Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner

381 - 400 of 841 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,056 Posts
My point, overall, is that combat is inherently inferior to shooting in 5th . . . .
Really?

Several of the newset codices have drastic leanings towards cc lists, and these are all the books that were heavily touted as being overpowered.

Also, comparing phases directly, without taking into account army types is a little misleading. Tau, for example, will always have a stronger shooting phase than cc, whereas, Nids would tend towards the opposite end of the scale.

This would lead me to believe that if, as you say, these rumoured rules would break cc even more, then I postulate that some armies abilities would improve, whilst some would degrade - but only within that one phase. What about the rest of the turn?

Balance is key here, something GW often struggle with, true, but the "wait and see" argument seems wisest with rumours of this calibre (no offense intended Zion).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,385 Posts
Discussion Starter #382
Balance is key here, something GW often struggle with, true, but the "wait and see" argument seems wisest with rumours of this calibre (no offense intended Zion).
None taken. That's exactly the kind of thinking I've been trying to make a point of. We don't know nearly enough about the rules of 6th to really say what's going to be good or bad. So far all I've seen is people getting worked up about how the rules are going to ruin something about the game (believe me there are a lot of these out there, and many of the reactions are worse than I've seen here), so I'm assuming these are just growing pains at this point (I've yet to see any real posts about how people are bailing 40K because of 6th, just a lot of hemming and hawing about how they MIGHT if the rules look like the leaks we got) since every edition (much less anything GW does to be honest) causes these reactions.
 

·
I Piss in your Cheerios
Joined
·
7,370 Posts
Really?

Several of the newset codices have drastic leanings towards cc lists, and these are all the books that were heavily touted as being overpowered.

Also, comparing phases directly, without taking into account army types is a little misleading. Tau, for example, will always have a stronger shooting phase than cc, whereas, Nids would tend towards the opposite end of the scale.

This would lead me to believe that if, as you say, these rumoured rules would break cc even more, then I postulate that some armies abilities would improve, whilst some would degrade - but only within that one phase. What about the rest of the turn?

Balance is key here, something GW often struggle with, true, but the "wait and see" argument seems wisest with rumours of this calibre (no offense intended Zion).
Indeed. There are many reasons, but chief amongst them:

Shooting is less conditional on good movement, and thus harder to counter;
Shooting is only based on your own capability, not the foe, so it's MUCH more reliable;
Hitting with shooting is much easier, averaging 3+ for MEQs, not 4+;
Shooting can be done from turn one - achieving this with assault is nigh-impossible against a skilled opponent;
You can't (with a few notable/rarely used competitively exceptions) kill yourself from shooting, dying to enemy assault capability is expected;
Shooting usually musters greater dice - even where it doesn't in a 1-off, it will do for the sustained time it takes a unit to actually REACH combat;
Being too successful in CC means you get shot to shit in the next turn anyway, without the ability to Consolidate into another enemy.

I think that's enough reasons for now...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
412 Posts
My only argument against that is (and Necron player, so biased)
- a unit's shooting phase will average 4-5 enemy models removed, losing assault can and usually will cost the entire unit
-denying assault is a game of fractions of inches, and if a single model makes it, it will pull the entire unit into itself. If a single model can shoot, only a single model will shoot.

I find 5th to be decided in the assault phase.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,056 Posts
Shooting is less conditional on good movement, and thus harder to counter
Excuse me? If thats true in some cases, its a marginal difference at best.

Shooting is only based on your own capability, not the foe . .
Since their armour and toughness have nothing to do with it I suppose? Yes, BS isn't an opposed roll, but, again, the differences vary far more by army, than it does by phase, and you dont get cover saves in combat.

Hitting with shooting is much easier, averaging 3+ for MEQs, not 4+
Again, this is far more army dependant than phase dependant. Also, there are as many BS3 armies out there as there are WS3, in fact, consider Orks.

Shooting can be done from turn one - achieving this with assault is nigh-impossible against a skilled opponent
True enough, but if we could all assault from turn one, we wouldn't really need or do much in the movement phase. This is simulated battle, not "imaginary heroic slaughter" - a certain amount of realism should be required surely.

You can't (with a few notable/rarely used competitively exceptions) kill yourself from shooting, dying to enemy assault capability is expected
Again true, but inaccurate - you dont die because you assault, you die because they hit back. They also shoot back, so no real difference there.

Shooting usually musters greater dice - even where it doesn't in a 1-off, it will do for the sustained time it takes a unit to actually REACH combat
Thats what cover and strategy is for - if I have a huge unit of hormogaunts, I'm going to do everything in my power to get them across the table in one piece, at which point I will probably unleash almost as many dice in one go, as an equivelent single unit could with shooting in the time it takes to get there. If not as many, then not too far off it, and probably enough to hurt the target.

Being too successful in CC means you get shot to shit in the next turn anyway, without the ability to Consolidate into another enemy.
I'd like to counter this point with some flippant remark about the tides of battle - but I actually miss cosolidation, and am a supporter of its return, so, yeah, since it was removed this particular problem can be annoying. But not necesarily a game breaker.
What you seem to be arguing here is that the game is imbalanced because close combat is less effective than shooting. And I couldn't disagree more.

You will rarely win a game with shooting alone. However it is also true that you will rarely win a game with combat alone.

Those armies that are weak in one area, usually compensate in another. This makes army composition and its use, far more important than which specific phase is going to win or lose the game for you.

If you think the combat phase is weaker, you could always use some of the combat monster characters you mentioned earlier in this thread. That might even things up a bit for you since I believe you pointed out that most are cc orientated?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
434 Posts
Indeed. There are many reasons, but chief amongst them:

Shooting is less conditional on good movement, and thus harder to counter;
Shooting is only based on your own capability, not the foe, so it's MUCH more reliable;
Hitting with shooting is much easier, averaging 3+ for MEQs, not 4+;
Shooting can be done from turn one - achieving this with assault is nigh-impossible against a skilled opponent;
You can't (with a few notable/rarely used competitively exceptions) kill yourself from shooting, dying to enemy assault capability is expected;
Shooting usually musters greater dice - even where it doesn't in a 1-off, it will do for the sustained time it takes a unit to actually REACH combat;
Being too successful in CC means you get shot to shit in the next turn anyway, without the ability to Consolidate into another enemy.

I think that's enough reasons for now...
Missing one thing, shooting can't lock an enemy in combat usually, unless you count pinning which seems worthless to me. Though you have to assault, lose as little as you can and not kill everything to lock an enemy unit up in CC of course, but it's not all bad.

I do get what you're thinking though. There are CC armies out there but they spam attacks and numbers to make it even work. Unfortunately if you made CC nicer then I think I will fear the nid rush.
 

·
Ancient Relic
Joined
·
2,430 Posts
TKE is 100% correct, shooting is the dominant force in 5th ed. Those of you talking about recent armies being CC oriented, you are mistaken, they have CC elements, and can make CC builds, however their most competitive builds involve firepower. Necrons- fantastic anti-tank and anti-infantry in tesla, their basic troops have great anti-infantry and suppression firepower. Wraiths are a decent tarpit, but are not an excellent cc unit, they are good. Grey knights are a shooting army, they put out massive firepower at mid range.
 

·
I Piss in your Cheerios
Joined
·
7,370 Posts
What you seem to be arguing here is that the game is imbalanced because close combat is less effective than shooting. And I couldn't disagree more.

You will rarely win a game with shooting alone. However it is also true that you will rarely win a game with combat alone.

Those armies that are weak in one area, usually compensate in another. This makes army composition and its use, far more important than which specific phase is going to win or lose the game for you.

If you think the combat phase is weaker, you could always use some of the combat monster characters you mentioned earlier in this thread. That might even things up a bit for you since I believe you pointed out that most are cc orientated?
Well, neither of us has the time, I imagine, to go through those characters one-by-one, but suffice it to say that 90% or more of them are shit.

There's a reason nobody uses Chaplains anymore, barring fluff bunnies and noobs - they provide too limited and situational a buff, when there are far superior options that can be guaranteed to affect the game in some material fashion, even if only be influencing the opponent's movement.

While use of appropriate and adequate cover is something most gamers indeed never experience, I can assure you that I play the vast majority of my games under such conditions. Indeed, the first time I went to a tournament and experienced the dearth and scarcity that is considered the norm, it was quite the culture shock. Fortunately, I wasn't wholly surprised, and brought my own cover with me, in the form of hulls. [Technically, that's not quite true, but it sounds better. In actuality I'd attended a tourny in 4th that took the edge off the first one in 5th, though ofc in 4th terrain didn't need to be 3d, and so there was more of it.]

Back on-topic - there's no reason whatsoever to use the majority of CC-oriented characters. The few worth using, for instance Mephiston, get around it by being so badass that the opponent simply has to deal with them, even though he's a unit of one.

I wins games by shooting alone all the time. Mcmuffin can tell you, in fact, that had I not assaulted him in our game on Saturday, he would have won by a larger margin in shorter order. Granted, Space Wolves are as good assaulted as assaulting (technically, perhaps better) but I was Blood Angels - no slouches in assault.

Combat can indeed be a deciding factor in many games, but that's not to say that it is a powerful, as meaningful, or as good as shooting.

Your assertion of armies being weak in one area being compensated in another is, sorry, laughable. I have no doubt you'd throw out Tau as the bog-standard example, but you'll find that Tau are actually quite shit at shooting.

Apart from the fact that they cost far too much to actually get an appreciable number of shots out per turn, the line troopers are only BS3, despite being supposedly as well drilled as anybody.

It's easy, and lazy, to say that BS3 is the average, but that actually isn't even remotely true. A cursory glance at the Codexes reveals that, of the 16 (including SoBs) the following can easily form armies purely of BS4 guys;
Space Marines, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Black Templars, Dark Angels, Chaos Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Sisters of Battle, Dark Eldar, Necrons, Eldar, Grey Knights.

Now, that IG list would be weaker than if it weren't entirely BS4, so if we take it out, and make the 'not' list; Tau, Nids, Daemons, Orks, Imperial Guard - that is still a third of the Codexes that are NOT BS4. Speaking of, you're not stupid, you understand the comparative system I was referring to in previous post, so your mention of toughness and save are merely irritating red herrings.

You don't die BECAUSE you assault, no - but in doing so you give the opponent a chance to kill you in your own turn, meaning you can expect to take MANY more casualties than if it's only in their turns. Not as much as twice, no, that'd be misleading - but certainly a lot more opportunity for casualties.

Assault-based armies are inherently weak as Troops units need to be preserved - throwing them into the teeth of the enemy and having none left by turn 4 - or having them too deep into enemy lines with no remaining mobility (or, worse, tarpitted by something they can't hurt because you were stupid) is Very Bad. This is why, when the internet was all a-ga-ga over All Vets All The Time IG lists, I was pointing out that they're not as good as people say. Suicide Melta, and CC units, both want to be outside the Troops choices. If your whole army is based on getting to grips with the enemy in H2H, then you've singularly failed to create a balanced list.

Shooting is less conditional on good movement, and thus harder to counter
Excuse me? If thats true in some cases, its a marginal difference at best.
Don't play the idiot. There are tons of 36, 48, even 60" range weapons in common usage. The majority of the board is in range of most non-GK armies from T1 onwards. While good movement is required to remove Cover Saves (although, there are plenty of weapons that ignore cover, and usually these are the crowd control weapons that are the anathema of CC units) in most cases, simply firing through Cover is in no way a Truly Bad Thing. Take enough shots, and failing to kill with half stops being such an issue. Sit in the open, and the enemy must cover some open ground eventually, at this point you finish them off.

Going back to your WS3 claim, let's look at that. Armies that typically field WS3 [or worse] models en masse...Daemons, IG, Tau, Sisters, Nids. Wow, so it IS the exact same number, as you say - excepting that the tournament circuit sees virtually none of these players, barring IG - which is a logistical nightmare for transport, and so sees a much lower proportion than it might. Since 4 of those 5 are typically considered uncompetitive at the highest level, and two of those will generally implode on b2b contact with the enemy, I'm not entirely sure what point you were trying to make.

Thats what cover and strategy is for - if I have a huge unit of hormogaunts, I'm going to do everything in my power to get them across the table in one piece, at which point I will probably unleash almost as many dice in one go, as an equivelent single unit could with shooting in the time it takes to get there. If not as many, then not too far off it, and probably enough to hurt the target.
Hormagaunts are quite cheap. But, they tend to explode to enemy shooting, even in Cover. See, shooting tends to be S4 or better, meaning it wounds on at least a 3+. So, after 2/3 of it hits, and 2/3 of it wounds, EVERY TURN, I have no problem with half of it bouncing off, as you have to remove the models outside of Cover (if there are any) to protect your Cover save, and that slows your assaulting unit (with no Grenades) down further and further.

So, yeah, since they'll be Fearless, they'll probably reach me. Then, my Metal Bawkses will laugh at their pathetic swipes of chitin claws, and I'll drive backwards killing Synapse nearby until I can Tank Shock the Gaunts over and over, or I'll get out into Cover, shoot you, and strike first before you get a chance, wiping you out in your own turn.

Maybe if you didn't hit moving vehicles on 6s if they went over 6", and Fast vehicles didn't both 'exist' and 'be prevalent' then there'd be more of a case...but Shooting > Combat, just like Movement > both put together.
 

·
Ancient Relic
Joined
·
2,430 Posts
Saying that armies balance out with shooting and combat is also a laughable point. The two top codices at the minute: GK and SW, can both do shooting and combta better than most other armies in the game, however both of them still tend towards shooting. Assault is really only great for one thing: stopping things from shooting and annoying movement.
 

·
I Piss in your Cheerios
Joined
·
7,370 Posts
Saying that armies balance out with shooting and combat is also a laughable point. The two top codices at the minute: GK and SW, can both do shooting and combta better than most other armies in the game, however both of them still tend towards shooting. Assault is really only great for one thing: stopping things from shooting and annoying movement.
*Ahem* Imperial Guard. :p
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,705 Posts
As someone who depends heavily on CC for my 'nids, I have quite a bit of trouble killing things in CC unless I've planned it carefully, simply because the stats have levelled out so much since 2nd.

Once, CC troops were nails, and Shooty troops were good at shooting. Now most are ok at both.

For example: genestealers were once the most feared CC critter out there. WS 7, S6, 4 attacks and I6-8? Ouch. Now? They are more or less the same as marines, with a couple of attacks ad initiative that is about equal to most Eldar. No power weapons, just a small chance that some wounds will bust armour. No-one really fears the genestealer any more.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,385 Posts
Discussion Starter #393 (Edited)
As someone who depends heavily on CC for my 'nids, I have quite a bit of trouble killing things in CC unless I've planned it carefully, simply because the stats have levelled out so much since 2nd.

Once, CC troops were nails, and Shooty troops were good at shooting. Now most are ok at both.

For example: genestealers were once the most feared CC critter out there. WS 7, S6, 4 attacks and I6-8? Ouch. Now? They are more or less the same as marines, with a couple of attacks ad initiative that is about equal to most Eldar. No power weapons, just a small chance that some wounds will bust armour. No-one really fears the genestealer any more.
I don't know, my Battle Sisters still don't want to be anywhere near even 3-4 Genestealers. :p

More to the recent conversation regarding shooting vs close-combat units: A really good round of shooting typically nets me a few dead models in a squad. A good round of close combat nets me the removal of the opponent's squad completely. Typically how I see shooting is a way to soften, delay or potentially finish off an enemy unit. I can't count on it to do the job on it's own, so I usually need to go in and hit the unit I want dead with something close combaty

The problem I have with the claim that shooting is king (from someone who's army only really gets at shooting within 12" of the opponent's models) is that the biggest problem I run into is that I can not reliably nueteralize an opponent's army unless I focus fire on a specific target until it's dead (and we can't see if it's fleeing until AFTER we finish shooting at it. If I spread out the shooting to hit a little of everything I can weaken but not break his list. For me my close combat units can on the otherhand remove 2-3 threats from the table in a good round of combat (choosing your targets helps a lot too) and can often be the deciding factor on how well I'll do in a given game/turn

Personally I feel that 40K has a good balance in it's rock-paper-scissors feel. Units that are good at shooting are either restricted by the range of their weapons (Sisters) or aren't that good in combat (WS/S/T3 like some of the Sisters units, Guard and Tau). Units that do combat well either can't shoot or don't bring a lot of quality shots (a unit of Bolt Pistols is how Marines tend to handle it and though Orks get around their quality control issues with quantity, they do that for everything and have other weaknesses (like low leadership and initiave) or have really poor range (usually 12" or less). And balanced units tend to have Rapid Fire weapons, or run around being basically okay at everything while not being awesome at it (Tactical Marines are a good example of units that are okay at anything you put them up to, but aren't the best at it).

As for really awesome shooting vehicles they can't do combat (free hits at their rear armor regardless where you attack from in relation to it!), can be kept from shooting their awesome weapons by being stunned/shaken/weapon destroyed/wrecked/exploded, and if their walkers they either tend to be in squadron (which makes them a little more survivable but means they wreck on a 4-5 and explode on a 6) or are independent but suffer the same issues as regular vehicles, have middling armor (typically 12) and can be killed rather quickly by a decent player.

Really all it comes down to for me in the end is the dice screwing you over. Because in all honesty that tends to be the most effective way to lose a game these days (at least for me) as it effects me more than being shot, assaulted or even deployment.
 

·
Ancient Relic
Joined
·
2,430 Posts
*Ahem* Imperial Guard. :p
Shame I have only ever played one decent imperial guard player, and beat him. Every other guard player i have played has been shite, but I fail to see how they are better than GK or Wolves, both of those armies have wonderful counters to guard. not saying guard aren't good, but they are just slightly behind wolves and the Gay boys.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
434 Posts
No-one really fears the genestealer any more.
Oh I keep my eyes on Ymgarls on the table. Seen them take down Dreadnaughts. I agree though CC is so evened out you need those extra attacks to do anything. It sort of bothers me a big hulking Wraithlord should in theory be able to just squish your nids into the ground but the way the rolls are it's at best got a 50/50 shot at getting one skill depending...definitely works out like that versus Marines. Super human or not it does feel like some units are easy to counter. Even the WS 10 the avatar brings isn't THAT scary. Useful, but very beatable while being maxed out.

Friend of mine has the same issue with his big nids though as I like to shoot the crap out of them second they're in range. Of course thinking of any man vs bug sci-fi movie I guess you have to be creative with swarming to make the most out of CC.

Of course shooting seems so much more straight forward.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,539 Posts
For example: genestealers were once the most feared CC critter out there. WS 7, S6, 4 attacks and I6-8? Ouch. Now? They are more or less the same as marines, with a couple of attacks ad initiative that is about equal to most Eldar. No power weapons, just a small chance that some wounds will bust armour. No-one really fears the genestealer any more.
They're still very, very scary for armies that don't have solid (meaning fairly competent and tough) troops. Sisters of Battle, Tau, Vanilla Marines and so on can have a difficult time if the Genestealers can get into close combat. Some other armies don't have too difficult a time with them because they're super shooty (Guard, Grey Knights, Space Wolves, Dark Eldar, Necrons) or competent close combat fighters (Grey Knights, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Orks).

It's not that Genestealers are bad, it's just that six of them can't rip through several units in a row before going down anymore. My Blood Angels still aren't a big fan of seeing Genestealers, especially if there's multiple units of them Infiltrating and pretty much anyone that isn't meched up still needs to worry.
 

·
Ancient Relic
Joined
·
2,430 Posts
Well, speaking from the space wolf standpoint, i like seeing stealers because of counter attack. The lack of grenades is the stealer's only massive issue, because if they could charge through terrain and hit at initiative my wolves would be terrified, but as is i sit in terrain with grey hunters, let them try and charge, if they fail i bolter them, if they pass i ounter attack and kill most of them before they can attack. win-win really.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,056 Posts
TKE is 100% correct, shooting is the dominant force in 5th ed. . . .
Well, neither of us has the time, I imagine, to go through those characters one-by-one, but suffice it to say that 90% or more of them are shit. . . .
Did I just commit a social faux pas there?

TKE, you obviosly feel very strongly about your viewpoint, and I can see why - I'm not completely blind to your points at all.

Suffice to say, without making this another page long retort, I still disagree. Primarily because I dont play in tourneys anymore. Finding that killer combination list isn't as important to me these days as it used to be, and as such, I find my games, and the phases to be far more of a balanced affair.

I suppose it could be argued that the tourney events push the system to its limits, where inconsistences will be highlighted to a greater degree.

Also, just so you know, I am a Tau player, and have been since release - and I totally agree that BS3 sucks. I'm also a Guard player, so I suppose there's no hope left for me then? :)

In any case, it'll still be interesting to see the new edition and the changes it will bring.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,539 Posts
Suffice to say, without making this another page long retort, I still disagree. Primarily because I dont play in tourneys anymore. Finding that killer combination list isn't as important to me these days as it used to be, and as such, I find my games, and the phases to be far more of a balanced affair.
Yeah, I'm finding this too. Ever since I stopped playing competitively the game has become a mix of shooting and assault with neither one really having more importance than the other. I'm finding it a much more entertaining affair too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,056 Posts
I'm finding it a much more entertaining affair too.
Indeed.

I have no issues at all with most tourney players and their armies of uber destruction, but since I left all that behind, got out the cakes and coffee and just played for fun, I've enjoyed my hobby a whole helluva lot more.

Its all relative really isn't it. :)
 
381 - 400 of 841 Posts
Top