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.

I dunno, but the hours spent calculating that for every shot fired can only help to make the game more cinematic.

Although I would suggest replacing apples with carrots. Have you ever seen Shoot'em Up with Clive Owen? It proves that carrots are the definitive badass plant-based food.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think we should come out with a new stat called "Shooty Bits" and have it be a number from 2-10.

One rolls 2d6 and subtracts the Shooty Bits skill, then divides it by the Ballistic Skill, then multiplies it by the Armor Save of the enemy, then adds the armor value of the nearest vehicle (even if it is on a different table!) then subtracts the number of apples eaten by the shooting model divided by the number of apples eaten by the player controlling the model.

Does that nerf shooting enough?

I now want to make a Home unit that has that skill, JUST so I can use it as my local game club (which are all just my friends so...)

 Mahtamori wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Mahtamori wrote:

AlmightyWalrus: Aren't you sensing a pattern here? Top armies are melee armies which do not pay enough for their shooting. Except for Necrons who aren't melee at all.
By the way, what armies are actually melee and what armies are shooting exclusive. Where do we find the shooting exclusive armies, generally, in power estimates compared to the melee exclusive ones?

I'd personally say that the current beneficiaries of 6th edition are the armies what are NOT designed to fold over to melee and have the capacity to shoot well, particularly in overwatch.
Absolutely none of this would be fixed by nerfing shooting distance.

Top 4 are arguably GK, IG, Necrons and SW. Three of those aren't supposed to focus on melee, even though they have a few capable melee units (or a lot, in the case of GK). The last one, Space Wolves, are supposed to focus on melee but don't, because shooting is so much better. Not folding over to melee does not a melee army make.

You state it like it's a universal truth.

No, I don't. Try again. Besides, IG ARE generally accepted to be in the top 4.

 Mahtamori wrote:

Now please list what the proposed changes will do to the bottom half of the codex list? And try to compile a list of melee armies? Are those armies actually bottom? Besides being 3rd or 4th edition, what's the common thing about the least highly ranked armies?

Armies that should arguably be heavily melee-centric:

Black Templars, Orks, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Tyranids, Chaos Daemons, Chaos Space Marines.

Armies that should arguably be heavily shooting-centric:
Imperial Guard, Sisters of Battle, Tau, Necrons.

Armies that (arguably) actually are melee-centric if built competetively:
Orks, Tyranids.

Armies that are (arguably) shooting-centric if built competetively:
Imperial Guard, Tau, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Space Marines, Dark Angels, Black Templars, Grey Knights, Sisters of Battle, Necrons.

Armies that arguably split between shooting and assault equally in competetive lists: Chaos Space Marines, Chaos Daemons.

 Mahtamori wrote:
Listing Grey Knights as an army supposed to shoot looks a bit odd, are you sure you aren't reading too much into perceptive performance with so very many units running around with Force Weapons and having weapons better than Bolters as an option?

Grey Knights are powerful because they've got a monstrously powerful shooting phase, not because they have Force Weapons. Psycannons, Psyflemen and psybolt Heavy Bolters do nasty things to people.

 Mahtamori wrote:
The game currently do not suffer for melee units because they can not assault a specific distance, the game suffers because melee do not have tactics. You can't throw more numbers into a melee since quality per model is precisely all that matters (Orks with their Fearless is the notable exception). You can't outflank an enemy, since models do not have flanks. Even the psychology sub-game is neutered hard because so very many models are ATSKNF.

I'd agree that the most neutering nerf to assaults isn't the random distance, but rather the fact that you're not allowed to assault out of stationary transports. You now have to take an entire extra turn of fire AND then Overwatch if you want to get to your enemy unless you start on foot, in which case you're exposed to the enemy fire right away.

 Mahtamori wrote:

What I'm trying to say is that, no it's not "fair" that melee units should get their chance at getting close. For what little tactical value this game has, it all ends when you get into melee - melee is strictly a game of chance, and I'm not talking about assault distance, I'm talking about the actual melee combat - a game with loaded dice.

So it's not fair that dedicated melee units should have a chance at getting into combat because they do more damage than ranged units, despite the fact that ranged units have ranged attacks as opposed to melee? Wut?

But ranged attacks also have the draw back of LOS and cover, which makes the AP value of a weapon much less effective. I don't have a problem with making a few more assault vehicles, but I think most CC armies can be fairly quick.

But what about a suggestion that doesn't wreck half the game just to give the other half an arguable boost?

Back to the silly rules. I want to see a rule for every cover save roll of 1 then a model takes a S2 AP- hit to show richochet and shrapnel hitting the model hiding behind it.

Dangerous Terrain checks for vehicles are now called "Who forgot to fill the tank" checks. If the tank becomes immobilized it can return to normal if a model makes it to the deployment zone and to the vehicle to refuel it. If the model carrying the fuel gets hit then the unit he is in now has the Soulfire rule (I think it's what the rule is called) cause it's now on fire.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Mahtamori wrote:

You state it like it's a universal truth. Three I agree with having seen on everyone's list (or near enough), but IG do not always end up among the most competitive on quite as many lists. Listing Grey Knights as an army supposed to shoot looks a bit odd, are you sure you aren't reading too much into perceptive performance with so very many units running around with Force Weapons and having weapons better than Bolters as an option?

Because in almost every situation, you're just better off shooting everything with GK anyway? Psycannons and S5 stormbolters give the army amazing shooting. As someone who played a Paladinstar a while back, I know that in most of the matches I won, my Paladins would never actually reach combat. It's insurance, really.

Now please list what the proposed changes will do to the bottom half of the codex list? And try to compile a list of melee armies? Are those armies actually bottom? Besides being 3rd or 4th edition, what's the common thing about the least highly ranked armies?

The bottom tier shooting armies are bottom tier because the top tier shooting armies are better in every single way, to the point of making the bottom armies irrelevant overall. The heavy nerfs to melee and buffs to shooting actually did more to strengthen the top codecies (which are heavily shooting oriented in the first place) and increase their gap from the mid tiers, than it did to help the bottom tier armies, or to balance the game as a whole.

The not-folding part is actually pretty important. Getting a Tactical squad in melee is a very serious threat to a unit designed to fold in melee (Guardians, Firewarriors, etc). Melee is a static situation, it's not a dynamic one like shooting is. You can't dodge out of line of sight, manipulate cover, nor even run away from melee. Once you're there you're there and if you can't pose a good enough threat to melee units, the battle is predetermined regardless what you do - making the shooting and movement game so much more important.
The game currently do not suffer for melee units because they can not assault a specific distance, the game suffers because melee do not have tactics. You can't throw more numbers into a melee since quality per model is precisely all that matters (Orks with their Fearless is the notable exception). You can't outflank an enemy, since models do not have flanks. Even the psychology sub-game is neutered hard because so very many models are ATSKNF.

What I'm trying to say is that, no it's not "fair" that melee units should get their chance at getting close. For what little tactical value this game has, it all ends when you get into melee - melee is strictly a game of chance, and I'm not talking about assault distance, I'm talking about the actual melee combat - a game with loaded dice.

Tactics in melee are involved in the setup and build up of the actual combat, not the execution. Of course, 6th edition got rid of much of that. Furthermore, this isn't a discussion about tactical or strategic depth (of which 40k has very little, both in shooting, which you greatly exaggerate and melee), but of balance.

I'll fully agree with you on this, but a singular question remains: why even suggest something that will severely harm the balance for most bottom tier armies? Why make a blanket suggestion that will severely harm even one codex?

As an example I am very familiar with: The new rules did little for Eldar. Eldar have the wrong type of weapons and even with random charge distance suffer from having too short range. Given the low unit number and vulnerability to assaults, assaulting Eldar from further than 6" away is actually not a bad risk. I feel, so far, that the new edition has harmed my largely shooting oriented army choice and further made my choice of base army harder. Corsair have better troops, Craftworld have better HQ, but I can't combine the two in the same army choice without having to take the poorer option from one or the other.
A similar knee-jerk reaction for me would be "Nerf saves! AP5 reduces save rolls -2, AP4 by -3, etc". I mean, I don't get saves anyway and this way my shooting won't be negated so hard. Never mind that it'll essentially invalidate Power Armour codices and make Orks the supreme master race.

Target the imbalance. And try to keep in mind that Grey Knights et al are out dated codexes but that all codexes need to be playable. If the problem is the risk of falling short with assaults, then target that. If the problem is that everyone is getting shot up when trying to assault, then target that. Suggesting a nerf to everything associated with your problem - even if it's not part of the problem - isn't a good suggestion.

 Mahtamori wrote:

I'll fully agree with you on this, but a singular question remains: why even suggest something that will severely harm the balance for most bottom tier armies? Why make a blanket suggestion that will severely harm even one codex?

Because the bottom tier shooting armies will always be complete trash no matter how badly anything gets nerfed, because they simply offer nothing that the higher tier shooting armies do much better. Those codecies need a complete rewrite.

A lot of the issues breaking assault armies right now can be solved by fixing the rulebook itself (although I wouldn't seriously propose random charge/shooting ranges, and would in fact take everything back the other way, but then again, 6th edition and "CINEMATICS!"). The issues with the weak shooting armies can't be fixed that way.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Mahtamori wrote:
The game currently do not suffer for melee units because they can not assault a specific distance, the game suffers because melee do not have tactics. You can't throw more numbers into a melee since quality per model is precisely all that matters (Orks with their Fearless is the notable exception). You can't outflank an enemy, since models do not have flanks. Even the psychology sub-game is neutered hard because so very many models are ATSKNF.

I'd agree that the most neutering nerf to assaults isn't the random distance, but rather the fact that you're not allowed to assault out of stationary transports. You now have to take an entire extra turn of fire AND then Overwatch if you want to get to your enemy unless you start on foot, in which case you're exposed to the enemy fire right away.

 Mahtamori wrote:

What I'm trying to say is that, no it's not "fair" that melee units should get their chance at getting close. For what little tactical value this game has, it all ends when you get into melee - melee is strictly a game of chance, and I'm not talking about assault distance, I'm talking about the actual melee combat - a game with loaded dice.

So it's not fair that dedicated melee units should have a chance at getting into combat because they do more damage than ranged units, despite the fact that ranged units have ranged attacks as opposed to melee? Wut?

I note you didn't list Eldar at all among the melee-oriented in any shape or form. Incidentally, Eldar have had the core problems you describe for a very long time so people have completely discounted Scorpions and Banshees as competitive choices and more or less laugh at an army built around Storm Guardians supported by the previously mentioned two. The projected image that the fluff give regarding the Eldar is oddly enough one of highly competent melee fighters. Forgeworld's presentation of the Spectre Phoenix Lord has him battling a Daemon Prince in melee and winning.

What I'm trying to say is that the argument of fairness is voided for melee units actually getting in melee. It's not fair for them to ALWAYS get into melee. It's not fair for them to NEVER get into melee.
The sense of fairness should revolve around, and bear in mind this is difficult to express in words, the difficulty of the melee units to get into melee in significant numbers versus the difficulty of the intended target to bring down the melee units' numbers below the significant number. In other words - it CAN be perfectly fair for a melee unit to be shot down by a shooting unit. If this happens all the time it's probably not. In fact, an equal number of points of shooting models in unit A should be able to shoot down the melee unit B on an open plain 100% of the time before unit B makes it into close quarters to below the significant number. Terrain and army synergy should make the difference whether unit A or unit B win. Provided unit A and unit B are suited to take down the correct type of unit.
If a model is competent in both shooting and melee, they should naturally pay a premium for this, and I think this is where the game system innately fails. Grey Hunters is the perfect example, being relatively low price for a unit that's decent in melee and shooting, both.

Here's some constructive suggestions, because I do recognise the problem:
1. All vehicles are assault vehicles.
2. "Overwatch" is something you do instead of shooting/running. When on overwatch, you'll shoot on anything assaulting you before they move and you won't snap-fire. Templates are still D3 hits, but blasts and other shots shoot normally. If the first unit assaulting you does not make it into combat, you may shoot on the next one attempting to assault.

This makes overwatch a tactical decision. If something horrible is in a transport that you can't hurt, then overwatch and shoot them as they "disembark". If they decide running into a hail of pain is not worth it, then your overwatching unit may end up having wasted a shooting phase.
Other blanket changes won't hit the rest of the problem, I think. The change to rapid fire really changed the game, but I can't say the rule in and of itself is a bad one. I think after this you need to get down to a unit-for-unit basis and issue nerfs or buffs as appropriate.

I find it extremely silly that Orks are so extremely shooting oriented right now and that their overwatch is, considering the points, the best in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fafnir wrote:

 Mahtamori wrote:

I'll fully agree with you on this, but a singular question remains: why even suggest something that will severely harm the balance for most bottom tier armies? Why make a blanket suggestion that will severely harm even one codex?

Because the bottom tier shooting armies will always be complete trash no matter how badly anything gets nerfed, because they simply offer nothing that the higher tier shooting armies do much better. Those codecies need a complete rewrite.

A lot of the issues breaking assault armies right now can be solved by fixing the rulebook itself (although I wouldn't seriously propose random charge/shooting ranges, and would in fact take everything back the other way, but then again, 6th edition and "CINEMATICS!"). The issues with the weak shooting armies can't be fixed that way.

Ok, so if they need a rewrite, why aren't you rewriting them as part of the suggestion? Why are you nerfing them? "nerf" is such a weak word, though, since this proposed rule would completely invalidate those armies, the models and any fun anyone would ever have of playing them. This makes the suggestion bad and poorly thought through. And again, I'm using weak ways and very moderate words when describing the qualities of the original suggestion.

 Mahtamori wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Mahtamori wrote:
The game currently do not suffer for melee units because they can not assault a specific distance, the game suffers because melee do not have tactics. You can't throw more numbers into a melee since quality per model is precisely all that matters (Orks with their Fearless is the notable exception). You can't outflank an enemy, since models do not have flanks. Even the psychology sub-game is neutered hard because so very many models are ATSKNF.

I'd agree that the most neutering nerf to assaults isn't the random distance, but rather the fact that you're not allowed to assault out of stationary transports. You now have to take an entire extra turn of fire AND then Overwatch if you want to get to your enemy unless you start on foot, in which case you're exposed to the enemy fire right away.

 Mahtamori wrote:

What I'm trying to say is that, no it's not "fair" that melee units should get their chance at getting close. For what little tactical value this game has, it all ends when you get into melee - melee is strictly a game of chance, and I'm not talking about assault distance, I'm talking about the actual melee combat - a game with loaded dice.

So it's not fair that dedicated melee units should have a chance at getting into combat because they do more damage than ranged units, despite the fact that ranged units have ranged attacks as opposed to melee? Wut?

I note you didn't list Eldar at all among the melee-oriented in any shape or form. Incidentally, Eldar have had the core problems you describe for a very long time so people have completely discounted Scorpions and Banshees as competitive choices and more or less laugh at an army built around Storm Guardians supported by the previously mentioned two. The projected image that the fluff give regarding the Eldar is oddly enough one of highly competent melee fighters. Forgeworld's presentation of the Spectre Phoenix Lord has him battling a Daemon Prince in melee and winning.

Sure, Eldar have melee units. So do Tau and the Imperial Guard. They're not an army that focuses on close combat, even if Guard blobs (arguably) works pretty OK. Same thing with Eldar; they're not an army that, traditionally, focuses on melee.

To follow your advice and add some constructive criticism: Let units assault out of stationary transports again. Let outflankers assault straight away again. Any other nerfs CC has taken in 6th are inconsequential compared to those two, because they add an entire turn to the time it takes to fight the enemy. Transports are already nerfed with hull points anyway and the random charge length adds some uncertainty (that I'm fine with BTW), but the blanket "extra turn" of shooting is just silly.

Oh aye, agreed on that. Playing predominantly shooting armies, I can dig that. I'm also not a fan of overwatch in it's current form and do not consider it a vital addition in any form (but if done right it could be nice).

Edit: fixed a plural typo

 Mahtamori wrote:

Ok, so if they need a rewrite, why aren't you rewriting them as part of the suggestion? Why are you nerfing them? "nerf" is such a weak word, though, since this proposed rule would completely invalidate those armies, the models and any fun anyone would ever have of playing them. This makes the suggestion bad and poorly thought through. And again, I'm using weak ways and very moderate words when describing the qualities of the original suggestion.

As I noted, this rule suggestion is mostly sardonic in relation to the poor way in which assault is handled in 6th edition. A rewrite of the lesser codecies would obviously be ideal, but so would a rewrite of sixth edition.

Also - not to point out the obvious or anything, but each units Ballistic Skill and rolling to hit represent this anyway, with a higher BS representing a greater ability to operate in a warzine under pressure, and a miss on a roll to-hit represents the shot going wild, falling short etc.

At the end of the day, you'd really want to do random ranges (auto hitting if in) OR to-hit, otherwise you're requiring people to hit twice.

 Ovion wrote:

At the end of the day, you'd really want to do random ranges (auto hitting if in) OR to-hit, otherwise you're requiring people to hit twice.

You know, just like assaults are now.