SST:Evo ... Can Arachnids be Shattered?

[Ragnarok]

Battlefield Evolution under "Victory and Defeat":

Once an army has been reduced to a quarter of the number of models it started with (rounding down to a minimum of one), it is immediately Shattered."

I can understand how this plays out in tactical situations with modern armies in Battlefield Evolution.

I cannot understand how this plays out in tactical situations with Arachnids.

These utterly selfless individuals, controlled by a Hive Mind (or at least a Brain), would not register the loss of comrades all around as a human being/humanoid would. If the Brain wanted a diversionary attack to distract, then every bug sent on that diversion would continue to attack until it was destroyed. :twisted: Quoting a Roughneck (CJ) - they live only to kill.

Who's counting odds? Can you imagine a warrior bug reporting back to its Brain that the battlefield had only 24% of the original number of models still on its feet, so it retreated?

Brain: "Who's the Brain around here?"
Warrior: "Uhhh..."
Brain: "Who told you to retreat?"
Warrior: "Our numbers were reduced to below 25% of original."
Brain: "How did you know that?"
Warrior: "Uhhh..."
Brain: "Like I said, who's the Brain around here?"
Warrior: "Uhhh..."

Perhaps defeat conditions for Arachnids should be at the point when they cannot fulfill their victory conditions or mission objectives.

Am I reading this wrong, or is there a special rule or rationale for Arachnids? Thanks

 

[MongooseMatt]

Arachnids still have to worry about resources across an entire battle line - perhaps the remaining bugs do fight to the death, but the battle and objective is lost. . .

 

[Voracioustigger]

- they live only to kill.

Are they more likely to kill when their numbers are great or small? Great...

So...

If they live only to kill.... and the battle is so lost to the point where they can no longer kill... then logically they would run away!

Although Sprange's explanation works equally well... and there's no reason why you couldn't play all of your games down to the last man. It might not be balanced, but at least you'd get to see what the bugs can do after the battle is lost.

 

[Voracioustigger]

Sorry, double post...

 

[Aniyn]

I dunno, since that makes it possible to beat your enemy by killing his weakest units and leaving his big guns untouched. But since the arachnids don't use wave tactics, this shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Turtle]

One thing you guys are forgetting is that the shatter rule is an abstract rule used to find the victor in a fight, whilst still keeping the game oriented towards getting kills.

This is in contrast to the original SSTs system of weird objective layout before a game, and then often strange and unsatisfying objectives during the game.

Shattered doesn't just represent units fleeing from battle, it's an overall state where units might not be fleeing at all, but instead they've lost the initiative, momentum, and manpower to win. Inevitably a force that reaches its shatter point will lose.

That's not to say I like the rule entirely, but it does what it's supposed to do and as always, scenarios and your own picked up games have different objectives.

 

[Makoto]

What about Endless Tide then? It's not on the demo card, so I assume it's rules will be released later. In this case losing 75% of initiall models, or even 200% of those is irrelevant compared with overall numbers. Given that ET represents numerical advantage large enough to ignore own loses altogether maybe armies using this trait would simply ignore shatter rules?
Ok, shatter point may represent moment when an army loses initiative, although this is a rationalisation based on human mind, therefore the "losing of initiative" may mean something completely different for skinnies and fourths, not to mention being a completely alien thing for arachnids - historicaly we had this example even with more or less identically thinking human armies.
Hmm... Will just have to give a go on the rules and see how they work out.

 

[Mage]

I think shatterd applies to models on tables, so a lot of tunneling bugs would be a bad idea.

 

[Galatea]

Shattering causes a bulk of problems, espacially for Armies like Marauder or Exo Platoons.
Just imagine a 6 modell Marauder Platoon. If one Squad gets struck by a plasma discharge they're already at 50%.

You also may get problems if your army is tunnel-, air- or ambush-heavy.
I don't know the exact spelling of the rule - probably it includes tunneling and air units as long as they are on the tabletop - otherwise a Dropship-Army would be nigh impossible to play.

 

[Mage]

I contrast though it stops an entire army of ambushing skinnies in one building from hopping out and slaughtering everything in its path. It should not effect very army. Maybe use the same reasoning with leadership and tanks in 40K, they are so confident in their machine they wont run. So a marauder would not peg it. Then again marauder suits cost a lot to build in the universe, so maybe its safer/economical to do so.

 

[cOwgummi]

Well thats exactly my problem with the shatter stuff.
It should be the commanders decision when to abandon the battle, at least in a game.
Just because some rule says I've took to much losses doesn't mean I can't beat the enemy and reach my objectives with whats left.

I want to decide for myself when my army hasn't any chances left to win the friggin game.


Also shatter point makes some very arachnid tactics (for example: sacrifice of whole warrior swarms, which are expendable, to get other units to the frontline) completely impossible, and makes exos and marauders even less playable then they were before.

 

[Mage]

It kind of goes against andy chambers original design of the rules, where moral ei sno taken into account because the Arachnids are drones and the MI are so gung ho, doing their part.

At the same time thoguh they are not stupid. The MI are not fanatics and if they were being massacred it would make sense to regroup. People really don't want to die.

 

[Hiromoon]

They're what you call 'Motivated'.

And yeah, it does cause alot of problems.

 

[tneva82]

Just because some rule says I've took to much losses doesn't mean I can't beat the enemy and reach my objectives with whats left.

You might have reached the objective but with unacceptable casualties...Bigger picture means you can't just say "to hell with casualties".

 

[Mage]

Makes sense from a real military point of view, but I still think it should not apply to Arachnids. Maybe make it voluntary in a campaign with limited resources.

 

[Hiromoon]

Tell that to the Soviet Union Tneva. There are cases where 'acceptable' losses could mean entire fighting units.

 

[tneva82]

Tell that to the Soviet Union Tneva. There are cases where 'acceptable' losses could mean entire fighting units.

And would they have won war with that doctrine?

 

[Hiromoon]

They seem to have, Teneva. I'm sure if you wander into Poland or even Eastern Germany you can find proof of that. Throw bodies at the enemy untill their MG barrel glow white...

Heck, one of their tactics was to drive through German lines in the old US made half-tracks and drop squads of typically green troops right in the middle of the enemy position.

 

[Mage]

Well, the soviet union has been gone since 1991, and in the future in a society like that I don't think they would do that, unless it were explicit orders. Don't think it is too fair what you are saying about polish either.

 

[Hiromoon]

What, that you can't find a statue or two from the old soviet days in Poland, Mage?

And effectively you could, given the way Federation society works, where personal sacrifice and responsibility are the keys to gaining Citizenship.

How you can suffer 300,000 casualties at one battle and still be willing to fight with one of our modern societies? You have to make them motivated, you have to give them clear direction. 300,000 is something like an army suddenly poofing out of existance.