No, it isn't.
Let's get this straight: the No Retreat rule is punishing, yes. Especially in multiple combats its effects are rather ridiculous. Magnifying this is the fact that ATSKNF makes a large percentage of the armies in the game immune to being swept from losing combat, which is nominally the thing that makes combat resolution so punishing. It still is reasonably dangerous to anything but Terminators, but not nearly to the degree that No Retreat on low-save models is.
That still doesn't make Fearless worse than Stubborn.
Outside of combat, Fearless is purely better; there's simply no argument. Fearless units never fall back at inconvenient times due to Tank Shock. Fearless units never get Pinned. Fearless units don't care about Fear the Darkness or Weaken Resolve or any of those other things. They do exactly what you tell them to and they keep doing it until they're dead.
40K is a game of dice; all of us are dependent on luck to some degree. The more you can reduce this dependency, the better. Fearless units do this wonderfully, because even Ld10 fails 9% of the time, and Ld9 17%. You do not have absolute assurance of non-Fearless units doing what you want; good confidence, but sometimes your Terminators will break and run from the position you had them in and your strategy will come apart. Switching from Tyranids to BA has made this abundantly clear to me- you MUST be prepared to occasionally lose one of your unit's turns due to a poor roll if you aren't Fearless. Stubborn doesn't do that for you- in fact, Stubborn doesn't really do anything for you outside of combat.
Of course, in combat is the big sticking point for most people. As mentioned earlier, No Retreat can be pretty punishing, but that's only part of the truth: for non-Marines, all combat resolution is pretty punishing. Would you rather your Orks were Ld9 Stubborn instead of Ld10 Fearless? Would you really? If you have, say, 20 Boyz left in the squad, losing five or eight of them to combat resolution is painful, and it's guaranteed- but losing the entire squad to rolling a 10 on the dice is also very harsh. By many measures, it's a lot worse- the Boyz are basically just meat shields for the Klaw in most cases, so it's only losing the last one that matters. With No Retreat, you keep the Klaw alive until the very last second (obviously), allowing it to inflict maximum punishment, whereas a Stubborn unit as above stands a good chance of being prematurely cut. It all comes back around to the dice- you can count on Fearless Boyz sticking around to get hits in each turn, but a Stubborn mob in combat might just go away at any time.
Looking also specifically at Imperial Guard, your Ld9 Stubborn is more reliable thanks to the reroll... for a price. For 20pts per reroll, in most cases, because those sarges are usually carrying a Power Sword as part of the overall blob strategy and thus are not just disposable models. Every time that 17% chance crops up, your offensive power decreases by a significant chunk. I would be much more inclined to just throw away a couple extra troopers for No Retreat instead, were that an option.
I'm not saying Stubborn is a bad rule; for tarpit units like Guard blobs, it's pretty much perfect. And, in some circumstances, it is better than Fearless- but most of the time it is not, so stop pretending that it is.
Kirb your enthusiasm!
"...generalship should be informing list building." - Sir Biscuit

Monday, October 17, 2011
Comments (35)

Sort by: Date Rating Last Activity
Loading comments...
Post a new comment
Comments by IntenseDebate
Reply as a Guest, or login:
Go back
Connected as (Logout)
Not displayed publicly.
Connected as (Logout)
Not displayed publicly.
Posting anonymously.
"Stubborn is better than Fearless!"
2011-10-17T06:00:00+11:00
AbusePuppy
AbusePuppy|Rules|
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Granesh 2p · 700 weeks ago
SageoftheTimes 77p · 700 weeks ago
Most killy fearless squads aren't gonna care about combats, and fearless will get them into combat (or protect them from losses outside if it).
Punchymango · 700 weeks ago
I also am very tired of bitching about no retreat wounds. I play the army tied with Orks in claiming to be hurt most by them. All it takes is adjustment. I learned years ago (at this point) that you can't just chuck gaunts at something and figure they'll be okay; you can't tarpit things perpetually anymore.
It's really not that bad, and if you take it into account you'll hardly ever really suffer from it.
Notanoob · 700 weeks ago
To reiterate, I agree that in most cases, particularly for higher save armies like you mentioned, Fearless is better, but for Tyranids it is an extra burden. I'm not disagreeing with you, making the case for Tyranids.
abusepuppy 121p · 700 weeks ago
I would rather my Tyranids stay locked in combat and take extra wounds than let the enemy get free and do as they please- yes, decent Init means you probably (probably) won't get Swept, but that's irrelevant because the enemy can now move away, get into a transport, shoot you to death, shoot you and then charge you, etc, etc. I'll keep those Assault Terminators locked and take the five casualties, thank you very much.
purgatus 90p · 700 weeks ago
But honestly, with Boss Poles and Ld 10... you really think Orks wouldn't prefer Stubborn? I don't.
As a general argument, I can see your points. For Orks... I'm not seeing it.
It's a close enough call though to make for a really interesting discussion. So bravo.
abusepuppy 121p · 700 weeks ago
However, lacking the reroll... I think Fearless is better. That one-in-ten chance of the whole squad disappearing is pretty dangerous, and having a mob be pinned by their ride blowing up (because it will), pinning weapons, etc, etc all add up very quickly.
purgatus 90p · 700 weeks ago
If we are changing more than that one thing, then it obviously becomes more complicated. Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®
abusepuppy 121p · 700 weeks ago
Scuzgob 96p · 700 weeks ago
as abusepuppy sai, the orks are just ablative wounds for the powerklaw anyway
Warboss Stalin · 699 weeks ago
WestRider · 699 weeks ago
High Ld+Stubborn+Re-Rolls works very nicely for the way IG Blobs play, but yeah, it's not flat-out superior to Fearless at all.
Nurglitch · 700 weeks ago
abusepuppy 121p · 700 weeks ago
TheKingElessar 71p · 699 weeks ago
degravemind 41p · 700 weeks ago
Avatar · 700 weeks ago
The real problem is that there are only three armies where big infantry units are even a viable option in the first place. ONE of those armies has a mechanic where losing combat by a lot of wounds doesn't result in additional casualties. (I might add that army also has a mechanic to remove a lot of the sting from being pinned, and deals with leadership checks more easily in a lot of other ways.) The other two armies, which have mass infantry that's melee-oriented, have a different mechanic that results in big piles of casualties.
It feels kind of meh because there are plenty of combats where orks or 'nids might lose in body count but come out on top pretty nicely when it comes to points, which is kind of supposed to be the balancing mechanic in the first place - I ought to be happy to lose six ork boyz for every terminator I bring down! But No Retreat doesn't look at the point value, just the pile of bodies, so if a horde isn't winning by points better than two for one, they end up losing in the combat res.
The weakness of horde lists isn't purely in No Retreat - 5th edition transports have as much to do with it. But look at the current meta, where anti-horde weapons like flamers or heavy bolters have been COMPLETELY eschewed for anti-tank weaponry. If hordes were any kind of threat in 5th, that wouldn't be the case. But it is, in fact, the case - hordes have been weakened to the point where they're no longer a scissors to your anti-tank paper.
abusepuppy 121p · 700 weeks ago
Pinning is not the real thing with Fearless- as you say, it's uncommon. Morale tests, and especially those from Tank Shock, are the real deal here- it's why non-Fearless deathstars like Paladins are so vulnerable.
No Retreat could stand to see some tweaking, I think, but the mechanic as a whole is fine; the fact that it can multiply casualties is intentional, not accidental.
Crynn · 700 weeks ago
I guess this debate really depends on what units the rules are applying to.
Regards,
Crynn
abusepuppy 121p · 700 weeks ago
Stubborn is really only better than Fearless if you ALSO have access to a reroll. But, by the same token, if you have a good armor save and/or FNP, Fearless is suddenly better than Stubborn again, because the casualties you take will be minimal and zero chance of failure is better than a small chance of failure.
Crynn · 700 weeks ago
Overall though I agree that fearless is better however on orks and nids I would completely disagree.
Regards,
Crynn
abusepuppy 121p · 700 weeks ago
Neil · 700 weeks ago
Hugz · 700 weeks ago
abusepuppy 121p · 700 weeks ago
I've eaten more than my share of No Retreat casualties as Tyranids, and yeah, it sucks, but it's just part of the game.
thornyroses · 700 weeks ago
abusepuppy 121p · 700 weeks ago
Nurglitch · 699 weeks ago
Game-design-wise I'd say that it would be good to commensurate and standardize rules like Stubborn, Fearless, And They Shall Know No Fear, and the normal morale rules.
Basically if you lose combat, then it's a Sweeping Advance: the unit takes a number of Initiative tests equal to the amount the unit lost by. Each failed initiative test is a casualty. Then, depending on whether a unit is normal, Stubborn, Fearless, etc, they either pile in (Fearless), remain where they are (Stubborn), or fall back (normal).
Nurglitch · 699 weeks ago
From the looks of things, it would be better if the whole Sweeping Advance/No Retreat were taken out.
warboss talin · 699 weeks ago
Nurglitch · 699 weeks ago
Pinning is especially important to Tyranids because units that have gone to ground don't inflict the I1 terrain penalty on assaulting units.
I've found that Tyranids really benefit from taking fewer large units rather than more small units (counter-intuitive as that is).
bugsculptor · 699 weeks ago
Nurglitch · 699 weeks ago
Regardless, the problem clearly is that 12 Termagants are being killed, because that's what is winning the combat and thus inflicting the 10 No Retreat wounds (after Sv6) on the Termagants and 4 No Retreat wounds on the Trygon (after Sv3+). You could soften the blow using Catalyst, but chances are if you're in position such that your opponent can charge both a unit of 12+ Termagants and a Trygon, and win by 12, then you're out of position.
Nurglitch · 699 weeks ago
TheKingElessar 71p · 699 weeks ago