PDA

View Full Version : Stand and shoot?



Joewrightgm
18-03-2008, 16:15
This is something I heard being batted around by some guys at my local club saying that is included in the PDF.

Apparently, you'll be able to make a stand and shoot reaction before the enemy assualts you.

Is there any truth to this? I don't have the PDF, and if it is, I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts.

If not, Mods please delete and remove this thread.

Ozendorph
18-03-2008, 16:19
If it was in the PDF, people would have been freaking out about it here for the last month. You never know though, there could be charge responses in the final version (even though that'd be a potentially HUGE swing in game balance). I've got some Fire Dragons that are keeping their fingers crossed ;)

Xurben
18-03-2008, 17:43
Sounds like overwatch from 2nd edition. I think they have stated that is enver coming back. Also with current weapons and such, it would shut down assault units most of the time.

Also it's not in the pdf I have, at all.

/shrug

Wrath
18-03-2008, 17:50
it's not in mine, but this thing is old as dirt at this point.

I actually like the idea of the ability to repulse charges with weapons fire. However there would be a MASSIVE restructureing of the forces if that happened. it would be on the scale of the conversion from 2nd to 3rd. We would of heard somthing by now if that were true.

no-use4a-name
18-03-2008, 17:51
Not in the PDF I have either. Other than wishful thinking, this is the first I've heard of it. Sounds like it could be a fun house rule if it's completely borrowed from WFB.

Ozendorph
18-03-2008, 18:13
There'd have to be some sort of penalty or restriction for standing and shooting in order to not completely turn the game upside down. Foregoing attacks in the ensuing combat would be a start. To-Hit modifiers (WAIT, WHAT?) wouldn't be a bad idea. Maybe the stand-and-shooters have to pass a Ld test or they just fumble their rifles to the ground and die in a flurry of claws/chainswords/whatever.

Anyway, I doubt we'll see any such thing.

Alexandr Ulyanov
18-03-2008, 20:48
There'd have to be some sort of penalty or restriction for standing and shooting in order to not completely turn the game upside down. Foregoing attacks in the ensuing combat would be a start. To-Hit modifiers (WAIT, WHAT?) wouldn't be a bad idea. Maybe the stand-and-shooters have to pass a Ld test or they just fumble their rifles to the ground and die in a flurry of claws/chainswords/whatever.

Anyway, I doubt we'll see any such thing.

I also doubt we'll see something like that, but I do hope the rumors are true. Here is a balanced version of stand-and-shoot that I and several others have contributed to, which hopefully helps to dispel sentiment that 'OMG STANDANDSHOOT GIMPS CC TROOPS!':

If one or more charges are declared against a unit, and that unit is not:
1. falling back
2. pinned
3. locked in assault
Then the unit may choose to use a stand and shoot reaction. This is resolved as a round of shooting with -1 BS before charging models are moved. All of the units shots must be at the same enemy unit, and they may not use a stand-and-shoot reaction against any other units that are charging them at the same time. Wounds scored on charging units by this shooting do not count for combat resolution purposes. If the shots kill all units in charge range, then no charge occurs. If the charge does succeed, units that have used a stand-and-shoot reaction do not get any attacks in the initial phase of the combat. A stand-and-shoot reaction may not be used against a unit that consolidates into close combat, as no charge was declared.

Note that if the charge succeeds and inflicts any wounds on the defenders, the defenders will lose the combat phase. This consequence of the rule helps the assault troops and makes some sense too, since it is demoralizing to see enemies charge right through a volley of fire alive and killing.

Azzy
18-03-2008, 21:21
This is something I heard being batted around by some guys at my local club saying that is included in the PDF.

Apparently, you'll be able to make a stand and shoot reaction before the enemy assualts you.

Is there any truth to this? I don't have the PDF, and if it is, I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts.

If not, Mods please delete and remove this thread.

It's not in any of the PDFs that have been leaked, and there are no rumors (reliable or even unreliable) that suggest that such a rule will be in the final version.

Let's call this myth busted.

TITAN
18-03-2008, 21:42
It will not be. Area Terrain not blocking LOS is the solution to Assault units sneaking up on you.

Lomax
18-03-2008, 22:37
I also doubt we'll see something like that, but I do hope the rumors are true. Here is a balanced version of stand-and-shoot that I and several others have contributed to, which hopefully helps to dispel sentiment that 'OMG STANDANDSHOOT GIMPS CC TROOPS!':

If one or more charges are declared against a unit, and that unit is not:
1. falling back
2. pinned
3. locked in assault
Then the unit may choose to use a stand and shoot reaction. This is resolved as a round of shooting with -1 BS before charging models are moved. All of the units shots must be at the same enemy unit, and they may not use a stand-and-shoot reaction against any other units that are charging them at the same time. Wounds scored on charging units by this shooting do not count for combat resolution purposes. If the shots kill all units in charge range, then no charge occurs. If the charge does succeed, units that have used a stand-and-shoot reaction do not get any attacks in the initial phase of the combat. A stand-and-shoot reaction may not be used against a unit that consolidates into close combat, as no charge was declared.

Note that if the charge succeeds and inflicts any wounds on the defenders, the defenders will lose the combat phase. This consequence of the rule helps the assault troops and makes some sense too, since it is demoralizing to see enemies charge right through a volley of fire alive and killing.

How is that remotely fair? Fire warriors getting 2 S5, I 11 attacks in combat, that hit things like Stealer and harlequins at the same as their WS? I pay more points for units like hormaguants because they move fast and can get into combat with few casualties, stand and shoot would utterly remove this units one advantage as they have pretty poor stats for their points, itís the same for banshees and any other fragile combat unit.

Players with shooting armies accept assault is your weakness and live with it. Shooting armies are what win tournaments they are more powerful that assault armies and don't need another buff.

Azzy
18-03-2008, 23:05
How is that remotely fair? Fire warriors getting 2 S5, I 11 attacks in combat, that hit things like Stealer and harlequins at the same as their WS? I pay more points for units like hormaguants because they move fast and can get into combat with few casualties, stand and shoot would utterly remove this units one advantage as they have pretty poor stats for their points, itís the same for banshees and any other fragile combat unit.

Players with shooting armies accept assault is your weakness and live with it. Shooting armies are what win tournaments they are more powerful that assault armies and don't need another buff.

Fortunately, we won't be seeing this in 5th edition. :)

Alexandr Ulyanov
18-03-2008, 23:15
How is that remotely fair? Fire warriors getting 2 S5, I 11 attacks in combat, that hit things like Stealer and harlequins at the same as their WS? I pay more points for units like hormaguants because they move fast and can get into combat with few casualties, stand and shoot would utterly remove this units one advantage as they have pretty poor stats for their points, itís the same for banshees and any other fragile combat unit.

10 Fire warriors with pulse rifles would effectively get 20 BS2 S5 shots at top initiative. This will average 6.67 hits.
So, how many genestealers would this kill? 4.45 if their armor is not upgraded,
2.22 if it is. Then, the survivors kill an average of one fire warrior each if they don't have scything talons, which allows them to recoup their points. The fire warriors lose the close combat by a lot and may run and get wiped out. That's pretty much how it works now, except the fire warriors actually get to do something.



Players with shooting armies accept assault is your weakness and live with it. Shooting armies are what win tournaments they are more powerful that assault armies and don't need another buff.
This doesn't nerf any army that can shoot as well as assault, which is to say it doesn't nerf any army.

Lomax
18-03-2008, 23:35
No, it would benefit armies that don't assault, it would be a huge boost to tau, as they loads of high strenght weapons, so they would score loads of extra kills when units assaulted, and those 2 dead stealers is a loss of 48 points and 8 attacks, considering tau have huge amount of fire power not many are going to make it into combat anyway. It would also give crisis suits 2 strength 6 power weapon attacks hitting 4, so that’s pretty much a another kill per crisis suit in combat and loss of their attacks.

It would make grenades and initiative entirely pointless as the turn you charge your opponent is all ways going to go first.

Alexandr Ulyanov
19-03-2008, 04:20
No, it would benefit armies that don't assault,

It would also benefit tactical squads, ork shoota boyz, dark eldar warriors, etc.



it would be a huge boost to tau, as they loads of high strenght weapons,
So make the tau pinned or falling back first so they don't get the shots, or use tougher units on the initial charge (winged warriors with 4+ saves?) and then charge with genestealers the next turn.




so they would score loads of extra kills when units assaulted,

they would score an average of less than 6 at most with a 10 man squad, with a more realistic average being maybe 3. Not exactly loads.



and those 2 dead stealers is a loss of 48 points and 8 attacks,

Okay, let's assume those were scything talons and 4+ save stealers, and that there were 10 to begin with. The 8 remaining genestealers get 32 attacks and wipe out the fire warrior squad entirely. So, the tau still lose on points by over two to one.



It would also give crisis suits 2 strength 6 power weapon attacks hitting 4, so that’s pretty much a another kill per crisis suit in combat and loss of their attacks.
It would really give crisis suits with plasma guns 2 S6 BS2(BS 3-1) attacks each, which hits a grand total of 0.667 times on average and wounds an average of 0.55 times on the most ideal targets. Oh noes!

Then, consider that the crisis suit will likely be killed by whatever it's fighting and that it probably costs much more, and you might understand how small of a change this would be.



It would make grenades and initiative entirely pointless as the turn you charge your opponent is all ways going to go first.
No, it wouldn't make grenades pointless; they would still be usable against vehicles and to prevent your opponent from going first should he decide to use his normal attacks, which he might if he were chaos marines or somesuch. Initiative still matters, since its used for your normal attacks should you choose not to stand and shoot, and for all attacks in subsequent rounds.

Please, everyone stay calm. Stand and shoot would not necessarily break the game. Whether and how much it would affect play depends on how penalized the shooting is and the conditions that allow for it. If you don't like someone's idea of how it should work, explain why and propose an alternative.

Wrath
19-03-2008, 09:51
It would really give crisis suits with plasma guns 2 S6 BS2(BS 3-1) attacks each, which hits a grand total of 0.667 times on average and wounds an average of 0.55 times on the most ideal targets. Oh noes!


actualy I believe our crisis have BS4.

Darth Rubi
19-03-2008, 12:57
Why have such a strongly worded debate on a completely baseless rumour?

Ko Improbable
19-03-2008, 16:33
Considering everything can run, and vehicles are now almost certain to be destroyed if assaulted, I'd say it's entirely fair. 4th Edition made assault units considerably better, while making shooting units only slightly better.

How about frag/plasma grenades denying the ability to stand and shoot? They make the assaulted unit keep its heads down, which means they're not standing and shooting.

I also don't think it'll happen, since it would make too much sense.

Azzy
19-03-2008, 19:59
Considering everything can run, and vehicles are now almost certain to be destroyed if assaulted, I'd say it's entirely fair. 4th Edition made assault units considerably better, while making shooting units only slightly better.

Are you forgetting that area terrain no longer blocks LOS, so shooty units can shoot earlier and longer? Or that run is unreliable (you can roll 1" just as frequently as you roll 6"), and you can't assault afterward unless you have fleet (which doesn't change the effectiveness of units what already had fleet). Or that run benefits shooty armies as well (y'know, repositioning for more effective fire, grabbing objectives, getting units in reserve where they need to be, etc.) Or the improved survivability of vehicles removes the bite of most assault armies' ranged attacks, so beefing their ability to take out vehicles in assault mitigates this (and keeps with the theme of the army at the same time). Then there's the bit that a lot of people seem to agree that assault armies tended to be a bit lackluster under 4th edition, so giving them a boost in 5th ed. isn't exactly the end of the world.

Besides, you're still going on about something that isn't going to be in 5th edition whether you believe it to be fair or not. I mean, it's nice that you want to discuss and create house rules (more power to you, in fact), but there's already another thread on that very topic (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132341)--there's no need to duplicate it here.

*sigh*

The Dude
20-03-2008, 00:52
Azzy! You were right (http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2450440#post2450440):p

It didn't take too long either.

imweasel
20-03-2008, 01:26
I also doubt we'll see something like that, but I do hope the rumors are true. Here is a balanced version of stand-and-shoot that I and several others have contributed to, which hopefully helps to dispel sentiment that 'OMG STANDANDSHOOT GIMPS CC TROOPS!':

If one or more charges are declared against a unit, and that unit is not:
1. falling back
2. pinned
3. locked in assault
Then the unit may choose to use a stand and shoot reaction. This is resolved as a round of shooting with -1 BS before charging models are moved. All of the units shots must be at the same enemy unit, and they may not use a stand-and-shoot reaction against any other units that are charging them at the same time. Wounds scored on charging units by this shooting do not count for combat resolution purposes. If the shots kill all units in charge range, then no charge occurs. If the charge does succeed, units that have used a stand-and-shoot reaction do not get any attacks in the initial phase of the combat. A stand-and-shoot reaction may not be used against a unit that consolidates into close combat, as no charge was declared.

Note that if the charge succeeds and inflicts any wounds on the defenders, the defenders will lose the combat phase. This consequence of the rule helps the assault troops and makes some sense too, since it is demoralizing to see enemies charge right through a volley of fire alive and killing.


Stand and shoot Necrons would be very, very, very, very tough in this situation.

12-14 warriors (or god forbid 10 immortals or 3-5 destroyers) hitting on 3's wounding on 4's (or 3's or even 2's) or better.

Necrons suck in CC due to 1A and I2. Take that from them and allow them to shoot two or three times with Gauss?

Hmmm...

I can smell the burning flesh off the inferior bio-forms already.

shade_1313
20-03-2008, 02:04
this was a "trial" rule, first posted on the old GW discussion boards, even before the trial assault rules that were a prelude to 4th, iirc. they were tested and found severely wanting because they nearly universally made certain units useless. wyches are a golden example, as they'd nearly never survive the fire on their way into combat, but pretty much any 5+ or worse save, low toughness unit that was geared towards assault was far too severely punished under this idea, and it was quite rightly retired.

Alexandr Ulyanov
20-03-2008, 03:44
Stand and shoot Necrons would be very, very, very, very tough in this situation.

12-14 warriors (or god forbid 10 immortals or 3-5 destroyers) hitting on 3's wounding on 4's (or 3's or even 2's) or better.
Hitting on 4s. See that -1 BS in the post you quoted?

I point out, again, that there is nothing constructive about naysaying the concept. Propose a way to make it workable, and back it up with logic/numbers if you can.


this was a "trial" rule, first posted on the old GW discussion boards, even before the trial assault rules that were a prelude to 4th, iirc. they were tested and found severely wanting because they nearly universally made certain units useless. wyches are a golden example, as they'd nearly never survive the fire on their way into combat, but pretty much any 5+ or worse save, low toughness unit that was geared towards assault was far too severely punished under this idea, and it was quite rightly retired.
Once again, naysaying. Got a problem with how it was implemented before? Improve it.

Here are some suggestions that no one made to weaken stand and shoot:
1. -2 BS to a minimum of 1
2. Hits at double initiative instead of automatically first
personally I like the second best. It wouldn't help orks much, which is just fine by me, nor would it save necrons from fast opponents. Then, though, the stand and shoot should not work at all against enemies with more than double your initiative. I'd prefer a slightly simpler rules-wise solution.

imweasel
20-03-2008, 03:52
Hitting on 4s. See that -1 BS in the post you quoted?

I point out, again, that there is nothing constructive about naysaying the concept. Propose a way to make it workable, and back it up with logic/numbers if you can.

I can't without making every army the same. Some will simply be better at this than any other out there, necrons being one of them. Some will suffer for it greatly, particularly any CC unit that has 5+ (or worse) saves and a low toughness.

Alexandr Ulyanov
20-03-2008, 04:08
I can't without making every army the same. Some will simply be better at this than any other out there, necrons being one of them. Some will suffer for it greatly, particularly any CC unit that has 5+ (or worse) saves and a low toughness.

Yes, some will benefit more than others. Especially the imperial guard and tau, who currently get destroyed so easily and quickly in close combat it's ridiculous. I recognize that this change would shift the balance in favor of shooting armies (though perhaps only ever so slightly, depending on the rules). All I really want from this rule is some sort of recourse for shooting troops who get charged in the open by high initiative enemies, and for that recourse to be linearly more powerful based on the number of models in that unit. If that means all the shooting has to be BS 1 regardless of firer, so be it; it's still better than nothing.'

And, as many of you may have assumed, I do have something against assault troops. Not all of them, but at least a few standouts: genestealers, harlequins, and ravenwing bikers. Genestealers with broodlord and fleshhooks once crossed 12" over impassible terrain calling it "vertically impassible" (though it hadn't been designated necessarily so in advance) and got to cc first turn after I had deployed my forward units of IG, then ate half my army while the other half was pulled out in an attempt at damage control. (my DG partner saved the day, though) Even now recognizing that I have to be careful to make sure tyranid players agree about the status of all impassible terrain, I constantly worry about a game where a squad of them with scouts get a 6 for fleet and get a first turn assault anyway. Harlequins in falcons get where they want pretty much no matter what and then eat the IG army without being shot at or attacked in cc at all. Ravenwing bikers move 12", then move 12" and charge 6" into cc and also tend to eat a large portion of the army, plus that's a first turn assault I can't stop with any tactics. I don't want my shooting troops to win in these situations, but I want them to put up some sort of pathetic fight to make it less unfair.

imweasel
20-03-2008, 05:40
Yes, some will benefit more than others. Especially the imperial guard and tau, who currently get destroyed so easily and quickly in close combat it's ridiculous. I recognize that this change would shift the balance in favor of shooting armies (though perhaps only ever so slightly, depending on the rules). All I really want from this rule is some sort of recourse for shooting troops who get charged in the open by high initiative enemies, and for that recourse to be linearly more powerful based on the number of models in that unit. If that means all the shooting has to be BS 1 regardless of firer, so be it; it's still better than nothing.'

And, as many of you may have assumed, I do have something against assault troops. Not all of them, but at least a few standouts: genestealers, harlequins, and ravenwing bikers. Genestealers with broodlord and fleshhooks once crossed 12" over impassible terrain calling it "vertically impassible" (though it hadn't been designated necessarily so in advance) and got to cc first turn after I had deployed my forward units of IG, then ate half my army while the other half was pulled out in an attempt at damage control. (my DG partner saved the day, though) Even now recognizing that I have to be careful to make sure tyranid players agree about the status of all impassible terrain, I constantly worry about a game where a squad of them with scouts get a 6 for fleet and get a first turn assault anyway. Harlequins in falcons get where they want pretty much no matter what and then eat the IG army without being shot at or attacked in cc at all. Ravenwing bikers move 12", then move 12" and charge 6" into cc and also tend to eat a large portion of the army, plus that's a first turn assault I can't stop with any tactics. I don't want my shooting troops to win in these situations, but I want them to put up some sort of pathetic fight to make it less unfair.

You want to design a rule that either:

a) Makes certain army's virtually untouchable

Or

b) Allows certain shooting army's to make a pathetic fight to defend themselves to make it seem less unfair?

And I'm the naysayer?

Wow.

Alexandr Ulyanov
20-03-2008, 05:55
You want to design a rule that either:
a) Makes certain army's virtually untouchable

No. I want to work with ideas on the rule until it doesn't make any army untouchable.

Anyone that thought IG with stand and shoot as I suggested it before would be untouchable is sorely mistaken.



b) Allows certain shooting army's to make a pathetic fight to defend themselves to make it seem less unfair?

Actually, to make it less unfair. If it is unfair to the shooting troops to be mopped up without doing anything, then letting them do something makes it less unfair, even if by a tiny margin.



And I'm the naysayer?

You are refusing to contribute an opinion on how the rule could be made minor enough so as not to unbalance the game and simply opposing the idea in principle. Yes, that makes you a naysayer.



Wow.
An insult through sarcasm, that implies I'm a naysayer. Whatever.

Now, how about some constructive criticism?

The Dude
20-03-2008, 06:28
There's a whole forum devoted to developing rules.

Strangely enough it's the Rules Development Forum (http://www.warseer.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=17)

I think this would be better suited there, rather than risk creating the false impression that anything you come up with is actually going to be included in 5th edition :)

Hellebore
20-03-2008, 06:42
You are refusing to contribute an opinion on how the rule could be made minor enough so as not to unbalance the game and simply opposing the idea in principle. Yes, that makes you a naysayer.


You do realise that a legitimate opinion on how the rule works is to say that it won't and it shouldn't be included?

You don't get moral rights because you came up with the rule. Existing doesn't give the rule the right to be used.

Otherwise I get to say "there should be an extra shooting phase after the assault phase" and then DEMAND that you try to balance it rather than decide it won't work.

Cause you know, if a rule exists it SHOULD be used....:eyebrows:

Hellebore

Alexandr Ulyanov
20-03-2008, 07:22
You do realise that a legitimate opinion on how the rule works is to say that it won't and it shouldn't be included?
No. I think it's legitimate to say it shouldn't be included, if you back it up. I don't think saying a proposed rule just won't work is legitimate. Saying that something else would work better or you prefer it the way it is are both better solutions.



You don't get moral rights because you came up with the rule. Existing doesn't give the rule the right to be used.
I didn't really come up with it. I started with something too shooty and someone else suggested the rule I posted here as a way to fix it. Anyway, yeah, it shouldn't be used just because it's there.



Otherwise I get to say "there should be an extra shooting phase after the assault phase" and then DEMAND that you try to balance it rather than decide it won't work.

That's just it though. Just about anything WILL work, if it gets properly balanced. If you wanted input on how to balance that, I might give it; if I didn't, I probably wouldn't post about it.


There's a whole forum devoted to developing rules.

Strangely enough it's the Rules Development Forum (http://www.warseer.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=17)

I think this would be better suited there, rather than risk creating the false impression that anything you come up with is actually going to be included in 5th edition :)
I agree. I've been talking too much about that in this thread.
So, for anyone confused by me: STAND AND SHOOT IS MOST LIKELY NOT GOING TO BE IN 5TH EDITION.

shade_1313
20-03-2008, 11:43
Once again, naysaying. Got a problem with how it was implemented before? Improve it.


it's not naysaying if all i was doing was reporting on where the rumor may have come from and what the previous results of trying this idea were, thank you so very much.

Gorbad Ironclaw
20-03-2008, 12:12
It could work, but it requires a whole lot of other changes to 40k for it to work, IMO.

Things like smoke grenades/rounds to give cover/concealment would be a good start. Adding viable ways to pin/suppress or even break units with firepower in preperation for an assult would be another requirement imo. Pinning is currently all but useless and if you want some sort of reactionary fire to an assault there should be a way to suppress the unit in advance without you having to kill them. Throw anough firepower at someone and they will hit the ground and seek cover even if you haven't caused many/any casualties. Pinning was supposed to do that but a) few weapons can pin and b) it doesn't work.

Fix some of those issues first and you might be able to have a workable model for a stand and shoot reaction.

FigureFour
20-03-2008, 19:00
So make the tau pinned or falling back first so they don't get the shots, or use tougher units on the initial charge (winged warriors with 4+ saves?) and then charge with genestealers the next turn.

they would score an average of less than 6 at most with a 10 man squad, with a more realistic average being maybe 3. Not exactly loads.


Okay, let's assume those were scything talons and 4+ save stealers, and that there were 10 to begin with. The 8 remaining genestealers get 32 attacks and wipe out the fire warrior squad entirely. So, the tau still lose on points by over two to one.


It would really give crisis suits with plasma guns 2 S6 BS2(BS 3-1) attacks each, which hits a grand total of 0.667 times on average and wounds an average of 0.55 times on the most ideal targets. Oh noes!



Please, everyone stay calm. Stand and shoot would not necessarily break the game. Whether and how much it would affect play depends on how penalized the shooting is and the conditions that allow for it.

You're trying to balance a combat not a game.

Stand and shoot would not necessarily break the game, but several units would need to be redesigned/recosted.


Why have such a strongly worded debate on a completely baseless rumour?

Because it's fun?


I point out, again, that there is nothing constructive about naysaying the concept. Propose a way to make it workable, and back it up with logic/numbers if you can.

No one's obligated to be constructive here. You're the one who wants this rule to work.


Yes, some will benefit more than others. Especially the imperial guard and tau, who currently get destroyed so easily and quickly in close combat it's ridiculous. I recognize that this change would shift the balance in favor of shooting armies (though perhaps only ever so slightly, depending on the rules).

These are all Bad Things.

Particularly making Tau and IG less weak in close combat. That weakness is present by design to compensate for their other strengths and define the character of their army. LEAVE THEM WEAK IN CLOSE COMBAT.



All I really want from this rule is some sort of recourse for shooting troops who get charged in the open by high initiative enemies,

Shooting troops who get charged in the open by high initiative enemies SHOULD be screwed, just like close combat troops who get caught out in the open at range from a high firepower enemy should be screwed.


And, as many of you may have assumed, I do have something against assault troops.

Yes, you seem to resent when an opponent uses his strengths against your weaknesses. If you don't like that, don't play strategy games. It's kind of what they are all about.


I don't want my shooting troops to win in these situations, but I want them to put up some sort of pathetic fight to make it less unfair.

What, you want a useless rule that doesn't significantly effect the game as a consolation prize for dead soldiers?

If the rule isn't going to significantly alter the game, why implement it at all? It seems like you just want a chance to roll some dice and feel good about yourself.


Actually, to make it less unfair. If it is unfair to the shooting troops to be mopped up without doing anything, then letting them do something makes it less unfair, even if by a tiny margin.

And it's unfair to assault troops to try to deny them their ability to thrash troops who are pathetic in an assault.

There's no reason everyone needs to be equal.


You are refusing to contribute an opinion on how the rule could be made minor enough so as not to unbalance the game and simply opposing the idea in principle. Yes, that makes you a naysayer.

I'll say it again, nerfing the rule until it has a completely negligible effect is useless. Why add the complication of an extra rule if it's not actually going to DO anything?

Also, being a naysayer isn't that bad. Someone has to say nay to bad ideas.


Now, how about some constructive criticism?

Sure.

Stop nerfing your rule and let stand and shoot have a significant effect on close combat.

THEN, if you really care about balance, make a rule allowing close combat troops to strike back when they get shot.

After all, it's unfair to a band of orks if they get shot down before they make it into close combat. Give them a way to get some hits in on the shooters.

MegaPope
20-03-2008, 23:20
I recognise that all this is purely hypothetical, but SAS as a universal rule would almost certainly be impractical, as there are too many variables involved, as regards different units and how they benefit/are hindered etc.

Also, it would lead to some very odd situations, in which it creates a benefit for troops which don't need and shouldn't get it in the first place.

Consider Ork Shoota Boyz (or sluggaz come to that) for example. They ain't no slouches in CC, obviously, and one of the few ways of getting the drop on them up close is to charge them first. Something that becomes significantly harder to do if they get to pour fire into you before you get there. Marines and CSM also benefit significantly when they really don't need to.

However, I do think that SAS could have a place, but only as an army-specific special rule. The army in question is of course the Imperial Guard. Since for some reason the design team still seems fixed upon making the Guard fight like Napoleon's army instead of a even a WWII style military, there may as well be a volley-fire kind of close-quarters defensive manoeuvre that goes with it. Also, it fits well with the Guard's ethos of teamwork, solidarity and gunnery drill!

Tau, IMO, are less in need of such a thing, since volley-firing Fire Warriors form only one facet of their overall combat philosophy (and generally serve as markerlight carriers in any case, to say nothing of the benefits they already derive from other units' markerlights)

SAS could be made a specific rule for Guard Infantry (as defined in the current Codex) and Stormtroopers/Grenadiers, as these are the most likely units to be trained to do so - Conscripts are too ill-disciplined, Ogryns are too aggressive, Ratlings prefer to run off or hide and Rough Riders are hampered by their mounts. Hypothetical rule would be:

"Stand Fast!" - A Guard Infantry or Stormtrooper/Grenadier unit that is not pinned, fleeing or locked in close combat, that is assaulted by one or more enemy assault units, may choose to stand and fire at their attackers.

If the squad is being charged by more than one enemy unit, the squad will fire at the FIRST enemy unit to declare an assault move against it. (n.b: I put this in for two reasons - 1) the first set of slavering maniacs that come barrelling towards you waving axes etc are probably going to be impossible to ignore in favour of other targets in the heat of battle, regardless of what they actually are and, 2) it gives the assaulting player the opportunity to pull a 'bait and switch' move, thus limited possible damage to his more valuable troops). All firing will then take place BEFORE the designated attacking unit makes its assault move.

If the shooting kills every enemy model within assault range of the firing unit, that unit may not make an assault move. However, as the firing unit is assumed to be able to shoot to the maximum range of its weaponry, the owner of the assaulting unit may therefore remove eligible casualties from anywhere in the unit, as per the normal shooting rules. If even one model is left within assault distance of the firing unit, the assault will still happen.

The squad being charged may fire once at the designated unit, just as if it was firing while stationary in its own shooting phase (e.g rapid fire/pistol weapons may fire twice, heavy weapons may fire once etc), EXCEPT that all shots are taken as if the unit's BS was one point lower (BS3 becomes BS2 etc) to represent over-hasty targetting.
Guess range weapons and Sniper Rifles may NOT be used! Demolition Charges may be used, but will roll 2D6 for scatter and use the highest score if they don't HIT, so watch out! Template weapons like flamers may be used, but CANNOT be repositioned to avoid hitting your own troops - there just isn't time! (n.b this is here to avoid unscrupulous flamer fandangoes, instead of simply barring their use. Common sense dictates that running at the chap with the flamethrower might be a bad idea, but if you've been remiss in your postioning of said flamer, you pays your money, and takes your choice;)).

If the assaulting unit suffers enough casualties to take a Panic test, and fails, it will break and flee as normal and the assault will not take place (unless more than one unit is charging the same Guard squad). The Guard unit using Stand Fast may NOT pursue.

If the assaulting unit is Pinned, it does not move, and the assault does not take place (unless more than one unit is charging the same Guard squad). Neither it nor the Guard unit counts as being locked in assault. The pinned unit will stay pinned until the beginning of its next turn.

If an assaulting unit subjected to Stand Fast! has Frag Grenades (or their equivalents) then Stand Fast! may not be used against it - the grenades tossed by the unit as it charges cause too much disruption. The assault move and combat therefore occur as normal.

A Guard unit that Stands Fast is assumed to have an Initiative of 1 in that assault phase and may not use any grenades. If the Guard squad Standing Fast is within terrain or behind an obstacle, it will strike simultaneously with its attackers, instead automatically of striking first (standing and shooting doesn't necessarily mean 'standing up in full view of the enemy and THEN shooting!'. A Guard unit that Stands Fast, is still assaulted, and then loses the combat will suffer an extra -1 penalty to their Ld in addtion to other modifiers, when taking their break test - they hit the enemy with everything, and it still wasn't enough!

Just my musings...

EDIT: I got through all that before realising that it's basically worthless against Marines (who all have Frag Grenades). Still, you can't have everything, and there's more than just Marines out there...

sjwilliamsii
13-04-2008, 05:16
Sorry for discovering this so late, I hope people still read it.

I play IG and am frustrated with the fact that in a given battle I might get one or 2 salvos in before I am locked into cc and decimated, so a rule like this is appealing.

Here is my suggestion;

As mentioned above but instead of hits causing wounds, how about instead each hit causes a negative modifier to the charging units morale for that charge attempt and morale check needing to be passed before the charge can occur. Basically, the unit being charged, reacts and through up some lead (plasma, laser, what ever) to keep the charging unit heads' down and fearless units would be immune. It wouldn't cause damage but would stop the charge for a turn allowing an opportunity to GTF out of the way or fire for effect.

It would look like this perhaps;
If one or more charges are declared against a unit, and that unit is not:
1. falling back
2. pinned
3. locked in assault
Then the unit may choose to use a stand and shoot reaction. This is resolved as a round of shooting with -1 BS before charging models are moved. All of the units shots must be at the same enemy unit, and they may not use a stand-and-shoot reaction against any other units that are charging them at the same time. The charging unit adds a +1 for each hit to a leadership check of the charging unit. If the check fails the charging unit may not charge. If the charge succeeds the defending unit suffers a -1 WS when defending against the charge. A stand-and-shoot reaction may not be used against a unit that consolidates into close combat, as no charge was declared. Fearless and effects like "Summary Execution" still apply.

If you figure that a standard IG inf. squad would hit on a 5+ that means roughly 3 hits so a unit with a leadership of 10 would need 7 or less to charge, there is still a chance but if they don't they aren't blown away. I would add that heavy and special weapons should also a shot too.

Just my $.02

Stingray_tm
13-04-2008, 10:37
Oh not this stupid discussion again.

Stand and Shoot will NOT work with the current armies and their point costs. There is no need for this rule other than players of shooty armies not wanting to feel like bad players, when they didn't manage to wipe out there opponents before they reach close combat.
You had 2 or maybe even 3 rounds to kill those beasts, while these could do NOTHING in return. Now it is time for Genestealers/Banshees/Whatever to make their points back, so they are supposed to kick ass in close combat. Deal with it and don't demand a rule, that protects youself from deployment errors.

You REALLY want Stand and Shoot? Okay, but then rework ALL codizes out there, make Fire Warriors worth 15 points and Genesteales 10 points or whatever.

Maybe players of cc armies should demand a "reflection" rule, that enables their cc specialists to parry and throw back the fired rounds on the firing unit? You know, it would make the game "more tactical" and also it would let the cc units participate in the phases, where they are not in close combat...

Mandragola
13-04-2008, 11:10
You REALLY want Stand and Shoot? Okay, but then rework ALL codizes out there, make Fire Warriors worth 15 points and Genesteales 10 points or whatever.

Agreed. There's no way that SAS can work in the current ruleset. "My harlequins charge your sisters of battle... what heavy flamer, flamer and 8 rapid firing bolters?... oh". It isn't in the pdf I have and there has been nothing to suggest it will be in 5th. I hope it isn't.

There's something to be said for SAS in realism terms. After all, if you tried to run up and hit a guy with an axe, and that guy had a flamethrower, your odds would not be good. 40k chooses to make it possible for troops armed with automatic weapons to actually approach near one another. That's just the game.

I do kind of like the idea of IG getting it, for lasguns only and only if they didn't move in their turn. It would actually suit that army and wouldn't be unbalancing really. I think the general perception at the moment is that IG infantry need some kind of a boost.

sjwilliamsii
13-04-2008, 18:53
apparently my post wasn't read properly. I am not saying that a unit being charged gets a free attack, and I am not even saying that it will stop a potential charge 100% of the time. All I am suggesting is that there should be a chance that a shooting army should have the chance to stop a charge by shooting into a charging unit.

I just played a game using the 5th ed beta rules against the new Ork Codex, and statistically there is very very very little chance that a guard unit of equal point value can stand up to an Ork army. So either the IG needs a new codex OR 5th ed needs a change to make shooting armies more balances with CC armies.

I could see it as a Reg. Doctrine and cost maybe 20 points per unit, perhaps as a special training.

BTW You don't need to comment in the way that you have. As though this discussion is some how a burden on you valuable time. I mentioned that I was new to the forum and merely wanted to weigh in with my thoughts, as you have already done.

Lt.Bradford
13-04-2008, 20:50
:snip:

I highly agree with what you've written there. Heck, it makes sense for an army like guard, that only hit 50% of the time, and still are horrid in CC. And now with the run rule and everything.

Heck, have it normally be just normal weapons, unless a Commissar is nearby... thus having Commissars be a better looking item.


Also, with the people arguing about everything: Consider how fantasy does it, and then go from there.

Stingray_tm
13-04-2008, 20:56
Solution for the Guard problem? Release a new Guard codex instead of a Daemon codex, a Space Marine codex and a Space Wolve codex first... But don't try to fix the problem witch changing the core rules, that would boost the Guard, but boost any other shooty army EVEN MORE!
Well, but we all know, that GW isn't interested in fixing things. They want to sell models, no matter, what this means to game balance.

Kalec
14-04-2008, 04:07
apparently my post wasn't read properly. I am not saying that a unit being charged gets a free attack, and I am not even saying that it will stop a potential charge 100% of the time. All I am suggesting is that there should be a chance that a shooting army should have the chance to stop a charge by shooting into a charging unit.

I just played a game using the 5th ed beta rules against the new Ork Codex, and statistically there is very very very little chance that a guard unit of equal point value can stand up to an Ork army. So either the IG needs a new codex OR 5th ed needs a change to make shooting armies more balances with CC armies.

I could see it as a Reg. Doctrine and cost maybe 20 points per unit, perhaps as a special training.

BTW You don't need to comment in the way that you have. As though this discussion is some how a burden on you valuable time. I mentioned that I was new to the forum and merely wanted to weigh in with my thoughts, as you have already done.



Shooty armies already have that. Its called those 2 or 3 or whatever turns that the cc troops spend getting into cc while you shoot them.

The underpowerdness of the Guard is well known. You, believe it or not, are not the first to suggest buffing them. Go find one of the many threads in just about every gameplay forum devoted to IG and raise the issue, because it belongs there. There is even one in this forum, should you feel averse to going to a different one.

Dooks Dizzo
14-04-2008, 04:17
I just played a game using the 5th ed beta rules against the new Ork Codex, and statistically there is very very very little chance that a guard unit of equal point value can stand up to an Ork army. So either the IG needs a new codex OR 5th ed needs a change to make shooting armies more balances with CC armies. Not even a guard army containing 3 Russes and 3 Hell Hounds?

I don't remember exactly how it works either but I bet the IG player could have a good time running transports into the Ork lines and stopping them up, isolationg them and cutting them down.

I would lay down good money that I could beat Orks atleast 50% of the time with the current IG codex. And then turn right around with the same list and beat Marines 50% of the time.

Firaxin
14-04-2008, 04:32
I was going to post and say that stand and shoot in any format is stupid, and then refer y'all to an older thread where I destroy any notion of its fairness, but then I went to thinking...

I suppose an acceptable alternative to stand and shoot would be to make the IG's Close Order Drill a universal rule that can be used by any unit with guns and that didn't move the previous turn. It's fair because they'll be ultra susceptible to blast weapons, which no longer get partials... and units like orks won't be able to move forwards and then bunch together for a bonus.

Dooks Dizzo
14-04-2008, 04:37
Stand and shoot works in WFB because ranged weapons in WFB suck. That's all there is to it.

On top of that in Fantasy players have the option of breaking and running. If you make Stand and Shoot an option it's not actually an option since you don't have any other choice, it's just a free round of shooting. Period.

sjwilliamsii
14-04-2008, 15:12
If you read the modification to the suggested rule that I had made. the unit defending, i.e. not charging, does NOT get a free chance to kill the charging unit. They merely make the charging unit make a leadership check modified by the number of 'wounds' that would be inflicted. The charging unit doesn't lose anything other than the chance to charge if they fail the leadership roll.

For example...
10 orks are charging 10 IG troops

The IG player states that he is going to try and disrupt the charge and rolls 10 hit rolls at -1 BS (now needing a 5+ to hit). He gets 4 hits. So now he roll 4 wound attempts (like normal) and gets a result of 3. The Orks DO NOT TAKE 3 WOUNDS! Let me say this again for clarity the Orks DO NOT TAKE 3 WOUNDS Rather, the ork player rolls a leadership check with a -3 modifier.
Lets say that the orks have a leadership of 9 so they would need a 6 or less to pass the check (9 leadership - the 3 "wounds" = 6) and the result is a 5, this being under the required 6 so the the charge proceeds normally. Unfortunately for the poor Guardsmen they now suffer a -1 WS for this close combat and get slaughtered by the Nobz' 40 S4 attacks, half of which offer armor saves.

Same scenario as above only the Orks miss their leaderships roll (they get a 7, oops). The charge is stopped, the orks do not advance or engage in close combat this turn having suffered NO WOUNDS, only getting rattled or perhaps mesmerized by the hail of laser light from the guardsmen (aah pretty lights).

So the maneuver (stand and shoot, or defensive fire, or OH ***** shoot it, or whatever you want to call it) just ONLY stops a charge, it does not issue wounds, or kills. It just keeps the charging unit heads down thus halting the charge attempt.

sjwilliamsii
14-04-2008, 15:18
Not even a guard army containing 3 Russes and 3 Hell Hounds?

I don't remember exactly how it works either but I bet the IG player could have a good time running transports into the Ork lines and stopping them up, isolationg them and cutting them down.

I would lay down good money that I could beat Orks atleast 50% of the time with the current IG codex. And then turn right around with the same list and beat Marines 50% of the time.

3 Russes with lascannon and bolters and 1 Chimera. A squad of 10 NobZ and a Warboss took out 2 of the Russ' and an Ogryn squad in 3 turns single handedly not to mention 3 SM dreadnoughts 2 turns prior. If memory serves the squad lost 2 or 3 throughout the engagement and all rolls were statistically about average.

Dooks Dizzo
14-04-2008, 23:42
Williams you said that NO IG ARMY could fight a like amount of points of Orks and win.

From what I am looking at you weren't even playing a normal 40k game if the IG had SM dreads on their side. And really, 1 battle cannon shot from a Russ should wipe out about half those Nobz. How you allowed 10 of them and a Warboss into combat I cannot fathom.

Bad tactics does not make a bad army.

Mad King George
15-04-2008, 01:05
This is something I heard being batted around by some guys at my local club saying that is included in the PDF.

Apparently, you'll be able to make a stand and shoot reaction before the enemy assualts you.

Is there any truth to this? I don't have the PDF, and if it is, I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts.

If not, Mods please delete and remove this thread.

sounds kinda gay, noone will charge. :D

shaso_iceborn
15-04-2008, 01:43
If you read the modification to the suggested rule that I had made. the unit defending, i.e. not charging, does NOT get a free chance to kill the charging unit. They merely make the charging unit make a leadership check modified by the number of 'wounds' that would be inflicted. The charging unit doesn't lose anything other than the chance to charge if they fail the leadership roll.

For example...
10 orks are charging 10 IG troops

The IG player states that he is going to try and disrupt the charge and rolls 10 hit rolls at -1 BS (now needing a 5+ to hit). He gets 4 hits. So now he roll 4 wound attempts (like normal) and gets a result of 3. The Orks DO NOT TAKE 3 WOUNDS! Let me say this again for clarity the Orks DO NOT TAKE 3 WOUNDS Rather, the ork player rolls a leadership check with a -3 modifier.
Lets say that the orks have a leadership of 9 so they would need a 6 or less to pass the check (9 leadership - the 3 "wounds" = 6) and the result is a 5, this being under the required 6 so the the charge proceeds normally. Unfortunately for the poor Guardsmen they now suffer a -1 WS for this close combat and get slaughtered by the Nobz' 40 S4 attacks, half of which offer armor saves.

Same scenario as above only the Orks miss their leaderships roll (they get a 7, oops). The charge is stopped, the orks do not advance or engage in close combat this turn having suffered NO WOUNDS, only getting rattled or perhaps mesmerized by the hail of laser light from the guardsmen (aah pretty lights).

So the maneuver (stand and shoot, or defensive fire, or OH ***** shoot it, or whatever you want to call it) just ONLY stops a charge, it does not issue wounds, or kills. It just keeps the charging unit heads down thus halting the charge attempt.

this is actually a cool option

Mad King George
15-04-2008, 02:16
would you rather charge and get shot at or stand still and rapid fire your bolters?

sjwilliamsii
15-04-2008, 02:34
Williams you said that NO IG ARMY could fight a like amount of points of Orks and win.

From what I am looking at you weren't even playing a normal 40k game if the IG had SM dreads on their side. And really, 1 battle cannon shot from a Russ should wipe out about half those Nobz. How you allowed 10 of them and a Warboss into combat I cannot fathom.

Bad tactics does not make a bad army.

You are correct. the actual scenario was a bit more complex. This does not change the fact that the Nobz/Warboss had a total point value of right around 500 and they alone attacked and killed 3 dreads, 6 ogryn, and 2 Russ'. Because of the detestation that was caused buy this one squad we decided that for our next get together we would do a 500pt game, 3 games actually, and go head to head, point for point. I broke everything down into simple statistics and assuming average rolls and there is no way that an IG army of 500 points can stand up to a squad of nobz with a warboss and the wargear he had.
I will put together a 500pt army and report the reults in a more appropriate thread.

Sorry for being off topic

sjwilliamsii
15-04-2008, 02:46
this is actually a cool option

I think it would even work as a Reg Doctrine at say +20 points per unit and further refine it to "Rapid fire weapons only (including Plamsa rifles)" But in all honesty I think that any army would benefit from a general rule similar to this, some more than others, yes, but the "hit and run" rule for jump Inf. doesn't help the IG at all nor can the IG have multiple power fists in a squad (generally speaking).

Azzy
15-04-2008, 04:04
sounds kinda gay, noone will charge. :D

No worries, there is no such rule in the PDF, nor any of the reliable rumors.

BTW... How can a rule be homosexual?

shaso_iceborn
15-04-2008, 04:14
No worries, there is no such rule in the PDF, nor any of the reliable rumors.

BTW... How can a rule be homosexual?

depends on the definition of Gay, one definition means free and happy. :wtf:

warprat
15-04-2008, 04:50
I think this kind of realistic rule proposal makes perfect sense, the only problem (and it's a big one,) is how to fit it into the existing rules without unballencing anything else...

Forgive me, I did not play 2nd, but the Overwatch Idea on the surface seems not so bad. Basicly trading a long range shot for rapid fire with the disadvantage of standing still. But I can see serious abuse with cheap flamers and whatnot though.

One solution might be to simply allow rapid firing models standing still a BS bonus at the cost of initiative and weapon skill.


Warprat ;)

Mad King George
15-04-2008, 04:55
No worries, there is no such rule in the PDF, nor any of the reliable rumors.

BTW... How can a rule be homosexual?

sorry in the uk the word gay isnt any offense to homosexuals its just a word to stay its stupid crap rubbish idea ect though some people might get out the handbags

sjwilliamsii
15-04-2008, 13:38
One solution might be to simply allow rapid firing models standing still a BS bonus at the cost of initiative and weapon skill.


Warprat ;)

I didn't even consider Intitiative. Great idea! So it the rule would look like this:

If one or more charges are declared against a unit, and that unit is not:
1. falling back
2. pinned
3. locked in assault
4. did not run in the previous turn
Then the defending unit may choose to make a moral check -1LD for each assaulting unit and "fire defensively" with one shot from rapid fire weapons. The defending unit's initiative also drops to 1 for the rest of this assault phase and they suffer a -1BS for this action. This is resolved like round of shooting before charging models are moved. All of the defending units shots must be at the same enemy unit. Wounds are not counted against the charging unit but are added up and subtracted from the charging units leadership score. The Charging unit must then make a moral test against this modified leadership score. . If the check fails the charging unit may not charge. If the charge succeeds the defending unit suffers a -1 WS when defending against the charge. "Defensive fire" may not be used against a unit that consolidates into close combat, as no charge was declared. Fearless and effects like "Summary Execution" may still be used in either of the moral checks.

So basically, the defending unit must make a modified moral check, suffer -1BS, -1WS, and Initiative drops to 1 for the phase in order to attempt to demoralize (not kill) a single assaulting unit. turning a massacre into a mere slaughter...I like it.