[Baron Spikey]

I started really thinking about this after making my millionth army list...

Does a game which represents advanced futuristic warfare, with a myriad of ranged weapons, focus too much on close combat?

In assault, you can wipe out an entire squad if you cause only a single wound more than they do to you. You get a bonus move afterwards. You can get as many, or more, attacks in CC than you can firing fully automatic weapons. Some units can punch an enemy with more strength than their gun can muster, whilst even more punch just as hard as their 'uber-gun of death'.

Although CC has risks (the enemy gets to hit you too, for example), it still seems to be a better option than shooting. Even GW believe as much:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/c...10004&categoryId=600005&section=&aId=8800002a

 

[KingOfCheese]

Its probably unrealistic that there is so much focus on close combat.

But seriously, if the game was just sitting back and shooting each other it would be about as fun as bashing your head against a brick wall.:crazy:

 

[Primarch Lorgar]

never really thought of that, but wow, your right! (though I don't think it's a problem, as long as it's in my favor, which as I play chaos it typically is:laugh:)

 

[Katie Drake]

No, 40K doesn't rely too much on close combat.

I've been playing since 3rd edition and from then until now I can only say that the game has gotten better. There's a number of reasons for this but I do distinctly remember liking how much more deadly close combat become in 4th edition and again in 5th edition (and not just because I play assault armies ). Close combat should be a lightning-fast affair - one side should establish itself as dominant pretty quickly and losing a close combat should have pretty serious consequences - after all, 40K has a lot of shooting so there needs to be some sort of reward for making it into close combat.

 

[humakt]

I think the balance is much better in this edition of the game than in 3rd and possible 4th. I remember the rhino rush armies that would rush across the board, dump 2 or 3 uber assualty units which would eat though an entire shooty army without being shot at.

I think the way melee comabt is just as damaging as ranged general ranged shooting is fair. Being shot, regardless of the gun, is just as likely to put you out of action as being gutted by a bayonet.

I do agree that Armies that lack any reliable form of close comabt are at a distinct disadvantage and need to maximise thier shooting. IG can do this easily with the new codex, Tau less so, but are still able to pump out some serious damage with the str 5 weapons and crisis suits. Necrons have some good close combat units, but its much harder to take advantage of them due to the phase out rules and the cost of these units.

 

[Kirby]

Its probably unrealistic that there is so much focus on close combat.

But seriously, if the game was just sitting back and shooting each other it would be about as fun as bashing your head against a brick wall.:crazy:

like 4th edition.

To the OP's question, no. I can name more competitive lists which have minimal combat ability than I can name competitive lists with extensive or good combat ability. A couple of units? Sure but a full army? Not so much. The best example of good and competitive combat armies would be TWC SW backed up by LF w/Missiles, BA Jumper army variants or Tyranid lists.

Ya it's a lot easier to kill more people in combat (some squads can get 6 attacks per model, etc.) in one go but you have to contend with crossing the board whilst your opponent shoots at you, screening, units, etc. etc. To draw lines from the different editions, 5th is the most balanced edition yet in terms of army list styles. 3rd ed was a lot of bum rushing with tanks, jumping out, shooting as much as possible and charging all in one turn. 4th was shoot, shoot and shoot some more but if a combat army ever got to grips with you, well consolidation assaults = dead gunline.

 

[Khorothis]

Its probably unrealistic that there is so much focus on close combat.

But seriously, if the game was just sitting back and shooting each other it would be about as fun as bashing your head against a brick wall.:crazy:

like 4th edition.

To the OP's question, no. I can name more competitive lists which have minimal combat ability than I can name competitive lists with extensive or good combat ability. A couple of units? Sure but a full army? Not so much. The best example of good and competitive combat armies would be TWC SW backed up by LF w/Missiles, BA Jumper army variants or Tyranid lists.

Ya it's a lot easier to kill more people in combat (some squads can get 6 attacks per model, etc.) in one go but you have to contend with crossing the board whilst your opponent shoots at you, screening, units, etc. etc. To draw lines from the different editions, 5th is the most balanced edition yet in terms of army list styles. 3rd ed was a lot of bum rushing with tanks, jumping out, shooting as much as possible and charging all in one turn. 4th was shoot, shoot and shoot some more but if a combat army ever got to grips with you, well consolidation assaults = dead gunline.

Wisdom.

/thread

 

[Serpion5]

As a Necron player, I generally have no problem. My deployment sets the pace pretty nicely.

You get shot.
You come closer.
You get shot again.
You make it to close combat.
I disappear.
I reappear.
You get shot again.

Seriously though Baron, I think the CC element is pretty heavy. But in a game that typically represents small skirmishes and massive meat grinders, I think CC has to be a prominent feature, especially with armies like orks and tyranids as part of the mix.

Still, it can get frustrating... I can`t roll 4+`s forever!

 

[GrizBe]

The 40k universe to me is 'backwardly advanced'. Yes its got all the fancy weapons and armour, but alot of the things we have today in reality are far more advanced then what they have.

Heck, we have laser guided missiles that can blow up bunkers and not scatter, daisy cutter bombs that can level entire battlefeilds, sniper rilfes that can accurately hit people from 3km's away, and tank armour that can blow off shaped charges...

Thing is, 40k is a game, so you have to remember the 'fun' aspect. Give everyone the kind of stuff we have today irl and you'd pretty much have both armies, sat either end of a 10ft board and devistating each other on turn one.... not fun.

Now whats more fun... taking someone down in a hail of long distance fire, or getting in there and gutting them with your combat knife? The close combat option of course.

40k may be close combat heavy, but if it was all shooting, you'd get bored pretty quickly.

 

[Doelago]

Heck, we have ... sniper rifles that can accurately hit people from 3km's away

Heck... I wana see the man that hits something of human size at 3 km! Thats a god damn shot! Give me a link if you have one to prove it, cause I dont believe a single person on earth has hit something at that range! The longest confirmed kill currently stands at 2,475m, and was shot at very clear weather, with no wind or anything, by a British person in Afganistan....


Back to topic, I dont think that CC is overused in 40k, some armies rely heavily on it (My Grey Knights) and some do not (My friends Tau)...

 

[Khorothis]

On second thoughts, it might be because of the recent Codices that came out. Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Tyranids... all of them are CC armies. The rest of the more competitive armies (Orks and CSM mainly) are also CC armies. Hell, even your usual LRC-Assault Terminator spamming SM fit in this category too, with a few exceptions. The only non-CC centered armies are the Eldar and the Imperial Guard. So its 6 vs 2, making 40K pretty CC heavy. Though when the Tau and Dark Eldar Codices come out I expect this to change a lot.

 

[GrizBe]

Well couldn't remember the exact longest range, but thats a prime example, its still 2.5km. The rifle used for that has a lethal range of 3km, but as said, its actually hitting something at that distance... given scale sizes, a space marine can't hit much more then 100m...

Back on point though... I'm still going with 40k being CC heavy as CC is more fun then being shooty.

 

[the-ad-man]

i feel its well balanced to be honest, yeah close combat is powerful and decesiceive, but you have to get there first!

lets face it, its a rare occasion a cc orientated army will crash into the enimies' lines at 100% stregnth. so cc has to compensate for this with it being more deadly.

playing ig....i know....i know.... :'(

 

[The Sullen One]

I think Close Combat makes for a more interesting game overall, but I'll be honest I do like games where it's a question of can I get to you before you shoot me.

That said more and more people seem to be going for CC armies, with two ex-Tau players that I know of now fielding Khorne Daemons and Dark Angels respectively.

If I'm honest though, I'm biased, as gunline shooting armies strike me as unbelievably boring to play.

 

[Kirby]

On second thoughts, it might be because of the recent Codices that came out. Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Tyranids... all of them are CC armies. The rest of the more competitive armies (Orks and CSM mainly) are also CC armies. Hell, even your usual LRC-Assault Terminator spamming SM fit in this category too, with a few exceptions. The only non-CC centered armies are the Eldar and the Imperial Guard. So its 6 vs 2, making 40K pretty CC heavy. Though when the Tau and Dark Eldar Codices come out I expect this to change a lot.

Except CSM and Orks aren't competitive and aren't great in combat against dedicated combat units (lack of good invuls, mob rule, etc.)... let's see competitive wise:

'close combat' armies = Nids, BA, SW all of which have very good shooting options
'shooty' armies = SM, Eldar, IG, DE, Tau, WH although SM can field excellent CC units in TH/SS & Command Bike squads

And when you start going full combat with little to no shooting, just pack up and go as you keep getting delayed and shot by armies who will out-shoot you heavily. 5th edition is about balance and whilst some armies focus more on beating your face in whilst others focus on shooting your face in, balanced lists can deal with both type of armies.

 

[mynameisgrax]

Not at all. In fact, the vast majority of 'competitive' lists these days seem to rely heavily upon shooting, not close combat. The Imperial Guard has very little close combat ability, and it's never seemed to hurt their chances in close combat. On the flipside, Daemonhunters and Chaos Daemons have some of the best close combat units in the game, and it hasn't made them overly powerful.

That said, I agree that the focus of the game seems to be moving away from normal gunfire. It's special guns like flamers, plasmas, and meltas that make infantry units powerful. It's large artillery fire that makes tanks and support squads effective. The days of winning through boltguns alone seem to be over. The only army that seems to rely mainly upon their basic shooting attacks are the Necron.

On a side note, I never considered the heavy focus on close combat to be too unreasonable. They're still shooting at each other (pistols give an additional close combat attack, remember), they're just doing it at very close range. The main aspect of close combat is that the units are mixing into each other, into one large 'looney tunes' fight cloud. Broken units can be completely destroyed not necessarily because they're neatly cut down to a man, but because their unit is broken, and they're reduced to individually running in random directions.