Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think the problem here lays in Wyches.

Wyches, guys? They're not soldiers. They don't belong on the battlefield. They belong in an arena, fighting against other wyches. That's where they show their awesome.

Charging a decent battle line of riflemen? Well, duh, of course they get destroyed.

The way to fix Wyches? Give them access to a Rending weapon upgrade or something.

 vipoid wrote:
I think it would be nice if Overwatch was a bit more tactical. e.g. if you could chose to go on overwatch instead of shooting, but got to resolve it at full BS.

If nothing else, I think 40k could benefit from more in-game options.

 Peregrine wrote:
This is yet another problem that is solved by remembering that this is a scifi game and guns are inherently superior to swords.

So why can't you shoot them in combat? Or into combat?

Instead, if some Tau Fire Warriors get assaulted by a Daemon Prince, they think the best thing to do is run towards it and attempt to hit it with their rifle butts.

Shooting into a combat at a MC or walker should be an option, though that's another issue entirely.

 TheSilo wrote:

Shooting into a combat at a MC or walker should be an option, though that's another issue entirely.

Even when my infantry are engaged with enemy infantry, I still don't see why I can't shoot into combat.

I mean, the claim that commanders won't risk hitting their own men runs a bit thin, when there's a game mechanic that lets IG Commissars diligently shoot their own squad at point-blank range.

There's a difference between needlessly wasting your own troops versus giving them a little 'motivation'

Charging into the kill-zone of a machine-gun nest is rarely a good idea, and rarely something a soldier gets to do twice.

 TheSilo wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I think it would be nice if Overwatch was a bit more tactical. e.g. if you could chose to go on overwatch instead of shooting, but got to resolve it at full BS.

If nothing else, I think 40k could benefit from more in-game options.

 Peregrine wrote:
This is yet another problem that is solved by remembering that this is a scifi game and guns are inherently superior to swords.

So why can't you shoot them in combat? Or into combat?

Instead, if some Tau Fire Warriors get assaulted by a Daemon Prince, they think the best thing to do is run towards it and attempt to hit it with their rifle butts.

Shooting into a combat at a MC or walker should be an option, though that's another issue entirely.

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"

 Ghaz wrote:
There's a difference between needlessly wasting your own troops versus giving them a little 'motivation'

But, again, I don't see how shooting into a melee is 'needlessly wasting' troops. Especially since you're only going to do it if you're losing badly - in which case those troops are dead anyway.

Worst case scenario - you kill your own men, instead of your opponent killing them.
Best case scenario - you kill the enemies, saving those otherwise-doomed soldiers in the process.

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"

I hope you don't mind me sigging this.

Not at all, it was what I was thinking at a recent tournie...

I find that restriction even funnier in Fantasy where you have blocks of men engaging one another; what do you mean I can't fire a volley of muskets into the flank or rear of an engaged enemy?

It is one of those things in 40k which exists to artificially make close combat more viable, whereas not being able to charge out of a transport is one of those which exist to artificially make it worse....

In Bolt Action, which uses a ruleset very clearly developed from 40k (shocking, given Alessio Calvatore and Rick Priestly wrote it...), assault isn't a core feature, but it's reasonably well done (and as I play Japan, it's something I actually do quite often). You charge by making a double move into the enemy unit, if the enemy unit has not shot yet (as this game works on activations, like everything that isn't Warhammer), it may choose to fire overwatch and gets +1 to hit, representing that you're shooting the enemy at point blank range and are ready for them. Additionally, you can set other units to "ambush" mode where they can fire out of sequence if anything moves into their line of sight, allowing you to set up kill zones.

In assault, as this is WW2 and a good deal simpler, and more lethal, you just roll to wound, with SMGs and Assault Rifles granting additionally attacks, if neither side is wiped out, you disengage and move 1'' away from one another, and the turn continues as normal, with either combatant eligible to be shot at.

I honestly find it more tactical than 40ks method of assault, as in this game you can also pin and suppress things meaningfully, keep charging units prepared and hope your desired target wastes their turn shooting something else and so on. I'd love it if 40k used Bolt Action's ruleset to be perfectly honest, as it addresses most of my frustrations with 40k.

 Peregrine wrote:
This is yet another problem that is solved by remembering that this is a scifi game and guns are inherently superior to swords. Just be glad that 40k's scale is such a mess that melee is even possible, if you demand a rebalance of shooting vs. assault GW might fix that problem.

Exactly.

Swordhammer 40K is stupid. When in the Grim Darkness of the far future, the guy with a rifle is the weakest man on the battlefield, cringing in terror and hoping that his one or two shots kill the enemy before they run screaming across the battlefield to hit him with an energized stick, you're not playing sci-fi, or even sci-fantasy.

You're just playing Fantasy innnnnnn Spaaaaaaaaaace.


Bringing Overwatch back into the game was the first step on the path to redemption in 6th. Though 7th went off the rails for entirely different reasons.

So the Op learned a lesson I learned one time, running a lone character into a squad can be deadly.

I had a libraian that had his squad killed off so he ran into a Devastator squad. (Yea lots of marine vs marine training missions in my meta). So one of the las conanons rolled a 6 on overwatch. Ok kind of makes sense, not a smart thing to do being that lone guy charging a bunch of guys with guns. SO I won't make that mistake again.

If you have a character that can survive by themselves than fine (ie. Avatar of Khaine, greater demon) but now I know (and you know) not to do that again.

 MajorStoffer wrote:
It is one of those things in 40k which exists to artificially make close combat more viable, whereas not being able to charge out of a transport is one of those which exist to artificially make it worse....

I think this is the problem with constantly patching a ruleset - especially one for which the game has advanced considerably (we've gone from a skirmish-ish game to one with fliers, superheavies etc.).

The 40k rules need a complete redesign, not just a lot of faffing around every edition.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Swordhammer 40K is stupid. When in the Grim Darkness of the far future, the guy with a rifle is the weakest man on the battlefield, cringing in terror and hoping that his one or two shots kill the enemy before they run screaming across the battlefield to hit him with an energized stick, you're not playing sci-fi, or even sci-fantasy.

I think the bigger problem is that there's a massive gulf between fluff and rules. The fluff constantly emphasises melee combat, whilst the rules do everything they can to diminish it.

Then, after diminishing melee combat, GW releases, you guessed it, more dedicated melee units. Why? What's the point?

Likewise, when melee is utter rubbish, why do melee weapons need to be overpriced and useless? AP3 is bad enough on basic power weapons, but did you really need to put it on artefacts too? Is the goal to make sure that they've never taken - e.g. by making the IG sword worse than a Power Axe yet 10pts more expensive.

/RANT

 vipoid wrote:
But, again, I don't see how shooting into a melee is 'needlessly wasting' troops. Especially since you're only going to do it if you're losing badly - in which case those troops are dead anyway.

And who's determining what "losing badly" is? And with the fickleness of dice, there's always a chance that a unit that's "losing badly" can turn around and win the combat. You're "needlessly wasting" troops by letting them get stuck in a close combat, at least give them the honour of bravely holding the line instead of shooting them in the back so you can take down a few of the enemy.

 Ghaz wrote:

And who's determining what "losing badly" is? And with the fickleness of dice, there's always a chance that a unit that's "losing badly" can turn around and win the combat.

No, sorry, sometimes there is a clear winner.

And, how exactly does 'fickleness of dice' translate into fluff?

"Hmm, those 3 Guardsmen are engaged with 9 Terminators and a Chaos Lord - should we shoot them?"

"And risk hitting our own men, are you mad? No, I'm sure our fine soldiers will pull through. Why, for all you know, those terminators could suffer from congestive heart-failure and be dead in a few seconds time. "

 Ghaz wrote:
You're "needlessly wasting" troops by letting them get stuck in a close combat, at least give them the honour of bravely holding the line instead of shooting them in the back so you can take down a few of the enemy.

Except that 'bravely holding the line' actually translates to 'acting as invincible walls for my opponent's men'. You don't 'hold the line' by dying in my turn (whatever that represents) and leaving the enemy free to charge my lines without retaliation.

If anything, they should be classed as traitors and executed with extreme prejudice.

Removing overwatch would be a good idea IF the ranges and such were balanced. Of course, that would mean playing on tables that are like 10 feel across and 18 feet long. As it is now, it actually helps keep the game balanced and ensures that players actually have their models bring guns along.

I wouldn't mind overwatch as much as if when rolling my charge distance and don't make it, I got to move said distance, or half the distance, or something.

I play Tyranids and Orks and with both armies I have had units wiped out when trying to get into hand one to hand. Enemy shoots, kills some guys, my turn, I try and charge. Enemy overwatches, kills some models. Short on the charge range by an inch or two, so they just stand there waiting to get shot again.

I tend to not try and charge unless the range is 8" or less and get cover as much as I can because of the amount of AP 5 chewing up my poor hordes.

and our resident Tau player.... he doesn't even use markerlights but tends to have a blockade of fire warriors with etherals that there is just a rediculous amount of fire.

I've had a full unit of genestealers with a broodlord fully killed off in overwatch to the supporting fire shenanigans.

I agree, you should be able to move the distance you roll when you fail a charge. The only peoblem with that would be you would have tyranid players declaring charges from 48 inches away just to get the extra 2d6 movement.
However, thats a totally different issue from overwatch which plays a very small part in the game (unless your tau but we all agree thats broken) and serves as little more than allowing the player being charged to roll dice in order to feel good. lol The only time it makes a difference is if the assaulting player is stupid enough to assault a unit packed with flamer weapons or if they are being very daring and trying a super long ranged assault. Of course, in almost every situation the assaulting player need only use tactics and ensure that there are multiple models in his charging unit within range so that if one gets picked off, the rest will still reach.

Hold on just a moment now, assaulting remains one of the most effective ways of killing off units if you're not an idiot about it. Assaults still have a number of advantages over shooting that would mean they would be entirely preferable if it wasn't for the Overwatch rule.

Multi-charges, combat being locked, inability to shoot at units locked in combat, sweeping advances, consolidation (i.e. free runs if you win combat), all forms of melee weapons being available for use after moving, etc etc. These are all things that continue to make the assault effective.

Failed charges are a bummer, sure, but the law of averages effectively means that charge ranges have actually been buffed, albeit trading off absolute reliability. Shooting has long had such a disadvantage in the form of cover-saves.

The Tau and their Supporting Fire rule compensates for them having essentially no real assault troops at all. Most if not all other armies have either close combat specialists, generalists who are competent at close combat for one reason or another, or both. The Tau have none of those three. Markerlight spam does make it very powerful, but then, markerlight spam makes pretty much everything in the Tau lists powerful; they're a shooting army. If the Tau were any less shooty, they would have to make the Tau more mobile to compensate. Which would be very very broken.

Wait, you're serious?

HA, HAHA, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh, oh my. Sorry.

If you think that's overpowered, try Tau, with their Counter Defensive (can now Overwatch on a 5 or 6) and Supporting fire (everything in 6" gets to overwatch too)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 GreaterGoodIreland wrote:
Hold on just a moment now, assaulting remains one of the most effective ways of killing off units if you're not an idiot about it. Assaults still have a number of advantages over shooting that would mean they would be entirely preferable if it wasn't for the Overwatch rule.

Multi-charges, combat being locked, inability to shoot at units locked in combat, sweeping advances, consolidation (i.e. free runs if you win combat), all forms of melee weapons being available for use after moving, etc etc. These are all things that continue to make the assault effective.

Failed charges are a bummer, sure, but the law of averages effectively means that charge ranges have actually been buffed, albeit trading off absolute reliability. Shooting has long had such a disadvantage in the form of cover-saves.

The Tau and their Supporting Fire rule compensates for them having essentially no real assault troops at all. Most if not all other armies have either close combat specialists, generalists who are competent at close combat for one reason or another, or both. The Tau have none of those three. Markerlight spam does make it very powerful, but then, markerlight spam makes pretty much everything in the Tau lists powerful; they're a shooting army. If the Tau were any less shooty, they would have to make the Tau more mobile to compensate. Which would be very very broken.

This. Although, the last part I have to scoff at. They get a 2d6 jump move in the assault phase. The only thing more mobile than Tau is Eldar with their Battle Focus gak.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
This is yet another problem that is solved by remembering that this is a scifi game and guns are inherently superior to swords. Just be glad that 40k's scale is such a mess that melee is even possible, if you demand a rebalance of shooting vs. assault GW might fix that problem.

Exactly.

Swordhammer 40K is stupid. When in the Grim Darkness of the far future, the guy with a rifle is the weakest man on the battlefield, cringing in terror and hoping that his one or two shots kill the enemy before they run screaming across the battlefield to hit him with an energized stick, you're not playing sci-fi, or even sci-fantasy.

You're just playing Fantasy innnnnnn Spaaaaaaaaaace.


Bringing Overwatch back into the game was the first step on the path to redemption in 6th. Though 7th went off the rails for entirely different reasons.

Okau, 40k years on the future. You can be the guy with the rifle, Ill be the guy with the sword. You take aim at me, I teleport behind you and cleave you in two. A case can, and definitely should (given 40k lore) be made for close combat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Keep overwatch, allow consolidation into a new unit (who can overwatch as well), allow assault out of a stationary vehicle. Start there, see how it goes.

Definitely a great start.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Removing overwatch would be a good idea IF the ranges and such were balanced. Of course, that would mean playing on tables that are like 10 feel across and 18 feet long. As it is now, it actually helps keep the game balanced and ensures that players actually have their models bring guns along.

You get every opportunity to shoot in the shooting phase, overwatch doesn't add any tactical element to the game it's just a gimme to shooty armies.

Keep wall of death, drop the rest of overwatch.

The rest actually makes sense. To be honest, it would make sense to make it hit more often. Especially with the borking of ranges and small table size. You dont see people complaining about not getting enough. The other side should not complain about them getting too much. They have less of a leg to stand on. lol

I like overwatch, always wondered why units wouldn't get to shoot at unit charging them. If someone was running at me with a sword I would definitely shoot at them. I do think Astartes should be able to hit on a 5 instead due to their superhuman reflexes etc. Sure cases could be made for others too.

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I think it would be nice if Overwatch was a bit more tactical. e.g. if you could chose to go on overwatch instead of shooting, but got to resolve it at full BS.

If nothing else, I think 40k could benefit from more in-game options.

 Peregrine wrote:
This is yet another problem that is solved by remembering that this is a scifi game and guns are inherently superior to swords.

So why can't you shoot them in combat? Or into combat?

Instead, if some Tau Fire Warriors get assaulted by a Daemon Prince, they think the best thing to do is run towards it and attempt to hit it with their rifle butts.

Shooting into a combat at a MC or walker should be an option, though that's another issue entirely.

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"

The bullet drop is real.
I would like to see a return of 4th ed target priority, or have units in the path of a firing unit take damage.
Might make things more tactical.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
The bullet drop is real.

Hence why we're not allowed to shoot lascannons at it.

 vipoid wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
The bullet drop is real.

Hence why we're not allowed to shoot lascannons at it.

...the refraction of light due to atmospheric conditions and battlefield debris, as well as from possible reflective surfaces is real?
Also, not everyone has steady hands. What if a Devastator got a bit of grit in his eyepiece?

Also, that was a jest

I like the concept of overwatch, and don't think it should be removed from the game altogether, but the problem is it is significantly stronger against some armies than others. 10 assault marines assaulting a unit of chaos marines? Overwatch doesn't really matter. A big Hive Tyrant assaulting that same squad of chaos marines? Again, no big deal. A squad of wyches assaulting that same squad? Well now, it's very possible half of that squad will be wiped out by overwatch. Granted Wyches aren't exactly in a good place right now, but it sucks just as hard for my bloodletters, or genestealer squads. It's not always just losing models that's the problem, it's often the loss of those models taking the squad out of assault range. And even worse, this doesn't cost the overwatching unit anything. Like I said, I like overwatch, but I'd like a couple changes to it. For example, in Warhammer Fantasy (and I don't know if this rule applies anymore) if a charging unit was very close to the target unit when it declared the charge, the charged unit didn't have time to ready their weapons and fire, so couldn't stand-and-shoot. If, for example, a Raider full of wyches flew right on top of an enemy squad, engines blasting and screeching, rocks and dirt whipped up by the force of the engines and suddenly that squad of wyches jumped out of the transport right into the enemy ranks, I doubt they would have time to fire their weapons. Therefore, maybe if a unit started it's assault move within, say 4" of an enemy unit, that unit couldn't fire overwatch.

Another idea would be having overwatch give a penalty to the firing unit. If they are firing their guns while they are being assaulted, than maybe they don't get a chance to draw their close combat weapons or get into a proper fighting stance before the enemy gets to them. How about if a unit fires overwatch, they suffer a -1 penalty to attack, or -1 penalty to weapon skill, or strike at initiative 1, or maybe can't fight with anything other than the weapon they used to make the overwatch attack (ie: no additional close combat weapon or power fist if they fired a bolter in overwatch.) Just a few rambling thoughts, but I like my frail, poor armor swarms, and overwatch really hurts them!

Apocros wrote:


Another idea would be having overwatch give a penalty to the firing unit. If they are firing their guns while they are being assaulted, than maybe they don't get a chance to draw their close combat weapons or get into a proper fighting stance before the enemy gets to them. How about if a unit fires overwatch, they suffer a -1 penalty to attack, or -1 penalty to weapon skill, or strike at initiative 1, or maybe can't fight with anything other than the weapon they used to make the overwatch attack (ie: no additional close combat weapon or power fist if they fired a bolter in overwatch.) Just a few rambling thoughts, but I like my frail, poor armor swarms, and overwatch really hurts them!

Initiative 1 makes sense. The firing unit is so busy shooting that they don't have time to prepare for hand to hand. I can see that happening.

Remember overwatch when we could call it during our turn and save it for the following movement and stop the enemy at any point in their movement to take our shots? I thought that was far more realistic but a lot of players cried.
The current version is watered down beyond recognition from that.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Remember overwatch when we could call it during our turn and save it for the following movement and stop the enemy at any point in their movement to take our shots? I thought that was far more realistic but a lot of players cried..

They did, yes... but only because it tended to result on gunline armies both just sitting there in their deployment zones with everything on Overwatch waiting for the other player to move first.