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.

 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.

What's really obnoxious about it is that if you want to play an army with only ranged units, you can. Tau and imperial guard cater to those play styles, while space marines and eldar can be played that way with rules can encourage it. Meanwhile, Melee armies still generally have to take ranged units to deal with some problems. Even THE melee army, daemons, will have skull cannons in their lists.

So they can play the way they want... but they can't apparently handle other people having fun, and blame other people for their own lack of imagination.

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

Because it slows down the game. So, just axe it and move on. CC belongs in AoS

Well shooting slows down the game too, so does movement. Why not axe everything? Just Mathhammer everything turn 1 and decide games that way. Singling out melee is arbitrary.

Melee is such an integral part of the lore and history of 40k it would be a disservice to the franchise to remove it from the game IMO.

There's been suggestions floating around for ages around there being some sort of penalty or detriment for trying to leave combat, rather than just freely walking away.

This is a ridiculous line of discussion. You might as well say, "Why does this game have to have these stupid aliens and 9 foot tall super soldiers? It's so unrealistic!"

If all you like is Tau and shooty guard, just play Bolt Action

 JNAProductions wrote:
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'd go as far to say that melee is crucial to actually making this game interesting.

 Togusa wrote:

 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.

What does your sense of realism tell you about the ballistic resistance of animated fungus?

Or do you refuse to play against Orks because their lack of hemoglobin or vascular system precludes a mammalian metabolism, and the lack of realism in their biology is an immediate deal-breaker?

Who else remembers third/fourth edition when you could charge, kill a unit, consolidate into another unit, and continue hurting things?

I do, and it was awful.

Overwatch helped balance things out when a single model Melee unit could literally obliterate enemy units via Sweeping Advance, and the enemy unit couldn't do anything back since it was too tough for them to punch in melee.

Now a days, maybe it could use toning down, like costing a CP to overwatch with a unit or something.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Who else remembers third/fourth edition when you could charge, kill a unit, consolidate into another unit, and continue hurting things?

I do, and it was awful.

Overwatch helped balance things out when a single model Melee unit could literally obliterate enemy units via Sweeping Advance, and the enemy unit couldn't do anything back since it was too tough for them to punch in melee.

Now a days, maybe it could use toning down, like costing a CP to overwatch with a unit or something.

How long ago was that? Because modern melee in 40k isn't that powerful.

Hell, compare an Obliterator to a Mutilator.

15+ years ago. I temember a game where a Chaos army was killled down to one guy, and that guy turned into a Bloodthirster and went on to table his opponent. It was pretty epic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Togusa wrote:

 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.

You could set that scenario up in 40k and get that result. So what's your beef?

People saying 40K would be better without melee sound pretty hilarious to me. Star Wars would be cooler without the force and Jedi and Star Trek is pretty interesting aside from the Enterprise I guess and why are there Wizards in Harry Potter?!

 Togusa wrote:

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

Because it slows down the game. So, just axe it and move on. CC belongs in AoS

Shooting with all the rerolls handed out to Lineinfantrye eerrrrrm i mean glorious deathblob of Spacemarines, sorry no i meant clearly structured and codexified line formations for Shocktroops .

Also Orkz shooting. nuff said.
IF time is your sole deciding factor then you'd have to axe shooting way more then melee.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
Who else remembers third/fourth edition when you could charge, kill a unit, consolidate into another unit, and continue hurting things?

I do, and it was awful.

Overwatch helped balance things out when a single model Melee unit could literally obliterate enemy units via Sweeping Advance, and the enemy unit couldn't do anything back since it was too tough for them to punch in melee.

Now a days, maybe it could use toning down, like costing a CP to overwatch with a unit or something.

How long ago was that? Because modern melee in 40k isn't that powerful.

Hell, compare an Obliterator to a

Spoiler:

Mutilator

.

This thing does not exist.
it was dead as a concept before it even was done, due to beeing schizophrenic as all hell design wise.

The mutilator should never have existed, no.

The obliterator was supposed to be the ultimate swiss army knife terminator originally. A non-feeling chaotic being that could morph its body into whatever weapon it needed at the given time.

When GW released the mutilator, they were trying to sell more models, period. There was no need for a melee version of the oblit, when the oblit itself could just morph its hands into power fists.

They never should have amalgamized the weapon profiles on the oblit. It should flat out be pick a profile every turn and you are stuck with that profile whole turn. You could have even given them a strat that let them swap profiles for CP and it would have meshed with this edition just fine.

Give them the plasma cannon, auto-cannon, heavy flamer, and the new rotary cannon for shooting profiles, and Power fist, Power axe, and Lighting claw melee profiles to choose from.

With regard to the melee debate, do you think it would help if 40k took some inspiration from games like Warmachine?

See, in Warmachine, if a unit wants to attack another unit in close combat, they simply move into melee range (no special Charge move required) and hit them with one or more melee weapons.

Meanwhile, melee in 40k is like a random battle in one of those JRPGs, where combat might as well be taking place in a different plane of existence from the rest of the game.

I bring this up because it seems the current method basically leads to a lot of bad and nonsensical design elements that then have to be balanced by *even more* bad and nonsensical design elements.

 vipoid wrote:

Meanwhile, melee in 40k is like a random battle in one of those JRPGs, where combat might as well be taking place in a different plane of existence from the rest of the game.

I bring this up because it seems the current method basically leads to a lot of bad and nonsensical design elements that then have to be balanced by *even more* bad and nonsensical design elements.

I'm just glad challenges have gone. As a CSM player, man were they a pain in the bum

 vipoid wrote:
With regard to the melee debate, do you think it would help if 40k took some inspiration from games like Warmachine?

See, in Warmachine, if a unit wants to attack another unit in close combat, they simply move into melee range (no special Charge move required) and hit them with one or more melee weapons.

Meanwhile, melee in 40k is like a random battle in one of those JRPGs, where combat might as well be taking place in a different plane of existence from the rest of the game.

I bring this up because it seems the current method basically leads to a lot of bad and nonsensical design elements that then have to be balanced by *even more* bad and nonsensical design elements.

40k is what happens when you start with a simple WWI era game after having a fantasy game, and then mess with it for twenty five years.

If you've seen games like Corvus Belli's Infinity, or (I forget who makes it now) Bolt Action, a game designer can take a concept like Overwatch and turn it into something really interesting. But to do that, there's a lot more effort required than just "Everybody gets to stand and shoot."

To be honest, I think 40k would have been better off just stealing WHFB charge reactions. Your gun line is being charged, you say? Well then, here are your options:
* Run away
* Stand and fire (doing the sensible thing and waiting until the enemy is visible/in range)
* Brace to receive charge (the default reaction)
and then go from there. And then do things with the close combat based forces (bloodletters, daemonettes, Wyches, gene stealers, etc.) like giving the scary or fast units partial or complete immunity to getting shot at while charging in.

And then they could have considered things like "If you didn't move and/or shoot last turn, negate some of the penalties that you're going to receive when you choose the 'stand and fire' option.

Instead, 40k has overwatch, revision whatever. :shrug:

Would a change such as only allowing a unit to disengage from melee during that unit's combat phase, not the movement phase, make it "more balanced"?

steelhead177th wrote:
Would a change such as only allowing a unit to disengage from melee during that unit's combat phase, not the movement phase, make it "more balanced"?

I would rather see something like a 2d6 leadership test to leave melee in the movement phase, would also make leadership penalties for melee units actually worth a damn.

steelhead177th wrote:
Would a change such as only allowing a unit to disengage from melee during that unit's combat phase, not the movement phase, make it "more balanced"?

Def an intersting idea - that they have to fight their way out but it could risk tipping the other way?

Prefer all subject to No Escape but with penalties and bonuses.

Having never served in the military - anyone nay experience in how difficult it is to break off from hand to hand combat?

 Mr Morden wrote:

steelhead177th wrote:
Would a change such as only allowing a unit to disengage from melee during that unit's combat phase, not the movement phase, make it "more balanced"?

Def an intersting idea - that they have to fight their way out but it could risk tipping the other way?

Prefer all subject to No Escape but with penalties and bonuses.

Having never served in the military - anyone nay experience in how difficult it is to break off from hand to hand combat?

I haven’t served but I asked my roommate(army) and he said usually you make a little space and someone else shoots him or jumps in and pulls them off and then shoots them. So relatively easy.

TheAvengingKnee wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

steelhead177th wrote:
Would a change such as only allowing a unit to disengage from melee during that unit's combat phase, not the movement phase, make it "more balanced"?

Def an intersting idea - that they have to fight their way out but it could risk tipping the other way?

Prefer all subject to No Escape but with penalties and bonuses.

Having never served in the military - anyone nay experience in how difficult it is to break off from hand to hand combat?

I haven’t served but I asked my roommate(army) and he said usually you make a little space and someone else shoots him or jumps in and pulls them off and then shoots them. So relatively easy.

That is if you CAN make space.
I'd imagine that lictors or hormagaunts and other such things have NO issue with staying on you.

Not Online!!! wrote:

TheAvengingKnee wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

steelhead177th wrote:
Would a change such as only allowing a unit to disengage from melee during that unit's combat phase, not the movement phase, make it "more balanced"?

Def an intersting idea - that they have to fight their way out but it could risk tipping the other way?

Prefer all subject to No Escape but with penalties and bonuses.

Having never served in the military - anyone nay experience in how difficult it is to break off from hand to hand combat?

I haven’t served but I asked my roommate(army) and he said usually you make a little space and someone else shoots him or jumps in and pulls them off and then shoots them. So relatively easy.

That is if you CAN make space.
I'd imagine that lictors or hormagaunts and other such things have NO issue with staying on you.

That depends on what they're doing though, right? I can imagine a Hormagaunt too busy finishing off George to chase Ted. It's the whole "when running from a bear, the only thing you have to outrun is the person with you" thing. Which folds neatly into the "the enemy hits me while I withdraw, to represent them catching some dudes off guard" mechanic. Perhaps you get full melee power, but only from models within 1", that way it's still diminished from the phase before and it represents on the the front rank leaping out to kill baddies.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

TheAvengingKnee wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

steelhead177th wrote:
Would a change such as only allowing a unit to disengage from melee during that unit's combat phase, not the movement phase, make it "more balanced"?

Def an intersting idea - that they have to fight their way out but it could risk tipping the other way?

Prefer all subject to No Escape but with penalties and bonuses.

Having never served in the military - anyone nay experience in how difficult it is to break off from hand to hand combat?

I haven’t served but I asked my roommate(army) and he said usually you make a little space and someone else shoots him or jumps in and pulls them off and then shoots them. So relatively easy.

That is if you CAN make space.
I'd imagine that lictors or hormagaunts and other such things have NO issue with staying on you.

That depends on what they're doing though, right? I can imagine a Hormagaunt too busy finishing off George to chase Ted. It's the whole "when running from a bear, the only thing you have to outrun is the person with you" thing. Which folds neatly into the "the enemy hits me while I withdraw, to represent them catching some dudes off guard" syndrome. Perhaps you get full melee power, but only from models within 1", that way it's still diminished from the phase before and it represents on the the front rank leaping out to kill baddies.

Which would basically make a disengage tax necessary.
Which i am not opposed on. You want to disengage, yeah better let jhony there hold the line whilest i scram

Not Online!!! wrote:
Which would basically make a disengage tax necessary.
Which i am not opposed on. You want to disengage, yeah better let jhony there hold the line whilest i scram

Yes.

Like I tried to illustrate earlier, the idea of being "locked in combat" is fundamentally flawed. Entire tank companies aren't going to cease firing into the enemy because one guardsman is in combat with one model at the right front corner of the enemy's 30" by 30" spread out square of 50 dudes or whatever.

"Some guy in the same squad as me 50 yards away is in melee" should not be a protection against shooting.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Which would basically make a disengage tax necessary.
Which i am not opposed on. You want to disengage, yeah better let jhony there hold the line whilest i scram

Yes.

Like I tried to illustrate earlier, the idea of being "locked in combat" is fundamentally flawed. Entire tank companies aren't going to cease firing into the enemy because one guardsman is in combat with one model at the right front corner of the enemy's 30" by 30" spread out square of 50 dudes or whatever.

"Some guy in the same squad as me 50 yards away is in melee" should not be a protection against shooting.

This.

I could see there being some sort of penalty. Maybe hit rolls of 1 are resolved against a friendly unit in melee with the target.

However, having melee provide 100% protection from shooting is - and always has been - a horrible, crutch of a rule.

I'd say a flat modifier or range for beeing to close and therefore stuck would be rather interesting for melee consideration.

It would also make fallback less of a nobrainer aswell.
Especially if you HAVE to consider that you will take casualities.

Not Online!!! wrote:
I'd say a flat modifier or range for beeing to close and therefore stuck would be rather interesting for melee consideration.

It would also make fallback less of a nobrainer aswell.
Especially if you HAVE to consider that you will take casualities.

I don't mean the unit that is actually stuck in combat.

I mean other units trying to shoot the enemy. Consider the following: A Wraithknight charges a Predator and, say, 2 Space Marines. On its turn, it smashes the Predator to bits. The Marines flail back, doing whatever.

Now, the Wraithknight is completely immune to the entire gamut of enemy shooting. There could be 80 shadowswords surrounding the Wraithknight on all sides, but because of 2 Space Marines who barely come up to its ankles, the WK is completely immune.

8th Edition permits the Marines to fall back, which is one way. Another way is to simply let the shadowswords shoot and vaporize both the Marines and the WK. Another option is to let the Marines fall back, but let the WK stomp them/stab them/eat them / whatever on the way out.

Each of those has its problems:
1) Flawless fall-back is in some ways unintuitive and seems too easy.

2) Shooting Marines in the back makes sense in this scenario, but would a Russ shoot at his own commander's Russ? Would a Guardsman with a meltagun shoot at an enemy fighting a Baneblade? Would anyone try to take a shot and risk hitting their friend when it's Guilliman, Lord Commander of the Imperium who is in danger?

3) Serious issues with action economy - if you touch 4 units in your charge, and all 4 try to fall back, do you get to try to hit all four? Why is your Guardsman suddenly four times better at meleeing the enemy than he is in the melee phase? How does he run from one unit to the other? Do you restrict them to picking one unit falling back to attack? How are attacks split if they all fall back at the same time? If they don't fall back at the same time, then do you hit all of them, or will you let them all go?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Which would basically make a disengage tax necessary.
Which i am not opposed on. You want to disengage, yeah better let jhony there hold the line whilest i scram

Yes.

Like I tried to illustrate earlier, the idea of being "locked in combat" is fundamentally flawed. Entire tank companies aren't going to cease firing into the enemy because one guardsman is in combat with one model at the right front corner of the enemy's 30" by 30" spread out square of 50 dudes or whatever.

"Some guy in the same squad as me 50 yards away is in melee" should not be a protection against shooting.

Much like any sort of tank shouldn't give a hot damn about those two idiots with chainswords carving their names into the camo-paintwork. Why fall back? Just keep firing. Or run them over first, and then keep firing.
I get that – and very much approve of – 40k incorporates the notion of personal armour capable of withstanding high-powered ranged weaponry. It's basically a point you'll inevitably encounter in an arms race. There have been eras in human history when the ranged weaponry available was not powerful enough to make personal armour obsolete, although at present it most certainly is that powerful. But if you factor in personal armour that can and will stop bullets from general issue firearms, then chainswords start making sense again. Of course, so do titans and orbital bombardment, but perhaps sometimes you want to preserve elements of the engagement theatre, right?
I actually don't mind how overwatch works. It's overly simplistic and can kick you in the nuts just when you least expect it to, but sometimes that can be as hilarious as as it can be aggravating. The total lack of any equivalent when your opponents bail out definitely stings far more.
I think the ban on firing after falling back should just go. Applying a penalty to ranged attacks after falling back would make sense, but I see how that would add the kind of bookkeeping 8th seems intent on avoiding.
Consolidation should be made more lenient, i.e. let units consolidate any which way, and increase the range back to 6", and then let the assaulting unit consolidate after their opponents have fallen back. This would force players who want to fall back and fire to consider more carefully whether the angry bastards trying to chew their unit's legs off might not then be able to get to an even juicier target.
In addition, let units with the VEHICLE or MONSTER keyword deal hits to INFANTRY by moving over them in the movement phase. You want to lock a Land Raider in CC? Don't use grots. You want to stand there, blocking that Leman Russ's way? If you're a Chaos Cultist, it's Tiananmen Square 2.0, dude.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Spoiler:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I'd say a flat modifier or range for beeing to close and therefore stuck would be rather interesting for melee consideration.

It would also make fallback less of a nobrainer aswell.
Especially if you HAVE to consider that you will take casualities.

I don't mean the unit that is actually stuck in combat.

I mean other units trying to shoot the enemy. Consider the following: A Wraithknight charges a Predator and, say, 2 Space Marines. On its turn, it smashes the Predator to bits. The Marines flail back, doing whatever.

Now, the Wraithknight is completely immune to the entire gamut of enemy shooting. There could be 80 shadowswords surrounding the Wraithknight on all sides, but because of 2 Space Marines who barely come up to its ankles, the WK is completely immune.

8th Edition permits the Marines to fall back, which is one way. Another way is to simply let the shadowswords shoot and vaporize both the Marines and the WK. Another option is to let the Marines fall back, but let the WK stomp them/stab them/eat them / whatever on the way out.

Each of those has its problems:
1) Flawless fall-back is in some ways unintuitive and seems too easy.

2) Shooting Marines in the back makes sense in this scenario, but would a Russ shoot at his own commander's Russ? Would a Guardsman with a meltagun shoot at an enemy fighting a Baneblade? Would anyone try to take a shot and risk hitting their friend when it's Guilliman, Lord Commander of the Imperium who is in danger?

3) Serious issues with action economy - if you touch 4 units in your charge, and all 4 try to fall back, do you get to try to hit all four? Why is your Guardsman suddenly four times better at meleeing the enemy than he is in the melee phase? How does he run from one unit to the other? Do you restrict them to picking one unit falling back to attack? How are attacks split if they all fall back at the same time? If they don't fall back at the same time, then do you hit all of them, or will you let them all go?

As for 2, 8th doesn't really take into account that your units might not do what you want them to. You're the almighty omniscient general, if you want them to shoot into melee and risk vaporising Guilliman, your troops will execute your orders without a second thought. I suppose this might offer an avenue for adding meaningful leadership tests, though.

The action economy issue would be addressed by the pursuit option. Unless you're going to cut your model in half, that guardsman could only pursue one of the fleeing enemies (or head towards another unit entirely or, hey, even run back into cover or something).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I'd say a flat modifier or range for beeing to close and therefore stuck would be rather interesting for melee consideration.

It would also make fallback less of a nobrainer aswell.
Especially if you HAVE to consider that you will take casualities.

I don't mean the unit that is actually stuck in combat.

I mean other units trying to shoot the enemy. Consider the following: A Wraithknight charges a Predator and, say, 2 Space Marines. On its turn, it smashes the Predator to bits. The Marines flail back, doing whatever.

Now, the Wraithknight is completely immune to the entire gamut of enemy shooting. There could be 80 shadowswords surrounding the Wraithknight on all sides, but because of 2 Space Marines who barely come up to its ankles, the WK is completely immune.

8th Edition permits the Marines to fall back, which is one way. Another way is to simply let the shadowswords shoot and vaporize both the Marines and the WK. Another option is to let the Marines fall back, but let the WK stomp them/stab them/eat them / whatever on the way out.

Each of those has its problems:
1) Flawless fall-back is in some ways unintuitive and seems too easy.

2) Shooting Marines in the back makes sense in this scenario, but would a Russ shoot at his own commander's Russ? Would a Guardsman with a meltagun shoot at an enemy fighting a Baneblade? Would anyone try to take a shot and risk hitting their friend when it's Guilliman, Lord Commander of the Imperium who is in danger?

3) Serious issues with action economy - if you touch 4 units in your charge, and all 4 try to fall back, do you get to try to hit all four? Why is your Guardsman suddenly four times better at meleeing the enemy than he is in the melee phase? How does he run from one unit to the other? Do you restrict them to picking one unit falling back to attack? How are attacks split if they all fall back at the same time? If they don't fall back at the same time, then do you hit all of them, or will you let them all go?

Honestly it's simple: Vehicle keyword / beast keyword , can be freely targeted even in melee. Caveat, add a miss trhow of 1 as a hit against your allies. (like the purge stratagem)
Secondly, falling back from big singular stuff, should be a non issue because that is frankly simple. However if you tell me 8 marines are falling back out of my 50 mutant blob there will start to be issues imo, overrrunning should favour massed units, because these units suffer the most from the bad melee rules of 8th. The Fire and forget smashcaptains etc work perfectly fine, but the horde melee just doesn't. my solution, all models within 1" of multiple enemy combatants that falls back either A: takes as many hits or B : remains to buy time for it's comrades leading to a minor fight phase after which the holding back one dies.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

3) Serious issues with action economy - if you touch 4 units in your charge, and all 4 try to fall back, do you get to try to hit all four? Why is your Guardsman suddenly four times better at meleeing the enemy than he is in the melee phase? How does he run from one unit to the other? Do you restrict them to picking one unit falling back to attack? How are attacks split if they all fall back at the same time? If they don't fall back at the same time, then do you hit all of them, or will you let them all go?

yeah but if i fail multiple charges on the same unit, it gets to overwatch for every single one of them, which is the same problem yet seems to be accepted.