Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I saw it brought up in the thread about space marines and their super-heroic kind of presentation, that movement/shooting feel kinda better in Epic: Armageddon compared to 40k, so I thought I would start a new thread to talk about it. So I had a few general thoughts and questions I wanted to ask about it.

Do you think units move too fast or too slow in 40k in general?
Do you think shooting ranges are too far or too short in 40k in general?
Are transports currently too good? not good enough?
Does embarking/disembarking from transports make sense in the current rules? Should embarking/disembarking change in any way to make things feel better?
Does morale/leadership matter enough in the current rules? Are there too many units/rules that break the rules for morale? Should morale be used or in play more often?

How would you like to see these mechanics interact with each-other to make the game feel better?

I can't speak to current 40k, but back when I played I'd usually run a MechGuard (not Leafblower) list that had troops in Chimeras, and I can't recall feeling like there was ever much transport utility to the Chimera beyond bunkering - I don't remember ever feeling like pulling a sudden redeployment was beneficial, since it would take too long to pull off (2 turns out of ~6 at absolute minimum, likely 3-4 if they needed to cross a distance) and "Move! Move! Move!" would do roughly the same job without tying up two whole units. I can't imagine the board shrinking has done anything beneficial in that regard.

I'd expect that vehicle movement speed (so they can readily outpace footsloggers), board size (so there's somewhere to actually fething go), and game length (so the maneuver has the time it needs to happen) would all have to increase by a fair margin to really make transports shine as anything other than overpriced light/medium tanks.

To be fair, Transport have gotten comparatively slower while ranges have increased over the span of the game.

When I started back in 5th (or was it 4th?), a Transport could move 12" while an Infantry unit could move 6". Comparable Transports can now move 12+1d6" (Advance), while an Infantry unit can move 6"-8"+1d6 inches.

And while Infantry could charge 6" (for total of 12" of movement) back in the day, you can now charge 2d6", sometimes after Advancing. So that is an Infantry unit move/charging 6"(or 7" or 8")+2(3)d6" compared to 12" tops. Units have gotten a lot faster while Transport speed has not kept up in comparison.

Add in the smaller board size, and I can see why some find the utility of Transport to have gone down. Doubly so when you realize the Points Value of a Transport has gone WAY up (Witch Hunter Rhino was 50 Points, dropped to 35 Points, and is now 75 points).

I've moved to epic armageddon, and in that game, movement and transports feel great. I think it is an combined effect of all the following:
*smaller and less unit footprints in epic, this gives the board more space and more interesting positions to move to.
*a game of epic is usually only 3-4 turns. But during each activation you can embark/disembark several times. Imagine if you could charge with a transport (not having to reach base to base with it) and in the same charge move then disembark the troops within 6" into contact. Or imagine if during a regular move you could embark, move the transport, then disembark and shoot. With the 40k rules, jumping into a transport and driving feels like wasting a turn. As you can't get out same turn as embarking the transport becomes more like a bunker than a ride.
*in epic armageddon, being outside but near your transport gives the infantry cover (-1 to being hit). This creates a symbiosis between the troops and their transport, where they like to work together.

Epic Armageddon is imo the most strategic and tactical set of rules GW ever produced and nothing else has come close.

Modern 40k follows the CCG card combo paradigm with stacking abilities and strategems to get one off super effects and building your army around the precise application of those singular overwhelming attacks.

Rarely does any one unit do as much in EA, but the army as a whole pulls together.

BanjoJohn wrote:
I saw it brought up in the thread about space marines and their super-heroic kind of presentation, that movement/shooting feel kinda better in Epic: Armageddon compared to 40k, so I thought I would start a new thread to talk about it. So I had a few general thoughts and questions I wanted to ask about it.

Do you think units move too fast or too slow in 40k in general?
Do you think shooting ranges are too far or too short in 40k in general?
Are transports currently too good? not good enough?
Does embarking/disembarking from transports make sense in the current rules? Should embarking/disembarking change in any way to make things feel better?
Does morale/leadership matter enough in the current rules? Are there too many units/rules that break the rules for morale? Should morale be used or in play more often?

How would you like to see these mechanics interact with each-other to make the game feel better?

I think shooting ranges should be dramatically reduced, let's say by a about a quarter or a third, to give more chance to melee without resorting to gimmicks movement rules.

For me, the root of the speed issue goes back to 3rd edition, where the M stat was removed and all infantry moved 6", and vehicles (generally) moved 12".

If you look at 2nd edition, base infantry speed was 4", while a Rhino at Slow speed moved 8" - but if you put your foot to the floor for a rapid change of position, it could go 25", which is a huge improvement on your infantry movement.

When they brought M back, GW really should have calibrated around a lower base M than the 6" they were using in the "fixed movement" era.

One of my problems with 40k is the ability of units to instantly attack the opponent's units due to very long ranges and limited LOS blocking. That's why the game feels like two huge guys standing still and alternating hitting each other on the head with sledgehammers.

All the actually interesting and intellectually engaging miniature wargames I've played where positioning and maneuver mattered a lot had either very short ranges for weapons (Warmachine) or punishing LOS rules/terrain guidelines (Kill Team) or both. In these games you don't really attack the opponent before they had a chance to move (unless they make a serious deployment mistake) and to attack them at all you need to put in some work. The result is these games much more often feel like a duel of expert fencers, players trying to get in range or stay out of range as situation requires.

The combination of bigger models with bigger bases, larger vehicles and smaller table sizes makes 40K really offputting for me now.

If you make ranges shorter when the models are so much bigger it starts to look a bit silly to me.

From 3e to 5e when I played I felt transports were alright. The pendulum kept swinging back and forth on making them too lethal for passengers or too cheap for their guns and armour, but I felt they were often used as transports especially for melee armies. The fact that Guard had a few lists where they used htem as firebases I didn't really mind - it suited the guard playstyle to me.

Well, in Warmachine biggest models, Colossals, that come on 120mm bases often have shooting ranges of 10-12". 10" is a charge range of an average infantry unit, 12" is already considered a pretty good range for shooting.

It forces careful positioning and hard decisions. Getting to attack isn't given, you have to work for it. Staying out of range is a viable option given to players, not something that is never considered because it's almost impossible anyway. It makes the game so much more about positioning, screening, baiting, sacrificing, jamming, dancing in and out of ranges into perfect positions, instead of just pointing at targets and rolling dice.

Yeah I played a lot of Warmachine in Mk2. Good game. Though I also thought the Colossals were too big for the scale of the game.

But the game play reasons for it are solid.

I think ranges in 40K especially feel super dumb and gamey. Weapons have shortish ranges, yet everything moves quite fast. Table sizes are relatively small, and there are too many models on the board. It all adds up to an incredibly mind numbing game which really isnt my first choice for a good, fun tabletop wargame.

Epic feels better because it’s a smaller scale on a play area that’s roughly the same size.

I think shrinking standard table size messed with the game tbh. It tipped balance towards melee builds, and away from shooting builds.

I don’t think slowing units down would feel any better, even if it might balance things between shooting and melee a bit.

Marines are the most common army so I’ll use them as an example.
Intercessors, 2 shots S4 AP-1 D1 from the bolt rifle, 3attacks S4 AP0 D1.
More attacks with a nearly identical profile, or chainsword for the sgt A5 S4 AP-1 D1 exactly the same profile with 3 more attacks.
Powerfist/TH A3 S8 AP-2 D2
More attacks, at a significantly better profile.

Even with the GL it’s not even close really.
Frag Ad3 S4 AP0 D1 equal to the CCW profile at best.
Krak A1 S9 AP-2 Dd3 still worse than a fist or hammer.

So either make the recommended table sizes bigger or make terrain effect movement a lot more. Like fighting through ruin walls is pretty stupid.(I have more melee armies than shooting armies)

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Like fighting through ruin walls is pretty stupid.(I have more melee armies than shooting armies)

I agree with this and its counterpart- I can charge through a wall at a unit I can't otherwise see but the defender can't shoot in overwatch because of..... reasons.

Range is definitely an issue, but there are a number of related factors:
- Rapid Fire weapons have become better and better. They used to only be able to fire a single shot at 24" or two shots at 12" if you remained stationary. If you moved, they could only fire a single shot at 12". And if you fired at all then you couldn't assault in the same turn. Then they were able to fire at 24" or double-tap at 12" even when the model moved. And now models can fire them and still freely assault afterwards.
- Heavy Weapons used to be unable to fire at all if the model moved, so positioning was key and if you wanted to reposition then you effectively had to think a turn ahead. Now, even if you move it's still just a minor penalty to the hit roll.
- Even vehicles used to be limited in how many weapons they could fire if they moved, but now they can fire all weapons at full BS.
- Rules like Night Fighting limited the ability of armies to hurt each other from across the board in the early turns.

In essence, all the rules that used to limit the firepower of models and force hard decisions in terms have been stripped away, so that all models can now move freely and still fire at full or almost-full effectiveness.

 alextroy wrote:
To be fair, Transport have gotten comparatively slower while ranges have increased over the span of the game.

When I started back in 5th (or was it 4th?), a Transport could move 12" while an Infantry unit could move 6". Comparable Transports can now move 12+1d6" (Advance), while an Infantry unit can move 6"-8"+1d6 inches.

And while Infantry could charge 6" (for total of 12" of movement) back in the day, you can now charge 2d6", sometimes after Advancing. So that is an Infantry unit move/charging 6"(or 7" or 8")+2(3)d6" compared to 12" tops. Units have gotten a lot faster while Transport speed has not kept up in comparison.

Add in the smaller board size, and I can see why some find the utility of Transport to have gone down. Doubly so when you realize the Points Value of a Transport has gone WAY up (Witch Hunter Rhino was 50 Points, dropped to 35 Points, and is now 75 points).

Even before you get to points cost there's a hidden cost I call opportunity cost. Most of what you want to stick in a Transport is short - generally meaning charge - range units, and you can't move, disembark and charge most of the time. I think they're experimenting with alternative inducements so to speak with something like the Falcon Grav Tank giving a shooting boost to its transported unit but that's still pretty rare and pretty niche. Until nearly everybody has some parallel to Leader(s) + 10 Storm Guardians/Assault Intercessors/etc jumping out of a Rhino-ish TRANSPORT and charging transports are going to be lackluster is my guess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:
Range is definitely an issue, but there are a number of related factors:
- Rapid Fire weapons have become better and better. They used to only be able to fire a single shot at 24" or two shots at 12" if you remained stationary. If you moved, they could only fire a single shot at 12". And if you fired at all then you couldn't assault in the same turn. Then they were able to fire at 24" or double-tap at 12" even when the model moved. And now models can fire them and still freely assault afterwards.
- Heavy Weapons used to be unable to fire at all if the model moved, so positioning was key and if you wanted to reposition then you effectively had to think a turn ahead. Now, even if you move it's still just a minor penalty to the hit roll.
- Even vehicles used to be limited in how many weapons they could fire if they moved, but now they can fire all weapons at full BS.
- Rules like Night Fighting limited the ability of armies to hurt each other from across the board in the early turns.

In essence, all the rules that used to limit the firepower of models and force hard decisions in terms have been stripped away, so that all models can now move freely and still fire at full or almost-full effectiveness.

You're missing the biggest one - must always, or almost always, target the closest unit of TYPE (i.e. Infantry or Monster/Vehicle) Almost everyone can shoot across the board and can ignore the "screens".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Epic feels better because it’s a smaller scale on a play area that’s roughly the same size.

I think shrinking standard table size messed with the game tbh. It tipped balance towards melee builds, and away from shooting builds.

I don’t think slowing units down would feel any better, even if it might balance things between shooting and melee a bit.

Marines are the most common army so I’ll use them as an example.
Intercessors, 2 shots S4 AP-1 D1 from the bolt rifle, 3attacks S4 AP0 D1.
More attacks with a nearly identical profile, or chainsword for the sgt A5 S4 AP-1 D1 exactly the same profile with 3 more attacks.
Powerfist/TH A3 S8 AP-2 D2
More attacks, at a significantly better profile.

Even with the GL it’s not even close really.
Frag Ad3 S4 AP0 D1 equal to the CCW profile at best.
Krak A1 S9 AP-2 Dd3 still worse than a fist or hammer.

So either make the recommended table sizes bigger or make terrain effect movement a lot more. Like fighting through ruin walls is pretty stupid.(I have more melee armies than shooting armies)

Melee is generally "better" because of the opportunity cost. The chances of being able to First Turn Charge for most units is pretty small. The chances of being able to consolidation roll up the other player's lines is also pretty small. If you figure you only get to fight half the time a fight oriented unit should do double the damage when they DO get to fight.

Ranges and movement distances are definitely a problem in 40k, and have been for a while. I don't think shrinking the standard table size has been a major factor because, frankly, the distances involved were already far too big before that change happened. It used to be that it took an infantry unit 4 turns to get from one deployment zone to the other. Now almost every army has some way to get units from their own deployment zone to the opponent's in turn 1, at least theoretically. Many can do it reliably. Such massive movement distances make mistakes less costly and means forward planning is less rewarded. After all, if you're out of position it's not really a problem if you can move 12", advance and charge, allowing you to move almost 24" with a unit in one turn.

Weapon ranges and the general inflation of ranged weapon stats is also a major problem. It's bizarre to me that we have ranged weapons with stats that just keep getting better and better, with S12+ not being that uncommon, AP-3 being nothing special and damage of D6 or better also being fairly standard. Yet in melee a unit with AP-3 and D2 is seen as some sort of premier unit. Melee weapons with damage above 3 are almost unheard of. Granted, the whole unit will likely get a lot of attacks, but the disparity between ranged stats and combat ones is weird to me. It's also annoying that GW has this vast range of values they can use yet they almost invariably have weapons get universally better as their stats go up. So a weapon with high S will also likely have good AP and good damage. They need to start using more variety in their weapon stats. We need high Strength weapons with low damage or weapons with low AP but good damage, so defensive stats matter. As it is you usually have tough units with defensive stats that make you good against the medium Strength weapons, then might as well not exist once the bigger weapons shoot you, because there's no variety.

That's why I love Adeptus Titanicus. The weapon ranges feel more in line with these land battleships jockeying for position.

Even with the smaller table space, it still feels like I have a lot of area available.

Until I start tripping on my opponents who thought it would be fun to bring Armigers to a Titan duel.

If the 40k tables went back to their old sizes, a lot if this cluttered feel would go away. Either that, or reduced game sizes to 1500 points.

Mixed views really.

I think the critical issue of 40k and movement - as most people would imagine it - is that there aren't enough turns. So you don't have enough time for any "clever" manoeuvres.

I'm not sure Warmachine is a good counter argument. Sure, movement was key - if you didn't know such and such a faction could blast down the table and assassinate your warcaster your just lost. But I feel that's a function of IGOUGO. You have to learn these tricks to be better. Arguably today's 40k isn't that different. If you don't know how to play the objectives, its very easy for a better player to deny you all the primary (and potentially secondary) and therefore crush you. Movement/positioning is vitally important. The issue is that you have limited chance to react, because you only notionally get 5 "moves".

If you go back in time I'm not sure things were much better. Yes there were stronger limitations on shooting - so turn 1, potentially turn 2 was a few static heavy weapons taking shots into very poppable Rhinos. Infantry were potentially reduced to waddling across a sea of difficult terrain. Rhinos were a very cheap 35 point way of jumping 6" forward and potentially absorbing some hits. I'm not sure it felt any more meaningfully like a mechanised formation vs an infantry one.

As I've always said - I'm not sure there was much skill/narrative in it. The idea that you'd subtlly move a melta gun across the table for 3 turns to shoot the rear armour of a tank in turn 4 didn't really happen. I mean they'd see you doing it for starters. Suicide drop melta was obviously "better" at it.

I'll admit I've never played epic - but to hear it you could have a scenario of "I know what they are going to do, but due to the rules I just can't respond in time". Leaving aside whether that's plausible given a certain level of experience, I can't realy see how that would work within the 5 turn IGOUO framework of 40k. Maybe its about a greater capacity to exploit mistakes/being out of position.

Breton wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
To be fair, Transport have gotten comparatively slower while ranges have increased over the span of the game.

When I started back in 5th (or was it 4th?), a Transport could move 12" while an Infantry unit could move 6". Comparable Transports can now move 12+1d6" (Advance), while an Infantry unit can move 6"-8"+1d6 inches.

And while Infantry could charge 6" (for total of 12" of movement) back in the day, you can now charge 2d6", sometimes after Advancing. So that is an Infantry unit move/charging 6"(or 7" or 8")+2(3)d6" compared to 12" tops. Units have gotten a lot faster while Transport speed has not kept up in comparison.

Add in the smaller board size, and I can see why some find the utility of Transport to have gone down. Doubly so when you realize the Points Value of a Transport has gone WAY up (Witch Hunter Rhino was 50 Points, dropped to 35 Points, and is now 75 points).

Even before you get to points cost there's a hidden cost I call opportunity cost. Most of what you want to stick in a Transport is short - generally meaning charge - range units, and you can't move, disembark and charge most of the time. I think they're experimenting with alternative inducements so to speak with something like the Falcon Grav Tank giving a shooting boost to its transported unit but that's still pretty rare and pretty niche. Until nearly everybody has some parallel to Leader(s) + 10 Storm Guardians/Assault Intercessors/etc jumping out of a Rhino-ish TRANSPORT and charging transports are going to be lackluster is my guess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:
Range is definitely an issue, but there are a number of related factors:
- Rapid Fire weapons have become better and better. They used to only be able to fire a single shot at 24" or two shots at 12" if you remained stationary. If you moved, they could only fire a single shot at 12". And if you fired at all then you couldn't assault in the same turn. Then they were able to fire at 24" or double-tap at 12" even when the model moved. And now models can fire them and still freely assault afterwards.
- Heavy Weapons used to be unable to fire at all if the model moved, so positioning was key and if you wanted to reposition then you effectively had to think a turn ahead. Now, even if you move it's still just a minor penalty to the hit roll.
- Even vehicles used to be limited in how many weapons they could fire if they moved, but now they can fire all weapons at full BS.
- Rules like Night Fighting limited the ability of armies to hurt each other from across the board in the early turns.

In essence, all the rules that used to limit the firepower of models and force hard decisions in terms have been stripped away, so that all models can now move freely and still fire at full or almost-full effectiveness.

You're missing the biggest one - must always, or almost always, target the closest unit of TYPE (i.e. Infantry or Monster/Vehicle) Almost everyone can shoot across the board and can ignore the "screens".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Epic feels better because it’s a smaller scale on a play area that’s roughly the same size.

I think shrinking standard table size messed with the game tbh. It tipped balance towards melee builds, and away from shooting builds.

I don’t think slowing units down would feel any better, even if it might balance things between shooting and melee a bit.

Marines are the most common army so I’ll use them as an example.
Intercessors, 2 shots S4 AP-1 D1 from the bolt rifle, 3attacks S4 AP0 D1.
More attacks with a nearly identical profile, or chainsword for the sgt A5 S4 AP-1 D1 exactly the same profile with 3 more attacks.
Powerfist/TH A3 S8 AP-2 D2
More attacks, at a significantly better profile.

Even with the GL it’s not even close really.
Frag Ad3 S4 AP0 D1 equal to the CCW profile at best.
Krak A1 S9 AP-2 Dd3 still worse than a fist or hammer.

So either make the recommended table sizes bigger or make terrain effect movement a lot more. Like fighting through ruin walls is pretty stupid.(I have more melee armies than shooting armies)

Melee is generally "better" because of the opportunity cost. The chances of being able to First Turn Charge for most units is pretty small. The chances of being able to consolidation roll up the other player's lines is also pretty small. If you figure you only get to fight half the time a fight oriented unit should do double the damage when they DO get to fight.

I very much disagree. My main army is blood angels, I’ve recently started orks as well, getting into melee is pretty easy. Especially with the prevalence of advance and charge abilities/strats. Getting into melee on these small boards is no problem. Advancing needs to be either D3” or removed as a core mechanic completely at these table sizes.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Epic feels better because it’s a smaller scale on a play area that’s roughly the same size.

I think shrinking standard table size messed with the game tbh. It tipped balance towards melee builds, and away from shooting builds.

I don’t think slowing units down would feel any better, even if it might balance things between shooting and melee a bit.

Marines are the most common army so I’ll use them as an example.
Intercessors, 2 shots S4 AP-1 D1 from the bolt rifle, 3attacks S4 AP0 D1.
More attacks with a nearly identical profile, or chainsword for the sgt A5 S4 AP-1 D1 exactly the same profile with 3 more attacks.
Powerfist/TH A3 S8 AP-2 D2
More attacks, at a significantly better profile.

Even with the GL it’s not even close really.
Frag Ad3 S4 AP0 D1 equal to the CCW profile at best.
Krak A1 S9 AP-2 Dd3 still worse than a fist or hammer.

So either make the recommended table sizes bigger or make terrain effect movement a lot more. Like fighting through ruin walls is pretty stupid.(I have more melee armies than shooting armies)

Intercessors are 4 shots at S4 AP-1 D1 [Assault, Heavy]. Only requirement is to not split fire.

Edit: shooting/fighting other MEQ, a 5-man Intercessor squad does…

3.33 damage from Bolt Rifles (4.17 with Heavy, 2.22 with cover, 2.78 with both)
.23 from Kraks (.19 with cover)
Total of 2.41 to 4.4. Probably gonna get 3 damage plus on average.

1.33 damage from CCWs
.83 from Chainsword or 2.22 from Fist
Total of 3.55 with Fist.

So only slightly better. At best. With much more risk and at less range.

Slipspace wrote:
Ranges and movement distances are definitely a problem in 40k, and have been for a while. I don't think shrinking the standard table size has been a major factor because, frankly, the distances involved were already far too big before that change happened. It used to be that it took an infantry unit 4 turns to get from one deployment zone to the other. Now almost every army has some way to get units from their own deployment zone to the opponent's in turn 1, at least theoretically. Many can do it reliably. Such massive movement distances make mistakes less costly and means forward planning is less rewarded. After all, if you're out of position it's not really a problem if you can move 12", advance and charge, allowing you to move almost 24" with a unit in one turn.

Weapon ranges and the general inflation of ranged weapon stats is also a major problem. It's bizarre to me that we have ranged weapons with stats that just keep getting better and better, with S12+ not being that uncommon, AP-3 being nothing special and damage of D6 or better also being fairly standard. Yet in melee a unit with AP-3 and D2 is seen as some sort of premier unit. Melee weapons with damage above 3 are almost unheard of. Granted, the whole unit will likely get a lot of attacks, but the disparity between ranged stats and combat ones is weird to me. It's also annoying that GW has this vast range of values they can use yet they almost invariably have weapons get universally better as their stats go up. So a weapon with high S will also likely have good AP and good damage. They need to start using more variety in their weapon stats. We need high Strength weapons with low damage or weapons with low AP but good damage, so defensive stats matter. As it is you usually have tough units with defensive stats that make you good against the medium Strength weapons, then might as well not exist once the bigger weapons shoot you, because there's no variety.

Most guns with S12+ are 1 shot guns most guns with D6 damage are 1 maybe two shot weapons, and often time fairly short ranged.
3 aggressors and a captain can put out 15 S8 AP-2 D2 attacks, 6 of those hitting on 2+ the rest on 3+ and 9 of those rerolling wounds.

Meanwhile if you want 10+ ranged attacks with remotely similar stats, you either pay in a bunch of points buying multiple units, or you have to get into charge range to do the damage anyway, particularly for infantry.
For infantry the closest shooting analogy to aggressors’ melee i can easily think of is guard HWS with autocannons. At 2 shots per gun you need to take 3 squads, you get 18 shots, but they’re only hitting on 4+ no rerolls to wound.
Aside from that you do get some overwhelming firepower out of guard tanks, the exterminator is only 170pts and does come with a gak ton of fire power, but still only hitting on a 4+


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Epic feels better because it’s a smaller scale on a play area that’s roughly the same size.

I think shrinking standard table size messed with the game tbh. It tipped balance towards melee builds, and away from shooting builds.

I don’t think slowing units down would feel any better, even if it might balance things between shooting and melee a bit.

Marines are the most common army so I’ll use them as an example.
Intercessors, 2 shots S4 AP-1 D1 from the bolt rifle, 3attacks S4 AP0 D1.
More attacks with a nearly identical profile, or chainsword for the sgt A5 S4 AP-1 D1 exactly the same profile with 3 more attacks.
Powerfist/TH A3 S8 AP-2 D2
More attacks, at a significantly better profile.

Even with the GL it’s not even close really.
Frag Ad3 S4 AP0 D1 equal to the CCW profile at best.
Krak A1 S9 AP-2 Dd3 still worse than a fist or hammer.

So either make the recommended table sizes bigger or make terrain effect movement a lot more. Like fighting through ruin walls is pretty stupid.(I have more melee armies than shooting armies)

Intercessors are 4 shots at S4 AP-1 D1 [Assault, Heavy]. Only requirement is to not split fire.

Edit: shooting/fighting other MEQ, a 5-man Intercessor squad does…

3.33 damage from Bolt Rifles (4.17 with Heavy, 2.22 with cover, 2.78 with both)
.23 from Kraks (.19 with cover)
Total of 2.41 to 4.4. Probably gonna get 3 damage plus on average.

1.33 damage from CCWs
.83 from Chainsword or 2.22 from Fist
Total of 3.55 with Fist.

So only slightly better. At best. With much more risk and at less range.

they do not get 4 ranged attacks. They get 2 I literally looked at the datasheet on the app before I made my post, I just double checked to make sure my eyes didn’t lie to me.
Is 2 shots per bolt rifle.

What’s the damage output of intercessor shooting compared to assault intercessor melee? Or JAI’s melee?

I’m talking about a melee unit vs a shooting unit, not a shooting unit’s shooting vs its own melee. Intercessors just aren’t good at killing things.

The closest shooting analogy to aggressors’ melee in the marine codex I can think of is eradicators, which is only 4 shots total, and if your opponent survives they’ll easily be in charge range in their turn.

The fact that you need to play primary objectives means shooting units don’t really have much of an option of kiting away if your army is a shooting army, and those armies suck in melee, so both players are moving to the middle of the table, player 2 likely in charge range T1.

So a shooting army can either get slaughtered on objectives in the midfield or give a lot of primary points and likely secondaries, in order to buy more time to shoot, and then hope they can kill enough enemies in order to then retake primaries.

I've read everyone's posts so far, and I've had some time to think about it, and I wonder, there's some agreement about things not feeling right, but maybe not about what exactly doesn't feel right?

So I wonder, should non-tyranid infantry be slower? and transports faster?
Would move 4 for human/ork units, move 6 for eldar, move 8 for tyranids make sense as a baseline for foot units?
With slower infantry again, would transports that could move 12", or maybe 24" in one turn be good to balance out roles?
What should the range for rifle-sized weapons be? 24"? 18"? 14"?
Would it make sense if a unit that "runs" say double its normal speed? Should that unit give up shooting? or perhaps only get to shoot pistols instead of rifles?
Should these slower infantry units get to move and shoot without penalty? Stand still and shoot with a bonus?
Should embarking into a transport, moving, and disembarking be something that is possible in 40k? And then shoot but possibly not assault?
Would 4'x4' tables be fine if there was more terrain? smaller sized armies? Would you want 6'x4'? 8'x4'? At some point the size of the table itself makes it harder to play games.
Should games be longer in turns? 8 turns? Or would more decisive turns and maybe 4-5 turns still be fine?
Would any of these changes work with the I go you go format? Or should the game change to something similar to Battletech? (staggered activations based on total number of units left to activate, damage applied to everyone at the same time so that your unit can act at its strength in that turn)
Would a system of morale/panic/pinning tests make sense if it was based on the number of shooting hits that impact the unit even if wounds/casualties weren't suffered? Or maybe just being shot at might be enough to cause some morale test?

BanjoJohn wrote:
I've read everyone's posts so far, and I've had some time to think about it, and I wonder, there's some agreement about things not feeling right, but maybe not about what exactly doesn't feel right?

So I wonder, should non-tyranid infantry be slower? and transports faster?
Would move 4 for human/ork units, move 6 for eldar, move 8 for tyranids make sense as a baseline for foot units?
With slower infantry again, would transports that could move 12", or maybe 24" in one turn be good to balance out roles?
What should the range for rifle-sized weapons be? 24"? 18"? 14"?
Would it make sense if a unit that "runs" say double its normal speed? Should that unit give up shooting? or perhaps only get to shoot pistols instead of rifles?
Should these slower infantry units get to move and shoot without penalty? Stand still and shoot with a bonus?
Should embarking into a transport, moving, and disembarking be something that is possible in 40k? And then shoot but possibly not assault?
Would 4'x4' tables be fine if there was more terrain? smaller sized armies? Would you want 6'x4'? 8'x4'? At some point the size of the table itself makes it harder to play games.
Should games be longer in turns? 8 turns? Or would more decisive turns and maybe 4-5 turns still be fine?
Would any of these changes work with the I go you go format? Or should the game change to something similar to Battletech? (staggered activations based on total number of units left to activate, damage applied to everyone at the same time so that your unit can act at its strength in that turn)
Would a system of morale/panic/pinning tests make sense if it was based on the number of shooting hits that impact the unit even if wounds/casualties weren't suffered? Or maybe just being shot at might be enough to cause some morale test?

I don’t think slowing base M down would be a good idea. Just remove run/advance as a core mechanic and it makes transports more important because basic infantry is no longer capable of moving 8+” fairly easy.

More terrain, would likely just skew things towards melee armies even more if the terrain doesn’t have any movement debuffs.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
they do not get 4 ranged attacks. They get 2 I literally looked at the datasheet on the app

Look again: Under Abilities named Target Elimination.

Breton wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
they do not get 4 ranged attacks. They get 2 I literally looked at the datasheet on the app

Look again: Under Abilities named Target Elimination.

if we’re factoring in abilities JAI’s melee damage blows intercessor shooting damage out of the water.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Breton wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
they do not get 4 ranged attacks. They get 2 I literally looked at the datasheet on the app

Look again: Under Abilities named Target Elimination.

if we’re factoring in abilities JAI’s melee damage blows intercessor shooting damage out of the water.

Why wouldn't you factor in abilities?

 JNAProductions wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Breton wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
they do not get 4 ranged attacks. They get 2 I literally looked at the datasheet on the app

Look again: Under Abilities named Target Elimination.

if we’re factoring in abilities JAI’s melee damage blows intercessor shooting damage out of the water.

Why wouldn't you factor in abilities?

abilities are more likely to change significantly from edition to edition. Either way, melee oriented units are like to have rules that boost their melee same as shooting units will likely have abilities that benefit their shooting so it’s likely generally a wash’s

But in the case of JAIs there ability average at least as many MWs as the intercessors’ shooting including their ability, so clearly add in the melee weapons it’s not even close.

Just off the top of my head melee oriented units with decent shooting
Aggressors
JAIs(two special pistols is pretty good.)
BVG
SG
not sure about the other divergent chapters’ melee focused units.

Now what shooting units can we say also has pretty good melee?
Intercessors, maybe?
Inceptors, maybe? Definitely if we count pistols shooting in combat melee damage.
Can’t think of any others, not eradicators, eliminators, hellblasters or heavy intercessors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think in general total damage potential for a unit between their shooting and melee should also be considered. I do think shooting for most melee units typically out damages the melee of shooting units, considering most melee units either get at least 1 solid pistol option like plasma or inferno pistol, while shooting units’ just don’t get enough Deven attacks in melee typically.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Breton wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
they do not get 4 ranged attacks. They get 2 I literally looked at the datasheet on the app

Look again: Under Abilities named Target Elimination.

if we’re factoring in abilities JAI’s melee damage blows intercessor shooting damage out of the water.

Why wouldn't you factor in abilities?

abilities are more likely to change significantly from edition to edition. Either way, melee oriented units are like to have rules that boost their melee same as shooting units will likely have abilities that benefit their shooting so it’s likely generally a wash’s

But in the case of JAIs there ability average at least as many MWs as the intercessors’ shooting including their ability, so clearly add in the melee weapons it’s not even close.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think in general total damage potential for a unit between their shooting and melee should also be considered. I do think shooting for most melee units typically out damages the melee of shooting units, considering most melee units either get at least 1 solid pistol option like plasma or inferno pistol, while shooting units’ just don’t get enough Deven attacks in melee typically.

That's a very Marine-centric view.
I don't have a single unit where the shooting is better than the melee in a 2k list.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
abilities are more likely to change significantly from edition to edition. Either way, melee oriented units are like to have rules that boost their melee same as shooting units will likely have abilities that benefit their shooting so it’s likely generally a wash’s

And yet you're overstating the frequency of Advance and Charge while you include it in melee potency.

But in the case of JAIs there ability average at least as many MWs as the intercessors’ shooting including their ability, so clearly add in the melee weapons it’s not even close.

Just off the top of my head melee oriented units with decent shooting
Aggressors
JAIs(two special pistols is pretty good.)
BVG
SG
not sure about the other divergent chapters’ melee focused units.

Now what shooting units can we say also has pretty good melee?
Intercessors, maybe?
Inceptors, maybe? Definitely if we count pistols shooting in combat melee damage.
Can’t think of any others, not eradicators, eliminators, hellblasters or heavy intercessors.

I'd say Aggressors are the shooting unit with good melee. Like Terminators. Both units are considered shooters before they're considered punchers. And no, two special pistols isn't very good- neither is the three you actually max out at. What are BVG? Blade Guard? They're also not good shooters. Neither are the Sanguinary Guard. You make plans around good shooters. You don't make plans around two 3" pistol shots. They have potentially good emergency/last ditch shooting. That's not the same as having good shooting.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
That's a very Marine-centric view.
I don't have a single unit where the shooting is better than the melee in a 2k list.

To be fair Orks are somewhat skew that way - using Marines as a baseline, especially the traditional/fluffy battle company 6-2-2 force, isn't a bad starting spot here. 6 Tacs/equivalents, 2 Assaults/equivalents, 2 Devs covers all the bases - a bunch of supposedly dual purpose Battle line squads, a couple Melee Skew, and a couple Shooting skew "specialty" squads.

Such as:
2x10 Intercessors
2x10 Heavy Intercessors
1x 10 Infiltrators
1x 10 Tactical Squad

1x10 JPAI
1x10 Incursors

2x10 Devs

That this probably isn't a very good army in the first place is something that should maybe be a separate discussion. Still, a fairly standard fluffy list for theoryhammering some basics/principles. The melee here is pretty meh. Its not bad, but its a long way from good. The shooting is also not bad - its gotta be pretty bad to be bad - but its only closer to good because of the quantity of shots not the quality.