Kirb your enthusiasm!

WEBSITE HOSTED AT: www.3plusplus.net

"Pink isn't a color. It's a lifestyle." - Chumbalaya
"...generalship should be informing list building." - Sir Biscuit
"I buy models with my excess money" - Valkyrie whilst a waitress leans over him


Monday, October 17, 2011

"Stubborn is better than Fearless!"

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.

Comments (35)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Excellent article Abusepuppy! I've learned this very same fact switching from my Hybrid-Style Guard to Chaos Space Marines. Letting your Berserkers or Noise Marines ignore shooting casualties to move up and get into combat or a more effective range is really nice, thanks to Fearless. Though I never leave with a couple Commissars running around my Guard either!
1 reply · active 700 weeks ago
Paladins would KILL for Fearless (granted, they can blend through most enemies even at 5 models, so losing combats shouldn't be a problem).

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's avatar

Punchymango · 700 weeks ago

I often joke that, because I've played Tyranids for as long as I have, there are huge chunks of the rules I'm only vaguely aware of, and morale is one of them. But it's true. I'm so used to my units doing exactly what I want or dying in the attempt that when I pick up armies that aren't uniformly fearless it's jarring.

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.
While it is true that Fearless is generally better, the chance of failure is pretty miniscule for Ld9 &10. Sure, it is much nicer to loose a bunch of guys to No Retreat! than get swept, much much more often than not, you'll hold your ground and take no additional casualties. Particularly for Tyranids, with their high natural I values, it would be much nice to take that chance. At least for Tyranids in particular, Fearless makes multi-assaults a very risky proposition, as you can see your Carnifex brought down by No Retreat! despite killing many enemies and taking no wounds itself. There are ways to mitigate the issue, like buffing Termagants to ensure they get more kills, adding lashwhips to ensure you get your blows in first and using Catalyst, it would make life much easier on Tyranids to be able to tarpit without all of the extra hassle, as I'm sure you know.

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.
1 reply · active 700 weeks ago
17% and 9% (for Ld9 and 10 respectively) are really not "miniscule"; those are percentages you should expect to fail several times per game- indeed, the former is about the same as rolling a '1' on a d6, so your Marines will fail Morale as often as Terminators fail saves- which is to say, pretty often.

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.
Interesting. I had a discussion with Fluger on this same topic. I would argue that, specifically for Orks, Ld 10 Stubborn (allowing part of the Mob Rule to continue " as is" but giving them Stubborn instead of fearless) would be a good deal for them. I stand by that assertion, because combats are SO punishing for them that I think the "net" value of fearless is less than stubborn. Ld 9 Stubborn would be a pretty crappy deal though.

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.
6 replies · active 699 weeks ago
With Bosspoles, Ld10, and Stubborn, sure- that's basically getting every possible advantage there, although I would laugh my ass off the first time an IG player walked your entire army off the board with Weaken Resolve x2 or x3.

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.
Well, I think if we took the codex, as it stands, and just replaced the word "fearless" with "stubborn" in the mpb rule section, I think the Orks would be better off, weaken resolve notwithstanding.

If we are changing more than that one thing, then it obviously becomes more complicated. Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®
True, but I would say that would not be true for the Tyranid book. (I realize Weaken Resolve would be a pretty gimmicky thing, but it would still be amusing to see thirty Orks run off the board screaming like little girls.)
i play orks quite a bit, and despite no retreat messing up things, i still much prefer fearless over stubborn. not having to take a leadership test vs pinning is much better than re-rolling that test, and id rather not have my mobs tied down by weaken resolve and pinning too
as abusepuppy sai, the orks are just ablative wounds for the powerklaw anyway
Warboss Stalin's avatar

Warboss Stalin · 699 weeks ago

meh...I'd take stubborn ANY DAY, if I can reroll with my boss pole....L10 and the 9% becomes 1 in 20. They should make nobz with a waaagh banner have stubborn...because L7 becomes shit with Fear the Darkness...
WestRider's avatar

WestRider · 699 weeks ago

Even with the Re-Roll, it's far from perfect. I can tell you from experience that Stubborn Ld10 Units with Re-Rolls do still run off the Table sometimes, and losing a 300+ Point Blob + Lord Commissar to shooting on Turn 1 hurts.

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.
Not addressing pinning is kind of bad, considering the gist of the article. Armies like the Grey Knights, Space Wolves, and even Space Marines are vulnerable to pinning, thanks to one pinning test inflicted per unit. The odds add up like re-rolls; the odds of failing the first Ld9 test is 0.17, or the same as 1/6. The odds of failing the next Ld9 test is also 0.17. The odds of failing at least one out of those two? 0.31, or almost 2/6. Three tests makes it 0.42, and so on.
2 replies · active 699 weeks ago
I didn't talk about it extensively, but I do mention Pinning in the earlier parts of the article. Most armies don't get large numbers of effective Pinning weapons, but it's one of those things that can randomly come up and absolutely ruin a plan as a key unit is stuck doing nothing for a turn.
Pinning rarely happens. This feels like a troll.
I disagree. I play tyranids. and I would much rather have synapse cause me to be Ld10 Stubborn. Getting shot at, i'm either not caring or wiped out for gribblies, and big guys don't take 25% tests. Plus I normally want to try and get into combat. And when the general stratagy is to either drown them in gaunts, or throw five warriors at them, so three can be instant killed, ya I'd much rather take my 9% chance of running. Plus I'm paying in points for my "high" initiate models, even if I do run, I should have a decent chance of getting away. I winning combat for nids is losing 6 guys and killing 2 of theirs. People always question me when I give gaunts FNP before charging terminators. I tell them it is for No Retreat.
There's not a whole lot of pinning in the game, and even less in the current meta, precisely because so much is running around with LD9, LD10, or yes, Fearless. I've never heard someone say "I took the sniper rifles because I want to force pinning checks!" Same with barrage weapons - they force pinning checks, sure, but it's just an extra filip - people take stuff for the boom, not the shock.

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.
1 reply · active 700 weeks ago
(Flamers are actually pretty popular weapons these days, FYI. Heavy Bolters are mostly trash, though.)

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.
I don't know to what degree I agree with what has been said in this article. Overall Fearless is definately the better rule however even, It would be feasable for my 10 man DC unit to 40 through 40 guardsmen in a turn with fearless however with stubborn I have no chance of that happening. Also as Purgats was saying orks would be much better off with Stubborn over Fearless. I will say that fearless can be underrated in many cases as stubborn can be overrated in many case. For instance, when playing amrines there are many times I feel my army would best benefit from grade on chapter tactics over all for marines. I would be more likely to take either of those characters if they didn't cover stubborn to my army and remove combat tactics.

I guess this debate really depends on what units the rules are applying to.

Regards,
Crynn
3 replies · active 700 weeks ago
10man DC with a Chaoppy should kill over 20 Guardsmen on the turn they charge. Not quite the whole unit, but a hell of a lot of it.

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.
Thats what I'm saying. If the guard had fearless and I won combat by 25 I would likely wipe them all out in one round instead of 3 as off the charge the DC actaully have literally 1/3 of their charge dmg capapcity which means a blob squad would likely hold them up for 2 or more turns at 40 man with stubborn but would not even last 1 round if they had fearless.

Overall though I agree that fearless is better however on orks and nids I would completely disagree.

Regards,
Crynn
Actually, with wound allocation they would likely survive until their own turn, not that doing so would be an advantage for them.
I agree with this article completely, fearless is very good. Rerollable LD9 stubborn is probably better, but regular old stubborn isn't.
So, Puppy... was this article written before or after your 500 point terminator squad ran off the board? Arguably that throws a bit of bias on Tue matter.
1 reply · active 700 weeks ago
:P After, but that's part of the point. Fearless units never screw up and do things you don't want to.

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's avatar

thornyroses · 700 weeks ago

I'm fine with a unit taking fearless wounds for their own role in CC, but losing any MC to that in multi-assault simply because my gaunt shield is squishy just feels wrong. I would like a type of modifier to at least come into play, similar to something in Fantasy combat resolution maybe. Fearless is magic in shooting phase though, I never even think of picking up any dice after a squad gets blown in half. You also forget the advantage of fearless for regrouping, my Broodlord runs away outside of synapse but auto-regroups as soon as he gets fearless again.
4 replies · active 699 weeks ago
My personal suggestion would be for No Retreat to be hits instead of wounds; that means Gaunts/etc will be more affected and MCs less so. A simpler solution would be to have the casualties divided a la wound allocation against the squads in a multiple combat.
No Retreat was invented in 4th edition to bring Fearless units back into the same game as regular units, giving at least a risk of losing something if a combat was lost, rather than nothing. It does a pretty good job of balancing out the risk of losing everything that a normal unit faces. And They Shall Know No Fear makes it clear that Fearless and non-Fearless units are playing different games when it comes to combat.

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).
Actually, running the numbers, that idea sucks, scratch that.

From the looks of things, it would be better if the whole Sweeping Advance/No Retreat were taken out.
warboss talin's avatar

warboss talin · 699 weeks ago

Aye...making a unit get swept on a roll of 1 or maybe 2, period. What ork/tau unit can ever NOT be swept by DE? Lame....
The effect of No Retreat is proportional to a unit's armour and the amount by which it can lose a combat. Hence Fearless Terminators such as the Deathwing benefit monstrously, since at most one such squad will take four 2+ saves, with a cumulative chance of failing at least one of 53%. By comparison a unit of Termagants can lose by 12 and should evaporate the remaining 10 if under Synapse. Then again, that unit of Termagants will be something like half the points...

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).
3 replies · active 699 weeks ago
The problem isn't evaporating the 12 termagants that's the problem. If someone's tagged a 200pt trygon into the same combat and killed 12 T4 gaunts, the T6 trygon will have to make 12 no retreat armour saves!
Termagants are T4.

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.
Okay, meant to say that Termagants are T3...
Excellent article, I concur.

Post a new comment

Comments by

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...