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.

Serious question: I keep seeing people say "I want to build a gunline army", but why? Why would you ever want to build an army that ignores 2/3 of the game's phases and 90% of its strategy in favor of mindlessly rolling dice until you either roll enough dice to win or fail to roll enough dice and lose? What exactly is enjoyable about lining up your models at the back of your deployment zone and then never touching them unless you're removing casualties? How is either player having fun in this scenario? What makes a normal, reasonable person look at the game's least-fun method of playing and say "yes, I want to do this"? Is there secretly something fun about this dumpster fire of a game, or are all the gunline players just hardcore competitive tournament players who have figured out the most efficient way to win 40k games? I'd be fine with making that assumption, but it sure seems like a lot of the people expressing interest in gunline armies are casual/narrative players.

(Now, I understand the value and appeal of putting a long-ranged shooting element in an army that also has other things, I'm talking about gunline armies where the whole army is a gunline.)

I have been playing warhammer in multiple versions and formats for the last 15+ years. I started in WHFB late 5th edition. i have built various armies which included Tomb Kings (heavy chariot army), beastmen (not a single shooting model in the whole range), Empire with knightly orders, fast cavalry wood elf armies. In 40k I have a frackhuge tyranid army, thousand sons with a focus on rubrics and scarabs, and I'm now building a tau list.

I have never had -in all my time- any real incentive to play gunline. That being said, I am THRILLED that I am allowed to play my kronos tyranids and go full static gunline if I want. I think it's a great alternative way to play the game, and it has its own moments of stress and joy. It is apparent from your post that YOU do not enjoy gunlines. Doesn't mean other people can't though. A gunline player literally has 2 turns to make his thing. target priority is paramount, and it requires tremendous knowledge of your list and your opponents so that you know to apply just the right amount of pressure and not go stupidly overkill on enemy units. Finally, since gunline armies tend to be immobile and filled with heavy weapons, positioning/deployment, movement and line of sight must be really well thought in advance, not only for the first turn but also further down the line.

Overall I think you are selling gunlines too short. There are a TON of aspects that make gunline play really strategic and provide a real challenge for the gunline player. I welcome them the same way I had to suck it and accept imperium drop pods crashing down first turn, with no 3+ to check and reliable deep strike and pour out relentless devastators with grav weaponry, with free split fire.

To each its own I guess.

I like all the phases, but unfortunately it's the shooting phase where all the magic happens. Shooting does more damage than melee, shooting can start dishing out damage from turn one where melee usually starts turn two or three. And when you get into melee that gunline (because everyone else plays gunline too) you're after is just going to back up and shoot you to bits with impunity.

I really, really, would like an assault oriented army to work, but alas. Melee needs to do way more damage and the fallback mechanic needs a big overhaul if melee is ever going to be a competitive choice over shooting.

But yeah, end of the day playing a gunline is boring AF.

Shooting =/= gunline. For example, deep striking plasma storm troopers up close to murder stuff or rushing Hellhounds up the table to light everything on fire is still shooting, and quite powerful shooting. Even LRBTs are very good at shooting while still moving every turn, if you use them as mobile units instead of mindlessly parking them in the back corner of the table for the entire game. You can still have a pure shooting army that still moves, claims objectives, etc instead of lining up on turn 1 and rolling dice until someone wins.

This sounds much less like a “serious question” and much more like an excuse to let the salt flow. This is why dakka has such a bad rep.

So going off of your Leman Russ example, not only does unit selection matter when building the list but it also matters how you play that on the tabletop? If you are looking for honest feedback you might want to provide a very specific definition of this gunline that you cannot imagine anyone playing.

In 7th edition I was running a zombie horde with artillery R&H list. I got my jollies from my blasts wildly scattering all over the place, half the time I was hitting my own units.

If I am truly honest, the best part was the trollish feeling. There were so many tactics that the army just straight up shut down.

Deep strike: Have fun fighting zombies
Speedy armies that can hide: I don't need line of sight, have fun fighting zombies
Gunlines: I had better range and toughness on my bigger guns
Rhino rush: Zombie wall stops it dead, and rapier lasers help.
Invisible death star: lol, ZOMBIES (and I blow up the rest of your army:

I gladly accepted games against the WAAC players because I knew my list was cheesy as gak and broken as hell. I got sick laughs from watching their faces turn red in frustration.
Eventually I learned that my casual friendly opponents were frustrated, and stopped running the list... outside apoc games, all bets are off in apoc lol.

Currently I don't really see the appeal to gunline. I face them all the time because 9/10 armies end up running them, and want to crush hellblasters with a hammer whenever I see them. They are always banner with re-roll all 1s.


Gun lines are no longer even lines, they are like... gun balls. Everyone huddled within 6" of that one dude who helps out. It's super boring to play against, My units hit the gun ball, it all gets locked in CC and the next few rounds are fallbacks with little shooting and slowly killing the gun ball while the opponent curses their luck. At least in 7th edition the gunline armies were spread out. Artillery in the corners, tanks in the middle. It was super tough to take care of everything.

My 7th edition style of Tau was using a Hammer and Anvil style strategy where half my army was the "hold the line" elements with layers of Fire Warriors to blunt assaults supported by Broadsides, Pathfinders, Hammerheads, Ethereals, etc while the other half is the hard hitting mobile elements (Crisis Suits mainly) that would deep strike behind/to the flank of the enemy as they advanced to hit the exposed rear elements and sandwich the enemy forcing the enemy to either pull away from the anvil or continue to get smashed by the hammer elements. Turn 1 was usually the gunline style of play where my guys turtle in and throw out dakka. As the enemy thins and move into the mid field the game develops into a more mobile multi directional game where the gunline "anvil" shifts and splits as needed while the mobile "hammer" is dishing out damage while skirting around forcing difficult movement decisions for the enemy.

Sadly 8th basically killed that playstyle with its 9" deep strike spacing thing, lack of terrain rules, the royal shagging of crisis suits, heavy focus on alpha striking, no more closest casualties, and no Jump Shoot Jump outside of a one off stratagem (stratagems are lame when you have unit redundancy but your stuck only using the ability on one unit).

I couldn't vote on the poll but it still can be an interesting discussion. We play a modified version of 5th Ed essentially, but the gunline concept is the same.

I think there can be elements of strategy to a pure gunline army, but if that means it is also a static army it's at a serious disadvantage - at least in our rules. It's reactionary at its core unless the table is barren, so a mobile force has the initiative in exploiting weak spots in the enemy line.

We're now building an Imperial Guard force for our group to use and it emphasizes mobile elements. Haven't had a chance to see how it will work though, especially against plenty of dynamic foes!

Personally I would feel handicapped if I relied completely on static shooting to win games, even if it is viable in 8th Ed.

I introduced a buddy to 8th. He had a background in gaming but never played miniature gaming before. I gave him a whole bunch marines stuff bought him the dex and he's loving it. Having never played 40k before but being an intelligent tactical thinker he took one look at the rules with re-roll buff after re-roll buff and quite smartly built a gunline. I remember the look of confusion on his face when I tried to explain that style of play is not engaging or entertaining because he assumed thats the way to play his codex.

In some ways the rules lean you that way.

Because tanks and guns are are immensely appealing, and it's fun to play.

I wouldn't want to play with deep striking plasma troopers or rushing hellhounds.

if there's ever been a more obvious troll post that deserves to be taken down I haven't seen it

Asmodios wrote:
if there's ever been a more obvious troll post that deserves to be taken down I haven't seen it

I just re-read it to see what you meant and the second option alone is super troll levels. Why did I dignify this thread with a post...2 posts argh stop it!

Asmodios wrote:
if there's ever been a more obvious troll post that deserves to be taken down I haven't seen it

You've missed some real doozies, then.

None of the above I just like to shoot stuff and I like the idea of defending an oncoming horde of enemies from entrenched positions.

This entire thread only serves to post as a salt mine because someone does not like gunline armies

Because gunlines are one of the most powerful crutches to win games with without having to actually have any real skill other than figuring out what to shoot.

When my group of ~10 started playing, we were discussing whether we wanted to play WHFB or 40k and everyone being able to collect the army he wants to was part of the decision process so everyone stated which army interests him the most.

One of them wanted either Dwarves or Tau. When 8th dropped, he immediately switched from Tau to IG (he already had like 2 LRBT and 10 guardsmen before he started Tau.)
Another friend I played WHFB played dwarves. He started 40k without us knowing and what did he play there - you might already have guessed it - Tau.
Another friend of this group switched from Space Wolves to Skitarii after like half a year and ~10 played games. He had more fun after that especially because he won a lot more with skitarii.

It seems like shooting armies are really attractive especially if you don't know in detail how the rules work. I can't say why, I personally have Beastmen and melee-focused CSM.
It seems like the second choice of your poll is the most fitting for beginners choosing gunline armies. It looks fun.

About wanting others to suffer, that is 100% true. We didn't have enough terrain for our tables and often played 2 vs 2 on 72"x48" when we started, so shooting was heavily favored. If two shooting armies played together, got the first turn and killed 3/4 of their opponents points by turn two while losing less than 1/4 themselves, those gunline players always refused to let the other side give up because they could technically still win by missions. This was so taunting even though we were friends, I was always salty when that happened.

For someone who used to hammer at a particular user not long ago for making troll polls, the OP sure forgot to apply that same standard of scrutiny to themselves.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
None of the above I just like to shoot stuff and I like the idea of defending an oncoming horde of enemies from entrenched positions.

Which probably should be option number 4 for the poll, if the OP actually wanted to get some merit worthy discussion from this thread.

Gunline armies are the least interesting way to play this game. After the updates, the only way to play Tyranids is as - primarily - a gun line. So regrettably I have little choice; i'll still mix in assault units and be sub-optimal, though, because i can't stand braindead games. But it also has me looking into other games until GW figures out that this update was a complete disaster.

Anyone can play a gunline, it is "Baby's First 40k Game" level of difficult. You essentially need to roll better than your opponent, may as well just be shooting dice in an alley.

So, if i want to play my army, i have to play a gunline, or i can keep trying to do what i was doing, and get stomped off of the face of the planet by cheeseball Guard heavy lists, and Chaos which is largely unaffected.

All of this because Adepticon, too, which is ridiculous. It was a garbage format, with a garbage setup of terrain, and suddenly deep strike is the boogieman, and hive tyrants deserved a 25% points increase?

It's like Jeopardy.

I'll take the category "DAKKA DAKKA" please.

Ok for $1000... the answer is...
The user "Peregrine"

I know this! It's
"Why does Dakka Dakka have an ignore button?"


YOU'RE RIIIIIGGGHT!!!!!!

I don't play gunline (actually I'm just a modeller really) but goodness me I couldn't resist voting thay second option just because.

In Fantasy (The game I played most until AoS, then I started w40k with 8th) I played Greenskins and Khorne Chaos Warriors, so my armies where always meele focused.

In Warhammer 40k my primari armies are Tau and Dark Angels. Both "gunline" friendly armies, but I actually play them different. I like the mechanized Tau force. Stealth Suits, Kroot, Vespids and Breachers in Devilfish supported with Hammerheads in the back and Railgun Broadsides for some artillery support.

The army I play more like a Gunline are my Dark Angels because I like a defensive style of play and I'm more of a greenwing player. I normally use a Fortress of Redemption, but that doesn't mean I play pure gunline. I have Ravenwing bikers, I have normally 1-2 rhinos or razorbacks full of Company Champions and Veterans to counter charge meele armies or to rush agaisnt gunline armies. But the core of that force is the Fortress of Redemption and a strong defensive greenwing core.

But yeah, gunlines are the most boring way to play. At the same time, fun is subjetive, and whats boring for someone can be fun for others. So I can understand why people want to play gunline armies.

Is like Team Fortress 2. I loved to play the Engineer, but my way of playing it was an aggresive way, trying to run past the enemy lines and create a defensive point in a corner, with turrets and teleporters, to counter attack their lines. But most engineers out there just build their turret and their resuplier near the point we need to defend and they just stayed here like 15-20 minutes until the match end.
For me thats like, literally wasting your time, why do you even play? But ey. For them it was fun. So, ok. Go ahead.

Gee, because people playing a sci-fi game might want to shoot people with their ray guns?

Because finding a bunch of guys to charge another group of guys with guns so you can stab them with a sword is only impressive in that you found enough people who were equally dumb enough to think it would work?

Because if you don't play gunline, you lose.

Because I play Imperial Guard.

That polls not stupid at all.

It's cool. I find the idea of my army pouring fire into the enemy as they advance neat. Unless the two assault squads there as troop tax changes it to not being a gunline.

Is it really Peregrine? The git good or git out guy? Guess he gut bad.

Some armies are, thematically, gunline oriented. Some only function competitively when played as a gunline. Some people legitimately just like the simplicity.

Lets also be real, most armies ignore a lot of the game in some way, few play well in all phases, and stuff that can be boring to one person may not be to another.

 Nithaniel wrote:
I introduced a buddy to 8th. He had a background in gaming but never played miniature gaming before. I gave him a whole bunch marines stuff bought him the dex and he's loving it. Having never played 40k before but being an intelligent tactical thinker he took one look at the rules with re-roll buff after re-roll buff and quite smartly built a gunline. I remember the look of confusion on his face when I tried to explain that style of play is not engaging or entertaining because he assumed thats the way to play his codex.

In some ways the rules lean you that way.

Play a few maelstrom games with him, makes the gunlines awkwardly shuffle around the table, or get frustrated and say that maelstrom is broken lol.

I’m playing tau. The goal is to shoot you off the board. Simple.