This is coming from someone who has been absent for too many editions to count and hence catching up.
Am I missing anything or is this edition the charge / alpha strike meta, when it comes to melee?
There used to be initiative, and some weapons were powerful but heavily penalized for it (e.g. power fist termies). Now, it seems that the IGYG nature is further emphasized, with fewer interruptions of that flow (overwatch in most armies doesn't seem to be a major factor).
When I see "competitive" lists with good melee (for imperium, so mostly marines) it is all about jump packs and stacking attacks on glass cannon units. It does seem to pay off! Sanguinary guard or death companies, with some buffs, seem to be doing eye watering damage.
Am I misreading it? Personally, I prefer grindier fights, with morale mattering more and so on.
If you prefer longer, drawn-out fights and morale mattering then I'm sorry to say 40k really isn't the game for you. It's extremely rare for units to last more than one turn once they are targeted. In fact, if a unit can't destroy its intended target in one turn it's often derided as not being worth much. Exceptions exist for tactics like wrapping and trapping units in melee, but that's usually in order to utterly obliterate them next turn.
40k is far too lethal at the moment and that means if you want to compete you need to try to be ahead in the lethality race.
Slipspace wrote: If you prefer longer, drawn-out fights and morale mattering then I'm sorry to say 40k really isn't the game for you. It's extremely rare for units to last more than one turn once they are targeted. In fact, if a unit can't destroy its intended target in one turn it's often derided as not being worth much. Exceptions exist for tactics like wrapping and trapping units in melee, but that's usually in order to utterly obliterate them next turn.
40k is far too lethal at the moment and that means if you want to compete you need to try to be ahead in the lethality race.
And on top of that 40k is weighed pretty heavily in favor of shooting over melee. A melee unit isn't worth a [censored] if you can't reliably cover 26+ inches and deny overwatch fire*, but a shooting unit is vastly easier to get into range and the good melee units generally aren't better than the good shooting units by enough to make up for being so much harder to deliver.
* Overwatch doesn't always matter but when you hit Tau, Iron Hands, or anything with a lot of auto-hit weapons it's ruinous to suffer the overwatch.
Assault unfortunately just has too many failure points.
1. Your opponent rolls hot on shooting - either killing the unit charging, or crippling it to irrelevancy.
2. You fail the charge and so potentially take damage while achieving nothing (the big one).
3. You whiff your attack rolls/opponent rolls hot on saves - and your opponent then rolls hot fighting back, killing or crippling your unit to irrelevancy (such as reducing it so a quick smite clears the unit off). Or allowing them to just back away and everything else can attack that unit.
4. You charge two units in, your opponent activates counter-offensive for 2 CP, and proceeds to smash the second unit if they charged anything with melee power.
Whereas shooting has the following failure point:
1. You whiff your attack rolls.
It inevitably happens - but with the ability for one unit to roll hot after another rolled cold its much less significant.
Shooting has been buffed and units can fall back, often without penalty, so assault has to be boosted to the point where its odds on to one-shot anything it gets to.
But this then means that if assault can make a first turn charge its often a guaranteed win while your opponent can do nothing. They can screen in deployment - but screens can be removed.
So the whole assault game ends up coming down to charge dice. Those games where you go first and get 3 10+ charge rolls, after any modifiers, rerolls etc so you can contact loads of units and tri-point (surround) something so they can't fall back and shoot you? Odds are high you are going to win. Those games where you fail all three charges? You've almost certainly lost.
And that's just going to play out statistically. Which doesn't necessarily matter for one off games - but for a tournament, the odds of rolling hot on those charge dice for five games in a row are incredibly low.
It just seems to me that part of the issue is terrain set up (and rules!); when tables are shooting galleries, I fail to see how you make assault relevant unless it is "alpha striking" in the ways all of you described. Deepstrike / jump pack assaults seem to be the only reliable way to get to melee.
As for the simplification of the combat phase, they said they wanted to reward tactics (i.e. getting the charge) over stats. This was said in a 2017 warhammer community post.
Do you guys feel that cc is now more tactical? And how about fun, is it more enjoyable?
Personally, as I said I like to play more with morale and grindier fights, but it might be just me.
CC is much more tactical, I'd say it's the part of the game that needs the most thought and positioning. It's also much better than in prior editions, where CC basically didn't need any thought put into it, once you got there the units were smashing their faces in until one side was dead or the game was over.
I'd add that what newman said is only true for some matchups and tournament play, I see combats lasting for several turns in many games. And CC has also gotten stronger than in 6th and 7th Edition. But I admit that shooting overall is still easier to accomplish. But as you correctly pointed out, if shooting decides a game alone you either played against very specific lists (Tau, Guard, Space Marines ) or didn't have enough terrain on the board.
Grey40k wrote: It just seems to me that part of the issue is terrain set up (and rules!); when tables are shooting galleries, I fail to see how you make assault relevant unless it is "alpha striking" in the ways all of you described. Deepstrike / jump pack assaults seem to be the only reliable way to get to melee.
You got the problem exactly right. No unit in the game survives crossing the table for two or more turns before making a safe charge, anything that cannot appear and charge immediately will just get blown to bits before it has a chance to attack.
Terrain setup changes almost nothing about it, more dense terrain usually just makes it harder to get into melee, as many units can't move through terrain and/or lose movement from it.
As for the simplification of the combat phase, they said they wanted to reward tactics (i.e. getting the charge) over stats. This was said in a 2017 warhammer community post.
Do you guys feel that cc is now more tactical? And how about fun, is it more enjoyable?
Well, if you do get into combat, this is actually the case. Units striking first, taking turns for those that don't and the counter-attack stratagem have made combat more interesting than initiative ever did.
The problem is just shooting is too reliable and too powerful in comparison. There is no point in marching boyz across the board when your opponents can clear out 60 or more per turn by shooting them.
It just seems to me that part of the issue is terrain set up (and rules!); when tables are shooting galleries, I fail to see how you make assault relevant unless it is "alpha striking" in the ways all of you described. Deepstrike / jump pack assaults seem to be the only reliable way to get to melee.
As for the simplification of the combat phase, they said they wanted to reward tactics (i.e. getting the charge) over stats. This was said in a 2017 warhammer community post.
Do you guys feel that cc is now more tactical? And how about fun, is it more enjoyable?
Personally, as I said I like to play more with morale and grindier fights, but it might be just me.
Terrain can certainly help, but it still doesn't really fix the core problem, which is that shooting is very heavily favoured by the current rules. More terrain allows for a bit more nuance in the movement phase but the vast majority of currently effective close combat units are models with high mobility and Fly so terrain doesn't cause any extra problems for them and the current core rules make blocking LoS with terrain quite difficult.
Close combat is probably the most tactical part of the game...but that's not really saying much. It's the one part of the game where positioning makes a big difference and there is some level of real interaction between players. However, most of the "tactics" are really just rote memorisation of mechanical effects with not much opportunity to mess up providing you follow a pretty basic flowchart of procedures in your turn. Outside of accounting for the Counter-Attack stratagem (which I've never really liked, but that's a different topic altogether) there aren't really any difficult, meaningful decisions to be made to pull off your tactics.
In some ways its more fun than it was but in others it's probably worse. I like the idea of Fall Back as some kind of mechanic for escaping from combat, but hate the mindless implementation of it, for example. There also isn't much n the way of prolonged combat, precisely because of Fall Back. If a player is charged and ten decides to stay in combat in their turn (Assuming they could Fall Back) it's almost certain that one of the players is wrong.
If deepstrike was reduced to 8", or if melee armies got a strategem to deepstrike within D6+3" like the Callidus I think melee would be much more viable. 9" charges are just not worth it, especially since everyone bubble wraps.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: CC is much more tactical, I'd say it's the part of the game that needs the most thought and positioning. It's also much better than in prior editions, where CC basically didn't need any thought put into it, once you got there the units were smashing their faces in until one side was dead or the game was over.
I'd add that what newman said is only true for some matchups and tournament play, I see combats lasting for several turns in many games. And CC has also gotten stronger than in 6th and 7th Edition. But I admit that shooting overall is still easier to accomplish. But as you correctly pointed out, if shooting decides a game alone you either played against very specific lists (Tau, Guard, Space Marines ) or didn't have enough terrain on the board.
Oh I do see melee combat take several turns, but it's always between two units that are badly suited to hurting each other when neither player can get another unit in to help.
SirGunslinger wrote: If deepstrike was reduced to 8", or if melee armies got a strategem to deepstrike within D6+3" like the Callidus I think melee would be much more viable. 9" charges are just not worth it, especially since everyone bubble wraps.
Melee wouldn't really be more viable. Deep striking would be more viable.
Buffing deep strike as the solution to melee is missing the forest for the trees: the reason melee is so contingent on deep strike right now is that footslogging or even transport-borne melee units are non-viable. If you can't either charge across the board on turn 1 or charge immediately out of deep strike, you're toast. If you can't do enough damage in that one round of melee to justify your cost, you die and it's a bad trade.
The poor state of melee right now is a combination of:
-Increased shooting lethality at range, especially when combined with mobility. No more sacrificing your shooting entirely or only hitting on 6s when you move and fire Heavy. No more being limited to 12" when you move and fire Rapid Fire. Abilities like Bolter Discipline, FRFSRF, and Doctrines give high shooting ability from long range. Re-rolls are just everywhere.
-Stratagems, which disproportionately benefit shooting and increase turn 1 lethality. 'Shoot twice' is easy to use, just have multiple targets within range. 'Fight twice' is much more situational, and you never get to use it if you get 'shoot twice'd off the board T1.
-Overwatch, which gives shooting units yet another opportunity to kill melee armies before they get to swing (or free shots if they fail the charge).
-Fall back, which allows shooting units to get out of melee without penalty- after they've already had an opportunity to swing back, and for many armies, with mechanics that let them still shoot.
Trying to buff deep strike to fix melee is a band-aid that still leaves footslogging melee armies unplayable. Something has to be done about the sheer lethality of shooting combined with the ease of falling back out of combat for footslogging melee to be viable.
Edit: I would also argue that Deep Strike in its current form is an un-fun mechanic. Bubble-wrapping is the only counterplay and that's not a very fun interaction for either side. I miss being able to make the call to try a death-or-glory danger-close deep strike, and risk the unit scattering and being instantly destroyed. Plus having to weigh whether to deploy a unit normally, or put it into DS and not know when it will be available or where it will scatter to. All-DS lists were as hazardous to themselves, coming down piecemeal and scattering unpredictably, as they were to the enemy.
Instead it's either you bubble-wrap correctly and the DSers just can't come down anywhere useful, or you leave an infinitesimally small gap and then the DSers instantly come down with pinpoint precision and immediately shoot you.
Turn 1 charges are frustrating for much the same reason. Either you deployed correctly, or you didn't. No opportunity for counterplay (or if you lose priority, even shooting) before you get charged.
The only melee I might make use of would be a raptoral host of Warp Talons as Emperor's Children to make use of the new charge strat to change one of the charge dice to a 6, use the +2 from raptoral warlord trait and warp talon's negating overwatch ability on the turn they came in and charge as many things as I could.
Still kind of expensive, you need to put a fair bit of points and cp into it and it's still vulnerable to any number of anti-deepstrike abilities, strats, screening, advance warning systems..etc...
The only other melee list I want to try is really a goofy one (only because I like slaanesh and the new KOS model) : Take 2 supreme command detachments as daemons, take 4 KOS (1 of them is Shalsexy Thighbane) and 3 daemon princes with claws and wings, make one of the princes warlord and give him stuffs to help him kill (mark of excess/soulstealer etc...) and 1 infernal enrapturess.
Hope you get 1st turn, run at people and summon 2 more KOS and 1 more prince with the enrapturess and then..erm, try and stay alive as your opponent masturbates into his printed list of shooting dice.
Alternatively, get some points somewhere to include a herald or two for the str buff, or take out a KOS for the wundertwin new daemon prince/herald character. Maybe fit the mirror of vanity in there somewhere too, if you suspect flyers and/or want to tie everything up.
Of course all this relies upon your opponent being a moron and not using screens and anti-deep strike tactics, alongside ridiculous amounts of shooting power. Your opponent not having hands to throw dice also makes things a bit easier.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Looking at the hyperbole dakka likes to throw around I wonder how people play Daemons, Custodes, Orks etc.
For the most part, they don't. And when they do play them, you see lists like
"Here's my ork list. it's 18 stationary cannons, 1 HQ is a psyker and 1 HQ is a stationary cannon, every other model is a grot or a max blob of deep striking ork boyz."
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Looking at the hyperbole dakka likes to throw around I wonder how people play Daemons, Custodes, Orks etc.
For the most part, they don't. And when they do play them, you see lists like
"Here's my ork list. it's 18 stationary cannons, 1 HQ is a psyker and 1 HQ is a stationary cannon, every other model is a grot or a max blob of deep striking ork boyz."
Or the Custodes list that's entirely FW shooting units, or actually just 12 Dawneagles and 900 points of Guard.
There have been some successes with Keeper of Secrets spamming Daemons lists - but cynically I think thats more riding your luck than being good. It doesn't seem to be consistent.
Ye olde Plaguebearers+Thousand Sons got nerfed quite hard in CA19, but its still reasonably effective at what it does. But no one is impressed with an upper middle list being your friends collection of stuff they just happen to own.
Terrain can certainly help, but it still doesn't really fix the core problem, which is that shooting is very heavily favoured by the current rules. More terrain allows for a bit more nuance in the movement phase but the vast majority of currently effective close combat units are models with high mobility and Fly so terrain doesn't cause any extra problems for them and the current core rules make blocking LoS with terrain quite difficult.
That's what I was thinking; right now most melee I see is precisely jump packs. LoS and terrain issues are in part rule based, though. I find that cover isn't currently that great, but I haven't experimented enough to get a good feel.
catbarf wrote:
SirGunslinger wrote: If deepstrike was reduced to 8", or if melee armies got a strategem to deepstrike within D6+3" like the Callidus I think melee would be much more viable. 9" charges are just not worth it, especially since everyone bubble wraps.
Melee wouldn't really be more viable. Deep striking would be more viable.
Buffing deep strike as the solution to melee is missing the forest for the trees: the reason melee is so contingent on deep strike right now is that footslogging or even transport-borne melee units are non-viable. If you can't either charge across the board on turn 1 or charge immediately out of deep strike, you're toast. If you can't do enough damage in that one round of melee to justify your cost, you die and it's a bad trade.
I agree with the sentiment.
-Increased shooting lethality at range, especially when combined with mobility. No more sacrificing your shooting
Yeah, anything like assault 3 on long range bolters should be gone. High volume of fire should require close range, like it kind of did in older editions.
Re-rolls are just everywhere.
I really don't understand all that re roll business...ugh!
Turn 1 charges are frustrating for much the same reason. Either you deployed correctly, or you didn't. No opportunity for counterplay (or if you lose priority, even shooting) before you get charged
That's what I don't like of this edition. Too many gotcha moments, with a lot of special rules, stratagems and super high lethality.
I'd advise the op look at some battle reports on YouTube to be honest, try to watch something like deployment zone or a tabletop tactics video where they take more interesting rather than ultra competitive lists.
Getting the most competitive perspective on melee can lead to a pretty skewed outlook. But plenty of top ranked players use lots of melee, not many of them post on dakka however.
Part of these issues are close combat specific, some are more general 8th edition design choices by GW.
8th edition turned the lethality up to 14 on a scale of 1-10.
Everything is class cannons compaired to older editions.
Most lists think nothing of just deleting 500 points or more of any opponents list turn 1.
GW replaced deathstars with aura bubbles that achieve the same thing.
Strategums and CP balance was so bad GW basically has lost control of the damage they add.
Having abilities and strategums means points cost of units can feel both far to high and rediculously under depending on subfaction rules strategum stacks etc etc.
ArcaneHorror wrote: I just don't understand why it's legal for overwatch to still go off even if the opponent failed the charge.
Overwatch is done after a charge is declared but before the charge distance is rolled so it’s not really the overwatch going off after the charge fails. I’ve always interpreted it as the overwatch has successfully deterred the unit from charging.
ArcaneHorror wrote: I just don't understand why it's legal for overwatch to still go off even if the opponent failed the charge.
Overwatch is done after a charge is declared but before the charge distance is rolled so it’s not really the overwatch going off after the charge fails. I’ve always interpreted it as the overwatch has successfully deterred the unit from charging.
That's true, and I do see how the narrative could be forged that way, but still, it's just one more thing that makes melee unnecessarily difficult in the game.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Looking at the hyperbole dakka likes to throw around I wonder how people play Daemons, Custodes, Orks etc.
The only successful Daemon army of recent times is the Plaguebearer list that isn't so much a close-combat army as just a slow, horde-based force with massive resilience. It gets into combat eventually, but that's usually just to stop it getting shot once it loses the -1 to hit buff from being whittled down. Even in that case it was often accompanied by a TS detachment that did a lot of the actual killing. It was more or less pushe dout of the meta by the rapid increase in shooting effectiveness and the points increase on Plaguebearers. Orks are more of a shooting army than a close combat one nowadays if you want to be competitive. That's one of the reasons a lot of Ork players are mad at GW - their army looks like it wants to be an in-your-face mob of unruly close combat dudes but that doesn't work nearly as well as spamming a bunch of semi-reliable shooting. Custodes are incidentally good at combat but most of their decent lists are also spamming the best shooting they have available and using melee as more of a last resort.
Seeing a pattern here? Obviously, in less hyper-competitive environments you can make melee armies work a bit more easily but they almost always rely on Depp Strike to operate at full effectiveness and that's very random. Even more annoyingly, the various nerfs GW made to Deep Strike early in the game's life cycle made DS shooting more attractive than melee options. I play both Deathwatch and Blood Angels and, in terms of DS, the DW are much more dangerous because I can drop 20 Primaris within 15" of my preferred target with relative ease and Rapid Fire away, often from the safety of cover or even a nice handy ruin and often regardless of screening units because I don't care so much about getting close - anywhere within 15" is fine. My BA really need to get within 9" and even then the battle plan often hinges on a small number of high-variance dice rolls to make the charge. Annoyingly, if you succeed in all of them it often makes the game frustratingly unfun for your opponent because you've basically appeared and charged with no chance for retaliation whereas if I fail too many of them the opposite is true. It's one of the reasons I moved to a more boots-on-the-ground BA army.
Screening is the only real protection against DS but as I mentioned in a previous post, that's not really tactics - it's just rote procedural memorisation. It's the 40k equivalent of bureaucratic busywork: not difficult just annoying and time-consuming. The DS changes in general are a symptom of the general problem with 40k right now. We used to have no pre-measuring and fixed charge ranges. Now we have premeasuring whenever you want and random charges. That removes the randomness of range from shooting. You no longer have to decide whether to move a unit to get into range and potentially risk losing their shooting because you're still too far away. DS used to scatter, allowing you to risk a closer drop at the risk of losing your models, or scattering into terrain and having the same happen. Now it's pinpoint accurate. That basically leaves dice as the last random factor but recent increases in the number of rerolls has meant that even dice rolls aren't random any more. A typical SM shooting phase, for example, rolls and re-rolls so many dice you're very often achieving the average expected results with every unit and those expected results are often very devastating.
That's why I think in order to improve 40k you need to start again, annoyingly. The 8th edition framework is mostly fine (though still a bit too simplistic for me), it's the various additions and army-specific rules that are the problem along with some of the decisions around things like relative S/T values and unit movement speeds.
Slipspace wrote: If you prefer longer, drawn-out fights and morale mattering then I'm sorry to say 40k really isn't the game for you. It's extremely rare for units to last more than one turn once they are targeted. In fact, if a unit can't destroy its intended target in one turn it's often derided as not being worth much. Exceptions exist for tactics like wrapping and trapping units in melee, but that's usually in order to utterly obliterate them next turn.
40k is far too lethal at the moment and that means if you want to compete you need to try to be ahead in the lethality race.
And on top of that 40k is weighed pretty heavily in favor of shooting over melee. A melee unit isn't worth a [censored] if you can't reliably cover 26+ inches and deny overwatch fire*, but a shooting unit is vastly easier to get into range and the good melee units generally aren't better than the good shooting units by enough to make up for being so much harder to deliver.
* Overwatch doesn't always matter but when you hit Tau, Iron Hands, or anything with a lot of auto-hit weapons it's ruinous to suffer the overwatch.
This isn't true. I feel that this edition has made melee really powerful, probably more generally powerful than it should be.
You don't even have to be good at melee to want to charge in, because initiative is gone, chargers fight first, and if you have any survivors [which isn't exactly a stretch], the enemy unit can't charge or shoot next turn and is effectively locked out.
IMO, CQC should be something specialists do and are good at, and to some degree this is true, but really, regular units are also adequately good at it since it just requires having bodies and making your charge to be considered "Adequate".
I guess that part of the issue is that what the new rule designers at GW consider tactics are essentially combos.
Pile in some buffs and get a charge for that gotcha/ alpha strike moment. No breaking and coming back, no grindy fights. Swift all out fights that tend to reward timing and a bit of luck.
My idea strategy is more positioning, knowing the relative strength of units, outmaneuvering the opponent. I prefer more of a “simulation” and less of a “table top board game”.
As an example, two computer games I played: men of war assault squad and close combat series (a bridge too far, etc.). Assault squad (men of war franchise) rewards a tad more micro of units with direct control. It is more gamey and you can accomplish true hero like feats of you practice. Close combat let you give orders to units, but no micro. Morale and experience played a large role, and here are no miracle feats. It is a lot more about positioning and sound strategy.
I feel that old 40k was close combat, and the more arcadey version of assault squad is 8th edition.
Slipspace wrote: If you prefer longer, drawn-out fights and morale mattering then I'm sorry to say 40k really isn't the game for you. It's extremely rare for units to last more than one turn once they are targeted. In fact, if a unit can't destroy its intended target in one turn it's often derided as not being worth much. Exceptions exist for tactics like wrapping and trapping units in melee, but that's usually in order to utterly obliterate them next turn.
40k is far too lethal at the moment and that means if you want to compete you need to try to be ahead in the lethality race.
And on top of that 40k is weighed pretty heavily in favor of shooting over melee. A melee unit isn't worth a [censored] if you can't reliably cover 26+ inches and deny overwatch fire*, but a shooting unit is vastly easier to get into range and the good melee units generally aren't better than the good shooting units by enough to make up for being so much harder to deliver.
* Overwatch doesn't always matter but when you hit Tau, Iron Hands, or anything with a lot of auto-hit weapons it's ruinous to suffer the overwatch.
This isn't true. I feel that this edition has made melee really powerful, probably more generally powerful than it should be.
You don't even have to be good at melee to want to charge in, because initiative is gone, chargers fight first, and if you have any survivors [which isn't exactly a stretch], the enemy unit can't charge or shoot next turn and is effectively locked out.
IMO, CQC should be something specialists do and are good at, and to some degree this is true, but really, regular units are also adequately good at it since it just requires having bodies and making your charge to be considered "Adequate".
But at the same time, it makes all elite melee armies that aren't mounted on jetbikes or jetpacks, really horrible. While at the same time GW has this strange idea of costing melee stuff as if it was range stuff aka is melee units would always reach melee at full strenght. And that is stupid, because everyone knows a termintor even teleporting in, is not going to make it in to melee most of the time.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: This isn't true. I feel that this edition has made melee really powerful, probably more generally powerful than it should be.
You don't even have to be good at melee to want to charge in, because initiative is gone, chargers fight first, and if you have any survivors [which isn't exactly a stretch], the enemy unit can't charge or shoot next turn and is effectively locked out.
IMO, CQC should be something specialists do and are good at, and to some degree this is true, but really, regular units are also adequately good at it since it just requires having bodies and making your charge to be considered "Adequate".
In any unit is a specialized melee unit, it's nobz. They are completely terrible right now, because they have no chance to cross of crossing board without help, and unless if you sink 150 points worth of killsaws into them (290 points for the unit), they struggle to kill a ten man unit of primaris or a rhino. If you jump them turn one, they get stuck in some sort of screening unit that is worth a fraction of them. If I put them into the tellyporta (an option other armies don't have), the don't arrive before turn 2, and still have to get past screening units. And when they do, they suffer overwatch and then die next turn because the enemy just fell back and shot them down. Unless the got shot down on the way there or after failing the charge.
Instead of nobz, for 240 point I can have flash gits who can start killing things from the very first turn, thus reducing the damage my army takes, they can shoot targets behind screens and have zero risk of not being able to shoot. They are a great unit.
I don't see how a combat is supposed to be good when you have to pay 29 points for a melee specialist that you can expect to kill a unit of non-specialists once every other game, while a shooting specialist for 17-24 points will reliably deal damage multiple times per game costs the same or less.
Currently, in order for close combat specialist to deal enough damage to justify their high risk, they need to be able to one-shot a unit that is twice or more times their own value and have a mechanism to dodge getting shot - either deep strike or being a character.
Outside of some very few extreme durable outliers like plague bearers, I don't think there are any melee units without deep strike or character protection seeing play.
The problem you are having is that your enemy's non-specialist are bogging down your non-specialist - a problem that can be played around. It's also a problem some armies simply don't have because many shooting specialist also have the FLY keyword, stratagems or chapter tactics which basically allows them to ignore the one thing melee actually has going for them.
Not that initiative wouldn't change a thing about this - initiative was handed out based on the race, not based on whether you were a combat specialist or not.
Something that can't be repeated often enough: In 8th edition, the value of a melee unit is solely decided by it's ability to get into combat, not by it's ability to actually fight in combat.
Grey40k wrote: This is coming from someone who has been absent for too many editions to count and hence catching up.
Am I missing anything or is this edition the charge / alpha strike meta, when it comes to melee?
There used to be initiative, and some weapons were powerful but heavily penalized for it (e.g. power fist termies). Now, it seems that the IGYG nature is further emphasized, with fewer interruptions of that flow (overwatch in most armies doesn't seem to be a major factor).
When I see "competitive" lists with good melee (for imperium, so mostly marines) it is all about jump packs and stacking attacks on glass cannon units. It does seem to pay off! Sanguinary guard or death companies, with some buffs, seem to be doing eye watering damage.
Am I misreading it? Personally, I prefer grindier fights, with morale mattering more and so on.
Yeah the game has gone heavily into alpha strike. If after turn 3 there's still significant amount of units left for either army that army is basically winner. Most of the time armies are pretty much mutually vaporized and remnants are scoring end.
With game itself being slowed down slower than even 2nd edition GW had to figure out way to speed up the overall game. Answer: Abilty to cause damage goes up the roof so that after first turn or two there's far less to do as armies are wrecked!
Offence was greater than defence even in start with index and with codexes and upgrades offence keeps getting more buffs than defence. Basic armour save is fairly useless and if your point cost per wound is in 2 digits even at 3+´save you are soft. It's somewhat telling toughest unit orks have is actually the gretchin...T2 tougher than T4 in practice
Good armies blow up knight a turn with firepower to spare. Orks need to load up on anything they want to take by a lot because they die fast. 60 ork boyz dies up in a turn no problem. 10 mek guns can be lost in a turn without too weird dice rolling even on not that competive eldar army. And in 2k+ games necron resurection protocol is pretty much useless as you need survivors from unit to even roll it...
Only army I have tried that isn't removing models by bucketloads when enemy fires is sisters of battle and more specifically valorous heart. Single digit point per wound, 3+ that ignores up to -2 armour save modifier and 6+++ is actually something that doesn't get just wiped off easily when in cover. Haven't faced dark eldars yet though. Their disintegrator spam can vaporize those fast though.
Best defence to alpha strike is outdo them in alpha strike.
Whenever I see people arguing the 'merits' of charging it's always something along the lines of the following,
> Ah well you're just playing in "Ultra-Competitive environments"
As if this is a meaningful of worthwhile comment. What is good does not change depending on where it is being played - most 'meta' units are simply inherently good - they aren't good by virtue of being played against other, meta-specific units. A tournament winning list is going to trump a majority of its opponents regardless.
> Melee requires more skill/tactics/finesse/complexity
Brevity is the soul of wit. You can speak of 'complexity', 'tactics' and 'strategy' but ultimately why ever pursue a more complex option when the same payoff can be achieved by a more simpler option. The simplest option is usually the best one, and in 40k this really is the case.
> Hyperbole! Daemons, Orks, Custodes
Competitive Daemon Lists are soup and I don't think they're doing that great anymore. Orks are quite literally a shooting army. Custodes are in the gutter.
In 8th edition, the value of a melee unit is solely decided by it's ability to get into combat, not by it's ability to actually fight in combat.
Ehh, somewhat disagree, considering the Possessed shenanigans bomb that runs around CSM list, but overall yes, Damage output is not as important unless of course it's a suicide kamikaze BA smasher or other similar units, which however all also have no issue reaching combat so yes.
Good combat units are determined by 75% of the threat range they have and 25% of killyness.
That is also why AL Zerkers are a LOT better then WE zerkers, because AL Zerkers will hit you whilest WE zerkers will not make it over the board.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
> Hyperbole! Daemons, Orks, Custodes
Competitive Daemon Lists are soup and I don't think they're doing that great anymore. Orks are quite literally a shooting army. Custodes are in the gutter.
Literally all tournament Chaos lists are soup though, but that's supposedly fine.....
As for orkz. Whilest in me olden days i used to run what is in essence a mekband or dakka army, which at the time didn't work and would work better nowadasy, it's still not the core faction identity. And Ork melee beeing so bad or the fact that boys aren't even the real troop backbone anymore (because why use 7ppm models when you can field grots which also double as protection) then overall the Identity is in shamles in a way.
Didn't the BA smash captins work only, because castellans were the dominant force at the time, and were eliminating the eldar as a threat, often by being in the same list as the BA captins?
We had a few melee units work in 8th. the monster mash worked for a split second. Double dipping on stratagems inari shining spears fighting multiple times and charging stuff from another side of the board etc.
Karol wrote: Didn't the BA smash captins work only, because castellans were the dominant force at the time, and were eliminating the eldar as a threat, often by being in the same list as the BA captins?
We had a few melee units work in 8th. the monster mash worked for a split second. Double dipping on stratagems inari shining spears fighting multiple times and charging stuff from another side of the board etc.
Kinda. Smash Captains are hyper-efficient against Knights, yes, but it's a rare army that doesn't include at least 1 or 2 good targets for a Smash Captain. They'll tear apart Shining Spears quite handily, for example, and Primaris too. It's definitely true though that a Smash Captain can be made into a bad investment if the enemy army has no good targets for him - he's not cheap but is extremely good at bullying units much more expensive than him.
blood reaper wrote: Whenever I see people arguing the 'merits' of charging it's always something along the lines of the following,
> Ah well you're just playing in "Ultra-Competitive environments"
As if this is a meaningful of worthwhile comment. What is good does not change depending on where it is being played - most 'meta' units are simply inherently good - they aren't good by virtue of being played against other, meta-specific units. A tournament winning list is going to trump a majority of its opponents regardless.
> Melee requires more skill/tactics/finesse/complexity
Brevity is the soul of wit. You can speak of 'complexity', 'tactics' and 'strategy' but ultimately why ever pursue a more complex option when the same payoff can be achieved by a more simpler option. The simplest option is usually the best one, and in 40k this really is the case.
> Hyperbole! Daemons, Orks, Custodes
Competitive Daemon Lists are soup and I don't think they're doing that great anymore. Orks are quite literally a shooting army. Custodes are in the gutter.
Well, from the OP I wasn't aware that the thread deals with tournament play only, consequently I mentioned factions that rely on CC. Also, since the OP is a returning player I just found it fair to draw a larger picture than the very narrow view many people on dakka like to use, where units (and as shown in this thread even whole factions) are seen as either "broken op" or "unplayable trash", while in reality lists and armies are usually dependant on what people have available, like the look of or what follows the headcanon of their army - outside of tournaments that is of course.
If withdrawing from close combat took place after the shooting phase, that would help melee units a lot - as would melee Overwatch against withdrawing troops.
Cover is also an issue. DS is the way to go for now because advancing infantry can’t protect themselves from being shot when on the move. Even something like a -1 to hit troops that advanced would be of some benefit. That and having more “assault” transports that can disgorge their contents after moving.
I never played in tournaments and I both expirianced and seen melee not work. I seen it not work for players that played longer then I live twice over, and I seen it not work in games between totaly new players.
Any game that is balanced or fun, if your opponents lets it be balanced or fun, is going to run in to huge problems. And in fact at the tournament level those problems are going to be less prelevant there. Because if army X is bad, then no one worries about it, as the number of X players is going to be borderline low . On the other hand a non tournament new Inari player, that tries to use his army the way the rules tell him to use them aka get close and melee or shot up stuff, is going to have an extremly bad time over the course of multiple games. And lets hope he was using proxies, and not spent 800-900$ on models, only to find out that he is playing a crippled version of an eldar and dark eldar soup book, and that he in fact has to stock up on different models and invest another 500-600$ to get a real army.
Because if that happens, some people decide to not spend the extra money, and just leave the game.
In 8th edition, the value of a melee unit is solely decided by it's ability to get into combat, not by it's ability to actually fight in combat.
Ehh, somewhat disagree, considering the Possessed shenanigans bomb that runs around CSM list, but overall yes, Damage output is not as important
Possessed have the ability to get into combat through layered defensive debuffs and high speed from warptime and alpha legion stratagems. The could stack insane amount of damage before, it just didn't matter because they couldn't get into combat.
As for orkz. Whilest in me olden days i used to run what is in essence a mekband or dakka army, which at the time didn't work and would work better nowadasy, it's still not the core faction identity.
Ork shooting units have always outnumbered melee units, and shooting has always been a core part of their identity. I can't talk for the times before 4th editions' codex, but ever since no successful ork list has ever gone without shooting - not even the green tides.
Karol wrote: I never played in tournaments and I both expirianced and seen melee not work. I seen it not work for players that played longer then I live twice over, and I seen it not work in games between totaly new players.
Any game that is balanced or fun, if your opponents lets it be balanced or fun, is going to run in to huge problems. And in fact at the tournament level those problems are going to be less prelevant there. Because if army X is bad, then no one worries about it, as the number of X players is going to be borderline low . On the other hand a non tournament new Inari player, that tries to use his army the way the rules tell him to use them aka get close and melee or shot up stuff, is going to have an extremly bad time over the course of multiple games. And lets hope he was using proxies, and not spent 800-900$ on models, only to find out that he is playing a crippled version of an eldar and dark eldar soup book, and that he in fact has to stock up on different models and invest another 500-600$ to get a real army.
Because if that happens, some people decide to not spend the extra money, and just leave the game.
Well, from the descriptions you gave about your playgroup it seems to be very focused on the tournament or let's say hardcore competitive aspect of the game as well.
I've seen melee to be an important part of nearly every game in 8th edition and with my Nurgle daemons I don't really have a choice. But even with my Death Guard it's always good to have melee elements as well to distract from your shooty units. Against armies like Tau which I can't outshoot I have to rely on CC to get them. If there wasn't a melee thread he could simply pick and shoot whatever he wants.
You can play assault army versus assault army and have fun. Or less optimised shooting lists. Its still a bit skewed - because charge dice are everything - but it can still be fun in itself.
If you play good players using lists that consistently place in GTs then yes, turning up with bad units isn't going to be fun. But if its just some people down the local store, odds are learning to play will improve things.
I'm sort of mystified how you'd spend $800 on Eldar and get units which were totally non-viable to the point where you needed to spend a further $600 to sort it out. Wych Cult meets... mass banshees/scorpions or something?
Slipspace wrote: If you prefer longer, drawn-out fights and morale mattering then I'm sorry to say 40k really isn't the game for you. It's extremely rare for units to last more than one turn once they are targeted. In fact, if a unit can't destroy its intended target in one turn it's often derided as not being worth much. Exceptions exist for tactics like wrapping and trapping units in melee, but that's usually in order to utterly obliterate them next turn.
40k is far too lethal at the moment and that means if you want to compete you need to try to be ahead in the lethality race.
And on top of that 40k is weighed pretty heavily in favor of shooting over melee. A melee unit isn't worth a [censored] if you can't reliably cover 26+ inches and deny overwatch fire*, but a shooting unit is vastly easier to get into range and the good melee units generally aren't better than the good shooting units by enough to make up for being so much harder to deliver.
* Overwatch doesn't always matter but when you hit Tau, Iron Hands, or anything with a lot of auto-hit weapons it's ruinous to suffer the overwatch.
This isn't true. I feel that this edition has made melee really powerful, probably more generally powerful than it should be.
You don't even have to be good at melee to want to charge in, because initiative is gone, chargers fight first, and if you have any survivors [which isn't exactly a stretch], the enemy unit can't charge or shoot next turn and is effectively locked out.
IMO, CQC should be something specialists do and are good at, and to some degree this is true, but really, regular units are also adequately good at it since it just requires having bodies and making your charge to be considered "Adequate".
It's 100% true. Fall back alone has made assault a serious gamble. And that's after you survive delivery, because getting close in 8th is basically suicide.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: Didn't the BA smash captins work only, because castellans were the dominant force at the time, and were eliminating the eldar as a threat, often by being in the same list as the BA captins?
We had a few melee units work in 8th. the monster mash worked for a split second. Double dipping on stratagems inari shining spears fighting multiple times and charging stuff from another side of the board etc.
Smash capt is still useful, but its harder to drive him now for sure.
Slipspace wrote: If you prefer longer, drawn-out fights and morale mattering then I'm sorry to say 40k really isn't the game for you. It's extremely rare for units to last more than one turn once they are targeted. In fact, if a unit can't destroy its intended target in one turn it's often derided as not being worth much. Exceptions exist for tactics like wrapping and trapping units in melee, but that's usually in order to utterly obliterate them next turn.
40k is far too lethal at the moment and that means if you want to compete you need to try to be ahead in the lethality race.
And on top of that 40k is weighed pretty heavily in favor of shooting over melee. A melee unit isn't worth a [censored] if you can't reliably cover 26+ inches and deny overwatch fire*, but a shooting unit is vastly easier to get into range and the good melee units generally aren't better than the good shooting units by enough to make up for being so much harder to deliver.
* Overwatch doesn't always matter but when you hit Tau, Iron Hands, or anything with a lot of auto-hit weapons it's ruinous to suffer the overwatch.
This isn't true. I feel that this edition has made melee really powerful, probably more generally powerful than it should be.
You don't even have to be good at melee to want to charge in, because initiative is gone, chargers fight first, and if you have any survivors [which isn't exactly a stretch], the enemy unit can't charge or shoot next turn and is effectively locked out.
IMO, CQC should be something specialists do and are good at, and to some degree this is true, but really, regular units are also adequately good at it since it just requires having bodies and making your charge to be considered "Adequate".
It's 100% true. Fall back alone has made assault a serious gamble. And that's after you survive delivery, because getting close in 8th is basically suicide.
Seriously? No.
I be like "Hey guardsmen, charge that dreadnought!" or "BSS, charge those Orks!" all the time, because it works. I would never have done this before, because these units ostensibly suck in melee, but since I get to swing first I get to get damage in, and because even if they fall back, they can't shoot or charge. I rarely care if they fall back, my unit that I charged with was usually devastated in the first place and at the very least fairly inexpensive.
And falling back is easy to prevent for non-FLY units. Three Guardsmen can effectively take out a Leviathan for at least a turn, and a 40 point squad of riflemen can keep it out of the game from basically turn 2 onwards if they charge from out of LoS.
Then, beyond it's efficiency, there's it's necessity. Control of the center of the board is decisive, or at least I perceive it as vital to victory in both ITC and Eternal War. It take CQC units to control the board center and maintain position pressure on the enemy, to take and hold the ground.
I would like to see a general shift away from melee being almost universally good. It should be something only undertaken by specialists, not line infantry, and should be a useful asset but not an entire army strategy. That's my belief, and my issue with melee is that it doesn't really matter how good you are at it, just that you can get there.
I'm increasingly a fan of returning initiative, though assigning it on a unit-by-unit basis and not on a faction basis, and removing the can't shoot after falling back penalty [at least for heavy equipment], so that melee returns to the realm of designated units being good at it and everybody else wants to avoid it, and to reduce the strength of it's ability to control the board somewhat which is ridiculously way too strong.
In 8th edition, the value of a melee unit is solely decided by it's ability to get into combat, not by it's ability to actually fight in combat.
Ehh, somewhat disagree, considering the Possessed shenanigans bomb that runs around CSM list, but overall yes, Damage output is not as important
Possessed have the ability to get into combat through layered defensive debuffs and high speed from warptime and alpha legion stratagems. The could stack insane amount of damage before, it just didn't matter because they couldn't get into combat.
Exactly. Same for warp talons. Before Faith and Fury they were gak. Now they can reliably make the charge out of deep strike using "raptor strike" and can prevent fallback with "we have come for you". Now they're in every list I build, before they stayed home. Melee is all about getting there and not getting shot to pieces the next turn.
I think it mostly comes down to having balanced lists.
If your whole army is just designed to footslog across the tabletop before engaging in melee you're going to have a tough time.
If your whole army is designed to sit in a static ball and shoot and you get charged from deepstrike or the opponent can withstand your firepower, make contact and starts to chew through your gunline you will have a bad time.
That's part of the reason Marines started doing so well, good shooting backed by at least competent melee or decent shooting with movement shenanigans and powerful melee.
Look at Sean Nayden's list at LVO, he came third with a list that consisted of three squads of rangers, a lot of shooting/melee jetbikes and characters! Admittedly, he's probably the only person that could make that list work but he came in third against some of the most insane shooting armies 8th has seen.
Most good, well designed gunlines will have at least enough melee to be able to counter opposing melee threats, apart from Tau of course.
Slipspace wrote: If you prefer longer, drawn-out fights and morale mattering then I'm sorry to say 40k really isn't the game for you. It's extremely rare for units to last more than one turn once they are targeted. In fact, if a unit can't destroy its intended target in one turn it's often derided as not being worth much. Exceptions exist for tactics like wrapping and trapping units in melee, but that's usually in order to utterly obliterate them next turn.
40k is far too lethal at the moment and that means if you want to compete you need to try to be ahead in the lethality race.
And on top of that 40k is weighed pretty heavily in favor of shooting over melee. A melee unit isn't worth a [censored] if you can't reliably cover 26+ inches and deny overwatch fire*, but a shooting unit is vastly easier to get into range and the good melee units generally aren't better than the good shooting units by enough to make up for being so much harder to deliver.
* Overwatch doesn't always matter but when you hit Tau, Iron Hands, or anything with a lot of auto-hit weapons it's ruinous to suffer the overwatch.
This isn't true. I feel that this edition has made melee really powerful, probably more generally powerful than it should be.
You don't even have to be good at melee to want to charge in, because initiative is gone, chargers fight first, and if you have any survivors [which isn't exactly a stretch], the enemy unit can't charge or shoot next turn and is effectively locked out.
IMO, CQC should be something specialists do and are good at, and to some degree this is true, but really, regular units are also adequately good at it since it just requires having bodies and making your charge to be considered "Adequate".
It's 100% true. Fall back alone has made assault a serious gamble. And that's after you survive delivery, because getting close in 8th is basically suicide.
Seriously? No.
I be like "Hey guardsmen, charge that dreadnought!" or "BSS, charge those Orks!" all the time, because it works. I would never have done this before, because these units ostensibly suck in melee, but since I get to swing first I get to get damage in, and because even if they fall back, they can't shoot or charge. I rarely care if they fall back, my unit that I charged with was usually devastated in the first place and at the very least fairly inexpensive.
And falling back is easy to prevent for non-FLY units. Three Guardsmen can effectively take out a Leviathan for at least a turn, and a 40 point squad of riflemen can keep it out of the game from basically turn 2 onwards if they charge from out of LoS.
Then, beyond it's efficiency, there's it's necessity. Control of the center of the board is decisive, or at least I perceive it as vital to victory in both ITC and Eternal War. It take CQC units to control the board center and maintain position pressure on the enemy, to take and hold the ground.
I would like to see a general shift away from melee being almost universally good. It should be something only undertaken by specialists, not line infantry, and should be a useful asset but not an entire army strategy. That's my belief, and my issue with melee is that it doesn't really matter how good you are at it, just that you can get there.
I'm increasingly a fan of returning initiative, though assigning it on a unit-by-unit basis and not on a faction basis, and removing the can't shoot after falling back penalty [at least for heavy equipment], so that melee returns to the realm of designated units being good at it and everybody else wants to avoid it, and to reduce the strength of it's ability to control the board somewhat which is ridiculously way too strong.
You are seriously insane if you think any of that works in practice. You will never get your guardsmen anywhere near a leviathan normally. CQC units go to the center of the board and then die. Full stop.
I am assaulting constantly. No one cares if their front rank, ie the only thing can be assaulted, doesn't shoot. It's literally tripoint or die. That's the game. And it's stupid and awful.
Assault is awful in 8th, with a bandaid of tripointing. If you are finding that assault works for you easily and often, you need better competition.
You are seriously insane if you think any of that works in practice. You will never get your guardsmen anywhere near a leviathan normally. CQC units go to the center of the board and then die. Full stop.
I am assaulting constantly. No one cares if their front rank, ie the only thing can be assaulted, doesn't shoot. It's literally tripoint or die. That's the game. And it's stupid and awful.
Assault is awful in 8th, with a bandaid of tripointing. If you are finding that assault works for you easily and often, you need better competition.
I have successfully charged and thus neutralized Leviathan Dreadnoughts with troop infantry a couple of times. That's among the ways that I was able to handle the copycat IH gun-castles that were popping up for a while.
Assault has been working for me all edition, and so far, it continues to do so. I don't charge their front rank, I either fly over it or gun it down to open a path to attempt my charges. I use units that are cheap or I know can make it. Guardsmen and Sisters are good chargers because they're already going that way and are going to find themselves in charge range. So are Grey Hunters, particularly with free chainswords, Shock Assault, and the ability to outflank and embed a melee specialist in their squad to ensure they find success. I've had recent success with my Grey Knights.
And I've seen failure to utilize close combat lose many games for people I spectate. Often, it's just because they can't get out of the deploy or are forced into their deploy as they refuse melee engagements and only fall back to try to get away, and with the loss of board center they also lose the game. I've seen several games too many where early CQC pressure is the ultimate decider, especially on Eternal War, where infiltrating or vanguarding units make their charges and box in the enemy, and if you don't rise to the occasion and counter-charge, you'll spend more than half the game boxed in an have no chance for victory.
The key is not not let melee box you in. Just proceed as normal, with the expectation that you will be charged. You can space out screens to minimize flying assault elements. I do it in mirror matches all the time.
The true power of IG is not gunline, but rather, move move move to keep assault elements far away from the other units. It's almost impossible for me to do anything vs guardsmen if I go second.
In 8th edition, the value of a melee unit is solely decided by it's ability to get into combat, not by it's ability to actually fight in combat.
Ehh, somewhat disagree, considering the Possessed shenanigans bomb that runs around CSM list, but overall yes, Damage output is not as important
Possessed have the ability to get into combat through layered defensive debuffs and high speed from warptime and alpha legion stratagems. The could stack insane amount of damage before, it just didn't matter because they couldn't get into combat.
As for orkz. Whilest in me olden days i used to run what is in essence a mekband or dakka army, which at the time didn't work and would work better nowadasy, it's still not the core faction identity.
Ork shooting units have always outnumbered melee units, and shooting has always been a core part of their identity. I can't talk for the times before 4th editions' codex, but ever since no successful ork list has ever gone without shooting - not even the green tides.
Ohh not disgreeing with that, but melee and the Act of gud krumpin certainly lost value, but at this point i am probably skarboy too old for orkz
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: The key is not not let melee box you in. Just proceed as normal, with the expectation that you will be charged. You can space out screens to minimize flying assault elements. I do it in mirror matches all the time.
The true power of IG is not gunline, but rather, move move move to keep assault elements far away from the other units. It's almost impossible for me to do anything vs guardsmen if I go second.
You have access to the best screen Deleter troop choices in the game.
That also is durable.
And are telling me that you have issues with screens.
Meanwhile my basic csm war guardsmen screens for breakfast.
Sure, the screens eventually die. After the game is lost. That's their job. At 4 ppm, even primaris aren't truly efficient at removing guardsmen. I've resorted to autobolters and its still very very hard.
There's also the issue that winning BA lists have zero shooting atm. Stephen Box skips every shooting phase every game.
Martel732 wrote: You are seriously insane if you think any of that works in practice. You will never get your guardsmen anywhere near a leviathan normally. CQC units go to the center of the board and then die. Full stop.
That's your reliance on pure infantry lists. Space marines don't hold the center with cc troops, they use cc dreadnoughts. Get a fething contemptor already.
And agreed with NotOnline!!. Csm have no trouble clearing screens. Though mine usually take plasma or chaincannons for extra oomph.
If getting there is everything, why does everyone hate Banshees? Not only can you not fire overwatch at Banshees, Though it is unlikely, they can theoretically hit you from 29" away BEFORE using strats, or craft world traits.
In fact, if you are within 24" of a banshee, the absolute minimum distance they'll move against you is 14, meaning they've got you if they score 10 or higher on 3d6.
You can only take 30 of them in an army- 60 if you include an additional 3 max units in a Ynarri detachment.
But what about DE Reavers? Do all DE lists contain 36 Red Grief Jetbikes? Because by your logic they should- their threat range for CC is 28" - 40" in game where the entire battlefield is typically 48" wide.
You can hit'em with OW, but they could also be packing 12 chances at mortal wounds on 4+ either when their charges hit or when you fall back.
BTW, I love both of these units, and once I can invest in models again, my builds will include these units, though not to that extreme. But my experience is that most people on this forum think Banshees are awful, and while I haven't heard people saying reavers are awful, I also haven't heard people raving about them.
If getting there really was everything, I think these units would get a lot more love than they do.
Good combat units are determined by 75% of the threat range they have and 25% of killyness.
The issues with banshees are that they Fall flat in the last Part , aka s3 is not particulary dangerous.
Also unlike warptalons which don't need to kill , they can't prevent falback which basically is just killing in a timer if you can do that.
Martel732 wrote: You are seriously insane if you think any of that works in practice. You will never get your guardsmen anywhere near a leviathan normally. CQC units go to the center of the board and then die. Full stop.
That's your reliance on pure infantry lists. Space marines don't hold the center with cc troops, they use cc dreadnoughts. Get a fething contemptor already.
And agreed with NotOnline!!. Csm have no trouble clearing screens. Though mine usually take plasma or chaincannons for extra oomph.
I be like "Hey guardsmen, charge that dreadnought!" or "BSS, charge those Orks!" all the time, because it works.
Both of the examples you gave are predominantly shooting units, which can opportunistically benefit from melee. Your battle plan does not revolve around getting them into close combat. The fact that footslogging Guardsmen are easily slaughtered as they run up the board isn't a problem, because they're still shooting at full effectiveness all the while. If you get the opportunity to charge something after having already shot, and it doesn't have anything really scary in terms of Overwatch or melee, you might as well. You get some extra hits and they have to take a penalty when they fall back. But it's not your primary way of killing things.
Units that have to be in melee to be useful, and have to make back their points through melee, are much less effective and without a reliable delivery system aren't worth taking. I agree with you that CQC should be the realm of specialists, but talking about it as this edition making melee powerful is rather missing the point. 40Kis currently weighted heavily in favor of shooting over melee, in that melee specialists lose out to ranged specialists for ease of use, flexibility, and raw effectiveness. And the problems that melee specialists face don't all come down to ranged specialists being decent in melee too; they come down to ranged firepower being just as lethal but applied far sooner and with far fewer caveats on its use.
Good combat units are determined by 75% of the threat range they have and 25% of killyness.
The issues with banshees are that they Fall flat in the last Part , aka s3 is not particulary dangerous.
Also unlike warptalons which don't need to kill , they can't prevent falback which basically is just killing in a timer if you can do that.
Martel732 wrote: You are seriously insane if you think any of that works in practice. You will never get your guardsmen anywhere near a leviathan normally. CQC units go to the center of the board and then die. Full stop.
That's your reliance on pure infantry lists. Space marines don't hold the center with cc troops, they use cc dreadnoughts. Get a fething contemptor already.
And agreed with NotOnline!!. Csm have no trouble clearing screens. Though mine usually take plasma or chaincannons for extra oomph.
I often Find the reaper Overkill tbh.
To quote one of my favorite fethed up 80s cartoons "There is no overkill. There is only kill, or don't kill ".
Martel732 wrote: You are seriously insane if you think any of that works in practice. You will never get your guardsmen anywhere near a leviathan normally. CQC units go to the center of the board and then die. Full stop.
That's your reliance on pure infantry lists. Space marines don't hold the center with cc troops, they use cc dreadnoughts. Get a fething contemptor already.
And agreed with NotOnline!!. Csm have no trouble clearing screens. Though mine usually take plasma or chaincannons for extra oomph.
Top BA lists don't.
Also, pure infantry is almost mandatory with a menagerie of expensive vehicles with no invuln.
Martel732 wrote: You are seriously insane if you think any of that works in practice. You will never get your guardsmen anywhere near a leviathan normally. CQC units go to the center of the board and then die. Full stop.
That's your reliance on pure infantry lists. Space marines don't hold the center with cc troops, they use cc dreadnoughts. Get a fething contemptor already.
And agreed with NotOnline!!. Csm have no trouble clearing screens. Though mine usually take plasma or chaincannons for extra oomph.
Top BA lists don't.
Which? The dreadnoughts or clearing screens? And who cares what other people do. It's apparently not working for you, at least according to you, but I suspect you do better than you say here. If what you're doing isn't working try something new.
Ach! Stop editing your posts after I respond. That's why I said get a Contemptor, they have invuls, and since you play loyalists fnp if you take the relic version.
Good combat units are determined by 75% of the threat range they have and 25% of killyness.
The issues with banshees are that they Fall flat in the last Part , aka s3 is not particulary dangerous.
Also unlike warptalons which don't need to kill , they can't prevent falback which basically is just killing in a timer if you can do that
You are correct. That's my point- getting there isn't everything. Meaning that once you get there, your ability to make it worthwhile is still very important to the equation.
Banshees are EXCELLENT at getting there, but not so great at doing stuff once they do, which is why they aren't as effective as they could be.
They are proof that getting there isn't everything. I do personally like them, but I wasn't arguing that they were awesome. Quite the opposite actually.
I did much better after PA for sure. It's just absurd to claim that assault is good in a general sense. Range 0 is a serious problem in 8th. For my area, I can't make due without shooting elements.
Just for some historical reference: Back in 3rd/4th Ed, if you moved, your Rapid Fire weapons got one shot at 12". If you shot at all, whether you moved or not, you couldn't charge. Heavy weapons couldn't shoot at all on the move.
So, most ranged infantry had three options: Shoot at full effectiveness, move and shoot at reduced effectiveness, or move and charge.
Then you had the multirole specialists, like Eldar and Tyranids. With the Assault type, they could move, shoot at full effectiveness, and charge all in the same turn. They paid for this by generally having short range, so they were poor in a straight gunfight.
If you were an Assault Marine, a bolt pistol was just as effective as a bolter most of the time, except that you could shoot your pistols and still charge. If you didn't have a melee weapon at all, well, that wasn't too big a loss if you had some decent melee ability.
Or consider the converse: Do you want a unit that can move forward to aggressively contest objectives? If so, you probably don't want them to have Rapid Fire or Heavy weapons. Instead of paying for guns you'll rarely use, better to pay for melee ability once you get there.
Then things changed.
They made it so that you could shoot Rapid Fire twice even if you moved. Then they made it so that you could shoot Heavy even if you moved (at reduced effectiveness). Then we get to 8th, where Rapid Fire isn't affected at all by movement, and Heavy just gets a -1.
Now everything is firing at either full effectiveness, or close to it, all the time, so a unit intended to be used in melee has no reason not to also be packing an assault rifle to use on the way in. Melee specialists with pistols or no ranged weapons at all are shortchanged by this, because now the only mobility difference from their rifle-armed peers is the ability to Advance D6". And the insult to injury is that if you do Advance, you can't charge.
Throw in the fact that rerolls mitigate even what few penalties exist (BS3+ firing Heavy on the move with a reroll is still a 75% success rate) and yeah, it's no wonder that shooting utterly dominates the game. There's no longer a distinction between static shooting and mobile shooting; everything can shoot from turn 1 while closing on objectives, and then everything can shoot-and-charge the hapless melee specialists if they manage to get close enough.
So, here's my hot take: I contend that there is nothing you can do to the melee rules that will make footslogging melee units viable without otherwise breaking the game. You have to reduce the lethality of shooting to give melee units a chance to get up the board, and restrict units from being able to move, shoot at max range, and charge all in the same turn to give assault-oriented units a real reason to exist. The various solutions that make melee more lethal (eg free hits when enemies try to fall back) are just compounding the game's general lethality problem.
And now for comparison, Apocalypse. You have three orders you can give to a formation.
-Advance: Each unit can either move and either shoot or melee.
-Aimed Fire: Each unit can shoot at +1 to hit or melee at -1 to hit.
-Assault: Each unit can move double and then melee.
Very straightforward. If you want to maximize firepower, you can't move at all (whether you're carrying lascannons or bolters). If you forgo shooting, you get to move not just an extra D6", but double. Now fast melee units can really zip across the board, and even footslogging infantry can cross the (larger than 40K's standard) table in a reasonable amount of time. Advancing and assault are elegantly combined into a single mechanic.
Add in the lack of Overwatch, the simultaneity of actions, and the mechanic where you don't know how much damage you've really done until all actions are completed, and I find melee-oriented units (or formations) to be a lot more useful in Apocalypse than they are in mainstream 40K. Doubly so when you manage to charge a unit that has chosen Aimed Fire before they get a chance to shoot, and since Aimed Fire precludes movement, they are stuck fighting in melee while hitting on -1. Deep Strikers are still useful, but the ability to react to them on the fly makes them less the must-have hammer blow that they currently are.
Basically I think a hypothetical 9th could benefit a lot by taking a page out of Apocalypse. The orders system forces you to decide what you want your units to be doing for the turn far more meaningfully than 'no shooting if you Advanced' or 'hit on -1 if you move', and gives assault units their niche back.
Anyways, I'll get off my soapbox now. Realistically, GW will either continue dropping points on melee units until they're viable through sheer weight of bodies, or give us a monkey's paw solution like porting over the to-hit penalties from Kill Team without examining how they disproportionately affect different armies.
If we eliminated premeasuring of any kind, that might marginally help. But as it is, anyone can measure out a unit's movement, then 12.5" beyond that. Or place sacrificial units in front of real units such that even with fight twice strat, the good unit can't be trapped.
Martel732 wrote: You are seriously insane if you think any of that works in practice. You will never get your guardsmen anywhere near a leviathan normally. CQC units go to the center of the board and then die. Full stop.
That's your reliance on pure infantry lists. Space marines don't hold the center with cc troops, they use cc dreadnoughts. Get a fething contemptor already.
And agreed with NotOnline!!. Csm have no trouble clearing screens. Though mine usually take plasma or chaincannons for extra oomph.
Top BA lists don't.
Which? The dreadnoughts or clearing screens? And who cares what other people do. It's apparently not working for you, at least according to you, but I suspect you do better than you say here. If what you're doing isn't working try something new.
Ach! Stop editing your posts after I respond. That's why I said get a Contemptor, they have invuls, and since you play loyalists fnp if you take the relic version.
I hate relic dreadnoughts. They should be legends, imo. I haven't seen one in any successful BA lists, either.
catbarf wrote: So, here's my hot take: I contend that there is nothing you can do to the melee rules that will make footslogging melee units viable without otherwise breaking the game. You have to reduce the lethality of shooting to give melee units a chance to get up the board, and restrict units from being able to move, shoot at max range, and charge all in the same turn to give assault-oriented units a real reason to exist. The various solutions that make melee more lethal (eg free hits when enemies try to fall back) are just compounding the game's general lethality problem.
Yeah, you're probably right on spot with that. I miss the times when I spend two turns setting up a Waaagh! which resulted in a huge multi-assault in turn 3 when the orks from the transports were joined by the ones which had to slog it because theirs got blow up.
Martel732 wrote:If we eliminated premeasuring of any kind, that might marginally help. But as it is, anyone can measure out a unit's movement, then 12.5" beyond that. Or place sacrificial units in front of real units such that even with fight twice strat, the good unit can't be trapped.
Personally I am very glad guessing ranges is gone from the game- thanks to a previous job I can guess ranges between 8" and 24" pretty reliably, and I don't feel that that ability should be relevant to my generalship in a game. It also encourages various exploits to determine ranges.
Martel732 wrote:" removing the can't shoot after falling back penalty "
How about we remove fall back instead? That way, tripointing is gone, too.
I would say that removing fall back altogether would be really unfair for some units (eg vehicles) and still, as I said on the last page, not really address the root of the problem. You'd still need to rely on deep strike or T1 charge shenanigans to make melee work, it'd just be marginally more useful once it got there.
Martel732 wrote: I hate relic dreadnoughts. They should be legends, imo. I haven't seen one in any successful BA lists, either.
So you don't use 1/3rd of the rolls you're entitled to, don't use certain units on principle, don't use the rules that do exist to full potential (i.e. tripointing) yet you come here to complain that your army sucks... Try playing with the full set of rules and units at your disposal before making your next WAAAHHHH! BA suck post.
Bullgryn, Talos, Grotesques, Canoptek Wraiths and Plaguebearers are all pretty good and are tankier than they are killy, Bullgryn and Plaguebearers are slow. There is no guarantee whether a unit is good or bad based on which attributes it does or does not have, high mobility, high damage, high survivability, it's all relative to the pts cost. Non-shooty transports being pretty bad this edition hurts for a lot of melee units.
Martel732 wrote:If we eliminated premeasuring of any kind, that might marginally help. But as it is, anyone can measure out a unit's movement, then 12.5" beyond that. Or place sacrificial units in front of real units such that even with fight twice strat, the good unit can't be trapped.
Personally I am very glad guessing ranges is gone from the game- thanks to a previous job I can guess ranges between 8" and 24" pretty reliably, and I don't feel that that ability should be relevant to my generalship in a game. It also encourages various exploits to determine ranges.
My buddies and I were encouraged to do exploits when we first started, some of the people that taught us were pretty shady. Baking dice in blood, measuring your arm to judge distances on the battlefield better, general munchkinnery. I'm glad all that stuff is gone, I'd love to see the terrain rules amended to remove the munchkin strategies that hurt melee more OP shooting does.
Martel732 wrote: " removing the can't shoot after falling back penalty "
How about we remove fall back instead? That way, tripointing is gone, too.
While I'm no fan of Fall Back in general I don't think you can remove it with the game in its current state. So many units are so ridiculously fast now that removing Fall Back would turn the game into a mad rush to engage anything in close combat with anything to pin them in place. Previously this wasn't a major problem because nothing moved more than 12" in a turn so it always took an absolute minimum of 2 turns to get into combat and it was easier for an opponent to prevent simply by moving away. Now we have units zooming 20"+ in one turn and still charging 2D6 on top of that so Fall Back is a necessary evil IMO. That's why earlier in this thread I said what we need to make close combat specialists viable is a complete rework of the game (which is just unlikely to happen at this point) to reduce both mobility and lethality.
Since that isn't happening I do think there should either be a greater penalty for units that Fall Back or maybe some kind of protection for the units that they were engaged with.
I still think successfully falling back should be based on a roll off taking movement into account. A terminator squad that moves 5 should have a hard time falling back from a unit of howling banshees that move 8, or jump troops that move 12. The reverse should also apply.
Galas wrote: Bolters wounded terminators on 4+ and you failed 1 of each 6 rolls for a death terminator. How was that being inmune to small arms fire.
Some people view Intercessors with AP-2 as the new standard, which isn't too far off, Intercessors are the most popular model in tournaments I believe.
Grey40k wrote: Another important factor, imo, is that units like terminators are no longer as durable.
Terminators used to be pretty much invulnerable to small arms fire, and using a power sword was a risky but worthwhile idea to face a termie.
Now, they have inflated shooting lethality to the point that this is no longer the case.
Shooting things is too cost effective IMHO.
With "now" you mean like... 5th Edition? With their 2nd wound and being able to benefit from cover Terminators have actually become more durable against small arms. Everything dies faster due to more firepower, but Terminators not more than other units. Hordes die slower since overrunning is gone and their Armour save is not ignored by anything but a lasrifle anymore. Also tanks have become more durable compared to 6th and 7th where they died to plasmaguns and Autocannons.
But overall it's hard to make out single units and say, this unit is now easier to kill. I'd go so far as to say Terminators aren't as overpriced anymore since they got their second wound, cheap CC weapons and with hateful Assault even some hitting power
Martel732 wrote: I hate relic dreadnoughts. They should be legends, imo. I haven't seen one in any successful BA lists, either.
So you don't use 1/3rd of the rolls you're entitled to, don't use certain units on principle, don't use the rules that do exist to full potential (i.e. tripointing) yet you come here to complain that your army sucks... Try playing with the full set of rules and units at your disposal before making your next WAAAHHHH! BA suck post.
Martel732 wrote: I hate relic dreadnoughts. They should be legends, imo. I haven't seen one in any successful BA lists, either.
So you don't use 1/3rd of the rolls you're entitled to, don't use certain units on principle, don't use the rules that do exist to full potential (i.e. tripointing) yet you come here to complain that your army sucks... Try playing with the full set of rules and units at your disposal before making your next WAAAHHHH! BA suck post.
They don't suck. I hate how they work.
Then sell them and buy a new army or get into a game you actually enjoy.
Galas wrote: Bolters wounded terminators on 4+ and you failed 1 of each 6 rolls for a death terminator. How was that being inmune to small arms fire.
Suppose we are talking about the edition you seem to be referring to:
2+ t4 against s4 ap0 1d (standard bolter back then)
(3/6)*(1/6)=0.08333333 to kill per shot landed.
Now you can pick stalker bolters and shoot them (s4 ap2 2d)
(3/6)*(3/6)=0.25 to kill per shot landed.
So really, far more efficient (3 times better) to dispose of termies shooting them with common troops nowadays.
Immune refers to the relative cost effectiveness; there is nothing immune in this game obviously.
EDIT: BS has not changed, so I skipped it.
Yeah if you compare a worse gun agaisnt a much better gun with a profile made exactly to counter them then ok.
Ok, so comparing to 5th? Terminators are more resilient to things like bolters because they have the same save but an extra wound: the same against anti tank weapons like las cannons, plasma, and multi meltas because they still take that on a 5++ : and less resilient against things like the aforementioned stalker pattern bolters because 8th edition ap-2 works out to ap3 in older editions in which case they'd still get their 2+ save but now get a 4+. So better against basic infantry weapons, same against heavy anti tank, and weaker against mid ap weapons.
Which makes no sense and proves the 8th edition ap system is fethed.
And I had to look at my 5th edition csm codex for this because I couldn't remember if terminators got a 5++ back then, so I hope you're happy (the horror, the horror).
My point is that some very common picks (intercessors) with a very viable option (stalker) do extremely well against termies. That wasn't the case in other editions, and no I did not get my truly old edition book out, had to use a bit of memory.
All that to say that shooting lethality (read point efficiency) is up, and that perhaps that is also an important factor in the current state of melee.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, where are the old mechanics like "overrunning" a position, chasing, and so on? I don't recall the exact terms (it s been many years), but they truly made it feel more like actual cc.
Martel732 wrote: Terminators have always been trash, except for Chaos in some editions.
You mean the 3 man suicide squads They were also trash if they faced an opponent that could screen.
It's 8th and the removal of overpriced powerweapon Obligation that makes csm Termis actually a consideration. That and purge or cacophony.
Grey40k wrote: My point is that some very common picks (intercessors) with a very viable option (stalker) do extremely well against termies. That wasn't the case in other editions, and no I did not get my truly old edition book out, had to use a bit of memory.
All that to say that shooting lethality (read point efficiency) is up, and that perhaps that is also an important factor in the current state of melee.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, where are the old mechanics like "overrunning" a position, chasing, and so on? I don't recall the exact terms (it s been many years), but they truly made it feel more like actual cc.
Yes, shooting is considerably more points efficient than melee, but I still blame the terminator issue on the current ap/save system.
I think you're talking about sweeping advance. I think the logic of its removal was people didn't like having their units eliminated because they failed a morale check. Of course that just made falling back a no brainer.
Martel732 wrote: Terminators have always been trash, except for Chaos in some editions.
You mean the 3 man suicide squads They were also trash if they faced an opponent that could screen.
It's 8th and the removal of overpriced powerweapon Obligation that makes csm Termis actually a consideration. That and purge or cacophony.
Yup, though I'd add "prey on the weak" to that equation.
Gadzilla666 wrote: So better against basic infantry weapons, same against heavy anti tank, and weaker against mid ap weapons.
Which makes no sense and proves the 8th edition ap system is fethed.
That... makes perfect sense to me? It used to be that everything was crap against Terminators until you hit the magic AP2 threshold and suddenly you one-shot them; now there's a more natural/realistic progression of increasing lethality.
Also let's not ignore that the extra wound means they're just as tough against AP-1/D1 things like heavy bolters as before, so it's only against AP-2 or AP-1/D2 weapons that they're actually weaker than before (even then, tempered a bit by S6/S7 wounding them on 3s rather than 2s like it used to), and against AP0 they're twice as durable. It's really just oddball power-creep stuff like stalker bolt rifles (AP-2 on a basic rifle is ridiculous) that slaughter them.
I generally don't buy the argument that the new AP system is a significant contributor to game lethality. Marines now get saves against guns that used to kill them outright (eg plasma), and lots more ways to get invulnerable or FNP saves, while anything with a 5+ or 6+ save is now substantially more durable. The only weapons to get substantially more powerful are mid-level heavy weapons like heavy bolters and autocannons, which now actually are worth taking in a MEQ-dominated game. Plus, army-wide FNPs are all over the place, as are penalties to hit.
By and large, it's the combination of re-rolls everywhere, shoot-twice abilities, power-creep weapons, and things like Bolter Discipline and Doctrines that have dramatically increased the effectiveness of fire, rather than the core changes to the damage/AP system.
Gadzilla666 wrote: So better against basic infantry weapons, same against heavy anti tank, and weaker against mid ap weapons.
Which makes no sense and proves the 8th edition ap system is fethed.
That... makes perfect sense to me? It used to be that everything was crap against Terminators until you hit the magic AP2 threshold and suddenly you one-shot them; now there's a more natural/realistic progression of increasing lethality.
Also let's not ignore that the extra wound means they're just as tough against AP-1/D1 things like heavy bolters as before, so it's only against AP-2 or AP-1/D2 weapons that they're actually weaker than before (even then, tempered a bit by S6/S7 wounding them on 3s rather than 2s like it used to), and against AP0 they're twice as durable. It's really just oddball power-creep stuff like stalker bolt rifles (AP-2 on a basic rifle is ridiculous) that slaughter them.
I generally don't buy the argument that the new AP system is a significant contributor to game lethality. Marines now get saves against guns that used to kill them outright (eg plasma), and lots more ways to get invulnerable or FNP saves, while anything with a 5+ or 6+ save is now substantially more durable. The only weapons to get substantially more powerful are mid-level heavy weapons like heavy bolters and autocannons, which now actually are worth taking in a MEQ-dominated game. Plus, army-wide FNPs are all over the place, as are penalties to hit.
By and large, it's the combination of re-rolls everywhere, shoot-twice abilities, power-creep weapons, and things like Bolter Discipline and Doctrines that have dramatically increased the effectiveness of fire, rather than the core changes to the damage/AP system.
Yeah, I guess you're right, it does make sense. I just kind of preferred when anything less than ap2 pretty much bounced off. Guess I was seeing the past through rose colored glasses.
Definitely agree on stalker pattern bolters, a standard infantry rifle with ap-2 and damage 2 is ridiculous. Same for rerolls, doctrines, etc.
Martel732 wrote: But AP -1 being the biggest swing makes no sense at all.
It isn't ap-1 so much as that it can be spammed so efficiently now thanks to doctrines. The way to kill terminators was always massed fire. Make someone roll enough saves and a few 1s will turn up. Now massed space marine fire is just looking for 2s. Letting them ignore -1 and -2ap would make them as tough as before, but most likely at added ppm, and spamming massed cheap shots would still be the way to eliminate them.
Gadzilla666 wrote: So better against basic infantry weapons, same against heavy anti tank, and weaker against mid ap weapons.
Which makes no sense and proves the 8th edition ap system is fethed.
That... makes perfect sense to me? It used to be that everything was crap against Terminators until you hit the magic AP2 threshold and suddenly you one-shot them; now there's a more natural/realistic progression of increasing lethality.
Also let's not ignore that the extra wound means they're just as tough against AP-1/D1 things like heavy bolters as before, so it's only against AP-2 or AP-1/D2 weapons that they're actually weaker than before (even then, tempered a bit by S6/S7 wounding them on 3s rather than 2s like it used to), and against AP0 they're twice as durable. It's really just oddball power-creep stuff like stalker bolt rifles (AP-2 on a basic rifle is ridiculous) that slaughter them.
I generally don't buy the argument that the new AP system is a significant contributor to game lethality. Marines now get saves against guns that used to kill them outright (eg plasma), and lots more ways to get invulnerable or FNP saves, while anything with a 5+ or 6+ save is now substantially more durable. The only weapons to get substantially more powerful are mid-level heavy weapons like heavy bolters and autocannons, which now actually are worth taking in a MEQ-dominated game. Plus, army-wide FNPs are all over the place, as are penalties to hit.
By and large, it's the combination of re-rolls everywhere, shoot-twice abilities, power-creep weapons, and things like Bolter Discipline and Doctrines that have dramatically increased the effectiveness of fire, rather than the core changes to the damage/AP system.
Yeah, I guess you're right, it does make sense. I just kind of preferred when anything less than ap2 pretty much bounced off. Guess I was seeing the past through rose colored glasses.
Definitely agree on stalker pattern bolters, a standard infantry rifle with ap-2 and damage 2 is ridiculous. Same for rerolls, doctrines, etc.
The AP-2 standard infantry is seriously a problem, yeah. It shouldn't have been done. But I have a lot of thoughts about that for another time.
Anyway, I definitely think the only AP system was better.
The new AP and cover system combined specifically advantages armor save 3+ models most, but hurts armor save 2+ models. If you're a tactical marine or sister or immortal, you're tougher than you were before, appreciably so. The wound chart works in your favor, and so does the AP conversion.
However, if you are a Terminator, you got the short end of the stick. At no level of AP did you get any better than you would have been in the past, but for the very common AP2 weapons like missile launchers and battle cannons [and the also very common AP1 weapons like Heavy Bolters and Assault cannons], your resilience halved or worse.
The new AP system also advantages 5+ save models a bunch, though they don't benefit from the cover as much.
The reason why I mentioned terminators specifically is because I thought that in the past (why are talking many years and editions ago) different units were killed in melee and range at different point efficiency. This made melee a tad more point efficient provided you choose the right engagements.
For example, tac marines could choose to engage in a shooting battle with a couple of guard squads, but point efficiency wise probably it would be better for them to engage them in melee.
IMHO melee will only be sorted out when it is a point efficient manner to engage in enough situations, without relying on deepstrike alpha striking only. For that to be viable, some targets ought to be harder to remove at range. The current ap system, in combination with current volume of fire (which in turns is due to the point efficiency of shooting skewing army compositions in that direction, means that most supposedly durable targets are not tough in reality. Custodes are a prime example, IMO.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: However, if you are a Terminator, you got the short end of the stick. At no level of AP did you get any better than you would have been in the past, but for the very common AP2 weapons like missile launchers and battle cannons [and the also very common AP1 weapons like Heavy Bolters and Assault cannons], your resilience halved or worse.
Keep in mind that in 8th TDA provides +1 wound in addition to 2+/5++. Weapons with AP-2 and d3 damage are pretty terrible at killing terminators.
I mean, terminators in cover ignore all AP-1 weapons. The real problem for terminators equivalent are AP-2 (or -3) weapons with 2 Damage. Sadly those have become more common after the marine codex number 2. But yeah, d3 damage weapons are pretty bad specially if you can put some kind of FNP in your terminators.
Galas wrote: I mean, terminators in cover ignore all AP-1 weapons. The real problem for terminators equivalent are AP-2 (or -3) weapons with 2 Damage. Sadly those have become more common after the marine codex number 2. But yeah, d3 damage weapons are pretty bad specially if you can put some kind of FNP in your terminators.
D3 damages isn't pretty bad with normal rolling your still going to kill a terminator per failed save.
The really difference is getting a 5+ FNP as that means you need 3 damage to avarage a dead terminator per save, 3 wounds with a 5+ FNP soes get kinda disgusting.
Look at how much of a PITA centurions in cover are to kill, the it's not a close combat or a power armour issue it's that the lethality in 8th is just too high but it kinda has to be given the mobility.
Galas wrote: I mean, terminators in cover ignore all AP-1 weapons. The real problem for terminators equivalent are AP-2 (or -3) weapons with 2 Damage. Sadly those have become more common after the marine codex number 2. But yeah, d3 damage weapons are pretty bad specially if you can put some kind of FNP in your terminators.
D3 damages isn't pretty bad with normal rolling your still going to kill a terminator per failed save.
The really difference is getting a 5+ FNP as that means you need 3 damage to avarage a dead terminator per save, 3 wounds with a 5+ FNP soes get kinda disgusting.
Look at how much of a PITA centurions in cover are to kill, the it's not a close combat or a power armour issue it's that the lethality in 8th is just too high but it kinda has to be given the mobility.
d3 damage means that one in three shots will just not kill a terminator, basically providing another layer of protection. Mathhammer averages don't properly display this, but most lighter anti-tank weapons have a pretty high failure rate against them.
Martel732 wrote: But AP -1 being the biggest swing makes no sense at all.
It isn't ap-1 so much as that it can be spammed so efficiently now thanks to doctrines. The way to kill terminators was always massed fire. Make someone roll enough saves and a few 1s will turn up. Now massed space marine fire is just looking for 2s. Letting them ignore -1 and -2ap would make them as tough as before, but most likely at added ppm, and spamming massed cheap shots would still be the way to eliminate them.
So *shrug*.
Now you can kill them with high AP OR massed fire! I'm not so sure massed fire was really the best way in the old AP system. (.83)^X falls off a lot slower than (.66)^X. AP 2 being everywhere was their true undoing before. I never shot a non-AP2 weapon at a terminator for the most part, except maybe TH/SS.
Galas wrote: I mean, terminators in cover ignore all AP-1 weapons. The real problem for terminators equivalent are AP-2 (or -3) weapons with 2 Damage. Sadly those have become more common after the marine codex number 2. But yeah, d3 damage weapons are pretty bad specially if you can put some kind of FNP in your terminators.
D3 damages isn't pretty bad with normal rolling your still going to kill a terminator per failed save.
The really difference is getting a 5+ FNP as that means you need 3 damage to avarage a dead terminator per save, 3 wounds with a 5+ FNP soes get kinda disgusting.
Look at how much of a PITA centurions in cover are to kill, the it's not a close combat or a power armour issue it's that the lethality in 8th is just too high but it kinda has to be given the mobility.
d3 damage means that one in three shots will just not kill a terminator, basically providing another layer of protection. Mathhammer averages don't properly display this, but most lighter anti-tank weapons have a pretty high failure rate against them.
One in three really doesn't matter when it's the go too style of anti tank shooting like its autocannons and battle cannons etc because 8th rewards quantity over quality of attacks, especially if you have rerolls.
Also, GW just add the fluff that "enemies have adapted to the once-mighty tactical dreadnought suit, rendering them vulnerable on the battlefield as never before. Marine chapters were forced to start phasing it out in favor of the new gravis armor". There done. Why enemies never adapted between 30K-40K makes no sense, but here we are.
I would get behind GW a lot more if they just admitted that a bunch of their units suck.
Martel732 wrote: Terminators shouldn't need to cower in cover from heavy bolters. But they do. -1 AP halves the effectiveness of 2+ armor. That's crazy.
No, they shouldn't. That's the problem with the new ap and cover system, as Inquisitor Lord Katherine points out.
Under the old system terminators didn't care until ap2 showed up, and standard power armour didn't care until ap3 did. Space marines only worried about cover when the nasty stuff showed up, so they were more mobile. Stuff like guardsmen, however, wanted to be in cover, where they would get a guaranteed save ap be damned. Now ap penetrates even cover.
This is where the whole "marines feeling like marines" problem starts. Marines shouldn't be hiding in cover against low ap weapons, terminators doubly so.
Then you add rerolls, shooting twice, and doctrines into the mix and lethality becomes ridiculous. Really, when you think about it, doctrines really just made bolters closer to their old effectiveness against geq who weren't sticking to cover.
5th ed and onward allowed for spamming of AP2, though. So we have to go back to 4th for marines to feel like marines. IG mech vets in particular had crazy amounts of AP.
I'd add that maybe marines shouldn't fear "too much" low AP weapons per se, but they should not be the best shooters out there from a point efficient perspective (IMO). Non specialist troops, at least.
For example, point efficiency should dictate that it is better to engage guards in melee than just sit shooting (with basic marine troop).
Yeah, probably. But IG just made sure that never happened by murdering your marines at range. And by having 3 layers of bubblewrap. Cheap models are VERY powerful. Generalists have always suffered in 40K. Look at all the crap they've had to bolt onto marines, and even then, only certain chapter tactics make them competitive.
Martel732 wrote: 5th ed and onward allowed for spamming of AP2, though. So we have to go back to 4th for marines to feel like marines. IG mech vets in particular had crazy amounts of AP.
Agreed, ap has been too cheap and easy to acquire for a while. I miss late 3rd/4th for a lot of reasons.
catbarf wrote: So, here's my hot take: I contend that there is nothing you can do to the melee rules that will make footslogging melee units viable without otherwise breaking the game. You have to reduce the lethality of shooting to give melee units a chance to get up the board, and restrict units from being able to move, shoot at max range, and charge all in the same turn to give assault-oriented units a real reason to exist. The various solutions that make melee more lethal (eg free hits when enemies try to fall back) are just compounding the game's general lethality problem.
Yeah, you're probably right on spot with that. I miss the times when I spend two turns setting up a Waaagh! which resulted in a huge multi-assault in turn 3 when the orks from the transports were joined by the ones which had to slog it because theirs got blow up.
I thought I'd do a little thought experiment about what it would take to make footslogging melee work in a very simple scenario;
• Say we have 3 slugga boys mobs facing off against 3 tactical squads on grassy flatlands. • Orks are roughly half the price of space marines, so we have 60 orks vs 30 marines. • An ork is roughly equal to a space marine in melee combat, so we want about half the orks to die to shooting before the melee begins. • A game is 6 turns long, so we want the melee to begin in the charge phase of turn 3 so the game is split evenly between shooting and fighting. This gives the marines 2-3 shooting phases to kill 30 orks. • If all the marines have one boltgun shot at 24" and 2 at 12" thats about 90-120 shots killing 30-40 orks with current stats.
So at a very simple level, I think foot slogging melee could be OK in this scenario. That's actually quite surprising to me! Stripping out all the bumpf like fall back, chapter/clan tactics and rerolls and just looking at base stats on the basic units.
I might try replicating my thought experiment with a friend and some real models and see how it feels!
Martel732 wrote:Yeah, probably. But IG just made sure that never happened by murdering your marines at range. And by having 3 layers of bubblewrap. Cheap models are VERY powerful. Generalists have always suffered in 40K. Look at all the crap they've had to bolt onto marines, and even then, only certain chapter tactics make them competitive.
It is true, sm basic troops struggled to find a role.
catbarf wrote: So, here's my hot take: I contend that there is nothing you can do to the melee rules that will make footslogging melee units viable without otherwise breaking the game. You have to reduce the lethality of shooting to give melee units a chance to get up the board, and restrict units from being able to move, shoot at max range, and charge all in the same turn to give assault-oriented units a real reason to exist. The various solutions that make melee more lethal (eg free hits when enemies try to fall back) are just compounding the game's general lethality problem.
Yeah, you're probably right on spot with that. I miss the times when I spend two turns setting up a Waaagh! which resulted in a huge multi-assault in turn 3 when the orks from the transports were joined by the ones which had to slog it because theirs got blow up.
I thought I'd do a little thought experiment about what it would take to make footslogging melee work in a very simple scenario;
• Say we have 3 slugga boys mobs facing off against 3 tactical squads on grassy flatlands.
• Orks are roughly half the price of space marines, so we have 60 orks vs 30 marines.
• An ork is roughly equal to a space marine in melee combat, so we want about half the orks to die to shooting before the melee begins.
• A game is 6 turns long, so we want the melee to begin in the charge phase of turn 3 so the game is split evenly between shooting and fighting. This gives the marines 2-3 shooting phases to kill 30 orks.
• If all the marines have one boltgun shot at 24" and 2 at 12" thats about 90-120 shots killing 30-40 orks with current stats.
So at a very simple level, I think foot slogging melee could be OK in this scenario. That's actually quite surprising to me!
Stripping out all the bumpf like fall back, chapter/clan tactics and rerolls and just looking at base stats on the basic units.
I might try replicating my thought experiment with a friend and some real models and see how it feels!
Are you sure that a marine is equally good as an ork in melee? A primaris marine has 2W and 3+ save in melee. We could run the numbers, but I think that probably an intercessor is equal to a little less than two orks, depending on who gets the charge.
Grey40k wrote: Are you sure that a marine is equally good as an ork in melee? A primaris marine has 2W and 3+ save in melee. We could run the numbers, but I think that probably an intercessor is equal to a little less than two orks, depending on who gets the charge.
Given the context, I'm pretty sure he was talking about Tac Marines versus Orks no special rules involved.
Yea I was just talking about the most basic scenario with tac marines vs boyz to see if the statement about footslogging melee always being screwed holds up.
The thought experiment doesn't attempt to capture the complexities of a full scale game with all the options available.
Kroem wrote: Yea I was just talking about the most basic scenario with tac marines vs boyz to see if the statement about footslogging melee always being screwed holds up.
The thought experiment doesn't attempt to capture the complexities of a full scale game with all the options available.
Alright, didn't read all the details, sorry.
But I'd argue the intercessor example would be more relevant currently.
Martel732 wrote:Terminators shouldn't need to cower in cover from heavy bolters. But they do. -1 AP halves the effectiveness of 2+ armor. That's crazy.
Gadzilla666 wrote:No, they shouldn't. That's the problem with the new ap and cover system, as Inquisitor Lord Katherine points out.
Under the old system terminators didn't care until ap2 showed up, and standard power armour didn't care until ap3 did.
Again, I have to point out that Terminators are exactly as hard to kill with heavy bolters in 8th as they were in 4th/5th/take-your-pick. Twice as likely to fail a save, but twice as many wounds, so it evens out. If they're afraid of heavy bolters now, they were afraid of heavy bolters then, too.
Otherwise Gadzilla666 I agree entirely with your assessment of cover. The old system of providing essentially an invuln save might not have been supremely realistic, but from a narrative perspective it did exactly what it should: Guardsmen stick to cover all the time, Marines don't care about cover when they're facing massed lasguns, Marines start caring about cover when it's lascannons and missile launchers pointed at them instead. I like the current AP system, but I don't think cover should be rolled into it, as it creates the completely counterintuitive (from both realism and narrative perspectives) situation where the less armor you have, the less incentive you have to take cover.
As I've said before, I really like the Kill Team system of rolling cover and long range into the to-hit roll, and it would contribute significantly to the goal of reducing shooting lethality, but the entire game would need a balance pass (see: Orks) and I doubt GW's going to do that for the next edition.
Re: screens being too effective / Guardsmen being too tough, I'm also going to throw some blame onto the morale system (or lack thereof). It used to be that you just had to kill three Guardsmen to force a morale test that they had a decent chance of failing, causing the entire squad to flee out of position and opening up a hole. Now inflicting 3 casualties can't result in more than 2 extra casualties (with a 1-in-6 chance of doing so), and the remainder stay right where they were. Making those cheap, crappy screen units stop sticking around once they start taking casualties would greatly diminish their value as meatshields.
Kroem wrote: Yea I was just talking about the most basic scenario with tac marines vs boyz to see if the statement about footslogging melee always being screwed holds up.
The thought experiment doesn't attempt to capture the complexities of a full scale game with all the options available.
Alright, didn't read all the details, sorry.
But I'd argue the intercessor example would be more relevant currently.
I've fudged exact model counts to get us to basically equal points:
Martel732 wrote:Terminators shouldn't need to cower in cover from heavy bolters. But they do. -1 AP halves the effectiveness of 2+ armor. That's crazy.
Gadzilla666 wrote:No, they shouldn't. That's the problem with the new ap and cover system, as Inquisitor Lord Katherine points out.
Under the old system terminators didn't care until ap2 showed up, and standard power armour didn't care until ap3 did.
Again, I have to point out that Terminators are exactly as hard to kill with heavy bolters in 8th as they were in 4th/5th/take-your-pick. Twice as likely to fail a save, but twice as many wounds, so it evens out. If they're afraid of heavy bolters now, they were afraid of heavy bolters then, too.
Otherwise Gadzilla666 I agree entirely with your assessment of cover. The old system of providing essentially an invuln save might not have been supremely realistic, but from a narrative perspective it did exactly what it should: Guardsmen stick to cover all the time, Marines don't care about cover when they're facing massed lasguns, Marines start caring about cover when it's lascannons and missile launchers pointed at them instead. I like the current AP system, but I don't think cover should be rolled into it, as it creates the completely counterintuitive (from both realism and narrative perspectives) situation where the less armor you have, the less incentive you have to take cover.
As I've said before, I really like the Kill Team system of rolling cover and long range into the to-hit roll, and it would contribute significantly to the goal of reducing shooting lethality, but the entire game would need a balance pass (see: Orks) and I doubt GW's going to do that for the next edition.
Re: screens being too effective / Guardsmen being too tough, I'm also going to throw some blame onto the morale system (or lack thereof). It used to be that you just had to kill three Guardsmen to force a morale test that they had a decent chance of failing, causing the entire squad to flee out of position and opening up a hole. Now inflicting 3 casualties can't result in more than 2 extra casualties (with a 1-in-6 chance of doing so), and the remainder stay right where they were. Making those cheap, crappy screen units stop sticking around once they start taking casualties would greatly diminish their value as meatshields.
I picked a -1 weapon at random. How about stalker bolt rifles?
Martel732 wrote:Terminators shouldn't need to cower in cover from heavy bolters. But they do. -1 AP halves the effectiveness of 2+ armor. That's crazy.
Gadzilla666 wrote:No, they shouldn't. That's the problem with the new ap and cover system, as Inquisitor Lord Katherine points out.
Under the old system terminators didn't care until ap2 showed up, and standard power armour didn't care until ap3 did.
Again, I have to point out that Terminators are exactly as hard to kill with heavy bolters in 8th as they were in 4th/5th/take-your-pick. Twice as likely to fail a save, but twice as many wounds, so it evens out. If they're afraid of heavy bolters now, they were afraid of heavy bolters then, too.
Otherwise Gadzilla666 I agree entirely with your assessment of cover. The old system of providing essentially an invuln save might not have been supremely realistic, but from a narrative perspective it did exactly what it should: Guardsmen stick to cover all the time, Marines don't care about cover when they're facing massed lasguns, Marines start caring about cover when it's lascannons and missile launchers pointed at them instead. I like the current AP system, but I don't think cover should be rolled into it, as it creates the completely counterintuitive (from both realism and narrative perspectives) situation where the less armor you have, the less incentive you have to take cover.
As I've said before, I really like the Kill Team system of rolling cover and long range into the to-hit roll, and it would contribute significantly to the goal of reducing shooting lethality, but the entire game would need a balance pass (see: Orks) and I doubt GW's going to do that for the next edition.
Re: screens being too effective / Guardsmen being too tough, I'm also going to throw some blame onto the morale system (or lack thereof). It used to be that you just had to kill three Guardsmen to force a morale test that they had a decent chance of failing, causing the entire squad to flee out of position and opening up a hole. Now inflicting 3 casualties can't result in more than 2 extra casualties (with a 1-in-6 chance of doing so), and the remainder stay right where they were. Making those cheap, crappy screen units stop sticking around once they start taking casualties would greatly diminish their value as meatshields.
I'm sorry, I possibly wasn't clear, I didn't mean that terminators were more resilient to low ap weapons in older editions, but that they had no interest in taking cover against them which they now have incentive for in 8th. Yes, as before, I agree the extra wound makes up for the change in ap.
Also agree on the Kill Team cover and range system being better, but requiring a rebalancing of armies. So not happening any time soon.
You can go through the last ten years of this forum and find threads of people complaining that terminators die to lasguns and up.
The solution is just to give terminators yet another wound - but GW don't want to sell terminators, so I suspect that ship has sailed.
On the above Primaris/Ork scenario. The Orks would try charging in turn 2 if they rolled reasonably well on the turn 1 advance. If they don't make the charge, the Primaris would charge them - because 12 Primaris expect to kill about 11 Orks and so clear the squad (while generally finding it easier to get everyone into combat than 30 Orks would.)
Tyel wrote: You can go through the last ten years of this forum and find threads of people complaining that terminators die to lasguns and up.
The solution is just to give terminators yet another wound - but GW don't want to sell terminators, so I suspect that ship has sailed.
On the above Primaris/Ork scenario. The Orks would try charging in turn 2 if they rolled reasonably well on the turn 1 advance. If they don't make the charge, the Primaris would charge them - because 12 Primaris expect to kill about 11 Orks and so clear the squad (while generally finding it easier to get everyone into combat than 30 Orks would.)
I assumed dead average rolls and that the Primaris were holding an objective they didn't want to move from.
The Orks would have needed an 8" or 9" charge, no rerolls (the scenario is ignoring all special rules) and would have eaten overwatch for trying it.
Yea I think we've kinda highlighted that the base stats on the Intercessors are pretty crazy even before all the other helpful rules! They're one of the premier units in game at the moment so that's probably expected.
The deadliness of tactical marines hasn't really increased since 3rd edition, and neither has the survivabiliy of ork boys which is probably why they are pretty comparable.
Edit: I suppose the next question would be; how much less deadly would the intercessor shooting need to be to result in a scenario where enough orks make it into melee to have a roughly evenly matched combat? I'm using boys as an example as I believe they are one of the few footslogging melee units still being taken, but it would be intresting to see comparisons with other units too.
I'm curious about what magnitude of change would be necessary. If reducing Intercessor leathality by 10% would be enough then hey maybe thats not so bad. If you would need to reduce it by 75% or something then we could truely appreciate the huge changes that would be necessary for footslogging melee to be relevant!
Kroem wrote: Edit: I suppose the next question would be; how much less deadly would the intercessor shooting need to be to result in a scenario where enough orks make it into melee to have a roughly evenly matched combat?
I'm using boys as an example as I believe they are one of the few footslogging melee units still being taken, but it would be intresting to see comparisons with other units too.
I'm curious about what magnitude of change would be necessary. If reducing Intercessor leathality by 10% would be enough then hey maybe thats not so bad. If you would need to reduce it by 75% or something then we could truely appreciate the huge changes that would be necessary for footslogging melee to be relevant!
The question is "what does evenly matched combat look like".
I mean firstly problems with the Orks themselves. This is a highly dubious version of theoryhammer - the sort of two units with nothing else on the table approach. Trying to keep it simple - ignoring the fact it would become the Assault doctrine at some point for the Marines.
Lets assume you Jump 31 Orks across the board and make the 9" charge into a magic unit of 12 Intercessors. 3 die on overwatch and because of various issues - charge distance, terrain etc, you end up with 80 S4 attacks (its skewed by the Nob but ignoring that for the maths) going in.
On average dice - 80 attacks, 53 hits, 27 wounds, 9 go through, 4 dead Primaris and 1 left on one wound. Points achieved? 68/72 points killed.
For our example - 8 Primaris hit back - and you won't have any problem getting them all in. 27 attacks including sergeant with a chain sword. 26*2/3*1/2*5/6=8~ dead orks. So 11 dead orks, equals 77 points killed. (Sergeant could have a thunder hammer, which would be worse versus orks, but... meh.)
8 Primaris Left, 20 Orks left. If the Primaris can just walk away - they have not come off worse, and indeed if they got to shoot anything in a previous turn are now considerably ahead.
Lets assume, somehow, you trap a marine and he can't walk away. Or the Primaris are on an objective and want to try and hold it.
Primaris Turn.
Next turn, Primaris player shoots with pistols. 8*2/3*1/2*5/6=2 dead orks. They then attack again. Only 18 attacks this time though. So another 5 dead orks.
So you have the nob and 12 boyz fighting back - presumably all sluggas.
Nob=3*2/3*2/3*1/3=0.444 wounds.
12 boyz. 36*2/3*1/2*1/3=4. Lets be generous and say they do 5 wounds, killing the guy on one wound and 2 more Primaris.
Result, 5 Primaris Left, 13 Orks left.
Ork turn 2.
Orks fire 13 sluggas, do 1 wound.
Orks attack, same as above but lets round down this time, 4 more wounds, so kill 2 more Primaris, with one on one wound.
3 Primaris fight back. 8*2/3*1/2*5/6=2 dead orks.
Result 3 Primaris Left, 11 Orkk left.
Primaris Turn 2.
3 Primaris pistols, 1 dead Ork. Fighting, 2 more dead orks.
Nob+7 boyz left attacking = 3 wounds, so leave the Primaris Sergeant.
Result: 1 Primaris Left, 8 Orks left.
Ork Turn 3, remaining Orks kill last Primaris.
So in theory the Orks have "won" - but they have lost 70% of their unit to do it. Just about any Marine unit is going to clear them off with shooting - or a charge. Indeed they could have decisively done so by aiding the surrounded unit in either of the Marine player's turns. This assumed the Orks were teleported across the table to avoid shooting, and then made a lengthy charge. And if they had just tagged those Marines, they likely wouldn't have got 80 attacks in the first round - which would change things quite considerably.
So to perhaps slightly exaggerate it but not by much, to get "evenly matched combat", the Primaris have to give up their bolters. If they can do essentially any shooting, the Orks can't defeat the same points worth unless they can somehow get the full unit into combat, which has various problems.
Put the Primaris under say a Chapter Master and Lieutenant and its even more skewed. Yes - you can buff the Orks - but I'm not sure you can buff them as much to make the difference. Or at least not as reliably.
But really this is the problem with Orks and the problem with Intercessors.
Basically everything needs to be less lethal. When buffed up shooting *expects* to get about a 40% return, assault has to get about 100% return because a lot of it will be dead due to being shot, failing charges, not being able to fully get into contact etc etc. But any unit which does 100% damage and has a near 100% ability to get across the board turn 1 has a very strong ability to break the game in a way that isn't very fun. Its just "I go first, I kill a third of your army, tri-point something so you can't shoot, kill it in your turn and then proceed to table you turn 2" while you were entirely powerless.
Now whether this is any worse than "I roll a bit hot on my shooting, oh dear your army is all gone and you haven't had your third turn yet" I don't know - but I think GW rightly recognises it could be more obnoxious.
Kroem wrote: Edit: I suppose the next question would be; how much less deadly would the intercessor shooting need to be to result in a scenario where enough orks make it into melee to have a roughly evenly matched combat?
I'm using boys as an example as I believe they are one of the few footslogging melee units still being taken, but it would be intresting to see comparisons with other units too.
I'm curious about what magnitude of change would be necessary. If reducing Intercessor leathality by 10% would be enough then hey maybe thats not so bad. If you would need to reduce it by 75% or something then we could truely appreciate the huge changes that would be necessary for footslogging melee to be relevant!
The question is "what does evenly matched combat look like".
I mean firstly problems with the Orks themselves. This is a highly dubious version of theoryhammer - the sort of two units with nothing else on the table approach. Trying to keep it simple - ignoring the fact it would become the Assault doctrine at some point for the Marines.
Lets assume you Jump 31 Orks across the board and make the 9" charge into a magic unit of 12 Intercessors. 3 die on overwatch and because of various issues - charge distance, terrain etc, you end up with 80 S4 attacks (its skewed by the Nob but ignoring that for the maths) going in.
On average dice - 80 attacks, 53 hits, 27 wounds, 9 go through, 4 dead Primaris and 1 left on one wound. Points achieved? 68/72 points killed.
For our example - 8 Primaris hit back - and you won't have any problem getting them all in. 27 attacks including sergeant with a chain sword. 26*2/3*1/2*5/6=8~ dead orks. So 11 dead orks, equals 77 points killed. (Sergeant could have a thunder hammer, which would be worse versus orks, but... meh.)
8 Primaris Left, 20 Orks left. If the Primaris can just walk away - they have not come off worse, and indeed if they got to shoot anything in a previous turn are now considerably ahead.
Lets assume, somehow, you trap a marine and he can't walk away. Or the Primaris are on an objective and want to try and hold it.
Primaris Turn.
Next turn, Primaris player shoots with pistols. 8*2/3*1/2*5/6=2 dead orks. They then attack again. Only 18 attacks this time though. So another 5 dead orks.
So you have the nob and 12 boyz fighting back - presumably all sluggas.
Nob=3*2/3*2/3*1/3=0.444 wounds.
12 boyz. 36*2/3*1/2*1/3=4. Lets be generous and say they do 5 wounds, killing the guy on one wound and 2 more Primaris.
Result, 5 Primaris Left, 13 Orks left.
Ork turn 2.
Orks fire 13 sluggas, do 1 wound.
Orks attack, same as above but lets round down this time, 4 more wounds, so kill 2 more Primaris, with one on one wound.
3 Primaris fight back. 8*2/3*1/2*5/6=2 dead orks.
Result 3 Primaris Left, 11 Orkk left.
Primaris Turn 2.
3 Primaris pistols, 1 dead Ork. Fighting, 2 more dead orks.
Nob+7 boyz left attacking = 3 wounds, so leave the Primaris Sergeant.
Result: 1 Primaris Left, 8 Orks left.
Ork Turn 3, remaining Orks kill last Primaris.
So in theory the Orks have "won" - but they have lost 70% of their unit to do it. Just about any Marine unit is going to clear them off with shooting - or a charge. Indeed they could have decisively done so by aiding the surrounded unit in either of the Marine player's turns. This assumed the Orks were teleported across the table to avoid shooting, and then made a lengthy charge. And if they had just tagged those Marines, they likely wouldn't have got 80 attacks in the first round - which would change things quite considerably.
So to perhaps slightly exaggerate it but not by much, to get "evenly matched combat", the Primaris have to give up their bolters. If they can do essentially any shooting, the Orks can't defeat the same points worth unless they can somehow get the full unit into combat, which has various problems.
Put the Primaris under say a Chapter Master and Lieutenant and its even more skewed. Yes - you can buff the Orks - but I'm not sure you can buff them as much to make the difference. Or at least not as reliably.
But really this is the problem with Orks and the problem with Intercessors.
Basically everything needs to be less lethal. When buffed up shooting *expects* to get about a 40% return, assault has to get about 100% return because a lot of it will be dead due to being shot, failing charges, not being able to fully get into contact etc etc. But any unit which does 100% damage and has a near 100% ability to get across the board turn 1 has a very strong ability to break the game in a way that isn't very fun. Its just "I go first, I kill a third of your army, tri-point something so you can't shoot, kill it in your turn and then proceed to table you turn 2" while you were entirely powerless.
Now whether this is any worse than "I roll a bit hot on my shooting, oh dear your army is all gone and you haven't had your third turn yet" I don't know - but I think GW rightly recognises it could be more obnoxious.
Very accurate description of the boyz vs primaris problem and your theory exactly matches my in-game experience.
Kroem wrote: Edit: I suppose the next question would be; how much less deadly would the intercessor shooting need to be to result in a scenario where enough orks make it into melee to have a roughly evenly matched combat?
I'm using boys as an example as I believe they are one of the few footslogging melee units still being taken, but it would be intresting to see comparisons with other units too.
I'm curious about what magnitude of change would be necessary. If reducing Intercessor leathality by 10% would be enough then hey maybe thats not so bad. If you would need to reduce it by 75% or something then we could truely appreciate the huge changes that would be necessary for footslogging melee to be relevant!
The question is "what does evenly matched combat look like".
I mean firstly problems with the Orks themselves. This is a highly dubious version of theoryhammer - the sort of two units with nothing else on the table approach. Trying to keep it simple - ignoring the fact it would become the Assault doctrine at some point for the Marines.
Lets assume you Jump 31 Orks across the board and make the 9" charge into a magic unit of 12 Intercessors. 3 die on overwatch and because of various issues - charge distance, terrain etc, you end up with 80 S4 attacks (its skewed by the Nob but ignoring that for the maths) going in.
On average dice - 80 attacks, 53 hits, 27 wounds, 9 go through, 4 dead Primaris and 1 left on one wound. Points achieved? 68/72 points killed.
For our example - 8 Primaris hit back - and you won't have any problem getting them all in. 27 attacks including sergeant with a chain sword. 26*2/3*1/2*5/6=8~ dead orks. So 11 dead orks, equals 77 points killed. (Sergeant could have a thunder hammer, which would be worse versus orks, but... meh.)
8 Primaris Left, 20 Orks left. If the Primaris can just walk away - they have not come off worse, and indeed if they got to shoot anything in a previous turn are now considerably ahead.
Lets assume, somehow, you trap a marine and he can't walk away. Or the Primaris are on an objective and want to try and hold it.
Primaris Turn.
Next turn, Primaris player shoots with pistols. 8*2/3*1/2*5/6=2 dead orks. They then attack again. Only 18 attacks this time though. So another 5 dead orks.
So you have the nob and 12 boyz fighting back - presumably all sluggas.
Nob=3*2/3*2/3*1/3=0.444 wounds.
12 boyz. 36*2/3*1/2*1/3=4. Lets be generous and say they do 5 wounds, killing the guy on one wound and 2 more Primaris.
Result, 5 Primaris Left, 13 Orks left.
Ork turn 2.
Orks fire 13 sluggas, do 1 wound.
Orks attack, same as above but lets round down this time, 4 more wounds, so kill 2 more Primaris, with one on one wound.
3 Primaris fight back. 8*2/3*1/2*5/6=2 dead orks.
Result 3 Primaris Left, 11 Orkk left.
Primaris Turn 2.
3 Primaris pistols, 1 dead Ork. Fighting, 2 more dead orks.
Nob+7 boyz left attacking = 3 wounds, so leave the Primaris Sergeant.
Result: 1 Primaris Left, 8 Orks left.
Ork Turn 3, remaining Orks kill last Primaris.
So in theory the Orks have "won" - but they have lost 70% of their unit to do it. Just about any Marine unit is going to clear them off with shooting - or a charge. Indeed they could have decisively done so by aiding the surrounded unit in either of the Marine player's turns. This assumed the Orks were teleported across the table to avoid shooting, and then made a lengthy charge. And if they had just tagged those Marines, they likely wouldn't have got 80 attacks in the first round - which would change things quite considerably.
So to perhaps slightly exaggerate it but not by much, to get "evenly matched combat", the Primaris have to give up their bolters. If they can do essentially any shooting, the Orks can't defeat the same points worth unless they can somehow get the full unit into combat, which has various problems.
Put the Primaris under say a Chapter Master and Lieutenant and its even more skewed. Yes - you can buff the Orks - but I'm not sure you can buff them as much to make the difference. Or at least not as reliably.
But really this is the problem with Orks and the problem with Intercessors.
Basically everything needs to be less lethal. When buffed up shooting *expects* to get about a 40% return, assault has to get about 100% return because a lot of it will be dead due to being shot, failing charges, not being able to fully get into contact etc etc. But any unit which does 100% damage and has a near 100% ability to get across the board turn 1 has a very strong ability to break the game in a way that isn't very fun. Its just "I go first, I kill a third of your army, tri-point something so you can't shoot, kill it in your turn and then proceed to table you turn 2" while you were entirely powerless.
Now whether this is any worse than "I roll a bit hot on my shooting, oh dear your army is all gone and you haven't had your third turn yet" I don't know - but I think GW rightly recognises it could be more obnoxious.
Very accurate description of the boyz vs primaris problem and your theory exactly matches my in-game experience.
I find the conclusion the most important bit.
Remember start of 8th and berzerker bombing? Remove the Mobility and it get's basically nerfed to oblivion and berzerkers are by far not lacking melee capability. Even worse the fact that when you dedicated melee unit isn't deadly enough, aka boyz, and you see why massed melee armies full with such units in their roster perform lackluster.
There is another difference between melee and shooting.
Range can project killing power around them (barring line of sight), whereas melee needs to get there.
This means that with say interecessors you have more real table presence than with boys. Hold and objective and shoot, shoot one unit, turn around, shoot another 30'' away.
Only a few melee units can meaningfully project power this way, and they tend to be super mobile (spears, jetbikes, jumpers). If you teleport your aquilon terminators (at over 80 points a piece, yikes), it'd be be worth it, because they aren't going much further.
That aside, obviously interecessors are too good for what they cost. They almost beat orks boys even if they receive the charge (no prior shooting); that's just absurd, considering how they have very deadly shooting too. I can only imagine that if intercessors get their charge they probably kill those ork boys, which is adding salt to it.
Yea thanks Tyrel, that was really informative.
Appreciate this theoryhammer is highly dubious, but it does highlight how mismatched even the base stats are on both units before all the special rules are taken into account.
I suppose the only conclusion I can draw from this is that if you're playing your mates ork army, take tacticals instead of intercessors. Otherwise you're both going to have a pretty dull game!
Kroem wrote: I suppose the only conclusion I can draw from this is that if you're playing your mates ork army, take tacticals instead of intercessors. Otherwise you're both going to have a pretty dull game!
Nah, the solution is to just shoot those intercessors off the board with your orks, which is easily done. They are a great troops unit, but far from unbeatable.
Kroem wrote: Yea thanks Tyrel, that was really informative.
Appreciate this theoryhammer is highly dubious, but it does highlight how mismatched even the base stats are on both units before all the special rules are taken into account.
I suppose the only conclusion I can draw from this is that if you're playing your mates ork army, take tacticals instead of intercessors. Otherwise you're both going to have a pretty dull game!
Kroem wrote: Yea thanks Tyrel, that was really informative.
Appreciate this theoryhammer is highly dubious, but it does highlight how mismatched even the base stats are on both units before all the special rules are taken into account.
I suppose the only conclusion I can draw from this is that if you're playing your mates ork army, take tacticals instead of intercessors. Otherwise you're both going to have a pretty dull game!
Nah, thats list tailoring.
Technically, but not in the sense that normally draws disapprobation. There is nothing wrong with toning down a list to make a game against a unoptimised army more interesting for all involved.
