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 have an idea born from the fact that melee is by no means too powerful and because I am unsure how advancing would hinder chargers. To me, it seems like the people who are advancing are either firearm units who are spending a little extra time running instead of shooting or people who have no intention to shoot.

The proposed rule is that advancing has no effect on charging and all it does is negate heavy/rapid fire shooting and reduce the accuracy of firing with assault weapons. A dedicated melee troop would be constantly advancing and there is no reason why they'd move slower/shorter immediately prior to making contact with the enemy.

This proposed rule necessitates other changes. Anything that already has the ability to charge after advancing would instead be able to roll 2d6 when advancing and pick the highest.

 Kharneth wrote:
I have an idea born from the fact that melee is by no means too powerful and because I am unsure how advancing would hinder chargers. To me, it seems like the people who are advancing are either firearm units who are spending a little extra time running instead of shooting or people who have no intention to shoot.

The proposed rule is that advancing has no effect on charging and all it does is negate heavy/rapid fire shooting and reduce the accuracy of firing with assault weapons. A dedicated melee troop would be constantly advancing and there is no reason why they'd move slower/shorter immediately prior to making contact with the enemy.

This proposed rule necessitates other changes. Anything that already has the ability to charge after advancing would instead be able to roll 2d6 when advancing and pick the highest.

And Kraken Genestealers I assume might as well just have a flat 6" to advance?

I figured it was because units moving their speed +d6 (some get to do that again in psy or shooting phase) +2d6 +up to 3 +up to 3 is a lot of movement.

Also, in trend with other rules, having a general limitation provides specialists an easy ability: ignoring that rule. GW seems to like doing that for better or worse.

The other reason might be that too many units tying up shooters early on isn't fun to play against. And yes I acknowledge that long range shooting is equally as tedious.

While you’re at it, why not make advancing simply Mv x2 instead of Mv + D6? “Giving up” shooting to move an extra 1” is infuriating.

I also wouldn’t be against making a charge either flat Mv x2 or Mv+D6.

Something like Kraken genies might be Mv x3. Yeah, that’s a lot of ground. So what, Units can still back away or the genies will annilate the squad and be left in an open field to be shot to death by onlookers to the massacre.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Kharneth wrote:
I have an idea born from the fact that melee is by no means too powerful and because I am unsure how advancing would hinder chargers. To me, it seems like the people who are advancing are either firearm units who are spending a little extra time running instead of shooting or people who have no intention to shoot.

The proposed rule is that advancing has no effect on charging and all it does is negate heavy/rapid fire shooting and reduce the accuracy of firing with assault weapons. A dedicated melee troop would be constantly advancing and there is no reason why they'd move slower/shorter immediately prior to making contact with the enemy.

This proposed rule necessitates other changes. Anything that already has the ability to charge after advancing would instead be able to roll 2d6 when advancing and pick the highest.

And Kraken Genestealers I assume might as well just have a flat 6" to advance?

Yeah, so Kraken already gets the 3d6 pick the highest, which is great. But the units that then get the fleet special rule (by whatever name they're giving it now) could have rerollable charge ranges. It'd really need to be a rule that would've existed with the basic rules, not something changed after half the codexes have been released.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:
I figured it was because units moving their speed +d6 (some get to do that again in psy or shooting phase) +2d6 +up to 3 +up to 3 is a lot of movement.

Also, in trend with other rules, having a general limitation provides specialists an easy ability: ignoring that rule. GW seems to like doing that for better or worse.

The other reason might be that too many units tying up shooters early on isn't fun to play against. And yes I acknowledge that long range shooting is equally as tedious.

Well, it sounds like a lot when you combine a bunch of situational things. Not everyone is getting the benefit of that single spell that can be casted once. Not everyone is charging every turn. Not everyone is piling in and consolidating either, nor are those movements that would be effected by this change.

All units can move their movement speed and add d6" if they want to forgo shooting. But forgoing charging to add d6" movement doesn't make sense. It's really just an arbitrary rule for the sake of adding a decision for the player.

It is true that it provides a handy special rule to be thrown around, but that doesn't really matter. There is no shortage of special rules or creativity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stormonu wrote:
While you’re at it, why not make advancing simply Mv x2 instead of Mv + D6? “Giving up” shooting to move an extra 1” is infuriating.

I also wouldn’t be against making a charge either flat Mv x2 or Mv+D6.

Something like Kraken genies might be Mv x3. Yeah, that’s a lot of ground. So what, Units can still back away or the genies will annilate the squad and be left in an open field to be shot to death by onlookers to the massacre.

Movement x2 advancing has already been done in Fantasy as Marching (instead of charging) and it worked fine but that's not what I'm suggesting. I'm not suggesting that infantry should move any faster while advancing, d6" is fine. Rolling a 1 sucks, but it's part of the game. All I'm saying is that charging a unit shouldn't slow you down. The only thing that should slow you down is trying to shoot your gun.

Charging used to be flat, now it's random. It is random now because you cannot premeasure and it is better this way than it was before.

The point is not to make anything faster, but rather to remove the arbitrary speed reduction. Because, again, why is the charging unit all of a sudden moving slower during the time it gets close to the enemy?

 Kharneth wrote:
All I'm saying is that charging a unit shouldn't slow you down. The only thing that should slow you down is trying to shoot your gun.

This has only become an issue because they decided to tie in "Run", which was the extra movement performed during fight phase that was done in lieu of charging since not all armies wanted to get into CC, into movement. I personally think this was the worst change in the 8th edition.

Advancing shouldn't grant you extra distance so you can charge easier. It shouldn't prevent units from shooting either.

Edit:

Sorry, running was in shooting phase.

I don't play a melee-centric army and these rule still bother me. They make zero sense either from a realism perspective, or a 'choice' perspective.

I can tolerate nonsense for the sake of gameplay, simplicity, or speed. You can rationalize that a normal "move" is a careful movement down the field, avoiding debris, gunfire, ducking, all while shooting. A "advance" is more of a careful jog, while charge is an all out sprint.

The crappies part is the elimination of your choice. You exchange the ability to shoot for the ability to move faster... sometimes..

It's like if I were to buy a candybar and sometimes there's a dog turd in the package 1/6 times.

The roll should have a floor - 1/2 Movement stat for advances and Minimum movement for charges.

While you don't sound like your trying to break the game you realy can not have properly thought this change through if you believe your suggestion to be in any way balanced.

Your talking about jumppack being move 12 advance 3 or 4 and charge 2d6 and reroll charge distances. That's an average of 22-24 inches. Your just reintroducing turn 1 charges and the who everyone needs screens but now you need 2 sets. One to try and disrupt the placement at the end of the move and a second set as a terminal bodyguard screen, thats unkillable.

You would basically invalidate shooting as aphase for anything without the fly keyword.

Ice_can wrote:
While you don't sound like your trying to break the game you realy can not have properly thought this change through if you believe your suggestion to be in any way balanced.

Your talking about jumppack being move 12 advance 3 or 4 and charge 2d6 and reroll charge distances. That's an average of 22-24 inches. Your just reintroducing turn 1 charges and the who everyone needs screens but now you need 2 sets. One to try and disrupt the placement at the end of the move and a second set as a terminal bodyguard screen, thats unkillable.

You would basically invalidate shooting as aphase for anything without the fly keyword.

I'd prefer slug fest over napoleonic battle simulations any day.

 skchsan wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
While you don't sound like your trying to break the game you realy can not have properly thought this change through if you believe your suggestion to be in any way balanced.

Your talking about jumppack being move 12 advance 3 or 4 and charge 2d6 and reroll charge distances. That's an average of 22-24 inches. Your just reintroducing turn 1 charges and the who everyone needs screens but now you need 2 sets. One to try and disrupt the placement at the end of the move and a second set as a terminal bodyguard screen, thats unkillable.

You would basically invalidate shooting as aphase for anything without the fly keyword.

I'd prefer slug fest over napoleonic battle simulations any day.

Gw have you covered, want to play a mass brawls as a game AoS exsists.

40k needs more work on balance and melee and shooting should be balanced but at the moment its feeling like all I keep seeing being proposed is government style over reactions that just swap favouring style A over style B for favouring the "weak" option.
But is almost like revenge must be writen in, so then all the style A players will be able to rightly claim that they are being effected by bias rules.

40K need balanced suggestions that make everything viable so player skill is the deciding factor.

 skchsan wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
While you don't sound like your trying to break the game you realy can not have properly thought this change through if you believe your suggestion to be in any way balanced.

Your talking about jumppack being move 12 advance 3 or 4 and charge 2d6 and reroll charge distances. That's an average of 22-24 inches. Your just reintroducing turn 1 charges and the who everyone needs screens but now you need 2 sets. One to try and disrupt the placement at the end of the move and a second set as a terminal bodyguard screen, thats unkillable.

You would basically invalidate shooting as aphase for anything without the fly keyword.

I'd prefer slug fest over napoleonic battle simulations any day.

It should be about what's balanced, not what you prefer.

I don't think it's a great change, but it's not that OP either. Assuming you are rolling a D6 for advance, you get 3.5" closer on average at the cost of shooting some weapons.

I just don't see much point in it though as I don't feel like getting into assault is a giant issue right now as much as getting through to the things you actually want to assault, which this doesn't help.