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.

 Makutsu wrote:

It's really your fault for bunching them up so that he could consolidate into combat with your next unit.
I don't know about back then, but with a D6" consolidate, unless you are really bunched up chances are you won't get assaulted by that.

So now you're split up, and the enemy has to make a decision as well, should I focus more of my melee units into this side or go after the other side of the table?
It adds tactical depth to both side, gunline armies have to be more considerate when deploying and melee based armies have to decide which side they need to throw units at.

OH I KNEW SOMEBODY WOULD BLAME ME FOR IT! IT'S ON NOW BROTHA!

Seriously, the tables at GW stores were a lot smaller back then.

We were playing on a table with city terrain, I kept my guys out of the alleys and in place to shoot, more than 6 inches from anywhere the stealers could get out of.

50+ models do get bunched up when you are trying to make someone come to you.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:

It's really your fault for bunching them up so that he could consolidate into combat with your next unit.
I don't know about back then, but with a D6" consolidate, unless you are really bunched up chances are you won't get assaulted by that.

So now you're split up, and the enemy has to make a decision as well, should I focus more of my melee units into this side or go after the other side of the table?
It adds tactical depth to both side, gunline armies have to be more considerate when deploying and melee based armies have to decide which side they need to throw units at.

OH I KNEW SOMEBODY WOULD BLAME ME FOR IT! IT'S ON NOW BROTHA!

Seriously, the tables at GW stores were a lot smaller back then.

We were playing on a table with city terrain, I kept my guys out of the alleys and in place to shoot, more than 6 inches from anywhere the stealers could get out of.

50+ models do get bunched up when you are trying to make someone come to you.

Foot guard laugh at your concept of a full board!

And also laugh at your concept of "too many bodies".

And "too much artillery".

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:

It's really your fault for bunching them up so that he could consolidate into combat with your next unit.
I don't know about back then, but with a D6" consolidate, unless you are really bunched up chances are you won't get assaulted by that.

So now you're split up, and the enemy has to make a decision as well, should I focus more of my melee units into this side or go after the other side of the table?
It adds tactical depth to both side, gunline armies have to be more considerate when deploying and melee based armies have to decide which side they need to throw units at.

OH I KNEW SOMEBODY WOULD BLAME ME FOR IT! IT'S ON NOW BROTHA!

Seriously, the tables at GW stores were a lot smaller back then.

We were playing on a table with city terrain, I kept my guys out of the alleys and in place to shoot, more than 6 inches from anywhere the stealers could get out of.

50+ models do get bunched up when you are trying to make someone come to you.

I do understand that 50+ models gets bunched up easily, but that's the whole point.
You can either trade off for tanks instead and not get consolidated every turn into a new combat, or risk the chance of that.

Fluffwise
If you have 50 guys in a room and a group of crazy guns wielding chain axes coming in to slice everything up.
The closer you are the less chance you will have to actually shoot at it.
Right now, it's as if I kill 10 guys I stand around and wait for you to shoot me instead of continuing slicing dicing through when you are right beside me.

Okay I'm sorry but Selym, no more arguments with EVIL INC. He likely means well (and or is trolling), but he is being rather beligerant and blindly dogmatic. Any counter arguments that I have posted are ignored and then he goes about claiming riptides = cc. At this point, I feel it best for us to lay down our arms as it will get us nowhere. A debate that goes nowhere is useless in the end and when you have several players pointing out flaws and they won't budge that's when it is time to jack out for good

Honestly I'm pondering that this random consolidate really wouldn't cause that much disruption. A d6 isn't going to frequently help you charge others that I know of. Perhaps it would even help hordes since they havem ore mass to charge other places. The problem right now isn't with fast assaulters but instead with too fragile for their cost and too slow cc monsters that usually have crummy saves. If an ork blob reaches the enemy, it might be useful to give them that chance to blob around and then charge again.

Thread started in tactics to help teach players to more effectively use assault armies and to demonstrate that close combat is not only still part of the game but also a lethally effective aspect. Kindly keep the trolling to a minimum there.

EVIL INC wrote:
Thread started in tactics to help teach players to more effectively use assault armies and to demonstrate that close combat is not only still part of the game but also a lethally effective aspect. Kindly keep the trolling to a minimum there.

Funny thing is no one seems to agree that melee > shooting.

That's funny, I have seen where there are a great many who disagree with you. You have the right to believe that close combat is no longer a part of the game and no longer exists. that is your right, I will continue to disagree with you.

EVIL INC wrote:
That's funny, I have seen where there are a great many who disagree with you. You have the right to believe that close combat is no longer a part of the game and no longer exists. that is your right, I will continue to disagree with you.

I'm done talking to you on this thread and moving back to my original concept, you seem to think that "I think that CC is dead" I don't know where you're pulling this from but stop putting out accusations that I did not say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 StarTrotter wrote:
Okay I'm sorry but Selym, no more arguments with EVIL INC. He likely means well (and or is trolling), but he is being rather beligerant and blindly dogmatic. Any counter arguments that I have posted are ignored and then he goes about claiming riptides = cc. At this point, I feel it best for us to lay down our arms as it will get us nowhere. A debate that goes nowhere is useless in the end and when you have several players pointing out flaws and they won't budge that's when it is time to jack out for good

Honestly I'm pondering that this random consolidate really wouldn't cause that much disruption. A d6 isn't going to frequently help you charge others that I know of. Perhaps it would even help hordes since they havem ore mass to charge other places. The problem right now isn't with fast assaulters but instead with too fragile for their cost and too slow cc monsters that usually have crummy saves. If an ork blob reaches the enemy, it might be useful to give them that chance to blob around and then charge again.

Well, that's why a D6 is actually decent, not good enough to break the game but bring that slight adjustment to help melee out.
Melee is really suffering from getting blasted while marching across the table, the reward should be great enough to compensate for it.

 Selym wrote:
Still, I think that if consolidation into assault was brought back, we should keep the current consolidation distance (max 6"), and only allow it to take you into a second unit, rather than a third, fourth etc.

Huh? It didn't allow you to fight another combat immediately, it just locked you with the new unit. Which was still unfair as the melee unit not only got protection from shooting but could then hack down their opponents in the enemy CC phase, consolidate again and be fresh for the next move+charge. In the best cases the melee deathstar didn't have to take a single shot after they reached their first CC - there were supporting units coming at the enemy from other sides so manuever room quickly ran out.

 Makutsu wrote:
Melee is really suffering from getting blasted while marching across the table, the reward should be great enough to compensate for it.

But it already is. If you get into melee range against a pure shooting army (the kind that is capable of shooting you off the table before you can charge) you're going to slaughter them effortlessly. Once you charge the only thing your opponent can hope for is that you win combat in your turn and are exposed for a moment before charging and slaughtering the next units. Adding the ability to consolidate into combat does nothing to help with the frustrating games where you never make it into combat, it just makes the game even more one-sided once you do.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:
Melee is really suffering from getting blasted while marching across the table, the reward should be great enough to compensate for it.

But it already is. If you get into melee range against a pure shooting army (the kind that is capable of shooting you off the table before you can charge) you're going to slaughter them effortlessly. Once you charge the only thing your opponent can hope for is that you win combat in your turn and are exposed for a moment before charging and slaughtering the next units. Adding the ability to consolidate into combat does nothing to help with the frustrating games where you never make it into combat, it just makes the game even more one-sided once you do.

Shooting units can blast off 1-2 units before an assault unit can reach them or at least weaken them enough so that they actually can fight back, on the other hand an assault unit will most likely only kill 1.

Also, for some reason, the new shooting units are tough as nails, even dedicated assault units can't always take them out effectively...
Couple of examples:
1. Daemon Prince vs Commander with S10 AP1 attack, charging into terrain was kinda my fault, but still getting ID by that Commander wasn't fun, shooty units should not be allowed to carry such a weapon to the battlefield...
2. Fleshhounds vs Broadsides/Riptides, couldn't do anything for the majority of time due to the 2+ save.
Just some examples of shooty units being pretty though in CC, my fault for charging the wrong units but still they are pretty hard to crack sometimes.

Also, consolidation again is only D6", so if your units are 6" apart this would not be a problem.
This would disallow people from bunching behind an Aegis like what they do right now.
Maybe adding an overwatch for a successful consolidate into CC would be nice too

 StarTrotter wrote:
Okay I'm sorry but Selym, no more arguments with EVIL INC. He likely means well (and or is trolling), but he is being rather beligerant and blindly dogmatic. Any counter arguments that I have posted are ignored and then he goes about claiming riptides = cc. At this point, I feel it best for us to lay down our arms as it will get us nowhere. A debate that goes nowhere is useless in the end and when you have several players pointing out flaws and they won't budge that's when it is time to jack out for good

Honestly I'm pondering that this random consolidate really wouldn't cause that much disruption. A d6 isn't going to frequently help you charge others that I know of. Perhaps it would even help hordes since they havem ore mass to charge other places. The problem right now isn't with fast assaulters but instead with too fragile for their cost and too slow cc monsters that usually have crummy saves. If an ork blob reaches the enemy, it might be useful to give them that chance to blob around and then charge again.

I already stopped trying:

 Selym wrote:
I and several others have used evidence to support our arguments, and you have done no more than tell us that you've used evidence.
I hereby declare you to be trolling, and cease to bother replying to you.

Oh I am very sorry one that loathes metal boxes. I, alas, in my exhaustion from arguing uselessly with EVIL INC and tired of his gloating and general belittling as well as arguments of evidence that was simply not there (or was factually incorrect) to the point I just grew tired of reading the messages.

Yet again, my apologies.

Makutsu, Good, than stop cluttering up the thread dedicated towards helping people get past their inability to effectively use close combat units to win games.
You guys have already made up your mind that close combat is no longer a part of the game and is now useless. I have yet to see a single guardsman wipe out an entire ork or bug army simply because he has a lasgun. Stay here and complain or lean tactics and strategies to help you overcome this. Personally, I can win with a shooty army against a close combat army or I can trade with my opponent and use their list and still win (8 out of 10 times more easily). Keep your heads in the sand and ignore facts. You just cant help some people.

I remember those sweeping advance Blood Angel armies. Not fun at all to combat. :-P

That being said, I could see reasons for the rule to come back now that Overwatch is present.

EVIL INC wrote:
Makutsu, Good, than stop cluttering up the thread dedicated towards helping people get past their inability to effectively use close combat units to win games.
You guys have already made up your mind that close combat is no longer a part of the game and is now useless. I have yet to see a single guardsman wipe out an entire ork or bug army simply because he has a lasgun. Stay here and complain or lean tactics and strategies to help you overcome this. Personally, I can win with a shooty army against a close combat army or I can trade with my opponent and use their list and still win (8 out of 10 times more easily). Keep your heads in the sand and ignore facts. You just cant help some people.

I'm not sure if this is against the rules of shoving words in people's mouths as you seem to do it quite often.
Last time, NO ONE EVER SAID THAT CC IS USELESS

 Makutsu wrote:

EVIL INC wrote:
Makutsu, Good, than stop cluttering up the thread dedicated towards helping people get past their inability to effectively use close combat units to win games.
You guys have already made up your mind that close combat is no longer a part of the game and is now useless. I have yet to see a single guardsman wipe out an entire ork or bug army simply because he has a lasgun. Stay here and complain or lean tactics and strategies to help you overcome this. Personally, I can win with a shooty army against a close combat army or I can trade with my opponent and use their list and still win (8 out of 10 times more easily). Keep your heads in the sand and ignore facts. You just cant help some people.

I'm not sure if this is against the rules of shoving words in people's mouths as you seem to do it quite often.
Last time, NO ONE EVER SAID THAT CC IS USELESS

Nor (EVIL INC), is this thread "dedicated towards helping people get past their inability to effectively use close combat units".
It is about the viability of bringing back the consolidate into combat rules, evaluating its possible effect on the game, and whether there are other rules that could do a better job.

Watching this argument go back and forth is highly entertaining.

Indeed, I am on topic here. Bringing that rule back is not really viable as it was taken out for the reason of it being broken. I'ts removal did not balance the game enough so they added in overwatch to try to make it a little more even. My point here is that I simply do not think bringing it back is a viable option and would only re-break the game. Because I simply made this statement you instigated the flamefest.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Watching this argument go back and forth is highly entertaining.

Pass the popcorn nom nom.

Units should be able to consolidate into close combat d6 after assault AND 3d6 after shooting, ignoring cover. 40k would just be more 'balanced' that way. Anyone who disagrees is weird.

EVIL INC wrote:
We even have had many bug and ork players shave their gaming boards down even smaller yet to make it worse (oh the other other guy wont notice if my table is 2 inches smaller than regulation).

Actually per the rules for deployment as written you should always be measuring from the centerline anyways so they are starting the same distance away and only really taking away a whole inch away from the enemy to hide in on their own side. Now you have just given yourself less room to spread out in your own deployment zone as well so any arty army can do more damage if they get turn one.
Also even though I never actually played under the terror of genestealers being able to get into combat once with my guardsman and then it becoming a contest to see if I could run my units far enough away to stop them from staying their and killing everything. Even with overwatch two good sized units of genestealers could likely slaughter their way through all of a tau gun line in short order. Sure the battlesuits might survive but then they would now be alone against the entire remaining force.

EVIL INC wrote:
Makutsu, Good, than stop cluttering up the thread dedicated towards helping people get past their inability to effectively use close combat units to win games.
You guys have already made up your mind that close combat is no longer a part of the game and is now useless. I have yet to see a single guardsman wipe out an entire ork or bug army simply because he has a lasgun. Stay here and complain or lean tactics and strategies to help you overcome this. Personally, I can win with a shooty army against a close combat army or I can trade with my opponent and use their list and still win (8 out of 10 times more easily). Keep your heads in the sand and ignore facts. You just cant help some people.

Last post, I never said CC was dead. CC might be the inferior of the two options, but that doesn't make it useless. Certain units can still do it well and even sub par units with a bit of skill, luck, outplay, and copious use of cover can make it to the enemy to beat face. I play Chaos Daemons, borrow my friend's Nids, and I play with berzerkers. I loooove CC. The only game where I don't use CC is in my mechguard and that is more because cc doesn't really work with a tank army xD

Honestly I think that the consolidate into combat is an odd one. It's only d6 meaning that you can never trust it. It's a worse charge than your usual 2d6 charge. Your mooodels have bunched up from cc. Would 6" be enough? not enough? Who knows. And it would yet again bring more randomness to a game already random. I think the biggest problem is that the two are just so inherently opposite it is maddening to make the two equal. Guns? You bet your sweet lasgun they wreck CC oriented units! .... until they get charged. Now, there are units specialized in shooting that through certain ways or another happen to be good at cc (and some vice versa), they tend to fall. Personally, I almost wish there was a way to renovate the whole the model in the front always dies. 5th edition's model removal was pretty open to exploitation. Multiwound,, multiple armor saves.... people made this their plaything. At the same time, it made it so slower cc units could actually make it to CC in enough time to make a difference.

EVIL INC wrote:
mooodels

That's what you call model cows!

I thought the model cows were slanneshi? lol
I still feel (and am validated in many ways) that it was removed for a reason, to balance the game. Others disagree with me (and are validated if they use the exact same army builds and tactics without changing or updating them to take into account the newer rules) and want it returned.
However, personally I feel that that is more due to not wanting to update armies (buy new models or change their list) and LIKING their old tactics because they worked for them. A lot of this is nostalgia. heck, I want to go back to every single model in a chaos army having the ability to have random mutations and have khorne champions having plasma cannons for arms and so forth. Just because I liked those rules does not mean that they would make the current edition's rules balanced. I rather like the newer rules where guns actually play a valid part and it is no longer a matter of rock paper scissors in who wins. I understand that others disagree and I would never try to deny them their right to their opinion. Now if only they were to allow me my right to mine, I would be happy.

EVIL INC wrote:
I thought the model cows were slanneshi? lol
I still feel (and am validated in many ways) that it was removed for a reason, to balance the game. Others disagree with me (and are validated if they use the exact same army builds and tactics without changing or updating them to take into account the newer rules) and want it returned.
However, personally I feel that that is more due to not wanting to update armies (buy new models or change their list) and LIKING their old tactics because they worked for them. A lot of this is nostalgia. heck, I want to go back to every single model in a chaos army having the ability to have random mutations and have khorne champions having plasma cannons for arms and so forth. Just because I liked those rules does not mean that they would make the current edition's rules balanced. I rather like the newer rules where guns actually play a valid part and it is no longer a matter of rock paper scissors in who wins. I understand that others disagree and I would never try to deny them their right to their opinion. Now if only they were to allow me my right to mine, I would be happy.

I didn't even play 5th edition so to me, this is what feels right.
I have never experienced your so called OP assault, at least never ever in this edition.
I played against multiple lists with heavy assault with DE and I have managed to table them every single time.

No one here is not allowing you to have your own opinions, but not accepting the proofs and facts that over people provide is not ok.

I speak from experience of the game that dates from the time of Rogue trader and taking part in tournaments from 2nd edition to the present. your personal anecdotal evidence does not necessarily represent overall evidence. There are many builds where an op assault is still possible and I have seen the sweep the tournament circuit. True, there are also shooty ones that do the same but this is a good thing. Before, you only saw assault armies win in the tourneys while now you are seeing a broader spectrum of armies and builds win.

EVIL INC wrote:
I speak from experience of the game that dates from the time of Rogue trader and taking part in tournaments from 2nd edition to the present. your personal anecdotal evidence does not necessarily represent overall evidence. There are many builds where an op assault is still possible and I have seen the sweep the tournament circuit. True, there are also shooty ones that do the same but this is a good thing. Before, you only saw assault armies win in the tourneys while now you are seeing a broader spectrum of armies and builds win.

I agree that if Assault was dominating all of the tournaments then it's a good thing to see that shooting nowadays can take their own hold at tournaments.
The main thing is though, this role is now being reversed with Tau & Eldar standing at the top with their big guns plowing down on all the assault lists.
This isn't just my personal experience but the overall meta in general.

My personal experience just demonstrates how strong a shooty list can devastate an assault heavy list.

Keep in mind that a huge part of why elder are coming ahead is due in part for their close combat abilities rather than purely their shooting abilities. Trust me, I have faced the 1250 point jetcouncil/multiplefarseer combined with dark elder indy character giving them stealth. That is one hard close combat nut to crack that is virtually impossible to stop from rolling down your lines and that is the predominant elder build you see in the tourney circuit.
Tau... yes, they are broken. the support fire for overwatch is broken (although sometimes I wish I had it with my guard lol). and I personally feel that you should get cover saves from being hit by marker lights. true, they don't do actual damage but they would still need to actually "tag" you with it just as they would have to "tag" you with a damaging shot. The option to split fire into so many targets from a single unit is also crazy. Like longfangs on steroids but they can deep strike into the middle of your army and do it with more guns at close range (I would say that the unit should be able to target 2 separate units at the most).
I would say a shooty list CAN devastate an assault list. Likewise, an assault list CAN devastate an shooty list. I still think it comes down to build, strategy and tactics and luck of the dice as to who wins.

EVIL INC wrote:
Keep in mind that a huge part of why elder are coming ahead is due in part for their close combat abilities rather than purely their shooting abilities. Trust me, I have faced the 1250 point jetcouncil/multiplefarseer combined with dark elder indy character giving them stealth. That is one hard close combat nut to crack that is virtually impossible to stop from rolling down your lines and that is the predominant elder build you see in the tourney circuit.
Tau... yes, they are broken. the support fire for overwatch is broken (although sometimes I wish I had it with my guard lol). and I personally feel that you should get cover saves from being hit by marker lights. true, they don't do actual damage but they would still need to actually "tag" you with it just as they would have to "tag" you with a damaging shot. The option to split fire into so many targets from a single unit is also crazy. Like longfangs on steroids but they can deep strike into the middle of your army and do it with more guns at close range (I would say that the unit should be able to target 2 separate units at the most).
I would say a shooty list CAN devastate an assault list. Likewise, an assault list CAN devastate an shooty list. I still think it comes down to build, strategy and tactics and luck of the dice as to who wins.

The jetseercouncil + Dark Eldar combo is a deathstar that utilizes heavily with psychic powers.
The seer council is hard to kill and it doesn't kill very well as most models aren't actually amazing in CC, but they can take a beating that's why they are so good.
Farsight bomb on the other hand is impossible to even touch with CC, 12" movement + 2D6" jump with amazing ranged guns makes it impossible to kill them.
They also, kill 2-3 units a turn if they know what they are doing.
But again I don't think deathstars are a good measurement of how good CC or shooting is.

Tau and Eldar just made shooting > assault a lot more prominent because they utilize the core book's rule to the maximum.
Of course everything CAN but how likely is the question.
The thing is Shooting has no risks no matter what, but assault you could potentially lose your own units if you roll badly unlike shooting.

I don't know, shooting can have risks. In order to take a shot, you need to get out where the enemy can see you and shoot back (unless your tau of course.
Likewise, a lot of shooting entails you getting in range which leaves you open to being assaulted in return. Again, except for tau.
I'm see a pattern here. To me, it is not a matter of shooting being overpowered but a matter of tau being overpowered. Armies like guard aren't really any better off. I think that if we addressed that, it would help ease the tensions a little bit. lol, for example. 1.get rid of support fire on overwatch 2. give cover saves from marker lights 3. instead of a d6 jump after the assault phase, make it less, like a set 3 for example.