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.

So bikes assault the same as normal infantry I understand. However it seems a bit weird that a bike that was hurtling along at 24 inches becomes locked in combat, should bikes not automatically have hit and run to represent such a high speed attack? What's you guys opinion?

That this should be in proposed rules.

I can understand where you are coming from on this, and to be honest it seems like a really good suggestion, reflecting the swift attacks of the bikes. However, I think they don't have H+R because it could possibly make bikers overpowered (imagine Ork Nob Bikers with H+R).

Yeah good point Valkyrie. If I remember right 2nd edition had only one attack could be made by either side during these attacks. Better represents a dive by I reckon.

How about they automatically "hit and run" at the end of the combat, due to their speed, but must make their movement in the direction they assaulted.

Seems like a good drawback for getting to move 24 and assault.

how can they move 24 and assault?

they can't assault if they go flat out, so a normal bike move is 12inches, + the 6 inch assault meaning 18 inches moved total.

If the bike moves over 12 it can't assault if i remember right.

I thought that was it... afraid I wouldn't know though, I don't use bikes.

Perhaps he's talking about Eldar? Although if the person is still assaulting that's cheating.

What's going to represent the rider being knocked off the bike and suffering serious injury from falling off their bike at whatever ridiculous speed they are traveling? This could happen from being hit during their assault, shot while they ride, a nearby blast, etc... This is pretty much the reason you don't see bikes being used much at all in the military: it's really easy to be knocked off and killed/seriously injured in the fall.

But if you want 40k to be more realistic... Models must take an initiative test for every wound inflicted (before all saves are taken). If they fail, they fall off their bike and are instantly killed in the fall (to represent them becoming injured and/or their bike careening away without them).

On a similar vein I think squads should be punished for charging into bike squads that have moved flat out.

I would say, all infantry models charging a flat out bike squad must take an initiative test before striking. If they fail they are removed from the table. (monsterous creatures, and walkers excluded)

Just to represent how silly it is for a person to stand infront of a bike moving at top speed with a sword...

akaean wrote:On a similar vein I think squads should be punished for charging into bike squads that have moved flat out.

I would say, all infantry models charging a flat out bike squad must take an initiative test before striking. If they fail they are removed from the table. (monsterous creatures, and walkers excluded)

Just to represent how silly it is for a person to stand infront of a bike moving at top speed with a sword...

Who says they jumped in front of the bike? If I were going to attack a gang of bikers I would jump to their weak side (the side not holding a sword) and just Barry Bonds them. Simple, easy, and a pretty intuitive action, if'n you asked me. Let us not use terms like "removed from the table," as those terms are rather uncooth if you ask me. Also, the action you are describing is exactly what bikes do normally when they assault an enemy, so that's how they would always act, from a logical stand point, whenever they assault or are assaulted.

A bike, jet bike, or other form of quick-moving platform (hover disc?) that goes into melee is silly. Going headless-horseman style ride-by makes sense, but in a world with firearms it makes more sense doing light cavalry tactics (ride around in a circle in front or around the enemy lobbing salvoes off at them from where they can't effectively shoot back) similar to Eldar Guardian jetbikes.

No, bikes are there because they are cool, not because they make sense. The way the rules are written, just imagine the bikers jumping off their bikes when they get into melee so they aren't mashed into pulps by anyone who figures out "the bike is the weak-spot, kick it so they fall", or how Skinnattittar put it.

Then again, there are bikes with hit and run, mostly the more "cowardly" ones.

Why are there bikes? Because they are awesome and provide mobility.
Why are there horses? Because they are even awesomer-est and provide mobility.

Everyone loves a cavalry charge.

Skinnattittar wrote:What's going to represent the rider being knocked off the bike and suffering serious injury from falling off their bike at whatever ridiculous speed they are traveling? This could happen from being hit during their assault, shot while they ride, a nearby blast, etc... This is pretty much the reason you don't see bikes being used much at all in the military: it's really easy to be knocked off and killed/seriously injured in the fall.

But if you want 40k to be more realistic... Models must take an initiative test for every wound inflicted (before all saves are taken). If they fail, they fall off their bike and are instantly killed in the fall (to represent them becoming injured and/or their bike careening away without them).

You're insinuating that there is a slippery slope when in reality there really isn't one.

I for one think that Bikes should have Hit and Run, it just makes sense to me. It's not a big game breaker, it's just a useful ability and I think you're making things complicated just to make them complicated for no reason.

Valkyrie wrote:I can understand where you are coming from on this, and to be honest it seems like a really good suggestion, reflecting the swift attacks of the bikes. However, I think they don't have H+R because it could possibly make bikers overpowered (imagine Ork Nob Bikers with H+R).

I'm not sure it'd be that overpowered. You'd still have to roll equal or under your initiative, and for an ork that's 2.

Skinnattittar wrote:But if you want 40k to be more realistic...

Why would you want that? Seriously, why? I mean, realism that far in the future would like involve scout teams identifying each other from beyond visual eyesight with all kinds of advanced sensors, then calling in a guided missiles to annihilate the enemy position. It wouldn't involve guys on bikes at all, and no hand to hand combat at all.

It's a deliberately unrealistic world. What matters is making bikes cool and unique. Giving them hit and run could make for a more interesting unit.

Mahtamori wrote:A bike, jet bike, or other form of quick-moving platform (hover disc?) that goes into melee is silly. Going headless-horseman style ride-by makes sense, but in a world with firearms it makes more sense doing light cavalry tactics (ride around in a circle in front or around the enemy lobbing salvoes off at them from where they can't effectively shoot back) similar to Eldar Guardian jetbikes.

Nah, in a world with effective firearms cavalry tactics are to move rapidly into a good position then get off the horse and fight like infantry. Which can be interesting, but it is interesting at the strategic level, at the tactical level you never see the horse. The way to make bikes believable in 40K is to never see the bike, just have a small squad able to deploy where it wants.

Which is a terrible idea for a whole host of reasons. Instead we have dudes on bikes flying into enemy positions, braving masses of gunfire as they charge. It's goofy but kind of cool.

Oh, I think riding into battle astride a totally kick-ass ride is epically awesome! (I always wanted to convoy on my hadji-bike, but that would be a very bad idea....) The problem is, instead of just making them fast moving attackers, with heavy weapons and still reasonably able to assault into enemy units, some people here want them to be far more deadly units for the sake of "awesome" and "realism." Well, you know what I also find an awesome idea? Beaning a biker off his bike with a baseball bat; which is both "awesome" and "realistic."

To state my point bluntly; you have to take the good with the bad. I would love bikes to become more interesting and fluffy, but I would also rather make them more interesting and fluffy without making them just "more betterer" for the players that want another "god-gun."

And yes, this can be a slippery slope.