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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Heck for all we know it could be back to 'only remove models that can be seen'.

That would make me soooo happy.

 Galas wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Heck for all we know it could be back to 'only remove models that can be seen'.

That would make me soooo happy.

Even if it also brought back vehicle-blocking to enable character sniping?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
With vehicles able to shoot into combat you'll see people less inclined to need to screen them in the first place, which means strong melee units get to them more easily. Screening is harder so cheap troops server a different utility more than just being a wall.

That sounds self-defeating. If those infantry represent a credible threat to the tanks, then the tanks will be screened. If they don't represent a threat and there's no screen, then the tank getting to shoot in melee will take them out.

I mean, the logic basically sounds like 'the enemy won't screen because they won't need to screen because their vehicles will be able to kill you in melee'. That doesn't really feel like a ringing endorsement of melee in 9th Ed.

Personally I'm with the_scotsman- I'd much rather have those basic infantry be credible combatants and priced accordingly, with melee appropriately rebalanced, rather than have screens just get more expensive (making them worthless as combat units) but still shut down melee entirely in a very rock-paper-scissors fashion. I put a lot of time into painting My Dudes, I like having them be more than speedbumps, yknow?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Heck for all we know it could be back to 'only remove models that can be seen'.

That would make me soooo happy.

Even if it also brought back vehicle-blocking to enable character sniping?

It can't (assuming the character rules didn't change) because you can't shoot a character that isn't the closest unit, period, whether you have LoS to anything else or not

Martel732 wrote:

stratigo wrote:

Karol wrote:
You know I would like if GW just came out and said, we don't want mass shoting in AoS and mass melee armies in w40k. You can try to do it, but you are doing it at your own risk, so be warned.

People would be unhappy, but after some time, the calls for making melee good again would stop. Also the danger of GW ever making a realy good melee army, which would have to be game breaking to beat shoting armies, becomes much lower.

I just don't like that smoke in the eye stuff GW sometimes with their stuff how they are going to make X great, and one edition later it is clearly not even good.

This is very much not what the rules designers want. GW loves melee.


Also, like, I don't actually get why people are so down on melee. It works really well already. It wins games. They had to nerf, repeatedly, combat centurions because they were winning games TOO HARD. Is it because it takes more setup for the payoff than shooting? I like that about melee.

I've always felt the people down on melee just... uh... not the best at the game. Melee's fine. Not every melee unit works, but not every shooting unit works either.

I don't want to play codex: tripoint. I odn't see how those centurions were getting anything done honestly. Unless they were tripointing too. GW claims to love melee, but their rule show otherwise.

By killing gak they touched. Centurions are very killy, they were just way too damn slow. So when they got the ability to zoom or stealth up the board, they became insane. They are also hard to kill efficiently. It's a strong combo. But everyone with a modicum of skill tripoints because it is a strong tactic. You charge multiple things, kill one, tripoint another.

Another fantastic combat unit? Abominations. Genecults have a great combat punch.

I mean, I play bike heavy custodes, and they aren't the best combatants in the game, but they are strong enough to kill most things they touch anyways.

Also, you basic bitch intercessor squad are actually fine at combat for their cost. About as good as they are with bolters, barring super stratagem combos. They shoot, charge, and fight and are good in both phases, which allows for more mobility.

The charge phase is a game winning phase, allowing you to grab and subsequently clear points you'd be unable to before. It just takes more set up then lining your models on the edge of the board and going "And I shoot. And I shoot. And I shoot"

Good shooting armies are good because they do more than shoot. Tau aren't good because they only have good shooting. They're good because you can't kill their key models through swarms of chaff blocking shots, high defensive stratagems, and the ability for their heaviest hitters to avoid being locked down ever.

Being forced to do more to get comperable result, which means more can go wrong, is the definition of being bad. At least in sports it is like that.

Plus all of this only helps the fast moving melee units. In no way shape or form, does it help armies that have to pay for melee, but do not have super movment, mass near enemy deployment, or at least cheap point costs on their models .

 Galas wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Heck for all we know it could be back to 'only remove models that can be seen'.

That would make me soooo happy.

You won’t be the only smiling face there!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
With vehicles able to shoot into combat you'll see people less inclined to need to screen them in the first place, which means strong melee units get to them more easily. Screening is harder so cheap troops server a different utility more than just being a wall.

That sounds self-defeating. If those infantry represent a credible threat to the tanks, then the tanks will be screened. If they don't represent a threat and there's no screen, then the tank getting to shoot in melee will take them out.

I mean, the logic basically sounds like 'the enemy won't screen because they won't need to screen because their vehicles will be able to kill you in melee'. That doesn't really feel like a ringing endorsement of melee in 9th Ed.

Personally I'm with the_scotsman- I'd much rather have those basic infantry be credible combatants and priced accordingly, with melee appropriately rebalanced, rather than have screens just get more expensive (making them worthless as combat units) but still shut down melee entirely in a very rock-paper-scissors fashion. I put a lot of time into painting My Dudes, I like having them be more than speedbumps, yknow?

Dudes are speed bumps for tanks.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Heck for all we know it could be back to 'only remove models that can be seen'.

That would make me soooo happy.

Even if it also brought back vehicle-blocking to enable character sniping?

Character protection has nothing to do with LOS ATM so unless that changes too casualty removal change would be irrelevant.

In otherwords you can change casualty removal rule so that only models in sight can be removed and unless you also change character protection rules character is still as unshootable. You don't get to casualty removal phase because you can't pick character as target!

You could still snipe special weapons and squad leaders, so the argument about character rules is kind of irrelevant.

 catbarf wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
With vehicles able to shoot into combat you'll see people less inclined to need to screen them in the first place, which means strong melee units get to them more easily. Screening is harder so cheap troops server a different utility more than just being a wall.

That sounds self-defeating. If those infantry represent a credible threat to the tanks, then the tanks will be screened. If they don't represent a threat and there's no screen, then the tank getting to shoot in melee will take them out.

I mean, the logic basically sounds like 'the enemy won't screen because they won't need to screen because their vehicles will be able to kill you in melee'. That doesn't really feel like a ringing endorsement of melee in 9th Ed.

Personally I'm with the_scotsman- I'd much rather have those basic infantry be credible combatants and priced accordingly, with melee appropriately rebalanced, rather than have screens just get more expensive (making them worthless as combat units) but still shut down melee entirely in a very rock-paper-scissors fashion. I put a lot of time into painting My Dudes, I like having them be more than speedbumps, yknow?

They're speed bumps now. 10 Cultists never did anything of note other than provide CP and die fast in the open or die slow behind a wall.

No move penalties means shorter ranged weapons make the list more often.
Shooting into combat means tanks are less vulnerable and less concerned.

Both of those add up to tanks that get closer and armies that are less static.

IS will likely be a minimum of 60 points. Three squads represent a good screen for maybe half your deployment. Throw in the CC for orders and you spent 10% of your points on a half-assed screen. So there certainly will be a desire to keep strong melee threats at bay, but wide and deep screens won't be it. Instead it will be counter-charging Sentinels with heavy flamers, hellhounds, or ogryns.

So what will IS do? They can still pile shots onto units. They can perform actions. IS are unchained from the "stand here and guard these units" role. You can push them up sooner and faster. The famed 4 shots per model actually becomes a reality more often rather than a talking point of mathhammer. They also could become "gun stuffers" themselves -- tanks might shoot into combat, but what they're shooting may not be what they want to shoot.

We can't really speculate much more until we know the rest of the rules and understand how list-building will take shape. All I see is more opportunity for all sorts of units.

When you're pushing an LRBT, Ogryns, and IS upfield together as a unit the game is a lot different than it is now.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
And this just in - blast weapons can't shoot into combat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And frag grenades are blast weapons...

 Daedalus81 wrote:
They're speed bumps now. 10 Cultists never did anything of note other than provide CP and die fast in the open or die slow behind a wall.

Yeah, that's my point. I don't like that. And I really don't like the idea of making them more expensive while still being useful for nothing but speed bumps.

I'd much rather see them become more expensive and more useful as combatants, and the whole idea of a screen shutting down DS and melee taken behind the shed and shot.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
No move penalties means shorter ranged weapons make the list more often.
Shooting into combat means tanks are less vulnerable and less concerned.

Those are both reasons for melee to have more difficulty against vehicles, not less. A Demolisher isn't less of a threat to melee than a Battle Cannon, especially if it can shoot while in melee if it survives the first round of combat. Short-ranged weapons overwhelmingly tend to be better against melee units, not worse.

You are saying that tanks will be less vulnerable to melee, so they'll use fewer screens, so they'll be more vulnerable to melee. It's contradictory.

In a game that MIGHT go 6 turns, and probably more like 3 or 4, speed bumping is valuable. If it played to a conclusion like starcraft, then yes it's a problem.

Martel732 wrote:
In a game that MIGHT go 6 turns, and probably more like 3 or 4, speed bumping is valuable. If it played to a conclusion like starcraft, then yes it's a problem.

I think you've missed some context- nobody's suggested that speed bumping isn't valuable. On the contrary, I've been saying it's too valuable under the current rules. The current Fall Back rules allow speed bumps to hard-counter melee, and they can completely screen out Deep Strike, making just existing on the table by far the most important thing light infantry can do.

If the only change is that light infantry are increased in cost to compensate, then melee might be marginally more viable, but it will still represent an un-fun, rock-paper-scissors relationship with melee, and they still won't have intrinsic value beyond just existing. And I don't know about you, but I never sit down at my hobby desk and say 'man, I can't wait to spend ten hours painting this unit so that I can put it on the table and watch it just Exist And Occupy Space'.

I would much rather have Fall Back and Deep Strike reworked such that screening isn't such a guaranteed easy way to shut them down, and make those light infantry decent combatants in their own right. Then a price increase will be justified by their combat ability and simultaneously further reduce their utility as meatshields. If the new terrain system makes light infantry significantly more durable in cover then that will probably do it; but I still feel that Fall Back needs a rework especially in light of new rules that makes getting into melee even more dangerous than it currently is.

 catbarf wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
In a game that MIGHT go 6 turns, and probably more like 3 or 4, speed bumping is valuable. If it played to a conclusion like starcraft, then yes it's a problem.

I think you've missed some context- nobody's suggested that speed bumping isn't valuable. On the contrary, I've been saying it's too valuable under the current rules. The current Fall Back rules allow speed bumps to hard-counter melee, and they can completely screen out Deep Strike, making just existing on the table by far the most important thing light infantry can do.

If the only change is that light infantry are increased in cost to compensate, then melee might be marginally more viable, but it will still represent an un-fun, rock-paper-scissors relationship with melee, and they still won't have intrinsic value beyond just existing. And I don't know about you, but I never sit down at my hobby desk and say 'man, I can't wait to spend ten hours painting this unit so that I can put it on the table and watch it just Exist And Occupy Space'.

I would much rather have Fall Back and Deep Strike reworked such that screening isn't such a guaranteed easy way to shut them down, and make those light infantry decent combatants in their own right. Then a price increase will be justified by their combat ability and simultaneously further reduce their utility as meatshields. If the new terrain system makes light infantry significantly more durable in cover then that will probably do it; but I still feel that Fall Back needs a rework especially in light of new rules that makes getting into melee even more dangerous than it currently is.

I mean I basically sat down and made the loyal 32 to exist and occupy space. But I agree. I'm concerned for sure that GW dosn't understand these nuances.

 catbarf wrote:


Those are both reasons for melee to have more difficulty against vehicles, not less. A Demolisher isn't less of a threat to melee than a Battle Cannon, especially if it can shoot while in melee if it survives the first round of combat. Short-ranged weapons overwhelmingly tend to be better against melee units, not worse.

You are saying that tanks will be less vulnerable to melee, so they'll use fewer screens, so they'll be more vulnerable to melee. It's contradictory.

Not contradictory - push / pull. Melee can be good against vehicles. Vehicles can be good without screens. The outcome comes down to application of force, support, and maneuvering.

And its still a developing picture - those demolishers won't be firing into combat ( sad panda ) so perhaps a short range LRBT isn't the thing you leave totally unguarded, but it doesn't need rows of baby sitters, either.