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.

A friend and I were talking about this the other day. WOuld a rule allowing a unit to shoot at a charging unit be feasible?(Pending they are not restricted by being locked in combat etc)

Does anyone have any thoughts about how this would be impemented?

I believe this has been talked about before, if not on here at my gameing club.. problems would be, Space marines Stand and Shoot a squad of ork truck boys before charging or nids..... even with things like -1 bs and giving up the Initiative on charge the orks just dont stand a chance, or nids

That's what "first rank fire!" represents. Why should all armies get for free what is something that the guard has to work to get?

The problem with 40k is that many assault units can go from out of range to assault in a single turn, having to take little to no shots. The only way I could see a "stand and shoot" work would be to give the unit being assaulted the option to take one shot with Rapid Fire or Assault weapons, instead of attacking normally. The shot would be resolved at Initiative 10.

It's a good idea, but the rules are not balanced for it.
Some units are going to get a lot better (Tau, Marines), and units with low toughness and/or bad saves (orks, eldar, dark eldar) do very poorly. In theory, the game is balanced, and if you throw in a free round of shooting, the assault option is hurt.

If you do want to add a stand and shoot, I would suggest combining it with the old overwatch.
If a squad could shoot, but chooses not to, it may go on overwatch. If assaulted while on overwatch, the unit may elect to shoot. This shooting takes place at the start of the assault phase when the assault is declared. If multiple units are assaulting you, you may only stand and shoot against a single unit.

What this might let you do is advance to a good kill zone, and if somebody chose to assault, you might get your shooting in against a target in the open, and in range, instead of in cover. Of course, your opponent might assault another target, and you gave up a whole round of shooting for nothing...

-Matt

An idea that I had during a prior discussion of this was to roll the ability to stand and shoot into the benefits of defending cover;

Instead of the current cover system of attackers being reduced to initiative 1, what if units defending cover got a free shot at the incoming assaulter? Assault grenades would negate this penalty instead of the current one.

I imagine order of events operating something like this:

1. units declare charges, assault range confirmed.
2. defending units in cover shoot weapons, choosing a single enemy unit to engage if they are receiving multiple charges, with its last turns movement being used to determine if heavy weapons are operable.
3. Remove casualties, Make assault moves (note this would mean its possible for the unit to take anti-assault fire and then still fail to make contact if its difficult terrain roll is inadequate).
4. Units fight as normal.

Basically its more of a buff to defending good, solid positions then to shooting armies in general.

Jack

There would definately be some problems with shooting armies like Tau and IG.

Also, I would think if this was realistic then that sides last shooting phase would be exactly the same as the enemy running towards them getting gunned down

Jackmojo wrote:An idea that I had during a prior discussion of this was to roll the ability to stand and shoot into the benefits of defending cover;

Instead of the current cover system of attackers being reduced to initiative 1, what if units defending cover got a free shot at the incoming assaulter? Assault grenades would negate this penalty instead of the current one.

Basically its more of a buff to defending good, solid positions then to shooting armies in general.

Jack

It's a big buff to shooting armies in cover. If I deep strike storm troopers into cover, I'll rapid fire the turn I land, and rapid fire again when charged. I wouldn't care about the init thing, as I'd get slaughtered in hand to hand either way. A free 5 plasma shots, and 14 S3 AP3 shots is too good to pick up for free.

Any unit that sucks in close combat gets significantly better when you get a free round of shooting for effectively free.

If you're going to get a free round of shooting, the only way to balance it without several codex rewrites is to give up a round of shooting.

-Matt

What about mixing more up - what if you were allowed to consolidate into close combat again. If you do it, then and onky then can you be shot at by the charged unit.

Any better?

so many differen things to consider!

1 do assault grenades cancel out the ability to shoot? do defencive grenades give that ability back?

2. do you lower the WS of the shooter to compensate for the impending assault (shooting probably wouldn't be the 1st thing on their mind.)

3. do heavy weapons get to fire? I think no because charging a devastator squad would be rediculous. If they do does everyone of the defencive guys swing at initive one?

4. should the defenders get to fire as normal meaning orks are catching 20 rapid fire bolter rounds? or does everyone in the squad get one shot, regardless of the weapon they are carrying?

5 do the defenders suffer a minus to their WS because of impending assault and scrambing to recieve the charge?

6. do the assaulters get a cover save as though the defecive unit is firing through their cover hastily? it seems unfair to have a ork boys taking 6 ups while they charge. maybe when stand and shoot is active everyone gets a 4/5 up save? or whatever your armour is?

7. does stand and shoot only work when assaulting into cover? or can you just say these guys arent moving so there ya go?

8. does the direction the facing model come into affect? if a model is facing the oppsite direction and gets assaulted from behind should it be counted as a unprepared unit with respect to stand and shoot?

these are all the questions I can think of off the top of my head. I don't hate the idea but it needs to run a VERY fine line and be very specific

HawaiiMatt wrote:
It's a big buff to shooting armies in cover. If I deep strike storm troopers into cover, I'll rapid fire the turn I land, and rapid fire again when charged. I wouldn't care about the init thing, as I'd get slaughtered in hand to hand either way. A free 5 plasma shots, and 14 S3 AP3 shots is too good to pick up for free.

Any unit that sucks in close combat gets significantly better when you get a free round of shooting for effectively free.

Yep, right now defending cover only actually benefits units which can already defend themselves in closecombat, this shifts the balance to helping shooting and hybrid units more then pure melee assistance.

I actually think it benefits Marines and such the most, since they're relatively solid at both.

HawaiiMatt wrote:If you're going to get a free round of shooting, the only way to balance it without several codex rewrites is to give up a round of shooting.

Perhaps, I'm not convinced though, older codices have functioned well enough through various edition changes, and this is no different. The game already generally tilts assault oriented moving it slightly back, based on smart positioning is something I think it can survive.

Jack

Well, any ability to "Stand and Shoot" would have to be in lieu of your normal attacks in Close Combat.

Johnnyboy955 wrote:so many differen things to consider!

1 do assault grenades cancel out the ability to shoot? do defencive grenades give that ability back?

Assault grenades to cancel it out. I had not posited any change to defensive grenades...as of yet. An important benefit to the assaulter is that their initiative is not ever lowered any longer, this replaces that entirely.

Johnnyboy955 wrote:2. do you lower the WS of the shooter to compensate for the impending assault (shooting probably wouldn't be the 1st thing on their mind.)

I've thought about various penalties for the shooter, but I'm not sure its needed, every army has units that this buffs, and every army has some units that this potentially hurts, since its an alteration to the tactical rules not any of the individual units. It just changes the equation from "Charging those guys in cover, I'll strike last" to "charging those guys means they're gonna shoot me up some first".

Johnnyboy955 wrote:3. do heavy weapons get to fire? I think no because charging a devastator squad would be rediculous. If they do does everyone of the defencive guys swing at initive one?

Fighting back at initiative 1 is one of the ideas I'd toyed with, I'm not liking it since its impact varies so wildly from unit to unit.

Johnnyboy955 wrote:4. should the defenders get to fire as normal meaning orks are catching 20 rapid fire bolter rounds? or does everyone in the squad get one shot, regardless of the weapon they are carrying?

Yep, its a bad idea to run straight into machine-gun fire. I'd base firing on how the unit moved in its previous turn (just as we have to account for a vehicles previous movement when they are assaulted. I like that this helps represent the defender having had time to dig in and prepare or not...

Johnnyboy955 wrote: do the defenders suffer a minus to their WS because of impending assault and scrambing to recieve the charge?

Uhm...see #2

Johnnyboy955 wrote:6. do the assaulters get a cover save as though the defecive unit is firing through their cover hastily? it seems unfair to have a ork boys taking 6 ups while they charge. maybe when stand and shoot is active everyone gets a 4/5 up save? or whatever your armour is?

They're likely to get cover, depending on the terrain in question, nothing extra suggested as of yet.

Johnnyboy955 wrote:7. does stand and shoot only work when assaulting into cover? or can you just say these guys arent moving so there ya go?

Correct, it is more an alteration of the "assaulting through/into cover rules" a direct "Stand and shoot" option.

Johnnyboy955 wrote:8. does the direction the facing model come into affect? if a model is facing the oppsite direction and gets assaulted from behind should it be counted as a unprepared unit with respect to stand and shoot?

these are all the questions I can think of off the top of my head. I don't hate the idea but it needs to run a VERY fine line and be very specific

I'd not add facing for infantry, since 40k doesn't have it normally. I guess it would apply to walkers though.

I do agree some playtesting is needed to suss out issues, I may not have thought of yet.

axeman1n wrote:Well, any ability to "Stand and Shoot" would have to be in lieu of your normal attacks in Close Combat.

Why?

Jack

Jackmojo wrote:
Perhaps, I'm not convinced though, older codices have functioned well enough through various edition changes, and this is no different. The game already generally tilts assault oriented moving it slightly back, based on smart positioning is something I think it can survive.

Jack

Run some numbers. What if I ran a unit of 50 guardsmen, packing 5 plasma guns and 5 plasma pistols. The weakness to IG is that you can assault them. Try and charge that and you're going to face 15 S7 AP2 shots, along with 80 S3 AP6 shots (unless they also take heavy weapons).

The free stand and shoot would whack a whole squad of marines, on average, or kill about 20 orks.

While stand and shoot might look like a good idea, once you make it a rule, it isn't that hard to really take too much of an advantage of it.

So orks and marines would be fielding lobbas and whirlwinds to deal with squads too large to assault. It's not a minor rule edition, it is a very game changing thing; as much as army changed between 3rd, 3.5, 4th and now 5th edition.

-Matt

S3 AP- technically on lasguns.

It does encourage the assaulter to maneuver in such a way as to get off an unimpeded assault (or you know bring frag grenades). Also that fifty man IG squad is going to have various issues actually using this to its advantage; where do you bunch up the plasma guns?, can you get all 50 guys into/behind that terrain, how close packed do they get do they get to do it? etc...

I understand its a large change, but I like that it pushes for more clever unit movement, I'm all for encouraging more maneuvering especially in assaulting, which in 40k has too often boiled down to simply closing ground in a straight line.

Jack

Ok so taking into account what people have said, why don't we try and revise this?

A unit may shoot at a charging enemy. The following exceptions and criteria apply:

-Units may only shoot pistols and rapid fire weapons
-The unit in question must not already be locked in combat
- Shots taken are at -1 Ballistic Skill
- The unit may not attack in close combat this turn
- The firing unit cannot score any points for combat resolution this turn


Does this make it any better?

My problem with a simple 'optional' version like that is that in practice, its either a good or bad choice for the defending unit, so certain units will always do it (firewarriors, IG) and others will never want to (slugga boyz, berserkers).

It presents a false dilemma.

Also why no assault weapons?

Jack

I think allowing assault weapons might be that bit too much.

Remember things like fuson guns and melta guns are assault weapons. This rules out the likes of storm bolters on Terminators too, which makes sense fluff wise as they are slower.

Gotta think about all the non-imperial guns though, lots of armies have assault weapons as their primary arms (Dire Warriors, Guardians, Shoota Boyz, every Tyranid, etc...)

And relentless units aren't slowed by their guns, so shouldn't they be able to fire anything?

That said, it still doesn't solve the real issue, that their is no real choice involved for many units, if they can always do it, it will always be the right choice.

Jack

Hmm good point. If you have any suggestions i'd be happy to hear them?

What about the unit in question taking an inititive test? And if they pass they can decide whether to shoot or not?

My suggested rule is posted above.

Make being able to stand and shoot dependent on defending cover. This makes it something all units can do, without making it an 'always on' choice.

Plus it has the added bonus of feeling relatively realistic, i.e. charging entrenched gunmen when out of style in 1917 for a reason.

Jack

There was a rule for this in Imperial Armour Four. It allowed you to use your ranged weapons to fire in the assault phase when you get charged at twice your initiative it resolves as normal

I'm not finding that rule, do you recall where it was (page number, section or rule name)?

Jack

EDIT: found it, its not so much shooting at chargers, as substituting your gun for your melee attacks, since it counts towards combat resolution and happens at an initiative step. Not a bad rule per se, but it still suffers from being a false option for many units.

I think this definitely needs to be addressed by GW. There's simply too many models that have an assault range larger than guns max range. Plus, there's the whole problem with assault vehicles denying a shooty squad the ability to do anything.

My personal vote is for either one of these options:

A) A unit being assaulted can fire their weapons rather than attack in CC. They count as moving if they choose to fire, even if they hadn't moved their previous turn (they're having to quickly respond to the unit charging them and bracing for impact)

B) A unit may elect not to fire in it's own shooting phase. If it doesn't get involved in a CC during the subsequent assault phase, it may then fire at the first unit that initiates an assault with them during the next opponent's assault phase.

I don't think anyones commented on my other idea yet - how about the unit who wants to fire taking an initiative test?