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.

Not sure if the topic has been discussed before but...

Advancing became a part of the moving phase during 8th(?). Most of us already did it "unofficially" several editions back. However, it feels like the mechanism has been simply inherited and not given any additional thought in an edition that aimed to simplify the rules. As an Ork player...I feel we throw too many "useless throws" each game.

How would you guys feel if advancing were to add half the unit movement instead of +d6?

As in the current rule set, my boys feel like sprinters who somehow manage to keep pace with vehicles at full speed.

The proposed change would help to provide a speed boost to the units inside vehicles compared to footsloggers.

What would be the consequences that you could foresee?

This would only be OK-ish with basic infantry. But, problem is with all the units that have long movement characteristics. Advancing jetpack and motorcycle units would be brokenly good.

I don't see how this makes it less complicated. It's an extra dice roll and a very simple bit of addition.

 Valkyrie wrote:
I don't see how this makes it less complicated. It's an extra dice roll and a very simple bit of addition.

Imagine you play orks or bugs. 10-12 units advancing every turn. Easily 50 throws a game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ravajaxe wrote:
This would only be OK-ish with basic infantry. But, problem is with all the units that have long movement characteristics. Advancing jetpack and motorcycle units would be brokenly good.

Bikes advancing 12-14"+6-7" for a 18-21" isn't that crazy. Remeber when we used to turbo boost for 24"?
Granted that the assault after advancing would need to disappear or become 1d6 is advanced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The idea could be refined to have a 2 digits movement stat.

Orkimedez_Atalaya wrote:
The idea could be refined to have a 2 digits movement stat.

^^This. Every unit's datasheet could have Move: X/Y, where X is the move distance and Y is the total Advance distance.
So a Bikes could be M:14/20
Ork Boyz could be M:6/10
and so on.

I'd be fine with this. Not only does it trim out dice rolls, but it takes out rules that give certain units a static Advance roll already, like Turbo-boost for example

However, as units no longer roll to move though terrain, having some random movement certainly adds depth to the Movement phase, which is fine too.

-

It used to be 6" charge range back in 5th ed (with 12" for assault / jump units)

But now it's much better IMO

The 6 inches charge in 5th edition was quite theoretical.
In practice, with a table correctly covered with cover elements, the difficult terrain test for the charge was quite common.
We already had random charge distances and random sprint movements.

 Corennus wrote:
It used to be 6" charge range back in 5th ed (with 12" for assault / jump units)

But now it's much better IMO

The discussion is about advancing (in 5th was an additional d6" instead of shooting), not assaulting.

Would a flat 4" be better? Rounded up to cover more ground.

Bharring wrote:
Would a flat 4" be better? Rounded up to cover more ground.

For what unit? Remember not all Infantry move 6" anymore.
That's why dual M stats could be useful.
An Eldar Guardian should advance slightly more than a Necron Warrior, for example. Currently adding D6" to their already different M stat is effective for this, but if the goal is to remove the random roll, you need to continue to incorporate things being naturally faster than other things.
That Guardian could be M: 7/12, while the Warrior could be M: 5/8, or something like that. Not everything should be flat X"

-

Currently, an Eldar Guardian does not advance more than an a Necron Warrior. If the goal is to streamline, wouldn't a flat rate do that? A non-flat rate would just make it more complicated.

Bharring wrote:
Currently, an Eldar Guardian does not advance more than an a Necron Warrior. If the goal is to streamline, wouldn't a flat rate do that? A non-flat rate would just make it more complicated.

True, potentially a bad example on my part. Maybe bikes are a better example. All bikes currently have a flat 6" advance as part of their snowflake abilities.
What I am suggesting is to take out those snowflake rules entirely, while also taking out the d6" role for advance.
Giving most Infantry +4", but using like Jump and Bikes +6 or more (see Dark Eldar bikes)

You can now do more with each unit, especially since some thing "run" faster than others.
Sure, adding a "Designers Note" to make Advancing +4" unless otherwise noted (i.e. Tuborboosting) it the easiler way to add to the current rules, but if we had the ability to change entire datasheets, I feel having M: X/Y would not only be streamlined, but give additional character to some units

-

Implemented as a general rule, specific rules (IE bikes) would inherently override it. No need to change datasheets.

 Ravajaxe wrote:
This would only be OK-ish with basic infantry. But, problem is with all the units that have long movement characteristics. Advancing jetpack and motorcycle units would be brokenly good.

Bikes already have a fixed advance roll at +6".

 skchsan wrote:

 Ravajaxe wrote:
This would only be OK-ish with basic infantry. But, problem is with all the units that have long movement characteristics. Advancing jetpack and motorcycle units would be brokenly good.

Bikes already have a fixed advance roll at +6".

Not the ork ones I believe, they are still d6. That might be a codex/index thingy but it is worth mentioning.

As a game mechamism I understand the need of random charges as long as pre measuring is allowed. However, as movement is fixed, I don't see a reason for advancing to be random.

It also makes more sense to have a fixed value if you think of transports. One of their main problems in this edition is that they are never worth the points. Imagine a LR that suddently has a M 12/18. You can be sure that your troops will be where you planed them to be in the turn they were supposed to.
Or an ork truck M14/21. A reliable 21".

 Galef wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Currently, an Eldar Guardian does not advance more than an a Necron Warrior. If the goal is to streamline, wouldn't a flat rate do that? A non-flat rate would just make it more complicated.

True, potentially a bad example on my part. Maybe bikes are a better example. All bikes currently have a flat 6" advance as part of their snowflake abilities.
What I am suggesting is to take out those snowflake rules entirely, while also taking out the d6" role for advance.
Giving most Infantry +4", but using like Jump and Bikes +6 or more (see Dark Eldar bikes)

You can now do more with each unit, especially since some thing "run" faster than others.
Sure, adding a "Designers Note" to make Advancing +4" unless otherwise noted (i.e. Tuborboosting) it the easiler way to add to the current rules, but if we had the ability to change entire datasheets, I feel having M: X/Y would not only be streamlined, but give additional character to some units

-

I am absolutely on board with this. I don't particularly care whether it's handled through general rules and then special rule exceptions or changes to the movement stat across the board (you get the same result in the end), but the concept is a solid one.

What about this rule:
"When Advancing, the player may opt to advance 4" instead of rolling dice for distance."

Written as such, any existing Advance variant will still work. But if you're moving something with stock advances, you can save time by moving the 4".

Bharring wrote:
What about this rule:
"When Advancing, the player may opt to advance 4" instead of rolling dice for distance."

Written as such, any existing Advance variant will still work. But if you're moving something with stock advances, you can save time by moving the 4".

That's probably the simplest way to implement the concept. Obviously you would tweak the special advancing rules to say "instead of moving 4" rather than "instead of d6"". It keeps the scope of the change small (no worries about accidentally increasing the advance speed of a rhino by a ton), and you wouldn't have to come up with a second stat for each datasheet in the game.

That said, memorizing an "advance" stat would be no harder than memorizing the movement stat was in the first place, so I'd be open to either implmentation.