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.

Without getting into the specifics of each army and unit, of which, some obviously excel at one or the other, which do you think is more effective in 40k?
Each phase requires you to roll to hit, roll to wound and then your enemy (usualy) gets some sort of save. Thats 3 set of dice that must be rolled but in hand to hand your opponent may get to hit back. Beacuse 40k is a turn based game this never happens with shooting (same phase I mean).
However a good hth round can cause much harsher penalties to leadership thus routing your enemy.

Taking some leeway and comparing 40k to modern real life warfare, is it better to utterly destroy your opponent (wiping him out in the shooting phase/hth rout) or devastate him and have him never comeback (force moral checks and have them flee)?
I know its not a perfect comparison since real world scenarios are vastly more complex then a tabletop game with fairly rigid rules but any thoughts?

Do you think 40k has a good balance between shooting/hth in general?

Personally, I prefer ranged firepower and lots of shooting.

The unfortunate reality however, is that both are a huge part of the game, and one has to be competent with both in order to win.

I prefer shooting, I always have. But - absolutely destroying someone in hand to hand on occasion, is EXTREMELY SATISFYING!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Especially when its 250 pts of terminators that get owned by some HB.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the way, that HB is meant to stand for Howling Banshees

I think that why yes it is a balanced, shoot vs hth, hth provides better results ie, destroying a unit, tarpitting a unit, better chane to pop vechiles for less powerfull units.

I prefer assaulting. Like Bramnero said, its extremely satisfying when you cleave away a squad of whatever in cc. But shooting is just as important.

I much prefer shootie over choppy.

But ussually going CC is more effective since if your in CC you get to attack on your turn and your opponents turn. CC is more eventful and exciting since it happens more often. for each player.

I prefer shooting. It just feels more fun to blow somebody away from afar

In 4th Ed, assaulting was the way to go. 5th Ed nerfed assaults by getting rid of the ability to consolidate into a new assault. Used to be with a heavy assault unit that you could get into an opponent's flank and roll it right up. 5th Ed changed that considerably. Assaulting is still important, but is a more fragile tool than it used to be.

i play orks so close combat is my favorite

Commander Endova wrote:The unfortunate reality however, is that both are a huge part of the game, and one has to be competent with both in order to win.

A-hem. My Tau would like a word with you.

Based on my first army choice, I much prefer shooting over assaulting. The funny thing is, the only reason is that the rules for HtH are slightly more complex than the rules for shooting, so when I first started playing the game I would usually ignore the assault phase entirely and skip messing something up in assault.

Locclo wrote:

Commander Endova wrote:The unfortunate reality however, is that both are a huge part of the game, and one has to be competent with both in order to win.

A-hem. My Tau would like a word with you.

Cool. I'll drop some Vanguard into your lines and we'll "converse." Don't mind all their Power Toys and Heroic antics.

Death By Monkeys wrote:In 4th Ed, assaulting was the way to go. 5th Ed nerfed assaults by getting rid of the ability to consolidate into a new assault. Used to be with a heavy assault unit that you could get into an opponent's flank and roll it right up. 5th Ed changed that considerably. Assaulting is still important, but is a more fragile tool than it used to be.

Sort of. Super assault units took a hit to their effectiveness but due to the change in combat resolution regular assault is far more decisive. As a result assault is as deadly as ever but you need to take multiple assault units, and look to trap as many enemy units in assault as possible.


Thing is, this is an impossible question to answer without considering units themselves. If gave orks BS 0 but dropped the price to 1 point each, then assault would reign supreme regardless of the slight differences in the resolution of assault and shooting. From my playing experience I would argue both are roughly equal, shooting probably racks up more kills but by its nature assault is decisive, and often focussed on objectives.

As for my own preference? I like both, but more than that I like the option to choose one or the other. I build armies with a balance of shooting specialists, assault specialists and units capable of both, giving me options throughout the game.

Commander Endova wrote:

Locclo wrote:

Commander Endova wrote:The unfortunate reality however, is that both are a huge part of the game, and one has to be competent with both in order to win.

A-hem. My Tau would like a word with you.

Cool. I'll drop some Vanguard into your lines and we'll "converse." Don't mind all their Power Toys and Heroic antics.

My point is, Tau win (And win often at my FLGS) with zero reliance on close combat. Marine armies usually need to be competent in both HtH and Shooting, but Tau do not win in close combat without an obscene amount of luck.

The reason i love shooting is: Imagine the awesome fury when a squad of 10 DA unload a crapload of metal discs at you... Oh yes, There will blood.

orkylooter wrote:i play orks so close combat is my favorite

I'm right there with ya on that. It's all about arranging your boyz so that when the Warboss says WAAAAAAAAAGGGHHH!!!, as many of them get to pile into the enemy as possible. That's why my Lootas have been recently changed into a 'counts as' second unit of burna boyz.

The game is really won in CC... With the abundance of Cover Saves shooting has really taken a step backward in effectiveness.

I'm glad though. I feel that 5th Edition 40k is a much more dynamic game, without two armies sitting 36inches away and plinking at each other.

Hi all.,
I think it is very difficult to get the ballance right between HtH combat and shooting in 40k for one main reason.
The WHFB rules (modified to cover 40k,) are all about manouvering to get the most advantageous close combat match ups with units in large blocks with restricted movement.And ranged attack given a supporting role.

The types of units used in 40k, fast moving skirmishing infantry and armourd vehicles (or equivilents,)MAINLY armed with ranged weapons.
Dictate a completly different type of engagment at the 'battle game' level, to WHFB.(WHFB rules could be used at the skirmish level reasonably well due to more space between units.)

To get more synergy between the 40k rules and its background,an alternative rule set using fire power to mainly control enemy mobility ,(fire zones and supression mechanics,)coupled with close combat /firefight assaults to finish off infantry units, would be much more preferable.

Using WHFB based rules with 40k units is like trying to knock a nail in with a screw driver.
You may actualy be able to do it , but the bloke with the hammer is still laughing his head off...

I like to shoot things, no doubt about it, but I'm finding that in this environment you can't rely on firepower only. I'm learning to appreciate the assault phase more and more.

I like which ever kills the most or is safer for my dudes. That's what you get when you play a 'water' army, choices

But I do prefer to shoot stuff cause they can't shoot back on your turn...(obviously there may be an exception or two, but largely no).

I'm really more of a fan of cc, but both phases are equally represented and very essential to the game.

CC seems more reliable to me. This is probably due to the large amount or space marine I play against. I prefer shooting though

CC is definitely more decisive. As for which is better? I don’t really know, but I was talking with a very good player a few weeks ago that swore up and down CC was king. He says if you CC with a unit that is also survivable (which he does) you’re enhancing the advantages further.

I prefer shooting, which is odd since I play a BS2 army (orks). They key to both is VOLUME. Orks throw a hundred dice at every problem. We win assaults not through skill because because we're good enough and it's hard to kill us all before we throw 70-80 dice back. We shoot not because we're accurate, but because we can throw 100-200-300 dice at you A TURN.

But the same rule generally applies to 40K. It's just generally "easier" to get a lot of dice in assault, with the tradeoff being you have to get there and absorb at least a round of shooting first. Overall, I think it's reasonably balanced, with the caveat that many hardcore specialty units can easily throw the balance out of whack (and these units are the ones we all love to take).

I don't think it's possible to definitively say that shooting or cc is superior. It all just depends on the situation. If your opponent sets up a few lines of Fire Warriors you will probably want to close to cc as fast as possible just to tarpit those bums. If, on the other hand, you see your opponent start setting up slugga/choppa mobs across from you it would be in your best interest to keep them at a distance. It's all about the situation. No unit or tactic will win in every situation. You just need to know what to apply when.

I like HTH as its the only reliable way to eliminate multiple enemies.

Also, its way cooler

CC is generally more effective and harder to use. Shooting is the easier way to destroy the enemy. Only problem is that CC can cut both ways. If you do bad and your enemy does good you will get hurt by your own charge into CC.

The funny thing is, the only reason is that the rules for HtH are slightly more complex than the rules for shooting, so when I first started playing the game I would usually ignore the assault phase entirely and skip messing something up in assault.

That is so true. I started playing 40k in about 1993/4 when I was about 13 and my youthful group didn't really understand the close combat rules so just ignored them. I had a squad of howling banshees, striking scorpions and harlequins and they were just running around shooting their crabby pistols at things. I thought they were crap!

It was my fire dragons and Squat Trike (Allies) with multimelta that were my boys!

(sorry for double posting)

Locclo wrote:

Commander Endova wrote:The unfortunate reality however, is that both are a huge part of the game, and one has to be competent with both in order to win.

A-hem. My Tau would like a word with you.

Based on my first army choice, I much prefer shooting over assaulting. The funny thing is, the only reason is that the rules for HtH are slightly more complex than the rules for shooting, so when I first started playing the game I would usually ignore the assault phase entirely and skip messing something up in assault.

And my Tau would like a word with YOU!
I would argue that the most useful part of a tau army can be CC, simply because people don't expect Tau to use CC or be competent in it (because they usually aren't). However, crisis suits can much better than people think in CC and kroot are, in my opinion, some of the better units in the game with their insane survivability in forests and abilities to start almost anywhere around the board.

Anyways, I think both are important, however I think CC is harder to use but more devastating when done right.

Well, I've got my Orks and I'm still a big fan of shooting. If nothing else, it's a great way to make some noise and make sure your opponent knows you're going to get into melee. In practice, I really only want combat to last two rounds with my Orks. With more and more large units on the table, I find that I need to soften units with shooting more and more.