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.

a1elbow wrote:
I However, one thing that has only been skimmed over through these twelve pages is terrain. It has generally been commented that LOS blocking terrain helps, but that it is dependent on where you go. I am surprised at how rarely players are willing to throw down terrain at their FLGS.

This might be one of the reasons we have people claiming assault is dead or that it is weak where they think it should play a bigger part than shooting.
A lot of the stores are cramped for space so bigger terrain pieces that would block LOS take up more space so you see more 'planet blowlingball stype games.. Another thing is that when putting together buildings, a lot of players are more worried about providing spots for models in it to shoot out than whether or not you can see through the windows to models that would be obscured if the windows and doors were shut GW provides enough closed windows and doors to prevent this but its just the mentality we have when building it.
I like the big foamboard rock outcroppings as they can be modeled/painted to look nice and formed to block los very well. As aplayer, youjust need to be more willing to stand up for yourself and put down some terrain that your opponent does notlike. After all, he is allowed to plop down his mud puddle with a lil grass around it as his terrain piece selection, why shouldn't you be able to put something down that suits your game?

as I have said from post onein this thread and maintained throughout, assault is a valid and ital. part of the game (although some of the big players and no brainers have changed). terrain goes a LONG way o helping this

Has anyone pointed out that while terrain (of any type) certainly limits shooting a little, but also limits assault?

Consider that most terrain will at least be difficult terrain, slowing down assault armies. Then a number of terrain pieces will be dangerous terrain, causing wounds along the way while also slowing them down most likely. Then, anything suitably large enough to block LoS will also force the assaulting force to move around it making the trek that much longer.

Further consider that the top shooting armies have significant mobility advantages that shouldn't be discounted.

Terrain is good and all, and most players likely don't play with enough, but don't fall into the trap of thinking that LoS blocking terrain magically cripples shooting armies but has no effect on assault armies. Assuming player skill is equal, the shooting player will always be looking for lanes of shooting and planning a step ahead to get over to the next lane or force you through some dangerous/difficult terrain.

Its a nice thought, just not some end-all be-all certain users are claiming it is.

 Blacksails wrote:
Has anyone pointed out that while terrain (of any type) certainly limits shooting a little, but also limits assault?

Consider that most terrain will at least be difficult terrain, slowing down assault armies. Then a number of terrain pieces will be dangerous terrain, causing wounds along the way while also slowing them down most likely. Then, anything suitably large enough to block LoS will also force the assaulting force to move around it making the trek that much longer.

Further consider that the top shooting armies have significant mobility advantages that shouldn't be discounted.

Terrain is good and all, and most players likely don't play with enough, but don't fall into the trap of thinking that LoS blocking terrain magically cripples shooting armies but has no effect on assault armies. Assuming player skill is equal, the shooting player will always be looking for lanes of shooting and planning a step ahead to get over to the next lane or force you through some dangerous/difficult terrain.

Its a nice thought, just not some end-all be-all certain users are claiming it is.

I totally agree. The best type of terrain for assault forces, imo, are LOS blockers mid-field. With some luck, planning and understanding, you could get the CC units to meet the shooters ass they try to get around the LOS block. But, then again, that also nerfs your shooting, so you'd have to be choppy-spam Orks, Daemons or Tooth-and-Claw nids.

hat has been brought up on several occasions. most of the "assault" type units literally laugh at difficult terrain because they either roll 3d6 of jump/fly right over it.. Remember that not all terrain that blocks los is difficult, it just blocks los to what is behind it. difficult tewrrain only "slows you down" while actually in it.
no one has claimed it was the end all be all, just the most obvious thing to look at. If it were possible to ensure a safe path every game with no risk at all, it wouldn't exactly be a fair game. lol
Is a back and forth where it should come down to who has the best strategy and tactics (combined with the luckiest dice rolls) and figuring terrain into the equatins is just a part of the overall result.

Right, just wanted to make sure the whole thread wasn't looking at terrain with rosy coloured glasses thinking it was the answer. You always have to assume equal player skill, so not only will your opponent be setting up terrain to hinder you/create firing lanes for them, but they won't exactly be playing into your hand either by even being near the LOS blocking terrain.

A big wall in the middle half of the board at least makes the game more interesting, but I think terrain like that doesn't hinder shooting armies any more than it hinders assault armies. Its just terrain, both players will use it to their advantages.

now, the big block wall in the center of the board would indeed hinder the shooty army more than the assault army. however, while the assault plaer may place that, the shooty player could then lay down a large lava crater that is impassible (assault models would need to waste movement going around it) but does not block line of sight at all. So, yes, it is indeed a back and forth where in the end, neither side will be able to totally have thei way.

Earlier in the thread I addressed terrain from the point of view of a hindrance to assault.

Conclusion: If you're fast, it's not too much of a problem. but if you're going it on foot, it just makes things worse. A cover save for a turn or two just isn't worth taking an extra turn to get there...

In particular, charging through terrain is a massive problem, requiring you to get exceptionally close to the enemy and probably adding an entire extra turn to getting there...

 Hedgehog wrote:
Earlier in the thread I addressed terrain from the point of view of a hindrance to assault.

Conclusion: If you're fast, it's not too much of a problem. but if you're going it on foot, it just makes things worse. A cover save for a turn or two just isn't worth taking an extra turn to get there...

In particular, charging through terrain is a massive problem, requiring you to get exceptionally close to the enemy and probably adding an entire extra turn to getting there...

Okay, that's good. I just didn't feel like digging through 12 pages to find this.

Assault is in a rough place. The only viable dedicated CC units need to be durable, fast, and hit hard. Lacking even one of those qualities puts them in a serious handicap.

I am curious about the C:I Land Raiders with DCA and Crusaders and Priests on board. I remember Hulksmash was commenting on them. Seems like a nice way to wed close combat with shooting abilities, as the Land Raider would have a hail of S5 shots from the Hurricane sponsons and another handful of S7 shots from the Assault Cannon. Pretty expensive and wouldn't fit in with every list, but certainly seems like a nice unit in an army designed to support it.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Hedgehog wrote:
Earlier in the thread I addressed terrain from the point of view of a hindrance to assault.

Conclusion: If you're fast, it's not too much of a problem. but if you're going it on foot, it just makes things worse. A cover save for a turn or two just isn't worth taking an extra turn to get there...

In particular, charging through terrain is a massive problem, requiring you to get exceptionally close to the enemy and probably adding an entire extra turn to getting there...

Okay, that's good. I just didn't feel like digging through 12 pages to find this.

Assault is in a rough place. The only viable dedicated CC units need to be durable, fast, and hit hard. Lacking even one of those qualities puts them in a serious handicap.

I am curious about the C:I Land Raiders with DCA and Crusaders and Priests on board. I remember Hulksmash was commenting on them. Seems like a nice way to wed close combat with shooting abilities, as the Land Raider would have a hail of S5 shots from the Hurricane sponsons and another handful of S7 shots from the Assault Cannon. Pretty expensive and wouldn't fit in with every list, but certainly seems like a nice unit in an army designed to support it.

Here

Sorry about the 12 pages it took me forever to get someone's attention and put the hammer down to stop it.
remember, most 'foot" trrops that are assault virtually ignore difficult terrain as they just hop over it or roll 3d6 instead of the normal 2 when going through it. as you wont actually be charging through it, it will not actually slow down the assault either (except in rare circumstances when you miscalculate horrendously or in ultra rare cases when you don't have a choice.
Again, not that it is the end all be all, just that a good player can use to to his/he benefit without it reall hindering them at all.
the land raider varients... you will see people swear by them and others tell you they are worthless. it all depends on their skill level and playstyle. generally, the raidr wont make up it's points by itself but it does so indirectly (through it's own kills and by ensuring the rippy squad gets where it needs to be unscathed). I've had mixed results with them. of course, when I use more than o I get better results. Muiple raidr lists have proven themselves to be highly effective and competitive.

 Hedgehog wrote:


Here

Cheers! Good post!

 EVIL INC wrote:
remember, most 'foot" trrops that are assault virtually ignore difficult terrain as they just hop over it or roll 3d6 instead of the normal 2 when going through it. as you wont actually be charging through it, it will not actually slow down the assault either (except in rare circumstances when you miscalculate horrendously or in ultra rare cases when you don't have a choice.

I'm not sure how you propose to avoid terrain when charging?

Firstly, the initiative is with the defender when assaulting - they have to go to the enemy, and if the enemy is in cover then that's too bad for the assaulter. There's generally no way to avoid it, especially if you're a foot unit without spare movement to come at the enemy from a different direction.

Fast units can sometimes get round this, depending on the terrain set-up, by moving to an area where terrain is not in the way. However an enemy unit in area terrain is particularly tricky as you CAN'T avoid assaulting through cover.

Secondly, another big hit for assault has been the addition of fortifications. A simple, cheap ADL gives the defenders a virtual guarantee they will be assaulted through cover.


Move through cover is nice, but it's not as good as not being slowed by difficult terrain at all. It also doesn't help the majority of foot assault units that don't have it. The units that you're talking about 'jumping' over cover are jump pack units that are also faster, not the foot units that are hardest hit by 6th.

Berzerkers, mutilitators, possessed, banshees, a lot of orks - if you're a foot assault unit without a cost-effective delivery mechanism (transports, deep strike, scout or infiltrate) then there's no point in turning up most of the time. It's the fast, tough units that can still do well in close combat without facing a real uphill struggle.

 Selym wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Has anyone pointed out that while terrain (of any type) certainly limits shooting a little, but also limits assault?

Consider that most terrain will at least be difficult terrain, slowing down assault armies. Then a number of terrain pieces will be dangerous terrain, causing wounds along the way while also slowing them down most likely. Then, anything suitably large enough to block LoS will also force the assaulting force to move around it making the trek that much longer.

Further consider that the top shooting armies have significant mobility advantages that shouldn't be discounted.

Terrain is good and all, and most players likely don't play with enough, but don't fall into the trap of thinking that LoS blocking terrain magically cripples shooting armies but has no effect on assault armies. Assuming player skill is equal, the shooting player will always be looking for lanes of shooting and planning a step ahead to get over to the next lane or force you through some dangerous/difficult terrain.

Its a nice thought, just not some end-all be-all certain users are claiming it is.

I totally agree. The best type of terrain for assault forces, imo, are LOS blockers mid-field. With some luck, planning and understanding, you could get the CC units to meet the shooters ass they try to get around the LOS block. But, then again, that also nerfs your shooting, so you'd have to be choppy-spam Orks, Daemons or Tooth-and-Claw nids.

Agreed. The faster your assault troops, the less this is going to be a problem, but it's still an issue. Interestingly, this makes me more inclined to take the (to me) large risk of investing money in some Shining Spears. I think they're over-costed, however they are both skimmers and fast. So where there is a lot of terrain, I can use it to my advantage to block LOS but without hindering me closing. But for most CC troops, it can be a big issue.

However, it suits my style of play with CC because I don't tend to rely on CC. I use them as a mid-game balance tipper - seizing objectives, tearing into fragmented enemy. And as counter-assault. I don't need them to close with some enemy gun line asap. I think in the current rules, with rare exceptions and in the hands of very good players, that approach is a fool's quest. Which returns to what some people have been saying - over-focusing on CC is a big risk and usually easily defeated by an experienced opponent with a moderately well-built list. However, if you use it judiciously, then a thick mess of LOS-blocking terrain is more advantage than disadvantage, imo. I.e. it's a hindrance if your main army is trying to race up the board, but it's good if you just have a mix of CC stuff thrown in for a slight edge. The best thing for CC is when your opponent is advancing toward you and has to pass near some lurking CC. (Though that just leads to sacrificial units going first if your opponent is smart).

EDIT: I should have read ahead. People have already said the things I wanted to say (and more succinctly). Incidentally, based on the linked poll I put up earlier, the majority of people are using RAW to choose the quantity of terrain so it's all functioning as intended. I had this idea that maybe some people thought CC was less effective than they ought because they were placing sparser terrain than intended. This seems not to be the case. If anything, most respondents are placing slightly more terrain than they ought! So scratch that notion I had from earlier.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
I am curious about the C:I Land Raiders with DCA and Crusaders and Priests on board. I remember Hulksmash was commenting on them. Seems like a nice way to wed close combat with shooting abilities, as the Land Raider would have a hail of S5 shots from the Hurricane sponsons and another handful of S7 shots from the Assault Cannon. Pretty expensive and wouldn't fit in with every list, but certainly seems like a nice unit in an army designed to support it.

It is a nice way. Problem is, it is also a very expensive way. Invest the same amount of support in some heavy firepower and you will (normally) get a lot bigger return on your investment. I'm not sure of the cost here, but how many points would a unit like the above cost?

Hedgehog, you do not always assault THROUGH difficult terrain. i'll give you an example, your guardsmen are lined up behind an ADL and I just move my gaunts around it to assault from the side. had I gone OVER the wall, it woulda been difficult but as I went around it, the path was open with no difficult terrain. Likewise, a playr moves his hellhound towards me and roasts a bunch of gants. In my following turn, I let my carnifex run forwards a few steps and assault it as it is out in the middle of the field.

a good tactical player can take steps to minimize risks and one of the risks that can be minimized is assaulting through difficult terrain. it is not a possibility that be totally erased but it CAN be minimized.

.knas ser, now your learning the knack of it. Assault is not always the rush headlong thing that orks enjoy. it is more often the surgical strike that you set up for and spring when you need it t happen and the odds favor you the most. Sears are likely a good choice for that as it is a unit you don't often see and an opponent will likely be watching your obvious heavy hitters hard enough to overlook them.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Hedgehog, you do not always assault THROUGH difficult terrain. i'll give you an example, your guardsmen are lined up behind an ADL and I just move my gaunts around it to assault from the side. had I gone OVER the wall, it woulda been difficult but as I went around it, the path was open with no difficult terrain. Likewise, a playr moves his hellhound towards me and roasts a bunch of gants. In my following turn, I let my carnifex run forwards a few steps and assault it as it is out in the middle of the field.

Hedgehog was making the point that if you have to go around terrain, it lengthens the time before you can get to the enemy and leaves you there getting shot at for longer. Most of the best shooty armies are also quite mobile. Thus it's hard to be edging around a piece of Area Terrain and not be in their Line of Fire.

 EVIL INC wrote:
knas ser, now your learning the knack of it.

I've been playing since the original Rogue Trader book, but yes, now I'm getting "the knack of it."

 EVIL INC wrote:
Assault is not always the rush headlong thing that orks enjoy. it is more often the surgical strike that you set up for and spring when you need it t happen and the odds favor you the most. Sears are likely a good choice for that as it is a unit you don't often see and an opponent will likely be watching your obvious heavy hitters hard enough to overlook them.

Seers? You mean Farseers / Spiritseers? Not sure how they can be considered not seen very often and no opponent who has played Eldar will ever overlook the Farseer. It's one of the best Force Multipliers in the game and if part of an assault unit like the legendary JetSeer Council build, it's going to be the first thing they focus on. Best use of a farseer, imo, is to bolster shooting units' power with Guide and sometimes Doom (circumstance specific).

They're weak in the second round of a combat as their laser lances only work well on a charge. However, if you buy an Exarch and buy him Hit and Run, they can keep breaking off and re-attacking. So they're not bad. They also have Skilled Rider so they get +1 on their Jink save

yeah, now you are thinking!

remember, in HtH you DO NOT have to be better then who you are fighting, you just have to be "slightly" less horrible in CC then they are, even being totally equal in CC strength, so long as YOU make the charge, likely means you will win combat.

shining spears would be great with hit and run en masse, you will have total ownership ofthe board due to movement range, and you can pick and choose what targets you engange in HtH, and which ones you "scoot and shoot" or kite, or just plain avoid

 easysauce wrote:

They're weak in the second round of a combat as their laser lances only work well on a charge. However, if you buy an Exarch and buy him Hit and Run, they can keep breaking off and re-attacking. So they're not bad. They also have Skilled Rider so they get +1 on their Jink save

yeah, now you are thinking!

remember, in HtH you DO NOT have to be better then who you are fighting, you just have to be "slightly" less horrible in CC then they are, even being totally equal in CC strength, so long as YOU make the charge, likely means you will win combat.

shining spears would be great with hit and run en masse, you will have total ownership ofthe board due to movement range, and you can pick and choose what targets you engange in HtH, and which ones you "scoot and shoot" or kite, or just plain avoid

Thanks. I've been reading various posts of yours here and that vote of confidence is helpful. I've had serious concerns about whether I might be wasting my money with Shining Spears, given that I'll need to get a reasonable number of them to make them worthwhile on the table (incl. Exarch). But I think I'll do it and try them out. I'm tempted to go the whole way with an Autarch on a jetbike with them. But at that point I'm crossing into the points territory where they're a significant part of my army and I'm not sure I want to build major parts of my strategy around them. They still feel very pricey in points to me. However, we will see how they go!

When you use vectors and los blocking terrain along with such things as transports and outflanking or units such as ymgarls that just pop up behind enemy lines, the Straight across the board is not always the safest route. When you also take into consideration that not all terrain that is set up is difficult, it still shows that tactics and strategy can help you to minimize the effects of difficult terrain so that you do not always assault though it. As hard as it might to swallow, I AM correct in this. t IS possible to use tactics and strategy to minimize assaulting through difficult terrain, oten to the point where it is not a factor on the assault at all.

that's funny, I have been playing since the original Rogue trader book as well. Small world. Playing for more decades does not actually make you a better player or mean that you have automatically gotten the hang of everything. ach edition changes the game a little or a lot as does each new codex. I know of many younger players who came into the hobby who are far beter players than myself. I freely admit it.

my bad, I did not realize you were talking about farseers. I thought you meant the shining spears. My bad on that one, misread your post.
not a fan of the shining spears models (or jetbike riders for that matter). Hopefully, you will convert up some nice looking ones to show us.

knas ser said: But I think I'll do it and try them out. I'm tempted to go the whole way with an Autarch on a jetbike with them. But at that point I'm crossing into the points territory where they're a significant part of my army and I'm not sure I want to build major parts of my strategy around them. They still feel very pricey in points to me. However, we will see how they go!

With a shining spear exarch (w/ toys) and an autarch (w/ toys) in the squad, the squad itself doesn't have to be very big, since you're counting on the autarch's high number of attacks (and high WS), and the exarch's high WS to make sure you land enough hits to cripple the squad. another 3~4 spears are there, sure to kill things, but mostly to die to incoming fire.

As easysuace said, you'll be able to pick your targets due to speed, and w/ skilled rider, that 3+ cover for having turbo boosted (and for hiding in terrain) is helpful on the survivability side.

i do think your lack of grenades will be an issue when assaulting through cover but then, i think the spears are there, not to engage other heavy hitters, but to bully smaller, 3+ armoured units. they'd be great for hitting Devestaors in the back line, or those slippery crisis suits, even things like the thunder fire cannon (that star lance is AP2, so get the exarch into contact with the techmarine) aren't safe.

EDIT: spelling

on the subject of terrain re asault armies.


take for example, my last game.

ork green tide VS venom spam DE....

and I won... by a large margin (he had two "boat skimmers" with dark lances, and 4 wyches left at bottom of 6, I had 30+ boyz, warboss, some bikers, and a battle wagon left)

the objective, was relic... had it been killpoints I would have been screwed, but luckily most games revolve around objectives.

we gererally play with a good amount of terrain, the concensus in all of our tournies/games is that every table should have at least on LOS blocking peice of terrain on it (tho due to lack of actual terrain peices, larger tournies may not all have a LOS peice on every table)

back to the game vs DE, had I not had cover to hide behind, I would have lost, flat out. being slowed down by it wouldnt have been a factor no matter what the mission, but getting that cover sure was.

which brings me to the REALLY IMPORTANT BIT.

CC orentated armies do not have the luxury of planning to table the opponent each time. you have to play the objectives, and while foot sloggin CC lists are SLOW, they should outnumber their opponent 3-1 or BETTER.

the idea being, you have so many guys, even if they are all mid feild, that they cannot swoop in and get anything near the objectives.

the DE player, with EVERYTHING in fast skimmers, could not swoop in, there was simply too many orks around the objectives, so he was forced to stay back and shoot (losing the objective and granting me cover) or rush in, and let 100+ boys assault him.

this tactic has had even BETTER sucess against gun lines, they often only have a small portion of their army that is fast enough to leave the protection of the rest of their force. If they dont "stick a neck" out of the turtle, they dont get objectives, period. they then HAVE to table you to win, and you can simply hide in cover, mitigate your losses and laugh as that one last guy or squad holding an objective will win you the game even if his entire army is still on the board.

when your enemy has to stay away from you, you have to use it to your advantage, and use that to control the board.

granted, my ork list here was not the total footslooger list (which would have done better TBH, since more boys) but he seized the initiative, and the dark lances pretty much nerfed out all my transports first turn, so I was basically playing foot slogger.

 EVIL INC wrote:
that's funny, I have been playing since the original Rogue trader book as well. Small world. Playing for more decades does not actually make you a better player or mean that you have automatically gotten the hang of everything. ach edition changes the game a little or a lot as does each new codex. I know of many younger players who came into the hobby who are far beter players than myself. I freely admit it.

I'm not claiming to be a better player than others. Merely pointing out that your "now you're getting the knack of it", particularly after all my previous posts and rules corrections in this thread, comes across as patronising. I mentioned that I started playing over twenty years ago merely to get across that.

 EVIL INC wrote:
my bad, I did not realize you were talking about farseers. I thought you meant the shining spears.

I wasn't talking about Farseers. You wrote a post about seers. I responded to that.

Exactly easysauce, different game details will always favor one side or the other (or almost always), I still comes down to who is the beter player and able to take in and maximize everything. MANY times, I have beated an army with either a gunline or assault army depending on my mod at the time) and wo having the other guy complain I had an advantage. I simply trade lists and tell them if my list has such an advantage he should be me easily. Thn gone and beat them again using the opposite list. often, now, it will even come down to who gets linebreaker or slay the warlord or firstbnlood.

Not every strategy or tactic orset up or build or whatever will work in EVERY situation. That's why I started this thread. So we could share them and expand our resources in that regard. I know my own resouces are limited and it may be that I mighta been selfish and hoping to get more tips and tricks given to me to help me win more games. lol

my apologyies if I came across as patronizing. That was not my intent. After 12 pages of being flamed and called stupid because I simply want to discuss tactics and even beng told flat out "your tactics don't work" when I know dern well they do at least in many circumstances because I have seen them work. Not only by myself but by regional tourney winners, it looked like you were finally seeing that I actually knew what I was talking about because you made the statement that I had been trying to get across for many pages..
To you I may just be some *expletive deleted* because of my disabilities that cause me to have a hard time getting meanings across but on occasion, I do know what I'm talking about.

Edit: I was confused there for a minute. I never did learn to type and so my typing skills flat out suck. Combine that with a new keyboard and having the keyboard on my lap as I type and my posts get garbled. I had meant to say Spears because that was the particular units I thought you were talking about using. Trust me, I've been on the receiving end of the jetseer/baron council. I know not to underestimate THAT unit.

 EVIL INC wrote:

my apologyies if I came across as patronizing. That was not my intent. After 12 pages of being flamed and called stupid because I simply want to discuss tactics and even beng told flat out "your tactics don't work" when I know dern well they do at least in many circumstances because I have seen them work. Not only by myself but by regional tourney winners, it looked like you were finally seeing that I actually knew what I was talking about because you made the statement that I had been trying to get across for many pages..
To you I may just be some *expletive deleted* because of my disabilities that cause me to have a hard time getting meanings across but on occasion, I do know what I'm talking about.

I hate myself for even replying to this, but:

We weren't flaming for 12 pages. Several of us were trying to discuss tactica and being offed by various posts made by you. Admittedly, half of my posts were replying to the trollbait that your posts became, but still.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And here, I shall leave the thread before it gets further derailed.

 EVIL INC wrote:
To you I may just be some *expletive deleted* because of my disabilities

I don't know for sure if this is your meaning, so I'm going to qualify what I say. But I don't know you, I know pretty much nothing about you other than your stated positions on some things in this thread. If you have any disabilities, I can assure you, I don't have any opinion about you because of them. Nor do I have any issue with anyone because of disabilities.

If you genuinely didn't mean your comment to come across as patronizing, then no offense is taken by me for it.

I see now where the confusion of seers / spears came about. You missed out the 'p' and I thought you had simply misspelt seers.

It's all fine and dandy that Seer Councils, Flying MCs and the like can get into combat, but the vast majority of melee units struggle.

I'm going to use C:SM as an example because it's my current army. Assuming that the previously accepted idea of the trinity (speed, durability, punch) is true, at least two of these three should be present in a unit to make it a viable assault unit. I'd further argue that reliability adds a lot, rerolling charge distances can make a huge difference. The following are the units I see as potential melee units in Codex: Space Marines, not counting HQs:

Assault Marines
Biker squads
Honour Guard
Scout Squads
Scout Biker Squads
Vanguard Veterans
Assault Centurions
Assault Terminators
Ironclad Dreadnoughts
Crusader Squads
Command Squads

I'll start at the top and work my way down:

Assault Marines


Bike squads


Honour Guard


Scouts


Scout Biker Squads


Vanguard Veterans


Assault Centurions


Assault Terminators


Ironclad Dreadnoughts


Crusader Squads


Command Squad



Out of 11 (arguably) melee units, we have 2 that are good (Assault Terminators and Honour Guard), with another two that's decent but better off as shooty units (Crusader Squads and BIke Squads). You can't build a melee-centric army that's as good as shooting when you've got two decent melee units in the entire Codex, where both require some sort of awkward transportation solution (and one requires a Chapter Master to even unlock).

Granted, this is only one Codex, but my experience has been the same with other books too: Grey Knights, for example, are better as a shooty army than as a melee army, as are Space Wolves and Blood Angels (even though BA currently suffer). CSM also play better as a shooty book, even with Juggerlords and Abaddon in it. Even in 5th edition Orks took shootas instead of slugga/choppa because it was better, that hasn't changed. With the change to how Sergeants work, as well as taking casualties from the front, they suffer further. Dark Eldar, Beast Packs aside, have taken such a hard beating that it's sad. The only traditional CC armies that work better as a CC-centric armies than as shooting-centric are Daemons and Tyranids, buoyed by the boost to FMCs.

 Selym wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:

my apologyies if I came across as patronizing. That was not my intent. After 12 pages of being flamed and called stupid because I simply want to discuss tactics and even beng told flat out "your tactics don't work" when I know dern well they do at least in many circumstances because I have seen them work. Not only by myself but by regional tourney winners, it looked like you were finally seeing that I actually knew what I was talking about because you made the statement that I had been trying to get across for many pages..
To you I may just be some *expletive deleted* because of my disabilities that cause me to have a hard time getting meanings across but on occasion, I do know what I'm talking about.

I hate myself for even replying to this, but:

We weren't flaming for 12 pages. Several of us were trying to discuss tactica and being offed by various posts made by you. Admittedly, half of my posts were replying to the trollbait that your posts became, but still.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And here, I shall leave the thread before it gets further derailed.

This, minus the leaving. I'm not going anywhere, and I'm not going to stop pointing out flaws just because someone is incapable of seeing them, just as I expect others to point my flaws out in a reasonable way.

as I said before, it comes down to the skill of the players and who uses the better tactics and strategies combined with table setup,luck of the dice and other factors.
some of the old no brainers are no longer the no brainers and they have been replaced with others. can sit and trade war stories from anecdotal experience of where we have seen all the listed units do well and when they have not done well. All with different players, different army lists, different tle set ups and different dice rolls.
how does that affect this thread? None at all. The only way it would is if you are willing to share your tactics and strategies (as that is what we are discussing. We aren't talking about what we perceive as viable units, if you don't like them, don't take them, but let us talk about them without telling us we are stupid for using them) of how we can better use the assault oriented units.

take ogryn for example. say I want to use them in my guard army. Don't spam posts about how useless they are, they never reach combat, they get instakilled by demolisher hits, 6th edition killed assault so don't even bother or whatever other things like that that are on the tip of your toungue because all of those belong in other threads and have been stated as off topic here by the mods. Give me exact ways that I might be able to use my ogryn to better effect if I am planning on using them.

along that line,i DO happen to have a full 10 ogryn that I converted from fantasy ogres making ripper guns out of converted autocannons that I would like to use but have no ad a lot of luck with. I have to keep it at 6 men (5if I want to include a character such as a comm lord or primaris) if I want to use a transport to get them closer which ake shooting them down easier (they still usually get there but low enough in numbers that they don't hit as hard). if I want to outflank them, I have to use creed and to make them better an astropath and they cant assault when they come in.but I can get them to and behind enemy lines and I can have the full 10 guys + indy character if I attach them. marching them towards the enemy means they take a lot of damage but virtually the entire enemy army is shooting at them so that only a few reach (even with all that, a few usually reach but not enough to hit hard) but that does spare the rest of my army from getting shot at so I usually get first blood and pound the enemy to death or submission because he sacrificial ogryn which wins me the game (but the heroic walk seems demeaning to them and I want them to kill more guys).

 EVIL INC wrote:
as I said before, it comes down to the skill of the players and who uses the better tactics and strategies combined with table setup,luck of the dice and other factors.
some of the old no brainers are no longer the no brainers and they have been replaced with others. can sit and trade war stories from anecdotal experience of where we have seen all the listed units do well and when they have not done well. All with different players, different army lists, different tle set ups and different dice rolls.
how does that affect this thread? None at all. The only way it would is if you are willing to share your tactics and strategies (as that is what we are discussing. We aren't talking about what we perceive as viable units, if you don't like them, don't take them, but let us talk about them without telling us we are stupid for using them) of how we can better use the assault oriented units.

take ogryn for example. say I want to use them in my guard army. Don't spam posts about how useless they are, they never reach combat, they get instakilled by demolisher hits, 6th edition killed assault so don't even bother or whatever other things like that that are on the tip of your toungue because all of those belong in other threads and have been stated as off topic here by the mods. Give me exact ways that I might be able to use my ogryn to better effect if I am planning on using them.

So we're not allowed to point out the fact that certain units are weak or flawed or why that is the case? What's the purpose of the thread then? And for the record we've never called anyone stupid, so that's you putting words in my mouth again. I play a melee-centric Space Marine army myself, but I'm also not willing to say that melee is as good as shooting. I just posted a massive post with my thoughts about C:SM melee units, including how I feel they should be used, so claiming that I'm somehow "off-topic" is demonstrably false. For the record, the mods haven't said they agree with either side, they just told all of us to stop.

With that, I'm out. If you want a one-sided discussion where everyone nods and agrees with you then I'll not frustrate you anymore.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
as I said before, it comes down to the skill of the players and who uses the better tactics and strategies combined with table setup,luck of the dice and other factors.
some of the old no brainers are no longer the no brainers and they have been replaced with others. can sit and trade war stories from anecdotal experience of where we have seen all the listed units do well and when they have not done well. All with different players, different army lists, different tle set ups and different dice rolls.
how does that affect this thread? None at all. The only way it would is if you are willing to share your tactics and strategies (as that is what we are discussing. We aren't talking about what we perceive as viable units, if you don't like them, don't take them, but let us talk about them without telling us we are stupid for using them) of how we can better use the assault oriented units.

take ogryn for example. say I want to use them in my guard army. Don't spam posts about how useless they are, they never reach combat, they get instakilled by demolisher hits, 6th edition killed assault so don't even bother or whatever other things like that that are on the tip of your toungue because all of those belong in other threads and have been stated as off topic here by the mods. Give me exact ways that I might be able to use my ogryn to better effect if I am planning on using them.

So we're not allowed to point out the fact that certain units are weak or flawed or why that is the case? What's the purpose of the thread then? And for the record we've never called anyone stupid, so that's you putting words in my mouth again. I play a melee-centric Space Marine army myself, but I'm also not willing to say that melee is as good as shooting. I just posted a massive post with my thoughts about C:SM melee units, including how I feel they should be used, so claiming that I'm somehow "off-topic" is demonstrably false. For the record, the mods haven't said they agree with either side, they just told all of us to stop.

With that, I'm out. If you want a one-sided discussion where everyone nods and agrees with you then I'll not frustrate you anymore.

QFT. +1

When playing VS tau be sure to take DIRGE CASTERS which completely destroy their overwatch rules. Anyone within 6' of a caster can't overwatch.

as much as you would like to come in and spout of that you know everything and tll players that they are not allowed to use certain units because you do not personally lik them, that is simply not the purpose of the thread.

The purpose is to discuss ways in which to better use the units that ARE taken. Not to have someone tell them they cant take it because it is no good. take my ogryn example, I spent a lot of money building those 10 guys and did an excellent job of painting them. Once in a while, I would like to use them just so the don't feel left out. I know that they are not the best assault units in the game so I don't need o read 12 pages of you telling me how stupid I am for using them in an army and how only a re^#$% like me would even consider using them. We are all well aware of your personal feelings towards me and your overwhelming desire to insult and call me name at every opportunity.

Say, I have 10 ogryn I want to use, if you have any tips or advice on how I can better use them or how you would use them to greatest effect, I would love to hear it. The other nonsense just does not belong in THIS thread (someone else started a thread here you can discuss what assault units are overpriced nd why to not take them) (or in the case of the personal attacks, not on the forums at all, keep those to PM according to the rules of the site).
1. I have tried them in chimeras and found that that limits me in how many I can take.
2. I've attached an indy character such as a primaris. thi helped them but in a chimera, limits the unit size by another ogryn.
3. I've advanced them on foot using cover wut without fleet of foot or the ability to roll 3d6 for difficult terrain, they are slow.