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.

This is a terrible idea. Shooting should dominate a scifi game full of guns and tanks, and your proposed idea makes absolutely no sense fluff-wise. It's bad enough that guns have magic maximum ranges where you hit normally out to 24" but the bullet instantly disappears at 24.00001", adding random ranges where you have no idea how far your guns can shoot would make even less sense. There's just no uncertainty with shooting something, either you're in range or your not. Contrast that with charging, where you have difficult terrain to cross, barrages of frag grenades exploding everywhere, bolter shots streaking past and blowing your troops into bloody bits, morale breaking as overwatch cuts down the leaders and the men behind them start thinking that the cover they just left looks like a really good idea, etc. It makes sense that there's a difference between a strong charge that drives a fatal blow into the heart of the enemy no matter how many obstacles it has to cross, and a half-hearted "I guess we should go stab them" that fails the moment things get difficult.

Plus, from a practical perspective you have way too many different weapon ranges for this to work effectively. Random charge distance works fine because every single unit has a charge range between 2-12" and the only variation is how consistently they can make a given distance within that range. Contrast this with shooting units where you have everything from 6" range to "I can shoot something in a game on the other side of the store". Random shooting range would be crippling for short-range weapons, but hardly relevant at all for long-range weapons. A lascannon with 48" range is usually fired at ranges where 16D6 is almost always enough to hit. And sure, roll 80D6 for that Basilisk, even rolling 80 1s is still enough to hit anything on a standard table. That's just an awkward mess that doesn't really accomplish anything to justify it.

 Dakkamite wrote:
40k is not in that state, many armies have armour able to reliably stop a bullet, or are made up of creatures that are tough enough to survive such weapons.

No, 40k has bad scaling and an IGOUGO system. Weapon ranges and starting distances are not even close to 28mm scale, vehicle speeds are way too slow relative to infantry, the arbitrary impassable barrier of the table edge forces shooting units to stand and fight when in reality they'd just fall back a bit while continuing to shoot, and the IGOUGO system lets a unit move out from behind a LOS blocker, cross 12" of open terrain, and start stabbing stuff while the target unit sits there doing nothing because it isn't their turn yet. If 40k used true 28mm scale assault armies wouldn't exist at all.

 Peregrine wrote:
This is a terrible idea. Shooting should dominate a scifi game full of guns and tanks, and your proposed idea makes absolutely no sense fluff-wise. It's bad enough that guns have magic maximum ranges where you hit normally out to 24" but the bullet instantly disappears at 24.00001", adding random ranges where you have no idea how far your guns can shoot would make even less sense.

Actually it makes more sence than random charge distances. When you run as fast as you can, you don't get: "Oh, somehow right now all our squad can only make a casual relaxing run towards the enemy and not charge at the top sppeed we normally would". It's stated in the rules that some random stuff can happen while u're charging that can lower u'r speed. So why don't they happen while you shoot? U're at war here.

Also, how do assault grenades pin the enemies to ground so they don't get fully prepared for the charge...but can still fire overwatch.

Basically, you state that random charging that makes it more complicated is fine while random shooting that could make it a bit more complicated, even more stable cause of the ammount of rolls, is not? That's a bit double-standard, don't you find it? Just propose "no random charges" than so they follow the same logic and are fine.

Limited distances represent not disapearing bullets but the accuracy range of a gun. Which is highly affected by lots of random stuff like wind, light, state of a gun, etc. If the gun's barrel ain't clean enough, it can get stuck. So, random shooting range that actually represents accuracy range is fine. And every gun has it's averageaccuracy statline irl.

And the most important thing. Shooting will still dominate and be easier and more reliable like it should be, i agree with you here, even though i miss greentide with choppaz. All i propose is that different aspects of the game are treated with the same logical approach.

Cause it's just like: "Ok, so you wana charge?.. Oh, you didn't manage to get in the proper position? How so? Oh yep, random movement through difterrain...also, good you didn't shoot my guyz cause you wanted to save an inch or two on that random charge...here, a few casualties from overwatch...now roll another random dice to see how far you can charge. And don't forget u're charging through diffterrain, so an extra random dice...naaah, i'd not want to roll something to see how far can i shoot - i don't wana make it too complicated...Oh, how i love this game!".

 Peregrine wrote:
This is a terrible idea. Shooting should dominate a scifi game full of guns and tanks, and your proposed idea makes absolutely no sense fluff-wise.

It's science fantasy, not science fiction, and there's plenty of ways to assault in the fluff (Deep Strikes, infiltration, urban combat etc.).

 koooaei wrote:
Actually it makes more sence than random charge distances. When you run as fast as you can, you don't get: "Oh, somehow right now all our squad can only make a casual relaxing run towards the enemy and not charge at the top sppeed we normally would".

And, again, this is because random charge distance is representing how effectively you can charge, not just your maximum running speed. You don't fail a 3" charge because you can't run fast enough, you fail it because the lead guy just got his head blown off by overwatch fire and everyone else ran right back into cover.

It's stated in the rules that some random stuff can happen while u're charging that can lower u'r speed. So why don't they happen while you shoot? U're at war here.

Because trying to charge at the enemy at point-blank involves more random stuff fluff-wise than sitting behind cover shooting at something. For example, you can't throw a grenade at someone 24" away and send them diving for the nearest cover instead of trying to attack you, and you aren't going to get tangled up in the barbed wire in front of the unit while you're shooting them with a lascannon from the other side of the table.

Also, how do assault grenades pin the enemies to ground so they don't get fully prepared for the charge...but can still fire overwatch.

Overwatch is already BS 1 to represent its limited effectiveness. And assault grenades don't reduce the enemy's effectiveness in responding to an assault, they just allow the charging unit to avoid the terrain penalty.

Basically, you state that random charging that makes it more complicated is fine while random shooting that could make it a bit more complicated, even more stable cause of the ammount of rolls, is not? That's a bit double-standard, don't you find it? Just propose "no random charges" than so they follow the same logic and are fine.

Please try reading what I said again, I explained very clearly why your proposed shooting approach is more complicated than random assault distances and produces fewer benefits.

Limited distances represent not disapearing bullets but the accuracy range of a gun. Which is highly affected by lots of random stuff like wind, light, state of a gun, etc. If the gun's barrel ain't clean enough, it can get stuck. So, random shooting range that actually represents accuracy range is fine. And every gun has it's averageaccuracy statline irl.

This only makes sense at ranges far beyond what you see on a 40k table. Remember, 40k ranges are laughably short. A shot at 24", absolute maximum range for a lasgun, is so close that a real-life soldier would almost never miss.

 Peregrine wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Actually it makes more sence than random charge distances. When you run as fast as you can, you don't get: "Oh, somehow right now all our squad can only make a casual relaxing run towards the enemy and not charge at the top sppeed we normally would".

And, again, this is because random charge distance is representing how effectively you can charge, not just your maximum running speed. You don't fail a 3" charge because you can't run fast enough, you fail it because the lead guy just got his head blown off by overwatch fire and everyone else ran right back into cover.

And if you don't take Overwatch casualties and still fail the 3" charge?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Actually it makes more sence than random charge distances. When you run as fast as you can, you don't get: "Oh, somehow right now all our squad can only make a casual relaxing run towards the enemy and not charge at the top sppeed we normally would".

And, again, this is because random charge distance is representing how effectively you can charge, not just your maximum running speed. You don't fail a 3" charge because you can't run fast enough, you fail it because the lead guy just got his head blown off by overwatch fire and everyone else ran right back into cover.

It's stated in the rules that some random stuff can happen while u're charging that can lower u'r speed. So why don't they happen while you shoot? U're at war here.

Because trying to charge at the enemy at point-blank involves more random stuff fluff-wise than sitting behind cover shooting at something. For example, you can't throw a grenade at someone 24" away and send them diving for the nearest cover instead of trying to attack you, and you aren't going to get tangled up in the barbed wire in front of the unit while you're shooting them with a lascannon from the other side of the table.

Well, now this makes no sence. Firstly, u're generally in the open and charge through cover and not the opposite, so you got towhere to fall back and hide. Secondly, u've run all across the field, saw your comrades shot down on the way and now when u're so close, you think: "Well, i'm done with it. Loosing 10 comrades on the way here was annoying. But 11 is so much over the top! Who cares that i need to go 3-4' i'd better stay in the open and get shot down next".

Even in real life you can't alwayz outshoot a fortified enemy - you need to get close and personal. There are situations where you just have to assault the enemy. Stating that close combat is of no use is pretty much wrong. Even simple humans do it and in wh there are some guyz that are as tough as a bull and wear a tank-thick armor.

Have you ever participated in a strikeball, paintball, lazerteg match btw?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
This is a terrible idea. Shooting should dominate a scifi game full of guns and tanks, and your proposed idea makes absolutely no sense fluff-wise.

It's science fantasy, not science fiction, and there's plenty of ways to assault in the fluff (Deep Strikes, infiltration, urban combat etc.).

It's important to remember this. Not only deep strikes, infiltration, urban combat and so on, but I'd say a major factor is that many of the creatures and armours present are simply tough enough to shrug off ranged fire all the way to melee.

Unless we're talking superweapons like spaceship guns and so on, defense have simply scaled higher than offense in GW's idea of 38K years of science advancement (And a bit of regression). The difference between modern combat 'armour' (that is, kevlar wests and whatever modern armies use right now.) and, say, PA is larger than the difference between a modern combat firearm and a Boltgun.

The more resilience increases, the better close combat becomes.

In addition to what BrotherHaraldus has said I will point out that their are several other things wrong with the concept of "in the far future their is only shooting" theory.

-Teleportation counters shooting pretty bad (fluff wise)
-If we are going to go for "but science..." then even shooting is redundant, they should just be dropping rocks on each other from orbit.

I would say that the random shooting distances is a terrible idea. "Close combat" cannot in itself be underpowered. Close combat units can be underpowered, their is an important difference.

Reducing some points costs here and their is probably a better answer.

Well the core problem is 40k has units that are modern warfare units with a 'fantastical artistic veneer '.
And they are shackled to an ancient warfare rule set.(WHFB.)

Modern warfare is an equal blend of mobility, fire power and assault.Most players would like 40k to be like this AFAIK.
And when 40k units are used in a rule set written for modern warfare ,(Epic Armageddon,) the rules are less complicated, and the game play is more intuitive balanced and fun!

WHFB rules are written for ancient warfare , where mobility and assault are supported by limited ranged attacks.
40k has far too many ranged weapons in it for WHFB game mechanics and resolution methods to cope.
So 40k has to use special rules 'band aids ' to try to make WHFB rule work better with modern units.

This is the core reason why 40k has problems balancing shooting and assault.

That's an interesting point. So what do you think can be done? Or it's night impossible to make it fine without rewriting a ton of rules?

As i see, more people lean towards a fixed assault range like in 5 ed. So how do you think it might work?

I'd like to see a 7' assault range and 1 + 2d6 (making it 2-7') through difterrain. 1' more to compensate overwatch casualties.

Maybe a LD check before each charge, and then stop the whole 'no move at all if you don't reach' nonsense? Most close combatants have good leadership anyway.

It forces the one being assaulted to relocate (Or gun down the attackers, of course.) or face almost certain assault the following game turn, as it should be. We can assume the assaulters need to stop at least 1' away if they do not reach.

I can't say a LD check charge simply because Nids, daemons, and even orks dont really have high LD.

Using daemons as my best example, they are all ld7, 8, and 9. 9 is restricted to greater daemons. Nids have gribblies at ld6 I believe and then their non synapse are ld7 I think.

I hated how easy it was to get assaulted in 5th, I'm much happier with the Overwatch rules in place to make assaulter think twice. However, I can agree that a 2D6 roll for charge range is TOO random. 4 + D6" for charge range seems more fair, but I'd rather not go back to a fixed charge range (Heck, I think I'd like to see Run be D3 + 3).

Of course this is coming from a casual Tau/Necron/Space Marine/Tyranid/(Eldar) player, so take it as you will.

Don't know bout run moves though. 3+d3 will give much better average distance fixing it at 4-6 rather than 1-6. Sure, footslogas need a good run distance but there are such things like beasts that are allready super-fast and will be even more annoying than they are now. And daemonettes running 6+d3 with fleet. I think it's too high for them.

I don't know if this is the right thread, but I feel, that the enter issue with CC being under-powered can be fixed with a couple rule changes.
1. You can charge if you disembark from a transport that hasn't moved yet.
2. assault from outflank.

They're slight changes, but it gives dedicated CC units (genestealers, Khorne zerkers, kommandos) a chance to reach combat in one piece. It's not unfair for shooty armies, because they have interceptor to deal with outflank and anti-vehicle weapons to deal with transports.

Most importantly, it makes for interesting tactics. I enjoyed the days of 5th edition where I'd outflank scout sentinels with heavy flamers and then assault in order to tie up a deadly shooty unit. I'd just like to be able to use outflank as a way to tie up the enemy as my main force approaches.

Anyway, let me know what you think about these changes...

 ironhammer2194 wrote:
I don't know if this is the right thread, but I feel, that the enter issue with CC being under-powered can be fixed with a couple rule changes.
1. You can charge if you disembark from a transport that hasn't moved yet.
2. assault from outflank.

They're slight changes, but it gives dedicated CC units (genestealers, Khorne zerkers, kommandos) a chance to reach combat in one piece. It's not unfair for shooty armies, because they have interceptor to deal with outflank and anti-vehicle weapons to deal with transports.

Most importantly, it makes for interesting tactics. I enjoyed the days of 5th edition where I'd outflank scout sentinels with heavy flamers and then assault in order to tie up a deadly shooty unit. I'd just like to be able to use outflank as a way to tie up the enemy as my main force approaches.

Anyway, let me know what you think about these changes...

Yep, new rules for outflanking charges made genestealers, red barunz and commandoes pretty useless. But if the allowance to outflank will return - that'll just force more and more annoying ewo rapetides that will not only lower the effectiveness of outflankers but also disable effective deepstriking. Maybe it's better off the way it is. Though, i'd like to see a few exceptions to charge from outflank rules. Probably with some penalties like disordered charge. Would we see genestealers, buzzsaw koptas and commandoes on table doing something useful once again, eh?

And i totally agree on assaulting from a transport that didn't move like in previous edition.

 koooaei wrote:

 ironhammer2194 wrote:
I don't know if this is the right thread, but I feel, that the enter issue with CC being under-powered can be fixed with a couple rule changes.
1. You can charge if you disembark from a transport that hasn't moved yet.
2. assault from outflank.

They're slight changes, but it gives dedicated CC units (genestealers, Khorne zerkers, kommandos) a chance to reach combat in one piece. It's not unfair for shooty armies, because they have interceptor to deal with outflank and anti-vehicle weapons to deal with transports.

Most importantly, it makes for interesting tactics. I enjoyed the days of 5th edition where I'd outflank scout sentinels with heavy flamers and then assault in order to tie up a deadly shooty unit. I'd just like to be able to use outflank as a way to tie up the enemy as my main force approaches.

Anyway, let me know what you think about these changes...

Yep, new rules for outflanking charges made genestealers, red barunz and commandoes pretty useless. But if the allowance to outflank will return - that'll just force more and more annoying ewo rapetides that will not only lower the effectiveness of outflankers but also disable effective deepstriking. Maybe it's better off the way it is. Though, i'd like to see a few exceptions to charge from outflank rules. Probably with some penalties like disordered charge. Would we see genestealers, buzzsaw koptas and commandoes on table doing something useful once again, eh?

And i totally agree on assaulting from a transport that didn't move like in previous edition.

EWO Riptides with Ion Accelerators aren't that good against Outflankers, actually. You don't have to come in as a big lump (unlike Deep Strike), so you can spread to make the blast much weaker.

Ewo riptides are effective against droppods for example. And you don't have to come in as a big lump also. But that's just tau. And imagine if every army has something like this. U could easilly forget about deepstrikers than. And it's not a good thing to fix something with disabling something else. Like gw did with mellee outflankers.
So, you see why i don't really fancy a mass allowance of charging from outflank again. What will people do with white scars? I think that will hurt the ballance instead of helping it.

 koooaei wrote:
Ewo riptides are effective against droppods for example. And you don't have to come in as a big lump also. But that's just tau. And imagine if every army has something like this. U could easilly forget about deepstrikers than. And it's not a good thing to fix something with disabling something else. Like gw did with mellee outflankers.

Depends. If you can place yourself next to one of his units so that he can't place the blast marker without hitting himself, he can't shoot you. Drop Pods got better in 6th due to the 6" disembark move.

So you fancy a charge from outflank? I've written why i think it's not a very good idea. And it was pretty op back in 5 ed. Now it's too underpowered and night useless however.

 koooaei wrote:
So you fancy a charge from outflank? I've written why i think it's not a very good idea. And it was pretty op back in 5 ed. Now it's too underpowered and night useless however.

How was it OP in 5th edition? You knew exactly where he could end up and could take precautions to not be there when he showed up.

Cause mere possibility of meeting commandoes or genestealers forced the enemy to totally change his deployment and gamestyle. Protecting the flanks for the first half of the game with either a bauble wrap or deploying midfield.
I remember my commandoes changing the course of many fights especially vs someone like ig.

 koooaei wrote:
Cause mere possibility of meeting commandoes or genestealers forced the enemy to totally change his deployment and gamestyle. Protecting the flanks for the first half of the game with either a bauble wrap or deploying midfield.
I remember my commandoes changing the course of many fights especially vs someone like ig.

How is that any different from the effects Riptides, Heldrakes or similar units? You have to spread out to avoid taking damage. Drop Pods also require you to bubble-wrap. Why is that only a problem when it's melee units we're talking about?

It's different cause i don't want to make another op cheeze. I'm actually trying to bring some ballance and not 'make them suffer'. I've started this thread cause i feel that cc is nerfed too hard.

As for me, i really like the changes with deaths of the closest, cover for every single model and focus fire. It seems logical and needed. Even though it hurts assaulters a lot. Especially my favorite greentide. But i'm still ok with this changes while i don't understand why we need random charge distances, nerfing charges from transports and rediculous challenge system.

 StarTrotter wrote:
I can't say a LD check charge simply because Nids, daemons, and even orks dont really have high LD.

Using daemons as my best example, they are all ld7, 8, and 9. 9 is restricted to greater daemons. Nids have gribblies at ld6 I believe and then their non synapse are ld7 I think.

They are all Fearless though.

Obviously Nids would ignore this even with IB.

Orks have Mob Rule.

With the existance of Overwatch, I wouldn't mind a change to the rules to allow Assaults from Deepstrike (perhaps as disorganized assaults). I think Outflank charges would fall into the same bucket; shooty units would at least get a chance to gun down their attackers and that would be good enough for me.

With friends I've had pretty decent success balancing out assault and shooting by using more LoS blocking terrain. Seems like a very simple solution. It can be taken too far though, making it nigh impossible to shoot. You don't really even have to change any rules to do this. It just wasn't necessary before when you could assault out of stationary transports

I do really like Stormonu's suggestion of disorganized charges. If we allowed disorganized charges from outflank, deepstrike, and in the same turn you disembarked from a vehicle moving 6" or less (12" or less for fast), I think assault would improve drastically.

I could even see removing the random charge and going back to 6" charge.

JubbJubbz wrote:
With friends I've had pretty decent success balancing out assault and shooting by using more LoS blocking terrain. Seems like a very simple solution. It can be taken too far though, making it nigh impossible to shoot. You don't really even have to change any rules to do this. It just wasn't necessary before when you could assault out of stationary transports

That's too much of an if-come-maybe solution. And Wave Serpents can abuse LoS blocking terrain just fine by being hidden from >50% of the enemy list while focus firing down a target.

Eldar are designed to abuse blos, range and such stuff with their superior speed and overwhelming firepower. Though, i feel they're made to be too durable and cheap for what they get.
I alwayz play on a pre-made map with some decent blos in the middle. Either one large building or many smaller los blockers. Such games are more interesting cause both players have to maneuvre and plan their actions. Even tau start moving a bit! I think that an army with strong assault element ain't supposed to face the opponent in the open-field fluffwise.