LI: What if close combat worked like shooting?

[Griefbringer]

Legions Imperialis close combat mechanisms have been criticized for being slow, due to being resolved with opposed rolls on model-by-model basis, and lacking in flavour and granularity as everything tends to be reduced to a single CAF value (with occasional Rend trait thrown in for anything from ordinary power axe to titan-scale chainfist). On the other hand, the shooting rules with their multiple stats and traits provide flavour for different weapons, while being relatively straightforward to resolve by chucking a handful of dice per weapon type.

 

I came to think would the close combat get both faster and more varied if the CAF value was dropped, and the units were instead provided a close combat weapon/attack in their profile with a full stat line, similar to the shooting attacks (except with zero range)? Close combat attacks would be resolved in the same way as shooting: roll a handful of dice, calculate the number of hits and resolve saves. Situational modifiers (+/-) could be applied to the hit roll for a few conditions (charging, target behind cover, immobile target), with the usual limitations of 1 always missing and 6 always hitting. Some special rules or traits might allow re-rolling for misses.

 

Close combat would still be simultaneous, with both sides calculating the number of dice and rolling them before moving to saving throws and casualty removal. Under extreme circumstances, this could potentially allow for both sides to wipe each other out to the last model (though that sort of things happen in Black Library books), which cannot happen with the current rules.

 

Since this idea would require writing a close combat attack line for a whole number of units, it is not a simple and straightforward house rule - and would certainly affect the internal game balance significantly, depending on how you would stat different units. Furthermore, it might be interesting to introduce a few close combat specific traits to add more flavour; one idea I have was Target Scale (X) where X would stand for the scale range of targets that could be attacked with the weapon - thus some weapons would only be good against small or large targets.

 

Some ideas for possible close combat capabilities that I had (rather preliminary so far):

 

1.) Infantry: to-hit rolls could vary depending on the close combat capabilities of the unit, perhaps a rough scale could be 6+ for tech-thralls, 5+ for regular solar auxilia, 4+ for regular astartes and 3+ for terminators. Most units probably should only get 1 dice, but particularly close-combat orientated units like ogryns and assault marines might deserve 2 dice. Bayonets, chainswords and such would probably dererve Light trait, where as power weapons etc. might be able to damage vehicles. To provide the infantry a chance against vehicles, they could also get an alternative close combat attack in the form of krak grenades (or melta-bombs for assault marines).

 

2.) Tracked vehicles: for the sake of simplicity, these could all be given a "Grinding Tracks" attack with identical stat-line (e.g. 1 dice at 5+ to hit). Restricting this to only against scale 1 targets would prevent Demolition Derby where vehicles ram each other to pieces. Argument could be made to provide super-heavy vehicles with their own profile, to count for their combination of clumsiness and large size.

 

3.) Flying vehicles: these probably should not be able to attack in close combat, which simplifies things. Neither should they be easily attacked in close combat.

 

4.) Immobile units (tarantulas, drop pods etc.): these should not be able to attack in close combat, and should be easy targets if caught by the enemy.

 

5.) Knights: many of these already have a close combat weapon, that would need a more fleshed-out stat-line, preferably hard hitting - though I do some have reservations as to whether all of these should be allowed to attack infantry in close combat. On the other hand, knights could be given a Stomp attack to allow them to flatten at least Scale 1 models under their feet.

 

6.) Titans: same issues as with knights - dedicated close combat weapons should hit hard, but are not really designed for use against small targets. On the other hand, a few dice Thunderstomp attack should be provided to flatten Scale 1-2 models (maybe even Scale 3?), while Adeptus Titanicus style smash-attacks could be added for targeting Scale 4+ models close up.

 

 

Do you think this kind of approach would make the close combat both faster and more varied? Compared to the current rather abstract CAF system it would be clearly crunchier (literally so when it comes to titans stomping on things) with stat lines, but on the other hand combat could be resolved by rolling dice by detachment rather than by paired models. Furthermore, with appropriately selected stats certain types of close combat could be discouraged or become pointless (e.g. by Arvus Lighters and Rhinos perhaps should not get ramming attacks that would allow them to damage titans).

 

(I will admit that the idea was heavily inspired by my recent reading of Adeptus Titanicus rules, where close combat and shooting attacks are resolved the same way.)

[Griefbringer]

My initial posting above was a bit on the lenghty side, so I will try to summarise the main concepts in an attempt to make them easier to grasp.

 

1.) Adjustments to unit profiles

a.) Dropping CAF stat, and instead

b.) Adding for every unit one or more dedicated close combat weapons with full profile (Dice, To hit, AP, Traits) and descriptive name (e.g. Bayonet, Chainsword, Power weapon, Krak Grenade, Grinding Tracks, Thunderstomp).

c.) As an exception to previous, some units (e.g. flyers, sentry guns) that should not be able to whack things in melee would not get any close combat weapon and thus would not be able to hurt anybody (but would not be automatically destroyed in melee either).

 

2.) Adjustment to combat resolution

a.) Dropping of paired combat with opposed dice rolls, and instead

b.) Having all models in base-to-base combat with enemy models to make an attack with every close combat weapon.

c.) Attacks would be resolved in the same as for shooting, i.e. To hit roll followed by a saving throw (with possible modifiers applied).

d.) Attacks would be resolved by detachment (i.e. rolling dice by batch).

e.) Attacks from all detachments in a combat would be simultaneous (i.e. all detachments get to attack with all models before any casualties are removed).

 

3.) Miscellaneous considerations

a.) Models in contact with multiple enemy detachments will need to allocate their attacks between the detachments before dice are rolled.

b.) Weapons with Reach trait would be able to attack also from rear ranks, if no farther than the 2" range.

c.) Detachments without close combat attacks should not be able to charge into close combat.

d.) Detachments should not be able to charge into close combat with other detachments that none of the models would be able to hurt in close combat.

e.) There is a small probability that both sides in a melee wipe out each other to the last stand (this is not a bug - this is Heresy era combat).

 

[Regarding the last point, it is worth keeping in mind that removing a five figure model stand as a casualty does not mean that everybody has been hacked into tiny bits, just that there are not enough combat effectives left to justify the continued presence of that stand on tabletop. I will leave deeper discussion on topic for another time.]

[Sherrypie]

LI being 90% 2nd edition Epic with extra special rules on top is just funny that way, yeah. It's just fundamentally clunky for the scale. No wonder why we've had summary dice pool firefights in 3rd and 4th editions that avoid all those problems since 1996... :D

 

For clarity's sake, an example from Epic: Armageddon (the 4th ed, one before LI). When formations (detachments in LI) enter an engagement, models that get in base contact roll their attacks with their close combat (CC) value and models that are not in base contact but are within 15 cm of enemy units roll with their firefight (FF) value. Both sides roll simultaneously and other non-broken formations within 15 cm of the fight can throw supporting FF attacks in. All hits are assigned from the closest models backwards and saved against the same as any shooting hits would be. The resolution of the fight then depends on other factors than kills as well (outnumbering, inspiring leaders, morale and so on), with the losing side taking extra casualties as they flee. Everything can be handled with a few rolls and the fight always results in at least one side either dying or breaking off. I cannot emphasize enough how much cleaner, faster and tactically more interesting this style is compared to what 2nd / LI paradigm offers. Personally, I cannot for the life of me get over why they defaulted back to the "only models in base contact contribute anything" system of fiddly micromanagement for close range slapfests.

[Griefbringer]

38 minutes ago, Sherrypie said:

No wonder why we've had summary dice pool firefights in 3rd and 4th editions that avoid all those problems since 1996... :D

 

I guess you meant from spring 1997 onwards, that is when the Epic 40,000 (aka Epic 3rd edition) came out, with its straightforward and decisive though rather abstract assault/firefight rules. Unfortunately I do not own the Epic: Armageddon rules, so don't know exactly how the assault rules developed in that version - though I have discovered that there is a community NetEA version around somewhere that probably contains rules that are very close to the originals (with some community improvements over the years). Though speaking of abstract rules, the opposed rolls with CAF modifiers are also rather abstract, and are based on the assumption that one or the other side will almost always win and destroy the opponent while surviving itself (with a small chance of a draw).

 

As for the opposed rolls for close combat, they were quite popular in GW games design for quite a while from late 1980's onwards. Besides the Space Marine 1st/2nd edition, they also appear at least in Space Hulk, Man'o'War (for boarding actions), WH40K (RT Battle Manual and 2nd ed.) and derivatives (Necromunda and probably Gorkamorka), and even in the Middle-Earth rules. Even the Epic40K assaults were resolved with opposed dice rolls, though on detachment rather than dice level. Not sure if they were present in Blood Bowl and some other games of the time. Even in later GW rules opposed dice rolls are often used to determine who deploys first or gets initiative (even though these could also be resolved by rolling a single die or flipping a coin).

 

Opposed dice roll combat was not unique to GW designs either, for example on historical side The Sword and the Flame rules (1978) uses them for close combat on a model-to-model bases, while the DBx series of games authored in the 1990's by Phil Barker & Co. uses them for resolving not only close combat but also shooting (even when the target has no missile weapons). Having played The Sword and the Flame a few times, those close combat rules are slow and boring - especially since full sized units can be 20 models on each side, and you keep on throwing opposing rolls until one side has no men left standing.

 

Getting back to the Epic side, I was recently flicking through some WD articles from the days of the original Adeptus Titanicus and Space Marine, and noticed that besides the opposed roll CAF combat for infantry versus infantry, there were also other kinds of close quarters interactions. Titans, gargants and knights could move through infantry and vehicle units during their movement phase, inflicting stomp attacks on the units moved through. Infantry could try to assault titans with grenades, in which case you rolled d6: on a score of 6 they managed to place grenades that might damage a vulnerable joint, on 5 or less they got stomped upon, electrocuted or otherwise neutralised by close defence systems. In case of gargants, the infantry could actually board a gargant and fight close combat actions against the various crew components inside (of which there was quite variety). Vehicles such as Rhinos could try to ram the legs of titans - in principle a very cinematic option for exceptional cases, but not something that I think should be allowed as a routine response. Quite a variety of rules - maybe not very elegant or streamlined, but neither trying to fit everything into a one-size-fits-all method.

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

As for my proposed idea, it is not particularly elegant or original, but it makes consistent use of existing rules mechanisms for shooting. It could also bring to the close combat attacks the same kind of crunchiness that is present for the shooting attacks. Admittedly, the amount of crunchiness in weapons is a matter of personal taste, and some vehicles in LI seem a bit clunky when it comes to resolving all their attacks. Currently, Baneblade can have 5-7 different types of weapons, with the sponson and pintle-mount options, which is quite a lot for a super-heavy vehicle - Warmaster Iconoclast might be able to beat it with 8 weapon systems, but that includes close combat ones.

[Sherrypie]

23 minutes ago, Griefbringer said:

 

I guess you meant from spring 1997 onwards, that is when the Epic 40,000 (aka Epic 3rd edition) came out, with its straightforward and decisive though rather abstract assault/firefight rules. Unfortunately I do not own the Epic: Armageddon rules, so don't know exactly how the assault rules developed in that version - though I have discovered that there is a community NetEA version around somewhere that probably contains rules that are very close to the originals (with some community improvements over the years). 

 

Ah yeah, the release did take until 1997.

 

NetEA is a set of lists for EA, the game rules remain largely unchanged. Other similarly cross-compatible sets of lists exist, like EpicUK, the French FERC, Scandinavian Ragnarok and so on. There are very few additions and FAQ clarifications on the main rules, mostly for rare special rules.

 

23 minutes ago, Griefbringer said:

Though speaking of abstract rules, the opposed rolls with CAF modifiers are also rather abstract, and are based on the assumption that one or the other side will almost always win and destroy the opponent while surviving itself (with a small chance of a draw).

 

I would disagree on the merit of those abstractions, though. Whether or not a roll is opposed has nothing to do with its level of abstraction, in LI they just violently clash with the scale of the game in praxis and produce middling coherence with the fiction being depicted. The game is supposedly depicting a battalion level or above confrontation, yet bogs down to resolve actions on a per model basis that cannot be quick-rolled. While the CAF on its own is a tastefully abstract measure of each unit's competence at close ranges, the way it's used in the context of the game is not. E40k's combined FF / Assault values comparison and EA's easily pooled attacks are, as is the actual resolution of the engagement beyond mere casualties inflicted. Those systems model their subject matter with a resolution mechanics on an appropriately abstract level, while LI doesn't. It is also the one that specifically allows for stuffto just grind in place ("these are some dudes, they hit each other, eventually somebody dies") unlike the other two ("these formations are engaging those, something is going to shift one way or another"). 

 

46 minutes ago, Griefbringer said:

Getting back to the Epic side, I was recently flicking through some WD articles from the days of the original Adeptus Titanicus and Space Marine, and noticed that besides the opposed roll CAF combat for infantry versus infantry, there were also other kinds of close quarters interactions. Titans, gargants and knights could move through infantry and vehicle units during their movement phase, inflicting stomp attacks on the units moved through. Infantry could try to assault titans with grenades, in which case you rolled d6: on a score of 6 they managed to place grenades that might damage a vulnerable joint, on 5 or less they got stomped upon, electrocuted or otherwise neutralised by close defence systems. In case of gargants, the infantry could actually board a gargant and fight close combat actions against the various crew components inside (of which there was quite variety). Vehicles such as Rhinos could try to ram the legs of titans - in principle a very cinematic option for exceptional cases, but not something that I think should be allowed as a routine response. Quite a variety of rules - maybe not very elegant or streamlined, but neither trying to fit everything into a one-size-fits-all method.

 

AT88 was pretty notorious for nearing unplayable levels of detailing towards the end of its run, yeah. Unsurprisingly similar to 40k of the time, with most studio games burgeoning every which direction until a hard reset edition was in order :D Very much a case of designers having fun in a sandbox rather than building a cohesive whole.

 

52 minutes ago, Griefbringer said:

As for my proposed idea, it is not particularly elegant or original, but it makes consistent use of existing rules mechanisms for shooting. It could also bring to the close combat attacks the same kind of crunchiness that is present for the shooting attacks. Admittedly, the amount of crunchiness in weapons is a matter of personal taste, and some vehicles in LI seem a bit clunky when it comes to resolving all their attacks. Currently, Baneblade can have 5-7 different types of weapons, with the sponson and pintle-mount options, which is quite a lot for a super-heavy vehicle - Warmaster Iconoclast might be able to beat it with 8 weapon systems, but that includes close combat ones.

 

Yes, streamlining the attack methods would do wonders for the game in general. Have a go at testing things, plenty of fun to be had in that. Just as a quick note, the amount of crunch in LI at a scale and in places where it doesn't belong is one of the main reasons I've seen people drop it. Me too, I have no reasons to play it unless a friend particularly wants to, when 3rd and 4th outshine it so heavily in style and gameplay experience. So if you're looking at doing something for your own benefit, always follow your vision. If you're looking at general improvements, *reducing* empty crunch with barely meaningful differences and endless rolling in favour of more impactful decisions would probably be well received.

[Griefbringer]

I will need to take a look at EA assault rules and see how they compare with the assault/firefight rules in Epic40K.

 

The assault rules in Epic40K are certainly very decisive (one side will lose and withdraw), but they also have the peculiar approach where you first roll to determine which side wins, and only then determine how big losses each side suffers. This is very different from what we are used to in most other games, where we first determine the casualties, and then determine the winner based on those and other modifiers, so it might feel a bit counterintuitive. And there was also some chance that the winning side could suffer bigger losses than the losing side - which might again feel counterintuitive to some, though actually combat is not only about casualties, but about which side first loses the will to fight. And speaking of that morale aspect, Epic40K certainly deserves some credit for the rather elegant concept of blast markers - which the cardboard art department managed to visualise quite nicely.

 

As for the approach to game design in GW studio, some of the main developers seem to have change their mind set a fair bit from the late 80's to late 90's. In the late 80's Rick, Jervis, Andy and friends put out things like WHFB 3rd edition, WH40K RT and AT/SM, plus a plethora of additional material (mainly through WD) with varying approaches. A bit later in 1991-1993 those are then replaced with somewhat streamlined successors Space Marine 2nd edition, Warhammer ("The game of fantasy battles") 4th edition and WH40K 2nd edition, all of which then start receiving a plethora of supplements. Then in 1997-2001 the senior designers crank out much more streamlined games of Epic40K, Battlefleet Gothic, Warmaster and Middle-Earth SBG. I recently encountered an interview of Jervis Johnson from 1999, in which he mentioned that at the time the design studio members were themselves happy with quite streamlined games, but significant part of target audience wanted to have more crunch and detail in their games.

 

My understanding is that in general younger gamers tend to prefer more detail and crunch in their games, while older gamers can be happier with more streamlined and abstract rules that focus on high level decision-making and results over detail. That said, significant individual variations exist, and same person may also enjoy alternating between various styles of games. That said, trying to play at the same time a battle group commander and every single weapons moderati in that battle group is not a practical approach.

[Sherrypie]

Yeah, variety is good. Personally I just like it best when each of those very different games is also different because it is actually focusing on the thing it wants to portray.

 

While individuals are always their own unique personalities, I feel the general trend of more mature gamers enjoying streamlined games rings true. As my pal says on the roleplaying side, GURPS is a game for the young engineers who like to have a hundred levers to fiddle with, but now that he's an older engineer, he'd do fine with maybe just three or so.

 

If you want to spend a minute searching for them, reading Jervis' design notes in Firepower magazines between the years of E40k's failure and EA's launch are pretty interesting. They go over the initial process of adding some crunch back to the units, removing it when it gets excessive, the heureka of the AP/AT split, making blast markers work properly and so on as the rules are being developed. 

[Griefbringer]

14 hours ago, Sherrypie said:

If you want to spend a minute searching for them, reading Jervis' design notes in Firepower magazines between the years of E40k's failure and EA's launch are pretty interesting. They go over the initial process of adding some crunch back to the units, removing it when it gets excessive, the heureka of the AP/AT split, making blast markers work properly and so on as the rules are being developed. 

 

Thanks for the hint, Jervis tends to with interesting design notes.I managed to find an index for the Firepower magazine and its successor Epic 40,000 magazine, with issues 7-10 of the latter featuring articles about the development of the EA rules:

 

https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Epic_40,000_Magazine

[Griefbringer]

On 9/13/2026 at 1:10 PM, Sherrypie said:

Personally, I cannot for the life of me get over why they defaulted back to the "only models in base contact contribute anything"

 

I had a think about this, and there seems to be a paradigm issue in game design as to whether shooting and close combat are either i.) two distinct forms of combat that need to be catered separately, or ii.) are part of a continuum where there does not need to be explicit separation between the two.

 

The first paradigm would feel natural if you think of a Napoleonic infantry platoon standing in a line, loading and firing flintlock musket volleys at the command of a lieutenant in charge (distinct shooting). Once the enemy is sufficiently close, they fire the final volley, and then (on command) fix bayonets and charge as a line at the enemy. There they poke the enemy with bayonets and club them with musket butts (distinct close combat). No close range shooting, since nobody has a loaded musket left. The lieutenant might have a pistol, but even that would be single shot, and in any case his task is to inspire and lead his platoon, sword in hand.

 

The second paradigm would start to feel more relevant if you progress in time a bit over century and think of a late World War 1 infantry platoon advancing on an enemy trench line. Most of the platoon has bolt action magazine rifles, with bayonets fixed, so they can relatively easily switch from shooting to close combat and back. Besides, the platoon might have a light machine gun or two to provide long range firepower, and other firearms that can be brought into action as they gradually close the range: rifle grenades, sub-machine guns, flame-throwers, shotguns, hand grenades, revolvers and/or automatic pistols. And if things get really close up, they can resort to very close range weapons like knives, clubs and entrenching tools. The platoon no longer advances as a single line, but as small groups in alternating bounds. At a distance, they will be engaging with rifles and light machine guns, but as they close in they are able to bring in closer range firearms, grenades and eventually cold steel. But when close up, the whole platoon is not fighting in the same fashion at the same time: some men will fight with bayonets and rifle butts, maybe somebody will try to wrestle an opponent with knife, while a close distance away a bomber chucks a grenade into a trench and another private engages takes a short range shot with his rifle. And different combatants can switch between different modes of combat.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Depending on the type of game, different approaches to this paradigms may feel appropriate. 

 

1.) Fantasy mass combat games will likely follow first paradigm, with distinct shooting and close combat. Thus, in close combat only those in the first rank(s) fight, depending on how the reach of their weapons. Furthermore, in epic fantasy literature combats between units (or sometimes even single champions) may be described as lasting long periods of time, sometimes even with heroic stands to last man, so engagements can be expected to be multi-round affairs.

 

2.) Skirmish games, regardless of the genre, that allow individual models to act individually, there may be first paradigm approach on the individual model level, so when a model is in close combat it is limited to close combat attacks instead of shooting. Special rules may apply to use of pistols as close combat weapons (slightly distinct from how they work for shooting). However, since each figure can act individually, on the whole game level we may see an action that resembles the WWI platoon closing in with the enemy with many different attack modes at the same time.

 

3.) Big stompy robot games, like Adeptus Titanicus, may go with the second paradigm on the basis that big stompy robots can do several things at the same time, and are not easily tied up. In Adeptus Titanicus, titans can shoot and attack in close combat simultaneously (if close enough), and do not remain locked up with other titans.

 

4.) Futuristic mass combat games: here things start to diverge, depending on the approach. Hard SF assumption might be that combat in future is so shooty, and close combat so rare, that the close combat rules can be ignored. World War 2 in Space approach would assume that close combat happens occasionally, so should be somehow accommodated but not a major focus. Fantasy Knights in Space may assume that due to wonders of technology the combatants may be able to regularly get close enough to whack at their opponents, and that at close range it is easier to penetrate those techno-defenses.

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

I did recently manage to acquire Epic Armageddon rules from here:

 

https://www.net-armageddon.org/rules.html

 

On a first glance, they somehow seem like a rather streamlined version of the Epic40K rules, though with some additional elements (like AP/AT characteristic for long range shooting). Where as Epic40K had the division to close combat, short range shooting (firefights) and long range shooting, EA seems to totally combine close combat and short range shooting under the assault rules, with no mechanical distinction between the two (second paradigm approach): thought there are two different stats depending on whether the base is in contact or within 15 cm but not in contact, all attacks are resolved similarly and simultaneously. However, there is still a separation between long range shooting (over 15 cm range) and close range assaults, so it is not all smooth continuum mechanically. I will need to give things a closer read to really clear all the differences.

 

As for the decisive nature of the close range action in Epic40K and EA, where units cannot remain locked in combat, it actually simplifies rules design a bit, as there is no need to cater to number of issues like voluntary disengament, moving close to enemy without intent to engage or shooting into close combat. Also it prevents tactics that involve sheltering from enemy fire by staying in close combat (rules where you cannot shoot into combat) or tieing up shooty units in combat to stop them from firing.

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

In conclusion, before thinking of who can attack in "close combat", one should think of what that close combat actually means and what kind of action it entails, and where is the line between close combat and shooting (or is there one?).