Jump to content

New rule for combat?


antique_nova

Recommended Posts

So, it's come to my attention, just how silly it is for a unit of 40 chaos cultists holding back dozens and dozens of orks or chaos daemons who are in most cases much much stronger.

 

For example, let's say I have 3x 30 chaos cultists with abaddon nearby and I have 150 orks charging at them. If you play your cards, your cultists can hold back those orks for at least 3 turns if they all stood still, as the orks are lousy shots and can't kill enough to charge through the squads.

 

Using Orks vs Humans as an example. Humans, even most catachans who are known for their specialty in close quarter fighting, stand no chance against orks in terms of general strength.

 

To prevent thin lines of weak humans holding back units of much stronger orks and other adversaries. I proper that the stronger units be allowed to "knock" their enemies back. This will be based on the units actual strength including buffs, but not including weapon strength.

 

For example,

 

Ork Warboss (S6) vs standard Imperial Guardsmen (S3)

 

The Ork warboss needs 6" to successful charge a unit of guardsmen and successfully rolls the required distance. 

 

He should then be able to advance further into the enemy unit based on the differences in their datasheet strength. So, have a strength of 6 compared to the guardsmen's 3, he should be able to wade 3" into the enemy unit (pushing models aside if need be to make room) to reflect that, before any pile in moves are made.

 

Because it's silly seeing a unit of guardsmen hold a carnifex back when it charges them and the carnifex pushing into the unit should reflect weaker enemy units being thrown back or simply running out of the way to avoid being trampled. A carnifex would run 3" further into a guardsmen squad on average or 2" for space marines (except Mephiston, dreadnoughts and tanks)

 

In most cases, no none vehicle units have a strength greater than 7 and generally, the weakest units have a strength of nothing less than a 3 (bar nurglings etc). So, it won't be too op, but should accurately reflect how the momentum of the charges by stronger foes break enemy lines, while preventing weak units holding back stronger ones. Because that is being abused like hell in competitive tournaments ever since I started playing back in 5th edition.

 

This proposed rule seems easy, simple and quick to use, but that's my thought. What do you guys think?

Link to comment
https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/349564-new-rule-for-combat/
Share on other sites

Possibly, but I've posted problems and suggestions about the game before in this section and even mods posted on it and thought it was okay here, but if they move it, then I'll understand.

 

As for 40k being an abstraction, I know, but this is not one of those situations where a weaker force can potentially bog down a stronger one.

 

An Ork vs a guardsmen is like Ronnie Coleman vs a fresh cute soldier from today's world. More or less. Not even 4 fresh average modern soldiers with their light gear could hold back a charging ronnie coleman.

 

And my example between guardsmen and carnifexes and daemon princes still stand, because there is no instance that the guardsmen (no matter how many) could how back those charges, unless they were a mountain of corpses, but they're not. Not yet anyway.

Well, they could potentially brace their lasgun-bayonets like (very short) spears... but honestly, “it’s an abstraction” really is the all deciding point here. Introducing “pushback” mechanics would only complicate the game without adding to it. As such it falls into the same vein as true line of sight, armor facing, area of effect weapons, binding tanks in meele or ammunition: great for simulation purposes, but harmful for the kind of game 8th edition 40K is.

Also note that in game terms, catachan are indeed as strong as orcs or marines ;).

  • 2 weeks later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.