Switch Theme:

Craftworld Eldar have the worst of it.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in gb
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






True, but lack or over abundance of terrain is an ongoing issue in 40K, and I’m not terribly sure it’s one the rules can sort out.

Planet Bowling Ball? Shooty armies have their day.

Crazy amounts of terrain? Infantry based close ranged armies have a massive advantage.

I mean sure, you have the 25% coverage rule of thumb - but that can still be exploited by someone unsporting,

Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?

Pfizer vaccine administered 13:40pm 18 Feb 21. Still no second head. Second jab 13:35pm 6 May 2021. At the Masonic Hall. 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




Which is why I think army design should not be so dependent on the presence or absence of terrain. An army should be able to have a reasonable chance regardless.

In one of the past editions of WHFB, the Wood Elves as part of their thing automatically got to deploy a certain amount of forest terrain pieces as many of their abilities or spells were dependent on forest terrain in some fashion. The rationale given was that they would always be found near forests and would never be caught far away from them. I always felt that was a clumsy faction design mechanic.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/26 10:28:12


 
   
Made in us
Boosting Black Templar Biker






Absolutely agree, I love terrain but having a quantity (or denisty) or terrain being a deciding factor in game balance has always been odd to me.

The Wood Elves and forest terrain certainly makes sense but I agree it feels a bit clunky.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 The Red Hobbit wrote:
I was considering that at first since someone had mentioned earlier about letting Eldar move in the charge/fight phase which I thought was interesting. I think the issue with both ideas is that it would be too close to Battle Focus in 7th Ed where Eldar could move shoot move then disappear behind LOS cover. I thought the rule was fun but it definitely garnered a lot of hatred. I'm sure double shooting would also get a lot of hate too

Ynnari sound positively powerful, was that during Gathering storm just prior to the 8th launch? I remember hearing a lot about them then they completely disappeared as a faction, I guess that was due to the nerf bat.


I actually think a return to move-shoot-move might be okay for craftworlders these days. The table is smaller than it was in 7th. Many melee units have more mobility than they used to. Standing on objectives in the middle of the game is a big part of winning. So allowing craftworlders to win attrition not through superior raw power but by hiding from the worst of the enemy's return fire might not be a bad way to go. You'd sort of be conceding the primary objectives with any units you're hiding, but you'd be (hopefully) out-damaging your opponent (thus leaving the board safe enough to start scoring primaries on turns 2 or 3). And then the counterplay for your opponent would be to move some units off of those objectives to get the necessary angles to attack the craftworlders, who may, in turn, find that the non-eldar have left themselves in an exposed position. There's some decent depth to that mechanic.

Some possible issues with it:
* How good it is varies heavily depending on how much BLOS terrain there is.
* While the mechanic would be very good for ranged units, it doesn't do much for melee units or short-ranged units like fire dragons. And those units are among our most in need of help.
* It's slightly tricky figuring out exactly how the move-shoot-move mechanic should work. Swapping the Movement and Shooting phase seems like it risks creating some bizarre rules interactions. Making it a straight forward second move in the charge phase means that infantry units are potentially outrunning jump pakckers from other armies. You can make the second move shorter (like 3"), but that 's mostly useful for shooting units while being even less useful for melee units.

I'm all for a return to move-shoot-move, but there are definitely some wrong ways to do it.
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





Making it a straight forward second move in the charge phase means that infantry units are potentially outrunning jump pakckers from other armies.

I don't think that's anything the game designers really care about because we already have Guardsmen Move! Move! Move!ing across the entire board in a phase anyways.
It's all abstractions! Hurray
   
Made in gb
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot




UK

Serberys Raiders are already more mobile than any Eldar unit because they get pre-game move and a stratagem that allows them to make A FULL MOVE in the enemy charge phase so why not; give all CWE units move-shoot-move.
   
Made in ca
Legendary Master of the Chapter





 Bosskelot wrote:
Serberys Raiders are already more mobile than any Eldar unit because they get pre-game move and a stratagem that allows them to make A FULL MOVE in the enemy charge phase so why not; give all CWE units move-shoot-move.



move shoot move is a problem as it allows them to pop out from behind a wall, shoot and pop back in, this can lead to some unfun interactions if the entire army can do it. if they do it I'd rather it be a 0 CP strat or something.

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




BrianDavion wrote:
 Bosskelot wrote:
Serberys Raiders are already more mobile than any Eldar unit because they get pre-game move and a stratagem that allows them to make A FULL MOVE in the enemy charge phase so why not; give all CWE units move-shoot-move.



move shoot move is a problem as it allows them to pop out from behind a wall, shoot and pop back in, this can lead to some unfun interactions if the entire army can do it. if they do it I'd rather it be a 0 CP strat or something.

It already (basically) exists as a stratagem called Fire and Fade. Which is a powerful strat, but a pretty poor way of representing speed-as-defense as it means you can only protect a single unit with it each turn.

You're not wrong about it potentially being unfun to have a ton of enemy units shooting from behind walls. However...
* There's only so much terrain to hide behind.
* Outside of our heavy support slots, we don't actually have much in the way of long or even mid-ranged firepower. So even if we did hide all of our long-ranged shooty stuff behind terrain, you could probably argue that that's comparable to things like guard artillery lists.
* If we're hiding behind walls, there's a good chance we're not standing on the primary objectives.
* This is an edition where turn 1 and 2 charges aren't especially rare. Between raw speed and the various forms of arriving from reserves, I feel like having to get close or find an angle to counter attack might not be asking too much.

But I do see where you're coming from. It was an annoying ability in 7th.
   
Made in us
Boosting Black Templar Biker






Wyldhunt wrote:

* It's slightly tricky figuring out exactly how the move-shoot-move mechanic should work. Swapping the Movement and Shooting phase seems like it risks creating some bizarre rules interactions. Making it a straight forward second move in the charge phase means that infantry units are potentially outrunning jump packers from other armies. You can make the second move shorter (like 3"), but that 's mostly useful for shooting units while being even less useful for melee units.

I don't have my 7th Codex handy but wasn't the Move Shoot Move all relegated to Battle Focus during the Shooting phase? So after Shooting you could roll a d6 to see how many inches you could move? The die at least adds enough variance that it's not always a guarantee.

You're right thought it doesn't do a whole lot for units who are agile but don't rely on shooting. Here's a thought:

An Eldar Aspect Warror unit that has advanced this turn cannot be targeted by a shooting attack unless they are within 12".

It essentially takes the Impair Senses psychic power, makes it not-useless and then applies it to all Aspect warriors to represent their agility, guile, and mobile warfare.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 The Red Hobbit wrote:
Wyldhunt wrote:

* It's slightly tricky figuring out exactly how the move-shoot-move mechanic should work. Swapping the Movement and Shooting phase seems like it risks creating some bizarre rules interactions. Making it a straight forward second move in the charge phase means that infantry units are potentially outrunning jump packers from other armies. You can make the second move shorter (like 3"), but that 's mostly useful for shooting units while being even less useful for melee units.

I don't have my 7th Codex handy but wasn't the Move Shoot Move all relegated to Battle Focus during the Shooting phase? So after Shooting you could roll a d6 to see how many inches you could move? The die at least adds enough variance that it's not always a guarantee.

That's how it worked, but the d6 roll wasn't ideal. It added a fair bit of slowdown to the game as you rolled extra dice, had to take the time to perform basically an extra movement phase, and had to fiddle with tiny little distances. Like, I know I was guilty of maneuvering a dire avenger just slightly further out from behind a wall than I intended and ended up having to agonize over exactly how far I could move him with an unexpectedly low run (advance) roll to try and get him back out of line of sight. Our skimmers kind of missed out on that mechanic too, although they had Jink to sort of make up for it.


You're right thought it doesn't do a whole lot for units who are agile but don't rely on shooting. Here's a thought:

An Eldar Aspect Warror unit that has advanced this turn cannot be targeted by a shooting attack unless they are within 12".

It essentially takes the Impair Senses psychic power, makes it not-useless and then applies it to all Aspect warriors to represent their agility, guile, and mobile warfare.


Yeah, something along those lines could work. I'd be temppted to expand the range a bit and allow the enemy to shoot the closest eldar unit even if they were outside of that range. Probably throw in some other caveats so that you can't use airplanes to prevent the enemy from targeting your nearest units or whatever. But yeah. Something that makes the enemy less efficient so long as you stay mobile seems like it might be a good way to go. That's a much cleaner way of doing what I was going for with my confusion token idea.
   
Made in us
Boosting Black Templar Biker






Ah right, I had forgotten about the pain of rolling a 1 on the Battle Focus retreat. The situation you describe with agonizing over how far to move a unit out knowing it's a random roll to move back would certainly slow things down a bit.

The only hang-up I have on letting them be targeted if they're the nearest enemy model is that it means you can still blow up whichever poor unit is nearest at any range. For instance if your Banshees are leading the charge they can still be shot 36" away, advancing or not.
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




Wait. So the rule is unfun for the opponent, or at least washistorically, and people agree on that. But it is fine, but if the rule doesn't work, because of part of it being based on a random roll, it suddenly become unacceptable, because annoying is bad? That sounds like a double standard.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Wyldhunt wrote:
 The Red Hobbit wrote:
I was considering that at first since someone had mentioned earlier about letting Eldar move in the charge/fight phase which I thought was interesting. I think the issue with both ideas is that it would be too close to Battle Focus in 7th Ed where Eldar could move shoot move then disappear behind LOS cover. I thought the rule was fun but it definitely garnered a lot of hatred. I'm sure double shooting would also get a lot of hate too

Ynnari sound positively powerful, was that during Gathering storm just prior to the 8th launch? I remember hearing a lot about them then they completely disappeared as a faction, I guess that was due to the nerf bat.


I actually think a return to move-shoot-move might be okay for craftworlders these days. The table is smaller than it was in 7th. Many melee units have more mobility than they used to. Standing on objectives in the middle of the game is a big part of winning. So allowing craftworlders to win attrition not through superior raw power but by hiding from the worst of the enemy's return fire might not be a bad way to go. You'd sort of be conceding the primary objectives with any units you're hiding, but you'd be (hopefully) out-damaging your opponent (thus leaving the board safe enough to start scoring primaries on turns 2 or 3). And then the counterplay for your opponent would be to move some units off of those objectives to get the necessary angles to attack the craftworlders, who may, in turn, find that the non-eldar have left themselves in an exposed position. There's some decent depth to that mechanic.

Some possible issues with it:
* How good it is varies heavily depending on how much BLOS terrain there is.
* While the mechanic would be very good for ranged units, it doesn't do much for melee units or short-ranged units like fire dragons. And those units are among our most in need of help.
* It's slightly tricky figuring out exactly how the move-shoot-move mechanic should work. Swapping the Movement and Shooting phase seems like it risks creating some bizarre rules interactions. Making it a straight forward second move in the charge phase means that infantry units are potentially outrunning jump pakckers from other armies. You can make the second move shorter (like 3"), but that 's mostly useful for shooting units while being even less useful for melee units.

I'm all for a return to move-shoot-move, but there are definitely some wrong ways to do it.



Move-shoot-move would be great in an AA game, I think. AA would help Eldar to break out of the "unkillable destroyer or tissue paper" swings.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Karol wrote:Wait. So the rule is unfun for the opponent, or at least washistorically, and people agree on that. But it is fine, but if the rule doesn't work, because of part of it being based on a random roll, it suddenly become unacceptable, because annoying is bad? That sounds like a double standard.

At the risk of entering into a bad faith discussion...

The rule was unfun in 7th both because it was too good and because the d6 roll made it fiddly and time consuming.

In the context of 9th edition, the rule might no longer be too good because of modern table sizes and the various ways in which mobility has increased since then. Increased mobility means that opponents will generally have means of getting angles on units trying to hide whereas that could be more dubious in 7th.

While the rule might not be too powerful in the context of 9th, the d6 roll would still have the same problems of being fiddly and time-consuming. So while I'm open to the idea of a move-shoot-move mechanic, I'd prefer that any such mechanic avoid being fiddly and time-consuming for the sake of both my opponent's enjoyment and my own.

No double standard. I'm just not a fan of fiddly, time-consuming rules regardless of whether or not they make my army more powerful.

Blastaar wrote:
Move-shoot-move would be great in an AA game, I think. AA would help Eldar to break out of the "unkillable destroyer or tissue paper" swings.

For sure. That would be cool. It's just that any discussion that involves utilizing AA is a bit of a conversational dead end. It would have lots of merit, but it would also require so many changes to the game's mechanics that it's hard to talk except abstractly. And trying to hash out enough specifics to have a more concrete discussion would require an amount of rules writing that is probably outside the scope of this thread.

Like, any time AA is mentioned, some of us think it sounds awesome, some of us are vehemently opposed to it because reasons, and then that's all the further the conversation goes. And then five threads open in the Proposed Rules section pitching AA systems that don't solve the same handful of design problems that get brought up in every other AA thread we've had. XD
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




In the context of 9th edition, the rule might no longer be too good because of modern table sizes and the various ways in which mobility has increased since then. Increased mobility means that opponents will generally have means of getting angles on units trying to hide whereas that could be more dubious in 7th.

How do we know that it wouldn't be too powerful?From what I understand in the past other armies had such rules, not just eldar. And each time the rule set was considered at best very annoying to play against.
If objectives aren't set up inside buildings and LoS terrain is required for every game, an army that can shift out shot and then hide would have a huge adventage. Specially on very fast moving units. Yes some armies will get the option to maybe catch elder armies, but those would generally be armies like the other eldar armies, or something that can teleport around like ad mecha. Armies that are based around foot mounted infantry without cheap or flyer transports like marines wouldn't really have options to deal with that, unless they themself played very specific marine chapters like White Scars. Plus it wouldn't just be an option for shoting units. if all non vehicle eldar stuff, could move shot, and then move again, their assault units would suddenly become extremly fast without the need to buy transports.

While the rule might not be too powerful in the context of 9th, the d6 roll would still have the same problems of being fiddly and time-consuming. So while I'm open to the idea of a move-shoot-move mechanic, I'd prefer that any such mechanic avoid being fiddly and time-consuming for the sake of both my opponent's enjoyment and my own.

But not making it a random roll would just make it hyper efficient. It would be just as annoying, as it was in the past, while at the same time lose the possibility of sometimes leaving a unit in the open. Which I assume is the part that eldar players found annoying about the rule. But I possibly am over reacting. I imagine a ton heavy weapon platforms moving out shoting and then breaking LoS.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in ca
Legendary Master of the Chapter





Karol wrote:
In the context of 9th edition, the rule might no longer be too good because of modern table sizes and the various ways in which mobility has increased since then. Increased mobility means that opponents will generally have means of getting angles on units trying to hide whereas that could be more dubious in 7th.

How do we know that it wouldn't be too powerful?From what I understand in the past other armies had such rules, not just eldar. And each time the rule set was considered at best very annoying to play against.
If objectives aren't set up inside buildings and LoS terrain is required for every game, an army that can shift out shot and then hide would have a huge adventage. Specially on very fast moving units. Yes some armies will get the option to maybe catch elder armies, but those would generally be armies like the other eldar armies, or something that can teleport around like ad mecha. Armies that are based around foot mounted infantry without cheap or flyer transports like marines wouldn't really have options to deal with that, unless they themself played very specific marine chapters like White Scars. Plus it wouldn't just be an option for shoting units. if all non vehicle eldar stuff, could move shot, and then move again, their assault units would suddenly become extremly fast without the need to buy transports.

While the rule might not be too powerful in the context of 9th, the d6 roll would still have the same problems of being fiddly and time-consuming. So while I'm open to the idea of a move-shoot-move mechanic, I'd prefer that any such mechanic avoid being fiddly and time-consuming for the sake of both my opponent's enjoyment and my own.

But not making it a random roll would just make it hyper efficient. It would be just as annoying, as it was in the past, while at the same time lose the possibility of sometimes leaving a unit in the open. Which I assume is the part that eldar players found annoying about the rule. But I possibly am over reacting. I imagine a ton heavy weapon platforms moving out shoting and then breaking LoS.


I don't think they do know Karol, this thread has basicly been brain storming, brain storming tends to be tossing out ideas and seeing what sticks.

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




Ah okey. That explains a lot. I don't think I can do that on my own. I retract every comment I made, as I assumed the changes to be wanted absoluts.

And an army with blanket ++4inv moving twice and shoting twice seemed a tad too powerful too me.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in gb
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Move Shoot Move suggestion.

To use it, one has to advance. But you can interrupt that move at any point to resolve the unit’s shooting, before moving the remaining inches, in the same direction.

This turns it from jump in and out of the same cover, to something closer to Eldar and Elven ships in BFG and ManOWar. Perhaps limit it to Assault weapons only (or do a Dakka, and make it a unique weapon type?)

As ever, just spit balling.

Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?

Pfizer vaccine administered 13:40pm 18 Feb 21. Still no second head. Second jab 13:35pm 6 May 2021. At the Masonic Hall. 
   
Made in us
VF-1S Valkyrie Squadron Commander





Mississippi

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Move Shoot Move suggestion.

To use it, one has to advance. But you can interrupt that move at any point to resolve the unit’s shooting, before moving the remaining inches, in the same direction.

This turns it from jump in and out of the same cover, to something closer to Eldar and Elven ships in BFG and ManOWar. Perhaps limit it to Assault weapons only (or do a Dakka, and make it a unique weapon type?)

As ever, just spit balling.


Eh, not to keen on the "move in the same direction", it seems sensible to be able to move 90 degrees to the side after the shot at least.

In the end though, I just don't think the way the game is structured really handles move-shoot-move well in a sensible, balanced way (another vote for AA, basically).

It never ends well 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Move Shoot Move suggestion.

To use it, one has to advance. But you can interrupt that move at any point to resolve the unit’s shooting, before moving the remaining inches, in the same direction.

This turns it from jump in and out of the same cover, to something closer to Eldar and Elven ships in BFG and ManOWar. Perhaps limit it to Assault weapons only (or do a Dakka, and make it a unique weapon type?)

As ever, just spit balling.


This is very close to "usable" in 9th edition. Instead of interrupting the move at all and then continuing the advance, I'd just say that you trace a path and after moving can resolve your attacks from any point along that path. A la Infinity.
   
Made in us
Boosting Black Templar Biker






Perhaps instead of relying on tracing we could adjust it to simply be "This unit may shoot while advancing, it may not end it's movement within x" of its starting position. If it does so it skips the Shooting phase." Let's say X = 3", this would prevent them from popping out then immediately returning behind the same cover and would encourage moving to the next bit of cover.

Although it still has all the baggage of shooting in a different phase and the weird rules interactions that comes with it as Wyldhunt mentions above.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/29 19:49:20


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




@Karol: I know you retracted your statements, but I want to address a couple of points relevant to the ongoing Move-Shoot-Move discussion.
Karol wrote:
In the context of 9th edition, the rule might no longer be too good because of modern table sizes and the various ways in which mobility has increased since then. Increased mobility means that opponents will generally have means of getting angles on units trying to hide whereas that could be more dubious in 7th.

How do we know that it wouldn't be too powerful?From what I understand in the past other armies had such rules, not just eldar. And each time the rule set was considered at best very annoying to play against.
If objectives aren't set up inside buildings and LoS terrain is required for every game, an army that can shift out shot and then hide would have a huge adventage. Specially on very fast moving units. Yes some armies will get the option to maybe catch elder armies, but those would generally be armies like the other eldar armies, or something that can teleport around like ad mecha. Armies that are based around foot mounted infantry without cheap or flyer transports like marines wouldn't really have options to deal with that, unless they themself played very specific marine chapters like White Scars.

I feel like the tools for move quickly and showing up in unexpected places have expanded significantly since 7th. We've got psychic powers to move twice, cult ambush, stratagems and psychic poweres for several factions (including marines) that let you pick up a squad and basically deepstrike it, new weapons/units that can ignore LoS with their guns, more ways to advance and charge with melee units, units with movement stats higher than their old movement type from previous editions...

And if you don't have any of that, you can outflank huge chunks of your army that couldn't outflank before via the new Strategic Reserves rules. So even your marines that don't want to ride in transports, redeploy with psychic powers, or deepstrike by wearing jump packs and terminator armor can still get the drop on an eldar unit behind a building by coming in from strategic reserves. Also, if the key units of the eldar army are focusing on hiding, they're probably not standing on primary objectives thus giving the marines the edge on victory points.

An army that is winning by footslogging straight forward across the table and beating their foe over the head with their superior stats is probably a problem. That's the army equivalent of a W+1 character in a video game.


Plus it wouldn't just be an option for shoting units. if all non vehicle eldar stuff, could move shot, and then move again, their assault units would suddenly become extremly fast without the need to buy transports.

Glad you agree with a concern I raised several posts ago.
Wyldhunt wrote:
* It's slightly tricky figuring out exactly how the move-shoot-move mechanic should work. Swapping the Movement and Shooting phase seems like it risks creating some bizarre rules interactions. Making it a straight forward second move in the charge phase means that infantry units are potentially outrunning jump pakckers from other armies. You can make the second move shorter (like 3"), but that 's mostly useful for shooting units while being even less useful for melee units.

There are, of course, ways around that problem. You could make the second move a thing that happens instead of adding d6" to your Movement when you advance, for instance, and restrict the distance to something like 3".


But not making it a random roll would just make it hyper efficient. It would be just as annoying, as it was in the past, while at the same time lose the possibility of sometimes leaving a unit in the open. Which I assume is the part that eldar players found annoying about the rule.

Emphasis mine. You've partially misdiagnosed why the rule was annoying (even for eldar players). It wasn't exactly that a unit could be caught out that made the rule frustrating. It was the amount of time, squinting, and fiddling with model positions.

Say I've placed my unit in such a way that moving them 3" would be more than enough to get them to safety, but I roll a 2 on the d6 roll. It's not entirely clear at a glance whether 2" will be sufficient to move my most exposed model to safety, so I bend down, start measuring, squint at the wall of the terrain I'm hiding behind to see if I can draw line of sight to the enemy at various angles, confirm where I need to move other models in the unit to get them behind the wall without taking up the space my most exposed model needs to hide... And you, as my opponent, get to sit around waiting for me to finish messing about with all that for however long it takes, possibly multiple times in a single shooting phase.

I could, of course, try to position my unit in such a way that moving the unit even 1" would be enough to keep them safe, but then I'm doing a lot of that same measuring and squinting, just in advance and potentially for units that might end up rolling high enough on the d6 roll for it to not end up mattering.

Making it a flat distance (like 3") gives you enough of a "cushion" to not have to spend as much time agonizing over the perfect angles/distances, and it's also a low enough value that it doesn't lead to eldar units moving terribly absurd distances over the course of the turn. A 7" move on an aspect warrior followed by a 3" shooting phase move only moves them 10", which is comparable to drugged up wyches moving normally or non-drugged wyches making a bad advance roll.

Randomly failing to get your unit behind terrain because of a d6 roll doesn't seem like a drawback worth keeping. Not because I'm sad my elves might get shot but because it encourages you to waste time agonizing over precise angles/distances and then functionally negates player choice. If move-shoot-move ends up being too powerful, then having the second move randomly fail X% of the time isn't a great way to balance it.

But I possibly am over reacting. I imagine a ton heavy weapon platforms moving out shoting and then breaking LoS.

Well, obviously it would depend on the specifics of implementation, but that mostly wasn't a thing when we had MSM in 7th edition. The ability that let you Run after shooting was called Battle Focus, and it explicitly didn't work for an infantry model's Heavy weapons. So no hiding your dark reapers after firing them. I think you could do it with War Walkers, but maybe that was only with shuriken cannons (due to shuricannons being Assault weapons). Other vehicles and wraith units didn't have the Battle Focus rule and thus couldn't do it either. (Vehicles generally represented speed-as-defense with the Jink rule.)

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Stormonu wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Move Shoot Move suggestion.

To use it, one has to advance. But you can interrupt that move at any point to resolve the unit’s shooting, before moving the remaining inches, in the same direction.

This turns it from jump in and out of the same cover, to something closer to Eldar and Elven ships in BFG and ManOWar. Perhaps limit it to Assault weapons only (or do a Dakka, and make it a unique weapon type?)

As ever, just spit balling.


Eh, not to keen on the "move in the same direction", it seems sensible to be able to move 90 degrees to the side after the shot at least.

In the end though, I just don't think the way the game is structured really handles move-shoot-move well in a sensible, balanced way (another vote for AA, basically).

I'm not wild about 40k rules that use phrases like, "in the same direction." How are we tracking what that direction is? If one of my dire avengers has to move in a sort of spiral shape to get around a pile of boulders and shoot at his enemy, does he have to keep moving in that spiral pattern? Does the rest of the unit? What if my unit moved straight forward but went from a long thin line (----) to more of a wedge formation (-/\-)? Some of those models ended up going "to the right" while others ended up going "to the left").

Requiring units end up at least X" away from their starting point is simpler, but do you have to bookkeep the starting position of every model in your army to make sure each of them moved the required distance? Do you have to mark the footprint of the unit to ensure the guy on the left flank is sufficiently far from the starting point of the guy on the right flank?

Also, is forcing the space elves to move from one piece of cover to another actually a desirable goal? I like the "forward momentum" feeling it gives, but is it unreasonable for ninja elves to be good at basically running in circles to deliver pop-up attacks before ducking back behind cover? Plus, it makes the ability really terrain dependent. The right right terrain placement functionally ends up with the same "problem" as before (being able to hide your unit behind BLOS after popping out to attack), but the wrong terrain placement functionally makes the ability useless (if you can't reach a more protective location after firing your shots.)

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/29 20:05:53


 
   
Made in us
Boosting Black Templar Biker






Wyldhunt wrote:
Requiring units end up at least X" away from their starting point is simpler, but do you have to bookkeep the starting position of every model in your army to make sure each of them moved the required distance? Do you have to mark the footprint of the unit to ensure the guy on the left flank is sufficiently far from the starting point of the guy on the right flank?

I think if it's something relatively small then it won't be a nuissance when it comes to moving. After all if the effect takes place only when advancing, it would be kind of odd to advance but only move 2-4" inches. I should clarify I was thinking "model" but I believe I wrote "unit" which would make it a headache.

Also, is forcing the space elves to move from one piece of cover to another actually a desirable goal? I like the "forward momentum" feeling it gives, but is it unreasonable for ninja elves to be good at basically running in circles to deliver pop-up attacks before ducking back behind cover? Plus, it makes the ability really terrain dependent. The right right terrain placement functionally ends up with the same "problem" as before (being able to hide your unit behind BLOS after popping out to attack), but the wrong terrain placement functionally makes the ability useless (if you can't reach a more protective location after firing your shots.)

Fair point, although with 9th making most boards more terrain dense I think it's less of an issue compared to previous edition. If Eldar still had Fleet and let's say always advanced 12" I think that would get you to the next cover.

Just a thought, I prefer nebulous "can't be targeted" rules over terrain dependent rules myself.
   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch






I think they should do away with modifier cap but limit it to like -3 on 2 units max, and keep 6's always hit and we would be fine for the most part.

Tbh I don't even know.
The new ad mech book just makes you wonder if there much point to continuing with 40k

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "


 Eonfuzz wrote:


I would much rather everyone have a half ass than no ass.


"A warrior does not seek fame and honour. They come to him as he humbly follows his path"  
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: