Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Let's take the heldrake, what if you could make a picking up attack rather than vector striking?

Here is the jist of it:
In your movement phase you can choose to pick up a model and drop it along your movement track (to a maximum of 12" from where the model originally was).
Once dropped the model must take a Str5 Ap- hit (Str6 for difficult and dangerous terrain)(cannot be dropped in impassible terrain).
So why do this rather than vector striking?
You can force a unit to waste a turn getting into unit coherancy, double bad for units with heavy weapons.
You can drag an independant character closer to your cc units so you can kill them.

What do you think?
Should the flyer have to make a test?
Should the unit getting picked up get to make an attack or go to ground to avoid it?

EDIT:
The fmc/flyers cannot shoot (or maybe just firing snap shots) after making such an attack.

That's really broken because you negate a units movement by forcing them to move into coherency in their following turn

Not only is it op because you force movement by effecting coherency but you can also drag units off objectives which is broken as hell.

I like the idea, but it does seem really OP. Maybe adding some downsides.
FMC only, except maybe heldrake as you mentioned

1: Look Out Sir appies
2: The targeted unit/model gets a free attack with +1 to hit.
3: If the attack hits, the attempt to pick up/drop fails.
4: Counts as having fired a weapon when resolving the following shooting phase.
5: If the FMC is wounded it must take a grounding test. If it fails it must be placed as close to the targeted model as possible while staying at least 1" away and may not assault in it's assault phase.

Lance845 wrote:
Not only is it op because you force movement by effecting coherency but you can also drag units off objectives which is broken as hell.

This may be so, however it would take a flyer a minimum of 4 turns to be able to attack the same unit again (to turn 360) and fmc would have to drop down to the ground a turn in order to turn around which would make him vulnerable to the unit he just tried to move.
Also as the last post stated: in order to balance it the unit being attacked could be able to make an attack against the flyer or, if it is an indipendent character, have a system of dualling in the air like sanguinius and kha'bhanda. If the flyer is victorious they drop the character to the ground, if the ic is victorious they pull the flyer back down to earth.
It could be potentially balanced: risk the loss of your flyer for the chance to stop a unit capturing an objective.

It makes sense, from a fluff point of view, that big things like flyrants and bloodthirsters should be able to swoop down and pick up unsuspecting models and drop them from a height.

Rather than come up with new rules why not reuse the very similar DE Hellion ability?

 Scott-S6 wrote:
Rather than come up with new rules why not reuse the very similar DE Hellion ability?

Sorry I am not aware of such an ability, care to explain?

Stunclaw lets you take an enemy model with you when you hit and run from combat (and leaves the enemy unit locked in combat with you because that one model is in base contact)

Since it requires you to make yourself vulnerable it was never regarded as OP. Doesn't work mechanically for flyers of course.

 mrhappyface wrote:

Lance845 wrote:
Not only is it op because you force movement by effecting coherency but you can also drag units off objectives which is broken as hell.

This may be so, however it would take a flyer a minimum of 4 turns to be able to attack the same unit again (to turn 360) and fmc would have to drop down to the ground a turn in order to turn around which would make him vulnerable to the unit he just tried to move.
Also as the last post stated: in order to balance it the unit being attacked could be able to make an attack against the flyer or, if it is an indipendent character, have a system of dualling in the air like sanguinius and kha'bhanda. If the flyer is victorious they drop the character to the ground, if the ic is victorious they pull the flyer back down to earth.
It could be potentially balanced: risk the loss of your flyer for the chance to stop a unit capturing an objective.

It makes sense, from a fluff point of view, that big things like flyrants and bloodthirsters should be able to swoop down and pick up unsuspecting models and drop them from a height.

It would take 1 flyer 4 turns. It would take a flying circus with proper planning no time at all.

Assuming they had a flying circus then the only weapons in your army that would be able to do anything would be flyers and skyfire weapons.
This rule wouldn't be able to harm other flyers.
Stationary turrets and turrets attached to vehicles, such as iccurras weapons, wouldn't be harmed.
Skyfire weapons such as missile launchers would be attacked but you could just put your heavy weapons squad in a corner so they can't be moved over without leaving the board (the rule would not allow you to pull units off the board). Also if all fmc were performing this kind of move they wouldn't be able to shoot, being far too focussed on their prey, so flyrant armies and the likes would be useless if continuesly carrying out this attack.

It reminds me of the old Lash of Submission but worse cause I can pull units apart and depending on terrain have them spend multiple turns trying to get back together. In a cities of death game you would probably be knocking out whole units for the entire game. I'm not a fan.

In cities of death games I would think it would encourage a unit to stay inside or under a partially destroyed building, which they would be doing anyway.

On a side note, would it make sense that instead of the fmc making a test to grab them the unit should be able to make a cover save to represent them taking cover from the swooping monster?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I think you people are making a bigger deal out of this than it is,
Would you rather a heldrake burns your devastator squad or just grab one of your guys and move him? This goes for many other fmc, other than daemons, such as the tyranids venom weapons (or whatever they are called, I don't play nids)

No I think you are looking at neat cinematic effects rather than the logical exploitations of the rules. Look at anytime ever. Players use the rules to make intelligent decisions to win.

This strikes me as 1 of 2 things, so difficult or worthless that it is never done because why would you. Drag and maybe hurt 1 guy vs 12 twin linked str 6 shots from a flyrant. Or so ridiculous that you would never do anything else. Break up units with heavy and ordinance and other weapons so they have to keep moving and can never fire their special guns while be dragged off objectives.

The best rules provide interesting choices. The best game play is when you have to make a choice gaining something for loosing something else. If it's all win all the time then its not really a choice. Risk and reward. This rule is either broken in the worst ways by stripping enemies of options and forcing their hand or it's so sub par it might as well not be there.

I'm not worried about a standard squad but this would be very powerful against a death star unit or expensive HQs, hell any IC. Fly over unit and pull out the IC. Suddenly they are out in open so another unit can light them up.

So how would you suggestthis type of rule be balanced,assuming this rule be implemented?
If the unit was allowed to fire overwatch would it be more balanced?
If the model being attacked could choose to make a death or glory, so that even if he failed to do damage he would die preventing his unit from moving, would that balance?

There seem to be a lot of reasons why it is bad but no solutions to fix it here.

There isn't a a way to balance it because it's a very powerful ability for a class of units FMC that are all ready fairly powerful. The ability to scope out IC or characters with upgrades from the rest of the unit is very powerful and a flying circus filled with FMC could quickly isolate individual models and kill them. The ability to pick out individual models in a unit is rare and usually only one shot. This is a near guarantee that the IC will be on it's own and from there it's not easy to blow them away.

What if the unit the ic was in could make a 3+ look out sir?
What if the model attacked could attempt to plant a grenade on the fmc?
There are always ways balance something.

How about if the Grab attack was a Precision Strike, and once the grabbed model is dropped to the ground and survives, it becomes it's own unit? The unit the grabbed model originally came from would have to take a morale check if necessary, just as if it had taken a casualty.

This would cut down on units being dragged off of objectives. In exchange, the Grabbed model could be shot much more freely. It could be useful for armies like Tyranids and Daemons, who don't have a lot of Sniper weapons.

However, I'd consider letting the FMC still shoot after doing my version of the Grab attack.

Yeah, it's just not possible. It's not even that it's being given to a class of units that are already powerful (fmc and flyers), it's that the mechanic itself is just powerful.

Either you nerf it to uselessness making it more and more complicated or you create something that just breaks to many conventions for what a model should be able to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mrhappyface wrote:
What if the unit the ic was in could make a 3+ look out sir?
What if the model attacked could attempt to plant a grenade on the fmc?
There are always ways balance something.

Look out sir, you still force a units movement which can cripple certain units ability to shoot at all AND can force people off objectives.

So what about the grenade? Some armies don't have grenades. What happens when you do it to demons with heavy weapons? How about necrons? Nids? You cannot balance it thinking in terms of marines or humanity. You need to consider the whole game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Terminal wrote:
How about if the Grab attack was a Precision Strike, and once the grabbed model is dropped to the ground and survives, it becomes it's own unit? The unit the grabbed model originally came from would have to take a morale check if necessary, just as if it had taken a casualty.

This would cut down on units being dragged off of objectives. In exchange, the Grabbed model could be shot much more freely. It could be useful for armies like Tyranids and Daemons, who don't have a lot of Sniper weapons.

However, I'd consider letting the FMC still shoot after doing my version of the Grab attack.

Multiplying units? You don't think that gets complicated? Or a major advantage in the ability to make a unit now capable of shooting at multiple targets, move in different directions, grab different objectives. How does that score at the end of the game in terms of kill points? First Blood?


Again, your layering complication onto a mechanic that isn't very good from a game play experience perspective to begin with to try and justify it being there instead of having it serve the total experience.

The game isn't particularly enhanced by the ability to have FMC make a new kind of attack that is nothing like the attacks the rest of the game is built around. Why create even MORE complications to balance and justify it?

Splitting up units opens a whole level of complications that this game doesn't need. This is also giving FMC another advantage over walking guys, something else we don't need