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.

Am I the only one that finds pistols quite underwhelming this edition?

First of all, I like the direction they took pistols in this edition, I just think they wound up being somewhat lacklustre. It definitely didn't make much sense that having a bolt pistol could give you an additional swing with a power axe, and shooting a pistol in close combat would be easier, Imo, than trying to use a hand weapon anyway. That said, because units can disengage from combat so easily I don't see pistols getting fired in combat very often. Maybe by the likes of space marines who have been tied up by conscripts and are trying to chew their way through the tarpit, but other than that, I can't see them getting a lot of use.

When you're not in combat they aren't generally the best option either, unless they are your only weapon.

As such, I would propose that pistols can be fired into combat after you retreat from combat, so long as it is the same unit you were in combat with. I would also suggest that when a unit flees combat, a unit that has pistols can make overwatch shots at them using their pistols, and I would further argue that pistols should receive +1 to hit if the the target unit is within 1''. Pistols should also be treated as assault in that they can fire after advancing (but maybe at -2?)

I think if the above changes were made there would actually be a reason for most units to use their pistols. I think these are fair buffs when you take into account how weak most pistol weapons are, and the better ones like plasma pistols aren't that cheap for what they are.

This issue has been raised before - the issue is only few armies' units come equipped with both a ranged weapon AND a pistol.

It's also an issue for armies that aren't assault oriented therefore becomes generally a very poor buy for said types of armies.

I don't think Pistols need to change, I think the ability for people to just walk away should change. Right now, GW seems to think that most people stay in close combat instead of walking away, but the majority of time it's far more valuable to walk away than to stay and fight, even without Fly or Ultramarines or Guard-Orders.

If people had to either roll to get away (making it risky), or they allowed a unit to move after someone runs away (instead of just standing there), then it'd be a different story and pistols would see a bit more use.

Yeah, I agree that that is a huge part of the problem. This wouldn't't fix pistols, but I think if you had to wait until the assault phase to disengage from combat that would be better so you don't get to shoot at the squad that just charged you.

I think the problem is how long it takes to actually use those pistols to actually help in CQC.
Lets say I've got a squad of Assault Marines. I charge a unit, and for whatever reason, they don't fall back.
I still have to make it through two full rounds of combat before pistols come into play - And if it is taking me that long to do anything, I'm probably already dead or am just not doing anything worthwhile in CQC to begin with and shouldn't have charged.

Yeah, I agree, they're extremely slow, even when the rule does come into effect. Perhaps if you could simply shoot with a pistol on your opponents turn if the target is within 1'' or something. I mean, the game is an abstraction of course, but they can't really argue that rate of fire would prevent that, seeing as you swing your sword on your turn AND their turn. Last time I checked a semi-automatic handgun could be fired a lot more quickly than anyone can swing a sword.

I was just thinking that pistols should ditch their current weird mechanic of bypassing targeting rules and instead just be fireable in addition to swinging in melee, unless they'd already been fired that turn - This includes overwatch, of course.

That way, pistols become genuinely relevant in close combat.This also has the bonus side effect of making Power Armor infantry (Who generally get a pistol/ranged weapon) a slight bump in CQC, and since power armor has always been pretty bad at actually functioning as the 'jack of all trades' that it's supposed to, I don't mind them getting a bump in CQC.

I would like to allow pistols to fire in close combat at enemy units engaged in the assault.

EG models that can fight in close combat do so, those models further away , unable to fight in close combat, get to fire pistols at enemy unit .

Perhaps add to that "on a to hit roll of 1 the attack hits its own unit" although that would just be for realism, not balance. I could see GW making it into another inexplicable mortal wound though. (I like mortal wounds as a mechanic in general, but the mortal wounds from an exploding vehicle is absurd if rocket launchers don't inflict mortal wounds)

 walkiflalka wrote:
Perhaps add to that "on a to hit roll of 1 the attack hits its own unit" although that would just be for realism, not balance. I could see GW making it into another inexplicable mortal wound though. (I like mortal wounds as a mechanic in general, but the mortal wounds from an exploding vehicle is absurd if rocket launchers don't inflict mortal wounds)

I think stuff like that (and instant-killing from Plasma getting hot) is more meant to make the explosions actually relevant for all armies, though it kind of has the opposite effect of what it's supposed to - Instead of levelling the playing field, so that hordes and elite armies both feel explosions equally, they've just turned it on its head so that elite armies are HORRIBLY punished by explosions, while horde armies barely feel them.
(And also plasma getting hot on vehicles is ridiculously overstrength.)

Waaaghpower wrote:

 walkiflalka wrote:
Perhaps add to that "on a to hit roll of 1 the attack hits its own unit" although that would just be for realism, not balance. I could see GW making it into another inexplicable mortal wound though. (I like mortal wounds as a mechanic in general, but the mortal wounds from an exploding vehicle is absurd if rocket launchers don't inflict mortal wounds)

I think stuff like that (and instant-killing from Plasma getting hot) is more meant to make the explosions actually relevant for all armies, though it kind of has the opposite effect of what it's supposed to - Instead of levelling the playing field, so that hordes and elite armies both feel explosions equally, they've just turned it on its head so that elite armies are HORRIBLY punished by explosions, while horde armies barely feel them.
(And also plasma getting hot on vehicles is ridiculously overstrength.)

Not to mention the effect that it has on LS vengeance where you can't shoot it at all once it overheats ONCE.

Strangely enough, pistols in 40k are about as relevant as they are in today’s military. They ain’t gonna change the outcome of a battle, but they might make the difference between life and death for a particular soldier.

As they are now, pistols don’t break the game. I’m just gonna sit back and wait to see which Army will get the FAQ for Pistol 6D6 S24 AP-7 D6 + d6 Mortal on Wound rolls of 2+, Ignore Invul Saves. I expect it to come out some time in April.

 Yarium wrote:


If people had to either roll to get away (making it risky), or they allowed a unit to move after someone runs away (instead of just standing there), then it'd be a different story and pistols would see a bit more use.

Except that only making it possible to fall back part of the time doesn't inherently make trying to fall back "risky." If you only run away on a 4+, for example, you'll still try to run away every time you normally would. It just might not go your way half the time. Meaning the rule is still broken, but only half the time. And just moving after your opponent falls back isn't all that useful. Sure, you can get closer to the next thing you want to charge, but you're still left hanging in the wind for a turn while your opponent unloads their dakka into you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaaghpower wrote:
I was just thinking that pistols should ditch their current weird mechanic of bypassing targeting rules and instead just be fireable in addition to swinging in melee, unless they'd already been fired that turn - This includes overwatch, of course.

That way, pistols become genuinely relevant in close combat.This also has the bonus side effect of making Power Armor infantry (Who generally get a pistol/ranged weapon) a slight bump in CQC, and since power armor has always been pretty bad at actually functioning as the 'jack of all trades' that it's supposed to, I don't mind them getting a bump in CQC.

I like this. Something I often find with my eldar asasult units is that I actually don't want to fire my pistols most of the time for fear of making my charge range more risky. If I could simply shoot the pistol in the fight phase (in lieu of shooting in the shooting phase), then it would guarantee we'd get to use our pistols before our opponents can fall back, and it would give my mediocre assault units a small but not insignificant boost.

 walkiflalka wrote:
As such, I would propose that pistols can be fired into combat after you retreat from combat, so long as it is the same unit you were in combat with. I would also suggest that when a unit flees combat, a unit that has pistols can make overwatch shots at them using their pistols

I don't think making it easier for fleeing units to cause more damage is a good idea, but I support the idea of Overwatch against fleeing units by units they are fleeing from. The main issue is that this further penalises combat units without pistols, but that's something of a wider issue.

 walkiflalka wrote:
I would further argue that pistols should receive +1 to hit if the the target unit is within 1''. Pistols should also be treated as assault in that they can fire after advancing (but maybe at -2?)

I agree with Pistols counting as Assault weapons, I think the Pistol specific bonuses should be additional to the Assault rules. I don't think there's any need for to-Hit roll changes; it doesn't really make sense for pistols to hit more easily within 1", as you're still trying to aim at someone who presumably doesn't want to be hit, who can swat aside the pistol, lunge forward etc. I don't think there's any need for moving and shooting pistols to be -2, a -1 is plenty IMO.


So yeah, I'd allow Overwatch with Pistols against fleeing units, and have Pistols count as Assault weapons, as this keeps things nice and simple.

We used to attack units falling back in past editions. I never understood why people can walk out of a melee and go full movement (and shoot for IG/SM). At least give them half movement.
What's funny is that the charge/fight phase is so broken you have units like khorne berserkers charging and wiping out armies on first turn with the way that they can consolidate. charge, move again, etc. If you don't kill them in overwatch or turn 1 (if you got it), your goose is probably cooked.

This is probably one of the most fun, but somehow most "broken all-around" editions of the game. Everything is good, everything is bad. And list builders can do whatever they want.