In my opinion, it was 4th that was more assault oriented. Not orientated, oriented. The root is orient with the suffix being ation on orientation, which leads to this confused nonword. Happens with converse vs. conversate as well, for some odd reason.
Either way, 4th actively made it harder to actually get OUT of combat, restricted shooting vs. +1A on the charge, and prevented the chance for a nice round of shooting for the sweeping advancers.
In my opinion, that made it worse. THAT and stiffer shooting rules across the board.
Tamwulf wrote:The ability to move across the board in a transport 12", jump out within 3", then move the unit 6", shoot, then assault 6" was bonkers.
Page 81 of the main 3rd Ed. rulebook, paragraph titled Disembarking:
A unit that begins its movement phase inside a vehicle can get out either before or after the vehicle has moved. When the unit disembarks the models are deployed within 2" of the vehicle. If the vehicle has already moved then the infantry cannot move other than to deploy, and they cannot disembark if the vehicle moved more than 12". If the vehicle has not yet moved the infantry may move as normal after disembarking, the vehicle can then move off separately at any speed.
So this illustration of a transport and unit magically crossing the 24" no man's land in Turn 1 is patently false. The exception being the Blood Angels, as they could still charge out of a Rhino travelling over 12", if memor serves.
Because there was no reason to have it. Close Combat wasn't nearly as destructive as it is now. If you do math on average rolling my most vicious
CC Marine unit, Veterans with Terminator Honors, Bolt Pistol and Close Combat Weapons for 28 pts. each would get 4 attacks per model on the charge, so if they ALL made it in, that's 40 attacks, 20 hit, 10-13 wound depending on enemy, and saves from there. That's assuming you have high enough initiative to strike first, or else you could potentially lose some of those attacks even if you charged. Any massive attack units were rare or so cost prohibitive you didn't see them in any meaningful numbers.
Tamwulf wrote:The loser of the close combat, that is, the player that lost more models (not wounds, models), had to take a morale check on
2d6. Most units had a leadership of 6-10, with some fearless, or stubborn or other special rules. If they failed, they had to fall back.
Page 67 under section 3. Determine Assault Results, paragraph 2:
To decide who has won the combat, total up the number of wounds inflicted by each side. The side that causes the most is the winner, the other side is the loser and may be forced back if they fail a Leadership check. Note that wounds which have been negated by armor saves do not count, nor do wounds in excess of a model's Wounds characteristic, only wounds actually inflicted.
Paragraph 4, entitled Tiebreaker (Moral HIgh Ground) establishes that draws are to be resolved with a dice roll, the higher roll being the victor. In the case of a draw on that roll, the combat is drawn.
Tamwulf wrote:They would roll
2d6 and that is the distance the losing unit had to move.
Only if infantry. Cavalry, Beasts, Jump Packs, Jet Packs, and Bikes rolled
3D6 both for fleeing and pursuing.
Why does NOBODY ever get consolidation right?
Page 69 under the paragraph entitled Consolidate:
The victors move up to 3" in any direction to take advantage of cover/ground to consolidate their position. This is the only action a winner can take if they won the combat through a tie-breaker roll off. Units consolidating their position ignore difficult terrain.
Tamwulf wrote:or perform a sweeping advance: They would roll
2d6 and if they beat the fall back move of the loser, the losing unit would be wiped out (removed as destroyed), AND the winning unit still got to move the sweeping distance. Either way, a unit could consolidate or sweep into another enemy unit and fight again.
See above for faster troop types. Yes, a unit could sweep into another unit. However, if you look on page 68 in the Sweeping Advance text box with diagram:
Advancing units must move the full distance rolled, in the same direction twoards and through the enemy if they outpace them. If this brings them into contact with fresh enemy they move directly into base contact, effectively assaulting the enemy and beginning another close combat.
No Further combat is fought during the turn that the advance is made; combat is, instead, fought in the following turn. The advancing unit is considered to have launched an assault that turn, and receives the normal +1 Attack bonus.
Neat, right? Page 69, in the Shooting in Close Combat box, paragraph 2:
However, an exception to this rule is during a Sweeping Advance. In this case the advancing unit will be exposed to enemy fire as it moves forward - and will make a very tempting target. Therefore units making a Sweeping Advance can be fired at before the next assault phase is fought, even if they have moved into base-to-base contact with another unit. Range is measured to where the advancing unit has reached and even models they have moved into base-to-base contact with may fire.
But consolidating into an enemy, you say? Page 271 (unnumbered but counted from the last numbered page) in the paragraph entitled Consolidating:
The option to consolidate after winning a close combat is to represent a more measured approach to reoccupying a position or moving into cover rather than haring off after the defeated enemy. It is possible for a consolidating unit to move models into close combat with a nearby enemy unit - this represents the sprawling melee engulfing new opponets rather than a distinct charge into combat. In this case neither side counts as charging in the next round of close combat and the consolidating ynit may not be fired at in the way that a unit making a sweeping advance can.
Therefore you don't get any bonuses that result from charging at all.
Also of note is that if consolidated into before the receiving player's turn, he can simply charge another unit in that WILL count as charging.
Personally I wonder why people would have units bunched up closer than, say 8 inches in the first place.
Tamwulf wrote:Every edition since then has attempted to rework the Assault Phase/Close Combat/Fight Phase to reign in it's effect on the table.
Except 4th, which wound up making it worse.
Tamwulf wrote:Eighth Edition is probably the best so far for close combat vs.shooting, though it still has a ways to go.
No, I'd say that was 5th. Shooting is so lopsided in this edition that it's laughable.
Honestly the more I read posts like the ones in this thread make me come to some stark conclusions: either people flat out never played and are repeating netgripe falsehoods, people simply did not read their books and people took severe advantage of them, or nobody was actually using tactics in that edition, which resulted in bad blood from too many losses.
