CC ability

[chapter master 454]

To be honest, I think a lot of it seems to be melee units just seem to...lack something. Often lacking in one or two of the key points of melee: AP, Attacks and/or Power.

 

Often we see melee units only bring one or two of those aspects to the table with the third disregarded. Not saying all units need to be Thunder Hammer totting blood angel maniacs but I tend to find most melee units have 1/2 of the desired stats in extreme but then completely disregard the last one.

 

Banshees for example are high attack and high AP but yet their strength is pitiful to the point of wounding most things with armour equal to the AP they are needed for they wound on 5s or worse along with lacking any damage. Reivers bring attack and that's it, complete neglect of the other two items.

 

This is compounded by the fact melee has another element to it, another moving part: getting there. Unless you are Banshees or have something very special (eg. raven guard), turn 1 is going to have no melee going on because...well they need to get across a 24" no mans land just to begin thus most melee units require transport which is another cost. While some can deliver themselves, after that they become stranded very quickly and need to get their cardio for the day done post haste!

 

So really, melee is fairly involved to perform.

 

However I do want to remind people lets try and not make it so shooting becomes worthless. The main benefit of melee imo should be the fact that the quality of it should be higher than shooting on average. After all, a thunder hammer on an intercessor sergeant has 3 attacks base (4 on the charge) which only costs what? 25 points..I don't check melee much ok...25 points for a weapon with 3 "shots" at strength 8, AP3 and damage 3? ok sure -1 to hit but meh, still all things considered a twin-linked lascannon is 40 points for 2 shots of slightly better quality.

The cost is however range but again, melee is a fairly scary place to be if you don't look at range. Seriously...lightning claws look really good on paper (put it with a Chapter Master re-roll aura and thats re-roll to hit and wound, we all know how good that is!) and various other melee weapons are quite impressive considering the only thing you need to find is a unit with even a remotely decent amount of attacks (2-3 for general troopers, 4-5 for HQ and elite choices) and suddenly you have impressive looking stats.

 

My comment is again falling back is a little too free. There does need to be some cat and mouse to it.

[TorvaldTheMild]

To be honest, I think a lot of it seems to be melee units just seem to...lack something. Often lacking in one or two of the key points of melee: AP, Attacks and/or Power.

 

Often we see melee units only bring one or two of those aspects to the table with the third disregarded. Not saying all units need to be Thunder Hammer totting blood angel maniacs but I tend to find most melee units have 1/2 of the desired stats in extreme but then completely disregard the last one.

 

Banshees for example are high attack and high AP but yet their strength is pitiful to the point of wounding most things with armour equal to the AP they are needed for they wound on 5s or worse along with lacking any damage. Reivers bring attack and that's it, complete neglect of the other two items.

 

This is compounded by the fact melee has another element to it, another moving part: getting there. Unless you are Banshees or have something very special (eg. raven guard), turn 1 is going to have no melee going on because...well they need to get across a 24" no mans land just to begin thus most melee units require transport which is another cost. While some can deliver themselves, after that they become stranded very quickly and need to get their cardio for the day done post haste!

 

So really, melee is fairly involved to perform.

 

However I do want to remind people lets try and not make it so shooting becomes worthless. The main benefit of melee imo should be the fact that the quality of it should be higher than shooting on average. After all, a thunder hammer on an intercessor sergeant has 3 attacks base (4 on the charge) which only costs what? 25 points..I don't check melee much ok...25 points for a weapon with 3 "shots" at strength 8, AP3 and damage 3? ok sure -1 to hit but meh, still all things considered a twin-linked lascannon is 40 points for 2 shots of slightly better quality.

The cost is however range but again, melee is a fairly scary place to be if you don't look at range. Seriously...lightning claws look really good on paper (put it with a Chapter Master re-roll aura and thats re-roll to hit and wound, we all know how good that is!) and various other melee weapons are quite impressive considering the only thing you need to find is a unit with even a remotely decent amount of attacks (2-3 for general troopers, 4-5 for HQ and elite choices) and suddenly you have impressive looking stats.

 

My comment is again falling back is a little too free. There does need to be some cat and mouse to it.

I think that if a unit falls back another unit within 12 inches should be able to charge them if in range.  

[chapter master 454]

You see torvald that is a little too extreme and by all accounts not exactly great design. On the one hand, the shooting player now feels like he may as well throw in the towel because there is no hope now, its back to prior editions where once in melee you may as well hang up your lasgun and get yourself a pointy stick for the rest of the game. For the melee player, there is now a odd incentive to do counter-productive plays in contrast to what he should be wanting to do.

 

I mean...you seriously want to have melee units just hover around another melee instead of getting stuck in? No I don't think the answer is polite berzerkers waiting their turn, it should ideally be between the attackers and defenders alone.

 

Again, we need gameplay to be intereactive, not solitaire. Yes I know shooting seems like it but in a proper game we have terrain that makes line of sight an interesting game.

[Vermintide]

You know the scene in Indiana Jones where he just shoots the skilled swordsman after his fancy flurries?

 

Being mad about the ineffectiveness of “close combat” in a game and setting with laser, ion, plasma, and nuclear weaponry is kind of a pointless hill to die on. I get there are units who have a melee background, but just because they like doing it doesn’t mean it should be the norm or equal to shooting something at range. Close combat should reward outmaneuvering, surprising, and finishing off opponents. Not reward a heroic Napoleonic charge of frothing madden against a fixed position.

 

AoS has real nice CC mechanics.

 

I have to object to this point of view. That Napoleonic type of warfare is exactly what 40K is supposed to represent. How many realistic modern battles are fought with two armies forming up within small arms range and standing still to shoot each other- Let alone how many battles in the future with even more advanced weaponry will be fought like that? None. Wars today are fought with drones and airstrikes. Wars of the future will be fought with super-weapons you never even see coming.

 

Warhammer is intentionally anachronistic, and furthermore, it makes more sense for a turn based game to be so.

 

Fundamentally, this game represents a type of warfare akin to WW1 at the absolute latest. Charges absolutely were neccesarry to dislodge an entrenched fortified enemy, and that should be how it works in 40K too. I'm not going to say shooting shouldn't have an edge over combat, however, there should very definitely be a  place for combat, in term of game balance and mechanics. It should be something you account for in list building and strategy, not just "how many guns can I get, and how can I get them cheapest."

[USNCenturion]

Holy hell I get there is a melee component to the lore and game mechanics. I do. I honestly really do. No, stop typing. I promise you I do.

 

You (plural) are thinking of this as fans of certain types of armies. That’s fine. What’s also fine is there is a definite advantage to ranged combat, realistically or imaginative, unless the ranged elements are brought to close combat. In which case the close combat oriented troops will be more successful. This is all represented in the game and the lore. There is no arguing it. Stop it.

 

You want GW rules developers to give World Eaters, Orks, Black Templars, Howling Banshees, etc a way to get into combat faster and more effectively. They did try that before. It was busted. Can there be a middle ground somehow, someway? Probably but it hasn’t been done yet or hinted towards until the new primaris APC and the aforementioned banshee rules.

 

Stop telling me what I think I’m thinking. I play Chaos. I like swords and hammers. The rules to get them in contact with the enemy are inferior to someone shooting them with a chain cannon. As it should be in real life everything equal.

 

Stop typing. :P

[Panzer]

If you don't want people to think something like that you probably shouldn't post what you did. 

 

Also playing a type of army has nothing to do with it. I play mainly T'au and still think that way.

[Vermintide]

Holy hell I get there is a melee component to the lore and game mechanics. I do. I honestly really do. No, stop typing. I promise you I do.

 

You (plural) are thinking of this as fans of certain types of armies. That’s fine. What’s also fine is there is a definite advantage to ranged combat, realistically or imaginative, unless the ranged elements are brought to close combat. In which case the close combat oriented troops will be more successful. This is all represented in the game and the lore. There is no arguing it. Stop it.

 

You want GW rules developers to give World Eaters, Orks, Black Templars, Howling Banshees, etc a way to get into combat faster and more effectively. They did try that before. It was busted. Can there be a middle ground somehow, someway? Probably but it hasn’t been done yet or hinted towards until the new primaris APC and the aforementioned banshee rules.

 

Stop telling me what I think I’m thinking. I play Chaos. I like swords and hammers. The rules to get them in contact with the enemy are inferior to someone shooting them with a chain cannon. As it should be in real life everything equal.

 

Stop typing.

 

Not having a go at you personally dude, but it's a view I've seen repeated a lot around the interweb. It's certainly becoming a common misconception, in my opinion, about the setting and the game 40K is supposed to represent.

 

Like, sure you have laser cannons and mechs with giant missile pods, but in-scale they're fighting in extreme close quarters. So the game should reflect close quarters fighting in keeping with the time period it takes its inspiration from. In other words- FIX BAYONETS.

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

Holy hell I get there is a melee component to the lore and game mechanics. I do. I honestly really do. No, stop typing. I promise you I do.

 

You (plural) are thinking of this as fans of certain types of armies. That’s fine. What’s also fine is there is a definite advantage to ranged combat, realistically or imaginative, unless the ranged elements are brought to close combat. In which case the close combat oriented troops will be more successful. This is all represented in the game and the lore. There is no arguing it. Stop it.

 

You want GW rules developers to give World Eaters, Orks, Black Templars, Howling Banshees, etc a way to get into combat faster and more effectively. They did try that before. It was busted. Can there be a middle ground somehow, someway? Probably but it hasn’t been done yet or hinted towards until the new primaris APC and the aforementioned banshee rules.

 

Stop telling me what I think I’m thinking. I play Chaos. I like swords and hammers. The rules to get them in contact with the enemy are inferior to someone shooting them with a chain cannon. As it should be in real life everything equal.

 

Stop typing.

 

Me thinks the lady doth protest too much. You did specifically say that melee should be tactical strikes and sneaking, not charging across the field like a maniac. We just pointed out all the armies that fluff wise are exactly that: charging across the field like a maniac. My bloodletters gonna let blood, and my Templars gonna Templar. Don't be frontin' at me.

[Ishagu]

I think that GW chosing to focus more on ranged combat is perfectly fine. This is the futuristic IP. Age of Sigmar is more CC oriented.

That's not to say that close combat should be useless - I'm in the camp of "close-combat elements are another tool in the tool chest." They shouldn't be the only tool in it, however.

 

I've recently been incorporating cc units in my Primaris army (eg: Aggressors with flamers) and some with my AdMech. Both instances have been pretty effective, but they have worked with other units with a different focus around them.

 

Highly effective cc units do exist in the game. GSC and Orks have plenty, Knights work, Daemons, etc.

In the case of Astartes I think a balanced force is better, but incorporating cc elements within it can be effective.

Black Templars can be built with cc infantry deployed in high durability vehicles that bring the ranged punch as well as other support units, as an example.

 

Edit: Typo

Edited October 14, 2019 by Ishagu

[kombatwombat]

This is the futuristic IP.

Bluntly, no, it isn’t. This is Napoleonic battle lines in space IP. Take a look at literally every piece of 40k combat art that isn’t focused on a small number of niche sniper/sneaky units. This is muskets and bayonets, but your musket balls are lasers and your bayonets have exploding power fields.

 

Edit: I have a slightly left-of-field solution: an ironclad rule that you cannot enter your opponent’s Deployment Zone turn 1.

 

I think a big part of the problem is that a small number of CC units spoil the party for everyone else. Hyper fast melee units that can reach out and touch the enemy and lock them up turn 1 are the only ones that really work. The existence of these obnoxiously fast units (seriously, Genestealers started off with a T1 threat range of something like up to 60”, which was ‘nerfed’ to 40”) means that things like Fall Back mechanics are necessary. The bulk of ‘normal’ CC units are held back from being effective by a small number of grotesquely effective CC units.

 

So my proposal is to make first turn charges outright illegal unless the target unit has already started moving towards you. Suddenly those obscenely fast units aren’t getting into combat T1, which frees up the rules to stack the deck a little in combat’s favour without making fast combat armies unbeatable.

Edited October 15, 2019 by kombatwombat

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

"close-combat elements are another tool in the tool chest." They shouldn't be the only tool in it, however.

 

 

 

 

In this discussion I'm primarily focusing on armies that have no choice but to be combat, like pure Khorne Daemons. Being a BT player I'm fairly good at balancing shooting and melee in an army that has the capability to do both. In the lists I posted earlier you can see that some Daemon armies manage the game a little better, but at the moment not all daemons are created equal. That should probably be addressed in the second round of rules updates as we move forward, but only time will tell.

 

All that being said, I find it telling that your idea of a CC unit is one that gets more pound for pound shooting than almost anything else in its point range, and is notably the best anti charge unit I can think of. Flame Aggressors are not a melee unit. They are a hybrid of devastating anti hoard shooting and very solid anti tank punching. You could go an entire fight without throwing a single punch and still kill four times your point value. Your measurement on what a melee unit is needs some adjusting for you to really grasp the problem, I think.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

In a topic on how to improve CC units, the last thing I expected was "no first turn charges." If anything, you want more units capable of reaching across the table as quickly as possible because the more you can restrict enemy shooting, the greater chances you have of delivering your main body comparatively intact.

[kombatwombat]

Under such a system, Custodes would surely be faster than Orks, so what ork player would ever send his mob of thirty boyz against even 5 Custodian Guard, let alone Wardens or Terminators. The ork player would be looking at half to two thirds of his force dead before he even got to swing, especially if the Custodes has a captain supporting them.

So if you actually do the maths on this...

 

30 Orks (210pts) charge 5 Custodes (260pts). The Custodes swing first, killing 8 Orks (56pts). The remaining 22 Orks kill one Custodes (52pts).

 

That’s... fine?

 

4 Custodes (208pts) against 30 Boyz (210pts) in a protracted combat just about kill each other, with one wounded Custodes left. Given that Custodes are a really poor target for Boyz, that’s a solid result for the Orks IMO.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

Under such a system, Custodes would surely be faster than Orks, so what ork player would ever send his mob of thirty boyz against even 5 Custodian Guard, let alone Wardens or Terminators. The ork player would be looking at half to two thirds of his force dead before he even got to swing, especially if the Custodes has a captain supporting them.

So if you actually do the maths on this...

 

30 Orks (210pts) charge 5 Custodes (260pts). The Custodes swing first, killing 8 Orks (56pts). The remaining 22 Orks kill one Custodes (52pts).

 

That’s... fine?

 

4 Custodes (208pts) against 30 Boyz (210pts) in a protracted combat just about kill each other, with one wounded Custodes left. Given that Custodes are a really poor target for Boyz, that’s a solid result for the Orks IMO.

I’m accounting for the captain nearby, so rerolls then heroic intervention. If you use Wardens/Terminators it goes up.

 

Granted that ups the point cost but the point is that the Ork player has been seriously penalised for a lower initiative when he’s done all the hard work of getting into range and charging etc.

 

I think chargers going first is what makes combat worthwhile for lots of units and an initiative system would spoil that.

[kombatwombat]

I’m accounting for the captain nearby, so rerolls then heroic intervention. If you use Wardens/Terminators it goes up.

 

Granted that ups the point cost but the point is that the Ork player has been seriously penalised for a lower initiative when he’s done all the hard work of getting into range and charging etc.

 

I think chargers going first is what makes combat worthwhile for lots of units and an initiative system would spoil that.

If you’re using Terminators and a Captain you’re north of five hundred points. They probably should annihilate 210pts of Boyz. Even then, if you include the Captain’s attacks, they kill 20 of the Boyz and the other 10 could still attack.

 

Custodes are literally the most elite thing in the game. When they’re individually the cost of eight Boyz them attacking ahead of Boyz isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. Yes, 210pts of Boyz will die if you throw them at five hundred points of the game’s best combat units. If you throw five hundred points of Boyz at equal points of Custodes Terminators and Captain, they crush the goldilocks without even losing half of their number. All this when Custodes are really not a good target choice for Boyz.

 

The Ork player is penalised for his lower initiative, but the Custodes player is punished by his models being eight times as expensive.

[MoshJason]

I find using cities of death rules makes melee super important? It's the easiest way to flush people out of cover, and it feels much more dangerous.

 

It also makes cover feel more important, and height advantage matter.

 

I think it was GWs idea for better terrain rules, but most people kind of ignore it?

[Panzer]

Cities of Death in general seems to be the superior way to play 40k. If I could just convince the rest of my group lol

[MARK0SIAN]

 

I’m accounting for the captain nearby, so rerolls then heroic intervention. If you use Wardens/Terminators it goes up.

 

Granted that ups the point cost but the point is that the Ork player has been seriously penalised for a lower initiative when he’s done all the hard work of getting into range and charging etc.

 

I think chargers going first is what makes combat worthwhile for lots of units and an initiative system would spoil that.

If you’re using Terminators and a Captain you’re north of five hundred points. They probably should annihilate 210pts of Boyz. Even then, if you include the Captain’s attacks, they kill 20 of the Boyz and the other 10 could still attack.

 

Custodes are literally the most elite thing in the game. When they’re individually the cost of eight Boyz them attacking ahead of Boyz isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. Yes, 210pts of Boyz will die if you throw them at five hundred points of the game’s best combat units. If you throw five hundred points of Boyz at equal points of Custodes Terminators and Captain, they crush the goldilocks without even losing half of their number. All this when Custodes are really not a good target choice for Boyz.

 

The Ork player is penalised for his lower initiative, but the Custodes player is punished by his models being eight times as expensive.

You seem to be getting bogged down in unit analysis and missing my main point. Substitute Orks and Custodes in the example for anything you like if that’s your sticking point, the point is the same. In an initiative system with the lethality of 8th edition, a lower initiative charger will have to take unreasonable casualties. It’s not like in previous editions, the causalty rates would be unfair.

 

Chargers going first is the only fair way to do it.

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

If initiative numbers got a flat bonus from a charge, that might be a good compromise, actually. Custodes might be initiative 9, marines 7, but on a charge you get a +2, and whomever has the turn goes first. I wouldn't be against that. I actually think the flow of combat needs a little shaking up. Chargers should get the advantage in a conflict, all things being even, but at the moment the balance starts to fall apart once you introduce fight first units/armies. Consider that in a pure melee vs melee fight, Slaanesh daemons get to interrupt you over and over on turns you charge, always fight first if you don't charge, and yet still get all of their fight firsts if they do charge. it makes fighting them in melee insanely difficult. More annoyingly, just like most melee armies but Khorne have an FNP and a way to trigger advance and charge, most armies other than Khorne also have a way to trigger fight first without spending CP. There's a lot of wanky balance things when you start getting into the meat of melee armies. GW kind of sucks at writing rules.

[kombatwombat]

You seem to be getting bogged down in unit analysis and missing my main point. Substitute Orks and Custodes in the example for anything you like if that’s your sticking point, the point is the same. In an initiative system with the lethality of 8th edition, a lower initiative charger will have to take unreasonable casualties. It’s not like in previous editions, the causalty rates would be unfair.

 

Chargers going first is the only fair way to do it.

Alright then, let’s do just that - substitute Custodes and Orks for another two combat units, 5 TH/SS Terminators (205pts) charge 16 Howling Banshees (208pts).

 

The Banshees kill a Terminator before he has a chance to swing (41pts). The other 4 Terminators kill 5 Banshees (65pts). In a protracted combat, the Terminators win, so it was worthwhile for them (the lower initiative unit) to go to the effort of charging the Banshees.

 

The point you’re making - that a lower initiative charger will take unreasonable casualties - is patently incorrect. The phenomenon you’re describing is that lower durability units take high casualties, which is the system working as designed. Initiative worked fine for decades; it was what protected fast fragile units by letting them swing first. The advent of ‘chargers swing first’ with 8th thoroughly screwed these units over, so we had to have contrived ‘these units always strike first’ rules that twist the system and cause other collateral issues.

[chapter master 454]

...I mean...chargers going first makes sense.

 

The one thing I would addendum to this however is that the "First Strike" rule needs buffed and a slight tweak to it. First off, "First Strike" should confer first attack regardless of being charged or charging. The addendum is that we need "levels" of speed and no, we aren't bringing back initiative, a worthless stat that to be honest was rarely ever worth talking about (heck, Eldar Initiative was always "higher than you" except when I once got one with an eversor...it was REALLY good for once telling an Eldar player "Higher than you!").

 

Normal attackers are fight speed 1, some abilities can reduce you to 0 but those are rare. When you charge, you +1 to your fight speed so normal armies will normally have fight speed 2 when they charge. If you have a "First Strike" ability you have a natural +1 to your fight speed so with charge you have fight speed 3. Then basically we work our way down the fight speeds with each player (starting with turn player) selecting units at each level to fight with. Yes, you can end up with Terminators still outpacing Banshees if they get the charge but that seems fair imo, when you got charged by hammerators you deserve what is coming (that is, some amount of thunder hammering!).

There, a simple system that takes the concept of initiative but doesn't need some odd stat to quantify it. Now having a "First Strike" unit with another "First Strike" buff could actually matter since even against chargers the buffed unit would go first.

 

Could even open up more variety of benefits in melee or having weapons drawback actually affect fight speed, LIKE thunder hammers and power fists though that may cause weird rule issues so maybe I think I will put that on the backburner with extra plasma exhaust.

[kombatwombat]

...I mean...chargers going first makes sense.

...why, exactly?

 

Kit yourself out with some boxing gloves and go charge a pike formation. Did charging help you land a punch first? Or did you eat six feet of pike before you had a chance?

 

What about a shuffling, stumbling Nurgle Zombie charging... I think it’s Goku around the time he fought Frieza? (We’re going back close to two decades now so memory fails me, but the point is he’s able to punch so fast he literally can’t be seen moving.) Did charging help the Zombie hit first? Or was he (re-)dead five times before he’d taken a swing?

 

Charging gives you impetus and potentially a physical impact that’s nicely represented by a bonus attack and/or bonus strength. Also, what about after the charge? Now it’s just taking turns, which kinda feels wonky when you’ve got transhuman Space Marines punching Guardsmen. There’s the other issue of it being beneficial to only charge with one unit rather than a glorious charge of all units within range, because of you charge with two units one of them can be interrupted, but if you charge with only one, they can’t be.

 

All of that was comfortably covered by the Initiative stat. It helped fast, flimsy armies stay alive, it allowed for interesting tactical decisions and risk taking around whether to charge a faster unit, and it didn’t have the wonky situations caused by the current method.

[jaxom]

The abstraction of why charging lets a unit attack first or why a unit could attack before a charging unit is a different concern than the fallout of the rules. I don't think imitative is needed back, but I do think we need to see more rules applied to different styles of melee and we're starting to like with Shock Assault and Slashing Impact.

 

I think the problem that has come up is that certain melee armies, when translated 1:1 to eighth edition, did not mesh well with the new paradigm. Khorne daemons are a great example of that. As noted, they don't currently meet the metrics in either durability, numbers, or speed to function long enough to get to combat without allies to cover for them. I think it's more that individual armies and units need adjustment to fit eighth edition beyond the raw translation they got. Future mono-faction bonuses may be the answer; off the top of my head for Khorne, "Fuelled by Blood: If a MARK OF KHORNE keyword unit takes a wound they gain +1" to Advance and Charge rolls and can ignore wounds on the roll of a 6+ until the end of their next turn."

[Panzer]

 

...I mean...chargers going first makes sense.

...why, exactly?

 

Kit yourself out with some boxing gloves and go charge a pike formation. Did charging help you land a punch first? Or did you eat six feet of pike before you had a chance?

 

What about a shuffling, stumbling Nurgle Zombie charging... I think it’s Goku around the time he fought Frieza? (We’re going back close to two decades now so memory fails me, but the point is he’s able to punch so fast he literally can’t be seen moving.) Did charging help the Zombie hit first? Or was he (re-)dead five times before he’d taken a swing?

 

Charging gives you impetus and potentially a physical impact that’s nicely represented by a bonus attack and/or bonus strength. Also, what about after the charge? Now it’s just taking turns, which kinda feels wonky when you’ve got transhuman Space Marines punching Guardsmen. There’s the other issue of it being beneficial to only charge with one unit rather than a glorious charge of all units within range, because of you charge with two units one of them can be interrupted, but if you charge with only one, they can’t be.

 

All of that was comfortably covered by the Initiative stat. It helped fast, flimsy armies stay alive, it allowed for interesting tactical decisions and risk taking around whether to charge a faster unit, and it didn’t have the wonky situations caused by the current method.

 

 

Chargers striking first is just an abstraction to reward being the one who took the risk of charging anyway and something like a pike formation would have a special rule like always strike first (potentially just in the first round even) because what they do is indeed special.

Edited October 16, 2019 by sfPanzer

[kombatwombat]

Chargers striking first is just an abstraction to reward being the one who took the risk of charging anyway and something like a pike formation would have a special rule like always strike first (potentially just in the first round even) because what they do is indeed special.

Charging is a risk if you’re a combat unit and your target is a shooting unit, sure. What about a combat unit charging a combat unit, though? Then you’re rewarding one unit for just happening to be the right distance apart that they could make the charge.

 

And yeah you can give a pikemen unit a special rule to fight first in the first round. What about Marines though? They should always fight before Guardsmen - they’re just that much faster. Ok so you give Marines a rule that makes them fight first. But what if those Marines run into a Howling Banshee? The Banshees are faster than Marines. So we give them a rule that makes them strike first. What happens to the Marines’ strike first rule now? Ok so we have rankings of levels of units fighting first. Guardsmen get a 1, Marines get a 2, Banshees get a 3. Wait there might be stuff that’s slower than Guardsmen, so to give us some breathing room let’s make Guardsmen a 3, Marines a 4, Banshees 5. We’d better put these on the units’ datasheets. I propose we call these rankings the Totally Not Initiative stat. :P :P

 

That even applies back to the pikemen - they’re only human after all, their spears aren’t going to make them strike before a Keeper of Secrets.

 

———

 

8th Edition is the Abstraction Edition, I know, but I :cussing hate that. And so long as breath remains to me I will rail against that.