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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
I do not understand how you try to justefy the rules from a realism perspective. They are rules, something you use to play.

But the rules still have make sense. You aren't playing a game of chess with 40k pieces, you're playing a game which is supposed to be a simulation of the "real" events on the battlefield. You know, so you can forge the narrative about how those things happened, imagine all the awesome stuff going on as you roll the dice, etc. When you have obviously unrealistic rules it pulls you out of that narrative and reminds you that it's just a dice game, and not even a very good dice game.

When you have fungus orks, psychic beings, zombies, demons, and immortal god-kings, you want realism?

rigeld2 wrote:
Starship Troopers. Star Wars. Aliens. Those are just the popular movies that disprove your theory.

Those are the best you can do? Starship Troopers was a blatant parody movie where everything is deliberately stupid, while the book was all about shooting (often with nukes). Star Wars has lots of guns and the only people who even attempt melee combat are a handful of superhuman warrior-monks who get gunned down effortlessly the moment they try to take on more than a symbolic leadership role on the battlefield.

And, again, it only works in 40k because the IGOUGO turn structure prevents proper action/reaction sequences while all of the distances (except infantry movement speed) are way too short for a 28mm game.

 Peregrine wrote:
To be fair, melee being "too strong" is a matter of opinion. Clearly 6th edition is a shooting-focused edition, but melee combat is still much stronger than it should be. Why? Because 40k is a scifi game with guns. Melee should be a rare act of desperation, or a final charge to finish off a unit that you've crippled with shooting. Dedicated melee units/armies should be almost nonexistent, and each codex should have plenty of shooting units. So, to fix this problem:

1) Charge range is 2D6 pick the highest, not 2D6 added together, with difficult terrain 1D6 and fleet 3D6 pick the highest.

2) Overwatch is done at full BS, with blast weapons able to fire as usual and template weapons inflicting 2D6 hits instead of D3.

3) Units may use ranged weapons in close combat at a -1 BS penalty, and pistols are used at full BS.

4) Units are no longer locked in combat and may leave voluntarily at any time with a normal move action.

5) Jet pack infantry may not be charged, as they are hovering above the fight and out of sword range.

6) Any model that misses an attack against a vehicle is run over and immediately removed as a casualty, and any vehicle that moved over 6" is only hit on a 6+.

7) Challenges may be declined without penalty


There should probably be more changes, but this is a pretty good start.

On the other hand, you'd have things like Infiltrators and Deep Strikers that ought to allow assault straight away as well. Similarly, both Power Armour and Terminator Armour ought to be much more powerful than currently on the tabletop, allowing Marines to reliably reach the lines of the enemy anyway. Further, both Orks and Tyranids have more bodies than you have bullets, which'd let them get into melee as well.

rigeld2 wrote:
When you have fungus orks, psychic beings, zombies, demons, and immortal god-kings, you want realism?

Of course I do. If the setting says "here are some fungus orks" I want the gameplay to reflect what would actually happen when my IG tank company encounters a horde of fungus orks. I don't want unrealistic rules where my gun ranges are 10% (or less) of what they should be, infantry can run at 30mph, and my troops just sit around uselessly waiting to die as the horde of orks charges at them because it isn't their turn to act.

Starship Troopers has soldiers in Power Armor with chainguns mounted on their fists scything through thousands of bugs (and implies the same was done to a score of other "pacified" alien races) with reckless abandon. Have you even read the book?

A long time ago - and you'll note I said movies. The bugs didn't "lose out" in the movie (watched it last week so it's fresh in my mind) until the brain bug was captured. Which, of course, had nothing to do with lots of guns.

Star Wars has *one* troop-type being *sometimes* effective with swords vs guns (but not swords vs AT-ST), but otherwise battles are fought and won with spaceships firing lasers thousands and thousands of meters, or large numbers of dude/ettes with laser guns shooting one another.

Episode 1, Gungans vs droids. Droids were absolutely ineffective until they closed to CC range (inside those shields). Wasn't even counting lightsabers.

Aliens has a guy packing a flamer in the first one, a bunch of dudes killing a *fethload* of aliens with ranged weapons (and this fits perfectly into my "bring five times more guys than he has guns" line), and the rest of the movies is basically a bunch of unarmed civilians trying to tackle a Tyranid. This is hardly any evidence that assault is an inferior combat tactic than shooting the hell out of people.

I brought it up to point out that CC has a place cemented in Sci Fi.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Starship Troopers. Star Wars. Aliens. Those are just the popular movies that disprove your theory.

Those are the best you can do? Starship Troopers was a blatant parody movie where everything is deliberately stupid, while the book was all about shooting (often with nukes). Star Wars has lots of guns and the only people who even attempt melee combat are a handful of superhuman warrior-monks who get gunned down effortlessly the moment they try to take on more than a symbolic leadership role on the battlefield.

No - not the best I can do. Just the most popular.

And, again, it only works in 40k because the IGOUGO turn structure prevents proper action/reaction sequences while all of the distances (except infantry movement speed) are way too short for a 28mm game.

Whatever. Have fun tilting at windmills.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
When you have fungus orks, psychic beings, zombies, demons, and immortal god-kings, you want realism?

Of course I do. If the setting says "here are some fungus orks" I want the gameplay to reflect what would actually happen when my IG tank company encounters a horde of fungus orks. I don't want unrealistic rules where my gun ranges are 10% (or less) of what they should be, infantry can run at 30mph, and my troops just sit around uselessly waiting to die as the horde of orks charges at them because it isn't their turn to act.

So you'd be fine with Nids popping up out of the ground in the middle of your formation, 10 times the numbers they (currently) field making your range advantage useless? Because that's realistic.

TBH I'm not sure I want to know the answer.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
On the other hand, you'd have things like Infiltrators and Deep Strikers that ought to allow assault straight away as well.

Sure. Full-BS overwatch and using guns in melee would fix it so that assaulting out of reserve no longer automatically wipes a unit off the table with no chance to stop it. It would be entirely reasonable to have infiltrators assault right away, and deep strikers have a chance of doing it (they'd at least have to suffer from difficult terrain as they try to regroup and charge after landing).

Similarly, both Power Armour and Terminator Armour ought to be much more powerful than currently on the tabletop, allowing Marines to reliably reach the lines of the enemy anyway.

Strongly disagree. Marine armor is just fine the way it is, and should absolutely not work like the most ridiculous marine propaganda portrays it. Marines are supposed to be an elite shooting army, not a bunch of screaming idiots with chainswords running straight at the enemy.

Further, both Orks and Tyranids have more bodies than you have bullets, which'd let them get into melee as well.

Strongly disagree. If anything those armies need to die faster. Blast weapons should do way more damage, minefields/obstacles/etc should slow a horde and inflict tons of casualties, etc. Hordes only have more bodies than you have bullets until any sensible army nukes the giant horde (it's not like you can hide a million orks) and all that remains to get into rifle range is the shattered remains that you see in a current game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
The bugs didn't "lose out" in the movie (watched it last week so it's fresh in my mind) until the brain bug was captured. Which, of course, had nothing to do with lots of guns.

Again, because Starship Troopers was a parody. It's deliberately unrealistic and full of stupidity, including a "war" that only makes sense as in-universe propaganda. Using it as an example of sensibly-portrayed melee combat makes about as much sense as bringing up examples from saturday morning cartoons.

Episode 1, Gungans vs droids. Droids were absolutely ineffective until they closed to CC range (inside those shields). Wasn't even counting lightsabers.

And guess what: the droids still used guns.

Okay then so in short just remove assault from 40k now this debate can die xD

JPong wrote:
Strawman argument is a strawman. People are asking for balance not auto-wins.

As I said, assault is already unbalanced and needs to be nerfed. If it's even close to 50/50 with shooting then it is way too powerful.

And fixed charge distance in a game where you can measure at any time means that you have guaranteed charges once you're in range (and if you aren't in range you never move into position to charge), and those charges are almost guaranteed to wipe out IG/Tau units. The actual dice rolling involved in the massacre just lets you pretend that the outcome wasn't decided the moment the first charging model moved into base contact.

 Peregrine wrote:
and those charges are almost guaranteed to wipe out IG/Tau units.

That's simply not true.

A long time ago - and you'll note I said movies. The bugs didn't "lose out" in the movie (watched it last week so it's fresh in my mind) until the brain bug was captured. Which, of course, had nothing to do with lots of guns.

Fair enough. I only watched the movie for the T&A, and I was not disappointed. I stopped paying attention when they stopped having that.

Episode 1, Gungans vs droids. Droids were absolutely ineffective until they closed to CC range (inside those shields). Wasn't even counting lightsabers.

Actually, they walked a gunline up over the Aegis and shot the hell out of the guys standing 3" back, and they brought their armor support with them.

I brought it up to point out that CC has a place cemented in Sci Fi.

I have never said it didn't, but I have said that, in a setting with high-tech guns and other long-range killing devices, it is a style of combat that should fall out of favor. 99% of the time, a swords army is going to fail against a guns army, unless they have a whole lot more guys with swords than the guys with guns have bullets.

 Gunzhard wrote:
Well for certain you guys resolved to hate this rule are ignoring some basic facts:

1) Assaulting into terrain/cover in 5th edition was RANDOM.

And I didn't like the either.

2) Assaulting into terrain/cover in 6th edition has BETTER odds than in 5th.

Don't like the fact "odds" are involved in the first place.

4) You CAN make long assaults now; if your unit is able to reroll (jumppack or fleet) this is a great option especially.

This goes back to my earlier query... why did GW decide to get rid of the movement characteristic in the first place? I know it was many years ago now, but all models had a movement characteristic. Models with a high movement could make long assaults, models without could not.

5) You could ALWAYS fail assaults and it did happen.

Failing an assault because you mispredicted the distance doesn't bother me. Failing an assault because the dice are against you always has annoyed me, regardless of 40k or fantasy and regardless of edition.

 Peregrine wrote:

JPong wrote:
Strawman argument is a strawman. People are asking for balance not auto-wins.

As I said, assault is already unbalanced and needs to be nerfed. If it's even close to 50/50 with shooting then it is way too powerful.

And fixed charge distance in a game where you can measure at any time means that you have guaranteed charges once you're in range (and if you aren't in range you never move into position to charge), and those charges are almost guaranteed to wipe out IG/Tau units. The actual dice rolling involved in the massacre just lets you pretend that the outcome wasn't decided the moment the first charging model moved into base contact.

I can estimate tabletop ranges with near laser precision. I could guess range biovores and hit every time, barring scatter. I have never missed a charge range in 5th, I even had opponents that would point out what tbey thought were charges I missed declaring, only to show them it's 1/10" out of range or something. This had never unbalanced a game in before pre-measuring.

And now your strawman argument of people complaining they want an autowin is pointed out you brush it off. Really you want an auto win every time you face a cc army.

 Psienesis wrote:
I have never said it didn't, but I have said that, in a setting with high-tech guns and other long-range killing devices, it is a style of combat that should fall out of favor. 99% of the time, a swords army is going to fail against a guns army, unless they have a whole lot more guys with swords than the guys with guns have bullets.

Except that would be horribly unbalanced in a game where assault is central to many armies and indeed central to the game itself. Gun lines shooting it out which amounts to little more than throwing dice at each other doesn't sound like a terribly entertaining game to me.

JPong wrote:
And now your strawman argument of people complaining they want an autowin is pointed out you brush it off.

The fact that you don't call it an autowin doesn't make it less of one. If an assault unit makes it into base contact with an average Tau/IG unit then it is almost certainly going to win. The only uncertainty is in whether it gets into base contact at all, and if you have fixed charge ranges with the ability to measure at any time then that uncertainty disappears.

Really you want an auto win every time you face a cc army.

No, actually I want there to be no such thing as a cc army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Except that would be horribly unbalanced in a game where assault is central to many armies and indeed central to the game itself. Gun lines shooting it out which amounts to little more than throwing dice at each other doesn't sound like a terribly entertaining game to me.

You realize that shooting can involve movement, right?

And just because a tau or guard unit lose in CC, which is by no means guaranteed, I lost 5 nob bikers in CC with tau, in 5th no less, doesn't mean you lose the game. Similar to how your shooting a unit shouldn't remove it from the table without a lot of shooting or a bit of luck.

However, you have said you want to auto-win against melee, so that makes you a hypocrite at best.

Facts. CC is inherently more risky than shooting. CC does not have a payout equal to those risks. CC has pretty much every rule in the book against it.

Why did you start playing a game where melee has been core to the game for 25 years?

Assault-based armies in a game where people have weapons with "infinite" ranges (yes, my Necron Lord can shoot a model on a table in a store located in another state) should suffer.

That is the long and the short of it, adapt or die. Now, that is not to say that an Assault Army has to pick up guns, not at all. But what they need to do is anything they can to mitigate the advantages the guns bring. This means drop-pod assaults, dedicated transports, terrain-hugging, non-dedicated transports that draw fire and eat up enemy shooting phases, or heavy, resiliant infantry that tar-pits enemy shooting, allowing your actual killers to close and strike.

But, the idea of running across what is basically open ground, into a block of 20 guys who all possess automatic weapons... that is absolutely suicidal, even in a narrative game where realism is, at best, a tertiary concern. This is, like, Charge of the Light Brigade type narrative here.

 Psienesis wrote:
Assault-based armies in a game where people have weapons with "infinite" ranges (yes, my Necron Lord can shoot a model on a table in a store located in another state) should suffer.

That is the long and the short of it, adapt or die. Now, that is not to say that an Assault Army has to pick up guns, not at all. But what they need to do is anything they can to mitigate the advantages the guns bring. This means drop-pod assaults, dedicated transports, terrain-hugging, non-dedicated transports that draw fire and eat up enemy shooting phases, or heavy, resiliant infantry that tar-pits enemy shooting, allowing your actual killers to close and strike.

But, the idea of running across what is basically open ground, into a block of 20 guys who all possess automatic weapons... that is absolutely suicidal, even in a narrative game where realism is, at best, a tertiary concern. This is, like, Charge of the Light Brigade type narrative here.

The thing is that the dedicated transports got nerfed, terrain got nerfed, outflanking got nerfed, infiltration got nerfed and, as you say, trying to walk across the battlefield is crazy. You're assuming that these things are fine, when they too took nerfs from 5th edition. I might not agree with Peregrine, but he's got internally consistent arguments. I haven't seen anyone asking for melee units to be able to charge straight across the board without having to try, we've been asking for a shot at competing. If melee is going to be part of the game, fix it, otherwise axe it, but don't half-ass it, that's not good for anyone.

Assault armies already do all that. Assault armies already don't work. And no model has infinite range to hit something on another board. You are limited to your gaming area.

Now, you want talk arbitrary restrictions. You can shoot out reserves but not assault. Casualties are always the closest model, as though every shooter has perfect aim to always know and shoot the closest guy and not put one extra round I him than required. Shooting has made armournear pointless. A guy can be infinitely better at shooting than a guy can be at melee, I dare your untrained ass to step into the ring with a well trained fighter.

All this, and melee still takes more strategic skill than shooting, and has way less payout for the risks.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
Well for certain you guys resolved to hate this rule are ignoring some basic facts:

1) Assaulting into terrain/cover in 5th edition was RANDOM.

And I didn't like the either.

2) Assaulting into terrain/cover in 6th edition has BETTER odds than in 5th.

Don't like the fact "odds" are involved in the first place.

Hmm well it's been that way since 3rd edition; you don't have to like it, but the odds are BETTER in this edition than the last several.

You also chose to ignore that the majority of assaults should happen into terrain/cover. Unless you play with no terrain and against total newbs, now more than ever with all the defense lines etc, this is the case.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

4) You CAN make long assaults now; if your unit is able to reroll (jumppack or fleet) this is a great option especially.

This goes back to my earlier query... why did GW decide to get rid of the movement characteristic in the first place? I know it was many years ago now, but all models had a movement characteristic. Models with a high movement could make long assaults, models without could not.

Yeah again for actual 'assault' type units though this is huge - with a REROLL for fleet or jumppack longer assaults are a great calculated risk - go big or go home right?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

5) You could ALWAYS fail assaults and it did happen.

Failing an assault because you mispredicted the distance doesn't bother me. Failing an assault because the dice are against you always has annoyed me, regardless of 40k or fantasy and regardless of edition.

JPong wrote:
And just because a tau or guard unit lose in CC, which is by no means guaranteed, I lost 5 nob bikers in CC with tau, in 5th no less, doesn't mean you lose the game.

No, but I'm talking about an auto-win unit vs. unit, not winning the whole game automatically. Fixed assault ranges in a game where you can measure at any time means that assault becomes "choose target unit within 6" and remove it from the table".

However, you have said you want to auto-win against melee, so that makes you a hypocrite at best.

No, I want melee mostly removed from the game. My version of 40k would only have shooting be an auto-win against melee if you use your melee units inappropriately, as a primary method of killing stuff instead of an occasional charge to finish off the last survivors of a unit you've crippled and suppressed with shooting.

CC is inherently more risky than shooting.

Not really, unless you're the kind of person who charges everything you can just for fun. Most of the time you're only charging units you know you're going to wipe out effortlessly, and your units are designed to be able to take a few casualties from the (ineffective) swings back.

And shooting doesn't have that nice little rule where you win combat, force a leadership test at a huge penalty, and have a good chance of killing the unit entirely. Shooting rarely does more than inflict the casualties as a direct result of the unit's attacks.

(Yes, ATSKNF kind of ruins this plan, but I would remove it from the game.)

Why did you start playing a game where melee has been core to the game for 25 years?

Because I like the shooting armies. And the fact that the game has obsolete mechanics from a 1980s fantasy game does not mean that it needs to continue to have those flaws.

Peregrine you would like Infinity dude... it's a 'shooty' space skirmish game.

It actually does contain CC/assault rules but I've yet to find anyone that fully understood them and most agree it's very much NOT worth doing anyway.

JPong wrote:
Assault armies already do all that. Assault armies already don't work. And no model has infinite range to hit something on another board. You are limited to your gaming area.

Citation needed. It's also a joke, referencing the fact that they list the Tachyon Arrow as Range: Infinite.

A guy can be infinitely better at shooting than a guy can be at melee, I dare your untrained ass to step into the ring with a well trained fighter.

Do I have my choice of firearms? If so, I will take that bet every time, mainly because my ass, it having spent 3 years in the US Army, is not untrained. I will kill a motherfether dead, I give not a single gak about him.

Dude who is a well-trained fighter also has to close the gap between him and me while I shoot him. This besides the fact that, when guns are involved, training doesn't mean a whole lot. Whether you're a Navy SEAL or some thirteen year old kid from a farm in central Africa, an AK will kill you just as dead... and, too, being a Navy SEAL does not make you immune to getting your ass shot off by some 13 year old farmer with an AK.

 Gunzhard wrote:
Peregrine you would like Infinity dude... it's a 'shooty' space skirmish game.

I would, if it had tanks and aircraft. 40k should aim to be Infinity with bigger armies, not WHFB in space.

I actually dont mind assault armies. I used to run chaos for goodness sake lol. (not to mention I am anxiously awaiting the tyranid swarm box to start down the road of the bugs.)
What I dont agree with is slanting the game to give them all the advantages. Currently, I would say its about 50/50 on advantages and disadvantages (yeah yeah, I know TAU but they are the broken exception to the rule)
Personaly, I wouldnt mind GW putting out a help book. Something along the lines of having sections for all the different units or even army archetypes and giving strategies and tactics garnered from tournaments, history, themselves even to help players of all sorts. I dont mean some lil phamplet either. I mean an actual book complete with maps and diagrams.. Something like that more people would be willing to read and pay attention to. As it is, its just players online and as we have seen, if it is advice coming from someone a person doesnt like, it is instantly ignored or put down in a negative way instead of actually paying attention to it and altering it to fit your specific needs.

Ranges are borked . I actually liked the old bonuses or negatives on many guns based on range and felt that longer ranges should be put in with a greater negative scale to match.

scale is borked (lets face it, II'm 6'11" and even I couldnt reach the middle of a table were scales done correctly. outside of making the huge tables, the scale overloads towards the assaulty side, no way around that.

Terrain is such that it would take forever to add in all the stuff that would normally be on a battlefield that could affect a game. This ranges from trash cans to road signs. Even around the ruined buildings, the actual rubble that came from them is missing. i like the idea of adding in something to fix this. I dont know what outside of counters , maybe cardboard shapes laid down to putthe models in to give them a 5+ or 6+ cover depending on what the marker is representing. This could help assaulty armies greatly.

I think overwatch is nerfed. I would say hit on a 5+ maybe. Flame weaons, I think that in that situation, a guy might even hit his own guys. instead of d3, make it a single 1.

Failed assaults, definately, make them move the distance toward the enemy adding in that you cant assault outside of your max charge distance.

assault ranges- I like the idea of each unit having a different max range based on what they are.

i dont know.Mst assault units have guns that are effective or in the case of orks a LOT of guns that are as effective as a smaller unit of normal guys. The pure ccw armed guys usually have fleet maybe give theunits with guns the option to Trade in their gunsfor fleet/i dont know.

Personally, I think that crying on the internet that my army got nerfed or thats overpowered just doesnt help. When it was the other way around, did you complain then? Likely not. Itis cyclic and ithappens in every game where there are updates and erratias and so forth. Do like the rest of us, did when it was our turn. Deal with it, learn to work within it to be just as effective, buy different units to go with the flow or many just started a different army and shelved their old one till it came back around.
Likewise attacking others out of this frustration doesnt help and only makes yourself look bad.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
Peregrine you would like Infinity dude... it's a 'shooty' space skirmish game.

I would, if it had tanks and aircraft. 40k should aim to be Infinity with bigger armies, not WHFB in space.

Well clearly 40k is not the game for you; your vision has NEVER been realized in any 40k edition. 1st edition perhaps being the closest but lacking in the tanks/aircraft department.

I am sorry you occassionally have to remove a unit from the table, but how is that any different than being shot off the table. At least with melee, you have some control over what's removed. And again, due to the terrible cc rules, and the risks associated with it, cc is by no means an autowin against even the weakest of cc units.

And how is moving up the board, running from cover to cover, engaging in a in no way guaranteed win combat and after being left exposed to shooting, not more risky than sitting behind an aegis defense line pointing at things until they die?

And why would you have your choice of gun? I am talking about fighting hand to hand, where a guardsman can hit the swarmlord, almost as much as he can in shooting.

This thread is built on a fallacy. The worst rules in the game are random wound allocation and soul blaze.

JPong wrote:
I am sorry you occassionally have to remove a unit from the table, but how is that any different than being shot off the table. At least with melee, you have some control over what's removed. And again, due to the terrible cc rules, and the risks associated with it, cc is by no means an autowin against even the weakest of cc units.

And how is moving up the board, running from cover to cover, engaging in a in no way guaranteed win combat and after being left exposed to shooting, not more risky than sitting behind an aegis defense line pointing at things until they die?

And why would you have your choice of gun? I am talking about fighting hand to hand, where a guardsman can hit the swarmlord, almost as much as he can in shooting.

Actually, you DO a degree of control over which models are removed. For example, if you run a unit around a building that blocks LOS to the enemy and run a dummy unit around the front, th enemy will be unable to reposition to soot at the real unt because they are forced to shoot at the more immeiate threat they can see. Likewise, model placement within the units allow you to put the ablative wound guys out front to take the hits. You can even totally hide units behind mobile terrain like rhinos and land raiders to block LOS.
Also, if you are making assaults that you are not practically gurenteed to win outside of you rolling all ones and them rolling all sixes and so forth, than your simply playing the game wring. target choice of assaults is key. Assault their shooty units. You dont run your guard infantry quad at the enemy ogryns to assault. You assault their heavy weapon squad or special weapon squad (provided it isnt full of flamers).
You also use geometry to decide which direction to attack from so that instead of assaulting from the right your left in the open, you assault from the left where you can consolidate into a building. Heck, bring your own building and block LOS to other units with a rhino and consolidate behind it.

again, not saying CC isnt weaker than it was before, but as others have said and I agree with them. that simply is not a bad thing for the overall game.

I think Fear is a pretty good contender as well

 StarTrotter wrote:
I think Fear is a pretty good contender as well

Fear would be fine if GW didn't insist on making everyone and their brother leadership 10 and some form of fearless.