Does shooting really trump melee in fifth? Or...

[Shadow Lord]

Drop the -2 on the glancing hit and the vehicle damage chart will be more balanced, IMO.

@Greenmtvince: i like vehicles, tanks and shooting as well, but the OP asks if the shooting isn't trumping the melee too much...and we all seem to agree that to some extend it actually does

[Gingerwerewolf]

I'd actually make the argument that it has more to do with true LoS than with shooty vehicles. Its really hard to hide things, and the benefits of terrain (cover) are counteracted by the disadvantages (moving slower). As good as a 4+ save is, its not nearly as good as old area terrain rules preventing them from getting fired at in the first place. I like to read battle reports from the tournies I can't afford to go to , and Nova was really interesting because a lot of players complained there was too much LoS blocking terrain (just read an interesting blog article about it), and lot of the more spamming netlists (razor spam, leafblower) didn't do very well.

In addition its easier to explain how to play a shooting army online, and thats where a lot of us go for advice. Take the Footdar list that made the top 16 at adepticon, that list isn't the sort of army that you can just read the list, what bad matchups to look out for, and be successful. Whereas with a long fang/razorspam wolf list, you really just need to know how to deploy, what to shoot at, and when to grab objectives.

I still think firing points need to be fixed, having units have to be disembarked to hold an objective, and having objectives count for points as their held instead of just the last turn would help out a ton.

This is a very good point (From a Nid Players point of view)

This.

Plus old vehicle damage probabilities would go a long way to balancing everything and less melta spam.

I personally like the emphasis on mech and shooting. It's a sci-fi combat game.

I agree and the part of me that is also a Blood Angel player likes it: However I ask this:

If the Meta is built around shooting and Mech, then those that cannot do it as effectively, namely Nids and Orks, need a bonus to counter that so that they are competitive. Yep it is a Scifi game, with guns and armour, but when your entire army gets killed before you can land a blow in Close Combat its a bit more than simply Crushing to the old morale.

There are aspects of balance that need to be addressed. Simply nerfing all transports would help address this somewhat, but I dont think that it is just this. I think that TLoS, The Transport Troops almost Invulnerability, and the fact that all Nids can be wounded by a Str 3 person / weapon...

[greenmtvince]

Oh, I'm not saying that assault has no place in the game. I love the idea of the chitenous and/or slobbering hordes charging over the wall. It has a great place in the narrative. I just don't want it it to swing the other way so hard that we're back in 3rd edition "WHFB 40K", where a shooting army basically had one or two turns to stop a close combat army from consolidating from squad to squad.

I agree that Nids, Daemons, and Foot Orks need some mechanic to balance it out and that's why I really think we need the removal of TLoS. No complex mechanics or special rules, just let terrain do it's job so infantry armies can't be engaged from across the board. A unit of gaunts right now can get shot up just as easily through 6" of cover as they can through 36" of cover and this past weekend my tank didn't get any cover save despite being parked behind a foot of area terrain because there were only 3 trees on the stand.

[Vipoid]

Whilst Assaults still have their uses, I believe 5th is indeed a shooting-dominated game.

A few reasons:

1) Shooting is sequential, assaults are simultaneous. Let's say you want a squad dead. You shoot it with one unit. Not enough? Shoot it with another unit. Still not enough? Shoot it with another unit. etc. If one squad is enough, then you can direct your fire elsewhere.

On the other hand, you have to commit to all combats at the same time. If you want a unit dead, but you fail to kill it in combat, you can't just charge another unit in to help. Similarly, if you charge too many units into combat, it's too late to redirect them elsewhere. Nor can your units potentially overrun into other units - they're just left standing in the open, ready to be shot at in your opponent's turn.

2) Transports. This is one of the biggest reasons. Killing a transport at range is usually relatively easy, so long as you have an appropriate weapon. Also, there's the potential for shooting the squad within, with your other units.

Now take CC. Firstly, you have to get to the transport, which isn't always easy, since they have better movement than infantry. Second, unlike with shooting, there are penalties if it moved. Third, unlike shooting (generally) you can take damage from destroying it. Forth, you can't attack the unit inside with anything, and it will most likely get to shoot/assault your squads in your opponent's turn. Fifth, you get no consolidation move to escape or get to cover. And, finally, if you don't destroy it, then it can just drive away and leave your squad as sitting-ducks in the open.

Essentially, the vehicle rules, and the fact that you can no longer consolidate into an enemy squad after winning combat, means that combat tends to be a secondary point in 5th edition. It's nice to be strong in it, but being good at shooting (and, in particular, at shooting down transports) is your primary concern.

[Vaktathi]

Drop the -2 on the glancing hit and the vehicle damage chart will be more balanced, IMO.

There was a very big reason they made that change in the first place, otherwise you get Scatterlasers that are equally effective against AV12 as Krak Missiles, and Leman Russ tanks killed by random bolt pistol shots. The problem really isn't the damage chart, that was one of the best changes of 5E.

Tank hunting also generally should be the province much more of shooting than melee, just as clearing fortified infantry from a position should be much more the province of melee than anything but the heaviest of firepower.

[Vipoid]

Tank hunting also generally should be the province much more of shooting than melee, just as clearing fortified infantry from a position should be much more the province of melee than anything but the heaviest of firepower.

It should, but in that case, every army should have adequate firepower to deal with tanks.

Otherwise, if it comes down to realism or balance, I'd pick balance.

[Vaktathi]

It should, but in that case, every army should have adequate firepower to deal with tanks.

Otherwise, if it comes down to realism or balance, I'd pick balance.

That's really a codex issue however, not a core game rules issue. Melee should be a 2nd choice option of dealing with tanks aside from stuff like MC's that are basically walking tanks themselves, that some armies are poorly equipped for that isn't the fault of the core rules but rather the fault of poor codex design, which is where relevant changes really should take place.

[Vipoid]

That's really a codex issue however, not a core game rules issue. Melee should be a 2nd choice option of dealing with tanks aside from stuff like MC's that are basically walking tanks themselves, that some armies are poorly equipped for that isn't the fault of the core rules but rather the fault of poor codex design, which is where relevant changes really should take place.

That's partially true, but the core rules also have their part to play.

As it stands, it seems a little too difficult to hit moving vehicles in CC. It just seems wrong that a guardsman has exactly the same chance of hitting a moving vehicle as an Avatar or Bloodthirster.

Furthermore, it's also a problem with the core rules that if a unit destroys a transport in CC, it can do nothing to the transport's occupants, who can then shoot/assault the unit in your opponent's turn. It seems like those units should immediatly become engaged in CC, rather than your unit just being sitting ducks.

[Charistoph]

In short, No Shooting doesn't trump Melee and it's hard for me to see why people would think that. I play a variety of armies, some rely on Shooting and some rely on getting in close. If you're a shooty guy, you have to make it count and get your licks in before the b*stards get into your lines, if you're assaulty, you have to take it on the chin as you close on them.
Problem is, these days there are too many ways to bypass that walk through the storm.

Melee has always been far more dangerous than shooting, bar a few mishaps with temperamental or inaccurate ranged attacks, Melee is the only situation where you stand to loose models in your own turn and, unless Melee becomes a system where only the player whose turn it is can attack, it will always be a more dangerous proposition.

I have to agree with Chem-dog and RandomThoughts here. If the Shooting Phase was as effective as everyone thinks, then Tau wouldn't be where they are at on the interweb's competitive list. And why aren't they? Oh, yeah, because they suck in Assault. Why are Metal Kanigts and Space Puppies so good? It's because they are balanced towards how RandomThoughts put it:

vehicles > melee infantry > shooty infantry > vehicles

Note, I'm not saying they are balanced in relation to other codecies (heavens, no), but rather that is WHY they are unbalanced in relation to other codecies. It's because they don't have to choose (much) to make their units effective in Assault AND the Shooting Phase, while almost everyone else has to choose one or the other.

Consider this, if the Shooting Phase is so dominant, why are Power Fists/Klaws still considered a "must-have" by Sergeants and Nobs? Last time I checked, that piece of Wargear is useless in the Shooting Phase, and thus makes the model carrying it far more expensive than it should be for Shooting. Yet, you still take them (where available).

Why are 'Nids being considered a Shooting Army? Same reason Orks are: Vast quantities of cheap volume of fire backed up by something that can pound tin cans to dust, while their effective Assault elements are just walking/running everywhere trying to catch up.

[Vipoid]

I have to agree with Chem-dog and RandomThoughts here. If the Shooting Phase was as effective as everyone thinks, then Tau wouldn't be where they are at on the interweb's competitive list.

Really?

I'd thought that Tau weren't competative bacause their book is relatively old, they have poor troop choices, quite a few pieces of useless wargear (because of rule changes between editions), and a lot of overpriced units and transports.

Also, IG are good in 5th, so does that mean they must be good in CC?

[Vaktathi]

Some of that is perhaps true, but getting to engage the squad that was embarked also means that pretty much any time you kill a transport in melee you will generally get to kill the squad for free too (as you likely wouldn't be assaulting it with that intent unless you were confident in engaging the embarked unit as well), and not everything is a Space Marine that can weather some hits and fight back, particularly Xenos armies that have always relied heavily on mechanization.

While vehicles may be hard for some units to kill in CC, there's very little tactics or thinking required on their part either, you basically just need to get into base contact with the vehicle no matter what angle or approach and swing away without taking any hits back against the weakest armor facing. The hit on rear armor also makes vehicles absurdly easy for many things to kill if they hit, MC's for instance might as well not even have to roll armor pen once they hit for all the good AV10 does to S6/7/8/9/10+ 2D6.

[althathir]

I'm noticing a trend in a number of posts and that's coming from ork or nid players, unfortunately these struggle against top armies and competitive gaming. I don't think it's a good thing just the way it is.

Orks seem todo fairly well when you factor in the number of players at events that use them.

Drop the -2 on the glancing hit and the vehicle damage chart will be more balanced, IMO.

@Greenmtvince: i like vehicles, tanks and shooting as well, but the OP asks if the shooting isn't trumping the melee too much...and we all seem to agree that to some extend it actually does

I don't really see dropping the glancing chart as being a cure-all, I'm a much bigger fan of hull points (even though they kick Eldar in the balls). What I feel really needs to be addressed with vehicles is firing points, and not allowing units to hold objectives while embarked. Firing points are what makes rhinos & chimera OTT, and not being able to score while embarked would bring down the usefulness of razorbacks. Most vehicles aren't part of the problem so why nerf all of them?

I have to agree with Chem-dog and RandomThoughts here. If the Shooting Phase was as effective as everyone thinks, then Tau wouldn't be where they are at on the interweb's competitive list. And why aren't they? Oh, yeah, because they suck in Assault. Why are Metal Kanigts and Space Puppies so good?
....

There is a difference between relying on shooting and being good at it. Tau aren't a horrible shooty army, but I don't think they're a good one either combine that with underwhelming troops and you have the wrost fraction in the game IMO.

[Vipoid]

Some of that is perhaps true, but getting to engage the squad that was embarked also means that pretty much any time you kill a transport in melee you will generally get to kill the squad for free too (as you likely wouldn't be assaulting it with that intent unless you were confident in engaging the embarked unit as well), and not everything is a Space Marine that can weather some hits and fight back, particularly Xenos armies that have always relied heavily on mechanization.

Well, I think I know one xeno army that doesn't rely on mechanization...

I understand what you mean, but then I also don't see why you should assault a transport with a dedicated squad, but not be able to touch the unit inside, and just end up as bolter-fodder in your opponent's turn.

You say that not all armies are marines, but remember that it works both ways:
- Not every army can have one of their transported squads assaulted and survive to do damage back to their attackers.
- But, not every army can assault and destroy a transport, be left as sitting-ducks, and survive through their opponent's subsequent shooting phase.

While vehicles may be hard for some units to kill in CC, there's very little tactics or thinking required on their part either, you basically just need to get into base contact with the vehicle no matter what angle or approach and swing away without taking any hits back against the weakest armor facing. The hit on rear armor also makes vehicles absurdly easy for many things to kill if they hit, MC's for instance might as well not even have to roll armor pen once they hit for all the good AV10 does to S6/7/8/9/10+ 2D6.

I really don't see how shooting requires any more tactics than assaulting. Yes, with shooting, the facing of the vehicle is important. But, with assaulting, getting to the vehicle in one piece is important. Yes, it's easy to destroy vehicles in combat with most MCs, but then most MCs are slow, and vehicles can move away from them. Furthermore, whilst you only have to get into BTB with the vehicle, you still have to hit it, and your opponent can make this more difficult simply by moving his vehicle.

As an aside though, I don't agree with the current idea of assaulting units always counting as hitting a vehicle's rear armour (although, I wouln't want it changed without some other concessions with regards to assaulting vehicles). To me, it seems like, if anything, you should be able to hit an adjacent side to the one you assault. So, a unit assaulting the front of a vehicle would be able to hit its side armour, but not its rear. (Note that this is the most I think that rule should do). Having a unit assault the front of a Vindicator and find a "weak spot" in an armoured bulldozer-blade seems dubious at best.

[Vaktathi]

Orks seem todo fairly well when you factor in the number of players at events that use them.



I don't really see dropping the glancing chart as being a cure-all, I'm a much bigger fan of hull points (even though they kick Eldar in the balls). What I feel really needs to be addressed with vehicles is firing points, and not allowing units to hold objectives while embarked. Firing points are what makes rhinos & chimera OTT, and not being able to score while embarked would bring down the usefulness of razorbacks. Most vehicles aren't part of the problem so why nerf all of them?

The problem here then is that such changes also extend to tau, eldar and dark eldar, all of which would suffer a whole lot more than the armies you are looking to nerf here. Not the firing points so much (though then you basically destroy the utility the Chimera was built around, and if GW holds to it's previous history, even if the core rules change, they'll stick with that "the codex says X so it stays' deal), but the scoring from within transports is huge for those non-Imperial armies as many/most their troops often just can't sit there and hold objectives the way most Imperial armies can.

Well, I think I know one xeno army that doesn't rely on mechanization...

I understand what you mean, but then I also don't see why you should assault a transport with a dedicated squad, but not be able to touch the unit inside, and just end up as bolter-fodder in your opponent's turn.

That's really why you use some sort of shooting attack or another sacrificial unit to open the transport, and leave your dedicated assault unit to deal with the contents later, otherwise if they're able to get into the disembarking unit they've just consolidated into a new combat which was another deal they removed, you can't sweep an infantry unit and consolidate into another one right next to it either.

You say that not all armies are marines, but remember that it works both ways:
- Not every army can have one of their transported squads assaulted and survive to do damage back to their attackers.

Right, that was my point, many armies would be practically screwed once anything assaulted and successfully destroyed the transports.

- But, not every army can assault and destroy a transport, be left as sitting-ducks, and survive through their opponent's subsequent shooting phase.

Again, this is no different than if you assaulted into a unit and swept it/wiped it out however. Nobody seems to complain too much about that.

I really don't see how shooting requires any more tactics than assaulting. Yes, with shooting, the facing of the vehicle is important. But, with assaulting, getting to the vehicle in one piece is important. Yes, it's easy to destroy vehicles in combat with most MCs, but then most MCs are slow, and vehicles can move away from them. Furthermore, whilst you only have to get into BTB with the vehicle, you still have to hit it, and your opponent can make this more difficult simply by moving his vehicle.

With shooting you have to worry about range, LoS, cover, facing, and weapon strength. With CC, you pretty much just have to worry about getting into CC and hitting, as pretty much anything can hurt 95% of vehicles as long as it's at least S4 or has grenades (so the vast majority of units). Unless the vehicle is moving over 6" (which in most cases means it wasn't doing much other than moving) you hit it at no worse than an equal weapon skill opponent, which is about what most units would expect either way in most CC combats. if they're moving over 6", most aren't doing much unless they're Fast, but most of those are either fragile, expensive, or both, aside from a couple of exceptions.

As an aside though, I don't agree with the current idea of assaulting units always counting as hitting a vehicle's rear armour (although, I wouln't want it changed without some other concessions with regards to assaulting vehicles). To me, it seems like, if anything, you should be able to hit an adjacent side to the one you assault. So, a unit assaulting the front of a vehicle would be able to hit its side armour, but not its rear. (Note that this is the most I think that rule should do). Having a unit assault the front of a Vindicator and find a "weak spot" in an armoured bulldozer-blade seems dubious at best.

Agree, it does seem rather silly, especially the thought of some Ork Warboss riding up on his gigantor bike with a powerklaw at top speed doing anything but zipping by and trying to tear off a chunk of anything as he passes through, much less trying to attack vision ports or the like, is rather silly.

[althathir]

The problem here then is that such changes also extend to tau, eldar and dark eldar, all of which would suffer a whole lot more than the armies you are looking to nerf here. Not the firing points so much (though then you basically destroy the utility the Chimera was built around, and if GW holds to it's previous history, even if the core rules change, they'll stick with that "the codex says X so it stays' deal), but the scoring from within transports is huge for those non-Imperial armies as many/most their troops often just can't sit there and hold objectives the way most Imperial armies can.

1) depends on how firing points are nerfed. There are lots of different directions they could go with it, making the vehicle easier to destroy if you used them, counting the weapons as if they were fired by the vehicle so a vehicle on the move could only fire 1 melta, or having a vehicle destroyed result be more damaging to the embarked models because they're trying to fire out of the vehicle instead of being in a position to bailout.

2) As far as scoring while not embarked a lot of it does depend on other factors, but if you could score on more turns then the last, and have skimmers block LoS. Then armies like eldar & dark Eldar could get to objectives faster, while providing some protection to their troops. Both eldar fractions do have access to some durable units that can hold objectives (wracks, and rangers in cover). And in my experience with eldar we may be the best army in the game at contesting objectives (last tourney I took my eldar too I won a game in which I killed 7 models... 7 models), so nerfing that ability and giving us back some firepower would make my day.

Tau are trickier but they need a new book probably worse than anyother fraction from a gameplay perspective (chaos from a sales perspective IMO). So I don't tend to worry about them as far as core rule changes go because what they have now doesn't work anyways.

[lekajaw]

I'm really not buying the whole argument that foot slogging melee is better than foot slogging shooting. The majority of dedicated assault units will never make it to CC with enough strength to guarantee a wipe. Only the elite squads that have some sort of survivability stand a chance, but in my experience the elite combat unit wipes a single squad and then gets rapid fired to death before they can even win back their points. The best armies are the shooty armies that are not completely defenseless in melee, counter charge or force weapons go a long way in tipping the balance of melee.

1) Shooting is sequential, assaults are simultaneous. Let's say you want a squad dead. You shoot it with one unit. Not enough? Shoot it with another unit. Still not enough? Shoot it with another unit. etc. If one squad is enough, then you can direct your fire elsewhere.

This is probably the main reason for the imbalance, IMO. If you had to select shooting a head of time, and resolved them all at once, it would be a lot less suicidal to run melee units.

[Charistoph]

Really?

I'd thought that Tau weren't competative bacause their book is relatively old, they have poor troop choices, quite a few pieces of useless wargear (because of rule changes between editions), and a lot of overpriced units and transports.

Also, IG are good in 5th, so does that mean they must be good in CC?

Tau are poor not necessarily because they are old, but because they lack volume of firepower, and no way to augment that. Their guns are VERY good. Their ability to shoot is okay outside of Marker Lights. But they can't put out enough hits with their basic weapons to compete in 5th Edition without subjecting themselves to immediate Assault. A part of this is due to their design's age, no doubt, but it's also how their style is set up, too.

Grey Knights can get away with having low volume of fire because 1) They can make it hit as hard, if not harder, than Tau, and 2) they plan to Assault as soon as possible anyway. But only a desperate or lucky Tau player plans/expects to Assault.

IG do in Assault the same their Platoons do with their flashlights, overwhelm with sheer volume.

[althathir]

Tau are poor not necessarily because they are old, but because they lack volume of firepower, and no way to augment that. Their guns are VERY good. Their ability to shoot is okay outside of Marker Lights. But they can't put out enough hits with their basic weapons to compete in 5th Edition without subjecting themselves to immediate Assault. A part of this is due to their design's age, no doubt, but it's also how their style is set up, too.

Grey Knights can get away with having low volume of fire because 1) They can make it hit as hard, if not harder, than Tau, and 2) they plan to Assault as soon as possible anyway. But only a desperate or lucky Tau player plans/expects to Assault.

IG do in Assault the same their Platoons do with their flashlights, overwhelm with sheer volume.

GK don't have a low volume of fire, between psy dreads, psy razors, and the fire power their base troops have (between str 5 stormbolters & psycannons) they can put out a ton of shots. I agree with your breakdown on tau, and thats why I stated earlier that there is a difference between being an army that relies on shooting and being one thats good at it. There really isn't a way around the fact that volume firepower is much more reliable in this edition, and not being good at it makes tau at best a decent shooty army which considering thats supposed to be their strengh isn't good.

[Battleworthy Arts]

In general, I don't like melee. When it's my turn, I should be removing YOUR models. Why would I give you an opportunity to remove mine? To me, playing melee armies always feels like gradual grind against myself. The basic assault marine is just useless. That 50 point guard units likely to kill at least 1... Now you are even less prepared to handle a fresh melee.

Maybes it's because of the 5th Ed meta, but melee feels like a losing proposition for sure.

[Baaltor]

I have to agree with Chem-dog and RandomThoughts here. If the Shooting Phase was as effective as everyone thinks, then Tau wouldn't be where they are at on the interweb's competitive list. And why aren't they? Oh, yeah, because they suck in Assault. Why are Metal Kanigts and Space Puppies so good? It's because they are balanced towards how RandomThoughts put it:

That's some strong logic right there. It's kind of ironic how closely a firewarrior's squad stacks up to a GK squad's point for point, and yet one is kicking teeth and the other is possibly the worst troop in 40k.

Well, I think I know one xeno army that doesn't rely on mechanization...

Well, Tyranids are biomechanical, and thus mechanised. Hey, if you wanna get overly technical so can I. XD

You say that not all armies are marines, but remember that it works both ways:
- Not every army can have one of their transported squads assaulted and survive to do damage back to their attackers.
- But, not every army can assault and destroy a transport, be left as sitting-ducks, and survive through their opponent's subsequent shooting phase.

I think you're getting at you want to be in melee combat in your opponent's phase so you don't have to weather a round of shooting, forgive me if I'm wrong. That tactic is a quirk of the mechanics this game runs on, and should be removed if possible (it was before via overwatch), we shouldn't try to base gameplay around an error like this or wound allocation. Further more as others have stated: it's only really a problem with Marines, who can just eat most of the damage, most other armies already have enough trouble from destroyed transports.

With shooting you have to worry about range, LoS, cover, facing, and weapon strength. With CC, you pretty much just have to worry about getting into CC and hitting, as pretty much anything can hurt 95% of vehicles as long as it's at least S4 or has grenades (so the vast majority of units). Unless the vehicle is moving over 6" (which in most cases means it wasn't doing much other than moving) you hit it at no worse than an equal weapon skill opponent, which is about what most units would expect either way in most CC combats. if they're moving over 6", most aren't doing much unless they're Fast, but most of those are either fragile, expensive, or both, aside from a couple of exceptions.

Well said, I'm often a bit at a loss with how often players who prefer melee lose sight of how difficult setting up firing lanes, positions etc., and how much work goes into playing a ranged army.

I'm really not buying the whole argument that foot slogging melee is better than foot slogging shooting. The majority of dedicated assault units will never make it to CC with enough strength to guarantee a wipe. Only the elite squads that have some sort of survivability stand a chance, but in my experience the elite combat unit wipes a single squad and then gets rapid fired to death before they can even win back their points. The best armies are the shooty armies that are not completely defenseless in melee, counter charge or force weapons go a long way in tipping the balance of melee.

I'm pretty sure foot slogging gunners are very difficult to use, I'd say even harder than foot slogging melee, because melee is good at the infantry level. Heavy weapons and special weapons are largely fine as it is, the problem with these is when a choice is underpriced, and subsequently abused like long fangs, or Hydras or Manticores (oh my). If foot slogging shooters were good, why don't we see people using them?