To stay on topic (hint hint), I would suggest that when setting up the tables, it is sometimes fun to try playing on a feral world. We used to have fun doing that asa matter of fact. A castle in the center of the table can be a lot of fun to play around. and you can set up a canmpaign where a feral agri world is being fought over. The castle walls block los very well and allow for some interesting aspects to be added to the game.
Large projects can also be fun for clubs to work on together. I realize space is often an issue but custom tables added to the collection can make a difference (as they will inevitably be used in tourneys). Ditches. tranches and so forth built into the table can offer some strategy in terms of 'can I make it to the next ditch or will I be stuck out in the open". My local shop has a table with a huge trench/river from one end to the other big enough to drive a land raider through. We often roll to see what it will be before the game 1- open 2,3- difficult 4,5- dangerous and 6- impassible (neding a bridge). Assaulty armies will hide out of sight in it and rush out onto their opponants. I enoy using the random terrain chart in the book. Different players will push for it to be different things depending on their army.
My personal goal is to build a trench network to match the wall of martyers to enpand it without having to spend as much $.
Note, ANY strategy or tactic has flaws. The one who says that flaws don't exist is a fool. Likewise, the one relying on a flaw to coincide witht their strengths is also a fool. a flaw is something that can possibly go wrong under special circumstances. As there is no "perfect" strategy or tactic waing around for one will mean you will never play a game. heck, even if everything goes right for you, the dice can fail you and you still lose. That does not make the strategy or tactic useless or invalid. to be honest, in order to "exploit" a flaw, you have to have full disclosure of the enemies strategy and army list before the game and tailor your list to exactly counter and exploit said flaw or the flaw will not even be an issue.
One interesting effect of the new Inquisition Codex is that it could give MEQ (excluding CSM) some much needed defence against plasma weapons. Ulumeathi Plasma Syphons and a chance of 4++ without having to pay for troops that don't fit into the list is going to make Black Tides (and/or stuff like Honour Guard) quite a bit more survivable, especially against Tau. While I remain sceptical that it'll be enough, I'll gladly take it.
EVIL INC wrote: To stay on topic (hint hint), I would suggest that when setting up the tables, it is sometimes fun to
Note, ANY strategy or tactic has flaws. The one who says that flaws don't exist is a fool. Likewise, the one relying on a flaw to coincide witht their strengths is also a fool. a flaw is something that can possibly go wrong under special circumstances. As there is no "perfect" strategy or tactic waing around for one will mean you will never play a game. heck, even if everything goes right for you, the dice can fail you and you still lose. That does not make the strategy or tactic useless or invalid. to be honest, in order to "exploit" a flaw, you have to have full disclosure of the enemies strategy and army list before the game and tailor your list to exactly counter and exploit said flaw or the flaw will not even be an issue.
given my success generally involve the sabotage and derailment of my opponents plans I can agree with this and that's why I still use cc units but shooting is always a better investment of points it even rolls better, at its best shooting can hit on a 2+ the best roll you can get for cc is a 3+ even if you are WS10 fighting blind men you cant do better than a 3+ hit (unless your kharn). all cc does for me is prevent a unit shooting, its hard to outshoot a riptide but tie it in cc for 5 turns and he's no longer a problem. I like useing white scars chapter tactics so that I can get out of cc situations and so keep on shooting.
in to 41st millennium if you want a man dead you shoot him, not club him to death
also I fail to see where this has gone of topic all we are doing is pointing out your not as correct as you think you are
EVIL INC wrote: To stay on topic (hint hint), I would suggest that when setting up the tables, it is sometimes fun to
Note, ANY strategy or tactic has flaws. The one who says that flaws don't exist is a fool. Likewise, the one relying on a flaw to coincide witht their strengths is also a fool. a flaw is something that can possibly go wrong under special circumstances. As there is no "perfect" strategy or tactic waing around for one will mean you will never play a game. heck, even if everything goes right for you, the dice can fail you and you still lose. That does not make the strategy or tactic useless or invalid. to be honest, in order to "exploit" a flaw, you have to have full disclosure of the enemies strategy and army list before the game and tailor your list to exactly counter and exploit said flaw or the flaw will not even be an issue.
given my success generally involve the sabotage and derailment of my opponents plans I can agree with this and that's why I still use cc units but shooting is always a better investment of points it even rolls better, at its best shooting can hit on a 2+ the best roll you can get for cc is a 3+ even if you are WS10 fighting blind men you cant do better than a 3+ hit (unless your kharn). all cc does for me is prevent a unit shooting, its hard to outshoot a riptide but tie it in cc for 5 turns and he's no longer a problem. I like useing white scars chapter tactics so that I can get out of cc situations and so keep on shooting.
in to 41st millennium if you want a man dead you shoot him, not club him to death
also I fail to see where this has gone of topic all we are doing is pointing out your not as correct as you think you are
You're not wrong about the hit roll in combat. I don't know what they were thinking! My best guess is they thought high-WS characters would also have multiple attacks and it was meant to balance that a bit. No, it doesn't make much sense to me either, but I'm fumbling to explain why they would load such a penalty on close combat like that.
Saying assault is dead in 40k is like saying that no one plays the game anymore. The Tau & IG Are basically the only two armies that abandon close combat in favor of shooting, and even the IG still have a modicum of assault potential.
I'll agree that assaults are less popular in 6e than 5e, but that's mostly the result of a single rule (Not being able to assault from reserves) That rule pretty much removes the most common use for the Outflank special rule, among others.
However, close combat still occurs and it's still just as lethal as it was before.
The problem with assaulting has not changed in 6e. It existed in 5e as well. That problem is delivery. Honestly I find the whole concept of overwatch to be a bit superfluous since there are only a small selection of units that aren't going to get shot before charging anyway.
If you have a wall of Space Marines and I am trying to charge assault that with some Ork Boyz or a squad of Assault Marines, I still have to get them to you somehow. If that means flootslogging it across the board than you get plenty of time to shoot that squad to bits before the become a threat. Alternatively, if I pile my guys into a Trukk or a Rhino, I still have to get to you, and even when I do I have to disembark (can't assault) and just sit there uselessly for a turn while you get to shoot me. (not actually the case with the boyz since trukks are open-topped but that's actually my point).
Dark Eldar and Orks are the only two armies in the game that can reliably deliver a close combat squad to engage without getting shot to bits. Overwatch or not. The Land Raider being an assault vehicle is moot since the damn thing costs 250 points base and is a massive fire magnet (in a world with increasingly easy access to high S low AP weapons).
Assaulting in 40k has just undergone a shift. It is now more of a "side effect" of shooting, not the thing that you shoot at to keep from happening
Assaulting in 40k has just undergone a shift. It is now more of a "side effect" of shooting, not the thing that you shoot at to keep from happening
I agree with most of what you're saying, but I'm not sure how CC is a side effect of shooting.
If you mean it in that it's a secondary function of your units, then I'll agree, but how I read it it looked like: "You do some shooting and kills stuff, but you'll get stuck in h2h".
in to 41st millennium if you want a man dead you shoot him, not club him to death
also I fail to see where this has gone of topic all we are doing is pointing out your not as correct as you think you are
no one is saying (or has ever said) that shooting someone in 40k is not more efficient than clubbing him to death. it is a science fiction game where the gun is king. my point is that it SHOULD be more gun oriented. that is what my detracters disagree with. They are upset that the current edition has brought guns to be more effective and are argueing to make close combat more effective than guns) and are railing that close combat is dead and no longer plays a part in the game.
My view is that they are wrong in this. Close combat is still a valid and vial part of the game (even for the shooty units) and that those who wish to field units specially designed for close combat over shooting can still use them and have them "do thing". Yu may feel that I am "not as correct as I think I am" in this statement but I have proven myself to be correct in this many times not only on here but in games and tournaments.
Believe it or not, You CAN still use close combat units. You will often find that the old no brainers have been replaced with new ones in this and you may find that you have to be more strategic and tactical than before (more in keeping with realism and the fluff) but it is still possible to do it. As already mentioned, proper terrain set up can assist with this along with specific tactics and strategies. For example the slingshot effect a chaos player can use to safely get a lord into combat without him taking a single shot (although as with any other tactic, there are counters that can sometimes be used). Another example is the denied flank to cut the enemy army in half where you overwhelm the half you target and force their other half to lose turnsbringing itself to bear and by then, it is seriously out"gunned" and easily overwhelmed. These are just two examples of possible ways to more effectively use your close combat elements that many players are finding difficult to use. As mentioned ad nausiam, that is the purpose of the thread, to discuss actual tactics and strategies to assist with this.
EVIL INC wrote: They are upset that the current edition has brought guns to be more effective and are argueing to make close combat more effective than guns) and are railing that close combat is dead and no longer plays a part in the game.
Not one of us have ever claimed that CC is dead, or that shooty = autowin. We have, however, given strong evidence that CC is for the most part far inferior to Shooting, and until we see the next Ork codex, we're unlikely to see any change in the matter.
in to 41st millennium if you want a man dead you shoot him, not club him to death
also I fail to see where this has gone of topic all we are doing is pointing out your not as correct as you think you are
no one is saying (or has ever said) that shooting someone in 40k is not more efficient than clubbing him to death. it is a science fiction game where the gun is king. my point is that it SHOULD be more gun oriented. that is what my detracters disagree with. They are upset that the current edition has brought guns to be more effective and are argueing to make close combat more effective than guns) and are railing that close combat is dead and no longer plays a part in the game.
My view is that they are wrong in this. Close combat is still a valid and vial part of the game (even for the shooty units) and that those who wish to field units specially designed for close combat over shooting can still use them and have them "do thing". Yu may feel that I am "not as correct as I think I am" in this statement but I have proven myself to be correct in this many times not only on here but in games and tournaments.
Believe it or not, You CAN still use close combat units. You will often find that the old no brainers have been replaced with new ones in this and you may find that you have to be more strategic and tactical than before (more in keeping with realism and the fluff) but it is still possible to do it. As already mentioned, proper terrain set up can assist with this along with specific tactics and strategies. For example the slingshot effect a chaos player can use to safely get a lord into combat without him taking a single shot (although as with any other tactic, there are counters that can sometimes be used). Another example is the denied flank to cut the enemy army in half where you overwhelm the half you target and force their other half to lose turnsbringing itself to bear and by then, it is seriously out"gunned" and easily overwhelmed. These are just two examples of possible ways to more effectively use your close combat elements that many players are finding difficult to use. As mentioned ad nausiam, that is the purpose of the thread, to discuss actual tactics and strategies to assist with this.
Okay my apologies but what in the bloody world of insanity does whether shooting should or should not be king. And why it should be more oriented to one thing or another. Might I remind you that 40k has never been realistic with constant portrayals of clooose combat, races that thrive in cc, factions that fluff wise crash in from meteors or just pop out from the warp to run a sword or hatchet or whatever through your face. 40k has never been sci fi as much as it has been sci fantasy. For bloody sake, we have wizar- psykers of all things! Also you claim that people want cc to be more effective. To be blunt, I don't want it to be. I want them to be equal! When you have orks, DE, daemons, BA, Nids, CSM, etc... when so many races show obvious favoratism to close combat, shooting shouldn't be the paramount. Now, I will concede, most armies should have some form of shooting whilst a few factions having very little in forms of cc is fine! Humans are weak and are prone to guns to make up for our own flaws and that is fine. I don't want assault to auto curb stomp shooting. If I could, I'd like a game where it really comes down to that last model. My favorite memory was when I was new to the game. I decided to play orks (had a small set of them) against my friend's new IG. We went at it his guardsman holding firm shooting my models to bits whilst I would shoot back with the small amount of support I had left before using close range fire (I like to call it assault . It's not cc but it is to an extent connected to cc) before charging in and fighting in cc. In the end, I won with a single ork boy surrounded by the carnage of many guardsman and orks. Those are the battles I love! I don't want to pick cc and feel like I am cheating a victory nor do I want to feel like just because I am picking to specialize in CC I am to some extent making myself nerfed to an extent.
Also CC isn't a valid option for all shooting units in the majority of times. It's a risk that can bring profit but often comes at its own costs. Why would my tau want to charge a single guardsman? I'd rather just overwatch him. If I try to assault, I risk missing the charge or worse yet charging them, killing the unit, and being in the open. Also you keep on claiming so many of us are claiming CC is dead. It isn't! Nobody said it is dead here. Did people say it is generally inferior? Yes. Because it is. There are certain cc units that work. That being said, it's extremely limited in numbers to a very small minority (for example for chaos it really is csm bikers, abbaddon (debatable), daemon prince (sometimes considered overpriced), spawn, and chaos lord (particularly bikers and juggerlords). These things function but many other cc elements are absolutely pathetically useless and provide little to no use. And that's only csm. It's not dead by any means but that doesn't mean that currently it is the inferior of the two types. Also claiming you have evidence from tournies and games mean little when we can note that tau are the dominant lords of tournaments and are shooty and the top cc are either deathstars that are just so stupidly invincible it is maddening or are chaos daemons (which are arguably deathstar and thanks to the new inquisitor that is rumoured to be on many lists it might kill one or two of the big chaos assault tactics). Also, you never answered my question of where the heck is this creature that has 44 s5 rending attacks that you posted long ago before you decided to make this close combat thread.
Also for all the tactical claims of cc as it fits with 40k... Let's look at it. IG, decide to send waves of bodies to clear explosives.... send waves of guardsman to get to the enemy in cc. Chaos Daemons. These guys don't just hide in cover all the time. No, these guys flicker in and out of reality darting around playing with your fears and making you go mad. Your bullets phase through them as they cackle or giggle madly. Your bro psyker suddenly has a headache before a giant daemon pops out of his head whilst a daemon suddenly pops up right before you a giant warp hole torn right behind you as legions of daemons pour out to feast on your soul so close that you can't even pull up a gun before their blade is swinging down upon you. Tyranids? They can use tactics yes.... but tyranids often just send wave after wave of cc nids to rip you apart using supporting fire to destroy tanks and the sorts. Orks? Waz dat? Ya want tactics? Well here's it. We iz da meanist greenest of da orks and we gonna krump em good let's do it WAAAGH! *charges at foe madly due to being fearless a giant green tide to sweep away the foe), etc.
Now the final part does have merit. Terrain can be used to CC armies and the slingshot has its uses. The problem comes down to not all tournaments have equal distribution of terrain, not all shops allow you to just plunk down your own terrain, not everyone wants to be stuck with the slingshot tactic, some tournaments have far too little terrain... Along with that, we might be grand strategists but there is also an equal chance our foe (let is claim he is shooting oriented dramatically so IG, Tau, maybe Eldar) is equally knowledgeable and sets up to counter our own set up of terrain. This is quite the possibility not to mention not all of these things seem fair when playing against a friend or just having fun with a pick up game against certain opponents that might not want such a competitive game where terrain set up is a part of the challenge. Heck, I admit I know how to but I prefer narrative terrain. I purposefully set up death zones where units can't have cover and have to brave walking over open death zones to another location but I also make sure that there is cover to hide in. When I can find LOS obstruction, I purposefully make sure to place it in the middle so that the assault army can at least have some of their units near the foe. That being said, it doesn't quite solve the problem for more hoardy armies (and trust me there are certain times where lots of terrain has fethed me over as well as times where tau guns have pushed back ork tides).
Anyways any ideas how to possibly use inquisitors as a support agent? Perhaps use them to double the shooting aspect so that a small segment of your total army is more capable of taking down priority targets with tons of anti-infantry weapons to get yoru units in to fight?
So you have decided to backtrack and deny your earlier posts. Good. Exactly what tactic or strategy does that post have to help players better use their close combat units?
A tactic I have sen players use that I consider a "jerk move". is to put a long los blocking hill (impassible as well) across the front of an enemy deployment zone to effectively cut it off altogether from setting a gunline up on it and ten assaulting over it in the game with jump pack equipped troops.
Once I had a guy insist that fortifications be placed before terrain. to demonstrate how this could be abused, I set a huge rock up directly in front of his ADL quad gun so that it could only see side to side and behind it. He was not a happy camper and never insisted on that again so far as I know.
EVIL INC wrote: So you have decided to backtrack and deny your earlier posts. Good. Exactly what tactic or strategy does that post have to help players better use their close combat units?
A tactic I have sen players use that I consider a "jerk move". is to put a long los blocking hill (impassible as well) across the front of an enemy deployment zone to effectively cut it off altogether from setting a gunline up on it and ten assaulting over it in the game with jump pack equipped troops.
Once I had a guy insist that fortifications be placed before terrain. to demonstrate how this could be abused, I set a huge rock up directly in front of his ADL quad gun so that it could only see side to side and behind it. He was not a happy camper and never insisted on that again so far as I know.
For the love of.... NOBODY said cc was dead here. NOBODY! Please stop going on and conflating being inferior as = dead.
Anyways, keep in mind I don't have the rulebook at hand, if memory serves me fortifications are placed before terrain as RaW. many people have loathed this as what you said is exactly what enemies would do. It's one of the parts that people raged at the most for such a long time. And oh my gosh that is a bloody jerk move. So make it almost impossible to shoot and then fly over and slaughter. Yeah that's just a cheap tactic.... which I have a feeling is something most of us here don't want to do simply because it sorta dirties the victory. Although perhaps to a certain extent (if willing to accept such tactics), it would be possible to use such a structure (although smaller), as a way to limit their deployment into an option of being split up by way of hill or limiting movement and then using threaet overwhelm by way of isolation to crush them perhaps throwing a priority target in the other direction to make either choice costly (I always liked making my LoC a giant beat of a monster that could tank shots. Was it perfect? No. If they were wise they would have just focused on the rest of my army. It was more of me thinking of having fun messing around with my favorite model in the game (fluff not model). What happened was entertaining though. Even against a foe I often to consider a very sound opponent that knows how to play the game, even he succamb to fear and terror and tried to kill the thing. Unlike many of my other foes, he realized his flaw and promptly struck the rest of my army down (he ended up winning by a single point. I had a skull cannon and full wound LoC and he a warrior and termegaunt. One more turn and I would have won curses!). Others though often would panic and try to kill it off. I suppose this is the same thing that many tau use to their benefit when deploying riptides )
EVIL INC wrote: no one is saying (or has ever said) that shooting someone in 40k is not more efficient than clubbing him to death. it is a science fiction game where the gun is king. my point is that it SHOULD be more gun oriented. that is what my detracters disagree with. They are upset that the current edition has brought guns to be more effective and are argueing to make close combat more effective than guns) and are railing that close combat is dead and no longer plays a part in the game.
Last time you said this I asked for you to find the quote and post it. Have you yet? Or are you pretending and misstating yet again?
Once again, close combat is a valid and ital. part of the game. Even a lowly guard infantry unit will often find itself engaged in close combat on occasion.
true, some of the old no brainers that were always taken have been made obsolete and players will need to find the new no brainers to use when considering an assault unit. Some would say thatthis might even be done on purpose in order to force players to buy more models. As to the veracity of that, who can say
One of the things thatcan be done to assist in assaulting is the placement of different models within the unit as they advance. often, models within a unit will be equipped differently and you want to protect your heavy hitters from being one of the few picked off before you close. You don't really want your powerfist armed sarge running up front, you might want him further towards the rear where only a rare precision shot from a character model or sniper rifle could reach him. I usually run my crusaders up front with the death cult assassins running behind them. little tings like that can make a big difference when you hit the enemy lines.
On a side note, this thread is dedicated to giving specific tactics and strategies that can be useful in helping assault units be more useful and more effectively used under the rules of the current edition and codex. If you want to discuss how dead close combat is or how shooting is so much more powerful then before or whatever other unrelated topics you have spammed page after page with, start another thread as it has no place here.
EVIL INC wrote: Once again, close combat is a valid and ital.
yes, CC is in some ways valid. It is not vital, however. An army that takes nothing but gunpower has a fair chance of winning.
Aside from daemons, an army with nothing but melee units is hardly going to find any success.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EVIL INC wrote: If you want to discuss how dead close combat is or how shooting is so much more powerful then before or whatever other unrelated topics you have spammed page after page with, start another thread as it has no place here.
Not one of us have ever claimed that CC is dead, or that shooty = autowin. We have, however, given strong evidence that CC is for the most part far inferior to Shooting, and until we see the next Ork codex, we're unlikely to see any change in the matter.
Units are charged too many points for their CC abilities in 6th ed. That's why I say "assault is dead'. Because bringing assault based units that aren't of a certain elite few result in an overcosted list, and a serious disadvantage in combat.
Start a thread if you wish to discus that topic. It is not related to this conversation. this army is also not about armie dedicated soley to assault units. it is about how to use the assault units that are taken more effectively.
To stay on topic, I won m most recent tournament using an assaulting grey knight army (may last opponent that I almost tabled as well as roundly defeating was a wave serpent elder list). I took a huge gamble and combined in guard allied to provide most of the heavy shooting. The gamble I took was using a manticore. Had my shots deviated in a bad way, I could have done some serious damage to myself instead of hammering/softening up the enemy. The allies (while often broken) can help you have unit combinations that were not otherwise possible. For example, I can use thebest shooty aspects of my guard combined with the best assault aspects of my grey knights to work together in such a way that the combination is as or more effective than each separately depending upon the situation.
that is what my detracters disagree with. They are upset that the current edition has brought guns to be more effective and are argueing to make close combat more effective than guns) and are railing that close combat is dead and no longer plays a part in the game.
Please sir! Evil Inc is making up stories again!
Look - we've all been asked to keep on topic and I'm sure we're all willing to do that but every second post by you contains this sly little swipe at other people claiming that people are saying "close combat is dead" and other crap. Just stop it before this thread derails again. Learn to play nice. Or you could (though this must be the ninth time you've been called on it), actually point out where any of your "detracters" (sic) have said any such thing. You just absolutely are incapable of leaving well alone, aren't you?
I still assert that assault is dead for 85% of units. The chosen few units like hounds and 2+ rerollable units can still assault effectively, but they are an outlier.
EVIL INC wrote: Once I had a guy insist that fortifications be placed before terrain. to demonstrate how this could be abused, I set a huge rock up directly in front of his ADL quad gun so that it could only see side to side and behind it. He was not a happy camper and never insisted on that again so far as I know.
Is this another of your "4+ cover save" moments? You're supposed to place fortifications before terrain. That's the rules. Pg. 120.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
StarTrotter wrote: Anyways any ideas how to possibly use inquisitors as a support agent? Perhaps use them to double the shooting aspect so that a small segment of your total army is more capable of taking down priority targets with tons of anti-infantry weapons to get yoru units in to fight?
Inquisitors themselves, maybe. Haven't really looked at them yet. But servo skulls that you can get with them - they can help you deep strike more accurately. You have to manage to stop your opponent from removing it before needed, but with judicious placement of the skulls (they are so cheap it is insulting), you can sometimes get a significantly more reliable Deep Strike with them.
Nasser, Exactly how do you get a 4+ cover save out of that. that was me demonstrating to him WHY you put terrain down BEFORE fortifications. If you wanted to let him shoot through the rock for a 4+ save oromething that would be up to you and him if that had ben you playing him in that particular game.
try to keep on topic. You've been warned multiple times for straying.
Star, I hae not seen the new inq codesome insight. How effective are the servo skulls at denying infiltration locations to units such a rangers and so forth? I think the use of them in certain situations could help prevent an opponent from infiltrating into spots that would help them expand their fire lanes and possibly keep routes open to you.
EVIL INC wrote: Nasser, Exactly how do you get a 4+ cover save out of that. that was me demonstrating to him WHY you put terrain down BEFORE fortifications.
You don't put down terrain before fortifications. You're playing it wrong. RAW states that you place all fortifications first, and then start deploying terrain. This is the case for all standard missions and I already gave you a page reference in my original post. I'll do so again - page 120 in the main book. The part about this being another "4+ cover save" is a reference to earlier in the thread where very much appeared to think the common cover save was 4+ rather than 5+ (you still haven't had the grace to admit you were wrong, btw). I was just highlighting that your advice contained a fundamental rules error which could mislead someone.
EVIL INC wrote: If you wanted to let him shoot through the rock for a 4+ save oromething that would be up to you and him if that had ben you playing him in that particular game.
As explained above, you haven't understood what I was writing. So I'll take this opportunity to ask you again to take a less condescending tone toward other people and stop telling them to leave the thread, that other people should ignore them, etc.
EVIL INC wrote: try to keep on topic. You've been warned multiple times for straying.
I'm pretty darn certain that correcting rules errors you are advising people on is "on topic" and I accept my shared part in earning that thread warning earlier and apologise to the general readership, but please don't try to make it all about me. You make it sound as if a mod has sent me personally a warning. I've received none at all. Just that reminder from the mod to all of us to keep it on topic. So how about you leave the mod'ing to the mods. You've been presuming to issue warnings to other posters who disagreed with you throughout this thread. Maybe don't do that? And if you wanted to actually keep things on topic, rather than posturing that you do in order to look like a victim, you'd stop throwing in all these little baiting comments putting words into other people's mouths. Do you think you're going to get other people into mod trouble? Is that what the baiting is about? All you'll achieve is to get a thread locked when it should be about giving advice out.
As much as you might think it to be otherwise, there are more cover saves than just 4+. There are 6+ down/up through 2+ as well. My harker mob actually gets a2+ without goin to ground through the use of an ADL, stealth and camo. Shooting through a unit at another gives the target unit a 5+ save. better if they have stealth or camo or some other modifier.i have tried to explain that the use of cover can help keep a unit alive longer. the better the save, the more chances it has of staying alive. check it out sometime and you will see that your units usually end up living longer.
So your saying that it is illegal to place a rock outcropping in front of an ADL gun to block it's los across the field if terrain set up allows for it and the oponant left room for me to do so? Where is that at on page 120. I musta missed it. Doing that as a demonstration of why I think terrain should go down first is within the rules. The very fact that players can abuse it in that fashion is one of the reasons why I feel this way.Another is that it just doesn't make sense. I see the forests or mountains being in place centuries (or millennia) before I come to fight this battle.
This being said, that is a way to put a damper on a gunline army. If they put a defence down such as an ADL and you are then able to block it off to where it's gun cant see to shoot or something is in front of the wall blocking the shots of anyone standing behind it, you can make the points spent on it be wasted. this is of course a lil harder to do against the bigger items like the fortress of redemption.
yes, mods have been here twice asking people to stay on topic. I have done so throughout. you menton unrelated topics. Remember, this thread is about HELPING players better use the close combat units they have. Discuss tactics and strategies on that topic instead of personal attacks. I would be more than happy to see this thread locked so that I can start it fresh (hopefully without the flames, trolling and off topic spamming).
EVIL INC wrote: So your saying that it is illegal to place a rock outcropping in front of an ADL gun to block it's los across the field if terrain set up allows for it and the oponant left room for me to do so? Where is that at on page 120. I musta missed it. Doing that as a demonstration of why I think terrain should go down first is within the rules. The very fact that players can abuse it in that fashion is one of the reasons why I feel this way.Another is that it just doesn't make sense. I see the forests or mountains being in place centuries (or millennia) before I come to fight this battle.
So now you're saying you don't feel like it should be that way, when before you seemed certain the rules didn't allow it.
Perhaps you could be more clear in the future as to what rules you're making up and what rules are actually rules?
Because the actual rules say to place fortifications first.
(hopefully without the flames, trolling and off topic spamming).
Martel732 wrote: Units are charged too many points for their CC abilities in 6th ed. That's why I say "assault is dead'. Because bringing assault based units that aren't of a certain elite few result in an overcosted list, and a serious disadvantage in combat.
OH! OH! THERE IT IS!! HE SAID IT! EVERYONE POINT FINGERS! :O
Ok, can we can get over who said it and back onto the subject of making close combat somewhat effective? Also, just on a side note, and I hate contributing to the mayhem, but I can at least feel good I've stayed on point, been constructive and at least semi-entertaining somewhere along the line, I'd like to add this: Reecius has a thread up right now about how you can screw shooters over in Close Combat. ;>> From Frontline Gaming? Yeah, he's posting a series of vids right now with some "dirty tactics" including a lot of good mess about how to cripple Tau with their own guns. lol
For you guys crying "Inferior! I can't do it!!" you should probably go look around for some inspiration. I know I was feeling down and I'm a newb who started early this year....buuuuuuuuuuuut....you know, I changed my panties and started being awesome again. Just sayin'
.
..
...
and THAT'S trolling. XD Not really, still of merit and on point. Infact, here is that link to Reecius' videos. Enjoy.
So your saying that it is illegal to place a rock outcropping in front of an ADL gun to block it's los across the field if terrain set up allows for it and the oponant left room for me to do so? Where is that at on page 120. I musta missed it. Doing that as a demonstration of why I think terrain should go down first is within the rules.
No. He's not. He was telling you that RAW states that you place fortifications before terrain. Nothing more, nothing less.
yes, mods have been here twice asking people to stay on topic. I have done so throughout. you menton unrelated topics. Remember, this thread is about HELPING players better use the close combat units they have. Discuss tactics and strategies on that topic instead of personal attacks. I would be more than happy to see this thread locked so that I can start it fresh (hopefully without the flames, trolling and off topic spamming).
You seem to forget Evil Inc that it has been your posts that keep derailing the thread. Your posts constantly contain objectionable content such as:
-Ad hominen
-Straw man
-Incorrect, Misinterpreted or Imaginary rules
-Wild Accusations
-Telling people to leave the thread just because they disagreed with you.
If the point of this thread is to advise new players on how to most effectively use their assault-oriented armies than the only real advise you can give them is to practice.
There is no "right" way to do it. There are melee units in every codex and using them or not is up to the player who has to pay out the money and dedicate the time (which is substantial) to assemble and prepare them for the game. Armies are not made by accident. Barring the starter sets most armies are custom tailored from the get go to suit a specific purpose. If a player has created an assault force and doesn't know how to use it, they may be better off trying something else.
Also bear in mind that the Tau are a pretty recent release and they are perceived (incorrectly but that another thread for another time) to be the dominant shooty army. This has a lot of the game mechanics related to shooting at the forefront of people's minds. It's normal. We are overdue for an Ork and a Tyranid codex. Both of which I am certain will have plenty of new and exciting ways to get your units into the gore-spattered, bone grinding close combat assaults that make 40k what it is.
Just be patient. In time the Flavor-of-the-month-ness of the Tau will wear thin and people will remember that there is more to the game than pointing big guns down the table and hoping that people forgot how to melee.
1. No. He's not. He was telling you that RAW states that you place fortifications before terrain. Nothing more, nothing less.
2. You seem to forget Evil Inc that it has been your posts that keep derailing the thread. Your posts constantly contain objectionable content such as:
-Ad hominen
-Straw man
-Incorrect, Misinterpreted or Imaginary rules
-Wild Accusations
-telling people to leave the thread just because they disagreed with you.
T1. There is nothing wrong with me placing a rock outcropping in front of an ADL gun to demonstrate the reason why I personally feel that terrain should be deployed first. the rules allow for me to do this. Normally, I would not have but in that particular game, I was demonstrating a point. if you think that this is a jerk play, rest ased, then I gree. if you think it should not be llwed, contact GW to explain it to them. Flaming me for it here does not chage that it is aploythat is expoitable.
2. each ad every single one f my posts has been on topic in spite of your aempts to derail it with flames and trolling in an effort to get it closed because I started the thread. the things, you accused me of doing are in all actuality what YOU are doing. No one s telling anyone to leave the thread for disagreeing with them except yourself. I have asked people to post thingstht are totally unrelated to the thread in threads where they belong or to keep the personal threats and insults out of the thread. the thread is about helping people more effectively use their close comba units and this is a topic that you have not even a single time addressed.
once more, to stay on topic. has anyone besides myself here tried the denied flank strategy? This has workd well for me on many occasions. What I am more interested in, how do you feel it would work on a vanguard deployment. I understand you could throw it out the window with hammer and anvil of course but am curious about using it with vanguard. anyone have experience with that?
Martel732 wrote: Unfortunately, fortifications do go down before terrain. I've had my quad gun blocked many times. That's why I've switched to a comms realy build.
how often do you have this happen to you/ I've never really seen players do that. I only did it the once to make a point of what COULD happen. In the local tourneys, the tables are preset to save time so it isn't an issue then and in friendly games, our locals aren't usually jerk enough to do it.
Refused flank only works against assault armies if you're a shooty army. Not worth it if you're planning to assault because Tau + Eldar just outrange you.
1. No. He's not. He was telling you that RAW states that you place fortifications before terrain. Nothing more, nothing less.
1. There is nothing wrong with me placing a rock outcropping in front of an ADL gun to demonstrate the reason why I personally feel that terrain should be deployed first. the rules allow for me to do this.
So then we're in agreement? You can ruin ADL and Quad Turret with Terrain? Because Forts go down first, then terrain? Great. Glad we got that settled. Now you two can stop kicking each other in the balls now. lol
Regardless of whether or not think it should be that way. It is. And I agree. What sense does it make that when we put together a planet (because that's essentially what you are doing when you create the battlefield at that time) we build buildings first, then rocks and trees and dirt and stuff like that. lol
More of that GW common sense. However, if we're talking "tactically" and trying to just play a game, then yeah, that's not that bad. A little douchy, sure, but we're talking about neutralizing some pretty powerful and game changing fortifications. I would think it would also make players be more crafty about how they set their forts. Like, instead of castling up in the corner where someone can stick a horseshoe around your fort, maybe you put it out towards the middle a bit more? Maybe you have a chain of ADL's instead of a box? Maybe we even zig-zag the chains to create firing lines. There are a lot of solutions like that.
1. No. He's not. He was telling you that RAW states that you place fortifications before terrain. Nothing more, nothing less.
2. You seem to forget Evil Inc that it has been your posts that keep derailing the thread. Your posts constantly contain objectionable content such as:
-Ad hominen
-Straw man
-Incorrect, Misinterpreted or Imaginary rules
-Wild Accusations
-telling people to leave the thread just because they disagreed with you.
T1. There is nothing wrong with me placing a rock outcropping in front of an ADL gun to demonstrate the reason why I personally feel that terrain should be deployed first. the rules allow for me to do this. Normally, I would not have but in that particular game, I was demonstrating a point. if you think that this is a jerk play, rest ased, then I gree. if you think it should not be llwed, contact GW to explain it to them. Flaming me for it here does not chage that it is aploythat is expoitable.
2. each ad every single one f my posts has been on topic in spite of your aempts to derail it with flames and trolling in an effort to get it closed because I started the thread. the things, you accused me of doing are in all actuality what YOU are doing. No one s telling anyone to leave the thread for disagreeing with them except yourself. I have asked people to post thingstht are totally unrelated to the thread in threads where they belong or to keep the personal threats and insults out of the thread. the thread is about helping people more effectively use their close comba units and this is a topic that you have not even a single time addressed.
I can't believe I'm having to address this again. Half my posts are about CC, the rest seem to be having to tell you that your petty posts are a problem.
1) Where did this thing even come from? Nobody is saying that it is wrong to place a rock in front of an ADL. If anything, we're trying to prove you right by saying that it is a legitimate move...
Correcting a previous rules misinterpretation is not flaming, and is an on-topic comment in any and all parts of the Tactics sub-forum.
2) Where have I used any of those childish tactics? And here is where I have been very much on topic:
Selym wrote: Yes, CC power does start when you build your list. However, due to the points efficiency imbalance between many CC units and Dakka units, it is often a better choice just to go for the guns (which tend to allow you to begin killing from turn 1, while taking equal or less damage than the CC units).
While terrain setup can help you, half of the terrain is placed by your opponent, who will undoubtedly do his/her best to make your CC units die on the way up. Additionally, it is not an uncommon practice for tournament tables to have the terrain setup before the battles begin, with the terrain set up to not allow either side any particular advantage.
Yes, tactics can help you in many situations. But, there will always be situations where your LR didn't fit into the list particularly well or it got shot out too early etc. You can't place all your hopes in one very expensive vehicle, and hope to come out on top all the time. I haven't covered the full extent of this part of the debate, as I feel others will do it better than I.
EVIL INC wrote: These others are saying that it is not possible to get cover saves with assaulting units as they cross the table. I have proven that it IS possible.
They have also made the claims that they are totally worthless. By all means, don't bother taking them when you play me.
Having read through this entire thread with interest, I have to say the above sums up why I'm having a problem with EVIL INC's posts. Nowhere in what I have read have Selym or rigeld said that it is "impossible" to get cover or that they are totally worthless. The above is putting your own words in someone else's mouth in order to make it easier to shoot them down. You've repeatedly accused them of being insulting and trolling and saying how you have "proved" them wrong. But as someone new to this site who knows no-one here and has just started reading this thread from the beginning, what I see is mostly reasonable posts and a lot of attempts by you to cast other posters as villains, to pretend that they are a minority who everyone else considers discredited and to drag the conversation down to the level of dick sizes. Just stop. Your attempts to try and pretend things are concluded or people think they're wrong are transparent and unhelpful. I'm an old player (from Rogue Trader days) who has taken a long absence and is now returning and I've found their comments helpful. It is not enough just to list ways of surviving into close combat if those ways don't work well or are very difficult to achieve. I need to know how viable tactics are. And both of their posts have been helpful to me as a returning player.
You are the one trolling by repeated straw-man'ing and changing of subject rather than admit a mistake. And I would love to see it stop whilst these other two posters are still remaining polite rather than lose their temper and sink to aggressive name-calling and mud-throwing as you have been.
For my own part, though I'm still gearing up to be good at sixth edition (there are still too many enemy troop types that I am unfamiliar with and I need more recent game experience at a high level), I'm coming to the opinion that for the most part, the best approach to Close Combat is to treat it as a follow-up punch or a defence force. Once I've started shooting up the enemy, then assault troops can make an excellent game-tipper. Similarly, if the enemy has encroached on my gun troops or is closing on an objective, some quality CC troops can really hit back hard. Close Combat is potentially very powerful. Get a small force of Wraith Blades mixing it up with a large number of lower quality troops and they can push back (and Sweeping Advance with some luck) many times their number. I'm finding the balance in my armies to be a small to medium smattering of quality CC amongst a non-CC focused list. If advancing, I keep my CC troops ready as a follow-up punch to drive people from objectives and if being advanced upon, they're ready to spring out on the enemy once they get too close and wreck the enemy's plans. As an advancing first strike approach, I am finding it hard to get them into combat without basically offering up a valuable gun-unit as a sacrifice. And the really good players wont fall for it anyway. Or simply have too much power. Close Combat benefits a lot from being a mid-game strategy.
I don't know what the others think of this. It's the impression of a returning old player trying to bring themselves up to speed on a new edition, but I'd be extremely interested and grateful to hear how it sounds (accurate or idiotic).
2. each ad every single one f my posts has been on topic in spite of your aempts to derail it with flames and trolling in an effort to get it closed because I started the thread. the things, you accused me of doing are in all actuality what YOU are doing. No one s telling anyone to leave the thread for disagreeing with them except yourself. I have asked people to post thingstht are totally unrelated to the thread in threads where they belong or to keep the personal threats and insults out of the thread. the thread is about helping people more effectively use their close comba units and this is a topic that you have not even a single time addressed.
Where are we trolling? Where are we trying to get the thread closed on purpouse? You've told us multiple times to stop disagreeing with you, we've called you out on being the one insulting several times and we've pointed out why your tactics don't work several times, which is helping people more effectively use their close combat units, as it points out that your tactics don't work.
Refused flank as a melee army trying to counter a shooty army doesn't do much, because they can still shoot you from the other flank. It works AGAINST melee armies because you're forcing half the melee units into your entire army, but you're not reducing shooting power by much.
selym, you prove my point for me. ot a single word in your post regarding the topic of helping players better use assault units but plenty of unwarranted vitriol.. thank you
Walrus, at least you put in something regarding it. THIS post of yours addresses a possible weakness of a strategy without saying that there are no possible ones that could work.
I never claimed this was an end all be all strategy. 1. Remember, using assault troops more effectively is not an "us vs them" issue. It is also how to better use assault troops against other assault troops as well.
2.There are a few things to try when using this strategy. One is to assault the flank with the longest ranged weapons. For example, the flank where they have their basilisks set up. that way, you are nuetralizig their range and actually getting within their min range so they always deviate the full distance. another is to concentrate the objectives in the side you are going after first so that the rest of their army has to come after you or you win by default of holding the objectives.
Of course, this strategy just doesn't always work. you have to guage before a game and decide what you think will work or not.
Sometimes, it just is not feasible and you need to try something else (which is part of what this thread is about, getting a larger repartee of different things to try. You (or someone else) can pick apart any strategy or tactic and sh ow ways to neutralize them. however, you know as well as I that this is not always possible to put into practice. You cant change your army list halfway through a tourney to counter my strategy. This is why I don't mind that. it helps give us an idea of what to look at from both sides and how to tweak along the way.
Flat out saying "this will never work", its rubbish there are no possible ways to ever effectively use assault units" as selym and a few others are doing is not the way to go about this. the best way (I think) is to have as many different possibilities as possible given and discuss the pros and cons of each honestly and openly. As you mentioned, the denied flank can be weakened by planning ahead for the possibility, but then, this is where tactics come in because if you set up first and place your units to keep me from effectively using that tactic, you may be opening up the door for another that we ight discuss. You cant plan for and set up to deny ALL strategies and tactics, it is impossible.
BTW flat out telling me my "tactics don't work" is counterproductive. I have proven that they do. I have proven that they do by using them to win and place in regional tournaments as well as in countless friendly games. Now, telling me that they "don't always work" would be more accurate and I would agree with you on that because there have been many times when they let me down or were not applicable.
Okay, yeah, that works fine against Basilisks. What about scoot and shoot lists? More than Eldar can do that, too. It's just that Eldar are the best at it. Scoot and shoot's ability to delay assaults is really one of the things making assault units so overcosted.
EVIL INC wrote: once more, to stay on topic. has anyone besides myself here tried the denied flank strategy? This has workd well for me on many occasions. What I am more interested in, how do you feel it would work on a vanguard deployment. I understand you could throw it out the window with hammer and anvil of course but am curious about using it with vanguard. anyone have experience with that?
Most of my opponents don't spread out enough for a denied flank to be effective. Plus I do a lot of deep striking so it's not that important.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EVIL INC wrote: I never claimed this was an end all be all strategy. 1. Remember, using assault troops more effectively is not an "us vs them" issue. It is also how to better use assault troops against other assault troops as well.
When assault troops aren't efficient (and they aren't overall) this is not the way to look at them. Using assault troops has to be looked at in a "How can I make sure these guys get to punch the other dude in the face?" method. You want to use your assault troops against their shooting troops, and your shooting against their assault - or your assault against their assault as a backup. Trading assault for assault and shooting for shooting is a bad idea in general.
2.There are a few things to try when using this strategy. One is to assault the flank with the longest ranged weapons. For example, the flank where they have their basilisks set up. that way, you are nuetralizig their range and actually getting within their min range so they always deviate the full distance. another is to concentrate the objectives in the side you are going after first so that the rest of their army has to come after you or you win by default of holding the objectives.
Ideally yes. I've never had that work in my favor, however.
Flat out saying "this will never work", its rubbish there are no possible ways to ever effectively use assault units" as selym and a few others are doing is not the way to go about this.
There you go lying again. Seriously - we aren't saying that. Selym isn't saying that. I'd say you were just mistaken but since you've been corrected so often it's just lying now.
BTW flat out telling me my "tactics don't work" is counterproductive. I have proven that they do. I have proven that they do by using them to win and place in regional tournaments as well as in countless friendly games. Now, telling me that they "don't always work" would be more accurate and I would agree with you on that because there have been many times when they let me down or were not applicable.
Gee, I wonder what we've been saying this whole time...
Selym wrote: Yes, CC power does start when you build your list. However, due to the points efficiency imbalance between many CC units and Dakka units, it is often a better choice just to go for the guns (which tend to allow you to begin killing from turn 1, while taking equal or less damage than the CC units).
While terrain setup can help you, half of the terrain is placed by your opponent, who will undoubtedly do his/her best to make your CC units die on the way up. Additionally, it is not an uncommon practice for tournament tables to have the terrain setup before the battles begin, with the terrain set up to not allow either side any particular advantage.
Yes, tactics can help you in many situations. But, there will always be situations where your LR didn't fit into the list particularly well or it got shot out too early etc. You can't place all your hopes in one very expensive vehicle, and hope to come out on top all the time. I haven't covered the full extent of this part of the debate, as I feel others will do it better than I.
EVIL INC wrote: selym, you prove my point for me. ot a single word in your post regarding the topic of helping players better use assault units but plenty of unwarranted vitriol.. thank you
That's interesting... By that logic, every single post in all of this sub forum have been total unwarranted "vitrol".
And as far as a quick google can tell me, "vitrol" isn't even a real word... But I'll assume it's synonymous with "tripe".
Google wrote:
tripe
trʌɪp/Submit
noun
1.
the first or second stomach of a cow or other ruminant used as food.
2.
informal
nonsense; rubbish.
"you do talk tripe sometimes"
I'd also like to point out that I've been playing BA jump packers since 2nd edition. I know a thing or two about getting into HTH. And I'm telling you that the scoot and shoot armies are very good about avoiding it.
Walrus, at least you put in something regarding it. THIS post of yours addresses a possible weakness of a strategy without saying that there are no possible ones that could work.
I never claimed this was an end all be all strategy. 1. Remember, using assault troops more effectively is not an "us vs them" issue. It is also how to better use assault troops against other assault troops as well.
2.There are a few things to try when using this strategy. One is to assault the flank with the longest ranged weapons. For example, the flank where they have their basilisks set up. that way, you are nuetralizig their range and actually getting within their min range so they always deviate the full distance. another is to concentrate the objectives in the side you are going after first so that the rest of their army has to come after you or you win by default of holding the objectives.
#ISaidItFirst 1) It doesn't really help against assault armies if you are an assault army. It just means they will be dictating the flow of battle.
2) But what if your opponent is mildly intelligent, and doesn't have one side where the guns are range 300", and one side range 6"? What if both sides are range 72"? Or 60"? (riptide and serpent spam respectively, of course).
3) Your opponent will place objectives so that he/she can hold them effectively. Even if you manage to make it all away across the board to take one flank with your scoring units, what are the chances those scoring units will last 5/6/7 turns of firepower from the other flank?
I'm going to try and sum up what others have been trying to say the whole thread:
•YES, ASSAULT *CAN* win the odd game, or with a bit of luck, the odd tournament.
BUT taking an assault army is, both statistically speaking and on the table, far less likely to win than a shooting army. The only exception is a gimmicky Daemons army. Reasons for this:
•Assault allows 1-3 turns for the opponent to shoot you unhindered, possibly more if they are mobile (bikes, serpents, riptides), plus overwatch.
•Assault relies on much more chance (2D6 charge range, for example)
•Your opponent can hit you back, and sometimes destroy depleted units (yes, even fire warriors!)
•~90% of assault units are way, way overcosted for what they do.
•The best assault builds (nids monsta-mash, FMC spam, screamer star, corn dogs) rely on random chance (psychic powers, Grimoire, warpstorm, spawning gants) and as such are less reliable.
•Assault units have to get close, putting them in "the kill zone" of many shooting units (like fire warriors).
I'm sure others could add to that list.
To clarify: YOU CAN WIN WITH ASSAULT. Just don't expect to do so often.
EVIL INC wrote: Kindly try to stay on topic and leave the off topic lies and flames and such out of the thread. We have been through this many times before.
I'm sorry Evil Inc, but this post is wildly off topic. I don't see anything here about helping players learn how to do CC effectively
I think we can all agree (well...almost everyone) what makes a solid cc unit
1) speed
2) toughness
3) not being too Killy (you don't want to wipe a squad till 2 turns of combat statistically speaking)
What units fill those roles for most armies?
Daemons has been covered, so I won't do those
Eldar, I would say it's mainly the striking scorps. I actually really like them a lot for this, and have always enjoyed their models, even if they are over costed
CSM, it's mainly spawn and bikers, (possibly jump pack troops, never tried them) but this is due to the limited movement options. If the dreadclaw is allowed, plague marines, noise marines, termies, mutilators all become viable.
Nids, brood lord, ymgarl stealers, and tyrants with wings. Tevigrons with guants, but usually only if they get ignored. I like the idea of gargoyles but lack the models to try them out myself.
Those are all the models I own.
Side note, I am seriously starting to think Evil Is a troll I will see on 4chan or reddit. Maybe something awful
EVIL INC wrote: Kindly try to stay on topic and leave the off topic lies and flames and such out of the thread. We have been through this many times before.
I'm sorry Evil Inc, but this post is wildly off topic. I don't see anything here about helping players learn how to do CC effectively
I think we can all agree (well...almost everyone) what makes a solid cc unit
1) speed
2) toughness
3) not being too Killy (you don't want to wipe a squad till 2 turns of combat statistically speaking)
What units fill those roles for most armies?
Daemons has been covered, so I won't do those
Eldar, I would say it's mainly the striking scorps. I actually really like them a lot for this, and have always enjoyed their models, even if they are over costed
CSM, it's mainly spawn and bikers, (possibly jump pack troops, never tried them) but this is due to the limited movement options. If the dreadclaw is allowed, plague marines, noise marines, termies, mutilators all become viable.
Nids, brood lord, ymgarl stealers, and tyrants with wings. Tevigrons with guants, but usually only if they get ignored. I like the idea of gargoyles but lack the models to try them out myself.
Those are all the models I own.
Side note, I am seriously starting to think Evil Is a troll I will see on 4chan or reddit. Maybe something awful
You've got the right of it Akiasura.
A good melee unit consists of 3 properties; Delivery method/speed, Survivability/staying power and hitting power. Most good units are strong in all categories, but some can be good in only 1 or 2 and still be passable. These are all points based comparisons, so good speed for it's cost, good staying power for it's cost, and good hitting power for it's cost.
An example of a top speed/delivery unit is Ymgarl genestealers. Only having to weather 1 round of overwatch means they don't really need much survivability for their points (and lets face it, T4, with a 4+ save is crap for 23 points).
An example of a top "Staying power" unit is the screamer star or jetseer council. Being virtually indestructible means it doesn't matter that they aren't in melee ASAP, of it they get caught in the open. It also means they don't need to hit like trucks, as they can just grind away at enemy units over time.
An example of a top "hitting power" unit is Death cult assassins. Give them a power mace/sword and axe combo and a buff inquisitor and they will wreck almost anything in the game. Point for point they are one of the hardest hitting units in the game.
Other units are a combination of these strengths.
Khorne-dogs are fast being beast, and having scout, but not super fast. They are tough-ish (T4 W2, 5+ invul for 16 points is space marine level staying power) but not unkillable and they are hard hitting with furious charge and rage (4 S5 attacks on the charge), but not SUPER hard hitting. They are good in all the important categories, and that's why they are a solid unit. They also can be taken in large units, so can magnify the herald buffs even more than smaller units can.
On the flip side you have Assault marines. They are fast-ish, with jump packs, but not super fast. They aren't very survivable, with only a MeQ statline at 17 points each, and they aren't very hard hitting with only 2-3 S4 normal attacks. So pass in 1 category and fail in 2 makes a poor unit
and I do mean assault, as in 90% at least of the army is intended to get into CC.
there are two main principles you MUST adhere to when trying to make a sucessfull CC list:
1. you need a method, to get into CC, with 90% of your guys, ON THE SAME TURN (ie, dont mix it up between guys that can get into combat turn 1, 2 or three)
2. you need to be DURABILITY maxxed, much more so then dps maxxed. your durability also needs to be spread out between the methods (ie landraiders are one kind of durability, armour is another, sheer volume of #'s is another, ++ saves, SPEED)
of all the options for "durability" SPEED and #'s are the most important, but thats where what army you pick comes into play.
IE my GK assault list is all about speed, durability through decent armour saves
my orks are all about #'s, with durability through that, and battle wagons.
and I do mean assault, as in 90% at least of the army is intended to get into CC.
there are two main principles you MUST adhere to when trying to make a sucessfull CC list:
1. you need a method, to get into CC, with 90% of your guys, ON THE SAME TURN (ie, dont mix it up between guys that can get into combat turn 1, 2 or three)
2. you need to be DURABILITY maxxed, much more so then dps maxxed. your durability also needs to be spread out between the methods (ie landraiders are one kind of durability, armour is another, sheer volume of #'s is another, ++ saves, SPEED)
of all the options for "durability" SPEED and #'s are the most important, but thats where what army you pick comes into play.
IE my GK assault list is all about speed, durability through decent armour saves
my orks are all about #'s, with durability through that, and battle wagons.
I concur with this.
For my part, I'll list some things from the CSM dex that can assault quite effectively:
-Nurgle Bikers:
T6 and 12" movement per turn? Yes please! These guys are fast, tough, and can take meltaguns and melta bombs. Kit them suchlike, and take one large unit. They're rather bulky models, so your opponent is going to be concentrating on them while you do tactical things with the rest of your army... Such as herding the enemy into nice blobs for your heldrake.
-Spawn packs:
I have little to no expertise with these guys, but I'm told they're a right pain in the arse when maxed and thrown at the enemy. Top tip: Stick in a CL bike with the Black Mace to smash and obliterate!
-A Winged Daemon Prince:
One costly mofo, using him is an art. But when you get it right, whoo boy are you going to feth your enemy right up!
While it is tempting to have him fly in from reserves into the game, it can be more effective to start him on the board on T1 as flying, in the movement phase have him fly half way up the board, and then hide behind some LOS-blocking terrain (or failing that, something with a good cover save). Wait for turn 2, use him as a Jump MC, and start smooshing things.
Just remember not to max out his wargear, he'll rack up points faster than a Land Raider. It may be a good idea to balance him out by also taking quite a bit of cannon fodder in your army (Cultists).
It's a little petulant (and confusing) to change the subject of the thread to "Closed" and delete the initial post just because some are disagreeing with you. I thought a mod had locked it! You don't own the discussion, you know? Aside from all the telling other people to leave the thread (a mod's job), changing it to closed is also trying to take over a mod's job. I'm finding several of the posts here useful. Can you change it back to "Close Combat", please? Otherwise people are going to think it's been locked when it hasn't.
On topic - easysauce: how competitive would you say your normal games are? Are they fairly casual or are you playing tournaments or competitive list builders with that assault army? There's no agenda behind that question, just curious. You seem to have taken the extreme other end of using Close Combat to me. I use it as a bit of salt throughout the army for opportunistically rolling up fragmented enemy units or as counter-assault. I'm curious to know how you think I (an Eldar player) would fair spamming Wraithblades (durable) in Wave Serpents. (N.b. I'd have a Spirit Seer to make them Troops). My feeling is I'd get gunned down, but if you can pull it off with Grey Knights. I'm assuming your GK are Terminator heavy? (I've never played against GK).
its all shunt interceptors and dreadknights for the GK list, no termies, termies are slow, and very weak in the meta.
interceptors are good in CC, but more importantly, super FAST, and can STILL put out15+ wounds a turn easily at range, same kind of thing with the DK's.
won overall at a tourney with 70 people at it (about 35+ ish for 40k/fantasy) and have been regularly top 5 the past year with it.
its actually a hard army to use, you need to know what to steer clear of, and what NOT to get to close too, and all your distances for other armies threat zones. It literally will have a completly diff strategy against each army, most I need to get into CC ASAP with, some I have to shoot and scoot, some times lots of deep striking is needed. point is, with soo much mobility, combat squads, and a troop base that is generally good at anything, you play to your opponents weakness every time.
since most armies are very weak in CC, that tends to be something I utilize the most often.
But as a TAC list, it works very well against a lot of different armies. Its just so maneuverable with 90% of the army able to just move 30" and still shoot, +12" regular, and 99% of games are won or lost by positioning, and in the movement phase, everything else is just gravy.
I generally play people with more then 10 years experience, who are also placing top 10 regularly.
eldar assault is not something Ive looked much into, I know a lot about KILLIng pointy ears with my orks, guard or GK's, but not about playing them...
but your transport is not an assault vehicle, so whatever is in it, gets into combat turn 3 at the soonest, so unless its av 14 or gets good saves or something, or you have enough #'s to weather that 3 turns, and still have enough payloads to deliver... I think you might have lots of warith blades stranded mid feild.
If I made an eldar CC list, it would likely be :
as many jet bikes as I can, ( can be scoring no? 6 full units is actually pretty sweet)
as many warp spiders as I can,
fill out the rest with WS's with something scoring or niche filling in em
not sure how well it would work, dont really have the dex, but that would be where I would start...
easysauce wrote: its all shunt interceptors and dreadknights for the GK list, no termies, termies are slow, and very weak in the meta.
interceptors are good in CC, but more importantly, super FAST, and can STILL put out15+ wounds a turn easily at range, same kind of thing with the DK's.
won overall at a tourney with 70 people at it (about 35+ ish for 40k/fantasy) and have been regularly top 5 the past year with it.
its actually a hard army to use, you need to know what to steer clear of, and what NOT to get to close too, and all your distances for other armies threat zones. It literally will have a completly diff strategy against each army, most I need to get into CC ASAP with, some I have to shoot and scoot, some times lots of deep striking is needed. point is, with soo much mobility, combat squads, and a troop base that is generally good at anything, you play to your opponents weakness every time.
since most armies are very weak in CC, that tends to be something I utilize the most often.
But as a TAC list, it works very well against a lot of different armies. Its just so maneuverable with 90% of the army able to just move 30" and still shoot, +12" regular, and 99% of games are won or lost by positioning, and in the movement phase, everything else is just gravy.
I generally play people with more then 10 years experience, who are also placing top 10 regularly.
eldar assault is not something Ive looked much into, I know a lot about KILLIng pointy ears with my orks, guard or GK's, but not about playing them...
but your transport is not an assault vehicle, so whatever is in it, gets into combat turn 3 at the soonest, so unless its av 14 or gets good saves or something, or you have enough #'s to weather that 3 turns, and still have enough payloads to deliver... I think you might have lots of warith blades stranded mid feild.
If I made an eldar CC list, it would likely be :
as many jet bikes as I can, ( can be scoring no? 6 full units is actually pretty sweet)
as many warp spiders as I can,
fill out the rest with WS's with something scoring or niche filling in em
not sure how well it would work, dont really have the dex, but that would be where I would start...
Interesting. Thanks for the full reply. I've been toying with getting some Shining Spears. You're right - normal Jet Bikes are scoring for Eldar (which is probably the only reason you see them), but I have significant doubts about what they're like in CC. Yes, they have twin-linked assault weapons for softening the enemy up and they're decent compared to your average guardsman, but I don't think they're at all special in CC, just fast - as you said. Shining Spears however, can hit reasonably hard. They're weak in the second round of a combat as their laser lances only work well on a charge. However, if you buy an Exarch and buy him Hit and Run, they can keep breaking off and re-attacking. So they're not bad. They also have Skilled Rider so they get +1 on their Jink save. I'd like to get some for fluff reasons as they look good on the field. But it would be way too much of a gamble to go all in on them and build an army around them. I'm pretty sure I'd lose a number of games from such a gamble.
I think you're spot on about what would happen with a heavy investment of Wave Serpent mounted Wraith Guard. They're tough and hit hard, but they're no faster than regular troops and that hinders them a lot as a primary weapon. I think they make awesome defensive / counter-assault units, but I think for successful active assault, you really want something that is independently fast (i.e. not just riding a transport).
I'm not a gambler, I'm a calculated risk taker. Anything I use for primary assault, I want to have the Fleet rule. That way I have some confidence that I wont blow a critical charge with a low roll. Hence why I'm somewhat happier about taking dedicated CC units with Eldar (obv. doesn't apply to Wraith Blades, but I use them more cautiously).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EVIL INC wrote: I decided to re-open the thread. Figured why let a few people ruin the the fun for everyone because they are unable to admit when they are wrong? Hopefully, they will behave themselves now and allow us to remain on topic.
You can't re-open it because it was never locked. You just unhelpfully changed the thread title to "Closed". Might as well have changed the title of the thread to Jumbo and claimed it was an elephant. And you're baiting again.
Selym, I have seen spawn packs used to great effect to slingshot chaos lords into battle from across the field without the lord having to worry aboutbeing shot at at all.
attach the lord to the spawn pack and sit him at the rear and then run the spawn pack across the field towards the enemy (Mark of nurgle works well on them with this). Even a tau army will be hard pressed to kill 3 of them before they hit the lines with the lord trailing in. Is worh the disordered charge to pile into multiple units and tie them up in this way to make it easier for the slower parts to reach unscathed.
one of the east coast chaps used it to great effect against me.
I've always liked shining spears, even back in 3rd edition when they were viewed as worse than they are now. Then again, my list was very atypical, with warp spiders and spears featuring as the mainstays, rather then reapers and banshees. I did well due to several transport rules not many people knew.
Nowadays, I think the spears are more limited, but only slightly. The loss of the higher Str and ignoring armor saves made them weaker, though skilled rider with jink saves helps a lot to make up for that. Still, very expensive
I'd prefer striking scorps. They have a lot of what a CC unit needs, and I think they only get overlooked because they aren't quite as fast as the rest of the army, and the eldar have one of the nastiest shooting forces around right now.
I have played with spawn and I find them good against many armies, though they tend to fall down against Tau and Dark eldar. The higher strength shooting combined with removing cover saves means they can put wounds down field easily, and for dark eldar poison shots love targets like spawn. My local meta has 2 dark eldar players so they rarely see play. Competing with fast attack, arguably the best slot of chaos, doesn't help them. If they had been elites I'd field them all day long and twice on Sundays.
The conga line isn't a bad idea, though getting a chaos lord into combat isn't what it used to be. Sm, necrons, Nids, orks (arguably), De, and Gk all have lords that can slap the chaos lord into the ground in a challenge, which, when he reaches the front, he must do.
Against Ig, sisters, tau, and eldar, he seems over the top. These units have few units that can nurgle spawn in combat, so The Lord isn't needed.
That really leaves BA and DA, maybe Wolves that the chaos lord is really needed against. Too...specific for me.
I really have been liking the slaanesh marked lord on a bike with the burning brand in a full size unit with the icon. Very expensive, but kinda solid with a lot of options. Falls down against 2+ saves, but I field vindis and oblits for that
I personally tend to agree that assault in sixth is weak (and that assault in fifth was not that great). Combat in sixth is more about locking up units and pinning them in spot since wiping an opponent just gets you shot off the board and hoping you win combat by one and your opponent roles under a seven on two d6 isn't a real reliable tactic.
However, one thing that has only been skimmed over through these twelve pages is terrain. It has generally been commented that LOS blocking terrain helps, but that it is dependent on where you go. I am surprised at how rarely players are willing to throw down terrain at their FLGS.
I just moved and at my previous FLGS boards were almost universally "open." Gunline guard and Eldar (this was primarily in fifth, so not so much Tau) dominated because boards were fields with patches of trees or two hills and a ruin. I moved a year ago and did not have a store in the town I moved to where I could play. One just opened and I have been working on donating and making terrain. I made six tree stands for under thirty dollars and I donated a bunch of ruins that I made for under five dollars each. Buildings/ruins can easily be made out of foamboard and spray paint with some gravel off the street. One four dollar board can make anywhere from two tall ruins or probably four or five ruins three to four inches tall, which will block LOS reasonably well. Some people might balk at spending money on this, but over the past fifteen years of my life I have spent thousands of dollars on this game. Twenty more to actually be able to play the army I want to isn't unwarranted.
This leads into issues of how terrain is placed. By the book is nice because it gives players a chance to set up based on their army and I think that is the best way (I see it as representing armies picking their positions before battle). However, it seems like too often at tournaments the boards are set up the opposite of what makes sense. Terrain is valley'd with large hills and ruins on the perimeters and low terrain and trees in the middle. This gives shooting armies too many opportunities to take the high ground. It is much more balanced to put two to three LOS or semi-LOS blocking pieces of terrain in the middle and lower pieces around the perimeter. Shooting armies should still be able to set up lines of fire, but not cover the board.
Eldar can be really good at close combat. You have the seer council, which is brutal. You also have dark eldar allies allowing you to bring beasts, which can easily be really good too.
The wraithknight is a great choice for cc eldar. You can run eldar + craftworld allies and bring 5 for a very nasty monster-list. Still room for some troops too.
Autarch with the cover-save relic and a laser lance is a great harassing close combat unit. Spears could probably work in the same role.
a1elbow wrote: I personally tend to agree that assault in sixth is weak (and that assault in fifth was not that great). Combat in sixth is more about locking up units and pinning them in spot since wiping an opponent just gets you shot off the board and hoping you win combat by one and your opponent roles under a seven on two d6 isn't a real reliable tactic.
However, one thing that has only been skimmed over through these twelve pages is terrain. It has generally been commented that LOS blocking terrain helps, but that it is dependent on where you go. I am surprised at how rarely players are willing to throw down terrain at their FLGS.
I just moved and at my previous FLGS boards were almost universally "open." Gunline guard and Eldar (this was primarily in fifth, so not so much Tau) dominated because boards were fields with patches of trees or two hills and a ruin. I moved a year ago and did not have a store in the town I moved to where I could play. One just opened and I have been working on donating and making terrain. I made six tree stands for under thirty dollars and I donated a bunch of ruins that I made for under five dollars each. Buildings/ruins can easily be made out of foamboard and spray paint with some gravel off the street. One four dollar board can make anywhere from two tall ruins or probably four or five ruins three to four inches tall, which will block LOS reasonably well. Some people might balk at spending money on this, but over the past fifteen years of my life I have spent thousands of dollars on this game. Twenty more to actually be able to play the army I want to isn't unwarranted.
Reading some posts here, it does make me wonder if a number of the complains about gunline Tau and Eldar are fuelled by low amounts of terrain. Not all, obviously - it's a powerful army approach, no doubt about it. But I wonder if the situation is exacerbated by people not following RAW for terrain. I quoted it earlier, but it bears repeating. By RAW, you're looking at 1d3 pieces of terrain per 2'x2' square, and a piece of terrain is defined as "a single substantial element such as a building or ruin or forest". Alternately to a single substantial element, the book says you can substitute "a cluster of three smaller pieces of terrain such as battlefield debris". I wonder how many of the people playing on a 6'x4' board have nine ruins or equivalent on the table? It's just a thought, but worth asking. Maybe I'll put that in a separate thread just to get some general feel for it. I'd be interested in the answer.
a1elbow wrote: I However, one thing that has only been skimmed over through these twelve pages is terrain. It has generally been commented that LOS blocking terrain helps, but that it is dependent on where you go. I am surprised at how rarely players are willing to throw down terrain at their FLGS.
This might be one of the reasons we have people claiming assault is dead or that it is weak where they think it should play a bigger part than shooting.
A lot of the stores are cramped for space so bigger terrain pieces that would block LOS take up more space so you see more 'planet blowlingball stype games.. Another thing is that when putting together buildings, a lot of players are more worried about providing spots for models in it to shoot out than whether or not you can see through the windows to models that would be obscured if the windows and doors were shut GW provides enough closed windows and doors to prevent this but its just the mentality we have when building it.
I like the big foamboard rock outcroppings as they can be modeled/painted to look nice and formed to block los very well. As aplayer, youjust need to be more willing to stand up for yourself and put down some terrain that your opponent does notlike. After all, he is allowed to plop down his mud puddle with a lil grass around it as his terrain piece selection, why shouldn't you be able to put something down that suits your game?
as I have said from post onein this thread and maintained throughout, assault is a valid and ital. part of the game (although some of the big players and no brainers have changed). terrain goes a LONG way o helping this
Has anyone pointed out that while terrain (of any type) certainly limits shooting a little, but also limits assault?
Consider that most terrain will at least be difficult terrain, slowing down assault armies. Then a number of terrain pieces will be dangerous terrain, causing wounds along the way while also slowing them down most likely. Then, anything suitably large enough to block LoS will also force the assaulting force to move around it making the trek that much longer.
Further consider that the top shooting armies have significant mobility advantages that shouldn't be discounted.
Terrain is good and all, and most players likely don't play with enough, but don't fall into the trap of thinking that LoS blocking terrain magically cripples shooting armies but has no effect on assault armies. Assuming player skill is equal, the shooting player will always be looking for lanes of shooting and planning a step ahead to get over to the next lane or force you through some dangerous/difficult terrain.
Its a nice thought, just not some end-all be-all certain users are claiming it is.
Blacksails wrote: Has anyone pointed out that while terrain (of any type) certainly limits shooting a little, but also limits assault?
Consider that most terrain will at least be difficult terrain, slowing down assault armies. Then a number of terrain pieces will be dangerous terrain, causing wounds along the way while also slowing them down most likely. Then, anything suitably large enough to block LoS will also force the assaulting force to move around it making the trek that much longer.
Further consider that the top shooting armies have significant mobility advantages that shouldn't be discounted.
Terrain is good and all, and most players likely don't play with enough, but don't fall into the trap of thinking that LoS blocking terrain magically cripples shooting armies but has no effect on assault armies. Assuming player skill is equal, the shooting player will always be looking for lanes of shooting and planning a step ahead to get over to the next lane or force you through some dangerous/difficult terrain.
Its a nice thought, just not some end-all be-all certain users are claiming it is.
I totally agree. The best type of terrain for assault forces, imo, are LOS blockers mid-field. With some luck, planning and understanding, you could get the CC units to meet the shooters ass they try to get around the LOS block. But, then again, that also nerfs your shooting, so you'd have to be choppy-spam Orks, Daemons or Tooth-and-Claw nids.
hat has been brought up on several occasions. most of the "assault" type units literally laugh at difficult terrain because they either roll 3d6 of jump/fly right over it.. Remember that not all terrain that blocks los is difficult, it just blocks los to what is behind it. difficult tewrrain only "slows you down" while actually in it.
no one has claimed it was the end all be all, just the most obvious thing to look at. If it were possible to ensure a safe path every game with no risk at all, it wouldn't exactly be a fair game. lol Is a back and forth where it should come down to who has the best strategy and tactics (combined with the luckiest dice rolls) and figuring terrain into the equatins is just a part of the overall result.
Right, just wanted to make sure the whole thread wasn't looking at terrain with rosy coloured glasses thinking it was the answer. You always have to assume equal player skill, so not only will your opponent be setting up terrain to hinder you/create firing lanes for them, but they won't exactly be playing into your hand either by even being near the LOS blocking terrain.
A big wall in the middle half of the board at least makes the game more interesting, but I think terrain like that doesn't hinder shooting armies any more than it hinders assault armies. Its just terrain, both players will use it to their advantages.
now, the big block wall in the center of the board would indeed hinder the shooty army more than the assault army. however, while the assault plaer may place that, the shooty player could then lay down a large lava crater that is impassible (assault models would need to waste movement going around it) but does not block line of sight at all. So, yes, it is indeed a back and forth where in the end, neither side will be able to totally have thei way.
Earlier in the thread I addressed terrain from the point of view of a hindrance to assault.
Conclusion: If you're fast, it's not too much of a problem. but if you're going it on foot, it just makes things worse. A cover save for a turn or two just isn't worth taking an extra turn to get there...
In particular, charging through terrain is a massive problem, requiring you to get exceptionally close to the enemy and probably adding an entire extra turn to getting there...
Hedgehog wrote: Earlier in the thread I addressed terrain from the point of view of a hindrance to assault.
Conclusion: If you're fast, it's not too much of a problem. but if you're going it on foot, it just makes things worse. A cover save for a turn or two just isn't worth taking an extra turn to get there...
In particular, charging through terrain is a massive problem, requiring you to get exceptionally close to the enemy and probably adding an entire extra turn to getting there...
Okay, that's good. I just didn't feel like digging through 12 pages to find this.
Assault is in a rough place. The only viable dedicated CC units need to be durable, fast, and hit hard. Lacking even one of those qualities puts them in a serious handicap.
I am curious about the C:I Land Raiders with DCA and Crusaders and Priests on board. I remember Hulksmash was commenting on them. Seems like a nice way to wed close combat with shooting abilities, as the Land Raider would have a hail of S5 shots from the Hurricane sponsons and another handful of S7 shots from the Assault Cannon. Pretty expensive and wouldn't fit in with every list, but certainly seems like a nice unit in an army designed to support it.
Hedgehog wrote: Earlier in the thread I addressed terrain from the point of view of a hindrance to assault.
Conclusion: If you're fast, it's not too much of a problem. but if you're going it on foot, it just makes things worse. A cover save for a turn or two just isn't worth taking an extra turn to get there...
In particular, charging through terrain is a massive problem, requiring you to get exceptionally close to the enemy and probably adding an entire extra turn to getting there...
Okay, that's good. I just didn't feel like digging through 12 pages to find this.
Assault is in a rough place. The only viable dedicated CC units need to be durable, fast, and hit hard. Lacking even one of those qualities puts them in a serious handicap.
I am curious about the C:I Land Raiders with DCA and Crusaders and Priests on board. I remember Hulksmash was commenting on them. Seems like a nice way to wed close combat with shooting abilities, as the Land Raider would have a hail of S5 shots from the Hurricane sponsons and another handful of S7 shots from the Assault Cannon. Pretty expensive and wouldn't fit in with every list, but certainly seems like a nice unit in an army designed to support it.
Sorry about the 12 pages it took me forever to get someone's attention and put the hammer down to stop it.
remember, most 'foot" trrops that are assault virtually ignore difficult terrain as they just hop over it or roll 3d6 instead of the normal 2 when going through it. as you wont actually be charging through it, it will not actually slow down the assault either (except in rare circumstances when you miscalculate horrendously or in ultra rare cases when you don't have a choice.
Again, not that it is the end all be all, just that a good player can use to to his/he benefit without it reall hindering them at all.
the land raider varients... you will see people swear by them and others tell you they are worthless. it all depends on their skill level and playstyle. generally, the raidr wont make up it's points by itself but it does so indirectly (through it's own kills and by ensuring the rippy squad gets where it needs to be unscathed). I've had mixed results with them. of course, when I use more than o I get better results. Muiple raidr lists have proven themselves to be highly effective and competitive.
EVIL INC wrote: remember, most 'foot" trrops that are assault virtually ignore difficult terrain as they just hop over it or roll 3d6 instead of the normal 2 when going through it. as you wont actually be charging through it, it will not actually slow down the assault either (except in rare circumstances when you miscalculate horrendously or in ultra rare cases when you don't have a choice.
I'm not sure how you propose to avoid terrain when charging?
Firstly, the initiative is with the defender when assaulting - they have to go to the enemy, and if the enemy is in cover then that's too bad for the assaulter. There's generally no way to avoid it, especially if you're a foot unit without spare movement to come at the enemy from a different direction.
Fast units can sometimes get round this, depending on the terrain set-up, by moving to an area where terrain is not in the way. However an enemy unit in area terrain is particularly tricky as you CAN'T avoid assaulting through cover.
Secondly, another big hit for assault has been the addition of fortifications. A simple, cheap ADL gives the defenders a virtual guarantee they will be assaulted through cover.
Move through cover is nice, but it's not as good as not being slowed by difficult terrain at all. It also doesn't help the majority of foot assault units that don't have it. The units that you're talking about 'jumping' over cover are jump pack units that are also faster, not the foot units that are hardest hit by 6th.
Berzerkers, mutilitators, possessed, banshees, a lot of orks - if you're a foot assault unit without a cost-effective delivery mechanism (transports, deep strike, scout or infiltrate) then there's no point in turning up most of the time. It's the fast, tough units that can still do well in close combat without facing a real uphill struggle.
Blacksails wrote: Has anyone pointed out that while terrain (of any type) certainly limits shooting a little, but also limits assault?
Consider that most terrain will at least be difficult terrain, slowing down assault armies. Then a number of terrain pieces will be dangerous terrain, causing wounds along the way while also slowing them down most likely. Then, anything suitably large enough to block LoS will also force the assaulting force to move around it making the trek that much longer.
Further consider that the top shooting armies have significant mobility advantages that shouldn't be discounted.
Terrain is good and all, and most players likely don't play with enough, but don't fall into the trap of thinking that LoS blocking terrain magically cripples shooting armies but has no effect on assault armies. Assuming player skill is equal, the shooting player will always be looking for lanes of shooting and planning a step ahead to get over to the next lane or force you through some dangerous/difficult terrain.
Its a nice thought, just not some end-all be-all certain users are claiming it is.
I totally agree. The best type of terrain for assault forces, imo, are LOS blockers mid-field. With some luck, planning and understanding, you could get the CC units to meet the shooters ass they try to get around the LOS block. But, then again, that also nerfs your shooting, so you'd have to be choppy-spam Orks, Daemons or Tooth-and-Claw nids.
Agreed. The faster your assault troops, the less this is going to be a problem, but it's still an issue. Interestingly, this makes me more inclined to take the (to me) large risk of investing money in some Shining Spears. I think they're over-costed, however they are both skimmers and fast. So where there is a lot of terrain, I can use it to my advantage to block LOS but without hindering me closing. But for most CC troops, it can be a big issue.
However, it suits my style of play with CC because I don't tend to rely on CC. I use them as a mid-game balance tipper - seizing objectives, tearing into fragmented enemy. And as counter-assault. I don't need them to close with some enemy gun line asap. I think in the current rules, with rare exceptions and in the hands of very good players, that approach is a fool's quest. Which returns to what some people have been saying - over-focusing on CC is a big risk and usually easily defeated by an experienced opponent with a moderately well-built list. However, if you use it judiciously, then a thick mess of LOS-blocking terrain is more advantage than disadvantage, imo. I.e. it's a hindrance if your main army is trying to race up the board, but it's good if you just have a mix of CC stuff thrown in for a slight edge. The best thing for CC is when your opponent is advancing toward you and has to pass near some lurking CC. (Though that just leads to sacrificial units going first if your opponent is smart).
EDIT: I should have read ahead. People have already said the things I wanted to say (and more succinctly). Incidentally, based on the linked poll I put up earlier, the majority of people are using RAW to choose the quantity of terrain so it's all functioning as intended. I had this idea that maybe some people thought CC was less effective than they ought because they were placing sparser terrain than intended. This seems not to be the case. If anything, most respondents are placing slightly more terrain than they ought! So scratch that notion I had from earlier.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blacksails wrote: I am curious about the C:I Land Raiders with DCA and Crusaders and Priests on board. I remember Hulksmash was commenting on them. Seems like a nice way to wed close combat with shooting abilities, as the Land Raider would have a hail of S5 shots from the Hurricane sponsons and another handful of S7 shots from the Assault Cannon. Pretty expensive and wouldn't fit in with every list, but certainly seems like a nice unit in an army designed to support it.
It is a nice way. Problem is, it is also a very expensive way. Invest the same amount of support in some heavy firepower and you will (normally) get a lot bigger return on your investment. I'm not sure of the cost here, but how many points would a unit like the above cost?
Hedgehog, you do not always assault THROUGH difficult terrain. i'll give you an example, your guardsmen are lined up behind an ADL and I just move my gaunts around it to assault from the side. had I gone OVER the wall, it woulda been difficult but as I went around it, the path was open with no difficult terrain. Likewise, a playr moves his hellhound towards me and roasts a bunch of gants. In my following turn, I let my carnifex run forwards a few steps and assault it as it is out in the middle of the field.
a good tactical player can take steps to minimize risks and one of the risks that can be minimized is assaulting through difficult terrain. it is not a possibility that be totally erased but it CAN be minimized.
.knas ser, now your learning the knack of it. Assault is not always the rush headlong thing that orks enjoy. it is more often the surgical strike that you set up for and spring when you need it t happen and the odds favor you the most. Sears are likely a good choice for that as it is a unit you don't often see and an opponent will likely be watching your obvious heavy hitters hard enough to overlook them.
EVIL INC wrote: Hedgehog, you do not always assault THROUGH difficult terrain. i'll give you an example, your guardsmen are lined up behind an ADL and I just move my gaunts around it to assault from the side. had I gone OVER the wall, it woulda been difficult but as I went around it, the path was open with no difficult terrain. Likewise, a playr moves his hellhound towards me and roasts a bunch of gants. In my following turn, I let my carnifex run forwards a few steps and assault it as it is out in the middle of the field.
Hedgehog was making the point that if you have to go around terrain, it lengthens the time before you can get to the enemy and leaves you there getting shot at for longer. Most of the best shooty armies are also quite mobile. Thus it's hard to be edging around a piece of Area Terrain and not be in their Line of Fire.
EVIL INC wrote: knas ser, now your learning the knack of it.
I've been playing since the original Rogue Trader book, but yes, now I'm getting "the knack of it."
EVIL INC wrote: Assault is not always the rush headlong thing that orks enjoy. it is more often the surgical strike that you set up for and spring when you need it t happen and the odds favor you the most. Sears are likely a good choice for that as it is a unit you don't often see and an opponent will likely be watching your obvious heavy hitters hard enough to overlook them.
Seers? You mean Farseers / Spiritseers? Not sure how they can be considered not seen very often and no opponent who has played Eldar will ever overlook the Farseer. It's one of the best Force Multipliers in the game and if part of an assault unit like the legendary JetSeer Council build, it's going to be the first thing they focus on. Best use of a farseer, imo, is to bolster shooting units' power with Guide and sometimes Doom (circumstance specific).
They're weak in the second round of a combat as their laser lances only work well on a charge. However, if you buy an Exarch and buy him Hit and Run, they can keep breaking off and re-attacking. So they're not bad. They also have Skilled Rider so they get +1 on their Jink save
yeah, now you are thinking!
remember, in HtH you DO NOT have to be better then who you are fighting, you just have to be "slightly" less horrible in CC then they are, even being totally equal in CC strength, so long as YOU make the charge, likely means you will win combat.
shining spears would be great with hit and run en masse, you will have total ownership ofthe board due to movement range, and you can pick and choose what targets you engange in HtH, and which ones you "scoot and shoot" or kite, or just plain avoid
They're weak in the second round of a combat as their laser lances only work well on a charge. However, if you buy an Exarch and buy him Hit and Run, they can keep breaking off and re-attacking. So they're not bad. They also have Skilled Rider so they get +1 on their Jink save
yeah, now you are thinking!
remember, in HtH you DO NOT have to be better then who you are fighting, you just have to be "slightly" less horrible in CC then they are, even being totally equal in CC strength, so long as YOU make the charge, likely means you will win combat.
shining spears would be great with hit and run en masse, you will have total ownership ofthe board due to movement range, and you can pick and choose what targets you engange in HtH, and which ones you "scoot and shoot" or kite, or just plain avoid
Thanks. I've been reading various posts of yours here and that vote of confidence is helpful. I've had serious concerns about whether I might be wasting my money with Shining Spears, given that I'll need to get a reasonable number of them to make them worthwhile on the table (incl. Exarch). But I think I'll do it and try them out. I'm tempted to go the whole way with an Autarch on a jetbike with them. But at that point I'm crossing into the points territory where they're a significant part of my army and I'm not sure I want to build major parts of my strategy around them. They still feel very pricey in points to me. However, we will see how they go!
When you use vectors and los blocking terrain along with such things as transports and outflanking or units such as ymgarls that just pop up behind enemy lines, the Straight across the board is not always the safest route. When you also take into consideration that not all terrain that is set up is difficult, it still shows that tactics and strategy can help you to minimize the effects of difficult terrain so that you do not always assault though it. As hard as it might to swallow, I AM correct in this. t IS possible to use tactics and strategy to minimize assaulting through difficult terrain, oten to the point where it is not a factor on the assault at all.
that's funny, I have been playing since the original Rogue trader book as well. Small world. Playing for more decades does not actually make you a better player or mean that you have automatically gotten the hang of everything. ach edition changes the game a little or a lot as does each new codex. I know of many younger players who came into the hobby who are far beter players than myself. I freely admit it.
my bad, I did not realize you were talking about farseers. I thought you meant the shining spears. My bad on that one, misread your post. not a fan of the shining spears models (or jetbike riders for that matter). Hopefully, you will convert up some nice looking ones to show us.
knas ser said: But I think I'll do it and try them out. I'm tempted to go the whole way with an Autarch on a jetbike with them. But at that point I'm crossing into the points territory where they're a significant part of my army and I'm not sure I want to build major parts of my strategy around them. They still feel very pricey in points to me. However, we will see how they go!
With a shining spear exarch (w/ toys) and an autarch (w/ toys) in the squad, the squad itself doesn't have to be very big, since you're counting on the autarch's high number of attacks (and high WS), and the exarch's high WS to make sure you land enough hits to cripple the squad. another 3~4 spears are there, sure to kill things, but mostly to die to incoming fire.
As easysuace said, you'll be able to pick your targets due to speed, and w/ skilled rider, that 3+ cover for having turbo boosted (and for hiding in terrain) is helpful on the survivability side.
i do think your lack of grenades will be an issue when assaulting through cover but then, i think the spears are there, not to engage other heavy hitters, but to bully smaller, 3+ armoured units. they'd be great for hitting Devestaors in the back line, or those slippery crisis suits, even things like the thunder fire cannon (that star lance is AP2, so get the exarch into contact with the techmarine) aren't safe.
and I won... by a large margin (he had two "boat skimmers" with dark lances, and 4 wyches left at bottom of 6, I had 30+ boyz, warboss, some bikers, and a battle wagon left)
the objective, was relic... had it been killpoints I would have been screwed, but luckily most games revolve around objectives.
we gererally play with a good amount of terrain, the concensus in all of our tournies/games is that every table should have at least on LOS blocking peice of terrain on it (tho due to lack of actual terrain peices, larger tournies may not all have a LOS peice on every table)
back to the game vs DE, had I not had cover to hide behind, I would have lost, flat out. being slowed down by it wouldnt have been a factor no matter what the mission, but getting that cover sure was.
which brings me to the REALLY IMPORTANT BIT.
CC orentated armies do not have the luxury of planning to table the opponent each time. you have to play the objectives, and while foot sloggin CC lists are SLOW, they should outnumber their opponent 3-1 or BETTER.
the idea being, you have so many guys, even if they are all mid feild, that they cannot swoop in and get anything near the objectives.
the DE player, with EVERYTHING in fast skimmers, could not swoop in, there was simply too many orks around the objectives, so he was forced to stay back and shoot (losing the objective and granting me cover) or rush in, and let 100+ boys assault him.
this tactic has had even BETTER sucess against gun lines, they often only have a small portion of their army that is fast enough to leave the protection of the rest of their force. If they dont "stick a neck" out of the turtle, they dont get objectives, period. they then HAVE to table you to win, and you can simply hide in cover, mitigate your losses and laugh as that one last guy or squad holding an objective will win you the game even if his entire army is still on the board.
when your enemy has to stay away from you, you have to use it to your advantage, and use that to control the board.
granted, my ork list here was not the total footslooger list (which would have done better TBH, since more boys) but he seized the initiative, and the dark lances pretty much nerfed out all my transports first turn, so I was basically playing foot slogger.
EVIL INC wrote: that's funny, I have been playing since the original Rogue trader book as well. Small world. Playing for more decades does not actually make you a better player or mean that you have automatically gotten the hang of everything. ach edition changes the game a little or a lot as does each new codex. I know of many younger players who came into the hobby who are far beter players than myself. I freely admit it.
I'm not claiming to be a better player than others. Merely pointing out that your "now you're getting the knack of it", particularly after all my previous posts and rules corrections in this thread, comes across as patronising. I mentioned that I started playing over twenty years ago merely to get across that.
EVIL INC wrote: my bad, I did not realize you were talking about farseers. I thought you meant the shining spears.
I wasn't talking about Farseers. You wrote a post about seers. I responded to that.
Exactly easysauce, different game details will always favor one side or the other (or almost always), I still comes down to who is the beter player and able to take in and maximize everything. MANY times, I have beated an army with either a gunline or assault army depending on my mod at the time) and wo having the other guy complain I had an advantage. I simply trade lists and tell them if my list has such an advantage he should be me easily. Thn gone and beat them again using the opposite list. often, now, it will even come down to who gets linebreaker or slay the warlord or firstbnlood.
Not every strategy or tactic orset up or build or whatever will work in EVERY situation. That's why I started this thread. So we could share them and expand our resources in that regard. I know my own resouces are limited and it may be that I mighta been selfish and hoping to get more tips and tricks given to me to help me win more games. lol
my apologyies if I came across as patronizing. That was not my intent. After 12 pages of being flamed and called stupid because I simply want to discuss tactics and even beng told flat out "your tactics don't work" when I know dern well they do at least in many circumstances because I have seen them work. Not only by myself but by regional tourney winners, it looked like you were finally seeing that I actually knew what I was talking about because you made the statement that I had been trying to get across for many pages..
To you I may just be some *expletive deleted* because of my disabilities that cause me to have a hard time getting meanings across but on occasion, I do know what I'm talking about.
Edit: I was confused there for a minute. I never did learn to type and so my typing skills flat out suck. Combine that with a new keyboard and having the keyboard on my lap as I type and my posts get garbled. I had meant to say Spears because that was the particular units I thought you were talking about using. Trust me, I've been on the receiving end of the jetseer/baron council. I know not to underestimate THAT unit.
my apologyies if I came across as patronizing. That was not my intent. After 12 pages of being flamed and called stupid because I simply want to discuss tactics and even beng told flat out "your tactics don't work" when I know dern well they do at least in many circumstances because I have seen them work. Not only by myself but by regional tourney winners, it looked like you were finally seeing that I actually knew what I was talking about because you made the statement that I had been trying to get across for many pages..
To you I may just be some *expletive deleted* because of my disabilities that cause me to have a hard time getting meanings across but on occasion, I do know what I'm talking about.
I hate myself for even replying to this, but:
We weren't flaming for 12 pages. Several of us were trying to discuss tactica and being offed by various posts made by you. Admittedly, half of my posts were replying to the trollbait that your posts became, but still.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And here, I shall leave the thread before it gets further derailed.
EVIL INC wrote: To you I may just be some *expletive deleted* because of my disabilities
I don't know for sure if this is your meaning, so I'm going to qualify what I say. But I don't know you, I know pretty much nothing about you other than your stated positions on some things in this thread. If you have any disabilities, I can assure you, I don't have any opinion about you because of them. Nor do I have any issue with anyone because of disabilities.
If you genuinely didn't mean your comment to come across as patronizing, then no offense is taken by me for it.
I see now where the confusion of seers / spears came about. You missed out the 'p' and I thought you had simply misspelt seers.
It's all fine and dandy that Seer Councils, Flying MCs and the like can get into combat, but the vast majority of melee units struggle.
I'm going to use C:SM as an example because it's my current army. Assuming that the previously accepted idea of the trinity (speed, durability, punch) is true, at least two of these three should be present in a unit to make it a viable assault unit. I'd further argue that reliability adds a lot, rerolling charge distances can make a huge difference. The following are the units I see as potential melee units in Codex: Space Marines, not counting HQs:
Assault Marines are Tactical Marines with jump packs and BP/CCWs. That's it. They lose scoring, they lose the option to take melta and plasma (guns) and they are worse at durability per point than normal Marines, which says something. 3 S4 AP- attacks each on the charge is abysmal. The reroll to charge range and accompanying HoW isn't going to matter much, because Assault Marines are still a worse option than many of the shooting units in the Codex. Possibly made better by Raven Guard tactics, but even then they're lacklustre and worse than taking something like a TFC or even a Whirlwind, which will perform the anti-infantry role much better than Assault Marines. The only use I see for these guys is in a Drop Pod with double flamer and combi-flamer for 105 points, and at that point it's a shooting unit.
Verdict: A melee unit whose best use is as a shooting unit.
Bikes are fast. Bikes are T5 and bring their own cover save. Bikes can be made Troops. Bikes always reroll charge ranges. Bikes have almost no damage once they get to Close Combat. They also have access to the excellent grav-gun/relentless combo, with which they will probably do more damage than by focussing on melee. Bikers are probably playable as a melee unit (especially if you've got a bike CM/Captain with relics, in which case they're an excellent support unit), but they're better as a shooting unit, much like Purifiers are capable in melee but primarily a shooting unit.
Verdict: OK-ish at melee, but much better as a shooting unit.
Honour Guard are, in my opinion, the best CC unit in the Space Marine Codex. They hit like a freight train loaded with anvils and tank punches on their chins. They're also a rare example of an elite MEQ melee unit that isn't actually LESS survivable per model against small-arms fire (although they're more vulnerable to AP2). The main issue is that they're Infantry, which means it's either Land Raider or Drop Pod to get them places before the game is over. The Land Raider, although workable, is another 240+ points, and the Drop Pod leaves you standing around to get shot and, above all else, far too far ahead of the rest of the army. They're a powerful CC unit, but the only two real deployment options leave them woefully undersupported or riding in the biggest "shoot me!" sign in the history of the Imperium. Just for comparison, 10 Honour Guard with a Chapter Banner in a Land Raider Redeemer (cheapest option) is 550 points. They're a potent melee unit, no doubt, but that's 2 Riptides and some, it's almost 2 Wraithknights and it's 6 Grav-Centurions and then some.
If you instead opt for the Drop Pod, it's just 345 points for 10 with a Banner, but that's still more than a Wraithknight, more than a Riptide and more than 4 Grav-centurions.
Another issue with Honour Guard is that they don't add to target saturation with normal Marines. As they're more survivable against small-arms fire than Tactical Marines but just as suceptible to AP2-shooting, anything that's AP2 is going to go straight into your Honour Guard while small-arms keep killing your Tacticals.
The last problem is that you have to take one Chapter Master per unit of Honour Guard (except with Calgar, who gets three). While 2 Chapter Masters certainly are playable, it makes the points run out really fast.
Verdict: Good CC unit, but a bit limited in speed. Monstrously expensive.
Scouts
Spoiler:
Speed: Yes. Durability: God no. Punch: No. Reliability: N/A
Scouts in a Land Speeder Storm aren't really a melee unit in the traditional sense, they're more of a bully unit to take out stuff like Pathfinders or to tie up something for a turn before being horribly mutilated to death. They have absolutely no way of killing anything even remotely capable in CC themselves and since the Storm only has a capacity of 5 they don't have a lot of wounds either. Furthermore, Scouts are much better as objective campers, making this another unit that really ought to be used as a shooting unit.
Verdict: Playable, but hardly stellar, and certainly not better than the shooting options available, especially seeing as the unit is better as a shooting unit itself.
Scout Biker Squads
Spoiler:
Speed: Yes. Durability: No. Punch: No. Reliability: Reroll charge distance.
Worse in every way as a CC unit than normal Bikers except they can Infiltrate. Whoop-dee-doo. Dies just as easily to small-arms fire as a normal Tactical Marine and is 4 points more expensive.
Without Jump Packs, Vanguard Veterans have the mobility of Infantry, which is slightly better than that of a three-legged sloth. As such, I'm assuming there's Jump Packs on these guys. They die as easily as Tacticals, but at least they have 2 attacks base and BP/CCW. 4 attacks on the charge each on the charge is starting to get somewhere, but above all else you can hide some Power Weapons in the squad. Unfortunately, since GW still doesn't understand how to price melee units, that pushes the cost of the Power Weapon-toting models up to 37 PPM, while still dying as easily as a 14 PPM Tactical Marine. The insane expense of purchasing Power Weapons for these guys keep what could otherwise be an alternative to Honour Guard (sacrificing armour for speed) from really shining.
Verdict: Almost, but not quite there.
Assault Centurions
Spoiler:
Speed: By all that is holy, NO. Durability: Yes. Punch: Yes. Reliability: N/A
The most durable non-HQ, non-vehicle CC models in the Codex against small-arms fire, Centurions are let down by the fact that they're 60 PPM bulky SnP melee units with 1 attack each base. It doesn't matter that they could tank all the Orks in the world, they have S9 at-initiative attacks geared to fight elite enemies but no Invulnerable Save to keep them safe. They're a horrible mix of potentials that don't match up at all, and they can't even take a Drop Pod, leaving Land Raiders as the only option for delivery. If you're going to be taking a Land Raider to transport a high-strength tough unit, Assault Terminators are so much better that it's sad.
The gold standard for tanky, hard-hitting units, assuming you're taking TH/SS. Lightning Claw Terminators add anti-infantry power to an army with anti-infantry power in abundance. The TH/SS Terminators are tratidionally ferried into combat in some sort of Land Raider, which has the "shoot me, please!" issue of being 450+ points in one basket. While they can Deep Strike, that means you'd be assaulting T3 earliest, and you'd be open to be shot (or mishap) first.
As an interesting note, a TH/SS Terminator is actually LESS survivable per points than Tactical Marines against everything that isn't AP3.
Verdict: Extreme punch on a for the punch delivered sturdy unit. The Land Raider drives the cost up massively, but still decent.
Ironclad Dreadnoughts suffer a bit in that the only reliable way of delivering them into the fray is by Drop Pod, leaving it in range of every anti-tank weapon in the enemy arsenal. Despite being sturdy, this usually is enough to turn the poor Dreadnought into a steaming puddle of goo. While hitting with an unsurpassable strength, the few attacks makes the Dreadnought seem geared to take on Monstrous Creatures, something it cannot handle, or high-AV vehicles, for which there is meltaguns. The Ironclad dreadnought in a Pod isn't too expensive, so it's usable as a distraction or as a fire soaker, forcing the enemy to shoot it, but other than that it's not too impressive.
Verdict: Meh. Vehicles are a bit too squishy, even at AV13.
Crusader Squads
Spoiler:
Speed: No. Durability: No. Punch: Almost. Reliability: With Helbrecht, one turn.
Crusader Squads are big, unwieldy and only have some punch due to usually being taken in great numbers. They're essentially Assault Marines on foot, although they can take Meltaguns and 2 Power Weapons/Fists per squad. They die as easily as Tacticals/Scouts. Saying that they're good in CC is like saying that Tacticals are good shooting units because you can take quite a bit of them and fire lots of bolter shots. If you could take 10 Assault Marines on foot and merge them with 10 Scouts you'd get a Crusader Squad, so the fact that neither Assault Marines nor CC Scouts are particularly good ought to be a hint enough that Crusader Squads aren't that good in melee.
That's not to say that Crusader Squads are a bad unit, the problem is that the thing that makes them good is the old 5-man lasplas-trick, which makes this another melee unit that is better off shooting stuff dead.
Verdict: A melee unit that is better off as a shooting unit. I'm starting to see a pattern here...
Command Squad
Spoiler:
Speed: Yes. Durability: Yes, with Apothecary. Punch: Yes: Reliability: Yes.
Despite getting full "yes", you really shouldn't ever run Command Squads as a melee unit. It's just too expensive when kitted out with stuff, and running them as a Biker Command Squad with 5 grav-guns (AKA the star unit of the entire Codex) is going to be so much better that it's silly.
Verdict: Go grav or go home.
Out of 11 (arguably) melee units, we have 2 that are good (Assault Terminators and Honour Guard), with another two that's decent but better off as shooty units (Crusader Squads and BIke Squads). You can't build a melee-centric army that's as good as shooting when you've got two decent melee units in the entire Codex, where both require some sort of awkward transportation solution (and one requires a Chapter Master to even unlock).
Granted, this is only one Codex, but my experience has been the same with other books too: Grey Knights, for example, are better as a shooty army than as a melee army, as are Space Wolves and Blood Angels (even though BA currently suffer). CSM also play better as a shooty book, even with Juggerlords and Abaddon in it. Even in 5th edition Orks took shootas instead of slugga/choppa because it was better, that hasn't changed. With the change to how Sergeants work, as well as taking casualties from the front, they suffer further. Dark Eldar, Beast Packs aside, have taken such a hard beating that it's sad. The only traditional CC armies that work better as a CC-centric armies than as shooting-centric are Daemons and Tyranids, buoyed by the boost to FMCs.
my apologyies if I came across as patronizing. That was not my intent. After 12 pages of being flamed and called stupid because I simply want to discuss tactics and even beng told flat out "your tactics don't work" when I know dern well they do at least in many circumstances because I have seen them work. Not only by myself but by regional tourney winners, it looked like you were finally seeing that I actually knew what I was talking about because you made the statement that I had been trying to get across for many pages..
To you I may just be some *expletive deleted* because of my disabilities that cause me to have a hard time getting meanings across but on occasion, I do know what I'm talking about.
I hate myself for even replying to this, but:
We weren't flaming for 12 pages. Several of us were trying to discuss tactica and being offed by various posts made by you. Admittedly, half of my posts were replying to the trollbait that your posts became, but still.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And here, I shall leave the thread before it gets further derailed.
This, minus the leaving. I'm not going anywhere, and I'm not going to stop pointing out flaws just because someone is incapable of seeing them, just as I expect others to point my flaws out in a reasonable way.
as I said before, it comes down to the skill of the players and who uses the better tactics and strategies combined with table setup,luck of the dice and other factors.
some of the old no brainers are no longer the no brainers and they have been replaced with others. can sit and trade war stories from anecdotal experience of where we have seen all the listed units do well and when they have not done well. All with different players, different army lists, different tle set ups and different dice rolls.
how does that affect this thread? None at all. The only way it would is if you are willing to share your tactics and strategies (as that is what we are discussing. We aren't talking about what we perceive as viable units, if you don't like them, don't take them, but let us talk about them without telling us we are stupid for using them) of how we can better use the assault oriented units.
take ogryn for example. say I want to use them in my guard army. Don't spam posts about how useless they are, they never reach combat, they get instakilled by demolisher hits, 6th edition killed assault so don't even bother or whatever other things like that that are on the tip of your toungue because all of those belong in other threads and have been stated as off topic here by the mods. Give me exact ways that I might be able to use my ogryn to better effect if I am planning on using them.
along that line,i DO happen to have a full 10 ogryn that I converted from fantasy ogres making ripper guns out of converted autocannons that I would like to use but have no ad a lot of luck with. I have to keep it at 6 men (5if I want to include a character such as a comm lord or primaris) if I want to use a transport to get them closer which ake shooting them down easier (they still usually get there but low enough in numbers that they don't hit as hard). if I want to outflank them, I have to use creed and to make them better an astropath and they cant assault when they come in.but I can get them to and behind enemy lines and I can have the full 10 guys + indy character if I attach them. marching them towards the enemy means they take a lot of damage but virtually the entire enemy army is shooting at them so that only a few reach (even with all that, a few usually reach but not enough to hit hard) but that does spare the rest of my army from getting shot at so I usually get first blood and pound the enemy to death or submission because he sacrificial ogryn which wins me the game (but the heroic walk seems demeaning to them and I want them to kill more guys).
EVIL INC wrote: as I said before, it comes down to the skill of the players and who uses the better tactics and strategies combined with table setup,luck of the dice and other factors.
some of the old no brainers are no longer the no brainers and they have been replaced with others. can sit and trade war stories from anecdotal experience of where we have seen all the listed units do well and when they have not done well. All with different players, different army lists, different tle set ups and different dice rolls.
how does that affect this thread? None at all. The only way it would is if you are willing to share your tactics and strategies (as that is what we are discussing. We aren't talking about what we perceive as viable units, if you don't like them, don't take them, but let us talk about them without telling us we are stupid for using them) of how we can better use the assault oriented units.
take ogryn for example. say I want to use them in my guard army. Don't spam posts about how useless they are, they never reach combat, they get instakilled by demolisher hits, 6th edition killed assault so don't even bother or whatever other things like that that are on the tip of your toungue because all of those belong in other threads and have been stated as off topic here by the mods. Give me exact ways that I might be able to use my ogryn to better effect if I am planning on using them.
So we're not allowed to point out the fact that certain units are weak or flawed or why that is the case? What's the purpose of the thread then? And for the record we've never called anyone stupid, so that's you putting words in my mouth again. I play a melee-centric Space Marine army myself, but I'm also not willing to say that melee is as good as shooting. I just posted a massive post with my thoughts about C:SM melee units, including how I feel they should be used, so claiming that I'm somehow "off-topic" is demonstrably false. For the record, the mods haven't said they agree with either side, they just told all of us to stop.
With that, I'm out. If you want a one-sided discussion where everyone nods and agrees with you then I'll not frustrate you anymore.
EVIL INC wrote: as I said before, it comes down to the skill of the players and who uses the better tactics and strategies combined with table setup,luck of the dice and other factors.
some of the old no brainers are no longer the no brainers and they have been replaced with others. can sit and trade war stories from anecdotal experience of where we have seen all the listed units do well and when they have not done well. All with different players, different army lists, different tle set ups and different dice rolls.
how does that affect this thread? None at all. The only way it would is if you are willing to share your tactics and strategies (as that is what we are discussing. We aren't talking about what we perceive as viable units, if you don't like them, don't take them, but let us talk about them without telling us we are stupid for using them) of how we can better use the assault oriented units.
take ogryn for example. say I want to use them in my guard army. Don't spam posts about how useless they are, they never reach combat, they get instakilled by demolisher hits, 6th edition killed assault so don't even bother or whatever other things like that that are on the tip of your toungue because all of those belong in other threads and have been stated as off topic here by the mods. Give me exact ways that I might be able to use my ogryn to better effect if I am planning on using them.
So we're not allowed to point out the fact that certain units are weak or flawed or why that is the case? What's the purpose of the thread then? And for the record we've never called anyone stupid, so that's you putting words in my mouth again. I play a melee-centric Space Marine army myself, but I'm also not willing to say that melee is as good as shooting. I just posted a massive post with my thoughts about C:SM melee units, including how I feel they should be used, so claiming that I'm somehow "off-topic" is demonstrably false. For the record, the mods haven't said they agree with either side, they just told all of us to stop.
With that, I'm out. If you want a one-sided discussion where everyone nods and agrees with you then I'll not frustrate you anymore.
as much as you would like to come in and spout of that you know everything and tll players that they are not allowed to use certain units because you do not personally lik them, that is simply not the purpose of the thread.
The purpose is to discuss ways in which to better use the units that ARE taken. Not to have someone tell them they cant take it because it is no good. take my ogryn example, I spent a lot of money building those 10 guys and did an excellent job of painting them. Once in a while, I would like to use them just so the don't feel left out. I know that they are not the best assault units in the game so I don't need o read 12 pages of you telling me how stupid I am for using them in an army and how only a re^#$% like me would even consider using them. We are all well aware of your personal feelings towards me and your overwhelming desire to insult and call me name at every opportunity.
Say, I have 10 ogryn I want to use, if you have any tips or advice on how I can better use them or how you would use them to greatest effect, I would love to hear it. The other nonsense just does not belong in THIS thread (someone else started a thread here you can discuss what assault units are overpriced nd why to not take them) (or in the case of the personal attacks, not on the forums at all, keep those to PM according to the rules of the site).
1. I have tried them in chimeras and found that that limits me in how many I can take.
2. I've attached an indy character such as a primaris. thi helped them but in a chimera, limits the unit size by another ogryn.
3. I've advanced them on foot using cover wut without fleet of foot or the ability to roll 3d6 for difficult terrain, they are slow.
Split them into two units of 5, attach an inquisitor to each unit with some nice gear and psychic powers, stuff them in chimeras.
Now you have two very shooty chimeras, throwing out a storm of re-rollable S5 shooting, and when the chimera dies, you have two tough units able to club non-termie infantry with both shooting and close combat.
Probably not the most efficient use of pts or inquisitors, but should be fun and at least in theory, doesn`t sound too horrible
"The purpose is to discuss ways in which to better use the units that ARE taken."
This isn't Starcraft. GW has not taken the time to make sure each unit has appropriate counters and in turn provide counters.
Unfortunately, you can *not* bypass the question of whether a given unit should be fielded at all. The right answer may be to have the Ogryns gather dust. For the very reasons you yourself have enummerated.
Martel732 wrote: "The purpose is to discuss ways in which to better use the units that ARE taken."
This isn't Starcraft. GW has not taken the time to make sure each unit has appropriate counters and in turn provide counters.
Unfortunately, you can *not* bypass the question of whether a given unit should be fielded at all. The right answer may be to have the Ogryns gather dust. For the very reasons you yourself have enummerated.
While i agree that not all units are good and balanced, some people want to use some units for fluff, theme or other personal reasons. asking how best to do that is within the scope of this discussion. There's no reason we can't say "that unit is overpriced/underpowered, and i wouldn't recommend them. If you're dead set on using them, you might be best to ...." In a way it becomes a thought experiment, a tactical challenge. Most people understand how to best use an effective unit; it's usually not difficult (that's why they're effective) but the challenge will be using less effective units (in the case of this thread, CC units, as most are less effective than shooting units)
EVIL INC wrote: as much as you would like to come in and spout of that you know everything and tll players that they are not allowed to use certain units because you do not personally lik them, that is simply not the purpose of the thread.
He never did at any point suggest that he can force to any extent people to take any models. This is you getting wishy-washy because you are not getting your way, its petty and annoying and if you even intend for people to even begin to take you seriously you will stop with the whole victim, son of christ play.
There is a natural aura of negativity in this part of the forum and I can understand by all accounts how this may not please you but that doesn't mean you should barge in and expect people to automatically compensate because your feelings get hurt, and then call them out as being nasty people because of it.
The purpose is to discuss ways in which to better use the units that ARE taken.
This was not directly declared and by default in a tactics thread, one assumes that the discussion is based on the competitive scene where what to take is above and beyond significant than how to take predominantly.
Not to have someone tell them they cant take it because it is no good.
This was never said.
take my ogryn example, I spent a lot of money building those 10 guys and did an excellent job of painting them. Once in a while, I would like to use them just so the don't feel left out. I know that they are not the best assault units in the game so I don't need o read 12 pages of you telling me how stupid I am for using them in an army and how only a re^#$% like me would even consider using them.
This is a logical fallacy by appealing to nature and if you can't face the hard boiled facts in this part of the forum you should leave it, frankly.
We are all well aware of your personal feelings towards me and your overwhelming desire to insult and call me name at every opportunity.
This is insulting in its own right and also hypocritical within the length of the statement.
OP at time of posting:
Spoiler:
A few things to remember...
1. http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/forum_rules.jsp 2. This is not about the merits of shooting over close combat or close combat over shooting or "shooty style vs assault style armies, it is about specific strategies and tactics to help players better use the assault units that they DO take for whatever reason within their army.
3. Please respect other members and understand that strategies and tactics that are offered are offered to help other players because they have proven themselves to be effective. 4. Understand that not every strategy or tactic will work ALL the time or in EVERY situation and are often counterable through tailering, other tactics and strategies or just pain old bad luck. just because you can poke a possible hole, does not mean it is worthless altogether, it means that you have pointed out a single flaw to take into consideration with it's other flaws and merits.
Now to the nitty gritty...
1. When you do take units that are geared towards assault, how do you use them most effectively? What are some tips and tricks or even general advice that you would give other player that might help them?
I've bolded the parts you want to look back over to self reflect on.
But alas, adding to the discussion:
For CC the best real reliable units in my opinion are Flying Monstrous Creatures, units which also excel at shooting or a non-CC role or are exceptionally fast, deadly and hard to kill like Screamer/Seerstars. Terminators are way too easy to pepper in shooting and you lose points by the bucketload generally (GK's get around this by having shooting capability) even with Storm Shields as AP2 is now so easy to attain in high volumes.
I believe that CC is a strong supporting element to have in most lists but not feasible as an army theme.
you are right Armies based purely on close combat do not fare as well as previously. I have found that speed (including the flying monstrous creatures) is a BIG selling point for which units to take. Another is that we now see the more "rounded" options are becoming more used as they are being asked to shoot as well as assault or make shooting as part of the assault. (softening up a target themselves).
We are even seeing some items of wargear see use that rarely saw use before. For example, In previous editions bikes did not see a lot of actionas wargear taken by independent characters because of the dual toughness stats. Currently, you are seeing IC ride bikes a LOmore than before. Not only because it helps get them to the enemy faster but also because their actual toughness is increased to 5 protecting them from a lot of the insta kills they woulda got before. Even such small things like this CAN make a difference in who wins or loses a game. Well put in saying "I believe that CC is a strong supporting element to have in most lists but not feasible as an army theme." as it effectively expresses the role o close combat in any battle where the combatants have access to "guns". Even the bugs make use of "gus" and non-close combat effects to fill their arsenal.
EVIL INC wrote: Your quote appears to have been edited to say something that was never said and is breaking the rules f the forum in ragards to rule #1.
http://marticlan.info/images/evil.png Really? Looks the same to me, edited to add bolding (which he mentioned and is perfectly allowed).
Mind pointing out what was altered?
If you mean his quote where he added responses, some people do that instead of multiple quotes - also perfectly fine. He isn't putting words in your mouth - he bolded his responses so you can tell the difference.
EVIL INC wrote: Your quote appears to have been edited to say something that was never said and is breaking the rules f the forum in ragards to rule #1.
you are right though. Armies based purely on close combat do not fare as well as previously. I have found that speed (including the flying monstrous creatures) is a BIG selling point for which units to take. Another is that we now see the more "rounded" options are becoming more used as they are being asked to shoot as well as assault or make shooting as part of the assault. (softening up a target themselves).
We are even seeing some items of wargear see use that rarely saw use before. For example, In previous editions bikes did not see a lot of actionas wargear taken by independent characters because of the dual toughness stats. Currently, you are seeing IC ride bikes a LOmore than before. Not only because it helps get them to the enemy faster but also because their actual toughness is increased to 5 protecting them from a lot of the insta kills they woulda got before. Even such small things like this CAN make a difference in who wins or loses a game. Well put in saying "I believe that CC is a strong supporting element to have in most lists but not feasible as an army theme." as it effectively expresses the role o close combat in any battle where the combatants have access to "guns". Even the bugs make use of "gus" and non-close combat effects to fill their arsenal.
So wait how do I use shooting as my codex is comprised of more close combat then magic and really hardly touches it? Sorry couldn't help jesting when saying close combat is supporting when my codex pretty much only has a few whips, magic powers, a skull cannon, and a giant daemonic beast that spits acid with the majority of the codex being close combat without even any shooting capabilities
Also I'd argue that for Orks shooting is supposed to be the support to their main weapons and even nids really use the guns as a support to soften the foe enough to make their assaults devestating. Then again, I am talking about the 3 most CC oriented armies.
Anyways yeah speed is the name of the game. Bikes that can scout, beasts, scout, infiltrate, FMC, slaanesh, speed hammers it in. Durability is another major point (Plague Marines are better in assault after turn two than Berzerkers and so PM are just better in the vast majority of ways) that, although not as important, really does get factored in. And then of course, blenderness. Too little and you get bloodletters, too much without speed or even durability and you get possessed.
Onto another note, my favorite army is daemons and I'm building a Tzeentch Khorne combo. My question comes from... how would you recommend to play Bloodletters? I've always tried them out yet they never really seems to be worth their price. They get mowed down if foot slogged and really don't pack much punch in cc nor do they really tank shots. I've been thinking of perhaps trying out some Khorne Dogs and give a herald a icon to charge into the enemy and plop them down to join in CC next turn. That being said, I'm still not sure if this will really make Bloodletters worth it. Also, any tips on Bloodcrushers? I've never once been able to play them successful (actually I do better with close combat pink horrors... that was fun).
StarTrotter wrote: Onto another note, my favorite army is daemons and I'm building a Tzeentch Khorne combo. My question comes from... how would you recommend to play Bloodletters? I've always tried them out yet they never really seems to be worth their price. They get mowed down if foot slogged and really don't pack much punch in cc nor do they really tank shots. I've been thinking of perhaps trying out some Khorne Dogs and give a herald a icon to charge into the enemy and plop them down to join in CC next turn. That being said, I'm still not sure if this will really make Bloodletters worth it. Also, any tips on Bloodcrushers? I've never once been able to play them successful (actually I do better with close combat pink horrors... that was fun).
Max sized unit walking across the table. Your opponent has to waste firepower on them, they won't break from shooting, and they're AP3 in assault. Combine that with some other, faster, threats and it's a recipe for some lovin fun.
rigeld2- What unit was that advice aimed at helping us more effectively us? I'm just not seeing how it helps me use my ogryn better. it almost appeared to be a totally off topic comment intended to instigate an argument.
Star, i'm assuming that your army is chaos. lol is it chaos marines or chaos daemons?
I honestly say that I have a lot of experience with chaos daemons so likely will not be able to help with them beyond say that they usually rip right through my army by materializing all oround it and blasting me with shots before assaulting to finish the job their following turn. From my perspective, with such a large number of multiwound models each with eternal warrior (even of the 'non character models", it is hard for even a guard army to do enough damage to prevent the inevitable. The best I could hope for was for units to land on me and have to roll on the mishap table.
From what I have seen personally, I would try to put them down in a position where as few of the enemy units have a los to them as possible. I would almost put my shooty units with only a few close combat units down on the first wave. This way, you can cause maximum damage with your own shooting before your hammerblow of assault daemons come in to mop up later. When they do come in, the few enemy that are left will hafta choose between the full strength assault guys or the shooters that have been ripping them up al along.
Like I said though, when I played chaos, the daemons codex wasn't out yet so i'm a novice at them at best.
Automatically Appended Next Post: rigeld2- What unit was that advice aimed at helping us more effectively us? I'm just not seeing how it helps me use my ogryn better. it almost appeared to be a totally off topic comment intended to instigate an argument.
Star, i'm assuming that your army is chaos. lol is it chaos marines or chaos daemons?
I honestly say that I have a lot of experience with chaos daemons so likely will not be able to help with them beyond say that they usually rip right through my army by materializing all oround it and blasting me with shots before assaulting to finish the job their following turn. From my perspective, with such a large number of multiwound models each with eternal warrior (even of the 'non character models", it is hard for even a guard army to do enough damage to prevent the inevitable. The best I could hope for was for units to land on me and have to roll on the mishap table.
From what I have seen personally, I would try to put them down in a position where as few of the enemy units have a los to them as possible. I would almost put my shooty units with only a few close combat units down on the first wave. This way, you can cause maximum damage with your own shooting before your hammerblow of assault daemons come in to mop up later. When they do come in, the few enemy that are left will hafta choose between the full strength assault guys or the shooters that have been ripping them up al along.
Like I said though, when I played chaos, the daemons codex wasn't out yet so i'm a novice at them at best.
EVIL INC wrote: rigeld2- What unit was that advice aimed at helping us more effectively us? I'm just not seeing how it helps me use my ogryn better. it almost appeared to be a totally off topic comment intended to instigate an argument.
Not trying to instigate an argument at all. May I ask what unit your original comment was directed toward?
How about, in the future, you click the yellow warning triangle and report things to mods instead of passive aggressive complaints that you don't want to be corrected on.
I did comment on your Ogryns by the way - maybe you missed it.
EVIL INC wrote: rigeld2- What unit was that advice aimed at helping us more effectively us? I'm just not seeing how it helps me use my ogryn better. it almost appeared to be a totally off topic comment intended to instigate an argument.
I left, I stayed silent, I came back, I'm not happy with what I see here.
Now that we're all on the same page...
How the hell is advice about how to use a CC unit off topic?
StarTrotter wrote: Onto another note, my favorite army is daemons and I'm building a Tzeentch Khorne combo. My question comes from... how would you recommend to play Bloodletters? I've always tried them out yet they never really seems to be worth their price. They get mowed down if foot slogged and really don't pack much punch in cc nor do they really tank shots. I've been thinking of perhaps trying out some Khorne Dogs and give a herald a icon to charge into the enemy and plop them down to join in CC next turn. That being said, I'm still not sure if this will really make Bloodletters worth it. Also, any tips on Bloodcrushers? I've never once been able to play them successful (actually I do better with close combat pink horrors... that was fun).
Max sized unit walking across the table. Your opponent has to waste firepower on them, they won't break from shooting, and they're AP3 in assault. Combine that with some other, faster, threats and it's a recipe for some lovin fun.
It's quite clearly advice on how to take a Daemons unit.
Evil Inc, we're sick and tired of you offing everyone who is not directly agreeing with you like a conformist monkey.
You may not be aware, but Dakkadakka is a forum for many people at once, and that this tactics sub-froum is for helping players other than yourself.
So get off your high horse, and post nicely, or gtfo.
@rigeld2 So perhaps a squad of flesh hounds and maybe some screamers of tzeentch... I was curious if maybe a herald riding a fleshound to the enemie's deployment to smash in 20 bloodletters in their face and then make them decide between them or the fleshounds would be a good choice. Anyways thanks. I think it doesn't help that my usual opponent is a hoardy tyranid player ap3 ain't so great when hitting armour saves of 6+ he he. Thanks for that (rarely get to play games anymore so really don't get many chances to test out new ideas anymore).
Yeah, I'm going to chime in here and give my opinion...because that's what you do on forums, you give your opinion.
First, I was wondering why this thread was so popular (so many replies) but I kept skipping over it because I don't need to be told how to make CC more viable. I solely play Tyranids. A race regarded as one of the few that have extremely lackluster shooting options.
Now I know why. I'm going to go out on a limb and agree with most of the other posters in this forum (Selym, rigeld2, etc): Shooting is far superior and more prevalent than melee units. This opinion, FWIW, isn't going so far to say that CC is useless. I've won my fair share of games with my Tyranids (which my most recent tournament TAC list includes a unit of genestealers and a Broodlord [highly regarded as one of the most amazing CC units in the game, but in 6th ed beaten down to a relatively useless unit]) almost solely on close combat, positioning, objective control, and strategic assaults.
With that being said: EVIL INC... After reading 14 pages of this useless thread that hasn't helped me in the slightest....I don't know you, I don't want to know you, and I hope to never meet you. You seem to be immature and seem to be instigating most of the "flaming" comments you've received by posting and/or not responding to the comments/challenges to provide evidence to support what seems to be your argument: "CC is not dead". The others who have, intelligently, chosen to leave this conversation at one point or another have proven time and time again that (while not "dead") melee is inferior to shooting in this present edition.
If anyone gets anything out of my post, I wish it to be this: The key to a successful army in a game of 40K is balance. While people have proven, shifting that balance towards shooting or assault winning is possible (and more often easier depending on your opponent) these same people open themselves up to weaknesses against other, otherwise unbalanced, armies. Most importantly of all, the point of this game of toy soldiers fighting each other in an alternate fictional reality is to have fun. Have fun in whatever way you define fun (in a competitive environment i.e. tournaments or casually with a group of friends in your garage).
With that, this is my first and last post in this thread that has wasted a good hour of my day....but being at work that made it go more quickly
you know, I had a huge post complete with quotes prepared to post here but I figure that we are ALL getting sick and tired of the attacks and trolling and sniping. with me trying to respond politely and respectfully. Instead of posting it, I am sending it to the culprets via PM. If you feel the need to respond, use that function instead of continuing to clutter the public area with your personal grievances that are not related to the threads at hand.
Roxor, That is their strawman that they are using. Not a single person has EVER said that shooting was not superior. I made that claim before they did. the reason the number of pages has not helped is because of the very people you mention purposely taking it off topic because it is not a topic that they wish to have discussed (at least in a thread started by anyone but themselves)
your mention of balance is another of the topics of strategy that I mentioned. Take your own bugs (tyranids) for example. They are not reknowned for shooting and are indeed not the best at it. I would not take it for granted that it was bad or not worth taking by any means. barrages, lance psybolts (if I remember correctly), Guns that are more effective the bigger the guy using them are. All of these combined with mass flyers and monstrous creatures all help to make the bugs very versatile and competitive.
My tip for you would be to concentrate on 2 strengths that 'match" or "cover" one another (and of course that you think are cool and like) and use them in concentration rather than try to be a jack of all trades.
never played a bug army but have faced them so take this with a grain of salt. maybe a few survivable big guys to start on the field (including a big winged guy who gives you +1 to first turn or chance to reroll to steal or whatever it does, I'm sure you know who I'm talking about), a tervigon or two to hold objectives and poop out spare troops and a couple guys to fire barrages or a dakkafex. Then have a overload of pods with a mix of hordy guys and big guys to overwhelm until the flyrant hits the lines and starts ripping new ones.
Just put EVIL on your ignore list. Your posting happiness will increase ten-fold, guaranteed!
Besides, the discussion is infinitely better without him anyways.
@roxor08
Tyranids should hopefully get a bump when the codex drops soon-ish. I'm hoping Orkz and Nids upset the balance a little for Eldar and Tau, but I won't hold my breath.
EVIL INC wrote:sorry if the whole thing does notaply to you, I copied/pasted a post and decided instead to send it to you this way. I don't know what personal issue you have with me just because I want to improve my game that you feel the need to follow me trolling and baiting doing your best to instigate arguments out of thin air but I can assure you I did not join the forum with arguing with you in mind.
Whatever your personal vendetta is against me, keep it to pm instead of spamming up threads (any of them) with the constant trolling and sniping where it is uncalled for and unneeded. I do not do that to you and expect you to not do it either...
rigeld2 wrote: Not trying to instigate an argument at all. May I ask what unit your original comment was directed toward?
How about, in the future, you click the yellow warning triangle and report things to mods instead of passive aggressive complaints that you don't want to be corrected on.
I did comment on your Ogryns by the way - maybe you missed it.
rigeld2 wrote: http://marticlan.info/images/evil.png
Really? Looks the same to me, edited to add bolding (which he mentioned and is perfectly allowed).
Mind pointing out what was altered?
If you mean his quote where he added responses, some people do that instead of multiple quotes - also perfectly fine. He isn't putting words in your mouth - he bolded his responses so you can tell the difference.
Nope, not a single solitary word on topic.
Selym wrote: I left, I stayed silent, I came back, I'm not happy with what I see here.
Now that we're all on the same page...
How the Edit-beep-Edit is advice about how to use a CC unit off topic?
he had not given advice. Did nbot even address the topic at hand speaking purely on his personal attacks. careful of language, there are children who read these forums and personally, I don't think they need to see members cursing out others willy nilly. And yes, myself discussing a possible way to use bloodletters more effectively is indeed on topic. of course, as a total novice with the new chaos daemon codex, I made sure to point out not to take my advice on hem t gospel.
It's quite clearly advice on how to take a Daemons unit.
Evil Inc, we're sick and tired of you offing everyone who is not directly agreeing with you like a conformist monkey.
gtfo.
the post you quoted came from a different post. the one I was addressing simply is not the one you quoted at all.
I am not asking for anyone to conform to my opinions at all. that apprear to be your own bailiwick. you have made up your mind as to what will work and what will not and closed it to any other possibilities. The thread is not to parrot what you want to hear. it is for us to discuss how to better use assault oriented units that are chosen to be used by players. because you don't see the use of certain units as feasible from your own 'elevated position", you put down, insult and bait and troll until people are tired of arguing with you and move on letting you feel like you have "won"..
Ignore away if on topic posts made by a rational person trying to improve their game/help others improve this bothers you. If it will finally get you to stay on topic and stop trolling, telling lies and trying to instigate arguments to derail threads, by all means, ignore whoever you lke.
Myself, I have an open mind so am willing to read/listen to anyone.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I like the idea of advancing a full unit of ogryn led by a inquisitor behind a bunch of chimeras. Actually sounds kinda fluffy and cimimatic in a way.
Would I be better off using empty chimeras (one for the ogryn and maybe one for the inquisitor if he can take a ransport.
or would I be better off using chimeras full of some sort of hooting unit to add some short range frepower? if the latter, what should I put in them? .
StarTrotter wrote: Onto another note, my favorite army is daemons and I'm building a Tzeentch Khorne combo.
Don't those two hate each other? I though Tzeentch was the one thing Khorne loathed above anything else. Or has the fluff changed since my day?
They still do. I was actually under the impression that something in the codex made it so they couldn't work together/join squads/be within a certain distance.
EVIL INC wrote:sorry if the whole thing does notaply to you, I copied/pasted a post and decided instead to send it to you this way. I don't know what personal issue you have with me just because I want to improve my game that you feel the need to follow me trolling and baiting doing your best to instigate arguments out of thin air but I can assure you I did not join the forum with arguing with you in mind.
Whatever your personal vendetta is against me, keep it to pm instead of spamming up threads (any of them) with the constant trolling and sniping where it is uncalled for and unneeded. I do not do that to you and expect you to not do it either...
rigeld2 wrote: Not trying to instigate an argument at all. May I ask what unit your original comment was directed toward?
How about, in the future, you click the yellow warning triangle and report things to mods instead of passive aggressive complaints that you don't want to be corrected on.
I did comment on your Ogryns by the way - maybe you missed it.
rigeld2 wrote: http://marticlan.info/images/evil.png
Really? Looks the same to me, edited to add bolding (which he mentioned and is perfectly allowed).
Mind pointing out what was altered?
If you mean his quote where he added responses, some people do that instead of multiple quotes - also perfectly fine. He isn't putting words in your mouth - he bolded his responses so you can tell the difference.
Nope, not a single solitary word on topic.
Selym wrote: I left, I stayed silent, I came back, I'm not happy with what I see here.
Now that we're all on the same page...
How the Edit-beep-Edit is advice about how to use a CC unit off topic?
he had not given advice. Did nbot even address the topic at hand speaking purely on his personal attacks. careful of language, there are children who read these forums and personally, I don't think they need to see members cursing out others willy nilly. And yes, myself discussing a possible way to use bloodletters more effectively is indeed on topic. of course, as a total novice with the new chaos daemon codex, I made sure to point out not to take my advice on hem t gospel.
It's quite clearly advice on how to take a Daemons unit.
Evil Inc, we're sick and tired of you offing everyone who is not directly agreeing with you like a conformist monkey.
gtfo.
the post you quoted came from a different post. the one I was addressing simply is not the one you quoted at all.
I am not asking for anyone to conform to my opinions at all. that apprear to be your own bailiwick. you have made up your mind as to what will work and what will not and closed it to any other possibilities. The thread is not to parrot what you want to hear. it is for us to discuss how to better use assault oriented units that are chosen to be used by players. because you don't see the use of certain units as feasible from your own 'elevated position", you put down, insult and bait and troll until people are tired of arguing with you and move on letting you feel like you have "won"..
I think Evil Inc. is trying to create a thread along the lines of: "ignoring criteria for unit selection, if you are using a particular unit anyway, how best to use it." Taken in that regard, it could make sense. For example, if someone wants to field Ogryns because they like the models, etc. then this thread could offer advice.
Unfortunately that was never the original stated purpose of the thread and there are a lot of useful things to be said about unit choice and the overall balance of shooting vs. CC units.
Historically, it was Khorne/slannesh that hated one another and tzeenthc/nurgle that did as well with khorne and tzeentch maintaining a distinct 'distrust".
I fondly remember the days of Rogue Trader when these meant more than they do now (although the daemon codex may have gone back towards that direction or altered the original alliances.
knas ser - you got the point of what I was trying to say (I feel they understand that and just enjoy what they are doing because they can get away with it anyway. Him posting that reminded me that I forgot to address the racial slurr he had made). "Last update was at 2013/11/29 14:49:31" shows that at that time, I altered the original post to better reflect the intentions of the thread. You will notice that this behavior did not stop at that time.
In the case of my ogryn. I spent a lot of money buying the models (not as much as I would have if I had bought the "official' metal ones) and I worked hard to convert the ripper guns. Whoda thunk getting the muzzlesbac onto the shortened barrels without it being obvous ould be so hard and fiddly/ I even magnetized the left arm of the bone head to switch off using a banner (I have a pic of some of them in my gallery). I really enjoy the look and "feel" of these guys and every once in a while, I just want to use them for the sake of them getting used. I am well aware, I would be better of using something else but i'm just not WAAC and wanna using something cool once in a while in a for fun game.
Blacksails wrote: But...doesn't Khorne despise sorcery and other magical nonsense?
Like an unbridled hatred? It may not be as a bad as his hate of Slaanesh, but certainly a serious rift in their chaotic relationship.
Well to be honest none of the chaos gods get along. All of them want power and tend to put aside disagreements to knock down the strongest (okay well it is confusing since daemons aren't really entities but they also are). Khorne distrusts Tzeentch but it is really Tzeentch/Nurgle as well as Slaanesh/Khorne. Khorne still hates psykers and all that (I never quite understood why he wouldn't like biomancy or pyromancy though....) just not as much as he hates Slaanesh. Along with that, the fluff openly expresses now that daemons will put aside their disengagements to pleasure in the slaughter (some fluff going on how a bloodcrusher tries to get a kill but slaanesh daemons always beat him to the punch until the end), Khorne is my friend's least favorite of the four gods, and I wanted to deploy something besides Tzeentch. I might like Tzeentch and all, but that means only a single troop choice, a single elite choice, a single fast choice, a single heavy choice (one which might I add is broken in a way it can't function), and then 3 named characters and two choices of hq. Also my favorite combat between shootingand CC is admittedly close combat. Also, although Slaanesh and Khorne hate eachother, there are warbands between the two. They just aren't that common. On another note, Lorgar is undivided and a psyker, Be'lakar is undivided and a psyker, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EVIL INC wrote: Historically, it was Khorne/slannesh that hated one another and tzeenthc/nurgle that did as well with khorne and tzeentch maintaining a distinct 'distrust".
I fondly remember the days of Rogue Trader when these meant more than they do now (although the daemon codex may have gone back towards that direction or altered the original alliances.
knas ser - you got the point of what I was trying to say (I feel they understand that and just enjoy what they are doing because they can get away with it anyway. Him posting that reminded me that I forgot to address the racial slurr he had made). "Last update was at 2013/11/29 14:49:31" shows that at that time, I altered the original post to better reflect the intentions of the thread. You will notice that this behavior did not stop at that time.
In the case of my ogryn. I spent a lot of money buying the models (not as much as I would have if I had bought the "official' metal ones) and I worked hard to convert the ripper guns. Whoda thunk getting the muzzlesbac onto the shortened barrels without it being obvous ould be so hard and fiddly/ I even magnetized the left arm of the bone head to switch off using a banner (I have a pic of some of them in my gallery). I really enjoy the look and "feel" of these guys and every once in a while, I just want to use them for the sake of them getting used. I am well aware, I would be better of using something else but i'm just not WAAC and wanna using something cool once in a while in a for fun game.
Actually the new codex has some limitations. To begin with, none of the daemons can mix with different gods no ifs stands or butts (same is true for CSM in terms of marked guys. Undivided/umarked can join any though). Second of all, there is a warpstorm table that will cause random things to occur. Out of 12 possible rolls (2d6), four of them are based on gods. For every enemy unit, they must roll a d6. On a 6, that unit will have the warp do some daemonic ethereal damage. Along with that, if the roll is of khorne, any of your own units that are slaanesh then they must also roll the d6. Same for Slaanesh, Khorne, and Tzeentch.
To be honest I can't say much on the Ogryns. Forgeworld might have something helpful but my best idea would be to make a mech guard or tank heavy army and march them from behind as a counterassault anti deepstrike behind to pop tanks guys and once close enough let them run out from behind.
EVIL INC wrote:Roxor, That is their strawman that they are using. Not a single person has EVER said that shooting was not superior. I made that claim before they did. the reason the number of pages has not helped is because of the very people you mention purposely taking it off topic because it is not a topic that they wish to have discussed (at least in a thread started by anyone but themselves)
your mention of balance is another of the topics of strategy that I mentioned.
I'm sorry, but how is this on topic?
Take your own bugs (tyranids) for example. They are not reknowned for shooting and are indeed not the best at it. I would not take it for granted that it was bad or not worth taking by any means. barrages, lance psybolts (if I remember correctly), Guns that are more effective the bigger the guy using them are. All of these combined with mass flyers and monstrous creatures all help to make the bugs very versatile and competitive.
Slight correction - there are no guns that get better the bigger you are. Unless you're talking about Brainleech Devourers in which case it's still inaccurate but I understand the confusion.
never played a bug army but have faced them so take this with a grain of salt. maybe a few survivable big guys to start on the field (including a big winged guy who gives you +1 to first turn or chance to reroll to steal or whatever it does, I'm sure you know who I'm talking about),
I know you said you'd never played them, but Nids have literally zero ability to manipulate the steal initiative roll. Please be correct when recommending units.
a tervigon or two to hold objectives and poop out spare troops and a couple guys to fire barrages or a dakkafex. Then have a overload of pods with a mix of hordy guys and big guys to overwhelm until the flyrant hits the lines and starts ripping new ones.
Mostly correct - the key to a Nid army is redundancy. Meaning you need at least 2 Troop Tervigons, a good amount of podded shooting (I prefer dakkafexes, some prefer Trygons that don't need a pod) and Biovores are amazing now.
My tip for you would be to concentrate on 2 strengths that 'match" or "cover" one another (and of course that you think are cool and like) and use them in concentration rather than try to be a jack of all trades.
never played a bug army but have faced them so take this with a grain of salt. maybe a few survivable big guys to start on the field (including a big winged guy who gives you +1 to first turn or chance to reroll to steal or whatever it does, I'm sure you know who I'm talking about), a tervigon or two to hold objectives and poop out spare troops and a couple guys to fire barrages or a dakkafex. Then have a overload of pods with a mix of hordy guys and big guys to overwhelm until the flyrant hits the lines and starts ripping new ones.
Maybe your browser is messed up and did not show the whole post. the part that you quoted was only a small part of it. So to help you out, I quoted the part that you were unable to.
"
Slight correction - there are no guns that get better the bigger you are. Unless you're talking about Brainleech Devourers in which case it's still inaccurate but I understand the confusion. "
This where my ignorance of the bug book shows. As I said, I was unsure of the exact guns. Iseem to remember (from older codexes) weapons that were based on the strength of the user and stuff like that so a (fleshborer as a random example because its just the first bug gun that comes to mind. ignore rules as this is only a make believe example to demonstrate the way I thought some of the bug guns worked) might be strength 3 when fired by a termagant but be strength 6 when fired by a carnifex, or have 2 shots when fired by the termagant but 4 shots when fired by the carnifex or some such. If there are no bug weaponslike that, My apologies.
"I know you said you'd never played them, but Nids have literally zero ability to manipulate the steal initiative roll. Please be correct when recommending units. '
As I said, I was unsure. I was under the impression there was a way to gv a tyrant some sort of special rule or that it came with one. Either on initiative, bonuses towards reserves rolls, something. If that is not the case, again, my apolgiesThe guy I was playing msta been cheating me because I toohim at his ord. I'm more worried about enjoying the game than spending the whole game quibbling. I just took him at his word and passed it on here without checking. My bad.
"Mostly correct - the key to a Nid army is redundancy. Meaning you need at least 2 Troop Tervigons, a good amount of podded shooting (I prefer dakkafexes, some prefer Trygons that don't need a pod) and Biovores are amazing now. "
Saying that must galed ya. Joking
My browser isn't messed up. I only quoted the part that was worth responding to.
It didn't fall me at all - despite your repeated (incorrect) assertions I'm not trolling nor disagree with many of your tactics. I just can't stand you you present things as fact that are completely incorrect.
Tyrants have the ability to modify reserve rolls, but nothing to do with stealing initiative. And yes, older codexes had varying str weapons but building tactics off of old codexes is probably a bad idea, agreed?
I could try and clean up this thread. Or I could just lock it and start indiscriminatingly suspending people who are posting things that are not on topic, IN SPITE OF REPEATED WARNINGS.
Middle ground option for now. Any posts past this one that I deem to be off-topic in any way, shape, or form, even in part, get the user suspended.
4) Multiple threats. Like with the Daemon's flying circus, the more scary things you've got on the field, the harder it will be for your opponent to get them killed.
5) Redundancy. Key trait of Nids and Orks. Simply bring more expendable choppy units then the enemy has guns.
StarTrotter wrote: Onto another note, my favorite army is daemons and I'm building a Tzeentch Khorne combo.
Don't those two hate each other? I though Tzeentch was the one thing Khorne loathed above anything else. Or has the fluff changed since my day?
Khorne/Slaanesh
Nurgle/Tzeench
Are your demon hatreds.
I don't know. I've been around since the days of Kaleb Dark when there was Malaal as one of the Chaos gods as well. I've been out of it a bit but it was - I'm pretty sure Khorne/Tzeentch and Slaanesh/Nurgle.
Khorne despised sorcery and trickery which was Tzeentch's gig. Slaanesh and Nurgle as embodiments of hedonism and despair, feeling and death, repectively, were also opposed. And then tnere was Malaal who was all against him and him against all, but he has all but vanished from the pantheon.
Edit: Just reached the mod warning. The above might count as off-topic, but it was really just a reply to the interesting side-discussion about Chaos allegiances, not part of the trolling thing that's going on. If it's a problem, please just delete it if needed.
Therefore those following the god of physical strength hate the followers of the god of mental weakness, and vice versa.
Khorne followers despise Tzeentch cultists for they path they choose, but can still respect them as strong allies. but Slannesh is the utter antithesis of everything they stand for.
According to the codex:
Khorne daemons have Hatred: Slaanesh
Tzeentch daemons have Hatred: Nurgle
Nurgle daemons have Hatred: Tzeentch
Slaanesh daemons have Hatred: Khorne.
4) Multiple threats. Like with the Daemon's flying circus, the more scary things you've got on the field, the harder it will be for your opponent to get them killed.
5) Redundancy. Key trait of Nids and Orks. Simply bring more expendable choppy units then the enemy has guns.
These are a good start. However, these alone will not "do it". I feel that there are strategie and tactics (actions made by the player) which can improve them even further. Yes, I know some of them may seem like common sense but they still need to be pointed out.
1. table set up. This is a part of the game that can greatly affect who wins or loses a game. It can range from placing a huge los blocking rock outcropping in front of an ADL gun or stringing los blocking buildings or rocks (or terrain which would partially block los to provide some sort of cover for an advance.
2. Use of some units to provide covering fire. I'll use the razorback for this, If I have a razorback sitting behind my ADL in front of an open space in front of the opponat's battle line, it may serve as a deterrent for the opponent to keep them from moving their units around to get better shots at my incoming squads. or at least make it harder for them.
3.Soften them up. I found that taking a manticore allowed me to softem up, enemies that were hid out of my los so that they were weakened enough for my shunting interceptors and dreadknights.
4."grand strategies. I'm a lil short on these but the denied flank I have seen work to great effect through firsthand use. It actually works a lil better now than in earlier editions if you get turn 2.
5.not only having multiple threats on the table but having those threas all be a threat at once forcing an opponent to kill them all at once. stringing them out so that they can be neutralized individually, weakens their effectiveness.
6. learning from others. Watch other players and keep an eye on what works for them. this is how I learned the slingshot to get chaos lords into combat unmolested.
. It's not 
And you're baiting again.
