Ok a simple question. Why does 40k always (at least in 5th) seem to favor CC armies?

To me it seems like 5th has decimated static shooting armies (my tau for example). With all infantry running it makes it really hard to deploy gunlines without haveing to redeoploy them on turn 2 or 3 to try to avoid the cc. I know I could mec everthing but still. Why all the benifits to CC?

1) you don't gain negatives to the leadership from shooting so its harder to force SM and other armies to fall back.
2) Run - personally hate it
3) Cover everwhere and at a 4+ at that makeing it harder to kill the cc units if they are played effectivly.

SO why does 40k favor CC so much? (currently debating benching my tau until they get fixed, benched my DA because of new SM rules - bring on the Orks )

Discuss - feel free to disagree/agree or list other things I have missed. Also any explanations would be nice.

To me 5th edition promotes movement, not CC. Close combat armies aren't the be all end all you just can't stand there and shoot the enemy down anymore. Same as you can't have a true all CC army or you'll get pasted by faster armies. You don't need to mech your entire army just parts of it to force the enemy to spread out or to give your other units more times.

probably to do with the mass amount of flamers been taken now and the numerous models that gets no saves.

too many ap5 weapons maybe o.o?

It's because anytime anybody suggests that something like the stand and shoot reaction in WFB be included, you hear howls of outrage from anybody who has a CC army. Personally, I am building an Ork army but I would have no problem with it. It's just my opinion, but it seems like 40K attracts people who are eternally unsatisfied. (Me included )

Though it may seem like 5th Edition favors CC, try fielding an all-CC army.

Feels like my Tyranids are in the same boat as your Tau.

5th Edition (still) favors a CC-heavy army with massive (or even potential) firepower to back it up. All that close combat is still nothing without a few Lascannons or something to that effect blowing through heavier units and tanks. Though I see your point, there is no all or nothing approach to W40k anymore, on either side of the fence.

As for Tau, instead of benching your army completely, I'd probably suggest investing in some throwaway kroot to at least tie up a few units while your Fire Warriors work their magic on units a bit less determined to get into CC, or at least get to their max firing range more than once. If nothing else, build a meatshield wall in front of your FWs that gives them mobile cover and makes it basically impossible for them to get entangled in a close encounter.

I don't think I could ever bring myself to stop playing an army I've payed for completely. Just change your mentality a bit. Strategy is not at all stoic, and you shouldn't be either.

What are you smokin, OP? Maybe it's the tau you are playin with, but it's noit 5th favorin CC over shoot. I keep hearin about the insanity of the ubiquitous 4+ cover save, but look at the range advantage. You are now shooting through terrain pieces (HUGE advantage to volume of firepower SAFH armies) that completely blocked LOS in 3 and 4. Don't you basic troops have a 30" s5 weapon? Start reachin out.

What armies/builds exactly are you having trouble with?

But that 30" range doesn't mean much when say, a few slugga mobs under KFF or infiltrating units or fleeting assault terminators or jump pack troops get in his face and stomp his firewarriors in within a couple of turns. 5th edition added running, added some changes to infiltrate, and ubiquitous cover saves to the equation. The problem that we've all gone over before is that shooty armies generally just don't have the time to leverage their firepower against the better assault armies. The cover save issue makes it worse. Its basically free carapace armor for cheap assault troops whereas your Tau firewarriors cost more points for the privalege and are terrible at assault. Right now firewarriors are over costed. Now that I think of it maybe Sisters are finally costed adequetly, instead of being too good for the 11 points a piece they cost.

Railguns you need to stop playing on tables covered in entirely jungle terrain. I've never seen an entire ork squad get a 4+ save without it being shielded behind another squad (in which case why are you shooting the footsloggers in back?).

5th ed definently favours CC more then 4th ed. How could it not with 3 huge boosts to it while only one big drawback (TLOS). Thats not to say that everything else is gone but the rules definently changed in favor for it.

They actually brought in a crapload of improved movement things in the recent codexes, more outflanking/infiltrating/scouting/assulting after DS/ambush etc etc. More and cheaper transports, wich has also become more important due to the objective factor.

Wraping units gives an allround 4+ without anyone shooting at the footsloggers in the back. So does the fact that many people here seem to play almost 50% terrain on their boards.

All in all this has pretty much screwed static shooting armies, wich most tau seem to be. Mech tau fare a little better but still isnt much to bring to the table.

I've found outflanking to be the best thing Tau have going for them. My army is currently centered around Stealths, battle suits, kroot and pathfinders. Start with bait. Deploy only one or two units in one corner. When your opponent goes for the bait you infiltrate and deep strike your units on the opposite side of the board. Unless you roll poorly for reserves you ought to be able to wipe out or at least badly damage the one or two closest units. At its best this strategy results in your opponent marching his army length-wise down the board at you under your superior strength and ranged guns. However bad outflanking rolls can split your army spelling all but certain doom.

I think the new rules are less a conscious effort to improve melée on GW's part & more an attempt to speed up gameplay that happens to have affected melée positively.

As much as its annoying in that it forces you to rethink your tactics, I think its a change for the better. I always thought games where one side deployed a massed gunline & the other side attempted to charge across 48' of empty board to reach them were really boring.

As people have said above, it forces defensive players to think more about tactics & when thats done, aggressive players have to think more tactically to get around to them, which makes for a more interesting game, imo.

I'll disagree I think 5th is more about maneuvering that CC. PLaying a very static army does have it's disadvantages, but you can't consolidate from combat to combat so if someone does flank charge you you can then unload lots of shots into that unit.

Now taking lots of shooty units with transports, now when they outflank you back up your ride turn and fire from a better position.

It's mobility not HTH which is the winner here

I haven't played on boards with more than 25% terrain in years, if you're curious. Makes my Nids sad...

I think you need to reconsider and update your tactics to match the 5th ed style of play.

gunlines are daft, static armies are daft
In 4th you could still do a gunline and have 'fun' with it while you inflicted a boring game onto your opponent.
In 5th you inflict a boring game to yourself when you bring a daft list instead of punishing your opponent for your unwillingness to manouvre units. 100% justice afaik =D

frgsinwntr wrote:I think you need to reconsider and update your tactics to match the 5th ed style of play.

Like maybe try to outflank, deploy in reserve, use the positional relay, and tank shock with devilfish and flechette launchers.

I think everyone is jumping on a your tactics suck bandwagon, and missing the point...

Which is that 40K favors CC oriented forces. Always has, though in 4E this was stopped a little bit with the death of the Rhino Rush.

You have twice as many assault phases as shooting phases. You get more attacks in CC then you do shooting. It is easier to break an enemy in HTH then it is through shooting. Your army is safe from shooting while in CC, and your army is faster if it wins HTHs...

It was always my understanding they wanted 40K to be a short range shooting game...hence the changes to rapid fire weapons being able to move and shoot twice within 12 inches etc. But at the end of the day, the game is more about how to get your army close to the enemy to maximize your HTH while not being shot to death....and 9 times out of 10 if you can do that, you win.

To answer what armies I face (all games roughly @ 2000 points).

Tyranids - still haven't lost to them (haven't played in 5th yet)
Deamonhunters - still can handle
Eldar (2 different armies) - guided/fortuned squads of 10 snipers w/2+ cover...and they both run 20 snipers.
Necrons - 3 monoliths and nighbringer (ugh)
Khorne Deamons and Bezerkers - 2 winged princes...no lash at least.
SM - Iron Rain w/sternguard and dreads and Gate Librarians (2 diff armies)
Orks - 2 KFF Meks

I have been working on adapting my tatics but its been slow (been proxying modles with bases due to me haveing no $ and to test tatics). I run 2 things of kroot which i have tried using as counter charge and outflank but neither have worked well (shot to and back before they do anything - even in cover). I run 3 stealth suits and 6 crisis, 2 boradsides and 2 hammerheads, 3 fire warriors and still loose.

I love my tau but they seem to constatnly underproform and roll 's Mabe I just need new dice?

(I don't like to complain but being 0-8-1 in 5th started to make me wonder)

General Hobbs wrote:
I think everyone is jumping on a your tactics suck bandwagon, and missing the point...

Which is that 40K favors CC oriented forces. Always has, though in 4E this was stopped a little bit with the death of the Rhino Rush.

You have twice as many assault phases as shooting phases. You get more attacks in CC then you do shooting. It is easier to break an enemy in HTH then it is through shooting. Your army is safe from shooting while in CC, and your army is faster if it wins HTHs...

It was always my understanding they wanted 40K to be a short range shooting game...hence the changes to rapid fire weapons being able to move and shoot twice within 12 inches etc. But at the end of the day, the game is more about how to get your army close to the enemy to maximize your HTH while not being shot to death....and 9 times out of 10 if you can do that, you win.

Agreein' wit dis. IF they really wanted a short-range shooting game they'd have some sort of shooting bonus, an "overwatch lite", where you could shoot during the opponent's turn in short range just like you do with assaults.

I think 5th does favour melee. to an extent. Some stuff, most notably TLOS and no consolidation (shocked no one has mentioned this yet, it's huge) mess with CC armies, bu the new more brutal assault rules and the Run rule more than make up for it, and screening can be very nasty too.

If I played Tau I'd be wracking my brains to come up with something to get around these problems- outflank/deepstrike with bait looks like a good answer, but I'd still worry a lot about how luck based something like that is. Redeployment can do wonders, so Mechanising may be the way forward.

As to why it's more melee focused, I think because if it wasn't playing a melee army would be very unrewarding. I sorta think they should have only given run to units without ranged weapons, or something. It's an okay rule but I was happy enough with slightly slower infantry, it made mechanised infantry more attractive.

General Hobbs wrote:
You have twice as many assault phases as shooting phases.

I think this is a red herring. Since you can no longer consolidate into fresh enemies, and since enemies break from combat so much easier, I don't think you get much of an advantage here anymore. When you add in that you have to get close enough to assault, I think that you generally get less active assault phases than you get shooting phases. The differences are more that CC is more decisive.

You get more attacks in CC then you do shooting.

Some units do. Some units get more shots than they get attacks. Warwalkers, for example, get one attack in CC, or 8 shots...

It is easier to break an enemy in HTH then it is through shooting. Your army is safe from shooting while in CC, and your army is faster if it wins HTHs...

Ding ding ding, we have the winners here.

CC casualties are worth more than shooting casualties. A shooting casualty might count towards 25% of the unit, which then causes a Ld check, which, for all armies and most units, is generally passed more than 60% of the time. A CC casualty inflicts a Ld penalty, or forces an extra save.

With shooting, you have to kill every enemy model individually. In assault, you get to sweeping advance - and even if you fail at that, you're usually close enough to prevent your opponent from rallying. If you're shooting, and they break, you're probably not close enough to stop them from rallying. So, you save time here.

And, if you're an assault army, and your opponent paid for guns, once you get into combat, not only are you applying your strength, but you're simultaneously denying him his. That's pretty powerful in any game.

I think the other real advantage is that charging gives you extra movement. Having an army designed around models that sit still and shoot isn't all that useful in a game about getting to objectives. I think that the extra movement is one of the major inequities in 40k - it's huge. You can have a flying vehicle, like a Hammerhead, moving at its top speed, trying to avoid combat, and a bunch of heavily armoured lunatics, like terminators, can keep up with it and hit it again every turn. That's really pretty ludicrous when you stop and think about it.

But, keep in mind that the game is billed as a "Heroic Combat" game. Charging your opponent while waving your sword is clearly more heroic than sitting in a bunker with a machine gun, and so the game is designed to reward playing heroicly.

Redbeard wrote:But, keep in mind that the game is billed as a "Heroic Combat" game. Charging your opponent while waving your sword is clearly more heroic than sitting in a bunker with a machine gun, and so the game is designed to reward playing heroicly.

Pity all the armies aren't designed to reward such behavior.

Redbeard wrote:
I think this is a red herring. Since you can no longer consolidate into fresh enemies, and since enemies break from combat so much easier, I don't think you get much of an advantage here anymore. When you add in that you have to get close enough to assault, I think that you generally get less active assault phases than you get shooting phases. The differences are more that CC is more decisive.

Agree totally. Not to mention that speaking of Tau, markerlights really are a force multiplier, especially in the case of removing cover saves.

Redbeard has some good points. Not much point in lamenting it, 5th has increased mobility, and you have to learn to play in the new environment. As stated earlier, the multitude of new deployment and reserve options available must be considered.

Also, make sure there is some big terrain. LOS blocking should still be part of things. If you don't have it, make some. Insist on playing with a mix of LOS blocking and non LOS blocking terrain. It's a rule!

Well lets also conciser the fluff here as well. 40k is a fantasy - sci fi setting. Using magic (psycic powers), monsters (tyrinids and MC), elves (eldar), halflings (squats and now ratlings), undead (necrons) and various other fantasy elements. The sword and ax are almost a must in these types of settings. GW seems to bounce back and forth looking for a balance between the two. Perhaps in 6th edition it will finally find the balance we have all been looking for. Or it will swing back to shooting via overcompensation as has been their m o.

Why carry a sword in modern combat? It doesn't work very well. However in this setting it does and must. So as game makers they have to account for that element. Creating the more hero like environment that fits with their setting.

For now it is a dynamic game change that you must simply compensate for or you will get swamped. The tau do have a harder time with this shift without some serious rethinking. I believe the key lies in mobility for them to adjust.

Just my 2 cents....

Janthkin wrote:

Redbeard wrote:But, keep in mind that the game is billed as a "Heroic Combat" game. Charging your opponent while waving your sword is clearly more heroic than sitting in a bunker with a machine gun, and so the game is designed to reward playing heroicly.

Pity all the armies aren't designed to reward such behavior.

The only one that really matters is. Come on, we all know that Warhammer 40,000 at its core is really Space Marine 40,000, and ultimately all the rules are just there to enable your noble space marines to scream baldly while they beat on squishy gribblies in a heroic fashion.

Consolidation may be gone but it is easier to multicharge and with combat resolution, either break multiple squads or force multiple wounds on multiple squads.

Like others have said before Shooting has very few leadership modifiers but HtH has the ability to reduce ld to 2 or cause extra wounds to units that are fearless.

I played an all footslogging close combat tyranid force, and I had to shelve it in fifth. The combat resolution thing just hit certain units too hard to remain useable (raveners and lictors for instance).

Consolidation may be gone but it is easier to multicharge and with combat resolution, either break multiple squads or force multiple wounds on multiple squads.

Its not that hard to prevent multiple charges if you deploy in preparation for them. I got hit with multiple devastating charges in the early days of fifth, but it hasn't happened ever since I started deploying in preparation for them (when I'm fighting units i believe will do so).

OP:

Mind posting an example of the kind of force you've been playing (including wargear)?

It could be your lists.

Eric

40k- The only game where you don't bring a gun to a knife fight.

Running is huge. I love how people go, "Oh well your guys can also run!" Wow, that's really useful. :S Thanks. Now instead of shooting at the enemy, I'm running from them, delaying the inevitable. Yes, I also hate run.

The ubiqitous 4+ cover save. All the shots in the world do jack when half of them are being negated. Oh, "Orks only have a 6+ save bla bla blah". No, they also have essentially a 4+ invul save thanks to KFF.

And the charge 6" move is what really does it. That's what breaks a shooting army's spine is that extra 6" move. Perhaps if it was 3" then it wouldn't be so darn bad.

And yes, an army geared for CC has more attacks. That's just how it works. Perhaps the game would be balanced if they all lost 1 or 2 attacks (Orks I'm looking at you), and also if shooting did more damage to LD. "Oh a tank shell just hit us and killed 3 guys! Oh well, I have LD10 so no biggie."

Unfortunately GW only cares about sales so I doubt this will ever happen, which is too bad. Hopefully in 6th edition every CC army will get a nerf stick right in the crotch. I wouldn't mind that at all.

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

Redbeard wrote:But, keep in mind that the game is billed as a "Heroic Combat" game. Charging your opponent while waving your sword is clearly more heroic than sitting in a bunker with a machine gun, and so the game is designed to reward playing heroicly.

Pity all the armies aren't designed to reward such behavior.

The only one that really matters is. Come on, we all know that Warhammer 40,000 at its core is really Space Marine 40,000, and ultimately all the rules are just there to enable your noble space marines to scream baldly while they beat on squishy gribblies in a heroic fashion.

The secret of 40k is that everyone is a space marine.

I think the big thing that favours cc is objectives. You have to get up close and personal, and the best way to deal with that is to either assault, or, if your opponent is shooting, counterassault.
However, Mech armies are quite effective against a lot of Assaulters, and Orks and 'Nids get really nervous in a pie-plate-party.

As long as there are infantry carried blunt melee weapons that blow up tanks, you're not going to convince me that 40K doesn't favor CC.

Mobility. As an answer, uh no. Sorry, nice try. Now, try it without trying to sell LOSE to your opponent. Shooting armies troops still have rapid fire weaponry, not assault. Which means that in order to move, and still be able to shoot at you, they have to move no further than 12", or in other words, they have to move so that they're still in assault range. Yeah, they get to shoot twice, against 30 orks, after misses, failed rolls to wound, and then saves from the KFF, or against marines with their 3+ armor, your not getting all of them. Then, if you're lucky, they assault you and your unit dies, if you're not lucky, your unit dies on your turn, the enemy consolidates closer to your next unit, moves 6, and quite possible can assault the next unit. How messed up is that, when as the general you hope your unit of soldiers gets wiped out quickly, as it's more of an advantage to you?

dancingcricket wrote:As long as there are infantry carried blunt melee weapons that blow up tanks, you're not going to convince me that 40K doesn't favor CC.

I agree with the above statement - Nob with PK - 6" move + 6" WAAAGH! (w/Gaz or weirdboy or normal) + 6" charge = 18" of tank busting killin potentail. Idk how fast you are on foot there is no way you can still move as far as a vehicle going flat out (which cant shoot btw) and still fight. Period makes no since what so ever.

I ran a squad of 16 boyz and on a charge they had 64 attacks w/out the Nob or Big Mek. - my tau gunline could only get 24 shots off at best. The loss of the ability to negatively effect LD via shooting has really unbalanced the game imo, also makes it harder to pin a unit which was one of my strategies.

Tau need a reworking. yes markerlights remove cover but they are overpriced and can't be used by the unit that used them (non networked markerlights that is) also its not really cost effective to have them on FW squads (40 point sergent for markerlight, +1 LD, and bonding knife just isn't worth it).

I do use run - wind up running the other direction to try to avoid the inevitable.

Yes as I tau player I have constatnly racked my mind for how to deal with adapting to 5th - haven't tried mech tau but they way my army is set up it wouldn't work well (and cost too much $ for me to fix). I'm still playing around with my second squad of suits

I used my tau as an example (least capable CC army and one of the more shooty armies). end rant.

Sha1emade wrote:Well lets also conciser the fluff here as well. 40k is a fantasy - sci fi setting. Using magic (psycic powers), monsters (tyrinids and MC), elves (eldar), halflings (squats and now ratlings), undead (necrons) and various other fantasy elements. The sword and ax are almost a must in these types of settings. GW seems to bounce back and forth looking for a balance between the two. Perhaps in 6th edition it will finally find the balance we have all been looking for. Or it will swing back to shooting via overcompensation as has been their m o.

Why carry a sword in modern combat? It doesn't work very well. However in this setting it does and must. So as game makers they have to account for that element. Creating the more hero like environment that fits with their setting.

For now it is a dynamic game change that you must simply compensate for or you will get swamped. The tau do have a harder time with this shift without some serious rethinking. I believe the key lies in mobility for them to adjust.

Just my 2 cents....

This is absolutely correct. GW want melee in the game so they make the rules make melee worth doing. The balance between melee and shooting only matters for Tau because they are terrible at melee. OTOH Tau static gunlines have never been a good tactic since shortly after Tau first came out when people learned how to deal with them.

Casper wrote:
I agree with the above statement - Nob with PK - 6" move + 6" WAAAGH! (w/Gaz or weirdboy or normal) + 6" charge = 18" of tank busting killin potentail. Idk how fast you are on foot there is no way you can still move as far as a vehicle going flat out (which cant shoot btw) and still fight. Period makes no since what so ever.

Stormboy Nob with the same powerklaw can get 24", and they aren't even allowed to Waaagh!

Of course, in the case of stormboyz, they DO have giant rockets attached to their backs.

Mabe static is not the best word i should have used. What I do is I find good cover for the FW and shoot away till something gets close and then i have to move (usually running away). I usually keep the fw within 8" of each other to give fire support. I JSJ whatever i can and I do use my fish. However I then tend to run out of boardspace.

I originally didn't want the discussion to turn to this but any advice would be nice.
Suits currently are plas/missle - leader bonding knife - and either multi tracker or target array
Other squad I experiment with (they are proxies) - usually do melta/plas with multi tracker. (deals with that pesky 3+ armor)

Another thing I have found with tau is that our "speadbumps" have issues lasting more than a turn. I run 12 and 16 kroot both with shapers and when they charge into melee i get a ton of attacks but they are so fragile that most bounce off my opponents armor, and then my kroot get slaughtered and sweped away. I have also tried gun drones to slow people down, but with the inability to really consistantly pin with shooting in 5th it hasn't worked well either.

My fw currently run 9 rifles and 3 carbines due to 4th's greater ability to pin, however now i look like an idiot doing that - probably going to get another box of fw and fix my issue there and put the carbines in a fish.

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

Redbeard wrote:But, keep in mind that the game is billed as a "Heroic Combat" game. Charging your opponent while waving your sword is clearly more heroic than sitting in a bunker with a machine gun, and so the game is designed to reward playing heroicly.

Pity all the armies aren't designed to reward such behavior.

The only one that really matters is. Come on, we all know that Warhammer 40,000 at its core is really Space Marine 40,000, and ultimately all the rules are just there to enable your noble space marines to scream baldly while they beat on squishy gribblies in a heroic fashion.

A trio of QFTs.

Frankly, I wouldn't be opposed to the predominance of powerful close-combat in 40k if they made it harder to pull off by requiring coordination of units for suppressive fire or the like.

Instead, the "tactic" of "running towards the enemy as fast as you can so you can punch them" is a valid, if not commonly accepted and generally game-winning, tactic.

You want to play a game that simultaneously requires actual use of tactics, and is still intense and fun? I would recommend the Combat Mission series (I prefer Barberossa to Berlin). Hell, if I became a billionaire, I would contract Battlefront and GW to make a similar game for 40k.

The CC-obsession does get pretty stupid when trying to play Tau. I love my army, but you have to admit that designing an army that ignores one whole phase of the game, the phase that happens to be the most "important" phase that the entire game is centered around, is pretty damn stupid. I hate having to run all the time or resort to hiding behind my skimmers in order to take out models.

But when you do win with them in this edition there is satifaction like no other.

@Casper, are you keeping record of how you did in these games. If not then start a war journal.
Try to note how you rolled, what squads you used against which of your opponents.
How long before you lost a unit and how?
What was left at end game?
How did you deploy vs how your opponent set up?
What type of terrain and how was it set up?
How did your opponent approach you? What were his tactics?
What were your target priorities? Whom did you target first? And why? And what did you use?(Big One for Tau)
Did you get rushed by to many units and end up spreading your fire to thin? Or ,did you "Focus your fire" on one point to punch an exit corridor?!
Critical assessment of yourself. Did you stay focused on the objectives? Or, did you get pulled out of position trying to finish off a squad?

Note whether there is improvement in your performance over time.

I'm not gonna fib to you. It got more difficult to win in this edition but its not impossible. Yes the game seems to favor those whom recieve a little bit of everything(coughSMscough,coughgreatHtHcough, coughBS4cough,coughassault2range24gunscough,cougharmorsave3+cough).
Seriously, if your hooked on the game then this will make you buy the next codex. It's not so much as favoring one style over the other than it is a profitable business model.

Multicharges can be downright dangerous now that everyone piles in. NOT multicharging has its own pretty obviou downside.

If this is Space Marine 40000, someone please tell me a good choppy SM build that doesn't involve Assault Terminators and Land Raiders, eh? Doesn't work against gunlines, that's for sure.

@Arctik, Doesn't have to be choppy. I have a friend who just won a local 1750 pt tourny with Templars set up to shoot.

He ran only 2 troops and dropped the rest of the points into speeders and tanks. His troops were of course in transports starting off surrounded by all the other vehicles.

He proved what I've been telling him about the fact that space marines can just sit back and out shoot the tau. He won the tournament by beating a Tau player in the final. Sitting back with more guns, higher ballistic skill, higher rates of fire, and equivalent armor values. Oh yeah forgot the S10 ordinance that pretty much equals a railgun.

It was not me. the guy he beat got me in the first round because on the first turn he got one of the two shield drones on my 2 tau broadside team causing a leadership test. Standing next to Shadowsun they broke (rolled 11) and walked off the table(rolled 10 when 9&7/8" from boardedge). End game this was the difference between win & lose(oh well):(.....

To answer the basic choppy question, a couple of drop pods into the Tau front lines with regular marines will also do the trick.

And the fact that you "have" access to Assault Termies and LandRaiders. You have those options. Some armies don't. I took the Tau because they were supposed to be a challenge and I love them for it. They keep me thinking.

Warhammer 40k favoring melee is a fallacy.

Warhammer 40k favors the guy who can throw a giant bucket of dice and force meaningful leadership tests.

As a corollary, both of these are more easily done by an assault-based army.

However, Marines are not "the guys" for exhibiting this. Orks are.

I did not read the responses, only to prevent from straying on my natural response.

However in my experience 5th edition favors good tactics in the MOVEMENT phase, which can lead to getting into charge range, but more importantly not being a legal target cause you are in H2H.

I think the game actually favors shooting now, and that means if you play movement right on 1 & 2 and have some gunz then you should be blowing the bloody hell out of it. (ala my marines!) OR if you move properly and avoid the Big Gunz then you should reach H2H and almost always since 2nd edition, things that don't have big guns, typically kill things with big gus in H2H (ala my marines dying in CC!)

so yeah, it's all about the movement phase.


I have played 25 games with my marines in 5th edition all 1500 or 1750 and from my record keeping I am

15wins - 6loses - 4draws.
(I never put up such a win % ever before!)

I have 3 draws against the same eldar player that uses as many guns as possibly, and one against orks.

all 6 loses are to shooty armies such as dark eldar, tau, and necrons, then i did keep demolished by daemons once!

most my wins, or the impressive ones anyhow were against orks, nids, and marines with terminators or assualt squads. I've been fielding 2 devastators squads of 7 marines (2 PC + 2ML each) and a ironclad with 2 hunter killer missles + hurricanes + HF, and a dread with ML + TLL and a 3rd dread with ML + PC
Troops are 10 guys in a razorback with TL-Assault Cannon on it, 10 guys with a lascannon and plasma gun, and 8 snipers with a HB for the hellfire ammo - then i run two solo speders with missles. And my single hq is a techmarine with conversion beamer. I try not to move after turn 1 except for the speeders because they can, and the razorback has a sgt with fist, and my dread always are moving to get the best shot possible, or screen the devastators.

So yeah... good luck getting into H2H, and when you do it will be your turn, you will win, I will combat tactics fall back - turn around on my turn and shoot you in the face. (thats so dirty)

So yes - mobility is key, and knowing what your doing with that movement phase makes or breaks every other thing you do and especially can dictate what your opponents options are (dont forget the set up / deployment phase, thats movement too..sort of)

now ill go read everybody elses opinion

Congratulations, GT, you beat armies who have to charge you while you have the following:

Better Weapons
Better Skills
Better Armor
Better Codex

The key to winning in 5th is HtH. You can literally get lucky enough to destroy hundreds of points of enemies by beating them by ONE in HtH. Sweeping advance is the absolute worst rule that exists in BOTH GW games.

I should not be able to do the following:
My outflanking unit of 8 Termagants with Spinefists comes in on your board edge and assaults your SM Devastator Squad.
Dice are rolled. I get reasonably lucky and inflict 2 wounds!
You have bad luck, and inflict only 1.
You fall back and I get a sweeping advance! I roll a 6! You can't match me!
50-ish points of Gaunts just wiped a what, 200 point squad?

Alternatively: Your Devastators fire everything at a full brood of Spinegaunts, and kill 12 of them.

Nothing else happens if they are in Synapse range. Nothing at all.

How does this not favor CC?

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Multicharges can be downright dangerous now that everyone piles in. NOT multicharging has its own pretty obviou downside.

If this is Space Marine 40000, someone please tell me a good choppy SM build that doesn't involve Assault Terminators and Land Raiders, eh? Doesn't work against gunlines, that's for sure.

The reason you use landraiders and assult terminators (and shrike) is exactly the point of this thread.

Too everyone preaching tau in this edition, you know the scores they put up at the bigger tournaments.. and you know they are dead.

sourclams wrote:Warhammer 40k favoring melee is a fallacy.

Warhammer 40k favors the guy who can throw a giant bucket of dice and force meaningful leadership tests.

As a corollary, both of these are more easily done by an assault-based army.

However, Marines are not "the guys" for exhibiting this. Orks are.

The problem is that melee is more decisive, and no it's not a fallacy. The problem with meaningful leadership tests is that they're all ones from melee. And for the most part, melee has more attacks than shooting.

I kill 3 Guardsmen in a shooting phase, they take a LD test. Big deal, right? I kill 3 Guardsmen in an assault phase and lose none of my own, now they're testing on LD 4, AND the other 7 of them will have a chance of being sweeping advanced.

Like I said, the charge rule is incredibly stupid. You move 6", and then you charge 6". Oh and if you do it right you can sweeping advance 6" or consolidate 6". Yes, if an Ork army does it right, on some nice rolling they can move around 24" in their movement and assault phases combined. Tell me that this isn't stupid, I dare you.

The charge rule and the sweeping advance rules both need changes.

And I'm not seeing where this huge shooting advantage is. Yes, I see more of the enemy now. Too bad they all get 4+ saves! Hurr! Might as well not waste my shots firing at them when 50% of them are deflected. :S

Unless you have an insane amount of shots you can put out (that actually mean something, for example my eventual 1500 point Eldar army will put out around 50 Str 6 shots per turn), you might as well go for assault because your army is effectively 50% neutered. Have fun! :S

Most units in the game cannot split shooting, but you can split assaults via multi-charge. Hitting Vehicles in rear armor means with weapons/wargear/abilities (Most of all dedicated assault units have a S of 5 or more on atleast 1 guy or rending) that can penetrate a vehicle and negating any sort of coversave.

Still the game has 12 assault phases and only 6 shooting phases. Even with consolidation, multi-charges have the potential to damage many squads and even if you do spread out it only divides your army against your opponent.

Vladsimpaler wrote:
Like I said, the charge rule is incredibly stupid. You move 6", and then you charge 6". Oh and if you do it right you can sweeping advance 6" or consolidate 6". Yes, if an Ork army does it right, on some nice rolling they can move around 24" in their movement and assault phases combined. Tell me that this isn't stupid, I dare you.

With great rolls, a Hormagaunt could move 30" in a round.

6" Move. 6" Run. 12" Charge. 6" Consolidation.

Maybe even 36" if another unit can charge in as well and the Hormies can manage to Pile In.

Vladsimpaler wrote:
Like I said, the charge rule is incredibly stupid. You move 6", and then you charge 6". Oh and if you do it right you can sweeping advance 6" or consolidate 6". Yes, if an Ork army does it right, on some nice rolling they can move around 24" in their movement and assault phases combined. Tell me that this isn't stupid, I dare you.

The charge rule and the sweeping advance rules both need changes.

And I'm not seeing where this huge shooting advantage is. Yes, I see more of the enemy now. Too bad they all get 4+ saves! Hurr! Might as well not waste my shots firing at them when 50% of them are deflected. :S

Unless you have an insane amount of shots you can put out (that actually mean something, for example my eventual 1500 point Eldar army will put out around 50 Str 6 shots per turn), you might as well go for assault because your army is effectively 50% neutered. Have fun! :S

Uh, it isn't stupid? In fact, I find it much better in 5th edition, as the rules make it easier for my units to break after losing melee and get cut down, giving me better control of what happens when I'm assaulted. Units can't charge into another unit as part of their massacre move, making it easier for the rest of my army to shoot them to pieces. The new shooting allocation rules make it much easier to take out special/heavy/power weapons, again assisting my shooting. The new template rules make template rules much better, so now those IG HQ units with 4 flamers are much better at shutting down assaulters than they used to.

The bigger change is that movement is even more important in 5th than it was in 4th, and it was more important in 4th than in 3rd. That, and kill points, negatively affect the game balance and dynamics much more for shooty armies (especially static ones) than the new assault rules.

The cover save rules haven't been that big an issue where I am...still plenty of open terrain, movement allows you to get the clear firing angles, and if the enemy tries to intermix units to get some sort of cover, they are asking to get flamed. In fact, you just mentioned how you're adjusting your list to accommodate the new ruleset....isn't that what's supposed to happen?

Grimaldi wrote:
Uh, it isn't stupid? In fact, I find it much better in 5th edition, as the rules make it easier for my units to break after losing melee and get cut down, giving me better control of what happens when I'm assaulted. Units can't charge into another unit as part of their massacre move, making it easier for the rest of my army to shoot them to pieces. The new shooting allocation rules make it much easier to take out special/heavy/power weapons, again assisting my shooting. The new template rules make template rules much better, so now those IG HQ units with 4 flamers are much better at shutting down assaulters than they used to.

Have you ever played against Orks? If a unit breaks (assuming they haven't been massacred) then that running unit will give a cover save to the enemy unit, assuming again that there are enough of them left.

Yes, I do agree that no consolidating into other units is a good thing. But really, the shooting allocation rules don't help THAT much. It's been a complete rarity for me, at least.

Yes templates are now better, I do agree with that. However, again, you're focusing all your firepower into that single assault squad, and I'd bet that it's not the only one. OOh look, I just focused 5 flamers onto that squad, they've been annihilated! Yeah, too bad there's more of them coming.

Unless you're just losing conscripts, even 1 squad annihilated is bad, especially when you now have a dedicated assault unit right in your space.

The bigger change is that movement is even more important in 5th than it was in 4th, and it was more important in 4th than in 3rd. That, and kill points, negatively affect the game balance and dynamics much more for shooty armies (especially static ones) than the new assault rules.

Moving isn't more important, but it is easier. I mean, you have squads running. They'll reach your lines in about 2 turns as opposed to maybe even 3 or 4. My chance at shooting up the enemy has been drastically cut. Personally, I don't know about you, but I'd love a 3rd or 4th turn at shooting Orks, but to each his own.

Kill Points, I don't use them so I can't comment there. (Yeah, my 16 kp Guard army is now SO much better now, compared to my friends' SW which only have like 8! I'm so going to PWN them!)

The cover save rules haven't been that big an issue where I am...still plenty of open terrain, movement allows you to get the clear firing angles, and if the enemy tries to intermix units to get some sort of cover, they are asking to get flamed. In fact, you just mentioned how you're adjusting your list to accommodate the new ruleset....isn't that what's supposed to happen?

I play with around ~25-30%, terrain. The cover save phenomenon seems to be different with everyone, so mileage definitely varies here. But cover saves are really prominent where I am.

Yes there's still open terrain, and yes sometimes you don't get cover saves. But melee is king in 5th edition, I'm sorry, but it is.

And asking to get flamed...you do realize that if you don't annihilate that squad that you're flaming, you're screwed, right? Yes, charging 30 Orks with 4 flamers...better hope that you have some nice rolls.

Finaly, yes, I have made accommodated to the new ruleset, and I agree that having to change the list around is a good thing but in this case it's not. Seriously, I designed the whole army around circumventing the 4+ cover save because it's what always bones me. I shouldn't have to design my army around one piddly rule. It's quite frankly stupid.

All right, I'm getting off of my

The difference in melee is that a small assault unit can wipe a large, shooty unit of equal points very quickly thanks to the rule about number of casualties on either side counting against your morale check. Shooting casualties don't do this.

The shooting unit needs to kill the assaulting unit at long range and takes time to do so. This has become harder thanks to more cover saves and faster movement by assaulters.

Because melee is more fun, to hear the crack of your enemy's skull shattering under your power fist, or the roar of a chain axe as it shreds flesh and bone.

Yeah melee is fun. The Tau tend to stay at a range though.

" think this is a red herring. Since you can no longer consolidate into fresh enemies, and since enemies break from combat so much easier, I don't think you get much of an advantage here anymore. When you add in that you have to get close enough to assault, I think that you generally get less active assault phases than you get shooting phases. The differences are more that CC is more decisive. "

That is the most profound observation in this thread. Speed bumps (cheap troop units or many slightly more expensive all multipurpose troop units) and a mechanized manuver element seem to be the answer for Tau and Eldar in take all comers list in this edition.

Ironically, the answer is the same for IG too but you actually manuver your infantry on the ground using infiltrate doctrines and maybe cameloline. I have seem it all work extremely well - usually to my detriment

The gunline (at least the way most people played it in 4th) is dead. Hallelujah.

You can't really say that close combat or shooting alone is strongest. The best armies are balanced and can adapt to whatever is the situation in hand. I would rather have a mobile army that can lay down a lot of dakka and jump on objectives early in the game. Let the assault army come in towards my line. They will take losses from my heavy firepower and have to get through or around my armor before they can engage my troops. This means I can counter attack and have the charge bonus, so now assault is working for me, not my opponent.

G

Mobility beats horde everytime, its when they do both that you are completely and utterly screwed.

All it is is a manner of moving.

Mobility can beat a horde as long as there is room to manoeuvre and time to use shooting to beat it down.

And assaulters typically have greater mobility that isn't hindered by ingress/egress or reduction in range. Funny how it all works out.

Kilkrazy wrote:Mobility can beat a horde as long as there is room to manoeuvre and time to use shooting to beat it down.

Hmm, 180 Ork boys running at you....done right, that's a wall of troops running at you.

It's like being caught in a room with no windows/doors/any means of escape, and having all of the walls close in on you. It's only a matter of time.

Vladsimpaler wrote:[Hmm, 180 Ork boys running at you....done right, that's a wall of troops running at you.

It's like being caught in a room with no windows/doors/any means of escape, and having all of the walls close in on you. It's only a matter of time.

To a party like that you better bring plenty of Pie.

OH jesus save us from pie

anyways, to answer the OP

it's because this:

Dashing through the maelstrom of battle, Alexander toppled as a shell hit the back of his armour with the force of a rocket. Rolling with the force of the impact, Alexander searched for his assailant, and saw a fire-warrior of the cowardly tau lining up another shot. He tensed, and leaped milliseconds before the warrior fired, moving with the preternatural speed that only an astares could achieve. His blessed chainsword roaring in his hand, he charged the rifle-man, who futilely tried to halt the advance of his demise with the barrel of his rail-rifle.

Shearing through gunmetal and armour. Alexander clove through his opponent, exulting in the feeling of xeno blood against his bare face, tasting the delicious last moments of triumph, fear, and pain, that the tau had felt as he died.

His triumph did not last.



That is what I imagine when a melee is joined: unadulterated blood, gore, and violence. Imagining a tank being blown up by some lucky shot with a missile is extremely satisfying, I think that it is somewhat less so than the anarchy of close quarters.

Sure, none of this is actually played out in the realm of tabletop gaming, but in the minds eye, it is just as real.

Which, of course, is what GW wants us to do, hence the focus on CC.

"focusedfire: To a party like that you better bring plenty of Pie.
Shrike78: OH jesus save us from pie"

That might just get sigged.

Shrike78 wrote:OH jesus save us from pie

anyways, to answer the OP

it's because this:

Dashing through the maelstrom of battle, Alexander toppled as a shell hit the back of his armour with the force of a rocket. Rolling with the force of the impact, Alexander searched for his assailant, and saw a fire-warrior of the cowardly tau lining up another shot. He tensed, and leaped milliseconds before the warrior fired, moving with the preternatural speed that only an astares could achieve. His blessed chainsword roaring in his hand, he charged the rifle-man, who futilely tried to halt the advance of his demise with the barrel of his rail-rifle.

Shearing through gunmetal and armour. Alexander clove through his opponent, exulting in the feeling of xeno blood against his bare face, tasting the delicious last moments of triumph, fear, and pain, that the tau had felt as he died.

His triumph did not last.



That is what I imagine when a melee is joined: unadulterated blood, gore, and violence. Imagining a tank being blown up by some lucky shot with a missile is extremely satisfying, I think that it is somewhat less so than the anarchy of close quarters.

Sure, none of this is actually played out in the realm of tabletop gaming, but in the minds eye, it is just as real.

Which, of course, is what GW wants us to do, hence the focus on CC.

Sounds dramatic, sure, but the same can be written about shooting. Ever watch "Gallipoli"? There're always lucky-swings by Tau taking down magnificent beasts too.

I think some people misstake assult armies for horde, they dont have to be the same. There are shooty horde or small assult unit armies.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Multicharges can be downright dangerous now that everyone piles in. NOT multicharging has its own pretty obviou downside.

If this is Space Marine 40000, someone please tell me a good choppy SM build that doesn't involve Assault Terminators and Land Raiders, eh? Doesn't work against gunlines, that's for sure.

You know there are these guys that wear Black and White Power Armor, they're really angry all the time, lots of screaming...Yeah, those guys...

BLACK TEMPLARS, silly. They work great against gunlines. My Necron opponent can attest to that.

CK

I'm mixed on things myself. Yes things like Run and Cover Saves have changed the game some. Close combat is very decisive now, more so (it seems to me) than in 4th. That being said though, the games I've played have been all won or lost in the shooting and movement phases. Sure, I've seen some turnovers in the assault phase, but for the most part, I've seen the assault phase go to almost a clean-up after moving and shooting.

I will admit my take on 5th might not be the purest.

The past 3 months I've rolled about an average of 25-30% under statistics. Even with this I'm just about even with most games going to a draw

It's been so bad that I was gifted with 7 sets of dice from my wife and the guys in the group over the holidays. Rumor has it there are more on the way. A perseverence award was even mentioned.

What really bugs me these days is having my build options so limited. Even when playing friendly games the markerlights are so overworked dropping coversaves in this edition that I don't have the room for some of the other stuff that I used to play.

I'll probably have a better Idea once I'm back to rolling stat/avg or when the IG codex comes out.

Shrike78 wrote:OH jesus save us from pie

anyways, to answer the OP

it's because this:

Dashing through the maelstrom of battle, Alexander toppled as a shell hit the back of his armour with the force of a rocket. Rolling with the force of the impact, Alexander searched for his assailant, and saw a fire-warrior of the cowardly tau lining up another shot. He tensed, and leaped milliseconds before the warrior fired, moving with the preternatural speed that only an astares could achieve. His blessed chainsword roaring in his hand, he charged the rifle-man, who futilely tried to halt the advance of his demise with the barrel of his rail-rifle.

Shearing through gunmetal and armour. Alexander clove through his opponent, exulting in the feeling of xeno blood against his bare face, tasting the delicious last moments of triumph, fear, and pain, that the tau had felt as he died.

His triumph did not last.



That is what I imagine when a melee is joined: unadulterated blood, gore, and violence. Imagining a tank being blown up by some lucky shot with a missile is extremely satisfying, I think that it is somewhat less so than the anarchy of close quarters.

Sure, none of this is actually played out in the realm of tabletop gaming, but in the minds eye, it is just as real.

Which, of course, is what GW wants us to do, hence the focus on CC.

Can you imagine an epic sniper duel, lasting for days between two people, just waiting for one or the other to move for a shot? The tension would be incredible.

Anyway, I think the reason why melee seems more favoured is because there's more risk. If you shoot, your enemy can't return fire in the same turn. You're safe. However, should the enemy assault you in close combat, you get to fight back, and as such, it's possible to do more damage then your enemy does. They're simply giving higher risk a higher reward.

focusedfire wrote:
To a party like that you better bring plenty of Pie.

Yeah too bad it scatters like 6" every time. And there's really no risk. You run, roll a couple 4+ cover saves, roll a bunch of dice and consolidate. That's all there is to it. No real risk.

why is it that the people who are complaining about close combat in this post largely play armies that are awful in close combat, and just shoot shoot shoot?

5th edition doesn't favor shooting or combat they both have equal play in the ruleset.

what it does favor is tossing bucketfulls of dice at a time, it rewards high rate firepower. With the proliferation of cover saves the lascannon and plasma gun become kinda meh weapons, but the heavy bolter and flamer are way way better now, and I don't believe people have realized that yet. A change in tactics and weapon loadouts is pretty important for 5th edition and as soon as people realize that it'll be better.

When you try to shoot units with armor negating weapons and they get a cover save, how good is that ability to negate their armor really? Thats why just making your opponent roll a bunch of dice is better, because he WILL fail some of them and with high rate of fire weapons that happens much more easily since they are typically cheaper and more effective in this edition

close combat armies have to run screaming for at least a few turns headlong into guns just to get into combat where the enemy also gets to swing back, so i'm confused how people can say that close combat is favored over shooting. every army has it's strength and weaknesses, so orks get piles of attacks in close combat SO WHAT!! I'm pretty sure that ork player is complaining about how all the tau guns are str 5 and can ignore cover saves (with markerlights) and how the tau can kill tanks from across a whole table way way better than the orks get to. adapting to your armies strengths and weaknesses is important in the game, and being able to counteract what your opponent did is important too. If you keep getting beaten by close combat armies then there's probably something wrong with your tactics, and you should probably change accordingly.

There is no way close combat armies are more op than any other army, I've seen pretty much every army beat any other army in this game and tau can beat orks just as easily as orks can beat tau. just like guard can beat nids just as easily as nids can beat guard. it's all in how you approach the game, and your tactics.

in almost every case a unit that has guns and could assault it's usally better to shoot than to assault, unless you are going to win without taking losses of note. ie. a space marine unit is usually better off rapid firing a bolter than assaulting since in either case both options give you approximately the same number of attacks, for 2 reasons, 1. you're enemy doesn't get to swing back and maybe kill more of your guys than you thought. 2. typically its easier to hit with a gun than in combat. since marines shooting always need a 3 to hit and in combat they could need 3's (not that common) 4's (pretty much all the time), or 5's (oh crap why are we fighting this!!!!)

hopefully i didnt ramble and this makes sense since it is 4 in the morning when i was typing


vlad how about you make a assaulty army and I'll make a shooty army we'll play and see how much you change your mind. there are piles of units that shoot way, way too good for you to tell me that shooting is ineffectual. (crusader anyone??) and that a combat unit always wins over a shooty unit. Don't forget you have to look at it in equal terms, for example 1 firewarrior will kill 1.66 orks (they're both the same points) before the ork even gets remotely close to the tau dude.

Tortuga, what armies do you play?

Tortuga932 wrote:why is it that the people who are complaining about close combat in this post largely play armies that are awful in close combat, and just shoot shoot shoot?
...
...
...
.

There are several ways in which the rules favour melee and they have been explained in the thread.

For example, widespread cover saves that affect shooting and not melee, much more severe morale effects of melee compared to shooting, and faster movement favouring assault troops rather than shooting troops.

There is no way close combat armies are more op than any other army, I've seen pretty much every army beat any other army in this game and tau can beat orks just as easily as orks can beat tau. just like guard can beat nids just as easily as nids can beat guard. it's all in how you approach the game, and your tactics.

Go look up Blackmoors thread on the 2008 tournament champions and the armies they used. The most commonly recurring army was orcs. By FAR.

in almost every case a unit that has guns and could assault it's usally better to shoot than to assault, unless you are going to win without taking losses of note. ie. a space marine unit is usually better off rapid firing a bolter than assaulting since in either case both options give you approximately the same number of attacks, for 2 reasons, 1. you're enemy doesn't get to swing back and maybe kill more of your guys than you thought. 2. typically its easier to hit with a gun than in combat. since marines shooting always need a 3 to hit and in combat they could need 3's (not that common) 4's (pretty much all the time), or 5's (oh crap why are we fighting this!!!!)

This is not really true, in most cases when you are within rapdid fire range (the optimal range for shooting) for anything thats close combat worthy, its often better to assault it then to let them catch you. This is because if you assault them, you deny them on average one third of their attacks. (Based off of a Two Close Combat Weapon model.) Its even better if they have charge specific bonuses, like the Blood Claws and their 2+ attacks intsead of +1 for charging, cutting their combat utility in half.

While optimally, it is better to be able to shoot at range without threat of close combat, that often doesn't happen in this edition because of the increases in mobility that Melee fighters gained through run.

This is especially troublsome for static gunlines because to maintain peak effiancy they have to remain still, yet the assaulters get closer faster and they will eventually have to pull bakc unless they can unleash the kind of fire power that wipes armies in two or three turns.

This leads to the current kings of close combat fighting, the blood angels, good armour, good stats, and assault marines as troops and elites makes for an incredibly mobile melee force. They even wipe orcs unless they bring the loota spam.

^ last point, several of the close combat lists can actually outshoot the shooty lists. Namely Orcs and dakka fexes.

40K does favor melee, and for good reason. Static gunlines are boring.

Sure, certain armies such as Tau, Necron, and IG favor this tactic. I can totally imagine how exciting a Tau vs. Tau game would be though. :S

We can also bring back Overwatch to remind us of how tedious shooting in 2nd Edition was.

You need better shooting rules then.

"Push your models towards the other guy and squish them together when they touch" isn't really more fun than static gunlines.

Personally, I would love to see some gunline rules that let us play ala 18th-19th century musket battles. That would kick total ass, the problem though is that you don't get the proper negative morale modifiers to use guns correctly in that setting.

Gunlines aren't dead in fifth. The problem is necrons, IG, and Tau are all working off of dated and bad codexes. Torrent of fire eldar still works fairly well, and marine gunlines are fairly cost efficient and able to do fairly well for themselves.

40k favoring melee is a skewed perspective that is based off of the relative inadequacy of the dedicated shooting armies codexes, and the rarity of the small fragile and fast armies (new DE will come out someday, and hopefully we will get a new speed freek listing at some point). The same could have been said of horde armies in fourth edition until the new ork book came out (nid hordes have always been fairly rare, and IG horde was pretty crap even back then). The new IG book should revitalize the gunwall and mix the metagame up a bit. Certainly more than the chaos, eldar, and space marine books did.

Ratbarf wrote:Personally, I would love to see some gunline rules that let us play ala 18th-19th century musket battles. That would kick total ass, the problem though is that you don't get the proper negative morale modifiers to use guns correctly in that setting.

I'd just like to say that, taking a style of warfare that was basically 2 groups of semi-uniformed soldiers taking turns throwing balls of lead at each other, and transforming it into a game where you Literally take turns pretending to hurl las-bolts, bolt rounds, and other projectiles at each other would remove a LOT from the game.

It would be boring... or at least, I, and people who like movement would find it boring.

The tactics of the game would now be limited to target prioritization, and list buffing. The people with the best list and the best ability to prioritize targets would win barring bad rolls of course.

This may seem similar to what is happening now, where spamming this, and spamming that = "I win ah-hurr.. ah-hurr... ah-durr..." then you're only 60% right. If it was, then people wouldn't be moaning about Nob bikers and dual Lash spam. These two armies are designed to excel in maneuvering, whether it is their own forces or their opponents, and if that weren't a good ability, then no one would be whining.

This may seem like those people who say essentially "shut up and play better" and in a way i guess it is. But here's how I see it: With new rules for cover, and movement, that drastically decrease the time it takes to get to your fragile gun lines, the game has changed, as it always changes with a set of new rules. Perhaps it is time that those people playing static gunlines take a look at the movement and cover rules too, and see how they can exploit them. E.G. manipulating deployment so that the cover your opponent uses bogs down key units unnecessarily, or, exposes others to concentrated fire. When the charge comes, learn to re-orient into a new, or several, firing line.

When the dynamic shifts back into your favor I will give the same advice to CC armies (after having become a gunline army myself of course)

Kilkrazy wrote:Mobility can beat a horde as long as there is room to manoeuvre and time to use shooting to beat it down.

Honestly, horde armies absolutely suffer from being cumbersome, especially orks, since the charge is vital to the horde variant.

I just beat a 180 orks with my 90 ork battlewagon list. I simply strong sided (all my stuff on one side, near the biggest clump of objectives), punched a hole in his two units closest to my tanks in two turns (90 orks can toss a lot of shooting), and got him in a bottleneck by moving my entire list to the right side of the board: I was able to weaken his closest units with a withering hail of dakka, and since I knew I had the advantage in movement I was able to take his units one of a time. I'll probably write a batrep tomorrow.

I think mobility is the biggest factor in the game now since stalling, getting enough shooting to thin out your enemies numbers, and controlling the charges depends on your ability to move. The game seems to favor armies that are more "middle of the road"; lists with solid melee bits bolstered by adequate shooting. This is one reason why I think Orks have suddenly become top tier, since the basic boy is a really versatile model. Tac marines are also pretty good at this, but suffer from their cost. Also, remember the board is supposed to only have about 25% of it covered by terrain; if you go by this number, you should have rounds where you can easily melt the buggers that get near. After this, assault is the second most important phase, since a decisive charge makes or breaks a list. Shooting though can be a integral part of your plan: the ability to weaken powerful assault units means your slightly softer guys will be able to take them on.

Then again, I play battlewagon heavy orks (4 battlewagons and a trukk in 1,500 pts); even though I run my list as mainly shooty (there are times where my boys don't get out of a wagon during the entire game), you can't discredit the assault ability of 90+ orks that can comfortably get a charge on anything in 21" without waaaghing!, especially after said units are softened by said 90+ orks firing.

malfred wrote:You need better shooting rules then.

This here is exactly right.

The big problem with shooting in 40K is that by moving, you drastically decrease your ability to shoot, hence why gunlines in this game are so static. Melee oriented armies are not affected nearly as much by this and can move without losing any effectiveness.

You want to increase shooting in 40k? How about this:

1) Models with heavy and special weapons may nominate targets different than the rest of the squad.
2) All weapons can move and fire.
3) Rapid fire weapons may always fire maximum distance or twice at 12 inches.
4) Pistols may always fire twice at 12 inches.
5) Vehicles may always move maximum distance and fire all weapons.

To compensate melee oriented armies, how about transports that actually move faster than infantry can walk and can actually deliver troops safely without becoming metal coffins?

pombe wrote:

malfred wrote:You need better shooting rules then.

This here is exactly right.

You want to increase shooting in 40k? How about this:

1) Models with heavy and special weapons may nominate targets different than the rest of the squad.
2) All weapons can move and fire.
3) Rapid fire weapons may always fire maximum distance or twice at 12 inches.
4) Pistols may always fire twice at 12 inches.
5) Vehicles may always move maximum distance and fire all weapons.

To compensate melee oriented armies, how about transports that actually move faster than infantry can walk and can actually deliver troops safely without becoming metal coffins?

1) doesn't sit right with me
2) NO NO NO, (I play tau and I know thats just wrong - nice wish though)
3) This I like, I personally hate how i loose 18" of shooting if i want to put my guys in cover
4) Makes since, bring back the 4th ed pisotls
5) Possibly could work, perhaps up the 12", but Increase vehicle movement to a possible 24", however if they do this troops can't embark/disembark that turn or the turn after (to avoid transport spams)


However I would personally rather see the ability for units to have their moral broken by shooting - perhaps - for every unsaved wound -1 ld, must take a moral check if not fearless?

I don't feel the melee is overly effective vs. shooting. I've added some very shooty units to my current ork list, and I've been happy with the way they've turned out.

I do agree that it would be nice to have a more mobile shooting ability, but I think that it should be fairly toned down. My suggestion would be to allow rapid fire weapons to always fire once at maximum range, but to not allow double tapping. I'd also like to see the ability to split fire between rifles and heavies, and better shooting abilities for tanks.

The morale point is the key thing.

If a target squad that takes casualties had to take a morale check at -1Ld for each casualty, then shooting would be a lot more effective without any other changes.

Kilkrazy wrote:The morale point is the key thing.

If a target squad that takes casualties had to take a morale check at -1Ld for each casualty, then shooting would be a lot more effective without any other changes.

Or a decent compromise might be instead of a regular morale/break test -1LD for each casualty, make it a pinning test (w/-1 each casualty) instead?

Ide rather have it be strait moral tests bc i would like to see something finally break from my shooting. Most armies (outside of Tau and Guard i think) have some way of getting most of their modles ld 10 or fearless. Ide rather see them run the other direction for a turn and then their own turn until they regroup.

Pinning is nice in a KP game but otherwise just gives you time to redeploy. Redeployment is really useful if you play meq or are not on an objective. Lets say your sitting on an objective that doesn't move. Would you really like to redeploy off off it? (assume you've pinned a tough as nails melee unit *assult marienes* if you fail to pin them again your still in the same spot if you didn't redeploy *remmeber sitting on an objective*)

another thing that could be done is make run a d3 instead of d6. That way fleet gets some use back, and vehicles have more time to react you running pk's or pf's.

Mort wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The morale point is the key thing.

If a target squad that takes casualties had to take a morale check at -1Ld for each casualty, then shooting would be a lot more effective without any other changes.

Or a decent compromise might be instead of a regular morale/break test -1LD for each casualty, make it a pinning test (w/-1 each casualty) instead?

Could be. I wasn't trying to present a fully worked out solution. Just illustrating the point that melee easily causes massive morale breaks and shooting doesn't.

1) Models with heavy and special weapons may nominate targets different than the rest of the squad.
2) All weapons can move and fire.
3) Rapid fire weapons may always fire maximum distance or twice at 12 inches.
4) Pistols may always fire twice at 12 inches.
5) Vehicles may always move maximum distance and fire all weapons.

1) I think this is good and realistic, the anti tank m3ember of the squad should always be able to target enemy tanks, otherwise is just stupid.
2) No, some weapons do really need the time to set up and/or are too powerfull to be made into to assault weapons.
3)I think not, I think that would make them over powerfull, what I would really like to see is run moved to the assault phase instead of the movement phase. It wouldn't alter the mechanic at all excpet allow units to move after they have shot.
4) Sounds decent to me, though the old twice if standing still I think is a better representation.
5) No, but definately up the distance they can currently move, I would prefer 12" move and fire to 6 inch move and fire some. Transports, really, really, really, need to be reworked so that they actually work as transports. Maybe make them with better armour ratings but totally crap to no weaponry?

Making pistols better at shooting helps assault units which are usually the ones carrying pistols.

stonefox wrote:"Push your models towards the other guy and squish them together when they touch" isn't really more fun than static gunlines.

thats as good as saying. my line of models is looking at your models from a distance.

The alternative to melee isn't and has never been only static gunlines.

Tau have always performed best using mobility and firepower. To the point that some people regard Mech Tau as cheesy.

Kilkrazy wrote:The alternative to melee isn't and has never been only static gunlines.

Tau have always performed best using mobility and firepower. To the point that some people reghaard Mech Tau as cheesy.

Mabe in my OP I shouldn't have said static...mabe footslog would have been better.

I play tau empire (so kroot, footslogging fire wars, pathfinders, suits of all kinds with tank support), I just feel that since breaking moral via shooting was removed it has cripled tau (and guard) armies like mine.

Tau can still be slightly cometative via mech (fish of fury) and farseight onclave.

Kilkrazy wrote:The alternative to melee isn't and has never been only static gunlines.

Tau have always performed best using mobility and firepower. To the point that some people regard Mech Tau as cheesy.

Yep, but too bad we no longer get as much of a benefit from jump-shoot-jump and, just like in 4th, it takes us 2-3 entire squads in devilfish firing at full rapid fire to wipe out even one marine squad. For orks it downs 10 per full rapid firing squad...when at least 50 others are coming. It's just not efficient enough.

Silghtly off-topic)Have you ever noticed how the 40k galaxy has been yin/yanged. Eye of terror/hadex anomoly, Tau in relation to IG stronghold of home worlds, and one side is imperial domination the other has alien civilizations.

On-topic) IMHO I believe in codex creep, its how you get everyone to buy the new models. So, I think that its just a matter of being patient.

This Yin&Yang that I percive in the 40k galaxy makes me think we will know the direction the Tau are going to take when the new IG codex comes out.

Just remeber that if you can consistently win with what is not considered a strong army. Its a lot more satisfying.

5th Ed does favor melee and to be more specific, armies with respectable CC troop choices.

Orks for cost and T4, Marines for being hard to wound, CSM because they have all their dedicated troop options. While any elite CC unit will dominate a Troop choice in CC, the point of 2 out of 3 games is troops getting control or maintaining control of objectives. In 5th, low initiative, low AC spells doom.
Low AC because your pricey combat troops will be shot up before they get there, low initiative runs the risk of being overwhelmed in a combat rather than just running away. (Ask your necron friends how they feel when a wraithlord charges a big squad of necron warriors... 2 dead, fail an 8 Ld role and then dice off with your awesome I 2 vs an I 4 wraithlord.) Gone are gaunt and guardian hordes... the numbers don't save you they just put you at risk of losing more points in one combat.

Add to it that 2 out of 3 deployments put opponents within 18" instead of 24" and again ranged fire is lessened in importance.

While I think you need a mix and pure CC armies will find it hard to win, firepower puts you in a position to affect the critical close combats a turn or 2 before they occur but CC is the decisive element. The removal of consolidation is the only positive to firepower but it makes avoiding multi-unit charges imperative.

5th edition favors hand to hand so much because its an odd edition of the rules and they always favor hand to hand. The even editions favor shooting. So if you want to go back to a shooting army, just wait for 6th edition.

And yet ... Biker Mobs, Lootas, and Shoota Boyz (not Slugga Boyz) are the stand-out monsters of the dominant Ork lists.

Bikers give you less melee for more maneuver.
Shootas give you less melee for more shooting.
Lootas aren't supposed to get into melee at all.

The Assault Phase is excellent for closing out units due to the morale issues, but good armies can't neglect shooting and maneuvering. That's why Orks stomp so hard and "Nids have done so poorly lately.

The wrapping-units issue with Orks is a real issue, though. The Adepticon Rules regarding that issue should really be the standard for handling that issue: the closer unit doesn't get cover from the other unit. If you just have to deal with the 5+ cover save from the Kustom Force Field rather than the 4+ save from wrapped units I think Orks become a step or two more balanced.

- Marty Lund

DAaddict wrote:5th Ed does favor melee and to be more specific, armies with respectable CC troop choices.

Orks for cost and T4, Marines for being hard to wound, CSM because they have all their dedicated troop options. While any elite CC unit will dominate a Troop choice in CC, the point of 2 out of 3 games is troops getting control or maintaining control of objectives. In 5th, low initiative, low AC spells doom.

This is almost directly contradictory. Orks have a bad initiative, everything goes at the same speed as necros, except on charges, when they come up to 3s and 4s. Slugga boyz are still respectable, but the units I always heard people claiming are broken are ALL shooty units. Bike Boyz, Lootas, etc. I never hear anything about the lowly choppa boy.....

Phoenix wrote:5th edition favors hand to hand so much because its an odd edition of the rules and they always favor hand to hand. The even editions favor shooting. So if you want to go back to a shooting army, just wait for 6th edition.

Riggghhhtttt..... the RT (edition 1) rules sucked for hand to hand, in my group we just ignored them, because nobody really got there anything, they were dead before they crossed the field. Back then it was still fairly serious about being a sci-fi game, so a LOT of a variety came from the detail in the various shoot weapons. If GW wanted to make things interesting, without making melee a huge part of the game, adding more detailed and varied shooty weapons is the way to go. Anyway, I don't remember melee getting big until 3rd edition with the blud angels (hur!) and the rhino rush armies.....

Mattlov wrote:I should not be able to do the following:
My outflanking unit of 8 Termagants with Spinefists comes in on your board edge and assaults your SM Devastator Squad.
Dice are rolled. I get reasonably lucky and inflict 2 wounds!
You have bad luck, and inflict only 1.
You fall back and I get a sweeping advance! I roll a 6! You can't match me!
50-ish points of Gaunts just wiped a what, 200 point squad?

Alternatively: Your Devastators fire everything at a full brood of Spinegaunts, and kill 12 of them.

Well, in that case, it's a good thing you can't do that then. And They Shall Know No Fear prevents Sweeping assault.

In fact, I find that most armies have ways to work to prevent Sweeping Assaults, if you use sound tactics.

stonefox wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The alternative to melee isn't and has never been only static gunlines.

Tau have always performed best using mobility and firepower. To the point that some people regard Mech Tau as cheesy.

Yep, but too bad we no longer get as much of a benefit from jump-shoot-jump and, just like in 4th, it takes us 2-3 entire squads in devilfish firing at full rapid fire to wipe out even one marine squad. For orks it downs 10 per full rapid firing squad...when at least 50 others are coming. It's just not efficient enough.

Yeah, it's a lot harder to win these days for tau. The suits just can't pull it off any more alone, and the tau need to move out to score which is not their strongpoint.

I do kinda wish GW would just rewrite Tau from the ground up like they're doing for DE...except not taking 10+ years to do it of course.

The foundation of the army is fine, it's a highly mobile high firepower army that is delicate. It's the opposite number to the supposedly immobile but numerous and tough IG. It just needs a skirmisher unit that doesn't take up a troops slot. It needs a lot of little fixes, not an overhaul.

@Shuma QFT

Kilkrazy wrote:

Mort wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The morale point is the key thing.

If a target squad that takes casualties had to take a morale check at -1Ld for each casualty, then shooting would be a lot more effective without any other changes.

Or a decent compromise might be instead of a regular morale/break test -1LD for each casualty, make it a pinning test (w/-1 each casualty) instead?

Could be. I wasn't trying to present a fully worked out solution. Just illustrating the point that melee easily causes massive morale breaks and shooting doesn't.

Same here - just tossing out random thoughts for discussion-sake.

I guess in the minds of the designers, having the enemy up-close and personal is a lot more terrifying than having them filling the air with ranged-death from a distance.

For giggles, I wonder if anyone's ever tried a game with the break-test modifiers for shooting?

Mort wrote:

For giggles, I wonder if anyone's ever tried a game with the break-test modifiers for shooting?

I have really wanted to however I haven't quite figured out a fair way to do so yet.

Started a thread in Proposed rules about making shooting and assults equal, but nobody has responded yet. So here is the link. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/226460.page

Make them the same as the assault rules excpet instead of Sweeping Advance if they fail an initiatvie check make them go to ground. That will stop most assaulters in their tracks unless they be fearless at which point add extra wounds for being so stupid as to walk into a firestorm.