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.

Drunkspleen wrote:

(I really like the solution Yakface posed earlier to compare the kill point ratios, I almost can't believe that didn't make the book.)

I couldn't help but laugh when I read this, you mean to suggest they should have included a system wherein the more expensive elite units you have in your army the more each unit is worth in terms of kill points? Oh wait, Victory Points already did that.

edit: I should clarify, not a dig at you, A dig at GW because I can't see a good reason for KP

No no, what I liked was comparing ratios of kill points for armies at games end, one army loses 5 of 10 total points and the other loses 7 of 16 point total KP. See that way, the second army still wins because it lost less KP ratio? See, I have no idea what you are talking about with elites or more KP.

PS I hope I got Yaks proposal right, I think so...? All from memory.

Yes, but hardly fair for armies that rely on flimsy transports (KoS, Dark Eldar) or that are forced to take small squads (IG) or for certain units that actually fire KPs at the enemy as far as I can see (Biovores).
KPs kinda suck. I like the ratio idea as a solution, and also the "six most expensive units give kill points" solution.
Kill points as written is bad game design.

Alpharius Walks wrote:
The biggest draw back to this is the difficulty in killing enemy tanks without lascannons and the like on the board. I am still working out what mixture of Chimera-based veterans can perform this; deep striking is so risky in this edition (within my experiences with it) that I feel safer driving around in the taxi and hoping that some tanks end up within 18". The loss of infiltrate when Hardened Vets take the Chimera is rather harsh too.

Emphasis mine.

Not to sidetrack the thread but I had to mention that it's my interpretation that Hardened Vets can Outflank in Chimeras: "During deployment, players may declare that units with the ‘scout’ or ‘infiltrate’ special rules are attempting to outflank the enemy... Note that if such units are picked from their army list together with a dedicated transport, they may outflank with their transport, but if they do so they must move onto the table embarked in it" (Rulebook pg 94).

I've been trying out this army list with outflanking vets and Sentinels to some success, even out-maneuvering a mechanized Tau army in a Capture and Control mission. The point is my experience with outflanking vets as opposed to drop-vets has been very positive.

I don't remember, Augustus, but did you Run/Fleet your Rough Riders that turn? That would have allowed you to get around the wreck, likely, and pulled him out of the cover. The game probably would have been a bit different.

In any case, consider this a lesson learned - Guard can't throw heaps of men at a unit and hope to tie it down. That was a mistake. On the plus side, you should only lose a single squad from assault, unless you are too bunched up and there's a multiple charge. You had some bad luck in this game, and discovered that your old tactic no longer works. Time to change up a bit, I guess!

ubermosher wrote:

Alpharius Walks wrote:
The biggest draw back to this is the difficulty in killing enemy tanks without lascannons and the like on the board. I am still working out what mixture of Chimera-based veterans can perform this; deep striking is so risky in this edition (within my experiences with it) that I feel safer driving around in the taxi and hoping that some tanks end up within 18". The loss of infiltrate when Hardened Vets take the Chimera is rather harsh too.

Emphasis mine.

Not to sidetrack the thread but I had to mention that it's my interpretation that Hardened Vets can Outflank in Chimeras: "During deployment, players may declare that units with the ‘scout’ or ‘infiltrate’ special rules are attempting to outflank the enemy... Note that if such units are picked from their army list together with a dedicated transport, they may outflank with their transport, but if they do so they must move onto the table embarked in it" (Rulebook pg 94).

I've been trying out this army list with outflanking vets and Sentinels to some success, even out-maneuvering a mechanized Tau army in a Capture and Control mission. The point is my experience with outflanking vets as opposed to drop-vets has been very positive.

Uber,

Infiltrating units do not give tranports Infiltrate, but the scouting units do give scouting to their dedicated transports.

Valhallan42nd wrote:

ubermosher wrote:

Alpharius Walks wrote:
The biggest draw back to this is the difficulty in killing enemy tanks without lascannons and the like on the board. I am still working out what mixture of Chimera-based veterans can perform this; deep striking is so risky in this edition (within my experiences with it) that I feel safer driving around in the taxi and hoping that some tanks end up within 18". The loss of infiltrate when Hardened Vets take the Chimera is rather harsh too.

Emphasis mine.

Not to sidetrack the thread but I had to mention that it's my interpretation that Hardened Vets can Outflank in Chimeras: "During deployment, players may declare that units with the ‘scout’ or ‘infiltrate’ special rules are attempting to outflank the enemy... Note that if such units are picked from their army list together with a dedicated transport, they may outflank with their transport, but if they do so they must move onto the table embarked in it" (Rulebook pg 94).

I've been trying out this army list with outflanking vets and Sentinels to some success, even out-maneuvering a mechanized Tau army in a Capture and Control mission. The point is my experience with outflanking vets as opposed to drop-vets has been very positive.

Uber,

Infiltrating units do not give tranports Infiltrate, but the scouting units do give scouting to their dedicated transports.

I understand that units cannot infiltrate with transports, but as written above units with the Infiltrate skill can outflank, which is different... and, RAW, outflanking units, whether by scout or infiltrate, can outflank with a vehicle.

In order to prevent a threadjack, I'll start a new thread about this in YMDC

yakface wrote:Augustus,
I have to say: I think you're totally and completely off-base on this particular issue (and I mean that in a loving way).

Thanks a lot Yak.

Possibly I am off base. That's one reason why I write in these forums, some folks insight here has already made me want to try things differently, but there is more to it than just that.

yakface wrote:
I think you had one bad game and it has given you a false impression.

The new CC morale rules and the removal of consolidation into CC are the *best* possible things that could ever happen to the IG.

Well, I think your theory sounds great on paper and in the forum but it doesnt actually work out that way in the games I have seen and played. It sounds nice, and it is certainly possible in an academic sense to stagger an IG gunline and concievably have N turns to fire one for each rank N. But in practice thats not as great as it sounds, which I will get to in a minute...

yakface wrote:
You made a critical mistake, and that was charging the Black Templars with your Rough Riders at that particular point.

With guard, you should have moved a 'speed bump' unit into position (out of cover) so the Templar unit couldn't move and engage who they wanted in CC.

Then *because* of the new morale CC rules, you could be absolutely assured that the Templar unit would not be locked in combat in your next shooting phase.

By putting your 'speed bump' unit in the proper place (out of cover) you also ensure that if you do want to charge with your RRs next turn, you won't be doing so through cover.

Yes, I understand the staggered defense concept, and I appreciate you outlining it so well for the studio audience! Here is why it doesn't work from my experience. Obviously I made some mistakes though, but these principles refer to more than just my RR example cited here.

(1) Shooting morale checks very seldom kill enitre units without hitting all the models but CC does. It's because of the morale rules, you see from shooting you only have to take basic checks, and if you fall back you are not destroyed, but from CC you have to take checks at significant penalty. This is the crux, you see it doesnt matter if the assaulting units get shot to pieces on the way in, they are never going to reach that magic break point and just be gone, like the soft targets will in CC. The equivalent shooting morale check would be taken at minus the number of models killed in the shooting phase but that is nowhere to be found... (but assault has that penalty). You only need 2 or so to make it, and you have them.

(2) Setting up in ranks cuts your firepower in half. What everyone is forgetting is having staggered line defence REDUCES 50% of YOUR FIREPOWER because they get saves too for the in between units. This one fact puts the nail in the coffin of the "just use a staggered defense argument".

(3) Cumulative melees compound the negative morale modifier till it is untenable. Adding -1 for each casualty in difference in a melee is very slanted, in big melees on the defensive side this assures that each unit will fail as it is penalized for every other units losses. The absurdity is very obvious when some the numbers get to -6, which is not hard, where the defensive side can not pass any longer. WHich yields the conclusion:

(4) Numbers are worthless in CC, because the morale check will kill all the remaining figs. The game has half the WHFB style morale check mechanism, but what is missing? Combat resolution modifiers like outnumbering flanking and rank bonus!

(5) <EVERYONE HAS PLASMA GRENADES now for some reason. It use to be that defending models usually had a chance to strike simo, defending terrain was helpful but now that is gone. This really agravates the IG condition and basically nullifies the value of the counter charge because all your low I models are going to have to survive the assault first, which they don't. Even the elligible ones that do, typical marine vs stats is 4+ 5+ 3+, or 1 in 12 kills...

(6) NON KP Missions are about taking Objectives, or advancing which can't be done while using the staggered line defense. Considering all the missions that are KP missions the IG loose on an even exchange in points means there isn't a missions where they have a fair shot.

yakface wrote:
IG *LOVE* the fact that enemy units almost never stay locked in combat and cannot consolidate into another CC.

On the face yes, an opportunity for precise play benefitting the clever player, certainly, the Salvation of the CC vulnerability in the IG... Far from it.

yakface wrote:
Do not count on wiping out enemy armies in the first few turns of the game anymore with IG, since the increase in cover saves means your early-game firepower has reduced effectiveness.

However, if you set your battleline up correctly and use 'speed bump' units to ensure that the enemy only engages one unit at a time you will find that you have waaaaaay more 'late game' shooting with the guard because once the enemy hits your lines (if you're playing right) it's not 'game over' it's 'game has just begun'.

Considering the missions yak, it is game over. I think I have shown first person play tests and with well explained examples. It doesnt matter if you killed the assaulting units, if they held you back from the OBJs and wiped a few units out that is enough.

yakface wrote:
P.S. I am a massively huge fan of the new combat resolution rules as they actually make you think about whether or not you can *beat* the opposing unit in CC before charging in. There's no more 'charge in and tie up the enemy for a few turns' crap anymore. You as a general have to look at the situation and know that your unit is going to be able to beat the opponent in CC or it just isn't worth charging in.

I am a fan of the new rules too Yak. I always love your cool headed, well written articles, and writing. But, you have some serious rose colored glasses on this time.

ubermosher wrote:
I understand that units cannot infiltrate with transports, but as written above units with the Infiltrate skill can outflank, which is different... and, RAW, outflanking units, whether by scout or infiltrate, can outflank with a vehicle.

It is buried in the fine print of their army listing that Hardened Veterans only possess Infiltrate if they do not have a Chimera.

ubermosher wrote:[In order to prevent a threadjack, I'll start a new thread about this in YMDC

Thanks ubermosher! I like that topic too, it' something I hadn't realized.

I guess the one thing that bugs me is how every suggestion to the OP gets written off as, "nuh uh...the new rules cheat...it's impossible to do anything." Even though every suggestion has been proven, tested, and witnessed by most people here.

The new morale CC rules are so much better for the game. For one, it is far more realistic for a unit, no matter the size, to see an incoming enemy tearing up dudes left and right, to be terrified. It does NOT make sense for them to stand there and tarpit a unit even when they are getting slaughtered. They aren't marines and thus, they do know fear.

Furthermore, the speedbump technique works brilliantly. I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that you have never played it that way in 5th edition (as you did imply this was your first, or "test" game), or else you would know.

Guard aren't dead; it's just different now. Besides, they are getting the first new Codex of 2009.

Well, good luck to you brassangel, thank you for adding you are in the majority.

Augustus wrote:Well, good luck to you brassangel, thank you for adding you are in the majority.

I'll also add that perhaps your list is no longer optimized for the 5th edition ruleset. Could you post the list you used?

That is for sure! Vanilla IG, no doctrines or anything, very basic.

My list was:

HQ with JO and Medal
Flag Vet
3 Meltaguns
3 Rocket Team
3 Autocannon Team
3 Heavy Bolter Team

2 Paltoons quad plas Section and Las Flamers in the 2 squads

2 10 man RR units with vet sarges and lances

2 Basilisks

1 Heavy Paltoon with 10 lascannons

Augustus wrote:
(2) Setting up in ranks cuts your firepower in half. What everyone is forgetting is having staggered line defence REDUCES 50% of YOUR FIREPOWER because they get saves too for the in between units. This one fact puts the nail in the coffin of the "just use a staggered defense argument".

It's not about quality of fire now, it's quantity of fire. Love the Holy Heavy Bolter.

I think one of the critical components many of these responses are missing is how a competent opponent will respond to a speed bump unit. Most people posting are assuming the other player doesnt recognize the speedbump for what it is. Anyone worth their salt against a Guard Army is going to ignore the speedbump and push past into the heart of the army. For example with the new transport rules, its perfectly reasonable to hide out in your Rhazorback or Rhino during the enemy shooting phase, waiting till the transport gets destroyed to jump out. Sure you risk some casualties from the transport exploding, and sure you risk a pinning test, but neither of those happens enough to really worry about it. After your transport gets eaten you can hide behind it from the majority of the army that has yet to shoot, and then hit the main body the next turn. Yes you will probably take pretty heavy casualties doing this, but when you only need 2-3 marines equipped for CC to break a large number of Guardsmen you can afford to do this.

Valhallan42nd wrote:It's not about quality of fire now, it's quantity of fire. Love the Holy Heavy Bolter.

Yes clearly! Redesigning army lists to maximize output of quantity is clearly a better strategy than before, maybe this way you could kill the really nasty assault guys like vet sarges and the like before they make it in there.

But still (older) conventional wisdom was to use high AP to bring marines down and that just doesnt seem like the way to go.

I think I would have gotten more mileage out of a (cheaper) heavy unit of 10 heavy bolters, but then. The army I played was really just for test, with existing stuff I had been using before.

I posit the original point still holds, your high AP firepower is cut in half with staggered set ups.

Kroeger wrote:
...how a competent opponent will respond to a speed bump unit
. ..gnore the speedbump and push past into the heart of the army
. ...hide out in your Rhazorback or Rhino during the enemy shooting phase,
...transport gets destroyed...
you only need 2-3 marines equipped for CC to break a large number of Guardsmen you can afford to do this.

Yes I think so too, actually I think Rhino rush is back, in a kind of delayed reaction way. It was really great in this game.

tzeentchling wrote:I don't remember, Augustus, but did you Run/Fleet your Rough Riders that turn? That would have allowed you to get around the wreck, likely, and pulled him out of the cover. The game probably would have been a bit different!

I think I did, I don't exactly recall now... But I think I rolled a 2 and didnt go very far right? Maybe...

@Kroeger, I am curious as to how I can avoid the speedbump when it is right in front of me and the rest of my opponents army is behind it and I am a HtH army? My Orks are not philosophers, they are killers.
Also, yes your 2-3 cc marines will kill the 10 man squad of IG that they rush but in the following turn when the 70+ IG fire at the 2-3 marines in rapidfire range they are dead too and you spent ALOT more points on your squad than the IG spent on theirs.

@Augustus, The new IG lists that I am seeing have TONS of S:5 and 7 shots coming out of their firing line per turn. 60+ shots like that will cripple a rhino rush.

I did cripple the rush, I immobilized all the vehichles but 2, and just those 2 broke 50 IG in 2 turns and threatened the entire army.

The running marines in the command section had gotten far enough by then to charge in T3 also, covering behind the wrecks.

Augustus wrote:

(1) Shooting morale checks very seldom kill enitre units without hitting all the models but CC does. It's because of the morale rules, you see from shooting you only have to take basic checks, and if you fall back you are not destroyed, but from CC you have to take checks at significant penalty. This is the crux, you see it doesnt matter if the assaulting units get shot to pieces on the way in, they are never going to reach that magic break point and just be gone, like the soft targets will in CC. The equivalent shooting morale check would be taken at minus the number of models killed in the shooting phase but that is nowhere to be found... (but assault has that penalty). You only need 2 or so to make it, and you have them.

There's no way shooting morale checks should be the equivalent of a CC morale check because it is much harder for a unit to get into combat then it is for a unit to shoot. And again, CC units generally like to stay locked in combat on the turn they charge, so the negative modifiers imposed in CC are actually a hindrance to a CC army rather than a help.

Yes, you destroy units more often, but you're also let vulnerable to return fire a whole lot more.

(2) Setting up in ranks cuts your firepower in half. What everyone is forgetting is having staggered line defence REDUCES 50% of YOUR FIREPOWER because they get saves too for the in between units. This one fact puts the nail in the coffin of the "just use a staggered defense argument".

I think you and I have a different definition of a staggered deployment. While you can also use ranks and overlapping to generate cover bonuses between your units, that isn't what I'm talking about. When I talk about a staggered deployment I mean instead of setting up your units like this:


AAAAA. . . . .BBBBB. . . . .CCCCC


You set them up like this:



. . . . . . . . . .BBBBB


AAAAA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CCCCC



Such a situation does not in-and-of-itself cause you to give cover saves to your opponents and is designed to allow only one of your units to be charged (and destroyed) thereby allowing the other two units to obliterate the enemy CC unit (provided you put unit 'B' into the open to be charged ensuring that the victorious enemy unit won't get cover saves from your shooting).


When playing Guard the absolute key to victory when facing enemies with CC elements is to make sure that they cannot assault more than one of your units with each of theirs and then to make sure your forces are set up in a way that makes sure you're able to fully punish those CC units that do charge you.

This means that Guard units should no longer be 'strung out' in a line to maximize their frontage, except for those units you want to use as a screen.

For the most part, Guard units should now be deployed into smaller clumps emphasizing enough space between your units to make sure the opponent cannot under any circumstance assault more than one unit with each enemy assaulting unit.

The guard have one big thing going for them, and that is the fact that they get so many relatively cheap units, which means that you can literally sacrifice speed bump units to the enemy if in return you are then able to get a round of close range shooting on that assault unit without any cover saves.

(5) <EVERYONE HAS PLASMA GRENADES now for some reason. It use to be that defending models usually had a chance to strike simo, defending terrain was helpful but now that is gone. This really agravates the IG condition and basically nullifies the value of the counter charge because all your low I models are going to have to survive the assault first, which they don't. Even the elligible ones that do, typical marine vs stats is 4+ 5+ 3+, or 1 in 12 kills...

I think you're being a bit too general, but you're right in that most 'elite' (SM) armies will now automatically have assault grenades. Which is yet another reason that you need to move your 'speed bump' unit out of cover the turn you know it is going to be charged.

The key is to put the enemy assault unit in a bad position (for them) after they wipe your unit out.

(6) NON KP Missions are about taking Objectives, or advancing which can't be done while using the staggered line defense. Considering all the missions that are KP missions the IG loose on an even exchange in points means there isn't a missions where they have a fair shot.

Again, I'm not talking about a staggered "line" per se, but rather staggered unit clumps. And I'm not buying that IG are at some huge disadvantage in objective missions. Although their Troops choices are relatively easy to kill, the fact is IG players tend to have so many more actual Troops choices that they should always have a shot at the end of the game unless your opponent has wiped you out clean.

But I do think it is essential for the Guard to have units capable of Deep Striking or infiltrating/outflanking just so you force your opponent to contest multiple objectives instead of just focusing on crossing the table to kill Guard without worrying about anything else.

A nasty close combat marine army reallllllllly doesn't care if he has a 4+ save unless you have 10 plasma guns or something.

OK Yak, time will tell. I'll be looking forward to it!

(1) As Yakface has pointed out, it's easier and less risky to shoot someone than to assault them. The risk and cost of assaults are balanced out by their potential payout in relation to shooting. If you can shoot someone four times over four turns and assault them in the fourth of four turns, then balance considered as expected value suggests that the assault be more than four times as effective.

(2) This could apply to Sv5+ troops, but not to troops with a Sv4- like Marines. I mean, so what if they get a 4+ cover save? If you've maximized your AP3- firepower then you've minimized your volume of fire, which was risky enough in 4th edition where volume equalized with quality by having a potentially higher return at commensurately greater risk. In 5th edition cover saves make quality riskier without a commensurate increase in payout (as a number of unsaved wounds).

(3) This is merely(!) a tactical problem: how to minimize the number of units that your enemy can assault if you are at a disadvantage in assaults, and maximize the number of units you can assault if you are at an advantage. If anecdotal evidence is to be admitted, it appears that most Imperial Guard players posting on Dakka have found the solution to this by employing a defense in depth, which is very characterful of the Imperial Guard.

(4) Number are not worthless in close combat because the number of models increases your number of attacks, and hence both the possibility of a higher return and a higher likelihood of an average return. Instead of a unit's ability to cause wounds and win a combat being semi-independent variables, numbers fold them into a single variable-complex. Hence, numbers are now a better indicator of a unit's performance since higher numbers won't double up providng both more attacks and non-attack related close combat performance.

(5) This isn't a problem. Stay in cover for the protection from shooting, it affords to your squad and make sure that your defence in depth includes plenty of cover-negating weapons. So you lose a squad of Guardsmen, no big deal if it's an objective-based mission, and if it's a kill point mission then prudence is the better part of valour: pull those men out of there: don't be afraid to run away from the enemy if you can't afford to lose them.

(6) Not at all. In fact, given that proper spacing is the key to defense in depth, advancing units upfield to capture objectives allows you to space your units for maximum mutual support (if violent shooty revenge of your comrade's grisly demise is counted as support). If objectives win the game, then the Guard unit can leverage their advantage in numbers of units by actively spending units to since they have more units to spend and if they do it right then each of your units can only kill one a turn. A perfect example by another poster is units arranged in firing lines so that only one can be assaulted/shot at per turn by a unit to their collective fore.

Nurglitch,

in heretofore of the previous writing style and impermeable language of the sort used therein I declare that surely no sane individual could possibly extract a modicum of meaning from what ought to have been simpler points when dressed in the lurid excessive language of such overly stated and needlessly complex intellectual meanderings on such simple concepts as the previous post....

Get my drift?

You're just wrong, so is Yak. You're also more pedantic.

Isn't that easier? 1 line.

I predict infantry IG won't make the top 25% at any US GT tourneys this year. Lets revisit the thread when I am wrong or you are shall we?

Nurglitch wrote:(1) As Yakface has pointed out, it's easier and less risky to shoot someone than to assault them. The risk and cost of assaults are balanced out by their potential payout in relation to shooting. If you can shoot someone four times over four turns and assault them in the fourth of four turns, then balance considered as expected value suggests that the assault be more than four times as effective.

Morale checks from shooting have almost no modifiers and those from assault are -1 a guy? Remember things come on from the side and DS, and fleet, and come out of portals, and trucks, and transports, the 4 turn comparison is purely an academic example.

Nurglitch wrote:(2) This could apply to Sv5+ troops, but not to troops with a Sv4- like Marines. I mean, so what if they get a 4+ cover save? If you've maximized your AP3- firepower then you've minimized your volume of fire, which was risky enough in 4th edition where volume equalized with quality by having a potentially higher return at commensurately greater risk. In 5th edition cover saves make quality riskier without a commensurate increase in payout (as a number of unsaved wounds).

The entire planet was min-maximizing AP3 that's how LAS PLAS became king. Friendly models get in the way and provide a 4+ save, this means you can't use a screen, its really simple, half your high AP fire is stopped by your own guys.

*OT* It's also laughable that machineguns can shoot through their own troops, with no ill effects but single shot antitank weapons have a tough time targeting single shots between their own guys and miss half the time trying to avoid them.

The clumping example of before is just an academic paper plan, throw in a mission, some blocking terrain, multiple assault units, faster assault units, a little bit of staggered fire and a Missile fire rout, and it all falls apart.

Nurglitch wrote:(3) This is merely(!) a tactical problem: how to minimize the number of units that your enemy can assault if you are at a disadvantage in assaults, and maximize the number of units you can assault if you are at an advantage. If anecdotal evidence is to be admitted, it appears that most Imperial Guard players posting on Dakka have found the solution to this by employing a defense in depth, which is very characterful of the Imperial Guard.

No it's not a tactical problem, its an incongruent rules problem. Maybe it was my fault for not outlining the example. Lets say 4, 10 man units fought a CC, in the first CC 2 distinct 20 man engangements and in the second a 40 man mosh. Assume the exact same casualties in any combination, a difference of 2 in each unit on the loosing side. Now if the CCs were separate, each unit would take a -2 check, but if even one assaulter, just one, touched the second CC, both units would test at -4 for no other reason than poor game design mechanics. So just the geometry of a single model doubles the modifier of the morale test with the EXACT SAME kill ratios? Because.... it's more scary getting beat up in bigger groups? Ah yes of course.

I concede the character thing. But, it is also very characterful for IG to die in droves and loose. ?

Nurglitch wrote:(4) Number are not worthless in close combat because the number of models increases your number of attacks, and hence both the possibility of a higher return and a higher likelihood of an average return. Instead of a unit's ability to cause wounds and win a combat being semi-independent variables, numbers fold them into a single variable-complex. Hence, numbers are now a better indicator of a unit's performance since higher numbers won't double up providing both more attacks and non-attack related close combat performance.

Ever play WHFB? The morale check is the same! Except here in 40k there is no RANK BONUS, NO OUTNUMBERING BONUS, NO BANNER, no value to charging combat resolutions. It used to be possible to win an assault with numbers and time now it is not.

Nurglitch wrote:(5) This isn't a problem. Stay in cover for the protection from shooting, it affords to your squad and make sure that your defence in depth includes plenty of cover-negating weapons. So you lose a squad of Guardsmen, no big deal if it's an objective-based mission, and if it's a kill point mission then prudence is the better part of valour: pull those men out of there: don't be afraid to run away from the enemy if you can't afford to lose them.

I don't think you understand, it IS ABSOLUTELY A PROBLEM. A smart player could take advantage of cover in the old rules to swing first versus some troops or at least simo with well equiped troops, but now all assault units always strike first, even against defended positions. So using smart play and defending terrain and such with lesser troops is just gone.

Running away from, assault troops in objective games is just as good as getting killed because the only measure of victory is taking the ground.

Nurglitch wrote:(6) Not at all. In fact, given that proper spacing is the key to defense in depth, advancing units upfield to capture objectives allows you to space your units for maximum mutual support (if violent shooty revenge of your comrade's grisly demise is counted as support). If objectives win the game, then the Guard unit can leverage their advantage in numbers of units by actively spending units to since they have more units to spend and if they do it right then each of your units can only kill one a turn. A perfect example by another poster is units arranged in firing lines so that only one can be assaulted/shot at per turn by a unit to their collective fore.

IG at 1750 about 18KP, Marine army at 1750 10KP. That is a almost a 200% handicap for the SM. In Objective missions you have to set up staggered to preserve a gunline, the entire strategy revolves around repelling assault units, and you don't take ground and thus generally loose.

Augustus,

if your contention is that IG are bad in close combat and will lose CC to almost any assault units, I agree.

If your contention is that your old high Strength and low AP lists will not work anymore, I agree.

If your contention is that there seems to be alot of cover saves in 5th, I agree.

If your contention is that IG are weaker in 5th than they were in 4th, I disagree.

IG are not now, nor were they in 4th, a top tier army. The problem is their codex. Until they get a new codex, they will be a sub-par army.

ED209 wrote:

I think it's a balancing for the other two mission type , to avoid player useing lots of small units to contest objectives,which would be silly to play .

That's what I thought. I don't know how well that works but apparently it was their intention. Plus VPs are really messy.

The IG have at best an out-dated codex and at worse, obsolete at times.

back to topic.

The new resolution rules really do hurt some armies case in point: Necrons who are used to losing 4-6 necrons during a single assault phase. They relied on their ld 10 to keep from breaking. With 5th edition the brutal combat resolution can simply break a 20 man necron squad who only lost a few and bypassing WBB.

Amen, if I were a Necron player, I would be screaming at the IG guys to shut up. The necrons really appear to have suffered the 5th ed change the most.