Switch Theme:

Retreating from cc nerf  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in de
Blood Angel Terminator with Lightning Claws





Germany

How about this. Roll a dice, add or subtract the difference in WS skill. On a 4+ you can fallback, if not you remain in CC. You may sacrifice models to modify the roll. For one model you can subtract one from the roll, you may sacrifice as many as you like.
Example, your WS4+ unit tries to fall back from a WS3+ unit. You roll a 3, which is modified to 2. The enemy is better at CC, therefore its harder to fall back. You decide to sacrifice 2 models, modifying your roll to 4. Your fallback is successful, but at the cost of two models. If there are units with different WS skills, you roll against the best enemy WS skill.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




p5freak wrote:
How about this. Roll a dice, add or subtract the difference in WS skill. On a 4+ you can fallback, if not you remain in CC. You may sacrifice models to modify the roll. For one model you can subtract one from the roll, you may sacrifice as many as you like.
Example, your WS4+ unit tries to fall back from a WS3+ unit. You roll a 3, which is modified to 2. The enemy is better at CC, therefore its harder to fall back. You decide to sacrifice 2 models, modifying your roll to 4. Your fallback is successful, but at the cost of two models. If there are units with different WS skills, you roll against the best enemy WS skill.


Eh. Maybe, but I don't love it. Some thoughts:

*For starters, comparing WS feels slightly awkward now that we have "#+" instead of just "#". I know it's basic math, but it still trips my brain up a bit.
*Most units have WS 4+, 3+, or sometimes 2+. That means that you'd very rarely be looking at more of a WS modifier than 1 or 2. Which feels insignificant enough not to bother with.
*At best, I'll roll a 6 as you try to run away while you roll a 1. So we're looking at you killing 5 models + the difference in WS to get away. Depending on what unit I'm chasing down, my opponent could be losing anywhere from ~85 points of tactical marines (plus upgrades) to ~15 points of conscripts. So when this mechanic does kick in, it's going to be pretty punishing to elite armies, but really forgiving for hordes. Which feels weird. Am I missing a mechanical or fluff reason that guardsmen should be better at escaping the enemy's clutches than marines?

*It will be common for the escapee to roll higher than their enemies. Even if I'm WS3+ to your 4+, d6s are swingy enough that I'll frequently get away little or no damage. Which makes this whole process feel a little pointless. "Oh no. I had a to kill a bolter marine to escape your melee unit that I will now proceed to blast off the table."
   
Made in us
Grisly Ghost Ark Driver





Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Why not JUST a straight D3 mortal wounds? We don't need to overcomplicate everything. Most units not being able to act is already pretty good and the D3 really hurts the units that can.

d3 mortal wounds can be brutal to a marine squad, to a blob of conscripts not so much. Not scaling with model quality/model count is the #1 issue with mortal wounds.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




The difference being that elite low model count armies don't really have a problem with being bogged down in combat. They are usually the ones to engage in the CC.

The D3 mortal wounds is more to give a little bite to a unit retreating. I think d3 per ten models would be enough. This also makes vehicles think twice before charging.

At the moment it takes a lot to get units into close combat. But not a lot for units to get out of combat. D3 mortal wounds makes it a choice instead of a no brainer.

You could even modify it to be d3 models per unit engaged with. This would balance msu with hordes.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




demontalons wrote:
The difference being that elite low model count armies don't really have a problem with being bogged down in combat. They are usually the ones to engage in the CC.

The D3 mortal wounds is more to give a little bite to a unit retreating. I think d3 per ten models would be enough. This also makes vehicles think twice before charging.

At the moment it takes a lot to get units into close combat. But not a lot for units to get out of combat. D3 mortal wounds makes it a choice instead of a no brainer.

You could even modify it to be d3 models per unit engaged with. This would balance msu with hordes.


I disagree with you about those first and last points. Sternguard, battle suits, and dark reapers are all units from elite, low model count armies that would strongly prefer to be shooting than stabbing. How much damage to do to a unit that runs away in this system is really a question of what you want the goal of that damage to be. Shooty squads that are going to lose combat are still generally going to fall back when they can because they're as good as dead if they stay locked in anyway. So you can either get beat up and not hurt the enemy, or you can fall back, get beat up, and also have your friends shoot the unit that was stabbing you. So units that were going to retreat are probably still going to retreat. If you want a chance at crippling or even destroying the unit, sort of like old sweeping advance but without the chance of wiping a 30boy mob out after kiling one ork boy, then something like "d3 mortal wound for every 5 models in the unit" makes more sense. Making it a flat d3 wounds to the unit regardless of size, power level, etc. is more of an annoyance than a genuine detriment.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




What about a flat 20% rule? Rounding up.

So if you want to retreat you immediately lose 20% of your unit.

If at first you don't succeed then Sky Diving isn't for you. 
   
Made in se
Swift Swooping Hawk





I don't think falling back needs a direct nerf. What I can get behind is that too many models ignore the (pretty steep) penalty for doing so. Ultramarines do it, and Fly is a really common keyword.

One thing to think about is that you pretty much have to let Flyers fall back, or you could suddenly kill hundreds of points just by having one jetbike or something engage a plane.

Craftworld Sciatháin 4180 pts  
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




I agree with you but even in those example armies they either have other units with huge amounts of fire power (tau) other highly maneuverable units (eldar) or other dedicated CC units like SM.

The goal here is to reward CC based units for making it into CC. As it is just stopping a unit from shooting after being charged if it falls back isn't enough. I'm not sure GW factored in how beat up most pure CC units are by the time they get into CC.

For instance a noise marine with sonic blaster can fire 6 strength 4 shots per turn (with a strat) from 24 inches.

A berserker on the other hand can hit 6 str 5 shots from within 1 inch. The difference in points is 3.

I'm trying to concoct a rule that rewards players with dedicated CC to be rewarded for getting them there. Usually to make it into CC you had to chew through a lot of chaff and take at least 2 turns of shooting.

I want retreating to be a genuine option and not a no brainer. D3 mortal wounds in most cases will be an annoyance, except for characters and vehicles and elite units. Large chaff units won't care but large chaff units usually disintegrate pretty easily as is. ( conscripts problems is their point cost not game mechanic)

Combined with morale i think it gives a little help to assault units.
   
Made in de
Blood Angel Terminator with Lightning Claws





Germany

Why automatic mortal wounds, or flat 20% losses ? How is a bunch of conscripts dealing mortal wounds to a land raider ?? Why should terminators lose 20% if they retreat from grots ??
   
Made in it
Drifting Cronos Hungry for Souls




Italy

Because cowardice must be harshly punished

Orks 9500
Space Wolves 6500
Drukhari 4500 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Blackie wrote:
Because cowardice must be harshly punished


This.

And keep in mind that last edition you COULD NOT RETREAT. Unless you had a special rule.

If at first you don't succeed then Sky Diving isn't for you. 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





The problem I have with automatic mortal wounds (and why I suggested doing mortal wounds on a 6+ is that auto mortal wounds means that if you charge a tank with say a squad of gretchin to stop it from shooting, now if it falls back it auto-takes mortal wounds? Sounds bad to me as it already cannot shoot (assuming it doesn't ignore the rule). It also means that falling back with small units risks losing a ton of models. People suggesting D3 per 5 models, that is losing 20-60% of a unit if you fall back, that is crazy powerful against shooty units. It becomes how to kill a conscript screen, charge it with a rhino, and see if they fall back.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




why can a lasgun hurt a land raider? The cc retreat penalty should be slightly harsh because the other side had to cross through a few turns of fire to get there. D3 mortal wounds doesn't really hurt a tank unless it's already damaged.

Right now shooting is far superior and retreating from combat from 30 orksl has no penalty, except not being able to shoot and move, which may be a penalty for the unit that got charged but is in fact a huge penalty for the charging unit who is now exposed to enemy fire.

On a 1 to 1 basis it would be fine but army wide the assault units are quickly shown to be ineffective.
   
Made in us
Nasty Nob





Denver, Colorado

SemperMortis wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Because cowardice must be harshly punished


This.

And keep in mind that last edition you COULD NOT RETREAT. Unless you had a special rule.


Even with hit & run, there was still a chance you could fail.

And unless you were SPESS MERRENZ, if a unit tried to escape combat via 'our weapons are useless', you risked losing the WHOLE SQUAD. Now that same squad waltzes out of combat, often with little to no penalty.

An initiative test would be the perfect test for getting out combat this edition, if it still existed.

"Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.". Words to live by, especially for ork players waiting for a new codex.  
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





demontalons wrote:
why can a lasgun hurt a land raider? The cc retreat penalty should be slightly harsh because the other side had to cross through a few turns of fire to get there. D3 mortal wounds doesn't really hurt a tank unless it's already damaged.

Right now shooting is far superior and retreating from combat from 30 orksl has no penalty, except not being able to shoot and move, which may be a penalty for the unit that got charged but is in fact a huge penalty for the charging unit who is now exposed to enemy fire.

On a 1 to 1 basis it would be fine but army wide the assault units are quickly shown to be ineffective.


Which is why I said it should be Roll a D6 for every enemy model within 1" of the retreating unit. ON a 6+ that unit takes a mortal wound. So if there are 30 boyz engaging a unit it will take 6 mortal wounds on average to withdrawal. The issue with the auto-D3 is situations like 1 grot charges a land raider, which now cannot shoot, and takes D3 mortal wounds unless it kills the grot. The D3 wounds per 5 models in the withdrawing unit means that a single Rhino Charging a squad of ork boyz can lock them down for potentially 2 turns, or they can try to leave combat and move forward and take 12 mortal wounds on average. Especially with deepstrike assaults I think doing things like that is far too powerful.
   
Made in us
Oozing Plague Marine Terminator




In My Lab

Deepstrike assaults usually fail.

And roll a d6, each 6 does a mortal wound favors hordes even harder. My Wulfen, elite killing machines that are basically blenders with hammers, do, on average, less than a single mortal wound under your system to anyone fleeing. That's not going to deter ANYONE.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





 JNAProductions wrote:
Deepstrike assaults usually fail.

And roll a d6, each 6 does a mortal wound favors hordes even harder. My Wulfen, elite killing machines that are basically blenders with hammers, do, on average, less than a single mortal wound under your system to anyone fleeing. That's not going to deter ANYONE.



Deepstrike assaults depend on the units, but there are also infiltrate assaults.

So instead hordes should evaporate by default if they choose to withdraw? I'd rather see blender units have rules to make withdrawal more punishing than to make it the default for every unit in the game, makes it less of a penalty and more of a way to hurt big units with little real effort.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




How about a mishmash of everything proposed? If the unit falls back, the assaulting unit makes melee attacks that land on a 6+, and for each landed they give a Mortal Wound.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Oozing Plague Marine Terminator




In My Lab

Breng77 wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Deepstrike assaults usually fail.

And roll a d6, each 6 does a mortal wound favors hordes even harder. My Wulfen, elite killing machines that are basically blenders with hammers, do, on average, less than a single mortal wound under your system to anyone fleeing. That's not going to deter ANYONE.



Deepstrike assaults depend on the units, but there are also infiltrate assaults.

So instead hordes should evaporate by default if they choose to withdraw? I'd rather see blender units have rules to make withdrawal more punishing than to make it the default for every unit in the game, makes it less of a penalty and more of a way to hurt big units with little real effort.


Perhaps a compromise. D3 mortal wounds per 5 models, but can't do more mortal wounds than the total attacks of the enemies.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





 JNAProductions wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Deepstrike assaults usually fail.

And roll a d6, each 6 does a mortal wound favors hordes even harder. My Wulfen, elite killing machines that are basically blenders with hammers, do, on average, less than a single mortal wound under your system to anyone fleeing. That's not going to deter ANYONE.



Deepstrike assaults depend on the units, but there are also infiltrate assaults.

So instead hordes should evaporate by default if they choose to withdraw? I'd rather see blender units have rules to make withdrawal more punishing than to make it the default for every unit in the game, makes it less of a penalty and more of a way to hurt big units with little real effort.


Perhaps a compromise. D3 mortal wounds per 5 models, but can't do more mortal wounds than the total attacks of the enemies.


Still way too powerful IMO, I could go with the suggestion to roll a dice for each attack for each engaged model and on a 6+ it deals 1 mortal wound. Mortal wounds are just too powerful to be able to deal that easily. I could do d3 per 5 if they were AP 0 wounds, but not mortal wounds.
   
Made in us
Oozing Plague Marine Terminator




In My Lab

So, a squad of 5 Assault Marines charges a squad of 30 Conscripts. They have 5 attacks total.

The Conscripts take 5 mortal wounds if they retreat, assuming all Marines live.

Guard player loses 15 points.

Now, I hear you saying that some things are more valuable than Conscripts. Marines, for instance, lose 13 points per wound, or up to 65 points... Assuming all 5 tacticals lived through the initial assault, and wish to retreat.

Terminators, as another example, are even more valuable. Only, Terminators ROCK in close combat, so they aren't likely to want to run away.

I do agree, this is punitive to people trying to run away. That is the point, though.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





yes but if it is punitive to the point where it is no longer a viable option what is the point?

It should not be the case where fleeing combat could result in 60% of the squad dying. Which is somewhat mitigated by number of attacks, but it doesn't account at all for multi-assaults. Say my 10 khorne berzerkers hit 2 of your conscript squads, and with their rules consolidate into 2 more should all of them take 12 mortal wounds to fall back So one khorne berserker unit should in 2 turns kill all the conscripts in my opponents army. Essentially this rule is, large units never fall back. What about 5 assault marines into 5 dark reapers. The reapers get charged and take ~2 wounds, then if they want to leave combat they risk essentially losing the rest of the unit? These are 36 point models. So falling back risks losing 108 points. So it makes falling back not an option, if they get assaulted they essentially die. To which I assume your response is "don't let them get assaulted."

You cannot base every rule around "conscripts aren't murdered by it"

In your tactical squad example they likely will also never fall back because they likely lose a model or 2 in the assault, so a fall back is death, which maybe they are ok with if the rest of their army gets to shoot you, but the rule shouldn't become "you can remove your unit from the table to get assault units into the open."

It needs to be a measured risk, which is why I prefer Roll a dice for each engaged model. Now maybe it needs to be a 5+, but it should never be "if you fall back x models auto die with a chance of x times 3 models dying." With a roll it might be likely that most of the time you only take 1 or 2 mortal wounds, but you risk taking way more.

   
Made in us
Oozing Plague Marine Terminator




In My Lab

Except there's still reasons to fall back EVEN IF IT WIPSE THE SQUAD.

Dark Reapers, sure. It sucks to lose them, they're pricey. But let's say I charge my Wulfen into them, and by some miracle, one lives. The Reaper is, 100% guaranteed, dead if he falls back. But if he DOESN'T... The Wulfen murder him anyway and get free reign on my next turn. Whereas if he DOES fall back, he dies, but then everyone else is free to shoot at them.

Right now, you're right. There IS no choice-you'd fall back without a second thought. But this would make it so there IS thought.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





macluvin wrote:
Would cc be more viable if the retreating unit had to take a round of attacks to retreat? Would it nullify the whole retreat from combat strategy? I was wondering this as people seem to have problems with close combat and the core rules seem to favor shooty vs combat lists.


This is the 2nd suggestion in a short amount of time that actually used to be a rule
Back in 2nd ed if you wanted to break from combat and fall back you played out a round of CC except that the person falling back was reduced to a WS of 0 (meaning they couldn't hit) so essentially, exactly as you mentioned, take a round of attacks.

We're gonna need another Timmy!

6400 pts+ 8th
 
   
Made in us
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon





D6 mortal wounds, D3 with fly.

After falling back, no psyking, advancing, shooting or charging.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 JimOnMars wrote:
D6 mortal wounds, D3 with fly.

After falling back, no psyking, advancing, shooting or charging.


This doesn't really address any of the concerns raised in this thread. This punishes elite armies way more than horde armies. Not putting out any offense when you fall back doesn't really matter when the whole point of falling back is to let the rest of your army unload onto the unit you just escaped from. I can get behind "no psychic powers on the turn you fell back" though. No advancing actually seems a little weird. If you're trying to run away, shouldn't you try to do so quickly? XD
   
Made in se
Swift Swooping Hawk





You already can't advance when falling back. I justify it as needing to parry and turn around, and thus not moving at full speed.

Craftworld Sciatháin 4180 pts  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 JNAProductions wrote:
Except there's still reasons to fall back EVEN IF IT WIPSE THE SQUAD.

Dark Reapers, sure. It sucks to lose them, they're pricey. But let's say I charge my Wulfen into them, and by some miracle, one lives. The Reaper is, 100% guaranteed, dead if he falls back. But if he DOESN'T... The Wulfen murder him anyway and get free reign on my next turn. Whereas if he DOES fall back, he dies, but then everyone else is free to shoot at them.

Right now, you're right. There IS no choice-you'd fall back without a second thought. But this would make it so there IS thought.


This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the topic. If the idea is to punish units for falling back with a sort of toned-down sweeping advance, then d3 wounds per 5 models feels about right. You won't have your unit wiped out entirely (unless you only had 3 wounds left in the unit), but you'll lose a chunk of points in exchange for getting out of combat.

If the idea is to make it a "calculated risk," then losing an average of 1 in 6 models isn't the way to do it. I'll gladly give up 1 out of 6 wounds from a screening unit to shoot up an expensive assault unit. What do I care if I lose ~17% of the remaining squad's points value if it means I can shoot 100% of my opponent's assault unit off the table?

As someone who uses Dark Reapers frequently, I can confirm that I will pretty much always opt to fall back in that scenario. If I'm not going to manage to hold the enemy unit up until the end of their own fight phase, I may as well run away (and die) so that my other units can shoot the melee unit up.

Losing 1 wound for every 6 models in a unit is... barely even worth rolling most of the time.

If the real concern is that things like rhinos can tarpit enemy units and encourage them to fall back (thus taking mortal wounds), then I think I'd rather address that as its own issue. People are already a little meh on tarpitting vehicles under the current rules anyway.
   
Made in us
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon





 Cream Tea wrote:
You already can't advance when falling back. I justify it as needing to parry and turn around, and thus not moving at full speed.

Yea. The only difference I propose is nerfing fly so it can't shoot, eliminate psyking (although that is a weird one because you can currently smite in CC) and adding mortal wounds to the unit leaving.

Yes, it hits small units hard, but it seems at least vaguely realistic. If 30 ork boyz are fleeing, the chance of hurting the ones in the back would be slim. If there were 3, they are all probably going to die.
   
Made in it
Drifting Cronos Hungry for Souls




Italy

Breng77 wrote:
yes but if it is punitive to the point where it is no longer a viable option what is the point?




The point is to let other units shoot the charging enemy squad. Units that fall back should be crippled or destroyed but their move allows other units to delete a melee enemy squad that can't be targeted by firepower while locked in combat.

Orks 9500
Space Wolves 6500
Drukhari 4500 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: