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.

EVIL INC wrote:
rigeld- You are saying that it is absolutely impossible to reach close combat EVER by rolling a seven? Going by your own theory, it would also therefore be impossible to do it by rolling a 6 then. last edition the range was six which means you are more likely to do it by rolling a seven. the issue is not guaranteeing you get a first turn assault. It is getting into assault and doing damage once there. if you have to wait till turn two, then so be it. We are discussing ways to help you learn to do so.

So you're just going to pretend you didn't say that the 2d6" assault range helps you get a first turn assault?
The 2d6" assault range hurts at least as much as it helps. I've failed a lot of 4-6" charges in 6th edition, in one case losing a unit because I failed. (moved out of cover to make the assault, failed, got shot next turn with no cover save)
Saying it's nothing but a benefit is flat out wrong. Don't fall into that thinking because that's where you make assumptions and your plans start to fail when those assumptions don't work out.

Citation... check out the rulebook. There are three versions of it. The big hardback (which I bought just to have, the little one that comes in the starter box (that's the one I take to tourneys) and the new hardback just the rules one. I don't have a copy of that one but I will assume it's just a fancy version of the one that comes in the starter set.

Do you know what citation means? It means show me the page number. Prove your statement with actual rules because I've never seen what you're saying. There's no "easy" way to get a 4+ cover save in the open. Stealth + Shrouding does it but I wouldn't call that "easy".

Your view that the skill level of the player means nothing in the game is easily disproved.

I've never said that. Please don't strawman.

According to you, the child will win every time because tau being shooty auto wins the game with skill, army build, tactics and strategy playing no part in it at all.

Are you sure I said that? Are you really sure? Would you mind quoting me?

if you don't have actual tactics or strategies to post, post somewhere else because that is the purpose of THIS thread.

I have. The purpose of this thread would also be to debunk posted theories. Which I also have.

EVIL INC wrote:

rigeld- You are saying that it is absolutely impossible to reach close combat EVER by rolling a seven? Going by your own theory, it would also therefore be impossible to do it by rolling a 6 then. last edition the range was six which means you are more likely to do it by rolling a seven. the issue is not guaranteeing you get a first turn assault. It is getting into assault and doing damage once there. if you have to wait till turn two, then so be it. We are discussing ways to help you learn to do so.

None of us are saying that it's impossible to get into assault. We're saying that a turn 1 assault is impossible, regardless of what you roll.
Last edition guaranteed that if you got within 6", you could assault. Now, if you get to 3" away you still risk failing.
Ans as yet, you have just been saying that 4+ cover is everywhere, and that it's our own fault for not getting into melee.

EVIL INC wrote:

Citation... check out the rulebook. There are three versions of it. The big hardback (which I bought just to have, the little one that comes in the starter box (that's the one I take to tourneys) and the new hardback just the rules one. I don't have a copy of that one but I will assume it's just a fancy version of the one that comes in the starter set.

We know the rules, you don't seem to be following them. Not a single part of the BRB allows you to get a 4+ from hiding behind enemy/allied models without modifiers.
And all rulebooks contain the same rules, it does not matter what version you have, so long as you actually use it.

EVIL INC wrote:

I and others are actually providing tactics and strategies that are correct and will assist them in winning games. Your view that the skill level of the player means nothing in the game is easily disproved. take any person, lets say a 5 year old child who has never even heard of wargaming and hand them a tau codex (because that one actually IS broken in terms of shooting) and tell them to buid a tournament army on their own. When they are done (if they even get that far), play them a game with your tournament army list of bugs. According to you, the child will win every time because tau being shooty auto wins the game with skill, army build, tactics and strategy playing no part in it at all.

If you taught him how to play the game by the rules, and could actually get his attention to stay n one place, then yes, that's exactly what would happen.

EVIL INC wrote:

if you don't have actual tactics or strategies to post, post somewhere else because that is the purpose of THIS thread.

Well then, maybe you should leave.
Telling us that caver will let us win, and blaming the lack of assaulting success on our skill level is beyond useless, and provides no tactical support whatsoever.

Well, if it means anything, I've given up on trying to assault with meqs. My newer lists are completely from C:SM and the BA tactics and schemes are left at home.

Assaulting with meqs was always built on the resiliency of T4 3+, and now that that is gone, I think the assaulting tactics for meqs are basically flushed.

i have had plenty of turn one assaults with orks, usually due to the opponent moving forward,

but storm boys do get a 5/6 +12" movement at times, and then 2d6 charges, which i ALWAYS attempt, they pay off is pretty good, and overwatch wont normally wipe the squad unless its tau.

but yeah, 1st turn charges realllly are not dependable, though they are extremely effective when they occur.

best to plan ahead, and have your whole army arrive on their doorstep either turn 2 or all on turn 3, cant half arse it with CC, and you are at a distinct disadvantage for now untill the meta shifts in CC favor, hopefully with NIDS/orks codex adding something to the CC world.

 easysauce wrote:
i have had plenty of turn one assaults with orks, usually due to the opponent moving forward,

but storm boys do get a 5/6 +12" movement at times, and then 2d6 charges, which i ALWAYS attempt, they pay off is pretty good, and overwatch wont normally wipe the squad unless its tau.

but yeah, 1st turn charges realllly are not dependable, though they are extremely effective when they occur.

best to plan ahead, and have your whole army arrive on their doorstep either turn 2 or all on turn 3, cant half arse it with CC, and you are at a distinct disadvantage for now untill the meta shifts in CC favor, hopefully with NIDS/orks codex adding something to the CC world.

It's not technically a turn 1 charge if your opponent is the one moving forward, maybe with the exception of scouts/infiltration.

Watch as overwatch kills one storm boy and you need an extra inch to 2 to make the charge

arriving at their doorstep all on turn 3 is pretty much GG at that point if the enemy is a gunline army...

Yeah, hopefully Nids/Orks will crush Tau/Eldar like no tomorrow

No one is saying that you HAD to be within 3 inches to assault. I was only pointing out that you were within 3 inches anyway, usually closer but you were just too lazy to stretch the extra 2 inches.
Now, if you are afraid to assault more than 3 inches, that is not the fault of the game, the fault lies within yourself. Remember this is a game where you roll dice. If you are not willing to play a game where there is no chance of risk or failure, you are playing the wrong game to begin with. That's why many players are not willing to accept close combat as a valid part of the game if they do not personally get the auto win before the dice are even picked up. By reading this thread and allowing others to teach you to become better instead of spamming it with "close combat sucks, shooting is op", try to pick up a few pointers.
What unit would I pick? Depends upon my mood at the time, how well I painted them. Then, I would proceed to win using either one of them using tactics and strategy. if you have specific units you want advice on using, give the unit your wanting to learn about and possibly, someone could coach you on how to more effectively use it.

"Who in the world is planning on a fist turn assault? (DE aside) " Selym apparently because in his opinion if you don't get to assault on turn one and get the auto win through close combat, than close combat sucks and shooting is op. lol

"So you're just going to pretend you didn't say that the 2d6" assault range helps you get a first turn assault? " I said that it makes it just as possible as before. Overall, it does give the average player the possibility to taking gambles that were not available to them before while making it just as likely to reach intended targets as before.

I am well aware of what citing is. However, one of the ways to learn the game is to read the rulebook. You don't need me to do that for you as you are perfectly capable of reading it yourself. I am not going to waste my time researching exact page numbers and paragraphs while you sit back and giggle to yourself trying to decide what obscure rule to make me look up next.

"I've never said that. Please don't strawman." Let me quote you again... "You're saying that any problem with an assaulting army lies in the player - which is incorrect." This statement shows your belief that the player and their skill at the game does not play a part in who wins or loses. of course, selym believes as you do as shown through this quote. "If you taught him how to play the game by the rules, and could actually get his attention to stay n one place, then yes, that's exactly what would happen. "

You have YET to debunk any theory at all but you have spammed a lot of nonsense. if you do not think a tactic or theory will work for you by all means don't use them. Those of us who have used them to great effect and proven their effectiveness in actual games and tournaments will continue to do so.

selym at no point did I say 4+ saves were everywhere. The possibility of getting a 5+ and 4+ save is fairly easy though. Specific examples have even been given. Note also that BOTH players get to set up the gaming table which means that you are guaranteed the ability to assist yourself in providing it through terrain set up alone.

You apparently need to re-read the rules because you don't know them. Just because you love me enough to follow me from thread to thread trolling, I will look this one rule up just for you. Page 18 of the lil rulebook. There is a section that says shooting through units provides a 5+ save. Now, combine that with such things as camo, stealth, shroud or even going to ground and you end up with a 4+ or even 3+ possible. while your there, check out what cover items such as barricades and buildings give. Should I point out the other thread where you spammed that monstrous creatures don't get to make cover saves from areas terrain and you were proven wrong there too? Not taking area terrain cover saves for your monstrous assaulting creatures could be part of why your having trouble.

" Well then, maybe you should leave. " If you are an admin then by all means ban me for proving you wrong and deny me my right to express an opinion and support it with evidence. I don't think the admins here would do that however.
"Telling us that caver will let us win, and blaming the lack of assaulting success on our skill level is beyond useless, and provides no tactical support whatsoever. " Cover does not automatically let you win. It DOES however help you get your assault units into combat when properly utilized. If your skill level consists of purposely building your army to lose and throwing away units by not using cover, not forcing the enemy to make hard decisions, and so forth, than yes, it would be due to your skill level. However, by utilizing proper army build, using a sound strategy and tactics, you can win. Even against an army that is more powerful than your own. I have demonstrated this on many occasions by simply swapping armies with an opponent that cried my shooting was overpowered and then beating them with the exact same assault army they used while they used my army that I just won with.

It's not about being afraid. It's about coming to the logical conclusion that the least wasteful way to use a unit is to provide them the highest chance of doing whatever it is you intend them to do, with as much strength as they can bring to bear on that purpose.

In the case of close combat units that involves not doing foolish things like gambling your units away on attempted charges they have a low chance of succeeding.

It's like you don't understand that almost every decision you make in the game is weighted based on it's probability of success. You play mathhammer without even realising it, but the difference is that the people who do realise it are going to do it an awful lot better than you do, and their mathhammer starts at army list creation, not at the opening turn of the game.

The reason you don't shoot a full squad of bolter marines at front armour of a leman russ is because their chance of success is zero, so you point at something they are more likely to do damage to, and ideally, at the enemy they are likely to do the most damage to.

For those same reasons, you don't decide to charge a 10man unit of wyches into 5 flamer armed chosen 10" away because if you fail the charge (and you probably will at 10"), you're going to get roasted on overwatch, and then you're going to get roasted again on their turn, and then you're going to get roasted again when you try to charge the following turn (if you have anything left). Instead, the smart player does not foolishly attempt a charge with a small chance of success, but protects the unit as much as he can until they are within guaranteed striking distance, whereupon instead of eating 3 turns worth of firepower, he only eats one; maximising the amount of bodies that get into combat and greatly increasing his odds of winning that combat.

It's not rocket science.

 Ap0k wrote:
It's not rocket science.

Well usually, except for Stormboyz...then it's rocket science.

 ductvader wrote:

 Ap0k wrote:
It's not rocket science.

Well usually, except for Stormboyz...then it's rocket science.

Naw. Daz' Rooket science ya humie!

Apok, that is why you use your army as a whole. Of course, you don't assault the flamer unit with your witches. You shoot that unit with your warrior squad and assault the squishy 10 man squad with lasguns instead. that is on of the man tactical decisions that will help you win a game.
Just throwing up your hands and saying "well, they have a flamer squad so they automatically win" is not how to address that situation. you look at what they have before the game (you get to look at their list) and develop a gameplan.Then you look at the set ups and alter the game plan to suit and put your strengths against their weaknesses while keeping their strengths away from your own weaknesses. The combinations and actions turn by turn affect and can even force you to alter your plans after the game starts which is where a lot of the tactics come into play. I used to be a player who made the grand plan and could cope with hiccups after the game started and I lost a lot. After learning to play dynamically, I started winning more often than not.

There you go mathhammering again :p

See? You're getting the hang of it already!

Im hoping to get another game in with my orks this weekend,
and mayyybe its just cause both my games were against the new SM dex, but at 1850 pts, 3 full BW's, 1 full trukk, 30 shoota boys, some grots to hold back feild obj's, and 24biikes + 2 biker bosses has been smashing a lot of face...

basically auto win since even the tau/eldar builds I was facing at tournaments didnt have enough stuff to reliably take out 4 av14 4 hp battle wagons before turn 2.

if the guy who had two full kitted out squads of centurians couldnt roflstomp the battle wagons, even with me losing the extra HP due to two immobiles, then not many builds will crack the cans before they disgourge their orky goodness

as soon as I face a dreadnaught or any of the other hard counters to ork horde I am lost...

but NO ONE plans for ork horde lol, so pretty safe there for now.

EVIL INC wrote:
<snipped incoherent rambling>

"Who in the world is planning on a fist turn assault? (DE aside) " Selym apparently because in his opinion if you don't get to assault on turn one and get the auto win through close combat, than close combat sucks and shooting is op. lol

Um... no? You said that, not him.

I am well aware of what citing is. However, one of the ways to learn the game is to read the rulebook. You don't need me to do that for you as you are perfectly capable of reading it yourself. I am not going to waste my time researching exact page numbers and paragraphs while you sit back and giggle to yourself trying to decide what obscure rule to make me look up next.

You made a statement. That statement is incorrect and I'm asking you to prove it. And now you're saying you don't have to... yeah, that's not how it works.
You are incorrect - there is no way (barring Stealth/Shrouded) to get a 4+ cover save just by screening with a unit. Prove me wrong, please.

"I've never said that. Please don't strawman." Let me quote you again... "You're saying that any problem with an assaulting army lies in the player - which is incorrect." This statement shows your belief that the player and their skill at the game does not play a part in who wins or loses. of course, selym believes as you do as shown through this quote. "If you taught him how to play the game by the rules, and could actually get his attention to stay n one place, then yes, that's exactly what would happen. "

Well no, that's not what I said. Some problems can lie with the player, but I guarantee not all of them do. And that's what you're implying.

You have YET to debunk any theory at all but you have spammed a lot of nonsense. if you do not think a tactic or theory will work for you by all means don't use them. Those of us who have used them to great effect and proven their effectiveness in actual games and tournaments will continue to do so.

I have debunked your 4+ cover save theory.

selym at no point did I say 4+ saves were everywhere.

I have found it to be a 4+ but the actual cover save is based on terrain or what you are using for cover. It is even possible to artificially create a 4+ save while running across a wide open field.

Yes, the average cover save is still 4+ when you add in the fact that shooting through your own units confers a 4+ save to the enemy target (this does not include other members of the same unit firing but rather separate friendly units) and that shooting through enemy units also provide a 4+ cover save (exploitable by assault armies to give themselves a 4+ cover even while out in the middle of an open field).

The common cover save is still a 4+ regardless of what some people claim, this has been proven and examples given to allow you to even artificially create a 4+ cover out of thin air.

You may not have said "everywhere" but "average cover save" and "common cover save" are demonstrably incorrect. You've still refused to cite rules supporting your statements.

The possibility of getting a 5+ and 4+ save is fairly easy though. Specific examples have even been given. Note also that BOTH players get to set up the gaming table which means that you are guaranteed the ability to assist yourself in providing it through terrain set up alone.

The bolded is only partially correct - specific examples of a 5+ have been given, but not for a 4+.

You apparently need to re-read the rules because you don't know them. Just because you love me enough to follow me from thread to thread trolling, I will look this one rule up just for you. Page 18 of the lil rulebook. There is a section that says shooting through units provides a 5+ save. Now, combine that with such things as camo, stealth, shroud or even going to ground and you end up with a 4+ or even 3+ possible. while your there, check out what cover items such as barricades and buildings give.

... This? This was your ace in the hole for a 4+ save? Let me help you out here.
How many units in the game have Stealth, Shrouded, or camo cloaks?
Does Going to Ground allow you to assault the turn you stand back up?

" Well then, maybe you should leave. " If you are an admin then by all means ban me for proving you wrong and deny me my right to express an opinion and support it with evidence. I don't think the admins here would do that however.
"Telling us that caver will let us win, and blaming the lack of assaulting success on our skill level is beyond useless, and provides no tactical support whatsoever. " Cover does not automatically let you win. It DOES however help you get your assault units into combat when properly utilized. If your skill level consists of purposely building your army to lose and throwing away units by not using cover, not forcing the enemy to make hard decisions, and so forth, than yes, it would be due to your skill level. However, by utilizing proper army build, using a sound strategy and tactics, you can win. Even against an army that is more powerful than your own. I have demonstrated this on many occasions by simply swapping armies with an opponent that cried my shooting was overpowered and then beating them with the exact same assault army they used while they used my army that I just won with.

Again with the "It's all the player's fault" accusations - which is demonstrably not true.
Assault has suffered in 6th. I've mentioned before the best ways to move forward with assault - you need resilient, fast units with some ability to swing in CC. Blender units that aren't resilient won't cut it anymore no matter who the player is.
The problem is that "resilient" at this point is somewhere in the T5 3+ or 4++ range as a minimum. And that's really hard for some races to get to.

LOL You got me there. I honestly don't consider that mathhammering. I consider that common sense. To me mathhammering is sitting down with a calculator (no way could I do it in my head) and figuring out exact percentage numbers of how many dice to roll to get certain results against x armor with y toughness to build my army tailored for specific opponents. I much prefer to take what seems cool for me at the time and what kind of mood I'm in and then use the common sense tactics to win or lose. You NEVER see me at a tourney with the same list twice. Yet I consistently come in about 3rd, 1st this last time because I got lucky and stole the initiative on a player who had a super ballsy set up with almost his entire army in the wide open (THAT made my shooting OP for that particular game based on his setup combined with my stealing the initiative but I think that was more due to his losing his gamble and me getting lucky. lol Now to paint my firestorm redoubt (just because I like the way it looks).

Rigeld, I will ignore your post rather than reply to it. You were proven incorrect, we don't need to see your posts anymore until you learn to behave, stick to the truth and provide something positive.

EVIL INC wrote:
LOL You got me there. I honestly don't consider that mathhammering. I consider that common sense. To me mathhammering is sitting down with a calculator (no way could I do it in my head) and figuring out exact percentage numbers of how many dice to roll to get certain results against x armor with y toughness to build my army tailored for specific opponents. I much prefer to take what seems cool for me at the time and what kind of mood I'm in and then use the common sense tactics to win or lose. You NEVER see me at a tourney with the same list twice. Yet I consistently come in about 3rd, 1st this last time because I got lucky and stole the initiative on a player who had a super ballsy set up with almost his entire army in the wide open (THAT made my shooting OP for that particular game based on his setup combined with my stealing the initiative but I think that was more due to his losing his gamble and me getting lucky. lol Now to paint my firestorm redoubt (just because I like the way it looks).

Rigeld, I will ignore your post rather than reply to it. You were proven incorrect, we don't need to see your posts anymore until you learn to behave, stick to the truth and provide something positive.

You don't need a calculator or exact percentages.

You just need a basic understanding of averages, probability, and dice rolls.

For example, when 5+ cover saves occur far more often than 4+, it means that the mode (what we use as average in this instance) save will be 5+, even though the cover chart puts 4+ somewhere in the centre.
That is because the things that grant 6+ and 5+ terrain are far cheaper and more easily placed/transported/made than the 4+ and 3+ terrain types, thus resulting in their increased usage.
The 5+ is made even more common by the fact that alternative save granters (such as intervening units) give out a 5+ as standard.


______________________

And thus far, Rigeld has been correct on all accounts.

EVIL INC wrote:
Rigeld, I will ignore your post rather than reply to it. You were proven incorrect, we don't need to see your posts anymore until you learn to behave, stick to the truth and provide something positive.

I have provided something positive and you have not proven me incorrect.

When you are able to take a 4+ save instead of a 5+ save, I will indeed take probability into account and opt for the 4+ save. Additionally, If I know a way to get a save while crossing an open field, I will interlock my units so that they provide cover for one another. Probability states that if I have two 30 "man" gaunt squads and I skuttle them across the field separately and away from one another, they will have zero cover save and drop like flies. If I intertwine the two units so that part of each unit is covered by the other in order to get a cover save, I will still take wound but instead of having a zero cover save, I will get some sort of save and by averages, lose less models, thus making them both more survivable from enemy shooting and more likely to reach and rip apart my enemy.
LOL, rigeld Let me do this for you. Oh you are the font of all information, are never wrong and have a huge penis. Does that make you feel better? Now toddle off and the rest of us who are having a serious conversation can talk without you interrupting.

 easysauce wrote:
Im hoping to get another game in with my orks this weekend,
and mayyybe its just cause both my games were against the new SM dex, but at 1850 pts, 3 full BW's, 1 full trukk, 30 shoota boys, some grots to hold back feild obj's, and 24biikes + 2 biker bosses has been smashing a lot of face...

basically auto win since even the tau/eldar builds I was facing at tournaments didnt have enough stuff to reliably take out 4 av14 4 hp battle wagons before turn 2.

if the guy who had two full kitted out squads of centurians couldnt roflstomp the battle wagons, even with me losing the extra HP due to two immobiles, then not many builds will crack the cans before they disgourge their orky goodness

as soon as I face a dreadnaught or any of the other hard counters to ork horde I am lost...

but NO ONE plans for ork horde lol, so pretty safe there for now.

Most Tau/Eldar lists lack the ability to deal with AV14 reliably right now as most people max out S6-7 shooting, but if you see some melta-guns from MEQs, your AVA14 vehicles are pretty much toast.
Then again 1-2 squads of fire dragons riding Waveserpents should be enough to remove 4 AV14 without a huge problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

EVIL INC wrote:
Rigeld, I will ignore your post rather than reply to it. You were proven incorrect, we don't need to see your posts anymore until you learn to behave, stick to the truth and provide something positive.

I have provided something positive and you have not proven me incorrect.

Who says this type of things? "we don't need to see your posts anymore until you learn to behave"
Again, he clearly debunked your statement of giving 4+ cover everywhere which is what you said.
So you're upset that he provided proof that not a lot of units default to a 4+ save?

To me mathhammering is sitting down with a calculator (no way could I do it in my head) and figuring out exact percentage numbers of how many dice to roll to get certain results against x armor with y toughness to build my army tailored for specific opponents

Except that's not really it. I mean, you are to some extent correct, but you're missing the mark a little.

Mathhammering is knowing the expected result of X unit attacking y unit (whether by cc/shooting is largely irrelevant). If I know that, on average, a 10man bolter squad rapid firing will cause 8 wounds on a dark eldar warrior squad out of cover, or 4 wounds if they get a 4+ cover save, then I can tactically plan my turn to provide me with options. Knowing that there are 10 warriors sitting on an objective in cover allows me to allocate 2 of the above bolter squads to killing it, and maybe a little something else to bring that wound total up to 3-4extra, just in case the dice don't go particularly favourably.

Instead of wastefully throwing 4 units worth of firepower at a unit, you have efficiently used just enough to do the job plus a little extra, and if it turns out that little extra isn't required, it can be treated as surplus and used to backup a different option where maybe the dice didn't go in your favour.

Knowing these things allows you position your forces better, since you can provide as many supporting resources as required to get the job done, without overcommitting yourself to one area and thereby potentially reducing your overall armywide damage output because you threw an extra unit in to utterly overkill something and didn't have that firepower to use elsewhere on the table.

To make it more combat oriented, you ideally want to be killing your opponents unit in their own turn, since that will mean he won't get to fire at you during the same turn, and you'll be free to charge a new unit in your own. You mathhammer to determine what kind of numbers to throw at that combat to have that happen. If you're too killy, you risk killing the enemy unit on the charge, and having to eat a turn of shooting before you can charge again. If you're not killy enough you extend the duration of the combat to the point where it gets progressively harder to rely on a specific result, because the more opportunities you give your opponent to affect that combat (whether through lucky rolls on return strikes doing a little more damage than they should, or because they can shore it up with another charging unit of their own to swing the combat). Therefore you have some rough idea of what kind of damage each model in your unit inflicts each turn. That's why we see terms like MEQ/GEQ/TEQ being thrown around. They are common archetypes that represent a certain statline (space marine/guardsmen and eldar/terminators, respectively). It makes it easier to more accurately guess the damage output of a unit if you have a rough idea how it performs against those varieties of units. You can then very easily determine that your little 4man squad of berserkers that got shot up earlier in the game just isn't going to have the punch it needs to kill that 10man marine squad before it dies due to the marines themselves, or because it took too long to kill them and they countercharged and killed the last few zerkers.

And knowing these things (or at least having a ballpark idea on them) allows you to more effectively prepare multiple turns in advance. Yes, you are ultimately at the whims of the dice, but over time, dice are still bound by probability, and you factor that probability into your decision making precisely because, statistically speaking, that is the expected result of X, or Y. Suddenly instead of thinking 'oh, I'll charge this stuff with this stuff', you can think, 'I'll charge this stuff with this stuff, and bring this weaker unit along for support, which will probably allow me to slingshot the whole thing into that unit over there when I kill them in 2 rounds, but I'll need to soften that unit up a little first if I want to take them on, so I better shoot them with 20 bolters to weaken their number a little first', and that's how that path of decision making goes.

You aren't deciding that you will do these things. You are deciding that, based on the probability of all these actions occurring as expected, you can formulate the following contingency plans to improve the success rate of the tactics, or mitigate the damage failure will cause.

It's not simply a case of setting a bunch of toy soldiers up facing eachother and letting the winds of chance take the reins. The good players are the ones who can quickly guesstimate reasonably accurate results of certain actions, and then stack the odds in whatever area's they need to to give themselves a good chance of success.

And that is why a 2d6 assault range is bad. The average distance rolled is irrelevant. To stack the odds in your favour on a charge you need to bring them to the point where the success rate much higher than 50%, which means 3-4" (or slightly more if you have fleet and can re-roll). 6th took the guaranteed 6" charge away from 5th, and effectively gave us a 3-5"charge, depending on your estimation of risk and how capable the charged unit performs overwatch.

EVIL INC wrote:
Oh you are the font of all information, are never wrong and have a huge penis.

Aww, thank you, I always knew you loved me

<3

LOL, rigeld Let me do this for you. Oh you are the font of all information, are never wrong and have a huge penis. Does that make you feel better? Now toddle off and the rest of us who are having a serious conversation can talk without you interrupting.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was going for. How about instead of attempting to patronize me you answer my questions and address my points? That would make me feel better than what you just typed.
I'm trying to help your post. Seriously.

And your intertwining units for a cover save doesn't work as well as you think it does. The front models (you know - the ones being shot) won't have a cover save.

Focus fire can indeed help deny cover saves. However, even a bad cover save is better than none at all and still helps more models survive to reach combat. The extra time it takes to position them can be worth it.
My point is that this thread is specifically dedicated to provide tips and advice. Your questions are not related to the discussion. Send them to me in a pm or post them in a different thread, otherwise, they are a purposeful distraction designed to kill a thread to prevent the discussion that was intended.

It's actually possible to setup 2 units in an alternating fashion where you will provide cover to both units in their entirety, with the exception of maybe 2-3 models in the front rank of each unit.

Say cheerio to doing any shooting with them at all, and movement would be a real bitch (both in terms of the physical logistics, and the fact that you essentially kill 1.5" off your movement rate), so it's barely worth the payoff.

EVIL INC wrote:
Focus fire can indeed help deny cover saves. However, even a bad cover save is better than none at all and still helps more models survive to reach combat. The extra time it takes to position them can be worth it.
My point is that this thread is specifically dedicated to provide tips and advice. Your questions are not related to the discussion. Send them to me in a pm or post them in a different thread, otherwise, they are a purposeful distraction designed to kill a thread to prevent the discussion that was intended.

No. No. Just no. If you're using a tactic that doesn't work, pointing out that it doesn't work is related to the discussion.

Just to stay on-topic: Make sure to only roll 6s for movement, saves, to hit and to wound, and make sure that your opponent only rolls 1s in the corresponding situations. Then you win!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

EVIL INC wrote:
Focus fire can indeed help deny cover saves. However, even a bad cover save is better than none at all and still helps more models survive to reach combat. The extra time it takes to position them can be worth it.
My point is that this thread is specifically dedicated to provide tips and advice. Your questions are not related to the discussion. Send them to me in a pm or post them in a different thread, otherwise, they are a purposeful distraction designed to kill a thread to prevent the discussion that was intended.

No. No. Just no. If you're using a tactic that doesn't work, pointing out that it doesn't work is related to the discussion.

Just to stay on-topic: Make sure to only roll 6s for movement, saves, to hit and to wound, and make sure that your opponent only rolls 1s in the corresponding situations. Then you win!

Not the best for leadership test if you'll ever need them that is
Maybe some psychic power causing leadership tests or something.

Speaking of Psychic powers, they can also increase surivability to CC, but so unreliable...

How many shots does the average hormagaunst or genestealer unit have? I'm more than willing to give an opponent a 5+ cover save from zero shots.

 Makutsu wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

EVIL INC wrote:
Focus fire can indeed help deny cover saves. However, even a bad cover save is better than none at all and still helps more models survive to reach combat. The extra time it takes to position them can be worth it.
My point is that this thread is specifically dedicated to provide tips and advice. Your questions are not related to the discussion. Send them to me in a pm or post them in a different thread, otherwise, they are a purposeful distraction designed to kill a thread to prevent the discussion that was intended.

No. No. Just no. If you're using a tactic that doesn't work, pointing out that it doesn't work is related to the discussion.

Just to stay on-topic: Make sure to only roll 6s for movement, saves, to hit and to wound, and make sure that your opponent only rolls 1s in the corresponding situations. Then you win!

Not the best for leadership test if you'll ever need them that is
Maybe some psychic power causing leadership tests or something.

Speaking of Psychic powers, they can also increase surivability to CC, but so unreliable...

Hence why I didn't mention Ld tests...

EVIL INC wrote:
How many shots does the average hormagaunst or genestealer unit have? I'm more than willing to give an opponent a 5+ cover save from zero shots.

They average an output of zero shots...
And, sure, feel free to give opponents a 5+ save against non existent attacks. I do it all the time. If they're lucky I may even give them a 2+ chance to negate all of the shots I didn't fire




Wtf was the point of your comment?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

EVIL INC wrote:
Focus fire can indeed help deny cover saves. However, even a bad cover save is better than none at all and still helps more models survive to reach combat. The extra time it takes to position them can be worth it.
My point is that this thread is specifically dedicated to provide tips and advice. Your questions are not related to the discussion. Send them to me in a pm or post them in a different thread, otherwise, they are a purposeful distraction designed to kill a thread to prevent the discussion that was intended.

No. No. Just no. If you're using a tactic that doesn't work, pointing out that it doesn't work is related to the discussion.

Just to stay on-topic: Make sure to only roll 6s for movement, saves, to hit and to wound, and make sure that your opponent only rolls 1s in the corresponding situations. Then you win!

Not the best for leadership test if you'll ever need them that is
Maybe some psychic power causing leadership tests or something.

Speaking of Psychic powers, they can also increase surivability to CC, but so unreliable...

Hence why I didn't mention Ld tests...

Right lol, I stand corrected

"selym at no point did I say 4+ saves were everywhere. The possibility of getting a 5+ and 4+ save is fairly easy though. Specific examples have even been given. Note also that BOTH players get to set up the gaming table which means that you are guaranteed the ability to assist yourself in providing it through terrain set up alone"

Cover doesn't do a thing for meqs against Eldar-style wound spamming. It doesn't help guardsmen if its 5+ cover.