If shooting worked the same way close combat did...

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.

**CREEEEEEEEED**

Peregrine wrote:
Brutus_Apex wrote:
40K is the Iliad. The characters are all that matters, everyone else is just fodder.

Then 40k is arguably the worst game in the history of wargaming, as you're spending thousands of dollars and countless hours of painting time on irrelevant fodder that sits irrelevantly in the background while two hero models fight. And by fight I mean they stand there motionless alternate rolling dice at each other until one of them dies, without any movie-style drama or action. If this is genuinely what 40k is about why would anyone ever want to play it?

Equally why are so many of the stories BL produce about grunts from all over the factions, rather than just non-spikey and spikey space marine chaper masters and warlords, tau commanders, eldar farseers, etc, etc.

There's plenty of focus on named characters, but a hell of a lot of the game and the setting is about the grunts.

**SemperMortis**

Peregrine wrote:
Luke_Prowler wrote:
The same could be said when two gunline armies get put against each other. no action or movement, both throw dice at each other until someone falls over, no one has fun.

At least this gunline battle, as bad as it is, involves the entire army participating instead of being very expensive background scenery for the two characters hitting each other with swords. And shooting =/= gunlines. Gunlines are a problem of bad 8th edition design, a shooting-focused game can be interesting and not involve gunlines.

Except in my last game I had my ork boyz kill a Primarch, the next game saw those boyz killing a daemon prince primarch and then the last game saw them eating two Tau Commanders....so they didn't really stand about, however, they were led into battle by Ghazghkull who spent all 3 games alive and thwacking idiots in the head with his PK.

**Peregrine**

SemperMortis wrote:
Except in my last game I had my ork boyz kill a Primarch, the next game saw those boyz killing a daemon prince primarch and then the last game saw them eating two Tau Commanders....so they didn't really stand about, however, they were led into battle by Ghazghkull who spent all 3 games alive and thwacking idiots in the head with his PK.

Then that's a case of the common troops mattering, and not what I was replying to. This is the original quote:

Brutus_Apex wrote:
40K is the Iliad. The characters are all that matters, everyone else is just fodder.

If the characters are all that matter and the rest of those expensive models are just background scenery then remove them from the game and have every 40k game be a melee fight between two character models. You'll quickly discover that 40k's melee mechanics are boring as hell, character fights suck, and there's no reason to play the game without all of the common troops.

**SemperMortis**

Peregrine wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
Except in my last game I had my ork boyz kill a Primarch, the next game saw those boyz killing a daemon prince primarch and then the last game saw them eating two Tau Commanders....so they didn't really stand about, however, they were led into battle by Ghazghkull who spent all 3 games alive and thwacking idiots in the head with his PK.

Then that's a case of the common troops mattering, and not what I was replying to. This is the original quote:

Brutus_Apex wrote:
40K is the Iliad. The characters are all that matters, everyone else is just fodder.

If the characters are all that matter and the rest of those expensive models are just background scenery then remove them from the game and have every 40k game be a melee fight between two character models. You'll quickly discover that 40k's melee mechanics are boring as hell, character fights suck, and there's no reason to play the game without all of the common troops.

And what happens in the book before the illiad? the biggest baddest character gets killed....by a commoner shooting an arrow at him. The characters are not ALWAYS what matters, but they definitely have the spotlight in almost every game.

**A Town Called Malus**

SemperMortis wrote:

And what happens in the book before the illiad? the biggest baddest character gets killed....by a commoner shooting an arrow at him. The characters are not ALWAYS what matters, but they definitely have the spotlight in almost every game.

I think you are thinking of the Odyssey. Achilles doesn't even die in the original Iliad poem, though his death is alluded to in the future.

Also Achilles isn't killed by a commoner, he is killed by Paris.

And even after Achilles death, the portrayals of the Trojan War are still focused on heroes such as Ajax, Odysseus, Agamemnon, Menelaus etc.

**Galas**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:

And what happens in the book before the illiad? the biggest baddest character gets killed....by a commoner shooting an arrow at him. The characters are not ALWAYS what matters, but they definitely have the spotlight in almost every game.

I think you are thinking of the Odyssey. Achilles doesn't even die in the original Iliad poem, though his death is alluded to in the future.

Also Achilles isn't killed by a commoner, he is killed by Paris.

When you have a 2+ rerollable invulnerable save and roll a double 1

**Luke_Prowler**

Peregrine wrote:
Luke_Prowler wrote:
The same could be said when two gunline armies get put against each other. no action or movement, both throw dice at each other until someone falls over, no one has fun.

At least this gunline battle, as bad as it is, involves the entire army participating instead of being very expensive background scenery for the two characters hitting each other with swords. And shooting =/= gunlines. Gunlines are a problem of bad 8th edition design, a shooting-focused game can be interesting and not involve gunlines.

Gunlines are not a 8th edition design problem, it persistently exists in 40k since I've been playing (5th ed) and any game where mass ranged weapons exist that doesn't actively punish not moving. That's because it's a low skill strategy that will attract peoples to play armies/classes/build order that allow it and still result in victory for the very reason you and others have pointed out: No resistance can be had if you're already dead. Even in fantasy or ancient history games, lines of range creep in because as long as it's a choice and the designers don't go out of there way to stop it then there's a way to make it work.

You can make an interesting shooting focused game without gunline, but I think it's easier to make an interesting game without gunline if it doesn't focus on just shooting.

As for the first point, Brutus is the only person I've ever seen advocate for more focus on melee. Everyone else in this thread not on the realism side (and in general) just want assault to not feel like running on a bad leg: it's doable, but you're going to be in pain for most of it.

**kombatwombat**

Peregrine wrote:
[character fights suck

I think 80% of this is due to the removal of initiative to be replaced with alternating activation, 15% is due to the loss of the WS/WS chart, and 5% is due to the lack of a parry mechanic.

**Peregrine**

kombatwombat wrote:
I think 80% of this is due to the removal of initiative to be replaced with alternating activation, 15% is due to the loss of the WS/WS chart, and 5% is due to the lack of a parry mechanic.

It's because of all of the above, and more. There just isn't anything interesting in the fight, because it uses the same resolution mechanic as a fight between 50-man blobs of troops in a 1980s fantasy game. There are no special attacks, no duel of move vs. counter-move to parry an attack or find a vulnerable point to slip a sword into, no movement or facing once the two characters enter melee combat, no effects of wounds beyond counting down a total, etc. You just put two character modes (which don't even matter because they don't move or draw LOS or anything) next to each other and alternate rolling dice for attacks until someone is dead. Hit-wound-save, hit-wound-save, over and over again until someone reaches the wound total and a model is removed. If this boring slog is supposed to be the focus of 40k then

40k and

its incompetent rule authors.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Luke_Prowler wrote:
Gunlines are not a 8th edition design problem, it persistently exists in 40k since I've been playing (5th ed) and any game where mass ranged weapons exist that doesn't actively punish not moving. That's because it's a low skill strategy that will attract peoples to play armies/classes/build order that allow it and still result in victory for the very reason you and others have pointed out: No resistance can be had if you're already dead. Even in fantasy or ancient history games, lines of range creep in because as long as it's a choice and the designers don't go out of there way to stop it then there's a way to make it work.

It absolutely is an 8th edition problem because of how 8th edition handles terrain and LOS. Most gaming terrain effectively doesn't exist in 8th edition, so there's nothing stopping you from lining up a bunch of models on the back edge of the table and rolling dice. LOS will rarely be broken, cover only matters if you're actually in a piece of terrain, and barrage weapons don't suffer any penalty for ignoring what little terrain does exist. In 5th edition LOS-blocking terrain was a lot more relevant, and a gunline army would at least have to deal with cover saves everywhere. The primary reason that gunlines were a problem in 5th edition was that nobody bothered to use enough terrain. Of course when you play on a table with a couple of single trees and a low wall as the only "terrain" it's going to reward gunlines. But with enough terrain to break up LOS you could ensure that the gunline player was forced to move to get clear shots at anything.

**pismakron**

If shooting worked like close combat, then shooting would be vastly more powerful, because every unit would shoot in both your own turn and in your opponents. Shooting damage output would essentially double.

**Bharring**

Fun fact: naked Tac squads do more damage per round in CC than in shooting their Boltguns (by a very slight margin (11 vs 10 S4 attacks hitting on 3s for a 5man).

**Xenomancers**

Bharring wrote:
Fun fact: naked Tac squads do more damage per round in CC than in shooting their Boltguns (by a very slight margin (11 vs 10 S4 attacks hitting on 3s for a 5man).

Well not in the first round. Rapid fire wins.

**Bharring**

RF wins on frontloading the damage. Pure throughput, CC wins, although very slowly. But that'll never happen - you'll take casualties. Frontloaded damage is better.

Just pointing out that CC is often stronger than shooting on a pure stats level, yet still is weaker in the game because of what it requires to use it.

**vipoid**

Peregrine wrote:
kombatwombat wrote:
I think 80% of this is due to the removal of initiative to be replaced with alternating activation, 15% is due to the loss of the WS/WS chart, and 5% is due to the lack of a parry mechanic.

It's because of all of the above, and more. There just isn't anything interesting in the fight, because it uses the same resolution mechanic as a fight between 50-man blobs of troops in a 1980s fantasy game. There are no special attacks, no duel of move vs. counter-move to parry an attack or find a vulnerable point to slip a sword into, no movement or facing once the two characters enter melee combat, no effects of wounds beyond counting down a total, etc. You just put two character modes (which don't even matter because they don't move or draw LOS or anything) next to each other and alternate rolling dice for attacks until someone is dead. Hit-wound-save, hit-wound-save, over and over again until someone reaches the wound total and a model is removed. If this boring slog is supposed to be the focus of 40k then 40k and its incompetent rule authors.

If you don't mind me asking, what sort of changes/additions would you suggest to make character vs character battles more interesting? (Ideally without needing to completely rewrite the mechanics of the game.

)

**kombatwombat**

Peregrine wrote:

It's because of all of the above, and more. There just isn't anything interesting in the fight, because it uses the same resolution mechanic as a fight between 50-man blobs of troops in a 1980s fantasy game. There are no special attacks, no duel of move vs. counter-move to parry an attack or find a vulnerable point to slip a sword into, no movement or facing once the two characters enter melee combat, no effects of wounds beyond counting down a total, etc. You just put two character modes (which don't even matter because they don't move or draw LOS or anything) next to each other and alternate rolling dice for attacks until someone is dead. Hit-wound-save, hit-wound-save, over and over again until someone reaches the wound total and a model is removed. If this boring slog is supposed to be the focus of 40k then 40k and its incompetent rule authors.

I think you’re looking for a RPG, not a tabletop wargame.

**Peregrine**

vipoid wrote:
If you don't mind me asking, what sort of changes/additions would you suggest to make character vs character battles more interesting? (Ideally without needing to completely rewrite the mechanics of the game. )

Bad question. Character battles will not be interesting in an army-scale game like 40k. If you want character battles you have to rewrite the mechanics and make a new character vs. character dueling game.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

kombatwombat wrote:
I think you’re looking for a RPG, not a tabletop wargame.

No, I'm not. I'm looking for a game with whole armies. The person I'm quoting is looking for an RPG.

**ComradeRed1308**

Overall I think the issue with shooting is that things die too fast in the game. Since shooting gets to do damage before melee, they can simply kill too much of the assault army before the assaulters can make contact. I don't think most games ending with one side being tabled isn't good game design because reduces the importance of objectives and or morale. They still haven't made morale actually matter that much. I would much rather have HQ provide leadership buffs that are actually meaningful rather than just give rerolls to hit/wound which just result in things dying even faster. Morale in 40k never really worked because it was never an integral part of the game and was just a thing that felt bad when it screwed you over.

**JakeSiren**

ComradeRed1308 wrote:
Overall I think the issue with shooting is that things die too fast in the game. Since shooting gets to do damage before melee, they can simply kill too much of the assault army before the assaulters can make contact. I don't think most games ending with one side being tabled isn't good game design because reduces the importance of objectives and or morale. They still haven't made morale actually matter that much. I would much rather have HQ provide leadership buffs that are actually meaningful rather than just give rerolls to hit/wound which just result in things dying even faster. Morale in 40k never really worked because it was never an integral part of the game and was just a thing that felt bad when it screwed you over.

So kind of like actual morale then?

**ERJAK**

fe40k wrote:
1. Units would have to roll 2d6 per 12" range of their weapon; added together to determine final shooting range. More elite units would get to re-roll (all) these dice. If all of their targets are out of range, the shooting attack fails.
2. Units would block line of sight to the models behind them, unless the firing model was able to draw an uninterrupted line that doesn't cross between two models in the same unit (representing not being able to pass through small enough gaps).
3. For each enemy unit that is targeted during the shooting phase, they may attempt "counter-fire"; following normal shooting rules, but only hitting on 6's.
[4. Something about enemy units being able to shoot back during the enemies turn, once actually engaged by the enemy... I don't think there's a good enough parallel; short of allowing the enemy unit to use it's melee attacks or something as a ranged "close combat" - to represent the lesser skilled models fighting back (ala unskilled models versus skilled models in a firefight).]
5. Units engaged in a firefight can't move, unless it is to fall back. Units falling back can't advance or shoot that round, unless possessing special skills.
6. Firefight ("ranged melee") continues between engaged units...

Funny how typing all that out sounds excessive - but it's what melee models must currently endure, just to reach and engage the enemy lines.

That said, there's an interesting concept of units getting engaged in "firefights"; essentially ranged version of close combat; it pins units in place, forcing them to duke it out round to round with other enemy units - and prevents the engaged units on both sides from being able to target other units, or move around until they decide to fall back first.

Maybe the sequence would be...
1. Player's units decides to shoot at # of targets.
2. # of targets attempt "Overwatch" with their ranged weapons, hitting on 6's.
3. Player's units shoot as normal.
4. After all Player's units have finished shooting, enemy units return fire (per normal rules).
5. Unless a unit falls back, units are considered "engaged", and will continue standard shooting (in alternating format), at the end of each round; ala standard close combat rules, albeit at range.

You're forgetting things like 'units wouldn't be able to do anything else but shoot at the unit that shot at them or retreat, basically giving up their entire turn' and 'units being shot at by units who are better at shooting than them die instantly and even if they don't their retaliation is pathetic',

This is just a bad comparison. Also melee sucks and is boring so it being bad isn't a big deal.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ComradeRed1308 wrote:
Overall I think the issue with shooting is that things die too fast in the game. Since shooting gets to do damage before melee, they can simply kill too much of the assault army before the assaulters can make contact. I don't think most games ending with one side being tabled isn't good game design because reduces the importance of objectives and or morale. They still haven't made morale actually matter that much. I would much rather have HQ provide leadership buffs that are actually meaningful rather than just give rerolls to hit/wound which just result in things dying even faster. Morale in 40k never really worked because it was never an integral part of the game and was just a thing that felt bad when it screwed you over.

Thing is, if the shooting army doesn't kill enough of the assault army before they hit assault, the game's over anyway. Melee vs Shooting always ends with one side being ignominiously slaughtered.