ScarVet101 wrote:Just a few ideas tweek the Assault phase.
1) Pistols no longer count as a close combat weapon, instead the charging unit get to fire them before attacks are round but using there
WS not their
BS (so Orks hit on 3+ tau hit on 5+ etc)
2) Overwatch - Defender can fire Pistols & single shots from Rapid fire/Salvo weapons at the same time and method (
WS) as Attackers Pistols. Template weapons stay the same.
3) Tau Supporting fire - hit at
BS but don't roll to wound. Each successful hit prevents 1 attacker from pistol attack. If hits exceed targets the attackers count as a disorder charge. All units providing Support fire must be declared together and can not be reassigned if they weren't needed.
4) All
CC weapons slotted in to either "Single Handed" "Double Handed" and "Gloves" - you only get +1A if you have 2 single handed or 2 gloved weapons.
Gloved being things like Powerfist/Klaws, Lightning Claws, Crushing claws & Rending Claws
5) Hammer of Wrath becomes a simple +XA instead of impact hits
6) Stomp Worked into a units Attack value
Would this work? If not, how would you adjust?
I'm not clear on all of these, but I don't think I'm a huge fan of these.
1) I feel like shooting pistols before assaulting is just called "the shooting phase." Firing a second time in the assault phase using
WS (at the end of the charge sub phase?) seems clunky and more complicated than necessary.
2) Nah. This makes overwatch more powerful (eldar would hit on 3's for instance). It also makes overwatch less of a panic fire sort of thing and more of an extra shooting phase that slightly favors melee combatants. Even though it favors higher
WS, this actually just makes me want to rely on assault less because my opponent will hit me so much harder than before with overwatch.
3) Would this be instead of the current tau supporting fire? I'm not sure I like it. A ten man fire warrior squad will average 10 hits, which means most relatively elite armies (marines, eldar, dark eldar, harlequins) will be making disordered charges more often than not. I'm also not sure what this is representing. Suppressive fire? Trick-shots knocking pistols out of hands? Seems like it would nerf assault marines as you're likely to generate plenty of overwatch hits to negate their pistols, and your changes mean the assault marines are no longer getting bonus attacks in melee for having the pistol. Also, did you know that Tau have defensive grenades? Serious question. Many people forget about them.
4) I'm not sure why you would do this. It makes things a little more complicated, but doesn't really change much. Most of the "gloved" weapons you've listed already have the specialist weapon rule which more or less does the same thing. I feel like some candidates for "gloed" weapon status (such as harlequins' caresses) don't really deserve to be nerfed by making them unable to grant bonus attacks. Tyranid weapons interact oddly with this because they're already a "pair" of weapons. If any tyranid weapons didn't count as the same type as the others (for instance, if bone swords counted as one-handed rather than gloved), this would only serve to nerf 'nids. And 'nids don't need to be nerfed.
5) Eh. I don't really care for this one either. The +1 attack on the charge we have now already does something similar to what you're proposing. Hammer of wrath attacks are meant to represent attacks that involve brute strength or chariot-style drive-bye attacks. Basically, they're attacks where you're too busy giving the enemy the shoulder to bring your weapons to bare. This allows for unique interactions (like when my pal's orks manage to hammer of wrath my harlies at initiative 10 rather than waiting to be slaughtered first). What you're proposing seems like it would be redundant with other mechanics and take away from the versatility of units.
6) Not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting letting a unit replace some of their attacks with stomp? Or maybe that stomps should be handled at initiative?
Overall, I'm afraid I'm not particularly keen on trying these changes out in my own games. ^_^; What's your reasoning behind these changes? What are you trying to improve or convey with each of these?
@desubot:
1) Personally, I like the idea of keeping charge range as is, but letting players take an automatic 6" charge (4" if going through terrain). So you eliminate those feel-bad moments of failing really short charges, but you retain the ability to try for longer charges as needed. The only thing I dislike about
d6"+6" charges is that it ups the average charge range to 9" or 10", which feels a bit much.
2) Honestly, I rarely find overwatch in general to be a huge problem. Sometimes you lose a guy or two. You usually don't lose more than that. The issues I do have with overwatch are specific cases such as tau overwatch, dark angels overwatch, d-scythe overwatch, etc. I think it might be better to address those specific situation rather than weaken it across the board. A couple stray bolter shots hitting me on the way into melee usually doesn't wreck my game. Now losing guys to overwatch and failing a charge as a result is a bit worse, but that can be mitigated with the automatic 6" charge range change that I suggested.
3) Maybe. Feels slightly inelligant somehow. Maybe just change +1 attack from pistols to "Make a single attack with the pistol's weapon profile?" No more elegant than your suggestion, but it seems to be a pretty straight-forward way to let you get a pistol shot off in melee. I might argue that plasma pistols are fine at equivalent points to a plasma gun as they trade potential range and a single shot at close range for the ability to assault after shooting and a bonus attack with another weapon (which can potentially be a really good melee weapon). I might also argue that using
WS with a pistol in close combat still makes more sense than using
BS as it's less about your ability to aim and more about your ability to line up a shot while people are tackling and stabbing you.
4) Agreed.
5) I like all of these suggestions, though I'm honestly pretty okay with lances as they are. I know; I'm weird.
6) Mostly agree. It's mostly just power weapons and powerfists on non-marines, in my opinion. I can see a power fist on a marine being worth 25 points. A power sword on a guardsman sargeant probably isn't worth 15 point.
7) Sounds good to me. Or just bring back 5th edition rules regarding assaulting if the vehicle hasn't moved when you disembark.
8) I disagree.
MCs used to be armorbane and ignore armor back in the day. Then they were reduced to only being good against vehicles if they halved their attack with old smash. Now they only get to threaten vehicles with a single attack using new smash. Making them also only ignore armor with a single attack would just be cruel, especially for those
MCs still priced around their abilities from the glory days. This wouldn't be so bad on
MCs that can purchase AP2 (or even AP3) weapons, but it's still a pretty severe nerf. Many
MCs only wind up with about 3-to-6 attacks, and those same
MCs often cost quite a few points. Unless you really feel non-shooty tyranid
MC's Should bounce off of power armor alongside wraith lords and daemon princes. I think a keeper of secrets with your suggestion kills something like a measly 2 marines on the charge with your suggestion.
9) I'm fine with this. My Swooping Hawks already have this, and I'd be fine with other jump packers getting it too.
10) I like the idea of this (possibly letting things assault out of normal reserves too), but I worry that the potential charge range might be a bit much. In 5th edition, assaults out of reserves just meant your opponent had to be careful to stay 13" from the board edge (max charge threat range was 12"). Now, a normal infantry unit potentially threatens 18" from the board edge (averages 13"), and outflanking beasts/jump packs/assault transport units threaten something like 24" with an average of 19". Which seems a bit much. Maybe mix this with my minimum charge range suggestion to limit such charges to 6"? It still lets you pick on units near the edge and make your opponent sweat, but it doesn't let you pull off a 19" charge in your opponent's backfield with outflanking thunderwolves. Actually, fleet means the T-Cav would average something like 21".