PDA

View Full Version : What do we need static combat resoultion for?



OldMan
29-12-2010, 11:46
Mental experiment:

"AD 2014. WFB 9th ed:
resolving combat:
count which side of the combat have inflicted more casaulties and deduct number of casaulties inflicted by opposing side. This is the number winning party won by.
Check if losingside's unit with most ranks have more ranks than winner's unit with most ranks. If yes, take a break test on unmodified leadership, if no reduce LD by the number winner won by."

Thoughts?

With all blocks rellaing on steadfast rather than SCR, with steadfast negating effects of flank charge, why bothering with SCR? There would be less rules, less counting, game will be dum... er more fluent and streamlined, more "epic" (they just kill each other). Everything GW dreams of.

Avian
29-12-2010, 12:08
It tones down characters.

Botjer
29-12-2010, 12:16
Why would it be dumber?
Chess has extremely easy rules, and you cant call that stupid.

maybe its the static combat res that is stupid?

what you are suggesting might not be a bad idea. the larger unit has a larger chance of not fleeing. cant see the wrong in that.

Mr_Foulscumm
29-12-2010, 12:35
Why would it be dumber?
Chess has extremely easy rules, and you cant call that stupid.

maybe its the static combat res that is stupid?

what you are suggesting might not be a bad idea. the larger unit has a larger chance of not fleeing. cant see the wrong in that.

But chess is stupid. Where are the drop pods?

Wyrmnax
29-12-2010, 12:58
But chess is stupid. Where are the drop pods?

Wrong codex. Peons would be WAY cheesy with droppods. Perhaps play a different army?

Lorcryst
29-12-2010, 13:49
As a Night Goblin player, I'm dependent on static resolution, I cannot count on my below-average troops to kills heaps of ennemies.

So, in short, from my point of view, it's a vital part of the game.

The bearded one
29-12-2010, 14:03
I think it'd favour elite MSU again. The 10 elite guys simply have to kill more enemies than the 30 rank & file and force them to take steadfast breaktests turn after turn after turn. It's a mechanic I enjoy less in 40K as it means that if 1 side fluffs his attacks a bit and the other makes 1 kill, he wins. I once saw 12 kroot assault 3 normal marines. They did 1 casualtie and took 2. All kroot were killed. I also heard a silly story once about terminators vs a lone guardsman. The guardsman was lucky and killed 1 terminator before they struck. The terminators massively flucked their rolls and didn't kill him, failed their breaktest and were run down by the guardsman.

I think without static combat res fantasy would become too much like 40K with tunnelvision troops and steadfast.

jamesterjlrb
29-12-2010, 14:23
5 knights charge a thousand night goblins. There should be a fairly good chance those knights go "Oh crap! Theres a thousand *******' goblins" and get the hell out of there, unless they've killed a load in which case they might be more like "ah well there's a few of em but we're killing them and they aint killing us". Static combat res is vital to balance the game. Otherwise you'd get a single chaos warrior, killing a single NG in a unit of 20 and making the whole lot flee.

Perhaps you could get rid of static combat res eventually but it would totally change the entire strucure of the game and every armybook would have to be rewritten. And to balance the game they'd all be more or less the same.

CrystalSphere
29-12-2010, 14:32
With all blocks rellaing on steadfast rather than SCR, with steadfast negating effects of flank charge, why bothering with SCR?

There you have, in my opinion, the real problem. Since 7th edition SCR (static combat resolution) has been losing value and DCR (dinamic combat resolution) has been gaining it. In 8th steadfast has replaced almost completely the point of SCR, which is to at least tie up with the kills to hold the ground.

I remember in 6th when with 5-6 SCR knigths bounced off, or they were hold and the next turn beaten. Now that effect is done by the stubborn of steadfast, so in a way, steadfast is like SCR but dumbed down to ignore anything (flanking is useless, as is the number you lose by->stubborn). IŽd have prefered a revamped system for SCR, rather than applying this "fix" with steadfast.

arthurfallz
29-12-2010, 16:22
Better yet OP, completely rewrite the rules. Seriously, this isn't an attack, but if you don't like that part of the game and like a game that focuses more on model kills, the rules can be rewritten to not only remove it, but to improve the game overall.

But taking it out like a puzzle piece would rmove too many existing elements. How do you take into account things like the effect of attacks from the rear and flanks (most armour is made to withstand attacks from the front, for example). You would have to rewrite many Banners, etc.

If this doesn't sound like too much work to you, I think it could be done. Wouldn't be the Warhammer game [i]I[/] want to play, per say, but if it fits your play-style write it up and playtest it.

theunwantedbeing
29-12-2010, 17:08
It tones down characters.

We need to stop letting them get 1+ re-rollable saves and 4+ wards before we do away with static combat res.

OldMan
29-12-2010, 17:40
It tones down characters.

WH40 doesnt have this kind of tonning down. Besides i don't want my super dumer ruperhero, whose expensive model i painted for 3 months to be trampled to death by goblins. I want him to be unnasailable, heroic, i want him to do what Aragorn and gimli did in Two Towers movie ( stoping assault on gate all but themselfs.


Why would it be dumber?
Chess has extremely easy rules, and you cant call that stupid.
maybe its the static combat res that is stupid?
what you are suggesting might not be a bad idea. the larger unit has a larger chance of not fleeing. cant see the wrong in that.


If this doesn't sound like too much work to you, I think it could be done. Wouldn't be the Warhammer game [i]I[/] want to play, per say, but if it fits your play-style write it up and playtest it.

If You tried teching chess to my girlfriend, you would change mind about its rules being easy :D In fact chess are such a great game because of awesome number of possibilities it offers. And the problem with current steadfast is it reduces number of possibilities ( you just have to kill them), accounting of less tacticall game overall.
Here you got me. I actually dislike current steadfast rule, and would hate if STR would be gone - only wanted to make some stir (and start not from whining).
I really hate that 8th slowly turns out to be so tactically shallow. ( if Malorian's Battle reports start being short and boring, it must mean something :D) The game seems to move from thought provoking wargame to jolly slaughter of WH40. And i am really scared of the perspective of this process progresing - the small mental experiment proves it is not impossible.

Grunge
29-12-2010, 17:46
I pretty much agree with OldMan above.

Also, White Peons with Drop Pods would be broken.


Bring back Herohammer please. I'm sick of having to buy/paint 60 times the same model.

Lorcryst
29-12-2010, 17:48
Bring back Herohammer please. I'm sick of having to buy/paint 60 times the same model.

Please, for the love of all that is holy, DON'T bring back that horrendous era ... this game should be about armies, NOT superpowerul Lords that can be alone on the field and win.

Malorian
29-12-2010, 17:56
Please, for the love of all that is holy, DON'T bring back that horrendous era ... this game should be about armies, NOT superpowerul Lords that can be alone on the field and win.

Absolutely.


Adding steadfast so that one uber character can't just walk through your army was my favorite change in 8th.


Now if there was only some way of adding that to 40k... :shifty:

OldMan
29-12-2010, 18:00
I don't want herohammer too. I was just advocauts diaboli trying to prove GW is capable of that in chase of game being cinematic at expanse of realism.

Torpedo Vegas
29-12-2010, 18:06
I don't like it. It makes it so smaller elite units will have an incredible advantage. I don't want my 40 man Swordsman bus wiped out by 10 Chaos Knights in one round.

Jorgen_CAB
29-12-2010, 23:35
I do agree with those that say the steadfast rule is a good change. It brings the game more balance between the troops and you need to play it a little more smart and in my opinion maneuvering your troops has become more fun and tactical.

I might also agree to a certain extent that a flanking or rear attack should be slightly more disruptive to steadfast units, I would be perfectly content if it did just give the steadfast a -1 to its leadership if disrupted in the flanks.

I must also say that being steadfast is not nearly as good as being either stubborn or better yet unbreakable. First of all you need to pass that leadership test. If you do like we do most of the time and play on a 5' by 8' battlefield then flanking maneuvers is a real threat and there you most often will not be under the generals leadership bubble. You are not even guaranteed to be there in the center of the board.
Most of the time oru generals and standard bearers will run around behind the troops and bolstering their leadership and not be at the front. Therefore our BsB and Generals tend to be less lethal and be more about staying alive kind of characters.

But anyway... the steadfast rule is a good change and static combat resolution must be there to save those crappy troops that often also have a low leadership and thus not even steadfast will save them.

Djekar
30-12-2010, 04:29
I don't like it. It makes it so smaller elite units will have an incredible advantage. I don't want my 40 man Swordsman bus wiped out by 10 Chaos Knights in one round.

The OPs point is that in such an instance steadfast takes care of your worry. You lose 10 guys and kill none? Oh well, at least you're still steadfast. It doesn't matter about your SCR.

That being said, I do agree that the SCR is good to keep characters and monsters in check ... at least if they roll poorly or their opponent rolls well they have something to worry about.

SamVimes
30-12-2010, 05:06
Erm..there seems to be a glaring flaw in the OP (and several others' observations). It seems everyone is assuming a unit with high static combat res is losing its combats. Remember, steadfast means diddly squat if you win a fight, and can't win a fight for you. Static combat res can tip a losing fight into one that you are winning. It means that a lesser foe can actually beat a better foe with numbers, and not just absorb the superior enemies damage.

Not all large units are Goblins, and not all decent combat units are Chaos Warriors.

Lord Inquisitor
30-12-2010, 05:22
I think the OP's suggestion is sound. I even made a suggestion that was similar way back in 7th.

The requirements to get this to work are: allow more models to fight (2 ranks an step up was a start, but it needs to be taken further), so if you have 200 points of goblins against 200 points of chaos warriors, they're both getting their 200-points-worth of attacks, otherwise the warriors will always be getting proportionally more points-worth of attackers, and the second thing is to realise that elite troops are simply underpriced as they were less useful under 7th's rules and removing static res would make them even better.

But with careful rules planning, much playtesting, repointing of existing units and a bit of vision it could be done. 8th has already been a step in this direction.

R Man
30-12-2010, 07:39
The requirements to get this to work are: allow more models to fight (2 ranks an step up was a start, but it needs to be taken further), so if you have 200 points of goblins against 200 points of chaos warriors, they're both getting their 200-points-worth of attacks, otherwise the warriors will always be getting proportionally more points-worth of attackers, and the second thing is to realise that elite troops are simply underpriced as they were less useful under 7th's rules and removing static res would make them even better.

I think we already discussed this. Perhaps you should link to your old thread if you think it's important. I will however state that the issues presented, is oversimplified.

Overall I agree with SamVimes. There are many units who's power is affected by Ranks. Namely skirmishers and cavalry. Skirmishers face a much harder time fighting big blocks with Static res, than they would without SCR being a part of the game. Cavalry is also in this place too. While many knights kick ass on the charge, most drop to much lower levels of damage in subsequent turns, meaning that rank bonus becomes effective in later rounds.

Satan
30-12-2010, 08:26
Without SCR it would be like 40k. And if there's one area whichis mind-boggingly boring and devoid of tactics, it's CC in 40k.

And I say that as a Daemon and Space wolf player.

Voss
30-12-2010, 09:23
Erm..there seems to be a glaring flaw in the OP (and several others' observations). It seems everyone is assuming a unit with high static combat res is losing its combats. Remember, steadfast means diddly squat if you win a fight, and can't win a fight for you. Static combat res can tip a losing fight into one that you are winning. It means that a lesser foe can actually beat a better foe with numbers, and not just absorb the superior enemies damage.

Not all large units are Goblins, and not all decent combat units are Chaos Warriors.

Quantity should have a quality all its own. The scum should have a chance at pulling down the mighty, whether its goblins vs. chaos warriors, or Bret Men at Arms having their moment of glory against saurus, or Free Company shiving the condescending smirk off shining and arrogant unit of swordmasters.

The game needs the element of risk for elite units as well as hordes of cheap troops. Without combat resolution it too easily turns into elite units slowly grinding ranks off of hordes, with only one likely outcome in 3-4 turns.

Avian
30-12-2010, 09:31
WH40 doesnt have this kind of tonning down.
40K is an altogether different type of animal. For one thing, characters in 40K are mostly either less important to the army* and / or easier to kill**. And you can't get as many as in FB. In 40K they are more like any other unit and don't need special treatment.


* due to the lack of General and BSB rules

** you can't get both an armour save and a ward save and weapons that ignore armour saves or kill outright are more common