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.

This rule pretty much just covers the common sense idea that if a bunch of enemy troopers are running at me I would probably want to shoot at them. This would discourage assaults, or at least make players use them more tactically.

When a unit declares that it will assault an opposing player's unit, the opposing player's unit will recieve a "repulse assault" attack, utilizing only the weapons they would be able to use in a shooting phase. The assaulting unit counts as not being in cover, even if they are, to reflect the fact that they are dashing towards the enemy.

The first "phase" of this attack is to see if the unit has the sense to make the attack using the unit's Initiative. This is rolled using a D6. The unit will pass this check if the number on the D6 is greater then 6 minus the unit's highest Initiative (6-I). Units who's Initiative is greater then 6 automatically pass. If they fail then the assaulting unit recieves a 4+ cover save when they are attacked.

Possible Amendments/Alternatives:

The unit "repulsing" always counts as if they moved (example: Heavy Weapons may not fire).

This reflects the unit being caught unawares. However, it is common military tactic to create fire zones to trap enemy troops trying to assault an obective, so being assaulted would be expected. So this rule does not always apply.

If the unit fails their "Initiative Roll" then each unit would have to roll a 4+ to make an attack.

Same problem as before. This would reflect that the unit repulsing has been startled/frightened, but does not reflect that they would still be shooting.

There have been lots of attempts to introduce something like this before and most of them have failed. The primary thing is that right now assault and shooting power are fairly balanced from an over all perspective. Assault is generally more deadly than shooting on a turn per turn basis, but shooting happens earlier and thus more often than assaults. Shooting also blunts the strength of assault forces before they can become useful.

With that being said, there are some things that would need to be modified. First off, the roll you are asking to be made is an initiative check. Roll a d6 and roll equal to or under your imitative to pass. Comes out the same as odd math you were asking for, the only difference is it is easy and you want to roll low rather than high.

Second. You probably want the assaulted unit to count as having moved for shooting purposes to keep heavy weapons out of the mix...mostly.

Third. If you fail the initiative check, the penalty should be (at the very least) not being able to shoot the charging unit at all rather than giving the assaulters a cover save. In a large number of cases, a cover save isn't going to help the assaulter out anyway (think marines charging marines...they'll use their 3+ armor save against the bolter shots rather than that 4+ cover save).

Fourth. What happens when the assaulted units starts shooting template and blast weapons? How do you work that out?

Fifth. If you are going to allow people to shoot at in coming assaulters and you don't want assault troops to really suck, there needs to be some sort of penalty for shooting (or some possibility of a penalty). One possibility would be that if you shoot before assault, you don't actually attack in that round of assault. Or that if you try to shoot, you don't get to attack and you only get to shoot if you pass the initiative check (so you got some serious risks here).

So all in all, you are going to have to introduce some changes to the rule if you want to make it playable. Just try running some "examples" of combat with your rules. Take 2 fairly even pointed units, one shooty and one hand to hand based. Now in assault the hand to hand unit should destroy the shooty unit. Right? Well what happens under your rules when the hand to hand unit charges? Does it wipe out the shooty unit without much trouble or does it just get obliterated on the way in and have problems doing much if any damage once it actually gets to attack? If you find that the results are the latter, then you will need to revise your rules.

First off, shooting is generally "good enough" already, so static troops don't need any more bonus rounds of fire, particularly being given the option to fire Heavy weapons and Rapid Fire.

Mechanically, your thing is really complicated. And hugely favorable to the assaulted unit.

If you want to have anything, I'd suggest something like this:

Instead of fighting in the assault phase, an assaulted unit may "snap fire" at any unit charging them. The assaulted unit will count as having WS0 (no attacks may be made, and all enemy attacks will automatically hit). If they pass a Leadership test, each model may fire a single shot from any Pistol, Assault, or Rapid Fire weapon. If the assaulted unit fails the Leadership test, any survivors will automatically Break after the enemy resolves their attacks .

Something like this has a trade-off between shooting and automatically being hit, along with the risk of auto-breaking vs the benefit of being able to shoot once (with higher S / AP weapons).

I understand both your concerns, but making things "even" isn't the point of this rule, it is to make things "make sense." I know, it's a game, but this is also a proposed rule. GW seems to not really care what their players want and tend to do what THEY want, so odds are this will never see the light of the table. BUT! I think it is possible to work something out.

Both of your suggestions are actually pretty unfair to the assaulted unit, and the rule would probably be discarded, for the most part. With what I see counter proposed the assaulted unit gets to choose to either make a semi-effective repulse attack, and then be wiped out, while risking just being wiped out completely. The only real way they would survive the assault is if their opponent has very poor luck in the repulse attack and gets demolished to the point that they can not make an effective assault, or they have very poor wounding rolls. You did make a good point about the cover save idea, I sometimes forget that cover saves can not be taken with armor saves in the 4th Addition. So I say that part be ammended to something akin to partial hits by blast templates. ie: Hit on a roll of 4+.

I thought about having the unit counting as having moved, or as having only one attack with their weapons, but this did not properly cover a crossfire setup senario, a common and ancient military tactic where you lure your enemy into the open and scythe them down with interlocking fire/assaults/attacks, or simply to get them out of their dug in positions. This would allow players to simulate the risk of trying to lure out the opposing player's dug in units with the promise of an effective and devastating assault, adding risk back into assaults out of a dug in positions, where now, if your opponent is coming at you and you're in cover with rapid fire or assault weapons, you may as well make a move, shoot, then assault your opponent to gain the +1 attack. So this repulse attack rule would actually work for assaulting players as well, since they no longer have to worry about being assaulted first.

Next, this does not cover troopers moving into eachother without the assault move and engaging, it only covers units assaulting in the assault phase. So fast moving assault troops or deep striking assault troops do not suffer as much from this rule, leaving them with the element of suprise that is intergral to their tactics. Therefore, Orks with their Waagh! rule that essentially gives them an extra 6" without being required to assault, are more effective base assault troops then say a Guardsmen, who none get an extra 6" in their movement. Jump troops, which get a bonus not being required to assault, are not effected as much, same thing with fleet units. So now we're only limited to units that can only assault in the assault phase. To clarify, this repulse rule would only apply if the assault is engaged in the 6" of additional movement afforded by a basic rule assault move, not by just becoming in base to base contact with the enemy model.

"Unfair"?

By the time an Assault unit has reached BtB, it will have suffered a number of casualties to shooting. You're tipping the balance even further towards shooting.

Shooting instead of fighting gives the assaulted unit a huge advantage that it just doesn't otherwise have. Guard and Tau gain tremendously. An extra bonus round of Plasma is awesome.

And Crossfire happens during the shooter's turn already. Shooters can place themselves to cover avenues of advance. Making an extra bonus out of no good reason is poor rules-making.

Finally, the Assaulting unit *should* have advantages. They're taking the initiative. They're taking the risk by moving out of cover. They *should* receive benefits when they finally Assault.

So I'm sorry, but I just don't think you understand the concept of balance or game decisions. Because with your rule, there is no balance or game decision. A shooty unit has no risk to use your rule, no reason to ever do anything else.

That's the reason why the bayonet charge does not happen anymore. The automatic weapon ended that.

No, the assaulted unit does not risk much by sitting and waiting for a fool to rush them across open terrain, standing up and running, probably making loud noises as they do. Hardly an intelligent tactic if you ask me. Heck, urban operations has an expected and accepted 80% casualty rate, and that's the closest thing to hand-to-hand assaults you're going to get these days.

But if we want to take the game idealogy, then we have to make compensations. Perhaps making an army based around slow assault troops if terrain with large open spaces is anticipated. If the battlefield is heavily covered with LOS blocking terrain, or the assault troops are highly mobile, then assaults would make tactical sense, and be plausible. Yes, this all limits assaults, as it is obviously intended, perhaps I should edit the beginning to state that.

But trading the chance to inflict some more wounds then get wiped out while risking just being wiped out without inflicting any casualties to just taking it in the chin, with no explanation at all, that doesn't make any sense either. Why would I not raise a hand to fend off my attacker just because I shot at them? Personally, if they are close enough to hit me then they're close enough for me to flip my rifle into full-auto and hose them down. That is what I consider unfair, trading one thing for something I should already have.

I'm suprised I haven't heard the suggestion that hand grenades would allow an assaulting unit to supress the repulse attack rule, as a bunch of exploding bombs being thrown at me might make me want to seak cover for a second, or make me pause and think twice, just long enough for my opponent to close in for the clinch. That is a pretty basic, simple, and effective suggestion. Or how about instead of only letting weapons that can be fired after movement, just limit weapons to one shot per model, instead of a full turn of shooting? I would suggest that units that did not move in the last turn could count as being stationary, and units that moved would count as having moved, but that requires a bit more complexity and confusion, that I just don't think is needed.

This is the grim darkness of the far-flung future. The average guardsman is armed with a semi-automatic laser rifle. Sure, it can take your arm straight off if you're not wearing armour, but that is besides the point. Combat in 40k is very different from combat today, and is more compatible to the Eastern Front of the Second World War. Tanks are not sleek, scientific war machines, they are brutal lumps of metal on tracks. Guns are not carefully engineered devices but mass-manufactured, barely understood firearms which for all their technology are incredibly crude. The bayonet charge may not work with automatic rifles and kevlar vests but it sure as hell does with oversized lasguns and faith in the Emperor, to say nothing of unnaturally tough or fast aliens, otherworldly daemons or power-armoured superhumans. The rules of war as we know them do not apply! Remember, where they live, there is only war, so if they want to fix swords and charge, give them the benefit of the doubt as they certainly have the experience advantage over us in these matters.

open_sketchbook wrote:This is the grim darkness of the far-flung future. The average guardsman is armed with a semi-automatic laser rifle. Sure, it can take your arm straight off if you're not wearing armour, but that is besides the point. Combat in 40k is very different from combat today, and is more compatible to the Eastern Front of the Second World War. Tanks are not sleek, scientific war machines, they are brutal lumps of metal on tracks. Guns are not carefully engineered devices but mass-manufactured, barely understood firearms which for all their technology are incredibly crude. The bayonet charge may not work with automatic rifles and kevlar vests but it sure as hell does with oversized lasguns and faith in the Emperor, to say nothing of unnaturally tough or fast aliens, otherworldly daemons or power-armoured superhumans. The rules of war as we know them do not apply! Remember, where they live, there is only war, so if they want to fix swords and charge, give them the benefit of the doubt as they certainly have the experience advantage over us in these matters.

I'd agree with you, or give you the benefit of the doubt, if there weren't whole book series that state to the contrary. I can think of three series off the top of my head that state that Lasguns are either select fire or stuck on full auto who's authors are heavily linked to GW's fluff machine.

Skinnattittar: Two words, Game Balance.

While you can come up with all kinds of justifications as to why your rules are realistic, the fact of the matter is that this is a game and it's not real. With that being said, if you want to introduce a new rule, it's going to have to make the game a better game for it to get used. Now the net effect of the rule as you propose it is to make it so that shooty troops are next to impossible to assault. Assaulting them will almost always lead to the assaulter getting shot to pieces, both while running over to get into assault range and then again when they charge. The fact of the matter is that if a shooty unit gets charged by an assaulty unit, they should die and die horribly. It's what makes the game balanced and fun. By removing that, you make assault troops worthless and force the game towards the very bland setup of 2 static shooting armies sitting across the board from each other shooting. That doesn't make the game better, it makes it worse.

If what you want to do is remove assault troops from the game, feel free to do so amoungst your game group, however I can't imagine such an unbalanced rule being picked up and used by the general populace.

Phoenix wrote:Skinnattittar: Two words, Game Balance.

While you can come up with all kinds of justifications as to why your rules are realistic, the fact of the matter is that this is a game and it's not real. With that being said, if you want to introduce a new rule, it's going to have to make the game a better game for it to get used. Now the net effect of the rule as you propose it is to make it so that shooty troops are next to impossible to assault. Assaulting them will almost always lead to the assaulter getting shot to pieces, both while running over to get into assault range and then again when they charge. The fact of the matter is that if a shooty unit gets charged by an assaulty unit, they should die and die horribly. It's what makes the game balanced and fun. By removing that, you make assault troops worthless and force the game towards the very bland setup of 2 static shooting armies sitting across the board from each other shooting. That doesn't make the game better, it makes it worse.

If what you want to do is remove assault troops from the game, feel free to do so amoungst your game group, however I can't imagine such an unbalanced rule being picked up and used by the general populace.

Actually, as amended/clarified later in the discussion, a shooty unit would still be pretty well beat up by an assault unit. What this rule does is simply make the assault unit apply cover and manuever. As it currently is, an assault unit can walk across open ground, take a few punches from shooting, then jump right into a highly effective assault. I have seen that time and time again. As long as the open terrain is not more then 18", the assaulting unit only has to endure one round of shooting. If it is 12" or less, then they have nothing to worry about. This rule makes them have to choose between rushing across 7"-12" of open ground, or find a way to get within 6" of the enemy unit to assault and take fewer casualties.

This all would encourage smaller tables with more terrain, evolving game dynamics, rather then just piling on as many assault troops onto the board as possible then rushing across the table to just barely get into assault range to tear your opponent apart. Remember, this rule has an effect on counter assaults to. A "static" unit, as it is now, is better used to jump from cover to assault the advancing unit before they get to close to an objective or more important unit. With repulse assault, they are even more likely to be torn to shreds if they try to counter assault.

This rule also improves the purpose of troop carriers, as they can move into contact with the enemy sooner, unship their troops, who can then engage with the enemy without using an assault move. It also improves jump troops, who can use their high mobility to engage units without using an assault move. This rule only takes effect in the assault move.

Skinnattittar wrote:
Actually, as amended/clarified later in the discussion, a shooty unit would still be pretty well beat up by an assault unit. What this rule does is simply make the assault unit apply cover and manuever. As it currently is, an assault unit can walk across open ground, take a few punches from shooting, then jump right into a highly effective assault.

That is simply not true. As things stand, it's rather difficult to get assault troops to the lines of shooty armies. It just doesn't happen. I play a very shooty eldar army and I can count on my fingers the number of times assault troops have hit my lines when I've put effort into ensuring they didn't. One turn of being shot at will cripple just about any assault unit out there if their opponent has the proper weapons for the job (I know my army always does). By adding in another free round of shooting (well ok, .5-.8 rounds of shooting since you do have the pass the I check) it just makes it worse. Charging across open ground for a turn or more is simply not a currently viable tactic against any decent player. Now if the shooty player is bad and deploys his units near the front of his deployment zone, moves towards the assaulty units, doesn't focus his shooting effectively, or doesn't bring effective weaponry to the field, then he deserves to get assaulted off the board. But that is a player issue not a rule or game issue.

I have seen that time and time again. As long as the open terrain is not more then 18", the assaulting unit only has to endure one round of shooting. If it is 12" or less, then they have nothing to worry about.

Maybe the shooty unit should have backed up to ensure the space between them and the terrain was larger. And while they were at it, they should also have had another unit around somewhere to shoot the assaulty unit that was in the terrain.

This rule also improves the purpose of troop carriers, as they can move into contact with the enemy sooner, unship their troops, who can then engage with the enemy without using an assault move.

I don't see how this is the case. Transports are already virtually required for assault troops so that they can get where they need to go. The rhino drive by is also a very standard and viable tactic (particularly for sisters) and lets not even go into what the eldar do with their transports. Transports are currently very viable and in many cases required. They hardly need anything else to supplement their power.

It also improves jump troops, who can use their high mobility to engage units without using an assault move. This rule only takes effect in the assault move.

Lets list the number of units with jump packs that are not assault based.
1) Eldar Swooping Hawks
2) Dark Eldar Scourges
3) ummmm....hummmm...yah

So really what you are doing is further limiting the usefulness of jump packs, not increasing their power since the vast majority of jump packers are now neutered assault troops. [sarcasm] I'm sure all those assault marines, storm boys, seraphim, and the like will be very happy that they can jump over to the enemy and fire their pistols with the comforting knowledge that should the enemy decide to assault them, they can get another round of pistol fire in before they get assaulted. Sounds great. [/sarcasm] The real issue here is that you are proposing a benifit to units that more or less don't exist in the game.

Phoenix wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:Actually, as amended/clarified later in the discussion, a shooty unit would still be pretty well beat up by an assault unit. What this rule does is simply make the assault unit apply cover and manuever. As it currently is, an assault unit can walk across open ground, take a few punches from shooting, then jump right into a highly effective assault.

That is simply not true. As things stand, it's rather difficult to get assault troops to the lines of shooty armies. It just doesn't happen. I play a very shooty eldar army and I can count on my fingers the number of times assault troops have hit my lines when I've put effort into ensuring they didn't. One turn of being shot at will cripple just about any assault unit out there if their opponent has the proper weapons for the job (I know my army always does). By adding in another free round of shooting (well ok, .5-.8 rounds of shooting since you do have the pass the I check) it just makes it worse. Charging across open ground for a turn or more is simply not a currently viable tactic against any decent player. Now if the shooty player is bad and deploys his units near the front of his deployment zone, moves towards the assaulty units, doesn't focus his shooting effectively, or doesn't bring effective weaponry to the field, then he deserves to get assaulted off the board. But that is a player issue not a rule or game issue.

I have seen that time and time again. As long as the open terrain is not more then 18", the assaulting unit only has to endure one round of shooting. If it is 12" or less, then they have nothing to worry about.

Maybe the shooty unit should have backed up to ensure the space between them and the terrain was larger. And while they were at it, they should also have had another unit around somewhere to shoot the assaulty unit that was in the terrain.

This rule also improves the purpose of troop carriers, as they can move into contact with the enemy sooner, unship their troops, who can then engage with the enemy without using an assault move.

I don't see how this is the case. Transports are already virtually required for assault troops so that they can get where they need to go. The rhino drive by is also a very standard and viable tactic (particularly for sisters) and lets not even go into what the eldar do with their transports. Transports are currently very viable and in many cases required. They hardly need anything else to supplement their power.

It also improves jump troops, who can use their high mobility to engage units without using an assault move. This rule only takes effect in the assault move.

Lets list the number of units with jump packs that are not assault based.
1) Eldar Swooping Hawks
2) Dark Eldar Scourges
3) ummmm....hummmm...yah
So really what you are doing is further limiting the usefulness of jump packs, not increasing their power since the vast majority of jump packers are now neutered assault troops. [sarcasm] I'm sure all those assault marines, storm boys, seraphim, and the like will be very happy that they can jump over to the enemy and fire their pistols with the comforting knowledge that should the enemy decide to assault them, they can get another round of pistol fire in before they get assaulted. Sounds great. [/sarcasm] The real issue here is that you are proposing a benifit to units that more or less don't exist in the game.

Jump troops are more effective since they get 12" of movement instead of 6", so they would become more effective with the repulse rule. Less effective then before, yes, but more effective in comparison to regular foot troops.

I rarely see transports rolling on the field and they usually take one in the face pretty quickly, so perhaps it is just a difference in the opponents we are facing. As for butting your troops right up against the edge of the board, that's not something you want to do with IG and Tua, the two main shooty armies as a fact of common sense (break and they fall right off the edge). As for the Eldar, there's the reason you are having so much luck with repelling assaults. Most other armies have to fight pretty hard and get good luck, depending on the circumstances, of course.

On an open field table or one with little to no cover and large openings, an assault army is going to be ate up even more here. In my experience they take a big hit as it is right now, but the assault dedicated armies usually make it and put in a good word for themselves, as long as they aren't trying to cover the distance in three or four turns. But if they can get there in one or two turns, they pretty much own the field, even at turn three there are usually enough left to do some damage. This is only in my experience, though. So before you go frothing at the mouth again, take that into consideration. I'm not a fitty IG or Tau player who wants to get an easy ride, I'm just proposing a rule that adds a bit more realism and tries to encourage the use of maneuver tactics to assault forces. But on a table with lots of cover, assault troops will still own the day as they maneuver from cover to cover, avoiding or limiting shooty damage.

Except this is NOT realistic in the context of the game.

The game has an artificial break of activity into turns. So your shooting occurs in the turn prior to the assault. If your shooters are so poorly positioned not to interlock fire or get a good round off prior to the charge, that is your fault, not the fault of the rules.

Also, the *standard* amount of cover is 25% of the board. You can look this up in the rulebook. Talking about "lots of cover" or "open board" is outside the scope of the game.

So the complaint I am hearing is not that this rule is impractical to impliment from a rule standpoint (ie: it is not difficult to use and does not hinder the flow of the game too much) but that it severely limits the use of assaults, and therefore, severly limits the use of assault troops?

Yah, I just dont see the necessity of this rule. I realize that having a fleet or jump infantry unit assault you from what looks, by your perspective, a long way away. I used to play guard, I feel your pain.

With that said, I now play an Eldar army that relies on shock and short range shooting. I can assure you, with the rules as they stand now, against most armies I have to plan to get in assault, and against some armies/builds, I have one hell of a time getting across the board, even with fleet.

I wonder if you're not a victim of psychology. If you're playing a real shooty army, you're thinking " Gosh those genestealers are awful close". If you're playing a shock type army on the other side of that board, you're thinking " Gosh that is a lot of board to cover." Ive played both, and I can attest to these feelings.

Exactly. It's primarily a balance problem.

In 40k3, there was this thing called Sweeping Advance fire, which was kind of similar to what you're proposing. GW took it out of the game because shooty units were doing too well relative to assault units.

If you look at 40k4 vs the original rules for 40k3, GW has done a *lot* to increase the impact of assault forces. And now, we finally have rough parity.

So when you start tipping things back to seriously favor shooters (i.e. an extra partial round of shooting), you need to counter-balance by having other things that heavily favor assaulters (e.g. automatic hits in close combat).

I would propose a simple overwatch:

On the players turn he may declare any unit that does not move or take any other action to be on overwatch.

If, on the opponents next turn, a unit declares a charge on the unit that is on overwatch then the unit on overwatch counts as moving and may fire 1/2 (rounded down) of their ranged weapons when the charge is declared and before the unit makes the assault move. Any wounds done from shooting do not count towards combat resolution and the assaulting unit does not have to make a morale test for casualties.

The result: a small benefit to the unit on overwatch as a tactical option to moving. Quick moving units like cavalry can hang back and spread out a bit to reduce casualties with their longer charge range. Of course the opponent can just get close and not charge either, so it is really only a good defense against assaulty units which would reduce the unbalacing factor.

snooggums wrote:I would propose a simple overwatch:

I would propose we beat you over the head with a stick.

This thread is about bringing back unneeded shooty charge reactions.

The tread about bringing back game-destroying overwatch for the no-skill, no-tactics, no-strategy crowd died quite a while ago.

Go perform your necromancy in that thread.

Skinnattittar wrote:So the complaint I am hearing is not that this rule is impractical to impliment from a rule standpoint (ie: it is not difficult to use and does not hinder the flow of the game too much) but that it severely limits the use of assaults, and therefore, severly limits the use of assault troops?

That is exactly correct. The current power of assault troops is in line with that or shooty troops. By making it more difficult to perform an assault sucessfuly, the value of assault troops goes down. And in this case, it goes down to a point where I would consider assault troops unviable when I could have similarly priced and more powerful shooty troops.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Exactly. It's primarily a balance problem.
In 40k3, there was this thing called Sweeping Advance fire, which was kind of similar to what you're proposing. GW took it out of the game because shooty units were doing too well relative to assault units.
If you look at 40k4 vs the original rules for 40k3, GW has done a *lot* to increase the impact of assault forces. And now, we finally have rough parity.
So when you start tipping things back to seriously favor shooters (i.e. an extra partial round of shooting), you need to counter-balance by having other things that heavily favor assaulters (e.g. automatic hits in close combat).

Here, you are making an assumption. That assumption being that assault units, for some reason, have an inherrent RIGHT to have equal abilities of base or shooty units. This just sort of defies logic and tactics. Now if we're playing a game that is meant to haul in as many players(read "customers" or "money bags") as possible, then yes, it is a good idea to give a unit that promises quick games an equal or superior advantage to units that require more time to implement, and that don't have all sorts of "neat" and "cool" looking spiky bits and shiny armor (not an insult, everyone likes spiky bits and shiny armor).

Next, I just pulled out my old 3rd Edition rulebook, and sweeping advance actually has nothing whatsoever to do with shooting, but everything to do assault units, and actually HELP assault units exclusively. You may be thinking of Crossfire, which also has little to do with shooty armies, since the unit that benefits only needs some sort of shooting weapon (which is actually not specified in the rule, but can be inferred, the rule does not state the benefitting unit is required to have shooting weapons).

JohnHwangDD wrote:

snooggums wrote:I would propose a simple overwatch:

I would propose we beat you over the head with a stick.
This thread is about bringing back unneeded shooty charge reactions.
The tread about bringing back game-destroying overwatch for the no-skill, no-tactics, no-strategy crowd died quite a while ago.
Go perform your necromancy in that thread.

Actually, John, you're the one who is completely wrong here. This thread is titled "Repulse Assault!" which directly implies counter-assault measures, ones that give units with near no assault capabilities a chance to repent for themselves. As it stands, assault units packing pistols and assault weapons get a pretty decent whack at shooting and vehicle busting, as long as they close range. But non-assault units only really get their base hand-to-hand abilities with no bonus for being in prepared battle formations or for setting up good fields of fire.

As for Snoog's suggestion, the only really problems I see is making sure people remember who did not move, then did not shoot, then did not perform any other action (and clarifying what is "not an action."), and finally, who declared overwatch. It seems like a possible idea, but it is complex and dependent. In my opinion, I think it would be clunky and difficult to utilize, thus breaking the flow of the game as people check to make sure everything is clean and fit, for amateuters and experts alike.

I just recently got back from my hobby shop, and passed the idea off to a few vets and old-timers. They agreed that the Repulse Assault rule was simple and would be easy to use, but there were varying opinions on how effectively it should be implimented. However the major complaint was that it would drastically detract the value of basic units that are geared towards assault or just not made to be "shooty." However there were great revues of its use for scenarios such as Jungle or City Fights, since the heavy terrain cover would allow high maneuver units the chance to get in base-to-base contact without HAVING to assault. They also agreed that if 5th Edition does impliment the "Run" rule, that some sort of Repulse Assault rule would be almost a necessity if a shooty army wanted to stand a chance at having a fair whack.

Shooting already has a lot of advantages over melee. You hit early and repeatedly, you don't really get hit back in most situations, you can employ weapons of higher strength than the users more frequently, and you get to use AP to ignore some armour saves. If you stay in cover, you strike first, which represents your squad firing close ranged bursts with personal weapons as the enemy close in. Firing weapons IS effective in this game considering the general increase in robustness of armour that must be the case for so many failed wounds and saving throws.

Assault units have a right to be good at what they do because this game has a right to be about more than Tau, Eldar, Space Marines and Guardsmen. What you propose invalidates many armies, runs counter to most of the fluff, and also ignores the simple fact that the reason MODERN combat is long range is because we have designed it to be. If we really wanted US soldiers to be effective at close range with hand-to-hand weapons, we would find a way. We have decided we don't, so we haven't.

Finally, remember that nobody in 40k ever gets to just stand up and shoot at the enemy. With the amount of high-powered weaponry firing in all directions most infantry likely go to ground and stay there most of the battle. I've always assumed that the moments where a unit fires on the table represents the unit actually braving the storm of intimidating weapons to fire a few shots at one target when they are ordered to, and the rest of the time they hide and take pot-shots at whatever target presents itself, the effects of which are inconsequential to the game itself. When an assault unit closes it does so under covering fire from itself and allied units that, while not recorded in the game, are represented by the unit actually reaching their target at all!

open_sketchbook wrote:Shooting already has a lot of advantages over melee. You hit early and repeatedly, you don't really get hit back in most situations, you can employ weapons of higher strength than the users more frequently, and you get to use AP to ignore some armour saves. If you stay in cover, you strike first, which represents your squad firing close ranged bursts with personal weapons as the enemy close in. Firing weapons IS effective in this game considering the general increase in robustness of armour that must be the case for so many failed wounds and saving throws.

Well, actually the only thing you really got right hear was that AP can ignore some armor saves. In many cases, a shooting army only gets one, MAYBE two rounds of shooting into an enemy before they get assaulted, and that's a big maybe on two rounds of shooting. This almost never has something to do with the setup of the shooting for, but the distance covering abilities of the assaulting unit unitilizing the cover terrain on the board, and if the assaulting unit is taking more then that then that's their own fault for not utilizing the field properly. And rarely do troops not get shot at, so I have no idea why you said that. Next, staying in cover does not let you attack first, it actually lets you strike simultaneously, since almost any assault unit that counts itself as viable should be equiping at least frag grenades, in the case of the Eldar, plasma grenades, which negate cover in assaults entirely (this rule did not make sense to me when I read it, apparently plasma is so scary troops in cover [of all races] completely lose their mind and they start to get out of the only safety they have, but I'm not challenging that rule). I will agree though, that shooting does have an effect, but assaults tend to be the MAIN deciding force in a game. Last night I only saw one battle where shooting won the day, and the rest were all assaults (a 1-15 ratio).

open_sketchbook wrote:Assault units have a right to be good at what they do because this game has a right to be about more than Tau, Eldar, Space Marines and Guardsmen. What you propose invalidates many armies, runs counter to most of the fluff, and also ignores the simple fact that the reason MODERN combat is long range is because we have designed it to be. If we really wanted US soldiers to be effective at close range with hand-to-hand weapons, we would find a way. We have decided we don't, so we haven't.

This entire entry is actually all... wrong... except that assault units have a right to be good at what they do. The Chaos armies plenty of shooty options, and also have plenty of fast moving options to close without using an assault charge, same with the Orks. The Necrons do not seem to have too much trouble with getting shot, as they tend to stand right back up with those orbs of their's. The Tyranids would have the most trouble since they have little to no real shooting weapons, but they have fleet, so that should help them out. As for the Dark Eldar.... I really don't know much about them at all, and I started playing back when Third Edition was fresh off the presses! ... so I can't say anything for them.

As for it running counter to fluff.... well I just don't know what you're reading, all the novels I've read are extremely heavy in shooting, with a bit of hand-to-hand when things get dire, and only when the enemy utilizes either heavily covered terrain, just shear volume of troops, or some bit of technology that allowed them to get close quickly or without being seen/viable targets. And the reason modern combat is ranged is because we invented automatic weapons, you know, that thing we started using alot during the first world war about a hundred years ago. We haven't "designed" combat to be long ranged, we use tactics to try and limit casualties as much as possible, and one of those measures is NOT to go charging at an enemy and presenting them with easy close range targets to mow down with automatic weapons. NOT because of some silly notion of "choice." If hand-to-hand combat ensured a better alternative to attacking at range, then we WOULD be fighting at hand-to-hand rather then at range. Unfortunately for that idea, the use of grenades, explosives, and automatic weapons makes it extremely dangerous and very lethal.

open_sketchbook wrote:Finally, remember that nobody in 40k ever gets to just stand up and shoot at the enemy. With the amount of high-powered weaponry firing in all directions most infantry likely go to ground and stay there most of the battle. I've always assumed that the moments where a unit fires on the table represents the unit actually braving the storm of intimidating weapons to fire a few shots at one target when they are ordered to, and the rest of the time they hide and take pot-shots at whatever target presents itself, the effects of which are inconsequential to the game itself. When an assault unit closes it does so under covering fire from itself and allied units that, while not recorded in the game, are represented by the unit actually reaching their target at all!

This sounds more like a personal interpretation of the game rather then how the rules describe things. I do agree that there is probably a lot more rounds flying about the what actually gets rolled for, and I undrestand the perspective from that point, but I don't understand how there can be other units running about as unseen aggregate, and how you're lumping in the units that are shooting with them. You can't have both at the same time. The way you decribe it, all units are pinned by heavy fire. Why assaulting units, ignoring all these rounds flying about, are not subject to being pinned or cut down, as they would be with the shear volume of fire you are describing, does not make sense, in my opinion.

Err I want to point out we're talking about 40k fluff and not other fluff from other games or novels.
In 40k fighting actually revolves a lot more around assault. That's just how it is. So while one might think shooting would overly destroy assault army's this is in fact false because other wise a whole slew of army's would suck so bad fluff wise while in game AND fluff they dominate. Orks come to mind.
Take it how you will.

Victorraven wrote:Err I want to point out we're talking about 40k fluff and not other fluff from other games or novels.
In 40k fighting actually revolves a lot more around assault. That's just how it is. So while one might think shooting would overly destroy assault army's this is in fact false because other wise a whole slew of army's would suck so bad fluff wise while in game AND fluff they dominate. Orks come to mind.
Take it how you will.

That is what I was talking about. Fluff wise, Orks sacrifice massive numbers of their troops to get at the enemy. Fluff wise, a hand full of Marines can hold off hordes of Orks as they charge within meters of them with their bolters.

alright my bad.
Still I don't think I fully explained what I sorta ment.
But really to me I don't care; sounds like it'd be intresting though for friendly games.

Victorraven wrote:alright my bad.
Still I don't think I fully explained what I sorta ment.
But really to me I don't care; sounds like it'd be intresting though for friendly games.

Lets keep our comments constructive, please.

Skinnattittar wrote:
As for Snoog's suggestion, the only really problems I see is making sure people remember who did not move, then did not shoot, then did not perform any other action (and clarifying what is "not an action."), and finally, who declared overwatch. It seems like a possible idea, but it is complex and dependent. In my opinion, I think it would be clunky and difficult to utilize, thus breaking the flow of the game as people check to make sure everything is clean and fit, for amateuters and experts alike.

I would just use a marker, similar to smoke/immobilized/stunned markers for vehicles.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I would propose we beat you over the head with a stick.

This thread is about bringing back unneeded shooty charge reactions.

The tread about bringing back game-destroying overwatch for the no-skill, no-tactics, no-strategy crowd died quite a while ago.

Go perform your necromancy in that thread.

Apparently you stopped reading after 'overwatch'. I did post an idea for unneeded shooty charge reactions, since I put in the restriction that it would only happen when the unit was assaulted.

Now I for one would enjoy having overwatch back. I'm for anything that adds more choices that the players can make ( i.e. running, hiding, etc). Assault could be balanced around it.

Nobody that says they want overwatch back ever truly played with it.

The biggest problem with overwatch is the complexity. There really isn't a point to making a complex rule when simple ones can be made. Markers for troops would also make the table more confusing to view, and just aren't practical. Markers for tanks are usually pretty obvious, and since most players tend to have a only a few tanks, it's easier to mark only a few vehicles, rather then whole armies. Imagine what a mega battle would look like.