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.

Ice_can wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
I hate mortal wound mechanics because they create strange situations impossible under normal condition. 30 grots charging a custodes unit won't do any meaningful damage until the custodes fall back to grab an objective, then they take wounds without the possibility of saves with all that expensive gear.

This is exactly why I wish Gw woukd stop seeing handing out mortal wounds like candy as the answer.
If you want a faster game how about ditching reroll your reroll of a reroll aura's and doubel shooting russes they take way more time to resolve.

Yep, and rolling another 30 dice fishing for 6's is just adding more time to the game as well.

the_scotsman wrote:
Haha, I just realized the weird alien orb thingy from Space Marine is in that "Assorted Xenos Threats" art piece.

Top left corner. Cute easer egg/nod.

Do you mean from the Astartes fan videos on youtube? If so, great catch! Very cool indeed.

Ice_can wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
I hate mortal wound mechanics because they create strange situations impossible under normal condition. 30 grots charging a custodes unit won't do any meaningful damage until the custodes fall back to grab an objective, then they take wounds without the possibility of saves with all that expensive gear.

This is exactly why I wish Gw woukd stop seeing handing out mortal wounds like candy as the answer.
If you want a faster game how about ditching reroll your reroll of a reroll aura's and doubel shooting russes they take way more time to resolve.

Yep. And for some reason, the "shortcut" to mortal wounds is always in those situations where the player has made an actual decision and spent a limited resource or taken a risk (Casting a psychic power, using a stratagem, or making use of a conditional special rule) and the situations where you have to roll and reroll a mountain of dice is when you're taking the path of least resistance and getting stuff automatically for free (standing still in a character aura, making overwatch attacks).

Why do psychic powers that work like modified shooting attacks take too long to resolve without making ALL of them mortal wound based, but stopping the game in the middle of the charge phase to roll hits, wounds, saves, and remove models for each. and. every. unit. that. gets. charged. does not?

And hey, fair's fair here:

I will take back every single bad thing I've said about this stratagem if Overwatch in 9th is replaced with a stratagem that allows you, for 1cp, to roll a D6 for each model in the unit being charged and on a 6 you deal a mortal wound. Absolutely, 100 billion percent OK with Cut Them Down if that's the case.

we must be missing something with this strat because its a low even for GW. It's just rolling dice porn at this point isnt it? Like the illusion of stuff happening by dice rolls when its all pretty much filler

I mean i thought of this off the top of my head:

Tie them down: 2cp - The target unit cannot fallback in their next movement phase.

- pricey, but effective
- easy to remember
- does not involve you re-counting all the models in your unit then rolling all those dice and picking out 6's
- compliments new vehicle rules as they can shoot in combat anyway so keeps that new rule working

Everyone is playing by the averages, and again, I'm not discounting them, but you can also get lucky. Could you punish someone for falling back before? Now you can, and it might win you the game. These things are all situational.

Not going to lie here, but I genuinely hate the "Cut them Down" stratagem from a Design perspective. Mostly because it's just another Mortal Wounds mechanic, which I have never found to be remotely interesting since their introduction into 40k 3 years ago. It's also yet another "fish for 6's" mechanic, one which is becoming too common for my tastes.

Smellingsalts wrote:
Everyone is playing by the averages, and again, I'm not discounting them, but you can also get lucky. Could you punish someone for falling back before? Now you can, and it might win you the game. These things are all situational.

It's not just about the raw mathematics and averages.

It's just a bad design. I mean why is it far scarier to run from a unit of 30 gretchin than a unit of 5 Khorne Terminators? or a Bloodthirster?

It makes zero sense form a fluff perspective and it makes zero sense to the math hammer guys either.

I run Orks myself, often triple battalion and I run out of CP every game by turn 2. And this is supposed to help me?

I can only see me using this in extreme corner cases.

Smellingsalts wrote:
Everyone is playing by the averages, and again, I'm not discounting them, but you can also get lucky. Could you punish someone for falling back before? Now you can, and it might win you the game. These things are all situational.

You can also be UNLUCKY and not get a single one from 18 Boyz too!

 Latro_ wrote:
we must be missing something with this strat because its a low even for GW. It's just rolling dice porn at this point isnt it? Like the illusion of stuff happening by dice rolls when its all pretty much filler

I mean i thought of this off the top of my head:

Tie them down: 2cp - The target unit cannot fallback in their next movement phase.

- pricey, but effective
- easy to remember
- does not involve you re-counting all the models in your unit then rolling all those dice and picking out 6's
- compliments new vehicle rules as they can shoot in combat anyway so keeps that new rule working

Funny I'm sure I have seen that strategums oh yeah it's on the new Admech batboys.
So its not like GW haven't though of the idea dn still decided nah fish for MW was better for the game?

Cut Them Down is meant to punish you when you run away. Will it do a lot of mortals, probably not. Is it realistic, i.e. running from terminators vs grots is no different, no. But if you need to punish someone for running away, it is a tool in your toolbox. Sure, you have thirty other more effective tools in other situations, but none of them apply to this situation. Someone once told me don't save your silver bullets. I think he meant saving your points for a theoretical event that may happen in the future shouldn't trump using them to save yourself right now. I am curious to see how many games are won and lost using this stratagem.

Smellingsalts wrote:
Cut Them Down is meant to punish you when you run away. Will it do a lot of mortals, probably not. Is it realistic, i.e. running from terminators vs grots is no different, no. But if you need to punish someone for running away, it is a tool in your toolbox. Sure, you have thirty other more effective tools in other situations, but none of them apply to this situation. Someone once told me don't save your silver bullets. I think he meant saving your points for a theoretical event that may happen in the future shouldn't trump using them to save yourself right now. I am curious to see how many games are won and lost using this stratagem.

I predict not many. Melee's issue isn't really doing damage-it's hitting what matters.

Anyone complaining about the game getting longer and longer, remember that 9th games are going to be smaller because all points are going up. It may not be a huge difference - or it might. They might have wanted to make smaller games to fit into a competitive time frame with what appears to be a new push towards competitive uniformity, or they might have made smaller games to make price increases not hurt so much. Either way, pushing around less models is going to take less time, which gives you time for all of your rerolls and strategems.

That said, we obviously don't know what other things have changed in 9th, so there may be some mechanics that are being complained about that are changing altogether.

Smellingsalts wrote:
Cut Them Down is meant to punish you when you run away. Will it do a lot of mortals, probably not. Is it realistic, i.e. running from terminators vs grots is no different, no. But if you need to punish someone for running away, it is a tool in your toolbox. Sure, you have thirty other more effective tools in other situations, but none of them apply to this situation. Someone once told me don't save your silver bullets. I think he meant saving your points for a theoretical event that may happen in the future shouldn't trump using them to save yourself right now. I am curious to see how many games are won and lost using this stratagem.

Seriously, if you are running from 30 gretchin (how did you not kill any?), I still wouldn't use the stratagem - the average of 1 MW per 6 models is misleading, you might not get any out of it.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Smellingsalts wrote:
Cut Them Down is meant to punish you when you run away. Will it do a lot of mortals, probably not. Is it realistic, i.e. running from terminators vs grots is no different, no. But if you need to punish someone for running away, it is a tool in your toolbox. Sure, you have thirty other more effective tools in other situations, but none of them apply to this situation. Someone once told me don't save your silver bullets. I think he meant saving your points for a theoretical event that may happen in the future shouldn't trump using them to save yourself right now. I am curious to see how many games are won and lost using this stratagem.

I predict not many. Melee's issue isn't really doing damage-it's hitting what matters.

Yeah. The reason Fall Back actually hurts is because a unit charges in, doesn't kill something, and then that unit falls back and your melee unit is left standing in the middle of the open, at super short range, with their dicks in their hands doing nothing while the enemy blasts them to pieces.

it has nothing to do with the melee unit not getting to kill the falling back unit. And it also has nothing to do with a player wanting to play a "100% melee army" which is the chestnut people always trot out. fall back screws you over just as much if you bring a melee-light marine army with some terminators or assault marines as it does if you bring a whole horde.

8th ed melee is high cost, high risk, low reward. a lucky shot from a lascannon can deal 6 damage in one go. The best standard melee weapon in the game is flat 3 damage. Melee requires you to be closer to the enemy, out of cover, you have to tank overwatch shots, and you have to make a 2D6 roll to be allowed to do anything at all. There's no 2d6 "range check" to make sure your guns are in range or to see if you spot the enemy you're trying to target.

The only melee units that have been good in 8th have

1) Been able to basically guarantee the charge using strats or abilities
2) been able to ignore the hurdle of having to cross the board via turn 1/turn 2 out of deep strike charges
3) been able to spend a huge pile of CPs to deal a ridiculous amount of damage in a crazy combo

And if they can't do 1 of those 3, they've been total crap. People advocating for melee to be improved don't have to be hoping to run a pure Khorne Daemons army without a single gun, they want to be able to bring a 5-man assault squad in their ultramarines army or a unit of Howling Banshees in their Eldar army without there being a 0.1% chance of that not just being a complete waste of 60 points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 puma713 wrote:
Anyone complaining about the game getting longer and longer, remember that 9th games are going to be smaller because all points are going up. It may not be a huge difference - or it might. They might have wanted to make smaller games to fit into a competitive time frame with what appears to be a new push towards competitive uniformity, or they might have made smaller games to make price increases not hurt so much. Either way, pushing around less models is going to take less time, which gives you time for all of your rerolls and strategems.

That said, we obviously don't know what other things have changed in 9th, so there may be some mechanics that are being complained about that are changing altogether.

tbh I'd much rather the game go longer than it currently does. I'd be A-OK with never having another 1 hour 2,000pt game.

I mean, I have often spent command points to get that final 2-3 wounds off a target so I don’t see how this is significantly different.

It is an opportunity for mortal wounds that is situationally relevant. Will it apply all of the time? Nope, but I can easily see a lot of situations where it will make or break a game. Could also see a lot of situations where the risk would prevent someone from falling back.

Consolidate into a character with 2 wounds left, I would burn a CP with 10 guys to try for the kill.

I mean, assuming 30 dudes, it averages 5 mortal wounds for 1CP, that is the highest cp to return ratio I can think of. It really depends on how engagement ranges work but I could also see bigger models havin multiple units worth of models in range as well.

Again, not broken good, but situationally useful like most generic CP abilities are.

Well, one example I can think of is this, it's the last turn of the game, and your opponent's unit can fall back and claim an objective. Cut them down might stop that from happening.

I’m thinking 12 command points with 1 per turn realistically first 4 are all that matters.. is way to low for command points since they are adding more strategems, adding command points consuming abilities, and taking away command points if I want 2 detachments regardless of soup or not. I’m already at 15 command points on my current triple bat list and it’s not enough...

At best I hope tournaments go back to the old 6th ed 2000+1 tourney list.. allowing us to start with 18 command points. This is less not more command points..

 Leth wrote:
I mean, I have often spent command points to get that final 2-3 wounds off a target so I don’t see how this is significantly different.

It is an opportunity for mortal wounds that is situationally relevant. Will it apply all of the time? Nope, but I can easily see a lot of situations where it will make or break a game. Could also see a lot of situations where the risk would prevent someone from falling back.

Consolidate into a character with 2 wounds left, I would burn a CP with 10 guys to try for the kill.

I mean, assuming 30 dudes, it averages 5 mortal wounds for 1CP, that is the highest cp to return ratio I can think of. It really depends on how engagement ranges work but I could also see bigger models havin multiple units worth of models in range as well.

Again, not broken good, but situationally useful like most generic CP abilities are.

30 dudes within range of a melee target? Yeah no.

My personal opinion on this stratagem is that it could be usefull to try and kill a wounded character or something like that and little else. Still, it’s something, like fire in my position i probably will never use it until the day i look at the board and start cackling.

gungo wrote:
I’m thinking 12 command points with 1 per turn realistically first 4 are all that matters.. is way to low for command points since they are adding more strategems, adding command points consuming abilities, and taking away command points if I want 2 detachments regardless of soup or not. I’m already at 15 command points on my current triple bat list and it’s not enough...

At best I hope tournaments go back to the old 6th ed 2000+1 tourney list.. allowing us to start with 18 command points. This is less not more command points..

It is more for a lot of armies, less for others. It's more or less meeting in the middle.

I sincerely hope this was the weak end of changes they gave melee. Like maybe falling back has changed in some way that changes how it works so it's no longer so effortless or something.

Well GW has gotten one thing right: the more they show the leas I feel like I know about the new edition leading me waking up eatly to watch streams everyday so far.

I think compared to most 8th ed lists at this point, 12+1 per turn will be less. I think with armies nobody would ever really consider taking in the context of 8th, it will be significantly more.

the_scotsman wrote:
I think compared to most 8th ed lists at this point, 12+1 per turn will be less. I think with armies nobody would ever really consider taking in the context of 8th, it will be significantly more.

I feel like it's a good balance. Less CP up front but you can take more of the good stuff in your army.

The strat is incredibly stupid, on many different levels. It's stupid on the very basic level of value for CP - you would need 12+ models in range statistically to make it break even for the average cost of a CP to do 1d3 mortal wounds strat. It's stupid on the second level, because it means that falling back from a grot is as dangerous as falling back from a bloodthirster. And it's also stupid on the third level, because it doesn't actually address any of the problems with units being able to fall back from combat. Putting a few more mortal wounds on a unit as it falls back doesn't change the equation at all. I cannot think of virtually any situation where the existence of this strat would cause anyone to play any differently at all.


It shows the people responsible for it have no idea what the issue with falling back from melee units is. None at all.


It's a depressing sign that the people coming up with the rules for 9th thought this was something positive to tease to the community, instead of an embarrassment to be buried.

This piece-meal approach to rules reveals is a disaster for customer confidence. Either the format isn't working and the rules are better when viewed as a whole, or the rules really are as bad as the reveals are making them seem, and we have a massive problem on our hands.

the_scotsman wrote:
I think compared to most 8th ed lists at this point, 12+1 per turn will be less. I think with armies nobody would ever really consider taking in the context of 8th, it will be significantly more.

All those lists are going to change and many of those lists might now eschew the troop tax and get other things instead. The game is changing and it is a bit weird to expect you will be playing the same game when 9th comes out considering all the vehicle and terrain changes as well as the CP cost of allies.

 Eldarsif wrote:

gungo wrote:
I’m thinking 12 command points with 1 per turn realistically first 4 are all that matters.. is way to low for command points since they are adding more strategems, adding command points consuming abilities, and taking away command points if I want 2 detachments regardless of soup or not. I’m already at 15 command points on my current triple bat list and it’s not enough...

At best I hope tournaments go back to the old 6th ed 2000+1 tourney list.. allowing us to start with 18 command points. This is less not more command points..

It is more for a lot of armies, less for others. It's more or less meeting in the middle.

Even if I go straight to 1 detachment I’m still behind on what I had before. I’m still behind the amount when I used 2x bats and a 1cp detachment as a MONO ork player.. this along with whatever anti horde rules makes the army building part of this edition worse.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
I think compared to most 8th ed lists at this point, 12+1 per turn will be less. I think with armies nobody would ever really consider taking in the context of 8th, it will be significantly more.

I feel like it's a good balance. Less CP up front but you can take more of the good stuff in your army.

Eh. I can see it both ways. Part of me likes seeing the less specialized, less deadly, less skewy units getting tabletime. It's one of the things I liked about 8th in contrast with 7th - I no longer had to see "all dreadnoughts, all tanks, all riptides, all hive tyrants, all knights, all XYZ" every game. in 7th they had to give you pretty whackadoodle buffs just to get necron players to field 3 units of warriors or marine players 3 units of tacticals, 1 unit of assualt marines, and 1 unit of devs, and before that every army for the whole edition had been like, a big ball of centurions+HQs.

Hopefully there's some mysterious reason troops are still good, but my suspicion is that the reason they're being all winky-coy about it is the same reason they were about melee units in 8th: There's nothing there. They're changing away from a troop-heavy meta on purpose, and I like troops.

I'm ok with the strategy. Like I said, it's situational. You may never need it, but you might.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
I think compared to most 8th ed lists at this point, 12+1 per turn will be less. I think with armies nobody would ever really consider taking in the context of 8th, it will be significantly more.

I feel like it's a good balance. Less CP up front but you can take more of the good stuff in your army.

If the good stuff in your army was tanks and elites yes...
If the good stuff was everything (HQ, troops) else NO

It’s not just less upfront it’s less for any triple or double bat plus lists.

Realistically the only cp regeneration that’s going to matter is the first 3 turns. And the third turn is down to your last 1-2 cp anyway.

As I said before I’m down with tournaments going back to 2000+1 lists.

 Eldarsif wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
I think compared to most 8th ed lists at this point, 12+1 per turn will be less. I think with armies nobody would ever really consider taking in the context of 8th, it will be significantly more.

All those lists are going to change and many of those lists might now eschew the troop tax and get other things instead. The game is changing and it is a bit weird to expect you will be playing the same game when 9th comes out considering all the vehicle and terrain changes as well as the CP cost of allies.

Yep. Boy howdy do I hope we don't go back to how lists looked in 7th. Big ball of do-it-all hyper elite badass boys that you couldn't touch got real dull real fast. It's also just not how I like to build lists. I'm an MSU horde kind of boy - I like little, varied infantry units with interesting equipment way more than I like fielding 3 big monsters and 1 tax HQ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Smellingsalts wrote:
I'm ok with the strategy. Like I said, it's situational. You may never need it, but you might.

I think I'd be more fine with it if it wasn't being presented as a solution to the problems that come with Fall Back. It'd be fine as like, some weird thing that Drukhari get as a strat for Wracks or Slaanesh for Daemonettes in psychic awakening. You'd look at it and go "eh, ok, might use that every once in a while, prob not tho."