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'd have to re-read the new Ork codex to confirm this but Burna's are a lot thinner on the ground than they used to be (and potentially fatal for both sides of the combat) and Big Shoota's won't add that much to the party (+1 Str +1 AP to 1/10th of the mobs attacks maximum). Rokkits are the only option that will benefit from this setup IMO.

A clever player thinning out the mobs before they get there puts Orks in an even worse position as most (all?) armies/builds in 40k outshoot Orks. When they get onto combat does the 'clever player' = the player with the higher initiative?

Well if you have 10 vets, just keep your melta gunners in the back. Then they will survive provided they are not in the 2" killzone. The more I think about this the more interesting I think it will be. At first I was like NO WAY. Now im starting to think it might balance things. I didn't mean that marines would be screwed per se. But rather other armies would be able to stand up to them better.

That cuts both ways and I think those Meltaguns will become casulties before they fight in most situations (IMO Storm Troopers are better in every respect under this system). They'll be killer vs. Monstrous Creatures or any other unit with a high Toughness/Save but low volume of attacks and Initiative e.g. Necron warriors.

Incientally, do you trigger preventing return atracks differenty to standard 40k under this system?

Absolutely. Image. All those meltabombs. It would give people a reason to take storm troopers.

In the assault the standard ordering by initiative would seem to apply (insofar as I've thought it through). It certainly gives big bugs to take lash whips. I think. And encourage lots of 'Catalyst'. Probably a good idea to support the big bugs with a swarm of nippy little buggers, as well, so the choice of using either regular attacks or grenades becomes an issue. Hopefully this will emphasize unit interactivity as well as increase the problem-space of assault tactics.

smart_alex wrote:Absolutely. Image. All those meltabombs. It would give people a reason to take storm troopers.

The least of their abilities...

I've just noticed that you can give Meltabombs (a 3" range Str 8 AP 1 weapon) to every sergeant in your army for a mere 11 points each (or less). Perhaps this is a bit too much of a bargain when compared to a Powerfist.

I feel I may need to add necrons to the list of armies that'll get spanked under this system. I'd add Tau to that list but complaining that Tau will get their asses handed to them in this new close combat system is probably a bit silly.

Uh, 3" range? How do you figure? The usual 2" kill-zone applies to grenades if they can be used as a special close combat attack. And they'd only get a single attack, just like attacking vehicular models. It might make up for the Storm-Trooper squad having rapid fire weapons, and thus being unable to shoot in an assault, but then only against small units of heavy infantry.

2" it is, the point's still valid it's an 11 point uber upgrade.

Stormtroopers are a small enough part of an Imperial Guard army to be an acceptable loss of they're out of sync with this system. Guardsmen being added to the list aren't unless you're playing it in games with either no points parity or a revised points system.

Sure, but that's only if 11pt melta-bombs are worth 12+ points. I don't think they are.

Nurglitch wrote:These attacks are resolved in initiative order, but casualties are removed as per shooting attacks (models may claim cover saves, and grenades have a range equal to the bearer's I.

This seems to put far too much emphasis on initiative. I may be biased as an ork player, but the ability of some armies to throw grenades from 3 or 4 ranks back while others are still restricted to the basic 2" zone seems very unbalanced to me, unless it comes with a significant alteration of unit cost.

Additionally, the merger of BS to the assault phase compounds the weaknesses of the Ork and Tyranid armies while seriously improving any armies with basic WS and better BS. I don't think we need to further detract from the assault ability you have to walk across the table to use by offering more power to shooting armies that have already had the chance to show their skills with shooting.

That being said, I like the idea of grenades being an alternative form of attack. I'd think that trading in your normal CC for a single attack at grenade strength that still used the firers WS to properly place it would be a good way to preserve the spirit of your proposal, without dramatically altering what attributes make a good assault unit.

I agree that grenades should be resolved as a special close combat attack (WS, base-to-base, and 2" killzone) rather than a shooting attack. Steamlines the original proposal somewhat, and more evenly across the board.

Any proposal to factor grenades into other than the first round of combat ignores the character of grenades and their intended effect in combat.
Grenades come in two types: defensive (frag) and offensive (concussion).
Although GW calls them Frag Grenades, they are being used as concussion grenades (no fragmentation) so that the charging forces can close while the enemies' are disoriented from the blast. After that, they do not come into play.
Defensive grenades use fragmentation to cause casualties in the attacking force. This is not addressed in any of the proposals, including the first, nor does GW address it. The frags can also be used by throwing them into confined spaces not occupied by the thrower (tanks, rooms) in order to cause casualties and disorientation. This aspect is also not addressed except in the vehicle kills, where the results are mixed as far as what type of grenade was thrown.
Any proposal to use grenades in the game with more effect/realism involves a wholesale reworking of the nature of the first turn of the assault phase.

That's nice. Start your own thread about it.