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.
Assault units have no choices. They can either a) not assault and take another turn of shooting or b) assault what is presented to them
This is why a good assault army will also have ranged support. If you have a 10 man guard squad blocking a charge into a leman rus, a heldrake clears that problem right up. Charge blocking is a good tactic but it can be countered, especially early in the game when you're likely to have more firepower alive.
Assault units have no choices. They can either a) not assault and take another turn of shooting or b) assault what is presented to them
This is why a good assault army will also have ranged support. If you have a 10 man guard squad blocking a charge into a leman rus, a heldrake clears that problem right up. Charge blocking is a good tactic but it can be countered, especially early in the game when you're likely to have more firepower alive.
Agreed, and again, this is where meqs kind of fall apart, because of model count/assault efficacy/firepower per model issues.
With Assault however, you have the benefit of using superior brute force against a substantially weaker opponent and outright slaughtering an enemy in the opening blow. Your lethality increases exponentially (unless you're the Tau who invert this trend, lol). And here is the kicker that made me hate my Cultists for a little while: Say I've got 20 cultists against 3 Grey Knight fatties or some such noise: We go to blows and I roll 80+ dice against you! And I inflict...no wounds. Let's say my weapons are ineffective (I don't actually know the stats on GK or what their fatties are called...cause I'm new.). Then the fatties swing back and all of their blows kill something. Let's say 6 dead cultists. And you won combat? And I don't get away?
Might as well have just killed 20 damn cultists for free. Better than free. I paid an assault to let you kill 20 damn cultists. lol
Chuckle. That's why I like Wraith Blades. And when you think about it, it makes sense. Picture yourself as one of those cultists; you and your nineteen mates all charge howling at three guys in armour ("fatties" I love that, btw ) and after beating on them with knives, swords, clubs and point blank pistol shots for half a minute, you four or five of your mates have been torn apart and none of the people you mobbed are even scratched. Not bloody surprising you all run away. And if whilst running away you find these monsters are still after you and crushing heads, I'm not surprised they all go "f- this for a game of soldiers" and run for home. It's very hard to get a tactical feel for the overall battle when you're a single soldier on the ground. Even if you do value your army's overall success more than your life (which is pretty rare), all you know then and there is that the people around you are getting slaughtered and you appear to be losing.
It's like that scene in a movie where the thugs all gang up on someone and that person suddenly turns out to be Jackie Chan. It must be pretty terrifying to go from thinking "we out number these guys five to one" to "we barely hurt them and five of us are dead".
What is best in life?
To wound enemy units, see them driven from the table, and hear the lamentations of their player.
EVIL INC wrote: These others are saying that it is not possible to get cover saves with assaulting units as they cross the table. I have proven that it IS possible.
They have also made the claims that they are totally worthless. By all means, don't bother taking them when you play me.
Having read through this entire thread with interest, I have to say the above sums up why I'm having a problem with EVIL INC's posts. Nowhere in what I have read have Selym or rigeld said that it is "impossible" to get cover or that they are totally worthless. The above is putting your own words in someone else's mouth in order to make it easier to shoot them down. You've repeatedly accused them of being insulting and trolling and saying how you have "proved" them wrong. But as someone new to this site who knows no-one here and has just started reading this thread from the beginning, what I see is mostly reasonable posts and a lot of attempts by you to cast other posters as villains, to pretend that they are a minority who everyone else considers discredited and to drag the conversation down to the level of dick sizes. Just stop. Your attempts to try and pretend things are concluded or people think they're wrong are transparent and unhelpful. I'm an old player (from Rogue Trader days) who has taken a long absence and is now returning and I've found their comments helpful. It is not enough just to list ways of surviving into close combat if those ways don't work well or are very difficult to achieve. I need to know how viable tactics are. And both of their posts have been helpful to me as a returning player.
You are the one trolling by repeated straw-man'ing and changing of subject rather than admit a mistake. And I would love to see it stop whilst these other two posters are still remaining polite rather than lose their temper and sink to aggressive name-calling and mud-throwing as you have been.
For my own part, though I'm still gearing up to be good at sixth edition (there are still too many enemy troop types that I am unfamiliar with and I need more recent game experience at a high level), I'm coming to the opinion that for the most part, the best approach to Close Combat is to treat it as a follow-up punch or a defence force. Once I've started shooting up the enemy, then assault troops can make an excellent game-tipper. Similarly, if the enemy has encroached on my gun troops or is closing on an objective, some quality CC troops can really hit back hard. Close Combat is potentially very powerful. Get a small force of Wraith Blades mixing it up with a large number of lower quality troops and they can push back (and Sweeping Advance with some luck) many times their number. I'm finding the balance in my armies to be a small to medium smattering of quality CC amongst a non-CC focused list. If advancing, I keep my CC troops ready as a follow-up punch to drive people from objectives and if being advanced upon, they're ready to spring out on the enemy once they get too close and wreck the enemy's plans. As an advancing first strike approach, I am finding it hard to get them into combat without basically offering up a valuable gun-unit as a sacrifice. And the really good players wont fall for it anyway. Or simply have too much power. Close Combat benefits a lot from being a mid-game strategy.
I don't know what the others think of this. It's the impression of a returning old player trying to bring themselves up to speed on a new edition, but I'd be extremely interested and grateful to hear how it sounds (accurate or idiotic).
knas ser wrote: It's like that scene in a movie where the thugs all gang up on someone and that person suddenly turns out to be Jackie Chan. It must be pretty terrifying to go from thinking "we out number these guys five to one" to "we barely hurt them and five of us are dead".
Well said. Back in 5th, anyone foolish (fearless?) enough to continue on against such odds would suffer additional wounds during combat resolution.
Part of me is sad to see that go away.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/18 18:19:52
TheRedWingArmada wrote: lol, if you can name one instance where man does not draw upon real life for inspiration in all things? You let me know. There is a fundamental psychology that goes into pretty much everything that man does, you just have to recognize it. Hell, you do it when you size up a player in a 40k match. Are they a Cowboy or are they a Knight? Are they a Pirate or are they a Wizard? O__O
Obscure. Seemingly unrelated. As a Chaos player, I can tell you this is how the World works. Everything from playing a first person shooter or tabletop to getting a job or going to school. You use this stuff and you don't even know it.
Uh psychic powers in the game? There's a thing called imagination that doesn't rely on real life for inspiration.
Also, how real life is has nothing to do with how effective shooting is compared to assault.
I don't even understand what the cowboy, pirate etc is supposed to mean...
How does being a Chaos player have anything to how the world work? And use what stuff? I'm super confused.
Imagination doesn't draw upon real life? It's like being a fish in the ocean. You're surrounded by the stuff, so acting outside of it is impossible. And who is to say there are not real life examples of psychics? Not to dare, but more to suggest. And yeah, real life has everything to do with that. If shooting didn't exist in real life, would you have shooting in a game? Getting way off point though. I'm speaking very generally and I think you may be taking me to literally. The cowboy, pirate, etc. are metaphors to how a persons behavior might be. The same way a person has personal preferences or play styles. It's why there are different races to accommodate those personal preferences in 40k. I'd imagine it's also why an arrow isn't as effective as a laz cannon, between Fantasy and 40k respectively.
And how does being a Chaos player help to understand the ways of the world? Because it gives you a very abstract picture to gleam a perspective/reflection of reality from. Someone had to write that stuff, and so they likely embody it in some respect. The same way some player might, if given the opportunity, want to be a Grey Knight paladin under different circumstances.
The "stuff" I was speaking of at that time is called Metamessaging, Social Sciences and Psychology/Sociology. The Sciences of the Human Mind and Behavioral Patterns. +__+ In poker, it's the difference between reading your cards and reading your players.
This is the last time I'm replying to yours as this is a tactics thread and not a fluff/logic thread.
Again, I'm talking about "game mechanics" just because they are based off of an abstract from real life does not mean they are equal in any kind.
Also, how else do people invent things? Lots of theories and assumptions do not come from observations so there's no perceivable aspect that creates these thoughts.
Of course everything is affected by the "real world" but that's starting to get philosophical and I'm not going to bother arguing with you about that.
Uh, once you start going between game systems please make sure you're arguments actually make sense...
In Fantasy a Cannonball is S10 AP0 ( -7 to Armor Saves ) Lascannon S9 AP2, so how would a cannonball be the same strength as a lascannon?
Again, it's a game mechanic and should not be deduced with real life logic.
And the"stuff" you call doesn't apply to 40k as no aspect is hidden and needs concealing.
EVIL INC wrote: These others are saying that it is not possible to get cover saves with assaulting units as they cross the table. I have proven that it IS possible.
They have also made the claims that they are totally worthless. By all means, don't bother taking them when you play me.
Having read through this entire thread with interest, I have to say the above sums up why I'm having a problem with EVIL INC's posts. Nowhere in what I have read have Selym or rigeld said that it is "impossible" to get cover or that they are totally worthless. The above is putting your own words in someone else's mouth in order to make it easier to shoot them down. You've repeatedly accused them of being insulting and trolling and saying how you have "proved" them wrong. But as someone new to this site who knows no-one here and has just started reading this thread from the beginning, what I see is mostly reasonable posts and a lot of attempts by you to cast other posters as villains, to pretend that they are a minority who everyone else considers discredited and to drag the conversation down to the level of dick sizes. Just stop. Your attempts to try and pretend things are concluded or people think they're wrong are transparent and unhelpful. I'm an old player (from Rogue Trader days) who has taken a long absence and is now returning and I've found their comments helpful. It is not enough just to list ways of surviving into close combat if those ways don't work well or are very difficult to achieve. I need to know how viable tactics are. And both of their posts have been helpful to me as a returning player.
You are the one trolling by repeated straw-man'ing and changing of subject rather than admit a mistake. And I would love to see it stop whilst these other two posters are still remaining polite rather than lose their temper and sink to aggressive name-calling and mud-throwing as you have been.
For my own part, though I'm still gearing up to be good at sixth edition (there are still too many enemy troop types that I am unfamiliar with and I need more recent game experience at a high level), I'm coming to the opinion that for the most part, the best approach to Close Combat is to treat it as a follow-up punch or a defence force. Once I've started shooting up the enemy, then assault troops can make an excellent game-tipper. Similarly, if the enemy has encroached on my gun troops or is closing on an objective, some quality CC troops can really hit back hard. Close Combat is potentially very powerful. Get a small force of Wraith Blades mixing it up with a large number of lower quality troops and they can push back (and Sweeping Advance with some luck) many times their number. I'm finding the balance in my armies to be a small to medium smattering of quality CC amongst a non-CC focused list. If advancing, I keep my CC troops ready as a follow-up punch to drive people from objectives and if being advanced upon, they're ready to spring out on the enemy once they get too close and wreck the enemy's plans. As an advancing first strike approach, I am finding it hard to get them into combat without basically offering up a valuable gun-unit as a sacrifice. And the really good players wont fall for it anyway. Or simply have too much power. Close Combat benefits a lot from being a mid-game strategy.
I don't know what the others think of this. It's the impression of a returning old player trying to bring themselves up to speed on a new edition, but I'd be extremely interested and grateful to hear how it sounds (accurate or idiotic).
Sounds about right to me
Thanks. I'm both new and old to the game at this point, and it's good to verbalize my vague impressions and hear if they're actually good or delusional.
Martel732 wrote: The fundamental problem, knas ser, is that when assautling, your opponent chooses what and where something gets assaulted.
My own lowly BA have used this to my advantage before. I have placed a unit in the path of a large mass of khorne berserkers to basically say "you are assaulting this". The unit was placed in a region with no cover and so, there was nowhere for the berserkers to go after they won. I shot the unit to pieces the following turn.
Assault units have no choices. They can either a) not assault and take another turn of shooting or b) assault what is presented to them and then take another turn of even worse shooting. A key is feeding them flimsy units that won't last a single turn. That opens them up to a huge counter barrage the next turn. Tau are the absolute best for this, because you will assault on squad, get shot a bunch, win, and then get shot more the next turn.
Oh yeah, that's almost the worst and most annoying thing in the game - to be a victim of your own success and then end up standing about in the open with your power armour round your ankles and a dozen Eldar pointing Shuriken at you. Thanks for the comments. Please don't mistake my post to be my arguing for or against some "CC is wonderful" post. I'm coming to the philosophical viewpoint that CC in my army is the same way I'll add a Shuriken Cannon to a Guardian Squad. Not because my army is built around that cannon, but because by having it that unit suddenly gets a bit tougher, can shoot those enemies just out of range, etc. I.e. I mix in as much Close Combat as I can afford points wise up to, but not past the point, where it would start to really detract from my fundamentals. Give up that extra war walker for some Striking Scorpians? Yes, because I have a Fire Prism and Bright Lances on my Serpents and those Scorpions will make an excellent counter or objective-taker end-game. Give up my Fire Prism and the War Walker for a pile of Scorpions and Wraith Blades? Sadly not. Both are awesome troops but without the context of a balanced army around them, they go from being a powerful unit in the right circumstances, to a unit that will never get those right circumstances.
I think my "tactic" to contribute to this thread is 'Patience'. Pull out the assault troops when the enemies Riptide is dead. Not before. There are exceptions when you know what you're doing. If you have a plan to Deep Strike your Wraithknight behind enemy lines and stomp all over some unguarded heavy weapons or you spot a great opportunity to infiltrate Karandras and a unit up close and wreck your opponents entire strategy at the start of the game, then do it. The thing with rules and guidelines is you don't break them until you know what you're doing and you understand why the rules exist. And for me the rule is currently: "don't lead with CC troops". Instead, use them to leap forward at an advancing horde or to tear up an enemy-held objective mid game.
What is best in life?
To wound enemy units, see them driven from the table, and hear the lamentations of their player.
Martel732 wrote: Yes, the shooting "kill zone" phenomenon after having won a CC was a problem in 5th, but its even worse now.
And where are the rest of your units? It sounds like 1 assault unit against the whole army. If your running an entire assault army then the rest of your guys need to be killing other units.
Martel732 wrote: Yes, the shooting "kill zone" phenomenon after having won a CC was a problem in 5th, but its even worse now.
And where are the rest of your units? It sounds like 1 assault unit against the whole army. If your running an entire assault army then the rest of your guys need to be killing other units.
Other units are usually dead, or trying to close the gap. This is why I stopped trying to even try to assault with meqs as plan "A". Having multiple units in charge range of the sacrificial unit doesn't really help at all. I understand what you are getting at, but it's not that simple. I've had games where I've lost 33 ish ASM just getting assault range. And a game where Eldar killed 22 FNP ASM with 5+ cover in the turn before assault. That's where my other units are: in the carrying case.
Now these were tables with precious little LOS blocking terrain. My play group doesn't have much LOS blocking terrain I guess, or it's always all used when I go to choose my terrain pieces.
Asking for a thread to remain on topic, providing tactics and strategies and explaining how they can be used (while admitting that they are "counterable" and not end all be all) along with explaining how basic game mechanics that are often underestimated along with explaining that as editions and rules change it is often necessary to use different builds and try different tactics and strategies that work under older rules is hardly "trolling". I understand it to be trying to help others with my own experiences and encourage others to share knowledge as well (so that I too may learn) all in a polite and respectful manner to be beneficial. If you feel that to be trolling than in your eyes I may be.
If you don't like my tips, than by all means don't use them. They have proven to work for me in helping me and others I have seen and spoken with, win games but they might not work for others. If you don't think they will work for you, by all means do something else. If it works for you, share it with us so that we can try it as well. Even if you think my tips are useful, by all means share with us how you manage to succeed.
Martel732, I feel your pain on that. You will find that players usually build terrain to suit themselves. It may be that you need to build some of your own and bring it with you. If it is well done and looks nice, people generally don't care. It could even be that you can host a terrain workshop where everyone works to build it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/18 21:00:30
clively wrote: "EVIL INC" - hardly. More like "REASONABLE GOOD GUY INC". (side note: exalted)
Martel732 wrote: The fundamental problem, knas ser, is that when assautling, your opponent chooses what and where something gets assaulted.
My own lowly BA have used this to my advantage before. I have placed a unit in the path of a large mass of khorne berserkers to basically say "you are assaulting this". The unit was placed in a region with no cover and so, there was nowhere for the berserkers to go after they won. I shot the unit to pieces the following turn.
I have done this to protect the relic. I put 4 lines of individual termagants in front of each other at the end of the game in front of a small but highly elite unit and basically said...yeah...you're not getting there for 4 turns minimum.
Not always possible...but every once in a while you can stop something like MCs, Nobz, Terminators, and other small units in their tracks by throwing dead bodies at them.
Remember that you will often see very different armies played by the same person using the same codex. If an elder player knows they are scheduled to play you, a bug player, you will mysteriously find their list tailored to match you and your specific tactics/strategies. If you play the same player in a tournament setting, you will often find that they will not be able to counter you near as easily because they are forced to take a more "taker all comers" list.
I believe that the one trick pony lists usually do well in tourneys because to counter them you almost need to tailor for it which again, is not really possible in a tourney setting.
clively wrote: "EVIL INC" - hardly. More like "REASONABLE GOOD GUY INC". (side note: exalted)
EVIL INC wrote: Remember that you will often see very different armies played by the same person using the same codex. If an elder player knows they are scheduled to play you, a bug player, you will mysteriously find their list tailored to match you and your specific tactics/strategies. If you play the same player in a tournament setting, you will often find that they will not be able to counter you near as easily because they are forced to take a more "taker all comers" list.
I believe that the one trick pony lists usually do well in tourneys because to counter them you almost need to tailor for it which again, is not really possible in a tourney setting.
Well there is, and thankfully, a lack of douchebaggery in my meta.
I believe that the one trick pony lists usually do well in tourneys because to counter them you almost need to tailor for it which again, is not really possible in a tourney setting.
I'm sure every single high level tourney player will strongly disagree with this.
The overwhelming majority of top tournament lists are TAC lists that aim to cover the important bases expected to be seen in the current 40k trend. They are not 'one trick pony' lists, but lists that have used strong elements from the codex to bring as much crunch to the table and mitigate chance.
I won't even explain how its irrelevant that people can't tailor a list at a tournament, as it should be obvious. That and most everyone I've ever played or read online does not tailor, and builds TAC lists.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
Amusingly you can tailor easier in a tournament than in a pickup game. You're tailoring to the meta rather than individual lists, but it can be at least as effective.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
rigeld2 wrote: Amusingly you can tailor easier in a tournament than in a pickup game. You're tailoring to the meta rather than individual lists, but it can be at least as effective.
Right, but that's not so much as tailoring as it is covering the relevant bases. At a tournament, you have a random chance to play the Nid player, as you do the Ork player, as you do the Tau player.
This is obviously skewed now towards being prepared to fight Eldar/Tau, but, you still have to be able to deal with any army, theoretically. Hence the term TAC.
A tailored pickup game could be tailored by knowing you're playing with a buddy who's only army is Orkz. Flamers ahoy!
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
Fortunately, even more meqs, there is more room for error against non-Tau, non-Eldar, and non-Daemon lists. The real problem is prepping for those three lists is actually quite different.
I can go with that. Unfortunately, I see a lot of list tailoring. That's one of the reason's I prefer to play for fun games with close friends. Too bad, I'm the only one of the old crew who really still plays.
It could also be that some of the armies I consider one trick ponies, you don't. To me they include super cheesy combos that can be countered through tailoring.
I can see what you mean by tailoring for tourneys. I usually try to take stuff that will be effective against all army "types." of course, I don't go all out on that and always end up taking units just for fun because I like them or they are cool rather than them being really effective. Sometimes, just because it is a model or unit I recently painted and want to show it off. lol This past tourney aside which I swept by winning alone (my last game by almost tabling an elder player), I usually come in 3rd or 4th. What usually helps me in points is my quality of painting, conversions, basing, display board and so forth to get all the extra points. I also make it a point to make sure to go for secondary objectives and play for the main objectives which often means having to sacrifice units.
clively wrote: "EVIL INC" - hardly. More like "REASONABLE GOOD GUY INC". (side note: exalted)
Again, I have a hard time blaming people for "cheese" when GW could issue errata to ban said cheese.
But from a fundamental standpoint, the 6th ed core rule book does make things harder on assault elements, but it would be okay if pricing reflected this, but it doesn't.
And they are going to change the rules again and leave all the 6th ed pricing in place. Yuck.
I read that entire thing. I believe that deserves multiple exalts. Jk ofc, however after reading this I have learned more about Assault in 6th Edition and learned that the OP is wrong, misinformed, and misconstruing information. I would also like to point out that Assault is much weaker and requires a lot of strategy, to make work (other than a unit randomly assaulting a Riptide because it showed itself) and that Land Raider Berzerkers for the most part) will not work out. Spawn will though. At the end of the day we're all losers. Stay Classy -Feasible
Feasible, you apparently did not actually read through it.
Assault in a game designed for guns SHOULD take a lot of strategy. that's the whole point of the thread.
clively wrote: "EVIL INC" - hardly. More like "REASONABLE GOOD GUY INC". (side note: exalted)
Before, they were undercosted, now they are overcosted. This sort of thing is just what happens with the idiot way they release things. That's not the point of the thread. The point of the thread is to discuss ways to effectively get units into combat regardless of costs.
clively wrote: "EVIL INC" - hardly. More like "REASONABLE GOOD GUY INC". (side note: exalted)
EVIL INC wrote: Before, they were undercosted, now they are overcosted. This sort of thing is just what happens with the idiot way they release things. That's not the point of the thread. The point of the thread is to discuss ways to effectively get units into combat regardless of costs.
Regardless of cost? Effectively and Cost go hand in hand.
Lets go get 6 Max squads of Berserkers I'm pretty sure one unit will hit the line considering how many of them there are.
Cost of a unit takes place in the list building.
To demonstrate, take 5 point gaunt, give it the normal abilities. Now, take the same gaunt, make it cost 100 points and keep the same ability. The extra points do not make it move faster, swing harder or be any tougher, it only means you cant get as many of them or that they may now be obsolete as a unit where you now pay the points for a different model.
clively wrote: "EVIL INC" - hardly. More like "REASONABLE GOOD GUY INC". (side note: exalted)
Landraiders get things into combat pretty reliably. Why arent they used very often then? Cost.
Cost is a huge factor. Any race can get into melee if you REALLY want to, problem is if you make a measly 100pt melee-monster suddenly cost 400pts in order to get across the table before turn 4 (or alive) then despite being very powerful in melee, he isnt worth it because thats 1/3 or so of your army invested into a single unit thats still not considered a deathstar, so they arent THAT powerful.
Thats why i really, really dislike battlewagons. You take 4 or you take none because of how they work. If they dont pop before you disembark, theyre worth it - otherwise theyre not because S4 with a t-shirt save can make their cost per model suddenly feel way, way more expensive. Every time a battlewagon pops with boyz inside i end up with as many as i would with a trukk, but for more than 2x the cost (if not more) - makes me really wish i didnt buy the damn thing.
An ork with an idea tends to end with a bang.
14000pts Big 'n Bad Orkz
6000pts Admech/Knights
7500pts Necron Goldboys
20 boys (w/ nob and klaw; i'm old fashioned) in a battle wagon is only about 260 pts. the battle wagon is about 2/5 of that. it's not a terrible ratio of pts spent on killing to pts spent getting there
Trukks are about 1/3 the price of the unit as a whole (about 160 for 12 boys incl nob w/ the trukk being about 50 of that) so their actually worse (for other reasons too; shame i like them so much)
the goal, for orks at least, is to hit the enemy line on T2. it means less chance of being in the battle wagon when it pops (and yes, that hurts) only hammer and anvil deployment really prevents that goal (unless some castles in the very back corner in a vanguard strike set up)
more generally, i find the biggest influence in being able to assault successfully (or even have a game that's more than "guy with the biggest guns wins on T1") is terrain.
6th has added some ... interesting rules for terrain, but more than anything, it's moved from the "cover 1/4 of the table" to "place about 12 pieces" (on average 2 12" by 12" or smaller pieces per 2' by 2' section of table) by putting legitimate terrain on the table (LOS blocking stuff, area terrain, ruins, big hills, forests) you have far more strategic options, movement becomes important, and units that need to get up close have a hope in hell of getting there.
) and after beating on them with knives, swords, clubs and point blank pistol shots for half a minute, you four or five of your mates have been torn apart and none of the people you mobbed are even scratched. Not bloody surprising you all run away. And if whilst running away you find these monsters are still after you and crushing heads, I'm not surprised they all go "f- this for a game of soldiers" and run for home. It's very hard to get a tactical feel for the overall battle when you're a single soldier on the ground. Even if you do value your army's overall success more than your life (which is pretty rare), all you know then and there is that the people around you are getting slaughtered and you appear to be losing.
5000+ points W/D/L: 10/0/6
4000+ points W/D/L: 7/0/4
1500+ points W/D/L: 16/1/4
2500+ points W/D/L: 0/0/3
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress 
An ork with an idea tends to end with a bang. 
14000pts Big 'n Bad Orkz
6000pts Admech/Knights
7500pts Necron Goldboys 