Re-opened in hopes that members will remember the forum rules.
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?
Get some paragraphs in there and people might read this. It is an interesting topic, but I just can`t force myself to even start plowing through that unbroken wall of text
My bad. I never was a good typist and sometimes type as I think with stuff running together. I hope its better now.
I understand that I am not the end all be all. I invite others to help in this in order to tutor those who have trouble facing shooty armies. or help assault players in general for that matter. lets just hope it is kept civil so we don't get flamers going crazy like it did in the other thread. lol Please give exact details if you can as examples.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think I also need to point out that the game is not about just killing the enemy. there are objectives and secondary objectives. I have seen assault armies get the crap shot out of them win because they were able to keep a boy or two alive in hiding to deny a kill point. I have also seen a single boy or gaunt hold an objective at the end of the game for the win when the opposing guard player was cowering in cover with their guns. Singling out a model for first blood or a few extra shots at an hq to make sure the commander dies ir even a remnant squad cowering in a corner out of los to get linebreaker. can win a game.
Close combat is of course not dead, but it has been made less effective. 5th was the era of multicharging, I think my record was 1200pts killed with 5 assault termies on a single charge.
6th has made multicharges much harder, you loose the additional attack, random charge range can screw you over royally, you have to declare all targets at the start of the charge and you have to eat overwatch from everyone involved - which again is likely to put you further out from your target.
So assault has lost A LOT of the devastating potential it had in 5th.
It is also in general harder to get into combat. You can`t charge out of a stationary transport, you have overwatch and random charges and the amount of firepower available has increased. Overwatch even makes some units close to unchargable (wraithguard w. flamers) for many armies/units. Picking casualities from the front makes horde cc units much worse too.
In short, there is no doubt assault got hit hard with 6th ed. However, some units still thrive on assault.
Units which are very surviable and fast:
- Khornedogs, screamers, spawn, wraiths, jetbike autarch, wraithknight, jetcouncil, (bloodcrushers, fiends)
Units which are very fast and hit hard:
- Seekers, deamon princes, (deamonettes), beastpack
I`ve probably left someone out, but to me, it seems like you have to be really fast without relying on a transport to live on close combat in 6th, and preferably, you should also be very resillient.
Of course, there is also merit in simply having some ability to fight. Lots of armies, like space marine bikers can really bully armies without counter-charge units. It is much worse to fight an eldar serpent army that has some counter-charge units than one with no close combat ability at all. The simple threat of being able to counter-attack with local cc superiority (like a laserlance autarch) can deter an opponent from using his overall superior ability in close combat.
This is why I started this thread. To help people learn to overcome how close combat has been toned down from being way overpowered to simply awesomely powerful.
A few notes...
1. Random assault range is rarely under six inches so unless you are uncommonly unlucky, it is no worse than before while more often than not, giving you a longer assault range. I will admit that rolling snakeeyes when you are 3 inches away can hurt but face it, Most assaults start well within 6 inches. They even did in 5th edition so overall, random assault range has been a boon to close combat.
2. transports and their proper use is being discussed in this thread and how they can be used to do more than drive across the field. With ramming and overrunning units, they are often even more effective than before as well.
3. aside from tau (their overwatch support fire is simply broken I think), overwatch is usually desultory at best. an occasional flamer can do something but only d3, 3 models getting hit at most plus they get their armor saves. As mentioned, overwatch can be minimized by assault vectors and choosing which unit to assault with first. For example, assault the guard unit with the dreadnought first. Las guns and flamers do nothing and your follow up unit of raptors do even get shot at at all.
Side note, jetcouncil = evil Guy was running our tourneys with that unit combined with the dark elder guy that gave them all stealth. A 2+ rerollable cover save , 3+ rerollable basic save combined with the hard hitting power.... rolled over everything including tau.
I think allies can be broken as in the case of the dark elder joining the jetcouncil but they can also help armies compensate for their weaknesses. For example, giving orks some much needed artillery to support their whaagghhh.
When facing Tau...always multiassault...they all get to overwatch you anyways and defensive grenades are taking away your charge bonus...so you might as well kill more units at once...and more units means hopefully you'll take enough time to win assault in their phase.
We had a guy play chaos use large units of tough spawn. Start in cover with a heavy hitter close combat lord attached and string a few across the field towards the enemy. At best, his opponent was able to kill one or two of the and on turn 2, the rest were able to be in close combat. Of course, the rest of the unit and the Lord were strung across the board and unable to swing until the following turn but they were safe from being shot at and as you cant shoot through an assault, that was one long los blocker. on turn 3, you had a chaos lord and large unit of spawn rampaging around your deployment zone scott free with the rest of his army right behind getting there almost scott free.
So slingshotting your assault HQ hitters in in this way is a valdi way to get there as well.
EVIL INC wrote: This is why I started this thread. To help people learn to overcome how close combat has been toned down from being way overpowered to simply awesomely powerful.
A few notes...
1. Random assault range is rarely under six inches so unless you are uncommonly unlucky, it is no worse than before while more often than not, giving you a longer assault range. I will admit that rolling snakeeyes when you are 2 inches away can hurt but face it, Most assaults start well within 6 inches. They even did in 5th edition so overall, random assault range has been a boon to close combat.
2. transports and their proper use is being discussed in this thread and how they can be used to do more than drive across the field. With ramming and overrunning units, they are often even more effective than before as well.
3. aside from tau (their overwatch support fire is simply broken I think), overwatch is usually desultory at best. an occasional flamer can do something but only d3, 3 models getting hit at most plus they get their armor saves. As mentioned, overwatch can be minimized by assault vectors and choosing which unit to assault with first. For example, assault the guard unit with the dreadnought first. Las guns and flamers do nothing and your follow up unit of raptors do even get shot at at all.
Side note, jetcouncil = evil Guy was running our tourneys with that unit combined with the dark elder guy that gave them all stealth. A 2+ rerollable cover save , 3+ rerollable basic save combined with the hard hitting power.... rolled over everything including tau.
I think allies can be broken as in the case of the dark elder joining the jetcouncil but they can also help armies compensate for their weaknesses. For example, giving orks some much needed artillery to support their whaagghhh.
I don't think anyone here would agree with you that melee is "simply awesomely powerful".
And on top of that, I would like everybody to know that the OP does not play on a standard size table.
1. If you're under 2" you still get in regardless of snake eyes? Random assault doesn't help as you get overwatched to the face regardless of succeeding or not.
2. Ramming and overruning units? What does that even have to do with Close Combat? Also, lots of Codices don't have assault vehicles.
3. The main problem about overwatch is that it removes from the front, which means that even if you start at 6" away, losing 1-2 models mean you could be 8"+ away.
Yeah, like how you see dreadnoughts in every tournament list? The dreadnought I can say has a zero chance of footslogging across a table and not get blown to bits.
Jetcouncil is strong due to psychic powers making them super survivable, have you seen how easy it is to kill a Jetcouncil with guns(assuming they're in range) if they don't have all their psychic powers up?
One of the key elements of assaulting is the combined principles of force concentration and threat overload. The former revolves around using your models where they are capable of doing most damage, by focusing your whole army on a fraction of the enemy, and the latter around simply bringing more stuff than your opponent can kill.
For example, SM assault marines, simply because that's what I'm most familiar with. The best way to get AM into CC is to DS them, as it means that they are likely to face only a single turn of shooting before reaching combat. However, you need to bring them in significant numbers to have any effect. 10 marines will be shot apart, 20-30 will not, especially if you are using them close together. This allows you to limit the firepower they will receive, and forces your opponent to split their fire. There is nothing saying that all the units need to be CC units either, so long as they supply a threat that has to be dealt with. For example, if you pod in a unit of Sternguard, they will often be far more of a priority than the 20 AM you drop next to them. The SG can take out the target that are the biggest threat to the assault marines, while the assault marines will deter charges on the SG (as they can then counter-charge) so both units are of mutual benefit, and should be able to survive long enough to do damage in both their fields.
Another thing to bear in mind is that you should always, if possible, take on foes weaker than yourself. Do not send a dedicated CC units against it's opposition counterpart, as both units are designed for CC. Target units you can easily kill and that will not do damage in return. Bully units are generally more effective that two CC squads duking it out. Basically, pick targets you can beat. Shoot the stuff you can't.
Other things: Mobility- already mentioned Charge Order-already mentioned Equipment- equip the units for a specific role, don't try and make CC units shooty.
Assault is merely limited to dedicated assault units now. Before it was literally always assault if you can, even if you were pitiful Tau, because no overwatch and it denied your opponent the charge benefits.
Now days its not. Overwatch made meh assaulty units kinda pitiful and units with high rate of fire preferring to GET charged than charge you first. Ive shocked some of my opponents because ive shot them with grots that were in the way of them and my lootas and didnt charge them, because why? youre going to wipe them in 1 phase anyway, and i get overwatch if you charge me (which removed anotherSM biker btwlol)
Vineheart01 wrote: Assault is merely limited to dedicated assault units now. Before it was literally always assault if you can, even if you were pitiful Tau, because no overwatch and it denied your opponent the charge benefits.
Now days its not. Overwatch made meh assaulty units kinda pitiful and units with high rate of fire preferring to GET charged than charge you first. Ive shocked some of my opponents because ive shot them with grots that were in the way of them and my lootas and didnt charge them, because why? youre going to wipe them in 1 phase anyway, and i get overwatch if you charge me (which removed anotherSM biker btwlol)
Agree with 100%
I tell people all the time...if you're good at assault...you're good at it and you'll have ways to get there or to survive to get there...if your unit shouldn't be assaulting...it wont be.
This holds up for most everything except Banshees which were poorly constructed.
Close Combat can still be lethal, but its not a viable tournament/high competitive strategy because of how risky and more expensive it is configuring for CC compared to configuring for shooting.
Just about the only exception is units like MC's/FMC's and units that have another role/ability that makes them worth taking or adequate shooting ability.
Vineheart01 wrote: Assault is merely limited to dedicated assault units now. Before it was literally always assault if you can, even if you were pitiful Tau, because no overwatch and it denied your opponent the charge benefits.
Now days its not. Overwatch made meh assaulty units kinda pitiful and units with high rate of fire preferring to GET charged than charge you first. Ive shocked some of my opponents because ive shot them with grots that were in the way of them and my lootas and didnt charge them, because why? youre going to wipe them in 1 phase anyway, and i get overwatch if you charge me (which removed anotherSM biker btwlol)
Agree with 100%
I tell people all the time...if you're good at assault...you're good at it and you'll have ways to get there or to survive to get there...if your unit shouldn't be assaulting...it wont be.
This holds up for most everything except Banshees which were poorly constructed.
You'll get there for 2 times the cost that you need for a shooting unit with the same output.
Please give an example of how Khorne berserkers are supposed to get into CC.
They are good at assault, but not good in getting there.
ductvader wrote: I tell people all the time...if you're good at assault...you're good at it and you'll have ways to get there or to survive to get there...if your unit shouldn't be assaulting...it wont be.
This holds up for most everything except Banshees which were poorly constructed.
Genestealers suffer from the no assault from reserves bullcrap. That is the one and only change about assault in 6th that crippled it the most. overwatch requires a lot of luck in most situations to actually cause the charge to fail, removing wounds from the front really only hurts squishy things like ork blobs in the long run, and Challenges (while stupid) serve a purpose to deal with a big bad guy for a turn. Assault from reserves is the sole reason what like 15 units across the races were designed to do, genestealers being one of them? its dumb. they added a rule that makes a LOT of units null and void.
I can understand Scout since theres some crazy units that could normally get turn 1 assault on a lot of units, but infiltrate and non-deepstrike reserves .... thats just dumb.
Also the whole "cant get there" is a problem a lot of melee units suffered from to begin with. 6th didnt change that, except in the situations mentioned above, the sheer lack of a viable way to get them around did. You can give those Khorne Bersrkers a Landraider but .... kinda pricy lol.
Genestealers are squishier than Orcs overall. Die to bolter fire just as easily and cost 2-3 times as much. It's more than just the assault from Reserves, it's no assault from Infiltrate, losing models from the front, etc.
In 5th an all Stealer army was viable. In 6th I've only won games where I use them to teach people about close combat.
Assault is FAR from dead. Many of the most competitive builds in the game are CC based. Screamerstar, Seer Council, Corndog Rush, FMC spam, Nids Psychic Choir, Wraithwing.
Assault as a concept may have been nerfed, but stronger and stronger assault units have been hitting the table.
Ways to get berserkers into close combat
1. One way to get berserkers into assault is to take them there in a land raider and drop them off on the front step.
2.Another is to make use of cover and area terrain to cross the board while denying the enemy a line of sight to them or at worst, by getting a cover save for those instances when a ap3 or better weapon is actually able to see them.
3. Another is to use more than one unit and intermix them so that they provide cover for one another even out in the wide open.
4. Use rhinos to take them there, deploy into cover using the rhinos to block line of sight to them from the enemy and assault in the following turn
5. make the enemy choose which units are more dangerous, The "lowly" berserkers or the mark of nurgle spawn. Either way, one of them are hitting the enemy.
6. denied flank is always fun. That way, your piling your entire army into half of the enemy force while their other half is scrambling to show up (usually after you have already mopped up their first half)
These are just a few.
Guys, kindly do not come in here posting about how close combat is useless, Take that to a different thread. This one is dedicated to providing tips and tactics for those who think that to assist themj in becoming better players.
A lot of people complaining about the changes seem to be lacking in adaptive thought in a strategic sense. As others have shown it's not ruining units it's just forcing you to think and play a little differently. If you move shooty units up enough to cover your cc ones and help draw fire away from therm, then a lot of times you will successfully reach assaults. Don't leave your cc units hanging out in the open with their toxin sacs (bad metaphor) in the wind! Duh?!
EVIL INC wrote: Ways to get berserkers into close combat
1. One way to get berserkers into assault is to take them there in a land raider and drop them off on the front step.
2.Another is to make use of cover and area terrain to cross the board while denying the enemy a line of sight to them or at worst, by getting a cover save for those instances when a ap3 or better weapon is actually able to see them.
3. Another is to use more than one unit and intermix them so that they provide cover for one another even out in the wide open.
4. Use rhinos to take them there, deploy into cover using the rhinos to block line of sight to them from the enemy and assault in the following turn
5. make the enemy choose which units are more dangerous, The "lowly" berserkers or the mark of nurgle spawn. Either way, one of them are hitting the enemy.
6. denied flank is always fun. That way, your piling your entire army into half of the enemy force while their other half is scrambling to show up (usually after you have already mopped up their first half)
These are just a few.
Guys, kindly do not come in here posting about how close combat is useless, Take that to a different thread. This one is dedicated to providing tips and tactics for those who think that to assist themj in becoming better players.
1. As said before, a LR increases a units cost by two folds yet only matches a shooting units damage when hitting the lines. Also, a LR isn't competitive because it is expensive and is not reliable, if someone has a decent anti-tank weapon it's gone almost 90% of the time.
2,3. Cover really doesn't help when the opponent decides to pile wounds up before you can even get there.
4. Rhinos = death traps, if it starts rolling on the pen table chances are your squad won't even be able to move next turn due to shaken/stunned results.
5. There's honestly no reason to Khorne Berserkers when Spawn does a much better job overall.
6. I don't even understand what this means....
No one is saying CC is useless, it's only useful to a handful of units that fit this edition's rules.
1. High toughness
2. High Mobility
3. Combination of the above
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ImotekhTheStormlord wrote: Assault is FAR from dead. Many of the most competitive builds in the game are CC based. Screamerstar, Seer Council, Corndog Rush, FMC spam, Nids Psychic Choir, Wraithwing.
Assault as a concept may have been nerfed, but stronger and stronger assault units have been hitting the table.
Yeah, but consider how many shooting competitive ones there are out there that these lists can beat.
Necron Flying Circus, Annhilation Barge Spam, Riptide Spam, Commander Blob, Farsight Bomb, Wave Serpent Spam, Drop Pod Sternguard/Wolfguard etc...
Also, the infamous Heldrake from CSM.
Compared to the majority of the assault lists that you see only in 1 codex aka Daemons, there are definitely more shooting than assault oriented lists.
You obviously have not faced a multi-land raider list. HIGHLY effective.
If the enemy is piling wounds on that unit of berserkers, then that means that your other units of berserkers, spawn and other close combat units are reaching enemy lines without even getting shot at.
A rhino CAN be taken out. Before reaching enemy lines.... maybe if the enemy is lucky. Taking them all out before reaching them, no way.
If the spawn are better but cost more, then use the berserkers as the screen
The denied flank is an effective strategy that allows you to spread focus your entire army, shooting and assault on a single flank at one time where you can wipe it out before their other flank even gets to take part in the battle. VERY effective when your using a close combat army.
EVIL INC wrote: You obviously have not faced a multi-land raider list. HIGHLY effective.
If the enemy is piling wounds on that unit of berserkers, then that means that your other units of berserkers, spawn and other close combat units are reaching enemy lines without even getting shot at.
A rhino CAN be taken out. Before reaching enemy lines.... maybe if the enemy is lucky. Taking them all out before reaching them, no way.
If the spawn are better but cost more, then use the berserkers as the screen
The denied flank is an effective strategy that allows you to spread focus your entire army, shooting and assault on a single flank at one time where you can wipe it out before their other flank even gets to take part in the battle. VERY effective when your using a close combat army.
Uh yes I have? It's a complete rock paper scissor list, win big lose big, TAC lists are what we generally discuss about.
If they were so effective why don't we see tournaments full of LR lists?
Maybe if the enemy is lucky? Every army equipped with a decent balance of anti-tank should be able to take 2-3 Rhinos out in a turn.
Against Tau, with Target Lock and Ignore Cover, good luck getting your Rhinos over there Also, a Shaken/Stunned result is all the enemy needs anyway, with it he delays your assault for a further turn.
Also, Berserkers aren't cheap if they were cheap then maybe it would be a viable tactic, but unfortunately no.
Why would you use Berserkers to Screen? Then move 6" and Spawn moves 12"?
You are also at a huge disadvantage for VP missions, although not common it means you're losing 1/6th of your games very easily.
So you're spreading focus and focusing at the same time? I'm really confused...
I'm going to assume you just mean focus on one side then the other.
Sorry to break it to you, most gunline armies just buy a Aegis and hide behind it, there's no flanks to it...
Again, CC is only effective for specific units geared for this edition's rules, those units that are assault oriented without the criteria rarely make it into CC.
I actually do see a lot of land raiders in tourneys and those lists usually place.
You don't take a single rhino. I the enemy has tailered their list to be specifically an anti tank list, they may take 2 or 3 if they are luck, out a turn. That amount of anti tank spam means that the rest of their list is easy pickings for your close assault units afterwards.
We have already agreed that the tau are broken so we will jmot address them.
Your tanks don't have extra armor options. Hmmm
Berserkers cost more points than spawn. I may have to re-read the chaos codex. I could have sworn spawn cost more per model.
We can go back and forth like this all day. However, if you wish to do that, clutter up a different thread. THIS thread is dedicated to teaching players to more effectively use their close combat units. Methinks, you would be better off reading than posting about how close combat is dead.
Research the denied flank. It is only one of many different tactics possible to use.
EVIL INC wrote: I actually do see a lot of land raiders in tourneys and those lists usually place.
You don't take a single rhino. I the enemy has tailered their list to be specifically an anti tank list, they may take 2 or 3 if they are luck, out a turn. That amount of anti tank spam means that the rest of their list is easy pickings for your close assault units afterwards.
We have already agreed that the tau are broken so we will jmot address them.
Your tanks don't have extra armor options. Hmmm
Berserkers cost more points than spawn. I may have to re-read the chaos codex. I could have sworn spawn cost more per model.
We can go back and forth like this all day. However, if you wish to do that, clutter up a different thread. THIS thread is dedicated to teaching players to more effectively use their close combat units. Methinks, you would be better off reading than posting about how close combat is dead.
Research the denied flank. It is only one of many different tactics possible to use.
Again, a rock paper scissor list is going to win big and lose big, some will win of course if they encounter armies who didn't bring enough to deal with it.
You only need S7 or above to reliably remove a Rhino, armies normally have more than enough S7 to deal with the amount of Rhinos running around.
As I have said, running multiple Rhinos is a bad idea as it means you will very likely lose the game 1/6 of the time.
Extra tank options make what is easy to kill a larger point sink and it doesn't add enough survivability for it.
I never ever said Spawn is cheaper than Berserkers EVER!
Again, I have NEVER ever said that assault is dead, I'm just proving why certain methods of assault don't work.
I have provided some suggestions of viable CC methods too, you seem to ignore it and start random accusations.
Also, denied flank works on the basis that the opponent distributes evenly such that you can focus heavy on a flank.
This is unlikely the case with gunline armies, as I have said before they buy an Aegis and bunch up behind it. Hence, it's more like assaulting a bunker.
If you wish to continue that conversation, do so in a different thread. This one is about discussing ways to effectively use close combat units and armies. Your points have been noted and for the most part negated through tactics and game mechanics.
EVIL INC wrote: If you wish to continue that conversation, do so in a different thread. This one is about discussing ways to effectively use close combat units and armies. Your points have been noted and for the most part negated through tactics and game mechanics.
Why don't you start an article then?
I'm just providing counter arguments to why such methods would not be an effective way to use CC units.
The forum is used to discuss about such matters.
Vineheart01 wrote: Assault is merely limited to dedicated assault units now. Before it was literally always assault if you can, even if you were pitiful Tau, because no overwatch and it denied your opponent the charge benefits.
Now days its not. Overwatch made meh assaulty units kinda pitiful and units with high rate of fire preferring to GET charged than charge you first. Ive shocked some of my opponents because ive shot them with grots that were in the way of them and my lootas and didnt charge them, because why? youre going to wipe them in 1 phase anyway, and i get overwatch if you charge me (which removed anotherSM biker btwlol)
Agree with 100%
I tell people all the time...if you're good at assault...you're good at it and you'll have ways to get there or to survive to get there...if your unit shouldn't be assaulting...it wont be.
This holds up for most everything except Banshees which were poorly constructed.
And bloodcrushers! Why.... why do you cost so much? Oh and berzerkers are generally concidered not worth it. From my observations, the cc units that do it well are super mobile and preferably durable as well. Assault isn't dead... that being said it certainly is at its lowest point.
1. As said before, a LR increases a units cost by two folds yet only matches a shooting units damage when hitting the lines. Also, a LR isn't competitive because it is expensive and is not reliable, if someone has a decent anti-tank weapon it's gone almost 90% of the time.
MVB won a tournament with some of the best players on the east cost with a LR. LR's are quite good in 6th edition. Quite good. The amount of anti-tank in the current meta that can reliably kill an LR is very, very low. In short, this comment is kind of ridiculous. Sorry bud.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
And bloodcrushers! Why.... why do you cost so much? Oh and berzerkers are generally concidered not worth it. From my observations, the cc units that do it well are super mobile and preferably durable as well. Assault isn't dead... that being said it certainly is at its lowest point.
Bloodcrushers are a template that needs proper synergism to get the most out of. Just like the Screamer star that is so popular. You can do very similiar things with the Crushers. Different, but you get the same net results. Why haven't you seen that yet? Because tournament players, with a few exceptions, are very conservative, and will only invest their time and money into proven formulas. Using "why haven't you seen it in a tournament?" as some sort of standard of objectivity is carelessly myopic (you didn't say that yourself, StarTrotter, but others have).
Where do sm ccw scouts in a heavy flamer lss stand? I've been thinking about one or two units to help clear objectives late game or to possibly mop up depleted units. My list includes primarily bikes,stormtalons and tfcs. Vet sarge upgrade could be worth it for this situation. They're not hugely survivable but are very mobile and if you pick your targets wisely could pay off.
Jamo wrote: Where do sm ccw scouts in a heavy flamer lss stand? I've been thinking about one or two units to help clear objectives late game or to possibly mop up depleted units. My list includes primarily bikes,stormtalons and tfcs. Vet sarge upgrade could be worth it for this situation. They're not hugely survivable but are very mobile and if you pick your targets wisely could pay off.
Anyone have experience with them?
If run in multiples they could probably make a nice mobile flanking force (but you would need at least 3, and expect one to die before you get there). If you are using a lot of bikes you can get a good amount of force concentration and threat overload, so that's pretty good. Again, you'll win against fire warriors, cultists and non-PW guard, Necron warriors at a push. 5 guys is usually not enough to do more than take on the weakest units. They are certainly pretty good, and the 12"+2d6 threat range is nice, but you need you pick your targets.
EVIL INC wrote: This is why I started this thread. To help people learn to overcome how close combat has been toned down from being way overpowered to simply awesomely powerful.
This again? See my sig for my opinion of that sort of sentiment. I'm having difficulties agreeing with your points when your basic premise is that CC went from OP to good, when it went from good to mediocre at best. It's not that melee is impossible, it's that shooting (with the exception of a few units) is better and not as vulnerable to the whims of the dice gods.
I only have 2 problems with CC rules in 6th. The random charge range, and the fact that 1 character can assault a mob of 20, win a round of combat and then immediately obliterate the unit with a sweeping advance.
I believe very strongly that random charge ranges need to be removed from the game, or at the very least there be a reasonable minimum charge range with a randomness on top of that, and that a sweeping advance should never kill more models than the winning unit has attacks in their profile.
I feel that the issue with close combat is that most units have a really hard time getting there in the first place. Berzerkers are the prime example in that you either take a Land Raider (doubling the cost) or you walk, doing nothing most of the game. There really should have been some sort of Khornate assault vehicle. Same with Templars; with the loss of RZ we're slower into CC in an edition where only speedy or ultra-tough units get into CC.
Further, I'd argue that the various MEQ assaulty armies (CSM, BA, BT) are doing the worst, because 3+ saves aren't worth squat anymore. Between Heldrakes, Riptides, Shuriken weapons and Grav/Plasma spam, there's not much one can do as a MEQ player forced to footslogging or pay for a LR. As has been noted, Seer Councils, FMCs and Daemons (I.e. non-MEQ assault units) seem to be holding up decently. This ties in to the fact that assault armies are less reliable; (relative) elite armies are also by definition more vulnerable to flubbing dice rolls than more horde-centric armies (Seer Councils and Screamerstars get concistency from rerollable saves).
With each edition, we find some units get "left out" while others get "extra helpings". In this edition, berserkers are one of te units that get left out. However, as with every other edition, you find that they have been replaced with a different unit that is just as good. if you were a conspiracy (as I am in this case), You would think that this was on purpose to get players to buy more models. I have seen stores go out of business because after people built their armies, they stopped buying models and GW is in the business of selling models. So I think that they purposely switch units around like this. So in last edition a khorne berserker army woulda been really powerful as an effective close combat army. This edition, they might be meh at best and lose out to the spawn monstrous daemonic tank close combat army. This does not mean that close combat is dead, it means that if the berserker heavy chaos player wants to remain at the top they need to buy a whole new set of models and learn now ways to effectively use his new units.
The random charge range has actually been a boon to assaults. Before most assaults were initiated 2 to 3 inches from the target unit, 6 inches if the player was really shortsighted and even then, only because they were too lazy to reach across the table another couple inches while the unit still had movement left over. Now the ability to assault a full 12 inches makes the turn one assault even easier than before. Of course, the average assault distance remains 2 to 3 inches where you will usually make it even if you roll snake eyes.
Indeed, I think the MEQ armies are finding it a little less easy to win out. Again, we go back to finances. GW has made their fortune off of the space marine. Now, they are finding that with plastics and resin, they are able to make money off of the non-meq armies as well. Especially so when they can charge just as much for a 10 man squad that costs half as many points. I myself remember longing for a guard army back when the mordians came out and even buying 3 units of them before my money gave out. When apocalypse came out and they had the infantry company deal? I got it for Christmas that year and have completed my guard since then. So yes, marines are getting a little less love.
I just disagree with you. The purpose of this thread is to prove why and to help players cope with the new edition and keep their close combat armies just as effective as before. (although as we have seen, it may mean having to buy different close combat models or learning new builds, strategies and tactics.
Selym, If you can keep it civil and stay on topic, you are welcome.
1. There are competitive lists that are both shooty and assault. There is a list building section of the forum.
2. Check out the rules section. There is asset method of setting up terrain that allows both players to set the table up which generally keeps one side from having a total advantage.
3. I have found it to be a 4+ but the actual cover save is based on terrain or what you are using for cover. It is even possible to artificially create a 4+ save while running across a wide open field.
4. It depends on what you are hitting it with. A monstrous creature is more likely to that a guardsman while a melta gun is more likely to than a las gun. If you have to do mathhammer to play the game, you are defeating the purpose of the game which is having fun. Not once have I ever played mathhammer, instead I used overall strategies and tactics to win games and it works out well for me. However, I am sure that if you want to start a mathhammer thread where people figure the exact odds and percentages possible for different dice rolls, you will get a lot of people willing to take part in that discussion. However, it is a different discussion that what we are having here.
1. There are competitive lists that are both shooty and assault. There is a list building section of the forum.
3. I have found it to be a 4+ but the actual cover save is based on terrain or what you are using for cover. It is even possible to artificially create a 4+ save while running across a wide open field.
You misunderstand my question...
1) What do you specifically think is a powerful list, in your opinion?
And regarding (3), isn't the most common save a 5+, as the rules state that as the standard?
1. There are competitive lists that are both shooty and assault. There is a list building section of the forum.
3. I have found it to be a 4+ but the actual cover save is based on terrain or what you are using for cover. It is even possible to artificially create a 4+ save while running across a wide open field.
You misunderstand my question...
1) What do you specifically think is a powerful list, in your opinion?
And regarding (3), isn't the most common save a 5+, as the rules state that as the standard?
Hm, I could see it being 4 for most armies as many people will instinctively deploy in better cover and stick to it whenever possible.
How many games occur where the trees are entirely avoided as a ruin was "nearby enough"
1. There are competitive lists that are both shooty and assault. There is a list building section of the forum.
3. I have found it to be a 4+ but the actual cover save is based on terrain or what you are using for cover. It is even possible to artificially create a 4+ save while running across a wide open field.
You misunderstand my question...
1) What do you specifically think is a powerful list, in your opinion?
And regarding (3), isn't the most common save a 5+, as the rules state that as the standard?
Hm, I could see it being 4 for most armies as many people will instinctively deploy in better cover and stick to it whenever possible.
How many games occur where the trees are entirely avoided as a ruin was "nearby enough"
I wouldn't know, I have a limited supply of terrain pieces/types.
There is a specific forum section for list building. This thread is not about building lists or what are good lists the very specific purpose of the thread is to demonstrate ways to use your assault troops more effectively.
Yes, the average cover save is still 4+ when you add in the fact that shooting through your own units confers a 4+ save to the enemy target (this does not include other members of the same unit firing but rather separate friendly units) and that shooting through enemy units also provide a 4+ cover save (exploitable by assault armies to give themselves a 4+ cover even while out in the middle of an open field).
Fair point....my local store has a certain allowance of GW prize support that goes into terrain if we don't manage to pull together a tournament every quarter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EVIL INC wrote: There is a specific forum section for list building. This thread is not about building lists or what are good lists the very specific purpose of the thread is to demonstrate ways to use your assault troops more effectively.
Yes, the average cover save is still 4+ when you add in the fact that shooting through your own units confers a 4+ save to the enemy target (this does not include other members of the same unit firing but rather separate friendly units) and that shooting through enemy units also provide a 4+ cover save (exploitable by assault armies to give themselves a 4+ cover even while out in the middle of an open field).
EVIL INC wrote: The random charge range has actually been a boon to assaults. Before most assaults were initiated 2 to 3 inches from the target unit, 6 inches if the player was really shortsighted and even then, only because they were too lazy to reach across the table another couple inches while the unit still had movement left over. Now the ability to assault a full 12 inches makes the turn one assault even easier than before. Of course, the average assault distance remains 2 to 3 inches where you will usually make it even if you roll snake eyes.
First, turn one assaults are actually harder than before, not easier (despite the 12" potential distance). Not being able to assault from Infiltrate or Scout does that. And since you have to get at least a 25" move + charge it's pretty difficult.
Second, no - it's worse. I regularly had 4-5" charges in 5th. Why? Because that's how far it was out of cover. Genestealers had to/have to hug cover as even the lowly Bolter APs them.
3. I have found it to be a 4+ but the actual cover save is based on terrain or what you are using for cover. It is even possible to artificially create a 4+ save while running across a wide open field.
No, the most common cover save is 5+. Ruins provide a 4+ but those are rare overall and shouldn't be counted on.
4. It depends on what you are hitting it with. A monstrous creature is more likely to that a guardsman while a melta gun is more likely to than a las gun. If you have to do mathhammer to play the game, you are defeating the purpose of the game which is having fun. Not once have I ever played mathhammer, instead I used overall strategies and tactics to win games and it works out well for me. However, I am sure that if you want to start a mathhammer thread where people figure the exact odds and percentages possible for different dice rolls, you will get a lot of people willing to take part in that discussion. However, it is a different discussion that what we are having here.
No - it's the same discussion. You're saying assault isn't bad and - using math - it's possible to prove that it's a bad idea to attempt it. And maybe mathhammer isn't fun for you - it is for me.
The random charge range has actually been a boon to assaults. Before most assaults were initiated 2 to 3 inches from the target unit, 6 inches if the player was really shortsighted and even then, only because they were too lazy to reach across the table another couple inches while the unit still had movement left over. Now the ability to assault a full 12 inches makes the turn one assault even easier than before. Of course, the average assault distance remains 2 to 3 inches where you will usually make it even if you roll snake eyes.
Is counter intuitive to this statement:
The purpose of this thread is to prove why and to help players cope with the new edition and keep their close combat armies just as effective as before.
A turn one assault is not any easier than before. Anybody who tries to assault from 12" away in anything other than a last ditch attempt to contest an objective in the final turn is an idiot.
While the average assault range remains the same as before, the problem with the new rules is that you now have to factor the risk into things, where before there was none.
In 5th, if you were 5.9" away and wanted to assault, there was nothing stopping you. In 6th, if you're 5.9" away, you have to consider that this random dice roll might not come up with the numbers you need, resulting in you eating a turn of overwatch and still not making the assault. The result is that people play their assault units safer and only charge when they can stack the odds of actually making the charge in their favour (i.e charge re-rolls from fleet, being with 2-3", using units that have a higher base move speed to counteract the manouvering time).
While you can make a 12" charge, it's so incredibly unlikely that for all intents and purposes, the new charge range might as well be 4-6", since nobody with any sesne is going to attempt a charge beyond that range and risk not making it.
The game is about control. Controlling your positioning. Controlling your firepower and target priority. Controlling your probability/risk. Random charges reduce that control element, so the natural compensation is to mitigate that loss of control by stacking the odds - i.e not making charges that have a 50% or lower chance to succeed. I.e not making dumb charges from beyond 4-6" (dependant on your assessment of the risk). If you are assaulting from exactly 6" away, you are literally flipping a coin to determine the fate of your unit. Beyond that range and the odds get worse and worse.
While games are occasionally won on hail marys they are much more frequently won on units performing consistently. That's the core foundation that competitive lists are built on. Risk mitigation and consistency.
EVIL INC wrote: Yes, the average cover save is still 4+ when you add in the fact that shooting through your own units confers a 4+ save to the enemy target (this does not include other members of the same unit firing but rather separate friendly units) and that shooting through enemy units also provide a 4+ cover save (exploitable by assault armies to give themselves a 4+ cover even while out in the middle of an open field).
Absolutely incorrect. If you don't know the rules how can you form a valid opinion on how well assault is doing?
Actual Rules p18 wrote:If a target is partially hidden from the firer's view by models from a third unit (models not from the firer's unit, or from the target unit) it receivers a 5+ cover save.
4. It depends on what you are hitting it with. A monstrous creature is more likely to that a guardsman while a melta gun is more likely to than a las gun. If you have to do mathhammer to play the game, you are defeating the purpose of the game which is having fun. Not once have I ever played mathhammer, instead I used overall strategies and tactics to win games and it works out well for me. However, I am sure that if you want to start a mathhammer thread where people figure the exact odds and percentages possible for different dice rolls, you will get a lot of people willing to take part in that discussion. However, it is a different discussion that what we are having here.
No - it's the same discussion. You're saying assault isn't bad and - using math - it's possible to prove that it's a bad idea to attempt it. And maybe mathhammer isn't fun for you - it is for me.
It's also possible to prove the opposite.
The problem with comparing shooting and assault is that you're thinking of them as separate whereas they are usually heavily heavily integrated with one another.
4. It depends on what you are hitting it with. A monstrous creature is more likely to that a guardsman while a melta gun is more likely to than a las gun. If you have to do mathhammer to play the game, you are defeating the purpose of the game which is having fun. Not once have I ever played mathhammer, instead I used overall strategies and tactics to win games and it works out well for me. However, I am sure that if you want to start a mathhammer thread where people figure the exact odds and percentages possible for different dice rolls, you will get a lot of people willing to take part in that discussion. However, it is a different discussion that what we are having here.
No - it's the same discussion. You're saying assault isn't bad and - using math - it's possible to prove that it's a bad idea to attempt it. And maybe mathhammer isn't fun for you - it is for me.
It's also possible to prove the opposite.
The problem with comparing shooting and assault is that you're thinking of them as separate whereas they are usually heavily heavily integrated with one another.
And where they're heavily integrated it can make for a decent list.
But I think it's less "usually" than you think.
The keys for an assault army are, in order:
Resiliency - how long you can take fire and stay a viable unit
Speed - how fast you can get in assault
Blenderness - how good you are in assault.
You can be an absolute blender unit that is relatively fast (Infiltrate with Fleet) but if you can't take bolter shots you're relegated to the shelf.
4. It depends on what you are hitting it with. A monstrous creature is more likely to that a guardsman while a melta gun is more likely to than a las gun. If you have to do mathhammer to play the game, you are defeating the purpose of the game which is having fun. Not once have I ever played mathhammer, instead I used overall strategies and tactics to win games and it works out well for me. However, I am sure that if you want to start a mathhammer thread where people figure the exact odds and percentages possible for different dice rolls, you will get a lot of people willing to take part in that discussion. However, it is a different discussion that what we are having here.
No - it's the same discussion. You're saying assault isn't bad and - using math - it's possible to prove that it's a bad idea to attempt it. And maybe mathhammer isn't fun for you - it is for me.
It's also possible to prove the opposite.
The problem with comparing shooting and assault is that you're thinking of them as separate whereas they are usually heavily heavily integrated with one another.
And where they're heavily integrated it can make for a decent list.
But I think it's less "usually" than you think.
The keys for an assault army are, in order:
Resiliency - how long you can take fire and stay a viable unit
Speed - how fast you can get in assault
Blenderness - how good you are in assault.
You can be an absolute blender unit that is relatively fast (Infiltrate with Fleet) but if you can't take bolter shots you're relegated to the shelf.
I think you forgot about synergy / force multipliers.
Otherwise I agree with the above.
I can't tell you the number of times that Venomthropes, and Harpies have won me assaults simply by being in them...not necessarily by their damage output.
Or even the Broodlord activating Aura of despair to affect combats that are nearby even if he's not in them.
Synergy in assault is very important...it is those rock/paper/scissors "deathstar" assault units that go solo that I think are often the weakest in assault.
50% of assaults are initiated within 3 inches so the only way to fail it is is you roll snake eyes, Most of the rest are initiated within 6 inches and only the very rare gamble assaults are initiated from further. So overall, if you are able to roll a seven or higher on the assault dice, your going to make it further than in previous editions on first turn assaults. An assault army will have multiple units doing so the more than likely, at least one of them will make it with the others rolling in on turn 2.
The common cover save is still a 4+ regardless of what some people claim, this has been proven and examples given to allow you to even artificially create a 4+ cover out of thin air.
So Apok what your post essentially says is that in 5th edition you were guaranteed a win by using an assault army while in 6th you have to actually use tactics and roll the dice. That is not nerfing close combat, it is bringing it to within a reasonable level to make the game balanced. This thread is dedicated to helping players learn to minimize the risks to help them remain on top. And again, most assaults were initiated with 3 inches before so the random range essentially is done to make you think while still giving you an extremely good chance of getting into combat.
Rigeld, wholly covered and partially covered are two separate things. A good player can wholly cover a unit with a screening unit. For those who are unable to figure out how, a 5+ save against a las cannon by an entire unit in the middle of an open field is still pretty dam good.
Ductvader, absolutely correct.
Rigeld, this is where we go back to GW being in the business of selling models. Rules for different models and units change forcing you to buy new ones to fill the roles others used in previous editions.
However, we seem to have gotten off topic. The topic is providing specific tactics and strategies to maximize assault units rather than discuss the merits of assault. To discuss merits of assaulting there are other threads to do that.
EVIL INC wrote: The topic is providing specific tactics and strategies to maximize assault units rather than discuss the merits of assault.
Alrighty, on that subject:
Let's say I have a CSM army.
And let's say that my opponent has a gunline involving six LRBT's of various types, lots of IG with heavy weapons, and an ADL.
How do you suggest getting into melee with some of that?
And can you answer the question without telling me to put Khorne Berserkers in a Land Raider, because that thing is far too overcosted.
EVIL INC wrote: 50% of assaults are initiated within 3 inches so the only way to fail it is is you roll snake eyes, Most of the rest are initiated within 6 inches and only the very rare gamble assaults are initiated from further. So overall, if you are able to roll a seven or higher on the assault dice, your going to make it further than in previous editions on first turn assaults. An assault army will have multiple units doing so the more than likely, at least one of them will make it with the others rolling in on turn 2.
No. You will not make a fist turn assault by rolling a 7. Absolutely guaranteed. Using that statement to support your argument brings your entire argument down.
The common cover save is still a 4+ regardless of what some people claim, this has been proven and examples given to allow you to even artificially create a 4+ cover out of thin air.
Citation required. Please enlighten me.
So Apok what your post essentially says is that in 5th edition you were guaranteed a win by using an assault army while in 6th you have to actually use tactics and roll the dice. That is not nerfing close combat, it is bringing it to within a reasonable level to make the game balanced. This thread is dedicated to helping players learn to minimize the risks to help them remain on top. And again, most assaults were initiated with 3 inches before so the random range essentially is done to make you think while still giving you an extremely good chance of getting into combat.
No, he's not saying that. In 5th edition you still had to have a solid shooting base most of the time - very few CC-only armies did well. In 6th edition you have to have more shooting because assault isn't as reliable.
Rigeld, wholly covered and partially covered are two separate things. A good player can wholly cover a unit with a screening unit. For those who are unable to figure out how, a 5+ save against a las cannon by an entire unit in the middle of an open field is still pretty dam good.
As far as the actual rules are concerned no, wholly covered and partially covered are the same. Please provide rules support.
Rigeld, this is where we go back to GW being in the business of selling models. Rules for different models and units change forcing you to buy new ones to fill the roles others used in previous editions.
Jokes on them - I have ~5k points of nids so I haven't had to buy new ones for a while.
However, we seem to have gotten off topic. The topic is providing specific tactics and strategies to maximize assault units rather than discuss the merits of assault. To discuss merits of assaulting there are other threads to do that.
You're providing tactics and strategies that are incorrect and will lead unaware players into problems. You're saying that any problem with an assaulting army lies in the player - which is incorrect.
EVIL INC wrote: 50% of assaults are initiated within 3 inches so the only way to fail it is is you roll snake eyes, Most of the rest are initiated within 6 inches and only the very rare gamble assaults are initiated from further. So overall, if you are able to roll a seven or higher on the assault dice, your going to make it further than in previous editions on first turn assaults. An assault army will have multiple units doing so the more than likely, at least one of them will make it with the others rolling in on turn 2.
No. You will not make a fist turn assault by rolling a 7. Absolutely guaranteed. Using that statement to support your argument brings your entire argument down.
Who in the world is planning on a fist turn assault? (DE aside)
Anyone worth their salt in assault knows that turns 2 and 3 are the key assault turns.
EVIL INC wrote: 50% of assaults are initiated within 3 inches so the only way to fail it is is you roll snake eyes, Most of the rest are initiated within 6 inches and only the very rare gamble assaults are initiated from further. So overall, if you are able to roll a seven or higher on the assault dice, your going to make it further than in previous editions on first turn assaults. An assault army will have multiple units doing so the more than likely, at least one of them will make it with the others rolling in on turn 2.
No. You will not make a fist turn assault by rolling a 7. Absolutely guaranteed. Using that statement to support your argument brings your entire argument down.
Who in the world is planning on a fist turn assault?
EVIL INC wrote: 50% of assaults are initiated within 3 inches so the only way to fail it is is you roll snake eyes, Most of the rest are initiated within 6 inches and only the very rare gamble assaults are initiated from further. So overall, if you are able to roll a seven or higher on the assault dice, your going to make it further than in previous editions on first turn assaults. An assault army will have multiple units doing so the more than likely, at least one of them will make it with the others rolling in on turn 2.
No. You will not make a fist turn assault by rolling a 7. Absolutely guaranteed. Using that statement to support your argument brings your entire argument down.
Who in the world is planning on a fist turn assault? (DE aside)
Anyone worth their salt in assault knows that turns 2 and 3 are the key assault turns.
Selym, have you tried using spawn? A large unit with a mark of nurgle are VERY hard to kill off. With a monstrous daemon prince or other nasty close combat guy sitting at the back, it is very easy to slingshot yourself into combat. String them across. Only a single one needs to make it and with their high toughness and wounds, even that gunline would be hard pressed to kill more than 3 which means turn two, you are in close combat.
You might also try assaulting with multiple units. Make him choose what units he will shoot at. Done correctly, he will do either a little damage to all your units or a lot of damage to one leaving the rest unscathed. As soon as you get one unit there, he is dead and just doesn't know it yet with his small warm body count and it will just be a matter of you mopping up his tanks.
Instead of just throwing up your hands and giving up, expand your tactics and strategies. The bad thing about it's inconsistencies is that it changes the dynamics. There have been editions where I was almost ready to give up but slogged through and educated myself (often through enduring ass beatings lol). One thing I would suggest would be to metagame yourself. Set up a variety of set ups and how a gunline would set up in in. Then circle the table and measure out taking ranges and such. Would give you a chance to get "visuals" without the pressure of actually being in a game. That helped me wrap my mind around a few things.
rigeld- You are saying that it is absolutely impossible to reach close combat EVER by rolling a seven? Going by your own theory, it would also therefore be impossible to do it by rolling a 6 then. last edition the range was six which means you are more likely to do it by rolling a seven. the issue is not guaranteeing you get a first turn assault. It is getting into assault and doing damage once there. if you have to wait till turn two, then so be it. We are discussing ways to help you learn to do so.
Citation... check out the rulebook. There are three versions of it. The big hardback (which I bought just to have, the little one that comes in the starter box (that's the one I take to tourneys) and the new hardback just the rules one. I don't have a copy of that one but I will assume it's just a fancy version of the one that comes in the starter set.
I was correct in paraphrasing Apok
My own chaos army was large like that. Was much fun to pull it out to play and watch the faces of the youngsters when they saw my old rtb01 models and wondered what my cannon of khorne (vindicator) was and where it came from.
I and others are actually providing tactics and strategies that are correct and will assist them in winning games. Your view that the skill level of the player means nothing in the game is easily disproved. take any person, lets say a 5 year old child who has never even heard of wargaming and hand them a tau codex (because that one actually IS broken in terms of shooting) and tell them to buid a tournament army on their own. When they are done (if they even get that far), play them a game with your tournament army list of bugs. According to you, the child will win every time because tau being shooty auto wins the game with skill, army build, tactics and strategy playing no part in it at all.
if you don't have actual tactics or strategies to post, post somewhere else because that is the purpose of THIS thread.
here is how I have been having sucess with assault based armies:
basically, start off with what turn your entire army can assault.
because you do not want some assaulting turn 1, some turn 2, some turn 3, you need it all to hit at once, and sooner rather then later.
so for my GK's, its easy, everyone has a teleporter, and can be in CC turn two ,or kite and outshoot, its the least CC orentated army i play that still gets into CC often on purpose
for my orks I either run a total footslogger list, that will most likely get to charge turn 3 with waaagh, and has sooooo many freaking boys, that I can give every one of em a 5++ with mad doc, and still outnumber people 3-1. they dont have enough bullets to kill that many orks by turn 5, let alone turn 3. generally this strat leaves me with the entire board under my control, but I dont table the opponent as often.
or everyone in battle wagons + trukks + bikes, and everything I put on the board can be in combat turn two. some armies really do have enough firepower to cripple enough transports first turn taht this might not work 100%... but i tend to table or come close to it with this one. luckily I havnt played any armies with this strat that spam str8+ shots, even against centurion spam, I only lost two units of bikes + one BW before everything got to charge, and I had 2nd turn too!
other then that, if you are not making the army around CC, its best left to a few counter charge units or beat stick IC's that can supplement shooting armies.
50% of assaults are initiated within 3 inches so the only way to fail it is is you roll snake eyes, Most of the rest are initiated within 6 inches and only the very rare gamble assaults are initiated from further. So overall, if you are able to roll a seven or higher on the assault dice, your going to make it further than in previous editions on first turn assaults.
You don't seem to understand that that 7" assault range you rolled is worthless if your unit is 3" away from your target.
If, to practically guarantee you succeed a charge, you must be within 3", then it doesn't matter if the actual dice you roll are 2d20. If you have to be within 3" of your target then you have to move your unit that distance away before you attempt to charge. At that point a roll of 12 or 8 or 5 is irrelevant. You are close enough to make the charge regardless of the roll.
Hence you have mitigated the risk, but in doing so, restricted your guaranteed charge range to 3", rather than the guaranteed charge range of 6" that was present in 5th.
It doesn't matter what you can maybe roll if the dice gods favour you. What matters is that for you to make the decision to assault, your unit must meet certain personally determined criteria. For many players that criteria is 'Succeed in the charge', and the only way to guarantee a successful charge is to be closer than you used to have to be.
Lets look at it another way.
If I asked you to choose between the following units, which would you pick:
a) A unit that can kill 20 models per turn, but each turn you must flip a coin. If the result is heads, the unit can do nothing that turn. If the result is tails, the unit kills 20 models that turn.
b) A unit that can kill 10 models per turn. There are no conditions that must be met for this to happen. It will kill 10 models every turn without fail.
So do you pick consistency or inconsistency, and why?
edit: And no, you're not correct in paraphrasing me at all. You're actually managing to completely miss/sidestep the point.
EVIL INC wrote: rigeld- You are saying that it is absolutely impossible to reach close combat EVER by rolling a seven? Going by your own theory, it would also therefore be impossible to do it by rolling a 6 then. last edition the range was six which means you are more likely to do it by rolling a seven. the issue is not guaranteeing you get a first turn assault. It is getting into assault and doing damage once there. if you have to wait till turn two, then so be it. We are discussing ways to help you learn to do so.
So you're just going to pretend you didn't say that the 2d6" assault range helps you get a first turn assault?
The 2d6" assault range hurts at least as much as it helps. I've failed a lot of 4-6" charges in 6th edition, in one case losing a unit because I failed. (moved out of cover to make the assault, failed, got shot next turn with no cover save)
Saying it's nothing but a benefit is flat out wrong. Don't fall into that thinking because that's where you make assumptions and your plans start to fail when those assumptions don't work out.
Citation... check out the rulebook. There are three versions of it. The big hardback (which I bought just to have, the little one that comes in the starter box (that's the one I take to tourneys) and the new hardback just the rules one. I don't have a copy of that one but I will assume it's just a fancy version of the one that comes in the starter set.
Do you know what citation means? It means show me the page number. Prove your statement with actual rules because I've never seen what you're saying. There's no "easy" way to get a 4+ cover save in the open. Stealth + Shrouding does it but I wouldn't call that "easy".
Your view that the skill level of the player means nothing in the game is easily disproved.
I've never said that. Please don't strawman.
According to you, the child will win every time because tau being shooty auto wins the game with skill, army build, tactics and strategy playing no part in it at all.
Are you sure I said that? Are you really sure? Would you mind quoting me?
if you don't have actual tactics or strategies to post, post somewhere else because that is the purpose of THIS thread.
I have. The purpose of this thread would also be to debunk posted theories. Which I also have.
rigeld- You are saying that it is absolutely impossible to reach close combat EVER by rolling a seven? Going by your own theory, it would also therefore be impossible to do it by rolling a 6 then. last edition the range was six which means you are more likely to do it by rolling a seven. the issue is not guaranteeing you get a first turn assault. It is getting into assault and doing damage once there. if you have to wait till turn two, then so be it. We are discussing ways to help you learn to do so.
None of us are saying that it's impossible to get into assault. We're saying that a turn 1 assault is impossible, regardless of what you roll.
Last edition guaranteed that if you got within 6", you could assault. Now, if you get to 3" away you still risk failing.
Ans as yet, you have just been saying that 4+ cover is everywhere, and that it's our own fault for not getting into melee.
Citation... check out the rulebook. There are three versions of it. The big hardback (which I bought just to have, the little one that comes in the starter box (that's the one I take to tourneys) and the new hardback just the rules one. I don't have a copy of that one but I will assume it's just a fancy version of the one that comes in the starter set.
We know the rules, you don't seem to be following them. Not a single part of the BRB allows you to get a 4+ from hiding behind enemy/allied models without modifiers.
And all rulebooks contain the same rules, it does not matter what version you have, so long as you actually use it.
I and others are actually providing tactics and strategies that are correct and will assist them in winning games. Your view that the skill level of the player means nothing in the game is easily disproved. take any person, lets say a 5 year old child who has never even heard of wargaming and hand them a tau codex (because that one actually IS broken in terms of shooting) and tell them to buid a tournament army on their own. When they are done (if they even get that far), play them a game with your tournament army list of bugs. According to you, the child will win every time because tau being shooty auto wins the game with skill, army build, tactics and strategy playing no part in it at all.
If you taught him how to play the game by the rules, and could actually get his attention to stay n one place, then yes, that's exactly what would happen.
if you don't have actual tactics or strategies to post, post somewhere else because that is the purpose of THIS thread.
Well then, maybe you should leave.
Telling us that caver will let us win, and blaming the lack of assaulting success on our skill level is beyond useless, and provides no tactical support whatsoever.
Well, if it means anything, I've given up on trying to assault with meqs. My newer lists are completely from C:SM and the BA tactics and schemes are left at home.
Assaulting with meqs was always built on the resiliency of T4 3+, and now that that is gone, I think the assaulting tactics for meqs are basically flushed.
i have had plenty of turn one assaults with orks, usually due to the opponent moving forward,
but storm boys do get a 5/6 +12" movement at times, and then 2d6 charges, which i ALWAYS attempt, they pay off is pretty good, and overwatch wont normally wipe the squad unless its tau.
but yeah, 1st turn charges realllly are not dependable, though they are extremely effective when they occur.
best to plan ahead, and have your whole army arrive on their doorstep either turn 2 or all on turn 3, cant half arse it with CC, and you are at a distinct disadvantage for now untill the meta shifts in CC favor, hopefully with NIDS/orks codex adding something to the CC world.
easysauce wrote: i have had plenty of turn one assaults with orks, usually due to the opponent moving forward,
but storm boys do get a 5/6 +12" movement at times, and then 2d6 charges, which i ALWAYS attempt, they pay off is pretty good, and overwatch wont normally wipe the squad unless its tau.
but yeah, 1st turn charges realllly are not dependable, though they are extremely effective when they occur.
best to plan ahead, and have your whole army arrive on their doorstep either turn 2 or all on turn 3, cant half arse it with CC, and you are at a distinct disadvantage for now untill the meta shifts in CC favor, hopefully with NIDS/orks codex adding something to the CC world.
It's not technically a turn 1 charge if your opponent is the one moving forward, maybe with the exception of scouts/infiltration.
Watch as overwatch kills one storm boy and you need an extra inch to 2 to make the charge
arriving at their doorstep all on turn 3 is pretty much GG at that point if the enemy is a gunline army...
Yeah, hopefully Nids/Orks will crush Tau/Eldar like no tomorrow
No one is saying that you HAD to be within 3 inches to assault. I was only pointing out that you were within 3 inches anyway, usually closer but you were just too lazy to stretch the extra 2 inches.
Now, if you are afraid to assault more than 3 inches, that is not the fault of the game, the fault lies within yourself. Remember this is a game where you roll dice. If you are not willing to play a game where there is no chance of risk or failure, you are playing the wrong game to begin with. That's why many players are not willing to accept close combat as a valid part of the game if they do not personally get the auto win before the dice are even picked up. By reading this thread and allowing others to teach you to become better instead of spamming it with "close combat sucks, shooting is op", try to pick up a few pointers.
What unit would I pick? Depends upon my mood at the time, how well I painted them. Then, I would proceed to win using either one of them using tactics and strategy. if you have specific units you want advice on using, give the unit your wanting to learn about and possibly, someone could coach you on how to more effectively use it.
"Who in the world is planning on a fist turn assault? (DE aside) " Selym apparently because in his opinion if you don't get to assault on turn one and get the auto win through close combat, than close combat sucks and shooting is op. lol
"So you're just going to pretend you didn't say that the 2d6" assault range helps you get a first turn assault? " I said that it makes it just as possible as before. Overall, it does give the average player the possibility to taking gambles that were not available to them before while making it just as likely to reach intended targets as before.
I am well aware of what citing is. However, one of the ways to learn the game is to read the rulebook. You don't need me to do that for you as you are perfectly capable of reading it yourself. I am not going to waste my time researching exact page numbers and paragraphs while you sit back and giggle to yourself trying to decide what obscure rule to make me look up next.
"I've never said that. Please don't strawman." Let me quote you again... "You're saying that any problem with an assaulting army lies in the player - which is incorrect." This statement shows your belief that the player and their skill at the game does not play a part in who wins or loses. of course, selym believes as you do as shown through this quote. "If you taught him how to play the game by the rules, and could actually get his attention to stay n one place, then yes, that's exactly what would happen. "
You have YET to debunk any theory at all but you have spammed a lot of nonsense. if you do not think a tactic or theory will work for you by all means don't use them. Those of us who have used them to great effect and proven their effectiveness in actual games and tournaments will continue to do so.
selym at no point did I say 4+ saves were everywhere. The possibility of getting a 5+ and 4+ save is fairly easy though. Specific examples have even been given. Note also that BOTH players get to set up the gaming table which means that you are guaranteed the ability to assist yourself in providing it through terrain set up alone.
You apparently need to re-read the rules because you don't know them. Just because you love me enough to follow me from thread to thread trolling, I will look this one rule up just for you. Page 18 of the lil rulebook. There is a section that says shooting through units provides a 5+ save. Now, combine that with such things as camo, stealth, shroud or even going to ground and you end up with a 4+ or even 3+ possible. while your there, check out what cover items such as barricades and buildings give. Should I point out the other thread where you spammed that monstrous creatures don't get to make cover saves from areas terrain and you were proven wrong there too? Not taking area terrain cover saves for your monstrous assaulting creatures could be part of why your having trouble.
" Well then, maybe you should leave. " If you are an admin then by all means ban me for proving you wrong and deny me my right to express an opinion and support it with evidence. I don't think the admins here would do that however.
"Telling us that caver will let us win, and blaming the lack of assaulting success on our skill level is beyond useless, and provides no tactical support whatsoever. " Cover does not automatically let you win. It DOES however help you get your assault units into combat when properly utilized. If your skill level consists of purposely building your army to lose and throwing away units by not using cover, not forcing the enemy to make hard decisions, and so forth, than yes, it would be due to your skill level. However, by utilizing proper army build, using a sound strategy and tactics, you can win. Even against an army that is more powerful than your own. I have demonstrated this on many occasions by simply swapping armies with an opponent that cried my shooting was overpowered and then beating them with the exact same assault army they used while they used my army that I just won with.
It's not about being afraid. It's about coming to the logical conclusion that the least wasteful way to use a unit is to provide them the highest chance of doing whatever it is you intend them to do, with as much strength as they can bring to bear on that purpose.
In the case of close combat units that involves not doing foolish things like gambling your units away on attempted charges they have a low chance of succeeding.
It's like you don't understand that almost every decision you make in the game is weighted based on it's probability of success. You play mathhammer without even realising it, but the difference is that the people who do realise it are going to do it an awful lot better than you do, and their mathhammer starts at army list creation, not at the opening turn of the game.
The reason you don't shoot a full squad of bolter marines at front armour of a leman russ is because their chance of success is zero, so you point at something they are more likely to do damage to, and ideally, at the enemy they are likely to do the most damage to.
For those same reasons, you don't decide to charge a 10man unit of wyches into 5 flamer armed chosen 10" away because if you fail the charge (and you probably will at 10"), you're going to get roasted on overwatch, and then you're going to get roasted again on their turn, and then you're going to get roasted again when you try to charge the following turn (if you have anything left). Instead, the smart player does not foolishly attempt a charge with a small chance of success, but protects the unit as much as he can until they are within guaranteed striking distance, whereupon instead of eating 3 turns worth of firepower, he only eats one; maximising the amount of bodies that get into combat and greatly increasing his odds of winning that combat.
Apok, that is why you use your army as a whole. Of course, you don't assault the flamer unit with your witches. You shoot that unit with your warrior squad and assault the squishy 10 man squad with lasguns instead. that is on of the man tactical decisions that will help you win a game.
Just throwing up your hands and saying "well, they have a flamer squad so they automatically win" is not how to address that situation. you look at what they have before the game (you get to look at their list) and develop a gameplan.Then you look at the set ups and alter the game plan to suit and put your strengths against their weaknesses while keeping their strengths away from your own weaknesses. The combinations and actions turn by turn affect and can even force you to alter your plans after the game starts which is where a lot of the tactics come into play. I used to be a player who made the grand plan and could cope with hiccups after the game started and I lost a lot. After learning to play dynamically, I started winning more often than not.
Im hoping to get another game in with my orks this weekend,
and mayyybe its just cause both my games were against the new SM dex, but at 1850 pts, 3 full BW's, 1 full trukk, 30 shoota boys, some grots to hold back feild obj's, and 24biikes + 2 biker bosses has been smashing a lot of face...
basically auto win since even the tau/eldar builds I was facing at tournaments didnt have enough stuff to reliably take out 4 av14 4 hp battle wagons before turn 2.
if the guy who had two full kitted out squads of centurians couldnt roflstomp the battle wagons, even with me losing the extra HP due to two immobiles, then not many builds will crack the cans before they disgourge their orky goodness
as soon as I face a dreadnaught or any of the other hard counters to ork horde I am lost...
but NO ONE plans for ork horde lol, so pretty safe there for now.
"Who in the world is planning on a fist turn assault? (DE aside) " Selym apparently because in his opinion if you don't get to assault on turn one and get the auto win through close combat, than close combat sucks and shooting is op. lol
Um... no? You said that, not him.
I am well aware of what citing is. However, one of the ways to learn the game is to read the rulebook. You don't need me to do that for you as you are perfectly capable of reading it yourself. I am not going to waste my time researching exact page numbers and paragraphs while you sit back and giggle to yourself trying to decide what obscure rule to make me look up next.
You made a statement. That statement is incorrect and I'm asking you to prove it. And now you're saying you don't have to... yeah, that's not how it works.
You are incorrect - there is no way (barring Stealth/Shrouded) to get a 4+ cover save just by screening with a unit. Prove me wrong, please.
"I've never said that. Please don't strawman." Let me quote you again... "You're saying that any problem with an assaulting army lies in the player - which is incorrect." This statement shows your belief that the player and their skill at the game does not play a part in who wins or loses. of course, selym believes as you do as shown through this quote. "If you taught him how to play the game by the rules, and could actually get his attention to stay n one place, then yes, that's exactly what would happen. "
Well no, that's not what I said. Some problems can lie with the player, but I guarantee not all of them do. And that's what you're implying.
You have YET to debunk any theory at all but you have spammed a lot of nonsense. if you do not think a tactic or theory will work for you by all means don't use them. Those of us who have used them to great effect and proven their effectiveness in actual games and tournaments will continue to do so.
I have debunked your 4+ cover save theory.
selym at no point did I say 4+ saves were everywhere.
I have found it to be a 4+ but the actual cover save is based on terrain or what you are using for cover. It is even possible to artificially create a 4+ save while running across a wide open field.
Yes, the average cover save is still 4+ when you add in the fact that shooting through your own units confers a 4+ save to the enemy target (this does not include other members of the same unit firing but rather separate friendly units) and that shooting through enemy units also provide a 4+ cover save (exploitable by assault armies to give themselves a 4+ cover even while out in the middle of an open field).
The common cover save is still a 4+ regardless of what some people claim, this has been proven and examples given to allow you to even artificially create a 4+ cover out of thin air.
You may not have said "everywhere" but "average cover save" and "common cover save" are demonstrably incorrect. You've still refused to cite rules supporting your statements.
The possibility of getting a 5+ and 4+ save is fairly easy though. Specific examples have even been given. Note also that BOTH players get to set up the gaming table which means that you are guaranteed the ability to assist yourself in providing it through terrain set up alone.
The bolded is only partially correct - specific examples of a 5+ have been given, but not for a 4+.
You apparently need to re-read the rules because you don't know them. Just because you love me enough to follow me from thread to thread trolling, I will look this one rule up just for you. Page 18 of the lil rulebook. There is a section that says shooting through units provides a 5+ save. Now, combine that with such things as camo, stealth, shroud or even going to ground and you end up with a 4+ or even 3+ possible. while your there, check out what cover items such as barricades and buildings give.
... This? This was your ace in the hole for a 4+ save? Let me help you out here.
How many units in the game have Stealth, Shrouded, or camo cloaks?
Does Going to Ground allow you to assault the turn you stand back up?
" Well then, maybe you should leave. " If you are an admin then by all means ban me for proving you wrong and deny me my right to express an opinion and support it with evidence. I don't think the admins here would do that however.
"Telling us that caver will let us win, and blaming the lack of assaulting success on our skill level is beyond useless, and provides no tactical support whatsoever. " Cover does not automatically let you win. It DOES however help you get your assault units into combat when properly utilized. If your skill level consists of purposely building your army to lose and throwing away units by not using cover, not forcing the enemy to make hard decisions, and so forth, than yes, it would be due to your skill level. However, by utilizing proper army build, using a sound strategy and tactics, you can win. Even against an army that is more powerful than your own. I have demonstrated this on many occasions by simply swapping armies with an opponent that cried my shooting was overpowered and then beating them with the exact same assault army they used while they used my army that I just won with.
Again with the "It's all the player's fault" accusations - which is demonstrably not true.
Assault has suffered in 6th. I've mentioned before the best ways to move forward with assault - you need resilient, fast units with some ability to swing in CC. Blender units that aren't resilient won't cut it anymore no matter who the player is.
The problem is that "resilient" at this point is somewhere in the T5 3+ or 4++ range as a minimum. And that's really hard for some races to get to.
LOL You got me there. I honestly don't consider that mathhammering. I consider that common sense. To me mathhammering is sitting down with a calculator (no way could I do it in my head) and figuring out exact percentage numbers of how many dice to roll to get certain results against x armor with y toughness to build my army tailored for specific opponents. I much prefer to take what seems cool for me at the time and what kind of mood I'm in and then use the common sense tactics to win or lose. You NEVER see me at a tourney with the same list twice. Yet I consistently come in about 3rd, 1st this last time because I got lucky and stole the initiative on a player who had a super ballsy set up with almost his entire army in the wide open (THAT made my shooting OP for that particular game based on his setup combined with my stealing the initiative but I think that was more due to his losing his gamble and me getting lucky. lol Now to paint my firestorm redoubt (just because I like the way it looks).
Rigeld, I will ignore your post rather than reply to it. You were proven incorrect, we don't need to see your posts anymore until you learn to behave, stick to the truth and provide something positive.
EVIL INC wrote: LOL You got me there. I honestly don't consider that mathhammering. I consider that common sense. To me mathhammering is sitting down with a calculator (no way could I do it in my head) and figuring out exact percentage numbers of how many dice to roll to get certain results against x armor with y toughness to build my army tailored for specific opponents. I much prefer to take what seems cool for me at the time and what kind of mood I'm in and then use the common sense tactics to win or lose. You NEVER see me at a tourney with the same list twice. Yet I consistently come in about 3rd, 1st this last time because I got lucky and stole the initiative on a player who had a super ballsy set up with almost his entire army in the wide open (THAT made my shooting OP for that particular game based on his setup combined with my stealing the initiative but I think that was more due to his losing his gamble and me getting lucky. lol Now to paint my firestorm redoubt (just because I like the way it looks).
Rigeld, I will ignore your post rather than reply to it. You were proven incorrect, we don't need to see your posts anymore until you learn to behave, stick to the truth and provide something positive.
You don't need a calculator or exact percentages.
You just need a basic understanding of averages, probability, and dice rolls.
For example, when 5+ cover saves occur far more often than 4+, it means that the mode (what we use as average in this instance) save will be 5+, even though the cover chart puts 4+ somewhere in the centre.
That is because the things that grant 6+ and 5+ terrain are far cheaper and more easily placed/transported/made than the 4+ and 3+ terrain types, thus resulting in their increased usage.
The 5+ is made even more common by the fact that alternative save granters (such as intervening units) give out a 5+ as standard.
______________________
And thus far, Rigeld has been correct on all accounts.
EVIL INC wrote: Rigeld, I will ignore your post rather than reply to it. You were proven incorrect, we don't need to see your posts anymore until you learn to behave, stick to the truth and provide something positive.
I have provided something positive and you have not proven me incorrect.
When you are able to take a 4+ save instead of a 5+ save, I will indeed take probability into account and opt for the 4+ save. Additionally, If I know a way to get a save while crossing an open field, I will interlock my units so that they provide cover for one another. Probability states that if I have two 30 "man" gaunt squads and I skuttle them across the field separately and away from one another, they will have zero cover save and drop like flies. If I intertwine the two units so that part of each unit is covered by the other in order to get a cover save, I will still take wound but instead of having a zero cover save, I will get some sort of save and by averages, lose less models, thus making them both more survivable from enemy shooting and more likely to reach and rip apart my enemy.
LOL, rigeld Let me do this for you. Oh you are the font of all information, are never wrong and have a huge penis. Does that make you feel better? Now toddle off and the rest of us who are having a serious conversation can talk without you interrupting.
easysauce wrote: Im hoping to get another game in with my orks this weekend,
and mayyybe its just cause both my games were against the new SM dex, but at 1850 pts, 3 full BW's, 1 full trukk, 30 shoota boys, some grots to hold back feild obj's, and 24biikes + 2 biker bosses has been smashing a lot of face...
basically auto win since even the tau/eldar builds I was facing at tournaments didnt have enough stuff to reliably take out 4 av14 4 hp battle wagons before turn 2.
if the guy who had two full kitted out squads of centurians couldnt roflstomp the battle wagons, even with me losing the extra HP due to two immobiles, then not many builds will crack the cans before they disgourge their orky goodness
as soon as I face a dreadnaught or any of the other hard counters to ork horde I am lost...
but NO ONE plans for ork horde lol, so pretty safe there for now.
Most Tau/Eldar lists lack the ability to deal with AV14 reliably right now as most people max out S6-7 shooting, but if you see some melta-guns from MEQs, your AVA14 vehicles are pretty much toast.
Then again 1-2 squads of fire dragons riding Waveserpents should be enough to remove 4 AV14 without a huge problem.
EVIL INC wrote: Rigeld, I will ignore your post rather than reply to it. You were proven incorrect, we don't need to see your posts anymore until you learn to behave, stick to the truth and provide something positive.
I have provided something positive and you have not proven me incorrect.
Who says this type of things? "we don't need to see your posts anymore until you learn to behave"
Again, he clearly debunked your statement of giving 4+ cover everywhere which is what you said.
So you're upset that he provided proof that not a lot of units default to a 4+ save?
To me mathhammering is sitting down with a calculator (no way could I do it in my head) and figuring out exact percentage numbers of how many dice to roll to get certain results against x armor with y toughness to build my army tailored for specific opponents
Except that's not really it. I mean, you are to some extent correct, but you're missing the mark a little.
Mathhammering is knowing the expected result of X unit attacking y unit (whether by cc/shooting is largely irrelevant). If I know that, on average, a 10man bolter squad rapid firing will cause 8 wounds on a dark eldar warrior squad out of cover, or 4 wounds if they get a 4+ cover save, then I can tactically plan my turn to provide me with options. Knowing that there are 10 warriors sitting on an objective in cover allows me to allocate 2 of the above bolter squads to killing it, and maybe a little something else to bring that wound total up to 3-4extra, just in case the dice don't go particularly favourably.
Instead of wastefully throwing 4 units worth of firepower at a unit, you have efficiently used just enough to do the job plus a little extra, and if it turns out that little extra isn't required, it can be treated as surplus and used to backup a different option where maybe the dice didn't go in your favour.
Knowing these things allows you position your forces better, since you can provide as many supporting resources as required to get the job done, without overcommitting yourself to one area and thereby potentially reducing your overall armywide damage output because you threw an extra unit in to utterly overkill something and didn't have that firepower to use elsewhere on the table.
To make it more combat oriented, you ideally want to be killing your opponents unit in their own turn, since that will mean he won't get to fire at you during the same turn, and you'll be free to charge a new unit in your own. You mathhammer to determine what kind of numbers to throw at that combat to have that happen. If you're too killy, you risk killing the enemy unit on the charge, and having to eat a turn of shooting before you can charge again. If you're not killy enough you extend the duration of the combat to the point where it gets progressively harder to rely on a specific result, because the more opportunities you give your opponent to affect that combat (whether through lucky rolls on return strikes doing a little more damage than they should, or because they can shore it up with another charging unit of their own to swing the combat). Therefore you have some rough idea of what kind of damage each model in your unit inflicts each turn. That's why we see terms like MEQ/GEQ/TEQ being thrown around. They are common archetypes that represent a certain statline (space marine/guardsmen and eldar/terminators, respectively). It makes it easier to more accurately guess the damage output of a unit if you have a rough idea how it performs against those varieties of units. You can then very easily determine that your little 4man squad of berserkers that got shot up earlier in the game just isn't going to have the punch it needs to kill that 10man marine squad before it dies due to the marines themselves, or because it took too long to kill them and they countercharged and killed the last few zerkers.
And knowing these things (or at least having a ballpark idea on them) allows you to more effectively prepare multiple turns in advance. Yes, you are ultimately at the whims of the dice, but over time, dice are still bound by probability, and you factor that probability into your decision making precisely because, statistically speaking, that is the expected result of X, or Y. Suddenly instead of thinking 'oh, I'll charge this stuff with this stuff', you can think, 'I'll charge this stuff with this stuff, and bring this weaker unit along for support, which will probably allow me to slingshot the whole thing into that unit over there when I kill them in 2 rounds, but I'll need to soften that unit up a little first if I want to take them on, so I better shoot them with 20 bolters to weaken their number a little first', and that's how that path of decision making goes.
You aren't deciding that you will do these things. You are deciding that, based on the probability of all these actions occurring as expected, you can formulate the following contingency plans to improve the success rate of the tactics, or mitigate the damage failure will cause.
It's not simply a case of setting a bunch of toy soldiers up facing eachother and letting the winds of chance take the reins. The good players are the ones who can quickly guesstimate reasonably accurate results of certain actions, and then stack the odds in whatever area's they need to to give themselves a good chance of success.
And that is why a 2d6 assault range is bad. The average distance rolled is irrelevant. To stack the odds in your favour on a charge you need to bring them to the point where the success rate much higher than 50%, which means 3-4" (or slightly more if you have fleet and can re-roll). 6th took the guaranteed 6" charge away from 5th, and effectively gave us a 3-5"charge, depending on your estimation of risk and how capable the charged unit performs overwatch.
LOL, rigeld Let me do this for you. Oh you are the font of all information, are never wrong and have a huge penis. Does that make you feel better? Now toddle off and the rest of us who are having a serious conversation can talk without you interrupting.
Yeah, that's exactly what I was going for. How about instead of attempting to patronize me you answer my questions and address my points? That would make me feel better than what you just typed.
I'm trying to help your post. Seriously.
And your intertwining units for a cover save doesn't work as well as you think it does. The front models (you know - the ones being shot) won't have a cover save.
Focus fire can indeed help deny cover saves. However, even a bad cover save is better than none at all and still helps more models survive to reach combat. The extra time it takes to position them can be worth it.
My point is that this thread is specifically dedicated to provide tips and advice. Your questions are not related to the discussion. Send them to me in a pm or post them in a different thread, otherwise, they are a purposeful distraction designed to kill a thread to prevent the discussion that was intended.
It's actually possible to setup 2 units in an alternating fashion where you will provide cover to both units in their entirety, with the exception of maybe 2-3 models in the front rank of each unit.
Say cheerio to doing any shooting with them at all, and movement would be a real bitch (both in terms of the physical logistics, and the fact that you essentially kill 1.5" off your movement rate), so it's barely worth the payoff.
EVIL INC wrote: Focus fire can indeed help deny cover saves. However, even a bad cover save is better than none at all and still helps more models survive to reach combat. The extra time it takes to position them can be worth it.
My point is that this thread is specifically dedicated to provide tips and advice. Your questions are not related to the discussion. Send them to me in a pm or post them in a different thread, otherwise, they are a purposeful distraction designed to kill a thread to prevent the discussion that was intended.
No. No. Just no. If you're using a tactic that doesn't work, pointing out that it doesn't work is related to the discussion.
Just to stay on-topic: Make sure to only roll 6s for movement, saves, to hit and to wound, and make sure that your opponent only rolls 1s in the corresponding situations. Then you win!
EVIL INC wrote: Focus fire can indeed help deny cover saves. However, even a bad cover save is better than none at all and still helps more models survive to reach combat. The extra time it takes to position them can be worth it.
My point is that this thread is specifically dedicated to provide tips and advice. Your questions are not related to the discussion. Send them to me in a pm or post them in a different thread, otherwise, they are a purposeful distraction designed to kill a thread to prevent the discussion that was intended.
No. No. Just no. If you're using a tactic that doesn't work, pointing out that it doesn't work is related to the discussion.
Just to stay on-topic: Make sure to only roll 6s for movement, saves, to hit and to wound, and make sure that your opponent only rolls 1s in the corresponding situations. Then you win!
Not the best for leadership test if you'll ever need them that is Maybe some psychic power causing leadership tests or something.
Speaking of Psychic powers, they can also increase surivability to CC, but so unreliable...
EVIL INC wrote: Focus fire can indeed help deny cover saves. However, even a bad cover save is better than none at all and still helps more models survive to reach combat. The extra time it takes to position them can be worth it.
My point is that this thread is specifically dedicated to provide tips and advice. Your questions are not related to the discussion. Send them to me in a pm or post them in a different thread, otherwise, they are a purposeful distraction designed to kill a thread to prevent the discussion that was intended.
No. No. Just no. If you're using a tactic that doesn't work, pointing out that it doesn't work is related to the discussion.
Just to stay on-topic: Make sure to only roll 6s for movement, saves, to hit and to wound, and make sure that your opponent only rolls 1s in the corresponding situations. Then you win!
Not the best for leadership test if you'll ever need them that is Maybe some psychic power causing leadership tests or something.
Speaking of Psychic powers, they can also increase surivability to CC, but so unreliable...
EVIL INC wrote: How many shots does the average hormagaunst or genestealer unit have? I'm more than willing to give an opponent a 5+ cover save from zero shots.
They average an output of zero shots...
And, sure, feel free to give opponents a 5+ save against non existent attacks. I do it all the time. If they're lucky I may even give them a 2+ chance to negate all of the shots I didn't fire
EVIL INC wrote: Focus fire can indeed help deny cover saves. However, even a bad cover save is better than none at all and still helps more models survive to reach combat. The extra time it takes to position them can be worth it.
My point is that this thread is specifically dedicated to provide tips and advice. Your questions are not related to the discussion. Send them to me in a pm or post them in a different thread, otherwise, they are a purposeful distraction designed to kill a thread to prevent the discussion that was intended.
No. No. Just no. If you're using a tactic that doesn't work, pointing out that it doesn't work is related to the discussion.
Just to stay on-topic: Make sure to only roll 6s for movement, saves, to hit and to wound, and make sure that your opponent only rolls 1s in the corresponding situations. Then you win!
Not the best for leadership test if you'll ever need them that is Maybe some psychic power causing leadership tests or something.
Speaking of Psychic powers, they can also increase surivability to CC, but so unreliable...
"selym at no point did I say 4+ saves were everywhere. The possibility of getting a 5+ and 4+ save is fairly easy though. Specific examples have even been given. Note also that BOTH players get to set up the gaming table which means that you are guaranteed the ability to assist yourself in providing it through terrain set up alone"
Cover doesn't do a thing for meqs against Eldar-style wound spamming. It doesn't help guardsmen if its 5+ cover.
EVIL INC wrote: Focus fire can indeed help deny cover saves. However, even a bad cover save is better than none at all and still helps more models survive to reach combat. The extra time it takes to position them can be worth it.
My point is that this thread is specifically dedicated to provide tips and advice. Your questions are not related to the discussion. Send them to me in a pm or post them in a different thread, otherwise, they are a purposeful distraction designed to kill a thread to prevent the discussion that was intended.
I'm not trying to kill the thread. I'm trying to take things that are being mentioned as tactics and demonstrate why they don't work as described.
Lol, I went into this thinking that it actually was a serious topic. Having read the other thread mentioned by the OP too, I can see we have all fallen into the troll trap
Martel732 wrote: "selym at no point did I say 4+ saves were everywhere. The possibility of getting a 5+ and 4+ save is fairly easy though. Specific examples have even been given. Note also that BOTH players get to set up the gaming table which means that you are guaranteed the ability to assist yourself in providing it through terrain set up alone"
Cover doesn't do a thing for meqs against Eldar-style wound spamming. It doesn't help guardsmen if its 5+ cover.
Guardsmen pretty much never assault anyway, so that part is of minimal value.
And if cover does not help MEQ's much (by far the most common army type), that contradicts a huge chunk of your argument that cover will suffice to keep an assault army in the running.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Illumini wrote: Lol, I went into this thinking that it actually was a serious topic. Having read the other thread mentioned by the OP too, I can see we have all fallen into the troll trap
Yes, it was intended to be a serious thread until others took it off topic in their attempt to kill it and prevent us from actually discussing close combat and ways to get there effectively. After they did that, they turned it into a troll trap. Hopefully the mods or someone can help us clear the clutter, warm them to stay on topic so we can have serious discussions on the actual topic.
True, guardsmen rarely assault, unless using their units that are more closely dedicated to it like penal legion or ogryn. Meqs don't really need it except from ap3 or better weapons (unless using buildings and walls and rock outcrops and such to totally block line of sight to them as they advance towards the enemy).
Research the denied flank. It is only one of many different tactics possible to use.
Maybe this is a translation issue, but in English this is usually called the "refused flank" or "oblique order." You'll have better luck searching for those on English language sites.
Martel732 wrote: "selym at no point did I say 4+ saves were everywhere. The possibility of getting a 5+ and 4+ save is fairly easy though. Specific examples have even been given. Note also that BOTH players get to set up the gaming table which means that you are guaranteed the ability to assist yourself in providing it through terrain set up alone"
Cover doesn't do a thing for meqs against Eldar-style wound spamming. It doesn't help guardsmen if its 5+ cover.
Guardsmen pretty much never assault anyway, so that part is of minimal value.
And if cover does not help MEQ's much (by far the most common army type), that contradicts a huge chunk of your argument that cover will suffice to keep an assault army in the running.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Illumini wrote: Lol, I went into this thinking that it actually was a serious topic. Having read the other thread mentioned by the OP too, I can see we have all fallen into the troll trap
EVIL INC wrote: Yes, it was intended to be a serious thread until others took it off topic in their attempt to kill it and prevent us from actually discussing close combat and ways to get there effectively. After they did that, they turned it into a troll trap. Hopefully the mods or someone can help us clear the clutter, warm them to stay on topic so we can have serious discussions on the actual topic.
No, you started posting tactics that don't work because you have a poor grasp of the rules, we pointed out the flaws in your reasoning. That's not taking it off topic.
EVIL INC wrote: Yes, it was intended to be a serious thread until others took it off topic in their attempt to kill it and prevent us from actually discussing close combat and ways to get there effectively. After they did that, they turned it into a troll trap. Hopefully the mods or someone can help us clear the clutter, warm them to stay on topic so we can have serious discussions on the actual topic.
Have you clicked the triangle on any of my posts? I'm genuinely curious.
Regardless, your overall intent is correct - assault can work if you hug cover, etc. But flat out stating that a 4+ save is common is incorrect. That's what I'm addressing - not the idea that cover is good.
I've provided the 3 things you need to base a close combat list on (and it needs to be the whole list - having a half shooty/half CC list is begging for failure).
Personally I use Flyrants, Ymgarls, and Pod-Fexes for CC fun. Flyrants and Pod-Fexes are resilient and fast, Ymgarls are super-fast so their lack of resiliency isn't that big a deal.
The Tervigons and Termagants are used as counter-assault and objective grabbers. Sometimes I'll throw a Tervi into CC but it's not that common anymore (they're resilient but too slow)
Flavius Infernus, Thank you. I have used it and heard it's "name" from someone else. I appreciate your help in getting the name right for me as I had misremembered the name if I even had it right to begin with. I would highly recommend using that strategy, especially if your opponent gets first turn as you get to ensure it works and then if you steal the initiative to boot, woo hoo party time.
Walrus, I have an excellent grasp of the rules and started this thread in an effort to help those who are having trouble getting to grips with an opponent. Yes, and to hopefully get a few pointers myself in regards to that as I don't claim to know everything and am more than willing to learn. Your post is an example of what I was talking about. It was blatantly insulting and impolite along with incorrect and did not relate to the title of the thread at all. Another post that I personally felt was trolling for a negative response without adding anything to the discussion.
What are you talking about!? I like having 5+ cover for my guardsmen . Yeah sure 5+ saves but think about the number of guns that laugh at that save! (cough bolter guns, tau guns, etc)
So then, let us try to make this focus upon combt tactics. The LR are a no go. But maybe converse on how to use ork boys, possessed... in other words, the blender units that are nasty in cc but lack the durability and speed to make it.
Martel732 wrote: "selym at no point did I say 4+ saves were everywhere. The possibility of getting a 5+ and 4+ save is fairly easy though. Specific examples have even been given. Note also that BOTH players get to set up the gaming table which means that you are guaranteed the ability to assist yourself in providing it through terrain set up alone"
Cover doesn't do a thing for meqs against Eldar-style wound spamming. It doesn't help guardsmen if its 5+ cover.
Guardsmen pretty much never assault anyway, so that part is of minimal value.
And if cover does not help MEQ's much (by far the most common army type), that contradicts a huge chunk of your argument that cover will suffice to keep an assault army in the running.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Illumini wrote: Lol, I went into this thinking that it actually was a serious topic. Having read the other thread mentioned by the OP too, I can see we have all fallen into the troll trap
Nail on the head, bro, nail on the head
*exalted
I've never argued that.
Ah, sorry, been posting faaar too many replies to EVIL INC, I seem to have reached the point where confusion as to what I'm talking about occurs.
rigeld2, I don't remember the name of the critter but I had it used against my guard to great effect (one of the reasons I started more towards vehicles), but I remember it deep striking in amongst my gunline and forcing all nearby units to take leadership saves on 3d6 or suffer badly. Do you use it?
I remember being forced to scamper or concentrate a lot of firepower on it while my opponant's swarms waltzed towards me as I was forced to deal with the immediate threat.
Of course, podding in monster units in my face forcing me to fire at them letting his swarms scamper towards me scott free also is something that is hard to counter. I had a guy pod in swarms in my face I had to deal with as his bigger nasties walked in behind them. I think bug podding combined with yrmgarls and big nasty burrowers combined with the super fast scamperers or wingers swarming across the field is something even a tau gunline would be hard pressed to beat. The pods and what come out of them not only being priority targets but also helping provide cover for the foot sloggers when deployed properly.
EVIL INC wrote: rigeld2, I don't remember the name of the critter but I had it used against my guard to great effect (one of the reasons I started more towards vehicles), but I remember it deep striking in amongst my gunline and forcing all nearby units to take leadership saves on 3d6 or suffer badly. Do you use it?
I remember being forced to scamper or concentrate a lot of firepower on it while my opponant's swarms waltzed towards me as I was forced to deal with the immediate threat.
Of course, podding in monster units in my face forcing me to fire at them letting his swarms scamper towards me scott free also is something that is hard to counter. I had a guy pod in swarms in my face I had to deal with as his bigger nasties walked in behind them. I think bug podding combined with yrmgarls and big nasty burrowers combined with the super fast scamperers or wingers swarming across the field is something even a tau gunline would be hard pressed to beat. The pods and what come out of them not only being priority targets but also helping provide cover for the foot sloggers when deployed properly.
Nids correct? If so I think that is the doom of malantai. Nasty little bugger. That being said, he's a psyker. Problem with tau is they actually have enough dakka to solve that problem and then blast everything else on the map. Heck, if tau tried just build some interceptor in and watch the ds fail horridly. Also it has a risk of landing on the wrong model and getting all messed up I do believe
Walrus, I have an excellent grasp of the rules and started this thread in an effort to help those who are having trouble getting to grips with an opponent. Yes, and to hopefully get a few pointers myself in regards to that as I don't claim to know everything and am more than willing to learn. Your post is an example of what I was talking about. It was blatantly insulting and impolite along with incorrect and did not relate to the title of the thread at all. Another post that I personally felt was trolling for a negative response without adding anything to the discussion.
Oh really? You say that you're willing to learn and yet you refuse to accept that you're wrong, claiming that I'm trolling for pointing out your faults. If being wrong is blatantly insulting to you, maybe you should stop doing it?
3. Another is to use more than one unit and intermix them so that they provide cover for one another even out in the wide open.
FAQd to only provide cover to the backmost unit.
EVIL INC wrote: There is a specific forum section for list building. This thread is not about building lists or what are good lists the very specific purpose of the thread is to demonstrate ways to use your assault troops more effectively.
Yes, the average cover save is still 4+ when you add in the fact that shooting through your own units confers a 4+ save to the enemy target (this does not include other members of the same unit firing but rather separate friendly units) and that shooting through enemy units also provide a 4+ cover save (exploitable by assault armies to give themselves a 4+ cover even while out in the middle of an open field).
The average has been demonstrated to not be 4, and you were incorrect about intervening models giving a 4+ cover save.
EVIL INC wrote: 50% of assaults are initiated within 3 inches so the only way to fail it is is you roll snake eyes, Most of the rest are initiated within 6 inches and only the very rare gamble assaults are initiated from further. So overall, if you are able to roll a seven or higher on the assault dice, your going to make it further than in previous editions on first turn assaults. An assault army will have multiple units doing so the more than likely, at least one of them will make it with the others rolling in on turn 2.
No. You will not make a fist turn assault by rolling a 7. Absolutely guaranteed. Using that statement to support your argument brings your entire argument down.
I am well aware of what citing is. However, one of the ways to learn the game is to read the rulebook. You don't need me to do that for you as you are perfectly capable of reading it yourself. I am not going to waste my time researching exact page numbers and paragraphs while you sit back and giggle to yourself trying to decide what obscure rule to make me look up next.
Refusing to back your arguments up with actual rules.
Look, I tried running FNP ASM with shield of sanguinius. These units bring their own cover with them. It didn't help. I couldn't get enough survivors to my target units.
Remember, there is a lot of game even after units start getting into assault range. Xenos like Tau have a tendency to have their units evaporate in HTH, and that opens you up to even MORE shooting the next turn.
Good xeno players are not going to line up where their shooters can support each other.
Walrus, are you saying that camo cloaks and stealth do not come into effect if the cover is another unit? What page is that on in the rulebook?
On your last post, exactly what tip or tactic were you providing? Maybe it it got cut off because none showed to the rest of us.
Faqed to only give cover to the backmost unit huh? I did not know that and I appreciate you pointing that out. Even so, one of the two units getting a 5+ save is still better than neither of them getting any at all, which means that it is still a valid tactic.
The thread is not about arguing points, it is about providing tips and tactics.
EVIL INC wrote: Walrus, are you saying that camo cloaks and stealth do not come into effect if the cover is another unit? What page is that on in the rulebook?
On your last post, exactly what tip or tactic were you providing? Maybe it it got cut off because none showed to the rest of us.
Faqed to only give cover to the backmost unit huh? I did not know that and I appreciate you pointing that out. Even so, one of the two units getting a 5+ save is still better than neither of them getting any at all, which means that it is still a valid tactic.
The thread is not about arguing points, it is about providing tips and tactics.
If I'm not allowed to point out flaws in your tips and tactics, then what's the point?
Again, "Intervening Models" is not the same as "Intervening Models + Camo Cloaks".
Pointing out flaws in a tactic is far different from the personal attacks you have been doing.
5+ save > no save so using a screen of "throwaway" models to provide a mobile 5+ save for a more expensive and choppy assault unit is still a valid tactic. If providing a 5+ save where before there was none to ensure that your "deathstar" unit makes it into the enemy lines is a flawed tactic as you suggest, I am not seeing the flaw.
Overwatch is a killer for close combat troops, not because of the how many models it kills, but which ones it kills.
At BS1, overwatch is usually lucky to kill more than a couple of models (this of course depends on what is shooting and what is being shot). However, without really fast or survivable troops, those casualties are taken from the front of the squad - having the effect of pushing back your unit and forcing you to make a longer assault.
This usually adds at least 1-2 inches, and often more if you're really pushing your assault distance (which is usually the case with foot-sloggers). This is why further-than-average charges are a bad idea - you're effectively giving your opponent a free round of shooting against troops who are unlikely to make it into close combat.
10"-12" charges can effectively be discounted, unless your target doesn't shoot in overwatch (CC only troops, non-walker vehicles, SnP), or you're a single, really tough model (dread, uber-character, or MC). Also, these edge-of-the-envelope charges mean you're giving up your opportunity to run, which would otherwise give you a vastly improved chance to charge next turn.
In addition, terrain is a double-edged sword - it gives an assault army cover for crossing the board, but it also massively skews the chances of making a charge.
The numbers required to charge through terrain (to the nearest 2dp) are as follows:
Charge distance - %age chance to roll that number on the dice - %age chance to succeed that charge
Note how quickly the numbers drop - for example if you're trying to charge 6" you've already got less than a 50% chance to make it, while allowing your enemy a free round of overwatch shooting. Add in the extra distance required to make it due to casualties - lets say an extra 2" - and the chance of your charge succeeding drops below 50% at the 4" mark!
Also note that rolling a charge distance isn't like shooting, where the sheer number of dice will tend to average out the successes and failures, usually in the course of a game and even in a single round of fire. When you're making a charge distance, it's an all or nothing proposition - either you make it, or you don't, and if you don't you will be almost certainly be severely hurt by the enemy. It's hard to think of many other single dice rolls that can swing a game to the same extent - the only ones that spring to mind are the roll for first turn, night-fighting (maybe), and random game length (sometimes).
Finally, most assault troops still have some form of shooting available to them, even if its only a bolt pistol. However it's usually too risky to use this due to enemy casualty removal, thus taking away an opportunity to smooth the probability curve and inflict some casualties with kit they have (presumably) paid for.
Now, this isn't to say that there aren't ways around this...
For starters, be careful about positioning your assaults. If you possibly can, don't assault through cover. This is a key one - that cover really skews the chances of making an assault. Check your probabilities and balance the effect of making your assault against the consequences of failing the assault and giving up your chance to run.
Also, consider positioning a super-tough model at the front of your unit. As long as he survives (and he can do this through LoS), your effective charge distance is not being pushed back.
If you can, charge one enemy unit with more than one of your units. Your opponent can't overwatch both of them, giving you a guarantee that one unit will not be pushed back (unless you're fighing Tau of course). By carefully selecting your charge order based on how close your units are and how tough and killy they are, you can often force your opponent to make a tough choice. Does he go for the less effective CC unit that's close, or the more effective unit that's further away and charging second - but if the first unit makes it he doesn't get to overwatch at all?
However, the best way to get into close combat is by not requiring a really good roll in the first place - in other words, have fast (prefably tough) units that close with the enemy as fast as possible so you don't have to chance a risky charge.
My conclusion? Slow foot-sloggers are in real trouble this edition, as their ability to affect the game is based on a small number of dice rolls where the chance of failing is much greater than the chance of succeeding. However, units that are fast, very tough, or preferably both, can still reliably get into assault, and do it very successfully.
Hedgehog, you are correct. this is where your placement of models, tactics come into effect again. First, if you place your more survivable models up front, they are less likely to be taken out by overwatch. My 3+ invulnerable save crusader is less likely to die from overwatch than my 5+ invulnerable save deathwatch assassin (I realize this is not an option for armies without multiple armor saves). Another way around that is to position so that multiple models are the same distance away from the target unit. Instead of lining them up, encircling the target unit. Before, you could be lazy and just push one model close but now, it is wiser to take the extra effort to stretch across the table to push all of the unit's models so that they are all 3 inches (random numerical distance) instead of just one. Again, leave tau out of the equation as we all agree their shooting is broken, especially with support fire on overwatch.
While I agree with everything you've said, I think your math is a bit off. In your format of % chance to roll that number, and then chance to roll that number or better
2 - 2.77% (1 in 36) - 100%
3 - 5.55% (2 in 36) - 97.23%
4 - 8.33% (3 in 36) - 91.66%
5 - 11.11% (4 in 36) - 83.33%
6 - 13.88% (5 in 36) - 72.22%
7 - 16.66% (6 in 36) - 58.34%
8 - 13.66% (5 in 36) - 41.66%
9 - 11.11% (4 in 36) - 27.77%
10 - 8.33% (3 in 36) - 16.66%
11 - 5.55% (2 in 36) - 8.33%
12 - 2.77% (1 in 36) - 2.77%
While I agree with everything you've said, I think your math is a bit off. In your format of % chance to roll that number, and then chance to roll that number or better
2 - 2.77% (1 in 36) - 100% 3 - 5.55% (2 in 36) - 97.23% 4 - 8.33% (3 in 36) - 91.66% 5 - 11.11% (4 in 36) - 83.33% 6 - 13.88% (5 in 36) - 72.22% 7 - 16.66% (6 in 36) - 58.34% 8 - 13.66% (5 in 36) - 41.66% 9 - 11.11% (4 in 36) - 27.77% 10 - 8.33% (3 in 36) - 16.66% 11 - 5.55% (2 in 36) - 8.33% 12 - 2.77% (1 in 36) - 2.77%
You're spot on for a standard charge, my figures are for a charge through cover, which is more common (at least where I play) and a lot less well known. I think my figures are right - it involved a while with a spreadsheet so there might be an error in there.
More Dakka wrote: Assault is where units are tied up, taken out of play and destroyed.
Yes, units your opponent chooses.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EVIL INC wrote: Walrus, are you saying that camo cloaks and stealth do not come into effect if the cover is another unit? What page is that on in the rulebook?
On your last post, exactly what tip or tactic were you providing? Maybe it it got cut off because none showed to the rest of us.
Faqed to only give cover to the backmost unit huh? I did not know that and I appreciate you pointing that out. Even so, one of the two units getting a 5+ save is still better than neither of them getting any at all, which means that it is still a valid tactic.
The thread is not about arguing points, it is about providing tips and tactics.
You aren't reading the rules correctly. Intervening units are a 5+ cover save. Camo cloaks don't have any language to change this; therefore, its a 5+. Eldar and Tau don't give a feth about your 5+ Especially the Tau. On the turn before assault, I've had Eldar kill 22 FNP ASM with shield of sanguinius up.
Camo cloaks say they add +1 to cover saves. There is nothing that says they only add +1 to certain cover saves and not others. therefore a cover save from an intervening unit that gives a 5+ would go to a 4+ if the unit takeing the save has camo cloaks. If they also have stealth, it stacks so it would be +2 making it a 3+ save. This is why I always give camo cloaks to my harker unit to give them a base 2+ cover save behind a ADL.
EVIL INC wrote: Camo cloaks say they add +1 to cover saves. There is nothing that says they only add +1 to certain cover saves and not others. therefore a cover save from an intervening unit that gives a 5+ would go to a 4+ if the unit takeing the save has camo cloaks. If they also have stealth, it stacks so it would be +2 making it a 3+ save. This is why I always give camo cloaks to my harker unit to give them a base 2+ cover save behind a ADL.
I thought you were trying to say that units BEHIND the ones with the camo cloaks also get the benefit. Of course camo cloaks add to a cover save granted by soft cover, ie other bodies. But if you reverse the positioning, units behind other units with camo cloaks get no benefit.
None of these "revelations" makes assault any better in 6th. The shooty armies either a) will ignore cover or b) kill both squads.
EVIL INC wrote: Camo cloaks say they add +1 to cover saves. There is nothing that says they only add +1 to certain cover saves and not others. therefore a cover save from an intervening unit that gives a 5+ would go to a 4+ if the unit takeing the save has camo cloaks. If they also have stealth, it stacks so it would be +2 making it a 3+ save. This is why I always give camo cloaks to my harker unit to give them a base 2+ cover save behind a ADL.
I thought you were trying to say that units BEHIND the ones with the camo cloaks also get the benefit. Of course camo cloaks add to a cover save granted by soft cover, ie other bodies. But if you reverse the positioning, units behind other units with camo cloaks get no benefit.
None of these "revelations" makes assault any better in 6th. The shooty armies either a) will ignore cover or b) kill both squads.
Or:
C) Throw so many shots at you that the cover save is irrelevant.
If an enemy is throwing enough shots at the screened unit to take it out, that means they are not shooting at my other 3 or 4 units. I would say by all means, wipe out that screened unit if it makes you happy. My deathstar unit that then makes it to the enemy line without ever even getting shot at will more than make up the points for my disposable cheapy unit.
this is why you don't just rush assault units across the board one at at time feeding the enemy guns bite sized tidbit. Your swamp them where it is impossible to take out all the threats before getting smashed. (again, do not include tau in this as their shooting is broken. I would say that shooting is not broken, just shooting from that particular army is).
On the other hand, if you feel that a 4+ or even 5+ cover save is useless, than by all means, I would love to play you in a tournament. just remember that thought and don't put anyone into cover or area terrain when you play me.
I've seen tau units assault other units. I have also assaulted units with my guard. Helped me with my final game in the tournament I wont last weekend.
of course, no one is simply saying run across the field waving your hands in the air screaming 'shoot me shoot me". Setting up terrain to help build "safe roads" when you and your opponent sets the table up, using area terrain, transports, forcing your opponent to make hard choices are all part of the game that enables either side (shooty or assault) to win based on army build, strategy, tactics and yes, the luck of the dice.
As in chess, for every move or tactic for either side, there is a counter. For every counter, there is a counter counter and so on and so forth so we could sit and go back and forth all day saying "that tactic doesn't work because I could do this. Well, if you do that, I'll just do this" back and forth. When it comes down to it, in the game is what matters and where the story is told. After you build your list, you aren't able to go back and redo it to counter a strategy or build your opponent has. Also as every table set up is different, every player is different no two games will be the same. Even the same games played twice can turn out differently as the dice rolls are different and tactics and strategies are forced to be changed (hopefully, your able to be dynamic in this to compensate). Even mathhammer can fail as one player can have a bad luck streak and roll 30 to hit dice and not hit with a single one.
The point is that shooting in 6th can still cripple your other units as well. I've had entire lists tabled in Eldar in four turns where the vast majority had a cover save AND FNP. And these units had jump packs.
Unless you fight on "LOS blocking world" you are fighting a major uphill battle.
Yes, cover helps, but it does't help enough. And just getting to HTH doesn't even matter unless the unit is an unkillable Deasth Star. Which can't be stopped from getting to HTH anywyay, because its unkillable.
Both players get to set up the terrain. If you let your opponent set up planet bowling ball without you putting anything in to use as cover or to block line of sight, of course, you will get hammered by shooting.
It all boils down to this, over the last....well ever since rogue trader, close combat has ruled the game. So much so that it is surprising they even had guns at all as the close combat armies pretty much got the autowin. Now, that they have balanced it, close combat armies need to use tactics and strategies instead of just running at the enemy.
It always annoys me when I see fantasy players say "40k has no tactics" because they are wrong. Unfortunately, I can see where they are coming from. Many 40k players have just never had to learn them. I have noticed that fantasy players are saying that less now as more and more 40k players are learning strategies and tactics. There will always be those who think shooting should not play a part, but I will always disagree with them as I think shooting should actually play a greater part than close combat. I am willing to settle for the current situation where they are about even without either one being predominantly too powerful.
EVIL INC wrote: over the last....well ever since rogue trader, close combat has ruled the game. So much so that it is surprising they even had guns at all as the close combat armies pretty much got the autowin. Now, that they have balanced it, close combat armies need to use tactics and strategies instead of just running at the enemy.
Go ahead and pretend I'm saying irrelevant things, but this is just completely wrong. Yes, 4th had consolidate into combat which broke things, but if you think 5th was all assault all the time you're fooling yourself. There's a reason Blood Angels (an assault marine army) spammed Razorbacks, and it wasn't because they were Assault Vehicles.
It was because they were cheap las cannons without having to buy the whole tactical or dev squad. They provided a few shots that sometimes took out a tank or two. We had a few blood angels players and in earlier editions I had started a small force of them. You actually didn't see a whole lot of them used except in apoc games. One MAYBE two in a tourney (although drop pods were usually used instead of them at all.)
Sorry, just going by what is average based on the tourney circuit. Your local club games are different from what the rest of us see. Try playing in different areas and talking with the players who play in the circuits.
Grey knights players usually go the multiple teleporting dreadknight + multiple unit teleporting fast attack spam with coatez sitting with a couple units of bolter armed henchmen in chimeras in the deployment zone route. They get one round of up close template spam shooting, endure a little return fire and then assault to win the game.
Blood angels, you usually see drop pods. deploy out to get a single round of shooting in before assaulting for the win on their next turn. Again, your local club player may use razorbacks but don't judge the world on that player's tactics.
I have seen you spend page after page after page spam that close combat is dead and spam ways to counter specific tactics (assuming you were able to see my army list before building your own and getting perfect dice rolls for the entire game). Not once have you ever tried to reason through why a build or strategy or tactic would work or how to improve the tactics or strategy that you have tried or come up with any yourself. No insult intended but I think that if you put even half as much energy into trying to work out a solution instead of flaming and trying to put down and insult those who are finding (or have found) solutions to the issues of a player having trouble adapting their play to the new edition, you would have come up with a few solutions yourself as well.
EVIL INC wrote: Sorry, just going by what is average based on the tourney circuit. Your local club games are different from what the rest of us see. Try playing in different areas and talking with the players who play in the circuits.
Grey knights players usually go the multiple teleporting dreadknight + multiple unit teleporting fast attack spam with coatez sitting with a couple units of bolter armed henchmen in chimeras in the deployment zone route. They get one round of up close template spam shooting, endure a little return fire and then assault to win the game.
Blood angels, you usually see drop pods. deploy out to get a single round of shooting in before assaulting for the win on their next turn. Again, your local club player may use razorbacks but don't judge the world on that player's tactics.
Would somebody like to post the results from some tourneys, so that we can see just how wrong EVIL INC is?
I don't actually know where to find them...
EVIL INC wrote: over the last....well ever since rogue trader, close combat has ruled the game. So much so that it is surprising they even had guns at all as the close combat armies pretty much got the autowin. Now, that they have balanced it, close combat armies need to use tactics and strategies instead of just running at the enemy.
Go ahead and pretend I'm saying irrelevant things, but this is just completely wrong. Yes, 4th had consolidate into combat which broke things, but if you think 5th was all assault all the time you're fooling yourself. There's a reason Blood Angels (an assault marine army) spammed Razorbacks, and it wasn't because they were Assault Vehicles.
I would actually say that BA were much more effective in 5th when run as a balls to the walls assault army. 2x assault termies, 2x land raiders and Mephiston was the core of my decisively most successful BA army, I won a good sized tourney with the list, and I even won most of my games at ETC with the list. I know other players (including some internet celebs) played similar lists very successfully.
GK`s did razorspam much better because of psybolts, psychic pilots and much better units inside the razorback.
"Would somebody like to post the results from some tourneys, so that we can see just how wrong EVIL INC is? " Actually go out and take part in a few and you will see just how right I am.
"Having guns is the only necessary counter to your tactics. " This is just funny. If that were even close to being true, I would not be able to trade lists and win using either one. I can win using a gunline and I can win using assault just as easily. You appear to be so intent on being "right" over a more experienced player that you are working against your own side by blindly flaming and trolling without regard to actual facts and tactics that could actually help you win more games.
We did have a grey knight try the razorback spam. Went crazy getting assault cannons to convert onto them. As soon as he realized the teleporting army-o-doom won more games, he started using it instead. I kinda copied off of him and tried similer this past tourney and came in first because of it. Luckily he wasn't there to slap me down. lol
EVIL INC wrote: Sorry, just going by what is average based on the tourney circuit. Your local club games are different from what the rest of us see. Try playing in different areas and talking with the players who play in the circuits.
Grey knights players usually go the multiple teleporting dreadknight + multiple unit teleporting fast attack spam with coatez sitting with a couple units of bolter armed henchmen in chimeras in the deployment zone route. They get one round of up close template spam shooting, endure a little return fire and then assault to win the game.
Blood angels, you usually see drop pods. deploy out to get a single round of shooting in before assaulting for the win on their next turn. Again, your local club player may use razorbacks but don't judge the world on that player's tactics.
In 6th that's true. We were talking about previous editions, remember?
I have seen you spend page after page after page spam that close combat is dead and spam ways to counter specific tactics (assuming you were able to see my army list before building your own and getting perfect dice rolls for the entire game). Not once have you ever tried to reason through why a build or strategy or tactic would work or how to improve the tactics or strategy that you have tried or come up with any yourself. No insult intended but I think that if you put even half as much energy into trying to work out a solution instead of flaming and trying to put down and insult those who are finding (or have found) solutions to the issues of a player having trouble adapting their play to the new edition, you would have come up with a few solutions yourself as well.
Then you've failed to actually read my posts. I've not flamed, insulted, or put down anyone. I have suggested ways to make it work.
You haven't suggested a strategy or tactic other than "use cover lol 4+ is everywhere".
If you spent even half the effort that you put into flaming, putting down and trying outrageous ways to deny tactics and strategies (through metagaming where you know your opponent's exact list beforehand, control dice roll results and so forth) into coming up with a few of your own, you would have some great ways of improving your game to wim more often. Likewise, you could actually try a few of them yourself and see that in many cases they do indeed work and devise ways to improve them for the times when they don't work. I have put forth several strategies, builds and tactics of which making use of the best cover possible is only a part (a common sense part at that) of each.
Something that players could do if they have trouble defeating a list is to ask their opponent if they would mind playing the exact same game over again but switch sides (the guard army stand at the same deployment zone and the bugs keep theirs but the players just play the opposite army). I found that this can help bring players new perspectives and it was not long before I saw that if I won the first game, I also won the second. When I lost the first game, I usually lost the second. Over time, I started to win more often using whichever side as I honed my playing strategies, tactics and overall playing skills.
Okay I have been watching this thread for a while and I thought it was time to join in.
First off-topic EVIL INC I am curious, would you mind naming all these tournaments that you have been to and what sort of armies you have faced? I ask because I would like to know if your tournaments are similar to the often referenced ones here and the "normal" meta" for each edition.
On-Topic:
I like assault. I have had good luck with my deathwing knights in a land raider. Its an expensive unit but it gets the job done. However I must say that shooting is the stronger method of killing in this edition. While this edition has made cover more available it is not as strong anymore with tau, eldar, and even LotD getting cover ignoring weapons.The amount of ignores cover that is now available means that true assault units must be resilient and fast to be effective. khorne dogs are a good example , the 2 wounds makes a big difference.
Going through the armies here is my take on assault for each:
SOB: can't say no local players or previous experience
BA: while they are fast they do not have the resiliency to make
CD: these guys have multiple ways to really get in your face and use cc to max effect
CSM: while they have okay units for cc the delivery issues mean that often those units will not make it to enemy lines
DA: meh the knights are good but truly terminators are not great right now even ss termies. I love using them and have good luck with them but even so just not reliable
DE:can't say no local players or previous experience
Eldar: while they have really good cc units their shooting ones are exceptionally better and kill things with fewer risks and better results
GK: very similar to eldar
IG: why assault with this army???? but really they have the blob squad power weapons
Necrons: a mid range shooting army with 1 notable assault unit mostly effective as a tarpit and not a game winner
Orks: able to do cc through mass of bodies and attrition resistance
C:SM: similar to BA in lack of resilient units. assault cents could work but have delivery issues
SW: good cc army due to counter-attack but they are good because of the shooting abilitys 5 HW longfangs, double special GH, combi termies
Tau: Assault ha ha ha good one. the only cc we have is our monstrous creature and even then you don't want a riptide in cc Nids: similar to orks but add in the big bugs to give more of a base to work off. add even here you see temiguants not hormaguants because then you can shoot then assault instead of just assault
If there's a hard as nails assault unit barreling down my throat, if you throw a couple of units shooting at me I'm not going to G2G and ignore the assault unit. I'm going to blast it off the table before it can even make an impact.
Even more so if that unit is scoring, or has your warlord in it.
The idea of covering fire doesn't make much sense to me. To force a unit to G2G you have to throw a lot of firepower into it. Which means you're essentially ignoring all the other units. If that unit is guard, it'll just GBITF and laugh at the attempt to force snap shots.
The tourneys I speak of range through Virginia, West Virginia and Maryland. Some of the precursors to the big name ones like Ard Boys but most of them regional ones where anyone from the tristate area is welcome and we get people who have played from other areas as well like PA, DC and DE. At each one, I make it a point to listen to and participate in conversation of players who have made it higher in the tourneys than myself and have "ranged further abroad" than I have so I base my posts on my own not inconsiderable anecdotal experience but also on that of players who are better and/or more experienced than myself in different areas. The second you close your mind, you are lost which is why I keep mine open and am willing to try different gaming methods.
I like your take and agree with most of it.
BA out of pods can be deadly and I have see them force shooty armies to choose who/what they shoot at well enough to ensure they make to combat. of course this is variable depending on build.
CSM, have you tried the slingshot tactic? One of the guys that comes around to our tourneys is on of the placers from the wider circuit and "national level" tourneys. He is the one who taught me the slingshot method of lord delivery that now works better than ever before. He used it to great effect to win all of his games but one I think. Sometimes he brings it, sometimes his orks and other times his grey knights. Each time he comes you can bet on him winning or placing.
Orks rolling out of trucks and battlewagons who get to enemy lines through use of the av14 and the mech save can do some damage
Bugs I have seen these players abuse sticking the very tip of a base into area terrain to give the huge monstrous critter poopers cover saves. Those huge critter poopers sitting on an objective as a troops choice sending an unending stream of bodies out to help hold. wee hoo.
This being said, one of the tactics of getting into combat is the use of shooting and the synergy of combining shooting as one of your tactics to use while assaulting. Without shooting and making use of it yourself, your guys are far less likely to make it to combat.
If you spent even half the effort that you put into flaming, putting down and trying outrageous ways to deny tactics and strategies (through metagaming where you know your opponent's exact list beforehand, control dice roll results and so forth) into coming up with a few of your own, you would have some great ways of improving your game to wim more often. Likewise, you could actually try a few of them yourself and see that in many cases they do indeed work and devise ways to improve them for the times when they don't work. I have put forth several strategies, builds and tactics of which making use of the best cover possible is only a part (a common sense part at that) of each.
Something that players could do if they have trouble defeating a list is to ask their opponent if they would mind playing the exact same game over again but switch sides (the guard army stand at the same deployment zone and the bugs keep theirs but the players just play the opposite army). I found that this can help bring players new perspectives and it was not long before I saw that if I won the first game, I also won the second. When I lost the first game, I usually lost the second. Over time, I started to win more often using whichever side as I honed my playing strategies, tactics and overall playing skills.
The context of his razorspam quote was in relation to 5th editon BA and GK tactics and army builds.
A brief history of competitive gaming over the last 5 years.....
5th edition started out reasonably balanced between melee and shooting, with Nidzilla, Nob bikers, and the Chaos Lash lists were all bigger melee builds. Once 5th rolled around in earnest the first handful of codexes were Space Marines (shooting, and a good book), Imperial guard (shooting, and STILL a solid book), Space Wolves (remember long fang spam? Pretty balanced between shooting and melee actually, THE top tier book), Tyranids (killed monstrous builds pretty bad, poor book), then Blood Angels (balanced and solid book) and Dark Eldar (solid book, extremely shooting heavy).
Around the release of the Dark Eldar book, mech was pretty main stream with parking lots everywhere, what the DE book did though was popularize the Darklight/double cannon Venom spam. It has so many poisoned shots and S8 AP2 shots that anything not in extremely heavy cover or a vehicle was annihilated off the board by the end of turn 2. I'm talking 30+ Lance shots and 100+ poison shots per turn.
Following that debacle was the GK codex about 5 months later....and we all know what that book was about. Basically wall to wall psycannons everywhere and troops that were solid enough to deter ANY attempt to dislodge them in melee.
For the remaining year and change of 5th edition GKs pretty much swept up tournaments with some SW, IG and the odd "other" popping up here and there. Necrons were regarded as a solid army, but nothing top tier.
5th edition was the "Vehicle spam edition" with shooting being more effective than melee. As an example of a top end player's winning list, I submit Tony Kopach's dominating Space Wolf list from 2011http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Tony-Kupach-Space-Wolves-1st-Seed.pdf. He basically swept tournys in 2011 one after another with that list or a similar derivation of it. It's rhino and/or razor borne grey hunters with combi-melta wolf guard, max long fangs with missiles and Njal leading it. Very troop heavy and build to break vehicles by the dozen....which is what did well in 2011. His troops were also extremely solid in melee, which made his opponents unable to rush headlong into close combat for an advantage.
The start of 6th edition was....chaotic, and that's not a pun on chaos being good or anything either. Vehicles took some huge nerfs, melee was weakened further and allies were thrown in. The first few months of 6th saw an evolution of the top 5th edition lists (SW, IG and GK) adding in allies and still doing solid. 2012 Nova was won by a SW/IG list actually, with a huge 50 man IG blob with power axes. Necron flier spam/wraith wing was then on the rise, and they proceeded to do extremely well in late 2012 and early 2013, with the new chaos codex making a splash with the helldrake in several allied formats. Early 2013 was also a bi-monthly meta shift, with DA, then Demons, Tau, Eldar and Space Marines being released in rapid succession. DA didn't make a peep at all, beyond some interesting theory crafting around the banner of devastation. Demons were regarded as weak and random as hell when the book first hit, and it took 2-3 months and a couple of top tourny placings for the Khornedog and Screamerstar to be taken seriously. Tau were also regarded as mediocre/marginally above average at release, but they quickly started sweeping competitive matches, which is pretty much the same thing that happened to Eldar. When people started using Eldar and Tau together they found the new meta champion. Space marines haven't been very loud in the competitive environment from what I've seen so far, but they've had a few top 5 finishes and stomped a few smaller RTTs out there though, time will tell, but I don't see C:SM being more than "slightly above the middle of the pack".
At the moment the absolute cluster-feth of supplements and codexes are stirring the meta pretty crazily, but Eldar/Tau are consistently coming out on top, with demons hanging out close behind.
Here's the Nova 2013 results starting with army representation;
Players - 223
Blood Angels - 7
Daemons - 37
CSM - 16
DA - 14
Dark Eldar - 7
Eldar - 28
Grey Knights - 12
IG - 15
Necron - 22
Orks - 5
Sisters of Battle - 3
Space Marine - 4
Space Wolves - 9
Tau - 37
Tyranids - 7
Players - 223
That's right. . . 44% of the field was primary detachment of Tau, Eldar or Daemons
And the top 30 finishers....
Top 30
Eldar
Tau
Tau
Eldar
Tau
IG DA Tau
Grey Knights
Tau
Tau
Necrons
Daemons
Necrons
Eldar
Daemons
Eldar
Daemons
Eldar
Eldar
Eldar
Daemons
Daemons
Daemons
Tau
Blood Angels
Daemons
Daemons
Eldar
Tau
I think that paints a pretty solid picture of Tau, Eldar and Demons being your top armies ATM.
Look, I'm not saying melee is dead, or that it's awful, but the top armies ATM are super shooty. Any melee they take is to deter their opponents from getting into melee with them, not as a primary way to accomplish their mission.
I don't think melee is "dead", but "melee units" are largely dead, with only a few exceptions. Khornedogs, monstrous creatures and a few other select units are still solid as primary melee units, the main problem is that most melee units are 10-30% over priced in comparison to their shooting counterparts as GW just doesn't get the balance of melee and shooting ATM. A good player can easily overcome a 10-25% handicap against a mediocre opponent, which is why you see some people pop up and say "Melee is still awesome! I win all the time with my assault marine BA list!", but then you are playing someone every bit as good as you are, even a 5% handicap in army list power is going to be rather telling. The top end of the bigger tournaments are pretty uniform in their army representation, so these armies and lists are showing what works well for their points, and there's only 1 melee heavy army in there....and that's demons.
EVIL INC wrote: over the last....well ever since rogue trader, close combat has ruled the game. So much so that it is surprising they even had guns at all as the close combat armies pretty much got the autowin. Now, that they have balanced it, close combat armies need to use tactics and strategies instead of just running at the enemy.
Go ahead and pretend I'm saying irrelevant things, but this is just completely wrong. Yes, 4th had consolidate into combat which broke things, but if you think 5th was all assault all the time you're fooling yourself. There's a reason Blood Angels (an assault marine army) spammed Razorbacks, and it wasn't because they were Assault Vehicles.
You started the discussion, I replied. In the context of the discussion you started, we were not talking about 6th edition.
If you spent even half the effort that you put into flaming, putting down and trying outrageous ways to deny tactics and strategies (through metagaming where you know your opponent's exact list beforehand, control dice roll results and so forth) into coming up with a few of your own, you would have some great ways of improving your game to wim more often. Likewise, you could actually try a few of them yourself and see that in many cases they do indeed work and devise ways to improve them for the times when they don't work. I have put forth several strategies, builds and tactics of which making use of the best cover possible is only a part (a common sense part at that) of each.
No, you haven't. You've put forth a mysterious 4+ cover save and refused - despite being asked politely - more information on how to achieve that. I've put forth my ideas on assault in 6th. And I win plenty of games, thanks. I don't have to tailor my lists, I don't have to "control dice roll results"... I know the rules and the opponents codex.
He was mistaken. We are not discussing 5th edition at all. The current edition is 6th so that is the edition we are discussing.
The thread is dedicated to helping people play more effectively in the current edition, not previous ones.
"mysterious 4+ cover saves", Believe it or not, despite your protestations, it IS possible to get a cover save of 6+, 5+, even 4+ or better given the terrain/wargear. I don't understand why you keep insisting that getting a cover save is impossible. I also fail to see why you insist on getting a cover save is such a bad thing. the ability to get a cover save to prevent models from suffering wounds as they advance towards the enemy can indeed ensure that more of the models reach the enemy.
If you put half as much effort into working on a solution to your inability to reach close combat as you do into flaming, trolling and doing your best to extend some sort of personal vendetta, you would already reaching close combat and winning games.
EVIL INC wrote: He was mistaken. We are not discussing 5th edition at all. The current edition is 6th so that is the edition we are discussing.
The thread is dedicated to helping people play more effectively in the current edition, not previous ones.
"mysterious 4+ cover saves", Believe it or not, despite your protestations, it IS possible to get a cover save of 6+, 5+, even 4+ or better given the terrain/wargear. I don't understand why you keep insisting that getting a cover save is impossible. I also fail to see why you insist on getting a cover save is such a bad thing. the ability to get a cover save to prevent models from suffering wounds as they advance towards the enemy can indeed ensure that more of the models reach the enemy.
If you put half as much effort into working on a solution to your inability to reach close combat as you do into flaming, trolling and doing your best to extend some sort of personal vendetta, you would already reaching close combat and winning games.
Cover saves no matter how good they are wont help you much in the current meta, the top meta lists have far too much ignores cover(serpent shields, marker lights, buffmanders, helldrakes) or simply sheer volume of st6/7 shooting that they can obliterate your advancing assault units unless you have a re-rollable 2++ or something equally broken, typical assault units are basically boned. You can pretty much count the number of competative assault units on your 10 fingers, there's that few of them and they're generally obsurdly tough and move at least 12 inches.
EVIL INC wrote: He was mistaken. We are not discussing 5th edition at all. The current edition is 6th so that is the edition we are discussing.
The thread is dedicated to helping people play more effectively in the current edition, not previous ones.
"mysterious 4+ cover saves", Believe it or not, despite your protestations, it IS possible to get a cover save of 6+, 5+, even 4+ or better given the terrain/wargear. I don't understand why you keep insisting that getting a cover save is impossible. I also fail to see why you insist on getting a cover save is such a bad thing. the ability to get a cover save to prevent models from suffering wounds as they advance towards the enemy can indeed ensure that more of the models reach the enemy.
If you put half as much effort into working on a solution to your inability to reach close combat as you do into flaming, trolling and doing your best to extend some sort of personal vendetta, you would already reaching close combat and winning games.
Lol, I don't think he ever said it is impossible, he just said it isn't as common as you think it is.
And also when you mention the wargear that units have that does up it to a 4+ are normally not assault units.
EVIL INC wrote: He was mistaken. We are not discussing 5th edition at all. The current edition is 6th so that is the edition we are discussing.
Sure, just ignore the tangent you started because you made incorrect statements. That's the way to win friends and influence people.
"mysterious 4+ cover saves", Believe it or not, despite your protestations, it IS possible to get a cover save of 6+, 5+, even 4+ or better given the terrain/wargear.
Thank you for admitting it requires specific wargear. Meaning it's not as common as you initially asserted. So you're admitting you were wrong without actually saying those words - I'll take it though.
I don't understand why you keep insisting that getting a cover save is impossible. I also fail to see why you insist on getting a cover save is such a bad thing.
I've never said either of these things. Ever. Please don't misquote me.
the ability to get a cover save to prevent models from suffering wounds as they advance towards the enemy can indeed ensure that more of the models reach the enemy.
Thanks Mr. Obvious! I wasn't aware of that vital fact!
If you put half as much effort into working on a solution to your inability to reach close combat as you do into flaming, trolling and doing your best to extend some sort of personal vendetta, you would already reaching close combat and winning games.
Please quote the insults. Please quote the flaming and trolling. There's no personal vendetta here - I just dislike someone who refuses to prove an assertion that is blatantly false.
I am reaching close combat. I am winning games. My problem is with the way you say "Just get 4+ cover it's easy." and then refuse to explain that. Continuously. You do realize that wording it that way literally helps no one?
If you think that cover saves are worthless, Than I assume that if you ever play me, you will refuse to roll for them?
Rigeld, you have trolled and trolled and flamed and generally made yourself look foolish. I have effectively proven my point yet you insist on continuing. It IS possible to use cover to get into assault range of the enemy. It IS possible to get cover saves of 6+, 5+, 4+ or even better as I have stated from post #1. This has been proven thousands of times across the world by players. It IS possible to use tactics and strategy to win games and close combat is not worthless.
If you put half the effort that you put into trolling forums attempting to instigate drama into learning tactics and strategy or trying to find solutions to your inability to overcome your in-game weaknesses, you would likely have overcome them and be winning many more games.
EVIL INC wrote: If you think that cover saves are worthless, Than I assume that if you ever play me, you will refuse to roll for them?
Rigeld, you have trolled and trolled and flamed and generally made yourself look foolish. I have effectively proven my point yet you insist on continuing. It IS possible to use cover to get into assault range of the enemy. It IS possible to get cover saves of 6+, 5+, 4+ or even better as I have stated from post #1. This has been proven thousands of times across the world by players. It IS possible to use tactics and strategy to win games and close combat is not worthless.
If you put half the effort that you put into trolling forums attempting to instigate drama into learning tactics and strategy or trying to find solutions to your inability to overcome your in-game weaknesses, you would likely have overcome them and be winning many more games.
Okay after this post I must really say EVIL INC you just do not get it at all. The discussion put forth (yes it was a discussion and not trolling or flaming) has demonstrated that while cover saves are quite available on tables. They do not solve the issue of getting cc units into combat. You have put forth 1 strategy, no builds, limited tactics and generally unhelpful posts. That 1 strategy involves the "slingshot" and is unusable by many cc units because they lack either the speed or durability to be effective while spread out as such.
You have continually misquoted and mis-represented the posts that are put forth by others and repeatedly called respected dakkanaughts trolls and flamers. You have not demonstrated that you have tactical skill that would lead to your claims of skill. You have not been able to give any meaningful tactics on combating the top tier armies that are present in every recent tournament (namely tau, eldar, IG, and allied forms thereof). You continue to say things that boil down to "use cover" "be more skilled" or "stop trolling". If you have any real advice to give present a cc oriented army list in a vacuum and describe how you would effectively use its strengths against a variety of opponents. Or failing that why don't you take a unit and describe why it is good for assault and give some situations that can be overcome by your VAST knowledge of the game.
I'm sorry if this appears to you as offensive but I will not watch this thread and the others you have posted in and continue as you flame those that are trying to engage you in a discussion and logically showing you that your posts are
1) inaccurate
2) unhelpful
3) overly prideful
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.
Not once have I EVER said they are the end all be all to getting into combat. The cover save is only a small part of what needs to be taken into account when devising tactics and strategies for getting into close combat. This is also what they are contesting. I have put forth several builds, strategies and tactics that including taking cover into account while implementing them along with helpful posts. At least until the flame brigade showed up, then I have spent my time responding to their flames and trolling. I am not the only one who has proven them wrong on this (I am left to assume it is personal because when others have chimed in telling them I was right on something, they do not respond to those others instead centering their attention on me and respamming the flames), but I am the only one not letting them get away with it.
if you believe as they do that I have never won a game in my life and will never win a game in my life, by all means, play me in a game. You may win because unlike them, I do not claim to be God skill level with the ability to see your army list before a game and tailor my own to counter it and I also do not have their ability to determine the dice results before rolling the dice, however, I can bet you that the game would not be as easy as you think it would be.
Notice, that I have not given a lot of builds. This is because I usually play in tournaments. I have to build a take all comers list not knowing exactly what I will be facing. I could sit here and write up 5 lists for each army out that a player can win with or have a good chance of winning with that have units in them that can turn the tide of the battle in hand to hand combat. However, that does not add to the conversation because you could do as they have been doing and metagame with the assumption that you will know my exact list beforehand and be able to tailor to counter it. "Well, if you take drop pods, I will take this negating them". What is important are the tactics and strategies that are more "generic" that would aply to multiple armies and units that can allow you to win with your own army or to win with the opponants if you were to switch.
EVIL INC wrote: I have put forth several builds, strategies and tactics that including taking cover into account while implementing them along with helpful posts.
Really though? Have you?
I distinctly recall that Selym politely asked you early in this thread (Page 1 I believe) to put forth a solid CC oriented list, or even a core to build around.
You deferred him to the army list section and somehow dodged it entirely.
The rest of your 'helpful' posts have been about using 4+ cover saves, which as has been shown to be the exception to the standard 5+ cover, despite the fact that the two top armies have easy access to ignore cover weaponry en masse.
So, why don't you actually put forward some genuine lists, builds, and tactics that don't revolve around 'just having 4+ cover in the open' and maybe take the time to actually read and understand what others are saying.
No one here has been trolling, or flaming, or anything else you accuse them of. When you post tactics, they're expected to be good, useful, and backed with proper knowledge of the rules. Start delivering.
EVIL INC wrote: These others are saying that it is not possible to get cover saves with assaulting units as they cross the table.
That's a lie. I've corrected you before where it might have been a mistake, but continuing to say it is simply a lie.
if you believe as they do that I have never won a game in my life and will never win a game in my life, by all means, play me in a game.
I've never said that. Please cite support for your assertion - why do you think that?
You may win because unlike them, I do not claim to be God skill level with the ability to see your army list before a game and tailor my own to counter it and I also do not have their ability to determine the dice results before rolling the dice, however, I can bet you that the game would not be as easy as you think it would be.
Please don't lie about what I (and others) have said.
Despite your assertions I can promise you I'm not trolling. I'm trying to help your thread by offering correct information.
Which is why I asked for clarification (which you refused to offer). Which is why I have posted the 3 things an assault unit needs in 6th edition.
Mike712 wrote: Cover saves no matter how good they are wont help you much in the current meta, the top meta lists have far too much ignores cover(serpent shields, marker lights, buffmanders, helldrakes) or simply sheer volume of st6/7 shooting that they can obliterate your advancing assault units unless you have a re-rollable 2++ or something equally broken, typical assault units are basically boned. You can pretty much count the number of competative assault units on your 10 fingers, there's that few of them and they're generally obsurdly tough and move at least 12 inches.
This is a fallacy. Cover is very much effective against the current meta. This seems like an assumption that every model in said enemy army will ignore cover. They do not, and typically they use their powerful Ignore Cover weapons on high quality targets.
As far as making CC viable, it entirely relies on speed. Eldar jetbikes, jetpack cavalry, beasts, jump infantry etc.. are great ways to get into combat fast. I play Nids vs these new gunline armies and I have never failed to make CC with the models I needed to.
EVIL INC wrote: over the last....well ever since rogue trader, close combat has ruled the game. So much so that it is surprising they even had guns at all as the close combat armies pretty much got the autowin. Now, that they have balanced it, close combat armies need to use tactics and strategies instead of just running at the enemy.
Go ahead and pretend I'm saying irrelevant things, but this is just completely wrong. Yes, 4th had consolidate into combat which broke things, but if you think 5th was all assault all the time you're fooling yourself. There's a reason Blood Angels (an assault marine army) spammed Razorbacks, and it wasn't because they were Assault Vehicles.
I would actually say that BA were much more effective in 5th when run as a balls to the walls assault army. 2x assault termies, 2x land raiders and Mephiston was the core of my decisively most successful BA army, I won a good sized tourney with the list, and I even won most of my games at ETC with the list. I know other players (including some internet celebs) played similar lists very successfully.
GK`s did razorspam much better because of psybolts, psychic pilots and much better units inside the razorback.
My razorspam list would crush that BA list you propose. I know this, because I faced that list many times in 5th.
Mike712 wrote: Cover saves no matter how good they are wont help you much in the current meta, the top meta lists have far too much ignores cover(serpent shields, marker lights, buffmanders, helldrakes) or simply sheer volume of st6/7 shooting that they can obliterate your advancing assault units unless you have a re-rollable 2++ or something equally broken, typical assault units are basically boned. You can pretty much count the number of competative assault units on your 10 fingers, there's that few of them and they're generally obsurdly tough and move at least 12 inches.
This is a fallacy. Cover is very much effective against the current meta. This seems like an assumption that every model in said enemy army will ignore cover. They do not, and typically they use their powerful Ignore Cover weapons on high quality targets.
As far as making CC viable, it entirely relies on speed. Eldar jetbikes, jetpack cavalry, beasts, jump infantry etc.. are great ways to get into combat fast. I play Nids vs these new gunline armies and I have never failed to make CC with the models I needed to.
It's not a fallacy when Tau and Eldar can spam enough wounds to cripple your units through the cover saves. Nids might work, but jump pack marines demonstrably don't.
Actually there IS an army list building section which is better suited for building lists.
The reason is We can sit all day with me spending hours building different effective lists that contain units in them that can be used in close combat to turn the tide of a game if needed to. In turn he can sit and meta game under the assumption he will know my exact army list before making his own and thus be able to tailor his to counter my list every time, make the statement that there will be no terrain on the table to benefit my army (despite the fact that the rules allow for me to have an equal part of setting it up), and control the dice "you will fail your armor and cover saves every time while I will never miss or fail to wound". The tactics section is designed for just that, tactics.
Again, making use of terrain cover, artificial cover and terrain to totally block line of sight to prevent the enemy from shooting you at all is not an overall tactics in and of itself. It is only a small part of tactics that needs to be taken into consideration.
It does not matter if the cover save is 6+, 5+, 4+ or even better, getting a saving throw when you would not otherwise have one is beneficial to your units. Even better if you are able to use buildings/rock outcrops/whatever to TOTALLY block line of sight to prevent getting shot at at all.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ways to assist with this is to have a part in the terrain at your home or local gaming store. A. You can of course get GW buildings and position the doors and windows on the lower levels to be closed in order block line of sight. B. I have seen many places use tiles to mount their building on in order to make them more sturdy and spiced the tile up to match the building. Players will often discuss before the game and rule that the entire tile offers area terrain to match the building to represent rocks and rubble having fallen from it. C. When building your terrain, make several sets of large rock outcrops or other things that can totally block line of sight. These often look really nice and when a board is set up with several of them used at once, it gives a whole different "feel" than buildings every time .D. Make some themed boards, have you ever played on foamboards where rivers and trenches or gulleys and such were build in? I realize that not everyone's home has room for these but shops will usually have at LEAST one and if your willing to help make one, they will invariable let you use shop supplies if your building it for them.
When setting up the table don't fall into the habit of just sitting buildings in the deployment zones and placing a few craters in the middle. Watch what the opponent sets up and play the deployment itself as though it is part of the game. Look where he is setting up fire lanes and block them off while setting up your own protected highways. I am guilty of playing into an enemies hands at this part by setting up what "looks" cool and at times end up playing on fields that look like the grand canyons that are loaded with mountains and rock outcroppings because it looks nice. Don't let your opponent bully you into not placing something you want "you cant put that rock there, its in the middle of the city". When it's your turn to place, YOU get to choose the piece, Remember, it will help affect if you win or lose later in the actual game.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The denied flank (Someone else who was familiar with it posted the official name but I forget it and don't remember what thread it was in). Mind you, this falls under strategies more so than tactics but close enough for our purposes.
This has actually made a comeback as the whole whoever gets first turn sets thier entire army up first instead of trading deployment of units. This is something to keep in the back of your mind because it is a tactic that works best if used under certain situations. These situations usually consist of A. Your opponent winning the first turn/deployment and B. They play the entire field trying to ensure that they have all avenues of approach covered (which gunlines usually do).
You observe the enemy deployment, possibly measure the ranges of his weapons, take into account which side has longer range and speed of units. Pick the side you want to work on first based on whatever qualifications suit you (this side has the artillery and I want to get into their minimum fir range early while taking away the advantage of it's long range, the other side is foot sloggers with short range weapons, whatever suits YOUR needs). Position as much of your army as you can focused entirely on that one flank. To avoid overcrowding, put your faster units closer a little further away but still able to reach that flank to focus on it right off.
Now, assuming you wont steal the initiative, half of his army will have to either sit still and twiddle their thumbs with nothing in range or move giving you a full turn reprieve from the guns of half (or some other large percentage probably close to 25 totally not shooting and 25 shooting ineffectually. While you are able to overload a small portion of their army with more units than they can shoot at. What usually happens is that you swamp and snuff out that flank killing half of their army while only suffering minimal casualties with the rest of their army trickling in towards you piecemeal depending upon the speed of his different units. While you are ensconced in the defenses.
Of course, if you are able to steal the initiative, it makes it even easier for you.
That being said, it does not work every time and there are ways to counter it just as there are with any strategy. This is one of the strategies I posted earlier that was totally dismissed as never working and being totally not useful. However, I have seen it work to great effect and I have used it myself to practically table opponents.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Slingshotting
This is another that I put forth earlier that was totally dismissed as being totally worthless and not worthy of acknowledging. However I have seen it used to great effect(against me was the first time I saw it, then I watched the guy do it to others with the same effect). As it is not something I have ever tried only seeing a national tourney guy (one of a large group that goes to different tourneys every weekend throughout the year to mop up the "local yokals" and walk out with the prizes, but tot talk with him, he is actually a nice guy) so forgive me if I dont have a full grasp of it's mechanics. Again, I mentioned this before and one of the other posters had actually seen it as well and piped in with a clarification to help explain it after which on of my fan club shut up about it.
I saw it used with chaos to deliver super slicer chaord lord goodness into my lines. He attached his lord to a maxed out unit of chaos spawn with the mark of nurgle. Even tau are hard pressed to kill 3 or more of them in a single turn of shooting with normal terrain and such. He strings them towards me in a single file line with the lord at the back. With thier speed, they can reach me on turn 2 so I only get a single turn of shooting at them 2 if I get first turn. Only a single one has to reach combat for the entire rest of the unit to be protected and unable to be shot at. This then slingshots the lord into combat from the middle of the table. of course, that is not the only unit coming at me, there are also another spawn squad and big vehicular daemon engine nastyness and so forth as well which causes me to be unable to effectively focus fire on any one single target.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This is something else I mentioned that was ignored. Not really a tactic but can help the strategy.
Although not specifically offering lists, the evolution of the game decrees that with each edition some units become more or less useful. Some become all powerfull while yet others such as the berserker can become practically obsolete. Personally, I am a conspiracy theorist and feel that thisis often done "on purpose" to force us as players to constantly be forced to buy new and different models to remain competative.
It would be too exausting for me to do a unit by unit analysys for every army. I'm a horrible hunt and peck typer as it is and dont have every codex on me. Suffice to say, that I will assume you can read and make your own decisionsas well as find out firsthand yourself through game play which units are now better suited for what role, what models to pack away until they become useful again and what units to put on your christmas or "to buy" list.
I am pretty sure that if you use the same list as last edition in the same manner you used it then now, you may find it harder to win. For example you may find that now termagants popping out of drop pods are now more effective than hormagaunt rushing.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Guns do play a more important role in the game than ever before. This is only right because it is a science fiction game where the fluff has them being everywhere. However, it is also a grim forboding and dark furure where monsters lurk everywhere so close combat need to play an important role as well (which it does). Getting into combat should not be easy, it should take skill, tactics and strategy to get to that point because when the monster is upon you and you fire off that last wild reflexive trigger pull, you will most likely be dead.
As I said before, the thread is designed for players to put forth actual tactics, strategies, one trick ponies and ideas to help players make it to close combat and be more effective at it. This is what we should be posting.
Slingshotting
This is another that I put forth earlier that was totally dismissed as being totally worthless and not worthy of acknowledging. However I have seen it used to great effect(against me was the first time I saw it, then I watched the guy do it to others with the same effect). As it is not something I have ever tried only seeing a national tourney guy (one of a large group that goes to different tourneys every weekend throughout the year to mop up the "local yokals" and walk out with the prizes, but tot talk with him, he is actually a nice guy) so forgive me if I dont have a full grasp of it's mechanics. Again, I mentioned this before and one of the other posters had actually seen it as well and piped in with a clarification to help explain it after which on of my fan club shut up about it.
I saw it used with chaos to deliver super slicer chaord lord goodness into my lines. He attached his lord to a maxed out unit of chaos spawn with the mark of nurgle. Even tau are hard pressed to kill 3 or more of them in a single turn of shooting with normal terrain and such. He strings them towards me in a single file line with the lord at the back. With thier speed, they can reach me on turn 2 so I only get a single turn of shooting at them 2 if I get first turn. Only a single one has to reach combat for the entire rest of the unit to be protected and unable to be shot at. This then slingshots the lord into combat from the middle of the table. of course, that is not the only unit coming at me, there are also another spawn squad and big vehicular daemon engine nastyness and so forth as well which causes me to be unable to effectively focus fire on any one single target.
It's a decent tactic - the mistake you made in presenting it was saying that close combat blocks line of sight.
Martel732 wrote: It's not a fallacy when Tau and Eldar can spam enough wounds to cripple your units through the cover saves. Nids might work, but jump pack marines demonstrably don't.
What weapons are you spamming that are AP 1/2 at a Jump pack marine unit to force it to take cover saves and not their basic armor save? Those weapons should be hitting higher value targets. But even still Tau and Eldar do not throw enough Ignore Cover wounds around like you are saying.
Martel732 wrote: It's not a fallacy when Tau and Eldar can spam enough wounds to cripple your units through the cover saves. Nids might work, but jump pack marines demonstrably don't.
What weapons are you spamming that are AP 1/2 at a Jump pack marine unit to force it to take cover saves and not their basic armor save? Those weapons should be hitting higher value targets. But even still Tau and Eldar do not throw enough Ignore Cover wounds around like you are saying.
Tau do, Eldar most of the time just put enough wounds enough on you that you die regardless.
You (or another member of my fan club) totally dismissed it as rubbish when I brought it up before. Someone pointed out that it did not block line of sight and I researched it. That was a matter of playing catch up (we have all done that on different aspects going from one edition to another) and being wrong on that aspect and posting as much in a follow up post. Regardless of actually blocking line of sight, it can still force the opponent to shoot through a unit (providing a 5+ save to their target) instead of shooting at the unit itself when they can see the lord out in the open in the middle of the field. He can literally thumb his nose and moonwalk his way into the close combat his spawn beat him to.
Fragile and Makutsu, you both have valid points. However, there are a few things I would point out...
1. Not everyone plays tau or elder
2. Not all tau or elder use the same build. Yes, you will find that certain variations are predominant but even then, you'll find small differences.
3. It is possible to measure out their ranges and ensure that you can decide which of their units can shoot at which of yours
4. true the amount of firepower they can put out could possibly wipe out an entire assault unit but for them to focus that much firepower on it from all of their different units, other units of yours will not be getting shot at (yeah yeah, I know, tau can split fire but we all agree that they are broken)
5. When it comes down to it, roll those dice for those cover saves they are making you roll. there is always the possibility you could be lucky roll all 5s and 6s. getting the chance to roll the dice and have a possibility of saving models is always better than just removing them from the table without having the chance to roll the dice at all.
Martel732 wrote: It's not a fallacy when Tau and Eldar can spam enough wounds to cripple your units through the cover saves. Nids might work, but jump pack marines demonstrably don't.
What weapons are you spamming that are AP 1/2 at a Jump pack marine unit to force it to take cover saves and not their basic armor save? Those weapons should be hitting higher value targets. But even still Tau and Eldar do not throw enough Ignore Cover wounds around like you are saying.
Tau do, Eldar most of the time just put enough wounds enough on you that you die regardless.
Sounds like you should concede when you play a Tau or Eldar, since you missed my question entirely.
Martel732 wrote: It's not a fallacy when Tau and Eldar can spam enough wounds to cripple your units through the cover saves. Nids might work, but jump pack marines demonstrably don't.
What weapons are you spamming that are AP 1/2 at a Jump pack marine unit to force it to take cover saves and not their basic armor save? Those weapons should be hitting higher value targets. But even still Tau and Eldar do not throw enough Ignore Cover wounds around like you are saying.
They don't have to ignore cover. They just make you roll so much you fail.
Martel732 wrote: It's not a fallacy when Tau and Eldar can spam enough wounds to cripple your units through the cover saves. Nids might work, but jump pack marines demonstrably don't.
What weapons are you spamming that are AP 1/2 at a Jump pack marine unit to force it to take cover saves and not their basic armor save? Those weapons should be hitting higher value targets. But even still Tau and Eldar do not throw enough Ignore Cover wounds around like you are saying.
Tau do, Eldar most of the time just put enough wounds enough on you that you die regardless.
Sounds like you should concede when you play a Tau or Eldar, since you missed my question entirely.
I do find that conceding would save me a lot of time and frustration.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Although not specifically offering lists, the evolution of the game decrees that with each edition some units become more or less useful. Some become all powerfull while yet others such as the berserker can become practically obsolete. Personally, I am a conspiracy theorist and feel that thisis often done "on purpose" to force us as players to constantly be forced to buy new and different models to remain competative. "
If GW is this clever, I can't see it, because they leaves units crappy for decades at a time. That has to hurt sales.
"4. true the amount of firepower they can put out could possibly wipe out an entire assault unit but for them to focus that much firepower on it from all of their different units, other units of yours will not be getting shot at (yeah yeah, I know, tau can split fire but we all agree that they are broken)"
I've had Eldar cripple 4 units in one turn once I got within catapult range. They don't have to KILL a unit, just cripple it for HTH purposes. Meqs, in particular, aren't THAT good in HTH that they can win 4:1.
EVIL INC wrote: You (or another member of my fan club) totally dismissed it as rubbish when I brought it up before. Someone pointed out that it did not block line of sight and I researched it. That was a matter of playing catch up (we have all done that on different aspects going from one edition to another) and being wrong on that aspect and posting as much in a follow up post. Regardless of actually blocking line of sight, it can still force the opponent to shoot through a unit (providing a 5+ save to their target) instead of shooting at the unit itself when they can see the lord out in the open in the middle of the field. He can literally thumb his nose and moonwalk his way into the close combat his spawn beat him to.
Sorry - I must have missed the post with the bolded statement (and can't find it in this thread). Where did you admit you were wrong?
Yes, a 5+ cover is easy to get. No one has ever said otherwise. It's the elusive 4+ you asserted was easy and refuse to explain why...
Slingshotting is good but not that reliable (IMO). I always grab cover with my FMCs, usually with my Tervigons, and always with my podfexes. With my spawned gants I rarely do because I don't want to slow them down and I want my opponent to waste shots on them.
Martel732 wrote: They don't have to ignore cover. They just make you roll so much you fail.
This is a completely different issue. Your going from cover is useless because the enemy has all Ignore Cover weapons to cover is useless because he has a very high quantity of fire.
I do find that conceding would save me a lot of time and frustration.
Meta's will change when people adapt to their opponents. Start changing what the Eldar are facing and you might be able to overcome this frustation.
I've had Eldar cripple 4 units in one turn once I got within catapult range. They don't have to KILL a unit, just cripple it for HTH purposes. Meqs, in particular, aren't THAT good in HTH that they can win 4:1.
What did you do to cripple their firepower before you got there ?
Martel732 wrote: It's not a fallacy when Tau and Eldar can spam enough wounds to cripple your units through the cover saves. Nids might work, but jump pack marines demonstrably don't.
What weapons are you spamming that are AP 1/2 at a Jump pack marine unit to force it to take cover saves and not their basic armor save? Those weapons should be hitting higher value targets. But even still Tau and Eldar do not throw enough Ignore Cover wounds around like you are saying.
Tau do, Eldar most of the time just put enough wounds enough on you that you die regardless.
Sounds like you should concede when you play a Tau or Eldar, since you missed my question entirely.
Huh? How does saying what their guns do mean that I should auto concede?
I am confused :S
As said above, they don't really care about cover, they force so many wounds on you that you will fail.
Well, if you are talking about AP2 Ignore Cover, then the Riptide is probably the prime unit that actually does that.
If it gets a hit on the scatter, you lose 4-6 power/termi armor generally, and that means you lose 2"- 4" to get to assault.
Martel732 wrote: They don't have to ignore cover. They just make you roll so much you fail.
This is a completely different issue. Your going from cover is useless because the enemy has all Ignore Cover weapons to cover is useless because he has a very high quantity of fire.
I do find that conceding would save me a lot of time and frustration.
Meta's will change when people adapt to their opponents. Start changing what the Eldar are facing and you might be able to overcome this frustation.
I've had Eldar cripple 4 units in one turn once I got within catapult range. They don't have to KILL a unit, just cripple it for HTH purposes. Meqs, in particular, aren't THAT good in HTH that they can win 4:1.
What did you do to cripple their firepower before you got there ?
I never claimed that cover was useless because of "Ignore Cover" mechanics to my knowledge. Rather, cover is *insufficient* because Tau and Eldar are rolling buckets of dice.
In the game I"m referring to, it was a BA ASM jumper list, so I wasn't able to cripple their firepower before I arrived. BA can't afford to bring enough bodies and have significant shooting throw weight. I was just highlighting that it's critical to shoot back in an effective way, and that's where I feel that meqs fall apart in 6th.
If it was not in this thread, it was in one of the many others you have stalked me through. I wondering why you were still going on and on about it. lol
5+ is still better than no save at all and can help keep models alive. 4+ may be harder to get but not impossible. One of the ways is through area terrain. Check out my suggestion on basing buildings on tiles to make them sturdier and then using the entire tile as area terrain to represent rubble fallen from the ruin. Instead of letting your gunline opponent trick you into only putting them in deployment zones, put some across the middle of the table as well. An assault army/or shooty army for that matter can lose the game in the setting up of the table.
I did not say slingshotting was the end all be all tactic. It is only one and even then, is not that effective with all armies. That is the point of the thread, for others to put forth their tactics and strategies as well. I'm not the font of all knowledge. I want others to put their ideas out too so that I can learn as well.
Martel732 , true, a unit of guys in cover will likely fail enough saves to get wiped out from the concentrated fire of an entire army. Their buddies in other units will raise a memorial to them after the game as they are not getting shot at as they proceed unmolested. Fragile, your right, it is a dynamic game where players should evolve along with their tactics. I myself never use the same list twice building a new one from scratch before every game or before every tourney.
EVIL INC wrote: If it was not in this thread, it was in one of the many others you have stalked me through. I wondering why you were still going on and on about it. lol
That's fair - I haven't "stalked" you through multiple threads. I honestly couldn't care less about you as an individual I just want what anyone posts to be correct information.
5+ is still better than no save at all and can help keep models alive. 4+ may be harder to get but not impossible. One of the ways is through area terrain. Check out my suggestion on basing buildings on tiles to make them sturdier and then using the entire tile as area terrain to represent rubble fallen from the ruin. Instead of letting your gunline opponent trick you into only putting them in deployment zones, put some across the middle of the table as well. An assault army/or shooty army for that matter can lose the game in the setting up of the table.
Area terrain isn't 4+ cover... Ruins are, but the base is explicitly not (meaning you only get a 4+ if you're obscured by the ruins, based or not).
EVIL INC wrote: over the last....well ever since rogue trader, close combat has ruled the game. So much so that it is surprising they even had guns at all as the close combat armies pretty much got the autowin. Now, that they have balanced it, close combat armies need to use tactics and strategies instead of just running at the enemy.
Go ahead and pretend I'm saying irrelevant things, but this is just completely wrong. Yes, 4th had consolidate into combat which broke things, but if you think 5th was all assault all the time you're fooling yourself. There's a reason Blood Angels (an assault marine army) spammed Razorbacks, and it wasn't because they were Assault Vehicles.
I would actually say that BA were much more effective in 5th when run as a balls to the walls assault army. 2x assault termies, 2x land raiders and Mephiston was the core of my decisively most successful BA army, I won a good sized tourney with the list, and I even won most of my games at ETC with the list. I know other players (including some internet celebs) played similar lists very successfully.
GK`s did razorspam much better because of psybolts, psychic pilots and much better units inside the razorback.
My razorspam list would crush that BA list you propose. I know this, because I faced that list many times in 5th.
That is not my experience, and I know because I faced lots of razorback spam lists with that list Dark eldar were much worse for that list than any razorspam list.
@Makutsu: You should never loose 6 guys to a single big blast. You can easily spread out to only get 3-ish hits, and 1/6 of those fail to wound.
Against most weapons, the math of killing meqs doesn't change in cover anyway. The Tau slap ignores cover on the Riptide, and then everything that would allow an armor save anyway just spams.
The Eldar are even more direct. For marines, the wave serpent is a headache because everything wounds on a 2 or 3 and has 36" range. You can't deny flank against wave serpernts. You can't shoot back without your own gunline. The Eldar don't have to cast a single ignore cover power. They can just power down entire lists spamming wounds through automatic twin linking and needing 2's and 3's to wound.
EVIL INC wrote: over the last....well ever since rogue trader, close combat has ruled the game. So much so that it is surprising they even had guns at all as the close combat armies pretty much got the autowin. Now, that they have balanced it, close combat armies need to use tactics and strategies instead of just running at the enemy.
Go ahead and pretend I'm saying irrelevant things, but this is just completely wrong. Yes, 4th had consolidate into combat which broke things, but if you think 5th was all assault all the time you're fooling yourself. There's a reason Blood Angels (an assault marine army) spammed Razorbacks, and it wasn't because they were Assault Vehicles.
I would actually say that BA were much more effective in 5th when run as a balls to the walls assault army. 2x assault termies, 2x land raiders and Mephiston was the core of my decisively most successful BA army, I won a good sized tourney with the list, and I even won most of my games at ETC with the list. I know other players (including some internet celebs) played similar lists very successfully.
GK`s did razorspam much better because of psybolts, psychic pilots and much better units inside the razorback.
My razorspam list would crush that BA list you propose. I know this, because I faced that list many times in 5th.
That is not my experience, and I know because I faced lots of razorback spam lists with that list Dark eldar were much worse for that list than any razorspam list.
@Makutsu: You should never loose 6 guys to a single big blast. You can easily spread out to only get 3-ish hits, and 1/6 of those fail to wound.
The balls to wall assault army had horrible problems against SW and IG leafblower as well. Razor spam provided the magical 5th ed vehicle damage table as protection.
"Martel732 , true, a unit of guys in cover will likely fail enough saves to get wiped out from the concentrated fire of an entire army."
It doesn't have to be an entire army. Even the marines can shoot better than that.
EVIL INC wrote: over the last....well ever since rogue trader, close combat has ruled the game. So much so that it is surprising they even had guns at all as the close combat armies pretty much got the autowin. Now, that they have balanced it, close combat armies need to use tactics and strategies instead of just running at the enemy.
Go ahead and pretend I'm saying irrelevant things, but this is just completely wrong. Yes, 4th had consolidate into combat which broke things, but if you think 5th was all assault all the time you're fooling yourself. There's a reason Blood Angels (an assault marine army) spammed Razorbacks, and it wasn't because they were Assault Vehicles.
I would actually say that BA were much more effective in 5th when run as a balls to the walls assault army. 2x assault termies, 2x land raiders and Mephiston was the core of my decisively most successful BA army, I won a good sized tourney with the list, and I even won most of my games at ETC with the list. I know other players (including some internet celebs) played similar lists very successfully.
GK`s did razorspam much better because of psybolts, psychic pilots and much better units inside the razorback.
My razorspam list would crush that BA list you propose. I know this, because I faced that list many times in 5th.
That is not my experience, and I know because I faced lots of razorback spam lists with that list Dark eldar were much worse for that list than any razorspam list.
@Makutsu: You should never loose 6 guys to a single big blast. You can easily spread out to only get 3-ish hits, and 1/6 of those fail to wound.
At 2" spread you should get from 3 - 8 guys physically, and that's the limit physically.
But unless you're using a congo line, or some really specific case, I generally can get 4-6 hits under a large blast.
If I can only get 3, I wouldn't even bother shooting at them unless they are termies.
As a relatively new player who started earlier this year (practically when the K-os Marins Codx came out), I would like to offer these insights. I know people like to discredit the newb outright at times, however I'd like to point out that sometimes a fresh pair of eyes is all it takes to sort the problem. With that, I'd like to preface my gaming experience by saying I love games of nearly all kinds and grew up with them. Some say sad. I say it's a generation. I love rts like Age of Empires, Star Craft, DoW, etc. I have been tournament worthy for games like Yu-Gi-Oh and Mechwarrior as well. I also am big on history, and of course the last 2000 years are full of combat examples to sample from. I'm not going to call my self a pro or anything because I firmly believe there is always someone better and we all have a place of our own to fill anyways, so why bother about the prodigy showing us up? Better that we worry about showing the prodigy up from time to time? Seems more productive in my opinion.
Getting to the point, I started with the Dark Vengeance box and am essentially playing two Dark Vengeance box's worth of Chaos Space Marines. My Force Organization is screwed. i don't really play according to points because of my limited means, although I'm still trying to get an appreciation for costs. Apparently my 200+ pt sorcerer is a bit costly still. XD
So here is what I've gathered about this particular setting. Firstly, the gun is superior in war setting, period. That's just how it goes. The ability to kill your opponent without your opponent killing you is the ULTIMATE wartime strategy. In medieval times, it was the bow and arrow. The crossbow became a weapon of "pure evil" because of its ease of use. And the cannon destroyed the castle. In WW1, seige lines were destroyed by tanks and in WW2 planes dominated the oceans and land alike. In our current military structure, we take highly lethal weapons that can be fired at extreme range with pinpoint precision. The Epitome of Ranged Warfare.
Does this mean the Assault doesn't have a place anymore? ABSOLUTELY NOT because as we learned with the removal of central command (the castle), a de-centralized force can be just as effective at demoralizing the opposition, as much as crushing it out right. The Infantry gets the better of the Cannon once again. Guerrilla Tactics.
And that is what you need to survive WH40K. If you think you're a knight in shining armor in this day and age? Think again. You're a fool in a heavy suit, waiting to get picked off by the Jungle Guard and their high powered shotguns. lol
So assault suffers NATURALLY. However, assault has one massive advantage that shooting doesn't, the same as shooting having a massive advantage that assault doesn't.
Shooting your opponent gives you the benefit of killing your opponent at range with some certainty. Precision is your weakness at that point, or how well can you shoot said gun v. enemy armor and all other x factors taken into account.
With Assault however, you have the benefit of using superior brute force against a substantially weaker opponent and outright slaughtering an enemy in the opening blow. Your lethality increases exponentially (unless you're the Tau who invert this trend, lol). And here is the kicker that made me hate my Cultists for a little while: Say I've got 20 cultists against 3 Grey Knight fatties or some such noise: We go to blows and I roll 80+ dice against you! And I inflict...no wounds. Let's say my weapons are ineffective (I don't actually know the stats on GK or what their fatties are called...cause I'm new.). Then the fatties swing back and all of their blows kill something. Let's say 6 dead cultists. And you won combat? And I don't get away?
Might as well have just killed 20 damn cultists for free. Better than free. I paid an assault to let you kill 20 damn cultists. lol
So the assault, while cripplingly difficult to actually get into, if stacked right can be more lethal than shooting. Especially when we're talking about squishy-shooty armies like the Tau and IG. But we're still talking about cripplingly difficult to get into combat, especially with overwatch and supporting fire. I do like dirge casters though.
Also, with all that said, I strongly agree with the idea that picking your battles is more important than the squad and dice roles themselves. Talking specifically about blocking LOS. That is the most important asset at your disposal. If the enemy can't see to shoot you, then you don't have to worry about dying.
I think assaulters might be too comfortable charging out of Land Raiders on turn 1. lol
TheRedWingArmada wrote: As a relatively new player who started earlier this year (practically when the K-os Marins Codx came out), I would like to offer these insights. I know people like to discredit the newb outright at times, however I'd like to point out that sometimes a fresh pair of eyes is all it takes to sort the problem. With that, I'd like to preface my gaming experience by saying I love games of nearly all kinds and grew up with them. Some say sad. I say it's a generation. I love rts like Age of Empires, Star Craft, DoW, etc. I have been tournament worthy for games like Yu-Gi-Oh and Mechwarrior as well. I also am big on history, and of course the last 2000 years are full of combat examples to sample from. I'm not going to call my self a pro or anything because I firmly believe there is always someone better and we all have a place of our own to fill anyways, so why bother about the prodigy showing us up? Better that we worry about showing the prodigy up from time to time? Seems more productive in my opinion.
Getting to the point, I started with the Dark Vengeance box and am essentially playing two Dark Vengeance box's worth of Chaos Space Marines. My Force Organization is screwed. i don't really play according to points because of my limited means, although I'm still trying to get an appreciation for costs. Apparently my 200+ pt sorcerer is a bit costly still. XD
So here is what I've gathered about this particular setting. Firstly, the gun is superior in war setting, period. That's just how it goes. The ability to kill your opponent without your opponent killing you is the ULTIMATE wartime strategy. In medieval times, it was the bow and arrow. The crossbow became a weapon of "pure evil" because of its ease of use. And the cannon destroyed the castle. In WW1, seige lines were destroyed by tanks and in WW2 planes dominated the oceans and land alike. In our current military structure, we take highly lethal weapons that can be fired at extreme range with pinpoint precision. The Epitome of Ranged Warfare.
Does this mean the Assault doesn't have a place anymore? ABSOLUTELY NOT because as we learned with the removal of central command (the castle), a de-centralized force can be just as effective at demoralizing the opposition, as much as crushing it out right. The Infantry gets the better of the Cannon once again. Guerrilla Tactics.
And that is what you need to survive WH40K. If you think you're a knight in shining armor in this day and age? Think again. You're a fool in a heavy suit, waiting to get picked off by the Jungle Guard and their high powered shotguns. lol
So assault suffers NATURALLY. However, assault has one massive advantage that shooting doesn't, the same as shooting having a massive advantage that assault doesn't.
Shooting your opponent gives you the benefit of killing your opponent at range with some certainty. Precision is your weakness at that point, or how well can you shoot said gun v. enemy armor and all other x factors taken into account.
With Assault however, you have the benefit of using superior brute force against a substantially weaker opponent and outright slaughtering an enemy in the opening blow. Your lethality increases exponentially (unless you're the Tau who invert this trend, lol). And here is the kicker that made me hate my Cultists for a little while: Say I've got 20 cultists against 3 Grey Knight fatties or some such noise: We go to blows and I roll 80+ dice against you! And I inflict...no wounds. Let's say my weapons are ineffective (I don't actually know the stats on GK or what their fatties are called...cause I'm new.). Then the fatties swing back and all of their blows kill something. Let's say 6 dead cultists. And you won combat? And I don't get away?
Might as well have just killed 20 damn cultists for free. Better than free. I paid an assault to let you kill 20 damn cultists. lol
So the assault, while cripplingly difficult to actually get into, if stacked right can be more lethal than shooting. Especially when we're talking about squishy-shooty armies like the Tau and IG. But we're still talking about cripplingly difficult to get into combat, especially with overwatch and supporting fire. I do like dirge casters though.
Also, with all that said, I strongly agree with the idea that picking your battles is more important than the squad and dice roles themselves. Talking specifically about blocking LOS. That is the most important asset at your disposal. If the enemy can't see to shoot you, then you don't have to worry about dying.
I think assaulters might be too comfortable charging out of Land Raiders on turn 1. lol
Please do not use fluff or "real life logic" when determining a game's mechanics, it doesn't really work that way...
Responding to your fluff though, these guys aren't wearing t-shirts and jackets to a fight. These guys wear armor that can ignore a rocket launcher to the face.
That's the only reason why assault still makes sense.
lol, if you can name one instance where man does not draw upon real life for inspiration in all things? You let me know. There is a fundamental psychology that goes into pretty much everything that man does, you just have to recognize it. Hell, you do it when you size up a player in a 40k match. Are they a Cowboy or are they a Knight? Are they a Pirate or are they a Wizard? O__O
Obscure. Seemingly unrelated. As a Chaos player, I can tell you this is how the World works. Everything from playing a first person shooter or tabletop to getting a job or going to school. You use this stuff and you don't even know it.
You also missed the part where I pretty much said "new point of view for your consideration."
TheRedWingArmada wrote: lol, if you can name one instance where man does not draw upon real life for inspiration in all things? You let me know. There is a fundamental psychology that goes into pretty much everything that man does, you just have to recognize it. Hell, you do it when you size up a player in a 40k match. Are they a Cowboy or are they a Knight? Are they a Pirate or are they a Wizard? O__O
Obscure. Seemingly unrelated. As a Chaos player, I can tell you this is how the World works. Everything from playing a first person shooter or tabletop to getting a job or going to school. You use this stuff and you don't even know it.
Uh psychic powers in the game? There's a thing called imagination that doesn't rely on real life for inspiration.
Also, how real life is has nothing to do with how effective shooting is compared to assault.
I don't even understand what the cowboy, pirate etc is supposed to mean...
How does being a Chaos player have anything to how the world work? And use what stuff? I'm super confused.
TheRedWingArmada wrote: lol, if you can name one instance where man does not draw upon real life for inspiration in all things? You let me know. There is a fundamental psychology that goes into pretty much everything that man does, you just have to recognize it. Hell, you do it when you size up a player in a 40k match. Are they a Cowboy or are they a Knight? Are they a Pirate or are they a Wizard? O__O
Obscure. Seemingly unrelated. As a Chaos player, I can tell you this is how the World works. Everything from playing a first person shooter or tabletop to getting a job or going to school. You use this stuff and you don't even know it.
Uh psychic powers in the game? There's a thing called imagination that doesn't rely on real life for inspiration.
Also, how real life is has nothing to do with how effective shooting is compared to assault.
I don't even understand what the cowboy, pirate etc is supposed to mean...
How does being a Chaos player have anything to how the world work? And use what stuff? I'm super confused.
Imagination doesn't draw upon real life? It's like being a fish in the ocean. You're surrounded by the stuff, so acting outside of it is impossible. And who is to say there are not real life examples of psychics? Not to dare, but more to suggest. And yeah, real life has everything to do with that. If shooting didn't exist in real life, would you have shooting in a game? Getting way off point though. I'm speaking very generally and I think you may be taking me to literally. The cowboy, pirate, etc. are metaphors to how a persons behavior might be. The same way a person has personal preferences or play styles. It's why there are different races to accommodate those personal preferences in 40k. I'd imagine it's also why an arrow isn't as effective as a laz cannon, between Fantasy and 40k respectively.
And how does being a Chaos player help to understand the ways of the world? Because it gives you a very abstract picture to gleam a perspective/reflection of reality from. Someone had to write that stuff, and so they likely embody it in some respect. The same way some player might, if given the opportunity, want to be a Grey Knight paladin under different circumstances.
The "stuff" I was speaking of at that time is called Metamessaging, Social Sciences and Psychology/Sociology. The Sciences of the Human Mind and Behavioral Patterns. +__+ In poker, it's the difference between reading your cards and reading your players.
Good assault units are basically either 12" movers and cheap (spawn,flesh hounds) or expensive and hard to shoot (ymgarl,fmc etc.) There is another category which is the opportunistic assault guys like cultists or obliterators who are mostly there to score objectives or shoot but but might get an opportunity to charge or counter charge.
One thing that can help a swarm charge is to have an ic at the front (when it forms time to charge) who can Los wounds backwards without loosing charge range. For this a M 12" works nicely.
Another tactic is to sacrifice a weak unit to overwatch e.g. gaunts to charge with a strong one e.g. tervigontervigon
wtnind wrote: Good assault units are basically either 12" movers and cheap (spawn,flesh hounds) or expensive and hard to shoot (ymgarl,fmc etc.) There is another category which is the opportunistic assault guys like cultists or obliterators who are mostly there to score objectives or shoot but but might get an opportunity to charge or counter charge.
One thing that can help a swarm charge is to have an ic at the front (when it forms time to charge) who can Los wounds backwards without loosing charge range. For this a M 12" works nicely.
Another tactic is to sacrifice a weak unit to overwatch e.g. gaunts to charge with a strong one e.g. tervigontervigon
In general, I would agree with this. Meqs don't fall into any of these categories.
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).
The fundamental problem, knas ser, is that when assautling, your opponent chooses what and where something gets assaulted.
My own lowly BA have used this to my advantage before. I have placed a unit in the path of a large mass of khorne berserkers to basically say "you are assaulting this". The unit was placed in a region with no cover and so, there was nowhere for the berserkers to go after they won. I shot the unit to pieces the following turn.
Assault units have no choices. They can either a) not assault and take another turn of shooting or b) assault what is presented to them and then take another turn of even worse shooting. A key is feeding them flimsy units that won't last a single turn. That opens them up to a huge counter barrage the next turn. Tau are the absolute best for this, because you will assault on squad, get shot a bunch, win, and then get shot more the next turn.
Assault units have no choices. They can either a) not assault and take another turn of shooting or b) assault what is presented to them
This is why a good assault army will also have ranged support. If you have a 10 man guard squad blocking a charge into a leman rus, a heldrake clears that problem right up. Charge blocking is a good tactic but it can be countered, especially early in the game when you're likely to have more firepower alive.
Assault units have no choices. They can either a) not assault and take another turn of shooting or b) assault what is presented to them
This is why a good assault army will also have ranged support. If you have a 10 man guard squad blocking a charge into a leman rus, a heldrake clears that problem right up. Charge blocking is a good tactic but it can be countered, especially early in the game when you're likely to have more firepower alive.
Agreed, and again, this is where meqs kind of fall apart, because of model count/assault efficacy/firepower per model issues.
With Assault however, you have the benefit of using superior brute force against a substantially weaker opponent and outright slaughtering an enemy in the opening blow. Your lethality increases exponentially (unless you're the Tau who invert this trend, lol). And here is the kicker that made me hate my Cultists for a little while: Say I've got 20 cultists against 3 Grey Knight fatties or some such noise: We go to blows and I roll 80+ dice against you! And I inflict...no wounds. Let's say my weapons are ineffective (I don't actually know the stats on GK or what their fatties are called...cause I'm new.). Then the fatties swing back and all of their blows kill something. Let's say 6 dead cultists. And you won combat? And I don't get away?
Might as well have just killed 20 damn cultists for free. Better than free. I paid an assault to let you kill 20 damn cultists. lol
Chuckle. That's why I like Wraith Blades. And when you think about it, it makes sense. Picture yourself as one of those cultists; you and your nineteen mates all charge howling at three guys in armour ("fatties" I love that, btw ) and after beating on them with knives, swords, clubs and point blank pistol shots for half a minute, you four or five of your mates have been torn apart and none of the people you mobbed are even scratched. Not bloody surprising you all run away. And if whilst running away you find these monsters are still after you and crushing heads, I'm not surprised they all go "f- this for a game of soldiers" and run for home. It's very hard to get a tactical feel for the overall battle when you're a single soldier on the ground. Even if you do value your army's overall success more than your life (which is pretty rare), all you know then and there is that the people around you are getting slaughtered and you appear to be losing.
It's like that scene in a movie where the thugs all gang up on someone and that person suddenly turns out to be Jackie Chan. It must be pretty terrifying to go from thinking "we out number these guys five to one" to "we barely hurt them and five of us are dead".
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).
knas ser wrote: It's like that scene in a movie where the thugs all gang up on someone and that person suddenly turns out to be Jackie Chan. It must be pretty terrifying to go from thinking "we out number these guys five to one" to "we barely hurt them and five of us are dead".
Well said. Back in 5th, anyone foolish (fearless?) enough to continue on against such odds would suffer additional wounds during combat resolution.
TheRedWingArmada wrote: lol, if you can name one instance where man does not draw upon real life for inspiration in all things? You let me know. There is a fundamental psychology that goes into pretty much everything that man does, you just have to recognize it. Hell, you do it when you size up a player in a 40k match. Are they a Cowboy or are they a Knight? Are they a Pirate or are they a Wizard? O__O
Obscure. Seemingly unrelated. As a Chaos player, I can tell you this is how the World works. Everything from playing a first person shooter or tabletop to getting a job or going to school. You use this stuff and you don't even know it.
Uh psychic powers in the game? There's a thing called imagination that doesn't rely on real life for inspiration.
Also, how real life is has nothing to do with how effective shooting is compared to assault.
I don't even understand what the cowboy, pirate etc is supposed to mean...
How does being a Chaos player have anything to how the world work? And use what stuff? I'm super confused.
Imagination doesn't draw upon real life? It's like being a fish in the ocean. You're surrounded by the stuff, so acting outside of it is impossible. And who is to say there are not real life examples of psychics? Not to dare, but more to suggest. And yeah, real life has everything to do with that. If shooting didn't exist in real life, would you have shooting in a game? Getting way off point though. I'm speaking very generally and I think you may be taking me to literally. The cowboy, pirate, etc. are metaphors to how a persons behavior might be. The same way a person has personal preferences or play styles. It's why there are different races to accommodate those personal preferences in 40k. I'd imagine it's also why an arrow isn't as effective as a laz cannon, between Fantasy and 40k respectively.
And how does being a Chaos player help to understand the ways of the world? Because it gives you a very abstract picture to gleam a perspective/reflection of reality from. Someone had to write that stuff, and so they likely embody it in some respect. The same way some player might, if given the opportunity, want to be a Grey Knight paladin under different circumstances.
The "stuff" I was speaking of at that time is called Metamessaging, Social Sciences and Psychology/Sociology. The Sciences of the Human Mind and Behavioral Patterns. +__+ In poker, it's the difference between reading your cards and reading your players.
This is the last time I'm replying to yours as this is a tactics thread and not a fluff/logic thread.
Again, I'm talking about "game mechanics" just because they are based off of an abstract from real life does not mean they are equal in any kind.
Also, how else do people invent things? Lots of theories and assumptions do not come from observations so there's no perceivable aspect that creates these thoughts.
Of course everything is affected by the "real world" but that's starting to get philosophical and I'm not going to bother arguing with you about that.
Uh, once you start going between game systems please make sure you're arguments actually make sense...
In Fantasy a Cannonball is S10 AP0 ( -7 to Armor Saves ) Lascannon S9 AP2, so how would a cannonball be the same strength as a lascannon?
Again, it's a game mechanic and should not be deduced with real life logic.
And the"stuff" you call doesn't apply to 40k as no aspect is hidden and needs concealing.
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).
Sounds about right to me
Thanks. I'm both new and old to the game at this point, and it's good to verbalize my vague impressions and hear if they're actually good or delusional.
Martel732 wrote: The fundamental problem, knas ser, is that when assautling, your opponent chooses what and where something gets assaulted.
My own lowly BA have used this to my advantage before. I have placed a unit in the path of a large mass of khorne berserkers to basically say "you are assaulting this". The unit was placed in a region with no cover and so, there was nowhere for the berserkers to go after they won. I shot the unit to pieces the following turn.
Assault units have no choices. They can either a) not assault and take another turn of shooting or b) assault what is presented to them and then take another turn of even worse shooting. A key is feeding them flimsy units that won't last a single turn. That opens them up to a huge counter barrage the next turn. Tau are the absolute best for this, because you will assault on squad, get shot a bunch, win, and then get shot more the next turn.
Oh yeah, that's almost the worst and most annoying thing in the game - to be a victim of your own success and then end up standing about in the open with your power armour round your ankles and a dozen Eldar pointing Shuriken at you. Thanks for the comments. Please don't mistake my post to be my arguing for or against some "CC is wonderful" post. I'm coming to the philosophical viewpoint that CC in my army is the same way I'll add a Shuriken Cannon to a Guardian Squad. Not because my army is built around that cannon, but because by having it that unit suddenly gets a bit tougher, can shoot those enemies just out of range, etc. I.e. I mix in as much Close Combat as I can afford points wise up to, but not past the point, where it would start to really detract from my fundamentals. Give up that extra war walker for some Striking Scorpians? Yes, because I have a Fire Prism and Bright Lances on my Serpents and those Scorpions will make an excellent counter or objective-taker end-game. Give up my Fire Prism and the War Walker for a pile of Scorpions and Wraith Blades? Sadly not. Both are awesome troops but without the context of a balanced army around them, they go from being a powerful unit in the right circumstances, to a unit that will never get those right circumstances.
I think my "tactic" to contribute to this thread is 'Patience'. Pull out the assault troops when the enemies Riptide is dead. Not before. There are exceptions when you know what you're doing. If you have a plan to Deep Strike your Wraithknight behind enemy lines and stomp all over some unguarded heavy weapons or you spot a great opportunity to infiltrate Karandras and a unit up close and wreck your opponents entire strategy at the start of the game, then do it. The thing with rules and guidelines is you don't break them until you know what you're doing and you understand why the rules exist. And for me the rule is currently: "don't lead with CC troops". Instead, use them to leap forward at an advancing horde or to tear up an enemy-held objective mid game.
Martel732 wrote: Yes, the shooting "kill zone" phenomenon after having won a CC was a problem in 5th, but its even worse now.
And where are the rest of your units? It sounds like 1 assault unit against the whole army. If your running an entire assault army then the rest of your guys need to be killing other units.
Martel732 wrote: Yes, the shooting "kill zone" phenomenon after having won a CC was a problem in 5th, but its even worse now.
And where are the rest of your units? It sounds like 1 assault unit against the whole army. If your running an entire assault army then the rest of your guys need to be killing other units.
Other units are usually dead, or trying to close the gap. This is why I stopped trying to even try to assault with meqs as plan "A". Having multiple units in charge range of the sacrificial unit doesn't really help at all. I understand what you are getting at, but it's not that simple. I've had games where I've lost 33 ish ASM just getting assault range. And a game where Eldar killed 22 FNP ASM with 5+ cover in the turn before assault. That's where my other units are: in the carrying case.
Now these were tables with precious little LOS blocking terrain. My play group doesn't have much LOS blocking terrain I guess, or it's always all used when I go to choose my terrain pieces.
Asking for a thread to remain on topic, providing tactics and strategies and explaining how they can be used (while admitting that they are "counterable" and not end all be all) along with explaining how basic game mechanics that are often underestimated along with explaining that as editions and rules change it is often necessary to use different builds and try different tactics and strategies that work under older rules is hardly "trolling". I understand it to be trying to help others with my own experiences and encourage others to share knowledge as well (so that I too may learn) all in a polite and respectful manner to be beneficial. If you feel that to be trolling than in your eyes I may be.
If you don't like my tips, than by all means don't use them. They have proven to work for me in helping me and others I have seen and spoken with, win games but they might not work for others. If you don't think they will work for you, by all means do something else. If it works for you, share it with us so that we can try it as well. Even if you think my tips are useful, by all means share with us how you manage to succeed.
Martel732, I feel your pain on that. You will find that players usually build terrain to suit themselves. It may be that you need to build some of your own and bring it with you. If it is well done and looks nice, people generally don't care. It could even be that you can host a terrain workshop where everyone works to build it.
Martel732 wrote: The fundamental problem, knas ser, is that when assautling, your opponent chooses what and where something gets assaulted.
My own lowly BA have used this to my advantage before. I have placed a unit in the path of a large mass of khorne berserkers to basically say "you are assaulting this". The unit was placed in a region with no cover and so, there was nowhere for the berserkers to go after they won. I shot the unit to pieces the following turn.
I have done this to protect the relic. I put 4 lines of individual termagants in front of each other at the end of the game in front of a small but highly elite unit and basically said...yeah...you're not getting there for 4 turns minimum.
Not always possible...but every once in a while you can stop something like MCs, Nobz, Terminators, and other small units in their tracks by throwing dead bodies at them.
Remember that you will often see very different armies played by the same person using the same codex. If an elder player knows they are scheduled to play you, a bug player, you will mysteriously find their list tailored to match you and your specific tactics/strategies. If you play the same player in a tournament setting, you will often find that they will not be able to counter you near as easily because they are forced to take a more "taker all comers" list.
I believe that the one trick pony lists usually do well in tourneys because to counter them you almost need to tailor for it which again, is not really possible in a tourney setting.
EVIL INC wrote: Remember that you will often see very different armies played by the same person using the same codex. If an elder player knows they are scheduled to play you, a bug player, you will mysteriously find their list tailored to match you and your specific tactics/strategies. If you play the same player in a tournament setting, you will often find that they will not be able to counter you near as easily because they are forced to take a more "taker all comers" list.
I believe that the one trick pony lists usually do well in tourneys because to counter them you almost need to tailor for it which again, is not really possible in a tourney setting.
Well there is, and thankfully, a lack of douchebaggery in my meta.
I believe that the one trick pony lists usually do well in tourneys because to counter them you almost need to tailor for it which again, is not really possible in a tourney setting.
I'm sure every single high level tourney player will strongly disagree with this.
The overwhelming majority of top tournament lists are TAC lists that aim to cover the important bases expected to be seen in the current 40k trend. They are not 'one trick pony' lists, but lists that have used strong elements from the codex to bring as much crunch to the table and mitigate chance.
I won't even explain how its irrelevant that people can't tailor a list at a tournament, as it should be obvious. That and most everyone I've ever played or read online does not tailor, and builds TAC lists.
Amusingly you can tailor easier in a tournament than in a pickup game. You're tailoring to the meta rather than individual lists, but it can be at least as effective.
rigeld2 wrote: Amusingly you can tailor easier in a tournament than in a pickup game. You're tailoring to the meta rather than individual lists, but it can be at least as effective.
Right, but that's not so much as tailoring as it is covering the relevant bases. At a tournament, you have a random chance to play the Nid player, as you do the Ork player, as you do the Tau player.
This is obviously skewed now towards being prepared to fight Eldar/Tau, but, you still have to be able to deal with any army, theoretically. Hence the term TAC.
A tailored pickup game could be tailored by knowing you're playing with a buddy who's only army is Orkz. Flamers ahoy!
Fortunately, even more meqs, there is more room for error against non-Tau, non-Eldar, and non-Daemon lists. The real problem is prepping for those three lists is actually quite different.
I can go with that. Unfortunately, I see a lot of list tailoring. That's one of the reason's I prefer to play for fun games with close friends. Too bad, I'm the only one of the old crew who really still plays.
It could also be that some of the armies I consider one trick ponies, you don't. To me they include super cheesy combos that can be countered through tailoring.
I can see what you mean by tailoring for tourneys. I usually try to take stuff that will be effective against all army "types." of course, I don't go all out on that and always end up taking units just for fun because I like them or they are cool rather than them being really effective. Sometimes, just because it is a model or unit I recently painted and want to show it off. lol This past tourney aside which I swept by winning alone (my last game by almost tabling an elder player), I usually come in 3rd or 4th. What usually helps me in points is my quality of painting, conversions, basing, display board and so forth to get all the extra points. I also make it a point to make sure to go for secondary objectives and play for the main objectives which often means having to sacrifice units.
Again, I have a hard time blaming people for "cheese" when GW could issue errata to ban said cheese.
But from a fundamental standpoint, the 6th ed core rule book does make things harder on assault elements, but it would be okay if pricing reflected this, but it doesn't.
And they are going to change the rules again and leave all the 6th ed pricing in place. Yuck.
I read that entire thing. I believe that deserves multiple exalts. Jk ofc, however after reading this I have learned more about Assault in 6th Edition and learned that the OP is wrong, misinformed, and misconstruing information. I would also like to point out that Assault is much weaker and requires a lot of strategy, to make work (other than a unit randomly assaulting a Riptide because it showed itself) and that Land Raider Berzerkers for the most part) will not work out. Spawn will though. At the end of the day we're all losers. Stay Classy -Feasible
Feasible, you apparently did not actually read through it.
Assault in a game designed for guns SHOULD take a lot of strategy. that's the whole point of the thread.
Before, they were undercosted, now they are overcosted. This sort of thing is just what happens with the idiot way they release things. That's not the point of the thread. The point of the thread is to discuss ways to effectively get units into combat regardless of costs.
EVIL INC wrote: Before, they were undercosted, now they are overcosted. This sort of thing is just what happens with the idiot way they release things. That's not the point of the thread. The point of the thread is to discuss ways to effectively get units into combat regardless of costs.
Regardless of cost? Effectively and Cost go hand in hand.
Lets go get 6 Max squads of Berserkers I'm pretty sure one unit will hit the line considering how many of them there are.
Cost of a unit takes place in the list building.
To demonstrate, take 5 point gaunt, give it the normal abilities. Now, take the same gaunt, make it cost 100 points and keep the same ability. The extra points do not make it move faster, swing harder or be any tougher, it only means you cant get as many of them or that they may now be obsolete as a unit where you now pay the points for a different model.
Landraiders get things into combat pretty reliably. Why arent they used very often then? Cost.
Cost is a huge factor. Any race can get into melee if you REALLY want to, problem is if you make a measly 100pt melee-monster suddenly cost 400pts in order to get across the table before turn 4 (or alive) then despite being very powerful in melee, he isnt worth it because thats 1/3 or so of your army invested into a single unit thats still not considered a deathstar, so they arent THAT powerful.
Thats why i really, really dislike battlewagons. You take 4 or you take none because of how they work. If they dont pop before you disembark, theyre worth it - otherwise theyre not because S4 with a t-shirt save can make their cost per model suddenly feel way, way more expensive. Every time a battlewagon pops with boyz inside i end up with as many as i would with a trukk, but for more than 2x the cost (if not more) - makes me really wish i didnt buy the damn thing.
20 boys (w/ nob and klaw; i'm old fashioned) in a battle wagon is only about 260 pts. the battle wagon is about 2/5 of that. it's not a terrible ratio of pts spent on killing to pts spent getting there
Trukks are about 1/3 the price of the unit as a whole (about 160 for 12 boys incl nob w/ the trukk being about 50 of that) so their actually worse (for other reasons too; shame i like them so much)
the goal, for orks at least, is to hit the enemy line on T2. it means less chance of being in the battle wagon when it pops (and yes, that hurts) only hammer and anvil deployment really prevents that goal (unless some castles in the very back corner in a vanguard strike set up)
more generally, i find the biggest influence in being able to assault successfully (or even have a game that's more than "guy with the biggest guns wins on T1") is terrain.
6th has added some ... interesting rules for terrain, but more than anything, it's moved from the "cover 1/4 of the table" to "place about 12 pieces" (on average 2 12" by 12" or smaller pieces per 2' by 2' section of table) by putting legitimate terrain on the table (LOS blocking stuff, area terrain, ruins, big hills, forests) you have far more strategic options, movement becomes important, and units that need to get up close have a hope in hell of getting there.
EVIL INC wrote: Before, they were undercosted, now they are overcosted. This sort of thing is just what happens with the idiot way they release things. That's not the point of the thread. The point of the thread is to discuss ways to effectively get units into combat regardless of costs.
Cost is the single most important attribute of any 40K model. Cost can not be deconvoluted from tactics because the decision must be made to even bother with assault in a particular list.
chelsea_hollywood wrote: more generally, i find the biggest influence in being able to assault successfully (or even have a game that's more than "guy with the biggest guns wins on T1") is terrain.
6th has added some ... interesting rules for terrain, but more than anything, it's moved from the "cover 1/4 of the table" to "place about 12 pieces" (on average 2 12" by 12" or smaller pieces per 2' by 2' section of table) by putting legitimate terrain on the table (LOS blocking stuff, area terrain, ruins, big hills, forests) you have far more strategic options, movement becomes important, and units that need to get up close have a hope in hell of getting there.
This is why I don't play points and instead stick to a narrative based game play. Essentially, I'm bringing everything I can and if you have more, it would be an act of Good Sportsmanship if you didn't just try to bowl me over with Vendetta's and Monoliths. That said, the above is the MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR KEEPING MELEE ALIVE.
TERRAIN. TERRAIN. LOS BLOCKING TERRAIN.
If your enemy can't see you, he can't shoot you and I submit that is far more devastating to a shooting unit than a melee unit never getting into battle: A shooting unit never getting a shot. Because of this, I get Overwatch. Because if I spend the entire game hiding in terrain and you never get a shot, and then you compromise yourself to get that shot at the risk of getting over-run in the charge and losing your entire shooting squad in the initial assault phase. Does that mean shooting is still getting an enormous edge? ABSOLUTELY. But not so much that a tactician can't get around it.
And this seems to be the problem players are having more than anything else; With the way a board can be arranged, and with the way shooting armies want to set up a board, the melee player is forced out of his comfort zone and stuck trying to hide behind tin cans and such.
Ex: One such board I plan to make in the near-distant future is a canyon. A map whose majority of playable surface is lined by canyon walls and channels that create bottlenecks and flanking routes against shooters. And this is a big problem for shooters. If the Tau got 30" of open space to shoot through, they'll get you. But if they're forced to watch hallways and split their focus, then the tables change a bit. Especially when you factor in things like Jump Packs that could leap over the canyon walls and smack right into a Tau gunline.
Melee isn't dead. You just need a reasonable map to play on from now on.
EVIL INC wrote: Before, they were undercosted, now they are overcosted. This sort of thing is just what happens with the idiot way they release things. That's not the point of the thread. The point of the thread is to discuss ways to effectively get units into combat regardless of costs.
Cost is the single most important attribute of any 40K model. Cost can not be deconvoluted from tactics because the decision must be made to even bother with assault in a particular list.
Points only matters if you're playing in some official status. As I suggested above, play towards a narrative and a lot of these problems melt away with good common sense. And this is an awesome thing to have happen too because if you see an opponent trying to circumnavigate this very plain, common sense playing, then you know what kind of player you are up against and probably won't want to play against him ever again.
Just like the guy I played my first game against ever. This was a kid whose parents bought him every single piece of plastic army, as it came out, he painted them all up, knew everything, and then WAAC no matter what. Case in point: My army just barely field vehicles: 2 Helbrutes and a Heldrake. THIS GUY, because he could, sent a monolith at me. Let me preface this a little better by saying my strongest infantry groups are Chosen, with Cultists and CSM's bringing up a very, VERY distant second. So a monolith, in this game, is just uncalled for. The guy knows he can crush me with all of his transport Arks or w/e and Annihaltion Barge, and Reanimation Protocols, but because of this guys level of common sense, no, we had to be a glut and bring out the Monolith.
And now I don't play against him anymore. Even if I wanted to upset him, I won't because he's going to do anything and everything in his power to make it a crushing defeat all the time. So, in a way, I win by never playing him and denying those crushing defeats he craves so thoroughly. Can he still go to tournaments and get games playing the way he does? Sure. But he's not getting them from me.
Local Taudar players want to play on parking lots. They aren't going to agree to "forge the narrative". GW, like Blizzard, needs to understand that players will always seek competitive advantages.
chelsea_hollywood wrote: more generally, i find the biggest influence in being able to assault successfully (or even have a game that's more than "guy with the biggest guns wins on T1") is terrain.
6th has added some ... interesting rules for terrain, but more than anything, it's moved from the "cover 1/4 of the table" to "place about 12 pieces" (on average 2 12" by 12" or smaller pieces per 2' by 2' section of table) by putting legitimate terrain on the table (LOS blocking stuff, area terrain, ruins, big hills, forests) you have far more strategic options, movement becomes important, and units that need to get up close have a hope in hell of getting there.
This is why I don't play points and instead stick to a narrative based game play. Essentially, I'm bringing everything I can and if you have more, it would be an act of Good Sportsmanship if you didn't just try to bowl me over with Vendetta's and Monoliths. That said, the above is the MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR KEEPING MELEE ALIVE.
TERRAIN. TERRAIN. LOS BLOCKING TERRAIN.
If your enemy can't see you, he can't shoot you and I submit that is far more devastating to a shooting unit than a melee unit never getting into battle: A shooting unit never getting a shot. Because of this, I get Overwatch. Because if I spend the entire game hiding in terrain and you never get a shot, and then you compromise yourself to get that shot at the risk of getting over-run in the charge and losing your entire shooting squad in the initial assault phase. Does that mean shooting is still getting an enormous edge? ABSOLUTELY. But not so much that a tactician can't get around it.
And this seems to be the problem players are having more than anything else; With the way a board can be arranged, and with the way shooting armies want to set up a board, the melee player is forced out of his comfort zone and stuck trying to hide behind tin cans and such.
Ex: One such board I plan to make in the near-distant future is a canyon. A map whose majority of playable surface is lined by canyon walls and channels that create bottlenecks and flanking routes against shooters. And this is a big problem for shooters. If the Tau got 30" of open space to shoot through, they'll get you. But if they're forced to watch hallways and split their focus, then the tables change a bit. Especially when you factor in things like Jump Packs that could leap over the canyon walls and smack right into a Tau gunline.
Melee isn't dead. You just need a reasonable map to play on from now on.
EVIL INC wrote: Before, they were undercosted, now they are overcosted. This sort of thing is just what happens with the idiot way they release things. That's not the point of the thread. The point of the thread is to discuss ways to effectively get units into combat regardless of costs.
Cost is the single most important attribute of any 40K model. Cost can not be deconvoluted from tactics because the decision must be made to even bother with assault in a particular list.
Points only matters if you're playing in some official status. As I suggested above, play towards a narrative and a lot of these problems melt away with good common sense. And this is an awesome thing to have happen too because if you see an opponent trying to circumnavigate this very plain, common sense playing, then you know what kind of player you are up against and probably won't want to play against him ever again.
Just like the guy I played my first game against ever. This was a kid whose parents bought him every single piece of plastic army, as it came out, he painted them all up, knew everything, and then WAAC no matter what. Case in point: My army just barely field vehicles: 2 Helbrutes and a Heldrake. THIS GUY, because he could, sent a monolith at me. Let me preface this a little better by saying my strongest infantry groups are Chosen, with Cultists and CSM's bringing up a very, VERY distant second. So a monolith, in this game, is just uncalled for. The guy knows he can crush me with all of his transport Arks or w/e and Annihaltion Barge, and Reanimation Protocols, but because of this guys level of common sense, no, we had to be a glut and bring out the Monolith.
And now I don't play against him anymore. Even if I wanted to upset him, I won't because he's going to do anything and everything in his power to make it a crushing defeat all the time. So, in a way, I win by never playing him and denying those crushing defeats he craves so thoroughly. Can he still go to tournaments and get games playing the way he does? Sure. But he's not getting them from me.
First of all, when talking about these tactics assuming that we aren't playing in a competitive environment is kinda pointless.
If you aren't playing to win who cares if you can get into CC or not, since most of your units probably will more be of fluff than optimized.
LOS blocking terrain isn't always in at every place, especially at tournaments you don't really get to choose.
So you're upset because you didn't bring a TAC list?
A Monolith is soooooo uncompetitive and that not being able to tackle it is your fault.
Lol, if bringing a Monolith is going out of his way to crush you then wait til you see the flying bakery.............
Yeah, I wouldn't want to play a fun game and using sub-par units in my codex in and still get yelled as a TFG, thank god he's never going to need to play you again.
At all tournaments, there is a variety of different table set ups. Part of the things is to work to play on a table that suits you more than your opponent. This does not always make a huge difference as tournament organizers do their best to set up tables that don't favor one side or the other and set the tables up so that there ARE LOS blocking stuff without overdoing it.
if your local shop doesn't have a lot, help build some in a workshop or use fantasy stuff. If a tournament organizer sees you all play on tables with fantasy stuff like the castle on a regular bases (its just cool anywhay I think), you can bet that at least one table will have it on in a tourney.
I've donated terrain to my FLGS and even seen others create pieces for them to use. Lots of it has LOS blocking elements. Though that's not the whole fix. In general, if you want to get to close combat, you have to start by getting the lie out of your head that it's the weakest option this edition.
That is the biggest problem we have I believe. As you can see, so many people are willing to fight to perpetuate the lie and support it, they have closed their minds to even trying to overcome what they see as a problem and fight against those who try to help them
.
EVIL INC wrote: That is the biggest problem we have I believe. As you can see, so many people are willing to fight to perpetuate the lie and support it, they have closed their minds to even trying to overcome what they see as a problem and fight against those who try to help them
.
You clearly missed all the posts where several dakkanoughts started providing tactical advice on the matter.
And none of us have been claiming that assault is unusable.
Again, I don't think anyone says close combat is dead, it's just that a lot of units that were made for assault do not see its uses due to Shooting having a great advantage over shooting.
Lots of people still use CC as long as they are the right units, such as Nurgle Spawn, Nob Bikers, Big Daemons etc...
Makutsu wrote: First of all, when talking about these tactics assuming that we aren't playing in a competitive environment is kinda pointless.
If you aren't playing to win who cares if you can get into CC or not, since most of your units probably will more be of fluff than optimized.
LOS blocking terrain isn't always in at every place, especially at tournaments you don't really get to choose.
So you're upset because you didn't bring a TAC list?
A Monolith is soooooo uncompetitive and that not being able to tackle it is your fault.
Lol, if bringing a Monolith is going out of his way to crush you then wait til you see the flying bakery.............
Yeah, I wouldn't want to play a fun game and using sub-par units in my codex in and still get yelled as a TFG, thank god he's never going to need to play you again.
First of all, assumptions are the first steps on the road to defeat. It is a game of oppositions, sure, but competitive to what degree. I hate bringing this up again because I have so little experience being able to do similar things in WH40K but one of the easiest ways for me to defeat my opponents in a game like, say, Battlefield 3? Is to make you think that I'm going in guns blazing in then "Oh noez! I scared and runz away! -C4 clack for chasing me- Surprise, it was all apart of the plan. -trololol-" Or here is a good one for WH40K. My favorite games to play, points scaled and everything (like I've said in past discussions, I am extremely limited in what I can bring because I don't own a mint, among other things) is teams games. 2 v 2, 3 v 3 is better. There, I get the distinct advantage of playing for broke and totally ruining an enemy team by offering strong support or distractions for my allies. Perfect example was a game I played a couple months back where I was Chaos allied with Chaos and Space Marines, v. Space Marines, I think some Tau and maybe Orks. It was a weird line up. But because I knew I didn't possess any distinct advantage until my Heldrake showed up, I took the spearhead and made like I was a hot mess to deal with, while the three of them were trying to figure out what to do with me, my two allies were able to deal with back-field deep striking by one of our opponents better tacticians, while the other got pinned down by our deep striking, including some nurglings I stuck between a squad of my allies that was getting whomped and enemy reinforcements that would've slaughtered him.
So you see, the WAAC attitude gets defeated by the upset player/joker. We live to destroy ourselves hugging the bodies of our enemies. And we win every time, even in the face of overwhelming defeat. +__+ Going back to my beloved BF3, if I run into a room and throw C4 and kill myself and at least 1 other player = Mission Accomplished. 2 other players = Pwnt! 3 others? Dominating. 4 others? YOU GOT KNOCKED THA OUT!
It doesn't matter that I lost 20 cultists to your RIptide. I still killed your Riptide with the Dark Apostle buried beneath. XD
So secondly, I'm obviously not upset at my limitations. They suck, but that's life and I'm poor so I'll live with what I can get when I can get it and maybe one day I'll throw together a flying circus. W/e. But until that time, being a player of my obviously newbish skills and experience, hitting me with Death Stars on my first game kinda smacks of concieite, arrogance, pride, and above all, violation of the Most Important Rule, pg 4 of the SmRB.
Thirdly, there is no yelling. There is no rule bashing. i'm not throwing my pieces across the board. I just don't play against that guy because it's pointless, boring and above all is self-gratifying to the little prick whose done nothing more than sap mommy and daddy's bank account. Screw that noise! Give me a scenario! Give me objectives! Give me a freaking chance at least, even with a stupid monolith! But don't give me this crap of "Well here's my army and good luck! (like it'll help!)" uber-competitor nonsense. It's one of the things that has seriously ruined this planet and our species as a whole. Yes, the microcosm to the macrocosm. They're all reflections of peoples ugliness and beauty sometimes.
juraigamer wrote: I've donated terrain to my FLGS and even seen others create pieces for them to use. Lots of it has LOS blocking elements. Though that's not the whole fix. In general, if you want to get to close combat, you have to start by getting the lie out of your head that it's the weakest option this edition.
It's not a lie. It can be weak and still be "usable". I guess. Part of the problem is that it's hard to even catch the Eldar. The Tau are a bit more a stationary target.
I know that personally that most of my wins in 6th are against lists that have wasted points on trying to do CC when they could have been shooting my meqs off the table.
It is indeed a lie. Many units have changed usefulness.
It is still a viable option that can easily be implemented through tactics and strategy. The faces have changed but the game remains. Instead of seeing berserker spam, you now see spawn spam and so forth. Players need to evolve their lists and playing.
Don't get me wrong, I would hate to have to go out and buy a load of new models to remain competitive but GW is in the business of selling models. Instead of bemoaning how close combat is dead, I would update my army and list to match the new rules so that I have the current most effective close combat models instead of using the old obsolete ones. I would also update my strategy, tactics and overall playstyle to match the new rules and mechanics. You notice that in the tournament circuits, the most successful players do just that and for the most part, those champions armies still maintain a strong close combat presence (except tau of course ).
As I said, weakest does not mean unusable. If HTH is not the weakest option then what is? It's the same way I frame the question about BA being the worst current codex.
EVIL INC wrote: That is the biggest problem we have I believe. As you can see, so many people are willing to fight to perpetuate the lie and support it, they have closed their minds to even trying to overcome what they see as a problem and fight against those who try to help them
.
Will you please stop with this straw-man attacks on people and snide little digs. I don't think anyone said Close Combat is unviable or impossible, which you keep saying they did. The two posters you keep having this issue with have actually offered some useful advice on getting into CC which I, as a returning player, have found useful. All they did do was make some constructive criticism of some of the things you were offering. For example you suggested that it was easy to just get 4+ cover saves whilst advancing on the enemy because you misremembered some of the rules. And you took their non-hostile comments on that and started ranting about how they knew everything and their penis must be huge (your actual words). Your basic pattern throughout this thread has been to explode at any criticism and exaggerate what they said to absurd proportions, such as claiming someone said CC was impossible. You're being really destructive to this thread. Just stop.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheRedWingArmada wrote: First of all, assumptions are the first steps on the road to defeat. It is a game of oppositions, sure, but competitive to what degree. I hate bringing this up again because I have so little experience being able to do similar things in WH40K but one of the easiest ways for me to defeat my opponents in a game like, say, Battlefield 3? Is to make you think that I'm going in guns blazing in then "Oh noez! I scared and runz away! -C4 clack for chasing me- Surprise, it was all apart of the plan. -trololol-" Or here is a good one for WH40K. My favorite games to play, points scaled and everything (like I've said in past discussions, I am extremely limited in what I can bring because I don't own a mint, among other things) is teams games. 2 v 2, 3 v 3 is better. There, I get the distinct advantage of playing for broke and totally ruining an enemy team by offering strong support or distractions for my allies. Perfect example was a game I played a couple months back where I was Chaos allied with Chaos and Space Marines, v. Space Marines, I think some Tau and maybe Orks. It was a weird line up. But because I knew I didn't possess any distinct advantage until my Heldrake showed up, I took the spearhead and made like I was a hot mess to deal with, while the three of them were trying to figure out what to do with me, my two allies were able to deal with back-field deep striking by one of our opponents better tacticians, while the other got pinned down by our deep striking, including some nurglings I stuck between a squad of my allies that was getting whomped and enemy reinforcements that would've slaughtered him.
So you see, the WAAC attitude gets defeated by the upset player/joker. We live to destroy ourselves hugging the bodies of our enemies. And we win every time, even in the face of overwhelming defeat. +__+ Going back to my beloved BF3, if I run into a room and throw C4 and kill myself and at least 1 other player = Mission Accomplished. 2 other players = Pwnt! 3 others? Dominating. 4 others? YOU GOT KNOCKED THA OUT!
It doesn't matter that I lost 20 cultists to your RIptide. I still killed your Riptide with the Dark Apostle buried beneath. XD
So secondly, I'm obviously not upset at my limitations. They suck, but that's life and I'm poor so I'll live with what I can get when I can get it and maybe one day I'll throw together a flying circus. W/e. But until that time, being a player of my obviously newbish skills and experience, hitting me with Death Stars on my first game kinda smacks of concieite, arrogance, pride, and above all, violation of the Most Important Rule, pg 4 of the SmRB.
Thirdly, there is no yelling. There is no rule bashing. i'm not throwing my pieces across the board. I just don't play against that guy because it's pointless, boring and above all is self-gratifying to the little prick whose done nothing more than sap mommy and daddy's bank account. Screw that noise! Give me a scenario! Give me objectives! Give me a freaking chance at least, even with a stupid monolith! But don't give me this crap of "Well here's my army and good luck! (like it'll help!)" uber-competitor nonsense. It's one of the things that has seriously ruined this planet and our species as a whole. Yes, the microcosm to the macrocosm. They're all reflections of peoples ugliness and beauty sometimes.
True story.
I don't think anyone disagrees with your position that friendly, narrative-based gaming can be fun or suits many people. It's just that you're in a forum where competitive people come to discuss competitive games. We're not all wound up and angry (well, Evil Inc appears to be) and caught in some trap of competitive gaming. We like it here. Your posts are fine, it's just that it's a bit orthogonal to the actual purpose of this forum which is tactics. You're arguing philosophically about whether or not something is important and that's fine. It's just that you're in the forum for people who think it is.
And none of us have been claiming that assault is unusable.
Makutsu wrote: Again, I don't think anyone says close combat is dead, it's just that a lot of units that were made for assault do not see its uses due to Shooting having a great advantage over shooting.
Lots of people still use CC as long as they are the right units, such as Nurgle Spawn, Nob Bikers, Big Daemons etc...
First of all, assumptions are the first steps on the road to defeat. It is a game of oppositions, sure, but competitive to what degree. I hate bringing this up again because I have so little experience being able to do similar things in WH40K but one of the easiest ways for me to defeat my opponents in a game like, say, Battlefield 3? Is to make you think that I'm going in guns blazing in then "Oh noez! I scared and runz away! -C4 clack for chasing me- Surprise, it was all apart of the plan. -trololol-" Or here is a good one for WH40K. My favorite games to play, points scaled and everything (like I've said in past discussions, I am extremely limited in what I can bring because I don't own a mint, among other things) is teams games. 2 v 2, 3 v 3 is better. There, I get the distinct advantage of playing for broke and totally ruining an enemy team by offering strong support or distractions for my allies. Perfect example was a game I played a couple months back where I was Chaos allied with Chaos and Space Marines, v. Space Marines, I think some Tau and maybe Orks. It was a weird line up. But because I knew I didn't possess any distinct advantage until my Heldrake showed up, I took the spearhead and made like I was a hot mess to deal with, while the three of them were trying to figure out what to do with me, my two allies were able to deal with back-field deep striking by one of our opponents better tacticians, while the other got pinned down by our deep striking, including some nurglings I stuck between a squad of my allies that was getting whomped and enemy reinforcements that would've slaughtered him.
So you see, the WAAC attitude gets defeated by the upset player/joker. We live to destroy ourselves hugging the bodies of our enemies. And we win every time, even in the face of overwhelming defeat. +__+ Going back to my beloved BF3, if I run into a room and throw C4 and kill myself and at least 1 other player = Mission Accomplished. 2 other players = Pwnt! 3 others? Dominating. 4 others? YOU GOT KNOCKED THA OUT!
It doesn't matter that I lost 20 cultists to your RIptide. I still killed your Riptide with the Dark Apostle buried beneath. XD
So secondly, I'm obviously not upset at my limitations. They suck, but that's life and I'm poor so I'll live with what I can get when I can get it and maybe one day I'll throw together a flying circus. W/e. But until that time, being a player of my obviously newbish skills and experience, hitting me with Death Stars on my first game kinda smacks of concieite, arrogance, pride, and above all, violation of the Most Important Rule, pg 4 of the SmRB.
Thirdly, there is no yelling. There is no rule bashing. i'm not throwing my pieces across the board. I just don't play against that guy because it's pointless, boring and above all is self-gratifying to the little prick whose done nothing more than sap mommy and daddy's bank account. Screw that noise! Give me a scenario! Give me objectives! Give me a freaking chance at least, even with a stupid monolith! But don't give me this crap of "Well here's my army and good luck! (like it'll help!)" uber-competitor nonsense. It's one of the things that has seriously ruined this planet and our species as a whole. Yes, the microcosm to the macrocosm. They're all reflections of peoples ugliness and beauty sometimes.
True story.
This is game is rock paper scissors with more complicated rules on top of it, bringing a Fist to a Paper fight is bound to lose.
That's what a monolith is, how is a monolith a deathstar? You lacked a scissor to handle it and ultimately it isn't the guy who brought it's fault.
I think the little prick in this case is you, if you look up how much a monolith is points wise for how much it can do, you'll find that it's not a "uber-competitive" unit as you think it is.
knas ser, Keep your straw men and snide attacks out of here. We have settled down where the personal attacks and false allegations had stopped and don't need you to re-instigate things.
Remember, it is a GAME. There is no reason for you to get excited or bent outta shape just because someone has different opinions on issues and different experiences in games and settings. When you little "army man" dies, you just pull it off the table. He will be fine for the next game I'm sure. If you lose, you will survive. There is no harm to you beyond being bumped down a notch in a tournament. That's why I play for fun first and foremost and winning second. Even in tournments, I'm just happy to get 3 games in a day as well as hang out with other gamers, win OR lose.
I don't think anyone disagrees with your position that friendly, narrative-based gaming can be fun or suits many people. It's just that you're in a forum where competitive people come to discuss competitive games. We're not all wound up and angry (well, Evil Inc appears to be) and caught in some trap of competitive gaming. We like it here. Your posts are fine, it's just that it's a bit orthogonal to the actual purpose of this forum which is tactics. You're arguing philosophically about whether or not something is important and that's fine. It's just that you're in the forum for people who think it is.
Friendly narrative games are fun when both players agree to it, it is fun when using Shokk attack guns and themed list and role-playing at the same time.
I wouldn't say this forum is just for competitive people, this thread however is meant to discuss "effectiveness".
I do not believe that "effectiveness" goes really well with a narrative play as that would not be the goal of it.
EVIL INC wrote: knas ser, Keep your straw men and snide attacks out of here. We have settled down where the personal attacks and false allegations had stopped and don't need you to re-instigate things.
If you replaced "knas ser" with "EVIL INC", this quote would be accurate as feth.
EVIL INC wrote: knas ser, Keep your straw men and snide attacks out of here. We have settled down where the personal attacks and false allegations had stopped and don't need you to re-instigate things.
A strawman is where you pretend someone else has made an argument in order to knock it down in place of what they actually said. I'm confused as to where I made any strawmen. Nor did my post contain any personal attacks that I can find - simply highlighting behaviour I wished you to stop. You've basically just made things up in the above. But I've said my piece. I was merely hoping to convey that what you were doing was destructive and that even someone brand new to the forum could see that it was destructive.
EVIL INC wrote: Remember, it is a GAME. There is no reason for you to get excited or bent outta shape just because someone has different opinions on issues and different experiences in games and settings. When you little "army man" dies, you just pull it off the table. He will be fine for the next game I'm sure. If you lose, you will survive. There is no harm to you beyond being bumped down a notch in a tournament. That's why I play for fun first and foremost and winning second. Even in tournments, I'm just happy to get 3 games in a day as well as hang out with other gamers, win OR lose.
You do realize that you come across as the most highly strung person in this thread? What with your attacks, demands for people to leave the thread, talk of "false allegations" and references to penis size? Why do you try to characterize fair discussion as getting "bent out of shape"?
I don't think anyone disagrees with your position that friendly, narrative-based gaming can be fun or suits many people. It's just that you're in a forum where competitive people come to discuss competitive games. We're not all wound up and angry (well, Evil Inc appears to be) and caught in some trap of competitive gaming. We like it here. Your posts are fine, it's just that it's a bit orthogonal to the actual purpose of this forum which is tactics. You're arguing philosophically about whether or not something is important and that's fine. It's just that you're in the forum for people who think it is.
Friendly narrative games are fun when both players agree to it, it is fun when using Shokk attack guns and themed list and role-playing at the same time.
I wouldn't say this forum is just for competitive people, this thread however is meant to discuss "effectiveness".
I do not believe that "effectiveness" goes really well with a narrative play as that would not be the goal of it.
Fair enough. Saying the forum is for competitive people was badly put. I meant rather that it was for people who currently are being interested in being competitive. You don't have to be a competitive player to be here. You just have to be a player that is currently interested in the competitive side of things. That's what I was getting at really - that it is really absolutely fine not to be competitive. But to be arguing the virtues of being non-competitive in a tactics thread, seems odd.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fragile wrote: Its obvious this thread has turned pointless.
Yeah. Apologies for my part in that. It was just annoying me. I'm done here, barring provocation. I contributed what advice I had on CC earlier.
chelsea_hollywood wrote: 20 boys (w/ nob and klaw; i'm old fashioned) in a battle wagon is only about 260 pts. the battle wagon is about 2/5 of that. it's not a terrible ratio of pts spent on killing to pts spent getting there
Trukks are about 1/3 the price of the unit as a whole (about 160 for 12 boys incl nob w/ the trukk being about 50 of that) so their actually worse (for other reasons too; shame i like them so much)
the goal, for orks at least, is to hit the enemy line on T2. it means less chance of being in the battle wagon when it pops (and yes, that hurts) only hammer and anvil deployment really prevents that goal (unless some castles in the very back corner in a vanguard strike set up)
more generally, i find the biggest influence in being able to assault successfully (or even have a game that's more than "guy with the biggest guns wins on T1") is terrain.
6th has added some ... interesting rules for terrain, but more than anything, it's moved from the "cover 1/4 of the table" to "place about 12 pieces" (on average 2 12" by 12" or smaller pieces per 2' by 2' section of table) by putting legitimate terrain on the table (LOS blocking stuff, area terrain, ruins, big hills, forests) you have far more strategic options, movement becomes important, and units that need to get up close have a hope in hell of getting there.
Right, like i said IF you get them out theyre way better than trukks. Its pretty easy to assume two of them are going to pop after you go flat out since being 6-10" from the front line SOMETHING will have side armor and punch it. If they dont get out then theyre usually worse off than trukkboyz because i have literally never had a BW pop and ended up with enough to still be fearless afterwords. That S4 vs S3 since we have no armor is murder. usually trukkboyz i lose 2-4 on average, BW i lose 7-11. Ouch. Really really hope all ork vehicles get ramshackle in the new dex. S4 hits against the whole unit is murder when you have no armor.
Yes, the thread has indeed turned pointless. Of course, that was the intent of the flamers and trollers, to kill a thread dedicated to helping players learn to improve their game. That is what happens when you let that ilk have free reign to do as they please.
I have kept my posts helpful and accurate but as you can see 2 or 3 people can conspire to kill ANY thread through constant spamming, flaming and trolling regardless of the efforts of those who have the communities best interest in mind..
EVIL INC wrote: Of course, that was the intent of the flamers and trollers, to kill a thread dedicated to helping players learn to improve their game.
Speaking as someone who you're accusing, that's a lie.
I have kept my posts helpful and accurate but as you can see 2 or 3 people can conspire to kill ANY thread through constant spamming, flaming and trolling regardless of the efforts of those who have the communities best interest in mind..
EVIL INC wrote: Yes, the thread has indeed turned pointless. Of course, that was the intent of the flamers and trollers, to kill a thread dedicated to helping players learn to improve their game. That is what happens when you let that ilk have free reign to do as they please.
I have kept my posts helpful and accurate but as you can see 2 or 3 people can conspire to kill ANY thread through constant spamming, flaming and trolling regardless of the efforts of those who have the communities best interest in mind..
If you make one more post falsely accusing others of flaming and trolling, I'll be very tempted to just report you as a troll.
Thou dost protest too much. I did not say your name. If you have a guilty conscience, that is on you.
Trolls do not exist. They are a fictional creature. I am a human being just as you are. If you think that that is a lie, I would be more than happy to give you directions to my home to see with your own eyes.
Trolling refers to fishing not actual trolls. However, I learned long ago to not address the person when they misbehave. I address the behavior. So when I mention someone trolling, I am addressing the actions rather than the person so even if trolling was a reference to an actual troll and you are trolling, I would not call you an actual troll, I would still address your behavior.
All told, I have maintained topic, been helpful and tried nto help the community at large in a polite manner maintaining respect to everyone. In return, I have been insulted, lied about and generally treated in such a way that the forum rules have been broken in a number of blatant ways. I refuse to stoop to that behavior and will maintain the moral upper hand if not the verbal one.
Thank you. I appreciate that. As this post has been drowned out, I will repost it to help keep us on topic and to hopefully refocus attention on the real reason for the thread.....
Again, making use of terrain cover, artificial cover and terrain to totally block line of sight to prevent the enemy from shooting you at all is not an overall tactics in and of itself. It is only a small part of tactics that needs to be taken into consideration.
It does not matter if the cover save is 6+, 5+, 4+ or even better, getting a saving throw when you would not otherwise have one is beneficial to your units. Even better if you are able to use buildings/rock outcrops/whatever to TOTALLY block line of sight to prevent getting shot at at all.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ways to assist with this is to have a part in the terrain at your home or local gaming store. A. You can of course get GW buildings and position the doors and windows on the lower levels to be closed in order block line of sight. B. I have seen many places use tiles to mount their building on in order to make them more sturdy and spiced the tile up to match the building. Players will often discuss before the game and rule that the entire tile offers area terrain to match the building to represent rocks and rubble having fallen from it. C. When building your terrain, make several sets of large rock outcrops or other things that can totally block line of sight. These often look really nice and when a board is set up with several of them used at once, it gives a whole different "feel" than buildings every time .D. Make some themed boards, have you ever played on foamboards where rivers and trenches or gulleys and such were build in? I realize that not everyone's home has room for these but shops will usually have at LEAST one and if your willing to help make one, they will invariable let you use shop supplies if your building it for them.
When setting up the table don't fall into the habit of just sitting buildings in the deployment zones and placing a few craters in the middle. Watch what the opponent sets up and play the deployment itself as though it is part of the game. Look where he is setting up fire lanes and block them off while setting up your own protected highways. I am guilty of playing into an enemies hands at this part by setting up what "looks" cool and at times end up playing on fields that look like the grand canyons that are loaded with mountains and rock outcroppings because it looks nice. Don't let your opponent bully you into not placing something you want "you cant put that rock there, its in the middle of the city". When it's your turn to place, YOU get to choose the piece, Remember, it will help affect if you win or lose later in the actual game.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The denied flank (Someone else who was familiar with it posted the official name but I forget it and don't remember what thread it was in). Mind you, this falls under strategies more so than tactics but close enough for our purposes.
This has actually made a comeback as the whole whoever gets first turn sets thier entire army up first instead of trading deployment of units. This is something to keep in the back of your mind because it is a tactic that works best if used under certain situations. These situations usually consist of A. Your opponent winning the first turn/deployment and B. They play the entire field trying to ensure that they have all avenues of approach covered (which gunlines usually do).
You observe the enemy deployment, possibly measure the ranges of his weapons, take into account which side has longer range and speed of units. Pick the side you want to work on first based on whatever qualifications suit you (this side has the artillery and I want to get into their minimum fir range early while taking away the advantage of it's long range, the other side is foot sloggers with short range weapons, whatever suits YOUR needs). Position as much of your army as you can focused entirely on that one flank. To avoid overcrowding, put your faster units closer a little further away but still able to reach that flank to focus on it right off.
Now, assuming you wont steal the initiative, half of his army will have to either sit still and twiddle their thumbs with nothing in range or move giving you a full turn reprieve from the guns of half (or some other large percentage probably close to 25 totally not shooting and 25 shooting ineffectually. While you are able to overload a small portion of their army with more units than they can shoot at. What usually happens is that you swamp and snuff out that flank killing half of their army while only suffering minimal casualties with the rest of their army trickling in towards you piecemeal depending upon the speed of his different units. While you are ensconced in the defenses.
Of course, if you are able to steal the initiative, it makes it even easier for you.
That being said, it does not work every time and there are ways to counter it just as there are with any strategy. This is one of the strategies I posted earlier that was totally dismissed as never working and being totally not useful. However, I have seen it work to great effect and I have used it myself to practically table opponents.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Slingshotting
This is another that I put forth earlier that was totally dismissed as being totally worthless and not worthy of acknowledging. However I have seen it used to great effect(against me was the first time I saw it, then I watched the guy do it to others with the same effect). As it is not something I have ever tried only seeing a national tourney guy (one of a large group that goes to different tourneys every weekend throughout the year to mop up the "local yokals" and walk out with the prizes, but tot talk with him, he is actually a nice guy) so forgive me if I dont have a full grasp of it's mechanics. Again, I mentioned this before and one of the other posters had actually seen it as well and piped in with a clarification to help explain it after which on of my fan club shut up about it.
I saw it used with chaos to deliver super slicer chaord lord goodness into my lines. He attached his lord to a maxed out unit of chaos spawn with the mark of nurgle. Even tau are hard pressed to kill 3 or more of them in a single turn of shooting with normal terrain and such. He strings them towards me in a single file line with the lord at the back. With thier speed, they can reach me on turn 2 so I only get a single turn of shooting at them 2 if I get first turn. Only a single one has to reach combat for the entire rest of the unit to be protected and unable to be shot at. This then slingshots the lord into combat from the middle of the table. of course, that is not the only unit coming at me, there are also another spawn squad and big vehicular daemon engine nastyness and so forth as well which causes me to be unable to effectively focus fire on any one single target.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Not really a tactic but can help the strategy.
Although not specifically offering lists, the evolution of the game decrees that with each edition some units become more or less useful. Some become all powerfull while yet others such as the berserker can become practically obsolete. Personally, I am a conspiracy theorist and feel that thisis often done "on purpose" to force us as players to constantly be forced to buy new and different models to remain competative.
It would be too exausting for me to do a unit by unit analysys for every army. I'm a horrible hunt and peck typer as it is and dont have every codex on me. Suffice to say, that I will assume you can read and make your own decisionsas well as find out firsthand yourself through game play which units are now better suited for what role, what models to pack away until they become useful again and what units to put on your christmas or "to buy" list.
I am pretty sure that if you use the same list as last edition in the same manner you used it then now, you may find it harder to win. For example you may find that now termagants popping out of drop pods are now more effective than hormagaunt rushing.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Guns do play a more important role in the game than ever before. This is only right because it is a science fiction game where the fluff has them being everywhere. However, it is also a grim forboding and dark furure where monsters lurk everywhere so close combat need to play an important role as well (which it does). Getting into combat should not be easy, it should take skill, tactics and strategy to get to that point because when the monster is upon you and you fire off that last wild reflexive trigger pull, you will most likely be dead.
As I said before, the thread is designed for players to put forth actual tactics, strategies, one trick ponies and ideas to help players make it to close combat and be more effective at it. This is what we should be posting.
Cover can be a double-edged sword for assault units.
On the one hand it gives you a cover save, keeping more of your troops alive for longer. It's especially useful when it blocks like of sight as you can then only take casualties from a handful of weapons.
However, it can also act as a brake, slowing you down and meaning you take longer to get into combat. Taking 1/3 fewer casualties in one turn is not generally going to be worth it if it then takes an entire extra turn to reach the enemy.
The biggest losers here are (once again) foot assault units. These are the only ones that actually have their advance significantly slowed by terrain. Faster units such as bikes, jump-packers and beasts all still move at full speed, with (maybe) a chance at a casualty or two as the down-side. This is almost always worth it to maintain momentum.
In some circumstances having your foot troops avoid terrain will actually pay off. Yes, you'll lose more troops per turn but if you reach the enemy a turn earlier you will still lose fewer to shooting overall.
One key consideration for assault units is how much to spread out. It's a catch 22 situation here - clump up, and you lose less ground from shooting casualties (which in 6th edition have the additional effect of pushing your units backwards), but you're vulnerable to blast weapons. Spread out and blast weapons are far less effective - but only a small number of casualties are pushing you back a significant distance, which will add up over the course of a few turns.
Take a look at your opponent's army to factor in the risks. IG are horrible for assault forces because they bring multiple effective blasts to the table. On the other hand, Eldar have surprisingly few blast templates, as Fire Prisms are out of fashion. It's often worth clumping up a bit more against them as they may lack the ability to blast gaping holes in your line. Tau can be deadly with multiple markerlight-supported cover-ignoring Riptides, but otherwise they also have very few blasts available.
Once again units other than the humble infantryman have the advantage, this time those with larger bases where it's harder to catch multiple models in one go, such as beasts and bikes.
Finally, if you have the ability, get your assault troops nearer the enemy by using scout or infiltrate. It's often difficult to do this as the units with this rule are not always the units you want to assault with, but it's sometimes possible.
For example, this is one of the reasons why Huron Blackheart is the most popular special character for Chaos. He's the only one who gives the many tasty Chaos close combat units a way of actually getting to the enemy, in a codex that is otherwise devoid of usable ways of doing this (rhinos are too vulnerable, land raiders are too costly, and we all know what happens to foot-slogging MEQs, especially expensive ones). Kor'serro Khan would probably do the job for SMs, but it's a lot more effective to simply get loads of bikes instead...
Hedgehog wrote: Cover can be a double-edged sword for assault units.
On the one hand it gives you a cover save, keeping more of your troops alive for longer. It's especially useful when it blocks like of sight as you can then only take casualties from a handful of weapons.
However, it can also act as a brake, slowing you down and meaning you take longer to get into combat. Taking 1/3 fewer casualties in one turn is not generally going to be worth it if it then takes an entire extra turn to reach the enemy.
The biggest losers here are (once again) foot assault units. These are the only ones that actually have their advance significantly slowed by terrain. Faster units such as bikes, jump-packers and beasts all still move at full speed, with (maybe) a chance at a casualty or two as the down-side. This is almost always worth it to maintain momentum.
In some circumstances having your foot troops avoid terrain will actually pay off. Yes, you'll lose more troops per turn but if you reach the enemy a turn earlier you will still lose fewer to shooting overall.
One key consideration for assault units is how much to spread out. It's a catch 22 situation here - clump up, and you lose less ground from shooting casualties (which in 6th addition have the additional effect of pushing your units backwards), but you're vulnerable to blast weapons. Spread out and blast weapons are far less effective - but only a small number of casualties are pushing you back a significant distance, which will add up over the course of a few turns.
Take a look at your opponent's army to factor in the risks. IG are horrible for assault forces because they bring multiple effective blasts to the table. On the other hand, Eldar have surprisingly few blast templates, as Fire Prisms are out of fashion. It's often worth clumping up a bit more against them as they may lack the ability to blast gaping holes in your line. Tau can be deadly with multiple markerlight-supported cover-ignoring Riptides, but otherwise they also have very few blasts available.
Once again units other than the humble infantryman have the advantage, this time those with larger bases where it's harder to catch multiple models in one go, such as beasts and bikes.
Finally, if you have the ability, get your assault troops nearer the enemy by using scout or infiltrate. It's often difficult to do this as the units with this rule are not always the units you want to assault with, but it's sometimes possible.
For example, this is one of the reasons why Huron Blackheart is the most popular special character for Chaos. He's the only one actually gives the many tasty Chaos close combat units a way of getting to the enemy, in a codex that is otherwise devoid of usable ways of doing this (rhinos are too vulnerable, land raiders are too costly, and we all know what happens to foot-slogging MEQs, especially expensive ones). Kor'serro Khan would probably do the job for SMs, but it's a lot more effective to simply get loads of bikes instead...
Exalted good sir. Pretty much agree with you.
Now then, does anybody have any particular tactics for orks? I know very little as I rarely see or hear much of them anymore (besides dakka dakka lists), but how would one advise an ork player to maneuver about in a more effective and threatening CC manner? (I use them as from what I have heard they are a army that suffers some of the worst to get into cc with most cc units seemingly being rather slow)
Hedgehog wrote: Take a look at your opponent's army to factor in the risks. IG are horrible for assault forces because they bring multiple effective blasts to the table. On the other hand, Eldar have surprisingly few blast templates, as Fire Prisms are out of fashion. It's often worth clumping up a bit more against them as they may lack the ability to blast gaping holes in your line. Tau can be deadly with multiple markerlight-supported cover-ignoring Riptides, but otherwise they also have very few blasts available.
On the contrary, we have some excellent ones. It's just for reasons inexplicable to me, we hardly ever use them. Fire Prism as you say, but also Vaul's Wrath Support Batteries - they come with monofilament barrage weapons by default and thus are pinning. (Awesome). Plasma missiles available with any Guardian Squad (also Pinning). And the powerful but rather pricey for what you get Nightspinner (can fire either a Large Blast barrage or a torrent depending on the mode you choose at the time of firing, both modes pinning again). I didn't know Fire Prisms were out of fashion but the other two on the list have never been in fashion so far as I can tell. And yet they are both there. I have a list which I think is okay generally, but give me a large number of lightly armoured enemy (IG are perfect) and it becomes the Army of Pinning. If you think Eldar are mobile now, wait until you find half your army going to ground from a hail of missiles and barrage weapons.
On the subject of cover, all you say is correct, but I'd sooner have it than not for my CC troops because if I can make my enemy come to me, it gives me much greater opportunity to spring a load of CC troops on them without a chance to shoot them down. I said it earlier, but the question of how to get your CC troops into combat can be significantly sidestepped in many instances by realizing that often their best role is defensive. They can excel at punishing encroaching enemy.
This thread is quite disturbing to me, my current project is solely based around 2,000 points of BA assault squads. I'm hoping I haven't wasted a lot of time, buying, converting and painting my soldiers that will be ineffective in all but casual games.
What tactics would you suggest for;
3x10 man Assault sqauds, with a Priest and Chaplain/Reclusiarch attached.
10 man Death Squad with Lamartes attached.
All with Jump packs, Priests and Sarges have powerfists (x7). There's a Thunder hammer and inferno pistol in the death squad and plasma pistols as my special weapons.
47 marines all with; Decent of Angels, Liturgies of Blood, Feel No Pain, Furious Charge plus some others rules I can't remember.
I was thinking Deep strike behind cover, next turn jump and assault.
I see those points and agree with them. I wouldn't say that that is THE best use for them, I would say that that is a way to employ the effectively according to your playstyle.
As a guard player, I can say that there are a few items to mention, Not all guard armies infantry. When using units that carry heavy weapons, I will sometimes put them in a chimera and just fire out of it instead of deploying them on foot. I will also look at the enemy and choose targets to shoot at according to what the role of my targets are. Torrent weapons are usually pretty high on my list. Personally, I think elder are more easy to target prioritize against than anyone else because of the dedication to specific roles their units have.
But this is where we get to the difference of strategy and tactics. To me, strategy is where you look at the table, what you have and what the opponent has and decide what your overall plan is. Tactics is what you use from turn to turn based on the results of each turn. I had to learn tactics the hard way. I used to play a buddy of mine and he stomped me a lot because my grand plan fell apart the first time anything failed to achieve it's goal of he did something unexpected. I had to learn the hard way and that is still my Achilles heel. lol
But this is part of what we are looking for here. Not just the overall strategies of what you want your units to do but also ways to exploit weaknesses in the enemy as something goes against them or as they make a mistake or the dice fail them and be prepared for those eventualities before they arise.
That being said, Eldar do have the ability to take blast templates. From what I have seen, most elder players don't use them in favor of spending the points on their fast and more mobile units. Almost the mentalist of "if I wanted an ordinance army, I'd be playing guard". I know it is there, it is fluffy but just doesn't match the personal mental image of what a lot of gamers see in using an elder army. It might also be that they aren't cool or flashy enough. Whatever the reason, I just never really see them. I take that back, I've seen one player use them in an apoc game.
rhysgm wrote: I was thinking Deep strike behind cover, next turn jump and assault.
Behind Line of Sight blocking terrain and you're pretty much correct. With 3+ saves (and hopefully at least a 5++ cover) you should be okay to survive one round of fire.
47 models isn't a lot though. (or maybe I'm used to my Nids)
Remember that, no matter how tempting, don't fire the turn you Deep Strike in. Your list should always run to make sure the right guys are in line to die (ie not special weapons) and spread out from blast weapons.
What models are you going to have start on the board? In 6th edition you can't have everything in reserve.
rhysgm wrote: I was thinking Deep strike behind cover, next turn jump and assault.
Behind Line of Sight blocking terrain and you're pretty much correct. With 3+ saves (and hopefully at least a 5++ cover) you should be okay to survive one round of fire.
47 models isn't a lot though. (or maybe I'm used to my Nids)
Remember that, no matter how tempting, don't fire the turn you Deep Strike in. Your list should always run to make sure the right guys are in line to die (ie not special weapons) and spread out from blast weapons.
What models are you going to have start on the board? In 6th edition you can't have everything in reserve.
Yeah I wanted everything in reserve, I could have death company out as they're not scoring and would provide a good distraction, then deep strike behind enemy lines
rigeld2 wrote: You should familiarize yourself with the Reserve rules -
I know, I've never actually used deep striking before or reserves for that matter.
I guess keeping all 4 units on the table from the start and jumping up the board using the cover save. Avoiding LOS to shooters.
Primary objectives for me would be scoring troops. And just ignore/aviod, HS/FA/Elites. Secondary objective I guess would be game objectives.
Also I haven't actually played a game since 4th, I'm a returning player. But I don't get the advantage of challenges, should I be challenging better IC's than my chaplains. If they have just a squad leader, should I not be challenging, and if a sarge challenges me, should I be accepting.
The way I'm seeing it is, I don't want my IC to die against a superior unit but also I don't want to waste all of his attacks on just a Marine with a better Ld.
rhysgm wrote: This thread is quite disturbing to me, my current project is solely based around 2,000 points of BA assault squads. I'm hoping I haven't wasted a lot of time, buying, converting and painting my soldiers that will be ineffective in all but casual games.
What tactics would you suggest for;
3x10 man Assault sqauds, with a Priest and Chaplain/Reclusiarch attached.
10 man Death Squad with Lamartes attached.
All with Jump packs, Priests and Sarges have powerfists (x7). There's a Thunder hammer and inferno pistol in the death squad and plasma pistols as my special weapons.
47 marines all with; Decent of Angels, Liturgies of Blood, Feel No Pain, Furious Charge plus some others rules I can't remember.
I was thinking Deep strike behind cover, next turn jump and assault.
What if there is no cover that's in a good place to DS behind? Trying to be aggressive with DS reserves has always been marginal at best.
rigeld2 wrote: You should familiarize yourself with the Reserve rules -
I know, I've never actually used deep striking before or reserves for that matter.
I guess keeping all 4 units on the table from the start and jumping up the board using the cover save. Avoiding LOS to shooters.
Primary objectives for me would be scoring troops. And just ignore/aviod, HS/FA/Elites. Secondary objective I guess would be game objectives.
Also I haven't actually played a game since 4th, I'm a returning player. But I don't get the advantage of challenges, should I be challenging better IC's than my chaplains. If they have just a squad leader, should I not be challenging, and if a sarge challenges me, should I be accepting.
The way I'm seeing it is, I don't want my IC to die against a superior unit but also I don't want to waste all of his attacks on just a Marine with a better Ld.
Marine ICs in general are pretty bad. Biker captains are sweet now because they make bikes troops. BA have no such rule. All BAICs are now overcosted horribly.
The answer to your challenge question is "It depends."
Do they have a beatstick character that will wipe out your unit in one turn? Is it your turn or theirs? Do you have a beatstick character? Do you want this assault to keep going?
If they have a beatstick and charged you, don't challenge - you'll probably lose the combat anyway, so you want to fall back out of the assault to be able to shoot them. If they have a beatstick and you charged them, challenge. You'll reduce their beatstick to only killing one model during your turn, he'll finish off the unit on his turn and you get another turn to respond to the threat.
rhysgm wrote: This thread is quite disturbing to me, my current project is solely based around 2,000 points of BA assault squads. I'm hoping I haven't wasted a lot of time, buying, converting and painting my soldiers that will be ineffective in all but casual games.
What tactics would you suggest for;
3x10 man Assault sqauds, with a Priest and Chaplain/Reclusiarch attached.
10 man Death Squad with Lamartes attached.
All with Jump packs, Priests and Sarges have powerfists (x7). There's a Thunder hammer and inferno pistol in the death squad and plasma pistols as my special weapons.
47 marines all with; Decent of Angels, Liturgies of Blood, Feel No Pain, Furious Charge plus some others rules I can't remember.
I was thinking Deep strike behind cover, next turn jump and assault.
Don't panic yet. Your troops are both fast and pretty hardy. Now if you had a massive investment in Storm Guardians, you might be concerned, but jet-powered super-humans encased in ceramite armour, these should be pretty good at surviving into close combat. Just make good use of LOS-blocking cover and be patient enough to time your advance to best advantage, not just bounce your way straight toward a gunline.
I want to test out an imperial guard list that actually takes advantage of Creed's for the honor of cadia special order. Something along the lines of using a combined squad of 5 infantry squads that contains a commissar and a priest with evisorator. 50 guards men with Furious charge, fearless, stubborn re-rolling to hit melee attacks could be a fun list for sure.
Majsharan wrote: I want to test out an imperial guard list that actually takes advantage of Creed's for the honor of cadia special order. Something along the lines of using a combined squad of 5 infantry squads that contains a commissar and a priest with evisorator. 50 guards men with Furious charge, fearless, stubborn re-rolling to hit melee attacks could be a fun list for sure.
Give each Sgt a power axe - I've heard this can be unexpectedly effective
You may also want to consider recycling conscripts w/Chenkov [I'm still never sure that's his name...]
I confirm the axes. At initiative 3 and the preponderance of assault grenades, chances are, you are swinging last anyway so you might as well take the axes for the strength and ap bonus. I put them on my crusaders as well.
I haven't read most of the last 9 pages, but just wanted to point something out that came up another thread...
Turn 3 is pretty much the universal assault turn for most assault units. People seem to think that if an assault unit can't get to the enemy before turn 3, then its not viable. This is sadly myopic, and completely wrong. Now, there are some very fast assault units that can apply pressure turn 2, and using these can allow time for your turn 3 assaulter to get to the point of attack. In short, though, the number one area I see people consistently mess up with the assault phase is patience. Allow your units time to all get into position as safely as possible, and then strike. Patience, patience, patience.
Of course, this brings in another issue that any good assault unit needs. Ways to stay alive before you get to assault. Whether it be resiliency mechanics, LOS blocking units, or whatever, you need to minimize shooting cassualties as much as possible. This is why the Land Raider and Monolith are two of the most under appreciated units in the entire game. They are giant, incredibly difficult to kill, LOS blocking walls. Use them. Particular the LR, its a frikken assault vehicle. Use it.
ShadarLogoth wrote: I haven't read most of the last 9 pages, but just wanted to point something out that came up another thread...
Turn 3 is pretty much the universal assault turn for most assault units. People seem to think that if an assault unit can't get to the enemy before turn 3, then its not viable. This is sadly myopic, and completely wrong. Now, there are some very fast assault units that can apply pressure turn 2, and using these can allow time for your turn 3 assaulter to get to the point of attack. In short, though, the number one area I see people consistently mess up with the assault phase is patience. Allow your units time to all get into position as safely as possible, and then strike. Patience, patience, patience.
Of course, this brings in another issue that any good assault unit needs. Ways to stay alive before you get to assault. Whether it be resiliency mechanics, LOS blocking units, or whatever, you need to minimize shooting cassualties as much as possible. This is why the Land Raider and Monolith are two of the most under appreciated units in the entire game. They are giant, incredibly difficult to kill, LOS blocking walls. Use them. Particular the LR, its a frikken assault vehicle. Use it.
Apart from the fact that the LR costs 220-250 points base, and redeems about half that, even when it manages to let off an assault unit.
LR's tend to be a rather ineffective vehicle, despite being an assault vehicle.
A model /unit does not have to "personally" kill it's points worth to be effective (although a land raider can easily do it). It's effectiveness is also shown in units that it helps to weaken and the boost it gives to other units and the ways in which it helps other units be more effective and kill more than their points worth. It can also be considered effective if it helps win a game without killing a single points worth of models (think a 80 point guard unit outflanking and hiding in an enemy deployment zone for linebreaker).
ShadarLogoth , Your spot on.
The mathhammer is strong, and we like having those hard numbers in front of us, but ultimately it is a generals decisions that decide whether he got his men killed frivolously or not.
For example, say I take a group of Khorne Berzerkers in a Land Raider with Kharne (because that's something I want to do. Or how about 3 LR's packed with Khorne Berzerkers? ) and more berzerkers behind the LR's gaining LOS blocking cover.
And let's say you're awesome and you stop my Land Raiders just outside of their designated drop zone. Let's say I can only burn 2 out of 3 Overwatches with my 60 berzerkers, divided into squads of 10, 3 of which in LR, 3 out.
Just the fact that the LR's denied your squads the ability to completely mow down those Berzerkers otherwise. How many points is that worth? Or even better than that, how many points is it worth your enemies even paying attention to them in the first place and not the Vindicators that creeped up with them.
From a points perspective, these may be the worst examples ever, but the idea remains. How many points did you "give up" to deny your opponent even more, turns before?
And a Land Raider is nothing to shrug at. 14av all the way around is tough business, especially with the worst of upgrades and the like. (Daemon Possession, etc)
When we design lists, we can only play the probabilities. And the probabilities are, that in any given situation, a squad good at shooting is more useful than a squad good at assault in 6th edition. The current top lists don't really assault at all.
Martel732 wrote: When we design lists, we can only play the probabilities. And the probabilities are, that in any given situation, a squad good at shooting is more useful than a squad good at assault in 6th edition. The current top lists don't really assault at all.
This is true of combat in nearly all forms. However, the lethality of close combat is still something to be praised, even if actually getting into close combat is next to impossible.
Ex: If you've got a squad of shooters that have been chewing up my assaulters for two turns, and on turn three I'm finally going to get to put my teeth back into you and I do, there is a very good chance I will wipe your shooters off the map in the first combat engagement. This is why I like Berzerkers now because they are geared up for ending that fight on the charge. And if I win combat, you'd better be a marine because if you run and I catch you, good by squad.
I didn't really appreciate this aspect of the assault until I watched a game between a mechanized IG company and a Cultist CSM Army. He put 30 cultists in front of an IG Walker with the hopes of tarpitting the unit, and he did for a turn until the Walker won combat and caught them with an Sweeping Advance, which was horrible for the CSM because he just lost 30 cultists for taking action. lol
THAT is the true lethality of close combat. Yes, shooting is far more dependable, but close combat can eat your lunch in a matter of a single dice roll.
I would say it depends. Your gun squad may be better or more lethal at some things but the close combat squad will better or more lethal at others. Given the small table size along, you find close combat troops a lot more effective than you would think. What it comes down to is how good of a player you are and what strategies and tactics you employ compared to those of your opponent. The luck of the dice, of course, also plays a part.
I would much rather have my unit be stuck in combat during my opponent's shooting phase and then break free during their assault phase than eliminate them on the charge.
Tyberos the Red Wake wrote: I would much rather have my unit be stuck in combat during my opponent's shooting phase and then break free during their assault phase than eliminate them on the charge.
That is ideal, of course, but sometimes the dice gods just want you to be awesome for a little while. XD
EVIL INC wrote: A model /unit does not have to "personally" kill it's points worth to be effective (although a land raider can easily do it). It's effectiveness is also shown in units that it helps to weaken and the boost it gives to other units and the ways in which it helps other units be more effective and kill more than their points worth. It can also be considered effective if it helps win a game without killing a single points worth of models (think a 80 point guard unit outflanking and hiding in an enemy deployment zone for linebreaker).
ShadarLogoth , Your spot on.
This pretty much gets to the bottom line. Until people can remove themselves from the paradigm where the grand total of a units contribution is assessed by "what did it kill," units like LRs and Monos will be rated considerably lower then reality indicates. Both units open up a variety of strategic and tactical options that will directly result in you winning more games. Putting an accurate point value on that can be difficult, but this simply cannot be overlooked.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
That is ideal, of course, but sometimes the dice gods just want you to be awesome for a little while. XD
No doubt, and that's what magnifies the "lethality of close combat" you were alluding to above. Ideally, once your CC hits there lines, you should be able to bounce from unit to unit destroying them while suffering minimal casualties in return. Turns 1, 2 favor shooting, but turns 3, 4, and 5+ should favor CC, if you designed your list and employed your tactics properly. Of course, it never hurts when the dice are on your side as well.
This pretty much gets to the bottom line. Until people can remove themselves from the paradigm where the grand total of a units contribution is assessed by "what did it kill," units like LRs and Monos will be rated considerably lower then reality indicates. Both units open up a variety of strategic and tactical options that will directly result in you winning more games. Putting an accurate point value on that can be difficult, but this simply cannot be overlooked.
This is false thinking. A unit is based on several factors, the predominant ones being its resilience and firepower, with mobility being another factor. Don't fool yourself or anyone onto thinking that sub optimal units will magically become better if you are a better player than your opponent. This whole forum revolves around tried, true, tested tactics/builds that utilize the best available unit for the given purpose. Don't hand wave away point values, as they limit your ability to bring certain combinations to the table. These 'strategic' and 'tactical' options some units deliver are hard to justify in a general meta where shooting is king and the top armies can field armies that will easily out shoot any close combat army.
Selecting units that have a good value for their points is part of being a good player. Don't pick of bunch of crap like berserkers and then expect to magically push the plastic better. I'm pretty certain I can wipe up berserkers with my lowly BA, much less the power codices. The opportunity cost for assault is just so high now.
This is false thinking. A unit is based on several factors, the predominant ones being its resilience and firepower, with mobility being another factor.
Okay, well, LRs start off pretty darn high on all of those, so, we're doing good there I guess.
Don't fool yourself or anyone onto thinking that sub optimal units will magically become better if you are a better player than your opponent.
Don't fool yourself into thinking your appraisal of "sub optimal" is definitive or accurately tested. Also, my "assumptions" have absolutely nothing to do with my opponent. The Land Raider gives you options that would simply not exist if it wasn't there. This is completely about you, and the tools you have at your disposal to win games. What your opponent is doing, what list he is bringing, how he is using said list...all of those factors are irrelevant to the fact that you have choices that didn't exist previously.
This whole forum revolves around tried, true, tested tactics/builds that utilize the best available unit for the given purpose.
Sure, which has a tendency to lead to group think and poor appraisal of units that aren't "tried" as much as the others. MVB just won a tournament against the best players on the east coast with an LR in his list. It wasn't just some shoe horn addition, either. It was a crucial part of his victory in every game he played. Point being, very often the collective notions surrounding units that aren't used often is simply myopic and wrong.
Don't hand wave away point values, as they limit your ability to bring certain combinations to the table.
I was doing nothing of the sort. I'm merely pointing out that there is much more to those point values then "what can it kill" and "what can it survive."
These 'strategic' and 'tactical' options some units deliver are hard to justify in a general meta where shooting is king and the top armies can field armies that will easily out shoot any close combat army.
When these "strategic" and "tactical optionsDIRECTLY impact shooting, by keeping bullets away from the unit inside, as well as keeping bullets away from any units behind it....then, yeah, I would say they are pretty relevant.
Selecting units that have a good value for their points is part of being a good player. Don't pick of bunch of crap like berserkers and then expect to magically push the plastic better. I'm pretty certain I can wipe up berserkers with my lowly BA, much less the power codices. The opportunity cost for assault is just so high now.
Gravy. I play an almost pure assault army with my Necrons. That's right, my "not good at CC" army. And it works incredibly well. The tools are there for most codices, irridisunregardless of anyone being cognizant of their existence.
ShadarLogoth, You are correct. This is part of the reason why many players who used to "rule the tables" with the close combat armies are unable to do so now while those who look at the larger picture and are able to more effectively use their units both shooty and assault are still able to "rule the tables" with their assault style armies. I started this thread to help the former become more like the latter.
EVIL INC wrote: ShadarLogoth, You are correct. This is part of the reason why many players who used to "rule the tables" with the close combat armies are unable to do so now while those who look at the larger picture and are able to more effectively use their units both shooty and assault are still able to "rule the tables" with their assault style armies. I started this thread to help the former become more like the latter.
When did people ever "rule the tables" with assault armies in 5th? Everyone was spamming vehicles, which CC was awful at handling, and everyone was taking MSU to get more Razorbacks/Venoms/InsertTransportWithGunHere. CC had its place, but shooting was dominant by far. There's a reason the two (arguably) builds that stayed the most dominant were IG leafblowers and Long Fang spam, and it's not because they were the best at CC.
Obviously you never faced lists like orks or bugs or space wolves and so forth. They all have close combat elements that helped them to rule the tables.
Your view of "if even a single model in the entire has so much as a blowgun, it is a shooty army and I will blame my loss on that single blowgun" attitude is what is at the crux of the matter. Close combat requires strategy and tactics. It also requires a coherency with guns (40k is a science fiction setting where guns DO exist) to work the two elements together to win games.
I would suggest that you play fantasy but you will find guns, artillery, bows and yes, even blowguns there as well.
Bugs did not "rule the tables" in 5th.
Orks did well and were a mix of CC and shooting.
Space wolves were primarily shooting (for the best builds) with enough CC to make people stay away.
Keep your rose colored glasses on, but 5th was not the CC paradise you keep saying it was.
No one ruled tables in 5th with CC. Not the Tyranids. Not the BA. One big reason was SW. Another was IG leafblower.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EVIL INC wrote: Obviously you never faced lists like orks or bugs or space wolves and so forth. They all have close combat elements that helped them to rule the tables.
Your view of "if even a single model in the entire has so much as a blowgun, it is a shooty army and I will blame my loss on that single blowgun" attitude is what is at the crux of the matter. Close combat requires strategy and tactics. It also requires a coherency with guns (40k is a science fiction setting where guns DO exist) to work the two elements together to win games.
I would suggest that you play fantasy but you will find guns, artillery, bows and yes, even blowguns there as well.
I usually ripped Orks and bugs apart with razor spam. Does that sound like CC was a problem?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer222 wrote: Well if you have enough close combat now adays you can win it just takes more skill to use them properly and more specialized units.
Is there a skill that makes Tau and Eldar roll poorly? Because that's the only relevant "skill" I can think of. It's not like Starcraft where I might be able to out-micro a superior force. The "I go You go" format really limits how much input I can have compared to Starcraft.
EVIL INC wrote: Obviously you never faced lists like orks or bugs or space wolves and so forth. They all have close combat elements that helped them to rule the tables.
Your view of "if even a single model in the entire has so much as a blowgun, it is a shooty army and I will blame my loss on that single blowgun" attitude is what is at the crux of the matter. Close combat requires strategy and tactics. It also requires a coherency with guns (40k is a science fiction setting where guns DO exist) to work the two elements together to win games.
I would suggest that you play fantasy but you will find guns, artillery, bows and yes, even blowguns there as well.
The Orks where everyone took Shootas, the Bugs where Hive Guard were mandatory and the Space Wolves that spammed Long Fangs (seriously, I even mentioned them!!) and Razorbacks, preferring to shoot people to pieces because they have Counter-Attack?
Yes, close combat requires strategy and tactics, but no matter how much strategy or tactics you put into it you can't change the fact that shooting is inherently much more powerful, and was so in 5th edition too.
Apparantly, we have a few who are new to the hobby. Welcome aboard. those of us who have been around a while and have a working knowledge of the game are always happy to see new faces to teach the hobby to.
You might want to stay on topic though .
That being said. close combat starts when you build your list. You need to ensure that you have a good balance of what you will need. this includes both guns and "swords" (even bugs, orks and space wolves with their longfangs had close combat elements in their lists that were essential to win). This is when you start to build your strategy as well. This unit will provide covering fire for this other unit as it advances. otherwise, the enemy will be able to fire at the advancing unit indescrimanantly. This unit will drop pod in and provide aeither a distraction or outright blast away and get to assault in the following turn while yet another unit of ymgarles will pop out of the terrain and get a free assault at any nearby units without even having to walk there and so on and so forth.
Then, there is the terrain set up. Creating fire lanes for your own units while also creating free passage routes for your advancing units and so on.
Then comes the tactics which come into play after the game starts. that further help to win. For example, using land raiders or rhinos to block line of sight to units, using screening units and so forth to protect your more valuable units to ensure they get where they need to be to be effective.
There are many on the boards who have been around a while and know and agree what I am talking about. these are the tournament winners and players with high win ratios who are able to winwith either a shooty or assault army or trade lists with opponants and win using either one (you might actually try this sometime as it is an excellent training tool to help you overcome your weaknesses as a player).
ignore these who spam "close combat is dead!!!!", "close combat is weak!!!!!" and "all shooty armies get the autowin!!!". these vocal few have been proven wrong and are only spamming in hopes GW will listen to them and go back to the "good ol days" where you the specific strategies and tactics they learned worked so they don't have to learn to play and win under a more balanced and realistic edition of the game.Close combat is not dead. It still plays a valid and essentially vital role in the game of 40k where it often decides who wins or loses a game. You also need to remember to play wo win instead of playing to annihilate the enemy. As you can see, many who play only to annihilate the enemy will often complain that close combat has been killed because they actually need to use strategy and tactics to win. Remember main and secondary objectives when doing this as well and you will win more games as well.
Killing almost an entire enemy army does not get you the win if they hold the majority of objectives, have gained first blood, achieved linebreaker and slain your warlord because they still win and you still lose.
"Killing almost an entire enemy army does not get you the win if they hold the majority of objectives, have gained first blood, achieved linebreaker and slain your warlord because they still win and you still lose."
It's really hard to hold objectives when you're dead.
The people pimping CC here are really underestimating the buckets of dice being throw around in the shooting phase. And 10 shooter models can usually HTH 2 CC models to death after crippling them via shooting. Even Tau. The entire claim seems to revolve around a critical mass of LOS blocking terrain. The fact that CC needs this to be viable, to me, means its inferior. In 3rd edition, where CC was actually overpowered, the assault armies worked fine on an empty table.
You will notice that I said 'almost" the entire enemy army.
While yes, it is possible to win by tabling someone but you can (although apparently, many do) rely on tabling the other player each and every single game you ever play. The smarter money is usually bet on the player that uses strategy and tactics to play towards the objectives of the scenario in order to have the higher score. that's how tournaments are won.
The people pimping shooting here are really underestimating terrain, cover and LOS along with the buckets of dice thrown around in the assault phase . And 10 shooter models cant usually HTH 20 CC models to death after being unable to effectively shoot at them because of the use of tactics. Even Tau are required to use strategy and tactics to effectively make the best of their guns. The entire claim seems to revolve around a critical mass of LOS blocking terrain or area terrain or the ability to use pods or transports or screening cover and so on and so forth. The fact that CC needs this to be viable, to me, means it plays a valid and vital role in the game. I just don't see a unit of ymgarls stopping an inc away from the rear army of a 3 tank unit of manticores and saying to one another "We cant assault this, it has a gun on it" . I see them assaulting and wiping the entire unit out.
most people believe cc is dead and im happy to let people think it is
I've been having a lot more success with assault marines because many opponents don't have / aren't bringing stuff to deal with it. I've only had this 10 man squad for a couple of weeks and it upsets people greatly when they leap into backlines and remove the heavy support fire and more importantly this edition anti aircraft fire. I own a complete stormwing (storm raven and 2 storm talons) and it removes what ever I don't want of the table nice and easy. it would be impossible to field though if it wasn't for the efforts of my assault squad in wreaking quad guns and the squishy guys that most people buy to man them. due to delayed reserves rolls my squad actually managed to kick some cultists off the gun and fire it into the face of his helldrake, most lolsy game ever.
I will never win a game purely through might of cc but it is an element of the game that if you don't use, will see losing a lot of games you play. unless your tau as you outgun everything.
EVIL INC wrote: Apparantly, we have a few who are new to the hobby. Welcome aboard. those of us who have been around a while and have a working knowledge of the game are always happy to see new faces to teach the hobby to.
You might want to stay on topic though .
That being said. close combat starts when you build your list. You need to ensure that you have a good balance of what you will need. this includes both guns and "swords" (even bugs, orks and space wolves with their longfangs had close combat elements in their lists that were essential to win). This is when you start to build your strategy as well. This unit will provide covering fire for this other unit as it advances. otherwise, the enemy will be able to fire at the advancing unit indescrimanantly. This unit will drop pod in and provide aeither a distraction or outright blast away and get to assault in the following turn while yet another unit of ymgarles will pop out of the terrain and get a free assault at any nearby units without even having to walk there and so on and so forth.
Then, there is the terrain set up. Creating fire lanes for your own units while also creating free passage routes for your advancing units and so on.
Then comes the tactics which come into play after the game starts. that further help to win. For example, using land raiders or rhinos to block line of sight to units, using screening units and so forth to protect your more valuable units to ensure they get where they need to be to be effective.
There are many on the boards who have been around a while and know and agree what I am talking about. these are the tournament winners and players with high win ratios who are able to winwith either a shooty or assault army or trade lists with opponants and win using either one (you might actually try this sometime as it is an excellent training tool to help you overcome your weaknesses as a player).
ignore these who spam "close combat is dead!!!!", "close combat is weak!!!!!" and "all shooty armies get the autowin!!!". these vocal few have been proven wrong and are only spamming in hopes GW will listen to them and go back to the "good ol days" where you the specific strategies and tactics they learned worked so they don't have to learn to play and win under a more balanced and realistic edition of the game.Close combat is not dead. It still plays a valid and essentially vital role in the game of 40k where it often decides who wins or loses a game. You also need to remember to play wo win instead of playing to annihilate the enemy. As you can see, many who play only to annihilate the enemy will often complain that close combat has been killed because they actually need to use strategy and tactics to win. Remember main and secondary objectives when doing this as well and you will win more games as well.
Killing almost an entire enemy army does not get you the win if they hold the majority of objectives, have gained first blood, achieved linebreaker and slain your warlord because they still win and you still lose.
Oh, for god's sake. Here we go again.
Stop being so condescending, being in the hobby for longer than others does not make you automatically right. Nor does it mean that they have zero experience.
Aside from getting seriously sidetracked with your arguments, we've been fairly on track here. Any post that even vaguely debates the viability/tactics/builds/use of CC is an On-Topic post, due to the fact that this thread is called "Close Combat". Not "Evil Inc knows everything, therefore your argument is invalid".
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.
And on to my main point:
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.
Please explain these magic tactics. Making a board into a hedge maze is not a "tactic". I still think there are too many cases where terrain makes assault armies worse. Plus, shooting doesn't have to table you. Just kill/cripple your scoring units.
"ymgarls"
They have a very special rule that makes them much more effective at assault.
Its seems we'll need to agree to disagree on this. I don't fear your assault elements, because most of them will be dead before they get to my list. If I built my list correctly.
Currently at the highest level of competative play (GTs) there is really only one or two lists that reliably place well (in the top 10) that heavily rely on assault, those are jetseer council and beast pack, both units rely on re-rollable saves to get into combat and as a result are obscenely tough, basically impossible to kill under most circumstances, on top of that they're also very mobile and have other advantages, eg the beastpack has a huge footprint which aids board control and allows for insane multi assaults. Plus both are usually backed up by massed wave serpents, wraithknights, nightspinners and/or allied tau for insane volume fire or high precision ignores cover shots.
I think this says a lot about the current state of close combat, you just don't regularly see the typical sort of cc focused armies in the top slots at tournaments because of the firepower available to certain armies combined with no first turn assault, no assault from reserves, tau's ability to overwatch at bs with pretty much their whole army, assault units and upgrades being often overcosted.
Yes cc can still work but not at the highest level of play and in that case only with one or two lists. Your cc army still stands a chance in casual games as long as your gaming group doesn't adhere closely to the top level meta. Where I play its a mixed bag there's some that run fluffy DCBA with lots of lots of dreads or massed thunderwolves SW but there's also waveserpent spam players against whom an assault based army doesn't stand a chance.
Best way to stop an enemy from shooting you is CC.
Most common trends today are for shooting armies.
Therefore, CC used correctly utterly destroys most armies today.
I play with some of the top 25 players in the country when it comes to 40k, including a guy who ranked 9th at the last adepticon. I go after them with melee from time to time, it works. Net lists be damned.
juraigamer wrote: Best way to stop an enemy from shooting you is CC.
Most common trends today are for shooting armies.
Therefore, CC used correctly utterly destroys most armies today.
I play with some of the top 25 players in the country when it comes to 40k, including a guy who ranked 9th at the last adepticon. I go after them with melee from time to time, it works. Net lists be damned.
The trend exists because more often than not, the shooting army can cripple the hand to hand army before they do enough damage to matter. Even BA work better now as a shooting army. My win rate went up significantly when I stopped trying to punch people.
Stop being so condescending, being in the hobby for longer than others does not make you automatically right. Nor does it mean that they have zero experience.
Aside from getting seriously sidetracked with your arguments, we've been fairly on track here. Any post that even vaguely debates the viability/tactics/builds/use of CC is an On-Topic post, due to the fact that this thread is called "Close Combat". Not "Evil Inc knows everything, therefore your argument is invalid".
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.
And on to my main point:
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.
Remember to keep this on topic and leave the trolling (you post is positively dripping with it) out of the posts.
Due to the new edition and the changes within codexes as they are brought out,some units DO become obsolete and not worth their points. This in turn means that they see less action and players are forced to buy new models and replace their old favorites with new units that are more cost effective. just because your old favorite builds were very specific units (such as berserkers) are "phased out" in this way does not mean close combat is dead and no longer part of the game or EVER a viable option to use in the game ever. Just splurge and buy some spawn whichone of the newer chaos close combat workhorses and learn new tactics. Some players do indeed just replace with all shooty units totally disregarding close combat. those players lose thier games.
Each player gets to set up terrain when setting up the board. While your opponent will often set up their pieces to try to gain an advantage, you get to set it up to gain an advantage for you as well. You may be surprised by this evidently but your opponent is NOT allowed to remove or move what you place on the board. therefore, that LOS blocking rock outcropping will still be there at the start of the game even if your opponent placed a single non-los blocking mud puddle next to it.
You assume that there is only a single way to use close combat. yes, a land raider might help in one game but it might not in the next. this back and forth affects ALL armies and army types to where you will have easy games and hard games. that's jst the way it is.
You repeat over and over how useless close combat is and howit is dead but you are dead wrong. Close combat is STILL a valid and vital aspect of the gamewhere it can be the difference between winning and losing.
the point of the thread is to discuss tactics and strategy in regards to close combat, not be spammed with someone going on and on claiming it is dead and that there are no strategies or tactics that could ever make it be useful. if you feel that way, go post in a different thread as you obviously have nothing constructive or educational to add while having the attitude that you already know it all. I don't know it all but want to share what I do know and to learn from those who have something to teach me.
Currently, you see more shooty style armies (due to the shiney new stuff syndrome because those are the more recent codexes released) but even those have close combat elements within them playing roles that are vital to their success. (barring tau for the most part). Even elder have elements that include close combat. For example, the wraithknight, avatar, banshees, scorpians and even jetseer councils. Looking at the tournament scene, most players have a fairly good idea of what their local players play. For example, where I go to tourneys at, I can bet on at least 2 necron players and 2 tau players with a smattering of marine types and an elder. Most players change their lists upof course so assuming you know what list they are going to useis out of the question but it may affect what you bring. I try to bring something for everyone, a well rouinded list, rather than assume what I'll be facing and end up facing something totally different and getting screwed.
To also assist in keeping my post on topic, I will note that with 6th edition, I converted many of my crusaders. Where before they all had power swords, a full half of them now carry power axes. Simply because chances are, I'll be swinging last anyway, I might as well get an advantage in ap/strength in doing so. just one of many small things that can add up to make an army more effective in close combat.
Of course, just as Gardiner demonstrated recognizing multiple intelligences can assist a teacher to better teach by "reaching" more of their students, I have noticed that many players have different playstyles and ways of thinking. this will cause them to perform better using different styles within dfferent editions. if you find that you are better at using shooty, use shooty (but still recognize that assault is still effective and that others are just as good at assault as you are at shooty. Likewise reversed. personally, I do better as a shooty but by urposely training my assault skills, I have learned to be proficient with either.
Some posters are really showing their age here( young). This isn't the school yard kids. Unless you've got something worthwhile and constructive to say about close combat, leave it out.
Jamo wrote: Some posters are really showing their age here( young). This isn't the school yard kids. Unless you've got something worthwhile and constructive to say about close combat, leave it out.
Cheers
What you mean every single poster in here? Considering the fact it is this many pages in and its still bickering... let's be honest nobody that talks in here has any excuse for the amount of repetitive trite that has occured (also I admit using young as a derogatory term is pure idiocy in my opinion. As though childhood is bad and being an adult is some grand merit that should immediately cast aside youth. I know I'm off topic but I must say this especially as you yourself have deviated from the topic. Also, the debate is due to the fact that they are arguing over the merits of CC. EVIL posts something and others deny it poking holes in it. He says it again as well as adding more things others and the same join in leading to an eternal cycle. Is it great? Not really... but the problem comes from bricks smashing upon eachother).
So we have it based, terrain can help CC. That being said, shooting can also manipulate terrain to their benefit. Serpents are nasty for eldar. That being said, lots of LOS obstruction really helps that. Perhaps another way to counter these popular units is to use a very fast force to keep their face towards you and not be as maneuverable. This doesn't really solve the problems some assault armies (mainly the slower ones) experience but it is of important note. I think most of us can agree that a pure assault (for the most part) won't work all that well in this meta. A synergy of shooting and CC is what is required for the most armies and that is what we need yet we need to figure out how to make sure it doesn't play second fiddle to the shooting aspect. how can we make nids not rely as heavily on mc spam? What exactly should we do to think of tactics for orks. What of meq marines that have to trudge across the battlefield on boots? Or perhaps some ways to mitigate the edition's ease at which you can pop rhinos. Any ways to get daemons that are hordy to deal with anti horde ranged combat? Etc. (just some things to jump on)
Remember to keep this on topic and leave the trolling (you post is positively dripping with it) out of the posts.
Enough. Either point to a genuine example of trolling or stop using the term.
Furthermore, despite being called out on it multiple times you stick to the strawman that we're saying that CC is useless. I won't bother explaining the point again, just read earlier posts if you're interested.
As further proof that CC is worse than shooting, consider the following: most army books can build successful lists that include little or no CC. The only Codex I can think of that can do the opposite (that is, a majority-CC list that is as strong as a majority-shooting list from the same Codex) is Daemons (possibly 'Nids as well). It's not that CC is bad, it's that it's worse than shooting most of the time, and riskier to boot!
This, in turn, is made worse by GWs rules for melee units in 6th ed Codices so far. The only powerful melee units in C:CSM are in the HQ slot (Raptors and Bikes can work due to speed and/or resilience, but are merely OK). C:SM have some strong CC units but no way to deliver them reliably without Land Raiders (with the exception of biker CMs). DA have really expensive bikes (which are probably better at shooting anyway) that die like normal bikes. Tau aren't a melee army, which leaves Eldar, where nothing comes close to matching the Wave Serpent, not even the Seer Council. Daemons do CC fine.
EVIL INC wrote: Remember to keep this on topic and leave the trolling (you post is positively dripping with it) out of the posts.
Actually, it was yourself that began this again with the same strawmen again and the same condescending presenting yourself as wiser and better than others telling people to ignore other poster's opinions, again. The post that re-started this was filled with little digs at those who had disagreed with you with comments like
EVIL INC wrote:ignore these who spam "close combat is dead!!!!", "close combat is weak!!!!!" and "all shooty armies get the autowin!!!". these vocal few have been proven wrong and are only spamming in hopes GW
Who amongst the people you keep attacking has ever said any such thing? None. Not to mention your repeated attacking other people by calling them trolls, pretending they're victimising you. You absolutely cannot leave well enough alone, can you? You disagree? You object to this? Then a simple, very simple, ludicrously simple request - point to where Selym or rigeld2 have said any of the hysterical sounding comments you put in quote marks above. Show where they have even said as much in other words.
Your habit is obvious and repetitive in this thread - put words in other people's mouth and tell people to ignore them (despite that I have found their opinions informative and useful). Repeatedly trying to make out people with reasonable posts as trolls is, itself, trolling. And you couldn't even help yourself from re-starting it by including unprovoked digs at people.
Tell you what, as an attempt to get this back on track, why don't you post an assault focused list so that we have something specific to consider, instead of vague generalities. Say 2,000 points. Are you willing to actually do that? Then we would be able to talk specifics.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: How do I use this terrain that everyone's been talking about?
As so far I've just seen "use more terrain/ use terrain to get cover saves".
Could I have some advice on when it's good/bad to jump in terrain, how do i maximise the effectiveness of certain pieces e.g. LOS blocking? etc.
If there has been something on how to use terrain my bad.
Well there's a couple of different stages. First of which is placement. If you know that you're going to be advancing on the enemy (and this goes for purposes of CC or just because you're stronger at short-range shooting), you want to keep in mind lines of advance when you're putting down the terrain. Ideally, you're trying to stagger is so that you're not advancing in clear fire-lines of the enemy. You'll probably want it middle of the table-ish, so that it doesn't become useless on your first turn once you moved past it, and so that the enemy can't void it by just moving past it themselves quickly. A gunline enemy will be trying do the opposite - they'll want clear avenues of fire that you'll have to walk down getting shot at. Fortunately the method of alternating terrain gives an advantage to the one that wants to block, really. Of course often people may create "narrative" terrain which just looks good to everyone. And that's cool. But on the assumption that for the purposes of this thread we're being competitive, then assume Alternating Terrain. Each 2x2' section gets its D3 pieces of terrain. A "piece" is defined in the book as something either substantial (a ruin, building, forest) or three smaller pieces such as battlefield debris. Really, you're probably hoping for the big stuff. So if you have some or are choosing terrain from a big box, grab the LOS-blocking stuff for the most part. Area terrain is actually quite nice in that it gives you cover saves from within it, but it's a negative in that it can slow you down. Really, you want area terrain for things that will sit there and shoot out. It's also horrible to charge enemies in difficult terrain, especially without grenades. You probably have grenades on your assault units, but you might not. (Banshees have no grenades, for example. :( ). Either way, if your opponent is planning to sit there and kill you as you walk towards her, she'll be trying to grab lots of area terrain and stick it near her end. If you can, grab it first and stop her doing that. Or at least get it a bit further forward so she has to come forward closer to you or may choose not to. Some area terrain will block LOS, some will not. So it's really your call.
Now all of the above may sound a bit mean and underhand. It may also be influenced by cases where players set up terrain before choosing ends (though that is notRAW). But I'm assuming competitive play in all of the above.
The next stage is about using it in play. That's tricky. If you're facing a gunline opponent then really it's as simple as trying to advance as far forward as you can with something in between you and their nastiest guns. But - and it's worth emphasizing this - if you're planning to just get close and then run out and attack the opponent, you're very likely to just get chewed up. Really you need either an alternate threat to distract their firepower, or you use your CC unit as a second punch - get some regular infantry up in their face and start softening them up. Also, watch out for sacrificial units from your enemy where they give you something you'll slaughter in a single round and then stand around in the open waiting to be shot to pieces. But if you're not facing a gunline enemy, but someone who will be racing for you mid-game (and objectives of course), try and anticipate where they're going and get your CC unit lying in wait for them. If you're tucked away behind a big building, they can't shoot at you, and when they advance into range - you get them (but again, watch out for sacrificial units placed just to get you out in the open). Placing objectives ties into this. An objective in Difficult Terrain is perfect for shooty opponents to go and sit on and very bad for CC units to grab late game. But an objective next to LOS-blocking cover is perfect for CC units to advance towards and then charge at the last moment. (Though we're assuming scoring CC units, of course). So even pay attention when placing objectives.
As others have said in this thread, cover is a very useful part of getting units into threat range (whether that be Guardians with 12" shuriken range or CC troops), but it's only something that can give you an advantage. Personally, I have come to the conclusion that an assault-focused army is at a disadvantage (barring the odd exception of type or scenario). However, I find it a very useful supplement to my main army. If I can tuck some CC troops behind a big bit of LOS-blocking terrain and ambush the enemy as they advance, or keep them near my gunline as counter-assault, that's awesome. Also they can be great mid-game when you're up in the enemy's face and they no longer have a well-organized gunline to mow down CC troops with. But as something to lead with, even well-placed terrain can only do so much.
I hope that is of some help. Not sure it's that useful. Just some quick thoughts.
Another thing about terrain is to counter what an opponent will put out. a gunline army player wil often put out a single mud puddle as their choice in an area that they want to remain open. You can counter this in turn with a huge L shaped impassible rock outcropping that blocks los, effectively cutting the board in half. these two single pieces of terrain alone can turn the tide of a game before even considering even the other pieces of terrain that you put down afterwards. Then, consider your army build. If you have outflankers/scouters you might want to set up some sort of cover for them to move into when they arrive. Many players will hide behind the excuse of "we don't have los blocking terrain". Well, don't blame that for your loss. BUILD some terrain. Growing up, we didn't have terrain. We used stacked cassette tpe cases and paperbacl books and stuff like that to play around.
Of course, terrain can also affect and assist you in other ways too. Area terrain will usually give you a 5+ cover save (there are ways to make it a 4+ or better under different situations despite the fact of some here denying that). making use of this can help your units survive the trip across the field.and some armies like bugs laugh at difficult terrain. Of course, some will say that cover is useless cause everythingin the game ignores cover. that is a crock. not every weapon ignores cover and if someone stocks up on cover ignoring weapons than they are weakening a different aspect of their army that you can exploit.
When considering ruins, remember that if an enemy fires barrages such as manticore or morter shots, it will always hit the top floor. This means your guys on the ground level will be safe from those weapons.
Shooting is better than close combat in general. As you can see, they throw out these weak strawman arguments to distract you but it IS a science fiction game where guns exist. Those SHOULD be your first weapon to use but use them know that if you are facing a decent opponent, the guns will eventually be set aside and there will be fighting up close and personal. It is a no brainer that it is better to kill your enemy from a distance. However, if your enemy is a smart player, they will eventually reach you despite your best efforts. Despite what they say, close is a valid and vital part of the game. taking units who main purpose is to "wreck face" is always a smart move. Not to say that your entire army should be that but just saying that it should be a part of your army to use when possible.
There have been numerous other instances of tactics and strategies given to assist you in this but understand that there are counters to everything in this game. We can metagame and say, well if you take that, I will take this to counter you and so on and so forth till the cows come home. At the end of the day, no two games are exactly alike, you are not supposed to know your opponant's list down to the last point of wargear beforehand so you can tailor to counter it, you both get to set up terrain, dice rolls are random (supposedly) and stuff happens.. So what you do is use strategy and tactics to strengthen probobalities to favor you. If you have shooty elements, you want to strengthen aspects that will help those units and if you have assault units, you want to do the same for them. the players who is most able touse strategy and tactics to do this will usually win.
OUT!
) and more berzerkers behind the 
