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.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I don't hate overwatch, I do think it should be something like

player 1 declares all charges.
player 2 declares overwatch where they choose which units they will be shooting at hitting on 6's. can split fire like in regular squads but only at things charging them.
player 1 makes charge rolls

and at the end of combat everybody stays in combat because fleeing combat should not be a thing that happens. maybe add an option where they can declare the unit destroyed or ran and pull the models from the table but this ever falling back screen play is so annoying

I think a tank or walker falling back from combat is reasonable, it’s going to be hard for an infantry squad to stop them. Even for other units it should’ve be some type of test to leave after all melee shouldn’t be stuck until dead add in some kind of damage for failing the fall back test. While we’re at it we should also add a penalty for failing to make a charge or if we go with no falling back at all like you proposed we should just remove,a unit who failed a charge from the board they ran out into open ground to make the charge failed to reach their target so they got cut down.

TheAvengingKnee wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I don't hate overwatch, I do think it should be something like

player 1 declares all charges.
player 2 declares overwatch where they choose which units they will be shooting at hitting on 6's. can split fire like in regular squads but only at things charging them.
player 1 makes charge rolls

and at the end of combat everybody stays in combat because fleeing combat should not be a thing that happens. maybe add an option where they can declare the unit destroyed or ran and pull the models from the table but this ever falling back screen play is so annoying

I think a tank or walker falling back from combat is reasonable, it’s going to be hard for an infantry squad to stop them. Even for other units it should’ve be some type of test to leave after all melee shouldn’t be stuck until dead add in some kind of damage for failing the fall back test. While we’re at it we should also add a penalty for failing to make a charge or if we go with no falling back at all like you proposed we should just remove,a unit who failed a charge from the board they ran out into open ground to make the charge failed to reach their target so they got cut down.

vehicles i agree. i am more thinking infantry. I have a hard time thinking 20 bloodletters or 30 ork boys are going to calmly let the infantry just walk away and not just keep pursuing them until they are slain. As for a penalty for a failed charge.. that is basically the overwatch. you took the overwatch and did not get to attack so have to take overwatch again the next turn assuming you survive to attempt another charge.

the purpose of the player 2 decision there is shooty armies get to allocate overwatch as they wish rather than just overwatchign the first declared charge. no more.. i charge your group of 10 guardman with the flamer with a rhino before charging with a unit of agggressors. nope now it would be i see both coming at me... fetch it i cannot hurt the tank so will flame and shoot the space marines instead maybe causing some casualties on the way in. .

 G00fySmiley wrote:

TheAvengingKnee wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I don't hate overwatch, I do think it should be something like

player 1 declares all charges.
player 2 declares overwatch where they choose which units they will be shooting at hitting on 6's. can split fire like in regular squads but only at things charging them.
player 1 makes charge rolls

and at the end of combat everybody stays in combat because fleeing combat should not be a thing that happens. maybe add an option where they can declare the unit destroyed or ran and pull the models from the table but this ever falling back screen play is so annoying

I think a tank or walker falling back from combat is reasonable, it’s going to be hard for an infantry squad to stop them. Even for other units it should’ve be some type of test to leave after all melee shouldn’t be stuck until dead add in some kind of damage for failing the fall back test. While we’re at it we should also add a penalty for failing to make a charge or if we go with no falling back at all like you proposed we should just remove,a unit who failed a charge from the board they ran out into open ground to make the charge failed to reach their target so they got cut down.

vehicles i agree. i am more thinking infantry. I have a hard time thinking 20 bloodletters or 30 ork boys are going to calmly let the infantry just walk away and not just keep pursuing them until they are slain. As for a penalty for a failed charge.. that is basically the overwatch. you took the overwatch and did not get to attack so have to take overwatch again the next turn assuming you survive to attempt another charge.

the purpose of the player 2 decision there is shooty armies get to allocate overwatch as they wish rather than just overwatchign the first declared charge. no more.. i charge your group of 10 guardman with the flamer with a rhino before charging with a unit of agggressors. nope now it would be i see both coming at me... fetch it i cannot hurt the tank so will flame and shoot the space marines instead maybe causing some casualties on the way in. .

I think then we should take into account the comparative unit sizes for if you can fall back or not, like a single captain is going to be stuck vs 30 orks but a 5 man tac squad would be easily able to escape a 5 man or less unit.

TheAvengingKnee wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

TheAvengingKnee wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I don't hate overwatch, I do think it should be something like

player 1 declares all charges.
player 2 declares overwatch where they choose which units they will be shooting at hitting on 6's. can split fire like in regular squads but only at things charging them.
player 1 makes charge rolls

and at the end of combat everybody stays in combat because fleeing combat should not be a thing that happens. maybe add an option where they can declare the unit destroyed or ran and pull the models from the table but this ever falling back screen play is so annoying

I think a tank or walker falling back from combat is reasonable, it’s going to be hard for an infantry squad to stop them. Even for other units it should’ve be some type of test to leave after all melee shouldn’t be stuck until dead add in some kind of damage for failing the fall back test. While we’re at it we should also add a penalty for failing to make a charge or if we go with no falling back at all like you proposed we should just remove,a unit who failed a charge from the board they ran out into open ground to make the charge failed to reach their target so they got cut down.

vehicles i agree. i am more thinking infantry. I have a hard time thinking 20 bloodletters or 30 ork boys are going to calmly let the infantry just walk away and not just keep pursuing them until they are slain. As for a penalty for a failed charge.. that is basically the overwatch. you took the overwatch and did not get to attack so have to take overwatch again the next turn assuming you survive to attempt another charge.

the purpose of the player 2 decision there is shooty armies get to allocate overwatch as they wish rather than just overwatchign the first declared charge. no more.. i charge your group of 10 guardman with the flamer with a rhino before charging with a unit of agggressors. nope now it would be i see both coming at me... fetch it i cannot hurt the tank so will flame and shoot the space marines instead maybe causing some casualties on the way in. .

I think then we should take into account the comparative unit sizes for if you can fall back or not, like a single captain is going to be stuck vs 30 orks but a 5 man tac squad would be easily able to escape a 5 man or less unit.

Positioning matters as much as numbers. Think of a big square of 50 Guard Conscripts (bear with me) all spread out:

o o o o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o o

A Space Marine Captain charges one corner:
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
*

The IG player might pile in with a couple guys or not, but he certainly won't get even close to the 50 man unit in. He'll probably get like 3 guys on the gigantic titan of a man that is an SM captain.

Why shouldn't the captain be able to fall back?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

TheAvengingKnee wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

TheAvengingKnee wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I don't hate overwatch, I do think it should be something like

player 1 declares all charges.
player 2 declares overwatch where they choose which units they will be shooting at hitting on 6's. can split fire like in regular squads but only at things charging them.
player 1 makes charge rolls

and at the end of combat everybody stays in combat because fleeing combat should not be a thing that happens. maybe add an option where they can declare the unit destroyed or ran and pull the models from the table but this ever falling back screen play is so annoying

I think a tank or walker falling back from combat is reasonable, it’s going to be hard for an infantry squad to stop them. Even for other units it should’ve be some type of test to leave after all melee shouldn’t be stuck until dead add in some kind of damage for failing the fall back test. While we’re at it we should also add a penalty for failing to make a charge or if we go with no falling back at all like you proposed we should just remove,a unit who failed a charge from the board they ran out into open ground to make the charge failed to reach their target so they got cut down.

vehicles i agree. i am more thinking infantry. I have a hard time thinking 20 bloodletters or 30 ork boys are going to calmly let the infantry just walk away and not just keep pursuing them until they are slain. As for a penalty for a failed charge.. that is basically the overwatch. you took the overwatch and did not get to attack so have to take overwatch again the next turn assuming you survive to attempt another charge.

the purpose of the player 2 decision there is shooty armies get to allocate overwatch as they wish rather than just overwatchign the first declared charge. no more.. i charge your group of 10 guardman with the flamer with a rhino before charging with a unit of agggressors. nope now it would be i see both coming at me... fetch it i cannot hurt the tank so will flame and shoot the space marines instead maybe causing some casualties on the way in. .

I think then we should take into account the comparative unit sizes for if you can fall back or not, like a single captain is going to be stuck vs 30 orks but a 5 man tac squad would be easily able to escape a 5 man or less unit.

Positioning matters as much as numbers. Think of a big square of 50 Guard Conscripts (bear with me) all spread out:

o o o o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o o

A Space Marine Captain charges one corner:
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
*

The IG player might pile in with a couple guys or not, but he certainly won't get even close to the 50 man unit in. He'll probably get like 3 guys on the gigantic titan of a man that is an SM captain.

Why shouldn't the captain be able to fall back?

in theory if those conscripts were trying to fight the space marine captain each trying to reach him they wouldn't just let him walk away. it would at the best be a fighting retreat in the theatre of the mind... but I am more lookign at the tabletop balance. this edition like most before it heavily favors shooting lists. Even mroe so than any i have played in to be honest. the plight of the melee player used to be reaching combat and then you have a shot getting stuck in, judging how much to push in to finish off the assaults on your opponent's turn to keep going. Now they just fall back the next turn and destroy melee list with impunity by pouring in enough shots at front units and the melee armies generally cannot ever reach the backlines of say a tau or space marine list.

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

TheAvengingKnee wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

TheAvengingKnee wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I don't hate overwatch, I do think it should be something like

player 1 declares all charges.
player 2 declares overwatch where they choose which units they will be shooting at hitting on 6's. can split fire like in regular squads but only at things charging them.
player 1 makes charge rolls

and at the end of combat everybody stays in combat because fleeing combat should not be a thing that happens. maybe add an option where they can declare the unit destroyed or ran and pull the models from the table but this ever falling back screen play is so annoying

I think a tank or walker falling back from combat is reasonable, it’s going to be hard for an infantry squad to stop them. Even for other units it should’ve be some type of test to leave after all melee shouldn’t be stuck until dead add in some kind of damage for failing the fall back test. While we’re at it we should also add a penalty for failing to make a charge or if we go with no falling back at all like you proposed we should just remove,a unit who failed a charge from the board they ran out into open ground to make the charge failed to reach their target so they got cut down.

vehicles i agree. i am more thinking infantry. I have a hard time thinking 20 bloodletters or 30 ork boys are going to calmly let the infantry just walk away and not just keep pursuing them until they are slain. As for a penalty for a failed charge.. that is basically the overwatch. you took the overwatch and did not get to attack so have to take overwatch again the next turn assuming you survive to attempt another charge.

the purpose of the player 2 decision there is shooty armies get to allocate overwatch as they wish rather than just overwatchign the first declared charge. no more.. i charge your group of 10 guardman with the flamer with a rhino before charging with a unit of agggressors. nope now it would be i see both coming at me... fetch it i cannot hurt the tank so will flame and shoot the space marines instead maybe causing some casualties on the way in. .

I think then we should take into account the comparative unit sizes for if you can fall back or not, like a single captain is going to be stuck vs 30 orks but a 5 man tac squad would be easily able to escape a 5 man or less unit.

Positioning matters as much as numbers. Think of a big square of 50 Guard Conscripts (bear with me) all spread out:

o o o o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o o

A Space Marine Captain charges one corner:
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
*

The IG player might pile in with a couple guys or not, but he certainly won't get even close to the 50 man unit in. He'll probably get like 3 guys on the gigantic titan of a man that is an SM captain.

Why shouldn't the captain be able to fall back?

in theory if those conscripts were trying to fight the space marine captain each trying to reach him they wouldn't just let him walk away. it would at the best be a fighting retreat in the theatre of the mind... but I am more lookign at the tabletop balance. this edition like most before it heavily favors shooting lists. Even mroe so than any i have played in to be honest. the plight of the melee player used to be reaching combat and then you have a shot getting stuck in, judging how much to push in to finish off the assaults on your opponent's turn to keep going. Now they just fall back the next turn and destroy melee list with impunity by pouring in enough shots at front units and the melee armies generally cannot ever reach the backlines of say a tau or space marine list.

Well part of the issue is that in a universe with pretty good guns melee focused units and armies don’t make much sense, there is a reason h2h combat in a modern military is all but dead. The armors are better than modern body armor but the ability of the ranged weapons to penetrate said armor is also much better.

TheAvengingKnee wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

TheAvengingKnee wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

TheAvengingKnee wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I don't hate overwatch, I do think it should be something like

player 1 declares all charges.
player 2 declares overwatch where they choose which units they will be shooting at hitting on 6's. can split fire like in regular squads but only at things charging them.
player 1 makes charge rolls

and at the end of combat everybody stays in combat because fleeing combat should not be a thing that happens. maybe add an option where they can declare the unit destroyed or ran and pull the models from the table but this ever falling back screen play is so annoying

I think a tank or walker falling back from combat is reasonable, it’s going to be hard for an infantry squad to stop them. Even for other units it should’ve be some type of test to leave after all melee shouldn’t be stuck until dead add in some kind of damage for failing the fall back test. While we’re at it we should also add a penalty for failing to make a charge or if we go with no falling back at all like you proposed we should just remove,a unit who failed a charge from the board they ran out into open ground to make the charge failed to reach their target so they got cut down.

vehicles i agree. i am more thinking infantry. I have a hard time thinking 20 bloodletters or 30 ork boys are going to calmly let the infantry just walk away and not just keep pursuing them until they are slain. As for a penalty for a failed charge.. that is basically the overwatch. you took the overwatch and did not get to attack so have to take overwatch again the next turn assuming you survive to attempt another charge.

the purpose of the player 2 decision there is shooty armies get to allocate overwatch as they wish rather than just overwatchign the first declared charge. no more.. i charge your group of 10 guardman with the flamer with a rhino before charging with a unit of agggressors. nope now it would be i see both coming at me... fetch it i cannot hurt the tank so will flame and shoot the space marines instead maybe causing some casualties on the way in. .

I think then we should take into account the comparative unit sizes for if you can fall back or not, like a single captain is going to be stuck vs 30 orks but a 5 man tac squad would be easily able to escape a 5 man or less unit.

Positioning matters as much as numbers. Think of a big square of 50 Guard Conscripts (bear with me) all spread out:

o o o o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o o

A Space Marine Captain charges one corner:
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
*

The IG player might pile in with a couple guys or not, but he certainly won't get even close to the 50 man unit in. He'll probably get like 3 guys on the gigantic titan of a man that is an SM captain.

Why shouldn't the captain be able to fall back?

in theory if those conscripts were trying to fight the space marine captain each trying to reach him they wouldn't just let him walk away. it would at the best be a fighting retreat in the theatre of the mind... but I am more lookign at the tabletop balance. this edition like most before it heavily favors shooting lists. Even mroe so than any i have played in to be honest. the plight of the melee player used to be reaching combat and then you have a shot getting stuck in, judging how much to push in to finish off the assaults on your opponent's turn to keep going. Now they just fall back the next turn and destroy melee list with impunity by pouring in enough shots at front units and the melee armies generally cannot ever reach the backlines of say a tau or space marine list.

Well part of the issue is that in a universe with pretty good guns melee focused units and armies don’t make much sense, there is a reason h2h combat in a modern military is all but dead. The armors are better than modern body armor but the ability of the ranged weapons to penetrate said armor is also much better.

sure but that is real world vs game design.

in 40k a psychic unit can send a mind bullet through a tank. Last i checked no military is using mind bullets or tearing holes in reality to release demons.

As part of game design you should want balanced armies and different play styles to be viable. With shooting being markedly better and having been for most editions without attempts to address it. we end up with "oh you want to play a melee army, I guess you are at a distinct disadvantage" vs properly fixing the rules so different factions and builds are on equal footing

The problem with that is that even though this is a sci-fi fantasy game the things that made guns better tan h2h combat are still going to exist and still going to make melee weaker. Unless you make melee brokenly OP is always going to be worse.

TheAvengingKnee wrote:
The problem with that is that even though this is a sci-fi fantasy game the things that made guns better tan h2h combat are still going to exist and still going to make melee weaker. Unless you make melee brokenly OP is always going to be worse.

I am not saying make melee OP rather just that the game mechanics should be worked on to allow for both. I am saying the ability to just choose to fall back made shooting armies who were already stronger than melee builds even more powerful. literally just saying hey this thing that caused a pretty big imbalance to get worse... lets revert that back. I think GW was on the right track with Ogryn/Bulgryn where dedicated melee units should probably be tougher and have better armor to bring things in like within reason but agian only to the point that its comperable to shooty armies, I want a balanced game not a shift in the imbalance to just melee better.

 G00fySmiley wrote:

TheAvengingKnee wrote:
The problem with that is that even though this is a sci-fi fantasy game the things that made guns better tan h2h combat are still going to exist and still going to make melee weaker. Unless you make melee brokenly OP is always going to be worse.

I am not saying make melee OP rather just that the game mechanics should be worked on to allow for both. I am saying the ability to just choose to fall back made shooting armies who were already stronger than melee builds even more powerful. literally just saying hey this thing that caused a pretty big imbalance to get worse... lets revert that back. I think GW was on the right track with Ogryn/Bulgryn where dedicated melee units should probably be tougher and have better armor to bring things in like within reason but agian only to the point that its comperable to shooty armies, I want a balanced game not a shift in the imbalance to just melee better.

Would make more sense if you could fall back but only if there is still another unit engaged with the enemy so they can't chase. Would allow you to pull a valuable/shooty unit out of combat but your not just walking out of melee leaving the enemy unit open to getting gunned down.

 Vankraken wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

TheAvengingKnee wrote:
The problem with that is that even though this is a sci-fi fantasy game the things that made guns better tan h2h combat are still going to exist and still going to make melee weaker. Unless you make melee brokenly OP is always going to be worse.

I am not saying make melee OP rather just that the game mechanics should be worked on to allow for both. I am saying the ability to just choose to fall back made shooting armies who were already stronger than melee builds even more powerful. literally just saying hey this thing that caused a pretty big imbalance to get worse... lets revert that back. I think GW was on the right track with Ogryn/Bulgryn where dedicated melee units should probably be tougher and have better armor to bring things in like within reason but agian only to the point that its comperable to shooty armies, I want a balanced game not a shift in the imbalance to just melee better.

Would make more sense if you could fall back but only if there is still another unit engaged with the enemy so they can't chase. Would allow you to pull a valuable/shooty unit out of combat but your not just walking out of melee leaving the enemy unit open to getting gunned down.

But like, letting the enemy not get gunned down is the problem.

Why is a company of Leman Russ tanks not firing into the horde of Boyz simply because one Guardsman is fighting one or two Orks on the outermost extreme edge of the unit?

Why would a Warlord not shoot another Warlord simply because it's fighting Chaos Cultists that don't even reach its ankles?

That's the whole problem with melee (and I mean this in a global sense, not a game sense). So you made it to their first trench line, great. Now you have to get through the other 7, because defense in depth is a thing. Having an artificial rule where you're safe simply because the enemy exists in some ill-defined proximity (seriously, a Guardsman within 1" of an Ork is just as likely to be cowering as he is to be clashing blades with something twice his size and strength) is silly and unintuitive.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

TheAvengingKnee wrote:
The problem with that is that even though this is a sci-fi fantasy game the things that made guns better tan h2h combat are still going to exist and still going to make melee weaker. Unless you make melee brokenly OP is always going to be worse.

I am not saying make melee OP rather just that the game mechanics should be worked on to allow for both. I am saying the ability to just choose to fall back made shooting armies who were already stronger than melee builds even more powerful. literally just saying hey this thing that caused a pretty big imbalance to get worse... lets revert that back. I think GW was on the right track with Ogryn/Bulgryn where dedicated melee units should probably be tougher and have better armor to bring things in like within reason but agian only to the point that its comperable to shooty armies, I want a balanced game not a shift in the imbalance to just melee better.

Would make more sense if you could fall back but only if there is still another unit engaged with the enemy so they can't chase. Would allow you to pull a valuable/shooty unit out of combat but your not just walking out of melee leaving the enemy unit open to getting gunned down.

But like, letting the enemy not get gunned down is the problem.

Why is a company of Leman Russ tanks not firing into the horde of Boyz simply because one Guardsman is fighting one or two Orks on the outermost extreme edge of the unit?

Why would a Warlord not shoot another Warlord simply because it's fighting Chaos Cultists that don't even reach its ankles?

That's the whole problem with melee (and I mean this in a global sense, not a game sense). So you made it to their first trench line, great. Now you have to get through the other 7, because defense in depth is a thing. Having an artificial rule where you're safe simply because the enemy exists in some ill-defined proximity (seriously, a Guardsman within 1" of an Ork is just as likely to be cowering as he is to be clashing blades with something twice his size and strength) is silly and unintuitive.

Totally agree. If you want to buff melle you will have to get ride of these silly rules like - Not being able to shoot characters and not being able to shoot into hopelessly lost melees.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

TheAvengingKnee wrote:
The problem with that is that even though this is a sci-fi fantasy game the things that made guns better tan h2h combat are still going to exist and still going to make melee weaker. Unless you make melee brokenly OP is always going to be worse.

I am not saying make melee OP rather just that the game mechanics should be worked on to allow for both. I am saying the ability to just choose to fall back made shooting armies who were already stronger than melee builds even more powerful. literally just saying hey this thing that caused a pretty big imbalance to get worse... lets revert that back. I think GW was on the right track with Ogryn/Bulgryn where dedicated melee units should probably be tougher and have better armor to bring things in like within reason but agian only to the point that its comperable to shooty armies, I want a balanced game not a shift in the imbalance to just melee better.

Would make more sense if you could fall back but only if there is still another unit engaged with the enemy so they can't chase. Would allow you to pull a valuable/shooty unit out of combat but your not just walking out of melee leaving the enemy unit open to getting gunned down.

But like, letting the enemy not get gunned down is the problem.

Why is a company of Leman Russ tanks not firing into the horde of Boyz simply because one Guardsman is fighting one or two Orks on the outermost extreme edge of the unit?

Why would a Warlord not shoot another Warlord simply because it's fighting Chaos Cultists that don't even reach its ankles?

That's the whole problem with melee (and I mean this in a global sense, not a game sense). So you made it to their first trench line, great. Now you have to get through the other 7, because defense in depth is a thing. Having an artificial rule where you're safe simply because the enemy exists in some ill-defined proximity (seriously, a Guardsman within 1" of an Ork is just as likely to be cowering as he is to be clashing blades with something twice his size and strength) is silly and unintuitive.

makes perfect sense from a real world perspective... but how about a game mechanic balance perspective? If i choose a melee army should it be possible for me to win? should I have an even chance of winning with the same skill level as a player doing a gunline army with multiple layers of bubble wrap, or should I just concede before the game starts because I don't stand a chance?

as for the above I think it should be an option to just pick up the unit, just not to fall back from combat. have 3 guardsman left in the squad? well they are removed as casualties if you don't want them locked in. The issue is them walking out of combat and setting up 2 inches apart and creating a 7 inch wide road block (9 when you count not being able to go withing an inch of the base) that the melee player now has to move up to and charge again or work around. pull the 3 guardsman off the table and go ahead, shoot away.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
makes perfect sense from a real world perspective... but how about a game mechanic balance perspective? If i choose a melee army should it be possible for me to win? should I have an even chance of winning with the same skill level as a player doing a gunline army with multiple layers of bubble wrap, or should I just concede before the game starts because I don't stand a chance?

Which gets back to the conversation earlier in the thread:

1) Why is a game designed to be World War 1 (or 2) in Space also billing melee as an effective build option? There are more swords in one, say, Sororitas army, than probably existed for combat purposes in all the Allied armies in World War II (and no, a bayonet isn't a sword).

2) If Melee is intended to be an effective build option, why is Warhammer 40k's rule-set written like World War 1 (or 2) in space? With tanks and aircraft and heavy weapons and mechanization and artillery?

The designers are trying to have their cake and eat it to. They want a game that looks and feels like all the wars that have been fought since melee became a largely irrelevant form of engagement, and then they want to shoehorn melee into it. It's causing all sorts of problems in the game - unintuitive rules interactions, unrealistic (even within the setting, not Real Life) behaviors, broken narratives, mechanical hiccups within the game's play, etc.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
makes perfect sense from a real world perspective... but how about a game mechanic balance perspective? If i choose a melee army should it be possible for me to win? should I have an even chance of winning with the same skill level as a player doing a gunline army with multiple layers of bubble wrap, or should I just concede before the game starts because I don't stand a chance?

Which gets back to the conversation earlier in the thread:

1) Why is a game designed to be World War 1 (or 2) in Space also billing melee as an effective build option? There are more swords in one, say, Sororitas army, than probably existed for combat purposes in all the Allied armies in World War II (and no, a bayonet isn't a sword).

2) If Melee is intended to be an effective build option, why is Warhammer 40k's rule-set written like World War 1 (or 2) in space? With tanks and aircraft and heavy weapons and mechanization and artillery?

The designers are trying to have their cake and eat it to. They want a game that looks and feels like all the wars that have been fought since melee became a largely irrelevant form of engagement, and then they want to shoehorn melee into it. It's causing all sorts of problems in the game - unintuitive rules interactions, unrealistic (even within the setting, not Real Life) behaviors, broken narratives, mechanical hiccups within the game's play, etc.

narratively I love some of the melee armies. really nothing I love more than a demon incursion on an imperial planet scenario. The prototypical demons of korne coming out of portals from the immeterium falling upon guardsman and/or space marines. Either they overrun the imperial forces or are held back thanks to the fighting and bravery of the imperial soldier. Either way it is a costly battle with many casualties on both sides... in theory. in practice khorne is a joke that never gets past the imperial guard player's 2nd lien of bubble wrap.

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
makes perfect sense from a real world perspective... but how about a game mechanic balance perspective? If i choose a melee army should it be possible for me to win? should I have an even chance of winning with the same skill level as a player doing a gunline army with multiple layers of bubble wrap, or should I just concede before the game starts because I don't stand a chance?

Which gets back to the conversation earlier in the thread:

1) Why is a game designed to be World War 1 (or 2) in Space also billing melee as an effective build option? There are more swords in one, say, Sororitas army, than probably existed for combat purposes in all the Allied armies in World War II (and no, a bayonet isn't a sword).

2) If Melee is intended to be an effective build option, why is Warhammer 40k's rule-set written like World War 1 (or 2) in space? With tanks and aircraft and heavy weapons and mechanization and artillery?

The designers are trying to have their cake and eat it to. They want a game that looks and feels like all the wars that have been fought since melee became a largely irrelevant form of engagement, and then they want to shoehorn melee into it. It's causing all sorts of problems in the game - unintuitive rules interactions, unrealistic (even within the setting, not Real Life) behaviors, broken narratives, mechanical hiccups within the game's play, etc.

narratively I love some of the melee armies. really nothing I love more than a demon incursion on an imperial planet scenario. The prototypical demons of korne coming out of portals from the immeterium falling upon guardsman and/or space marines. Either they overrun the imperial forces or are held back thanks to the fighting and bravery of the imperial soldier. Either way it is a costly battle with many casualties on both sides... in theory. in practice khorne is a joke that never gets past the imperial guard player's 2nd lien of bubble wrap.

And in a game like AoS where ranged weapons aren’t as good a melee bloodbath is practical in a game with better shooting melee specialists don’t make sense.

TheAvengingKnee wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
makes perfect sense from a real world perspective... but how about a game mechanic balance perspective? If i choose a melee army should it be possible for me to win? should I have an even chance of winning with the same skill level as a player doing a gunline army with multiple layers of bubble wrap, or should I just concede before the game starts because I don't stand a chance?

Which gets back to the conversation earlier in the thread:

1) Why is a game designed to be World War 1 (or 2) in Space also billing melee as an effective build option? There are more swords in one, say, Sororitas army, than probably existed for combat purposes in all the Allied armies in World War II (and no, a bayonet isn't a sword).

2) If Melee is intended to be an effective build option, why is Warhammer 40k's rule-set written like World War 1 (or 2) in space? With tanks and aircraft and heavy weapons and mechanization and artillery?

The designers are trying to have their cake and eat it to. They want a game that looks and feels like all the wars that have been fought since melee became a largely irrelevant form of engagement, and then they want to shoehorn melee into it. It's causing all sorts of problems in the game - unintuitive rules interactions, unrealistic (even within the setting, not Real Life) behaviors, broken narratives, mechanical hiccups within the game's play, etc.

narratively I love some of the melee armies. really nothing I love more than a demon incursion on an imperial planet scenario. The prototypical demons of korne coming out of portals from the immeterium falling upon guardsman and/or space marines. Either they overrun the imperial forces or are held back thanks to the fighting and bravery of the imperial soldier. Either way it is a costly battle with many casualties on both sides... in theory. in practice khorne is a joke that never gets past the imperial guard player's 2nd lien of bubble wrap.

And in a game like AoS where ranged weapons aren’t as good a melee bloodbath is practical in a game with better shooting melee specialists don’t make sense.

Right and the only way melle can be viable is if the melle range of a unit is higher than a guns range. LOL. Which is just dumb.

Unit1126PLL wrote:1) Why is a game designed to be World War 1 (or 2) in Space also billing melee as an effective build option?

Well, it's funny you put it that way, because actual honest-to-god hand-to-hand combat was a big thing in WW1. Trench fighting made close combat inevitable, and bolt-action rifles were unwieldy and difficult to maneuver in close quarters. At night, with reduced visibility, trench raiders would traverse no man's land to engage with grenades, pistols, and melee weapons. Ernst Junger talks a lot about it in the book Storm of Steel.

Keep in mind as well that in all prior editions of 40K, assault has been supposed to also represent short-range firefights, depending upon the troops in question. So by that metric, most decisive actions in WW1 were resolved via what 40K would consider 'melee'.

Xenomancers wrote:Right and the only way melle can be viable is if the melle range of a unit is higher than a guns range. LOL. Which is just dumb.

First, it's melee, not melle.

Second, that's only the case if you make no effort to model the real-world conditions that allow for close assault, nor take advantage of the fantastic nature of the 40K setting.

Examples include:
-Suppression of enemy positions to mitigate return fire.
-Visual concealment (eg smoke) to allow attackers to close without observation.
-Use of armored transport to mitigate fire (this was Soviet mechanized infantry doctrine for the entirety of the Cold War- pile out of the BMPs at 100m and assault).
-Use of sci-fi personal body armor to mitigate fire.
-Ambush from unobserved positions (ie model the fact that not everybody has a perfect bird's-eye view of the battlefield).
-Use hard cover and obstructions to avoid contact until close range.

None of these are particularly difficult to model in a wargame. And then, yes, you can have units with very high movement that brute force the issue by moving as quickly as possible.

It is entirely possible to have a system where both melee and ranged combat are situationally powerful without one simply dominating the other, or both always being evenly matched.

G00fySmiley wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
makes perfect sense from a real world perspective... but how about a game mechanic balance perspective? If i choose a melee army should it be possible for me to win? should I have an even chance of winning with the same skill level as a player doing a gunline army with multiple layers of bubble wrap, or should I just concede before the game starts because I don't stand a chance?

Which gets back to the conversation earlier in the thread:

1) Why is a game designed to be World War 1 (or 2) in Space also billing melee as an effective build option? There are more swords in one, say, Sororitas army, than probably existed for combat purposes in all the Allied armies in World War II (and no, a bayonet isn't a sword).

2) If Melee is intended to be an effective build option, why is Warhammer 40k's rule-set written like World War 1 (or 2) in space? With tanks and aircraft and heavy weapons and mechanization and artillery?

The designers are trying to have their cake and eat it to. They want a game that looks and feels like all the wars that have been fought since melee became a largely irrelevant form of engagement, and then they want to shoehorn melee into it. It's causing all sorts of problems in the game - unintuitive rules interactions, unrealistic (even within the setting, not Real Life) behaviors, broken narratives, mechanical hiccups within the game's play, etc.

narratively I love some of the melee armies. really nothing I love more than a demon incursion on an imperial planet scenario. The prototypical demons of korne coming out of portals from the immeterium falling upon guardsman and/or space marines. Either they overrun the imperial forces or are held back thanks to the fighting and bravery of the imperial soldier. Either way it is a costly battle with many casualties on both sides... in theory. in practice khorne is a joke that never gets past the imperial guard player's 2nd lien of bubble wrap.

Right, but narratively, those Daemons are literally exploding into reality a few feet away from the guardsmen, or literally bursting from the heads of their comrades right next to them, or rampaging around through a disorganized mess as they possess/seduce the command structure and order units to do contradictory things, etc. Never in the 40k Narrative have I seen Daemons fight the way they fight on the tabletop, where they line up in a perfectly straight, almost Napoleonic line (since the front of the DZ is flat and you must be right against it) and run across the open ground towards an enemy armed with tanks and machine guns.

The whole scary thing about Daemons was that they don't fight like a normal army, instead using their Warp-powers to do things well beyond the capabilities of, say, the Orks. Yet the designers try to shoehorn the Daemons into a game where they have to, essentially, act like the Orks.

I play Slaanesh Daemons as one of my armies. It makes me facepalm every time, seeing the "lithe and swift daemons" trundle forwards, eat a bunch of bullets, and then trundle into combat with the smoking remains of their army. And they're the lightning-fast ones.

catbarf wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:1) Why is a game designed to be World War 1 (or 2) in Space also billing melee as an effective build option?

Well, it's funny you put it that way, because actual honest-to-god hand-to-hand combat was a big thing in WW1. Trench fighting made close combat inevitable, and bolt-action rifles were unwieldy and difficult to maneuver in close quarters. At night, with reduced visibility, trench raiders would traverse no man's land to engage with grenades, pistols, and melee weapons. Ernst Junger talks a lot about it in the book Storm of Steel.

Keep in mind as well that in all prior editions of 40K, assault has been supposed to also represent short-range firefights, depending upon the troops in question. So by that metric, most decisive actions in WW1 were resolved via what 40K would consider 'melee'.

Melee wasn't a "big thing" in World War 1. Close Combat was, but those involved things like pistols, shotguns (especially relevant), hand grenades, and that sort of thing (essentially sub-12" range in 40k). No army in the world deliberately equipped its men with swords/axes and a pistol and ordered them to go hack the enemy apart. The melee weapons that did exist were designed to be purely supplemental - small and light enough that it didn't meaningfully impede the soldier, since 99% of the time he'd be carrying it, it'd be unused deadweight. Trench Raider-type soldiers fight in 40k" within 12", but aren't really in "assault (40k version)" the way Orks and Khorne are portrayed to be. That hasn't happened since the medieval era.

And no, 40k's close-combat was never a short-ranged firefight. As someone who played Sororitas, the quintessential "close combat" army, equipped with devastating weapons sub-12" (Meltas were the only anti-tank, Flamers were the only templates, and Bolters were shoddy outside of 12" and in some editions you couldn't even shoot that far with them unless you stood perfectly still). But when they got into what 40k calls "assault" they folded like wet tissue paper. Being in "assault" or "melee" in 40k is literally having a swordfight.

 catbarf wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:1) Why is a game designed to be World War 1 (or 2) in Space also billing melee as an effective build option?

Well, it's funny you put it that way, because actual honest-to-god hand-to-hand combat was a big thing in WW1. Trench fighting made close combat inevitable, and bolt-action rifles were unwieldy and difficult to maneuver in close quarters. At night, with reduced visibility, trench raiders would traverse no man's land to engage with grenades, pistols, and melee weapons. Ernst Junger talks a lot about it in the book Storm of Steel.

Keep in mind as well that in all prior editions of 40K, assault has been supposed to also represent short-range firefights, depending upon the troops in question. So by that metric, most decisive actions in WW1 were resolved via what 40K would consider 'melee'.

Xenomancers wrote:Right and the only way melle can be viable is if the melle range of a unit is higher than a guns range. LOL. Which is just dumb.

First, it's melee, not melle.

Second, that's only the case if you make no effort to model the real-world conditions that allow for close assault, nor take advantage of the fantastic nature of the 40K setting.

Examples include:
-Suppression of enemy positions to mitigate return fire.
-Visual concealment (eg smoke) to allow attackers to close without observation.
-Use of armored transport to mitigate fire (this was Soviet mechanized infantry doctrine for the entirety of the Cold War- pile out of the BMPs at 100m and assault).
-Use of sci-fi personal body armor to mitigate fire.
-Ambush from unobserved positions (ie model the fact that not everybody has a perfect bird's-eye view of the battlefield).
-Use hard cover and obstructions to avoid contact until close range.

None of these are particularly difficult to model in a wargame. And then, yes, you can have units with very high movement that brute force the issue by moving as quickly as possible.

It is entirely possible to have a system where both melee and ranged combat are situationally powerful without one simply dominating the other, or both always being evenly matched.

Supression could be a neat feature but suppression doesn't work against tanks and titans and aircraft. It really shouldn't work on armored super soldiers that literally have 0 fear of being shot. Or a hive mind controlled warrior that has no concept of fear. (also even more silly considering this is a thread about removing over-watch then you talk about suppression - dudes afraid to stick their head up because they are getting shot at but dudes are totally fine running at an opponent with a gun with an axe as they shoot them? It's just unrealistic)
We have visual concealment abilities -they aren't super well distributed but they are almost always better used on a shooting unit to give advantage against another shooting unit.
Ambsuh exist. It's deep strike and infiltration - it is incredibly effective for both shooting and melee alike. Why does it work? Because like I said - it effectively makes assault units have longer range than shooting units instead of charging up the field they just start in charge range.
hard cover exists. It is actually mandatory to have melee in your army because of this. Cause tanks can't blow up buildings in this game - they are immune to damage.

It really comes down to this fact. Range is better than melee do to the fact....range is better than melee. You have to invent an unrealistic scenario where it is not better.

For something like nid hormagants and geensteelers in the fluff they have practically unlimited numbers that is why it is interesting. In a "fair" fight they would just be bird food.

Suppression doesn't equal being scared-a Space Marine, despite not being afraid, is sure as hell going to stick to cover when facing down twenty Lascannons.

And why is "Melee being usable" too unrealistic for you, but Space Marines, Space Elves, Space Mummies, Space Fungus Soccer Hooligans, and all that other stuff not?

Unit1126PLL, you are quite incorrect in denying the importance of melee in WWI. It became MORE common toward the end of the war on the western front, and armies did issue overly long bayonets specifically to deal with enemy soldiers. The troops found bayonets virtually useless in the confines of the trenches, so made their own ad hoc weaponry to deal with combat up close and personal. Many raids were executed for the sole reason of discouraging the troops from fraternizing with the enemy. To say melee wasn't important in WW I is quite false.

Ambush 100% does not and cannot work well in 40k. DS and infiltrate have their weird distance restrictions. Visual concealments exist but half the time don't get rules to reflect it.

At a certain point you have to compromise the effectiveness of shooting so the game can work. It's perfectly fine to have melee in such a system considering all the other things that get abstractly limited.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Suppression doesn't equal being scared-a Space Marine, despite not being afraid, is sure as hell going to stick to cover when facing down twenty Lascannons.

And why is "Melee being usable" too unrealistic for you, but Space Marines, Space Elves, Space Mummies, Space Fungus Soccer Hooligans, and all that other stuff not?

Because I'm not talking about "realism" from a "this is our universe and must follow physics" sense, but rather "immersion" or "sensemaking". One might say "realism within the setting."

It's a setting with tanks, aircraft, and machine-guns. These are all things that exist. Either they are effective, in which case, melee doesn't make sense (because an effective machine-gun will always beat an effective sword), or they are not effective, so why do the factions bother having so many? Because they think they look cool?

It's a problem with the designers, as I've mentioned. They want the game to look like the early 20th century in space, with WAR, but have some armies fight like it's the 9th Century, and have both those things be balanced and workable.

 amanita wrote:
Unit1126PLL, you are quite incorrect in denying the importance of melee in WWI. It became MORE common toward the end of the war on the western front, and armies did issue overly long bayonets specifically to deal with enemy soldiers. The troops found bayonets virtually useless in the confines of the trenches, so made their own ad hoc weaponry to deal with combat up close and personal. Many raids were executed for the sole reason of discouraging the troops from fraternizing with the enemy. To say melee wasn't important in WW I is quite false.

Sure, but like, not melee the way it is in 40k. Not entire companies of men charging screaming towards the enemy trench with the intent to hit them with axes. Not armies solely equipping their forces with melee weapons, absent even guns and hand-grenades.

When people say a "melee army" in 40k, they don't mean guys with pistols, rifles, grenades, shotguns, etc. who are willing to get into melee to do the job, the way it was in World War 1. They mean people who run screaming forwards armed only with an axe, and even sometimes a sidearm.

Why can't there be armor sufficiently strong to tank the machine gun fire?
Why can't Daemons materialize from the Warp an inch from your face, and then stab it?
Why can't a hyper-specialized alien predator that's virtually invisible due to chameleonic skin sneak its way close to a commander, then gank him?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why can't there be armor sufficiently strong to tank the machine gun fire?
Why can't Daemons materialize from the Warp an inch from your face, and then stab it?
Why can't a hyper-specialized alien predator that's virtually invisible due to chameleonic skin sneak its way close to a commander, then gank him?

Careful, you'll interrupt the fluff to cognitive bias feedback loop.

G00fySmiley wrote:
vehicles i agree. i am more thinking infantry. I have a hard time thinking 20 bloodletters or 30 ork boys are going to calmly let the infantry just walk away and not just keep pursuing them until they are slain. As for a penalty for a failed charge.. that is basically the overwatch. you took the overwatch and did not get to attack so have to take overwatch again the next turn assuming you survive to attempt another charge.

Falling back isn't a terrible thing in and of itself, but it probably shouldn't be free. Something like a reverse overwatch / attack of opportunity on a falling back unit that hits on 6's, or opposed movement checks to show that a unit is trying to outmaneuver its foe (say 1d6 + movement stat, if you beat your opponents roll, you can fall back).

Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

TheAvengingKnee wrote:
The problem with that is that even though this is a sci-fi fantasy game the things that made guns better tan h2h combat are still going to exist and still going to make melee weaker. Unless you make melee brokenly OP is always going to be worse.

I am not saying make melee OP rather just that the game mechanics should be worked on to allow for both. I am saying the ability to just choose to fall back made shooting armies who were already stronger than melee builds even more powerful. literally just saying hey this thing that caused a pretty big imbalance to get worse... lets revert that back. I think GW was on the right track with Ogryn/Bulgryn where dedicated melee units should probably be tougher and have better armor to bring things in like within reason but agian only to the point that its comperable to shooty armies, I want a balanced game not a shift in the imbalance to just melee better.

Would make more sense if you could fall back but only if there is still another unit engaged with the enemy so they can't chase. Would allow you to pull a valuable/shooty unit out of combat but your not just walking out of melee leaving the enemy unit open to getting gunned down.

But like, letting the enemy not get gunned down is the problem.

Why is a company of Leman Russ tanks not firing into the horde of Boyz simply because one Guardsman is fighting one or two Orks on the outermost extreme edge of the unit?

Why would a Warlord not shoot another Warlord simply because it's fighting Chaos Cultists that don't even reach its ankles?

That's the whole problem with melee (and I mean this in a global sense, not a game sense). So you made it to their first trench line, great. Now you have to get through the other 7, because defense in depth is a thing. Having an artificial rule where you're safe simply because the enemy exists in some ill-defined proximity (seriously, a Guardsman within 1" of an Ork is just as likely to be cowering as he is to be clashing blades with something twice his size and strength) is silly and unintuitive.

This is something that never really made sense to me, especially for armies that care little for casualties like Imperial Guard, or Tyranids firing into melees involving their chaff units.

G00fySmiley wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
makes perfect sense from a real world perspective... but how about a game mechanic balance perspective? If i choose a melee army should it be possible for me to win? should I have an even chance of winning with the same skill level as a player doing a gunline army with multiple layers of bubble wrap, or should I just concede before the game starts because I don't stand a chance?

Which gets back to the conversation earlier in the thread:

1) Why is a game designed to be World War 1 (or 2) in Space also billing melee as an effective build option? There are more swords in one, say, Sororitas army, than probably existed for combat purposes in all the Allied armies in World War II (and no, a bayonet isn't a sword).

2) If Melee is intended to be an effective build option, why is Warhammer 40k's rule-set written like World War 1 (or 2) in space? With tanks and aircraft and heavy weapons and mechanization and artillery?

The designers are trying to have their cake and eat it to. They want a game that looks and feels like all the wars that have been fought since melee became a largely irrelevant form of engagement, and then they want to shoehorn melee into it. It's causing all sorts of problems in the game - unintuitive rules interactions, unrealistic (even within the setting, not Real Life) behaviors, broken narratives, mechanical hiccups within the game's play, etc.

narratively I love some of the melee armies. really nothing I love more than a demon incursion on an imperial planet scenario. The prototypical demons of korne coming out of portals from the immeterium falling upon guardsman and/or space marines. Either they overrun the imperial forces or are held back thanks to the fighting and bravery of the imperial soldier. Either way it is a costly battle with many casualties on both sides... in theory. in practice khorne is a joke that never gets past the imperial guard player's 2nd lien of bubble wrap.

This is just kind of an aside for me, but I find it annoying that there are very few ranged daemons. I understand it is because they share a range with Sigmar, but it would be super interesting to have daemons that are meshes of warp flesh and machine. Just doing a casual glance through the daemon range, and basically everything just has a sword or a claw with just a few exceptions. I dunno, maybe its just me, but I'd rather see a group of blood letters wielding hell forced hand canons suppressing the enemy while the melee units charge in than just a melee blob.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why can't there be armor sufficiently strong to tank the machine gun fire?

Because the enemy will just shoot heavier weapons at it, and take the machine-gun out of production. Remember, either the MG is effective, or it isn't. If it is, then your armor has a hard time stopping it. If it isn't, then the enemy won't use it. (i.e. it won't be taken in people's lists).

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why can't Daemons materialize from the Warp an inch from your face, and then stab it?

Because the rule designers said so. This is possible in the narrative - heck, I even mentioned it in my post - but the designers fethed it up, like I just mentioned in my post.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why can't a hyper-specialized alien predator that's virtually invisible due to chameleonic skin sneak its way close to a commander, then gank him?

Because we're playing an army game, not a skirmish game. This can happen, sure, but has basically no impact on the outcome of the battle (except a point for Slay the Warlord). Again, this is a designer thing, but it's also a game-scale thing. This would be much more meaningful in a smaller game where the commander actually does meaningful things.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why can't a hyper-specialized alien predator that's virtually invisible due to chameleonic skin sneak its way close to a commander, then gank him?

Because we're playing an army game, not a skirmish game. This can happen, sure, but has basically no impact on the outcome of the battle (except a point for Slay the Warlord). Again, this is a designer thing, but it's also a game-scale thing. This would be much more meaningful in a smaller game where the commander actually does meaningful things.

I mean, sneaking up on a farseer, or a chapter master, or a cryptek, or any other characters that provide buffs does have a pretty big impact on a game.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Suppression doesn't equal being scared-a Space Marine, despite not being afraid, is sure as hell going to stick to cover when facing down twenty Lascannons.

And why is "Melee being usable" too unrealistic for you, but Space Marines, Space Elves, Space Mummies, Space Fungus Soccer Hooligans, and all that other stuff not?

It's an interesting idea. Maybe tie it to leadership to give the stat some actual utility. fearless things like a bug can chose to embrace the bullets and suffer no penalty. Disciplined things like a custodian or a marine can embrace the bullets on a 2+ - roll of a 1 they are suppressed and cant over-watch. For guardsmen who are less disciplined on a 1 or 2 can't overwatch.