PDA

View Full Version : How would YOU 'fix assault'?



Fox Of 9
01-06-2014, 17:18
This is sort of a companion to HelloKitty (http://www.warseer.com/forums/member.php?98657-HelloKitty)s' 'Please esplain "fixing assault" to it (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?394847-Please-esplain-quot-fixing-assault-quot-to-it)' thread.

We've discussed and more often then not argued with whether or not assault is under powered or inferior to shooting but we haven't really said to much in detail how we would "Fix" it. Or even how we could re-adjust the balance, I would like to point out there are currently two fan-made rule books in development in our own Rules development forum (http://www.warseer.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?17-GW-Rules-Development-Forum) by RBLFunk (http://www.warseer.com/forums/member.php?50089-RBLFunk) and Wolf Lord Balrog (http://www.warseer.com/forums/member.php?63561-Wolf-Lord-Balrog).

So I thought i'd be a good idea to separate this into a different thread and to get the ball rolling:

1. Units can charge out of stationary transports.
1.A. Disordered charge if it moved under 6" with possible difficult terrain modifier to represent the having to pile out the back of the transport
1.B. 6" transport movement and over = no charge allowed.

2.Units can consolidate into another unit if they eliminate the squad in one round of combat, but will suffer a penalty to distance the same as difficult terrain and count as a disordered charge and have to also suffer Overwatch. Fight will occur in opponents turn.

Now for me to explain my reasoning for this I think that the first rule allows for assault to happen earlier in the game, but not make it a shove it down the throat and win approach. (which I don't even think many assault units are..) Disordered charge is a nice way to dull that impact but allow it to still have a chance to do more. This set up favors the assault unit slightly but it's only in the initial combat to secondary combat transfer.

Point two. In any story where melee takes place it is a slog to get from one unit to another and it will never be as organised as the first charge, hence charge reduction and disordered charge, to represent them pulling themselves through the mass of combat (also remember 'dead' model are sometime not even dead, just missing a arm or something and have the full ability to slow up a combat unit by a few fatal seconds). The fight happening in the opponents turn allows for them to move their third tier units (first was primary assault. second was secondary assaulted unit) out of the way and set up ready for a counter attack or move their own assault units in to charge and wipe them opponents out that way (This also gives some extra utility to highly mobile assault units such as assault marines allowing them to rapid respond to a break in the line). Your also having to fight through two waves of Overwatch.. which I know isn't something to be ignored in terms of blunting a assault.

Now debate!!



EDIT: revised idea from page 4.

Allow assaulting from stationary vehicles and assaulting from vehicles that move less than 6" but it counts as a disorganized charge.

If the unit beats another in combat and runs the unit down it can only be fired at by snapshots.

If they still have consolidation movement left over they may use this to try and move into contact with another unit in their forward arc. This follows the same order as initiating an assault. They do not gain any bonuses that occur when charging into close combat and the fight will occur in the next turn.
If they fail the secondary charge they can only be fired at by snapshots.

Infantry can charge half their movement allowance plus a D6. For example a space marine squad could charge 3"+D6 for their total charge range.

For the other unit types it gets trickier...

Jet pack troops can choose to move their full movement allowance and then assault half of it plus D6. For example a Tau battlesuit can Charge 6"+D6 for their total charge range. if not assaulting they can use this distance to move freely. (still 6" +D6)

Jump Pack troops can choose to move their full movement allowance and then assault D6 or they can not use their jump packs in the movement phase and only use then in the assault phase and assault 6"+D6. For example a Chaos space marine raptor could walk 6" up the board then in the assault phase assault 6"+D6 using his jump pack.

Assaulting into cover without grenades should be a different modifier not a blanket I1.

Assaulting after your vehicle is destroyed should count as difficult terrain (that grenades will not effect).

Ssilmath
01-06-2014, 17:33
1. Units can charge out of stationary transports.

Sure, why not?


1.A. Disordered charge if it moved under 6" with possible difficult terrain modifier to represent the having to pile out the back of the transport

30 inches of movement before charging. (12 move +6 flat out, then 6 move, 6 disembark). Range of most infantry weapons is 24 inches. Vehicles just got harder to explode. Then on top of that, you've got 2d6-2 (Average 5 inches) for most units. So, on average, 35 inches of movement in 2 turns, coupled with being able to neutralize multiple targets per turn (Multicharge). Disordered charge is not much of a penalty unless charging a similarly equipped enemy unit (Oh noes, a disordered charge into Fire Warriors!).


1.B. 6" transport movement and over = no charge allowed.

No difference from now.


2.Units can consolidate into another unit if they eliminate the squad in one round of combat, but will suffer a penalty to distance the same as difficult terrain and count as a disordered charge and have to also suffer Overwatch. Fight will occur in opponents turn.

You mean an additional 2d6-2 inches (with no movement penalty for those with Move Through cover)? Overwatch is overblown unless it's packing lots of flamers, and the unit consolidating into a new combat is now immune to shooting and (if engaging a shooty unit, which they should be doing) are going to be superior enough combatants that a disordered charge into a new combat is not much of a penalty.

So with this setup, if a unit in a cheap transport (Such as a Rhino) doesn't lose that transport in the first round of shooting (This is easy to spam, by the way), they've crossed a minimum of 30 inches of board with a max of 40 inches and are now immune to being shot from turn 2 onwards. That's not even considering armies that have fast skimmers such as Eldar.

Sounds like a "fun" time to play anything but vehicular assault armies...

Minsc
01-06-2014, 17:36
1) Allow units to charge out of all transports, as long as it stayed stationary in it's movementphase.

2) Give units that win combat and successfully sweep their opponent an option: Either destroy the enemy unit, or lock them in combat for one more round.
(This negates the whole and illogical "I don't want to destroy my opponent when I charge him"-scenario that currently exist.)

I don't think that sweeping into a new combat should be allowed. I remember 3th and 4th, and it wasn't a pretty sight.

Lord Damocles
01-06-2014, 17:45
Charging out of a stationary vehicle should be enough with the major boosts to vehicles in 7th ed.

Being able to jump from combat to combat while your opponant looks on helplessly is, and has always been, a horrible mechanic.

megatrons2nd
01-06-2014, 17:47
My thoughts on fixing assault:

1 Allow assaults from a stationary vehicle again
2 Make assault range 6+D6 inches
3 Allow a disordered charge from a non assault vehicle that moved up to 6" and no further
4 Allow assaults from an assault vehicle in the assault phase, and give cover to the assaulting unit from overwatch attacks

Optional in addition to above Allow overwatch at full BS, and allow for assault from deepstrike/outflank/reserves as disordered charges.
Change assault grenades to make the target unit overwatch at BS1 if the unit fails an LD check

Fox Of 9
01-06-2014, 17:47
1) Allow units to charge out of all transports, as long as it stayed stationary in it's movementphase.

2) Give units that win combat and successfully sweep their opponent an option: Either destroy the enemy unit, or lock them in combat for one more round.
(This negates the whole and illogical "I don't want to destroy my opponent when I charge him"-scenario that currently exist.)

I don't think that sweeping into a new combat should be allowed. I remember 3th and 4th, and it wasn't a pretty sight.

The way I wrote it was poorly I guess.. Your suggestion is what I would like if they won combat via moral test result.. what I wrote was for the unit being killed to a man in one round of combat. I never played 3rd and only learnt the 'beginner' aspects of 4th so I can't really voice my opinion on that.

I would also like to say I am fine with how assault is but many of my friends hate it and I can understand why. As there are several divergences from the fluff and background for these armies. And I do feel that a little buff to assault would not do damage to the games current balance.


David.

Fox Of 9
01-06-2014, 17:58
Charging out of a stationary vehicle should be enough with the major boosts to vehicles in 7th ed.

Being able to jump from combat to combat while your opponant looks on helplessly is, and has always been, a horrible mechanic.

That would be if there was nothing you could do.. the likelihood of making the second assault is decreased as well as your very unlikely to kill the unit in one round after two lots of overwatch and a assault phase.. Also as the fight occurs next turn he has a movement phase and assault phase to move his counter units to the break in his gunline.. while moving away his other units to make another jump almost impossible. I would understand if we still has set charge ranges as well as the second combat occurring in the same assault phase and being able to do that over and over again.. But this way it's only if they do the one round total wipe which I can't thing of many units that can do that.

Sorry if incoherent I'm on a bus..

David.

Ssilmath
01-06-2014, 18:06
That would be if there was nothing you could do.. the likelihood of making the second assault is decreased as well as your very unlikely to kill the unit in one round after two lots of overwatch and a assault phase..

2 rounds of overwatch is going to do what...kill 1 or 2 guys? And that shouldn't have much of a bearing on getting to the next squad. Or are you thinking only in terms of Marines on Marines?


Also as the fight occurs next turn he has a movement phase and assault phase to move his counter units to the break in his gunline.. while moving away his other units to make another jump almost impossible.

And the assaulting player should have more than one melee unit engaged, which dramatically cuts down those options. For that matter, it would not be hard to tie up a significant chunk of their army with a couple speedy assault units (Like those Rhino embarked units charging out to 35 inches on turn 2) and then consolidate into an equal number of enemy units.


I would understand if we still has set charge ranges as well as the second combat occurring in the same assault phase and being able to do that over and over again.. But this way it's only if they do the one round total wipe which I can't thing of many units that can do that.

Khorne Berzerkers, Bloodcrushers, Hammernators, Vanguard Vets, Banshees (Under this system), Nobz, large Genestealer squads, Deathwing Knights, Screamerstars. I'm sure there are more who can wipe out even an MEQ squad in a turn of combat, and the list gets much larger when talking about rolling through Guard, Tau or shooty Eldar.

DoctorTom
01-06-2014, 18:12
1) Allow units to charge out of all transports, as long as it stayed stationary in it's movementphase.

2) Give units that win combat and successfully sweep their opponent an option: Either destroy the enemy unit, or lock them in combat for one more round.
(This negates the whole and illogical "I don't want to destroy my opponent when I charge him"-scenario that currently exist.)

I don't think that sweeping into a new combat should be allowed. I remember 3th and 4th, and it wasn't a pretty sight.

I agree with these. For number 2, maybe you enemy has an Initiative penalty for trying to run away andgot caught if you choose to stay locked in combat one more round.

I would also add either a 6 + D6'' charge range or just go back to fixed charge ranges.

Fox Of 9
01-06-2014, 18:38
2 rounds of overwatch is going to do what...kill 1 or 2 guys? And that shouldn't have much of a bearing on getting to the next squad. Or are you thinking only in terms of Marines on Marines?



And the assaulting player should have more than one melee unit engaged, which dramatically cuts down those options. For that matter, it would not be hard to tie up a significant chunk of their army with a couple speedy assault units (Like those Rhino embarked units charging out to 35 inches on turn 2) and then consolidate into an equal number of enemy units.



Khorne Berzerkers, Bloodcrushers, Hammernators, Vanguard Vets, Banshees (Under this system), Nobz, large Genestealer squads, Deathwing Knights, Screamerstars. I'm sure there are more who can wipe out even an MEQ squad in a turn of combat, and the list gets much larger when talking about rolling through Guard, Tau or shooty Eldar.

Are we going with the assumption that either squad is at full strength?

And shall we set a standard example for our ideas?

If it's one or two guys per phase.. say overwatch, assault and overwatch, that's 3-6 guys, that's over half a normal squad that I see fielded.. I also wouldn't be opposed to the full Bs over watch and grenade solution from earlier. I know that number drops as armour save improves but that will have a point trade off meaning that hopefully they kill the same points value.

If it's an assault orientated army the army will be lacking or deficient in other areas which will cause it to either not be as effective in the game overall or have reduced number when it reaches the opponent anyway. The turn two 30+inch rhino example would also lead to a turn three charge.. with no protection on the rhino.. if i'm thinking correctly.. I wouldn't expect the tin can to last very long.

Those units you listed are the hardest hitting assault units in the game, they should have the ability to do some serious damage but they also pay for it. I'm not saying what I have said is right. Or we should all follow me, I just wanted a starting point for this discussion to occur so we could find a better solution between us as a community.

Still on a bus..

David.

MajorWesJanson
01-06-2014, 19:04
6+d6 would end up with charge ranges longer than 5th edition and prior, up to twice as far.

I'd make two simple changes and see how they worked first:
1. Stationary Vehicles gain the Assault Vehicle rule
2. Remove the disorganized charge rule.

Gungo
01-06-2014, 19:42
Assault from assault vehicles is fine that's the point of them. Although certain armies need an assault vehicles.
However instead of making assault so dangerous again and taking away the role of assault transports I rather just we had a special rule for select non assault vehicles like drop pods that allow at least a disorder charge from them when stationary. Shooting is better yes but assault isn't that bad that we need sweeping advances or rhino rush variants to make a come back. I like the idea of disordered charge from stationary vehicles because it makes the initial charge less overbearing and gives the unit being assaulted a chance w snap shots and initiative (which should be added as a negative modifier) in assault.

Gungo
01-06-2014, 19:53
6+d6 would end up with charge ranges longer than 5th edition and prior, up to twice as far.

I'd make two simple changes and see how they worked first:
1. Stationary Vehicles gain the Assault Vehicle rule
2. Remove the disorganized charge rule.

Actually I rather they give disorganized charges as a special rule to select non assault vehicles such as drop pods that are stationary instead of blanket transport buff. I also think disorganized charge should be made more impactful with a negative initiative modifier. This means yes you can charge a unit from a vehicle while stationary and keeping the unit protected from shooting for a turn, but you will do so with a less impactful initial charge. This is still a buff and a dedicated assault unit deploying from drop pods can still crush a shooting based army in assault. But that shooting based unit might actually survive a turn instead of a completely one sided rules.

and honestly why do people want to take away the role of assault vehicles? The entire point of them is so they help assault and you want to make standard transports into assault vehicles defeats that purpose.

Fox Of 9
01-06-2014, 19:53
So there seems to be a rough general consensus on how to remedy vehicles and assaults. But what about the strange 'we want to not finish this straight away' problem we have where the best decision is to not kill them in a single round of combat? How would/do we remedy that?

David

Minsc
01-06-2014, 19:55
2) Give units that win combat and successfully sweep their opponent an option: Either destroy the enemy unit, or lock them in combat for one more round.
(This negates the whole and illogical "I don't want to destroy my opponent when I charge him"-scenario that currently exist.)


So there seems to be a rough general consensus on how to remedy vehicles and assaults. But what about the strange 'we want to not finish this straight away' problem we have where the best decision is to not kill them in a single round of combat? How would/do we remedy that?

Words for the word-god.

hobojebus
01-06-2014, 19:56
So there seems to be a rough general consensus on how to remedy vehicles and assaults. But what about the strange 'we want to not finish this straight away' problem we have where the best decision is to not kill them in a single round of combat? How would/do we remedy that?

David

See if you can at least make your points back with the first unit killed i could live with getting shot up in the following turn, its losing 50% of your squad before they can charge that causes problems.

Ssilmath
01-06-2014, 19:57
So there seems to be a rough general consensus on how to remedy vehicles and assaults. But what about the strange 'we want to not finish this straight away' problem we have where the best decision is to not kill them in a single round of combat? How would/do we remedy that?

Minsc I think gave the best suggestion there. If you sweeping advance somebody, you can choose to make them fight another round of combat. Alternatively, put a token next to any unit that wipes out their opponent or forces them to flee. For the next turn, only snapshots can be fired at them with the exception of templates.

Fox Of 9
01-06-2014, 20:00
Minsc I think gave the best suggestion there. If you sweeping advance somebody, you can choose to make them fight another round of combat. Alternatively, put a token next to any unit that wipes out their opponent or forces them to flee. For the next turn, only snapshots can be fired at them with the exception of templates.

Would that also work if they killed the unit to a man?

David.

Ssilmath
01-06-2014, 20:02
Would that also work if they killed the unit to a man?

Yes. Still lets the opponent react, still leaves some vulnerability to being shot, but it's not as devastating.

Fox Of 9
01-06-2014, 20:05
And we seem to have a answer. Anyone have any issues with this? speak now or forever hold you peace.

and thanks Ssilmath for you impeccable polite answers and reasoning, makes it a joy to discuss with.

David.

Ssilmath
01-06-2014, 20:08
And we seem to have a answer. Anyone have any issues with this? speak now or forever hold you peace.

Mind doing a sum up so we know what we are holding our peace about?

Fox Of 9
01-06-2014, 20:19
Keeping mostly everything the same route:

Random assult distance is in.
But we can charge for a stationary veichle with no issue
And counts as a disorganised charge if it moved less than 6"
If the unit runs and you catch them you can choose to hold them in combat or over-run and olny be targeted by snap shots
If you wipe out the unit in a single round of combat you can olny be targeted by snapshots


After this point what changes to the other mechanics would have to occur to allow consolidation into another assault? As to keep a idea of a more flowing battle.. or to comply with the fluff?

EDIT: only just seen this:


See if you can at least make your points back with the first unit killed i could live with getting shot up in the following turn, its losing 50% of your squad before they can charge that causes problems.

So what would you do to rectify this Hobojebus?


David.

Ssilmath
01-06-2014, 20:28
Personally, I still don't like the disorganized charge if the vehicle moved 6 inches, I think that's a bit excessive on such cheap transports. Land Raiders can do that, but they are very expensive. Trukks and Raiders can do it, but they are very fragile. Rhinos, Wave Serpents, Chimeras and the like are too tough and too cheap for that, I think. Make assault Vehicle and Open Topped allow for movement of the vehicle, disembarking and charging. If you wanted, let normal vehicles declare that they are open topped in order to charge after movement (They're opening the hatches up in preparation, but that makes them more vulnerable to being destroyed).

For consolidation into another combat, the consolidating unit can only move into base to base with one target unit. That unit may choose to make a fallback move (So they can still potentially be caught), and on a successful leadership check they may act as normal on the next turn. On a failed test, they act as if they had regrouped on the next turn.

Sir Didymus
01-06-2014, 20:31
Nothing wrong with assault, it works fine as a game mechanic, although it might not be stellar as a strategy.

Slayer-Fan123
01-06-2014, 20:32
As I've said before, I think that simply allowing my Berserker Marines to charge out of a stationary Rhino should be enough. We don't need consolidation into a new combat (4th edition veteran) and a few simple rules that make assault more dangerous, like allowing Furious Charge to give +1 Initiative AND Strength for example. I dunno, something like that.

Fox Of 9
01-06-2014, 20:33
Yeah I agree with the disorganized charge thing now that I think about it more.. Also not sure about the ability to choose to keep your unit locked in combat with a unit you beat and ran down because its kinder is ATSKNF... Which makes that a little redundant..

David.

underscore
01-06-2014, 20:49
1. A unit can charge if you disembark before a vehicle moved. Disordered unless it's an assault vehicle.
2. Can consolidate into a new combat, though they get overwatch and it doesn't count as a new engagement (so no hatred, furious charge, hammer of wrath etc).

Wolf Lord Balrog
01-06-2014, 20:56
6+d6 would end up with charge ranges longer than 5th edition and prior, up to twice as far.

I'd make two simple changes and see how they worked first:
1. Stationary Vehicles gain the Assault Vehicle rule
2. Remove the disorganized charge rule.


Keeping mostly everything the same route:

Random assult distance is in.
But we can charge for a stationary veichle with no issue
And counts as a disorganised charge if it moved less than 6"
If the unit runs and you catch them you can choose to hold them in combat or over-run and olny be targeted by snap shots
If you wipe out the unit in a single round of combat you can olny be targeted by snapshots


After this point what changes to the other mechanics would have to occur to allow consolidation into another assault? As to keep a idea of a more flowing battle.. or to comply with the fluff?

Sorry I'm late to the party, seeing as how my project was linked in the OP and all. :)

I was already thinking what MajorWes said: Units can Charge from a vehicle that has not moved that turn, and removing disorganized charge (except for one specific instance where I kept the effects, but not the name).

Otherwise:

Random Charge distance is out, always 6"
If the vehicle moved at all, no Charge unless it is an Assault Vehicle. I think that would be just a shade too good.
I really like Minsc's suggestion now that I've seen it. There is a very high probability I will steal that, possibly with Ssil's variation worked in somehow.


Additionally, I wonder about maybe allowing Consolidation into a new combat. Only if the first target was wiped out in the first round of combat, only if the second target unit can be reached with a 3" Consolidation move, no Charge bonuses of any kind, and a round of Overwatch from the second target. Even with those restrictions I'm not sure its a good idea, it needs playtesting to see if it works as intended.

Ssilmath
01-06-2014, 21:02
Ah, see. Constructive rules discussion.

Wolf Lord, if I may inquire. If assault is always 6 inches, how does it interact with terrain? What about putting a minimum on the amount rolled (Say, 5 inches) so that failing a 2 inch charge is impossible?

Also, your consolidation rules seem alright. It makes the turn an assault unit hits strong and carries momentum, but that gets reduced as it requires annihilation. Only thing you have to watch out for are units like Guard and Tau, as they are likely to lose any assault by enough of a margin to be wiped out. From there, you're right back to 4th's melee hopping exercise.

Fox Of 9
01-06-2014, 21:04
Additionally, I wonder about maybe allowing Consolidation into a new combat. Only if the first target was wiped out in the first round of combat, only if the second target unit can be reached with a 3" Consolidation move, no Charge bonuses of any kind, and a round of Overwatch from the second target. Even with those restrictions I'm not sure its a good idea, it needs playtesting to see if it works as intended.

I know you hate the random distance charge rule. But I feel like a random consolidation charge into a new combat would work better than a known distance. As you could risk it and get it or not and be stuck there, after suffering the overwatch.. allows for the risk reward aspect but later in and not completely destroying the assault army. (also it could be represent in the fluff by the unit being a tough nut to crack even when defeated and slowing down their opponents as much as possible, even as they lie dying.)

David.

Fox Of 9
01-06-2014, 21:05
Ah, see. Constructive rules discussion.

What I was after all along, as the other thread was just nonsense.

David.

Captain Idaho
01-06-2014, 21:05
Totally agree. Random charge range is stupid and makes little sense. So when a unit doubles its efforts to close the distance with the enemy, their speed is going to be slower or less consistent than advancing steadily?

Keeping it simple, I agree with the suggestions of consistent charge range of 6" and allow charges from stationary vehicles.

Makes a big difference to the game.

Fox Of 9
01-06-2014, 21:09
Totally agree. Random charge range is stupid and makes little sense. So when a unit doubles its efforts to close the distance with the enemy, their speed is going to be slower or less consistent than advancing steadily?

Keeping it simple, I agree with the suggestions of consistent charge range of 6" and allow charges from stationary vehicles.

Makes a big difference to the game.

Only thing I'd like to say here is try and get a group of 10+ people and make them run flat out.. they will be scattered all over the place.. (if the say each turn is a few seconds of action)
A charge in real life is more constant at a slower speed. As it's closer to the average meaning their is a large frequency of people able to maintain a condensed charge.

David.

Shadeseraph
01-06-2014, 21:14
Frankly, I believe that the best idea to avoid the problem with units wanting to stay in c/c is just a combination of what Minsk and Ssilmath said: Allow forcing the losing unit to stay if the winner wants, and, if the combat is a wipe out (not from losing combat, but from the unit being slaughtered to the man) then assume the unit can only be snap shotted against for the next round.

Ah, and give Nids their mycetic spores back. Maybe not at full power (only specific units allowed), but give them back.

Wolf Lord Balrog
01-06-2014, 21:23
Ah, see. Constructive rules discussion.

Wolf Lord, if I may inquire. If assault is always 6 inches, how does it interact with terrain? What about putting a minimum on the amount rolled (Say, 5 inches) so that failing a 2 inch charge is impossible?
I'm ok with Difficult Terrain causing a somewhat random slowdown of a Charge. Keep in mind the statistics of 2D6, keep the highest: The chance of rolling two 1s is only 1/36, and the chance of rolling only 1s or 2s is only 1/6. So 5/6 of the time you will get at least a 3" Charge through difficult terrain.


Also, your consolidation rules seem alright. It makes the turn an assault unit hits strong and carries momentum, but that gets reduced as it requires annihilation. Only thing you have to watch out for are units like Guard and Tau, as they are likely to lose any assault by enough of a margin to be wiped out. From there, you're right back to 4th's melee hopping exercise.
Then all Guard and Tau have to do (as I did with my Tau back then) is stay at least 4" away from a unit that is about to get charged.

Ssilmath
01-06-2014, 21:27
Then all Guard and Tau have to do (as I did with my Tau back then) is stay at least 4" away from a unit that is about to get charged.

From having been there, that's easier said than done. Guard especially have a pretty large footprint if they aren't mechanized up. And consider that it's not hard to have the assaulters two bases deep around what they assaulted, that's a 5 inch gap that you must have between every unit that could potentially be charged. Even if that's possible, a single melee unit has now completely disrupted and/or nixed the firepower (by making heavy weapons move) of a pretty significant part of the board through no actions whatsoever, merely their presence.

Edit:
If random distance through terrain is fine, then so is random total charge length on 2d6. Even putting in a minimum to avoid 3 inch charges failing (Again, a 1/36 chance), lowering potential charge range isn't going to make getting there any easier. Also, a lot of units that want to be in melee (Possessed, Banshees, Berzerkers) have ways of rerolling their charge dice. Not seeing a need to change it.

Wolf Lord Balrog
01-06-2014, 21:52
From having been there, that's easier said than done. Guard especially have a pretty large footprint if they aren't mechanized up. And consider that it's not hard to have the assaulters two bases deep around what they assaulted, that's a 5 inch gap that you must have between every unit that could potentially be charged. Even if that's possible, a single melee unit has now completely disrupted and/or nixed the firepower (by making heavy weapons move) of a pretty significant part of the board through no actions whatsoever, merely their presence.
Or you could feed them a sacrificial unit to keep the assault unit occupied, or use a countercharge unit, or use a bubble wrap unit. There are plenty of tactics you can use.


Edit:
If random distance through terrain is fine, then so is random total charge length on 2d6. Even putting in a minimum to avoid 3 inch charges failing (Again, a 1/36 chance), lowering potential charge range isn't going to make getting there any easier. Also, a lot of units that want to be in melee (Possessed, Banshees, Berzerkers) have ways of rerolling their charge dice. Not seeing a need to change it.
Yes, your chance of a Charge of at least 6" is 26/36 (about 72.2%). But I think its just one random thing too many. Difficult Terrain making your Charge a bit uncertain I'm ok with. Open ground doing the same thing, not so much.

Fox Of 9
01-06-2014, 21:55
Actually, failing a 3" Charge with Random Charge Distance is a 1/12 chance, not 1/36. And yes, your chance of a Charge of at least 6" is 26/36 (about 72.2%). But I just think its just one random thing too many. Difficult Terrain making your charge a bit uncertain I'm ok with. Open ground doing the same thing, not so much.

It's not open ground though.. it's a warzone.. possibly on the levels of World War one.. and even if it is relatively flat you do have a hail of overwatch coming your way..that would slow anyone down or at least that's how i see it.

David.

Wolf Lord Balrog
01-06-2014, 22:14
It's not open ground though.. it's a warzone.. possibly on the levels of World War one.. and even if it is relatively flat you do have a hail of overwatch coming your way..that would slow anyone down or at least that's how i see it.
Its the 40K universe, every battlefield makes WWI look like a picnic on a sunny day. I assume troops in this universe are sufficiently well-trained to deal with ordinary (for them) battlefield hazards.

Fox Of 9
01-06-2014, 22:20
Its the 40K universe, every battlefield makes WWI look like a picnic on a sunny day. I assume troops in this universe are sufficiently well-trained to deal with ordinary (for them) battlefield hazards.

I can see this working for fleet units.. as they are meant to be quick across the ground... and maybe space marines due to their enhanced physique but not guard or any other human (stat line) army. There really is no happy median for this either in the rules as is..

David.

Wolf Lord Balrog
01-06-2014, 22:26
I can see this working for fleet units.. as they are meant to be quick across the ground... and maybe space marines due to their enhanced physique but not guard or any other human (stat line) army. There really is no happy median for this either in the rules as is..

I solved this by taking Fleet back to what it was in 5th Edition, you can Charge after you Run (and Crusader and Fleet are the same thing).

Fox Of 9
01-06-2014, 22:32
I solved this by taking Fleet back to what it was in 5th Edition, you can Charge after you Run (and Crusader and Fleet are the same thing).

Makes sense.. I just like the random charge length It was always a good laugh after a few beers. Seeing there face as they stood a inch away from being able to make the distance is a real funny thing.. in tournaments I can understand the frustration though..

David.

DoctorTom
01-06-2014, 22:43
A random charge length of 6 + 1d6" would be a compromise between a fixed and the current 2d6" length.

Actually, one other thing I'd change is that the models get moved whether the charge was a success or not - they've been shot up while trying to charge though the other army getting Overwatch fire, so they should have the benefit of being able to move that distance they're charging whether they make it or not.

Wolf Lord Balrog
01-06-2014, 23:00
Makes sense.. I just like the random charge length It was always a good laugh after a few beers. Seeing there face as they stood a inch away from being able to make the distance is a real funny thing.. in tournaments I can understand the frustration though..

Actually I don't play in tournaments, well, not for over a decade anyway. These days I'm only semi-competitive, and I was never really good to begin with. To the extent less randomness would benefit competitive players, that's a secondary benefit to me.


A random charge length of 6 + 1d6" would be a compromise between a fixed and the current 2d6" length.

Actually, one other thing I'd change is that the models get moved whether the charge was a success or not - they've been shot up while trying to charge though the other army getting Overwatch fire, so they should have the benefit of being able to move that distance they're charging whether they make it or not.

D6+6 would be stealing thunder from Fleet in my version. And getting the Charge move if it fails or not is probably not a good thing for the assault unit. You just end up that much closer to the heart of the enemy army, and still out in the open.

the gribbly
01-06-2014, 23:30
IMO assault is alive and well, we just cant expect to build assault units the same way we build shooting units. Most deathstars are good examples of strong assault units, even without psychic assistance. Any large, fast and durable cc unit can be a nightmare and would probably get classified as a deathstar if it includes IC support. The best part is these units punish gunlines brutally for deploying in castle formations.

HelloKitty
02-06-2014, 04:16
6+D6" seems to be removing the risk of assaulting and just adding in more reward (longer charges possible than before when static charges existed). As such - not a fan.

Having spent the past two weeks having to relive the older editions assault rules - it is apparent why they were removed and when reading about how it caused rage understandable.

Stationary transports allowing assault - agree with.

Vipoid
02-06-2014, 11:43
I'm a little late to the party here, but here are my thoughts on fixing assault:

- Assaulting through terrain without grenades should be a disordered charge - not make you I1. There is no reason why high-initiative units should be heavily penalised, whilst low-initiative units are barely affected.

- Units should be able to assault out of any stationary vehicle.

- Ok, here's the big one - assault should not be able to lock units in combat, thus granting invulnerability to shooting. This is one of those things that just doesn't make sense on any level. Maybe *some* races wouldn't want to risk hurting their own men, but what about all the ones that would? IG Commissars happily shoot their own men at point-blank range, are they really going to hesitate to sacrifice a few more in the line of duty? I mean, after one platoon is down to just a few men after being massacred by nob bikers, are they just going to thing "Yeah, those few guys can take them - no need for us to intervene."? Of course not! They'd salute those men for their services, then drop a pile of artillery on the conveniently-clustered bikers. Or, what about Dark Eldar - would they really avoid shooting into combat if it meant a greater risk to them? No - they'd shoot their enemies while they had their hands full, and maybe use the opportunity to settle a few scores against their own men while they were at it. Or, hell, what about when a MC is fighting normal infantry? Are you really telling me that you can't shoot something 10 times their size without risking hitting them?

Anyway, mechanically, I'd allow shooting into combat - but the enemies receive a cover save against all wounds, with passed cover saves transferring the wounds to friendly models in the same combat. Depending on how technical you want to be, you could have a variable cover save (e.g. starting at 4+, -1 if friendly units are outnumbered, +1 if friendly units outnumber enemies, -2 if the enemy is a MC, +2 if there's a friendly MC in the combat). Flamers and Blasts could not allow cover saves, but would just hit everything under the template as normal (with the former, any restrictions about not being able to target friendly units would be wavered).

Obviously this would require repricing of assault units, though I believe it could also enable fewer restrictions on assault units (since being in assault no longer makes you immune to shooting).

Any thoughts?

MaliGn
02-06-2014, 12:06
I like the assaulting into cover being disorganised rather than initiative 1 suggestion, makes a lot more sense. That would help csm out with half of their assault units not having grenades to mitigate the initiative hit. But would still provide a benefit to the grenades in providing an ordered charge again.

Treadhead_1st
02-06-2014, 12:13
I'm going to quote myself from the other thread, because I like my idea ;)



...I just had an idea that might "fix" assault - a new version of Sweeping Advance. Should a unit win combat and complete a Sweeping Advance, if there is another enemy unit within the distance rolled, the victors may engage said unit in close-combat (much like 3rd/4th). The standard rules for charging apply - difficult terrain modifications and so forth, and the charged unit may fire Overwatch (and should the overwatch casualties mean the unit is out of range, the charge fails). However, this close-combat is not fought until the next player turn.

I feel that this is quite a fair system - it preventing multiple units from being wiped out in a single turn and allows the participation of the "defending" player, whilst at the same time and prevents the "attacking" unit from getting shot to pieces if it wins a combat and there are nearby units it can charge (thus removing the counter-intuitive logic that winning combat in one turn is worse than dragging it out for two). How do you think that sounds? I don't have a group to playtest it so I would probably be overlooking something major (as I have done many times in the Dark Eldar discussion).

It might have already been brought up, I haven't read through this thread yet - just answering the title question!

I think I agree with assaulting out of a stationary transport - given you can disembark and shoot in one turn, being able to disembark and assault seems fair - and you have to weigh up staying in the vehicle and receiving less damage against being able to attack the opponent with whatever ranged weapons the unit has and the opponent moving away (if no assault after moving from an non-Assault Vehicle transport).

++Edit++

Having read the thread it appears that this was indeed suggested (in the first post even) and there is some discussion on the drawbacks - namely that twice-overwatch is not that much of a threat. I will have a think and see if I can refine this, or if it does actually work out fairly (being able to only wipe out 1 unit per game turn means that even the most super-tough combat units can only kill an absolute maximum number of units equal to the turn length of the game - assuming such behemoths could even assault first turn).

tneva82
02-06-2014, 12:15
I like the assaulting into cover being disorganised rather than initiative 1 suggestion, makes a lot more sense. That would help csm out with half of their assault units not having grenades to mitigate the initiative hit. But would still provide a benefit to the grenades in providing an ordered charge again.

Yeah I like it too. We were also planning to try allowing disorganized charges out of stationary transport though seeing we have no closed transports with something that would actually like to charge(orks have open topped, IG troopers and tau aren't hot on assaulting into combat and other armies are still in buying models stage) it's going to take a while before we can try that.

(Or get some ogryns. Combined with our price drop for them that might make viable assault unit for AM! And the models look cool as a bonus)

Ironbone
02-06-2014, 12:16
Anyway, mechanically, I'd allow shooting into combat - but the enemies receive a cover save against all wounds, with passed cover saves transferring the wounds to friendly models in the same combat. Depending on how technical you want to be, you could have a variable cover save (e.g. starting at 4+, -1 if friendly units are outnumbered, +1 if friendly units outnumber enemies, -2 if the enemy is a MC, +2 if there's a friendly MC in the combat). Flamers and Blasts could not allow cover saves, but would just hit everything under the template as normal (with the former, any restrictions about not being able to target friendly units would be wavered).
Interesting idea, but what with already existing tremorus amount of "ignore cover" weapons ? They should ignore that ? Maybe BS modificatios instead ? Randomising hits ? Or just snap-shots flat ?


IMO assault is alive and well
That's very true as well. Phrase "assoult in 6th/7th is dead" is just disconeted with game reality. Sure it's not like in 5th. And not even close as in 4th. But close combat still exists and kick butts.

adreal
02-06-2014, 12:36
This is all very interesting and all, but largely pointless. Gw could have changed up assault, but they didnt. I personally will be trying to learn the rules that gw haven given me and hope for a decrease in points. I am glad that counter attack just happens now, makes my khorne guys better when charged

tneva82
02-06-2014, 12:39
This is all very interesting and all, but largely pointless. Gw could have changed up assault, but they didnt. I personally will be trying to learn the rules that gw haven given me and hope for a decrease in points. I am glad that counter attack just happens now, makes my khorne guys better when charged

Pointless? Not at all. Just because GW didn't do something doesn't mean YOU can't do it. This thread gives lots of ideas for fixing it=by definition not useless.

Gungo
02-06-2014, 12:40
I agree about the initiative 1 assault through cover although I think a disorganized charge or assaulting through cover should both have the loss of the extra atk for charging and a negative initiative modifier at least -2 as well.

also I don't think stationary vehicles should have open assault from vehicles. At best they should be a
disorganized assault from stationary vehicles. Since all opentop or assault transports have a fairly big penalty for allowing open assault like that. There is no point in devaluing assault vehicles role.

Vipoid
02-06-2014, 12:47
Interesting idea, but what with already existing tremorus amount of "ignore cover" weapons ? They should ignore that ? Maybe BS modificatios instead ? Randomising hits ? Or just snap-shots flat ?

It would probably be easier to make it a different kind of save. Otherwise you could just say that the 'ignores cover' special rule doesn't apply to this save.

With that in mind, do you think it would be best if said save was taken in addition to (and presumably before) other saves; or should it function just like a standard cover save (except that weapons can't remove it)?

tneva82
02-06-2014, 12:52
I agree about the initiative 1 assault through cover although I think a disorganized charge or assaulting through cover should both have the loss of the extra atk for charging and a negative initiative modifier at least -2 as well.

also I don't think stationary vehicles should have open assault from vehicles. At best they should be a
disorganized assault from stationary vehicles. Since all opentop or assault transports have a fairly big penalty for allowing open assault like that. There is no point in devaluing assault vehicles role.

Well that's why we plan to add disorganized charge(plus it makes sense. Climbing out of transport SHOULDN'T be easy to assault). But didn't assault(and open topped) vechiles also allow move before unloading and still assault? That gives them major advantage over closed topped stationary assaults. Extra movement is extra movement.

Personally I would prefer no assault and have transport usability elsewhere but with model and board sizes the ability to simply move around faster isn't that worthwhile. The extra turn you have to move on foot anyway at the end generally negates speed boost you got earlier.

Vipoid
02-06-2014, 12:57
also I don't think stationary vehicles should have open assault from vehicles. At best they should be a
disorganized assault from stationary vehicles. Since all opentop or assault transports have a fairly big penalty for allowing open assault like that. There is no point in devaluing assault vehicles role.

I wouldn't object to charges from stationary vehicles being disordered.

Out of interest, how do people feel about a unit assaulting the turn after its vehicle was destroyed? Should it be allowed, allowed but disordered, or just disallowed?

Shadeseraph
02-06-2014, 12:58
To steer things back on topic, I just had an idea that might "fix" assault - a new version of Sweeping Advance. Should a unit win combat and complete a Sweeping Advance, if there is another enemy unit within the distance rolled, the victors may engage said unit in close-combat (much like 3rd/4th). The standard rules for charging apply - difficult terrain modifications and so forth, and the charged unit may fire Overwatch (and should the overwatch casualties mean the unit is out of range, the charge fails). However, this close-combat is not fought until the next player turn.

I feel that this is quite a fair system - it preventing multiple units from being wiped out in a single turn and allows the participation of the "defending" player, whilst at the same time and prevents the "attacking" unit from getting shot to pieces if it wins a combat and there are nearby units it can charge (thus removing the counter-intuitive logic that winning combat in one turn is worse than dragging it out for two). How do you think that sounds? I don't have a group to playtest it so I would probably be overlooking something major (as I have done many times in the Dark Eldar discussion).

I entered WH40K with the advent of 6th edition, and my "native" game is WHFB, so I wasn't too clear on how consolidate worked back in 5th and previous editions. This is exactly the way "consolidating into other units" works in fantasy (well, with a couple exceptions: if the unit consolidated into is already in combat with a different unit and that unit hasn't fought yet they may fight normally, and no unit may consolidate more than once). I actually though this was how consolidating into other units worked. If this is not the case, and you could sweep a whole quarter of the battlefield in a single turn by bouncing around, I can understand why it had to be removed.

Wesser
02-06-2014, 12:59
1. Allow Assault from Vehicles in some form
- Loads of ways this could be achieved in a ablanaced way

2. Allow units to shoot and charge different units
- Because shooting before assaulting right now tends to be either a bad idea or total overkill. This would add some much needed threat to assault units and help counteract IG and Tau MSU spam

3. Allow units to consolidate into combat
- Because of boo-hoo to people who can't space their units a few inches apart

Shadeseraph
02-06-2014, 13:04
This would add some much needed threat to assault units and help counteract IG and Tau MSU spam

Those are a problem? Most problems I've seen with both are big bad MCs, parking lots and flyers. Never heard of anyone complaining about MSU, at least on single FOC battleforged (unbound is a completely different can of worms).

Azulthar
02-06-2014, 13:25
Just increasing assault range would do it, for me.

The major assault nerfs were:
- Allowing move+rapid fire
- Casualty-removal from the front
- Overwatch
- Random assault range

All of these can be compensated for by increasing assault range.


I'm very much against consolidating into melee, btw.

tneva82
02-06-2014, 13:29
They already increased assault range(both average and maximum) in 6th edition. Didn't seem to work out that well.

Vipoid
02-06-2014, 13:49
They already increased assault range(both average and maximum) in 6th edition. Didn't seem to work out that well.

Depends on the unit. In 5th, anything with fleet basically had an assault range of 6+d6 (fleet plus 6" assault). So, they had the same maximum range, but also a 7" minimum charge range - now 2" is the minimum charge range. I fail to see the improvement.

And, even for units without fleet, the benefit is dubious at best. Certainly the idea of an improved maximum charge range is laughable. How many times have you seen someone even attempt a charge at 10-12" - let alone succeed? Most people will hesitate even at an 8" charge - since the odds are against you and the punishment for failure is severe.

On the other hand, being able to fail any charge further than 2" makes a massive difference. It means that you can easily leave the safety of cover or transports, only to have your charge randomly fail. Why is that a benefit?

Furthermore, you then have other aspects - like casualties being removed from the front, and overwatch. The former means every casualty pushes you further away (which, I believe, more than counters the extra inch you get on an average charge). The latter, like random charge distance, is just another opportunity for you to get screwed at the last minute. Maybe overwatch won't do much, but what about when it does? Even a couple of casualties can easily push you just out of assault range.

EDIT: One more thing - assaults from vehicles actually lost range, since in 5th you could move a vehicle 12", then disembark 2" before fleeting and/or assaulting (whereas, currently, it's 6" move plus 6" disembark).

Poseidal
02-06-2014, 13:50
Please read this: http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?382867-Solving-Not-Wanting-to-Win-on-your-turn-in-40k

Assault is fundamentally 'broken' in 40k before you get into power levels. Note that there may be problems with my solution, but trying to band aid the current system is just making a fundamentally flawed system more unwieldy.

Fox Of 9
02-06-2014, 16:28
6+D6" seems to be removing the risk of assaulting and just adding in more reward (longer charges possible than before when static charges existed). As such - not a fan.
Having spent the past two weeks having to relive the older editions assault rules - it is apparent why they were removed and when reading about how it caused rage understandable.


So I've been thinking and collecting ideas from this thread and so far I'm at this:

Assaulting from stationary vehicles
Assaulting from vehicles that move less than 6" but it counts as a disorganized charge
If the unit beats another in combat and runs the unit down it can only be fired at by snapshots
when they run down a unit they can use their extra movement from the consolidation to try and make it into combat with another unit. They select the unit - overwatch occurs then we see if they make it. If they do they fight in the next turn if not may only be shot at by snap shots. If they beat a unit in one turn to a man they get D6 consolidation to try this? make beating them in a turn more reliable for linking assaults but not by much.
charge range should be some where between 2D6 and 6" in length.. So how about half your movement allowance plus a D6. with special rules for jet/jump pack ect.
halved or different modifier for charging into cover.. not to sure on this one.


Example of my fifth point:

A infantry model can move 6" in the movement phase. So in assault he could assault a max of 3"+D6 allowing for similar average charge length but without the major extremes.



I wouldn't object to charges from stationary vehicles being disordered.
Out of interest, how do people feel about a unit assaulting the turn after its vehicle was destroyed? Should it be allowed, allowed but disordered, or just disallowed?

Not sure.. If anything it should be allowed but as with assaulting into difficult terrain..

David.

Azulthar
02-06-2014, 16:54
They already increased assault range(both average and maximum) in 6th edition. Didn't seem to work out that well.
Because all the nerfs I mentioned were also introduced in 6th. The assault range wasn't increased enough to compensate.



In 5th, I found assault to be fine.

Sephillion
02-06-2014, 17:01
First, I would remove the rule that allow overwatch vs failed charge. A failed charge is penalizing enough, with overwatch it means you will rarely even attempt a charge unless you are ensured to succeed.

Second, I would make adjustments on unit-per-unit basis. Any sweeping change to assault would have the potential to break a unit.

For instance, give some units the ability to attempt to consolidate into a second combat after wiping a unit – giving this to all units might have unintended consequences, but giving this to, say, Berserkers, would give them something to work with after a successful assault. Allow SOME units to charge (or attempt a charge – maybe with penalties) after a Deep Strike or Outflank. Something akin to Deathwing Assault – “Up to half (round up) of your units with Outflank can declare a charge during the assault phase the turn they come into play with Outflank”. Such rules can allow assault units to work even in the absence of other delivery methods.

It’s surprising the lack of special rules given to assault units to alleviate the issues they might have due to the rules.

Third, I would change the initiative penalty of charging through cover to Initiative -2 (minimum of 1) without assault grenades. The lack of assault grenades, as it stands, can make or break a dedicated assault unit.

Finally, I would bring back the +1 to Initiative from Furious Charge. Initiative being a mostly static stat, I think this is a good way of making it more dynamic. If it would prove Furious Charge too invaluable, maybe something in between - choose between +1S or +1I.

Vipoid
02-06-2014, 17:10
In 5th, I found assault to be fine.

I think shooting still had the edge - especially considering that 5th tended towards vehicle-spam and MSU armies.

But, I still agree. At the very least, assault felt like it had a reasonable place in 5th edition. Cover saves were plentiful, there weren't many weapons that could ignore them (nor many strong template weapons), so it was useful to have a way to deal with them. Also, whilst I'd argue many dedicated-assault units still weren't optimal, it also never felt like the rules were heaped against them. Generally, if you had some shooting to crack open transports (since otherwise you end up assaulting a 35pt rhino, then having its crew shoot you to death in the enemy turn), you could do pretty well.

Really, I feel assault was about right in 5th - it was second to shooting (which isn't unreasonable), but the gap was pretty close, and shooting still had an important niche that could justify the inclusion of assault units.

Now, it just feels that a ton of stuff is heaped against assault for no real reason, whilst most of the advantages of assault (mass low-AP attacks, ignoring cover etc.) have either been diminished or just given to a ton of shooting weapons (thereby removing the niche of melee).

HelloKitty
02-06-2014, 17:25
Why was things like draigo so popular in 5th

Just Tony
02-06-2014, 17:34
I'm about to become a pariah on here by mentioning this, but...

I'd fix assault by basically making it exactly like 4th edition, with the exception that you lose the +1A for charging because of charging out of a vehicle. Also, you can't consolidate into another combat, that's pure ********. Instead, you sweeping advance or try to consolidate into some sort of cover. NOT back into your vehicle at all. And of course they could be shot at by the entire army. I think that'd counter it enough to leave it viable but at the same time not overpowered.

DoctorTom
02-06-2014, 17:51
6+D6" seems to be removing the risk of assaulting and just adding in more reward (longer charges possible than before when static charges existed). As such - not a fan.

The risk of assaulting should come from overwatch fire, not from random assault distances.

Ssilmath
02-06-2014, 17:56
The risk of assaulting should come from overwatch fire, not from random assault distances.

But overwatch is pretty toothless as it stands right now. To make it risky to charge against, you need multiple flamers.

Vipoid
02-06-2014, 18:02
Why was things like draigo so popular in 5th

Well, there are a couple of possible (and not mutually-exclusive) answers to that, depending on what you mean by 'things like Draigo'.

- For one, Grey Knights in general were popular because the book was new and also one of the strongest in 5th. They were expensive, but got a *lot* of stuff for their points - storm bolters (which they could make S5), force weapons even on basic infantry (which also had additional effects - such as granting I6), psychic powers on basic infantry, various unique gear, as well as the marine advantages - ATSKNF, combat squads, grenades on all models etc. Basically, they had strong shooting (chiefly storm bolters and psycannons - the latter being one of the best weapons in the entire game), but could also back it up with excellent combat ability (the aforementioned force weapons - and this was back when all force weapons were AP2).

- Perhaps more specifically, I believe 5th edition Wound Allocation was an important point. In 5th, wounds had to be distributed as evenly as possible amongst a squad, and excess wounds didn't carry over. e.g. lets say you have 5 marines, including a sergeant and a plasmagunner. If that squad takes 5 bolter wounds, then you would allocate one wound to each of the squad members, and take saves separately for each group (i.e. the sergeant and special weapons would roll separately, but the remaining marines could roll their saves as a group). The problem with this system was that you could employ various shenanigans to keep your men alive. e.g. say the above squad took 4 bolter wounds, and 2 plasma wounds. Well, you could allocate both plasma wounds to the sergeant (since one model has to take 2 wounds), and then one bolter wound to each other man. So, instead of 2 marines immediately dying to plasma, you only lose one.

The only restriction for creating different wound-pools is that each group must have different stats or equipment.

Anyway, the real problem comes when you have units comprised of muti-wound models (e.g. Nobz, Paladins) which can all be equipped differently - so each model becomes a separate wound pool. Basically, it allowed players to distribute wounds in such a way as to increase the survivability of the unit. So, instead of 6 wounds killing 3 2-wound models, you instead ended up with 6 wounded models (hence the unit could function at maximum effectiveness for longer). This could also allow the restrictions about instant-death to be bypassed. Normally, weapons that inflicted instant-death would kill one model from that wound-group on full wounds, but when a wound group was comprised of a single, wounded model, that restriction was wavered. Also, you could use T5 or Eternal-Warrior characters(like the aforementioned Draigo) to soak up S8 wounds. Finally, such units tended to be hard to wound in general - e.g. paladins boasted 2+/5++ saves, and could also be upgraded with FNP.

Anyway, Draigo enabled such armies by making Paladins troops - rather than elites (as well as being a strong edition to such units). This enabled those units to be scoring, and also helped make them more affordable (they were very expensive - and this meant you didn't have to buy troops as well).

Hope this helps. :D

Lord Damocles
02-06-2014, 18:58
2. Allow units to shoot and charge different units
- Because shooting before assaulting right now tends to be either a bad idea or total overkill. This would add some much needed threat to assault units and help counteract IG and Tau MSU spam
Eh; 3rd edition.
Roll up in yer Rhino, jump out, shoot your Meltagun (only ever Meltas!) at the tank, assault the squishy things - and now the enemy can't get at you and you've neutralised multiple units at once.

Vipoid
02-06-2014, 19:05
Eh; 3rd edition.
Roll up in yer Rhino, jump out, shoot your Meltagun (only ever Meltas!) at the tank, assault the squishy things - and now the enemy can't get at you and you've neutralised multiple units at once.

If you're referring to shooting at the squishy things inside the rhino, then can't you do that already?

HelloKitty
02-06-2014, 19:08
The risk of assaulting should come from overwatch fire, not from random assault distances.

If overwatch was a real threat then yes. As it stands, overwatch is not really a threat unless there are either a lot of templates or a large amount of shots coming.

Fox Of 9
02-06-2014, 19:10
1. Allow Assault from Vehicles in some form
- Loads of ways this could be achieved in a balanced way.

I think everyone has agreed on this point now.




2. Allow units to shoot and charge different units
- Because shooting before assaulting right now tends to be either a bad idea or total overkill. This would add some much needed threat to assault units and help counteract IG and Tau MSU spam

No just no. see the following:


Eh; 3rd edition.
Roll up in yer Rhino, jump out, shoot your Meltagun (only ever Meltas!) at the tank, assault the squishy things - and now the enemy can't get at you and you've neutralised multiple units at once.





3. Allow units to consolidate into combat
- Because of boo-hoo to people who can't space their units a few inches apart

This could happen but not in the a brute fisted way.. as I believe your suggesting. It would have to be risky for the assault unit and not just allow a chain of death to a army that you couldn't stop.



If overwatch was a real threat then yes. As it stands, overwatch is not really a threat unless there are either a lot of templates or a large amount of shots coming.

It's why I wished over-watch/snapshots where only a -2 as in the rumors. *sigh*

David.

Vipoid
02-06-2014, 19:11
Regarding overwatch, would it help if snapshots were made at -2 BS, rather than always at BS1 (as was originally rumoured)?

Lord Damocles
02-06-2014, 19:14
If you're referring to shooting at the squishy things inside the rhino, then can't you do that already?
I meant what happened with Rhino rush - after disembarking, you'd shoot at a vehicle, and then assult some nearby infantry since 3rd ed. allowed you to charge a target other than the one you shot at.

It added all the tactical depth of a padling pool, and often wasn't at all logical (you're charging headlong into an enemy squad, but have the time and opportunity to carefully line up a shot at another unit behind you, for example).


As it is, being able to shoot a vehicle and then charge disembarked passengers is a perfectly sensible mechanic which doesn't need expanding.

HelloKitty
02-06-2014, 19:17
Regarding overwatch, would it help if snapshots were made at -2 BS, rather than always at BS1 (as was originally rumoured)?

It depends on what is trying to be accomplished. Is the goal set distances - more reward for assault but the risk being overwatch? If the risk is overwatch then overwatch needs to function at full capacity, perhaps where the unit cannot shoot in its shooting phase if it overwatches in the enemy's turn.

Fox Of 9
02-06-2014, 19:28
It depends on what is trying to be accomplished. Is the goal set distances - more reward for assault but the risk being overwatch? If the risk is overwatch then overwatch needs to function at full capacity, perhaps where the unit cannot shoot in its shooting phase if it overwatches in the enemy's turn.

I think the problem is at the moment the Assault lovers don't feel the initial assault is as reliable as it should be. While the opponents don't feel happy enough with overwatch to allow changes.

Overwatch should be -2Bs not Bs1 that makes it deadlier for certain armies.. Bs4 and above.. but that really doesn't help who we need it to the Tau and guard army (guard mainly).

I feel the charge distance should be half your movement plus a D6 as to reduce the anomalies in the 2D6 system and allow for more reliable charges with the same average charge.

I feel that a way to help guard would be that FRFSRF stayed on until it was their turn again, allowing for more shots in Overwatch. This would make also make sense allowing for orders to go out as they close in whittling the unit down then adding extra overwatch damage (hopefully). Though in a general situation i'm not sure what we could do to improve it.


David.

HelloKitty
02-06-2014, 19:41
Having spent the past two weeks in older edition rules where assault dominates the game - not wanting a game where assault is so easy to use as it seems it used to be. Seems backwards in a game set in the far future for axe wielding power fist smashing power sword dueling armies ruling the roost.

Allowing assault from stationary vehicles is good IIO. The rest - not wanting things to return to that kind of game.

Fox Of 9
02-06-2014, 21:28
Having spent the past two weeks in older edition rules where assault dominates the game - not wanting a game where assault is so easy to use as it seems it used to be. Seems backwards in a game set in the far future for axe wielding power fist smashing power sword dueling armies ruling the roost.

Allowing assault from stationary vehicles is good IIO. The rest - not wanting things to return to that kind of game.

I don't really think anyone (intentionally) want's to return that far down the rabbit hole. Just to remove some of the idiosyncrasies of assault from the game. Like the fact that winning combat in one turn is a bad thing...

P.s Found this (http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h163/AusomeMan/motivator6194783.jpg) HelloKitty made me think of you.


David.

Captain Idaho
02-06-2014, 21:29
Only thing I'd like to say here is try and get a group of 10+ people and make them run flat out.. they will be scattered all over the place.. (if the say each turn is a few seconds of action)
A charge in real life is more constant at a slower speed. As it's closer to the average meaning their is a large frequency of people able to maintain a condensed charge.

David.

Um, what? It's quite easy to get people to run flat out. Sport shows us that, as well as years of close combat warfare.

Frankly it's silly saying when you rush into combat it's slower than a basic movement. Unless the rules mechanic is taking into account a higher than realistic likelihood of the whole squad tripping up. Which is silly.

Fox Of 9
02-06-2014, 21:32
Um, what? It's quite easy to get people to run flat out. Sport shows us that, as well as years of close combat warfare.

Frankly it's silly saying when you rush into combat it's slower than a basic movement. Unless the rules mechanic is taking into account a higher than realistic likelihood of the whole squad tripping up. Which is silly.

What I was saying that running speed will be a bell curve.. with the majority of results being in the middle. Which Is why the 2D6 works to a degree as the middle numbers are the most likely to occur.. though I still feel the double 1 and double 6 are silly. And that due to said bell curve in combat it would make sense to go a little slower if you run really really fast so you don't end up hitting the army all by yourself.


David.

Fangschrecken
03-06-2014, 00:26
I would allow charging into another unit after winning combat but with a couple modifiers:

1. The new combat starts on the next player's turn and no charge related bonuses are given. Overwatch occurs again and maybe give each model with counter-attack a single free swing at the chargers.
2. The second charge distance is 2d6/2 so you get a sort of bell-curve of rolls, but never more than six inches and typically around 3.
3. In order to sweep into another combat you must cause twice as many unsaved wounds as the enemy. (The idea being that a assault unit loose a lot of momentum if they're loosing guys and actually have to kill people)

So 5 assault terminators would murder a GEQ squad and should have decent odds of strolling into second, very close, squad. But in a more even combat it'll be hard to sweep into another unit.

itcamefromthedeep
03-06-2014, 00:26
An overview of the game-y aspects of assault in 40k, which by all rights really should find their way to the exit:

1. Stopping to fight makes you go faster. The range of a unit assaulting is much longer than what a unit can do when it runs. I'll trust that you can do the math.

2. You can't shoot into a close combat. Take a look at the background. It happens all the time.

3. Nobody uses guns in an assault. It happens all the time in movies and stuff, let alone what happens when a SWAT team moves into a building. (Some) guns get used at close quarters.

4. Charging through rough terrain doesn't matter for slow (power fist) models, but is crippling for really fast guys that should be freerunning champs. There's no need for this.

5. Pistols give you an extra Attack with your primary weapon, rather than using their own profile. Alessio Cavatore really likes his streamlined rules, but this artifact doesn't belong in the modern age, least of all when they had to write things like "specialist weapon" into the game to patch the hole. Anyone for bringing back the plasma pistol?

6. Assault grenades. I mean really, now. Just make them automatically cause a pinning test and you're done. They don't need the weird auto-pin-but-don't-hurt-anything rule. The existing mechanics just can't be the best way of describing what's going on there.

7. Extra Attack for assaulting. Could someone remind me exactly what this is supposed to represent again? At best, the going description looks more like Hammer of Wrath than an extra Attack.

8. Pile in. Why is that Fire Warrior running toward the Daemon Prince to hit it with his rifle butt? Why does this make sense?

9. Locked in combat. Why does a flying Daemon Prince have to stick around and fight Rippers to the death? Not that I think he'd have a hard time of it, but should he just be able to fly away? What about jetbikes? Sure there are times when it makes sense, but units should at least be able to *try* for an orderly retreat.

10. A unit can shoot after it Deep Strikes, but not assault. Where are the scenes of a Lictor appearing out of nowhere to munch on a squad? Where is the Trygon that bursts out of the ground and starts flailing left and right? Where are the Terminators that teleport into the thick of the fray? The rules need to represent this kind of ambush without making things really, really lame.

11. Vehicles and infantry are handled in wildly different ways, but with a Reaver and a Venom... I just don't see it. The infantry and vehicle assault rules really need to be consolidated. If only to let assault troops consolidate out of template formation after a vehicle drives away.

I'm sure that I'm missing a few.

---

I have my own pet ideas for each of these, but damn if the 40k assault phase isn't a hot mess.

Wolf Lord Balrog
03-06-2014, 00:41
An overview of the game-y aspects of assault in 40k, which by all rights really should find their way to the exit:

snip

I'm sure that I'm missing a few.

---

I have my own pet ideas for each of these, but damn if the 40k assault phase isn't a hot mess.

I copy/pasted your whole list to my brainstorming file. You might see some of it in my project. :)

Edit:

The real way to fix assault:

Get rid of I Go You Go
I actually would really love to see this, but it requires a more extensive re-writing of the rules than I personally want to attempt.

megatrons2nd
03-06-2014, 00:46
The real way to fix assault:

Get rid of I Go You Go

Make the movement phase moves for both players
Move the models, and declare charges, allow the other player a response, like he can move away, or declare a charge back, or to stand and shoot

Make the combat phase for all combat both shooting, and close combat
Actually move the declared charges and counter charges
Thus you could only get shooting or close combat attacks, not both
Treat all shooting as I 10, and then follow initiative order as normal for all others
Maybe find a new special rule for assault weapons that adds bonus attacks in close combat, or increases the models strength, or allows for shooting before the charge, and still allow close combat attacks.

hobojebus
03-06-2014, 01:53
Instead of -2 to overwatch how about half your bs and round up, marines would be hitting on 5+ and their special characters on a 4+.

Guards man would also be on 5's as would most armies with the exception of orks.

Think tau marker lights would need a cap on how much they can improve overwatch with marker lights.

This would reflect the defenders being able to focus fire on the doors.

itcamefromthedeep
03-06-2014, 02:59
I'd recommend taking another look at Epic Armageddon. The mechanics there solve a lot of the problems that have been mentioned. It seems like a reasonable guidepost.

It even includes a mechanic for repeating an assault until the results are decisive.

HelloKitty
03-06-2014, 03:24
I don't really think anyone (intentionally) want's to return that far down the rabbit hole. Just to remove some of the idiosyncrasies of assault from the game. Like the fact that winning combat in one turn is a bad thing...

P.s Found this (http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h163/AusomeMan/motivator6194783.jpg) HelloKitty made me think of you.


David.

Needs to play this game :D

MajorWesJanson
03-06-2014, 05:03
1. Stopping to fight makes you go faster. The range of a unit assaulting is much longer than what a unit can do when it runs. I'll trust that you can do the math.

Run becoming 2d6 to match assault would be interesting, but it would make foot models too fast compared to vehicles.


2. You can't shoot into a close combat. Take a look at the background. It happens all the time.

Maybe make it so you can snapshoot into combat, but any 1s to hit are resolved against friendly models instead?


3. Nobody uses guns in an assault. It happens all the time in movies and stuff, let alone what happens when a SWAT team moves into a building. (Some) guns get used at close quarters.

See 5.


4. Charging through rough terrain doesn't matter for slow (power fist) models, but is crippling for really fast guys that should be freerunning champs. There's no need for this.

Maybe remove the I1 for charging without grenades in favor of models in difficult terrain get +1 to their initiative step (including unwieldy?)


5. Pistols give you an extra Attack with your primary weapon, rather than using their own profile. Alessio Cavatore really likes his streamlined rules, but this artifact doesn't belong in the modern age, least of all when they had to write things like "specialist weapon" into the game to patch the hole. Anyone for bringing back the plasma pistol?

This could be fun, actually. Remove the rule for an extra attack with pistol and CCW, remove specialist weapon rule. Instead, if armed with a pistol may make a single attack during their I step, using WS vs WS, resolved at the strength, AP, and any special rules of the pistol's ranged profile. This would be in addition to their normal CC attacks. Maybe make it part of the pistol rules. Have any template or blast pistols do a single wound on a hit instead.


6. Assault grenades. I mean really, now. Just make them automatically cause a pinning test and you're done. They don't need the weird auto-pin-but-don't-hurt-anything rule. The existing mechanics just can't be the best way of describing what's going on there.

7. Extra Attack for assaulting. Could someone remind me exactly what this is supposed to represent again? At best, the going description looks more like Hammer of Wrath than an extra Attack.

These two would work well for solving each other. Remove the current +1 attack for the charge, assault, and defensive grenade rules. Instead, if you have assault grenades, you get +1 A on the charge, as the chaos and confusion of the grenades lets you get in more swings before the enemy can respond. Defensive grenades, the charger loses 1 attack per model, to a minimum of 1, as their charge is broken up by the shrapnel.


8. Pile in. Why is that Fire Warrior running toward the Daemon Prince to hit it with his rifle butt? Why does this make sense?

This one should stay. Mechanically, it works fine, and fluff-wise, it's rare that a trooper will not try to come to the aid of his comrade who is under attack.


9. Locked in combat. Why does a flying Daemon Prince have to stick around and fight Rippers to the death? Not that I think he'd have a hard time of it, but should he just be able to fly away? What about jetbikes? Sure there are times when it makes sense, but units should at least be able to *try* for an orderly retreat.

This is pretty much the Hit and Run rule.


10. A unit can shoot after it Deep Strikes, but not assault. Where are the scenes of a Lictor appearing out of nowhere to munch on a squad? Where is the Trygon that bursts out of the ground and starts flailing left and right? Where are the Terminators that teleport into the thick of the fray? The rules need to represent this kind of ambush without making things really, really lame.

They can't move either, so they have a choice of shooting, or running so they aren't bunched up in a blast-magnet. Lictor just needs a special rule.


11. Vehicles and infantry are handled in wildly different ways, but with a Reaver and a Venom... I just don't see it. The infantry and vehicle assault rules really need to be consolidated. If only to let assault troops consolidate out of template formation after a vehicle drives away.

Vehicles really need to lost this "one roll to hit them all" thing and go back to being based on their speed band. Stationary, autohit. Combat Speed, 3+. Cruising Speed 4+. Flat out, 6+.

I'd also like to see the WS vs WS to hit chart expand more. Allow things to hit on 2+ and on 6+.
Say WS4 vs:
WS1, 2+. WS2, 3+. WS3, 3+. WS4, 4+. WS5, 4+. WS6, 5+ WS7, 5+. WS8, 6+
So if you are 3 or more higher, you hit on 2s, if you are 2 or 3 less, you hit on 5s, and if you are 4 or more less, you hit on 6s. Make high WS and WS bonuses worth more.

Wolf Lord Balrog
03-06-2014, 06:29
Run becoming 2d6 to match assault would be interesting, but it would make foot models too fast compared to vehicles.

Agreed, going with fixed Charge and Run range of 6".

Maybe make it so you can snapshoot into combat, but any 1s to hit are resolved against friendly models instead?

That makes it a real desperation move, which feels right, but it would be so iffy in its effectiveness I think almost nobody would do it.

Maybe remove the I1 for charging without grenades in favor of models in difficult terrain get +1 to their initiative step (including unwieldy?)

Went with -2 Initiative penalty to the charging unit instead.

This could be fun, actually. Remove the rule for an extra attack with pistol and CCW, remove specialist weapon rule. Instead, if armed with a pistol may make a single attack during their I step, using WS vs WS, resolved at the strength, AP, and any special rules of the pistol's ranged profile. This would be in addition to their normal CC attacks. Maybe make it part of the pistol rules. Have any template or blast pistols do a single wound on a hit instead.

I was already thinking something very similar before I saw this. But I haven't gotten that far in typing things up though, so I haven't finalized what I want to do yet.

These two would work well for solving each other. Remove the current +1 attack for the charge, assault, and defensive grenade rules. Instead, if you have assault grenades, you get +1 A on the charge, as the chaos and confusion of the grenades lets you get in more swings before the enemy can respond. Defensive grenades, the charger loses 1 attack per model, to a minimum of 1, as their charge is broken up by the shrapnel.

Rolling Assault Grenades back to what they used to be: negate the Initiative penalty for charging through Difficult Terrain. The rules for Defensive Grenades never made any sense to me. The types of units that have them don't really want to blunt the assault by reducing attacks, nor does that play to their strengths at all. I'm thinking some sort of small bonus to Overwatch fire instead.

This one should stay. Mechanically, it works fine, and fluff-wise, it's rare that a trooper will not try to come to the aid of his comrade who is under attack.

Agreed

This is pretty much the Hit and Run rule.

Agreed, models that should have Hit and Run have it (for the most part). If this is a problem, its a problem with the codices, not the core rules.

They can't move either, so they have a choice of shooting, or running so they aren't bunched up in a blast-magnet. Lictor just needs a special rule.

I've made a provision for this in certain very limited circumstances. Its all that can be done in the core rules without a more massive re-write. As you say, other units like the Lictor just need a special rule in their codex unit entry.

Vehicles really need to lost this "one roll to hit them all" thing and go back to being based on their speed band. Stationary, autohit. Combat Speed, 3+. Cruising Speed 4+. Flat out, 6+.

Agreed

I'd also like to see the WS vs WS to hit chart expand more. Allow things to hit on 2+ and on 6+.
Say WS4 vs:
WS1, 2+. WS2, 3+. WS3, 3+. WS4, 4+. WS5, 4+. WS6, 5+ WS7, 5+. WS8, 6+
So if you are 3 or more higher, you hit on 2s, if you are 2 or 3 less, you hit on 5s, and if you are 4 or more less, you hit on 6s. Make high WS and WS bonuses worth more.

Good idea, I hadn't thought of this. I think I just never paid close enough attention to the WS chart.


Its almost like you're reading my mind man. Stop doing that! :D

Ssilmath
03-06-2014, 06:42
To follow up on a point you made Wolf Lord, part of the problem is in the units and not the core rules. For example, if Hormagaunts returned to being Beasts I think you'd see an uptick in use for them.

Are you also factoring in for armies that want to close into melee, but the player doesn't want to mech up? It seems like you've slowed things down a bit, so things like Genestealers, Berzerker Hordes and the like are currently hanging in the breeze. If I may be so bold as to suggest (in my terrain obsessed way), perhaps something like letting terrain pieces that do not block LOS innately are able to do so if a cumulative distance (Say, 4 inches? 6 inches?) of terrain is between you and the shooter. The shortfall to that is the melee units moving through said terrain bits, but there may be a way around that.

Also, while you are developing these rules, are you giving consideration to different terrain types? Right now, with the rules as they stand, melee units are pretty brutal in a city fight and pretty useless on an open table. If you shift melee to being a strong contender on the open tables, then anybody not packing a bunch of melee may as well never show up for a city fight, and vice versa.

tneva82
03-06-2014, 06:51
perhaps something like letting terrain pieces that do not block LOS innately are able to do so if a cumulative distance (Say, 4 inches? 6 inches?) of terrain is between you and the shooter. The shortfall to that is the melee units moving through said terrain bits, but there may be a way around that.

Like forrests etc? Done that here. True LOS with forrests is pretty silly anyway. I can't see through forrests in real life generally either if it's any thicker than few spare trees(which doesn't really counts as forest anyway). True LOS+miniature game terrains!=good combination with stuff like forests. By the time you have realistic looking forest it's pain as a game-piece.

Wolf Lord Balrog
03-06-2014, 07:05
To follow up on a point you made Wolf Lord, part of the problem is in the units and not the core rules. For example, if Hormagaunts returned to being Beasts I think you'd see an uptick in use for them.

Are you also factoring in for armies that want to close into melee, but the player doesn't want to mech up? It seems like you've slowed things down a bit, so things like Genestealers, Berzerker Hordes and the like are currently hanging in the breeze. If I may be so bold as to suggest (in my terrain obsessed way), perhaps something like letting terrain pieces that do not block LOS innately are able to do so if a cumulative distance (Say, 4 inches? 6 inches?) of terrain is between you and the shooter. The shortfall to that is the melee units moving through said terrain bits, but there may be a way around that.

Also, while you are developing these rules, are you giving consideration to different terrain types? Right now, with the rules as they stand, melee units are pretty brutal in a city fight and pretty useless on an open table. If you shift melee to being a strong contender on the open tables, then anybody not packing a bunch of melee may as well never show up for a city fight, and vice versa.

For guys that want to assault on foot, I made Run and Charge both a fixed 6" (unless going through Difficult Terrain of course, slowed as for normal Movement then), and Fleet (and Crusader) are back to allowing you to Charge the same turn you have Run.

A big thing I've done with terrain is bringing back the way Area Terrain used to function a while back. If two models (attacker and target) have a region of Area Terrain between them, but neither the attacking model nor the target model is in said Area Terrain, then it blocks Line of Sight between them. This has the effect of forcing more maneuver for Shooting (which I know you like) and for Assault (since you can't Charge a unit you can't see).

I don't like the idea of measuring 'depth of terrain' as that always felt very awkward to me. For Shooting, if the target is in the Area Terrain, he gets Cover commensurate with the type of terrain, but LoS isn't blocked, however deep in he is. Doesn't matter if the attacker is in the Area Terrain too, only if the target is or not.

Wesser
03-06-2014, 07:10
Those are a problem? Most problems I've seen with both are big bad MCs, parking lots and flyers. Never heard of anyone complaining about MSU, at least on single FOC battleforged (unbound is a completely different can of worms).

It's a problem for me.

Maybe it's just my not-so-competitive and joyfully ally-free meta, but even my vanilla marines don't have viable targets for assaults other than vehicles

Wesser
03-06-2014, 07:19
Eh; 3rd edition.
Roll up in yer Rhino, jump out, shoot your Meltagun (only ever Meltas!) at the tank, assault the squishy things - and now the enemy can't get at you and you've neutralised multiple units at once.


Still can't assault out of vehicles

And even if I'm in a Rhino I'll spend several turns doing nothing. If their Rhino gets shot up then they are reduced to trying to get across on foot... with more doing nothing. Seems more than fair that they should be able to threaten multiple units if they get close.

I mean Heavens forbid ranged weapons on assault units being useful...




Oh people may fear the return of the rhino rush (which never was that bad either), but what is "tactical" about the point-and-click target priority shooting gallery we have right now?


Hmm, maybe the problem is not with assault... I think we could do with Night Fighting becoming "Fog of War" instead. That would absolve us of shooters hiding in the corners and force shooting forwards... There's tactics for you... would that be preferable?

Fox Of 9
03-06-2014, 09:11
1. Stopping to fight makes you go faster. The range of a unit assaulting is much longer than what a unit can do when it runs. I'll trust that you can do the math.

Agreed



2. You can't shoot into a close combat. Take a look at the background. It happens all the time.

Not sure how I feel on this.. just makes me feel like you'd let a cheep unit charge a unit they'll never beat, hope they stick them drop a demolisher shell on it.. not really something i'd like to see.




4. Charging through rough terrain doesn't matter for slow (power fist) models, but is crippling for really fast guys that should be freerunning champs. There's no need for this.

Agreed.



5. Pistols give you an extra Attack with your primary weapon, rather than using their own profile. Alessio Cavatore really likes his streamlined rules, but this artifact doesn't belong in the modern age, least of all when they had to write things like "specialist weapon" into the game to patch the hole. Anyone for bringing back the plasma pistol?

I think if you charge a pistol should be allowed to shoot in a overwatch sort of way.. only pistols though



6. Assault grenades. I mean really, now. Just make them automatically cause a pinning test and you're done. They don't need the weird auto-pin-but-don't-hurt-anything rule. The existing mechanics just can't be the best way of describing what's going on there.

Agreed.



7. Extra Attack for assaulting. Could someone remind me exactly what this is supposed to represent again? At best, the going description looks more like Hammer of Wrath than an extra Attack.

I understand the criticism but I also feel that It's a nice way of making a unit that starts a assault more powerful for cheaper.



8. Pile in. Why is that Fire Warrior running toward the Daemon Prince to hit it with his rifle butt? Why does this make sense?

I think in these circumstances it's more the daemon striding into the middle of a mass of fire warriors but you can't really show that well with a single model.



9. Locked in combat. Why does a flying Daemon Prince have to stick around and fight Rippers to the death? Not that I think he'd have a hard time of it, but should he just be able to fly away? What about jetbikes? Sure there are times when it makes sense, but units should at least be able to *try* for an orderly retreat.

Hit and run basically.



10. A unit can shoot after it Deep Strikes, but not assault. Where are the scenes of a Lictor appearing out of nowhere to munch on a squad? Where is the Trygon that bursts out of the ground and starts flailing left and right? Where are the Terminators that teleport into the thick of the fray? The rules need to represent this kind of ambush without making things really, really lame.

Agreed and setting it up so you can be close enough for that is real risky as well.

I also am not a great fan of all deepstrike being the same.. as I can understand why terminators telporting into a unit would kill them but assault marines would do more damage to the unit than themselves.


David.

Vipoid
03-06-2014, 11:29
1. Stopping to fight makes you go faster. The range of a unit assaulting is much longer than what a unit can do when it runs. I'll trust that you can do the math.

Good point.



2. You can't shoot into a close combat. Take a look at the background. It happens all the time.

3. Nobody uses guns in an assault. It happens all the time in movies and stuff, let alone what happens when a SWAT team moves into a building. (Some) guns get used at close quarters.

Agreed.



4. Charging through rough terrain doesn't matter for slow (power fist) models, but is crippling for really fast guys that should be freerunning champs. There's no need for this.

Also agreed. And, on that note:


Maybe remove the I1 for charging without grenades in favor of models in difficult terrain get +1 to their initiative step (including unwieldy?)

Went with -2 Initiative penalty to the charging unit instead.

I really don't get this. Why must assault through terrain affect initiative in some way? I don't care whether you're reducing it to 1, reducing it by a set amount or increasing enemy initiative - they all amount to the same thing.

The point is that initiative is a terrible, terrible stat to penalise. All you're really doing is screwing fragile units that rely on high-initiative, whilst slow units just wade in with no penalties whatsoever. Changing it to initiative modifiers doesn't solve anything - you're just messing around with which units end up penalised. The point is, *all* units should be penalised - not just some.

My suggestion is that charging through terrain is a disordered charge. This just seems like a better mechanic because, whilst initiative is only important for some units, all units suffer from losing attacks.



5. Pistols give you an extra Attack with your primary weapon, rather than using their own profile. Alessio Cavatore really likes his streamlined rules, but this artifact doesn't belong in the modern age, least of all when they had to write things like "specialist weapon" into the game to patch the hole. Anyone for bringing back the plasma pistol?

Good point. Currently, I've no idea what the 'extra attack from a pistol' is supposed to represent. "Aha, my using one hand to faff around with this pistol helps me attack faster!" :rolleyes:


7. Extra Attack for assaulting. Could someone remind me exactly what this is supposed to represent again? At best, the going description looks more like Hammer of Wrath than an extra Attack.

Another interesting point.



8. Pile in. Why is that Fire Warrior running toward the Daemon Prince to hit it with his rifle butt? Why does this make sense?

Heh, this made me smile. :D

I do agree though - thinking about it, it's a really nonsensical mechanic.



9. Locked in combat. Why does a flying Daemon Prince have to stick around and fight Rippers to the death? Not that I think he'd have a hard time of it, but should he just be able to fly away? What about jetbikes? Sure there are times when it makes sense, but units should at least be able to *try* for an orderly retreat.

Agreed.


I have my own pet ideas for each of these, but damn if the 40k assault phase isn't a hot mess.

I think it's because the core assault mechanics really don't work, and need to be rebuilt from the ground up. Instead though, recent editions have just fiddled with a few surface mechanics (like consolidation), or added bells and whistles (Fear, challenges).

Wolf Lord Balrog
04-06-2014, 00:25
I really don't get this. Why must assault through terrain affect initiative in some way? I don't care whether you're reducing it to 1, reducing it by a set amount or increasing enemy initiative - they all amount to the same thing.

The point is that initiative is a terrible, terrible stat to penalise. All you're really doing is screwing fragile units that rely on high-initiative, whilst slow units just wade in with no penalties whatsoever. Changing it to initiative modifiers doesn't solve anything - you're just messing around with which units end up penalised. The point is, *all* units should be penalised - not just some.

My suggestion is that charging through terrain is a disordered charge. This just seems like a better mechanic because, whilst initiative is only important for some units, all units suffer from losing attacks.


Think of it less as penalizing high-Initiative units, and more like giving a defensive option to squishy average-to-low-Initiative units. Low-Initiative close-combat units also generally don't get very many attacks (unless they pay extra points for options to correct that), so they sorta come with their penalty built-in already.

Also, as I pointed out when talking about Defensive Grenades, you aren't necessarily doing the target unit any favors by blunting the attacker's number of Attacks. It increases the likelihood they will get to stay in close combat in your turn, totally immune to shooting.

Perhaps then a good solution would be the same one I came up with to re-do Defensive Grenades? If the attacker charges through Difficult Terrain, the target unit gets a bonus to its Overwatch fire. How about that?

Ssilmath
04-06-2014, 00:30
Perhaps then a good solution would be the same one I came up with to re-do Defensive Grenades? If the attacker charges through Difficult Terrain, the target unit gets a bonus to its Overwatch fire. How about that?

Charging through Initiative is just slowed speed.

Assault Grenades cause an automatic pinning check on the charged squad, before overwatch shots are fired (So if failed, they can't overwatch).

One model can toss a defensive grenade instead of firing overwatch. The charging squad immediately takes a Blind test and, if failed, lose 1 additional inch of charge movement.

Do either of those work?

Wolf Lord Balrog
04-06-2014, 00:57
Charging through Initiative is just slowed speed.

Assault Grenades cause an automatic pinning check on the charged squad, before overwatch shots are fired (So if failed, they can't overwatch).

One model can toss a defensive grenade instead of firing overwatch. The charging squad immediately takes a Blind test and, if failed, lose 1 additional inch of charge movement.

Do either of those work?

Too complicated for my tastes. I like how Assault Grenades used to work, just automatically negating whatever adverse effect the charging unit suffers for charging through difficult terrain. There are enough things to roll for in close combat, no need to add more die rolls. Same thing for the Defensive Grenades, whatever effect you go with should be automatic just for having the grenades, operating under the old assumption that everybody in the unit is tossing one at the appropriate time.

Ssilmath
04-06-2014, 01:07
Too complicated for my tastes.

Alrighty. Hmmm then...

Defensive...reroll overwatch, no effect on template weapons

Assault...Negates terrain penalty (but not distance penalty). Make the penalty...Opponent gets to reroll hits on first round of combat?

Inquisitor Kallus
04-06-2014, 01:07
Regarding overwatch, would it help if snapshots were made at -2 BS, rather than always at BS1 (as was originally rumoured)?

As if Tau weren't scary enough....
Can you say suporting fire?

I think overwatch is ok as it is. It isnt ridiculous and is a potential little bonus. It makes you think about charging units with large amounts of firepower when you only have a few models (that can be killed by it, Wraithknight etc says hi to your bolters/lasguns/whatever). All the other little nerfs to assault that have been mentioned make overwatch a nice bonus. Any more powerful and assault would be severely curtailed

itcamefromthedeep
04-06-2014, 01:10
Think of it less as penalizing high-Initiative units, and more like giving a defensive option to squishy average-to-low-Initiative units. Low-Initiative close-combat units also generally don't get very many attacks (unless they pay extra points for options to correct that), so they sorta come with their penalty built-in already.

Also, as I pointed out when talking about Defensive Grenades, you aren't necessarily doing the target unit any favors by blunting the attacker's number of Attacks. It increases the likelihood they will get to stay in close combat in your turn, totally immune to shooting.

Perhaps then a good solution would be the same one I came up with to re-do Defensive Grenades? If the attacker charges through Difficult Terrain, the target unit gets a bonus to its Overwatch fire. How about that?Why should Bloodletters care about charging through Difficult when Hammernators don't? Wouldn't it be better to write rules without that disparity?

If you're already taking steps to kill the "locked in combat makes you immune to shooting" problem (you can shoot into combat, you can choose to fail a morale test to run away, and/or everyone gets free Hit & Run), then a reduction in Attacks really does start to matter. If they can probably get away from you somehow, then you may as well pile-drive the thing you're charging as hard as you can.

I like the idea of defensive grenades causing a simple blind test. Two thumbs up for that plan from me.

stonehorse
04-06-2014, 01:24
I think the few things that will fix assault are these.

1. Re-write Fleet to be units with fleet can assault after they have ran.
2. Units that fail to make a successful assault move the distance rolled on the dice.
3. Assaulting into terrain removes the +1A instead of reducing I to 1. Units with move through cover ignore this.
4. Overwatch is fired at full BS, but to do so the unit in question has to forfeit it's shooting in their previous turn.
5. Make Smash attack 1 attack plus any modifiers, charging, 2 close combat weapons etc.

Wolf Lord Balrog
04-06-2014, 01:58
Alrighty. Hmmm then...

Defensive...reroll overwatch, no effect on template weapons

Assault...Negates terrain penalty (but not distance penalty). Make the penalty...Opponent gets to reroll hits on first round of combat?

I think you are thinking in the right direction now, but re-rolls don't scale well. The lower a characteristic is, the more it benefits from a re-roll, and in general a re-roll is better than just increasing the characteristic the test is based on by one (except for the extreme top and bottom ends of characteristic values).

With that in mind, I'm thinking maybe both charging through Difficult Terrain and Defensive Grenades should give +1BS to Overwatch for the unit being charged (to a maximum of the unit's normal BS). Assault Grenades take back the +1BS for charging through Difficult Terrain. Feels elegant to me. :)

Ssilmath
04-06-2014, 02:03
With that in mind, I'm thinking maybe both charging through Difficult Terrain and Defensive Grenades should give +1BS to Overwatch for the unit being charged (to a maximum of the unit's normal BS). Assault Grenades take back the +1BS for charging through Difficult Terrain. Feels elegant to me. :)

The problem there is that it doesn't scale with BS well. Let's say a model has both Defensive Grenades and is in cover. If they are BS 2, then either their overwatch is better than normal shooting, or they're capped at BS 2. If a unit is BS 4, then they're stuck at one below their BS. If a unit is BS 3 (Say, Fire Warriors) then they experience no change whatsoever. As if charging into one of their Overwatch cluster mines wasn't bad enough, now they're doing it at full BS before markerlights. That's suicide for any charging unit, even if they have Assault Grenades.

Wolf Lord Balrog
04-06-2014, 02:08
The problem there is that it doesn't scale with BS well. Let's say a model has both Defensive Grenades and is in cover. If they are BS 2, then either their overwatch is better than normal shooting, or they're capped at BS 2. If a unit is BS 4, then they're stuck at one below their BS. If a unit is BS 3 (Say, Fire Warriors) then they experience no change whatsoever. As if charging into one of their Overwatch cluster mines wasn't bad enough, now they're doing it at full BS before markerlights. That's suicide for any charging unit, even if they have Assault Grenades.

Note that in the scenario with the Tau, only the unit that is actually being charged gets the BS boost, not any Supporting Fire units. And don't forget Assault Grenades taking back the +1BS for charging through Difficult Terrain. As to what BS they end up with relative to their normal BS, I don't see where that is an issue, or more to the point, an issue we can deal with. When you are only rolling D6s, there is often insufficient granularity to get really precise results.

Ssilmath
04-06-2014, 02:13
Note that in the scenario with the Tau, only the unit that is actually being charged gets the BS boost, not any Supporting Fire units. And don't forget Assault Grenades taking back the +1BS for charging through Difficult Terrain.

That isn't so bad then. Still going to hurt a lot.


As to what BS they end up with relative to their normal BS, I don't see where that is an issue, or more to the point, an issue we can deal with. When you are only rolling D6s, there is often insufficient granularity to get really precise results. Because of the points scale. Just as dropping everybody to BS1 for overwatch favors those with lower BS, any raising is going to benefit them more. Orks and Guardsmen suffer no ill effects (If they're in terrain and somehow have defensive grenades, just future proofing), but Space Marines or Eldar Exarchs aren't getting their points worth by the geo effects. So they are disproportionately penalized by the system and aren't as effective, for their points, as models with lower BS.

Inquisitor Kallus
04-06-2014, 02:25
I think the few things that will fix assault are these.

1. Re-write Fleet to be units with fleet can assault after they have ran.
2. Units that fail to make a successful assault move the distance rolled on the dice.
3. Assaulting into terrain removes the +1A instead of reducing I to 1. Units with move through cover ignore this.
4. Overwatch is fired at full BS, but to do so the unit in question has to forfeit it's shooting in their previous turn.
5. Make Smash attack 1 attack plus any modifiers, charging, 2 close combat weapons etc.

1. Not a bad idea, thought about it myself
2. Agree again
3. Not a bad idea but I think also other things such as -1 or -2 I etc or some kind of Overwatch bonus could be good. Maybe you could choose as this doesnt penalise certain units when being charged if they have no guns, or in the case of tau wont help them much so the added OW is better. Maybe even a re-roll on OW, I dont know. It would take some playtesting to find out and indeed CC units are at a bit of a disadvantage anyway without getting shots to bits consistently as they move in.
4.Again, thought about this and is basically what happens in 2nd ed but without being able to target other units. Not a bad idea as it gives a chance against something thats been hiding out of LOS for a turn or more. Would it have a restricted arc of fire though?
5. I dont know, maybe. I like the idea that they just do a single kind of wind up/hulk smash tyoe thing. Maybe an extra one for charging but aparently it has evened up MC vs Walker fighrs.

itcamefromthedeep
04-06-2014, 02:44
I think defensive grenades should have some benefit for units with no guns, so a BS bonus doesn't really make sense to me.

As mentioned before, I think it's silly that a unit goes faster when it stops to fight. That would suggest that Fleet should not mean charging after running.

Wolf Lord Balrog
04-06-2014, 02:56
I think the few things that will fix assault are these.

1. Re-write Fleet to be units with fleet can assault after they have ran.
Agreed.

2. Units that fail to make a successful assault move the distance rolled on the dice.
Bad idea I think. You don't want to be closer to the enemy if your Charge failed.

3. Assaulting into terrain removes the +1A instead of reducing I to 1. Units with move through cover ignore this.
Not a bad idea, but not my favorite either.

4. Overwatch is fired at full BS, but to do so the unit in question has to forfeit it's shooting in their previous turn.
Large potential to backfire. Attacking player could just to decide to attack a unit not 'on Overwatch'

5. Make Smash attack 1 attack plus any modifiers, charging, 2 close combat weapons etc.
That's what it was in 6th wasn't it? I think I actually prefer the 7th Ed way on that one, makes the choice more meaningful.


That isn't so bad then. Still going to hurt a lot.
Well that's the point. :) To give a shooting unit a chance to give an oncoming assault unit what-for in its preferred fashion, while still allowing the assault to happen.


Because of the points scale. Just as dropping everybody to BS1 for overwatch favors those with lower BS, any raising is going to benefit them more. Orks and Guardsmen suffer no ill effects (If they're in terrain and somehow have defensive grenades, just future proofing), but Space Marines or Eldar Exarchs aren't getting their points worth by the geo effects. So they are disproportionately penalized by the system and aren't as effective, for their points, as models with lower BS.
Right, but like I said, not much we can do about that only rolling D6s. If you go with making Overwatch a flat -1 or -2 BS, then high-BS units benefit a great deal more yes, but I worry that it might be out of proportion, and beyond necessity.


I think defensive grenades should have some benefit for units with no guns, so a BS bonus doesn't really make sense to me.
Are their non-shooty units that have Defensive Grenades? I mean, they were invented for shooty units specifically, so it wouldn't make any sense if there were.


As mentioned before, I think it's silly that a unit goes faster when it stops to fight. That would suggest that Fleet should not mean charging after running.
Where are you getting this 'stops to fight' idea? A unit stops to shoot, they Charge! to assault. Its representing a headlong run towards the enemy, and in place of a 'Run' for most units (unless they have Fleet, under my version, I think, now I'm getting confused ...)

Ssilmath
04-06-2014, 03:13
Right, but like I said, not much we can do about that only rolling D6s. If you go with making Overwatch a flat -1 or -2 BS, then high-BS units benefit a great deal more yes, but I worry that it might be out of proportion, and beyond necessity.

Hmmm...that is true. How about this. Instead of negating the +1 BS, Assault Grenades instead cause 1 automatic Str 4 hit just before overwatch? Reduces numbers and would potentially (Against most people with defensive grenades, good chance of) cause the overwatch to not be as nasty. Let the casualties count towards total morale negative. This also benefits units like IG Veterans, giving them a reason to charge.

tneva82
04-06-2014, 06:16
As if Tau weren't scary enough....

Tau have BS3. -2 or straight BS1 is irrelevant. They are hitting on 6's anyway.

It's space marines, eldars and necrons who would be main benefitters of -2 to BS. For tau it's irrelevant.

Vipoid
04-06-2014, 11:01
Think of it less as penalizing high-Initiative units, and more like giving a defensive option to squishy average-to-low-Initiative units.

But, what about units in cover that are low-initiative, but not squishy?

And, in any case, why should squishy, high-initiative units be penalised for charging through cover, whilst low-initiative units can just ignore it?


Low-Initiative close-combat units also generally don't get very many attacks (unless they pay extra points for options to correct that), so they sorta come with their penalty built-in already.

How many more attacks do high-initiative units usually get? And, are they of the same caliber? e.g. wyches get 3 attacks base (including one from an extra CCW), but they're at S3 with no special effects. On the other hand, TH/SS terminators only get 2, but at S8 AP2.

In any case, what you're saying is that changing the charging-through-cover rules to what I propose might actually make low-initiative units think twice about it... and that's a bad thing? :eyebrows:



Also, as I pointed out when talking about Defensive Grenades, you aren't necessarily doing the target unit any favors by blunting the attacker's number of Attacks. It increases the likelihood they will get to stay in close combat in your turn, totally immune to shooting.

That's another problem with the assault rules. Since we're talking fixes, it can be assumed that that will be fixed too, rather than trying to bend ideas around a bad game mechanic.


Perhaps then a good solution would be the same one I came up with to re-do Defensive Grenades? If the attacker charges through Difficult Terrain, the target unit gets a bonus to its Overwatch fire. How about that?

I think that would be much better than an arbitrary initiative penalty.

DoctorTom
04-06-2014, 16:01
One thing to add - units that ignore terrain penalties shouldn't be penalized by reducing their initiative (or whatever is come up with for a substitute) for assaulting through cover.

Baaltor
04-06-2014, 21:37
But, what about units in cover that are low-initiative, but not squishy?

And, in any case, why should squishy, high-initiative units be penalised for charging through cover, whilst low-initiative units can just ignore it?
How many more attacks do high-initiative units usually get? And, are they of the same caliber? e.g. wyches get 3 attacks base (including one from an extra CCW), but they're at S3 with no special effects. On the other hand, TH/SS terminators only get 2, but at S8 AP2.

In any case, what you're saying is that changing the charging-through-cover rules to what I propose might actually make low-initiative units think twice about it... and that's a bad thing? :eyebrows:

That's another problem with the assault rules. Since we're talking fixes, it can be assumed that that will be fixed too, rather than trying to bend ideas around a bad game mechanic.



I think that would be much better than an arbitrary initiative penalty.

I think you're getting closer to the problem with assault. Or to be specific, A PROBLEM, of several. The thing is initiative is an all or nothing game, and because of that, indirectly, to make cover matter, the rules have to make it an all or nothing thing to make up for half the time a 'penalty' wouldn't really matter.

e.g: Orks charged by Eldar STILL attack last, even without grenades if given -2 I.

That means to make sure the Eldar are penalised, you have to give them almost no initiative. My theory is that because the problem's the inherit one in Initiative, the Initiative is what should be fixed instead. I don't even play a very high I army, outside of my daemons, and this vexes me. What the point of Eldar having 5 I when they might as well have 3 against Orks, 'Crons, and Tau? Likewise, they must pay the same point value for that I5 against marines, whom are barely surpassed, which leads to the next paradox: they pay too much for the I against orks, or not enough against marines. It's a fact. Either they threw say: 210 Points out the window in a 1500 Point game, or they just barely get what they payed for.

Yes there are nuances, like I for overrun, but fringe benefits aside, without comparing the stat in depth, the I stat is undervalued.

Vipoid
04-06-2014, 22:19
I think you're getting closer to the problem with assault. Or to be specific, A PROBLEM, of several. The thing is initiative is an all or nothing game, and because of that, indirectly, to make cover matter, the rules have to make it an all or nothing thing to make up for half the time a 'penalty' wouldn't really matter.

That's a good point.

On a similar note, one oddity is that the Initiative mechanic exists at all.

I mean, considering that the rest of the game is IGOUGO, I'd have thought it would be more logical for only the active player's units to fight in CC.

stonehorse
05-06-2014, 08:13
That's a good point.

On a similar note, one oddity is that the Initiative mechanic exists at all.

I mean, considering that the rest of the game is IGOUGO, I'd have thought it would be more logical for only the active player's units to fight in CC.

I think allowing both sides to attack in each players turn is the pay off for assault, remember there are units that have no ranged attacks, and rely purely upon assault to deal damage. Having to weather the enemies fire-power for as long as it takes to get into combat is no easy task, the force that usually arrives into assault is reduced in number.

Baaltor
06-06-2014, 10:34
On a similar note, one oddity is that the Initiative mechanic exists at all.

I mean, considering that the rest of the game is IGOUGO, I'd have thought it would be more logical for only the active player's units to fight in CC.

To a degree, yes I think I is kind of a wierd thing for there to even be. Actually, it sort of only causes an element of rock-paper-scissors to be introduced into the game for no reason, no that you mention it, doesn't it? I mean, Orks-Guard-Eldar; if you have guard you've invested well against orks, but lose it versus Eldar... I know this is over simplifying it to a great degree, but it doesn't add the nuances that a full fledged stat SHOULD.

Hell, it doesn't even make sense that a squad of hormoguants scythe done guardsmen before a SINGLE trigger is pulled. Yeah, they should win, but without a single punch being pulled is ludicrous.

But in terms of IGOUGO: You're right in that that's a logical extension, but this is one of those things where "you're taking a phenomenon or principle too far" I can't rememember what those are called, but I never remember. It makes sense logically, but when you consider the second dimension of 'what is assault', you'll remember that it's supposed to be volitile, and rapidly destructive. If you have one side swinging only, then you have to double their attacks to make sure it does the same amount of damage in a game, which many people believe is insufficient! But if you do that, I'll bet anything the results of assaults get far too one sided. Your boyz mob's got too many attacks at once to roll already.

itcamefromthedeep
06-06-2014, 15:16
Sometimes high stats don't matter. A grot doesn't much care about the difference between a Spore Mine detonation and a Pulsar blast.

The difference in Initiative will matter for sweeping advance.

People seem to like the idea of hit & run for everyone, and Initiative matters there.

Having troops alternate swings, leaning toward the high-Initiative troops, could work. I'd need to see the idea before calling it good or bad. The problem I see immediately is that it would slow the game down. That's not good.

Turntosideb
06-06-2014, 18:44
6+D6" seems to be removing the risk of assaulting and just adding in more reward (longer charges possible than before when static charges existed). As such - not a fan.

Having spent the past two weeks having to relive the older editions assault rules - it is apparent why they were removed and when reading about how it caused rage understandable.

Stationary transports allowing assault - agree with.

With a random Assault roll, what about having it a 4 + D6. This result gives you a bit of every outcome in the roll.
(1) - would be your poor result and the unit has a diminished 5" assault.
(2) - there is your O.G even steven assault of 6"
(3) - your current average from the 2D6 range
(4-6) - Bonus time between 8-10"

This gives a balance from the 2D6 method as it negates the awful charge of "snake eyes" (2") assault results etc. Makes it so that the unit on foot can't go the god speed of a jetpack leap of 12" both from the 2D6 and 6"+D6. 50/50 chance you get your boost distance (from current averages) in your assaults. And working with the current difficult terrain modifiers of (-2") it still falls within a good distance with risk/reward.
I think the 6+D6 doesn't go in the spirit of chance that 40K has. Where on every roll in the game, there is a chance of failure or a poor negative. Failed to hit, LD, crew shaken, dangerous terrain etc. 6+D6 gives the poorest roll (1) the average distance with the current 2D6 and any result higher from the fixed 6" assault rule from 3rd Edition.

What do you guys think?

Fox Of 9
06-06-2014, 19:00
With a random Assault roll, what about having it a 4 + D6. This result gives you a bit of every outcome in the roll.
(1) - would be your poor result and the unit has a diminished 5" assault.
(2) - there is your O.G even steven assault of 6"
(3) - your current average from the 2D6 range
(4-6) - Bonus time between 8-10"

This gives a balance from the 2D6 method as it negates the awful charge of "snake eyes" (2") assault results etc. Makes it so that the unit on foot can't go the god speed of a jetpack leap of 12" both from the 2D6 and 6"+D6. 50/50 chance you get your boost distance (from current averages) in your assaults. And working with the current difficult terrain modifiers of (-2") it still falls within a good distance with risk/reward.
I think the 6+D6 doesn't go in the spirit of chance that 40K has. Where on every roll in the game, there is a chance of failure or a poor negative. Failed to hit, LD, crew shaken, dangerous terrain etc. 6+D6 gives the poorest roll (1) the average distance with the current 2D6 and any result higher from the fixed 6" assault rule from 3rd Edition.

What do you guys think?

Pretty much what I said (except mine was half your movement allowance plus a D6 but hey) and I agree with all the points you make about it.

David.

Turntosideb
06-06-2014, 19:18
David: Yea our idea's are falling into the same outlook on the Assault range.

One thing I've thought of just now is with over watch, instead of firing at BS of 1. Why not fire with the units full BS, but against the opponents I? Its the one thing I've found with 40k is that when it comes to shooting, we are rolling the shooters ability vs a Chart. Where in Assault, we roll with the attackers WS vs your opponents WS. If overwatch is to be treated in the assault phase in a response for the defender. Have the defender either choose to fire overwatch (stand and shoot) or settle with drawing out CC weapons and fight in assault as per norm.

I wish there was more mechanics for the Initiative stat line than just in CC. With units shooting against the target stat line etc and removing cover saves to hit modifiers. But what can u do?

Thoughts?

Vipoid
06-06-2014, 19:20
One thing I've thought of just now is with over watch, instead of firing at BS of 1. Why not fire with the units full BS, but against the opponents I? Its the one thing I've found with 40k is that when it comes to shooting, we are rolling the shooters ability vs a Chart. Where in Assault, we roll with the attackers WS vs your opponents WS. If overwatch is to be treated in the assault phase in a response for the defender. Have the defender either choose to fire overwatch (stand and shoot) or settle with drawing out CC weapons and fight in assault as per norm.

I quite like that idea.

But then, I play Dark Eldar - so it's fair to say I might be a tad biased on that front. :D

Baaltor
06-06-2014, 22:11
Sometimes high stats don't matter. A grot doesn't much care about the difference between a Spore Mine detonation and a Pulsar blast.

The difference in Initiative will matter for sweeping advance.

Having troops alternate swings, leaning toward the high-Initiative troops, could work. I'd need to see the idea before calling it good or bad. The problem I see immediately is that it would slow the game down. That's not good.

But the epidemiology of that highstat comparison doesn't line up. Almost no concievable armies opperate exclusively on really high stats, say everyone's 7 Strength. If you used an army like that, you know you're going to run into many cases where your strength doesn't do anything, and either plan accordingly, or deal with ridicule. Eldar Players like in my example have no choice really, especially since guardians are now I5. Granted with my Marines I can react to that and choose who has the mark of Slaanesh, or select daemonettes knowing that I need to have the list compensate for a possible imbalance elsewhere, but many whole armies don't have that choice.

As to slowing down the game: I think it's very easy to speed it up; even if GW somehow makes it slower every edition. XD

Someone ages ago offered a solution like: "WS is rolled versus I", and I LOVED that idea. It changes the dynamic of some things, and their might be unseen imbalances for units that were design/costed as if they need to kill everyone, but the moderation of success versus lost really appeals to me. And I think that idea opens a huge field of opportunities for rule interactions, like 'dodge' saves for Wyches or something instead of Inv. Saves. And suddenly the Champion carrying a powersword is really scary because he's untouchable rather than "he goes before he gets smushed by "Captain MacPhistser".

Gingerwerewolf
17-06-2014, 14:41
I'm a little late to the party here, but here are my thoughts on fixing assault:

- Assaulting through terrain without grenades should be a disordered charge - not make you I1. There is no reason why high-initiative units should be heavily penalised, whilst low-initiative units are barely affected.

- Units should be able to assault out of any stationary vehicle.

- Ok, here's the big one - assault should not be able to lock units in combat, thus granting invulnerability to shooting. This is one of those things that just doesn't make sense on any level. Maybe *some* races wouldn't want to risk hurting their own men, but what about all the ones that would? IG Commissars happily shoot their own men at point-blank range, are they really going to hesitate to sacrifice a few more in the line of duty? I mean, after one platoon is down to just a few men after being massacred by nob bikers, are they just going to thing "Yeah, those few guys can take them - no need for us to intervene."? Of course not! They'd salute those men for their services, then drop a pile of artillery on the conveniently-clustered bikers. Or, what about Dark Eldar - would they really avoid shooting into combat if it meant a greater risk to them? No - they'd shoot their enemies while they had their hands full, and maybe use the opportunity to settle a few scores against their own men while they were at it. Or, hell, what about when a MC is fighting normal infantry? Are you really telling me that you can't shoot something 10 times their size without risking hitting them?

Anyway, mechanically, I'd allow shooting into combat - but the enemies receive a cover save against all wounds, with passed cover saves transferring the wounds to friendly models in the same combat. Depending on how technical you want to be, you could have a variable cover save (e.g. starting at 4+, -1 if friendly units are outnumbered, +1 if friendly units outnumber enemies, -2 if the enemy is a MC, +2 if there's a friendly MC in the combat). Flamers and Blasts could not allow cover saves, but would just hit everything under the template as normal (with the former, any restrictions about not being able to target friendly units would be wavered).

Obviously this would require repricing of assault units, though I believe it could also enable fewer restrictions on assault units (since being in assault no longer makes you immune to shooting).

Any thoughts?

I really like all of this - especially the the allowing of shooting into combat.

A lot of people may see this as a Nerf to CC units, or as you say include a points drop.

There is another way to do this though, try and balance it out a bit. if done well you wouldnt need to fiddle with the Points of the CC troops

You could make it that you could only snap fire into combat, unless you make a successful Ld Test
Allow Assault after Running
Initiative penalty to Units that Overwatch (IE if you Overwatch you are at I 1 in the combat)
Allow the unit that wins combat to have choices. If the Unit runs, they can choose to chase after the fleeing unit, (usual rules) Hunker Down and consolodate (Stay still but +1 to cover save), or Consolodate into Close Combat with another unit, counts as disordered charge.

With CC no longer rendering you invulnerable to fire, consolodation into combat is not so bad!

Wolf Lord Balrog
17-06-2014, 16:35
I really like all of this - especially the the allowing of shooting into combat.

A lot of people may see this as a Nerf to CC units, or as you say include a points drop.

There is another way to do this though, try and balance it out a bit. if done well you wouldnt need to fiddle with the Points of the CC troops

You could make it that you could only snap fire into combat, unless you make a successful Ld Test
Allow Assault after Running
Initiative penalty to Units that Overwatch (IE if you Overwatch you are at I 1 in the combat)
Allow the unit that wins combat to have choices. If the Unit runs, they can choose to chase after the fleeing unit, (usual rules) Hunker Down and consolodate (Stay still but +1 to cover save), or Consolodate into Close Combat with another unit, counts as disordered charge.

With CC no longer rendering you invulnerable to fire, consolodation into combat is not so bad!
I tried writing-in rules for shooting into close combat, but then it was pointed out to me what a massive advantage this would be for IG armies. Just tie up that scary CC unit with some suicide Conscripts and then bombard with the artillery of your choice. Works pretty well for any army with a cheap cannon fodder unit.

Szalik
17-06-2014, 16:47
I tried writing-in rules for shooting into close combat, but then it was pointed out to me what a massive advantage this would be for IG armies. Just tie up that scary CC unit with some suicide Conscripts and then bombard with the artillery of your choice. Works pretty well for any army with a cheap cannon fodder unit.

Maybe a penalty like paying 1 victory point for every attempt to shoot into combat would balance things a bit (along with ld test for every unit attempting to do it except fearless units). Of course there is still a matter of excluding some armies from this victory point tax (and/or ld test), like tyranids, csm, deamons, maybe dark eldar.

itcamefromthedeep
18-06-2014, 15:42
Yes, a Leadership test is the natural thing to call for there.

And yes, it looks like it would help IG... so what? The tactic is fluffy enough that it should be in the game, and there's plenty of room to mitigate the advantage elsewhere in the ruleset. 40k should be a dark universe where you will not be missed. Describe the background with rules, rather than the other way around.

harlekin
18-06-2014, 16:59
I think one could limit friendly fire/ supportive fire to nearby units, say in 12'' and with Line of Sight. Afterall those gals and guys are affected by seeing their comrades fighting/being overthrown and the respective enemy charging onwards towards themself. Standard Overwatch may be a solid ground to differentiate the "veteran/elite" status of different units more, say conscripts/guardsmen get overwatch, while veterans/stormtroopers may take Ld-test to get full BS. A different way may be the differentiation through specific chapters/ regiments/ cults etc. or in case of IG orders and officer special rules.
One does not have to allow every unit, eg artillery fire this way.

Otherwise, like Turntosideb suggested, Initiative would be a similar fitting stat for being involved. Not necessarily in the way he pointed out, an ability check would suit fine, I think. Afterall Initiative somehow reflects the mental reaction time also, doesn't it?. However, I like the idea too, the general involvement of stats in several tests would be a nice change: Many fast assault-specialists are quite vulnerable, when successfully hit, so it'd be nice for them to earn a certain advantage out of their specialised stats.

Yeah I'm a tyranidplayer, so maybe I am biased a bit too ;).

gwarsh41
19-06-2014, 18:36
Wait, how would an assault based army benefit from shooting into combat? I can only see shooting armies really taking advantage of this. No longer could you hope to hide in combat and finish the assault in your opponents turn, they will shoot you anyway.

Vipoid
19-06-2014, 19:02
Wait, how would an assault based army benefit from shooting into combat? I can only see shooting armies really taking advantage of this. No longer could you hope to hide in combat and finish the assault in your opponents turn, they will shoot you anyway.

It wouldn't be a benefit to assault units, simple as that.

The purpose would be to a) remove an unintuitive, nonsensical mechanic, and b) hopefully help pricing and abilities of assault units (since you no longer have to factor in the chance that they'll reach combat and immediately gain immunity to all shooting).

Szalik
19-06-2014, 19:32
I'd do it this way. Some of them might be a bit outdated, or there may be some mistakes but then I have this file with changes to core rules from like 5th edition and just update it when the new edition comes. I'll just paste changes applying to CC:

8. You can now shoot into close combat, provided your unit passed ld test. Even units uncaring enough won’t shoot blast and flamer weapons into ongoing brawl. Treat those shots as snap shots. Units in CC have 4+cover save. Any cover saves passed mean that the shot hit friendly model instead! Resolve hit randomly, roll to wound and armor save. Wounds from shooting count into CC resolution. If enemy dies, then the winning side gets immediately a consolidation move.

Charge:

9. Charge distance 4+d6 inches.
10. Charge from outflank and reserves should be allowed - unit is placed in the movement phase on the table edge just like during disembarking a vehicle in 5th - max 2 inches from the edge. Or if it does not fit, then it is placed in a manner that it touches the edge of the board with one full facing or base. If it cannot enter then it is delayed, do not roll for the table edge in the next turn. Charges from outflank are disoriented charges.
11. Units being in 12 inches distance from enemy charging unit may voluntarily join overwatch after they have passed ld test. All other restrictions apply.
12. During charge, charging unit can choose whatever route they want as long as they end move within charge distance. They still need to move on one by one basis and stay in coherency with each other. Characters are not obliged to make a pile in move first. Difficult and dangerous terrain tests still apply in the pile in move.
13. Pile in is done after all charging units have done their move.
14. During charge, I1 from difficult terrain is concluded on model by model basis. Only one roll for difficult terrain is rolled and it only affects models that declare charging through difficult terrain.
15. Charge from transports stationary in the previous turn is allowed. If the transport was destroyed in the previous turn, unit may still charge but it will be a disoriented charge.


Close Combat:

16. Precision strikes on all (Character) models.
17. Gargantuan and Super Heavy walkers cannot be tied in combat unless by units of their class.
18. You can use snap shots in lieu of making other CC attacks. In CC you can snap shot pistols, rapid fire weapons, assault weapons. Heavy, blast and flamer template weapons are disallowed. One shot only.



Combat Resolution:

19. Sweeping advance: If a unit is caught by sweeping advance then the unit that caught them gains and additional CC round (including charge bonus). Unit caught cannot fight back. All other restrictions apply.
20. Trapped ! is removed. Unit that is falling back moves as far as they can.
21. If a falling back unit is assaulted and does not pass regroup test, then it fights with WS = 1 for the rest of that turn.
22. Units can enter another CC from consolidation move. Normal resolution for overwatch applies, engage models as normal and resolve overwatch as usual. The actual fight will begin in the next assault phase without any bonuses from charge etc, treat this combat like it was fought already in the previous turn.
23. A unit falling back is entitled to make a morale check while being assaulted or tank shocked. Unit falling back may only fall back once a turn.
24. Units can enter another CC from consolidation move. Normal rules for overwatch applies, engage models as normal and resolve overwatch as usual. The actual fight will begin in the next assault phase without any bonuses from charge etc, treat this combat like it was fought already in the previous turn.

harlekin
19-06-2014, 20:20
Wait, how would an assault based army benefit from shooting into combat? I can only see shooting armies really taking advantage of this. No longer could you hope to hide in combat and finish the assault in your opponents turn, they will shoot you anyway.


It wouldn't be a benefit to assault units, simple as that.

The purpose would be to a) remove an unintuitive, nonsensical mechanic, and b) hopefully help pricing and abilities of assault units (since you no longer have to factor in the chance that they'll reach combat and immediately gain immunity to all shooting).

As far as I understand, the problem with assault units hopping from assault to assault was the impossibility to stop them e.g. shooting (one could bring a greater distance between the attacked unit and other targets). Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The way I'd imagine it would be that deicated assault units gain the ability to rush the next squad, after obliterating an opponent's squad in one row, so getting the chance to use their momentum. But this time the defenders at least have a chance to stop or thin out the onrushing attackers.

Vipoid has a point, making furious close combat an 'isle of peace', at least against ranged weaponry is somehow very simplifiying and is reflected in the abilities of todays assault units and/or their costs... *cough* should be *cough*. If this 'isle of peace' falls flat, costs and therefore abilites should be reconsidered.

@Szalik: Do you talk about difficult terrain or cover, when writing about I1 by charging?

T10
19-06-2014, 20:45
Has anyone suggested granting models "stranded" out of combat a cover save? I can totally see this working: the sudden appearance of an out-flanking or deep-striking unit makes it difficult for the defenders to co-ordinate a cohesive response, meaning they miss a lot. And when a unit is wiped out in a sweeping advance, those models don't instantly explode: I can totally imagine those fleeing models providing an "intervening models" cover save for victorious unit in the next shooting phase if this is an enemy turn.

Fox Of 9
19-06-2014, 21:09
Has anyone suggested granting models "stranded" out of combat a cover save? I can totally see this working: the sudden appearance of an out-flanking or deep-striking unit makes it difficult for the defenders to co-ordinate a cohesive response, meaning they miss a lot. And when a unit is wiped out in a sweeping advance, those models don't instantly explode: I can totally imagine those fleeing models providing an "intervening models" cover save for victorious unit in the next shooting phase if this is an enemy turn.

Yeah it has already been said.. We suggested snap shots only or weapons must abide by the over-watch rule.. templates doing D3 hits ect.

David

Wolf Lord Balrog
20-06-2014, 05:35
Yeah it has already been said.. We suggested snap shots only or weapons must abide by the over-watch rule.. templates doing D3 hits ect
Which is definitely an improvement, but not wiping your opponent is still better. The only way to totally get rid of that perverse incentivization is to somehow make combats always decisive, win or lose, in one round of fighting.

Losing Command
20-06-2014, 06:47
That could be hard to do when large squads are engaged on a small front. Or when both sides fail to do any wounds.
It wouldn't be an issue when players would also move and shoot after one another every phase rather than turn. But that would be quite the change, and also make Interceptor kinda pointless (as you get a full shooting phase after reserve deployment anyway. But maybe that is not a bad thing)

Wolf Lord Balrog
20-06-2014, 06:57
That could be hard to do when large squads are engaged on a small front. Or when both sides fail to do any wounds.
It wouldn't be an issue when players would also move and shoot after one another every phase rather than turn. But that would be quite the change, and also make Interceptor kinda pointless (as you get a full shooting phase after reserve deployment anyway. But maybe that is not a bad thing)

The more I think about it, the more I think that really is the solution: Just re-fight the assault over and over until one side is wiped or succeeds in disengaging.

Bubble Ghost
20-06-2014, 13:05
Which is definitely an improvement, but not wiping your opponent is still better. The only way to totally get rid of that perverse incentivization is to somehow make combats always decisive, win or lose, in one round of fighting.

You just let people manually fail morale tests, on purpose. That doesn't get rid of the concept of the ongoing combat (which I think is important for 40K's atmosphere), but it does mean that no one is ever cursing their troops for having the temerity to be brave. Bravely holding your ground would become exactly that, bravely holding your ground, rather than helpfully sheltering the enemy, since you would only ever do it when it was beneficial, or at least when the decision to do so was a calculated one that you had made yourself. And since there would now be absolutely no chance of "hiding in combat" if your opponent didn't want you to, you could then balance the other rules around this helpful consistency (such as extra resilience for combat winners and reserve arrivals, as T10 mentioned and I've been banging on about since forever).




The more I think about it, the more I think that really is the solution: Just re-fight the assault over and over until one side is wiped or succeeds in disengaging.

The problem with that is that by "succeeds in disengaging", you mean fails a morale test. That doesn't cure the root problem of hoping for failure and cursing victories. It also provides weirdly disproportionate combat prowess to tough units who are powerful but not TOO powerful, endlessly winning combats by one or two points to avoid the enemy retreating and thus gaining infinite free attacks. Not to mention Fearless and Stubborn suddenly being gigantic liabilities for any unit with low stats. Some kind of drawback for those rules is fine, but this would amount to a death sentence, and think that's disproportionate.

Bottom line, I think the discrepancy between the various units' combat prowess and morale susceptibility is enough to make sure that this "repeat until winner" trope isn't going to work in 40K. You'd have just as many situations where certain stats or results that should be helpful were instead detrimental, which is the whole problem at the moment.




Incidentally, another big thing close combat needs is for fewer units to be immune to morale, because the point of assault in a game like this is supposed to be driving the enemy out of otherwise-unassailable positions - not just to be a slightly different way of chalking up kills (which is why comparisons between the hit/wound/save rates of close combat weapons and shooting weapons are pointless, or at least should be). Winning a combat should have some sort of benefit, not just helpfully teleport Space Marines to safety so that they can shoot at you and contest the objective you just took from them before you have a chance to follow up. Combat results need to take a Space Marine unit out of the game for a turn, same as everyone else (at least for movement purposes, it's fine that they can shoot at full effect). And catching them with a sweeping advance needs to stop being a penalty. There should also be some benefit for beating a Fearless or Stubborn unit - maybe have them take Ld tests like normal, and if they would have failed but pass because of their special rule, you ought to count as charging next turn or something (you're pushing them back, they're just refusing to run). Just put some fricking incentive in there to win a combat.

harlekin
20-06-2014, 15:51
(...) There should also be some benefit for beating a Fearless or Stubborn unit - maybe have them take Ld tests like normal, and if they would have failed but pass because of their special rule, you ought to count as charging next turn or something (you're pushing them back, they're just refusing to run). Just put some fricking incentive in there to win a combat.

Well, I think both rules should give the respective unit an advantage, namely in matters of moral tests. I'm not sure if giving further motivations for wiping a fearless unit - a unit paying for that special rule and the included advantage - would be fair for the fearless unit's owner.
Though I assume the motif behind that (breaking an unbreakable unit!), the effect should be the loss of the respectable unit in the first place.