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.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Xenomancers wrote:can you give me a real reason why the hormagant costs more than a termagant though?

Because melee is improperly priced for its utility. There are two solutions to this; you've posted the one that I think most players will find unsatisfying. The other is to make melee worthwhile again, closer to on par with shooting as it used to be and less the cheap, crappy alternative.

Just slashing the points on melee-only units is going to feel really awkward when elite units like hammer+shield Terminators or specialized ones like Assault Marines become cheap cannon fodder.

I think the issue is that 'good' melee units smash everything, get exposed, and die and bad melee units just die. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground and points cuts don't help with that.

Agreed. Melee units have a definite "suicide squad/kamikaze" feel to them. I blame the fallback mechanics, but most people seem to hate the old sweeping advance rules, so there needs to be a middle ground. Possibly giving units the chance to chase fleeing units and keep them in cc but not wipe them out.

I'm pretty sure that's exactly how it worked at one point. It's been a while, but I remember back in 3rd, Sweeping Advance got patched by new 'Trial Assault Rules' to keep the losing unit trapped in combat rather than wipe them out entirely. That seemed reasonable to me.

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Agreed. Melee units have a definite "suicide squad/kamikaze" feel to them. I blame the fallback mechanics, but most people seem to hate the old sweeping advance rules, so there needs to be a middle ground. Possibly giving units the chance to chase fleeing units and keep them in cc but not wipe them out.

There are a few melee units that are powerful, cheap, durable, and supported so they can reach melee... but you still wouldn't build a list around them.

That said, when my army is finally fielded again, I'm looking forward to seeing what a group of Deathwing Knights + Ancient do when dropped into something important and then what the opponent does when they have a 3++ and transhuman physiology the next turn.

 catbarf wrote:
I'm pretty sure that's exactly how it worked at one point. It's been a while, but I remember back in 3rd, Sweeping Advance got patched by new 'Trial Assault Rules' to keep the losing unit trapped in combat rather than wipe them out entirely. That seemed reasonable to me.

Yeah, iirc the unit falling back rolled 2d6 for distance, and the pursuers rolled 2d6, if they beat the fleeing units roll they stayed in combat. Jump infantry, bikes, and the like rolled 3d6 respectively. Was reasonable, and helped cut down on things like bezerkers running wild.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Agreed. Melee units have a definite "suicide squad/kamikaze" feel to them. I blame the fallback mechanics, but most people seem to hate the old sweeping advance rules, so there needs to be a middle ground. Possibly giving units the chance to chase fleeing units and keep them in cc but not wipe them out.

There are a few melee units that are powerful, cheap, durable, and supported so they can reach melee... but you still wouldn't build a list around them.

That said, when my army is finally fielded again, I'm looking forward to seeing what a group of Deathwing Knights + Ancient do when dropped into something important and then what the opponent does when they have a 3++ and transhuman physiology the next turn.

True, my double chainclaw contemptor has a pretty good kill count, but is still susceptible to being caught out in the open. I think a return to rules similar to those mentioned above would help melee quite a bit.

 Xenomancers wrote:
can you give me a real reason why the hormagant costs more than a termagant though?

- 8" move rather than 6"
- 2 attacks in melee
- In-built re-rolls of 1's to hit from scything talons (Termagants need a Tervigon for this on their Fleshborers)
- 6" consolidation move
- 20+ models = re-roll 1's to wound (though this is the same as Termgants for their fleshborers)

12" range on Fleshborers isn't going to come up a ton of times during the game and will usually be coupled with advancing / hitting on 5's

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
The trick is you run before they get there. Which isn't hard to do.

How does that work when you've already attacked in the fight phase?

The point is ranged units don't stand there and get charged by melee units. The real option should be whether you want to overwatch or run away - take a test for that.

You ever played WHBF? Because nothing made me stop playing that game faster then the 'flee' charge reaction.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Xenomancers wrote:can you give me a real reason why the hormagant costs more than a termagant though?

Because melee is improperly priced for its utility. There are two solutions to this; you've posted the one that I think most players will find unsatisfying. The other is to make melee worthwhile again, closer to on par with shooting as it used to be and less the cheap, crappy alternative.

Just slashing the points on melee-only units is going to feel really awkward when elite units like hammer+shield Terminators or specialized ones like Assault Marines become cheap cannon fodder.

I think the issue is that 'good' melee units smash everything, get exposed, and die and bad melee units just die. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground and points cuts don't help with that.

Agreed.

TerminatorUK wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
can you give me a real reason why the hormagant costs more than a termagant though?

- 8" move rather than 6"
- 2 attacks in melee
- In-built re-rolls of 1's to hit from scything talons (Termagants need a Tervigon for this on their Fleshborers)
- 6" consolidation move
- 20+ models = re-roll 1's to wound (though this is the same as Termgants for their fleshborers)

12" range on Fleshborers isn't going to come up a ton of times during the game and will usually be coupled with advancing / hitting on 5's

I could see them costing the same but termis costing more just goes to show how much they overvalue melee units. Really both these units are so bad they should cost 3 points. Nether is approaching the value of a 4 point guardsmen. Who has a better save and a better weapons. Not to mention better special rules.

This is a huge part of the issue with cheap melee units. They just aren't cheap enough. Strong melee units are actually some of the best units in the game so I don't think we even need to get into that. As are units that shoot good and CC good.

 Xenomancers wrote:

TerminatorUK wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
can you give me a real reason why the hormagant costs more than a termagant though?

- 8" move rather than 6"
- 2 attacks in melee
- In-built re-rolls of 1's to hit from scything talons (Termagants need a Tervigon for this on their Fleshborers)
- 6" consolidation move
- 20+ models = re-roll 1's to wound (though this is the same as Termgants for their fleshborers)

12" range on Fleshborers isn't going to come up a ton of times during the game and will usually be coupled with advancing / hitting on 5's

I could see them costing the same but termis costing more just goes to show how much they overvalue melee units. Really both these units are so bad they should cost 3 points. Nether is approaching the value of a 4 point guardsmen. Who has a better save and a better weapons. Not to mention better special rules.

This is a huge part of the issue with cheap melee units. They just aren't cheap enough. Strong melee units are actually some of the best units in the game so I don't think we even need to get into that. As are units that shoot good and CC good.

While I agree they're overvaluing melee, I feel like the game needs to push everything up by a few points. The bloat of cheap models has been getting out of hand for years now.

The game needs a rework from the ground up to better balance melee and shooting. 8th has made things better, but the mechanics of the game don't really balance things properly.

I agree. Points are too low. The difference between a 3 pt, 4 pt, or 5 pt guardmen is huge. The difference between a 13 pts and 12 pt marine is not nearly as significant.

More terrain/better terrain rules = more CC.

When models can move through things they can't see through, and the table has more of that type of terrain, close combat becomes far more valuable/viable.

Martel732 wrote:
I agree. Points are too low. The difference between a 3 pt, 4 pt, or 5 pt guardmen is huge. The difference between a 13 pts and 12 pt marine is not nearly as significant.

Move everything up 5 points at the same time. That'd crop out a single unit out of every army on average (maybe less for Knights) and give more room to breath for the game as a whole. If we keep moving points down we'll just end up falling into WFB 8th edition issue where you had stuff like 1/2ppm Skaven Slaves.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

TerminatorUK wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
can you give me a real reason why the hormagant costs more than a termagant though?

- 8" move rather than 6"
- 2 attacks in melee
- In-built re-rolls of 1's to hit from scything talons (Termagants need a Tervigon for this on their Fleshborers)
- 6" consolidation move
- 20+ models = re-roll 1's to wound (though this is the same as Termgants for their fleshborers)

12" range on Fleshborers isn't going to come up a ton of times during the game and will usually be coupled with advancing / hitting on 5's

I could see them costing the same but termis costing more just goes to show how much they overvalue melee units. Really both these units are so bad they should cost 3 points. Nether is approaching the value of a 4 point guardsmen. Who has a better save and a better weapons. Not to mention better special rules.

This is a huge part of the issue with cheap melee units. They just aren't cheap enough. Strong melee units are actually some of the best units in the game so I don't think we even need to get into that. As are units that shoot good and CC good.

While I agree they're overvaluing melee, I feel like the game needs to push everything up by a few points. The bloat of cheap models has been getting out of hand for years now.

The game needs a rework from the ground up to better balance melee and shooting. 8th has made things better, but the mechanics of the game don't really balance things properly.

It could help with balance if they increased the points on all units in the game and they would have smaller percentages to change to help with balancing similar units but overall I don't care how they correct this problem. I like having more models on the table than less which is just a personal preference. There is no excuse for trashy full melee units to cost more than trashy full shooty units.

 Insectum7 wrote:
More terrain/better terrain rules = more CC.

When models can move through things they can't see through, and the table has more of that type of terrain, close combat becomes far more valuable/viable.

We do need more indepth terrain rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

It could help with balance if they increased the points on all units in the game and they would have smaller percentages to change to help with balancing similar units but overall I don't care how they correct this problem. I like having more models on the table than less which is just a personal preference. There is no excuse for trashy full melee units to cost more than trashy full shooty units.

Higher points would give the game more room to breath on allowing things to spread out a bit between the cost of shooting and non-shooting options.

I'm starting to think there should be no free guns for example due to how it makes shooting a clear cut better choice over melee.

The disembarking rules are quite clunky and frustrating, which particularly hurts close combat units.

 harlokin wrote:
The disembarking rules are quite clunky and frustrating, which particularly hurts close combat units.

I don't mind them not allowing disembark if you move the transport first, since you can gain a few extra inches disembarking the max range then moving, but assault ramps and open topped should allow you to move then disembark and then charge. The fact that this isn't a thing annoys basically everyong.

I'd rather have more predictable charge distances. Failing a 4" charge suuuuucks. D6+3 or 3D3 or something would be preferable.

Just going to throw it out there that there has never been a time in this game's history in which melee combat has been as competitively viable as shooting. Specific melee units have been good from edition to edition, sure, but the mechanic as a whole has pretty much always only been useful for tying up units or cleaning up a unit that's already been whittled down in the shooting phase.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Just going to throw it out there that there has never been a time in this game's history in which melee combat has been as competitively viable as shooting. Specific melee units have been good from edition to edition, sure, but the mechanic as a whole has pretty much always only been useful for tying up units or cleaning up a unit that's already been whittled down in the shooting phase.

Notable exception might be 3rd Ed. BA, who were amazingly irritating.

Close combat oriented armies are usually much more high risk, high reward. If they don't land their initial combats on the opponent well, a CC army can die pretty hard without doing significant damage to the opposing army. And it feels really brutal to have your army slaughtered when you haven't really made a dent. The failure of a CC army usually feels worse than the failure of a shooting army. Even if you make it "almost there", you can wind up with a pile of bodies and little to show for it.

That said, in most mixed armies I find shooting tends to shape the battle, but CC will still often swing the battle.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Just going to throw it out there that there has never been a time in this game's history in which melee combat has been as competitively viable as shooting. Specific melee units have been good from edition to edition, sure, but the mechanic as a whole has pretty much always only been useful for tying up units or cleaning up a unit that's already been whittled down in the shooting phase.

Notable exception might be 3rd Ed. BA, who were amazingly irritating.

3rd Ed is definitely the exception. Rhino Rush with practically any army turned the game into an exercise of "can I shoot enough transports off the board before you reach my lines and devastate my list". Even with "shooty armies" like DA and Guard I was getting more work done winning games in melee than shooting during 3rd.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
More terrain/better terrain rules = more CC.

When models can move through things they can't see through, and the table has more of that type of terrain, close combat becomes far more valuable/viable.

We do need more indepth terrain rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

It could help with balance if they increased the points on all units in the game and they would have smaller percentages to change to help with balancing similar units but overall I don't care how they correct this problem. I like having more models on the table than less which is just a personal preference. There is no excuse for trashy full melee units to cost more than trashy full shooty units.

Higher points would give the game more room to breath on allowing things to spread out a bit between the cost of shooting and non-shooting options.

I'm starting to think there should be no free guns for example due to how it makes shooting a clear cut better choice over melee.

Another aspect of poor balancing. Some weapons being free. Some weapons costing points. Twin linked weapons getting discounts. Weapons having different cost depending on what takes it (this would make sense if you didn't also pay points on the model for having a certain number of attacks for example). Most of the time it just seems like they make up the points for things.

Look at a heavy destroyer with heavy gauss 37 points for a 3 wound t5 infantry unit with fly that ignores move penalties and has reroll 1's to hit automatically. Compared to a havoc with a lascannon...(which costs 2 more points). How is it possible that the necron unit has a better weapon...better stats (significantly 3x the durability) and free reoll 1's for the same cost. Like...the game clearly makes no attempts to balance anything if you look at this situation. The game is not balanced because they don't even try.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Agreed. If you overextend your character further enough that I can target him he either gets the firing squad or gang piled.

Course I play Night Lords. It's what we do.

Ah, well that makes sense for your army! But I usually play some Space Marine army, who are big on the whole "courage and honour" thing.

"Courage and honor" translated to Nostroman is basically "doing something fething stupid, which results in you being flayed alive and then nailed up to the nearest wall so as to show everyone else what happens when you do something fething stupid".

...I like Nostomans now


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'd rather have more predictable charge distances. Failing a 4" charge suuuuucks. D6+3 or 3D3 or something would be preferable.

Or they could just do movement + D3.
Or half movement +d6.

You know, have the movement stat actually mean something in the charge phase.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
More terrain/better terrain rules = more CC.

When models can move through things they can't see through, and the table has more of that type of terrain, close combat becomes far more valuable/viable.

We do need more indepth terrain rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

It could help with balance if they increased the points on all units in the game and they would have smaller percentages to change to help with balancing similar units but overall I don't care how they correct this problem. I like having more models on the table than less which is just a personal preference. There is no excuse for trashy full melee units to cost more than trashy full shooty units.

Higher points would give the game more room to breath on allowing things to spread out a bit between the cost of shooting and non-shooting options.

I'm starting to think there should be no free guns for example due to how it makes shooting a clear cut better choice over melee.

Another aspect of poor balancing. Some weapons being free. Some weapons costing points. Twin linked weapons getting discounts. Weapons having different cost depending on what takes it (this would make sense if you didn't also pay points on the model for having a certain number of attacks for example). Most of the time it just seems like they make up the points for things.

Look at a heavy destroyer with heavy gauss 37 points for a 3 wound t5 infantry unit with fly that ignores move penalties and has reroll 1's to hit automatically. Compared to a havoc with a lascannon...(which costs 2 more points). How is it possible that the necron unit has a better weapon...better stats (significantly 3x the durability) and free reoll 1's for the same cost. Like...the game clearly makes no attempts to balance anything if you look at this situation. The game is not balanced because they don't even try.

I feel like most of the balancing is done relative to the other units in the same faction, but then you have stuff where all Marines share the same points costs regardless of what book they're in.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
More terrain/better terrain rules = more CC.

When models can move through things they can't see through, and the table has more of that type of terrain, close combat becomes far more valuable/viable.

We do need more indepth terrain rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

It could help with balance if they increased the points on all units in the game and they would have smaller percentages to change to help with balancing similar units but overall I don't care how they correct this problem. I like having more models on the table than less which is just a personal preference. There is no excuse for trashy full melee units to cost more than trashy full shooty units.

Higher points would give the game more room to breath on allowing things to spread out a bit between the cost of shooting and non-shooting options.

I'm starting to think there should be no free guns for example due to how it makes shooting a clear cut better choice over melee.

Another aspect of poor balancing. Some weapons being free. Some weapons costing points. Twin linked weapons getting discounts. Weapons having different cost depending on what takes it (this would make sense if you didn't also pay points on the model for having a certain number of attacks for example). Most of the time it just seems like they make up the points for things.

Look at a heavy destroyer with heavy gauss 37 points for a 3 wound t5 infantry unit with fly that ignores move penalties and has reroll 1's to hit automatically. Compared to a havoc with a lascannon...(which costs 2 more points). How is it possible that the necron unit has a better weapon...better stats (significantly 3x the durability) and free reoll 1's for the same cost. Like...the game clearly makes no attempts to balance anything if you look at this situation. The game is not balanced because they don't even try.

Havocs are priced like they're the grunt with a Bolter and T5 with ignoring movement penalties, and then forced to buy a weapon. Havocs at base should really be 9-10 points because of that forced bought weapon.

^Havocs are priced like they can still take big squads when they can't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'd rather have more predictable charge distances. Failing a 4" charge suuuuucks. D6+3 or 3D3 or something would be preferable.

Or they could just do movement + D3.
Or half movement +d6.

You know, have the movement stat actually mean something in the charge phase.

I like the idea in theory but I think that'd be out of control when you start dealing with Jetbikes and things. Especially with units with short ranged weapons like Shining Spears or Assault troopers with Flamers. You wind up is a space where assault units are almost expected charge well beyond their weapons range, which feels weird.

BlaxicanX wrote:Just going to throw it out there that there has never been a time in this game's history in which melee combat has been as competitively viable as shooting. Specific melee units have been good from edition to edition, sure, but the mechanic as a whole has pretty much always only been useful for tying up units or cleaning up a unit that's already been whittled down in the shooting phase.

I'm not so sure about that. Tyranids did reasonably well back in 3rd, 3.5, and 4th, and they were by design reliant on melee with their short-ranged, anti-infantry, Assault-type shooting. I remember big units of Hormagaunts with 3 attacks each on the charge really doing a number on Guardsmen, and if a Carnifex got in close with a vehicle (S10+2D6 to penetrate) it was pretty much dead meat.

At the very least, even if melee was a secondary focus, it felt to me like multirole and shooting units had a harder time fighting melee specialists. If you were carrying bolters or lasguns, the inability to move and shoot twice made it harder to backpedal away from melee combatants, you couldn't move to get into Rapid Fire range and then double-tap, and even if you started at point-blank you couldn't double-tap and then charge. You had to sacrifice shooting to be mobile, so troops that sacrificed shooting altogether in favor of mobility and melee didn't feel so limited. Now everyone's mobile and everyone can move, shoot, and charge without penalty, so melee specialists have to really excel at melee to be worthwhile.

I think it's fine for the balance to lean towards shooting, with melee as support. This is sci-fi, after all. But I think it's changes specifically in 8th- increased shooting lethality, near-elimination of movement penalties to shooting, easy fall-back- that have taken melee from a niche role to largely ineffective without a first-turn or deep-strike charge gimmick.

I too have to chime in about melee and falling back. I'm sorry, but if my bloodletters or berzerkers manage to reach your guardsmen, it should be judgment day. You had your chances with your unlimited arsenal of artillery and lasguns, now you need to pit your kitchen knives against my hellblades. If you do fall back, there should be a morale test, and if you fail, the entire unit is gone, either from supposedly fleeing the battlefield or from being cutdown while fleeing. No retreat, no remorse!

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
I too have to chime in about melee and falling back. I'm sorry, but if my bloodletters manage to reach your guardsmen, it should be judgment day. You had your chances with your unlimited arsenal of artillery and lasguns, now you need to pit your kitchen knives against my hellblades. If you do fall back, there should be a morale test, and if you fail, the entire unit is gone, either from supposedly fleeing the battlefield or from being cutdown while fleeing.

I completely agree with the idea of 'your opportunity to stop my melee specialists was before they hit your lines', but as a Guard player, when you hit my Guardsmen I assume they're dead anyways. Killing that 40-60pt speedbump better won't stop me from killing you in my turn, so I'm still free to use the unlimited arsenal of artillery and lasguns and have no need for the kitchen knives.

Adding the fallback penalty to melee is more beneficial for when melee units manage to catch something valuable in combat, like an expensive shooting unit. But it doesn't address the root issue of melee units being too easily killed once no longer in combat.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
More terrain/better terrain rules = more CC.

When models can move through things they can't see through, and the table has more of that type of terrain, close combat becomes far more valuable/viable.

We do need more indepth terrain rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

It could help with balance if they increased the points on all units in the game and they would have smaller percentages to change to help with balancing similar units but overall I don't care how they correct this problem. I like having more models on the table than less which is just a personal preference. There is no excuse for trashy full melee units to cost more than trashy full shooty units.

Higher points would give the game more room to breath on allowing things to spread out a bit between the cost of shooting and non-shooting options.

I'm starting to think there should be no free guns for example due to how it makes shooting a clear cut better choice over melee.

Another aspect of poor balancing. Some weapons being free. Some weapons costing points. Twin linked weapons getting discounts. Weapons having different cost depending on what takes it (this would make sense if you didn't also pay points on the model for having a certain number of attacks for example). Most of the time it just seems like they make up the points for things.

Look at a heavy destroyer with heavy gauss 37 points for a 3 wound t5 infantry unit with fly that ignores move penalties and has reroll 1's to hit automatically. Compared to a havoc with a lascannon...(which costs 2 more points). How is it possible that the necron unit has a better weapon...better stats (significantly 3x the durability) and free reoll 1's for the same cost. Like...the game clearly makes no attempts to balance anything if you look at this situation. The game is not balanced because they don't even try.

Havocs are priced like they're the grunt with a Bolter and T5 with ignoring movement penalties, and then forced to buy a weapon. Havocs at base should really be 9-10 points because of that forced bought weapon.

Well here we have another example. A marine with a lascannon is 39 points yet it costs the same to add that lascannon to something like a predator. The weapons don't have the same value on each platform. Yet they make character weapons cost more...it's just another inconstancy that makes melee less powerful. Like many have states the bolter costing 0 points is the issue. The weapon should probably cost 2 or 3 points and the models points reduced to reflect the same cost with a bolter. Then weapons like a lascannon become more valuable on lighter chassis and taking them on big machines ends up being less efficient.

^Well, a Lascannon doesnt shoot more on a Predator vs. a Marine. But a Thunder Hammer really does swing more (and often at a higher WS) on a Character.