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.

This thread, right here, is exactly how Warhammer 40k went from a blatantly ridiculous 1980s GrimDark scifi setting to a cringeworthy thuper therious you guyth cutrate space opera.

Do you want robocop remake levels of people not understanding that elements of a setting are intended as a joke?

Because this is how you get that.

I don't really get this whole "scifi should have guns."
40k has been 40k forever. People run around with swords, axes and fists and attack each other. That is the setting.

You can say "well, if we were realistic about this, a guardsman should have a 240" range with his lasgun - and a basilisk should be able to shoot a quarter of a mile" but that doesn't sound all that fun.

The problem with assault is that its all or nothing - and therefore prompts this constant arms race. If assault ever gets in front, it quickly breaks the game, which is why whenever there is even a ghost of this happening it promptly gets yanked back.

With that said - for suggestions - the best step would be to take away the 2d6 assault rule and rebalance appropriately. Having a rule that you then need to give almost every assault unit a way to avoid/mitigate is stupid.

Tyel wrote:
I don't really get this whole "scifi should have guns."
40k has been 40k forever. People run around with swords, axes and fists and attack each other. That is the setting.

You can say "well, if we were realistic about this, a guardsman should have a 240" range with his lasgun - and a basilisk should be able to shoot a quarter of a mile" but that doesn't sound all that fun.

The problem with assault is that its all or nothing - and therefore prompts this constant arms race. If assault ever gets in front, it quickly breaks the game, which is why whenever there is even a ghost of this happening it promptly gets yanked back.

With that said - for suggestions - the best step would be to take away the 2d6 assault rule and rebalance appropriately. Having a rule that you then need to give almost every assault unit a way to avoid/mitigate is stupid.

Assault is (and should be) less all-or-nothing in this edition than it has been in any edition prior, thanks to the existence of Fall Back and the removal of Sweeping Advance.

It is now more than ever just a way that units can choose to do damage, and that's a good thing. An assault unit that puts power budget into speed or deep striking is pretty much the same as a shooting unit that puts power budget into range or ignore LOS - you're paying points for the ability to deal your damage sooner or more flexibly. That's all.

The only thing that makes assault unique currently is the fact that it has several disadvantages (random distance, enemies fight back, overwatch) and several advantages (contesting objectives, opponent probably will be prevented from shooting).

Even the ability to charge turn 1 was OK, in its basal form. The problem was, GW wrote in numerous rules allowing either the risk to be taken away (see: Warptime) or allowing deep strike on any unit you want rather than just units that had deep strike built into their power budget.

That was dumb. And now all Assault Marines, Terminators, Striking Scorpions pay the price for the sins of units like a 30-blob of Tzaangors deep striking via a 1cp stratagem and receiving a psychic power to make their charge 1" instead of 8". The current deep strike FAQ feels similar to those units as if GW had taken the period of time when deep striking plasma scions were king and went "OK, seems like stuff getting shot turn 1 is a big problem. Okay, both armies now automatically count as BS6+ turn 1, problem solved!"

Yet another balance issue that would be solved greatly by alternative activation.

Danny slag wrote:
Yet another balance issue that would be solved greatly by alternative activation.

And we will all thank them for it right after they stamp out the 30 or 40 other problems that would crop up thanks to Alternating Activation.

the_scotsman wrote:
This thread, right here, is exactly how Warhammer 40k went from a blatantly ridiculous 1980s GrimDark scifi setting to a cringeworthy thuper therious you guyth cutrate space opera.

Do you want robocop remake levels of people not understanding that elements of a setting are intended as a joke?

Because this is how you get that.

Thanks, at last I find other person that believes Warhammer40k has taken hitself too seriously, both by the authors and by the fans!

And I'm not saying that Warhammer40k should be the rogue-trader era parody it was. Of course it has evolved from that. But that doesn't mean it isn't still, at his core, an extremely unrealistic and "rule of cool" based setting.
Of course, what is "cool" is subjetive, but Warhammer 40k was never an universe for any semblance of realism. The only thing that matters for a fictional universe is internal consistence, and yeah, Warhammer is not perfect in that regard, but many strong features have remained consistent for decades. The relevance and coolness of mele being one of those.

I would still argue that melee is not irrelevant or not cool.

Melee is absolutely relevant to the game - but it's part of a larger orchestra.

No pure shooting army will ever win without giving thought to the possibility of its units being hit with melee; similarly, no pure melee army should ever win without giving thought to the possibility of being shot away.

This is where 40k is now. Gunlines absolutely must take measures to not get into melee, whether it's through screens, high mobility, or counter-charge units (or indeed, using its own melee units to tie up the enemy's). Melee is absolutely relevant and helps to define the meta.

Similarly, I think melee is cool - I have a pure mono-Slaanesh army with no shooting - not because it's good, but because I like it and think it's cool. It actually does win games, sometimes (I'm about 50/50 now) though if you ask people on this forum that's because me and my group play too 'casually' which is true, yes, I'm not playing at a tournament.

I do wish melee as incidental was a bigger slice of CC. The potential of Tacs in CC excites me more than the potential of Vanguard Vets in CC. When it's "These blokes in front of me aren't as good as me in CC. Charge?!!!1", it's really fun and cool. When its "And I brought 15 units that just run to the enemeny and charge", it can be fun, but less interesting to me.

Shatter the skies!!

Am i the only one who read op's list and thought: "wow, that'd be really cool!"?

Random range representing the advanced counter measures you'd expect to be ubiquitous in the year 40.000, units locked in fire fights, maybe even the 6+ overwatch when targetted representing a cinematic hail mary shot before getting hosed (limited to once per turn ofc). Sounds fun

40k is not, was not and never will be sci fi. It’s fantasy in space.

Having guns and robots does not make it sci fi, just like swords doesn’t make it fantasy.

The only thing separating sci fi from fantasy, is that sci fi settings must be rooted firmly in reality, which 40k is not. We have space magic and space daemons.

All settings assume a certain level of technology. 1000 years ago, being able to make steel was high tech, that doesn’t mean just because we have things in 40k that we can’t create by modern standards, that doesn’t make it sci fi.

Close combat, assault should be the focus of the game, not shooting. That’s the way the game has always been in the fluff, because it’s a story of heroes, and I can’t think of anything more boring or unheroic of someone getting shot in the head at 100 paces.

Realism has no place in 40k, that is not what this game is, if you don’t like space knights in a fantasy setting, 40k is not for you.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
40k is not, was not and never will be sci fi. It’s fantasy in space.

Having guns and robots does not make it sci fi, just like swords doesn’t make it fantasy.

The only thing separating sci fi from fantasy, is that sci fi settings must be rooted firmly in reality, which 40k is not. We have space magic and space daemons.

All settings assume a certain level of technology. 1000 years ago, being able to make steel was high tech, that doesn’t mean just because we have things in 40k that we can’t create by modern standards, that doesn’t make it sci fi.

Close combat, assault should be the focus of the game, not shooting. That’s the way the game has always been in the fluff, because it’s a story of heroes, and I can’t think of anything more boring or unheroic of someone getting shot in the head at 100 paces.

Realism has no place in 40k, that is not what this game is, if you don’t like space knights in a fantasy setting, 40k is not for you.

Despite being a Daemons player, I'll argue that a little. Shooting very much has a place in 40k. But it should be about equal to assault, not the sole dominant force.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
40k is not, was not and never will be sci fi. It’s fantasy in space.

Having guns and robots does not make it sci fi, just like swords doesn’t make it fantasy.

The only thing separating sci fi from fantasy, is that sci fi settings must be rooted firmly in reality, which 40k is not. We have space magic and space daemons.

All settings assume a certain level of technology. 1000 years ago, being able to make steel was high tech, that doesn’t mean just because we have things in 40k that we can’t create by modern standards, that doesn’t make it sci fi.

Close combat, assault should be the focus of the game, not shooting. That’s the way the game has always been in the fluff, because it’s a story of heroes, and I can’t think of anything more boring or unheroic of someone getting shot in the head at 100 paces.

Realism has no place in 40k, that is not what this game is, if you don’t like space knights in a fantasy setting, 40k is not for you.

We've literally had this "is 40k sci-fi" discussion before - I see you ignored it rather than changing your views. Would you care to rehash it?

To address your other points:
1) 40k is not about heroes. An Imperial Guard Company Commander may very well be the most expensive single-model character in an IG army, and is hardly a "hero" in the epic mythology sense, and has no business fighting a Daemon of Khorne in hand to hand.
2) Swordfights are less cool for mass battles than guns. Hollywood films about medieval/ancient times always add anachronistic elements, or else the battle is going to look like two lines of men shoving each other until one falls over. Look at the beginning of Gladiator, where the Romans are given enough field artillery to make Napoleon blush, relative to their unit size, or Troy, where the battle-scenes dissolved into "oh look, some dudes with swords, what are the /heroes/ doing?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Despite being a Daemons player, I'll argue that a little. Shooting very much has a place in 40k. But it should be about equal to assault, not the sole dominant force.

Shooting is not the sole dominant force. As I mentioned in an earlier post, shooting armies absolutely have to consider the possibility of being in melee when they construct their armies, and build around it. This is epitomized in the existence of screens, which are necessary to stave off the melee onslaught. Screens do little-to-nothing against shooting.

The fact that shooting armies are actively taking countermeasures against melee units is an indicator that melee is helping to shape the meta.

I always preferred the Epic Armageddon system.

Units could choose to
Move three times no shooting and extra vulnerable to attacks.
Move twice and shoot badly.
Move once and shoot normally.
Don't move and shoot better.
Move once and assault.

The last one was to simulate a game of 40k. A unit or units would move up and if any stands got within 15cm of the enemy both sides would fight. Units in base to base used their CC value. Units within 15cm used their FF value. After casualties you would see which side won and which side ran with extra dead.

Always fun to teleport in 4 stands of terminators led by a chaplain and slaughter a company of guardsmen for no loss...

the_scotsman wrote:

 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

Harlequins move 8"+D6". Add 3" if they start in a transport. 16"+2D6" if they use twilight pathways.

So one unit can move an average of 23" then charge. The rest move 11. Where are you getting 22"?

Sorry I was referring to their bikes. 22" and charge out of the box. I would have said troops if I was talking about their footmen. I thought the 22" move was a dead giveaway on that.

Well, you did say Harlequins, which used to be the name of the unit that is now Troops. That could go either way. But you were also talking about being king, and Skyweavers don't have the volume or stats to be king. You also said they kill at least 1 important unit and tie up others - the Harlequin models can do that, but the Skyweavers don't have the killiness to 1-round much of anything, nor the bodies to tie much up.

Bharring wrote:
Well, you did say Harlequins, which used to be the name of the unit that is now Troops. That could go either way. But you were also talking about being king, and Skyweavers don't have the volume or stats to be king. You also said they kill at least 1 important unit and tie up others - the Harlequin models can do that, but the Skyweavers don't have the killiness to 1-round much of anything, nor the bodies to tie much up.

Yeah. A 60 point skyweaver kills about 2/3 of a marine in close combat. For the points they're about Assault Marine levels of good at killing things in close combat. I did honestly think you were talking about regular harlequins.

the_scotsman wrote:
It is now more than ever just a way that units can choose to do damage, and that's a good thing. An assault unit that puts power budget into speed or deep striking is pretty much the same as a shooting unit that puts power budget into range or ignore LOS - you're paying points for the ability to deal your damage sooner or more flexibly. That's all.

I am not convinced this is really the case though. You fail that charge you do zero damage - and eat an overwatch for your trouble. If you don't charge you are not doing anything.
That's what I mean by all or nothing. In the old deep strike rules you were paying for a X% chance to get off a first turn assault. Sometimes it happened - sometimes it didn't. (And in the case of warptime you still have the percentage chance of the spell going off/being denied.)
Now you either have to wait - and risk being screened out entirely for a turn 2 charge - or run up the table, risking being shot or paying points for transports.

Ultimately there isn't much you as a player can do to respond to this - and a lot of games are won and lost on a few charge rolls.

I don't think its so much the case with shooting. It would be great if every unit had 48" range guns ignoring LOS - so you could target any unit on the table 99% of time - but typically, outside of "we buried the table in LOS blocking terrain" or units with a very low effective range you have a choice of shooting something.

Now depending on what that is might get a 100% return or a 15% return on your points - but you are getting something. Whereas assault has to be scewed upwards because its 0% return, 0% return, 100% return.
If the maths broke down as "35% you fail a charge and you get 0% return, 65% you get the charge off, but only get a 40% return on your points" that obviously sucks compared with shooting and no one is going to do it.

Tyel wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
It is now more than ever just a way that units can choose to do damage, and that's a good thing. An assault unit that puts power budget into speed or deep striking is pretty much the same as a shooting unit that puts power budget into range or ignore LOS - you're paying points for the ability to deal your damage sooner or more flexibly. That's all.

I am not convinced this is really the case though. You fail that charge you do zero damage - and eat an overwatch for your trouble. If you don't charge you are not doing anything.
That's what I mean by all or nothing. In the old deep strike rules you were paying for a X% chance to get off a first turn assault. Sometimes it happened - sometimes it didn't. (And in the case of warptime you still have the percentage chance of the spell going off/being denied.)
Now you either have to wait - and risk being screened out entirely for a turn 2 charge - or run up the table, risking being shot or paying points for transports.

Ultimately there isn't much you as a player can do to respond to this - and a lot of games are won and lost on a few charge rolls.

I don't think its so much the case with shooting. It would be great if every unit had 48" range guns ignoring LOS - so you could target any unit on the table 99% of time - but typically, outside of "we buried the table in LOS blocking terrain" or units with a very low effective range you have a choice of shooting something.

Now depending on what that is might get a 100% return or a 15% return on your points - but you are getting something. Whereas assault has to be scewed upwards because its 0% return, 0% return, 100% return.
If the maths broke down as "35% you fail a charge and you get 0% return, 65% you get the charge off, but only get a 40% return on your points" that obviously sucks compared with shooting and no one is going to do it.

Yeah, from a pure perspective of what does more damage, assault is terrible. Because those advantages I listed - preventing most targets from shooting or from doing anything if you surround a model, and being able to contest objectives when your opponent is on them - give a very large added benefit.

In previous editions, where charges were non-random, 6" from base to base was the fixed charge range. In the current edition, if you're within that 6" range, you need a 5 or better to succeed your charge - which is a 1/6 chance of failure. The risk when making what was a "normal" charge in previous editions is now extremely minimal. Much, much more minimal if you're playing a model which now has a move greater than 6".

What random charge distance gives us is the ability to control the risk/reward slider and opt for longer charges, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

Bharring wrote:
Well, you did say Harlequins, which used to be the name of the unit that is now Troops. That could go either way. But you were also talking about being king, and Skyweavers don't have the volume or stats to be king. You also said they kill at least 1 important unit and tie up others - the Harlequin models can do that, but the Skyweavers don't have the killiness to 1-round much of anything, nor the bodies to tie much up.

They are a lot better than you think. A 6 man squad can be buffed to absurd levels - much like shining spears. Plus their main damage comes from damage flat 2. You don't want to waste their damage on 1 wound models if you don't have to.

They are all going to be +1 attack due to the army trait. Plus can go +1 to wound for 2 CP. You can combine their speed with a double move with a large unit of troops and now you've got some serious pain in their face. You don't need to do any of that though. It's almost better if you don't kill things because if you lock them you can take away their turn and protect yourself from shooting (just like the old days). If they try to assault and kill you. Bust 3++ inov save and -1 to hit stratagems. Yeah - it's expensive but you also have the most absurd command point generator in existence. 1/6 chance to refund the total cost of a stratagem + it works on you and opponents.

Also don't forget about their shooting. The haywire can do vicious damage to a vehicle even when they advance.

"you also have the most absurd command point generator in existence"

Would you rather have a 1/6 chance to refund CP for you or your opponent in a faction with no access to CP farm or a 1/3 chance to refund CP from you with access to CP farm?

I mean, that's a good way to keep CP going, but callling it the most absurd in existence is flat out wrong.

+1 attack doesn't do as much on a unit topping out at 6 models as you'd think.

Yes, combined with troops in the face it's a serious threat, but that is very much not the same thing. It's like saying if you combine Tacs with IG, you've got more CP than xenos will have. May be techically true, but it doesn't mean Tacs are good.

Bharring wrote:
"you also have the most absurd command point generator in existence"

Would you rather have a 1/6 chance to refund CP for you or your opponent in a faction with no access to CP farm or a 1/3 chance to refund CP from you with access to CP farm?

I mean, that's a good way to keep CP going, but callling it the most absurd in existence is flat out wrong.

+1 attack doesn't do as much on a unit topping out at 6 models as you'd think.

Yes, combined with troops in the face it's a serious threat, but that is very much not the same thing. It's like saying if you combine Tacs with IG, you've got more CP than xenos will have. May be techically true, but it doesn't mean Tacs are good.

I was just talking about how close combat is still very strong. Not saying it's a busted combo. Though the amount of stratagems they can put on them is really where it gets stupid.

Yeah, Skyweavers can do good work. And so can troops. Not the same work, though.

We've literally had this "is 40k sci-fi" discussion before - I see you ignored it rather than changing your views. Would you care to rehash it?

To address your other points:
1) 40k is not about heroes. An Imperial Guard Company Commander may very well be the most expensive single-model character in an IG army, and is hardly a "hero" in the epic mythology sense, and has no business fighting a Daemon of Khorne in hand to hand.
2) Swordfights are less cool for mass battles than guns. Hollywood films about medieval/ancient times always add anachronistic elements, or else the battle is going to look like two lines of men shoving each other until one falls over. Look at the beginning of Gladiator, where the Romans are given enough field artillery to make Napoleon blush, relative to their unit size, or Troy, where the battle-scenes dissolved into "oh look, some dudes with swords, what are the /heroes/ doing?"

Yes we have.

Why would I change my views? I proved to you what the difference between sci-fi and fantasy was by giving you the literal definition of sci-fi and explained why 40K is fantasy. So I don't know why you still think you are correct, but I guess you American's aren't big on "facts" anymore.

1) Yeah...40k is absolutely not about heroes...with all those thousands of heroes in every codex and Black Library book. They are in no way integral to how the game plays or the background...An imperial guard command may have no business fighting a greater daemon, but neither does a space marine...but it still happens. I'd also like to point out that you also have characters like Straken and Yarric who tore the arm off an orc warboss and now uses it in close combat.

2) You understand that 40K is a hollywood film basically right? Thats what 40K is intended to be, its not at all realistic. It's supposed to devolve into one on one close combat between the two major characters. 40K is the Iliad. The characters are all that matters, everyone else is just fodder.

I mean, I don't even understand where you are coming from with these points. This is what 40K has always been. Your idea of what 40K should be runs so counter to what it was always intended, its mind boggling. This isn't a realistic combat simulator. It's a giant fantasy space opera. It's the Iliad, It's a play, it's a movie. Forge the narrative etc.

What if my narrative involves burying the idiot with a sword with ordnance?

 Bobthehero wrote:
What if my narrative involves burying the idiot with a sword with ordnance?

"Drive me closer, I want to hit them with my s-"

[NOTICE TO ALL COMMISSARS: While it is the duty of every Commissar to inspire his men to battle - including tank crews - recent data has shown that there is no significant loss of inspiration if the Commissar remains wholly inside his tank. Hence, it is strongly advised that tank-based Commissars not expose themselves within full view and range of the enemy.]

 vipoid wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
What if my narrative involves burying the idiot with a sword with ordnance?

"Drive me closer, I want to hit them with my s-"

[NOTICE TO ALL COMMISSARS: While it is the duty of every Commissar to inspire his men to battle - including tank crews - recent data has shown that there is no significant loss of inspiration if the Commissar remains wholly inside his tank. Hence, it is strongly advised that tank-based Commissars not expose themselves within full view and range of the enemy.]

IMO this sums up the issue. Yes, we have space daemons and magic space travel and the medieval catholic church in space. None of that makes sense in the real world, but we allow it because it makes sense within universe.

A commissar sanding up in full view of the enemy is just stupid. It makes no sense outside of or in universe. In the same way, I can believe in universe there is a place for melee oriented units in dense forest or urban terrain lying in wait ready to spring out from behind a hill or building to tear a unit of boyos with guns into bits. But it just makes no sense outside or inside universe to run across a large open space with a chainsword when you could grab a bolter.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
40K is the Iliad. The characters are all that matters, everyone else is just fodder.

Then 40k is arguably the worst game in the history of wargaming, as you're spending thousands of dollars and countless hours of painting time on irrelevant fodder that sits irrelevantly in the background while two hero models fight. And by fight I mean they stand there motionless alternate rolling dice at each other until one of them dies, without any movie-style drama or action. If this is genuinely what 40k is about why would anyone ever want to play it?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
40K is the Iliad. The characters are all that matters, everyone else is just fodder.

Then 40k is arguably the worst game in the history of wargaming, as you're spending thousands of dollars and countless hours of painting time on irrelevant fodder that sits irrelevantly in the background while two hero models fight. And by fight I mean they stand there motionless alternate rolling dice at each other until one of them dies, without any movie-style drama or action. If this is genuinely what 40k is about why would anyone ever want to play it?

The same could be said when two gunline armies get put against each other. no action or movement, both throw dice at each other until someone falls over, no one has fun.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
The same could be said when two gunline armies get put against each other. no action or movement, both throw dice at each other until someone falls over, no one has fun.

At least this gunline battle, as bad as it is, involves the entire army participating instead of being very expensive background scenery for the two characters hitting each other with swords. And shooting =/= gunlines. Gunlines are a problem of bad 8th edition design, a shooting-focused game can be interesting and not involve gunlines.