Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
The Rout Test, Army Size, and Composition; What do you think?
Topic Started: 3 Sep 2015, 06:10 PM (582 Views)
Syrias
Member Avatar
Corporal
Okay, Rout mechanic. I saw some interesting opinions on how we should change or do away with this whole deal.

The basic points appear to be:

"I hate it because I play small armies, and I don't want to rout at the start of turn 2 after losing two out of four models to two unlucky saves."
"Maybe we should let Kill Teams have a re-roll if their Team Leader is still alive?"
"Okay, take out the balancing mechanic that makes elite armies POSSIBLE to defeat, and you get a whole bunch of whining from the other side of the table now!"
"Uh, have you looked up the percentage of success on a re-rollable 9Ld?!"
"If this is going to be a thing, there had damn well better be some kind of benefit to armies that aren't blessed with a high Ld!"

...personally, I've been thinking it over, and I'm having difficulty reconciling it (making the Rout Test rerollable if your Team Leader is alive). Shouldn't the benefit for having your Team Leader alive already be the increased overall Leadership for the test? Sorry, I play an army that doesn't have every model in their codex at Ld9-10, this rule is actually relevant for some armies. However, I'm concerned that certain armies will suffer for that change, especially mine. All of the most powerful armies already have uber-high Leadership; why, exactly, do we need to give them more advantages again? My opinion is that the mechanic doesn't need to be adjusted, but there are totally other opinions out there! Let's talk about it! There's almost certainly some perspective out there I haven't thought of or read yet.

I want to make sure that everyone knows that this is a dice-based game. Anything so heavily-dependent upon RNG (Random number generation), or when you ALWAYS succeed or ALWAYS fail on a certain number on the die, will generate ridiculous results sometimes. Remember that the system itself is generally going to hold responsibility for the rules permitting a 1/6 chance success/failure on any given roll. This isn't true of every roll, nor is this perfectly relevant-- I'm only stating that to remind people that these pass/fail mechanics are inevitably pretty cheap. It's the d6 system you're building off of, not (necessarily) the fault of the game design team.
Also, I saw someone say "... IMO some 'spammy' lists tend to usually win by rolling too many dice."
That made me laugh.
"Those jerk lists with a large model count are unfair because they spam lots of dice with low chances of success."
"Yeah! And those stupid people who field a small number of highly effective models are, like, JUST as bad, because they throw less dice, but get about the same overall result
"Or what about those people who spend days painstakingly crafting their lists to be flexible, effective, and able to handle nearly any threat by appropriate force cohesion and unit synergy?"
"Oh, man, they're the WORST! They're cheap jerks who use cheesy tactics and spend, like, WAY too much time on a stupid game.

*chuckles* So what's the WORST list you guys can think of? What really gets your goat?
Edited by Syrias, 3 Sep 2015, 06:35 PM.
Offline
 
Da Skyman
Member Avatar
Corporal
I don't see any issues with it as it is. Sure, elite teams have to take tests earlier, but they also lose models at a slower pace (most of the time). They also usually have a better overall leadership, which makes them far less dependent on their team leader.

I can see a game getting cut short due to an unlucky roll leaving a bad taste in the mouth of the unlucky roller, but it happens.
Kill Team is small. You shouldn't be so invested time-wise that every single game needs to last to the bitter end. If your game ends early then just start a new one. You can get 2-3 KT games in for every 40k game.

Also, if you are taking rout tests on turn 2, then you should probably either rethink your list a little bit (idk, maybe take 5 models instead of 4?) or you need to start changing how you deploy and 1st turn. Don't blame the rules for a clearly unlucky result allowed by your own decisions. Don't try to change the rules to make your particular team better, change your team to be better within the rules given.

I can sympathize with people who want to play a super fluffy army that is elite and cool and awesome. That sounds like tons of fun. Just don't expect fluffy teams to be super competitive. Like 40k, fluffy armies tend to fall behind armies built to take advantage of the rules of the game.
Offline
 
Narmet

I tend to agree that the Rout Test is ok as-is. If anything, in a campaign, players usually opt to auto-fail them, to cut their losses. We haven't been playing with the optional Injury rules, though.

Similarly, I think it's reasonably balanced between small and large teams, as Da Skyman said--small teams will lose units more slowly, and I haven't seen any correlation between army size and what turn Rout Tests start becoming necessary.

The roughest situations I've seen for Rout Tests are when a player loses their Special/Leader models first, due to the other player prioritizing targets. The mission may seem unwinnable but that dang squad of cultists is keeping the model-count above half. :ermm: There's a whole meta-level in designing a Kill-Team list that is flexible for being divided in half (two of the random missions force you to put half in reserve), and using your table-tactics wisely so you don't have to take the test.
Offline
 
asp

I personally find that swarm squad armies with bad saves quite often start to Rout faster then elite armies, like if they are unlucky enough to stay uncovered against e.g. high distance heavy 4 guns. But Rout seems to be as well as a great balance tool to punish low leadership armies as a fluff thing to represent what would cowardly armies do in "real life" when they lose half of their guys.
Edited by asp, 17 Sep 2015, 06:34 PM.
Offline
 
notwolf

in non-campaign play, i'd almost prefer to do away with the rout test altogether. Probably because i still have a special place in my heart for rogue trader play ( sorry to shine that nugget again), so fluffwise, it's not a fit.

your Kill Team is a specific flock of blokes, not another battle brick on the war wall. plus, as was mentioned, havign a 5-model team splinter after two or three brothers have fallen is unfun.
Offline
 
archonkain

Instead of rerolling the LD test, what about only making the rout test on your turn after losing a model since the start of your last turn? That way if you are running a 4 man team, and you lose two to say some ignores cover IG lasconnon turn one or such, that you take the test the next turn, but don't test again until you lose another model. Assuming I am reading the rules right and you test every turn after (which is how I have been playing, I think I am reading right, but no guarantees)
Offline
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · Kill team: Rules and list discussion · Next Topic »