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.

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

phydaux wrote:

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

Aliens.

Lotr (the sieges).

The Alamo.

Historical sieges beyond counting.

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

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

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

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

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

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

phydaux wrote:

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

Aliens.

Lotr (the sieges).

The Alamo.

Historical sieges beyond counting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 morganfreeman wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the genre discussion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because people always want to play bigger and better.

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

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

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

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

Because people always want to play bigger and better.

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

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

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