CC ability

[Slasher956]

The issues I'm seeing people talk about here can be summed up as:

• At the moment a pure Shooting army can shutdown a pure CC army... yet the other way round is not true
• The effort to reward balance is out of balance - little effort gains max reward in shooting, yet max effort gains mid rewards for CC

[jaxom]

 

The issues I'm seeing people talk about here can be summed up as:

• At the moment a pure Shooting army can shutdown a pure CC army... yet the other way round is not true
• The effort to reward balance is out of balance - little effort gains max reward in shooting, yet max effort gains mid rewards for CC

 

 

I was just reading the thread initially and not commenting because I don't agree with the top statement; I really think it comes down to which CC army one is talking about. As for the latter, it is true it is much harder to maximized the gains of a pure CC army which cannot get 50% or more of its units doing a turn one charge.

[Slasher956]

 

 

The issues I'm seeing people talk about here can be summed up as:

• At the moment a pure Shooting army can shutdown a pure CC army... yet the other way round is not true
• The effort to reward balance is out of balance - little effort gains max reward in shooting, yet max effort gains mid rewards for CC

 

 

I was just reading the thread initially and not commenting because I don't agree with the top statement; I really think it comes down to which CC army one is talking about. As for the latter, it is true it is much harder to maximized the gains of a pure CC army which cannot get 50% or more of its units doing a turn one charge.

 

 

Not really... it doesnt matter what CC army you focus on CC is hard to do unless your opponent also wants CC to happen.

 

Now as there are only a few units in the game that can stop a unit from walking or flying out of combat, outside of those units there is no way for the CC army to shutdown a shooting army.  It doesnt matter if you've taken a eldar stabby list if your opponent walks out of combat and blows you away with shooting.  The way a shooting army shuts down the CC army is by removing key units before they've had a chance to act in they way you need them to for the army to work.

 

IF you have a way for a generic CC list to shut down a generic shooting list please let me know because I cant think of one .... in fact with my craftworld & SoB factions I cant think of a specific one either... Applying a -1 to hit my units, hugging cover whilst approaching before charging doesnt work... why - because there are so many +1 to hit, re-rolls of 1's /misses, flamers etc etc 

 

On the 2nd point a turn one charge is what I'd call a mid reward, because as said the opponent can walk out of the combat or you've wipped the unit out and are now at point blank range of the other parts of the opponents army...

 

Now lets see what it takes for a Craftworld Turn 1 charge on a standard 4 foot  across board with a standard 12" deployment zone across the long edge of the board*... unit of banshees in a transport.  Banshees disembark (3") move (7") and advance (6" having spent 1 CP to make sure that happens) they can now charge 2D6 +3"... thats 19 +2D6" ... so they need at least a 5 to reach a unit that was on the deployment zone edge right in front of the transport... thats not likely to have happened so the craftworld player will have had to spend another 2(or 3) CP to re-deploy the transport.... If thats not max effort for mid gain what is?

 

 

 

*this isnt even going in to the other deployment types that make the DZs further appart.... I'd like some missions where your DZs are closer that 24"....

[Panzer]

One of the problems is that special rules and improved stats cost points. So a melee unit and a shooty unit start out "equal" but then the melee unit becomes more expensive as GW starts piling special rules on them to help them do their job while the shooty unit doesn't need such things and is fine with just having their weapon.

[jaxom]

 

Not really... it doesnt matter what CC army you focus on CC is hard to do unless your opponent also wants CC to happen.

 

Now as there are only a few units in the game that can stop a unit from walking or flying out of combat, outside of those units there is no way for the CC army to shutdown a shooting army.  It doesnt matter if you've taken a eldar stabby list if your opponent walks out of combat and blows you away with shooting.  The way a shooting army shuts down the CC army is by removing key units before they've had a chance to act in they way you need them to for the army to work.

 

IF you have a way for a generic CC list to shut down a generic shooting list please let me know because I cant think of one .... in fact with my craftworld & SoB factions I cant think of a specific one either... Applying a -1 to hit my units, hugging cover whilst approaching before charging doesnt work... why - because there are so many +1 to hit, re-rolls of 1's /misses, flamers etc etc 

 

I think I see the issue. When I say/think CC army I think of a faction geared around it. Generic CC lists capable of shutting down a generic shooting lists would be generic Tyranids and Orks; they have mobility to get most of the army there, the foot print to charge/pile-in/consolidate and get multiple units while minimizing charge declarations, and the attacks at appropriate strength/AP ratios. Even if they don't have the option (due to whatever) to trap those enemy units in combat, enough of the enemy falling back means their follow up shooting phase is gutted. I think Craftworld and SoB are/were designed as combined arms lists and the ability to go straight combat units (like an all Banshee and Striking Scorpion list) was probably not considered part of their core faction identity so the necessary connective tissue to let them function as such is missing. 

 

This next part may be preaching to choir:

Even in a combined arms force, I feel eighth edition's paradigm really punished small, elite close combat units. I think this is two fold. First, and not necessarily intentionally, but I think assumptions were made regarding Morale checks that did not pan out. More importantly, a combined arms force could no longer be said to be effective if it was a delivery vehicle for one or two line-breaker units. These non-assault faction assault elements need prior support and need a roll with the rest of the army. If my Assault Terminators are about to bite it because the enemy fell back what are the units I have that are benefiting from not being shot and how can I use that? Are they attracting enough fire to make their sacrifice worth it? A well designed combined arms force has an answer to that baked into the codex. My experiences, and probably biases, make me think the larger issue isn't the core rules for close combat, but that combined arms assault units suffered much more in direct translation from 7th to 8th compared to shooting units.

 

Overall, from my perspective, I feel its a question of if the core rules are appealing and units need adjustment to fit their roll (now that there's a much better sense of how games of 8th edition progress) or if the core rules themselves are not appealing.

[MegaVolt87]

One of the problems is that special rules and improved stats cost points. So a melee unit and a shooty unit start out "equal" but then the melee unit becomes more expensive as GW starts piling special rules on them to help them do their job while the shooty unit doesn't need such things and is fine with just having their weapon.

 

Doesn't really sound "equal" then. So shooting units are under-costed and melee ones over costed, if we are using overall shooting mechanics Vs melee mechanics. So we either should be decreasing the overall model count of shooty armies in list building via points increases, while melee focused army lists get a model count increase via discounted melee units. Another problem is core mechanics subversion arms race such as overwatch > overwatch + via other factions, then we get immune to overwatch to counter. Its needlessly messy. With the power of shooting now, its very safe to add back things like old assault mechanics. Really the core game balance should be around the GEQ not MEQ statline. This would mean lower model counts all round as well, as GEQ would get a points increase, MEQ a further points increase. More is more, points cuts is just a band aid fix when core mechanics need fixing really with a new edition. 9th ed, with 8th ed shooting power combined with old assault mechanics would make melee shine again. 

[Lord_Caerolion]

I think part of the problem is that GW seems to not understand that Falling Back is such an easy, valid counter to melee armies, when it seems that GW balance melee around being able to attack in your opponents Fight Phase, when shooty units can only shoot in your Shooting Phase. Therefore, melee shouldn't be as powerful.

Of course, given you can just "nope" right out of combat with no penalty, this isn't the case, but just a design holdover, similar to their previous insistence of "no, a plasma pistol is always the same cost! I don't care that other, better guns are cheaper, they're the same. Damn. Price!"

[Vermintide]

 

 

Not really... it doesnt matter what CC army you focus on CC is hard to do unless your opponent also wants CC to happen.

 

Now as there are only a few units in the game that can stop a unit from walking or flying out of combat, outside of those units there is no way for the CC army to shutdown a shooting army.  It doesnt matter if you've taken a eldar stabby list if your opponent walks out of combat and blows you away with shooting.  The way a shooting army shuts down the CC army is by removing key units before they've had a chance to act in they way you need them to for the army to work.

 

IF you have a way for a generic CC list to shut down a generic shooting list please let me know because I cant think of one .... in fact with my craftworld & SoB factions I cant think of a specific one either... Applying a -1 to hit my units, hugging cover whilst approaching before charging doesnt work... why - because there are so many +1 to hit, re-rolls of 1's /misses, flamers etc etc 

 

I think I see the issue. When I say/think CC army I think of a faction geared around it. Generic CC lists capable of shutting down a generic shooting lists would be generic Tyranids and Orks; they have mobility to get most of the army there, the foot print to charge/pile-in/consolidate and get multiple units while minimizing charge declarations, and the attacks at appropriate strength/AP ratios. Even if they don't have the option (due to whatever) to trap those enemy units in combat, enough of the enemy falling back means their follow up shooting phase is gutted. I think Craftworld and SoB are/were designed as combined arms lists and the ability to go straight combat units (like an all Banshee and Striking Scorpion list) was probably not considered part of their core faction identity so the necessary connective tissue to let them function as such is missing. 

 

This next part may be preaching to choir:

Even in a combined arms force, I feel eighth edition's paradigm really punished small, elite close combat units. I think this is two fold. First, and not necessarily intentionally, but I think assumptions were made regarding Morale checks that did not pan out. More importantly, a combined arms force could no longer be said to be effective if it was a delivery vehicle for one or two line-breaker units. These non-assault faction assault elements need prior support and need a roll with the rest of the army. If my Assault Terminators are about to bite it because the enemy fell back what are the units I have that are benefiting from not being shot and how can I use that? Are they attracting enough fire to make their sacrifice worth it? A well designed combined arms force has an answer to that baked into the codex. My experiences, and probably biases, make me think the larger issue isn't the core rules for close combat, but that combined arms assault units suffered much more in direct translation from 7th to 8th compared to shooting units.

 

Overall, from my perspective, I feel its a question of if the core rules are appealing and units need adjustment to fit their roll (now that there's a much better sense of how games of 8th edition progress) or if the core rules themselves are not appealing.

 

 

Stuff like assault terminators are a good example. They're both dangerous and tough- If they get caught in the open there's a decent chance they will shrug off any firepower directed at them. Whereas say, death company, are a complete glass hammer (that FNP may as well not exist)- If they get caught in the open, they're as good as dead and the enemy doesn't even have to put a lot of effort into it.

 

Like you say the game is designed for a combined arms strategy, the problem there is that with the current rules set up it reduces those CC linebreaker type units into a very restricted single-use role. You drop them in, hope they kill something, then you feel like it's a bonus if they survive- But the points simply don't match up. Most of those units cost vastly in excess of the units they're meant to dislodge, and you can't argue that their value lies in more than just the straight kill potential- Because it doesn't if they don't actually disrupt the enemy's lines. The enemy can just walk out of combat and easily negate the threat.

 

I think there's a few different archetypes at play. The CC armies, the ones which are designed to go in mostly as CC with minimal shooting, all have either numbers, speed, or both on their side. They get a lot of bodies to make sure at least enough survIve to do damage. The more elite armies are never pure melee, they are combined arms as you describe. Then there are some variations of more elite, precise combat units, where I think the problem comes in that they were designed with vanilla 8.0 in mind. They were pointed and stat lined with the possibilities of first turn deep strike and null deploy in mind. The direction of the game regarding "alpha strikes" changed pretty fast and more or less indirectly killed several faction's intended play styles in doing so.

[Panzer]

 

One of the problems is that special rules and improved stats cost points. So a melee unit and a shooty unit start out "equal" but then the melee unit becomes more expensive as GW starts piling special rules on them to help them do their job while the shooty unit doesn't need such things and is fine with just having their weapon.

 

Doesn't really sound "equal" then. So shooting units are under-costed and melee ones over costed, if we are using overall shooting mechanics Vs melee mechanics. 

 

That was the point.

 

I think part of the problem is that GW seems to not understand that Falling Back is such an easy, valid counter to melee armies, when it seems that GW balance melee around being able to attack in your opponents Fight Phase, when shooty units can only shoot in your Shooting Phase. Therefore, melee shouldn't be as powerful.

Of course, given you can just "nope" right out of combat with no penalty, this isn't the case, but just a design holdover, similar to their previous insistence of "no, a plasma pistol is always the same cost! I don't care that other, better guns are cheaper, they're the same. Damn. Price!"

 

Yeah they kinda go "binding my shooty unit in melee so it can't shoot anymore without help from the outside? Hell no! Leaving your melee unit defenseless infront of my whole army so I can shoot it? Where's the problem roflmao". Hence why I'm still pro LD-test for falling back, so it's not as reliable anymore and the one using the melee unit can stack it in his favour with LD-modifiers.

However GW is unbeaten in invalidating their own rules. Have been and probably will always be. They give us pistols so shooty units can defend themselves in melee (even give them to T'au Firewarriors), but don't give us any reason to stay in melee so they could possibly of any use. They give us morale checks as means to balance horde-y armies, but give all the armies either high LD or means to ignore morale checks or similar (with some very few exceptions). Give "assault" weapons the ability to advance&shoot, but also give them enough range and max shots at max range so they rarely have a need to advance making them more of a defensive and tactical weapon rather than an "assault" weapon. And so on.

[chapter master 454]

 

 

One of the problems is that special rules and improved stats cost points. So a melee unit and a shooty unit start out "equal" but then the melee unit becomes more expensive as GW starts piling special rules on them to help them do their job while the shooty unit doesn't need such things and is fine with just having their weapon.

 

Doesn't really sound "equal" then. So shooting units are under-costed and melee ones over costed, if we are using overall shooting mechanics Vs melee mechanics. 

 

That was the point.

 

I think part of the problem is that GW seems to not understand that Falling Back is such an easy, valid counter to melee armies, when it seems that GW balance melee around being able to attack in your opponents Fight Phase, when shooty units can only shoot in your Shooting Phase. Therefore, melee shouldn't be as powerful.

Of course, given you can just "nope" right out of combat with no penalty, this isn't the case, but just a design holdover, similar to their previous insistence of "no, a plasma pistol is always the same cost! I don't care that other, better guns are cheaper, they're the same. Damn. Price!"

 

Yeah they kinda go "binding my shooty unit in melee so it can't shoot anymore without help from the outside? Hell no! Leaving your melee unit defenseless infront of my whole army so I can shoot it? Where's the problem roflmao". Hence why I'm still pro LD-test for falling back, so it's not as reliable anymore and the one using the melee unit can stack it in his favour with LD-modifiers.

However GW is unbeaten in invalidating their own rules. Have been and probably will always be. They give us pistols so shooty units can defend themselves in melee (even give them to T'au Firewarriors), but don't give us any reason to stay in melee so they could possibly of any use. They give us morale checks as means to balance horde-y armies, but give all the armies either high LD or means to ignore morale checks or similar (with some very few exceptions). Give "assault" weapons the ability to advance&shoot, but also give them enough range and max shots at max range so they rarely have a need to advance making them more of a defensive and tactical weapon rather than an "assault" weapon. And so on.

 

 

I would agree with concept of the leadership check however my money would be on GW making it so if that were the case it was done "without modifiers" because...GW!

 

There is some elements I agree with as it does feel 8th, now we have had proper time with it, does feel half cooked at some points. A lot of the core elements seem solid, good foundations but the new walls and interior are a little flimsy or non-existent with some doors opening upwards and...is the basement in the ceiling?

The concept of falling back from combat willingly and being something you chose to do: GREAT. Good idea. superb. Wait, it is just a straight up move out of combat? and its not even falling back, its just "na we don't feel it today lads" move in any direction you like that isn't through an enemy model? Seems lack lustre to me there. Certainly would like it if positioning mattered there where falling back meant towards your table edge (in the cases of having none defined truly, long edge) however if the enemy had got behind you then well...you are done for as you let them out position you rewarding a flanking move.

 

I would also agree GW needs to create a universal "Weapon Archetype" document where each weapon has a brief on what they are meant to be and what they normally lack/have. I agree far too many assault weapons are just too long range. For example for the document:

 

Rapid Fire: standard issue weapon for most armies. Typical range of 24". Never high stats but tend to be good en mass.

Assault: the run and gun weapon, aggressive and short ranged, typical range of 18" or less. Tend to have lots of shots base.

Heavy: the big guns. Long range of 36" or more typically, high stats across the board compared to other weapons.

Pistol: the side arms of armies. Short ranged to 12" or less typical and generally more of a desperate last defence than a main weapon.

 

Those would be a simple design document all designers would have and be told to keep in mind while designing army weapons for ranged.

 

Sorry, tangent for the melee thread but still, I do agree GW needs to centralise their design teams a little with some co-ordination

[TorvaldTheMild]

One of the problems is that special rules and improved stats cost points. So a melee unit and a shooty unit start out "equal" but then the melee unit becomes more expensive as GW starts piling special rules on them to help them do their job while the shooty unit doesn't need such things and is fine with just having their weapon.

EXACTLY.  The cost for CC weaponry and rules is incredible for how weak they are in game terms.  Also for CC armies you also need characters buffing your units as well, where you can have a shooty army with just smash captains and practically no buffs.

[Wulf Vengis]

2.1 Fall Back Move

Units that begin their Movement phase in close combat or within 1" of an enemy unit can either remain stationary or make a Fall Back Move. If you choose to make a Fall Back Move, the unit must take an unmodified Leadership Test against its highest Leadership score. If the test is passed roll 2d6 and move the unit up to that many inches away from all enemy models so that it ends it's movement more than 1" away from all enemy models.

If the Leadership Test is failed, the Fall Back Move fails and the unit remains in place.

A unit that makes a Fall Back Move, regardless of success, cannot advance, or charge later that turn. A unit that makes a Fall Back Move also cannot shoot later that turn unless it can FLY.

 

2.1.1 Route or Sweep

If the unit performing the Fall Back Move is in close combat with enemy units those enemy units may attempt to ROUTE or SWEEP their fleeing opponents.

ROUTE: The routing unit rolls a d6 and adds their movement score, if the result equals or exceeds the falling back units movement roll the Fall Back Move fails and the units remain locked in close combat.

SWEEP: The sweeping unit rolls a d6 and adds their movement score, if the result equals or exceeds the falling back units movement roll the Fall Back Move succeeds but each enemy model in the sweeping unit within 1" gets to make one round of close combat attacks as if it were the FIGHT PHASE. SWEEP attacks are resolved like normal close combat attacks (albeit ones resolved during the opponents Movement Phase) and use all the normal rules except that a 6 is always required for a successful hit roll, irrespective of the attacking models Weapon Skill or any modifiers.