Close Combat Issues- An Open Letter to GW

[Morticon]

 

 

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)

 

You no longer need to see a unit to charge it.  But you do need LOS for overwatch. 

[Bartali]

Some good posts in this thread and a sterling first post by Morticon.

 

I fear it looks like another edition where BA are going to struggle. Admittedly, not as much as we did last edition so there is that.

 

Going forward, I can't see stratagems helping out (in much the same way formations didn't in 7th). I think there's too many problems with the core rules and BA units to fix with a sticking plaster. 

[Chaplain Gunzhard]

I have to think that Stratagems are perhaps our only chance though. Any core change to Assault is going to give a boost those hoard armies (Orks and Nids in particular, even conscript spam) that are already very strong just due to sheer numbers, while small elite fancy fighters will always be a notch behind.

 

I've played a lot of 8th edition now and my biggest gripe, as related to Assault, is the need for buff characters; and the BA index is entirely built on the buff character mechanic. Any table with a fair amount of terrain and you're going to have trouble keeping your buff conga line intact, especially on the charge.

 

SG and Death Company both do some serious work with full buffs - but once you lose the buffs they are incredibly expensive, mediocre units.

[Blindhamster]

if we got +1 Attack on the charge...

Reivers would be pretty scary.

Grenade to avoid overwatch and then 41 attacks from a 10 man squad.

Have a priest nearby for +1 strength.

[Morticon]

For comments/further discussion and debate points I must remind people that I've argued the combat issue as a 3-tier problem - that is:
 

1. The inability for most units to do much damage in combat.

2. The lack of tactical value in getting most units into combat.

3. The ability for any unit to simply leave combat.

And while a straight boost in combat strength would be great (and needed, I feel), its only half of the issue and possibly not the biggest.  

 

The biggest issue is 2 and 3 (which are intertwined). There needs to be tactical value in combat and a drawback for leaving beyond the simple "prevented from firing/charging", which I argue is minimal (especially in vs. MSU) and with special rules often irrelevant

 

 

Typing this I came up with what I think is another solid answer to 2 and 3 - especially for BA-  maybe even as a chapter tactic?

 

"Blood Angels Infantry and Walkers may move as if in their movement phase if their enemies Fall Back from combat".  (or something similar).  (Hell, i think this would be a great over-all rule, personally - because now people would think twice about leaving)

While this doesn't change the core mechanic, or change the enemy army in any way, it gives something of a recourse to falling back and allows us to mitigate damage.



 

[Quixus]

Typing this I came up with what I think is another solid answer to 2 and 3 - especially for BA-  maybe even as a chapter tactic?

 

"Blood Angels Infantry and Walkers may move as if in their movement phase if their enemies Fall Back from combat".  (or something similar).  (Hell, i think this would be a great over-all rule, personally - because now people would think twice about leaving)

 

While this doesn't change the core mechanic, or change the enemy army in any way, it gives something of a recourse to falling back and allows us to mitigate damage.

I'm not sure this will help much, our units still have to stay farther than 1" from the enemy and all other units can still shoot at the CC unit. Now if the BA unit could move back into melee range and thus be safe from all shooting, this would be interesting.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

This is one of the reasons I felt assault marines should have been base 2 attacks giving them 3 each with chainswords.

 

Combat isn't anywhere near as good as they hyped it up to be. This is also a reason I'm moving over to AoS. So I can get in the thick of things with close combat.

[Morticon]

 

Typing this I came up with what I think is another solid answer to 2 and 3 - especially for BA-  maybe even as a chapter tactic?

 

"Blood Angels Infantry and Walkers may move as if in their movement phase if their enemies Fall Back from combat".  (or something similar).  (Hell, i think this would be a great over-all rule, personally - because now people would think twice about leaving)

 

While this doesn't change the core mechanic, or change the enemy army in any way, it gives something of a recourse to falling back and allows us to mitigate damage.

I'm not sure this will help much, our units still have to stay farther than 1" from the enemy and all other units can still shoot at the CC unit. Now if the BA unit could move back into melee range and thus be safe from all shooting, this would be interesting.

 

 

 

Would give a reason to play JP troops again. 12" means more maneuverability on to objectives, behind cover, or into enemy lines.  Though, to be honest, I'd prefer your suggestion if I had the choice.  Just think its super powerful. 

[Indefragable]

(Finally) got a game in after a summer hiatus. 3k bloodbath. Will post details in "BA Today" when I can. The short version is that getting into combat is the big problem: not just surviving the brutal shooting this edition, but actually being able to to successfully charge. A failed charge is pack up and go home.

[Crimson Ghost IX]

Enemy tries to flee...

How about an opportunity to pursue?

 

Make a leadership roll and then close to CQC with them again immediately.

I dunno random idea.

[TheHarrower]

Letting a unit move fully after a disengage would be great for Jump Pack troops. Not standard infantry. Sure you could set up for a future attack, but you are still taking shots to the face. I still think the best fix for this is making it a detriment to leave close combat. I agree most units don't do enough damage, but stopping shooty units from shooting next phase and making them take some type of damage through mortal wounds or free attacks when disengaging would help a lot. That doesn't address the getting into combat issue, but in a world where everything is an assault vehicle that can be mitigated as long as you have a good amount of LOS blocking terrain.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

Letting a unit move fully after a disengage would be great for Jump Pack troops. Not standard infantry. Sure you could set up for a future attack, but you are still taking shots to the face. I still think the best fix for this is making it a detriment to leave close combat. I agree most units don't do enough damage, but stopping shooty units from shooting next phase and making them take some type of damage through mortal wounds or free attacks when disengaging would help a lot. That doesn't address the getting into combat issue, but in a world where everything is an assault vehicle that can be mitigated as long as you have a good amount of LOS blocking terrain.

The FLG guys all suggest more terrain, especially LOS blocking terrain in this edition.

 

The problem with your suggestion as it has been suggested, already, makes hordes such as conscripts even deadlier.

 

There are very few suggestions that do not unbalance other units. While we contemplate fixing one aspect it almost always seems to become a detriment to another piece of the game.

 

The only answer for Marine assault to be really successful right now is multi-assault, and coming in from Storm Ravens etc that can set up closer than 9" away. This allows you to coral the unit and keep prolonged combat as long as the unit does not have the fly keyword.

 

Going forward I don't know what options can increase close combat units to be more effective.

[TheHarrower]

The FLG guys all suggest more terrain, especially LOS blocking terrain in this edition.

 

The problem with your suggestion as it has been suggested, already, makes hordes such as conscripts even

deadlier.

 

Actually I was the first one to suggest that as a fix. I was just reaffirming my initial position after playing a dozen more games.

 

 

 

There are very few suggestions that do not unbalance other units. While we contemplate fixing one aspect it almost always seems to become a detriment to another piece of the game.

 

Game design is a balancing act. That's how it works. Personally, I wouldn't care if hordes were deadlier. Hordes should be difficult to deal with in melee. I've played countless mob lists. Orks, Nids, Cultists, etc. They die in droves from any amount of massed fire or flamers. Do Conscripts need another buff? Absolutely not, but that's an issue with Conscripts being too good. FLG has said GW is working on addressing Conscripts already.

 

 

 

The only answer for Marine assault to be really successful right now is multi-assault, and coming in from Storm Ravens etc that can set up closer than 9" away. This allows you to coral the unit and keep prolonged combat as long as the unit does not have the fly keyword.

 

Which in an edition that is supposed to make close combat viable again just isn't acceptable. I can get assault to work, but I don't want to have to take a Storm Raven with Mephiston, and Corbulo everytime to get assault to work. It's not right. It doesn't follow the fluff either. They've fixed Berzerkers and countless other things. They're listening. Hopefully assault for marines gets fixed too.

 

Mort you send this off yet? I'd be curious if they reply.

[Chaplain Gunzhard]

Hoards are already very good, in fact they are probably one of the most difficult things for Blood Angels to deal with currently... so hoards being deadlier, is not a solution for BA.

 

Most of your complaints are based around the 'buff character' mechanic which I also hate. Having played a lot of 8th edition at this point, that is my single greatest annoyance. To make Sanguinary Guard or Death Company actually worth their salt - you need to string along a whole bunch of expensive buff characters - which on a board with more LOS terrain, or just more terrain in general - is real darn difficult when relying on assault.

 

Berserkers were 'fixed' because they are buffed without having to string along several characters and make sure they can all get into base / charge range.

[TheHarrower]

Hoards are already very good, in fact they are probably one of the most difficult things for Blood Angels to deal with currently... so hoards being deadlier, is not a solution for BA.

 

Most of your complaints are based around the 'buff character' mechanic which I also hate. Having played a lot of 8th edition at this point, that is my single greatest annoyance. To make Sanguinary Guard or Death Company actually worth their salt - you need to string along a whole bunch of expensive buff characters - which on a board with more LOS terrain, or just more terrain in general - is real darn difficult when relying on assault.

 

Berserkers were 'fixed' because they are buffed without having to string along several characters and make sure they can all get into base / charge range.

 

Most difficult to deal with? I think we are better equipped to deal with hordes than anyone. Death Company, Frag Cannons, Assault Cannons, Heavy Flamer Devastators, Baal Predators, Storm Ravens, etc. I have issues dealing with a lot of different stuff in 8th Edition. Hordes definitely isn't one of them.

 

I'll agree on Berzerkers being fixed because they don't need auras to be successful, but my point was GW is listening. Look at the FAQ for the Chaos Space Marines Codex they just released. If we respectively provide feedback, odds are, they'll make it right.

[bc99]

 

Which in an edition that is supposed to make close combat viable again just isn't acceptable. I can get assault to work, but I don't want to have to take a Storm Raven with Mephiston, and Corbulo everytime to get assault to work. It's not right. It doesn't follow the fluff either. They've fixed Berzerkers and countless other things. They're listening. Hopefully assault for marines gets fixed too.

 

Mort you send this off yet? I'd be curious if they reply.

 

 

That's the thing, where did you get that the designers wanted  to make close combat more viable in this edition? Was that in a design chat somewhere? I'm interested because in the games I've run melee has either been great (because I got the guys there) or it's been horrid and I've been shot to pieces. I'm new to the edition and back from a long hiatus, so can't comment on past editions from about 3rd on.

 

I posted this on page one, this was taken from WD:

 

WD June 2017, page 37, New Ways to Wage War Article by Jes Bickham and Robin Cruddace; side bar in orange:

 

"More Dakka: Warhammer 40,000 is a game about shooting more than anything else now, with this new edition. It's shootier than ever..."

 

Well, the quote kinda speaks for itself. I'm hoping there was some commentary about melee from the designers. I'd love to see/read it. That being said, I believe stratagems and army tactics will be the "fix" over a change in the mechanics. Great discussion though, it's nice hearing everybody's input.

[Poppaby]

Lol, I care deeply about the effectiveness of BA close combat and even I didnt get past the first paragraph of this letter. I can only imagine what someone in GW who gives less of a :cuss will do.

 

The BA codex is already written and printed. Theres a stack of em in a warehouse somewhere. Your opionions on what is 'wrong' (I didnt read it) will change nothing even if GW read this, which they wont.

 

If its any use to you, Ive been using blobs of DC in the current edition and they are super baller, even minus a points heavy HQ buff. With a cheap sang priest they get better. With Dante they are beast. With a librarian they are almost too hard to deal with.

 

BA arent berzerkers. They arent orks. They arent tyranids. If you want them to be then just play those armys.

 

The reaction to your letter on this forum has been super positive but allow me to give some constructive criticism from someone who writes for a living. It's too long. It's boring.

 

No one in GW cares what you think. Even if they get to the part where you outline your fixes (I skimmed them at the end), which they wont, what do you think will happen? Some sort of ephiphany? "this guy has been playing for 20 whole years! We should totally listen to him!" Theyve been playing just as long and theyve manged fine without you until now.

 

I suggest stop being 'that guy' (im guessing you are too far along at this stage, but it's worth a shot) and deal with it, as I have. I've won my last 6 games with BA by adjusting my tactics, and seeing Ba not as some Khorne lite army that has one trick, but as an army with many specialist units that synergise well when you do it right.

 

BA are really fun right now. You should try having some but based on your letter I feel like WH stopped being about fun for you a long time ago.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

No offense mate, but that didn't sound very constructive when I read it...

[Jolemai]

Lol, I care deeply about the effectiveness of BA close combat and even I didnt get past the first paragraph of this letter. I can only imagine what someone in GW who gives less of a :cuss will do.

 

The BA codex is already written and printed. Theres a stack of em in a warehouse somewhere. Your opionions on what is 'wrong' (I didnt read it) will change nothing even if GW read this, which they wont.

 

If its any use to you, Ive been using blobs of DC in the current edition and they are super baller, even minus a points heavy HQ buff. With a cheap sang priest they get better. With Dante they are beast. With a librarian they are almost too hard to deal with.

 

BA arent berzerkers. They arent orks. They arent tyranids. If you want them to be then just play those armys.

 

The reaction to your letter on this forum has been super positive but allow me to give some constructive criticism from someone who writes for a living. It's too long. It's boring.

 

No one in GW cares what you think. Even if they get to the part where you outline your fixes (I skimmed them at the end), which they wont, what do you think will happen? Some sort of ephiphany? "this guy has been playing for 20 whole years! We should totally listen to him!" Theyve been playing just as long and theyve manged fine without you until now.

 

I suggest stop being 'that guy' (im guessing you are too far along at this stage, but it's worth a shot) and deal with it, as I have. I've won my last 6 games with BA by adjusting my tactics, and seeing Ba not as some Khorne lite army that has one trick, but as an army with many specialist units that synergise well when you do it right.

 

BA are really fun right now. You should try having some but based on your letter I feel like WH stopped being about fun for you a long time ago.

First off, please review the forum rules with regards to your language:

 

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/334648-rules-of-the-bolter-chainsword/

 

Secondly, whilst I'm sure the OP will take your criticism on board, perhaps read the whole thing before slating something in future?

 

That said, I'm happy you're on a winning run right now and would love to hear more about what is working for you and your lists :)

[Poppaby]

My list is based around putting the right units in theright place and having some fun. It is not based on wishing BA were some other army.

​

The original post asked for opinions at the end. Instead of platitudes and sycophancy I'm suggesting that no one in GW will care what the contents of the letter says, because they have at least if not more game experience than the poster does. He may as well play something else if he feels teh assault phase is stopping him enjoying the game.

 

Apologies for the abbreviated curse in the original post.

 

As per your advice, I have read the whole thing. My opinion is unchanged

[Poppaby]

Here's my point, minus the aggression.

 

If you google 'Blood Angels 8th Edition Codex' the third entry is "8th Edition Blood Angels: Shafted Again". We may well have had a terrible army in 7th, and Angels Blade barely fixed it, for a short time. But the worst part about having to endure an edition of mediocrity was it made us immediately feel like everything was an attempt at screwing us over.

 

8th is a new world. Not only is it actually fun, but our little red army is now useable. Im terrible at warhammer and even I'm winning. Ask anyone in the shop where I play. Im tactically null. Im a void of good decision making. And Im winning. 8th Ed is as balanced as it gets.

 

We need, as a group, to get away from believeing GW has some sort of agenda against us. That the rules exist only to make us suffer. They dont. If you feel like you arent killing enough enemies in the assault phase maybe look at how you are doing it. Im killing loads. The fluff of our rules matches our army, and a codex will reinforce that. DC are great, but they need a chaplain to lead them. Thats who they are.

 

If you look at the entry for DC on 1d4chan 8th ed BA tactics, one of the first lines is "no doubt about it, DC ave been nerfed". As someone who runs them regularly I can assure you that simply is not true. Weve just been conditioned to think the game is out to get us

[Charlo]

Again, Poppaby.

 

You make some good points - but it's all very "feely" and you've not given us any hard data. You've simply said we all need to change our mindset (which is based on proof and many editions experience for some of us in a challenging and vibrant meta) and then said you have dealt with the changed still not given any detail as to how.

 

Would very much appreciate you posting some lists/ tactics/ unit builds that will blow Morticon's letter out of the water - we must all be missing a trick, eh? ;)

[Poppaby]

I dont need to blow an open letter out of the water. That will be done when GW ignores teh ravings of a malcontent

[Chaplain Gunzhard]

 

Hoards are already very good, in fact they are probably one of the most difficult things for Blood Angels to deal with currently... so hoards being deadlier, is not a solution for BA.

 

Most of your complaints are based around the 'buff character' mechanic which I also hate. Having played a lot of 8th edition at this point, that is my single greatest annoyance. To make Sanguinary Guard or Death Company actually worth their salt - you need to string along a whole bunch of expensive buff characters - which on a board with more LOS terrain, or just more terrain in general - is real darn difficult when relying on assault.

 

Berserkers were 'fixed' because they are buffed without having to string along several characters and make sure they can all get into base / charge range.

 

Most difficult to deal with? I think we are better equipped to deal with hordes than anyone. Death Company, Frag Cannons, Assault Cannons, Heavy Flamer Devastators, Baal Predators, Storm Ravens, etc. I have issues dealing with a lot of different stuff in 8th Edition. Hordes definitely isn't one of them.

 

I'll agree on Berzerkers being fixed because they don't need auras to be successful, but my point was GW is listening. Look at the FAQ for the Chaos Space Marines Codex they just released. If we respectively provide feedback, odds are, they'll make it right.

 

 

I definitely don't agree on hoards - unless you are talking about list tailoring; which is basically the corner that GW has always jammed us. But even so, with a fully flamer-ed up list, you'll kill some chaff and again on overwatch - but once they assault you it's pretty much over, you can move away and not be able to shoot or get slowly wounded - this is exactly why spammy hoards are doing so well right now, and exactly why small elitish forces have trouble with them - you don't have enough on the table to afford letting your units be tied up all game but you can't really prevent it when they have the cheap numbers.

[Charlo]

I dont need to blow an open letter out of the water. That will be done when GW ignores teh ravings of a malcontent

Fine, then how about just telling us how you are making the most of BA in 8th as you soundly claim to be doing.

 

Instead of continuing the negativity and dissmissal.