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.

I play mostly Tau and Elysian IG, so I don't care much for the Assault Phase.

However, I have always wondered how about the situation when a multiwound unit, like nobz or Tyranid Warriors, lose combat but haven't lost a single model.
Wouldn't it make more sense this way? It also lessens the affect of a character getting sniped by ID costing you an entire assault.

Another thing I've thought about is the sweeping advance move. Like I said above, I tend to shoot so I'm biased, but I have lost so many almost full-strength units because of sweeping advance. You lose combat by a wound or two, sometimes you only lose a single guy. and you fail your Ld test and get run off down. 150pts gone because some lazy bloke decided to throw in the towel. Instead of wiping the whole unit, I would have preferred if something like the no retreat was introduced. If you fail to escape, you roll a d6 for how much you lost by. on a 4+ you take another wound, armor saves allowed. If the sweeping unit's Initiative is higher, wound on a 3+.

What does everyone think of these changes?

Sweeping Advance is meant to be quick and decisive. In the old rules, an assault launched on turn 1 could still be going on at the end of the game.

Sure, sometimes you get unlucky and get swept because of a series of bad rolls. But, that's 40k.

Your proposed change isn't decisive enough, IMO. And, it makes non-fearless units entirely better than fearless.

It's better than 4E "Orks sweep the table in one go" edition.

I would like to see a special rule allowing some units to consolidate into another assault, with the second assault being resolved on the next assault phase.

Big Mek Dattrukk wrote:I would like to see a special rule allowing some units to consolidate into another assault, with the second assault being resolved on the next assault phase.

Lets not make that rule and say we did. Honestly it is a stupid idea that would cripple IG and more important Tau. Tau would be the absolute worst codex by far.

Big Mek Dattrukk wrote:I would like to see a special rule allowing some units to consolidate into another assault, with the second assault being resolved on the next assault phase.

This was the way things worked in 3rd edition. I actually kinda liked it.

Buttons response is a little simplistic, IMO. What this rule actually does is force players to keep their squads a little more separated, so they can't be consolidated into.

Of course, multi-assaults do the same thing. So, if you want to try this as a house rule, you may want to consider doing away with mutli-assaults.

What the rule does is worse than multiassaults, to be honest; what it allows you to do is keep a single, dedicated CC unit ENTIRELY AWAY from shooting for THE ENTIRE GAME. FOREVER. Keeping your units spreadout on a 6x8 table quarters deployment when your opponent has some fast tanks to shock and flank you is going to be impossible, and any clever ork or BA player is going to suddenly find his 'game' to be taken to a whole other level.

In my personal opinion.