Rules Suggestions- Action Phase (Movement)

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
4,580
10,522
148
36
Sevres 92130 France
From my experience sticky fingers are needed, at least to disallow swapping weapons willy-nilly between fighters in recovery.
That doesn't make it needed. It that's your issue, then there are other ways to achieve the same result.
We could restrict sticky fingers to fighters in recovery (fluff justification: their weapon got damaged at the same time they got injured and are in need of repair)
Alternatively, sticky fingers could be restricted to special and heavy weapons, or weapons that cost more than X credits (as I guess nobody cares if an autogun gets swapped around — fluff justification: those weapons are more complicated than common weapons and getting used to them takes time)
Alternatively, a fighter who is given a new 'complicated' weapon suffers -1 to hit during the first battle they use it (same fluff justification)

As for the clipper justification, it's tied to wysiwyg (and wysiwyg is tied to GW's need of selling more miniatures). Get rid of wysiwyg and it becomes a non-issue.
 

Al_Weeks

Gang Hero
Honored Tribesman
Dec 22, 2014
513
533
123
Bristol
I think it's possible that there is a compromise solution that addresses several concerns and desires with regards to sticky fingers.


I think it needs it's own separate thread though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ledward

Icedman

Juve
Jun 28, 2012
24
19
3
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
I agree there was not a problem in NCE. NCE also had random advancements for all gang fighters.

I'm also not saying it has to stay.

I also played a lot of oldmunda and never had any issues with swapping weapons and wargear between fighters.

I guess it comes to the desired goal of the Community Edition. Are we tweaking and making minor adjustments to the existing rules a la the NCE, or are we overhauling?
 

Jayward

Ganger
Aug 4, 2020
167
275
63
Most of the movement-related things I wanted to point out have already been mentioned, but here's some extras:

Dangerous Terrain:
As written and using their example you can end your activation standing in a vat of molten metal with no ill-effects! I would like to include wording to prevent ending of activations in dangerous terrain.
Separately, the Dangerous Industrial Terrain from Badzone 7 is not, in fact, Dangerous Terrain. If we end up looking at that too I think some rewording would be needed.

Pitfalls:
They aren't actually in the core rules, but are one of the most common hazards

Leaping Gaps:
As the rules are very specific to gaps, I would not be able to leap over the vat of molten metal in the Dangerous Terrain example unless you were using the Badzones rules for it. I think leaping over difficult or dangerous terrain should be a thing.
Leaping over an obstacle should also be possible: Odd that I could jump a 6" gap with a Juve but not hop over a 1" pipe.

You can only make a jump if you have enough movement to complete a jump, but what happens if you don't? Since you don't have to declare that you're making a jump you end up in a strange situation where if you say 'I'm going to try to jump this gap' and don't have enough movement you don't fall; you simply don't jump. So I think that declaring the intention to jump at the start of the move should be introduced.

Leaping Gaps should be based on Base Movement, if we introduce such a concept. It immediately removes any mad stacking issues like Sprint and Stimms allowing 20"+ leaps.
Need to clarify what counts as having made it! I've seen people argue that you can jump a 4" gap with 4.1" of movement based on RAW even though this technically leaves only a scrap of their base on the terrain. I'm not sure if there is a rule about what happens when your base is sticking off the edge of the terrain, but some clarification here would be good. I'm sure I've read that you need to able to actually balance the model on the terrain, and that if any amount of your base overhangs an edge it's an initiative check, but damned if I can find it.

Jumping Down and Falling
There's actually an argument that this and Falling have the same break points as anything over 2" when jumping down is rounded to 3" and so on. However, this is not very clearly conveyed. Falling looks as if it is structured around rounding up distances to the nearest inch but does not convey this.
 

Jayward

Ganger
Aug 4, 2020
167
275
63
Ah, forgot one!

Jumping across and down:
What happens if I want to jump across a 4" gap to a ledge 3" down? Mathematically this is a 5" straight line jump, but I've also tried treating it as a 4" jump across and a 3" jump down (2 initiative checks). Don't mind how it pans out, but a clear rule would be useful
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thorgor

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Dec 29, 2017
4,634
4,577
193
Norway
I don't think that's supported? Either you jump vertical to a ledge on the same level, or straight down.
 

Jayward

Ganger
Aug 4, 2020
167
275
63
Yeah, that's what we reasoned with the 4" + 3" thing. If you can make a 4" horizontal jump you should be able to make the 4" jump that would be easier in real life, and then you just have to stick the landing.

There was more too it, as well... I'll see if I can dig out the notes. It was something about where you fell depending on whether you failed the first or the second initiative check
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Dec 29, 2017
4,634
4,577
193
Norway
Speaking about falling damage, we have to standardize the incremental distances between jump modifier and falling damage. What GW did in this case is abhorrent:
1600714846537.png

The only reason I'm willing to accept is they forgot what the increments were, and too lazy to check them up, made something separate. I don't care which way it is, but it HAS to be the same.
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Dec 29, 2017
4,634
4,577
193
Norway
I agree there was not a problem in NCE. NCE also had random advancements for all gang fighters.

I'm also not saying it has to stay.

I also played a lot of oldmunda and never had any issues with swapping weapons and wargear between fighters.

I guess it comes to the desired goal of the Community Edition. Are we tweaking and making minor adjustments to the existing rules a la the NCE, or are we overhauling?
We are mainly overhauling, but I believe the rules for sticky fingers is dirty and contradictory. I don't want everything to fall back on NCE, but if a mechanic has degenerated, it would be better to use NCE solution as default.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thorgor

JawRippa

Gang Hero
Mar 31, 2017
1,069
1,380
133
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Could we streamline moving over obstacles (anything less than 2" but more than 0.5") to be a flat 1" penalty to movement? It is pretty wonky having to measure every fence a fighter steps over for exact numbers.

Edit:
Speaking about falling damage, we have to standardize the incremental distances between jump modifier and falling damage. What GW did in this case is abhorrent
I'd also like to see jumping down any height less than 3" not to require an initiative check. I think that it decentivizes moving around the battlefield.
 

JawRippa

Gang Hero
Mar 31, 2017
1,069
1,380
133
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
  1. It says under "movement" (page 61) that models must take the shortest possible route. RAW this leads to fighters having to run through difficult or dangerous terrain or jump over pits even though a slight alteration of course would still allow them to make the charge. I propose that we add a clarification, that difficult, dangerous terrain and pits may be counted as impassable terrain when determining the shortest route possible for charge. In fact, I see people do this all the time. This way you can alter your route, but still won't be able to cheese the system and circle charge to hit fighters in the back.
  2. Perhaps we could ease up ability to engage with multiple fighters by allowing to engage by being within 1" instead of base to base? It is very hard to engage fighters who are ready for a group activation and are 3" apart from each other.
A silly sidequestion, is it possible to move through your own fighters? I've always treated them as they were not on the battlefield when moving models. Same question for pinned/injured teammates. After re-checking core rulebook I couldnt find the rule for it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts

Kiro The Avenger

Gang Hero
Apr 4, 2018
1,224
1,588
128
Bristol, UK
The current rules don't say anything about moving through friendly fighters, but do specifically say you can't move past enemy fighters.
This, combined with how terrible ZM would be if you couldn't, leads to the common belief that you can move through friendly fighters.

Would be worth explicitly stating it though. Just to make the rules a little more intuitive.