I have been very much looking forward to the new rules! I expected some changes and had beenfollowing the rumors for months, and now finally I have gotten to play a few games with the new rules and some of my old favorites. Largely I really like the new rules and consider them a success, I am even building some new armies.

Unofrtunately one of my old favorites was my imperial guard army. After I played some test games with them, they did so poorly I don't even know if they can be valid to play for fun games. I realize this topic could go on in all sort of detail so I will come to the point of my post. CLose combat must be really scary in 40k all of a sudden!

Here is the situation, which I expect to be pretty common in games with them. I played a test game versus black templars with a pretty simple old IG army of mine, my army was 2 platoons, 2 roughrider squads, a heavy platoon, 2 basilisks a command section and 2 heavy support sections, pretty vanilla, no doctrines or anything for my test game, my opponents ary was black templars with the emperors champion and pretty much 5 razorbacks with marines in them He siezed the innitiative and got to go first...

Essentially the EC ans 4 marines killed my whole army.

A single Rhino with a squad and the EC made a shock move straint into my lines, I destroyed it and the marines hid behind the wreck, I plinked off 3 with a host of fire, leaving only 4 and the EC. I figured I'd charge them and wipe them out easily with my number 1 RR squad, only I couldnt because I had to take the most direct route into CC, which was over the wreck for some models, so all my RR fought at I1, and were nearly killed before they got to swing, because the marines beat them by more than 5 kills, they immediately failed their morale test and were run down. 10 men dead, no effect.

Next turn the marines charged into my gunline in cover, but because they had frag grenades, they struck at Initiative, I actually managed to pull one down in CC, with an entire platoon, but because I lost by 5 kills, EVERY UNIT had to take a morale check at -5 and even with a flag they failed, well except one, which kept the SM lockled so I couldnt shoot them. 20 men dead no effect.

The next turn the same unit black templars charge into my other RR unit, just barely reaching one model, as well as 2 other heavy support sections and once again, winning by more than 5, I had no one to strike back, and yes, 16 men killed no effect.

At this point the rest of my army had killed or immobilized all the BT tanks, but that one squad had cut the entire center out of my army. AT one point I had them in CC with almost 30 models and in the old days, with my flag, I wouldn't have had a problem pulling down 3 marines, but not anymore.

I surendered in after turn 3 as the BT command group was in range to charge the rest of my units.

In conclusion:

Weight of numbers counts for nothing.
Fantasy battle style morale checks for CC in 40K are awful.
The compund morale check modifier is awful (for mutlipel units, hypothetical if 20 orks charged 50 IG and killed a difference of 10, every IG unit would have to check LD at -10??? even ones with no casualties?).
There is no hope to pull down strong models with weaker ones in CC.
IG have no chance in CC, and especially in Kill Points games.

Probably have to shelf the IG.

Different rules have different flavors, I actually like the new rules, but it is very alarming that I use to have a chance at a pyhric victory in CC before, with superior numbers, but now they count for nothing. Anyone esle care to comment or have similar experiences?

So far I have not run into this problem with the Guard. I am not sure they will perform as well in 5th as they did in 4th, but nothing quite so bleak.

The biggest mental change for me has been realizing that with the new consolidtation and cover rules, it is often worthwhile to use the run rule and positioning to prevent an opponent (particularly one down to small squad sizes) from being able to charge more than one squad at a time. In this case, the new morale is quite useful-they get run down, and the opponent can either a) move outside of rapid fire range and get shot two turns in a row or b) move closer and face immediate rapid-firing.

I used to love the old pile in and kill things tactic, but that is defintely dead with this edition-feeding one squad to the enemy is the new order of the day.

The retinue rule also presents the possibility of using powerfist JO's as a stop gap measure to take down one or two marines at a time and reduce the negative modifiers. It is bad for KP's, but in other missions can cause a nice amount of damage if smaller squads close to your lines need a finishing blow the guns cannot deliver.

The change to frag grenades makes Close Order Drill more important than ever.

you shouldnt have charged with your rr squad.
you should have shot him, let him charge a squad and then shot him again after he killed that one squad or you could have charged after he wiped out the 1 squad ensuring your rr did what they were supposed to.

if you hadnt of charged him he may have been hampered by the same terrain that screwed you giving you yet another turn to lay into him.

I wonder if COD will survive the next IG codex.

I also recognize my supreme eror in not giving my RR frag grenades. But it was just a test game and that is what was on the sheet.

I quit playing WHFB because I was tired of fighting Bretonians and Chaos, and killing most of their units with Magic, Boltthrowers, or CC but having a champion/general/standard bearer in a cav unit survive and charge into a small unit of mine and break the army with morale checks.

That's what the game above felt like.

As I recall RR's cannot buy frag grenades, just krak/melta, so no error there. I guess the Veteran Sgt. could buy them, but the squad itself is stuck fighting at I1.

usernamesareannoying wrote:if you hadnt of charged him he may have been hampered by the same terrain that screwed you giving you yet another turn to lay into him.

Yes probably so.

Future games may not be as slanted, and I will certainly take frag grenades.

But what do you think of the morale rules? Lets simplify the example to an old CC, just for arguments sake. 30 Conscripts versus a couple stragglers in an assault unit. In the Old rules the assault guys would charge, and you would get hit, probably loose 3-4 models and have to take a flat morale check, good flag position and you get a reroll 2 tries for a 6.

New rules, same thing happens, you get the counter charge, you loose 5-6 models, maybe get one, and have 2 tries for a morale check at 4-5 or a 2. Or an (almost) certain failure.

Isn't that an awful big change?

**quick spelling edit**

The new consolidation rule and lack of screening should save the Imperial Guard.

Suicide squads (including Rough Riders) are offensive (flamers are better now) and rapid fire Lasguns is 18" range.

Augustus wrote:
But what do you think of the morale rules? Lets simplify the example to an old CC, just for argumants sake. 30 Conscripts versus a couple stragglers in an assault unit. In the Old rules the assault guys would charge, and you would get hit, probably loose 3-4 models and have to take a flat morale check, good flag position and you get a reroll 2 tries for a 6.

New rules, same thing happens, you get the counter charge, you loose 5-6 models, maybe get one, and have 2 tries for a morale check at 4-5 or a 2. Or an (almost) certain failure.

Isn't that an awful big change?

Maybe I am misunderstanding this example, but wouldn't the margin of defeat be less with the new counter-charge rule? With 2" coherency, the stragglers, regardless of number, should have been able to get close to five or six kills if they had sufficient attacks to rack up that many missed saves. The 6" counter-charge gives the conscripts a greatly enhanced opportunity to strike back, which would seem to contribute to a reduced spread, not more.

However, I would still agree with you to the extent that with the new rules, sans Gaunt, they are a fairly big risk to field in size.

Just for reference:

30 conscripts (or IG) S3

Marines kill 6

24 strike back I3
12 hit
4 wound
1 dies

Average case, assuming you get them all in, which I didn't, counter charge doesnt help with a succes rate of about .042

Even if you get him, you are taking the morale check at MINUS 5 for every unit on the side.

You are loosing the whole bunch...

Tacobake wrote:The new consolidation rule and lack of screening should save the Imperial Guard.

Suicide squads (including Rough Riders) are offensive (flamers are better now) and rapid fire Lasguns is 18" range.

Sorry Tacobake, actually screening hurt me, if I put my heavy weapons behind my own guys, he got saves too, wich knocked out half of my lascannon fire.

Offensive roughriders got wrecked without grenades because they had to charge through cover.

I had some flamers I still never got to shoot them because of the pattern where my opponent managed to stay in assault in my turns.

Rapid fire lasgun is 18 inches? You mean moving toward the assault guys? (To get in 12 inch range) That doesnt make much senseas casualties can come from anywhere in the target unit, you do that now, and you are giving him an assault for sure as the owning player can pull the gack from anywhere and keep you in range, not only that you have told him the range for sure too...

Harder than you might think I posit.

How is that different from V4 Augie (is there no limit to the number of modifiers or what?) I don't have V5 yet.

its unfortunate that he charged the entire platoon at once (i cant for the life of me think how he did that with one squad though), but thats pretty much what you have to do with CC armies now. for gun lines, if you throw up a few suicide squads infront of your main line then when those squads die in the first round of combat then you can shoot him with everything you have. if doesnt matter if a squad gets torn limb from limb now, you can shoot the guys later. that is the IG ethos after all.

a cc army has to hit and kill multiple squads at once to be able to kill a shooting army. otherwise he will kill a unit or two, but be shot appart by the rest of them.

as far as screening goes, heavy bolters dont care if marines are in cover. hellhounds dont care if anyone is in cover. use more of them in 5th. heavy bolters now kill MEQs much better than lascannon do, and for cheaper.

It sounds good on paper, to just go with the volume of fire. But that just doesnt work so well.

I will give it more of a try, as I have those units too, but not being able to hold up assault units with tarpits is frightful. It use to be key to my strategy.

No one seems to want to comment on the bovious pooint that IG just loose the Kill Piont games on the numkbers everytime also, which is worsened by this CC morale development.

jfrazell wrote:How is that different from V4 Augie (is there no limit to the number of modifiers or what?) I don't have V5 yet.

How it is different is every model you loose an assault by is a -1 modifier, and yes there is NO LIMIT!

If you had zagstruck say, DS and charge into a gunline, he and his squad could destroy maybe 12 models easily, then, every unit still alive would be at -12 morale checks. Previously they might have been regular checks if they outnumbered the orks after the thrashing, or maybe -1 for below 50.

Not anymore.

Regwon wrote:its unfortunate that he charged the entire platoon at once (i cant for the life of me think how he did that with one squad though), ...

He came from the side after the 1st melee, it was pretty easy, I had my guys staggered as you suggest but he was close enough after the melee with the RR to do it.

Regwon wrote:...but thats pretty much what you have to do with CC armies now. for gun lines, if you throw up a few suicide squads infront of your main line then when those squads die in the first round of combat then you can shoot him with everything you have. if doesnt matter if a squad gets torn limb from limb now, you can shoot the guys later. that is the IG ethos after all.

a cc army has to hit and kill multiple squads at once to be able to kill a shooting army. otherwise he will kill a unit or two, but be shot appart by the rest of them.

Yes that sounds good, but remember we are talking about 2-5 fearless or essentially so models charging doing that much damage, it didn't matter if they had been shot up as long as the important ones got to charge, and they still do.

Augustus wrote:
No one seems to want to comment on the bovious pooint that IG just loose the Kill Piont games on the numkbers everytime also, which is worsened by this CC morale development.

It can certainly be an up-hill battle. I will be switching towards running more tanks and less infantry-heavy to deal with this; the tanks roll on and shoot things up, while the KP-heavy infantry (particularly the command squads . . .) stay in reserve as long as possible. If the enemy gets too close with flankers/deep striking, then they can walk on rapid-fire plasma or melta them away.

And trust me, as someone who has 300+ Guard infantry in their collection, that is not a change I wanted to make.

The biggest draw back to this is the difficulty in killing enemy tanks without lascannons and the like on the board. I am still working out what mixture of Chimera-based veterans can perform this; deep striking is so risky in this edition (within my experiences with it) that I feel safer driving around in the taxi and hoping that some tanks end up within 18". The loss of infiltrate when Hardened Vets take the Chimera is rather harsh too.

Augustus wrote:No one seems to want to comment on the bovious pooint that IG just loose the Kill Piont games on the numkbers everytime also, which is worsened by this CC morale development.

youre right augustus, were screwed for now on that one.
hopefully the new dex will fix that.

Indeed gentlemen, lets hope!

Maybe the Valkyries can save us!

(I really like the solution Yakface posed earlier to compare the kill point ratios, I almost can't believe that didn't make the book.)

In the meantime you lads have made me reconsider, maybe I will get out all my Hellhounds and heavy bolters and just try and chuck it out! I wonder how 3 Tri Bolter Lemans and 3 Hellhounds Might do?

Personally, I like 2 Demolishers in the mix. You might not get to fire on the first turn, but AP2 is important in this edition. AV11 on the rear has also proved quite helpful.

Yea, I was thinking that too, stops assaults from the front at S4 having a chance.

Hmmmm...

(I already have 3 of those, heh)

Augustus wrote:Indeed gentlemen, lets hope!

Maybe the Valkyries can save us!

(I really like the solution Yakface posed earlier to compare the kill point ratios, I almost can't believe that didn't make the book.)

...

The Kill Point rule in the book looks like it was thought up in about 2 minutes and put in to fill a space.

I suppose there must be a balancing aspect I haven't understood.

Or perhaps not.

I haven't understood it yet either.

I have to agree with you Damian. The fantasy style moral is rough. However I feel once you master the style of it in 5th you can use it to your advantage.

And see you at Taticon

I faced a IG mostly gunline list Saturday in a store league game with my Orks. He had 3 bassies and 2 chimeras and the rest footsloggers. I had a horde of Orks. I won due to it being annihilation but I have to say it is very tiring to charge the defense in depth of IG now. My opponent simply layered 10 man squads in 4 layers and let me assault them in turn. Every time I massacred a squad I would get rapid fired by all the rear squads. It really took a toll on my greenskins.

Yeah, as an IG player, I'm glad combat is so stupidly killy now. Anything of mine that gets charged, I simply write off, and then prepare a withering response to the offending unit. The end of consolidating into new combat breathes all sorts of new life into the IG.

I'm amused that your thread title is about how you're
afraid of morale

Augustus,

I have to say: I think you're totally and completely off-base on this particular issue (and I mean that in a loving way).

I think you had one bad game and it has given you a false impression.

The new CC morale rules and the removal of consolidation into CC are the *best* possible things that could ever happen to the IG.

You made a critical mistake, and that was charging the Black Templars with your Rough Riders at that particular point.


With guard, you should have moved a 'speed bump' unit into position (out of cover) so the Templar unit couldn't move and engage who they wanted in CC.

Then *because* of the new morale CC rules, you could be absolutely assured that the Templar unit would not be locked in combat in your next shooting phase.

By putting your 'speed bump' unit in the proper place (out of cover) you also ensure that if you do want to charge with your RRs next turn, you won't be doing so through cover.


IG *LOVE* the fact that enemy units almost never stay locked in combat and cannot consolidate into another CC.

Do not count on wiping out enemy armies in the first few turns of the game anymore with IG, since the increase in cover saves means your early-game firepower has reduced effectiveness.

However, if you set your battleline up correctly and use 'speed bump' units to ensure that the enemy only engages one unit at a time you will find that you have waaaaaay more 'late game' shooting with the guard because once the enemy hits your lines (if you're playing right) it's not 'game over' it's 'game has just begun'.


P.S. I am a massively huge fan of the new combat resolution rules as they actually make you think about whether or not you can *beat* the opposing unit in CC before charging in. There's no more 'charge in and tie up the enemy for a few turns' crap anymore. You as a general have to look at the situation and know that your unit is going to be able to beat the opponent in CC or it just isn't worth charging in.

(I really like the solution Yakface posed earlier to compare the kill point ratios, I almost can't believe that didn't make the book.)

I couldn't help but laugh when I read this, you mean to suggest they should have included a system wherein the more expensive elite units you have in your army the more each unit is worth in terms of kill points? Oh wait, Victory Points already did that.

edit: I should clarify, not a dig at you, A dig at GW because I can't see a good reason for KP

Drunkspleen wrote:

(I really like the solution Yakface posed earlier to compare the kill point ratios, I almost can't believe that didn't make the book.)

I couldn't help but laugh when I read this, you mean to suggest they should have included a system wherein the more expensive elite units you have in your army the more each unit is worth in terms of kill points? Oh wait, Victory Points already did that.

edit: I should clarify, not a dig at you, A dig at GW because I can't see a good reason for KP

No I believe the idea that Yakface offered up was devide the total kp earned by the total kp that the opponent had the start of the game.

ie. Player a earns 5 kp but player b had 15 total kp. So player a would have 0.34(Rounded up).
Now player earns 4 kp but player a had 8 total kp. So player b have 0.5.
So Player B wins.

Kilkrazy wrote:
The Kill Point rule in the book looks like it was thought up in about 2 minutes and put in to fill a space.

I suppose there must be a balancing aspect I haven't understood.

Or perhaps not.

I think it's a balancing for the other two mission type , to avoid player useing lots of small units to contest objectives,which would be silly to play .

Drunkspleen wrote:

(I really like the solution Yakface posed earlier to compare the kill point ratios, I almost can't believe that didn't make the book.)

I couldn't help but laugh when I read this, you mean to suggest they should have included a system wherein the more expensive elite units you have in your army the more each unit is worth in terms of kill points? Oh wait, Victory Points already did that.

edit: I should clarify, not a dig at you, A dig at GW because I can't see a good reason for KP

No no, what I liked was comparing ratios of kill points for armies at games end, one army loses 5 of 10 total points and the other loses 7 of 16 point total KP. See that way, the second army still wins because it lost less KP ratio? See, I have no idea what you are talking about with elites or more KP.

PS I hope I got Yaks proposal right, I think so...? All from memory.

Yes, but hardly fair for armies that rely on flimsy transports (KoS, Dark Eldar) or that are forced to take small squads (IG) or for certain units that actually fire KPs at the enemy as far as I can see (Biovores).
KPs kinda suck. I like the ratio idea as a solution, and also the "six most expensive units give kill points" solution.
Kill points as written is bad game design.

Alpharius Walks wrote:
The biggest draw back to this is the difficulty in killing enemy tanks without lascannons and the like on the board. I am still working out what mixture of Chimera-based veterans can perform this; deep striking is so risky in this edition (within my experiences with it) that I feel safer driving around in the taxi and hoping that some tanks end up within 18". The loss of infiltrate when Hardened Vets take the Chimera is rather harsh too.

Emphasis mine.

Not to sidetrack the thread but I had to mention that it's my interpretation that Hardened Vets can Outflank in Chimeras: "During deployment, players may declare that units with the ‘scout’ or ‘infiltrate’ special rules are attempting to outflank the enemy... Note that if such units are picked from their army list together with a dedicated transport, they may outflank with their transport, but if they do so they must move onto the table embarked in it" (Rulebook pg 94).

I've been trying out this army list with outflanking vets and Sentinels to some success, even out-maneuvering a mechanized Tau army in a Capture and Control mission. The point is my experience with outflanking vets as opposed to drop-vets has been very positive.

I don't remember, Augustus, but did you Run/Fleet your Rough Riders that turn? That would have allowed you to get around the wreck, likely, and pulled him out of the cover. The game probably would have been a bit different.

In any case, consider this a lesson learned - Guard can't throw heaps of men at a unit and hope to tie it down. That was a mistake. On the plus side, you should only lose a single squad from assault, unless you are too bunched up and there's a multiple charge. You had some bad luck in this game, and discovered that your old tactic no longer works. Time to change up a bit, I guess!

ubermosher wrote:

Alpharius Walks wrote:
The biggest draw back to this is the difficulty in killing enemy tanks without lascannons and the like on the board. I am still working out what mixture of Chimera-based veterans can perform this; deep striking is so risky in this edition (within my experiences with it) that I feel safer driving around in the taxi and hoping that some tanks end up within 18". The loss of infiltrate when Hardened Vets take the Chimera is rather harsh too.

Emphasis mine.

Not to sidetrack the thread but I had to mention that it's my interpretation that Hardened Vets can Outflank in Chimeras: "During deployment, players may declare that units with the ‘scout’ or ‘infiltrate’ special rules are attempting to outflank the enemy... Note that if such units are picked from their army list together with a dedicated transport, they may outflank with their transport, but if they do so they must move onto the table embarked in it" (Rulebook pg 94).

I've been trying out this army list with outflanking vets and Sentinels to some success, even out-maneuvering a mechanized Tau army in a Capture and Control mission. The point is my experience with outflanking vets as opposed to drop-vets has been very positive.

Uber,

Infiltrating units do not give tranports Infiltrate, but the scouting units do give scouting to their dedicated transports.

Valhallan42nd wrote:

ubermosher wrote:

Alpharius Walks wrote:
The biggest draw back to this is the difficulty in killing enemy tanks without lascannons and the like on the board. I am still working out what mixture of Chimera-based veterans can perform this; deep striking is so risky in this edition (within my experiences with it) that I feel safer driving around in the taxi and hoping that some tanks end up within 18". The loss of infiltrate when Hardened Vets take the Chimera is rather harsh too.

Emphasis mine.

Not to sidetrack the thread but I had to mention that it's my interpretation that Hardened Vets can Outflank in Chimeras: "During deployment, players may declare that units with the ‘scout’ or ‘infiltrate’ special rules are attempting to outflank the enemy... Note that if such units are picked from their army list together with a dedicated transport, they may outflank with their transport, but if they do so they must move onto the table embarked in it" (Rulebook pg 94).

I've been trying out this army list with outflanking vets and Sentinels to some success, even out-maneuvering a mechanized Tau army in a Capture and Control mission. The point is my experience with outflanking vets as opposed to drop-vets has been very positive.

Uber,

Infiltrating units do not give tranports Infiltrate, but the scouting units do give scouting to their dedicated transports.

I understand that units cannot infiltrate with transports, but as written above units with the Infiltrate skill can outflank, which is different... and, RAW, outflanking units, whether by scout or infiltrate, can outflank with a vehicle.

In order to prevent a threadjack, I'll start a new thread about this in YMDC

yakface wrote:Augustus,
I have to say: I think you're totally and completely off-base on this particular issue (and I mean that in a loving way).

Thanks a lot Yak.

Possibly I am off base. That's one reason why I write in these forums, some folks insight here has already made me want to try things differently, but there is more to it than just that.

yakface wrote:
I think you had one bad game and it has given you a false impression.

The new CC morale rules and the removal of consolidation into CC are the *best* possible things that could ever happen to the IG.

Well, I think your theory sounds great on paper and in the forum but it doesnt actually work out that way in the games I have seen and played. It sounds nice, and it is certainly possible in an academic sense to stagger an IG gunline and concievably have N turns to fire one for each rank N. But in practice thats not as great as it sounds, which I will get to in a minute...

yakface wrote:
You made a critical mistake, and that was charging the Black Templars with your Rough Riders at that particular point.

With guard, you should have moved a 'speed bump' unit into position (out of cover) so the Templar unit couldn't move and engage who they wanted in CC.

Then *because* of the new morale CC rules, you could be absolutely assured that the Templar unit would not be locked in combat in your next shooting phase.

By putting your 'speed bump' unit in the proper place (out of cover) you also ensure that if you do want to charge with your RRs next turn, you won't be doing so through cover.

Yes, I understand the staggered defense concept, and I appreciate you outlining it so well for the studio audience! Here is why it doesn't work from my experience. Obviously I made some mistakes though, but these principles refer to more than just my RR example cited here.

(1) Shooting morale checks very seldom kill enitre units without hitting all the models but CC does. It's because of the morale rules, you see from shooting you only have to take basic checks, and if you fall back you are not destroyed, but from CC you have to take checks at significant penalty. This is the crux, you see it doesnt matter if the assaulting units get shot to pieces on the way in, they are never going to reach that magic break point and just be gone, like the soft targets will in CC. The equivalent shooting morale check would be taken at minus the number of models killed in the shooting phase but that is nowhere to be found... (but assault has that penalty). You only need 2 or so to make it, and you have them.

(2) Setting up in ranks cuts your firepower in half. What everyone is forgetting is having staggered line defence REDUCES 50% of YOUR FIREPOWER because they get saves too for the in between units. This one fact puts the nail in the coffin of the "just use a staggered defense argument".

(3) Cumulative melees compound the negative morale modifier till it is untenable. Adding -1 for each casualty in difference in a melee is very slanted, in big melees on the defensive side this assures that each unit will fail as it is penalized for every other units losses. The absurdity is very obvious when some the numbers get to -6, which is not hard, where the defensive side can not pass any longer. WHich yields the conclusion:

(4) Numbers are worthless in CC, because the morale check will kill all the remaining figs. The game has half the WHFB style morale check mechanism, but what is missing? Combat resolution modifiers like outnumbering flanking and rank bonus!

(5) <EVERYONE HAS PLASMA GRENADES now for some reason. It use to be that defending models usually had a chance to strike simo, defending terrain was helpful but now that is gone. This really agravates the IG condition and basically nullifies the value of the counter charge because all your low I models are going to have to survive the assault first, which they don't. Even the elligible ones that do, typical marine vs stats is 4+ 5+ 3+, or 1 in 12 kills...

(6) NON KP Missions are about taking Objectives, or advancing which can't be done while using the staggered line defense. Considering all the missions that are KP missions the IG loose on an even exchange in points means there isn't a missions where they have a fair shot.

yakface wrote:
IG *LOVE* the fact that enemy units almost never stay locked in combat and cannot consolidate into another CC.

On the face yes, an opportunity for precise play benefitting the clever player, certainly, the Salvation of the CC vulnerability in the IG... Far from it.

yakface wrote:
Do not count on wiping out enemy armies in the first few turns of the game anymore with IG, since the increase in cover saves means your early-game firepower has reduced effectiveness.

However, if you set your battleline up correctly and use 'speed bump' units to ensure that the enemy only engages one unit at a time you will find that you have waaaaaay more 'late game' shooting with the guard because once the enemy hits your lines (if you're playing right) it's not 'game over' it's 'game has just begun'.

Considering the missions yak, it is game over. I think I have shown first person play tests and with well explained examples. It doesnt matter if you killed the assaulting units, if they held you back from the OBJs and wiped a few units out that is enough.

yakface wrote:
P.S. I am a massively huge fan of the new combat resolution rules as they actually make you think about whether or not you can *beat* the opposing unit in CC before charging in. There's no more 'charge in and tie up the enemy for a few turns' crap anymore. You as a general have to look at the situation and know that your unit is going to be able to beat the opponent in CC or it just isn't worth charging in.

I am a fan of the new rules too Yak. I always love your cool headed, well written articles, and writing. But, you have some serious rose colored glasses on this time.

ubermosher wrote:
I understand that units cannot infiltrate with transports, but as written above units with the Infiltrate skill can outflank, which is different... and, RAW, outflanking units, whether by scout or infiltrate, can outflank with a vehicle.

It is buried in the fine print of their army listing that Hardened Veterans only possess Infiltrate if they do not have a Chimera.

ubermosher wrote:[In order to prevent a threadjack, I'll start a new thread about this in YMDC

Thanks ubermosher! I like that topic too, it' something I hadn't realized.

I guess the one thing that bugs me is how every suggestion to the OP gets written off as, "nuh uh...the new rules cheat...it's impossible to do anything." Even though every suggestion has been proven, tested, and witnessed by most people here.

The new morale CC rules are so much better for the game. For one, it is far more realistic for a unit, no matter the size, to see an incoming enemy tearing up dudes left and right, to be terrified. It does NOT make sense for them to stand there and tarpit a unit even when they are getting slaughtered. They aren't marines and thus, they do know fear.

Furthermore, the speedbump technique works brilliantly. I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that you have never played it that way in 5th edition (as you did imply this was your first, or "test" game), or else you would know.

Guard aren't dead; it's just different now. Besides, they are getting the first new Codex of 2009.

Well, good luck to you brassangel, thank you for adding you are in the majority.

Augustus wrote:Well, good luck to you brassangel, thank you for adding you are in the majority.

I'll also add that perhaps your list is no longer optimized for the 5th edition ruleset. Could you post the list you used?

That is for sure! Vanilla IG, no doctrines or anything, very basic.

My list was:

HQ with JO and Medal
Flag Vet
3 Meltaguns
3 Rocket Team
3 Autocannon Team
3 Heavy Bolter Team

2 Paltoons quad plas Section and Las Flamers in the 2 squads

2 10 man RR units with vet sarges and lances

2 Basilisks

1 Heavy Paltoon with 10 lascannons

Augustus wrote:
(2) Setting up in ranks cuts your firepower in half. What everyone is forgetting is having staggered line defence REDUCES 50% of YOUR FIREPOWER because they get saves too for the in between units. This one fact puts the nail in the coffin of the "just use a staggered defense argument".

It's not about quality of fire now, it's quantity of fire. Love the Holy Heavy Bolter.

I think one of the critical components many of these responses are missing is how a competent opponent will respond to a speed bump unit. Most people posting are assuming the other player doesnt recognize the speedbump for what it is. Anyone worth their salt against a Guard Army is going to ignore the speedbump and push past into the heart of the army. For example with the new transport rules, its perfectly reasonable to hide out in your Rhazorback or Rhino during the enemy shooting phase, waiting till the transport gets destroyed to jump out. Sure you risk some casualties from the transport exploding, and sure you risk a pinning test, but neither of those happens enough to really worry about it. After your transport gets eaten you can hide behind it from the majority of the army that has yet to shoot, and then hit the main body the next turn. Yes you will probably take pretty heavy casualties doing this, but when you only need 2-3 marines equipped for CC to break a large number of Guardsmen you can afford to do this.

Valhallan42nd wrote:It's not about quality of fire now, it's quantity of fire. Love the Holy Heavy Bolter.

Yes clearly! Redesigning army lists to maximize output of quantity is clearly a better strategy than before, maybe this way you could kill the really nasty assault guys like vet sarges and the like before they make it in there.

But still (older) conventional wisdom was to use high AP to bring marines down and that just doesnt seem like the way to go.

I think I would have gotten more mileage out of a (cheaper) heavy unit of 10 heavy bolters, but then. The army I played was really just for test, with existing stuff I had been using before.

I posit the original point still holds, your high AP firepower is cut in half with staggered set ups.

Kroeger wrote:
...how a competent opponent will respond to a speed bump unit
. ..gnore the speedbump and push past into the heart of the army
. ...hide out in your Rhazorback or Rhino during the enemy shooting phase,
...transport gets destroyed...
you only need 2-3 marines equipped for CC to break a large number of Guardsmen you can afford to do this.

Yes I think so too, actually I think Rhino rush is back, in a kind of delayed reaction way. It was really great in this game.

tzeentchling wrote:I don't remember, Augustus, but did you Run/Fleet your Rough Riders that turn? That would have allowed you to get around the wreck, likely, and pulled him out of the cover. The game probably would have been a bit different!

I think I did, I don't exactly recall now... But I think I rolled a 2 and didnt go very far right? Maybe...

@Kroeger, I am curious as to how I can avoid the speedbump when it is right in front of me and the rest of my opponents army is behind it and I am a HtH army? My Orks are not philosophers, they are killers.
Also, yes your 2-3 cc marines will kill the 10 man squad of IG that they rush but in the following turn when the 70+ IG fire at the 2-3 marines in rapidfire range they are dead too and you spent ALOT more points on your squad than the IG spent on theirs.

@Augustus, The new IG lists that I am seeing have TONS of S:5 and 7 shots coming out of their firing line per turn. 60+ shots like that will cripple a rhino rush.

I did cripple the rush, I immobilized all the vehichles but 2, and just those 2 broke 50 IG in 2 turns and threatened the entire army.

The running marines in the command section had gotten far enough by then to charge in T3 also, covering behind the wrecks.

Augustus wrote:

(1) Shooting morale checks very seldom kill enitre units without hitting all the models but CC does. It's because of the morale rules, you see from shooting you only have to take basic checks, and if you fall back you are not destroyed, but from CC you have to take checks at significant penalty. This is the crux, you see it doesnt matter if the assaulting units get shot to pieces on the way in, they are never going to reach that magic break point and just be gone, like the soft targets will in CC. The equivalent shooting morale check would be taken at minus the number of models killed in the shooting phase but that is nowhere to be found... (but assault has that penalty). You only need 2 or so to make it, and you have them.

There's no way shooting morale checks should be the equivalent of a CC morale check because it is much harder for a unit to get into combat then it is for a unit to shoot. And again, CC units generally like to stay locked in combat on the turn they charge, so the negative modifiers imposed in CC are actually a hindrance to a CC army rather than a help.

Yes, you destroy units more often, but you're also let vulnerable to return fire a whole lot more.

(2) Setting up in ranks cuts your firepower in half. What everyone is forgetting is having staggered line defence REDUCES 50% of YOUR FIREPOWER because they get saves too for the in between units. This one fact puts the nail in the coffin of the "just use a staggered defense argument".

I think you and I have a different definition of a staggered deployment. While you can also use ranks and overlapping to generate cover bonuses between your units, that isn't what I'm talking about. When I talk about a staggered deployment I mean instead of setting up your units like this:


AAAAA. . . . .BBBBB. . . . .CCCCC


You set them up like this:



. . . . . . . . . .BBBBB


AAAAA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CCCCC



Such a situation does not in-and-of-itself cause you to give cover saves to your opponents and is designed to allow only one of your units to be charged (and destroyed) thereby allowing the other two units to obliterate the enemy CC unit (provided you put unit 'B' into the open to be charged ensuring that the victorious enemy unit won't get cover saves from your shooting).


When playing Guard the absolute key to victory when facing enemies with CC elements is to make sure that they cannot assault more than one of your units with each of theirs and then to make sure your forces are set up in a way that makes sure you're able to fully punish those CC units that do charge you.

This means that Guard units should no longer be 'strung out' in a line to maximize their frontage, except for those units you want to use as a screen.

For the most part, Guard units should now be deployed into smaller clumps emphasizing enough space between your units to make sure the opponent cannot under any circumstance assault more than one unit with each enemy assaulting unit.

The guard have one big thing going for them, and that is the fact that they get so many relatively cheap units, which means that you can literally sacrifice speed bump units to the enemy if in return you are then able to get a round of close range shooting on that assault unit without any cover saves.

(5) <EVERYONE HAS PLASMA GRENADES now for some reason. It use to be that defending models usually had a chance to strike simo, defending terrain was helpful but now that is gone. This really agravates the IG condition and basically nullifies the value of the counter charge because all your low I models are going to have to survive the assault first, which they don't. Even the elligible ones that do, typical marine vs stats is 4+ 5+ 3+, or 1 in 12 kills...

I think you're being a bit too general, but you're right in that most 'elite' (SM) armies will now automatically have assault grenades. Which is yet another reason that you need to move your 'speed bump' unit out of cover the turn you know it is going to be charged.

The key is to put the enemy assault unit in a bad position (for them) after they wipe your unit out.

(6) NON KP Missions are about taking Objectives, or advancing which can't be done while using the staggered line defense. Considering all the missions that are KP missions the IG loose on an even exchange in points means there isn't a missions where they have a fair shot.

Again, I'm not talking about a staggered "line" per se, but rather staggered unit clumps. And I'm not buying that IG are at some huge disadvantage in objective missions. Although their Troops choices are relatively easy to kill, the fact is IG players tend to have so many more actual Troops choices that they should always have a shot at the end of the game unless your opponent has wiped you out clean.

But I do think it is essential for the Guard to have units capable of Deep Striking or infiltrating/outflanking just so you force your opponent to contest multiple objectives instead of just focusing on crossing the table to kill Guard without worrying about anything else.

A nasty close combat marine army reallllllllly doesn't care if he has a 4+ save unless you have 10 plasma guns or something.

OK Yak, time will tell. I'll be looking forward to it!

(1) As Yakface has pointed out, it's easier and less risky to shoot someone than to assault them. The risk and cost of assaults are balanced out by their potential payout in relation to shooting. If you can shoot someone four times over four turns and assault them in the fourth of four turns, then balance considered as expected value suggests that the assault be more than four times as effective.

(2) This could apply to Sv5+ troops, but not to troops with a Sv4- like Marines. I mean, so what if they get a 4+ cover save? If you've maximized your AP3- firepower then you've minimized your volume of fire, which was risky enough in 4th edition where volume equalized with quality by having a potentially higher return at commensurately greater risk. In 5th edition cover saves make quality riskier without a commensurate increase in payout (as a number of unsaved wounds).

(3) This is merely(!) a tactical problem: how to minimize the number of units that your enemy can assault if you are at a disadvantage in assaults, and maximize the number of units you can assault if you are at an advantage. If anecdotal evidence is to be admitted, it appears that most Imperial Guard players posting on Dakka have found the solution to this by employing a defense in depth, which is very characterful of the Imperial Guard.

(4) Number are not worthless in close combat because the number of models increases your number of attacks, and hence both the possibility of a higher return and a higher likelihood of an average return. Instead of a unit's ability to cause wounds and win a combat being semi-independent variables, numbers fold them into a single variable-complex. Hence, numbers are now a better indicator of a unit's performance since higher numbers won't double up providng both more attacks and non-attack related close combat performance.

(5) This isn't a problem. Stay in cover for the protection from shooting, it affords to your squad and make sure that your defence in depth includes plenty of cover-negating weapons. So you lose a squad of Guardsmen, no big deal if it's an objective-based mission, and if it's a kill point mission then prudence is the better part of valour: pull those men out of there: don't be afraid to run away from the enemy if you can't afford to lose them.

(6) Not at all. In fact, given that proper spacing is the key to defense in depth, advancing units upfield to capture objectives allows you to space your units for maximum mutual support (if violent shooty revenge of your comrade's grisly demise is counted as support). If objectives win the game, then the Guard unit can leverage their advantage in numbers of units by actively spending units to since they have more units to spend and if they do it right then each of your units can only kill one a turn. A perfect example by another poster is units arranged in firing lines so that only one can be assaulted/shot at per turn by a unit to their collective fore.

Nurglitch,

in heretofore of the previous writing style and impermeable language of the sort used therein I declare that surely no sane individual could possibly extract a modicum of meaning from what ought to have been simpler points when dressed in the lurid excessive language of such overly stated and needlessly complex intellectual meanderings on such simple concepts as the previous post....

Get my drift?

You're just wrong, so is Yak. You're also more pedantic.

Isn't that easier? 1 line.

I predict infantry IG won't make the top 25% at any US GT tourneys this year. Lets revisit the thread when I am wrong or you are shall we?

Nurglitch wrote:(1) As Yakface has pointed out, it's easier and less risky to shoot someone than to assault them. The risk and cost of assaults are balanced out by their potential payout in relation to shooting. If you can shoot someone four times over four turns and assault them in the fourth of four turns, then balance considered as expected value suggests that the assault be more than four times as effective.

Morale checks from shooting have almost no modifiers and those from assault are -1 a guy? Remember things come on from the side and DS, and fleet, and come out of portals, and trucks, and transports, the 4 turn comparison is purely an academic example.

Nurglitch wrote:(2) This could apply to Sv5+ troops, but not to troops with a Sv4- like Marines. I mean, so what if they get a 4+ cover save? If you've maximized your AP3- firepower then you've minimized your volume of fire, which was risky enough in 4th edition where volume equalized with quality by having a potentially higher return at commensurately greater risk. In 5th edition cover saves make quality riskier without a commensurate increase in payout (as a number of unsaved wounds).

The entire planet was min-maximizing AP3 that's how LAS PLAS became king. Friendly models get in the way and provide a 4+ save, this means you can't use a screen, its really simple, half your high AP fire is stopped by your own guys.

*OT* It's also laughable that machineguns can shoot through their own troops, with no ill effects but single shot antitank weapons have a tough time targeting single shots between their own guys and miss half the time trying to avoid them.

The clumping example of before is just an academic paper plan, throw in a mission, some blocking terrain, multiple assault units, faster assault units, a little bit of staggered fire and a Missile fire rout, and it all falls apart.

Nurglitch wrote:(3) This is merely(!) a tactical problem: how to minimize the number of units that your enemy can assault if you are at a disadvantage in assaults, and maximize the number of units you can assault if you are at an advantage. If anecdotal evidence is to be admitted, it appears that most Imperial Guard players posting on Dakka have found the solution to this by employing a defense in depth, which is very characterful of the Imperial Guard.

No it's not a tactical problem, its an incongruent rules problem. Maybe it was my fault for not outlining the example. Lets say 4, 10 man units fought a CC, in the first CC 2 distinct 20 man engangements and in the second a 40 man mosh. Assume the exact same casualties in any combination, a difference of 2 in each unit on the loosing side. Now if the CCs were separate, each unit would take a -2 check, but if even one assaulter, just one, touched the second CC, both units would test at -4 for no other reason than poor game design mechanics. So just the geometry of a single model doubles the modifier of the morale test with the EXACT SAME kill ratios? Because.... it's more scary getting beat up in bigger groups? Ah yes of course.

I concede the character thing. But, it is also very characterful for IG to die in droves and loose. ?

Nurglitch wrote:(4) Number are not worthless in close combat because the number of models increases your number of attacks, and hence both the possibility of a higher return and a higher likelihood of an average return. Instead of a unit's ability to cause wounds and win a combat being semi-independent variables, numbers fold them into a single variable-complex. Hence, numbers are now a better indicator of a unit's performance since higher numbers won't double up providing both more attacks and non-attack related close combat performance.

Ever play WHFB? The morale check is the same! Except here in 40k there is no RANK BONUS, NO OUTNUMBERING BONUS, NO BANNER, no value to charging combat resolutions. It used to be possible to win an assault with numbers and time now it is not.

Nurglitch wrote:(5) This isn't a problem. Stay in cover for the protection from shooting, it affords to your squad and make sure that your defence in depth includes plenty of cover-negating weapons. So you lose a squad of Guardsmen, no big deal if it's an objective-based mission, and if it's a kill point mission then prudence is the better part of valour: pull those men out of there: don't be afraid to run away from the enemy if you can't afford to lose them.

I don't think you understand, it IS ABSOLUTELY A PROBLEM. A smart player could take advantage of cover in the old rules to swing first versus some troops or at least simo with well equiped troops, but now all assault units always strike first, even against defended positions. So using smart play and defending terrain and such with lesser troops is just gone.

Running away from, assault troops in objective games is just as good as getting killed because the only measure of victory is taking the ground.

Nurglitch wrote:(6) Not at all. In fact, given that proper spacing is the key to defense in depth, advancing units upfield to capture objectives allows you to space your units for maximum mutual support (if violent shooty revenge of your comrade's grisly demise is counted as support). If objectives win the game, then the Guard unit can leverage their advantage in numbers of units by actively spending units to since they have more units to spend and if they do it right then each of your units can only kill one a turn. A perfect example by another poster is units arranged in firing lines so that only one can be assaulted/shot at per turn by a unit to their collective fore.

IG at 1750 about 18KP, Marine army at 1750 10KP. That is a almost a 200% handicap for the SM. In Objective missions you have to set up staggered to preserve a gunline, the entire strategy revolves around repelling assault units, and you don't take ground and thus generally loose.

Augustus,

if your contention is that IG are bad in close combat and will lose CC to almost any assault units, I agree.

If your contention is that your old high Strength and low AP lists will not work anymore, I agree.

If your contention is that there seems to be alot of cover saves in 5th, I agree.

If your contention is that IG are weaker in 5th than they were in 4th, I disagree.

IG are not now, nor were they in 4th, a top tier army. The problem is their codex. Until they get a new codex, they will be a sub-par army.

ED209 wrote:

I think it's a balancing for the other two mission type , to avoid player useing lots of small units to contest objectives,which would be silly to play .

That's what I thought. I don't know how well that works but apparently it was their intention. Plus VPs are really messy.

The IG have at best an out-dated codex and at worse, obsolete at times.

back to topic.

The new resolution rules really do hurt some armies case in point: Necrons who are used to losing 4-6 necrons during a single assault phase. They relied on their ld 10 to keep from breaking. With 5th edition the brutal combat resolution can simply break a 20 man necron squad who only lost a few and bypassing WBB.

Amen, if I were a Necron player, I would be screaming at the IG guys to shut up. The necrons really appear to have suffered the 5th ed change the most.

thehod wrote:The IG have at best an out-dated codex and at worse, obsolete at times.

back to topic.

The new resolution rules really do hurt some armies case in point: Necrons who are used to losing 4-6 necrons during a single assault phase. They relied on their ld 10 to keep from breaking. With 5th edition the brutal combat resolution can simply break a 20 man necron squad who only lost a few and bypassing WBB.

I guess some one who thinks the warrior heavy necron will be good in 5ed could be despairing now ,and those who say necron has good objective holding troops could also shut up now. The new rule forces necron players use destroyer heavy mobile list ,maybe plus a C'tan.

Darrian13 wrote:Augustus,
If your contention is that IG are weaker in 5th than they were in 4th, I disagree.

IG are not now, nor were they in 4th, a top tier army. The problem is their codex. Until they get a new codex, they will be a sub-par army.

Fair enough sir. They might be a sub par army after the new codex too, lets hope!

thehod wrote:The IG have at best an out-dated codex and at worse, obsolete at times.

back to topic.

The new resolution rules really do hurt some armies case in point: Necrons who are used to losing 4-6 necrons during a single assault phase. They relied on their ld 10 to keep from breaking. With 5th edition the brutal combat resolution can simply break a 20 man necron squad who only lost a few and bypassing WBB.

Thats a great point also. I have failed to show other examples, Necrons also wont be very likely to have other CC units, counter charge nearby.

Necrons are somewhat of an example of an army that is a victim of changing editions and the same goes to Tau but we all know Tau die to hand to hand pretty much the same in 4th and 5th.


If they gave Necrons back ATSKNF like they did pre-codex, then I can say Necrons will have a slightly better chance.

Darrian13 wrote:@Kroeger, I am curious as to how I can avoid the speedbump when it is right in front of me and the rest of my opponents army is behind it and I am a HtH army? My Orks are not philosophers, they are killers.
Also, yes your 2-3 cc marines will kill the 10 man squad of IG that they rush but in the following turn when the 70+ IG fire at the 2-3 marines in rapidfire range they are dead too and you spent ALOT more points on your squad than the IG spent on theirs.

When you factor in True LoS (hiding behind your broken transport) and terrain, its rather simple to avoid the bulk of the army in many situations. If you attack a flank as opposed to blindly charging straight at the Guard lines you can sweep up the flank. Also you can send most of your forces up the middle to distract the bulk of the IG army, allowing a small group of SM to hit the army in the flank. As far as getting out of CC in the Guard shooting phase, if you have only 2-3 marines you should move to charge multiple guard squads. Even if you managed to contact 3 full guard infantry squads your only looking at a single marine casualty and 3-4 guard casualties. With those #'s odds are you will remain in combat for the entirety of the IG turn bloking LoS to the rear elements of the IG line. Also you will be so surrounded by Guardsmen that it will be unlikely they can mount a countercharge during their turn. Hopefully you can break the IG during their assault phase. Even if you don't you will have helped to block LoS to the remainder of your army allowing it to close with fewer casualties. And God Help the IG if a SM character gets into their lines!

As a WHFB/Skaven player I've been waiting for everyone else to get how irritating it is to have negative Ld modifiers. Since I play supported choppy marines in 40k though, I don't care at all. If the new codex loses Rite of Battle it'll be slightly annoying, but I'll get over it. It's a counter to the ork situation, and IG players still have their big, extra-meaty templates. But the drive has always been toward encouraging more balanced, flexible armies, so you know, just change your tactics. IG platoons have always been screens and everyone knows it. Now that you can shoot at whatever you want, it's not that unfair to run combats a little more dynamically.

KPs are going to need to be looked at, though. Once we have a good year or so with 5th, maybe.

Oh, and a well-balanced IG list is never something to take lightly. I take three transports and use them heavily for cover, but now that it's technically easier to explode vehicles, that tactic is of a liability.

I take three transports and use them heavily for cover, but now that it's technically easier to explode vehicles, that tactic is of a liability.

It's harder to explode them with shooting. It's easier to get them in CC.

The thing aboot this thread that I don't get, is that we've had a whole new Edition come oot, and people are pissed off because their 4e Guard lists don't work the same in 5e.

It's a whole new edition... The answers are in the questions..

Infantry guard give up lots of VPs? Ok, how aboot Guard with 3 Russes? Russes are very powerful, fairly high cost models. Fewer VPs on the table. And they're harder than ever to kill... And their blast weapons are deadlier than ever... Imagine that...

Plus, even as you complain aboot the VPs Guard give up, you gloss over the fact that when they're doing that they're also fielding a huge number of Troops choices, which gives them a major edge in the OTHER half of missions.

I'm just throwing that oot there. I don't play Guard. Maybe 3 Russes is a poor idea. It's just the first obvious thing that came to mind. But clearly you can't just do the same thing as before and expect the same results.

I know how souring it can be to get beat up and feel like you never had a chance. Doesn't mean you can't switch your list around, get skilled up on the new rules, and be back in business.

Here's the thing: You don't want to prove that your army sucks. If you win that argument, what's your reward? A sucky army.

Its actually KP not VP. VP is a 4th edition thing.

VP still exist in 5th edition. They can be found at the back of the rulebook. Many tournaments are going to use VP rather than KP in Annihilate missions due to the unpopularitey of KP.

Even though what you wrote was pure speculation, I hope you are right and the TO's around So Cal choose to use VP's instead of KP's.

It's not speculation here in Texas. I'm going to a VP tournament tomorrow morning!

Concerning Agustus's bit about the Guard not winning many tournies, well, when 5th ed rules came out, my store ran a 500 point tourney with the new rules. There are 3 guard players in my store; i am one, another was a n00b, and the third was a crusty ol' dude running a mech infantry list.

All three of us came in last.

Concerning Leadership tests for when Guard loses combat, I've actually found that opting to use the squad's normal LD is the way to go, because then they break, and the enemy is now able to be shot. Which now makes the only reason to give LD-boosting stuff to Guard to: 1.) Avoid pinning, 2.) The rare occasion when a combat occurs in your assault phase.

With guard, you should have moved a 'speed bump' unit into position (out of cover) so the Templar unit couldn't move and engage who they wanted in CC.

100% with Yakface on this. Simply put - the best use of a speed bump is to tie up your enemy's charging units in a location with no cover.

I wonder how 3 Tri Bolter Lemans and 3 Hellhounds Might do?
...
Personally, I like 2 Demolishers in the mix. You might not get to fire on the first turn, but AP2 is important in this edition.

IMHO 3 Tri Bolter Lemans and 3 Hellhounds are the new Black.
I'm planning to try the Demolisher with Plasma Cannon combo (that way first turn shooting remains dramatic), but the increase in AP is somewhat negated by cover and I think I'll stick with longer range Russes instead. Although I admit it would be funny to see Terminators diving for cover!

Anyone got a playtested opinion on Demolishers in 5E?

(1) Shooting morale checks very seldom kill enitre units without hitting all the models but CC does.

Thats a problem and its a significant reason why the game is tilted so heavily towards CC and away from shooting. Efficiency: CC gets the job done.

(2) Setting up in ranks cuts your firepower in half. What everyone is forgetting is having staggered line defence REDUCES 50% of YOUR FIREPOWER because they get saves too for the in between units.

Firstly MEQ's don't care about the cover save against most weapon types, since they strut like they are their own terrain and get better saves from their armour.

Secondly it is possible to leave gaps in the ranks infront for a lascannon or other heavy wep to fire out of. If targeting a tank, only the lascannon fires so there is no cover save. If the enemy fire at your lascannon unit, more than half are screened by the men in front, so you get a cover save.

(4) Numbers are worthless in CC

Aint that the truth. We'll just have to adjust. I lost 25 men to a Chaplain because he caused 2 wounds to my 1, and the whole lot fled. 25vs1 and I lost the lot!
It was embarassing, so I will have to adjust.

And for the record, I'm optimistic.

Perhaps I should add that I am REALLY strongly considering adding some Grey Knights to my current vanilla IG list. RRs are harder to hide now due to LOS, and the expensive elite GKs offer a lot of what the cheap horde Guardsman lacks.

There comes a point, even in the best designed layered defence, where you run out of board and want something that can whack the other guy.

Agree with ED209, KP is balanced by the fact that IG can get something like 36 *scoring* units in the other two mission types. They can put a fairly tough unit on every single objective on the board (ten guys in cover with a heavy weapon is not bad by any standard), and still have only used up the rest of the FOC to kill the opponent with.

@Matt-shadowlord, Grey Knights are the natural addition to most IG builds. A unit of GK termies is the second most commonly seen ally squad . Next to a DH inquisitor with mystics in his retinue.

Given the changes to CC morale I see Sisters (not just a canoness) becoming more popular.

Ogiwan wrote:Concerning Agustus's bit about the Guard not winning many tournies, well, when 5th ed rules came out, my store ran a 500 point tourney...There are 3 guard players in my store...All three of us came in last.

Im sorry to hear that, it's nice to get some one else to chime in, but somehow it makes me feel worse. IG were probably my favorite army.

But now...?

PhryxisPlus wrote: ...even as you complain aboot the VPs Guard give up, you gloss over the fact that when they're doing that they're also fielding a huge number of Troops choices, which gives them a major edge in the OTHER half of missions.

Here's the thing: You don't want to prove that your army sucks. If you win that argument, what's your reward? A sucky army.

Well not really, the extra troop choices dont help because they don't take ground at all, they are so vulnerable to CC they are just a liability.

...and yes, it is a melancholy victory, if I could claim that. I agree, I have a sucky army.

**EDIT At least I have an army and not LATD.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:As a WHFB/Skaven player I've been waiting for everyone else to get how irritating it is to have negative Ld modifiers.KPs are going to need to be looked at, though. Once we have a good year or so with 5th, maybe.

Yea they really hurt, especially with the redundancy. What also gets me is all the speedbump tactics, I know IG are cheaper, but the idea of throwing units away because they are not viable just feels like maybe I should get an army where all the troop choices are viable! Planning an army where I am going to throw half of it away just to have a shot seems like a recipe for defeat IMO.

Now if there was mission where one side got to defend, maybe, but there isn't...

der Wiskinator wrote:(ten guys in cover with a heavy weapon is not bad by any standard), ...

Unfortunately IT IS BAD by ever standard, because all assault units have plasma grenades now. With the exception of possibly slowing down an attacking unit distance wise, for strike order, you might as well be in the open, you're not even going to get to swing most of the time at I3. TOTALLY different from before!

Stelek wrote:Given the changes to CC morale I see Sisters (not just a canoness) becoming more popular.

You have got it Stelek, I haven't been able to beat sisters once yet imn the new edition, curiously, because of the book, they completely ignore the lopsided assault modifiers that destroy the IG.

Heck I even tried nidzilla against them and I couldn't even beat them in hand to hand because of the invulnerable save miracle, the eviscerators in CC actually killed my carnifexes.

<SHAMELESSGRIPE=ON>
For the record, I HATE sisters and their magic powers, not even psychic defence works against them:

Instant Invulenrable saves for units? CHECK

Need to break the morale rules completely and ignore all the modifiers? CHECK

Want to regroup instantly even below half CHECK

Want Custom Hit and Run for an assault unit that always flies around and can never be pinned? CHECK

Need instant rending on any unit whenever you need it? CHECK

Need plasma grenades? CHECK

That stupid army is completely broken becasue of faith points and I hope they get the NERF HAMMER HARDER than anything has ever gotten it before!
<SHAMELESSGRIPE=DONE>

Sorry, not really OT.

Hehehe... Your just sore because Bon beat your ass on Friday! We can play this week and you can fight the Cherry Boyz and squish them!

A Tyranid player complaining about an army that breaks the rules? That's really funny. Synapse breaks just about every morale rule in the game.

Auto-rally at below half? CHECK
Always pass all morale checks? CHECK
Immune to instant death and force weapons? CHECK
Need to move over impassable terrain? CHECK
Need to shoot 8 shots a turn, re-rolling misses and re-rolling wounds? CHECK
Heavy Support Units that are at full capacity until completely eliminated through wounds? CHECK

Sisters are good at tarpitting in close combat, but not very good at winning it. The 'Hit and Run' unit you mention has to make an Initiative Check now to even use that power (50% chance). Plasma grenades give them a rocking Initiative score of 1/2 that of Genestealers. Not exactly inspiring. They have the toughness and strength of a gaunt.

Faith points are very limited. They give the Sisters a clock that ticks down faster the harder you press them. Learn to wind down their clock quickly and victory will be at hand.

Ouch, ok point taken on morale. Touche.

But...

Hive mind comes with a weakness, you can kill the hive mind critters, it has a limited range, the sources of hive mind are vulnerable...

The book has no defence
The book has no range
Faith points customize the whole army on a need basis

So...
>Auto-rally at below half? CHECK

Not really, range dependant, hive mind dependant, has drawbacks

>Always pass all morale checks? CHECK

Once again, not really, fails out of range, instinctive behavior etc... Book always works.

>Immune to instant death and force weapons? CHECK

Not really, only if in range....

>Need to move over impassable terrain? CHECK

It's still dice, I have rolled 3 3s before...

>Need to shoot 8 shots a turn, re-rolling misses and re-rolling wounds? CHECK

Uh so, its just a gun in an army that can barely shoot....

>Heavy Support Units that are at full capacity until completely eliminated through wounds? CHECK

This one I agree with, MCs ought to have a chance to have their heads blown off. Ah well.

Democratus wrote:The 'Hit and Run' unit you mention has to make an Initiative Check now to even use that power (50% chance). Plasma grenades give them a rocking Initiative score of 1/2 that of Genestealers.

No they don't need the I test, it was FAQ'd, they just fly around with a special power... (At least I think so.) ?

Still better than the 1 of a carnifex, which would have at least swung simo, see the change? It is crucial!

Democratus wrote:Faith points are very limited. They give the Sisters a clock that ticks down faster the harder you press them. Learn to wind down their clock quickly and victory will be at hand.

Sorry but calling BS there, they have plenty of faith, and when the key units die, yea.... They just get more. I have never seen a well built army run out, EVER. I suppose if you take 20 bolter sisters with no upgrades, but my opponents know what they are doing.

Augustus wrote:Ouch, ok point taken on morale. Touche.

But...

stuff about range of synapse

I've never seen a competent Tyranid commander loose Synapse range on his vital units. Perhaps if he was stumbling around or was hit by a Lash. But this is far less likely than the sisters having a model with the Book sniped by volume of wounds.

>Need to move over impassable terrain? CHECK

It's still dice, I have rolled 3 3s before...

Impassible terrain, not just difficult terrain. This is something flesh hooks really shine at.

No they don't need the I test, it was FAQ'd, they just fly around with a special power... (At least I think so.) ?

The FAQ does not preclude the Initiative Check for Hit and Run. It only states that they ignore Difficult Terrain and gives instructions for how to handle multiple units with H&R in combat. Thus they can still only use the power 50% of the time.

>Need to shoot 8 shots a turn, re-rolling misses and re-rolling wounds? CHECK

Uh so, its just a gun in an army that can barely shoot....

8 shots with near perfect accuracy and wound capacity does not qualify as "barely shooting". Adding to this the fact that this weapons system is a MC which can't be glanced or weapon destroyed makes it a fearsome platform. And it's dirt cheap to boot.

Sorry but calling BS there, they have plenty of faith, and when the key units die, yea.... They just get more. I have never seen a well built army run out, EVER. I suppose if you take 20 bolter sisters with no upgrades, but my opponents know what they are doing.

I play against Sisters regularly and there are ways to bleed them of faith points. Their points are very limited. On a good day, you can force nearly every unit to choose between serious injury or burning faith on every turn past turn 1. No SoB army can sustain that over 5+ turns. Assault just makes this worse as they will need to spend points on both Player Turns.

There are two places to beat Sisters, long range firefights or close combat. If you give them the mid-range game for too long then they will win. If you can segue from shooty to fighty in quick order then you will prevail.

Good luck, broodlord Agustus.

Democratus wrote:A Tyranid player complaining about an army that breaks the rules? That's really funny. Synapse breaks just about every morale rule in the game.

Auto-rally at below half? CHECK
Always pass all morale checks? CHECK
Immune to instant death and force weapons? CHECK
Need to move over impassable terrain? CHECK
Need to shoot 8 shots a turn, re-rolling misses and re-rolling wounds? CHECK
Heavy Support Units that are at full capacity until completely eliminated through wounds? CHECK

Sisters are good at tarpitting in close combat, but not very good at winning it. The 'Hit and Run' unit you mention has to make an Initiative Check now to even use that power (50% chance). Plasma grenades give them a rocking Initiative score of 1/2 that of Genestealers. Not exactly inspiring. They have the toughness and strength of a gaunt.

Faith points are very limited. They give the Sisters a clock that ticks down faster the harder you press them. Learn to wind down their clock quickly and victory will be at hand.

He meant that he hates rules exeptions to the core mechanics of the game and the sisters are a major example of that, Tyranids are also but to a much lesser extent.

Also the Sisters have their own version of Hit and Run outlined in their book ruled over by the latest FaQ, they do not need to have an iniative test to break combat, and if they did it is not a 50% chance (its 66%). The FaQ spevidies they have their own version of Hit and Run.

With Faith the sisters don't need to go before the genestealers, they can simply burn them out of terrain with Divine Guidance and Bolter fire. and even in CC they can Spirit themselves.

But the point was that they dont follow the rest of the normal game mechanics. And with GW's patent lack of playtesting to a suitable level results in really imbalanced rules.

Democratus wrote:I play against Sisters regularly and there are ways to bleed them of faith points. Their points are very limited. On a good day, you can force nearly every unit to choose between serious injury or burning faith on every turn past turn 1. No SoB army can sustain that over 5+ turns. Assault just makes this worse as they will need to spend points on both Player Turns.

How pray-tell do you bleed them of faith every round after one? They only need to spend faith if your hitting them with stuff that ignores their armor, they are still 3+ troops. Do you really have that many AP3 weapons in your army that you can seriously threaten all the squads?

Personally, I really like that there are LD modifiers based on the difference in close-combat resolution. Even when I played 2nd edition, I always wished they had done that like WHFB, because CC would becomes such a tar-pit. Not only did CC troops have to get across the board, dodging fire of all kinds, but once they got INTO CC (IF they made it), they were rewarded with turn after turn of tar-pit action.

CC should be more 'scary' (deadly), and now it is. I don't care if it's ultra-realistic or not. But to me, if 20 guardsmen are hit by marines decked in power armor/termi armor or multi-limbed genestealers, etc, and they see 1/4 of their squad ripped into pieces in the blink of an eye, they SHOULD have a good chance to say, "we're outta here". They're Guardsmen, not Marines, afterall.

The problem I see, though, is like the OP listed, there are some modifiers in WHFB that are applied that we don't see in 5th ed 40k. Some of those modifiers don't make a lot of since in 40k, of course (ranks? banners maybe?), but I do think there should be some benefit for outnumbering. I don't know what sort of modifier it should be, if it should be a simple "+1" in your favor if you outnumber your foe at all, or what. But I really don't think outnumbering your opponent should be enough by itself to make your lines rock-solid.

All in all, I definitely like CC in 5th ed better than any previous edition I've played. Just my opinion, though.

Mort wrote:Personally, I really like that there are LD modifiers based on the difference in close-combat resolution. ...
The problem I see, though, is like the OP listed, there are some modifiers in WHFB that are applied that we don't see in 5th ed 40k. Some of those modifiers don't make a lot of since in 40k, of course (ranks? banners maybe?), but I do think there should be some benefit for outnumbering...
Just my opinion, though.

Sure, I like it too, I just think that there ought to be some more mechanics for weight of numbers, for example, at the end of the melee:

Outnumbered (by any amount) -1
2:1 -1
3:1 -2
4:1 -3
5:1 -4
...
10:1 -9

So that way, one champion wouldn't be able to take down 10 men easily, like they can now. The banners and stuff, well, some armies actually have them, like Marines and IG, why not +1 for a banner to combat resolution? This should also count for every unit in the combat resolution, so if your side lost by 4 wounds but you have 4:1 odds its just an even roll...

Banner in 12 +1

That wouldn't be to silly would it?

(Now Im talking proposed rules though, heh, doesnt matter I guess).

Democratus wrote:Good luck, broodlord Agustus.

Thanks a lot Democratus! I like your avatar.

Kroeger wrote:How pray-tell do you bleed them of faith every round after one? They only need to spend faith if your hitting them with stuff that ignores their armor, they are still 3+ troops.

They are 3+ troops with the toughness of a guardsman. This makes them no harder to kill than marine scouts, which drop like flies to volume of attacks. For Tyranids, volume of attacks in HtH should be par for the course. Not only is it effective in simply killing the Sisters, but it also greatly increases the chance of taking out the Book-bearing sister with the new wound rules.

Do you really have that many AP3 weapons in your army that you can seriously threaten all the squads?

Yes. Yes I do. Chaos excells at low AP. Between inferno bolters, doom sirens, wind of chaos, plasma cannons, melta guns and power weaponry - defeating armor isn't that difficult.

But tyranids have a far more effective way of doing it...forcing the enemy to make LOTS of armor saves. A 3++ isn't any better than a 3+ against 30 genestealer wounds or 40 hormogaunt wounds (both of which nearly guarantee that the squad will loose the veteran superior and the book). With feeder tendrils you really shouldn't be missing that often and you should be wounding with 66% of your hits. Rending is just there to tempt the sisters into burning more faith. On top of this there are a scad of instant-killing blast markers and carnifexes that can fire 8 shots which re-roll hits and wounds AND are also instant-kill against the low toughness sisters.

Is it a cakewalk? No, the game wouldn't be any fun if it were. But I see experienced Tyranid players beat experienced Sisters players on a regular basis (and vice versa). You just have to bring the right tools for the job and play against the sister's main weakness (low toughness). The rest is in the hands of the inscrutable dice gods.

Democratus that sounds really good, but Id like to let you know what happened with the new CC rules when I tried volume of wounds versus sisters.

I was using super gaunts with the initiative, Strength and Grenade upgrades and here is what happened.

I charged into cover with 10 hormaguants thinking Id be OK.

The sisters countere charged in and I swung.

30 attacks
20 hits
14 wounds
3 kills, no critical models died

The sisters swung back

8 attacks (Eviscerator)
5 hits
4 kills

I lost, on the charge, in ods that were not really that far off, albiet a little sister luck. I lost a 5th gaunt because of the outnumber thing and the next turn I was wiped out.

That is with fairly even odds.

Not as easy as it sounds, my other gaunt units were easily destroyed with flamers/bolters popping out of rhinos, most never even charged.

I lost and I lost half my gaunts

The point is, the hormagaunts couldn't even win on the charge, and it cost me all 34 of them to even get that one charge in, and they failed.

Not really because of faith or anything but because of the new CC and morale rules, specifically the counter move which brought all their models in, even though I originally had a position in the old rules which would have left them with no one to strike back, and the double indemnity of the morale rules where every dead guy, costs you another one if you are fearless.

This is why I think the new rules are scary.

I am probably going to take hormaguants out of my army, with a 6+ save they just dont survive even a few counter attack hits from regular squads. Versus marines they would have done even worse becasue of the T.

Yeah certain units simply do not work well in the new rules or are going to have serious issues. All the gaunt flavors are such units, since their numbers do not keep them from being affected by no retreat and they simply do not have the umph in close combat for the points paid.

The ony way I can see gaunts and hormaguants working is when supported by feeder tendril units like lictors or stealers. They then become a bit more dangerous (for instance you woulda had good odds of pushing or even winning that combat had feeder tendrils been nearby).

The good news is No Retreat also effects ork mobs when facing other elite units with lotsa attacks (like say bezerkers).

Augustus:

I think the problem is that you engaged the Sisters with "fairly even odds". You should assault with a 3:1 advantage, and expected to lose 1/3. winterman has a good idea: support those Hormagaunts with Lictors (for the Feeding Tendrils) or Leaping Warriors (for the Synapse), or preferably both! Genestealers: not so much, those work better with Termagants who can hold back and provide cover saves to the expensive Genestealers. Some cheap swarms of Leaping Rippers should help screen the Hormagaunts.

I have actually had some luck pulling synapse away from certain broods just to let them fall back from fights and keep them scoring, or whatnot.

That said, i agree that even odds is a bad scene for gaunts no matter the biomorphs involved.

Nurglitch wrote:Augustus:
I think the problem is that you engaged the Sisters with "fairly even odds". You should assault with a 3:1 advantage,

Certainly, quite right. But understand, units that only work when they have 3:1 odds, typically, aren't very good investments in points.

Augustus:

Who was saying that Hormagaunts only work when they have 3:1 odds? I'm saying that playing 1:1 odds is bad strategy, especially when it's more like 1:3 odds when we factor in the friction your units incurred moving up the table to engage.

The fact is that, to generalize what kirsanth said, 1:1 odds is a bad scene for any unit no matter what.

I'm saying that your problem, such as you describe it, is that you engaged with 1:1 odds when you should engage with a 3:1 advantage regardless of which particular units (and combinations of units) are involved. You engaged in a very risky situation and got your just desert.

It is the case that for strategic objectives to be met, and held, that you must bring 3:1 odds to bear. At 1:1 you'll be lucky (50/50) to win, and very lucky to have any material left over to meet the next objective. At 2:1 your luck will only need to be average to win, but it will need to be better than average to have any material left over to meet the next objective (say, resist counter-attack). At 3:1 you'll only need average luck to capture your objective and be capable of continued operations.

Hormagaunts, obviously, can work if you have 1:1 odds, but it's only (very) lucky if they do win, and you're strategically culpable if they lost (since you gave them the opportunity to be defeated). That fact is that the Hormagaunts weren't the problem, the problem was that you employed them poorly, so left them open to defeat in the face of mild bad luck.

All that for fight at 3:1 odds and deploy better? Ok.

Actually my old Sisters would run out of faith all the time.

Having three heavy bolter retributors is what did it.

Dead, dead, dead. 3 faith. End turn.

Rinse and repeat. lol

Augustus:

Well, it needed spelling out since you failed to understand it the first time. Despite all that you seem to have failed a second time if you think it boils down to "fight at 3:1 odds and deploy better". You fail to comprehend the message about how risk assessment cross-indexes with dictating the initiative, for example. You're missing the forest for the trees.

Flattery will get you nowhere!

Have a nice day!

I'm not flattering you, I'm hoping you'll recognize a neutral tone and accept the constructive criticism I'm offering with something resembling good grace.

Nurglitch wrote:You should assault with a 3:1 advantage...

Nurglitch wrote:Who was saying that Hormagaunts only work when they have 3:1 odds?

You are.

Nurglitch wrote:I'm saying that playing 1:1 odds is bad strategy, ...for strategic objectives to be met, and held, that you must bring 3:1 odds to bear...

Nurglitch wrote:At 3:1 you'll only need average luck to capture your objective...

Why don't you cross reference your own posts. This last bit, is particularly priceless. At 3:1 you will succeed with average luck, ROFL.

I HAD NO IDEA!

Thank god you're here to tell us these things.

First off, 1 to 1 odds with an assault specialized unit charging a generalist or shooty specialized unit, the assault specialized unit SHOULD win the fight.

However, what you had was just bad luck. You should have killed ~5 sisters with the charge, who in turn would have killed 1.7 gaunts (assuming that the eviserator survived)

But the lucky saves and lucky kills added up.

I do agree that outnumbering should count towards combat res. It would make thornback and the space wolf ability to not care about being outnumbered useful still.

Exactly, I think its the missing piece of the CC rules.

.

Augustus, I'll be at Val's at Noon on Saturday. Play me so that you can win and get over your slump and stop being so snarky.

You givin him a "mercy win"? That is very compassionate of you.

Darrian13 wrote:You givin him a "mercy win"? That is very compassionate of you.

No mercy, I just suck.

Ha ha ha, so do I.

Especially with the armies I have right now.

Doh.

Snarky? Caesar is not Snarky,...

Is he?

ConditionOfMan wrote:...win and get over your slump...

Losses are more educational. They also motivate me to create new stuff. Also to intentionally try out new units and strategies in the rules.

Augustus wrote:

ConditionOfMan wrote:...win and get over your slump...

Losses are more educational. They also motivate me to create new stuff. Also to intentionally try out new units and strategies in the rules.

And acquire new dice. ;-)