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.

I personally think tarpitting is great and fluffy to a point in a narrative. you are in cc with this group, can't jus tignore them as they ae attacking or they will come up with something to hurt you. take a dreadnaught vs chaos cultists for example, while it is using its ws it is ignoring the weak attacks but maybe if it let these weaklings get behind it as it tried to keep moving then they could be a threat (sure we know cultists do not have krak grenades or melta bombs per rules but that does not mean one out in the 40k universe might not have gotten ahold of one and be waiting for a chance to use it) the threat is to great and so the dread must ensure all the cultists die

Yoyoyo wrote:
Dude... Plague Zombies in the CSM codex have a 5+ FNP, cost 4pts a model, have a 10pt champ tax, and require a 270pt HQ to unlock.

Your issue is specifically with Vraks Renegades. Which maybe you ought to finally address directly!

Typhus is 230 but whatever.

Also Vraks zombies really aren't that bad.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Infantry being able to exert board control is important.

If it's so important to exert board control with your infantry then take infantry that can damage walkers/MCs. Nobody is forcing you to use naked infantry with no weapon upgrades.

Otherwise a superheavy or GMC can walk right through a Termagant screen and murder the synapse HQ they supposedly protect.

And that's how it should be. A tank can drive right through the screen (and, in fact, force them to fall back with a failed leadership test) as if it wasn't there, so why shouldn't a walker be able to do the same? If the screen's weapons can't even theoretically hurt the walker/MC why should it even acknowledge their presence as it tramples over them to get to the real target?

Infantry is capable of wrecking optics and exterior equipment on vehicles even if they can't penetrate the hull.

Apparently not, because they can't even attempt to roll dice to damage the vehicle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 chrispy1991 wrote:
So... you want to make my IG tarpits unable to tarpit walkers/MC's, literally removing any counter I have to high str MC's/walkers and SHW/GC's smashing through my lines and ripping apart my vehicles.

Hi. I'm a melta bomb. I cost 5 points to make this problem go away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I personally think tarpitting is great and fluffy to a point in a narrative. you are in cc with this group, can't jus tignore them as they ae attacking or they will come up with something to hurt you. take a dreadnaught vs chaos cultists for example, while it is using its ws it is ignoring the weak attacks but maybe if it let these weaklings get behind it as it tried to keep moving then they could be a threat (sure we know cultists do not have krak grenades or melta bombs per rules but that does not mean one out in the 40k universe might not have gotten ahold of one and be waiting for a chance to use it) the threat is to great and so the dread must ensure all the cultists die

Then why can a tank, a vehicle with even less ability to defend itself, smash right through a mob of infantry without slowing down?

Point being, I don't think you should adjust core mechanics over a single FW unit.

It's not like Grots or Hormagaunts are being mentioned as problematic in this conversation.

 chrispy1991 wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
I'm going to point something out that you people seem not to be realizing:
This rule does not stop you from using large, cheap units to exert board control. Screening units will still function in exactly the same way. You can still get in the way of models. You can still tarpit lots of enemies, too.

Also, anyone saying that it's not that hard to deal with tarpits has clearly never played a game against 120+ zombies that regenerate with two optional rolls of 4+.

No... that's exactly what the rule does. It's impossible to exert any board control against an enemy that can simply disengage his units from yours at will or wade through yours to get to your important units and smash them to pieces.

Also, I've fought zombies multiple times. They're never scary. I already provided solutions to them, solutions that don't even cost many points.

Who says they can wade through enemies? Nowhere does this rule allows you to move through enemy models. You set up a screening unit, this rule won't let models just walk through it.

Also: The POINT OF THIS THREAD was to ask what a reasonable penalty should be, and what restrictions would be reasonable. Never did I reccomend letting this ability be free.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yoyoyo wrote:
Dude... Plague Zombies in the CSM codex have a 5+ FNP, cost 4pts a model, have a 10pt champ tax, and require a 270pt HQ to unlock.

Your issue is specifically with Vraks Renegades. Which maybe you ought to finally address directly!

Or you take a relic that costs something like 30pts. Much of this applies to other armies and units too, Zombies are just an easy go-to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I personally think tarpitting is great and fluffy to a point in a narrative. you are in cc with this group, can't jus tignore them as they ae attacking or they will come up with something to hurt you. take a dreadnaught vs chaos cultists for example, while it is using its ws it is ignoring the weak attacks but maybe if it let these weaklings get behind it as it tried to keep moving then they could be a threat (sure we know cultists do not have krak grenades or melta bombs per rules but that does not mean one out in the 40k universe might not have gotten ahold of one and be waiting for a chance to use it) the threat is to great and so the dread must ensure all the cultists die

Okay, try something:
Take a wooden club and a 9mm pistol. Go find a tank that is currently moving around.
Let me know when you do more than scratch the paint on that tank.

And no, I don't think that pretending that a unit is carrying gear they don't ever get to have is a reasonable excuse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yoyoyo wrote:
Point being, I don't think you should adjust core mechanics over a single FW unit.

It's not like Grots or Hormagaunts are being mentioned as
problematic in this conversation.

Grots, not so much. Hormagaunts? Sure. 5ppm for fearless bodies isn't the best tarpit ever, but it's decent with fleet and... Do they get bounding leap? I don't have their codex to check.

Waaaghpower wrote:
Okay, try something:
Take a wooden club and a 9mm pistol. Go find a tank that is currently moving around.
Let me know when you do more than scratch the paint on that tank.

This is a bad justification. Infantry in close can be surprisingly effective.

In combat, the biggest cause of confusion among Finnish soldiers were Soviet tanks. The Finns had few anti-tank weapons and insufficient training in modern anti-tank tactics. However, the favoured Soviet armoured tactic was a simple frontal charge, the weaknesses of which could be exploited. The Finns learned that at close range, tanks could be dealt with in many ways; for example, logs and crowbars jammed into the bogie wheels would often immobilise a tank. Soon, Finns fielded a better ad hoc weapon, the Molotov cocktail. It was a glass bottle filled with flammable liquids, with a simple hand-lit fuse. Molotov cocktails were eventually mass-produced by the Finnish Alko corporation and bundled with matches with which to light them. Eighty Soviet tanks were destroyed in the border-zone fighting.

This is why you have infantry-armor cooperation. But I think you guys are going into the weeds trying to justify this by "logic".

Waaaghpower wrote:
Or you take a relic that costs something like 30pts. Much of this applies to other armies and units too, Zombies are just an easy go-to.

That Relic targets *one* unit every turn. So you can easily target cultists before they're affected, as well as the HQ carrying it.

Try and apply some problem-solving to these situations, at this point you're overly invested in defending your point. Targeting Cultists before they get their FNP is pretty obvious. Hormagaunts, Grots, Conscripts, and CSM Zombies have all been around for years. Why has this suddenly been discovered by you as a problem now, as opposed to anyone else when those armies were released?

Yoyoyo wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
Okay, try something:
Take a wooden club and a 9mm pistol. Go find a tank that is currently moving around.
Let me know when you do more than scratch the paint on that tank.

This is a bad justification. Infantry in close can be surprisingly effective.

In combat, the biggest cause of confusion among Finnish soldiers were Soviet tanks. The Finns had few anti-tank weapons and insufficient training in modern anti-tank tactics. However, the favoured Soviet armoured tactic was a simple frontal charge, the weaknesses of which could be exploited. The Finns learned that at close range, tanks could be dealt with in many ways; for example, logs and crowbars jammed into the bogie wheels would often immobilise a tank. Soon, Finns fielded a better ad hoc weapon, the Molotov cocktail. It was a glass bottle filled with flammable liquids, with a simple hand-lit fuse. Molotov cocktails were eventually mass-produced by the Finnish Alko corporation and bundled with matches with which to light them. Eighty Soviet tanks were destroyed in the border-zone fighting.

This is why you have infantry-armor cooperation. But I think you guys are going into the weeds trying to justify this by "logic".

Yeah, that worked because soviet tanks were terrible and the Finns were badass. The equivalent of AV10, on the board, tops, maybe even AV9 - The reason that molotov cocktails worked is because the tank had openings large enough that they could burn the crew inside.

40k tanks weren't made by Soviets.

I suppose a caveat should be in order, though: If the model is a Walker, and the model they're locked in could hurt the Walker's rear armor, it can't disengage.

old Soviet tanks are probably better designed than imperium junk.

Lol.

Land Raiders do throw their tracks driving over a fence...

The land raider is probably the single most embarrassing tank in the game.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Lol.

Land Raiders do throw their tracks driving over a fence...

That's more of a crummy balance issue than anything else. Regardless, are you saying that S3 guardsmen should be able to hurt Land Raiders in close combat?

Why not at this point? It's like heaping an extra pile of dung on top of a mountain of it. Vehicles are already a total joke; it can't get much worse.

Yoyoyo wrote:
This is a bad justification. Infantry in close can be surprisingly effective.

Apparently not, because those infantry can't even attempt to roll dice against a vehicle. You can keep saying "they're effective" but 40k clearly disagrees with you.

In combat, the biggest cause of confusion among Finnish soldiers were Soviet tanks. The Finns had few anti-tank weapons and insufficient training in modern anti-tank tactics. However, the favoured Soviet armoured tactic was a simple frontal charge, the weaknesses of which could be exploited. The Finns learned that at close range, tanks could be dealt with in many ways; for example, logs and crowbars jammed into the bogie wheels would often immobilise a tank. Soon, Finns fielded a better ad hoc weapon, the Molotov cocktail. It was a glass bottle filled with flammable liquids, with a simple hand-lit fuse. Molotov cocktails were eventually mass-produced by the Finnish Alko corporation and bundled with matches with which to light them. Eighty Soviet tanks were destroyed in the border-zone fighting.

Yes, of course infantry with anti-tank weapons can be effective. Molotov cocktails would be represented by krak grenades in 40k, and a unit armed with them would prevent most walkers/MCs from disengaging.

How would you represent a crowbar or a log?

40k is a daft universe. Concentrate on game mechanics and enough with the bad logic already.

I'm fine with a unit providing a positive effect, even if it doesn't force a bunch of dice rolls.

Yoyoyo wrote:
How would you represent a crowbar or a log?

Krak grenades if they're effective against vehicles, normal melee attacks if they're not.

I'm fine with a unit providing a positive effect, even if it doesn't force a bunch of dice rolls.

And they do provide a positive effect, they just can't prevent an enemy that is literally immune to every weapon they're armed with from ignoring them as it moves past to get to the real target. Also, remember that tanks can already do this. If an AV 10/10/10 open-topped tank can drive right through a horde of infantry without even slowing down why should an AV 14/14/14 walker be forced to stop and fight them? Having more ability to fight back in melee compared to non-walker vehicles shouldn't be a liability.

AV10 open-topped can barely drive anywhere, they just get exploded and then kill the unit they're transporting. Hint, DE Raiders.

Meanwhile you want AV14 Walkers with 24" assault ranges to tank shock through screening troop units and immediately murderize whatever they contact.

Well, it's not anything worse than what Forgeworld might write.

Yoyoyo wrote:
AV10 open-topped can barely drive anywhere, they just get exploded and then kill the unit they're transporting. Hint, DE Raiders.

So what? Durability of light vehicles in general isn't the issue here. An AV 10 tank can drive straight through a horde of infantry, or even a unit of assault terminators (it will probably get charged and die next turn if it does, but it can still do it). A higher-AV walker can't smash through the infantry, because apparently having the ability to swing back in melee means you're obligated to stand there and fight helpless screening units instead of ignoring them to deal with the real target.

Meanwhile you want AV14 Walkers with 24" assault ranges to tank shock through screening troop units and immediately murderize whatever they contact.

Here's an idea: take a melta bomb in the screening troops. For 5 points you prevent the walker from getting through, since you are now capable of damaging it. Your argument here is essentially "I don't want to have to pay points to upgrade my screening infantry to have the ability to damage vehicles, they should be able to stop vehicles even without anti-vehicle weapons".

Well, it's not anything worse than what Forgeworld might write.

Ah yes, the classic "blame FW rules" approach. Here's a hint: it wasn't FW that introduced scatter laser jetbikes, Riptides, invisible death stars, formations, etc.

Yes, because adding in a 5 Point Melta Bomb upgrade is going to cripple your list. /sarcasm

That's seriously all that's needed to stop literally ANY walker. And (following the suggestion to have hits on rear armor count, not just the front facing) a regular marine squad with krak grenades will hold up a knight.

 Peregrine wrote:
So what? Durability of light vehicles in general isn't the issue here.

Yes, it is. And so is the relative value and battlefield role of infantry and tanks. Every new unit, new weapon and and new rule introduced has an indirect effect on the utility of everything around it. So the more one unit is clearly superior to the alternatives, or tends to obsolete certain opposing forces, the less you see of them.

You mentioned a lot of meta-defining units trying to justify yourself, so you clearly understand this. Complex interactions require forethought or there are unintended consequences. But in arguing that we should not consider the consequences of tank-shocking walkers, you're abandoning internal/external balance completely because reasons. That's not a coherent position.

You absolutely need to think about Hormagaunts and Raiders and everything else. Not just cry that your expensive model is less of a superhero than you'd like, because it "it doesn't make sense". You know what? Boo hoo.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yes, because adding in a 5 Point Melta Bomb upgrade is going to cripple your list. /sarcasm

Dreads have been fighting S3 infantry since Rogue Trader. Adding a 5pt meltabomb will just be another stupid hoop to jump through in response to a poorly written rule, which will arbitrarily penalize units without easy access to S6+.

I am so unconvinced by all the appeals to irrelevant tangents. It really boils down to this.

Do screening tactics have a place in the game? If so, don't make that contingent on an upgrade.

If the rule works on rear armor, then you only need S4 for the vast majority of non-superheavy units. The only non-superheavy unit that, without buffs, that I can think of that requires S5 is a Wraithlord.

Yes, it makes guardsmen without grenades less effective, or Orks. And yes, that's an issue-but that's more an issue with the Codex than the rule. Orks and IG are pretty damn weak. Give their sergeants options for Melta Bombs (5 Points) or Krak Grenades (1, maybe 2 points) and suddenly your 62 point guard blob can now tie up a Knight.

I run a trio of Renegade Knights and Vraks zombies. Those zombies have been used to great effect, many many times.

Many many times, the problems they caused could have been easily handled if the opposing player bothered to treat them with any respect.

If you are playing orks, you have boyz. If you have boyz, you can screen your Stompa. If you screen your Stompa, you don't get tied down.

Further, if somehow Zombies do get under your Stompa, charge them with another unit of anything. Don't just "ignore the crappy zombies", but get mad when your stompa gets shut down for 5 turns.

Yoyoyo wrote:
AV10 open-topped can barely drive anywhere, they just get exploded and then kill the unit they're transporting. Hint, DE Raiders.

Meanwhile you want AV14 Walkers with 24" assault ranges to tank shock through screening troop units and immediately murderize whatever they contact.

Well, it's not anything worse than what Forgeworld might write.

I'm going to point something out that should be really obvious, but apparently you don't understand:
WALKERS CANNOT TANK SHOCK. Even if they could, Tank Shocking through a unit would still work, regardless of whether or not the walker could be locked in combat - This rule only effects the Assault Phase.

So what the hell are you on about? Those screening troops can keep on screening, no problem.

I like the idea. As Peregrine says - its kinda stupid that an AV10 vehicle can zip in and out of combat all day while the Walker must stop and swing for eternity.

In a similar vein, the "Our weapons are useless" rule has kind of the same effect for Fearless units. A unit of Berserkers can get tarpitted for the game by a walker they can't hurt, while a unit of normal CSM can potentially leave combat.

IMO it kind of brings up the silliness of 40k's "locked in combat" mechanics. It sucks that when I'm charging with a combat army, I need to try to win combat by just a small enough amount that I don't wipe the enemy out, so I can stay in for the next turn. It brings up silly tactics where I'll charge a Knight in to combat, Smash so I only cause one casualty, and stomp behind him so I don't kill anything more, just so don't have to weather another round of shooting.

IMO 40k would be better if ALL units had the option to leave during the movement phase of their turn... but combat units would need to be rebalanced so that speed-bump units weren't even more effective than they are now.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Not just cry that your expensive model is less of a superhero than you'd like, because it "it doesn't make sense". You know what? Boo hoo.

I don't own a single model that benefits from this proposal. My vehicles can already drive right through screening units, and my infantry are much more likely to be used as tarpits than to be victims of them. I still think it's stupid that units can be pinned down permanently by tarpit units that literally can not hurt them.

Do screening tactics have a place in the game? If so, don't make that contingent on an upgrade.

Do anti-tank tactics have a place in the game? If so, don't make that contingent on an upgrade, every model should have the ability to roll STR 8 AP 1 melta attacks.

What if we give everyone the ability to disengage from any other combat - it seems logical. And than cherry pick the units from which you can't disengage and grant them the "Our weapons are very useful" special rule.

 koooaei wrote:
What if we give everyone the ability to disengage from any other combat - it seems logical. And than cherry pick the units from which you can't disengage and grant them the "Our weapons are very useful" special rule.

Do you have anything to add to the discussion, or are you just going to keep making wisecracks that aren't really relevant?

Now, since there have been several things tossed about here, I'm going to put this here as a potential 'Full' version of the rules. Thoughts?

Their Weapons Are Useless:
When locked in combat, if your opponents models are completely incapable of damaging any unit you have locked in the same combat, (Because their Strength is too low to harm you and they lack any special rule which would allow them to, their WS has been reduced to 0, or any other reason,) then you may disengage those units from combat with no penalties at the end of the assault phase. (Note that if a model would normally be vulnerable, but has had its durability increased by a Psychic Power or any other means, then it may still disengage from combat.)

When you disengage, roll a d6.
On a 1, the model immediately suffers 1 wound with no saves of any kind allowed. Vehicles instead suffer a penetrating hit with no saves of any kind allowed.
On a 2-4, the model suffers 1 wound. Vehicles instead suffer a glancing hit.
On a 5-6, no effect.

They then disengage as normal, consolidating 2D6" away. If they cannot move away for any reason, (Such as models/terrain being in the way, or the consolidate move not being long enough to move them more than 1" from an enemy model) they instead remained locked in combat.


Walkers and Super-Heavy Walkers may only disengage if the enemy models cannot hurt the walker's rear armor.

Models may not use 'Their Weapons Are Useless' to disengage the combat if they charged the unit they are engaged with.


(That last caveat was to avoid players charging a weak unit, idling for a turn, then disengaging so they can't be shot at.)

EDIT: I'm also going to stop ignoring the trolls at this point. Hopefully they'll go away and we can actually discuss rule potential.

Why don't we say transporting a 200ft walking robot to the front stretches your logistical support to the level where you simply concede the game after deployment.

Also, why don't we say infantry with entrenching tools and concealed positions have better accuracy and defensive posture than the brillant tactical approach of riding a motorcycle across open terrain.

Waaaghpower wrote:
WALKERS CANNOT TANK SHOCK.

As pointed out, they should be able to. Why not, if it they can also leave combat at will?

After all, it's only logical!

Yoyoyo wrote:
Why don't we say transporting a 200ft walking robot to the front stretches your logistical support to the level where you simply concede the game after deployment.

Also, why don't we say infantry with entrenching tools and concealed positions have better accuracy and defensive posture than the brillant tactical approach of riding a motorcycle across open terrain.

Because some people are capable of discussing a particular proposed rule change without feeling obligated to simultaneously consider every single other problem with 40k. Whatever your opinions on other realism-related rule changes may be, they have nothing to do with this thread.

Waaaghpower wrote:
Thoughts?

I think you should consider how infantry should interact with walkers in a meaningful way, especially those units that can't buy cost-effective upgrades.

Imagine trying to stop a HF Dreadnought with Cultists in a 500pt game.

 Peregrine wrote:
Because some people are capable of discussing a particular proposed rule change without feeling obligated to simultaneously consider every single other problem with 40k.

Waagh's "damage on disengagement" mechanic on will strongly favor GMCs, who get not only a 3+ save on most occasions but also a FNP. Most vehicles won't get these saves, and in fact a Dread may suffer additional VDC results. So GMCs will disengage with impunity, Knights with near impunity, and Dreads will need to worry more. Correspondingly, this makes GMCs a much more competitive unit in relation to anything else, especially horde infantry who just received a serious nerf. So guess what you'll probably see more of in the meta?

But who knows, maybe this has nothing to do with this thread. Why consider every problem simultaneously, in fact why even consider at all.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Imagine trying to stop a HF Dreadnought with Cultists in a 500pt game.

Here's an idea: bring a 5-point melta bomb. Problem solved, for 1% of your points. If you refuse to take anti-vehicle weapons why should your cultists be effective against a vehicle?

Waagh's "damage on disengagement" mechanic on will strongly favor GMCs, who get not only a 3+ save on most occasions but also a FNP. Most vehicles won't get these saves, and in fact a Dread may suffer additional VDC results. So GMCs will disengage with impunity, Knights with near impunity, and Dreads will need to worry more. Correspondingly, this makes GMCs a much more competitive unit in relation to anything else, especially horde infantry who just received a serious nerf. So guess what you'll probably see more of in the meta?

And "damage on disengagement" is not the only version of the mechanic. IMO it should be a flat "units can not be locked in combat by any unit that can not hurt them", so the vehicle/MC just walks away without any penalty.