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 am just wondering, is anyone else concerned over what looks to be the to-wound table for 40k 8th edition? This is a bit of a rant, and I do it because I haven't really seen anyone else sharing a similar opinion in the matter. In my opinion this new to-wound table looks like it's going to push everything in the wrong direction. Now it seems Strength and Toughness really don't matter much compared to old editions. In all but the extreme edge cases one point of strength or toughness would make a difference. Now the one point increases often wont make a difference, and no matter what model you field it can wound and be wounded by anything; so the extreme cases have been completely elminated too. There's no absolute need to take high strength weapons anymore, since you can now always overcome weakness with share numbers of dice. I thought this was a bad thing in the last edition; multitudes of low-mid strength dice being encouraged by the game with seldom any reason to take high strength weapons. Now it's more severe and I believe that is a bad thing.

I think it's great if weapons are completely ineffectual against models that are just way too tough. I think there should be more of that, and I don't think it's a bad thing at all. I think it encourages variety in units and weapon choices. I think it's great if stats actually eliminate rolling in the extreme cases and save us some time. So if the weapon is far too weak don't bother rolling, that was great. I even think there should have been 1+ on old table. So when that snotling is definitely HIT by a crack missile or rail-gun then just remove the model. Why cant we can say for some weapons that there is just no chance of surviving a direct hit? It seems perfectly reasonable to me. You could think of it another way too. In 8th edition we have 5 possible thresholds: 2+, 3+, 4+, 5+ and 6+. In earlier editions we had 6: 2+ through to 6+ and also N (no effect). So how about 7 possible thresholds: 1+, 2+, 3+, 4+, 5+, 6+ and N.

What do you guys think about this new system? I really want to give this new edition a chance, because GW looks to actually be trying to change the fundamentals of the game for the better. In some areas I think they have done well. But this new to-wound chart really concerns me, it looks like it's going to make the units very samey. Though I hope I'm wrong.

Nope, you're not the only one. It's more homogenizing stupidity in an edition full of it.

All say it again.

In a game where all of this can be fighting in the same table at the same time and even fielding armies of only one of this kind of models:


You need to eliminate the extreme cases or your game becomes a Rock/Paper/Scissors game that is just unfun for everybody.

And if you are gonna reply with "But those things shouldn't have enter in 40k!" I'll agree. Just like Flyers, they don't belong in 40k. 40K has lost his scale years ago. But they are here to stay, so we can live with them or we can have broken after broken after broken after broken and unplayable edition.

So we have two options:

-We homogeinize everything to have a playable game where all of this works
-We go to play Flames of War or others games that know what they are.

I think it's fine.

Even though in theory you can still shoot weak guns at tough targets (lasguns at land raiders etc), the chance of anything impact happening is so very small that most of the time you wont do it unless you absolutely have to, and when it does happen, it will be fun and cool and whatnot.

You can probably make up some scenario where a lasgun is the finishing blow to a land raider.

I would just not worry about it, play some games, and see if you like 8th. It's simpler, but that doesn't have to make it worse. Most people that have tried it so far have liked it. You probably will too.

Most things will be at a 5+, or more likely 6+, to wound a vehicle. That's not factoring in the To Hit roll or the Armor Saves;

I'm glad that things are killable. That said, they have so many more wounds now that GL killing them with anything but dedicated anti-tank.

You are looking at the wound chart in a vacume without the rest of the important information.

High str weapons are no longer simply defined by their str. With the reduction of ap but also the constant usfulness of ap those hivh str weapons also reduce saves by the most without it being an all or nothing value.

They are also defined by the amiunt of damage they do. With heavier targets having heeps of wounds you want anti tank weapons because without them you will never bring down those beasts. Both because they now have saves (again high str generally has better ap to negate) and because plinking away at a 20w monolith with ap nothing 1 dmg bolters is an exercize in futility.

Finally, you are forgetting that in a system where weapons simply cannot hurt at all you are encouraged to bring things above the threshhold where your openent can hurt you without specialized units. Then you neutfalize those threats and rjn rampant. In 7th a imperial knight either killed its few threats and won the game or didnt and lost.

I would argue that this to wound chart in tbis sytem has even more granularity and significantly more interesting gameplay because of it.

I feel like individually one point of Strength or Toughness doesn't always mean much, but the AP/armour save and damage/wounds relationships have actually made statlines as a whole more granular than they used to be. AP is no longer "4 and up doesn't matter, 3 sort of matters, 2-1 actually matter", armour saves are way more important (so no more "5+/6+ are wasted ink, 4+/3+ sort of matter, 2+ actually matters), and durability depends on a whole host of factors beyond the Toughness stat. A Baneblade and a Land Raider have the same Toughness, but the difference in save and Wounds makes the Baneblade broadly tougher and makes them more vulnerable to different weapons (the Baneblade's worse save makes it easier prey for volume, the Land Raider's lower wound count makes it easier to knock out with a few powerful shots).

So you're kind of right, in that the S/T stats matter less than they used to, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing in the face of what seems to be emerging.

Marksman224 wrote:
I am just wondering, is anyone else concerned over what looks to be the to-wound table for 40k 8th edition? This is a bit of a rant, and I do it because I haven't really seen anyone else sharing a similar opinion in the matter. In my opinion this new to-wound table looks like it's going to push everything in the wrong direction. Now it seems Strength and Toughness really don't matter much compared to old editions. In all but the extreme edge cases one point of strength or toughness would make a difference. Now the one point increases often wont make a difference, and no matter what model you field it can wound and be wounded by anything; so the extreme cases have been completely elminated too. There's no absolute need to take high strength weapons anymore, since you can now always overcome weakness with share numbers of dice. I thought this was a bad thing in the last edition; multitudes of low-mid strength dice being encouraged by the game with seldom any reason to take high strength weapons. Now it's more severe and I believe that is a bad thing.

While you do not HAVE to take high S weapons it is much more effective if you do. For example if 2 units of guardsman in rapid fire range effected by FRFSRF order shooting at a T8 model with a 3+ save will do 2 wounds, while a Heavy Weapons unit with 3 Lascannons which costs 8 points LESS then the guardsman, shooting with the Take Aim! order are able to 3 wounds in a single round so a noticeable difference. So while they do similar damage we have to look at how many wounds the thing were shooting at has, T8 models hover around 12 wounds. So we can see here while the Lasguns would take 6 turns the Lascannons would only take 4 turns. So lets take the stats of a Transport and compare that, T7 and 10 wounds. The Lascannons again will do 3 wounds a turn. At 10 wounds it will take the same amount of turns, 4, because after 3 rounds we are at 9 wounds so it would seem there is no gain to be made. We can then switch to a different type of unit and weapon the trusty Plasma Rifle will be our next go to weapon. Rapid fire and take aim combined will allow us to average 5 wounds a turn, which puts us at 2 turns. Sure you may be less one guards man but we got rid of that Transport quickly and, more importantly, exposed the troops. Now we need to get rid of these troops which we will say are MEQ for simplicity (T4 3+ armor save). There are 5 soldiers in the squad we could use the Lascannons, but they would take 3 turns to kill the unit, the plasma would do the trick, but we have these guardsman that can do the trick, applying the same thing as before the math comes out to 4 dead Traitor Marines, pretty good seeing as they don't run the risk of killing themselves.

Marksman224 wrote:
What do you guys think about this new system? I really want to give this new edition a chance, because GW looks to actually be trying to change the fundamentals of the game for the better. In some areas I think they have done well. But this new to-wound chart really concerns me, it looks like it's going to make the units very samey. Though I hope I'm wrong.

As I have shown above there is more then toughness to deal with now. Where as before there were two things that determined the outcome, there are now 4. Before it came down to strength and toughness, if you didn't have the S to kill a unit it didn't matter if your weapon was AP 2. Here we have to figure out how many wounds each weapon will do and how that will stack up over the long run, we can no longer look at just S or just T we also have to look at the wounds that unit has, what armor it has, whether its worth trying to peel off some points with AP or shoot a higher S weapon at the model. There is a lot more going on in the game now then the basic S and T setup before, and I think its a good thing.

TL;DR: I think the changes are good.

fe40k wrote:
Most things will be at a 5+, or more likely 6+, to wound a vehicle. That's not factoring in the To Hit roll or the Armor Saves;

I'm glad that things are killable. That said, they have so many more wounds now that GL killing them with anything but dedicated anti-tank.

It actually isn't hard to mass enough melee or lasguns to blow up a land raider in a turn.

Marksman224 wrote:
In all but the extreme edge cases one point of strength or toughness would make a difference.

I think it seems this way when you're fighting one army list or a lot of the same unit, but against varying opponents you'll see that, for example, st5 to st6 can make a difference ie. when rolling vs guardsmen compared to rolling vs marines. When I played a test game I found myself supercharging my plasma shots to get boosted +1 st because it tipped the wound chart into double the toughness of the target unit and increased my odds of wounding.
But, I do agree with you that there should have been a cut off point at the very extreme edges of the table, as it's more realistic and would speed the game up. Overall, it doesn't bother me too much as it takes an absurd amount of lasgun shots to bring down a land raider, but I think it will be annoying to play games with people who have hordes that are trying to bring down vehicles with mountains of dice.

stratigo wrote:

fe40k wrote:
Most things will be at a 5+, or more likely 6+, to wound a vehicle. That's not factoring in the To Hit roll or the Armor Saves;

I'm glad that things are killable. That said, they have so many more wounds now that GL killing them with anything but dedicated anti-tank.

It actually isn't hard to mass enough melee or lasguns to blow up a land raider in a turn.

Is it?

16 wounds, 2+ armour save, T8.

So on average dice you need 16*6*6 hits - or 576 hits. So 1152 guardsmen or 1728 conscripts to do so in a turn. I feel your 4500-5000 points might be better off doing something else.
Yes you can get more shots with rapid fire and FRFSRF but then you need a small army of characters to give all these squads orders and have somehow crammed all these models into 12" of the Land Raider.

The same points of conscripts as a regular Land Raider strips would expect to do just over 1 wound per turn, rising to 2 wounds in rapid fire range. This is not exactly effective.

I think this system is better. Yes it homogenises but it means the gap between good units and bad units is much less distinct. It has never been fun to know from deployment that you are going to lose because your army cannot touch your opponents (or from the opposite end of the table knowing that you are going to go through your opponent with near invincibility).

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

As I have shown above there is more then toughness to deal with now. Where as before there were two things that determined the outcome, there are now 4. Before it came down to strength and toughness, if you didn't have the S to kill a unit it didn't matter if your weapon was AP 2. Here we have to figure out how many wounds each weapon will do and how that will stack up over the long run, we can no longer look at just S or just T we also have to look at the wounds that unit has, what armor it has, whether its worth trying to peel off some points with AP or shoot a higher S weapon at the model. There is a lot more going on in the game now then the basic S and T setup before, and I think its a good thing.

TL;DR: I think the changes are good.

I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you, for precisely the reasons that you just argued make this version. Players should never have to do math to figure out which things are better, it should be intuitively expressed by their stats at face value. There always was more than just strength and toughness to contend with, but differences in those stats have very little impact now.

@Galas you're absolutely right. The whole thing has been going downhill since the introduction of GMCs. There's no way you can scale these into the game without undermining the intergrity of the mechanics, and that's what's been happening. I wish there was a functional section of the gaming community that just shunned these game breakers and maintaned a more simple version with some minor house rules.

 Galas wrote:
All say it again.

In a game where all of this can be fighting in the same table at the same time and even fielding armies of only one of this kind of models:


You need to eliminate the extreme cases or your game becomes a Rock/Paper/Scissors game that is just unfun for everybody.

And if you are gonna reply with "But those things shouldn't have enter in 40k!" I'll agree. Just like Flyers, they don't belong in 40k. 40K has lost his scale years ago. But they are here to stay, so we can live with them or we can have broken after broken after broken after broken and unplayable edition.

So we have two options:

-We homogeinize everything to have a playable game where all of this works
-We go to play Flames of War or others games that know what they are.

This pic illustrates the problem quite well. Apparently GW wants each unit to contribute to the battle regardless of the opposition. This scenario is good for pick-up games or tournaments in which you never know what you are going to face.
Your Catachan Jungle Fighter Infantry Force may encounter an Ork Infantry Horde or a couple of Renegade Knights in the steaming jungles of Armageddon. In past editions of 40K the former match-up would result in an interesting battle while on the other hand the latter isn´t even worth to play. In 8th the latter match-up is not an outright hopeless endeavour but still a daunting task for the guard.

You don´t like the idea of lasguns damaging renegade knights? Well, there is a solution to your problem. Just talk with your opponent before the battle and choose armies and psi-powers accordingly. Similar armies like SM & CSM ensure close battles and not massacres. You won´t need the new wounding chart in this gaming environment because there are no untouchable units around that might spoil the fun.

In summary, apocalypse ruined the game.

At least they made it easier to say...
"Models in the Flyer or Lord of War Category are Banned from this Tournament."
Tho, that won't fix everything...

Altho, re-reading the OP. It sounds like your argument is that hitting a model with a super weapon isn't auto killing insignificant models.

Well, just because you're hit... Doesn't mean it was dead center on your chest or head. The shot might have just grazed you.
That's why 1s still fail.

Its ridiculous that armored vehicles can be hurt by basic melee weapons. A group of ~25 Ork boys can kill a Predator Tank in 2 rounds, or 1 round, with lucky rolls.

@ Talamare:
Nope, Apocalypse didn´t ruin the game. You can have great games with a lot of superheavies on BOTH sides. The "no holds barred" approach in your run of the mill 40K games made an interesting battle difficult or even impossible. That´s why it is important to talk with your opponent before the game. Sometimes it reminded me of Mike Tyson brutalizing a teenager in a boxfight and calling it a fair fight afterwards because said teenager was according to the rules a legal contender.

 Strg Alt wrote:
@ Talamare:
Nope, Apocalypse didn´t ruin the game. You can have great games with a lot of superheavies on BOTH sides. The "no holds barred" approach in your run of the mill 40K games made an interesting battle difficult or even impossible. That´s why it is important to talk with your opponent before the game. Sometimes it reminded me of Mike Tyson brutalizing a teenager in a boxfight and calling it a fair fight afterwards because said teenager was according to the rules a legal contender.

It absolutely broke the game, It's about scale.

First of all, I will preface by saying... If you wanted Apocalypse. Then make and play Apocalypse into a separate rule set.

However, the game is designed in a scenario in which a Dreadnaught was meant to be one of the baddest things around.
In which a Land Raider is the epitome of indestructible super vehicles.

The weapons in the game are also scaled with that in mind.

If you want a more accurate example of your own example. It's not Mike Tyson vs a Teenager because the Teenager is a contender.
It's Mike Tyson vs 4 year olds.

Wanna know what the worst thing is?

After enough punches from the 4 year olds, Mike Tyson will eventually go down.
I'm just waiting for Exterminatus to be an option, and hearing people say it's totally fine.

p5freak wrote:
Its ridiculous that armored vehicles can be hurt by basic melee weapons. A group of ~25 Ork boys can kill a Predator Tank in 2 rounds, or 1 round, with lucky rolls.

Vehicles have exhaust vents, view ports, weapon barrels, tracks, and so on. These are all things that are vulnerable to close-combat attacks. It should not be easy, but it isn't, so no problem.

Tanks in the real world aren't sent without infantry support into combat with infantry either.

Sure, but in the real world 30 people with axes aren't going to stop an Abrams...ever.

Having seen copious battle reports where every type of vehicle seems to be MUCH harder to kill, I don't see it as much of an issue. Do I like the idea of non-stop super heavies in a normal 40K game? Not so much. But if you're going to leave that doggy door open - it's better off the way 8th is (at least making it possible to play a game without just shaking hands after deployment and packing up your models).

So given the silliness of 7th vs. 8th? 8th is better all day.

You know what I'm tired of?

Extreme paper/rock/scissors.

Where you can figure out that if you take a bunch of crap that most of the game can't hurt that you will teabag your opponents that aren't extreme list building like you are.

The new S/T system the way it is now helps remove some of that.

So I for one am extremely happy with the new S/T system.

Is it representative of a pure simulation system? No.

But if you want a simulation system you better be willing to go full on simulation. Which means some of you are going to be very cranky when you have to take a lot of normal grunts like real armies have to do instead of cherry picking all of the ninjas and special forces.

 auticus wrote:
You know what I'm tired of?

Extreme paper/rock/scissors.

Where you can figure out that if you take a bunch of crap that most of the game can't hurt that you will teabag your opponents that aren't extreme list building like you are.

The new S/T system the way it is now helps remove some of that.

So I for one am extremely happy with the new S/T system.

Is it representative of a pure simulation system? No.

But if you want a simulation system you better be willing to go full on simulation. Which means some of you are going to be very cranky when you have to take a lot of normal grunts like real armies have to do instead of cherry picking all of the ninjas and special forces.

I actually am a pretty big fan of the new S/T system as well.
I think the developers didn't fully embrace it yet tho.

Marksman224 wrote:
I am just wondering, is anyone else concerned over what looks to be the to-wound table for 40k 8th edition? This is a bit of a rant, and I do it because I haven't really seen anyone else sharing a similar opinion in the matter. In my opinion this new to-wound table looks like it's going to push everything in the wrong direction. Now it seems Strength and Toughness really don't matter much compared to old editions. In all but the extreme edge cases one point of strength or toughness would make a difference. Now the one point increases often wont make a difference, and no matter what model you field it can wound and be wounded by anything; so the extreme cases have been completely elminated too. There's no absolute need to take high strength weapons anymore, since you can now always overcome weakness with share numbers of dice. I thought this was a bad thing in the last edition; multitudes of low-mid strength dice being encouraged by the game with seldom any reason to take high strength weapons. Now it's more severe and I believe that is a bad thing.

I think it's great if weapons are completely ineffectual against models that are just way too tough. I think there should be more of that, and I don't think it's a bad thing at all. I think it encourages variety in units and weapon choices. I think it's great if stats actually eliminate rolling in the extreme cases and save us some time. So if the weapon is far too weak don't bother rolling, that was great. I even think there should have been 1+ on old table. So when that snotling is definitely HIT by a crack missile or rail-gun then just remove the model. Why cant we can say for some weapons that there is just no chance of surviving a direct hit? It seems perfectly reasonable to me. You could think of it another way too. In 8th edition we have 5 possible thresholds: 2+, 3+, 4+, 5+ and 6+. In earlier editions we had 6: 2+ through to 6+ and also N (no effect). So how about 7 possible thresholds: 1+, 2+, 3+, 4+, 5+, 6+ and N.

What do you guys think about this new system? I really want to give this new edition a chance, because GW looks to actually be trying to change the fundamentals of the game for the better. In some areas I think they have done well. But this new to-wound chart really concerns me, it looks like it's going to make the units very samey. Though I hope I'm wrong.

The new S/T system is sooooo vastly better. The old syatem was doggak.

With the old system S3 S5 S7 and S9 were totally irrelevant, the value of going from an even strength to an odd strength was next to nothing compared to going from odd to even and then S1 and S2 were so useless almost nothing in the game actually had them.

Meanwhile Toughness had it's own problems. Going from T3-T4 was HUGE going from T4-T5 was HUGE going from T5-T6 was pretty good, going from T6-T7 was totally irrelevant, going from T7-T8 was so bullgak it invented grav and T9 and T10 would have been so incredibly oppressive to deal with if any model had been that tough unbuffed it would have immediately broken that army.

The new system is better in every concievable way.

 Elbows wrote:
Sure, but in the real world 30 people with axes aren't going to stop an Abrams...ever.

Having seen copious battle reports where every type of vehicle seems to be MUCH harder to kill, I don't see it as much of an issue. Do I like the idea of non-stop super heavies in a normal 40K game? Not so much. But if you're going to leave that doggy door open - it's better off the way 8th is (at least making it possible to play a game without just shaking hands after deployment and packing up your models).

So given the silliness of 7th vs. 8th? 8th is better all day.

Actually....they could potentially cause it to throw a track, damage a drive wheel or even stuff grenades into the tracks.

And considering a lot of 40k vehicles have less protective armouring of tracks and engines it should be easier to break a tank by hacking it's engine in 40k than in real life.

Whilst I can understand the intent, I do wonder if this was the best way to go about it. It's certainly a bit odd when S7 is no better than S5 against T4 or T8-9 targets.

In this regard though, I think a major limitation is that the game only uses d6s.

I think the main issue though (as others have already mentioned) is that the scale of 40k is beyond ridiculous. Infantry should not be on the same board as titanic behemoths.

It would be far better for 40k to put Apocalypse units (Flyers, super-heavies, lords of war etc.) back into Apocalypse. They simply have no place in standard 40k and trying to shoehorn them in has consistently led to buggering up the rules for everyone.

The problem then becomes that those models (the flyers, super heavies, etc) never get used or rarely get used if at all... which sucks because they are cool models.

And certainly would be a deterrent to producing them in the first place.

 vipoid wrote:
Whilst I can understand the intent, I do wonder if this was the best way to go about it. It's certainly a bit odd when S7 is no better than S5 against T4 or T8-9 targets.

In this regard though, I think a major limitation is that the game only uses d6s.

I think the main issue though (as others have already mentioned) is that the scale of 40k is beyond ridiculous. Infantry should not be on the same board as titanic behemoths.

It would be far better for 40k to put Apocalypse units (Flyers, super-heavies, lords of war etc.) back into Apocalypse. They simply have no place in standard 40k and trying to shoehorn them in has consistently led to buggering up the rules for everyone.

I hate this argument. You know what's actually buggering up the rules? You know what actually makes the game silly? You know what REALLY doesn't have a place in 40k?

Fething Melee. The fact that this game has melee combat in it at all is the dumbest, most illogical, most unbalancing, most 'immersion' breaking bullcrap in the history of bullcrap.

Titans make sense in 40k, Planes make sense in 40k, Gargantuans make sense in 40k, a Furry running around with a hunk of metal glued to a stick and thinking he's helping is idiotic.

 Fifty wrote:

p5freak wrote:
Its ridiculous that armored vehicles can be hurt by basic melee weapons. A group of ~25 Ork boys can kill a Predator Tank in 2 rounds, or 1 round, with lucky rolls.

Vehicles have exhaust vents, view ports, weapon barrels, tracks, and so on. These are all things that are vulnerable to close-combat attacks. It should not be easy, but it isn't, so no problem.

Tanks in the real world aren't sent without infantry support into combat with infantry either.

I am not saying it should be impossible to take a out a tank in close combat. There are energy weapons for that purpose. It shouldnt be possible with a basic melee weapon, like axe, sword, cleaver, etc.

ERJAK wrote:
I hate this argument. You know what's actually buggering up the rules? You know what actually makes the game silly? You know what REALLY doesn't have a place in 40k?

Fething Melee. The fact that this game has melee combat in it at all is the dumbest, most illogical, most unbalancing, most 'immersion' breaking bullcrap in the history of bullcrap.

I disagree. I think melee as a concept is fine - especially for races like nids.

Where is starts to break down is when advanced races choose to specialise in melee instead of guns.

That said, 40k's rules for melee have been consistently awful.

ERJAK wrote:
Titans make sense in 40k, Planes make sense in 40k, Gargantuans make sense in 40k,

Sorry, no. It doesn't make sense for gargantuans, planes and titans to be present in every battle. Nor does it make sense that infantry is sent to attack titans/gargantuans/planes with weaponry designed to take out infantry or small tanks.

ERJAK wrote:


I hate this argument. You know what's actually buggering up the rules? You know what actually makes the game silly? You know what REALLY doesn't have a place in 40k?

Fething Melee. The fact that this game has melee combat in it at all is the dumbest, most illogical, most unbalancing, most 'immersion' breaking bullcrap in the history of bullcrap.

Titans make sense in 40k, Planes make sense in 40k, Gargantuans make sense in 40k, a Furry running around with a hunk of metal glued to a stick and thinking he's helping is idiotic.

I am sorry, what?
No, really, please do explain because i'm honestly interested in this. I think that a skirmish game should not be concerned by weapons that you bring to take on a fortress. And also think that businnes necessity was what pushed said big models down our wallet/throat. And with that another can of worms (like this game needed another). Imo, supeheavyes, planes, relevant heroes...thats what we used to bring in apocalypse. Or, you know...Epic.

I fail to see how melee makes thing mathematically illogical compared to titan vs infantry. Dear lord, even Flames of War (hystorically accurate, quite balanced game, whit a solid scale purpose) has melee!

I miss the days where a Dreadnought and a Carnifex where the big boys

But people surely loves their giant models. I can live with more abstract rules if that means people is able to play with those giant and very expensive models that they have put money and time to make look good.

EDIT: Meele is COOL. Jedis and Sith in Star Wars are cool. Killing your enemies with your Olographic weapon in Mass Effect is cool.

Killing a giant plasma shooting robot with a spear and your motorcicle is EPIC


Warhammer40k is Fantasy in Space. Without meele it wouldn't be Warhammer 40k.