PDA

View Full Version : Is sweeping advance too harsh?



jason_sation
04-11-2009, 21:25
I don't play that often with my Guard, so I'm sure others will have more insight into this than me, but is Sweeping Advance too unforgiving to units? It seems a bit harsh that a whole unit fails their morale in close combat, loses their initiative role, and then is wiped out, regardless of the actual strength (in terms of numbers still alive) of the unit. Do I just need to suck it up and quit whining?

Vaktathi
04-11-2009, 21:28
With IG, unless you're running some massive amalgamated platoon kitted to the gills, Sweeping Advance is generally a blessing as it clears you to fire on the assaulting enemy unit and the unit that got Swept likely isn't really in much of a position to be useful anymore anyway.

For other armies it can be pretty brutal, having a large terminator unit swept can always be dumb, but for IG, it's not a problem.

devlin
04-11-2009, 21:28
it only suck if your on the losing end of it ,but yes i kinda agree it can be a bit of a nut cracker

Dr.Clock
04-11-2009, 21:29
yup.

Assault is MEANT to be unforgiving... there needs to be some payoff for running directly into the guns of the enemy.

Look at it this way: a sweeping advance leaves the assaulting unit open to reprisal. In some cases it's actually beneficial.

Cheers,

The Good Doctor.

Tarian
04-11-2009, 21:29
Since I mostly play Fantasy where break/overrun is the point of CC, Sweeping Advance doesn't seem too bad to me.

Bunnahabhain
04-11-2009, 21:31
Yes.

As a Guard player, you shrug it off, and accept you just lost a 60pt unit, so leaving the 200pt assualt unit free to die to the rest of the platoons fire.

Or use a commissar to make a 30 man unit stubborn, so very unlikey to be run at all.

If you were a Necron player, then you have every right to whine, as your necessary, expensive, and normally very hard to kill troops disappear at the drop of a hat to any combat unit better than a tactical squad.

EDIT. Whoa! Really Ninja'd!

Urath
04-11-2009, 21:35
A Terminator Lord w/ Chosen Terminators suffers sweeping advance by Grots :p

Death Company
04-11-2009, 21:36
I'm surprised you're a Guard player honestly. My Guard buddies just love when I sweep away one of their trash squads so that they can open up on my Marines point-blank.

marv335
04-11-2009, 21:40
While it is brutal, it's not as nasty as it was, as you can no longer consolidate into combat, leaving your assault unit vulnerable to massed return fire.

Nezmith
04-11-2009, 21:40
If you were a Necron player, then you have every right to whine, as your necessary, expensive, and normally very hard to kill troops disappear at the drop of a hat to any combat unit better than a tactical squad.


This right here. This.

ehlijen
04-11-2009, 21:50
This right here. This.

Or, you know, put a few more warriors into the unit to make a decent number of WS4 S4 return attacks, or attach a lord to help or screen them with scarabs...

Those WS4 T4+ 3+ save ld10 models don't have to be the pushovers everyone says they are.

jason_sation
04-11-2009, 21:53
I'm surprised you're a Guard player honestly. My Guard buddies just love when I sweep away one of their trash squads so that they can open up on my Marines point-blank.

Actually, you are right. I do like when my guys die so that my tanks and other guys can shoot the heck out of them. But the system does seem overly brutal to me. It seems weird that a conscript platoon of 50 guys can lose 3 guys, start to run away, and then get hacked to pieces (or "sent packing" as in the rulebook) by a few Chaos Marines.

I wonder how other systems deal with this. I'm not saying its a bad rule, I just would've toned it down if I had made this game. Maybe the unit loses a random number of guys instead of the whole unit. (Although I don't want to tread into rules development territory. I have no idea how to implement less deaths in a unit that falls back.)

guillimansknight
04-11-2009, 21:55
I do wish there was a better development of morale in 40K

But sweeping is daft, it's all or nothing. It's just typical of GW not bothering

Nezmith
04-11-2009, 21:56
Or, you know, put a few more warriors into the unit to make a decent number of WS4 S4 return attacks, or attach a lord to help or screen them with scarabs...

Those WS4 T4+ 3+ save ld10 models don't have to be the pushovers everyone says they are.

I doubt a combat unit would be intimidated by a strength 4 attack.

Attaching a Lord to a squad of warriors is begging for him to disappear along with the warriors during the sweep.

CherryMan
04-11-2009, 22:01
While it is brutal, it's not as nasty as it was, as you can no longer consolidate into combat, leaving your assault unit vulnerable to massed return fire.


I cant belive I had actually missed that from the 5:th rule book...:wtf: ...
Well that sure as hell makes a random assault unit pretty crappy.

Netfreakk
04-11-2009, 22:01
Historically speaking, it's the sweeping advances that cause the majority of casualties in war.

If you look back to the ancient Greeks vs. Persians / ancient Romans vs. Greeks, the disparity of the amount of loss of men is greatly contributed to the fact that when they start to flee they drop their equipment to reduce being encumbered and start to run away without protection. Then the advancing army starts to hack away at their backs.

I think they got it right.

jason_sation
04-11-2009, 22:04
Historically speaking, it's the sweeping advances that cause the majority of casualties in war.

If you look back to the ancient Greeks vs. Persians / ancient Romans vs. Greeks, the disparity of the amount of loss of men is greatly contributed to the fact that when they start to flee they drop their equipment to reduce being encumbered and start to run away without protection. Then the advancing army starts to hack away at their backs.

I think they got it right.

This statement might have changed my mind.

JHZ
04-11-2009, 22:36
It goes a little something like this:
Unit A charges into combat with Unit B. Both struggle, and in the end one gets the upper hand. Maybe the other one loses a little too many troops or so they encounter something big and nasty. Anyways, they crap their pants and run, or try to disengage, knowing they can't win. They retreat and open up the ranks for the enemy to push in, having less resistance. The rest of the troops see their comrades running and think it's a general retreat, or just see that there's more baddies coming their way, so they disengage also, or just get hammered to death.

The unit breaks apart, making lone individuals easy targets. The ones that are already running, are gunned down. The unit continues to flee and is pretty much bashed beyond any hope for the battle at the moment.


And like Netfreakk said, stuff like that happens. Anywhere from medieval men-at-arms losing their nerves and getting run over by the charging cavalry, to a WW1 trench getting overrun and the defending soldiers crushed and scattered. They might not be dead, but for the purpose of the battle, they're not a factor anymore.

Anyone remember the big battle from The Return of the King, when the Rohirrim just ran over the orcs and made them flee. They didn't crush them to the last man (orc), and there was still hundreds of them left, yet they played no part in the battle beyond that. For the purpose of that battle, they were "destroyed", gone, swept by the advance of the Rohirrim.

Close combat is different from just a shooting war. CC is fast and determines the outcome quickly. There's not "tactical withdrawals" or anything it CC. It's either run away or run 'em down. When two armies meet in CC, they fight for the day, and rest for the night. Battles with swords and shields are usually over quickly, where as shooting battles can last for weeks, even months with both sides taking casualties and still holding firm.

Sworn
04-11-2009, 22:38
Personally I like it. When playing Tau it frees the opponent from combat and allows me to unleash a torrent of fire on them.

burad
04-11-2009, 22:47
Exactly. In real life terms, some of them are probably not dead, they just ran like hell, and they're not going to be back today. In a campaign setting you should get some percentage of them back for the next battle. But even in that case, their morale won't be at the level it was previously, not for a long time (or a successful battle).

Agnar the Howler
04-11-2009, 22:53
I hope that GW doesn't listen to all the whines about it and keeps it, because it's something that is unforgiving when used against you, but iof you do it then it feels really good. It's also very realistic, unless you can't run after something (like with terminators in heavy armour) then any enemy you catch running away WILL die.

Plus, where does it say that sweeping advances are when they're caught by people running after tham and chopping them to bits with swords? It could represent the victorious unit gunning them down as they run, which would explain how, potentially, a 1 man unit can sweeping advance 30 men, he chases a few down and then empties his clip at the rest.

If sweeping advance was gone, then it would represent the unit running away and the winning unit standing there wondering where they went. It wouldn't happen unless you were beaten down by a unit of Alzheimers sufferers.

qwertywraith
04-11-2009, 23:55
Actually, you are right. I do like when my guys die so that my tanks and other guys can shoot the heck out of them. But the system does seem overly brutal to me. It seems weird that a conscript platoon of 50 guys can lose 3 guys, start to run away, and then get hacked to pieces (or "sent packing" as in the rulebook) by a few Chaos Marines.

A few chaos marines who cost, individually, significantly more than the conscripts. And 50 conscripts losing 3 guys? What kind of combat is that? What about the 47 conscripts who strike back?

Look, sweeping advance is not broken. It can only happen after a long series of dice rolls. First you lose combat, which means your opponent has rolled to hit and wound you, and you have rolled saves. You have also hit back. This is a ton of rolls where you have a chance to save yourself. Then, even if you lose, you get a LD check. Yes, there are penalties to the LD check, but you still get it. Finally, after all that, the Initiative check.

It is significantly harder to do, and more reasonable given the compared statistics of a dedicated CC unit like berserkers versus guardsmen, than just pie plate-ing a unit. It's one of the main advantages of elite armies versus hordes, and most hordes have some way to mitigate it (Orks, even guard can rally with orders when they escape).

Imperius
05-11-2009, 00:19
My I.G. are so pathetically equipped that even when someone mows through them I fear no evil.

My Black Templars are fearless in combat.

My Orks are also fearless.

So, every 40k army that I play doesn't have to worry about the Sweeping Advance too much. Quite a large number of people also play Orks and Imperial Guard too.

Thrax
05-11-2009, 01:24
My group felt Sweeping Advance was too harsh in too many circumstances, so instead of wiping the unit out it receives automatic hits from the surviving enemy unit(s)'s normal attacks. It takes longer but it works better overall.

The Orange
05-11-2009, 03:31
I'd say it's absurdly harsh, and until shooting gets something on that sort of magnitude of pwnage I call it cheese. It's a simplistic rule that favors units that can soak up damage over those that instead rely on a lot of cheap bodies for no other reason then shoddy rules development. 3 SM sweeping 17 kroot (thats almost 6 to 1 odds btw), that's just retardidly ridiculous when the marines only managed +1 kill over their opponent.

ehlijen
05-11-2009, 07:48
I'd say it's absurdly harsh, and until shooting gets something on that sort of magnitude of pwnage I call it cheese. It's a simplistic rule that favors units that can soak up damage over those that instead rely on a lot of cheap bodies for no other reason then shoddy rules development. 3 SM sweeping 17 kroot (thats almost 6 to 1 odds btw), that's just retardidly ridiculous when the marines only managed +1 kill over their opponent.

There does exist such a magnitude of pwnage (whatever that means): The shooter can start shooting from turn one. The stabber has to run into range of his knife first.
Also, a shooter is perfectly safe from return fire in his own turn. The stabber, once in combat, faces return attacks in his own turn. So, assuming the stabber wins and sweeps in the first round of fighting, the shooter still had probably 2 turns of shooting and one turn of punching back for only one turn of being stabbed. Ie, shooters make a lot more attacks over the course of a game than stabbers and have more freedom over where to be when they make those attacks. The stabber has to come to the enemy or he is useless.

And if you still loose fights with 2-1 odds (48 points of marines vs 119 points of kroot) and then fail your ld7 test and then fail your initiative test, sure, they unit died, bad luck. Just like an unlucky termie rolling a 1 for his save dies. Or a unit of stabbers not being able to charge because snake eyes came up for the terrain test.

hawo0313
05-11-2009, 08:06
I like this rule because the way I see it if the units that lose combat dont flee then that combat will drag on and on forever. Also if there was no sweeping advance then fearless would be less favourable i.e run away with little fear of losing the whole squad or take a wound for every point you lost CR by.

Anyway answering to the point as a combat between a small heavily armored unit(SM) against a large lighltly armored unit (kroot) and the SM win combat if I was one of the kroot and my squad which had outnumbered the enemy by more than three to 1 was losing the fight I'd want to run from the 8 foot tall super warrior who'd butchered my pals a moment ago.

Cheeslord
05-11-2009, 08:50
Personally I dont like it - 400 point squad + 200 point leader all insta-killed on 2 dice rolls.

They have tried to make close combat fast and deadly compared to shooting, which is fine, but completely annihilating units regardless of their defensive abilities due to 1 unlucky round of combat (remember if you lose you will always have at least -1 to your Ld so you never test using its full value) just focusses too much of the game on too few rolls of the dice

It also strongly favours elite units over hordes, and motivates you to seperate out ICs from your squad before charging (at least then you get 4 rolls instead of 2 if you lose and 1 unit not fleeing will prevent the other getting SA'd).

Of course it favours space marines, which are a popular choice, because they are immune to it.

Mark.

<edit> Particularly frustrating aspect is having your unit routed and destroyed because they are in a narrow place and the leader cannot get to fight the enemy (ICs have to make base contact to fight - this rule intended to force them to get involved in the melee frequently has the opposite effect and they are forced to die without a chance to fight the enemy)

Doomseer
05-11-2009, 09:44
I used to think it was harsh but I've accepted it as part of 40K, even if on occasion it is total ******** losing a decent unit to some wimps on a couple of un/lucky dice.

That's dice games for you though!

IJW
05-11-2009, 09:50
400 point squad + 200 point leader all insta-killed on 2 dice rolls.
That's one way of looking at it. The other is to remember all the hit/wound/save rolls that were also required just to get to those two rolls...

Sweeping Advance in itself isn't that harsh, it's the combination with the altered combat resolution in 5th that makes combat so unforgiving. Although I can remember howls of complaint when the mechanic was introduced back in 4th ed. Warhammer (prior to it coming into 40k).

Logarithm Udgaur
05-11-2009, 10:11
No.

I do not remember what mechanic we used back in 4th (outnumbering or something), but overall 5th Ed sweeping advance seems fine to me. This may have something to do with the most expensive unit I have ever fielded being around 200 points. As I understand it, some armies pay this for just the basic ten wo/man squad. In short, it tends to work in my favor more often than not, so I am all for it.

Shinzui
05-11-2009, 10:28
Yes

The I+d6 is a really stupid concept. A I2 jump troop should not be caught easier than someone on foot. Sweeping advance should go back to 3rd edition with just lower distances actually traveled like half what is rolled. It made much more sense.

Other thing that bothers me is that unless your fearless you can never be a tarpit unit because its either win or die. This leave Kroot and Ogryn or any other non-maxed CC type units out in the cold for close combat purposes. Outnumbering affecting leadership always made more sense and at most usually only effect -4 leadership instead of the ridiculous -10s and more I see in games.

Murphy's law
05-11-2009, 10:38
Sweeping advance is fine.

Raphaus
05-11-2009, 10:56
Sweeping advance is fine.

Yes it is, 40k is pretty abstract and sweeping advance just represents the collapse of a position thats under close attack.

Sure there are extreme possibilities like enormous guard squads being butchered by a tiny number of CC specialists, but as a game mechanic it keeps the game flowing and works out right most of the time.

By the way, if your massive combined guard squad keeps being wiped out by a handful of genestealers you may be doing something wrong.

Karhedron
05-11-2009, 11:08
Personally I dont like it - 400 point squad + 200 point leader all insta-killed on 2 dice rolls.

A 600 point unit in most armies would have to be hit but something equally expensive and deadly to make that a serious risk. If a shooty unit gets charged by a CC unit then that is a risk. But all armies need to find ways to support their firepower units against this kind of assault.

Inach
05-11-2009, 11:22
Change sweeping advance or rewrite Cron Dex... having them both at this time is destroying my game.

For the rest it's fine (playing CC oriented armies).

Vaktathi
05-11-2009, 11:23
By the way, if your massive combined guard squad keeps being wiped out by a handful of genestealers you may be doing something wrong.If it doesn't have a commissar in it, against 10 charging 4+sv stealers, it'll likely lose combat by about 10 every time. granted that after the 2nd round there shouldn't be any stealers left, but still, that's 2 rounds of combat that the IG won't survive without a Commissar. The Commissar makes all the difference by basically removing the negative modifiers from losing CC and allowing a reroll.

ambrosehlbiercemencken
05-11-2009, 11:38
As multiple people have already said, it is pretty realistic. Historically stuff like that happened. Units or armies that were vastly superior numerically and in terms of equipment being caught or pushed off balance by an inferior force and breaking, with the guys who didn't die or run off the field being taken prisoner. Even in the face of relatively minor losses. Panic spreads.

In terms of game balance, if Necrons suffer from this to the point of making the codex intrinsically inferior, i.e. any army you build with the codex under the existing ruleset is less likely to win than it should be for enjoyable play even when led competently, no way around it, then you can introduce a fix - necron commissars, or improve their shooting so that less enemies make it into close combat, or give Necrons a better close combat unit, or give them a cheap "shield" unit, or beef up the warriors. But it's a good rule overall.

Axel
05-11-2009, 11:42
Sweeping advance is generally a good rule, but some aspects of it are broken.

Its appliance upon Necron debris is just plain stupid. As if the assaulters take a pause to hack all the debris that the unit has already left on the field to pieces.

Numbers should be taken in account with the combat resolution (perhaps along that line: if the opponent who lost still outnumbers the enemy, he gets +1 on his morale test).

And I also dislike the I+d6-comparison. It wrecks loosing cc for some armies, eg. Orks or Necrons.

So while the idea is good, GW made generalized it to a degree that it stopped to make sense and gets if not broken, then at least brittle.

Raphaus
05-11-2009, 12:04
If it doesn't have a commissar in it, against 10 charging 4+sv stealers, it'll likely lose combat by about 10 every time. granted that after the 2nd round there shouldn't be any stealers left, but still, that's 2 rounds of combat that the IG won't survive without a Commissar. The Commissar makes all the difference by basically removing the negative modifiers from losing CC and allowing a reroll.

Well there you are then, take a Commissar.

My point being if your plan is rubbish then the hideous **** kickings you recieve will not be the fault of the rules. There are things like Commissars for a reason.

Poseidal
05-11-2009, 12:07
I like D6+I, it means the I stat means something (though it is more valid in 40k than Fantasy). I wish they put this into Fantasy as well.

For fast movers, maybe it should be 2D6+I though? That means Jump Packs and Bikes are better at running and chasing down.

Keebrev
05-11-2009, 12:28
For fast movers, maybe it should be 2D6+I though? That means Jump Packs and Bikes are better at running and chasing down.

I totally agree, it would sit better with the overall rules for bikes and jump packs

Agnar the Howler
05-11-2009, 13:51
Remember, they are not necessarily getting run down, and the single D6 with jump packs and bikes is still pretty realistic. You're turning tail and fleeing, leaving your packs and engines open to enemy fire, the enemy fires down on you and the chances of catching the engine or jump pack is increased significantly. If sweeping advance was detailed as being charged down in close combat, then yes, 2D6 would work, but since it could just as easily represent the victorious unit gunning down the fleeing troops, then 1D6 seems perfectly fine.

The Orange
05-11-2009, 13:57
There does exist such a magnitude of pwnage (whatever that means): The shooter can start shooting from turn one. The stabber has to run into range of his knife first.
O'RLY? So there lies the same potential for a numerically inferior unit to shoot a numerically superior unit and in ONE turn completely and utterly break them to the point of no return? No I didn't think so :eyebrows:.


Ie, shooters make a lot more attacks over the course of a game than stabbers and have more freedom over where to be when they make those attacks. The stabber has to come to the enemy or he is useless.
Loss of early game attacks is easily made up by the fact that there's practically 2 assault turns per game round and the ability to crush an entire unit without inflicting that many casualties :rolleyes:, as well as relative immunity from an enemy army once engaged in an assault. On top of that assault also has the benefit of power weapons which are pretty much an all or nothing system. Buy a power weapon and it works against 99% of the enemy. Where as shooters have to pay for AP bonuses that may only apply to a fraction of the enemy. "Whats that? you have AP 4 guns, too bad I'm running MEQs" "Whats that you have AP3 guns? too bad their useless against my TEQs and/or GEQs" And the freedom of shooters to attack anywhere is only as good as the enemy allows i.e. cover saves, screening by other troops, hiding behind vehicles/terrain, deep strike, flanking, assaulting from vehicles (LR, open topped), etc. And getting several rounds of shooting off is worthless if you don't have the right guns (lasgun vs. carnifex). There are several ways to mitigate the potential damage from shooting.


And if you still loose fights with 2-1 odds (48 points of marines vs 119 points of kroot) and then fail your ld7 test and then fail your initiative test, sure, they unit died, bad luck. Just like an unlucky termie rolling a 1 for his save dies. Or a unit of stabbers not being able to charge because snake eyes came up for the terrain test.
It has nothing to do with bad luck odds are you'll make that Termi armor save. Massed units like kroot and IG on the other hand can be reliably counted on to fold in combat. As I said before sweeping advanced is unfairly skewed against Hordes simply because of shoddy rules development. When units are playing at different strengths (superior equipment vs. superior numbers) the winner should not simply be determined by who killed more in the end, nor should that single factor open the door to the obliteration of a unit.

Logarithm Udgaur
05-11-2009, 14:05
A I2 jump troop should not be caught easier than someone on foot.<snip> This leave Kroot and Ogryn or any other non-maxed CC type units out in the cold for close combat purposes. <snip>

What army has I2 Jump Troops? (Tau maybe?)I know Necrons have I2 Jetbike equivalents, but I expect something will be done about that once they get an updated codex (unless we get 6th edition before then). I do agree that Jump/Jet/Jetbike/Bike models should have some kind of bonus to sweeping advance, but that is what House Rules are for.

I do not know about Kroot, but Ogryn are Stubborn, so if you are doing it right, they are very unlikely to fail their Ld test.

Agnar the Howler
05-11-2009, 14:16
It has nothing to do with bad luck odds are you'll make that Termi armor save. Massed units like kroot and IG on the other hand can be reliably counted on to fold in combat. As I said before sweeping advanced is unfairly skewed against Hordes simply because of shoddy rules development. When units are playing at different strengths (superior equipment vs. superior numbers) the winner should not simply be determined by who killed more in the end, nor should that single factor open the door to the obliteration of a unit.

If you've just seen most of your squad obliterated before your eyes by a single unit, chances are that you're gunna want to get the hell out of there, and you're not going to be doing it by staying in the fight. Orks are only open to sweeping advances when they loose fearlessness, and kroot are merely played as speedbumps a lot of the time, where getting sweeping advanced can mean that, yeah, you lost a 70pt squad, but left that 200pt+ dedicated assault unit open to every weapon you can point and fire.

Anyway, back to the point of seeing your kin die in droves at the hand of the enemy, you're going to run, and your remaining allies will run, you've lost all morale and you've no will to fight. What will you replace sweeping advance with that you can justify? Make all units fearless when in CC? Explain that every single army has removed the part of the brain that tells you all hope is lost? A demoralised squad won't just stand there and gawp at the enemy.

Bunnahabhain
05-11-2009, 14:22
Modify the morale test by an amount proportional to how much of the unit you've lost.

Tactical squad loses 4 out of 10 men, so has lost 40%.

Conscript horde loses 8 out of 40, so has lost 20%. They get a smaller modifier.

Giganthrax
05-11-2009, 14:34
Sweeping advance is a great thing. It can worth both ways, serving both sides.

The thing with it is, without sweeping advance, it would be impossible for smaller, more elite armies, to take out big units of cheap stuff. It's a good rule.

Axel
05-11-2009, 14:38
What army has I2 Jump Troops?

Orks. They also have I2 bikers and koptaz.


Modify the morale test by an amount proportional to how much of the unit you've lost.

Tactical squad loses 4 out of 10 men, so has lost 40%.

Conscript horde loses 8 out of 40, so has lost 20%. They get a smaller modifier.

Too complex. Most people cannot calculate percentages. They should have kept the outnumbering bonus of earlier editions, with +1 for outnumbering, +2 for 2:1, 3:1 for +3, etc.
Not for combat resolution (as in WFB for +1) but for the morale check.

Better yet, modify the initiative roll. Larger units are less likely to be completely destroyed.

Luisjoey
05-11-2009, 14:39
Not harsh... necesary and very realistic ;)

Inquisitor_Tolheim
05-11-2009, 14:58
Modify the morale test by an amount proportional to how much of the unit you've lost.

Tactical squad loses 4 out of 10 men, so has lost 40%.

Conscript horde loses 8 out of 40, so has lost 20%. They get a smaller modifier.

Hmmm... I like this. A very interesting idea. Barring that I'd love to see a return to the outnumbering bonuses for close combat morale, but only for morale and not for determining who won the combat. It would do a lot to help prevent the massed hoards from breaking at the first opportunity (Kroot are the worst offenders here, Conscripts SHOULD flee like frightened children at the first sign of trouble) while ensuring that elite units still end up on top of the close combat, but their enemies have a lower chance of breaking.

The Sweeping Advance rule is fine on it's own, it's just when it's coupled with the changes to post-close combat morale that it can get a little crazy.

IJW
05-11-2009, 15:06
Orks. They also have I2 bikers and koptaz.
They also have I2 Stormboyz/Jump Troops.

Bunnahabhain
05-11-2009, 15:18
Well, the conscripts are only Ld 6, so unless you've stuck a commissar or such like in the unit, they are likely to run.

Axel is right. Too many people are stupid, and can't handle even very basic maths*. Simple fractions could be used to give much the same result, whilst looking less scary...
Maybe something like:
Losses Morale modifier
0-1/6th 0
1/6-2/6 -1
2/6-3/6 -2
3/6- 4/6 -3
4/6-5/6 -4
5-6 - 6/6 -5

* Anybody who has decide that basic maths, such as fractions, percentages, or elementary probability is pointless, and they don't want to bother learning them is even more stupid than they think maths is...

Inquisitor_Tolheim
05-11-2009, 15:27
Well, the conscripts are only Ld 6, so unless you've stuck a commissar or such like in the unit, they are likely to run.

Axel is right. Too many people are stupid, and can't handle even very basic maths*. Simple fractions could be used to give much the same result, whilst looking less scary...
Maybe something like:
Losses Morale modifier
0-1/6th 0
1/6-2/6 -1
2/6-3/6 -2
3/6- 4/6 -3
4/6-5/6 -4
5-6 - 6/6 -5

* Anybody who has decide that basic maths, such as fractions, percentages, or elementary probability is pointless, and they don't want to bother learning them is even more stupid than they think maths is...

See, I like percentages better, seems more clear cut. I mean, how hard is (current number of models/wounds)/(original number of models/wounds)?

qwertywraith
05-11-2009, 16:53
O'RLY? So there lies the same potential for a numerically inferior unit to shoot a numerically superior unit and in ONE turn completely and utterly break them to the point of no return? No I didn't think so :eyebrows:.

Turn 1. Shoot at enemy unit. Cause 25% casualties. It fails its LD check and runs off the board.


Loss of early game attacks is easily made up by the fact that there's practically 2 assault turns per game round and the ability to crush an entire unit without inflicting that many casualties :rolleyes:, as well as relative immunity from an enemy army once engaged in an assault.

OK, I guess you play Tau, but during those 2 assault turns you are a part of those assaults too. I know firewarriors don't want to be there, but they can swing a few times and even do some damage. As to your second point, yes a unit in CC is safe from enemy shooting which is why you should WANT the sweeping advance rule.

You're actually arguing that CC is too powerful, not sweeping advance here.

There are a few to mitigate CC. 1. don't get into it. Not always easy, but by meching up it's possible to stay away for quite awhile. 2. Getting into the right fight. This means sacrificing a unit "for the greater good" as a speedbump. Yes it dies horribly but you get to now shoot the offending unit yet again (and even assault it if you want. Tau Suits should consider assaulting sometimes).

From a design perspective CC needs to be pretty good. It has to be because CC units are not doing anything for 1 or 2 turns (or more, depending on the opponent), rely on transports, and often lose casualties so they don't arrive at full strength.

So yes, sometimes a CC unit will assault, win by a measly 1, and then run down the enemy. Are the odds of that high, well, not really, but nearly every army in 40K has LD boosting, rerolling, or fixing abilities. When a unit wins by 4 or more and runs down the remaining 16 kroot or whatever, well rock paper scissors. Those kroot got in the wrong fight, rolled bad, or whatever.

If you want to fix the rule, I can see a possible fix by a reverse outnumbering rule. If the unit that lost outnumbers the assaulting unit, they get +1 to their LD, and an additional +1 if they double their number, +1 for trippling, etc, up to a maximum of their LD (or maybe 10, why not).

Alternatively, just make everyone fearless. Let's cut psychology from 40K entirely.

Threeshades
05-11-2009, 17:00
They also have I2 Stormboyz/Jump Troops.

And they have I2 bikes and Koptaz.
Let's keep this chain of redundancy going forever. Axel said "Orks." as reply to the question who has I2 jump troops and then added that they also have bikes and Koptaz with the same.



But back to topic:
I think sweeping advance is what makes the game fair for close combat armies in the first place. They have to wade through enemy fire for the first turn or two and only then get their first chances at causing considerable losses for the enemy.
Also it balances things out for Fearless units a bit, who tend to commit suicide, grieving or feeling dishonoured over how hard they lost the combat phase.

gwarsh41
05-11-2009, 18:42
I didnt like it either at first. Then someone explained how i have to do moral and initiative. Then I thought about it in a logical way of my dudes chickened out and decided to run like babies. Then in their fear stumbled while running allowing the enemy to take them down with ease.
I have seen some very improbably things with it too. Swarms taken down by 3 guys...

creepyal
05-11-2009, 18:44
Just to throw it in, I am not a big fan of sweeping advance. It has taken out more than one unit of my necrons.

adreal
05-11-2009, 20:48
Sweeping advance isn't the problem.

Fearless and no neg modifiers to Ld tests from shooting are the problems.

Okay sweeaping advance doesn't seem fair when it's a keeper of secrets (I10) that beats you in combat (no point in the roll) but that model is over 200 points and sits there for a turn, doing nothing (maybe moves a unit around).

If you cause 25% casulties, then no mod, but maybe 30% -1 Ld and so on so that shooting armies can break unit's. Then sweeping advance wouldn't seem 'broken'

Count de Monet
05-11-2009, 21:00
They should have kept the outnumbering bonus of earlier editions, with +1 for outnumbering, +2 for 2:1, 3:1 for +3, etc.
Not for combat resolution (as in WFB for +1) but for the morale check.

I do think some outnumber bonus for the check should have remained. Seeing two of your teammates go down isn't as disheartening when you have another thirty teammates at your back.

zeep
05-11-2009, 21:29
"If your officer's dead and the sergeants look white,
Remember it's ruin to run from a fight:
So take open order, lie down, and sit tight,
And wait for supports like a soldier.
Wait, wait, wait like a soldier . . .

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier of the Queen!"

;) Nope, seems like they got it just right. :angel:

the1stpip
05-11-2009, 22:10
Sweeping Advance was changed so that the run rules wouldn't kill off shooty armies.

However, Dark Eldar were shafted on this, cos they could run already (fleet), had enough speed to get into combat quickly, and Wyches don't want to be caught out in the open.

Unfortunately, at this moment, allowing units to fleet into combat would be too powerful now, even on a 6.

yarrickson
05-11-2009, 22:34
As a necron player I have to say that I have no problem with the sweeping advance rules in terms of the destruction aspect and the initiative roll (although I've still not won an opposed initiative roll)

I do however have a big problem with the current leadership modifiers. Whats the point in my LD10 army if I get into combat, three necrons fall over and I'm testing on 7.

I'd complain more but can't really muster the energy required. I'm sure that any new necron codex will introduce a sensible "fix" rule that stops necrons getting quite so buttfu**ed by a tactical squad.

Other alternative is just not to get into combat in the first place. It can usually be avoided.

animush
05-11-2009, 23:23
I think that sweeping advance is fine, I would like to see a simillar morale penalties implemented for shooting too, perhaps -1 for every 25% lost.

I think the biggest problem is maybe that some combat units need toned down a little... is it really necessary to have 3-5 attacks on a charge for basic to somewhat elite units, such as 15 pt chaos marines, who can also fire their pistols, then charge for 3 attacks, or for genestealers who can have 5-6 attacks on a charge.

Compared to most shooty armies, who get 1 or maybe 2 shots in the shooting phase, only to be decimated by unreasonable numbers of attacks next turn, before getting a chance to strike back, or 1 or 2 attacks back needing 4s and 5s or 5s and 6s.

ehlijen
05-11-2009, 23:51
As a necron player I have to say that I have no problem with the sweeping advance rules in terms of the destruction aspect and the initiative roll (although I've still not won an opposed initiative roll)

I do however have a big problem with the current leadership modifiers. Whats the point in my LD10 army if I get into combat, three necrons fall over and I'm testing on 7.

I'd complain more but can't really muster the energy required. I'm sure that any new necron codex will introduce a sensible "fix" rule that stops necrons getting quite so buttfu**ed by a tactical squad.

Other alternative is just not to get into combat in the first place. It can usually be avoided.

The point of ld10 is to be able to test on 7 in that situation, rather than 4 or 5 as many other troops choices do (somtimes 6).
Ld 7 is still a 58% chacne of success, ie better than guardsmen shooting.

Agnar the Howler
05-11-2009, 23:53
I think the biggest problem is maybe that some combat units need toned down a little... is it really necessary to have 3-5 attacks on a charge for basic to somewhat elite units, such as 15 pt chaos marines, who can also fire their pistols, then charge for 3 attacks, or for genestealers who can have 5-6 attacks on a charge.

If i'm not mistaken, Space Marines now also have 3 attacks on the charge (1 for profile, 1 for BP+CCW and 1 for charge) and can also fire their pistols. As for genestealers, when you factor in the cost of a common stealer (EC + Tendrils), it doesn't come up as a such a bad deal, considering they have 1 less save than marines and also have no ranged weapons (or much ranged back-up, for that matter).

With that combo, they come in at the same price as a berzerker, with possibly 1 more attack on the charge (with berzerkers having more attacks basic) and rending. Whilst it might seem overpowered, you do need insentives to hit combat; there's no point in slogging over to the enemy through hails of fire just to have 6 attacks, where about 3 will hit, and 1-2 will wound, then the armour save factor comes in.

You need more CC attacks because of how it works. It has no AP (meaning that against most close combat attacks, you will always get your armour save, whereas with shooting you can be stripped of it by a wide range of weapons) and the rolls to hit for MEQ are usually 4, whereas with MEQ shooting hits on 3s. With the base strength also being 4 for a lot of troops, it means that you're going to be wounding on 4s too, whereas with ranged combat a good number of weapons can be wounding on 2s very early on.

AngryAngel
06-11-2009, 06:26
Most armies can mitigate the sweeping advance so no I don't think its too harsh. For instance, guard squads can do so by simply buying a commissar or two to add to combined squads. They will then more then likely hold, and given proper use and support, win CC.

The sweeping advance can be rought, but only if you don't prepare for it.

Xelloss
06-11-2009, 08:01
If i'm not mistaken, Space Marines now also have 3 attacks on the charge (1 for profile, 1 for BP+CCW and 1 for charge) and can also fire their pistols.
Not Vanilla Marines. They have a bolt pistol but no CCW (they can shoot with it before assaulting, but doesn't get an extra attack, or shoot with their bolter, and then can't assault).
It changed with the 5th codex : they used to have bolter + CCW (thus no extra attack and no shooting before assault)


Most armies can mitigate the sweeping advance so no I don't think its too harsh. For instance, guard squads can do so by simply buying a commissar or two to add to combined squads. They will then more then likely hold, and given proper use and support, win CC.
I have yet to see a IG with combined squad in my FLGS (I didn't go very often lately), but I seriously doubt some S3 power weapons can "win CC"

Inach
06-11-2009, 08:44
Most armies can mitigate the sweeping advance That is one of the necron problems, they dont have that. Also, with the low I and 1 attack, they are doomed to lose, that's 180 points lost for a minimum of troops.


Other alternative is just not to get into combat in the first place. It can usually be avoided.

Good necron players will babysit their warriors all the time trying to get them out of combat, portal them around and kill the enemy with the rest of their army.
Tell me, is that fun way to play?
I dare to say: No.

SideshowLucifer
06-11-2009, 12:18
My biggest gripe about how brutal close combat is now is that for some reason, in fantasy, we can teach a goblin to shoot at smeone who charges at him, but in the 40K, we can't manage to train the elite Space Marines to use that bolter to shot at somsone running at them.
I realy wish they ahd a stand and shoot assault reaction, even if you only hit on 6's or something.

Vaktathi
06-11-2009, 12:26
My only real problem with the current CC system as related to winning and sweeping advance is how much it favors small, tough heavy CC units over equivalent points worth of weeny CC units. Lets look at about 80pts of Orks to SM's, 14 boyz in combat with 2 terminators, the boyz lose 4 guys and don't inflict any casualties, now instead of being fearless they are breaking on unless they make a 6, even though they only lost 24pts worth of dudes and fewer than a third of their numbers. If the terminators lose 1 dude and don't inflict casualties, they've lost 40pts worth of models and half their numbers, but only take a -1 penalty instead of the -4.

Units designed to win through attrition seem to be the ones least able to stand up in it.

Bloodknight
06-11-2009, 12:56
Yep; outnumbering should work against casualties since we don't have anything like Rank Bonus.

Let's say 20 charging Orks fight 5 LC-Terminators. The Termis strike first and kill 7 Orks. The Orks kill 3 Terminators back.
My proposed CR (outnumbering capped at 5:1): 7 Kills vs 3 Kills+5 outnumber: Orks win by 1. Normal outcome: Termis win by 4.

creepyal
06-11-2009, 14:32
I agree with Nezmith. I had a unit of troops with a Lord get taken out by a warboss. 1 ork taking out my unit. A lot of good my Lord did me. There has to be something to counter the low I of the warriors.