Serious question: I keep seeing people say "I want to build a gunline army", but why? Why would you ever want to build an army that ignores 2/3 of the game's phases and 90% of its strategy in favor of mindlessly rolling dice until you either roll enough dice to win or fail to roll enough dice and lose? What exactly is enjoyable about lining up your models at the back of your deployment zone and then never touching them unless you're removing casualties? How is either player having fun in this scenario? What makes a normal, reasonable person look at the game's least-fun method of playing and say "yes, I want to do this"? Is there secretly something fun about this dumpster fire of a game, or are all the gunline players just hardcore competitive tournament players who have figured out the most efficient way to win 40k games? I'd be fine with making that assumption, but it sure seems like a lot of the people expressing interest in gunline armies are casual/narrative players.

(Now, I understand the value and appeal of putting a long-ranged shooting element in an army that also has other things, I'm talking about gunline armies where the whole army is a gunline.)

I have been playing warhammer in multiple versions and formats for the last 15+ years. I started in WHFB late 5th edition. i have built various armies which included Tomb Kings (heavy chariot army), beastmen (not a single shooting model in the whole range), Empire with knightly orders, fast cavalry wood elf armies. In 40k I have a frackhuge tyranid army, thousand sons with a focus on rubrics and scarabs, and I'm now building a tau list.

I have never had -in all my time- any real incentive to play gunline. That being said, I am THRILLED that I am allowed to play my kronos tyranids and go full static gunline if I want. I think it's a great alternative way to play the game, and it has its own moments of stress and joy. It is apparent from your post that YOU do not enjoy gunlines. Doesn't mean other people can't though. A gunline player literally has 2 turns to make his thing. target priority is paramount, and it requires tremendous knowledge of your list and your opponents so that you know to apply just the right amount of pressure and not go stupidly overkill on enemy units. Finally, since gunline armies tend to be immobile and filled with heavy weapons, positioning/deployment, movement and line of sight must be really well thought in advance, not only for the first turn but also further down the line.

Overall I think you are selling gunlines too short. There are a TON of aspects that make gunline play really strategic and provide a real challenge for the gunline player. I welcome them the same way I had to suck it and accept imperium drop pods crashing down first turn, with no 3+ to check and reliable deep strike and pour out relentless devastators with grav weaponry, with free split fire.

To each its own I guess.

I like all the phases, but unfortunately it's the shooting phase where all the magic happens. Shooting does more damage than melee, shooting can start dishing out damage from turn one where melee usually starts turn two or three. And when you get into melee that gunline (because everyone else plays gunline too) you're after is just going to back up and shoot you to bits with impunity.

I really, really, would like an assault oriented army to work, but alas. Melee needs to do way more damage and the fallback mechanic needs a big overhaul if melee is ever going to be a competitive choice over shooting.

But yeah, end of the day playing a gunline is boring AF.

Shooting =/= gunline. For example, deep striking plasma storm troopers up close to murder stuff or rushing Hellhounds up the table to light everything on fire is still shooting, and quite powerful shooting. Even LRBTs are very good at shooting while still moving every turn, if you use them as mobile units instead of mindlessly parking them in the back corner of the table for the entire game. You can still have a pure shooting army that still moves, claims objectives, etc instead of lining up on turn 1 and rolling dice until someone wins.

This sounds much less like a “serious question” and much more like an excuse to let the salt flow. This is why dakka has such a bad rep.

So going off of your Leman Russ example, not only does unit selection matter when building the list but it also matters how you play that on the tabletop? If you are looking for honest feedback you might want to provide a very specific definition of this gunline that you cannot imagine anyone playing.

In 7th edition I was running a zombie horde with artillery R&H list. I got my jollies from my blasts wildly scattering all over the place, half the time I was hitting my own units.

If I am truly honest, the best part was the trollish feeling. There were so many tactics that the army just straight up shut down.

Deep strike: Have fun fighting zombies
Speedy armies that can hide: I don't need line of sight, have fun fighting zombies
Gunlines: I had better range and toughness on my bigger guns
Rhino rush: Zombie wall stops it dead, and rapier lasers help.
Invisible death star: lol, ZOMBIES (and I blow up the rest of your army:

I gladly accepted games against the WAAC players because I knew my list was cheesy as gak and broken as hell. I got sick laughs from watching their faces turn red in frustration.
Eventually I learned that my casual friendly opponents were frustrated, and stopped running the list... outside apoc games, all bets are off in apoc lol.

Currently I don't really see the appeal to gunline. I face them all the time because 9/10 armies end up running them, and want to crush hellblasters with a hammer whenever I see them. They are always banner with re-roll all 1s.


Gun lines are no longer even lines, they are like... gun balls. Everyone huddled within 6" of that one dude who helps out. It's super boring to play against, My units hit the gun ball, it all gets locked in CC and the next few rounds are fallbacks with little shooting and slowly killing the gun ball while the opponent curses their luck. At least in 7th edition the gunline armies were spread out. Artillery in the corners, tanks in the middle. It was super tough to take care of everything.

My 7th edition style of Tau was using a Hammer and Anvil style strategy where half my army was the "hold the line" elements with layers of Fire Warriors to blunt assaults supported by Broadsides, Pathfinders, Hammerheads, Ethereals, etc while the other half is the hard hitting mobile elements (Crisis Suits mainly) that would deep strike behind/to the flank of the enemy as they advanced to hit the exposed rear elements and sandwich the enemy forcing the enemy to either pull away from the anvil or continue to get smashed by the hammer elements. Turn 1 was usually the gunline style of play where my guys turtle in and throw out dakka. As the enemy thins and move into the mid field the game develops into a more mobile multi directional game where the gunline "anvil" shifts and splits as needed while the mobile "hammer" is dishing out damage while skirting around forcing difficult movement decisions for the enemy.

Sadly 8th basically killed that playstyle with its 9" deep strike spacing thing, lack of terrain rules, the royal shagging of crisis suits, heavy focus on alpha striking, no more closest casualties, and no Jump Shoot Jump outside of a one off stratagem (stratagems are lame when you have unit redundancy but your stuck only using the ability on one unit).

I couldn't vote on the poll but it still can be an interesting discussion. We play a modified version of 5th Ed essentially, but the gunline concept is the same.

I think there can be elements of strategy to a pure gunline army, but if that means it is also a static army it's at a serious disadvantage - at least in our rules. It's reactionary at its core unless the table is barren, so a mobile force has the initiative in exploiting weak spots in the enemy line.

We're now building an Imperial Guard force for our group to use and it emphasizes mobile elements. Haven't had a chance to see how it will work though, especially against plenty of dynamic foes!

Personally I would feel handicapped if I relied completely on static shooting to win games, even if it is viable in 8th Ed.

I introduced a buddy to 8th. He had a background in gaming but never played miniature gaming before. I gave him a whole bunch marines stuff bought him the dex and he's loving it. Having never played 40k before but being an intelligent tactical thinker he took one look at the rules with re-roll buff after re-roll buff and quite smartly built a gunline. I remember the look of confusion on his face when I tried to explain that style of play is not engaging or entertaining because he assumed thats the way to play his codex.

In some ways the rules lean you that way.

Because tanks and guns are are immensely appealing, and it's fun to play.

I wouldn't want to play with deep striking plasma troopers or rushing hellhounds.

if there's ever been a more obvious troll post that deserves to be taken down I haven't seen it

Asmodios wrote:
if there's ever been a more obvious troll post that deserves to be taken down I haven't seen it

I just re-read it to see what you meant and the second option alone is super troll levels. Why did I dignify this thread with a post...2 posts argh stop it!

Asmodios wrote:
if there's ever been a more obvious troll post that deserves to be taken down I haven't seen it

You've missed some real doozies, then.

None of the above I just like to shoot stuff and I like the idea of defending an oncoming horde of enemies from entrenched positions.

This entire thread only serves to post as a salt mine because someone does not like gunline armies

Because gunlines are one of the most powerful crutches to win games with without having to actually have any real skill other than figuring out what to shoot.

When my group of ~10 started playing, we were discussing whether we wanted to play WHFB or 40k and everyone being able to collect the army he wants to was part of the decision process so everyone stated which army interests him the most.

One of them wanted either Dwarves or Tau. When 8th dropped, he immediately switched from Tau to IG (he already had like 2 LRBT and 10 guardsmen before he started Tau.)
Another friend I played WHFB played dwarves. He started 40k without us knowing and what did he play there - you might already have guessed it - Tau.
Another friend of this group switched from Space Wolves to Skitarii after like half a year and ~10 played games. He had more fun after that especially because he won a lot more with skitarii.

It seems like shooting armies are really attractive especially if you don't know in detail how the rules work. I can't say why, I personally have Beastmen and melee-focused CSM.
It seems like the second choice of your poll is the most fitting for beginners choosing gunline armies. It looks fun.

About wanting others to suffer, that is 100% true. We didn't have enough terrain for our tables and often played 2 vs 2 on 72"x48" when we started, so shooting was heavily favored. If two shooting armies played together, got the first turn and killed 3/4 of their opponents points by turn two while losing less than 1/4 themselves, those gunline players always refused to let the other side give up because they could technically still win by missions. This was so taunting even though we were friends, I was always salty when that happened.

For someone who used to hammer at a particular user not long ago for making troll polls, the OP sure forgot to apply that same standard of scrutiny to themselves.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
None of the above I just like to shoot stuff and I like the idea of defending an oncoming horde of enemies from entrenched positions.

Which probably should be option number 4 for the poll, if the OP actually wanted to get some merit worthy discussion from this thread.

Gunline armies are the least interesting way to play this game. After the updates, the only way to play Tyranids is as - primarily - a gun line. So regrettably I have little choice; i'll still mix in assault units and be sub-optimal, though, because i can't stand braindead games. But it also has me looking into other games until GW figures out that this update was a complete disaster.

Anyone can play a gunline, it is "Baby's First 40k Game" level of difficult. You essentially need to roll better than your opponent, may as well just be shooting dice in an alley.

So, if i want to play my army, i have to play a gunline, or i can keep trying to do what i was doing, and get stomped off of the face of the planet by cheeseball Guard heavy lists, and Chaos which is largely unaffected.

All of this because Adepticon, too, which is ridiculous. It was a garbage format, with a garbage setup of terrain, and suddenly deep strike is the boogieman, and hive tyrants deserved a 25% points increase?

It's like Jeopardy.

I'll take the category "DAKKA DAKKA" please.

Ok for $1000... the answer is...
The user "Peregrine"

I know this! It's
"Why does Dakka Dakka have an ignore button?"


YOU'RE RIIIIIGGGHT!!!!!!

I don't play gunline (actually I'm just a modeller really) but goodness me I couldn't resist voting thay second option just because.

In Fantasy (The game I played most until AoS, then I started w40k with 8th) I played Greenskins and Khorne Chaos Warriors, so my armies where always meele focused.

In Warhammer 40k my primari armies are Tau and Dark Angels. Both "gunline" friendly armies, but I actually play them different. I like the mechanized Tau force. Stealth Suits, Kroot, Vespids and Breachers in Devilfish supported with Hammerheads in the back and Railgun Broadsides for some artillery support.

The army I play more like a Gunline are my Dark Angels because I like a defensive style of play and I'm more of a greenwing player. I normally use a Fortress of Redemption, but that doesn't mean I play pure gunline. I have Ravenwing bikers, I have normally 1-2 rhinos or razorbacks full of Company Champions and Veterans to counter charge meele armies or to rush agaisnt gunline armies. But the core of that force is the Fortress of Redemption and a strong defensive greenwing core.

But yeah, gunlines are the most boring way to play. At the same time, fun is subjetive, and whats boring for someone can be fun for others. So I can understand why people want to play gunline armies.

Is like Team Fortress 2. I loved to play the Engineer, but my way of playing it was an aggresive way, trying to run past the enemy lines and create a defensive point in a corner, with turrets and teleporters, to counter attack their lines. But most engineers out there just build their turret and their resuplier near the point we need to defend and they just stayed here like 15-20 minutes until the match end.
For me thats like, literally wasting your time, why do you even play? But ey. For them it was fun. So, ok. Go ahead.

Gee, because people playing a sci-fi game might want to shoot people with their ray guns?

Because finding a bunch of guys to charge another group of guys with guns so you can stab them with a sword is only impressive in that you found enough people who were equally dumb enough to think it would work?

Because if you don't play gunline, you lose.

Because I play Imperial Guard.

That polls not stupid at all.

It's cool. I find the idea of my army pouring fire into the enemy as they advance neat. Unless the two assault squads there as troop tax changes it to not being a gunline.

Is it really Peregrine? The git good or git out guy? Guess he gut bad.

Some armies are, thematically, gunline oriented. Some only function competitively when played as a gunline. Some people legitimately just like the simplicity.

Lets also be real, most armies ignore a lot of the game in some way, few play well in all phases, and stuff that can be boring to one person may not be to another.

 Nithaniel wrote:
I introduced a buddy to 8th. He had a background in gaming but never played miniature gaming before. I gave him a whole bunch marines stuff bought him the dex and he's loving it. Having never played 40k before but being an intelligent tactical thinker he took one look at the rules with re-roll buff after re-roll buff and quite smartly built a gunline. I remember the look of confusion on his face when I tried to explain that style of play is not engaging or entertaining because he assumed thats the way to play his codex.

In some ways the rules lean you that way.

Play a few maelstrom games with him, makes the gunlines awkwardly shuffle around the table, or get frustrated and say that maelstrom is broken lol.

I’m playing tau. The goal is to shoot you off the board. Simple.

I play a gun line because otherwise my Necrons get wiped out too easily.

 Jaxler wrote:
I’m playing tau. The goal is to shoot you off the board. Simple.

Are Tau gun line armies though? A lot of their best shooting is at close range. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would say they are just because they rely on shooting and really don't do anything useful in the assault phase now that JSJ is gone (not to mention no involvement in the psychic phase at all). Even if you have to drive up someone's nose to shoot them off the table, it's still unfair because they couldn't sword you.

Jokes on ya'll for taking Peregrine seriously.

I play tau as a pure gunline with some element of mobility to flank or take down priority targets.

Seriously, Gunlines and Tau are lame as feth.

This isn’t Star Trek, it’s 40k. Grab a Chainsword or gtfo.

Close combat should be king.

 gwarsh41 wrote:
In 7th edition I was running a zombie horde with artillery R&H list. I got my jollies from my blasts wildly scattering all over the place, half the time I was hitting my own units.

If I am truly honest, the best part was the trollish feeling. There were so many tactics that the army just straight up shut down.

Deep strike: Have fun fighting zombies
Speedy armies that can hide: I don't need line of sight, have fun fighting zombies
Gunlines: I had better range and toughness on my bigger guns
Rhino rush: Zombie wall stops it dead, and rapier lasers help.
Invisible death star: lol, ZOMBIES (and I blow up the rest of your army:

I gladly accepted games against the WAAC players because I knew my list was cheesy as gak and broken as hell. I got sick laughs from watching their faces turn red in frustration.
Eventually I learned that my casual friendly opponents were frustrated, and stopped running the list... outside apoc games, all bets are off in apoc lol.

Currently I don't really see the appeal to gunline. I face them all the time because 9/10 armies end up running them, and want to crush hellblasters with a hammer whenever I see them. They are always banner with re-roll all 1s.


Gun lines are no longer even lines, they are like... gun balls. Everyone huddled within 6" of that one dude who helps out. It's super boring to play against, My units hit the gun ball, it all gets locked in CC and the next few rounds are fallbacks with little shooting and slowly killing the gun ball while the opponent curses their luck. At least in 7th edition the gunline armies were spread out. Artillery in the corners, tanks in the middle. It was super tough to take care of everything.

If you are struggling with guilliman ball - you should try playing a gunline yourself - you will decimate them. The army itself is not viable because gunlines exist.

Because I like to shatter skies with artillary and roll massive handfuls of dice.

I play a gunline because SM suck in CC.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Seriously, Gunlines and Tau are lame as feth.

This isn’t Star Trek, it’s 40k. Grab a Chainsword or gtfo.

Close combat should be king.

You're probably joking, but i actually 100% agree with this, lol.

 Jaxler wrote:
I’m playing tau. The goal is to shoot you off the board. Simple.

WHAT A SHAMEFUR DISPRAY!

How can a gunline put into practice the sacred tactics of Kauyon and Mont'ka? The Tau way is the fast way, artillery support with Firewarriors to protect them, with a ton of movile elements to do surgical strikes. If you are playing tau any other way you are playing them objetively WRONG!

I know Crisis suck, but Vespids don't! Use your Crisis with Vespids rules! You'll have the best of both worlds.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Seriously, Gunlines and Tau are lame as feth.

This isn’t Star Trek, it’s 40k. Grab a Chainsword or gtfo.

Close combat should be king.

You're probably joking, but i actually 100% agree with this, lol.

No, he isn't. Hes like the polar opposite of Peregrine in the "Should Warhammer 40k be about shooting or meele" argument.

I would also balk at the implication that shooting implies gunline.

I've always viewed Tau as a mobile shooting force.

Gunlines are more about castling.

Dakka gonna dakka...

 Marmatag wrote:
I would also balk at the implication that shooting implies gunline.

I've always viewed Tau as a mobile shooting force.

Gunlines are more about castling.

They are a mobile shooting force by design and by lore. The fact that they can gunline just mean you can play them that way, but Imperial Guard are THE gunline army.

Tau are more like a mixture of Imperial Guard and Craftworld Eldar. That mean you can play them like imperial guard or like Eldar, but only playing them as the middle point between the both you'll discover the true potential of Tau.

No, he isn't. Hes like the polar opposite of Peregrine in the "Should Warhammer 40k be about shooting or meele" argument

For the record, I'm half joking. I know that guns are a major part of the lore of 40K. But the game has always been deeply rooted in Fantasy and should maintain those fantastical elements. Including an emphasis on melee. I just don't want this new generation coming in and making it all about guns. It's what sets 40K apart from the others and makes it interesting.

When I started, one of the appeals of 40k over Fantasy, aside from my general preference towards sci-fi stuff, was the guns. My early Blood Angels had a squad of Veteran Assault Marines to back up Dante, a walking Death Company and some Terminators, and that was the extent of the close combat units. I definitely appreciated shooting more.

Nowadays, as I'm far more into the modelling aspect of things than the gaming, close quarters guys usually get the cooler models, so I have a bias towards building assault based forces. I've been slowly expanding my BA into a more combat focused army, I've got an Orks army based on rushing forward, Tyranids that need built, but who won't have any big guns to start with. My mixed Aeldari have a few Shooty units, sure, but Shuriken weapons have as much range as a toothpick so they'll have to work their way up close too. The only shooting army I'll have will be my Tau and they're kinda stuck on being that since apparently giant robots can hit stuff with laser swords or giant fists.

GW writes the rules. Back in 3rd the rules favored assault, and assault armies were everywhere. Then for a while it was MSUs, and MSU armies were everywhere. Now it's 8th and the rules favor shooting, so gunlines are everywhere.

The only thing we know for sure is that eventually there will be another edition of the rules, and (intentionally or otherwise) those rules will favor a particular style of play. And gamers will field that style of army because it's more fun to win than it is to lose.

And it really is just that simple.

Because I like rolling buckets of dice and I play admech.

Well my orks are 2/3 shooty and 1/3 choppy. So far I haven't gotten into 8th edition as I continue to patiently wait for a codex. Sure it might be better then 7th but I'm still unimpressed with this edition but who knows maybe after getting a finished product I might get into it and enjoy it. I used to always say don't underestimate an ork gun line in previous editions since S4 attacks from choppy Boyz only occurred on the charge while shoota Boyz brought a more reliable volume of S4. This edition made our shooting too expensive of a point sink resulting in just bleeding points. Although 30 Shoota Boyz still have a devastating over watch and they've always been my preffered bubble wrap for intercepting melee.

Some people like mental image of the stoic gunline beating back the hordes with disciplined volley fire (such as the British squares vs the Zulu or the Napoleanic era of warfare in general).

 Marmatag wrote:
I would also balk at the implication that shooting implies gunline.

I've always viewed Tau as a mobile shooting force.

Gunlines are more about castling.

Maybe Tau are a moving gunline.

A moving gunline that has it's heavy weapons hitting on 5s when they move. Seems legit.

Pointless polls make this forum a worse place. Rant to friends.

@OP

I'm not going to vote in your poll as your choices are all insulting.

Just because YOU don't like shooting based armies, doesn't mean everyone else has to dislike them too.

Maybe some of us like to use options that get penalized when you move. Maybe some of use like artillery, tanks, and such. Why should they curb their fun because you have a chainsword fetish?

But I suppose you're just going to keep whining no matter what anyone says.

If whining endlessly bugs you Dakka is not a place for you.

 Brother SRM wrote:


Edit for some context:
The tournament allowed no special characters, which meant the White Scars player couldn't take Khan. As a result, he could not outflank. He figured he'd be facing a typical Tau gunline, so he placed his entire army in reserves. Turns out the Tau player had a gimmick list of Kroot and fought gimmick with gimmick. The official ruling was that the Tau player won, but using the same tactic ever again would get you disqualified.

I think that Peregrine needs to learn that no plan survives contact with the enemy.

Don't tell me that Peregrine is one of those who actually modelled a commissar with a sword onto a LRMBT?
google Drive closer so I can hit them with my sword!

 Mmmpi wrote:
@OP

I'm not going to vote in your poll as your choices are all insulting.

Just because YOU don't like shooting based armies, doesn't mean everyone else has to dislike them too.

Maybe some of us like to use options that get penalized when you move. Maybe some of use like artillery, tanks, and such. Why should they curb their fun because you have a chainsword fetish?

But I suppose you're just going to keep whining no matter what anyone says.

I don't think that is what he believes. He has consistently defended "shooting" as the main event of 40k with melee being a side element. He doesn't even think demons should be a viable solo army since they lack guns.

The gist of his post is that gunlines (basically camping) are boring. Shooting itself is fine (and encouraged), but if you just chill in the back and refuse to move then he has a problem. Granted, I believe employing meaningful terrain is the single best way to curb this behavior.

Well, I play only fun games atm.
Gun lines are easiest way to play an army these days,
while cc specialists have a hard time.
Charge range, overwatch, and withdrawal from cc are basic hidrances.

There isn't an applicable option in the poll so I didn't vote.

Under 4th and 5th editions when I was playing Space Marines as my army of choice, gun lines were my preferred method of play. The reason being that I was always decimated by assault based armies. There was no point trying to engage in combat. I preferred to use my shooting to help thin the attackers before they got to me so that I might have a chance at surviving. Now under 8th edition my chosen army, Death Guard, can weather a little close combat so I am happy to walk forwards and try to both shoot and smack. However, saying that, I can still see the appeal to playing a more static gun line especially if that sort of mental imagery for your army is what floats your boat. It is just another tactical choice and the same could be said of why do players want to play assault base armies? It's just preference.

 BlackLobster wrote:
There isn't an applicable option in the poll so I didn't vote.

Under 4th and 5th editions when I was playing Space Marines as my army of choice, gun lines were my preferred method of play. The reason being that I was always decimated by assault based armies. There was no point trying to engage in combat. I preferred to use my shooting to help thin the attackers before they got to me so that I might have a chance at surviving. Now under 8th edition my chosen army, Death Guard, can weather a little close combat so I am happy to walk forwards and try to both shoot and smack. However, saying that, I can still see the appeal to playing a more static gun line especially if that sort of mental imagery for your army is what floats your boat. It is just another tactical choice and the same could be said of why do players want to play assault base armies? It's just preference.

Everything is preference, and the poll is set up terribly, but in my own experience being involved with a large group of players for a very long time, it's the most one-note skewy army lists that lose peoples interest the fastest, both in terms of players losing interest in their own army and people losing interest in playing against them.

A one-note fast assault rush army is equally applicable to a one-note static gunline, or a one-note all super heavy force. We had one guy playing nothing but a pair of warhound titans for a while in 7th, basically just a rich kid wanting to show off what daddys money bought him, and though he lost every game pretty much nobody wanted to play him twice. playing an army where you know exactly what its going to do and exactly how a given game is going to go when you deploy and roll for first turn gets pretty old pretty fast, and playing an army with only a couple unit choices is just the very best way to get destroyed by balance changes that would effect someone with a more diverse force much less.

Sometimes I like lighting off the torches and watching my enemy burn from afar op.

Sometimes I want to wade into them with blades.

The point being, the game is more interesting when you have differing armies.

I feel like there are a few options missing from the poll, such as:

"GW puts siege artillery in this game that has to be towed by trucks and armies themed after World War I."

Like literally, the most gunline-war to ever be fought is a role model for some entire armies. I'm surprised Peregrine forgot this, considering its predominantly FW.

Because if I wanted to stab things with swords, I’d be playing a fantasy game not a sci-fi game.

Except that 40k isn’t sci-if and never has been

It’s fantasy in space. That’s why everyone is running around in armour and with swords, daemons, God’s and magic.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Except that 40k isn’t sci-if and never has been

It’s fantasy in space. That’s why everyone is running around in armour and with swords

My favorite part are these models with armour and swords:


Or this:


Yeah tons of swords on this guy:

Sci-fi by definition requires all elements of the universe to be firmly rooted in reality, or plausible outcomes of the universe in which we reside.

Almost nothing in the 40k universe is theoretically possible in any way.

So while you site armies like guard or Tau, I’ll site:

Custodes
Grey knights
Dark angels
Black templars
Space wolves
Space marines
Chaos
Sisters
Orks
Incubi
Harlequins
Daemons

Over half of all the models GW makes are basically fantasy armies in space.

Also Cadians and Tau don’t fit the aesthetic of the universe as a whole. Those two armies should never have been made.

The fact that people think this is sci-fi or that people desire more armies like Tau says to me that GW have done a poor job relaying what exactly this universe is. A dark dystopian fantasy where swords and magic are indeed mightier than a gun.

What about admech then? They have some sword stuff but a lot more gun focused units.

Guys, have you noticed that Peregrine hasn't made a second post in his thread?

Mmmmmmaybe he's not that sincere. Just a thought.

I'd say because assault armies are an exercise in all or nothing frustration and have been for ages?

The beauty of Warhammer 40k is the mixture of a ton of inspirations from other genres, maybe you don't like everything about it, but it is hard to not have something that appelas to you. Trying to make it an all or nothing thing, and "Everything that doesnt fit my tastes doesn't belong in the universe" is the only wrong way to enjoy warhammer 40k. Be it saying tyranids don't belong because they are absurd and daemons don't belong because they don't have shooting, or Tau or imperial guard don't belong because they have a lack of meele.

Ad mech fits really well into the universe. They have a strong steam punk vibe. But mostly it’s because they represent the ignorance of the dark millennium.

They are the foremost creators of technology in the imperium. Where we look to logic and reason in the real world as motivators for technological advancement, they have literally done the opposite. They rely on myth and religious practices when operating on machinery. They aren’t permitted to advance technology beyond what is considered holy by the mechanicus overlords. They believe in and pray to machine gods.

They are the representation of how far humanity has fallen into the dark age of technology after the heresy. Where once there was science and reason, there is now only faith and ignorance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And you are correct Galas, everyone is free to like what they like. And I’m glad 40k draws on so much inspiration.

My point of contention is that I feel the play style of modern day 40k (aka: shooting) goes firmly against what I feel is the main focal point of the lore. I’m glad it’s there, I know some people prefer it, but I wish it was a supplementary play style to assault rather than the other way around.

 Octopoid wrote:
Guys, have you noticed that Peregrine hasn't made a second post in his thread?

Mmmmmmaybe he's not that sincere. Just a thought.

I can see where you're coming from there.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Ad mech fits really well into the universe. They have a strong steam punk vibe. But mostly it’s because they represent the ignorance of the dark millennium.

They are the foremost creators of technology in the imperium. Where we look to logic and reason in the real world as motivators for technological advancement, they have literally done the opposite. They rely on myth and religious practices when operating on machinery. They aren’t permitted to advance technology beyond what is considered holy by the mechanicus overlords. They believe in and pray to machine gods.

They are the representation of how far humanity has fallen into the dark age of technology after the heresy. Where once there was science and reason, there is now only faith and ignorance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And you are correct Galas, everyone is free to like what they like. And I’m glad 40k draws on so much inspiration.

My point of contention is that I feel the play style of modern day 40k (aka: shooting) goes firmly against what I feel is the main focal point of the lore. I’m glad it’s there, I know some people prefer it, but I wish it was a supplementary play style to assault rather than the other way around.

Cadians, or the imperial guard in general, also fit really well into the universe. They allow for a modern observer to place the horrors of the universe of 40k into a more understandable framework - the horrors of the various wars that humans have fought throughout history - amped up to 40k levels of absurdity and grimdarkness. The fact that the soldiers appear as something more familiar to an observer places the remembered terrors of the conflicts they're aping into the context of the unknown horrors of alien threats. This is why Aliens, Edge of Tomorrow, Starship Troopers and other such movies pitting recognizably equipped human soldiers against stranger alien adversaries are relatable.

Tau, if you ignore the surface level "Ew they look like anime make them go away" also fit for almost exactly the same reason that Eldar fit - they are a classically heroic and graceful race aesthetically pushed to greater and greater levels of atrocity and erosion of the ideals they held dear by an unforgiving and impossibly vast universe opposing them. It amazes me consistently that people complain about the Tau and don't level similar whining about the existence of Eldar - The complaints are inevitably extreme surface-level and at the same surface level you could make the very same complaints about Eldar...and many Imperial factions as well (see Custodes, blood angels, Ultramarines, Grey Knights).

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Sci-fi by definition requires all elements of the universe to be firmly rooted in reality, or plausible outcomes of the universe in which we reside.

For my part, here's what Wikipedia defines Science Fiction as:
"Science fiction (often shortened to sci-fi or SF) is a genre of speculative fiction, typically dealing with imaginative concepts such as advanced science and technology, spaceflight, time travel, and extraterrestrial life. "
Speculative: Check
Fiction: Check
Advanced science and technology: Check.
Spaceflight: Check
Timetravel: Check
Extraterrestrial life: Check

Or from OED:
"Fiction based on imagined future scientific or technological advances and major social or environmental changes, frequently portraying space or time travel and life on other planets"
Fiction: Check
Imagined: Check
Future: Check
Scientific/Technological Advances: Check
Major Social or Environmental Change: Check
Space or Time Travel: Check
Life on Other Planets: Check

40k looks like sci-fi to me.

I don’t have a problem with guard. Just the aesthetics of Cadians. I don’t think it fits, it’s far too modern.

The same is true for Tau. Their background is at least interesting. I have a strong aversion to their aesthetic and play style. If they’d gone full on samurai in space with giant katana wielding mechs, then I’m all for it. The main problem with Tau is that they are a completely one dimensional army. They only shoot in a game where there really should be a mix of everything. Tau forces you to create a Gunline or mobile shooting line simply for the fact that if you don’t do that, you can’t win. This makes for very boring games, and I think it was a mistake on the part of GW to introduce an army with such complete lack of options.

I don’t understand your last point about Eldar being like Tau, could you expand on your point? Are you just speaking aesthetic wise?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The world of science fiction and fantasy is rich and varied. Often lumped together under the catchall term "speculative fiction," these two distinct genres encompass a number of sub-genres. Many who don't read sf/f are unaware that the two though close kin are very different. Isaac Asimov, once asked to explain the difference between science fiction and fantasy, replied that science fiction, given its grounding in science, is possible; fantasy, which has no grounding in reality, is not.


Sounds like Fantasy to me...

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I don’t have a problem with guard. Just the aesthetics of Cadians. I don’t think it fits, it’s far too modern.

The same is true for Tau. Their background is at least interesting. I have a strong aversion to their aesthetic and play style. If they’d gone full on samurai in space with giant katana wielding mechs, then I’m all for it. The main problem with Tau is that they are a completely one dimensional army. They only shoot in a game where there really should be a mix of everything. Tau forces you to create a Gunline or mobile shooting line simply for the fact that if you don’t do that, you can’t win. This makes for very boring games, and I think it was a mistake on the part of GW to introduce an army with such complete lack of options.

I don’t understand your last point about Eldar being like Tau, could you expand on your point? Are you just speaking aesthetic wise?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The world of science fiction and fantasy is rich and varied. Often lumped together under the catchall term "speculative fiction," these two distinct genres encompass a number of sub-genres. Many who don't read sf/f are unaware that the two though close kin are very different. Isaac Asimov, once asked to explain the difference between science fiction and fantasy, replied that science fiction, given its grounding in science, is possible; fantasy, which has no grounding in reality, is not.


Sounds like Fantasy to me...

So you're saying things like Star Wars and Star Trek are fantasy, not science-fiction (ironically they fail more metrics than 40k even by my definition), that anything with FTL in it (including Asimov's own work), is fantasy (since we know that's not possible)?

Have you ever considered that you may be taking him too literally? Or even misquoting him entirely?

Star Wars absolutely is fantasy in space. It’s actually completely based on an old Akira Kurasawa movie called the hidden fortress. It’s actually a combination samurai/western. Hence why Vader looks like a samurai, why they wield swords and why Obi Wan is a Japanese sounding name, because the actor he originally intend for the roll was a Japanese actor and protege of Akira Kurasawa. He also stars in the movie Rashomon.

Star Trek I have never seen or been interested in so I couldn’t tell you honestly if it’s one or the other. From my understanding, it’s intent is to be rooted in reality as far as the possibility of aliens and technology is concerned. Even if said technology or aliens could not exist in reality, the point was intended to be that way. But again, I’m unsure.

There are sci-fi elements to 40k, but those are secondary to the main genre which is fantasy horror.

It’s up to you if you want to stretch the definition of what is or isn’t sci-fi. But I’m saying unequivocally, 40k is fantasy.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Star Wars absolutely is fantasy in space. It’s actually completely based on an old Akira Kurasawa movie called the hidden fortress. It’s actually a combination samurai/western. Hence why Vader looks like a samurai, why they wield swords and why Obi Wan is a Japanese sounding name, because the actor he originally intend for the roll was a Japanese actor and protege of Akira Kurasawa. He also stars in the movie Rashomon.

Star Trek I have never seen or been interested in so I couldn’t tell you honestly if it’s one or the other. From my understanding, it’s intent is to be rooted in reality as far as the possibility of aliens and technology is concerned. Even if said technology or aliens could not exist in reality, the point was intended to be that way. But again, I’m unsure.

There are sci-fi elements to 40k, but those are secondary to the main genre which is fantasy horror.

It’s up to you if you want to stretch the definition of what is or isn’t sci-fi. But I’m saying unequivocally, 40k is fantasy.

And I'm saying unequivocally that 40k is more than just fantasy, nor should it try to stoop to the level of mere fantasy.

Guns and tanks and artillery are neat, and shouldn't be removed from the game simply because your definition of science fiction is so narrow as to exclude everything except 2001: A Space Odyssey.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Star Wars absolutely is fantasy in space. It’s actually completely based on an old Akira Kurasawa movie called the hidden fortress. It’s actually a combination samurai/western. Hence why Vader looks like a samurai, why they wield swords and why Obi Wan is a Japanese sounding name, because the actor he originally intend for the roll was a Japanese actor and protege of Akira Kurasawa. He also stars in the movie Rashomon.

Star Trek I have never seen or been interested in so I couldn’t tell you honestly if it’s one or the other. From my understanding, it’s intent is to be rooted in reality as far as the possibility of aliens and technology is concerned. Even if said technology or aliens could not exist in reality, the point was intended to be that way. But again, I’m unsure.

There are sci-fi elements to 40k, but those are secondary to the main genre which is fantasy horror.

It’s up to you if you want to stretch the definition of what is or isn’t sci-fi. But I’m saying unequivocally, 40k is fantasy.

And I'm saying unequivocally that 40k is more than just fantasy, nor should it try to stoop to the level of mere fantasy.

Guns and tanks and artillery are neat, and shouldn't be removed from the game simply because your definition of science fiction is so narrow as to exclude everything except 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Speaking from a literary sense, 40k is strictly a classic Sci-fi story. Just as Fantasy isn't define by whether or nor a sword is present, neither is sci-fi. Sci-fi is defined by asking a core question about humanity and (sometimes) posing answers. Fantasy is about the growth of an individual(s) as they overcome a challenge. Giving Samwise Gangee a pistol doesn't make LOTR a sci-fi story any more than putting horses in Star Trek would make it a fantasy. 40k is largely a story about how humanity deals with the failure of great empires. The barbarians are at the gates, no one knows how to reclaim the lost glory, and even the most heroic efforts are only buying time until the end.


Alright, soapbox aside, back to the original question:

Have you never admired the moment in the movie where the stalwart line of riflemen picks up their guns and says 'We will draw the line here. We will hold and not retreat one step further. We kill them all or die in the attempt'

Then the invetible evil horde comes and the shooting starst and you wait to see if the line will hold or be overwhelmed.

Most GW factions are based on a kind of 'epic scene' idea and gunline factions are no different. It's about laying down disciplined firepower and knowing that one wrong mistake in fire lanes or target priority will case the entire line to break at a crucial point.

Good post, ChargerIIC.

Any time someone posts the "Why would you play a gunline?" question, we should post that scene from Starship Troopers where the Roughnecks have to hold the outpost against the Bugs while calling in evac.

Guns and tanks and artillery are neat, and shouldn't be removed from the game simply because your definition of science fiction is so narrow as to exclude everything except 2001: A Space Odyssey.

I never said they should be. Just because my definition of sci-fi is in keeping with its actual definition.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

Guns and tanks and artillery are neat, and shouldn't be removed from the game simply because your definition of science fiction is so narrow as to exclude everything except 2001: A Space Odyssey.

I never said they should be. Just because my definition of sci-fi is in keeping with its actual definition.

Can you cite an actual dictionary (you know, the places where we get "actual" definitions) that agrees that Warhammer 40k is in no sense science fiction?

And yes you did. You said "Cadians" don't fit the aesthetic. Either you only meant three boxes of infantry (because those are the only "cadians"), or you meant "the way Imperial Guard is now" which includes their tanks and artillery.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science%20fiction

Also, Star Wars was influenced by many sources, like the Lensmen series. You can tell by the aliens not present in Korusawa's historical drama.

 ChargerIIC wrote:
It's about laying down disciplined firepower and knowing that one wrong mistake in fire lanes or target priority will case the entire line to break at a crucial point.

I think much of the hatred of gunlines is that it doesn't really feel like this at all.
Playing a gunline isn't stressful. Its just the application of advantageous probability.

Tyel wrote:

 ChargerIIC wrote:
It's about laying down disciplined firepower and knowing that one wrong mistake in fire lanes or target priority will case the entire line to break at a crucial point.

I think much of the hatred of gunlines is that it doesn't really feel like this at all.
Playing a gunline isn't stressful. Its just the application of advantageous probability.

From a purely win-not-win binary lens, yes.

From a narrative lens, the "application of advantageous priority" has no meaning, really, because what a gunline is in the narrative has very little to do with advantage/disadvantage (unless you mean to imply a commander who says "my men shall have guns and dig trenches, and that shall give them an advantage over the opponent!", but that's a narrative given.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Skaorn wrote:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science%20fiction

Also, Star Wars was influenced by many sources, like the Lensmen series. You can tell by the aliens not present in Korusawa's historical drama.

Thanks for yet another definition on the pile of "reasons 40k is sci-fi"

Tyel wrote:

 ChargerIIC wrote:
It's about laying down disciplined firepower and knowing that one wrong mistake in fire lanes or target priority will case the entire line to break at a crucial point.

I think much of the hatred of gunlines is that it doesn't really feel like this at all.
Playing a gunline isn't stressful. Its just the application of advantageous probability.

Than what you want is an adjustment of some rules, not a banning of an entire playstyle or the public shaming of the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Skaorn wrote:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science%20fiction

For our link-hating friends:

Definition of science fiction
: fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an essential orienting component

40k is Science Fiction under these definition. Star Wars is not.

We might need to spin off a separate thread about this.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

I never said they should be. Just because my definition of sci-fi is in keeping with its actual definition.

This guy gets it.

And I'm laughing my ass off at the thought of basing an argument around what science fiction is based off of a wikipedia definition, while totally disregarding pioneering work by the authors that literally created the genre.

Science Fiction is generally rooted in an extension of reality. Magic has absolutely NO place in a true science fiction universe because it is not theoretically possible.

Star Trek IS science fiction. They go out of their way to justify a lot of the rules they bend using science, even if it is hand waving. And a good science fiction universe is consistent within itself. Consider Inertial Dampeners in Star Trek. Without these, when a ship accelerates to Warp X from rest, everyone on board the ship would be killed. Also, Gene Rodenberry created the Federation and Star Trek with the thought of humanity reaching its ideal, not an alternate reality where magic enables FTL.

In short I 100% agree that Warhammer 40k is fantasy in space.

And consider the Dune series by Frank Herbert. This is a very robust science fiction universe which is focused entirely on melee combat, because defensive technology has largely invalidated weaponry (or comes with significant consequences, like firing a lasgun - not your BS 40k definition of a lasgun - into a shield causing feedback which would explode the lasgun in a nuclear blast). Frank Herbert goes through great lengths to discuss how greater-than-human feats are possible, by humans essentially breeding themselves into higher capabilities.

So yeah, just being science fiction - which 40k isn't - wouldn't automatically mean "guns > swords."

 Marmatag wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

I never said they should be. Just because my definition of sci-fi is in keeping with its actual definition.

This guy gets it.

And I'm laughing my ass off at the thought of basing an argument around what science fiction is based off of a wikipedia definition, while totally disregarding pioneering work by the authors that literally created the genre.

Science Fiction is generally rooted in an extension of reality. Magic has absolutely NO place in a true science fiction universe because it is not theoretically possible.

Star Trek IS science fiction. They go out of their way to justify a lot of the rules they bend using science, even if it is hand waving. And a good science fiction universe is consistent within itself. Consider Inertial Dampeners in Star Trek. Without these, when a ship accelerates to Warp X from rest, everyone on board the ship would be killed. Also, Gene Rodenberry created the Federation and Star Trek with the thought of humanity reaching its ideal, not an alternate reality where magic enables FTL.

In short I 100% agree that Warhammer 40k is fantasy in space.

And consider the Dune series by Frank Herbert. This is a very robust science fiction universe which is focused entirely on melee combat, because defensive technology has largely invalidated weaponry (or comes with significant consequences, like firing a lasgun - not your BS 40k definition of a lasgun - into a shield causing feedback which would explode the lasgun in a nuclear blast). Frank Herbert goes through great lengths to discuss how greater-than-human feats are possible, by humans essentially breeding themselves into higher capabilities.

So yeah, just being science fiction - which 40k isn't - wouldn't automatically mean "guns > swords."

MFW people use a paraphrased uncited quotation from an author as the definition of a word that excludes his own work in the genre, and then progress to make a bunch of excuses why said definition wouldn't exclude his and similar works because they realize their cognitive dissonance.

"Why does anyone want to have a gunline army?"

I hate playing gunlines, even with large collections I always bring assault oriented lists. Shooting is important but I can't play with 3+ units, not counting the characters, that are purely assault oriented.

That's why I hated index drukhari, which were basically a gunline and now they have plenty of options for melee units.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

I never said they should be. Just because my definition of sci-fi is in keeping with its actual definition.

This guy gets it.

And I'm laughing my ass off at the thought of basing an argument around what science fiction is based off of a wikipedia definition, while totally disregarding pioneering work by the authors that literally created the genre.

Science Fiction is generally rooted in an extension of reality. Magic has absolutely NO place in a true science fiction universe because it is not theoretically possible.

Star Trek IS science fiction. They go out of their way to justify a lot of the rules they bend using science, even if it is hand waving. And a good science fiction universe is consistent within itself. Consider Inertial Dampeners in Star Trek. Without these, when a ship accelerates to Warp X from rest, everyone on board the ship would be killed. Also, Gene Rodenberry created the Federation and Star Trek with the thought of humanity reaching its ideal, not an alternate reality where magic enables FTL.

In short I 100% agree that Warhammer 40k is fantasy in space.

And consider the Dune series by Frank Herbert. This is a very robust science fiction universe which is focused entirely on melee combat, because defensive technology has largely invalidated weaponry (or comes with significant consequences, like firing a lasgun - not your BS 40k definition of a lasgun - into a shield causing feedback which would explode the lasgun in a nuclear blast). Frank Herbert goes through great lengths to discuss how greater-than-human feats are possible, by humans essentially breeding themselves into higher capabilities.

So yeah, just being science fiction - which 40k isn't - wouldn't automatically mean "guns > swords."

MFW people use a paraphrased uncited quotation from an author as the definition of a word that excludes his own work in the genre, and then progress to make a bunch of excuses why said definition wouldn't exclude his and similar works because they realize their cognitive dissonance.

Yeah, break out your books and give a full academic citation when discussing something on the internet

I would love to see you frame a paper on "what is science fiction" based purely on a wikipedia definition. Make sure to start from the biased stance that melee weapons have no place in science fiction. You'll need to address Dune, of course, but i'm sure there's a wikipedia entry for that.



Not trying to pick on you, just remarking here that there are numerous real examples to support it... and basing an argument on wikipedia and a starting bias isn't really a great stance. I like you, so, not trying to be mean.

I provided a link to Merriam-Webster, not Wikipedia, if you prefer that. I can't copy and paste the definition on my tablet but ChargeIIC was kind enough to do it.

I also provided a citation, in exactly the same post, from the Oxford English Dictionary, in recognition of the fact that some people are unreasonably hostile towards Wikipedia.

40k met that definition as well. But sure, I guess finishing reading my post would be harder than nitpicking the beginning.

Skaorn wrote:
I provided a link to Merriam-Webster, not Wikipedia, if you prefer that. I can't copy and paste the definition on my tablet but ChargeIIC was kind enough to do it.

You guys do realize that the discussion of what is, and is not, science fiction, falls outside the realm of being easily handled by 5 seconds on Google right? Like we're all aware google exists, but the topic is bigger than that.

 Marmatag wrote:

Skaorn wrote:
I provided a link to Merriam-Webster, not Wikipedia, if you prefer that. I can't copy and paste the definition on my tablet but ChargeIIC was kind enough to do it.

You guys do realize that the discussion of what is, and is not, science fiction, falls outside the realm of being easily handled by 5 seconds on Google right? Like we're all aware google exists, but the topic is bigger than that.

... which is the point.

His argument was "40k is not sci fi". I was trying to illustrate that saying "40k is not sci-fi" is a silly assertion, because that discussion isn't nearly as clear-cut as he made it out to be.

so thanks, I guess, for agreeing

the_scotsman wrote:

Tau, if you ignore the surface level "Ew they look like anime make them go away" also fit for almost exactly the same reason that Eldar fit - they are a classically heroic and graceful race aesthetically pushed to greater and greater levels of atrocity and erosion of the ideals they held dear by an unforgiving and impossibly vast universe opposing them. It amazes me consistently that people complain about the Tau and don't level similar whining about the existence of Eldar - The complaints are inevitably extreme surface-level and at the same surface level you could make the very same complaints about Eldar...and many Imperial factions as well (see Custodes, blood angels, Ultramarines, Grey Knights).

While I don't personally hold anything against the Tau, Eldar do fit really well into the classical interpretations of the Universe. Eldar have never been portrayed as classically heroic or sacrificing their ideals. They are first and foremost self serving and arrogant pricks. While the Tau have been known to offer mercy or allow colonies to join the greater good, the Eldar almost exclusively opt for genocide. Its not like the Eldar have not had any "noble" ideals since at least Warhammer 20K. The Eldar became so depraved they gave birth to a chaos god. The Craftworlds that escaped are arrogant genocidal militants, the Eldar who survived are depraved raiders.

Eldar also have traditionally had an appearance in all stages of the game, including close combat and especially the psychic phase. Tau have traditionally been solely present in the movement phase and the shooting phase and forgoing the psychic and melee phase.

Its more of a taste thing, but when people are saying the setting is "fantasy in space" magic prick space elves are a natural fit. That said, I agree with other posters that armies like Imperial Guard and to some extent Tau bring a feeling of relatability to the universe, relying on fire arms to fend off the great space mutants of the 40th millennia. What people don't like, is these armies typically don't feel like they are "struggling to fend off a strong fast foe" but rather the feeling of "struggling" is placed on the player using the genetically engineered super soldiers or brutish aliens like Orks. This is the opposite feeling that we should expect to find in a game like 40k.

In any case, there are numerous science fiction universes wherein melee > shooting, despite advanced weaponry. Whether or not 40k is science fiction or fantasy, I don't think you can claim that this is a shooting game purely because it falls into a specific genre.

Because the impotent tears of people like you who think they know how the game should be played are like sweet sweet mana.

Besides you take one look at the main rules and scenery rules, then look at 90% of the codexs and it becomes obvious that logically speaking shooting is king. That's not to say that is the only way but at 1st glance it is what jumps out.

Besides I currently play admech and Tau so you know it's kinda expected.

I love it when people try to limit genres. It's why we end up with so many Tolkien clones in fantasy.

Science Fiction can cover a wide range of from seemingly plausible to fantastic. You say 40K is fantasy but Dune isn't because some people get psychics from sand worm poop instead of tapping energy from another dimension. What about Star Trek TOS with all the god-like beings they encounter that could do practically anything. Hienlens 6th column centered around a group of scientists who created a device that could rearrange matter as they saw fit. In B5 Leta Alexander was modified by Vorlons to be the psychic equivalent of a doomsday weapon.

In most of these cases we aren't given a hard scientific glimpse at how these powers work and are often left with "they're advanced". This could easily be replaced with "because magic" for any of them. Why does Battletech focus around impractical giant robot fights? Because the designers thought giant robots were cool. Why does a laser cause the gun and a personal shield both to explode when they interact? Because Frank Herbert needed an excuse to have people in the far future to mostly just stab each other. Why are most units in 40K armed with rifles instead of swords? Because the designers wanted shooting to play a major role.

It's cool not liking something. I hate Chaos Daemons because they were pulled from my army so GW could directly port in a fantasy army. I started with Tau in 3rd because I really liked the sci-fi style and more modern approach to warfare. Just because I like Tau for their style and dislike Daemons, does that mean Daemons should be changed? Not at all.

Remember the Charge of the Light Brigade? A bunch of elite soldiers got wiped out by some new military toys. The cavalry charge tactic died that day with those men, and never happened again.

But that is RL, and we play a game. There are many ways to fix the game you are playing with your opponent so that various factors become more valuable to obtaining a win, don't want to play a gunline? Build a scenario that is house to house and CC will be king.

Unless your in a competition, both players should understand that going too OP is not fun for the opposition, A game that hangs on a knife edge in turn 4 is more fun for all than a 2 turn tabling.

So, the moral of my story is, speak to who you are playing, if they don't understand that what they are doing is crushing your will to play then you need to find people who do.

Then again, there is the other interpretation.. don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

I never said they should be. Just because my definition of sci-fi is in keeping with its actual definition.

This guy gets it.

And I'm laughing my ass off at the thought of basing an argument around what science fiction is based off of a wikipedia definition, while totally disregarding pioneering work by the authors that literally created the genre.

Science Fiction is generally rooted in an extension of reality. Magic has absolutely NO place in a true science fiction universe because it is not theoretically possible.

Star Trek IS science fiction. They go out of their way to justify a lot of the rules they bend using science, even if it is hand waving. And a good science fiction universe is consistent within itself. Consider Inertial Dampeners in Star Trek. Without these, when a ship accelerates to Warp X from rest, everyone on board the ship would be killed. Also, Gene Rodenberry created the Federation and Star Trek with the thought of humanity reaching its ideal, not an alternate reality where magic enables FTL.

In short I 100% agree that Warhammer 40k is fantasy in space.

And consider the Dune series by Frank Herbert. This is a very robust science fiction universe which is focused entirely on melee combat, because defensive technology has largely invalidated weaponry (or comes with significant consequences, like firing a lasgun - not your BS 40k definition of a lasgun - into a shield causing feedback which would explode the lasgun in a nuclear blast). Frank Herbert goes through great lengths to discuss how greater-than-human feats are possible, by humans essentially breeding themselves into higher capabilities.

So yeah, just being science fiction - which 40k isn't - wouldn't automatically mean "guns > swords."

You would be so pissed off at early 1900s-late1800s science fiction. They are amongst the oldest pieces of science fiction and often have magic and swords in them.

Skaorn wrote:
I love it when people try to limit genres. It's why we end up with so many Tolkien clones in fantasy.

Science Fiction can cover a wide range of from seemingly plausible to fantastic. You say 40K is fantasy but Dune isn't because some people get psychics from sand worm poop instead of tapping energy from another dimension. What about Star Trek TOS with all the god-like beings they encounter that could do practically anything. Hienlens 6th column centered around a group of scientists who created a device that could rearrange matter as they saw fit. In B5 Leta Alexander was modified by Vorlons to be the psychic equivalent of a doomsday weapon.

In most of these cases we aren't given a hard scientific glimpse at how these powers work and are often left with "they're advanced". This could easily be replaced with "because magic" for any of them. Why does Battletech focus around impractical giant robot fights? Because the designers thought giant robots were cool. Why does a laser cause the gun and a personal shield both to explode when they interact? Because Frank Herbert needed an excuse to have people in the far future to mostly just stab each other. Why are most units in 40K armed with rifles instead of swords? Because the designers wanted shooting to play a major role.

It's cool not liking something. I hate Chaos Daemons because they were pulled from my army so GW could directly port in a fantasy army. I started with Tau in 3rd because I really liked the sci-fi style and more modern approach to warfare. Just because I like Tau for their style and dislike Daemons, does that mean Daemons should be changed? Not at all.

This guy gets it. I'd suggest TVTropes' "Mohs Scale of Science Fiction Hardness " (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MohsScaleOfScienceFictionHardness). 40K is listed under the first category "Science in Genre Only".
But that's still scifi. It shares it's ranking with Star Trek, Star Wars, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and Futurama.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gkos wrote:
Remember the Charge of the Light Brigade? A bunch of elite soldiers got wiped out by some new military toys. The cavalry charge tactic died that day with those men, and never happened again.

Just being pedantic, but there were successful cavalry charges in WWII (The Polish Cavalry is why we never see a German Cavarly, and the Italians were successful with saber charges on the eastern front), and as recent as 2007 (Afghanistan, Northern Alliance horsemen with AT rockets and AK's with US Spec Ops with laser targeters charged entrenched T-55's and won).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ChargerIIC wrote:


You would be so pissed off at early 1900s-late1800s science fiction. They are amongst the oldest pieces of science fiction and often have magic and swords in them.

Like the John Carter series?

I think gunlines can be fun and thematic.

Good lord. Anyone who thinks 40k isn't fantasy in space is either being wilfully ignorant or is just thick as two short planks.

Which one is it?

 Grimtuff wrote:
Good lord. Anyone who thinks 40k isn't fantasy in space is either being wilfully ignorant or is just thick as two short planks.

Which one is it?

So how does that not make it science fiction

Of course 40k isn't sci-fi

its way more serious than that

Because they have almost no terrain in their collection to block LOS.

Or because they think that a far future tabletop wargame is about shooting people dead from far away, not stabbing them with knives or getting in their face with shotguns.

 John Prins wrote:
Because they have almost no terrain in their collection to block LOS.

Or because they think that a far future tabletop wargame is about shooting people dead from far away, not stabbing them with knives or getting in their face with shotguns.

Or they have a stack of terrain, but its all GW and doesn't block LoS to anything but the occasional single model

This is some purely ignorant gak right here. Some people just like it, I dont understand whats so hard to understand...

Dakka is just more fun than I remembered.

Even the troll poll that started this whole thread is funny in its own way if you have a sense of humor...not useful, just funny.

The answer to the troll question is simple...people should play what they want to play and who am I to interfere with your fun. Just don't expect me to enjoy trying to move my army across an empty field while you use it for target practice with impunity.

Of course 40k is now a shooting game, especially after the last FAQ, and gunlines in all their variety and glory have a distinct edge.

I don't know if 40k is fantasy or sci-fi, but my definition of HORROR might be charging across a broken field at a horde of shooters with weaponry capable of turning me into a crispy critter. Take that for what it's worth.

The last time I played 40k seriously was with SWs with Preds, Dreads and a serious rhino rush of blood claws and grey hunters. So take what I write in stride.

I can understand the attraction for a castling gunline army I suppose, but for the sake of variety and balance some things in 40k probably need to change. And this is mostly because of the fantasy aspect of the game, not just the wishful thinking of an old WHF player.

My answer to the OP's question is...I don't. I may. I have a beautifully painted RG model I haven't even used yet. But I seem to be stuck in those earlier days and want my Ultramarines to be versatile and GOOD, not just meat shields for a gunline.

Based on the choices for the poll it shows me you're just salty and mad that some people like to.play the game differently, maybe grow up and adapt and overcome? Some armies can only effectively play that way and not everyone does it for the ignorant reasons that you posted as poll options

So, it seems this thread has run its course...mods?

The image of a gunline (or something approaching it) vs a more numerous and short-range foe is.. about as iconic as you can get in storytelling.

Aliens.

Lotr (the sieges).

The Alamo.

Historical sieges beyond counting.

A well armed but heavily outnumbered force hunkering down in a fortified position, murdering a charging foe from ranged before being forced into brutal hand to hand combat, is pretty classical so far as things get.

The gunline aspect of 40k very much appeals to this, and several armies (Guard, Tau, honestly even marines at times) have numerous lore examples of such situations and tactics. Gunlining feeds into a very ingrained, very standardized, very basic concept of heroic defenders vs mindless hordes.. And / or civilizing the savages through firepower.

In 40k, gunling should be as viable as melee. While melee is historically a later-game thing due to having to 'come to grips' with the foe, gunlines are more early game. Their power spike is in the first few turns and they need to cripple their close-range enemies then, or else meet a brutal and bloody end on the edge of a sword.

As someone who's made something of a gunline army in the past (it still advanced and took territory, but didn't like melee and kept most of the 'big guns' in the same spot) and also entirely melee focused armies, I can see why it appeals. There's nothing inherently wrong with it, and it makes perfect sense for some 40k armies to revolve around shooting through foes into the dirt rather than chopping them to pieces.

The problem with gunlines is that.. people tend to be lazy with tables. You absolutely need LoS blocking terrain, and cover, to make them fair. Gunlines on wide open tables with miniscule amounts of blocking terrain - especially nothing close which lets enemies 'sneak up on them' are boring as gak.

You forgot one option in the pool:
"* Because it's easy and I'm lazy."

What I don't understand is why the high damage melee things cost so many points. As in, the only things I've seen that put out real damage (lascannon) in melee cost 300+points. Why can't a regular chaos Lord gain access to some artifact weapon that does a significant amount of damage? Is that too much to ask?

 morganfreeman wrote:
The image of a gunline (or something approaching it) vs a more numerous and short-range foe is.. about as iconic as you can get in storytelling.

Aliens.

Lotr (the sieges).

The Alamo.

Historical sieges beyond counting.

The British army at the Battle of Rorke's Drift.

And the Ultramarines First Company when the Tyranid Hive Fleet attempted, unsuccessfully, to invade Macragge.

I play a gunline because it's fun watching Abaddon stomp Imperium armies. And it's fun watching hordes come apart trying to charge it.

It's fun for me, anyways.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
This sounds much less like a “serious question” and much more like an excuse to let the salt flow. This is why dakka has such a bad rep.

where does Dakka have a bad reputation?

[quote=SHUPPET 756177 9962753 0420dfac640419e1dd48e050ee0e6e96.jpg
where does Dakka have a bad reputation?

 SHUPPET wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
This sounds much less like a “serious question” and much more like an excuse to let the salt flow. This is why dakka has such a bad rep.

where does Dakka have a bad reputation?

The only other place of warhammer discussion I frequent is the two big warhammer subreddits. I've seen once a month a comment or two saying that dakka has a bad rep, occasionally on a subreddit with a known donkey-cave of a moderator.

There's no perfect spot on the internet for any fandom. I've always found Dakka to be perfectly acceptable.

*Edit* The donkey-cave mod on the warhammer sub is no longer a mod. Explains why the subreddit is now more pleasant.

 chimeara wrote:
What I don't understand is why the high damage melee things cost so many points. As in, the only things I've seen that put out real damage (lascannon) in melee cost 300+points. Why can't a regular chaos Lord gain access to some artifact weapon that does a significant amount of damage? Is that too much to ask?

Meele is deadlier than guns(In pure maths, then you need to considrr actually entering meele, etc...) . Specially for HQs and characters. Yeah, a thunder hammer cost nearily as much as a lasscannon and it is inferior. But a lasscannon is 1 shoot. A captain with a thundrr hammer has 4 or more swings.
Thats why tau commanders where so busted. They had the typical HQ damage output, but in range instead of meele.

^This big time. Plus melee has the ability to stop an opposing unit from shooting or recharging. It's high risk, high reward.

Gunlines take fewer risks, so they enjoy poularity among certain players.

For the most part I don't really play gunline. But for people who chose to play guard, a line of men with lasguns and some heavy weapons spread out across the line realises the idea of ordinary men with subpar weapons holding off waves of terrifying enemies and is quite fun. It's not something I chose to play every time I use my Guard, but it can be a fun thing. And it's not like this was never done before, then early 8th rolled around and suddenly people had the idea to put all of their guys in a big gunline. It's a game that has tanks and guns everywhere. So some people, shockingly enough use them... And if people are salty about armies that use shooting, go play a game that's purely catering to melee. 40k is what it is, there are armies that shoot well and do bad in assault, and armies that assault well and do poorly in shooting. Neither way is a guaranteed win button. If you play either you get pros and cons.

phydaux wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:
The image of a gunline (or something approaching it) vs a more numerous and short-range foe is.. about as iconic as you can get in storytelling.

Aliens.

Lotr (the sieges).

The Alamo.

Historical sieges beyond counting.

The British army at the Battle of Rorke's Drift.

And the Ultramarines First Company when the Tyranid Hive Fleet attempted, unsuccessfully, to invade Macragge.

To be honest, when it comes to miniatures wargaming, all of those sound more like a custom scenario rather than an army play style. In other miniatures wargaming systems, they are as well. The other VERY important feature missing from everyone of those historic engagements is the fact that the attacker out number the defender at least 10 to 1. So your examples are literally saying I want to play the game in such a way that historically my army is more than 10 times stronger than my opponent's (assuming each of you are playing even points). Which I will admit is a little dishonest in the disparity in strength. However, most other miniatures wargames usually for for a 2-3 to 1 out ratio when attempting siege breaking scenarios.

I have done the D-Day Landing, the Battle of Bunker (Breed's) Hill, portions of the Stalingrad invasion and numerous WWII Pacific island hopping Invasions (most notably Tarawa) in miniatures form. It really is folly to expect the attacker to have any chance if the two forces are 'even' under more typical matched strength scenarios. This doesn't mean I am against gunlines. I'm not. One of my friends really like gunline, castle-ing in miniatures wargaming (hence all of the above games I have done). I like trying to play siege breaking forces and don't mind playing besieged forces. However, without careful consideration of game scenario and the ratio of forces involved, it can quickly become an exercise in futility.

Now, I am not super familiar with 40K and even less so with all of the various scenarios just in the main rule book (let alone other sources). From what I have seen there is at least a few that require both sides to leave their deploy zone to win. I don't know how much yet. So right there is some leveling the field between a static gunline army and a more mobile force. I mention this as a way to say that I am not arguing that gunline armies are twice as OP as a non-gunline army. I just want to say that defenders (read: gunline) in battle traditionally have the advantage both in real world operations and most wargames. In both, the attacker usually adjusts (typically with greater force) or does not succeed.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

phydaux wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:
The image of a gunline (or something approaching it) vs a more numerous and short-range foe is.. about as iconic as you can get in storytelling.

Aliens.

Lotr (the sieges).

The Alamo.

Historical sieges beyond counting.

The British army at the Battle of Rorke's Drift.

And the Ultramarines First Company when the Tyranid Hive Fleet attempted, unsuccessfully, to invade Macragge.

To be honest, when it comes to miniatures wargaming, all of those sound more like a custom scenario rather than an army play style. In other miniatures wargaming systems, they are as well. The other VERY important feature missing from everyone of those historic engagements is the fact that the attacker out number the defender at least 10 to 1. So your examples are literally saying I want to play the game in such a way that historically my army is more than 10 times stronger than my opponent's (assuming each of you are playing even points). Which I will admit is a little dishonest in the disparity in strength. However, most other miniatures wargames usually for for a 2-3 to 1 out ratio when attempting siege breaking scenarios.

I have done the D-Day Landing, the Battle of Bunker (Breed's) Hill, portions of the Stalingrad invasion and numerous WWII Pacific island hopping Invasions (most notably Tarawa) in miniatures form. It really is folly to expect the attacker to have any chance if the two forces are 'even' under more typical matched strength scenarios. This doesn't mean I am against gunlines. I'm not. One of my friends really like gunline, castle-ing in miniatures wargaming (hence all of the above games I have done). I like trying to play siege breaking forces and don't mind playing besieged forces. However, without careful consideration of game scenario and the ratio of forces involved, it can quickly become an exercise in futility.

Now, I am not super familiar with 40K and even less so with all of the various scenarios just in the main rule book (let alone other sources). From what I have seen there is at least a few that require both sides to leave their deploy zone to win. I don't know how much yet. So right there is some leveling the field between a static gunline army and a more mobile force. I mention this as a way to say that I am not arguing that gunline armies are twice as OP as a non-gunline army. I just want to say that defenders (read: gunline) in battle traditionally have the advantage both in real world operations and most wargames. In both, the attacker usually adjusts (typically with greater force) or does not succeed.

You're taking this way too much at face value. So let's rattle through this.

1: I was talking about a particular feeling. Being the 'defenders' who try to put down the 'attackers' before they get on top of you is a classic arch type, and some people will inherently design an army to be more this style of play. Saying that this army is always the 'defender' is like saying that Orcs and Tyranids (the savage hordes / aliens) are always the attacker. General 40k missions don't really work like that, but that doesn't mean you can't design your army to fit the arch type anyway.

2: Not only is there often times not a set attacker and defender, but points helps to level the playing field and keeps things 'fair' in a very broad strokes sense. Which leads me to my next point...

3: A huge amount of "defender's advantage" - be it historical, story, or even game (RTS / custom scenarios) - comes down to terrain. Defenders situated in a heavily fortified complex / a natural choke / the high ground with a commanding view / any combination there of get a huge advantage in actuality. These advantages do not translate all that well to 40k; a fair amount of assault armies don't care THAT much about a choke point because they have deep strike and infiltrate options, whilst some of their troops can jump walls through jet packs. I imagine the Alamo would've been a lot diferent of a Mawlock had burst from the ground in the center, or a squad of Stormboyz had rocketed over the wall and got to krumpin.

This point is long because I already touched on it; the table setup is super important. I mentioned in my own post that a large amount of the headache with 'gunline' armies is that a lot of people - and events - just don't play with sufficient terrain. A couple of area cover pieces and a solitary (MAYBE two) small to moderate sized LoS blocking pieces.. does not a good table make. ESPECIALLY when they're set in the center of said table. Just like how a literal maze of LoS blocking terrain would make gunlines garbage (Zone Mortalis), you can't refuse to lay down suitable amounts of terrain and then question why gunlines blow melee armies away.

 morganfreeman wrote:


You're taking this way too much at face value. So let's rattle through this.

1: I was talking about a particular feeling. Being the 'defenders' who try to put down the 'attackers' before they get on top of you is a classic arch type, and some people will inherently design an army to be more this style of play. Saying that this army is always the 'defender' is like saying that Orcs and Tyranids (the savage hordes / aliens) are always the attacker. General 40k missions don't really work like that, but that doesn't mean you can't design your army to fit the arch type anyway.

2: Not only is there often times not a set attacker and defender, but points helps to level the playing field and keeps things 'fair' in a very broad strokes sense. Which leads me to my next point...

3: A huge amount of "defender's advantage" - be it historical, story, or even game (RTS / custom scenarios) - comes down to terrain. Defenders situated in a heavily fortified complex / a natural choke / the high ground with a commanding view / any combination there of get a huge advantage in actuality. These advantages do not translate all that well to 40k; a fair amount of assault armies don't care THAT much about a choke point because they have deep strike and infiltrate options, whilst some of their troops can jump walls through jet packs. I imagine the Alamo would've been a lot diferent of a Mawlock had burst from the ground in the center, or a squad of Stormboyz had rocketed over the wall and got to krumpin.

This point is long because I already touched on it; the table setup is super important. I mentioned in my own post that a large amount of the headache with 'gunline' armies is that a lot of people - and events - just don't play with sufficient terrain. A couple of area cover pieces and a solitary (MAYBE two) small to moderate sized LoS blocking pieces.. does not a good table make. ESPECIALLY when they're set in the center of said table. Just like how a literal maze of LoS blocking terrain would make gunlines garbage (Zone Mortalis), you can't refuse to lay down suitable amounts of terrain and then question why gunlines blow melee armies away.

Then why is every instance you mention literally attacker vs. defender scenarios most of which are specifically sieges? If you are saying you want you gunline army invoke the feeling of those engagements then you want to play the defender and should play custom games to invoke them. None of those engagements you mention works out in open battle or attempting to gain ground. They only work as what they are. I am quite aware that 40K is not only attacker vs. defender scenarios. That is why I am questioning your choice of engagements which are ALL attacker vs. defender scenarios. As I mentioned, an even number of points between armies will automatically give the defender the advantage because it much more difficult to shift an enemy that it is to hunker down.

I listed a great number of historical attacker vs. defender scenarios that I have actually gamed with miniatures. Do you not think I don't know how much terrain is a factor in why the defender is so hard to break? If you already have your fighting positions ready and the enemy has to come to you then the enemy is at disadvantage. Which is exactly what a static gunline army exploits and why most real-world commanders won't attempt an attack with less than 3:1 odds in their favor. I am well aware of the special mechanics in 40K that allow units to avoid traversing no man's land to undermine the strength of the gunline and fortified position. However, the last FAQ has weakened that mechanic and that is where the argument comes in. Some players believe that deep striking (and similar rules) have been nerfed to the point that assault/mobile armies are at a disadvantage to static ranged ones. Terrain is a way to reduce long ranged run line armies (save units that don't need to draw LOS and/or ignore cover). I don't have an opinion on it one way or another as I haven't really experienced it yet. I can see why some players believe this greatly weakens their army's chance against a gunline though.

I agree that terrain is very important. I think it has far more of an effect on the outcome of games that are using Power Level or Points to decide balance. Unless the game or scenarios (usually a historical battle) dictates the amount/placement of terrain, I favor placing a lot of it on the table. Mostly because it looks a lot better that nine or less pieces placed fairly evenly apart. It also makes the most fluff sense to me since armor and infantry are so closely packed together usually only happens in urban combat zones. However, not all players see that as the way to play and there is no easy way balance terrain out quantified way. Most tables I have seen usually do have far too little terrain on them especially with the weak terrain rules 8th edition has.

My main point is everything you mentioned is the kinda feel you want from you gunline army is a very particular type of combat engagement that probably would be best suited with a custom scenario rather than showing up with an army like that for a PUG with Marlon Rando. I don't mind those types of games if that is what is decided upon at the beginning and both players work toward setting up of be an interesting challenge of the immovable object vs. the unstoppable force. All which is more involved then showing up with 2,000 points and throwing down some (a lot) of terrain. I don't think you can invoke the same feeling of those engagements otherwise because a small group of defenders fighting off waves of attacker is really the only common thread they have.

Oh okay, no that it's been pointed out I totally get it lol. Melee has the ability to get busted easier.

Who wants to play a melee army with the new terrain levels assault rules? Free invul fields vs your army, that is just a broken rule

On the genre discussion:

Genre apllies to specific stories not settings.
Some 40k novels are very much fantasy (Ghost warrior, Crimson king) others very much Sci-fi (Magnus the red novella, A thousand sons). Also remember literary definitions are not hard science and sci-fi is a subset of the fantasy genre, albeit a very specific one.

The Hobbit and LotR whilst both set in middle-earth (tough the hobbit by soft retcon) are a very different kind of fantasy novels.

Whilst I myself do not like gunlines I understand why others might like them. Tough I do believe the game ,especially in its current state, does a poor job of representing the weaknesses of gunlines. Mostly their inherent lack of flexibility.

 Earth127 wrote:
Whilst I myself do not like gunlines I understand why others might like them. Tough I do believe the game ,especially in its current state, does a poor job of representing the weaknesses of gunlines. Mostly their inherent lack of flexibility.

That depends a lot on the mission. Some, like Maelstrom, I think, do hurt the "castle and shoot" playstyle quite badly. But people are afraid of Maelstrom, instead opting for playing tournament missions which guarantee your opponent knows where each objective is and the terrain layout before even writing their list, therefore making writing a "castle & shoot" list to play the mission and terrain is trivial.

If, instead, people bring pre-existing lists and objectives are placed before deployment is known, etc. you'll find that the inflexible gunline is actually in trouble compared to a mobile force (even if its a mobile gunline like my superheavy tanks).

 SHUPPET wrote:
Who wants to play a melee army with the new terrain levels assault rules? Free invul fields vs your army, that is just a broken rule

I have played several games since then, and I was one of the most vocal complainers about that ruling initially, but honestly..it's one of those things that's incredibly rarely feasible to do. You need to have units *exactly* the size of a ruin platform - any smaller, and there's room for attacking models to fit, any bigger and you'll have models on the ground floor that the attackers can charge. Additionally, only Infantry units and units with Fly can get up on upper levels in the first place due to a previously existing change, so that even further decreases the odds that the particular FAQ ruling will actually impact you. I'm primarily playing Dark Eldar, and with the change to Fly where charge moves ignore vertical distance, my assault feels stronger for that.

The other thing I found out to be really awesome in practice is the change to how cover is applied. Where previously a unit had to be "ENTIRELY on or within" a terrain piece to gain cover, that's changed to just "on or within" using the already established permissive definition of "within" being any part of the model (see the difference between ENTIRELY within 6" of an aura and within 6" of an aura, for instance). Where previously, hiding around or behind ruins basically never granted cover, you can now get on the base of a ruin and gain cover, which makes it a whole lot easier.

Huh, I am pretty sure that 'entire' was supposed to reference the entirety of the unit. ie each individual model of the unit has to be in cover for the unit as a whole to get cover saves.
And that did not change, right?

What you mean is the 'wholly within' phrase, but that was not part of the original cover rules either. So simply touching the cover should have been enough to be in cover.


Sadly Maelstorm mission allow the placement of objectives in the deplyoment zone, so any army is usually sitting on half of the objectives from turn 1 on.
But it does make games more agile.

HMint wrote:
Sadly Maelstorm mission allow the placement of objectives in the deplyoment zone, so any army is usually sitting on half of the objectives from turn 1 on.
But it does make games more agile.

Except that you place objectives before determining which deployment map to use or which zone is whose. So without even knowing which type of deployment is happening, it is impossible to put all the objectives in a single deployment zone, because you don't know if the deployment zone is going to be Hammer and Anvil-style long play, Dawn of War-style traditional 12"s, table quarters, Vanguard Strike-style diagonal deployment...

If players are forced to deploy objectives before they even know what style of deployment they will be using, you'll find it's much harder (i.e. entirely luck-based) to end up with fully half the objectives in one DZ. You're likely to have one, and lucky to have two. Anything else? Better march out of that castle.

English degree here. For the record, most academics classify science fiction as a subgenre of fantasy. I'm surprised how many arguments I see about whether something is sci-fi or fantasy. Technically, if it's sci-fi, it's both.

Because at 2k points, the board is flooded with units and there's no space for manuvering or picking your battles on a 6x4 board.

Because even my 1500pt list from 6th/7th had to add a tank and a bunch of other stuff to even make 1250pts in this edition.

Because people always want to play bigger and better.

I miss the smaller games. What was 1500 in 6th/7th felt way more natural for a board that size.

I wonder how the game would change if the size went back down.

Bharring wrote:
Because at 2k points, the board is flooded with units and there's no space for manuvering or picking your battles on a 6x4 board.

Because even my 1500pt list from 6th/7th had to add a tank and a bunch of other stuff to even make 1250pts in this edition.

Because people always want to play bigger and better.

I miss the smaller games. What was 1500 in 6th/7th felt way more natural for a board that size.

I wonder how the game would change if the size went back down.

Me too. Except it was longer ago that that. 1750 which climbed to 1850 was standard in 6th which eventually turned into 2k in 8th. The game lost something when the points got so high just because some wargamers hate having to choose and would rather be able to field max of EVERYTHING hot in their dex.