Is Indomitable actually fair across the game? I'm concerned that units with this are becoming more and more prevalent throughout the Chaos lists rather than just Death Guard. Now I understand there's a need for something in place of making them Fearless but Indomitable having a save for everything seems whiffy.

For example, the rule is:

All units that have the 'Indomitable' ability may make their normal armour
saves (including any re-rolls that may apply) against hack down losses due to
losing close combat or hits caused by suffering Blast Markers when broken.
(Note that units are still destroyed outright if they are within 15cm of enemy at
the end of a Withdrawal move).

Broken units with 'Indomitable' who lose an assault are not wiped out. Instead
they treat the result as a normal combat with extra hits being counted as hack
down hits for purposes of saves under this rule. In effect, units with
'Indomitable' always receive their armour saves from the result of a lost
combat.

Furthermore, if the formation was broken before the assault, each surviving
unit with 'Indomitable' must take a further armour save (including any
Reinforced Armour and Invulnerable) for losing the combat.

So is this example accurate?:

Survivors of a formation that loses a combat and gets saves versus any hackdowns, withdraws and is broken, but gets assaulted by a second enemy formation. It again gets saves vs hack downs and if it again loses it again gets saves versus the hackdown hits....

So is it totally necessary to get a save for all eventualities in a combat? I'm having a hard time believing a formation (one mentioned previously) that loses so many combats is actually able to shrug off that amount of damage if its saving rolls pan out. They're tougher than a standard Codex Marine formation in terms of assaults. Is that accurate?? I agree they should "ignore pain" or be mentally unstable disregard wounds etc but should they get such a huge difference in assault resolution? It just doesn't seem to be a fair way to do it, especially, since now all cult lists are adopting this rule.

It is still weaker than Fearless which was the intent.

It is to represent the toughness and steadfastness of a unit without ignoring the hack-down hits.

The one issue that appears to be in question is if an already broken formation loses an assault. There was talk that it get's wiped out, yet the vote at the time (and it was quite open to discussion at the time), was that they take the extra hits for hack-downs as well as an extra one (each unit) for losing the assault.

There has been alot of discussion on this and that is what we agreed to for playtesting. Now we are close to having the lists frozen for a full year. Hena has agreed to the current rule for the Death Guard and I have complied with the World Eaters and Emperor's Children. Thousand Sons will have their own development aside from the other 3 due to the Rubric of Ahriman.

I am sure after quite a few playtests forced by the freeze, we will collate all feedback and decide whether this rule works fully or not.

Personally, on a lost assault while being broken, I see no reason why they should not be wiped out. That is a far move from Fearless however who ignore anything that is not a resuklt of totally wiped out - as in they totally ignore hack down hits.

It is an all or nothing in regards to Indomitable being accepted by the cult lists, so we all need to be in agreement towards the reduction/removal of Fearless (from what I understand). Only playtests will bring this out. We have theory-hammered it to death up to this point.

How did the World Eaters list find it during your playtests?

Keep in mind that Fearless ignores all such hackdowns.

Normal troops (power armour) - it was quite unique and I have to admit, a broken unit that loses a subsequent assault: a little clunky. I do believe the rule itself is a good rule and shows just how tough such forces are. So overall, for power armoured guys, it gets a big tick from me.

Terminators: Well you get another reinforced armour save on the hackdown. This is alot closer to the fearless rule yet still weaker. Just more dice rolls I guess - things eventually die.

It will be good when it is playtested further amongst many other groups because then we can really see the impact.

The concept of all fearless armies, as prevalent as they are, has to be 'on the way out' if only for the enjoyment of the game. Indomitable is close to Fearless, yet also far enough from it to be acceptable. If there was an even more streamlined version, let's hear it.

Hena: Have you any feedback of your experience with Indomitable?

I see. I understand all Fearless isn't ideal but I'm not sold on the replacement yet either I guess. <shrug> It still just seems to break the "spirit" of the assault rules. At least with Fearless it seems that it wasn't aimed at putting it on all units just one or two in the formation i.e Commissars etc etc. To me, Indomitable looks like it circumvents an important part of the assault rules, giving the formation a huge boost which doesn't seem to be costed correctly - this is more evident, to me at least, in terms of largish-sized assault-oriented troop formations. When it's tough to kill them in assault already, then it's tough to kill them when they're broken etc. Terminator RA saves just seems OTT. The enemy formation gets no real benefit of winning the assault - either defending or attacking.

Losing assault troops that linger in assault should be hacked down just as other troops should - their armour is the same as any other marine's. Couldn't an Invulnerable save apply instead of a full armour save?

So how is Fearless any less acceptable?

They just ignore the whole thing... and all previous Chaos lists had all Fearless armies, so we need to place this into perspective. We are talking Chaos here, not any other force or individual units.

From experience, it adds a boost, yet nothing as drastic as Fearless does. It makes the unit tougher and minis do die. Like I stated, this has been theory hammered to death. Actual playtests are where the future lies, and I and my opponents can state that it is far acceptable to Fearless for fairness. So much so that they agreed to 10+ games against the same list where an all Fearless list barely had me playing the same opponent twice - and even then it felt like they were doing me a favour rather than enjoying the game.

As for costings - it is only slightly less than what Fearless troops are costed at... Hena and I both have playtests to justify points so far and some may still be in review, but only by 25 points either way.

BTW, the rule still needs an editorial update. I haven't been harping on it since it's still potentially in flux but it will need cleaned up eventually, e.g. "hackdown" is slang we use and not a term defined in the rules.

I think it's very elegant, an almost exact half-way-house to fearless.

As Neal says though, hackdown is not a rules phrase.

Ah yes. I keep forgetting about this.

I will get it re-worded to 'extra hits' as per the rule book.

Here's what I used in a list of mine, I called it Relentless but the effect was the same:



or in your case for the last paragraph...

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Wow Dave

That is very smooth. Thanks for that. I think I will use i8t if that is ok with you.

Cheers...

Yep, go for it. I'd like to hear people's thoughts on the within 15cm/within ZoC for destroyed units. What would be preferred, is one potentially more broken, etc.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

So no one else is worried about this? I can see people would like to test it more and that's obvious, but up front, no one is all that concerned?