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.

[quote=Redbeard
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:

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.

Wouldn't this be more of a complaint about the whole "sweeping advance" concept? Even under 4th, this was possible, it's just that it's a lot more likely now in 5th. Fluff-wise, broken or scattered beyond hope of regrouping isn't quite the same as Marneus chasing down every single man and tearing their head off. It's more like he does that to two, the others figure that this is a really bad idea, and run for the hills disregarding any regroup orders they may hear.

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 not sure that multiple, easily killed models should be winning close combat against heavily armoured elites. Against other light models, they'll do just fine.

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.

Now this can't be right. 40 Fire Warriors (400 pts) are highly unlikely to win a close combat against a 10 man Tactical squad (200pts). All models are not the same in different circumstances. At 30", sure those Fire Warriors are beating the tar out of the Marines, but in close combat, they don't stand a chance, 4th edition or 5th edition.

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.

Yet a single C'Tan or Wraithlord is invincible to the 100 Orks, despite costing half their points.

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.

As I hope my examples have shown, I don't feel that this is the case at all. With an equal points allotment, we both have the option to build armies that put us on roughly even footing. If I buy nothing but Lootas and you bring a Land Raider, I cannot win the game by destroying it. I may be able to win through objective play, or some other means, but the Land Raider is indestructible regardless of the points differential.

In close combat, you can win by killing my entire unit, but yes, throwing large units of disposable troops at a hard to kill unit is no longer a good way to take them out of the game. Personally, I do not feel that this is a bad thing. Others may obviously differ.