PDA

View Full Version : Flamers, shotguns, etc. affecting close combat in 5th



The Inquisitor
11-03-2008, 21:13
This is meant to be a question more than anything, but has there ever been thought given to allowing weapons such as flamers or shotguns to have some effect on the game when it comes to close combat? Other games have done this, such as stargrunt, where these weapons 'shift' your overall combat effectiveness.

Has there ever been any rumor or thought given to having this happen in the 40k universe? These weapons in particular have devestating effects in real life @ short range, and are meant to be deployed in this fashion.

I'd love to see something like this; I always thought something like adding +1 attack in combat for a shotgun would be great, or attacks at +1 strength or something. I don't know how to handle a flamer; perhaps letting you attack first, attack at high initiative, or something like that would be cool (representing spraying flaming liquid everywhere. Perhaps even something like units wouned by another unit which has a flamer has negatives for combat resolution, representing the demoralizing effect of having flamers used against you (fear of fire... very primal)

Thoughts? Rumors?

Kalec
12-03-2008, 00:30
I agree with the concept, if not the specific examples.

The problem is, that these weapons are currently superior to two pistols/ccw's, and this change would pretty much negate that. I mean, why use a pistol/ccw when the shotgun is better pre-charge, and gives the same +1 attack?

It would result in absolutely pointless changes, or weapons that are superior to the close-combat setup in every possible way. I just couldn't see GW going through the trouble to make it work.

I would like to see it explored, if just a little, but it would have to be done with a far more light-handed approach then GW likes.

Warpcrafter
12-03-2008, 03:11
Perhaps there should be a pre-melee assault phase segment, where run-up attacks such as these are resolved, that does not affect the actual close combat fighting. Pistols would also get an extra shot, to represent everybody spraying away before they get toe-to-toe. Just another attempt to inject some much-needed brutality into what has become sort of a stale game.:evilgrin::chrome::evilgrin:

Sir Charles
12-03-2008, 03:19
What they should do is allow charge reactions like standing and shooting in 40k. Its always seemed weird to me that these people armed with machine guns and such would just stand there an let some dude weilding a pistol and chainsaw run into, instead of you know shooting him when he is ten feet away coming at them.

TheMav80
12-03-2008, 03:25
What they should do is allow charge reactions like standing and shooting in 40k. Its always seemed weird to me that these people armed with machine guns and such would just stand there an let some dude weilding a pistol and chainsaw run into, instead of you know shooting him when he is ten feet away coming at them.

My Tau will greatly welcome any such rule allowing me to stand and shoot. :evilgrin:

sushicaddy
12-03-2008, 05:30
I personally think that any unit that makes a leadership test may fire defensively as the enemy assaults them.

Pistols may not fire defensively, as they come into play in the regular assault phase.

Rapid fire weapons may fire once at each enemy unit assaulting the unit.

Assault weapons may fire once at one enemy unit.

Heavy weapons may not fire as their bulk does not lend them to hasty effective fire as rapidly moving targets.

a unit that is pinned may not fire defensivly.

A unit that is assaulted by an enemy unit with offensive grenades (such as frag grenades) may not fire defensively as they are too busy getting out of the way of grenade blasts, taking cover, etc.

something like that?

Alexandr Ulyanov
12-03-2008, 08:26
I personally think that any unit that makes a leadership test may fire defensively as the enemy assaults them.

Pistols may not fire defensively, as they come into play in the regular assault phase.

Rapid fire weapons may fire once at each enemy unit assaulting the unit.

Assault weapons may fire once at one enemy unit.

Heavy weapons may not fire as their bulk does not lend them to hasty effective fire as rapidly moving targets.

a unit that is pinned may not fire defensivly.

A unit that is assaulted by an enemy unit with offensive grenades (such as frag grenades) may not fire defensively as they are too busy getting out of the way of grenade blasts, taking cover, etc.

something like that?
Very nice. Alternatively, instead of reducing shots, you could take a page from fantasy and make the shots all at -1 BS. If you wanted to further restrict the rule, you could say it can only be used by units that haven't either [pick one: moved/shot/moved or shot/moved and shot] in their last turn.

Also, for pistols, we could have them be symmetrical for defense and attack: 1 shot and no bonus that phase or no shots and bonus attack.

I want to reiterate the sentiment that there is no good reason for a lack of a stand and shoot action in 40k. It's in fantasy, and all that the current rules allow is for nonsensical charges over open ground that result in the massacre of shooting troops like tau and IG before they fire a shot.

Specifically in regards to flamers, I think they should re-roll wounds to account for the flash-cooking effect they have on animal life; they are much more powerful than rifles. The only issue I see is that this might require recosting, since re-rolls are powerful. Then again, the flamer isn't a very favored weapon now anyway.

cybercaine
12-03-2008, 08:57
All this talk of a Stand and Shoot like in fantasy has me nervous. Has anyone considered the ramifications of such a change to certain armies. Imagine Orks, with their assault move, get shot by CSM on the assault and lose 1 ork/3 shots on the math. Let's say 9 guys get a shot in the SM squad. That's 3 orks dead on the move alone. And then because combat is based on initiative, and let's imagine that those CSM that also have a pistol (besides the bolter) get their attacks first before the orks even get to go because their initiative is higher. On those cc attacks, the orks lose 5/24 attacks per the math. If 18 attacks come in, what you're basically talking about between the stand and shoot and the cc attacks, you on average lose about 7 orks before you even get to attack. This would be horrible to any of the truk loadouts and truk boyz would be useless. Because CC is based on I, not based on who charged like fantasy, and because there's no real movement differences and Stand and Shoot would always happen instead of for like half moves due to the way the assault rules are worded, it would be exceedingly difficult (read as impossible) to play Orks as an assault army. Low initiative assault troops would be useless. Stand and Shoot would fundamentally change the power level of assaults in 40k. . . and not for the better. It sounds like an OK idea. . . but with the different mechanics in 40k is really not a viable option unless the game were just about totally rewritten to function similarly to fantasy. And I don't think that would be a good change. Could you imagine how terrible Harlequins would be? In that same scenario, imagine 6 harlequins assault 20 shoota boyz. Those 20 shoota boyz get 2o shots at the harlequins, killing on average about 3 harlequins. That's half the squad or what really amounts to what, over 70 points? Then the harlequins get to strike. . . but do not have enough attacks to come even close to stopping the orks from attacking back with enough attacks to kill (per average 5). Currently, those harlequins on average kill about 8 of the orks before potentially suffering any attacks. That's a decided difference that makes harlequins not even close to worth their points in those scenarios. . . all because of the stand and shoot which makes assaulting all of the sudden a terrible propositions, unless you're death company with a 3+ and FNP.
In fantasy, stand and shoot is restricted by how much the assaulter moves as well. . . a distinction which really doesn't exist currently in 40k. In fantasy, you always get your armour save (modified by the S of the weapon), a big difference in how that's treated in 40k. . . another reason why stand and shoot would be TOO effective in 40k against a lot of assault troops that have terrible armour. . . especially given the fairly low S of a lot of the shooting weapons in fantasy). And finally, the fact that assault happens based on I and not the charge move would completely destroy all of the low I assault troops. Orks as a h2h army would basically cease to exist.
Just my 2cents.

The Hobo Hunter
12-03-2008, 12:40
I think the assault concept works quite well at the moment. Remember 40k is quite an abstract game, and to demonstrate this, let's use an example of a squad of space marines charging a squad of guardsmen.

The space marine player charges into combat. He strikes first. Why? He has I 4. While the guardsmen are trying to draw their weapons etc, the mariens are already getting stuck into them.

Why doesn't this take into account shooting? The simple answer - it does. The +1 attack you get from charging is representative of the wild volleys of fire the attackers unleash as they charge in. The fact that the marines get to strike first in assault while the guardsmen do nothing is representative of the marines emptying their bolters while the guardsmen try to draw a bead on their newfound foes.

In the reverse situation (guardsmen charging marines), the marines strike first, representing them mowing down the guardsmen as they charge into combat.

Alexandr Ulyanov
12-03-2008, 19:02
All this talk of a Stand and Shoot like in fantasy has me nervous. Has anyone considered the ramifications of such a change to certain armies. Imagine Orks, with their assault move, get shot by CSM on the assault and lose 1 ork/3 shots on the math.
Well, if they take -1 BS like they do in fantasy, it will be a little better than that for the orks. Besides, ork shoota boyz are statistically better for their points at shooting than SM, and will benefit from this rule more in the opposite situation!



This would be horrible to any of the truk loadouts and truk boyz would be useless.
Truk boyz no longer exist as such. And no, it wouldn't be the end of your day. You lost 42 pts in one turn. Boo-hoo.
A truk with 12 boyz costs only 107 pts, and the CSM you describe cost at least 135 pts. So you're comparing unequal pts values, which is not very good for determining unit balance.
The CSM are now locked in cc. You join with more boyz next turn and they lose. Wow, harsh.


it would be exceedingly difficult (read as impossible) to play Orks as an assault army.
No, it would be the same as it is now with some minor casualties being taken on the charge.

Yes, it would nerf harlequins. Good. They're broken.

Orks would take a hit. Good. They're currently broken.

If you are really worried about stuff like this, then propose a more severe restriction like -2 BS or something.



The space marine player charges into combat. He strikes first. Why? He has I 4. While the guardsmen are trying to draw their weapons etc, the mariens are already getting stuck into them.

That's silly. IG already have their weapons drawn and pointed downrange at the start. They apparently stand there stupidly instead of firing.

broodjeork
12-03-2008, 19:08
.... ok have fun then charging my unit of 15 burna boyz, or my 30 ork shootas

Alexandr Ulyanov
12-03-2008, 19:19
.... ok have fun then charging my unit of 15 burna boyz, or my 30 ork shootas
Very true, these units would be extremely powerful at stand and shoot. of course, -1 BS would nerf the shoota boyz (60 shots, 10 hit!) but not the burnas. However, I think most people would rather not charge any unit made up of all flamer troops with stand and shoot available.

bassmasterliam
12-03-2008, 20:14
i agree with Alexandr Ulyanov the guardsmen would already have their lasguns out ready to fire ( why would you but your gun at ease in a battle?) i have recently desscussed this with my mate and he says it would unbalance the game but i think it would be a good idea

cybercaine
13-03-2008, 00:51
Well, if they take -1 BS like they do in fantasy, it will be a little better than that for the orks. Besides, ork shoota boyz are statistically better for their points at shooting than SM, and will benefit from this rule more in the opposite situation!


Truk boyz no longer exist as such. And no, it wouldn't be the end of your day. You lost 42 pts in one turn. Boo-hoo.
A truk with 12 boyz costs only 107 pts, and the CSM you describe cost at least 135 pts. So you're comparing unequal pts values, which is not very good for determining unit balance.
The CSM are now locked in cc. You join with more boyz next turn and they lose. Wow, harsh.


No, it would be the same as it is now with some minor casualties being taken on the charge.

Yes, it would nerf harlequins. Good. They're broken.

Orks would take a hit. Good. They're currently broken.

If you are really worried about stuff like this, then propose a more severe restriction like -2 BS or something.


That's silly. IG already have their weapons drawn and pointed downrange at the start. They apparently stand there stupidly instead of firing.

You're kidding right? I understand that "truk boyz" don't exist in the new codex as the title of a unit, but you understand what I'm talking about, right? Ok, your reply speaks nothing as to how this would have to change the current overview for assault. Like, would assault no longer go off of iniative? I mean, when you consider what the initiative characteristic represents, it basically represents those units in combat that are able to react and fire before the fast moving horde reaches them. In other words, when you're behind cover and getting assaulted, being able to make attacks first represents being able to fire off bullets and such from a defensibly superior position before the attacker is able to hit. This same analogy works for ALL other assaults that are based on iniative, with the faster initiative armies being able to fire shots. . . "make attacks". . . before the assaulting army can attack them. If you added a stand and shoot, they would effectivly gain this benefit twice in many scenarios, something that I find to be stupid.

Now, as far as Harlequins being too powerful. . . currently, you are correct. Let's see what happens when they lose the ability to capture objectives and when rending changes. We'll see how they are then. My concession is that they'll go from being overplayed by eldar players to maybe sometimes taken.

As far as Orks being broken. . . all this rules change would do is see the end of the assaulty orks-which isn't what most people are complaining about (shoota boyz). You'd still see giant scoring shoota boyz squads, which would be slightly effected. . . maybe. But as far as truks go, you'd pretty much cease to see them as assaulty lists would be pretty much dead. And I think that would be a shame, as I love the new model and own like 7 of them. . . and am planning on throwing away my 5 old ones. And, I'm not sure that I'm willing to concede that orks are broken yet. It has been along time since a true horde army has been competetive in 40k. People are so used to playing elite and elite hunter lists that weapons like flamers are almost never taken anymore. Once people start understanding that, and start learning how to mitigate their numbers, we'll see what it looks like then.
Oh, as far as the Ork scenario. . . when you lose those 7 orks and fail to kill enough marines to win combat, you lose points for the whole squad becuase you will rarely get away and even if you do, you will not rally.

How playable would units like Wyches be with a stand and shoot available. How about the IG cavalry? The fact is that most of the assault units are lightly armoured. If you added what amounts to an extra half-round of shooting at them, they'd pretty much disintegrate.

Not to mention some of the other differences in the fantasy ruleset in which shooting is a lot less powerful for the most part. . . like the fact that the majority of shooting is at str3 and str4. And how none of those shots ever deny fully the armour save of the unit being shot at, but can modify it and thus potentially lose it. . . which rarely happens from troop shooting. Shooting in this game is way more powerful. There is a proliferation of high strength weaponry that will in a large part deny any armour saves to the unit shot. . . A ruleschange like this would basically mean the end of h2h in 40k. I think that would be a shame.

Alexandr Ulyanov
13-03-2008, 02:10
You're kidding right?
no, I'm not kidding.


Like, would assault no longer go off of iniative?
It would still go off of initiative AFTER stand and shoot.



I mean, when you consider what the initiative characteristic represents, it basically represents those units in combat that are able to react and fire before the fast moving horde reaches them.
No it doesn't. It represents close combat attacks only, hence why all the attacks are counted as power weapon attacks if you have a power weapon, etc.
And by the way, you can't run from 50 yards(real effective pistol range) to me before I can pull a trigger. It takes only a second to pull off a snapshot, including pointing and pulling, and to charge that distance without me shooting would imply a speed of about 102 mph. My troops are not retards, and they will already have weapons out, loaded, and pointed outwards when on the battlefield.



when you're behind cover and getting assaulted, being able to make attacks first represents being able to fire off bullets and such from a defensibly superior position before the attacker is able to hit.
Or it represents the difficulty of charging uphill, or into occupied cover; you either have to try hard just to reach the defensive positions and arrive tired, or you have to wait for the enemy to reveal themselves before you can hit.



As far as Orks being broken. . . all this rules change would do is see the end of the assaulty orks-which isn't what most people are complaining about (shoota boyz).

Please. A 10 man SM squad with -1 BS and bolters would only kill 5 orks when it gets charged. So converge two units on it or have like 20 boyz in your mob and you'll still win by a lot. Or pin them first. Tactics.




But as far as truks go, you'd pretty much cease to see them as assaulty lists would be pretty much dead.
Assaulting lists would not be dead. You'd actually see as many trukks, since shoota boyz can all fire out of them due to the rules for open-topped.



And, I'm not sure that I'm willing to concede that orks are broken yet.
Shoota boyz: for points, better than cc marines on foot in assault, better than bolter marines on foot for shooting. Overpowered in the extreme.

Now I'm tired of addressing specific points, especially since you've pretty much said all of this before. So, to reiterate:

HOW MUCH STAND AND SHOOT AFFECTS ASSAULT DEPENDS ON HOW IT IS IMPLEMENTED.

The idea is not fundamentally broken. If you think -1 BS is too powerful, then suggest a further penalty. Don't whine about how stand and shoot conceptually ruins h2h, because it doesn't.

cybercaine
13-03-2008, 02:40
Shoota boyz: for points, better than cc marines on foot in assault, better than bolter marines on foot for shooting. Overpowered in the extreme.

The idea is not fundamentally broken. If you think -1 BS is too powerful, then suggest a further penalty. Don't whine about how stand and shoot conceptually ruins h2h, because it doesn't.
First off. . . what do you mean by better in relation to shoota boyz and marines? Do you mean damage output? Or do you mean the ability to absorb damage? Let's look at that, the marines can field about 9 per 20 boyz. Those twenty boyz can fire 40 shots, after the math killing on average slightly more than 2 marines- 1/3 * 1/2 * 1/3= 1 dead marine /18 shots. The 9 marines if they fire shots w/ the bolters kill 1 ork / 3 shots - 2/3 *1/2 or kill 3 orks with 9 shots, 6 orks with a double tap. The only reason for firing the single tap is given that the orks are more than 18" away and not a danger to assault. Should the orks be at 18" or closer (which they are given that they're firing at you), you have a double tap situation. Those 6 orks are worth more points than the 2 marines you just lost. Now there are some benefits that shoota boyz have that marines do not have. But they do not "outshoot" marines. And your example of cc is just as flawed.
Back to the discussion about stand and shoot. Stand and shoot works in fantasy because of the difference to movement - not gauranteed stand and shoot with most weapons. . . depends on how close the enemy was before the charge, and because of the difference to shooting in general in which shooting is generally less effective with troopers. Shooting in 40k is hyper-effective. Adding a simple -1 to the ballistic roll would not be nearly enough to compensate for this. Perhaps losing the first round of cc attacks and the -1 (the loss of attacks would be to mitigate the extra attacks. . . the -1 BS would be to mitigate the AP of the weapons versus what might be considered less effective hand weapons) might be enough of a compensation. You couldn't simply add on an extra attack and not expect the flow of the game to change on a drastic level. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a rule that allowed either a stand and shoot or a round of attacks, depending on the choice of the controlling player. I mean, it's not like shooting isn't functioning currently in the 40k environment. Look at the proliferation of the Necrons, a shooty army if ever there was one. Or the proliferation of the Tau. . . or for that matter Nidzilla which is a "shooty" army.
By the way, it isn't that your guardsmen are retards with guns that are ceasing to fire when the orks get close. It's part of the arbitrary abstractions that happen for turn based games. Your guardsmen were firing as the orks charged in. . . that's what they did last turn. That's the way I see it anyways.

Alexandr Ulyanov
13-03-2008, 02:58
First off. . . what do you mean by better in relation to shoota boyz and marines? Do you mean damage output? Or do you mean the ability to absorb damage?
I mean points won vs. points lost in a round of shooting vs. each other with no special weapons.



Let's look at that, the marines can field about 9 per 20 boyz.
Actually, the marines can field exactly 8 per 20 boyz.



Those twenty boyz can fire 40 shots, after the math killing on average slightly more than 2 marines- 1/3 * 1/2 * 1/3= 1 dead marine /18 shots. The 9 marines if they fire shots w/ the bolters kill 1 ork / 3 shots - 2/3 *1/2 or kill 3 orks with 9 shots, 6 orks with a double tap.

Those 20 boyz fire 40 shots, hit with 13.33, wound with 6.65, and kill 2.22 marines. That makes for a 33.325 pt gain.
The 8 marines can fire only 16 shots, hit with 10.66, and wound with 5.333 with no saves allowed, resulting in 5.333 kills, which earns them 32 pts.
The victors: SHOOTA BOYZ.




And your example of cc is just as flawed.

Thank you, as I have now demonstrated my first example to be correct.
But, I'll humor you. To be fair, we'll assume that no one charged(as if there was a consolidation into cc), even though Waagh and/or trukks make it more likely that the orks get the charge.
8 assault marines on foot get 16 cc attacks, striking first. They hit with 8 of them, wound with 4 of those, and then the orks save 1/6 of that for 3.33 dead orks, worth 20 pts.
16.66 shoota boyz then get 33.33 attacks back, hitting 16.66 times, wounding 5.555 times, and killing 1.85 marines, worth 27.75 pts.
The Winner: SHOOTA BOYZ.



Adding a simple -1 to the ballistic roll would not be nearly enough to compensate for this. Perhaps losing the first round of cc attacks and the -1 (the loss of attacks would be to mitigate the extra attacks. . . the -1 BS would be to mitigate the AP of the weapons versus what might be considered less effective hand weapons) might be enough of a compensation.

Now we're getting a little constructive. That is a pretty big penalty IMO, but I'd still prefer that to having my IG get raped before they do anything.



I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a rule that allowed either a stand and shoot or a round of attacks
Neither would I. It's a direction worth exploring.

Azzy
13-03-2008, 03:59
Thoughts? Rumors?

I wouldn't get your hopes up for such a thing in 5th edition. Aside from a few people wishlistiing prior to any reliable rumors concerning 5th edition showing up, no such concept has been mentioned in regards to what we'll see in July. Sorry.

As for thoughts.... Such a rule would have to be carefully considered and would likely require a lot of adjustments in the rules so as not to gimp assault units. That said, not something I'm particularly interested--especially after 4th edition.

cybercaine
13-03-2008, 05:28
Now we're getting a little constructive. That is a pretty big penalty IMO, but I'd still prefer that to having my IG get raped before they do anything.


Neither would I. It's a direction worth exploring.

I wouldn't see it as a penalty. . . it is more than likely a boon to the IG from the current rules. Assault is very unforgiving to the IG and Tau. But I think that ultimately it would be too devastating to have to suffer the stand and shoot and then the CC attacks before attacking. And it would be beneficial to Tau. 12 shots coming in from Fire Warriors at -1 to hit are certainly more valuable than 12 strength 3 attacks. . . especially given the sliding scale of WS comparisons. And these attacks bypass I. . . a sticking point for Tau in h2h usually.

I thought SM were 14 pts for some reason. . . which is the reason why the math is off so much for the point values. But I still on some level am unwilling to acknowledge that the boyz are broken as compared to SM. And I find it difficult to quantify those advantages. My math having been off. . . production wise the orks are better. But in the unquantifiables like ATSKNF? Or effective special weapons? Those numbers are misleading, as you cannot simply evaluate a model based solely on how it does killing. Take for instance the example of Thousand Suns versus Orks. On the killyness of that unit versus the shooting of Orks: TS cost 21? points each? So, for arguments sake let's say 6 TS versus 21 Shoota Boyz? Those 6 TS hit at the same rate of the regular marines. . . so their output decreases as they have less models. The Orks output goes up slightly due to adding 1 model. . . and each model killed is worth 6 points more than a marine. But match those very same TS against marines, and you have a much different scenario with those marines dying like mad to the TS. But match up those Orks against Plague Marines. . . 5 on 20. The orks will kill on average less than 1 PM. . . 1/3*1/3*1/3*1/2= 1 PM dead in 54 shots for a recouped value of 74%*23 pts. . . or 17.02 pts. The PM 3.33 orks with 10 shots and get back 20 pts. Does this mean that PM are broken? Or that TS are the worst unit in the game. . . even more so than an IG guardsmen unit w/out a special weapon? I guess what I'm trying to say is that you cannot base the unit comparison solely on output.

But I think another ramification to consider is the high I assaulting troops, like genestealers, harlequins, IG Calvary, DC, Wyches. . . these units would suffer severe casualties in h2h that they currently do not. A lot of the strength of these units (and a lot of their point cost) is tied up in their ability to usually strike ahead of the opponent in h2h. If you add a mechanic to bypass that, then the point cost of these units should be decreased by a suitable amount. . . as for the most part (DC excluded) these units are fairly fragile. Orks wouldn't really suffer if you added a stand and shoot (just slightly) like I was suggesting. These other units would suffer quite a bit.

Alexandr Ulyanov
13-03-2008, 05:56
First, I want to add two simple provisions to the exchange shooting for first phase cc attacks while taking a -1 BS: you can only do it if not currently in an assault, and you cannot do it if the enemy consolidates into close combat.



But in the unquantifiables like ATSKNF? Or effective special weapons?
A somewhat valid point there. ATSKNF vs. Mob Rule, Big Shootas vs. heavy bolters seem pretty even. On the other hand, how do you account for the extra special weapons options of SM? It's a small factor, but it's a difficult factor to use in calculation.


I guess what I'm trying to say is that you cannot base the unit comparison solely on output.
A valid point when the units in question are specialists for different roles. However, the specialty of bolter marines is supposed to shooting the same type of targets as shoota boyz, as their weapons are very similar, so I think that is a completely fair comparison to make. Now, assault marines may have a somewhat different focus, but against the majority of troops in the game the shoota boyz are better in cc. So I think that's a slightly less fair but still pretty fair comparison to make.



But I think another ramification to consider is the high I assaulting troops, like genestealers, harlequins, IG Calvary, DC, Wyches. . . these units would suffer severe casualties in h2h that they currently do not. A lot of the strength of these units (and a lot of their point cost) is tied up in their ability to usually strike ahead of the opponent in h2h. If you add a mechanic to bypass that, then the point cost of these units should be decreased by a suitable amount. . . as for the most part (DC excluded) these units are fairly fragile. Orks wouldn't really suffer if you added a stand and shoot (just slightly) like I was suggesting. These other units would suffer quite a bit.
Genestealers: I shed no tears when these troops get killed before cc; these are almost as bad as harlequins.
Harlequins: Any way they can be nerfed somewhat is ok with me.
IG Cavalry: only with hunting lances are they likely to strike first, so that's the only time it would be an issue. And then, all people would have to do is lock the targets first and then charge the flanks: a real cavalry strategy. And the IG would hardly suffer since their basic troops would receive a boost.
DC: I don't know what you mean by DC. Death Company units are very survivable so I think you mean something else but I don't know what.
Wyches: Dark Eldar are due for a new codex anyway, but once again all they would have to do is start a combat with one squad and then join with the rest.

cybercaine
13-03-2008, 06:52
DC: I don't know what you mean by DC. Death Company units are very survivable so I think you mean something else but I don't know what.
Wyches: Dark Eldar are due for a new codex anyway, but once again all they would have to do is start a combat with one squad and then join with the rest.

I meant Death Company. . . excluding them from the glass cannon statement as they are very survivable with the 3+ Armour, FNP.
Do you mean start one combat and in the same phase assault with the fragile squad? Because of the nature of turn order, you'd probably see a rule that stated that after all troops are moved. . . which is supposed to happen after all assaults are declared, then the assaulted unit gets to shoot one of the units assaulting it. After all, both assaults are technically happening at the same time. And so if this is what you meant by lock first, then assault with the fragile unit, I don't think this would be viable due to the abstract nature of the way assaults work in a turn based game. If you meant lock for a full round then assault. . . that is of course viable, but for many unlikely.

Alexandr Ulyanov
13-03-2008, 07:07
Do you mean start one combat and in the same phase assault with the fragile squad? Because of the nature of turn order, you'd probably see a rule that stated that after all troops are moved. . . which is supposed to happen after all assaults are declared, then the assaulted unit gets to shoot one of the units assaulting it. After all, both assaults are technically happening at the same time. And so if this is what you meant by lock first, then assault with the fragile unit, I don't think this would be viable due to the abstract nature of the way assaults work in a turn based game. If you meant lock for a full round then assault. . . that is of course viable, but for many unlikely.
I don't mean for charges declared on the same turn. I mean that if you already have a unit in close combat with a given enemy unit when it comes to your turn again, then the enemy can't have that unit stand and shoot at the new unit. I know it doesn't help THAT much, but it's a common sense rule that helps a little and encouraging using tough troops/walkers to spearhead assaults before closing in, which is exactly what many are described as doing.

Another common sense rule would be no stand and shoot while falling back.

Also, to be fair to the assault troops, the shooting should happen before they are moved but after charges are declared; wouldn't want a flamer to kill all of them! This might occasionally result in a foiled charge, but that's realistic, and less devastating than the alternative of a point blank flamer spam.
Now here's something I think you'll like: if the 5th edition rules cause troops to block LOS/grant cover bonuses to troops behind them, then lining up shielding troops in the front just before you charge can hurt his chances of an effective stand-and-shoot.

The rule could be applied to vehicles too for defensive weapons only. Wouldn't change much, since at most you'd get around 12 shots fired by an expensive vehicle(leman russ with 3 h. bolters and p. h. stubber) and often it would be only 2 by a storm bolter, and it's still at -1 BS. That means at most around 4 hits. Not that bad for the assaulters, but consolation for the guy about to lose his tank to meltabombs.

sushicaddy
13-03-2008, 07:27
I don't like the -1BS mechanic, as 40k has a decided lack of modifiers to attack, armor etc. you either get to shoot, or you don't, you get your armor save, or you don't, etc.

that is why I suggested the LD test as a mechanic to show the hastyness of the defenders fire, as well as the reduced number of shots.

Assault weapons fire once per defending model, which means that it is much better for armies with assault weapons to assault with them than to be assaulted.

Pistols - you can't have your cake and eat it too. Pistols are close combat weapons, and should remain so, it also give you a tactical choice, do you want the extra CC attack or do you want the ability to have defensive fire, rather than both. it gives marine scouts a new reason to take shotguns, rather than the CC weapon+bolt pistol that is much more effective (even if the Shotgun is str4). giving the choice makes pistols too flexible, and would cause them to win out as being much better than an assault or rapidfire weapon.

Rapid Fire weapons. Rapid fire weapons should be VERY good at defensive fire, IMO, as shooting them means you cannot assault, so there has to be a benefit of rapid fire, over assault 2. I was thinking about this today and thought to myself, perhaps you may make one roll to hit vs every assaulting model up to a number of models equal to twice the number of models in the unit performing defensive fire. Models that count as more than one model in CC also count as that many models for the purpose of this rule (I.E. a Nidzilla that counts as ten models would receive 10 shots from rapid fire weapons). This is to show the vast fire of rapidfire weapons and their effectiveness against massed amounts of attackers, while still not making rapid fire weapons immune to elite assault units (like harliquins and wyches, who could no longer assault a tac squad, if the tac squad got to fire 20times at them as they assault).

heavy weapons cannot defensive fire, as the assault just happens too quickly to bring them to bear.


The most important rule here (i think) is that troops that are armed with offensive grenades are not subject to defensive fire as they assault.

Troops that are armed with defensive grenades always get to use defensive fire, instead of making a LD test, as the defensive grenades slow down the enemies forces enough to mount a solid defensive fire arrangements.

if the assaulting troops have offensive grenades, and the defensding troops have defensive grenades, then defensive fire is carried out in the normal fashion ignoring the rules for both offensive and defensive grenades.

that would balance it out for assaulting armies then. bring your frag grenades or be shot to death.

makes sense to me, you are using guns afterall.

Alexandr Ulyanov
13-03-2008, 09:02
I don't like the -1BS mechanic, as 40k has a decided lack of modifiers to attack, armor etc. you either get to shoot, or you don't, you get your armor save, or you don't, etc.
It doesn't lack them completely; there are items that deny attacks in cc and that worsen WS. Why not an effect that worsens BS?

A ld test just means that most of the time MEQs will get to use it, but tau and IG will get less benefit. Really, I don't care if it represents anything so long as a stand-and-shoot mechanic isn't terribly complicated and is balanced.



Assault weapons fire once per defending model, which means that it is much better for armies with assault weapons to assault with them than to be assaulted.
Why is firing once more balanced?



giving the choice makes pistols too flexible, and would cause them to win out as being much better than an assault or rapidfire weapon.

Pistols would get only as many shots as a rapid fire weapon at the same str for stand and shoot, but they still would be worse for 13"+ shooting and moving and shooting in the same turn. They wouldn't any better than rapid fire at anything they aren't already better at.



Rapid Fire weapons. Rapid fire weapons should be VERY good at defensive fire, IMO, as shooting them means you cannot assault, so there has to be a benefit of rapid fire, over assault 2. I was thinking about this today and thought to myself, perhaps you may make one roll to hit vs every assaulting model up to a number of models equal to twice the number of models in the unit performing defensive fire. Models that count as more than one model in CC also count as that many models for the purpose of this rule (I.E. a Nidzilla that counts as ten models would receive 10 shots from rapid fire weapons). This is to show the vast fire of rapidfire weapons and their effectiveness against massed amounts of attackers, while still not making rapid fire weapons immune to elite assault units (like harliquins and wyches, who could no longer assault a tac squad, if the tac squad got to fire 20times at them as they assault).
That's a little weird. However, I should point out that when you're standing and shooting, it's your opponent's turn. You couldn't have moved that turn, so rapid fire has no real restriction for which to compensate in the mechanic.



heavy weapons cannot defensive fire, as the assault just happens too quickly to bring them to bear.
Go back to world war I and explain to the machine gunners that they can't shoot troops charging their trenches.
Anyway, this rule doesn't really add any balance to the idea. It's not true that heavy weapons would break the mechanic but all other weapons would be fine. In fact, many people would prefer to get hit with a heavy bolter over a plasma gun.




The most important rule here (i think) is that troops that are armed with offensive grenades are not subject to defensive fire as they assault.

No thanks. Then armies that get them for free like new marines never have to worry. There's no reason that spending one point should, in addition to giving you a special attack vs. tanks and letting you strike targets in cover at better initiative, should also allow you to ignore this rule. It wouldn't be balanced.
Now, just imagine you're charging at an enemy at full tilt. You won't stop to throw grenades because #1 it would slow you down and #2 they could go off on you as you approach your target. (Modern US army maxim: 5 second fuses are not.) Also, tactics: you would use them on people in cover, but you don't just chuck them at the first spread out squad you see.



Troops that are armed with defensive grenades always get to use defensive fire, instead of making a LD test, as the defensive grenades slow down the enemies forces enough to mount a solid defensive fire arrangements.

That makes more sense. But it contributes to complication.



if the assaulting troops have offensive grenades, and the defensding troops have defensive grenades, then defensive fire is carried out in the normal fashion ignoring the rules for both offensive and defensive grenades.

Fine assuming both sides have the option. They won't always, and this will hurt armies that don't have the option.



that would balance it out for assaulting armies then. bring your frag grenades or be shot to death.
Actually, if both sides bring grenades it's just a test-first stand-and-shoot option. I think your idea needs work, though it's not completely invalid.

I still prefer the following:
If a charge is declared against a unit that is not:
1. falling back or pinned
AND
2. locked in assault
It may choose to stand and shoot one unit charging it after the charge has been declared but before the unit charges. Resolve this as an extra phase of shooting for the defensive player, but all models are at -1 BS and vehicles can only use defensive weapons. A unit that uses the stand and shoot option may not make any attacks in the following phase of close combat.

Note that it actually guarantees that the player standing and shooting cannot win the ensuing assault. It would make sense, since the unit will be somewhat demoralized if a volley did not stop the enemy from reaching them and starting to kill.

Kalec
13-03-2008, 14:38
In terms of shooting damage, Orks are better point for point to marines. They certainly have plenty of disadvantages compared to marines in other aspects, but in the shooting phase they are the stronger. The difference is even greater against squishier targets, which the game seems to be turning towards.

My thought on these weapons and cc: why not just let them shoot again in the assault phase, in lieu of assaulting? They all require you to be in assault range of whoever you want to shoot at, and you cede the advantages of charging to your opponent. As these weapons are supposed to devastate short-ranged combat, yet still be no better then any other gun in melee, I believe this is the best option. A new universal special rule called "close-ranged" would be enough, and would be rather easy to remove or change through codecies if it proves to bo too weak or too powerful.

cybercaine
13-03-2008, 16:03
My thought on these weapons and cc: why not just let them shoot again in the assault phase, in lieu of assaulting? They all require you to be in assault range of whoever you want to shoot at, and you cede the advantages of charging to your opponent. As these weapons are supposed to devastate short-ranged combat, yet still be no better then any other gun in melee, I believe this is the best option. A new universal special rule called "close-ranged" would be enough, and would be rather easy to remove or change through codecies if it proves to bo too weak or too powerful.

First off. . . these weapons are "devastating" in close range combat. I mean, they have mechanics (taking away armour saves with AP) that most h2h attacks do not (requires special weapons like power, rending, etc.). This is why you couldn't just enable units to fire instead of CC any time they were engaged without completely changing the flow of this game and assault. Especially considering that WS is a statistic that only matters in relation to whatever you are fighting. CC would really no longer be a tactical advantage for CC designed units as troops with decent guns (like bolters, pulse rifles, etc.) would effectively become better in h2h than some of the h2h units. Especially if you never placed restricitions on their firing, or the amount of fire they could give off. Imagine fire warriors in h2h if they could rapidfire their weapons any given combat. They'd be way better for their point cost then they are currently as their weapons are way more effective than h2h.
Imagine what this would mean to the relative point cost of models. These models like fire warriors have weaknesses like h2h built into their point cost. If you suddenly improved their output drastically in their weakness, how much would their point cost have to be raised effectively to make it worthwhile? Or how much would the point cost of the dedicated h2h units need to be lowered to make a shift like this even remotely fair?

What you are talking about is way different than stand and shoot. Stand and shoot would a smaller impact on the game if dealt with in a manner like we were talking about earlier (it would maybe a help a few units that need it. . . but some will probably wash with the -1 BS added in). If you were to institute a rule like always fire in h2h, this would effectively decrease the relative point values (point values are all relative to the next unit) of all h2h units, while simultaneously increasing the point values of shooting units. This would have to be taken into account codex by codex. . . in a long and exhaustive process.

Unless you were suggesting simply a another shooting phase in the assault phase instead of assaulting for those units that aren't locked in CC? I was unclear I guess about what it was that you wanted. Did you want troops to be able to fire in h2h? Or did you want an extra shooting phase?

Alexandr Ulyanov
13-03-2008, 19:45
My thought on these weapons and cc: why not just let them shoot again in the assault phase, in lieu of assaulting? They all require you to be in assault range of whoever you want to shoot at, and you cede the advantages of charging to your opponent. As these weapons are supposed to devastate short-ranged combat, yet still be no better then any other gun in melee, I believe this is the best option. A new universal special rule called "close-ranged" would be enough, and would be rather easy to remove or change through codecies if it proves to bo too weak or too powerful.
I think what he mean is that the unit that would normally declare a charge should be able to instead declare close range shooting, and if within range would get a phase worth of shots on the enemy, counting as moving. Then the enemy, if any are left, can choose to charge (or not, presumably) in the same phase.

However, there are a lot of questions that he didn't answer in his post:
#1: what do you mean by "these weapons"
#2: does the extra shooting take place at normal initiative during cc or before cc?
#3: what does the close range universal rule grant a unit?

It does basically double firing for some units. This especially alters the mechanic when the unit using the shots is something like a tau crisis with plasma+missile pod; that's too much single turn offensive shooting.

I think that this rule would be too unbalanced if it is as it seems.

Neknoh
13-03-2008, 20:12
I'd argue AGAINST allowing for Rapid Fire weapons to be fired as a stand-and-shoot reaction, these weapons are the ones that need so careful or meticulate aiming that you can't shoot them before you charge in because it's too much "on the fly".

Instead, allow ONLY Pistols and Assault weapons to make a Stand and Shoot. This might actually increase the use of Stormbolters and other Assault Weapons. Also, the Stand and Shoot reaction should be carried out the instance the Assault is declared, placing templates there and then, toning down Flamers.

I think this would hinder strong rapid-fire weapons such as the Pulse Rifle, Gauss Rifle and Bolter from tearing assaulters a new one, but would actually enable troops armed with Shotguns and similar a fighting chance.

As for the claims that assaulty orks are NOT the common army... I am afraid you might be wrong there, assaulty orks that fire once and then waagh with huge units seem to be the main one... or biker assaulty orks. But that's off topic.

I say allow for "Assault Weapons" to "Stand and shoot" as if though they'd normally fire.

Kalec
13-03-2008, 23:50
I think what he mean is that the unit that would normally declare a charge should be able to instead declare close range shooting, and if within range would get a phase worth of shots on the enemy, counting as moving. Then the enemy, if any are left, can choose to charge (or not, presumably) in the same phase.

However, there are a lot of questions that he didn't answer in his post:
#1: what do you mean by "these weapons"
#2: does the extra shooting take place at normal initiative during cc or before cc?
#3: what does the close range universal rule grant a unit?

It does basically double firing for some units. This especially alters the mechanic when the unit using the shots is something like a tau crisis with plasma+missile pod; that's too much single turn offensive shooting.

I think that this rule would be too unbalanced if it is as it seems.

Apparently, I didn't explain myself very well in my first post. I hope this clears things up.

1. I meant short-ranged weapons meant to be used in close quarters like shotguns and flamers. You know, the original topic of discussion. I am not saying to give every thing in the world the ability to shoot twice, because that is beyond stupid.

2. It would be shooting instead of getting to charge into cc, and would not be usable in CC. A unit with models shooting during the assault phase wouldn't get to charge at all. One of the cardinal rules of 40K is that the best gun in the universe is useless when someone is bashing your brains out with a rock, and I wouldn't break that. I am aware that skorchas can be used as power weaps in cc, but they are used as close-combat weapons, not guns, so this rule applies even to them.

3. Universal rule was a poor choice of words. I meant a weapon rule like Gets Hot! for plasma, or the melta rule for melta guns. It would just be used to identify the weapons capable of shooting in the assault phase instead of getting to assault. The idea is that these weapons require the shooter to be in assault range of the opponent anyway, so you are trading the charge for another opportunity to shoot. Considering that the problem with shotguns (the main weapon this is designed for) is that they just aren't as effective as the pistol/ccw combo because you lose a lot of attacks in the long run, which this would help mitigate.

Alexandr Ulyanov
14-03-2008, 06:27
Instead, allow ONLY Pistols and Assault weapons to make a Stand and Shoot. This might actually increase the use of Stormbolters and other Assault Weapons.
This would favor armies like orks, eldar, and tyranids, which are not supposed be defensive, but which have nearly all assault weapons. This would leave IG, tau, and other armies that suffer from slaughter in cc before they do anything at all in the cold. This, therefore wouldn't fix the problem.
In addition, though it doesn't matter much, there is no realistic reason you can't use a machine gun defensively.



Also, the Stand and Shoot reaction should be carried out the instance the Assault is declared, placing templates there and then, toning down Flamers.

I already proposed that; it's the easiest way to prevent templates from being broken.



I say allow for "Assault Weapons" to "Stand and shoot" as if though they'd normally fire.
Without a penalty, assault weapons will be too powerful in that capacity. Charging dire avengers or shoota boyz would be suicide for pretty much any unit.


Apparently, I didn't explain myself very well in my first post. I hope this clears things up...
Considering that the problem with shotguns (the main weapon this is designed for) is that they just aren't as effective as the pistol/ccw combo because you lose a lot of attacks in the long run, which this would help mitigate.

Yeah, your idea would probably be just fine provided that it only applied to things like shotguns and the like, and it would help to make those weapons worthwhile.

However, I still think a stand-and-shoot mechanic would be more helpful to game balance, given the penalties we forwarded earlier: it gives flamers a defensive role, making them much more useful in most armies, and it prevents a squad of high initiative cc monsters from eating a whole army without taking any hits. (full genestealer squad vs. imps, anyone?) Basically, my idea resolves different issues and in a different way.

Mojaco
17-03-2008, 18:09
I'd say stand and shoot with no restrictions instead of fighting in the CC phase. Frag grenades negate this option altogether. Simple, but fair? I don't know :)

The Inquisitor
17-03-2008, 19:43
I think stand and shoot option would be great; it would really help someone like Guard, eldar, etc.; Also: the ability to do a fighting withdrawl of some sort, but not have your troops demoralized.

Alexandr Ulyanov
17-03-2008, 20:02
I'd say stand and shoot with no restrictions instead of fighting in the CC phase. Frag grenades negate this option altogether. Simple, but fair? I don't know :)

That wouldn't be fair. Now many troops, such as marines and stormtroopers, come with frag grenades and most others pay a single point for them. So, most of the time, stand and shoot would not be allowed, and we'd be right back where we are now.

Frag grenades are so cheap because they only affect assaults vs. vehicles and assaulting cover; if they become a requirement for stand and shoot then they would need a price boost.

Marrak
17-03-2008, 20:07
This would leave IG, tau, and other armies that suffer from slaughter in cc before they do anything at all in the cold...


...it gives flamers a defensive role, making them much more useful in most armies, and it prevents a squad of high initiative cc monsters from eating a whole army without taking any hits. (full genestealer squad vs. imps, anyone?) Basically, my idea resolves different issues and in a different way.

Okay, I focused on the two points that I had a real question about.

Your issue is that Tau and IG... both of which are the weakest CC armies in the game, are getting slaughtered by CC specific armies like Nids, Orks, and (to a point) Eldar? I can't speak for the last two codexes, but as for Nids, their strength isn't with their long-range firepower. At best, many of their guns are only good for a round or two of shooting, then you're assaulting or getting assaulted.

As for Flamers not being useful, I assure you that any swarm army is going to be terrified of even the basic flame weapon an army gives them, much less anything like the Hellhound or Immolator or even the heavy flamer. The heavy flamer alone ignores any kind of save that genestealers could get, and wounds them on 3s.

If a single squad of Genestealers, or for that matter any other unit that is pure assault, is slaughtering an entire IG or Tau army, then my thoughts are the problem is less with the assault unit and more with the tactics being used against them. The sheer amount of firepower those units can produce, not to mention the number of template weapons, should be more than capable of weakening or destroying any assault units that are showing themselves to be a threat.

Sajuuk
17-03-2008, 20:15
Instead of stand and shoot reaction I would like to see something to stop advancing units. Despite of WH40k is far from modern combat simulation :) and is made for fun (grim and dark fun) I just don't see units running open ground at pointed barrels.

I would like to see an option/ability for shooters to break assaulting units before they reach them. Like suppressive fire. I.e. units being shoot on open ground (not in cover) have to take pining test.

Not without a reason all units designated for CC have very good (or even highest) Ld and fearless ones are not rare...

And by the way - I play Blood Angels ;)

Mojaco
17-03-2008, 20:31
How about stand and shoot to full effect for the price of no fighting in close combat phase, with frag grenades giving a 4+ cover save to this shooting?

Alexandr Ulyanov
17-03-2008, 20:41
As for Flamers not being useful, I assure you that any swarm army is going to be terrified of even the basic flame weapon an army gives them
That's silly. A flame weapon has an 8" reach, and most units with one have a 6" move before they fire it. So, on average, a model with 12" move, fleet, and/or 12" charge has nothing to fear from such a unit. So, the units that can bypass infantry and walker flamers include: orks on trukks and bikers/koptas, virtually all eldar and dark eldar, rough riders, most tyranids, SM bikes, etc.



If a single squad of Genestealers, or for that matter any other unit that is pure assault, is slaughtering an entire IG or Tau army, then my thoughts are the problem is less with the assault unit and more with the tactics being used against them.
In an ideal situation, genestealers can infiltrate and assault first turn,(infiltrate 18" or less away, +6" move, 6" fleet, 6" charge) and then move from unit to unit slaughtering troops before they ever get a chance to hit and without giving them much chance to withdraw. Tactics won't save guard from that.

Marrak
17-03-2008, 20:42
To Mojaco,

That would be a slaughter for many units. Most assault units have very low saves to shooting, and even with the 4+ you're essentially giving any squad with a flamer (would ignore the cover from the frag) the ability to wipe out anyone who dares to close to close combat with them. Add in a plasma or other kind of high AP weapon and an assault squad would be committing suicide for acting in the purpose it was intended for.

Marrak
17-03-2008, 20:46
That's silly. A flame weapon has an 8" reach, and most units with one have a 6" move before they fire it. So, on average, a model with 12" move, fleet, and/or 12" charge has nothing to fear from such a unit. So, the units that can bypass infantry and walker flamers include: orks on trukks and bikers/koptas, virtually all eldar and dark eldar, rough riders, most tyranids, SM bikes, etc.


In an ideal situation, genestealers can infiltrate and assault first turn,(infiltrate 18" or less away, +6" move, 6" fleet, 6" charge) and then move from unit to unit slaughtering troops before they ever get a chance to hit and without giving them much chance to withdraw. Tactics won't save guard from that.

Orks can put their flamers in trukks, guard have the hellhound, and Tau can jump-shoot-jump with their jetpacks. I assure you, there are plenty of ways to extend that 8" reach.

No genestealers can both infiltrate and fleet. The only stealer that can infiltrate is the Broodlord, and he cannot fleet himself nor can he detach himself from his retinue. If a scouting unit of genestealers (this they can do) does get to combat first turn, there are plenty of ways to block the advances so they can't march from combat to combat. Or is the IG player charging his squads towards the CC with the first? :eyebrows:

Mojaco
17-03-2008, 20:47
So that's a no? :)
It mights work. 5th edition is taking away a turn of shooting, so this might give it back. Flamers would be powerful, but at least they'd have a use. Right now they're too much of a fun one-off.

Marrak
17-03-2008, 20:52
So that's a no? :)
It mights work. 5th edition is taking away a turn of shooting, so this might give it back. Flamers would be powerful, but at least they'd have a use. Right now they're too much of a fun one-off.

But a very deadly and effective one-off. :) When you kill off what's going to charge you, or make it run away, then it gets another use later.

Alexandr Ulyanov
18-03-2008, 03:47
To Mojaco,

That would be a slaughter for many units. Most assault units have very low saves to shooting, and even with the 4+ you're essentially giving any squad with a flamer (would ignore the cover from the frag) the ability to wipe out anyone who dares to close to close combat with them. Add in a plasma or other kind of high AP weapon and an assault squad would be committing suicide for acting in the purpose it was intended for.
Since the flamer has to be fired when the charge is declared but before the models move according to the rule we've been discussing, its 8" template will be aimed at targets up to 12" away, and more generally 6" away. This is unlikely to wipe them out. However, a good point is that flamethrowers should not bypass grenades realistically.

Honestly, at 6" away unless the enemy packs in tight before the charge, it's unlikely you'll hit more than 3 models, much less kill them all.

Marrak
18-03-2008, 10:06
Since the flamer has to be fired when the charge is declared but before the models move according to the rule we've been discussing, its 8" template will be aimed at targets up to 12" away, and more generally 6" away. This is unlikely to wipe them out. However, a good point is that flamethrowers should not bypass grenades realistically.

Honestly, at 6" away unless the enemy packs in tight before the charge, it's unlikely you'll hit more than 3 models, much less kill them all.

True, but I was replying to Mojaco's statement that models should be able to shoot freely if they skip attacking in the assault phase. Once the pile in happens you can easily manipulate the template to get maximum effectiveness.

I'm still not sold on the rule simply because it basically makes CC focused units fear doing the one thing they are supposed to do; assault. Many of these units have no ranged option, and are expensive as well.

Mojaco
18-03-2008, 10:39
O, you're right, I didn't say that. Shooting at the moment of declaring was the intention as it does make the most sense. Does that help with the flamer issue?

I think assaulting an entrenched unit should be a bit more frightning. Right now you can assault harmlessly as long as you remained out of LOS, while realistically (always a bad argument) you should get off at least one shot on people coming at your trench screaming.

Marrak
18-03-2008, 10:47
Okay then, imagine this using your above example.

Chaos of the battlefield... smoke, fire, screaming and explosions drowning out almost everything else. You're firing rapidly at the target, when at the corner of your vision you see a shadow moving rapidly towards you. By the time you turn all you can see is a flash of claws and the screams of your compatriots as an unseen enemy is pouring over your lines, the combat too close to get an effective shot off without risk of hitting your companions.

Really, if a CC unit stayed out of LoS the entire approach, shouldn't it get some bonus?

Negafex
18-03-2008, 16:36
maybe give the shotguns and flamers a "stand and shoot" type charge reaction, similar to fantasy

Alexandr Ulyanov
18-03-2008, 20:02
Okay then, imagine this using your above example.

Chaos of the battlefield... smoke, fire, screaming and explosions drowning out almost everything else. You're firing rapidly at the target, when at the corner of your vision you see a shadow moving rapidly towards you. By the time you turn all you can see is a flash of claws and the screams of your compatriots as an unseen enemy is pouring over your lines, the combat too close to get an effective shot off without risk of hitting your companions.

Really, if a CC unit stayed out of LoS the entire approach, shouldn't it get some bonus?
Logically, perhaps, though 40k and logic don't mix very well on a lot of issues.

Balance-wise, I don't see any reason for it: you're already rewarded for being out of LOS the whole time by not being shot in all the time before you declared a charge.


maybe give the shotguns and flamers a "stand and shoot" type charge reaction, similar to fantasy
We've been discussing the rules of such a thing since the first page of this thread.

For instance:
If one or more charges are declared against a unit, and that unit is not:
1. falling back
2. pinned
3. locked in assault
Then the unit may choose to use a stand and shoot reaction. This is resolved as a round of shooting with -1 BS before charging models are moved. All of the units shots must be at the same enemy unit, and they may not use a stand-and-shoot reaction against any other units that are charging them at the same time. Wounds scored on charging units by this shooting do not count for combat resolution purposes. If the shots kill all units in charge range, then no charge occurs. If the charge does succeed, units that have used a stand-and-shoot reaction do not get any attacks in the initial phase of the combat. A stand-and-shoot reaction may not be used against a unit that consolidates into close combat, as no charge was declared.

Note that if the charge succeeds and inflicts any wounds on the defenders, the defenders will lose the combat phase. This consequence of the rule helps the assault troops and makes some sense too, since it is demoralizing to see enemies charge right through a volley of fire alive and killing.

TITAN
18-03-2008, 21:08
I agree with the concept, if not the specific examples.

The problem is, that these weapons are currently superior to two pistols/ccw's, and this change would pretty much negate that. I mean, why use a pistol/ccw when the shotgun is better pre-charge, and gives the same +1 attack?

It would result in absolutely pointless changes, or weapons that are superior to the close-combat setup in every possible way. I just couldn't see GW going through the trouble to make it work.

I would like to see it explored, if just a little, but it would have to be done with a far more light-handed approach then GW likes.

Here is a good example:
Burna Boys: Flamers that did not fire in the shooting phase swing as power weapons in the Assault phase.

Midknightwraith
18-03-2008, 23:29
I must admit it has always anoyed me that troops with assault/rapid fire weapons don't get any benefit for those weapons in assault. Even though the description for assault describes close range shots as well as melee attacks.Especially when things with Plasma Guns, Meltaguns, Fusionguns, Wraithcannons, Inferno pistols get charged by monsterous creatures, which would be used in CC to deal with these threats, but currently aren't.

I'm not crazy about the stand and shoot idea, even if it is limited to just certain weapons that get the option in certain circumstances.

I'd like to see a way for guns to be used in addition to basic close combat attacks. It's bothered me that marines in assault don't deny armor saves to 5+ Sv troops, but 6" back with pistols they do (you know those same pistols they are using in the assault?!?).

This is my suggestion: a model armed with assault, rapid Fire, or Pistol weapons can use this weapon in lieu of it's normal CC attacks. Attacks are worked out at initiative of 1 for the firing model. The guns are fired given their normal rate of fire for the range and as if the model had moved. The to-hit roll is made based on the WS to-hit chart and the target unit gets a WS bonus = to their initiative to a maximum of 10 (use the attributes of the majority of the squad members for units with different attributes). Weapons that use templates are placed as normal, but any model under the template is only hit on a to-hit roll equal to thier initiative (to a maximum of 6, again majority attribute rule for units with mixed initiative). If hits are scored work out wounds using the strength of the weapon not the strength of the model. Use the AP value of the weapon to determine if a normal armor save can be taken, all models get a 6+ Invulnerable Save against shooting attacks from units they are engaged with if they don't otherwise have an invulnerable save.

I can really go either way on the Initiative 1 vs regular initiative, but my thinking was I'm letting them use their guns in CC and it's going to be harder to aim a rifle or similar weapon effectively in that situation than just using it as a club. Though giving the defender a WS bonus for the to hit roll may be enough that initiate 1 on top of that might be overkill, what do the rest of you think. Maybe a bonus equal to Initiative / 2 round up. Likewise with the 6+ invulnerable, I wanted to represent the higher likelyhood of an enemy being able to scramble out of the way of something deadly like a plasma rifle or fusion gun being used in CC.

Maybe let pistol weapons ignore the 6+ invulnerable save. And remember this is in lieu of making normal CC attacks. Against models with an AV, if they have a WS use the front AV, otherwise use the facing AV.

Azzy
19-03-2008, 02:32
Not trying to rain on your parade, guys, but shouldn't this thread be moved to General Discussion since it has spiraled into a discussion of house rules (and the merits thereof) and now has nothing to do with 5th edition?

Kalec
19-03-2008, 02:36
The discussion is about what changes should be made to ranged weapons affecting cc in 5th. It is as relevant as anything else in this forum.

Azzy
19-03-2008, 02:57
That's a stretch IMO, but if you say so...

I just don't want people looking at this thread and thinking that this is going to happen in 5th edition.

The Dude
19-03-2008, 03:05
I just don't want people looking at this thread and thinking that this is going to happen in 5th edition.

I think the Mods are being a little more lenient with wish-listing in this forum than the regular news & rumours one, simply because it keeps things tidy :p

Azzy
19-03-2008, 03:24
I think the Mods are being a little more lenient with wish-listing in this forum than the regular news & rumours one, simply because it keeps things tidy :p

True, true. I'm just being paranoid that "OMG, I heard Stand & Shoot is gonna be in 5th Edition" is going to be one of the next threads, but it probably happen even if this thread weren't here. ;)

Alright, never mind... I guess I'm just overreacting. No harm, no foul. :D