Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

EVIL INC wrote:
Focus fire can indeed help deny cover saves. However, even a bad cover save is better than none at all and still helps more models survive to reach combat. The extra time it takes to position them can be worth it.
My point is that this thread is specifically dedicated to provide tips and advice. Your questions are not related to the discussion. Send them to me in a pm or post them in a different thread, otherwise, they are a purposeful distraction designed to kill a thread to prevent the discussion that was intended.

I'm not trying to kill the thread. I'm trying to take things that are being mentioned as tactics and demonstrate why they don't work as described.

Lol, I went into this thinking that it actually was a serious topic. Having read the other thread mentioned by the OP too, I can see we have all fallen into the troll trap

Martel732 wrote:
"selym at no point did I say 4+ saves were everywhere. The possibility of getting a 5+ and 4+ save is fairly easy though. Specific examples have even been given. Note also that BOTH players get to set up the gaming table which means that you are guaranteed the ability to assist yourself in providing it through terrain set up alone"

Cover doesn't do a thing for meqs against Eldar-style wound spamming. It doesn't help guardsmen if its 5+ cover.

Guardsmen pretty much never assault anyway, so that part is of minimal value.
And if cover does not help MEQ's much (by far the most common army type), that contradicts a huge chunk of your argument that cover will suffice to keep an assault army in the running.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Illumini wrote:
Lol, I went into this thinking that it actually was a serious topic. Having read the other thread mentioned by the OP too, I can see we have all fallen into the troll trap

Nail on the head, bro, nail on the head

*exalted

Yes, it was intended to be a serious thread until others took it off topic in their attempt to kill it and prevent us from actually discussing close combat and ways to get there effectively. After they did that, they turned it into a troll trap. Hopefully the mods or someone can help us clear the clutter, warm them to stay on topic so we can have serious discussions on the actual topic.

True, guardsmen rarely assault, unless using their units that are more closely dedicated to it like penal legion or ogryn. Meqs don't really need it except from ap3 or better weapons (unless using buildings and walls and rock outcrops and such to totally block line of sight to them as they advance towards the enemy).

EVIL INC wrote:

Research the denied flank. It is only one of many different tactics possible to use.

Maybe this is a translation issue, but in English this is usually called the "refused flank" or "oblique order." You'll have better luck searching for those on English language sites.

 Selym wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"selym at no point did I say 4+ saves were everywhere. The possibility of getting a 5+ and 4+ save is fairly easy though. Specific examples have even been given. Note also that BOTH players get to set up the gaming table which means that you are guaranteed the ability to assist yourself in providing it through terrain set up alone"

Cover doesn't do a thing for meqs against Eldar-style wound spamming. It doesn't help guardsmen if its 5+ cover.

Guardsmen pretty much never assault anyway, so that part is of minimal value.
And if cover does not help MEQ's much (by far the most common army type), that contradicts a huge chunk of your argument that cover will suffice to keep an assault army in the running.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Illumini wrote:
Lol, I went into this thinking that it actually was a serious topic. Having read the other thread mentioned by the OP too, I can see we have all fallen into the troll trap

Nail on the head, bro, nail on the head

*exalted

I've never argued that.

EVIL INC wrote:
Yes, it was intended to be a serious thread until others took it off topic in their attempt to kill it and prevent us from actually discussing close combat and ways to get there effectively. After they did that, they turned it into a troll trap. Hopefully the mods or someone can help us clear the clutter, warm them to stay on topic so we can have serious discussions on the actual topic.

No, you started posting tactics that don't work because you have a poor grasp of the rules, we pointed out the flaws in your reasoning. That's not taking it off topic.

EVIL INC wrote:
Yes, it was intended to be a serious thread until others took it off topic in their attempt to kill it and prevent us from actually discussing close combat and ways to get there effectively. After they did that, they turned it into a troll trap. Hopefully the mods or someone can help us clear the clutter, warm them to stay on topic so we can have serious discussions on the actual topic.

Have you clicked the triangle on any of my posts? I'm genuinely curious.

Regardless, your overall intent is correct - assault can work if you hug cover, etc. But flat out stating that a 4+ save is common is incorrect. That's what I'm addressing - not the idea that cover is good.
I've provided the 3 things you need to base a close combat list on (and it needs to be the whole list - having a half shooty/half CC list is begging for failure).
Personally I use Flyrants, Ymgarls, and Pod-Fexes for CC fun. Flyrants and Pod-Fexes are resilient and fast, Ymgarls are super-fast so their lack of resiliency isn't that big a deal.
The Tervigons and Termagants are used as counter-assault and objective grabbers. Sometimes I'll throw a Tervi into CC but it's not that common anymore (they're resilient but too slow)

Flavius Infernus, Thank you. I have used it and heard it's "name" from someone else. I appreciate your help in getting the name right for me as I had misremembered the name if I even had it right to begin with.
I would highly recommend using that strategy, especially if your opponent gets first turn as you get to ensure it works and then if you steal the initiative to boot, woo hoo party time.

Walrus, I have an excellent grasp of the rules and started this thread in an effort to help those who are having trouble getting to grips with an opponent. Yes, and to hopefully get a few pointers myself in regards to that as I don't claim to know everything and am more than willing to learn. Your post is an example of what I was talking about. It was blatantly insulting and impolite along with incorrect and did not relate to the title of the thread at all. Another post that I personally felt was trolling for a negative response without adding anything to the discussion.

What are you talking about!? I like having 5+ cover for my guardsmen . Yeah sure 5+ saves but think about the number of guns that laugh at that save! (cough bolter guns, tau guns, etc)

So then, let us try to make this focus upon combt tactics. The LR are a no go. But maybe converse on how to use ork boys, possessed... in other words, the blender units that are nasty in cc but lack the durability and speed to make it.

Martel732 wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"selym at no point did I say 4+ saves were everywhere. The possibility of getting a 5+ and 4+ save is fairly easy though. Specific examples have even been given. Note also that BOTH players get to set up the gaming table which means that you are guaranteed the ability to assist yourself in providing it through terrain set up alone"

Cover doesn't do a thing for meqs against Eldar-style wound spamming. It doesn't help guardsmen if its 5+ cover.

Guardsmen pretty much never assault anyway, so that part is of minimal value.
And if cover does not help MEQ's much (by far the most common army type), that contradicts a huge chunk of your argument that cover will suffice to keep an assault army in the running.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Illumini wrote:
Lol, I went into this thinking that it actually was a serious topic. Having read the other thread mentioned by the OP too, I can see we have all fallen into the troll trap

Nail on the head, bro, nail on the head

*exalted

I've never argued that.

Ah, sorry, been posting faaar too many replies to EVIL INC, I seem to have reached the point where confusion as to what I'm talking about occurs.

I'll take a break.

rigeld2, I don't remember the name of the critter but I had it used against my guard to great effect (one of the reasons I started more towards vehicles), but I remember it deep striking in amongst my gunline and forcing all nearby units to take leadership saves on 3d6 or suffer badly. Do you use it?
I remember being forced to scamper or concentrate a lot of firepower on it while my opponant's swarms waltzed towards me as I was forced to deal with the immediate threat.
Of course, podding in monster units in my face forcing me to fire at them letting his swarms scamper towards me scott free also is something that is hard to counter. I had a guy pod in swarms in my face I had to deal with as his bigger nasties walked in behind them. I think bug podding combined with yrmgarls and big nasty burrowers combined with the super fast scamperers or wingers swarming across the field is something even a tau gunline would be hard pressed to beat. The pods and what come out of them not only being priority targets but also helping provide cover for the foot sloggers when deployed properly.

EVIL INC wrote:
rigeld2, I don't remember the name of the critter but I had it used against my guard to great effect (one of the reasons I started more towards vehicles), but I remember it deep striking in amongst my gunline and forcing all nearby units to take leadership saves on 3d6 or suffer badly. Do you use it?
I remember being forced to scamper or concentrate a lot of firepower on it while my opponant's swarms waltzed towards me as I was forced to deal with the immediate threat.
Of course, podding in monster units in my face forcing me to fire at them letting his swarms scamper towards me scott free also is something that is hard to counter. I had a guy pod in swarms in my face I had to deal with as his bigger nasties walked in behind them. I think bug podding combined with yrmgarls and big nasty burrowers combined with the super fast scamperers or wingers swarming across the field is something even a tau gunline would be hard pressed to beat. The pods and what come out of them not only being priority targets but also helping provide cover for the foot sloggers when deployed properly.

Nids correct? If so I think that is the doom of malantai. Nasty little bugger. That being said, he's a psyker. Problem with tau is they actually have enough dakka to solve that problem and then blast everything else on the map. Heck, if tau tried just build some interceptor in and watch the ds fail horridly. Also it has a risk of landing on the wrong model and getting all messed up I do believe

EVIL INC wrote:

Walrus, I have an excellent grasp of the rules and started this thread in an effort to help those who are having trouble getting to grips with an opponent. Yes, and to hopefully get a few pointers myself in regards to that as I don't claim to know everything and am more than willing to learn. Your post is an example of what I was talking about. It was blatantly insulting and impolite along with incorrect and did not relate to the title of the thread at all. Another post that I personally felt was trolling for a negative response without adding anything to the discussion.

Oh really? You say that you're willing to learn and yet you refuse to accept that you're wrong, claiming that I'm trolling for pointing out your faults. If being wrong is blatantly insulting to you, maybe you should stop doing it?

EVIL INC wrote:

3. Another is to use more than one unit and intermix them so that they provide cover for one another even out in the wide open.

FAQd to only provide cover to the backmost unit.

EVIL INC wrote:
There is a specific forum section for list building. This thread is not about building lists or what are good lists the very specific purpose of the thread is to demonstrate ways to use your assault troops more effectively.
Yes, the average cover save is still 4+ when you add in the fact that shooting through your own units confers a 4+ save to the enemy target (this does not include other members of the same unit firing but rather separate friendly units) and that shooting through enemy units also provide a 4+ cover save (exploitable by assault armies to give themselves a 4+ cover even while out in the middle of an open field).

The average has been demonstrated to not be 4, and you were incorrect about intervening models giving a 4+ cover save.

rigeld2 wrote:

EVIL INC wrote:
50% of assaults are initiated within 3 inches so the only way to fail it is is you roll snake eyes, Most of the rest are initiated within 6 inches and only the very rare gamble assaults are initiated from further. So overall, if you are able to roll a seven or higher on the assault dice, your going to make it further than in previous editions on first turn assaults. An assault army will have multiple units doing so the more than likely, at least one of them will make it with the others rolling in on turn 2.

No. You will not make a fist turn assault by rolling a 7. Absolutely guaranteed. Using that statement to support your argument brings your entire argument down.

Rigeld countering yet another of your arguments.

EVIL INC wrote:

I am well aware of what citing is. However, one of the ways to learn the game is to read the rulebook. You don't need me to do that for you as you are perfectly capable of reading it yourself. I am not going to waste my time researching exact page numbers and paragraphs while you sit back and giggle to yourself trying to decide what obscure rule to make me look up next.

Refusing to back your arguments up with actual rules.

Look, I tried running FNP ASM with shield of sanguinius. These units bring their own cover with them. It didn't help. I couldn't get enough survivors to my target units.

Remember, there is a lot of game even after units start getting into assault range. Xenos like Tau have a tendency to have their units evaporate in HTH, and that opens you up to even MORE shooting the next turn.

Good xeno players are not going to line up where their shooters can support each other.

Walrus, are you saying that camo cloaks and stealth do not come into effect if the cover is another unit? What page is that on in the rulebook?
On your last post, exactly what tip or tactic were you providing? Maybe it it got cut off because none showed to the rest of us.
Faqed to only give cover to the backmost unit huh? I did not know that and I appreciate you pointing that out. Even so, one of the two units getting a 5+ save is still better than neither of them getting any at all, which means that it is still a valid tactic.

The thread is not about arguing points, it is about providing tips and tactics.

EVIL INC wrote:
Walrus, are you saying that camo cloaks and stealth do not come into effect if the cover is another unit? What page is that on in the rulebook?
On your last post, exactly what tip or tactic were you providing? Maybe it it got cut off because none showed to the rest of us.
Faqed to only give cover to the backmost unit huh? I did not know that and I appreciate you pointing that out. Even so, one of the two units getting a 5+ save is still better than neither of them getting any at all, which means that it is still a valid tactic.

The thread is not about arguing points, it is about providing tips and tactics.

If I'm not allowed to point out flaws in your tips and tactics, then what's the point?

Again, "Intervening Models" is not the same as "Intervening Models + Camo Cloaks".

Pointing out flaws in a tactic is far different from the personal attacks you have been doing.
5+ save > no save so using a screen of "throwaway" models to provide a mobile 5+ save for a more expensive and choppy assault unit is still a valid tactic. If providing a 5+ save where before there was none to ensure that your "deathstar" unit makes it into the enemy lines is a flawed tactic as you suggest, I am not seeing the flaw.

Overwatch is a killer for close combat troops, not because of the how many models it kills, but which ones it kills.

At BS1, overwatch is usually lucky to kill more than a couple of models (this of course depends on what is shooting and what is being shot). However, without really fast or survivable troops, those casualties are taken from the front of the squad - having the effect of pushing back your unit and forcing you to make a longer assault.

This usually adds at least 1-2 inches, and often more if you're really pushing your assault distance (which is usually the case with foot-sloggers). This is why further-than-average charges are a bad idea - you're effectively giving your opponent a free round of shooting against troops who are unlikely to make it into close combat.

10"-12" charges can effectively be discounted, unless your target doesn't shoot in overwatch (CC only troops, non-walker vehicles, SnP), or you're a single, really tough model (dread, uber-character, or MC). Also, these edge-of-the-envelope charges mean you're giving up your opportunity to run, which would otherwise give you a vastly improved chance to charge next turn.

In addition, terrain is a double-edged sword - it gives an assault army cover for crossing the board, but it also massively skews the chances of making a charge.

The numbers required to charge through terrain (to the nearest 2dp) are as follows:

Charge distance - %age chance to roll that number on the dice - %age chance to succeed that charge

2" - 7.41% - 100%
3" - 12.5% - 92.59%
4" - 15.74% - 80.09%
5" - 16.67% - 64.35%
6" - 15.74% - 47.69%
7" - 12.5% - 31.94%
8" - 8.8% - 19.44%
9" - 5.56% - 10.65%
10" - 3.24% - 5.09%
11" - 1.39% - 1.85%
12" - 0.46% - 0.46%

Note how quickly the numbers drop - for example if you're trying to charge 6" you've already got less than a 50% chance to make it, while allowing your enemy a free round of overwatch shooting. Add in the extra distance required to make it due to casualties - lets say an extra 2" - and the chance of your charge succeeding drops below 50% at the 4" mark!

Also note that rolling a charge distance isn't like shooting, where the sheer number of dice will tend to average out the successes and failures, usually in the course of a game and even in a single round of fire. When you're making a charge distance, it's an all or nothing proposition - either you make it, or you don't, and if you don't you will be almost certainly be severely hurt by the enemy. It's hard to think of many other single dice rolls that can swing a game to the same extent - the only ones that spring to mind are the roll for first turn, night-fighting (maybe), and random game length (sometimes).

Finally, most assault troops still have some form of shooting available to them, even if its only a bolt pistol. However it's usually too risky to use this due to enemy casualty removal, thus taking away an opportunity to smooth the probability curve and inflict some casualties with kit they have (presumably) paid for.


Now, this isn't to say that there aren't ways around this...

For starters, be careful about positioning your assaults. If you possibly can, don't assault through cover. This is a key one - that cover really skews the chances of making an assault. Check your probabilities and balance the effect of making your assault against the consequences of failing the assault and giving up your chance to run.

Also, consider positioning a super-tough model at the front of your unit. As long as he survives (and he can do this through LoS), your effective charge distance is not being pushed back.

If you can, charge one enemy unit with more than one of your units. Your opponent can't overwatch both of them, giving you a guarantee that one unit will not be pushed back (unless you're fighing Tau of course). By carefully selecting your charge order based on how close your units are and how tough and killy they are, you can often force your opponent to make a tough choice. Does he go for the less effective CC unit that's close, or the more effective unit that's further away and charging second - but if the first unit makes it he doesn't get to overwatch at all?

However, the best way to get into close combat is by not requiring a really good roll in the first place - in other words, have fast (prefably tough) units that close with the enemy as fast as possible so you don't have to chance a risky charge.


My conclusion? Slow foot-sloggers are in real trouble this edition, as their ability to affect the game is based on a small number of dice rolls where the chance of failing is much greater than the chance of succeeding. However, units that are fast, very tough, or preferably both, can still reliably get into assault, and do it very successfully.

Assault is where units are tied up, taken out of play and destroyed.

Hedgehog, you are correct. this is where your placement of models, tactics come into effect again. First, if you place your more survivable models up front, they are less likely to be taken out by overwatch. My 3+ invulnerable save crusader is less likely to die from overwatch than my 5+ invulnerable save deathwatch assassin (I realize this is not an option for armies without multiple armor saves). Another way around that is to position so that multiple models are the same distance away from the target unit. Instead of lining them up, encircling the target unit. Before, you could be lazy and just push one model close but now, it is wiser to take the extra effort to stretch across the table to push all of the unit's models so that they are all 3 inches (random numerical distance) instead of just one. Again, leave tau out of the equation as we all agree their shooting is broken, especially with support fire on overwatch.

 Hedgehog wrote:

Charge distance - %age chance to roll that number on the dice - %age chance to succeed that charge

2" - 7.41% - 100%
3" - 12.5% - 92.59%
4" - 15.74% - 80.09%
5" - 16.67% - 64.35%
6" - 15.74% - 47.69%
7" - 12.5% - 31.94%
8" - 8.8% - 19.44%
9" - 5.56% - 10.65%
10" - 3.24% - 5.09%
11" - 1.39% - 1.85%
12" - 0.46% - 0.46%

While I agree with everything you've said, I think your math is a bit off. In your format of % chance to roll that number, and then chance to roll that number or better

2 - 2.77% (1 in 36) - 100%
3 - 5.55% (2 in 36) - 97.23%
4 - 8.33% (3 in 36) - 91.66%
5 - 11.11% (4 in 36) - 83.33%
6 - 13.88% (5 in 36) - 72.22%
7 - 16.66% (6 in 36) - 58.34%
8 - 13.66% (5 in 36) - 41.66%
9 - 11.11% (4 in 36) - 27.77%
10 - 8.33% (3 in 36) - 16.66%
11 - 5.55% (2 in 36) - 8.33%
12 - 2.77% (1 in 36) - 2.77%

 Carnage43 wrote:

 Hedgehog wrote:

Charge distance - %age chance to roll that number on the dice - %age chance to succeed that charge

2" - 7.41% - 100%
3" - 12.5% - 92.59%
4" - 15.74% - 80.09%
5" - 16.67% - 64.35%
6" - 15.74% - 47.69%
7" - 12.5% - 31.94%
8" - 8.8% - 19.44%
9" - 5.56% - 10.65%
10" - 3.24% - 5.09%
11" - 1.39% - 1.85%
12" - 0.46% - 0.46%

While I agree with everything you've said, I think your math is a bit off. In your format of % chance to roll that number, and then chance to roll that number or better

2 - 2.77% (1 in 36) - 100%
3 - 5.55% (2 in 36) - 97.23%
4 - 8.33% (3 in 36) - 91.66%
5 - 11.11% (4 in 36) - 83.33%
6 - 13.88% (5 in 36) - 72.22%
7 - 16.66% (6 in 36) - 58.34%
8 - 13.66% (5 in 36) - 41.66%
9 - 11.11% (4 in 36) - 27.77%
10 - 8.33% (3 in 36) - 16.66%
11 - 5.55% (2 in 36) - 8.33%
12 - 2.77% (1 in 36) - 2.77%

You're spot on for a standard charge, my figures are for a charge through cover, which is more common (at least where I play) and a lot less well known. I think my figures are right - it involved a while with a spreadsheet so there might be an error in there.

^ you do select the lowest while charging through cover...

 Makutsu wrote:
^ you do select the lowest while charging through cover...

It was late...

Looks like my figures are OK after all.

 More Dakka wrote:
Assault is where units are tied up, taken out of play and destroyed.

Yes, units your opponent chooses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EVIL INC wrote:
Walrus, are you saying that camo cloaks and stealth do not come into effect if the cover is another unit? What page is that on in the rulebook?
On your last post, exactly what tip or tactic were you providing? Maybe it it got cut off because none showed to the rest of us.
Faqed to only give cover to the backmost unit huh? I did not know that and I appreciate you pointing that out. Even so, one of the two units getting a 5+ save is still better than neither of them getting any at all, which means that it is still a valid tactic.

The thread is not about arguing points, it is about providing tips and tactics.

You aren't reading the rules correctly. Intervening units are a 5+ cover save. Camo cloaks don't have any language to change this; therefore, its a 5+. Eldar and Tau don't give a feth about your 5+ Especially the Tau. On the turn before assault, I've had Eldar kill 22 FNP ASM with shield of sanguinius up.

Camo cloaks say they add +1 to cover saves. There is nothing that says they only add +1 to certain cover saves and not others. therefore a cover save from an intervening unit that gives a 5+ would go to a 4+ if the unit takeing the save has camo cloaks. If they also have stealth, it stacks so it would be +2 making it a 3+ save. This is why I always give camo cloaks to my harker unit to give them a base 2+ cover save behind a ADL.

EVIL INC wrote:
Camo cloaks say they add +1 to cover saves. There is nothing that says they only add +1 to certain cover saves and not others. therefore a cover save from an intervening unit that gives a 5+ would go to a 4+ if the unit takeing the save has camo cloaks. If they also have stealth, it stacks so it would be +2 making it a 3+ save. This is why I always give camo cloaks to my harker unit to give them a base 2+ cover save behind a ADL.

I thought you were trying to say that units BEHIND the ones with the camo cloaks also get the benefit. Of course camo cloaks add to a cover save granted by soft cover, ie other bodies. But if you reverse the positioning, units behind other units with camo cloaks get no benefit.

None of these "revelations" makes assault any better in 6th. The shooty armies either a) will ignore cover or b) kill both squads.

Martel732 wrote:

EVIL INC wrote:
Camo cloaks say they add +1 to cover saves. There is nothing that says they only add +1 to certain cover saves and not others. therefore a cover save from an intervening unit that gives a 5+ would go to a 4+ if the unit takeing the save has camo cloaks. If they also have stealth, it stacks so it would be +2 making it a 3+ save. This is why I always give camo cloaks to my harker unit to give them a base 2+ cover save behind a ADL.

I thought you were trying to say that units BEHIND the ones with the camo cloaks also get the benefit. Of course camo cloaks add to a cover save granted by soft cover, ie other bodies. But if you reverse the positioning, units behind other units with camo cloaks get no benefit.

None of these "revelations" makes assault any better in 6th. The shooty armies either a) will ignore cover or b) kill both squads.

Or:

C) Throw so many shots at you that the cover save is irrelevant.

If an enemy is throwing enough shots at the screened unit to take it out, that means they are not shooting at my other 3 or 4 units. I would say by all means, wipe out that screened unit if it makes you happy. My deathstar unit that then makes it to the enemy line without ever even getting shot at will more than make up the points for my disposable cheapy unit.
this is why you don't just rush assault units across the board one at at time feeding the enemy guns bite sized tidbit. Your swamp them where it is impossible to take out all the threats before getting smashed. (again, do not include tau in this as their shooting is broken. I would say that shooting is not broken, just shooting from that particular army is).

On the other hand, if you feel that a 4+ or even 5+ cover save is useless, than by all means, I would love to play you in a tournament. just remember that thought and don't put anyone into cover or area terrain when you play me.