Let’s talk about melee

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Played my first game of TOW.

i forgot about the WS comparison mechanic that fantasy had.

 

40k imho melee isnt…great.

a guardsman has the same chance to hit a primarch as another guardsmen.

nor does it make sense a guardsman will be faster to strike than a primarch just because they charged into him.

 

I’ve also vocalized support for bringing initiative back in the past and I still standby that.

 

by bringing these two mechanics into 40K I think I would bring a lot more granularity to melee.

 

currently there are multiple ‘melee’ chapters, and their bonuses are often very clunky and ham fisted imho, and often very similar as well, even if in lore a blood angel and space word will have very different fighting styles for example.

 

this way a BA could have a higher WS but the SW could have a higher I or S stat.

it’s slightly more complex than the to hit mechanics for melee now, but no more complex than to wound mechanics.

initiative also does away with any confusing flow charts for fights first/last abilities.

 

charging? +2 I.

special weapon? Increases I.

two opposing special rules that increase I but make both units equal? Unit with the higher I stat still goes first.

two units with equal I? Whoever’s turn it is gets to go first.

 

this way you can have units that are good in melee in very different ways. 
 

just some examples

eldar/DE- high WS, A and I stats for their melee specialists, but low base S.

 

BA- high WS and S

 

SW- high S and I

 

Orks- high S and A 

 

deamons- high A and I

 

etc.

 

Also more of a general note.

TOW has made me glad for a lot of 40k’s stream lining, but i do think they took it too far, but by the same token I do hope the 2nd Ed of TOW gets a little more streamlined as well. There has to be a nice middle ground.

Edited February 6 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[chapter master 454]

The Old World having indepth heavy melee focus is kind of the point of it. That's where things happen and is the focus of the game like how 40k focuses primarily on Ranged combat however I will leave old world out of this, I wait for my high elves to return.

 

Melee in 40k is currently in an odd spot as much like a lot of the game on the whole lethality has plummeted into the ground. This is from the fact that weapon balance for melee is...strangely enough balanced. Thunder Hammers aren't always strictly better Power Fists and Power Fists are always strictly better. There is a good amount of trade-offs and they have made careful considerations about the fact that melee in the past was ALWAYS too good at what it did, very very very few cases you could argue surviving a charge from any melee focus unit in the past that was properly kitted, furthered by the massive penalties it conveyed to anyone that got charged, that daisy chaining into multiple combats was super easy to tie up everything.

As someone who loves their tanks, there is clearly bias in myself however I always felt melee was far too strong with the only arguement of "shoot them" being moot because if you go first, they stay hidden in deployment. You got second and you maybe get 1 turn of shooting something but then turn 2 they are all charged in nice and neat with no counterplay (and the only counter people give is "get some melee units", screening does nothing when they used your screening units as charge extenders!).

 

The current system of order of units fighting is actually good and simple. Alternating Activations of the priorities, starting with inactive player. Nothing silly and makes it so you can counter-act other melee units to some extent and even encourages countercharges as if the enemy doesn't fall back you will get the first swing in their fight phase (possibly).

The change to having hit rolls being on the weapon and not a contest of models can be a little weird in some regards but I believe this represents the looser flow of battle that is ongoing, no single combatant is always standing on guard to face every foe and may represent being caught from the side.

 

The issue with melee imo is that I do agree that it feels pillow-fisted however for far too many units that are meant to be melee specialists. You certainly get BLENDER units that just run through units however I have discovered from using redemptors...often they are just one -1 damage stratagem or ability and suddenly they just...don't hit as hard? Looking at it, you can find a lot of melee weapons that are used by units en mass that have damage 2 but rarely will you find melee weapons (even single picks I believe) that hand out more than 3. Makes sense since these weapons tend to come with a larger number of attacks, one of melee's strength being that often the stats of their weapons tend to be far higher than ranged one due to the rather limiting range requirement of "hugging distance".

Another is the low AP on melee weapons. I am shocked by how many melee weapons I've been hit with and get told "only AP2" and suddenly now Armour of Contempt is just rumbling my opponent's day.

 

My take: melee needs some very carefully placed and considered AP buffs (like say Reivers to AP2 on their melee haha) to help them cut through harder targets. It is nice that melee isn't so auto-win for specialists anymore but I do feel at minimum the sergeants of these sort of squads should be able to bring a little extra heat with better AP weapons.

That's my take.

 

You want my summary as a gun-lover?

Melee is fine weak, buff guns, nerf ruins. and give bondsman back to imperial knights

[TheArtilleryman]

I definitely agree with you about the over simplification of the melee combat. I never liked that change to WS being 3+ or whatever rather than a stat. Much preferred the comparison table. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

50 minutes ago, chapter master 454 said:

The Old World having indepth heavy melee focus is kind of the point of it. That's where things happen and is the focus of the game like how 40k focuses primarily on Ranged combat however I will leave old world out of this, I wait for my high elves to return.

 

Melee in 40k is currently in an odd spot as much like a lot of the game on the whole lethality has plummeted into the ground. This is from the fact that weapon balance for melee is...strangely enough balanced. Thunder Hammers aren't always strictly better Power Fists and Power Fists are always strictly better. There is a good amount of trade-offs and they have made careful considerations about the fact that melee in the past was ALWAYS too good at what it did, very very very few cases you could argue surviving a charge from any melee focus unit in the past that was properly kitted, furthered by the massive penalties it conveyed to anyone that got charged, that daisy chaining into multiple combats was super easy to tie up everything.

As someone who loves their tanks, there is clearly bias in myself however I always felt melee was far too strong with the only arguement of "shoot them" being moot because if you go first, they stay hidden in deployment. You got second and you maybe get 1 turn of shooting something but then turn 2 they are all charged in nice and neat with no counterplay (and the only counter people give is "get some melee units", screening does nothing when they used your screening units as charge extenders!).

 

The current system of order of units fighting is actually good and simple. Alternating Activations of the priorities, starting with inactive player. Nothing silly and makes it so you can counter-act other melee units to some extent and even encourages countercharges as if the enemy doesn't fall back you will get the first swing in their fight phase (possibly).

The change to having hit rolls being on the weapon and not a contest of models can be a little weird in some regards but I believe this represents the looser flow of battle that is ongoing, no single combatant is always standing on guard to face every foe and may represent being caught from the side.

 

The issue with melee imo is that I do agree that it feels pillow-fisted however for far too many units that are meant to be melee specialists. You certainly get BLENDER units that just run through units however I have discovered from using redemptors...often they are just one -1 damage stratagem or ability and suddenly they just...don't hit as hard? Looking at it, you can find a lot of melee weapons that are used by units en mass that have damage 2 but rarely will you find melee weapons (even single picks I believe) that hand out more than 3. Makes sense since these weapons tend to come with a larger number of attacks, one of melee's strength being that often the stats of their weapons tend to be far higher than ranged one due to the rather limiting range requirement of "hugging distance".

Another is the low AP on melee weapons. I am shocked by how many melee weapons I've been hit with and get told "only AP2" and suddenly now Armour of Contempt is just rumbling my opponent's day.

 

My take: melee needs some very carefully placed and considered AP buffs (like say Reivers to AP2 on their melee haha) to help them cut through harder targets. It is nice that melee isn't so auto-win for specialists anymore but I do feel at minimum the sergeants of these sort of squads should be able to bring a little extra heat with better AP weapons.

That's my take.

 

You want my summary as a gun-lover?

Melee is fine weak, buff guns, nerf ruins. and give bondsman back to imperial knights

I definitely think they could buff melee slightly, but they also need to make ruin walls mean something to help balance that out.

 

however melee in TOW isn’t more intricate because it’s ‘all about melee’ shooting is equally intricate or at least close, with penalties for shooting beyond half range, and magic  likewise also plays a very big roll, and claiming 40K is all about shooting is flat out wrong considering there’s an entire subfaction that has almost no ranged options, and melee has always been at least as strong as shooting in 40K has been, often stronger.

Edited February 6 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Kallas]

49 minutes ago, chapter master 454 said:

40k focuses primarily on Ranged combat

I disagree with pretty much everything you wrote here, but it's this bit at the beginning that encapsulates it: 40k is absolutely not ranged focused, in the lore or on the table.

 

In the lore we get so many florid descriptions of incredible duels; and yes, often involving guns as well, but the characters of 40k (big and small) often get stuck in with bayonet, sword or claw.

 

On the table, we have myriad units that are hybrid, melee focused, or entirely melee, and these are not simply chaff units: Genestealers are a strong, iconic unit that is 100% about melee; Assault Marines with Bolt Pistol/Chainsword (and all of their various knock-ons like Vanguard, Raptors-> Warp Talons, etc) have been visually striking in 40k for many years and the models are often some of the more interesting in the Marine range due to posing that is more dynamic than gun-wielding models; and speaking of, Marine Captains, Chaplains, etc have all been largely melee focused (as well as in the lore, of course).

 

Where 40k is primarily ranged is in a few factions (eg, Tau and Imperial Guard) and the way that some people choose to play. But 40k is definitely not ranged focused, and melee is far more than simply set decoration for the gun fights.

 

To address Inquisitor_Lensoven's post, I agree with it mostly. The WS comparison allowed for granularity in skill, and Initiative added another lever for balancing units - hell, many folks have discussed the merits/pitfalls of the IGOUGO system, and Initiative was definitely one of the more successful iterations of something different from that. Neither of these are entirely flawless, but I agree that their removal was a net loss - unfortunately, I doubt we will see Initiative return to 40k for a good while, as it seems like granularity is something the 40k Design Team is actively stripping away and, in my opinion, this is a tragedy.

[Rain]

17 minutes ago, Kallas said:

I disagree with pretty much everything you wrote here, but it's this bit at the beginning that encapsulates it: 40k is absolutely not ranged focused, in the lore or on the table.

 

In the lore we get so many florid descriptions of incredible duels; and yes, often involving guns as well, but the characters of 40k (big and small) often get stuck in with bayonet, sword or claw.

 

On the table, we have myriad units that are hybrid, melee focused, or entirely melee, and these are not simply chaff units: Genestealers are a strong, iconic unit that is 100% about melee; Assault Marines with Bolt Pistol/Chainsword (and all of their various knock-ons like Vanguard, Raptors-> Warp Talons, etc) have been visually striking in 40k for many years and the models are often some of the more interesting in the Marine range due to posing that is more dynamic than gun-wielding models; and speaking of, Marine Captains, Chaplains, etc have all been largely melee focused (as well as in the lore, of course).

 

Where 40k is primarily ranged is in a few factions (eg, Tau and Imperial Guard) and the way that some people choose to play. But 40k is definitely not ranged focused, and melee is far more than simply set decoration for the gun fights.

 

To address Inquisitor_Lensoven's post, I agree with it mostly. The WS comparison allowed for granularity in skill, and Initiative added another lever for balancing units - hell, many folks have discussed the merits/pitfalls of the IGOUGO system, and Initiative was definitely one of the more successful iterations of something different from that. Neither of these are entirely flawless, but I agree that their removal was a net loss - unfortunately, I doubt we will see Initiative return to 40k for a good while, as it seems like granularity is something the 40k Design Team is actively stripping away and, in my opinion, this is a tragedy.

Agree 100%. What separates 40k from most future settings is how much it borrows from the medieval. The iconic units wear brightly colored heraldic armor and swing chainsaw swords. The greatest heroes of the Space Marines such as Azrael, Dante, etc. are all primarily melee combatants, with ornate and impressive melee weapons. The Black Templars are literally just Teutonic Knights in space.

 

Reading the fiction, practically all dramatic showdowns are depicted as being hand to hand combat. A few are psychic (when appropriate, like the Ahriman books) but almost none feature ranged combat with advanced weapons, and characters getting gunned down by superior firepower.
 

Even the bolter, the most iconic ranged weapon in 40k, is not presented as some hyper-advanced long range precision weapon, but rather a fully automatic grenade launcher to be fired into foes at distance where one can see the whites of their eyes so as to best appreciate the sacred carnage wrought in the Emperor/Chaos Gods’ name.

 

 

[Scribe]

2 hours ago, chapter master 454 said:

The Old World having indepth heavy melee focus is kind of the point of it. That's where things happen and is the focus of the game like how 40k focuses primarily on Ranged combat however I will leave old world out of this, I wait for my high elves to return.

 

40K used to have what you are describing, the setting doesn't seem relevant as 40K is Space Fantasy. 

[Scribe]

I sent that initial post from a line at the store.

 

I'm actually amazed that I read this '40K is ranged' at all. 40K has had a massive focus on Melee since...forever? I didnt play 2nd, but from 3rd through 9th, Melee was a major component.

 

When the game was at its peak, we had a ton of granularity within Melee.

 

I dont understand the view that the game WASNT about Melee, at least as much if not more than Ranged...

[TheTrans]

I think Melee should be absolutely devastating and decisive in 40k... if I've just dealth with 2-3 turns of getting slapped in the face by a gunline, I'd want my army to absolutely chew through the enemy.



 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

5 hours ago, USNCenturion said:

Fact of the matter is that as the games ranged weaponry has gotten more deadly, the melee has gotten significantly weaker. 
 

Things like armor tables, WS tables, higher wound characteristics all have something to do it, in addition to the weapon characteristics themselves not being able to keep up with rail, melta, lance weapons etc. That’s all argument for other days and threads. 

 

The best melee weapon is arguably a power fist(?). It’s hard to get that into combat with someone, and it’s not as strong or damaging as a las cannon or high output onslaught cannon that can be shooting someone for 4+ turns. 

 

The game went steadily from being able to finish your opponent in glorious and desperate melee to ‘why the hell am I bringing a knife to a gun fight?’

I haven’t had any trouble getting my BA into melee, and I have been unable to keep my guard out of melee. The closest I came to pulling that off was against. GK player who kept half his army in DS until T3 hoping to find a gap in my backfield where he could drop some units in. In that game my shooting killed something like 4 dudes and his melee destroyed a taurox, wiped a squad of Catachans  and a squad of Kasrkin w/ castellan, and also killed 3 ogryns in melee.

 

I only won because he refused to commit half his army to the fight which allowed me 2 free turns of holding all 3 primaries, and only had 2 turns left to hold 2 of the primaries. Had he committed his whole army or most of his army in T2 he would have meleed himself to the win.

 

melee is less effective against heavies and super heavies, but is still plenty deadly against infantry, and light-medium armor.

 

it’s not hard to get into melee range, especially with ruins being absolutely useless in protecting units from melee.

 

Also I’ve seen quite a few arguments i which one side is taking the definition of the word used for a stat too literally.

 

initiative for example. I remember someone being angry that their orks had a low I stat and thus often fought second, and said that their eagerness to fight in melee meant they should have much higher I stat.

 

to me I view initiative as representing 2 aspects of melee combat.

1. How willing a mode is to fight

2. how agile that model is in melee.

 

so while orks are very eager to Krump up close, they’re not particularly well known for their agility, so if I were to rate  each factor 1-10 #1 I’d say I8 #2 I’d say I5 or I6, for a cumulative final stat of either 6 or 7.

 

meanwhile for a standard marine I’d say they’re plenty willing to fight, and they’re more agile than most things in the galaxy so #1 I’d say I7 # I7 and combined the final I stat would be I7.

 

a basic guardsman never wants to use his bayonet so I1 for #1, but standard unaugmented humans being baseline, I’d say I5 for #2 averaging to I3 total.

 

similar for Strength. I’ve seen people question why would the red thirst make a blood angel physically stronger?

well maybe the S stat represents more than simply physical strength in the context of melee, maybe it also or can also represent outright ferocity in melee.

Edited February 6 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[chapter master 454]

lets not get real-world and all that on things for stats. While it can be useful when crafting things, at the scale of battle 40k is at, getting to granular isn't going to help. Yes, a Guardsman may not WANT to use his bayonet on that Khorne Berzerker but hey, backs to the way, that monster runs twice as fast, weighs more than a range rover and one of his arms weigh as much as you do after an all you can eat buffet: fight because flight ain't an option and if you are going out, you go out fighting guardsman.

 

I may of foot in mouthed myself in my first post because of how many thoughts I had spinning in my head, but I took some time, going to leave my first mess up there for people to quote me and give me notifications about and grill me for, I can repent for that with the chaplains later.

 

The main issue I feel really is in stats. Core of them is AP in my opinion. Melee just feels like it lacks bite because I am shocked by what has barely AP2. I mean, looking through our own armoury of the adeptus astartes, find me AP3 weapons base that are melee.

I actually can't name any. Like...at all. Power Weapons of various kinds normally had AP ranging between 1 to 3 but now, a whole lot of AP1 and a good few AP2 but I can't seem to find AP3 without going into buffs and even then, I find it comically easy to find methods of hitting AP3 far more at range than melee. Granted, this could be a very consious and thought out consideration for melee as we don't have one very key thing in melee: cover. So naturally they maybe kept AP from reaching 3 in melee to help keep it in line, meaning power armour still offers decent protection while lighter troops get mauled quite quickly.

However it does mean some melee specialists really struggle at times when they shouldn't. Again, personally with my marines I am finding it quite odd that I can bounce melee threats off my centurions quite well with just armour of contempt, after asking "whats the AP of that?" and so far, I am yet to get any sort of regular answer of anything above 2, commonly landing on 1 or 2 being the answer. Maybe that is just armour of contempt being so outright BUSTED good (How...in emperor's name is it a Battle Tactic? Its a tactic to hold your enemy in contempt? Who knew) but again, even without it marines still bounce a lot of melee on a 5+ save and terminators and the like with 2+ saves don't even need their 4++ in melee.

 

Maybe other factions will come in with it but so far, I ain't sure. Do tyranids have AP3 melee on things? (or higher, that aren't on special units like say a leader bug or something) because I am pretty sure Mechanicus don't and so far from what I've seen from necrons, neither do they (then again...I don't see their melee a lot...I see what looks like Necrons cosplaying as grey knights with anti-tank!)

 

Also, again ruins are so hilariously one sided in what they favour in competitive scenes its obscene. Infantry getting the privlege pass to just ghost through is I think low-key a bad thing for the game. While it means you can counter charge easily...thats kind of the problem and why Indirect Fire is "a problem". Its kind of TOO easy to hide infantry with no penalty and any approach of an objective near a ruin can be impossible to properly deal with without giving a free charge. Again, I am one of the "melee haters" because personally I feel melee has been way too strong for multiple editions but considering I am a tread-head lover of tanks and monsters (who were famously shafted in prior editions) I think my distaste for melee would be evident as to why.

Its valid...but tanks not being able to push infantry out of the way irks me. (at least I have big guns never tire now)

[MegaVolt87]

Shooting has been strengthened in newer editions so much, to the point that we could return to the OG melee rules of WS tables, int stats, locked in combat, destroying units in a sweeping advance etc. Just because 40k has guns, doesn't mean melee should be less viable. It's apart of the setting, high tech guns but you are in big trouble if you are in swing distance of a chainsword. 

[The Unseen]

40k has literally never been a shooting focused game. Like half the asthetic of the setting is straight up medieval in space, and almost none of the lore is shooting focussed.i mean, the biggest evil baddies of the setting almost exclusively use melee (barring mind bullets and the occasional flaming skull catapult), and are noted in lore as being resistant to firepower, and weak to actual fire and blades.

 

10th has some serious flaws, the table is now too small, and ruins to good, which makes it easier to get into combat than it has previously, but they also neutered most of the benefits of doing it. Most melee units feel very pillowfisted because ranged lethality has bloated tremendously, and defensive statelines have kept up, but melee has gotten weaker petty much every edition since 3rd. No sweeping advances, no initiative, WS chart gone, power weapons not ignoring armor, Instant Death hitting most characters from a powerfist, freely falling back from combat, consolidation and pile in moves nerfed, Its almost to the point its just not worth bothering with, because just shooting is much more effective and easier. Shooting was always easier, but good melee play could sweep units in a way that the weaker ranged stuff just couldn't do.

 

It *used* to be, with a larger table, much less lethal shooting and fewer inflated defensive stats, that getting stuck in took till turn 3, but when you got there stuff DIED very quickly, even losing combat by a couple wounds meant you were potentially getting run down (or suffering extra wounds if you were fearless), and armies couldn't just shoot you off the table in 2 shooting phases. 

 

And the jank is still there, just even more unintuitive now, which is not an improvement. 

 

[unrealchamp88]

I've thought melee combat should be more decisive that shooting. Personally, every unit should gain +1 A and we should see melee AP given a little bump up.

I'd also like to see some veteran units given melee wargear options to reflect their status and give them a greater viability to get stuck rather than being relegated to shooting, specifically Sternguard should be more lethal in melee than intercessors. Obviously without stepping in VV toes.

[Karhedron]

I am going to be the dissenting voice here and say I quite like the balance between melee and shooting in 10th edition. I feel that 9th edition was too melee-centric. Lots of units like tanks were rarely seen because they could be overrun in a single turn by a bunch of guys with hammers and rockets on their backs. Everyone is going to have their own personal taste for the balance of shooting vs melee.

 

Personally I feel that melee is still viable. It is particularly important for sweeping enemy troops off Objectives. But unlike previous editions, you don't get deathstars rolling up the entire enemy army. The strong performance of armies like World Eaters shows that melee-heavy armies are still viable (at least they were until the latest balance slate). 

[Emperor Ming]

Mixed feelings about melee in future combat, 

 

If you blow the enemy away from orbit, they cant hit you with a sword

Edited February 6 by Emperor Ming

[jaxom]

36 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

I am going to be the dissenting voice here and say I quite like the balance between melee and shooting in 10th edition.

I'll take that a step further: I think melee is in a much better place than shooting at the moment, and shooting needs to be toned down.

 

However, that's in the context of the 10th edition rules. To @Inquisitor_Lensoven's original point, I think part of why I like not having Initiative and comparative WS is the reduction on what I need to know about my opponent's units. As game's have gotten larger and faction rosters expand it became more of a pain to do so. If 40k were smaller scale then I'd be a'okay with bringing back more granularity. 

 

 

[SvenIronhand]

Not sure where people are getting off saying that melee is in a good place. SM Melee is gimped, absolutely. A SM Captain with thunder hammer or power fist used to be a real threat to vehicles/big monsters, but now he's wounding on 4s if he's lucky. 

SW in particular have suffered. I acknowledge that Sagas could be pretty crazy at times, but Wulfen S6 D2 Thunder Hammers is just absurd.

Edited February 6 by SvenIronhand

[Karhedron]

1 minute ago, SvenIronhand said:

Not sure where people are getting off saying that melee is in a good place. SM Melee is gimped, absolutely. A SM Captain with thunder hammer or power fist used to be a real threat to vehicles/big monsters, but now he's wounding on 4s if he's lucky. 

 

What I mean is that I think melee was too powerful in previous editions. A Jump Captain with Hammer costs 85 points. He should be dangerous in melee but I don't think he should be soloing monsters/tanks that cost 2 or 3 times his price tag.

 

Dreads and Monsters can and should be able to take on targets in their own weight category in melee but individual infantry models should not be crushing vehicles like tin cans. Some infantry squads carry enough melee weapons to threaten vehicle at the squad level but I am glad we don't get Blood Angel Smash Captains taking out Knights single-handed anymore.

 

And I say that as a BA player.

[SvenIronhand]

Just now, Karhedron said:

What I mean is that I think melee was too powerful in previous editions. A Jump Captain with Hammer costs 85 points. He should be dangerous in melee but I don't think he should be soloing monsters/tanks that cost 2 or 3 times his price tag.

 

Dreads and Monsters can and should be able to take on targets in their own weight category in melee but individual infantry models should not be crushing vehicles like tin cans. Some infantry squads carry enough melee weapons to threaten vehicle at the squad level but I am glad we don't get Blood Angel Smash Captains taking out Knights single-handed anymore.

 

 

Then raise the points if that's such a problem. A SM Captain is supposed to be a front-line combatant, and he loses utility when his only viable target is light infantry or the occasional MEQ. He's not there to sit in the back and direct things from a map table with croupier sticks. He's there to solve the problem kinetically. 

IRL, infantry AT weapons have regularly outpaced tank armor, and that's without power fields or power armored superhuman soldiers swinging them home. 

[Karhedron]

11 minutes ago, SvenIronhand said:

Then raise the points if that's such a problem. A SM Captain is supposed to be a front-line combatant, and he loses utility when his only viable target is light infantry or the occasional MEQ. He's not there to sit in the back and direct things from a map table with croupier sticks. He's there to solve the problem kinetically. 

 

If Marines get Characters who can solo tanks then other factions are going to want similar and then very quickly we are back to a situation where lethality is sky-rocketing again and it is no longer viable to run vehicles. I ran almost all infantry lists in 8th and 9th simply because infantry lethality was so high that vehicles simply evaporated. Anything without and invulnerable save basically had a big bullseye painted on the hull.

 

Now we have a situation where both tanks and infantry are viable and plenty of lists run a good balance of both. If you want to kill tanks there are still infantry solutions such as Devastators, Eradicators and Centurions or you can fight fire with fire and bring tank destroyers of your own. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I for one do not miss a suicidal captain rocketing solo across the battlefield like an angry guided missile.

[Kastor Krieg]

Marine melee gimped? :D 

120x Sustained Hits, -2 AP chainswords (+20 bolt pistols, +Grimaldus' crozius and plasma) are saying + DIE, HERETIC, DIE +. With an optional side of them all being Lethal Hits.

[SvenIronhand]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

Now we have a situation where both tanks and infantry are viable and plenty of lists run a good balance of both. If you want to kill tanks there are still infantry solutions such as Devastators, Eradicators and Centurions or you can fight fire with fire and bring tank destroyers of your own. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I for one do not miss a suicidal captain rocketing solo across the battlefield like an angry guided missile.

All of those are ranged options; this is a thread about melee.

[ThePenitentOne]

2 hours ago, SvenIronhand said:

Then raise the points if that's such a problem. A SM Captain is supposed to be a front-line combatant, and he loses utility when his only viable target is light infantry or the occasional MEQ. He's not there to sit in the back and direct things from a map table with croupier sticks. He's there to solve the problem kinetically. 

IRL, infantry AT weapons have regularly outpaced tank armor, and that's without power fields or power armored superhuman soldiers swinging them home. 

 

See, I feel like a captain's job is to be a CAPTAIN- you know, command troops, offer strategy, command a unit... etc.

 

Sure, he's a frontline combatant, but a monstrous tyranid is large enough to swallow him whole and is used to eating only that which it is skilled enough to kill.  I'm not saying a Captain shouldn't be able to win against a tyranid monster, but it shouldn't be a guarantee either. I could see a captain's odds as good as 60/40.

 

And again, I blame BL BS for promoting the idea that these kind of fights should always go in a marine's favour. It's crap. It's why I disagree with people who think that BL novels are the fluff. They aren't. They're like a based-on-a-true-story Lifetime stranger danger movie at best. It think all BL authors should be forced to play at least three games with the factions they're writing about and be told be GW that if it couldn't possibly happen on the table, don't put it in your book.

[Karhedron]

1 hour ago, SvenIronhand said:

All of those are ranged options; this is a thread about melee.

 

And I am explaining why I think melee is good enough. I feel that making it better risks unbalancing the game.