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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

too many ap5 weapons maybe o.o?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What armies/builds exactly are you having trouble with?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's mobility not HTH which is the winner here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You get more attacks in CC then you do shooting.

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

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

Ding ding ding, we have the winners here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just my 2 cents....

Janthkin wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OP:

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

It could be your lists.

Eric