True Line of sight and Charge Reactions

[Aldramelech]

Whilst playing the game last night I dropped off into a daze (as I waited for my Orc opponent to move his 50,000 Orcs! lol) and I wondered "why don't we have charge reactions in this game?

Wouldn't it be more fun if your opponent got a choice of reactions such as Hold, counter charge, fall back?

Then I started thinking about true line of sight. Wouldn't it be better if you can only shoot at what you can see and be shot at in turn? By this I mean if you had a unit of 10 Orks but 4 of them are behind a big rock, only those six can shoot/be shot at and casualty's have to be distributed among those six.

Would that not make more sense?

Id be interested to hear what you think the Pro's or Cons would be.

[Lord Azaghul]

Having started with fantasy, I can not tell you know many times I've though it would be awesome to have "stand and shoot" for the guard. I think the only way to really do it would be to make it so only rapid fire and assult weapons could do it. I'm mean the change to kill a couple more SM or orks before they wiped out my squad...oh yeah!

It would probably be a little much though since CC is the guards weakness, and firing off 10-20 shots before you oppenent can really hurt you, on you opponents turn nonetheless!

[Cryl]

Given GWs view of simplification to speed up the game I can't see it happening. That said I think charge reactions are a great idea and what you suggest re: LoS is how the true line of sight changes in 5th ed. should have been implemented in my opinion.

It would be tricky to balance the extra bonus of free shooting with the effectiveness of charging though... there would need to be some serious penalties or restrictions applied to "stand and shoot" maybe you could only do it if you hadn't moved or only half the unit can do it and those that do lose an attack in CC for example.

I might be way off here but I'm sure the Rogue Trader days had charge reactions... of course some days I have problems remembering what I had for breakfast so what the rules were for a game that's 20 years (or so) old isn't likely!

[Culven]

Whilst playing the game last night I dropped off into a daze (as I waited for my Orc opponent to move his 50,000 Orcs! lol) and I wondered "why don't we have charge reactions in this game?
Wouldn't it be more fun if your opponent got a choice of reactions such as Hold, counter charge, fall back?
Charge reactions could be interesting, but it would require a major reworking of the 40K rules and points.

Then I started thinking about true line of sight. Wouldn't it be better if you can only shoot at what you can see and be shot at in turn? By this I mean if you had a unit of 10 Orks but 4 of them are behind a big rock, only those six can shoot/be shot at and casualty's have to be distributed among those six.
Using LOS to define which models can be shot, we had this in 4th edition. It led to LOS sniping. It was broken and I am glad it is gone. As for the models needing LOS to shoot, this is how it is in 5th edition.

[Aldramelech]

Charge reactions could be interesting, but it would require a major reworking of the 40K rules and points.

Using LOS to define which models can be shot, we had this in 4th edition. It led to LOS sniping. It was broken and I am glad it is gone. As for the models needing LOS to shoot, this is how it is in 5th edition.

I never played 4th, I was on my 7 year wargaming break. Whats LOS sniping involve?

Perhaps there could be a test for charge reactions, make it a double edged sword. You can stand and shoot with assault weapons or Rapid Fire Weapons but have to take a leadership test to do so, if you fail the test you pay a penalty, such as only half the models fight because they are too busy fumbling with their weapons. I think you should have the ability to bug out if you want to with no penalties. Test to counter charge is easy, if you fail you flee instead.

It just seems a bit daft to me that a unit will stand and watch a unit of big horrible nasty's thunder towards them and do nothing at all!

[Lord Azaghul]

I never played 4th, I was on my 7 year wargaming break. Whats LOS sniping involve?

!

Basicilly you would only 'wound' models you could see. So people would line of vehcile to screen units only allowing curtain models to me seen OR people would set up that that the lascannon could only see you HQ unit...ect

[Aldramelech]

I can see the disadvantages but don't people moan alot about wound allocation as it is? Wouldn't this fix that?

[Lord Azaghul]

The only moaning I really hear is in regard to nobs and nob bikers. I think the wound allocation system is considerable better then the 4th ed way.

[Aldramelech]

Poll added.

[Nabterayl]

The only moaning I really hear is in regard to nobs and nob bikers. I think the wound allocation system is considerable better then the 4th ed way.
Agreed. There isn't a statistical advantage to striping for wound allocation unless you're striping a unit of multi-wound models. And there really aren't that many multi-wound model units with attractive wound striping options around.

[Gotthammer]

I don't think the counter charge firing is a bad idea, but it would be if it were a universal rule for all armies. By that I mean if only certain units could get it (like Counter Attack at the moment) it would be a good thing. So, for example, Fire Warriors, Mordians, Dire Avengers etc could be given it, but not Broadsides, Heavy Weapon Teams, or Wraithguard.

Assault based armies rely on being able to get into HtH to deal damage, adding in another turn of being shot at by everybody they charge would severely weaken some builds more than others.


As for LoS I find it absurd that when introducing True LoS they removed the 'true' mechanic of only shooting who you can see and replaced it with the wound allocations system.
I think it should go:
Check LoS on the unit as a whole.
Resolve firing/rolls to wound
Allocate wounds to any visible target or target in cover
Make armour saves
Wounds on models in cover get a save (that model only).

So if I have a Tac Squad, with a Sergeant and two dudes in cover, one dude and a missile launcher in the open, and the rest hidden from view. I get hit and take six wounds. Every visible guy takes one, and I give a bolter guy in cover an extra one. They roll saves as normal, but if it had been AP3 or lower, only the Sergeant and two dudes would get cover saves, not the ML and mook in the open.

Yes, it is open to 'sniping' and other malarky, but everything is abusable in one form or another. At least this way TLoS and the terrain play a much more active role in the game than 'can't see half my guys'/

[Aldramelech]

That sounds sensible to me.

[Lerra]

Your idea for cover is interesting, and makes sense. It would fix this scenario: a pile of orks sitting in a forest with half of their squad mates strung out in a three-foot line to hold another objective, but they all get cover because of the guys in the forest. Needing to determine if every individual model gets cover could slow the game down, though.

Counter charge firing would be a very interesting mechanic, especially if they give up their close combat attacks to shoot at the incoming attackers. It would make a lot of sense for units like fire warriors or Necron warriors, but I agree that it would have to be a special rule of some sort.

Only being able to allocate wounds to models that the shooter can see is bad, though. TLoS sniping nearly broke the game.

[Aegis]

For a stand and shoot option, how about if you chose that option, you forfeit any melee attacks? That seems like it would be a fair trade of, considering you would be shooting before they even attack. Of course, if that still seems a bit too strong for shooty armies vs. assault armies, why not add in an initiative test as well? So, if they pass, they pepper the charging unit, and forfeit close combat. If they fail, they fight at initiative 1.

How does that sound?

[Aldramelech]

Again that sounds sensible, there are so many options to do this, I'm sure it could be made to work without unbalancing the game and make the game more exciting.

[Aegis]

Again that sounds sensible, there are so many options to do this, I'm sure it could be made to work without unbalancing the game and make the game more exciting.

Well, given the nature of rules updates, balancing is not something I am too concerned with.

Though, interestingly enough, my buddy and I were discussing this very topic during our game today when he charged my Sisters with a unit of Scorpions.

[Nabterayl]

I just remembered that there are Stand and Fire rules in IA4. They apply only to fighting room-to-room in that book, but they don't have to be.

The IA4 Stand and Fire rules are that any unit that is being charged and not already engaged in close combat can forego its normal hand to hand attacks in order to fire its weapons at double its Initiative (max of 10). The unit counts as moving, and cannot fire blast or template weapons. Otherwise shots are made as normal, rolling to hit using the firer's BS, etc. Casualties caused count toward combat resolution.

I wonder, has anybody played with these rules before? It strikes me as a reasonable way to handle the balance problem, and doesn't offend my common sense too much. You can't stand and fire heavy weapons, but I can accept that, as many heavy weapons will be too unwieldy to aim in the moments before a charge, and it would get messy to say which can and which can't ("okay, you can't fire a missile launcher because you're busy reloading, but you can fire a heavy bolter, but only if you hadn't moved the turn before so it's already set up ...") No blast weapons makes perfect sense. No template weapons I can accept as a balance thing - it would be awfully harsh for somebody to flame you once on their turn, and then flame you again as you charge them.

I might suggest to my gaming group that we try using these rules as normal and see how it goes.

[Aldramelech]

My problem is when do you get to flame someone? because Ive played two games now where Ive not got off 1 single flame shot...........

All your opponent has to do is be 12" away from you to assault you without taking any flamer pain. He moves in movement and then he assaults and all the flamer guy does is stand there with a stupid Cleatus Van Damm look on his face going derrr....

This part of the rules really does not work for me.

[Nabterayl]

Sounds like you need to work on your rate of advance, my friend, or else your opponent should be commended for outmaneuvering you. If you don't want to get assaulted by the enemy and you're carrying flamers, you should never end your turn 12" away from them. End the turn 14" away and flame them next turn.

[Aldramelech]

Static gun line the first time, not much else you can do with 1000pts of guard with no Vets. Second time was my Bad, got too close.....

What does every one think off the other reactions? Fall back and countercharge?

[Nabterayl]

Can you explain the Fantasy counterparts for those of us who don't play Fantasy?

[Aegis]

Can you explain the Fantasy counterparts for those of us who don't play Fantasy?

Stand and shoot, flee, or take the charge. You can stand and shot providing the charging unit is more than half it's maximum charge distance away (if you can charge 10", the defender can shoot them providing they are 6" or more away). Flee, is as it sounds, and taking it is as it is in 40k.

[Aldramelech]

There is no rule for counter charging in WFB, but lots of examples in historical sets. I would say pass a Ld test and if you pass you get to meet your opponent half way counting as charging as well, fail and you go no where and fight at I 1.

Fall back - roll 1 dice and fall back that much, if your opponent still has enough to hit you, you again fight at I 1. Thats not how WFB works but I don't think that way would work in 40K.

[Nabterayl]

Hmmm ... I think I'm of the opinion that counter-charge should stay as it is. After all, they've already spread it around the codices. That makes it difficult to update - if you give it to every unit as part of a core rulebook update, then you take away a big distinctive from certain codices, which you then have to update. Stand and shoot and flee could be added to the core rulebook without that problem.

The flee reaction ... not sure I like that, actually. The trouble as I see it is that virtually all charges in 40K have a 6" range. A 3.5" flee reaction is a big chunk of that 6".

What about allowing a unit to choose to Fall Back after charge moves are made but before any blows are struck, triggering an immediate Sweeping Advance check?

Not actually sure the game needs a flee reaction, but just kicking mechanics ideas around.

[Aldramelech]

Sounds sensible, Im going to have to playtest some of this stuff......

[BuFFo]

Then I started thinking about true line of sight. Wouldn't it be better if you can only shoot at what you can see and be shot at in turn? By this I mean if you had a unit of 10 Orks but 4 of them are behind a big rock, only those six can shoot/be shot at and casualty's have to be distributed among those six.

Would that not make more sense?\

Yes it would. 100% more sense. In an edition that touts true line of sight everything, this one rule is an abstract anomaly that shouldn't exist.

[Aldramelech]

\

Yes it would. 100% more sense. In an edition that touts true line of sight everything, this one rule is an abstract anomaly that shouldn't exist.

It does seem that the wound allocation was a bit of a half arsed way of addressing the "sniping" issue.
It doesn't seem to sit well with TLOS at all.

[Lerra]

Remember Overwatch from 2nd ed? Maybe this could be the new overwatch ;)

During your shooting phase, you may declare that a unit is being put on Overwatch instead of shooting. That unit may fire its weapons at any unit that declares a charge against it instead of taking its attacks in close combat. Those shots count towards combat resolution.

Certain units could have a special rule that allows them to shoot even when they are being put on overwatch.

[Aldramelech]

So many good ideas, its a shame none of them occurred to the authors of the rulebook! lol