PDA

View Full Version : House rules to 'fix' 6th edition



Malachi
23-01-2014, 00:55
Hi all,

My buddy and I have gotten back into 40K and now have enough games under our belt that I've noticed some issues in 6th. Most notably too much randomness (charge ranges, warlord traits etc.) and disproportiate benefits of certain rules (cover, snap fire). I'm sure you've all encountered your own issues so rather than describing them at length, I'll just say that I've noticed mine because I'm a Dark Angel player and he's an Ork player (note we don't really use fliers).

The key objectives of these proposed house rules are to speed the game up a little bit, provide a minor buff to assault and remove some of the randomness in as fair a way as possible. It's critical that we come out equal, even if one tweak favours a particular play style over the other. Note I've borrowed these from all over the interwebz, but I can't remember where I saw them all, so sorry for failing to credit the appropriate authors. I won't put in justifications for each of the changes as you'll either understand the reasoning, or I'll explain as required.

A. Allies
1. Ally Limitations - Allies are limited to 1 HQ, 2 Troops, 1 Elite, 1 Fast Attack and 1 Heavy Support, which use slots from the primary detachment

B. Shooting
1. Snap Fire - All Snap Fire shots are resolved at full BS, however all successful rolls must be rerolled. Twin-linked only applies to the first roll.
2. Look Out Sir! - Change an Independant Character's LoS! roll to 3+ and a regular characters roll to a 5+
3. Cover - I'm struck but how MEQ rarely benefit from cover (especially in our meta with its lack of AP3), is there a way to fix this while letting GEQ still utilise it equally? Ideally it would confer a modifier to the 'To Hit' roll, but 40K has done away with that so... thoughts?

C. Assault
1. Charge Distances - Random charge distances are removed and all units charge as they did under 5th edition. Units that now get Hammer of Wrath keep it (including jump infantry) and the Fleet USR provides an additional D6" to charge range.
2. Assaulting out of Vehicles - Units may assault out of vehicles that did not move in the Movement phase.
3. Challenges - Honestly don't know how to fix these, just know they need fixing. They're hardly ever cinematic and almost always involve the player with the weaker character (often DA sergeants in our case) declaring challenges to protect the squad from a powerful character. Suggestions?
4. Consolidation - Units that are eligible to consolidate after a victorious combat can use their consolidate move to charge into another enemy unit. The target unit may Overwatch as usual, which may cause the charge to fail. This charge counts as a Disordered Charge and the combat is resolved in the subsequent Assault phase.

D. Miscellaneous
1. Warlord Table - Rather than rolling randomly on a table, roll to select a table (1-2 Command, 3-4 Strategic, 5-6 Personal) then pick the trait you want from the table. Or roll for Codex Warlord Traits as usual.

Looking forward to everyone's thoughts!

Greyhound
23-01-2014, 01:44
Well I must be reading this wrong.

A. Allies would be a nerf for my orks, who are using the Dread Mob list to expand the FOC and allow me to use units which typically compete against Lootas.

B. Shooting
1. Snap Fire - So essentially the orks I now have would go from 16% overwatch (1 in 6) down to 11% (1 in 9), whereas the mighty dark angels would go up from 16% (1 in 6) to 44% (4 in 9). I don't think that will help the greenskins at all and is a massive boost to overwatch.

2. Look Out Sir! - Orks units are often ablative wounds to a character (boyz and their nob, warbiker and their warboss, boyz and their meks, and even grots to their runtherd). Making LOS less effective is again going to nerf the orks a lot worse than the Dark Angels. Once the nob is gone (which can be done with ordnance sniping) the boys are becoming a lot less dangerous, and will run easily under 9-strong. I guess I can put the nob all the way at the back, but he's therefore unlikely to see combat as he might be 12-15" away from the line when the assault begins. I don't see what needs to be fixed here.

3. Cover - I don't see what needs to be fixed here either. Do space marine really need to make use of cover? are they being shot too easily by the AP4 and 5 from my lads? The dark angel bikes I've shot at have rarely used their cover save, relying on their armour saves at all time. Or is it something 6th edition is doing badly: i.e. space marines die too quickly and need a boost?

C. Assault
1. Charge Distances - Although the fleet = +1D6 would be fun, I don't really see a need to boost the charge range from my lads. Are you upset of the charge range of your bikes? I remember failing one single charge so far with my Mega Armoured Nobz, by since then, I have alway charge stuff which were in close range. I guess there is always the risk of rolling a snake eye, but I don't see random charge as an issue in game (I don't see the issue on paper, just not the manifestation when we play).
2. Assaulting out of Vehicles - Not an issue for me, the lads hop off open top vehicle without breaking a sweat.
3. Challenges - I don't like them, so I would suggest to boost the attacker by making the challenge/no challenge solely the option of the person charging. So you declare a charge, connect, and you decide whether you want to challenge or not, the defender can chose to opt out, but you can't be forced in a challenge when you assault if you don't want to.
4. Consolidation - Again, a nice boost for the dark angels, with their small units, who charge in the ranks of the ork units close to each other. This gives you the ability to stay hidden in assault from the moment you connect hoping from units to units, without a fear of reprisal. I don't see the orks using this move a lot considering that you rarely have to stack units next to each others as I do.

D. Miscellaneous
1. Warlord Table - Rather than rolling randomly on a table, roll to select a table (1-2 Command, 3-4 Strategic, 5-6 Personal) then pick the trait you want from the table. Or roll for Codex Warlord Traits as usual.
I like that, but it looks like I won't be rolling anymore on the warlord trait table anyway. My IA8 has fixed warlord traits which were not overpowered and I could easily fall back on those anyway.
I prefer the more random: you roll a D6 and you chose which of the 3 tables you read the result from.

Greyhound
23-01-2014, 01:52
also, if I can pick any power in the warlord trait i think it will become:
Command: 6. an extra inch is always welcomed
Personal: 5. Orks love FNP
Strategic: 1. if we start using more ruins,
3. If I start using DeffKoptas,
4. Divide to Conquer, if you keep using reserved termies, and bikes.

Langdon
23-01-2014, 06:15
A. Allies
1. Ally Limitations - Allies are limited to 1 HQ, 2 Troops, 1 Elite, 1 Fast Attack and 1 Heavy Support, which use slots from the primary detachment

I can understand you want to kill TauDar or other broken lists, but instead of limiting tourney lists, you are cutting off your nose to spite the face.

B. Shooting
1. Snap Fire - All Snap Fire shots are resolved at full BS, however all successful rolls must be rerolled.

As Greyhound pointed out, it helps MEQ greatly but alienates way too many armies.

Twin-linked only applies to the first roll.

It never did anything else.. Can't reroll a reroll

2. Look Out Sir! - Change an Independant Character's LoS! roll to 3+ and a regular characters roll to a 5+

While i agree that a 3+ IC LoS would be better to deal with pesky HQ's.. 4+ character is better than a 5+.. Because sergeants are just as important as the big guy in black.

3. Cover - I'm struck but how MEQ rarely benefit from cover (especially in our meta with its lack of AP3), is there a way to fix this while letting GEQ still utilise it equally? Ideally it would confer a modifier to the 'To Hit' roll, but 40K has done away with that so... thoughts?

Cover needs to change so that a 2+ save shouldnt happen... a cap at 3+ is just fine. Modifiers work for over games, not 40k.

C. Assault
1. Charge Distances - Random charge distances are removed and all units charge as they did under 5th edition. Units that now get Hammer of Wrath keep it (including jump infantry) and the Fleet USR provides an additional D6" to charge range.

I think that charges need to be changed to 6"+D3 and with fleet it becomes a 6"+D6 with reroll.

that way you will have a minimum of 7" charge, so no more failed 2" charges to gunlines.

2. Assaulting out of Vehicles - Units may assault out of vehicles that did not move in the Movement phase.

Agreed, but add that if the vehicle moves 6" you can still assault but suffer a -1 Int modifier and disordered charge..

3. Challenges - Honestly don't know how to fix these, just know they need fixing. They're hardly ever cinematic and almost always involve the player with the weaker character (often DA sergeants in our case) declaring challenges to protect the squad from a powerful character. Suggestions?

Challenges happen between the highest leadership in the squad challenging. While this wont fix if there are more than 1 Highest LD.. maybe a random roll if there are more than 1?

It will stop bare sergeants dying so the tooled up IC, chews through your squad.

4. Consolidation - Units that are eligible to consolidate after a victorious combat can use their consolidate move to charge into another enemy unit. The target unit may Overwatch as usual, which may cause the charge to fail. This charge counts as a Disordered Charge and the combat is resolved in the subsequent Assault phase.

Chuck in they can only Consolidate into combat once per Game Turn. Stops shenanigans of sweeping the back line. So if you win in your phase and consolidate into another.. you can't then consolidate again until your next turn. Sort of like interceptor

D. Miscellaneous
1. Warlord Table - Rather than rolling randomly on a table, roll to select a table (1-2 Command, 3-4 Strategic, 5-6 Personal) then pick the trait you want from the table. Or roll for Codex Warlord Traits as usual.

Tbh they should do away with Warlord tables, or have one 2d6 one, and able to reroll if it doesnt benefit you.. like rolling and getting fearless on a warlord already with it.

I also think that slaying the warlord should be 1VP from shooting and D3 from assault.. inciting more people to go to combat.

Teraks
23-01-2014, 06:57
First off, house rules are as the name applies, house rules. If your gaming community feels it's a good and fair rule, then use it.
Most of what you suggest would never fly nor fit in my gaming community, but like I said, that doesn't mean it's not a good rule for you guys.

Assaulting out of vehicles, fixed assault move, remove challenge, assault again as consolidation move, D3 VP for slay warlord in CC, choose warlord traits...
It all improves CC armies, and hamstrings shooty armies.

The problem with your house rules as I see it is that all of the sudden it comes down to who can make the biggest, deadliest CC group. Too much of a coin toss for me.

The next step would be for you to actually start the game in close combat, just rolling dice, the winner of the combat wins the game.
Hehe, you only need a ' x ' table!

But if it works for you, it works for you.

That said I LOVE close combat. I try to get into close combat as much as possible in my games.

However, the fun part for me in a game of warhammer 40k is to manage to outmaneuver my opponent and get those nice assaults in. With your house rules it's too easy, and I would probably get bored very quick. (And yes, i meet many defensive teams hiding behind tanks/ADL etc)

Langdon
23-01-2014, 08:06
Assaulting out of vehicles, fixed assault move, remove challenge, assault again as consolidation move, D3 VP for slay warlord in CC, choose warlord traits...
It all improves CC armies, and hamstrings shooty armies.

As opposed to what the official rules did to CC armies? Not only ham-stringed, but cut the Achilles and eyes gouged out for good measure.

I would never play with house rules personally, as I play in a Gee Dub, but what 6th did for CC and mech was a kick in the balls to more than just CC heavy lists.


The problem with your house rules as I see it is that all of the sudden it comes down to who can make the biggest, deadliest CC group. Too much of a coin toss for me.

How is it any different than it is now? CC Deathstars still exist, but now you have Shooty Deathstars making it even worse for CC armies.


The next step would be for you to actually start the game in close combat, just rolling dice, the winner of the combat wins the game.
Hehe, you only need a ' x ' table!

But if it works for you, it works for you.

If you want to House Rule the game that way.. feel free..

Teraks
23-01-2014, 08:12
If you want to House Rule the game that way.. feel free..

Ehm, did i say it was a good idea? No need to get all angry mate. Like i said, it's a free world.

I'm quite happy with the 6:th edition rules. And i play both CC and some shooty. There will always be "deathstars" but most of them can be outmaneuvered.

Langdon
23-01-2014, 08:52
Ehm, did i say it was a good idea? No need to get all angry mate. Like i said, it's a free world.

I'm quite happy with the 6:th edition rules. And i play both CC and some shooty. There will always be "deathstars" but most of them can be outmaneuvered.
that's... not anger.

If you think that a response saying that you can use House Rules is anger, your mind is kinda messed up, Maybe you need to see a counselor?

Teraks
23-01-2014, 09:43
that's... not anger.

If you think that a response saying that you can use House Rules is anger, your mind is kinda messed up, Maybe you need to see a counselor?

Not worth my time to reply more then this...

Ironbone
23-01-2014, 11:06
This topic belongs to rules development forum" :p


A. Allies
1. Ally Limitations
I would rather fix alied table, removing silyness of BB between SW-Tau, Eldar-tau, Sm-tau, and DA between GK and Nekrons. And cap alies at max 25% of army total points. And formations count as alies.


1. Snap Fire
Snap-firering is IMHO good. Useing full bs even with re-rolls favour high BS armies ( MARINES !) too much, and you know, it's kinda stupid to make SM-centric game even more SM-centric.


2. Look Out Sir!
I would say all characters should benefit it on 3+.


3. Cover
I would simply cap cover save at 3+. Decent cover save is essential for low save armies to have some use in the game, and If you think that MEQ rarely benefits from cover - belive me, you are wrong. And Inv should be caped at 3+ as well ( barging some ceartain exceptions like shadowfield ).


3. Challenges - Honestly don't know how to fix these, just know they need fixing.
Well, i have few ideas :
- characters may challage only other characters. Independent characters may challenge both IC and characters
- Refusing chellenge have no penalties
- winner of chellange gains +1 to CR (or introduce over kill just like in WFB )


4. Consolidation - Units that are eligible to consolidate after a victorious combat can use their consolidate move to charge into another enemy unit. The target unit may Overwatch as usual, which may cause the charge to fail. This charge counts as a Disordered Charge and the combat is resolved in the subsequent Assault phase.
NO to any conslolidate into new combat idiocy !!! :mad:. Warhammer already have that rule in 4th ed, and guess what ? It was removed, and for good reasons.


1. Warlord Table - Rather than rolling randomly on a table, roll to select a table (1-2 Command, 3-4 Strategic, 5-6 Personal) then pick the trait you want from the table. Or roll for Codex Warlord Traits as usual.
Hymm, that's intresting, i will try this in my games :).


D. Miscellaneous
Smash - when using double str, hlave ALL attacks, not just the base ones
Jink - to get a cover save, model must move at least 6" in strait line, same in case of turbo-boost
Tank hunter, monster hunter, stealth, shroud, skilled rider, etc - this rules benefit only models that actually have them, not entire units ( only keep fearless and stubborn working this way )
Vechicles are hit in cc on armour facing that model is btb contact with ( or better one in case of model facing more than one ). Walkers are always hit on front armour unless they are immobilized.
Vechicles are hit in cc on 3+ if they move up to 6", on 4+ if up to 12", or on 5+ if more. Stacionary are ofc hit automaticly ( attacker may still roll to hit in case his attack have some extra rules on ceartain roll )
Units may not charge when btb with an enemy model, even if they are not engaged in cc.
IC may test LD to fire at the diffrent target than rest of the unit. All units have splith-fire rule
Bikes bonus T appies only to shooting, not CC
Pile in move - at the start of each round of CC, both sides ( assoulter first, then defender ) may make up to 6" move towards a enemy. When models are moved, challeages are issued, and blows are stuck using a standard iniciative order.
Blind weapons reduce WS/BS by one. Effects of several diffrent blind weapons are cumulative.
Torrent weapons hit models under template on 4+

Geep
23-01-2014, 11:41
There's a few things I'd disagree with here, but as other people are pointing them out I'll focus on a small, pesky one:
With your changes to the Warlord Trait rules I would NEVER roll on my own book's Warlord Traits table. I don't care that I must pick from a random table, the fact that I can pick is a massive bonus. No matter what table I get I can pick something useful. That's not the case if I have to roll on my own book's table (usually there's a 50% chance at best of a good Warlord Trait for my plans).
It'd be much better to go with: Roll a D6. You can then choose whether to take the trait of that number from one of the three BRB tables, or you own codex table.

Greyhound
23-01-2014, 11:48
Agreed with you Geep, you roll a dice, and you go hunting in the books for a table which will satisfy your roll :)

Camman1984
23-01-2014, 12:27
I would like to see cover taken and then an armour save, so a marine hiding behind a tree is more survivable than an ork behind a tree to small arms etc. But when it comes to bigger weapons then the cover is all that counts and neither get their armour.

DoctorTom
23-01-2014, 14:29
Have you considered just using the rules for a previous edition? (5th or 4th edition). That would get rid of many things like challenges and overwatch, and would get rid of the randomness of charges. You can still house rule in rules from 6th edition that you like (if you want Warlord traits or some allies, for example).

Charistoph
23-01-2014, 14:32
Anyone already notice this is in the wrong forum? The Rules Development Forum is that away (http://www.warseer.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?17-GW-Rules-Development-Forum).



The key objectives of these proposed house rules are to speed the game up a little bit, provide a minor buff to assault and remove some of the randomness in as fair a way as possible. It's critical that we come out equal, even if one tweak favours a particular play style over the other. Note I've borrowed these from all over the interwebz, but I can't remember where I saw them all, so sorry for failing to credit the appropriate authors. I won't put in justifications for each of the changes as you'll either understand the reasoning, or I'll explain as required.

Well, let's take a look at the list.



A. Allies
1. Ally Limitations - Allies are limited to 1 HQ, 2 Troops, 1 Elite, 1 Fast Attack and 1 Heavy Support, which use slots from the primary detachment

This does nothing to speed up the game, remove randomness, or provide any buff to assault. This is just someone upset that a person can take certain combinations. As someone said, fixing the Ally table should be the priority, the FOC isn't really the problem.



1. Snap Fire - All Snap Fire shots are resolved at full BS, however all successful rolls must be rerolled. Twin-linked only applies to the first roll.

This would not speed up the game, just slow it down, and increase the randomness. Snap Fire is fine as it is. It's certainly better than not firing at all (which was largely the previous mechanic).



2. Look Out Sir! - Change an Independant Character's LoS! roll to 3+ and a regular characters roll to a 5+

Only has half to do with Shooting. I agree with the IC LOS! measure, but the Character one is fine. If you want to add changes to make it harder, Precision Shots/Hits reduce the LOS! roll by one (or increase the target by one).



3. Cover - I'm struck but how MEQ rarely benefit from cover (especially in our meta with its lack of AP3), is there a way to fix this while letting GEQ still utilise it equally? Ideally it would confer a modifier to the 'To Hit' roll, but 40K has done away with that so... thoughts?

Reduce Armour Save effectiveness. Have them be no better than 4+. 3+ AS gets to reroll fails at 5+ and 2+ get to reroll failed Armour Saves on a 4+. I don't like this personally, but it's the only thing that effectively comes to mind without To-Hit Modifiers or getting rid of the One Save to Rule Them All.


1. Charge Distances - Random charge distances are removed and all units charge as they did under 5th edition. Units that now get Hammer of Wrath keep it (including jump infantry) and the Fleet USR provides an additional D6" to charge range.

I'm on the fence with this one. I like that, on average, you can charge farther now than previously. I dislike how you could just end up charging 2", but that's fair compensation for being able to charge 12", too. Maybe have Charge be 5+D6"? And either keep Fleet how it is, or revert it back to 5th Edition's (but doesn't work with Battle Focus).



2. Assaulting out of Vehicles - Units may assault out of vehicles that did not move in the Movement phase.

Better yet, if the Vehicle did not move before the Disembark. If it moves after, who cares?



3. Challenges - Honestly don't know how to fix these, just know they need fixing. They're hardly ever cinematic and almost always involve the player with the weaker character (often DA sergeants in our case) declaring challenges to protect the squad from a powerful character. Suggestions?

Well, Fantasy Challenges, which 40K's is based off of, just ask Ward, has any remaining Wounds being passed on to the unit afterwards, I believe (been a while since I read them). But it could be cinematic. The other side of it is to allow LOS! to happen in a Duel.



4. Consolidation - Units that are eligible to consolidate after a victorious combat can use their consolidate move to charge into another enemy unit. The target unit may Overwatch as usual, which may cause the charge to fail. This charge counts as a Disordered Charge and the combat is resolved in the subsequent Assault phase.

Far too many issues with this. It was quite overpowered when it was available, and allowed an effective unit to chew up a Guardsmen line in one single turn. The only way to make this work is if the Consolidating unit doesn't actually Charge, but just moves to Engage the unit in question. What's the difference? Simple. The unit has already used up its Attacks this turn, shooting its wad, as it were, but being Engaged allows it to avoid having the crap shot out of it in the next Shooting Phase. The unit being Consolidated in to would be able to use their Attacks, but not Overwatch.



1. Warlord Table - Rather than rolling randomly on a table, roll to select a table (1-2 Command, 3-4 Strategic, 5-6 Personal) then pick the trait you want from the table. Or roll for Codex Warlord Traits as usual.

Our LGS has you roll the number, and then pick the Chart. As was mentioned, you don't consider using the Escalation or Codex Traits in the concept.

Fle
23-01-2014, 18:03
Have you considered just using the rules for a previous edition? (5th or 4th edition). That would get rid of many things like challenges and overwatch, and would get rid of the randomness of charges. You can still house rule in rules from 6th edition that you like (if you want Warlord traits or some allies, for example).

This would have been my suggestion too.

T10
23-01-2014, 18:29
If I were a games designer (I am not), I would introduce a "miss chance" save. This is essentially a chance to turn a successful hit into a miss. Such a save would be taken in addition to the "physical protection" save, i.e. the kind that will allow the model to survive a hit.

Take cover: It makes the model harder to see, but also has the ability to absorb damage as if it were an extra layer of armour. I imagine a Ruin area terrain could give a model a 5+ concealment save and a 4+ protection save. The concealment save comes into save against hits, the protection save is mutually exclusive with armour and invulnerable saves and are affected by AP just like armour saves are.

Of course, this mechanic is in no way a quick fix. It would be necessary to reevaluate a lot of the game mechanics and game elements. How should template, blast and barrage weapons work? Are some current invulnerable saves actually concealment saves? Are the current weapon statistics (geared as they are towards a single save mechanic) in need of adjustment?

I think it's an interesting way to introduce a kind of to-hit modifier.

Langdon
23-01-2014, 18:38
Take cover: It makes the model harder to see, but also has the ability to absorb damage as if it were an extra layer of armour. I imagine a Ruin area terrain could give a model a 5+ concealment save and a 4+ protection save. The concealment save comes into save against hits, the protection save is mutually exclusive with armour and invulnerable saves and are affected by AP just like armour saves are.



thats the thing that has bothered me for while.. plasma and melta are superheated materials designed to cut through stuff.. yet the cant go through plas-steel and rubble..

DoctorTom
23-01-2014, 18:59
thats the thing that has bothered me for while.. plasma and melta are superheated materials designed to cut through stuff.. yet the cant go through plas-steel and rubble..

Cover saves are also supposed to represent not shooting at the right spot. It doesn't matter if the plasma and metal cut through the plas-steel and rubble if you didn't shoot at the right spot.

(Of course, I'd consider a House Rule that if the cover save comes from an intervening unit and the cover save is made, there's a chance that the intervening unit was hit whether enemy or friendly.)

T10
23-01-2014, 19:08
If that was true, then a forest and a fortification should yield the same cover save. However, a model exposing a hand from behind a tree gets a 5+ save and a model prancing about With a leg behind a fortification qall gets a 3+. Cover saves attempt to take both concealment and protection in the same roll.

DoctorTom
23-01-2014, 19:55
If that was true, then a forest and a fortification should yield the same cover save. However, a model exposing a hand from behind a tree gets a 5+ save and a model prancing about With a leg behind a fortification qall gets a 3+. Cover saves attempt to take both concealment and protection in the same roll.

There was an "also" early in my statement, indicating that I wasn't saying that is was only the one thing cover saves represent, but a multiple of things.;)

Greyhound
23-01-2014, 20:14
I thought that was because in a forest you can't really hide very well, the shape of humanoids moving and shooting are easy to spot and once someone pinpointed your tree you can't really move and you get shot as soon as you come out.

Whereas in ruins you can find tiny holes to snipe from and once your position is known you can still duck, run behind a wall and appear from another spot.

tychii
24-01-2014, 03:41
Hi all,

My buddy and I have gotten back into 40K and now have enough games under our belt that I've noticed some issues in 6th. Most notably too much randomness (charge ranges, warlord traits etc.) and disproportiate benefits of certain rules (cover, snap fire). I'm sure you've all encountered your own issues so rather than describing them at length, I'll just say that I've noticed mine because I'm a Dark Angel player and he's an Ork player (note we don't really use fliers).

The key objectives of these proposed house rules are to speed the game up a little bit, provide a minor buff to assault and remove some of the randomness in as fair a way as possible. It's critical that we come out equal, even if one tweak favours a particular play style over the other. Note I've borrowed these from all over the interwebz, but I can't remember where I saw them all, so sorry for failing to credit the appropriate authors. I won't put in justifications for each of the changes as you'll either understand the reasoning, or I'll explain as required.

A. Allies
1. Ally Limitations - Allies are limited to 1 HQ, 2 Troops, 1 Elite, 1 Fast Attack and 1 Heavy Support, which use slots from the primary detachment

B. Shooting
1. Snap Fire - All Snap Fire shots are resolved at full BS, however all successful rolls must be rerolled. Twin-linked only applies to the first roll.
2. Look Out Sir! - Change an Independant Character's LoS! roll to 3+ and a regular characters roll to a 5+
3. Cover - I'm struck but how MEQ rarely benefit from cover (especially in our meta with its lack of AP3), is there a way to fix this while letting GEQ still utilise it equally? Ideally it would confer a modifier to the 'To Hit' roll, but 40K has done away with that so... thoughts?

C. Assault
1. Charge Distances - Random charge distances are removed and all units charge as they did under 5th edition. Units that now get Hammer of Wrath keep it (including jump infantry) and the Fleet USR provides an additional D6" to charge range.
2. Assaulting out of Vehicles - Units may assault out of vehicles that did not move in the Movement phase.
3. Challenges - Honestly don't know how to fix these, just know they need fixing. They're hardly ever cinematic and almost always involve the player with the weaker character (often DA sergeants in our case) declaring challenges to protect the squad from a powerful character. Suggestions?
4. Consolidation - Units that are eligible to consolidate after a victorious combat can use their consolidate move to charge into another enemy unit. The target unit may Overwatch as usual, which may cause the charge to fail. This charge counts as a Disordered Charge and the combat is resolved in the subsequent Assault phase.

D. Miscellaneous
1. Warlord Table - Rather than rolling randomly on a table, roll to select a table (1-2 Command, 3-4 Strategic, 5-6 Personal) then pick the trait you want from the table. Or roll for Codex Warlord Traits as usual.

Looking forward to everyone's thoughts!

So allies are messed up right now, and if your gaming group went through and adjusted it, that would be the best fix.
Shooting --
1.your snap shot adjustment is totally messed up and a bad call, snap shots are fine right now.
2. Look out sir, if any changes need to be made a simple LOS roll is done on a 3+ for all characters would be easy
3. The only way to change the current cover would to give it a max of 3+. Other then that you would need to change it completely to modify the to hit roll like it used to. Which I actually didn't mind.

Assault
1. Changing charge distances to be more reliable should be done, 5-6 +d6 would be fair and still keep that random element. The problem with the way it is now is that if you are 10" away from someone, you aren;t going to declare, eat overwatch and hope you roll high enough. You will save yourself the overwatch shots. So, people only declare charges when they are quite close like 7" around to declare a charge. Which is why you only notice the random charges when you don't make it in when you should, because you don't charge units when you mostly won't make it in.
2. Like the way you have it.
3. Like the idea of only the attacker can declare a challenge, or the extra woulds carry over into the unit.
4. Terrible idea that was removed from the game for good reason.

warlord table-
Your idea works, but I would just get a D4 and toss the codex table for each army in their as well.

DoctorTom
24-01-2014, 14:22
On the subject of limiting cover saves, I would suggest that if you're limiting cover saves to a certain number (3+ or 4+) then you should also limit armor saves to that number, otherwise you're penalizing armies that aren't well armored but rely more on cover in favor of heavily armored MEQ armies.

Buddha777
24-01-2014, 15:29
I think 6th's works fine but in terms of competitiveness my only rule change would just be to add that a cover save or invulnerable save cannot be re-rolled under any circumstance. Boom, eliminates most deathstars and crazy thing being brought to tournies.

DoctorTom
24-01-2014, 15:44
I think 6th's works fine but in terms of competitiveness my only rule change would just be to add that a cover save or invulnerable save cannot be re-rolled under any circumstance. Boom, eliminates most deathstars and crazy thing being brought to tournies.

Then add the same restriction to armor saves, just to put all armies on an even footing. Otherwise this handicaps non-MEQ armies more than MEQ armies.

Buddha777
24-01-2014, 15:49
Then add the same restriction to armor saves, just to put all armies on an even footing. Otherwise this handicaps non-MEQ armies more than MEQ armies.

Fortune specifically allows a person to re-roll armor saves which is fine. But there is no reason a cover save (jet/seer/beastpack star) or an invul save (screamer/khymerepack star) should be re-rollable.

DoctorTom
24-01-2014, 16:12
Fortune specifically allows a person to re-roll armor saves which is fine. But there is no reason a cover save (jet/seer/beastpack star) or an invul save (screamer/khymerepack star) should be re-rollable.


Fortune allows more than armor saves to be rerolled. If it's fine for it to allow rerolls of armor saves, then it's hypocritical to say that it shouldn't allow re-rolls of other saves.

Buddha777
24-01-2014, 16:37
Fortune allows more than armor saves to be rerolled. If it's fine for it to allow rerolls of armor saves, then it's hypocritical to say that it shouldn't allow re-rolls of other saves.

It's not hypocritical since that is the distinction that my fix is suggesting.

A re-roll of an armor save is usually irrelevant when hit with an AP of equal to or lower. You always get to take a cover save (except against the more rare ignores cover) and invul save which is why a) it is overpowered and b) should be corrected.

DoctorTom
24-01-2014, 17:18
So what?


Normally you're not getting 2+ rerollable cover or invulnerable saves. If there's problem with things like screamerstars and the other things you're complaininng about, address it with those units. Your complaints don't take into account the balance between the different saves between MEQ and non-MEQ armies. You don't need to shift the mechanics so that non-MEQ armies get penalized more than MEQ armies with your changes.

Oh, and "rare" ignores cover? Have you ever heard of template weapons? The ones with the cover saves you're complaining about usually won't get an armor save against those weapons.

T10
24-01-2014, 18:42
There was an "also" early in my statement, indicating that I wasn't saying that is was only the one thing cover saves represent, but a multiple of things.;)

Cover is used for a couple of things in the game

* Damage protection. Terrain provides a cover save directly dependent on how solid is the terrain piece or area terrain providing cover and has little to do with the visibility pf the model.
* Hard to hit. Cover saves are used as a sort of to-hit modifier for fast-moving models and vehicles like bikes and fliers. The faster the model moves, the better the save.
* Hard to spot. Special rules like Stealth and Shrouded, they represent a model being hard to accurately locate. The better hidden, the better the modifier.

I know a lot of players are looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses and going on about to-hit modifer like its some sort of holy panacea for the game, but the truth of the matter is that cover saves is the closest thing we're going to get. And it has the potential to work a lot better than to-hit modifiers ever did. The problem with the latter is that with a d6 roll, stacking up a significant number of modifiers simply breaks the d6 mold. With the current bulk of BS scores in the game ranging from 2-4, you can't really fit in more than a +/-1 modifier wothout adding further governance for dealing with 1+ or better, and 7+ or worse, to-hit rolls. Those kind of mechanics get quite clunky when paired with re-rolls.

With cover saves instead of modifiers, conditions dirwctly affect accuracy, but with the benefit that the target number of the rolls remain within the D6 range while the models' relative BS scores still count for something. The downside is of course that even exceptionally skilled models are still ultimately constrained by the save. It's a bit frustrating to have a BS10 model foiled by a 2+ cover save. But at least those are conditions in which even a BS1 model has a chance of scoring a hit.

-T10

Ozendorph
24-01-2014, 18:55
Just going to respond to a couple specific points in the first post. For the record my main concern (with the current game) is pace and clarity of rules. I find 6th Ed tedious, and the harder you try to abide by the written rule, the slower and cloudier it gets.


Hi all <snip>


C. Assault
1. Charge Distances - Random charge distances are removed and all units charge as they did under 5th edition. Units that now get Hammer of Wrath keep it (including jump infantry) and the Fleet USR provides an additional D6" to charge range.
2. Assaulting out of Vehicles - Units may assault out of vehicles that did not move in the Movement phase.
3. Challenges - Honestly don't know how to fix these, just know they need fixing. They're hardly ever cinematic and almost always involve the player with the weaker character (often DA sergeants in our case) declaring challenges to protect the squad from a powerful character. Suggestions?
4. Consolidation - Units that are eligible to consolidate after a victorious combat can use their consolidate move to charge into another enemy unit. The target unit may Overwatch as usual, which may cause the charge to fail. This charge counts as a Disordered Charge and the combat is resolved in the subsequent Assault phase.

Looking forward to everyone's thoughts!

Charge distances - I like the 6" + d3" (d6 for Fleet) suggested earlier. Still an element of chance, but nobody is straight tripping over their shoelaces.

Assaulting out of Vehicles - Agreed. If a vehicle hasn't moved (yet), occupants should be able to disembark and assault.

Challenges - My solution is simple. Only ICs, named (special) characters, and single-model units (like Lone Wolves or Hive Tyrants) can issue or accept challenges. The end.

Consolidation - I played in editions that allowed consolidation into another combat, and it sucked. Of course, getting your unit shot to pieces because they did their job too well (obliterated the unit they charged) isn't very fun or "fair" either. My recommendation would be to grant a cover save (5+ seems right) to units that fought in cc the previous turn. So they're less likely to be erased by a battle cannon shot after winning their combat, but they're still far from invulnerable.

Nurgling Chieftain
24-01-2014, 22:32
...just to put all armies on an even footing.I don't think preserving the status quo is the idea, here.

MajorWesJanson
25-01-2014, 03:09
Charge distances - I like the 6" + d3" (d6 for Fleet) suggested earlier. Still an element of chance, but nobody is straight tripping over their shoelaces.


6 +d3 gives everything a better charge range than in 6th. What would work better is 3"+d6", with fleet being 6"+d6" (and fleet makes run moves 3"+d3" instead of d6")

totgeboren
25-01-2014, 11:36
Any changes to snap fire from a flat 6 to-hit to something which takes BS into account would either buff high BS guys or nerf low BS guys by definition.
Across the board nerf to snap fire would be something like "Roll for all models snap firing, every roll of 6 allows a model to fire as normal." Everyone would have their Snap fire reduced by the same percentage as their BS. However, change the "6" to a 5+ and suddenly BS 4 models hit with Snap fire 22% of the time, whilst orks drop down to 11% and so on. Any solution which takes BS into account will make Ork snap fire pretty worthless if BS 4 models are to remain balanced, though I think a 5+ could a be a happy medium (especially if the cover solution below is also implemented).

Anyway, when it comes to cover, I have a really easy solution. Allow cover saves to be taken in addition to normal/inv saves. Considering how dominant shooting is, reducing the effectiveness of it somewhat should hardly unbalance the game. It might even make assaults a bit more worthwhile?

Speaking of house rules, a rule that actually is in place where I play is a change to wound allocation from Barrage. The owner allocates the wounds, just like in close combat, with the exception that models in the open has to be hit killed first, then in descending cover save order the models are hit.

Extreme barrage sniping totally sucks the fun out of the game and so happily everyone I play with seems to be happy with this little change.

T10
25-01-2014, 11:48
A 5+ followed by a to hit roll with normal BS makes BS 3 guys as good (on average, of course) as they are now. BS 2 Orks will be a bit worse off, BS 4 Space Marines will be a bit better. At SHOOTING, mind you, something rarely regarded as the forte of BS 2 troops. :)

The Barrage rule has merit. Presumably models are still first removed from closest to the center?

totgeboren
25-01-2014, 11:55
A 5+ followed by a to hit roll with normal BS makes BS 3 guys as good (on average, of course) as they are now. BS 2 Orks will be a bit worse off, BS 4 Space Marines will be a bit better. At SHOOTING, mind you, something rarely regarded as the forte of BS 2 troops. :)

The Barrage rule has merit. Presumably models are still first removed from closest to the center?

Yeah, that's why I think the 5+ followed by BS rolls is a pretty fair middle ground for snap fire.

Regarding the Barrage, nah, we do it as if all models in the unit hit are equally far away from the unit shooting at them, except that they are in 'tiers' based on what sort of cover they are in. Exactly were the blast drops doesn't matter. Barrage weapons are suppose to be indiscriminate, and cover crucial for surviving it, so we wanted some sort of rule that achieved that. This means that even if the template hits in say area terrain, if the unit have models that are outside of cover, that's where the hits will be applied first.

So barrage gets slightly more killy, yet totally loses its ability to snipe.

(Also, if models were still removed from the closest to the centre of the blast, the house rule would do nothing at all in dealing with the problem of barrage sniping, as that is the very core of the problem.)

Bubble Ghost
25-01-2014, 13:54
What pressing gaming reason is there to have some units be better than others at snap fire? Or is this just scratching a fluff itch, that geeky Top Trumps desire to see empirical representation of the hierarchy? It makes sense that a Space Marine or Guardsman would be slightly more effective in snap fire situations, but not to any extent that creates a burning need to represent it on a D6 scale, either for fluff or gaming reasons.

Barrage sniping is indeed garbage. Just make them work like blasts, with a -1 cover modifier or something. I can see where they were going with the allocate-from-template, i.e. trying to evoke lobbing shells over defences, but the sniping thing is just way too big a price to pay for that tiny bit of flavour.

My major pet hate with the game at the moment, other than the usual about morale and wanting to lose close combats, is wound tanking. Similarly to whole units with 3++ saves, ******s with 2+ armour saves undercut the vast majority of the gameplay in 40K, which is based mostly on assigning the right resources to the right targets. I don't mind allocate-from-the-front in a broad sense - it doesn't hurt to have some ability to use a tough character to help defend a unit, especially in a heroic Hollywood game, and simply allowing the defender to allocate wounds has too much baggage elsewhere in the system to be superior to 6th ed's method. But it should be a conditional defence, and I firmly believe that it shouldn't work against massive explosions. That just feels wrong in a gameplay and a narrative sense.

Personally, I'd just make Look Out Sir rolls mandatory against blast and template weapons (and anything else that represents an area of effect) - with some rationale about someone shouting "incoming!" - so that you don't have Captain Smartpants shamwowing up a whole battlecannon blast. You ought to be able to blow holes in units to get around that sort of behaviour.




Oh: consolidation into combat is Satan's own game mechanic. Nail a clove of garlic above your gaming room door to make sure it never gets back in.

Nurgling Chieftain
25-01-2014, 16:06
Oh: consolidation into combat is Satan's own game mechanic. Nail a clove of garlic above your gaming room door to make sure it never gets back in.Really? I've never grasped why my units are perfectly happy to consolidate 3" into this enemy, but completely unwilling to consolidate 1" towards that enemy. Personally, I think any rule which forces my units to recognize your squad boundaries is a bad rule.

T10
25-01-2014, 16:06
The pressing reason is that poor quality shooting troops enjoy a high quantity as compensation. The compensation effectively remains as/becomes an advantage when the shooting quality is equalised.

30 Orks firing 60 shots hitting on 5s may be comparable to 10 Space Marines firing 10 or 20 shots hitting on 3s. But when both hit on 6s they are no longer equals...

Bubble Ghost
25-01-2014, 21:27
Really? I've never grasped why my units are perfectly happy to consolidate 3" into this enemy, but completely unwilling to consolidate 1" towards that enemy. Personally, I think any rule which forces my units to recognize your squad boundaries is a bad rule.

And I consider any rule that allows a playing piece to flicker at whim through space and time without ever existing from the point of view of enemy observers to be a bad rule. Not being able to consolidate into combat is a limitation on a unit's use of time, not space - it is a restriction intended to acknowledge the fact that a unit should not be able to travel instantaneously from one invulnerable point of attack to another without the other player having an opportunity to act in between whiles. Your criticism there seems reasonable on the face of it, but only until you look at it in the context of a sequence of events spanning multiple turns.

If it weren't for 40K's trope of being effectively trapped 'in combat' at the whim of the dice from turn to turn - if you could voluntarily fall back, or fire into combat, or whatever - then there would be more of a case for reinstating consolidation into combat, as the frustrating, illogical issues it causes would be addressed elsewhere (though I still think it would be a bad idea, as it's counter-intuitive to build in a punishment for having units support each other). Frankly, that's what I'd prefer, as it would fix a whole lot more than just the apparent disconnect you mentioned.

But as things are, you can't just paste consolidation into combat back into the rules without somehow addressing the space/time issues and gameplay reduction it creates (and always did). Chaining from combat to combat (or from nowhere to combat, in the case of assaulting from reserve or from a huge vehicle move) just smothers the game, seeing as close combat in 40K involves no decision making, not even the ability to flee it, and so reduces both players to spectators. Nothing should make the deactivation of your opponent's participation in the game any easier to achieve, let alone elevate it to the level of a standard game-winning strategy that can be defeated only by another piece of daft metagaming.





The pressing reason is that poor quality shooting troops enjoy a high quantity as compensation. The compensation effectively remains as/becomes an advantage when the shooting quality is equalised.

30 Orks firing 60 shots hitting on 5s may be comparable to 10 Space Marines firing 10 or 20 shots hitting on 3s. But when both hit on 6s they are no longer equals...

Yes, I understand that, but my point is that it doesn't matter. I can't see any game balance problems this is causing, and I also think it makes nice, neat sense in imagery terms too. Your proposed change isn't going to change any decision anybody makes with a unit, so what's the issue it's resolving?

ehlijen
25-01-2014, 22:48
Really? I've never grasped why my units are perfectly happy to consolidate 3" into this enemy, but completely unwilling to consolidate 1" towards that enemy. Personally, I think any rule which forces my units to recognize your squad boundaries is a bad rule.

It's a result of the hybrid nature of our playing pieces in 40k.

On the one hand, the rules are mostly model driven: models use their weapons, measure their own movement and LOS and have their own statlines.
On the other, all player decisions are unit based: Units move as one, fire in one volley and charge or fall back as one, board/leave transports as one and arrive from reserves as one.

If one of your units charges and kills one of mine, you eliminated one of my playing pieces. My other unit right next to it is a different playing piece that you did not charge. Just because it's made up of identical models and is no futher away from your models than the first unit was, doesn't change that it is in fact a separate playing piece and thus is treated differently in the game rules.

If we didn't have units and thus unit boundaries, 40k would be a skirmish level game. But it isn't, hasn't been since 2nd ed. You may like that or not, think those are good rules or not, but they are a necessity in a game where we play with units each comprised of models.

Also, if you want to remove both two units in one action, declare a multiple charge. If you want to take the enemy playing pieces on piecemeal, accept that that means that they get to react to you in their following turn.

Charistoph
26-01-2014, 04:23
And I consider any rule that allows a playing piece to flicker at whim through space and time without ever existing from the point of view of enemy observers to be a bad rule. Not being able to consolidate into combat is a limitation on a unit's use of time, not space - it is a restriction intended to acknowledge the fact that a unit should not be able to travel instantaneously from one invulnerable point of attack to another without the other player having an opportunity to act in between whiles. Your criticism there seems reasonable on the face of it, but only until you look at it in the context of a sequence of events spanning multiple turns.

Pieces flicker at whim through space and time all the time by just moving. And moving from a won combat in to another unit isn't just suddenly existing from the point of enemy observers, it's a unit that moved just as naturally from one position to another. That second point just happens to be right in to kissing range of another unit.

However, I do NOT think they should be able to start brand new as if they just charged this unit and never was involved in combat that turn. They should be able to move in and Engage the unit without actually Charging or Assaulting the unit. The unit that was moved in to can then use their Attacks (f they hadn't already that Phase. It provides a proper risk/reward option that doesn't just chew up a line.

Nurgling Chieftain
26-01-2014, 04:56
And I consider any rule that allows a playing piece to flicker at whim through space and time without ever existing from the point of view of enemy observers to be a bad rule.That's such an exaggeration that I'm honestly not even sure what you're referring to. I see consolidating into combat as reducing the overall "flicker" effect; without it, the need to preserve the unit I'm charging is overwhelming, since I need it to be there precisely so I can "flicker". That's an absurdity.


(or from nowhere to combat, in the case of assaulting from reserve or from a huge vehicle move)I really think reserve arrival needs a different restriction. Somebody (was it ehlijen?) once suggested rolling at the end of the turn before, and placing a marker to note where the models are coming from. That way, you can react to incoming models before they get there. I think that's a much better solution than the invisible walls scenario.


On the other, all player decisions are unit based: Units move as one, fire in one volley and charge or fall back as one, board/leave transports as one and arrive from reserves as one.That's fine when it's your own units. I think you should always be able to treat any group of enemy units in coherency with each other as a single unit. Every edition has weird exploits involving mixing your own units while forcing the enemy to treat them separately.


If one of your units charges and kills one of mine, you eliminated one of my playing pieces. My other unit right next to it is a different playing piece that you did not charge. Just because it's made up of identical models and is no futher away from your models than the first unit was, doesn't change that it is in fact a separate playing piece and thus is treated differently in the game rules.Keep in mind that these units are vastly different in size, points, and significance. One of the effects of KP is punishing MSU, which is advantageous in almost all other respects. I would prefer fewer playing pieces to be a more legitimate strategy. I don't see any reason why splitting the same models into two units right next to each other should get any privilege at all.


Also, if you want to remove both two units in one action, declare a multiple charge.Oh, you mean that other insane MSU privilege GW randomly threw into 6th edition for no apparent reason?

ehlijen
26-01-2014, 07:05
I really think reserve arrival needs a different restriction. Somebody (was it ehlijen?) once suggested rolling at the end of the turn before, and placing a marker to note where the models are coming from. That way, you can react to incoming models before they get there. I think that's a much better solution than the invisible walls scenario.

I did suggest something like that once. Of course that's not a guarantee that it's me you're remembering.


That's fine when it's your own units. I think you should always be able to treat any group of enemy units in coherency with each other as a single unit. Every edition has weird exploits involving mixing your own units while forcing the enemy to treat them separately.

So when you charge one of my units, you'd be ok with me piling in everything in 3" in as well, regardless of unit boundaries?
When you're shooting me you're happy to always have to chew through a unit slightly to the left but closer to you first because I'm treating them as one big blob?
If I charge with two units and only one makes it, the other can still pile in because at their initiative step you've piled into pile in range for them?

The game is based around units being distinct and defined enitities. Changing that drastically changes the nature of the game and requires a deliberate rewrite (which may end up better, but it will end up very different).



Keep in mind that these units are vastly different in size, points, and significance. One of the effects of KP is punishing MSU, which is advantageous in almost all other respects. I would prefer fewer playing pieces to be a more legitimate strategy. I don't see any reason why splitting the same models into two units right next to each other should get any privilege at all.

Agreed, that is a problem. But consolidation into combat isn't the answer. It just abuses unit distinction to create a CC shield against shooting.



Oh, you mean that other insane MSU privilege GW randomly threw into 6th edition for no apparent reason?

Disordered charge or not (that rule is annoying but doesn't change the core idea), multi charging is the better representation of how one unit charging into two enemy units close by would end up. 10 marines charge 10 guardsmen, while 10 more sit by and watch. After winning, the marines pile into the other 10 guarsmen who now still don't get to react before being stabbed to death. Really?
No, you'd end up with the 10 marines either fighting all 20 guardsmen at once or only the first 10 while the rest fall back while shooting at their pursuers.

Bubble Ghost
26-01-2014, 13:01
Pieces flicker at whim through space and time all the time by just moving.

And it's the job of the rules to disguise it, which they generally do with such features as not allowing consolidating into combat. See also not being able to charge from reserve; not being able to fire an Interceptor weapon if you used it in the previous movement phase; not being able to charge from a vehicle even if it was destroyed on the previous turn; not being able to move a vehicle very far if you want to disembark; generally being forced to end your turn in a given position if you wish to attack from there; etc.

About the huge oversight remaining in this area, in fact, is another element of the close combat phase - whereby you're hoping you don't destroy the enemy with a charge, so that you can then 'hide in combat' during the enemy turn. You then get to continue on your way, without even having broken stride from your own perspective but somehow having evaded the enemy gunsights the entire while. It's ridiculous. And consolidating into combat is simply another way in which this ridiculous achievement is enabled. What ideally needs to happen is that hiding in combat goes away completely, and the objective of close combat becomes to actually defeat the enemy, not to avoid being shot at. But in the meantime, just because there's one way in which this problem exists, that doesn't excuse reintroducing something that exacerbates it.




That's such an exaggeration that I'm honestly not even sure what you're referring to.

It was colourfully phrased for illustration, I'll give you that, but it's not an exaggeration. You think it's fine that a unit can combo its way across the battlefield, somehow moving whenever the other army are looking the other way, or while they're rooted to the spot while their commander yells "hold your fire! It's not our turn!!"?

The point is that while you're waltzing your way from combat to combat, the guys in the other army get to have a turn at some point, and they're probably going to fire at you. Disallowing consolidation into combat ensures this happens. Thing is, it is as much pre-emptive block on a subsequent charge move in your following turn without the enemy having had a chance to retaliate, as it is on the actual consolidation. It ensures you can't hop across huge tracts of battlefield without being fired at just because of whose turn it happened to be when certain events happened.

If you don't see this, imagine being some guy in a squad watching this assault take place, and waiting for his chance to fire at his army's attackers. What does he see when an enemy unit charges into one combat, then consolidates into another, then charges into yet another in their next turn? How on earth have they done all that without him seeing them and firing? From his perspective, that enemy unit has essentially teleported from place to place, or become invisible, or somehow opted out of existence for a little while. This is what I meant by flickering through space and time. I was not exaggerating, it is that stupid. It's like lag in a video game, and there is just no excuse for that on the tabletop. It is terrible for gameplay and preposterous for believability.

____


re. assaulting from reserve, I had my own pet idea on this, too. I think it would make more sense to just give some protection to units when they arrive. That "place marker" way, you have the weird issue of "well, if I know they're coming, how come I can't fire at them?" And you still have invisible walls, they're just 7" further away, and contract down to a point just before they jump on you. It's more fair than allowing assault normally, and makes the real-terms table slightly wider, but overall, it's even weirder, if anything.

Bringing units on and giving them Shrouded and/or Stealth until the end of the next turn, or until they reveal themselves by firing, would be plenty, and quite nicely evoke the element of surprise rather than being overtly gamey.

Mr Zoat
26-01-2014, 17:08
Back in 3rd, a unit which consolidated into a new combat couldn't be fired upon because there wouldn't be time between them wiping out their opponents and hitting the next unit for a defender to notice that all their friends were dead and fire on them. Units which made a sweeping advance into a new combat could be shot.

Personally, I'd like firing into combat back, along with consolidating into new combats.

Aertes
26-01-2014, 18:24
My personal changes to the main post's ideas:




B. Shooting
1. Snap Fire - resolved at half of the model's BS, rounding down.
[I]2. Look Out Sir! - Change all Character's LoS! roll to 3+.
3. Cover - Cover grants the Feel no Pain (5+) rule. Remove all rules that increase a model's cover. Heavy cover (those that grant 4+ or better) gives FnP (4+). Rules that ignore cover of course ignore this FnP

C. Assault
[I]1. Charge Distances - resolved as the rulebook says.
[I]2. Assaulting out of Vehicles - Units may assault out of vehicles that did not move in the Movement phase. Models cant assault if they disembarked from a destroyed vehicle unless it was an Assault vehicle.
[I]3. Challenges - resolved as the rulebook says. If a player declines a challenge, the opponent chooses an enemy character that could have accepted it. That model looses the Stubborn and Fearless rules and gets -1 to its Leadership and Attacks. This lasts to the end of that phase.
[I]4. Consolidation - resolved as the rulebook says.

Charistoph
26-01-2014, 19:01
And it's the job of the rules to disguise it, which they generally do with such features as not allowing consolidating into combat. See also not being able to charge from reserve; not being able to fire an Interceptor weapon if you used it in the previous movement phase; not being able to charge from a vehicle even if it was destroyed on the previous turn; not being able to move a vehicle very far if you want to disembark; generally being forced to end your turn in a given position if you wish to attack from there; etc.

And a Consilidation Move not in to a unit is fine, but in to is not? This is what's called a double standard.


About the huge oversight remaining in this area, in fact, is another element of the close combat phase - whereby you're hoping you don't destroy the enemy with a charge, so that you can then 'hide in combat' during the enemy turn. You then get to continue on your way, without even having broken stride from your own perspective but somehow having evaded the enemy gunsights the entire while. It's ridiculous. And consolidating into combat is simply another way in which this ridiculous achievement is enabled. What ideally needs to happen is that hiding in combat goes away completely, and the objective of close combat becomes to actually defeat the enemy, not to avoid being shot at. But in the meantime, just because there's one way in which this problem exists, that doesn't excuse reintroducing something that exacerbates it.

Considering when consolidation happens, it's not really as you say. Either a unit has been suddenly cut down before neighboring units are able to react and are close enough to be engaged, or the charging unit swept the unit and the swept unit's remains are still scattering and confusing the approach of the sweeping unit. Not so hard to think of, really.

But I guess your biggest problem lies more not being able to shoot at a unit in Assault than the Consolidation in to Combat. Especially as you didn't even consider responding to my suggestion


Back in 3rd, a unit which consolidated into a new combat couldn't be fired upon because there wouldn't be time between them wiping out their opponents and hitting the next unit for a defender to notice that all their friends were dead and fire on them. Units which made a sweeping advance into a new combat could be shot.

That doesn't make any sense. It whould be the other way around, if anything.

DoctorTom
26-01-2014, 20:03
And a Consilidation Move not in to a unit is fine, but in to is not? This is what's called a double standard.

Getting to shoot overwatch at a unit engaging you by charging while not getting to shoot overwatch at a unit engaging you by consolidating into you is also a double standard. If a unit's going to lock an enemy unit in combat, that unit should have the opportunity to get overwatch fire.

Charistoph
26-01-2014, 20:17
Getting to shoot overwatch at a unit engaging you by charging while not getting to shoot overwatch at a unit engaging you by consolidating into you is also a double standard. If a unit's going to lock an enemy unit in combat, that unit should have the opportunity to get overwatch fire.

Not quite. A Charge comes with an Assault and fight sequence as well as the Overwatch along with. This is how Consolodation used to work.

In my proposal, Consolidation in to Engagement does not allow for the consolodating unit to use their attacks, at all. As a balance, the unit being Engaged CAN use their Attacks. The only advantage to the consolodating unit is they don't have stupidly and impotently stand around with their arses blowing up in the wind just because they were too successful at the wrong time.

Bubble Ghost
26-01-2014, 20:46
And a Consilidation Move not in to a unit is fine, but in to is not? This is what's called a double standard.

It's really not. A normal consolidation move is a completely different thing to beginning a new combat, and essentially disappearing from the game before the other army have had the chance to take actions they would actually have been carrying out during the time you were doing that. The knock-on effects of becoming locked in combat make it is an entirely different gaming move to just moving D6".

This is the whole reason there's an arbitrary block on it, even though it would appear to make sense if you look at it in isolation, based only on tabletop distances - "but they're only an inch away, of course I can reach them!" Well, yes, you could, if we were to assume that they're politely standing there while your army has a turn, in the way their player is for you. But they're not, they're carrying out actions as the same time your troops are, and it's the job of the rules to try to force the players to acknowledge that, and obscure the stop-start nature of the way we administrate the battle as best it can. Preventing you from firing up a new combat is simply a way in which the game makes sure your troops don't take more than their share of time at once. It's not the only way of doing that, but that is what that rule is doing there, and you couldn't reinstate consolidating into combat without replacing the ban on it with something else to do a similar job. Such as allowing retreats from combat during your movement phase, allowing firing into combat, etc.




But I guess your biggest problem lies more not being able to shoot at a unit in Assault than the Consolidation in to Combat. Especially as you didn't even consider responding to my suggestion

Not so much shoot, but act in general. But otherwise yes, that is the problem. I didn't respond to your suggestion because it wasn't responding to me - it doesn't address the issue I brought up. It just gives a tiny consolation prize to the player on the receiving end. That's not the same thing. You're still allowing the consolidating unit to benefit from its mysterious video remote to pause the enemy army, you're now just throwing a few token hits at them - which in most cases would barely do anything to balance the effect on the game result, let alone the impression of the flow of time.

Plus, I don't think anyone was suggesting that a new combat be fought there and then. Consolidating used to lock units together in combat, but no more - the actual fighting carried over until the next turn.

DoctorTom
26-01-2014, 20:59
Not quite. A Charge comes with an Assault and fight sequence as well as the Overwatch along with. This is how Consolodation used to work.

In my proposal, Consolidation in to Engagement does not allow for the consolodating unit to use their attacks, at all. As a balance, the unit being Engaged CAN use their Attacks. The only advantage to the consolodating unit is they don't have stupidly and impotently stand around with their arses blowing up in the wind just because they were too successful at the wrong time.

Ah, I see, give them their attacks instead of their shooting. Still, it raises questions like do you still run through Determine Assault Results - if the army consolidated into inflicts casualties, does the unit consolidating into them have to make a morale check? If they do and lose is there the chance of sweeping advance? Would the unit consolidated into then get their own consolidation move?

Ironbone
26-01-2014, 22:37
Ah, I see, give them their attacks instead of their shooting. Still, it raises questions like do you still run through Determine Assault Results - if the army consolidated into inflicts casualties, does the unit consolidating into them have to make a morale check? If they do and lose is there the chance of sweeping advance? Would the unit consolidated into then get their own consolidation move?
Uhhhh, can we just keep matters simple and good as now, and simply do not bother with futile attempts to restore one of worst rules of past :mad: ? Consolitation into new combat was already present in 3rd and 4th ed, and imagine, that was horrible.

Aertes
27-01-2014, 00:59
By the way, I'd make the following modifications to Blast Weapons:

Small Blast and Template: if a vehicle or monstrous creature model (also flying ones) is touched by a small blast or template marker, its unit gets D3 hits from that weapon

Large Blast: if a vehicle or monstrous creature model (also flying ones) is touched by a large blast marker, its unit gets D6 hits from that weapon.

This would be intended to end with the completely ridiculous situations where dameon princes and hive tirants laugh their ass out of Demolisher cannons, battle cannons, heavy psicannons and so on.

DoctorTom
27-01-2014, 01:07
Uhhhh, can we just keep matters simple and good as now, and simply do not bother with futile attempts to restore one of worst rules of past :mad: ? Consolitation into new combat was already present in 3rd and 4th ed, and imagine, that was horrible.

It was horrible because the other army couldn't react to it. Charistoph is proposing essentially a free round of assault for the defenders that are consolidated into. If you had either that or the unit getting to fire overwatch it would be different from 3rd/4th edition.

ehlijen
27-01-2014, 02:37
It was horrible because the other army couldn't react to it. Charistoph is proposing essentially a free round of assault for the defenders that are consolidated into. If you had either that or the unit getting to fire overwatch it would be different from 3rd/4th edition.

And a much simpler solution that does that is to tweak the rules to encourage rather than discourage multicharges instead of allowing consolidation into new combats.
It even has advantages for the attacker: You get a chance to kill both units (supposedly a good thing in the narrative of the game) and enjoy greater odds of at least one enemy staying and thus granting you the magic CC shield (because the rules suck).

But really, I think 40k should take a page from the LotR game: If neither side breaks or dies in combat, push the combatants slightly apart and allow shooting into those units. (Requires reconsideration of most points values, of course).

Charistoph
27-01-2014, 05:32
It's really not. A normal consolidation move is a completely different thing to beginning a new combat, and essentially disappearing from the game before the other army have had the chance to take actions they would actually have been carrying out during the time you were doing that. The knock-on effects of becoming locked in combat make it is an entirely different gaming move to just moving D6".

I'm not the one considering a Consolidation in to a unit as magically teleporting while a Consolidation that doesn't move in to a unit is not a magical teleport. It is THIS I consider a double standard. Movement is still movement, and D6" doesn't average very far.

The unit is not "essentially disappearing from the game before the other army have had the chance to take actions they would actually have been carrying out during the time you were doing that". They are still there, they still have an impact, and they are still a target. They can still be acted upon, just not gunned down with impunity because they had some really good luck.


....It's not the only way of doing that, but that is what that rule is doing there, and you couldn't reinstate consolidating into combat without replacing the ban on it with something else to do a similar job. Such as allowing retreats from combat during your movement phase, allowing firing into combat, etc.

Actually, I wouldn't have to. All I'd have to do is just limit what that Consolidation in to Engaged actually does and mean instead of automatically considering it carte blanche to march a unit across the board deleting whole units at whim.


Not so much shoot, but act in general. But otherwise yes, that is the problem. I didn't respond to your suggestion because it wasn't responding to me - it doesn't address the issue I brought up. It just gives a tiny consolation prize to the player on the receiving end. That's not the same thing. You're still allowing the consolidating unit to benefit from its mysterious video remote to pause the enemy army, you're now just throwing a few token hits at them - which in most cases would barely do anything to balance the effect on the game result, let alone the impression of the flow of time.

Consolation prize? Not quite. It's a gamble. That unit you consolidate in to may just chew your unit up and make it effectively useless, a lot depends on the exact situation. Maybe I just don't consider it a good idea to "reward" a unit by being the first unit on the firing line.


Plus, I don't think anyone was suggesting that a new combat be fought there and then. Consolidating used to lock units together in combat, but no more - the actual fighting carried over until the next turn.

Well, I can't really say much about 3rd Edition, never owned it and well before I started collecting. I'm going by what others have said about it.


Ah, I see, give them their attacks instead of their shooting. Still, it raises questions like do you still run through Determine Assault Results - if the army consolidated into inflicts casualties, does the unit consolidating into them have to make a morale check? If they do and lose is there the chance of sweeping advance? Would the unit consolidated into then get their own consolidation move?

Hadn't really thought about that part, really. Your thoughts?


Uhhhh, can we just keep matters simple and good as now, and simply do not bother with futile attempts to restore one of worst rules of past :mad: ? Consolitation into new combat was already present in 3rd and 4th ed, and imagine, that was horrible.

Not totally what I was talking about.

Bubble Ghost
27-01-2014, 12:18
I'm not the one considering a Consolidation in to a unit as magically teleporting while a Consolidation that doesn't move in to a unit is not a magical teleport. It is THIS I consider a double standard. Movement is still movement, and D6" doesn't average very far.

You have to stop looking at the events of player turns as though the other army are rooted to the spot while you play yours out. The fact that you can't consolidate into combat is a way of making sure that you don't get to jump ahead and use a mere quirk of the resolution mechanics - i.e., that units become "locked in combat" when you tag them with movement - to steal actions from the other army which they could reasonably have taken in response to yours, and which, more to the point, it is unreasonable to deny them in the context of the battle as a whole.

Importantly, if that unit were in any way still active while in close combat, it wouldn't be an issue. If the option existed to call a retreat in your movement phase, for example. In fact in this case, your idea might actually make a little sense (see below), while also becoming unnecessary. But a unit is sucked out the game while it is engaged in close combat, and the abiliy to retaliate has also been taken away from the entire enemy army - each close combat is basically a little pocket universe where no gameplay is allowed. And that means you shouldn't get to suck units into them ahead of time. That's the action which needs to be prevented. It's not anything as simple as wanting to stop that unit from hitting people - htting people would be fine if the ability to take the retaliatory action they should intuitively have been allowed at some point were still available to the other army.

So yes, it is an arbitary restriction, and appears not to make sense, but it is a restriction on a unit's use of time, not space. The restriction on space happens because that is the only way the game has at its disposal to represent time without drastically changing the game sequence - it is simply saying "you can't get from condition A to condition B without the other army having a chance to do X to you at some point", and so it arbitrarily prevents you from getting to B until the other player has had a chance to do X. It preserves cause and effect.





IConsolation prize? Not quite. It's a gamble. That unit you consolidate in to may just chew your unit up and make it effectively useless, a lot depends on the exact situation.

It's not a gamble Charistoph, there's no decision to make. It's unconditional. Going for the consolidation into combat is always going to be the best option, because the only alternative is to be exposed to the entire army's guns rather than one unit's fists - a unit that can charge you if it wants anyway. And you'll know in advance whether your unit is likely to care about a few incoming hits from any particular target.

Basically, it's glorified overwatch, in some cases better and in some cases worse, that's all - and overwatch fire is there for a reason, it's an important part of the charge mechanics. It's not just an unconditional consolation for getting charged, and would be wholly inadequate if it were intended to be (and when I say getting charged, I mean the way your unit is deactivated and your logical ability to retaliate is probably taken from you. That is what a few hits are not a logical compensation for. I'm not just talking about your unit suffering damage at the hands of a melee unit, that's not the problem).

Your idea, however, is just an unconditional consolation prize. You are continuing to propogate this nonsensical hope that assault units have to use melee combat not to defeat the enemy, but to hide from existence during enemy "turns", something they shouldn't even be aware of. It also means that heavily armoured assault units become even better in relation to lightly armoured ones - for such units, this rule would reduce incoming damage after fighting a combat to as good as nothing, not much different to if the enemy attacks weren't there at all; while it would often be of comparatively little help to lighter units, who are going to suffer more from these incoming hits. And lightly armoured ones are arguably the ones that need the most help.





Maybe I just don't consider it a good idea to "reward" a unit by being the first unit on the firing line.

The current rules don't do that. The unit that was "first in the firing line" is the one that was just destroyed. If your point is that you think nearby units could also be dragged in or engaged at roughly the same time, that's what the rules for multiple charges do. Sure, sometimes you're not going to be able to reach all the units you'd like to with your charge...so they're probably going to retaliate, no? So I'm not seeing the problem with the current rules in this regard. Why should you get a free pass to suck another unit out of the game when the game's standard attacking move wasn't sufficient to reach them?

And that's what consolidating into combat does - it's a second charge in the the same turn. You may not get your actual attacks now, or your charge bonus when you eventually do attack, but the primary benefit of a charge - that you are safe "in combat" and the enemy unit is out of the game - is completely intact. In every meaningful sense regarding the passage of time and your opponent's opportunities to act, you have taken two turns in a row, in a way that the rest of the rules cannot account for.

DoctorTom
27-01-2014, 14:27
Hadn't really thought about that part, really. Your thoughts?

I think there would need to be a morale check, the question would be whether to treat it as a normal combat (despite the side consolidating into the other not getting attacks) or if you just treat it as the equivalent of shooting, requiring 25% casualties. I'd let sweeping advances happen. Of course, it might just be simpler to let the unit being consolidated into have its own overwatch instead, going with a 25% casualty rate triggering a morale check, with the possibility that the unit ends up falling back instead of completing a consolidation into the new unit.

Charistoph
27-01-2014, 17:17
You have to stop looking at the events of player turns as though the other army are rooted to the spot while you play yours out. The fact that you can't consolidate into combat is a way of making sure that you don't get to jump ahead and use a mere quirk of the resolution mechanics - i.e., that units become "locked in combat" when you tag them with movement - to steal actions from the other army which they could reasonably have taken in response to yours, and which, more to the point, it is unreasonable to deny them in the context of the battle as a whole.

Actually, I do realize other units in the enemy's camp are doing things. I'm just as positive that they're not waiting patiently for them to wipe their brothers out to shoot their killers. In addition, I'm just as positive that most units will not stand around counting heads after they devastate a unit and try to get to the best cover they can before the ordnance starts flying. In some cases, that's moving to Engage another unit.

And it's not like proper unit placement couldn't make even doing that a severe challenge.


Importantly, if that unit were in any way still active while in close combat, it wouldn't be an issue. If the option existed to call a retreat in your movement phase, for example. In fact in this case, your idea might actually make a little sense (see below), while also becoming unnecessary. But a unit is sucked out the game while it is engaged in close combat, and the abiliy to retaliate has also been taken away from the entire enemy army - each close combat is basically a little pocket universe where no gameplay is allowed. And that means you shouldn't get to suck units into them ahead of time. That's the action which needs to be prevented. It's not anything as simple as wanting to stop that unit from hitting people - htting people would be fine if the ability to take the retaliatory action they should intuitively have been allowed at some point were still available to the other army.

Two problems with this paragraph.

One is assuming there can't there be a Flee! reaction in 40K, either to a charge or Consolidation. True we haven't brought it up, but we haven't really said no, either. I find no problem with it whatsover, even if it restores a Fantasy element in to the game.

Second is assuming that once a unit is Engaged it is henseforth inviolate and phased out of reality. This is not the case. Other units may charge in. Scattering Templates can also hit them. The unit cannot be deliberately targeted for Shooting, true, but this isn't WarGun, and these armies are not Skaven (though, I am a bit surprised that 'Nid Swarms shouldn't have a similar rule) and actually care about Friendly Fire.


So yes, it is an arbitary restriction, and appears not to make sense, but it is a restriction on a unit's use of time, not space. The restriction on space happens because that is the only way the game has at its disposal to represent time without drastically changing the game sequence - it is simply saying "you can't get from condition A to condition B without the other army having a chance to do X to you at some point", and so it arbitrarily prevents you from getting to B until the other player has had a chance to do X. It preserves cause and effect.

Which still dismisses other causes and effects that happen on a battlefield. Close combat is a chaotic affair, and usually a neighboring unit's first clue that their neighbor is gone is when the enemy unit charges in to them. You attribute too much omniscience to units and attribute too much unreality to situations.


It's not a gamble Charistoph, there's no decision to make. It's unconditional. Going for the consolidation into combat is always going to be the best option, because the only alternative is to be exposed to the entire army's guns rather than one unit's fists - a unit that can charge you if it wants anyway. And you'll know in advance whether your unit is likely to care about a few incoming hits from any particular target.

Basically, it's glorified overwatch, in some cases better and in some cases worse, that's all - and overwatch fire is there for a reason, it's an important part of the charge mechanics. It's not just an unconditional consolation for getting charged, and would be wholly inadequate if it were intended to be (and when I say getting charged, I mean the way your unit is deactivated and your logical ability to retaliate is probably taken from you. That is what a few hits are not a logical compensation for. I'm not just talking about your unit suffering damage at the hands of a melee unit, that's not the problem).

Quite the contrary. The odds may be lower for some engagements than others, no doubt, but if the choice is getting shot by a squad of Boyz or Engaging a fresh squad of Nobs, some thinking comes in to play. Most of these situations have far too many variables to just simply say that it will always be perfect for the Assaulting unit.

In addition, the winning unit may actually been poor at Assault and want to avoid Engaging another unit.


The current rules don't do that. The unit that was "first in the firing line" is the one that was just destroyed. If your point is that you think nearby units could also be dragged in or engaged at roughly the same time, that's what the rules for multiple charges do. Sure, sometimes you're not going to be able to reach all the units you'd like to with your charge...so they're probably going to retaliate, no? So I'm not seeing the problem with the current rules in this regard. Why should you get a free pass to suck another unit out of the game when the game's standard attacking move wasn't sufficient to reach them?

Actually, they do put them first on the firing line, as in the first to be executed. A unit winning an Assault is usually in prime position to be shot out by the opposing team's friends, though, not always.

And could you quit with the hyperbole of a unit disappearing when Engaged. It does not match the actual rules of the game.


And that's what consolidating into combat does - it's a second charge in the the same turn. You may not get your actual attacks now, or your charge bonus when you eventually do attack, but the primary benefit of a charge - that you are safe "in combat" and the enemy unit is out of the game - is completely intact. In every meaningful sense regarding the passage of time and your opponent's opportunities to act, you have taken two turns in a row, in a way that the rest of the rules cannot account for.

And it's not always a second charge. It may have been the first one for that unit this turn. You are assuming that the winner was the Assaulting unit, it may have been the defender, and that this was in the very first round of fighting.

But, we get the real meat of your opinion. 40K isn't only about Shooting. Assault isn't just about protecting units from shooting. That's a tertiary benefit at best. It's primary purpose is to wipe a unit out, and is still the fastest way to do it, aside from Demolisher Shells and the like. It's secondary purpose is to tarpit a unit and limit a unit's responses.

Bubble Ghost
27-01-2014, 18:20
OK, I'll stop trying to explain the whole passage of time thing, and why a unit locked into a close combat is to any meaningful extent out of the game (no, it hasn't literally disappeared, and that's obviously not what I was saying), and why the multiple charge rules do everything that you seem to want consolidating into combat to do but without implausibly robbing actions from the other player on top. I don't know how many more ways I can phrase it all.

But ask yourself this. What if there were no consolidation move at all? What if you just finished your turn when you finish attacking, just like you do with a shooting attack? A consolidation is only really a tidying up move, after all. So what if it didn't exist? Would you still be finding it so hard to believe that a unit couldn't combo into a second target? Or is it just that given that this move exists, you find it silly you can't use it to start a new combat?

Charistoph
27-01-2014, 20:30
OK, I'll stop trying to explain the whole passage of time thing, and why a unit locked into a close combat is to any meaningful extent out of the game (no, it hasn't literally disappeared, and that's obviously not what I was saying), and why the multiple charge rules do everything that you seem to want consolidating into combat to do but without implausibly robbing actions from the other player on top. I don't know how many more ways I can phrase it all.

Good, you were doing an absolutely horrible job trying to convey it. If you can come up with some better analogies, I wouldn't mind, but let's face it, you are pretty locked on one specific viewpoint which is causing you to perceive this through only one perspective without even considering any others.

I am not trying to "implausibly [rob] actions from the other player", I'm just trying to not punish a unit for being successful, which you seem to be hell bent on keeping in play. Did the full Consolidation in to Combat thing need to be removed? Yes. But does that mean we have to punish units for being TOO good?

As for this being another version of multiple charge, or what it is supposed to do, not quite. Multiple Charge is designed to charge multiple units at the same time that can be reached by the charge. Personally, I think the Multiple Charge rule should be a default if you CAN charge more than one unit, but I don't see the logic of it needing to be a Disordered Charge. And it's not out of the realm of possibility to NOT being able to perform a Multiple Charge and still be able to Consolidate in to another unit because of how people spread their units to avoid getting hit by Blasts from the enemy (which I should note is another reason that would make this Consolidate to Engagement to be more difficult), at least until they are maneuvered to Charge the same target.


But ask yourself this. What if there were no consolidation move at all? What if you just finished your turn when you finish attacking, just like you do with a shooting attack? A consolidation is only really a tidying up move, after all. So what if it didn't exist? Would you still be finding it so hard to believe that a unit couldn't combo into a second target? Or is it just that given that this move exists, you find it silly you can't use it to start a new combat?

For me, it is because this movement exists. It's not like the Movement Phase where you can Charge after it, which gives a good reason why you can't Move into Engagement (which would actually be quite stupid because of the bonuses a Charge gives you). If you have time to move in to very close Cover or dress your lines, you can use the same amount of time to get close enough to touch someone (provided they are in the same range), which is why I find your "time" argument is little more than a cow's opinion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIkJ4BUChxI).

edit: It's also interesting that you consider the actions in a subsequent turn to have a higher temporal priority than actions in the current turn. How bizarre.

Bubble Ghost
27-01-2014, 22:02
Good, you were doing an absolutely horrible job trying to convey it. If you can come up with some better analogies, I wouldn't mind, but let's face it, you are pretty locked on one specific viewpoint which is causing you to perceive this through only one perspective without even considering any others.

I could say that almost verbatim about you!

Your "For me, it is because this movement exists" comment demonstrates exactly what single perspective you're locked into, too. The logic you are trying to use - "I can move 6", so why can't I move 6" that way?" - only makes sense if you look at that single moment in complete isolation from any context. But in practice, that 6" move is very conditional to begin with - you only get it at all if you've fought a combat, after all. Your "look, it says on this D6 that in this amount of time I can move this far, so it's silly that I can't go to this particular place" argument holds no water at all - what are all the other units doing in that amount of time, the ones who can't go any place because they weren't in combat?

All a consolidation move is supposed to do is let you rearrange after a combat. It's not meant to let you start new fights, so it doesn't. It permits you movement but no other gaming moves. It really isn't any more complicated than that. I think you're looking at it the wrong way round - you're thinking "I can move 6", but why can't I move that particular 6"?" But actually, it's not table distance you've been given, to do with as you please; it's just the chance to rearrange your unit a little bit, and prevent the other player from being able to dictate exactly where he wants your unit standing during his turn (that was a huge problem with Mordheim, for instance). That is the gaming move you have been permitted to carry out, so you get it and no others. It would be a bizarre side effect if you could use that particular gaming device to launch a new combat. It always was bizarre when it existed in the rules.

Whatever you think of me, can you perhaps accept there's a reason they got rid of it and have not reintroduced it?




I am not trying to "implausibly [rob] actions from the other player", I'm just trying to not punish a unit for being successful, which you seem to be hell bent on keeping in play. Did the full Consolidation in to Combat thing need to be removed? Yes. But does that mean we have to punish units for being TOO good?

Good lord, no! I hate that about the game. Units preferring to lose combats rather than win them is my single biggest hate with the system at the moment. It's pathetic that you're punished for winning.

Allowing consolidating into combat is a truly wretched excuse for a fix for it, though. Absolutely godawful. It really, really is. It both fails to solve that problem in any meaningful way, and introduces a ton of others.

Charistoph
28-01-2014, 02:53
Your "For me, it is because this movement exists" comment demonstrates exactly what single perspective you're locked into, too. The logic you are trying to use - "I can move 6", so why can't I move 6" that way?" - only makes sense if you look at that single moment in complete isolation from any context. But in practice, that 6" move is very conditional to begin with - you only get it at all if you've fought a combat, after all. Your "look, it says on this D6 that in this amount of time I can move this far, so it's silly that I can't go to this particular place" argument holds no water at all - what are all the other units doing in that amount of time, the ones who can't go any place because they weren't in combat?

Yes, because that's how the rule is written. It actually does hold water because that is how the rule is written. I'll get in to intentions in to the next bit. I'm just following logical steps as they are occurring in the game and searching for balance with a mix of reality.


All a consolidation move is supposed to do is let you rearrange after a combat. It's not meant to let you start new fights, so it doesn't. It permits you movement but no other gaming moves. It really isn't any more complicated than that. I think you're looking at it the wrong way round - you're thinking "I can move 6", but why can't I move that particular 6"?" But actually, it's not table distance you've been given, to do with as you please; it's just the chance to rearrange your unit a little bit, and prevent the other player from being able to dictate exactly where he wants your unit standing during his turn (that was a huge problem with Mordheim, for instance). That is the gaming move you have been permitted to carry out, so you get it and no others. It would be a bizarre side effect if you could use that particular gaming device to launch a new combat. It always was bizarre when it existed in the rules.

That may have been the intention of the move, but if that's so, then they should have just presented it as the rest of the models in the unit being able to move to be in coherence with the last model that was Engaged, instead of allowing every single model in the unit to make a Run in any direction. But that still doesn't change the biggest bug-bear of them all, and that's a successful unit being able to be punished or at least hoping they aren't TOO successful at the wrong time.


Whatever you think of me, can you perhaps accept there's a reason they got rid of it and have not reintroduced it?

From what I understand, combat became a conga line from one end of the board to another, and no I wouldn't want that. And it's not like I haven't seen some really bad ideas continue on despite the gamers' opinions.


Good lord, no! I hate that about the game. Units preferring to lose combats rather than win them is my single biggest hate with the system at the moment. It's pathetic that you're punished for winning.

Allowing consolidating into combat is a truly wretched excuse for a fix for it, though. Absolutely godawful. It really, really is. It both fails to solve that problem in any meaningful way, and introduces a ton of others.

Obviously, I disagree on the "Absolutely godawful" part, but what solution can there possibly be that wouldn't be "Absolutely godawful" for one side or the other?

Bubble Ghost
28-01-2014, 12:42
Yes, because that's how the rule is written. It actually does hold water because that is how the rule is written. I'll get in to intentions in to the next bit. I'm just following logical steps as they are occurring in the game and searching for balance with a mix of reality.

That's the whole problem - you're following steps, looking only at the spatial and not the temporal context.

But anyway, I think we've done that one now. On to the more constructive stuff.




Obviously, I disagree on the "Absolutely godawful" part, but what solution can there possibly be that wouldn't be "Absolutely godawful" for one side or the other?

Do you perhaps mean that when you make a change, sombody's army will always have to be the one that gets "weaker"?

If so: sure, you're right. There is no solution that preserves the precise status quo, so someone, somewhere will always be able to bitch that their army has been "nerfed". But that wasn't what I was talking about.

The problem with the whole the whole thought process that leads to restoring consolidation into combat is that you're addressing only the power imbalance in that one moment, and not looking at knock on effects. You're making assault units more powerful and giving them more protection (on paper), but at what cost?


Being stuck "in combat" and unable to take any decisions involving a unit is one of the most frustrating elements of 40K, and this makes sure it happens a lot more often - since with the consolidated-into unit, you don't even have the usual chance to lose this combat and run away before your turn is taken from you. There is literally nothing you can even hope to do about it. Oh, hang on, there is something you can do - you can...
...space your units 8.6" apart - wasting a ton of time to achieve nothing but what already happens in the game anyway, i.e. that assault units don't consolidate into new targets.
This is also an unintuitive and dramatically unsatisfying practice - making sure units are isolated from each other, left alone to die, is exactly the opposite of what it feels like you ought to be doing. Suffering for having units supporting each other is illogical and unsatisfying, even before you take into account that this suffering comes in the form of having a second unit locked away where you can't do anything with it - and knowing what is pretty much the exact "safe distance" at which to be from comrades really hammers home how silly it is.
Which all means the only people who are going to be caught out are newbies, for whom this unintuitive sucker punch is not exactly going to endear them to the game, and people with the nerve to pick armies with lots of models and thus not have enough space to spread out into.


Consolidating into combat therefore not only comes with a ton of baggage, it doesn't even do what you're putting it there to do. It offers protection - in the form of removing interaction from the game, no less - to assault units only in very limited situations that have little to do with battlefield tactics, and everything to do with unintuitive, arbitrary-feeling penalties for new players and those who pick certain types of army list. It's also an incentive for those who are aware of this silly, lurking penalty to pick MSU armies, to maximise spacing and minimise the penalty if it goes wrong.

So, bottom line. Your options with regard to consolidating into combat are:


Allow it, encouraging those with the secret knowledge to jump through a ton of weird hoops while punishing those without for no explicable reason, and leaving assault units generally no better off, still hoping not to do too well;
Or, to achieve exactly the same net effect but without weird unilateral side effects: just not allow it in the first place.



There are a ton of things you could add that would achieve the aim of making assault units actually want to win, but in a more intuitive and, just as importantly, consistent way that always applies - basically by getting rid of the whole idea of "hiding in combat" in the first place, so it does not exist as something assaulting units can shoot for. You could change the morale system and get rid of "fall back moves" entirely, and let people drop away from combat in their movement phase. You could just let everyone fail morale tests by choice. You could allow firing into combat. You could get rid of the idea of being "in combat" at all. Not all of them are appropriate in imagery terms for 40K, since it's quite invested in the idea of the ongoing struggle, and I think that's fine, but you can work with that without this current binary state of either not in combat at all, or in combat and totally helpless.



Objective mode off, personal opinion mode on: The aboslute easiest way I can think of to do it would just to be to allow people to deliberately fail morale tests in combat, and then add a little protection (not much, and conditional) for the victorious unit, representing confusion and hesitation as the melee breaks up. Shrouded or half BS or something. That would mean you were no longer aiming to pull punches to shelter, but to inflict as much damage as possible, since you'd know there was no benefit to inflicting less. Also, since being exposed after a round of combat is hardly something assault units don't usually have to deal with anyway, it's actually a buff for them too, on balance.

I'd be tempted to also add an incentive for the defending unit to hold, in the form of buffs (initiative 10, furious charge, whatever) to any unit that charges into an ongoing combat, i.e. that comes rushing to their assistance - evoking the idea of the unit that recieves the charge heroically holding on until help arrives. Not always going to be the best option, but ensures that it will be more often than it currently is, and adds rules acknowledgement of that heroic rescue, helping making that moment you pass a Leadership test and the ensuing counter-charge more dramatic.

So almost everybody is better off - nobody is hoping to lose, and nobody feels unfairly and implausibly shackled. The combat result becomes the dramatic moment it should be.

(incidentally, another idea I had was that state of the enemy being unaware of the exact location or identity of a unit, thus hesitating, could be a general rule that would also apply to units arriving from reserve, until they shoot. So the same rule would help close combat units twice - and not in the usual way we try to help close combat units, which is to stop the opposing player from doing anything)



But that's just me. That's not the only way you could do it, it's just the best I personally can think of. I'm really just saying that consolidation into combat definitely isn't the way to fix it.

Makaber
28-01-2014, 14:58
The only house rule I use is how woods work: I ignore the trees for LoS purposes, and instead, shooting through the area marked as woods gives a 5+ cover save to everything beyond it. It just saves a lot of trouble dealing with the damn trees getting in the way of models. Now, I can move them out of the way if I need to, and the mechanical impact on the game is fairly identical, anyway.

You might recognize this as the Warhammer rules for woods.

Ed.: I also want to make some sort of house ruling preventing a model with Shrouded from becoming harder to hit by moving closer to the enemy during night fighting. It's very silly. I don't know how to formulate it, though.

Charistoph
28-01-2014, 15:39
That's the whole problem - you're following steps, looking only at the spatial and not the temporal context.

Movement is movement. There is always a temporal context to proper movement, not just spatial, why do you think otherwise?



Being stuck "in combat" and unable to take any decisions involving a unit is one of the most frustrating elements of 40K, and this makes sure it happens a lot more often - since with the consolidated-into unit, you don't even have the usual chance to lose this combat and run away before your turn is taken from you. There is literally nothing you can even hope to do about it. Oh, hang on, there is something you can do - you can...

Ah, I see now. You see Combat as being "outside the game" with no decisions whatsoever (not always true), which makes it frustrating for you. The REAL problem isn't Consolidation in to Engagement or Combat, it's that you think Combat sucks, period.

Keep in mind that Consolidation in to Combat is still in Fantasy, and while it frustrates people at times, they are fully aware of it and plan for it. What I propose is far less game-breaking than that. Of course, they do have Charge Reactions, which I do agree with, and all we're really missing now is the Flee! option.


...space your units 8.6" apart - wasting a ton of time to achieve nothing but what already happens in the game anyway, i.e. that assault units don't consolidate into new targets.

8.6"? That's a random number.

Just keeping 3-4" from your neighboring friend ought to do it. Most models have a minimum base size of 1" to begin with. During the Movement Phase, the distance between models of a unit is usually 1-2" to minimize Template damage. This shrinks down as Combat ensues with Pile-Ins, but only for that unit, and can further increase the distance between it and neighbors. After all is said and done, it is quite possible, even probable to end a Movement Phase 2" from a neighboring unit, but 5" away at the end of the Assault Phase, and well over 6" (maximum Consolidation range) from the unit that destroyed it. And that's assuming the Charging unit one in the first place and the first round.

And since it's very difficult for an Assault to be a complete surprise, one could easily have an equally or more fearsome Assault unit in perfect range to be Consolidated in to (or at least, double think Charging the weaker unit in the first place).


This is also an unintuitive and dramatically unsatisfying practice - making sure units are isolated from each other, left alone to die, is exactly the opposite of what it feels like you ought to be doing. Suffering for having units supporting each other is illogical and unsatisfying, even before you take into account that this suffering comes in the form of having a second unit locked away where you can't do anything with it - and knowing what is pretty much the exact "safe distance" at which to be from comrades really hammers home how silly it is.

I just demonstrated how it's really not as bad as you think. Next time you play the game, count how many times your unit or your opponent's could Consolidate in to Engagement range of a nearby unit. And that's with it not even being allowed.

And saying you can't do anything in Combat is a joke. 6th Edition has added something you can actively do. Some units have always had the option of Hit & Run. And there is always the choice to just Charge in with your own units to try and clean it up faster.


Which all means the only people who are going to be caught out are newbies, for whom this unintuitive sucker punch is not exactly going to endear them to the game, and people with the nerve to pick armies with lots of models and thus not have enough space to spread out into.

Not really. Only those people who would be caught out are those who forget/misremember the rules, who weren't trained properly in the first place, and who have not read the BRB in the first place. Of course, that may have been your training experience and/or how you train people to play the game, so I could easily see the concern from that perspective.


Consolidating into combat therefore not only comes with a ton of baggage, it doesn't even do what you're putting it there to do. It offers protection - in the form of removing interaction from the game, no less - to assault units only in very limited situations that have little to do with battlefield tactics, and everything to do with unintuitive, arbitrary-feeling penalties for new players and those who pick certain types of army list. It's also an incentive for those who are aware of this silly, lurking penalty to pick MSU armies, to maximise spacing and minimise the penalty if it goes wrong.

1) It's not always Assault units who benefit from it, but they do have the most to gain.
2) Isn't this the Edition where Assault is dead, anyway? Shouldn't we look at reviving it by giving it options?
3) It removes SOME interaction from the game, not all. But then, so does a Vindicator's shell and a Helldrake's flyby...
4) It has a lot to do with battlefield tactics. If I have a Shotgun and my enemy has a rifle, would I be better getting close to rifleboy after stock-butting his buddy and trying to smack him or shoot him at my shotgun's optimum range, or just stand there like an idiot while he Rapid-Fire's my ****?
5) You are correct that it would be limited, because actually pulling it off is a lot harder than you make it.



There are a ton of things you could add that would achieve the aim of making assault units actually want to win, but in a more intuitive and, just as importantly, consistent way that always applies

Okay, let's look at your list.


basically by getting rid of the whole idea of "hiding in combat" in the first place, so it does not exist as something assaulting units can shoot for. ... You could allow firing into combat. ... You could get rid of the idea of being "in combat" at all.

Ah, but you're not necessarily "hiding in combat", but avoiding being shot for being successful. More realistically, shooting in to a melee is far more unintuitive and unrealistic (unless you're Skaven, probably Tyranids, maybe Orks, or maybe a Combat involving Desperate Allies). It is more realistic to not shoot your buddies while they are in a dust up. It's that whole "Friendly Fire" concept most sentients abhore. And you're worried about a unit who can move, happening to choose to move up and smack someone?


You could change the morale system and get rid of "fall back moves" entirely, and let people drop away from combat in their movement phase. You could just let everyone fail morale tests by choice.

Ah, here we have useful suggestions. Again, I never dismissed these concepts, in fact I think they would be quite proper for non-Fearless units. Hit & Run would have to be changed, much like Fleet was, though. Nor do I consider having these the need to exclude the ability to Consolidate in to Combat or Engagement.

Of course, the one complaint that I could see some would have here is that it's becoming more like Fantasy again. :D


Not all of them are appropriate in imagery terms for 40K, since it's quite invested in the idea of the ongoing struggle, and I think that's fine, but you can work with that without this current binary state of either not in combat at all, or in combat and totally helpless.

That's part of the problem you have, you consider Combat to be only binary. You also do not consider other concepts could exist with it. Only now have you started to be constructive instead of obstructive, and that's a good thing.

And yes, they would be appropriate for many units in 40K, but there is also a rules fix to identify where they wouldn't, Fearless.



Ed.: I also want to make some sort of house ruling preventing a model with Shrouded from becoming harder to hit by moving closer to the enemy during night fighting. It's very silly. I don't know how to formulate it, though.

Easiest of all. Night Fighting does not provide Stealth or Shrouded, but instead provides a proper +1/+2 to Cover Saves and a 6+/5+ when not in Cover. Alternatively, if they already have these rules, the maximum shooting range is reduced to the next band. This will allow Stealth and Shrouded to stack with Night Fighting, and make Stealth Suits REALLY nasty at Night. It's either that or go back to To-Hit modifiers.

Bubble Ghost
28-01-2014, 23:27
Movement is movement. There is always a temporal context to proper movement, not just spatial, why do you think otherwise?

You seem to have misread that. I don't think otherwise. I was pointing out that you seem to, since you're looking at the consolidate move only in the context of a snapshot of the gaming table at that precise moment, rather than putting the events depicted by the assault phase in context with turns and phases before and after.





Ah, I see now. You see Combat as being "outside the game" with no decisions whatsoever (not always true), which makes it frustrating for you. The REAL problem isn't Consolidation in to Engagement or Combat, it's that you think Combat sucks, period.

Yes, I do think that, because it does. Close combat in 40K isn't even gaming. It's fine as a one-off move to destroy an enemy or take some ground, but things get soporific as soon as people start exploiting the rules in unintuitive ways to shackle enemy units or turn themselves invisible.





8.6"? That's a random number.

Figure plucked out of the air to represent slghtly more than 6" plus allowance for bases. It was parodical.





You also do not consider other concepts could exist with it. Only now have you started to be constructive instead of obstructive, and that's a good thing.

:wtf:I've held these opinions right from the start. I've posted thoughts and ideas on this subject on a ton of threads. I barely shut up about this subject on this forum, I must sound like I stuck record on this topic to some people. And I've been talking about the importance of context in almost every post I've made on this thread. And you're telling me I'm "only now being constructive"!? You've been talking about how wonderful consolidating into close combat is, so that's what I've been responding to. If you want me to know you're talking about anything else, it kind of needs to be you that says so.

If you mean to say I haven't looked at what else you could change to make consolidating into combat work, then no, I haven't - because neither you nor anyone else has provided a reason as to why it's necessary in the first place. You've come up with some half-assed "well it wouldn't be that stupid, and it wouldn't always cause that problem" defences where I've pointed out the very strong criticisms of the idea, but that's all. No actual reason for wanting to include it in the first place, other than that it would help assault units hide from being shot at (which I thought we'd agreed is not what close combat should be about), and your own odd refusal to deal with the fact that the game has decided you are allowed to start one close combat per turn.

Mind if I ask what it is you think consolidating into combat is meant to achieve? What helpful effect do you imagine it will have? And why is it the best way to achieve that effect, when it also comes with many negative side effects?

Charistoph
29-01-2014, 04:16
You seem to have misread that. I don't think otherwise. I was pointing out that you seem to, since you're looking at the consolidate move only in the context of a snapshot of the gaming table at that precise moment, rather than putting the events depicted by the assault phase in context with turns and phases before and after.

???:wtf:??? Aside from the actual events IN the Assault Phase where a unit is destroyed in one way or another, there is no connection given between Consolidation and any other Phase, except in your own head.

Or are you talking more about the consequences of such actions? Because right now, there is very little except the range from other units at the end of Consolidation. You talk about a boring Combat Phase, but just fiddling around afterward does little to change that aspect.


Yes, I do think that, because it does. Close combat in 40K isn't even gaming. It's fine as a one-off move to destroy an enemy or take some ground, but things get soporific as soon as people start exploiting the rules in unintuitive ways to shackle enemy units or turn themselves invisible.

It can, true. But that depends on two factors and both are conducive to what USRs and Unit Types are involved. Challenges can be used to spice things up, but not every unit has Characters available to it. Hit & Run can also change things up, but it is even more rare than Characters. And there is always the possibility of multiple weapon types and options (especially with 'Nids). I do agree that it could use a little more spicing up in the decision department, though.



:wtf:I've held these opinions right from the start. I've posted thoughts and ideas on this subject on a ton of threads. I barely shut up about this subject on this forum, I must sound like I stuck record on this topic to some people. And I've been talking about the importance of context in almost every post I've made on this thread. And you're telling me I'm "only now being constructive"!? You've been talking about how wonderful consolidating into close combat is, so that's what I've been responding to. If you want me to know you're talking about anything else, it kind of needs to be you that says so.

So you've written on it in a lot of threads, so what? Am I to do hours of research on every thread contributor that could be used on more productive things?

That still doesn't address that you haven't been very constructive HERE.


If you mean to say I haven't looked at what else you could change to make consolidating into combat work, then no, I haven't - because neither you nor anyone else has provided a reason as to why it's necessary in the first place. You've come up with some half-assed "well it wouldn't be that stupid, and it wouldn't always cause that problem" defences where I've pointed out the very strong criticisms of the idea, but that's all. No actual reason for wanting to include it in the first place, other than that it would help assault units hide from being shot at (which I thought we'd agreed is not what close combat should be about), and your own odd refusal to deal with the fact that the game has decided you are allowed to start one close combat per turn.

I have given reasons, but you reject them as practical because of your intense distaste and disdain for the rules of Combat.


Mind if I ask what it is you think consolidating into combat is meant to achieve? What helpful effect do you imagine it will have? And why is it the best way to achieve that effect, when it also comes with many negative side effects?

Are you blind and forgetful? I've said it numerous times in this thread. It is meant to use an already authorized movement after a successful Combat to relocate in to Engagement range to a unit close enough TO be Engaged.

Is it the best way to remove the punishment of being successful in Combat? I don't know. It's currently the best I can think of right now as opposed to being unable to be shot at all in the next Shooting Phase.

As to why does it come with negative side effects? Which ones? If you're talking about what I propose, it's to keep it from doing what you claim I am doing, a unit having a second Assault Phase.

If you're talking about standard Combat "negative side effects", I can't help you because you only want to talk about how irredeemably bad Combat is.

Son of Sanguinius
29-01-2014, 05:48
Get a room, you two. ;)


A. Allies
1. Ally Limitations - Allies are limited to 1 HQ, 2 Troops, 1 Elite, 1 Fast Attack and 1 Heavy Support, which use slots from the primary detachment

Seems like this is too broad of a change to prevent a few particularly abusable combos.


B. Shooting
1. Snap Fire - All Snap Fire shots are resolved at full BS, however all successful rolls must be rerolled. Twin-linked only applies to the first roll.

Don't like this. Extra re-rolling on top of all the game's re-rolls does not speed up the game. Subtract Ballistic Skill by 2 if you want, but in my opinion Snap Fire shouldn't be in the game in the first place. :)


2. Look Out Sir! - Change an Independant Character's LoS! roll to 3+ and a regular characters roll to a 5+

Eh, I don't see the necessity. Doesn't speed up or slow down the game as far as I can tell.


3. Cover - I'm struck but how MEQ rarely benefit from cover (especially in our meta with its lack of AP3), is there a way to fix this while letting GEQ still utilise it equally? Ideally it would confer a modifier to the 'To Hit' roll, but 40K has done away with that so... thoughts?

40k has not done away with it. Ballistic Skill modifiers are still in the game. And this is a rules rewrite, so if it proves effective, why not use it?


C. Assault
1. Charge Distances - Random charge distances are removed and all units charge as they did under 5th edition. Units that now get Hammer of Wrath keep it (including jump infantry) and the Fleet USR provides an additional D6" to charge range.

Like the first part, don't like the last. Fleet should let units run up to the full distance if their controller so chooses. Or just add 3" to the distance a unit runs.


2. Assaulting out of Vehicles - Units may assault out of vehicles that did not move in the Movement phase.

I believe all vehicles should be treated as assault vehicles but that their needs to be restrictions on how vehicles can turn and where units deploy out of them.


3. Challenges - Honestly don't know how to fix these, just know they need fixing. They're hardly ever cinematic and almost always involve the player with the weaker character (often DA sergeants in our case) declaring challenges to protect the squad from a powerful character. Suggestions?

You could allow the winner a bigger effect on combat resolution. Also, remove Glorious Intervention.


4. Consolidation - Units that are eligible to consolidate after a victorious combat can use their consolidate move to charge into another enemy unit. The target unit may Overwatch as usual, which may cause the charge to fail. This charge counts as a Disordered Charge and the combat is resolved in the subsequent Assault phase.

Fine with this.


D. Miscellaneous
1. Warlord Table - Rather than rolling randomly on a table, roll to select a table (1-2 Command, 3-4 Strategic, 5-6 Personal) then pick the trait you want from the table. Or roll for Codex Warlord Traits as usual.

My recommendation is to balance out the Warlord Traits and allow players to choose their Warlord's trait.

Bubble Ghost
29-01-2014, 16:36
Charistoph, if you want to respond to this, let's take it to PM, but I'm kind of blown out on this now. Up to you.



Aside from the actual events IN the Assault Phase where a unit is destroyed in one way or another, there is no connection given between Consolidation and any other Phase, except in your own head.

I don't see how this statement reconciles with your earlier acknowledgement of the fact that armies are not literally carrying out actions in the order the players do, and standing motionless at other times. If you truly bought into that, you would realise why the statement you made here isn't true. The game permits you a given amount of action in any one of its turns, and if you've already taken the prescribed amount of that action, you don't get to do it again - because that "again" is only "again" from our perpective as players, not necessarily that of the armies, for whom our orderly turn sequence represents events which are much more interwoven.

So, of course consolidation connects to every other phase, and to previous and subsequent turns too. Apparently arbitrary restrictions like not being able to consolidate into combat are there to make sure conincidences of other game mechanics don't let you do more in a turn than you're supposed to be able to, or affect more enemies than you should - to have cake and eat it.

So what I don't understand is why you're having such trouble with the idea that only charge moves are allowed to start fights, because the game has made a clear, intentional decision that this is the amount of action you can reasonably either carry out yourself or deprive to the enemy army before they get a chance. I also don't understand why it is that when the game has so many types of movement during which you are not allowed to move into the enemy, it is in the case of consolidation alone that you find this impossible to believe in a narrative sense. I mean, you can't emergency disembark into combat either - does that make no sense too? "But I'm allowed to move 3", why can't I move 3" into that unit??"

There is absolutely no storyline reason why being able to consolidate into combat is required for believability. This means you need a gameplay reason to add it. And...



Are you blind and forgetful? I've said it numerous times in this thread. It is meant to use an already authorized movement after a successful Combat to relocate in to Engagement range to a unit close enough TO be Engaged.

....while you've said numerous times WHAT you're doing, you still haven't said WHY you feel it's remotely necessary (beyond helping assault units shelter from incoming fire, which I thought we were in agreement is not what combat should be about...? Hiding in combat is a ridiculous, illogical crutch whch, yes, you can be denied by doing "too well" - but your response to this is to give units assistance in claiming that crutch more often, rather than just removing the crutch. Frankly, I think that is fundamentally the wrong approach)

If assault units need an incentive to win a combat, rather than be punished for being successful, that's something I strongly agree with. But I also feel just as strongly that said incentive shouldn't come in the form of assistance in further exploiting a flaw in the rules. That's just insane. I have pointed out criticisms of the idea, to which your responses have essentially been "I don't think they'd be as bad you made them sound"; and I've also pointed why it wouldn't even really achieve what you want it to achieve, to which your response has been "well it could, maybe, sometimes." Not much of an endorsement.

So why on earth would I look at ways of incorporating it? You need to provide some sort of redeeming feature if you're going to give anyone any reason to look at ways of working it into the game. What I've been doing here is not just heckling that it's a terrible idea, as you seem to believe I'm doing; I've also been continually trying to explain why I think that. And frankly, I think that is pretty constructive - which is why it annoyed me so much when you threw that accusation at me. If you'd said anything to convince me that consolidating into combat is worth including at all, or has anything but the negative effects I've described, then it would be worth looking at ways of making it work. But as it is, you're just calling me obstructive because I haven't considered ways in which excrement could be incorporated into sandwiches. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to have to be convinced why I should consider that at all.

Poseidal
30-01-2014, 12:52
My thoughts on the assault rules largely in here (it had developed past the OP later in the thread, the main point is the present the 'idea' rather than the exact mechanics of the fix) - http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?382867-Solving-Not-Wanting-to-Win-on-your-turn-in-40k

In terms of snap fire, I would personally limit it so heavy weapons (or above, e.g. ordnance) can't snap fire (except on move+fire platforms like Relentless or vehicle models) as such unwieldy weapons wouldn't be able to be brought to bear quickly.

Charistoph
31-01-2014, 04:18
....while you've said numerous times WHAT you're doing, you still haven't said WHY you feel it's remotely necessary (beyond helping assault units shelter from incoming fire after being successful....)

Ah, so you WERE paying attention.

Be that as it may, most of what I would prefer to do to 40K would require a huge revamp and not possible to be an easy 6th Edition House Rule (of course, neither is Consolidation in to Combat/Engagement ;)). Of course, I may be biased as my first TT game was Battletech.

Game Turn
Movement Phase
Player 1 Moves
Player 2 Moves
- Run/Turbo-boost/Flat-Out performed here.

Shooting Phase
Player 1 Shoots
Player 2 Shoots
- Where Available

Assault Phase
Player 1 performs Assault Moves
- These Jet Pack and Battle Focus post-Shooting moves
Player 2 performs Assault Moves
Player 1 Declares Charges
- Units receiving Charges Decide to Hold or Fall Back
- Units Falling Back move D6" away from Charger
- Fearless Units must Hold
Player 1 performs Charges
Player 2 Declares Charges
Player 2 performs Charges
Combat is resolved
Units may choose to Flee on a Leadership Test, Fearless must stay
Units Consolidate by finishing all Pile In moves


This would require some codex changes. Eldar Battle Focus and Jet Pack Thrusting will be changed to be after the Shooting Phase and before Charges are declared. Synapse, while still Fearless, maybe allow units to Fall Back and Flee, but without an Ld test?

Add in a rule, Life is Cheap: If models with this rule, and none in your army without it, are Engaged in Combat, the units they are Engaged with may be fired upon, provided they are otherwise valid targets. To-Hit Rolls of 1 and 2 are resolved against these models unless the weapon has the Gets Hot rule, even if they would otherwise Hit. Weapons that do not roll To-Hit must roll a D6 for each model hit. On a 1-2, they are resolved against this unit.

All units allied under Desperate Allies rules automatically have this rule. Termagants, Hormagaunts, Gargoyles, Grots, Chaos Cultists, and Plague Zombies will be errata'd to have this rule (and any applicable ones we can think of, those are just the ones I could think of).

Bubble Ghost
01-02-2014, 15:30
Ah, so you WERE paying attention.

Oh come on, man, don't go out like that. My point, as you must know, was that you offered up no reason why the consolidate-into-combat solution to doing "too well" is necessary as opposed to a better solution.




Anyway. One challenge you're going to face in 40K with that turn sequence, particularly with charging, is that player 2 can just react to player 1's movement, and in 40K, you have fairly uniform movement rates, no sight arcs, and no manoeuvring rules to make getting out of the way any harder. It's just as easy to move left, right and backwards as forwards, and movement generally costs you no offensive capabilty. This may well mean you end up with units shuffling back and forth in a fairly un-military kind of way - knowing the other side is shooting/charging first this turn and so preferring to be out of range, and having the exact knowledge of where safety lies thanks to the turn sequence.

For example, if I'm moving second this turn and can see my opponent's weapon ranges before I move, I might well end up with the certain knowledge that my Fire Warriors - who are sensibly in cover at the moment - can in fact move back out of cover to a 'safe zone' beyond unit X or Y's weapons range, shoot, and still have the opportunity to move back in again before they can next be attacked. That sort of metagamey dancing around based on certain knowledge you shouldn't have would just feel odd to me - it happens to a certain extent already, but the current alternating turns have the effect of committing a unit to that position and enduring the consequences, which does at least add consistency - this turn sequence would let them escape on a weird technicality every other turn.

Don't get me wrong here, it's not that turn sequence itself that's at fault, it's fine, it works in plenty of games. It's just that 40K's other rules are very heavily invested in the IGO-UGO turn structure, as the commitment that some games force on you with greater resource management comes instead from knowing that your unit will be exposed to retaliation in a given position if it wants to attack from there. It's worthy idea, but I think it would be more work than you'd imagine to successfully extricate the game from IGO-UGO. In fact, I think it might actually be easier to move to unit-by-unit activation than that seemingly simpler idea.

(incidentally, I think the only thing that could be said to be wrong with IGO-UGO is player downtime, and even that only in some environments. In other respects, it may be simple, but it does work, and I don't think change for the sake of not IGO-UGO is reason enough to screw around with it)

But anyway, if you were determined, ways of addressing the problem might be to put charges into the movement phase, like WFB/2nd ed (to stop people dodging out the way of charges); replacing fixed weapon range with a random 'acquire target' roll, similar to the charge roll (so that hedging bets and staying in a better battlefield postion would generally be preferable to moving to a silly position because you mysteriously knew for sure you wouldn't be attacked there); or removing any concept of a charge bonus (so opposing melee units wouldn't dance back and and forth jockeying to be the one who got the bonus). Or add about 50% to all weapon and charge ranges (so there'd more rarely be anywhere safe to back up to).

I suspect you'd still face issues with whoever was moving second being able to ghost out of the way of attacks based on clairvoyant knowledge, though, since movement distances in 40K are comparatively huge compared to attack threat ranges. I'd be curious to see how it worked in practice.

Charistoph
01-02-2014, 22:28
Anyway. One challenge you're going to face in 40K with that turn sequence, particularly with charging, is that player 2 can just react to player 1's movement, and in 40K, you have fairly uniform movement rates, no sight arcs, and no manoeuvring rules to make getting out of the way any harder. It's just as easy to move left, right and backwards as forwards, and movement generally costs you no offensive capabilty. This may well mean you end up with units shuffling back and forth in a fairly un-military kind of way - knowing the other side is shooting/charging first this turn and so preferring to be out of range, and having the exact knowledge of where safety lies thanks to the turn sequence.

For example, if I'm moving second this turn and can see my opponent's weapon ranges before I move, I might well end up with the certain knowledge that my Fire Warriors - who are sensibly in cover at the moment - can in fact move back out of cover to a 'safe zone' beyond unit X or Y's weapons range, shoot, and still have the opportunity to move back in again before they can next be attacked. That sort of metagamey dancing around based on certain knowledge you shouldn't have would just feel odd to me - it happens to a certain extent already, but the current alternating turns have the effect of committing a unit to that position and enduring the consequences, which does at least add consistency - this turn sequence would let them escape on a weird technicality every other turn.

It's a balance. In BT, Initiative is determined every game turn. The person who wins moves second and shoots first. Unless we look at adding that in, that means that both sides show have an opportunity at Initiative.

Player 2 has it for Movement, Player 1 has it for offensive actions such as Shooting and Charging.



Don't get me wrong here, it's not that turn sequence itself that's at fault, it's fine, it works in plenty of games. It's just that 40K's other rules are very heavily invested in the IGO-UGO turn structure, as the commitment that some games force on you with greater resource management comes instead from knowing that your unit will be exposed to retaliation in a given position if it wants to attack from there. It's worthy idea, but I think it would be more work than you'd imagine to successfully extricate the game from IGO-UGO. In fact, I think it might actually be easier to move to unit-by-unit activation than that seemingly simpler idea.

I don't think they are as heavily invested in the IGO-UGO system as you think. Don't get me wrong, there are many rules that are set up because of it, but they are usually tied in to the base system itself and would be changed anyway.

Unit-by-unit activations come with their own troubles. IG have a very easy capacity to out Activate someone. I've seen some where it's a ratio, and others where it's 1:1 until someone runs out. This usually means trash are activated first and Elites are activated last.


(incidentally, I think the only thing that could be said to be wrong with IGO-UGO is player downtime, and even that only in some environments. In other respects, it may be simple, but it does work, and I don't think change for the sake of not IGO-UGO is reason enough to screw around with it)

Actually, player downtime would be the BIGGEST and consistent problem of IGO-UGO, but it's definitely not the only one. One of the other consequences is the one we've already noted, that of successful units winning in melee and being in prime position to be gunned down right afterward, with no opportunity to act.

Bubble Ghost
02-02-2014, 13:03
I'm just pointing out what I think the issues you'd have to deal with are going to be. If you just alternate who has the initiative each turn, like the Lord of the Rings SBG does, you're going to get that metagamey shuffling back and forth thanks to prior knowledge of events - almost as if you were being a given limited kind of jump-shoot-jump for your whole army every other turn. That effect is not always going to come into play, but is going to be seriously weird when it does, which it will do often enough that you have to address it (unless you just don't care of course). And if you randomise initiative instead, then in a game with only 5-7 turns, and in which so much destruction occurs in any given turn, you risk a huge sense of unfairness and frustration when three or so 50-50 dice rolls go one player's way in a row -which will happen a lot.

Oh, and I wasn't saying unit activation is a good idea. Just comparing it to point out that I don't think pasting this turn sequence straight into 40K (as you seem to be talking about doing) is going to be as simple as it would seem. The mechanics and consequences of movement and the numbers aren't calibrated for it, there would be a million little changes you'd need to make to fine tune it.

What is the problem with the game you're trying to address with this? While I don't agree that "successful units winning in melee and being in prime position to be gunned down right afterward, with no opportunity to act" is the problem (the unit just did act and is now exposed - same as unit making a shooting attack. The problem is the opposite, namely that you can ever "hide in combat" at all), I think we do agree that the root problem there is inconsistency. The effect of a melee combat depends entirely on whose turn it ends in, which is stupid. But that's not an innate problem with the turn sequence. Tons of games make alternating player turns work. All game structures create challenges the specifics of the rules have to be designed around, and it's perfectly within the power of 40K's rules to work around this issue, they just don't bother.

Charistoph
03-02-2014, 02:25
I'm just pointing out what I think the issues you'd have to deal with are going to be. If you just alternate who has the initiative each turn, like the Lord of the Rings SBG does, you're going to get that metagamey shuffling back and forth thanks to prior knowledge of events - almost as if you were being a given limited kind of jump-shoot-jump for your whole army every other turn. That effect is not always going to come into play, but is going to be seriously weird when it does, which it will do often enough that you have to address it (unless you just don't care of course). And if you randomise initiative instead, then in a game with only 5-7 turns, and in which so much destruction occurs in any given turn, you risk a huge sense of unfairness and frustration when three or so 50-50 dice rolls go one player's way in a row -which will happen a lot.

Oh, I know there are problems with it, just as there are problems with the IGO-UGO system currently in place. There are problems with any system, especially as turn-based systems are required on a Table Top. Note, that I didn't recommend an Initiative system, just that it was used in Battletech. As it is, the current, very basic, Initiative system is sufficient, in my belief.


Oh, and I wasn't saying unit activation is a good idea. Just comparing it to point out that I don't think pasting this turn sequence straight into 40K (as you seem to be talking about doing) is going to be as simple as it would seem. The mechanics and consequences of movement and the numbers aren't calibrated for it, there would be a million little changes you'd need to make to fine tune it.

The way I read that line was that is was your preference.

Actually, I think it wouldn't be as hard as you make it change like that. Many of the consequences you think are a problem are no bigger than what we see in the game already. I don't see a reason to adjust the numbers, as things will be lengthened and shortened according to movement anyway.


What is the problem with the game you're trying to address with this? While I don't agree that "successful units winning in melee and being in prime position to be gunned down right afterward, with no opportunity to act" is the problem (the unit just did act and is now exposed - same as unit making a shooting attack. The problem is the opposite, namely that you can ever "hide in combat" at all), I think we do agree that the root problem there is inconsistency. The effect of a melee combat depends entirely on whose turn it ends in, which is stupid. But that's not an innate problem with the turn sequence. Tons of games make alternating player turns work. All game structures create challenges the specifics of the rules have to be designed around, and it's perfectly within the power of 40K's rules to work around this issue, they just don't bother.

I didn't say, ""successful units winning in melee and being in prime position to be gunned down right afterward, with no opportunity to act" is the problem", I said it was A problem, right after mentioning that the BIGGEST problem was lack of opponent interaction.

But that line IS an innate problem, especially when it comes to timing, as if they are successful in their turn, they in the problem field. If they are successful in their opponent's turn, they can then move as normal. This causes a disconnect in results and tactical goals.

One approach in the current system would be to make the possibility of winning in an opponent's phase impossible, like WarmaHordes has done, and only allow the person who "owns" the Turn to use their Attacks. Another is to extremely limit, if not outright restrict, shooting at the successful unit, but then we're back to a similar problem to the one that you so vehemently rejected. But again, there is no perfect solutions.

Bubble Ghost
03-02-2014, 14:54
I didn't say, ""successful units winning in melee and being in prime position to be gunned down right afterward, with no opportunity to act" is the problem", I said it was A problem, right after mentioning that the BIGGEST problem was lack of opponent interaction.

I know you didn't say that. I wasn't suggesting you'd said that the "doing too well in combat" thing is the only issue to do with the turn sequence. I was just disagreeing with your aseessment that units being able to be shot after being successful is why this particular issue is a problem. I feel the opposite: I think it's silly that they can't be shot after doing badly. The emphasis is different, and leads to things like the prior discussion we had on this thread - because you think units should always be relatively safe after winning a combat, while I feel they should never be.

But like I said, my point was that we basically agree the problem is the inconsistency - that units are sometimes safe and sometimes not, and that there is therefore an incentive to exploit this by unintuitively hoping to do badly on your charge. That IS a problem, and I am completely aware that you were not saying you think it is the ONLY one.

But....



IBut that line IS an innate problem...

It really, really is not a problem with the turn sequence. Honestly. Look, you feel it's silly that units can get punished for doing too well in combat, and I agree with that. But the effect can only be a punishment if there is a preferable, alternative state to which it can be compared (in this case, still being locked in combat and thus immune to enemy fire). Remove that alternative state - i.e., remove the possibility that a charging unit can ever hope to remain 'locked in combat', at least if the other player doesn't want them to - and being exposed to fire after winning is therefore no longer a punishment. It's just what always happens, it's how the game works. There's consistency. So the other rules can then be balanced around it. IGO-UGO is not the cause of the "doing too well in combat" problem.

Charistoph
03-02-2014, 15:31
It really, really is not a problem with the turn sequence. Honestly. Look, you feel it's silly that units can get punished for doing too well in combat, and I agree with that. But the effect can only be a punishment if there is a preferable, alternative state to which it can be compared (in this case, still being locked in combat and thus immune to enemy fire). Remove that alternative state - i.e., remove the possibility that a charging unit can ever hope to remain 'locked in combat', at least if the other player doesn't want them to - and being exposed to fire after winning is therefore no longer a punishment. It's just what always happens, it's how the game works. There's consistency. So the other rules can then be balanced around it. IGO-UGO is not the cause of the "doing too well in combat" problem.

Actually it IS a problem with the turn sequence, but it is also a problem with the "Safe in Combat" rule as well, because it is only when those are combined that it is an issue.

To be honest, I prefer having the "Safe in Combat" rule, in general. In reality, most people don't even TRY to shoot their buddies in melee. And while I know 40K isn't realistic, I do agree there should be ways to circumvent that (as with the "Life is Cheap" rule I mentioned above), but it shouldn't be the general rule.

Bubble Ghost
03-02-2014, 16:39
Actually it IS a problem with the turn sequence, but it is also a problem with the "Safe in Combat" rule as well, because it is only when those are combined that it is an issue.

You've been giving the impression that you think this issue is unavoidable given the IGO-UGO system. That's what I've been saying is wrong.




To be honest, I prefer having the "Safe in Combat" rule, in general. In reality, most people don't even TRY to shoot their buddies in melee.

Why are you assuming I'm talking about firing into ongoing combats?

Greyhound
06-02-2014, 21:54
Ok after several discussions I propose the 2 following house rules:

1) Challenge: Rules remain unchanged with one exception, during an assault, the only player who can decide to initiate a challenge is the player making the charge. The unit being charged can chose to accept or refuse, but cannot initiate a challenge if the attacker has not declared one. - Chaos SM: This means that you do not have to challenge when being charged.

2) Wound allocation: wounds are taken from the further model away from the attacker. Armies are back to be moving at full speed with wounds not slowing down their progress, with several benefits/issues:

Moving around:
benefit: units which have to squeeze into several rows to move forward, either because of terrain or simply space on the board are not penalised in their movement. This gives a boost to the ability of
moving around the board which is a key strategic aspect of the game.
Issue: shooting armies cannot slow down the progression of armies walking toward them with their shooting, as they would realistically do. You can't stop a charge with a lucky overwatch.

Fire before assault:
benefit: it is now a always-a-good-option solution. No more holding back your fire before the charge when your enemy as a few models at the front with a risk of failing the charge
Issue: none that I can see.

Key units at the front, fillers at the back:
benefits: the ork nobs now lead the charge (rather than herding the boys to do it), Specialist weapons are in the first row which increases their ranged by a few inches. More "cinematic" role for the characters. The characters can still be ambushed by a flanking attack from the rear. The wounds go straight to them if the ennemy fire from the back
Issue: I can see him, why won't he die!? Well same as Look out sir really.

Blast weapons: Still can take down a character but you have to get a much luckier setup/shooting to be able to have the character as the furthest away from the center of the blast.

Yes, this rule benefits the 'nids, Orks, and IG and give them back more flexibility in movement and strategy.
Yes, this rule impacts less, and somehow 'nerf' more the elite shooting units with low model counts who liked to mow down hordes.
Yes, it is less intuitive/realistic, but it seems to balance the horde armies better, which I personally thought needed a boost outside getting cheaper models or better resistance.

Charistoph
06-02-2014, 23:32
2) Wound allocation: wounds are taken from the further model away from the attacker. Armies are back to be moving at full speed with wounds not slowing down their progress...

Fantasy operates in this manner. I won't really comment on how good or bad this is, I just want to address one misconception you seem to be addressing or miscommunicating: "A unit is slowed down by being shot."

Their rate of progress or speed is not reduced (unless Pinned or moving through Difficult Terrain, of course) by being shot. True, how close they are to an objective/target is changed, but that's not the same thing at all.

The current system is actually more realistic (though, not perfect, by any means), over all, than this change would be or previous versions of Wound Allocation. It allows for you, the player to have a chance to control who gets shot when in your unit, and makes flanking or hitting from the rear a valid and worthwhile tactic.

Greyhound
07-02-2014, 00:35
By speed I meant: velocity.
Which is the distance divided by how long it takes.

6 ranks of 5 orks, when they move take 10 casualties, they therefore lose about 4" of ground in respect to how close the closest ork is from their target. Considering that ork care about the distance to their target (for both shooting at short range and charging) losing from the front can cost you a turn.

N1AK
07-02-2014, 14:47
Unit-by-unit activations come with their own troubles. IG have a very easy capacity to out Activate someone. I've seen some where it's a ratio, and others where it's 1:1 until someone runs out. This usually means trash are activated first and Elites are activated last.


I play a couple of other games that use 1:1 activation and it normally works pretty well. Force with lots of activations can hold elite units back but it means that the enemies force has all been and done damage earlier. Part of playing 1:1 activation is trying to force your opponent to activate units he doesn't want to by putting them under pressure etc.

1:1 does tend to work slower than Igo-Ugo though because you have to keep going back and forth so I'm not sure it would improve 40K.

Charistoph
07-02-2014, 17:11
By speed I meant: velocity.
Which is the distance divided by how long it takes.

6 ranks of 5 orks, when they move take 10 casualties, they therefore lose about 4" of ground in respect to how close the closest ork is from their target. Considering that ork care about the distance to their target (for both shooting at short range and charging) losing from the front can cost you a turn.

I know where you're coming from, it's just the word choice is poor, and I'm not familiar enough with every military term to offer a better one. Maybe a loss of energy?

The speed and velocity do not change, what changes is how close the front line is. The unit still moves the same distance over time, but "the goal posts keep moving".

This would work for some units, where model variance is down to just posing, while most others can be so varied that they are more mixed up.

From a cinematic view, this would literally accelerate some models as they rush up in a burst of speed to pick up the front man's weapon and/or title to replace him.


I play a couple of other games that use 1:1 activation and it normally works pretty well. Force with lots of activations can hold elite units back but it means that the enemies force has all been and done damage earlier. Part of playing 1:1 activation is trying to force your opponent to activate units he doesn't want to by putting them under pressure etc.

1:1 does tend to work slower than Igo-Ugo though because you have to keep going back and forth so I'm not sure it would improve 40K.

True, but as I said earlier, it would be very easy for Guard, or even Space Marines, to out Activate their opponent's to a rediculous degree, while armies like Grey Knights would struggle. In most of those Unit Activation games, the unit count difference is often minimal, by 2-3, not a factor of 2-3. It would require an interesting restructuring in army building and rules to get it to work in 40K, and probably start working more like an Epic-scale venture close up where actual models have less of an impact. Or where model count drops to reach Kill Team/Necromunda levels.

Not saying it is good or bad, just different.

Zustiur
12-03-2014, 10:26
Last time this topic came up I ended up writing an entirely new edition. This time I've decided to make changes whilst still running the underlying 6th edition 'engine'. I've tried to ensure that each of my changes is simple to implement and doesn't significantly impact the mechanics such as WS and BS.


Morale checks have a -1 penalty if the unit suffered 50% or more casualties in a single phase.
Pinning checks have a -1 penalty if multiple unsaved wounds occurred from a single volley.
Challenges just move the character models into base combat, thus hits must initially target the opposing character before other combatants. Refusal to accept counts as a -1 to combat resolution for that phase (min 0)
Look out sir is limited to once per unit per phase.
Precision shots in melee can target enemy characters regardless of where the models are in the combat.
You can consolidate from one combat to another, IF you can reach the target with half of the d6 consolidation distance. The target unit gets to overwatch immediately but no further attacks are resolved until the next turn.
FOC extends to 1-3 HQ, 3-9 Troops, 0-4 Elite, 0-4 Fast Attack, 0-4 Heavy Support at 2001 points.
Lord of War is 0-1 but also takes up 2 HS choices
Flyers and FMCs are limited to 2
Super MCs (Wraithknight) are limited to 2
Multi Assault is not disordered if you make base to base contact with all models in the target units (good for mopping up stragglers)
Gets Hot! on vehicles becomes a 2+ save instead of 4+
Night Fight Dusk (turns 5-7) is rolled for at the start of the game, not at the beginning of turn 5. The armies should know that the light is fading!
A unit may choose which enemy charging unit to resolve overwatch against
Snapsnots are at a BS penalty of 2 (min 0) rather than flat BS1. e.g. a Space Marine shapshots at a BS of 2, while a Captain is BS 3
Vehicles moving can fire 2 weapons at full BS, not just 1 (possibly make this a Tank rule, rather than all vehicles)
Tanks with turrets may split fire with the turret
The allies FOC takes up slots in the primary FOC
You cannot take unique/special character or units in allied slots
Charge distance becomes 3+d6"
Smash = 1/2 of total attacks instead of 1/2 of base attacks
Armour Penetration against Vehicles in CC are resolved against the next facing. That is, Front = side. Side = rear
Pintle mounted weapons may overwatch
You can disembark and charge in the same turn, BUT only if the vehicle is stationary; this counts as both a disordered charge and as charging through cover.

Ironbone
12-03-2014, 13:15
Except for conslolidation into new combat, i would glady sign up for all these :D.

Zustiur
13-03-2014, 04:36
That's good to know. I tried to be conservative with my changes so that people would more readily accept them.

Sent via Tapatalk 2

Zustiur
15-03-2014, 07:57
one more

25. Swarms are immune to instant death unless the source is also a blast, large blast or template weapon.