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.

So in previous editions, especially when you could challenge out squad leaders, the initiative system could be a frustration. Some armies basically always swung last and thus frequently lost a lot of their combat punch before they could bring it to bare. Some units were fine if they swung first but ended up swinging last any time terrain got involved (looking at you, incubi).

The current system of (chargers swing first) does address a lot of those issues and provides a benefit to charging that doesn't outright boost the maximum offensive power of a melee unit, but it also leads to certain scenarios that I'm not personally a fan of. It always seems awkward, for instance, when my harlequins get punched to death by charging orks without inflicting a single wound in return. Hormagaunts dragging down a (wounded or unlucky) dreadnaught on the charge is all well and good, but it kind of seems like such a behemoth ought to take a few gribblies down with him.

So what would everyone think of a simultaneous fight phase resolution system? The idea being that all units engaged in close combat will have a chance to do at least some damage to each other rather than having one squad potentially come away unbloodied? Perhaps something to the effect of...

*Players take turns fighting in the fight phase as per the current rules, but wounded models still get to swing their attacks before being removed as casualties.
* Charging units may resolve a single attack before the simultaneous attacks occur. Casualties from these attacks are removed before they can swing.
* Some units would receive additional rules to augment this new system such as imposing a -1 to enemy to hit rolls on a turn in which they charged (ambushed!), being allowed to resolve an attack as though they had charged even when they didn't (superhuman speed or bracing against a charge), etc.

Thoughts? Going back to harlequins versus orks, the harlequins would probably stand to lose more bodies than they do now, even on a turn in which they charged, BUT they would also be able to damage orks in return when they themselves are charged on the following ork turn. Additionally, this helps with units wiping out charging squishy melee units by interrupting with the counter attack stratagem.

It makes melee more lethal for everyone involved. It solves the, "I didn't even get to swing" issues of past and current rules sets. It still provides benefits for charging. Thoughts?

No. This is just another bonus for gunline armies: getting 1-2 turns of shooting in, overwatch and now a round in combat before they take damage from the charge? Just no.

 mrhappyface wrote:
No. This is just another bonus for gunline armies: getting 1-2 turns of shooting in, overwatch and now a round in combat before they take damage from the charge? Just no.

Counterpoint: Most gunline armies aren't really known for their melee punch. A squad of fire warriors, dark reapers, or guardsmen don't typically do that much damage, especially if you've already hit them with some of your attacks on the charge. So it's technically a boost to shooting armies, but I mean... it's such a miniscule boost it seems like it shouldn't really matter. Or is there concern that guardsman/conscript blobs will see in a resurgence in power if they get to swing back more than they do now?

Wyldhunt wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:
No. This is just another bonus for gunline armies: getting 1-2 turns of shooting in, overwatch and now a round in combat before they take damage from the charge? Just no.

Counterpoint: Most gunline armies aren't really known for their melee punch. A squad of fire warriors, dark reapers, or guardsmen don't typically do that much damage, especially if you've already hit them with some of your attacks on the charge. So it's technically a boost to shooting armies, but I mean... it's such a miniscule boost it seems like it shouldn't really matter. Or is there concern that guardsman/conscript blobs will see in a resurgence in power if they get to swing back more than they do now?

There is that as well as any other unit in the game that has average or just below average melee but good shooting.

The reason I like playing against melee armies is because we both know however gets into melee first is going to kill the other, it makes the game far more tactical and risky as well as making you far more conscious about your placing. If you have it your way then it's just goes back to the regular formula of move your models forwards since it won't matter who gets into melee first, you're both going to die.

 mrhappyface wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:
No. This is just another bonus for gunline armies: getting 1-2 turns of shooting in, overwatch and now a round in combat before they take damage from the charge? Just no.

Counterpoint: Most gunline armies aren't really known for their melee punch. A squad of fire warriors, dark reapers, or guardsmen don't typically do that much damage, especially if you've already hit them with some of your attacks on the charge. So it's technically a boost to shooting armies, but I mean... it's such a miniscule boost it seems like it shouldn't really matter. Or is there concern that guardsman/conscript blobs will see in a resurgence in power if they get to swing back more than they do now?

There is that as well as any other unit in the game that has average or just below average melee but good shooting.

The reason I like playing against melee armies is because we both know however gets into melee first is going to kill the other, it makes the game far more tactical and risky as well as making you far more conscious about your placing. If you have it your way then it's just goes back to the regular formula of move your models forwards since it won't matter who gets into melee first, you're both going to die.

Ah. See, most of that sounds like more of a bug than a feature to me. To me, agonizing over whether I should end up 13" away from my enemy or 15" to make it harder for him to charge me next turn just feels like fiddly minutia rather than interesting decision making. Knowing that the charging unit is more or less the automatic winner doesn't really sit well with me either. Thus why I'm proposing a system that would allow melee units to do their thing even if they get charged. To me, the interesting thing about melee is its potential to lock down units and the important interplay between counters chargers, their "charge catcher" friends, and the enemy unit doing the initial charging. None of which is particularly concerned with exact positioning etc.

To each their own. I'd be curious to know whether I'm solidly in the minority on this one or not.

I agree that it's a benefit to gunlines and a nerf to melee armies.

Shootrs can shoot you with no risk to themselves. Melee now has to find proper positioning, go through over watch and THEN suffer a round of melee in the process of accomplishing anything.

Thats not great.

Yeah, I really don't like this idea. I find the current system fine.

If you save 2 CP to interrupt combat, than your fine to get in one last round of combat with something important (if your opponent didn't play smart). I really enjoy having chargers go first, with alternating activations after that. It adds another element to the game, forces hard choices and rewards good tactics.

If you want to play games where armies just sit back and shoot for a few rounds before charging into a moshpit where everything dies, I hear Napoleonics are good for that.

I think this is worth trying as a scenario rule or terrain rule. Something like

Rage Ascendant - Khorne's rage flows from the Great Rift, bathing this world in mindbending fury. Combatants fight with little regard for their own safety and Khorne delights in every skull taken.

When a unit is nominated in the fight phase the unit it targets immediately resolves its attacks for the phase as well. Apply the results of the hits for both units before removing any models.

---

Strobing emergency lights - The damaged lights in this building flash and sputter making guarding against repostes and counter attacks difficult.

When a unit within 6" of this terrain piece is nominated as a target for attacks in the fight phase it immediately resolves its attacks for the phase as well. Apply the results of the hits for both the attacking unit and this units before removing any models.

---

I think after trying them, people will both like and not like them depending on the table top situation. I think the change is far more appropriate as a scenario or terrain rule than an overall house rule.

Really not a fan of this idea I do agree some things should do something but the dread can explode and take some gribblies out with him

I used this ages ago when I tried to do an alternate ruleset for 40k. IIRC if you charged you got your attack and only you got to attack, but subsequent turns were simultaneous.

 Infantryman wrote:
I used this ages ago when I tried to do an alternate ruleset for 40k. IIRC if you charged you got your attack and only you got to attack, but subsequent turns were simultaneous.

Interesting. Does that mean you could keep tossing more units into the fray to effectively prevent an expensive melee unit from ever swinging?

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Infantryman wrote:
I used this ages ago when I tried to do an alternate ruleset for 40k. IIRC if you charged you got your attack and only you got to attack, but subsequent turns were simultaneous.

Interesting. Does that mean you could keep tossing more units into the fray to effectively prevent an expensive melee unit from ever swinging?

I don't remember; this was c. 3rd or 4th edition era. Base contact was the rule of the day as I remember it. Basically, if A and B charged X, turn 1 of melee would be exactly like it is now: A and B do their applicable attacks, while X does nothing. Then turn 2 of this melee has A and B and X all rolling dice.

There was never enough time or players to really test all this stuff, so it's just Ideahammer. In my opinion, melee should be vicious and decisive, which I think simultaneous rolls do a reasonable job of giving us within the system we had at that time.