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.

In past editions it seems that the design idea is based on vehicle combat in real life (at least WW2 era combat) where tanks and other combat vehicles generally fired while stationary but it didn't mean they had act like a gun emplacement to be effective. The idea is that you move into position for part of your movement then use the other part of your movement to acquire target and thus be ready to accurately fire in the shooting phase. Thus the old combat speed (half or below) vs cruising speed (moving the entire distance). It makes sense as most vehicles in past had little to no stabilization so trying to hit something when moving as extremely difficult.

The other part of this was that heavy weapons where such that they needed to be deployed to effectively use. A infantryman with a heavy machine gun needed to be in a stationary position to put down effective fire or even operate the thing at all. While a weapon mounted on a vehicle was in effect always deployed and thus was fully usable even after moving as long as there was stationary time to acquire target and fire (combat speed). Its also somewhat why things like terminators had relentless because their armor was able to act as a stabilized firing platform for things like cyclone missiles or assault cannons.

The major issue is that GW gutted the entire design concept and yet it copy/pasted a lot of the weapon profiles that where written in part with this design concept in mind. In doing so we have weapons that get penalized for firing while moving no matter if its a guardsman running around with a lascannon or a Leman Russ Battle Tank trying to fire the same lascannon. Without unit types and other such mechanics (RELENTLESS) you end up with this sort of absurdity and it makes the game have less depth when tanks play like they are just really fat infantry.

Mentioned earlier but a Walker should be in no way less stable than a Tank. When driving across anything other than dead flat land (or roads) a tank's barrel is going to be pitching all over the place and would make aiming next to impossible. A walker on the other hand is in essence a mechanical/robot person stomping around. When a human walks our legs might be doing whatever and our torso might swing side to side (for balancing purposes mostly) but our heads are able to stay fully stable (our brains help process this as well) and our arms can adjust to keep relatively stable while moving. Its reasonable to assume that a walker has some degree of gyros and stabilization due to it needed that to properly walk without falling over. If a walker (or anything in this game) can move and shoot a storm bolter accurately then a walker should be able to do the same with a heavy bolter (or any other equip-able heavy weapon).

There should be a meaningful trade-off in the game between speed and firepower, but GW has gutted the movement rules to the point where the only thing that matters for movement is in range/out of range and how many things you’re in range of.

I wish there was more trade-off between being more accurate while still vs. hard to be hit while streaking across the battlefield. I think the half move is a good idea, but I’d also like to put forth a rule where Advancing give you a bonus to avoid being hit. A -1 penalty to be hit seems too gooD - maybe a -1 penalty to Wound instead?

 Stormonu wrote:
There should be a meaningful trade-off in the game between speed and firepower, but GW has gutted the movement rules to the point where the only thing that matters for movement is in range/out of range and how many things you’re in range of.

I wish there was more trade-off between being more accurate while still vs. hard to be hit while streaking across the battlefield. I think the half move is a good idea, but I’d also like to put forth a rule where Advancing give you a bonus to avoid being hit. A -1 penalty to be hit seems too gooD - maybe a -1 penalty to Wound instead?

Seems like that would be a bit much for things like Eldar who could just advance their army for almost no penalty and I think that's a bit much to have on everything. Maybe that could be a bike thing? They're small enough that they're easier to miss than a vehicle but much faster than infantry.

pm713 wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
There should be a meaningful trade-off in the game between speed and firepower, but GW has gutted the movement rules to the point where the only thing that matters for movement is in range/out of range and how many things you’re in range of.

I wish there was more trade-off between being more accurate while still vs. hard to be hit while streaking across the battlefield. I think the half move is a good idea, but I’d also like to put forth a rule where Advancing give you a bonus to avoid being hit. A -1 penalty to be hit seems too gooD - maybe a -1 penalty to Wound instead?

Seems like that would be a bit much for things like Eldar who could just advance their army for almost no penalty and I think that's a bit much to have on everything. Maybe that could be a bike thing? They're small enough that they're easier to miss than a vehicle but much faster than infantry.

Eldar can't advance their army without penalty, they only advance and fire assault weapons without penalty, and Advancing still prevents charging.

Heavy, PIstol, Grenade and Rapid Fire weapons still cannot be fired at all, nor can any assault unit besides Banshees charge.

Wouldn't it make eldar flyers -1/-2 to hit and -1 to wound? They would be very resilient.

Karol wrote:
Wouldn't it make eldar flyers -1/-2 to hit and -1 to wound? They would be very resilient.

Well, as long as they don't want to do any shooting. Their weapons are Heavy, remember.

Modern tanks are just as accurate on the move as they are stationary. This has been true for about 30 years. The main reason they stop moving to engage targets is to preserve their range advantage. I would imagine even in a grimdak war setting like 40k that tanks would have things like...gyrostabilizer turrets and computer targeting systems.

This is how it worked in 4th edition - seems great

 Xenomancers wrote:
computer targeting systems.

BLAM

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
computer targeting systems.

BLAM

Heck even without them - vehicles are still more accurate on the move than infantry. Especially at lower speeds.

the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:
Wouldn't it make eldar flyers -1/-2 to hit and -1 to wound? They would be very resilient.

Well, as long as they don't want to do any shooting. Their weapons are Heavy, remember.

yeah, but 5-7 flyers can daisy chain on objective that you can't even get to them, while the rest of the army is scoring. And you can't charge them without fly, and not all armies have fly models.

imo, vehicles/monsters should not be affected by the heavy penalty because to them, the weapon isn't actually more difficult to fire than an assault weapon/RF.
For example, why does a heavy stubber on a chimera suffer a movement penalty when a stormbolter on a rhino doesn't, even though both are mounted the same? Why do the burst cannons on a hammerhead suffer no movement penalty, but SMS do, when both are mounted identically? Why can a Tau Piranha move 16" and fire without penalty, but a sentinel moves 1" and takes the penalty? The vehicles aren't setting the weapons up like infantry would or bracing, they fire them exactly like they would assault weapons, which have no movement penalty.

Plus, gameplay wise it can stifle movement and encourage castles, so that's no bueno.

The problem is that the game is too killy, if you can just effortlessly move to get into position to get LOS then there's no reason to take cover in the first place, making terrain even less of a part of the game than it currently is. If anything moving more than half should be further penalized to encourage moving into position while providing light fire, then doing major damage if your opponent doesn't make an effort to hide from the new position your unit has taken. When a unit can FLY 40" and hit on 2s there's no hiding, just effortlessly gunning squads down regardless of where your opponent places them, at best you're adding +1 to Sv characteristic for cover which is great against some units, but against high-AP weapons it's not.

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoiler:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Ideally, I'd add a "heavy" keyword to vehicles for allowing this to happen. Some vehicles might not actually retain the stability that one would need for this to happen.

For me it's most narrative-breaking when supposedly "Fast" vehicles have to worry about moving and firing heavy weapons. It makes less sense to me that a tank, which in the kind of WWII type combat that 40k most emulates did usually stop to fire their main turrets, can move and fire heavy, but a Vyper with a scatter laser or an attack bike with a heavy bolter has to stand still to use those effectively.

Good examples of vehicles that feel like they should be moving, but instead act like stationary turrets all game when they can:

-GSC buggies and Goliaths
-Marine Attack Bikes and Land Speeders
-Eldar Vypers and Falcons
-Blood Angel Baal Preds (you know, the fast version of predators?)
-Sentinels, Dreadnoughts, Carnifexes, etc, the walkers of the world

It makes less sense to me that a motocycle sidecar could fire more accurately on the move than a tank. While it is true that most armored vehicles do generally shoot less well on the move than from a brief halt, sidecar bikes definitely shoot way less well because they're lighter and have none of the stabilizing equipment and are basically two guys bouncing over every rut with a machinegun. Nothing about being fast equates to being stable.

Also, a walker is far less stable than a tank; when a tank is driving the chassis shakes a little bit as it crosses terrain, when a walker is moving the chassis shakes a whole f****** ton.

I think that tanks [and large tyranid MC's] should get a "Stabilized" rule allowing them to fire their weapons on the move without penalty, but that this shouldn't apply to walkers.

Which is why I've always hated "Realism" based rules arguments.

What this would functionally give you is a game where it makes the most game sense for certain, arbitrarily chosen "fast" units like jetbikes, bikes, and speeders to sit still and act like stationary gun turrets all game, while all "heavy" units like mobile artillery and heavy tanks would be able to roll around and fire.

With there being no benefit to getting around behind an enemy, and the weapon range on most heavy weapons being extremely long, you can almost always just plop your, whatever, vyper down on the board, and its optimal course of action is to never. ever. move.

That's a very silly thing for a vehicle based around movement. I primarily see this with my achilles "Scout Car" - it's the most stationary piece in my GSC army. Might as well be fixed artillery. it NEVER moves, because moving makes its only utility hit on a 5.

Your table needs more LOS-blocking terrain if you can sit still and shoot the entire game. The 8th terrain system is pretty flawed, moving into a better position to deny cover is almost never a thing because units need to be on a feature and 50% covered, either they are so well covered 12" of Movement won't change a thing or they don't have cover in the first place. If you're playing on an open table you wouldn't need to move regardless of whether you'd be hitting on 4+ or 5+, the terrain just needs to make it worth it to hit on 5+ by either making 4+ impossible or making cover easier to get and lose.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yea, I could support this. I could actually move my FF instead of worrying about getting kicked down to a 5+ to hit or spending a CP.

And this still lets the stratagems exist for when you REALLY need to move and shoot.

And retains the special status for stuff like Land Raiders while not also providing a buff to Supersonic Flyers, which seem to be right on the cusp of OP in nearly every army where they exist. Other than Tau and Crons I can't think of any Supersonic flyers I have not seen in tourney lists.

Both Tau and Crons have topped tournaments with flyers AFAIK, almost all Necron lists that top events use 3 flyers in fact.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Modern tanks are just as accurate on the move as they are stationary. This has been true for about 30 years. The main reason they stop moving to engage targets is to preserve their range advantage. I would imagine even in a grimdak war setting like 40k that tanks would have things like...gyrostabilizer turrets and computer targeting systems.

Well, Necrons shouldn't miss because a modern ballistics robot doesn't miss when firing down a firing range, a robot made with technology tens of thousands of years more advanced should never miss. Space Marines shouldn't be killable by mere Infantry Squads, they are as gods on the battlefield, they should have more T and W than a Leman Russ. There isn't much fluff about 100 Leman Russ Battle Tanks taking over a planet in a week, so why are they tougher, deal more damage and are more mobile than one of the Emperor's Astartes?

40k should model first or second world war combat with fantastical elements, not 21st warfare where moving and firing a vehicle is just as effective at sitting still (I'll just take your word for that) or 25th century warfare, where for all we know everything might be done by aerial drones and nanomachines commanded and programmed by AIs fighting over paperclips. 40k does not need to make sense, it needs to evoke a feeling and make for a good experience. If you make a game called paperclip wars I'll be sure to check it out and I'll fully expect the aerial drones to never miss and fire at full ballistic skill on the move.

the_scotsman wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
There should be a meaningful trade-off in the game between speed and firepower, but GW has gutted the movement rules to the point where the only thing that matters for movement is in range/out of range and how many things you’re in range of.

I wish there was more trade-off between being more accurate while still vs. hard to be hit while streaking across the battlefield. I think the half move is a good idea, but I’d also like to put forth a rule where Advancing give you a bonus to avoid being hit. A -1 penalty to be hit seems too gooD - maybe a -1 penalty to Wound instead?

Seems like that would be a bit much for things like Eldar who could just advance their army for almost no penalty and I think that's a bit much to have on everything. Maybe that could be a bike thing? They're small enough that they're easier to miss than a vehicle but much faster than infantry.

Eldar can't advance their army without penalty, they only advance and fire assault weapons without penalty, and Advancing still prevents charging.

Heavy, PIstol, Grenade and Rapid Fire weapons still cannot be fired at all, nor can any assault unit besides Banshees charge.

Last I checked it applied to all weapons except heavy ones. Not that there's many of them.

No charging isn't much of an issue and if you were getting -1 to wound out of advancing then taking pretty much any melee unit would be pointless.

 vict0988 wrote:
The problem is that the game is too killy, if you can just effortlessly move to get into position to get LOS then there's no reason to take cover in the first place, making terrain even less of a part of the game than it currently is. If anything moving more than half should be further penalized to encourage moving into position while providing light fire, then doing major damage if your opponent doesn't make an effort to hide from the new position your unit has taken. When a unit can FLY 40" and hit on 2s there's no hiding, just effortlessly gunning squads down regardless of where your opponent places them, at best you're adding +1 to Sv characteristic for cover which is great against some units, but against high-AP weapons it's not.

If that is your stance, then the movement penalty should apply to all weapons and not just heavy weapons. A tau coldstar can move 20" and hit on 2s with 4 fusion blasters, but because the weapons are assault it suffers no penalty. But a sentinel that moves 9" hits on 5s with its one lascannon because it takes a penalty. It's inconsistent.

imo, though, movement should be rewarded. If I do manage to flank a unit I want it to matter. What's the point in flanking if the cover penalty is just replaced with a movement penalty? In cities of death for example, obstructions give -1 to hit, but so does moving... so what's the point in repositioning at all?

the_scotsman wrote:
I don't typically like sweeping balance changes to the rules, but it seems at this point like there are a lot of "Fast" units held back by the fact that they have to sit completely still to not give themself a penalty to hit, and a lot of the units you'd think "you know, this would be a problem if it had this ability" already have access to it - IH Tanks, Leman Russes (on the gun that matters), Crimson Hunters, etc.

So here's an idea for a "Big FAQ new universal rule": Combat Speed

Combat Speed: All VEHICLE, MONSTROUS CREATURE, BIKER and JETBIKER models gain this rule, unless they also have the SUPERSONIC keyword.

A model with this rule that moves 1/2 of its current Movement stat or less during the movement phase ignores the usual penalty for moving and firing a Heavy weapon.

Just make them all Relentless. Neither a Land Raider nor a Vyper should need to move less than their Movement Value to fire anything. That's one of the main points of having vehicles (or bikes) in the first place.

Dandelion wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
The problem is that the game is too killy, if you can just effortlessly move to get into position to get LOS then there's no reason to take cover in the first place, making terrain even less of a part of the game than it currently is. If anything moving more than half should be further penalized to encourage moving into position while providing light fire, then doing major damage if your opponent doesn't make an effort to hide from the new position your unit has taken. When a unit can FLY 40" and hit on 2s there's no hiding, just effortlessly gunning squads down regardless of where your opponent places them, at best you're adding +1 to Sv characteristic for cover which is great against some units, but against high-AP weapons it's not.

If that is your stance, then the movement penalty should apply to all weapons and not just heavy weapons. A tau coldstar can move 20" and hit on 2s with 4 fusion blasters, but because the weapons are assault it suffers no penalty. But a sentinel that moves 9" hits on 5s with its one lascannon because it takes a penalty. It's inconsistent.

imo, though, movement should be rewarded. If I do manage to flank a unit I want it to matter. What's the point in flanking if the cover penalty is just replaced with a movement penalty? In cities of death for example, obstructions give -1 to hit, but so does moving... so what's the point in repositioning at all?

8e 40k doesn't reward movement or positioning because cover isn't directional and you mitigate it via binary on/off special rules, the gunline equivalent is just a better pick than any short-ranged weapon (would you rather have a lascannon or a meltagun? 8pts to not need a delivery vehicle?), true line of sight makes for buggy hitboxes and models it's impossible to hide or hide from, indirect-fire weapons are way too accurate and too effective, and the damage/durability balance is so skewed towards damage that the only way to prevent a thing from getting randomly whacked is to deny LOS (unless you're playing against an army with the indirect firepower to just remove whatever they want).

If you want to reward movement making it easier to annihilate anything that pokes its head out of cover isn't a good way to do it.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

8e 40k doesn't reward movement or positioning because cover isn't directional and you mitigate it via binary on/off special rules, the gunline equivalent is just a better pick than any short-ranged weapon (would you rather have a lascannon or a meltagun? 8pts to not need a delivery vehicle?), true line of sight makes for buggy hitboxes and models it's impossible to hide or hide from, indirect-fire weapons are way too accurate and too effective, and the damage/durability balance is so skewed towards damage that the only way to prevent a thing from getting randomly whacked is to deny LOS (unless you're playing against an army with the indirect firepower to just remove whatever they want).

If you want to reward movement making it easier to annihilate anything that pokes its head out of cover isn't a good way to do it.

This is more of an indictment of the terrain rules than the movement rules. Besides, directional cover does exist: it's called a barricade. Also, if you play Cities of Death (which I recommend) then obscured models are harder to hit. Flanking a wall or barricade therefore lets you ignore both the +1sv and the -1 to hit for example. Even with a ruin, you can ignore the obscurement penalty with good positioning.
(also, weapons that ignore LOS need a penalty for doing so like in kill team)
So should terrain be more impactful? Yes, and if it's more impactful then vehicles should not be penalized for doing something many other units do without penalty. if you want movement penalties for the sake of reducing killyness, then apply it to every unit, not just heavy weapons. It's dumb that a tau piranha can go full speed with no penalty but a sentinel cannot.

I thought it was more of an indictment of the skewed relationship between firepower and durability, myself. The issue here is the "surprise-boom" principle; should you be able to take the shot the turn you set it up? If you can it becomes much harder to counter or respond to. Back in 7e you couldn't charge out of Deep Strike, so you placed your Terminators, and the other guy had a chance to respond by shooting them, charging first, or running away, but now you place your Smash Captain and immediately waltz into melee and blow stuff up without any regard for whether the other guy should have a chance to do anything. If you were forced to set up your no-cover shot, then the other guy got to move, then you got to take it, you'd have to plan a lot more carefully, but the way firepower works in 8e if you force someone to wait before attacking the response is just "I remove that model".

I agree in principle that penalties should be applied more universally, but in the case of your example I don't think giving a move-and-fire penalty to Heavy weapons is the problem so much as what weapons are attached to what models. A Piranha has a fusion blaster (18" range), a Sentinel might have an autocannon or a lascannon (48" range). If you apply a move-and-fire penalty to people firing short-ranged weapons you just end up making short-ranged weapons even more pointless than they already were, but if you don't stick a move-and-fire penalty on longer-ranged weapons the surprise-boom shots are more powerful and harder to avoid. If a Sentinel had the option to be equipped with, say, a plasma gun, that'd be an easier comparison.

Considering the problem in a more abstract way I think the problem is that a large part of the purpose of 'fast vehicles' pre-8e was to deliver shots to models with weaker side/rear armour (or force a shot against an un-Ion Shielded face of a Knight). Directional cover helps some but without armour facings that does mean the relevance of a Sentinel or a Piranha is much more dependent on how you've built the table, and under 8e's rules it's fairly easy to just punch through cover with better AP.

The game needs a reduction in damage output, not an increase. Everything should suffer -1 to hit with heavy weapons if they move at all.

I'd also like a return to ordnance weapons, which would give -1 to hit with all non-ordnance weapons when fired (for the recoil). superheavies would mitigate this, and weapons would also have "Heavy Ordnance" which would affect superheavies in the same way, and which non-superheavy vehicles cannot fire if they have moved.

Then (for simplicity) have Ordnance weapons gain D3 damage to a single unsaved wound, and Heavy Ordnance gain D6 damage to a single unsaved wound, to represent the hit of the shell, each time it fires. If vehicles have multi-barrel guns, they are split into separate weapons (EG a twin-earthshaker would become 2 earthshakers - fundamentally the same, but with 2 chances of a direct hit.

That's my thoughts, anyway.

 some bloke wrote:
The game needs a reduction in damage output, not an increase. Everything should suffer -1 to hit with heavy weapons if they move at all.

I'd also like a return to ordnance weapons, which would give -1 to hit with all non-ordnance weapons when fired (for the recoil). superheavies would mitigate this, and weapons would also have "Heavy Ordnance" which would affect superheavies in the same way, and which non-superheavy vehicles cannot fire if they have moved.

Then (for simplicity) have Ordnance weapons gain D3 damage to a single unsaved wound, and Heavy Ordnance gain D6 damage to a single unsaved wound, to represent the hit of the shell, each time it fires. If vehicles have multi-barrel guns, they are split into separate weapons (EG a twin-earthshaker would become 2 earthshakers - fundamentally the same, but with 2 chances of a direct hit.

That's my thoughts, anyway.

A better way to reduce lethality is to reduce weapon ranges, reduce weapon damage and/or increase units' toughness. As well as fixing LOS and terrain rules. Flat rules, like -1 to hit with heavy weapons after moving, often only serve to obscure the real issues while providing little value to gameplay. However, I do think that non-relentless non-vehicle/monstrous models only hitting on 6's after moving would be a good thing to have.

If you reduce weapon ranges across the board, you also need to reduce movement - or many units will charge past other units' entire threat range.

And we basically wind up in a ground-up rebalance.

I'd love it, but it's not a "quick fix" rule.

Bharring wrote:
If you reduce weapon ranges across the board, you also need to reduce movement - or many units will charge past other units' entire threat range.

And we basically wind up in a ground-up rebalance.

I'd love it, but it's not a "quick fix" rule.

I think movement needs tweaking on a per-unit basis, but not a blanket reduction. The goal is for movement and positioning to be important. Some units should be able to avoid the enemies' guns at times.

There are no quick fixes for 40k. The game suffers from systemic problems.

Blastaar wrote:

Bharring wrote:
If you reduce weapon ranges across the board, you also need to reduce movement - or many units will charge past other units' entire threat range.

And we basically wind up in a ground-up rebalance.

I'd love it, but it's not a "quick fix" rule.

I think movement needs tweaking on a per-unit basis, but not a blanket reduction. The goal is for movement and positioning to be important. Some units should be able to avoid the enemies' guns at times.

There are no quick fixes for 40k. The game suffers from systemic problems.

If it were a ground-up rebalance, I'd love to see "move-*or*-charge" as part of a huge nerf to mobility. Firepower, obviously, would need even more of a nerf. Less mobility would mean board realestate matters more. So things like Assault Marines and Bikes would gain more from board control, and basic "low-mobility" troops like Guardsmen would have inherent relative downsides. But we're in wishlist territory.

Bharring wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

Bharring wrote:
If you reduce weapon ranges across the board, you also need to reduce movement - or many units will charge past other units' entire threat range.

And we basically wind up in a ground-up rebalance.

I'd love it, but it's not a "quick fix" rule.

I think movement needs tweaking on a per-unit basis, but not a blanket reduction. The goal is for movement and positioning to be important. Some units should be able to avoid the enemies' guns at times.

There are no quick fixes for 40k. The game suffers from systemic problems.

If it were a ground-up rebalance, I'd love to see "move-*or*-charge" as part of a huge nerf to mobility. Firepower, obviously, would need even more of a nerf. Less mobility would mean board realestate matters more. So things like Assault Marines and Bikes would gain more from board control, and basic "low-mobility" troops like Guardsmen would have inherent relative downsides. But we're in wishlist territory.

AA would make it easy. A unit moves, moves and shoots, double moves, or charges (also a double move) as the base activations.

Blastaar wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

Bharring wrote:
If you reduce weapon ranges across the board, you also need to reduce movement - or many units will charge past other units' entire threat range.

And we basically wind up in a ground-up rebalance.

I'd love it, but it's not a "quick fix" rule.

I think movement needs tweaking on a per-unit basis, but not a blanket reduction. The goal is for movement and positioning to be important. Some units should be able to avoid the enemies' guns at times.

There are no quick fixes for 40k. The game suffers from systemic problems.

If it were a ground-up rebalance, I'd love to see "move-*or*-charge" as part of a huge nerf to mobility. Firepower, obviously, would need even more of a nerf. Less mobility would mean board realestate matters more. So things like Assault Marines and Bikes would gain more from board control, and basic "low-mobility" troops like Guardsmen would have inherent relative downsides. But we're in wishlist territory.

AA would make it easy. A unit moves, moves and shoots, double moves, or charges (also a double move) as the base activations.

AA isn't needed for this to be implemented, this selection of options can be available for the whole army.


I would like to see Movement reduced, charges reduced, and advancing reduced. Make transports matter again! if basic infantry had a 5" move, plus half again (rounding up) if you advance (making 8") and then their move again for a charge (and charges are always allowed after advancing, as it's only a small addition) then the board will suddenly seem much larger.

normal infantry would have a max move (5" move, 3" advance, 5" charge) of 13".

Jump infantry would add 6" to their move when they advance instead of half their move, giving a maximum move (5" move, 6" advance, 5" charge) of 16", which is less than they are now.

Bikes would have a move of 7-8", which would give a max move (8" move, 4" advance, 8" charge) of 20", which is quick, as a bike should be.

Transports could have movement of 10", which would let them move 15" in a turn, which is a massive advantage over footslogging.

Move Move Move could allow the unit to add their whole movement to their advance instead of half (nerfing the super-speed faster than a chimera guardsmen somewhat!).

Combine this with a reduction in ranged firepower and weapon range, and the game would (I think) suddenly feel like it has room to breathe.

 some bloke wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

Bharring wrote:
If you reduce weapon ranges across the board, you also need to reduce movement - or many units will charge past other units' entire threat range.

And we basically wind up in a ground-up rebalance.

I'd love it, but it's not a "quick fix" rule.

I think movement needs tweaking on a per-unit basis, but not a blanket reduction. The goal is for movement and positioning to be important. Some units should be able to avoid the enemies' guns at times.

There are no quick fixes for 40k. The game suffers from systemic problems.

If it were a ground-up rebalance, I'd love to see "move-*or*-charge" as part of a huge nerf to mobility. Firepower, obviously, would need even more of a nerf. Less mobility would mean board realestate matters more. So things like Assault Marines and Bikes would gain more from board control, and basic "low-mobility" troops like Guardsmen would have inherent relative downsides. But we're in wishlist territory.

AA would make it easy. A unit moves, moves and shoots, double moves, or charges (also a double move) as the base activations.

AA isn't needed for this to be implemented, this selection of options can be available for the whole army.


I would like to see Movement reduced, charges reduced, and advancing reduced. Make transports matter again! if basic infantry had a 5" move, plus half again (rounding up) if you advance (making 8") and then their move again for a charge (and charges are always allowed after advancing, as it's only a small addition) then the board will suddenly seem much larger.

normal infantry would have a max move (5" move, 3" advance, 5" charge) of 13".

Jump infantry would add 6" to their move when they advance instead of half their move, giving a maximum move (5" move, 6" advance, 5" charge) of 16", which is less than they are now.

Bikes would have a move of 7-8", which would give a max move (8" move, 4" advance, 8" charge) of 20", which is quick, as a bike should be.

Transports could have movement of 10", which would let them move 15" in a turn, which is a massive advantage over footslogging.

Move Move Move could allow the unit to add their whole movement to their advance instead of half (nerfing the super-speed faster than a chimera guardsmen somewhat!).

Combine this with a reduction in ranged firepower and weapon range, and the game would (I think) suddenly feel like it has room to breathe.

The issue is that in an IGOUGO system, you either have movement's sole purpose be to bring weapons into range of the enemy, or mechanics that encourage not moving and instead readying overwatch or the like. Essentially, you have a rank-and-file game, with flank charges, wheeling to pivot and everything. Rank-and-file games are fine, I just acquired a KOW Empire of Dust army at a steal, but I do not want that for 40k, and I think 40k's background and style are better served with the more dynamic AA system. Especially if we players want more variety in what actions units can take.

I started another thread where we can go hog-wild on this stuff. I wanted to continue discussing, but this isn't the thread for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The thread for it:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/781957.page#10615086