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 was thinking about a few small changes I would make to 40K, either for Fluff or balance reasons recently when I came up with a few, mainly regarding the Assault phase. No, this is not intended to make assault broken or even game changing, but for fluffy/narrative reasons that would help tell a story. I am aware that some of these changes have been proposed before, some may not have, but I like theorizing and building on concepts so away we go! (Explanations for rules in bold)

1) Charge Ranges - All models charge 6" + D6. (Bikes and Jump Packs get 6" +2D6)
Allows for more cordinated charges and realistic threat radius

2) Assault Reaction 1 - Models can elect to fire overwatch as an Assault reaction after passing a LD test. Failing the LD test resutts in "Stand Your Ground!", the unit is too disorganised to do anything!
Even the hardiest warrior can succumb to terror when charged by bloodthirsty opponents. The LD test is meant to represent the discipline of the charged unit, allowing them to organise in time to fire a volley at the oncoming unit

3) Assault Reaction 2 - Models can elect to simply Run Away! The unit Falls Back 2D6 away from the assaulting unit. However, if the result puts them within charge distance of the assaulting unit, the unit is caught in CQC and forced to fight at -1I
I don't know why such a rule doesn't already exist, but it makes sense for Fire Warriors, Guardsmen or even Space Marines to Retreat from a charging foe. The -1 I penalty represents the unit being too caught-up in fleeing to fight effectively (I did think I1 should be the way, but that seems a bit harsh, and I never liked the "Instant Cut-Down" in WFB)

4) Assault Reaction 3 - Stand Your Ground! The unit, either because of a failed Overwatch, or choice, valiantly meets the assaulters head-on in CQC.
Assault-based units will want to stand their ground, since they either cannot flee (Fearless), cannot overwatch (Gaunts) or just want a good fight!

5) Fear in the Assault - Units taking a LD test to fire overwatch suffer a -1 LD modifier
Sometimes, a terrifying foe can cause even the most veteran soldier to fumble at his weapon like a Rookie. Represents how terrifying a charging monstrosity like a Carnifex or Khorn Berserker can be!

6) Challenges - Removed.
I have never understood the point in challenges in the first place. And with the wounds now being allocated to the unit if you destroy the challenger, there seems to be no need for it anymore


Now these are just ideas I've had. I've never felt that 40K truly represented some of the nuances of melee combat (especially charge reactions). If anyone has ideas, or refinements, please let me know!

I mostly like that, except for Run Away. I think 2d6 is just a wee bit too likely to escape. So, instead I propose:

Retreat: Fall Back 1d6, plus 1" for each point by which the defender's Initiative exceeds the attacker's (minimum 0", low Initiative never penalizes your Fall Back). If the defender has Fleet, this die can be re-rolled. If the attacker makes their charge anyway, the defender fights at I1, and does not benefit from the Counter-Attack special rule.

The rationale for the Initiative-based distance is that fast-moving units like Wytches or Howling Banshees should find it easier to retreat than slow-and-steady units like Necron Warriors. With a 2D6 Fall Back move, I think it's too easy to escape from assault, especially if you're at the extreme limit of range - the only safe charges would be inside of 3" or so, maybe 5" for Jump Infantry. That said, I do like the idea of trying to run away - but it shouldn't be sure-fire, and there should be a drawback. (As you'd written it, it reads like Run Away is pretty much the best option for any unit that doesn't actually want to be in melee.)

I just never understood why you can't run and charge in the same turn. With how good shooting is this edition, it really wouldn't make assault too powerful if you can run and charge the same turn, even if it is limited to CC specialist units.

 KharnsRightHand wrote:
I just never understood why you can't run and charge in the same turn. With how good shooting is this edition, it really wouldn't make assault too powerful if you can run and charge the same turn, even if it is limited to CC specialist units.

If we are on this point, running should be able to happen with assault. Boyz, nids and Zerkers just got real deadly


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jade_angel wrote:
I mostly like that, except for Run Away. I think 2d6 is just a wee bit too likely to escape. So, instead I propose:

Retreat: Fall Back 1d6, plus 1" for each point by which the defender's Initiative exceeds the attacker's (minimum 0", low Initiative never penalizes your Fall Back). If the defender has Fleet, this die can be re-rolled. If the attacker makes their charge anyway, the defender fights at I1, and does not benefit from the Counter-Attack special rule.

The rationale for the Initiative-based distance is that fast-moving units like Wytches or Howling Banshees should find it easier to retreat than slow-and-steady units like Necron Warriors. With a 2D6 Fall Back move, I think it's too easy to escape from assault, especially if you're at the extreme limit of range - the only safe charges would be inside of 3" or so, maybe 5" for Jump Infantry. That said, I do like the idea of trying to run away - but it shouldn't be sure-fire, and there should be a drawback. (As you'd written it, it reads like Run Away is pretty much the best option for any unit that doesn't actually want to be in melee.)

Or you count as having failed an Ld test and are Falling Back. which would stand for the unit who got charged is now just running from the battle

1. I like the set base charge distance not a huge fan of the idea of 9" being the average distance. Instead make it so you can either make a standard charge of a flat 6" (no rolls) or you can roll for 2D6 distance.

2. Ugh leadership in 40k stinks and it disproportionately hurts certain armies over others. Im tired of failing leadership 7 rolls for Orks. Overwatch was one of the Orks subtle advantages.

3. This HURTS assault armies. Shooty units basically keep falling back and unless your a bike or have some 12" movement then your really not going to catch up to them. Good luck ever getting a Tac squad in CC.

5. My poor leadership 7 hurts enough.

6. The Nobz would be pleases with this.

 Vankraken wrote:
1. I like the set base charge distance not a huge fan of the idea of 9" being the average distance. Instead make it so you can either make a standard charge of a flat 6" (no rolls) or you can roll for 2D6 distance.

2. Ugh leadership in 40k stinks and it disproportionately hurts certain armies over others. Im tired of failing leadership 7 rolls for Orks. Overwatch was one of the Orks subtle advantages.

3. This HURTS assault armies. Shooty units basically keep falling back and unless your a bike or have some 12" movement then your really not going to catch up to them. Good luck ever getting a Tac squad in CC.

5. My poor leadership 7 hurts enough.

6. The Nobz would be pleases with this.

I agree with you on every point

I would say 4+d6 inches for charge distance. Slow and Purposeful subtracts an inch. Relentless adds an inch. Fast models add an inch (those that move 12+ inches).

The ability to run is interesting but shouldn't be more than a d6 at the most (should probably be 1+d3 with the same modifications as mentioned above), and they should swing at initiative 1 regardless if they get caught. Or maybe they get to swing at initiative 1 if they pass a Ld test. This way maybe you get away but if you don't you will get tore up real bad. Running when faced with a charge usually doesn't go very well historically speaking.

I sometimes wonder as to the point of fear since just about every army is immune to the ability. I mean what purpose does it serve?

Challenging serves as a means to remove a character that would be difficult to kill otherwise, or the character is providing some sort of serious threat that you need removed NOW.

Im still going to stand on the point of "If you run, you count as falling back"

If you really want to help it, even just adding "You can charge out of a stationary transport" would help immensely.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
If you really want to help it, even just adding "You can charge out of a stationary transport" would help immensely.

I am assuming you mean by stationary a vehicle that hasn't moved that turn in the movement phase? If so, then I can get behind that as well.

I also like the idea of being able to consolidate into a charge with a successful Ld check (maybe modified by units lost that turn in that particular fight). Or maybe a penalty to Ld each time so an assault unit cant just consolidate their way through an entire army.

Challenges need to go. If I have my SM playing opponent issue ONE more damn challenge and use this to have his uber killy character massacre both my squishy guy and half the damn unit I may just punch someone. Hard. In the face.

Either get rid of this bullgak 'excess wounds carry over' mechanic or get rid of challenges all together. Right now they serve as nothing more than a way to snipe a specific model in close combat AND kill some other dudes too. If the wounds did not carry over then it would force your opponent to decide whether killing that character is really worth wasting 3 - 4 attacks or if it might be better to blender the unit instead and leave the character to potentially fight back.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Challenges need to go. If I have my SM playing opponent issue ONE more damn challenge and use this to have his uber killy character massacre both my squishy guy and half the damn unit I may just punch someone. Hard. In the face.

Either get rid of this bullgak 'excess wounds carry over' mechanic or get rid of challenges all together. Right now they serve as nothing more than a way to snipe a specific model in close combat AND kill some other dudes too. If the wounds did not carry over then it would force your opponent to decide whether killing that character is really worth wasting 3 - 4 attacks or if it might be better to blender the unit instead and leave the character to potentially fight back.

I would be fine with going back to the way challenges were since it was never one wound models that gave me troubles to begin with. Though this would nerf the crap out of csm who have several models that HAVE to issue challenges. Forgive me if this upsets you or is wrong, but it sounds more like you are just upset that people use challenges to good effect against you.

 NorseSig wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Challenges need to go. If I have my SM playing opponent issue ONE more damn challenge and use this to have his uber killy character massacre both my squishy guy and half the damn unit I may just punch someone. Hard. In the face.

Either get rid of this bullgak 'excess wounds carry over' mechanic or get rid of challenges all together. Right now they serve as nothing more than a way to snipe a specific model in close combat AND kill some other dudes too. If the wounds did not carry over then it would force your opponent to decide whether killing that character is really worth wasting 3 - 4 attacks or if it might be better to blender the unit instead and leave the character to potentially fight back.

I would be fine with going back to the way challenges were since it was never one wound models that gave me troubles to begin with. Though this would nerf the crap out of csm who have several models that HAVE to issue challenges. Forgive me if this upsets you or is wrong, but it sounds more like you are just upset that people use challenges to good effect against you.

Its mainly one particular player whom will bring the most OP killy gak and then proceed to challenge snipe all of my characters. Again. And again. And again. And again. Its a win/win situation for him - 9/10 times the threat he was worried about is smush before it can even attack and he gets to murder half the unit to boot.

Its mainly one particular player whom will bring the most OP killy gak and then proceed to challenge snipe all of my characters. Again. And again. And again. And again. Its a win/win situation for him - 9/10 times the threat he was worried about is smush before it can even attack and he gets to murder half the unit to boot.

I don't have this particular problem (at least this edition), but have experienced my own struggles against 3 particular players in my local group. One plays necrons (thank you for the mind scarabs nerf or whatever that thing was), one is an eldar player, and one has pretty much a cheese list of some sort for every army and knows how to use them and manipulate the rules to his advantage. I would say the third player almost cheats. I won't claim to be a great player since I lose more than I win and would rather make a fluffly list than a cheese list, but sometimes I bring my own cheese when I don't feel like being curb stomped. I find necrons particularly frustrating.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Im still going to stand on the point of "If you run, you count as falling back"

Within reason: trouble with that interpretation is that given how charging a unit that's Falling Back works right now (contested Initiative test, if the defender succeeds, fight, if the defender fails, delete unit), it would make attempting to run away pretty much always an incredibly dumb thing to try. It'd only be worth trying if the unit will definitely be massacred otherwise but will probably last long enough that you won't get to shoot the attacker on your turn.

jade_angel wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Im still going to stand on the point of "If you run, you count as falling back"

Within reason: trouble with that interpretation is that given how charging a unit that's Falling Back works right now (contested Initiative test, if the defender succeeds, fight, if the defender fails, delete unit), it would make attempting to run away pretty much always an incredibly dumb thing to try. It'd only be worth trying if the unit will definitely be massacred otherwise but will probably last long enough that you won't get to shoot the attacker on your turn.

Exactly. You run if you are gonna get choppa'd to death and still may get choppa'd to death. It makes assault super worth it