Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2014/01/16 15:47:18
Subject: New Player Question: Are CC Armies Viable?
grrrfranky wrote: So really, we can answer the OP in the negative, CC armies aren't viable. However, armies with CC elements can do well even in a heavily shooting biased edition.
Especially the ones that magically warp 30", shoot a bunch of psystormbolters, and then still have jump packs. The GK and Eldar can both go fall off the same cliff. I hope the new Ork codex kills you all with mega choppas.
2014/01/16 15:53:07
Subject: New Player Question: Are CC Armies Viable?
grrrfranky wrote: So really, we can answer the OP in the negative, CC armies aren't viable. However, armies with CC elements can do well even in a heavily shooting biased edition.
this is a given. We have been advocating taking guns and shooty elements to supportand work with the close combat elements all along. when you go whole hog 100% one way or the other you are crippling yourself. Exclude tau from that as we all agree they are broken. lol
clively wrote: "EVIL INC" - hardly. More like "REASONABLE GOOD GUY INC". (side note: exalted)
I am perfecting a Night Lord army at the moment and feel I am growing very close to making it work. In ALL armies, you must have shooting. it is simply unrealistic, now AND before, to win without some shooting and no modern war is going to end better without shooting. It just isnt..
Even though that's true, the core of the army can definitely be melee oriented. Against 4 very hard core shooting lists, my Night Lords design has slowly been going from "Wah crap" to "Okay I get how I have to do this".
The tactics for using them is a little different than it used to be. For example in this Night Lords list:
1. "False Chargers" are now a consideration and target saturation is now important. If you want melee to work, this is an ingredient you need. Not just in the general sense of "I have more units than you" but in the sense of being able to bring them all to bear safely the round before the charge. Speed, deep striking, outflanking and transports all contribute to this, but to have a cc army, you need to have false chargers and saturation which ARE doable if you craft the list for it.
2. Dirge Casters, a 5 point upgrade, means that in 6E, I get to charge up to 12" instead of up to 6" (terrain always being an issue) and the enemy gets no overwatch. Good times. If you told me that in 5E, what do you think I'd say? Yippee! So the much maligned state of armour now has me taking cheap armour again, but for entirely different reasons.
3. I get to re-roll charge distances with Khorne Raptors. This in no way sucks. So the Marks you use on units is important to their function. With that ability, it's hard to miss even the longer charges. It does happen (and was a source of much sadness as I worked on this list) but not very often. I'll take it.
4. Terrain is important. it always was. but now, the terrain dictates your deployment to a great extent. Not entirely an awesome thing but consider this: Knowing that it does, I dont feel as if I am as disadvantaged by going first (which I nearly never do by choice). Moreover, going first suits a close combat army. So while I am very comfortable going second, I now feel an added advantage when going first that I didn't feel before.
Some of this is experential. There are Generals who HATE going second, but I think they are missing the boat.
Close Combat armies are fun to play and they are viable.
The Mechdar enemy that I regularly play against is a serious load and the Night Lords all but wiped his force in a loss last night. Came down to first blood in a Kill Point Mission. Brutal fight and he was a wound away from a tie. He had his 2 HQ's and a Dire Avenger left that I couldn't get through because Asurman had the Warlord Trait that he re-rolls save rolls of a 1. That made him effectively a 2+ re-rollable save. Yeesh. Quite difficult to kill, even with a land Raider and 15 marines trying. Nonetheless, a good fight and one of my Raptor units Hishap'd and died too! Had they been around for the fight, the tabling would have been a done deal. Ah well. Such are the vagaries of war.
Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com
The Mechdar enemy that I regularly play against is a serious load and the Night Lords all but wiped his force in a loss last night. Came down to first blood in a Kill Point Mission. Brutal fight and he was a wound away from a tie. He had his 2 HQ's and a Dire Avenger left that I couldn't get through because Asurman had the Warlord Trait that he re-rolls save rolls of a 1. That made him effectively a 2+ re-rollable save. Yeesh. Quite difficult to kill, even with a land Raider and 15 marines trying. Nonetheless, a good fight and one of my Raptor units Hishap'd and died too! Had they been around for the fight, the tabling would have been a done deal. Ah well. Such are the vagaries of war.
I'm going to keep being grumpy, but if he's paying for Asurmen he's not playing an optimal list. 200+ points for an Infantry beatstick in an army with no delivery options other than either walking or waiting until at earliest turn 3 is... well, bad.
I started to respond to the other stuff you said, but honestly that doesn't matter. What does matter is your statement above (emphasis mine) as we are now to the heart of the matter. The original question was "Are CC armies viable?" I assume by "Absolutely" you have now agreed with the rest of us here in that, yes CC is "viable" regardless of definition. Thank you.
Whether there are potentially better choices than an melee-centric list within a given codex is immaterial.
Nope. In theory, I could win every single event at the next Olympic Games. That does not mean that I'm a viable Olympic athlete. Granted, the comparison is a tad extreme, but it gets the point across.
CC armies (excluding Daemons) are not viable because they cannot reliably, on a regular basis, beat the strongest shooting lists of Tau, Eldar, Space Marines, Imperial Guard, and so on when played to the full potential of their lists. As such, whether or not there are potentially better lists make all the difference. If someone starts breezing through the tournament scene with a Grey Knights CC list or a Dark Eldar murderstabbing list I'll stand corrected, but when seven out of eight of the most successful armies primarily rely on shooting it's folly to argue that assault-centric lists in general are somehow "viable".
If you won't take it from me then take it from grrrfranky. He's saying what I've been saying all along, except he's not me.
Assuming that whatever is shooting at you doesn't have AP6 or better. It helps against explosions, yes, but then you're stuck on foot halfway across the board.
this is true. Fleet can help with that a little bit, but only a unit or two at most will have to worry about it. the rest get through unscathed and untouched.
Assuming you don't get pinned, in which case you're stuck up Gak Creek without a paddle.
This is where the mobility comes in. Some of the faster vehicles are able to flankve faster than the average infantry can wal. Even if an eney tau player is able to get a couple of kroot between me and a unit I want to assault, all I need to do is fire a tamplate weapon at the uit i want to assault covering a few kroot and make sure to hit the target unit. the fire the rest of my shots at the target unit (with them getting a 5+ cover save) and assault them anyway through the hole burned throughthe kroot line. depending on the size of the target unit and my own, i may even do disordered charge and pop both units in one go.
So, assuming that your opponent is inept enough to not see that coming, you can burn through an intervening unit by shooting the one behind it. Could that happen? Absolutely. You are, however, assuming that you have a template weapon in the first place, and that you're more mobile than the enemy. Bikes, Jetbikes, FMCs, Jetpack Infantry/MCs and the like will be able to move away. Kroot will be infiltrated in a manner preventing you from just burning your way though to the units behind. Even if they aren't you're taking Overwatch from more than one unit.
Still, this is an improvement. If you'd actually been arguing your point like this instead of painting yourself like a martyr before the argument even began we might have gotten somewhere a lot sooner.
Read through the thread. it is in almost every post. I have provided MY proof (if you refus to admit it's existanc, that is on you. just dont try that when stepping into something physical that is just as "in your face", like for example, a train, it wont go as easy for you as it does when ignoring black and white words.. Now it is time for you to provide yours. oh, wait, you seem to have finally let your strawman go. Dont worry about i your concession is more than enough.
No. No. No. No. Read what I said again. Please. POINT OUT WHERE I SAID THE THINGS YOU CLAIMED I SAID. For the love of God, I've asked you repeatedly to back up your claims, all you say is "oh, it's in the thread, you should go read it". That's not how arguing works. You make an argument, you have to back it up (and not just by saying "oh, but it's all there, just go and look). Every time I've asked you about the proof you've said "oh, it's there" and then refused to show where. If you don't understand how basic argumentation works, why are you in a discussion forum?
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2014/01/16 19:00:45
Subject: New Player Question: Are CC Armies Viable?
"3. I get to re-roll charge distances with Khorne Raptors. This in no way sucks. So the Marks you use on units is important to their function. With that ability, it's hard to miss even the longer charges. It does happen (and was a source of much sadness as I worked on this list) but not very often. I'll take it. "
Okay. Does this mean you think the Raven Guard chapter tactic has some merit then? Even though the ASM can't benefit from scouting?
2014/01/16 19:50:39
Subject: New Player Question: Are CC Armies Viable?
grrrfranky wrote: So really, we can answer the OP in the negative, CC armies aren't viable. However, armies with CC elements can do well even in a heavily shooting biased edition.
Especially the ones that magically warp 30", shoot a bunch of psystormbolters, and then still have jump packs. The GK and Eldar can both go fall off the same cliff. I hope the new Ork codex kills you all with mega choppas.
Although interceptors are a shooting unit not cc. They're super mobile, but it's being able to move around and shoot what you want to that makes them good. Often my dreadknight does more damage with shooting than in assault as well.
2014/01/16 20:28:22
Subject: New Player Question: Are CC Armies Viable?
grrrfranky wrote: So really, we can answer the OP in the negative, CC armies aren't viable. However, armies with CC elements can do well even in a heavily shooting biased edition.
Especially the ones that magically warp 30", shoot a bunch of psystormbolters, and then still have jump packs. The GK and Eldar can both go fall off the same cliff. I hope the new Ork codex kills you all with mega choppas.
Although interceptors are a shooting unit not cc. They're super mobile, but it's being able to move around and shoot what you want to that makes them good. Often my dreadknight does more damage with shooting than in assault as well.
Well, I'd argue that as well, but I'm giving the GK guy in this thread the benefit of the doubt. He's arguing that because he cleans up with CC it's a CC unit. Or list. Or something. All I know is that interceptors are cheese and other meqs books have nothing like them so that particular tactic doesn't mean anything to the rest of us.
If I could reliably teleport my BA ASM 30", I might view Taudar differently as well. Instead, I eat 2-3 turns of shooting and nothing makes it to my destination. Feth GK and Feth Eldar.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/01/16 20:30:00
2014/01/16 21:20:32
Subject: New Player Question: Are CC Armies Viable?
So a game of warhammer is now the olympic games? Huh, whoda thunk it. lol still have to disagree with you. Armies with units within them that are competant at close combat ARE viable. this has been proven a million times within the thread yet some strill disagree with it. It has also been proven through at LEAST on real life in-game example that even a lowly non-"CC oriented" unit can literally win a game through the use of...wait for it....assault and close combat.
True, pinning can cause a fleet unit to not be able to effectively use their fleet ruleLikewise, pinning can also cause a 'shooty" unit to not be able to shoot as well. that is a two edged sword that cuts both ways . GASP!! I used a close combat weapon phrase. It isnt a viable figure of speech to use (joking, someone has to try to keep this good natured and polite)
You do not have to burn through an entire uit to be able to assault the one behind it. You only need to make room enough to move a few models through. What armies have template weapons? pretty much all of them. Whic players use them? pretty much all of them.
Your own words "close combat is dead", "assault is dead" inthis and many other threads
if you are finally willing to admit that close combat is viable since you are unable to provide the proof I had asked for. Good for you. If your going to claim that you nevr said that, the rest of us who have been reading through the threads will just laugh and move on. Everyone makes mistakes, not everyone is willing to admit when they do and we understand.
intercepters are a close combat unit that happens to shoot well. any unit with that kind of mobility and the ability to load up on extra close combat weapons, halberds and hammers with every single one being a force weapon? those are DEFINATELY close combat troops. CC troops that shoot well, but still CC troops.
.
yes, as blood angels are starting to be one of the 'older' codices, they are starting to be left behind. When it came out they were the all OP flavor of the month and now that creep has left them behind, we are starting to see a lot of people complain that they arent the super power anymore. I'm sure this might change when the cycle gets back around to them. i have always chosen the army I play based on what I liked about them regardless of their "power" because i was more worried about enjoying every game rather than winning every game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/16 21:30:10
clively wrote: "EVIL INC" - hardly. More like "REASONABLE GOOD GUY INC". (side note: exalted)
intercepters are a close combat unit that happens to shoot well. any unit with that kind of mobility and the ability to load up on extra close combat weapons, halberds and hammers with every single one being a force weapon? those are DEFINATELY close combat troops. CC troops that shoot well, but still CC troops.
They really aren't. Just like every other grey knight unit (actual grey knights, not henchmen/dreadknights) they are first and foremost a shooting unit. They aren't bad in combat due to the force weapons, but that's more to mop up what remains after they shoot. At under 24" GK are probably the most lethal shooting army out there due to stormbolters with psybolt and multiple psycannon in every unit. If you can keep them at arm''s length, ie more than 24" then they struggle, hence why interceptors are so useful. With that 30" shunt and then the jump move they can get to where ever they need to be, rather than having to footslog around the board trying to chase people down and get into range.
2014/01/16 21:55:39
Subject: New Player Question: Are CC Armies Viable?
The greatest strength grey knights have is their close combat ability. for example, it only takes a single wound from a force sword to kill a huge hulking monstrous creature.it takes how many from a bolter? or even how many from a psycannon? add in the mobility of the shunt and jump pack.
Yes, they are VERY good shooters and can do a lot of damage through shooting. They can do a lot more in close combat.
Of course, this is one of those arguments that isnt really an argument. You claim its a shooty unit thats just as good as assault, I say its an assault unit that just as good at shooting so its a "tom-ay-to, tom-ah-to" situation lol. Either way, we can both agree that in terms of a (whatever) unit, they DO do well in close combat and that there are MANY situations where they would want to assault a target unit or be able to at least hold it's own in an assault (in most cases).
anecdotal data- personally, my grey knights do about equal in usefulness of shooting and close combat.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/16 21:57:17
clively wrote: "EVIL INC" - hardly. More like "REASONABLE GOOD GUY INC". (side note: exalted)
EVIL INC wrote: The greatest strength grey knights have is their close combat ability. for example, it only takes a single wound from a force sword to kill a huge hulking monstrous creature.it takes how many from a bolter?
How many of your 25+ PPM MEQ models are you going to lose assaulting a MC, and how soon are you going to be able to engage it with shooting compared to melee?
EVIL INC wrote: So a game of warhammer is now the olympic games? Huh, whoda thunk it. lol still have to disagree with you. Armies with units within them that are competant at close combat ARE viable. this has been proven a million times within the thread yet some strill disagree with it. It has also been proven through at LEAST on real life in-game example that even a lowly non-"CC oriented" unit can literally win a game through the use of...wait for it....assault and close combat.
Who is disagreeing and where? Actual quotes, please.
Your own words "close combat is dead", "assault is dead" inthis and many other threads
Citation needed, although I'll happily admit that's what I said. It's just that you seem incapable of accepting that it doesn't mean what you're arguing that it does, as I've clarified repeatedly.
True, pinning can cause a fleet unit to not be able to effectively use their fleet ruleLikewise, pinning can also cause a 'shooty" unit to not be able to shoot as well. that is a two edged sword that cuts both ways . GASP!! I used a close combat weapon phrase. It isnt a viable figure of speech to use (joking, someone has to try to keep this good natured and polite)
Being polite in an argument is best achieved through actually arguing your points as opposed to claiming proof without producing it when asked.
if you are finally willing to admit that close combat is viable since you are unable to provide the proof I had asked for. Good for you. If your going to claim that you nevr said that, the rest of us who have been reading through the threads will just laugh and move on. Everyone makes mistakes, not everyone is willing to admit when they do and we understand.
Yes, everyone makes mistakes. I'm starting to think that my mistake is trying to engage in meaningful discussion with someone unwilling to provide quotes when asked. Just for the record, do you mind clarifying what proof you're asking of me and I'll see if I can dig it up?
intercepters are a close combat unit that happens to shoot well. any unit with that kind of mobility and the ability to load up on extra close combat weapons, halberds and hammers with every single one being a force weapon? those are DEFINATELY close combat troops. CC troops that shoot well, but still CC troops.
You're able to load up a Command Squad in Codex: Space Marines with multiple Thunder Hammers and Storm Shields as well, as well as give them an Apothecary. That does not mean that using them for CC is the most optimal idea. Interceptors with Halberds cost 31 PPM (33 with Psybolts assuming a 10-man squad). They are T4, have a 3+ armour save and ONE attack base. Meanwhile, they've got an S5 gun with 24" range and 12" mobility every turn, with the option to Shunt. That sort of firepower is completely wasted if you're going to start assaulting stuff with units that don't even have an extra CCW. That is not to say that there aren't moments where charging isn't the right thing to do, but you're not using them to their full potential if you're using them primarily for melee.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/16 23:42:40
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2014/01/17 01:17:24
Subject: New Player Question: Are CC Armies Viable?
How many of your 25+ PPM MEQ models are you going to lose assaulting a MC, and how soon are you going to be able to engage it with shooting compared to melee?
I dont have a dark eldar codex on me. What units do they have hat are 25 poins per model with a 3+ save and how are they armed? As for how many die killing the Mc, it depends on what the MC is, what it is armed with, how many points it costsand so on and so forth to decide how many makes it worthwile In the right situation, it might be worth sacrificing some MEQ dark eldar if i tkeeps the MC from stopping me from winning. heck, it it is the last turn and I'm in the enemy deployment zone, it doesnt matter how many it kills so long as i have one left strong at the end of the turnbecaue then i would still have linebreaker.
please, learn to do your own legwork. You typed it, you said it, we have all seen it. If you refuse to admit it, so be it. the evidence is there. Trust me, you'll look a lot better if you just admit you are wrong. you have already been proven so.
Again, do your own legwork.
take your own advice. i have provided proof while you keep repeating the same thing, "changing goalposts, tossing up strawmen anything to try to get out of admitting you are wrong.
Your mistake was making claims you could not support and then trying to back out of it.
again, to-may-to, to-mah-to. A 50/50 unit that is just as good at one thing as another. If it makes you feel better, go ahead and call it a shooty unit that is good at close combat. Regardless, it still proves you wrong. I have been able to use them effectively in close combat to help win games. idont use them primarily for shooting OR melee. I use them primarily for what they are needed to do in the given situation.
They are not dark eldar though. Try to get back on topic. The OP asked about Dark Eldar. instead of focusing on attacking me in an impolite fashion, try to answer the OP.
To the OP, as you can see, a few posters have taken the thread WAY off topic. You have gtten all the info you need here. CC units canbe usefull in a dark eldar army. I would suggest going to the army list section for advice on details.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/01/17 01:21:35
clively wrote: "EVIL INC" - hardly. More like "REASONABLE GOOD GUY INC". (side note: exalted)
So...any examples of viable cc oriented army that's not based on FMC/JMC, bikes/jetbikes, beasts, av14 assault transports? Try playing without a dreadknight and see what happens to your 'awesome ccgk'.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's often been said -
Assault's not dead.
But when you field horde
U're blown off the board.
No chaos berserkers,
Commandoes outflankers -
Just shooty space elves.
Put hordes on the shelves.
Assault marine
Starts loosing urine
When he has to fight
A tau riptide.
Buzzsaws used by koptaz
And boyze'z cool choppaz
Are thrown in the piles
And swarmed by the flies.
To fight in mellee
U both got to be
Tough and mobile -
Or just do no try.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2014/01/17 05:40:17
2014/01/17 11:26:48
Subject: New Player Question: Are CC Armies Viable?
please, learn to do your own legwork. You typed it, you said it, we have all seen it. If you refuse to admit it, so be it. the evidence is there. Trust me, you'll look a lot better if you just admit you are wrong. you have already been proven so.
Again, do your own legwork.
take your own advice. i have provided proof while you keep repeating the same thing, "changing goalposts, tossing up strawmen anything to try to get out of admitting you are wrong.
Every time I ask for proof you say "oh it's in the thread" or some variation thereof. Every. Single. Time. I'm going to ask you again, please, can you back your claims up with quotes from this thread? More specifically, the claims that:
I, and other people claiming assault is not viable, are "liars"
Spoiler:
EVIL INC wrote: Well said. As we and a few others have been saying you put it well. It proves the lie that these others have been spamming about that close combat is dead and no longer plays any part in the game at all.
Actually, YOU are the one who bandies about the name calling and personal attacks.
(A personal attack would be pointing out that the second quote in your signature, reading "Exalt!"., is fabricated. Anyone can still click the quote time stamp and get directed to the REAL quote, which is not so flattering to you as you make it out to be.)
Just for the record, way back on page 2 I said that:
First of all I don't think you should make a Dark Eldar assault focused army, but you can take one or two assault units for the purposes of counter-assault or flanking or somesuch, remember that when non-fearless units are fighting assault can completely obliterate an unit, none of that "yay I gots me one troop model left from your shooting he's holding an objective" thing. But, I don't think Dark Eldar have the necessary toughness to focus on assault as assault units do nothing unless they're in combat and are wasted points if they just get killed off by shooting.
Secondly, who even cares about the differences of this and the other editions, apparently seventh is coming anyway, but now we're playing 6th. It's simply not true that assault was dominating post-3rd, somebody has got their editions mixed up or are thinking of some weirdo cases like first turn assaults on an IG army (an army that was commonly said to win as massacre if they could tie). Fourth was very much a shooting edition other than some incredibly broken stuff like the siren princes. Not saying that the games where a chaos army first-turn assaulted with infiltrating raptors weren't stupid but best tournament armies thorough fourth usually shot. Useless to argue about it now though, after all it's an entire edition worth of changes too so it's not smart to say "well it was just this".
This edition I haven't even seen other assault armies than Demons, because that's a completely assault based book. It's a very good assault army though.
This. There are a few CC units that are still viable, mostly FMCs or Beasts. Even the Daemons, the supposedly "assault-based" book, though, have stuff like 6D6 S6 shots, whips on Slaanesh princes and the like.
Ultimately, I think part of the disconnect is that we're talking about different things. When I say CC is dead, I'm talking armies focussed on assault as their primary means of damage. In 5th you could, even if not as strong as a shooting army, concievably stand up to shooting armies with an army built mostly around melee. If you build an army around mostly melee today, you'll not be as successful as if you played a shooting army. The top 8 armies, accoring to TorrentofFire, have one melee-centric army, Daemons, in it. If that doesn't tell you that shooting is more dominant then I'm interested to hear how you came to that conclusion.
And this isn't even taking Str D shooting into account...
If I've been arguing the same thing since page 2 (which I demonstrably have, as evidenced by the above quote), I feel pretty safe to say that claiming that I'm moving goalposts is demonstrably incorrect.
There, I provided actual quotes for you, again. Your turn to do the same for your claims.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/17 11:27:58
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2014/01/17 11:51:32
Subject: Re:New Player Question: Are CC Armies Viable?
xxx - Close combat is dead cause you can only run fmc, jmc, bikes, bests and nothing else.
yyy - Close combat is great cause you can run fmc, jmc, bikes, bests but don't run anything else.
xxx - Close combat is dead and u're a !@#$
yyy - Close combat is great and u're a !@#$
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/01/17 11:55:13
2014/01/17 11:55:03
Subject: Re:New Player Question: Are CC Armies Viable?
xxx - Close combat is dead cause you can only run fmc, jmc, bikes, bests and nothing else.
yyy - Close combat is great cause you can run fmc, jmc, bikes, bests but don't run anything else.
xxx - Close combat is dead and u're a !@#$
yyy - Close combat is great and u're a !@#$
No, as you may have noticed I've been trying to get Evil to provide quotes of where I've allegedly said things since page 2. The difference being I provide quotes of where things were said, while he expects us to be able to read his mind and find the subjective insults ourselves.
To sum up:
Evidence against melee-centric armies
7 out of the 8 most winning armies according to TorrentOfFire are predominantly shooting armies.
The winner of NOVA 2013 was Mechdar with allied Riptide and Broadsides (who fought Quad-tides for the title). The winner of Feast of Blades was a double Wraithknight Eldar player. The winner of the BAO 2013 was a Daemons player using the old White Dwarf Screamers and Flamers, AKA two of the most horrificly broken shooting units in quite a while. The winner of Adepticon 2013 played Necrons/Grey Knights, fighting against CSM/IG for the title. The four biggest tournaments in the US (correct me if I'm wrong), all won by shooty lists.
This excellent post by Ailaros, combined with the fact that shooting was already stronger in 5th edition:
- Your charge distance is at the mercy of the dice. I have seen several assaults that would have been in range in 5th fail in 6th.
- You can no longer run and assault with Fleet.
- Grenades got nerfed for assaulting through terrain.
- Assault grenades no longer hurt vehicles.
- Overwatch
- And, because it really needs to be mentioned twice given the scope of the rule, transported units can overwatch if their transport gets charged, walkers can overwatch, and flamers are overwatch BEASTS. There is now literally no point in attempting to assault a unit of burnaz.
- A unit type that IS IMMUNE TO CLOSE COMBAT was born and became a staple in many lists (fliers)
- You can't assault out of a non-assault vehicle ever and that includes when it is destroyed on you
- Multi-charges were nerfed
- Challenges killed a lot of the potential of combat beast characters
- You can't assault on the turn you come on from reserves
- You can't assault if you Infiltrate or Scout and go first
- The distance from which an assault vehicle brings you closer to the enemy is reduced
- Some random objectives half your assault range
- Furious Charge got nerfed
- Wound allocation forces you to take the models from the front as casualties, this makes an assault unit take an extra turn(s) of being exposed to gunfire before they can get stuck in.
- Wound allocation means that hidden weapons upgrades are no longer hidden. You only need to kill a squad to the point where the upgrade model is the closest to something. This is very easy to achieve with deepstriking.
- Loss of by-unit cover in favor of by-model cover destroys the ability for foot hordes to advance upfield.
- Addition of focus fire
- Addition of Precise Shot.
- Worsening of cover. Intervening units only give 4+, hills no longer area terrain, etc.
- Power weapons got screwed up. Either Ap3, or I1, take your choice...
- You can no longer disembark after moving more than 6" in a transport (killing mech assault units).
- grenades can now be thrown.
- walkers can no longer tie up squads in close combat.
- grenades now work against monstrous creatures in close combat. This hurts dedicated assault units relative to basic infantry that have no desire to be in close combat.
- pre-measuring makes it much easier to make sure shooting weapons are in range, while not helping assault units make it into assault more reliably.
- rapid fire now puts more shots out on the move.
- you can now move and fire heavy weapons. This and the above change to rapid fire mean that you can now back up away from assault units while still shooting.
- parts of a squad can now move without affecting the accuracy of heavy weapons.
- old wound wrapping gotten rid of. I'm glad, but for the purposes of this discussion, it is a boost to shooting more than assaulting.
- pile-in moves reduced to 3" from 6".
- unengaged models in a unit that is locked in close combat must now move closer to the enemy units. Used to capture objectives far away while in close combat with this one in 5th.
- barrage weapons may now fire within their minimum ranges.
- barrage weapons no longer lose strength against vehicles from off-center scatters.
- artillery units got MUCH more survivable.
- models with two pistol weapons can now fire them both.
- vehicles can shoot all weapons at cruising speed.
- in order to charge a vehicle, you must have some way of damaging it.
RELATIVE BUFFS FOR ASSAULT
- hypothetical increase of maximum charge range from 6" to 12". Given that assault range is no longer reliable, I still consider this more of a nerf than a buff. I mean, if you're 12" away, are you really going to attempt to charge? The most likely result is that your opponent will get some free overwatch, and you're still not making it into close combat.
- hammer of wrath.
- assaulting vehicles now gives you much better chance to hit.
- rage rule change
- gets hot now affects those rare vehicles that have it
So, some of these changes are more important than others, and you can uselessly nit-pick them all you like, but the fact is that there were 39 rule changes to make shooting better, and arguably up to 5 rule changes that make assault better.
Put another way, for every rule that made assault better, there were EIGHT rules that make shooting better.
6th ed is a shooting edition. End of.
And that's just the changes in 6th ed. 5th ed also whacked assaulty armies a lot, what with the introduction of real transports acting as automatic speedbump, the lack of consolidating from one close combat into another, etc.
One could make the argument that close combat was overpowered in 4th edition, but assault needed in that case to be toned down a bit, not had its manhood chopped off with a pair of rusty pliers and being forced to watch romantic comedies.
Riptides and Wave Serpents exist, as do Revenant Titans, Warhound Titans, and Transcendent C'tan.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/17 12:15:14
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2014/01/17 11:57:41
Subject: Re:New Player Question: Are CC Armies Viable?
It's not really important. The main thing is what the op asked. Is cc good for dark eldar? And he wants to take witches.
And we all agreed on the same thing that withches ain't good as a cc unit and the only real use to them is haywire-vehicle hunting. Which they're also not great at cause of fragility of their transports. And that beast packs are not bad and when lead by a 2++ unit are nice.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/17 11:58:21
2014/01/17 12:21:01
Subject: Re:New Player Question: Are CC Armies Viable?
koooaei wrote: It's not really important. The main thing is what the op asked. Is cc good for dark eldar? And he wants to take witches.
He asked about the state of CC in general as well. When someone's arguing that it's just fine by preemptively calling anyone who disagrees with him part of a "loud vocal few" pointing out that his arguments are flawed is very much important.
I mean, let's say that I was arguing that Grots were the best melee units in the game and trying to back that up by saying that I've managed to sweep Riptides with them. It's entirely possible to do, but at the same time it's unlikely that it'd work reliably over a period of time. Would it then be irrelevant to point out how this Grot-based army would fall apart when matched up against more powerful lists? I disagree that such is the case.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EVIL INC wrote: Walrus has been sniping and trolling through this thread and many others before making wild claims and accusations. yet despite me being able to support my stance with evidence and quotes, he continues. I have own tired of sifting and quoting and am now waiting for him to do a little of the work himself. In his inability to do this, he has conceded his "point".
I just posted yet another massive post with quotes to back up what I was saying. You haven't actually showed anything, and repeatedly refuse to post quotes where you back up your claims. You keep claiming that I lie, snipe and troll, and whenever I ask WHERE I did that you claim that it's "somewhere in the thread". You haven't actually quoted a specific place in the thread where you feel this to be the case, despite me asking you to do so repeatedly.
I'll ask you again: where in the thread have I lied or personally attacked you? You haven't actually responded to this question with a quote so far in the thread, so the claim that you have is, in fact, a lie.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/17 14:16:02
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2014/01/17 14:19:34
Subject: New Player Question: Are CC Armies Viable?
Walrus, feel free to use the PM function if you wish to continue the personal vendetta or if you cant interact politely, use the ignore button.
On topic-
To the OP, as you can see, a few posters have taken the thread WAY off topic. You have gtten all the info you need here. CC units canbe usefull in a dark eldar army. I would suggest going to the army list section for advice on details.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/01/17 18:33:14
clively wrote: "EVIL INC" - hardly. More like "REASONABLE GOOD GUY INC". (side note: exalted)
EVIL INC wrote: if you insist on continueing your little vendetta, try using the PM function so you can stop spamming up random threads with it. be sure to get actual evidence and quotes when you do so. Till then, try to join the rest of us in staying on the topic at hand.
You don't get to decide what is off topic or not, and as I've pointed out it's not a personal vendetta. Further, I've pointed out that discussing CC in general is on topic, and provided the OP as quote to back it up. The fact that you refuse to read my posts don't change this.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2014/01/17 14:54:12
Subject: New Player Question: Are CC Armies Viable?
Well, OP, here it is. After six pages, EVIL INC won't give any substantial examples. He also makes completely erroneous statements about 5th edition 40K.
And the other "CC" champion is pimping a list that utilizes 30 models unique to GK that shoot the bejeezus of out Xenos before they mop up the unlucky survivors.
Visit other tactics threads for a bit and draw your own conclusions.
2014/01/17 15:06:44
Subject: Re:New Player Question: Are CC Armies Viable?
- Your charge distance is at the mercy of the dice. I have seen several assaults that would have been in range in 5th fail in 6th.
- You can no longer run and assault with Fleet.
- Grenades got nerfed for assaulting through terrain.
- Assault grenades no longer hurt vehicles.
- Overwatch
- And, because it really needs to be mentioned twice given the scope of the rule, transported units can overwatch if their transport gets charged, walkers can overwatch, and flamers are overwatch BEASTS. There is now literally no point in attempting to assault a unit of burnaz.
- A unit type that IS IMMUNE TO CLOSE COMBAT was born and became a staple in many lists (fliers)
- You can't assault out of a non-assault vehicle ever and that includes when it is destroyed on you
- Multi-charges were nerfed
- Challenges killed a lot of the potential of combat beast characters
- You can't assault on the turn you come on from reserves
- You can't assault if you Infiltrate or Scout and go first
- The distance from which an assault vehicle brings you closer to the enemy is reduced
- Some random objectives half your assault range
- Furious Charge got nerfed
- Wound allocation forces you to take the models from the front as casualties, this makes an assault unit take an extra turn(s) of being exposed to gunfire before they can get stuck in.
- Wound allocation means that hidden weapons upgrades are no longer hidden. You only need to kill a squad to the point where the upgrade model is the closest to something. This is very easy to achieve with deepstriking.
- Loss of by-unit cover in favor of by-model cover destroys the ability for foot hordes to advance upfield.
- Addition of focus fire
- Addition of Precise Shot.
- Worsening of cover. Intervening units only give 4+, hills no longer area terrain, etc.
- Power weapons got screwed up. Either Ap3, or I1, take your choice...
- You can no longer disembark after moving more than 6" in a transport (killing mech assault units).
- grenades can now be thrown.
- walkers can no longer tie up squads in close combat.
- grenades now work against monstrous creatures in close combat. This hurts dedicated assault units relative to basic infantry that have no desire to be in close combat.
- pre-measuring makes it much easier to make sure shooting weapons are in range, while not helping assault units make it into assault more reliably.
- rapid fire now puts more shots out on the move.
- you can now move and fire heavy weapons. This and the above change to rapid fire mean that you can now back up away from assault units while still shooting.
- parts of a squad can now move without affecting the accuracy of heavy weapons.
- old wound wrapping gotten rid of. I'm glad, but for the purposes of this discussion, it is a boost to shooting more than assaulting.
- pile-in moves reduced to 3" from 6".
- unengaged models in a unit that is locked in close combat must now move closer to the enemy units. Used to capture objectives far away while in close combat with this one in 5th.
- barrage weapons may now fire within their minimum ranges.
- barrage weapons no longer lose strength against vehicles from off-center scatters.
- artillery units got MUCH more survivable.
- models with two pistol weapons can now fire them both.
- vehicles can shoot all weapons at cruising speed.
- in order to charge a vehicle, you must have some way of damaging it.
RELATIVE BUFFS FOR ASSAULT
- hypothetical increase of maximum charge range from 6" to 12". Given that assault range is no longer reliable, I still consider this more of a nerf than a buff. I mean, if you're 12" away, are you really going to attempt to charge? The most likely result is that your opponent will get some free overwatch, and you're still not making it into close combat.
- hammer of wrath.
- assaulting vehicles now gives you much better chance to hit.
- rage rule change
- gets hot now affects those rare vehicles that have it
So, some of these changes are more important than others, and you can uselessly nit-pick them all you like, but the fact is that there were 39 rule changes to make shooting better, and arguably up to 5 rule changes that make assault better.
Put another way, for every rule that made assault better, there were EIGHT rules that make shooting better.
6th ed is a shooting edition. End of.
And that's just the changes in 6th ed. 5th ed also whacked assaulty armies a lot, what with the introduction of real transports acting as automatic speedbump, the lack of consolidating from one close combat into another, etc.
One could make the argument that close combat was overpowered in 4th edition, but assault needed in that case to be toned down a bit, not had its manhood chopped off with a pair of rusty pliers and being forced to watch romantic comedies.
I agree with almost everything except for:
- Grenade - i actually see them helping mellee rather than ruining it.
- Vehicles still can't shoot all at cruising unless they're fast - though most top-used vehicles are fast, tough and shooty.
- I disagree that mech-based mellee is not viable. Though it's limited to some specific and rare builds like battlewagon rush which works relatively fine. Actually, i think that turn 2 assaults with battlewagon sluggaboyz that we saw in previous edition were a bit too much. So it's probably a good nerf.
Death of the closest ones is realistic and it's great. Ofc i hate it as i love greentide and massed infantry on the whole but that's how it should actually be.
Don't know about overwatch - on one hand the closer an enemy gets the easier it is to shoot him down - on another hand irl there are grenades! For this exact reason. If you have to assault - you throw a grenade and enemy has to stop shooting and get to cover. Grenades should stop overwatch and not dirge casters.
The thing that really should have never happened is challenge system. Espetially it's penalties. I think it shouldn't disable a character that forfeight the challenge but probably just impower a challenger a bit. Like +1 attack. But nothing more. War is not a place for some stupid heroism. Imagine a situation where Abbaddon charges a guardsmen platoon. What he does first? Riiiight - chops them all down a few per hit. And what happens tabletop:
Abbaddon: "I am the mighty Abbaddon! I challenge someone! Come here, fight one on one in an honourable duel! Btw, i've got primarch's weapon, one of the mightiest daemon swords ever and a terminator armor, also >10000 years of fighting experience...".
Random sergeant: "OK".
*having killed a serg in 1 strike*
Abbaddon: "Is that all you got, pesky wardogs of the false emperror?! I challenge someone once again...cause for some reason i can't just chop you all down untill there are no more commanders around".
Another random sergeant: "OK".
First of all I don't think you should make a Dark Eldar assault focused army, but you can take one or two assault units for the purposes of counter-assault or flanking or somesuch, remember that when non-fearless units are fighting assault can completely obliterate an unit, none of that "yay I gots me one troop model left from your shooting he's holding an objective" thing. But, I don't think Dark Eldar have the necessary toughness to focus on assault as assault units do nothing unless they're in combat and are wasted points if they just get killed off by shooting.
Secondly, who even cares about the differences of this and the other editions, apparently seventh is coming anyway, but now we're playing 6th. It's simply not true that assault was dominating post-3rd, somebody has got their editions mixed up or are thinking of some weirdo cases like first turn assaults on an IG army (an army that was commonly said to win as massacre if they could tie). Fourth was very much a shooting edition other than some incredibly broken stuff like the siren princes. Not saying that the games where a chaos army first-turn assaulted with infiltrating raptors weren't stupid but best tournament armies thorough fourth usually shot. Useless to argue about it now though, after all it's an entire edition worth of changes too so it's not smart to say "well it was just this".
This edition I haven't even seen other assault armies than Demons, because that's a completely assault based book. It's a very good assault army though.
This. There are a few CC units that are still viable, mostly FMCs or Beasts. Even the Daemons, the supposedly "assault-based" book, though, have stuff like 6D6 S6 shots, whips on Slaanesh princes and the like.
Ultimately, I think part of the disconnect is that we're talking about different things. When I say CC is dead, I'm talking armies focussed on assault as their primary means of damage. In 5th you could, even if not as strong as a shooting army, concievably stand up to shooting armies with an army built mostly around melee. If you build an army around mostly melee today, you'll not be as successful as if you played a shooting army. The top 8 armies, accoring to TorrentofFire, have one melee-centric army, Daemons, in it. If that doesn't tell you that shooting is more dominant then I'm interested to hear how you came to that conclusion.
And this isn't even taking Str D shooting into account...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/01/17 15:26:50
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2014/01/17 15:26:21
Subject: Re:New Player Question: Are CC Armies Viable?
And we all agree on this! Even Evil said that there is a limited number of viable cc options from what codexes propose us to be mellee-oriented. Which we all agree, right?
U ain't telling that spawns + lord/sorc are bad? They don't have shooting at all And they're so cheap they ain't even a deathstar. But they work even vs shooty armies.
Being shooty-oriented is an easier victory in MOST cases. But there are some things that just can't be shot down and must be faced in mellee. For example, i can't deal with serpents other than catching them with bw boyz or bikers. I can't shoot down a wraithknight but i kill it with pk nobz or better bikerboss with some nobz around...
Though if u're considering what to take - witches or sebarite warriors - go for sebarites. Choppas or shootas - go shootas. Bikernobz or something from range support?.. Well, you can take either bikes or ranged support - they can all work.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/17 15:29:11
2014/01/17 15:33:24
Subject: Re:New Player Question: Are CC Armies Viable?
Being shooty-oriented is an easier victory in MOST cases. But there are some things that just can't be shot down and must be faced in mellee. For example, i can't deal with serpents other than catching them with bw boyz or bikers. I can't shoot down a wraithknight but i kill it with pk nobz or better bikerboss with some nobz around...
Exactly, although I'd argue that there's very few if any units where you have to get into melee, whereas there's some units that can't ever die to melee. Although I'd argue that Lootas do just fine at shooting at Serpents, and that you're not going to catch a Wraithknight with bikers, though. And even if you catch the Wraithknight, it'll strike first with enough strength to turn your Warboss into paste (or are Warbosses T6 on bikes? Can't remember). A better solution would probably be to ignore them and go for the Serpents.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2014/01/17 15:54:42
Subject: Re:New Player Question: Are CC Armies Viable?
koooaei wrote: And we all agree on this! Even Evil said that there is a limited number of viable cc options from what codexes propose us to be mellee-oriented. Which we all agree, right?
U ain't telling that spawns + lord/sorc are bad? They don't have shooting at all And they're so cheap they ain't even a deathstar. But they work even vs shooty armies.
Being shooty-oriented is an easier victory in MOST cases. But there are some things that just can't be shot down and must be faced in mellee. For example, i can't deal with serpents other than catching them with bw boyz or bikers. I can't shoot down a wraithknight but i kill it with pk nobz or better bikerboss with some nobz around...
Though if u're considering what to take - witches or sebarite warriors - go for sebarites. Choppas or shootas - go shootas. Bikernobz or something from range support?.. Well, you can take either bikes or ranged support - they can all work.
This is what I have been saying all along. In past editions, all you had to do was walk in and say i have an assaulty army and the other guy would lose without you even having to take your models out of the case. yes, extreme example but close.
Now, the current edition has actually brought guns into the game where they play a part.
this has caused a lot of the players who relied on the old broken rules to win games now find themselves at a disadvantage when trying to assault. of course, this does notmean they are bad players or are stupid or anything like that. it is just a skil that has to be learned. Part of this skill is learning troop choices, terain set up and a whole list of other things.
To prove that the majority of this is a skill is easy. You find that the tournament winners andchampions can beat you using a shooty army and you using an assault army. Then they can switch armies and STILL win using the assaulty army against a shooty army. proof that some seem to want to ignore.
The current ideal (except for tau of course, is to not go 100% one way. You can still win with a 100% one way army but it is harder. Now it is usually better to use an army that has componants of both elements or at LEASt componants that are decent or capable of both elements.
Of course, as you have seen in this thread and many others, there are some that disagree with this.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/17 15:57:19
clively wrote: "EVIL INC" - hardly. More like "REASONABLE GOOD GUY INC". (side note: exalted)
We've been running a Crusade of Fire campaign at my local shop and as I'm new to Dark Eldar I've been playing them to get a better feel for them. Lately I've been running a lot of Coven based list and focusing on the CC side of things. I wouldn't say its the most OP list out there but if you can get the Grotesque and HQ's into CC it can be pretty brutal. And on top of that, its really fun.
Here's what I've been running at 1500:
HQ:
Archon
-Venom Blade, Huskblade, Soul Trap, Combat Drugs, Phantasm Grenade Launcher, Shadow Field
Haemonculus Ancient
-Liquifier Gun, Agoniser
Elite:
Grotesque x 4
-Liquifier Gun, Aberration with Scissorhand
-Raider with Nightshields, Flickerfield, Dark Lance
Troops:
Kabalite Warriors x5
Wracks x5
-Liquifier Gun
-Venom with Nightsheilds and Dual Splintercannon
Wracks x5
-Liquifier Gun
-Venom with Nightsheilds and Dual Splintercannon
Wracks x5
-Liquifier Gun
-Venom with Nightsheilds and Dual Splintercannon
Wracks x5
-Liquifier Gun
-Venom with Nightsheilds and Dual Splintercannon
Heavy:
Ravager
-Nightshields, Flickerfield, 3x Dark Lances
Ravager
-Nightshields, Flickerfield, 3x Dark Lances
Ravager
-Nightshields, Flickerfield, 3x Disintegrator Cannons
I just load the 2 HQ's up with the Grotesque and try to hit them hard and fast and hope the cover fire and cardboard armor holds up long enough
Hive Fleet Choji 7200pts
Wraithwing 1850
Kabal of the Sky Lotus (just starting)
2014/01/17 16:21:09
Subject: Re:New Player Question: Are CC Armies Viable?
koooaei wrote: And we all agree on this! Even Evil said that there is a limited number of viable cc options from what codexes propose us to be mellee-oriented. Which we all agree, right?
U ain't telling that spawns + lord/sorc are bad? They don't have shooting at all And they're so cheap they ain't even a deathstar. But they work even vs shooty armies.
Being shooty-oriented is an easier victory in MOST cases. But there are some things that just can't be shot down and must be faced in mellee. For example, i can't deal with serpents other than catching them with bw boyz or bikers. I can't shoot down a wraithknight but i kill it with pk nobz or better bikerboss with some nobz around...
Though if u're considering what to take - witches or sebarite warriors - go for sebarites. Choppas or shootas - go shootas. Bikernobz or something from range support?.. Well, you can take either bikes or ranged support - they can all work.
This is what I have been saying all along. In past editions, all you had to do was walk in and say i have an assaulty army and the other guy would lose without you even having to take your models out of the case. yes, extreme example but close.
What edition would that be, just out of curiosity?
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2014/01/17 16:26:34
Subject: Re:New Player Question: Are CC Armies Viable?
Lately I've been running a lot of Coven based list and focusing on the CC side of things. I wouldn't say its the most OP list out there but if you can get the Grotesque and HQ's into CC it can be pretty brutal. And on top of that, its really fun.
Here's what I've been running at 1500:
I've been running something similar but with more warriors and fewer Wracks plus a cheaper HQ and additional Grots. How have the Wracks been performing for you?
I've found that DE mobility combined with the fact that almost everyone is loaded onto open topped assault vehicles gives me ways to get into CC a lot more reliably than with my other armies. I still tend to lose my shirt getting there and heaven help me if I'm lined up against a ton of SMS but yeah, it's about the only "CC" list I'm confident in right now (read "confident" as in "sometimes it actually gets into combat ... sometimes ...").
Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug
Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..."
2014/01/17 16:43:57
Subject: Re:New Player Question: Are CC Armies Viable?
Read through the older rules sets and see for yourself if you were not around for them. However, that is off topic as we are talking about THIS edition.
as a guard player, ive faced a few darkeldar players. Not a lot because there just arent a lot in my area. I found that wyches ate through my units fairly fast, but then again, so did the other types. against someone who has better troops than myself, I can see where the heavier hitters would be more useful.
clively wrote: "EVIL INC" - hardly. More like "REASONABLE GOOD GUY INC". (side note: exalted)
More like "REASONABLE GOOD GUY INC". (side note: exalted)
Hive Fleet Choji 7200pts
Wraithwing 1850
Kabal of the Sky Lotus (just starting)