It's laughable how bad the new Cut Them Down Stratagem is

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.

**JakeSiren**

Therion wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Cheex wrote:
Is it rubbish? Maybe.
It is definitely rubbish, and the issue people have with it is that it doesn't address the underlying problems with assault that exist in 8th. A statistically insignificant amount of MWs that cost you a CP to bring into play does not solve the fact that assault units get one turn to make their dent before they are blasted off the table by a screening unit that just waltzed away from combat.

The other issue is that it makes it clear that GW doesn't understand their own game. If they acknowledge that assault has issues and this is their solution, then that does not bode well for the remainder of the game's revisions.

You know the phrase it's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt, well GW went and removed all doubt when they said this:

"That will certainly hurt if activated on a unit of 30 Ork Boyz!"

... because anyone with half a braincell, even the "GW can do no wrong" white knights among us, know that an Ork boy unit at the end of combat doesn't have 30 models, and never has.

There isn’t one top tier player who tries to make a dent in one turn in combat, because it always leads to what you said, the assault unit getting destroyed in return. You don’t win games convincingly by trading units. In fact, if wrapping/hostages still existed in 9th, most competitive players would gladly just take 100 mortal wounds on their unit that tries to fall back, just so they can remove it and then shoot the assault unit into pieces.

The only way to play assault in 8th has been to charge with your special combat weapons turned off, moving the unit in a line to some objective, going within 1” of the enemy with only one model, and then consolidating around one model to wrap it. Then, during enemy turn, put weapons back on, wipe them, next. This is nearly impossible in 9th because you can fall back through models even if you don’t fly, so assault is pretty much dead, regardless of this stratagem doing 3 mw or 100 mw.

Wait, where was it said that you can fall back through enemy models in 9th? I feel like I've missed some crucial information.

**Niiai**

I very often fall back vs my ork opponent (I am some form of nid) He will apreciate this. Just 12 boys should mean 2 wounds.

Perhaps overwaych has become a stratagem as well?

**Blackie**

Ice_can wrote:

Those are what's left after having been assualted by those units

The Gretchen ate the overwatch for a charictor, * also should say guard, dreadnaught got assualted by the infantry squad as 40 points vrs a dreadnaughts shooting was a nobrainer for him

Tarpitting was removed as it just turns the game into a drawn out bogged down mess. It reduces everything to an ineffectual slapfight.

In my games I lose 90 gretchins with just 3 turns of shooting, I've never assaulted anything valuable with them. A shooty dread can't really be assaulted by guardsmen as they'd need 4+ turns of running across the board to reach that walker, a CC oriented one maybe but things like Murderfang or even a standard ork dread can handle 10-20 cheap troops. Does it require more than a single turn of fighting? Maybe, but where's the issue? Some units require more than single turn of shooting (and I mean the entire army shooting) to be killed by firepower, so it shouldn't be a big deal if a dread manages to escape combat by killing the assault troops in 2-3 turns of fighting. Or if you really need to get rid of those assault dudes, you sacrifice it and blast them off the table. Still a win for the player who owns that dread.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

... because anyone with half a braincell, even the "GW can do no wrong" white knights among us, know that an Ork boy unit at the end of combat doesn't have 30 models, and never has.

Most of the times they're not even the full 30 at the BEGINNING of the combat.

**addnid**

Can anyone confirm what Therion said one page before, about enemy units being able falling back « Through » your tripoiting models in 9th Ed ? I wasn’t able to find anything on this

**Ice_can**

Blackie wrote:
Ice_can wrote:

Those are what's left after having been assualted by those units

The Gretchen ate the overwatch for a charictor, * also should say guard, dreadnaught got assualted by the infantry squad as 40 points vrs a dreadnaughts shooting was a nobrainer for him

Tarpitting was removed as it just turns the game into a drawn out bogged down mess. It reduces everything to an ineffectual slapfight.

In my games I lose 90 gretchins with just 3 turns of shooting, I've never assaulted anything valuable with them. A shooty dread can't really be assaulted by guardsmen as they'd need 4+ turns of running across the board to reach that walker, a CC oriented one maybe but things like Murderfang or even a standard ork dread can handle 10-20 cheap troops. Does it require more than a single turn of fighting? Maybe, but where's the issue? Some units require more than single turn of shooting (and I mean the entire army shooting) to be killed by firepower, so it shouldn't be a big deal if a dread manages to escape combat by killing the assault troops in 2-3 turns of fighting. Or if you really need to get rid of those assault dudes, you sacrifice it and blast them off the table. Still a win for the player who owns that dread.

We solved that getting blasted of the table issue with adding ITC LOS rules for ruins and always playing with tournement plus levels of terrain, more than I think alot of people use.
No standing at opposite sides of the bored blasting the oppoent to dust turn 1.

Killing them in 2 turns is one thing if they could not just go back to the old BS of just drip feed in units so your unit achieves nothing.

Yiu liked tarpitting fine most people hated it, feeding chaff to things to bog them down ia very detrimental to the playing experiance for either army.

**Pyroalchi**

Just my 50 cents: seeing that it is a core stratagem along things like "reroll 1 dice" for 1CP or autopass morale for 2 it seems OK to me. As long as GW doesn't expect it to fix melees problems but just as an additional situational gimmick that might be useful for some units occassionally (like autopass moral).

But on a sidenote: every time I read someone argueing along the line of "it's so dumb that units can fall back from CC", "falling back should be illegal/cost CP" I cannot help but think "Then why can't I shoot at units in CC if I don't care about hitting my own?"
Seriously that is a massive abstraction purely to make melee possible. I so far have to hear a convincing reason why guard, nids, genestealers or Orks should stop shooting at an enemy just because he stands near a guardsman/gant/grot.

I wouldn't mind if fall back becomes impossible as long as ranged armies can then choose to ignore casualties and fire into melees.

**Blackie**

Ice_can wrote:

We solved that getting blasted of the table issue with adding ITC LOS rules for ruins and always playing with tournement plus levels of terrain, more than I think alot of people use.
No standing at opposite sides of the bored blasting the oppoent to dust turn 1.

Note that gretchins are M5'' T2 6+ save dudes which also suffer a lot from moral issues (Ld4).

Still... gretchins, cultists, guardsmen that assault a shooting unit are extremely rare. Let alone a case in which after resolving fighting those things are still locked in combat.

Ice_can wrote:

Yiu liked tarpitting fine most people hated it, feeding chaff to things to bog them down ia very detrimental to the playing experiance for either army.

Most people=some people. No one knows where the majority stands. And if you get tarpitted you're probably not a good player, it has always been true, especially in previous editions when deep striking wasn't so easy.

**Shadenuat**

It's an obvious clutch strat. It's not useful for everyone always, but against important enemy piece with few wounds left it can easily be worth of 1CP. It also depends on size of the base and amount of your guys within it. And it doesn't matter if your unit is trash in CC and can't fight, even weakest things can lolrush some of your stuff and try and mortal it if you want to move it away.

So like all rules/strats it's contextual.

**Nym**

It's probably been mentionned already but if "Overwatch" and "Fall back !" are also Stratagems in 9th edition, "Cut them down" isn't so bad. Of course, if falling back and overwatch stay the same, it's pure crap...

Let's hope further previews will shine a better light on this strat.

**addnid**

Perhaps some units will make the 6+ go to à 5+ or a 4+, or make it a 0 cp strat

**Arachnofiend**

Niiai wrote:
I very often fall back vs my ork opponent (I am some form of nid) He will apreciate this. Just 12 boys should mean 2 wounds.

Perhaps overwaych has become a stratagem as well?

The dream: Overwatch is now an Action a unit must declare. Want to overwatch in the charge phase? You aren't shooting in the shooting phase.

Seems a pretty good direction to take with the new Action mechanic.

**Ice_can**

Arachnofiend wrote:
Niiai wrote:
I very often fall back vs my ork opponent (I am some form of nid) He will apreciate this. Just 12 boys should mean 2 wounds.

Perhaps overwaych has become a stratagem as well?

The dream: Overwatch is now an Action a unit must declare. Want to overwatch in the charge phase? You aren't shooting in the shooting phase.

Seems a pretty good direction to take with the new Action mechanic.

Yeah they way they described actions that's not how they wrok, however it does raise an interesting point in that anyone doing an action isn't allowed to move or shoot untill the players next command phase to score the VP, so you now have some units that will be sitting ducks.

Throwing a long bomb charge into such a unit they either have to overwatch hence 0CP.
Or you make the long bomb with no overwatch.

**Grey40k**

What is a strategy meant to represent anyway...

**H.B.M.C.**

Nym wrote:
It's probably been mentionned already but if "Overwatch" and "Fall back !" are also Stratagems in 9th edition, "Cut them down" isn't so bad. Of course, if falling back and overwatch stay the same, it's pure crap...

Cut Them Down remains a pretty crappy strat if Fall Back becomes a strat, but at least then the core problem with assault will be fixed so it won't be that big an issue. They use "Fall Back", you use "Cut Them Down" as a response. That seems fair.

But it won't be like that. Fall Back will remain completely untouched. I can't imagine GW fixing that because I don't think GW sees it as a problem. And GW doesn't see it as a problem because GW doesn't play the same game as the rest of us.

Grey40k wrote:
What is a strategy meant to represent anyway...

The writers and their failure to grasp the rules of their own game after 3 years of data?

**Kroem**

Niiai wrote:
I very often fall back vs my ork opponent (I am some form of nid) He will apreciate this. Just 12 boys should mean 2 wounds.

Perhaps overwaych has become a stratagem as well?

Yea nice idea! This makes a lot of sense if overwatch is now a strategem too

**Karol**

You know I would like if GW just came out and said, we don't want mass shoting in AoS and mass melee armies in w40k. You can try to do it, but you are doing it at your own risk, so be warned.

People would be unhappy, but after some time, the calls for making melee good again would stop. Also the danger of GW ever making a realy good melee army, which would have to be game breaking to beat shoting armies, becomes much lower.

I just don't like that smoke in the eye stuff GW sometimes with their stuff how they are going to make X great, and one edition later it is clearly not even good.

**Unit1126PLL**

I would be fine if GW cut melee outright from 40k if they stopped designing melee-only armies and releasing them for 40k (daemons).

**p5freak**

It's great that it costs the same for everyone. Custodes with 3 models pay the same as orks with 30 models

**catbarf**

Karol wrote:
You know I would like if GW just came out and said, we don't want mass shoting in AoS and mass melee armies in w40k. You can try to do it, but you are doing it at your own risk, so be warned.

People would be unhappy, but after some time, the calls for making melee good again would stop. Also the danger of GW ever making a realy good melee army, which would have to be game breaking to beat shoting armies, becomes much lower.

I just don't like that smoke in the eye stuff GW sometimes with their stuff how they are going to make X great, and one edition later it is clearly not even good.

I'd be completely 100% okay with the game being predominantly shooting-based, with melee being a fun and flavorful secondary role used to press home the advantage.

You can even still have melee-only units in that paradigm, they should just be cheap- eg a horde of knife-wielding Cultists ought to be cheaper than a statistically-equivalent, but lasgun-armed line of Guardsmen. It would be weirder if they were completely equivalent.

The problem is when you have units and armies built around melee as a viable, equivalent alternative to shooting. Lots of Tyranid units can choose between melee weapons or ranged weapons, and the ranged ones are almost always the better choice.

If GW's willing to come out and make Screamer-Killers and Hormagaunts dirt-cheap, I can live with that.

**Amishprn86**

p5freak wrote:
It's great that it costs the same for everyone. Custodes with 3 models pay the same as orks with 30 models

YEP! Equality!

**addnid**

Can anyone confirm what Therion said one page before, about enemy units being able falling back « Through » your tripoiting models in 9th Ed ? I wasn’t able to find anything on this.

**VladimirHerzog**

addnid wrote:
Can anyone confirm what Therion said one page before, about enemy units being able falling back « Through » your tripoiting models in 9th Ed ? I wasn’t able to find anything on this.

Its information he got from an unnamed source. Take it with a grain of salt until we learn if it really is coming with 9th.

**addnid**

VladimirHerzog wrote:
addnid wrote:
Can anyone confirm what Therion said one page before, about enemy units being able falling back « Through » your tripoiting models in 9th Ed ? I wasn’t able to find anything on this.

Its information he got from an unnamed source. Take it with a grain of salt until we learn if it really is coming with 9th.

OK I will then, wait and see, as this could change lots of things for assault units. Thanks for the info, much appreciated.

**some bloke**

I kinda feel that "cut them down" should have been the basic mechanic for fall back and not an additional stratagem!

I can imagine some units (like Khorne Bezerkers) having access to similar stratagems in time, which will inflict greater damage on Infantry falling back. But really, it should have just been the standard for falling back!

**Gadzilla666**

addnid wrote:
VladimirHerzog wrote:
addnid wrote:
Can anyone confirm what Therion said one page before, about enemy units being able falling back « Through » your tripoiting models in 9th Ed ? I wasn’t able to find anything on this.

Its information he got from an unnamed source. Take it with a grain of salt until we learn if it really is coming with 9th.

OK I will then, wait and see, as this could change lots of things for assault units. Thanks for the info, much appreciated.

It's probably a stratagem. Everything's a

strategem nowadays.

**addnid**

Gadzilla666 wrote:
addnid wrote:
VladimirHerzog wrote:
addnid wrote:
Can anyone confirm what Therion said one page before, about enemy units being able falling back « Through » your tripoiting models in 9th Ed ? I wasn’t able to find anything on this.

Its information he got from an unnamed source. Take it with a grain of salt until we learn if it really is coming with 9th.

OK I will then, wait and see, as this could change lots of things for assault units. Thanks for the info, much appreciated.

It's probably a stratagem. Everything's a strategem nowadays.

I agree, to much gak is a strat, where it should be an innate ability for at least some units. BUUUUT for this ? A strat would be perfect. Would require to give hords a boost though, because preventing non flying units from falling back by tripointing is a like the number one reason we take them. But I do believe tripointing and trapping a unit to prevent it getting shot sucks, it is not immersive AT ALL. 20 genestealers surrouding one space marine ? Shoot the pile of chitin ! OK so one brother dies for the cause, to save many more...

I loved the idea someone had here, to just make CC units cheap (or resilient). This way it's fine if they get overwatched, alphastriked, shot to bits after the unit they cgarge falls back, fail a charge then get shot to bits, etc.

**Blackie**

Karol wrote:
You know I would like if GW just came out and said, we don't want mass shoting in AoS and mass melee armies in w40k.

No one wants mass melee or only-melee armies, but a balance between 60-40 or 70-30 in favor of shooting, not something like 90-10 or 100-0. AKA gunline vs gunline. Otherwise why don't we just play a WW1 based wargame? Darth Vader vs Luke, Rey vs Kylo Ren... didn't duel by shooting each other, right?

**Not Online!!!**

Blackie wrote:
Karol wrote:
You know I would like if GW just came out and said, we don't want mass shoting in AoS and mass melee armies in w40k.

No one wants mass melee or only-melee armies, but a balance between 60-40 or 70-30 in favor of shooting, not something like 90-10 or 100-0. AKA gunline vs gunline. Otherwise why don't we just play a WW1 based wargame? Darth Vader vs Luke, Rey vs Kylo Ren... didn't duel by shooting each other, right?

i am fairly sure a welldesigned WW1 game would also have 80-20 ratio just because of assaults with creeping barrages and ingiltration tactics later on employed.

**Sim-Life**

Blackie wrote:
Karol wrote:
You know I would like if GW just came out and said, we don't want mass shoting in AoS and mass melee armies in w40k.

No one wants mass melee or only-melee armies

Speak for yourself.

**Unit1126PLL**

Blackie wrote:
No one wants mass melee or only-melee armies

Except GW who keeps building and publishing them. And the players who keep buying and playing them.

But yeah, aside from the game designers and the game players, no one wants mass melee armies.