PDA

View Full Version : Forced March in 5th ed.



UncleCrazy
29-11-2007, 03:17
Now I am not going to post this in the other section, because this a discussion about it.

Ok My best guess at Force March rule that is said to be in the upcoming 5th ed. Will be in the shooting phase any non-vehicle unit can choose not to shot or assualt and move 1d6 inches. FLeet units can charge after this move.

In objective based games it will give slow armies like IG a chance to go get objectives. But H2H armies will get across the broad faster too.

What do you think?

Please note no one knows for sure if this rule will be in 5th or if I have the right rule down. This is just a discussion about "IF" they put this rule in and how it would change armies, or the "meta-game".

Xenocidal Maniac
29-11-2007, 03:37
I think this topic has been covered in another thread, but I'll chime in.

As a Guard player, I love the idea and I hope it is implemented in 5th ed. It will give us much needed mobility and allow us to get to objectives for once.

As a Khorne Berserker player, well, I like it, but I don't think it will benefit that army as much. I still plan on loading all my infantry units in Rhinos. I don't feel like having my squads take basilisk fire on the way in, or running the risk of rolling a bunch of ones on the forced march roll.

TheOverlord
29-11-2007, 04:52
I personally would be a very happy camper should this rumor be true. I personally love to run footsloggers of csm undivided, this will be a most welcome addition to the rules, as this will allow me to get into better range that much faster.

This may very well kill off the gunline armies for good, which may or may not be a good thing, but the tactical implications of increased movement in a turn will be a most welcome change.

azimaith
29-11-2007, 04:57
It would be nice if slow moving lame duck assaulters like carnifex could use it. It will be decent for ogryns/kroot though.

TheNZer
29-11-2007, 05:01
I'm not really sure as i'm planning in my new list for a Static gunline I'm not sure just how it will effect me but i'm likeing the idea.

Hicks
29-11-2007, 05:31
I am curious to see how that rule could change the game. It would make static armies more mobile, yet it would probably not make already mobile armies beardy. The Tau with their jet packs, as well as DE and Nids with fleet wouldn't really gain any advantage from this that would break the game.

Ronin_eX
29-11-2007, 05:31
Anything that adds viable options is okay in my book. Now I can quickly relocate fire support units who have lost LOS to any targets and need a new position. I can also use it to grab objectives or simply reorganize a battle line. Using it to get into assault shouldn't be a huge problem but it will help CC units reach cover (though it will be risky to rely on it as you could end up out in the open) which is a plus for foot slogger assault armies.

However I can't help but feel this rule would be great if charge reactions also made it back into the game (squads that are charge can choose to a) fall back, b) shoot or c) receive the charge). I hope that makes it in as it doesn't look like full on overwatch will be returning any time soon.

5th Edition has a lot of potential so I hope they use it to improve the game instead of re-engineering it.

MuttMan
29-11-2007, 05:43
They had that rule in experimental rule set for an apocalypse style battle some years back. They tested it, and claimed anything could move double their normal distance, but if a unit with a LD value takes a casualty they automaticly become pinned, and vehicles moving double speed suffer automatic penetrating hits even if they're a skimmer if they take any glancing hits.

However, I would like to see rapid fire/pistols be used in melee using the BS vs WS to hit, two shots per gun, with the AP and everything. (plasma guns, ouch!) Just so shooter armies have something to bash the orks and tyranid in melee.

mistformsquirrel
29-11-2007, 07:52
I definitely like the idea.

Sureshot05
29-11-2007, 10:40
I like the idea in principle, but kinda hope that they increase the speed of dedicated transport vehicles to compensate. If the difference between a transport and a foot slogging infantry is less than 3", I'm not sure if we would ever see rhino's on the table again.

Latro_
29-11-2007, 11:29
I fail to see how they'v have this rule in the pipeline and give the new orks a warrghh rule whereby they get fleet for one turn a game.

either makes this warggh move redundant or in addition to a forced march (which would be silly overpowered, orks moving 18" in one turn on foot!)

Reaver83
29-11-2007, 11:34
i think you missed the bit where units with Fof can assault after so the orks would once a game be able to move 6, then a D6 then assault

sigur
29-11-2007, 11:36
I would really like that. Sounds more or less like the re-introduction of a march move and adding different movement modes/formations (NOT as army special rules) is always a good thing.

Chaos and Evil
29-11-2007, 11:38
Looks to me like another CC-boosting rule.

Scamshouse
29-11-2007, 11:38
I like the idea in principle, but kinda hope that they increase the speed of dedicated transport vehicles to compensate. If the difference between a transport and a foot slogging infantry is less than 3", I'm not sure if we would ever see rhino's on the table again.

You'd still be able to move a rhino 12", deploy 2" out of it and rapid fire. But yeah it would be another nail in the (Rhino)coffin.

Maybe they should let units assault after disembarking from a transport...

Thats a joke by the way :D

blackroyal
29-11-2007, 11:41
However, I would like to see rapid fire/pistols be used in melee using the BS vs WS to hit, two shots per gun, with the AP and everything. (plasma guns, ouch!) Just so shooter armies have something to bash the orks and tyranid in melee.

No... as a nid player, this would be the death of all 5+ Sv units.

the_picto
29-11-2007, 11:48
i think you missed the bit where units with Fof can assault after so the orks would once a game be able to move 6, then a D6 then assault

The problem with this is that not all fleeting units are made for assault. Firedragons, rangers, gargoyles etc. are not going to be charging into combat much.

Now if fleet let them assault and shoot after marching, then all would be well.

sigur
29-11-2007, 11:49
Looks to me like another CC-boosting rule.

I think the main point is that units who can't fleet of foot aren't allowed to charge into close combat after marching. Given the fact that many cc troops are allowed to do so and that there are those two turns of running towards the enemy before bashing him, I'd suggest two things: Units who marched can't make use of cover saves for the next turn and a general movement reduction to 4".

Gazak Blacktoof
29-11-2007, 12:01
I would really like that. Sounds more or less like the re-introduction of a march move and adding different movement modes/formations (NOT as army special rules) is always a good thing.

Wouldn't it all be a lot simpler if you had movement values though?

Rules like the one proposed will generally have exceptions or additional rules benefits thrown in for certain units/ armies ie allowing a re-roll or as with the proposed rule fleet units being treated differently. Implementing this rule would make 40K movement almost as complex as those of WHFB but by using special rules rather than characteristic values. This is something I would strive to avoid because characteristics can be summarised quickly whilst rules cannot.


Conditional on other rules changes that might be made its still a good idea becuase of the flexibility it adds to the game. Taken out of context of other changes I could see how it might break certain units, either making them inviable or too effective.

sigur
29-11-2007, 12:48
Wouldn't it all be a lot simpler if you had movement values though?..

I fully agree, but I didn't dare to propose that because then some people would have thought I was making fun.

All I can do is repeat myself: GW should add deepness to the basic rules of 40k and drop a few of the army-specific rules. This would improve the game much.

max the dog
29-11-2007, 15:14
No... as a nid player, this would be the death of all 5+ Sv units.

That depends upon how the charge reactions are actually worded. If you stand and shoot you should loose all close combat attacks. If you brace for a charge you should get close combat attacks and initiative. But I guess we'll have to see how it's being worded.

Malorian
29-11-2007, 15:59
I think stand and shoot would be too much, but I definately think you should be able to flee, or they should bring back the rule where you could pick to automatically fallback out of combat instead of taking a LD test.

I've always said that units should be able to move faster if they don't shoot. You should always be able to run. The one thing I've said though is that it should be modified by your armor save, so that those with a higher armor save would run slower. Something like no save, 6+, 5+ can move d6/ 4+, 3+ can move d3/ 2+ can't run.

Hakkapelli
29-11-2007, 16:00
Ok My best guess at Force March rule that is said to be in the upcoming 5th ed. Will be in the shooting phase any non-vehicle unit can choose not to shot or assualt and move 1d6 inches. FLeet units can charge after this move.


You forgot the part about no Force March if you are within 12" of an enemy unit.

I think the rumour sounds good, but I hope that they bump up shooting a bit too as I think this would otherwise shift the metagame even further toward assaulting.

1st posting on a forum, donīt kill me;)

Grazzy
29-11-2007, 16:10
Surely it will kill rhinos even more? Why take an already overpriced 58 point rhino when you can move extra distance?

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
29-11-2007, 16:16
I think the rumour sounds good, but I hope that they bump up shooting a bit too as I think this would otherwise shift the metagame even further toward assaulting.

1st posting on a forum, donīt kill me;)

i kill you! [joke]

seriously - now meta is shifted toward shooting by great degree, what is wrong with balancing this issue ?

cc should be more powerful - now is weak form competentive POV [if you will play with best players form Poland you will find the difference]

Dribble Joy
29-11-2007, 16:37
Looks to me like another CC-boosting rule.

Good, I'm sick and tired of gunlines. Let them try some tactics other than 'roll dice'.

scarletsquig
29-11-2007, 16:46
Since using forced march will also stop you from shooting/assaulting in the same turn, I see this as a way of simply adding more action to the game and reducing the current reliance on transports.

It's more a way of getting "stranded" units back into the game, and generally just speeding up the action.

Anything that makes close-range firefights a better option is good.

"assaulty army of death that never shoots" isn't much fun.
"shooty army of death that never moves" isn't much fun.

40k is best when there's a balance.

Malorian
29-11-2007, 17:32
I think it would actually slow down the game. I know when playing nids with gaunts I can count on the game taking 30 minutes longer than usual because of all the fleet.

It would be nice if you did it in the movement phase to save time, and then if you picked that option you can't shoot blah blah blah

Dr.Clock
29-11-2007, 17:32
The only real issue I would have with this would be how it would interact with the current fleet rules...

Simply allowing fleet units to assault after 'marching' does nothing to address the fact that units such as Dire Avengers, guardians, fire dragons etc. all pay points for an ability they would not benefit from if simply allowed to charge after fleeting. These units use fleet primarily to either advance quickly to get firing position or to get out of charge range/reach cover.

Allowing fleet units to fire OR assault after marching might work, but could also swing the pendulum the other way. It WOULD, however, make guardians a little more enticing as they currently have difficulty getting shots off with their limited range. That extra couple inches of movement could make them a real threat (plus it's a cool image... the farseer waving forward a bunch of guardians to let loose a fusillade of shuriken at the most opportune moment. Doom + guide + 16 fleet/shooting guardians = you are dead).

I think such a change would also have to be combined with a general strengthening of the vehicle rules. Perhaps an extra six" if no-one disembarks and NO shooting? Fast vehicles would still be limited to 12" disembarkation (don't jump out of the flying tank!)... but would retain 'difficult to hit' status...?

The rule would really strengthen all types of list. It would allow static armies to advance suddenly to take ground on the flanks... circumventing terrain quickly to gain firing position. There would now be a reason to put squads out of sight on the flanks as they could reliably make it to a covered flanking position in one or two turns. Assault-oriented armies would [obviously] be able to get into combat faster...

One final issue would be how marching is affected by terrain. Open ground only?? or 2D6 and pick the LOWEST?

Cheers,

The Good Doctor.

Max Jet
29-11-2007, 17:53
I still don't see the "advantage" for units allready having the fleet rule. Well they can charge after using forced march... just like fleeting. wow...
Don't get me wrong, it is a good idea, still I agree with Dr.Clock, that units allready having the fleeting rule need some kind of bonus.
Being able to charge after marching isn't any bonus at all. I mean they can do the same thing right now, while all the other units get faster, are able to escape close combat specialists with the fleeting rule much more easily.
There will be almost no difference in unit speed any more, which allready is very small. Forced march o.k. but units with the fleet rule need an extra bonus! Not just keep the things they can do right now... remember that some units get better while other stay as they are. It has to be rebalanced somehow.

Meriwether
29-11-2007, 18:03
There's another implication here as well: two-row gunline with a denial, or two-row front gunline/back assault troops.

Shoot like crazy with both rows, then as your enemy closes you run like pansies behind the second gunline, where they shoot.

Or, shoot like crazy with gunline, then as your enemy closes you run like pansies behind the assault troops.

I like anything that makes the game more dynamic and tactical.

Cheers,

Meri

Malorian
29-11-2007, 18:05
Actually I think it balances fleet. It was silly that some models could move twice as fast as another.

Sure a running eldar guardian might be faster than a running ork, but up to twice as fast? I don't think so. And why is the eldar scorpian left out?

Malorian
29-11-2007, 18:06
There's another implication here as well: two-row gunline with a denial, or two-row front gunline/back assault troops.

Shoot like crazy with both rows, then as your enemy closes you run like pansies behind the second gunline, where they shoot.

Meri

This would be fixed if your own troops blocked LOS like in fantasy...

edit: sorry for double post...

Visionary
29-11-2007, 18:16
I don't know the whole rule 'thing' about the march but with fleeting couldn't they add a distance to the move or something so they still go faster than other?

Xenocidal Maniac
29-11-2007, 18:16
I like the idea in principle, but kinda hope that they increase the speed of dedicated transport vehicles to compensate. If the difference between a transport and a foot slogging infantry is less than 3", I'm not sure if we would ever see rhino's on the table again.

I'd still take them. Rhinos and other transports are useful for other things. I don't like having my expensive marines take Lascannon, Battle Cannon, Basilisk fire on the way to the enemy. A smoked Rhino is pretty tough to kill, and even if it does get killed the chance of the marines inside getting severely hurt is very slim.

Not to mention you can use them for blocking line of sight and tank shocking, among other things.


Looks to me like another CC-boosting rule.

Hmm. Yet as a Guard player, I welcome the rule.

Go figure.

Dr.Clock
29-11-2007, 18:21
I agree that is does balance fleet... the issue is simply that with the codex as-is, a guardian has to pay for an ability that the proposed change would eliminate. Who in their right mind charges with guardians, forgoing shooting (even storm-guardians are going to want their flamer/destructor shots...).

Guardians would then be EXACTLY as fast as everyone else... which is the lesser of two evils?

I would be open to fleet granting 2d6 'pick the highest' for marching... and the ability to charge afterward... regardless of terrain. This focusses it on gaining ground or assaulting, not shooting. I can deal with that.

Scorpions don't run... they lurk (MTC has gained me more charges than I care to remember).

Cheers,

The Good Doctor.

stonehorse
29-11-2007, 18:44
Any rule change that brings 40K back to being like 2nd edition is a good thing.

Now we only need to see Movement values, Overwatch, Hidden, to hit-/+ as well as Armour Save Modifiyers.

40K could then attempt to reclaim its crown as being the king of Sci-Fi infantry based game.

Here's hoping.

ChromeZephyr
29-11-2007, 19:03
I'd still take them. Rhinos and other transports are useful for other things. I don't like having my expensive marines take Lascannon, Battle Cannon, Basilisk fire on the way to the enemy. A smoked Rhino is pretty tough to kill, and even if it does get killed the chance of the marines inside getting severely hurt is very slim.

Not to mention you can use them for blocking line of sight and tank shocking, among other things.


Heh, you beat me to it. Not to mention that with the Rhino, it's a guaranteed 12" move, then a 2"disembark and blaze away or smoke and disembark to assault next turn. That d6" extra looks neat until you only roll 1s and 2s and leave units standing out in the middle of nowhere to be vaporized. YMMV, of course.

sigur
29-11-2007, 19:49
Any rule change that brings 40K back to being like 2nd edition is a good thing.

Now we only need to see Movement values, Overwatch, Hidden, to hit-/+ as well as Armour Save Modifiyers.

40K could then attempt to reclaim its crown as being the king of Sci-Fi infantry based game.

Here's hoping.

You'll get flamed for that.:)

Seriously, in terms of rules, 2nd edition clearly was superior. If you don't overdo it with the army special rules and characters and keep them to a level that makes them believable and supports the character of the army and don't make them ZOMGtehcheeze, we would have a very good game.

stonehorse
29-11-2007, 19:59
You'll get flamed for that.:)

Seriously, in terms of rules, 2nd edition clearly was superior. If you don't overdo it with the army special rules and characters and keep them to a level that makes them believable and supports the character of the army and don't make them ZOMGtehcheeze, we would have a very good game.

Flamers only hurt if you don't get out the way ;)

I still play 2nd edition, but with houe rules... ie no Hero Hammer.

My 1,500pts Tyranid list is 1 Hive Tyrant, 60 Hormagaunts, 4 Tyranid Warriors and 3 Carnifexs. I may drop 20 Hormagaunts for 10 Gargoyles as those old Flamespurts were amazing!

Playing 2nd edition with focus on troops is the way to go I feel... unless 5th edition turns out to be the 2.5 edition.

Max Jet
29-11-2007, 20:59
I don't know what makes fleeting that unbalanced, they need to fix it. Still the are just 60% faster... not 100%. Look at armies like Dark Eldar and Tyranids (even worse for the nids with no transport). They need the speed advantage, because of their low survivability. They need a possibility to make it into close combat somehow, but what are they going to do without decent ranged guns and just moving at the same speed as their oponents? They will just run after units, moving away from them and then getting shot at by everyone else. You can then easily outrun and outshoot both armies. The same goes for a close combat eldar army. Without their speed advantage they are screwed. Trust me it's only fun for all the other players to take part in such a game. Definately not for all the close combat oriented armies.

Ronin_eX
29-11-2007, 22:02
Flamers only hurt if you don't get out the way ;)

I still play 2nd edition, but with houe rules... ie no Hero Hammer.

My 1,500pts Tyranid list is 1 Hive Tyrant, 60 Hormagaunts, 4 Tyranid Warriors and 3 Carnifexs. I may drop 20 Hormagaunts for 10 Gargoyles as those old Flamespurts were amazing!

Playing 2nd edition with focus on troops is the way to go I feel... unless 5th edition turns out to be the 2.5 edition.

I always viewed characters as something as a self defeating unit myself (at least from a marine player's point of view). They were vastly powerful, hard to kill by normal means and too tough for normal infantry to take down unless in a very large group. That said they could usually kill one or two models a turn. With those parameters in mind I always equipped mine to kill characters because that was all they were good at (well, one with a multi-melta could hurt tanks so there was that). In my 2nd edition games the characters go off and have a titanic, earth shaking battle while the rest of the troops do all the fun stuff.

2nd edition played with infantry in mind is massively fun, cover is a life saver, with loads of terrain mobility and maneuvering become very important, weapons are deadly (I love gritty games and 40k used to be one of the grittiest) and getting into optimal range with good firing conditions is paramount (again maneuvering is very important).

Overall it just felt a lot more dynamic than it did before and forced march seems to be bringing that back again. So it gets a hearty endorsement from me, as stonehorse said anything that has elements of 2nd in it is a good thing.

Dr.Clock
29-11-2007, 22:22
With such a change in the movement system, there would be a need to strike a finer line between 'fleeting' and 'marching'.

For instance, one might consider disallowing any marching either into or out of a 12" distance from any enemy units... Units are unlikely either to rush headlong at an enemy (basically throwing caution to the wind, standing up and sprinting) or turn tail and run directly away if enemies are too close.

The basic 6" is meant to represent not a flat-out run, but the sort of crouching jog you see on so many action movies, cop-shows etc. You are concentrating on covering your fire-zones, not covering ground. If you basically shoulder the gun and rush forward, you can run into all sorts of difficulty.

Thus, marching should allow for an extra D6 movement but: a)be impossible if starting, ending or passing within 12" of an enemy model b) render a negative 1 cover save to the unit who marches c) be impossible through difficult terrain d)deny shooting or assaulting for that turn.

Units with fleet: a) add D6 to the march roll, picking the highest (they WILL catch you eventually) b) be allowed to fleet no matter what enemies are nearby c) have no effect on cover saves d) may fleet through cover d)may use fleet to reach assault

Units with Move Through Cover should be able to march through cover as well...

This will represent the fact that though fleet models are not that much faster than those that are not, they are much more nimble through terrain and can still use cover etc. while at full speed.

You will note that fleet actually gets a bit better (2d6 vs. 1d6) while units that march suffer a few penalties. However, it will still be useful, as already stated, to 'get units back in the game', to get out of open ground faster, to perform tactical withdrawals (though you will really have to plan this... keeping units out of a 12" envelope), and to send units in a flanking march around terrain with a bit more reliability.

Cheers,

The Good Doctor.

Max Jet
30-11-2007, 18:01
O.k. I'm satisfied.
After all they still have to change some codicies because of the rule changes, and I guess the propositions made by Dr.Clock seem decent. I support that idea.

theshadowduke
30-11-2007, 18:24
I dont see the reason to penalize people for marching. I think that making it so that you cannot march within 12" of enemy forces (starting, stopping, or passing by), and denying them the ability to shoot or assault is enough.

Fleet however should always be able to march, may assault after a march, and may march through terrain like you fleet now.