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 think most people would like a little better balance between melee and ranged combat. I also think that extensive use of multiple small units, abuses a basic gaming rule of picking one unit as your target. Suppression is a way to balance these two issues.

This would be an effect of shooting. The idea is to direct fire at a unit to force them to keep their heads down.

Suppression - During the shooting phase, before any saving rolls are made, if a shooting attack generates wounds equal to or exceeding the number of models in the targeted unit, the targeted unit must take a leadership test. If the unit occupies terrain that provides a cover save better than their normal save, subtract the difference from the leadership test dice roll. If the test is failed, the unit immediately goes to ground. All benefits and limitations of going to ground immediately take effect on the targeted unit. If it is passed, there is no effect. Units that are prohibited from going to ground, cannot be affected by suppression.

"A way to improve melee" I'm pretty sure my 10 skyclaws won't be able to supress a tactical squad. In fact, I don't really know any melee unit that would be able to effectively use this rule. However, I still do like it as a rule. Not because it nerfs anything but just because it adds complexity to the game. If you're fearless or ATSKNF you should ignore this rule. I know that space marines don't need anymore buffs, but it doesn't make sense that a space marines would cower to guardsmen, even if it is tactically sensible.

It's an interesting proposal, but I'm not quite sure how this improves melee or penalizes MSU (which, IMO, doesn't deserve a penalty in the first place, but that's neither here nor there).

I think you guys are missing the point, it isn't the melee units job to suppress the unit, they are melee units, it is another units job to do this. Fire with a shooty unit to cause suppression, charge and wipe out with a melee unit.

It would make certain weapon options more viable in some armies. Also, shooty terminators would be better as they could potentially do both which most units can't. 4 Heavy bolster Dev squads could be good again also, they don't need to actually kill a unit, they just need to suppress them, even if that unit is in cover, and if the unit is of the MSU kind, the easier it is for them.

Hey guys, I have an idea. Let's improve melee by giving all shooting a free bonus.

It synergises shooting and melee more, which allows for greater and more complex tactics whilst also reducing risk, you aren't relying on the power of the dice by allowing yourself to stack the odds in your favour. If the shooty unit doesn't wipe that objective camping unit, the melee unit you have lined up to take it (even if it's just the humble tactical squad) has a much greater chance of doing so now whilst also capturing the objective.

I happen to think this should effect monstrous and gargantuan creatures in some aspect as well. Maybe make them -1 I or unwieldy in combat when you suppress them.

 ArmyC wrote:
I think most people would like a little better balance between melee and ranged combat. I also think that extensive use of multiple small units, abuses a basic gaming rule of picking one unit as your target. Suppression is a way to balance these two issues.

This would be an effect of shooting. The idea is to direct fire at a unit to force them to keep their heads down.

Suppression - During the shooting phase, before any saving rolls are made, if a shooting attack generates wounds equal to or exceeding the number of models in the targeted unit, the targeted unit must take a leadership test. If the unit occupies terrain that provides a cover save better than their normal save, subtract the difference from the leadership test dice roll. If the test is failed, the unit immediately goes to ground. All benefits and limitations of going to ground immediately take effect on the targeted unit. If it is passed, there is no effect. Units that are prohibited from going to ground, cannot be affected by suppression.

Isn't this basically Pinning? You want to give all ranged attacks Pinning, which will apparently make melee better?

I fail to see how this would make melee better and its more likely to make gunlines better at stopping melee armies. Besides there already is the pinning rule.

Keep in mind it works both ways.

The biggest downfall of any CC based army is a gunline.
All this rule does is strengthen the gunline even more.


Granted, CC units do need a boost as they struggle like mad, but I just think this will hinder them more than help.

It makes me think of pinning a bit actually, and I like the sound of it but I'm unsure how it would help melee catch up more to shooting. I honestly could see them being able to consolidate into new combat like they could in 4th, with all the drawbacks they have at the moment I feel it finally balances out unlike it did in 4th.

One huge problem I see with it too is it could allow gunline armies to actually lock down non-fearless/atsknf foot troops. Like imagine this with an army like Dark Eldar who can toss out a bunch of shots and play with leadership.

If suppression is applied properly to give shooting a tactical function, beyond 'just killing stuff'.
So shooting is not longer just a more effective way of 'killing stuff' than assault.

And assault has the tactical function of moving enemy unit off objectives/where you want them to be.

Then the tactical use of shooting and assault can be radically different, and we do not need to rely just on 'body count' strategy to win.

This way both assault and shooting can be of equal tactical importance in the game.And so all units can be useful /worth taking .

But hey that is making 40k a tactical war game , and who wants that?

 Jackal wrote:
Keep in mind it works both ways.

The biggest downfall of any CC based army is a gunline.
All this rule does is strengthen the gunline even more.


Granted, CC units do need a boost as they struggle like mad, but I just think this will hinder them more than help.

Given that it encourages players to use cover to move their CC units up into position while softening up the targets with your ranged units, I like it.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Jackal wrote:
Keep in mind it works both ways.

The biggest downfall of any CC based army is a gunline.
All this rule does is strengthen the gunline even more.


Granted, CC units do need a boost as they struggle like mad, but I just think this will hinder them more than help.

Given that it encourages players to use cover to move their CC units up into position while softening up the targets with your ranged units, I like it.

I don't see how this rule adjustment would change that? It'd still just be another buff to shooting, which honestly it's pretty far from needing. CC armies need to nail their bottoms to cover or rely on deep striking etc as it is.

Maybe just me being dense though.

I don't really see how CC needs any more help. I've played CC Daemons, and CC Necrons in 6th & 7th ed and have never had any issue getting into CC, usually be turn 2, 3 at the very latest. I have also been told that I know more about the CC rules (challenges, multi-assaults, pile-ins, etc) than the majority of my LGS (who generally favor shooting armies)

Personally I think that CC is just as good as shooting....for CC armies. Sadly the armies that want to be in CC, or ironically "belong" in CC (Orks, Nids, CSMs) just don't have the units needed to get there. Daemons and Necrons are, IMO, the only armies that can successfully build a CC-based army. All other armies have to have equal to or greater amounts of shooting support.

Creating rules to boost CC over shooting, will only make the good CC armies better and the weak ones weaker (since this rule may also slow them down)

--

 Zaku212 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Jackal wrote:
Keep in mind it works both ways.

The biggest downfall of any CC based army is a gunline.
All this rule does is strengthen the gunline even more.


Granted, CC units do need a boost as they struggle like mad, but I just think this will hinder them more than help.

Given that it encourages players to use cover to move their CC units up into position while softening up the targets with your ranged units, I like it.

I don't see how this rule adjustment would change that? It'd still just be another buff to shooting, which honestly it's pretty far from needing. CC armies need to nail their bottoms to cover or rely on deep striking etc as it is.

Maybe just me being dense though.

On a board with roughly 50%+ cover(mix of 25% LOS blocking and 25% area cover), you should be able to get your CC units around using the LOS blocking to get positions for charging.
By combining that with ranged units that either have Ignores Cover or long-ish range, you should be able to potentially put units into GtG allowing your CC units to charge without worrying about Overwatch.

MSU is one of the only things giving BA a chance. No nerfs to MSU.

Martel732 wrote:
MSU is one of the only things giving BA a chance. No nerfs to MSU.

I agree with this. MSU is literally encouraged by some codices. Combat squads, anyone?

If there weren't opposing squads that could vaporize 10-man marine units in one go, it wouldn't be so bad. But overkill is a thing, and it's important. As well as transport saturation by buying transports for 5 man squads.

Martel732 wrote:
If there weren't opposing squads that could vaporize 10-man marine units in one go, it wouldn't be so bad. But overkill is a thing, and it's important. As well as transport saturation by buying transports for 5 man squads.

Yeah, agreed. I see MSU as my strategy for being outgunned.