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.

Well, as it says above.

Now, in Fantasy, you typically have a selection of 3 responses to an enemy charge, namely 1) Flee! 2) Hold Ground 3) Stand and Fire.

These work really nicely within the rest of the rules framework, as careful positioning etc can limit the opponents valid reactions, potentially forcing him into decidedly unfavourable combats. There are conditions to be applied however.

1) You can pretty much always elect to flee, unless you have failed a Fear Test from the charging unit, in which case you will either automatically stand ground, or flee anyways if outnumbered by said unit.

2) Nothing prevents you Standing Ground, unless a Terror test is failed, or the aforemention Fear + Outnumber.

3) Stand and Fire. You need LoS to you target, and you cannot declare this if the enemy is within half their charge reach.

So, thats the Fantasy ones briefly outlined (as ever there are exceptions to the above rules, but those aren't terribly important).

And what of 40k? I still feel, suitably nerfed as it is, that Assault Armies still have an easier time of it than Shooty Armies, especially when loaded up on Transports. So, some kind of Charge Reaction Emulation might be the answer.

Now, of course, guns in 40k are a lot more deadly than Fantasy, and of course more numerous. So some kind of limitation is arguably needed to avoid just swinging the pendulum to the other side (not the aim of this)

How would you guys go about it? My suggestion would be to assign a reaction choice to each unit in the game. For example, Marines aren't terribly noted for fleeing before a charge, but I can imagine them planting boots and letting loose with some discplined Bolter Fire as the enemy closes. Guardsmen, however, might have orders to fall back, allowing the guns another chance at obliterating the enemy etc etc.

So, assume this happens and each unit has a reaction, or choice of reactions. How to balance the effects? Well, flee, either allow the full 2d6" of a normal flee, or name 'Fall Back' and allow d6". I dunno which would be best. Essentially, the trick would be to avoid charged units being able to simply outrun the attackers (see mention of pendulum swinging the other way).

Now, stand and fire, I think I've got this one licked. Essentially, if your unit fired upon the Charging enemy in your last turn, you may declare a stand and fire. Rapid Fire etc still applies, but to balance things (in Warhammer, you get -1 to hit when doing this) and to represent the slightly desperate firing, perhaps the enemy gets a 5+ Cover Save? As mentioned this is only declarable against the unit last fire open by your unit, so is avoidable by a twin charge from the enemy, engaging first with the unit they didn't shoot.

So, what are your thoughts?

I don't think that fleeing would be a problem, seeing that your unit must regroup afterwards, and what if they CAN outrun assaulty units? where will they go? off the table.
so just pressing the "Flee" button every time will end in failure.

But, it allows the player a chance to react more favorably to a charge. If, say, Ork Nobz attack a Heavy weapon squad, they would fall back (maybe stand and shoot...) and a group of rough riders counter charge with hunting lances.

I'd be happy with charge reactions.

Wait, charged shooty units can shoot their assailants? Maybe Tau gunlines could actually work again...

Seems like a bad idea to me, or at least a bad idea without a lot of point adjustments being made.

For instance, how much better would shoota boys be than slugga boys now? The shoota boys either furious charge or get to shoot 60 shots at their enemy twice in a row. Not good.

Yeah guard aren't that good at the moment, what happens if their new codex comes out and they're one of the strongest armies? (A pretty likely scenario.)

Giving the charging unit a cover save won't even matter 3/4 of the time, since most things will already have a cover save, an armor/invulnerable save that's at least as good, or will be shot at with something that ignores cover saves.

lootas with a possible 2 rounds of fire per turn?
feth that!


they would become feared and no one would get close to them, shooting would be the only option to kill them.

How about:
Stand and shoot: All models armed with assault or Rapid Fire may shoot, like in the shooting Phase, but suffer a -1 to hit penalty, and may not attack in the ensueing assault phase. Blast and/or Template weapons may not shoot.

This is why I feel each unit or army would have a typical reaction. All could arguably flee (unless Fearless).

Then, Stand and Fire could be applied to some, and the Piling In for others.

I can see Orkses being more enamoured with the idea of breaking heads than a bit more Dakka, thus they get the pile in of some kind (not entirely sure how to balance this) whereas more disciplined troops would perform an orderly(ish) withdrawal, and the bravest standing and firing.

Still have to be able to fight though, otherwise it's a fairly pointless exercise.

Oooh! Orky reaction could be to move D3" towards the enemy as their reaction, or stay where they are.

Long road to balance all this of course!

HI M.D.G.

I think you have found the problem with the 40k rules, 'Long road to balance all this of course! '.

If the current game turn mechanic was not so restrictive and unballancing , charge reactions wouldnt be needed.
They would be built into the basic game turn.

WH having its rules loosley based on a 1970s Napoleonic rule set, sort of makes sense.(Lots of common elements , level of command, unit types and function etc.)

40k having its rules based loosley on a 1970s Napoleonic rule set , makes NO sense what so ever.

Any attempt to make the current 40k rules 'more tactical -realistic ' ends up in lots of 'wordy conditional exeptional exceptions ' commonly known as 'special rules'.

EG
If a unit reciving a charge for an enemy unit more than 6" but less than 12" may elect to make a 'tactical withdrawl' if the Army has the 'tactical awarness 'USR, and the unit has 'Self Preservation' special rule.
Unless the attacker has the 'Swift Strike' special rule.
Unless the defending player has a character with 'Threataning Presence' within 12" of the defending unit.
Depending on..unless...in the case of ....Bla Bla Bla Adnausium....

Or player A takes an action, Player B takes an action.(Actions, move OR shoot OR ready OR assault.)

So you can have current 40k rules + universal special rules + special rules + advanced rules + advanced special rules =lots of confusion.

OR you could have a new rule set written especialy for the current game ,a simple well defined intuative rule set.

Both would take about the same time to develop, but the new rule set would be infinatley easier to understand and balance . IMO.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Didn't Andy Chambers leave GW over wanting to actually make a new rule set for 40k (which they feel is bad business based on how much the rule change from 2ed to 3rd hurt them).

Jack

The biggest issue you face with carrying a rule like that over to 40k from Fantasy is that in 40k, guns are much, much more common. Stand and shoot is a way, in WHFB, for the occasional shooty unit to stand a chance when charged, but when every unit can shoot as it is being charged, it just screws over assaulty troops.

fatal_GRACE wrote:The biggest issue you face with carrying a rule like that over to 40k from Fantasy is that in 40k, guns are much, much more common. Stand and shoot is a way, in WHFB, for the occasional shooty unit to stand a chance when charged, but when every unit can shoot as it is being charged, it just screws over assaulty troops.

Which is why of course since the advent of repeating firearms...there haven't been assault units in armies (assault meaning melee focused in this context).

Its unfortunate 40k doesn't have some sort of fluff justification for why this is not the case.

Jack

It would be hard to do but ya I would love to see some kind of rule to that effect.

Mabey it could be called Fighting Retreat

Jackmojo wrote:

fatal_GRACE wrote:The biggest issue you face with carrying a rule like that over to 40k from Fantasy is that in 40k, guns are much, much more common. Stand and shoot is a way, in WHFB, for the occasional shooty unit to stand a chance when charged, but when every unit can shoot as it is being charged, it just screws over assaulty troops.

Which is why of course since the advent of repeating firearms...there haven't been assault units in armies (assault meaning melee focused in this context).

Its unfortunate 40k doesn't have some sort of fluff justification for why this is not the case.

Jack

Sure it does, new methods of quickly closing with the enemy (jet packs, purpose built assault craft (landraiders, dark eldar raiders, etc), drop pods) and/or armor capable of reliably withstanding most small/medium arms fire. All this backed up by the fact that there are many enemy units that have incredible ranged capability that would be hard to dislodge with fire alone, are very vunerable to close up assualt by dedicated close combat troops. And then theres the two armies that still follow the old - to many to shoot- strategy, orks and tyranids. They close for assault headless of casaulties and so it is only prudent for the opposition to deploy close combat specialists of their own to counter any units that reach their lines.

The problem is that there are plenty of assault units with bad saves which would become useless in an environment where the defenders dilemna of "I'm going to get charged next turn, what should I do?" could be answered by "I'll just shoot now, and shoot again when they charge." Adding in this sort of rule would require slashing the point costs of the current dedicated troop units, and rebalancing the point values is what causes people to avoid changing rules. Cf. the changes to fearless from 4th to 5th, the addition and removal of overwatch between 2nd and 3rd, etc. for the problems caused by changing the rules without changing point values.

On top of that, there are still plenty of "I'll stand and shoot and then fight the survivors" tactics being trumped by "My special rule says you don't get stand and shoot" examples. The first example which springs to mind is the Siren Standard in the daemon book, but I'm sure there are others.

I think the only thing that needs tweaking in the 40K assault phase is the sweeping advance. It's far too easy to completely overrun a unit, and is not fair to units that have a low initiative.

That whining comes inherently from being Tau, but when all your troops are Initiative 2, you feel the pain more often then not.

I had it explained to me once that when a unit falls back from close combat in Fantasy, the winning unit actually has to "catch" them (both units roll the fallback dice?) and if the winning unit catches them, they are swept. I like that idea more. At least it's fair, which is definitely not what the initiative check is...

Just my $0.02

synchronicity:

The sweeping advance used to be like the Warhammer Fantasy Battles one. They changed it in the 4th edition to be about Initiative (I + 1D6, rather than 2D6 or 3D6 for Jump Packs, Bikes, etc). With higher Initiative troops hitting first and being more likely to successful make sweeping advances, it gives Initiative much more value than it has in Warhammer Fantasy Battles.

The movement idea seems fair until you realize that units in Warhammer 40k don't line up in little blocks like they do in Warhammer Fantasy Battle, and that all it takes is some clever manuevering and a supposedly slow unit can easily catch a faster unit on the sweeping advance. It works when the starting positions are equal. like WFB, and the Initiative system is a better compromise when starting positions aren't, like in W40k.

Me, I think that charge reactions would work if they were resolved like Epic: Armageddon:

Models in base to base contact can attack using close combat attacks. Models not in base to base contact can shoot. Given the presence of the counter-assault move in the Assault phase now, it should be easy enough that models that don't move can fire Rapid Fire and Assault weapons, while models that do move are limited to firing Assault weapons.

gardeth wrote:
Sure it does, new methods of quickly closing with the enemy (jet packs, purpose built assault craft (landraiders, dark eldar raiders, etc), drop pods) and/or armor capable of reliably withstanding most small/medium arms fire. All this backed up by the fact that there are many enemy units that have incredible ranged capability that would be hard to dislodge with fire alone, are very vunerable to close up assualt by dedicated close combat troops. And then theres the two armies that still follow the old - to many to shoot- strategy, orks and tyranids. They close for assault headless of casaulties and so it is only prudent for the opposition to deploy close combat specialists of their own to counter any units that reach their lines.

Except I don't feel we see that reflected in the rules, all that is really there is a lack of proper suppression and an utter lack of anything which simulates the sort of effect machine guns have on guys who charge straight at you...

Nurglitch wrote:
Me, I think that charge reactions would work if they were resolved like Epic: Armageddon:

Models in base to base contact can attack using close combat attacks. Models not in base to base contact can shoot. Given the presence of the counter-assault move in the Assault phase now, it should be easy enough that models that don't move can fire Rapid Fire and Assault weapons, while models that do move are limited to firing Assault weapons.

Thats not bad, good call Nurglitch.

Once again Epic: Armageddon shows how cool things CAN be when not beholden to older rulesets (which is hilarious as I loved second edition Epic: Space Marine which it totally moved away from).

Jack

Why not force any unit wishing to perform a stand and shoot to pass an initiative test first. Pistols would have no modifiers. Rapid fire and assault weapons would be -1 and heavy weapons would be a -2. Any natural roll of 1 will succeed. Any multi-shot weapon may only fire as many shots as they passed the initiative test by. In addition, any unit opting to stand and shoot has initiative and ws reduced by 1 to represent their preoccupation with their weapons.
For example: A 10 man space marine tactical squad with a plasma gun and heavy bolter is charged and opts to stand and shoot. The 8 normal marines opt to use their pistols with 4 successful tests. The plasma gunner rolls a 1 while needing a 3 or less (I4-1 for rapid fire = 3, 3-1=2, thus it may fire both shots). The heavy bolter gunner rolls a 1 and may only fire once (I4-2 for heavy weapon = 2, 2-1=1, thus it may only fire once). The incoming unit then faces 4 bolt pistol shots, 2 plasma shots and 1 heavy bolter shot. In return, they then charge a unit of I3 WS3 marines.

Jackmojo:

The funny thing is that Jervis Johnson lead the team that wrote the Epic: Armageddon rules, and he gets the stick for all the crappy legacy rules that muck Warhammer 40k up.

It's like bringing in the contractor that build the Empire States Building to re-wattle a hut and then complaining that the he didn't do a good job on the daubing.

Nurglitch wrote:Jackmojo:

The funny thing is that Jervis Johnson lead the team that wrote the Epic: Armageddon rules, and he gets the stick for all the crappy legacy rules that muck Warhammer 40k up.

It's like bringing in the contractor that build the Empire States Building to re-wattle a hut and then complaining that the he didn't do a good job on the daubing.

Didn't he also lead the team for Epic 40,000...

George Spiggott:

Correct, he did. The ensuing debacle 'proved' to GW that you couldn't take a brand, say 'Epic', and radically change it. Epic 40k is a great game, and there's a reason both Epic Armageddon and Battlefleet Gothic incorporates most of its core concepts. The reason why people like Epic Armageddon better than Epic 40k is that it re-introduces some of the fiddly legacy-simulating chrome from Adeptus Titanicus and Epic Space Marine that 40k fans like.

To return to the architecture analogy, it's like the architect of the World Trade Centre being told that the Twin Towers aren't deco enough, and need more gargoyles.

Eh, Epic: 40,ooo caved so fast I never even got to play it (as I was on a hiatus from regular gaming at the time) so I have no opinion on it at all...but I did love Epic: Space Marine back in the day.

Maybe if the relaunch of Spacehulk is successful we can start praying for a real launch of epic again.

Jack

Umm... What's the difference between this and a morale test? Well, aside from the shooting part...

Well... Stand and Fire shouldn't apply, as others have said, 40K is far more shooty than WHFB.

Hold is kind of a given, as there aren't any outright 'Fear' tests in 40K the way there is in WHFB.

Fleeing... now this has some merit, especially given how potent Assault/CC armies have become. My own opinion is that such a move should involve a Ld test to see if it occurs (more disciplined armies/units would/should be more likely to do this). If it does, no combat rolls are taken, and it is automatically assumed the Fleeing unit has lost the combat, and appropriate initiative rolls are taken to see if the Fleeing unit actually does get away or if they're cut down as they turn tail.

This way, lower leadership/initiative units are going to be far more likely to get pounded into oblivion and higher LD/I units may get away. The unit would have to regroup on their next turn, would have to make a 3" consolidation move, wouldn't be able to Assault/Run, wouldn't be able to fire heavy weapons, etc.

If the fleeing unit is assaulted 'again', they would have to take an immediate additional Ld check or be destroyed.

Too convoluted? =D