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:

 ductvader wrote:
1. 40k run is part of the movement phase

No real change. It will occasionally be annoying when you finish off a unit's only target with your other shooting and can't decide to run them instead of having them stand around uselessly, but most run moves are pretty predictable in the movement phase. Though I'm not sure how credible this is given the fact that GW recently published two codices with special rules that let you shoot and then run, making run moves part of the movement phase would require adding new rules for moving 1D6" after shooting.

2. assault distance is not influenced by terrain, but gives minus two to initiative

Don't like it. Assault units are usually charging units they're going to slaughter effortlessly if they make it into combat. A penalty to charge range is a relevant penalty against a squad of guardsmen, a penalty to initiative isn't since even striking at I1 isn't going to prevent the inevitable slaughter. And this would either make the current initiative penalty redundant (you're I1 and you're at -2 initiative), or it would replace it and become completely irrelevant because pretty much everyone who cares about charging has frag grenades.

3. vector strikes allow armour saves, but deal one to six hits

Don't really care either way. Probably not a major difference since the two changes cancel each other.

4. 40k uses a percentage system for the army list

Huge change, and I hate it. Welcome to the MSU edition. Vehicle squadrons will never be used, and tables will be full of cheap 50-100 point tanks that aren't an efficient use of FOC slots in the current edition. Unfortunately it does seem to fit with what GW is doing recently.

5. you can bring as many different allies as you want. You can spend a fourth of your points on allies, but they also count as their normal category

Not much of a change, but I still hate it. A 25% cap punishes a lot of armies for no good reason, but it's probably not much of a difference for the armies that abuse overpowered buff units. Your divination inquisitors and Tau commanders fit within the 25% limit, and GW's idiocy with formations and single-unit "codices" pretty much makes the FOC irrelevant for allies already.

6. you can bring three allies to a game and must choose one

Unbelievably stupid idea. Why is this even necessary? Why are my allies more flexible than my main army? I doubt this will have any real effect on strategy though because nobody is going to play with this rule.

7. bikes can strike units in 1” in the movement phase without assaulting just like chariots, but can attacked back

It's fluffy, but doesn't make any real difference because nobody will ever use it. If you're 1" away you're getting charged next turn, so all using this rule instead of charging does is allow your opponent to shoot your bikers and/or then get the bonus attacks when they declare their own charge. If this is real then GW clearly doesn't play their own games.

8. fortification and lords of war rules are in, but no profiles

No change. They're already in according to the standard rules of the game, and putting them in the core rulebook isn't going to do anything to convince the people who whine and cry about how they aren't "real 40k".

9.you have to pass a initiative test to shoot overwatching, get minus three to ballistic talent

Another stupid change. Overwatch is a melee stat, why does the fact that my Tau suck at hitting you with a sword mean that they're also terrible at responding to new threats and shooting them to death? It doesn't make much of a difference though, since overwatch is just more tedious dice rolling unless you're Tau. I'll just roll some random pointless dice and then take my dead unit off the table like always.

10. you can engage new unit after victory in melee, but enemy can shoot overwatch again

Also stupid. We've had this before, and it isn't fun. If we go back to the bad old days of "I successfully charged, I win the game" then I'll probably just stop playing completely.

11. you can choose to flee if you are charged but can be destroyed

Awesome change, and a big buff to shooting armies. Your unit is guaranteed to die if you're charged, so fleeing now means that you have a chance of keeping it alive AND you don't allow any risk of leaving the opposing assault unit locked in combat and immune to shooting during your turn. Unfortunately I suspect GW probably doesn't understand how this is going to work outside of their own "narrative" games.

12. if you want to run in 12” of enemy you have to pass a leadertest

Incredibly stupid. Running just becomes even more of a pointless rule. This has no real effect since anyone within 12" of an enemy is probably going to shoot the enemy instead of running.

13. vehicles get no cover saves against infantry, only against other vehicles

Incredibly stupid. This has no effect on strategy because nobody is going to pay any attention to this rule.

I try to respect your opinions, but it's extremely difficult when five of your arguments start with "it's [insert an adverb here] stupid" and two with "I hate it".
And your opinion seems ridiculously one-sided as you stomp ech idea to make assault valid option again and when comes an idea that makes shooting armies even better (as if they weren't OP versus CC-armies already) you praise it. What?

Seriously, I find it truly hard to believe that you are serious here instead of trolling.

 soomemafia wrote:
I try to respect your opinions, but it's extremely difficult when five of your arguments start with "it's [insert an adverb here] stupid" and two with "I hate it".

What am I supposed to do, pretend that bad ideas aren't bad so that I can meet your arbitrary standards of "fairness"? I'll post a response that includes some other descriptions when someone provides some rumors of rules that aren't obviously stupid.

And your opinion seems ridiculously one-sided as you stomp ech idea to make assault valid option again and when comes an idea that makes shooting armies even better (as if they weren't OP versus CC-armies already) you praise it. What?

I praised that one idea because it makes sense fluff-wise: why should my troops be forced to stand and fight instead of falling back when a melee death star attempts to charge them? GW's assumption that everyone, even dedicated shooting units with no hope of doing anything besides dying uselessly, wants to fight in melee is something that has always annoyed me. It's a lot fluffier to make it possible to run away from combat, at the cost of turning your backs on a threat and risking instant death.

And you'll notice that I admitted that it's a huge boost for shooting armies, and I criticized GW for being too stupid to understand that shooting armies want their units to die when charged and treating "chance of death" as a legitimate drawback.

Assault is far inferior to shooting. Assault armies have a hard time against any shooty armies, mainly Tau and Eldar.
Then someone tried to solve that problem with several ideas.

You pronounce each of those ideas bad/stupid and praise the one idea that would make Tau and Eldar even more powerful against shooting armies. Sure that rule makes sense, but so do many of the other rules IMO. And in the terms of game balance many of those rules would be useful.

That's my problem with your post.

And out of curiousity, how is the idea of taking an Initiative test (the same logic already works in Blind and makes sense) a rule "obviously stupid"?

 soomemafia wrote:
Assault is far inferior to shooting. Assault armies have a hard time against any shooty armies, mainly Tau and Eldar.

Good. Hitting people with swords should be inferior in a scifi game with guns. The only reasons it's even remotely viable are the IGOUGO system and the laughably short weapon ranges. Scale the whole game to true 28mm and allow a proper action/reaction system and you'll never get a melee unit into combat. Your melee army is just like screamerstar or 5th edition wound allocation abuse, you're exploiting a broken game mechanic to gain an advantage. Be glad you get what you have now.

Then someone tried to solve that problem with several ideas.

That doesn't mean anything if they're bad ideas. Anyone can "solve" the assault problem and make assault armies win more often, the hard part is doing it right. And you don't get credit for effort.

You pronounce each of those ideas bad/stupid and praise the one idea that would make Tau and Eldar even more powerful against shooting armies. Sure that rule makes sense, but so do many of the other rules IMO. And in the terms of game balance many of those rules would be useful.

No, the other ones aren't good rules.

An initiative penalty instead of a distance penalty for moving through cover is a bad rule because most of the time it's redundant. Even if frag grenades don't negate it entirely it doesn't really matter if your death star is I2 instead of I4 against a half-dead squad of guardsmen, you're going to slaughter them effortlessly. If you're going to replace a relevant penalty with an irrelevant one then just remove the terrain penalty entirely.

Bikes hitting from 1" away without charging is a stupid rule because it's almost always inferior to just declaring a charge. Nobody will ever use it, so why put it in the book?

Initiative tests for overwatch are bad because initiative is a melee stat, not a shooting stat, and because it adds more tedious dice rolling. Overwatch is already pretty much pointless if you aren't Tau, most of the time you just roll a bunch of dice and do nothing to change the inevitable outcome of the charge. Adding more dice rolling to see if you're allowed to roll dice is stupid, if you're so determined to nerf overwatch then just remove it entirely and save time.

Consolidating into combat is utterly broken. We've had that rule in the past and it wasn't fun. Once a melee army got into charge range it would just slaughter its way through everything, with no real chance to fight back because it was always locked in combat and immune to shooting.

And out of curiousity, how is the idea of taking an Initiative test (the same logic already works in Blind and makes sense) a rule "obviously stupid"?

Blind is a stupid rule.

And an initiative test for overwatch is stupid because initiative is a melee stat. A Tau fire warrior is I2 to represent their poor melee ability, but they shouldn't be far below average in shooting an incoming melee unit to death, especially since setting up a good defensive position to repel a charge is just basic tactics. This new rule would only make sense if you separate initiative into two stats, one for melee and one for shooting.

Sorry Peregrine but I totally agree with soomemafia. Every time assault should get a buff you find some reasons to call it stupid or what ever. Shooty armies are strong enough, no reason for another candy. Youre arguments are totally one sided and not a bit objective.

If it comes to logic, you have to remove overwatch completely from the game or you have to pass the shooting in your Shooting Phase to fire overwatch, cause guns dont fire faster when an enemy closes up.

initiative is a melee stat

In my understanding Initiative represents the capability of a unit to adapt quickly to a new situation. So its not a pure melee stat

That doesn't mean anything if they're bad ideas.

So youre the ultimate judge about good and bad ideas?

An initiative penalty instead of a distance penalty for moving through cover is a bad rule because most of the time it's redundant. Even if frag grenades don't negate it entirely it doesn't really matter if your death star is I2 instead of I4 against a half-dead squad of guardsmen, you're going to slaughter them effortlessly. If you're going to replace a relevant penalty with an irrelevant one then just remove the terrain penalty entirely.

Oh boy... -2 I is still a significant disadvantage. Maybe not against Tau, what seems to be your only argument, poor weak Tau needs to be protected. Want an example?

---> Genestealers. They have got no Grenades and Ini 6. When they assault some Marines, the Marines can dish out the full amount of attacks against a unit thats main benefit is to kill everything before it can strike back. Against Eldar they might not get the chance to do any demage, cause they have to get through overwatch and wait until all the CC attacks of the eldar are done.

High I and S paired with a low AP weapon are what makes a good CC unit good. WS isnt important most of the times. So a I penalty could make the difference if you have no grenades.

Good. Hitting people with swords should be inferior in a scifi game with guns. The only reasons it's even remotely viable are the IGOUGO system and the laughably short weapon ranges. Scale the whole game to true 28mm and allow a proper action/reaction system and you'll never get a melee unit into combat. Your melee army is just like screamerstar or 5th edition wound allocation abuse, you're exploiting a broken game mechanic to gain an advantage. Be glad you get what you have now.

Its also a fantasy game. Assault was always a part of 40k and would ever be. If you want a realistic setup, go and find you another game. Assault makes the game much more interesting. Guess what? Most people find it totally boring to throw dice at each other when playing gunline vs gunline.

 ductvader wrote:
So I am taking no faith in the current rumor set.

But, I was wondering...If these turn out to be true...how would things change?



1. 40k run is part of the movement phase good. Just saves time, no real change in armies.
2. assault distance is not influenced by terrain, but gives minus two to initiative high init units like wyches would enjoy this, also yay for a nudge for assault viability.
3. vector strikes allow armour saves, but deal one to six hits Not a big enough change to cause a commotion.
4. 40k uses a percentage system for the army list THIS is the major one. I guess you just CAN'T take fateweaver in a 1k point game? Or Sanguinor, or a few other 'spensive guys. And then there's honor guard/court type units. I suppose the necron lists that had a court of lords all leading their own units won't work anymore if that's the case. At least you can only fit 2 riptides in 2k. I'm assuming wave serpents will still be fine due to being dedicated. This may bring down a deathstar or two, but is sacrificing some build freedom to do it.
5. you can bring as many different allies as you want. You can spend a fourth of your points on allies, but they also count as their normal category I wonder if this means you can literally cherry pick from an ally, instead of having to take a 1 HQ/ 1 troop tax? I could snag a jump pack iron hands chapter master to go with some of my Blood Angels I guess. Or you could snag JUST a stormraven from the marines for air support? Seems like a lot of possible brokenness here if it works that way. If you still have to fit compulsories in AND obey the 25% limit, then it's a bit less powerful than now.
6. you can bring three allies to a game and must choose one I like sideboards. It's a pretty good way to address issues between fringe lists like knight armies against TAC lists. Just have one of your sideboard forces be heavy anti-armor.
7. bikes can strike units in 1” in the movement phase without assaulting just like chariots, but can attacked back Because bikes needed to be MORE awesome. (roll eyes)
8. fortification and lords of war rules are in, but no profiles /shrug
9.you have to pass a initiative test to shoot overwatching, get minus three to ballistic talent I would've preferred -2, since I think a marine/eldar ought to hit shots from the hip more often than orks, but it's a step in the right direction. I DO like the idea that some of the best marksmen in the entire universe now snapshot better than an ork. (In fact I thought it was beyond silly that they didn't.) Also again a slight nudge towards assault. Highly needed. The only army really hurt by this is Tau, and they could take a pounding with nerf bats right now and still come out okay.
10. you can engage new unit after victory in melee, but enemy can shoot overwatch again yaaaaaay. I've never been a fan of wiping out an enemy unit just in time to stand 1" away from the rest of their army getting shot. I do wonder if the 2nd engaged unit has the opportunity to flee. If you run down a unit that flees, and consolidate into the next, and they flee, can you run them down too? Could you consolidate into a THIRD unit if you did?
11. you can choose to flee if you are charged but can be destroyedI'm having trouble thinking of many situations where you would WANT to risk your unit getting destroyed without at least taking some wild lucky swipes in melee. I can see fleeing from orks, nurgle, and necrons, but then again, if a unit is so bad at melee that they would rather outright flee, their initiative ALSO probably sucks, so even running from the slow guys would be risking your unit for almost no reason. I think I'd just always have the fire warriors or what have you take their free attempts at melee damage before dying, rather than getting run over because they turned around.
12. if you want to run in 12” of enemy you have to pass a leadertest \o.o/ This rule seems really...random
13. vehicles get no cover saves against infantry, only against other vehicles "My missile launcher dev can see a tread of that razorback behind your bastion. No cover, normal roll to hit." How utterly silly. Also, does this mean any vehicle with jink can't evade infantry shooting? What if it had a cover save from another source, like night fight, or a psychic power? This rule seems completely unnecessary, and creates some very odd situations. I guess I wouldn't take shield of sanguinius for furioso libbies anymore. On the other hand, I guess devastators are gonna be better than predators for anti-tank.



So as an exercise...assuming the above is 100% true (you might have to take some liberties) How would it change your tactics for specific units or armies?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

tag8833 wrote:

Good lord buddy, The idea was to Decrease the scenarios where one army can't engage with another. And you want to make it so that S4 can't even touch AV 10?

He seems to have av 10 as toughness 7, unless my eyes are deceiving me. That would mean a 6+ to wound by strength 4 sir, much like it would be a 6+ to damage AV 10.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MasterOfGaunts wrote:

Its also a fantasy game. Assault was always a part of 40k and would ever be. If you want a realistic setup, go and find you another game. Assault makes the game much more interesting. Guess what? Most people find it totally boring to throw dice at each other when playing gunline vs gunline.

QFT

niv-mizzet wrote:

tag8833 wrote:

Good lord buddy, The idea was to Decrease the scenarios where one army can't engage with another. And you want to make it so that S4 can't even touch AV 10?

He seems to have av 10 as toughness 7, unless my eyes are deceiving me. That would mean a 6+ to wound by strength 4 sir, much like it would be a 6+ to damage AV 10.

I suggested approximately 6 while overhauling the Pen table. ductvader suggested 7, which is closer to what we have now. DanielBeaver suggested 8, which I thought was excessive. I think 7 is excessive too for my pen table overhaul, but it isn't that far off. Mapping 8 to my proposed pen table, and it is impossible to explode armor 12 and above, and requires strength 7 to glance it. So in order to kill a storm raven, you would have to hit it 3 times with S7 and roll 6's to pen every time in order to kill it. You would need S8 in CC to be able to glance a Soul Grinder.

I think 40k already has too many situations where a list is unable to engage another list be they re-rollable 2++ or insane mobility or flyers or Vehicle armor or Daemons with Iron Arm. I think this creates a game that isn't as fun as it should be, and I would hope that any rules changes try to increase the abilities of armies to interact rather than decrease it.

 Peregrine wrote:
Good. Hitting people with swords should be inferior in a scifi game with guns. The only reasons it's even remotely viable are the IGOUGO system and the laughably short weapon ranges. Scale the whole game to true 28mm and allow a proper action/reaction system and you'll never get a melee unit into combat. Your melee army is just like screamerstar or 5th edition wound allocation abuse, you're exploiting a broken game mechanic to gain an advantage. Be glad you get what you have now.

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense. For one thing, the 41st millenium is a place of ceramite armour and force fields. Any rule set that is to accurately represent the 41st millenium should make these defensive technologies sufficient enough to allow units to make it into assault despite the torrents of fire they are being hit with. Any rule set that invalidates close combat would not accurately reflect the reality of 41st millenium combat.

 Peregrine wrote:

 soomemafia wrote:
Assault is far inferior to shooting. Assault armies have a hard time against any shooty armies, mainly Tau and Eldar.

Good. Hitting people with swords should be inferior in a scifi game with guns. The only reasons it's even remotely viable are the IGOUGO system and the laughably short weapon ranges. Scale the whole game to true 28mm and allow a proper action/reaction system and you'll never get a melee unit into combat. Your melee army is just like screamerstar or 5th edition wound allocation abuse, you're exploiting a broken game mechanic to gain an advantage. Be glad you get what you have now.

I'm glad that we're finally starting to get some realism in warhammer 40000. When I first heard about a universe full of super soldiers, demons, aliens, and lasers, I was so excited. Then I found out that the weapons did not preform like 21st century weapons and that combat tactics did not reflect current doctrines. I was a little disappointed to say the least. It just makes it so hard to enjoy a scifi universe when there's such a break in reality. Now, I don't want to here any arguments about how technology, armor, and other improvements from 38000 years could change this. After all warfare has not changed much in several thousand years. I only hope that they further hinder these rule abusing assault armies (it's not like they make models designed for close combat or GW put a turn phase called assault) and continue to increase the realism. Maybe in the next addition they will finally include logistics and make you calculate out how you would supply your army or maybe even make mission where you never leave your position and just sit around the firebase awaiting orders. This would make the whole game much more realistic and enjoyable to all.

GorillaWarfare wrote:
This doesn't make a whole lot of sense. For one thing, the 41st millenium is a place of ceramite armour and force fields. Any rule set that is to accurately represent the 41st millenium should make these defensive technologies sufficient enough to allow units to make it into assault despite the torrents of fire they are being hit with. Any rule set that invalidates close combat would not accurately reflect the reality of 41st millenium combat.

Err, no. If ceramite armor is so awesome at stopping plasma guns/lascannons/etc then how exactly does getting into melee help? A guardsman trying to club a marine with his gun instead of shooting the marine with it isn't going to magically have a better chance of success. And if you have ceramite armor that is near-perfect protection then why go running into melee where someone can precisely target a weak spot? Just stay back and shoot them to death with precision bolter fire as their desperate lasgun shots bounce off your invulnerable armor.

MasterOfGaunts wrote:
If it comes to logic, you have to remove overwatch completely from the game or you have to pass the shooting in your Shooting Phase to fire overwatch, cause guns dont fire faster when an enemy closes up.

And, as I've said before, I'm in favor of removing overwatch entirely instead of nerfing it again and again until it's just more tedious dice to roll for little or no effect. I think the current system is a badly designed attempt to make the IGOUGO system less completely unrealistic, and it wouldn't exist in a proper action/reaction system.

In my understanding Initiative represents the capability of a unit to adapt quickly to a new situation. So its not a pure melee stat

Except it isn't used that way 99% of the time. Outside of a couple random (and badly designed) rules like blind it's purely about how fast you swing in melee, and its values reflect that use. Melee units have high initiative, units/armies that are bad in melee have low initiative. When we look at reactions outside of melee combat we see things like special rules, leadership tests, etc.

So youre the ultimate judge about good and bad ideas?

Oh boo hoo. If you think I'm being too harsh about these ideas then tell me how they're good ideas, don't just complain that I'm criticizing them too much.

Oh boy... -2 I is still a significant disadvantage. Maybe not against Tau, what seems to be your only argument, poor weak Tau needs to be protected. Want an example?

It's not about protecting Tau, it's about making a relevant penalty. A penalty that rarely matters is just a waste of rules text. If you're going to make charging through terrain have such a minor and often irrelevant penalty then just remove the terrain rules entirely, and have charges work the same as in clear terrain.

And yes, it penalizes a very small number of units like genestealers. That makes it a special-case rule with little relevance in general, which is bad design.

Guess what? Most people find it totally boring to throw dice at each other when playing gunline vs gunline.

Oh FFS, please stop repeating this absurd straw man. Games that don't have screaming idiots with swords aren't just gunline vs. gunline. You only have gunlines dominating 40k because the core mechanics are broken: the scale is not true 28mm, the IGOUGO system removes any strategic depth beyond "point my unit at a target and see how much damage I do", and the broken TLOS rules (helped by the laughable amount of terrain most people play with) reduce the game to throwing buckets of dice at each other and minimize the value of movement.

And just to give the obvious counter-example again, X-Wing has no melee combat at all and yet you'd be an idiot if you claimed that it was all boring gunline vs. gunline games.

I wont answer to eveything, cause it takes me to much time to write in english, so i am sorry for that.

And just to give the obvious counter-example again, X-Wing has no melee combat at all and yet you'd be an idiot if you claimed that it was all boring gunline vs. gunline games.

Sure you can have fun without Melee and some tactical dept. But if I want a game without melee i dont play 40k. Melee is a part of it. If you dont like it, thats your problem.

If you think I'm being too harsh about these ideas then tell me how they're good ideas, don't just complain that I'm criticizing them too much.

to keep it short: in some points I agree with you, in other ones I dont. The Problem is the way you make your statements. An-"I am right, you are wrong"-attitude isnt a good start for a conversation.

GorillaWarfare wrote:
This doesn't make a whole lot of sense. For one thing, the 41st millenium is a place of ceramite armour and force fields. Any rule set that is to accurately represent the 41st millenium should make these defensive technologies sufficient enough to allow units to make it into assault despite the torrents of fire they are being hit with. Any rule set that invalidates close combat would not accurately reflect the reality of 41st millenium combat.


Err, no. If ceramite armor is so awesome at stopping plasma guns/lascannons/etc then how exactly does getting into melee help? A guardsman trying to club a marine with his gun instead of shooting the marine with it isn't going to magically have a better chance of success. And if you have ceramite armor that is near-perfect protection then why go running into melee where someone can precisely target a weak spot? Just stay back and shoot them to death with precision bolter fire as their desperate lasgun shots bounce off your invulnerable armor.

Maybe cause a close and personal fight could break the morale of the Defender and causes a lot of confusion in the enemy ranks? Maybe because Guardsman are a bigger thread to a power armor guy, when they keep on Shooting and are easily slaughtered in CC? Who knows, its a Fantasy SciFi Setup and its totally arrogant to predict whats realistic in 38000 years. Just 1000 years ago you would have been an idiot if you have said that its possible to fly. If GW says melee is a big thing in their universe, it is. You cant prove it wrong with realism. Realism =/= 40k.

MasterOfGaunts wrote:
Maybe because Guardsman are a bigger thread to a power armor guy, when they keep on Shooting and are easily slaughtered in CC?

If guardsmen are a threat in a shooting fight then you don't have this supposed invulnerable power armor that makes shooting ineffective and forces you to close to melee range to kill anything. If lasguns are a threat and the game is scaled to true 28mm then you might have to spend 10-20 turns or more moving forward, getting shot with lasguns (and worse) the whole time, before you can get into charge range. The only way you're going to survive that approach is if your armor is so durable that you literally can't be hurt by ranged attacks.

Just 1000 years ago you would have been an idiot if you have said that its possible to fly.

No, you would have been an idiot if you said that it wasn't possible to fly. Everyone knew flying was possible, because everyone knew that birds exist. The only thing standing in the way of human flight was the engineering challenge of building an airplane, especially getting an engine with a high enough power to weight ratio. It took us a while to accomplish that goal, but everyone with any understanding of the problem knew that it was a question of when and how we would be able to fly, not if.

If GW says melee is a big thing in their universe, it is. You cant prove it wrong with realism. Realism =/= 40k.

Actually you can prove it wrong with realism. This isn't a case of "my weapon should be more powerful", it's basic scaling and the limited table size. Movement distances and weapon ranges aren't done at the same 28mm scale as the models, which is the only thing that allows assault units to survive long enough to charge. Meanwhile the limited table size forces the battle to begin at absurdly close range, and the arbitrary edge of the table prevents shooting units from falling back and continuing to shoot. Play a battle on a 100'x100' table with realistic weapon ranges (and, ideally, with IGOUGO replaced by a decent action/reaction system), and melee combat will almost never happen.

Khorne disapproves of this talk of abolishing melee combat.

Khorne demands that you messily splatter all the things in glorious battle in a fit of limitless rage and hatred!

Teleport the daemonic armies of wrath right before your cowardly opponents and rip them limb from limb so that their blood may flow eternal!

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!

SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!

LET! THE GALAXY! BUUUUUURRRNNN!!!!!

 Peregrine wrote:

 soomemafia wrote:
And out of curiousity, how is the idea of taking an Initiative test (the same logic already works in Blind and makes sense) a rule "obviously stupid"?

Blind is a stupid rule.

...

Oh for God's sake do you even try to use your brains here?
Melee is a part of this game because it adds depth in it. And since melee is in the game, it would at least be sufficent to make it a valid part of the game.
In the 40k universe people use close combat. You clearly think that is wrong and you justify it by arguments like "the board isn't big enough" or "it isn't a realistic option to charge". But if you have bothered to even take a glimpse at this universe you realise it isn't.
For the whole time you seem to be playing a whole different game and using the standards of that game for your arguments.

But this is the game I play. It has some uneealistic rules because there needs to be a balance between the story-based side and the working mechanism of gameplay.

A rule gives assaulted units an opportunity to withdraw. (Helps shooties)
"It may be bad for the game mechanism, but it's still an excellent rule because it makes sense on the realistic way"

A rule makes charging units strike slower when they charge through terrain. (Helps CC-units)
"It makes sense on the realistic way, but it's still a stupid rule because it's bad for game mechanism"

Those are basicly your arguments (a bit streamlined, yes).
You clearly have an unfair and subjective point of view in this matter and I don't even know why I'm speaking about this thing with you as you don't seem to need any more justification than your own opinion, which is of course superior to everyone else's.

 soomemafia wrote:
A rule makes charging units strike slower when they charge through terrain. (Helps CC-units)
"It makes sense on the realistic way, but it's still a stupid rule because it's bad for game mechanism.

Oh FFS, could you please read my posts before complaining about them? My objection to this has nothing to do with whether or not units should be penalized for charging through terrain, it's that if you're going to have a penalty for charging through terrain then it should be a relevant penalty so it isn't just another rule to add to the bloated mess. I would prefer no penalty at all to an irrelevant one like the rumored/proposed rule, so it's absolutely ridiculous to claim that I oppose it just because it helps assault units.

Ah it's always fun to watch people argue with Peregrine...

I, personally, enjoy melee. Is it realistic? No, but this is a game with daemons, space magic and half-fungus aliens.

These things don't appeal to Peregrine (he's said it before) and that's his view. Do we agree with it? No, he doesn't agree with us either, and that's perfectly fine!


Now OT...


EDIT: Added spoiler so post is less wall-of-text-y

As I understand the allies rules.

Say I have a 2000 pts army.

I bring 1500 pts of Eldar.

Now to any game I can bring:
500 pts of Tau
500 pts of Dark Eldar
500 pts of White Scars

And once I get to that game...I must pick one of them to be my ally for the game.

OR

I took 2000 points of Eldar...no choice and so no forced choosing.

I also believe these rules idicate that allied forced count towards percentages in the army...so You're Tau player can't take 6 broadsides and a wraithknight in 2000 points.

But without any kind of FoC In 2000pts I could also take 15 units of 1 Shadow Weaver Vaul's Wrath...or 12 units of 1 biovore...so there's that.

Ah it's always fun to watch people argue with Peregrine...

Its a Little bit like talking to a wall, a wall of ignorance, but i ll giv my best to enjoy you.

If guardsmen are a threat in a shooting fight then you don't have this supposed invulnerable power armor that makes shooting ineffective and forces you to close to melee range to kill anything. If lasguns are a threat and the game is scaled to true 28mm then you might have to spend 10-20 turns or more moving forward, getting shot with lasguns (and worse) the whole time, before you can get into charge range. The only way you're going to survive that approach is if your armor is so durable that you literally can't be hurt by ranged attacks.

Just teleport them right beneath te guys they want to slay

Just 1000 years ago you would have been an idiot if you have said that its possible to fly.

No, you would have been an idiot if you said that it wasn't possible to fly. Everyone knew flying was possible, because everyone knew that birds exist. The only thing standing in the way of human flight was the engineering challenge of building an airplane, especially getting an engine with a high enough power to weight ratio. It took us a while to accomplish that goal, but everyone with any understanding of the problem knew that it was a question of when and how we would be able to fly, not if.

Oh my god... use your brain! I thought it was obvious that i ment human flight. And for that... well... as far as I know the common sense on that Topic was it is impossible, until the devil is with you. Just a few educated guys had some ideas how it might work... and they lived a dangerous life as far as i remember... but never mind. If you think you can predict everything from todays common point of view, go on...

If GW says melee is a big thing in their universe, it is. You cant prove it wrong with realism. Realism =/= 40k.

Actually you can prove it wrong with realism.

No you cant. Its a FANTASY SciFi Universe. It follows its own logic. You cant prove the warp to be wrong with realism. You cant prove the gods to be wrong with realism, even in reality by the way. So if they say melee is back... you cant prove it wrong, cause its Fantasy. NOBODY (except you maybe) expects a Fantasy world to be totally realistic.

And from a gameplay aspect... as somebody else turned out, it gives the game tactical dept. But as I said before, go and play another game, cause you wont get 40k without melee and assault based armies.

I'd use the allies rules to make a composite Dark angels/Iron hands/Imperial guard/Sisters army to go on the most awesome crusade yet.

 Peregrine wrote:

GorillaWarfare wrote:
This doesn't make a whole lot of sense. For one thing, the 41st millenium is a place of ceramite armour and force fields. Any rule set that is to accurately represent the 41st millenium should make these defensive technologies sufficient enough to allow units to make it into assault despite the torrents of fire they are being hit with. Any rule set that invalidates close combat would not accurately reflect the reality of 41st millenium combat.

Err, no. If ceramite armor is so awesome at stopping plasma guns/lascannons/etc then how exactly does getting into melee help?

I don't understand your point. Being able to resist firepower doesn't make melee more helpful. Melee is still as helpful as it has ever been, its just that with ceramite armor and other defensive technology it actually become possible to engage the enemy in close combat. Close combat is helpful because it can allow you to rapidly root an enemy out of cover. Why sit back and shoot at a bastion when you can run forward and destroy it melta bombs, drop grenades inside, or perhaps enter it and destroy the enemy in hand to hand combat? Ceramite armor is a tool
that allows you to do this.

A guardsman trying to club a marine with his gun instead of shooting the marine with it isn't going to magically have a better chance of success.

Another reason to engage the guardsmen in close combat. The guardsmen are even less of a threat. I wouldn't expect the guardsmen to assault the marines, and generally on the tabletop you don't see that. Knowing that you blob of guardsmen is likely to get assaulted, then it is wise to prepare with some close combat weapons like power axes.

And if you have ceramite armor that is near-perfect protection then why go running into melee where someone can precisely target a weak spot? Just stay back and shoot them to death with precision bolter fire as their desperate lasgun shots bounce off your invulnerable armor.

I see tactical squads hang back and rapid fire their bolters all the time. Its the sensible thing to do. But if the enemy unit is in heavy cover it is perhaps better to use a cover defeating weapon, or assault them. In the real world, we would of course use some cover defeating weapon, but in the 41st millenium you have more options thanks to different and more advanced technology.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:


I'm glad that we're finally starting to get some realism in warhammer 40000. When I first heard about a universe full of super soldiers, demons, aliens, and lasers, I was so excited. Then I found out that the weapons did not preform like 21st century weapons and that combat tactics did not reflect current doctrines.

You are talking about combat tactics and doctrines that are based off of technology that is constantly changing. There is nothing about our modern times that is 'true' or 'permanent'. Everything will change. I think I understand your point though. You were looking for a game with 20th century combat tactics in a setting with deamons and lasers, which is 100% valid.

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:


I'm glad that we're finally starting to get some realism in warhammer 40000. When I first heard about a universe full of super soldiers, demons, aliens, and lasers, I was so excited. Then I found out that the weapons did not preform like 21st century weapons and that combat tactics did not reflect current doctrines.

You are talking about combat tactics and doctrines that are based off of technology that is constantly changing. There is nothing about our modern times that is 'true' or 'permanent'. Everything will change. I think I understand your point though. You were looking for a game with 20th century combat tactics in a setting with deamons and lasers, which is 100% valid.

Maybe I am wrong, cause my english isnt the best, but I think hes been ironic...

Maybe in the next addition they will finally include logistics and make you calculate out how you would supply your army or maybe even make mission where you never leave your position and just sit around the firebase awaiting orders. This would make the whole game much more realistic and enjoyable to all.

MasterOfGaunts wrote:

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:


I'm glad that we're finally starting to get some realism in warhammer 40000. When I first heard about a universe full of super soldiers, demons, aliens, and lasers, I was so excited. Then I found out that the weapons did not preform like 21st century weapons and that combat tactics did not reflect current doctrines.

You are talking about combat tactics and doctrines that are based off of technology that is constantly changing. There is nothing about our modern times that is 'true' or 'permanent'. Everything will change. I think I understand your point though. You were looking for a game with 20th century combat tactics in a setting with deamons and lasers, which is 100% valid.

Maybe I am wrong, cause my english isnt the best, but I think hes been ironic...

Maybe in the next addition they will finally include logistics and make you calculate out how you would supply your army or maybe even make mission where you never leave your position and just sit around the firebase awaiting orders. This would make the whole game much more realistic and enjoyable to all.

Ha! I think your right. That went right over my head.

1. 40k run is part of the movement phase

I think this makes more sense and would speed up the game since you won't move all your units then go back and move them all again. I also think run should be movement distance + X since for basic infantry standard move is 6" but when they want to put on the speed only move 4"

2. assault distance is not influenced by terrain, but gives minus two to initiative

This I think is a much better way of doing things.

3. vector strikes allow armour saves, but deal one to six hits

I don't think this will change anything. It pretty much seems to be a lateral move. Maybe make the AP of the attack the number rolled for hits (1 = FMC dives and nails a unit with its full force, 6 = FMC dives and drags its claws/tail/etc through the crowd)

4. 40k uses a percentage system for the army list

I'm not sure how this would work but modifying the FoC would probably be easier than changing everything to percentages. Make it so you unlock 1 slot from fast attack, heavy support, and elite for every 2 troop choices you take and the second HQ once you take 3 Troop choices. This should spread out the points a bit more and help mitigate spams like trip-tide. could also add that the point totals from each of the slots individually cannot exceed your troops. I think this would go a long way to preventing spam. Another option that might work would be to add a point tax to units (not troops) that are spammed.

5. you can bring as many different allies as you want. You can spend a fourth of your points on allies, but they also count as their normal category

I disagree with having allies in the game to begin with. This sentiment is further enforced by the broken nature with which they did the allies table. Battle brothers should never have existed and the fact that they made an army that cannot ally with anyone further exacerbates the broken nature of this system. It's just a push to sell more models by GW which I understand they want to do since that's what they're in the business to do but they'll make more money by making each army a viable option on its own rather than pushing broken combos and broken lists.

6. you can bring three allies to a game and must choose one

As stated previously it makes no sense for your main army to be inflexible in what it brings but making who you ally with flexible on a per game basis.

7. bikes can strike units in 1” in the movement phase without assaulting just like chariots, but can attacked back

I think bikes should work like vehicles in that they are not actually "engaged" in melee. Instead they should attack as they ride through/past the enemy. It makes no sense that a guy on a bike rides into an enemy unit swinging away merrily and stops. They should be allowed their full allotment of attacks as normal but at the end of the round units should automatically disengage.

8. fortification and lords of war rules are in, but no profiles

I figured this would happen and even though I have not read either of the books (was waiting to see if they would get put into the new book) I think LoW belong in a different game. Being able to wipe out large numbers of units with no saves in a standard game is very overpowered.

9.you have to pass a initiative test to shoot overwatching, get minus three to ballistic talent

I really like this rule (I play Tau as well). In order to compensate for this just give certain armies a bonus to the roll as an army wide bonus or make it a warlord trait.

10. you can engage new unit after victory in melee, but enemy can shoot overwatch again

I think this rule could be beneficial but would need to be done properly. To many times back in the day my BA would just chain assaults and walk through the enemy

11. you can choose to flee if you are charged but can be destroyed

This rule would be much better than HAVING to engage an opponent in melee if you stand no chance of winning or even doing anything to them. I like the idea that your flee roll has to exceed your opponents charge roll or you are wiped out. The player charging should be allowed to move the distance rolled even though they didn't connect and there should be no overwatch fire from any unit into the assaulting unit if they flee... that then makes it a choice.

12. if you want to run in 12” of enemy you have to pass a leadertest

This rule makes no sense and cripples fast moving or assault units.

13. vehicles get no cover saves against infantry, only against other vehicles

Vehicle cover saves should have a range, They get a cover save if outside 12" OR partially covered by terrain or models. Then make it a piece of vehicle wargear to double it or add 6".

1) Running part of movement : So how do orders (which are part of the shooting phase) which effect running work? I will also note that they just put out the limited edition order cards including an order for running.

2)Assault giving -2 to initiative buffs ThunderHammer/Powerfist etc terminators, and any other unit that struck at Initiative 1 anyways, screws middle of the road fighers, and leaves your top tier initiatives unconcerned. Because doublestrength power weapons needed to be improved.

3)Flyers are dead in my meta, Fail to care.

4) FoC being changed to Percentages? Nice, that new HQ Tank Squadron IG/AM got will become alot more limited depending on the point range (Pask in a Punisher w/ Las & MM, supported by 2 Exterminators with HB is 550, more than 25% of a 2000 point list)

5)Formations are now illegal? games under 1k points can't take Knight allies? Could completely shake certain things up.

6)Buildig a list that can take 3 different allies, then you pick one depending on what you're facing? So now you can legally tailor your list prematch, while not actually altering your list. Brilliant. TFG's will be happy to choose either anti-horde allies, anti-MC/Terminator, or anti-vehicle.

7)Bikes. Those are cute. People still take them with inquisitors everywhere?

8)My meta adapted to Escalation & Strong Assault when they came out. I remember watching a Baneblade placed in the middle of an armored column, because the IG player had first turn. Well. Should have. Enemy seized. Rolled well in shooting. Titantic Explosion rolled. Scattered into column. Pens everywhere. Most of the IG army wiped out. Lots of laughs, don't see too many super-heavies because some bad rolls will hurt alot worse with such a concentration of points.

9)Initiative Test. So that means you'll never get to actually have overwatch against something thats better in close combat. This seems....silly? The whole rolling 6's to hit on overwatch anyways was supposed to represent panicky hip-fire. Whats the initiative test for? That the enemy you've been watching for a few turns move up to your position surprising you? Its asinine, and it hurts those that are already going to die in close combat.

10)So assault will get to non-consensually rear-end sex your backfield with no possibility of ever shooting them, and the only consolation we get is the JUST nerfed above overwatch? Yeah, No thanks. The problem of balancing shooting vs close combat is its a very binary exercise. Many of the armies that are good at CC are bad at shooting and vice versa. So you end up with "If CC army reaches close combat, Shooty army loses. If Shooty army can prevent CC army from close combat, CC army loses" Which means the entire game will come down to how the shooting goes for the shooty army in the first 2 turns. IF he doesn't kill enough, whoops, games over. Don't need anything else to the game. It will just be the CC army charging, killing, consolodating, re-charging, and murdering the entire backfield with the shooting army having no recourse.

I'll take this as a valid rule ONLY if we get the ability to shoot into close combat. Sure, Charge my guardsmen. My Leman Russ will happily murder both the guardsmen and your much more expensive Banshees.

11.Im' guessing it'll be a swept Initiative test. In which case the already sucky-in-close-combat low initiativers will also suck at running away.

12" Because most of those that would run within this distance don't already have stupid high leadership or rules messing with LD tests? I fail to see this having a useful difference except on demons.

13. Yes. Because vehicles need to be more vulnerable to Dev Squads/Grav Guns/Meltas in ruins. This would also completely invalidate camo-netting, ADL's for vehicles and smoke launchers. Why bother with any of this when you can get either a Divination Psyker or a PFG for a 4++ save that won't get negated because you're getting shot by infantry?