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.
2020/06/19 01:59:40
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
yukishiro1 wrote: FWIW, Reece said this over on Frontline Gaming in response to someone bringing up how the multi-charge rule bones the ability to get to a character being screened:
"Well, hang tight, haha, because one of the biggest changes to the game has yet to be revealed and it has a big impact on things like screening. "
I would say this was fall back going the way of the dodo, but that obviously isn't the case because the one thing the total garbage that is Cut Them Down told us is that falling back is still a big part of the game, so big that they came up with a useless universal stratagem to ineffectively try to respond to it.
So I'm not sure what it could be. Maybe it's just removal of the limitation on only being able to fight what you declared a charge against? But that doesn't seem big enough, somehow.
Also said in the same thread:
"Combat is very different in 9th. It’s one of the bigger overall changes."
If I recall, there was a rumor floating around that you could pass through other models in this edition, a la Harlequins. But, I don't remember if it was someone just wishlisting or what, so take it with a whole saltlick.
WH40K Death Guard 5100 pts.
Daemons 3000 pts.
DT:70+S++G+M-B-I--Pw40K90-D++A++/eWD?R++T(D)DM+
28 successful trades in the Dakka Swap Shop! Check out my latest auction here!
2020/06/19 02:09:00
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
Eldenfirefly wrote: I mean, spending 3 CP to fight a second time for the entire unit will probably result in far more kills as compared to spending 1 CP 3 times on Cut them down !
With the changes to charges (that we know of), I'm not sure fighting a second time would even be worth 3 CP anymore.
You can't charge multiple units (unless you make the charge roll to reach all of them), so it's no longer a case of consolidating into a new unit you declared a charge against (but didn't reach) and then popping the 'fight twice' strat. And do you want to fight twice against the unit you just fought? That would mean that you wipe them out... and now you're in the open and about to be blasted off the table. Fall Back is devastating enough as it is without doing it to yourself on purpose.
Fighting twice stratagem is very useful when there is something you want dead, specially if it is a case of melee vs melee.
2020/06/19 02:19:41
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
yukishiro1 wrote: FWIW, Reece said this over on Frontline Gaming in response to someone bringing up how the multi-charge rule bones the ability to get to a character being screened:
"Well, hang tight, haha, because one of the biggest changes to the game has yet to be revealed and it has a big impact on things like screening. "
I would say this was fall back going the way of the dodo, but that obviously isn't the case because the one thing the total garbage that is Cut Them Down told us is that falling back is still a big part of the game, so big that they came up with a useless universal stratagem to ineffectively try to respond to it.
So I'm not sure what it could be. Maybe it's just removal of the limitation on only being able to fight what you declared a charge against? But that doesn't seem big enough, somehow.
Also said in the same thread:
"Combat is very different in 9th. It’s one of the bigger overall changes."
If I recall, there was a rumor floating around that you could pass through other models in this edition, a la Harlequins. But, I don't remember if it was someone just wishlisting or what, so take it with a whole saltlick.
They said falling back would allow movement through enemies (death of tripoint) and units that fall back can't shoot unless they have a special rule allowing it (Fly not being one of them)
It was posted by the same person who said Overwatch was possibly gone or a strat, multi charge required reaching all targets and the new elements to character targeting so I'm inclined to expect it. It's the rest of how melee/fallback works I'm most interested in now.
BlaxicanX wrote: A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.
2020/06/19 03:01:19
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
Can someone with better comprehension of the written word clarify whether a character within 3" of a vehicle or monster can be targeted if it is the closest unit? I keep reading it in my head as the part that starts with 'unless...' only applying to the units of infantry with 3 or more models. If the rule said 'while that unit is within 3" of any other friendly Vehicle, Monster, or unit containing 3 or more models' then I get it, but the way it is written makes me think the vehicle/monster part is entirely separate from the 3+ model part.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/19 03:02:46
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Hoping for the day 1 FAQ to include that DP's stats have improved to 10 wounds, just so you guys can realise how utterly pointless these ongoing arguments are without the context of the full rule changes, and thus, in future you may consider how futile theory hammer is when you haven't got all the ingredients to go into the theory.
If Daemon Princes go to 10, Guilliman better go to 10, too.
She/Her
"There are no problems that cannot be solved with cannons." - Chief Engineer Boris Krauss of Nuln
Kid_Kyoto wrote:"Don't be a dick" and "This is a family wargame" are good rules of thumb.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Hoping for the day 1 FAQ to include that DP's stats have improved to 10 wounds, just so you guys can realise how utterly pointless these ongoing arguments are without the context of the full rule changes, and thus, in future you may consider how futile theory hammer is when you haven't got all the ingredients to go into the theory.
If Daemon Princes go to 10, Guilliman better go to 10, too.
GW has already said that the main rulebook will have an appendix at the back that will cover uncommon rules interactions so that the main rules aren't cluttered with lists of exceptions.
That's exactly where I'd expect stuff like "What if two Daemon Princes are next to each other?" to go. Until we can check that appendix, there's no point getting too worked up about seemingly missing clarifications to address unusual situations.
2020/06/19 03:16:26
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Hoping for the day 1 FAQ to include that DP's stats have improved to 10 wounds, just so you guys can realise how utterly pointless these ongoing arguments are without the context of the full rule changes, and thus, in future you may consider how futile theory hammer is when you haven't got all the ingredients to go into the theory.
If Daemon Princes go to 10, Guilliman better go to 10, too.
GW has already said that the main rulebook will have an appendix at the back that will cover uncommon rules interactions so that the main rules aren't cluttered with lists of exceptions.
That's exactly where I'd expect stuff like "What if two Daemon Princes are next to each other?" to go. Until we can check that appendix, there's no point getting too worked up about seemingly missing clarifications to address unusual situations.
They also may have it in diagram form since they said most of the rules will be accompanied by pictures to make understanding them easier.
Arguably the twin Daemonprince claim works with Bjorn and Murderfang since they are Characters and Vehicles.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/19 03:17:01
2020/06/19 04:01:10
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
Can someone with better comprehension of the written word clarify whether a character within 3" of a vehicle or monster can be targeted if it is the closest unit? I keep reading it in my head as the part that starts with 'unless...' only applying to the units of infantry with 3 or more models. If the rule said 'while that unit is within 3" of any other friendly Vehicle, Monster, or unit containing 3 or more models' then I get it, but the way it is written makes me think the vehicle/monster part is entirely separate from the 3+ model part.
Scroll back over the past two pages. There's lots of explanations and even a few visual representations.
WH40K Death Guard 5100 pts.
Daemons 3000 pts.
DT:70+S++G+M-B-I--Pw40K90-D++A++/eWD?R++T(D)DM+
28 successful trades in the Dakka Swap Shop! Check out my latest auction here!
2020/06/19 04:27:17
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
Can someone with better comprehension of the written word clarify whether a character within 3" of a vehicle or monster can be targeted if it is the closest unit? I keep reading it in my head as the part that starts with 'unless...' only applying to the units of infantry with 3 or more models. If the rule said 'while that unit is within 3" of any other friendly Vehicle, Monster, or unit containing 3 or more models' then I get it, but the way it is written makes me think the vehicle/monster part is entirely separate from the 3+ model part.
Read this, and it becomes clear.
Wakshaani wrote: Ahh, chained statements. For those still confused, try this:
A character cannot be targeted with a ranged attack if the following three conditions are all met:
One: The character must have a Wounds characteristic of 9 or less.
Two: There is an enemy unit closer to the attacking unit.
Three: The character is within 3" of at least one vehicle AND/OR at least one monster AND/OROR at least unit of 3+ models.
If all of these conditions are not met, the character may be attacked by ranged attacks.
((It provides no protection from melee attacks))
I hope that cleans it up for those still a bit muddled. Go through the checklist, see if all conditions are met and, if so, you can't shoot 'em. Otherwise, it's fair game.
2020/06/19 04:33:24
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
AngryAngel80 wrote: I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
Argive wrote: It does not bode well for the warlock...
The normal Warlock'll be fine... they just have to stick near a unit, like of Guardians, or a vehicle, like a Vaul Support Battery, and they'll be fine.
Same for the Farseer and, say, Dark Reapers, or a Bonesinger and a Wraithlord.
The only ones at risk are Warlock … shoot, Covenents? I blank on the word for thCONCLAVE! Warlock Conclaves. I don't think that they'll get Look Out Sir but they *might*. There can be arguments made either way but they're one of the very few units made up of only, and several, characters. That interaction gets weird.
Oh, as for handholding demons? They might find a backdoor way around that... namely, the older rumor that we're getting a faction-wide reduction of 1 "Commander" … so a single Marine Captain, a single Tau Commander, and a single Demon Prince might all be in the future. Too early to know for sure, but, it'd fit in with the older discussions and GW not at ALL liking the three Smash Captain look.
2020/06/19 05:26:01
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
If killing 10 guardians is all it takes to target a warlock, that warlock is toast. Wave serpents and wraithlords are far better picks for protecting our psykers.
---
2020/06/19 05:41:20
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
The bigger issue about the "Look out sir" rule is that it, as written, only applies to characters with ranged weapons. Melee characters can just get shot willy nilly.
Models cannot target a unit that contains any (Character models with a W characteristic of 9 or less with a ranged weapon) while that unit is within...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/19 05:41:39
2020/06/19 05:49:53
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
Mmmpi wrote: The bigger issue about the "Look out sir" rule is that it, as written, only applies to characters with ranged weapons. Melee characters can just get shot willy nilly.
Models cannot target a unit that contains any (Character models with a W characteristic of 9 or less with a ranged weapon) while that unit is within...
Can you put those parences where you like and claim it's the right position?
2020/06/19 06:10:46
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
Argive wrote: It does not bode well for the warlock...
The normal Warlock'll be fine... they just have to stick near a unit, like of Guardians, or a vehicle, like a Vaul Support Battery, and they'll be fine.
Same for the Farseer and, say, Dark Reapers, or a Bonesinger and a Wraithlord.
The only ones at risk are Warlock … shoot, Covenents? I blank on the word for thCONCLAVE! Warlock Conclaves. I don't think that they'll get Look Out Sir but they *might*. There can be arguments made either way but they're one of the very few units made up of only, and several, characters. That interaction gets weird.
Oh, as for handholding demons? They might find a backdoor way around that... namely, the older rumor that we're getting a faction-wide reduction of 1 "Commander" … so a single Marine Captain, a single Tau Commander, and a single Demon Prince might all be in the future. Too early to know for sure, but, it'd fit in with the older discussions and GW not at ALL liking the three Smash Captain look.
Certain factions could still pull it off though. Necrons with their C'tan Shards & Command Barges; Chaos Daemons with their Slaanesh & Khorne Heralds on Chariot/Hellflayer/Throne, Daemon Prines and Be'lakor; Space Wolves with Murderfang/Bjorn; and likely others.
2020/06/19 06:45:59
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
Mmmpi wrote: The bigger issue about the "Look out sir" rule is that it, as written, only applies to characters with ranged weapons. Melee characters can just get shot willy nilly.
Models cannot target a unit that contains any (Character models with a W characteristic of 9 or less with a ranged weapon) while that unit is within...
Can you put those parences where you like and claim it's the right position?
The parentheses were only there to mark the section I was specifying. I could have just done bold instead.
Edit: to be perfectly clear, I don't think this was the intended way, just one possible way to interpret it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/19 06:48:10
2020/06/19 06:58:52
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
To be fair, that makes the character targeting rule worse, not better. Since you can hide “closer infantry” in LOS blocking terrain.
Overall this rule re-write is marginally better than 8th (8th didn’t carve out any exceptions previously—as long as anything was closer, then you couldn’t target the <9W character), but it’s still not a great solution.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Danit wrote: I think alot of the complaints about the new look out sir dont take into account the new terrain rules. Full Los blocking is far more common now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/19 07:23:19
2020/06/19 07:35:23
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
BaconCatBug wrote: A finalised version of why this rule is dumb and stupid.
Spoiler:
Sorry if I got this wrong, but you wrote "within 3" of an enemy MONSTER" for DP1? Is that just a minor error?
And maybe my reading comprehension is incredibly poor, but which keyword takes primacy, MONSTER or CHARACTER? If it is CHARACTER, then the fact that DPs are MONSTERS means nothing, if the other way then it's the scenario you and others have explained (although it essentially boils down to DP2 being the longest to survive the targeting roulette as once the screen is gone DP 1 is also up for grabs).
The simple solution seems to be putting the sentence "..and those friendly models are also not characters themselves" after the part about a friendly vehicle/monster. Maybe with a further caveat of needing to be less than 9 wounds also, since a Character like Magnus would take priority over a lesser Daemon prince, but that's it's own work can.
Or they could change keywords.
Or just...rewrite it for more clarity.
So yes, daft rule.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/19 07:38:45
2020/06/19 07:42:36
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
It is rumored that these will take a pretty high point increase, so I am only worried for those sneaky indirect fire units which will have made it through the point increase net.
I main orks, so I know my characters are going to die like flies. But I still really like this change, and I think some here should really try to look on the bright side: you will be able to shoot down those pesky annoying enemy characters too. I think this new rule will help the player going second, always a good thing in my book
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/19 07:44:57
Ere we go ere we go ere we go
Corona Givin’ Umies Da good ol Krulpin they deserve huh huh
2020/06/19 08:14:25
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
do wish GW would learn to use a bulleted list for things like this, should make what I assume they intend a lot clearer, avoid the need for an FAQ or appendix entry and generally be a lot easier to read - makes exceptions to specific points easier as well (indent then under the point they apply to)
GW would do well to actually bring a technical writer on staff with responsibility for reading and reformatting the actual rules in a consistent way (simple stuff like spotting how the word "may" and "can" are used for example to make clear whats optional and what isn't, and if its optional which player gets to decide etc)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Incidentally I actually think that LoS is a pretty good change, removing protection from lone characters just because someone 180 degrees around the firing unit is 0.1" closer
I do hope there is an accuracy penalty for firing without line of sight though
Automatically Appended Next Post: Incidentally there is a nice solution GW could easily add for the superfriends holding hands" bit
you must split fire equally between both, odd shots at the firing players choice - so if you stick a single say laser cannon in you can pick who it goes to, stick two and both get one
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/19 08:28:21
2020/06/19 08:55:35
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
leopard wrote: do wish GW would learn to use a bulleted list for things like this, should make what I assume they intend a lot clearer, avoid the need for an FAQ or appendix entry and generally be a lot easier to read - makes exceptions to specific points easier as well (indent then under the point they apply to)
GW would do well to actually bring a technical writer on staff with responsibility for reading and reformatting the actual rules in a consistent way (simple stuff like spotting how the word "may" and "can" are used for example to make clear whats optional and what isn't, and if its optional which player gets to decide etc)
I suspect the problem is that understanding any issue with the rules also requires knowledge of the game and it's myriad interactions to understand how those all work together to create a problem. A technical writer looking at word usage and sentence structure, would also need to have very in-depth knowledge of how the game itself functions and knowledge of all the units and different factions.
That's a big ask, even for a team of people. You would need those dedicated to playing the game too, because being able to spot these problems from the outside comes out of us, generally, being in a semi-relaxed environment with people we are friendly with (I would hope) and a consequence of shared interest. Working at an actual, paid job, induces a different focus and has other pressures/stressors that influence someone's ability to spot these problems.
In theory playtesters are meant to circumvent this, but the environment of their shared interest is a manufactured one, it is artificial for the needs of a company providing an entertaining product to those with the sincere interest. Although individual differences (e.g. stress management and tolerance) between people will vary.
It also doesn't help that, while this is a small company in other areas, it is a large one (the largest?) in it's own particular pond. That brings a whole host of other issues as well as a change in priorities, and not always for the better.
And, so I'm clear, none of this is meant as an excuse to the poor rules being written by GW, past, present and future. It's just my intuitive assumption based on experience and observation of people.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/19 08:57:01
2020/06/19 08:58:32
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
There will probably be an erata that says something along the lines that characters that are monsters or vehicles do not benefit from the Look out Sir rule when placed side by side each other.
Or something like to benefit from look out sir rule, the vehicle or monster within 3 inches of the character cannot be a character as well.
2020/06/19 09:20:26
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
leopard wrote: do wish GW would learn to use a bulleted list for things like this, should make what I assume they intend a lot clearer, avoid the need for an FAQ or appendix entry and generally be a lot easier to read - makes exceptions to specific points easier as well (indent then under the point they apply to)
GW would do well to actually bring a technical writer on staff with responsibility for reading and reformatting the actual rules in a consistent way (simple stuff like spotting how the word "may" and "can" are used for example to make clear whats optional and what isn't, and if its optional which player gets to decide etc)
I suspect the problem is that understanding any issue with the rules also requires knowledge of the game and it's myriad interactions to understand how those all work together to create a problem. A technical writer looking at word usage and sentence structure, would also need to have very in-depth knowledge of how the game itself functions and knowledge of all the units and different factions.
That's a big ask, even for a team of people. You would need those dedicated to playing the game too, because being able to spot these problems from the outside comes out of us, generally, being in a semi-relaxed environment with people we are friendly with (I would hope) and a consequence of shared interest. Working at an actual, paid job, induces a different focus and has other pressures/stressors that influence someone's ability to spot these problems.
In theory playtesters are meant to circumvent this, but the environment of their shared interest is a manufactured one, it is artificial for the needs of a company providing an entertaining product to those with the sincere interest. Although individual differences (e.g. stress management and tolerance) between people will vary.
It also doesn't help that, while this is a small company in other areas, it is a large one (the largest?) in it's own particular pond. That brings a whole host of other issues as well as a change in priorities, and not always for the better.
And, so I'm clear, none of this is meant as an excuse to the poor rules being written by GW, past, present and future. It's just my intuitive assumption based on experience and observation of people.
oh you would certainly have issues meaning they need to go back and check, without a doubt, but it would make things better.
the problems with play testing seem to be when GW do it they play the way they intend the game to be played so the edge cases simply never come up or are just dismissed outright.
you don't want rules that read like a legal document (largely because they aren't readable either) but for chained lists bullet points are much easier to read even if there are meant to be a few and/or conditions.
my personal wish is for a rulebook where the actual rule is clearly distinguished from any descriptive text or notes - GW have gotten a lot better at this which avoids arguments based on the more fluffy bits, or more so than in the past.
in truth this sort of writing is hard (I have written proposals documents for a living, the devil is in the editing, especially of technical submissions) and GW have always seen the rules as a method to shift models, not something to focus on specifically as a thing in their own right
a tech writer would help them though, even just from a consistency perspective between the different rules writers to upskill the team generally. Tech writers in isolation as you note would need basically to be mind readers to know what the intention was, but a tech writer who works with the rules creators, to the point of taking probably reasonably basic concepts of whats intended and then framing it for verification can work well.
anyway, back to wish listing...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldenfirefly wrote: There will probably be an erata that says something along the lines that characters that are monsters or vehicles do not benefit from the Look out Sir rule when placed side by side each other.
Or something like to benefit from look out sir rule, the vehicle or monster within 3 inches of the character cannot be a character as well.
easy way is something to note you ignore the <CHARACTER> keyword on models other than the target, I agree its likely to be corrected or clarified at some point not that long after release, its reasonably obvious what they are trying to do, but as is often the case they have managed to write something thats somewhat different
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/19 09:22:28
2020/06/19 09:25:48
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
Mmmpi wrote: The bigger issue about the "Look out sir" rule is that it, as written, only applies to characters with ranged weapons. Melee characters can just get shot willy nilly.
Models cannot target a unit that contains any (Character models with a W characteristic of 9 or less with a ranged weapon) while that unit is within...
Can you put those parences where you like and claim it's the right position?
The parentheses were only there to mark the section I was specifying. I could have just done bold instead.
Edit: to be perfectly clear, I don't think this was the intended way, just one possible way to interpret it.
Yeah, the specific technique with which you identified sections of the sentence was not the point of my post.
2020/06/19 09:44:22
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
"Ignore other enemy Character models with a Wounds characteristic of 9 or less when determining if the target is the closest enemy unit to the firing model"
As a sentence that meant Characters couldn't protect each other, as do most of my gaming circle, because we assume it's the same as 8th that Characters don't protect each other. That rule could've been worded way better though. Especially when they showed earlier that they wrote some rules with bullet points.
It's funny I just read in a recent White Dwarf an article from I think Jervis Johnson explaining how long they take to refine the wording of a rule based on experience in game and reunions with staff members. Guess some of those are still being worked on
40K: Adeptus Mechanicus
AoS: Nighthaunts
2020/06/19 09:58:54
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
Mmmpi wrote: The bigger issue about the "Look out sir" rule is that it, as written, only applies to characters with ranged weapons. Melee characters can just get shot willy nilly.
Models cannot target a unit that contains any (Character models with a W characteristic of 9 or less with a ranged weapon) while that unit is within...
Any person that tries to petition that during a game as the actual rule deserves to be thrown out of the Warhammer Community at large.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/19 11:47:56
2020/06/19 11:39:38
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
yukishiro1 wrote: FWIW, Reece said this over on Frontline Gaming in response to someone bringing up how the multi-charge rule bones the ability to get to a character being screened:
"Well, hang tight, haha, because one of the biggest changes to the game has yet to be revealed and it has a big impact on things like screening. "
I would say this was fall back going the way of the dodo, but that obviously isn't the case because the one thing the total garbage that is Cut Them Down told us is that falling back is still a big part of the game, so big that they came up with a useless universal stratagem to ineffectively try to respond to it.
So I'm not sure what it could be. Maybe it's just removal of the limitation on only being able to fight what you declared a charge against? But that doesn't seem big enough, somehow.
Also said in the same thread:
"Combat is very different in 9th. It’s one of the bigger overall changes."
Maybe... Maybe... This is pure speculation, maybe you no longer NEED to declare a charge to move in to Engagement Range of your opponent? As in, if you can get in to Engagement Range in the Movement Phase, you are allowed to do so. That would be a pretty massive change, and a controversial one.
Either that or a less randomised charge? d6+Movement?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/06/19 11:59:58