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 was watching Gettysberg, and the writer of the movie was talking about the book the movie was based off, called "The Killing Angels"

If the target is within 6" at the beginning of the shooting phase, the squad can choose to affix bayanets changing there bolter to.

12" str 4 ap 5 assualt 1 BS 3

For reference, it's "bayonets".

I'm not sure why it would have an influence to be honest, particularly on a ranged attack?
I could understand it having a CC influence, but considering they're already equipped with combat blades (in fluff) I don't see the significance...

So you gain a Bolt Pistol with -1BS? Why on earth?

broodstar wrote:I was watching Gettysberg, and the writer of the movie was talking about the book the movie was based off, called "The Killing Angels"

If the target is within 6" at the beginning of the shooting phase, the squad can choose to affix bayanets changing there bolter to.

12" str 4 ap 5 assualt 1 BS 3

This suggestion is less than worthless. Not only would it not make any sense (bayonets aren't ranged attacks), but the functionality you want already exists. It's called a "bolt pistol." Implementing this would not only do nothing (since the bolt pistol is objectively better in game and Marines have it anyway) but it would cause a lot of confusion and problems. If you're really attached to the idea of bayonets, model all your guys with them and then use the power of imagination to envision their effects when you charge.

Agree with all. Worthless. They have bolt pistols.

Well excuse me for trying some IoM theorycraft. vary welcoming guys.

broodstar wrote:Well excuse me for trying some IoM theorycraft. vary welcoming guys.

Welcome to Proposed Rules. Expect harsh criticism.

'Worthless' etc. are harsh terms to use, but ultimately you can't expect people to be welcoming of an idea if they think it's bad.
Criticism =/= not welcoming, just honesty.

Sweet mother of god. If you're going to tell someone their idea is than at least suggest something else.

Bayonets: Some troops opt to discard their Bolt pistols in favor of attaching their combat knives to the end of their weapon. Despite the fact that that it requires two hands to use effectively, using both hands greatly increases the power with which a Marine can swing the weapon. All models with Bayonets have +1S in close combat.

Actually, I don't know why the term worthless is considered harsh.

Your proposal literally does nothing. Therefore it is worthless.

"I propose all marines should have a purple spot under their armour somewhere."

"I propose we give marines a weapon they'll never use in a manner they'll never use it in a fashion that's needlessly complex and unnecessary."

Both statements are worth less than just... not doing that.

Edit: There's no point in suggesting doing something else. The proposal he wanted is done better already. By something that already exists.

What you've done is suggest something else entirely - the purpose of OP's change was to let marines shoot, and then assault. Your option removes their ability to shoot during an assault, in exchange for extra assault capability.

Eh. C'est la vie. I was just trying to be helpful, even if the concept is already in the game.

I wasn't arguing that; I was just saying, judging from what he wanted to accomplish, what you proposed was tangential.

I came up with a rule for chain-bayonets before... actual chainswords count as CCWs that allow a re-roll to wound, bayonets allow a model with a bolter to re-roll 1s when wounding in melee.

That was just a special thing for chain weapons though.

Oh a better idea attaching the bayonets mean they will be able to fire the weapon in combat, next turn if the combat is tied.

Seems like this would be more suited, both in fluff and game play, to IG. Bayonets were usually fixed to long rilfes so they could be used in cc. A bolter is already compact (for a SM).

I think your right, even though they make bayonets for the M16 I don't anyone has order a bayonet charge since Vietnam.

Trading your bolt pistol for +1S in close combat actually seems fair. It's an interesting take on bayonets.

For Imperial Guard, I would say any unit with fixed bayonets fights at +1 Initiative for the first round of combat, and -1 Initiative thereafter. The extra reach of a bayonet on a rifle lets you get your hits in first, but afterwards it's more cumbersome than a knife or pistol.

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:For Imperial Guard, I would say any unit with fixed bayonets fights at +1 Initiative for the first round of combat, and -1 Initiative thereafter. The extra reach of a bayonet on a rifle lets you get your hits in first, but afterwards it's more cumbersome than a knife or pistol.

That makes sense to me

optimusprime14 wrote:

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:For Imperial Guard, I would say any unit with fixed bayonets fights at +1 Initiative for the first round of combat, and -1 Initiative thereafter. The extra reach of a bayonet on a rifle lets you get your hits in first, but afterwards it's more cumbersome than a knife or pistol.

That makes sense to me

It actually makes zero sense. A rifle+bayonet is always a better fighting weapon than your fists, knife, or gun club. Bear in mind that IG also don't have pistols.

ph34r wrote:

optimusprime14 wrote:

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:For Imperial Guard, I would say any unit with fixed bayonets fights at +1 Initiative for the first round of combat, and -1 Initiative thereafter. The extra reach of a bayonet on a rifle lets you get your hits in first, but afterwards it's more cumbersome than a knife or pistol.

That makes sense to me

It actually makes zero sense. A rifle+bayonet is always a better fighting weapon than your fists, knife, or gun club. Bear in mind that IG also don't have pistols.

Makes perfect sense. They would act like spears when you receive a charge but when you are stuck in they become a little unwieldy

McNinja wrote:Sweet mother of god. If you're going to tell someone their idea is than at least suggest something else.

Bayonets: Some troops opt to discard their Bolt pistols in favor of attaching their combat knives to the end of their weapon. Despite the fact that that it requires two hands to use effectively, using both hands greatly increases the power with which a Marine can swing the weapon. All models with Bayonets have +1S in close combat.

I did suggest something else-- just use the power of your imagination. Bayonets have advantages and disadvantages in different combat ranges that are difficult to codify in a system with this level of abstraction. In a straight fight, a fellow with a bayonet has the advantage over one with a knife in his hand, but this is not always the case. For instance, in World War One many soldiers found that bayonets were impractical in the close confines of a trench, where they could more easily become entangled with things and their reach was of less effect. As a result, many adopted clubs, trench-knives, or sharpened spades or picks as hand-to-hand combat weapons instead.

The +1 Initiative/-1 Initiative suggestion is all right, but doesn't capture the complexity of the issue adequately and in fact underrates the bayonet-- in most cases a skillful user will not allow the enemy to get close enough to negate the bayonet completely, and in any case strikes can be made with the stock of the gun if such a situation does arise. Since 40k doesn't really have any "close confines" rule, it's hard to really determine a good way to use bayonets other than in your imagination.

That is true!

In the 4th Ed IG codex they gave a +1 I bonus to squads that were in base-to-base contact, didn't they?

During the first round of combat anyway.

I_am_a_Spoon wrote:In the 4th Ed IG codex they gave a +1 I bonus to squads that were in base-to-base contact, didn't they?

During the first round of combat anyway.

In the 3.5th edition codex (there was no 4th), close order drill gave +1 leadership and +1 initiative for fighting in formation, which only worked if all your models were in base to base contact.

I think that the +1 I in the first round and the the -1 in the second accurately represents a bayonet, it shows how the reach advantage is useful, though I would only give the +1 when standing still.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As in, the enemy charges you.

That does make more sense than any of the other suggestions, but then you still have the situation of a bayonet having an in-game effect, but something such as a chainsword having (pretty much) none.

Maybe give a Choice, when you decleare a charge the officer orders either bayonets or chainswords. The bayonets will be a +1 I and chainswords will be a mini powerweapon, (say ap 5 or 6.)

They don't equip every guardsman with a chainsword.

Lord Magnus wrote:They don't equip every guardsman with a chainsword.

Yes, the best they have in the CC department is a knife or the lasgun itself

broodstar wrote:I think your right, even though they make bayonets for the M16 I don't anyone has order a bayonet charge since Vietnam.

Not so. Used (by British troops at least) in the Falklands conflict:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mount_Tumbledown

And as recently as 2004:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Danny_Boy

Although Brits do seem to have an eccentric approach to close combat:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill

On topic, in terms of rules and fluff, I agree that this would better suit IG. How about a +1 strength/initiative bonus, in exchange for a -1 BS penalty?