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.

GW once again proved they don't understand problems with melee again with the release if this Stratagem. Nobody is going to think twice about falling back because of this Stratagem existing, simply because opening up that unit to be shot is always worth the 1-2 Mortal Wounds you MIGHT receive. The Stratagem could be free and people would still forget it exists.

Yeah. I was really hoping for a more comprehensive reduction in falling back/penalty. For better or worse, players figured out Tri-pointing/wrapping which has kept melee sort of alive and masked the extent of the problem and made up for a bad core mechanic. I guarantee the rules writers didn’t intend for wrapping to be a mechanic or tactic. And unfortunately, being able to exploit that is now a “skill test” rather than a bug in the game to be fixed.

You know how melee works in 9th? Do tell!

greyknight12 wrote:Yeah. I was really hoping for a more comprehensive reduction in falling back/penalty.

Sim-Life wrote:You know how melee works in 9th? Do tell!

I think we can simultaneously say that the stratagem seems like a bit of a joke, while acknowledging we still don't know what other changes are coming.

For all we know there will be further restrictions to fall back- but I doubt they'll make 1CP for an extra couple of MWs under extremely specific circumstances something that sees frequent use.

The strat is bad, no question. This should have been a core rule.

I'm hoping there is something in the core rule that punishes falling back, because this ain't it.

Yeah, I doubt that mechanic was meant to be the ONLY solution to the fall back problem. There are probably other things that work with this.

For example, they've mentioned in passing changes to overwatch, they've mentioned a die modifier cap of +/- 1, and they are improving cover.

Also a core strategem dosen't replace a faction strategem- any strats or abilities that do this or something like this are still there.

So if I hit with an MSU of Wyches and an MSU of Reavers, I get to use this strat IN ADDITION to No Escape, the bonus to that roll that I get for my shardnet. An if you win and fall back anyway, I hit with my cluster caltrops and keep this strat in my back pocket in case anyone is still standing.

And as sim pointed out, probably a bunch of smaller changes and interactions that haven't even been hinted at.

I agree that this strat certainly feels a bit lacklustre. I’m hoping for more changes to the overall melee system.

if melee doesn't get any new rules as to how it works i'll be pretty bummed.

My hope was that falling back automatically offered a melee overwatch, where models fight as normal except the i hit on 6's (possibly ignorable only if the falling back unit can fly).

we havn't seen everything, maybe such a rule does exist and that stratagem is just a bonus to really punish falling back.

But from what we know right now, 20 grots doing as much damage than 20 death company seems a bit ridiculous

 Sim-Life wrote:
You know how melee works in 9th? Do tell!

It won't be different enough that a Strat giving conditional 1/6 Mortal Wounds is going to be good, and you don't need the whole picture to grasp that extremely basic concept.

 Sasori wrote:
The strat is bad, no question. This should have been a core rule.

I'm hoping there is something in the core rule that punishes falling back, because this ain't it.

USR’s are bad remember?

This whole strategem / cp experiment has been quite hilarious.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
You know how melee works in 9th? Do tell!

It won't be different enough that a Strat giving conditional 1/6 Mortal Wounds is going to be good, and you don't need the whole picture to grasp that extremely basic concept.

How bad it is depends on the context of how melee works and what exactly is in melee.

If "Engagement range" means every model capable to hit in melee, then this stratagem can be useful for hordes.

On a target like a knight taking 6-7 MW from this isn't that far stretched.

Weren't we just asking if there was something nice around for hordes?

It is nice in that it's mortal wounds instead of roll to hit, roll to wound, roll armor, fnp, etc.

Do wish there will be a basic "reverse overwatch" where you would get ALL your attacks, but that probably isn't going to happen.

 Sim-Life wrote:
How bad it is depends on the context of how melee works and what exactly is in melee.

Not sure how context can change the fact its 1 CP for 1/6 mortal wounds per model in range of that unit.

Paying 1 CP for 1-2 (potentially 0) mortal wounds was considered marginal in 2017. Today its generally considered incredibly weak. (I.E. your CP should be working harder for you than this.)

I think GW will always be criticised because plenty of people want fall back to be deader than disco - but this is just bad unless there are hard nerfs to loads of stratagems we have seen in say PA.

I know I'd use it against Harlequins every time. I can see the use being limited against other targets, though.

Tyel wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
How bad it is depends on the context of how melee works and what exactly is in melee.

Not sure how context can change the fact its 1 CP for 1/6 mortal wounds per model in range of that unit.

Paying 1 CP for 1-2 (potentially 0) mortal wounds was considered marginal in 2017. Today its generally considered incredibly weak. (I.E. your CP should be working harder for you than this.)

I think GW will always be criticised because plenty of people want fall back to be deader than disco - but this is just bad unless there are hard nerfs to loads of stratagems we have seen in say PA.

On a big target you can get far more than 2 MW.

It's almost like GW are bad at rule writing in a general sense...

 Sim-Life wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
You know how melee works in 9th? Do tell!

It won't be different enough that a Strat giving conditional 1/6 Mortal Wounds is going to be good, and you don't need the whole picture to grasp that extremely basic concept.

How bad it is depends on the context of how melee works and what exactly is in melee.

...Except that the fact that codexes are not changing kind of disproves this. This stratagem has to compete with all currently existing stratagems. You could argue that maybe "Engagement range" is 36", so every time every unit gets into melee, all of them get to make their attacks, since Engagement Range is the unknown here. Maybe Tripointing is also removed, so many more units will be falling back than before.

Even in this EXTREMELY favorable context, it's very tough for me to see a situation where I want to spend my 1CP stratagem on this, and not, to give a few examples:

"rammin' speed" - my single-model unit gets to deal D3 mortals on a 2+
"Hit Em Harder" - my unit gets to do +1D on all their melee attacks
"Full Speed Ladz" - my unit gets +1S on all their melee attacks

Nearly every melee army has numerous single-CP strats like these ones that either deal more damage or more reliable mortal wounds, enabling them to destroy the unit BEFORE they even get to fall back and potentially suffer mortals from Cut Them Down.

There are a few edge cases, which many people have already conceded, in which this could be a solid stratagem to use, but typically the best use case is on a unit that is not a real melee unit, like a gretchin or conscript blob, where the Cut Them Down stratagem enables them for no adequately explored reason to deal far MORE damage to a heavy target than they'd ever deal with their normal, terrible attacks.

A stratagem that enables huge hordes of cheapo chaff units to situationally dish out mortal wounds on 6s does precisely nothing to address the issues that dedicated melee units face currently. If other rules exist that do do this, then those rules are what correct melee, and Cut Them Down is a net zero.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
How bad it is depends on the context of how melee works and what exactly is in melee.

Not sure how context can change the fact its 1 CP for 1/6 mortal wounds per model in range of that unit.

Paying 1 CP for 1-2 (potentially 0) mortal wounds was considered marginal in 2017. Today its generally considered incredibly weak. (I.E. your CP should be working harder for you than this.)

I think GW will always be criticised because plenty of people want fall back to be deader than disco - but this is just bad unless there are hard nerfs to loads of stratagems we have seen in say PA.

On a big target you can get far more than 2 MW.

Sigh...you mean "With a big attacking unit" here.

That's the other thing about this rule: Approximately 50% of people who've read it so far appear to have misinterpreted it.

Spoletta wrote:
If "Engagement range" means every model capable to hit in melee, then this stratagem can be useful for hordes.

On a target like a knight taking 6-7 MW from this isn't that far stretched.

Weren't we just asking if there was something nice around for hordes?

Which also shows why such a answer of spend CP fish for MW is a terrible game design, mass grots etc should NOt be doing MW to Landraiders, Knight's, Stompas because they got walked over.

Why not? I'm sure you can find some way to turn those gretchins into land mines!

 Sim-Life wrote:
You know how melee works in 9th? Do tell!

Sure!


Gunline falls back, melee army dies in shoothing phase. (unless its a tank, then dosent even need to move).

Spoletta wrote:
On a big target you can get far more than 2 MW.

Look - sure.
If you can get 40-50 boyz or whatever to surround a unit so they are all in "engagement range", and yes you can do 6-7 wounds.

In my experience though this doesn't happen. Getting 30 boys into engagement range with most things is nearly impossible.

I can see it maybe being useful - because you smash a unit, but due to some fluffed dice say 2 models survive. You can't complete the wrap (or maybe they can fly) but have a decent number piled up in front of them still in engagement range. They fall back - you break out this stratagem and have a reasonable chance of clearing them so you get some related secondary objective point, or just generally remove something which could be annoying to clear later on.

But the scenarios where you get loads of mortal wounds from this feel very contrived.

I think you guys are missing an angle on this, you can use this to weaponizes the bad touch. You can use this to get damage on targets that you units might not have been able to hurt, and it's out of normal sequence. It's basically a hellfire shell stratagem that doesn't require you to give up your shooting. I doubt it's going to do what it's intended to do, but it will see some use.

 Grimgold wrote:
I think you guys are missing an angle on this, you can use this to weaponizes the bad touch. You can use this to get damage on targets that you units might not have been able to hurt, and it's out of normal sequence. It's basically a hellfire shell stratagem that doesn't require you to give up your shooting. I doubt it's going to do what it's intended to do, but it will see some use.

This is how I imagine it will be used, as a way to inflict wounds on a target that you would otherwise struggle to damage.

Depending on what else changes with melee it might end up more useful, especially if it results in interesting interactions with whatever the new morale/attrition mechanic is.

All else being equal, it looks like a potentially great Stratagem for Hormagaunts and similar units.

I can only see the use to this stratagem when something like the enemy warlord or a character you REALLY want killed just survives with 1 wound and then tryes to fall back.

Thinking further on this strategem, I could see it being used to try and chisel off one or two more wounds to knock something big down into the next stat bracket.

Aash wrote:
Thinking further on this strategem, I could see it being used to try and chisel off one or two more wounds to knock something big down into the next stat bracket.

Aye, that's a good use-case too. Counteracted somewhat by the apparent ability to fire from combat, but still.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Aash wrote:
Thinking further on this strategem, I could see it being used to try and chisel off one or two more wounds to knock something big down into the next stat bracket.

Aye, that's a good use-case too. Counteracted somewhat by the apparent ability to fire from combat, but still.

It really smacks of someone having a misguided belief that MW are good for the game, they dont the lead to devaluation of defensive stats and reduce everything to FNP or die.

Ice_can wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Aash wrote:
Thinking further on this strategem, I could see it being used to try and chisel off one or two more wounds to knock something big down into the next stat bracket.

Aye, that's a good use-case too. Counteracted somewhat by the apparent ability to fire from combat, but still.

It really smacks of someone having a misguided belief that MW are good for the game, they dont the lead to devaluation of defensive stats and reduce everything to FNP or die.

I’m not a fan of the way mortal wounds are used (I think they’re fine in some instances), but I was just trying to see what practical use could be made of this strategem.