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.

Plus if all you do is kite...objectives are still an important factor to take into a consideration.

 Suzuteo wrote:
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I think the entire Morale and Charge phases should be removed. You declare a Charge in the Movement phase (much like Advance, Fall Back, and Remain Stationary), and you have to pass a leadership check. If you succeed, you can move your units into engagement range; any unit within 1" of another unit in engagement range may be eligible to fight in the fight phase. If you fail, that unit cannot move at all.

The immediate effects of this are:
1. We get rid of two phases, which saves us time.
2. Melee units can just get more Move stat rather than an entire extra set of complicated movement rules.
3. Charge and Advance become different choices, because honestly, Advance+Charge through terrain is just pure, unmitigated cancer that creates massive codex inequity.
4. You cannot charge after deep striking. More game design chemotherapy.
5. Pistols become a lot more important for melee units, since charging means you cannot shoot non-pistol weapons.
6. Leadership matters a lot more. Rules like Summary Execution and And They Shall Know Some Fear now are applied to charges as well as morale checks (which should be forced by abilities rather than a once-per-turn thing).

Politely disagree with most of this. Failing a charge because of a leadership test would be as frustrating as rolling snake eyes on a charge roll and make about as little sense. Most armies in 40k are not guardsmen that have to be motivated into charging by their commanders. If space marines, melee aspect warriors, daemons, or genestealers have the opportunity to charge, they're probably taking it and doing so without much in the way of fear. Night Lords may be spooky, but a genestealer still wants to chew on them. Heck, orks are generally statted as having "bad" leadership, but they should be quite good at making charges.

Also, as discussed above, doing charges in the movement phase could work but would dramatically lower the value of units that are designed to both shoot and stab, and oddly might even turn your melee units into a liability if you have to prevent the rest of your army from shooting to use them. My shining spears would certainly be nerfed by not being allowed to shoot and stab in the same turn, and my already mediocre banshees and scorpions would suddenly be in the way of my reapers and avengers. And melee options on avengers would become even less popular than they already are. As I say, moving charges to the movement phase could be done, but it's a change that would weaken a lot of already meh units and require massive rebalancing. Something like changing charge rolls to a d6 + x mechanic are relatively limited in scope.

1. Fair point.
2. As has been mentioned before, what counts as a "melee" unit? My shining spears love to charge into melee, but they technically get more shots and probably do more damage with their shooting. And how much extra movement are you giving to a lychguard and my shining spears respectively?
3. Is it really though? I haven't seen a lot of complaints aimed at howling banshees or genestealers in a while.
4. Feels like you're kicking a lot of units while they're down. Do GSC need more nerfing? Striking scorpions? Would I be correct in guessing you're perhaps concerned about a certain subset of (probably powerarmored) units and proposing changes that would nerf a bunch of mediocre units unintentionally? Or do you have a proposal for making GSC and scorpions feel like the ambushers they're meant to be while also not allowing them to charge out of deepstrike?
5. This bit I kind of like, but I'm not sure buffing pistols addresses the detriment to shooting/stabbing teamwork described above. I'm not sure I care that my banshee and scorpsions' pistols became more relevant if their avenger, reaper, and spider buddies can't soften the target up for them before they charge.
6. Leadership would matter more, but would it matter in an enjoyable way? I'm picturing kroot and orks and hormagaunts failing charges left and right because they have worse Ld than space marines. Or else gaining enough stat boosts and special abilities to negate this disadvantage and make the change irrelevant.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:
Random charge distance is needed as long as pre-measuring is allowed, as otherwise it is just to easy to stay outside the threat range.

I feel like I've been seeing this sentiment for a long time, but it never really made much sense to me. Despite random charges, I can generally tell what turn an enemy unit is going to contact my lines. There's a small chance that the unit will flub a charge and get cheated out of doing damage for a turn, and there's a chance that they'll roll hot on a charge roll (especially if they can advance and charge) and manage to reach me a turn earlier than expected. But generally I know when they'll reach me.

Plus, pre-measuring doesn't impact everyone equally. I'm not a very good judge of distances, but there are plenty of people out there who spend all day measuring stuff (or happen to know how long the base of a given set of ruins is) and have an extremely accurate sense of how far apart two units are without breaking out a measuring tape. Making one's ability to guesstimate distances part of the gameplay was always really odd. Being a carpenter probably shouldn't give you a big advantage in 40k.

Also, if I really want to kite you, I still can. Most of my armies are mobile enough to end up more than Movement + 12" away from your melee units provided I'm okay with losing ground. But doing so means that I"m giving up objectives, and you'll still catch me after a few turns as there isn't all that much room to run and hide. Kiting is already possible and generally pretty easy, but only for a little while, and leaning into it is a good way to lose the primary.

But maybe I'm missing something. Do you really mind that I stayed out of melee with your Thunderwolves for an extra turn if doing so cost me the game?

 Kall3m0n wrote:
The problem with removing two phases is that there's way less creative room and messes up how strats are played.
However, declaring charges in the movement phase is not a gakky idea. But again: Restructuring of strats.

1. Why is everyone so god damn hellbent of saving time everywhere? If you don't like the ammount of time it takes to play the game: Play fewer points, of another game alltogether.
2. Yeah, because increasing movement won't get broken fast. And what designates a CC unit? I play both DG and Custodes, and neither army has any good pure CC units. What designates a "CC-unit"?
3. I agree. And if there's a strat to allow a unit to do such a thing, give that to every army and make it a once per game strat..
4. Then nobody is going to deepstrike any CC unit ever. That would nerf so many lists and relegate deepstriking to units that can shoot like there's no tomorrow. *Deepstrikes in. Stands around with knives, flails, axes and clubs in hand. Looks menacingly at enemy. Dies. Free points to the enemy."
5. Not being able to shoot non-pistol weapons if you charge is not a gak idea.
6. I don't agree at all with your version of morale. However, I do agree that it needs to matter. In all my games in 8th and 9th, I've taken about 4 morale tests. Morale nowadays just doesn't matter. At all. Change it back to how it was in 5'th.

If we are looking to ONLY change how charging works:

To you who say that charge distance should be double move distance: Is an effectively guaranteed 36" charge a good idea? Really?

And those that propose that everything should charge 4/5/6 +D6, does that REALLY include vehicles?

To those that propose no charging after deepstrike: That's how you remove every single CC deepstrike ever. Yeah, sure I'll offer my units up fpr free! Great idea!

I disagree. I am a game designer by profession. The 40k design space is plenty large. In fact, I would argue that it is bloated and needs pruning to make better use of things. Right now, leadership is a massively under-utilized stat, and morale and charge phases are just time-wasters.

But yes, this may require a rules reset like 8E did to 7E.

1. Because shorter, more enjoyable games are always preferable? Also, with the way Battle-forged works, it is easier to maintain game balance going up rather than down; the current game systems start to break down when you drop under 1200 points or so. So instead of arguing that people can shorten a game by reducing points, it would be better to say that they can increase it by increasing points.
2. Compared to the current design strategy of just cherry picking with armies get the ridiculous ability to move two or even three times as far as other armies?
4. Yes. Because the entire reason why charging out of deep strike is cancerous is because it is non-interactive. And if this rule were in effect, nobody would do what you suggest. People would deep strike into terrain as a way to project force into different parts of the board.
6. This is definitely a preference. I just think having to check morale every round is a time-waster. Having morale be a penalty or a triggered event would add dynamism and intentionality to an underutilized facet of the game. For example, Primaris Reivers or Sicarian Rustalkers can have an aura that reduces leadership and a rule that forces a morale check after every combat. It would be a totally different way to kill hordes that is not as arbitrary as something like Blast rules, and armies like Guard or Tau would need to prepare leadership to prevent this.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Politely disagree with most of this. Failing a charge because of a leadership test would be as frustrating as rolling snake eyes on a charge roll and make about as little sense. Most armies in 40k are not guardsmen that have to be motivated into charging by their commanders. If space marines, melee aspect warriors, daemons, or genestealers have the opportunity to charge, they're probably taking it and doing so without much in the way of fear. Night Lords may be spooky, but a genestealer still wants to chew on them. Heck, orks are generally statted as having "bad" leadership, but they should be quite good at making charges.

Also, as discussed above, doing charges in the movement phase could work but would dramatically lower the value of units that are designed to both shoot and stab, and oddly might even turn your melee units into a liability if you have to prevent the rest of your army from shooting to use them. My shining spears would certainly be nerfed by not being allowed to shoot and stab in the same turn, and my already mediocre banshees and scorpions would suddenly be in the way of my reapers and avengers. And melee options on avengers would become even less popular than they already are. As I say, moving charges to the movement phase could be done, but it's a change that would weaken a lot of already meh units and require massive rebalancing. Something like changing charge rolls to a d6 + x mechanic are relatively limited in scope.

1. Fair point.
2. As has been mentioned before, what counts as a "melee" unit? My shining spears love to charge into melee, but they technically get more shots and probably do more damage with their shooting. And how much extra movement are you giving to a lychguard and my shining spears respectively?
3. Is it really though? I haven't seen a lot of complaints aimed at howling banshees or genestealers in a while.
4. Feels like you're kicking a lot of units while they're down. Do GSC need more nerfing? Striking scorpions? Would I be correct in guessing you're perhaps concerned about a certain subset of (probably powerarmored) units and proposing changes that would nerf a bunch of mediocre units unintentionally? Or do you have a proposal for making GSC and scorpions feel like the ambushers they're meant to be while also not allowing them to charge out of deepstrike?
5. This bit I kind of like, but I'm not sure buffing pistols addresses the detriment to shooting/stabbing teamwork described above. I'm not sure I care that my banshee and scorpsions' pistols became more relevant if their avenger, reaper, and spider buddies can't soften the target up for them before they charge.
6. Leadership would matter more, but would it matter in an enjoyable way? I'm picturing kroot and orks and hormagaunts failing charges left and right because they have worse Ld than space marines. Or else gaining enough stat boosts and special abilities to negate this disadvantage and make the change irrelevant.

My goal is not to make charges less frustrating. It is also not necessarily to capture "fear" in the Leadership stat, but to honestly make Leadership reflective of that tacit realm of knowledge that differentiates a trained body of soldiers from a mob. Anyhow, the solution to those problems would be to increase the Leadership stat to reflect their relative capabilities. After all, even Space Marines sometimes face-plant in combat.

2. That is a bit out of the scope of this discussion. But a unit lacking a shooting weapon could be compensated with higher stats in Leadership, Movement, or even durability.
3. That's because the bugbear today is White Scars. And oftentimes, you just hear less about cancer because something more arbitrary and cancerous has taken its place.
4. You'd need to overhaul a ton of units.
6. Again, I am definitely not saying the existing stats would remain in place.

Being a carpenter probably shouldn't give you a big advantage in 40k.

Total aside but one my my best friends was a carpenter and builder years ago when playing 3rd edition. He played Imperial Guard and LOVED how guess range weapons actually required guessing the range. His accuracy was well within 1/2 an inch when. God damn basilisks.

I actually loved it too. Was fun.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Plus if all you do is kite...objectives are still an important factor to take into a consideration.

Kite?

Also add me to a pro guess range czmp

 Mezmorki wrote:

Being a carpenter probably shouldn't give you a big advantage in 40k.

Total aside but one my my best friends was a carpenter and builder years ago when playing 3rd edition. He played Imperial Guard and LOVED how guess range weapons actually required guessing the range. His accuracy was well within 1/2 an inch when. God damn basilisks.

I actually loved it too. Was fun.

lol I loved guess range weapons too, for the same reason. My crazy-accurate Ork Lobbas were a terror on the battlefield!

I admit it got unfair for my opponents though, so I didn't complain when they removed that particular mechanic.

Real quick, I hope none of what follows comes across as rude. I'm enjoying the discussion and not attempting to attack anyone.

 Suzuteo wrote:

My goal is not to make charges less frustrating. It is also not necessarily to capture "fear" in the Leadership stat, but to honestly make Leadership reflective of that tacit realm of knowledge that differentiates a trained body of soldiers from a mob. Anyhow, the solution to those problems would be to increase the Leadership stat to reflect their relative capabilities. After all, even Space Marines sometimes face-plant in combat.

Do they though? Like, often enough to need to reflect their faceplanting with a leadership test? Thinking over the various units in 40k, almost none of them strike me as being an untrained "mob." Anything astartes, aeldari, necron, or tau in nature either has some solid training or honed predatory instincts (kroot, drukhari beasts, etc.). Tyranids are literally designed to hunt and kill things and have the hive mind coordinating their efforts. Mechanicus soldiers are lobotimized, disciplined, and can optionally be controlled directly by their bosses to charge forward. Your average guardsman supposedly represents a highly trained human soldier comparable to a member of real-world special forces. Daemons don't seem like they need to be convinced to charge at mortals. And while orks are literally "mobs," they're also a melee army that has traditionally been especially good at charging forward. (See: 'Ere We Go and Waaagh!) So what units does that leave to flub their charges? Conscripts, cultists, and maybe some GSC units?

If your goal is to make leadership more important, then I"m not sure the charge mechanism is the best place to try and reflect it. If your goal is not to reflect the "fear" element, then it's possibly a problem that fear effects would, in fact, impact an army's ability to charge. And if you're already suggesting changing statlines to counteract the implications of your own proposed changes, it makes me concerned that those changes might not be ideal.

2. That is a bit out of the scope of this discussion. But a unit lacking a shooting weapon could be compensated with higher stats in Leadership, Movement, or even durability.
...
4. You'd need to overhaul a ton of units.
6. Again, I am definitely not saying the existing stats would remain in place.

I'm not opposed to overhauling units for the sake a good mechanic change. That said, I do sort of view it as a red flag when a proposed rule change requires overhauling a ton of units to accommodate that change. Buffing purely melee units aside, moving the charge phase into movement would still end up nerfing any unit that's supposed to shoot and stab things. I'm not sure making leadership more important warrants such a big shakeup to the game.

3. That's because the bugbear today is White Scars. And oftentimes, you just hear less about cancer because something more arbitrary and cancerous has taken its place.

Even if that's the case, charging out of deepstrike is the mechanic that conveys the "ambush" tactics that define a lot of units in the game. Mandrakes and Striking Scorpions should be good at appearing out of nowhere and then stabbing their targets to death. You don't have to use charging out of deepstrike to represent that, but it probably should be represented. So what's your preferred replacement mechanic for it? And if you don't have any suggestions right this moment, can we agree that removing such units' ability to "ambush" their targets without replacing it would not be ideal?

4. Yes. Because the entire reason why charging out of deep strike is cancerous is because it is non-interactive. And if this rule were in effect, nobody would do what you suggest. People would deep strike into terrain as a way to project force into different parts of the board.

Couple things here.
A.) I don't entirely agree that charging out of deepstrike is non-interactive. It could stand to be more interactive, but screening units, strats that let you shoot units coming in from reserves, and abilities that prevent units from deepstriking within a certain range are all options for interacting with a deepstriking threat.

B.) I'm dubious that deepstriking melee units would continue to be popular and would simply switch to landing in terrain and hiding for a turn. Looking at an army like GSC that's all about deepstriking, their units aren't generally durable enough to survive sitting around for a turn, even if they are benefitting from light cover. If a blob of acolytes lands on a flank and sits there for a turn, I'll either blast them off the table or scoot my units away from them so that they won't be charging me on the next turn either. Ditto Da Jump'ing ork units, burrowing tyranids, etc. I don't see myself taking striking scorpions or assault marines if all they're going to do is show up for one turn, shoot some pistols, and then die. I'd be more likely to just leave those units on the shelves in favor of units that don't need to wait for turn 3 to do damage.

Wyldhunt wrote:



Also, if I really want to kite you, I still can. Most of my armies are mobile enough to end up more than Movement + 12" away from your melee units provided I'm okay with losing ground.

And with fixed charge distances, you would only need to be Movement + 6" away, so you would have to give even less ground to kite. Unless you are planning to make it a fixed 12" distance, but that would probably introduce other issues.

Okay, I'll try again: what in the blue feth is kiting?

Just Tony wrote:Okay, I'll try again: what in the blue feth is kiting?

Common gaming term. Basically means, "attack the enemy while falling back and keeping enough distance to prevent him from attacking you." When you use the tactic on an enemy AI, your attacks keep them interested in you, so they follow you where you lead them. Like they're a kite that you're flying.

Tyran wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:



Also, if I really want to kite you, I still can. Most of my armies are mobile enough to end up more than Movement + 12" away from your melee units provided I'm okay with losing ground.

And with fixed charge distances, you would only need to be Movement + 6" away, so you would have to give even less ground to kite. Unless you are planning to make it a fixed 12" distance, but that would probably introduce other issues.

Fixed 12" would be too much, sure. My point was more that kiting is entirely possible as-is. And I'm not sure the extra 6" needed to be 100% safe happens to be exact distance needed to make the amount of ground given up worthwhile. Switching charge rolls to 1d6 + 4" would only give you a threat range 4" longer than flat 6" charges, but it still feels like a reasonable amount of ground to be forced to give up if you want to kite the enemy.

 Just Tony wrote:
Okay, I'll try again: what in the blue feth is kiting?

Simple, you use a faster unit, to string alone an enemy.
In gameing terms a parade exemple for a unit that prefers kiting is horse archers in total war.
Basically you bully the enemy to force him and provoke him to hunt the unit down, except the unit is too fast to do that effectively and often can't retaliate / get's ambushed..

kiting
1. A maneuver in which a player-character gets an enemy NPC to chase after them so as to lead them somewhere else (like a kite on a string). This can be used to separate groups of enemies to prevent the player from becoming overwhelmed or in team-based or cooperative games to allow the player's teammates to attack the opponent, or to lure the opponent into a trap.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Okay, I'll try again: what in the blue feth is kiting?

Simple, you use a faster unit, to string alone an enemy.
In gameing terms a parade exemple for a unit that prefers kiting is horse archers in total war.
Basically you bully the enemy to force him and provoke him to hunt the unit down, except the unit is too fast to do that effectively and often can't retaliate / get's ambushed..

kiting
1. A maneuver in which a player-character gets an enemy NPC to chase after them so as to lead them somewhere else (like a kite on a string). This can be used to separate groups of enemies to prevent the player from becoming overwhelmed or in team-based or cooperative games to allow the player's teammates to attack the opponent, or to lure the opponent into a trap.

So essentially what anyone in WFB with any tactical sense does to Frenzied troops. Didn't realize it had one of those TVTropes type names...

 Just Tony wrote:
[So essentially what anyone in WFB with any tactical sense does to Frenzied troops. Didn't realize it had one of those TVTropes type names...

The term has been around since at least the early days of World of Warcraft, if not significantly longer, and thus has been in use longer than TV Tropes has been a thing. Calling the term kiting a 'TV Tropes type name' would be like saying the same for things like tanking, aggro, DPS, and other terms common to many different forms of gaming.

 Suzuteo wrote:

 Kall3m0n wrote:
The problem with removing two phases is that there's way less creative room and messes up how strats are played.
However, declaring charges in the movement phase is not a gakky idea. But again: Restructuring of strats.

1. Why is everyone so god damn hellbent of saving time everywhere? If you don't like the ammount of time it takes to play the game: Play fewer points, of another game alltogether.
2. Yeah, because increasing movement won't get broken fast. And what designates a CC unit? I play both DG and Custodes, and neither army has any good pure CC units. What designates a "CC-unit"?
3. I agree. And if there's a strat to allow a unit to do such a thing, give that to every army and make it a once per game strat..
4. Then nobody is going to deepstrike any CC unit ever. That would nerf so many lists and relegate deepstriking to units that can shoot like there's no tomorrow. *Deepstrikes in. Stands around with knives, flails, axes and clubs in hand. Looks menacingly at enemy. Dies. Free points to the enemy."
5. Not being able to shoot non-pistol weapons if you charge is not a gak idea.
6. I don't agree at all with your version of morale. However, I do agree that it needs to matter. In all my games in 8th and 9th, I've taken about 4 morale tests. Morale nowadays just doesn't matter. At all. Change it back to how it was in 5'th.

If we are looking to ONLY change how charging works:

To you who say that charge distance should be double move distance: Is an effectively guaranteed 36" charge a good idea? Really?

And those that propose that everything should charge 4/5/6 +D6, does that REALLY include vehicles?

To those that propose no charging after deepstrike: That's how you remove every single CC deepstrike ever. Yeah, sure I'll offer my units up fpr free! Great idea!

I disagree. I am a game designer by profession. The 40k design space is plenty large. In fact, I would argue that it is bloated and needs pruning to make better use of things. Right now, leadership is a massively under-utilized stat, and morale and charge phases are just time-wasters.

But yes, this may require a rules reset like 8E did to 7E.

1. Because shorter, more enjoyable games are always preferable? Also, with the way Battle-forged works, it is easier to maintain game balance going up rather than down; the current game systems start to break down when you drop under 1200 points or so. So instead of arguing that people can shorten a game by reducing points, it would be better to say that they can increase it by increasing points.
2. Compared to the current design strategy of just cherry picking with armies get the ridiculous ability to move two or even three times as far as other armies?
4. Yes. Because the entire reason why charging out of deep strike is cancerous is because it is non-interactive. And if this rule were in effect, nobody would do what you suggest. People would deep strike into terrain as a way to project force into different parts of the board.
6. This is definitely a preference. I just think having to check morale every round is a time-waster. Having morale be a penalty or a triggered event would add dynamism and intentionality to an underutilized facet of the game. For example, Primaris Reivers or Sicarian Rustalkers can have an aura that reduces leadership and a rule that forces a morale check after every combat. It would be a totally different way to kill hordes that is not as arbitrary as something like Blast rules, and armies like Guard or Tau would need to prepare leadership to prevent this.
.

1. So to you a shorter game appears to automatically be more enjoyable? Weird (to me). For me, an enjoyable game has nothing to do with game time. I've had extremelt enjoyable games that lasted an hour, and I've had extremely enjoyable games that lasted 4-5 hours.
I do agree that balance become more of an issue the less points you play, but if your goal with the game is to play as short as possible (and therefore more enjoyable to you) then less points is a quick fix.
Well, if we want to increase play time, we can still add more points. THat has always been the case.
If you don't enjoy games that lasts more than 2 hours, set a fixed game time of 2 hours and use a chess clock. There's free chess clock apps.
I still find it odd that game time is such a huge factor to you on how you enjoy the game. Instead of what actually happens in the game.

2. Yes. Varying movement charataristics acreoss varying armies. It's one of the things that makes certain armies special, and it's one of the things that makes certain units even playable. "How come DG doesn't get any good bikes or jump infantry?" Certain armies and units should have special rules that other units and armies doesn't have. If you want homogenous armies and units, you're in the wrong game.

4. How would it be MORE interactive if I deepstrike in a unit just to have it get deleted? Oh, I see it now. You don't play an army that can utilize DS in a great way, so you want to be able to shoot your opponent's stuff before they assault your gun lines. Gotcha!

6. Yes, because checking leadership after each combat isn't time wasting... It would also be pretty dang inconsequential. You'd get 1-2 more kills than now. Maybe. However, if we'd have to take a morale after losing 25% of a unit and failing that meant the whole unit ran away and had to pass a leadership test afterwards to rally, then morale matters again. Or if sitting in a transport while it blew up caused something called "pinning"...

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
[So essentially what anyone in WFB with any tactical sense does to Frenzied troops. Didn't realize it had one of those TVTropes type names...

The term has been around since at least the early days of World of Warcraft, if not significantly longer, and thus has been in use longer than TV Tropes has been a thing. Calling the term kiting a 'TV Tropes type name' would be like saying the same for things like tanking, aggro, DPS, and other terms common to many different forms of gaming.

A term less than 1% of the populace is aware of, but would more than likely pop up on that exact site. My assessment stands.

 Just Tony wrote:
A term less than 1% of the populace is aware of, but would more than likely pop up on that exact site. My assessment stands.

There are specific industry and scientific terms with even less penetration into the mainstream would you use the same term for them?

 Just Tony wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
[So essentially what anyone in WFB with any tactical sense does to Frenzied troops. Didn't realize it had one of those TVTropes type names...

The term has been around since at least the early days of World of Warcraft, if not significantly longer, and thus has been in use longer than TV Tropes has been a thing. Calling the term kiting a 'TV Tropes type name' would be like saying the same for things like tanking, aggro, DPS, and other terms common to many different forms of gaming.

A term less than 1% of the populace is aware of, but would more than likely pop up on that exact site. My assessment stands.

The TV Tropes name is "Hit-and-Run Tactics", which is far more generic and applicable to fields outside of gaming. In case you're curious.

On topic, I think that movement in 40k has inflated far too quickly making many choices pointless. The only choices now are false. For example deployment against many armies boils down to preventing a T1 charge, in some cases you can't prevent this and instead, your choice is what to screen with and how to space that screen to avoid a pile in charge.

Random charge distances at least add an element of risk to otherwise optimal play by a fast melee focused army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The TV Tropes name is "Hit-and-Run Tactics", which is far more generic and applicable to fields outside of gaming. In case you're curious.

If you generalize things enough anything becomes a trope.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The TV Tropes name is "Hit-and-Run Tactics", which is far more generic and applicable to fields outside of gaming. In case you're curious.

If you generalize things enough anything becomes a trope.

As you will discover if you spend any time on TV Tropes.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
[So essentially what anyone in WFB with any tactical sense does to Frenzied troops. Didn't realize it had one of those TVTropes type names...

The term has been around since at least the early days of World of Warcraft, if not significantly longer, and thus has been in use longer than TV Tropes has been a thing. Calling the term kiting a 'TV Tropes type name' would be like saying the same for things like tanking, aggro, DPS, and other terms common to many different forms of gaming.

A term less than 1% of the populace is aware of, but would more than likely pop up on that exact site. My assessment stands.

The TV Tropes name is "Hit-and-Run Tactics", which is far more generic and applicable to fields outside of gaming. In case you're curious.

No. Hit-and-run is NOT the same as "kiting".
Hit-and-run is striking, then trying to get away. "*punch* run away as fast as you can"
Kiting is hitting and them MAKE SURE the enemy is actively pursuing you so you can lure them somewhere else. "*punch* jogging kinda fast, but not too fast."

 AnomanderRake wrote:
As you will discover if you spend any time on TV Tropes.

Better to spend your time on a site that doesn't try to fit everything into overly broad boxes for the sake of an easily amused or very specifically focused audience.

 Kall3m0n wrote:
...No. Hit-and-run is NOT the same as "kiting".
Hit-and-run is striking, then trying to get away. "*punch* run away as fast as you can"
Kiting is hitting and them MAKE SURE the enemy is actively pursuing you so you can lure them somewhere else. "*punch* jogging kinda fast, but not too fast."

And "hit and run tactics" have never been used to lure an opponent out of position? Hastings?

If you want to go by dictionary definition I can't find that use of "kiting" at all (it means either "fraudulently cashing stolen checks" or "flying a kite"), while "hit and run" means either "causing a road accident and then leaving" or "attacking suddenly and unexpectedly so that the attackers can leave without getting hurt". Going by TV Tropes (which was the whole point of the discussion) the "hit and run tactics" page covers the video game usage of "kiting" as well as similar tactics in other media. If you want to use your own definitions fair enough, I can't stop you, but telling me that my usage is wrong solely because it doesn't match yours seems wildly hypocritical when your usage doesn't match TV Tropes', which was the entire point.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
And "hit and run tactics" have never been used to lure an opponent out of position? Hastings?

If you want to go by dictionary definition I can't find that use of "kiting" at all (it means either "fraudulently cashing stolen checks" or "flying a kite"), while "hit and run" means either "causing a road accident and then leaving" or "attacking suddenly and unexpectedly so that the attackers can leave without getting hurt". Going by TV Tropes (which was the whole point of the discussion) the "hit and run tactics" page covers the video game usage of "kiting" as well as similar tactics in other media. If you want to use your own definitions fair enough, I can't stop you, but telling me that my usage is wrong solely because it doesn't match yours seems wildly hypocritical when your usage doesn't match TV Tropes', which was the entire point.

'Kiting' is more specific than 'hit and run tactics' and the two are never used synonymously in circles where the former term is understood. You're flatly wrong here and no amount of appeals to authority can change the specific and common usage of the term any more than you can look at a dictionary and use it to say that an AAVE term is either undefined or being used incorrectly.

Kiting means having superior range and the mobility to keep the enemy at distance, allowing its destruction without retaliation.

Hit & Run meanwhile does not necessarily imply greater range.

Ultimately kiting is a term exclusive of the gaming sphere, because games greatly simplify warfare to the point kiting is viable.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
...'Kiting' is more specific than 'hit and run tactics' and the two are never used synonymously in circles where the former term is understood. You're flatly wrong here and no amount of appeals to authority can change the specific and common usage of the term any more than you can look at a dictionary and use it to say that an AAVE term is either undefined or being used incorrectly.

...I never said "kiting = hit-and-run tactics". If you go back up to what I actually said I told Just Tony that the TV Tropes page that describes "kiting" interprets it as a subset of "hit and run tactics", therefore "kiting" is not a TV Tropes term. Telling me how you define or use the phrases "kiting" and "hit and run tactics" differently is not helpful here. I am not TV Tropes. I am not interested in going through the long and arduous process of having a long and pedantic argument with the editorial staff about whether "kiting" is sufficiently distinct from "hit and run tactics" to have its own page. If that's interesting to you, feel free and go start that wiki argument, but please don't tell me any more about it.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
...'Kiting' is more specific than 'hit and run tactics' and the two are never used synonymously in circles where the former term is understood. You're flatly wrong here and no amount of appeals to authority can change the specific and common usage of the term any more than you can look at a dictionary and use it to say that an AAVE term is either undefined or being used incorrectly.

...I never said "kiting = hit-and-run tactics". If you go back up to what I actually said I told Just Tony that the TV Tropes page that describes "kiting" interprets it as a subset of "hit and run tactics", therefore "kiting" is not a TV Tropes term. Telling me how you define or use the phrases "kiting" and "hit and run tactics" differently is not helpful here. I am not TV Tropes. I am not interested in going through the long and arduous process of having a long and pedantic argument with the editorial staff about whether "kiting" is sufficiently distinct from "hit and run tactics" to have its own page. If that's interesting to you, feel free and go start that wiki argument, but please don't tell me any more about it.

Then we know that a site defines it incorrectly. Good job.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
[So essentially what anyone in WFB with any tactical sense does to Frenzied troops. Didn't realize it had one of those TVTropes type names...

The term has been around since at least the early days of World of Warcraft, if not significantly longer, and thus has been in use longer than TV Tropes has been a thing. Calling the term kiting a 'TV Tropes type name' would be like saying the same for things like tanking, aggro, DPS, and other terms common to many different forms of gaming.

A term less than 1% of the populace is aware of, but would more than likely pop up on that exact site. My assessment stands.

The TV Tropes name is "Hit-and-Run Tactics", which is far more generic and applicable to fields outside of gaming. In case you're curious.

Unfortunately I'm not that interested in the minutiae of separations of gaming terms that don't need the separations. I was more annoyed that some MMO player walks into a conversation spouting specific jargon from that style of gaming taking it for granted that everyone has somehow become as intimately familiar with that colloquialism as they are.

 Just Tony wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
[So essentially what anyone in WFB with any tactical sense does to Frenzied troops. Didn't realize it had one of those TVTropes type names...

The term has been around since at least the early days of World of Warcraft, if not significantly longer, and thus has been in use longer than TV Tropes has been a thing. Calling the term kiting a 'TV Tropes type name' would be like saying the same for things like tanking, aggro, DPS, and other terms common to many different forms of gaming.

A term less than 1% of the populace is aware of, but would more than likely pop up on that exact site. My assessment stands.

The TV Tropes name is "Hit-and-Run Tactics", which is far more generic and applicable to fields outside of gaming. In case you're curious.

Unfortunately I'm not that interested in the minutiae of separations of gaming terms that don't need the separations. I was more annoyed that some MMO player walks into a conversation spouting specific jargon from that style of gaming taking it for granted that everyone has somehow become as intimately familiar with that colloquialism as they are.

I would also just assume that gaming people knows basic gaming jargon. I will always assume gaming people know basic gaming terms like "MMO, FPS, Kiting, Conga line/Daisy chain, tank, DPS and crit".

 Just Tony wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
[So essentially what anyone in WFB with any tactical sense does to Frenzied troops. Didn't realize it had one of those TVTropes type names...

The term has been around since at least the early days of World of Warcraft, if not significantly longer, and thus has been in use longer than TV Tropes has been a thing. Calling the term kiting a 'TV Tropes type name' would be like saying the same for things like tanking, aggro, DPS, and other terms common to many different forms of gaming.

A term less than 1% of the populace is aware of, but would more than likely pop up on that exact site. My assessment stands.

The TV Tropes name is "Hit-and-Run Tactics", which is far more generic and applicable to fields outside of gaming. In case you're curious.

Unfortunately I'm not that interested in the minutiae of separations of gaming terms that don't need the separations. I was more annoyed that some MMO player walks into a conversation spouting specific jargon from that style of gaming taking it for granted that everyone has somehow become as intimately familiar with that colloquialism as they are.

Easy there old timer.
It is a pretty common term. Most people coming into table top these days would have had a lot of exposure to computer gaming more likely than not.
Kiting - Hit the enemy while not getting hit due to range/mobility.

On topic, not sure if anyone mentioned this but I think failed charges should still move max charge distance rolled. I just think its silly my unit of blood thirsty maniacs would run head first at the enemy and then stop mid way decide "darn it boys we wont be able to get there. lets turn around and stand back where we came from". Just seems odd to me.

I would say that smaller tables have also factored into the equation. And a T1 charge is not uncommon and just means game over for a lot of armies when coupled with going 2nd. Its not great design IMO.

 Argive wrote:


Easy there old timer.
It is a pretty common term. Most people coming into table top these days would have had a lot of exposure to computer gaming more likely than not.
Kiting - Hit the enemy while not getting hit due to range/mobility.

On topic, not sure if anyone mentioned this but I think failed charges should still move max charge distance rolled. I just think its silly my unit of blood thirsty maniacs would run head first at the enemy and then stop mid way decide "darn it boys we wont be able to get there. lets turn around and stand back where we came from". Just seems odd to me.

I would say that smaller tables have also factored into the equation. And a T1 charge is not uncommon and just means game over for a lot of armies when coupled with going 2nd. Its not great design IMO.

The problem with that is that you can use it to gain A LOT of extra distance at no real disadvantage. Especially now "without" overwatch.
If I could gain an extra 5-6-7-8-9 inches by "trying" to charge a unit 12 inches away, I sure will do it! And if I make the charge, then awesome.

I too think it's a bit dumb that the models just stay completely frozen, though.
However, if your models still get to make a move forwards, it's usually to their benifit, so I think the current way is the lesser of two evils, even if it looks and feels wrong.