Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You can hold back on shooting certain guns but I don't remember anything about holding back on CC?

Redbeard wrote:I understand this. It goes against the fluff. It goes against real-world military history. It detracts from the game, in my opinion. As a general, one should be able to send men to their death to buy time. It should be a more reliable move than hoping your guys hit and that your opponent doesn't make his omnipresent 4+ cover save.

Well, you can send your men to certain death to try to buy time. It doesn't necessarily mean that they will listen to you. If a group of Guardsmen charge in, drag down a Terminator but get 4 of their own smashed in return, it's probably pretty hard for them to keep the momentum going. Sure, in a straight points comparison the Guard is ahead, but it's rather doubtful that the soldiers fighting are busy calculating odds at the time. They've simply lost more men then the Marines have, and their break check is modified to take that into account. While the image of a crazed horde of men/beasts/chickens pouring over the defenders is nice, Guardsmen (minus Chem-inhalers) aren't that way. I also like the idea of elite troops holding out against the onslaught of numbers, forcing the attackers back through sheer fighting ability (cue 300 or any action movie really).

I'm not sure where the real-world military history part comes from either. It's awfully rare for soldiers to fight to the last man in any conflict. In close combat especially, men tend to surrender once the fight starts going drastically against them. Of course, this doesn't stop them from getting killed anyways.

IMO tarpitting of units without any way to break free was an annoying part of the game in 4th. In 5th, being able to cause the same situation over an objective would have been terrible. Having an endless fight with no way to shoot them down or leave combat would probably mean that objective just got tossed out the window.

spmusubi wrote:
Well, you can send your men to certain death to try to buy time. It doesn't necessarily mean that they will listen to you.
...
While the image of a crazed horde of men/beasts/chickens pouring over the defenders is nice, Guardsmen (minus Chem-inhalers) aren't that way.

They are in the fluff. There is a reason why commissars exist.

I'm not sure where the real-world military history part comes from either. It's awfully rare for soldiers to fight to the last man in any conflict. In close combat especially, men tend to surrender once the fight starts going drastically against them. Of course, this doesn't stop them from getting killed anyways.

There is a difference between fighting to the last man, and running away because you took 15% casualties. As for your assertion, it kind of depends on the mentality of the culture in the fight. The WWII Japanese are one example. The Spartans that you mentioned above are another. 15% casualties are, relatively speaking, nothing to be worried about. It's only in the current media-aware world where every single soldier's death is broadcast as a lead item on the nightly news that people have been concerned about lone casualties in war. Consider that fewer people have died in four years in Iraq than died in a single day in WWI. (Sources: iCasualty.org, wikipedia: Battle of the Somme) If your assertion was correct, why didn't those WWI soldiers refuse to go over the top? Because they were soldiers. They were trained and indoctrinated to give their lives for their country. Now, replace that mentality with 'For the Emperor', and why exactly are 40 guardsmen going to run away simply because 5 of them died dragging down one terminator?

It's a BS rule. It's unrealistic, it severely penalizes armies that relied upon cheap, expendable troops to engage in wars of attrition. Instead, they're forced to hope that their opponent fails some saves before getting to combat, and just lose if they make it?

Depends on how the Casualties were caused.

Precision kills are unnerving enough, but having a fellow squaddie literally pulped by an 8' tall superhuman in armour thicker than your APC's is bound to be somewhat unnerving, nes pas?

Go read Imperial Infantrymans Uplifting Primer for an idea of just how deluded a Guardsman will be until it's too late!

Redbeard wrote:...they can just wait for their new codex, which will, no doubt, include two or three must-have special characters that will allow their army to survive in the new 5th ed environment.

Ouch, ha ha ha, yea that sure seems to be the way it is going, funny.

Redbeard wrote:It's a poorly thought-out mish-mash of rules that doesn't work well. It blatantly rewards some armies and penalizes others. As someone mentioned earlier, the whole idea is that if I have the same number of points as you, our forces should be somewhat even. ...this ruleset is worse than 4e. I gave it a chance, I've played games, and I'm not a fan.

It's a big bucket of different, for no obvious reasons. I agree with you about CC being a MAJOR issue, but thats not all the game is about. I still like 5th, but not the CC and morale rules.

wyomingfox wrote:

Gaunts, for example still work wonderfully as a tarpit, but they just suffer horrendous extra damage for doing so (rightly so, IMO).

Yeah, just make sure that they aren't too close to your...

You have to be kidding, gaunts do NOT make a wonderful tarpit unit. They are a complete liability in or out of synapse range, they have almost no chance to win any melee.

I have a unit of 30 I play and in melee, Marneus calgar single handed defeated all 30 of them in a single turn at the Vegas GT, they ailed their morale check and were run down by one guy, in one turn. In other games, where they are in hive mind range they have lost 8 model easily in asingle average charge and then as they were fearless lost another 7 more or so, and were easily killed in my opponents next phase, not tarpitting at all.

It doesn't work either way, I have played the games to prove it!

By the very nature of the rules tarpitting doesnt work, that is the problem...

IMO it is also what is really stupid about WHFB, there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in WHFB between 20 Goblins that get the maximum rank bonus and 100 goblins that get.... the exact same rank bonus, except that the bigger unit costs 5x as much. IMO combat run downs are THE STUPIDEST PART of warhammer rules, and now they are in 40k too, great...

spmusubi wrote:

Redbeard wrote:I understand this. It goes against the fluff. It goes against real-world military history. It detracts from the game, in my opinion. As a general, one should be able to send men to their death to buy time. It should be a more reliable move than hoping your guys hit and that your opponent doesn't make his omnipresent 4+ cover save.

Well, you can send your men to certain death to try to buy time. It doesn't necessarily mean that they will listen to you. If a group of Guardsmen charge in, drag down a Terminator but get 4 of their own smashed in return, it's probably pretty hard for them to keep the momentum going. Sure, in a straight points comparison the Guard is ahead, but it's rather doubtful that the soldiers fighting are busy calculating odds at the time.....

Uh yea, but where that falls apart is they are more than happy to march strait into withering gunfire to the last man, so explain that...?

I think people are missing at least part of the point. Sure, some of the units are superhuman soldiers. That's fine. But other units, their whole point is that they're not-so-superhuman soldiers that use strength in numbers to win. This no longer exists. They lose and run or get swept every time, unless they are fearless, and even then they get reamed by even one or two living enemies who are outnumbered 5:1 or more.

Pointing out the ways that 5e combat improved is not an answer to the other problems. Yes, it's quicker and it's about squads not characters and there's less weird charging in a line or tying people up with really god-awful but fearless units. People get that. Some of those are good, really, I agree.

But right now, I can send 30, 40, 50, even 60 weak or lower initiative guys against 10, and if I get unlucky and leave one of those 10 alive, I'm probably testing on a 5. 40 vs 10 turns into 1 against 28 and I get a -3?! What? It's a system that breaks down very, very badly in the outlying cases, and a system that penalizes any unit that should be decent in combat but relied on numbers in 5e.

I don't expect the rules to change, obviously. And I can understand absracting it out to say "well, that morale test and them getting swept is just part of the overall battle". Thats fine. But there's something about an obvious sure victory in combat being turned into "you got swept" because of 3 or 4 more casualties than the opponent that really ticks me off.

Augustus wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:

Gaunts, for example still work wonderfully as a tarpit, but they just suffer horrendous extra damage for doing so (rightly so, IMO).

Yeah, just make sure that they aren't too close to your...

You have to be kidding, gaunts do NOT make a wonderful tarpit unit. They are a complete liability in or out of synapse range, they have almost no chance to win any melee.

I have a unit of 30 I play and in melee, Marneus calgar single handed defeated all 30 of them in a single turn at the Vegas GT, they ailed their morale check and were run down by one guy, in one turn. In other games, where they are in hive mind range they have lost 8 model easily in asingle average charge and then as they were fearless lost another 7 more or so, and were easily killed in my opponents next phase, not tarpitting at all.

It doesn't work either way, I have played the games to prove it!

By the very nature of the rules tarpitting doesnt work, that is the problem...

IMO it is also what is really stupid about WHFB, there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in WHFB between 20 Goblins that get the maximum rank bonus and 100 goblins that get.... the exact same rank bonus, except that the bigger unit costs 5x as much. IMO combat run downs are THE STUPIDEST PART of warhammer rules, and now they are in 40k too, great...

Riiiight.....you do know Gaunts really ought to be caught firmly in a Synaptic Web, don't you? No point complaining about them getting blatted and being a rubbish Tarpit if you didn't exploit their Fearless potential, is there?

What ever happened to using units in unison? Happens all the time in Fantasy. My ranged troops shave off your Ranks here and there, swinging combats favourably, and the unit that approached relatively unmolested are either jumped by Heavy Infantry and a Character, or ganged up on by lighter troops and a Flank charge.

Why should 40k be any different? Try sticking some Genestealers in with your Gaunts next time. Or perhaps a Carnifex, seeing as it can now keep up thanks to the rules for Running.

I really feel all that is needed is a period of adjustment to the new rules. A lot more has changed than some people might realise, particularly since Victory Conditions focus a lot less on annihilating the enemy, and a lot more on playing tactically.

What does real world combat have to do with game where many guns have a range just beyond what they can charge in a comparable amount of time, space elves, wizards and mutant bugs?

His point is that their "Fearless Potential" is pretty much wasted in Synapse as well, since they can get buzzsawed through fairly quickly due to the new rules.

Their whole point was to be effective tarpits,but 5th edition pretty much killed the entire notion of that.

Killed one notion, opened up another.

I really don't fancy trying to dislodge a Brood of Gaunts from an Objective. Soooo many wounds to grind through, and whilst I'm doing that, inevitably (where the synergy comes in) something bigger and nastier will be coming to their aid.

Yup, throw Gaunts into combat with a Carnifex alongside them and while the Carnifex wins the combat, the Gaunts win the Sweeping Advance.

Redbeard wrote:

spmusubi wrote:
Well, you can send your men to certain death to try to buy time. It doesn't necessarily mean that they will listen to you.
...
While the image of a crazed horde of men/beasts/chickens pouring over the defenders is nice, Guardsmen (minus Chem-inhalers) aren't that way.

They are in the fluff. There is a reason why commissars exist.

Commissars can get the men moving, however once they're locked into close combat, why should the Guardsmen care if one of them gets shot by him when to stay means that more of them will be killed by the enemy? This is even reflected in the old Guard codex rules where if a Commissar reroll failed, the Guardsmen killed the Commissar and ran off anyways.

Guardsmen (and Commissars) are only human, after all. Being able to always stand against overwhelming force by shooting a single man seems rather out-of-character. Summary execution is probably a great way to motivate a unit wavering under incoming fire, but I doubt it works in hand-to-hand fighting. Fluff-wise, I recall plenty of stories where a unit is pinned down/thinking of running/already in full retreat where the Commissar shoots a man or two as an example, and brings the unit back into line. When a unit is face to face with the chainsaw wielding maniacs and getting chopped up, I'm not sure a Commissar shooting one man is going to have any benefit at all. Heck, why not motivate the troops by shooting one of the enemy instead?

There is a difference between fighting to the last man, and running away because you took 15% casualties. As for your assertion, it kind of depends on the mentality of the culture in the fight. The WWII Japanese are one example. The Spartans that you mentioned above are another. 15% casualties are, relatively speaking, nothing to be worried about. It's only in the current media-aware world where every single soldier's death is broadcast as a lead item on the nightly news that people have been concerned about lone casualties in war. Consider that fewer people have died in four years in Iraq than died in a single day in WWI. (Sources: iCasualty.org, wikipedia: Battle of the Somme)

If your assertion was correct, why didn't those WWI soldiers refuse to go over the top? Because they were soldiers. They were trained and indoctrinated to give their lives for their country. Now, replace that mentality with 'For the Emperor', and why exactly are 40 guardsmen going to run away simply because 5 of them died dragging down one terminator?

Of course they didn't refuse to go over the top into no-man's land. However, once they were advancing, their training, officers and patriotism failed in the face of machine gun fire. Once engaged, their morale broke and they most definitely fled the field. WWI trench warfare was a massive meatgrinder that showed that no matter the motivation of your troops, human morale can only take so much.

Off-topic: Any major war has had greater casualties then the current conflict in Iraq. The Battle of Antietam (US Civil War) had 20k casualties in another single day battle. Sekigahara (Japan) was much the same despite being 200 years earlier. Agincourt (France) was even earlier and resulted in 6-7k casualties.

It's a BS rule. It's unrealistic, it severely penalizes armies that relied upon cheap, expendable troops to engage in wars of attrition. Instead, they're forced to hope that their opponent fails some saves before getting to combat, and just lose if they make it?

IMO the ability of Commissars to always pass morale checks is much more unrealistic. While troops hopped up on various drugs (Chem-inhalers) could conceivably perform human wave attacks successfully, a "normal" Guardsman would find it very hard to stand up against an enemy killing more of his squadmates then they lose, regardless of the game point values of such.

It's the same reason desertion was relatively rare amongst British Troops in WW1.

Run away, and when inevitably captured, you WERE shot and killed, or go over the top, where you'll only be *probably* shot and killed.

Tiny chances and that.

Going back to the Gaunts and the Fex thingy....

Sure, if the combat goes badly, your Fex will be taking wounds as well. But that requires you to have entered into a combat of your own volition that is even remotely fair. And frankly, why would you do a silly thing like that? Genestealers, Broodlords and Lictors are there to tackle nasty stuff like Command Squads, what with decent WS, high I and Rending. Raveners can be used in support of a multitude of units, and Warriors are a tasty Jack of All Trades, which are as at home supplying a lone Carnifex or Tyrant with extra attacks, or adding much needed punch to your weedier units.

Augustus wrote:

spmusubi wrote:

Redbeard wrote:I understand this. It goes against the fluff. It goes against real-world military history. It detracts from the game, in my opinion. As a general, one should be able to send men to their death to buy time. It should be a more reliable move than hoping your guys hit and that your opponent doesn't make his omnipresent 4+ cover save.

Well, you can send your men to certain death to try to buy time. It doesn't necessarily mean that they will listen to you. If a group of Guardsmen charge in, drag down a Terminator but get 4 of their own smashed in return, it's probably pretty hard for them to keep the momentum going. Sure, in a straight points comparison the Guard is ahead, but it's rather doubtful that the soldiers fighting are busy calculating odds at the time.....

Uh yea, but where that falls apart is they are more than happy to march strait into withering gunfire to the last man, so explain that...?

Huh? They take break tests, which are representative of the Guardsmen thinking that maybe advancing into the guns isn't such a great idea after all. Sorry, I think I must be misunderstanding you here.

Nurglitch wrote:Yup, throw Gaunts into combat with a Carnifex alongside them and while the Carnifex wins the combat, the Gaunts win the Sweeping Advance.

That is the stupidest thing I ever heard, I know that sounds like an outright flame, but allow me to reposte

Throwing a Carnifex (or genestealers etc.) in with a gaunt unit gets everyone killed (all the tyranids) because the target will focus all their attacks on the gaunts, when the gaunts die, the tyranids loose the melee on MODEL COUNT and the carnifex and the genestealers both have to take saves because the little guants got skwished. Its the double indemnity, in fact sending in the gaunts too might make the tyranids loose the melee by model count! It really makes NO SENSE to send in combined waves like that, the carnifex or better units are actually better going in ALONE!

spmusubi wrote:Huh? They take break tests, which are representative of the Guardsmen thinking that maybe advancing into the guns isn't such a great idea after all. Sorry, I think I must be misunderstanding you here.

Imagine if a unit took shooting morale tests at -1 for every model killed in the shooting phase... Thats how the morale checks in CC are, see what I mean?

Actually in CC it is even worse, imagine if in shooting you had to take a morale test at -1 for every casualty in a unit in 2 inches of a friendly target unit, thats REALLY how CC morale works out...

Voodoo Boyz wrote:His point is that their "Fearless Potential" is pretty much wasted in Synapse as well, since they can get buzzsawed through fairly quickly due to the new rules.

Their whole point was to be effective tarpits,but 5th edition pretty much killed the entire notion of that.

Yes exactly.

Augustus wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Yup, throw Gaunts into combat with a Carnifex alongside them and while the Carnifex wins the combat, the Gaunts win the Sweeping Advance.

That is the stupidest thing I ever heard, I know that sounds like an outright flame, but allow me to reposte

Throwing a Carnifex (or genestealers etc.) in with a gaunt unit gets everyone killed (all the tyranids) because the target will focus all their attacks on the gaunts, when the gaunts die, the tyranids loose the melee on MODEL COUNT and the carnifex and the genestealers both have to take saves because the little guants got skwished. Its the double indemnity, in fact sending in the gaunts too might make the tyranids loose the melee by model count! It really makes NO SENSE to send in combined waves like that, the carnifex or better units are actually better going in ALONE!

Please go back and read all of my post.

"Sure, if the combat goes badly, your Fex will be taking wounds as well. But that requires you to have entered into a combat of your own volition that is even remotely fair. And frankly, why would you do a silly thing like that? Genestealers, Broodlords and Lictors are there to tackle nasty stuff like Command Squads, what with decent WS, high I and Rending. Raveners can be used in support of a multitude of units, and Warriors are a tasty Jack of All Trades, which are as at home supplying a lone Carnifex or Tyrant with extra attacks, or adding much needed punch to your weedier units. "

I agree, if you are doing the assaulting, the carnifex/genestealers is better off without the support of guants who really put the wound totals in your opponents favor. I really think the moral of the story is don't assault with guants and don't let your guants drag your support units into CC when they get assualted.

Moreover, if you plan on supporting an stealer carnifex assault with guants, it means that your stealers and carnifexes must be in close proximity to your guants. Given this you are just as likely to get assualted as you are to assault, and expect your opponent to get into CC with not only your guants but to snipe either your stealers or Carnifex in the process. The opponent directs his attacks at your guants hitting them on 3+, wounding on 3+ (or 2+ if they have furios charge) and you get a 6+ armour save means that even with the carnifexes meager support you are going to lose the wound contests. Genestealers scenario gives you better odds as they can dish out more wounds than a carnifex, only don't rely on their rending against MEQ and terminators due to wound allocation consolidating rends onto a minimum # of models.

Also, I don't know of too many Nid players who look at warriors and see them as Jack of All Trades Awesomeness. Good with deathspitters, not that great in CC compared to other units. Saw some CC warriors in 4th when they were beasts and could FoF and assult 12 inches (before the latest codex came out).

Why are you tarpitting in a Nids army? You have the games most brutal cc unit, why do you need to tarpit? Tarpit with a Carnifex that can't be killed.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Its just a strawman argument Ozymandias, an example, something that was in 4th and was a certain way, and now is very different. Thats all.

The why isn't important. Maybe the carnifex was shot with lascannons.

The end result is the same. A game that claims to be all about units has a combat system that doesn't pay attention to proportional unit strength but, rather, individual models. You can make any excuses for this that you want. Gaunts shouldn't be in combat. Gaunts should be in synapse, gaunts shouldn't be in synapse, guardsmen shouldn't be in combat. Marneus is so 1337 that he should have no problem killing 40 guardsmen in a turn. Kroot aren't an assault unit...

At the end of the day, it's poor game design. When unit of 30 ork sluggas wipes out half of a unit of 10 khorne berserkers at the cost of 7 boyz and can be said to have lost that engagement, there's a problem. All of a sudden, we're back to skirmish mechanics in our unit-based game.

You can't have it both ways. Either, they went to a nice, elegant unit-based system to speed up the game and remove the skirmishy stuff in shooting, in which case you should see the flaw in game design in keeping model-based rules in combat resolution, OR they want to maintain some sort of skirmish feel, in which case the ability to shoot models that you cannot see in a True-Line-of-Sight system is a flaw. One way or the other, it's an inconsistent approach, and it plays as such.

I'd like to ad I have seen the rise of some new tactics:

Minimizing the number of units you engage when you charge so that the enemy unit intentionally survives, that way, you dont end up with your assault unit out of melee in the opponents turn.

It's about as gamey as casualty removal tactics were before, you just have to think ahead a little when you move your chargers in the movement phase so that only one or 2 actually go into melee in the turn they charge...

Isn't there a good probability of backfire as the enemy counter attacks? He ends up getting his entire unit into combat with your 2 guys. Opponent get more wounds that like shooting can be distributed to your entire squad...even those guys who are not in combat. You end up scoring only less wounds with your 2 guys who are the only ones fighting on your side...- modifier = you lose combat and run or take more wounds.

Augustus wrote:

spmusubi wrote:Huh? They take break tests, which are representative of the Guardsmen thinking that maybe advancing into the guns isn't such a great idea after all. Sorry, I think I must be misunderstanding you here.

Imagine if a unit took shooting morale tests at -1 for every model killed in the shooting phase... Thats how the morale checks in CC are, see what I mean?

Actually in CC it is even worse, imagine if in shooting you had to take a morale test at -1 for every casualty in a unit in 2 inches of a friendly target unit, thats REALLY how CC morale works out...

Close combat has always had different morale rolls then shooting though. It's more decisive (in 4th also) simply because the losing unit can be completely destroyed on a failed morale check which is something that usually doesn't happen to units getting shot, unless they run off the board. 5th has made this ability even stronger through the combat resolution modifiers, but removed the ability to consolidate into other units. I'm not sure why this this goes against both fluff and real-world military history, as the fluff often brings up situations where units falter under a strong close combat assault (William King is a frequent writer of this), attempt to run away and are cut down from behind. I'm sure that this is not an infrequent occurrence in real life as well.

Regardless, trying to rationalize why the game works the way it does based off on stories is not a really good way of figuring things out, as I'm sure we're all aware. I'm also afraid I don't quite see why proportional unit strength is so important to determine the winner of a combat. If I have a 100 Ork Green Tide, should it never be possible for me to lose combat? Ever? Superior numbers have their place, but it's hardly a guaranteed victory IRL (back to the Battle of the Somme example). Why should it be that way in the game?

In a valiant effor to increase my post count, I'm going to post this here as well (from the other 'What do you think about 5th Ed' thread):



With the Dark Angels, I can take Terminators as Elites, as you'd expect, but I can also alter my list via a Special Character and take them as Troops. So... why can these Terminators score and these ones can't?

Ok, there are some (feeble) arguments as to why the ones in a non-Deathwing army couldn't, but let's look at Blood Angels.

They can take Assault Squads as Troops and Fast Attack in the same list, no alteration or requirements for Special Characters. Now you can take two identical units, but one is Troops, one is FA, and only the Troops one can score.

One Guardsman will hold an objective over 10 Chaos Terminators. A lone Grot can stare down a Hive Tyrant W/Tyrant Guard and not flinch, 'cause he can somehow score, yet they can only contest.

I agree with Syr when he says that the Dev Team is finally asking what they want Troops to do in this game. They've made the change in the typical ham-fisted way GW makes all sweeping changes, but they have taken a step forward in that they're thinking about where they want this game to go.

That said I do not share his optimism (are you surprised?) when he says:

"[W]ill 5th edition be the one where the design team figures out that all FOC options must have some kind of synergy, if not to every other choice, then to an array of choices, so that multiple builds are possible and viable, and every unit has its synergy with the army as a whole, especially troop chocies?"

I would posit that the Dev Team has already worked this out but have chosen specifically not to design their game in this way. This isn't because they are incapable of it (as much as cynicism clouds my posts, I am certain that if they wanted to, they could write a damned fine ruleset - they have with other systems), but because they don't want to do it. Or, more accurately, their first loyalty is to their business model, and the above suggestion of Syr's would compromise that model.

In a perfect world, "FOC options [would] have some ... synergy... so that multiple builds are possible and viable, and every unit has its synergy with the army as a whole...". This is a fantastic idea for writing a game, and it is certainly something our group has strived for with our 40K Revisited Project, but the major difference between us and Games Workshop is that we don't have to sell new model kits.

As long as their focus remains on selling miniatures (and I see no reason why this would change), then Syr's perfect notion will never come to pass. If all units had synergy, if lots of different builds were viable, then there'd be nothing new to sell (unless you changed the rules wholesale between editions, but that would just annoy people).

If the rules came first, and they made sure that everything worked within the rules before they even considered a single new kit, their business would collapse or they'd have to be a much smaller company (ala. Catalyst Game Labs & Iron Wind Metals). You'd have to rely on new players and people wanting to update models, not on making a new kit and giving it killer rules whilst simultaneously nerfing the stuff that was good in the previous edition (just look at the new Marine Codex if you want a great example of this type of design philosophy).

So what has this got to do with scoring troops?

Well if we accept the fact that GW will always be a miniature company first, and a rules company last (and it is), then we can accept that they are always going to be swinging that pendulum as hard as they can between different versions of the same army or rules. What we shouldn't accept is when they do things like the scoring change.

The scoring change, from what I can tell, is their half-way attempt at doing what we want without, as I said, compromising their business model. From this we can see their desire to improve the game, but also see their servitude to the bean-counters that need to shift X units of Shiny New Model Kit #44C before the next shareholders meeting.

And this is where we get the notions of 'ham-fisted' game design and great ideas with failed executions (ala Guard Doctrines, Marine Traits, etc.). The scoring unit change, like the Doctrines and Traits, are ideas that have merit - great merit in some cases - but cannot be taken to their full because doing so would risk the 'miniature' side of things. If they didn't require you to buy more 'stuff' because their rules actually allowed you to tailor your list to bring about synergy, they wouldn't be shackled with these half-way measures when it comes to rules writing.

As much as I crap on with cheap remarks in other threads (and laugh heartily at those who take me too seriously in those), this is something I'm dead serious about:

GW either has to do one of two things:

1. Accept fully what and who they represent - a miniature company that writes rules to service those miniatures, and thusly stop making half-hearted attempts at actual game design that just end up screwing the players in the long run by creating a host of arbitrary and nonsensical rulings and problems.
2. Make some bold changes with the rules that don't cater to shiny new model kits and give us a well crafted rules system.

Sadly as long as GW remains in the financial position that it's in right now, the latter can never happen. The former isn't a bad thing though - I don't think GW simply giving up on being forward thinking with rules is a terrible alternative as it would give us a break from constantly shifting core concepts and we can get back to the usual constantly shifting unit dynamics due to changes within unit rules, not major core rules. All the former is is not ideal, and as I said to Syr's comment, we can't really live in an ideal world where GW writes great rules and continues to produce lots of great miniature kits - those two things are mutually exclusive for a company as large as them - but we can wish for them to give up on their clumsy missteps in 'fixing' the game and just let them play silly-buggers with Codex entries.

At least that's a pain only on the bank balance, not our sanity. We'll never have to ask "Why did they do that!???" in anger again, except for the answer is "To sell a new model kit", and that answer I'm fine with.

BYE

P.S. And before anyone jumps up and down claiming I'm coming up with a 'GW Conspiracy Theory' let me remind you that a conspiracy theory requires a certain amount of secretive behaviour and underhandedness. There's nothing secretive about GW's actions. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that with the new Marine Codex their goals and decisions are even more overt than ever before. They're not 'evil' for doing what they do, they're just a business. I just wish the dev team would figure that out and stop trying to be game designers in an environment that simply doesn't support forward thinking rules design and balance...

spmusubi wrote:
...I'm not sure why this this goes against both fluff and real-world military history, as the fluff often brings up situations where units falter under a strong close combat assault (William King is a frequent writer of this), attempt to run away and are cut down from behind. I'm sure that this is not an infrequent occurrence in real life as well.

It's not that a unit falters or runs under a hard assault, it's how quickly they do so. Ten guys charge Marneus. Marneus kills 2 without breaking a sweat. This is fine. The remaining eight run. Marneus catches all eight of them and kills them in a split second. This is not ok.

Under the old rules, those eight guys would test on their base morale until such a time as they were either below half strength or outnumbered. Under the new rules, units that are over half-strength and that outnumber the enemy face horrendous morale tests for losing combat by even a couple of guys. It makes close combat nearly impossible to win for units that have multiple, easily killed models, even if they inflict considerably more damage on a point-for-point basis.

I'm also afraid I don't quite see why proportional unit strength is so important to determine the winner of a combat.

Because the balance of the game is based on points, not model-count. 200 points of kroot (arguably an assault unit, and non-arguably the best assault unit available to the Tau) should stand a decent chance against 200 points of tactical marines (arguably not an assault unit). But they don't, because combat isn't based on which side inflicts more damage proportionally, only model count.

If I have a 100 Ork Green Tide, should it never be possible for me to lose combat? Ever?

If you have a 100 ork green tide, then you should probably win combat against anything less than 600 points of enemy assault specialists. Which should result in a mutual destruction fest. If you hit those orks with 1000 points of khorne berserkers (what's that, 45?) you should beat them handily.

Superior numbers have their place, but it's hardly a guaranteed victory IRL (back to the Battle of the Somme example). Why should it be that way in the game?

The discussion isn't just about superior numbers, it's about points too. If we have an equal amount of points, then, according to the game design, we're on roughly even footing. In some situations you might have an edge, in others, I might. But, under 5e, in assault, if my 500 points are spent on more numerous lower-quality troops, and yours are spent on fewer higher quality troops, I cannot win combat against you. I may inflict a greater percentage of casualties on you than you inflict on me, but by the very nature of having the lower quality men, you'll kill more models. Not more points, but more models. And so I always lose, in spite of the fact that, in theory, we're playing with equal forces, at 500 points.

Redbeard wrote:And, yet, winning combat is based on counting models, not unit's strength. A 200 point kroot unit that loses 5 kroot has lost 17% of it's effective strength. A 200 point terminator unit that loses one terminator has lost 20% of its effective strength. If your assertion that everything is unit based was correct, the kroot would have won this fight. But, the terminators did, and convincingly, by 4 wounds.

That seems entirely right, because 40k5 cares about the results of actually killing stuff, rather than a number of guys standing around and cheering. If the Kroot were kicking ass, then that would show up in the actual kills scored.

Consider 5 Assault Terminators at maximum coherency charged by equal points unit of 50 Conscripts (under the assumption that it's better to charge than be charged). By mathhammer, on average, those 5 Assault Terminators will have 15 attacks, score 10 hits, and kill 9 Conscripts. Let's assume that the Termies roll badly, so they only kill 5 Conscripts. That leaves 45 Conscripts to swing back, for 90 attacks, 45 hits, 15 wounds, 2.5 Termies killed. Let's round up and assume 3 Termies died.

Under 5th Edition, the 2 Termies won handily by 5-3 = 2 wounds, so the Ld5 Conscripts test on a 3+, and fail. If the Termies run them down, oh well. The Conscripts killed 120 pts of Termies, which is far more than what one would expect in a normal game. Hell, they probably earned the remaining 80 pts just by giving 4+ cover saves to more valuable units behind them.

So what's the problem?