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.

With free and (realistically) consequenceless fall back, along with the increase in legality for shooting has left melee outside of the most hyper-specialised units (i.e. Genestealers) to be all but worthless.

How can we go about fixing this?

Make fall back need a roll off?
Give the default melee weapon -1AP if you roll a 6 to wound?

Any and all ideas are appreciated. My personal favourite is to make fall back need a roll off, with +1 if your M is greater than all the units currently engaged, +1 if you can fly, +1 if Wyches, with a maximum of +1 to the roll permitted.

Honestly CC is still powerful in that you get quite a lot of extra movement, swinging in with cheaper weapons that do heavy damage compared to certain shooting weapons ignores cover(meh). the only thing that probably should be a thing is probably rolling off to leave combat.

its too easy to punish a CC army for doing what they normally have to do.

its only a problem with and against heavy fly armies (its fine for some xenos imho) and against smurfs who will always get the nice stuff forever.

And that isn't even taking into account the special rules armies are getting. Like Ultramarines being immune to the no shooting rule when falling back. Basically CC Needs more bite for CC oriented armies, and one of the ways you do that is to make specialist weapons like PKs and Big Choppas REALLY cheap. It would also help if there was an actual consequence to falling back, like the attacker gets 1 free round of CC against them.

SemperMortis wrote:
And that isn't even taking into account the special rules armies are getting. Like Ultramarines being immune to the no shooting rule when falling back. Basically CC Needs more bite for CC oriented armies, and one of the ways you do that is to make specialist weapons like PKs and Big Choppas REALLY cheap. It would also help if there was an actual consequence to falling back, like the attacker gets 1 free round of CC against them.

A good proposal I saw was a reverse overwatch against falling back units. Get to attack but only hit on 6's

I don't think melee overwatch it very good. Mostly because I think Overwatch in it's current incarnation is a huge waste of everyones time. Requiring a 6 to hit coupled with the roll to wound, saves etc etc... means the vast majority of the time you roll a bunch of dice and nothing happens.

Overwatch doesn't make a unit think twice about wether they want to charge or not, it's just what needs to happen because it's what everyone tells you needs to happen.

Units will still fall back just as often with all the same effect because melee overwatch just isn't actually a threat.

In the context of the alternating activation system I'm working on, I'm modding the game to be a "2 action" system, where you can either Move+Rapid Action, take a Full Action, or use both your Actions to perform a Double Action.

Melee weapons have a variable range, and any models in range of said melee weapon are "engaged"/unable to shoot. Units trying to move in or out of engagement take a "Free Strike" which is a single melee attack that automatically hits.

Melee is a Rapid Action, meaning it can be used immediately after a Move. Not only that, but melee weapons let you Lunge, giving an extra 3" of movement that ignore Free Strikes. The beautiful thing about this system, is that unlike traditional 40k where you can "roadblock" a foe by parking bubblewrap in point-blanl range, this is a system where you're running a really strong beatstick, you can practically trample through chaff before moving to engage another target. Melee is very "attack and reposition", akin to 2nd ed Hit and Run, or a tabletop version of Mount&Blade.

Fly models that do not have the airborne rule cannot shoot after withdrawing from combat.

A unit which has had its opponent fall back can be targeted in the shooting phase as normal, but with a -1 penalty, to no worse than 6+, to hit.

 Marmatag wrote:
Fly models that do not have the airborne rule cannot shoot after withdrawing from combat.

A unit which has had its opponent fall back can be targeted in the shooting phase as normal, but with a -1 penalty, to no worse than 6+, to hit.

If you do that then Tau either need a massive points reduction across the board, a rule to be an exception to that, jump-shoot--jump back, or a large increase in range on a lot of their weapons.

Otherwise the majority of game are over for the Tau player on the first turn, maybe the second. There are plenty of ways to get first turn charges now for a lot of armies, and second turn charges are an expectation. The majority of the army is designed around the fact that they're able to withdraw and shoot without penalty, as they don't have anything that's actually decent in combat.

Like Ultramarines being immune to the no shooting rule when falling back.

Complete Joke.... Seems a bit unfair... any melee unit charges will be ripped to shreds the next phase.

 Lance845 wrote:
I don't think melee overwatch it very good. Mostly because I think Overwatch in it's current incarnation is a huge waste of everyones time. Requiring a 6 to hit coupled with the roll to wound, saves etc etc... means the vast majority of the time you roll a bunch of dice and nothing happens.

Overwatch doesn't make a unit think twice about wether they want to charge or not, it's just what needs to happen because it's what everyone tells you needs to happen.

Units will still fall back just as often with all the same effect because melee overwatch just isn't actually a threat.

I think the idea of melee 'overwatch' is valid but more like assists in 6th/7th ed i cannot remember. Every member of that unit in combat gains 1 attack with all relevant modifiers. IF you turn your back and run, you would be a much easier target IRL.

Then followed by a 2d6 roll off to see if the unit can run fast enough during its time of being cut down. However on the flipside this means your unit can potential be locked in combat non stop, again which makes certain armies suffer.

Realistically you can either take a roll off to fall back and see if you can get 1 inch awaay from the enemy to successfully retreat or use the 1 attack for all models in combat (i.e 1inch) with regular rolls, then possibly have a roll off as well (though with the roll offs ontop of the attacks seems slightly unfair).

I think a single free attack against modles leaving cc + a free pile in move for the unit they fled from would goa long way.

Melee is... What? If anything Melee should be really weak, bar a few extremely specialist armies, or are we all forgetting the invention of automatic weapons here?
Right now I would say that melee is in a good place, baring those already mentioned smurf abilities.

Back when i was making a AA version of 40k before 8th came out i had a mechanic called tactical retreat that was similar to falling back.

You rolled off 1d6 + M. If the retreating unit was equal or higher they fell back no problem. If they were lower they suffered a number of wounds equal to the difference that could not be mitigated by any means (basically mortal wounds).

Anything with hit and run automatically won the roll off and so could leave with no issue. Basically fly now.

 Lance845 wrote:
Back when i was making a AA version of 40k before 8th came out i had a mechanic called tactical retreat that was similar to falling back.

You rolled off 1d6 + M. If the retreating unit was equal or higher they fell back no problem. If they were lower they suffered a number of wounds equal to the difference that could not be mitigated by any means (basically mortal wounds).

Anything with hit and run automatically won the roll off and so could leave with no issue. Basically fly now.

Good idea, but its seems more like an All risk no reward scenario.. say scourges charged a unit with 7 movement they couldn't escape. allowing a free attack with the posibility of a dice roll would mean that there is risk and reward. so they could roll off or the enemy could roll d6 and has to end up 1 inch away from the enemy unit whilst taking attacks from the unit. The unit not fleeing can move D3 for instance or 1 inch depending on how you want to play it (that would give either 1/2 chance of fleeing or 2/3 chance)

Causing mortal wounds for using a legitimate rule punishes you more that getting attacked. With Eldar corsairs you could have min roll of 17 inches and max 22 inches which will destroy any other unit.

Alternatively, you could have it so its a mutual retreat 1d6+M from both sides. That way neither is techincally at a disadvantage (if the players can plan), or take the attacks and make a consolidation move 1-3 inches.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Melee is... What? If anything Melee should be really weak, bar a few extremely specialist armies, or are we all forgetting the invention of automatic weapons here?
Right now I would say that melee is in a good place, baring those already mentioned smurf abilities.

If you want melee to suck then give all CC armies a fethload of new gunz and abilities that make them unique, otherwise you are just advocating for your shooty army to be better then choppy armies.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Melee is... What? If anything Melee should be really weak, bar a few extremely specialist armies, or are we all forgetting the invention of automatic weapons here?
Right now I would say that melee is in a good place, baring those already mentioned smurf abilities.

Arguing that shooting should be better then melee because realism is insane. Any universe with chain saw swords fighting fungus monsters whos technology only works because they believe it does has no foundation in any kind of realism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Almightyliham wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Back when i was making a AA version of 40k before 8th came out i had a mechanic called tactical retreat that was similar to falling back.

You rolled off 1d6 + M. If the retreating unit was equal or higher they fell back no problem. If they were lower they suffered a number of wounds equal to the difference that could not be mitigated by any means (basically mortal wounds).

Anything with hit and run automatically won the roll off and so could leave with no issue. Basically fly now.

Good idea, but its seems more like an All risk no reward scenario.. say scourges charged a unit with 7 movement they couldn't escape. allowing a free attack with the posibility of a dice roll would mean that there is risk and reward. so they could roll off or the enemy could roll d6 and has to end up 1 inch away from the enemy unit whilst taking attacks from the unit. The unit not fleeing can move D3 for instance or 1 inch depending on how you want to play it (that would give either 1/2 chance of fleeing or 2/3 chance)

Causing mortal wounds for using a legitimate rule punishes you more that getting attacked. With Eldar corsairs you could have min roll of 17 inches and max 22 inches which will destroy any other unit.

Alternatively, you could have it so its a mutual retreat 1d6+M from both sides. That way neither is techincally at a disadvantage (if the players can plan), or take the attacks and make a consolidation move 1-3 inches.

Untrue. The benefit is no longer being in combat and opening up that enemy unit for shooting.

The enemy unit would need to have 6 more M than you in order to make it so you are incapable of at least equaling them. Which would also make most vehicles very capable of leaving combat without harm. It makes the units built for melee (which tend to have higher M) better at keeping enemy units tied in melee. But if you know your unit is going to die next combat round anyway, then you might as wall fallback, maybe survive, and open the melee unit up for shooting. It's actual risk vs reward and a interesting choice on whether you do it or not where you can quickly calculate the variable risk with a look at each units M attribute.

You seem to forget that if a unit falls back, it can´t do anything else this turn unless it is a psyker or a flying unit. The CC unit will then draw fire from at least one unit, preventing it from firing at more desired targets. If it survives it can easily charge it again.
A CC unit will do a lot of damage. If it kills it target it can even consolidate in a new CC. Melee is deadly.

Dealing damage to or maybe killing a unit and then taking out 2+ units for a round is a lot that one CC unit can do.

And no we don´t need a mechanic to get non-CC units in CC. You don´t eat your soup with a fork.

It is fine as it is.

I dont think there is a problem with the melee rules in general, the problems lie within some poor design choices outside the basic rules.

Things like Brimstones or Conscripts are a problem, because they can retreat without any penalties.
Big units that are immune to morale are a problem, so Conscripts again or Termagaunts and some Legions Chaos Cultists (I would not count Hormagaunts and Ork Boys because they are melee units).

Another side of this is the bad design of some(most, probably) melee units. Just looking at the Codex CSM, we got a lot of them. Possessed have a chance to get just 1A per model, Warp Claws are like 27 points for 2 lightning claw attacks per model, they can't reroll their charge rolls and their special deep strike is bad because of that, Termis are a whole lot better for deep striking, then there is the chaos spawn which moves 7", has no rerolls, no advance + charge, no +1" for advance and charge. Mutilators can't reroll and are slow as feth, doing a lousy 9 attacks per squad.

I don't see the problem with the Ultramarines trait. What units can an Ultramarines army field in a size that the trait actually makes sense? Binding several smurf units in melee means 1 will be destroyed apart from a model or two and the rest shoots with a -1 modifier or even -2 for heavy weapons.
You can reliably get into CC in Turn 1 with some units and almost 100% of the time in turn 2, that is a big plus for melee this edition. Transport are viable especially for melee now.

Trollbert wrote:
I dont think there is a problem with the melee rules in general, the problems lie within some poor design choices outside the basic rules.

Things like Brimstones or Conscripts are a problem, because they can retreat without any penalties.
Big units that are immune to morale are a problem, so Conscripts again or Termagaunts and some Legions Chaos Cultists (I would not count Hormagaunts and Ork Boys because they are melee units).

Another side of this is the bad design of some(most, probably) melee units. Just looking at the Codex CSM, we got a lot of them. Possessed have a chance to get just 1A per model, Warp Claws are like 27 points for 2 lightning claw attacks per model, they can't reroll their charge rolls and their special deep strike is bad because of that, Termis are a whole lot better for deep striking, then there is the chaos spawn which moves 7", has no rerolls, no advance + charge, no +1" for advance and charge. Mutilators can't reroll and are slow as feth, doing a lousy 9 attacks per squad.

I don't see the problem with the Ultramarines trait. What units can an Ultramarines army field in a size that the trait actually makes sense? Binding several smurf units in melee means 1 will be destroyed apart from a model or two and the rest shoots with a -1 modifier or even -2 for heavy weapons.
You can reliably get into CC in Turn 1 with some units and almost 100% of the time in turn 2, that is a big plus for melee this edition. Transport are viable especially for melee now.

I agree, CC is fine. It may be underwhelming because there are overpowered units that should be toned down, simple.

Honestly, I could join the argument (as an ork player) but I've played so many games now I see your points... The rules themselves aren't flawed. They're pretty good... it's the unit rules that are messed up! I've played one army where my boys ripped them to shreds! I've played other armies where it is actually impossible for me to win! (These are kill games not objective based games). It genuinely comes down to poor balance... People wouldn't say cc is underpowered if the cc armies couldn't be shut down by stupid rules... People wouldn't be asking for units to always hit on a 6 if units didn't have -2 hit mods! I know gw wants to sell models but in the end it will slowly kill of many of their other factions (as I've seen it slowly do... many new players delve straight into marines. At my club the last 10 or so did that). More balance is needed! It would make the game a hell of a lot more fun! (Genuinely know a kid who stopped playing imperial because he didn't feel like he was winning fairly ).

Make retreat a 0 CP stratagem.

Arguing that shooting should be better then melee because realism is insane. Any universe with chain saw swords fighting fungus monsters whos technology only works because they believe it does has no foundation in any kind of realism.

Please tell that to the people who want firing arcs back.

 lolman1c wrote:
Honestly, I could join the argument (as an ork player) but I've played so many games now I see your points... The rules themselves aren't flawed. They're pretty good... it's the unit rules that are messed up! I've played one army where my boys ripped them to shreds! I've played other armies where it is actually impossible for me to win! (These are kill games not objective based games). It genuinely comes down to poor balance... People wouldn't say cc is underpowered if the cc armies couldn't be shut down by stupid rules... People wouldn't be asking for units to always hit on a 6 if units didn't have -2 hit mods! I know gw wants to sell models but in the end it will slowly kill of many of their other factions (as I've seen it slowly do... many new players delve straight into marines. At my club the last 10 or so did that). More balance is needed! It would make the game a hell of a lot more fun! (Genuinely know a kid who stopped playing imperial because he didn't feel like he was winning fairly ).

As I see it, the issue is that you have one side that wants CC unit that is strong enough to make its way across the board, shrugging off the opponent's ranged attacks, charge into CC, and then be safe to buzzsaw its way through the enemy's troops. And on the other side you have people who think shooting units should be able to shoot the incoming units enough to then survive the CC when they arrive, despite themselves not being any good at CC.

These two view points simply don't get along. If one side can't survive to get into CC and then buzzsaw its way through, that player is pissed. If the other side can't shoot them enough to wipe them off the board, or at least survive, that player is pissed.

Where's the middle ground? Is it fair to expect a CC unit to line up 24" away from a comparably pointed ranged unit and have a 50/50 chance of victory? How does that work with the rest of the army? It really comes down to what kind of game 40k should be.

 argonak wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
Honestly, I could join the argument (as an ork player) but I've played so many games now I see your points... The rules themselves aren't flawed. They're pretty good... it's the unit rules that are messed up! I've played one army where my boys ripped them to shreds! I've played other armies where it is actually impossible for me to win! (These are kill games not objective based games). It genuinely comes down to poor balance... People wouldn't say cc is underpowered if the cc armies couldn't be shut down by stupid rules... People wouldn't be asking for units to always hit on a 6 if units didn't have -2 hit mods! I know gw wants to sell models but in the end it will slowly kill of many of their other factions (as I've seen it slowly do... many new players delve straight into marines. At my club the last 10 or so did that). More balance is needed! It would make the game a hell of a lot more fun! (Genuinely know a kid who stopped playing imperial because he didn't feel like he was winning fairly ).

As I see it, the issue is that you have one side that wants CC unit that is strong enough to make its way across the board, shrugging off the opponent's ranged attacks, charge into CC, and then be safe to buzzsaw its way through the enemy's troops. And on the other side you have people who think shooting units should be able to shoot the incoming units enough to then survive the CC when they arrive, despite themselves not being any good at CC.

These two view points simply don't get along. If one side can't survive to get into CC and then buzzsaw its way through, that player is pissed. If the other side can't shoot them enough to wipe them off the board, or at least survive, that player is pissed.

Where's the middle ground? Is it fair to expect a CC unit to line up 24" away from a comparably pointed ranged unit and have a 50/50 chance of victory? How does that work with the rest of the army? It really comes down to what kind of game 40k should be.

IMO the problem with melee vs. shooting is the risk-reward ration.

The risk factors of both are bad rolls and dying before being able to deal damage.
Bad rolls can be worked around by character auras or other reroll abilites. Melee reroll auras are better most of the time but effect less units, while you can bring a lot more units into the bubble of, say Guilliman (or weaker equivalents), so that is a tie.
The chance of dying before dealing damage is much higher for melee units because the have to close in to the enemy unit they want to charge, often giving them the chance to shoot you with all of their forces, while shooting units can hide better, depending on the range of their weapons. That's a point where shooting is much safer, especially considering deep striking units.

Now melee has some more risks: Not being able to catch a unit because of Conscript (equivalent) bubble wrap, low coverage because the range of a charge is 2W6", units falling back, the charged unit striking back.


Now compare the rewards:
Melee damage is probably better against GEQ, more or less even against MEQ and much much worse against vehicles.
I can't think of a melee unit that is so deadly against a tank at about the same cost as a Lasca Predator or Devastor Squad. But Khorne Berzerkers have 6A per Model with a incredibly good profile, ork boys have 4 or 5 and a gakload of models, 3 per Hormagaunt, 3 per Genestealer.
Here is the problem with fall back against big untis. Killing 30 guys of a 50 man unit doesn't give you anything, but blowing up a LasPred with a LasPred gives you an advantage.

I think melee is fine, but I do agree it should be harder to fall back.

The house rule I'm thinking of giving a try is as follows:

• Units may only Fall Back up to D6".
  
• When a unit Falls Back, all enemy units from the same combat may Pursue D6" if they are otherwise unengaged (i.e- no other enemies in the combat).
  
• If a pursuing unit is still in melee range, it counts as having charged again.
  
• Fast Units (Biker, Jump Pack etc.) roll two D6 for Fall Back/Pursue and choose the highest.
  
• Combat specialists (such as Wyches, replacing their current fall back denial rule) can roll two D6 for Pursuit and choose the highest.
  
• Friendly fire protection is extended to 3", preventing shooting at an enemy within this range of an ally. This means that a pursuing unit that falls an inch or two short of a new charge isn't immediately vulnerable. Pistols ignore this rule.

These changes make lone units fleeing from combat very likely to be immediately reengaged and horribly slaughtered, as they should be. This means that the correct way to fall back is to bring in another unit to prevent Pursue moves, and/or to choose the order of your Fall Back moves carefully in multi-unit combats (i.e- fleet with faster units last, since they have a better chance of escaping a secondary charge).


Other options like "melee overwatch" may be a bit simpler, but I feel that this much better represents what's actually supposed to be happening and is more tactical. Unlike "melee overwatch" though it means that units can still flee without penalty if they are backed up by an ally, but I don't think that's a big problem as they will have already suffered a round of combat, and the enemy remains locked in combat where they're safe(-ish) from shooting, plus it gives a legitimate tactical option for getting your vulnerable units away safely.

Question marks are on distance; D6" isn't much, and I was wondering about factoring in movement speed somehow, but this gets difficult when some units have very high movement (e.g- 14" move bikers).

As someone who plays a melee army, god I hope they make it stronger.

If Falling Back becomes way harder, Baneblades become WAY OP and it will be hilarious to watch people lose to melee Baneblades.

 Haravikk wrote:
I think melee is fine, but I do agree it should be harder to fall back.

The house rule I'm thinking of giving a try is as follows:

• Units may only Fall Back up to D6".
  
• When a unit Falls Back, all enemy units from the same combat may Pursue D6" if they are otherwise unengaged (i.e- no other enemies in the combat).
  
• If a pursuing unit is still in melee range, it counts as having charged again.
  
• Fast Units (Biker, Jump Pack etc.) roll two D6 for Fall Back/Pursue and choose the highest.
  
• Combat specialists (such as Wyches, replacing their current fall back denial rule) can roll two D6 for Pursuit and choose the highest.
  
• Friendly fire protection is extended to 3", preventing shooting at an enemy within this range of an ally. This means that a pursuing unit that falls an inch or two short of a new charge isn't immediately vulnerable. Pistols ignore this rule.

These changes make lone units fleeing from combat very likely to be immediately reengaged and horribly slaughtered, as they should be. This means that the correct way to fall back is to bring in another unit to prevent Pursue moves, and/or to choose the order of your Fall Back moves carefully in multi-unit combats (i.e- fleet with faster units last, since they have a better chance of escaping a secondary charge).


Other options like "melee overwatch" may be a bit simpler, but I feel that this much better represents what's actually supposed to be happening and is more tactical. Unlike "melee overwatch" though it means that units can still flee without penalty if they are backed up by an ally, but I don't think that's a big problem as they will have already suffered a round of combat, and the enemy remains locked in combat where they're safe(-ish) from shooting, plus it gives a legitimate tactical option for getting your vulnerable units away safely.

Question marks are on distance; D6" isn't much, and I was wondering about factoring in movement speed somehow, but this gets difficult when some units have very high movement (e.g- 14" move bikers).

No way do cc units deserve to move ANOTHER d6. They already get move, sometimes advance without penalty, charge, like in, and consolidate. They do not need more free movement. The overwatch thing is way more streamlined to approximate the people of fleeing.

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:

 Haravikk wrote:
I think melee is fine, but I do agree it should be harder to fall back.

The house rule I'm thinking of giving a try is as follows:

• Units may only Fall Back up to D6".
  
• When a unit Falls Back, all enemy units from the same combat may Pursue D6" if they are otherwise unengaged (i.e- no other enemies in the combat).
  
• If a pursuing unit is still in melee range, it counts as having charged again.
  
• Fast Units (Biker, Jump Pack etc.) roll two D6 for Fall Back/Pursue and choose the highest.
  
• Combat specialists (such as Wyches, replacing their current fall back denial rule) can roll two D6 for Pursuit and choose the highest.
  
• Friendly fire protection is extended to 3", preventing shooting at an enemy within this range of an ally. This means that a pursuing unit that falls an inch or two short of a new charge isn't immediately vulnerable. Pistols ignore this rule.

These changes make lone units fleeing from combat very likely to be immediately reengaged and horribly slaughtered, as they should be. This means that the correct way to fall back is to bring in another unit to prevent Pursue moves, and/or to choose the order of your Fall Back moves carefully in multi-unit combats (i.e- fleet with faster units last, since they have a better chance of escaping a secondary charge).


Other options like "melee overwatch" may be a bit simpler, but I feel that this much better represents what's actually supposed to be happening and is more tactical. Unlike "melee overwatch" though it means that units can still flee without penalty if they are backed up by an ally, but I don't think that's a big problem as they will have already suffered a round of combat, and the enemy remains locked in combat where they're safe(-ish) from shooting, plus it gives a legitimate tactical option for getting your vulnerable units away safely.

Question marks are on distance; D6" isn't much, and I was wondering about factoring in movement speed somehow, but this gets difficult when some units have very high movement (e.g- 14" move bikers).

No way do cc units deserve to move ANOTHER d6. They already get move, sometimes advance without penalty, charge, like in, and consolidate. They do not need more free movement. The overwatch thing is way more streamlined to approximate the people of fleeing.

My 5 inch moving ork boyz beg to differ. 5 + D6 = 8ish usually and then they cant fire a weapon because they have pistols. Make my orks move 7inches and Advance 2D3 and then ill say they don't need more movement

Hi all.
When developing good war game the first steps are.

Define the scale and scope of the game play.

Use a game turn mechanic that is in synergy with the intended game play.

Ensure the balance between mobility, fire power and assault is appropriate for the intended game play.

Well 40k 8th ed fails on all counts!

If you do not get the tactical balance right between mobility ,fire power, and assault.The rules just devolve into a bloated mess of poorly defined exceptions.
(Just like 3rd to 7th ed 40k. )

Melee is not under powered .Its shooting that is too effective at causing physical damage.

I can go into more detail if anyone is more interested?

Lanrak wrote:
Hi all.
When developing good war game the first steps are.

Define the scale and scope of the game play.

Use a game turn mechanic that is in synergy with the intended game play.

Ensure the balance between mobility, fire power and assault is appropriate for the intended game play.

Well 40k 8th ed fails on all counts!

If you do not get the tactical balance right between mobility ,fire power, and assault.The rules just devolve into a bloated mess of poorly defined exceptions.
(Just like 3rd to 7th ed 40k. )

Melee is not under powered .Its shooting that is too effective at causing physical damage.

I can go into more detail if anyone is more interested?

I generally agree with you, though I think there is tension here even within GW on what exactly the "intended game play" is.

Some portion of GW wants melee to be viable, and pushes out melee armies like Orks or Khorne Berzerkers. Some portion of GW wants a bit of "realism" (FW is especially good about this) which contributes to shooting being too good. Some portion of GW wants people to adhere to the fluff, but I think that portion can't agree on what the fluff is. I think there is a lack of vision at GW.

If there is a centralized vision, then there could be other policies hampering it. I personally believe that they want to go for a more "hard sci-fi" and less "space fantasy" setting, hence the Primaris Marines looking essentially like 'more high-tech' Space Marines. This means that shooting will become more and more powerful to realize that vision. However, the policies of not squatting or radically changing armies means that the melee legacy armies such as Orks don't really have a place, and are rapidly getting left behind in the shooting war.

except that orks were a shooting army when they first came about....BS3 to be exact, and we had significantly MORE dakka then speese mehreens and others. What happened was some idiot in GW needed to feel good about beating up on his opponents and so he decided orks needed to be the default NPC race. So now you have Orkz with zero useful shooting abilities and the only good Close combat abilities they have is being in a giant Horde.

I mean they even wrote it into the rules that orks need to have HUGE numbers of Boyz to be effective in CC. Boyz mobz get +1 attack when ABOVE 20 models. This effectively takes away the option of fielding them in transports and forces you into a single style of army that is both boring to play and time consuming.

At one point I had opponents scared of Ork shooting, now Ive retired all my ranged support units to the shelf until hopefully the codex comes out and makes them semi-relevant again.

I like the idea that units within 1" of an enemy that is falling back get to attack that unit, but suffer -1 to hit as they scramble to hit the target that is running away.

This would make it an actual choice whether to fall back or not. If the free attack doesn't suffer -1 to hit, then falling back may mean death for your unit. Likewise only hitting on 6's is not enough and is pointless dice rolling.

I would also add that units with Fly can still shoot after falling back, but suffer -1 to hit.
And Ultramarines need a different tactic all together.

-