PDA

View Full Version : Absolutely Fumbelievable!



Baaltor
20-12-2010, 02:11
For a long time GW's been struggling with making a few strong models able to overcome hordes of rampaging orks or tyranids, and they've arguably not done a good job. As I've noticed in one of the Grey knight threads we've seen a lot of people that want this fix, and some that talk about how they abuse it (many times have heard of people advising throwing buckets of dice to avoid great armour or high toughness) rather than actually buying anti-tank weapons. So I've got an idea, and I was hoping to start a discussion about it.

What if the fumble rule were reinstated? For every roll of a "1" on to hit the unit performing the attacks suffers an immediate hit in return from the attacking unit? Gameplay wise, it doesn't improve the fact a space marine squad will get wiped off the board by a mob of boys, but it makes the conflict unfavorable for the number of casualties they'd suffer as they desperately try to find purchase in the space marine's armour. Terminators would take a reasonable number of boy to their grave before succumbing to the wall of attacks. I think that making wounds suffered this way would mean you can't just dump attacks on stuff without drawback.

So, what say you? Is this a good idea? Too complicated? Bad Idea? Do you have an idea that could alleviate this problem? Discuss SVP!

Still Standing
20-12-2010, 02:37
So 20 genestealers take more casualties than 5 when assaulting a Marine squad?

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
20-12-2010, 02:49
I don't think it makes any sense at all, not even from a game balance point of view. The more attacks you have should equal a greater chance to destroy the enemy. It should not mean that you're in danger of killing yourself.

Vaktathi
20-12-2010, 02:52
Close Combat is already generally biased against horde units in many ways.

If you pile 30 boyz into 10 Grey Hunters, the Orks are gonna lose ~6-7 guys, the GH's 7-8, GH's lose combat by 1, likely staying in combat or at worse taking 1 no retreat wound. 10 GH's charge 30 Boyz, Boyz lose 6-7 guys, GH's lose 3-4, Orks lose combat by 3 or 4, meaning orks lose another 3-4 boyz.

Or 30 Hormagaunts charge 5 Terminators, Terminators lose 2-3 guys. Terminators hit back and kill 2-3 Hormagaunts. Hormagaunts have destroyed 80-120pts of Terminators, Terminators have destroyed 12-18pts of Gaunts, but manage a tie.

Two units of 10 Hormagaunts hit 5 terminators, terminators lose maybe 2 guys. Terminators inflict three or 4 wounds back, now *both* units are taking morale tests at or no retreat wounds.




Close combat is already heavily favored for small elite units, they don't need something that's going to make evening those odds nigh impossible.

And as Still Standing pointed out, it would lead to very silly situations where hitting an enemy harder results in more damage to oneself, which is very nonsensical. Much like the current wound allocation system can do.

insectum7
20-12-2010, 04:40
^I look at that a little differently.

In the first scenario, the Grey Hunters lose the combat effectiveness of their unit in both cases, while the Orks can still wind up with a unit of 10-20 models after killing all the Marines.

In the second scenario, your "point values lost" numbers would seem to give the advantage to the Tyranid player, regardless of the "official" outcome.

The third scenario is sorta the worst one for the hordes, but it really doesn't seem so bad. Even locking Terminators in CC, denying them a shooting phase, and forcing them to use Powerfists against T 3, 5+ Sv models seems like a good trade-off to me.

Donnie Darko
20-12-2010, 04:57
The real question is why as a small elite unit would you take on a horde in CC? The biggest problem is peoples perception that 40k needs to be Fantasy in the far future where you ignore your machine gun that shoots hydra rockets and attempt to bludgeon your opponent to death.

Hordes are suppose to overwhelm their opponents in CC, hence why you use a lot of bodies. You swamp the elite guys, get their weapons pinned in bodies and drag them down.

If you want a small elite unit that is capable of holding off a horde in heroic fashion, then you really need to gripe about the shooting phase. Maneuver and fire is what should happen, but for 'balance' (and i use that as loosely as is possible) they made the shooting range the same as the movement value in a turn.

To the OP: Grey knights arguably were the penultimate of the small unit able to take on a horde, and entertainingly better at dealing w/ hordes than daemons. Having a 24" assault 2 weapon meant they could continuously retreat from the enemy while thinning them out before picking their ground and finishing off the stragglers.

The problem in general is scale in 40K. The boards are tiny compared to move values, and the game is specifically rigged to have a wrestling match in the middle. If you really want to play a very tactical game half all the movement values. You have to use your head a little if doing this with some armies (ie it horribly over powers guard/tau, and under powers certain hordes) and adjust point allowances per side. But in general you finally have room to maneuver on a 6x4 or 8x4 board while CC armies need to really think about their movement and cover use, while shooting forces really discover the meaning of fire lanes and flanking. It takes much of the slug fest aspect out of the game.

Abaraxas
20-12-2010, 05:19
RE: 20 Genestealers vs Grey Knights
While a 1 results in a fumble, dont forget a 6 is a critical hit-so it goes both ways.