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.

So a 'thing' atm is tarpits. You take a cheap, high numbers unit and charge them at a big enemy threat, and force the enemy to waste their big-things attacks killing your tarpit who pose almost no threat to said big thing.
This is a bit silly imo.

I saw a similar suggestion a while ago about allowing a unit to simply leave combat if the enemy is incapable of attacking it.
But I have an (I feel) better suggestion, which borrows on a system you'll see in many RPGs.
During the movement phase, any of the controlling players units currently locked in combat may immediately leave combat, otherwise moving normally. However, immediately before the unit makes this move, any enemy units currently locked in the same combat may immediately attack that unit as if it were the assault phase, with the target unit counted as WS1. Each enemy unit may only attack once per movement phase in this manner. This will not affect how the enemy unit fights in the subsequent assault phase if it remains in combat with another unit, if it does not remain in combat it may then make a consolidation move. The controlling players unit which left combat in this manner cannot then assault in it's assault phase.
Furthermore, at the beginning of the fight sub phase, before challenges are issued, any of the controlling players units may immediately leave combat, and move as if it were the movement phase. Doing so in this manner does not prompt further attacks from enemy units, who will fight normally or consolidate as above.

This shouldn't step on Hit&Runs toes too much I feel, as that special rule allows you to fight then leave, this is a fight or leave type thing.
I contemplated bring initiative into at some point, perhaps in whether or not the unit gets struck at WS1? Perhaps could be an autohit if failed then?

The only problem is that there aren't that many tarpit targets left. The scary units you want to tarpit, even if they are only shooty, can still slaughter your tarpitting unit with ease. Case and point would be Wraithknights. They get to just stomp your guys to death :(

No. You're eliminating the strategy of the tarpit. If you don't like them, it is on you to bring weapons to kill them.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
...Furthermore, at the beginning of the fight sub phase, before challenges are issued, any of the controlling players units may immediately leave combat, and move as if it were the movement phase. Doing so in this manner does not prompt further attacks from enemy units, who will fight normally or consolidate as above. ...

If you want to delete the assault phase you could just say "I want to delete the assault phase" instead of writing an overly-complicated mechanism to let people prevent their units from ever being attacked in melee.

...I don't suppose you're a Tau player, by any chance?

How about you can disengage, but all your models die? Sounds fair to me.

Tarpits are necessary in the current game rules.

Sounds like cowardly grot thinkin' to me.

Don't touch the tarpit concept!!! It's a fundamental element of the game.

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:
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.

If tarpitting was never intended, why are there grots, ripper swarms, nurglings, conscripts, and scarabs?

 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.

But taking scatterbikes and WK in a list isn't exploiting game design? How about making the invincible death star that we are tarpitting to begin with?

This is outright superior to Hit and Run-it's guaranteed to work, and you suffer a round of hits anyway.

 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.

That's my thoughts on the matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
...Furthermore, at the beginning of the fight sub phase, before challenges are issued, any of the controlling players units may immediately leave combat, and move as if it were the movement phase. Doing so in this manner does not prompt further attacks from enemy units, who will fight normally or consolidate as above. ...

If you want to delete the assault phase you could just say "I want to delete the assault phase" instead of writing an overly-complicated mechanism to let people prevent their units from ever being attacked in melee.

...I don't suppose you're a Tau player, by any chance?

I'm a BA player actually.
You can only disengage in your own assualt phase. So an assault unit atm will charge, both sides attack as normal.
Then in the opponents turn he can either leave combat in the movement phase in order to shoot, but will get attacked in the back whilst they're in the process. Or not get stabbed in the back and leave in the assault phase. The unit that initially charged remained safe the entire enemy turn, and will be able to act again in it's next turn. Including shooting and assault again.

That's stupid. Sorry. That allows anything to shoot. Who cares about attacking Devastator Centurions when they'll just leave the next phase and shoot again.

You have no concept of game design if you think that is a good idea. At all.

I wont say this is the best implementation of the idea to give players an option to disengage from a melee. I had something similar I have been play testing for a rule set I am still (slowly) writing into book form called tactical retreats.

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.

I'm a Tau player, so my bias will be showing front and center. Yep. I am absolutely, totally biased in this.

That said, if my Tau really don't want to stick around smacking their pulse rifle butts against ceramite uselessly, they really should have some way of getting the hell outta dodge (even if they take grievous casualties in doing so). If my Riptide is getting overrun by gretchin, it really should be able to jet pack the heck outta there (with the same potential for grievous wounds).

Risking the loss of the entirety to get that result... well, that would very much be reasonable, and would make this a decision to use rather than a "of COURSE I'll do that, since I'd be taking a beating anyway" decision as envisioned by the OP. Make it a voluntary leadership test after any leadership tests, if any, for a loss in combat: if they succeed, they flee combat as normal, and the enemy gets to attempt a Sweeping Advance (if they could normally).

High Risk, High Reward. Hit & Run remains the far better option.

But again, I'm undoubtedly very biased in this.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
I'm a Tau player, so my bias will be showing front and center. Yep. I am absolutely, totally biased in this.

That said, if my Tau really don't want to stick around smacking their pulse rifle butts against ceramite uselessly, they really should have some way of getting the hell outta dodge (even if they take grievous casualties in doing so). If my Riptide is getting overrun by gretchin, it really should be able to jet pack the heck outta there (with the same potential for grievous wounds).

Risking the loss of the entirety to get that result... well, that would very much be reasonable, and would make this a decision to use rather than a "of COURSE I'll do that, since I'd be taking a beating anyway" decision as envisioned by the OP. Make it a voluntary leadership test after any leadership tests, if any, for a loss in combat: if they succeed, they flee combat as normal, and the enemy gets to attempt a Sweeping Advance (if they could normally).

High Risk, High Reward. Hit & Run remains the far better option.

But again, I'm undoubtedly very biased in this.

So you're suggesting that after the combat has been thought, a unit can choose to take another leadership test if they lost and if they pass route from combat exactly as if they had routed anyways?

In one way I hate tar pits but adversely I think big things should be supported by small things to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the first place. For instance my opponent was going to tar pit my allies knight in a 2v2 and I play guard so I saw what was going to happen and walked my armored sentinel over and charged the cultists, so now I have a cheap model to tarpit his intended tarpit. So in a way your rule could also help the tarpit your trying to kill.

Also I knew the ork pain mob formation was mediocre, but with such an addition it would be complete trash.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
I'm a Tau player, so my bias will be showing front and center. Yep. I am absolutely, totally biased in this.

That said, if my Tau really don't want to stick around smacking their pulse rifle butts against ceramite uselessly, they really should have some way of getting the hell outta dodge (even if they take grievous casualties in doing so). If my Riptide is getting overrun by gretchin, it really should be able to jet pack the heck outta there (with the same potential for grievous wounds).

Risking the loss of the entirety to get that result... well, that would very much be reasonable, and would make this a decision to use rather than a "of COURSE I'll do that, since I'd be taking a beating anyway" decision as envisioned by the OP. Make it a voluntary leadership test after any leadership tests, if any, for a loss in combat: if they succeed, they flee combat as normal, and the enemy gets to attempt a Sweeping Advance (if they could normally).

High Risk, High Reward. Hit & Run remains the far better option.

But again, I'm undoubtedly very biased in this.

So you're suggesting that after the combat has been thought, a unit can choose to take another leadership test if they lost and if they pass route from combat exactly as if they had routed anyways?

Almost. It wouldn't matter under my proposal whether they happened to win or lose the combat - if by a fluke of absurdity my Fire Warriors managed to tie or win combat against a charging SM squad, my Fire Warriors would still be able to take that Leadership test.

But yes, it would involve a voluntary route. When my Cadre makes a Kauyon maneuver, the "bait" unit needs to actually be able to do their job - whether that involves a small sacrifice (a few casualties from the actual combat) or a large sacrifice (the entire unit from Sweeping Advance) will depend on the luck, skill, and initiative of the "bait".

Edit: If you prefer the more nuanced approach in your OP (and it would make a bit more sense for a large unit disengaging from a single enemy model and getting completely wiped on a single failed opposed initiative check), I would still suggest some sort of Leadership check for the unit disengaging to represent the chaos and unit cohesion required to pull of that sort of disengagement maneuver - otherwise, it really does step too much on Hit & Run's toes, mechanically and thematically.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
I'm a Tau player, so my bias will be showing front and center. Yep. I am absolutely, totally biased in this.

That said, if my Tau really don't want to stick around smacking their pulse rifle butts against ceramite uselessly, they really should have some way of getting the hell outta dodge (even if they take grievous casualties in doing so). If my Riptide is getting overrun by gretchin, it really should be able to jet pack the heck outta there (with the same potential for grievous wounds).

Risking the loss of the entirety to get that result... well, that would very much be reasonable, and would make this a decision to use rather than a "of COURSE I'll do that, since I'd be taking a beating anyway" decision as envisioned by the OP. Make it a voluntary leadership test after any leadership tests, if any, for a loss in combat: if they succeed, they flee combat as normal, and the enemy gets to attempt a Sweeping Advance (if they could normally).

High Risk, High Reward. Hit & Run remains the far better option.

But again, I'm undoubtedly very biased in this.

So you're suggesting that after the combat has been thought, a unit can choose to take another leadership test if they lost and if they pass route from combat exactly as if they had routed anyways?

Almost. It wouldn't matter under my proposal whether they happened to win or lose the combat - if by a fluke of absurdity my Fire Warriors managed to tie or win combat against a charging SM squad, my Fire Warriors would still be able to take that Leadership test.

But yes, it would involve a voluntary route. When my Cadre makes a Kauyon maneuver, the "bait" unit needs to actually be able to do their job - whether that involves a small sacrifice (a few casualties from the actual combat) or a large sacrifice (the entire unit from Sweeping Advance) will depend on the luck, skill, and initiative of the "bait".

That could be interesting, but my issue with that is that it still means really tough units are pinned it, it allows things like Firewarriors, Astartes or walkers to GTFO without too much issue (because you can't sweep walkers or Astartes, and your Firewarriors are dead anyway) but it would mean something like a Chaos Space Marine Terminator unit would still be at extreme risk of being pulled apart by a few Grots. Which is what I wanted to avoid.

Yeah, I can understand that. That's probably my bias showing.

See my edited response above - your approach is more nuanced and makes more sense in certain ways, but as it is presented, it seems a bit too powerful and steps too much on Hit & Run's toes.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Yeah, I can understand that. That's probably my bias showing.

See my edited response above - your approach is more nuanced and makes more sense in certain ways, but as it is presented, it seems a bit too powerful and steps too much on Hit & Run's toes.

Powerful to whom?
Does it allow guys to leave combat too easily? Or does it punish them too hard?

Tarpit is a necessary tactic beacuse some armies have grav, D weapons, wulfen & thunderwolves, s5-6-7 spam with high AB and maybe Ignores cover too, a lot of wounds, FNP and invulns... and many other armies don't.

Some armies can field riptides for 200ish points or WK for 300 and some other ones field mork/gorkanaut for 300 points.

It's not a matter of core rules, it's a matter of unbalanced codexes. There are some units that are simply too powerful to deal with, unless you tarpit them with expendables units or force them to assault some expendable units if they're melee deathstars.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Yeah, I can understand that. That's probably my bias showing.

See my edited response above - your approach is more nuanced and makes more sense in certain ways, but as it is presented, it seems a bit too powerful and steps too much on Hit & Run's toes.

Powerful to whom?
Does it allow guys to leave combat too easily? Or does it punish them too hard?

The former. As much as I dislike tarpitting (biased!), there are tactical elements to it that would be missed if avoiding that didn't have serious repercussions.

Instead of WS 1, you could make them automatic hits, for example. Disengaging from Orks, Gaunts, and the like would be duly punishing at that point, I'd say.

I'm mostly for this - I'm not down with the Leadership test though.
Counter proposal - Starting with your first turn after the assault you can escape the melee by rolling a 7+, add +1 to your roll at the end of each assault phase, starting with yours. If it genuinly is a tar-pit your stuff should survive two turns to start trying.

 Lance845 wrote:
I wont say this is the best implementation of the idea to give players an option to disengage from a melee. I had something similar I have been play testing for a rule set I am still (slowly) writing into book form called tactical retreats.

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.

Did you know that Tarpitting a strong ennemy unit in close combat to manoeuvre against weaker troops and, ultimately, collapse a battleline is an actual real life strategy? It was famously used by Alexandre the Great to slow down the Persian elite infantrie while he charged and scatterred their auxiliaries. Then, the Persian whould be forced to retreat to avoid being surrounded. Why should a legitimate strategy be removed from a war game?

Plus hordes army like Guards, Tyranid and Orks are bound to employ a form of tarpit at some point or another. It's an inherant part of their design.

I think removing tarpits means you don't actually have to do any thinking with your deathstar. With tarpits you have to consider deployment, movement, and position carefully. But that stuff is too hard I guess.

Speaking as the guy who proposed that last rule... This is too strong. Tarpits ARE a core part of the game. My problem with them is that they're often either too weak to be useful or way to strong. (Zombies with a speed boost vs... Well, anything else, really.)

epronovost wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I wont say this is the best implementation of the idea to give players an option to disengage from a melee. I had something similar I have been play testing for a rule set I am still (slowly) writing into book form called tactical retreats.

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.

Did you know that Tarpitting a strong ennemy unit in close combat to manoeuvre against weaker troops and, ultimately, collapse a battleline is an actual real life strategy? It was famously used by Alexandre the Great to slow down the Persian elite infantrie while he charged and scatterred their auxiliaries. Then, the Persian whould be forced to retreat to avoid being surrounded. Why should a legitimate strategy be removed from a war game?

Plus hordes army like Guards, Tyranid and Orks are bound to employ a form of tarpit at some point or another. It's an inherant part of their design.

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.

And who says we want to represent real world tactics?

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
And who says we want to represent real world tactics?

Apparently Apronovost since hes defending the use of tarpitting based on real world tactics.