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.

There have been lotsa discussions bout random charge distances and of how more harmful than helpful this system is. Mellee oriented units are too dependable on whether they get in cc or not. If they fail that 5' charge - they get shot down to pieces the upcoming turn. That somehow ballances out by the 'possibility' of going 7'+ but to be honest, i try not to charge if i'm not within 5' with my ork boyz. Cause first you eat overwatch, than you have a 50% chance to fail a charge and to make it even 50% you avoid shooting at u'r target. So you just stand there and pray to dice gods to get at least 3+3. Or just stand and shoot and don't charge so that you can no longer worry bout overwatch, death of the closest, dt and other stuff that makes charge harder.

So here's the idea. Why not make shooting distance random either. If we go random for assault - go random for shooting!

How it'd work:
-Deaclare the target u're gona shoot
-Roll on a shooting distance depending on the weapon's max range, for example:
...
12' - roll 4d6 - 14' average, or 6+2d6 - 13' average
18' - roll 6d6 - 21' average, or 9 + 3d6 - 19-20' average
24' - roll 8d6 - 28' average, or 12 + 4d6 - 26' average
...

If we go semi random with X/2 + X/6[d6] where X is an average accuracy distance it's more apropriate for a charge to be 3-4' + d6

Now u're in the same condition as an assaulter. U get higher on average but have a possibility to fail. And you don't get such rediculous stuff as overwatch shot at you before doing anything and u're not reduced by difterrain. And more dice means more closer to the average results so shooters are still better than assaulters and nothing meta-changing has happened.

But it makes you want to be a bit closer than average to assure u're gona be fine. While you have the ability to shoot down outside a general range of your shooting. That's also forcing target saturation which is gona make games for shooty armies more tactical. For example: there are a few waves of enemies heading your way. The first wave contains choppaboyz and the second one contains warboss with nobz. What u'd do now is just plain ignore the front wave and shoot da hell out of nobz that are further but still in your range. And when u're not quite sure how far u'll shoot it will force you to decide: shoot at closest, less valuable target but with more chances of sucksess, or shoot at further more valuable target but with less chances and 5+ cover from da choppas.

Fluffwise its as logical as random charges that can be affected by many things. U're not in a shooting gallery at war, you know. Things happen. Wind, fog, different distraction factors can all affect accuracy greatly.

Why should shooting and assault be balanced?

Zothos wrote:
Why should shooting and assault be balanced?

Because there are armies whose primary damage output is supposed to be melee. If melee is not balanced with shooting, those armies are going to be worse by default. That's no way to balance a game.

No thanks, the last thing we need is more random.

That balance is done through points costing.

No, I am not saying the game is "balanced", but the system is fine.

I have a daemon army and it does quite well.

The biggest problem I usually see is folks looking at units in isolation, or trying to compare units across armies. Use terrain and enjoy!

Zothos wrote:

I have a daemon army and it does quite well.

Jolly good for you. Not everyone has access to FMCs and 2++ rerollable melee units.

Snarky comment is snarky.

I do not use 2++ rerollable units.

I will use 1 or 2 FMCs depending on mood.

I am curious though, what melee army are you referring to that has no FMCs?

Tyranids have them, Orks do not need them.

Zothos wrote:
Snarky comment is snarky.

I do not use 2++ rerollable units.

I will use 1 or 2 FMCs depending on mood.

I am curious though, what melee army are you referring to that has no FMCs?

Tyranids have them, Orks do not need them.

Space Wolves, Black Templars, Blood Angels, Orks (as you said), Dark Eldar. That's 33% of the Codices. If you think Orks, Tyranids and Daemons are the only melee armies in the game it might be fine (although Orks need a new 'dex and the jury's still out on 'Nids), but they're not, so it's not.

Oh.

I always thought those armies had guns and armor.

Last I knew those armies did not rely on melee for the majority of damage done.

I am amused you included Dark Eldar in that list.

Zothos wrote:
Oh.

I always thought those armies had guns and armor.

Last I knew those armies did not rely on melee for the majority of damage done.

I am amused you included Dark Eldar in that list.

Yeah, Templars totally don't have anything to do with melee. Neither do Blood Angels or Space Wolves. Their fluff is all about hanging back and shooting people to death.


Have you considered that the reason people play them as shooty is that their melee is rubbish?

You said armies who depend on melee as primary damage output. These armies have melee units and options for range.
Most times they have both capabilities in the same unit...

As I said, the system is not the problem. This could all be fixed with point values.

Zothos wrote:
You said armies who depend on melee as primary damage output. These armies have melee units and options for range.
Most times they have both capabilities in the same unit...

And Orks don't? 'Nids have no options for range at all? Daemons have no shooting?

Rolling 8D6 and adding them is too much work for most games, I'd rather just have a fixed (6") or semi-fixed (4+d6", etc) charge system.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Zothos wrote:
You said armies who depend on melee as primary damage output. These armies have melee units and options for range.
Most times they have both capabilities in the same unit...

And Orks don't? 'Nids have no options for range at all? Daemons have no shooting?

When did I say Orks, Tyranids and Daemons have no shooting?

Orks shoot quite well, Lootas are nasty as hell. Tyranids are deceptively powerful shooters. Daemons can be a bit more problematic as most daemon shooting is psychic in nature.

Your supposition was that 33% of armies rely on melee for primary damage output. The problem is if you look at it, most of those armies you cited do not. They have melee options.

I would say daemons are the most melee centric, probably followed by Tyranids.

If an army does not play the way you want, perhaps it was not built the way you think. I will say, edition change can have a great effect on this until the relevant codex comes out.

Can I shoot in both player's shooting phase too? CC gets to do it in both player's assault phase.

Can I get an extra shot the first turn I shoot something? CC gets an extra their first turn going after their target.

Can I have a lot of models allowed to shoot 2, 3, 4 or more times in a single shooting phase? CC gets to do it.

Clearly, shooting is weaker.

/sarcasm

See how trying to balance won't work? They are different beasts, so things won't compare exactly.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Zothos wrote:
You said armies who depend on melee as primary damage output. These armies have melee units and options for range.
Most times they have both capabilities in the same unit...

And Orks don't? 'Nids have no options for range at all? Daemons have no shooting?

Nurgle says shooting guns is for people who care. And nurgle don't care.

Yea, i can't support this proposed rule. The game is much too random as it is. Assault needs to get better, shooting doesn't need to get worse.

Zothos wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Zothos wrote:
You said armies who depend on melee as primary damage output. These armies have melee units and options for range.
Most times they have both capabilities in the same unit...

And Orks don't? 'Nids have no options for range at all? Daemons have no shooting?

When did I say Orks, Tyranids and Daemons have no shooting?

You didn't, but if having shooting options disqualifies the ones I mentioned then there's no such thing as a melee army.

Zothos wrote:


Your supposition was that 33% of armies rely on melee for primary damage output. The problem is if you look at it, most of those armies you cited do not. They have melee options.

Because melee for those Codices is gutted. Black Templars, Blood Angels, and Space Wolves are just as melee-centric fluff-wise as Orks, it's just that melee isn't being balanced properly, so they have to rely on shooting instead. The optimal strategies of the armies on the tabletop does not match the one in the fluff, which is what I'm getting at.

In 5th edition it was not Space Wolf melee that we saw dominating.

I am agreeing with you to a point. I just think the issue can be redressed with points adjustments and does not require an assault phase overhaul.

Zothos wrote:
In 5th edition it was not Space Wolf melee that we saw dominating.

That's my point; the fluff for Space Wolves paint them as ferocious close-combat fighters that prefer melee to ranged engagements, to the point that their heavy weapons are carried by the most stoic of veterans who are able to put their urge to go into close combat aside. Yet the army is best played as a shooting army. To me, that's indicative of a failure in design, both on part of the Codex author and the BRB author.

Same with Black Templars in C:SM. They're supposed to be melee specialists (to the point that they build their entire modus operandi around it), and get two decent non-HQ melee units in the entire Codex (Honour Guard and TH/SS Terminators) while the rest of the melee units get no special rules or similar to help them out with close combat, which causes them to be rubbish since they have to deal with every single drawback to CC in the BRB, which are Legion.

Change transport rules slightly and it will greatly benefit assault,
Such as:
-You may disembark from any transport at the start or end of its movement phase no matter how far it has moved.
-You may assault from any vehicle you have disembarked from as long as it did not move more than 6" in the previous movement phase.
-Assault vehicles allow a 12" move and assault.

This means a unit can jump from a vehicle moving at comparable walking speed (6") and still assault, or they can jump out of a vehicle moving at comparable sprinting speed (12") absolutley fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This will not balance assault btw just make it more viable.

Ork player here, we don't "rely" on melee for damage output but I'm damn well sick of having to shoot to get it.

40k is a choppy heavy setting, it makes perfect sense for the choppy to have a significant role to play.

Currently, shooting is
~more damage than choppy
~more reliable than choppy (no random range)
~more tactically flexible than choppy (long distance, also works from infiltrate/deep strike/etc)

A *good* ruleset would balance out shootys better reliability and flexibility and range by making assaults far more powerful, but that hasn't happened here. Instead you get one form of attack that is simply better in all regards than the other.

Has anyone considered how laughable it is, to have melee focused armies in a game set 40 000 years in the future? How many "modern" militaries utilize any kind of hand to hand combat as a primary means of killing the opposition?

No really. Think about it. Don't try some fluff based argument. We're talking game mechanics. There's no reason that an assault focused unit shouldn't be shot to pieces by tanks and machine guns. That assault plays a key role at all in a shooting game is silly.

That's why assault is hard to pull off in 40k. In a game where a Plasmagun exists, a guy with a giant metal hand shouldn't be able to punch harder than I can shoot. It's just silly. So I am quite happy to see assault downplayed while shooting is emphasized. No army should be functional as mostly assault in 40k.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Has anyone considered how laughable it is, to have melee focused armies in a game set 40 000 years in the future? How many "modern" militaries utilize any kind of hand to hand combat as a primary means of killing the opposition?

No really. Think about it. Don't try some fluff based argument. We're talking game mechanics. There's no reason that an assault focused unit shouldn't be shot to pieces by tanks and machine guns. That assault plays a key role at all in a shooting game is silly.

That's why assault is hard to pull off in 40k. In a game where a Plasmagun exists, a guy with a giant metal hand shouldn't be able to punch harder than I can shoot. It's just silly. So I am quite happy to see assault downplayed while shooting is emphasized. No army should be functional as mostly assault in 40k.

Logic has no place in 40k. It's a setting where every major battle is decided by guys with swords. But the current iteration of game rules does not reflect that, and two wrongs don't make a right. If you want sense, go play Infinity or whatever. 40k should have melee, because that's what's it about.

And I think the OP was really just trying to be cheeky and pointing out the hypocrisy of gunline drones who always tell concerned melee players to "use tactics lol !!1!" while their own point-and-click shooty armies require none.

That is very true in real life... but this is fiction. It has deamons, aliens, genetically engineered superhumans.
Judges in Judge Dread series often have to hold off genestealer like opponents who have no shooting ability.
Starshiptroopers have to counter assaulting waves of bugs.
Terran and Protos try to shoot the Zerg before they get in close with their claws.
The characters in Alien series of movies try to stop the Aliens with their guns whilst being picked off one by one.
Jedi charge against a wall of shots, sending all laser beams flying back to their opponents before getting stuck in with their lightsabres.
Captain America glances shots of his shield, whilst Thor, Ironman and Hulk all take them like a boss before getting stuck in with their fists.

You are comparing 40k with real life. It is not real life. Compare it instead with futuristic fiction.

If this was science fiction I'd be inclined to agree. But its science fantasy, and the whole point of it is that theres melee weapons and daemons and gothic architecture and gak in a 'future' setting.

As to modern militaries, we're in a state of technological development wherein the offensive power of projectile weapons far outclasses the ability of any armour we can make to survive them. 40k is not in that state, many armies have armour able to reliably stop a bullet, or are made up of creatures that are tough enough to survive such weapons.

No really. Think about it. Don't try some fluff based argument. We're talking game mechanics. There's no reason that an assault focused unit shouldn't be shot to pieces by tanks and machine guns. That assault plays a key role at all in a shooting game is silly.

Everything you just said is a fluff based argument mate.

Edit;

Logic has no place in 40k. It's a setting where every major battle is decided by guys with swords. But the current iteration of game rules does not reflect that, and two wrongs don't make a right.

This sums it up pretty well. 40k has deep roots in melee, and a lot of new players miss that fact, which is easy enough to do in this shooty dominated Tau oriented 6th (which is why Tau can generate a bit of hate from players who come from the older setting). I imagine you fit into that group, the latest generation of 40k players, and possibly have a Tau army yourself. If not I'd honestly be pretty damn surprised.

This game needs less random rolls.

Then again, it also needs a movement stat and simplified/unified movement rules. But then it'd also need better vehicles rules...

Find one problem in this game and unearth a dozen more.

Either way, less random is better. No to random shooting, no to random charge distance.

Zothos wrote:
You said armies who depend on melee as primary damage output. These armies have melee units and options for range.
Most times they have both capabilities in the same unit...

As I said, the system is not the problem. This could all be fixed with point values.

Huh? And I've seen orks, Daemons, and even nids build lists where they did their damage by way of shooting. I've also seen CC guardsman before where they do most of their damage in cc. Doesn't make the codex in general CC oriented. What he means is that those armies prefer CC. The reason why they do shooty is because their assault is crummy. For example, the best ork lists focus on shooty even though Orks are intended to be CC oriented. From the videos I've seen the new nids focus on shooty CC being a back-up sort of thing. Its called badly written codices


Automatically Appended Next Post:

scottagain wrote:
Can I shoot in both player's shooting phase too? CC gets to do it in both player's assault phase.

Can I get an extra shot the first turn I shoot something? CC gets an extra their first turn going after their target.

Can I have a lot of models allowed to shoot 2, 3, 4 or more times in a single shooting phase? CC gets to do it.

Clearly, shooting is weaker.

/sarcasm

See how trying to balance won't work? They are different beasts, so things won't compare exactly.

Okay then, well can I have it so that my higher initiative means that I can always shoot before your models? Can I have a lot of models that can shoot 3 or more times? Guess what, there's not a stupid number that get dozens of attacks. Want to know how many attacks berzerkers get base? 1. Bloodletters? 1. Guns often are on infantry 1 rapid fire 2 so actually its pretty equivelent. Oh, and have fun comparing your bs to the enemy bs. Oh and the best you can do to hit is a 3+ and 90% of the time the enemies will always shoot you on a 4+

Anyways, I'd rather see randomness removed not added.

Wow, that's funny! I didn't say a thing about 'nerfing' shooting. I just proposed that it should follow the same logical rules as assault does.

If you say that we need less random stuff, does it mean u're still OK with assault being random? Or you would like it to be a fixed 7' or 8' number. It needs a slight increase from previous ed cause of overwatch.

Stating that assault doesn't exist irl is basically wrong. There are alwayz charging the barricades or buildings. Why the hell do you think troopers are taught to use assault grenades irl? Why are bayonetes still in use by special forces? Every second town fight includes assault and close-quarters fighting. Not with axes and swords ofcourse, but with pistols and shooting your assault rifles up close.

Oh I'd just rater there be no random charge nor random shooting. If you need random charge, make the variations not as drastic. Personally I'd love to see movement in general be redone.Why it it you can almost always move 6" but running and charging is random? It doesn't really make sense that two are subject to randomness and mistakes whilst the other one isn't. Instead, I'd love for models to have base movements. Guardsman might have 5, SM 6, etc. Or perhaps normal movement is the same but running/charge is different. Who knows? Honestly it is rather complicated and adds a bigger mess to an already complicated game but I'd rather see that then extra uneccesary randomness.

 greyknight12 wrote:
Rolling 8D6 and adding them is too much work for most games, I'd rather just have a fixed (6") or semi-fixed (4+d6", etc) charge system.

It's not gona take as long as you state it does, but will make shooty armies think better about their positioning and shooting priorities. Cause atm, shooty armies are so much easier to play from the tactical pov than assaulty armies (except for cheezy fast deathstars that should be nerfed hard) that have to take into consideration more and more stuff like overwatch, lower pile-ins, difterrain, challenges, not shooting the opponent too much not to increase distance, etc. While shooters can just measure the distance and say "i'm in range - i'll shoot" or "i'm not in range i'll do something else".



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Added the vote option
I bet "fix charging distance" will win but i'd really like to see random shooting in action - should try it out and tell ya what happened.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zothos wrote:
Why should shooting and assault be balanced?

Well, it won't. Shooting is still gona be preferable cause when you roll more dice - u're closer and closer to average thus it's rather reliable. However, it'll just force shooty gunlinish armies to think more and not just throw dice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just 4 people voted - need more