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.

One of the innovations of the 4th edition of 40k was the notion of No Retreat!, whereby even Fearless units were are some sort of risk if they lost a combat. But that's a far cry from losing an entire unit to a Sweeping Advance, which sucks not only from the perspective of losing all those models to the caprice of dice, but in sweeping the table clear of an entire unit at once.

Of course, units vulnerable to a Sweeping Advance have the advantage of losing a combat without any threat whatsoever if they can pass their Morale check.

So it occurred to me that it would be interesting if Fearless and the ordinary Morale check rules were even more closely aligned, so that Fearless meant that the unit wouldn't Fall Back at all.

So here's the idea:

Sweeping Advance! v5.2
If a unit loses a combat, and fails its Morale check, then it can suffer a Sweeping Advance. The unit takes a number of armour saving throws equal to the amount by which it lost the combat. After the armour saves have been rolled for, and extra casualties removed, then the defeated unit makes a Fall Back move, and the victorious unit (unless still locked in combat) makes a consolidation move.

This basically turns a Sweeping Advance into No Retreat! except that the unit retreats. The idea being that the benefit of being able to pass a Leadership test to avoid taking extra armour saves is offset by the risk of being forced to Fall Back and not being immune to pinning.

As proposals go this obviously would benefit some armies more than others, particularly units with lower Initiative scores and no Fearless special rule. Necrons, Tau, Imperial Guard would all become more difficult to wipe out in combat.

I think it should be that instead of being wiped out, you should deal X wounds (number you won the combat by) and another Y wounds (a wound for each model you have that out numbers the foe).

S_P

Well you pretty much just gave everyone ATSKNF...

Shatter.proof:

By "pretty much" you mean, "no, not really" I take it? Because consider what And They Shall Know No Fear normally does:

Suppose a unit of Space Marines lose a combat by x. They take a Morale check at Ld-x. If they pass, then nothing happens, and units make Pile In moves, combat goes on. If the Space Marines fail, then you roll for a Sweeping Advance. If the Sweeping Advance fails to catch the Space Marines, then the Space Marines Fall Back and the winners Consolidate if not locked in combat. If the Sweeping Advance succeeds, then the Space Marines suffer No Retreat! for x saves.

By comparison my proposal says that the unit of Space Marines would:

Lose the combat by x. They take a Morale check at Ld-x. If they pass, then nothing happens, and units make Pile In moves, combat goes on. If the Space Marines fail, then you roll for a Sweeping Advance. If the Sweeping Advance fails to catch the Space Marines, then the Space Marines Fall Back and the winners Consolidate if not locked in combat. If the Sweeping Advance succeeds, then the Space Marines suffer No Retreat! for x saves.

Contrast this with a unit of Imperial Guardsmen without And They Shall Know No Fear:

The Imperial Guardsmen lose the combat by x. They take a Morale check at Ld-x. If they pass, then nothing happens, and units make Pile In moves, combat goes on. If the Imperial Guardsmen fail the Morale check, then you roll for a Sweeping Advance. If the Sweeping Advance fails to catch the Imperial Guardsmen, then the Imperial Guardsmen Fall Back and the winners Consolidate if not locked in combat. If the Sweeping Advance succeeds, then the Imperial Guardsmen suffer x saves and then Fall Back and the winner Consolidates if not locked in combat.

Normally Imperial Guardsmen would face the following:

The Imperial Guardsmen lose the combat by x. They take a Morale check at Ld-x. If they pass, then nothing happens, and units make Pile In moves, combat goes on. If the Imperial Guardsmen fail the Morale check, then you roll for a Sweeping Advance. If the Sweeping Advance fails to catch the Imperial Guardsmen, then the Imperial Guardsmen Fall Back and the winners Consolidate if not locked in combat. If the Sweeping Advance succeeds, then the Imperial Guardsmen are wiped out and the winner Consolidates if not

The big difference therefore is that units with And They Shall Know No Fear remain in combat like a Fearless unit while units without it Fall Back. Both suffer saves if caught in a Sweeping Advance, just like Fearless units would if they lost the combat.

I dont know, this just seems to favor units that when in melee arn't going to do very well normally and seems to downplay the need for fearless, it actually just makes fearless a negative thing to have because if you fall back and succeed great you're fine, if you fall back and lose you take wounds as if you had fearless.

So.. how exactly is this just like giving everyone ATSKNF for assault.. hell its better then that because you don't get bogged down in melee because you take the wounds and still get away.

Fearless is hardly a negative thing when it lets you ignore pinning and hold ground. At least they'll hold ground whether they win or not. Not being pushed away from an objective is a powerful advantage for Fearless.

If a unit is Falling Back, then they need to fulfill all the conditions for Rallying, including being in coherency, more than 6" away from an enemy unit, not below 50% unit strength, and passing a Morale check. If a unit does Rally, then it counts as moving.

Units with And They Shall Know No Fear automatically Rally even if they're below 50% strength.

I like this proposal.

Remember if you don't have ATSKNF you will have to fall back giving ground to the enemy. Models that fall back must also test for regroup not possible if the enemy is within 6", very likely if you have just fallen back from the enemy in CC.

I agree with this in general alot of battles are won in CC but you can be unlucky with your leadership test on an almost drawn combat and with that lose a huge chunk of your army. Nids, orks and imperial guard all suffer from this. Large units with not so great moral and a low initiative.

I've been mulling a similar idea around for a while.

No Retreat! already hurts Orks and Tyranids due to poor armor, once Orks lose combat and break (when they've lost fearless) they're often trampled because of poor initiative too.


I think Sweeiping Advance just causing additional wounds is an excellent idea.

Personally I think it goes too far in the other direction, as in not being punishing enough (and this is coming from a necron player). Assault should be the most decisive forms of attack in the game. I'd almost lean more towards something where if you fail the assault then the winning unit(s) get an extra round of attacks before you make a fallback move...although this could definately get tiresome

Shatter.proof wrote:Well you pretty much just gave everyone ATSKNF...

I forgot to add in my post that the unit that lost still flees the usual amount, and checks to rally next turn.

In accordance to my ruling, ATSKNF would be the same, but you auto rally BEFORE your next turn.

S_P

So game wise this is supposed to represent the winner of CC throwing rocks at the guys they just beat up?

If the victor isn't going to move then wouldn't a free shooting attack be more appropriate?

I think what would be good is that if the winning unit can keep in b2b they get either free attacks or something brutal along the lines of what is how it is now.

Like say you fall back and only move 3 inches but the winning moves 5 then it keeps them locked in combat and you use the rules where if you fail a basic LD check the unit is lost. I feel that represents the other guys being so afraid that they dont fight back and just tries to run but stumbles around each other and the few guys that may escape they run away or are so scared that they are removed anyways.

And that's "good" how, exactly?

Nurglitch wrote:Shatter.proof:

By "pretty much" you mean, "no, not really" I take it? Because consider what And They Shall Know No Fear normally does:

[A] Suppose a unit of Space Marines lose a combat by x. They take a Morale check at Ld-x. If they pass, then nothing happens, and units make Pile In moves, combat goes on. If the Space Marines fail, then you roll for a Sweeping Advance. If the Sweeping Advance fails to catch the Space Marines, then the Space Marines Fall Back and the winners Consolidate if not locked in combat. If the Sweeping Advance succeeds, then the Space Marines suffer No Retreat! for x saves.

By comparison my proposal says that the unit of Space Marines would:

[B] Lose the combat by x. They take a Morale check at Ld-x. If they pass, then nothing happens, and units make Pile In moves, combat goes on. If the Space Marines fail, then you roll for a Sweeping Advance. If the Sweeping Advance fails to catch the Space Marines, then the Space Marines Fall Back and the winners Consolidate if not locked in combat. If the Sweeping Advance succeeds, then the Space Marines suffer No Retreat! for x saves.

Contrast this with a unit of Imperial Guardsmen without And They Shall Know No Fear:

[C] The Imperial Guardsmen lose the combat by x. They take a Morale check at Ld-x. If they pass, then nothing happens, and units make Pile In moves, combat goes on. If the Imperial Guardsmen fail the Morale check, then you roll for a Sweeping Advance. If the Sweeping Advance fails to catch the Imperial Guardsmen, then the Imperial Guardsmen Fall Back and the winners Consolidate if not locked in combat. If the Sweeping Advance succeeds, then the Imperial Guardsmen suffer x saves and then Fall Back and the winner Consolidates if not locked in combat.

Normally Imperial Guardsmen would face the following:

[D] The Imperial Guardsmen lose the combat by x. They take a Morale check at Ld-x. If they pass, then nothing happens, and units make Pile In moves, combat goes on. If the Imperial Guardsmen fail the Morale check, then you roll for a Sweeping Advance. If the Sweeping Advance fails to catch the Imperial Guardsmen, then the Imperial Guardsmen Fall Back and the winners Consolidate if not locked in combat. If the Sweeping Advance succeeds, then the Imperial Guardsmen are wiped out and the winner Consolidates if not

Wait... what are your criteria for "pretty much the same" vs "no, not really"? Let's put it into a (cheesy ASCII) table for better comparison:
.......................................|............................RAW.............................|....... Proposed SA 5.2 .........|
.......................................|.... Fearless ....|. Normal [D] .|. ATSKNF [A] ..|.. Normal [C] .|. ATSKNF [B] .|
......................................---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.Pass Morale check at Ld-x |........ N/A ......|..... Pile In .....|..... Pile In .....|..... Pile In .....|..... Pile In .....|
...Fall Back farther than SA |....... N/A .......|... Fall Back ...|... Fall Back ....|.... Fall Back ...|... Fall Back ...|
............Get Caught by SA |.... x saves ....|.. Destroyed ..|.... x saves .....| x saves & FB |.... x saves ....|

looks "pretty much the same" to me. Obviously there is more to ATSKNF than just combat resolution, but still...

If it's "logical" to change the Sweeping Advance rules, should the same sort of thing be done with Assaulting Falling Back units? Why don't we make that the same as ATSKNF too?

Maelstrom808 wrote:Personally I think it goes too far in the other direction, as in not being punishing enough (and this is coming from a necron player). Assault should be the most decisive forms of attack in the game. I'd almost lean more towards something where if you fail the assault then the winning unit(s) get an extra round of attacks before you make a fallback move...although this could definately get tiresome

well, sonny, things use to be that way back when units had Mv & CL stats. </old man voice> Seriously though, it was a lot of dice rolling and units would spend many turns chasing down retreating foes. It definitely got tiresome.
On a related note, I think Assault is too decisive. There are basically 2 Assault phases for each Shooting phase. It's practically Napoleonic!

Units destroyed when caught in a Sweeping Advance is Simple, Fast, and reasonably Realistic. Withdrawing from combat is very dangerous IRL. Especially if you are slow. (And really, since when did Nids & Orks need help with Assault... although even if they did the point would be moot. The rules should promote Realism or Speed gameplay. Points should be used to make things fair. If Orks & Nids did suck at Assault, make them cheaper.)

If anything, I don't like Fearless Losers automatically taking No Retreat! wounds. Why should Fearless units suffer extra casualties when units that pass their Morale don't. Granted, taking massive casualties is going to mess with any formation you have going. Flanks are going to be exposed. The Losers are going to be attacked from unexpected directions... UNLESS they are smart/ disciplined enough to adjust their formation to compensate. Fearless Losers should take a Ld-x test like everyone else (Simple). If they pass, no extra Casualties just like everybody else. (Simple)... mebbe even let them take their Consolidation/ Pile In move before the Winners to let them get back in formation/ Coherency (A little complicated but with a touch of Realism. It could be made into a general rule, Losers who pass Morale/ Leadership Consolidate then Winners Pile In). But that is a discussion for another thread. If they fail, they take x wounds just like an ATSKNF unit that is caught (Simple).

<edited for formatting/ spelling >

i don't understand why you would want to get rid of sweeping advances other than the fact you've been swept one too many times. It makes perfect sense to me that the enemy would be wiped by an enemy overrunning them in a melee and it rewards assaulting.

idk complicating the rules just to make them less realistic, but more "friendly" to non-assault units seems like a pretty weak reason to make a new rule

redshift:

I don't think it was necessary to copy-paste my entire explanation for why my proposal does not give And They Shall Know No Fear to everyone.

Furthermore your table is inaccurate, as Fearless units do engage in Pile In moves, and as you say it leaves out all the stuff that would further differentiate units with And They Shall Know No Fear.

I mean, yeah, if you're going to be dishonest and put it like that, ignoring all the other important aspects of And They Shall Know No Fear, then of course And They Shall Know No Fear and my proposal are going to look almost the same. That's not to say that the small difference you've kindly represented is insignificant, because a unit holding ground and being subject to No Retreat is very different from a unit falling back and being subject to No Retreat. Remember that units and their constituent models occupy space on the board, and affect the movement of friendly and enemy models: having a unit fall back means it can still affect the game by moving, blocking movement, shooting, being assaulted, rallying, and so on.

Speaking of the differences between the rules, where do you think I got my inspiration? I think it's important for people proposing rules for use in Warhammer 40k to use existing concepts and apply them in innovative ways rather than propose radical changes for the sake of some quibble about representation or balance.

After all, I didn't say that my proposal was "logical", whatever that's supposed to mean [Don't use quotation marks if you're not quoting anyone]. I stated that the current version of Sweeping Advance is too risky for units affected by it in comparison to the risk assumed by Fearless units, that it depends on the caprice of the dice, and that it wiped out an entire unit.

Since I pointed out that bringing some risk into Fearless units losing close combat was an innovation in 4th edition, I had presumed that people would notice I considered it to be an innovation because it leveled the playing field between Fearless units and normal units. That's not to say it made Fearless units equivalent to normal units, but it made it so that they were playing the same game, that of facing an additional risk if they lost a close combat.

However, the difference in the scale of risk associated with No Retreat and Sweeping Advance means that although Fearless and normal units do now share a risk of losing in close combat, they don't share the same risks. It's not simply a question of scale: Normal units have both the risk of being wiped out in a Sweeping Advance and Falling Back otherwise regardless of how badly they lost the combat. Fearless units only have the risk of taking additional wounds depending on how badly they lost the combat. While combat in 40k does depend on the caprice of dice, the ability of Fearless units to both hold ground and to engage in battles of attrition means they're still not playing the same game as normal units.

This brings me to the third benefit of my proposal, because I think that the fact that Fearless units can hold ground until ground down is a good thing, and I like the way that And They Shall Know No Fear combines the features of both normal units and Fearless units. In particular I like the way that both Fearless and And They Shall Know No Fear allow players to play with attrition, and to maintain more models in the game for longer.

That's why I think that having entire units wiped out is a bad thing, because it contravenes the basic Warhammer 40k design of attrition-based combat with lots of models on the field. The fact that this benefits units that would otherwise be wiped out pales besides the fact that this would benefit players who would otherwise have a collection of expensive wound-markers gathering dust beside the table rather than being moved around on it doing something interesting.

By my proposal And They Shall Know No Fear remains a 'best-of-both-worlds' hybrid of the normal (proposed) morale rules and the Fearless special rule: Space Marines will hold ground where normal troops will fall back, pass Morale checks where Fearless troops will automatically take No Retreat wounds, automatically Rally without taking a Morale check, and Rally when under 50% unit strength.

Normal units will remain units that a sufficiently violent assault will route from their position, that will suffer proportionately from losing assaults to faster units, that will require Morale checks to Rally, and will not Rally at less than 50% unit strength.

Nurglitch:
whew! That's a long post. Although so was mine so I shouldn't complain. I doubt anyone else will want to wade through our posts. At what point should we switch over to PM?

I included your comparison between outcomes as a handy reference between your paragraphs and my columns. I'm sorry if you think it was overblown. I shouldn't have put the Fearless column in there b/c it wasn't referenced in your quote. The purpose of the table wasn't to support or detract from your proposal. It was to point out the flaw in your argument. After wading through your 4 paragraphs. The difference *you* showed between your proposal and ATSKNF is that normal troops would take x saves & Fall back while the ATSKNF would take x saves [& Pile In]. I consider that a small difference. You would seem to consider it big.

As you say, Fearless Losers always take x saves & Pile in. ATSKNF troops that are caught in a Sweeping Advance Pile In as well. I considered the exclusion of the Fall Back to dictate they Pile In. (As I assumed you did since you didn't include it in *your* paragraphs.)

The arguments I used in my table were the arguments *you* used. I included arguments made by *others* to help support your premise that your proposal didn't give everyone ATSKNF. (Although I do think that as far as Assault Resolution goes, it "pretty much" does.)

I think rules should promote realism and quick gameplay. Obviously many trade-offs are required. I also think they should be internally consistent (or logical). I agree that quibbles about representation or balance don't belong in a discussion of the rules... except in the determining of point cost.

"Logical" was a bad choice. And the quotes were out of line as well. Upon further reflection, I see that you think your proposal "interesting". I should have written something like "If Sweeping Advance rules were changed as you suggest, logically the same sort of thing should be done with Assaulting Falling Back units. Why don't we make that aspect of WH40K the same as it is for ATSKNF troops too?" All wargamming depends on the caprice of a randomizer, if only to determine who goes first. (Ok, ok... mebbe there is something out there that doesn't but you get the point.)

-I have nothing to say about this paragraph-

Sorry, you're losing me with this paragraph. In the RAW, the "scale of risk" (am I using this right?)
Fearless Losers *always* take x-saves [& Pile In].
ATSKNF Losers either Pile In (no casualties), Fall Back (no casualties), or take x-saves [& Pile In].
Normal Losers either Pile In (no casualties), Fall Back (no casualties), or are Destroyed.
(Are you sure you don't like my table?) How badly do you lose combat? How bad is your Morale? How bad is your Initiative? How big are your units? Let's make the math easy: you normally lose by 2, your leaders Morale is 9 (5/12 chance to fail Morale). Your Initiative is average (8/12 chance to get caught) Your Units are about 10 (after normal assault casualties). That means you have a 40/144 chance to be destroyed (84/144 to stand firm & 20/144 to Fall Back). On average you lose 2.7 guys per loss with a 42% chance to lose ground. ATSKNF lose 0.3 guys (~50% armour save) with a 14% chance to lose ground. Fearless Losers would lose 1 guy with a 0% chance to lose ground. Are you sure you are not playing the same game already? (Realize that by your proposed rule, Normal Losers would suffer the same 0.3 casualties as ATSKNF Losers but would still lose ground the 42% of the time).

I'm sorry I missed the first two benefits. What were they? Leveling the game? Making the game last longer is *NOT* a benefit imo. My main objection to your proposal, as I told Maelstrom808, is that it makes the game bog. If you want the game to last longer, up the points. You want a game that lasts all weekend, use house rules (in fact I could see using something like this (but more severe to keep a statistically relevant difference between the 3 types) for a *house* rule). When you have to play multiple games in one day for a Tournament, be glad things move as fast as they do.

-I don't feel the need to comment on the last 3 paragraphs-

redshift:

Just as my words form sentences, and my sentences form paragraphs, the 'paragraphs' I have written form a central point or thesis. Addressing each of my paragraphs separately is missing the point. The last paragraphs summarize and reiterate the points established in earlier paragraphs to make an overall argument or point.

Furthermore, make sure that you understand what I have written. I did not consider your table to be "overblown", I considered it to be "inaccurate". These terms are not synonymous, and you misrepresent me when you claim that I consider your table to be overblown and I consider it to be merely inaccurate. To misdescribe the content of my point is to demonstrate that you did not understand what I had written, but perhaps that is understandable given that you are addressing my post piecemeal rather than addressing my proposal in any critical fashion. After all, if you had addressed my proposal in a critical fashion, then you would have described it accurately and shown how the premises I had assumed did not support the conclusion drawn.

If the table was intended to point out a flaw in my proposal, then clearly it was intended to detract from my argument, since the point of arguments are to persuade, and the presence of flaws detracts from their persuasiveness. However, your table is an inaccurate way of presenting my proposal because it does not fully represent all the ways in which my proposal for normal units is different from And They Shall Know No Fear. It also misrepresented the actions of Fearless units.

Trying to excuse your mistake by claiming that you were simply putting my arguments in table form is intellectually dishonest because if the table was intended to point out a flaw in my proposal, then it would have needed to properly represent the rules so that the putative mistake in my proposal was apparent when properly contextualized. In other words, you showed that you are not familiar with the rules of the game, and that you misapprehended the implications of my proposal.

So let me reiterate the difference, as you appear to have, either purposely or otherwise, misrepresented my proposal:

Normal
Takes morale checks
Takes pinning tests
Morale Check to Rally
Cannot Rally under 50%
If combat lost and caught in a Sweeping Advance, then unit suffers No Retreat wounds, and Falls Back

Fearless
Automatically pass morale checks
Automatically pass pinning tests
Never Falls Back
Never needs to Rally
If combat lost, then unit automatically suffers No Retreat wounds, and Piles In.

And They Shall Know No Fear
Takes morale checks
Takes pinning tests
Automatically pass test to Rally
Can Rally under 50%
If combat lost and caught in a Sweeping Advance, then unit suffer No Retreat wounds, and Piles In.

So what are the obvious differences between my proposal for ordinary units and units with And They Shall Know No Fear? The most obvious difference is that the normal unit both Falls Back if it loses the combat and gets caught by a Sweeping Advance. This is significant because the unit risks both unit strength and position.

Secondly, if either type of unit does Fall Back, only units with And They Shall Know No Fear will be able to Rally automatically, with normal units required to pass a leadership test as normal. This is the difference between Falling Back off the board, and remaining in the game and being able to hold objectives.

Thirdly, if either type of unit is reduced below 50% unit strength, then only the unit with And They Shall Know No Fear will be able to Rally, which it will do automatically. Again, the difference between Falling Back off the board, or remaining in the game.

Fourthly, if normal units are above 50% unit strength and pass their test to Rally, then they cannot move normally and count as moving so that they cannot shoot past 12" with Rapid Fire weapons and shoot at all with Heavy Weapons. Units with And They Shall Know No Fear do not count as moving when they Rally and can move normally thereafter.

My proposal does not allow normal units caught in a Sweeping Advance to remain in combat, it does not allow them to automatically Rally, it does not allow them to Rally under 50% unit strength, and if the unit does Rally they count as moving but cannot move normally.

So clearly my proposal neither gives all units And They Shall Know No Fear in general, nor the equivalent in combat if we only consider that my proposal changes the behaviour of normal units in combat.

The significance of suffering No Retreat wounds and Falling Back when caught by a Sweeping Advance is great, because normally a unit would either pass its Morale check and Pile In, or fail its Morale check, evade a Sweeping Advance, and Fall Back, or fail is Morale check, be caught in a Sweeping Advance and be destroyed.

That means that if a unit may lose a combat, its best defense is either a high Leadership, enhanced by a special rule like a re-roll or Stubborn, or a high Initiative. By contrast a unit with Fearless benefits from a low Save. Units with And They Shall Know No Fear benefits from a high Leadership, high Initiative, and low Save.

By my proposal normal units would also benefit from lower Saves, but that's simply the implication for game balance. Units that would have otherwise been destroyed will still Fall Back, unlikely to Rally or be able to Rally, so balance is maintained by continuing the impact and advantages of close combat: higher reward and higher risk than shooting, and easier to push units off objectives.

As such my proposal allows more models to stay active in the game for longer without changing the essentially nature or impact of close combat on the game, or universalizing rules such as And They Shall Know No Fear.

I did always think that sweeping advances, and falling back in general for that matter, were a little harsh. But on the other hand, they are supposed to be.

Falling back equates to best laid plans going to gak, which on the field is potentially catastrophic to the whole operation. It's reasonable that a sweeping advance is devastating because in reality, it would be.

Nurglitch wrote:

Sweeping Advance! v5.2
If a unit loses a combat, and fails its Morale check, then it can suffer a Sweeping Advance. The unit takes a number of armour saving throws equal to the amount by which it lost the combat. After the armour saves have been rolled for, and extra casualties removed, then the defeated unit makes a Fall Back move, and the victorious unit (unless still locked in combat) makes a consolidation move.

This basically turns a Sweeping Advance into No Retreat! except that the unit retreats. The idea being that the benefit of being able to pass a Leadership test to avoid taking extra armour saves is offset by the risk of being forced to Fall Back and not being immune to pinning.

As proposals go this obviously would benefit some armies more than others, particularly units with lower Initiative scores and no Fearless special rule. Necrons, Tau, Imperial Guard would all become more difficult to wipe out in combat.

If this were to be implimented, I'd hope you would also RE-IMPLIMENT the ability to charge from Combat-To-Combat, meaning that the squad who won could pursue their fleeing victims or choose to charge right into another assault. Just because you don't play Dark Eldar doesnt mean there still aren't some of us out there

Austragalis:

Except the game is not reality. Part of the problem of arguments in favour of changing game rules to be more "realistic" is that firstly that everyone has their own opinion about what constitutes realism, and secondly that it tends to ignore what actually makes for a good game.

Take the change in casualty rules from 4th edition to 5th edition. The justification given for the new casualty removal rules is a 180 degree about face from the justification given for the casualty removal in 4th edition. But the casualty removal in 5th makes for a better Warhammer game.

In Warhammer the background is gently draped over the structure of the rules, rather than any attempt to conform rules so anyone's story about what would have "in reality". The rules come first, and the background is cut to fit.

Finally, if you actually consider how my proposal works, the results of losing a combat and getting caught in a sweeping advance remains harsh. The difference would be that with my proposal that the 'harshness' is proportional.

In terms of game design my proposal coheres much better with the system of proportionality built into Warhammer where the threshold for success of random events is usually a matter of proportion. A higher Strength is more likely to cause a wound against the same Toughness, for example. Or the change of Preferred Enemy to a re-roll instead of a flate rate of 3+.

Just like No Retreat makes Fearless useful in proportion to a unit's fighting ability, my proposal makes Sweeping Advance dangerous in proportion to a unit's fighting ability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daemon-Archon Ren:

I play Dark Eldar. I also play Orks, Tyranids, Space Marines, Chaos Space Marines, and Imperial Guard.

Implementing additional rules changes would be un-necessary. In particular re-implementing the ability of units to 'follow-up' would be un-necessary.

Consider a unit of Dark Eldar Warriors assaulting a unit of Imperial Guard Infantry. That's 20 attacks at 3+, 13.33 hits wounding on 4+, 6.66 wounds saving on 5+, 4.44 unsaved wounds. If four casualties, not including the Sergeant, then 8 attacks at 4+, 4 hits wounding on 4+, 2 wounds, 1.33 unsaved wounds. The Warriors can be expected to win by 3.

So the Infantry need to pass a Morale check at Ld5. If they do, then they remain in combat. If they fail, then the evade a Sweeping advance 0.17, and get caught 0.83. Either way they Fall Back. If they get caught, then they suffer 3 more wounds, or 2 unsaved wounds. This drops them to a unit strength of 4, and 4/10 < 50%. They'll never Rally, and will take two Fall Back moves - one at the end of the Dark Eldar Assault Phase and one in the Imperial Guard Movement phase - before they can fire their Lasguns (and Las Pistol).

Nurglitch wrote:
I play Dark Eldar.

Consider a unit of Dark Eldar Warriors assaulting a unit of Imperial Guard Infantry. That's 20 attacks at 3+, 13.33 hits wounding on 4+, 6.66 wounds saving on 5+, 4.44 unsaved wounds. If four casualties, not including the Sergeant, then 8 attacks at 4+, 4 hits wounding on 4+, 2 wounds, 1.33 unsaved wounds. The Warriors can be expected to win by 3.

12 Guardsmen? That seems.... unlikely... if you didnt care about numbers and were just trying to get exact point exchange it would be 16 gaurdsmen (they cost 5 points each) 80 pts vs 80 pts.


20 * 66% = 13.2 *50% = 6.6 * 66% (Chance they will take the wound after save) 4.356 wounds Rounding down(<.5 which is proper for both sides) from 16 to 12, with 4 wounds caused. 14 attacks (Sargent gets 3 attacks, 2 base +1 for having Pistol/CCW) * 50% 7 Hits * 50% chance to wound 3.5 wounds * 66% (they will take the wound after save roll) 2.31 wounds or 2 wounds. They will take morale at LD6. ASSUMING no commisar/standard bearer/better special character is near/around them they have an ~66% failure rate. If they pass the test, they have no reason for losing that melee (unless DE send in some help). If they fail that test, they have a chance to escape, regrouping at their next turn (either by leadership test or issued order) or take a few more wounds and regoup at the start of their next turn (either by leadership test or issued order)

Nurglitch wrote:
So the Infantry need to pass a Morale check at Ld5. If they do, then they remain in combat. If they fail, then the evade a Sweeping advance 0.17, and get caught 0.83. Either way they Fall Back. If they get caught, then they suffer 3 more wounds, or 2 unsaved wounds. This drops them to a unit strength of 4, and 4/10 < 50%. They'll never Rally, and will take two Fall Back moves - one at the end of the Dark Eldar Assault Phase and one in the Imperial Guard Movement phase - before they can fire their Lasguns (and Las Pistol).

IG was a bad example for this, as they have specific orders for regrouping.

Again, if you are going to take MORE away from melee and not expect to give anything (worth value anyway) back, expect people to call your rule proposals biased, and have their gripes accordingly.

Daemon-Archon Ren:

No, each Imperial Guard Infantry Squad is composed of one Sergeant and nine Guardsmen. The Sergeant has A2 and gains a +1A bonus for having a Close Combat Weapon and Laspistol. That means that the Sergeant has three attacks in total.

If the squad takes four casualties, so that there is one Sergeant and five Guardsmen left, and each of the Guardsmen has one attack each, then the unit will have eight attacks back at the Dark Eldar Warriors.

The example is a good one to demonstrate how my proposal affects the basic rules, and I see no reason why this should be unfair to any particular army, or biased in favour of another (especially considering the armies I play).

Though I am curious: you say my proposal takes "MORE" away from close combat without giving it back. Could you elaborate on this, and explain what you think my proposal takes away from close combat?

I would agree with this, but you would have to let the unit that won the combat consolidate into combat, otherwise you are simply making shooty armies better.

I don't like this...

There is a difference between getting run down and fearless losing combat for a reason...

This rule also makes ATSKNF rather useless... with a sweep advance it's just them getting slaughtered unless they can actually hold their wit and sort of "go down fighting" like the fearless losing combat.

This of course doesn't make sense in all situation as I remember a single Inquisitor catching a fleeing squad of 40 conscripts and killing them all, but that is supposed to make sense in game terms, they have a low leadership and are therefore supposed to be more vulnerable in certain situations.

Warboss Gutrip:

Could you explain how my proposal makes "shooty armies better"? How would allowing consolidation into combat offset this?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
grayspark:

I don't understand your comment about how this proposal makes And They Shall Know No Fear useless: it doesn't affect And They Shall Know No Fear at all.

Here's a simple way to actually SPEED up the process of close combat, the phase that takes the absolute longest in WH40k.
Similar solution as the OP suggested;

Combat resolution: Losing side takes morale test with penalty equal to the amount of casualties lost by and an additional -1 if outnumbered 2:1 or more (there needs to be some semblance of morale penalties for being outnumbered tbh).
If passed, the losing side piles in.
If failed, the losing side takes a number of casualties equal to the number they failed the Ld test by and then falls back 2d6". The winning side consolidates as normal. These casualties do not get saves of any kind as they are cut down when they turn to flee.

-- The loser still takes a stiff penalty against their unit, but isn't wiped out by a couple of angry elves...

ATSKNF allows marines to rally under 50% unit strength and they ignore the negative penalty on ld tests for being outnumbered in combat.
-- Fits with fluff, slightly lessens the power of the ability, but still makes it very important. Marines already have good Ld.

Fearless units take additional number of wounds equal to the amount they lost the combat by, but they are allowed to take saves against these wounds.



My biggest issue with combat resolution right now is that it punishes low initiative too much.
Orks, Necron, and Tau are all at an automatic disadvantage in combat resolution because Initiative weighs in.

Initiative determines when you strike, that's where its involvement should end- lest we get silly things like 3 Elves wiping out 9 Orks just because I couldn't roll a 6...

In_Theory:

How does giving Space Marines Stubborn as well as And They Shall Know No Fear "slightly lessen the power of the ability"? How does that work with Imperial/Crimson Fist characters that give up Combat Tactics for Stubborn as their Chapter Tactics?

Why add an additional operation to calculate outnumbering? How does that speed up game-play? How do Walkers work into outnumbering? How is outnumbering determined?

How do additional changes to And They Shall Know No Fear and combat resolution, and the removal of both Sweeping Advance and Saves from units caught in Sweeping Advances, improve on my proposal?

This actually is a very good idea, sir.
It makes horde tarpits actually useful now against big stuff, because then they couldn't just lose by 1 man and get wiped out.
'Okay, I just killed 5 out of 30 Termagaunts with my Wolf Guard. You just lost combat. Would you like to remove your models now or are you just rolling dice to feel like you actually have some worth?'
That wouldn't happen anymore.
It would also mean that Necrons would be decent in combat because they couldn't get wiped out as easy *you actually would have to 'kill' all of them to win*
I remember how much that sucked. 'The fearless, implacable Necrons became disheartened at the loss of their best drinking buddy Bob and proceeded to leg it as fast as possible, with the enemy stomping on them and laughing on the way out'
Great idea, sir
Mr. Self Destruct

Nurglitch wrote:Daemon-Archon Ren:

No, each Imperial Guard Infantry Squad is composed of one Sergeant and nine Guardsmen. The Sergeant has A2 and gains a +1A bonus for having a Close Combat Weapon and Laspistol. That means that the Sergeant has three attacks in total.

If the squad takes four casualties, so that there is one Sergeant and five Guardsmen left, and each of the Guardsmen has one attack each, then the unit will have eight attacks back at the Dark Eldar Warriors.

The example is a good one to demonstrate how my proposal affects the basic rules, and I see no reason why this should be unfair to any particular army, or biased in favour of another (especially considering the armies I play).

so 80 points of DA (melee army) vs 50 points of IG (shooty army) is a good control for showing why melee is unbalanced?

Ok then, by that logic I submit that shooting is overpowered as 9 thousand sons and a sorcerer with wind of chaos will completely wipe out a 10 man squad of those dark eldar warriors with their shooting. So because they were both the same number of models (but not the same points) it was a fair comparison... yeah...

Nurglitch wrote:
Though I am curious: you say my proposal takes "MORE" away from close combat without giving it back. Could you elaborate on this, and explain what you think my proposal takes away from close combat?

You take away a close combat army's (say an archon's or talos) ability to wipe out 50 guardsmen in a single assault phase and instead give them the ability to deal as many wounds as they won melee by, and then are subject to the next turns fire. The retreating squad can also regroup and shoot at them (or get the charge at them). Nothing has been giving to Melee units they did not already have and you are taking away the difference between 14 wounds max and 50 wounds max...

Is that elaborate enough?

(Forgive if you misconstrue my tone, sadly text leaves little room for emphasis, I am try to be as impartial/impersonal to this as possible.)

-DAR