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.

Martel732 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

If you're worried about tarpits do something about the tarpit units instead of making a broad sweeping change to the game to make assault units/armies just that much worse across the board.

Tarpitting is not what assault units/armies should be doing. If I were playing an assault army/unit and one of the core tools in my tool box was tieing up an enemy unit with my unit to negate them both from the rest of the game I would be pissed. You should be killing things. Not just holding them there.

It's the best you can do vs immortal units of any kind.

You are in the part of the forum about proposing alternative rules to fix the game. Try to take into account that any one rule a thread is about is addressing one facet of the many problems with the game. Arguing against a solution to a problem because it's the current answer for another problem is not productive in ANY WAY.

No crap it's all you have right now. So? Most of whats wrong with the game is an answer to some other problem. It's most of why the power creep exists to the extent it does. In the magical world where assault is balanced against shooting and there is no such thing as an immortal unit, shouldn't people be able to attempt to leave an assault at a risk?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

You're the one who wants to 'fix tarpits' by nerfing all melee units.

False. I am the one who wants to see all melee units made balanced.

I think you should be able to charge from deepstrike, disembark, infiltrate, scout, and run. I think sweeping advances should be made into a number of wounds with no saves/fnp and such allowed. I also think people should be able to shoot into melee with any to hit roll of 1 hitting friendly models instead and everyone getting a 4+ cover save for being in the thick of things. I think WS should work like BS instead of a comparative chart. That means a bunch of redoing every units WS but also means some units will be capable of hitting on 2+ and certain wargear/psychic powers could provide +1 to WS buffs that actually make a difference. It takes a lot of changes to bring melee into a nice balanced place where they are super useful and effective without needing a bunch of band aid drastic effects to "keep them in line".

Assault needs more freedom to do it's thing. The only way you get that is if you take away their blanket immunity and full unit instant death that nothing else in the game has any way of doing.

Build it from the ground up. If shooting is capable of x y z. Then assault should be equivalent.

40ks assaults are the result of years of bouncing back and forth between being too powerful and then slapping on some nerfs, and then getting too powerful when they get some buffs and then slapping back on some nerfs. Half of the assault rules are some kind of answer to attempt to balance out some other rule that is an answer to some other rule... it's nonsense.

 Lance845 wrote:


False. I am the one who wants to see all melee units made balanced.

I think you should be able to charge from deepstrike, disembark, infiltrate, scout, and run. I think sweeping advances should be made into a number of wounds with no saves/fnp and such allowed. I also think people should be able to shoot into melee with any to hit roll of 1 hitting friendly models instead and everyone getting a 4+ cover save for being in the thick of things. I think WS should work like BS instead of a comparative chart. That means a bunch of redoing every units WS but also means some units will be capable of hitting on 2+ and certain wargear/psychic powers could provide +1 to WS buffs that actually make a difference. It takes a lot of changes to bring melee into a nice balanced place where they are super useful and effective without needing a bunch of band aid drastic effects to "keep them in line".

Assault needs more freedom to do it's thing. The only way you get that is if you take away their blanket immunity and full unit instant death that nothing else in the game has any way of doing.

Build it from the ground up. If shooting is capable of x y z. Then assault should be equivalent.

40ks assaults are the result of years of bouncing back and forth between being too powerful and then slapping on some nerfs, and then getting too powerful when they get some buffs and then slapping back on some nerfs. Half of the assault rules are some kind of answer to attempt to balance out some other rule that is an answer to some other rule... it's nonsense.

I don't think you should be able to assault 1st player turn from infiltrate or scout. There is nothing the player can do, at least when infiltrate is concerned. Since you always deploy 18'' away even in the open, you can't simply deploy further back.
Agree on the rest though. I think they should perhaps make more use of disordered charges.

I think shooting into melee should be more disastrous than a 1/6 chance of hitting a friendly. It should be more like after to-hits are made but before to-wound rolls, randomise which unit involved that specific hit hits.
In a 1v1 combat that would be roll a dice, 4+ hits the enemy for example.

I would rather BS also used a comparative chart, with the WS compartive chart making more sense (more similar to the to-wound chart).
I would like an 'evasion stat' which is how difficult a unit is to hit at range, have cover saves affect this stat. Give armoured units a reason to hide in cover, and give low armour saves a reason.
Give us a save modifier rather than the current (imo stupid) 'all or nothing' AP system.

I have to agree though, almost all the games are issues are a result of knee-jerk not-thought-out fixes to other broken things, always keeping the current OP as the baseline.

If you are both capable of shooting into a melee AND able to attempt to leave it at will at the end of any assault phase then there is no reason why melee should not be able to charge on turn 1. It's exactly the same as shooting armies shooting their guns on turn 1.

If assault is going to be made equivalent and balanced these arbitrary restrictions need to go.

 Lance845 wrote:
If you are both capable of shooting into a melee AND able to attempt to leave it at will at the end of any assault phase then there is no reason why melee should not be able to charge on turn 1. It's exactly the same as shooting armies shooting their guns on turn 1.

If assault is going to be made equivalent and balanced these arbitrary restrictions need to go.

Fair point.
Most of the shooting armies can shoot just as well in the assault phase anyway.

Most of the units you actually want to use a tar pit strategy are already getting a buff to avoid this. Some of the larger super heavy walkers can simply just walk out of combat during their next movement phase.

Also, some other games have a similar rule that allows a unit in melee to simply disengage but it comes at a price. For example, last time I played Warmachine/hordes which was the last edition of the game, you could move out of melee range, but it costed you. Not only movement action, but it also gave your opponent an out of turn melee attack against you.

 Glitcha wrote:
Most of the units you actually want to use a tar pit strategy are already getting a buff to avoid this. Some of the larger super heavy walkers can simply just walk out of combat during their next movement phase.

Also, some other games have a similar rule that allows a unit in melee to simply disengage but it comes at a price. For example, last time I played Warmachine/hordes which was the last edition of the game, you could move out of melee range, but it costed you. Not only movement action, but it also gave your opponent an out of turn melee attack against you.

Do "most units" include:
Wraithguard?
SM deathstars like [MOD EDIT - Language! Alpharius]?
Tau or IG gunlines?
Any unit without one of Hit & Run, Stomp, or enough melee attacks to kill a tarpit fast?
Most units don't have a good way out of a tarpit save killing it or having a melee squad ready to charge in/soak the tarpit first. Wraithknights aren't the only thing getting tarpitted.

Not a WarmaHordes expert by any means, but just because other games allow it doesn't change the fact that tarpitting is a key strategic concern/tactic in 40K. Citing other games out-of-context isn't helpful. Advanced Squad Leader allows out-of-turn fire at visible targets plus two different types of "overwatch" with a greater risk if you use the second (if I remember the rules; it's been a long time). Those rules fit both a reality check and the demands of ASL, but don't mesh with 40K mechanics.

If I don't have to have screeners or melee units to protect my gunlines, knowing that I can run away from melee and keep shooting at the cost of a fnew unanswered attacks, then I'll take my lumps and just buy more shooty models. Then after I lose a few gunners to your out-of-turn melee attacks, my retreating squad plus the full strength one I bought with the points I saved will blow the snot out of your melee guys.

Or when my SM [MOD EDIT - Language! Alpharius] dearhstar peels away from your tarpit, have your guys roll all the free attacks they want; without hardcore melee units on your side I'll gladly tank all those hits on my 2++/FNP 2+ saves (or your Guardian squad's negligible melee attacks on my T5 3+ bike marines or whatever silly deathstar I've got).

What is the real gameplay issue with tarpitting? I hear people saying it's exploiting game rules and requiring armies to waste points in anti-tarpit units. But there's a reason why your IG/Tau/whatever low-WS troops are cheap. If there's not a real penalty - far more than a round of free attacks - for running away from melee, why bother buying melee units at all when you can just put more guns on the field?

And exploiting poor game rules? They're unrealistic? Didn't the Soviets save Stalingrad by basically tarpitting the Germans with human waves of raw conscripts? Or, from a gameplay perspective, a game with melee and shooting is deeper and more interesting than only shooting, and a game that allows asymmetric counters has greater depth than one that doesn't.

In reality this rule is always suggested by someone that wants to point and click their big models or units without any consequences.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
In reality this rule is always suggested by someone that wants to point and click their big models or units without any consequences.

In reality I have no big models to point and click and I suggest this rule all the time. Nids player. I would be the tar-pit-er not the tar-pit-ee.

Broad dismissive statements that pretend the other side have no valid points don't help the discussion at all.

 Lance845 wrote:
Broad dismissive statements that pretend the other side have no valid points don't help the discussion at all.

Really? Really? Really?

 Lance845 wrote:
Tarpitting is not what assault units/armies should be doing. If I were playing an assault army/unit and one of the core tools in my tool box was tieing up an enemy unit with my unit to negate them both from the rest of the game I would be pissed. You should be killing things. Not just holding them there.

 Lance845 wrote:
Tarpit isn't a real strategy. It's an exploitation of the poor game design to create an easy way to force the enemy to waste points. The game would be better without it.

 Lance845 wrote:
But regardless of the merits of the exact mechanics of this proposed rule tar-pitting is still crap. Nobody should be looking for a game design that promotes negating paid for units by bogging them down into uselessness instead of actually playing the game.

 Lance845 wrote:
Tar pitting in 40k is not about engaging a unit in a slog of a fight. It's about placing them into an inescapable one that negates their presence on the field.

Really?


Before addressing your points in detail, let me simply ask: what is the problem that removing tarpitting would address? If your total argument boils down to (a) tarpitting isn't realistic, (b) tarpitting makes melee too good [and I don't see a lot of melee changes you suggest that would make up for their targets getting to run away and shoot them], and (c) tarpitting doesn't mean Hit and Run units lose a lot of utility and uniqueness, that's fine. But obviously, many people don't think any of these arguments is strong enough to remove tarpitting from the game, considering its effectiveness against deathstars, its utility as a counterbalance to gunlines, and the depth of strategy (listbuilding) and tactics (positioning and movement on the battlefield). Is requiring deathstar/gunline players to think about how to protect their units to avoid tarpitting a problem? Is getting players to come up with solutions to blunt deathstar/gunline units a problem? Frankly, having deathstar vs. deathstar battles seems a bit less interesting than combined arms actions requiring positioning and strategy.

 Lance845 wrote:
Because in that real world situation the Persian elite infantry could break off from the engagement to prevent themselves from being surrounded. Tar pitting in 40k is not about engaging a unit in a slog of a fight. It's about placing them into an inescapable one that negates their presence on the field. If you want it to represent a real world tactic then it should act like a real world tactic.

But it has worked in the real world. Not just in the example given, but pike/polearm-equipped levies in the Middle Ages, non-missile auxiliaries in many pre-gunpowder armies, even the defense of Stalingrad. Though that wasn't a hand-to-hand conflict (for the most part), the Soviets threw human waves of cheap, mostly ineffective infantry at the Germans with the idea that it was worth sacrificing those conscripts to blunt the German advance -- tarpitting by tying up expensive units with masses of cheap ones. Or the realism of being locked in combat -- wasn't 19th Century infantry forming square a tactic that was very successful? It required cavalry to alter their movement to avoid getting trapped against guys with bayonets, and if cavalry attacked a square they weren't able to just run away offering only one free strike at their back out-of-turn-sequence. They would be trapped in combat and attempts to escape without fighting back would inflict grievous wounds if not being rendered combat ineffective by casualties or demoralization.

 Lance845 wrote:
30 Hormagaunts bogging down your Imperial Knight? Attempt to disengage. If the Hormagaunts win the test your knight might loose some hull points. Might even die if you have some real unlucky rolls.

An Imperial Knight has Front Armor 13 (assault against non-immobilized walkers resolves against Front armor and this Walker isn't immobilized if it can run away). Hormagaunts have S4 on the charge (Furious Charge) and Poisoned attacks, which do nothing extra against AV. And in any case, 30 Hormagaunts with Adrenal Sacs and Toxin Sacs cost 300 points while a Knight Gallant costs 325, so it's not just a few cheap points tying up a super-expensive unit -- it's not even tarpitting! The same applies to most infantry units in the game tying up your Knight. Wraithblades with dual Ghostswords can't even glance. There's no penalty whatsoever for the Knight to leave combat. Or, for a non-Knight target, 30 Hormagaunts attacking a rerollable invulnerable 2+ save/FNP 2+++ Iron Hands character? Sure, I'll run away and suffer all those attacks; you'd need 432 charging Hormagaunts to inflict a single wound on average (but a mere 216 if the IC becomes WS 1 when running away).

 Lance845 wrote:
Melee is no longer able to wipe a 20 wound unit out with a single wound (ridiculously powerful for no good reason), hit and run is still good...

If a 20 wound unit suffers a single wound, to get swept they themselves must inflict none. In this highly unlikely scenario, it's reasonable that a 20 man unit losing a round of combat in which they (1) failed to inflict any damage whatsover, (2) failed a morale check, and (3) failed the Initiative check to fall back in good order would indeed break and run from the battlefield in full. Indeed, in pre-gunpowder battles, troops who fled once locked in combat often would suffer relatively few casualties until they broke and ran, whereupon they'd get cut to pieces and the survivors would quit the battlefield. Sweeping Advance doesn't mean all 19 of the remaining models die. Per the BRB, they are

caught by the Sweeping Advance and destroyed. We assume that the already demoralised foe is comprehensively scattered, ripped apart or otherwise sent packing so demoralised that they won’t return; its members are left either dead, wounded and captured, or at best, fleeing and hiding. The destroyed unit is immediately removed as casualties.

::Cracks Knuckles::

Eldar Shortseer wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Broad dismissive statements that pretend the other side have no valid points don't help the discussion at all.

Really? Really? Really?

 Lance845 wrote:
Tarpitting is not what assault units/armies should be doing. If I were playing an assault army/unit and one of the core tools in my tool box was tieing up an enemy unit with my unit to negate them both from the rest of the game I would be pissed. You should be killing things. Not just holding them there.

 Lance845 wrote:
Tarpit isn't a real strategy. It's an exploitation of the poor game design to create an easy way to force the enemy to waste points. The game would be better without it.

 Lance845 wrote:
But regardless of the merits of the exact mechanics of this proposed rule tar-pitting is still crap. Nobody should be looking for a game design that promotes negating paid for units by bogging them down into uselessness instead of actually playing the game.

 Lance845 wrote:
Tar pitting in 40k is not about engaging a unit in a slog of a fight. It's about placing them into an inescapable one that negates their presence on the field.

Really?

Yes. Really. You see, the statements you quoted didn't just ASSUME anything about a entire group of players and their motivations. I did not make broad dismissive statements. Every quote you have above is a statement on the rules themselves and how I think the game would be better. Having studied game design and having designed a few games myself (nothing commercial just things I have playtested amongst friends and family and my LGS), I feel that I have a pretty strong grasp on concepts like emergent game play, the ways different disconnected systems and mechanics interact, and the game play experience that they create.

If you are trying to make a point by saying "REALLY!?" you might want to actually have a point.

Before addressing your points in detail, let me simply ask: what is the problem that removing tarpitting would address? If your total argument boils down to (a) tarpitting isn't realistic, (b) tarpitting makes melee too good [and I don't see a lot of melee changes you suggest that would make up for their targets getting to run away and shoot them], and (c) tarpitting doesn't mean Hit and Run units lose a lot of utility and uniqueness, that's fine.

Actually a, b, and c are none of my arguments. I didn't bring up realism. Someone else did and I answered it. My issue with tarpitting is that it's a bad mechanic that promotes bad game play. It's the equivalent of having SiTW make it so psychers don't generate any warp charges when effected. It's not interesting and it negates gameplay elements flat out, mechanically, instead of creating interesting game play. It's not fun to completely shut down options. It is interesting to make options higher risk. In the SiTW example I have often suggested that shadow make it so psykers only harness warp charges on a 5+ instead of 4+. That small mechanical change makes it so that in order to reliably cast powers they need more warp charges which in turn ups the chance for perils, combined with the leadership penalty that exists with SiTW it becomes a higher risk. One options means the warp charges are gone and potentially the enemy has no warp charges and an entire option bought and paid for negated while the model still exists. With the option I suggest the psyker can still manifest powers. They can even do it with the same dice they would have before. But their chance for success has decreased and the risk has thus increased. That is interesting. Interesting game play is more fun.

Tarpitting allows a unit to negate another unit. Not because they beat it. Not because there were any tactics. They just piled in bodies and removed it from the rest of the game. That is a crap mechanic.

But obviously, many people don't think any of these arguments is strong enough to remove tarpitting from the game, considering its effectiveness against deathstars, its utility as a counterbalance to gunlines, and the depth of strategy (listbuilding) and tactics (positioning and movement on the battlefield). Is requiring deathstar/gunline players to think about how to protect their units to avoid tarpitting a problem? Is getting players to come up with solutions to blunt deathstar/gunline units a problem? Frankly, having deathstar vs. deathstar battles seems a bit less interesting than combined arms actions requiring positioning and strategy.

You point towards other problems in the game that tarpitting is an answer to an act like it's good that those other problems exist. Deathstars should be going away. If melee could charge out of delivery options (like disembarking/deepstriking) then gunlines would be at much higher risk. The reason gunslines and shooting is so powerful in 7th (well... ONE of the reasons) is assault has to stand around and wait for a turn before they can do anything. They have to weather a storm of shots and then get overwatched before they can do anything. I would rather assault just get to assault. I would also rather that Overwatch be a tactical choice instead of something you just get to do. Hitting on 6+ means you mostly do nothing. It would be far more interesting to have units move and then give up their shooting on their turn to enter overwatch and be able to shoot on the enemies turn (probably at half range but full BS). Now those gun lines need to hold back shots to protect themselves from the assault units. On turn 2 do you fire for full effect on your turn or hold a unit or 2 in reserve on overwatch in case some deepstrikers enter the back field? It's a risk either way. Wasted damage potential or risk no defense against the deep strikers. Basically... the whole game is a big fething mess.

 Lance845 wrote:
Because in that real world situation the Persian elite infantry could break off from the engagement to prevent themselves from being surrounded. Tar pitting in 40k is not about engaging a unit in a slog of a fight. It's about placing them into an inescapable one that negates their presence on the field. If you want it to represent a real world tactic then it should act like a real world tactic.

But it has worked in the real world. Not just in the example given, but pike/polearm-equipped levies in the Middle Ages, non-missile auxiliaries in many pre-gunpowder armies, even the defense of Stalingrad. Though that wasn't a hand-to-hand conflict (for the most part), the Soviets threw human waves of cheap, mostly ineffective infantry at the Germans with the idea that it was worth sacrificing those conscripts to blunt the German advance -- tarpitting by tying up expensive units with masses of cheap ones. Or the realism of being locked in combat -- wasn't 19th Century infantry forming square a tactic that was very successful? It required cavalry to alter their movement to avoid getting trapped against guys with bayonets, and if cavalry attacked a square they weren't able to just run away offering only one free strike at their back out-of-turn-sequence. They would be trapped in combat and attempts to escape without fighting back would inflict grievous wounds if not being rendered combat ineffective by casualties or demoralization.

Besides me not actually caring about realism in a game with so little realism to begin with in the examples you give the enemy is actually dieing, wasting resources like bullets and food, and otherwise actually being injured by the "tarpit". That does not happen in 40k. In 40k the hoard of hormagaunts do not injure and weaken the dreadnaught. They simply hold it in place. The "calvary" are not at risk of being surrounded by "bayonets" and being cut down. But if that dreadnaught tried to leave and as a result could suffer a number of wounds that could not be negated by any means? Well that better represents the calvary trying to get out of that blob and being cut down then the current mechanics do.

Also... more interesting and fun.

 Lance845 wrote:
30 Hormagaunts bogging down your Imperial Knight? Attempt to disengage. If the Hormagaunts win the test your knight might loose some hull points. Might even die if you have some real unlucky rolls.

An Imperial Knight has Front Armor 13 (assault against non-immobilized walkers resolves against Front armor and this Walker isn't immobilized if it can run away). Hormagaunts have S4 on the charge (Furious Charge) and Poisoned attacks, which do nothing extra against AV. And in any case, 30 Hormagaunts with Adrenal Sacs and Toxin Sacs cost 300 points while a Knight Gallant costs 325, so it's not just a few cheap points tying up a super-expensive unit -- it's not even tarpitting! The same applies to most infantry units in the game tying up your Knight. Wraithblades with dual Ghostswords can't even glance. There's no penalty whatsoever for the Knight to leave combat. Or, for a non-Knight target, 30 Hormagaunts attacking a rerollable invulnerable 2+ save/FNP 2+++ Iron Hands character? Sure, I'll run away and suffer all those attacks; you'd need 432 charging Hormagaunts to inflict a single wound on average (but a mere 216 if the IC becomes WS 1 when running away).

This proves both my point and that you didn't understand my suggestion. In my suggestion the knight would suffer a number of wounds equal to the difference of the rolls with no way to negate them by any means. AV and str doesn't apply. Str vs T doesn't apply. The regular rules for combat don't apply. It's simple and strait forward. If you want to risk breaking out, then you risk being over run.

 Lance845 wrote:
Melee is no longer able to wipe a 20 wound unit out with a single wound (ridiculously powerful for no good reason), hit and run is still good...

If a 20 wound unit suffers a single wound, to get swept they themselves must inflict none. In this highly unlikely scenario, it's reasonable that a 20 man unit losing a round of combat in which they (1) failed to inflict any damage whatsover, (2) failed a morale check, and (3) failed the Initiative check to fall back in good order would indeed break and run from the battlefield in full. Indeed, in pre-gunpowder battles, troops who fled once locked in combat often would suffer relatively few casualties until they broke and ran, whereupon they'd get cut to pieces and the survivors would quit the battlefield. Sweeping Advance doesn't mean all 19 of the remaining models die. Per the BRB, they are

caught by the Sweeping Advance and destroyed. We assume that the already demoralised foe is comprehensively scattered, ripped apart or otherwise sent packing so demoralised that they won’t return; its members are left either dead, wounded and captured, or at best, fleeing and hiding. The destroyed unit is immediately removed as casualties.

And again, this isn't about the reality of any of it. It's about the mechanics and game play. Running off the board should remove whole units. Running and being overrun should cause losses. But until that unit is gone it should have a chance to recoup and come back. Nothing else in the game can cause so much damage flat out. I know how the BRB explains it. Not relevant. The game is mostly bad and how they explain their bad mechanics doesn't make them good.

I know this is not exactly what the OP was referring to.

But we are currently play testing 1 turn assaults,( as part of a new simultaneous action game turn.)

Basically both players make attacks in the assault , then after both sides have made their attacks the assault is resolved .

The winner of the assault may act normally next turn.
Unless the winning unit falls below half starting strength.In which case the unit may not launch assaults next turn, and needs to pass a LD test before launching subsequent assaults.

The loser of the assault has to withdraw, (compulsory move) away from the winner of the assault .They can only move, OR fire counting as having moved next turn.
Unless the loser has fallen below half starting strength.In this case the loosing unit routes from winner of the assault ,(Compulsory double move.)
A routing unit will continue to route unless rallied.

So far this seems to make assault faster and more fluid.

So the OP is a suggestion from the 2nd edition rules of 40k.

this has been done and it is very nasty to the fleeing troops. It is almost unheard of any living. But 2nd edition was such a bloodbath in hth you only need a round or 2 to wipe the opponents.

Tarpits concept could be useful vs mega chaos characters in 2nd edition but 1 full round would require 12 dead peons to keep the Megatoon in place....obviously the tarpit would have to be extremely cheap to make it worth while.

From what I remember in 3rd edition....I think all assault phases should be 1 round and the loser falls back to regroup for a 2nd try. How many times did the stories say a heroic group held on for wave after wave of the enemy.

Ill have to learn what hth is since 4th edition to give more advice.