PDA

View Full Version : Return of the Movement stat?



jp22102000
05-10-2009, 01:09
I am working on a fan-version of 40k since I don't like what has become of it and I will post some stuff in a few days in the Rules Development forum. Anyway I was wondering if people would like the Movement Stat to return and simply halve movement in difficult terrain, or would you prefer the current method of movement?

Dexter099
05-10-2009, 01:13
I think it adds needless complication to the game, and creates too many opportunities for imbalance. You'd have to carefully go over the codecii and add weaknesses and strengths to each race in order to make up for the differences between movement.

If it was done really well, I wouldn't mind it, but it's worth more trouble than it's worth; there are other things that could be fixed much more easily.

As for halving movement in difficult terrain, that takes a certain element out of 40k strategy. It's a mechanic that works very well in Fantasy, though.

kaimarion
05-10-2009, 01:14
Personally I would like to see it introduce but I don't really know how it would work with things like run and charging.
Also DF can be enough of a pain just now so halving movement wouldn't be such a great idea.

-IronWarrior-
05-10-2009, 01:18
The game has taken strong steps from being incredibly overly complicated to what it is today. I don't think any changes like this would be anywhere close to good.

I can't even think of 1st and 2nd edition. I get the chills...

trigger
05-10-2009, 01:21
i for one , being a lover of 2nd ed would love the movement stat back ... for one main reason ... nids are to fast ... they cover the board to quick ( the people i play use 3/4 units of 32 gaunts ). when im useing my wolves thats fine , bring it on :D but anyother army bar the clubs 1 and only ork army has a proper struggle.

If the Movement stat was back , it could make the game work better IMO

Raibaru
05-10-2009, 01:22
Nopes. I remember my very first game of 40k back in second edition taking 9 hours. It's bad enough a typical game with today's rules take upwards of 2-3 hours on average for a meager 2k point head-to-head game.

Tempted to go buy Space Hulk just so I can find a way to play a nice short 40k game when I'm bored and not feel like I have to commit my entire evening to it.

Bunnahabhain
05-10-2009, 01:25
Yes, bring it back.

Easiest way to simplify the overly complex mess of slow and purposeful, fleet, run, beasts/cavalry, etc, etc.

Move X", run 2x", charge2x".

Fleet, beasts/cav, jump/jetpacks, slow and purposeful all accounted for my altering the move stat of the relevant units. Less random, if it's done logically then easy to remember, and by only moving units once per turn, not up to 3, (move, fleet, assault phase move) it will speed the game up, not slow it down.

Vaktathi
05-10-2009, 01:27
I'm going to have to go with "no" personally. I don't think I'd mind the presence of an "M" stat, but the complications that would arise as to game balance, reworking points costs, mission & deployment types, and especially the issues that would arise with Objective missions, it would get very flubbed very quickly. For a total re-write of rules and armies I'd be ok with it, but that's also a whole lot of extra work and complexity from a relatively simple change that may simply not be worth it.

Smokedog
05-10-2009, 03:36
Hey, Before 5th ed came out, a made a bunch of rules, that tackled this issue. I came up with te idea of standardizing movement on unit types, there fore a movement stat was not needed.

Most stuff stayed at movement 6 for balancing, my range was 4 to 12 iirc. Slow and purposeful obvioulsy meaning movement 4.

...anyway check my sig for the rules in full.

qwertywraith
05-10-2009, 03:37
I'm all for a Movement stat.

Actually, 40K already has a movement stat, it's just it's invisible. Which is the problem.

If they had simply had M=6 for everyone (everyone being Marines because that's the mainstay army), they could have easily said, M=8 for Guants instead of all the various rules: Slow and Purposeful, Beasts, Cavalry, Move in the Assault Phase, Fleet, Run, malarky. And they could have even still had a M=D6 stat for wacky things like Spawn.

CrownAxe
05-10-2009, 03:39
Hey, Before 5th ed came out, a made a bunch of rules, that tackled this issue. I came up with te idea of standardizing movement on unit types, there fore a movement stat was not needed.

Most stuff stayed at movement 6 for balancing, my range was 4 to 12 iirc. Slow and purposeful obvioulsy meaning movement 4.

...anyway check my sig for the rules in full.

That's already how it is. Jump Infantry is 12", Jetbike is 12" with turbo boost, Beast has 12" charge and fleet and everything else has standard 6"

LususNaturae
05-10-2009, 04:02
That's already how it is. Jump Infantry is 12", Jetbike is 12" with turbo boost, Beast has 12" charge and fleet and everything else has standard 6"

Yes, but then you factor in run and fleet, and now you have a complex system of special rules and random dice rolls

Here's what you do for a movements stat:

Move X", Run 2X", Charge X", Difficult Terrain X/2"

X for most units is 6"

Any unit that is currently SAP, X = 4. Remove SAP.

Any unit that has Fleet, X = 8". Remove Fleet, remove Beasts and Cavalry.

Any unit that is currently Jump Infantry or Bikes, X = 12". Remove Jump Infantry, Bikes type (though you might keep jump Inf type to let them move over enemy models)

Running is done in place of shooting, you cannot charge after running.

OMG LOOK AT THAT I JUST SIMPLIFIED 40K!

I got rid of two special rules, three random dice rolls, and 2-3 unit types. Plus I got rid of stupid rules like Beasts can't climb stairs. I added one stat.

Of course, this would need testing and toying with (24" range on assault marines is a bit much), but you get the idea.

Absolutionis
05-10-2009, 04:04
For the time being, they could simply say that any Codex that doesn't have a Movement Stat would have a movement of 6". Then, when they finally produce the Dark Eldar codex in 6th edition, they would have a movement stat of 7" or whatnot. This way, they can introduce a new stat and still release a codex in its "balanced" and "playtested" form at the rate they still do.

Smokedog
05-10-2009, 04:10
That's already how it is. Jump Infantry is 12", Jetbike is 12" with turbo boost, Beast has 12" charge and fleet and everything else has standard 6"

Actually, I forgot the mention that i did away with move>shoot>charge(assault) and reverted to move>shoot or charge(assault)

Anyway it makes more sense if you look at my rules...

See ya.

Absolutionis
05-10-2009, 04:19
Actually, I forgot the mention that i did away with move>shoot>charge(assault) and reverted to move>shoot or charge(assault)

Anyway it makes more sense if you look at my rules...

See ya.So, the "assault" characteristic of weapons is useless now?

solkan
05-10-2009, 06:25
An individual unit or model activation game with movement stats and other things would be really fun, I think. But if you like the 40K background, you'd be better off starting with Necromunda and modifying from there than starting from 40K. You're going to have to redo all of the units and unit costs, especially if you're doing something like going to a charge or shoot system, and Necromunda would probably handle the complexity better due to scale.

vash1313
05-10-2009, 06:39
I am in favor of returning to movement stat. I think they sacrificed one of the more tactical aspects of the game in order to streamline it. That's not to say that they couldn't tweak it to handle certain complications that might arise.

genestealer_baldric
05-10-2009, 08:26
yes please

why should a slow necron move the same speed as stealer, things that eldar and marines find hard to keep up with.

iam all for movment speeds

Nids movement 8
Eldar movemnt 7
marines movement 6
orks movement 6
IG movment 5
Tau movement 5
Necrons movement 4

i think would work and fit the armies

Radium
05-10-2009, 08:35
Bring it back, but don't go the fantasy route. Difficult terrain could be the highest of 2d6 to a maximum of your movement. Run would also be limited by your max move. Charge move is then also M value. Of course this needs some more work, but you get the idea.

Gutted
05-10-2009, 08:47
Bring it back. They took the movement stat and were then forced to add a bunch of special rules to compensate for it. The current system is unnecessarily complicated and clunky as a result.

Lothlanathorian
05-10-2009, 09:22
I prefer running and moving through DT being random.

lanrak
05-10-2009, 10:20
Hi all.
As the movemet statistic is used to define units in a direct way, it can seem out of place in an abstract game like 40k has become .(Like a diamond in a sewer !:evilgrin:)

Most wargames define elements/units using the following broad catagories.

Mobility.
How far and how the unit moves.(Method of propulsion, legs, wheels, tracks, hover.etc.and maximum distance the unit may move during a move action.)
EG,Infantry. L 4".APC. T 8", Hover tank H 6", Motorbike W12".

Defencive cabability.
How hard the unit/element is to damage and how much damage the unit/element can take.

Ofensive capability.
How much damage the unit element can inflict, and at what ranges.

Command and control.
Moral, unit coherancy ,communications, leadership abilities of units/elements etc.

If the rule set focuses on how the units are defined in game terms, they can be far more straight forward than the current 40k rules.
The current 40k game play could be covered with far fewer rules.
Less time reading rules and more time play the games is good IMO.

I aslo think a complete re-write would be a better option.Then we could replace the game mechanics and resolution methods for something far more suitable!

Happy Gaming ,
Lanrak.

Ronin_eX
05-10-2009, 10:47
I personally would like the movement rules back from 2nd, not the stat alone but the system. I never got why GW assumed rolling dice was quicker than M*2 or M/2. And GW simply ended up re-complicating the movement system again anyways with all these unit types and fleet clap-trap.

My preference would be to see movement go back down to 4" as standard while weapons keep their 6" increment standard. The fun part about 2nd Edition movement is that it allowed for close quarters firefights that could go on longer than a turn even if one side was good in hand-to-hand simply because the distance the unit could travel was less than the optimal "close range" of most weapons.

This required players to actually support their assault forces with covering fire while the unit in question rushed across open ground while a support squad kept the enemy pinned down (or they could flank as terrain tended to be much more dense in those days). Now the deadliness of the system also helped making this last charge across open terrain a bit more deadly but from my experience a huge part is that both movement and weapon ranges are not being based off of the same 6" increment.

If they did reduce Infantry to 4" then they would need to bring run back in in its old version (two times movement distance). Keep cavalry, jump troops, beast and bikes where they are if you must but bringing the good old foot slogger back down to 4" would make me quite happy again.

As it is the movement system conspires with the shooting system to make sure a close range firefight is one side letting off a volley before getting charged, which is quite boring and leads to little variation.

As to the poster who cited the 9 hour game time, well, wow. I don't think I had ever had a game go over 3 when I first started and most of mine take 1.5 to 2 now. But what is a thread referencing 2nd Edition without hyperbole from a half remembered game you played 10+ years ago? And even if it did take 9 hours it probably had more to do with ongoing effect grenades, flaming units and other funky effects then a simple single digit number written down somewhere telling you how fast you could go. If the latter was complicated then current incarnations should be taking you at least twice as long with all of those unit types and movement special rules that didn't exist until 3rd. ;)

So keep generalized movement but slow units down, do it for the children who will never know the thrill of a CQB firefight at 9" that has been locked in a stalemate as both forces try to move rapid reaction forces into the area to cover the assault before their last brave push.

My ideal would be:

Infantry: 4" (fleet of foot adds 1")
Jump Troops: 10" with a 4" charge (jet packs are 4" with an extra 4" in the assault phase)
Cavalry/Beast: 5" (fleet adds 1" to base, can charge 10")
Bikes: 12" with a 6" charge

This gives some very definitive differences between unit types and brings the movement speed down to a level where most rapid fire weapons will be able to strike reliably outside of many unit's assault envelope without good maneuvering and support. It would need some additional stuff in there (like the return of a covering fire effect like you had in 2nd Edition) but overall an increase in terrain and a decrease in movement would be a good thing in my mind, and with mechanized forces becoming the norm it also wouldn't be a huge slap in the face to most assault armies). But that's just my preference. :D

Luisjoey
05-10-2009, 20:56
unless you put squats.... eldars and nids are good with fleet.

if you want different speeds put a pluss on special units

grissom2006
05-10-2009, 21:17
Well if you bring it back you best bring back the speeding up and slowing down rules for vehicles.

ashc
05-10-2009, 21:23
Yes, bring it back.

Easiest way to simplify the overly complex mess of slow and purposeful, fleet, run, beasts/cavalry, etc, etc.

Move X", run 2x", charge2x".

Fleet, beasts/cav, jump/jetpacks, slow and purposeful all accounted for my altering the move stat of the relevant units. Less random, if it's done logically then easy to remember, and by only moving units once per turn, not up to 3, (move, fleet, assault phase move) it will speed the game up, not slow it down.

In conjunction with this, yes.

Just simply adding it with no other changes? No.

Squallish
05-10-2009, 21:56
If the stat is linked to unit types only, then ok.. but otherwise.. no. I don't want to have to memorize movement rates for different armies.. and I honestly like only having to know mentally how far 6" chunks are.. not how far 3/4/8" chunks are.

This is one of the reasons I avoid Fantasy to be honest.. I hate the movement phase.. even though it's more tactical.. I prefer having the shooting/assaulting be the tactical aspects of the game.. not lining up perfect charges distances mentally.

loveless
05-10-2009, 22:56
Movement stat?

GT*O of my wargame.

:p

Durath
06-10-2009, 00:06
Movement stat?

GT*O of my wargame.

:p

Not my exact sentiments, but really... I agree. Does anyone responding yes, do you know how silly it would be to put this back in?

Right now, we have a clean, easy to remember, 6" (and multiples thereof) or D6" (and multiples thereof).

In the grim confused darkness of this proposed far future, you would have to learn the movement rate for a slew of models which would invariably wind up causing arguments and problems.

12345_7
06-10-2009, 00:17
I never thought about it, but a movement stat would be great, I think. With this my lithe Harlequins would be able to move faster than those bulky Space Marines.

koran
06-10-2009, 00:22
In the grim confused darkness of this proposed far future, you would have to learn the movement rate for a slew of models which would invariably wind up causing arguments and problems.

lol... Sorry but this comment stinks of fail.

Whats the stats of a marine? I bet you can think of them off the top of your head.

And for a guardsman? Again I bet you know it along with a whole list of units for whatever armies you have ever done or played against regularly. Its not hard remembering the M characteristic in fantasy, why would it be any harder for 40k.

Discussion as to whether it would work in the game or not are all valid in their own way but that its too hard to remember an additional number to a stat line is not.

Personally I would like to see the movement characteristic back with running in the shooting phase not being rolled for and you automatically get another move. Same with assaulting, its your movement not six. And then terrain halves your move. It makes defending terrain and getting into a defendable position a lot more important and thats how it should be. Instead of there being a chance my opponent will get luck and roll a six.

But then I also think they should bring back the armour modifying system and cover being taken into account in the "to hit" roll not being an additional save.

In the end it comes down to what you think makes a good game. I think one thats tactical but maintains realism is best. Others dont and thats fine. Thats why I play Infinity, where the closest game GW has to having some "realism" in its gameplay is Epic.

In the end what GW does isnt affected by what we say or think in any way, and if you think it is your deluding your self. At the moment they are too "mainstream" and can find replacements for anyone they **** off so they seem to have just given up caring.

As long as you dont think this makes a difference these conversations are all good and interesting though.

qwertywraith
06-10-2009, 00:24
Not my exact sentiments, but really... I agree. Does anyone responding yes, do you know how silly it would be to put this back in?

Right now, we have a clean, easy to remember, 6" (and multiples thereof) or D6" (and multiples thereof).

In the grim confused darkness of this proposed far future, you would have to learn the movement rate for a slew of models which would invariably wind up causing arguments and problems.

Come on. Seriously?

Look the movement stat doesn't have to be complicated. It doesn't mean returning to 2nd edition with running and charging.

Besides, we're talking about a theoretical re-write/re-boot of 40K.

All it means is instead of having an invisible movement stat of 6 across the board, we could have a VISIBLE movement stat of 6 across the board, with a few notable units faster or slower.

Every unit you remember that has slow and purposeful now has a move of 4
Every Unit you remember that has fleet now has a move of 8.

Reintroducing the M stat doesn't mean having every unit with a different M score, it just means it is available to be changed. This isn't a matter of rebalancing anything. It's just allowing the rules of the game to be altered in a way that doesn't require special rules.

There's an example from Magic: The Gathering. They invented a mechanic called Threshold. Cards had an additional effect when you reached the Threshold, which was 7 cards in the graveyard. Now, the designers shot themselves in the foot when they invented the mechanic, because they should have indicated instead of "Threshold" it should have been "Threshold 7" not to remind players that it was 7 cards, but to allow THEM to alter the mechanic in a simple, elegant way. So even if for the entirety of the block they only used Threshold 7, the mechanic was there for Threshold 3, and 10, and 30 or whatever.

In a similar fashion, GW decided that everything would move in increments of 6". And nothing else will EVER move differently.

Except they discovered that all infantry armies like Nids needed to be able to move faster. (Try one of the old caravan ambush scenarios from 3rd Ed playing the old Nids. The victory condition is moving units off the board for victory points. From the set-up, it's actually physically impossible to move any unit besides Gargoyles off the board in the amount of turns allowed.)

Bunnahabhain
06-10-2009, 00:36
In an ideal world, I'd do it with a unit activation system.

The relevant actions are:
Move- 1 action point, you may move as far as your move stat says
Run- 2 action points, you may move up to twice as far as your move stat.
Assault- 2 action points, you may move up to twice as far as your move stat. If you make contact with an enemy unit, you resolve an assualt.

Fewer special rules, units only move once a turn in most circumstances. Just about any mechanism that gets away from moving 150 orks 3 times each in a turn is an improvement.

jp22102000
06-10-2009, 01:50
Great discussion guys.
Anyway the rulesystem I am working on is a combination of 3rd, 4th, and 5th edition so it would still be basically the same except for one difference.
At the start of each turn, the players dice of and whoever wins may take Initiative or pass. At the start of each phase (movement, shooting, assault) the player that has Initiative resolves all of his actions first, followed by the second and all assualts are resolved.

Tymell
06-10-2009, 01:54
Simple answer: yes.

Anything that adds more detail and variety between races/unit types sounds good to me.

As it is they keep having to come up with lots of different movement rules to try to sort it out (fleet, beasts, running, jet packs/wings, slow and purposeful, extra special movement rules, etc) and it all gets to be a bit of a mess, I can't imagine a single number would really be that much harder to keep track of than all those special rules cluttering the place up.

scarletsquig
06-10-2009, 02:24
Yep, bring it back, the "4/6/8 for slow and purp/ normal/ fleet" solution posted above would work fine as a quick fix to all current army books.

I'd find a movement stat infinitely simpler than the current sprawling mess of rules and multiple random dice rolls all the time.

Current movement rules requiring d6 rolls all the time really slow down the game.

I really don't understand why people think it'd be impossible to remember, for my fantasy army, I have to remember that my infantry is M4, and my cavalry is M7.. and that's it. Not exactly the most challenging of things to remember, but some people on here seem to think it'd be as hard as memorizing every capital city on the planet.

Squallish
06-10-2009, 05:09
It's not memorizing your own stat that's the issue.. it's memorizing EVERY SINGLE UNIT IN THE GAME for books you don't even know to make sure your opponent isn't jerking you around. I'd rather have universal rules for types, then just ask them the unit's type.

koran:
Everything you listed is in Fantasy.. so I think you should just stay there if you like it. I like 40k the way it is, so that's why I play it and not fantasy.

big squig
06-10-2009, 05:13
A resounding no. It's just not needed to make a great game.

DEADMARSH
06-10-2009, 06:28
Yep, bring it back, the "4/6/8 for slow and purp/ normal/ fleet" solution posted above would work fine as a quick fix to all current army books.

I'd find a movement stat infinitely simpler than the current sprawling mess of rules and multiple random dice rolls all the time.

Current movement rules requiring d6 rolls all the time really slow down the game.

I really don't understand why people think it'd be impossible to remember, for my fantasy army, I have to remember that my infantry is M4, and my cavalry is M7.. and that's it. Not exactly the most challenging of things to remember, but some people on here seem to think it'd be as hard as memorizing every capital city on the planet.

I dig the 4/6/8 idea.

I can understand rolling dice to resolve shooting and fighting hand-to-hand- there's a lot of variables in those activities, but putting one foot in front of the other is generally pretty predictable.

(Yes, yes, I know everyone, somebody might trip and fall, I get it. What's the odds of everyone in the group stopping to help them up whilst being fired upon though? :) )

big squig
06-10-2009, 06:38
I dig the 4/6/8 idea.

I can understand rolling dice to resolve shooting and fighting hand-to-hand- there's a lot of variables in those activities, but putting one foot in front of the other is generally pretty predictable.

(Yes, yes, I know everyone, somebody might trip and fall, I get it. What's the odds of everyone in the group stopping to help them up whilst being fired upon though? :) )

Well, a group is only as fast as its slowest member. Also, there is nothing predictable about jogging through the woods or climbing through a window. That's why I like random movement for DT.

DEADMARSH
06-10-2009, 07:46
Well, a group is only as fast as its slowest member. Also, there is nothing predictable about jogging through the woods or climbing through a window. That's why I like random movement for DT.

Assuming the slowest member of said group doesn't get left behind...

theunwantedbeing
06-10-2009, 08:21
I like the idea of a movement stat.
Then again I do play fantasy and am rather used to the idea of things moving at noticably different speeds so everything moving at the same speed seems a bit silly to me as a result.

Wouldn't be tricky to implement either.
The 6" move/assault gets replaced by your movement characteristic.
Run is still d6" (capped at your move rate)
Terrain slows you to d6" through the terrain(capped at your move rate)
Jump packs are still X" move independant of your move stat.
etc etc

Simple really?

Silentexile
06-10-2009, 08:37
Movement
Slow and Purposeful: 4 inches
Infantry: 6 inches
Fleet/Beasts/Cavalry: 8 inches
Jump Infantry: 12 inches
Bikes/Jetbikes: 14 inches

Run
Slow and Purposeful: 4 inches
Infantry/Jump Infantry/Fleet: 4 inches
Beasts/Cavalry: 6 inches

Assault Phase
SaP/Infantry/Jump Infantry/Fleet: 6 inches
Beasts/Cavalry/Bikes/Jetbikes: 8 inches

Difficult Terrain
Slow and Purposeful/Infantry: 4 inches (ignores difficult terrain)
Infantry/Fleet/Beasts/Cavalry: Movement -D3
Jump Infantry/Bikes/Jetbikes: Dangerous Terrain

Obviously some units would be a bit broken with this set of movement values, namely Tyranids of the beast type, and Nob Bikers to name the ones I can think of.

big squig
06-10-2009, 08:41
Assuming the slowest member of said group doesn't get left behind...
Never leave a man behind! :D

CthulhuDalek
06-10-2009, 09:15
If we're going to bring the movement stat back, I think we have to make some assumptions about the stat first.

In my opinion, this stat gets RID of the need for a rule like run. On the battlefield, most people are already RUNNING from one position to another, and we already have rule limiting our shooting while moving, so why give another benefit when the shootier units already take a hit.

I also do NOT think it should be done on a unit type's basis (i.e jump infantry) but rather, dealt with in individual codices. Most unit in any given codex will have similar movement, and similar units across similar codices will have similar movement. None of these means they will be the *same*.

Choosing actual values for the movement is not as important *here* as the concept, but someone mentioned earlier reducing most infantry to a movement of 4. I'd take 4 as the value of "avg. human movement." Others would be things like Marines mostly moving 5-6 inches, bikes moving say, 9-10 inches.

The issue here REALLY comes when dealing with assaults. I don't mind borrowing rules from fantasy, and likewise I wouldn't mind some 40k rules in Fantasy, so here's where it comes down to a matter of taste:

-Should assaults be declared in the movement phase?
OR
-Should assaults happen as separate movement at the beginning of the assault phase?

This is a very tricky thing to deal with, especially in relation to shooting. If we charge during the movement phase, the only units which can shoot at the unit you wish to kill... are the ones assaulting. I'd rather get rid of movement during the shooting phase, and just say you can move up to your movement in the assault phase in order to engage an enemy.

The speed of units would have to encompass the current rules for fleet, run, cavalry charges etc.

Noserenda
06-10-2009, 10:00
Personally I much prefer the random elements in 40ks current movement system. Its hardly complicated and little variables = good.

wilsongrahams
06-10-2009, 10:33
Yes, different speeds for different infantry and vehicles especially. And no free movement to assualt after having shot aswell - why should they get two turns worth of fighting?

lanrak
06-10-2009, 10:40
Hi Noserender.
Why not make all stats D6 if you like random elements?:D

Oh, and by the way the abstracted way the 40k rules handle movement does ADD alot of unesissary complication in the rules.
(I know of rule sets that use less pages to cover the entire game than 40k uses up just for its abstracted movement ideas!:eek:.)

The extra pages of rules are not difficult to understand,but they ARE a lot of unecissary exceptions to unsuitable basic rules and game mechanics.

(I wonder how many voting for keeping the current system have only used the current system?)

TTFN
Lanrak.

wilsongrahams
06-10-2009, 11:35
Lord Of the Rings has variable movement and is also much simpler.
In fact LOTR had some pretty good ideas in Heroes having Might and Psykers can use Will too. Note not WOTR as that is a different game!

Emperors Teeth
06-10-2009, 11:58
I can see it being worth bringing it back, but make the default (ie human) movement 6" rather than the 4" it was in 2nd edition. Everything was really slow then.

You;d have to re-jig things a bit...

Movement phase
- You can move a distance equal to your 'M' stat

Shooting phase
- Forgoing shooting lets you run (a further move equal to your 'M' stat)
- or Shoot your guns

Assault Phase
- if you didn't run, and you only fired 'assault' weapons you may now move a distance equal to your 'M' stat to get into base-to-base contact with the enemy.

......

Not perfect I'm sure but you get the idea.

Sunyavadin
06-10-2009, 12:06
Worst change of third edition. Really messed balance up in the short term before they gave the faster races fleet to make up for it, and in the long term after they changed the fleet rules. Right now ALL movement in 40k is STILL horribly messed up, broken, and needlessly overcomplicated. The movement stat did a lot to keep it simple.

spetswalshe
06-10-2009, 12:11
Last time I played 40k it did indeed have a movement stat. It was 2nd or 3rd ed, and it was a bloated mess of a game. Streamlining has made it much more approachable, and the inclusion of a handful of pan-army rules like SaP, Fleet etc. are more than fair exchange for having to write an extra '4' (or '6' now I suppose) on every single stat line. I mean, really, the movement rules at the moment are really pretty simple - no less simple than the old stat-based stuff.

I wouldn't be adverse to bringing it back, I suppose - I do still think in terms of the Movement stat, after all - but it just seems unnessecary, especially when you have to take into account every single army list entry would need reviewing. If Gaunts became faster and IG became slower, would you be happy to pay the same points you were paying back when they were on more equal ground?

Bathfinder
06-10-2009, 12:23
Movement phase
- You can move a distance equal to your 'M' stat

Shooting phase
- Forgoing shooting lets you run (a further move equal to your 'M' stat)
- or Shoot your guns

Assault Phase
- if you didn't run, and you only fired 'assault' weapons you may now move a distance equal to your 'M' stat to get into base-to-base contact with the enemy.


What he said!

It will be like today, but without the dice-rolling random mucking-about that we have today. TAkes a long time and does not add anything. (Except in Diff.terrain, where the random movement adds an elament of unpredictability which sometimes can be fun, but I can agree with halved movement, it is quicker, cleaner and fun enough)

Onisuzume
06-10-2009, 12:32
i for one , being a lover of 2nd ed would love the movement stat back ... for one main reason ... nids are to fast ... they cover the board to quick ( the people i play use 3/4 units of 32 gaunts ). when im useing my wolves thats fine , bring it on :D but anyother army bar the clubs 1 and only ork army has a proper struggle.

If the Movement stat was back , it could make the game work better IMO
You *do* realise that the gaunts would *still* be M6 while your puppies would be reduced to M4, right? Or at least, if we use the values from 2nd edition...

Not my exact sentiments, but really... I agree. Does anyone responding yes, do you know how silly it would be to put this back in?
That would probably be the biggest issue because the current codices aren't written with it in mind, meaning that we'd be looking at 6th edition and yet ANOTHER C:SM, fueling the SM-hate even more.

In the grim confused darkness of this proposed far future, you would have to learn the movement rate for a slew of models which would invariably wind up causing arguments and problems.
And yet, it isn't a problem with Fantasy. :rolleyes:

Whats the stats of a marine? I bet you can think of them off the top of your head.
All 4's extect W, A and Ld? xD

Tringsh
06-10-2009, 12:39
I don't think it's really needed with all the special rules on movement about.

Poseidal
06-10-2009, 13:17
Removal of the movement stat was one of the biggest issues brought by the mistake known as 3rd edition. All it did was add more complication, weird special rules and interactions and random elements.

Assuming that the rules are rebalanced and the army lists updated (obviously needed as they're all missing a stat!), then yes.

Bunnahabhain's system is a good start.

Tymell
06-10-2009, 13:27
The fact that the army lists would all need immediate updating needn't necessarily be a problem either. Same thing happened with 3rd ed. 40K and 6th ed. Fantasy, where we had a number of get-you-by lists until they could be done properly.

Legionary
06-10-2009, 16:24
Part of what's cool about the background is the idea of the terrifyingly fast Genestealer and the relentlessly trudging Necron. As it is there's no representation of that, and because every unit has the same movement then there's a layer of tactical depth removed. Not to mention that it necessitates loads of special rules like running.

Johnnyfrej
06-10-2009, 16:51
I voted No, because I didn't know the already simple Movement rules were too complicated for some people...

If Fantasy has tought me anything, it's that more rules =/= better gameplay.

qwertywraith
06-10-2009, 17:14
I voted No, because I didn't know the already simple Movement rules were too complicated for some people...

If Fantasy has tought me anything, it's that more rules =/= better gameplay.

But... what? The point of a Movement stat is to make LESS rules.

A movement statistic removes the rules for Slow and Purposeful and Fleet. It also changes the vehicle rules so we eliminate the "fast vehicle" rule.

(We are also not talking about making every unit a different speed. The VAST majority of units would still be M6.)

So 3 less rules. How does it affect running you ask?

You give up shooting and move in the shooting phase.

So the run rule is changed, but, since it's a standard move it doesn't ignore difficult terrain. So we have eliminated another rule about run's interaction with terrain.

How does it affect assaulting you ask?

If you didn't run (remember fleeting units are now faster so they benefit) you may move into assault.

So there are no new rules there. What about terrain rules? 1/2 movement instead of rolling dice. You still roll for dangerous terrain. 1 rule is replaced with another.

So the addition* of the movement stat removes rules. Yes you suddenly have to start trusting your opponents, or remembering how far units move, or printing summary sheets.

*I qualify addition because 40K already has a movement stat it is just invisible.

Poseidal
06-10-2009, 17:14
I voted No, because I didn't know the already simple Movement rules were too complicated for some people...

If Fantasy has tought me anything, it's that more rules =/= better gameplay.

Doesn't the first statement contradict the 2nd statement?

Durath
06-10-2009, 17:24
lol... Sorry but this comment stinks of fail.

Whats the stats of a marine? I bet you can think of them off the top of your head.

And for a guardsman?

Just because the bulk of many armies are easily memorable, it doesn't mean EVERY unit from every army is memorable.

Can you recite the entire summary page for every codex without opening the book? Hell, I forget what the STR on my Fiends is all the time.

So lets just say 90% of an army is not hard to remember, its still that 10% that you are going to forget, or you opponent is going to forget, that might cost you a game. Especially with regard to movement.

Johnnyfrej
06-10-2009, 17:44
A movement statistic removes the rules for Slow and Purposeful and Fleet. It also changes the vehicle rules so we eliminate the "fast vehicle" rule.

If an Obliterator was, say M3, then it would no longer be able to shoot it's heavy weapons on the move like with SaP. If you add Relentless that is simply changing for the sake of changing.



Doesn't the first statement contradict the 2nd statement?
Let me break my statements down then, I'll use small words.

1.) I voted No, because I didn't know the already simple Movement rules were too complicated for some people...
-Movement is simple in 40k. Are you Infantry? 6'' Movement. But do you have a Jumppack? Then you move 12'' and change your unit type. Are you on a bike? Then you move 12'', can turboboost, and follow the rules for bikes. etc. etc. This doesn't require you to constantly look up somethings movement value like in Fantasy, which is good as that slows the game down.

2.) If Fantasy has tought me anything, it's that more rules =/= better gameplay.
-I really don't see how this contradicts anything. First statement said basically "Simple is good." Second statement said "Just because something has more rules doesn't automatically make it better." Could you please be more specific on how you find it contradictory?

Xelloss
06-10-2009, 17:46
I voted yes :
- difficult terrain does nothing, and the only time it does something it's frustrating
- lots of units types/rules just to prevent using a number
- standard movement rate + standard shooting range = very specific cases put aside it's always better to assault than to shoot, even with a shooting army (0_o), because if you can use rapid fire you are assaulted the following turn.


Could you please be more specific on how you find it contradictory?
Do you really read the previous posts ?

Tymell
06-10-2009, 17:53
Let me break my statements down then, I'll use small words.

There's no need to be like that. Near as I can tell, Poseidal's reply was perfectly polite.


Could you please be more specific on how you find it contradictory?

I wouldn't say they're necessarily contradictory, but I think the point people are making is that a movement stat would probably mean -fewer- rules, not more. So, going by your own logic, you voted for something that doesn't equal better gameplay. I believe that's what was meant.

The Orange
06-10-2009, 17:56
I voted no. I just don't really know if adding variable Movement stats brings that much new to the game play. If anything it probably makes it harder for the designers to balance things. I could be completely wrong but I think the current system using multiples of 6 does help make it a bit easier for them and it works fine IMO.

Tarian
06-10-2009, 18:10
I voted yes, but then again I'm primarily a Fantasy Junkie, and seeing everything move at the same speed is... odd.

Draxonicar
06-10-2009, 20:42
why not? it works fine in fantasy and if they do it like fantasy (move M inches, charge 2M, march/run 2M) and it gets rid of a bunch of annoying rules, I'm all for it

selone
06-10-2009, 21:03
I voted yes being as I'm used to it in both fantasy and 40K and it amazed me to ehar they'd gotten rid of it.

Johnnyfrej
06-10-2009, 21:07
Do you really read the previous posts ?
I wasn't addressing you. You explained why you think having a M value would be benefitial.


I wouldn't say they're necessarily contradictory, but I think the point people are making is that a movement stat would probably mean -fewer- rules, not more. So, going by your own logic, you voted for something that doesn't equal better gameplay. I believe that's what was meant.
The problem with that is opinion. Some people think it adds rules needlessly (like me). Other people think it would streamline the game. If I think that adding a Movement value, neh, changing the whole Movement system, wouldn't do anything that the current one already does but add more rules to remember.

-addendum: Since I can see this thread turning into a 40k vs Fantasy type argument (both sides never agreeing), this is going to be my last post.