1. Units would have to roll 2d6 per 12" range of their weapon; added together to determine final shooting range. More elite units would get to re-roll (all) these dice. If all of their targets are out of range, the shooting attack fails.
2. Units would block line of sight to the models behind them, unless the firing model was able to draw an uninterrupted line that doesn't cross between two models in the same unit (representing not being able to pass through small enough gaps).
3. For each enemy unit that is targeted during the shooting phase, they may attempt "counter-fire"; following normal shooting rules, but only hitting on 6's.
[4. Something about enemy units being able to shoot back during the enemies turn, once actually engaged by the enemy... I don't think there's a good enough parallel; short of allowing the enemy unit to use it's melee attacks or something as a ranged "close combat" - to represent the lesser skilled models fighting back (ala unskilled models versus skilled models in a firefight).]
5. Units engaged in a firefight can't move, unless it is to fall back. Units falling back can't advance or shoot that round, unless possessing special skills.
6. Firefight ("ranged melee") continues between engaged units...

Funny how typing all that out sounds excessive - but it's what melee models must currently endure, just to reach and engage the enemy lines.

That said, there's an interesting concept of units getting engaged in "firefights"; essentially ranged version of close combat; it pins units in place, forcing them to duke it out round to round with other enemy units - and prevents the engaged units on both sides from being able to target other units, or move around until they decide to fall back first.

Maybe the sequence would be...
1. Player's units decides to shoot at # of targets.
2. # of targets attempt "Overwatch" with their ranged weapons, hitting on 6's.
3. Player's units shoot as normal.
4. After all Player's units have finished shooting, enemy units return fire (per normal rules).
5. Unless a unit falls back, units are considered "engaged", and will continue standard shooting (in alternating format), at the end of each round; ala standard close combat rules, albeit at range.

That all sounds really tedious and annoying.

pm713 wrote:
That all sounds really tedious and annoying.

...and yet, it's the sequence of what current close combat models must go through to fight the enemy.

Meanwhile, ranged units...

fe40k wrote:

pm713 wrote:
That all sounds really tedious and annoying.

...and yet, it's the sequence of what current close combat models must go through to fight the enemy.

Meanwhile, ranged units...

So... the solution to a bad system is to make it much worse?

Radical idea: Improve the combat system rather than ruining other parts of the game.

pm713 wrote:

fe40k wrote:

pm713 wrote:
That all sounds really tedious and annoying.

...and yet, it's the sequence of what current close combat models must go through to fight the enemy.

Meanwhile, ranged units...

So... the solution to a bad system is to make it much worse?

Radical idea: Improve the combat system rather than ruining other parts of the game.

My post wasn't about changing any systems. It was merely about highlighting how significant the gap between the ease of shooting, versus the hoops a melee unit most go through to accomplish the same end result.

That said, I amended the first post with a conceptual "ranged melee" system; basically the melee system, but at range! It's an interesting thought imo; it would allow ranged units to lock eachother down and duke it out, giving time for the melee models to move/position, then eventually engaged these suppressed targets.

Ummm...close combat is king right now. Harliquens - shining spears - rever jetbikes. All these things charge you turn 1 almost automatically and kill at least 1 important unit and tie up others. Plus they can all move out of combat and act as normal for a stratagem or just as a base ability.

If Ranged worked like Melee...

Some units would be able to shoot twice in one Shooting phase! That'd be stupid gak! (looks at Leman Russes and Fire Prisms..) oops.

Getting good-AP weapons that can swing on the move without needing 6s wouldn't be hard! (looks at half the changes in the last two editions....) oops.

Units would be unasailable if they successfully shot a unit that didn't die and couldn't fall back... Wait, that one does vary. If it's not Fly. Or UM. Or uses some stratagem.

If your post is a list of rules and a title then it's a fair assumption they're suggestions.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ummm...close combat is king right now. Harliquens - shining spears - rever jetbikes. All these things charge you turn 1 almost automatically and kill at least 1 important unit and tie up others. Plus they can all move out of combat and act as normal for a stratagem or just as a base ability.

Close combat is hardly king right now - and just because a handful of units can leap across the table turn 1, doesn't mean every unit can. The FAQ significantly slowed down melee armies, by not being able to deploy outside your deployment zone turn 1 (minus 1-2 units via special ability; Da Jump, etc.).

Meanwhile, a ranged army can bring all of their firepower to bear on turn 1, with no restrictions.

A ranged army can delete a significant chunk of an opponents army, P1T1, before their opponent has even had a chance to do anything.

Contrast this with the 1-2 units that may enter an enemies front line, only to ALSO have to roll charge distance, and hope they don't brick.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ummm...close combat is king right now. Harliquens - shining spears - rever jetbikes. All these things charge you turn 1 almost automatically and kill at least 1 important unit and tie up others. Plus they can all move out of combat and act as normal for a stratagem or just as a base ability.

Harlequins charge you turn 1 almost automatically?

Are you playing on a 12" wide board?

If ranged worked like melee:

I shoot your unit, and if a model or two survives the shooting attack and morale, your unit cannot act during its turn.

I can then do this for every unit until I run out of bullets.

The only time units fall back from melee is if the unit's owner positioned exceptionally well (outplaying the melee player) or the melee player forgot the myriad tactics for preventing fall-back from being possible.

Or they just brought a bunch of single-model melee units that can't surround enemy models.

fe40k wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ummm...close combat is king right now. Harliquens - shining spears - rever jetbikes. All these things charge you turn 1 almost automatically and kill at least 1 important unit and tie up others. Plus they can all move out of combat and act as normal for a stratagem or just as a base ability.

Close combat is hardly king right now - and just because a handful of units can leap across the table turn 1, doesn't mean every unit can. The FAQ significantly slowed down melee armies, by not being able to deploy outside your deployment zone turn 1 (minus 1-2 units via special ability; Da Jump, etc.).

Meanwhile, a ranged army can bring all of their firepower to bear on turn 1, with no restrictions.

A ranged army can delete a significant chunk of an opponents army, P1T1, before their opponent has even had a chance to do anything.

Contrast this with the 1-2 units that may enter an enemies front line, only to ALSO have to roll charge distance, and hope they don't brick.

Shooting is significantly nerfed with the prevalence of -1 and -2 to hit all over the place. It is becoming less and less reliable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ummm...close combat is king right now. Harliquens - shining spears - rever jetbikes. All these things charge you turn 1 almost automatically and kill at least 1 important unit and tie up others. Plus they can all move out of combat and act as normal for a stratagem or just as a base ability.

Harlequins charge you turn 1 almost automatically?

Are you playing on a 12" wide board?

No I think I'm playing on a board where a 22 inch move is enough to charge turn 1. AKA - every deployment setup in the game.

This doesn't even factor in things like...double moves and deployments that start 18" apart

Post big-FAQ i'd say this game is in a pretty bad place. Shooting was always stronger than melee, which is fine, one of them has to be stronger, but the separation now is pretty intense.

If shooting were to be toned down so that transports could be viable, that might help the situation, although melee armies without access to transports (Orks, Tyranids) would struggle.

I'm in the process of restructuring my Tyranid list to have 18 Hive Guards and a bunch of Carnifex, using my gaunts purely as screens. Is this the game we wall want to play? Line up, shoot, and be done with it? Because that's where it's going.

pm713 wrote:
If your post is a list of rules and a title then it's a fair assumption they're suggestions.

Dude, anyone could see he was making a point and not actually suggesting new rules.

fe40k wrote:

pm713 wrote:

fe40k wrote:

pm713 wrote:
That all sounds really tedious and annoying.

...and yet, it's the sequence of what current close combat models must go through to fight the enemy.

Meanwhile, ranged units...

So... the solution to a bad system is to make it much worse?

Radical idea: Improve the combat system rather than ruining other parts of the game.

My post wasn't about changing any systems. It was merely about highlighting how significant the gap between the ease of shooting, versus the hoops a melee unit most go through to accomplish the same end result.

That said, I amended the first post with a conceptual "ranged melee" system; basically the melee system, but at range! It's an interesting thought imo; it would allow ranged units to lock eachother down and duke it out, giving time for the melee models to move/position, then eventually engaged these suppressed targets.

It's almost as if pointing a gun at someone and shooting them is a far simpler and more efficient solution than running across an active combat zone braving enemy fire to hit someone with an overengineered chainsaw. Crazy, I know.

For a constructive comment, systems like bolt action have really fun shooting mechanics that involve "pinning", where you can pin even the most fanatical of troops down by just hammering them with fire. Even if you don't kill them they become unable to move or fire back. You can also do ambush actions and set units up so they fire when an enemy unit moves in front of them.

Did some quick dice rolls with 500 dice on a traditional battle. Orks vs IG. 1k points of normal cadian guardsmen vs 1k pure ork boyz. Really depends on turn 1. If cadian gets turn 1 then they delite almost exsactly 50% of ork boyz. If go first and get a first turn charge then they probably win as well but depends on if they get there.

 lolman1c wrote:

pm713 wrote:
If your post is a list of rules and a title then it's a fair assumption they're suggestions.

Dude, anyone could see he was making a point and not actually suggesting new rules.

The post was a list of changes titled if shooting worked the same way close combat did. It sounds a lot like a suggestion and it's not uncommon for people to use the wrong sub forum here.

In some long ago editions, the balance came through the amount of destruction you could do in melee. Sweeping advance existed and most of the high strength low AP weapons in the game were melee. Now we have multi-shot high strength high damage shooting weapons all over the place, and melee’s unique advantages have largely been removed.

Melee combat should be harder to accomplish in a science fiction setting, filled with guns. It should be a high risk, high reward proposition and generally is. If you're electing to buy and build an army which doesn't shoot - that's on you. You're making a decision to do that. You should be prepared for the difficulties that comes with.

 lolman1c wrote:
Did some quick dice rolls with 500 dice on a traditional battle. Orks vs IG. 1k points of normal cadian guardsmen vs 1k pure ork boyz. Really depends on turn 1. If cadian gets turn 1 then they delite almost exsactly 50% of ork boyz. If go first and get a first turn charge then they probably win as well but depends on if they get there.

And that's why generals don't bring a single horde of infantry to a battle, but an army composed of a variety of parts.

 greyknight12 wrote:
In some long ago editions, the balance came through the amount of destruction you could do in melee. Sweeping advance existed and most of the high strength low AP weapons in the game were melee. Now we have multi-shot high strength high damage shooting weapons all over the place, and melee’s unique advantages have largely been removed.

I miss Sweeping Advance even though it was kind of broken. A Power Fist used to be very scary but now it's pretty pathetic to the point of getting a significant price reduction. GW seems AWARE of the issues facing melee but don't seem to have a solution yet (of they're waiting for the next Big FAQ / CA).

 Elbows wrote:
Melee combat should be harder to accomplish in a science fiction setting, filled with guns. It should be a high risk, high reward proposition and generally is. If you're electing to buy and build an army which doesn't shoot - that's on you. You're making a decision to do that. You should be prepared for the difficulties that comes with.

I disagree. There is no standard by which a science fiction wargame ought to be designed. There is no reason why melee combat should not predominate the war-scape. Fantasy technology can be anything and all it takes is armor/defenses that are capable of withstanding firepower that will cause melee combat to be superior. You can look at evolution of medieval/renaissance arms to see the interplay of armor, projectiles, and hand weapons.

I think Warhammer has a pretty awesome design. There is quite a bit more melee combat than one would expect in this kind of setting, but there is still no lack of cool science fiction guns.

That's why I said "in a science fiction setting filled with guns".

40k is just as filled with sword as it is with guns, though. It isn't even really a scifi setting, it's Fantasy In Space.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
40k is just as filled with sword as it is with guns, though. It isn't even really a scifi setting, it's Fantasy In Space.

It has far more scifi elements than fantasy. Robots, genetically modified soldiers, spaceships, super guns/lasers, the list goes on.

Robot Knights of noble households.

Genetically modified soldiers who belong to monastic orders.

Spaceships whose method of travel is magic.

super swords/shields.

The list cuts both ways.

Bharring wrote:
Robot Knights of noble households. with guns

Genetically modified soldiers who belong to monastic orders. with guns

Spaceships with guns whose method of travel is magic.

super swords/shields.

The list cuts both ways.

All I see on that list is things with guns, and then swords and shields.

I mean, we have swords and shields today in modern times, and they absolutely co-exist with guns (I own a few swords and shields alongside my gun collection!) but no one would take them seriously on the battlefield...

You're deliberately misconstruing things by claiming that the robot knights and supersoldiers only fight with guns. Some of them don't use guns at all.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Robot Knights of noble households. with guns

Genetically modified soldiers who belong to monastic orders. with guns

Spaceships with guns whose method of travel is magic.

super swords/shields.

The list cuts both ways.

All I see on that list is things with guns, and then swords and shields.

I mean, we have swords and shields today in modern times, and they absolutely co-exist with guns (I own a few swords and shields alongside my gun collection!) but no one would take them seriously on the battlefield...

Swords/Shields do not co-exist with guns on the battlefield.

fe40k wrote:
1. Units would have to roll 2d6 per 12" range of their weapon; added together to determine final shooting range. More elite units would get to re-roll (all) these dice. If all of their targets are out of range, the shooting attack fails.
2. Units would block line of sight to the models behind them, unless the firing model was able to draw an uninterrupted line that doesn't cross between two models in the same unit (representing not being able to pass through small enough gaps).
3. For each enemy unit that is targeted during the shooting phase, they may attempt "counter-fire"; following normal shooting rules, but only hitting on 6's.
[4. Something about enemy units being able to shoot back during the enemies turn, once actually engaged by the enemy... I don't think there's a good enough parallel; short of allowing the enemy unit to use it's melee attacks or something as a ranged "close combat" - to represent the lesser skilled models fighting back (ala unskilled models versus skilled models in a firefight).]
5. Units engaged in a firefight can't move, unless it is to fall back. Units falling back can't advance or shoot that round, unless possessing special skills.
6. Firefight ("ranged melee") continues between engaged units...

7. Units falling back can't charge that turn. Don't forget that aprt.

fe40k wrote:
Funny how typing all that out sounds excessive - but it's what melee models must currently endure

I think melee units are very happy to be allowed to charge even if they were shot at lol.
As a Sisters of Battle player I am 100% okay with firefights that only allows unit to fall back if they want to move and prevents them from charging EVER.
Somehow I feel like you are still going to find a way to complain about it…

 Arachnofiend wrote:
40k is just as filled with sword as it is with guns, though. It isn't even really a scifi setting, it's Fantasy In Space.

The basic, iconic grunts from:
- T'au
- IG
- Marines
- Sisters
- CWE
- DE
- AM
- Necrons
- Custodes and SoS
have guns.

The basic, iconic Orks grunts are boyz that have either guns or just pistols and ccw. The basic, iconic Tyranid grunts are gaunts, with half of them having bio-guns. The basic, iconic harlequins have pistols.

Compare this to WFB where most units don't have any shooting weapon…

Unit1126PLL wrote:If ranged worked like melee:

I shoot your unit, and if a model or two survives the shooting attack and morale, your unit cannot act during its turn.

I can then do this for every unit until I run out of bullets.

The only time units fall back from melee is if the unit's owner positioned exceptionally well (outplaying the melee player) or the melee player forgot the myriad tactics for preventing fall-back from being possible.

Or they just brought a bunch of single-model melee units that can't surround enemy models.

Don't you mean that my unit could only attack that unit that attacked it with a shooting attack back or fall back? Or have misread the rules giving assaulted player an attack back no matter how pathetic the melee attack. I mean I will totally play it your way and we can watch my units die in hail of gunfire unable to do anything back while your's get cut down by chain and blade. Seems kinda boring though. Remember, you are saying falling back isn't a thing for either of us. A successful attack means that the attacked unit can't do anything at all during its turn.

If you are going to spin the OP premise, at least try to keep it fair on how it would work. Over exaggeration hurts your argument more than helps.

Elbows wrote:That's why I said "in a science fiction setting filled with guns".

Yeah, suck it Dune with your explanation why guns don't work in that setting. And all the other settings where melee has been decided to be better than guns. It shall be decreed from this point on if you have it filled with guns in your Sci-Fi setting they MUST be better than melee. NO EXCEPTIONS!

I am not saying that melee should be better or even as good as guns, but to throw out a blanket statement about all sci-fi comes off wrong.

If shooting worked the same way combat did, every shooting model would get an extra movement phase (or two!) per turn. OP seems to have forgotten this.

The fact all the fight twice Strategems are 3CP proves GW overvalues melee a lot.

This conversation reminds me of when I played Cygnar in WMH, and was always paying for the mistake of bringing a gun to a knife fight.

fe40k wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ummm...close combat is king right now. Harliquens - shining spears - rever jetbikes. All these things charge you turn 1 almost automatically and kill at least 1 important unit and tie up others. Plus they can all move out of combat and act as normal for a stratagem or just as a base ability.

Close combat is hardly king right now - and just because a handful of units can leap across the table turn 1, doesn't mean every unit can. The FAQ significantly slowed down melee armies, by not being able to deploy outside your deployment zone turn 1 (minus 1-2 units via special ability; Da Jump, etc.).

Meanwhile, a ranged army can bring all of their firepower to bear on turn 1, with no restrictions.

A ranged army can delete a significant chunk of an opponents army, P1T1, before their opponent has even had a chance to do anything.

Contrast this with the 1-2 units that may enter an enemies front line, only to ALSO have to roll charge distance, and hope they don't brick.

I think you are failing to understand the fluff of this universe. What is INSANE about 40k is that there are units dedicated to close combat lol, and what is more insane is there are units that EXCEL in close combat in this universe.

The close combat system is much nicer now that it's a static WS with some modifiers. It was ported nearly directly over from Age of Sigmar.

If you want more close combat, come over and join us playing Age of Sigmar. Those filthy shooting armies are treated with disdain for their cowardice.

 Xenomancers wrote:

fe40k wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ummm...close combat is king right now. Harliquens - shining spears - rever jetbikes. All these things charge you turn 1 almost automatically and kill at least 1 important unit and tie up others. Plus they can all move out of combat and act as normal for a stratagem or just as a base ability.

Close combat is hardly king right now - and just because a handful of units can leap across the table turn 1, doesn't mean every unit can. The FAQ significantly slowed down melee armies, by not being able to deploy outside your deployment zone turn 1 (minus 1-2 units via special ability; Da Jump, etc.).

Meanwhile, a ranged army can bring all of their firepower to bear on turn 1, with no restrictions.

A ranged army can delete a significant chunk of an opponents army, P1T1, before their opponent has even had a chance to do anything.

Contrast this with the 1-2 units that may enter an enemies front line, only to ALSO have to roll charge distance, and hope they don't brick.

Shooting is significantly nerfed with the prevalence of -1 and -2 to hit all over the place. It is becoming less and less reliable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ummm...close combat is king right now. Harliquens - shining spears - rever jetbikes. All these things charge you turn 1 almost automatically and kill at least 1 important unit and tie up others. Plus they can all move out of combat and act as normal for a stratagem or just as a base ability.

Harlequins charge you turn 1 almost automatically?

Are you playing on a 12" wide board?

No I think I'm playing on a board where a 22 inch move is enough to charge turn 1. AKA - every deployment setup in the game.

This doesn't even factor in things like...double moves and deployments that start 18" apart

Harlequins move 8"+D6". Add 3" if they start in a transport. 16"+2D6" if they use twilight pathways.

So one unit can move an average of 23" then charge. The rest move 11. Where are you getting 22"?

Yes, you can move super fast and charge.

But you had better recoup the value of the squad that did this in that first round of combat, because it's dead after that.

But that's all kind of moot.

Shooting is too strong in most codexes... It's unfortunate. Look at a plagueburst crawler. That thing is so incredibly cheap for what it does - 2D6 gnarly flamers, artillery guns, toughness 8, 5+++... all for what, less than 140 points? Or just open a page to the guard codex at random. It'd be nice to see shooting toned down quite a bit. In general things die way too fast. Right now with the big faq this is a game of "who goes first."

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

Yeah, suck it Dune with your explanation why guns don't work in that setting. And all the other settings where melee has been decided to be better than guns. It shall be decreed from this point on if you have it filled with guns in your Sci-Fi setting they MUST be better than melee. NO EXCEPTIONS!

I am not saying that melee should be better or even as good as guns, but to throw out a blanket statement about all sci-fi comes off wrong.

The point is that 40k is a setting where guns do work. The distinction was sci fi filled with guns. There are more ranged weapons in the ork index than melee weapons, and more ranged units than melee units. Guns are king in this particular setting. And if guns work then melee is necessarily at a range disadvantage, because that's the whole point of guns.

*Special weapons are limited to one per unit, regardless of size, except for either specialist unit that are only good at one thing, or elite units that cost twice of anything comparable. Such special weapons are just your normal weapon with +1 in a stat or a bigger weapon that has drawbacks while using and is still only as good as similarly cost weapons without the same drawbacks.

Another thread for some posters to insist that meele doesn't belong in 40k, or that at best it should be something optional and not a real competitive option, with a constant need for guns and ranged combat even when some factions are designed from the ground up both from fluff and crunch as heavy or pure meele armies?


Grrrrrrrrrrreat.

Bharring wrote:
If Ranged worked like Melee...

Some units would be able to shoot twice in one Shooting phase! That'd be stupid gak! (looks at Leman Russes and Fire Prisms..) oops.

A lot of units can actually do that naturally and for the rest there are stratagems. They can attack units on different edges of the table with this, not just 'units they declared an attack on earlier'. Also double the attacks if the target is close, yay.

Getting good-AP weapons that can swing on the move without needing 6s wouldn't be hard! (looks at half the changes in the last two editions....) oops.

Plasma...

Units would be unasailable if they successfully shot a unit that didn't die and couldn't fall back... Wait, that one does vary. If it's not Fly. Or UM. Or uses some stratagem.

Unassailable, except for... smite storms, counter charge by the whole enemy army?
And when does this mythical 'couldn't fall back' ever happen? I see it once every full moon.

 Galas wrote:
Another thread for some posters to insist that meele doesn't belong in 40k, or that at best it should be something optional and not a real competitive option, with a constant need for guns and ranged combat even when some factions are designed from the ground up both from fluff and crunch as heavy or pure meele armies?

I'm not saying 40k shouldn't have melee, but it is implemented in very strange ways.

- First off, let's be honest here - guns are better than swords. There's a reason that modern armies go into battle with rifles, rather than swords, and why tanks fight other tanks with shells or missiles, rather than punching them to death with mechanical arms. Now, it's still useful to carry around a knife - maybe even a sword/bayonet - but as a sidearm, not as your primary weapon.

- Now, in some settings, melee weapons are given a chance by having all the guns be rubbish. But that clearly doesn't apply in 40k - pretty much every army has a plethora of devastating weapons, without even getting into those used by spacecraft and such.

- The thing is, I can still see melee being used by certain races. Orks and maybe DE probably prefer the visceral feel of melee, where possible, even if they also use guns for pragmatic purposes. Okay. Ah, and there are also tyranids - which could easily necessitate melee because they're biological creatures and therefore... oh... wait... no, they just use biological guns built into their arms. I guess they really don't need melee then - especially not with a Hive Mind that would be looking for the most pragmatic means of combat possible. Strange that it's so keen on melee.

- Finally, we have the completely bizarre specialisation in melee by certain units. Now, as above, I can understand marines carrying knives or even swords as sidearms (and captains may carry them as much for symbolic reasons as anything else), but why on earth would you specialise in them to the point where you don't even carry a gun? That's just nonsensical. Moreover, why on earth would you ever equip a heavy-weapon platform with a sword and shield instead of a gun? Did the Imperium get its combat tactics from watching old episodes of Power Rangers or something?

 vipoid wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Another thread for some posters to insist that meele doesn't belong in 40k, or that at best it should be something optional and not a real competitive option, with a constant need for guns and ranged combat even when some factions are designed from the ground up both from fluff and crunch as heavy or pure meele armies?

I'm not saying 40k shouldn't have melee, but it is implemented in very strange ways.

- First off, let's be honest here - guns are better than swords. There's a reason that modern armies go into battle with rifles, rather than swords, and why tanks fight other tanks with shells or missiles, rather than punching them to death with mechanical arms. Now, it's still useful to carry around a knife - maybe even a sword/bayonet - but as a sidearm, not as your primary weapon.

- Now, in some settings, melee weapons are given a chance by having all the guns be rubbish. But that clearly doesn't apply in 40k - pretty much every army has a plethora of devastating weapons, without even getting into those used by spacecraft and such.

- The thing is, I can still see melee being used by certain races. Orks and maybe DE probably prefer the visceral feel of melee, where possible, even if they also use guns for pragmatic purposes. Okay. Ah, and there are also tyranids - which could easily necessitate melee because they're biological creatures and therefore... oh... wait... no, they just use biological guns built into their arms. I guess they really don't need melee then - especially not with a Hive Mind that would be looking for the most pragmatic means of combat possible. Strange that it's so keen on melee.

- Finally, we have the completely bizarre specialisation in melee by certain units. Now, as above, I can understand marines carrying knives or even swords as sidearms (and captains may carry them as much for symbolic reasons as anything else), but why on earth would you specialise in them to the point where you don't even carry a gun? That's just nonsensical. Moreover, why on earth would you ever equip a heavy-weapon platform with a sword and shield instead of a gun? Did the Imperium get its combat tactics from watching old episodes of Power Rangers or something?

Ive been saying this for years, It is absolutely ridiculous that a science fiction game should have such a huge prevalence of close combat weapons. It kind of lessens the appeal of the game by making it unbelievable and making it feel fake.

I mean I can totally get why there are fungoid space aliens that reproduce by spreading spores, I totally get how terminator style robots are waking up from a million year slumber; those things are completely believable. I get that demons exist and can burst into the real world through portals and any number of other ways, I understand how numerous races including humans have powerful psykers, I get that giant bugs can exist in the vacuum of space indefinitely and how they can eat worlds and then somehow transfer the biomass into orbit to power there huge space bug vessels. I get how all of this happens, I just cant wrap my head around using a sword or an axe, that just pushes me over the edge of reason.

- Now, in some settings, melee weapons are given a chance by having all the guns be rubbish. But that clearly doesn't apply in 40k - pretty much every army has a plethora of devastating weapons, without even getting into those used by spacecraft and such.

But in Warhammer40k is exactly the inverse. They don't nerf guns. They make meele weapons absolutely devastating, with guys exploding tanks with a punch of a Power-Fist like a superhero.

And yeah as much as Peregrine comes and says that if you have the technology to do that with a meele weapon they should make a gun that fires powerfists at the enemy because it would have much more strenght than the arm of one random dude... ok, thats realistic, but Warhammer 40k is heavy metal. We all make concesions for the universe to work, and meele weapons not being only usefull but actually tactically interesting as the main way of making war is one of those concesions.

- Finally, we have the completely bizarre specialisation in melee by certain units. Now, as above, I can understand marines carrying knives or even swords as sidearms (and captains may carry them as much for symbolic reasons as anything else), but why on earth would you specialise in them to the point where you don't even carry a gun? That's just nonsensical. Moreover, why on earth would you ever equip a heavy-weapon platform with a sword and shield instead of a gun? Did the Imperium get its combat tactics from watching old episodes of Power Rangers or something?

Yes, yes they did. Thats exactly one of the appeals of the universe. As designed by the originals authors and all the others that have follow.

I have never seen anybody claim that guns have no place in Warhammer 40k, and that at maximun they should be just side-arms, but with how iconic meele weapons are in warhammer 40k I don't know why so many people really brings this over and over and over again. (Not saying you specifically, Vipoid, just in general)

Meele is a core part of the universe, both in gameplay and in "feeling" of the fluff. Of course, is absolutely reasonable to disagree with that and have your own opinions. But thats how it is the universe, it does not matter how you try to twist it.

By the way, Adeptus Custodes Galatus Dreadnoughts are just rock&roll. Having your giant robot deflecting missiles and giant lasers with a shield to then cut in half a giant tank with his sword? Thats pure warhammer. (And then it gets blow up by a lone guardsmen carring a melta bomb)

SemperMortis wrote:
I mean I can totally get why there are fungoid space aliens that reproduce by spreading spores, I totally get how terminator style robots are waking up from a million year slumber; those things are completely believable. I get that demons exist and can burst into the real world through portals and any number of other ways, I understand how numerous races including humans have powerful psykers, I get that giant bugs can exist in the vacuum of space indefinitely and how they can eat worlds and then somehow transfer the biomass into orbit to power there huge space bug vessels. I get how all of this happens, I just cant wrap my head around using a sword or an axe, that just pushes me over the edge of reason.

Not @Semper: for real: take the "muh realism" argument somewhere else. This thread is very specifically talking about problems between melee and ranged combat and how much easier it is to have a shooting army as opposed to a melee one at the moment.

 lolman1c wrote:
....If cadian gets turn 1 then they delite almost exsactly 50% of ork boyz. If go first and get a first turn charge then they probably win as well but depends on if they get there.

This is basically what 40k has been since 6th Ed.

8th Ed just greatly sped up the process, with each passing codex I rarely see games go past turn 3.

Seems any time the complaint of how tedious, unsatisfying, random, unfair, or just generally not fun Assault can be, people get quick to argue it against as it being "realistic" as if that somehow relates to the complaints.

 andysonic1 wrote:
This thread is very specifically talking about problems between melee and ranged combat and how much easier it is to have a shooting army as opposed to a melee one at the moment.

Shooting being better than melee is a feature, not a bug. It encourages you to make fluffy shooting-focused armies instead of unrealistic melee armies that only work because 40k's scaling is way off.

Essentially it's another one of 40k's numerous scale issues. Close Combat, to get the feel that the designers really want, has to be detailed down to a skirmish and almost RPG level. They could just say "once model A from unit B makes base contact with model X from unit Y, every in both unit makes their attacks and resolves casualties from anywhere". Gimmickry with contact stuff aside, they could treat CC just like shooting as above, but that's not what people want out of the experience.

 Peregrine wrote:

 andysonic1 wrote:
This thread is very specifically talking about problems between melee and ranged combat and how much easier it is to have a shooting army as opposed to a melee one at the moment.

Shooting being better than melee is a feature, not a bug. It encourages you to make fluffy shooting-focused armies instead of unrealistic melee armies that only work because 40k's scaling is way off.

So I take it the Chainsword is less iconic than the Bolter?

 JNAProductions wrote:
So I take it the Chainsword is less iconic than the Bolter?

Yep. And far less realistic. If 40k was actually a 28mm game instead of a weird mix of scales chainswords would be virtually nonexistent outside of officers carrying ceremonial weapons.

 Peregrine wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So I take it the Chainsword is less iconic than the Bolter?

Yep. And far less realistic. If 40k was actually a 28mm game instead of a weird mix of scales chainswords would be virtually nonexistent outside of officers carrying ceremonial weapons.

There's that realism argument. If that's the case, we shouldn't have:

-Orks
-Space Marines (Have you read their biology? That ain't real)
-Tyranids
-Tau
-Eldar of any type

And so on and so on. Do we remove all that in the name of realism too?

Edit: Also, you know what else wouldn't belong? Ground battles, 99% of the time. Because once you control the space around a planet, you can precision laser out defenses and just do clean up.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Do we remove all that in the name of realism too?

No, because that's not the same. Yes, space marine biology is unrealistic, but it's the kind of unrealistic thing that depends on looking at it carefully with the intent to find things that are not realistic. It's easy to just ignore it and consider the end result, because the details of space marine biology aren't really important to the story. But the scale issues are impossible to ignore. Every time you look at the table or measure a distance you're forced to confront the fact that you're playing a supposed 28mm game with weirdly distorted 32mm infantry models, 20-25mm vehicles, 10mm terrain, 28mm movement distances (at least most of the time), and 2mm shooting distances. Melee combat in 40k only works because table size and movement distances use one scale while shooting ranges use a significantly different scale. If everything was correctly scaled to the supposed 28mm scale of the game then melee units would get shot to death long before they could reach a target.

Edit: Also, you know what else wouldn't belong? Ground battles, 99% of the time. Because once you control the space around a planet, you can precision laser out defenses and just do clean up.

This is true. It's implicit in the 40k rules that we're playing the 1% of battles where a battle occurs at all.

 Peregrine wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Do we remove all that in the name of realism too?

No, because that's not the same. Yes, space marine biology is unrealistic, but it's the kind of unrealistic thing that depends on looking at it carefully with the intent to find things that are not realistic. It's easy to just ignore it and consider the end result, because the details of space marine biology aren't really important to the story. But the scale issues are impossible to ignore. Every time you look at the table or measure a distance you're forced to confront the fact that you're playing a supposed 28mm game with weirdly distorted 32mm infantry models, 20-25mm vehicles, 10mm terrain, 28mm movement distances (at least most of the time), and 2mm shooting distances. Melee combat in 40k only works because table size and movement distances use one scale while shooting ranges use a significantly different scale. If everything was correctly scaled to the supposed 28mm scale of the game then melee units would get shot to death long before they could reach a target.

Edit: Also, you know what else wouldn't belong? Ground battles, 99% of the time. Because once you control the space around a planet, you can precision laser out defenses and just do clean up.

This is true. It's implicit in the 40k rules that we're playing the 1% of battles where a battle occurs at all.

Okay. What does it take to make Orks unrealistic? They're sentient fungus that works on the power of belief.

Or, hell, Daemons. I play Daemons, and they're very, VERY unrealistic. Should my army be removed?

fe40k wrote:
1. Units would have to roll 2d6 per 12" range of their weapon; added together to determine final shooting range. More elite units would get to re-roll (all) these dice. If all of their targets are out of range, the shooting attack fails.
2. Units would block line of sight to the models behind them, unless the firing model was able to draw an uninterrupted line that doesn't cross between two models in the same unit (representing not being able to pass through small enough gaps).
3. For each enemy unit that is targeted during the shooting phase, they may attempt "counter-fire"; following normal shooting rules, but only hitting on 6's.
[4. Something about enemy units being able to shoot back during the enemies turn, once actually engaged by the enemy... I don't think there's a good enough parallel; short of allowing the enemy unit to use it's melee attacks or something as a ranged "close combat" - to represent the lesser skilled models fighting back (ala unskilled models versus skilled models in a firefight).]
5. Units engaged in a firefight can't move, unless it is to fall back. Units falling back can't advance or shoot that round, unless possessing special skills.
6. Firefight ("ranged melee") continues between engaged units...

Funny how typing all that out sounds excessive - but it's what melee models must currently endure, just to reach and engage the enemy lines.

That said, there's an interesting concept of units getting engaged in "firefights"; essentially ranged version of close combat; it pins units in place, forcing them to duke it out round to round with other enemy units - and prevents the engaged units on both sides from being able to target other units, or move around until they decide to fall back first.

Maybe the sequence would be...
1. Player's units decides to shoot at # of targets.
2. # of targets attempt "Overwatch" with their ranged weapons, hitting on 6's.
3. Player's units shoot as normal.
4. After all Player's units have finished shooting, enemy units return fire (per normal rules).
5. Unless a unit falls back, units are considered "engaged", and will continue standard shooting (in alternating format), at the end of each round; ala standard close combat rules, albeit at range.

This is all far too complicated, not to manage 'counter fire' is completely unrealistic, in war you shoot targets or do suppressing fire, you don't know specifically who shoots at you and then go 'he shot at me, I better shoot him back' everyone is shooting at you.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Okay. What does it take to make Orks unrealistic? They're sentient fungus that works on the power of belief.

Or, hell, Daemons. I play Daemons, and they're very, VERY unrealistic. Should my army be removed?

Again, there is a difference between "this is unrealistic because it's a fictional story and the author wanted to do this even if it isn't realistic" and "this is unrealistic because GW's rules are trash and they can't even get basic things like 'have a consistent scale for your game' right".

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

fe40k wrote:
1. Units would have to roll 2d6 per 12" range of their weapon; added together to determine final shooting range. More elite units would get to re-roll (all) these dice. If all of their targets are out of range, the shooting attack fails.
2. Units would block line of sight to the models behind them, unless the firing model was able to draw an uninterrupted line that doesn't cross between two models in the same unit (representing not being able to pass through small enough gaps).
3. For each enemy unit that is targeted during the shooting phase, they may attempt "counter-fire"; following normal shooting rules, but only hitting on 6's.
[4. Something about enemy units being able to shoot back during the enemies turn, once actually engaged by the enemy... I don't think there's a good enough parallel; short of allowing the enemy unit to use it's melee attacks or something as a ranged "close combat" - to represent the lesser skilled models fighting back (ala unskilled models versus skilled models in a firefight).]
5. Units engaged in a firefight can't move, unless it is to fall back. Units falling back can't advance or shoot that round, unless possessing special skills.
6. Firefight ("ranged melee") continues between engaged units...

Funny how typing all that out sounds excessive - but it's what melee models must currently endure, just to reach and engage the enemy lines.

That said, there's an interesting concept of units getting engaged in "firefights"; essentially ranged version of close combat; it pins units in place, forcing them to duke it out round to round with other enemy units - and prevents the engaged units on both sides from being able to target other units, or move around until they decide to fall back first.

Maybe the sequence would be...
1. Player's units decides to shoot at # of targets.
2. # of targets attempt "Overwatch" with their ranged weapons, hitting on 6's.
3. Player's units shoot as normal.
4. After all Player's units have finished shooting, enemy units return fire (per normal rules).
5. Unless a unit falls back, units are considered "engaged", and will continue standard shooting (in alternating format), at the end of each round; ala standard close combat rules, albeit at range.

This is all far too complicated, not to manage 'counter fire' is completely unrealistic, in war you shoot targets or do suppressing fire, you don't know specifically who shoots at you and then go 'he shot at me, I better shoot him back' everyone is shooting at you.

Unless you are in the artillery...

Ranged combat definitely needs some mechanics to make it interesting. Something like suppression could add a whole new element to the game and add some tactical elements. Because currently, using ranged weapons requires absolutely zero tactics or gameplay. It is just line up your models and throw dice. Not very interesting.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

fe40k wrote:
1. Units would have to roll 2d6 per 12" range of their weapon; added together to determine final shooting range. More elite units would get to re-roll (all) these dice. If all of their targets are out of range, the shooting attack fails.
2. Units would block line of sight to the models behind them, unless the firing model was able to draw an uninterrupted line that doesn't cross between two models in the same unit (representing not being able to pass through small enough gaps).
3. For each enemy unit that is targeted during the shooting phase, they may attempt "counter-fire"; following normal shooting rules, but only hitting on 6's.
[4. Something about enemy units being able to shoot back during the enemies turn, once actually engaged by the enemy... I don't think there's a good enough parallel; short of allowing the enemy unit to use it's melee attacks or something as a ranged "close combat" - to represent the lesser skilled models fighting back (ala unskilled models versus skilled models in a firefight).]
5. Units engaged in a firefight can't move, unless it is to fall back. Units falling back can't advance or shoot that round, unless possessing special skills.
6. Firefight ("ranged melee") continues between engaged units...

Funny how typing all that out sounds excessive - but it's what melee models must currently endure, just to reach and engage the enemy lines.

That said, there's an interesting concept of units getting engaged in "firefights"; essentially ranged version of close combat; it pins units in place, forcing them to duke it out round to round with other enemy units - and prevents the engaged units on both sides from being able to target other units, or move around until they decide to fall back first.

Maybe the sequence would be...
1. Player's units decides to shoot at # of targets.
2. # of targets attempt "Overwatch" with their ranged weapons, hitting on 6's.
3. Player's units shoot as normal.
4. After all Player's units have finished shooting, enemy units return fire (per normal rules).
5. Unless a unit falls back, units are considered "engaged", and will continue standard shooting (in alternating format), at the end of each round; ala standard close combat rules, albeit at range.

This is all far too complicated, not to manage 'counter fire' is completely unrealistic, in war you shoot targets or do suppressing fire, you don't know specifically who shoots at you and then go 'he shot at me, I better shoot him back' everyone is shooting at you.

Unless you are in the artillery...

Ranged combat definitely needs some mechanics to make it interesting. Something like suppression could add a whole new element to the game and add some tactical elements. Because currently, using ranged weapons requires absolutely zero tactics or gameplay. It is just line up your models and throw dice. Not very interesting.

Cover mechanics and blast weapons use to make shooting require a bit more movement and made target selection a more complex decision. In addition it made your opponents movements and placement matter more as one of the better ways to protect valuable units was to put them in cover and you could screen units from shooting with other units if they had to push forward through open ground. Its a shame now that ranged is basically only about LoS and firing range with little concern for actual model placement or the stuff between the shooter and the target.

 Galas wrote:

But in Warhammer40k is exactly the inverse. They don't nerf guns. They make meele weapons absolutely devastating, with guys exploding tanks with a punch of a Power-Fist like a superhero.

Except that they're not actually better than guns to any significant degree, especially when you start to factor in the limitations of melee.

And quite why they'd invest so many resources into making powerful melee weapons instead of more/better guns is completely beyond me.

 Galas wrote:

And yeah as much as Peregrine comes and says that if you have the technology to do that with a meele weapon they should make a gun that fires powerfists at the enemy because it would have much more strenght than the arm of one random dude... ok, thats realistic, but Warhammer 40k is heavy metal. We all make concesions for the universe to work, and meele weapons not being only usefull but actually tactically interesting as the main way of making war is one of those concesions.

I get that. I really do. I understand that 40k is going for what it thinks looks good, rather than what's realistic. I just think it goes too far, to the point where it breaks the rule of cool and just ends up looking plain stupid.

It's probably not helped by the background, which seems to have gotten increasingly serious, even as the models get more and more ridiculous.

 Galas wrote:

I have never seen anybody claim that guns have no place in Warhammer 40k, and that at maximun they should be just side-arms, but with how iconic meele weapons are in warhammer 40k I don't know why so many people really brings this over and over and over again. (Not saying you specifically, Vipoid, just in general)

Meele is a core part of the universe, both in gameplay and in "feeling" of the fluff. Of course, is absolutely reasonable to disagree with that and have your own opinions. But thats how it is the universe, it does not matter how you try to twist it.

By the way, Adeptus Custodes Galatus Dreadnoughts are just rock&roll. Having your giant robot deflecting missiles and giant lasers with a shield to then cut in half a giant tank with his sword? Thats pure warhammer. (And then it gets blow up by a lone guardsmen carring a melta bomb)

As I said, I can get behind melee being a thing in this universe, but it's the degree of specialisation that bothers me.

I appreciate that this is purely subjective, but for me the 'giant robots wielding swords and shields' just shatters any immersion or verisimilitude.


Oh, one thing I will say, there is one scenario in which I could see melee getting more focus - ammunition. Most units aren't depicted carrying around much in the way of extra ammunition, even when their weapons are clearly magazine-fed and probably don't hold all that many rounds. And when units are being fired down in drop pods, teleported into the battle, flying in on jump packs etc., I imagine they can't take that much ammunition with them (even if we assume the models are carrying more than is depicted on them). And even if they have enough for a 'standard' fight, they might well run short against waves of tyranids or orks - or want to conserve it for the larger ones. Hence, some decent melee weapons and training could come in handy.

Granted, it would still be weird to specialise completely in melee, to the point where you don't even carry a gun at all, and one might fairly ask whether it would be more sensible to instead focus on carrying more ammunition or using guns that don't require large quantities of ammunition. However, I think lack of ammunition would probably be one of the more plausible scenarios for troops utilising melee.

People are too stuck on this 'guns > knifes' argument.

In this game, close combat is the only this that brings in an aspect, that is otherwise lacking:
Tactical maneuvering

Guns are not an issue, but the majority of them having enough range to shoot every target in sight combined with most of them having no kind of falloff makes for a boring mechanic.
The super simplified sightlines, removal of any kind of templates and almost non existing cover and terrain rules add on to this.

Terrain does not help much. Yes you might block a sightline with it, so the shooters may have to shuffle left and right a bit. Or they just point their guns at some other visible target...

Melee is a replacement for what really should be there: close range shootouts. More factors should impat shooting than just: in range? yes/no
The most we have here is that you sometimes have to stick your melter up a tanks rearend, so it does more damage.

This thread, right here, is exactly how Warhammer 40k went from a blatantly ridiculous 1980s GrimDark scifi setting to a cringeworthy thuper therious you guyth cutrate space opera.

Do you want robocop remake levels of people not understanding that elements of a setting are intended as a joke?

Because this is how you get that.

I don't really get this whole "scifi should have guns."
40k has been 40k forever. People run around with swords, axes and fists and attack each other. That is the setting.

You can say "well, if we were realistic about this, a guardsman should have a 240" range with his lasgun - and a basilisk should be able to shoot a quarter of a mile" but that doesn't sound all that fun.

The problem with assault is that its all or nothing - and therefore prompts this constant arms race. If assault ever gets in front, it quickly breaks the game, which is why whenever there is even a ghost of this happening it promptly gets yanked back.

With that said - for suggestions - the best step would be to take away the 2d6 assault rule and rebalance appropriately. Having a rule that you then need to give almost every assault unit a way to avoid/mitigate is stupid.

Tyel wrote:
I don't really get this whole "scifi should have guns."
40k has been 40k forever. People run around with swords, axes and fists and attack each other. That is the setting.

You can say "well, if we were realistic about this, a guardsman should have a 240" range with his lasgun - and a basilisk should be able to shoot a quarter of a mile" but that doesn't sound all that fun.

The problem with assault is that its all or nothing - and therefore prompts this constant arms race. If assault ever gets in front, it quickly breaks the game, which is why whenever there is even a ghost of this happening it promptly gets yanked back.

With that said - for suggestions - the best step would be to take away the 2d6 assault rule and rebalance appropriately. Having a rule that you then need to give almost every assault unit a way to avoid/mitigate is stupid.

Assault is (and should be) less all-or-nothing in this edition than it has been in any edition prior, thanks to the existence of Fall Back and the removal of Sweeping Advance.

It is now more than ever just a way that units can choose to do damage, and that's a good thing. An assault unit that puts power budget into speed or deep striking is pretty much the same as a shooting unit that puts power budget into range or ignore LOS - you're paying points for the ability to deal your damage sooner or more flexibly. That's all.

The only thing that makes assault unique currently is the fact that it has several disadvantages (random distance, enemies fight back, overwatch) and several advantages (contesting objectives, opponent probably will be prevented from shooting).

Even the ability to charge turn 1 was OK, in its basal form. The problem was, GW wrote in numerous rules allowing either the risk to be taken away (see: Warptime) or allowing deep strike on any unit you want rather than just units that had deep strike built into their power budget.

That was dumb. And now all Assault Marines, Terminators, Striking Scorpions pay the price for the sins of units like a 30-blob of Tzaangors deep striking via a 1cp stratagem and receiving a psychic power to make their charge 1" instead of 8". The current deep strike FAQ feels similar to those units as if GW had taken the period of time when deep striking plasma scions were king and went "OK, seems like stuff getting shot turn 1 is a big problem. Okay, both armies now automatically count as BS6+ turn 1, problem solved!"

Yet another balance issue that would be solved greatly by alternative activation.

Danny slag wrote:
Yet another balance issue that would be solved greatly by alternative activation.

And we will all thank them for it right after they stamp out the 30 or 40 other problems that would crop up thanks to Alternating Activation.

the_scotsman wrote:
This thread, right here, is exactly how Warhammer 40k went from a blatantly ridiculous 1980s GrimDark scifi setting to a cringeworthy thuper therious you guyth cutrate space opera.

Do you want robocop remake levels of people not understanding that elements of a setting are intended as a joke?

Because this is how you get that.

Thanks, at last I find other person that believes Warhammer40k has taken hitself too seriously, both by the authors and by the fans!

And I'm not saying that Warhammer40k should be the rogue-trader era parody it was. Of course it has evolved from that. But that doesn't mean it isn't still, at his core, an extremely unrealistic and "rule of cool" based setting.
Of course, what is "cool" is subjetive, but Warhammer 40k was never an universe for any semblance of realism. The only thing that matters for a fictional universe is internal consistence, and yeah, Warhammer is not perfect in that regard, but many strong features have remained consistent for decades. The relevance and coolness of mele being one of those.

I would still argue that melee is not irrelevant or not cool.

Melee is absolutely relevant to the game - but it's part of a larger orchestra.

No pure shooting army will ever win without giving thought to the possibility of its units being hit with melee; similarly, no pure melee army should ever win without giving thought to the possibility of being shot away.

This is where 40k is now. Gunlines absolutely must take measures to not get into melee, whether it's through screens, high mobility, or counter-charge units (or indeed, using its own melee units to tie up the enemy's). Melee is absolutely relevant and helps to define the meta.

Similarly, I think melee is cool - I have a pure mono-Slaanesh army with no shooting - not because it's good, but because I like it and think it's cool. It actually does win games, sometimes (I'm about 50/50 now) though if you ask people on this forum that's because me and my group play too 'casually' which is true, yes, I'm not playing at a tournament.

I do wish melee as incidental was a bigger slice of CC. The potential of Tacs in CC excites me more than the potential of Vanguard Vets in CC. When it's "These blokes in front of me aren't as good as me in CC. Charge?!!!1", it's really fun and cool. When its "And I brought 15 units that just run to the enemeny and charge", it can be fun, but less interesting to me.

Shatter the skies!!

Am i the only one who read op's list and thought: "wow, that'd be really cool!"?

Random range representing the advanced counter measures you'd expect to be ubiquitous in the year 40.000, units locked in fire fights, maybe even the 6+ overwatch when targetted representing a cinematic hail mary shot before getting hosed (limited to once per turn ofc). Sounds fun

40k is not, was not and never will be sci fi. It’s fantasy in space.

Having guns and robots does not make it sci fi, just like swords doesn’t make it fantasy.

The only thing separating sci fi from fantasy, is that sci fi settings must be rooted firmly in reality, which 40k is not. We have space magic and space daemons.

All settings assume a certain level of technology. 1000 years ago, being able to make steel was high tech, that doesn’t mean just because we have things in 40k that we can’t create by modern standards, that doesn’t make it sci fi.

Close combat, assault should be the focus of the game, not shooting. That’s the way the game has always been in the fluff, because it’s a story of heroes, and I can’t think of anything more boring or unheroic of someone getting shot in the head at 100 paces.

Realism has no place in 40k, that is not what this game is, if you don’t like space knights in a fantasy setting, 40k is not for you.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
40k is not, was not and never will be sci fi. It’s fantasy in space.

Having guns and robots does not make it sci fi, just like swords doesn’t make it fantasy.

The only thing separating sci fi from fantasy, is that sci fi settings must be rooted firmly in reality, which 40k is not. We have space magic and space daemons.

All settings assume a certain level of technology. 1000 years ago, being able to make steel was high tech, that doesn’t mean just because we have things in 40k that we can’t create by modern standards, that doesn’t make it sci fi.

Close combat, assault should be the focus of the game, not shooting. That’s the way the game has always been in the fluff, because it’s a story of heroes, and I can’t think of anything more boring or unheroic of someone getting shot in the head at 100 paces.

Realism has no place in 40k, that is not what this game is, if you don’t like space knights in a fantasy setting, 40k is not for you.

Despite being a Daemons player, I'll argue that a little. Shooting very much has a place in 40k. But it should be about equal to assault, not the sole dominant force.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
40k is not, was not and never will be sci fi. It’s fantasy in space.

Having guns and robots does not make it sci fi, just like swords doesn’t make it fantasy.

The only thing separating sci fi from fantasy, is that sci fi settings must be rooted firmly in reality, which 40k is not. We have space magic and space daemons.

All settings assume a certain level of technology. 1000 years ago, being able to make steel was high tech, that doesn’t mean just because we have things in 40k that we can’t create by modern standards, that doesn’t make it sci fi.

Close combat, assault should be the focus of the game, not shooting. That’s the way the game has always been in the fluff, because it’s a story of heroes, and I can’t think of anything more boring or unheroic of someone getting shot in the head at 100 paces.

Realism has no place in 40k, that is not what this game is, if you don’t like space knights in a fantasy setting, 40k is not for you.

We've literally had this "is 40k sci-fi" discussion before - I see you ignored it rather than changing your views. Would you care to rehash it?

To address your other points:
1) 40k is not about heroes. An Imperial Guard Company Commander may very well be the most expensive single-model character in an IG army, and is hardly a "hero" in the epic mythology sense, and has no business fighting a Daemon of Khorne in hand to hand.
2) Swordfights are less cool for mass battles than guns. Hollywood films about medieval/ancient times always add anachronistic elements, or else the battle is going to look like two lines of men shoving each other until one falls over. Look at the beginning of Gladiator, where the Romans are given enough field artillery to make Napoleon blush, relative to their unit size, or Troy, where the battle-scenes dissolved into "oh look, some dudes with swords, what are the /heroes/ doing?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Despite being a Daemons player, I'll argue that a little. Shooting very much has a place in 40k. But it should be about equal to assault, not the sole dominant force.

Shooting is not the sole dominant force. As I mentioned in an earlier post, shooting armies absolutely have to consider the possibility of being in melee when they construct their armies, and build around it. This is epitomized in the existence of screens, which are necessary to stave off the melee onslaught. Screens do little-to-nothing against shooting.

The fact that shooting armies are actively taking countermeasures against melee units is an indicator that melee is helping to shape the meta.

I always preferred the Epic Armageddon system.

Units could choose to
Move three times no shooting and extra vulnerable to attacks.
Move twice and shoot badly.
Move once and shoot normally.
Don't move and shoot better.
Move once and assault.

The last one was to simulate a game of 40k. A unit or units would move up and if any stands got within 15cm of the enemy both sides would fight. Units in base to base used their CC value. Units within 15cm used their FF value. After casualties you would see which side won and which side ran with extra dead.

Always fun to teleport in 4 stands of terminators led by a chaplain and slaughter a company of guardsmen for no loss...

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

fe40k wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ummm...close combat is king right now. Harliquens - shining spears - rever jetbikes. All these things charge you turn 1 almost automatically and kill at least 1 important unit and tie up others. Plus they can all move out of combat and act as normal for a stratagem or just as a base ability.

Close combat is hardly king right now - and just because a handful of units can leap across the table turn 1, doesn't mean every unit can. The FAQ significantly slowed down melee armies, by not being able to deploy outside your deployment zone turn 1 (minus 1-2 units via special ability; Da Jump, etc.).

Meanwhile, a ranged army can bring all of their firepower to bear on turn 1, with no restrictions.

A ranged army can delete a significant chunk of an opponents army, P1T1, before their opponent has even had a chance to do anything.

Contrast this with the 1-2 units that may enter an enemies front line, only to ALSO have to roll charge distance, and hope they don't brick.

Shooting is significantly nerfed with the prevalence of -1 and -2 to hit all over the place. It is becoming less and less reliable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ummm...close combat is king right now. Harliquens - shining spears - rever jetbikes. All these things charge you turn 1 almost automatically and kill at least 1 important unit and tie up others. Plus they can all move out of combat and act as normal for a stratagem or just as a base ability.

Harlequins charge you turn 1 almost automatically?

Are you playing on a 12" wide board?

No I think I'm playing on a board where a 22 inch move is enough to charge turn 1. AKA - every deployment setup in the game.

This doesn't even factor in things like...double moves and deployments that start 18" apart

Harlequins move 8"+D6". Add 3" if they start in a transport. 16"+2D6" if they use twilight pathways.

So one unit can move an average of 23" then charge. The rest move 11. Where are you getting 22"?

Sorry I was referring to their bikes. 22" and charge out of the box. I would have said troops if I was talking about their footmen. I thought the 22" move was a dead giveaway on that.

Well, you did say Harlequins, which used to be the name of the unit that is now Troops. That could go either way. But you were also talking about being king, and Skyweavers don't have the volume or stats to be king. You also said they kill at least 1 important unit and tie up others - the Harlequin models can do that, but the Skyweavers don't have the killiness to 1-round much of anything, nor the bodies to tie much up.

Bharring wrote:
Well, you did say Harlequins, which used to be the name of the unit that is now Troops. That could go either way. But you were also talking about being king, and Skyweavers don't have the volume or stats to be king. You also said they kill at least 1 important unit and tie up others - the Harlequin models can do that, but the Skyweavers don't have the killiness to 1-round much of anything, nor the bodies to tie much up.

Yeah. A 60 point skyweaver kills about 2/3 of a marine in close combat. For the points they're about Assault Marine levels of good at killing things in close combat. I did honestly think you were talking about regular harlequins.

the_scotsman wrote:
It is now more than ever just a way that units can choose to do damage, and that's a good thing. An assault unit that puts power budget into speed or deep striking is pretty much the same as a shooting unit that puts power budget into range or ignore LOS - you're paying points for the ability to deal your damage sooner or more flexibly. That's all.

I am not convinced this is really the case though. You fail that charge you do zero damage - and eat an overwatch for your trouble. If you don't charge you are not doing anything.
That's what I mean by all or nothing. In the old deep strike rules you were paying for a X% chance to get off a first turn assault. Sometimes it happened - sometimes it didn't. (And in the case of warptime you still have the percentage chance of the spell going off/being denied.)
Now you either have to wait - and risk being screened out entirely for a turn 2 charge - or run up the table, risking being shot or paying points for transports.

Ultimately there isn't much you as a player can do to respond to this - and a lot of games are won and lost on a few charge rolls.

I don't think its so much the case with shooting. It would be great if every unit had 48" range guns ignoring LOS - so you could target any unit on the table 99% of time - but typically, outside of "we buried the table in LOS blocking terrain" or units with a very low effective range you have a choice of shooting something.

Now depending on what that is might get a 100% return or a 15% return on your points - but you are getting something. Whereas assault has to be scewed upwards because its 0% return, 0% return, 100% return.
If the maths broke down as "35% you fail a charge and you get 0% return, 65% you get the charge off, but only get a 40% return on your points" that obviously sucks compared with shooting and no one is going to do it.

Tyel wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
It is now more than ever just a way that units can choose to do damage, and that's a good thing. An assault unit that puts power budget into speed or deep striking is pretty much the same as a shooting unit that puts power budget into range or ignore LOS - you're paying points for the ability to deal your damage sooner or more flexibly. That's all.

I am not convinced this is really the case though. You fail that charge you do zero damage - and eat an overwatch for your trouble. If you don't charge you are not doing anything.
That's what I mean by all or nothing. In the old deep strike rules you were paying for a X% chance to get off a first turn assault. Sometimes it happened - sometimes it didn't. (And in the case of warptime you still have the percentage chance of the spell going off/being denied.)
Now you either have to wait - and risk being screened out entirely for a turn 2 charge - or run up the table, risking being shot or paying points for transports.

Ultimately there isn't much you as a player can do to respond to this - and a lot of games are won and lost on a few charge rolls.

I don't think its so much the case with shooting. It would be great if every unit had 48" range guns ignoring LOS - so you could target any unit on the table 99% of time - but typically, outside of "we buried the table in LOS blocking terrain" or units with a very low effective range you have a choice of shooting something.

Now depending on what that is might get a 100% return or a 15% return on your points - but you are getting something. Whereas assault has to be scewed upwards because its 0% return, 0% return, 100% return.
If the maths broke down as "35% you fail a charge and you get 0% return, 65% you get the charge off, but only get a 40% return on your points" that obviously sucks compared with shooting and no one is going to do it.

Yeah, from a pure perspective of what does more damage, assault is terrible. Because those advantages I listed - preventing most targets from shooting or from doing anything if you surround a model, and being able to contest objectives when your opponent is on them - give a very large added benefit.

In previous editions, where charges were non-random, 6" from base to base was the fixed charge range. In the current edition, if you're within that 6" range, you need a 5 or better to succeed your charge - which is a 1/6 chance of failure. The risk when making what was a "normal" charge in previous editions is now extremely minimal. Much, much more minimal if you're playing a model which now has a move greater than 6".

What random charge distance gives us is the ability to control the risk/reward slider and opt for longer charges, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

Bharring wrote:
Well, you did say Harlequins, which used to be the name of the unit that is now Troops. That could go either way. But you were also talking about being king, and Skyweavers don't have the volume or stats to be king. You also said they kill at least 1 important unit and tie up others - the Harlequin models can do that, but the Skyweavers don't have the killiness to 1-round much of anything, nor the bodies to tie much up.

They are a lot better than you think. A 6 man squad can be buffed to absurd levels - much like shining spears. Plus their main damage comes from damage flat 2. You don't want to waste their damage on 1 wound models if you don't have to.

They are all going to be +1 attack due to the army trait. Plus can go +1 to wound for 2 CP. You can combine their speed with a double move with a large unit of troops and now you've got some serious pain in their face. You don't need to do any of that though. It's almost better if you don't kill things because if you lock them you can take away their turn and protect yourself from shooting (just like the old days). If they try to assault and kill you. Bust 3++ inov save and -1 to hit stratagems. Yeah - it's expensive but you also have the most absurd command point generator in existence. 1/6 chance to refund the total cost of a stratagem + it works on you and opponents.

Also don't forget about their shooting. The haywire can do vicious damage to a vehicle even when they advance.

"you also have the most absurd command point generator in existence"

Would you rather have a 1/6 chance to refund CP for you or your opponent in a faction with no access to CP farm or a 1/3 chance to refund CP from you with access to CP farm?

I mean, that's a good way to keep CP going, but callling it the most absurd in existence is flat out wrong.

+1 attack doesn't do as much on a unit topping out at 6 models as you'd think.

Yes, combined with troops in the face it's a serious threat, but that is very much not the same thing. It's like saying if you combine Tacs with IG, you've got more CP than xenos will have. May be techically true, but it doesn't mean Tacs are good.

Bharring wrote:
"you also have the most absurd command point generator in existence"

Would you rather have a 1/6 chance to refund CP for you or your opponent in a faction with no access to CP farm or a 1/3 chance to refund CP from you with access to CP farm?

I mean, that's a good way to keep CP going, but callling it the most absurd in existence is flat out wrong.

+1 attack doesn't do as much on a unit topping out at 6 models as you'd think.

Yes, combined with troops in the face it's a serious threat, but that is very much not the same thing. It's like saying if you combine Tacs with IG, you've got more CP than xenos will have. May be techically true, but it doesn't mean Tacs are good.

I was just talking about how close combat is still very strong. Not saying it's a busted combo. Though the amount of stratagems they can put on them is really where it gets stupid.

Yeah, Skyweavers can do good work. And so can troops. Not the same work, though.

We've literally had this "is 40k sci-fi" discussion before - I see you ignored it rather than changing your views. Would you care to rehash it?

To address your other points:
1) 40k is not about heroes. An Imperial Guard Company Commander may very well be the most expensive single-model character in an IG army, and is hardly a "hero" in the epic mythology sense, and has no business fighting a Daemon of Khorne in hand to hand.
2) Swordfights are less cool for mass battles than guns. Hollywood films about medieval/ancient times always add anachronistic elements, or else the battle is going to look like two lines of men shoving each other until one falls over. Look at the beginning of Gladiator, where the Romans are given enough field artillery to make Napoleon blush, relative to their unit size, or Troy, where the battle-scenes dissolved into "oh look, some dudes with swords, what are the /heroes/ doing?"

Yes we have.

Why would I change my views? I proved to you what the difference between sci-fi and fantasy was by giving you the literal definition of sci-fi and explained why 40K is fantasy. So I don't know why you still think you are correct, but I guess you American's aren't big on "facts" anymore.

1) Yeah...40k is absolutely not about heroes...with all those thousands of heroes in every codex and Black Library book. They are in no way integral to how the game plays or the background...An imperial guard command may have no business fighting a greater daemon, but neither does a space marine...but it still happens. I'd also like to point out that you also have characters like Straken and Yarric who tore the arm off an orc warboss and now uses it in close combat.

2) You understand that 40K is a hollywood film basically right? Thats what 40K is intended to be, its not at all realistic. It's supposed to devolve into one on one close combat between the two major characters. 40K is the Iliad. The characters are all that matters, everyone else is just fodder.

I mean, I don't even understand where you are coming from with these points. This is what 40K has always been. Your idea of what 40K should be runs so counter to what it was always intended, its mind boggling. This isn't a realistic combat simulator. It's a giant fantasy space opera. It's the Iliad, It's a play, it's a movie. Forge the narrative etc.

What if my narrative involves burying the idiot with a sword with ordnance?

 Bobthehero wrote:
What if my narrative involves burying the idiot with a sword with ordnance?

"Drive me closer, I want to hit them with my s-"

[NOTICE TO ALL COMMISSARS: While it is the duty of every Commissar to inspire his men to battle - including tank crews - recent data has shown that there is no significant loss of inspiration if the Commissar remains wholly inside his tank. Hence, it is strongly advised that tank-based Commissars not expose themselves within full view and range of the enemy.]

 vipoid wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
What if my narrative involves burying the idiot with a sword with ordnance?

"Drive me closer, I want to hit them with my s-"

[NOTICE TO ALL COMMISSARS: While it is the duty of every Commissar to inspire his men to battle - including tank crews - recent data has shown that there is no significant loss of inspiration if the Commissar remains wholly inside his tank. Hence, it is strongly advised that tank-based Commissars not expose themselves within full view and range of the enemy.]

IMO this sums up the issue. Yes, we have space daemons and magic space travel and the medieval catholic church in space. None of that makes sense in the real world, but we allow it because it makes sense within universe.

A commissar sanding up in full view of the enemy is just stupid. It makes no sense outside of or in universe. In the same way, I can believe in universe there is a place for melee oriented units in dense forest or urban terrain lying in wait ready to spring out from behind a hill or building to tear a unit of boyos with guns into bits. But it just makes no sense outside or inside universe to run across a large open space with a chainsword when you could grab a bolter.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
40K is the Iliad. The characters are all that matters, everyone else is just fodder.

Then 40k is arguably the worst game in the history of wargaming, as you're spending thousands of dollars and countless hours of painting time on irrelevant fodder that sits irrelevantly in the background while two hero models fight. And by fight I mean they stand there motionless alternate rolling dice at each other until one of them dies, without any movie-style drama or action. If this is genuinely what 40k is about why would anyone ever want to play it?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
40K is the Iliad. The characters are all that matters, everyone else is just fodder.

Then 40k is arguably the worst game in the history of wargaming, as you're spending thousands of dollars and countless hours of painting time on irrelevant fodder that sits irrelevantly in the background while two hero models fight. And by fight I mean they stand there motionless alternate rolling dice at each other until one of them dies, without any movie-style drama or action. If this is genuinely what 40k is about why would anyone ever want to play it?

The same could be said when two gunline armies get put against each other. no action or movement, both throw dice at each other until someone falls over, no one has fun.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
The same could be said when two gunline armies get put against each other. no action or movement, both throw dice at each other until someone falls over, no one has fun.

At least this gunline battle, as bad as it is, involves the entire army participating instead of being very expensive background scenery for the two characters hitting each other with swords. And shooting =/= gunlines. Gunlines are a problem of bad 8th edition design, a shooting-focused game can be interesting and not involve gunlines.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
40K is the Iliad. The characters are all that matters, everyone else is just fodder.

Then 40k is arguably the worst game in the history of wargaming, as you're spending thousands of dollars and countless hours of painting time on irrelevant fodder that sits irrelevantly in the background while two hero models fight. And by fight I mean they stand there motionless alternate rolling dice at each other until one of them dies, without any movie-style drama or action. If this is genuinely what 40k is about why would anyone ever want to play it?

Equally why are so many of the stories BL produce about grunts from all over the factions, rather than just non-spikey and spikey space marine chaper masters and warlords, tau commanders, eldar farseers, etc, etc.

There's plenty of focus on named characters, but a hell of a lot of the game and the setting is about the grunts.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
The same could be said when two gunline armies get put against each other. no action or movement, both throw dice at each other until someone falls over, no one has fun.

At least this gunline battle, as bad as it is, involves the entire army participating instead of being very expensive background scenery for the two characters hitting each other with swords. And shooting =/= gunlines. Gunlines are a problem of bad 8th edition design, a shooting-focused game can be interesting and not involve gunlines.

Except in my last game I had my ork boyz kill a Primarch, the next game saw those boyz killing a daemon prince primarch and then the last game saw them eating two Tau Commanders....so they didn't really stand about, however, they were led into battle by Ghazghkull who spent all 3 games alive and thwacking idiots in the head with his PK.

SemperMortis wrote:
Except in my last game I had my ork boyz kill a Primarch, the next game saw those boyz killing a daemon prince primarch and then the last game saw them eating two Tau Commanders....so they didn't really stand about, however, they were led into battle by Ghazghkull who spent all 3 games alive and thwacking idiots in the head with his PK.

Then that's a case of the common troops mattering, and not what I was replying to. This is the original quote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
40K is the Iliad. The characters are all that matters, everyone else is just fodder.

If the characters are all that matter and the rest of those expensive models are just background scenery then remove them from the game and have every 40k game be a melee fight between two character models. You'll quickly discover that 40k's melee mechanics are boring as hell, character fights suck, and there's no reason to play the game without all of the common troops.

 Peregrine wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Except in my last game I had my ork boyz kill a Primarch, the next game saw those boyz killing a daemon prince primarch and then the last game saw them eating two Tau Commanders....so they didn't really stand about, however, they were led into battle by Ghazghkull who spent all 3 games alive and thwacking idiots in the head with his PK.

Then that's a case of the common troops mattering, and not what I was replying to. This is the original quote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
40K is the Iliad. The characters are all that matters, everyone else is just fodder.

If the characters are all that matter and the rest of those expensive models are just background scenery then remove them from the game and have every 40k game be a melee fight between two character models. You'll quickly discover that 40k's melee mechanics are boring as hell, character fights suck, and there's no reason to play the game without all of the common troops.

And what happens in the book before the illiad? the biggest baddest character gets killed....by a commoner shooting an arrow at him. The characters are not ALWAYS what matters, but they definitely have the spotlight in almost every game.

SemperMortis wrote:

And what happens in the book before the illiad? the biggest baddest character gets killed....by a commoner shooting an arrow at him. The characters are not ALWAYS what matters, but they definitely have the spotlight in almost every game.

I think you are thinking of the Odyssey. Achilles doesn't even die in the original Iliad poem, though his death is alluded to in the future.

Also Achilles isn't killed by a commoner, he is killed by Paris.

And even after Achilles death, the portrayals of the Trojan War are still focused on heroes such as Ajax, Odysseus, Agamemnon, Menelaus etc.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

And what happens in the book before the illiad? the biggest baddest character gets killed....by a commoner shooting an arrow at him. The characters are not ALWAYS what matters, but they definitely have the spotlight in almost every game.

I think you are thinking of the Odyssey. Achilles doesn't even die in the original Iliad poem, though his death is alluded to in the future.

Also Achilles isn't killed by a commoner, he is killed by Paris.

When you have a 2+ rerollable invulnerable save and roll a double 1

 Peregrine wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
The same could be said when two gunline armies get put against each other. no action or movement, both throw dice at each other until someone falls over, no one has fun.

At least this gunline battle, as bad as it is, involves the entire army participating instead of being very expensive background scenery for the two characters hitting each other with swords. And shooting =/= gunlines. Gunlines are a problem of bad 8th edition design, a shooting-focused game can be interesting and not involve gunlines.

Gunlines are not a 8th edition design problem, it persistently exists in 40k since I've been playing (5th ed) and any game where mass ranged weapons exist that doesn't actively punish not moving. That's because it's a low skill strategy that will attract peoples to play armies/classes/build order that allow it and still result in victory for the very reason you and others have pointed out: No resistance can be had if you're already dead. Even in fantasy or ancient history games, lines of range creep in because as long as it's a choice and the designers don't go out of there way to stop it then there's a way to make it work.

You can make an interesting shooting focused game without gunline, but I think it's easier to make an interesting game without gunline if it doesn't focus on just shooting.

As for the first point, Brutus is the only person I've ever seen advocate for more focus on melee. Everyone else in this thread not on the realism side (and in general) just want assault to not feel like running on a bad leg: it's doable, but you're going to be in pain for most of it.

 Peregrine wrote:
[character fights suck

I think 80% of this is due to the removal of initiative to be replaced with alternating activation, 15% is due to the loss of the WS/WS chart, and 5% is due to the lack of a parry mechanic.

kombatwombat wrote:
I think 80% of this is due to the removal of initiative to be replaced with alternating activation, 15% is due to the loss of the WS/WS chart, and 5% is due to the lack of a parry mechanic.

It's because of all of the above, and more. There just isn't anything interesting in the fight, because it uses the same resolution mechanic as a fight between 50-man blobs of troops in a 1980s fantasy game. There are no special attacks, no duel of move vs. counter-move to parry an attack or find a vulnerable point to slip a sword into, no movement or facing once the two characters enter melee combat, no effects of wounds beyond counting down a total, etc. You just put two character modes (which don't even matter because they don't move or draw LOS or anything) next to each other and alternate rolling dice for attacks until someone is dead. Hit-wound-save, hit-wound-save, over and over again until someone reaches the wound total and a model is removed. If this boring slog is supposed to be the focus of 40k then 40k and its incompetent rule authors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Gunlines are not a 8th edition design problem, it persistently exists in 40k since I've been playing (5th ed) and any game where mass ranged weapons exist that doesn't actively punish not moving. That's because it's a low skill strategy that will attract peoples to play armies/classes/build order that allow it and still result in victory for the very reason you and others have pointed out: No resistance can be had if you're already dead. Even in fantasy or ancient history games, lines of range creep in because as long as it's a choice and the designers don't go out of there way to stop it then there's a way to make it work.

It absolutely is an 8th edition problem because of how 8th edition handles terrain and LOS. Most gaming terrain effectively doesn't exist in 8th edition, so there's nothing stopping you from lining up a bunch of models on the back edge of the table and rolling dice. LOS will rarely be broken, cover only matters if you're actually in a piece of terrain, and barrage weapons don't suffer any penalty for ignoring what little terrain does exist. In 5th edition LOS-blocking terrain was a lot more relevant, and a gunline army would at least have to deal with cover saves everywhere. The primary reason that gunlines were a problem in 5th edition was that nobody bothered to use enough terrain. Of course when you play on a table with a couple of single trees and a low wall as the only "terrain" it's going to reward gunlines. But with enough terrain to break up LOS you could ensure that the gunline player was forced to move to get clear shots at anything.

If shooting worked like close combat, then shooting would be vastly more powerful, because every unit would shoot in both your own turn and in your opponents. Shooting damage output would essentially double.

Fun fact: naked Tac squads do more damage per round in CC than in shooting their Boltguns (by a very slight margin (11 vs 10 S4 attacks hitting on 3s for a 5man).

Bharring wrote:
Fun fact: naked Tac squads do more damage per round in CC than in shooting their Boltguns (by a very slight margin (11 vs 10 S4 attacks hitting on 3s for a 5man).

Well not in the first round. Rapid fire wins.

RF wins on frontloading the damage. Pure throughput, CC wins, although very slowly. But that'll never happen - you'll take casualties. Frontloaded damage is better.

Just pointing out that CC is often stronger than shooting on a pure stats level, yet still is weaker in the game because of what it requires to use it.

 Peregrine wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:
I think 80% of this is due to the removal of initiative to be replaced with alternating activation, 15% is due to the loss of the WS/WS chart, and 5% is due to the lack of a parry mechanic.

It's because of all of the above, and more. There just isn't anything interesting in the fight, because it uses the same resolution mechanic as a fight between 50-man blobs of troops in a 1980s fantasy game. There are no special attacks, no duel of move vs. counter-move to parry an attack or find a vulnerable point to slip a sword into, no movement or facing once the two characters enter melee combat, no effects of wounds beyond counting down a total, etc. You just put two character modes (which don't even matter because they don't move or draw LOS or anything) next to each other and alternate rolling dice for attacks until someone is dead. Hit-wound-save, hit-wound-save, over and over again until someone reaches the wound total and a model is removed. If this boring slog is supposed to be the focus of 40k then 40k and its incompetent rule authors.

If you don't mind me asking, what sort of changes/additions would you suggest to make character vs character battles more interesting? (Ideally without needing to completely rewrite the mechanics of the game. )

 Peregrine wrote:


It's because of all of the above, and more. There just isn't anything interesting in the fight, because it uses the same resolution mechanic as a fight between 50-man blobs of troops in a 1980s fantasy game. There are no special attacks, no duel of move vs. counter-move to parry an attack or find a vulnerable point to slip a sword into, no movement or facing once the two characters enter melee combat, no effects of wounds beyond counting down a total, etc. You just put two character modes (which don't even matter because they don't move or draw LOS or anything) next to each other and alternate rolling dice for attacks until someone is dead. Hit-wound-save, hit-wound-save, over and over again until someone reaches the wound total and a model is removed. If this boring slog is supposed to be the focus of 40k then 40k and its incompetent rule authors.

I think you’re looking for a RPG, not a tabletop wargame.

 vipoid wrote:
If you don't mind me asking, what sort of changes/additions would you suggest to make character vs character battles more interesting? (Ideally without needing to completely rewrite the mechanics of the game. )

Bad question. Character battles will not be interesting in an army-scale game like 40k. If you want character battles you have to rewrite the mechanics and make a new character vs. character dueling game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kombatwombat wrote:
I think you’re looking for a RPG, not a tabletop wargame.

No, I'm not. I'm looking for a game with whole armies. The person I'm quoting is looking for an RPG.

Overall I think the issue with shooting is that things die too fast in the game. Since shooting gets to do damage before melee, they can simply kill too much of the assault army before the assaulters can make contact. I don't think most games ending with one side being tabled isn't good game design because reduces the importance of objectives and or morale. They still haven't made morale actually matter that much. I would much rather have HQ provide leadership buffs that are actually meaningful rather than just give rerolls to hit/wound which just result in things dying even faster. Morale in 40k never really worked because it was never an integral part of the game and was just a thing that felt bad when it screwed you over.

ComradeRed1308 wrote:
Overall I think the issue with shooting is that things die too fast in the game. Since shooting gets to do damage before melee, they can simply kill too much of the assault army before the assaulters can make contact. I don't think most games ending with one side being tabled isn't good game design because reduces the importance of objectives and or morale. They still haven't made morale actually matter that much. I would much rather have HQ provide leadership buffs that are actually meaningful rather than just give rerolls to hit/wound which just result in things dying even faster. Morale in 40k never really worked because it was never an integral part of the game and was just a thing that felt bad when it screwed you over.

So kind of like actual morale then?

fe40k wrote:
1. Units would have to roll 2d6 per 12" range of their weapon; added together to determine final shooting range. More elite units would get to re-roll (all) these dice. If all of their targets are out of range, the shooting attack fails.
2. Units would block line of sight to the models behind them, unless the firing model was able to draw an uninterrupted line that doesn't cross between two models in the same unit (representing not being able to pass through small enough gaps).
3. For each enemy unit that is targeted during the shooting phase, they may attempt "counter-fire"; following normal shooting rules, but only hitting on 6's.
[4. Something about enemy units being able to shoot back during the enemies turn, once actually engaged by the enemy... I don't think there's a good enough parallel; short of allowing the enemy unit to use it's melee attacks or something as a ranged "close combat" - to represent the lesser skilled models fighting back (ala unskilled models versus skilled models in a firefight).]
5. Units engaged in a firefight can't move, unless it is to fall back. Units falling back can't advance or shoot that round, unless possessing special skills.
6. Firefight ("ranged melee") continues between engaged units...

Funny how typing all that out sounds excessive - but it's what melee models must currently endure, just to reach and engage the enemy lines.

That said, there's an interesting concept of units getting engaged in "firefights"; essentially ranged version of close combat; it pins units in place, forcing them to duke it out round to round with other enemy units - and prevents the engaged units on both sides from being able to target other units, or move around until they decide to fall back first.

Maybe the sequence would be...
1. Player's units decides to shoot at # of targets.
2. # of targets attempt "Overwatch" with their ranged weapons, hitting on 6's.
3. Player's units shoot as normal.
4. After all Player's units have finished shooting, enemy units return fire (per normal rules).
5. Unless a unit falls back, units are considered "engaged", and will continue standard shooting (in alternating format), at the end of each round; ala standard close combat rules, albeit at range.

You're forgetting things like 'units wouldn't be able to do anything else but shoot at the unit that shot at them or retreat, basically giving up their entire turn' and 'units being shot at by units who are better at shooting than them die instantly and even if they don't their retaliation is pathetic',

This is just a bad comparison. Also melee sucks and is boring so it being bad isn't a big deal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ComradeRed1308 wrote:
Overall I think the issue with shooting is that things die too fast in the game. Since shooting gets to do damage before melee, they can simply kill too much of the assault army before the assaulters can make contact. I don't think most games ending with one side being tabled isn't good game design because reduces the importance of objectives and or morale. They still haven't made morale actually matter that much. I would much rather have HQ provide leadership buffs that are actually meaningful rather than just give rerolls to hit/wound which just result in things dying even faster. Morale in 40k never really worked because it was never an integral part of the game and was just a thing that felt bad when it screwed you over.

Thing is, if the shooting army doesn't kill enough of the assault army before they hit assault, the game's over anyway. Melee vs Shooting always ends with one side being ignominiously slaughtered.