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.

English Assassin wrote:Firstly, welcome to 6th ed. where, despite all the talk of "cinematic" play, the rules as they stand have the (probably) unintended consequence of rewarding fairly static tactics. Thus we get a tedious game in which two armies blaze away at each other from behind Aegis Defence Lines, or two strangely adjacent fortresses. If unintended it's just yet more poor writing (which shouldn't surprise us), if deliberate, it's probably intended to dumb the game down further for the benefit of the kids who just want to roll some dice without having to think too much. As others have said, there are ways to deal with a dumb gunline player (Drop Pods, teleport assaults, slow and careful infiltration through cover), and if the gunline player has prepared a reserve to counter such things... then he's no longer really playing the dull, simplistic game game about which you're complaining.

It's likely different in tournamentesque or ultracompetitive settings, but I've found that in pickup games locally, GW have achieved the more cinematic game they wanted.

I think every game I've played has been fun, and felt quite close ( even though two of them it later turned out I'd got thoroughly spanked and was about 10VP under my opponent, and a couple where the reverse was true, but it still felt close and fairly even till we tallied it up. ) and every game has been a lot more 'cinematic', even to the point of people gathered round cheering on the little firewarrior as he went toe-to-toe with the Dark Angels termis ( yes he died in the end, but he survived 2 turns! )

I can certainly see the appeal of a gunline army, especially for a new player. It sounds realistic, it sounds like the form of war you often see on movies, it sounds like what *I* would want to do if i was facing superhuman guys in power armor wielding chainsaws, or huge devouring space monsters. I would want to hang back and shoot them. Defensive play is a valid tactic in many wargames (especially computer games) that many folks might have an affinity for and attachment to, and want to replicate in their new hobby.

I think it becomes less appealing as you get to know the game, for most the reasons you mention - defensive gunlines are not especially well suited to how the game plays out, or making the game fun. But without knowing much about the game, it sounds like a reasonable, enjoyable tactic to try out.

 Peregrine wrote:
I've seen quite a few posts that start off with something like "I like space marines, and I want to make a gunline army". But WHY? Why do you look at a rule set that's based around claiming objectives across the entire table and choose a strategy that consists of "sit in one place and roll dice"? What makes this kind of army appealing? Is it just the fact that the simplicity is comforting to a new player since they don't have to learn all of the rules right away? Do all of these people play in one of those groups where they always ignore the book missions and just play kill points every game? Is there actually something exceptionally fun about playing a gunline?

The really odd thing to me is that it's rarely about whether a gunline is good at winning games, especially since these kind of posts seem to come from newer players. So apparently they've found something fun and appealing about the concept itself. But what is it?

I play a mix of gunline and mech IG. I agree that pure gunline is boring to play, hence why I spice up my list with tanks, chimera veterans, marbo and sometimes Creed for some outflanking goodness.

To be fair, I find pure IG Mech unfluffy and cheesey so would argue that gunline IG isn't that bad.

Besides, I find that people who hate playing gunlines usually whine about it like a cry baby because they always lose against them. Yet, I prefer to play a gunline to a cheesey mech list, because at least that is more fluffy.

I have to admit. I always found gunlines incredibly appealing. The idea of volley after volley of firepower rainin down on people. But then I played daemons and completely wreck most gunlines armies.

Truth be told, I used to play to win. Not for fun. But over the past 2 years Ive enjoyed modelling, painting, and tactics. Gunlines are just target priority. That isn't fun.

 Galdos wrote:
For me its simple, this is the fething 42nd Mil. Why the feth are people using swords?

Yeah, but why specifically a gunline and not any other kind of shooting list? For example, I play mech vet IG. It's a 100% shooting army with zero points spent on assault units/upgrades, and I almost never initiate an assault unless it's for "this would be funny" value. And yet it's the exact opposite of a gunline, every infantry unit is given a Chimera, Vendetta, or Hades drill, and most of my units are moving every turn to deliver close-range melta/plasma/demolisher cannons/etc. And you can do the same with Tau, Eldar, marines, etc, so it's not just a specific IG thing.

So, what about the concept of a gunline makes it more appealing than a mobile shooting army?

Well, do you seriously find Chimera Veteran spam fun? I never understood that either. Do you really feel satisfied with playing this style of army that does not in any way shape or form follow the Imperial Guard fluff? Why didn't you just play DE/Eldar instead if you wanted loads of mobility?

As you struggle to understand gunline, I struggle to understand the mentality behind Mech IG. It has always seemed very WAAC to me. Footlists are fine (actually, great), blobs are great, gunlines are fine. But I honestly hate Mech IG because it doesn't represent what IG are in any way shape or form. I get confused as to why people chose to play pure Mech IG when there are better options out there for people who like mobility like Eldar and DE.

As someone else said, once you start reading the background behind IG, you realise that most the time they form gunlines (the novel Fifteen Hours being a prime example) with artillery and tanks supporting.
Sure, you have Elysian drop pod armies, which are an awesome little spin on the classic IG, as are KREIG. But other than that IG have always been an infantry heavy army with supporting tanks and Chimeras and vendettas etc. It even says in the codex is extremely rare to see pure mechnaised army, yet the build is annoyingly popular. Also, most people play mech IG because they heard it was a good build on the internet.

At least with gunline you are maintaining some form of dignity, even if it is easy to use and boring. While people who play mech IG should generally be given the death penalty because they don't realise how WAAC they look.

Invisible Jesus wrote:
Well, do you seriously find Chimera Veteran spam fun? I never understood that either. Do you really feel satisfied with playing this style of army that does not in any way shape or form follow the Imperial Guard fluff? Why didn't you just play DE/Eldar instead if you wanted loads of mobility?

Two words: armored company.

And I play mech IG instead of mech Eldar because I like the models better. Eldar infantry look stupid. Krieg infantry look awesome. IG tanks and aircraft look awesome. And it doesn't hurt that the rules are better, and include things like Medusas that the Eldar can only dream of. Oh yeah, and it's fun to play, even when I'm playing a less optimized list that doesn't win nearly as well as the tournament list you have in mind.

Really, the only "problem" with mech IG is that it doesn't fit the fluff ideas that some people have. And the strict fluff (according to some people) of the game is not even close to my highest priority.

As you struggle to understand gunline, I struggle to understand the mentality behind Mech IG. It has always seemed very WAAC to me. Footlists are fine (actually, great), blobs are great, gunlines are fine. But I honestly hate Mech IG because it doesn't represent what IG are in any way shape or form. I get confused as to why people chose to play pure Mech IG when there are better options out there for people who like mobility like Eldar and DE.

Perhaps you should read more of the fluff then, so you can find where entire mechanized IG regiments exist?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hollowman wrote:
I can certainly see the appeal of a gunline army, especially for a new player. It sounds realistic, it sounds like the form of war you often see on movies, it sounds like what *I* would want to do if i was facing superhuman guys in power armor wielding chainsaws, or huge devouring space monsters. I would want to hang back and shoot them. Defensive play is a valid tactic in many wargames (especially computer games) that many folks might have an affinity for and attachment to, and want to replicate in their new hobby.

See, I don't really understand that. Using an all-shooting army is realistic. Using a mobile army is realistic. Using various independent units is realistic. Having elite infantry spotting for airstrikes/artillery is realistic. Defending a series of positions and falling back out of range as the enemy closes on you is realistic. But I don't see much fictional combat where you have a bunch of elite supersoldiers line up in close formation across the battlefield and just stand there and shoot until the enemy reaches melee range and starts cutting them down.

 Peregrine wrote:

Invisible Jesus wrote:
Well, do you seriously find Chimera Veteran spam fun? I never understood that either. Do you really feel satisfied with playing this style of army that does not in any way shape or form follow the Imperial Guard fluff? Why didn't you just play DE/Eldar instead if you wanted loads of mobility?

Two words: armored company.

And I play mech IG instead of mech Eldar because I like the models better. Eldar infantry look stupid. Krieg infantry look awesome. IG tanks and aircraft look awesome. And it doesn't hurt that the rules are better, and include things like Medusas that the Eldar can only dream of. Oh yeah, and it's fun to play, even when I'm playing a less optimized list that doesn't win nearly as well as the tournament list you have in mind.

Really, the only "problem" with mech IG is that it doesn't fit the fluff ideas that some people have. And the strict fluff (according to some people) of the game is not even close to my highest priority.

As you struggle to understand gunline, I struggle to understand the mentality behind Mech IG. It has always seemed very WAAC to me. Footlists are fine (actually, great), blobs are great, gunlines are fine. But I honestly hate Mech IG because it doesn't represent what IG are in any way shape or form. I get confused as to why people chose to play pure Mech IG when there are better options out there for people who like mobility like Eldar and DE.

Perhaps you should read more of the fluff then, so you can find where entire mechanized IG regiments exist?

Three words: Go play Eldar.

You are clearly a secret Eldar fanboy, even if you don't know it or accept it. ;-)

Maybe you should go and read the Eldar codex....

Mechanised (it's with an 's' by the way, not a 'z'. Stop corrupting my language as well as my army!) IG regiments exist, but are rare. Definitely rarer than the amount of WAAC players using Mech IG lists.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

But I don't see much fictional combat where you have a bunch of elite supersoldiers line up in close formation across the battlefield and just stand there and shoot until the enemy reaches melee range and starts cutting them down.

Again, go and read an IG novel.

Basically, it's obvious a gunline player is causing you problems so you decided to start a thread about how 'gunline is boring' boo hoo.

Go and post in the tactics section and maybe we can help you!

Invisible Jesus wrote:
Maybe you should go and read the Eldar codex....

Will reading the Eldar codex magically cause GW to release new Eldar infantry models that don't look stupid? Maybe I should start taking donations from Eldar players for this. Do you think a total of $10k would be a good price to read the Eldar codex and get those models out, or should I ask for more?

Mechanised (it's with an 's' by the way, not a 'z'. Stop corrupting my language as well as my army!) IG regiments exist, but are rare. Definitely rarer than the amount of WAAC players using Mech IG lists.

They might be less common, but in a universe as big as 40k that means there's still an unimaginable number of them. Therefore it is perfectly consistent with the fluff to play mech IG.

Basically, it's obvious a gunline player is causing you problems so you decided to start a thread about how 'gunline is boring' boo hoo.

Go and post in the tactics section and maybe we can help you!

Err, lol? Congratulations on being so obsessed with "WAAC mech IG players" that you completely missed the point of the thread. But, to save you the effort of reading it, I'll make it nice and simple:

I have no problems with playing against gunline armies.

I have no fluff problems with people creating gunline armies.

All I want to know is what makes them appealing, and why new players are attracted to them, since it seems like a boring army to use.

 Ovion wrote:
It's likely different in tournamentesque or ultracompetitive settings, but I've found that in pickup games locally, GW have achieved the more cinematic game they wanted.

I think every game I've played has been fun, and felt quite close ( even though two of them it later turned out I'd got thoroughly spanked and was about 10VP under my opponent, and a couple where the reverse was true, but it still felt close and fairly even till we tallied it up. ) and every game has been a lot more 'cinematic', even to the point of people gathered round cheering on the little firewarrior as he went toe-to-toe with the Dark Angels termis ( yes he died in the end, but he survived 2 turns! )

Honestly, I think that this goal has been achieved even in tournament settings. I haven't had an unfun game of 6th edition yet, even when playing against "hardcore" armies like Wraith/Scythe Necrons. Some of that is thanks to my own choices-- I like to mix up my armies with some more unusual and unique options, which in my experience often leads to more fun play-- but even when I was fielding my late 5e semi-mech Marines in 6th edition, my games still went quite well and seemed to come down to the wire more often than ever.

Will reading the Eldar codex magically cause GW to release new Eldar infantry models that don't look stupid? Maybe I should start taking donations from Eldar players for this. Do you think a total of $10k would be a good price to read the Eldar codex and get those models out, or should I ask for more?

Please don't give any donations to Eldar players. We don't want them being the overpowered monstrosity they were in 2nd edition...

How would you feel about Dark Eldar?

They might be less common, but in a universe as big as 40k that means there's still an unimaginable number of them. Therefore it is perfectly consistent with the fluff to play mech IG.

Well, that makes no sense, because in percentage terms we could say 10% of regiments are mechanized (I gave you the 'z' this time to sweeten the Dark Eldar pot!). So only 1 in 10 should be playing Mech IG. Infact, GW in all their might and glory, should probably give out licenses to play Mech IG. Only 10% of the IG-playing population at any one time will be granted said license to keep them as a segregated minority within the 40k community. It maintains fluff-purity. Like a Mech-Gunline apartheid. Mixed is acceptable but don't expect to land the high-end government positions or anything noteworthy in the private sector...

Err, lol? Congratulations on being so obsessed with "WAAC mech IG players" that you completely missed the point of the thread. But, to save you the effort of reading it, I'll make it nice and simple:

I have no problems with playing against gunline armies.

I have no fluff problems with people creating gunline armies.

All I want to know is what makes them appealing, and why new players are attracted to them, since it seems like a boring army to use.

I think it's clear from my above paragraph that I am absolutely NOT obsessed with liquidating the Mech players from the 40k universe. Infact, just from talking to you here I have become much more liberal on the issue, shifting from a 'death by firing squad' stance to mere social segregation within the 40k community.

I still think deep down there is a gunline player that is crushing your Mech list at your local FLGS...But I guess you don't want our help in the tactics sub-forum so............................Have you considered Dark Eldar?

Invisible Jesus wrote:
How would you feel about Dark Eldar?

Two words: ugly models.

Well, that makes no sense, because in percentage terms we could say 10% of regiments are mechanized (I gave you the 'z' this time to sweeten the Dark Eldar pot!). So only 1 in 10 should be playing Mech IG. Infact, GW in all their might and glory, should probably give out licenses to play Mech IG. Only 10% of the IG-playing population at any one time will be granted said license to keep them as a segregated minority within the 40k community. It maintains fluff-purity. Like a Mech-Gunline apartheid. Mixed is acceptable but don't expect to land the high-end government positions or anything noteworthy in the private sector...

Sorry, I missed the part where the rulebook says that you're required to play the most common version of an army or be shunned from the hobby. Could you give me a page number for that?

I think it's clear from my above paragraph that I am absolutely NOT obsessed with liquidating the Mech players from the 40k universe. Infact, just from talking to you here I have become much more liberal on the issue, shifting from a 'death by firing squad' stance to mere social segregation within the 40k community.

Like I said, obsession. You're so obsessed with punishing mech IG players that you don't even understand basic things like "not all mech IG lists are powerful" or "not every mech IG player is a WAAC TFG". Or bother to read the thread before posting your rant about mech IG.

I still think deep down there is a gunline player that is crushing your Mech list at your local FLGS...But I guess you don't want our help in the tactics sub-forum so............................Have you considered Dark Eldar?

You know, I don't think I've ever played against a pure gunline army, and I certainly don't need help winning. In fact, I've had to put some effort into weakening my lists (by buying different tank models, of course, got to have variety in your painting life!) to make my games a little more even. But feel free to keep being wrong about everything.

You do realize that there are entire mechanized REGIMENTS right? As in, hundreds of chimeras, each with an assigned infantry unit? Pure mech IG is 100% fluffy (it's what armored fist platoons are after all) and even a mech vet list isn't pushing the reality. I'd imagine guys who ride around in tanks all day might live a bit longer . It's what the Armeggedon Steel Legion gets its name from, and heck, I believe they were even an official unit entry of sorts in the previous codex.

It doesn't fit what MOST regiments have because most regiments are mostly infantry. But if you read the codex more, there are entire regiments of artillery, sentinels, tanks, etc. It'd be no less fluffy than a guy who took a couple of barebones infantry squads and 6 basilisks at a 1,000pts. Also, not all mech lists are WAAC. I played an awesome Armored fist list the other day, which didn't have a single vet squad in it. The guy used platoon infantry squads in chimeras, and had something insane like 12 chimeras overall. It was an awesome army to look at on the table and was really cool. Just wished he would have left his aegis defence line, I really wanted to meet an armored cavalry charge head on...

@Ovion, I've noticed this too. Our store is split 50/50 between "casual" gamers, and the really competitive tourney guys that head up to adepticon, feast of blades, and NOVA every year. In the friendly games, almost every game I've seen has been crazy, down to the wire, and "cinematic". Our casual players love 6th ed, and are having a blast with it. I'm not a fan of the random tables which slow the game down, but everything else about it is a lot of fun I have to admit.

Our competitive players HATE 6th ed. Challenges, the tables, warlord traits, you name it. They hate hate hate it. And the gunline play is starting to show up a bit, although our two most active players have come up with a massive foot marine team list that's pretty nuts to play against and is very agressive (black templars and space wolves, pretty scary) However, the aegis defence lines, lack of assault except for a really nasty beatstick unit, and tons of shooting has become very common. Although I'm really not sure if I would call these gunline armies, as they are designed to be on the move a fair bit.

My dice hate close combat, so I have to shoot things.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Although I'm really not sure if I would call these gunline armies, as they are designed to be on the move a fair bit.

Yeah, I think this is the key point. A gunline is defined by the fact that it doesn't move. You line up everything along the back edge of the table, and stand and shoot until you either win or the opposing army gets into assault range and tables you. An army (like mech IG) that includes a significant mobile element is just a shooting army, not a gunline.

Because the models for my army are fan-effing-tastic and that is how I play in most games either way.

 Peregrine wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Although I'm really not sure if I would call these gunline armies, as they are designed to be on the move a fair bit.

Yeah, I think this is the key point. A gunline is defined by the fact that it doesn't move. You line up everything along the back edge of the table, and stand and shoot until you either win or the opposing army gets into assault range and tables you. An army (like mech IG) that includes a significant mobile element is just a shooting army, not a gunline.

A gunline is defined by the fact that it applies killing power with virtually nothing going on in the movement phase.

I don't think anybody can seriously claim that razorspam or a leafblower isn't a gunline just because there are vehicles in the list. If you're not doing much serious movement until turn 5 (or until after your opponent is already defeated), you're playing a gunline. It doesn't matter how much end-of-game movement you do.

 Ailaros wrote:
I don't think anybody can seriously claim that razorspam or a leafblower isn't a gunline just because there are vehicles in the list. If you're not doing much serious movement until turn 5 (or until after your opponent is already defeated), you're playing a gunline. It doesn't matter how much end-of-game movement you do.

Obviously you can make a gunline with vehicles, what I'm talking about there is mech armies like IG mech vets where you're advancing up the field to get into melta/plasma range and aggressively apply firepower from units like Hellhounds, Vendettas, LR Demolishers, etc.

There is so much fluff about marines simply holding gun lines, the art is also full of it. Those images are all really cool looking as well, as usually in movies and such the heroes are just "holding the line" against a horde of enemies. It's cool, looks cool, and you don't have to spend the extra 300 dollars on tanks when all you really like anyways are the armoured screaming space warriors.

Peregrine wrote:Obviously you can make a gunline with vehicles, what I'm talking about there is mech armies like IG mech vets where you're advancing up the field to get into melta/plasma range and aggressively apply firepower from units like Hellhounds, Vendettas, LR Demolishers, etc.

Sure, in theory this would be a great example of a non-gunline mech list.

Every guard mech list I've ever seen has been played as a gunline, though. The number of times I've seen (or even heard) of a chimera highland charge is exactly zero.

Generally, people play mech lists as leafblowers. If the only things doing movement in your entire list is a vendetta or two while the other 1,500+ points of the army are more or less stationary, that's a gunline.

 Ailaros wrote:
If the only things doing movement in your entire list is a vendetta or two while the other 1,500+ points of the army are more or less stationary, that's a gunline.

Given that the comment you quoted explicitly said that the non-gunline shooting army I was talking about was one with a significant mobile element, I really don't see why you're disagreeing with me.

 Galdos wrote:
For me its simple, this is the fething 42nd Mil. Why the feth are people using swords?

A million times this.

While I do put some variety in my list, and try to keep some parts mobile to mix it up to keep things interesting for both my me and my opponent, but I just can't get around that fact. To me, ordering a squad to charge forward and punch something really hard does not make sense.

That said, a list devoted completely to long-range shooting does sound dull, and the inherent restrictions of the guard codex allow for creative workarounds in order to create unique and interesting options to be more mobile.

 agnosto wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

 Galdos wrote:
For me its simple, this is the fething 42nd Mil. Why the feth are people using swords?

Because they have balls. unlike the cowards hiding behind their gun.

Bringing a knife to a railgun fight, I'll take brains over balls any day.

Knife? Speak for yourself, I've got 7 meter monsters with claws bigger than a man to smash those brains in

Gunlines are the most boring armies to play against or watch. Whenever I feel like watching/reading batreps I skip any that deploy gunline. I like movement and whatnot, gunline is like a more complicated game of craps. Roll dice, roll dice, ssssnnnnooorrreeee.

For all the people saying melee in scifi is dumb . . . 40k isn't science fiction. Science fiction is fiction with scientific bases that typically project into the future. 40k is a futurisitic fantasy, you know . . . Demons, magic, gods, etc.

 60mm wrote:
For all the people saying melee in scifi is dumb . . . 40k isn't science fiction. Science fiction is fiction with scientific bases that typically project into the future. 40k is a futurisitic fantasy, you know . . . Demons, magic, gods, etc.

It's still stupid. Melee in 40k only "works" because the distances on the tabletop are not to scale. Imagine if bolter range was 50' (with all other ranges scaled up to match) and you deployed 500' away. You aren't going to get into melee, you're just going to get shot and die. That's a more accurate representation of how combat should work, even in a world with demons, magic, gods, etc.

And having battles with puny little beings and hand held guns makes sense when you have fleets of spaceships that can instantly wipe thousands off the surface of a planet? Nothing in 40k makes a smidgen of sense. Gunlines are already dead in the 21st century, btw. Seriously. Gunlines lost their crown after WW1.

If you wanted to get realistic, warfare between interstellar civilizations 20 millenia ahead of us just wouldn't happen. The first step to being an interstellar race is abandoning warfare because interstellar travel on a respectable scale demands a scope of resource so vast that no warring faction could attain it. That and interstellar travel necessitates the use of time distortion which, as a side effect, allows multiple races to live coherently without conflict, reinforcing the lack of need for war capabilities. That's science fiction, not futuristic fantasy, ala 40k.

The real bottom to stuff like "melee in 40k is dumb" is that some people don't care for melee and, as people are want to do, make up reasons why they are right. Nothing makes sense in 40k. But hey, if gunlines make the most sense for you, try having a 20 person tourney with nothing but gunlines and see how gripping it is.

It would be a boring, static, dice rolling marathon. But that's why there are different styles, to mix it up. To give everyone a place to find their pleasure, and to fight off our enemies we dislike.

But seriously, nothing in 40k makes a crumb of sense. Still cool though I understand the want to defend a playstyle you enjoy or just see as valid, and feel it myself sometimes. The OP was curious why gunline lovers enjoy it, so sound off why you do. No one is gonna convince people to stop liking what they like on a web forum

P.S. If Bolters had a 50' range and everything scaled up equally, Tyranid Raveners would be moving up to 50' in a second or two, and thus, melee would still be extremely deadly. Not to mention the whole popping out of the ground where-ever they please . . .

Again, nothing in 40k makes sense. Not melee, and certainly not gunlines.

 60mm wrote:
And having battles with puny little beings and hand held guns makes sense when you have fleets of spaceships that can instantly wipe thousands off the surface of a planet?

Yes, but that's true of any scifi universe where there's ground combat at all. It's just an accepted convention of the genre that you can leave orbital bombardment out of it, or at least greatly reduce its effects, and you're not supposed to question it too strongly.

P.S. If Bolters had a 50' range and everything scaled up equally, Tyranid Raveners would be moving up to 50' in a second or two, and thus, melee would still be extremely deadly. Not to mention the whole popping out of the ground where-ever they please . . .

No, they wouldn't be moving 50'*. The whole problem with range scaling is that movement ranges are not in scale with other movement ranges, and neither of them are in scale with shooting ranges. Tanks move barely faster than infantry (when in reality they should be moving 10x faster), the effective range of a RPG pistol (bolt pistol) is twice the length of a tank, etc. To fix the scale problem you'd have to significantly increase vehicle movement distances (after making the vehicle models themselves a lot bigger), and massively increase weapon ranges. End result: an assault army would have to spend more than an entire current game within bolter range trying to get there. And that's ignoring artillery, air strikes, etc.

The reason they don't do this has nothing to do with fluff or magic or whatever, it's because you simply can't play a 28mm army-level game with realistic scaling. You have to scale distances down to absurdly unrealistic levels just to get everything to fit on a 4x6 table (there's a reason Epic was not 28mm).


*Let's assume a bolter has about the same range as a modern infantry rifle, so about half a mile (actually way more against an area target like a charging horde, but I'll be generous). Again I'll be generous and assume that they're crossing that range in two full seconds, the upper end of your "second or two". This means that a Ravener is moving at 900 miles per hour, or well over the speed of sound. Even in a world of magic and demons I don't think the fluff includes anything that stupid...

Well if you're going to use real world analogies, those are all pretty far off. Anyone who has fired plenty of infantry rifles can tell you half a mile is way out of question for anything but range shooting at static targets with a scope. In combat situations you'd ideally be maybe 75 yards and no more than 125. I earned the highest possible medal for firing acccuracy in small arms during my time in the military and hitting a moving target past 75 yards isn't as easy as it sounds.

Also, anyone with real tank experience can tell you they don't fire the main gun in real scenarios moving past around 20mph for a variety of reasons, tanks are definitely not 10x the speed of infantry and you aren't accounting for tanks horrendously slow acceleration/braking which makes them slower than infantry anywhere but a straight road or open ground.

Again, none of this applies to 40k because nothing in 40k makes sense. Even if 40k did make sense, gunlines would still be just as "stupid" as melee. It has been almost a century since gunlines were useful. Naval/air power decimated gunlines.

Half decent scifi doesn't have interstellar ground combat btw, because it makes no sense. Futuristic fantasy does, they are worlds apart. And, if you're willing to leave out huge things like orbital bombardments, why not leave out the realism of other things like melee and gunlines? Cherry picking things you like is hardly debatable. I'm more than willing to say melee in interstellar wars is ridiculous, I just know it doesn't matter in 40k, just as I know that gunlines have as much a place in interstellar wars as sacrificing people on pyramids for the sun god to pump up our corn crops do nowdays.

But that hardly matters.

We want to know why you like gunlines. Give us a sweetass story or something, I'm open to it. No one is gonna change their minds on account of realism in 40k.

 60mm wrote:
Well if you're going to use real world analogies, those are all pretty far off. Anyone who has fired plenty of infantry rifles can tell you half a mile is way out of question for anything but range shooting at static targets with a scope. In combat situations you'd ideally be maybe 75 yards and no more than 125. I earned the highest possible medal for firing acccuracy in small arms during my time in the military and hitting a moving target past 75 yards isn't as easy as it sounds.

A Tyranid/Ork/etc swarm isn't a point target, so effective ranges go up considerably.

Also, anyone with real tank experience can tell you they don't fire the main gun in real scenarios moving past around 20mph for a variety of reasons, tanks are definitely not 10x the speed of infantry and you aren't accounting for tanks horrendously slow acceleration/braking which makes them slower than infantry anywhere but a straight road or open ground.

And guess how fast an average person can walk: about 3mph, less if you're making use of cover, looking for ambushes, etc. The tank should be moving MUCH faster, not just 6" vs. 12".

Also, guess how little a skimmer like a Devilfish cares about terrain. But oh wait, it has the same movement distance as a tracked Chimera with that horrible acceleration and braking and need to worry about terrain. I guess that means that distances aren't to scale?

Again, none of this applies to 40k because nothing in 40k makes sense. Even if 40k did make sense, gunlines would still be just as "stupid" as melee. It has been almost a century since gunlines were useful. Naval/air power decimated gunlines.

And again, I'm not talking about making sense fluff-wise, I'm talking about the limitations of tabletop games. Assault armies work on the tabletop because ranges are not to scale. That is the ONLY reason they work. A fluff-accurate battlefield would effectively remove assault armies from the game. Therefore assault armies are stupid, they make no sense fluff-wise and only exist because of the limitations of tabletop wargame mechanics. It's just like how 5th edition wound allocation units were stupid fluff-wise, since they only worked because of exploiting a game mechanic.

Or . . . Assault works in 40k because GW wants it to. A company could easily rule it out of their game if they so desired. At this point I'm honestly not sure you're trying to argue any certain point so knock yourself out and get the last say. It's just a fantasy game where nothing makes sense.

They feel that's where 6th edition has gone to. so they spam the gunlines. I was a gunline player for 5th but in 6th all my lists have been speed assaults. and I haven't lost a single game in 6th yet. played against: guard,wolves,eldar,grey knights so far most of them were gunline. I been doing space marine bikes with necron wraiths and destroyer lord as my allied forces (with necron warriors of course but they do nothing lol)

 Peregrine wrote:

 60mm wrote:
For all the people saying melee in scifi is dumb . . . 40k isn't science fiction. Science fiction is fiction with scientific bases that typically project into the future. 40k is a futurisitic fantasy, you know . . . Demons, magic, gods, etc.

It's still stupid. Melee in 40k only "works" because the distances on the tabletop are not to scale. Imagine if bolter range was 50' (with all other ranges scaled up to match) and you deployed 500' away. You aren't going to get into melee, you're just going to get shot and die. That's a more accurate representation of how combat should work, even in a world with demons, magic, gods, etc.

That's not necessarily accurate - we don't know much about the balance between weapons and armor in the year 40k. The current dominance of missile weapons is a historical anomaly brought on by the lack of quality armor that can stand up to small arms fire. You didn't see men running around with axes and swords back in the day because slings and bows didn't exist, you saw them doing it because slings and bows had a harder time penetrating the armor of the time than melee weapons did*. Any time armor of sufficient strength to shrug off most missile weapons arises on the scene, melee combat has followed. The ability to quickly get melee weapons close to armored opponents (with chariots, then horses, and in 40k deep striking and fast vehicles) just helps the rise of melee. Just because melee does not make sense against ranged weapons today does not mean melee is historically unable to survive and prosper in a world where missile fire exists. A Marine in power armor wading through lasgun fire to start hacking guardsmen to death is pretty much a recreation of what happened to longbowmen fairly often during the hundred years war. (Mind you, the longbow was closer to the bolter than the lasgun during that time - top of the line missile equipment).

*prior to improvements in armor, there was a long period when "gunlines" dominated without question, as today. Huge armies of bow and sling armed troops faced off against the same, with chariots as the tanks of the era to add some mobility. Improvements in armor saw the fall off missile troop dominated armies, and could again.