrected what I wrote…. but I’d have preferred it had it been written by the studio :/

I just hope there is an FAQ out first week of Feb if the rule book hasnt changed the wording on several points!

*Devastating is a prime example of this…. several of us read the different wording to mean the criticals on 5 +6s where auto successful, Matthew pointed out that they still needed confirming!

[Enioch]

*Devastating is a prime example of this…. several of us read the different wording to mean the criticals on 5 +6s where auto successful, Matthew pointed out that they still needed confirming!

Wait what.

The starter rulebook and the beta rules explicitly say that Dev weapons score crits on 5 and 6.

What the hell.

Also, your FAQ .pdf in this forum (I’m not posting the link because of the &*%$^ moderation restrictions, you know the one I’m talking about, and thanks for making it available <3) states that Dev crits do not need confirming. You might want to correct that and/or post a source for Matt’s ruling?

• This reply was modified 3 years, 11 months ago by Enioch.

[Nat]

sorry thought I had 🙁 … I’ve now uploaded v1.2

[Enioch]

Also, apologies, I skimmed this question:

Wow, what program are you using in that screenshot? Is that through Tabletop Simulator? Also, look at all those custom planes and hexagonal coastline tiles. That’s impressive.

Everything you see is a physical token. I have made a playing surface and own several fleets (won some in a contest, bought others) and I am running a weekly (?) streaming session on twitch (/Enioch_Newsreels) where friends from Discord play out an alternate universe Pacific campaign. There’s simulated news broadcasts and everything!

I tried to advertise it here, but the silly mod rules ate my post with links, which makes me angry, because we are looking for tactical commanders to join the fun.

[Shrokins]

That sounds very interesting. If you need another player, feel free to send me a message. Especially if you need a CO for the USS Missouri; I just received my Missouri model in the mail today and I’m eager to take her out for a rip.

[Author]

Posts