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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

Clearly the bad decisions you guys are making here is that you're declaring multi charges all day long. That's the only way I can understand how you aren't piling in and consolidating around a target you didn't declare for. Because you can. The charge move has to stop >1" away, but pile in doesn't. Consolidate doesn't. That's why you strike at the seams of these screens. Can't take casualties from a unit that never took damage, and you don't take morale losses from a unit that didn't take damage. You've now locked that unit down and stopped that army from gaining more board control than you.

I'll keep this incredibly enlightening advice in mind next time I assault with the Carnifex that actually made it to assault after getting shot all the way up the board.

.

Is the fex the only model you have running up?

Potentially, yes. That's how the game works. If you think that not being surrounded is something that should never happen, then you shouldn't have an issue with rules being changed to reflect the circumstances, armies, and match-ups where this isn't possible.

 SHUPPET wrote:


Potentially, yes. That's how the game works. If you think that not being surrounded is something that should never happen, then you shouldn't have an issue with rules being changed to reflect the circumstances, armies, and match-ups where this isn't possible.

If you're looking to shut down an army through melee you should attempt to surround. If you're just running a single fex in support of ranged elements as a literal distraction Carnifex then this particular part of the discussion is not relevant.

I may be wrong about this - but don't they get to attack back if you consolidate/pile in into them, while you can't attack them yourself?

Probably not a problem if its a Guard tank, but there are some mixed units which its not the most inviting. Better than taking a round of overwatch though.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:


Potentially, yes. That's how the game works. If you think that not being surrounded is something that should never happen, then you shouldn't have an issue with rules being changed to reflect the circumstances, armies, and match-ups where this isn't possible.

If you're looking to shut down an army through melee you should attempt to surround. If you're just running a single fex in support of ranged elements as a literal distraction Carnifex then this particular part of the discussion is not relevant.

ITT: What is two to three turns of IG gunline and what does it do to table of Tyranids



The point is that you don't always get to surround your enemies. Walking out of combat shouldnt be a thing in these situations, and if you also think it's not something that won't happen anyway then let's change the rules to reflect that, cause at the moment it sounds like you KNOW how punishing it can be in these situations and you want it to stay like this while pretending "ah don't worry it's not a thing that happens".

 SHUPPET wrote:


ITT: What is two to three turns of IG gunline and what does it do to table of Tyranids

As the tyranids do absolutely nothing to IG?

The point is that you don't always get to surround your enemies. Walking out of combat shouldnt be a thing in these situations, and if you also think it's not something that won't happen anyway then let's change the rules to reflect that, cause at the moment it sounds like you KNOW how punishing it can be in these situations and you want it to stay like this while pretending "ah don't worry it's not a thing that happens".

No that isn't my position at all. The point is that if you want to shut down gunlines you need to make a broader commitment to do so and thus far no one is doing that.

This is a "having your cake and eating it, too" scenario where you somehow expect to have a significant impact on some chaff that your carnifex charged and be able to ripple through their whole army with impunity. It doesn't matter what rule you craft - you'll never get through IS spam with a single fex.

Fair enough, I'm not sure I share your opinion but it's a not an unfair one at least now that you've clarified it a bit.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

Clearly the bad decisions you guys are making here is that you're declaring multi charges all day long. That's the only way I can understand how you aren't piling in and consolidating around a target you didn't declare for. Because you can. The charge move has to stop >1" away, but pile in doesn't. Consolidate doesn't. That's why you strike at the seams of these screens. Can't take casualties from a unit that never took damage, and you don't take morale losses from a unit that didn't take damage. You've now locked that unit down and stopped that army from gaining more board control than you.

I'll keep this incredibly enlightening advice in mind next time I assault with the Carnifex that actually made it to assault after getting shot all the way up the board.

.

Is the fex the only model you have running up?

Potentially, yes. That's how the game works. If you think that not being surrounded is something that should never happen, then you shouldn't have an issue with rules being changed to reflect the circumstances, armies, and match-ups where this isn't possible.

I like the way you think. Complain about a model not impacted in any way by the tactical reserve beta rule. Was there some way to deep strike a fex?

Lemondish wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

Clearly the bad decisions you guys are making here is that you're declaring multi charges all day long. That's the only way I can understand how you aren't piling in and consolidating around a target you didn't declare for. Because you can. The charge move has to stop >1" away, but pile in doesn't. Consolidate doesn't. That's why you strike at the seams of these screens. Can't take casualties from a unit that never took damage, and you don't take morale losses from a unit that didn't take damage. You've now locked that unit down and stopped that army from gaining more board control than you.

I'll keep this incredibly enlightening advice in mind next time I assault with the Carnifex that actually made it to assault after getting shot all the way up the board.

.

Is the fex the only model you have running up?

Potentially, yes. That's how the game works. If you think that not being surrounded is something that should never happen, then you shouldn't have an issue with rules being changed to reflect the circumstances, armies, and match-ups where this isn't possible.

I like the way you think. Complain about a model not impacted in any way by the tactical reserve beta rule. Was there some way to deep strike a fex?

I like the way you don't think.







For starters it's not even at all relevant to the statement you made whether or not they can deepstrike, secondly, yes they can deepstrike, so this was truly the perfect follow up to the nonsense advice you provided.

So far this conversation has broken down into 2 camps.

1 Camp that understands CC and uses a CC army and another camp that doesn't play a CC army and is making suggestions on how to further nerf CC in a edition that already nerfed CC.

If you are going to sit there and tell CC players why their armies aren't relevant and why the rules should benefit you, maybe you should play in our shoes for a few games and then get back to us.

SemperMortis wrote:
So far this conversation has broken down into 2 camps.

1 Camp that understands CC and uses a CC army and another camp that doesn't play a CC army and is making suggestions on how to further nerf CC in a edition that already nerfed CC.

If you are going to sit there and tell CC players why their armies aren't relevant and why the rules should benefit you, maybe you should play in our shoes for a few games and then get back to us.

I do. Often.

It's a good attempt to invalidate anything you don't agree with. I prefer the "LALALA I'M NOT LISTENING" approach though.

Lemondish wrote:

Clearly the bad decisions you guys are making here is that you're declaring multi charges all day long. That's the only way I can understand how you aren't piling in and consolidating around a target you didn't declare for. Because you can. The charge move has to stop >1" away, but pile in doesn't. Consolidate doesn't. That's why you strike at the seams of these screens. Can't take casualties from a unit that never took damage, and you don't take morale losses from a unit that didn't take damage. You've now locked that unit down and stopped that army from gaining more board control than you.

Believe me, most experienced players of assault armies know the ins and outs of the charge/pile-in/consolidate rules and their implications very intimately. Consolidating to trap a unit they didn’t charge is not a revelation to them.

On your last point, hostage taking a unit you didn’t charge, even if your opponent hasn’t managed to outfox you with clever unit placement, means not attacking with at least 3, more likely 4-5 models. Not attacking means you’re not clearing the screen, only engaging it. If you end up taking two of your own assault phases to clear two screening units, your opponent will chalk that up as a win.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
So far this conversation has broken down into 2 camps.

1 Camp that understands CC and uses a CC army and another camp that doesn't play a CC army and is making suggestions on how to further nerf CC in a edition that already nerfed CC.

If you are going to sit there and tell CC players why their armies aren't relevant and why the rules should benefit you, maybe you should play in our shoes for a few games and then get back to us.

I do. Often.

It's a good attempt to invalidate anything you don't agree with. I prefer the "LALALA I'M NOT LISTENING" approach though.

Keep it civil daed, and I wasn't referring to you. You aren't trying to explain to me how I should be trying to trap screen units with my CC army.

At least two more camps:

1 Camp that understands retreating has a cost, and retreats where appropriate and another camp that thinks once they touch anything in CC it should be GG.

Bharring wrote:
At least two more camps:

1 Camp that understands retreating has a cost, and retreats where appropriate and another camp that thinks once they touch anything in CC it should be GG.

That is such a stupid noob thing to say. Fall back is a braindead tactic cause you only need to remember two questions

1. Is this unit my last unit on the table? And

2. Does my unit allow me to fall back and still shoot/charge?

If you answered no to the first one, second question is irrelevant. If you answered yes but then said yes to question 2, it's still irrelevant.

Fall back, in it's current form. Is the equivalent of having a targeting laser on your opponents army. All the time, every time.

On a mechanic scale, i would rate fall back as a 20/10 for use. It's so instrisic to use that you will only never use it if the unit that was charged was the last unit in your entire army, and even then if that unit ignored the penalties to fall back you would still fall back. There is no cost to retreating, none at all

also, the only melee units that get into CC are designed to overkill whatever their doing, either through mechanics or sheer number of attacks, because that is it's inherent design. It has to do that because if it doesn't then that investment of points into that unit was wasted. CC needs to wipe out the unit the first time, because it only has that one time to do anything

Bharring wrote:
At least two more camps:

1 Camp that understands retreating has a cost, and retreats where appropriate and another camp that thinks once they touch anything in CC it should be GG.

lol how much thought did you put into this one before belting it out?

Basically none. The 'Fallback has 0 costs' gets really annoying. Saying 'It costs nothing because they just need to eat a round of CC, not have any model surrounded, have a place to fall back to, and pay a CP, and use a strat!'.

Saying it's not high enough a cost is a reasonable argument. Saying there is 0 cost is not.

Bharring wrote:
Basically none. The 'Fallback has 0 costs' gets really annoying. Saying 'It costs nothing because they just need to eat a round of CC, not have any model surrounded, have a place to fall back to, and pay a CP, and use a strat!'.

Saying it's not high enough a cost is a reasonable argument. Saying there is 0 cost is not.

You kind of covered it with "having enough space to fall back to" but your opponent also must essentially deploy to fall back. There's a serious opportunity cost for things like Baneblades, that even deployed sideways, are large enough to interfere with fallback moves of other troops or vehicles near them in the traditional Dawn of War deployment. So it can even affect listbuilding.

It's without cost relative to remaining in combat. There are no downsides to backing out of combat, the downsides like not being allowed to shoot isn't caused by falling back, it's caused by being in combat in the first place.

As difficult as it is to make it to a successful assault, especially post-FAQ, fall back is a massive slap in the face.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It's without cost relative to remaining in combat. There are no downsides to backing out of combat, the downsides like not being allowed to shoot isn't caused by falling back, it's caused by being in combat in the first place.

Well, yes, you do have to pay the costs that falling back incurs ahead of time, rather than when it happens.

That doesn't mean it is free, though. Tons of decisions have to be correctly made before the fallback to make the fallback possible in the first place. There are costs, just not apparent when it happens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
As difficult as it is to make it to a successful assault, especially post-FAQ, fall back is a massive slap in the face.

You can tell it's hard to make a successful assault because I'm 2-1 with my Daemons who bring 0 shooting weapons, and only started playing the army after the FAQ. I'm fairly certain those victories had nothing to do with successful assaults, and merely consisted of me giving my opponent the stink-eye and sneering until he forfeited.

I also find whether to fall back or not can be more complicated when using a combined arms army. If I have a CC threat within range of Spears, I'm not falling back. If my unit in CC will last at least one more round, isn't worth much, and the opponent has some nasty CC in there, Im staying stuck and shooting other things. If my HQ is nearby and would turn the tide, I might stay stuck. It's not quite as simple as you make it sound.

Almighty,
That is a form that makes the statement debatable. The concept that having been charged doesn't matter because you can fall back for free is what really irks me. Generally the idea that escaping CC is free is the problem. A lot of that comes down to terms used.

In the more reasonable form you provide, it comes down to "Is Charge not worth enough because falling back is insufficiently costly?" Now there's a good point of debate, with lots of pros and cons.

But straightfaced "they fallback and shoot for free, because CP strat" and similar is what's annoying me.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
As difficult as it is to make it to a successful assault, especially post-FAQ, fall back is a massive slap in the face.

You can tell it's hard to make a successful assault because I'm 2-1 with my Daemons who bring 0 shooting weapons, and only started playing the army after the FAQ. I'm fairly certain those victories had nothing to do with successful assaults, and merely consisted of me giving my opponent the stink-eye and sneering until he forfeited.

That my friend is the definition of anecdotal. The recent nerf to Alpha deep strike wasn't even caused by CC units but by shooting units, i'll back that point up by pointing to all the top lists in major tournaments that featured alpha striking shooty units.

As for CC and falling back, you had 1-2 turns MINIMUM to place speed bumps in the way or to fall back or to simply blast a CC unit off the table. Saying falling back isn't a slap in the face is simply not true. The nonsense posed as counter arguments is just that, nonsense. It is incredibly hard to trap another unit in CC if your opponent knows what he is doing, its even harder to make it so the unit CANT fall back because of other units or terrain, basically all the arguments FOR falling back are down to simple tactics that people already know and use and its an excuse to cover up mistakes they made in the game, either in planning or deployment. If I get into CC after walking up the board you shouldn't be able to simply walk out of combat without a massive penalty to that unit. And not shooting for a turn is not a massive penalty because guess what? if they were stuck in CC that turn they wouldn't be shooting anyway.

Also deamons are loaded up to the wazoo with special rules to help them become a viable CC army.
Things like 3D6", +1" to charge, reroll out of deep strike on a 30 bloodletter unit.

That is exactly the stuff, that is causing the problem. How is CC supposed to be balanced for units that have none of these special rules, when things like that exist?
And special rules are now the baseline. If you got none, forget about trying to be a CC unit.

HMint wrote:
Also deamons are loaded up to the wazoo with special rules to help them become a viable CC army.
Things like 3D6", +1" to charge, reroll out of deep strike on a 30 bloodletter unit.

That is exactly the stuff, that is causing the problem. How is CC supposed to be balanced for units that have none of these special rules, when things like that exist?
And special rules are now the baseline. If you got none, forget about trying to be a CC unit.

Correction. Only ONE unit has that ability, only ONE.

Considering the fact that no one in their right minds would deep strike a calvary squad of juggernaughts to do what bloodletters do cheeper, then like i said, only one unit in the entire daemons army can do that.

Not to mention the amount of CP required to ensure that ONE unit gets into CC.

It cost 1 CP to deep strike a 20 man unit (2CP for a 30 man) 1CP to upgrade their icon of chaos to a banner of blood. And another 1CP to deep strike the character next to them so they get the re-rolls on the charge

That is potentially 3-4CP FOR ONE UNIT to destroy probably a chaff unit in CC BEFORE THEY GET OBLITERATED OF THE BOARD BECAUSE OF T3 5++ save

While look at the other spectrum.

Tempestus scions have a passive deep strike built into their units, this includes the commander who can also ride shotgun with the unit. And the only real cost is the plasma, which bumps them up to 119 points, For cheaper than the 30model unit of bloodletters with upgrades, i can take 2 scion squads with plasma and a tempestor prime with a command rod for only 197 points. 197POINTS!! the 30 man bloodletter unit just by itself is 210pts, without upgrades or the stock standard helrald that deep strikes with them.

This is indefensible, no matter how many people complain that CC deep strike is OP, i will just say "But shooting Deep strike does a better job, and it's cheeper" if CC deep strike is considered OP, then shooting deep strike is godly compared to it.

Hands down

Unit1126PLL wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Basically none. The 'Fallback has 0 costs' gets really annoying. Saying 'It costs nothing because they just need to eat a round of CC, not have any model surrounded, have a place to fall back to, and pay a CP, and use a strat!'.

Saying it's not high enough a cost is a reasonable argument. Saying there is 0 cost is not.

You kind of covered it with "having enough space to fall back to" but your opponent also must essentially deploy to fall back. There's a serious opportunity cost for things like Baneblades, that even deployed sideways, are large enough to interfere with fallback moves of other troops or vehicles near them in the traditional Dawn of War deployment. So it can even affect listbuilding.

The thing is, almost all of the costs you’re talking about are costs of being assaulted, not falling back. Yes, being assaulted by your opponent has costs. So does being shot by your opponent. It’s a non-argument.

I’ll give you that having to leave enough space to fall back is a cost you have to pay because it affects your deployment options. You require 1.01” space to do this. Maybe 2 or possibly even 3(!) inches, depending on how many models there are and terrain and so on. But that’s missing a far more significant point: pile-in and consolidation. To avoid having one unit charging you tying up a whole pile of your units you have to leave space between your units - at least 3.1” but preferably 6.1”. So by accounting for the much bigger danger of multi-charging/piling in/consolidating, you’ve already covered the cost of having an inch or two to fall back into.

Being assaulted by your opponent (read: having an opponent) has costs. So does spacing units out to avoid or mitigate multi-charges tying up your whole army. Falling back does not.

Also, it’s kinda disingenuous to say that having to leave space to fall back into can restrict your deployment or even affect your list building. In a tournament a few weeks ago I played a 329-model Gretchin+Characters army at 1500pts. It filled about 40% of the deployment zone and still had plenty of room to fall back once I assaulted him. I don’t care what army you’re playing, you do not have a higher model count or footprint than a pure Gretchin army.

kombatwombat wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Basically none. The 'Fallback has 0 costs' gets really annoying. Saying 'It costs nothing because they just need to eat a round of CC, not have any model surrounded, have a place to fall back to, and pay a CP, and use a strat!'.

Saying it's not high enough a cost is a reasonable argument. Saying there is 0 cost is not.

You kind of covered it with "having enough space to fall back to" but your opponent also must essentially deploy to fall back. There's a serious opportunity cost for things like Baneblades, that even deployed sideways, are large enough to interfere with fallback moves of other troops or vehicles near them in the traditional Dawn of War deployment. So it can even affect listbuilding.

The thing is, almost all of the costs you’re talking about are costs of being assaulted, not falling back. Yes, being assaulted by your opponent has costs. So does being shot by your opponent. It’s a non-argument.

I’ll give you that having to leave enough space to fall back is a cost you have to pay because it affects your deployment options. You require 1.01” space to do this. Maybe 2 or possibly even 3(!) inches, depending on how many models there are and terrain and so on. But that’s missing a far more significant point: pile-in and consolidation. To avoid having one unit charging you tying up a whole pile of your units you have to leave space between your units - at least 3.1” but preferably 6.1”. So by accounting for the much bigger danger of multi-charging/piling in/consolidating, you’ve already covered the cost of having an inch or two to fall back into.

Being assaulted by your opponent (read: having an opponent) has costs. So does spacing units out to avoid or mitigate multi-charges tying up your whole army. Falling back does not.

Also, it’s kinda disingenuous to say that having to leave space to fall back into can restrict your deployment or even affect your list building. In a tournament a few weeks ago I played a 329-model Gretchin+Characters army at 1500pts. It filled about 40% of the deployment zone and still had plenty of room to fall back once I assaulted him. I don’t care what army you’re playing, you do not have a higher model count or footprint than a pure Gretchin army.

The only thing I will say is given how many buffs for marines are based on being 6inch or less from a model, setting up 6.1 from a model because you have to is pretty punishing as the models are costed as if they get all the buffs all the time.
This is more an issue with GW turning 40k marines in an AOS army but just setting up to strand assualt units isn't a viable option for some armies.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
So far this conversation has broken down into 2 camps.

1 Camp that understands CC and uses a CC army and another camp that doesn't play a CC army and is making suggestions on how to further nerf CC in a edition that already nerfed CC.

If you are going to sit there and tell CC players why their armies aren't relevant and why the rules should benefit you, maybe you should play in our shoes for a few games and then get back to us.

I do. Often.

It's a good attempt to invalidate anything you don't agree with. I prefer the "LALALA I'M NOT LISTENING" approach though.

Keep it civil daed, and I wasn't referring to you. You aren't trying to explain to me how I should be trying to trap screen units with my CC army.

He called you out for your "You can't talk about melee unless you play melee" excuse for being a blatant attempt to invalidate opinions just because people don't use melee. You could use the same type of reasoning that melee people don't understand the costs of falling back because they don't play shooting armies. It isn't very productive either way. I can tell you that falling back has drawbacks. You can tie up multiple fire warrior squads and anything that survives is likely to just die to the next round of charges unless I have all my units bunched up sacrificing board control for the sake of anti charge defense. If I am bunching up, why are you trying to table me instead of just playing objectives and using terrain to deny LOS?

Apologists are gonna apologize. Shooting now out of control thanks to the last three codices. If there's no improvement in CA, I'm probably done with 8th. It's turning into 7th again with different actors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DominayTrix wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
So far this conversation has broken down into 2 camps.

1 Camp that understands CC and uses a CC army and another camp that doesn't play a CC army and is making suggestions on how to further nerf CC in a edition that already nerfed CC.

If you are going to sit there and tell CC players why their armies aren't relevant and why the rules should benefit you, maybe you should play in our shoes for a few games and then get back to us.

I do. Often.

It's a good attempt to invalidate anything you don't agree with. I prefer the "LALALA I'M NOT LISTENING" approach though.

Keep it civil daed, and I wasn't referring to you. You aren't trying to explain to me how I should be trying to trap screen units with my CC army.

He called you out for your "You can't talk about melee unless you play melee" excuse for being a blatant attempt to invalidate opinions just because people don't use melee. You could use the same type of reasoning that melee people don't understand the costs of falling back because they don't play shooting armies. It isn't very productive either way. I can tell you that falling back has drawbacks. You can tie up multiple fire warrior squads and anything that survives is likely to just die to the next round of charges unless I have all my units bunched up sacrificing board control for the sake of anti charge defense. If I am bunching up, why are you trying to table me instead of just playing objectives and using terrain to deny LOS?

Fire warriors are cheap enough that you can throw them away to protect your valuable stuff. The gulf between the chaff have and the have nots is huge. Yes, marines have access to guardsmen, but I don't have anything worth screening, nor do screens do a thing vs opponents who just everything to death.

I think a lot of disagreement is coming from looking at things differently.

I see Fall Back as a viable reaction to being Assaulted, and thus which costs are "Fall back" costs, and which costs are "having been assualted" costs is a difficult line.

Perhaps the conversation would be better suited talking about costs of being assaulted, instead of costs of falling back.

Costs of being assaulted are certainly less than previous versions. Restrictions to assaults is less. But offense - both CC and shooting - seems to be up. And CC offense going up won't matter if you can't make CC because shooting offense went up.

Fall back ensures that successful charges are shot off the table the next turn. Assault elements need to be a lot cheaper with that rule in the game.