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.

Because shooting is, generally, less effective in fantasy than it is in 40k. To hit modifiers (such as -1 for S&S) means you drastically reduce shooting potential even further.

Mystic plasma spam for IG should show you how this is not a good thing for 40k to hve....

Has to be wound allocation, it is really annoying and leads to all kinds of tricky ploys. Was it really that bad to just let the defender remove casualties as they liked? The current rule just seems to help those that have really complicated units and it takes too long to figure out.

The wound allocation was first implemented in Epic Armageddon and worked really well to encourage diverse detachments. A problem with defender-selected casualties is that the models in a unit get divided into the valuable specialists who survive until the unit is destroyed/routed, and the meat-shield scrubs who act as a pool of wounds, and then a "torrent of fire" needs to be implemented so that specialists can be knocked out of commission with sufficient applications of firepower. The designers attempted to ameliorate this by also implementing an additional complication that casualties could only be removed from range and line of sight.

While it meant that there was a certain tactical finesse required to use units to their utmost, it made horde units kind of pointless since whether it was close combat or shooting you just sort of fed them into a grinder. So while there was a loss of tactical finesse, the change made the strategic option of fielding horde units like Ork Boyz strategically useful. Not a bad trade-off considering it both increased the number of strategically useful configurations of unit and the diversity seen in those units.

The building rules are complete garbage IMHO. The idea that you cannot hurt a unit in a building without destroying the entire building is just ludicrous. Also ,why can't you assault a unit in a building? To make matters worse, a unit standing on top of a building cannot be assaulted or shot at. Who thought these rules up? How on earth does a brick house (which the BRB calls armor 11) make a unit functionally immune to small arms fire? The whole building section of the book needs some serious work.

Maybe. You'll hit the buildings automatically in close combat, so those grenades and melta bombs will hit automatically. Shaking the building will prevent the contents from shooting, so Fearless units inside of them can be suppressed and they'll need fire points to shoot from in the first place. Placing models on top will make the building open-topped and more vulnerable to being destroyed. If they have fire points, such as battlements or a parapet when models are placed on them, then a template weapon can affect models on the inside as well as the building (a rule that should have also been applied to vehicles...).

I can't remember if vehicles copied building or buildings copied vehicles, but somewhere in that chicken-and-the-egg mobius strip of idiocy the exact same line of reasoning was transferred from one to to the other. That's why you have outlandish rules for transports as mobile bunkers with invincible tinfoil walls, and the completely bonkers inability to assault into a building. Call it laziness on the part of whoever copied one to the other. Making separate rules is, like, hard and stuff. If things don't go well in the office you might have to playtest them and stuff instead of being able to pass it off to the 'extended beta' that all the released rules get before the buck gets passed and someone else has to think of a fix.

It's not simply laziness. There is a major advantage to keeping the rules as simple as possible. They're already fairly complex and hard for a newbie to learn all the details. The fact that buildings mirror vehicles keeps things simplified.

I'm not saying I like the rules for buildings (in my playgroup we actually never use buildings as anything other than area terrain), but I can understand why GW does it that way.

DeathReaper wrote:
should be i activate a unit, move, shoot, assault with it, then you activate a unit etc. till all units have moved that turn.

This. But it could be because I keep forgetting what units I haven't moved or shot so often fast-forward to assault.

Being a nid player, I despise the no retreat rule. Fearless becomes as great or greater a liability than a boon because of it, and the fact that someone can wipe out my gaunts and then obliterate the Carnifex in CC due to no retreat wound saves on it is totally ridiculous.

NR! has been listed already - bad planning does not make it a bad rule. NR! hasnt actually changed, its just the change in combat res

Now you have to actually think and plan ahead. Screen your fexes with gaunts so they cant be multiassaulted. ITs not difficult, just different to 4th ed where Fearless required no thought whatsoever.

Marrak wrote:Being a nid player, I despise the no retreat rule. Fearless becomes as great or greater a liability than a boon because of it, and the fact that someone can wipe out my gaunts and then obliterate the Carnifex in CC due to no retreat wound saves on it is totally ridiculous.

I typically don't run into this problem, but I can see where you're coming from. Maybe it's a fairly simple fix of making MC immune to No Retreat wounds. Or, maybe some units should be designated as "disposable" and don't factor into combat resolution. I don't see a unit of Ork Boys being effected because some nearby gretchen were wiped out.

nosferatu1001 wrote:NR! has been listed already - bad planning does not make it a bad rule. NR! hasnt actually changed, its just the change in combat res

Now you have to actually think and plan ahead. Screen your fexes with gaunts so they cant be multiassaulted. ITs not difficult, just different to 4th ed where Fearless required no thought whatsoever.

Don't you dare lay No Retreat! in it's current form at the foot of the person playing the army and try to hand-wave it away with 'You suck at this!'. It's a horrid rule that is massively unfair to horde armies and will screw monstrous creatures over doubly so. Insulting the person getting screwed is just ignoring the problem for no valid reason.

I had NR! "screw monstrous creatures over" exactly once.

Then I learned from it.

It still happens, but it has not been any worse to my monstrous creatures than to any of my other bugs since then. Generally I use it to my advantage now.

Not like "remove xxxx from the table".
No save from it.
No ability can counter it.
No Tyranid vehicles to ignore some causes of it.
No way for me to do it!
No fun.

SumYungGui wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:NR! has been listed already - bad planning does not make it a bad rule. NR! hasnt actually changed, its just the change in combat res

Now you have to actually think and plan ahead. Screen your fexes with gaunts so they cant be multiassaulted. ITs not difficult, just different to 4th ed where Fearless required no thought whatsoever.

Don't you dare lay No Retreat! in it's current form at the foot of the person playing the army and try to hand-wave it away with 'You suck at this!'. It's a horrid rule that is massively unfair to horde armies and will screw monstrous creatures over doubly so. Insulting the person getting screwed is just ignoring the problem for no valid reason.

Sigh. You again.

NR! is not "horribly imbalanced" as it actually punishes you for playing badly.
If you consistenty are getting in losing fights with your baby 'nids, and losing badly enough that you are also losing fexes/trygons/other big 'nids to it then STOP THROWING THEM INTO THAT COMBAT. Perhaps think and use any number of techniques to prevent getting multicharged.

Sheesh. Its not difficult and its *gasp* using tactics. In a wargame. Gosh, the horror. Do you actually have a useful argument, or just a badly formed opinion?

Grakmar wrote:I typically don't run into this problem, but I can see where you're coming from. Maybe it's a fairly simple fix of making MC immune to No Retreat wounds. Or, maybe some units should be designated as "disposable" and don't factor into combat resolution. I don't see a unit of Ork Boys being effected because some nearby gretchen were wiped out.

I think the simplest fix would be to steal from WHFB - there a unit with more ranks (more numbers basically) that loses a combat is counted as stubborn - it doesn't suffer the -ve modifier to it's leadership test. Introducing that, and also adding the No Retreat! casualties are only suffered if the unit has less troops than the enemy and you'd bring reasonably useful but not overpowered tarpit options back into the game.

As it stands combat resolution and No Retreat! are reasonable rules that don't quite work right - I think bringing the concept of WHFB steadfast into the game would go a long way.

On the other hand, the current building rules are just awful. It's amazing that a game that's all about fighting from building to building would have such a ridiculous ruleset. What kind of game design would stop troops from small arms from being to shoot each other in combat, or stop a unit assaulting another unit in a building. It really was incredibly bad design.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

SumYungGui wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:NR! has been listed already - bad planning does not make it a bad rule. NR! hasnt actually changed, its just the change in combat res

Now you have to actually think and plan ahead. Screen your fexes with gaunts so they cant be multiassaulted. ITs not difficult, just different to 4th ed where Fearless required no thought whatsoever.

Don't you dare lay No Retreat! in it's current form at the foot of the person playing the army and try to hand-wave it away with 'You suck at this!'. It's a horrid rule that is massively unfair to horde armies and will screw monstrous creatures over doubly so. Insulting the person getting screwed is just ignoring the problem for no valid reason.

Sigh. You again.

NR! is not "horribly imbalanced" as it actually punishes you for playing badly.
If you consistenty are getting in losing fights with your baby 'nids, and losing badly enough that you are also losing fexes/trygons/other big 'nids to it then STOP THROWING THEM INTO THAT COMBAT. Perhaps think and use any number of techniques to prevent getting multicharged.

Sheesh. Its not difficult and its *gasp* using tactics. In a wargame. Gosh, the horror. Do you actually have a useful argument, or just a badly formed opinion?

But what about those situations when there's an active CC going on between some Marines and some Gaunts. Your Carnifex is standing nearby, but not engaged with anything. There's nothing else nearby for him to get tangled up with (I assume he ate it all).

Are you really saying it makes the most sense for the tactical decision to be for him to wait patiently outside the combat until it's resolved? I know it's easy to decide not to charge in, but what kind of sense does that actually make?

I think the best change to No Retreat! would be to make it so the units must take a number of saves equal to the number of wounds suffered by the Unit. This way, if you decide to mulch gaunts, the Trygon won't be hurt by No Retreat!, but I also will not tarpit your squadwith Gaunts.

Grakmar wrote:
But what about those situations when there's an active CC going on between some Marines and some Gaunts. Your Carnifex is standing nearby, but not engaged with anything. There's nothing else nearby for him to get tangled up with (I assume he ate it all).

Are you really saying it makes the most sense for the tactical decision to be for him to wait patiently outside the combat until it's resolved? I know it's easy to decide not to charge in, but what kind of sense does that actually make?

actually depends quite a lot on loads of other factors and i doubt it'd turn out the same way twice. why are you sending a carnifex to help out gaunts if you know no retreat possibly will kill it, even 30 gaunts are worth less than a standard fex, not that a squad of standard marines can put that many wounds on gaunts (4 from a full squad), the carnifex can remove a bit of that anyway.

as for why not to, apart from keeping 160points alive;
1. is the fight anywhere near an objective?
2. does the fex have a gun which can shoot something?
3. do you need a fire magnet to keep some other things alive a bit longer?
4. if there is nothing within 12"s when you have engaged with gaunts you are probably winning and therefore shouldn't overcomit.
5. can it threaten a squad?

sebster wrote:

Grakmar wrote:I typically don't run into this problem, but I can see where you're coming from. Maybe it's a fairly simple fix of making MC immune to No Retreat wounds. Or, maybe some units should be designated as "disposable" and don't factor into combat resolution. I don't see a unit of Ork Boys being effected because some nearby gretchen were wiped out.

I think the simplest fix would be to steal from WHFB - there a unit with more ranks (more numbers basically) that loses a combat is counted as stubborn - it doesn't suffer the -ve modifier to it's leadership test. Introducing that, and also adding the No Retreat! casualties are only suffered if the unit has less troops than the enemy and you'd bring reasonably useful but not overpowered tarpit options back into the game.

As it stands combat resolution and No Retreat! are reasonable rules that don't quite work right - I think bringing the concept of WHFB steadfast into the game would go a long way.

On the other hand, the current building rules are just awful. It's amazing that a game that's all about fighting from building to building would have such a ridiculous ruleset. What kind of game design would stop troops from small arms from being to shoot each other in combat, or stop a unit assaulting another unit in a building. It really was incredibly bad design.

I'm not a fan of cribbing from fantasy battle entirely just to make life easier on someone designing the rules so I wouldn't advocate this exact approach, but something does need to be done along the train of thought espoused by the situation above. Counting up wounds and ignoring every single other factor in the entire game just does not work. Put it this way, if a full mob of Ork Boys with default choppa's takes ten unsaved wounds in one assault, how significant is that? Now what happens if a fully loaded Storm Shield/Thunder Hammer Terminator squad takes ten unsaved wounds at the end of one round of assaulting. How significant is that? According to the current assault resolution rules, they are precisely identical.

The stubborn idea is just crazy - you are now back to worse than 4th ed in terms of how brainless you can be with Fearless.

In 4th ed you could take, at most, 5 wounds from NR!. ANd only then if you were outnumbered 4:1 and under half strength. Which was stupid. Required no thought at all - you may as well chuck them in, unlikely to do any harm to anything you care about and could kill a [thing] or two.

Now you actually have to think and set up your army.

Grakmar - so again you have moved your carnifex / trygon 6" twoards a combat you are, presumably, losing badly (otherwise sending the fex in isnt a problem) and then just let it sit there. Is there really nowhere else better on the battlefield it could go?

Something else about No Retreat! with regard to the Tyranids: It means that sometimes there's a sound tactical reason to start your Termagants/Hormagaunts within Synapse range and then moving them outside of it to charge so that they aren't Fearless. With Ld5 they're either going to run away, or they're going to do some damage, particularly if you bothered to invest in their own Toxin Sacs and Adrenal Glands, and then run away. With I4/5, they're pretty safe from Sweeping Advance and can be backstopped by Synapse to give them something like And They Shall Know No Fear.

Yep, as I said - it makes you think about how best to use your troops that are squishier than most. Combined arms, not one shot ponies.

The great strength in the Nid codex is the synergy between units. It requires skill and thought, which is a good thing in my opinion.

Or you could just nerf the ONLY downside to fearless troops so 6pt nids dont die so easily. Lol

Amphibous! Mostly cause it's almost useless. God, I could go on a whole rant but won't...

I guess the most is the dangerous terrain rule- it really doesn't make sense to me. I mean, on a 1 I trip and fall on my head and die, or some of the like. A toughness test seems better to me... but that would kinda be unballanced.

True line of sight!

Scatter.

So no retreat is 'balanced' because it forces players to treat ten wounds in a mob of Ork Boys the same as it does ten wounds in a SS/TH Terminator squad? And anyone that disagrees with that assessment just needs to learn how to play because they are obviously an inferior player incapable of thinking, nothing more than grist to be ground down before the steely gaze of those superior players who chose not to play a horde army?

Glad we got that sorted out.

Wait, someone thinks terminator saves are equal to ork boy saves? Without hyperbole or ignorance?

SumYungGui wrote:So no retreat is 'balanced' because it forces players to treat ten wounds in a mob of Ork Boys the same as it does ten wounds in a SS/TH Terminator squad? And anyone that disagrees with that assessment just needs to learn how to play because they are obviously an inferior player incapable of thinking, nothing more than grist to be ground down before the steely gaze of those superior players who chose not to play a horde army?

Glad we got that sorted out.

So let me get this straight. Ever since you've joined Dakka Dakka, you've done nothing but whine, put words in peoples mouths, belittle people for liking specific armies (How dare we play mechanized armies...), dismiss criticism as trolling...as it stands, Tyranid players are getting a reputation as the whiniest players in 40k, and frankly you're not helping the image.

No Retreat favors elite armies, which it should; after all, between the elimination of Kill Zones (and associated character sniping; elite units in 4e could survive by emptying their zone, or aiming their assault to snipe the hidden Powerfists), and introduction of Defender React, swarms got better in several ways; without No Retreat, there wouldn't be much incentive to playing small elite melee armies otherwise. There are plenty of ways to circumvent No Retreat or mitigate it; MSU multicharging (enemy squads must maintain coherency/can only attack the unit they're in B2B with, etc), screening your units from assault with an expendable swarm,bringing some sort of shooting to soften up melee units, Catalyst/Paroxysm...

SumYungGui wrote:I'm not a fan of cribbing from fantasy battle entirely just to make life easier on someone designing the rules

I have no idea why it would matter where a rule came from if it solved the issue. I was arguing for a rule like that before stubborn came along, so would that help?

so I wouldn't advocate this exact approach, but something does need to be done along the train of thought espoused by the situation above. Counting up wounds and ignoring every single other factor in the entire game just does not work. Put it this way, if a full mob of Ork Boys with default choppa's takes ten unsaved wounds in one assault, how significant is that? Now what happens if a fully loaded Storm Shield/Thunder Hammer Terminator squad takes ten unsaved wounds at the end of one round of assaulting. How significant is that? According to the current assault resolution rules, they are precisely identical.

I think it works fine for the most part. There's two issues in morale, as far as I can see, how many of our men got mashed up, and do we have loads more guys than them?

The old rules weren't great because troops that got really hammered were still very likely to stay in combat - until their numbers were really reduced they'd suffer no modifier or a slight one at most.

The new rules apply the combat margin as a straight mod to the morale check, solving that problem. Unfortunately that mod doesn't make any sense when the losing side outnumbers the attacker, which is where my steadfast/stubborn rule comes in. This can then be extended to No Retreat! as well - you're not forced to take extra losses for doggedly holding on until you've got less troops.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The stubborn idea is just crazy - you are now back to worse than 4th ed in terms of how brainless you can be with Fearless.

You really need to stop phrasing things in terms of other people's failings, it makes you sound like a jerk.

And no, it doesn't allow people to be brainless with Fearless. It allows tarpitting to work again.

Now you actually have to think and set up your army.

Actually, with a tarpitting unit you've got to ensure you target a quality enemy unit with few attacks, then you've got to make sure you engage the enemy without him maneouvering elsewhere or countering with a unit with a load of close combat attacks. It was never a 'brainless' strategy.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Or you could just nerf the ONLY downside to fearless troops so 6pt nids dont die so easily. Lol

Umm, the downside is that for six point all you're getting is a wound. The stat line is poor and unlikely to inflict any real damage, and they sure aren't durable. They can contest objectives, and in a rules environment that allows for tarpitting they can tarpit. That's it.

SumYungGui wrote:So no retreat is 'balanced' because it forces players to treat ten wounds in a mob of Ork Boys the same as it does ten wounds in a SS/TH Terminator squad? And anyone that disagrees with that assessment just needs to learn how to play because they are obviously an inferior player incapable of thinking, nothing more than grist to be ground down before the steely gaze of those superior players who chose not to play a horde army?

Glad we got that sorted out.

if you are getting 10 no retreat wounds on terminators, you are doing something wrong, very wrong and your opponent is either very kind or very stupid, anything which can do that kind of damage should be hitting the terminators.


now as for amphibious, it's actually very handy, just no one has any rivers, lakes or marshes as terrain pecies, i have the same thing happen for me in 7th ed fantasy

SumYungGui wrote:So no retreat is 'balanced' because it forces players to treat ten wounds in a mob of Ork Boys the same as it does ten wounds in a SS/TH Terminator squad? And anyone that disagrees with that assessment just needs to learn how to play because they are obviously an inferior player incapable of thinking, nothing more than grist to be ground down before the steely gaze of those superior players who chose not to play a horde army?

Glad we got that sorted out.

Need some cheese with that?

You treat them the same: they are wounds. However a small elite army (marines) is more resilient to the NR! wounds. So they arent the same, as the same number of NR! wounds will result in fewer dead Termies than it does Orks. Oh, and not to mention that it is generally harder to cause such a huge combat res swing with marines that it is with Orks anyway.

Given I *play* a horde army, with termagaunts and fexes (i just love screamer killers, fluff bunny that I am) your final assertion is not only hideously wrong, as ever, but also so far off the mark its funny.

I also play an 8 man squad bezerker army, so I know allo about Fearless and how to treat it in 5th, with horde or elite. Sorry for reality biting you, again.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You treat them the same: they are wounds.

So ten unsaved wounds on a mob of Ork Boys with default choppa's has the same value as ten unsaved wounds on a unit of SS/TH Terminators?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Given I *play* a horde army, with termagaunts and fexes (i just love screamer killers, fluff bunny that I am) your final assertion is not only hideously wrong, as ever, but also so far off the mark its funny.

I also play an 8 man squad bezerker army, so I know allo about Fearless and how to treat it in 5th, with horde or elite. Sorry for reality biting you, again.

What exactly do you think my final assertion is, if you don't mind me asking? I think you're getting something misconstrued in a dogged attempt to prove me wrong somehow while constantly throwing out the 'you just suck at this game I'm so much better than you cause I can play better and here's how' responses. So let's try to avoid the personal attacks and bringing in irrelevant conversation topics shall we?

eg0u80bf wrote:
if you are getting 10 no retreat wounds on terminators, you are doing something wrong, very wrong and your opponent is either very kind or very stupid, anything which can do that kind of damage should be hitting the terminators.

That's sort of my point. How badly do you have to get curb stomped in a fight to suffer those ten wounds on a SS/TH unit? Now compare that to the Ork Boys, what kind of fight results in them taking ten wounds? Yet they're given precisely the same value in assault resolution. This is far from an idea solution and it just snowballs really, really poorly into the No Retreat rules piling insult onto injury.

ok SumYungGui what are you taking about you got me confused??

so in your oppinion are 10NR on orks better or worse than 10NR on terminators?

why aren't they equal?

why can't people use real world examples, i've put 10 no retreat on both terms and orks isn't that some use instead of just going 10 on orks vs 10 on terms, with no input onto what done it?

also looking at some of your other posts it seems like you want something like terms don't care if tacticals die, is this correct?