Switch Theme:

Halving all distances for a better game?  [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
Fresh-Faced New User




Has anyone tried halving all distances for range/movement? It's an idea I stumbled onto recently and plan on giving it a try next week but wanted to see if anyone else has come across the same idea already and what their experiences with it were.

Basically, the thought would be to halve all weapon ranges and movement values to essentially achieve the same effect as having a 12'x8' board on a more convenient 6'x4' physical board. A weapon that used to shoot 48" (essentially anywhere on the board) would now shoot 24" (barely from one deployment zone to another). A unit that used to move 6" would now move 3" and advance 1d6/2 (personally i'm ok with measuring half inches). Assaults would likewise be 2d6/2" and need to get within 1/2" so I think that the "balance" between assault and shooting should remain pretty much the same. The models themselves would remain the same size and scale so there might be some weirdness there. I think that deep striking etc. could also be halved to 4.5" to remain consistent and be perfectly fine.

The impetus for me is that I feel like while I enjoy playing 8th edition quite a bit, the board has effectively shrunken (over several editions but in 8th it feels even more extreme) to the point where most everything on the board is within range of most everything else almost all the time. By artifically increasing the amount of space between armies and units via reducing ranges I'm hoping both to alleviate the extreme alpha strikes and actually increase unit durability indirectly because it will be harder to concentrate firepower from multiple units against the same target. Ideally, players will need to spread out their armies to get to the objectives (a basic footslogging infantry unit would take the whole game to make it across the board) which will then have to engage each other with minimal support from more distant units (which will be too far away to help much). Deployment would be much more important (possibly too important) because it would be harder to correct/adjust for bad deployment. Deep striking and infiltrating would still be very powerful but if deployed too early without support they'd probably get overwhelmed. I'm hoping that the first few turns would consist almost entirely of manouvering units and taking potshots with heavy weapons-relatively few casualties until the armies get into range and struggle over the objectives for the last few turns. Games would certainly go longer than my games of 8th edition do now--most of my games of 8th edition are over before the turn limit due to massive casualties taken from turn 1 onwards.

Anyway, this is just something that I'm planning on trying out to see if it can scratch an itch I have for the pacing of WHFB in a 40k game and was wondering if anyone else has tried it before. Fwiw we typically play at 1500 pts as we've found that to be a bit of a sweet spot for several editions.
   
Made in ca
Lord of the Fleet






Halifornia, Nova Scotia

Its a decent idea to trial, and you have the right idea behind it that the game has steadily crowded the standard 6x4 to a comical degree. The other issue is simply the sheer amount of models on the table. In 8th, 1500pts is somewhere in the vicinity of 2k worth of models in 5th, which of course is worth even more the further you go back. Ultimately, the real solution is a larger overhaul, but I think there's merit in running halved ranges and no more than 1500pts (I'd even lean towards to 1k) to really free up the board for actual movement.

Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress

+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+

Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! 
   
Made in ca
Junior Officer with Laspistol





London, Ontario

It does penalize assault focussed armies somewhat. Even if you shrink the standard 24" space between the "normal" deployment zones to 12", instead of having 12" to 24" of depth in the DZ to hide in, you go to the equivalent of 24 to 48" of depth in your DZ.

Probably ok in a friendly game where both sides are aware, but can be tough on footsloggers like Orks and Nids.

The value of Deep Strike increases. Outflanking value is lessened, as the centre of the board is now 6' away, instead of 3'. High Movement units become more valuable.

Long range firepower gets even stronger. An Earthshaker cannon with 20' range can still tag anything on the board, for example.

It would serve to make long-range gunlines even more powerful.


If we've been good children, the Ghost of Christmas past will show up and remind us how Imperial Guard are the Devil, nothing can beat them as is [despite tournament results...] and that increasing the effectiveness of long range firepower would just make them even more broken. Also, Blood Angels have the worst codex ever, and anyone that disagrees is wrong and is also the Devil. Thankfully I've been a bad child, and so the surly ghost should stay away.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/01 02:04:20


 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




All good points. There's definitely bound to be some weird unintended side effects due to the game not really being intended to play on that scale. I suspect flyers' movement speeds might be another one of those outliers.

Will definitely report back on how it goes after a few games.
   
Made in us
Steadfast Ultramarine Sergeant






Pretty interesting but I think you could just use 1 die for charge rolls instead
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

What about halving only the distances for ranged weapons?

 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






From a pure mechanics point of view this is probably the right solution. 40k's biggest problem is that the table size is too small and you're essentially deploying directly into melee range. Doubling the size of the table (with appropriate nerfs to deep strike) means more time spent trying to get into position and fewer immediate CCG-style "I cast my combo and your army dies before you get a turn" attacks.

From a fluff point of view it's terrible. 40k already has major issues with its weapon ranges being nowhere near 28mm scale. Even basic small arms should have ranges that are close to "anything on the table", and heavy weapons should be hitting on a 2+ against anything within multiple table-widths. Cut ranges in half and you start to get absurd situations like guns that can't shoot from one end of a vehicle to the other or units that can't cross the length of a small building before the game ends.

 Blackie wrote:
What about halving only the distances for ranged weapons?


IOW, "remove shooting armies from the game". Melee armies are still charging you on turn 1, turn 2 if you're lucky, except now you can't shoot anything before you get locked in combat and the game ends.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




swap your imperial tape for a metric one, for inches read centimetres and pretend you are playing in 15mm
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 Peregrine wrote:


 Blackie wrote:
What about halving only the distances for ranged weapons?


IOW, "remove shooting armies from the game". Melee armies are still charging you on turn 1, turn 2 if you're lucky, except now you can't shoot anything before you get locked in combat and the game ends.


Some armies need to have their firepower nerfed a lot though, and no armies can charge turn 1 with several units. Only a few ones can do it and all of them are not completely TAC and full of drawbacks. Most of the armies that can really charge turn 1 can do it with 1-2 units and if you have screeners it shouldn't a big deal. Deepstriking shooty units, like plasma scions, are way more nasty. IOW "remove overpowered static gunlines" not shooting armies. AM should be good using chimeras and flyers to carry infantries, not only the gunline. If those armies got a -1 to hit for moving heavy weapons while having some weapons still out of range (like lasguns) it would be good for the game IMHO.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/01 13:08:04


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Marines would beg to differ as you've effectivly removed them from having a single viable shooting phase ever.
Anything with a move of 6 inch or higher can assulat without ever being shot at.
Some of the suggestion on dakka show just how little people understand the concept of balance
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




I agree that something like this would be healthy for the game, as a game, but you've really got to do something about deep striking.

I mean, you're nerfing everything except deep-striking, which is already really strong. Deep-striking CC is just as likely to successfully charge as it was before, and deep-striking shooting is just as able to shoot the closest target. You'll have a harder time shooting screened targets, but on the other hand if you're halving everything then it's also much harder to screen since you can deep strike anywhere outside of 4.5".

So lots of long-ranged units lose whole turns of firepower. Footslogging CC units take much longer to get anywhere. Deep-strikers are still in your face turn 1 fighting at 100% effectiveness.

My other worry would be that lots of ranges in the game are not actually well thought-out. Once you get to 48", the rules writers mostly just seem to randomly pull large numbers out of a hat. Like, a lascannon shoots 48" while a railgun shoots 72". Flyers can often move upwards of 60". A Basilisk shoots 240"! There is not much of a difference between these numbers in a normal game on a 6x4 table. But halving all ranges means that Basilisks function exactly the same as they do now while the weapons that lots of people rely on to deal with Basilisks can't start shooting until turn 3. You might want to implement a maximum range to deal with this.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/01 14:58:00


 
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






I don't think range is a problem at all. Mobility is the problem.

For example - my nids have no problem getting geensteelers starting on the table turn 1 into cc. Kraken nids can move 20" for 1 command points. So I'm looking at a 7 inch charge if they start 4 inches back in their deployment zone. What's funny is - there 24" range weapons would have been out of range to shoot at those geenstreelers. There are examples of this all over the place and it's absurd.

The board has shrunk. Limitations were removed. A lot of move speeds got increased. Deep strike became a 0 risk turn 1 offensive ability. Stratagems only amplify this.

This isn't something you can fix without a complete redesign of the game - this is how the game is designed to be played.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






Halve shooting ranged and you feth over mid ranged shooty armies like ork, necrons, and nids.

Halve movement and you feth over slower armies like necrons whos infantry mostly move 5" now but would be moving at the crawling 2.5.

Halve both and your just making deepstrike even more valuable coupled with a big increase to longer range shooting armies (Tau).

The game wouldn't survive any combination of these ideas.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in no
Drop Trooper with Demo Charge




Just reduce the standard points limit used in most games.
It used to be 1500, maybe 1750 in some cases. Now it's 2000pts almost everywhere, and on top of that many units are now cheaper.

The 2000pts IG army I used in a tournament last year was almost twice as big as the 1500pts armies I used in tournaments way back in 3rd edition.
I'm sure it's not exactly the same for every army (Guardsmen in particular have gone down from 6ppm to 4ppm since 3rd), but over all the tables feel smaller.

tldr; reduce army size rather than ranges. Or make 8x4 the new standard board size.

On a holy crusade to save the Leman Russ Vanquisher 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






Panzergraf wrote:
Just reduce the standard points limit used in most games.
It used to be 1500, maybe 1750 in some cases. Now it's 2000pts almost everywhere, and on top of that many units are now cheaper.

The 2000pts IG army I used in a tournament last year was almost twice as big as the 1500pts armies I used in tournaments way back in 3rd edition.
I'm sure it's not exactly the same for every army (Guardsmen in particular have gone down from 6ppm to 4ppm since 3rd), but over all the tables feel smaller.

tldr; reduce army size rather than ranges. Or make 8x4 the new standard board size.
I would LOVE to have 8x4. My Basilisks would be literally untouchable.
   
Made in no
Drop Trooper with Demo Charge




 BaconCatBug wrote:

tldr; reduce army size rather than ranges. Or make 8x4 the new standard board size.
I would LOVE to have 8x4. My Basilisks would be literally untouchable.


No, it would actually be harder for you to both screen them and take objectives.

edit: wow I messed up the quoting on that one

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/03 15:54:02


On a holy crusade to save the Leman Russ Vanquisher 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






How? My infantry bubblewrap would do just fine.
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Dallas area, TX

What about halving every distance possible, except maybe 1" to stay way from enemy models.

So coherency becomes 1", reaching melee is 0.5", deployment zones are 6" from the center line (so a 12" no mans land) Deep strike would need to land 4.5" away, etc.
If literally every distance was halved, the gameplay should be exactly the same, but the models would effectively seem "bigger".

However, I think an easier method would be to use Centimeters instead of constantly doing the math to half ranges.
1" would translate to 1cm. So a 24" range bolter is now 24cm range. makes the math easy and most tape measures should have CMs included
2.5cm is roughly equal to 1", so this should achieve almost the same thing as halving distances without constant math and .5"

-

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/03 16:40:43


   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Galef wrote:
What about halving every distance possible, except maybe 1" to stay way from enemy models.

So coherency becomes 1", reaching melee is 0.5", deployment zones are 6" from the center line (so a 12" no mans land) Deep strike would need to land 4.5" away, etc.
If literally every distance was halved, the gameplay should be exactly the same, but the models would effectively seem "bigger".

However, I think an easier method would be to use Centimeters instead of constantly doing the math to half ranges.
1" would translate to 1cm. So a 24" range bolter is now 24cm range. makes the math easy and most tape measures should have CMs included
2.5cm is roughly equal to 1", so this should achieve almost the same thing as halving distances without constant math and .5"
-

Again, this is going to present two big issues. You've made deep striking a lot stronger because now it takes much longer for anyone else to get anywhere and because it's much harder to screen if deep strikers can land anywhere outside of 9 cm. You've also made Basilisks much better since they can still hit the whole table but nothing can hit them. You're not preserving the same gameplay because you're doubling the relative dimensions of the table.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/03 18:15:19


 
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Dallas area, TX

Dionysodorus wrote:
Spoiler:
 Galef wrote:
What about halving every distance possible, except maybe 1" to stay way from enemy models.

So coherency becomes 1", reaching melee is 0.5", deployment zones are 6" from the center line (so a 12" no mans land) Deep strike would need to land 4.5" away, etc.
If literally every distance was halved, the gameplay should be exactly the same, but the models would effectively seem "bigger".

However, I think an easier method would be to use Centimeters instead of constantly doing the math to half ranges.
1" would translate to 1cm. So a 24" range bolter is now 24cm range. makes the math easy and most tape measures should have CMs included
2.5cm is roughly equal to 1", so this should achieve almost the same thing as halving distances without constant math and .5"
-

Again, this is going to present two big issues. You've made deep striking a lot stronger because now it takes much longer for anyone else to get anywhere and because it's much harder to screen if deep strikers can land anywhere outside of 9 cm. You've also made Basilisks much better since they can still hit the whole table but nothing can hit them. You're not preserving the same gameplay because you're doubling the relative dimensions of the table.

This doesn't make any sense to me.
How is it making it harder to screen? The models themselves are staying the same size. So a screen of, say, Cultists on 25mm bases is the same as playing with inches, but those same Cultists are now on bases that are 2.5". That's like them being on Dreadnought bases!
So while the space on the table is more plentiful, the models themselves take up quite a bit of it. Are people really relying on the table edges to stop Deep striking?

And if distances take longer to traverse, that means the half of the Deep striking player's army that HAD to deploy will be farther away. That is a disadvantage unless you specifically design your list to have super long range units supported by Deep Strikers

I'll grant you that long range units like Basilisks will be slightly better, but also keep in mind that the deployment zone will have grown with this change too. Instead of being 12" from the center line, you will be 12cm. So while the Basilisk can be deeper in the deployment zone, the enemy can also start closer.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/03 19:15:12


   
Made in no
Drop Trooper with Demo Charge




It would be like playing on a 12x8 table, three times as large as the 8x4 table I suggested for 2k and above games.
I still think the best solution would be to just lower the points limit and keep the ranges as is.

On a holy crusade to save the Leman Russ Vanquisher 
   
Made in gb
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant




 Galef wrote:

I'll grant you that long range units like Basilisks will be slightly better, but also keep in mind that the deployment zone will have grown with this change too. Instead of being 12" from the center line, you will be 12cm. So while the Basilisk can be deeper in the deployment zone, the enemy can also start closer.


Assuming Dawn of War deployment, that infantry unit will actually be about 60cm away from the basilisk deployed on its board edge, thats 10 turns of movement for a space marine as opposed to 31" currently which is about 5.
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Dallas area, TX

ItsPug wrote:
 Galef wrote:

I'll grant you that long range units like Basilisks will be slightly better, but also keep in mind that the deployment zone will have grown with this change too. Instead of being 12" from the center line, you will be 12cm. So while the Basilisk can be deeper in the deployment zone, the enemy can also start closer.


Assuming Dawn of War deployment, that infantry unit will actually be about 60cm away from the basilisk deployed on its board edge, thats 10 turns of movement for a space marine as opposed to 31" currently which is about 5.

So play on 4x4 tables and block off a 6" 'no model, for dice rolling only' bar on each players table edge in which isn't valid for models to go. It would be like playing on a 4x3 table.

   
Made in no
Drop Trooper with Demo Charge




4x3 would be the same as 8x6 if you halve ranges, and a bit more than that if you use cm. Twice the size of a 6x4 table.
But unlike actually playing on an 8x6 table, you've now crammed all your models on a tiny board, and it looks weird and feels wrong.

On a holy crusade to save the Leman Russ Vanquisher 
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Dallas area, TX

Panzergraf wrote:
....and it looks weird and feels wrong.

I certainly agree with that.
I was just suggesting that if you absolutely want to "shrink" the distances (because you have less room to play, for example) with as little affect on gameplay, it would be much easier to use CMs than half inches.

I would never do this if I had access to a 6x4 table, but it would be good for a quick kitchen table game.

-

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/04 18:28:33


   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Panzergraf wrote:
Just reduce the standard points limit used in most games.
It used to be 1500, maybe 1750 in some cases. Now it's 2000pts almost everywhere, and on top of that many units are now cheaper.

The 2000pts IG army I used in a tournament last year was almost twice as big as the 1500pts armies I used in tournaments way back in 3rd edition.
I'm sure it's not exactly the same for every army (Guardsmen in particular have gone down from 6ppm to 4ppm since 3rd), but over all the tables feel smaller.

tldr; reduce army size rather than ranges. Or make 8x4 the new standard board size.

Yep. Not sure why everyone's so obsessed with using massive armies all the time. Increasing board size has practical drawbacks in terms of how much physical space they take up.
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





 Blackie wrote:
What about halving only the distances for ranged weapons?


At that point basic rifle is outranged by basic guy's h2h threat range...Sensible...Not!

Halving everything has basically 2 problems. a) it skews up things too much in favour of shooting because it takes longer to reach enemy table edge(where shooters will be) and b) aura effects will get screwed. Imagine kustom force field. Need to be fully within 9". That's rather hard as it is especially for foot boyz. Imagine 4.5" radius...Yeah right.

Also models will be ridiculously big and space consuming compared to speed they move. Basic marine can't even move past 3 marines without running.

Foot slogging armies will also be punished because getting to objectives in opposite DZ is going to be harder. As it is fast units and deep strikers are already advantaged so not sure basic infantry needs to be punished even more...

Best works between friends with aura effects as are. Still best is either play bigger board or drop points.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/07 11:57:30


2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




I think we can all agree the current playing area in 40k is too crowded , if you want any sort of meaningful tactical interaction.
(Especially if you are using a alternating game turn like 4k does, that relies on maneuver into effective attack range for tactical depth.)

Considering the horizontal ranges were shortened to fit the skirmish game of R.T.(Vertical scale 1"= 1.5m appx, horizontal scale 1"= 15m appx.)
Using centimeters instead of inches for measuring, is the simplest fix.
However, it may look awful in practice as the ratio of ground scale to vertical scale gets doubled.(And some tweeks as always would be needed as previosly mentioned.)

The more complex correction would require a complete re write, using a more interactive game turn mechanic,and proportional interaction on all combat resolution.

(Alternating phases/actions, comparative values looked up on a single chart similar to the old (Wound vs Toughness chart.)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/08 08:57:25


 
   
Made in gb
Crazed Spirit of the Defiler




Newcastle

I find it baffling that 2000 points is the standard now. After it became clear that 8th is a horde meta people should have moved down to 1500 rather than up to 2000.

Hydra Dominatus 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




Ok so I played my first game trying out 'half-hammer' and while it definitely didn't quite hit the mark right out of the gate it did enough that I think there's something to it. We played a friendly game of my primaris-heavy Crimson Fists vs his Alpha Legion.

We played a 1500pt game of Retrieval Mission with a Spearhead Assault deployment type (chosen by my opponent after we had placed objectives). We decided to keep the original 9" appart from the center (effectively doubling the distance we would start from each other) but I think in future games we'll halve that distance as well to keep it consistent. Two objectives were in the short table edge in/near his deployment zone, one was in the middle of the board and one was in my deployment zone. Right off the bat, this presented some interesting problems that I wasn't expecting. Having 2 objectives in his DZ was a huge advantage, I had pretty limited options available to go all the way across that much space to contest them outside of fast transports and deep strikers--in and of itself though this didn't really seem game breaking. In the future we may want to consider some rules that force objectives to be further away from table edges than normal. We also decided to treat aura distances as normal since they are so model-size dependent.

My list consisted of the starter box primaris plus some elements I wanted to test (infiltration, flyers and deep striking) so 2x intercessors, 2x scouts, hellblasters, interceptors, 2 Lts, Gravis Capt. and a Storm Raven with a full Tactical Squad inside. My opponent used one of his usual lists which goes for a big alpha strike - 2x obliterators, 1x terminators, 2x chaos marine squads, 2x sorcerers and 4x cultist squads.

I deployed one scout squad up the board to deny infiltrators around that objective and then my other scout squad to baby-sit the objective in my DZ, while the rest of my army was in the middle of the board to move and contest the middle objective. My opponent placed one chaos marine squad and all 4 cultist squads around the objectives in his DZ and spent 1 cp to put everything else into reserve. Alpha legion won 1st turn and I failed to sieze so the alpha strike was on: 6 obliterators, his chaos lord, one sorcerer and a chaos marine squad all deep struck on my right flank. He killed 4 hellblasters and 4 intercessors then charged the remaining hellblaster and one of my Lts with his chaos lord and CSM squad. My gravis captain heroically intervened with his chaos lord. His lord killed my Lt for 1st blood but my captain nearly killed his lord in exchange (he had to spend 1 CP to re-roll a save to keep 1 wound). So far, this was playing out pretty much like any other game of 8th edition, with heavy casualties and CC fighting before I've even taken a turn... not exactly what I was hoping for.

Because of the reduced movement my storm raven couldn't quite get close enough to make his Deep striking sorcerer the closest target so I had to drop my interceptors down behind him (this was actually a hard choice because they were one of my very limited options for dealing with the objectives in his DZ). My remaining forces tried to move to focus on destroying his deep strikers since the rest of his army was too far away to do much of anything. The reduced movement/ranges didn't play much of a part here since everyone was in one big brawl already. My storm raven managed to kill off the obliterators and the interceptors gunned down his sorcerer and then charged into the CSM squad to try to save my hellblaster. They did some light damage to the CSM squad then my opponent spent 2 cp to interrupt combat order and managed to put 9 wounds on my Gravis Captain with some ridiculous rolling (exploding dice etc) which I promptly failed all my saving throws against, giving him slay the warlord.

In his turn he brought in the terminators on top of the objective in my DZ that my scouts were holding and killed all of them with combi-plasmas. The remaining obliterators whittled down my remaining Intercessors. His chaos lord also killed the brave intercessor sgt who had charged him last turn in CC and the CSM finished off the last hellblaster.

In my turn my storm raven moved to the middle of the board and managed to pick off his 2nd sorcerer while also putting some damage into the obliterators, killing one of them. The remaining scouts plinked away at the terminators doing nothing, my interceptors pulled back and shot up his CSM squad and my remaining LT charged his chaos lord and finished him off. At this point I had finally cleared out his initial deep strikers but at a heavy cost and my only really effective unit remaining was the storm raven.

In his turn he used the obliterators to shoot up my storm raven putting 5 wounds on it (unfortunately, I had to get close to them to pick off the sorc) and his terminators moved to consolidate their control over the objective, but the reduced range made their shooting ineffective vs the remaining intercessors and they were also outside the 6" max charge range.

In my turn my storm raven moved into his DZ and wiped out one of the units of cultists protecting one of his objectives. I moved my intercessors towards the middle objective but remained outside of the 14" effective range of his obliterators, setting themselves up for a turn 5 push on the middle objective they were holding.

In his turn he wasn't able to do much except take some ineffective shots at my storm raven, as he had already killed most of the rest of my army and not much was left in range.

In my turn I deposited tactical marines from the storm raven to capture one objective in his DZ and moved the raven to try and blow the cultists and CSM off his other DZ objective. The interceptors also moved up to shoot at the obliterators on the middle objective. Unfortunately, neither were able to completely wipe out his units from those objectives and the game ended on turn 5 with a 12-5 win for the Alpha Legion.


While this game wasn't exactly what I was hoping for it was the most fun I've had playing 8th edition so far and was the only time I've had really interesting maneouvering decisions to make. The game was actually fairly close until the end and once the knife-fight in my DZ was done and the board opened up there were some interesting maneouvering options opened up by the shorter ranges (for example, I was able to stay out of range of oblits in the middle of the board, which would ordinarily be in range of just about everything). We both agreed that being able to invest so heavily into deep striking to completely bypass the maneouvering phase of the game was still a problem. The storm raven likewise over-performed, with its 22.5" moves it was almost as effective as it would be in a normal game.

I'm hesitant to tinker too much with the rules in ways that might hamstring specific armies that rely on these strategies but we agreed that adding a rule that no more than 50% of your points can be used for Flyers, Deep Strikers or Infiltrators seemed reasonable. I don't want to completely remove these elements from the game, but I would like to see them used to supplement a strategy instead of being used for overwhelming alpha strikes.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: