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.

Yeah, Sitskrieg 40k in RT and 2ed was no fun.

To me the casualties inflicted by overwatch should each reduce the charge dice by 1. The entire point of shooting overwatch is to deter the charging unit from actually pushing the assault home.

Likewise, the defending unit should be forced to choose between firing overwatch or getting to fight during the ensuing fight phase. I also wouldn't make all overwatch shooting hit on 6's. Some measurement (you are already measuring for the charge anyways) that reduces the effectiveness of the overwatch the shorter the charge distance.

I might reduce the number of flamer hits from d6 to d3 (maybe limiting the max hits to 1 hit for every 2" of charge distance) if it is a short charge. Restricting them to needing to be in range at the start of is silly when the charge still needs to go through the wall of fire they are putting up to defend themselves.

We don't use overwatch in our games, but use a dedicated reaction phase instead. The current player may either move OR shoot first with all units. The enemy player may then opt to react to any enemy unit in LOS and within 12" of the current player's units with a successful leadership test, or move D3". Heavy weapons may only shoot in a 45 degree arc and ordnance may only shoot straight ahead. Half of the hits are counted, rounding up. No models beyond 12" are affected.

Then the current player moves or shoots, whichever was not done earlier. The defender may react now if he did not do so earlier. The current player may then conduct assault moves.

The way I would change overwatch is make it a decision.

You can take that overwatch if you want, but on the following turn you wont get to shoot in the normal shooting phase or at the very least you wont get to swing in the following assault phase.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
The way I would change overwatch is make it a decision.

You can take that overwatch if you want, but on the following turn you wont get to shoot in the normal shooting phase or at the very least you wont get to swing in the following assault phase.

Still a no brain choice: gettng charged by genestealer? I'll gladly shoot you again cause the unit won't be alive next turn to shoot or to swing in the ensuing fight phase

I agree it should be an active decision. I also remember the days of "Sitzkreig", having witnessed at least one game where both sides sat still, passing on moving and just Overwatching until someone had to move in the last turn in the hopes of taking an objective to win the game (and paying the price for it).

Personally, I'd wish it would be a mode you put a unit to instead of firing. It's -1 to hit but otherwise normal BS, and you can only shoot at units at 1/2 range or less (charging OR moving in Overwatch range).

As for falling back out of melee, I feel you should forgo your melee attacks to do so, but that would move disengaging from the movement phase to the combat phase. Maybe make disengaging 1" or 3" (just enough to move away from the enemy), so that the subsequent move in your own turn isn't so massive. (This would have the side effect that the disengaging unit basically acts normally on its turn, but has now eaten a turn of melee without striking back, and is likely to get charged once again).

Could still built some special abilities around these - perhaps Tau have a stratagem that allow a unit to Overwatch after normal firing, or a commander/warlord ability to allow one unit to Overwatch after shooting. Could also have something like Beserkers having ability to prevent (or make it harder) for enemies to Disengage or a stratagem that cancels an enemy unit's attempt to disengage and so forth.

That's really the way I prefer things - give a player an option with consequences instead of dumb random chance and tactical options to enhance or compensate for these abilities with strategic choices of play.

I'd remove overwatch completely. 40k has already too much shooting.

 Stormonu wrote:
I agree it should be an active decision. I also remember the days of "Sitzkreig", having witnessed at least one game where both sides sat still, passing on moving and just Overwatching until someone had to move in the last turn in the hopes of taking an objective to win the game (and paying the price for it).

Personally, I'd wish it would be a mode you put a unit to instead of firing. It's -1 to hit but otherwise normal BS, and you can only shoot at units at 1/2 range or less (charging OR moving in Overwatch range).

As for falling back out of melee, I feel you should forgo your melee attacks to do so, but that would move disengaging from the movement phase to the combat phase. Maybe make disengaging 1" or 3" (just enough to move away from the enemy), so that the subsequent move in your own turn isn't so massive. (This would have the side effect that the disengaging unit basically acts normally on its turn, but has now eaten a turn of melee without striking back, and is likely to get charged once again).

Could still built some special abilities around these - perhaps Tau have a stratagem that allow a unit to Overwatch after normal firing, or a commander/warlord ability to allow one unit to Overwatch after shooting. Could also have something like Beserkers having ability to prevent (or make it harder) for enemies to Disengage or a stratagem that cancels an enemy unit's attempt to disengage and so forth.

That's really the way I prefer things - give a player an option with consequences instead of dumb random chance and tactical options to enhance or compensate for these abilities with strategic choices of play.

I like these ideas.
Something like overwatch belongs in a wargame but it is currently not done so well.
Making it more of a part of the game giving some armies like tau and perhaps necrons more overwatchiness than others makes sense.
Removing overwatch misses out on what shuld be an interesting and exciting strategic dimension of the game.

Remove melee armies. Easy fix.

 Elbows wrote:
Remove melee armies. Easy fix.

That's a joke, right?

Nope, not at all.

 Elbows wrote:
Nope, not at all.

Why would you want to remove half the game?

*brings knife to a gunfight, complains games are unbalanced*

*Game explodes trying to balance knives in a gunfight*

"Devs suck"

That's probably why.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
*brings knife to a gunfight, complains games are unbalanced*

*Game explodes trying to balance knives in a gunfight*

"Devs suck"

That's probably why.

The game presents a close combat army as a perfectly valid choice. There are a lot of armies that are primarily Close Combat, and some few that are PURE Close Combat.

It's like 3.5 D&D-the game presents a level 10 Fighter as equal to a level 10 Druid. When the Druid is astronomically more useful and powerful than the Fighter, then yes, I'm going to blame the devs for presenting two choices as equal when they're anything but.

JNAProductions wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
*brings knife to a gunfight, complains games are unbalanced*

*Game explodes trying to balance knives in a gunfight*

"Devs suck"

That's probably why.

The game presents a close combat army as a perfectly valid choice. There are a lot of armies that are primarily Close Combat, and some few that are PURE Close Combat.

It's like 3.5 D&D-the game presents a level 10 Fighter as equal to a level 10 Druid. When the Druid is astronomically more useful and powerful than the Fighter, then yes, I'm going to blame the devs for presenting two choices as equal when they're anything but.

If they

Elbows wrote:Remove melee armies.

then they aren't presenting it as a valid choice, mmh?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Nope, not at all.

Why would you want to remove half the game?

Numerous reasons. Close-combat is suitable in the lore and narrative of the 40K universe but makes next to zero sense in a "balanced" (i.e. points equivalent) wargame.

So I should just throw away all my Daemons?

And why is CC not compatible with balance?

Should you be using Daemons in normal Matched Play? Nope, probably not. They're not suited to it, and only exist because GW realized they could double-dip their model lines to both fan-bases.

But why aren’t they? You’ve asserted that with no evidence.

 JNAProductions wrote:
But why aren’t they? You’ve asserted that with no evidence.

This entire thread is caused by GW's chronic inability to balance knives with gunfire.

Why do I need evidence? You asked my opinion, I've given it to you. A game which is based around science fiction and missile weapons should not pander to a handful of silly armies based around running across the field with swords.

Those style armies are better off reserved for narrative or special scenarios which better represent their presence in the lore of 40K. Desires by players to "make everything equal" just dumbs down the entire game. It's akin to someone trying to referee a game between paintballers and LARPers. Everyone loses.

You did not state that as opinion. You said, in effect, that you CANNOT balance melee armies.

THAT needs support, or it should be dismissed.

I mean, to no present melee as viable and to avoid lying to any potential customers, you'd ALSO have to remove all the artwork of space marines fighting in climatic duels with chainswords and powerfists, orks clashing as a line of bodies into entrenched defenders, swarms of tyranids gribbies and bigguns washing over their foes in a wave of teeth and claws, Chaos warrior dedicating their bodied trophies to Khorne from martial combat, Banshees and Striking Scorpions coming for with blinding speed to attack a flat footed enemy, ect ect, as well as any lore pertaining to the same thing along with many of the iconic scenes that define the setting (Yarrick vs Ghazghkull, genestealers vs Terminators, Berserkers).

At which point, 40k would fail to resemble itself in any meaningful way.

Edit: 5th edition was actually a very good balance between shooting and melee, even if it was mostly vehicle based, the problem being that 6th edition and after did Games Workshop gak the bed by thinking "you know what would be a great idea? Random charge ranges"

Also, 40k is more fantasy in space than actual sci-fi.

 JNAProductions wrote:
You did not state that as opinion. You said, in effect, that you CANNOT balance melee armies.

THAT needs support, or it should be dismissed.

Why does that need support? You can't properly balance those two armies without the game suffering (as it already does), or bending reality in order to try to pander to one side. Simple.

But why not? You’ve given no reason why, just stated it as fact.

It's just common sense. Simple.

If you arbitrarily change rules to give people with swords a fighting chance of running across a field under gunfire...you've basically yanked out any sense of purpose or realism in your game, even in a fictional setting. That doesn't need explanation. You're just hamstringing one side and boosting another to add in the false pretense of "being fair" which naturally has a poor impact on the game. That makes the game play and feel worse. It's not tough to comprehend.

Realism in 40k.

That’s a joke, right?

And that's why you'll never understand what I'm talking about - so carry on.

If you want realism, play Bolt Action.

There’s basically NOTHING realistic about 40k. Not marines. Not eldar. Not orks. Not bolters. Not necrons. Not space travel via the warp. Not the warp itself.

Sure, but that doesn't change physics.