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.

A pet peeve with the current rules is how one-sided melee between multiple dedicated close combat units is as a result of the "chargers go first" rule. If berzerkers and vanguard vets slam into each other, you'd expect there to be casualties on both sides. Instead, either unit tends to be powerful to basically wipe out the other, so the charger frequently walks away without any serious damage.

My go-to thought is that models shouldn't be removed as casualties in melee until the end of the phase (basically giving all models necron wraith whip coils), but this would make melee suicidal for glasshammer units like harlequins that depend on eliminating the enemy to stay alive. You could also let chargers perform some number of attacks (half?) before the rest of combat happens and have those attacks remove casualties instantly. But that seems like it would create a lot of slowdown and extra bookkeeping.

Maybe units should have a "melee weight class," and models are only removed instantly as casualties if they were reduced to 0 wounds by an enemy model of a higher weight class? So for instance, a guardsman (Weight Class 1) slain in melee by a hormagaunt (Weight Class 1) would not be removed as a casualty right away and would thus be able to swing back at his attacker before he dropped. That same guardsmen slain by a vanguard vet (Weight Class 2), however, would be removed as a casualty instantly. I see this being a good way to distinguish relatively "skillful" melee combatants from other units with something other than boosts to to-hit rolls.

But that's just an unpolished pondering. Thoughts? Am I the only one who finds it frustrating that getting the charge off can render a unit immune to retaliation from any unit not sufficiently numerous or durable enough to survive a bunch of unanswered attacks?

At the moment that mechanic is needed to counterbalance shooting where it works the same way.

Daft idea this. Chargers should go first by virtue of getting the charge off and going through overwatch. Cqc is already weak compared to shooting, let's not make it worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daft idea this. Chargers should go first by virtue of getting the charge off and going through overwatch. Cqc is already weak compared to shooting, let's not make it worse.

A pet peeve with the current rules is how one-sided shooting between multiple dedicated shooting units is as a result of the IGYG rule. If hellblasters and black Kaindar shoot at each other, you'd expect there to be casualties on both sides. Instead, either unit tends to be powerful to basically wipe out the other, so the one who goes first frequently walks away without any serious damage.

It`s not a melee problem.

Games Workshop offers a very valid alternative: Warhammer Apocalypse. Casualties are removed end of turn, so everyone gets to fight/shoot. I adopted Warhammer Apocalypse for all my games with more than 1750 points. It works great from 2.000 points upwards. Give it a try.

See, I almost think the opposite.

It seems strange that melee currently breaks the IGOUGO system by allowing the charged unit to attack in the opponent's turn.

I'd have thought it would make far more sense to do what virtually every other game does and just have units attack in their own turn.

So if Unit A charges Unit B, Unit A would attack as normal and then that would be the end of combat. Then next turn, Unit B's controller has the option of either pulling it out of melee or leaving it there. If they leave it there, then Unit B will attack in the fight phase and that will be the end of combat.

This wouldn't have worked in past editions, but given that Initiative is gone and there's no longer any 'combat resolution' rules, it seems far more logical than having units fight in both player's turns just because.

You know what, I think that for my next game I'm going to propose to use the normal 40K rules with the sole exception that damage only takes effect at the end of the battle round and see how that feels.

In real life melee combat between units is very deadly to both sides unless one has a huge numerical advantage.

Whilst your method would make for a more realistic game it would also make for a much worse game, striking first is the gameplay reward for moving your unit into the position so that it can do so, remove that and it becomes even less appealing to try to do.

40K is not a simulation wargame, if you want it to be I think you may want to look into some other games that may suit you better.

Apologies for the large post. Lots of points I wanted to respond to.

An Actual Englishman wrote:Daft idea this. Chargers should go first by virtue of getting the charge off and going through overwatch. Cqc is already weak compared to shooting, let's not make it worse.

I feel there are ways to address the issue without giving shooting-heavy armies an additional benefit. The "weight class" approach (which should probably be called "technique" or something instead) would only benefit an army with units of a weight class above 1. I'm not sure I'd put anything in the guard or tau books in that category aside from a couple of tau special characters and maybe commissars and ogryn. If marines and eldar are putting points into vanguard vets and howling banshees instead of repulsors and flyers, then that's still probably a net gain for melee vs shooting, right?

von Hohenstein wrote:A pet peeve with the current rules is how one-sided shooting between multiple dedicated shooting units is as a result of the IGYG rule. If hellblasters and black Kaindar shoot at each other, you'd expect there to be casualties on both sides. Instead, either unit tends to be powerful to basically wipe out the other, so the one who goes first frequently walks away without any serious damage.

It`s not a melee problem.

The difference, to me, is that melee is right in your face. If my fire dragons get shot at by some sniper rifles, they're not going to ignore the tank they're moving towards and try to make fire back with their short-ranged guns. If my kabalites are peppering cultists with splinter rifles, they're not going to start aiming those splinter rifles at the chaos predator that lights them up. But if a squad of berzerkers and a squad of incubi are close enough to swing at each other, I'd expect there to be casualties on both sides. Maybe it's just me, but it's harder for me to suspend my disbelief where melee is concerned.

Games Workshop offers a very valid alternative: Warhammer Apocalypse. Casualties are removed end of turn, so everyone gets to fight/shoot. I adopted Warhammer Apocalypse for all my games with more than 1750 points. It works great from 2.000 points upwards. Give it a try.

Apoc looks like a great game. A game that uses abstraction to to handle the large scale of the battle it portrays. And yet it happens to simulate this particular issue better than the smaller-scale game with less abstract rules. That seems odd.

vipoid wrote:See, I almost think the opposite.

It seems strange that melee currently breaks the IGOUGO system by allowing the charged unit to attack in the opponent's turn.

I'd have thought it would make far more sense to do what virtually every other game does and just have units attack in their own turn.

So if Unit A charges Unit B, Unit A would attack as normal and then that would be the end of combat. Then next turn, Unit B's controller has the option of either pulling it out of melee or leaving it there. If they leave it there, then Unit B will attack in the fight phase and that will be the end of combat.

This wouldn't have worked in past editions, but given that Initiative is gone and there's no longer any 'combat resolution' rules, it seems far more logical than having units fight in both player's turns just because.

I could see that rule working, but it wouldn't really do anything to address the weirdness that irks me. You'd still have the berzerkers or incubi (whichever gets the charge off) slaughtering the other guy with no casualties in return.

WisdomLS wrote:In real life melee combat between units is very deadly to both sides unless one has a huge numerical advantage.

Whilst your method would make for a more realistic game it would also make for a much worse game, striking first is the gameplay reward for moving your unit into the position so that it can do so, remove that and it becomes even less appealing to try to do.

40K is not a simulation wargame, if you want it to be I think you may want to look into some other games that may suit you better.

Hey, "40k is not a simulation," is normally my line. I get what you're saying. However, while 40k isn't meant to simulate realism, it is meant to tell a story. So when incubi and berzerkers clash and one side comes away without any casualties, I feel like the mechanics in place are failing to tell that story.

I'm not one of those guys claiming that power swords shouldn't exist because guns are more practical.I'm saying it's weird that a mob of guardsmen afixing bayonets and wiping out a squad of semi-mythical murder clown ninjas (harlequins) without suffering any casualties in return feels like it fails from a thematic and fluff perspective. Plus, as others pointed out above, melee is generally at a disadvantage against shooting. So giving harlequins a chance to hurt the mob of charging guardsmen would actually help to shrink that gap, no?

Not really-good melee armies can get the charge off. They might be good only BECAUSE they can.

So adding a way to hit them more, does not help.

Wyldhunt wrote:

I could see that rule working, but it wouldn't really do anything to address the weirdness that irks me. You'd still have the berzerkers or incubi (whichever gets the charge off) slaughtering the other guy with no casualties in return.

I think the issue is that, whilst your idea makes a lot of sense in terms of fluff, it doesn't translate well into gameplay as it basically turns melee into mutually-assured destruction.

Crazy idea: how about active player can only move and shoot, inactive player can only charge and fight.

 skchsan wrote:
Crazy idea: how about active player can only move and shoot, inactive player can only charge and fight.

Nobody ever gets to melee. Melee army vs. shooty army the shooty army has to stand still and not move back for the melee army to have any chance of making charges, melee army vs. melee army nobody ever moves into charge range because the other guy gets the first chance to charge when you do.

It's a bad idea as written, but it's a thought-provoking bad idea, I'm wondering now about more nonstandard ways to break up the turn.

Pandabeer wrote:
You know what, I think that for my next game I'm going to propose to use the normal 40K rules with the sole exception that damage only takes effect at the end of the battle round and see how that feels.

Too much book keeping. When your tracking damage on a per model basis it drowns the game in micro management. Apoc works because everything is unit to unit interaction instead of model.

 Lance845 wrote:

Pandabeer wrote:
You know what, I think that for my next game I'm going to propose to use the normal 40K rules with the sole exception that damage only takes effect at the end of the battle round and see how that feels.

Too much book keeping. When your tracking damage on a per model basis it drowns the game in micro management. Apoc works because everything is unit to unit interaction instead of model.

It works pretty well in Apocalypse. I think it could work well in 40k as well.

or just have initiative stat back.. *ducks all the cans and trash being thrown at him*

 Argive wrote:
or just have initiative stat back.. *ducks all the cans and trash being thrown at him*

I've thought about it coming back, and I'd like for it to be combined with "Chargers go first."

How I'd handle it is charging gives you +4 (my best guess, but others opinions may vary) to your Init score. Unwieldy weapons (Thunder Hammers, Power Fists, etc.) can either strike at Initiative at -1 to-hit, or at Init 1 with no penalty. If you charge, that's upgraded to strike at Initiative value with no penalty, or at Init+4 with a -1 to-hit.

I think +4 works because of the comparisons...

I10: Keeper Of Secrets
I9: Charging Eldar
I8: Daemon Prince or charging Marine
I7: Assassin or charging Guardsman
I6: Charging Ork or Necron
I5: Eldar
I4: Marine
I3: Guardsman
I2: Tau, Orks, Necrons

Now, obviously some workshopping would be needed, but I think the bones of something good is there.

 vipoid wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

I could see that rule working, but it wouldn't really do anything to address the weirdness that irks me. You'd still have the berzerkers or incubi (whichever gets the charge off) slaughtering the other guy with no casualties in return.

I think the issue is that, whilst your idea makes a lot of sense in terms of fluff, it doesn't translate well into gameplay as it basically turns melee into mutually-assured destruction.

That's a good point. I guess I'm flirting with the notion that mutually-assured destruction (between two dedicated melee units of the same "weight class" might be okay? Against shooty units, you'd be no worse off than you are now. Against other melee units, the charge would be worse off because they don't walk away unscathed, but conversely, your own melee units will be accomplishing something when they get charged. If one squad of vanguard vets charges another, their casualties will show that they just got within stabbing distance of a unit that is as stabby as they are.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Argive wrote:
or just have initiative stat back.. *ducks all the cans and trash being thrown at him*

The old initiative system took different steps to reach a similar problem though. Sure, my eldar are fast, but I'm not sure they're, "kill the enemy squad without getting attacked a single time" fast. It was nice knowing my harlies would get to do their full offense against most things charging them before they died, but them killing a squad of berzerkers before the berzerkers swing at all is about as weird as berzerkers doing the same to the harlies by virtue of getting a charge off.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Argive wrote:
or just have initiative stat back.. *ducks all the cans and trash being thrown at him*

I've thought about it coming back, and I'd like for it to be combined with "Chargers go first."

How I'd handle it is charging gives you +4 (my best guess, but others opinions may vary) to your Init score. Unwieldy weapons (Thunder Hammers, Power Fists, etc.) can either strike at Initiative at -1 to-hit, or at Init 1 with no penalty. If you charge, that's upgraded to strike at Initiative value with no penalty, or at Init+4 with a -1 to-hit.

I think +4 works because of the comparisons...

I10: Keeper Of Secrets
I9: Charging Eldar
I8: Daemon Prince or charging Marine
I7: Assassin or charging Guardsman
I6: Charging Ork or Necron
I5: Eldar
I4: Marine
I3: Guardsman
I2: Tau, Orks, Necrons

Now, obviously some workshopping would be needed, but I think the bones of something good is there.

Eh. As you have it there, a guardsman on the charge would be swinging before anything short of a succubus/daemon prince. Even phoenix lords would be swinging at the same initiative as charging guardsman (and swinging after charging marines) assuming the PLs had Initiative 7 like they used to. So the end result is that chargers always go first per the current rules except in a few edge cases.

So for me personally, I think it's a miss as presented. It adds complexity but ends up at more or less the same place we are now. And on a side note, I'd probably ditch the optional "swing slower or swing at a to-hit penalty" way of handling unwieldy weapons in favor of just one downside or the other. Mostly to cut down on complexity and decision fatigue.

I don't really view initiative as better or worse than the current system, but I'm bugged by the shortcomings of both of them. :(

Initiative was removed for a reason (it didn’t work).

The idea that Orks, a melee focused army, should swing after Guardsmen and the like puts us right back at the trash tier levels of previous editions. No thanks. Even if they charge they go after some units? Naaaah.

Initiative didn’t work because it doesn’t reward intelligent play. Should I be rewarded for getting my 5” move troops into a position where they can charge your unit (assuming I roll high enough on the charge roll AND survive over watch) with the oh so generous gift of ‘getting to swing before the enemy’? Too right I should.

As I said earlier - if anything melee needs a buff as the game is currently a shooting gallery. The proposals here nerf the melee capability of my faction and I find this ridiculous.

The problem with melee now is that it falls back entirely on toughness and armour as protection.

Glass hammer units have no way to be represented without special rules now. The most powerful units in melee are now just the toughest ones.

Striking first is a way of allowing glass hammers to reduce tbe Lethality of return attacks simply by removing enemies before they can strike.

Now the randomness of the charge removes the ability for fast units (who are often glass hammers) to control who strikes first.

This leaves the current rules lacking any ability to really represent those kinds of units.

Melee is now just a slug fest between high armour toughness wounds models.

Imo it's worse in melee now than it ever was in previous versions because of the over simplification of mechanics (lack of stat comparison) and removal of rules that allowed for different styles of melee.

Yes but simultanious Initiative was a thing though. So hash out the values to make that more common.

Hellebore wrote:
The problem with melee now is that it falls back entirely on toughness and armour as protection.

Glass hammer units have no way to be represented without special rules now. The most powerful units in melee are now just the toughest ones.

I completely disagree. The most powerful melee units are those that can leave combat with impunity (flyers), those that have abilities to lock opponents in combat and those that can leave combat before taking return hits.

Striking first is a way of allowing glass hammers to reduce tbe Lethality of return attacks simply by removing enemies before they can strike.

Now the randomness of the charge removes the ability for fast units (who are often glass hammers) to control who strikes first.

This leaves the current rules lacking any ability to really represent those kinds of units.

I completely disagree again. 'Glass hammer' units have greater movement that will, without question, allow a skilled player to ensure they get the charge off on a slower, tougher unit and therefore they have an advantage in combat. The randomness of charges exists for both the slow unit and the fast one. Greater speed and buffs to charge rolls ala Banshees mitigates this risk significantly.

This is already represented. We also already have certain units that 'always strike first' - yet another representation of the rules people seem to believe don't exist.

Melee is now just a slug fest between high armour toughness wounds models.

Imo it's worse in melee now than it ever was in previous versions because of the over simplification of mechanics (lack of stat comparison) and removal of rules that allowed for different styles of melee.

Different 'styles' of melee? Such as what? Useless, slow Boys and untouchable Eldar waifs? Again - no thanks, I'd rather not return there.

Melee is much more than a slugfest. It is another movement phase where great players separate themselves from good and where games are won and lost.

Why is melee made so difficult when shooting is both more powerful and simpler to execute? winning despite poor rules isn't a feature.

As I said, they've had to fall back on special rules just to have any semblance of speed of strike.

Your argument says that glass hammers are going to strike first in the current rules because they'll charge first - but you don't like the idea of those same units always striking first in previous editions? Because that's what having a higher initiative did. The result is that all these units have to have huge charge buffs to get close to guaranteeing they strike first.

I don't understand why you arbitrarily think that melee needs to be more challenging than ranged? It doesn't balance it because it's somehow more effective. It's just unnecessary.

What is it about charges that you think single them out from other rules for requiring higher difficulty? Why not moving and shooting, or standing and shooting? I could equally say that moving and shooting should be harder so that only good players can take advantage of it.

Points costs are what balance rules.

arhurt wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Pandabeer wrote:
You know what, I think that for my next game I'm going to propose to use the normal 40K rules with the sole exception that damage only takes effect at the end of the battle round and see how that feels.

Too much book keeping. When your tracking damage on a per model basis it drowns the game in micro management. Apoc works because everything is unit to unit interaction instead of model.

It works pretty well in Apocalypse. I think it could work well in 40k as well.

It works well in Apoc because models mean nothing in Apoc. You don't remove models when you take damage. Models don't have stat lines. Models don't have wargear and don't make attacks. Units do. A unit of 30 hormagaunts is the equivalent of 1 hormagaunt in 40k in terms of book keeping. A unit of 30 termagants with devourers shoot 9 times in apoc, not 90.

Also, 1 "Wound" is a 1 small blast. 2 "Wounds" is 1 large blast. The amount of book keeping of "wounds" is effectively halved in a system that already drastically reduces the book keeping needed for the game to function.

Again, the book keeping in regular 40k would be astronomical.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Striking first is a way of allowing glass hammers to reduce tbe Lethality of return attacks simply by removing enemies before they can strike.

Now the randomness of the charge removes the ability for fast units (who are often glass hammers) to control who strikes first.

This leaves the current rules lacking any ability to really represent those kinds of units.

I completely disagree again. 'Glass hammer' units have greater movement that will, without question, allow a skilled player to ensure they get the charge off on a slower, tougher unit and therefore they have an advantage in combat. The randomness of charges exists for both the slow unit and the fast one. Greater speed and buffs to charge rolls ala Banshees mitigates this risk significantly.

In my experience, my glass hammers don't have that much trouble getting the charge off on the first thing they go after. The issue is that there isn't a lot to help those units out on your opponent's following turn when your glass hammers are exposed to counterattacks. So sure, my harlequins will dive in and kill a squad of tyranid warriors or whatever, but then they get obliterated by a squad of hormagaunts in return. And the part that bugs me is that those hormagaunts are unlikely to suffer any casualties in return because they can probably chew through the squishy clowns in a single round of attacks.

This is already represented. We also already have certain units that 'always strike first' - yet another representation of the rules people seem to believe don't exist.

I've found "always strike first" rules to be of pretty limited use, especially as an army-wide thing. If your opponent charges with several units, then every other unit in your army is going to get slugged in the face before they can get their swings in. And that's assuming your opponent opts to be in combat with more than one of your units at a time in the first place.

Melee is much more than a slugfest. It is another movement phase where great players separate themselves from good and where games are won and lost.

My hat's off to talented players who make the most of the movement present in the fight phase. However, do you really feel like that's an... intentional part of the game? I mean, to an extent it is, obviously. But things like tri-pointing enemy survivors so that they can't fall back feels like more of an unintended thing that designers overlooked and players latched onto. I get the impression that the intention of the movement present in the fight phase was just to get more models into position to swing and to avoid killing so many dudes that you were abruptly out of 1" of the enemy.

I think the real problem that 40k has right now is the excessive lethality of just about everything. Who strikes first or who shoots first matters so much more now because pretty much everything dies so fast. Between the excessive amount of re-rolls that almost exclusively increase offensive power, casual tossing in of extra shots or -1 AP buffs that are actually huge upgrades, few things actually have any sort of survivability. Melees used to be slogs where guys would fight it out over multiple rounds unless you had a particularly lethal unit or were fighting a weak, fragile opponent. Now everything just dies almost as soon as it gets attacked based on the over proliferation of special weapons/attacks, rerolls, and other buffs which almost all focus on improving offense. If they dialed back the killing potential of pretty much everything, it would make going first a bonus but the pretty much auto win it is now for melee.

ComradeRed1308 wrote:
I think the real problem that 40k has right now is the excessive lethality of just about everything. Who strikes first or who shoots first matters so much more now because pretty much everything dies so fast. Between the excessive amount of re-rolls that almost exclusively increase offensive power, casual tossing in of extra shots or -1 AP buffs that are actually huge upgrades, few things actually have any sort of survivability. Melees used to be slogs where guys would fight it out over multiple rounds unless you had a particularly lethal unit or were fighting a weak, fragile opponent. Now everything just dies almost as soon as it gets attacked based on the over proliferation of special weapons/attacks, rerolls, and other buffs which almost all focus on improving offense. If they dialed back the killing potential of pretty much everything, it would make going first a bonus but the pretty much auto win it is now for melee.

The other aspect is that killing is basically all that matters. Utility (outside of stuff that improves attack or defence) is all but nonexistent.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Striking first is a way of allowing glass hammers to reduce tbe Lethality of return attacks simply by removing enemies before they can strike.

Now the randomness of the charge removes the ability for fast units (who are often glass hammers) to control who strikes first.

This leaves the current rules lacking any ability to really represent those kinds of units.

I completely disagree again. 'Glass hammer' units have greater movement that will, without question, allow a skilled player to ensure they get the charge off on a slower, tougher unit and therefore they have an advantage in combat. The randomness of charges exists for both the slow unit and the fast one. Greater speed and buffs to charge rolls ala Banshees mitigates this risk significantly.

In my experience, my glass hammers don't have that much trouble getting the charge off on the first thing they go after. The issue is that there isn't a lot to help those units out on your opponent's following turn when your glass hammers are exposed to counterattacks. So sure, my harlequins will dive in and kill a squad of tyranid warriors or whatever, but then they get obliterated by a squad of hormagaunts in return. And the part that bugs me is that those hormagaunts are unlikely to suffer any casualties in return because they can probably chew through the squishy clowns in a single round of attacks.

This is already represented. We also already have certain units that 'always strike first' - yet another representation of the rules people seem to believe don't exist.

I've found "always strike first" rules to be of pretty limited use, especially as an army-wide thing. If your opponent charges with several units, then every other unit in your army is going to get slugged in the face before they can get their swings in. And that's assuming your opponent opts to be in combat with more than one of your units at a time in the first place.

Melee is much more than a slugfest. It is another movement phase where great players separate themselves from good and where games are won and lost.

My hat's off to talented players who make the most of the movement present in the fight phase. However, do you really feel like that's an... intentional part of the game? I mean, to an extent it is, obviously. But things like tri-pointing enemy survivors so that they can't fall back feels like more of an unintended thing that designers overlooked and players latched onto. I get the impression that the intention of the movement present in the fight phase was just to get more models into position to swing and to avoid killing so many dudes that you were abruptly out of 1" of the enemy.

I really don’t see the issue. Your murderclowns kill an expensive unit (like Warriors) then die to Horms? That’s fair? If you don’t like the trade you don’t send your murderclowns in. Further, with Harlies it should be much easier to tri point and tie up multiple units with their movement shenanigans.

It just feels like people just want initiative back to suit their own faction (that inevitably had high initiative in prior editions). Kinda obvious why I guess but I don’t think it’ll come back and I hope it doesn’t because it was one of the most frustrating, unintuitive and poorly conceived aspects of prior editions.

Getting a successful charge off should be rewarded. It takes skill in many cases or you’ve elected to sacrifice another element of your list (speed instead of staying power, for example). This allows for a greater spread of tactic options and a game with deeper mechanics. It also plays quicker.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

It just feels like people just want initiative back to suit their own faction (that inevitably had high initiative in prior editions). Kinda obvious why I guess but I don’t think it’ll come back and I hope it doesn’t because it was one of the most frustrating, unintuitive and poorly conceived aspects of prior editions.

By the same token, I notice that a lot of people who don't want initiative back are those playing armies with historically low initiative.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Getting a successful charge off should be rewarded. It takes skill in many cases or you’ve elected to sacrifice another element of your list (speed instead of staying power, for example). This allows for a greater spread of tactic options and a game with deeper mechanics. It also plays quicker.

Eh, I think that's highly debatable.

A great deal of successful charges tend to involve one of the following:

- A unit with incredibly movement speed that can easily get into charge range with whatever it needs to on turn 1-2.

- A unit with extra speed from a Stratagem, Psychic Power or whatever allowing it to easily get into charge range with whatever it needs to on turn 1-2.

- A unit deep-striking 9" from an enemy and relying on bonuses/rerolls/dumb luck to make the charge.

I don't think any of these require much in the way of skill. Not unless you're the sort of person who considers following an 'if-->then' flowchart to be the height of tactical prowess.

Its just a big issue with the scale and scope of the game.

it wants to be both battalion and company scale which doesn't mesh well together and with the style of game which is fantasy in space.

if anything 40k needs to be combined with the apoc rules to function more "realistically"

40k as is is functionally fine though imho. (nothing on balance bloat or whatever)

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

I really don’t see the issue. Your murderclowns kill an expensive unit (like Warriors) then die to Horms? That’s fair? If you don’t like the trade you don’t send your murderclowns in. Further, with Harlies it should be much easier to tri point and tie up multiple units with their movement shenanigans.

Well, taking a squad hostage doesn't really prevent hormagaunts from charging you. But you're not wrong about it being "fair." This is more of a fluff pet peeve than a balance concern. It would just be nice to know that when incubi and berzerkers duke it out, there's a good chance that both sides will be hurting. Being able to wipe out a supposedly badass melee unit in melee without taking any return damage just kind of makes the slain unit seem... lame? Like, charging incubi into berzerkers should feel like a dramatic clash that pushes both sides to their limits. Instead, it's more likely that the chargers will complete ignore the credentials of the chargees and win the fight unmolested.

Thinking on it, maybe what I really want is to make hitting in melee a matter of opposed WS again? That way, more skillful units would be harder to hit and more likely to survive the initial round of attacks. So if charging berzerkers hit incubi on 4+ instead of 3+, the incubi would be more likely to survive to return a few attacks. And if the berzerkers roll enough 4+s to wipe the incubi out? At least it feels like they "earned" it. The skills of the incubi were accounted for in the to-hit roll.

It just feels like people just want initiative back to suit their own faction (that inevitably had high initiative in prior editions). Kinda obvious why I guess but I don’t think it’ll come back and I hope it doesn’t because it was one of the most frustrating, unintuitive and poorly conceived aspects of prior editions.

I mean, people might want initiative back. I don't. That's why I didn't suggest it in the opening post. However, I do think there were certain aspects to the initiative system that did have their appeal. Though clunky and not something I want to return to, having a power fist sergeant swinging after the enemy guardsmen who in turn swung after the normal marines felt good. Having chapter masters and phoenix lords going back and forth before getting to the mostly-homogenous initiative stats of the rank and file did have an appeal.

Getting a successful charge off should be rewarded. It takes skill in many cases or you’ve elected to sacrifice another element of your list (speed instead of staying power, for example). This allows for a greater spread of tactic options and a game with deeper mechanics. It also plays quicker.

I'm with vipoid on this one. "Use da jump and then charge," isn't all that skillful. "Shoot the screens first," doesn't add a lot of thinking to the mix

I agree that there should be an incentive to be the one doing the charging, but making that incentive swinging first is kind of a new thing. I can't speak to editions prior to 5th, but it used to be that assaulting meant you got bonus attacks. You could make the incentive all sorts of things. Personally, I'd kind of like it to be something that doesn't prevent cool clashes between sufficiently stabby units.