For a while now I have been trying to re-engage with the hobby. I always loved the figures and always loved wargaming. The first time I played after a 15 year gap I found the game itself dissapointing (and this was supposed to be a birthday treat).

Since that time I have re-read the rules a few times and now have perused fifth edition and have reconciled myself to the fact that the rules aren't perfect but that I can't be bothered wasting my life correcting every discrepancy in them. There is however one thing that really prevents me from enjoying the game and every revision of the rules exacerbates it.

As an primarily IG player I cannot rely on my boys to stand in HTH. I accept that weakness. What I find hard to accept is the games bias towards HTH. With the run rules it now means that I am further penalised as every man and his dog can now move 12" per turn. Given my lasguns have a range of 24" this means I get to shoot once before they can close to HTH and from that point I am playing a HTH only game. I can't move as then I loose my long range (hah 24" long, I laugh bitterly) shooting capability. Thus my game is static and dull. I stand all my troops off as far as possible, shoot the cak out of people with autocannons and hope I get first go. As a result my game style is predictably boring and the roll off to go first has overemphasised significance.

Worst case scenario my troops could stand and watch a cavalry unit move 6", run 6" and then assault 12" from out of range (of the squads most common weapon) to HTH without even pointing their guns at them. Remember for many game boards that would be from deployment zone to deployment zone.

After much thought, I have decided the simplest way to resolve this dilema without overly compromising the rules integrity is to revise the turn order. I put this up for your consideration. I intend to float it as an option for friendly games as a house rule. I am not asking anyone to adopt it, I post it here so that you can give me advice on how it might badly nerf armies that I do not play or mess with rules I hadn't considered. I know it is not GW cannon, I know it won't be accepted in tournaments and I know I can only use it where both players agree. I expect to use it with the only two people I currently play with.

The change proposed is that instead of a player completing the whole turn before the other player gets to do anything each phase of the turn is resolved by both players before moving onto the next i.e. Player who goes first has their movement phase, then the other player. Then the first player conducts shooting, then the second player etc.

The assault phase is unusual in the standard game as both players get to act in the other players turn. Under my ruling player one moves troops into assault and conducts his assaults (including the other players reply). Then the second player gets to initiate new assaults and these are resolved (both their own and the replys), they do not however refight with any units that have already fought this turn. Apart from only getting one set of attacks per turn (as effectively each turn is both players turns and under the current system both would fight in both turns) the assault rules are used as written including sweeping advances etc.

In the next turn player order swaps.

Thus troops being charged have had a chance to shoot in the shooting phase of that turn rather than just stand there (but they loose their reply to the assault unless they would have been able to fire and assault under the standard rules - assault weapons, slow and purposeful etc). With rapid fire that is a hail of shots just when you'ld expect your troops to be unloading them. HTH troops fight as well as they would normally, intiative order isn't affected or cover. They still get their +1 attack for charging, they can still fleet and cavalry will still only take 1 set of shooting in their 24" move (and those that shot them probably won't be able to effectively return HTH).

Apart from the fact that it isn't in the rules, does anyone see any major flaws in this ruling?

For the Move and Shoot phases this is pretty much what Epic and Aeronautica already do (and maybe BFG, but I haven't played that). It's also how flyers work using the IA rules, in that they always move at the end of the opponents movement phase, and shoot at the end of the opponents shooting phase.

For friendly games it could be interesting, and it'll put a lot more emphasis on moving into tactical positions. However, it'll also see more hand to hand - units will be moving towards each other before they even get chance to shoot, so the game will be more melee oriented and that's even worse for your IG.

With my Death Korp my opponents have been treating the Die Hards doctrine as ignoring Morale modifiers in combat (just ignore the "outnumbered" clause as that no longer exists). My DK just don't run away from combat, I seem to make the roll of 8 or 9 every time and tie up valuable enemy assault units for a few turns. It doesn't mean I win though - I just get butchered a little more slowly

swordtart wrote:What I find hard to accept is the games bias towards HTH.

I have decided the simplest way to resolve this dilema without overly compromising the rules integrity is to revise the turn order.

I don't get the CC hate (I've seen a bloke literally froth and smash a model about it- we weren't even playing at the time) whilst I've had to throw my beserkers in the attic and most of my CC stuff because of the way shooting rules have upped everything, back to gunline with objective takers, until they need to all be in landraiders to get there and then they get stranded not being able to ping pong anymore (which was probably required )

No the simplest way is to sit and wait (always its also very tao, the water wears the rock down)- Brimstone has confirmed that guards will be the next 40k army to get bumped up (due to dark eldar draft being sent back to square one etc), and we're on a power spiral again, yes traits are gone but you'll have loads of stuff instead to make you the shooty tanky thing that 10, 000 guard shooting 30 meq should be

I was under the impression that 5th helped Guard in relation to combat.

Firstly it prevents the enemy consolidating into new units to avoid vengeance shooting in your turn.

Secondly, the rules prevent the enemy from pulling their blows combined with the harsher combat resolution meaning the enemy's chance of the survivors remaining in CC to prevent being shot in the IG players turn are also low.

Thirdly, again due to the no consolidation into new units, it encourages the IG player to move tactically to place units further forward in the way, in positions that either draw enemy units into the open (no cover save for next turn shooting) or into DT (to slow them down in future turns).

swordtart wrote:As an primarily IG player I cannot rely on my boys to stand in HTH. I accept that weakness. What I find hard to accept is the games bias towards HTH. With the run rules it now means that I am further penalised as every man and his dog can now move 12" per turn. Given my lasguns have a range of 24" this means I get to shoot once before they can close to HTH and from that point I am playing a HTH only game. I can't move as then I loose my long range (hah 24" long, I laugh bitterly) shooting capability. Thus my game is static and dull. I stand all my troops off as far as possible, shoot the cak out of people with autocannons and hope I get first go. As a result my game style is predictably boring and the roll off to go first has overemphasised significance.

Worst case scenario my troops could stand and watch a cavalry unit move 6", run 6" and then assault 12" from out of range (of the squads most common weapon) to HTH without even pointing their guns at them. Remember for many game boards that would be from deployment zone to deployment zone.

would you consider opening the above up for discussion in the Tatics forum? im sure there is something we can suggest to help you enjoy things more without needing to change the game rules (although i wont make any suggestions here as they would be off topic, and i respect that).

personally i dislike the idea of changing the turn sequence in my own games (i dont mind anyone else doing it), as i fear that it wouldnt have the same feel to it as 40K always has for me. i dont think there is anything wrong with the sort of sequence you propose though (it seems to work in LoTR) - i just dont see a problem personally with the way 40K has worked traditionally.

that doesnt mean i wont try to help you though...

swordtart wrote:The assault phase is unusual in the standard game as both players get to act in the other players turn. Under my ruling player one moves troops into assault and conducts his assaults (including the other players reply). Then the second player gets to initiate new assaults and these are resolved (both their own and the replys), they do not however refight with any units that have already fought this turn. Apart from only getting one set of attacks per turn (as effectively each turn is both players turns and under the current system both would fight in both turns) the assault rules are used as written including sweeping advances etc.

Apart from the fact that it isn't in the rules, does anyone see any major flaws in this ruling?

what happens if a unit charges into an already ongoing combat?

i.e. Player A charges enemy unit B1 with his squad A1. combat is resolved, and ends in a draw. Player B now gets to declare charges, and moves his unit B2 into contact with A1. would A1 not get to attack (and, as a result be almost garaunteed to lose the combat)?

what if A1 wiped out B1 on the charge, and player A charges in with A2 - does A1 not get to attack because it has already fought this turn?

maybe it could work like this:
1. Player A declares and moves chargers
2. defenders react
3. Player B declares and moves chargers (only units that arent now in CC)
4. defenders react (only units that havent moved this Assault Phase)
5. Combats are resolved (in the order chosen by player A, as it is his turn)

hope that helps

~ Tim

Works for me Tim. As I said Assault was always going to be a bit knarly but that resolves it neatly.

swordtart wrote:Works for me Tim. As I said Assault was always going to be a bit knarly but that resolves it neatly.

glad to help

~ Tim

Baragash you might well be correct that the rules are better for IG under 5th.

Whilst no consolidation within 1" does stop opponents using your own troops as a human shield I am not sure the rule about maxing out hits to try to prevent you hanging out a CC to try to end it in the opponents CC phase is more than a band aid on a gaping wound. Under the system proposed regardless of when your last opponent was killed you would be elidgeable to suffer a shooting attack before you could re-engage. It would not be in your interests to draw out the combat. Better to remove the advantage in playing to the rules rather than add extra rules to prevent it.

Whilst putting forward troops as sacrificial lambs is tactically sound (not least the 50 conscript tarbaby) it is inelegant and suspect. In addition those screening troops would provide the enemy with a cover save until they were engaged (at which point they become a LOS block).

I am not arguing that I think the IG are nerfed by the new rules, I am not too bothered if they are worse off to be honest. I just want more fun playing them and the only way to play my troops at the moment is to max up the A/C's and stand off. Hardly exciting tactically.

I do not hate CC KMB, the last game I played, it provided the main highlight as a single guardman killed the last genestealer to jump his squad (Space Hulk Terminators - pansies!).

My wish is simply to make the game more reactive. As Spack says this ruling might even make more CC happen and the armies would close slightly quicker. The key thing is that both players get to do things in each phase rather than having to wait until all three pahses are played out and react to a fait-a-complis.

If your boys had to worry about taking lasgun hits (a faint worry possibly) you might plan your assault differently. If it is your advantage and I move troops into range after you have moved, I have to consider them being shot up, failing a morale check and going to ground before I get to fire (or assault).

Troops dive from cover to get to to grips with the enemy trench but take flanking fire before they get there.

I advance on your position at the run but you steadily retreat pouring fire into me knowing that whilst you are whittling me down, you are also going to get overun and you are drawing me into your own position.

Doesn't that sound more realistic and/or cinematic that me sitting at the end of the table waiting for you to finish all your go before I take over and you wait it out.

I just get twitchy, it starts to sound a bit like what people moaned about re dreadclaws for so long. (although of course here that situation would actually be better as both alternating players would prevent such abusable situations happening.

Re combat, if you were a CC monster, and in your opponents segment of battle you'd won combat wouldn't you now be prevented from being able to do anything in your own assualt phase (which would tradionally have had you move off up and into somthing else)

Eldar and Dark Eldar bikes/ jet packs will be greatly impacted by ur rule change as u would shoot them be fore they hide again in the assault phase.

This is just one army you would nerf, i'm sure if I thought about it... hang on I just did, Daemons would not be able to run after DS and blast templates would have a field day... also the new SM dex allows guys to DS and assault, they would be shot before they got to use this ubber expensive tactic/ability...

And I bet there's loads more too.

KMB with Tims modification only the moving into contact is done alterately. All the actual fighting is done in a single phase for both players (in the order chosen by the active player) so there isn't really an opponents combat phase. The only diffenence between consecutive turns is who gets to move assaulters first.

Thank you KInG. This was the kind of info that I was looking for.

The ability to move into LOS, shoot and then move back out of LOS one of the effects that I find implausible. If you are out of cover long enough to shoot you are out of cover long enough to be shot at, so yes I would indeed nerf armies that relied on this tactic and I am happy with this consequence. They don't loose the ability to move in the assault phase without assaulting, so they don't loose everything, simply an artifact (exploit) of an overly simplistic turn order. I would have to stress this consequence when negotiating to use this rule. Good spot, but also see my final points about defensive firers forgoing attacks in CC.

Why would deamons not be able to run after DS? My rule proposal doesn't affect anyones ability to shoot (which can be replaced by run). DS happens in the movement phase, shooting and assault still happens after this. They will be shot at as they assault like everyone else, but their special rule allows them to assault whereas normal DS prevents this.

Do you mean that they might get shot before they got a chance to run (because your opponent had the advantage this turn i.e. moved first). I can see this would indeed make you vulnerable to blasts. I would suggest that if this was a big deal we could subdivide the phases into initiative order.

Each unit would act on its initiative (ties broken by the player with the advantage). This would slow each phase down a bit, but possible not excessively if moves were made in bands. Thus if I had the advantage I would run or shoot with all my intitiative x troops, then you with yours. Then I would act with all my initiative x-1 troops etc. Thus your I4 demons would have the option to disperse before my guard I3 got to fire even if it was "my turn".

I was reluctant to suggest this intially as I didn't want to add too many new wrinkles. I would hate to see compexities like Ah but my intiative 4 Captain shoots before the unit he is attached to. Could get very messy. I think I prefer that half the time it works for you, half the time it doesn't. But again a point that would need to be agreed in advance. It should be said that until the "run" rule was introduced in 5th most people got stuffed by the DS cluster anyway.

Your DS/assault SM's would indeed be shot at after they arrived and before they get a chance to assault, just like everyone else, but again, at least they get the option to assault. Everyone else would DS, get shot at (and either run or shoot back), not assault, then next turn move, get shot at and finally get to assault. Your SM's still get an advantage. They just have to withstand a phase of shooting before they get to grips.

Look at it visually, a big zoomy meteor falls to earth in front of the target (close enough so that you can assault it). Explosive bolts blow off the doors. Space marines bail out, reorganise themselves, locate the target and then run over to it (some shooting on the way in) and assault it. In all that time the target sits there watching, but does nothing?

Recall also that when A assaults B, B can only shoot if it is happy to forgo its attacks in the assault phase (unless it has assault weapons). In so doing they are almost guaranteed to loose the combat, they are choosing to try to prevent the assault happening by breaking the unit as it charges in, if they fail they are probably stuffed. I think it balances in the end.

Some armies will benefit like Orkies as they generally use assault weapons. IG might be better off standing and shooting than trying to use the combat knife, but then again you could choose to kit them out for CC give them all pistols and CC weapons and tough it out.

Now pistols are assault 1 the specials like plasma, would be worth having for a defensive reason. Bolt pistols might become worth having with a powerfist for that one strength 4 shot. You still get to use them in the fight as they are now assault 1.

... Except with the powerfist of course because you must use that and don't get +1 attcks for a pistol...

have you considered merging certain actions into previous phases?

for example, Jet Packs/Bikes could move at the end of their Shooting Phase (rather than during their Assault Phase), DS'ers could Run at the end of their Movement Phase (rather than during their Shooting Phase), etc. that way the enemy doesnt get to interrupt their actions in a potentially unfair way.

thoughts?

~ Tim

The effect I am trying to achieve IS to interrupt their actions as I believe the way they operate currently is illogical. As to being fair, the same rules apply to everyone so I don't see a conflict.

Non-eldar jetbike and jetpack users could argue that is it fair that they get a special rule. Fairness isn't really an issue. I accept that the system I propose moves the imbalances to different places but I feel more comfortable with the logic of it all.

As an underpinning principle I don't believe that you should be able to shoot if you in turn cannot be shot at. Pop-up attacks are incompatible with this axiom so I'm afraid eldar jetbikes and jetpacks get nerfed. They obviously still get to move in the assault phase even if not assaulting, but will be vulnerable in the shooting phase.