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.

BRB addendum...

Your unit is stubborn in hand to hand combat if;

The number of models in the unit is equal to or higher than the leadership.
The unit lost less than 25% of the unit in a single phase.

No more getting swept when you lose just a couple of models.

Orks already have the first rule, and it's unique to them as it represents their courage growing in large numbers. Making this a generic rule would seem a bit unnecessary.

Also, how would losing 1/4 of your squad make you Stubborn?
"Oh no, Bob and Mike have just been obliterated by a missile strike, we're less likely to run away now!"
There seems to be no point in relating Stubborn to losing 1/4 of your numbers.

Agreed. (wow, shortest post ever)

Marshal_Gus wrote:No more getting swept when you lose just a couple of models.

Also, getting swept just by losing a couple of models is either bad luck or lack of tactics, nothing to do the rules.

I thought he was saying that you won't flee unless you lose 25% in one phase *re-reads* oh... yeah I mis-read

but I still get the vibes that he means that a 50 man blob of Imperial Guard won't flee becasue they lost 6 guys compared to thier one killing of a Terminator
(don't tell me to use a Commissar, I already do, I'm just saying)

Lotet wrote:I thought he was saying that you won't flee unless you lose 25% in one phase *re-reads* oh... yeah I mis-read

but I still get the vibes that he means that a 50 man blob of Imperial Guard won't flee becasue they lost 6 guys compared to thier one killing of a Terminator
(don't tell me to use a Commissar, I already do, I'm just saying)

That's actually a big problem in WH40k. Contrary to what Valkyrie might believe, IG are statistically very likely to be wiped out in an assault where they only lose a few models (say three-four) and are unable to inflict a single wound upon the enemy (ex.: vs. MEQs and/or 2+ save models and/or high toughness units) despite being a unit of 30+. It is neither poor tactics nor poor luck, it's how the game is made which has a major broken core rule.

I would have to say that you don't even break in an assault unless they lose 25% of their number (in the same way as Shooting). A 50+ man squad in an assault with five Space Marines shouldn't run away and be wiped out because the Space Marines were able to inflict a single wound more than the Guardsmen.

In my second sentence, change "won't" to "shouldn't", it's what I meant

Skinnattittar wrote:

Lotet wrote:I thought he was saying that you won't flee unless you lose 25% in one phase *re-reads* oh... yeah I mis-read

but I still get the vibes that he means that a 50 man blob of Imperial Guard won't flee becasue they lost 6 guys compared to thier one killing of a Terminator
(don't tell me to use a Commissar, I already do, I'm just saying)

That's actually a big problem in WH40k. Contrary to what Valkyrie might believe, IG are statistically very likely to be wiped out in an assault where they only lose a few models (say three-four) and are unable to inflict a single wound upon the enemy (ex.: vs. MEQs and/or 2+ save models and/or high toughness units) despite being a unit of 30+. It is neither poor tactics nor poor luck, it's how the game is made which has a major broken core rule.

I would have to say that you don't even break in an assault unless they lose 25% of their number (in the same way as Shooting). A 50+ man squad in an assault with five Space Marines shouldn't run away and be wiped out because the Space Marines were able to inflict a single wound more than the Guardsmen.

Amen, this is my biggest beef with 5th ed. Some happy medium between the endless "pillow" of cheap troops in previous editions and the total oversell of casualty minuses with no off setting for numbers and then pure I roll-off determining their fate.

Some alternatives:

1. Plus modifiers to Ld based on my positive ratio to you. (e.g. 50 guard to 5 marines means your marines need to cause 10 casualties before the guard would take any leadership modifiers...)

2. Impose the fearless modifier like the orks have to live with. So same example above, the marine kills 8 and the guard kills 1. The guard gets the unmodified leadership roll before they run but the fact is the marines are outclassing them and just by sheer ferocity, the guard now gets to make 7 armor saves.

Finally I would suggest the overrun rule be modified so if you run and fail the I roll-off, you suffer the base number of attacks of your opponent once more. A sort of free parting shot rather than automatic wipe out. My biggest disgusting situation is the Wraithlord that kills 2 necron warriors who run and then all get run down because the necron rolled a horrible morale. 2 or 3 free attacks on the necrons and then being broken seems harsh enough. OTH fail morale on 10 howling banshees and you deserve to get hit with 22 or 33 power weapon attacks as a parting gift.

I actually rather like that they removed outnumbering from the combat resolution in this edition of 40k, given how much trouble they seem to have making high quality troops competitive to same points level values of hordes on a per unit basis(especially when hordes already get so many bonus built in for having extra models, i.e. the charge bonus is +1 per model so elites benefit less form it).

Jack

There's one simple fix - a unit is considered stubborn if it has more troops in the combat than the enemy.

I rather like my own:

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.

Commentary
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.

Nurglitch wrote:...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.

This is pretty much the major hole in that proposal, Nurglitch. The only armies that really have to worry about assault would no longer have to worry half as much about assault.

I like mine (where they do not break unless they suffer 25% casualties, just as in shooting). It follows the same logic, is simple (gets rid of a complex system for a simpler one, and one that is already in use to it is one less system to learn), gets the job done reasonably well, and is still a major threat! Once the unit fails, I would prefer a different system to an Initiative Check (being slow witted in close combat does not make you a slow runner in retreat), but that system works fairly well, I suppose.

It's not actually a major hole if you consider that the problem that the original proposal addresses is the fact that such units can be wiped out in combat. You're looking at the main feature and complaining it's a bug.

Nurglitch wrote:It's not actually a major hole if you consider that the problem that the original proposal addresses is the fact that such units can be wiped out in combat. You're looking at the main feature and complaining it's a bug.

No, a bug would be a small problem that does not actually effect the overall mechanic (like in a video game a bug would be if you stand in a specific place you can't do something, but that place/action being of no game play significance). That was more like a fatal flaw, an over compensation. Or, a big gaping hole.

Again, I'll point out that you're mistaking the entire point of the proposal with a problem. The original proposal in this thread returns to the problem with Sweeping Advance that you yourself identify: the fact that a large unit of Imperial Guardsmen can be wiped out so long as at least one can be killed. My proposal makes it so that the potential damage done to a non-Fearless unit is a function of their opponent's ability to cause damage, just as in No Retreat!