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.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Hardly. If anything, I'd call saying 'assault is vastly inferior to shooting' disingenuous.

Seriously though, assault is totally viable in this edition, even an assault-focused army. It just isn't the 'run-into-everything-chin-first' slugfest that it was in previous editions. The addition of random charge ranges and overwatch, as well as melee AP values, has made assault tactics require a modicum of forethought and strategy. You know, like shooting lists.

See sig. Shooting was already dominant in 5th, claiming that it was "run-into-everything-chin-first" IS disingenious.

Shooting was indeed dominant in 5th. Which is why I didn't specify an edition in my post. But when I got into 40k in the tail end of 3rd/beginning of 4th, I rarely if ever saw shooting-heavy lists win over assault-oriented lists. 5th certainly helped bring the two styles closer into balance. And 6th has done so even more.

How is going from shooting dominance to relative shooting buffs bringing it closer into balance?

as has been pointed out, assault is alive and well. Both in for fun games and competitively.. in past editions, guns were left out of the game and only pure assault armies without guns stood a chance. they literally only had to show up to a game to win it.
Now, the game is a mixture of guns and assault and the dominant assault units make use of both.
this means that some of the names have changed. For example, before berserkers ruled close combat for chaos while now, it is the spawn with character units. Many past assault players just have not learned to adapt to new and updated rules and still try to play the game as they did in past editions. Of course, this means they lose and come online to cry that assault is dead.
If you us the correct units in the correct ways, supporting them correctly with other units and approach the game with actual strategy and tactics, it has been proven time and again in the face of the naysayers, that assault is definately still alive and well and competetive.
now, I am sure, there will be a few who come on, troll and spam that what i said is not true. However, they are unable to provide proof. Look to the actual game and usage. The proof is in the pudding and they are proven wrong.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Hardly. If anything, I'd call saying 'assault is vastly inferior to shooting' disingenuous.

Seriously though, assault is totally viable in this edition, even an assault-focused army. It just isn't the 'run-into-everything-chin-first' slugfest that it was in previous editions. The addition of random charge ranges and overwatch, as well as melee AP values, has made assault tactics require a modicum of forethought and strategy. You know, like shooting lists.

Assault was difficult to get to work in 5th. Did you even play 5th against good lists? The amount of dakka in 5th was getting out of hand before 6th came along. Assault lists were leaf blowerd off the table frequently by the IG. Did you miss that somehow?

Assault is vastly inferior for a plethora of reasons. Maybe you play against players who don't understand how to neuter assault lists with some basic movement strategies.

a lot of players overlook or simply do not properly use the table set up phase of the game. A good player willuse this time to set up the lanes of assault and cover for said asault through the placement of terrain that blocks LOS and provides cover. Of course, there is more and more in the actual playing of the game as well. You look worldwide at the players who "win games", you will notice that they can beat you with an army geared towards shooting and then turn around and beat you just as badly by simply switching sides of the table and using the assault oriented army. It comes down to how good of a player you are and if it suits your playstyle.
As said though, this is not earlier editions, now you have to actually use strategy nd tactics.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Many past assault players just have not learned to adapt to new and updated rules and still try to play the game as they did in past editions. Of course, this means they lose and come online to cry that assault is dead.

Sure thing. But from what dark eldar have atm, assault is not dead on a beaspack with a 2++ baron. 1 unit in a codex is assault worthy. To be honest i've seen whacks in a few games and they were blown off the board by my shootaboy'z firepower. And i'd not say shootaboyz boast best firepower nowadayz. Though, they can be used from time to time if the map is heavy on blos. The issue with assault is that you must be fast, durable and hit hard. Also high ini and fearless is very preferable. So tu got only deathstars and monstrous creatures remaining effective assaulters. With some exceptions like bikes and spawns cause they're fast and acceptably durable if not focused down. Footslogging slow hordes and fragile assaulters like witches stopped working with the release of 6 ed even before new tau, eldar and thunderfire cannonz hit the board.

Martel732 wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Hardly. If anything, I'd call saying 'assault is vastly inferior to shooting' disingenuous.

Seriously though, assault is totally viable in this edition, even an assault-focused army. It just isn't the 'run-into-everything-chin-first' slugfest that it was in previous editions. The addition of random charge ranges and overwatch, as well as melee AP values, has made assault tactics require a modicum of forethought and strategy. You know, like shooting lists.

Assault was difficult to get to work in 5th. Did you even play 5th against good lists? The amount of dakka in 5th was getting out of hand before 6th came along. Assault lists were leaf blowerd off the table frequently by the IG. Did you miss that somehow?

Assault is vastly inferior for a plethora of reasons. Maybe you play against players who don't understand how to neuter assault lists with some basic movement strategies.

I totally missed that! I was busy assaulting the crap out of Imperial Guard armies.

Assault is a totally viable option. Maybe you play with people who don't understand how to use assault lists correctly.

In 5 edition such things like witches, footslogging hordes, mellee outflankers and jump packs worked. While bikers and cavalry/beasts were meh. Now bikers and cav/beasts work while footslogging hordes, jump packs are meh and witches, mellee outflankers don't work at all. Also, you generally don't want to be heavy on mellee with all the ammount of flyers and fmc around. And challenges - oh i wish i could unsee this part of the rulebook!
Anywayz, as i've allready told. Mellee works good for deathstars and MC - preferably FMC or JMC. Forget about witches, hordes, commandoes and jumppacks. No more fun en masse.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Hardly. If anything, I'd call saying 'assault is vastly inferior to shooting' disingenuous.

Seriously though, assault is totally viable in this edition, even an assault-focused army. It just isn't the 'run-into-everything-chin-first' slugfest that it was in previous editions. The addition of random charge ranges and overwatch, as well as melee AP values, has made assault tactics require a modicum of forethought and strategy. You know, like shooting lists.

Don't give false hope to new players that is just mean! He could spend $100's on model he will end up selling on eBay after a few weeks. If he can find a buyer.

Shooting is so powerful now that at my club there is a DA player that will never assault ever he just parks 1" always shoots & then waits for other units to assault. Because overwatch is OP

Yorkskargrim wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Hardly. If anything, I'd call saying 'assault is vastly inferior to shooting' disingenuous.

Seriously though, assault is totally viable in this edition, even an assault-focused army. It just isn't the 'run-into-everything-chin-first' slugfest that it was in previous editions. The addition of random charge ranges and overwatch, as well as melee AP values, has made assault tactics require a modicum of forethought and strategy. You know, like shooting lists.

Don't give false hope to new players that is just mean! He could spend $100's on model he will end up selling on eBay after a few weeks. If he can find a buyer.

Shooting is so powerful now that at my club there is a DA player that will never assault ever he just parks 1" always shoots & then waits for other units to assault. Because overwatch is OP

I like your style Jimsolo. Defy the meta by thinking outside the box! Exalted.

Wyches aren't exactly good at assaulting troops, or infact anything with a gun in it's hands... But... they do are awesome against vehicles with their Haywire grenades

Hmm, if you like the Wyches that much, here's a way to keep them pretty usefull: What about making them groups of 5, put them in a Venom with a cannon (Quite a lot of shots.). That way they can deepstrike a bit in front of your enemies vehicles and charge those with haywire grenades. This means they'll become something of a suicide squad though. But pop goes the Landraider.

Or use the Wyches as a cheap bullet sponge. Using a small group to take away a enemy units overwatch and them assault them with let's say... Incubi with Drazahr in it? Not sure if it's viable, but it'll hurt your enemy a lot if it hits.

Pure CC armies, aren't that viable, but with some creativity you can make some aspects work somewhat. At least with DEldar.

 EVIL INC wrote:
The proof is in the pudding and they are proven wrong.

The proof being exactly what? EVIL INC.Hammer 40k? The lists that won tournaments in 5th took as many powerful ranged options as possible, and just happened to be decent at CC at the same time. No one took Razorbacks or Chimerae because they were awesome at assaults. We've been through this whole thing already, but you still don't have anything to refute that.

Were assault not viable, players who us strategy and tactics would not be able to win with a shooty army against an assaulty army and then simply trade armies with the opponent and win JUST as handily.
The internet is chock full of players who jumped on the "I auto win with assault" bandwagon in earlier edition and never actually learned to use strategy or tactics or terrain set up because they never had to to win. This shows in today's current edition because now those items are needed and those players have been left behind because they never learned thoseskills and you see them across the internet complaining because they (personally, not assault) "cant win". This does not make them bad people. They are just as good as anyoe, they just never developed those skills. Heck, I never learned to ice skate but that is just a skill I never learned so to tell me I cant, is not an insult, it is just a statement of fact.

A statement of fact that is demonstrably wrong. There was no "auto-win" for melee in 5th edition, which your entire premise is built on.

 Jimsolo wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Hardly. If anything, I'd call saying 'assault is vastly inferior to shooting' disingenuous.

Seriously though, assault is totally viable in this edition, even an assault-focused army. It just isn't the 'run-into-everything-chin-first' slugfest that it was in previous editions. The addition of random charge ranges and overwatch, as well as melee AP values, has made assault tactics require a modicum of forethought and strategy. You know, like shooting lists.

Assault was difficult to get to work in 5th. Did you even play 5th against good lists? The amount of dakka in 5th was getting out of hand before 6th came along. Assault lists were leaf blowerd off the table frequently by the IG. Did you miss that somehow?

Assault is vastly inferior for a plethora of reasons. Maybe you play against players who don't understand how to neuter assault lists with some basic movement strategies.

I totally missed that! I was busy assaulting the crap out of Imperial Guard armies.

Assault is a totally viable option. Maybe you play with people who don't understand how to use assault lists correctly.

Or maybe you play with people who don't understand how to leverage their shooting armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
A statement of fact that is demonstrably wrong. There was no "auto-win" for melee in 5th edition, which your entire premise is built on.

I've blocked him because he is unreachable.

Im sorry, maybe you came into the hobby a little late. Believe it or not, Warhammer 40k did NOT start at 5th edition. The reason for the number '5" in 5th edition should clue you in that there were 4 editions before that one. The 1st edition was not actually called 1st edition, we called it Rogue Trader when it came out. However, it is considered to have been the first edition.

Now, if you want to steamroll your private agenda and spam that assault is dead, go right ahead. I and the others will continue to tell the truth and provide the OP with correct information.

However, it is known that you have a personal issue with me which is demonstrated by the fact that you call me out by name and leave the others with higher post counts than yourself who disagree with you even more than I do alone in order to harass. If you have some sort of personal issue with me, use the PM function or the ignore button. .

the simple fact remains that a good player who uses strategy and tactics along with proper terrain placement can use a shooty army against an assaulty army and win. They can then switch or trade armies with their opponent and STILL win just as easily. If you want to deny this, the onus of providing proof that this is not possible is on you.
The fact also remains that close combat still plays an iportant role in 40k. The difference is that different units have come to the fore while oters have faded away. For example, spawn have eclipsed berserkers. So now you find berserker players crying that assault is dead because their favorite unit isnt as usefull and they dont want to buy the spawn to once more own the tables.
Ever stop to think that this is a marketing ploy? By switching around the power levels of individual units and models, they can keep players buying new and different units?
Speed now plays a larger part in the game. "Guns" have now been brought on par with close combat weapons. while in earlier editions, you were putting yourself at a disadvantage by having guns in your army, now they actually play a part. You will notice that while the best assault units are not only fast but that they will also happen to carry guns as well. Dont fall into the deluded thinking that they are shooty units who "just happen to be good in close combat", they are assault units who just happen to carry guns. I have YET to see a game in 6th edition that did ot have an assault in the game. You will also note that as often as not, those assaults play key roles in who wins. will the unit be alive at the end of the gam to claim the objective? or obtain line breaker? Will the army commander be brought down by the genestealers for slay the warlord? will this unit of necron warriors stay alive long enough to deny an objective to the marines? The list is endless.and gives a glimmer of just how important strategy and tactics play a role in this.

Now to the OP, I would ot suggest taking an all berserker army or anything like that because while assault is not dead as has been proven in just a few examples I gave, but then neither is shooting. When I mention strategy and tactics, you need to consider, prepare for and utilize BOTH to be trule effective.

Close Combat has taken a number of hits in 6th edition, improvements to rapid fire, casualty removal, random assault range and so forth. melee focused armies have certainly been brought down a notch or two, so i would say, no, purely melee armies are no longer viable, or at least nowhere as viable as they used to be.

That being said, in my experience, Close Combat is still alive and well. the majority of games i have played have involved close combat, and in those games, the close combat has been decisive in one way or another. Over the weekend, my imperial fists were getting murdered by Thousand Suns shooting, the options was shoot back, or assault, i elected to assault, and while the close combat took several rounds to resolve, that combat won me the game because the thousand suns were unable to shoot me for 4 rounds (i lost the combat eventually).

Need to push a unit of an objective? or stop a unit shooting? assault them, need to take out a tank and all you have that can hurt it is Krak grenades? assault it.

If assault was truly dead, as many seem to claim, then why do necron players take wraiths and mindshackle scarabs, they are ONLY good in assault. why does anyone take any close combat weapons of any kind? why are chapter masters usually running round with thunder hammers? thats a close combat weapon, and assault is dead! There are also gimick armies, Seer councils with the baron, Screamer stars, why do tyranid MC's usually sport close combat weapons? why do Daemon Princes run around with the black mace?

So, from what i've observed, Close Combat is very much alive, but outside of a few armies, a purely foccused close combat army isn't viable alternative to a shooting one. but almost all armies i've faced have, at the very least a counter assault unit, or more likely, a close combat powerhouse

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.

What the heck is this about. Okay.

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.

People who say assault is dead have no ground to stand on. It's more difficult in this edition for sure but just as integral.

Torrentoffire records win rates for armies at big tournaments and such. If you look there you'll see that Eldar and Tau have the highest win rates followed by daemons then comes Necrons and C:SM. How can CC be dead if one of the strongest tournament armies literally doesn't have a single gun in the entire army. Additionally necron wraiths and aforementioned thunder hammer wielding captains are integral parts of tournament armies.

Just because eldar and tau are super strong doesn't mean CC is dead. If anything it just means those codex's were written either better or more poorly depending on your perspective. A lot of tournaments lack LoS blocking terrain and its the opinion of many warhammer players that given proper LoS blocking terrain and stuff assault armies can do very well and can be very frustrating for armies like Tau to deal with.

Rautakanki, this goes back a ways. There is a small and very loudly vocal group who is on a crusade to bring 40k back to 2nd or 3rd or whatever edition they liked best. They go about spamming and trolling any thread that involves close combat in order to push their personal agenda and in order to do that, it is more fun for them to harass someone they have a personal dislike towards. So since i tried to help the OP out with some advice, it started the ball rolling.

it comes down to as has been said, few PURE assault armies are viable now while in previous editions they were the rage. The "assault" or close combat has been toned down to be where it should be, a valid PART of the game instead of being the entire game. close combat elements are great when used correctly and in conjunction with other aspects using strategy and tactics.
For a dark eldar army, I also would not suggest a "PURE" close combat orientation, a mix is usually best. using elements that complement one another.

Okay, then. CC is pretty much dead for non-Daemons, then?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

madtankbloke wrote:
Close Combat has taken a number of hits in 6th edition, improvements to rapid fire, casualty removal, random assault range and so forth. melee focused armies have certainly been brought down a notch or two, so i would say, no, purely melee armies are no longer viable, or at least nowhere as viable as they used to be.

That being said, in my experience, Close Combat is still alive and well. the majority of games i have played have involved close combat, and in those games, the close combat has been decisive in one way or another. Over the weekend, my imperial fists were getting murdered by Thousand Suns shooting, the options was shoot back, or assault, i elected to assault, and while the close combat took several rounds to resolve, that combat won me the game because the thousand suns were unable to shoot me for 4 rounds (i lost the combat eventually).

Need to push a unit of an objective? or stop a unit shooting? assault them, need to take out a tank and all you have that can hurt it is Krak grenades? assault it.

If assault was truly dead, as many seem to claim, then why do necron players take wraiths and mindshackle scarabs, they are ONLY good in assault. why does anyone take any close combat weapons of any kind? why are chapter masters usually running round with thunder hammers? thats a close combat weapon, and assault is dead! There are also gimick armies, Seer councils with the baron, Screamer stars, why do tyranid MC's usually sport close combat weapons? why do Daemon Princes run around with the black mace?

So, from what i've observed, Close Combat is very much alive, but outside of a few armies, a purely foccused close combat army isn't viable alternative to a shooting one. but almost all armies i've faced have, at the very least a counter assault unit, or more likely, a close combat powerhouse

Marine vs marine is totally different. Marine armies don't have the firepower to keep each other from getting to CC. I guess maybe the statement "CC is dead" is far too general. If you're not a Daemon list trying to CC against Tau/Eldar or even Necron, you are probably in for a long day.

LOS blocking terrain is far from an equalizer, because the scoot and shoot Eldar can use it to their advantage as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jakl277 wrote:
People who say assault is dead have no ground to stand on. It's more difficult in this edition for sure but just as integral.

Torrentoffire records win rates for armies at big tournaments and such. If you look there you'll see that Eldar and Tau have the highest win rates followed by daemons then comes Necrons and C:SM. How can CC be dead if one of the strongest tournament armies literally doesn't have a single gun in the entire army. Additionally necron wraiths and aforementioned thunder hammer wielding captains are integral parts of tournament armies.

Just because eldar and tau are super strong doesn't mean CC is dead. If anything it just means those codex's were written either better or more poorly depending on your perspective. A lot of tournaments lack LoS blocking terrain and its the opinion of many warhammer players that given proper LoS blocking terrain and stuff assault armies can do very well and can be very frustrating for armies like Tau to deal with.

It's not integral because I've seen many tables where it never happens.

 EVIL INC wrote:

However, it is known that you have a personal issue with me which is demonstrated by the fact that you call me out by name and leave the others with higher post counts than yourself who disagree with you even more than I do alone in order to harass. If you have some sort of personal issue with me, use the PM function or the ignore button. .

No, I have a personal issue with you because you post stuff like

 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.

where you call people like me a liar without backing it up. It has nothing to do with post counts and everything to do with the fact that you literally cannot argue in a nuanced way. You don't ever engage people's points and you seem to have some sort of righteousness complex where anyone who disagrees with you is out to get you personally. We're not, we just disagree with your claims and strongly disagree with the flawed way you're trying to argue.

And for the record, Virus Outbreak was better than any melee unit in 2nd edition, so there's another edition where shooting was stronger.

 EVIL INC wrote:

it comes down to as has been said, few PURE assault armies are viable now while in previous editions they were the rage. The "assault" or close combat has been toned down to be where it should be, a valid PART of the game instead of being the entire game. close combat elements are great when used correctly and in conjunction with other aspects using strategy and tactics.
For a dark eldar army, I also would not suggest a "PURE" close combat orientation, a mix is usually best. using elements that complement one another.

You can play a pure shooting army, why "should" melee only be supporting units at best? When was melee EVER the entire game?

 Rautakanki wrote:
What the heck is this about. Okay.

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...

Martel732 wrote:
Okay, then. CC is pretty much dead for non-Daemons, then?
Marine vs marine is totally different. Marine armies don't have the firepower to keep each other from getting to CC. I guess maybe the statement "CC is dead" is far too general. If you're not a Daemon list trying to CC against Tau/Eldar or even Necron, you are probably in for a long day.

LOS blocking terrain is far from an equalizer, because the scoot and shoot Eldar can use it to their advantage as well.

First off There are a great many different "marine" armies. lets do a little mah here. How many 'marine" armies are there? Chaos marines, "marines", grey Knights, Blood Angels, Black templars, Iron hands, Space wolves, plus whoever else i am missing. Now how many tau armies are there? 2, How many daemons? 1, How many eldar? 2 maybe 3. I'm sure your getting the picture here. there are mre marine armies than any other single army out there and out of all the armies possible, I would say that they likely make up over half of them. Now, you also make my point for me when you mention the scoot and shoot eldar, they are able to scoot, shoot and assault as fast as any other army. With the wave serpent, they are also much more likely to reach assault.
Saying that close combat is no longer a part of the game is just ludicrous.

Martel732 wrote:
It's not integral because I've seen many tables where it never happens.

Gotta call BS on this one. How many tournaments and events has there been worldwide where not a single round of close combat was fought? Not a single one. Ever.
In normal games even i is an urban legend. The ONLY time it happens (and even then rare enough to be discounted) is the first phase of an escelation tourney where you start off with a single unit. In normal games, your GONNA have close combat.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

No, I have a personal issue with you because you post stuff like

where you call people like me a liar without backing it up. It has nothing to do with post counts and everything to do with the fact that you literally cannot argue in a nuanced way. You don't ever engage people's points and you seem to have some sort of righteousness complex where anyone who disagrees with you is out to get you personally. We're not, we just disagree with your claims and strongly disagree with the flawed way you're trying to argue.

Actually, YOU are the one who bandies about the name calling and personal attacks. I address the actual topic and provide support and proof for my words. You have yet to provide any yourself however. Reversing your actions to represent the person who disagrees with you is a comman form of strawman. It has also been proven that it is a personel vendetta against me in particuler because there are MANY others who disagree with you and provide proof that you leave alone. if you are unable to interact with someone politely, make use of the ignore button or use PM, the public forums are not the place for that sort of personal agenda.

The fact remains that Close combat still plays a part in the game and the idea that close combat is dead and no longer plays a part, dont ever take anything that is decent in close combat blah blah blah... Well, lets just say that that is a surefire way to lose games.
I refer you to the players who can beat you with either army just as easily. The bottom line is that it boils down to strategy and tactics. learn them and you will be a much better player who is able to make use of ALL the integral elements of the game.

OP, something that may help you is to borrow models from someone or proxy for a few games until you "get the feel of it" and decide for yourself what works best for you. Experiment with different units and see for yourself what combos you like best before actually spending a load of money. You may indeed find that you want to go all out close combat or that you want to forego close combat and stick purely to shooting or a combination of both. Find out what works for YOU. Most of the rest of us are just trying help but without knowing YOU and your style, they are just words in the wind.

 EVIL INC wrote:

Actually, YOU are the one who bandies about the name calling and personal attacks.

Where? Quote me or concede the argument.

 EVIL INC wrote:
It has also been proven that it is a personel vendetta against me in particuler because there are MANY others who disagree with you and provide proof that you leave alone.

Where? Quote me or concede the argument.

 EVIL INC wrote:


The fact remains that Close combat still plays a part in the game and the idea that close combat is dead and no longer plays a part, dont ever take anything that is decent in close combat blah blah blah... Well, lets just say that that is a surefire way to lose games.

Yep. It's also a strawman to claim that that's what I've been saying, read my last post in this thread.

 EVIL INC wrote:

I refer you to the players who can beat you with either army just as easily. The bottom line is that it boils down to strategy and tactics. learn them and you will be a much better player who is able to make use of ALL the integral elements of the game.

See, if you didn't indirectly assume I suck as part of your argument this whole thing would be so much more civil.

yes, absolutely CC is viable,

two of my main armies, ORKS and GK have been winning games with CC, orks are 7-1 W-L, and my GK have won 90% of their games in the last year and a half...(the GK list has lots of shooting too, but it is designed to get 75% plus of my points into CC by turn two as well, and thats where the opponents lose the game by turn 3 lol)


you CANNOT half arse CC this edition, you MUST have a plan to get your army into CC, and your whole army must be part of it.

no "this unit tries to get into CC turn two, this one turn 3 ect"

everything has to hit their lines at the same time.

DE, you have lots of cheaper transports, lots of high I, low durability, but cheapish CC units.

dont get bogged down in upgrades, just means they have a units to focus on killing,

your best bet is to take multiples of bare bones or minor upgraded units that are redundant unto themselves (IE copies so they cant just target the one unit with ap2 or anti whatever in it)

I find that with CC armies, even if 2/3 of them die before getting into combat, once you are in combat, so long as you are better at CC then your opponent (not hard, people are hugly ignoring taking counter charge units) then you hopfully are doing your charges or multi charges right so that you are stuck in combat for their shooting turn, and get to charge again on your turn.

once you line that kind of thing up, non CC units just start to dissapear.

 easysauce wrote:
yes, absolutely CC is viable,

two of my main armies, ORKS and GK have been winning games with CC, orks are 7-1 W-L, and my GK have won 90% of their games in the last year and a half...


you CANNOT half arse CC this edition, you MUST have a plan to get your army into CC, and your whole army must be part of it.

no "this unit tries to get into CC turn two, this one turn 3 ect"

everything has to hit their lines at the same time.

DE, you have lots of cheaper transports, lots of high I, low durability, but cheapish CC units.

dont get bogged down in upgrades, just means they have a units to focus on killing,

your best bet is to take multiples of bare bones or minor upgraded units that are redundant unto themselves (IE copies so they cant just target the one unit with ap2 or anti whatever in it)

I find that with CC armies, even if 2/3 of them die before getting into combat, once you are in combat, so long as you are better at CC then your opponent (not hard, people are hugly ignoring taking counter charge units) then you hopfully are doing your charges or multi charges right so that you are stuck in combat for their shooting turn, and get to charge again on your turn.

once you line that kind of thing up, non CC units just start to dissapear.

Getting into CC is not good enough. That's the problem. Your opponent chooses what you assault. And then shoots you more the turn after you win. No good player is going to let you multi-charge unless they want to be, like Space Wolves. Losing 2/3 of your list getting to CC is not good enough because good players will then gun down everything that made initial contact the following turn. I KNOW this works, because I did it with BA in 5th and STILL do it with BA/C:SM. Your typical assault scheme won't work against MY lists, much less good lists. Now, if you are the magical few with 2++ rerollable, you can do fine, because you are *immortal*.

Everytime someone lines up a CC army against me, I sigh with relief. CC armies have to waste time busting their humps to get into CC, only to fail to do enough damage 80% of the time. I get a chance to maneuver and weaken you and also dictate every engagement since the CC list is the one desperate to close the distance. (Which can be non-trivial vs BA) Contrast this to Eldar, which are just death from 36", unrelenting, unyielding. You can't outmaneuver 36" guns. They don't miss. They don't fail to wound meqs. They choose what dies, not me. What part of this don't you get?

"everything has to hit their lines at the same time. "

I, as the defensive shooter, can engineer this not to happen.

I agree with the above poster. CC is still viable but requires more planning and stronger lists to be effective. Out of the tournament competitive lists out there very few are CC based. For friendly games CC lists with CSM or you know whatever are fine but in a tournament the only "CC" oriented list I've heard of that does well consistently is Chaos Daemons based.

Eldar, Tau, Necrons and Daemons and recently C:SM are generally considered to be the things you prepare to face when you go into a tournament. Problem is 4/5 of those competitive scene armies are majority shooting based. You could even argue that daemon shoot their psychic powers more than they close combat. Most involve CC elements like wraiths captains etc but the majority of the competitive scene armies rely almost entirely on shooting. I don't think that is because of the edition of the rulebook but because of codex's. Once new orks and GK and Space Wolves and other CC armies get updated the meta will shift again (i hope).

Do try to stay on topic instead of insisting derailing the thread for your personal agenda. if you are unable to interact with other members politely in accordance with the rules, you can always make use of the ignore button or take your grudges to PM.
I have made my points and i have supported them with data and evidence which you ignore while refusing to provide any of your own.

I will repeat my statement for the OP in order to bring the thread back on track...

Close combat is still alive and well in 40k. The difference is that it has been brought back to a realistic and reasonable role instead of being the end all be all it was in earlier editions where all you had to do was walk in say "i brought an all close combat army" and they would just hand you the win or first place.
Guns now actually play a part in the game and you will note that now most close combat oriented troops happen to carry guns to support their melee effectiveness.
terrain also now plays a part. Where before, you could play on planet bowling ball and still casually stroll across the board and walk over an opponent with nothing bt pure close combat units, you now are forced to make use of cover and LOS blocking terrain.
You also need to have your units work together to help them be more effective then they would normally be on their own.
In essence, now yo actually need to use strategy and tactics along with terrain twin games with ANY army whereas before that was not really the case. This is proven by the fact that a good player can win using a "shooty" army against an "assaulty" army and then simply trade sides of the table and still win just as easily. This is a fact that some seem to want to ignore in this thread.
For YOU, the OP, your best bet is to find out what works fo YOU. try to borrow models or proxy before spending a lot of cash s that may save you some money. You may find pure shooty works for you and you may find pure assaulty works for you. Most likely, you will find that an army that has elements of both working together works better. Whatever the case, ddo your own experimentation and trial ad eror insteadof taking our word for it.

jakl277 wrote:
I agree with the above poster. CC is still viable but requires more planning and stronger lists to be effective. Out of the tournament competitive lists out there very few are CC based. For friendly games CC lists with CSM or you know whatever are fine but in a tournament the only "CC" oriented list I've heard of that does well consistently is Chaos Daemons based.

Eldar, Tau, Necrons and Daemons and recently C:SM are generally considered to be the things you prepare to face when you go into a tournament. Problem is 4/5 of those competitive scene armies are majority shooting based. You could even argue that daemon shoot their psychic powers more than they close combat. Most involve CC elements like wraiths captains etc but the majority of the competitive scene armies rely almost entirely on shooting. I don't think that is because of the edition of the rulebook but because of codex's. Once new orks and GK and Space Wolves and other CC armies get updated the meta will shift again (i hope).

"

Chaos Demons couldn't do CC well without the magic of 2++ rerollable. Meqs don't have this. What are these "stronger lists"? I'd like to know.

Also, I'd like to see someone post a list here or over in the list thread that doesn't have rerollable 2+ or 2++ that you think has a hope of winning say even 45% of its games with primary damage through CC. Quit telling me you can do it, I'd like some specifics.

jakl277, You are correct. Of course, most tourney winners are the ones who have loads of money to spam out the most cheese and even then, you will notice that they are more often than not armie that have elements that incorporate close combat. Even the tau have kroot which arent shabby at close combat and happen to carry guns. Even the riptides are able to fight in close combat in order to win a game, For example assaulting a guard vet unit after shooting at it in order to be within range to contest an objective.
Winning armies and players know when to use which element to greatest effect. They will tell you that to totally ignore close combat and eschew everything about it as others suggest, is a bad idea. Winning armies are most often not "shooty" armies or 'assaulty" armies anymore, they are effective combination armies that make use of both elements. That is why I say it is bad to label an army as a shooty or an assaulty army because then you are pigeonholing yourself into an outdated stereotype and assuming that you will not be using units that make use of the 'other game element".

as an example, look at the post above this one. they are asking for army lists that do their damage primarily through a single element. That is needlessly tying one arm behind your back to play. What he SHOULD be asking for an army list that wins making use of both elements. heck, you can win a game through close combat without killing a singe unit through it. look at this example... A player has a singe objective claimed while their opponent has 3 claimed and is sitting there for the easy win. lastturn of the game, the player with only a sing objective claimed assaults the units holding the 3 other objectives, draws combat and contests those objectives so that at the end of the turn, only one objective out of 4 is claimed and that player won the game through the use of assault..it comes dn to strategy and tactics.