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.

Norade wrote: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.

Funny you should say that since there's actually a quote from the rulebook (page 34) that goes like this "the best gun in the galaxy won't help if your opponent is bashing your brains out with a rock"!

Also I think if tau were S5 in melee I might rage-quit WH forever.

One idea I might consider is maybe a unit can sacrifice its attacks to instead make one attack at the S of whatever gun their carrying, as long as that weapons is a pistol or assault? I think this actually makes a lot more sense, cause while yes Firewarriors with S5 close combat is a bit silly, I could easily see a desperate Guardsmen jamming his melta into a Marine and pulling the trigger? Of course this attack would be made at normal WS, so it's a gamble...but better than S3. I also think it'd be good as, quite honestly....a bolt pistol in your gut in close combat is gonna hurt more than a laspistol doing the same.

If we want to mimic the effect on engaging entrenched machine guns that helped lead to the trench warfare of WW1, how about building it into the cover mechanic?

I.e. instead of the current cover system of attackers being reduced to initiative 1, what if units defending cover got a free shot at the incoming assaulter? Assault grenades would negate this penalty instead of the current one.

I imagine order of events operating something like this:

1. units declare charges, assault range confirmed.
2. defending units in cover shoot weapons, choosing a single enemy unit to engage if they are receiving multiple charges, with its last turns movement being used to determine if heavy weapons are operable.
3. Remove casualties, Make assault moves (note this would mean its possible for the unit to take anti-assault fire and then still fail to make contact if its difficult terrain roll is inadequate).

Basically its more of a buff to defending good, solid positions then to shooting armies in general.

Jack

I like Jackmojo's idea, but I'm worried about ambushes, and in particular how they would work if defenders can always shoot at an incoming unit.

I figured letting assault grenades negate it left enough ways around it.

Its important to realize there are ways this also improves assault, since even with out grenades they'll get to benefit from their initiative now.

Jack

This only improves assault if it is improved relative to shooting. An extra round of shooting at I11 really outweighs any close combat attacks that may be make. Maybe if a unit could shoot instead of fighting in close combat? That's why my suggestion maintained the close combat-shooting ratios of the current game.

I guess I just see it as a given that even just allowing a unit to choose to shoot instead of fight in assault is a boost to shooting type units/armies (since for the most part its only going to be an option used by those things).

I'm OK with a slight tilt towards shooting, particularly if its something that 'feels' like a good real world tactic (i.e. getting to cover first and having time to get your squad support weapons setup properly).

Jack

Wait, does your proposal, Jackmojo, entail that units that have chosen to shoot do so instead of fighting in close combat?

Mine does, and I think your point is that my proposal also changes the original balance between shooting and close combat by allowing a substitution. I think the difference is that your proposal allows both shooting and close combat, meaning that it not only benefits units that aren't as good in close combat as they are at range, but also units that are better at close combat than they are at ranged combat.

Maybe make "Digging In" a third option besides running and shooting, that a unit can 'dig in' to area terrain and thereby gain the benefit of shooting an incoming unit.

The problem I see is that Assault Grenades are most useful, representationally speaking, when you begin your assault from outside of the defender's line of sight, in order to prevent them from shooting you as you close.

Nurglitch wrote:Wait, does your proposal, Jackmojo, entail that units that have chosen to shoot do so instead of fighting in close combat?

It does not, I believe you understood me correctly initially.

I'm not a fan of the unit not fighting back at all in melee, as that strikes me as goofy to a certain degree. What if instead of not fighting they are simply denied a pile in move (I'm not so sure about this idea as that can be a benefit as often as it is a penalty)?

Nurglitch wrote:Mine does, and I think your point is that my proposal also changes the original balance between shooting and close combat by allowing a substitution. I think the difference is that your proposal allows both shooting and close combat, meaning that it not only benefits units that aren't as good in close combat as they are at range, but also units that are better at close combat than they are at ranged combat.

Correct, part of the reason I like it is that I feel its a fair adjustment in as much as it makes assaulting a prepared and defended position a bad idea regardless of who or what is defending them (barring those few units with no shooting attacks at all) and make it particularly punishing to charge straight into machine gun nests and the like.

Nurglitch wrote:Maybe make "Digging In" a third option besides running and shooting, that a unit can 'dig in' to area terrain and thereby gain the benefit of shooting an incoming unit.

Sure, it could be an action like going to ground I suppose, but I'm not sure its strictly necessary. We already account for a prior turn of movement when assaulting vehicles, doing it for a few infantry units as well is not adding much unnecessary clutter I feel.

Nurglitch wrote:The problem I see is that Assault Grenades are most useful, representationally speaking, when you begin your assault from outside of the defender's line of sight, in order to prevent them from shooting you as you close.

Indeed, if you can sneak up to them without exposing yourself you can avoid all the negative impacts of assaulting through terrain, even without grenades.

Jack

I'm inclined to prefer my proposal, then, because it also represents units shooting as they go in. Something to note about the current version of 40k is that it implements a lot of notions Jervis Johnson originally implemented in Epic Armgeddon, and one of those notions is that an "Engagement", the Epic equivalent of an Assault, involves shooting from models out of base to base contact as well as close combat from models in base to base contact.

Of course, an Engagement in Epic: Armageddon represents an entire game of 40k, but in non-representation terms, the notion of including elements outside of direct contact using a 'ranged' attack means that a balance is favour of shooting ability can be handle within an assault rather than bolting it on as an additional 'free' shooting phase.

In other words, I like the way my proposal makes this a representational effect of rearranging the existing rules rather than an additional game effect added to the existing rules.

Fallanir wrote: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.

First up, more than 80% of assaults in WWI were successful in capturing the enemy trenches. It was horrible and cost many lives, but it did work most times. The problem came after the trench was captured, as there was no decent system of mobile communications, so it was very hard to communicate to command the success of the offensive, resulting in reinforcements being delayed, or not being deployed to the best areas. Troops also had to be redeployed almost entirely on foot, and so were hard to move into different areas to best respond to the changing nature of the offensive. On the other hand, the defenders had fixed line communications and railroads, and so were much more able to reinforce their position, organise a counter-attack or consolidate their defences. The problem wasn't that offensives failed, it's that attackers were rarely able to capitalise on successes.

Second up, people keep making the mistake of thinking of the final assault as the whole of the offensive. The two turns it took to advance up the board the enemy before the last charge also counts. Put IG infantry on one end of the board, and have them advance across the board, which as a muddy slop would count as difficult terrain, while the other side piled heavy bolter rounds into them. You'll get your WWI style slaughter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Norade wrote: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.

Because the 40K system is a bit of a mess. Seriously, that's the answer. Assault represents both close range shooting and actual hand to hand in some senses, and in other senses it's just represents actual hand to hand. It's like how you can assault a skimmer because it represents you firing on the thing from beneath it... but the option is also there for units with no ranged weapons.