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.

One thing about your vision of Fleet I don't understand is why you want it to be more of a "unit type" thing and not an addon rule. How in your system does Fleet work with jetpack/jump units (I'm on the phone today, so I cannot easily go through your doc right now to check this... Do Warp Spiders have a 6" or 8" basic move? Can they jump full 9" (12" with Fleet) walk+run in one jump without "mid movement landing"? In 7th they move 6"jump+d6"fleet run+2d6"jump, so they have to land somewhere mid-move and cannot jump-cross large impasable terrain features...) Many of my previous examples are problems only because things like Battle Focus, detachment rules and snowflake movement bonuses stack on top of your basic Fleet move... And since Fleet is almost armywide Eldar feature, many codex entries now have two movement types...

You could mitigate this by changing Fleet to be something like "unit can add 1" to either move, run or charge move each turn". This way it is usable by any infantry unit, regardless of role, while not forcing Eldar codex rewrite (Banshees would have combined 14-19" assault range and Death Company would have 11-16" range). War Walkers would have max movement rate of 10" splittable to either 7+3 or 6+4, so they would have to stick much closer to cover to move-shoot-hide. You could then make Eldar detachment bonus something like "Fleet confers a +2" bonus instead of +1" " and add Fleet to Wraith Host Formation benefits.

But I guess I'm not really very fond of just d6 charge move variance. I have personally tried a few games with charge ranges varying from initiative minimum to 2d6 roll maximum, but while it worked well for me, this benefits faster CC units more (Genestealers and Harlequins become scary as hell) and with some CC Elites built like Death Company this would not increase overall inter-faction balance...

Just a quick answer to your War Walkers vs Scatterbikes question - with a lot of "standard terrain" being multilevel plastic ruins, hiding a squad of three scatterbikes jumping 2d6" is very similiar to hiding two guaranteed 6" battle focus War Walkers. The only practical difference regarding move-shoot-hide tactics is that you cannot jump War Walkers in front of terrain piece, you have to jump out and hide sideways. But with 36" range and higher mounted weapons this is hardly matters. Objective secured and being troops choice matters a lot, but do remember, that I went into details on War Walkers as a replacement scatter laser platforms. With compulsory troops still required, bikes would still be an excelent safe held last minute objective grabbers, and with War Walkers relegated to be main firepower those two compulsory squads could just sit back and relax all game or turboboost around in Maelstrom.

One last question - how much actual "mileage" you have with official 7th ed, your own Zeta ruleset and 40k in general? I can see, that you are in the hobby for at least 10 years, but that doesn't really tell me much about number of games played. And I ask this without any ill intent, it is just that it took me almost a year of regular play (about a hundred games) and countless hours of dwelling on dakka and solving "mathhamer puzzles" to balance just four GW and one Forgeworld books of my main two factions against eachother in quite controlled environment. And many times over I had to rewrite large junks of already modified rules and playtest them thoroughly again, because even minute changes in rules/scenarios/terrain influence could reveal some seriously OP units/combos/strategies. Rewriting entire BRB as you're trying to do, should be based on quite large and dedicated group of playtesters and not be a solo endavour from the very begining, even at the "goal set" stage.

I was reacting to popular demand to reduce the number of special rules. By updating run and charge I was eliminating the need to have fleet on other units such as cavalry and beasts. Now only infantry have fleet, it made sense to me to change them into a separate type, thus the fleet type was born and the special rule went away. You could even think of fleet as a subtype of infantry, the way that eldar jetbikes are a subtype of jetbikes.
I don't have my heart set on it being this way, its just what made sense at the time.

The Run rule can be combined with the base movement rate of any unit type. If you have jump, you may make a jumping run, increasing your distance by half and removing the ability to fire (Eldar not withstanding...)

Warp Spiders per my current rules have the unit types: Fleet, Jet.
They may remain stationary; walk as fleet 8"; run as fleet 12"; Jet 6"; jet-run 9"; make a warp jump 6+2d6". When they charge it can only be as fleet 4+D6". If not locked in combat, may jet move 2D6" in the assault phase.

Swooping Hawks have Fleet, Jump (18 because of their wargear)
They may remain stationary; walk as fleet 8"; run as fleet 12"; Jump 18"; Jumping-run 27". When they charge it can be as fleet 4+D6", or as Jump (assuming they didn't use that in the movement phase), 4+D6" with Hammer of Wrath.
Yes I see a problem with being able to move 27" in a turn. Eesh. And then shoot 'because Eldar'

To provide some more examples just for clarity
Assault marines has Infantry and Jump
They may remain stationary; walk as infantry 6"; run as infantry 9"; Jump 12"; Jumping-run 18". When they charge it can be as infantry 3+D6", with possibly the Hammer of Wrath bonus from being a jump unit.
Rough riders are cavalry
They may remain stationary; walk 12", Run 18". They charge 6+D6"

I can't think of any such unit, but if you had a unit with both Cavalry and Jump it would have:
Walk as cavalry 12", jump 12", run as cavalry 18", jumping run 18", charge (always as cavalry because that gets hammer of wrath anyway) 6+D6".

Bikes and Jetbikes have a base speed of 12" and will turbo boost instead of run. This is base movement * 2. Eldar Jetbikes are * 3 (36" turbo boost). They all charge 6+D6".

Nothing is set in stone here. It's essentially a first draft. It's entirely likely that I've gone too far with these changes. That's okay, I'm happy to alter things but I want to at least try the game like this.

Thanks for the info on war walkers and jetbikes.

My history:
I started playing 2nd edition in the mid 90s. I played that a fair bit, switched to 3rd when it came out, played through that a fair bit both with and without the trial assault rules etc. I switched to 4th edition when that came out, played somewhat less (other life circumstances). Only ever played 1 game of 5th ed. Got back into the game in 6th a few months in and have been playing 7th ever since it came out. My games were sporadic through 2nd, 3rd and 4th. There was no fixed pattern to when I played. With 6th and 7th I finally had a regular group so I've been playing 2-3 games monthly.
Zeta has had minimal testing thus far. The psychic phase has been used for months now and my play group seems to prefer it over 7th. I've only had the chance to test the difficult terrain rules of Zeta in addition to that so far. I've been focused more on trying to have a complete book to work from than on testing any individual part. I'm on holidays for the next two weeks and am hoping to get some actual testing done, even if it ends up being against myself.

I'm not strictly alone however. Most of the things I've changes have been in reaction to popular opinion on Warseer and Dakka. Basically it started when this thread came about: http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?411650-Your-Issues-with-40K
I took notes of every complaint, sorted them into categories and set about fixing the most common complaints.
The top 10 main rule book complaints were:
Lords of War/Gargantuan Creatures/Superheavies
Vehicle damage
Charge distance
Psychic phase and psychic mechanics
Charge restrictions (reserves, deep strike, transports)
Army selection: CAD vs Detachments vs Formations vs %s
Psychic power balance
Weapon skill table
Save mechanics: AP/armour save modifiers
Strength D

And I've been getting feedback from my thread on Warseer and trawling through the Proposed Rules forums on both sites. If I see something good I make use of it.

Unfortunately my play group is fairly small and we normally only meet once a month with 4-6 regular players attending and another 6 who turn up occasionally. Sadly like many playgroups it's also marine centric with Dark Angels, Space Wolves and Ultramarines being 3 of the regular players, which is why I'm trying to enlist the help of other groups by posting here. Your insight as an Eldar player is extremely valuable to me.


Perhaps it would help if people knew what I see as the most important changes. These are the things I'm not likely to change my mind on:
* Run and flat out both occur during the movement phase
* Run distance is some sort of fixed or calculated value rather than a D6 with potential re-rolls
* Difficult terrain reduces movement by a fixed or calculated value rather than needing dice rolls
* The psychic phase doesn't allow for adding additional psykers to an army to act as batteries for one powerful psyker
* Blasts and templates interact with snap shots somehow
* Monstrous creatures can suffer multiple wounds from sufficiently powerful weapons
* Vehicles are slightly tougher
* Assault distance will be stabilised to some degree rather than being 2d6"
* Consolidate is a fixed or calculated value rather than d6"
* Challenges are dramatically altered or dropped entirely
* Warlord traits are either picked or dropped entirely (with my favour being to drop them since we forget them 70% of the time anyway)
* Flyers and FMCs getting a complete rewrite
* Lords of War/super heavies/gargantuans are harder to fit in an army
* Battle Brothers less open to abuse.

The exact solution to each of the above is negotiable, but their inclusion is not. Everything else is a 'nice to have' or a 'thing to try out' and in no way set in stone. With a lot of my rules I've deliberately made a big change with the expectation of finding some happy middle ground through play testing. It's easier to say 'ok that was too much, let's roll it back closer to the original rule' than to say 'I don't feel like that's a big enough change, let's alter it some more'.

The missions chapter has finally been written up into actual missions rather than just being a conglomeration of notes.
Same link as before: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_T7hszf2ZfdWmp2YTllei1XcXc

Having played against Imperial Guard yesterday I was reminded that they too have a shoot and run option. I think you may have more of a point that I realised Nou. Codex abilities to run can remain at d6" in the shooting phase.

But this now defeats some of the intended purpose (both of Zeta streamlining and codex rules...).

I run into same kind of problems when I first tried to rework movement - I started with flat Initiative run and charge distance of Initiative-up-to-2d6 (plus 1" bonus for Fleet). It worked well, fast CC units got their boost as intended, and then I remembered, that Harlequins have this formation, which allows them to run&charge from 2nd turn. Charges up to 26" with guaranteed 20" were broken as hell...

So in turn I had to scrap all formations altogether and rework army building as well, because so many of them are focused on how units work in 7th ed, that many, many formation/snowflake rules break any reasonable changes to core rules... I could do that, because my changes are only intended to balance two factions (well, two races), so I could rework codices easily. But "compatibility issues" in Zeta will pose a serious problem IMHO...

Hi folks.
This has been my experience of 'slight improvements' to current 40k rules.
The 40k rule set has built up a quagmire of holistic rules writing over the last two editions especially.So the most sensible and logical options for improvement , fall foul of some weird special rule interaction some where.

It always ends up with lots of complicated concessions to the existing rules in some way.

Even the most competent 'fix' to 7th edition 40k usually runs to more than 50 pages.(Before they get to the codex fixes.)

That is why a complete rewrite from the ground up, (using familiar mechanics and methods,) is my favored options of fixing 40k rules.
A complete new rule set should cover the current game play in less than 50 pages.IMO.(Not an extra 50 pages on top of the hundreds of pages the rules already have!)

However, Project Zeta will be a very valuable experience to all concerned.As it will highlight how awful the current GW rule set is for 40k game play.
And give people a good understanding of how unsuitable the WHFB 3rd ed rules are to base a modern battle game on.

It is obvious from the work done on project Zeta how much passion for 40k there is, and how intelligent and talented the contributors are!
This is very inspiring , and I really want to help with the complete re write when you get around to it.

nou wrote:
But this now defeats some of the intended purpose (both of Zeta streamlining and codex rules...).

True, but even so, I'd rather have 2 armies that roll dice than have all armies roll dice. It's still an improvement overall.

@Lanrak, Even when I get around to starting project Eta, it will still be a 'reboot' of 40k, not a completely new design. I have seen your accuracy vs stealth idea before and it's never felt right to me. It obviously works as a mechanic but it just doesn't feel like 40k when I read about it. I've been putting some thought into that project lately (hence the thread I posted in 40k General Discussion). I may just start it soon on Dakka as a collaborative effort. I'd welcome your input when I get a thread up.

Lanrak wrote:
Hi folks.
This has been my experience of 'slight improvements' to current 40k rules.
The 40k rule set has built up a quagmire of holistic rules writing over the last two editions especially.So the most sensible and logical options for improvement , fall foul of some weird special rule interaction some where.

It always ends up with lots of complicated concessions to the existing rules in some way.

Even the most competent 'fix' to 7th edition 40k usually runs to more than 50 pages.(Before they get to the codex fixes.)

That is why a complete rewrite from the ground up, (using familiar mechanics and methods,) is my favored options of fixing 40k rules.
A complete new rule set should cover the current game play in less than 50 pages.IMO.(Not an extra 50 pages on top of the hundreds of pages the rules already have!)

However, Project Zeta will be a very valuable experience to all concerned.As it will highlight how awful the current GW rule set is for 40k game play.
And give people a good understanding of how unsuitable the WHFB 3rd ed rules are to base a modern battle game on.

It is obvious from the work done on project Zeta how much passion for 40k there is, and how intelligent and talented the contributors are!
This is very inspiring , and I really want to help with the complete re write when you get around to it.

Is there a .doc or .pdf of your system anywhere? It is hard to discuss what could be adapted or how good your system is to build any community version of 40K around it if I have no clue on how it is structured


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zustiur wrote:

nou wrote:
But this now defeats some of the intended purpose (both of Zeta streamlining and codex rules...).

True, but even so, I'd rather have 2 armies that roll dice than have all armies roll dice. It's still an improvement overall.

Correct me if I'm wrong - so now Eldar units have either option for "normal" zeta run of 1.5x basic movement rate OR move basic rate, then shoot, then run d6"? That still leaves the Warhost flat 6" run problem with Fleet units and this realy feels overcomplicated with every unit in a codex having multiple, stackable movement options. Especially movement options for Fleet+Jet/Jump Battle Focus units in Warhost is messy... From Eldar perspective, Zeta is the exact opposite of streamlining rules and does not reduce handling or rolling anyhow, so there is no real incentive to adapt it...

Hi folks.
I will be brief as I can. I do not want to derail this thread any more than I might have already.

GWs rules for 40k were compromised , at the core rules level.
So unless you re structure the core rules to cover the current expected game play ,you end up with messy counter intuitive parts of the current rules left behind and over complicated 'fixes'.(If a team of professional game developers can not sort it out by adding on a corrupted core, over 18 years, what chance do we have? )

BUT if you address the issues with MINOR changes to the game mechanics and resolution methods in the core rules.
These correct the game play much more effectively than adding on extra rules later to try to put it right.

For example if you use alternating phases game turn. with simultaneous resolution.(Remove casualties at the end of the game phase.)
This gives a slight tweek to the game turn ,keeps the action phases players know and understand.But improves the level of interaction , and allows tactical planning if we keep all movement in the movement phase. (Like 2nd ed.)

This slight change to how players interact, removes the need for extra rules for reactions like over watch. And speeds up play as all movement happens ONCE in the game turn, and random movement is replaced with movement rates and simple modifiers as used by every other war game .(Apart from the few using variable bound game turns.)

Over the last decade or so my group have been trying out all sorts of way to fix 40k.

Adding rules to make the game less complicated does not work that well.
Just transplanting ideas from other rule set directly into the current rule set does not work that well.
Writing completely new rules that do not have the feel of 40k does not get accepted.

Our current project, (over about a year,) was taking 40k core mechanics and resolution methods and changing them slightly to better cover the unique large battle game with large minatures 40k has become.
(A garage roof collapse and slight flooding halted our play tests , and destroyed our playtest notes. )

I had not written any thing up in a pdf document,just in hand written notes.
However, the ideas we had for a '40k re defined rule set' are quite simple,minor changes that remove complication from the rules as written , while allowing more tactical interaction.

@nou.
I can PM you my basic ideas,or wait and discus them in Zustiur's next 40k re write thread if you prefer.

Lanrak wrote:
Hi folks.
I will be brief as I can. I do not want to derail this thread any more than I might have already.

GWs rules for 40k were compromised , at the core rules level.
So unless you re structure the core rules to cover the current expected game play ,you end up with messy counter intuitive parts of the current rules left behind and over complicated 'fixes'.(If a team of professional game developers can not sort it out by adding on a corrupted core, over 18 years, what chance do we have? )

BUT if you address the issues with MINOR changes to the game mechanics and resolution methods in the core rules.
These correct the game play much more effectively than adding on extra rules later to try to put it right.

For example if you use alternating phases game turn. with simultaneous resolution.(Remove casualties at the end of the game phase.)
This gives a slight tweek to the game turn ,keeps the action phases players know and understand.But improves the level of interaction , and allows tactical planning if we keep all movement in the movement phase. (Like 2nd ed.)

This slight change to how players interact, removes the need for extra rules for reactions like over watch. And speeds up play as all movement happens ONCE in the game turn, and random movement is replaced with movement rates and simple modifiers as used by every other war game .(Apart from the few using variable bound game turns.)

Over the last decade or so my group have been trying out all sorts of way to fix 40k.

Adding rules to make the game less complicated does not work that well.
Just transplanting ideas from other rule set directly into the current rule set does not work that well.
Writing completely new rules that do not have the feel of 40k does not get accepted.

Our current project, (over about a year,) was taking 40k core mechanics and resolution methods and changing them slightly to better cover the unique large battle game with large minatures 40k has become.
(A garage roof collapse and slight flooding halted our play tests , and destroyed our playtest notes. )

I had not written any thing up in a pdf document,just in hand written notes.
However, the ideas we had for a '40k re defined rule set' are quite simple,minor changes that remove complication from the rules as written , while allowing more tactical interaction.

@nou.
I can PM you my basic ideas,or wait and discus them in Zustiur's next 40k re write thread if you prefer.

That is unfortunate - I know exactly how frustrating losing a lot of work is... I would very much like to see those minor changes you came up with, especially since they were playtested.

But I agree, that one of the major problem with making any funrules is how to convince community to adapt them widely. Otherwise it is just a "puzzle" and excercise...

nou wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong - so now Eldar units have either option for "normal" zeta run of 1.5x basic movement rate OR move basic rate, then shoot, then run d6"? That still leaves the Warhost flat 6" run problem with Fleet units and this really feels overcomplicated with every unit in a codex having multiple, stackable movement options. Especially movement options for Fleet+Jet/Jump Battle Focus units in Warhost is messy... From Eldar perspective, Zeta is the exact opposite of streamlining rules and does not reduce handling or rolling anyhow, so there is no real incentive to adapt it...

That is correct as it stands at this moment yes. As stated before, I'm willing to change it if a better alternative is presented. So I'll ask again;
Which is the better rule:
A. Units have Base move rate (6" for infantry, 12" for jump, etc). All units may run in the movement phase for by moving up to 1.5* their base movement rate and may not then shoot. Fleet goes back to being a special rule which makes run 4" and charge 4+d6". Battle Focus still allows you to split your move.
B. Units have Base move rate (6" for infantry, 8" for Fleet, 12" for jump, etc). All units may run in the movement phase for an additional 3" and may not then shoot. Fleet has no effect on run or charge. Battle Focus still allows you to split your move.
C. As already specified in Zeta but using Battle Focus to 'run' after shooting is still d6" instead of a fixed value.
D. As already specified in Zeta but Battle Focus is removed entirely.
E. All move and run rates etc are left as per 7th edition, but run takes place in the movement phase, unless you're using a rule such as battle focus which lets you run after shooting.

What do you suggest to make Eldar work in Zeta with a minimum of codex re-writing? I'm looking for something which can be done in a few bullet points and doesn't require writing out the whole codex. Removing or replacing the 6" move from Warhost is a valid option.

I want to remove random rolls where possible. Run appeared to be one place where that would be simple. If it's not actually simple then it can stay as is.

@Lanrak, Thanks for keeping that short. It's sad that you lost your notes but I'm sure you have a lot of it stored in your head. I'd love to see a typed up document of everything you can remember.

From those presented:

A. is the closest to what I'm using right now. Leaving Fleet as a slight bonus rule IMHO is the most "backwards compatible but zeta in feeling" solution.

B. has Fleet attached to basic movement, so this changes a lot more interactions with specific units, as we discussed earlier.

C. introduces two types of running, which is confusing.

D. takes away a faction wide special rule, which existed in some way or another since 3rd ed (back then Fleet was Eldar only) and changes how Eldar strategies work.

E. is the most compatible, but decreases gameplay options - as it is now in 7th, you can run at any moment of shooting phase, so you can react to results immediately. With this modification, only Battle Focus units could do so and this could be a huge advantage.

I dispute D. Battle Focus is very new. More accurately, being able to run and shoot in the same turn is very new. Fleet existed since third, but I'm not taking that away by removing battle focus. For a long time Fleet was exactly what Run is now. As for 'Fleet was Eldar only' that was a very brief time before the tyranid codex came out.
Yes removing battle focus changes current Eldar strategies, but only those which exist since the 6th ed codex.
Not that I'm saying this is the preferred option, just that your objection is flawed.

That was indeed unfortunate wording on my part, let me explain:

No matter the edition (post 2nd era), Eldar always had increased mobility (not speed of movement only, but general mobility). They were able to run when no one else could (only gaunts had Fleet of Claw/Wings in 3rd ed, army wide Tyranids had move through cover equivalent back then). They gained Battle Focus when Rapid Fire weapons lost their "move or fire" doubling in favour of pure range based doubling. Point is - Eldar were always more flexible in movement phase, that is the basic design behind this faction. Hence my unfortunate "mental shortcut".

Right, gotcha. Not having played 5th edition (life happened) I hadn't spotted the pairing of Battle Focus and the change in Rapid Fire.
So it's about increased mobility in comparison with other armies. Hmm

3rd: Fleet may run. No one else has run.
Rapid Fire: 1 shot 12". 2 shots 12" or 1 shot max range if stationary.
4th: Fleet may run. No one else has run.
Rapid Fire: 2 shots 12". 1 shot max range if stationary.
5th: Everyone may run. Fleet may assault after running
Rapid Fire: 2 shots 12". 1 shot max range if stationary.
6th: Everyone may run. Fleet may re-roll run and charge distance.
Rapid Fire: 2 shots 12" or 1 shot max range, movement no longer matters. Battle Focus introduced to allow run and shoot/shoot and run, a similar increase to the change in Rapid Fire.
7th: Run, Fleet and Rapid fire unchanged from 6th. Battle Focus unchanged from 6th. Side note: Acrobatic now allows run and charge.

So Battle Focus needs to remain to compete with the increase in shots from Rapid Fire, and Eldar need to be more mobile than other armies.
Zeta's proposed rules left Eldar as faster (8" base, 12" run) and still able to run and shoot or shoot and run (move 8", shoot, "run" 4"). You are uncomfortable with the increase in speed as that is effectively the same as rolling a 6 every turn in terms of total distance traveled, and the the 8" base means assault units, particularly banshees, gain too much speed (12+4+d6" for banshees running and charging).

I'm not too attached to any particular solution and have my own concerns about the whole Run = 1.5* movement speed idea, particularly when looking at Jump, Beasts and Cavalry. Also the Charge = 0.5*movement +d6" on those same units concerns me. A cavalry unit can move 12", charge 6+d6" for a threat range of 24" and possible 1st turn charge. Not really what I intended.

So, what if (slight change to option A above);
Run = 3" for every unit type.
Charge = 3+D6" for every unit type
Fleet remains as a special rule changing run to 4" and Charge to 4+d6"
Beasts and Cavalry regain fleet.
Battle Focus still allows you to run and shoot or shoot and move 4" after shooting BUT we remember that because run happens in the movement phase that Eldar effectively lose a tactical edge because they have to make the run decision before seeing any shooting results. So on the one hand they gain a stable distance which encourages pop out/pot in tactics, but on the other hand they no longer have perfect knowledge of when to do that.
This leaves banshees with 14+d6" charge range (run 10, charge 4+d6") which is comparable to their current 6+D6" with reroll, + 2D6" with reroll. No longer able to get 24" total, no longer able to fall short (9") by rolling and rerolling lots of 1s. 7th gives them an expected average around 6+4+8 or 18". This rule gives them an expected average somewhere around 6+4+7 or 17".

In other words; Run is merged into the movement phase (a goal of mine) and no longer needs a die roll (another goal). Eldar retain most of their mobility?speed advantage, gain reliability on distance but lose some tactical flexibility in terms of knowing shooting results before running.

How does this sit with you?

This fleet seems like a good overall compromise. Regarding Eldar, it also allows Warhost Detachment special rule of running always 6" to be left exactly as it is, since it does not interfere with charge distances.

But I don't really understand your explanation on Battle Focus tactical edge. Eldar will be still able to pop out/pot in and do so reliably, they will have to elect to run/shoot or shoot/run beforehand (as I understand your intention), but that does not matter really - you can choose the run direction after shooting, so you can still chose between either hiding or advancing. And units like Guardians usually have to run before shooting to get anything in range of their 12" guns. The only place when this decision matter is either to Battle Focus or shoor&charge, which is rarely important, especially with such tight assault range variation.

I was thinking in terms of multiple units;
Say you have 3 units which are potentially in range of a target you want to destroy. At the moment you can run close with 1 unit, fire, see the result, then try again with the 2nd unit. If that succeeds, you're now free to commit the 3rd unit to another target.
With this change, you have to take a guess and make that decision to run into range with 1, 2 or all 3 units before you resolve any of the shooting. It's not a big change I admit, but it does offer a small counterpoint to the increased reliability of being able to pop in and out of cover.
Likewise let's say again there are 3 units, but two don't need to run to get into range. That third unit has two possible targets but is out of range of both right now. Do you run to target A or target B? At the moment you can postpone that decision until the first two units have fired. Under the proposed rule you have to make the decision in the movement phase.

In essence, what I'm saying is that there is a small reduction in Eldar's ability to make use of every gun every turn.

Personally I think the Eldar codex could use some 'nerfing' in general. As noted before I'm not against the idea of changing the codex for balancing, I'm just trying to make sure my core rules changes don't require a complete re-write of codices.

Hello guys! Quite interesting discussion (in fact, after lurking probably more than an year, this is the one that makes me subscribe).

I think many othe the changing you've made are good, nonetheless they are too light an added on top of a ruleset with have its own flaws.
I think probably a deeper reviews of fundamental rules may serve you better.

But I don't want to rain on your parade so, instead of you here what I will change, I'll open a different thread in the section

Thanks Cybtroll. I agree and disagree at the same time. Yes a lot more needs to change to really fix the game, but if I do that, it won't be close enough to 7th edition anymore to meet my goal of not invalidating the existing codices.

I've had a lot of time to mull over the problem with fleet and run etc.
I've now rejected my original proposal of various movement types being a multiplier of base speed. Having cavalry and jump units able to 'run' 18" and charge 6"+d6" seemed too powerful.

Run is now a flat 3" on top of base speed, so;
Infantry move 6, run 9, charge 3+d6
jump move 12, running jump 15, charge 3+d6
cavalry move 12, run 15, charge 3+d6

Run still prevents charge of course.

For now I've retained my base concept behind fleet however (this may also get scrapped, I'm still weighing up everything)
Fleet move 8, run 11, charge 3+d6

Consolidate is now also 3" in all cases.

While I'm sad that this reduced differentiation between units, it does make a lot of rules easier to read and learn.

Battle focus now reads:
A unit with this rule ignores the shooting penalty for running. It also may split its movement - if the unit walks during the movement phase, it may ‘run’ after shooting by moving again up to 3”.
I’m very tempted to remove the second sentence altogether.

Banshees' Acrobatic also goes back to the previous (6e) wording which prevents charging.

The online doc has been updated.