Switch Theme:

Bring back a form of sweeping advance  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

8th edition is tilted heavily towards shooting and away from cc. One problem is when you actually manage to get in combat with a unit and your opponent falls back in their turn allowing their other units to blow yours off the table. It doesn't make sense that an infantry unit with 6 of movement can easily run away from a contemptor with 9 of movement for example. I would propose a rule where if a player decides to fall back out of combat their opponent can attempt to chase them down. Each player would roll a d6 and add their movement. If the player falling back wins then they successfully fall back. If the opposing player wins the units stay in combat. This would make cc stronger and make it easier to shut down units that can fall back and still shoot and/or charge.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Alternatively, switch 40k to AA,- then there wouldn't need to be band-aids to try to make CC "work."

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/26 00:03:03


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Blastaar wrote:
Alternatively, switch 40k to AA,- then there wouldn't need to be band-aids to try to make CC "work."

Ding ding ding we have a winner!

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





I feel like every time this topic comes up, we end up going...

* What if we made it so that units don't always succeed at falling back?

* No, only stopping Fall Backs some of the time means that there's still a mechanical problem some of the time.

* What if you got to do a "melee overwtach" against falling back units?

* Nah.If you're not planning on staying in combat as-is, then putting a price (in blood) on falling back doesn't discourage you from falling back. Getting your shooty unit away from the melee unit is still an obvious choice.

* If the real problem is that falling back sets melee armies up for getting shot at after they already had to go to the trouble of crossing the table, what if we made it so that you can't shoot at enemy units you just fell back from unless you're within X"?

* And then someone points out AA, and we all sort of get misty eyed and stare off in the distance at the mechanics that could be but aren't.

Guess we're skipping to the end this time?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/26 05:36:21



ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Blastaar wrote:
Alternatively, switch 40k to AA,- then there wouldn't need to be band-aids to try to make CC "work."

Well gw have aa in some of their games now so I guess that's a possibility. But I still like the idea of my night lords chasing down fleeing enemies. Just something about transhuman psychopaths cutting down terrified people running for their lives makes me happy.
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka




Blastaar wrote:
Alternatively, switch 40k to AA,- then there wouldn't need to be band-aids to try to make CC "work."

People keep saying to make that a thing and I've never seen someone explain how that actually fixes the problems of 40k rather than just shifting them.

tremere47-fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to triple riptide spam  
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




pm713 wrote:
Blastaar wrote:
Alternatively, switch 40k to AA,- then there wouldn't need to be band-aids to try to make CC "work."

People keep saying to make that a thing and I've never seen someone explain how that actually fixes the problems of 40k rather than just shifting them.

The game is far too reliant on going first with all other strategies relying on surviving going second. Especially in a shooting game, where you can literally kill half an opponent's army before they can respond. I mean, the +1 on saves as a Strat says everything you need to know about why IGOUGO is bad.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka




Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
pm713 wrote:
Blastaar wrote:
Alternatively, switch 40k to AA,- then there wouldn't need to be band-aids to try to make CC "work."

People keep saying to make that a thing and I've never seen someone explain how that actually fixes the problems of 40k rather than just shifting them.

The game is far too reliant on going first with all other strategies relying on surviving going second. Especially in a shooting game, where you can literally kill half an opponent's army before they can respond. I mean, the +1 on saves as a Strat says everything you need to know about why IGOUGO is bad.

Okay but I don't see how AA solves that. If I go first I can still use my strongest ranged unit to wipe out my opponents ranged and go from there. It wouldn't be as dramatic as things are now but I can still just remove things if I want to. That seems like a problem you solve by removing OP units not by changing from IGOUGO.

tremere47-fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to triple riptide spam  
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




pm713 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
pm713 wrote:
Blastaar wrote:
Alternatively, switch 40k to AA,- then there wouldn't need to be band-aids to try to make CC "work."

People keep saying to make that a thing and I've never seen someone explain how that actually fixes the problems of 40k rather than just shifting them.

The game is far too reliant on going first with all other strategies relying on surviving going second. Especially in a shooting game, where you can literally kill half an opponent's army before they can respond. I mean, the +1 on saves as a Strat says everything you need to know about why IGOUGO is bad.

Okay but I don't see how AA solves that. If I go first I can still use my strongest ranged unit to wipe out my opponents ranged and go from there. It wouldn't be as dramatic as things are now

See we need to stop you right there.

One units wiped in a turn with no response > Six units wiped in a turn with no response. Full stop. It shouldn't get CLOSE to being as dramatic as six units, which is possible even WITH non OP units.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka




Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
pm713 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
pm713 wrote:
Blastaar wrote:
Alternatively, switch 40k to AA,- then there wouldn't need to be band-aids to try to make CC "work."

People keep saying to make that a thing and I've never seen someone explain how that actually fixes the problems of 40k rather than just shifting them.

The game is far too reliant on going first with all other strategies relying on surviving going second. Especially in a shooting game, where you can literally kill half an opponent's army before they can respond. I mean, the +1 on saves as a Strat says everything you need to know about why IGOUGO is bad.

Okay but I don't see how AA solves that. If I go first I can still use my strongest ranged unit to wipe out my opponents ranged and go from there. It wouldn't be as dramatic as things are now

See we need to stop you right there.

One units wiped in a turn with no response > Six units wiped in a turn with no response. Full stop. It shouldn't get CLOSE to being as dramatic as six units, which is possible even WITH non OP units.

Okay, I'm not denying that one unit dying with no response is better than six. But I am confused/annoyed at people repeatedly saying if 40k had AA it would be fixed rather than just reducing the problem.

tremere47-fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to triple riptide spam  
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




pm713 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
pm713 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
pm713 wrote:
Blastaar wrote:
Alternatively, switch 40k to AA,- then there wouldn't need to be band-aids to try to make CC "work."

People keep saying to make that a thing and I've never seen someone explain how that actually fixes the problems of 40k rather than just shifting them.

The game is far too reliant on going first with all other strategies relying on surviving going second. Especially in a shooting game, where you can literally kill half an opponent's army before they can respond. I mean, the +1 on saves as a Strat says everything you need to know about why IGOUGO is bad.

Okay but I don't see how AA solves that. If I go first I can still use my strongest ranged unit to wipe out my opponents ranged and go from there. It wouldn't be as dramatic as things are now

See we need to stop you right there.

One units wiped in a turn with no response > Six units wiped in a turn with no response. Full stop. It shouldn't get CLOSE to being as dramatic as six units, which is possible even WITH non OP units.

Okay, I'm not denying that one unit dying with no response is better than six. But I am confused/annoyed at people repeatedly saying if 40k had AA it would be fixed rather than just reducing the problem.

It would go a long way to fixing a lot of the problems because of the ability to actually respond. As of now, even with proper screening, Alpha/Beta strikes are way too powerful. I'm currently 4-0 with my Lias bomb list, and I don't even NEED the Super Doctrine up. That's half power creep and half "haha I get to make the next move good luck living".

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

It's also dealing with a character(Lias Issodon) who, as far as I know, hasn't really been updated since the initial drop of stuff.

Sweeping Advance was an awful mechanism though. It was effectively the equivalent of what people complain about shooting armies doing to melee now, where there becomes a point of "nope, can't do nothin".

The best thing I can think of as a reasonable solution is making it so that retreating units cause morale tests for units that have line of sight to them or allowing for enemy units that they started the turn in combat with get an 'immune to morale' rule until their turn.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/26 22:54:06


 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

9
 Kanluwen wrote:
It's also dealing with a character(Lias Issodon) who, as far as I know, hasn't really been updated since the initial drop of stuff.

Sweeping Advance was an awful mechanism though. It was effectively the equivalent of what people complain about shooting armies doing to melee now, where there becomes a point of "nope, can't do nothin".

The best thing I can think of as a reasonable solution is making it so that retreating units cause morale tests for units that have line of sight to them or allowing for enemy units that they started the turn in combat with get an 'immune to morale' rule until their turn.

So if any of the enemy unit somehow survives the firestorm it's subjected to it doesn't suffer morale? How often will that help? My idea doesn't auto kill the retreating unit if they lose the roll off. They just stay locked in combat and can still fight. That gives both units at least a chance.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's also dealing with a character(Lias Issodon) who, as far as I know, hasn't really been updated since the initial drop of stuff.

Sweeping Advance was an awful mechanism though. It was effectively the equivalent of what people complain about shooting armies doing to melee now, where there becomes a point of "nope, can't do nothin".

The best thing I can think of as a reasonable solution is making it so that retreating units cause morale tests for units that have line of sight to them or allowing for enemy units that they started the turn in combat with get an 'immune to morale' rule until their turn.
Doesn't really work in 8th edition.

Immunity to morale is a small, but occasionally quite nice buff. Better on hordes (Daemons) than MSU. But doesn't make much sense.

Forcing tests on unharmed units does... Nothing. Unless they're leadership 5 or less, which is pretty damn rare.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

You lot can keep pretending that every army in existence ever can just Fall Back and suffer no penalties. You're wrong about it, but you can keep pretending it.

Stop charging units that are sitting out in the open and maybe you don't have to worry about this anymore. You're trying to "solve" a problem that is of your own design.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/27 01:09:27


 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

 Kanluwen wrote:
You lot can keep pretending that every army in existence ever can just Fall Back and suffer no penalties. You're wrong about it, but you can keep pretending it.
Most units suffer penalties for falling back-namely, no shooting, advancing, or charging.

The issue is, only THAT unit does. The rest of the army is 100% fine.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

 JNAProductions wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
You lot can keep pretending that every army in existence ever can just Fall Back and suffer no penalties. You're wrong about it, but you can keep pretending it.
Most units suffer penalties for falling back-namely, no shooting, advancing, or charging.

The issue is, only THAT unit does. The rest of the army is 100% fine.

Then don't charge a unit sitting out in the open?

There are zero armies in the game that only have melee.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

 Kanluwen wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
You lot can keep pretending that every army in existence ever can just Fall Back and suffer no penalties. You're wrong about it, but you can keep pretending it.
Most units suffer penalties for falling back-namely, no shooting, advancing, or charging.

The issue is, only THAT unit does. The rest of the army is 100% fine.

Then don't charge a unit sitting out in the open?

There are zero armies in the game that only have melee.
There are some that don't have any EFFECTIVE shooting.

Nurgle Daemons, for one. That's one I play.

Edit: And screens exist and are quite common, you know.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/27 01:11:56


Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

 JNAProductions wrote:
There are some that don't have any EFFECTIVE shooting.

Nurgle Daemons, for one. That's one I play.

Don't know daemons well enough to suggest counterplay or I would. Biggest thing I can suggest...

Edit: And screens exist and are quite common, you know.

Attempt for wrap-around charges whenever/wherever possible. People whine about "positioning not being important anymore!', but if you want to avoid exactly this kind of situation...don't just charge in like a goon.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 JNAProductions wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
You lot can keep pretending that every army in existence ever can just Fall Back and suffer no penalties. You're wrong about it, but you can keep pretending it.
Most units suffer penalties for falling back-namely, no shooting, advancing, or charging.

The issue is, only THAT unit does. The rest of the army is 100% fine.

Then don't charge a unit sitting out in the open?

There are zero armies in the game that only have melee.
There are some that don't have any EFFECTIVE shooting.

Nurgle Daemons, for one. That's one I play.

Edit: And screens exist and are quite common, you know.

What difference does it make if they're out in the open or not? When they fall back in their turn the attacking unit is still exposed. Charging units out in the open is a problem if you kill it thus leaving yourself out in the open. What about units that can fall back and still shoot? Does it matter if they're out in the open?
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

So, just to be clear, your suggestion is "Wrap the opponent."

Great! Let's assume I charge my Plaguebearers into a Guardsmen screen. I position carefully, so only three Bearers are attacking, and can easily tripoint a model.

That's 3 attacks, hitting on a 3+ (6s generate an extra attack) for 7/3 hits, wounding on 3+ (rerolling) for 56/27 wounds, and 112/81 dead Guardsmen.

Oh... My opponent removes the model I can tripoint. *Sad trombone noises*

Or, you know, they could be the regiment that lets you fire on your own dudes. Hitting me normally, and only hitting his own guys on 1s-and even if he kills some guardsmen, fantastic! He can remove the models in combat, leaving those out of combat so he can shoot me to hell and back.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

No my suggestion was about a rule that would allow you to chase down a unit attempting to fall back thus keeping it locked in combat. I'm not sure how you'd prevent either of the scenarios you described. I never mentioned tri pointing.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

Gadzilla666 wrote:
No my suggestion was about a rule that would allow you to chase down a unit attempting to fall back thus keeping it locked in combat. I'm not sure how you'd prevent either of the scenarios you described. I never mentioned tri pointing.
More responding to Kanluwen myself, and their assertion that Fall Back is completely fine and melee is too.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 JNAProductions wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
No my suggestion was about a rule that would allow you to chase down a unit attempting to fall back thus keeping it locked in combat. I'm not sure how you'd prevent either of the scenarios you described. I never mentioned tri pointing.
More responding to Kanluwen myself, and their assertion that Fall Back is completely fine and melee is too.

Sorry miscommunication. Kanluwen must play tau.
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





The issue is, imo, that whilest Melee requires a certain quality standard of models, e.g more stats are deciding if you can win an engagement.
Shooting is basically only based on BS and whatever gun you get.
I see that myself with ym 4pts terrible laserpointer dudes and i play Khorne R&H most of the time. THere is no point in charging for me because my armor /t/a value is not good enough. So the laserpointer it is that i use.

Add insult to injury of even bad Infantry weapons beeing capable enough in massed ammount of utterly obliterating even "tuff" units and you get the idea.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Not Online!!! wrote:
The issue is, imo, that whilest Melee requires a certain quality standard of models, e.g more stats are deciding if you can win an engagement.
Shooting is basically only based on BS and whatever gun you get.
I see that myself with ym 4pts terrible laserpointer dudes and i play Khorne R&H most of the time. THere is no point in charging for me because my armor /t/a value is not good enough. So the laserpointer it is that i use.

Add insult to injury of even bad Infantry weapons beeing capable enough in massed ammount of utterly obliterating even "tuff" units and you get the idea.


Not sure I follow your logic there. Melee uses your WS, S, T, AP, Sv, Damage, Wounds, and Attacks. Shooting uses all of the same stats but just swaps some of the model's stats out for the gun's and uses BS instead of WS. If you shoot and don't charge, your total number of strength 3 attacks with "laser pointer dudes" is 2. If you shoot AND charge, your total number of strength 3 attacks is 3. So if we're just looking at raw stats/damage output, you do have a reason to charge.

So I'm not sure what you're trying to communicate here. Are you trying to convey the fact that the fight phase tends to result in damage being dealt both directions while the shooting phase is a one-way damage dealing affair?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/27 22:13:59



ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Wyldhunt wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
The issue is, imo, that whilest Melee requires a certain quality standard of models, e.g more stats are deciding if you can win an engagement.
Shooting is basically only based on BS and whatever gun you get.
I see that myself with ym 4pts terrible laserpointer dudes and i play Khorne R&H most of the time. THere is no point in charging for me because my armor /t/a value is not good enough. So the laserpointer it is that i use.

Add insult to injury of even bad Infantry weapons beeing capable enough in massed ammount of utterly obliterating even "tuff" units and you get the idea.


Not sure I follow your logic there. Melee uses your WS, S, T, AP, Sv, Damage, Wounds, and Attacks. Shooting uses all of the same stats but just swaps some of the model's stats out for the gun's and uses BS instead of WS. If you shoot and don't charge, your total number of strength 3 attacks with "laser pointer dudes" is 2. If you shoot AND charge, your total number of strength 3 attacks is 3. So if we're just looking at raw stats/damage output, you do have a reason to charge.

So I'm not sure what you're trying to communicate here. Are you trying to convey the fact that the fight phase tends to result in damage being dealt both directions while the shooting phase is a one-way damage dealing affair?


No, the intrinsic quality of shooting is based upon the Weapon, which is a seperate entity and the BS value.
Compared to melee, which in most cases, falls back on the model either by modifying the base models values or just plain using it. So Shooting also leaves you with no reaction and grants you a massive Initiative advantage.

Further the SV and T value are not used in the shooting phase for the shooting unit. Contrary to melee, which it will get used due to the enemy actually fighting back.

So Melee needs overall higher quality in units commited to it, compared too shooting.

So yes, the melee units need to be off "higher quality" due to actually needing to be durable enough or damaging enough to mitigate the two-ways damage.
Melee therefore is inherently at a disadvantage to counteract you need "overly" efficent units.

Further the rather compressed wounding chart aids Low S weapons and strength quite a bit more.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/28 09:48:21


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in dk
Khorne Veteran Marine with Chain-Axe






Alternating actions would defently NOT fix melee issues or touches them in any form for 40k, it dosent change the amount of insane damage many ranged units can pull off.

In the club im in we run a basic houserule, wanna fallback? Roll against eachother, 2D6 highest wins, and 3D6 pick the two highest for <fly> units and +1 to your roll for every unit you have more than the opponent in said engagement.

It dosent fix the balance issue, it doesnt change the meta, but it defently tones down the frustration for alot of the melee units/lists and make them ejoyable.


6000 World Eaters/Khorne  
   
Made in de
Regular Dakkanaut





I would do it a bit different.

My proposal would be,
1- let the unit fall back as currently.
2- enemy units disengaged can immediately do a 2d6 consolidation move.

In that way, there is a lose-win situation and a decision can be made that has repercussions. You are risking loosing ground. Some of your other units getting tagged. Etc.

Also, there is no need to rewrite current ruleset. Just add 2-3 more lines.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/17 05:42:42


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Orkimedez_Atalaya wrote:
I would do it a bit different.

My proposal would be,
1- let the unit fall back as currently.
2- enemy units disengaged can immediately do a 2d6 consolidation move.

In that way, there is a lose-win situation and a decision can be made that has repercussions. You are risking loosing ground. Some of your other units getting tagged. Etc.

Also, there is no need to rewrite current ruleset. Just add 2-3 more lines.


The average on 2d6 is 7". Most infantry in the game move 7" or less. So a 2d6" consolidation move would, (literally) more often than not just be giving your opponent the ability to move around/tag additional units before re-engaging the falling back unit. Though I suppose you'd be able to leave behind a sacrificial unit to force them to move towards that unit instead of following you? I don't know. Falling Back shouldn't be a no-brainer, but making it actively work against yourself more often than not might not be the way to go either.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: