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.

vipoid wrote:
This is a fair point.

I would suggest that part of the issue is the fact that you can no longer cut down enemies that flee from combat. Those rules, while harsh in some sense, meant that you didn't need to kill every single opponent in combat in order to win.

But now all that matters is raw killing power. So you can't really afford the same back-and-forth you could in prior editions.

To say nothing of the fact that most of the factors that once made melee more effective than ranged have also been removed, so melee units need to be even killier to justify being taken over ranged units.

Agreed. Not that I'm advocating for a return to the past, but melee back in the day did sometimes end up with more... "elegeant" interactions. On a good day, my dire avengers of all things could win combat by virtue of reducing the number of enemy attacks, having an invuln (shimmer shield + defend), and then getting in a few kills with the exarch's power weapon. The exarch could even snipe out that enemy sergeant in a challenge in some editions (not that we need to bring back challenges.) Some melee units were just there to tarpit stuff, and the lower initial lethality meant that you usually got to see both units swing into eachother rather than one getting wiped out without swinging back. So you could "feel" the stats of both units coming into play even if one had the edge thanks to getting the charge off.

Now being a melee unit is mostly about either having insane lethality so you auto-delete most units in the game once you touch them, or else having some kind of crazy durability to endure that level of offense.

I wonder if Sweeping Advance might have worked out if we divorced it from initiative and tweaked it so that you couldn't lose a whole squad because the enemy killed one more guy than you did. Like, maybe failing a battleshock while in melee means you're forced to fall back in the following movement phase and players roll off to see if the fleeing unit gets swept or something. Idk. Just spitballing.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:I mean, I started 40K in an edition where melee units were slowed by difficult terrain, were killed before they could swing because of Initiative, stood in the open to be gunned down when they killed their opponent, casualties had to be taken from the front, increasing assault range, melee weapons being basically the only weapons in the game without AP, Sergeants were neutralized by enemy chars (or outright went into Leroy Jenkins Mode when CSM)...

So, which are the factors you think "made melee more effective than ranged in the past"? I know 4th edition had an extreme advantage for CC, but other editions in the 3rd-7th era usually gave ranged an advantage, with 6th and 7th taking it to the extreme. Melee since 8th is in a quite good position.

From what I recall, melee pre-8th edition was sometimes just about tying stuff up because you usually couldn't opt to willingly fall back. So your hormagants or banshees or assault marines didn't necessarily need to kill what they charged so long as they were keeping it from blasting your other units with their guns. Of course, getting bogged down in tarpits tended to be frustrating as it was a bunch of dice rolling for minimal effect with little counter play (beyond sending in a dedicated melee unit to win the fight), but it did give melee units a job without requiring them to be super killy.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I mean, I started 40K in an edition where melee units were slowed by difficult terrain, were killed before they could swing because of Initiative, stood in the open to be gunned down when they killed their opponent, casualties had to be taken from the front, increasing assault range, melee weapons being basically the only weapons in the game without AP, Sergeants were neutralized by enemy chars (or outright went into Leroy Jenkins Mode when CSM)...

So, which are the factors you think "made melee more effective than ranged in the past"? I know 4th edition had an extreme advantage for CC, but other editions in the 3rd-7th era usually gave ranged an advantage, with 6th and 7th taking it to the extreme. Melee since 8th is in a quite good position.

Off the top of my head, you had things like:
- Digging enemies out of cover (back when cover saves were separate and could reach 2+ with the right abilities/gear), tying up shooting units in melee
- Tying up shooty units in melee (sometimes related again to cover, as it wasn't always easy to just kill them off with shooting).
- Attacking tanks (as, depending on the edition, assault units would sometimes be able to automatically attack the rear armour, regardless of where they charged from).
- Disabling some saves/abilities like FNP or We'll Be Back
etc.

I'll grant that many combat units became les effective in 6th-7th as GW handed out tons of Ignore Cover weapons that meant most factions no longer needed melee units for that sort of thing.

I just don't think the way to reverse the issue was to make melee units ridiculously killy.

It was the proliferation of ignore cover, the proliferation of AP2-3 ranged weapons, the proliferation of large blast weapons, no retreat wounds, and cover becoming weaker with each edition.

 Tyran wrote:
It was the proliferation of ignore cover, the proliferation of AP2-3 ranged weapons, the proliferation of large blast weapons, no retreat wounds, and cover becoming weaker with each edition.

Yeah, by 7th the number of pie-plates and torrent-flamers with good AP that also ignored cover was completely absurd.

Also agree regarding cover.

Hell, back in 5th models got a (IIRC) 4+ cover save just by being partially obscured by other models.

On the one hand, that was a bit on the strong side. On the other, it meant that you couldn't just snipe a model through 6 units because you could just about see the corner of its elbow, and without suffering any penalties whatsoever.

Tyel 816322 11755000 wrote:

It might make the game less RPG and more like checkers - but I think it works.

The problem with that, is that just like in checkers. Everything , when build properly, feels the same. 2 infiltration units, some units to run around do nothing and stand in places, range support units. At some point you get this odd feeling that armies are different only because of special rules and points efficiency, and not because of game play. Getting "clone" detachments doesn't help with that situation either.

Karol wrote:

Tyel 816322 11755000 wrote:

It might make the game less RPG and more like checkers - but I think it works.

The problem with that, is that just like in checkers. Everything , when build properly, feels the same. 2 infiltration units, some units to run around do nothing and stand in places, range support units. At some point you get this odd feeling that armies are different only because of special rules and points efficiency, and not because of game play. Getting "clone" detachments doesn't help with that situation either.

That's kinda inevitable when each faction has 50-200 datasheets. Even if we had RPG type stats, we would still run into the issue the big tank looking model needs to be able to do big tank things and the stabby looking model needs to be able to do stabby things regardless of faction.