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.

One of the problems with melee in 40k is that all or nothing nature in a reactionary combat.

You could go one direction where just like shooting, only the active unit actually attacks. But that makes combats slower.

This other option introduces a bit of back and forth in the one phase.


Ws 3+ att 1/2 str 4 ap 0


How it works

When you activate a unit to fight in melee, roll the number of dice per model listed In front of the slash. Resolve those attacks and remove opposing casualties

The opposing unit now rolls their first set of attacks and resolves casualties. Return back to the active unit and use their second set of attacks and so on.

The slash profile allows you to customise it to weapons, so powerfisfs might have lower initiative.


You can also have more than 2.

Say for example drazhar. He could be 3/3/6. To reflect his fight again ability.

Also sweep and strike can have different profiles as well. The heavier attacks having fewer first attacks.

Anyway the thrust is that it reintroduces initiative but tempers it so high initiative doesn't wipe a unit before attack back.

You have a more dynamic back and forth and create more interesting combat decisions.

You can also reflect eliteness without changing the feel. Ie guard veterans could have better first attacks so they may reduce their opponents return strikes through casualties but they're still guard so don't have super powerful attacks.

I think you might be onto something, but I see some possible issues.

First, let me make sure I understand exactly how it works. Under this system, would units still take turns "activating" the same way they do now? I.e. chargers activate first? Or do all units in melee resolve their first slash of attacks first, then they all resolve their second slash, etc?

In the example, I feel like you're picturing a single friendly and enemy unit duking it out. In that scenario, it's easy enough to picture them going back and forth resolving each of their sets of attacks. But if there are 5 friendly units engaged with 3 enemy units spread around the table, then you've introduced a fair bit of bookkeeping.

Picture if you will, me trying to use my first set of attacks for each of those 5 units, then focusing on the second set of attacks on the left flank, then coming back to the right flank (because target priority), then trying to remember whether I activated Drazhar three times or just twice so far, and whether I still have set of attacks to roll for my second squad of wyches. Plus keeping in mind which of the optional weapon profiles I chose to use this phase (which would determine how many activations some units get).

If you *are* still taking turns activating rather than resolving sets of attacks simultaneously, then you still end up potentially having the same problem we do now of sufficiently killy melee units wiping out a target before it can retaliate. Ex: A squad of hormagaunts rolls well against my harlequin troupe with their first round of attacks, and the harlies get removed without making a single attack in return. Granted, your system makes this less likely than the current system, and maybe that scenario would be WAI.

I feel like you potentially run into some weirdness between units with lower numbers of attacks too. For instance, picture some eldar guardians fighting some guardsmen. Assuming they have 2A and 1A respectively, how do you break those attacks up in the new system? Let's say the guardians are 1/1 and the guardsman is 1/0, then the end result will depend on whether units still take turns or if they strike simultaneously at each "slash". If they take turns, then this is functionally a debuff for the guardians because now they only make half their attacks before receiving return punches from the guardsmen. Which would mean there's more back and forth but would also mean that bringing back initiative would actually kind of be a debuff for a unit that used to have a high Initiative stat. If you strike simul, then you have a similar issue where the guardians don't feel "fast"; they feel "persistant." As in they'll attack about as quickly as the guardsmen do, but they attack more.

If you make guardians something like 2/0, then they avoid some of the above quirks, but stuff still gets weird. If you're taking turns activating, then they're functionally just back to the current system. Which would mean that any unit that *doesn't* swing all of its attacks at the first slash would functionally be getting nerfed by this rule. If they swing simul, then the guardians functionally put out more attacks at the first slash than guardsmen (which is probably good).

You could also do something like keep the guardians at 1/1, but make the guardsmen 0/1 (functionally forcing them to do nothing for the first activation), but that feels weird.

Thinking on it, I think I like the idea of a version of this system where each "initiative step" is resolved simultaneously across the table. And then charging/strike-first rules let you move your attacks up one initiative step including going from initiative 1 (the first slash listed for each unit) to initiative 0.

So say my wyches with hekatarii blades have an Attacks characteristic of 2/2. Your hormagaunts have an Attacks characteristic of something like 2/1. My wyches charge your gaunts.
Initiative 0 - My wyches make 2 attacks. Your gaunts make no attacks.
Initiative 1 - My wyches make 2 attacks. Your gaunts simultaneously make 2 attacks.
Initaitive 2 - My wyches are out of attacks. Your gaunts make 1 attacks.

Players are still rewarded for getting charges off because it means that they have *some* ability to whittle down the enemy before receiving return attacks, but enemy units are way less likely to get wiped out before doing some damage of their own. And in lengthy, multi-turn melees, the momentum of a charge is gone, and both units are tearing into one another simultaneously. This also means that rather than tracking a bunch of activations across the entire table, you jus need to remember which initiative step it is and which units charged. So actually probably less to memorize than in the current system except that you have to declare/remember which optional weapon profile you're using up-front I guess.

Thoughts?

To clarify, the rules follow the same mechanics as 10th ed, it's just the attacks profile is broken into stages. You still resolve one fight before moving onto the next one.
A charging unit gets fight first, which means they resolve their stage 1 attacks in total first.
The point of the concept being that the target unit won't stand their limp while they're beaten to death, so only some of their attacks get made first.


The current rules are:

Fights first strikes first
remaining attacks are made by alternating between players (which is effectively fights first because they make all their attacks first)

All this rule does is divide the attacks between the unit's first strike and its second strike.

ie an astartes chainsword with attacks 4 would look like this:
2/2
So if it is chosen to fight, it does 2 attacks. If it had fight first, it does 2 attacks. Then the opponent does theirs, then they come back to them with their remaining attacks.


It's just to reflect that you can't get all your attacks off at once, there's back and forth, thrust and riposte and the easiest way to reflect that is to just not let one model make all its attacks simultaneously. it looks more ridiculous the more attacks something has.

Take lion for example on his sweep - 16 attacks AND strikes first.
Now whether he had fights first or not, if he's chosen to fight during alternation like any normal unit, he still gets to roll all 16 attacks before any return attacks.

This mechanic would split those attacks up so he couldn't hypothetically kill 16 marines before any could attack.
so fealty sweep A 4/4/8, means the first time he strikes in a combat (whether because he was chosen, charged or had fights first), he can only do 4 attacks. Then the opponent does their first set of attacks, then lion does 4, then the opponent does their second set, then lion does 8. By the end of this the lion might have actually taken damage rather than been completely immune to return attacks by wiping the unit in his first swing.

For squads, it's no different. You count up your models and their weapons and use the first, second or third number of attacks on that profile.

So harlequins with a squad of 5 blades and 6 specials with these profiles:

special weapon A 3/1
harlequin blade A 3/2

in their first strike during a fight, rolls 15 blade attacks and 18 specials.
Then they are struck by their opponent's first set of attacks, removing casualties then you count up how many of your models are left and use the second profile.

so you lose 1 special and 2 blades.
You now roll 5 special attacks, and 6 blades.
Then your opponent rolls again.

It's basically turning multiple attacks into multiple fight phases in a single phase so you aren't overwhelmed by one massive bucket of dice.
For low attack units, there is no issue because it would look like this:

1/-
1/1
2/0
-/1

etc. reflecting how many of their attacks they make in what stage of the fight
The game has created this massive bucket of dice issue, and melees become all or nothing.

Striking them simultaneously is fine, my goal was (ironically) mainly to create more cinematic experiences for both players by having the melee be active and dynamic rather than dumping a bucket of dice to remove the entire opposing unit.

Melee becomes a lot more strategic as well, because you can't guarantee that your uber figher like the avatar or the lion will wipe their opponent before return attacks, so how and why you choose to fight changes.

Gotcha. There are definitely aspects of this that I like. I think my biggest concerns are probably just:

A.) Bookkeeping. If my melee units' first round of attacks are sufficient to take the teeth off of an enemy, then I might want to move around the table and try to defang some other enemy squads rather than immediately going back to do the second set of attacks from my first unit. Which could lead to me needing to remember how many times various units have already activated during that phase. Not a huge problem, but worth keeping in mind.

B.) Gameyness in regards to the order of activations. Although I guess this is basically already an issue. It feels weird that my need to whittle down an enemy unit on the right flank before they swing can result in my unit on the left flank taking extra hits. (By virtue of me choosing to activate the right-flank unit before the left-flank unit.)

I feel like making all attacks at a given "initiative step" happen simultaneously would help with both of the above. There would be less to track overall because you'd just be remembering/resolving the current initiative step rather than jumping around the board trying to track activations for each unit, and not choosing the order in which units activate would mean that activating my right-flank unit doesn't result in extra injuries for my left-flank unit.

I'm not sure what you mean by a or b.

The resolution happens identically to current rules, you complete the units fight and then move to the next unit. Your attacks are broken up with a single fight, you aren't making separate fights. Hence why I described it as a different kind of initiative. The mechanic just staggers your attack resolution within a single fight.


To put it in 3rd ed mechanics, you're giving each attack it's own initiative value.

So a 6 attack initiative 5 marine captain, would make attacks like this:

2 attacks initiative 5
2 attacks initiative 4
1 attack initiative 3

Except in modern 40k they don't like simultaneous attack resolution, so this mechanic is just staggering attack resolution.

Sorry if I'm not making myself clear.

No worries! I'm probably misreading something. Let me see if I can clarify what I'm getting at.

Let's say we have a few patches of melee scattered across the table. You decide to attack my wyches with your vanguard vets. You resolve your first batch of attacks.

Now, question 1: what exactly happens next? Do I get to choose which of my units on the table activates to make a round of attacks, or do I have to use the wyches that you just attacked?

Question 2: Once one of my units activates, are you required to go immediately back to resolving the next batch of attacks with your vanguard vets, or can you opt to activate a different unit somewhere else on the table?

If the answer to question 2 is that you can choose a different unit, then the potential exists for multiple units to be "mid-activation" (in a state of having resolved some but not all of their batches of attacks) which can result in the extra bookkeeping I described earlier.

If the answer to question 2 is that you have to finish resolving your remaining batches of attacks with the vanguard, then your proposed rules would only really come into play in those situations where I opted to immediately start attacking back with my wyches, right? Otherwise, we're basically just resolving things the way 10th edition does now, but with extra complication.

Your last statement is exactly what it's doing.

Identical to 10th - complete a fight before moving to the next fight.

You are just allowing more back and forth so there's actually a consequence to charging rather than auto delete.

It means your wyches get a few hits in during the combat, potentially reducing the number of attacks back so that both sides come out bloodied.

At the moment the strategy is ensuring your crazy melee gets the first attack so they wipe their enemy. Optimised melee is boring, it might as well just be alternating activation where only the active unit actually fights.

It's especially boring when two characters clash. When your melee strategy is who gets to hit first wins, it's lacking.


I would call current melee rules the equivalent of an alpha strike strategy, but in all combat.

Gotcha. In that case, I'd say that your idea is a good one on the whole.

Pros:
* Better back and forth in melee.

Cons:
* Will only come up when the second player to activate a unit opts to swing back against an enemy that's in the process of attacking.

* Slightly more complicated than what we have now.

Question:
If one player's unit has more sets of attacks than the other's does the second player have to wait for the first's to resolve all their attacks before activating a new unit?

Example:
* Drazhar is attacking unit A on the right flank while some wyches fight unit B on the left flank.

* Drazhar has 3 sets of attacks.

* Unit A has 2 sets of attacks.

* Unit A goes first and does their first set of Attacks.

* Drazhar does his first set of attacks.

* Unit A goes again.

* Drazhar goes again.

* At this point, unit A is out of attacks, but Drazhar is still going. Can my opponent start swinging the first set of Unit B's attacks at my wyches, or do we have to wait for Drazhar to finish attacking again before moving on to new unit activations?

the fight is complete once both sides have expended all their melee attacks, just as is true currently.

Really, these rules are almost identical to the current ones, it's just the melee attack stat is staggered back and forth.