PDA

View Full Version : No more consolidating into other units



shin'keiro
21-05-2008, 13:47
I couldn't find a discussion on this so ....

Following a discussion with my local GW manager, it has come to light that in 5th Ed. after destroying a unit in CC, there will be a consolidation move, BUT that move can't be used to engage any other units in CC..! so units are now left in the open after CC and have to dive some cover!

Wrath
21-05-2008, 13:48
old news..

Lardidar
21-05-2008, 13:52
Although this has been brought up in a few roundup threads it is still a pretty big change to the rules and will still be news to some people.

I like it, the addition of run has made people think this is the combat edition of the game ... well this evens things up somwhat.

I was watching a few games yesterday and this rule played a big part in the marines getting the victory over some khorne daemons, after butchering a 5 man tactical squad they just had to take a full turn of rapid fire and that thinned them nicely for a counter charge.

A good addition to the rules I think! :)

Draconian77
21-05-2008, 14:12
I'm also a big fan of this rule. Unless you manage to engage the enemy army at all points you will be taking return fire(Combats seem to end in 1 turn for me with this new everyone fights + new Ld modifiers)

It also makes speed bumps like the Gaunt shield or the Kroot wall much more viable.

Redrivertears
21-05-2008, 14:15
I've been surprised that people aren't paying more attention to this particular rumour. Playing mostly assault based armies, I can tell you this one is huge. It changes the dynamic of the assault game quite a bit.

Especially fragile hard hitting elite units (harlequins, wyches, incubi, genestealers) will feel the influence quite a bit. Basically it means that if these units win the first round of combat, they can expect to be blown to bits on the next turn, especially against a mobile opponent.

Run often doesn't mean much to these units, since they have either fleet or transports already. Other things like the toning down of rending or the ability to kill the specialist with the power weapon/agoniser/etc with a lucky hit will make these sort of assault specialists a lot less effective.

I keep hearing that 5th edition will be the assault edition. That might be true if you play orks, but rumours like these seem to indicate that for many armies, the reverse might be the case.

-Redrivertears-

lorbaat
21-05-2008, 14:19
Although this has been brought up in a few roundup threads it is still a pretty big change to the rules and will still be news to some people.

For example, I hadn't heard it- and as a Black Templar player, it's pretty big news.

It makes winning the combat on your opponent's Assault phase even more critical. Of course, with everyone having counter-charge, and with outnumbering applying to Ld checks as a direct modifier... most combats probably won't last more than a turn.

Draconian77
21-05-2008, 14:22
Outnumbering isn't the big issue IIRC. Combat res is kills - casualties so any dediated combat unit normally ends up winning by about 5 and the enemy just breaks...

Doctor Thunder
21-05-2008, 14:40
I've been surprised that people aren't paying more attention to this particular rumour.
Probably because it is very like false. The leaked PDF's say you can't consolidate into a locked unit, but you can consolidate into unlocked units, so it's pretty easy to see where this rumor got started and that it is based on a partial skim rather than a careful reading.

Marshal Augustine
21-05-2008, 14:57
As a Black Templar player this rule means that I will have to make alot of ammends to strategy. I am always up for a good challenge. It also means that Righteus Zeal cant be used to "steal" someones charge. It will mean that Larger squads on more than one front will be a given have to. But you can always hope that the enemy holds out for a turn and then dies in their own turn..

I guess its back to basics!

AgeOfEgos
21-05-2008, 14:59
Probably because it is very like false. The leaked PDF's say you can't consolidate into a locked unit, but you can consolidate into unlocked units, so it's pretty easy to see where this rumor got started and that it is based on a partial skim rather than a careful reading.

Actually the current incantation is the exact opposite:

You may consolidate into locked units (Pile on existing combat)
You may not consolidate into unlocked units (No more elite unit checkers across a guard army)

It makes sense, as every rule I've read thus far encourages combats to be short, bloody affairs. I'm sure they've witnessed the 4 round close combats that happen in 4th and are as tired of it as players.

bassmasterliam
21-05-2008, 15:20
I shocked that people haven't been talking about this more (God i hate threads thats start "how unfair" or "this rule will ruin the game") this seems like one of the bigger rule changes.

I think this is a great rule because now you have to send in all your units not just one combat monkey unit eg harlinquins who will be victim to return fire and counter charges.

too many times have i been charged by harlies, and they kill half my army because of consilidation moves before i can bring the force to kill them.

All is well says Eris

Marshal Augustine
21-05-2008, 15:22
there was much concern among gun line armies that due to the fact that run would make assault units converge in them faster... but this balances things out alot!.. that consolidation move will have to be used to get into cover!

Pootleflump
21-05-2008, 15:36
Or march on toward the enemy with faith in your armour and the emperor!

nathonicus
21-05-2008, 15:44
If this is true, then purely from an imaginative standpoint I really like it. Since assaults are taken to include close range fire, grenade tossing, and actually hand to hand, it makes sense that after an engagement the unit needs to get it's bearings, reload weapons, ready new grenades, and prepare for a new assault. I've always been dismayed when an assault unit manages to roll up. slaughter a unit, then move 6" into a second unit. What was that second unit doing the whole time, just standing there?

Draconian77
21-05-2008, 15:55
Truly! You think they would be tossing some grenades into the melee(Guard example)

Anyway, I feel the rule is well balanced and encourages people to have a couple of short range firefight units ready to deal with these assaulters. Like I mentioned earlier I also think screens will be much more useful. No longer will the wall-o-kroot have to stand 61/2 inches away from the Broadsides.

Lardidar
21-05-2008, 16:13
Probably because it is very like false. The leaked PDF's say you can't consolidate into a locked unit, but you can consolidate into unlocked units, so it's pretty easy to see where this rumor got started and that it is based on a partial skim rather than a careful reading.

Erm, I read it in the final print fully bound hard copy of the rulebook.

This is not a rumor it is a stone cold fact.

Lord Inquisitor
21-05-2008, 16:25
While I agree that this is probably a good thing for the game - I've been at the receiving end of the eternally-consolidating Azrael+command - it still results in a rather unfortunate "game" side effect.

In most wargames, a charger has an incentive to destroy the enemy as thoroughly as possible - and rolling into new units is one way of doing that. In fantasy, charging and overrunning into a fresh enemy can be game-winning.

But with the new 40K rules if you can engage an elite unit like Deathwing Terminators into a weaker unit, the incentive will be to charge but not kill the enemy. In the 4th ed rules, for example, said Terminators can deactive their powerfists and just kick the enemy, confident that their armour and Fearlessness will prevent any real damage from taking the enemy's return attacks. Then in their turn, activate your powerfists and splat! Wipe out the enemy, consolidate and you're free to move off in your turn.

While the mental image of Termiantors using guarsdmen as human shields is entertaining, there's something wrong if I'm trying to keep the enemy alive if possible when I charge...

Starchild
21-05-2008, 16:25
Especially fragile hard hitting elite units (harlequins, wyches, incubi, genestealers) will feel the influence quite a bit.Hit & Run will be more useful. Being able to jump out of a combat and into/behind cover will allow certain assault units to survive a bit longer.

Redrivertears
21-05-2008, 17:51
Assuming there is still a combat going on. If an assault unit kills the enemy in a single turn, they won't be able to hit and run, and can only stand there like sitting ducks :)

-Redrivertears-

Doctor Thunder
21-05-2008, 17:55
While the mental image of Termiantors using guarsdmen as human shields is entertaining, there's something wrong if I'm trying to keep the enemy alive if possible when I charge...
Couldn't you just charge two units at one, putting only a couple models on the second unit, so that it will stay and prolong the combat?

mchmr6677
21-05-2008, 18:04
Assuming there is still a combat going on. If an assault unit kills the enemy in a single turn, they won't be able to hit and run, and can only stand there like sitting ducks :)

-Redrivertears-

Agreed, Hit and Run will not change much from what it is now. It is a way of extracting yourself from combat in your opponent's Assault Phase so that you can manuver and assault again on your next turn. Alot of care will be taken in target and casaulity selection. CC still blocks LOS so if you can consolidate behind another CC you will have a chance to avoid the return fire. The rule is basically a benefit for a nid player like me who assaults with my entire force instead of just using the CC experts (lictors, raveners, and stealers). CC will be vicious and quick.

For the gunline armies out there, higher ground and tarpit squads (even ones you know will be annilated like IG squads) are going to be your best friends. Put some skirmishers out there that get charged and then blast away at the enemy when they win the CC.

electricblooz
21-05-2008, 18:14
For the gunline armies out there, higher ground and tarpit squads (even ones you know will be annilated like IG squads) are going to be your best friends. Put some skirmishers out there that get charged and then blast away at the enemy when they win the CC.

Unfortunately, the current build structure of the IG makes this ... difficult. Overpriced at 6pts a piece, putting guardsmen out as speed bumps is a loosing strategy.

If the IG get any love in their new codex, the 1 to 1 restriction on conscripts will be lifted and we will be able to field multiple 10-man conscript squads armed with a single flamer. Ignore at your own risk. HA!

Egge
21-05-2008, 18:24
Balanced armies gets punished. An army with one or two elite CC units will get shot up after the first CC. Extreme armies with only CC units won't lose as much but a Nid army with a ravener unit and one unit of stealers along with some small fishes will instead be several units of raveners and genestealers.

I think the game is more fun when the armies are balanced from the different choices from an codex. Some shooty support, some advancing infantry, an advancing assault tank, and flanking anti-infantry unit, a fast hitting assault unit and some Troop choices with some variety of roles in the army. This does not help, in my opinion.

Shooty armies won't need even counter-charge units anymore. They just take more shooty stuff and when CC start to happen - make sure that the opponent can only charge one unit and then the enemy CC units are dead.

shin'keiro
21-05-2008, 18:43
Couldn't you just charge two units at one, putting only a couple models on the second unit, so that it will stay and prolong the combat?

This tactic seems one of the best ideas... charging 2 or 3 units at once !!

Lord Inquisitor
21-05-2008, 18:57
Charging two units is easier said than done!

However, the point is still that you are rewarded for trying to prolong the combat. In "realism" terms an attacker should try to assault and destroy the enemy as decisively as possible, surely? This is something of an issue now (I know I've deactivated my power weapons on the charge to try and avoid being stuck out in the open if I wipe out or rout my enemy!) but this is going to be much more of an issue in 5th as you'll always want to do this... The flip side is that if you get charged by powerful assault troops, you are almost always going to want to FAIL your leadership test.

So, if an elite combat unit charges a out-classed enemy, the charger absolutely does not want to kill or rout the enemy on the charge, while the defending player very much wants them to fail their leadership test and flee.

That doesn't seem right!

Bloodknight
21-05-2008, 19:02
Exactly. In some way it is like that now already. As an example I will bring IG with the die hards doctrine. That doctrine lets you ignore being outnumbered in the current rules and therefore keeps your LD high when you lose combat, and it costs a few points per squad. The problem with it is that it is actually detrimental to your army to use it because it will make your guys stay in combat and die in your turn, freeing up the opponent in his next turn. Why would one want that? Under the new rules I see even more Guard players not using their officer's LD (it's not mandatory) once the enemy hits the line to let the guys break as fast as he can.

Lord Inquisitor
21-05-2008, 19:21
To play devil's advocate however (and I realise you agreed with me so that's tantamount to having an argument with myself over the internet)... I find the idea of wanting to flee less irritating than the idea that the attacker doesn't want to kill the defender.

After all, you can imagine an Inquisitor trying to order Death Corps to flee from those Khorne Bezerkers so his plasma-cannon wielding servitors can get a clean shot!

Perhaps the solution would be to grant some other advantage for killing your enemy on the charge. In Fantasy it's the overrun, but in 40K it could be something like a Morale Check for all units with 12" or something.

Sarigar
21-05-2008, 19:27
If I understand it correctly, every unit you assault will get a 'counter attack' move as well. Therefore, instead of trying to prolong the assault, you could have just put your unit in more peril as the other unit jumps completely into the fray and gets a lot of attacks against you.

Very situational.

kadun
21-05-2008, 23:37
So, if an elite combat unit charges a out-classed enemy, the charger absolutely does not want to kill or rout the enemy on the charge, while the defending player very much wants them to fail their leadership test and flee.

That doesn't seem right!
Yeah but why doesn't he want to rout the enemy on the charge? Because the remainder of the enemy army behind the charged unit will annihilate it on the following turn right? So essentially the elite unit was charging the entire enemy army on its own. That doesn't seem right.

shin'keiro
22-05-2008, 01:49
So, if an elite combat unit charges a out-classed enemy, the charger absolutely does not want to kill or rout the enemy on the charge, while the defending player very much wants them to fail their leadership test and flee.

That doesn't seem right!

Agreed - it all seems back to front with this new rule.

Hellebore
22-05-2008, 01:58
The rules also do not facilitate clipping units, because everyone now has the Counter Charge special rule.

So all units are going to be engaged as thoroughly as possible whether you want them to be or not.


Hellebore

xinsanityx
22-05-2008, 01:59
Looks like we're going to see very heavy shooting or very heavy assault base armies. There's just not much reason for anything inbetween.

If you take a balanced list and you run into someone that can outshoot you(which will happen half the time with a balanced list) then your assaulters will have to go toward the enemy. But, when your assaulters get there, they'll usually only kill one unit a piece and get shot up. You'll need as many assaulting units as possible to be effective. An assault force that is small, or fragile just won't stand up, so you'll need to take out the points you spent on shooting and add more assaulters.

If you face an army that has more assaulting power than you you'll simply need more shooting now that they can all run at you. You'll effectively be losing 1 turn of shooting in the new edition. This is helped out by the new consolidate rule, but if they have enough assaulting units to tie up multiple squads of yours it won't help you out any. They could also just assault your close combat units and therefore have less chance of wiping them out or winning by huge numbers. Then you won't even get a chance to shoot at them again, all because you tried to sprinkle in a few assault units into your shooting force. You'd be better off spending your points on more shooting units instead of those Close combat specialists.

DullMentalRacket
22-05-2008, 02:30
another thing to keep in mind when playing mathhammer....they've suggested a lot of terrain for 5th, guardsmen will most likely be hugging that terrain, and will most likely offer some good cover for the assault'ers once they're done with said IG.

Carefully choosing your assaults will be a good part of the tactics of 5th.

Kaldaris
22-05-2008, 04:31
Well, with all these buffs to assault and Tau being somewhat nerfed in 5th Ed. The removal of consolidation assaults almost make it worthwhile.

I think my Tau Kroot can die happy now:)...

Although as mentioned, this will probably just drive people to play on extreme ends of the shoot/assault spectrum :rolleyes:.

Zephyr_Azure
22-05-2008, 05:48
just need to check, but is a unit allowed to assault more than one squad in 5th edition?

cause i remember for the longest time me and my group of friends thought we could until like last month when we played at the local GW and the manager pointed out we were playing it wrong.

Warlord Gnashgrod
22-05-2008, 06:11
I'll admit the rule seems rather strange, but that's no different than many of the other weird rules 5th ed is going to bring us(defensive weapons s4 only, etc)

I actually like this rule. Now the more shooty-oriented amies(Tau, IG) have somewhat of a chance on the battlefield, instead of just getting swept away in hth.

theshadowduke
22-05-2008, 06:18
I'm still hoping for charge reactions.

Go go IG stand and shoot.

Kallbrand
22-05-2008, 06:19
How do you figure Chaos demons will be able to handle this? All other assult armies have options but throw out T3 5+ saves into the open and you will see those rippy lasguns turn the whole army into bloody pulp.

Hellebore
22-05-2008, 06:22
I'll admit the rule seems rather strange, but that's no different than many of the other weird rules 5th ed is going to bring us(defensive weapons s4 only, etc)

I actually like this rule. Now the more shooty-oriented amies(Tau, IG) have somewhat of a chance on the battlefield, instead of just getting swept away in hth.

The problem is that assault units are almost always poor shooting units. Thus they are only of use in melee.

Expensive units like genestealers and harlequins will probably kill all of ONE squad before they are destroyed because of these rules.

There is just no way that they are going to survive a whole round standing 6" from enemy units with their thumbs in their butts.

The only way to prevent them dying is to either pin all enemy units or have so many assault units that ALL the enemy units are in combat and thus can't shoot your unengaged units.

I'm having difficulty seeing how to use fragile CC units with these rules, because they just won't survive...

Hellebore

Warlord Gnashgrod
22-05-2008, 06:27
True, Hellebore. But I feel it's about time that shooty armies get a little love for a change.

40K has emphasized hth way too much for way too long. it's enough to make one wonder why there are even guns in the game in the first place.

Warlord Gnashgrod
22-05-2008, 06:28
Besides, let face it. GW only really cares about Space Marines. It seems to me that all these rules favor them the most. Coincidence? I think not.

Kettilman
22-05-2008, 06:29
just need to check, but is a unit allowed to assault more than one squad in 5th edition?

cause i remember for the longest time me and my group of friends thought we could until like last month when we played at the local GW and the manager pointed out we were playing it wrong.

You CAN assault more than one unit in the current rules, you have to keep coherency though.

Hellebore
22-05-2008, 06:33
True, Hellebore. But I feel it's about time that shooty armies get a little love for a change.

40K has emphasized hth way too much for way too long. it's enough to make one wonder why there are even guns in the game in the first place.

So you can wave it ineffectually in the air whilst slicing your opponent's head off with a chainsaw?:D

There's nothing wrong with making shooting king, but that would then require that assault units drop in price due to their lower utility.

hellebore

Plebian
22-05-2008, 06:36
As has already been pointed out, both shooty and assault are getting buffs. Big, swollen buffs. This is like turning the bass and treble all the way up on your stereo-it drowns out the mid. This may be the worst aspect of 5th edition, the polarizing of the armies. I am a shooty fan myself, but more than anything I am a balance fan. And 5th seems to be all about disrupting the balance.

lorbaat
22-05-2008, 14:28
As has already been pointed out, both shooty and assault are getting buffs. Big, swollen buffs. This is like turning the bass and treble all the way up on your stereo-it drowns out the mid. This may be the worst aspect of 5th edition, the polarizing of the armies. I am a shooty fan myself, but more than anything I am a balance fan. And 5th seems to be all about disrupting the balance.

If they're both getting "buffs", as you put it, wouldn't mixing both also be stronger?

In fact, wouldn't it be worse for "balance" if only one got "buffed"?

Keichi246
22-05-2008, 14:40
Actually, as far as I can tell, what this means is that CC specialists will just have to be FAR more selective in what they charge.

"Hey diddle diddle, straight up the middle" is gonna get you a dead enemy unit, and then a dead CC unit as the enemy unleashes hell into you at close range. Now, you are going to want to either mass CC units at the point of atack, or make sure you hit a unit that ISN'T in easy supporting range of his buddies.

Also realize that shooting armies will want to spread out more so they are not blocking each other's fire lanes and giving the enemy free cover saves. So there may not be as many "close support" shooting units available to avenge their buddies deaths.

Basically - this rule has made the choice of when and where you want to attack more tactical than it has in the past two editions. Where a close combat unit could charge almost anybody but another close combat unit and be in a happy place....

Mulciber
22-05-2008, 15:34
I'd like to reiterate some things already mentioned and mention a few other things.

Firstly, how terrible are your opponents that you are able to consolidate into new units against them now? I haven't been able to consolidate into a fresh unit that my opponent didn't want me to get to at a tourney or group play in 3 years.

Yes this means that my opponents can bunch together more now. With new 'true LOS' rules. Shooting through your own models becomes impossible. If those models partially conceal an enemy, they get cover saves. If two units pack together but remain shoulder to shoulder to circumvent this rule, then they oen themselves up to dual charges.

The best way to put it is, this rule has added safety to keeping units close together, but there are no incentives in 5th edition to encourage this bunch-togetherness. Which means as far as game balance is concerned, very little will change.

What do we gain from this rule? This single change of rules has a massive stabilizing effect on the assault section of the rulebook. Now, every combat begins as charger/charged. The rule about being able to allocate attacks only to an ongoing combat, and not to new chargers, gets more clear. It will make the countercharge rule much more clear as to when it will trigger. Ugly, long chained combats will be gone. All combats will have the benefit of full consolidation moves prior to rolling hits.

Doctor Thunder
22-05-2008, 16:45
Firstly, how terrible are your opponents that you are able to consolidate into new units against them now? I haven't been able to consolidate into a fresh unit that my opponent didn't want me to get to at a tourney or group play in 3 years.

Really? How far are they spacing them apart, because I regularly can consolidate into new units even when they're ten inches apart from each other.

Lord Inquisitor
22-05-2008, 17:04
I regularly consolidate into fresh units. But I agree that it is not necessarily a bad thing, just different. Bearing in mind that the guard players are screaming the exact opposite - that things like "run" are going to turn this into the melee-edition of 40K.

But none of this really gets around the wierdness of not wanting to kill the enemy on the charge. Does anyone know if in the new rulebook you'll still be allowed to deactivate your combat special rules such as power weapons?

As noted, since clipping will be effectively removed by the counter-charge rule (another tactic to prevent your unit from slaughtering the enemy on the charge is to clip the enemy unit by only getting one model into base-contact - easy enough to do with a bit of practice), it IS going to be harder to keep the enemy alive.

Gaftra
22-05-2008, 17:57
If they're both getting "buffs", as you put it, wouldn't mixing both also be stronger?

In fact, wouldn't it be worse for "balance" if only one got "buffed"?

what i think this statement says, and i agree, is that the game is become more polarized. units that a good at only shooting OR assault get drastically better while utilitarian units suffer somewhat for not being able to maximize either ability.

if you accept this as truth then marines would actually get somewhat WORSE under these conditions as opposed to troop choices which are dedicated to assault troops, bezerkers ect., or shooting units like dire avengers or tau. sort of the old "jack of all trades" scenario.

Rosicrucian
22-05-2008, 18:11
what i think this statement says, and i agree, is that the game is become more polarized. units that a good at only shooting OR assault get drastically better while utilitarian units suffer somewhat for not being able to maximize either ability.

if you accept this as truth then marines would actually get somewhat WORSE under these conditions as opposed to troop choices which are dedicated to assault troops, bezerkers ect., or shooting units like dire avengers or tau. sort of the old "jack of all trades" scenario.

Well if I understand it correctly the new ATSKNF allowing you to automatically fail the post-combat morale role is potentially very powerful. It means shooty marines can more reliably ensure that chargers will be open to retaliatory fire on the following turn. This should help them out.

Meriwether
22-05-2008, 18:16
Hooray for the return of the primacy of the gun. It's been missing in 40K for a good while, and it's nice to see it coming back -- at least to some degree. Melee combat is fun, but it's really taken over the game in the past two editions.

Meri

Plebian
22-05-2008, 19:47
if you accept this as truth then marines would actually get somewhat WORSE under these conditions as opposed to troop choices which are dedicated to assault troops, bezerkers ect., or shooting units like dire avengers or tau. sort of the old "jack of all trades" scenario.

And not only that, but taking a large number of said "polarized" troops will become a necessity. You will need to be all shooty or all assault. There will be no middle ground:(

mchmr6677
22-05-2008, 19:54
And not only that, but taking a large number of said "polarized" troops will become a necessity. You will need to be all shooty or all assault. There will be no middle ground:(

This is not at all true. To be truely balanced, you will need to take multiple shooty units and multiple CC units. The tactics will decide who wins if the army is actually balanced and not the 'I have two elite assault units and a bunch of shooty troop units as support'.

Dynamic manuvering is the name of the game.

Kirasu
22-05-2008, 20:27
I dont understand how this is any different from NOT making it into a new assault in 4th? Plenty of armies are balanced and win quite well

You roll 1 just as much as a 6 and not every opponent stacks up their units so you can consolidate down the line yet people still only use 1 or 2 assault units

Currently if you roll a 1 for consolidation do you just pack up and go home? Its actually fairly useful to know you wont get to consolidate into a new unit and you can plan accordingly.. 100% shooty or 100% armies have NEVER done very well, no reason they'll fair any better now

Objectives are the name of the game and assaults will get them off those objectives pretty quickly.. What if there is only 1 unit around? Come on lets not ebay all our armies based on extremely shallow theory hammer

Zoom your cheap vehicles up to block LOS then assault and hide behind them

Brucopeloso
23-05-2008, 10:10
Some points to consider:
1) In real life units that charge ahead unsupported often end up in serious trouble
2) Friendly units and ongoing cc block LoS thus the amount of fire after cc can be minimized

I will have to review my tactics big time as I tend to play balanced armies however I think this rules encourage careful tactical play and good army selection.

Lorieth
23-05-2008, 11:10
So you can wave it ineffectually in the air whilst slicing your opponent's head off with a chainsaw?:D


No, no, it's so you can get an extra attack in CC. Every squaddie knows pistols are better than GPMGs. ;)

Back on topic, what I really like about this is it finally makes the short-range firefight build more viable. GW touted it as a great new innovation, but until now it's always been crippled by the assault rules since if you were in short/rapid-fire range you were about to be charged, and if your other units were close enough to pick off any enemy survivors they were probably close enough to be consolidated into. At least now they get a turn of firing to even things up, and most of the short-range weapons are quite nasty.

Does anyone know whether Hit & Run has had any changes in 5th? It strikes me that if GW allowed it to work at the end of any assault phase (i.e. even on a "massacre" result) then that would help the handful of elite CC units that might suffer from this unduly.


Some points to consider:
2) Friendly units and ongoing cc block LoS thus the amount of fire after cc can be minimized


This is an excellent point, though I understand friendly squads won't block LOS completely just grant you a 4+ cover save. Still it limits the amount of incoming fire your CC unit will receive dramatically.

ReveredChaplainDrake
23-05-2008, 13:24
My Tyranids actually like this rule (when used in concert with other 5th ed changes). Yeah you heard me right, we like it.

For one thing, it makes things far more fair. It seemed to me that my Tyranids were far too boring to play against gunline armies. They'd shoot me for a few turns, and then I hit them, utterly incapacitating them in a matter of minutes. Of course, my opponents are under the misconception that gunlines are good against horde Tyranids, but I digress.

For another thing, put the shoe on the other foot. The enemy just charged into my Zoanthrope and cracked its egg-head open. And my Gaunts are within what would have been massacre distance in 5th. What usually happens is my Zoanthrope gets charged, it dies, and the enemy assault unit massacres into my Gaunts, thus taking a huge sting out of a potential counterattack. In 5th edition, those chargers will be hung out to dry, where my Gaunts then unload shooting onto them (making use of all those pretty TLed / Living Ammo upgrades that Gaunt guns got in 4th edition) before unleashing their own charge. The door swings both ways, but I care a whole lot less about losing a squad of Gaunts than the enemy would care about losing a squad of Harlies or Berserkers.

lorbaat
23-05-2008, 13:29
what i think this statement says, and i agree, is that the game is become more polarized. units that a good at only shooting OR assault get drastically better while utilitarian units suffer somewhat for not being able to maximize either ability.

if you accept this as truth then marines would actually get somewhat WORSE under these conditions as opposed to troop choices which are dedicated to assault troops, bezerkers ect., or shooting units like dire avengers or tau. sort of the old "jack of all trades" scenario.

I guess the problem is, I don't buy it. The standard 15-point Marine is a jack of all trades now, and he'll be a jack of all trades in 5th to the same degree. Perhaps slightly kinked towards shooting with ATSKNF the way it is, although there's nothing stopping an Assault unit from falling back only to assault again, I suppose.

But compare them to those "dedicated" examples even now, and they're not as good; I don't think making either game stronger weakens the Marine comparatively. He's still got the high all-around stats to engage weaker foes at their game without being specialized for it, or to capitalize on opportunity where available. Now assume that the standard 15 point Marine will be kitted out with all the same gear as the Chaos Space Marine...

don_mondo
23-05-2008, 13:36
just need to check, but is a unit allowed to assault more than one squad in 5th edition?

cause i remember for the longest time me and my group of friends thought we could until like last month when we played at the local GW and the manager pointed out we were playing it wrong.

The GW Manager was wrong. I'd recommend you point out the paragraph on page 36 that starts "A unit may charge multiple enemy units........" to him.


Really? How far are they spacing them apart, because I regularly can consolidate into new units even when they're ten inches apart from each other.

?? Just how do you manage this given that the maximum consolidate move is 6". We're talking consolidate, not pile-in.

shin'keiro
23-05-2008, 13:38
just need to check, but is a unit allowed to assault more than one squad in 5th edition?



yes they are.

Lord Inquisitor
23-05-2008, 15:17
what i think this statement says, and i agree, is that the game is become more polarized. units that a good at only shooting OR assault get drastically better while utilitarian units suffer somewhat for not being able to maximize either ability.

And not only that, but taking a large number of said "polarized" troops will become a necessity. You will need to be all shooty or all assault. There will be no middle ground:(

I'm not too sure I agree here.

Take my Noise Marines, arguably the most versatile troops in the galaxy (with a points cost to match). I can move-and-fire with the firepower of terminators, I can stand-and-shoot with 50% more firepower and can still assault with the punch of an I5 assault squad. They're jack-of-all-trades, but that means that I can assess the tactical situation on it's merits and if an assault is viable I can assault - but if it is going to leave me as sitting ducks I can let riff with everything I've got and stay in cover.

Surely dedicated assault units like Death Company or Bezerkers or Banshees are going to be more affected - you have to get them in assault. If you don't they're either being useless or going to get shot to crap anyway.

On the flip side, these units have gotten a boost by being able to run, so it's not all bad.

The problem is not that I think it's unbalanced, just that it is a mechanic that means that in most cases the attacker doesn't want to kill the defender and the defender is going to want to run away!


I dont understand how this is any different from NOT making it into a new assault in 4th? Plenty of armies are balanced and win quite well
It isn't different at all. It is an oddity of the yougoIgo system that if I charge an inferior enemy unit I don't want to kill them outright and there have been a number of ways of achieving it (clipping the enemy unit, keeping your IC out of base contact, deactivating power weapons, etc). This isn't so much of a game issue - actually pulling this off requires some skill and forethought - but of a feel issue: surely my chargers should try to obliterate the enemy as much as possible?

The counter-charge is going to eliminate some of these tactics but the change in the rules means that the above issues will crop up more often. If nothing else, I'm going to be rolling the dice and wishing my termiantors to miss, which just doesn't feel right.

The game will be more balanced if anything, but will feel wonky.


?? Just how do you manage this given that the maximum consolidate move is 6". We're talking consolidate, not pile-in.
Your assaults can be arranged to make the assaulting troops as close to the secondary enemy unit as you can get (especially if you have troops that can't make it into base contact, you can move them to support their buddies and bring them closer to the secondary target). Obviously the maximum consolidate is 6", but it can be achieved against enemy units that are more than 6" apart.

don_mondo
23-05-2008, 17:09
Really? How far are they spacing them apart, because I regularly can consolidate into new units even when they're ten inches apart from each other.


?? Just how do you manage this given that the maximum consolidate move is 6". We're talking consolidate, not pile-in.



Your assaults can be arranged to make the assaulting troops as close to the secondary enemy unit as you can get (especially if you have troops that can't make it into base contact, you can move them to support their buddies and bring them closer to the secondary target). Obviously the maximum consolidate is 6", but it can be achieved against enemy units that are more than 6" apart.

Agreed, but not 10". Assuming standard bases, the max possible while still having the models all engaged with the initial enemy is 9.something inches. Model btb with enemy, friendly models within 2", that gives us 3.something inches then a possible 6" massacre result.

Meriwether
23-05-2008, 17:29
That's if all of the friendly models were engaged -- something that doesn't necessarily happen, especially with large squads like orks or gaunts.

Meri

Doctor Thunder
23-05-2008, 18:30
Agreed, but not 10". Assuming standard bases, the max possible while still having the models all engaged with the initial enemy is 9.something inches. Model btb with enemy, friendly models within 2", that gives us 3.something inches then a possible 6" massacre result.
Guys, it's easy, just charge diagonally instead of straight on and string out the last few models during the movement phase so that even after moving six inches towards the target during the assault phase they'll still be in coherency but will only be 1.5 inches from another enemy unit. With larger squads you can do it even farther. Stinging out a large ork or gaunt squad, for example, can allow you to consolidate into another enemy unit 20 inches away.

This also works great for blocking a LOT of LOS.

Mulciber
23-05-2008, 19:21
Where your models are has no bearing on how far those models can move. If your opponent can see those models, he can move his units more than 6" away from them. If he didn't he has made a poor decision, or he doesn't care if you consolidate into them.

Note that i did not say i didn't get any consolidate moves that contacted enemy models. I said I didn't get any that my opponent didn't want me to get.

If you make a consolidate move, and your opponent yells "oh my god! I didn't see that, I'm screwed, good game man." Then he has made a massive mental error, and counting on massive player error as your "strategy" isn't going to get you far.

If you pull your tape out to measure your consolidate, and your opponent coolly replies "yep thats in range, go ahead and move them" He has probably counted the combat out and has timed this next combat to end on your turn. He likely doesn't care that you've just "power moved" your single assault unit.

Fist of Crimson
23-05-2008, 19:30
Firstly, I really like how you get punished for an isolated assault. If a unit gets ahead of the battle line without support it should be splattered across the landscape.

Secondly, I really dislike how useless counter assault units will be. Why spend points on counter assault units when you can just buy another shooty squad to deal with enemy cc units after they consolidate.
This sort of promotes the gunline army which I hate playing with and against (I find them boring) and I just love the idea of the heroic charge to clear the lines.

It will force more intelligent assaults than we currently see which is a good thing.

It will be interesting to see if this changes the squad sizes people run. I'd be inclined to min all shooty squads if I know my opponent is a combat army to make sure no assaults drag on into my turn.

The thing I hate the most is that there is no bonus for mauling a unit quickly and decisively.
My initial thought would be to force a leadership check if you want to consolidate into another unit with modifiers related to how many models you just killed to represent the difficulty of re-organising your troops for a co-ordinated follow up.

My thoughts for what they are worth.
Good thread guys/gals. Lots of intelligent points.

Lord Inquisitor
23-05-2008, 19:46
Secondly, I really dislike how useless counter assault units will be. Why spend points on counter assault units when you can just buy another shooty squad to deal with enemy cc units after they consolidate.
Well, you could end up in a situation where that last guy in a squad that's been charged unreasonably refuses to die or run meaning that you are prevented from shooting the squad. A counter-charge unit would be useful then.

Plus, you can alway shoot them AND charge them with your counter-charge unit... :D


The thing I hate the most is that there is no bonus for mauling a unit quickly and decisively.
My initial thought would be to force a leadership check if you want to consolidate into another unit with modifiers related to how many models you just killed to represent the difficulty of re-organising your troops for a co-ordinated follow up.
Agreed.

Actually, thinking about it...

Wouldn't it make sense that if you actually charge an enemy unit and wipe them out to a man, you should be allowed to consolidate into fresh enemy, but if you merely break them (even if you cut them down) you shouldn't?

That way, a vicious charge that just cuts their way through an enemy unit can follow through into fresh enemy, while if the enemy break and run the chargers are still going to be dealing with routed enemy and might well kill the last one and find themselves staring down the gun barrels of the rest of the enemy army!

mchmr6677
23-05-2008, 19:57
Agreed.

Actually, thinking about it...

Wouldn't it make sense that if you actually charge an enemy unit and wipe them out to a man, you should be allowed to consolidate into fresh enemy, but if you merely break them (even if you cut them down) you shouldn't?

That way, a vicious charge that just cuts their way through an enemy unit can follow through into fresh enemy, while if the enemy break and run the chargers are still going to be dealing with routed enemy and might well kill the last one and find themselves staring down the gun barrels of the rest of the enemy army!

This is very true and, I'm sure, the reason behind overrun in fantasy. Rewarding a unit for overwelming its foe in one charge should be added to the game. But all other consolidations should just be 3". There is no reason that kicking over the last man after fighting a three phase combat should be the same as if the fight lasted just one phase and was totally one sided. I agree as well that a difference should be made between killing all the enemies and sweeping advancing them. Running down the enemy takes time. Killing him were he stands doesn't...

Doctor Thunder
23-05-2008, 19:59
Where your models are has no bearing on how far those models can move. If your opponent can see those models, he can move his units more than 6" away from them. If he didn't he has made a poor decision, or he doesn't care if you consolidate into them.


Hey man, I was just trying to help you out here so that you can preform better on the tabletop. If you don't want to be helped then that if fine, but just so you know, some of us do it almost every game, and our opponents are not unskilled. If you change your mind later and want to learn how to do it, let me know.

Lord Inquisitor
23-05-2008, 20:05
This is very true and, I'm sure, the reason behind overrun in fantasy. Rewarding a unit for overwelming its foe in one charge should be added to the game. But all other consolidations should just be 3". There is no reason that kicking over the last man after fighting a three phase combat should be the same as if the fight lasted just one phase and was totally one sided. I agree as well that a difference should be made between killing all the enemies and sweeping advancing them. Running down the enemy takes time. Killing him were he stands doesn't...

Thinking about this some more, a more elegant solution could be made. Most people actually assumed that Massacre moves could only be made if the enemy were wiped out to a man. What if that were the rule?

- If a unit wipes out an enemy to a man on the same turn it charges, it may make a massacre move. In all other cases if the unit finds itself no longer in combat (if the enemy flees or is cut down) it may only consolidate (3").
- No moving within 1" of enemy when consolidating, but massacre moves may be used to engage new enemy units.

mchmr6677
23-05-2008, 20:21
I would whole-heartedly support such a rule. Should it be just if you succeed on the first round of combat or is that too limiting?

Fist of Crimson
23-05-2008, 20:24
Thinking about this some more, a more elegant solution could be made. Most people actually assumed that Massacre moves could only be made if the enemy were wiped out to a man. What if that were the rule?

- If a unit wipes out an enemy to a man on the same turn it charges, it may make a massacre move. In all other cases if the unit finds itself no longer in combat (if the enemy flees or is cut down) it may only consolidate (3").
- No moving within 1" of enemy when consolidating, but massacre moves may be used to engage new enemy units.

I like it. I just feel there should be a potential reward for smashing a big hole in your opponents line. Your suggestion is more in keeping with the current GW rules than mine was.
All that is left to do is convince Jervis..
Well go on! get started! :D

Lord Malorne
23-05-2008, 20:26
How does this effect the consolidation of RZ?

Mulciber
23-05-2008, 21:10
Hey man, I was just trying to help you out here so that you can preform better on the tabletop. If you don't want to be helped then that if fine, but just so you know, some of us do it almost every game, and our opponents are not unskilled. If you change your mind later and want to learn how to do it, let me know.

lol

@ Fist of Crimson... the point you make about counter-assault units in shooty armies does carry some weight. I would say that a good counter assault unit would stay good in this new edition. But bad ones that people took just because they needed it as a defense will indeed be better off as points spent in more shooting.

I don't mind the game changing and units getting better or worse in a new edition in general but there is a part of me that liked seeing the odd rough rider unit. Or jump chaplain with assault marines in a shooty marine list.

I think the combined arms style armies have excellent counter-charge type units. i don't see harlequins going away, demon princes in chaos armies will be around (even with warptime instead of lash)

Guard officially has no need for rough riders now, or even really a tarpit unit like conscripts or chem-inhalers with a flag. Tau never had counter-charge to begin with. Guard are in such flux right now, i would say that the army that will be most directly affected by not needing a counter assault would be vanilla marines, and we'll have to see how they've changed come october.

Too many people are declaring this rule "the end of assault armies" when just a week ago 5th edition was dubbed "assault edition 40k". usually by the same folks. I just wade into these discussions to counterpoint the reactionaries out there.

Halfpast_Yellow
24-05-2008, 02:33
'Counter Assault' units will be pretty amazing if not essential if the rumour about not being able to attack chargers if engaged is true.'

If you've got a Counter-Assault unit on hand you're covered for both eventualities, breaking or not breaking in the first round. You break, and the enemy gets shot (and maybe charged by your counter assault unit). If you don't break, your Counter Assault unit gets a free round in where they can't be attacked back.

If you didn't have a Counter Assault unit you'd be up the creek without a paddle if your 'sacrificial unit' didn't die like it was supposed to ;)

Copella
24-05-2008, 03:01
I think they picked this path for a couple reasons. Mainly IMHO, its there to step away from the checker board play style of some assualt armies. Seeing 1 squad of assualt based models clear 4-5 units is just a little too crazy. Especially when they did it by themselves. I'm sure we've all seen the Termie assualt squad/Tekken Tyrant/Insane Clown Posse (lol, had to use that) and other CC monster units, smash a squad to bits and than roll over and lock another unit down, than again, and again. This isn't always likely to happen, but with any sort of "Take and Hold" games it actually could and prolly will.
Another reason would be i guess to balance out the speed of foot sloggers. Makes the assualts happen sooner, with less time to prepare for it. This might also help speed games up, since the action will happen that much sooner.
I don't see any big problems with a rule like in Warhammer Fantasy's overrun. Tho it would have to be limited to balance out with run/fleet and the general style of CC in Warhammer 40k.

Kettilman
24-05-2008, 08:14
Tau never had counter-charge to begin with.

I always used my Kroot as a counter charge. Keep them close to the firewarriors, or pathfinders, shoot everything at th advancing army, the either bring the kroot out on their own, or scharge them in to help ou their budies. THis won me a lot of games.

Ianos
24-05-2008, 08:31
Shooting kills the enemy and assault wins the battle. That said assaults are now oriented in removing threats or taking over objectives rather than winning games all by themselves. We will still be able to field all ends of the spectrum from total assault to all out shooting BUT no longer will a single unit win entire battles just because it consolidated its way through half the enemy army while it stood there helpless.

Kirasu
24-05-2008, 14:11
There is something being forgotten about the fantasy overrun rule.. its ONLY straight ahead unlike in 40k where you could consolidate anywhere

Mr_Rose
25-05-2008, 00:45
I like it. I just feel there should be a potential reward for smashing a big hole in your opponents line. Your suggestion is more in keeping with the current GW rules than mine was.
All that is left to do is convince Jervis..
Well go on! get started! :D
Right. And there is; you win the game.

Please remember the scale of 40K battles – your games are all conceptually tiny skirmishes in a much larger battle. Forces in such a scenario are not a glorious line of defence against the outer dark, they are a dot, a zero-dimensional entity that might aspire to one day become a tiny part of a line when it grows up.
Equally, as the tip of the spear, it is your forces' job to sweep away their assigned section of the enemy line, i.e. the troops in front of you. All of them. You are not detailed to kill a single squad and go home, you are there to help the other forces in the area punch a hole in the enemy formation into which the real might of the army might be poured in a roiling wave of blood and metal.

I for one wholeheartedly endorse any rule that reminds the commander how truly insignificant he is in the 40K universe.

sushicaddy
02-06-2008, 23:29
this rule seems to say to me "don't charge an elite CC unit in unsupported".

which is very realistic to me.

you need to support you units, not expect that one units of wyches (or stealers etc.) to just kill everything now that you got them into CC.

Hit them with two (or more) units. Flank/block with a vehicle. wait to charge until your army is in position to take advantage of the hole. charge with other, not quite so elite units into the enemy units around the elite charge. then you can consolidate into those other combats after you win your first one.

support. support. support.

think of your army holistically, rather than just piece by piece.

a lot of what I'm reading sounds like a chess player crying about how it's unfair that his queen was just taken by a pawn.

sushicaddy
02-06-2008, 23:33
'Counter Assault' units will be pretty amazing if not essential if the rumour about not being able to attack chargers if engaged is true.'

If you've got a Counter-Assault unit on hand you're covered for both eventualities, breaking or not breaking in the first round. You break, and the enemy gets shot (and maybe charged by your counter assault unit). If you don't break, your Counter Assault unit gets a free round in where they can't be attacked back.

If you didn't have a Counter Assault unit you'd be up the creek without a paddle if your 'sacrificial unit' didn't die like it was supposed to ;)

Hear him! Hear him!

Lord Inquisitor
02-06-2008, 23:41
this rule seems to say to me "don't charge an elite CC unit in unsupported".

which is very realistic to me.
The problem is, if you do charge your elite unit in (unsupported or not) you absolutely do not want to wipe out the enemy.

If an elite unit charges an inferior one, the chargers should be rewarded for decimating the enemy as decisively as possible. If I've charged a strong unit into a weak unit then I've already outmaneuvered you, no? All wargames - at best - run on the principle of maneuvering so you hit a weak point in your enemy's line with overwhelming forces and avoid retribuition from the rest of the enemy.

It doesn't seem that realistic to me. What's next? Bezerkers charging shouting "we won't hit you too hard so please don't run away!"

At worst, it will result in stupid strategies like deactivating power weapons when attacking. At best I'm going to be rolling the dice and rooting for your guys when I charge!

sushicaddy
03-06-2008, 00:20
The problem is, if you do charge your elite unit in (unsupported or not) you absolutely do not want to wipe out the enemy.

If an elite unit charges an inferior one, the chargers should be rewarded for decimating the enemy as decisively as possible. If I've charged a strong unit into a weak unit then I've already outmaneuvered you, no? All wargames - at best - run on the principle of maneuvering so you hit a weak point in your enemy's line with overwhelming forces and avoid retribuition from the rest of the enemy.

It doesn't seem that realistic to me. What's next? Bezerkers charging shouting "we won't hit you too hard so please don't run away!"

At worst, it will result in stupid strategies like deactivating power weapons when attacking. At best I'm going to be rolling the dice and rooting for your guys when I charge!

Am I mistaken that you can still consolidate into a unit that is locked in combat?

so charge your berzerkers into their best unit and wipe it out, and charge your regular space marines into the units right next to it. the marines will mangle the other units, but probably not kill all of them, and your berzerkers can consolidate into the other unit.

or use raptors.

or use lesser demons for the win.

multiple charges on multiple units allow you to consolidate you units into combats that you didn't win the first time.

or shoot up the units next you the unit that is charging so that their fire is ineffectual at best.

really it isn't "you don't want to win first turn" it's "support your units so they don't get pwnd after you win."

lethlis
03-06-2008, 03:02
Nah you can not consolidate into another combat as far as i read it(we have been playing 5th edition games all last weekend). all of this assumes that the unit you are fighting is either wiped out to a man or breaks on that initial charge. what if it goes for one more round then you are fine. That one unit charges in, they wipe the floor with the other unit. They get shot to pieces by the opponents army. Next turn the rest of your army shows up. All you have to do is simply make it so there is a over saturation of targets for the opponent to shoot. Take those rhino mounted squads and charge them forward at full speed now when the rhino is destroyed they are no longer auto pinned so they can still do something the next turn or have them drop out of the rhino then run get 15-20 inches across the board with your entire army in one turn (move 12 deploy out up to 2 and roll 1-6 inches) Second turn you are in his lines with all your assault models. Do you think they can honestly take out your entire army with one round of shooting? Maybe they go first, you know when you are deploying that they are going to go first and put your models in cover. It forces you to plan a little more is all. with person who is going first deploying their entire army and person going second deploying after that you have some maneuverability in what you want to do.

Egge
03-06-2008, 10:01
When I'm gaming my opponents are good enough to make sure I only get a few charges with my balanced army lists. Sometimes only one. To me, this rule makes sure that the only valid armies are: Extreme shooting, extreme close combat or extreme shooting with a small extreme hard hitting CC-unit.

Having a balanced army list will punish you now. It just doesn't feel right. I, for one, like to play against (and with) armies that have some assault units that will move forward, a couple of static shooting units, some mobile support and some fast flanking units. I find that type of army more satisfying to game with than an extreme army. In my example here the assault units will kill only one unit each (cheap ones) against any half-descent player, and then die.

People are right to say that the assault units should be supported by something. The answer will most likely be more assault units making a balanced army list less valid.

Redrivertears
03-06-2008, 10:22
Do you think they can honestly take out your entire army with one round of shooting?

If you're playing Chaos or Marines, no. But what of highly fragile elite units. Like say Dark Eldar, or some of the Daemons. (where only half their army is on the table). I've seen what happens if a Dark Eldar player fails to get in combat and gets his army blasted. All it takes is a single turn of good shooting.

That said, target flooding has always been a good technique to use, but it was meant to "get you into combat". Sure you'd lose half your army on the way over, but it didn't matter cause once the other half managed to reach the enemy line, they could make up for it. Now though, with you taking damage on the way in and then taking damage again once you're there, I'm thinking this rule is going to change the dynamic of the game quite a lot!

I'm not forming an opinion on whether or not that's a good or a bad thing, just saying that we can expect some serious changes to the way assault armies play because of it.

-Redrivertears-

Arkturas
03-06-2008, 10:47
The changes are most likely to be bulked up units. Assuming you didn't get shot too much 8 genestealers were usually good enough. Now you'll need a few more extras to cope with close range shooting. Tyranids have an option in lots of gaunts getting in the way and bogging things down while smaller more dangerous units move along wiping out the gaunt bogged units. Some armies don't really have the cannon fodder units to just swamp the enemy and tie up lots of units. Not fool proof but better than nothing. It's why orks are going to be very good, lot's of cheap decent fighters that don't really care about a few casualties when they get caught out of combat.

sushicaddy
03-06-2008, 15:18
When I'm gaming my opponents are good enough to make sure I only get a few charges with my balanced army lists. Sometimes only one. To me, this rule makes sure that the only valid armies are: Extreme shooting, extreme close combat or extreme shooting with a small extreme hard hitting CC-unit.

Having a balanced army list will punish you now. It just doesn't feel right. I, for one, like to play against (and with) armies that have some assault units that will move forward, a couple of static shooting units, some mobile support and some fast flanking units. I find that type of army more satisfying to game with than an extreme army. In my example here the assault units will kill only one unit each (cheap ones) against any half-descent player, and then die.

People are right to say that the assault units should be supported by something. The answer will most likely be more assault units making a balanced army list less valid.

Again I disagree. Extreme shooty with extreme CC, will probably not be valid unless you hit the extreme flank, as there will be no supporting units. you will get one turn of CC, then be killed.

extreme CC wil be shot up on the way in and counter assaulted. plus they won't be able to hold onto their own objectives. I played a CSM army like this, and my 4 units of scouts walked to the objective, while he threw everything he had at my base.

extreme shooty will never claim objectives. as you arn't fast enough to get anywhere after 4 turns of ubershooting.

it seems to me that the list you described, a couple assault units, a couple static shooty units, fast flanking units and mobile support will fare the best with these rules. Run/new armor rules helps assaulting units get there quicker, and the no consolidation rule makes sure that they don't kill everything automatically when they do. so they need fire support, not just assault elements.

sushicaddy
03-06-2008, 15:20
The changes are most likely to be bulked up units. Assuming you didn't get shot too much 8 genestealers were usually good enough. Now you'll need a few more extras to cope with close range shooting. Tyranids have an option in lots of gaunts getting in the way and bogging things down while smaller more dangerous units move along wiping out the gaunt bogged units. Some armies don't really have the cannon fodder units to just swamp the enemy and tie up lots of units. Not fool proof but better than nothing. It's why orks are going to be very good, lot's of cheap decent fighters that don't really care about a few casualties when they get caught out of combat.

gaunts are going to be AWESOME in the new rules. bog units like rippers will also be very important (maybe people will actually take flying rippers now?). without number will be huge in objective games.

the1stpip
03-06-2008, 15:28
Seeing as how the rulebook is in my local GW, it is cold hard fact.

MagrukWikkid
03-06-2008, 15:35
Charging two units is easier said than done!

However, the point is still that you are rewarded for trying to prolong the combat. In "realism" terms an attacker should try to assault and destroy the enemy as decisively as possible, surely? This is something of an issue now (I know I've deactivated my power weapons on the charge to try and avoid being stuck out in the open if I wipe out or rout my enemy!) but this is going to be much more of an issue in 5th as you'll always want to do this... The flip side is that if you get charged by powerful assault troops, you are almost always going to want to FAIL your leadership test.

So, if an elite combat unit charges a out-classed enemy, the charger absolutely does not want to kill or rout the enemy on the charge, while the defending player very much wants them to fail their leadership test and flee.

That doesn't seem right!

So are we going to start seeing baklanced armies taking only small, elite assault units? That could work...

sushicaddy
03-06-2008, 16:05
So are we going to start seeing baklanced armies taking only small, elite assault units? That could work...

I also think we are going to see those small elite units being used only when the time is right, as opposed to "as soon as possible".

Ekranoplan
03-06-2008, 17:29
The inability to consolidate into another unit makes elite CC units far less dangerous. I can easily imagine a situation where I might ignore such a unit (because I know it cant roll up my entire army), and go for a nearby shooty unit in cover.

Egge
03-06-2008, 19:20
Again I disagree. Extreme shooty with extreme CC, will probably not be valid unless you hit the extreme flank, as there will be no supporting units. you will get one turn of CC, then be killed.

extreme CC will be shot up on the way in and counter assaulted. plus they won't be able to hold onto their own objectives. I played a CSM army like this, and my 4 units of scouts walked to the objective, while he threw everything he had at my base.

extreme shooty will never claim objectives. as you aren't fast enough to get anywhere after 4 turns of ubershooting.

it seems to me that the list you described, a couple assault units, a couple static shooty units, fast flanking units and mobile support will fare the best with these rules. Run/new armor rules helps assaulting units get there quicker, and the no consolidation rule makes sure that they don't kill everything automatically when they do. so they need fire support, not just assault elements.When I talked about extreme shooting I meant with a single extreme hard CC unit as a countercharge. In case you actually will get bogged down one CC round and your sacrificial unit somehow survives one round. Sorry if I was unclear :(

I agree that extreme cc armies might not be as able as extreme shooting but if an extreme shooting army has 2 turns of movement they will most likely be able to claim most objectives with 12"+2D6" average of 19" movement in two turns for infantry.

In a balanced army your assault units will only have the role of counter-charging as they are only capable of dealing with one unit before a rather certain death. The opponent needs little tactical skills to destroy them as long as he has at least one cheap sacrificial unit. This will most likely (though I hope I'm wrong) make people to tend to lean against extreme shooting armies with counter charge than a balanced list as one or two assault units won't be effective enough unless they're countercharging. The fact that an opponent right now have to at least _move_ when dealing with an assault unit is rather better than being able to keep assault units away just by standing still...

I agree it's a rather dull game when one unit goes from CC to CC without problems but GW could have easily fixed that by making a statement that only 3" can be used to move into a new contact instead of saying that even though you move 6" consolidation, this can not be used to contact a new unit. Instead they are going to the extreme in another way. Why not choose a balance?

As of 5:th ed. The goal with assault will be to kill the opponent the second turn, not as fast as possible. There's something really wrong with that, in my opinion.

althathir
03-06-2008, 19:40
The problem is, if you do charge your elite unit in (unsupported or not) you absolutely do not want to wipe out the enemy.

If an elite unit charges an inferior one, the chargers should be rewarded for decimating the enemy as decisively as possible. If I've charged a strong unit into a weak unit then I've already outmaneuvered you, no? All wargames - at best - run on the principle of maneuvering so you hit a weak point in your enemy's line with overwhelming forces and avoid retribuition from the rest of the enemy.

It doesn't seem that realistic to me. What's next? Bezerkers charging shouting "we won't hit you too hard so please don't run away!"

At worst, it will result in stupid strategies like deactivating power weapons when attacking. At best I'm going to be rolling the dice and rooting for your guys when I charge!

The question though is did you really out maneuver them if they are in position to decimate the unit you charged with unless they are still in combat? The main problem I see with this rule is that people may run some small squads that sole purpose is slow down assault units, but honestly a balanced list should be able to clear path.

Meriwether
03-06-2008, 20:33
Either way, I think things just got more interesting in a tactical sense. (Perhaps not in a real-world sense, but as game play...)

Meri

shin'keiro
03-06-2008, 21:00
There's nothing wrong with making shooting king, but that would then require that assault units drop in price due to their lower utility.

I agree and as such i think Harlies are now over-priced, considering daemonettes are 16 points and have the same ini. and the same attacks and can have more in a squad.

Its also easier to kill units in first charge with the new 'Ld minus wounds you lost by' rule. Which means youre left out in the cold afterwards.

Sami
03-06-2008, 21:11
After wondering how the hell my cheesy Khorne army would survive this, I'm not too worried. Firstly, considation was stupidly overpowered as (assuming there was a unit to considate into) it made your CC units practically immune to weapons fire. As the units most likely to take advantage of this were CC specialists, and those CC specialists would be engaging shooting units, it tipped the odds too much in favour of the attacker.

Now if I want to go around anihilating non-CC units in one round, I need to prepare for it and plan ahead. Firstly, work out which enemy units could cause trouble for my CC units should they be victorious in their assault turn. Secondly, find a way of blocking their fire. This can be done by using transport ships to block LOS, using barrage and ordinance weapons to try and pin the dangerous units, or by simply making them a priority in the shooting phase.

I'm not sure in 5th edition what kind of move my CC units are allowed to make at the end of an engagement (on my turn or not) - but having a Rhino close for them to get behind quickly would be very handy indeed :P. Alternatively, add a load more LOS-blocking terrain to let units hide after a victorious assault. Internal/corridor scenarios are best for this, assuming your walls are solid and opaque.

The fact that my deep striking CC units can now run like hell to get to cover is enough to make up for the new consolidation rules.

shin'keiro
04-06-2008, 08:40
I'm not sure in 5th edition what kind of move my CC units are allowed to make at the end of an engagement (on my turn or not).

d6" consolidation