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.

Normal vehicles can move 12 inches in the movement phase, and then can move 6 inches in the shooting phase.

No d6 or 2d6 involved.

Fast vehicles can move 12 inches in the shooting phase instead of 6 inches.

Again, no dice rolling.

Why not just apply the same to infantry? At either extreme, we have an absurdity:

1. Infantry roll a 6. All of a sudden, they just moved as far as a vehicle moving at cruising speed. (What are they, cheetahs?)

2. Infantry roll a 1. What, were they tripping over themselves, fall flat on their face, and then having to crawl? My space marines apparently can't stay on their feet? What heresy is this?

Ditto in the case of charging. My tactical squad moves 6 inches in the shooting phase. I roll 2d6.

1. I just rolled double 6s! My space marines have moved a total of 18 inches...which is just as fast as my rhino moving flat out. My space marines apparently can run as fast as a rhino in which the pilot has the pedal to the metal.

2. I just rolled double 1s! Well...I guess they're drunk or something, aren't they?

Suggestions:

1. Replace run distance with half of however much that unit can move in the movement phase (ordinarily, 3 inches), or else, full movement distance (the full 6 inches).

2. Make the charge distance identical with how fast that unit can move in the movement phase, or else, half (normally, either 6 or 3 inches).

Currently GW plc is trying to sell 40k to customers who think random dice rolling is cool.
They seem to think that rolling dice to see what happens than making up a cool story to try to explain what happened .Is what their customer want.

The focus on strategic elements of the game and down playing any tactical decision making is part of GW plcs sales strategy.

If you wanted to write clear concise rules that maximized tactical decision making.
Then assigning a movement value for each unit type.(Eg Slow infantry, infantry fast infantry creatures/beasts, vehicles, fast vehicles, bikes/skimmers.)
Would be a basic requirement of the new rules.IMO.

I totally agree on movement, it's a lot of randomness and extra rules that don't really contribute to the gameplay. And I've had too many games where a unit gets stuck in ruins for 3 turns or wastes the entire game just trying to roll 3" to get up to the second floor.

- Make run moves 3", fleet/crusader adds 3"

- Difficult terrain reduces movement by 3" move through cover ignores this.

- Consolidation is always 3", fleet/crusader adds 3"

I wouldn't want to completely get rid of charge randomness, just because back in 3rd edition you would carefully measure out so that you were exactly 13" away and couldn't be charged, I do like that there's the chance that units can get caught off guard by a long charge. But I'd rather the charge move be 3"+d6" so that the charge range is 4"-9" rather than 2"-12".

TheSilo wrote:I wouldn't want to completely get rid of charge randomness, just because back in 3rd edition you would carefully measure out so that you were exactly 13" away and couldn't be charged, I do like that there's the chance that units can get caught off guard by a long charge. But I'd rather the charge move be 3"+d6" so that the charge range is 4"-9" rather than 2"-12".

I strongly disagree with this. A charge is a run. That's it. I don't care how much your imperial gaurdsman works out. He's not chasing down a rhino if that crewman has the pedal to the metal. Your objection is: "But if we make charge a set movement, then you can measure out a distance in which you can't be charged." Yes. There are certain distances that are too far to traverse by foot in a given time frame. Think "World War I," "trenches" and "machine guns."

Traditio wrote:

TheSilo wrote:I wouldn't want to completely get rid of charge randomness, just because back in 3rd edition you would carefully measure out so that you were exactly 13" away and couldn't be charged, I do like that there's the chance that units can get caught off guard by a long charge. But I'd rather the charge move be 3"+d6" so that the charge range is 4"-9" rather than 2"-12".

I strongly disagree with this. A charge is a run. That's it. I don't care how much your imperial gaurdsman works out. He's not chasing down a rhino if that crewman has the pedal to the metal. Your objection is: "But if we make charge a set movement, then you can measure out a distance in which you can't be charged." Yes. There are certain distances that are too far to traverse by foot in a given time frame. Think "World War I," "trenches" and "machine guns."

Gameplay >> Realism, always and forever.

TheSilo wrote:Gameplay Realism, always and forever.

I'm not sure if I want to go that far. It is, however, noteworthy that this obtained even in 5th edition. Charge distance was a flat 6 inches for base infantry units (p. 36 of the 5th ed. BRB). Random charge distances is a 6th ed innovation...and, it occurs to me, an unnecessary one.

You can't run and shoot in the same turn. If you have a gun line, and they're constantly moving back 6 inches because I'm trying to assault them, I'll eventually catch up to them (presupposing I don't get shot off the table) if I run instead of shoot.

Also, if the movement rules were so changed, we could safely get rid of the overwatch rule. It's unnecessary.

If it means getting rid of overwatch I'd be with you in a heartbeat. Overwatch has to be the worst addition since 3rd ed.

 TheSilo wrote:
If it means getting rid of overwatch I'd be with you in a heartbeat. Overwatch has to be the worst addition since 3rd ed.

Yeah, I mean...basically what I envision is the following:

1. A falls back 6 inches and shoots.

2. B moves forward 6 inches, and then runs 3.

3. A falls back 6 inches and shoots...etc.

I think you see where I'm going with this.

By the time that B catches A, why should A get to fire overwatch? They've already done their shooting in the interim time that it took for A to advance.

Traditio wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:
If it means getting rid of overwatch I'd be with you in a heartbeat. Overwatch has to be the worst addition since 3rd ed.

Yeah, I mean...basically what I envision is the following:

1. A falls back 6 inches and shoots.

2. B moves forward 6 inches, and then runs 3.

3. A falls back 6 inches and shoots...etc.

I think you see where I'm going with this.

By the time that B catches A, why should A get to fire overwatch? They've already done their shooting in the interim time that it took for A to advance.

I can't believe that they allowed Rapid Fire weapons to move and fire at full effect and then added overwatch.

TheSilo wrote:I can't believe that they allowed Rapid Fire weapons to move and fire at full effect and then added overwatch.

The ability of rapid fire weapons to move and rapidfire 12 inches was around since 5th edition (p. 29 of the 5th ed. BRB).

What changed in 6th is that rapid fire weapons can move and fire once at full range (they couldn't do this in 5th ed.) or else, move and fire twice at half range (as opposed to 12 inches in 5th).

But I do think that overwatch is perfectly justified in an edition where you can assault up to 12 inches.

But I do think that overwatch is perfectly justified in an edition where you can assault up to 12 inches.

....Or roll a 2 and whiff it. Yeah, I don't think its necesarry.

It is kind of silly that you can measure how far you can shoot, but not how far you can charge.

 greyknight12 wrote:
It is kind of silly that you can measure how far you can shoot, but not how far you can charge.

I don't see why that's the case. Guns have an effective range that is consistent and any soldier would know. That gives them an idea on how far that can shoot and expect to hit something.

But on a charge there are a bunch of varying factors such as rough terrain and incoming fire that affect whether or not you can make it to combat.

I want this to be a thing, but there are a bunch of things that you would have to change in order for flat ranges to work. one third of the Ork codex is giving bonuses to charge range that depend on rolling high. do they just loose those buffs now?

 Powerfisting wrote:
I want this to be a thing, but there are a bunch of things that you would have to change in order for flat ranges to work. one third of the Ork codex is giving bonuses to charge range that depend on rolling high. do they just loose those buffs now?

Just replace random benefits with fixed benefits. D6 or re-roll becomes +2".