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.

Why do physics matter in the incredibly unrealistic setting of 40k?

That right there is a perfect example of why you'll never understand anything I'm talking about. That's fine. You don't like my opinion? Cool, move on.

I know you think you're maneuvering for some kind of proof or evidence that you're right and I'm wrong - and you can have fun with that. Melee armies don't work or belong in 40K outside of narrative or thematic scenarios, simple as that. You can continue to say that they do, and that's cool - enjoy your armies, but you simply won't get an ounce of pity from me when they don't work.

If you don't understand the concept of "You're over there with a sword, and I'm over here with a firearm" and why that matters - nothing I can type is going to change that. The core concept is not present and that's cool. I'm not here to convince you. Carry on with whatever you feel like complaining about.

The thing missing here is that it isn’t just people in this “gunfight” it’s superhumans in super armour, hellspawn that barely have a place in reality until the moment that they strike, bugzilla with natural plating like slabs of steel and all his little buggy offspring that nobody knows are around because they’re literally hiding inside their neighbours, force fields, force fields miniaturised as personal shields and force fields generated by magic - this is space fantasy.

I’m not against overwatch, my army doesn’t have much of it but there are ways of turning overwatch off anyway.
My bigger gripe would be units just walking out of combat. I’d be for a swing back mechanic and consolidation following that. If a unit gets tangled in melee then they have to work out how to get themselves free with minimum penalty not just step away and have everything else shoot at the unit that charged. That’s even worse than the stupid knife to a gunfight analogy, try to run away from something that has just charged through hell to get you and it will just hit you in the back rather than the front.

So what SHOULD 40k be, then? If not space fantasy?

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
The thing missing here is that it isn’t just people in this “gunfight” it’s superhumans in super armour, hellspawn that barely have a place in reality until the moment that they strike, bugzilla with natural plating like slabs of steel and all his little buggy offspring that nobody knows are around because they’re literally hiding inside their neighbours, force fields, force fields miniaturised as personal shields and force fields generated by magic - this is space fantasy.

I’m not against overwatch, my army doesn’t have much of it but there are ways of turning overwatch off anyway.
My bigger gripe would be units just walking out of combat. I’d be for a swing back mechanic and consolidation following that. If a unit gets tangled in melee then they have to work out how to get themselves free with minimum penalty not just step away and have everything else shoot at the unit that charged. That’s even worse than the stupid knife to a gunfight analogy, try to run away from something that has just charged through hell to get you and it will just hit you in the back rather than the front.

I generally agree with this, actually - disengaging from a melee is quite difficult if someone is trying to hit you.

But there also needs to be a way to not have units locked in combat that prevent other units from shooting at them, which was always weird in earlier editions. I used to find it funny when 20 Genestealers would wipe out everything except like one Guardsmen, who would then roll snakeeyes on his test and stick around due to Insane Heroism, and then the Leman Russ tanks literally just sit and watch the guardsman get eaten because they can't fire.

Now, this literally only happened to me once in 3 editions, but the point stands: walking out of melee scott-free should probably be impossible, but the enemy using a single model as a bullet-immunity-shield for their 30-boy Ork unit should also be probably impossible.

Honestly, making the melee rules make sense would probably require a complete overhaul of the rules, but I have ideas if anyone wants to hear them.

 Elbows wrote:
That right there is a perfect example of why you'll never understand anything I'm talking about. That's fine. You don't like my opinion? Cool, move on.

I know you think you're maneuvering for some kind of proof or evidence that you're right and I'm wrong - and you can have fun with that. Melee armies don't work or belong in 40K outside of narrative or thematic scenarios, simple as that. You can continue to say that they do, and that's cool - enjoy your armies, but you simply won't get an ounce of pity from me when they don't work.

If you don't understand the concept of "You're over there with a sword, and I'm over here with a firearm" and why that matters - nothing I can type is going to change that. The core concept is not present and that's cool. I'm not here to convince you. Carry on with whatever you feel like complaining about.

You seem to be coming from the angle that 40k should prioritize realism over rule of cool. Which... seems odd. 40k doesn't really present itself as a realistic setting. It's full of space knights wielding energy sword against fungus monsters and their jurry-rigged scrap pistols. Ninja elves use chainsaws to cut up booger demons and viking werewolves. So from a lore/aesthetics angle, you're insisting 40k be something it has never tried to be at all. And mechancially, melee armies have been viable in the past and could be viable again in the future. Heck, some competitive recent lists do include strong melee elements (smash captain for instance). So it's not as though making melee viable is an impossible ask.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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).

I kind of like this. I'd probably just simplify it to 12" rather than messing around with half range though. Flamers should probably be able to overwatch at least their normal 8" rather than 4", for instance.

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).

That doesn't really address the main issue with falling back though. The real problem with falling back isn't that you're cheated from an extra round of stabbing; it's that the rest of your opponent's units can blast you away.

I mean, it's not like the current rules make it all that difficult for a melee unit to pursue and charge the enemy again on their own turn. Guardsmen fall back up to 6". Tac marines can move 6" and then charge 2d6". They'll catch those guardsmen no problem. Except that those tac marines won't be around to make another charge because the punisher russ off to the side and the bassilisk in the corner are going to wipe them out right after the guardsmen fall back.

Which is why I like the idea of making units that you fall back from untargetable by units outside of X". You can absolutely fall back and shoot the melee unit, but you're going to have to get close to do it. Maybe invest in some units or weapons you normally pass on in favor of more down-field shots. Charging wouldn't guarantee you'd be unshootable on your opponent's next turn, but it would shrink the number of guns that can shoot at you.

 Elbows wrote:
That right there is a perfect example of why you'll never understand anything I'm talking about. That's fine. You don't like my opinion? Cool, move on.

I know you think you're maneuvering for some kind of proof or evidence that you're right and I'm wrong - and you can have fun with that. Melee armies don't work or belong in 40K outside of narrative or thematic scenarios, simple as that. You can continue to say that they do, and that's cool - enjoy your armies, but you simply won't get an ounce of pity from me when they don't work.

If you don't understand the concept of "You're over there with a sword, and I'm over here with a firearm" and why that matters - nothing I can type is going to change that. The core concept is not present and that's cool. I'm not here to convince you. Carry on with whatever you feel like complaining about.

40k doesn't need "realism." It needs verisimilitude. Close combat being just as common as firefights is a core part of the space fantasy setting of 40k.

Keep in mind that the close combat phase isn't always described as outright melee. it's just an incredibly short distanced firefight. Yes, in some cases, it's going in with knives, but that's mostly because some models only have CC equipped, like hormagaunts.

In earlier editions, close combat was described as everyone throwing everything at an incoming assault--usually because that incoming assault was by specialists (or better generalists) that was going to wreck your face. Even chucking grenades while charging was considered flavor for the attack charge.

Overwatch is a terrible rule that is just something else that has to be looked after. Should it be removed? Maybe. I can't really think of a good way to keep it in. It either stays as is, which ridiculously favors shooty armies (or just shooting in general), or it gets changed to having some sort of downside.

If that downside were something like, sure, you could shoot overwatch, but you won't get to attack in melee, that may cause some consideration in using it, but it probably won't. Shooty armies with weak melee will always overwatch, and strong melee armies will always choose not to. I suppose the only armies that would benefit from that flexibility would be Space Marines.

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

You are just wasting your time trying to talk sense here.

These people won't be convinced by any reasonable argument. Just let them believe that knives are on par with guns.

 Strg Alt wrote:

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

You are just wasting your time trying to talk sense here.

These people won't be convinced by any reasonable argument. Just let them believe that knives are on par with guns.

In a realistic game, designed to emulate modern or futuristic reality, then yes. Melee shouldn't be a primary mode of combat.

But this is NOT realistic. This is NOT meant to emulate reality. This is about genetically altered, power armor wearing warrior monks fighting fungoid hooligan aliens. This is about ancient Egyptian robo space mummies going toe-to-toe with space elves. This is NOT meant to be realistic.

Moreover, my biggest complaint is with this:

 Elbows wrote:

 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.

Elbows presented melee and ranged balance as impossible, not as opinion, but as a fact.

If you don't want to see melee in 40k, that's a fine opinion (though I'd recommend finding a different game, then-melee is pretty big in 40k's narrative and theme) but when you present melee as being OBJECTIVELY bad for the game... I've got an issue with that.

I think it would be an idea to borrow a concept from Epic Armageddon and have gun-fights resolved at the same time as knife-fights.

In Epic engagements your units use their Close Combat rating to score hits in base contact, and their Firefight rating to score hits when not in base contact but within the Epic equivalent of 24". Plus enemies within 24" of the attacking detachment, or one of the defending detachments, can also contribute.

Adapting that for Warhammer would be easy if we reduce the range of engagements to 12", swap detachments for units, and track morale using blast markers rather than casualties. No need for special FF and CC scores when the usual rules for pistols, assault weapons, rapid fire, and basically all non-heavy weapons don't need abstracting. Roll the charge phase into the Movement phase and you have an opportunity for knife-duders to charge gun-duders and likewise an opportunity for them to be gunned down attempting to do so.

Choosing the order of units attacking in the Close Combat phase is wonderfully game-y, in the good sense of making players feel in control.

a few fixes to combat in general that a friend and i came up with while venting on the current ruleset of 40k:

Overwatch isn't available to all models, make it a keyword of give it only to certain types of weapons (FLAMERS...) OR a unit needs to "ready" itself to be allowed to overwatch, basically delaying its shooting phase.
The unit that charge can move the distance it rolled even if the charge failed (closer to the target only).
The range and line of sight are calculated after the movement was made (so flamers would always overwatch on a sucessful charge but if you failed it you could stop right out of range to not get shot at.

When falling back, the unit needs to make a No Escape test of some sorts. Or even simpler, if you fall back, i get to attack you for free.

Or let those released by FallBack moves make a move action, sans the 1"-of-enemy restriction. At the end of the opponent's movement phase.

Walking back out of melee from a stronger force won't be nearly as appetizing. And getting thsoe Guardsmen to hold the line against that tide of Orks just became so much more critical.

I think you should be able to use your guns in melle at -1 to hit instead of overwatch.

Sound fair?

Or how about a d6 run move away from your charging units to make up for the fact they aren't just going to stand there while people are charging them with swords.

Stop bitching about melle. This is the strongest melle has ever been. It is high risk high reward. deal with it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
The thing missing here is that it isn’t just people in this “gunfight” it’s superhumans in super armour, hellspawn that barely have a place in reality until the moment that they strike, bugzilla with natural plating like slabs of steel and all his little buggy offspring that nobody knows are around because they’re literally hiding inside their neighbours, force fields, force fields miniaturised as personal shields and force fields generated by magic - this is space fantasy.

I’m not against overwatch, my army doesn’t have much of it but there are ways of turning overwatch off anyway.
My bigger gripe would be units just walking out of combat. I’d be for a swing back mechanic and consolidation following that. If a unit gets tangled in melee then they have to work out how to get themselves free with minimum penalty not just step away and have everything else shoot at the unit that charged. That’s even worse than the stupid knife to a gunfight analogy, try to run away from something that has just charged through hell to get you and it will just hit you in the back rather than the front.

I generally agree with this, actually - disengaging from a melee is quite difficult if someone is trying to hit you.

But there also needs to be a way to not have units locked in combat that prevent other units from shooting at them, which was always weird in earlier editions. I used to find it funny when 20 Genestealers would wipe out everything except like one Guardsmen, who would then roll snakeeyes on his test and stick around due to Insane Heroism, and then the Leman Russ tanks literally just sit and watch the guardsman get eaten because they can't fire.

Now, this literally only happened to me once in 3 editions, but the point stands: walking out of melee scott-free should probably be impossible, but the enemy using a single model as a bullet-immunity-shield for their 30-boy Ork unit should also be probably impossible.

Honestly, making the melee rules make sense would probably require a complete overhaul of the rules, but I have ideas if anyone wants to hear them.

This seems like a good moment to draw comparison to another tabletop game I enjoy - Judgement.
Judgement is a MOBA-like tabletop game where you use a small pool of heroes to compete, instead of a wargame like 40k, but that's not super relevant to the point. The point is that, like in 40k, Judgement uses a lot of maneuvering and movement in order to tie up enemy units/models so that they can't shoot, have to disengage, are stunlocked by positioning, or are otherwise incapable of acting due to careful positioning and use of abilities.

The main difference between 40k isn't actually in the way that mechanics work, it's in the way that the mechanics are framed and setup. Judgement is deliberately gamey, designed to feel like online MOBAs, and the gameplay reflects this. When you carefully move 1.1" away from an enemy, hit them with a pair of different stuns, and then force them to spend their whole turn recovering from your actions, it feels like you're playing the way the game was meant to be played because this is explicitly explained in the rules and is presented as what you're supposed to do for optimal play.

With 40k, though, whenever I play optimally, I always feel less like I'm playing the game how it's supposed to be played, and more like I'm exploiting loopholes that the developers didn't properly think through. Optimally, the best way to use my horde of Ork Boys is to charge a unit that they can't see because it's inside a building, surround them, pile in so that I've only got one model in base-to-base when I attack but they can't possibly fall back while also tying up as many other non-melee units so that they have to fall back, and then move in for the kill next turn after my opponent fails to hurt me because most of their shooty units had to fall back and my horde is still technically engaged. (Or, alternatively: The optimal thing to do is charge a drop pod with my Imperial Knight, attack with my weaker melee option so that I don't kill it, then laugh because my opponent can't attack me next turn since I'm engaged in melee with his immobile, unable-to-fall-back unit.)

Strictly speaking, the function is the same, but one feels a lot more fun because it feels intended and encouraged instead of feeling like a dirty trick. I think the best fix to things like the falling back mechanics isn't necessarily to significantly change them, it might just be to make them clearly and explicitly intentional and encourage players to gamify the rules whenever possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think you should be able to use your guns in melle at -1 to hit instead of overwatch.

Sound fair?

No, it does not. That's a terrible idea.

Or how about a d6 run move away from your charging units to make up for the fact they aren't just going to stand there while people are charging them with swords.

That's an even worse idea.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think you should be able to use your guns in melle at -1 to hit instead of overwatch.

Sound fair?

Or how about a d6 run move away from your charging units to make up for the fact they aren't just going to stand there while people are charging them with swords.

Stop bitching about melle. This is the strongest melle has ever been. It is high risk high reward. deal with it.

That's like saying "Stop bitching about Iron Hands, because IH could have given S10T10W10 to every model instead!"

It doesn't move the needle.

I like most of what you write but wish that a move stat was reintroduced with charges effectively 2x move minus terrain influences


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
a few fixes to combat in general that a friend and i came up with while venting on the current ruleset of 40k:

Overwatch isn't available to all models, make it a keyword of give it only to certain types of weapons (FLAMERS...) OR a unit needs to "ready" itself to be allowed to overwatch, basically delaying its shooting phase.
The unit that charge can move the distance it rolled even if the charge failed (closer to the target only).
The range and line of sight are calculated after the movement was made (so flamers would always overwatch on a sucessful charge but if you failed it you could stop right out of range to not get shot at.

When falling back, the unit needs to make a No Escape test of some sorts. Or even simpler, if you fall back, i get to attack you for free.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Stop bitching about melle. This is the strongest melle has ever been. It is high risk high reward. deal with it.

Can you share some examples of meta, tournament-winning melee builds in 8th? Because all the ones I can think of off the top of my head (Alaitoc flier spam, Knights + Guard, Iron Hands gunline, Tau gunline) are shooting-oriented, with the second of those having a minor melee contingent (smash captains).

Melee requires you to get into combat while getting shot, eat overwatch, roll high enough to make it to the target, then pin your target so that they can't retreat and don't wipe them out or you'll get shot. It's definitely high risk but I have a hard time seeing the reward.

Back in 3rd Ed, Rapid Fire weapons only got one shot out to 12" if they moved, Heavy couldn't move and shoot, charging gave you an extra attack, winning the melee and forcing the enemy to fall back carried a significant chance of instantly killing the entire unit, and cover worked. No overwatch, gunlines were completely static, and nobody could voluntarily retreat. I have a hard time seeing how melee is stronger than it was back then; my Hormagaunts with their 18" threat radius and 3 attacks on the charge used to mulch Guard and SM gunlines. Now not so much, and the tricks I have to get into melee faster are offset by things like shoot-twice abilities and better Overwatch.

 Elbows wrote:
That right there is a perfect example of why you'll never understand anything I'm talking about. That's fine. You don't like my opinion? Cool, move on.

I know you think you're maneuvering for some kind of proof or evidence that you're right and I'm wrong - and you can have fun with that. Melee armies don't work or belong in 40K outside of narrative or thematic scenarios, simple as that. You can continue to say that they do, and that's cool - enjoy your armies, but you simply won't get an ounce of pity from me when they don't work.

If you don't understand the concept of "You're over there with a sword, and I'm over here with a firearm" and why that matters - nothing I can type is going to change that. The core concept is not present and that's cool. I'm not here to convince you. Carry on with whatever you feel like complaining about.

This is the issue. Look at the war in Afghanistan, CQC is literally the last resort of a desperate soldier, who has found themselves within 10 feet of their opponent. Nothing more, it's not viable in a game with laser guns. If anything, they need to cut CC from the next edition. Shooting only.

Since when is 40k meant to be realistic? At all?

Or steer even heavier into space fantasy. Drastically reduce the killing power of long range shooting.

Add more suppression and functioning morale rules. Close range shooting remains deadly.

Game becomes one of close range firefights and melee while ranged specialists mess with support pieces (snipers etc) and disruption (allowing you to gain localized advantages in said close range firefights/melee)

 Togusa wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
That right there is a perfect example of why you'll never understand anything I'm talking about. That's fine. You don't like my opinion? Cool, move on.

I know you think you're maneuvering for some kind of proof or evidence that you're right and I'm wrong - and you can have fun with that. Melee armies don't work or belong in 40K outside of narrative or thematic scenarios, simple as that. You can continue to say that they do, and that's cool - enjoy your armies, but you simply won't get an ounce of pity from me when they don't work.

If you don't understand the concept of "You're over there with a sword, and I'm over here with a firearm" and why that matters - nothing I can type is going to change that. The core concept is not present and that's cool. I'm not here to convince you. Carry on with whatever you feel like complaining about.

This is the issue. Look at the war in Afghanistan, CQC is literally the last resort of a desperate soldier, who has found themselves within 10 feet of their opponent. Nothing more, it's not viable in a game with laser guns. If anything, they need to cut CC from the next edition. Shooting only.

I'm seriously debating with myself if you are all very sarcastic or just never read a single piece of WH40k lore ever. Realism has never entered the picture and melee is a big thing in both the fluff and the game. Does it make sense to have melee be at all viable? No, but then realism was the first thing to be kicked to the curb when over half the fluff was written. Removing melee as a viable option? Alrighty so I just need to permanently shelf half my Ork army because suddenly melee "doesn't make sense anymore"? Not too mention all the other armies reliant on melee for half their codex entries. As for balance, while this is the first edition of the game I've played, melee does have it's place and while hard to pull off successfully the rewards are equally enticing. Does it make a lot of sense, no. But as established common sense doesn't come within the same postcode as Warhammer 40K fluff.

Realism is the stronghold of the pedant. It's not about making a system or setting better, it's about "being right", often at the expense of other people's enjoyment.

EDIT: It's most egregious when you consider how lopsided people are with using realism in these discussion: as they claim Melee isn't accurately represented without how they think it's used in real life... but they're fine with Ranged units being near-omniscience (as long as you can see even the smallest part of a model, or have LoS ignoring weapons, you can hit all models in a unit regardless of any other logic,), near-omnipotent (bottomless magazines, can fire as many weapons as they can carry regardless of size or handedness as long as they're not pistols or grenades), immune to psychology (able to split fire at as many targets as they want regardless of personal threat) and have machine like precision (consistent range and the same accuracy regardless of range).

 Castozor wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
That right there is a perfect example of why you'll never understand anything I'm talking about. That's fine. You don't like my opinion? Cool, move on.

I know you think you're maneuvering for some kind of proof or evidence that you're right and I'm wrong - and you can have fun with that. Melee armies don't work or belong in 40K outside of narrative or thematic scenarios, simple as that. You can continue to say that they do, and that's cool - enjoy your armies, but you simply won't get an ounce of pity from me when they don't work.

If you don't understand the concept of "You're over there with a sword, and I'm over here with a firearm" and why that matters - nothing I can type is going to change that. The core concept is not present and that's cool. I'm not here to convince you. Carry on with whatever you feel like complaining about.

This is the issue. Look at the war in Afghanistan, CQC is literally the last resort of a desperate soldier, who has found themselves within 10 feet of their opponent. Nothing more, it's not viable in a game with laser guns. If anything, they need to cut CC from the next edition. Shooting only.

I'm seriously debating with myself if you are all very sarcastic or just never read a single piece of WH40k lore ever. Realism has never entered the picture and melee is a big thing in both the fluff and the game. Does it make sense to have melee be at all viable? No, but then realism was the first thing to be kicked to the curb when over half the fluff was written. Removing melee as a viable option? Alrighty so I just need to permanently shelf half my Ork army because suddenly melee "doesn't make sense anymore"? Not too mention all the other armies reliant on melee for half their codex entries. As for balance, while this is the first edition of the game I've played, melee does have it's place and while hard to pull off successfully the rewards are equally enticing. Does it make a lot of sense, no. But as established common sense doesn't come within the same postcode as Warhammer 40K fluff.

I'm approaching it from a game standpoint. I do not care about the lore, I play the game, because it's a game.

In my experience, CC only serves to slow down the game. So, I say just axe it and make this a shooting game 100%.

Then why did you reference a real world war?

And to me, close combat is the good stuff. Get rid of all that boring shooting! /s

 JNAProductions wrote:
Then why did you reference a real world war?

And to me, close combat is the good stuff. Get rid of all that boring shooting! /s

I live in a world governed by realism, it's going to bleed into my thinking. High Fantasy is fine as a story, not so much as a game mechanic.

If there are 1000 guardsmen on a wall with heavy weapons and lasrifles, the support of artillery and naval bombardment, a charging ork warband with axes and pistols has a .001% chance of winning. That's just reality. It doesn't matter if that ork warband numbers 10,000 individual soldiers. They will lose. Every. Single. Time.

So you play a game, that has had melee as a significant portion for, as far as I can tell, it's inception and complain about it's inclusion? Not too mention a game were roughly half the armies have a significant interest in melee, and complain about CC being there? It just makes no sense to me. This is not a realistic wargame but a wargame set in the 40k universe which like it or not features a lot of melee combat.

 Castozor wrote:
So you play a game, that has had melee as a significant portion for, as far as I can tell, it's inception and complain about it's inclusion? Not too mention a game were roughly half the armies have a significant interest in melee, and complain about CC being there? It just makes no sense to me. This is not a realistic wargame but a wargame set in the 40k universe which like it or not features a lot of melee combat.

I would reckon that 9/10 games I've played since I started have been against shooting armies, so much so that when I got my CSM marines, I had to look up all the rules for CC because I didn't know them. Like at all.

 Castozor wrote:
So you play a game, that has had melee as a significant portion for, as far as I can tell, it's inception and complain about it's inclusion? Not too mention a game were roughly half the armies have a significant interest in melee, and complain about CC being there? It just makes no sense to me. This is not a realistic wargame but a wargame set in the 40k universe which like it or not features a lot of melee combat.

The high point of the validity of CC as a strategy was 4e, it's only gone downhill from there. The fact that 8e had to introduce reliable charge out of Deep Strike to resurrect it says a lot.

Well then why do you want them removed completely if they don't bother you? This makes even less sense to me.