Charging a unit of Machine Gun toting killers

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.

**Deuce11**

Devastator wrote:

your relentless only rule ,only makes sense if that unit has moved

What I meant was Heavy weapons may not be used to S&S (due to their cumbersome characteristics in a sudden, high stress, reactive situation)

As I said, with any rules change new tactics will be used and the game will adapt. Gargoyles and biovores may become more widely used against blob guard. Those giant things that bury through the ground would become even more valuable for deep strike attacks and creating holes for reserves to deploy from. Outflanking genestealers also become more dangerous. Look, I do not play Nids so these ideas may not be the greatest but my point is not to prove that my suggested tactics are viable. My point is that new tactics must be developed any and every time there is a rules change. Therefore it is irrelevant to state a new rule would be bad because old tactics would not work.

**Devastator**

nope the nids will still die from s&s thanks to bad armor saves
you cant make new tactics if your whole army is unable to change to counter your new rule

if those guns have moved your thing works
BUT if those guns have time to dig in they are prepared to assaut

**Arctik_Firangi**

My Eldar agree with this proposed rule.

**Devastator**

Arctik_Firangi wrote:My Eldar agree with this proposed rule.

sucks for guys who are forced to assaut fire dragons/DA

**Slarg232**

How about:

Vigilance: USR: The unit, through extensive training, advanced equipment, or centuries of experiance, have learned that one of the best ways of dealing with charging enemies is the same way as non-charging enemies: A bullet to the face. Units with Vigilance may opt to sacrifice their shooting phase (no running, either) in order to pull a Stand and Shoot manuever to the first unit to Assault them in the enemies Assault phase.

Units with Vigilance USR: Etherial Honor Guard, Chosen+SM equivalent, Imperial Guard Veterans, Hive Guard

(Tau Only Special Issue Wargear, Commander Only): The Commander realizes that the best way to spread the Greater Good is for his soldiers to be alive to spread it. He has learned to cover his warriors, ensuring their survival for the Greater Good. The Commander gains the Vigilance USR and may use this to cover any ONE unit within 6" instead of himself.

**Melissia**

"Charging a unit of Machine Gun toting killers"

So... uhm... charging anything in 40k that isn't a daemon or Tyranid?

What about tanks? Or walkers? Suits of terminator armor? Bikes, jetbikes, cavalry?

By the Emperor this would be an insane nerf to assault, espeically if it effected vehicles, even walkers!

**warboss**

here's my take on the idea (incorporating some of those already listed).

First off, it should be a general rule available to everyone although not necessarily beneficial to everyone (obviously not to assault troops). once charges are declared and the the charging unit is moved and fall in moves are done, the unit that was charged must decided whether to engage in close combat OR stand and shoot. if they choose to stand and shoot, they must pass a successful leadership check and then resolve their full fire for the whole unit using the same move/fire restrictions they had in their own movement phase, doing so prior to the start of close combat. e.g. if they moved in their prior movement phase, they can't shoot heavy weapons. if an independent close combat oriented character is attached, he too much fire instead of attacking in close combat as the decision is made on a whole unit basis. Unsaved wounds from this shooting are counted towards the combat resolution of the round.

for a scifi game, this gives shooty units (of which there are few effective examples) at least a chance to use their weapons in fluffy way before dying while not penalizing assaulty units too much (LD check, move/fire restrictions, no attacks from the recieving unit in CC).

**Illumini**

Shooting is certainly not weak in 5th. Sure, assaulting is more decisive, but you have to get there, you have to be able to catch your prey etc etc. There are tons of ways your opponent can blunt the force of your assaults, they certainly don't need to be made worse

This idea would simply make assault troops much much worse. The only assault troops you could have would be deathstars, as most other units would simply be blown away by the s&s. Flamers (which are pretty damn awesome already) would become auto-include.

OP seems to have a strong bias, as he just brushes away all critisism with "learn2Play", change tactics etc. This change would destroy the game as we know it, and not for the better IMO. Go play a realistic historical game if you don't like close combat

**SamplesoWoopass**

Well, if you really wanted to implement this, this is how I would do it.

Possibly make it a USR that only certain units have. Units like conscripts probably wouldn't have the nerves of steel required to do it and orks would probably prefer to beat up their opponents in combat rather than shoot them first.

Non-walker vehicles would obviously never receive this USR

I agree with taking it away from heavy weapons.

Template and blast weapons would not be able to use it, as the unit decides it would be better to fight normally rather than potentially fighting people who are on fire or potentially blasting themselves to bits before the fight even happens.

You must take an LD check to do it.

Only models facing the attackers could shoot. (OMG facing making a difference in 40k?!?!)

The shooting would take place before assault moves were made.

Unless firing pistol or assault weapons using this would reduce you to one attack regardless of wargear or anything like that and would reduce your initiative by one.

Models may only fire one weapon and may only fire at one enemy unit. (So my unit if destroyers being assaulted by two mobs of orks wouldn't be able to get 15 shots at both squads.)

The shooting does not effect combat resolution.

The only thing that I really see getting super OP because of this would be IG power blobs.

**Nurglitch**

I proposed something like this a while back, but instead it was based on the notion that units could "return fire". Original thread here.

Nurglitch wrote:Firefights in 40k
The Shooting Sequence
7. Return Fire. The target unit may elect to shoot at its attacker following steps 1-6 of the Shooting Sequence, if it has not Gone to Ground, or been Stunned or Shaken. This represents troops being able to shoot back if they recover from the initial shock, and were not pinned down or shaken by the attack.

If the target unit shoots at its attacker, then its following Movement phase action is limited by its Shooting action; for example an infantry shooting heavy weapons during the opposing shooting phase cannot move or assault in their own following turn. The unit cannot shoot or run in its own following shooting phase, and may only shoot at one attacker. This represents the fact that while the action is taken out of the usual order in the game, the order of events that it represents is the same.

Firefight!
If one model in the attacking unit is within charge range of the target unit, prior to step 2 in the Shooting sequence, then the attacking unit may make an assault move to engage the target unit before shooting. Regardless of whether any attacking models make it into base-to-base contact, the units are treated as being locked in combat, which will be resolved in the Assault phase.

In the Assault phase this combat is treated slightly differently from other combats. The target unit, now the defenders, have a choice of whether to react or not, rather than being forced to react as is normally the case. Models in both attacker and defender units may only use appropriate ranged weaponry, or weaponry that they could have fired in the Shooting phase. Attacking models, for example, always count as having charged, so they cannot use rapid fire weapons unless they have some special rule like Relentless that permits an exception. Defending models, if their unit did not react, may use weapons that they would have to be stationary to use. Otherwise they count as charging for the purposes of shooting. Pinning weapons do not have their normal effect, although assault grenades and defensive grenades do. Shooting to hit is resolved as BS v BS where normal combat would be WS v WS. Shooting is resolved at Initiative steps, as in a normal combat.

Note that more units may join the combat, either because they began the Shooting phase within charge distance and decided to engage, or because they started the Assault phase within charge distance and decided to engage. Models joining the combat in the Assault phase fight as normal, models joining the combat in the Shooting phase fight as described above, with the caveat that they can only direct attacks to their original targets. Close combat attacks against shooters in these combats are resolved as normal (WS v WS, etc). Models may claim cover saves against shooting attacks.

The combat is resolved as normal, and any subsequent round of combat is resolved like a normal close combat: things have gotten too close and desperate for guns!

Design Notes:
The first order of business was not to break the basic rules, but to reconfigure them. So I figured that basically allowing a unit to shoot back after they'd been shot at would be okay because they could be stunned, shaken, pinned, etc. No need to extraneous leadership tests or anything because the players already went through that with the first six steps in the shooting sequence. If you fire Heavy Weapons to return fire in the opposing player's Shooting phase, you don't get to shoot in your own shooting phase (against a preferable target, for example) and infantry don't get to move or assault. Basically there's no free lunch.

The second order of business was to make it so that people weren't completely turned off shooting and then assaulting where the target unit could lose casualties to cut off any attempt at assaults, and shoot back to add injury to insult. So what I figured would be cool would be the image of units closing on a position guns-a-blazing - that's why the assault move doesn't have to connect for the unit to be locked in combat, as it's a fluid engagement that makes any notion of close fire support hazardous. So units can locked down other units in firefights if they would have been able to do so using a regular assault, without the worry about shooting themselves out of a charge. Of course, the defender can react and close any gap that might be the case, but that'll depend on the kind of weaponry that the defender is carrying. A defending unit with flamers may want to fire on a tightly packed scrum, for example, while a defending unit with heavy weapons may be glad to remain back in cover. Players retain the option of shooting and attacking, as well.

Notice that this enables firepower-oriented unit the ability to engage and break units that would otherwise be a much harder proposition. However, before you start worrying about hordes of Firewarriors or Necron Warriors charging around guns blazing, consider that Firewarriors will be shooting at 3+ vs Orks, 4+ vs most everything else, at I2, and if they're armed with Pulse Rifles then only on the defense. Eldar Guardians and Dire Avengers will unquestionably benefit from this, however.

Notice also that this does not disadvantage purely close combat units, as a close combat unit that cannot shoot back may still be able to engage the attacker in the subsequent rounds of combat, particularly if they're Fearless. Tyranids and Orks, at least, pack plenty of Assault weapons that will naturally be ideal for this sort of thing, to defend as well as attack.

**Melissia**

Or Sisters with Acts of Faith (So even if they mess up their movement phase, it's okay, they can stand and shoot!). Or anything which has templates or blasts. Or Tau shooting. Or hell, Marines shooting (don't underestimate bolter shock). Or Tyranid Warriors. Or Orks (shootaboyz could become crazy strong defensively speaking). Or Immortals. Or Fragons (your walker is dead if it charges, dead if it doesn't). Psycannons would get six shots on the turn the GK unit gets charged (though this probably isn't unbalanced given how expensive they are). Tzeentchian daemons would become notably stronger. Stormtroopers and Thousand Sons would also all have a field day with anything with a 3+ save.

I don't think this is possible to balance out in 40k without a huge amount of playtesting over the course of, say, a year.

**Slarg232**

Melissia wrote:Or Sisters with Acts of Faith (So even if they mess up their movement phase, it's okay, they can stand and shoot!). Or anything which has templates or blasts. Or Tau shooting. Or hell, Marines shooting (don't underestimate bolter shock). Or Tyranid Warriors. Or Orks (shootaboyz could become crazy strong defensively speaking). Or Immortals. Or Fragons (your walker is dead if it charges, dead if it doesn't). Psycannons would get six shots on the turn the GK unit gets charged (though this probably isn't unbalanced given how expensive they are). Tzeentchian daemons would become notably stronger. Stormtroopers and Thousand Sons would also all have a field day with anything with a 3+ save.

I don't think this is possible to balance out in 40k without a huge amount of playtesting over the course of, say, a year.

I disagree.

I think the way I put it (as a USR only available to "veteran" type units) would be pretty balanced. Playtesting would be required, yes, but I don't think it would take a years worth.

**Acardia**

yes, for firewarriors only.

**asimo77**

Isn't sucking in assaults the whole point of being a shooty unit? If a player gets his CC guys close enough to beat up some shooty guys, he should be rewarded for playing well (and the opponent punished for playing poorly) and mess those guys up not get his face shot up.

TBH I don't see this working in almost any form. Restricting amount of shots, lowering iniative, forbidding templates, etc doesn't doesn't reduce the damage done to the assaulters by a reasonable enough amount. Something like overwatch would just mean you would never bother using assault units againt gunlines because when you get close you get dead.

They might be able to do this if they made restriction on what weapons are fired like no weapons of AP/S value X, or shots Y, etc. But then this becomes arbitrary and does an even poorer job at simulating a battle.

Honestly I think SA is what punishes shooty units more than necessary, not assaults in general. Tone that down a bit and then getting assaulted doesn't mean instant-wipe.

**sebster**

Deuce11 wrote:As I said, with any rules change new tactics will be used and the game will adapt. Gargoyles and biovores may become more widely used against blob guard. Those giant things that bury through the ground would become even more valuable for deep strike attacks and creating holes for reserves to deploy from. Outflanking genestealers also become more dangerous. Look, I do not play Nids so these ideas may not be the greatest but my point is not to prove that my suggested tactics are viable. My point is that new tactics must be developed any and every time there is a rules change. Therefore it is irrelevant to state a new rule would be bad because old tactics would not work.

No, you can't just add any rules to a system and expect new tactics to arise that makes that rule work. Some rules break the basic logic of a game, and even a game as messy as 40K has some basic logic to it. Allowing a stand and shoot phase would break that logic. You want a unit to fire at it's attackers before they assault... that's what the previous two turns of the game represented.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

asimo77 wrote:Honestly I think SA is what punishes shooty units more than necessary, not assaults in general. Tone that down a bit and then getting assaulted doesn't mean instant-wipe.

It's a few things that make assault more decisive. There's sweeping advance like you say. There's the morale check being modded by the difference in scores (I think a steadfast type rule would be awesome in 40K, if you have more guys than him you test at your natural morale value). And there's being stuck in combat against a unit that you can't hurt, slowly being killed (I think there should be an option to voluntarily flee).

**DAaddict**

It is OP and does destroy the game as we know it. Don't change the cost and yes, there is a big difference to Tau responding at I2 with a S3 attack at WS3 and a Tau blasting an attacker with 2 S5 shots. Same for a S3 Eldar plugging you with 2 S4 shots or even a Marine plugging you with 2 S4 shots instead of clubbing you once with 1 S4 attack.

Only available to "veteran" unit types is a very subjective thought. Is a SM a veteran? Is any Eldar a veteran? Does the collective consciousness of the Hive make any bug a veteran. How about a Necron warrior?

Do whatever you want and cost it for its effect on the game but don't suggest that tactics will solve it for a 6pt orc that generally sucks at shooting and is built for HTH but now can get shot up for just thinking about assaulting.

**Char-Nobyl**

Unfortunately, Stand and Shoot works in Fantasy in large part because there's a much, much bigger divide between melee units and ranged units than in 40k. Most units in 40k, including "assault" troops have ranged attacks. In fantasy, if a unit of archers is about to be charged by axe-wielding madmen, it makes sense to give them a snowball's chance in hell of doing what they're at least sort of good at before being embarrassingly outclassed. Not only that, but most infantry-wielded weapons are shorter ranged (on average) than those in 40k, and infantry units move slightly (but noticeably) shorter distances than in 40k. A cavalry charge can hit a "ranged" group before they've even gotten a shot off, hence allowing them at least one chance to shoot before being hewed to death. In 40k, across open ground, most infantry will get off a turn or two's worth of shooting before being hit.

There used to be a rule allowing for units in 40k to make...eh, I guess you could say "attacks of opportunity" when enemy units passed their line of sight. The result was tedious and annoying at best. It forced players to have their opponents take, during the former's turn, no less, a handful of mini-rounds of shooting.

This isn't nearly as bad, obviously. Not by a longshot, in fact. But take into account that it works in Fantasy for some specific reasons. Giving archers a chance to shoot at the Chaos horsemen with a negative modifier is deemed fair. Giving a Heavy Bolter Devastator squad another volley of twelve shots, even if it's at BS3, against virtually any assault unit when their range probably already let them get a good two turn's worth of shooting at said assault unit? Not quite so understandable.

And now imagine deep-striking units. Pretend a group of ten Swooping Hawks attempt to assault the aforementioned 4-man Devastator squad after dropping in. Take a moment to crunch the numbers: assuming a -1 modifier for the Devastators, they fire 12 S5 AP4 shots, each of which hit on a 4+, and wound on a 2+. In a perfect world, half of those shots hit, and five of those six wound. The Hawks get no saves due to the AP4. Half the squad is dead, and now it's five S3 T3 units against four S4 T4. In just one round of 'Stand and Shoot,' a Devastator Squad just acquired the ability decimate assault troops during a charge, then strangle the survivors with their ammo feeds.

**Bookwrack**

Deuce11 wrote:My point is that new tactics must be developed any and every time there is a rules change. Therefore it is irrelevant to state a new rule would be bad because old tactics would not work.

Your point sucks, and I question if you know what the definition of 'tactics' is.

If a new rule is poorly thought out, poorly conceptualized, and poorly executed, people are going to tell you why. In this case, how exactly is someone supposed to 'change tactics' when you've introduced a rule that makes it crippling for many assault units to assault?

**Char-Nobyl**

Deuce11 wrote:What I meant was Heavy weapons may not be used to S&S (due to their cumbersome characteristics in a sudden, high stress, reactive situation)

As I said, with any rules change new tactics will be used and the game will adapt. Gargoyles and biovores may become more widely used against blob guard. Those giant things that bury through the ground would become even more valuable for deep strike attacks and creating holes for reserves to deploy from. Outflanking genestealers also become more dangerous. Look, I do not play Nids so these ideas may not be the greatest but my point is not to prove that my suggested tactics are viable. My point is that new tactics must be developed any and every time there is a rules change. Therefore it is irrelevant to state a new rule would be bad because old tactics would not work.

True to an extent...but you ignore the fact that rule changes can be bad. Infallibility has never been one of GW's characteristics.

If you spend the time and effort to learn how to ride a bike, you will probably be right in being pissed off if someone takes away that bike and forces you to ride a unicycle. You probably can't do it in the first place, and there is no sane reason why someone can justify the action by saying, "You're just whining because you don't want to adapt."

**Deuce11**

Char-Nobyl wrote:

If you spend the time and effort to learn how to ride a bike, you will probably be right in being pissed off if someone takes away that bike and forces you to ride a unicycle. You probably can't do it in the first place, and there is no sane reason why someone can justify the action by saying, "You're just whining because you don't want to adapt."

Funny because GW does this every time a new edition is released.

I have read the suggestions and it seems to me that the majority would like to see a rule that allows defenders to shoot in some capacity at an assaulting unit as long as the rule does not neuter CC. I do not know what that rule is exactly. That is why I asked you, Dakka Community. Thankfully some very imaginative members have posted some well thought out rule drafts. I will try to play test some and maybe a rule akin to S&S will be adopted in future editions of 40K.

**del'Vhar**

Heres my take on it:

Hold the Line USR:
If this unit is assaulted, they may choose to forgo all attacks in the following round of combat (including grenade attacks and any psyker powers) and instead fire their weapons.

If the unit chooses to do this, the entire unit (and any attached ICs) must fire their weapons.
All models in the unit will have their weapon skill counted as half (rounding up) until the end of the firing units next assault phase.

Range is measured from the position of both units at the beginning of the assault phase.
*****

So basically they stand and deliver as it were, meanig they dont get to fight normally and are easier to hit for the next two rounds of combat.
Looking at it, it still seems a little too good, so maybe a restriction on number of shots or ballistic skill is needed.

**asimo77**

I think the most I'd be willing to settle for is some sort of IG special character with this kind of rule, otherwise it doesn't seem like a good idea to implement it on a widescale.

**Bromsy**

I was thinking about a version of this for my pre heresy guard army - I don't think it would work as a USR though. My take on it was the Close Quarters Marksmanship rule; since my guard are going to be set up for mid to close range mobile shooting, I think it works for them.

CQM- In the first round of an assault, models with the CQM rule and a rapid fire or assault weapon fight at +1 I, and use the S of their weapon as their S, to a maximum of 5. If a model has a weapon with 3 or more shots or a template, add 1 attack. No benefit is gained from having two close combat weapons or assaulting.

That seems balanced to me and doesn't change or add to basic rules.

**Fallanir**

I think the basic idea makes sense, in that it's pretty realistic. I mean, as in the example of charging a Devastator squad armed with heavy bolters, that would be like charging a machine-gun nest, and that would indeed be suicide. That's why millions of men were slaughtered in WW1--their commanders had them charge across open ground against enemy lines guarded by machine-gun emplacements. That's pretty much what happens in Warhammer 40K, except that in 40K, the machine-gunners get slaughtered. Firing units in 40K don't really have a fair chance against assault units. Well, I'll say that they have a fair chance when the assaulters are coming across open ground, but what if they are dodging from cover to cover or coming in a transport and all of a sudden pop up 12" away? They get a free assault without taking a single shot while charging across all that open ground (which is half the range of a rifle in the game). It stands to reason that the firing unit would get off at least one volley. What if an APC is coming at a unit of riflemen in real life? They would crouch down, wait till the vehicle got close and halted and opened its hatches, then fire into the faces of the guys jumping out. Of course, the guys jumping out would also be firing as they jumped, so I guess this situation could be resolved like an assault where both units have equal initiative. Both units would get the full amount of shots. And it makes sense that heavy weapons that are automatic would have even more of a chance at shooting the assaulters. You have a machine gun running on full auto, as soon as those close-combat devils pop into view and start running at you, you swing that gun around and hose them down. As it is, assaulting units can just use a transport to get close enough and then attack the enemy hand-to-hand without having to worry about getting shot first. However, I will say that even though that's hardly realistic, it's super fun. I just accept that it's a game and not going to be realistic. Like Heroscape; ranges are terrible and archer squads are often the weakest of all squads. But that's fun; it gives close combat a chance, wihch is awesome. Cut down those nasty archers! Give them a taste of real fighting!

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, by the way, Bromsy, I like the Close Quarters Marksmanship rule.

**asimo77**

The CQM rules seems pretty neat actually, just 1 thing: Wouldn't it make more sense to have a bonus for pistols rather than rapid fire/assault weapons? Pistols seem made for close range shooting.

Sorry if I misinterpreted something.

**Bromsy**

ah, i forgot pistols. My bad, that was just a quick summary, not a cut n' paste.

**svendrex**

Here is my quick 2 cents on this matter. Overall you get more attacks in Close combat and a greater chance to rout people. Guns get the ability to hit at range, take no damage back when used, and have AP. Fantasy does not have AP the way 40k does and this system balances out the shooting to the close combat.

Close Combat hordes kinda rely on charging with out taking fire. The two "best" ork lists are the Kan wall and the Battle wagon rush at the moment. These list either extend your charge range or block enemy attackers to ensure that the orks get the charge and are protected until they do. One good round of shooting from a 10 man squad with a flamer can do enough damage to gimp a 20 model ork squad

Try assaulting 10 Sternguard, all with combi-plasma, with 10 terminators. 20 shots, 12-13 hits, 10 wounds, 7 terminators gone. Then the Sternguard make regular attacks before the terminators can hit. There is a lot of potential for damage here.

It would change the balance in a huge way, which is fine, but they would have to reprice everything in every codex, and that is just not feasible. I could see it used for the Tau if their units were priced to include the extra power this would give them.

Just remember that the fluff /= rules. 40k rules especially are an abstracted system more than a realistic system.

Also in 40k there is a mix or shooting and sword fighting whereas in real life wars the swords are gone now. realistic shooting rules would lend themselves to a game where shooting was the main event, not just half of the game.

Huge power chainsword wielded by a 7 foot monster of a man (assault marine) = rules say regular close combat weapon
Regular human prisoner with a knife (penal legionary) = rules say this weapon is "better" and thus has rending.

**Norade**

My question for those that make a note that Assaulting isn't just bashing somebodies head in with a rock, why don't the Tau get to use their strength five weapons as their strength value in an assault? Just because you're S3 shouldn't effect anything in a melee where you can snap off shots with your sidearm or rifle.

**kill dem stunties**

This could be possibly not unbalanced if there was a caveat that no special or heavy weapons can be used, i.e only bolters/ lasguns bolt/las pistols etc, no plasmaguns or pistols or melta/infernus pistols or missile or lascannons or flamers/hand flamers etc.

**Deuce11**

i like how the conversation has matured. There does seem to be some ways of representing the strength of firing by buffing the defending unit in CC.