Can you play it like it was meant to be?

[ImperialReaper]

My dear bretheren:

 

While just looking through some fluffy parts of my roolebook I found a part where they explain why elites and fast attack units cant hold an objective. Since your elites are highly trained and specialised warriors with the best gear available they are not meant to stand around at some objective. They are ment to storm the front, capture an objective by eliminating an enemy and then go to the next one.

 

Standard units are meant to stay back and secure objectives.

 

I never thaught about that fact while palying or while building my armylist. I also dont remember more experienced palyers to play according to this.

 

Do you think it would make sense to build a list trying to represent that - packing a few 5 man groups of standart units to hold objectives and then fill up your list by mainly using fast attack and very mobile elite choices to storm from one objective to the next one?

 

Greetings

Tony

[KhorneHunter57x]

I think that is meant to apply more to non-Marine armys, as (at least in the fluff) a Space Marine is flexable enough to do whatever the mission requires of him, regardless of his wargear or where he is in the force.

 

That said, that is pretty much how my Black Templars work in larger games. They do not hold objectives, they kill the enemy off of theirs and take back what is the Emperor's after all of the enemy are dead. I only use 2 Crusader squads in that build, and I wield them more like Elites or FA than Troops, in that I use them to bring the fight to my opponent's army.

[Brother Nihm]

The general consensus is that 1 scoring unit per 500pts is sufficient, however, the local meta-game decides whether small scoring units are worth it or not.

 

Around here players usually max out their Elite choices and skimp on the FA in favour of more men on the ground.

[Blitzkreig]

In my Space Wolves list I tend to use a lot of Drop Pods and fight in this manner... dedicated "hammer" units drop first and clear objectives before taking the fight forward to the enemy, while the troops drop in later to cover the now open objectives.

 

Effectively, objectives in my deployment zone are left until the final stages of the game by the Ranged Grey Hunters, objectives in the middle of the table are hit immediately (with a focus on pushing the enemy baack into their deployment zone) by the Wolf Guard/Assault Grey Hunters, while the objectives in the opponents deployment zone are attacked by outflanking Wolf Scouts. Of course this tends to be affected by the classical "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy" idiom.

 

In my Space Marines list... I use a Bike Heavy list (with the occasional heavy unit) so mobility and objectives aren't a problem ^_^.

[Captain Idaho]

My dear bretheren:

 

While just looking through some fluffy parts of my roolebook I found a part where they explain why elites and fast attack units cant hold an objective. Since your elites are highly trained and specialised warriors with the best gear available they are not meant to stand around at some objective. They are ment to storm the front, capture an objective by eliminating an enemy and then go to the next one.

 

Standard units are meant to stay back and secure objectives.

 

I never thaught about that fact while palying or while building my armylist. I also dont remember more experienced palyers to play according to this.

 

Do you think it would make sense to build a list trying to represent that - packing a few 5 man groups of standart units to hold objectives and then fill up your list by mainly using fast attack and very mobile elite choices to storm from one objective to the next one?

 

Greetings

Tony

 

I would completely ignore that "fluff" justification when building a list, rather just add units in combinations that supplement what you want to achieve on the table top.

 

The fluff is flawed. Firstly, the whole thing is tipped on it's head in Planet Strike, as you can have entire armies of elites who can secure objectives.

 

Secondly, the fluff tells us that Tactical Marines are the most experienced Marines in the Chapter in the 5th edition Codex, barring 1st Company, yet they are a troops choice, which we are told are the basic troopers in an army.

 

Thirdly, I fail to see the logic how an army can't use it's units that are available to achieve it's objectives:

 

Terminator Sergeant: Captain, we have secured the objective. It's a case of Geneseed, so special that implanting it into a Neophyte grants such power that he will become equal to a Primarch!"

 

Captain: "That's great Brother-Decius, but you are too elite to waste your time securing such an objective. Leave it."

 

Terminator Sergeant: "???"

[Ryjak]

Captain: Two Tactical Squads are en-route to secure the Geneseed. Interdict any enemy attempting to interfere.

 

Remember, it's a game, not a tactical simulation. Do you really think Hand-to-Hand combat with people wielding swords and axes will be common in an era full of death rays, Titans, and planet-destroying spaceships?

[Grey Mage]

I play SWs- every one of my men is the elite of the elite.

 

I play heavy on GHs, because I think they are one of the best choices for an army, and have been for a long time. I think its fluffy that you have a goodly number of them as they are the backbone of the organization.

 

I dont often max out my elite choices, I dont usually have the points, and I dont think thats a problem.

[Captain Idaho]

Do you really think Hand-to-Hand combat with people wielding swords and axes will be common in an era full of death rays, Titans, and planet-destroying spaceships?

 

In certain circumstances, yes I do.

[greatcrusade08]

Do you really think Hand-to-Hand combat with people wielding swords and axes will be common in an era full of death rays, Titans, and planet-destroying spaceships?

 

Actually soldiers fighting in current wars state that no matter how evolved the weaponry you still need men on the ground to finish the job.. although you wont see much close combat in modern military it still sometimes occurs, and if your specifically bred for it its even more likely

[ImperialReaper]

Actually soldiers fighting in current wars state that no matter how evolved the weaponry you still need men on the ground to finish the job.. although you wont see much close combat in modern military[...]

 

I guess this is due to the lack of jumppacks and servoarmor. We will have to wait another 38 millenias for that....

[Br.Pat]

Actually soldiers fighting in current wars state that no matter how evolved the weaponry you still need men on the ground to finish the job.. although you wont see much close combat in modern military it still sometimes occurs, and if your specifically bred for it its even more likely

 

IRL kevlar is ineffective against a typical rifle round at close range. In 40k, power armour -is-... so it's much more possible to get up close and personal, and many close combat weapons rip through armour much better than a bolter round can.

[SpecialIssue]

Yeah, shooting is rather less effective in the 41st millenium... Marines are as resilient as tanks and can close the distance frightingly fast (50km/h sprint), Eldar are more likely to pop out of your ass through a webway portal, are superhumanely sneaky and too damn agile to hit, while nids and orks number in the millions.

 

Basically, people still get into close combat in 40k because either the opponent is too numerous, too agile and hard to hit, too damn tough or usually a combination of all of these, which allows the distance to be closed.

 

A SM may be felled by a bolt round to the chest, but whos to say that he's dead? Nothing more final than ripping his entire vascular system out personally with adamantine chainblades to be sure.

 

Anyway, yeah, I actually try to min-max my tacticals and elites/HS/FA slots- like a few under-strength tacticals in Rhinos are used to zoom to objectives, while the more numerous killers do the in-your-face, kill-kill-kill routine.

[The Oakenshield]

ùI have no problem believing Close Combat would be common, I just cannot see why ground wars in the 41st millennium are so common. ONly if you really need to take over a planet will you attack en masse with ground troops.

 

I think space battle should be far more decisive and widespread than ground battles.

[Koremu]

ùI have no problem believing Close Combat would be common, I just cannot see why ground wars in the 41st millennium are so common. ONly if you really need to take over a planet will you attack en masse with ground troops.

 

I think space battle should be far more decisive and widespread than ground battles.

It's the same reason that ground wars (indeed, Infantry wars) are still happening in the 3rd millenium. Because you can't meaningfully claim control of territory without being able to project force on the ground.

 

Sure, you can hover overhead and say "surrender or exterminatus", but if you actually have to capture the objective somewhat intact, then you are screwed.

 

Also, most any enemy who the Imperium calls upon to surrender under threat is going to know that the Imperium will enact some grisly punishment on the planet anyway. Hence the leaders have little incentive to call quits, while the PBIs on the ground don't get any say in it.

[muadib02]

Read Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers. At various points throughout the book he explains that even in the future with mammoth space craft, planet busting weapons, and tactical nukes, boots will still need to be on the ground to capture and control strategic assets, and to just demonstrate presence to the local population. As to close in fighting, when you have two forces who are armored up and armed similarly with very little that can hurt each other, or are in circumstances where their armour and weapons do not particularly help, they will resort to hand to hand combat. Therefore they should be ready and trained for it. (Ref: Armor and The Forever War)

Even look at today, people think that war is all shooting, driving, and flying, but almost 3 years ago now there was a successful bayonet charge by NATO forces in Afghanistan. In the same location soldiers are dismounted and on patrol, ready for combat at any range. Sure the insurgency issue could be solved by turning Afghanistan into a large glass bowl, but that has two major flaws:

1. you make alot more enemies and homegrown terrorists

2. you now have a large glass bowl sitting on top of natural resources that you now cannot get to

Same principles apply to the 41st millennium as to they do to the 21st century

[Shard]

My dear bretheren:

 

While just looking through some fluffy parts of my roolebook I found a part where they explain why elites and fast attack units cant hold an objective. Since your elites are highly trained and specialised warriors with the best gear available they are not meant to stand around at some objective. They are ment to storm the front, capture an objective by eliminating an enemy and then go to the next one.

 

Standard units are meant to stay back and secure objectives.

 

I never thaught about that fact while palying or while building my armylist. I also dont remember more experienced palyers to play according to this.

 

Do you think it would make sense to build a list trying to represent that - packing a few 5 man groups of standart units to hold objectives and then fill up your list by mainly using fast attack and very mobile elite choices to storm from one objective to the next one?

 

Greetings

Tony

 

Honestly, forget the GW fluff. The fluff changes constantly. The fluff is sometimes just made up to put a veneer on a game mechanic for a particular edition or product release. Sometimes, the game writer will add certain fluff just because it sounds good, with no regard to established lore. The fluff is a lie.

 

I'd just make a list that plays well within the mechanics of the rules or does well in your local scene. Then make up some fluff to go along with it.

[Ryjak]

Honestly, forget the GW fluff. The fluff changes constantly. The fluff is sometimes just made up to put a veneer on a game mechanic for a particular edition or product release. Sometimes, the game writer will add certain fluff just because it sounds good, with no regard to established lore. The fluff is a lie.

 

I'd just make a list that plays well within the mechanics of the rules or does well in your local scene. Then make up some fluff to go along with it.

 

This +1

 

My marines don't have Tactical Squads, Assault Squads, or Devestator Squads. They have Space Marines. If they need a jump pack for a Thunderhawk Drop and vertical mobility, they grab it. If they need a Heavy Weapon for defending a position or hunting armor, they grab it. If they want to stay mobile and all-around effective, they grab a boltgun, lots of ammo and grenades. If they're going to be sneaking around enemy lines without the supplies Power Armor needs, they grab Scout Armor.

 

The Veterans simply have access to the really cool stuff that's in VERY short supply, like Terminator Armor and Hellfire Rounds. If I could just teach them it's ok to use a Jump Pack with a Bolt Gun, I'd be set.

 

Basically, people still get into close combat in 40k because either the opponent is too numerous, too agile and hard to hit, too damn tough or usually a combination of all of these, which allows the distance to be closed.

 

Actually, it's because sword fights are still cool, so by extension, hand-to-hand combat is cool. Never mind that, by the fluff, the most fearsome thing someone can bring to a knife fight is a plasma pistol. A plasma pistol would be worth 15 points if you could shoot it just once a HtH round with your Weapon Skill, Str 7, and AP 2. But this isn't the place to write my version of the 40k rules. (PM me if you know where that would be)

 

Even look at today, people think that war is all shooting, driving, and flying, but almost 3 years ago now there was a successful bayonet charge by NATO forces in Afghanistan.

 

I never said Close Combat with knives wouldn't happen in fluffy 40k, I said it wouldn't be very common. In 8 years, how many successful or unsuccessful bayonet charges were there in Iraq AND Afghanistan, by either side? I'm pretty sure you can count them on one hand. Same would apply to a fluffy battlefield in 40k.

 

Boots will still need to be on the ground to capture and control strategic assets, and to just demonstrate presence to the local population.

 

Absolutely, and this is what Space marines are FOR. Just because you can obliterate your opponent from orbit with a push of a button doesn't mean you should. Destroying your opponent's forces just to destroy them is additive; you need to take away their force multipliers with precision. (Few people win a game of Dawn of War or Starcraft by just killing their opponent's units) This is why you attack supply lines and fuel/ammo dumps, control roads and bridges, hold the high ground, strike communication and information networks, and headhunt leadership.

 

Sometimes, you can even capture these force multiplier and apply them to your forces. These are the conflicts you should be representing on the tabletop. Plunk a 1' tall radio tower with a force shield projector in the middle of the board, or the entrance to an underground facility, and you'll understand why you have objectives.

 

What people forget when putting together their 40k battlefields is why a combat would be taking place at such close range in the first place. As pointed out earlier, sometimes you simply cannot kill your opponent at range; often because terrain and obstacles simply prevent you from doing so. That's why jungle fighting and city fighting is so dangerous. Having a gun that can fire 500 yards does little good when you cannot even find your opponent until you practically trip on him. These locations are where the 40k game would actually happen... otherwise, you'd play Epic or Battlefleet Gothic.

 

So combine this jungle environment, ruined Imperial city or Hive, cavern and tunnel network, hiveship interior, or monument valley with some objectives that make sense, and your tabletop game will turn into a believable story about two opposing forces laying into each other with knives.

[pingo]

Hate to state the obvious but without close ranged battles it would be a pretty boring game ;) In fact, there would be no game.

 

Fluff is only there to support the game, not the other way around.

 

Anyway: :tu:

[BlackSpike]

One other point about 40k battles is that they are often described as part of the local battle. A small section of a larger conflict, focusing on the "interesting" bit.

Sure, over the ridge, there may be thousands upon thousands of Orks piling in to the defence lines, and nothing but Marine Heavy Weapon teams barraging them as they come. As they close, the Marines drop the Heavy weapons and switch to sword and pistol.

But here in the "interesting bit", there are a mix of troop types, objectives to secure (that we can't afford to just bombard! Sacred Temples, rumours of STCs, prisoners with information, Hostages, 'innocent' civilians, the list goes on) and important tactical considerations, such as the aforementioned Radio Tower or Planetary Defence Control Station.

[Possessed Marine]

Orbital bombardments are indiscriminate killers, if you're looking to take out a enemy regime and save as much of the civilian population as possible, the bombardment would cause too much collateral damage. Same reason that we rarely use "carpet bombing" techniques anymore, and instead use precision guided munitions and troops on the ground. Otherwise we have the option of just dropping a nuke, but that's about 50 different shades of horrible idea.

[BoonKin]

In Deathwing, everyone is required to take the fight to the enemy and claim objectives.

 

Tough life for terminators (especially boarding space hulks).