Why does anyone want to have a gunline army?

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.

**Sumilidon**

I play a gun line because otherwise my Necrons get wiped out too easily.

**Skaorn**

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

Are Tau gun line armies though? A lot of their best shooting is at close range. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would say they are just because they rely on shooting and really don't do anything useful in the assault phase now that JSJ is gone (not to mention no involvement in the psychic phase at all). Even if you have to drive up someone's nose to shoot them off the table, it's still unfair because they couldn't sword you.

**vaklor4**

Jokes on ya'll for taking Peregrine seriously.

**Xenomancers**

I play tau as a pure gunline with some element of mobility to flank or take down priority targets.

**Brutus_Apex**

Seriously, Gunlines and Tau are lame as feth.

This isn’t Star Trek, it’s 40k. Grab a Chainsword or gtfo.

Close combat should be king.

**Xenomancers**

gwarsh41 wrote:
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.

If you are struggling with guilliman ball - you should try playing a gunline yourself - you will decimate them. The army itself is not viable because gunlines exist.

**Sim-Life**

Because I like to shatter skies with artillary and roll massive handfuls of dice.

**mew28**

I play a gunline because SM suck in CC.

**Marmatag**

Brutus_Apex wrote:
Seriously, Gunlines and Tau are lame as feth.

This isn’t Star Trek, it’s 40k. Grab a Chainsword or gtfo.

Close combat should be king.

You're probably joking, but i actually 100% agree with this, lol.

**Galas**

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

WHAT A SHAMEFUR DISPRAY!

How can a gunline put into practice the sacred tactics of Kauyon and Mont'ka? The Tau way is the fast way, artillery support with Firewarriors to protect them, with a ton of movile elements to do surgical strikes. If you are playing tau any other way you are playing them objetively WRONG!

I know Crisis suck, but Vespids don't! Use your Crisis with Vespids rules! You'll have the best of both worlds.

Marmatag wrote:
Brutus_Apex wrote:
Seriously, Gunlines and Tau are lame as feth.

This isn’t Star Trek, it’s 40k. Grab a Chainsword or gtfo.

Close combat should be king.

You're probably joking, but i actually 100% agree with this, lol.

No, he isn't. Hes like the polar opposite of Peregrine in the "Should Warhammer 40k be about shooting or meele" argument.

**Marmatag**

I would also balk at the implication that shooting implies gunline.

I've always viewed Tau as a mobile shooting force.

Gunlines are more about castling.

**Lemondish**

Dakka gonna dakka...

**Galas**

Marmatag wrote:
I would also balk at the implication that shooting implies gunline.

I've always viewed Tau as a mobile shooting force.

Gunlines are more about castling.

They are a mobile shooting force by design and by lore. The fact that they can gunline just mean you can play them that way, but Imperial Guard are THE gunline army.

Tau are more like a mixture of Imperial Guard and Craftworld Eldar. That mean you can play them like imperial guard or like Eldar, but only playing them as the middle point between the both you'll discover the true potential of Tau.

**Brutus_Apex**

No, he isn't. Hes like the polar opposite of Peregrine in the "Should Warhammer 40k be about shooting or meele" argument

For the record, I'm half joking. I know that guns are a major part of the lore of 40K. But the game has always been deeply rooted in Fantasy and should maintain those fantastical elements. Including an emphasis on melee. I just don't want this new generation coming in and making it all about guns. It's what sets 40K apart from the others and makes it interesting.

**craggy**

When I started, one of the appeals of 40k over Fantasy, aside from my general preference towards sci-fi stuff, was the guns. My early Blood Angels had a squad of Veteran Assault Marines to back up Dante, a walking Death Company and some Terminators, and that was the extent of the close combat units. I definitely appreciated shooting more.

Nowadays, as I'm far more into the modelling aspect of things than the gaming, close quarters guys usually get the cooler models, so I have a bias towards building assault based forces. I've been slowly expanding my BA into a more combat focused army, I've got an Orks army based on rushing forward, Tyranids that need built, but who won't have any big guns to start with. My mixed Aeldari have a few Shooty units, sure, but Shuriken weapons have as much range as a toothpick so they'll have to work their way up close too. The only shooting army I'll have will be my Tau and they're kinda stuck on being that since apparently giant robots can hit stuff with laser swords or giant fists.

**phydaux**

GW writes the rules. Back in 3rd the rules favored assault, and assault armies were everywhere. Then for a while it was MSUs, and MSU armies were everywhere. Now it's 8th and the rules favor shooting, so gunlines are everywhere.

The only thing we know for sure is that eventually there will be another edition of the rules, and (intentionally or otherwise) those rules will favor a particular style of play. And gamers will field that style of army because it's more fun to win than it is to lose.

And it really is just that simple.

**kastelen**

Because I like rolling buckets of dice and I play admech.

**ProwlerPC**

Well my orks are 2/3 shooty and 1/3 choppy. So far I haven't gotten into 8th edition as I continue to patiently wait for a codex. Sure it might be better then 7th but I'm still unimpressed with this edition but who knows maybe after getting a finished product I might get into it and enjoy it. I used to always say don't underestimate an ork gun line in previous editions since S4 attacks from choppy Boyz only occurred on the charge while shoota Boyz brought a more reliable volume of S4. This edition made our shooting too expensive of a point sink resulting in just bleeding points. Although 30 Shoota Boyz still have a devastating over watch and they've always been my preffered bubble wrap for intercepting melee.

**greyknight12**

Some people like mental image of the stoic gunline beating back the hordes with disciplined volley fire (such as the British squares vs the Zulu or the Napoleanic era of warfare in general).

**meleti**

Marmatag wrote:
I would also balk at the implication that shooting implies gunline.

I've always viewed Tau as a mobile shooting force.

Gunlines are more about castling.

Maybe Tau are a moving gunline.

**BaconCatBug**

A moving gunline that has it's heavy weapons hitting on 5s when they move. Seems legit.

**troa**

Pointless polls make this forum a worse place. Rant to friends.

**Mmmpi**

@OP

I'm not going to vote in your poll as your choices are all insulting.

Just because YOU don't like shooting based armies, doesn't mean everyone else has to dislike them too.

Maybe some of us like to use options that get penalized when you move. Maybe some of use like artillery, tanks, and such. Why should they curb their fun because you have a chainsword fetish?

But I suppose you're just going to keep whining no matter what anyone says.

**pm713**

If whining endlessly bugs you Dakka is not a place for you.

**carldooley**

Brother SRM wrote:

Edit for some context:
The tournament allowed no special characters, which meant the White Scars player couldn't take Khan. As a result, he could not outflank. He figured he'd be facing a typical Tau gunline, so he placed his entire army in reserves. Turns out the Tau player had a gimmick list of Kroot and fought gimmick with gimmick. The official ruling was that the Tau player won, but using the same tactic ever again would get you disqualified.

I think that Peregrine needs to learn that no plan survives contact with the enemy.

Don't tell me that Peregrine is one of those who actually modelled a commissar with a sword onto a LRMBT?
google Drive closer so I can hit them with my sword!

**Dandelion**

Mmmpi wrote:
@OP

I'm not going to vote in your poll as your choices are all insulting.

Just because YOU don't like shooting based armies, doesn't mean everyone else has to dislike them too.

Maybe some of us like to use options that get penalized when you move. Maybe some of use like artillery, tanks, and such. Why should they curb their fun because you have a chainsword fetish?

But I suppose you're just going to keep whining no matter what anyone says.

I don't think that is what he believes. He has consistently defended "shooting" as the main event of 40k with melee being a side element. He doesn't even think demons should be a viable solo army since they lack guns.

The gist of his post is that gunlines (basically camping) are boring. Shooting itself is fine (and encouraged), but if you just chill in the back and refuse to move then he has a problem. Granted, I believe employing meaningful terrain is the single best way to curb this behavior.

**wuestenfux**

Well, I play only fun games atm.
Gun lines are easiest way to play an army these days,
while cc specialists have a hard time.
Charge range, overwatch, and withdrawal from cc are basic hidrances.

**BlackLobster**

There isn't an applicable option in the poll so I didn't vote.

Under 4th and 5th editions when I was playing Space Marines as my army of choice, gun lines were my preferred method of play. The reason being that I was always decimated by assault based armies. There was no point trying to engage in combat. I preferred to use my shooting to help thin the attackers before they got to me so that I might have a chance at surviving. Now under 8th edition my chosen army, Death Guard, can weather a little close combat so I am happy to walk forwards and try to both shoot and smack. However, saying that, I can still see the appeal to playing a more static gun line especially if that sort of mental imagery for your army is what floats your boat. It is just another tactical choice and the same could be said of why do players want to play assault base armies? It's just preference.

**the_scotsman**

BlackLobster wrote:
There isn't an applicable option in the poll so I didn't vote.

Under 4th and 5th editions when I was playing Space Marines as my army of choice, gun lines were my preferred method of play. The reason being that I was always decimated by assault based armies. There was no point trying to engage in combat. I preferred to use my shooting to help thin the attackers before they got to me so that I might have a chance at surviving. Now under 8th edition my chosen army, Death Guard, can weather a little close combat so I am happy to walk forwards and try to both shoot and smack. However, saying that, I can still see the appeal to playing a more static gun line especially if that sort of mental imagery for your army is what floats your boat. It is just another tactical choice and the same could be said of why do players want to play assault base armies? It's just preference.

Everything is preference, and the poll is set up terribly, but in my own experience being involved with a large group of players for a very long time, it's the most one-note skewy army lists that lose peoples interest the fastest, both in terms of players losing interest in their own army and people losing interest in playing against them.

A one-note fast assault rush army is equally applicable to a one-note static gunline, or a one-note all super heavy force. We had one guy playing nothing but a pair of warhound titans for a while in 7th, basically just a rich kid wanting to show off what daddys money bought him, and though he lost every game pretty much nobody wanted to play him twice. playing an army where you know exactly what its going to do and exactly how a given game is going to go when you deploy and roll for first turn gets pretty old pretty fast, and playing an army with only a couple unit choices is just the very best way to get destroyed by balance changes that would effect someone with a more diverse force much less.

**sfshilo**

Sometimes I like lighting off the torches and watching my enemy burn from afar op.

Sometimes I want to wade into them with blades.

The point being, the game is more interesting when you have differing armies.