Close Combat Issues- An Open Letter to GW

[Quixus]

I'd go with a profile with a profile matching one of the model's melee or pistol weapons. So yeah running away from a thunder hammer or inferno pistol is a more risky proposition than running away from a unit without CC equipment.

[Charlo]

Being able to shoot pistols at fleeing units sounds fun.

 

But I suppose we'd want extra MELEE attacks from melee units.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

The most feasible solutions are things like stratagems which are easily implemented in eighth edition.

[The Unseen]

Being able to shoot pistols at fleeing units sounds fun.

 

But I suppose we'd want extra MELEE attacks from melee units.

Be pretty easy to implement an "out of sequence attack" where the unit whose opposing one is fleeing get either to fire their pistols or make close combat attacks.

 

Edit:

 

Something like "The Price of Cowardice"

 

If a unit chooses to Fall Back in its movement phase, before any models in that unit move, any enemy models engaged with that unit may either fire their pistols at the unit Falling Back as if it were their shooting phase, or attack the Falling Back unit in close combat as if it were a fight phase.

After these attacks are resolved, the fleeing unit may make its Fall Back move.

 

Edit Edit: making them strategems doesn't solve the problem at all, since shooting doesn't require CP expenditure to work.

[tychobi]

we are thinking too small.  It is a travesty that close combat has been frozen out again.  The point is not that this is a problem for BA but a problem in general.  What about Raven Guard?  Black Templars? Minotaurs?  We want viable assault troops in general don't we?

[Quixus]

 

Being able to shoot pistols at fleeing units sounds fun.

 

But I suppose we'd want extra MELEE attacks from melee units.

Be pretty easy to implement an "out of sequence attack" where the unit whose opposing one is fleeing get either to fire their pistols or make close combat attacks.

 

Edit:

 

Something like "The Price of Cowardice"

 

If a unit chooses to Fall Back in its movement phase, before any models in that unit move, any enemy models engaged with that unit may either fire their pistols at the unit Falling Back as if it were their shooting phase, or attack the Falling Back unit in close combat as if it were a fight phase.

After these attacks are resolved, the fleeing unit may make its Fall Back move.

 

Edit Edit: making them strategems doesn't solve the problem at all, since shooting doesn't require CP expenditure to work.

 

I would allow more models the attack. Those that are engaged can choose between melee and pistol weapons, those that aren't can only choose their pistols, if they are in range and have LOS.

 

we are thinking too small.  It is a travesty that close combat has been frozen out again.  The point is not that this is a problem for BA but a problem in general.  What about Raven Guard?  Black Templars? Minotaurs?  We want viable assault troops in general don't we?

I think the proposed changes are for melee in general, not just BA.

[Morticon]

 

we are thinking too small.  It is a travesty that close combat has been frozen out again.  The point is not that this is a problem for BA but a problem in general.  What about Raven Guard?  Black Templars? Minotaurs?  We want viable assault troops in general don't we?

 

I think the proposed changes are for melee in general, not just BA.

 

 

yeah, they were.  BA focus, but raising broad issues. 

 

Did anyone spot the Stratagem suggestion I had? 

 

Also, a lot of the suggestions raised revolve around additional (though minimal damage) to units fleeing - for units like 30 man ork squads, or conscripts, or even smaller power armoured marines, i dont see this being beneficial beyond a tiny bonus.  A straight up mortal wound for each enemy model in the combat would be devastating - but youd never be leaving combat vs hordes ever - and they dont mind being exited on. 

 

So, it comes down to damage vs. tactical viability. 

 

Even a -1 to hit to the unit that saw units run away from them would be workable? 

 

 

[Are Verlo]

It would introduce an extra step with dice rolled, with to hit, wound, saves and even "FnP-rolls".

I like the stratagem idea better. It is less clunky than introducing dice rolled for every unit disengaging

[Karhedron]

we are thinking too small.  It is a travesty that close combat has been frozen out again.  The point is not that this is a problem for BA but a problem in general.  What about Raven Guard?  Black Templars? Minotaurs?  We want viable assault troops in general don't we?

 

I think we need a balance. There is a real risk of going too far in the opposite direction like 3rd edition where shooting was almost pointless with many infantry units and Rhino-rush ruled the day. The problem with that was a lack of strategy, it was just a headlong rush to get into CC as quickly as possible.

 

CC is better in 8th than in 6th/7th I think as units can assault out of transports again. They can even use their transports to soak up overwatch.

 

The difference is that assault is no longer as surefire a way of wiping out a unit as it was. The enemy can choose to withdraw but at the loss of their shooting and also giving up ground. This gives clues as to how we should be thinking about using assault in 8th edition. We are not Orks or Nids and cannot simply crush all before us in melee. Instead, assault is a tactical tool to drive enemy units off objectives or bully weaker units.

 

Our JP units are not really built for frontal charges. Instead we need to work around the flanks and take out support units. We can use it to shut down enemy shooting while we advance. We can use our shooting to soften up a key unit and then maybe we can afford to hit it with out DC or VVs.

 

A BA player pulled a very smart trick on me at my gaming club on Tuesday. Faced with a squad of Eldar Wraithguard with D-scythes, he drove a Tactical squad in a Rhino up close to them and disembarked on the opposite side of the Rhino from the Wraithguard. When he charged, he was out of LOS and so safe from the 5xD3 auto-hitting S10 D-scythe shots. His shooting had weakened the squad already and the seargent with power sword was able to kill another. Even though the WG didn't suffer from Battleshock, he got the squad small enough to lap round and prevent me from withdrawing as I was encircled.

 

I think that is the key to melee, timing assaults and picking your targets. So far Beserkers are looking like one of the few power-armoured units that can simply be hurled forward into the enemy in a glorious frontal charge. For the rest of us, we need to think more tactically.

[Spagunk]

But I think it's more than that. It's not that we hurtle assault units to their doom and expect them to survive (I mean some of us do though). It's that there are way more hurtles we have to jump through when performing assaults. Sometimes you get a cheeky tactic here and there but ultimately assaulting requires way more careful thought (specifically for "elite" armies) than shooting.

 

Allow me to explain. If you have a shooting army, your main concerns are cover (yours and theirs), range and target priority. Now, assault units have the same issues as you need cover to get you into range, range to ensure you can assault and target priority to ensure you aren't wasting it. But here is the problem; you aren't guaranteed any of this. In shooting you don't have to roll for range or wait for over-watch against your shooting. Furthermore, units who are the recipient of ranged attacks don't get to automatically back up after a range phase. So ranged attacks have less they have to worry about than assaults as there is no built in buffers.

 

The trick is dealing with this. Either the rules need to balance this out, so range is an alternative to shooting, or your armies must have ways to help mitigate or at least soften this buffer. The issue is that if we make the army rules overcome this then we end up going back to issues we had in previous editions. Since we know the rules are probably only going to be iterated on, rather than completely re-written, our hope is to allow armies, specifically BA since that is our thing, to give us ways to help against the base rules.

 

Now, having said that, how interesting would it be if you had to roll for range when you shot at a unit?  Or you had to face overwatch if the unit had range on you? That would be incredibly realistic and interesting. Would bog the game down terribly but would be thematic.

[Tonius]

The main issue from my point of vue, is that we, BA, wanna be able to charge in CC and beat the crap out of the ennemy.

But even if you're a top CC fighter, the rules of warfare since gunpowder exists is that you really need to soften up your adversary if you wanna make an assault.

I know it's just a game, but with the actual rules, it's quite realistic about shooting. CC is deadly if you reach it in a good state, and that the ennemy isn't.

You pointed the solution: work with combined arms (like in real Life), use JP to flank or sneak around and wait and hope for our codex to give us cool CC boosts (like no overwatch against BA ;) ).

[Remtek]

I feel most of the 8th assault tactics can be performed just as efficient with all unit types. A Rhino can charge five death company and stay there for multiple game turns and thats not even the primary function of that unit. 

 

This might be a sketchy comparision, but in 7th it was more likely killing a tansport with a 5man close combat scout unit than it is doing the same thing with 5 thunderhammer terminators in 8th. We need a middle ground. 

[Brother Captain Sirus]

Really it seems the major flaw with all space marine assault units is low attacks on profile, an ork boy has 2 gets +1 for their choppas, +1 for over 20 boys and +1 ws when near a waaagh! Banner. These added together make them deadly in CQC.

On the other hand we have smaller squads with less attacks, but more chance of survival, does it balance out not really as being able to take more hits is great but when you are getting hit so much more you survivability dips quickly.

Adding strategems to shot falling back units just adds extra clunk to the game and since 40k finally has a good flow during the game i'd be concerned that it could lead to a negative impact.

[Morticon]

Updated OP with rewrite/changes, with some edits and advice from others.  Sending soon. 

[Charlo]

Looks great buddy and very well thought out.

 

Walking out of combat feels like a mechanic that was made to fit 1v1 situations, as opposed to army vs army situations. Sure, one unit that is now a bit harmed (maybe...) can't shoot, big whoop!

 

Only thing I'd change is make BA say Blood Angels in full ;)

[Chaplain Gunzhard]

I'd be a little worried that any changes to melee would give hoards (Orks and Nids in particular) another advantage, but I like where this is going.

[Morticon]

 

A BA player pulled a very smart trick on me at my gaming club on Tuesday. Faced with a squad of Eldar Wraithguard with D-scythes, he drove a Tactical squad in a Rhino up close to them and disembarked on the opposite side of the Rhino from the Wraithguard. When he charged, he was out of LOS and so safe from the 5xD3 auto-hitting S10 D-scythe shots. His shooting had weakened the squad already and the seargent with power sword was able to kill another. Even though the WG didn't suffer from Battleshock, he got the squad small enough to lap round and prevent me from withdrawing as I was encircled.

 

 

 

Absolutely solid tactic - and one that is awesome to remove overwatch.  But....its also one that requires a very big charge and poor (overly tight) spacing on the part of the other player.  Looking at the distances, you need +- 10"  and tight spacing for the charge and wrap around to pull off.  

 

I'm also not in disagreement with the statement of yours that says "I think that is the key to melee, timing assaults and picking your targets." - But, i think its always been like that. Nothing has changed there.  

 

What has changed is that its too difficult to do viable damage in assault (compared to shooting) and too easy to get out of it once you're there, making it far easier to work around, and not worth the time, effort or points.  

[Karhedron]

I guess the point I am trying to put across is that I do not feel that the close combat system is fundamentally broken, I just feel that Blood Angels are not as good at it currently as we should be. Imagine how horrific units like Beserkers would be if the CC system made it harder to get out of combat or more damaging.

 

I feel that Blood Angels need buffing to reflect our supposed skill and preference for close combat rather than for the close combat system itself to be overhauled. Plenty of units have special rules that make them a scary prospect to face in assault or even to help them get there. That is all we need.

[Eire]

 

we are thinking too small.  It is a travesty that close combat has been frozen out again.  The point is not that this is a problem for BA but a problem in general.  What about Raven Guard?  Black Templars? Minotaurs?  We want viable assault troops in general don't we?

 

A BA player pulled a very smart trick on me at my gaming club on Tuesday. Faced with a squad of Eldar Wraithguard with D-scythes, he drove a Tactical squad in a Rhino up close to them and disembarked on the opposite side of the Rhino from the Wraithguard. When he charged, he was out of LOS and so safe from the 5xD3 auto-hitting S10 D-scythe shots. His shooting had weakened the squad already and the seargent with power sword was able to kill another. Even though the WG didn't suffer from Battleshock, he got the squad small enough to lap round and prevent me from withdrawing as I was encircled.

 

Trying to envision this without models in front of me - how could he see the Wraithguard to charge without being seen for overwatch? (apologies if its a silly question)

[Brother Captain Sirus]

 

A BA player pulled a very smart trick on me at my gaming club on Tuesday. Faced with a squad of Eldar Wraithguard with D-scythes, he drove a Tactical squad in a Rhino up close to them and disembarked on the opposite side of the Rhino from the Wraithguard. When he charged, he was out of LOS and so safe from the 5xD3 auto-hitting S10 D-scythe shots. His shooting had weakened the squad already and the seargent with power sword was able to kill another. Even though the WG didn't suffer from Battleshock, he got the squad small enough to lap round and prevent me from withdrawing as I was encircled.

 

Absolutely solid tactic - and one that is awesome to remove overwatch.  But....its also one that requires a very big charge and poor (overly tight) spacing on the part of the other player.  Looking at the distances, you need +- 10"  and tight spacing for the charge and wrap around to pull off.  

I'm also not in disagreement with the statement of yours that says "I think that is the key to melee, timing assaults and picking your targets." - But, i think its always been like that. Nothing has changed there.  What has changed is that its too difficult to do viable damage in assault (compared to shooting) and too easy to get out of it once you're there, making it far easier to work around, and not worth the time, effort or points.

You cant disembark after moving so this tactic would take 2 turns to accomplish and would have led to the BA players unit getting lots of incoming fire.

[Eire]

I guess the point I am trying to put across is that I do not feel that the close combat system is fundamentally broken, I just feel that Blood Angels are not as good at it currently as we should be. Imagine how horrific units like Beserkers would be if the CC system made it harder to get out of combat or more damaging.

 

I feel that Blood Angels need buffing to reflect our supposed skill and preference for close combat rather than for the close combat system itself to be overhauled. Plenty of units have special rules that make them a scary prospect to face in assault or even to help them get there. That is all we need.

 

Something like the No Escape rule for Wyches (Drukhari/Dark Eldar) might be a good start for a unit like the DC. Your opponent has to win a roll off in order to Fall Back in CC.

[TheHarrower]

Landrick has an interesting idea there. ^^

 

Pistols likely need to be fired in every round of CQC is another thought.

I would bet they were that way until late in playtesting or at least at some point.

Things make more sense that way anyhow. (points values, loss of attack etc).

 

Logically why would you not be firing your pistol on the way in and at contact?

Especially for the defender.

 

I cannot help but feel some last minute changes were made, when I look at the index.

 

Pistols already fire every round. You fire your pistols before you engage in close combat. Maybe a bonus to firing pistols in close combat if you ever get to that situation (I think it's happened to me like once or twice), but you can give pistols +1 to hit since the enemy is so close.

[Schlitzaf]

I think a nice easy general strategem fix is if an enemy's disengages spend 1 Point. For every model in Base to Base with the disengaging model may shoot their pistol. It prevents hordes like Boyz from abusing it and gives a reason for Zerkers to do Ax-Pistol for example.

[Are Verlo]

Lets not complicate it. Less dice rolled is good.

If we could, as someone suggested, roll 3d6 and discard the lowest when charging after JPA it would make it much more reliable. Especially with some form for reroll (stratagem or Lemartes).

 

We reach melee with some units, suffer overwatch and then do some damage. On their turn our opponents can choose to disengage.

 

There are limits to both the Numbers of units in reserves and the number of rerolls available. So it seems like a strong but balanced way to make sure a few units reach close combat. We still have to deploy more than 9" away and so enemy deoloyment and countermeasures like scouts, sentinels and their own "deepstrikes" can help them dictate terms of engagement.

The way I see it, this would make it tactical, reliable and balanced

[Indefragable]

The main issue from my point of vue, is that we, BA, wanna be able to charge in CC and beat the crap out of the ennemy.

But even if you're a top CC fighter, the rules of warfare since gunpowder exists is that you really need to soften up your adversary if you wanna make an assault.

I know it's just a game, but with the actual rules, it's quite realistic about shooting. CC is deadly if you reach it in a good state, and that the ennemy isn't.

You pointed the solution: work with combined arms (like in real Life), use JP to flank or sneak around and wait and hope for our codex to give us cool CC boosts (like no overwatch against BA ;) ).

We've discussed the "bringing a sword to a gun fight" aspect many a time at my club. In the real world suppressive fire is a thing: even just shooting in an enemy's direction (let alone near them, let alone hitting, etc...) would cause them to duck and be that much easier to approach. So 40k has to make some allowances for Space fantasy factors in both sides.

 

Not to mention the psychological factor of getting run through by a bayonet...

 

Hidden Content

Different historians have talked about how traumatizing the thought of being bayoneted was...both receiving and giving. Many forces would just break and run as soon as the other side was willing to show they would do it.

 

One of the reasons elite forces were site back then: they would hold their bowels on both sides of the equation.