# 5th edition for close combat armies?



## chaos vince (Jun 10, 2008)

i recently played a game of 5th using the store copy against a friends ig army and it seemed like cc armies have been nerfed in 5th. of course looking back at the game the curse of the dice gods was upon me. i failed more than 80% of my armor saves(3+) including rolling 5 1's for my oblit's:threaten: anyway my whole main problem was the not being able to consolidate into units, which meant that my beserkers rolled through one squad, then got shot by every gun on the field. does anyone have thoughts on tactics for cc armies in 5th?


----------



## Loki_tbc (Jun 17, 2008)

CC armies have been nerfed a bit and rightly so. Now, if you want to assault, you'll need to assault as many units as possible with as many units as possible in order to limit incoming fire if you should happen to massacre. 

Also, keep in mind that even though the defender gets a defensive "pile in" before the assault resolves in order to get as many models into combat as possible; if he loses he will be taking a leadership test at -1 per point that their side lose the combat by, rather than the old way. 

So if you are going into melee, you'd better be going up against something you can wade through or you'll be getting hammered. Keep in mind, if you lose a combat and have fearless models you won't make the check, rather you'll just take one additional wound, no save allowed, for every point you lose combat by. 

Personally, I love the changes. I think they will make the game much more fun for all factions..


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

normal space marines that lose combat and flee, if they pass initiative they fall back for one turn then automatically regroup thier next turn. If they fail thier initiative test, they take no wounds and just continue to fight as normal. if they lose an extra wound for every casualty with no armor saves, thats like giving free powerfists to any army, some armies cant even get that stuff to begin with, they should at least get thier armor save otherwise its like guaranteed double wounds. are you sure there is no saves alowed?

fearless space marines have no possibility of not taking those wounds.

I used to lose bad and often to eldar in combat, now I will simply lose every time.


----------



## weasly (Jun 18, 2008)

Even though CC armies are at a disadvantage for not being able to consolidate into combat this is effected by the fact that like in 7th ed WHFB (5 to a rank) more empthasis has been put on troop choices and having bigger armies. So in 5th ed your army will probably include more troop choices anyway so you will hit more units the turn you charge. Plus this can be done quicker due to the run rule. With the extra units you need to hit the enemy so they can't hurt you back so hard.

While the auto wounds will hurt SM they first have to fail their LD with high values. Also SM are still quite tough and they will have to take the wounds in combat in the first place. 

I agree with Loki that the new changes to the game will be great. They make the game much more fun to play. Plus it reduces the amount of really cheesy tourny armies. Another point is that the rules encourage you to go forward and fight the enemy and capture objectives. Lastly I like that there are scenarios like LotR. It gives the game much more character.


----------



## Untitled401 (May 12, 2008)

If you want a CC army to tie up a shoot army like tau or IG, Just get a big squad of bikers with an Icon to turbo boost 24 inches. Then you deep strike your terminators, squads of lesser daemons, greater daemon, raptors, obliterators and your daemons will assult on the same turn. Meanwhile your berzerkers in the rhino can move up in the distraction. Use the obliterators to destroy those basilisks or leman russes and you're good.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Some of the changes, especially this one, suck to the extreme.
I can see people not playing close combat armies at all in the very near future.
An automatic wound per point you "lose" close combat by?
You can't sweeping advance anymore?
Sounds like GW has started catering to non-tactical whiners.
For instance, if I have 10 Khorne Berzerkers and charge into, what 30 IG, and kill 15 of them, and they don't do a blessed thing to me, I still lose all of my models due to being "outnumbered". 
Retarded.


----------



## Inquisitor Aurelius (Jun 9, 2008)

No you don't - you can take a maximum number of additional wounds equal to the number inflicted on you in the round you lost, so if the IG didn't hurt your 'Zerkers at all, then you can't lose any models even if you somehow managed to lose the combat. Anyway, as far as I understand it, you won your hypothetical combat there - you get fifteen points for killing fifteen opponents; the IG get five points for outnumbering you by five. You won by ten, which means they get a Ld test which they can't possibly pass, so they break and flee.

Then your 'Zerkers stand there picking their noses with another platoon two inches away, and get blown to tiny bits by a volley from a Leman Russ battery.

But that's another issue altogether.


----------



## Loki_tbc (Jun 17, 2008)

Vrykolas2k said:


> Some of the changes, especially this one, suck to the extreme.
> I can see people not playing close combat armies at all in the very near future.
> An automatic wound per point you "lose" close combat by?
> You can't sweeping advance anymore?
> ...


Not so much.Combat resolution no longer is calculated by outnumbered, etc....

It's now just wounds inflicted vs wounds taken. 

So if you have 10 berzerkers vs 30 IG, and you kill 15 to their none, congrats - you just won combat by 15. They now make a leadership test at -15 or flee.


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

weasly said:


> While the auto wounds will hurt SM they first have to fail their LD with high values. Also SM are still quite tough and they will have to take the wounds in combat in the first place.


fearless in CC essentially means you autofail their morale check, and autopass thier initiative. But because of No Retreat you take the difference in wounds again. 

whereas a group of tau that pass their morale check don't take any wounds at all. not that they are likely to pass, but it can and does happen.

I guess that there is just no clear failure, and no clear success with the space marines. and you are paying extra points for that fearlessness, so it shouldn't cause you to automatically take more wounds. you should autopass the morale, but have to take th inititive test to avoid taking the wounds (although you wouldn't be escaping if you pass)


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Inquisitor Aurelius said:


> No you don't - you can take a maximum number of additional wounds equal to the number inflicted on you in the round you lost, so if the IG didn't hurt your 'Zerkers at all, then you can't lose any models even if you somehow managed to lose the combat. Anyway, as far as I understand it, you won your hypothetical combat there - you get fifteen points for killing fifteen opponents; the IG get five points for outnumbering you by five. You won by ten, which means they get a Ld test which they can't possibly pass, so they break and flee.
> 
> Then your 'Zerkers stand there picking their noses with another platoon two inches away, and get blown to tiny bits by a volley from a Leman Russ battery.
> 
> But that's another issue altogether.



Ah, I see... so they've replaced one half-wit rule with another...
That makes sense, or something...


----------



## Cole Deschain (Jun 14, 2008)

Vrykolas2k said:


> Sounds like GW has started catering to non-tactical whiners.


Funny, I thought they were forcing close combat sorts to be _more_ tactical.

You know, seeing as you can SCREEN those expensive choppy units now.

And deployment INTO combat is vital.

And close-quarters guys can run forward in the early turns of the game.

And all of that.

Certainly more tactical than "Berzerkers/Genestealers/Assault Marines hit one unit and roll into a another because it's easier than having to think of the firezone you've shortsightedly sent them into and doesn;t take intot account the fire they would take as they charged toward their new enemies."


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Cole Deschain said:


> Funny, I thought they were forcing close combat sorts to be _more_ tactical.
> 
> You know, seeing as you can SCREEN those expensive choppy units now.
> 
> ...




Can they assault after they run?
I always placed my shooty-squads in cover and/or far enough away from eachother so that they didn't get rolled into.
In 3rd, where I got started, and in 4th, a close-combat force had a fair chance of winning against a shooty army. The new rule makes shooty armies much more likely to be fielded all the time.
There goes variety in the game.
Screen them with what? A nice idea, if you have units which aren't important to you tactically I suppose... and if you can always count on the enemy failing it's lead test to shoot whatever's screening the assault squads.
And if your answer is to deep-strike, well, a lot of us don't like to watch armies get destroyed piecemeal. I've done that quite a bit to people who were foolish enough to count on reserves.
Basically, they're forcing people to nae play an army they want (such as all Khorne) because they're unlikely to ever win. I can tell you from experience on both sides of the board, shooty armies are going to pretty much win hands down every time, unless a player just says, "Fuck it. I'm not playing for fun anymore, just to win."
In which case you won't see squads of Berzerkers who match Khorne's number anymore, they're all going to be mounted in Land Raiders, if they're played at all.


----------



## Cole Deschain (Jun 14, 2008)

Vrykolas2k said:


> Can they assault after they run?


Not at all my point, I'm simply saying that they'll spend less time in the open getting shot full of holes.



> I always placed my shooty-squads in cover and/or far enough away from each other so that they didn't get rolled into.


How generous of your enemies to allow you this luxury.



> In 3rd, where I got started, and in 4th, a close-combat force had a fair chance of winning against a shooty army. The new rule makes shooty armies much more likely to be fielded all the time.


Having seen the rules, I and my Orks beg to differ.



> There goes variety in the game.


Heaven forbid you should have to rethink the "barrel forward screaming and chopping" strategy.



> Screen them with what? A nice idea, if you have units which aren't important to you tactically I suppose... and if you can always count on the enemy failing it's lead test to shoot whatever's screening the assault squads.


Uh, even if they DO pass their Target Priority check, your guys get a cover save from being screened. So you're quite free to use "normal" units

My screening unit is also gonna be the most expensive one in my army.



> And if your answer is to deep-strike, well, a lot of us don't like to watch armies get destroyed piecemeal.


The only Deep Strike I advocate is the Weirdboy kind.



> Basically, they're forcing people to nae play an army they want (such as all Khorne) because they're unlikely to ever win. I can tell you from experience on both sides of the board, shooty armies are going to pretty much win hands down every time, unless a player just says, "Fuck it. I'm not playing for fun anymore, just to win."
> In which case you won't see squads of Berzerkers who match Khorne's number anymore, they're all going to be mounted in Land Raiders, if they're played at all.


I see. Don't play the current Tau very often, do you?
Or if you do, not optimized killing lists.

I don;t see this as favoring shooting forces. I see it as favoring "look before you leap."


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Which still screws people who want to play an all-assault Khorne (or similar) army.
I've won with mine.
I've lost with mine.
Against Tau "optimised kill" among other lists, and had fun almost every time.
This new rule looks like I'm just going to be going from table to case and not doing much else, honestly.
From what I've read, I really do think it favours all-shooty armies.
Well, my non-Chaos armies are going to do very well at any rate.


----------



## Cole Deschain (Jun 14, 2008)

Vrykolas2k said:


> From what I've read, I really do think it favours all-shooty armies.


How amusing.

All the local "shooty" players are in a panic because Tyranid players cna screen their Genestealers now.


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

This does mess with Fearless units a bit, but Space Marines (unless they change ATSKNF a lot) are still in pretty good shape.

ATSKNF only kicks in if the marines 1) lose combat, 2) fail their leadership, and 3) fail the initiative check. (It's only if they get caught in a sweeping advance) If all three of those things happen, THEN instead of being utterly wiped out, they just take wounds. Which is much better than being wiped out.

Fearless units, on the other hand, are in a bit of trouble. If they lose combat, they've essentially auto-lost both moralle and initiative and go directly to taking wounds.

In my experience, however, fearless assault units are usually geared up to *win*a ssaults, and when they do lose, it;s only by one or two.

It's entirely possible for an IG conscripts platoon to lose by 15 or however much...but they're pretty much fucked anyway. The berserkers, death company, stealers, etc, usually aren't going to lose their assaults, and if they do, it won;t be by a massive margin.

Huge ork mobs are in a bit of trouble, since they're fearless, but also a little flimsy. Still, a huge screaming mob of orks is usually going to do more damage than they take.

Just a matter of picking your battles.

Meanwhile, the rules massively favor assault units versus tanks, what with resolving all hits against rear armor, and the growing trend for marines and others to carry krak grenades on them for free.

Furthermore, the new scoring rules favor lists with highly mobile troops sections.
This is usually where assault armies have it in spades and static gunline armies are fucked.

Static Tau may be able to shoot up your assaulters (if you don;t screen or use terrain well), but when turn 5 comes along and they're desperately trying to cover ground on foot, your faster troop units will be sweeping across the field to snatch objectives and win on goals


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

this game has never been one to consistently reward straight forward approaches. assaulting a squad that is in a killzone is risky at best. It is foolish to complain that your valuable squad died horribly because of this. the trick to assaults is not to count on sweeping into another unit, but to try to have assaults that either take place near cover, or where the enemy is not close enough to do serious harm. support your berzerkers with a dread, it's armour is good enough to withstand most of the enemy fire, and you can aways save the smoke launcher to protect it, and the squad it screens when taking the gamble.

remember, shooty armies have to account for your routes of approach, you have to watch for their killzones.


----------



## Hashulaman (Apr 9, 2008)

I played chaos marines versus dark eldar, lets put it this way. My first 10 man squad was wiped out on the charge, they (dark eldar) then consolidated into another csm sqad and wiped them out too.


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

yeah, I get my genetically engineered melee oriented super soldier ass handed to me by flimsy non-fearless space elves all the time. needless to say, I'm worried.


----------



## dizzington esq (Apr 24, 2008)

Ideally, with 4th ed, a stealer army would not want to decimate you in cc on their turn if another squad was close but not close enough to roll into as a masacre or consolidate move. They would really prefer to kill your squad in your turn so that they have a full turn of movement/fleet/assault to then get into the next unit with cc whilst avoiding your shoot phase. 

This same tactic should still apply with 5th ed. Decimate the opponents squad in their asault phase and this will not leave you vulnerable to enemy fire during their turn. Providing the next target is at no more then 12"-13" away you should still be able to reach it during your next turn even with the shittiest of fleet rolls. This will still work for other amies only they may/may not have fleet, but still gives up to 11"-12" for them to catch you in their next turn.

Only problem with 5th ed is that cc is much more dangerous and you may well smear the squad in your turn. This is not to suggest that you should give up your chance to charge in during your turn, by all means get in there and start cleaving skulls. Just be aware that if you can serioulsy criple the squad in your turn without breaking them and mop them up in their own assault phase you should still be looking fine to catch the next squad in your next turn.

Did I mention that I like scarabs...


----------



## chaos vince (Jun 10, 2008)

watchin fields of fire, planning charges, we've done all of this. and you still get left out where you're boys can get blown to crap. the thing about gun line armies are they are usualy able to see most of their own units, so if they suck in cc like tau and guard all the gun line player will have to do is space his boys out right so you can't hit more than one unit at a time then the cc player is left with an assault where his squad is gonna wipe the floor with one squad then stand there with they're thumbs firmly in their 4th point of contact while they get blasted by half an army. if you're sayin that gun lines needed an advantage then i have to wonder if you ever played against a gun line player who knew what he was doing. walking through 2 turns of fire even using cover(which gun line players usualy position units to negate) is bad enough, now making it to where you're cc squads will be exposed to fire almost every turn...(due to the fact that under the new cc rules it's hard to see most gun line units standing up to more than 1 turn of close combat) it just seems that cc armies have been crapped on


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

don't forget that tau will be able to shoot any of your units even if you screen them by using marker lights to deny your cover save, so against tau, no screening units.


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

Markerlights only reduce cover save by 1 per ML hit, so a Tau player would have to waste three markerlight hits on one unit to deny their screening save.

Not something I;d worry too much about. Though reducing ti down to 5 or 6+ is still pretty nasty


----------



## Firewolf (Jan 22, 2007)

chaos vince said:


> ) it just seems that cc armies have been crapped on


>. I have to agree wi this. they bring in run, so you aint left standing in the open to be shot at. But yer hard ass cc unit, thats just ripped a unit to bits is gonna stand about and let the x amount of enemy squads fire at them as they stand about wi their thumbs up their asses instead of battering into the enemy squad next to them? Nope. So yes, cc armies have been shafted. :angry:


----------



## Baron Senille (Jun 13, 2008)

I think you get a save on the wounds you are to take after losing from what I heard. I dont think it is auto wound no save.


----------



## chaos vince (Jun 10, 2008)

you do get a save on the wounds, they are the same as wounds from outumbering in 4th, except you take a hit for every wound you lose combat by


----------



## ClubnBabySealz (Jun 5, 2008)

the trick will be getting as many assault units in cc as u can. that will cut back on the fire to one unit. now if you only have one assault unit it can suck but even then if u do it right it opens your opponet open cus all the fire went to one unit.


----------



## Hudson (Jun 3, 2008)

Surely this just opens the game to make it more of a challenge and force gamers to create a more balanced force, yes CC armies have been crapped on but what bads about that? an army cannot consist of solely one unit type its just unwise.
with the new rules people will have to create a shooty army that can engage at close combat levels i.e get in close and destroy key ranged units and mop up with your own.

yes i agree that the CC squad will be decimated by a player who has spaced his army wisely but this just encourages better tactics and surely thats what this game is all about.

also this will bring in a new dimension to the hobby, gaming tables will have to be made more dynamic to allow for a more strategic game and taking away some new found advantages 

bring on 5th new challenges, yea new loses where easy wins were before but good job we learn from defeats so cant see any problems


----------



## Minion_1981 (Dec 20, 2007)

you said this promotes better tactics, so.. where does this promote tactics for the CC army when after every battle they get destroyed by ranged?


----------



## blitz451 (Apr 4, 2008)

I find the idea of an entirely cc based army foolish in the extreme ('nids exempted) and i have to commend GW for finally punishing it in game terms. I love the idea that building a balanced force will be rewarded and not punished because you didn't have enough ultra munchie cc units in it.

Plus this is nothing all that new, i've always used the tactic of leaving a unit (usually a scout squad) hanging in assault range with nothing close enough to consolidate into. They take the bait and you rip them up in the shooting phase. One the the biggest weaknesses in a gunline army is their lack of mobility which means they will struggle to take any objectives. Take and hunker down in the objectives and have assault units on hand (in cover) to attack if they break the line to take the objective. If you don't just rush in you will leave their units in the gun line standing there useless.

If you want to rush like a horde army then roll a horde army. Otherwise be prepared to pay for it in 5th ed.


----------



## NorthernTau (Jun 24, 2008)

> _Markerlights only reduce cover save by 1 per ML hit, so a Tau player would have to waste three markerlight hits on one unit to deny their screening save.
> 
> Not something I;d worry too much about. Though reducing ti down to 5 or 6+ is still pretty nasty_



I would actually worry a fair amount about marker lights in 5th. Being that only one army in the game can remove cover saves, most people will rely a fair amount of screening. If you play a Tau player be prepared for lots of MLs, and be prepared to alter your tactics as they can be put to devastating use now. They weren't spectacular in 4th. They are godly in 5th imho, especially with a non-dedicated transports for pathfinders.

Sorry to wander off topic.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

blitz451 said:


> I find the idea of an entirely cc based army foolish in the extreme ('nids exempted) and i have to commend GW for finally punishing it in game terms. I love the idea that building a balanced force will be rewarded and not punished because you didn't have enough ultra munchie cc units in it.
> 
> Plus this is nothing all that new, i've always used the tactic of leaving a unit (usually a scout squad) hanging in assault range with nothing close enough to consolidate into. They take the bait and you rip them up in the shooting phase. One the the biggest weaknesses in a gunline army is their lack of mobility which means they will struggle to take any objectives. Take and hunker down in the objectives and have assault units on hand (in cover) to attack if they break the line to take the objective. If you don't just rush in you will leave their units in the gun line standing there useless.
> 
> If you want to rush like a horde army then roll a horde army. Otherwise be prepared to pay for it in 5th ed.




I never saw balanced armies being punished in 3rd or 4th editions. I own 5 armies, and four of them are "balanced"; the Chaos is meant to be close combat, it goes with the army's fluff.
They are now, however, punishing armies whose fluff is to be close combat, such as World Eaters.


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

blitz451 said:


> I find the idea of an entirely cc based army foolish in the extreme ('nids exempted) and i have to commend GW for finally punishing it in game terms. I love the idea that building a balanced force will be rewarded and not punished because you didn't have enough ultra munchie cc units in it.
> 
> Plus this is nothing all that new, i've always used the tactic of leaving a unit (usually a scout squad) hanging in assault range with nothing close enough to consolidate into. They take the bait and you rip them up in the shooting phase. One the the biggest weaknesses in a gunline army is their lack of mobility which means they will struggle to take any objectives. Take and hunker down in the objectives and have assault units on hand (in cover) to attack if they break the line to take the objective. If you don't just rush in you will leave their units in the gun line standing there useless.
> 
> If you want to rush like a horde army then roll a horde army. Otherwise be prepared to pay for it in 5th ed.


Problem being your sneaky, and admittedly, great tactic is now just "run of the mill combat" for nearly every single assault.

And the problem being, some armies were made to be GOOD a CC and BAD at ranged. This unfairly demands that more dedicated CC armies, such as chaos, forsake the advantage they have in melee to try and duke it out with ranged badasses like tau. It's an uphill struggle we simply will not win.

The run rule is great, don't get me wrong, it's nice to finally have some extra movement. But the fact that our assault squads survival is now entirely based on luck(is the assaulted player stupid enough to keep two squads so close together you can charge both?) rather than the sound tactic of massacring into other squads.

I'm not saying the game itself is broken, it's just a kick in the teeth to every army that had any kind of benefit in CC. You're entirely right in thinking an all melee force should be better than balanced, but now we've got a balanced force of meh long ranged units and CC squads who will just die.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

What about the fluff of the world eaters where they used the bodies of their dead to make a ramp over a wall of a fortress? anyway khorne are made to be more tactical now as they don't charge the closest enemy unit and all that kind of stuff like other seroiusly CC orientated units have. They can and must be used tactically now to survive and IMO that's a great thing. No more squads of zerkers taking out an entire flank by consolidating

It makes the game way more strategy based instead of tooled up assault unit, hit, consolidate, hit, win style of play I see a lot....


----------



## Cole Deschain (Jun 14, 2008)

All I can say is that I am in no way worried for MY close-combat army.


----------



## NorthernTau (Jun 24, 2008)

Orcs is definitely a CC army I wouldn't be worried about fielding in 5th either 

Edit OrKs..my apologies


----------



## blitz451 (Apr 4, 2008)

Vrykolas2k said:


> I never saw balanced armies being punished in 3rd or 4th editions. I own 5 armies, and four of them are "balanced"; the Chaos is meant to be close combat, it goes with the army's fluff.
> They are now, however, punishing armies whose fluff is to be close combat, such as World Eaters.





LordWaffles said:


> And the problem being, some armies were made to be GOOD a CC and BAD at ranged. This unfairly demands that more dedicated CC armies, such as chaos, forsake the advantage they have in melee to try and duke it out with ranged badasses like tau. It's an uphill struggle we simply will not win.


I want to clarify that by "balanced" i don't mean that CC armies should take their focus off of being CC. You should always play to your strength's so i'm certainly not advocating a 50-50 split of CC and shooty, but you can still have a balanced force at 70-30. Just because your units may not be elite at shooting doesn't mean they can't be effective.

If you get your chaos army into a long range slugfest with the Tau your shooty units are going to get carved up no doubt, but when he's shooting at your cheap shooters he's not shooting at your tooled up CC unit's that have taken a flank at the run. After all these years it amazes me how much fire a unit with just one heavy weapon in it can draw (they would never get me to be a heavy weapons guy, who am i kidding i'd be a total REMF).

No doubt the CC has gotten a lot more challenging and when you look at what the CC armies had then you can definately call it a kick in the teeth. Myself i am looking forward to it, in fact i'm bringing my wolves out of hibernation right now.


----------



## Saint7515 (Apr 30, 2008)

While the CC rules are drastically changing, I think it wouldn't be so bad if they didn't move defensive weapons to str. 4 from str. 6, AS WELL AS making it so that assaults auto hit rear armor. Suddenly, for the CC not-so-chaosy space marine armies (I loves me Templars!) one of the 2 real answers for "balance" is blown away (I'm talking about Predators; specifically Pred. Destructor's being nuked). I know that their goal is total balance for the game, and making sure players that have used one single strategy for the last 6 years finds a new stratagem once in a while; it just really hurts that they do it ALL AT ONCE. It like having a 2 ton I-beam with the word (ranged) thrown into my forehead like a cartoon.

I have a hard time believing that, in order to get SOME near-decent support that makes people not want to deep strike into it, I'm looking to that random techmarine I bought and 4 Gun servitors for 1x plas. can. 3x HBolter cover fire. Scratch one group Terminators for 4 Gun servitors and a Techy-powerfister? how can they push me to this


----------



## LegendX (Jun 16, 2008)

Lord Reevan said:


> What about the fluff of the world eaters where they used the bodies of their dead to make a ramp over a wall of a fortress? anyway khorne are made to be more tactical now as they don't charge the closest enemy unit and all that kind of stuff like other seroiusly CC orientated units have. They can and must be used tactically now to survive and IMO that's a great thing. No more squads of zerkers taking out an entire flank by consolidating
> 
> It makes the game way more strategy based instead of tooled up assault unit, hit, consolidate, hit, win style of play I see a lot....



I agree, so it makes it so that we have to think a little more, which is nothing to most people but may be difficult for some of you.

maybe throw in a pinning weapon or something to to back up your tooled up CC units.

hopefully i'll see more people THINKING about their lists and units they decide to take. we'll end up with SMARTER players that are more TACTICALLY sound.

healthy competition never hurt. its how you get BETTER.

LX


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

LegendX said:


> I agree, so it makes it so that we have to think a little more, which is nothing to most people but may be difficult for some of you.
> 
> maybe throw in a pinning weapon or something to to back up your tooled up CC units.
> 
> ...




Condescension isn't necessary.
Some of us like to play for fun with fluff-heavy armies.
Doesn't make us 'tards, ya know...
Want to hear about tactics?
Try putting shooty units 7" apart so they can't be subject to sweeping advance, or in cover. It's what I do. If I don't, and my buddy's Khorne Berzerkers roll up a flank, that's no-one's fault but my own. Making rules to get rid of a plausible ability of close-combat units doesn't make for more intelligent or tactical players.


----------



## bobafett012 (Jun 14, 2008)

i honestly don't think CC armies lost that much and imo they gained more then they lost. 

first of all any good commander of a shooty army(i play shooty deathwing) will never leave his squads within in 6" of another squad if he can possibly help it. i can count the number of times on 1 hand in the last 10 years that i have been playing that one of my squads was consolidated into after a massacre. granted i don't have as many troops as say IG or nids or orks but i still spread out to account for CC armies.

secondly the run rule is awesome imo for CC armies, every unit now has an average move of 9.5 inches every turn, thats pretty damn nice. it makes even more units viable where they weren't very viable before like CC fexes, i have rarely, to say the least, have ever seen fexes in CC unless the opponent was trying to get HIM into CC. now i think stuff like that, maybe even CC dreads/walkers will be a bit more viable.

thirdly, and this one is my opinion, the counter assault rules in CC when you charge and the assaulted squad HAS to move all of his units 6" as close to your units as possible. this rule, imho, is awesome for CC armies, for one your opponent can't just pull off the 2 models within 2" and the combat be over, and 2, this makes it more likely that the CC could last into his turn as there will be more units involved generally speaking. so unless there is a massacre you should be good to mop up on his turn and then your free to charge another squad.

i think like most of you guys have been saying its just that you have to actually think a little bitmore now. for instance when assaulting make sure to assault as near cover as you can so if and when you massacre you consolidate into cover for all those great new cover saves. matter fact, i NEVER played any CC armies before because every CC army i ever played in 4th edition i absolutly crushed horribly, but after reading the 5th rules and playing with them for the last few weeks with the store copy i am really stoked about making a new CC heavy army.

anyways, so thats my thoughts on CC in 5th, take it or leave it


----------



## Hudson (Jun 3, 2008)

Vrykolas2k said:


> Condescension isn't necessary.
> Some of us like to play for fun with fluff-heavy armies.
> Doesn't make us 'tards, ya know...
> Want to hear about tactics?
> Try putting shooty units 7" apart so they can't be subject to sweeping advance, or in cover. It's what I do. If I don't, and my buddy's Khorne Berzerkers roll up a flank, that's no-one's fault but my own. Making rules to get rid of a plausible ability of close-combat units doesn't make for more intelligent or tactical players.



i agree condescension not necessary we're all here for the same reasons!

IMO is yes there is a plausible ability that CC units pushing through a close linked army but if you were in that army and you saw half of your buddies being chewed apart surely you'd fire like shit to help out and to me thats what this rule suggests

yes close linked armies were punished and now, not so much but i still feel that in the grand scheme of things an army would find it difficult to assault half a flank without being shot at, just making things more realistic


----------



## blitz451 (Apr 4, 2008)

Discount Wargames said:


> i agree condescension not necessary we're all here for the same reasons!


right it's the sex. No? oh right it's the " makin' sweet love down by the fire ".


There are some CC players that are going to take a beating in 5th until they rethink their tactics, but at the same time there are some shooty armies that are going to take a beating by underestimating how fast CC units can get to them. Everything has a new balance and i think everyone needs to get some games under their belts before things really come clear. My first game i used two units of Howling banshee's and they crossed the board so fast even i was shocked.


----------



## Hudson (Jun 3, 2008)

blitz451 said:


> right it's the sex. No? oh right it's the " makin' sweet love down by the fire ".


Of Course what possible other reason would there be!!k:


----------



## DaemonsR'us (Jan 25, 2007)

One thing i have a problem with so far with the arguement of CC armies being nerfed is everyone is looking at one CC squad against many shooting squads, now what CC army has ONE cc squad? chances are instead of lumping all your CC squads against one squad you will have to spread your CC squads along the shooting gunline and may result in more turns in comabt... but your safer from being completely shot up, and then rhino screening to deny los, maybe put the rhino between the combat and the free squads :shok: have the rhino take some fire, and if your not taking some kind of transport and relying completely on the run rule.... well good luck with that imo cc squads need a transport more than ever, i really dont think there is too much to complain about, GW did give CC armies plenty of compensation imo


----------



## Lax (Jun 16, 2008)

CC armies gets a new rule : Always cover your CC squads, because they'll not do all the job anymore (like deadly IC etc) ^^!

I'll use SM for examples.

For medium games, if you choose to play 4 assault squads (whichever), add support an intelligent way.
Rather than playing a devastator static unit of table border, take moving support like tanks, assault bikes, power fists, meltas etc...
Because if you rushed like hell, on turn 2-3 every unit will have a use, instead of just saying "too much CC, no aim".

Next, you need rhinos as moving covers (mainly for the first ennemy shooting phase, love smoke launchers).
With these rhinos, you'll have tactical squads that will stick to assault squads for covering means.

A well placed CC army will have at turn two :
-Rhinos breaking important LOS
-Tactics that can shoot full range
-Assault squads ready to charge and equiped with plasma/melta...
-Support (dreadnoughts, tanks or whatever).

At this moment you're supposed to shoot everything you can, and then assault (in cover as soon it's possible).

Next step is to decide which troops must charge, which supports and which holds objectives.
You can put rhinos in the way to separate dangers etc...

There is really a deep variety of moves now ^^
I can't wait playing V5 with my BA !


----------



## bobafett012 (Jun 14, 2008)

i %100 agree with the above 2 posters, i think 5th will be great for CC armies that use their heads and add just a bit of tactics to their army. although i think armies that are diverse still will be the most powerful as y our taking advantage of all aspects. BA for example, if built right, i think will be a force to be reckoned with, where as daemons imo, and i am basing this off playing 2 of my buddys that play daemons, are gonna be at more of a disadvantage to other CC armies just because they don't have the shooting that other armies have on top of being really fragile, but still doable with a better mix of shooters and CC than all CC.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

The lack of consolidation is almost nothing in the grand scheme of things. There have been many astute postings on this thread. Relying on the one-trick pony that is consolidation is asking for trouble. unless you play against an opponent that is a brick, you will be able to use it no more than three or four times. After that, your opponent should have learned how to, at a minimum, place their squads so that is no longer a "game winner." if your opponent is really clever, they might even learn how to completely negate your assaults altogether. the rhino idea is brilliance, especially with the new cover save from the smoke launchers, that means the rhino will be very likely to screen for your assault troops for at least 2 turns. the post about not focusing your assaults on one target will help, if you hit the five squads with all the big guns, the rest of the shooting is no big deal. 


Start cranking new tactics, the assaults will be in your favor, and the blood will flow.


----------



## AlmightyKfish (Jun 28, 2008)

Although now the lack of consolidation means CC squads can get gunned down by half a shooty army, this is no different to 4 ed if you ever played shooty player with a brain who keeps his units apart.

And the run rule is a serious advantage if you think about it.

For example, with 'Nids (most purely CC army IMO).

Hormagaunts can now get to a unit 20" away in a turn.

Movement+FoC+Run+Leaping Assault. 

Using this movement you can engage the really shooty units that'll hurt you most first, sparing you a great deal of pain.

For Chaos, they have good enough armour to bear the brunt of a shooty army. 3+ saves go a long way. Also, they have enough armour to devastate an army prior to CC to let their squads survive,specially guard, as they have 'nid level saves. IE, Defiler/Land Raider. 

Although, on this note, Dark Eldar are royally screwed, as they basically needed consolidation to survive, and screening units can get wiped out by a good enough shooty army against DE's 5+ saves.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

AlmightyKfish said:


> Although, on this note, Dark Eldar are royally screwed, as they basically needed consolidation to survive, and screening units can get wiped out by a good enough shooty army against DE's 5+ saves.



That's why Dark eldar are in desperate need of an update.... Their play style was built around 3rd edition. Definitely not for 5th.....


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Lord Reevan said exactly what I was going to.
And if they update my Dark Eldar even half as well as they updated my Eldar, I shall be very happy, indeed!


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

Dark eldar done right will rule.... They ae spandex wearing sadist pirates after all...:biggrin:


----------



## Lax (Jun 16, 2008)

The more I read about V5 games and the more i'm relieved for my CC armies.
The fact is :
-An overboosted CC unit that cost an eye, will die in terrible sufferings if they annihilate the unit they're charging.
-A standard unit will not destroy a whole unit in one turn.

So, if you don't charge a low Lt unit, you have great chances to still be in CC in the ennemy turn and :
-In your turn, your unit is still engaged (can happen with SM I.E.)
-In your turn, your unit just got disengaged by winning, you can do what you want and start again from step 1 

V5 is aggro and violent, but it's up to CC players not to charge 3 men squads or low Lt ones, in the heart of ennemy's army.


----------



## Trignama (Jun 29, 2008)

Ok so no consolidation not a complete back breaker, cuz as other posts have stated a shooting army that is smart is going to dodge ur sweeping advances anyway

But i would like some clarification plz since i'm in iraq and have no access to a 5th edition book

What exactly is this new "movement rule and how does it work", and what is the new smoke rule for sm vehicles??

this may help my current negative attitude towards the new cc rules =)


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

Trignama said:


> Ok so no consolidation not a complete back breaker, cuz as other posts have stated a shooting army that is smart is going to dodge ur sweeping advances anyway
> 
> But i would like some clarification plz since i'm in iraq and have no access to a 5th edition book
> 
> ...


all normal infantry units in the game that move 6" may choose to instead of shooting "run" d6 inches in the shooting phase, they may not do this within 12 inches of the enemy, nor may they do this and then assault in the same turn, unless that have the fleet special rule in which case those restrictions do not apply.


----------



## Trignama (Jun 29, 2008)

Engelus said:


> all normal infantry units in the game that move 6" may choose to instead of shooting "run" d6 inches in the shooting phase, they may not do this within 12 inches of the enemy, nor may they do this and then assault in the same turn, unless that have the fleet special rule in which case those restrictions do not apply.



ahhh ok i see how this works now, well i guess that could make footslogging not so bad after all but still wouldnt be my preferred choice for trying to get cc units into cc, guess we are just going to have to play the los game after combat because lets face it, most shooting dedicated units arent going to last longer than the charge if a unit of sword brethren and a chaplain leading them charges into em =P


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Trignama said:


> what is the new smoke rule for sm vehicles??
> 
> this may help my current negative attitude towards the new cc rules =)


It ia for all vehicles w/ Smoke launchers or the equiv. It allows the vehicle to be obscured, granting a cover save.


----------



## necronleader (Jun 26, 2008)

AlmightyKfish said:


> Although now the lack of consolidation means CC squads can get gunned down by half a shooty army, this is no different to 4 ed if you ever played shooty player with a brain who keeps his units apart.
> 
> And the run rule is a serious advantage if you think about it.
> 
> ...


I thought there was a new rule that said you can run but can't assault afterwards? Do I have that wrong?:good:


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

fleet of anything will allow you to assault after running.

Im not sure what this FOC is though.


----------



## Trignama (Jun 29, 2008)

so since there is no combat after consiladation does this apply to us Black Templars as well with our righteous zeal? i would think yes?


----------



## necroman (Jun 13, 2008)

AlmightyKfish said:


> Although now the lack of consolidation means CC squads can get gunned down by half a shooty army, this is no different to 4 ed if you ever played shooty player with a brain who keeps his units apart.
> 
> And the run rule is a serious advantage if you think about it.
> 
> ...


I THINK YOU ADDED IT UP WRONG IT SHOULD BE "6 MOVE"+ 6"FLEET OF CLAW"+ 12" LEAPING, AS U DONT ADD RUN TO FLEET OF WHATEVER, YOU JUST GET TO CHARGE, SO ****-GAUNTS DONT GET ANY BETTER THAN BEFORE,
HEY DID ANY1 GET THE ****-GAUNT JOKE, :laugh: . HORMOGAUNTS JUST GOT SHAFTED WITH 5TH EDITION, OH YEAH. sorry for the caps lock


----------



## Lax (Jun 16, 2008)

To clear it :
-Run = 1D6 inches instead of shooting, no charge after it
-Fleet = 6 inches instead of shooting, you can charge after it

So run is a tactical move, to get in cover or if there is nothing to shoot at, not a CC oriented move.

On the other hand, a CC carniflex/prince or dreadnough will be able to travel 7-12 inches a turn instead of 6, that can be great.


----------



## Trignama (Jun 29, 2008)

Ya know the more i hear about 5th edition rules considering close combat, the more i think it favors cc rather than goes against it and heres why:

ok big kick in the teeth is the considilation rule

a. shouldnt matter to much anyway, if you were playing good shooty armies ur not gonna be able to get consoldition combats to much anyway

b. if you are depending soley on consilidation to get urself into combat you need to reconsider ur tactics

but the benifits i think outweigh the costs here i mean being able to move 7-12" on ur way up the table into cc is awesome, less turns of getting shot at that way... if ur taking transports and you use smoke launchers, ur vehicles are now obscured vs just only being able to be glanced, so now ur transports have more survivability

as for the consilidation rule, that can be easily over rided with a bit of common sense, using transports to block los so you dont get eatin after a combat, or bringing a shooting squad up with you to shoot down whatever units you arent in combat with to help minimize whatever possible shots further squads can rain on you.... little things like that really make the consilidation factor minimal, if it will even matter at all


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

Trignama said:


> Ya know the more i hear about 5th edition rules considering close combat, the more i think it favors cc rather than goes against it and heres why:
> 
> ok big kick in the teeth is the considilation rule
> 
> ...


I agree with that competely and that is a very good point.... One trick ponies are being phased out which is great....


----------



## chaos vince (Jun 10, 2008)

there are some great view on cc armies in 5th here and i'm starting to evolve a few tactics for my khorne army based on them plus a few of my own that i've gotten from playing a few games of 5th with the store copy that my local game store recieved. so far the basic tactics are going to be more smaller units to take advantage of transports and the new rule on scoring units(a troop unit counts as scoring down to the last man!) by reducing squad sizes i'll be able to field more units to hold objectives as well as assault more units and lower the chance that i'll obliterate squads that i assault. after all there are very few squads that can stand up to a charge from 15 or 20 beserkers(60 to 81 s5 ws5 i 5 attacks). looks like the days of 2 or 3 20 man squads are over. another thing is i'll probably end up using my heavy weapons for counter battery fire a lot more and end up going with h. support that can move and shoot.


----------



## Trignama (Jun 29, 2008)

ya know another thing i was thinking that could help too, if you have units that can cause pinning affects from shooting in ur army, those might really help to control enemy firing squads from raining death on you for winning combat


----------



## chaos vince (Jun 10, 2008)

a lot of armies don't have that much that causes pinning(chaos) and pinning isn't all that great against ld 10 armies anyway but i suppose every little bit helps


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

does the defiler's cannon cause pinning?


----------



## chaos vince (Jun 10, 2008)

nope, it used to, but since you can't fire it indirect any more it no longer causes pinning


----------



## Trignama (Jun 29, 2008)

chaos vince said:


> a lot of armies don't have that much that causes pinning(chaos) and pinning isn't all that great against ld 10 armies anyway but i suppose every little bit helps


well even without the affects of pinning a good commander isnt going to let a little rule stop him from breaking the backs of his opponents up close and personal like, as said many times before by the good posts on this thread, a little thinking outside of the box is going to make those shooty armies who thought they had a good advantage now, really think twice about taking us cc armies on =) if anything this rule may have just made us more formitable i can only imagine of what ppl are going to think of now i cant wait to see more ideas!


----------



## chaos vince (Jun 10, 2008)

never said it was going to stop me, i was just pointing out the weakness of using pinning weapons as a support tactic foor cc armies. as far as thinking outside the box, that was the whole purpose of the thread, to get ideas on cc tactics for 5th. cc armies did take some hits in the 5th edition rules but then again there are some good things for them to.


----------



## Trignama (Jun 29, 2008)

chaos vince said:


> never said it was going to stop me, i was just pointing out the weakness of using pinning weapons as a support tactic foor cc armies. as far as thinking outside the box, that was the whole purpose of the thread, to get ideas on cc tactics for 5th. cc armies did take some hits in the 5th edition rules but then again there are some good things for them to.


lol sorry man i didnt mean my last post as an attack on you, i guess think of it more as me just thinking and writing with no one in specific being targeted 

but you are right about the pinning armies with high LD will make that tactic useless again just an idea if even not the best


----------



## chaos vince (Jun 10, 2008)

no worries, besides the pinning tactic would work well for armies like guard who have tons of weapons that cause pinning. anyone will fail a pin check if you hit 'em with a ton of sniper weapons or indirect fire. i have a friend who does it really well with mortars


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Even ld 10 armies are not immune, only those that auto pass pinning checks. Since it requires wounds to force a pinning check, it is still worthwile, you just might not get the extra as often as you like, use pinning for d&d, and don't worry about it if it only causes casualties.


----------



## chaos vince (Jun 10, 2008)

totaly agee, guess i'm kinda prejudiced against it because i usualy play an army thats immune to pinning(95%fearless)


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

Isn't there a rule that broken squads running through another squad forces a leadership check on the second squad, or just flat out breaks it? that could be a big bonus for teh extreme loss penalties, instead of getting sweeping advanced they just run and break any squads they go through. which could prevent the entire rapidfired to death thing from happening in the first place.


----------



## bobafett012 (Jun 14, 2008)

Engelus said:


> Isn't there a rule that broken squads running through another squad forces a leadership check on the second squad, or just flat out breaks it? that could be a big bonus for teh extreme loss penalties, instead of getting sweeping advanced they just run and break any squads they go through. which could prevent the entire rapidfired to death thing from happening in the first place.


if your sauad is falling back due to a morale check and they run into another enemy squad they are immediatly destroyed.


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

bobafett012 said:


> if your sauad is falling back due to a morale check and they run into another enemy squad they are immediatly destroyed.



I never said enemy squad.

if your own broken squad runs through one of your own squad, it forces them to take a leadership test or also be broken.


----------



## chaos vince (Jun 10, 2008)

i think thats only in fantasy


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

it's a good idea though. it would add realism to falling back as seeing your own troops running straight at you frightened would discourage anyone..... bar maybe marines and ordos guys


----------



## bobafett012 (Jun 14, 2008)

Engelus said:


> I never said enemy squad.
> 
> if your own broken squad runs through one of your own squad, it forces them to take a leadership test or also be broken.


no, there is no such rule as that, or at least i couldn't find it in any way shape or form in the 4th edition rule book, nor have i ever heard of something similar to that other than if you fall back into enemy troops.


----------



## akiasura (Jun 13, 2008)

I would think space marines would just regroup automatically. I have heard rumors that in the new SM codex they are being equipped with a Bolter, a Bolt Pistol, "And they Shall Know No Fear", and some sort of combat doctrine. Like a training, not a piece of wargear. I wonder if it would include something like that?


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

this has nothing to do with space marines, I was just bringing up a point relevant to all close combat armies.

also, this is a 5th edition discussion thread, please dont answer with rules from 4th edition

I believe their is a rule that forces a leadership save on a squad if one of their own squads runs through their ranks. can someone confirm or disconfirm this based on the book, not speculate its interaction with some armies special rule.


----------



## DaemonsR'us (Jan 25, 2007)

As far as i know that rule is limited to WHF a panic test or something like that


----------

