Switch Theme:

Disengaging from melee  [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 it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

Tarpitting in 40k is not realistic at all, maybe the concept is, but not how it actually works in this game.

IMHO it's a good concept, I hate no brainer units that stay where they are the entire game and do nothing else than shooting or invincible deathstars that advance and melt everything they touch.

A smart player should know how to deal with tarpitting units. If a precious unit is tarpitted for long the controlling player needs more practise or to rewrite his/her list with a more TAC approach.

The idea of a 30 points deffkopta that tarpits a unit of grav centurions/devastators is amazing, if it happens everytime the SM player should learn how to protect his/her units.

Force a thunderwolves deathstar to assault a 35 points empty trukk or min unit of gretchin is actually a good tactic, not a bad game design.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/27 10:15:35


 
   
Made in gb
Battleship Captain





Bristol (UK)

I had considered making the attacks an automatic hit but thought that didn't make as much sense. So I went with WS1 instead.
I do like the idea of requiring a leadership teat first to disengage though.

One problem with tarpitting is that they can make few, strong attack melee units irrelevant, such as Walkers. Because that long thin layer of guardsmen infront of their tanks or what-have-you is going to take an entire game to smash through whilst posing zero real threat.
   
Made in us
Ragin' Ork Dreadnought




 kirotheavenger wrote:
I had considered making the attacks an automatic hit but thought that didn't make as much sense. So I went with WS1 instead.
I do like the idea of requiring a leadership teat first to disengage though.

One problem with tarpitting is that they can make few, strong attack melee units irrelevant, such as Walkers. Because that long thin layer of guardsmen infront of their tanks or what-have-you is going to take an entire game to smash through whilst posing zero real threat.

Going by the internal logic of the game, though, running away from a fight should be the same whether you're doing it intentionally or fleeing out of fear. In-game, when you get routed or declare that your weapons are useless, you have good odds of being completely eliminated.

Let's put it this way: When you turn to run, you're not just 'not parrying their attacks'. You are looking away from the enemy, exposing the weak areas of your armor, remaining oblivious to their attacks, and letting them stab you in the back.


Also, in the case of your Long, Thin Line of Guardsmen, that's actually easy. Attack at one far end or the other, and they'll be forced to consolidate towards you, sweeping the entire unit into a cluster in a couple of assault phases.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 kirotheavenger wrote:
...One problem with tarpitting is that they can make few, strong attack melee units irrelevant, such as Walkers. Because that long thin layer of guardsmen infront of their tanks or what-have-you is going to take an entire game to smash through whilst posing zero real threat.


...Soooo...don't charge with the walker. There exists a thing in this game called a 'flamer' that happens to be fitted on a lot of melee walkers precisely to do something about long thin lines of Guardsmen. Or don't send units with a few strong attacks into fights with tarpits by themselves, send in a unit with more attacks as backup.

You want to avoid your Dreadnaughts getting tarpitted? Use the flamers. Keep some Assault Marines or Death Company around to dig them out. Why do you need to change the rulebook when the solution exists in the current game?

(Addendum: Yes, there are tarpits that are just stupid (e.g. Necron Wraiths), but they're problematic because the unit is too cheap and too tough, not because the concept of tarpitting is somehow flawed.)

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in gb
Battleship Captain





Bristol (UK)

I've never viewed a sweeping advance as the unit getting physically cut down to a man, because it just isn't practical that your 1 guy cuts down a dozen or so enemy.
I've always viewed it as a total route, the unit turns and flees in a panic, discarding weapons and equipment in order to GTFO faster. The pursueing unit kills a few of the stragglers just to make sure that unit knows what's up. This is more like real battles and is a lot more plausible that a single man get sweep dozens of enemy models.
Therefore, I don't think those rules are applicable to a unit that is just pulling out.

Perhaps you could require a leadership test in order to withdraw, if the test is failed, the unit ends up fleeing combat as normal including sweeping advances, if the test is passed, the withdraw under my initially proposed rules.
   
Made in us
Ragin' Ork Dreadnought




 kirotheavenger wrote:
I've never viewed a sweeping advance as the unit getting physically cut down to a man, because it just isn't practical that your 1 guy cuts down a dozen or so enemy.
I've always viewed it as a total route, the unit turns and flees in a panic, discarding weapons and equipment in order to GTFO faster. The pursueing unit kills a few of the stragglers just to make sure that unit knows what's up. This is more like real battles and is a lot more plausible that a single man get sweep dozens of enemy models.
Therefore, I don't think those rules are applicable to a unit that is just pulling out.

Perhaps you could require a leadership test in order to withdraw, if the test is failed, the unit ends up fleeing combat as normal including sweeping advances, if the test is passed, the withdraw under my initially proposed rules.

Anything that requires a Leadership test is usually kind of moot. Most armies in the game who would benefit from being able to disengage from combat have high Leadership, and many have Fearless or ATSKNF or some other equivalent rule.
If you have Ld8 (Extremely common and easy to get), you only have about a 1/4th chance of failing.
If you have Ld9 (Pretty common), you only have a 1/6th chance of failing.
If you have Ld10 (Not unusual, and available through HQs on any important unit), you only have a 1/12th chance of failing.

Even with those numbers, many units are STILL going to flee, since they still have to lose a Pitted Initiative test before dying - Against equal odds, that's still only about a 2/3rds chance of death, so it's really more of a 1/6th, 1/9th, and 1/18th chance of dying, respectively.

Something like that is pretty negligible, when it's a game of 'Let this unit sit in one place and do nothing,' or 'Cause massive amounts of damage and ignore the tarpit about 85% of the time.'

If you want to create a penalty, it has to be something that's actually potentially going to happen, not a once-in-the-blue-moon-not-really-a-concern thing.
   
Made in gb
Battleship Captain





Bristol (UK)

Waaaghpower wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
I've never viewed a sweeping advance as the unit getting physically cut down to a man, because it just isn't practical that your 1 guy cuts down a dozen or so enemy.
I've always viewed it as a total route, the unit turns and flees in a panic, discarding weapons and equipment in order to GTFO faster. The pursueing unit kills a few of the stragglers just to make sure that unit knows what's up. This is more like real battles and is a lot more plausible that a single man get sweep dozens of enemy models.
Therefore, I don't think those rules are applicable to a unit that is just pulling out.

Perhaps you could require a leadership test in order to withdraw, if the test is failed, the unit ends up fleeing combat as normal including sweeping advances, if the test is passed, the withdraw under my initially proposed rules.

Anything that requires a Leadership test is usually kind of moot. Most armies in the game who would benefit from being able to disengage from combat have high Leadership, and many have Fearless or ATSKNF or some other equivalent rule.
If you have Ld8 (Extremely common and easy to get), you only have about a 1/4th chance of failing.
If you have Ld9 (Pretty common), you only have a 1/6th chance of failing.
If you have Ld10 (Not unusual, and available through HQs on any important unit), you only have a 1/12th chance of failing.

Even with those numbers, many units are STILL going to flee, since they still have to lose a Pitted Initiative test before dying - Against equal odds, that's still only about a 2/3rds chance of death, so it's really more of a 1/6th, 1/9th, and 1/18th chance of dying, respectively.

Something like that is pretty negligible, when it's a game of 'Let this unit sit in one place and do nothing,' or 'Cause massive amounts of damage and ignore the tarpit about 85% of the time.'

If you want to create a penalty, it has to be something that's actually potentially going to happen, not a once-in-the-blue-moon-not-really-a-concern thing.

Well it's not like passing that leadership test negates all draw backs. You still have to deal with a round of attacks with only WS1 to defend yourself. The point of that being a unit which has absolutely nothing to fear from an enemy unit except wasting time can get just walk away. If you want to tie down a Dreadnought or something you're going to have to throw more than a few Gretchin at it.
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






What I proposed was instead of a sweeping advance always wiping out the unit entirely you made it so it dealt a number of wounds that could not be mitigated by any means equal to the difference in the test.

So you roll your d6 +I. If the retreating unit is equal or higher nothing happens. If the sweeping unit is higher it deals a number of wounds so on.

When you disengage from a melee it works just like hit and run except you have to test as though a sweeping advance.

If you have hit and run the advantage is you don't have to test at all.

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, nobody is stuck in a melee that doesn't want to be there. But leaving risks wounds regardless or toughness or AV or anything.

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. But you might also break out scott free and get to blast the crap out of that unit next shooting phase.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/27 21:18:18



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Lance845 wrote:
epronovost 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.


Indeed, its a possibility, but that is assuming that once engaged in close combat you remain well aware of the position of your supporting unit, which is extremely dubious, plus any retreat, volontary or not has a chance of creating a cascade effect. This mechanic was well represented in fantasy. You could flee befre an ennemy, but there were chances that you would cause the reatreat of surrounding allied forces at the same time. If you allow volontary retreat, you also need to apply a mechanic for battlefront collapse. Tactical retreat are a risky and complicated stratagem.
   
Made in us
Crazed Spirit of the Defiler





Walk me through this please. In the current addition of warhammer 40000 you think melee needs to be reigned in? It's hard enough to catch your opponent in melee. Now you want to let them get away at the drop of hat? At best for the melee player, they have to eat another overwatch phase and subject themselves to another random charge roll over half the time.

Also did someone just try to get rid of sweeping advances? That's a horrible plan. Again you're letting a shooting unit survive it's untimely death and probably spend the next turn pulverizing the assault unit that should have destroyed it.

Iron within, Iron without 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






Look. Melee has a lot of problems. Mainly having to sit around and wait to assault. Not being able to run then charge is dumb. The "balance" to this is that if an assault unit makes a sweeping advance you can, no questions asked, regardless of scale, wipe the unit from the field.

Both parts of that equation are bad. Assault should have an easier time getting into melee and there is no reason assault should be capable of eliminating any number of wounds, no recourse, with a single die roll.

Nothing else in the entire game has the crazy damage potential of a sweeping advance and all it requires is a single unsaved wound and a d6 roll off. Unless it gets made reasonable nothing else can get fixed for assault.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





As an eldar player, I'm biased, but I actually like sweeping advances quite a bit. Without bringing in the sillyness of "realism" into a world of space elves and space orks, I'd point out that a big part of the reason melee tactics were still used in the 1800's was that it was absolutely terrifying to have someone sticking pointy things in your face. Actual casualties aside, formations were more likely to lose cohesion when the enemy was in melee with them. Or so says the history program I listened to once. So I don't think of it as a single model personally stabbing all 20 of those guys who ran away. I think of it as the enemy unit losing its nerve and basically performing an especially long-ranged tactical retreat.

Mechanically, sweeping advances keep things from becoming even more of a slog once the assault phase happens. The assault phase is already slow, and many units that are good in assault lose a lot of killing power after the first round (when furious charge, hatred, hammer of wrath, etc. stop working). Sweeping advances mean that you can be sufficiently stabby in one or two rounds of combat to be done fighting a given unit and move onto the next. Bad as they are righ tnow, non-death star melee units would become absolutely terrible if they had to murder every last model in a unit to win combat.

Plus, assault armies generally spend the first couple of turns just trying to reach assault. Sweeping advances make it possible for them to "make up for lost time" by killing off units relatively quickly.

The opening proposal is an interesting one. The crux of this topic is "should tarpitting be a valid tactic?" On one hand, fearless, extremely cheap renegade zombies are miserable to try and displace. On the other hand, some units don't have much of a reason to exist beyond being a tarpit, and some armies don't have a lot of great answers for things like knights aside from tarpitting them. Fearless gaunts tying up knights, anyone?


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Wyldhunt wrote:
...The opening proposal is an interesting one. The crux of this topic is "should tarpitting be a valid tactic?" On one hand, fearless, extremely cheap renegade zombies are miserable to try and displace. On the other hand, some units don't have much of a reason to exist beyond being a tarpit, and some armies don't have a lot of great answers for things like knights aside from tarpitting them. Fearless gaunts tying up knights, anyone?


The problem with this argument is that cheap zombies are miserable to try to displace if you're going to try to displace them by charging them with a Dreadnaught. As opposed to killing them all with flamers or sending in an assault squad that's going to clear them out in two phases. The entire discussion rests on the premise that tarpitting is very good when you're playing a one-dimensional list that is actually not equipped to do anything about it, as opposed to good in a vacuum.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






London

Just a suggestion, but what if the Disengage mechanism worked similar to falling back? You can declare to disengage but there's a chance you can be swept and wiped out, and you're forced to snap fire next turn?
   
Made in au
Ancient Space Wolves Venerable Dreadnought






 AnomanderRake wrote:
Wyldhunt wrote:
...The opening proposal is an interesting one. The crux of this topic is "should tarpitting be a valid tactic?" On one hand, fearless, extremely cheap renegade zombies are miserable to try and displace. On the other hand, some units don't have much of a reason to exist beyond being a tarpit, and some armies don't have a lot of great answers for things like knights aside from tarpitting them. Fearless gaunts tying up knights, anyone?


The problem with this argument is that cheap zombies are miserable to try to displace if you're going to try to displace them by charging them with a Dreadnaught. As opposed to killing them all with flamers or sending in an assault squad that's going to clear them out in two phases. The entire discussion rests on the premise that tarpitting is very good when you're playing a one-dimensional list that is actually not equipped to do anything about it, as opposed to good in a vacuum.


Well spotted.
Besides, the leadership escape doesn't help deal with a lot of tarpits anyway, what it does is give shootie armies a chance to escape melee armies and shoot them again.
When it deals with layered sacraficial tarpits it might be interesting.

I don't break the rules but I'll bend them as far as they'll go. 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 AnomanderRake wrote:
Wyldhunt wrote:
...The opening proposal is an interesting one. The crux of this topic is "should tarpitting be a valid tactic?" On one hand, fearless, extremely cheap renegade zombies are miserable to try and displace. On the other hand, some units don't have much of a reason to exist beyond being a tarpit, and some armies don't have a lot of great answers for things like knights aside from tarpitting them. Fearless gaunts tying up knights, anyone?


The problem with this argument is that cheap zombies are miserable to try to displace if you're going to try to displace them by charging them with a Dreadnaught. As opposed to killing them all with flamers or sending in an assault squad that's going to clear them out in two phases. The entire discussion rests on the premise that tarpitting is very good when you're playing a one-dimensional list that is actually not equipped to do anything about it, as opposed to good in a vacuum.


I politely disagree. At least partially. Yes, a dreadnaught is a terrible thing to charge zombies with, and yes flamers are relatively good at killing zombies. But...

* Sometimes the zombies are the ones charging the dread, not the other way around.
* While having a well-rounded list is great, flamers and assault marines aren't necessarily a great investment in a meta with free vehicles, imperial knights, and FMCs. So building anti-tarpit enough to deal with a tarpit might mean you leave yourself without sufficient tools to deal with many problem units that are in vogue right now.
* Some tarpits are effective enough to give even dedicated assault units a tough time. Thirty zombies (as an admittedly extreme example) are what? 90 points for 30 models with fearless and FNP? Even something like a T-Cav death star might have a rough time getting through that many bodies, and your opponent can probably afford to toss multiple 30 man blobs at you before he's invested as many points as you have in that combat.

Part of me really enjoys the idea of locking down a target until a killy unit can move into position (that's how wyches and incubi used to do things), and encouraging your opponent to bring a counter-charge unit to back up his storm surge or imperial knight certainly has an appeal. On the other hand, however, it kind of stinks when your unit(s) spend all game tied up with gaunts or zombies rather than getting to do their thing. You might even make the argument that too-efficient tarpits encourage death stars (which many people find annoying to play against) because a mediocre assault unit isn't enough to break through a tar pit.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 Valkyrie wrote:
Just a suggestion, but what if the Disengage mechanism worked similar to falling back? You can declare to disengage but there's a chance you can be swept and wiped out, and you're forced to snap fire next turn?


It could be interesting if the unit that wants to disengage combat rolls a dice and with a 4+ it manages to escape, with the result of 1-2-3 it's completely destroyed.

 
   
Made in au
Ancient Space Wolves Venerable Dreadnought






 Blackie wrote:
 Valkyrie wrote:
Just a suggestion, but what if the Disengage mechanism worked similar to falling back? You can declare to disengage but there's a chance you can be swept and wiped out, and you're forced to snap fire next turn?


It could be interesting if the unit that wants to disengage combat rolls a dice and with a 4+ it manages to escape, with the result of 1-2-3 it's completely destroyed.


Definitely adds an element of risk to wimping out.

I don't break the rules but I'll bend them as far as they'll go. 
   
Made in ca
Fighter Ace






Disengagement:

At the end of your assault phase, you can choose to disengage. Roll off between yourself and your opponent. If you win, you may pick your models off the board, place them in their case, and drive home. If your opponent won, they can choose to add 3d6 additional turn phases to both players subsequent turns. These additional phases stack between games.

Spoiler:
Just havin' a laugh.
   
Made in gb
Battleship Captain





Bristol (UK)

Would removing the ability to disengage in the movement phase and instead apply those rules to disengaging at the start of the assault phase be a better plan? Using the rules for rules for sweeping advance.
The unit then risks complete destruction in exchange for not getting attacked in melee.
Disadvantage is that ATSKNF suffers no penalties. Using my original rules (IE attacked at WS1) means its a lot worse in the short term for squishy units, but potentially better long term, and tanky units that had no reason to remain anyways don't care.

As an aside- 'our weapons are useless' is a thing. Why should a player that got assaulted by a unit it can't hurt get to leave, but a player that got assaulted by a unit that can't hurt it have to stick around?
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

A skilled player should know how to avoid to get his precious units tarpitted. Especially if they are units that sit in the controlling player's corner, if they get caught in close combat and get tarpitted for the rest of the game, that player totally deserved it. It's not that easy to tarpit those units that need to be tarpitted. On the other side those nasty scary units are usually quite easy to play.

Units that are scared to be tarpitted are usually among the best units belonging to the top tiers armies, even if there's the chance to stuck them in combat for a long time.

 
   
Made in ca
Fighter Ace






Because they got caught out of position by being overly aggressive. There are penalties for poor deployment and position. You should have to think about how your using your units, rather than firing and forgetting. Death stars have a boatload of delivery options, from transports to drop pods to deepstriking. Some are jump infantry, some are on bikes. Tarpit units like grots, conscripts, and cultists are exceptionally slower than your average star, and have poor LD to boot. They have weaknesses of their own. You said tarpitting was obviously not intended, how do you explain the existence of those units?

Why did Ash stick around to fight the tiny versions of himself in Army of Darkness? Why did Ripley stick around in Aliens?Because these characters are supposed to be heroes, and they're invested in the fight they find themselves in, unlike the detached feeling the player has moving toy soldiers. They're in the moment, lost in the fog of war.

I know you're BA so you really don't intend for it to boost shooting armies, but it would like crazy. But to be fair, your BA and my Orks get some p sweet charge bonuses. Sure would be nice just getting those every single turn essentially.

At the end of the day, I just hate it because it adds even more length to the game. Vs a shooty army or a charge bonus army, every single unit will attempt to disengage. It's become a whole other phase of the game. Competitive games barely even make it to turn 3 anymore, the eldar got a new update that basically just allows them to break the turn sequence whenever they want, in tandem with flickerjump, overwatch, interceptor, and a whole pile of other bs that smacks the game out of your hands. It's the competitive equivalent of taking back a move in chess... after your opponent already moved. I think it would make people feel smarter than they actually are.

Furthermore, by willfully removing entire strategies from the game, you've basically turned it into herohammer all over again. That style of rules almost killed the hobby and it was the worst times in GW financial history.

If you want to improve the game, focus on more strategic variety, not less. Ultimately, this is a reactionary measure instead of a proactive one.

I've earnestly answered your question, so answer one for me. Consider this: Why does a game of chess end in a stalemate instead of a win if your opponent can't make a legal move?

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/03/01 10:52:40


 
   
Made in gb
Tunneling Trygon






Carrickfergus, Northern Ireland

Part of what I'm working on is that models can choose to flee combat during their own Assault Phase. Choosing to flee counts as failing a Morale Check for all purposes, and they Fall Back and prompt Sweeping Advance as normal. This replaces "Our Weapons Are Useless".

Because this only happens in their own Assault Phase, the opposing unit doesn't suffer from being exposed to shooting without any chance to react.

I haven't decided if this should just be part of normal Morale (like "Our Weapons Are Useless", happening as part of combat resolution after blows are struck) or if the unit choosing to flee can't make any attacks on the turn they attempt to flee combat. Also whether or not a unit should be allowed to win combat and then run away, which is a weird situation but it's nice to keep options open.

EDIT: Models with Stubborn, Rage or Fearless can't do this, also.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/01 12:27:21


Sieg Zeon!

Selling TGG2! 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Wyldhunt wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Wyldhunt wrote:
...The opening proposal is an interesting one. The crux of this topic is "should tarpitting be a valid tactic?" On one hand, fearless, extremely cheap renegade zombies are miserable to try and displace. On the other hand, some units don't have much of a reason to exist beyond being a tarpit, and some armies don't have a lot of great answers for things like knights aside from tarpitting them. Fearless gaunts tying up knights, anyone?


The problem with this argument is that cheap zombies are miserable to try to displace if you're going to try to displace them by charging them with a Dreadnaught. As opposed to killing them all with flamers or sending in an assault squad that's going to clear them out in two phases. The entire discussion rests on the premise that tarpitting is very good when you're playing a one-dimensional list that is actually not equipped to do anything about it, as opposed to good in a vacuum.


I politely disagree. At least partially. Yes, a dreadnaught is a terrible thing to charge zombies with, and yes flamers are relatively good at killing zombies. But...

* Sometimes the zombies are the ones charging the dread, not the other way around.
* While having a well-rounded list is great, flamers and assault marines aren't necessarily a great investment in a meta with free vehicles, imperial knights, and FMCs. So building anti-tarpit enough to deal with a tarpit might mean you leave yourself without sufficient tools to deal with many problem units that are in vogue right now.
* Some tarpits are effective enough to give even dedicated assault units a tough time. Thirty zombies (as an admittedly extreme example) are what? 90 points for 30 models with fearless and FNP? Even something like a T-Cav death star might have a rough time getting through that many bodies, and your opponent can probably afford to toss multiple 30 man blobs at you before he's invested as many points as you have in that combat.

Part of me really enjoys the idea of locking down a target until a killy unit can move into position (that's how wyches and incubi used to do things), and encouraging your opponent to bring a counter-charge unit to back up his storm surge or imperial knight certainly has an appeal. On the other hand, however, it kind of stinks when your unit(s) spend all game tied up with gaunts or zombies rather than getting to do their thing. You might even make the argument that too-efficient tarpits encourage death stars (which many people find annoying to play against) because a mediocre assault unit isn't enough to break through a tar pit.


There are tarpit units that are problematic, and Plague Zombies are one of them. The issue isn't that the concept of tarpitting is flawed, it's that Plague Zombies and Necron Wraiths (possibly one or two more, these are the tarpits I've seen actually do something on the table) are too difficult for some armies to deal with.

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. Add a clause to Fearless saying 'Fearless characters cannot refuse challenges' to give you a line to shift the unshakeable Commissar + Conscripts blob. Give Plague Zombies an equivalent of the Crumble rule from WHFB undead. Give Necron Wraiths the price hike they ought to have gotten when they became S/T5. But please, please don't let Grav-Centurions and Riptides walk out of melee and blow everything up?

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Are people still complaining about Vraks Zombies?

Anybody doing that sucks, simple as that. You don't want to bring anti-infantry weapons and SOMEHOW get caught by them, that's all on you sorry.

Wraiths also aren't a problem until they manage to get RP. That's not a constant.

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
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...Wraiths also aren't a problem until they manage to get RP. That's not a constant...


They're not that much of a problem. I'm mostly grumpy that they were S/T4 for the exact same price under the last Necron book and were absolutely fine then, and for some reason they needed to be pumped to S/T5 (making them much harder to double out) for no points change in the current book.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






 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.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




 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.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 AnomanderRake wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...Wraiths also aren't a problem until they manage to get RP. That's not a constant...


They're not that much of a problem. I'm mostly grumpy that they were S/T4 for the exact same price under the last Necron book and were absolutely fine then, and for some reason they needed to be pumped to S/T5 (making them much harder to double out) for no points change in the current book.

All of this is incorrect.
Wraiths were 35 points in the last codex for S6 T4. Now they're S6 T5 for 40.

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
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 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.


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


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...Wraiths also aren't a problem until they manage to get RP. That's not a constant...


They're not that much of a problem. I'm mostly grumpy that they were S/T4 for the exact same price under the last Necron book and were absolutely fine then, and for some reason they needed to be pumped to S/T5 (making them much harder to double out) for no points change in the current book.

All of this is incorrect.
Wraiths were 35 points in the last codex for S6 T4. Now they're S6 T5 for 40.


Double-checked. I stand corrected. I shall stop grumbling about Wraiths.

(Or at least I'll grumble about them less. Cheaper and tougher than hammernators with the ability to move quickly under their own power and *mutter mutter mutter* *trails off indistinctly*...) [/joke]

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/01 19:34:06


Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: