PDA

View Full Version : Who would like to have different movment rates for different models?



HsojVvad
06-02-2009, 17:00
One thing I missed about the old edtions of 40K is the different movement rates. I always like how humans moved max 4" or was it 5"? This way Tyranids can move 6" or what not, and elder maybe move 1" faster than humans.

I don't buy the idea that GW wanted to streamline 40K, since there is so much variables already in it. Having different movement rates for everyone would make the game more tactical I belive.

Tyrandis would move faster than other units, Termies would move slower than most units. I just find it, that everyone moves the same, there is not much difference to each race.

What you guys think? I would like to know if you like different movement rates and why, or why everyone moving 6" is good.

Cane
06-02-2009, 17:06
I agree that more movement variety would be nice, but to be fair there are already army-specific bonuses in the terms of Waagh, Fleet of Foot, and that Blood Angel thing (I haven't played since third edition so forgive me if I'm outdated).

Having similar units move at the same speed across the board was probably a game balance decision. While you're right there's a lot of variables in this game, I'm not sure if GW wanted to add even more especially since tank movement has been revisited and to prevent confusion for the new edition. But thats what I got out of my bum but it seems logical.

Tarquinn
06-02-2009, 17:13
Yes, that's one of the few things I miss from the 2nd edition.

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
06-02-2009, 17:14
I say the more like Fantasy, the better.

HsojVvad
06-02-2009, 17:54
Problem is Cane, everyone has fleet of foot now. It's not so special if you are Tyranid or Ork or who else I am missing. SM have it now. Carnifex has it now. Yes they can't go into CC with it, but whip de do.

Right now, SM and other units get the fleet rule for free now, while others who had it before, had to pay for it, and pay for it now. What if you didn't want to go into CC but wanted the rule? Now you are stuck paying for it, while others get it for free.

Not a game balance at al I think. But then again, I need to get out more and play more games lol.

Earthbeard
06-02-2009, 18:02
Run and Fleet of Foot are quite different.

Yes I'd welcome the return of racial movement rates.

Corrode
06-02-2009, 18:03
Fleet is special because it lets you get into CC. That's a pretty huge advantage - most of the time if you want to run it's to get closer to an opponent. Obviously there's situations where a shooty army might want to run (to get AWAY from an enemy, for example) but that doesn't invalidate fleet as an excellent rule to have still. True, some older codices are now paying for the advantage, but that's the sort of thing which we can expect to be fixed as codices are revisited.

itcamefromthedeep
06-02-2009, 18:06
I would prefer a Movement mechanic to the run mechanic that is now seen in the game.

There would naturally be complaints about how to implement this, considering that none of the current codexes have Movement characteristics in them. The simple reply there would be that Movement is 5" unless otherwise specified (Yes that's 5", see following mechanics for why).

Movement could go like this:
In your Movement phase, you can go up to your Movement value in inches.
In the Shooting phase, you can "run" your Movement value instead of shooting. This is subject to difficult terrain.
In the Assault phase, you can Assault up to your Movement in inches if you didn't run (or even if you did in the case of Fleet models.
The Difficult Terrain mechanic can stay as is, with the maximum distance a model can go limited by but not improved by the Difficult Terrain roll (Marine with M5 rolls a 6 and 4, but still can only go 5").

So, assuming a standard Movement of 5", a model can assault a model 10" away, or run up to 10" a turn.

Then, when say Codex:Eldar comes around, you could give each model a Movement value (likely higher then the standard 5") and ditch the Fleet mechanic in all cases. That way, when it comes around to 7th edition, you can simply remove all mention of Fleet (assuming all codexes have been redone).

EDIT: I never explicitly justified 5" instead of 6". It's because running is D6, which averages 3.5, not 6. So right now you move+run an average of 9.5". M5 in both the Movement and Shooting phase gives you 10", which is close to 9.5". For fleet models, move+run+assault averages 15.5", where move+run+assault with M5 would give you 15". So, base movement 5" makes for a clean transition with similar distances to what we see now. This will ease the change for existing players and maintain some existing assumptions of current codexes.

-------

Now, for the pros and cons of such a plan:

Con: Non-Fleet units will move a bit more slowly when not running. This will mess with the metagame and reduce the effectiveness of standard close combat troops in relation to shooters. In addition, it will mess with the ability of models to cross that table in a reasonable amount of time.

Pro: Faster Shooting/Running phases. Less die rolling speeds things up. 'Nuff said.

Pro/Con: less randomness in Movement. Randomness is the great equalizer. Random values favor the underdog, so less randomness will spread out the playing field and make it more difficult for people to have even games. This is fine for a competitive environment where people want to be rewarded for skill, but bad for a less competitive environment where people are looking for close-fought games.

Pro: no sling-shot assault moves. If assaulting is no faster then running, you lose the problem of a "gamey" situation where a unit goes faster when in range to assault. This will theoretically make the game more about playing your opponent and less about playing the mechanics.

Pro/Con: You could know for sure that someone is out of assault range of you, but you are in assault range of them. You can eyeball a 2" or 4" difference, like you can in fantasy. This will create a situation where one unit can virtually guarantee itself the assault. This is not such a problem for Fantasy because units have facing, and turning costs Movement. This allows units with lower Movement values to get the jump on a faster enemy by outmaneuvering them. This is not so with the freedom of 40k movement.

Pro/Con: In a similar vein, if you have higher Movement, you can be sure of getting away. This will frustrate slow assault troops.

-----

Does all that seem intuitive form the perspective of a current 40k gamer? Does it seem doable mechanically? Would anyone here begrudge such a transition?

marv335
06-02-2009, 18:15
It's a nice idea, and one that I would like in some respects, but it would need a total rules/codex rewrite to implement it properly.
Run and Fleet would have to go and many things would have to be re-pointed.
Even within a codex there would have to be differences. A carnifex would not move as fast as a genestealer for example so racial speeds are impractical.
I can't see it ever happening to be honest.

Rydmend
06-02-2009, 18:15
I would love to see differnt movement rates for different units. Even if they broke it down into 4 generic movment speeds for different infantry it would be nice.

i.e. (not these exact numbers per say but you get the idea)
jump infantry 12"
fast infantry 8"
standard infantry 6"
slow infantry 4"

As Marv said this would change so many aspects of the game that it would require a huge rules overhaul. Fleet, run, slow and purposeful as well as fallback rules and many others would have to be revisted.

itcamefromthedeep
06-02-2009, 18:25
A carnifex would not move as fast as a genestealer for example so racial speeds are impractical.
I can't see it ever happening to be honest.
That was my thoughts at first, but it would be possible to maintain a lot of the current mechanics and distance assumptions until you had an opportunity to revisit each codex, as I described in my post above.

It ain't no cut-paste-done issue, but it is absolutley practicable.

Hicks
06-02-2009, 18:32
I voted yes. Coming from fantasy, I never understood why everything moves at the same rate in 40K.

Aegesdotter
06-02-2009, 18:36
While it would be something good, for make the armies more racial, but I thing that right now the movement phase is ok. Due different rates of movement per unit is going to slow down the game.

Orkeosaurus
06-02-2009, 18:54
Running is annoying.

You have to move those 30 orks, twice. If you assault you have to move them 3 times. That's a pain, and it's done for no reason.

On top of that, it adds more chance to a game that's already overly dependent on luck.

Obviously introducing a movement stat would require overhauling the codices with a new edition, so that's not likely to happen, but if it were to happen I would be happier with it.

The new edition - old codex gap still doesn't rationalize putting running in the shooting phase though.

(Also, HsojVvad, you mean giving a movement stat to each unit, not each army, right?)

loveless
06-02-2009, 19:53
Pass. Let's just leave the different movement rates to the different unit types.

Demonrich
06-02-2009, 20:02
Running is annoying.

You have to move those 30 orks, twice. If you assault you have to move them 3 times. That's a pain, and it's done for no reason.

On top of that, it adds more chance to a game that's already overly dependent on luck.

Obviously introducing a movement stat would require overhauling the codices with a new edition, so that's not likely to happen, but if it were to happen I would be happier with it.

The new edition - old codex gap still doesn't rationalize putting running in the shooting phase though.

(Also, HsojVvad, you mean giving a movement stat to each unit, not each army, right?)

I agree with this. Moving, running and assulting in seperate phases is a pain in the backside. It should all be done at the same time.

I would also like to see seperate movement stats for each unit and vehicle.

Hashshashin
06-02-2009, 20:07
um... I think your poll is worded wrong.
yes they should have different rates, or no they should not.

Your's says they shouldn't leave it as it is, which would mean they should have different movement rates.

Not trying to be OCD about it but it didn't make sense when I read it.

Back to the poll though I like the streamlined nature of the fact that everyone moves 6. It just keeps things more straight forward and simple. Back in 2nd there were WAY TOO many rules and it took way too long to play even a small game.

lanrak
06-02-2009, 20:22
Hi all.
Just a quick responce to Aegesdotter.
If you implement movement values the game SPEEDS UP!
(You dont have to roll dice to decide how far you move!)

It is possible to rewrite the 40k rule set to have more intuative and tactical game play with much simpler rules.

ALL other TTGs other than 40k AFAIK, (that dont use variable game turn mechanics), use movement stats .

40k has lots of 'special rules' instead:rolleyes:.

Corrode
06-02-2009, 21:32
Running is annoying.

You have to move those 30 orks, twice. If you assault you have to move them 3 times. That's a pain, and it's done for no reason.

On top of that, it adds more chance to a game that's already overly dependent on luck.

Obviously introducing a movement stat would require overhauling the codices with a new edition, so that's not likely to happen, but if it were to happen I would be happier with it.

The new edition - old codex gap still doesn't rationalize putting running in the shooting phase though.

(Also, HsojVvad, you mean giving a movement stat to each unit, not each army, right?)

Usually I just say to my opponent 'I'm gonna do my run move at the same time as my regular move for these three squads, do you mind?' So far they've taken a look at the 60-90 models that need moving and gone 'Hey that's cool.'

If people object, then yeah it can be a pain, but there's ways around it and to be frank moving tons of models is the sort of thing that you should probably have expected when playing a horde army.

Evil-Termite
06-02-2009, 23:38
It seems very dumb to me that if my guys move, they can only shoot the bad guys if they are in assault range when firing rapid fire weaponry. That IS a problem that could be solved by having race based movement rate if most races could only move+assault 8-9". However, race based movement rates would make it a lot harder to know how to play against unfamiliar races and units. So the better way to solve my irritant would be to change rapid fire rules and not movement rules.

However, if the stat line of each type were to include the letters M, R, and As (for movement, run, and assault), then it might not be so bad since GW publishes all of the stat sheets free online. Ha ha, Marines would have to have 4 for move, assault, and run to keep the stat line consistent with the rest of their stats. :)

The_Outsider
07-02-2009, 00:03
My god, is there an off switch to these nostalgia goggles!?

Standardising movement was - and remains - a good thing in 40k.

Steel_Legion
07-02-2009, 00:08
Be nice, never gonna happen

kaimarion
07-02-2009, 00:13
I say the more like Fantasy, the better.

Here, here!!!

Fantasy is the way 40k should be, it actually is more fun and requires more skill to play than 40k and that is the way it should be. It is becoming more and more apparent that 40k is aimed at a younger gamer and the rules do make that somewhat obvious, I do enjoy 40k but it could be so much better with some rule fixes.

The_Outsider
07-02-2009, 00:17
Here, here!!!

Fantasy is the way 40k should be, it actually is more fun and requires more skill to play than 40k and that is the way it should be. It is becoming more and more apparent that 40k is aimed at a younger gamer and the rules do make that somewhat obvious, I do enjoy 40k but it could be so much better with some rule fixes.

Yeah because in fantasy terrain is only annoying and there is always a bolt thrower on a hill.

In short: you have no idea what you are on about.

Pokpoko
07-02-2009, 00:19
I'll put it like that-standarized movement is such a grand idea the only game i can think of that uses it is 40k.

HsojVvad
07-02-2009, 00:51
Well SM would move 4", Termies say 3", IG 4", Eldar, 5", gaunts 5", stealers 6", hormies
10" (or beast creatures) , carnis, 4" etc something like this I was thinking. You can run double your distance, but then can't shoot.

I can't believe people will say this complicates things becasue every unit has different W, A and saves. oh don't even tell me about the different + and ++ saves of differnt SM units.

I love ItCameFromTheDeeps idea. That is a very good start. No more dice rolls, no luck or chance rolls, no randomness to it.

So having different movment rates for different units in not much a big of a deal. Well for me I believe. I guess we all have differing oppnions, and nothing wrong with that.

Grindgodgrind
07-02-2009, 00:53
My god, is there an off switch to these nostalgia goggles!?

Standardising movement was - and remains - a good thing in 40k.

Gotta agree here. As much as I fondly remember 2nd edition, I think standardised movement is a good idea. If newcomers think getting into the rules is hard now, imagine how confusing it could be if EVERYTHING in your army has a different movement rate...

itcamefromthedeep
07-02-2009, 01:11
Gotta agree here. As much as I fondly remember 2nd edition, I think standardised movement is a good idea. If newcomers think getting into the rules is hard now, imagine how confusing it could be if EVERYTHING in your army has a different movement rate...:eyebrows:...

About as confusing as it is in Fantasy?

Grindgodgrind
07-02-2009, 01:15
Well, consider that I got into 40k in '94, and had a regular oppenent who played Tyranids. It was most confusing when every single beastie in his army had a different movement rate. It's not so bad in fantasy, because most armies have a single movement rate (IE, Dwarves), but as a newcomer to the game I found trying to remember every movement stat a challenge.

jeffersonian000
07-02-2009, 01:56
While I'd like to have some variation in movement speeds between units, what I would like most is dropping the random speeds like Fleet, Run, Difficult Terrain, etc, and just replace it was a simple 1/2 move rule or something similar. I.e., extra movement from running or movement through terrain is at 1/2 base movement, etc.

It would be simpler, cleaner, and with less extraneous dice rolling.

SJ

Noserenda
07-02-2009, 02:44
I used to miss movement values, but then realised how much easier the game is to balance when the vast majority of distances involved are in multiples of 6". Imho Movement values add a very very small variable with wide ranging consequences.

Its hardly a more complicated or "tactical" rule than the random movement values in any case. Things moving like clockwork is by any definition less Tactical, as there is less variance or things to go wrong. :angel:

Orkeosaurus
07-02-2009, 02:45
Usually I just say to my opponent 'I'm gonna do my run move at the same time as my regular move for these three squads, do you mind?' So far they've taken a look at the 60-90 models that need moving and gone 'Hey that's cool.'Yeah, but that's not the actual rule, so it doesn't really make GW's implementation of the "run" system any better.


If people object, then yeah it can be a pain, but there's ways around it and to be frank moving tons of models is the sort of thing that you should probably have expected when playing a horde army.What?

When you play a horde army you expect to move a lot of models; that doesn't mean that you should have to move them more than necessary.

You admitted yourself that moving them in the shooting phase is a hassle. :eyebrows:

vladsimpaler
07-02-2009, 04:06
Well if adding a movement characteristic is too hard to memorize (oh no! One more number to deal with!) then why bother with Warhammer at all? Play Monopoly, it's easier on the brain.

I've memorized like all of the stats for the IG and the Eldar. I'm 100% sure that adding one more number to the mix is not going to overload my brain. :rolleyes:

Creeping Dementia
07-02-2009, 04:33
Ugh, I'd really rather not have to deal with the vast differences in movement that I had to put up with in Fantasy. The more standardized increments of movement that 40k uses is really what makes the gameplay in the 2 systems so different. I'd prefer not to just be playing Fantasy with bigger guns.

ruttman15
07-02-2009, 04:38
it would make the game more tactical and then the fantasy players would stop ******** about it :)
and it would be funny to see guardsmen retreating as fast as possible, and tyranids catch and devour them cuz they run faster :D

holmcross
07-02-2009, 05:04
I voted yes, but I'm all for giving up a bit of "game flow/game speed" for more specalization and diversity.

Orkeosaurus
07-02-2009, 05:25
Keep in mind that the current system already has bike movement, cavalry movement, jump infantry movement, walker, vehicle, and fast vehicle movement.

Then it has Slow and Purposeful and Fleet to further modify those.

Simply having a M stat would simplify that a bit.

There are already, what, 9 attributes? Is another one really going to be that hard to remember?

Doomseer
07-02-2009, 11:45
I have to say that the different unit types offer enough diversity of movement without being confusing, Run/Fleet/S+P also work well at present.

Really we're only talking about a tiny difference in movement anyway, would it really be worth it?

Born Again
07-02-2009, 12:12
Yes, from a viewpoint different move rates make sense, but really I like it as is. It seemed a little weird to me when they first abolished move rates, but now I'm not only used to it, I like it. As has been pointed out on numerous other occasions, characteristics are not definite points of reference, they represent vague bands of ability in an area... hence humans are at the low end of Strength 3, while orks are up the high end of the same value. So while a Tyranid or Eldar may be faster on their feet than a human, it's probably not enough to warrant extra inches of movement. In any case, with the exception of certain troops (such as Termagants, who would just be swarming forward in a massed horde), the majority of troops would be ducking and weaving amongst available cover, not making a headlong sprint to prove who's fastest. If it came to that, that's where special rules such as Fleet or Slow And Purposeful come into it.

The_Outsider
07-02-2009, 13:07
Y r u doing a poll when no1s gunna see it and change the rules, what a waste of ur life are u ok?

The Banhammer hangs over this one like the sword of damocles.

Cpt Lysander
07-02-2009, 13:12
I think that would be a good idea, it fit some of the fluff better. Eldar are fast and nimble,termies have heavy armour i get it...

njfed
07-02-2009, 13:30
Given that movement is one of the most abused rules in the game (most men don't know how short 6" is...just ask their wives), I don't want to have to keep track of how far every unit in every army can move. Keep it the way it is.

Corrode
07-02-2009, 14:09
Yeah, but that's not the actual rule, so it doesn't really make GW's implementation of the "run" system any better.

What?

When you play a horde army you expect to move a lot of models; that doesn't mean that you should have to move them more than necessary.

You admitted yourself that moving them in the shooting phase is a hassle. :eyebrows:

It's a hassle and I prefer the easier implementation my group uses (and I don't see why GW didn't do it that way either, you could easily have the same rule but as a Movement-phase option: 'In the Movement phase, a player may declare that any of his infantry units will run. They may add D6" to their movement rate, but must forgo shooting in the Shooting phase.')

That said, it's a relatively minor inconvenience. It might slow the game down by a few minutes, but it's not so incredibly horrible that I'm going to quit playing over it. Occasionally I wish I played Space Marines and could move 30 models and have my army done rather than one squad, but that's by-the-by. Using workarounds to make things easier =/= the problem is incredibly huge.

@njfed: if you think 6" is short you're either extremely blessed or have been watching far too much 'adult content' :P

itcamefromthedeep
07-02-2009, 17:36
There are already, what, 9 attributes? Is another one really going to be that hard to remember?
Leadership hardly counts. 40k might as well have Leadership as a special rule for those few units actually subject to it.:p

If Movement stays as is, I can live with that. But don't kid yourselves into thinking that adding a Movement stat would somehow break the game, make it unplayable, or destroy all your fun. It would be just fine.

The Orange
07-02-2009, 18:31
I don't really see how changing movement rates adds that much tactical depth. In a smaller squirmish game like Warmachine yea it does make a difference when you can actually pay attention each and every model. But 40k is more of a "move massive amounts of troops around the table" kind of game. As fluffy as it would be I think the tactical acumen it would give would be lost due to the large number of models on the table.

You also have to consider how the 40k measurement system is based on multiples of 6" with very limited variance here and there. Most guns fire 24 inches, most units travel 6" per turn (before 5th edition at least), charge range is 12", transports move 12' per turn. This system is somewhat essential for the choices one makes for a unit. Do you risk getting in charge range to get off a volley of rapid firing range? Do you stand your ground and take long range pot shots, or do you run away losing the chance to shoot, but getting clear of the enemy. Once you start fiddling with units movement some of these choices become irrelevant. If it's a slow unit assaulting you then you can easily step into rapid fire range and not have to worry about being assaulted, however, if your the slow unit being assaulted well then their is no option to try and run away instead.

Then you have to consider if this changes a units ability to charge? Is charging only 6" for everyone? Or can some units (move 3") suddenly charge faster then they can move, while others charge slower then they move (move 7") ? :wtf: Or if you make charging based on movement, what happens then? As I see it suddenly assault terminators become useless, while other units might suddenly become impossible to shoot at (flyrant move+charge = something like 24"+).

IMO the only difference this sort of change would do is hurt the use of some units, and/or increase the use of transports, practically nullifying the movement difference issue. Who would want to use footslogging terminators/immortals etc. if they move only 3" per turn? That's just simply not fun for everyone, IIRC didn't the old ork codex do something like that with mega-armored nobz/warboss? Did anyone take those units with out a transport? Better to just to use drop pods, land raiders, battlewagons etc. or not use them at all. Players will simply find ways to circumvent these problems, not try to live with them, and that I think would be the final nail in the coffin.

So no, under the current system I don't think it works at all. Standardized movement is a pillar of the current 40k system, not just an attribute. Racial movement stats would require a complete re-write of the system to accommodate it. I wouldn't mind seeing that, but I'm totally against simply shoehorning racial movements into the current system.

Ubermensch Commander
07-02-2009, 18:52
I like it as is. Not only does it standardize things, it allows for a difference of play from Fantasy. This is a good thing, in my opinion, as it allows for two different gaming experiences; if you get bored/worn out with one, you can switch to the other.

Another issue is that you cannot simply implement the movement stats army wide (I.E. All Eldar move this fast, all Nids move this fast, etc). How fast does the Cav go? An Eldar J. Biker vs a Marine Bike? A marine vs a guardsmen? How do Vehicles factor in? How does fleet work? Now, not only does have to consider the balance of how base-speed vs base-speed work across the armies, what does one do with the Run/Fleet/etc rules?
While it could be done/has been done the current system also works. I do not care one way or the other per se, it is simply that I do not see a need to do a 180 in game design and march back to 2nd edition when it would not add or take away anything, simply alter it.

Edit: Oh and what Orange said...yea.

Laser guided fanatic
07-02-2009, 20:48
[QUOTE=itcamefromthedeep;3267567]I would prefer a Movement mechanic to the run mechanic that is now seen in the game.



EDIT: I never explicitly justified 5" instead of 6". It's because running is D6, which averages 3.5, not 6. So right now you move+run an average of 9.5".
QUOTE]

The average D6 roll isn't 3.5" 1. You can't roll 3.5 on a D6 and two there is no modal average (which makes more sense in this case as the mean is pointless) because the chances of getting each result is the same.

Orkeosaurus
07-02-2009, 22:01
The average D6 roll isn't 3.5" 1. You can't roll 3.5 on a D6 and two there is no modal average (which makes more sense in this case as the mean is pointless) because the chances of getting each result is the same.Of course the mean is useful. If you run 1,000 times, you are more likely to move 3,500 inches than anything else.

Also,

av⋅er⋅age   /ˈævərɪdʒ, ˈævrɪdʒ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [av-er-ij, av-rij] Show IPA Pronunciation
noun, adjective, verb, -aged, -ag⋅ing.
–noun 1. a quantity, rating, or the like that represents or approximates an arithmetic mean: Her golf average is in the 90s. My average in science has gone from B to C this semester.
2. a typical amount, rate, degree, etc.; norm.
3. Statistics. arithmetic mean.

Emphasis mine.

itcamefromthedeep
08-02-2009, 00:01
I don't really see how changing movement rates adds that much tactical depth.
You don't need tactical depth to justify a rule. Chess has a lot of tacticla depth, but uses very simple rules.

There a number of ways to justify including a rule. Character is one, tactical depth is another, common sense a third. Then, of course, there's the rule of cool.

The reason why I would like Movement values is that they would make the differences in movement we have now less "gamey". Eldar, for instance, are only faster then Marines if there are enemy around to assault. That's just odd. Not particularly broken or off-putting, but odd. And with a Movement characteristic, that "gameyness" would be unnecessary.


As fluffy as it would be I think the tactical acumen it would give would be lost due to the large number of models on the table.
I don't really see how the two are related. Fleet of Foot still matters at Apocalypse scale. Elaborate, please.


Do you stand your ground and take long range pot shots, or do you run away losing the chance to shoot, but getting clear of the enemy. Once you start fiddling with units movement some of these choices become irrelevant.
Not irrelevant, but diminished. Granted. I mentioned this in my post about how this could be implemented. It's earlier in the thread. 2nd edition had variable movement values, and it didn't destroy the tactical considerations of the game.


Then you have to consider if this changes a units ability to charge? Is charging only 6" for everyone?
I did, in the post I wrote about implementing a Movement characteristic.


IMO the only difference this sort of change would do is hurt the use of some units, and/or increase the use of transports, practically nullifying the movement difference issue. Who would want to use footslogging terminators/immortals etc. if they move only 3" per turn? That's just simply not fun for everyone,
Granted. GW would be fools to give a unit M3. The breakdon might go something like this for when each codex is updated:

Slow and Purposeful --> Movement 4
Standard infantry --> Movement 5
Fleet of Foot --> Movement 6

Now, if the 6th edition rulebook said: "everyone has Movement 5 unless otherwise specified" then we would still have standardized Movement until each codex is updated in turn. The metagame would change a bit, but theoretically it would change in the same way for everyone.

So, in the Movement phase you go your Movement value. In the shooting phase, you run up to your Movement value. In the Assault phase, you can Assault up to your Movement value. Simply replace all cases of the standard 6" and the D6 "run" value with the Movement stat.


Players will simply find ways to circumvent these problems, not try to live with them, and that I think would be the final nail in the coffin.
So, the players will find a way to get around slow Movement. That's not a problem if the codex writers take that into account and price the models accordingly. Slow guys need transports. That's kinda a no-brainer. I don't really have a problem with that.


Standardized movement is a pillar of the current 40k system, not just an attribute. Racial movement stats would require a complete re-write of the system to accommodate it. I wouldn't mind seeing that, but I'm totally against simply shoehorning racial movements into the current system.I think you've been going on the assumption that a new BRB would publish a list of Movement values for every unit, without adjusting point costs. That would indeed throw everything out of whack. So don't do it that way. Keep a standardized Movement value (5" best represents the speed of troops nowadays), and introduce varied Movement characteristics as each new codex comes out, making for a slow and smooth adjustment.

Do you get what I'm trying to say? Does it sound less drastic of a change now?

Shangrila
08-02-2009, 00:05
I think itde be cool to have different movement rates but i would have to say that the majority of the 40k community couldn't handle it. I mean people dont even know there own codex very well, let alone the BRB. I mean im no rules god(but im no lawyer either!)

The Orange
08-02-2009, 00:43
Yes their are many reasons to add rules, nostalgia IMO is not one of the best reasons. And well, it's not the same in WFB where your operating big blocks of troops, I don't know the system well but if you get one model in hth doesn't that mean you get everyone into the fight? As 40k is a large skirmish game, exact ranges don't seem that relevant. Your troops benefit from running around in large open mobs, not by lining up in precise formations.

In regards to the Fleet of Foot comment, yes it's important, but now it's important because it lets models initiate combat not because it gives you extra movement. Fleet was GWs way of showing how some races are faster then others, thus they didn't really need different movement values for infantry, they've simply undone this by giving everyone run with 5th edition. IMO they should have did something more to modify Fleet so that troops with it were still generally faster, not only able to get into combat, but GW didn't so what can you do? Also think about what large changes happened due to the simple change with the addition of the run option. Aren't hth carnifexs more viable now, especially since they were never viable in 4th by most players admissions?

Sorry I did not read through the whole thread so I've missed your whole bit about how to implement such a change but I still can't help but feel that in the end that this will have major ramifications on the system, mainly because GW works with multiples of 6" so much.

And trying to implement the change codex by codex does nothing to alleviate this IMO, it will only exacerbate problems (and you know how much we fans complain when were not happy with something :p, all the foul crying over why different SM chapter move at different speeds :rolleyes:). No I think the only way to implement such a change would require a whole re-write of the game, and most likely a clean slate so things can rebalanced/retooled. Has anyone said anything about how bikes, cavalry, jump packs, or tanks will change in retaliation to this? That could be a whole nother bad of trouble (again because of this whole multiple's of 6 system). Personally I'd welcome change, I'm growing somewhat tired of GWs current system of codex by codex updates. But then I really don't know of any better solution given the huge range of armies they have to deal with :(.

itcamefromthedeep
08-02-2009, 01:05
Yes their are many reasons to add rules, nostalgia IMO is not one of the best reasons.:eyebrows: ...I gave a reason, and it wasn't nostalgia. I'd like 40k to make more sense, and I think Movement will help with that.


In regards to the Fleet of Foot comment, yes it's important, but now it's important because it lets models initiate combat not because it gives you extra movement.Yeah, and that doesn't make sense. So I think they should fix it. By giving models Movement values instead of Fleet/Slow and Purposeful


IMO they should have did something more to modify Fleet so that troops with it were still generally faster, not only able to get into combat, but GW didn't so what can you do?:eyebrows: Isn't that precisely what I'm proposing? Is... isn't that... well now I'm confused.


And trying to implement the change codex by codex does nothing to alleviate this IMO, it will only exacerbate problems (and you know how much we fans complain when were not happy with something :p, all the foul crying over why different SM chapter move at different speeds :rolleyes:).
Space Marines would likely all stay at the standard Movement value set at the edition change. Regardless, GW has shown great willingness to run roughshod over the wishes of players before, for both good and bad.


Has anyone said anything about how bikes, cavalry, jump packs, or tanks will change in retaliation to this?Yes, I did. Last post, I said that all you would need to do is replace all instances of 6" (and the D6" run move) with the Movement stat. Bikes move double your normal speed now (12"), and they would move double your Movement characteristic next edition. The story is similar for Jump Infantry. Similarly, Beasts and Cavalry (guys with Fast Charge) would double their Assault distance, just like they do now. This shouldn't be rocket science.

Occulto
08-02-2009, 01:41
It's a hassle and I prefer the easier implementation my group uses (and I don't see why GW didn't do it that way either, you could easily have the same rule but as a Movement-phase option: 'In the Movement phase, a player may declare that any of his infantry units will run. They may add D6" to their movement rate, but must forgo shooting in the Shooting phase.')

It does make a pretty big difference to do things out of sequence (which is why I reckon GW did it the way they did).

If you move and run a unit in the movement phase, then you know where they're going to end up, and that will affect what you do with your next unit. That has massive implications!

Let's say you have two units - Banshees and Harlequins that are both in a position (with a decent run movement) to make assault against a crucial enemy unit.

If you do the run in the movement phase, then you know what you'll roll with the Banshees before deciding what to do with the Harlies. If the Banshees get close enough, the Harlies can be sent off somewhere else. If the Banshees roll low, you know you need to move the Harlies in for a second chance.

Doing it in the correct sequence, you don't have that certainty.

When an Ork player declares a Waaagh! You bet I don't want them knowing which units are going to make combat before they should!!!

It's not just combat - my opponent may see whether a unit's going to be able to run far enough to contest/claim an objective. If a unit rolls a low run distance (which puts them in the open) this means my opponent can potentially move a vehicle in front to obscure LOS to them. :wtf:

Running can allow other units to get where they shouldn't. If a Tac squad moves 6" but is now in the way of a Rhino, then that Rhino has to go around. Tac squad moves 6" and runs enough to get out of the way, then that Rhino doesn't have to go around.

There are plenty of reasons why run shouldn't be done in the movement phase. When I object, I'm not doing it just to be difficult. I do so because I've seen how it can change the game immensely. After all, you wouldn't let a player fire their vindicator before moving the rest of their army, why should you let a player run before moving the rest of their army?

Orkeosaurus
08-02-2009, 01:54
When an Ork player declares a Waaagh! You bet I don't want them knowing which units are going to make combat before they should!!! There's nothing stopping this now, technically.

You can declare your Waaagh! any time during your shooting phase.

Occulto
08-02-2009, 01:57
There's nothing stopping this now, technically.

You can declare your Waaagh! any time during your shooting phase.

I stand corrected. :o

itcamefromthedeep
08-02-2009, 02:00
It does make a pretty big difference to do things out of sequence (which is why I reckon GW did it the way they did).
You put that well. That is an excellent articulation of why the phase order actually does make a difference.

Now, the game didn't have to be written that way. Keeping the random movement in the Shooting Phase does add an element of uncertainty, and makes for subtle decisions during a game, as you described.

This would be lost with a consistent run move.

However, a variable run move strikes me as a very "gamey" thing to implement, particularly in comparison to the certainty of move and charge distances. Random running seems arbitrary to me. I would be quite confused if 40k suddenly implemented random movement in the Movement phase all the time, or if GW implemented random ranges on weapons (the Night Fighting mechanic still rubs me the wrong way, so you know).

Once again, randomness is a big equalizer, and removing an element of uncertainty from the game favors the more skilled player. You might be okay with this, and you might not.

Occulto
08-02-2009, 02:23
You put that well. That is an excellent articulation of why the phase order actually does make a difference.

It's something that's bugged me ever since Eldar got fleet waaaay back - especially because objecting to it tends to sound like I'm just being unreasonable.

I know just how frustrating it can be moving big units - especially if you roll low. But that's not enough for me to agree: "oh it doesn't make a difference."


Now, the game didn't have to be written that way. Keeping the random movement in the Shooting Phase does add an element of uncertainty, and makes for subtle decisions during a game, as you described.

This would be lost with a consistent run move.

However, a variable run move strikes me as a very "gamey" thing to implement, particularly in comparison to the certainty of move and charge distances. Random running seems arbitrary to me. I would be quite confused if 40k suddenly implemented random movement in the Movement phase all the time, or if GW implemented random ranges on weapons (the Night Fighting mechanic still rubs me the wrong way, so you know).

Once again, randomness is a big equalizer, and removing an element of uncertainty from the game favors the more skilled player. You might be okay with this, and you might not.

It is rather gamey, but makes players decide whether they'd prefer to pay for the reliability of transports, over the randomness of the run roll.

I'm of the opinion that randomness doesn't penalise skilled players. It just gives another opportunity for them to demonstrate those skills - coping with uncertainty etc.

Ultimately, I don't believe that different movement rates would bring that much to the game. I'm not saying there'd be no difference, just that it seems like change for change's sake.

WHFB responds better to different movement because the movement phase is the most important in the game IMHO. Even then, WHFB's tactics in the movement phase don't just come from different rates - it's things like LOS, restricted movement, charge responses etc.

I'd be cool if armies like Eldar had faster units, as long as I didn't have to sit there and smile sweetly when they charged. Give me stand and shoot or the ability to flee - especially if my guys are slower.

Start adding in rules like that, and you're going to have to start fiddling with point costs. Heavy squads like havocs or devs wouldn't be nearly as vulnerable to charges as they are now.

The Orange
08-02-2009, 02:24
:eyebrows: ...I gave a reason
sorry didn't mean to make it sound like nostalgia was the only reason and I modified my post afterwards to add to that, but for some it seems like anything 2nd is golden now adays.


:eyebrows: Isn't that precisely what I'm proposing? Is... isn't that... well now I'm confused.
I was merely proposing GW charge fleet to give armies with fleet the advantage they took away when when they introduced run. Changing everyone's movement is not the same it goes beyond that.



Yes, I did. ...This shouldn't be rocket science.
Instigating a change is not the same as noting what those changes will cause. Yes it is easy giving everyone their own movement stat, but the effect on the game IMO is not as easy to predict. Their will no doubt be unforeseen consequences and that's my whole problem with trying to implement movement stats in the current system. Changing movement fairly IMO is more complicated then people are making out to be and the changes to the game will be IMO more dramatic then people think. Simply put I think introducing movement will just end up pissing people off and giving them another reasons to hate GW, instead of making the game more tactical. Even instigating the temporary "everyone moves 5" for now" rule will be meet with problems, as I said earlier I can all of a sudden get my troops in rapid fire range and avoid assault, throw in a transport and we'll suddenly have a meta game of drive by shooting, I assure you of that (and this is, as I said before, because weapon ranges will still be based off multiples of 6" while movement varies wildly).

Radium
08-02-2009, 13:14
An easier solution would be to keep special rules like fleet more special (goes for a LOT of special rules, in particular eternal warrior), ditch run altogether and do more with things like infiltrate and scout. Although the latter would need more limitations.

O&G'sRule
08-02-2009, 14:00
you get the impression the movement rule was only done to distance 40k's rules from fantasy a bit after stealing its combat system. The whole fleet and now running options smack of desperate attempts to try and legitimise the movement rule, and the designers know it doesn't really make sense

The_Outsider
08-02-2009, 14:07
Quick fix: make run D3" and keep fleet as it is now.

D3" will help you make that last stretch to cover or that bit closer to the objective, but you aren't suddenly doubling your movement.

Smokedog
08-02-2009, 14:43
When I had a look at this issue. I tried to fix it withought the need to republish codexes etc.

The way to do this is to put unit types into categories, and allow them to move normally, or charge an oponent (double movement to get into combat) or run (double movement - no close combat allowed)

Categories

• Infantry 4”
• Walker 4”

• Fast Walker 6”
• Cavalry & Beasts 6”
• Monstrous Creature 6”
• Vehicle 6”
• Jet pack 6”

• Jump Pack 9”
• Wings 9”
• Bikes 9”
• Jet Bikes 9”

• Fast Vehicle 12”

As you can see infantry move a lot slower, but this would be compensated by rules such as fleet for units that should move faster. And a slow and purposeful rule would slow down the unit slightly too.

All other units move more or less as far as they do now.

Sir_Turalyon
08-02-2009, 15:36
I don't buy the idea that GW wanted to streamline 40K, since there is so much variables already in it.

Yes, but movement characteristic was one of variables that rarely had impact on gameplay yet had to be remembered all the time. It's good as it is now.

itcamefromthedeep
08-02-2009, 16:58
Yes, but movement characteristic was one of variables that rarely had impact on gameplay yet had to be remembered all the time. It's good as it is now.
You mean like Leadership?

EldarBishop
08-02-2009, 17:19
Back to the poll though I like the streamlined nature of the fact that everyone moves 6. It just keeps things more straight forward and simple. Back in 2nd there were WAY TOO many rules and it took way too long to play even a small game.

The movement differences in 2nd were fine, and not really that complicated... it was melee combat, and crap piles of wargear interaction that made 2nd games take ALL D@MN DAY.

EDIT:
Yea, Leadership and armour save modifiers.... they were nice (and still are for those of us who play fantasy)
/edit

avatar of kaine
08-02-2009, 17:40
I voted no because

1: it dosn't make that much difference
2: it makes it more like WHFB, I mean they are two separate games if they had the same rules it would be pointless!

Sir_Turalyon
08-02-2009, 18:15
You mean like Leadership?

No, you don't have to remember what Leadership your troops have every time you move them. Leadership has small effect on game all right, but it's also rarely used.

HsojVvad
08-02-2009, 19:06
Gotta agree here. As much as I fondly remember 2nd edition, I think standardised movement is a good idea. If newcomers think getting into the rules is hard now, imagine how confusing it could be if EVERYTHING in your army has a different movement rate...

How hard would it be with different movement rates? I mean we already have different WS, different W, different, different armour saves. I don't think your statement is correct. How can having different movement rates be more confusing? We already have different stats for other attibutes. Adding something to it shouldn't really make it that confusing.

How confusing can it be? You know you can move only 4" for SM and the other player knows he can move 5" for his eldar. Please explain to me how it can be more confusing. Maybe I will understand you guys and then I can stop dreaming about 2nd edtion.

BTW I never played 2nd edtion, so I don't know what's in it.

Orkeosaurus
08-02-2009, 19:16
No, you don't have to remember what Leadership your troops have every time you move them. Leadership has small effect on game all right, but it's also rarely used.Using it more makes it easier to remember, because after one or two games you'll have utilized the stat enough to keep it imprinted in your mind.

Same reason you don't have to look up how Jump Infantry every time you move them now.

Bunnahabhain
08-02-2009, 19:34
A move stat is an easier thing to deal with than:

Run, Fleet, Slow and purposeful, and Beast/Cavalry, and that's just for things on foot.
For vehicles- Overcharged engines, star engines, red paint job, bikes, jetbikes, any others....

A move stat is easier to use and easier to adjust- adding one inch to a move is less of an adjustment than adding fleet

Sir_Turalyon
08-02-2009, 20:14
Using it more makes it easier to remember, because after one or two games you'll have utilized the stat enough to keep it imprinted in your mind.

Of course. But removing movement stat removes need to remember it in first place, without much effect on the gameplay. I absolutely am not advocating removing rules for sake of simplicity and making ruleses easier to remember (as in what happened to armour save and to hit modifiers). But I do say it's good idea to remove rules that do nothing or not much in first place, especially if they have to be remembered all the time for game to be played properly. Armour save modifiers enriched complexity of rules and introduced greater number of possible in-game situations; movement provided greater complexity of rules to be remembered, but really affected game situations when Eldar faced Squats...

lanrak
08-02-2009, 21:12
HI all.
IF GW had thrown Warhammer game mechanics out , and put something more modern into replace them, something more in synergy with the new game play .

Then, rather than 'quick fixes' that cause more problems , so require more 'quick fixes ' that cause more problems ...

You end up with a solid core rule set that delivers the game play you want in a intuative and efficient way.

GW thinking.
To hit modifiers are far too complicated,lets ditch them.
But that makes shooting overpowering , so lets increase basic movement rates to 6 '' and then make all movment modifiers a D6 roll.We also need to make assaults more deadly so gamers wont 'over do' shooting ...

So now it is preferable to' take a knife to a gun fight' , erm, er , hang on, lets buff shoooting a bit .....erm now lets buff assaults a bit .... :rolleyes:

Other companies.
We dont like complex to hit modifiers, lets use the basic 'range band' mechanic instead, this wont impact other aspects of game play.;)

GW
ASMs are complicated lets just dich them for something else.We can use an arbitary non graduated rating that give singular pass fail thresh jold.Which means weapon/armour effectivness varies dependant on opposing force.This makes all valuations totaly subjective.

Other companies .
Lets just use a simple armour rating across all units,(and apropriate terrian ,) and this value is subtracted from the strength of all hits.
This means a graduated effectivness across all weapons and armour , in a simple and intuative way.This also gives direct proportionalism to make evaluation easier.;)

The removal of the M stat was a prime indicator of short sighted and rushed game development IMO.The point where marketing overshadowed game play.

As part of a complete overhaul of the 40k rules re introducing the M stat makes sense.

ethsar46
08-02-2009, 21:59
I agree there should be specific movement types for different armies/units similar to fantasy, however I believe that model LOS should be more inline with fantasy first. Ive never liked the fact that 40k models can always see 360' (except some tank weapons).

Though I dont see either of these things happening any time soon as either changing movement or model LOS is a very big change for 40k.

Snotteef
09-02-2009, 04:12
I voted no, because I don't think they SHOULD reintroduce move values.

That being said, I would like to see them come back. I like them, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to have them. The current system works and it is a core mechanic of the game; changing it would probably require a reboot of the whole game (ala 3rd edition).

If they do ever bring them back, I hope they don't stick with the base of 4". I hated how short move distances were in RT and 2nd edition. I think 5" would be an ideal base.

I also don't understand why so many people are suggesting that Terminators would have lower movement than a standard marine. They don't have slow and purposeful now and they were never slower than a regular marine in any previous editions where move stats existed. I'm pretty sure, that given the Terminators history of ALWAYS moving the same as a marine (over 5 editions of this game), they would continue to have the same movement as a marine in any future versions of the game.

HsojVvad
09-02-2009, 19:56
@ Snotteef, GW said themselves that Termies were slower that regular, SM. I think at least in 4th edtion, can't remember if this was taken out in 5th edtion, that after CC, Termies couldn't chase down the people they were in CC because they are hulking, and slow. This is what sticks in my mind, and think that Termies are slower than SM.

Cythus
09-02-2009, 20:04
i think that it will be too complicated to change every codex and the rulebook to include the stat for movement.

instead, to make faster troops better why not say that the minimium distance moved when running and through difficult terrain is I-1 to a maximium of 5"
that means guard run/move through difficult terrain minimium of 2" (no unrealistic only 1" forward), but dark eldar (basic warriors) move a minimium of 4". This means a dark eldar is garunteed to be able to move+run+assult 16", it really represents them, and it also means they're not garunteed a first turn charge

Orkeosaurus
09-02-2009, 20:09
What does Initiative have to do with the ability to traverse difficult terrain?

They're not related at all. You may as well use Weapon Skill, or Strength.

Theola
09-02-2009, 20:23
For the most part, I like the game the way it is. I don't think giving each unit a moment stat would more more or less complicated than the way it is now. Instead of having to remember a couple of different movement special rules, now you have to remember all the different movement rates of your troops.

That said, I would still like to see movement stats implemented. I think it would help to make various units even more unique and different from each other. However, I wouldn't use this in the current version. I don't know much about the mysterious art of writing rules for a strategy game, but I can imagine that changing how movement works while keeping everything else the same could lead to some new imbalances. Maybe next edition? :)

The_Outsider
09-02-2009, 23:23
People are forgetting that with 360 degree freedom of movement changing movement rates means very little in reality, it only promotes use of transports and slightly slows down foot forces - it won't add anything to the game tactically that doesn't exist now.

Unless you start restricting movement arcs and including formations nothing will change (and if you did you'll have a fantasy clone that will probably have more balance than fantasy does now).

Snotteef
10-02-2009, 02:52
@ Snotteef, GW said themselves that Termies were slower that regular, SM. I think at least in 4th edtion, can't remember if this was taken out in 5th edtion, that after CC, Termies couldn't chase down the people they were in CC because they are hulking, and slow. This is what sticks in my mind, and think that Termies are slower than SM.


They are cumbersome and were unable to make sweeping advances (the only reference to being 'slower' than other marines), but they are not slower at overland movement. EVERY single edition of this game has rated Terminator movement as equal to that of a basic marine: RT - 4" and 4", 2nd Edtion - 4" and 4", 3rd-5th editions - standard infantry move (i.e. not slow and purposeful, which is used to portray slow infantry).

With that in mind, it does seem unlikely that they would receive a lower movement rate, were GW to suddenly reintroduce move values. Of course, since the idea of GW reintroducing move values is completely fanciful, this debate has very little value.:p

Alessander
10-02-2009, 03:16
It'sa great idea, but would involve an immediate redo of EVERY codex.

Most new players in the past 10 years have been spoiled in that the transitions from 3rd to 4th, and now 4th to 5th allowed for existing codexes to still be used.

When 40K's movement system was changed from model-specific to generic (the 2nd to 3rd ed change) EVERY codex was invalidated and everyone had to wait for ther codex to come out. Until then, there was a crappy 2 page summary in the rulebook that covered the stats for EVERY unit in the game.

Remoah
10-02-2009, 08:12
It would be okay. Maybe just add it to the stat line in inches.

Say, guardsman:

Pt M WS BS... ect.
6 6 3 3

I like the idea however alot of the rules/dexes are streamlined around all units moving at the same rate... if termies only moved 4" then i'd assume they'd want slightly better shooty powers to overcome this movement loss.

Maybe infantry classed as 'Mobile' could have an extra 2" movement and those classed as slow get -1" or 2" movement at no penalty. Just add the rule, and when new dexes come out, units get the points added/subtracted and the ability.
For example, guardsmen with Light Infantry gain +1"
Guardsmen with Close order Drill gain -1" movement (since moving in close order is hard).

Ork Sluggaboyz could get +2" movement. ShootaBoyz get -1" movement. Mega Armoured Orks get -2" movement. Ect ect ect...

genestealer_baldric
10-02-2009, 08:26
I think there should be diffrent movement rates e.g Genestealers which are super fast and which most races find hard to target . They should have vastley higher movement than a necron warrior. I would definatley support diffrent movement speeds.

Poseidal
10-02-2009, 09:46
The removing of the movement stat was probably the worst decision when 3rd edition was made.

Initially, it wouldn't require any Codex change, though it eventually will seep in. Like someone before suggested:

Units have M5. You move, run and assault up to your movement value. Fleet rule: You have M6 instead.

(note these are just example numbers).

Getting rid of my other bugbear (the AP system) will be harder to do though...

Iracundus
10-02-2009, 11:27
Maybe infantry classed as 'Mobile' could have an extra 2" movement and those classed as slow get -1" or 2" movement at no penalty. Just add the rule, and when new dexes come out, units get the points added/subtracted and the ability.
For example, guardsmen with Light Infantry gain +1"
Guardsmen with Close order Drill gain -1" movement (since moving in close order is hard).

Ork Sluggaboyz could get +2" movement. ShootaBoyz get -1" movement. Mega Armoured Orks get -2" movement. Ect ect ect...


This kind of special rule creep is exactly the kind of problem that resulted from the change from 2nd edition to 3rd edition. That is why movement rates would be a good thing as then further fine tuning or adjustment of movement would be integral to the system by directly adjusting movement values, without the need to "bolt on" yet more special rules or exceptions on a case by case or category by category basis. The entire system then gets weighed down by special rules, all of which boil down ultimately to the same purpose: to increase or decrease the movement of particular models. If that is the goal, then far better to simply nudge a characteristic up or down as needed. A Movement rate system is open ended, with the ability for further easy expansion in a range of increments, whereas the current system only allows for a) specifying an existing special movement rule or b) adding yet another new special movement rule to add to all the other existing ones.

For those saying having different Movement rates would be too hard to remember, do you also have trouble remembering the different Strength, Toughness, Initiative, or armor saves of models? Having one extra number compared to the multitude of movement rule exceptions would be in the long run be a streamlining. If one extra number is too hard to remember, then one really should stick to a simpler game like tic tac toe.

The Orange
10-02-2009, 14:57
do you also have trouble remembering the different Strength, Toughness, Initiative, or armor saves of models? ....If one extra number is too hard to remember, then one really should stick to a simpler game like tic tac toe.

:wtf:, talk about elitism, what if maybe I do forget stats sometimes? Are you telling me that every single person who's forgotten a stat, or remember it wrong should be kicked out of the hobby. How many here know the rulebooks and codicies better then the back of their hand? How many here can say honestly they've never gotten a rule wrong? :eyebrows: How many here can only handle "tic tac toe" as you so eloquently put it? :rolleyes:

The Clairvoyant
10-02-2009, 15:33
Getting rid of my other bugbear (the AP system) will be harder to do though...

Not really that tricky. Just substitute the numbers as below. Thats probably how GW did it originally. Its also how i intend to do it if i ever get round to playing 2nd ed with 5th ed codexes

AP- = No save mod
AP6 = -1
AP5 = -2
AP4 = -3
AP3 = -4
AP2 = -5
AP1 = -6

Nero
10-02-2009, 15:41
Not really that tricky. Just substitute the numbers as below. Thats probably how GW did it originally. Its also how i intend to do it if i ever get round to playing 2nd ed with 5th ed codexes

AP- = No save mod
AP6 = -1
AP5 = -2
AP4 = -3
AP3 = -4
AP2 = -5
AP1 = -6

They should add this right away! Oh, wait.

That's the way it already is. An armor save of 5, minus 2 from an AP5 weapon, would equal an armor save of... nothing. :D

captainramoz
10-02-2009, 15:53
Not really that tricky. Just substitute the numbers as below. Thats probably how GW did it originally. Its also how i intend to do it if i ever get round to playing 2nd ed with 5th ed codexes

AP- = No save mod
AP6 = -1
AP5 = -2
AP4 = -3
AP3 = -4
AP2 = -5
AP1 = -6
I think the new way is easier really.

Vesica
10-02-2009, 16:37
Im not sure, if you made some races slower than others all it would do is pretty much force them to play a certain way

E.g IG would pretty much have to be a static shooting line, or an Armoured Company, and whilst that might be more 'fluffy' it would probably get boring for the slower armies.

I guess if they balanced it properly so as not to force people to play certain ways then it would be cool.

Poseidal
10-02-2009, 16:39
Not really that tricky. Just substitute the numbers as below. Thats probably how GW did it originally. Its also how i intend to do it if i ever get round to playing 2nd ed with 5th ed codexes

AP- = No save mod
AP6 = -1
AP5 = -2
AP4 = -3
AP3 = -4
AP2 = -5
AP1 = -6
The problem with it (and the same with 2nd ed) is weapons had too much AP all around and no one got saves.

I would say things like Bolters don't get any AP, Shuriken Catapults and Heavy Bolters get -1 (SC was -2 save mod in 2nd, better than bolters) and it's only when going on to larger things like Plasma do you get larger ones.

Also, make it no related to Strength at all, so you can still get high str, no AP weapons.

the reason it's harder to do is you have to redo codices for it while 'movement' has a stopgap solution (set value for everyone, and fleet gives a higher set value until the new codices are printed)

Orkeosaurus
10-02-2009, 16:53
I'd only make S matter in close combat.

Also, maybe allow armor and cover to stack? That would make units with armor saves less nerfed by having their save reduced.

Plus, it's kind of annoying for your enemy to be able to shoot through their own units without penalty, just because you're wearing heavy armor.

Poseidal
10-02-2009, 17:05
I'd only make S matter in close combat.
I wouldn't. The only times it matters would be when using Special CC weapons, so they would have an AP section.

It gives an excuse to make Chainswords do something and be different to a regular CC weapon.

Monstrous Creatures can probably keep their ignore armour, or have huge save mods based on their strength.


Also, maybe allow armor and cover to stack? That would make units with armor saves less nerfed by having their save reduced.
Yes, though I don't know how to do it in an uncomplicated way, perhaps it's an unmodifiable save that improves your current save.

So in medium cover it gives 5+, so your 3+ save is improved to a 1+ (always fails on a 1) but a Plasma Cannon's -5 save modifier puts it back to the 5+ unmodifiable.

Or something. I find it a bit clunky in that incarnation.

Nero
10-02-2009, 17:24
The problem with it (and the same with 2nd ed) is weapons had too much AP all around and no one got saves.

I would say things like Bolters don't get any AP, Shuriken Catapults and Heavy Bolters get -1 (SC was -2 save mod in 2nd, better than bolters) and it's only when going on to larger things like Plasma do you get larger ones.

Also, make it no related to Strength at all, so you can still get high str, no AP weapons.

the reason it's harder to do is you have to redo codices for it while 'movement' has a stopgap solution (set value for everyone, and fleet gives a higher set value until the new codices are printed)

Oh right, so saves would get reduced by -2 regardless of whether they're negated... sorry, but that's not really a good idea given the current game balance. Space Marines almost always getting 5+ armor saves? No thanks!

It could work if the codexs were rewritten... but if they were all rewritten, I'm sure GW could come up with a better system entirely than the AP one.

Eryx_UK
10-02-2009, 18:01
I think the movement rules are fine as is. I don't see a need to mix them up.

Poseidal
10-02-2009, 18:27
Oh right, so saves would get reduced by -2 regardless of whether they're negated... sorry, but that's not really a good idea given the current game balance. Space Marines almost always getting 5+ armor saves? No thanks!

It could work if the codexs were rewritten... but if they were all rewritten, I'm sure GW could come up with a better system entirely than the AP one.
You didn't understand what I said.

In 2nd edition, save modifiers were too big (ie too powerful). A Space Marine would approximately never get his 3+ save. Even the 2nd ed Lasgun reduced their armour to 4+.

I said this was too much, so I said that most of the AP should be taken away to such an extent that they only start appearing on high AP special weapons (Shuriken Catapult, Plasma Gun etc) and entry level Heavy Weapons get -1 and only larger things like Lascannon get higher values.

This editing is why I said it was harder to do than a movement stat addition; you actually have to change the codices where they are written.

IronNerd
10-02-2009, 18:35
I have to vote no simply for game balancing issues. Yeah, it might be more tactical and more interesting, but GW already can't make balanced codices and a movement rate would just make it worse.

Orkeosaurus
10-02-2009, 21:46
I wouldn't. The only times it matters would be when using Special CC weapons, so they would have an AP section.

It gives an excuse to make Chainswords do something and be different to a regular CC weapon.

Monstrous Creatures can probably keep their ignore armour, or have huge save mods based on their strength.That sound's like it would just end up more complicated.

You'd have to have an armor modifying profile for a bunch of weapons, and for monstrous creatures.

I think it'd just be simpler to make CC weapons based on S.


Yes, though I don't know how to do it in an uncomplicated way, perhaps it's an unmodifiable save that improves your current save.

So in medium cover it gives 5+, so your 3+ save is improved to a 1+ (always fails on a 1) but a Plasma Cannon's -5 save modifier puts it back to the 5+ unmodifiable.

Or something. I find it a bit clunky in that incarnation.Well, you could always just take both.

It would probably be better to reduce the cover saves a bit though, in that case.

Tymell
10-02-2009, 21:57
I voted yes. I'd love to see some differing movements rates. Anything that adds to racial discrimination (:p) is a good thing, and adds a little bit more tactical play to it too.


They should add this right away! Oh, wait.

That's the way it already is. An armor save of 5, minus 2 from an AP5 weapon, would equal an armor save of... nothing. :D

Not quite. The problem with the current system is while an AP4 weapon will ignore 4+ saves, it will have absolutely no effect on a 3+ save. So regardless of the actual penetrative power of the gun, unless it actually completely ignores the save it makes no difference at all. This is not in the original topic though, sorry. But I just wanted to point out that it's not accurate to say the two systems are the same :)

Master Stark
13-02-2009, 06:26
While it would be something good, for make the armies more racial, but I thing that right now the movement phase is ok. Due different rates of movement per unit is going to slow down the game.

Actually, it would be quicker. You would just need to measure, and move your models. Not roll a dice, measure and move.


Running is annoying.

You have to move those 30 orks, twice. If you assault you have to move them 3 times. That's a pain, and it's done for no reason.

Exactly. If you could simply adopt the movement rules from Fantasy:

You can move at your standard movement rate, and fire as normal.

Or you can double-time (either into combat or not) and not fire.

Either way you are only moving your models once per turn.


Standardising movement was - and remains - a good thing in 40k.

How so? The designers quickly realised that standard movement was a BAD idea, and so started slapping special rules on it to try and fix the problem. Thats how we ended up with running and fleeting and all that nonsense.


Gotta agree here. As much as I fondly remember 2nd edition, I think standardised movement is a good idea. If newcomers think getting into the rules is hard now, imagine how confusing it could be if EVERYTHING in your army has a different movement rate...

Hardly that difficult. Certainly no more so than trying to understand fleet and run.

The_Outsider
13-02-2009, 08:25
How so? The designers quickly realised that standard movement was a BAD idea, and so started slapping special rules on it to try and fix the problem. Thats how we ended up with running and fleeting and all that nonsense.


The inclusion of run and fleet does not validate your theory - they are higher rates of movement for the cost of the ability to shoot - a fairly equal trade off.

The standardised movement is one of the defining aspects of 40k - with troops having 360 degree freedom mof movement different M stats is pretty much pointless unless you can get stupidly high movement from infantry - the difference between M4 and M6 is fairly small when you don't have to lose movement to rearrange your formation around a tree.

In addition, for a game where shooting is so important it stops some really mental army balance (like necrons should be slow and have shortish range weapons but be hard as nails and have "I hit you you die" guns).

If M stats were going to work the whole movement phase would need to be redesigned from the ground up.

Master Stark
13-02-2009, 08:34
The inclusion of run and fleet does not validate your theory - they are higher rates of movement for the cost of the ability to shoot - a fairly equal trade off.

The fact is the designers realised that some models needed to move at different rates. So, since they had standardised the movement rate to 6", they ended up putting fleet of foot, run, and slow and purposeful in place for infantry, and god knows how many rules for vehicles, not to mention the 'leaping' rules.

It's all just a patch that could have been avoided with a movement stat.

The_Outsider
13-02-2009, 08:41
The fact is the designers realised that some models needed to move at different rates. So, since they had standardised the movement rate to 6", they ended up putting fleet of foot, run, and slow and purposeful in place for infantry, and god knows how many rules for vehicles, not to mention the 'leaping' rules.

It's all just a patch that could have been avoided with a movement stat.

Not really - look at fantasy, while it does have the M stat mechanic, there are plenty of extra rules to change how models move (like being a skirmisher for example).

Master Stark
13-02-2009, 08:49
Not really - look at fantasy, while it does have the M stat mechanic, there are plenty of extra rules to change how models move (like being a skirmisher for example).

It's a different thing. Different unit types move differently, and it's not terribly applicable given that it's a different game.

Poseidal
13-02-2009, 08:52
The fact is the designers realised that some models needed to move at different rates. So, since they had standardised the movement rate to 6", they ended up putting fleet of foot, run, and slow and purposeful in place for infantry, and god knows how many rules for vehicles, not to mention the 'leaping' rules.
I've always found it hilarious that GW put all of these complicated and random (and frustrating when you roll badly) movement rules in when the old rules were as easy as 1, 2, 3. Literally. The old movement rules were pretty much the first rule I got my head round when introduced to the game in 2nd edition; nothing was easier than 'you move up to this many inches, or double that when charging'.

Not really - look at fantasy, while it does have the M stat mechanic, there are plenty of extra rules to change how models move (like being a skirmisher for example).
That's a bit different because most infantry are blocks so require the facing, reforming and wheeling rules. Skirmishers are simple; they behave similarly to the 40k movement rules (up to their movement value) and don't get the combat bonus' block infantry get.

Corrode
13-02-2009, 09:53
The fact is the designers realised that some models needed to move at different rates. So, since they had standardised the movement rate to 6", they ended up putting fleet of foot, run, and slow and purposeful in place for infantry, and god knows how many rules for vehicles, not to mention the 'leaping' rules.

It's all just a patch that could have been avoided with a movement stat.

I'm really not understanding what's so difficult for you with this. A movement stat limits how far a unit can move in a turn. Fleet/run give units a choice, i.e. the tradeoff of trying to hustle forward some more for the sacrifice of shooting. SnP isn't just about movement, it lets units form a fire base (since they're also relentless) and neatly balances the power of a moving heavy weapons platform with the unpredictability of its movement.

One of the common arguments for the M stat is that 'well it would be easy to remember and if you can't remember a single stat you probably shouldn't play 40k'. How hard is it to remember the movement rules? Currently we have:

Infantry - 6" move.
Bikes, jump packs - 12" move with different attitudes to terrain (their move is a multiple of 6, so it's not like it's hard to remember).
Beasts, cavalry - 6" move, 12" assault

SnP - Difficult Terrain test.
Fleet - D6" in the shooting phase, can assault.
Run - D6" in the shooting phase, can't assault.

Tanks - 6" move and fire one gun, 12" move and fire no guns. Add 6" for fast vehicles.
Walkers - exactly as infantry.

Wow, that was really hard. I sure can't remember that complex system.

Poseidal
13-02-2009, 09:57
I'm really not understanding what's so difficult for you with this. A movement stat limits how far a unit can move in a turn. Fleet/run give units a choice, i.e. the tradeoff of trying to hustle forward some more for the sacrifice of shooting. SnP isn't just about movement, it lets units form a fire base (since they're also relentless) and neatly balances the power of a moving heavy weapons platform with the unpredictability of its movement.

One of the common arguments for the M stat is that 'well it would be easy to remember and if you can't remember a single stat you probably shouldn't play 40k'. How hard is it to remember the movement rules? Currently we have:

Infantry - 6" move.
Bikes, jump packs - 12" move with different attitudes to terrain (their move is a multiple of 6, so it's not like it's hard to remember).
Beasts, cavalry - 6" move, 12" assault

SnP - Difficult Terrain test.
Fleet - D6" in the shooting phase, can assault.
Run - D6" in the shooting phase, can't assault.

Tanks - 6" move and fire one gun, 12" move and fire no guns. Add 6" for fast vehicles.
Walkers - exactly as infantry.

Wow, that was really hard. I sure can't remember that complex system.

But all of that takes more time than:

Move: Up to M

Corrode
13-02-2009, 10:01
Move: up to M.
Charge: up to 2M.

It also removes the choice of whether to run/fleet or shoot. Indirectly, it also serves to slow down some armies (I'm thinking of Orks in particular since I'm familiar with those) as I doubt that anyone's going to start handing out M6+ to the average Greenskin. Fine, put them in transports, but then you fundamentally change the nature of the army.

Master Stark
13-02-2009, 10:01
But all of that takes more time than:

Move: Up to M

Exactly.

Why have a dozen special rules to allow units to move, when all you need is a movement stat.

Poseidal
13-02-2009, 10:04
Originally, there was Move, Run and Charge at M, 2M and 2M all of which were done in the movement phase.

If you separate the phases like the current edition, the move is always up to M but done in 3 different phases.

You could also get rid of fleet/run removing charging, leaving something with M4 a 12" charge range by default, exactly like it is now.

Whitehorn
13-02-2009, 10:06
Fantasy battle is won in the movement phase, so movement rates are a lot more important.

40k Isn't like that now, with the advent of Assault phase charging, movement in shooting and assault phases and so on.

bringing back varied movements across units and races will just add complexity that adds really little flavour to the game. It'd also damage the system in every way.

Master Stark
13-02-2009, 10:22
bringing back varied movements across units and races will just add complexity that adds really little flavour to the game. It'd also damage the system in every way.

No, it would reduce complexity. Instead of the ten different rules listed above for movement, you could simply have:

Move - up to M value.
Double time - Up to double M value, may take you into combat. May not shoot.

The_Outsider
13-02-2009, 10:56
No, it would reduce complexity. Instead of the ten different rules listed above for movement, you could simply have:

Move - up to M value.
Double time - Up to double M value, may take you into combat. May not shoot.

I hate to imagine what would happen when this is applied to transports - it (knowing GW) be make some transports unbelievably good and others simply crap.

Hell I can imagine it now - wyches off a raider getting something stupid like a 22" charge normally.

Corrode
13-02-2009, 11:03
No, it would reduce complexity. Instead of the ten different rules listed above for movement, you could simply have:

Move - up to M value.
Double time - Up to double M value, may take you into combat. May not shoot.

There's 8. 3 sets of them (walkers and infantry, bikers and jump infantry, fleet and run) are functionally identical, with only minor differences in how they treat terrain or close combat (which you'd still need to include in any M-based run/charge system). Tanks have standard movement, with the only caveat being fast vehicles adding an extra 6" - most of the tank 'movement' rules cover their interaction with shooting. So it's more like 4 1/2. This really isn't rocket science.

Master Stark
13-02-2009, 11:06
This really isn't rocket science.

And yet is still more complicated, frustrating and counter-intuitive than it needs to be.

Lord Damocles
13-02-2009, 11:12
And yet is still more complicated, frustrating and counter-intuitive than it needs to be.
And lo! I redesign 40K to make it nice and simple:


Generic Trooper 4pts
M BS WS S T W A LD Sv
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4+

armed with Generic Gun:
S Range Type
4 12" Assault 1


There. Nice and simple. Everyone gets one troop type with one weapon option.

Master Stark
13-02-2009, 11:17
And lo! I redesign 40K to make it nice and simple:


Generic Trooper 4pts
M BS WS S T W A LD Sv
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4+

armed with Generic Gun:
S Range Type
4 12" Assault 1


There. Nice and simple. Everyone gets one troop type with one weapon option.

:eyebrows:

I'm arguing against the current sterilisation of models. Not to make them more generic.

Simply bukakke-ing special rules all over something is not the best way to make it unique or special.

Corrode
13-02-2009, 11:31
And yet is still more complicated, frustrating and counter-intuitive than it needs to be.

How is it frustrating and counter-intuitive? What's frustrating about 'everything works in multiples of 6'? What's counter-intuitive about 'basic foot infantry move at roughly the same place, they all have the option to forgo shooting for more pace, and some have the option to assault from that extra pace?' Do you find Gears of War 'complicated, frustrating and counter-intuitive' because everything moves at the same pace unless someone chooses to give up shooting in order to sprint?

Master Stark
13-02-2009, 11:36
How is it frustrating and counter-intuitive? What's frustrating about 'everything works in multiples of 6'?

It's frustrating because you have to move your models up to three times in a turn. It's counter intuitive because models speed increases with the proximity of the enemy. It's frustrating because you have to remember several different rule mechanics just to move your models. It's frustrating because these different mechanics do not yield a consistent result (instead giving you a random extra movement amount).

Iracundus
13-02-2009, 11:37
As I already stated in a previous post, the problem with the current system is a structural problem as it relies upon special rules and exceptions to generate variation. That generates special rules creep and creates potential counter intuitive interactions, while also limiting the amount of variation as the only options are to either specify an existing special rule or make up an entirely new one. A Movement stat on the other hand allows direct variation of movement up or down without having to bolt on a special rule for every kind of variation. All variation becomes integral to the system itself.

Poseidal
13-02-2009, 11:37
How is it frustrating and counter-intuitive? What's frustrating about 'everything works in multiples of 6'? What's counter-intuitive about 'basic foot infantry move at roughly the same place, they all have the option to forgo shooting for more pace, and some have the option to assault from that extra pace?' Do you find Gears of War 'complicated, frustrating and counter-intuitive' because everything moves at the same pace unless someone chooses to give up shooting in order to sprint?
If 'basic foot infantry move roughly the same pace', why are fleet of foot and run random? If it is to model the troop movement, all movement should be random. Why do 'slow and purposeful' units move in a random fashion? Why not just have slow and purposeful units move... slowly and... purposefully?


And lo! I redesign 40K to make it nice and simple:


Generic Trooper 4pts
M BS WS S T W A LD Sv
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4+

armed with Generic Gun:
S Range Type
4 12" Assault 1


There. Nice and simple. Everyone gets one troop type with one weapon option.
So... Space Marines then? [/cheapshot]

tsutek
13-02-2009, 11:40
I would like to get the M stat back. It was a nice addition.

Ok, so it would cause armies and units to change, and their performance and tactics would have to change to reflect this. But why does everyone see this as a bad thing? If some players want to go around this by taking more transports, well, heck, it's their list and their points. It's not like there wouldn't be tradeoffs in placing troopers into a (easily killable) transports instead of them walking/running on foot.

And it has always made me wonder that if all 40k distance values are multiples of 6", why don't they just introduce a new 40k ruler with only skulls every 6"? I'm sure Little Timmy would love that; "look Timmy, you can rapid fire with your marines up to a distance of 2 skulls"

Corrode
13-02-2009, 11:48
If 'basic foot infantry move roughly the same pace', why are fleet of foot and run random? If it is to model the troop movement, all movement should be random. Why do 'slow and purposeful' units move in a random fashion? Why not just have slow and purposeful units move... slowly and... purposefully?

To be honest, I agree with you that fleet/run shouldn't necessarily be random. It's not a complex rule, but it is slightly nonsensical. I could stand to see fleet/run changed in some way, whether it was simply a 12" move, a 9" move (6 + 3 for the run), or something else entirely.

I don't rightly remember the implementation of slow and purposeful from 3rd edition, but I believe it was something like not being able to launch assaults? Difficult Terrain doesn't seem too terrible otherwise. Bear in mind also that SnP doesn't just apply to things which are actually slow and purposeful, it also applies to Ork Meganobz which have every reason to move randomly. Perhaps that could be solved with a better implementation.

I'm not actually arguing that the current movement rules are flawless, or that there aren't things which could be fixed. My point is that they're not particularly complex, and an M stat doesn't necessarily 'fix' the game any more than leaving them in.

edit: tsutek, if nothing else scatter and falling back don't necessarily rely on the 6" rule, and you don't actually have to move a full 6" ;)

itcamefromthedeep
13-02-2009, 13:22
Movement doesn't have to be hard. It doesn't have to break the game. It doesn't have to be difficult to implement. It doesn't necessitate a massive change to rules across the board.

Could you please stop complaining about implementation issues I fixed on page 1 of the thread? Pretty please?

I would prefer a Movement mechanic to the run mechanic that is now seen in the game.

There would naturally be complaints about how to implement this, considering that none of the current codexes have Movement characteristics in them. The simple reply there would be that Movement is 5" unless otherwise specified (Yes that's 5", see following mechanics for why).

Movement could go like this:
In your Movement phase, you can go up to your Movement value in inches.
In the Shooting phase, you can "run" your Movement value instead of shooting. This is subject to difficult terrain.
In the Assault phase, you can Assault up to your Movement in inches if you didn't run (or even if you did in the case of Fleet models.
The Difficult Terrain mechanic can stay as is, with the maximum distance a model can go limited by but not improved by the Difficult Terrain roll (Marine with M5 rolls a 6 and 4, but still can only go 5").

So, assuming a standard Movement of 5", a model can assault a model 10" away, or run up to 10" a turn.

Then, when say Codex:Eldar comes around, you could give each model a Movement value (likely higher then the standard 5") and ditch the Fleet mechanic in all cases. That way, when it comes around to 7th edition, you can simply remove all mention of Fleet (assuming all codexes have been redone).

EDIT: I never explicitly justified 5" instead of 6". It's because running is D6, which averages 3.5, not 6. So right now you move+run an average of 9.5". M5 in both the Movement and Shooting phase gives you 10", which is close to 9.5". For fleet models, move+run+assault averages 15.5", where move+run+assault with M5 would give you 15". So, base movement 5" makes for a clean transition with similar distances to what we see now. This will ease the change for existing players and maintain some existing assumptions of current codexes.

-------

Now, for the pros and cons of such a plan:

Con: Non-Fleet units will move a bit more slowly when not running. This will mess with the metagame and reduce the effectiveness of standard close combat troops in relation to shooters. In addition, it will mess with the ability of models to cross that table in a reasonable amount of time.

Pro: Faster Shooting/Running phases. Less die rolling speeds things up. 'Nuff said.

Pro/Con: less randomness in Movement. Randomness is the great equalizer. Random values favor the underdog, so less randomness will spread out the playing field and make it more difficult for people to have even games. This is fine for a competitive environment where people want to be rewarded for skill, but bad for a less competitive environment where people are looking for close-fought games.

Pro: no sling-shot assault moves. If assaulting is no faster then running, you lose the problem of a "gamey" situation where a unit goes faster when in range to assault. This will theoretically make the game more about playing your opponent and less about playing the mechanics.

Pro/Con: You could know for sure that someone is out of assault range of you, but you are in assault range of them. You can eyeball a 2" or 4" difference, like you can in fantasy. This will create a situation where one unit can virtually guarantee itself the assault. This is not such a problem for Fantasy because units have facing, and turning costs Movement. This allows units with lower Movement values to get the jump on a faster enemy by outmaneuvering them. This is not so with the freedom of 40k movement.

Pro/Con: In a similar vein, if you have higher Movement, you can be sure of getting away. This will frustrate slow assault troops.