| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Fearless http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=18133 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | Steve54 [ Sun Apr 11, 2010 7:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | Fearless |
With attention turning soon from the BL+LatD on to the cult lists the main consideration, and bone of contention, with these lists is that, following the BL base stats for cult marines, to what extent they should be fearless. This excludes the Thousand Sons who pretty much have to be fearless |
|
| Author: | mageboltrat [ Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fearless |
I do think indomitable works well for Death Guard as they are meant to be relentless, something like DG Legionnaires Type: Inf 15cm Armour: 4+ CC: 4+ FF: 4+ Weapons: Autocannon 45cm AP5+/AT6+ Notes: Indomitable As a standard troop for Deathguard would definitely work as it would give them some ranged ability (Plague Marines don't have any) and without them I think you will see DG Marching all over the place like some kindoff supercharged sprinters, as they have no reason to do anything but March or Engage. If you allow them to backed up by fully fledged Plague Devotes I think you will get a nice mix. |
|
| Author: | frogbear [ Sun Apr 11, 2010 11:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fearless |
you all know what I did not vote for  Remember, the vote is merely for the Black Legion units. If there is a change, it will help the development of the Cult lists to be something other than Fearless. In reality, we will probably see the mix. That has to be better than all Fearless troop armies which is my main beef. I do not have all the answers, but a change with the Black Legion will help sub-ACs to brainstorm ideas past the restrictions we see now. |
|
| Author: | zombocom [ Sun Apr 11, 2010 12:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fearless |
It'd be nice if this thread mentioned what Indomitable does... |
|
| Author: | frogbear [ Sun Apr 11, 2010 12:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fearless |
This is what we have decided to trial so far: INDOMITABLE 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. |
|
| Author: | Morgan Vening [ Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fearless |
I voted Indomitable, but that doesn't mean I don't think Fearless should never appear. I took the mixed version to mean substantial numbers of them. Having the leading character of a formation be Fearless, for example, no problem with that. Having entire formations fearless, is where I have the issue. And I'm also not particularly against Hena's Death Guard 3/3. It's about as good a compromise as can be made, to retain the initial Black Legion stats. But if a change were made to Indomitable, allowing full squads of PM's would be fine. As long as the Fearless units are essentially 'chained' to non-Fearless, I don't have huge issues. Same applies to Wraithguard. Absolutely no problem with them in a Guardian formation. A big problem (IMO) in a formation by themselves. It's not so bad when there are still consequences to failure. I mentioned it in the Portal thread, there should never be a situation where a broken unit is a "good thing". While it's not good, it's often, not bad either. It stems from the Special Abilities being so extreme, but with no degree of variation. Understandable, from a design perspective, but occasionally shows up in a broken combination. Morgan Vening |
|
| Author: | mageboltrat [ Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fearless |
I don't see why most armies shouldn't have 3 or so different versions of infantry. One should be those of the Chapter that take it to extremes, the kind of person that you might be unconfortable to have around even if you were a baby eating psychopath, which would probably be the ones in the BL list... I could definitely see Emperors Children having formations that love the feel of the blood on there armour as they carve through there enemy with razer sharp blades, to go alongside those that have an obsession with loud music. I feel that not being stuck to the versions in the BL list exclusively could really make the army interesting. |
|
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fearless |
Well as some of you will know i still have issues with the representation of Fearless in Epic. The Epic version of Fearless just isn't the Wh40k version of Fearless. Not only in rules but ALSO in fluff. Epic Fearless enables a formation to disengange under full order without any extra losses due to battlefield conditions. Wh40k Fearless forces a unit fight to the last man in hand-to-hand combat. The benefit is that they can't be overrun (= they aren't destroyed after loosing an assault and fail the subesquent Leadership test) but take extra saveable hits if they loose a round of hand-to-hand combat. To me Indomitable represents the WH40k fluff and rules the best. Epics Fearless is more like the Wh40k version of ATSKNF both in rules and fluff. |
|
| Author: | Simulated Knave [ Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fearless |
I quite agree with BlackLegion. The only ones I'd say who are Fearless-Fearless might be the Thousand Sons. The rest are Indomitable. Or something else. Personally, I think ATSKNF would work well for the Emperor's Children, but I can't see people leaping to embrace that one. 
|
|
| Author: | frogbear [ Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fearless |
Simulated Knave wrote: I think ATSKNF would work well for the Emperor's Children, but I can't see people leaping to embrace that one. I personally like that idea. So you have 1 so far |
|
| Author: | Simulated Knave [ Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fearless |
Considering the different reasons they're all Fearless, I'd wonder whether each should get their own rule - or at least their own consideration of what their rule should be. |
|
| Author: | Onyx [ Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fearless |
frogbear wrote: Simulated Knave wrote: I think ATSKNF would work well for the Emperor's Children, but I can't see people leaping to embrace that one. I personally like that idea. So you have 1 so far I like this idea aswell. |
|
| Author: | Dobbsy [ Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fearless |
When I suggested something for my World Eaters a while back it got shouted down by Hena so I had to go another way. Not sure you'll get it past him. |
|
| Author: | frogbear [ Mon Apr 12, 2010 3:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fearless |
The EC would be different however as the inclusion of the rule for them (as opposed to the other cult forces) is a direct afront to the Imperium. They were the first chapter to have the honour of wearing the Imperial motive on their chest and they were cherished above all others. Their decline and keeping of the rule would be in line with any fluff towards why they are probably most hated (also as noted for keeping their name) of all the Cult legions due to what the now represent. It shows that even the great legion may fall (as opposed to a favoured son). |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|