Let’s talk about melee

[ThePenitentOne]

As someone else said, whether or not you hit may or may not be relevant.

 

Whether or not you DAMAGE is what matters. Funny story:

 

My partner and I used to practice Kendo back in the 00's. When we started, no one in Canada was allowed to fight Niten Ryu, but by the time we were finishing our Kendo adventures, we had a Sensei on another team who was qualified to teach it, so our final team match was five single weapon fighters (our team) vs. 3 Niten Ryu fighters and two single weapon fighters. My partner drew the Niten Ryu sensei as their opponent.

 

They hit the Sensei- a loud and resounding hit that looked good from the stands, and everyone there to support us cheered... But when the flag went up, it was for the Sensei, because what no one could see from the stands was that the shot my partner threw was about an inch and a half off target, but the Sensei's counter strike (which no one except the judges and the combatants even saw) was dead on accurate.

 

When I talked to my partner after the match, they said they'd never seen a better demonstration of skill... But the skill wasn't actually in the strike- it was in seeing the incoming attack and knowing absolutely within a split second that it was harmless. Letting the useless blow land also allowed the perfect blow to land.

 

Magnus, like Raymond Sensei, knows the Fire Warrior's strike as harmless before it lands, and may let it land just to demoralize the foe by letting them think they had a chance right up until they die choking on their own viscera. People slam the Leafs harder when they make the semis and choke than they do when the Leafs don't even come close, which is why toying with your enemy is better demonstration of mastery than simply putting them down in the same motion as drawing your blade.

Edited February 7 by ThePenitentOne

[Zoatibix]

I also dislike the fixed hit in WS thing. 
 

I would prefer it to work like S vs T does but comparing attacker and defender’s WS.

 

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

21 hours ago, Valkyrion said:

It's sometimes difficult to take the omniscient point of view, but all of the dice being rolled represent the combat as a whole, regardless of structure or rules or the numbers involved.

So a guardsman hitting an ork vs a primarch - yes, the dice rolls may be the same, but the guardsman is wounding the ork on 5's and guilliman on 6's, and the ork is saving on 6's and guilliman on 2's, and the ork has 1 wound and guilliman has 8 - or whatever the numbers are. 

Can a guardsman kill an ork? Yes, but it is unlikely. Can a guardsman kill guilliman? Demonstrably not.  I don't have any real knowledge of 10th, but how many guardsman can attack Guilliman in combat? 20, tops? I would imagine we'd be looking at scores if not hundreds of guardsman to take down Guilliman using 10th edition rules. 

 

This applies whether you are hitting on a static number, or comparing weapon skills.

You can't really justifiably argue that a guardsman hitting a primarch and a gretchin on the same number is silly without following the combat procedure to the end. 

 

 

Depends on how much successful shooting occurs if guardsmen kill guilliman or not.

put him down to two wounds, a squad of Kasrkin with a castellan have a pretty good chance at killing him.

25 guardsmen w/3 power weapons of some sort also have a pretty good chance of killing guilliman simply based off of statistics.

19 hours ago, jaxom said:

Strategically, sure. But if I need to know their WS to figure out which of my dice rolls hit, then it matters, instead of just being able to roll my dice and pick the hits because I know my own units WS.

 

 

As for TH and PF needing more oomph, I'm a-okay with them requiring a larger volume of attacks compared to the past. It's the same concept we've seen applied to some of the shoot weapons. A single autocannon can't kill a vehicle nowadays, etc etc.

Then you ask your opponent. If you don’t believe them you ask to see their book or index to confirm.

[Karhedron]

BS is not modified depending on what target a model is shooting at. Is it really as easy to hit a Baneblade as it is the Guardsman cowering next to it?

 

We remember WS vs WS comparisons because that is how it was handled prior to 8th edition but I don't mind fixed WS as it is now consistent with BS. The S/T comparison is where it becomes important.

[TheArtilleryman]

55 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

BS is not modified depending on what target a model is shooting at. Is it really as easy to hit a Baneblade as it is the Guardsman cowering next to it?

 

We remember WS vs WS comparisons because that is how it was handled prior to 8th edition but I don't mind fixed WS as it is now consistent with BS. The S/T comparison is where it becomes important.

I think the difference with CC is that the WS comparison helped to provide nuance to differentiate some factions. For example, Eldar are fast and skilled, which was reflected in high initiative and WS. Once you hit them, their low toughness means they take damage easily. Their skill gives them durability that they lose with the set weapon skill change. An Ork with higher toughness but perhaps lower WS reflects their racial traits on the opposite side of the coin. 
 

With a set weapon skill, a guardsman can hurt a howling banshee more easily than an ork boy in combat because he hits just as easily but the wound roll against the banshee is easier. That doesn’t seem quite right. The banshee should be much harder to land a blow on.

Edited February 8 by TheArtilleryman

[gaurdian31]

4 hours ago, TheArtilleryman said:

I think the difference with CC is that the WS comparison helped to provide nuance to differentiate some factions. For example, Eldar are fast and skilled, which was reflected in high initiative and WS. Once you hit them, their low toughness means they take damage easily. Their skill gives them durability that they lose with the set weapon skill change. An Ork with higher toughness but perhaps lower WS reflects their racial traits on the opposite side of the coin. 
 

With a set weapon skill, a guardsman can hurt a howling banshee more easily than an ork boy in combat because he hits just as easily but the wound roll against the banshee is easier. That doesn’t seem quite right. The banshee should be much harder to land a blow on.

But that same comparison could be made with BS in that a howling banshee is a lot more agile than an ork boy so should be harder to shoot and yet that isn't taken into account at all when shooting. I think @Karhedron is right in pointing out that some want that because it used to be a thing, but if fixed BS is fine then fixed WS should be fine too.

[Zoatibix]

My feeling is that the better someone’s WS the better they can block/parry/dodge while attempting to counterattack. 
 

It’s nothing to do with ‘back in my day’.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

On 2/7/2024 at 5:38 PM, ThePenitentOne said:

As someone else said, whether or not you hit may or may not be relevant.

 

Whether or not you DAMAGE is what matters. Funny story:

 

My partner and I used to practice Kendo back in the 00's. When we started, no one in Canada was allowed to fight Niten Ryu, but by the time we were finishing our Kendo adventures, we had a Sensei on another team who was qualified to teach it, so our final team match was five single weapon fighters (our team) vs. 3 Niten Ryu fighters and two single weapon fighters. My partner drew the Niten Ryu sensei as their opponent.

 

They hit the Sensei- a loud and resounding hit that looked good from the stands, and everyone there to support us cheered... But when the flag went up, it was for the Sensei, because what no one could see from the stands was that the shot my partner threw was about an inch and a half off target, but the Sensei's counter strike (which no one except the judges and the combatants even saw) was dead on accurate.

 

When I talked to my partner after the match, they said they'd never seen a better demonstration of skill... But the skill wasn't actually in the strike- it was in seeing the incoming attack and knowing absolutely within a split second that it was harmless. Letting the useless blow land also allowed the perfect blow to land.

 

Magnus, like Raymond Sensei, knows the Fire Warrior's strike as harmless before it lands, and may let it land just to demoralize the foe by letting them think they had a chance right up until they die choking on their own viscera. People slam the Leafs harder when they make the semis and choke than they do when the Leafs don't even come close, which is why toying with your enemy is better demonstration of mastery than simply putting them down in the same motion as drawing your blade.

You can’t do damage if you don’t hit.

 

this could make marines feel a lot better in melee, especially against armies that aren’t known for being stellar in combat.

[Magos Takatus]

11 hours ago, gaurdian31 said:

But that same comparison could be made with BS in that a howling banshee is a lot more agile than an ork boy so should be harder to shoot and yet that isn't taken into account at all when shooting. I think @Karhedron is right in pointing out that some want that because it used to be a thing, but if fixed BS is fine then fixed WS should be fine too.

Having shooting modifiers for weapons firing at targets at particular ranges, at fast targets, from a fast-moving weapons platform and when aiming at large/small targets were all integral to shooting in 2nd edition but most of that was wiped away in 3rd in favour of the Rhino Rush. You could indeed get a -1 to hit when firing at running Howling Banshees because they were just that fast. Hitting things like Land Speeders moving at fast speed could be tricky but a lot of armies like Space Marine and Eldar had vehicles with integrated targeting that gave them a +1 to hit by default. It was a reasonably large list of multipliers but it was fairly intuitive that Big Thing = easier to hit. I guess all that inevitably got stripped out when 40k made the painful transition from a large scale skirmish game into an an army battle game.

 

So TLDR: fixed BS wasn't a thing either at one point.

[gaurdian31]

17 hours ago, Zoatibix said:

My feeling is that the better someone’s WS the better they can block/parry/dodge while attempting to counterattack. 
 

It’s nothing to do with ‘back in my day’.

 

Which is why I said some. I feel that those with better movement or smaller size should be able to better dodge incoming fire but that is no longer factored in (as apparently it was in 2nd ed).

 

5 hours ago, Magos Takatus said:

Having shooting modifiers for weapons firing at targets at particular ranges, at fast targets, from a fast-moving weapons platform and when aiming at large/small targets were all integral to shooting in 2nd edition but most of that was wiped away in 3rd in favour of the Rhino Rush. You could indeed get a -1 to hit when firing at running Howling Banshees because they were just that fast. Hitting things like Land Speeders moving at fast speed could be tricky but a lot of armies like Space Marine and Eldar had vehicles with integrated targeting that gave them a +1 to hit by default. It was a reasonably large list of multipliers but it was fairly intuitive that Big Thing = easier to hit. I guess all that inevitably got stripped out when 40k made the painful transition from a large scale skirmish game into an an army battle game.

 

So TLDR: fixed BS wasn't a thing either at one point.

 

I started in 3rd ed so did not know that, that is pretty cool. I also play Battletech and Battletech Alpha Strike where movement is figured into shooting and it works pretty well, but those games are played on a much smaller scale normally. I am fine with it not being a thing in 40k though as with the amount of shooting that happens it would slow games down quite a bit to calculate, I guess I feel that is the same with melee. Fixed BS and WS works fine in 40k.

[SvenIronhand]

I feel like a "long range" modifier like WHFB should at least be a thing.

[Redcomet]

On 2/7/2024 at 10:00 PM, Nephaston said:

Yeah, that all sounds amazing and like a damn chore simultaneously.

2nd edition melee combat was a disaster. Never intended for use in a wargame. Like most of the 2nd edition rules.

[TheArtilleryman]

33 minutes ago, Redcomet said:

2nd edition melee combat was a disaster. Never intended for use in a wargame. Like most of the 2nd edition rules.

I dunno, I think my howling banshee exarch on combat drugs charging 18”, paralysing her opponent and landing about 24 hits to wipe out anything she touched was pretty good 

[jaxom]

Looks like the general trend is "Sure it would be nice to have more granularity, but it's been removed in favor of being able to have more bodies on the table."

[Deus_Ex_Machina]

47 minutes ago, TheArtilleryman said:

I dunno, I think my howling banshee exarch on combat drugs charging 18”, paralysing her opponent and landing about 24 hits to wipe out anything she touched was pretty good 

I still play 2nd 40K with the Battle Bible. Lets see how many hits we can score on an unsuspecting UM Tactical smurf loitering on a grassy meadow:

 

Eldar Exarch on the charge: WS 6 +1 (for charging) = 7

UM Smurf WS: 4

 

Exarch Attacks: 2 (Base) doubled due to Combat Drugs = 4 + 1 (for additional hand weapon in close combat) = 5

 

Both roll their attack dice. Eldar throws 5 and Smurf throws 0 as the Banshee mask paralyzes him in the first round of close combat.

The Exarch rolls: 6, 6, 6, 6 and 6. This would make even Wonder Woman jealous!

 

Eldar causes hits: WS 7 + 6 (first six rolled as an attack dice) = 13. Each additional six rolled increases the score by 1. So we have 17. Now we deduct the Smurf´s WS of 4 = 13 hits scored on the poor smurf and unless Tzeentch hadn´t cursed all the Eldar´s to wound rolls a lot of Blood Red would spill onto the Goblin Green of the Smurf´s base.

 

And as the Exarch wouldn´t likely TOUCH another model´s base she won´t be able to remove another model from the board in the same round of combat. So a super close combat monster with a 25 mm base would usually remove one or two bases of opponents from the field of battle unless it was surrounded by foes.

[TheArtilleryman]

38 minutes ago, Deus_Ex_Machina said:

I still play 2nd 40K with the Battle Bible. Lets see how many hits we can score on an unsuspecting UM Tactical smurf loitering on a grassy meadow:

 

Eldar Exarch on the charge: WS 6 +1 (for charging) = 7

UM Smurf WS: 4

 

Exarch Attacks: 2 (Base) doubled due to Combat Drugs = 4 + 1 (for additional hand weapon in close combat) = 5

 

Both roll their attack dice. Eldar throws 5 and Smurf throws 0 as the Banshee mask paralyzes him in the first round of close combat.

The Exarch rolls: 6, 6, 6, 6 and 6. This would make even Wonder Woman jealous!

 

Eldar causes hits: WS 7 + 6 (first six rolled as an attack dice) = 13. Each additional six rolled increases the score by 1. So we have 17. Now we deduct the Smurf´s WS of 4 = 13 hits scored on the poor smurf and unless Tzeentch hadn´t cursed all the Eldar´s to wound rolls a lot of Blood Red would spill onto the Goblin Green of the Smurf´s base.

 

And as the Exarch wouldn´t likely TOUCH another model´s base she won´t be able to remove another model from the board in the same round of combat. So a super close combat monster with a 25 mm base would usually remove one or two bases of opponents from the field of battle unless it was surrounded by foes.

 

To be fair, the last time I used this tactic was about 1997, so my memory of the exact numbers is a little rusty (and also probably includes some deliberate hyperbole lol). I used to do this regularly to assassinate my friend’s Space Marine captain on turn one or two.

 

Interesting to see the numbers worked out like this though after all these years. I’m pretty sure I never used to add the extra hits for the sixes and it still obliterated the hapless Blood Angel every time.

[Valkyrion]

Close combat wasn't the exclusive domain of ridiculousness; an assault cannon could, in theory, put out 9 shots, each causing 1-10 wounds, and it was as likely to do that as it was explode! I don't think any weapon, before or since, has had the possibility of putting out 90 wounds in a single salvo. 

 

As an aside, if any of you ever get the chance to read the 2nd edition wargear book - the yellow one - I fully recommend it.  There's loads of little snippets about the Imperium, and short stories about Armageddon, amazing artwork and horrific descriptions of weapons (10 year old me had more fear of a harlequins kiss than anything else before or since!), and even if you don't understand the rules, just knowing that there was a catastrophic launch chart for the cyclone missile launcher should be enough to entice you in. 

 

 

 

[chapter master 454]

Just sounds like to me you'd much rather play something like Kill Team or Necromunda, something more focused around deeper details. This game wanted to take a scale of a large skirmish between two forces, possibly being part of a larger battle; which Legion Imperialis then goes even further and removes control and various other nuances in favour of going for grand battle instead of down with the men.

 

Personally, removal of contests between WS just helps make it so its the same as BS. It makes sense to keep mechanics similar for learning and does nothing to deepen the game when you need to learn 2 different systems for effectively the same thing: hitting the target. Especially when as noted here both means of hitting a heretic with a brick have similar things that can make it easier or harder.

They even have moved away from weapons having negative abilities on the whole with only 1 notable exception that is used to create risk/reward with certain attacks (Hazardous representing our age old beloved rule: "Gets Hot").

Heavy used to be a penalty and largely actually a negative weapon type that you wouldn't want to have on weapons as it typically restrained what you could do. I remember when firing rapid fire weapons meant you weren't allowed to charge. Ye Olde Bolter Blitz from rhinos.

 

Though...talking of the "old times"...I wonder what the game would be like now if we actually put the way we treat 40k now to back then...like what sort of meta would form around 4th edition with this sort of level of attention and ability because lets not delude ourselves...we weren't going THIS hard on 40k back then. We weren't getting down the super optimised stuff. We were playing toy soldiers.

Could be interesting to look at actually.

[SpecialIssue]

3 minutes ago, chapter master 454 said:

Heavy used to be a penalty and largely actually a negative weapon type that you wouldn't want to have on weapons as it typically restrained what you could do. I remember when firing rapid fire weapons meant you weren't allowed to charge. Ye Olde Bolter Blitz from rhinos.

 

Though...talking of the "old times"...I wonder what the game would be like now if we actually put the way we treat 40k now to back then...like what sort of meta would form around 4th edition with this sort of level of attention and ability because lets not delude ourselves...we weren't going THIS hard on 40k back then. We weren't getting down the super optimised stuff. We were playing toy soldiers.

Could be interesting to look at actually.

 

Oh I don't know - I think the meta has always evolved to an equally competitive level in whatever edition it's in. 4th was the edition of mechanisation and rhino rushes because it was effective given the points scaling and options available. Bolters weren't amazing even back then, but everything was in general less lethal, (or the super lethal weapons were much rarer) which was why 20 Bolter shots in 12" was a viable and competitive thing. Heck, the super norm-core  pick of 4x devastators with missile launchers was considered the most optimal loadout when balancing cost, utility and effectiveness of the weapons available.

 

There were lots of exploitations and unbalance as any other - the Tau fish of fury, dual daemon prince lash whip bull:cuss:, monstrous creatures being absolute can-openers, outflank and outflank-denying shenanigans - bikers ruled as well, with every single HQ option mounted on bikes to maximise toughness, mobility and firepower with almost no downside.

 

I like that edition. It had jank, but in the end it did provide a game that was streamlined in the way it played out while allowing and enabling a lot of verisimilitude in the way units acted (vehicle pen chart, melee being pretty decisive with running down fleeing opponents in sweeping advance, transports being important, rareness of powerful weapons, etc).

[Interrogator Stobz]

On 2/8/2024 at 11:38 AM, ThePenitentOne said:

As someone else said, whether or not you hit may or may not be relevant.

 

Whether or not you DAMAGE is what matters. Funny story:

 

My partner and I used to practice Kendo back in the 00's. When we started, no one in Canada was allowed to fight Niten Ryu, but by the time we were finishing our Kendo adventures, we had a Sensei on another team who was qualified to teach it, so our final team match was five single weapon fighters (our team) vs. 3 Niten Ryu fighters and two single weapon fighters. My partner drew the Niten Ryu sensei as their opponent.

 

They hit the Sensei- a loud and resounding hit that looked good from the stands, and everyone there to support us cheered... But when the flag went up, it was for the Sensei, because what no one could see from the stands was that the shot my partner threw was about an inch and a half off target, but the Sensei's counter strike (which no one except the judges and the combatants even saw) was dead on accurate.

 

When I talked to my partner after the match, they said they'd never seen a better demonstration of skill... But the skill wasn't actually in the strike- it was in seeing the incoming attack and knowing absolutely within a split second that it was harmless. Letting the useless blow land also allowed the perfect blow to land.

 

Magnus, like Raymond Sensei, knows the Fire Warrior's strike as harmless before it lands, and may let it land just to demoralize the foe by letting them think they had a chance right up until they die choking on their own viscera. People slam the Leafs harder when they make the semis and choke than they do when the Leafs don't even come close, which is why toying with your enemy is better demonstration of mastery than simply putting them down in the same motion as drawing your blade.

Whether you DAMAGE or not is represented by the Toughness stat roll in 40k.

Then it's D vs. W to see how much relative damage is caused.

 

Real life has nothing to do with it. Although ironically, your example is a perfect one to demonstrate how WS vs WS is important. 

 

[jaxom]

28 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

Whether you DAMAGE or not is represented by the Toughness stat roll in 40k.

 I once heard described as Hit and Wound are locations and Save is whether it causes damage. So a Guardsman is equally likely to hit an Eldar, Ork, and Marine; more likely to hit something vulnerable to a lashun on the Eldar; and then it has to get through armour. Meanwhile the Ork and Marine have less spots vulnerable to the lasgun, but if both got hit in some vulnerable location, it would then have to penetrate the armour to do damage.

[Deus_Ex_Machina]

On 2/9/2024 at 8:46 PM, TheArtilleryman said:

 

To be fair, the last time I used this tactic was about 1997, so my memory of the exact numbers is a little rusty (and also probably includes some deliberate hyperbole lol). I used to do this regularly to assassinate my friend’s Space Marine captain on turn one or two.

 

Interesting to see the numbers worked out like this though after all these years. I’m pretty sure I never used to add the extra hits for the sixes and it still obliterated the hapless Blood Angel every time.

You can find the Battle Bible for free on the internet. I have printed mine and had it bound. It contains all rules, wargear and codex lists.

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

I miss Initiative and comparing WS. I liked how melee worked in 3rd-7th. Then again I also preferred Blast/Flamer templates, no Allies, different armour values depending on the facing and many other things. 

 

To me it feels like melee is seen as the black sheep of the rules family and the designers/rule writers just don't care or don't know. 

[Interrogator Stobz]

On 2/10/2024 at 6:42 PM, jaxom said:

 I once heard described as Hit and Wound are locations and Save is whether it causes damage. So a Guardsman is equally likely to hit an Eldar, Ork, and Marine; more likely to hit something vulnerable to a lashun on the Eldar; and then it has to get through armour. Meanwhile the Ork and Marine have less spots vulnerable to the lasgun, but if both got hit in some vulnerable location, it would then have to penetrate the armour to do damage.

Back before we had a Damage Stat, things were more like that. Meaningful hits with failed saves meant they killed you outright.

Now it's, to me at least, a bit different and more like it says on the tin:

To Hit means any hit.

To Wound means what can the target shrug off, and do they take meaningful damage.

Damage means does it kill or merely hurt you.

To Save means did it beat the armour  (the order is wrong here, this roll should be after to hit, but that's a different conversation).

 

 I agree with those who like WS vs. WS for the first roll. Gives the skillful fighter a better defense than a brick.

 

[Aarik]

I'm not fussed about save rolls being after wound rolls.  It makes more sense conceptually for them to be reversed, but I suspect it was done this way so that the attacking player rolls all their dice before the saving player, rather than having to switch back and forth.  And it's a little more engaging for the saving player who has the "final say" on whether they suffer the wounds.

Edited February 13 by Aarik