The Fog of War (new environmental rule from Death of Tallarn)

[Crablezworth]

The new "Fog of war" rules from book 3, summation from the goonhammer review. I'm glad the hidden deployment thing is optional as its sounds too cumbersome. I think I like most of the rule with one exception, infantry in structures still take damage but are just granted a re-roll, I think that may be a bit too punitive. Cavalry taking saves makes sense but as they can't takes shelter, I worry that as much as this controls or limits msu it may be a bridge too far. I could see having some structures like big bunkers allowing cav/walkers to take shelter. The 18 inch range limit except for barrage and heavy barrage is interesting, it may shake things up a bit in terms of weapon choices. What are people's thoughts? Will it do enough to balance out infantry?

 

"Fog of War This is an optional rule containing a couple of other sub-optional rules, all of which can be used if agreed, or if playing the Northern Desolation Campaign above. The core rule is Limited Visibility. You can’t shoot above 18″ except with Barrage and Heavy Barrage weapons. On top of that you can decide to use entirely secret deployment. They suggest using either a big sheet to hide what each side is doing or to put some kind of face-down notes or cards on the table to show which units are where. Finally, Deadly Fog of War really lives up to its name. Every infantry or cavalry unit on the board has to take a saving through every end phase or take a wound. They get a +1 modifier to this and a reroll if holding a building, but even so it’s not at all a good place to be an infantry soldier. Even vehicles have to make a save or take a wound if they are damaged. Nasty!"

 

https://www.goonhammer.com/the-goonhammer-review-legions-imperialis-the-devastation-of-tallarn/?fbclid=IwY2xjawEcqFxleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHf5RTY5lTA_da1PQ9kH5wp5pzlby9foEr5cz_mgOebIFo7-KFG21u0jMOQ_aem_v3mK_WqLu_YCwq4bfHELLg

[Pacific81]

I guess it will encourage tank units as infantry not in cover are statistically very likely dead by turn 2 with that really!

Maybe suicide drop-pod a formation onto an objective early on? "Sorry guys, but your drop pods will survive and hold that hill for us!" :D

 

We might play it for a fun game or two as part of a campaign but think that will be it. Agree about bunkers giving a better save (I think actually that was what happened in the book series?) Maybe a re-roll and +1 Vs regular buildings? Loads of them will still die..

 

[apologist]

16 hours ago, Crablezworth said:

I think I like most of the [new "Fog of war" rules ]with one exception, infantry in structures still take damage but are just granted a re-roll, I think that may be a bit too punitive. [...] I worry that as much as this controls or limits msu it may be a bridge too far. [...]. What are people's thoughts? Will it do enough to balance out infantry?

 

'Finally, Deadly Fog of War really lives up to its name. Every infantry or cavalry unit on the board has to take a saving through every end phase or take a wound. They get a +1 modifier to this and a reroll if holding a building, but even so it’s not at all a good place to be an infantry soldier. Even vehicles have to make a save or take a wound if they are damaged. Nasty!'

(my emphasis)

 

I'm a bit unclear from the review as to whether by 'unit', you mean means 'Model' or 'Detachment'. (Lovely review, by the way – thanks @Crablezworth!)

 

The 'per Model' approach seems very punitive – you'll lose two thirds of all Astartes infantry and cavalry Models out in the open; and quarter in of those Garrisoning buildings. For Solar Auxilia, it's even more harsh.  I think this interpretation is much closer to how the environment caused by the life-eater on Tallarn (and Isstvan III, for that matter) is portrayed in the background. It seems properly hard-core, and will mean substantially different Army composition, with transports being all but mandatory and really relegating Infantry to near irrelevance.

 

The 'per Detachment' approach, on the other hand, is much more friendly for general gaming, as the results are much less important. I don't think it would really make all that much of a difference beyond curbing MSU, as you point out. 

 

My standard 1,500pt army is:

Salamanders, Legion Demi-company, 923pts

Formation Strength: 66

Break Point: 33

compulsory

HQ: Legion Command Squad (1), 25pts

Support: Legion Assault Detachment (8), 54pts
4 Additional Assault Marines 24pts

Core: Legion Tactical Detachment (10), 77pts
2 Additional Tactical Legionaries 12pts
2 Additional Plasma Support 15pts
2 Additional Missile Support 15pts

Core: Legion Tactical Detachment (10), 77pts
2 Additional Tactical Legionaries 12pts
2 Additional Plasma Support 15pts
2 Additional Missile Support 15pts
optional

Transport: Legion Rhino Detachment (8), 102pts
7 Additional Rhino 70pts
x1
Hull: Havoc launcher 2pts
x5
Hull: Multi-melta 4pts

Transport: Legion Rhino Detachment (8), 98pts
7 Additional Rhino 70pts
x4
Hull: Multi-melta 4pts
x1
Hull: Havoc launcher 2pts

Support: Legion Dreadnought Talon (6), 100pts
2 Additional Contemptor 30pts
x4
Arm: Twin-linked lascannons
x2
Arm: Kheres assault cannon

Vanguard: Legion Outrider Squadron (6), 90pts
4 Additional Outriders 60pts
choice

Battle Tank: Legion Predator Squadron (9), 300pts
6 Additional Predators 185pts
x9
Turret: Predator cannon
Sponsons: Lascannons
Salamanders, Legion Demi-company, 577pts
Formation Strength: 39

Break Point: 20

compulsory

HQ: Legion Command Squad (1), 25pts

Support: Legion Terminator Detachment (8), 80pts
4 Additional Terminators 30pts

Core: Legion Tactical Detachment (8), 59pts
4 Additional Tactical Legionaries 24pts

Core: Legion Tactical Detachment (10), 77pts
2 Additional Tactical Legionaries 12pts
2 Additional Plasma Support 15pts
2 Additional Missile Support 15pts
optional

Bastion: Legion Tarantula Battery (4), 36pts
x4
Main: Hyperios air-defence missile launcher

Transport: Legion Rhino Detachment (5), 50pts
4 Additional Rhino 40pts

Support: Legion Dreadnought Talon (6), 100pts
2 Additional Contemptor 30pts
x5
Arm: Twin-linked lascannons
x1
Arm: Kheres assault cannon
choice

Air Support: Legion Thunderhawk Gunship (1), 150pts

 

...and 62 Infantry/Cavalry models:

Assault Marines, 8
Command Squad, 2
Legion Terminators, 8
Outrider, 6
Support Legionaries (plasma), 12
Tactical Legionaries, 26

 

Assuming (for some reason) no-one is in a transport, the 'per Model' interpretation means I'd lose ~30 stands on average rolling per turn, with this contingent of the Army being effectively wiped out by Turn 4. 

 

If it's per Detachment (of which I have 8 made up of Infantry or Cavalry), I'd stand to lose ~6 Models on average per turn. While not irrelevant, it's not that punitive at all. 

 

 

For what it's worth, I think the per-Model interpretation is more fitting, and sounds more fun and thematic. 

[DuskRaider]

I mean… it’s the Life Eater virus, just look at what it did to Isstvan III. It should be pretty deadly to any infantry out in the field, building or not. You can make the argument that tanks would have an advanced filtration system that would protect the occupants and that’s why they’re safe. 
 

I seem to recall you wanting an option like this to punish Infiltrators and infantry heavy lists and that’s exactly what this is. Go ahead and field that Pioneer Company or AL / RG list, they’re going to melt anyhow. 
 

I actually applaud GW for this one. It’s fluffy and it’s optional so you’re not forced to use it if you don’t want to. 

[Crablezworth]

On 8/5/2024 at 8:22 AM, DuskRaider said:

I seem to recall you wanting an option like this to punish Infiltrators and infantry heavy lists and that’s exactly what this is. Go ahead and field that Pioneer Company or AL / RG list, they’re going to melt anyhow. 

 

I like most of it, but I'm curious to see how it's parsed out, I know the hidden deployment thing is optional, and rightly so because it's just too involved imo. 

 

I just think a few things should have been introduced in terms of new terrain types, namely bunkers/shelters than can accommodate more than just infantry, and perhaps tunnels. 

 

The key issue is infantry still being affected in structures. For one, it's a drag because they have a few stat lines for structures so could have at least made a carve out for like bunkers, but didn't. I have no problem with like civilian buildings working this way but full on bunkers/redoubts/fortresses/shelters, like half of tallarn is basically underground bunker complexes and warehouses. 

 

I'm glad it will, hopefully, encourage players to take more transports but I really want like a few places non inf can hold up for a turn. That or a bigger push for reserves,

 

My concern with infiltrate is, if unchanged, could still see players going that route, perhaps not all in, but if your infantry are going to burn out anyway, I can see that sorta forcing people's hand as well in terms of feeling they may as well infiltrate with what doesn't have transports if its able to. 

 

 

On 8/5/2024 at 2:24 AM, Pacific81 said:

I guess it will encourage tank units as infantry not in cover are statistically very likely dead by turn 2 with that really!

Maybe suicide drop-pod a formation onto an objective early on? "Sorry guys, but your drop pods will survive and hold that hill for us!" :D

 

We might play it for a fun game or two as part of a campaign but think that will be it. Agree about bunkers giving a better save (I think actually that was what happened in the book series?) Maybe a re-roll and +1 Vs regular buildings? Loads of them will still die..

 

 

I'm guessing they're holding stuff back as always for yet another book. But it is annoying they couldn't make a new unit type or a carve out for one of the structure types that's closer to a bunker in terms of stats. 

[DuskRaider]

I’m actually okay with there being no safety in the structures, in the lore if swept through everything but the bunkers in the case of Isstvan or literally going underground in the case of Tallarn. That being said, I agree with you that it’s odd there were no bunkers or some such fortifications made for this purpose.
 

Still, I’m okay with it. We’ve been discussing how unbalanced this game is in favor of infantry and how they need to make transports more efficient, well here we go.
 

It’s unfortunate that it’s only in an optional mode but here we are and I think it sounds pretty interesting… this is coming from a guy who has mostly infantry in his arsenal. 

Edited August 6 by DuskRaider

[Crablezworth]

18 minutes ago, DuskRaider said:

I’m actually okay with there being no safety in the structures, in the lore if swept through everything but the bunkers in the case of Isstvan or literally going underground in the case of Tallarn. That being said, I agree with you that it’s odd there were no bunkers or some such fortifications made for this purpose.
 

Still, I’m okay with it. We’ve been discussing how unbalanced this game is in favor of infantry and how they need to make transports more efficient, well here we go.
 

It’s unfortunate that it’s only in an optional mode but here we are and I think it sounds pretty interesting… this is coming from a guy who has mostly infantry in his arsenal. 

 

For sure, it's just that terrain is such a proscriptive/optional thing, the simplest of carve-outs for like one new structure type. Because as much as I hate infantry, it will still have the problem with infiltrating blobs, and conversely the same problem with inf detachment taken just to hold ground. Because you can't just take like a 4 base detachment bare bones to like hold a structure in your zone near an objective, you still need to max it out so it can survive more than a turn of melting. 

 

My plan is to convert some stuff like this that will mostly just be a structure/bunker than can hold just about any detachment scale 3 and down. I've discussed the idea of giant doors with bits blitz designs and he's down for something like that, big enough to fit super-heavies and down. 

 

Unlike structures, my plan is like a very simple, max 1 detachment sorta structure without any of the combat/targeting stuff. No destructibility either, but quite simply there will be multiple entrances and players outside can simply block one or more by have models move in front of the door. 

[DuskRaider]

I’d be happy with something like the bunker objectives from Titanicus and on the AT Realm of Battle board, perhaps slightly upscaled to look as if it could accommodate the minis. 

[Pacific81]

22 hours ago, DuskRaider said:

I’m actually okay with there being no safety in the structures, in the lore if swept through everything but the bunkers in the case of Isstvan or literally going underground in the case of Tallarn. That being said, I agree with you that it’s odd there were no bunkers or some such fortifications made for this purpose.
 

Still, I’m okay with it. We’ve been discussing how unbalanced this game is in favor of infantry and how they need to make transports more efficient, well here we go.
 

It’s unfortunate that it’s only in an optional mode but here we are and I think it sounds pretty interesting… this is coming from a guy who has mostly infantry in his arsenal. 

I think it's just a bit of extra fun. It does nothing to address the fundamental imbalances in the game and I don't think it was intended to (it's a nuclear bomb - or virus bomb! - that goes way too far the other way and effectively makes infantry useless in those games.)

[DuskRaider]

Well they’re not completely useless, they turn into fertilizer after a round or two. 

[Crablezworth]

I think just from a practicality standpoint, it affecting them in structures is a bridge too far game-wise. One example, if structures still offer respite from virus bombs, infantry are far more likely to engage other infantry to try and route them, out of simply wanting shelter for themselves. If all it offers is a re-roll that seems less of a necessity. 

 

I could think of worse things than myself or opponent having a few small baseline detachments of like 4 infantry bases just to hold up. That's only really viable if structures are safe. If not you have a "battery" situation where we'll have to see larger detachments no matter what just so they can last a few turns before all melting to be right back at 4 bases again anyway. 

Edited August 8 by Crablezworth

[DuskRaider]

I think you’re looking into it too much, bud. It’s simply an optional feature for the game that puts an emphasis on tanks and transports. If your infantry is popping out of a tank, killing things and jumping back in, you have less of a chance of losing them. Alternatively, you could opt out of infantry altogether and throw down tanks, fliers and Knights / Titans and punish anyone who tries to put little squishy guys on the battlefield… if the battlefield doesn’t punish them for you. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

I agree in some ways; it's definitely an optional mode instead of them responding to fix the balance after fredback. That being said though, the game is so unrestricted that the closest parallel that comes to mind is AoS 1st, where you had to hash it out with your opponent to decide what kinda of game you wanted. I can see them realizing certain units and weapons were problematic when taken to an extreme, and throwing  these (and possibly more) optional rules in to give players the ability to limit the problems. The kicker is that the rules obviously got chopped up to spread across a bunch of supplements, with deadly fog being thematically tied to Tallarn. 

 

So instead of the game launching as one huge sandbox with a few different levers to control the type of game experience, we had to suffer through a rough launch year, constantly seeing the same "how do you stop lighting/marauder missile spam?" and "is insane amounts of point defence the only way to defend against ogryns?" type of questions pop up. 

 

It's apocalypse junior, and even apocalypse threw in some stuff to contain complete anarchy. 

 

[Crablezworth]

7 hours ago, DuskRaider said:

I think you’re looking into it too much, bud. It’s simply an optional feature for the game that puts an emphasis on tanks and transports. If your infantry is popping out of a tank, killing things and jumping back in, you have less of a chance of losing them. Alternatively, you could opt out of infantry altogether and throw down tanks, fliers and Knights / Titans and punish anyone who tries to put little squishy guys on the battlefield… if the battlefield doesn’t punish them for you. 

 

I just mean it ends up being like a time tax/battery tax thing. Like lets say I have no transport room left but am stuck having to fill out one more tercio, I rather not have to max it out just to have it survive more than a few turns. Like if it starts at 4 bases and I have to make it a giant blob, only to end up with it alive in my backfield still just chilling in a structure only to be down to 4 bases again anyway. It's not the extra point cost/tax that bugs me about it, its just where all the extra rolling for being like out of arvuses or dracosans feels sorta meh. I was saying to skimaskmohawk earlier, like both player ultimately control how many structures they'd be playing with in conjunction with the fog of war rule(s) anyway, so if they were more of a sanctuary from the face melting, its an easy rule. "Hidden bunkers" like you just say they're really sheltering in the basement's bunker/shelter and only have a handful of structures on the board that can be occupied, rest can be like industrial stuff/rocks etc.

[Crablezworth]

1 hour ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

I agree in some ways; it's definitely an optional mode instead of them responding to fix the balance after fredback. That being said though, the game is so unrestricted that the closest parallel that comes to mind is AoS 1st, where you had to hash it out with your opponent to decide what kinda of game you wanted. I can see them realizing certain units and weapons were problematic when taken to an extreme, and throwing  these (and possibly more) optional rules in to give players the ability to limit the problems. The kicker is that the rules obviously got chopped up to spread across a bunch of supplements, with deadly fog being thematically tied to Tallarn. 

 

So instead of the game launching as one huge sandbox with a few different levers to control the type of game experience, we had to suffer through a rough launch year, constantly seeing the same "how do you stop lighting/marauder missile spam?" and "is insane amounts of point defence the only way to defend against ogryns?" type of questions pop up. 

 

It's apocalypse junior, and even apocalypse threw in some stuff to contain complete anarchy. 

 

 

We both also missed that some of the missions in book 2 like turned off infiltrate by doing an attack/defend thing where they just straight tell the attack like how units will/can enter the board. But ya it does feel a bit parsed out, even without a faq at least it does shake things up a bit. I have to think it being a small world, the person/people/team who worked on li must have looked at the event at warhammer world and sorta shuttered, it not being 3k, not really getting many turns per round given time but also, some of the better performing stuff weren't helping things in terms of time/all infantry and a warmaster trope. But ya this does feel like it might have been better to have had earlier in the year. 

 

I think the fog rule along with reserve rule we've made work pretty well can hopefully help mitigate any of my complaints about infantry melting inside structures, or at least give me an option to hold under strength detachments back. You had mentioned deep striking termies being able to be held back and that was a good point. 

 

It is indeed apoclypse junior, I think though that if they can get off the campaigns stuff a bit and maybe flesh out like with AT sorta two streams like matched play and more historical/open play. Right now it feels very open on account of there being like almost by the marketing department decree the not limits on formations/detachments/models dare every exist, when that always flies in the face when tested by someone showing up with hundreds of models and grinding the game to a crawl. So I can imagine a moment when someone who worked on it is looking at how people are actually playing this combined arms wargame and like "virus bombs", we neeed "virus bombs" in a british accent. It oddly sort of dealing with some of the msu stuff from book 2 also feels a bit too like "someone understands". Its not an excuse for not faq/not addressing the book 2 point cost stuff but it a start. 

 

But ya, its cool and I'm excited to watch infantry melt and get scooped instead of beating the crap out of tanks in combat.