Quote: (Hena @ 26 Aug. 2009, 00:23 )
I've learned to hate playing against all fearless mainly due to reason TRC posted. Also they are very good in creating a blocking formation to stop movement to objectives on turn 3 (scout + fearless was way, way annoying).
The game just stops being enjoyable is main thing however as a lot of the game revolves on broken being vulnerable.
I understand the whole blocking formations, however this is nothing that any broken formation cannot do with less ability no doubt. However those units are generally alot cheaper and would generally allow another unit to be taken per two-three Fearless units I would estimate.
Scout + fearless: Interesting. never looked at that. I should try that one
The broken and vulnerable thing: I understand what you are sayimng in this regard, however I will mention (World Eaters specifically) that the 'feel no pain' aspect of the rule could be used as the reason. I have suggested armour saves on extra hits rather than them just being ignored, however you yourself took that as too close to the Stubborn rule. So either way, one cannot win in this respect. If this was adopted however, I would want to see a cheaper price for units as well.
With what you mentioned, would you not try and change your tactics to combat fearless rather than just take it on as a normal force? It is not at a stage where you have to design your army to take on an all Fearless army. Any competrative force should be able to do it. So this being the case, and without any evidence of all Fearless armies wiunning a swathe of battles, I still fail to see the major issue.
Like the nid list when people play it, they instantly dislike it and find errors with it because they lose to it and do not understand how to deafeat it. After developing a stratergy or two to do this however, it becomes acceptable. Would not this be the same case with all Fearless armies?
and I thought it was appropriate as a counter to the Fearless being too strong because they 'prevent access to objectives' discussion.