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've seen quite a few posts that start off with something like "I like space marines, and I want to make a gunline army". But WHY? Why do you look at a rule set that's based around claiming objectives across the entire table and choose a strategy that consists of "sit in one place and roll dice"? What makes this kind of army appealing? Is it just the fact that the simplicity is comforting to a new player since they don't have to learn all of the rules right away? Do all of these people play in one of those groups where they always ignore the book missions and just play kill points every game? Is there actually something exceptionally fun about playing a gunline?

The really odd thing to me is that it's rarely about whether a gunline is good at winning games, especially since these kind of posts seem to come from newer players. So apparently they've found something fun and appealing about the concept itself. But what is it?

I know. I hate playing against gunlines and I dont see how they are fun to play. It takes the whole point of missions away.

If I'm playing Tau, or against 'Nids, why wouldn't I make a gunline army?

Some people find snipers fun, others like Rambo... I dunno why, its how we are.

BTW: Even my tau aren't gunlines, they're shoot and scoot.

Some people find the idea appealing. "Infantry wins firefights, tanks win battles, artillery wins wars."

 prophet102 wrote:
I know. I hate playing against gunlines and I dont see how they are fun to play. It takes the whole point of missions away.

It's not that I hate gunlines, I just don't understand the appeal of them other than winning (which is hard in a game of objectives). It would make sense if gunlines were awesome at winning games and people took them because winning is more fun than playing their favorite strategy and losing, but it seems like the people making these posts genuinely find the idea of a gunline appealing for its own sake.

Krauser1 wrote:
Some people find the idea appealing. "Infantry wins firefights, tanks win battles, artillery wins wars."

Yeah, but bringing lots of shooting doesn't necessarily mean a gunline. IG mech vets have tons of shooting, all the tanks and artillery you could ever want, and yet the majority of the army consists of mobile units that start moving on turn 1. Tau have tons of shooting but JSJ to keep moving as they shoot. Etc. And then there's the people talking about gunlines with marines or other non-artillery armies, so really you're talking about a bunch of tactical squads standing behind aegis lines all game, not the terrifying firepower of a squad of Basilisks.

Peregrine wrote:What makes this kind of army appealing?

You and me both. Boring to play as. Boring to play against. As far as I can tell, it comes down to three things.

- Gunlines are good. Those things that were able to shut down gunlines in 5th have disappeared in 6th, and haven't been adequately replaced yet. If you and your opponent both deploy your 1850 point armies, and you get first turn, and you blow 500 points of your opponent's stuff off the board at the top of 1, you've basically made it so that your opponent has showed up to an 1850 point game with a 1350 point list. Generally speaking, you don't recover from that without a LOT of luck on your side.

- Gunlines are "safe". You don't have to show up and think about things, or worry about movement (or, often, even deployment), or assault or anything. You know what you're going to be doing every game (the same thing, every game), and you know that it will give you a pretty decent chance of victory to boot. You don't need to take risks. You don't need to make plans. Your dice do the talking for you.

- Gunlines are "comfortable". They're easy. They play consistently. If you're one of those people who wants to keep things simple, low key, and don't like losing (my wife fits perfectly into this category, which is why most of the games we play are co-op, because otherwise I destroy her in everything else * ).

Perhaps there's also some sort of stoic Rourke's Drift aesthetic in there as well.

In any case, the end result is a game where one player makes no use out of any of the rules except shooting (and a tiny bit of movement at the very end), and they have the ability to deny their opponents the ability to make use of most of the game as well (because assaulting a gunline is rather tricky, etc.). In the end, this kind of list, then, shuts down the amount of game that's actually played in any given game. This makes the game much more shallow, and much more dependent solely on who rolled better (so, it makes it more like yahtzee or candyland, rather than one of those games with a thin veneer of player skill draped over the top). The more shallow the game, and the less interesting stuff happens, the more boring it is.

As mentioned, assaulty lists and foot hordes both had ways of countering the gunline (I chewed apart a fair number of them back in the day), but now those tools are gone, with nothing new yet to replace them (fliers hardly count). I'd like to hope that newer codices come along that can de-gunline the game a bit, but we'll have to wait and see. I guess until then, it's a matter for things like drop pods to handle...





* If you've never beaten someone 6 times in a row in Battleship, then you won't understand the gaming relationship I have with my woman.

Peregrine wrote: I just don't understand the appeal of them other than winning (which is hard in a game of objectives).

It isn't.

Step 1: blow your oppponent off the board
Step 2: take very few casualties in return, because opponent is mostly blown off the board.
Step 3: turn 4 start moving stuff over towards objectives against no serious resistance.

Step 3 can be skipped entirely if you put objectives in the midst of your gunline.

 Ailaros wrote:
- Gunlines are good. Those things that were able to shut down gunlines in 5th have disappeared in 6th, and haven't been adequately replaced yet. If you and your opponent both deploy your 1850 point armies, and you get first turn, and you blow 500 points of your opponent's stuff off the board at the top of 1, you've basically made it so that your opponent has showed up to an 1850 point game with a 1350 point list. Generally speaking, you don't recover from that without a LOT of luck on your side.

The advantage of the alpha strike is there, of course, but it ignores objectives. A gunline isn't going to claim anything outside its own deployment zone, so it pretty much has to table the opponent to win. Which is why I wonder if most of these "I want a gunline" players are part of a group that always ignores objectives in favor of constant pitched battle + killpoints games.

Plus, whether or not all of that is true, it doesn't seem to be the motivating factor. I get the impression that many of these players are newbies who haven't reached the point where they're optimizing army lists and tracking tournament win/loss records.

Perhaps there's also some sort of stoic Rourke's Drift aesthetic in there as well.

See, this, and the "safe to play" idea, are what I'm looking for. It makes sense, but is that aesthetic really that popular? Especially for armies like marines, which have fluff full of epic duels and running screaming at the enemy with a chainsaw sword?

As mentioned, you can always stack your deployment zone with objectives. It's not that difficult to place 3 objectives in such a way where they're all starting underfoot, or like A unit has to spend a single movement phase to get within 3" of one.

Were objectives placed for you, then it might be a different story, but as you can place them yourself, you can always just put them underneath your gunline.

Also, most gunlines have a tiny high mobility component just in case. Something that allows them to at least contest an objective at the end of the game.

And don't forget about secondaries. Linebreaker will probably be a wash, but gunlines are really good at getting first blood and slay the warlord, while being rather good at denying these things in return. It doesn't take much creativity to win with a gunline even in the most adverse of conditions.

Like I said, whether or not a gunline is actually the best choice for winning games (and I'll leave that for another thread), that doesn't seem to be what's going on. The posts I'm talking about tend to be less about "I've got a 1750 tournament coming up and I expect a lot of green tide and foot IG, I think a gunline would be a good counter" and more like "I'm new, what should I add to the space marine battleforce I just bought? I think a gunline would be cool". I'm sure some people play a gunline because it's the best choice to win a game, but there's got to be more to it than that.

Drop pod spam loves gunlines: use the pods to create LOS issues and then alpha strike the unit threatening to the PA.

While the now divided gunline is torn up in detail, heavy resilient units (or scout's in fortified ruins with Telion and cloaks) take objectives and create their own counter gunline.

Late game pods reinforce the alpha strike, and the gunline is left broken and overwhelmed by TH/SS and honour guard units supported by tacticals and sternguard.

 Lobukia wrote:
Drop pod spam loves gunlines: use the pods to create LOS issues and then alpha strike the unit threatening to the PA.

While the now divided gunline is torn up in detail, heavy resilient units (or scout's in fortified ruins with Telion and cloaks) take objectives and create their own counter gunline.

Late game pods reinforce the alpha strike, and the gunline is left broken and overwhelmed by TH/SS and honour guard units supported by tacticals and sternguard.

To fit the fluff my Iron Warriors army will be primarily a gun line army (with much joyous artillery to be had) when finished.

That said, I'll always include something that 's only job is to get into the enemies face and wreak back-line havoc or tie up counter-artillery batteries or the like.

Peregrine wrote:Like I said, whether or not a gunline is actually the best choice for winning games (and I'll leave that for another thread), that doesn't seem to be what's going on. The posts I'm talking about tend to be less about "I've got a 1750 tournament coming up and I expect a lot of green tide and foot IG, I think a gunline would be a good counter" and more like "I'm new, what should I add to the space marine battleforce I just bought? I think a gunline would be cool".

I wouldn't discount how strong they are, though. New players likely lose a lot of games, especially if they started out with limited models like from a starter box. After a few games of having their butt handed to hem, they might well have a sudden desire to play a gun line so that they can actually win games.

It's not that difficult to hide this motivation behind more flowery concepts.

For me its simple, this is the fething 42nd Mil. Why the feth are people using swords?

I wouldnt want modern day soldiers to run into combat with longswords when I could have them kill the enemy with Assault Rifles, so why would I want my future and technologically advance soldiers to use swords?

For me it has nothing to do with winning sense I dont play the game, I just collect the models and for fluff

I actually dont like melee in ANY SciFi setting.

In a Fantasy setting I completely flip that and prefer melee only.

Nobody here thinks all close combat army-lovers are weird?

I do.

TheNameless wrote:
Nobody here thinks all close combat army-lovers are weird?

I do.

QFT and the guy above you too.

"Hey, it's the 40,000 years in the future and everybody likes to hit each other with glowing sticks!"

Yeah, pass. I like the idea of ya know, sci-fi genres being populated with purple beams of death and the like instead of "hurp I'll run up and hit this tank with an axe."

I play a gunline mostly because I'm broke, and have no way of getting those shiny transports. I find them fun when I face an opponent like Lobukia, because I'm playing against my counter.
Yeah, it gets a bit tedious, but it's usually gone by second turn. It becomes a race.
Can I put out enough firepower to stop him before his mashy units reach my lines?

 Galdos wrote:
For me its simple, this is the fething 42nd Mil. Why the feth are people using swords?

Because they have balls. unlike the cowards hiding behind their gun.

 -Loki- wrote:

 Galdos wrote:
For me its simple, this is the fething 42nd Mil. Why the feth are people using swords?

Because they have balls. unlike the cowards hiding behind their gun.

Bringing a knife to a railgun fight, I'll take brains over balls any day.

The appeal? For guard, how bout not dying in droves?

Seriously, guard out of cover die, simple as that. They naturally form gunlines to defend themselves (see: trench lines). Also, it's very fluffy, imo.

That said, I never pure gunline, unless its Apocalypse, and only because I usually play against incredibly aggressive assault armies; if I move forward, I'm dead, so I stay back.

 agnosto wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

 Galdos wrote:
For me its simple, this is the fething 42nd Mil. Why the feth are people using swords?

Because they have balls. unlike the cowards hiding behind their gun.

Bringing a knife to a railgun fight, I'll take brains over balls any day.

And in 40k, ironically, the knife will usually win.

Because 40k is for people with balls.

 -Loki- wrote:
Because 40k is for people with balls.

QFT

Is this what this thread is about? Real men don't form gunlines, they charge with bayonets?

Gunlines are very effective now with the drop in cover and focus fire. The deployment styles in the book also favor the army type considering the army can deploy as far away as possible from the enemy and still be in max range with its weapons.

For those saying "What about the objectives?" Does capturing objectives win you the game in Turn 1? What about 2? Or 3? No it doesn't. Objectives only really matter on turn 4, and that's assuming you're a foot based gunline which IMO isn't as effective. Mech based gunlines can dash for the objectives starting on turn 4 and have its troops on the nearest objectives on turn 5. Plus, if you're mech based, you have the tactical options of moving around your firepower if there's not a clear shot.

 Ailaros wrote:
I wouldn't discount how strong they are, though. New players likely lose a lot of games, especially if they started out with limited models like from a starter box. After a few games of having their butt handed to hem, they might well have a sudden desire to play a gun line so that they can actually win games.

It's not that difficult to hide this motivation behind more flowery concepts.

Yeah, but that assumes you're talking about someone who knows more than "my friend said gunlines win" (just like "my friend said assault armies win", etc). The impression I get is tactical squads behind an aegis line, not some super-optimized tournament list dedicated 100% to winning.

For example, this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/475857.page . It's about a gunline, but starting with bad units that don't belong in a competitive gunline list. This suggests a lot less understanding of the strategies involved and a lot more "this would be cool".

 Galdos wrote:
For me its simple, this is the fething 42nd Mil. Why the feth are people using swords?

Yeah, but why specifically a gunline and not any other kind of shooting list? For example, I play mech vet IG. It's a 100% shooting army with zero points spent on assault units/upgrades, and I almost never initiate an assault unless it's for "this would be funny" value. And yet it's the exact opposite of a gunline, every infantry unit is given a Chimera, Vendetta, or Hades drill, and most of my units are moving every turn to deliver close-range melta/plasma/demolisher cannons/etc. And you can do the same with Tau, Eldar, marines, etc, so it's not just a specific IG thing.

So, what about the concept of a gunline makes it more appealing than a mobile shooting army?

It's a safe army, and to a new player still learning a ton of new rules, keeping the game as simple as possible is a good thing. They don't have to worry much during the movement phase, and don't care about the assault phase until the enemy gets too close for comfort.

However, as they get better, they will hopefully break out of this. I've noticed most people who gunline are unsure about units they're using, or are learning a new army/system.

When 6th hit, all you saw were gunlines, because people were still figuring out lists and what their units did now. Nowadays, I think I've only seen an aegic twice in the past month, and it was just to protect one unit, not their whole army.

Oh, that could be playstyle.

A mobile mech is a very agressive style of combat

I prefer a defensive style of combat

With me and my friends, im known as the one who relies on a strong defensive position to win the day.

Not to be mistaken with "I turtle" because I have have no problem having my men haul ass to a position away from base. Digging in, and than relocating to a new positon, and than a new one, etc... What Im known for doing is finding a nice location to lay a defensive position and fortifying it while I prepare a strike team to hit the enemy. While the enemy is assaulting my defense line I will either attack their army or their base depending on if my defense line can hold or not

Doesnt work in competitive Multiplayer games Im sure but I win every time in a casual game of anything (RTS, Board, etc...) with my friends. (Of my friends im the best at strategy and tactics)



However thats just me, cant say for other people

Gunlines are another way to play. Different armies play better as a gunline and this push players that direction. IG and Tau come to mind. Even if the player isn't "Turtle-ing" they are still going to shoot rather than assault. Whenever I assault my friends Crisis suit, he blows it up rather than even attempt to resolve the combat.

I've had some trouble with them with my Nids and I've been making some changes to try and rectify this. Using my flyrant and Spore pods to deepstrike in and cause some close up chaos while Tervigons in the back produce more troops to score on my side of the board.

Gunlines have counters but, like flyers, you have to build with them in mind.

I can't stand the thought off infantry outside of transports or using infantry in general so I focus on using tanks, they look cooler. That's my reasoning pretty much.

Firstly, welcome to 6th ed. where, despite all the talk of "cinematic" play, the rules as they stand have the (probably) unintended consequence of rewarding fairly static tactics. Thus we get a tedious game in which two armies blaze away at each other from behind Aegis Defence Lines, or two strangely adjacent fortresses. If unintended it's just yet more poor writing (which shouldn't surprise us), if deliberate, it's probably intended to dumb the game down further for the benefit of the kids who just want to roll some dice without having to think too much. As others have said, there are ways to deal with a dumb gunline player (Drop Pods, teleport assaults, slow and careful infiltration through cover), and if the gunline player has prepared a reserve to counter such things... then he's no longer really playing the dull, simplistic game game about which you're complaining.

 Peregrine wrote:
See, this, and the "safe to play" idea, are what I'm looking for. It makes sense, but is that aesthetic really that popular? Especially for armies like marines, which have fluff full of epic duels and running screaming at the enemy with a chainsaw sword?

Contrary to the fluff, Marines on the tabletop just aren't actually that good in assault or at point blank range, and never have been; Tacticals are outclassed by most dedicated assault units, and Assault Marines, unless deployed en masse founder against large squads or armoured opponents. This has been the case since Rogue Trader, and GW have never concerned themselves with fixing it.

 prophet102 wrote:
I know. I hate playing against gunlines and I dont see how they are fun to play. It takes the whole point of missions away.

shoty armies better then assault ones in this edition . better army , more wins . wining >losing . wining is more fun , then losing . more gunlines made , because people want to have fun playing them armies . playing a nid assault , BA assault or chaos assault army just isnt fun anymore .