Unit1126PLL wrote:If ranged worked like melee:

I shoot your unit, and if a model or two survives the shooting attack and morale, your unit cannot act during its turn.

I can then do this for every unit until I run out of bullets.

The only time units fall back from melee is if the unit's owner positioned exceptionally well (outplaying the melee player) or the melee player forgot the myriad tactics for preventing fall-back from being possible.

Or they just brought a bunch of single-model melee units that can't surround enemy models.

Elbows wrote:That's why I said "in a science fiction setting filled with guns".

fe40k wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ummm...close combat is king right now. Harliquens - shining spears - rever jetbikes. All these things charge you turn 1 almost automatically and kill at least 1 important unit and tie up others. Plus they can all move out of combat and act as normal for a stratagem or just as a base ability.

Close combat is hardly king right now - and just because a handful of units can leap across the table turn 1, doesn't mean every unit can. The FAQ significantly slowed down melee armies, by not being able to deploy outside your deployment zone turn 1 (minus 1-2 units via special ability; Da Jump, etc.).

Meanwhile, a ranged army can bring all of their firepower to bear on turn 1, with no restrictions.

A ranged army can delete a significant chunk of an opponents army, P1T1, before their opponent has even had a chance to do anything.

Contrast this with the 1-2 units that may enter an enemies front line, only to ALSO have to roll charge distance, and hope they don't brick.

 Xenomancers wrote:

fe40k wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ummm...close combat is king right now. Harliquens - shining spears - rever jetbikes. All these things charge you turn 1 almost automatically and kill at least 1 important unit and tie up others. Plus they can all move out of combat and act as normal for a stratagem or just as a base ability.

Close combat is hardly king right now - and just because a handful of units can leap across the table turn 1, doesn't mean every unit can. The FAQ significantly slowed down melee armies, by not being able to deploy outside your deployment zone turn 1 (minus 1-2 units via special ability; Da Jump, etc.).

Meanwhile, a ranged army can bring all of their firepower to bear on turn 1, with no restrictions.

A ranged army can delete a significant chunk of an opponents army, P1T1, before their opponent has even had a chance to do anything.

Contrast this with the 1-2 units that may enter an enemies front line, only to ALSO have to roll charge distance, and hope they don't brick.

Shooting is significantly nerfed with the prevalence of -1 and -2 to hit all over the place. It is becoming less and less reliable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ummm...close combat is king right now. Harliquens - shining spears - rever jetbikes. All these things charge you turn 1 almost automatically and kill at least 1 important unit and tie up others. Plus they can all move out of combat and act as normal for a stratagem or just as a base ability.

Harlequins charge you turn 1 almost automatically?

Are you playing on a 12" wide board?

No I think I'm playing on a board where a 22 inch move is enough to charge turn 1. AKA - every deployment setup in the game.

This doesn't even factor in things like...double moves and deployments that start 18" apart

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

Yeah, suck it Dune with your explanation why guns don't work in that setting. And all the other settings where melee has been decided to be better than guns. It shall be decreed from this point on if you have it filled with guns in your Sci-Fi setting they MUST be better than melee. NO EXCEPTIONS!

I am not saying that melee should be better or even as good as guns, but to throw out a blanket statement about all sci-fi comes off wrong.

Bharring wrote:
If Ranged worked like Melee...

Some units would be able to shoot twice in one Shooting phase! That'd be stupid gak! (looks at Leman Russes and Fire Prisms..) oops.

Getting good-AP weapons that can swing on the move without needing 6s wouldn't be hard! (looks at half the changes in the last two editions....) oops.

Units would be unasailable if they successfully shot a unit that didn't die and couldn't fall back... Wait, that one does vary. If it's not Fly. Or UM. Or uses some stratagem.

 Galas wrote:
Another thread for some posters to insist that meele doesn't belong in 40k, or that at best it should be something optional and not a real competitive option, with a constant need for guns and ranged combat even when some factions are designed from the ground up both from fluff and crunch as heavy or pure meele armies?

 vipoid wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Another thread for some posters to insist that meele doesn't belong in 40k, or that at best it should be something optional and not a real competitive option, with a constant need for guns and ranged combat even when some factions are designed from the ground up both from fluff and crunch as heavy or pure meele armies?

I'm not saying 40k shouldn't have melee, but it is implemented in very strange ways.

- First off, let's be honest here - guns are better than swords. There's a reason that modern armies go into battle with rifles, rather than swords, and why tanks fight other tanks with shells or missiles, rather than punching them to death with mechanical arms. Now, it's still useful to carry around a knife - maybe even a sword/bayonet - but as a sidearm, not as your primary weapon.

- Now, in some settings, melee weapons are given a chance by having all the guns be rubbish. But that clearly doesn't apply in 40k - pretty much every army has a plethora of devastating weapons, without even getting into those used by spacecraft and such.

- The thing is, I can still see melee being used by certain races. Orks and maybe DE probably prefer the visceral feel of melee, where possible, even if they also use guns for pragmatic purposes. Okay. Ah, and there are also tyranids - which could easily necessitate melee because they're biological creatures and therefore... oh... wait... no, they just use biological guns built into their arms. I guess they really don't need melee then - especially not with a Hive Mind that would be looking for the most pragmatic means of combat possible. Strange that it's so keen on melee.

- Finally, we have the completely bizarre specialisation in melee by certain units. Now, as above, I can understand marines carrying knives or even swords as sidearms (and captains may carry them as much for symbolic reasons as anything else), but why on earth would you specialise in them to the point where you don't even carry a gun? That's just nonsensical. Moreover, why on earth would you ever equip a heavy-weapon platform with a sword and shield instead of a gun? Did the Imperium get its combat tactics from watching old episodes of Power Rangers or something?

- Now, in some settings, melee weapons are given a chance by having all the guns be rubbish. But that clearly doesn't apply in 40k - pretty much every army has a plethora of devastating weapons, without even getting into those used by spacecraft and such.

- Finally, we have the completely bizarre specialisation in melee by certain units. Now, as above, I can understand marines carrying knives or even swords as sidearms (and captains may carry them as much for symbolic reasons as anything else), but why on earth would you specialise in them to the point where you don't even carry a gun? That's just nonsensical. Moreover, why on earth would you ever equip a heavy-weapon platform with a sword and shield instead of a gun? Did the Imperium get its combat tactics from watching old episodes of Power Rangers or something?

SemperMortis wrote:
I mean I can totally get why there are fungoid space aliens that reproduce by spreading spores, I totally get how terminator style robots are waking up from a million year slumber; those things are completely believable. I get that demons exist and can burst into the real world through portals and any number of other ways, I understand how numerous races including humans have powerful psykers, I get that giant bugs can exist in the vacuum of space indefinitely and how they can eat worlds and then somehow transfer the biomass into orbit to power there huge space bug vessels. I get how all of this happens, I just cant wrap my head around using a sword or an axe, that just pushes me over the edge of reason.

Spoiler:

 lolman1c wrote:
....If cadian gets turn 1 then they delite almost exsactly 50% of ork boyz. If go first and get a first turn charge then they probably win as well but depends on if they get there.

 andysonic1 wrote:
This thread is very specifically talking about problems between melee and ranged combat and how much easier it is to have a shooting army as opposed to a melee one at the moment.

 Peregrine wrote:

 andysonic1 wrote:
This thread is very specifically talking about problems between melee and ranged combat and how much easier it is to have a shooting army as opposed to a melee one at the moment.

Shooting being better than melee is a feature, not a bug. It encourages you to make fluffy shooting-focused armies instead of unrealistic melee armies that only work because 40k's scaling is way off.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So I take it the Chainsword is less iconic than the Bolter?

 Peregrine wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So I take it the Chainsword is less iconic than the Bolter?

Yep. And far less realistic. If 40k was actually a 28mm game instead of a weird mix of scales chainswords would be virtually nonexistent outside of officers carrying ceremonial weapons.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Do we remove all that in the name of realism too?

Edit: Also, you know what else wouldn't belong? Ground battles, 99% of the time. Because once you control the space around a planet, you can precision laser out defenses and just do clean up.

 Peregrine wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Do we remove all that in the name of realism too?

No, because that's not the same. Yes, space marine biology is unrealistic, but it's the kind of unrealistic thing that depends on looking at it carefully with the intent to find things that are not realistic. It's easy to just ignore it and consider the end result, because the details of space marine biology aren't really important to the story. But the scale issues are impossible to ignore. Every time you look at the table or measure a distance you're forced to confront the fact that you're playing a supposed 28mm game with weirdly distorted 32mm infantry models, 20-25mm vehicles, 10mm terrain, 28mm movement distances (at least most of the time), and 2mm shooting distances. Melee combat in 40k only works because table size and movement distances use one scale while shooting ranges use a significantly different scale. If everything was correctly scaled to the supposed 28mm scale of the game then melee units would get shot to death long before they could reach a target.

Edit: Also, you know what else wouldn't belong? Ground battles, 99% of the time. Because once you control the space around a planet, you can precision laser out defenses and just do clean up.

This is true. It's implicit in the 40k rules that we're playing the 1% of battles where a battle occurs at all.

fe40k wrote:
1. Units would have to roll 2d6 per 12" range of their weapon; added together to determine final shooting range. More elite units would get to re-roll (all) these dice. If all of their targets are out of range, the shooting attack fails.
2. Units would block line of sight to the models behind them, unless the firing model was able to draw an uninterrupted line that doesn't cross between two models in the same unit (representing not being able to pass through small enough gaps).
3. For each enemy unit that is targeted during the shooting phase, they may attempt "counter-fire"; following normal shooting rules, but only hitting on 6's.
[4. Something about enemy units being able to shoot back during the enemies turn, once actually engaged by the enemy... I don't think there's a good enough parallel; short of allowing the enemy unit to use it's melee attacks or something as a ranged "close combat" - to represent the lesser skilled models fighting back (ala unskilled models versus skilled models in a firefight).]
5. Units engaged in a firefight can't move, unless it is to fall back. Units falling back can't advance or shoot that round, unless possessing special skills.
6. Firefight ("ranged melee") continues between engaged units...

Funny how typing all that out sounds excessive - but it's what melee models must currently endure, just to reach and engage the enemy lines.

That said, there's an interesting concept of units getting engaged in "firefights"; essentially ranged version of close combat; it pins units in place, forcing them to duke it out round to round with other enemy units - and prevents the engaged units on both sides from being able to target other units, or move around until they decide to fall back first.

Maybe the sequence would be...
1. Player's units decides to shoot at # of targets.
2. # of targets attempt "Overwatch" with their ranged weapons, hitting on 6's.
3. Player's units shoot as normal.
4. After all Player's units have finished shooting, enemy units return fire (per normal rules).
5. Unless a unit falls back, units are considered "engaged", and will continue standard shooting (in alternating format), at the end of each round; ala standard close combat rules, albeit at range.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Okay. What does it take to make Orks unrealistic? They're sentient fungus that works on the power of belief.

Or, hell, Daemons. I play Daemons, and they're very, VERY unrealistic. Should my army be removed?

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

fe40k wrote:
1. Units would have to roll 2d6 per 12" range of their weapon; added together to determine final shooting range. More elite units would get to re-roll (all) these dice. If all of their targets are out of range, the shooting attack fails.
2. Units would block line of sight to the models behind them, unless the firing model was able to draw an uninterrupted line that doesn't cross between two models in the same unit (representing not being able to pass through small enough gaps).
3. For each enemy unit that is targeted during the shooting phase, they may attempt "counter-fire"; following normal shooting rules, but only hitting on 6's.
[4. Something about enemy units being able to shoot back during the enemies turn, once actually engaged by the enemy... I don't think there's a good enough parallel; short of allowing the enemy unit to use it's melee attacks or something as a ranged "close combat" - to represent the lesser skilled models fighting back (ala unskilled models versus skilled models in a firefight).]
5. Units engaged in a firefight can't move, unless it is to fall back. Units falling back can't advance or shoot that round, unless possessing special skills.
6. Firefight ("ranged melee") continues between engaged units...

Funny how typing all that out sounds excessive - but it's what melee models must currently endure, just to reach and engage the enemy lines.

That said, there's an interesting concept of units getting engaged in "firefights"; essentially ranged version of close combat; it pins units in place, forcing them to duke it out round to round with other enemy units - and prevents the engaged units on both sides from being able to target other units, or move around until they decide to fall back first.

Maybe the sequence would be...
1. Player's units decides to shoot at # of targets.
2. # of targets attempt "Overwatch" with their ranged weapons, hitting on 6's.
3. Player's units shoot as normal.
4. After all Player's units have finished shooting, enemy units return fire (per normal rules).
5. Unless a unit falls back, units are considered "engaged", and will continue standard shooting (in alternating format), at the end of each round; ala standard close combat rules, albeit at range.

This is all far too complicated, not to manage 'counter fire' is completely unrealistic, in war you shoot targets or do suppressing fire, you don't know specifically who shoots at you and then go 'he shot at me, I better shoot him back' everyone is shooting at you.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

fe40k wrote:
1. Units would have to roll 2d6 per 12" range of their weapon; added together to determine final shooting range. More elite units would get to re-roll (all) these dice. If all of their targets are out of range, the shooting attack fails.
2. Units would block line of sight to the models behind them, unless the firing model was able to draw an uninterrupted line that doesn't cross between two models in the same unit (representing not being able to pass through small enough gaps).
3. For each enemy unit that is targeted during the shooting phase, they may attempt "counter-fire"; following normal shooting rules, but only hitting on 6's.
[4. Something about enemy units being able to shoot back during the enemies turn, once actually engaged by the enemy... I don't think there's a good enough parallel; short of allowing the enemy unit to use it's melee attacks or something as a ranged "close combat" - to represent the lesser skilled models fighting back (ala unskilled models versus skilled models in a firefight).]
5. Units engaged in a firefight can't move, unless it is to fall back. Units falling back can't advance or shoot that round, unless possessing special skills.
6. Firefight ("ranged melee") continues between engaged units...

Funny how typing all that out sounds excessive - but it's what melee models must currently endure, just to reach and engage the enemy lines.

That said, there's an interesting concept of units getting engaged in "firefights"; essentially ranged version of close combat; it pins units in place, forcing them to duke it out round to round with other enemy units - and prevents the engaged units on both sides from being able to target other units, or move around until they decide to fall back first.

Maybe the sequence would be...
1. Player's units decides to shoot at # of targets.
2. # of targets attempt "Overwatch" with their ranged weapons, hitting on 6's.
3. Player's units shoot as normal.
4. After all Player's units have finished shooting, enemy units return fire (per normal rules).
5. Unless a unit falls back, units are considered "engaged", and will continue standard shooting (in alternating format), at the end of each round; ala standard close combat rules, albeit at range.

This is all far too complicated, not to manage 'counter fire' is completely unrealistic, in war you shoot targets or do suppressing fire, you don't know specifically who shoots at you and then go 'he shot at me, I better shoot him back' everyone is shooting at you.

Unless you are in the artillery...

Ranged combat definitely needs some mechanics to make it interesting. Something like suppression could add a whole new element to the game and add some tactical elements. Because currently, using ranged weapons requires absolutely zero tactics or gameplay. It is just line up your models and throw dice. Not very interesting.

 Galas wrote:

But in Warhammer40k is exactly the inverse. They don't nerf guns. They make meele weapons absolutely devastating, with guys exploding tanks with a punch of a Power-Fist like a superhero.

 Galas wrote:

And yeah as much as Peregrine comes and says that if you have the technology to do that with a meele weapon they should make a gun that fires powerfists at the enemy because it would have much more strenght than the arm of one random dude... ok, thats realistic, but Warhammer 40k is heavy metal. We all make concesions for the universe to work, and meele weapons not being only usefull but actually tactically interesting as the main way of making war is one of those concesions.

 Galas wrote:

I have never seen anybody claim that guns have no place in Warhammer 40k, and that at maximun they should be just side-arms, but with how iconic meele weapons are in warhammer 40k I don't know why so many people really brings this over and over and over again. (Not saying you specifically, Vipoid, just in general)

Meele is a core part of the universe, both in gameplay and in "feeling" of the fluff. Of course, is absolutely reasonable to disagree with that and have your own opinions. But thats how it is the universe, it does not matter how you try to twist it.

By the way, Adeptus Custodes Galatus Dreadnoughts are just rock&roll. Having your giant robot deflecting missiles and giant lasers with a shield to then cut in half a giant tank with his sword? Thats pure warhammer. (And then it gets blow up by a lone guardsmen carring a melta bomb)