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.

Use a KFF and avoid terrain if you're going Green Tide.

 Hedgehog wrote:
Take a look at your opponent's army to factor in the risks. IG are horrible for assault forces because they bring multiple effective blasts to the table. On the other hand, Eldar have surprisingly few blast templates, as Fire Prisms are out of fashion. It's often worth clumping up a bit more against them as they may lack the ability to blast gaping holes in your line. Tau can be deadly with multiple markerlight-supported cover-ignoring Riptides, but otherwise they also have very few blasts available.

On the contrary, we have some excellent ones. It's just for reasons inexplicable to me, we hardly ever use them. Fire Prism as you say, but also Vaul's Wrath Support Batteries - they come with monofilament barrage weapons by default and thus are pinning. (Awesome). Plasma missiles available with any Guardian Squad (also Pinning). And the powerful but rather pricey for what you get Nightspinner (can fire either a Large Blast barrage or a torrent depending on the mode you choose at the time of firing, both modes pinning again). I didn't know Fire Prisms were out of fashion but the other two on the list have never been in fashion so far as I can tell. And yet they are both there. I have a list which I think is okay generally, but give me a large number of lightly armoured enemy (IG are perfect) and it becomes the Army of Pinning. If you think Eldar are mobile now, wait until you find half your army going to ground from a hail of missiles and barrage weapons.

On the subject of cover, all you say is correct, but I'd sooner have it than not for my CC troops because if I can make my enemy come to me, it gives me much greater opportunity to spring a load of CC troops on them without a chance to shoot them down. I said it earlier, but the question of how to get your CC troops into combat can be significantly sidestepped in many instances by realizing that often their best role is defensive. They can excel at punishing encroaching enemy.

This thread is quite disturbing to me, my current project is solely based around 2,000 points of BA assault squads. I'm hoping I haven't wasted a lot of time, buying, converting and painting my soldiers that will be ineffective in all but casual games.

What tactics would you suggest for;

3x10 man Assault sqauds, with a Priest and Chaplain/Reclusiarch attached.

10 man Death Squad with Lamartes attached.

All with Jump packs, Priests and Sarges have powerfists (x7). There's a Thunder hammer and inferno pistol in the death squad and plasma pistols as my special weapons.

47 marines all with; Decent of Angels, Liturgies of Blood, Feel No Pain, Furious Charge plus some others rules I can't remember.

I was thinking Deep strike behind cover, next turn jump and assault.

I see those points and agree with them. I wouldn't say that that is THE best use for them, I would say that that is a way to employ the effectively according to your playstyle.
As a guard player, I can say that there are a few items to mention, Not all guard armies infantry. When using units that carry heavy weapons, I will sometimes put them in a chimera and just fire out of it instead of deploying them on foot. I will also look at the enemy and choose targets to shoot at according to what the role of my targets are. Torrent weapons are usually pretty high on my list. Personally, I think elder are more easy to target prioritize against than anyone else because of the dedication to specific roles their units have.

But this is where we get to the difference of strategy and tactics. To me, strategy is where you look at the table, what you have and what the opponent has and decide what your overall plan is. Tactics is what you use from turn to turn based on the results of each turn. I had to learn tactics the hard way. I used to play a buddy of mine and he stomped me a lot because my grand plan fell apart the first time anything failed to achieve it's goal of he did something unexpected. I had to learn the hard way and that is still my Achilles heel. lol

But this is part of what we are looking for here. Not just the overall strategies of what you want your units to do but also ways to exploit weaknesses in the enemy as something goes against them or as they make a mistake or the dice fail them and be prepared for those eventualities before they arise.

That being said, Eldar do have the ability to take blast templates. From what I have seen, most elder players don't use them in favor of spending the points on their fast and more mobile units. Almost the mentalist of "if I wanted an ordinance army, I'd be playing guard". I know it is there, it is fluffy but just doesn't match the personal mental image of what a lot of gamers see in using an elder army. It might also be that they aren't cool or flashy enough. Whatever the reason, I just never really see them. I take that back, I've seen one player use them in an apoc game.

rhysgm wrote:
I was thinking Deep strike behind cover, next turn jump and assault.

Behind Line of Sight blocking terrain and you're pretty much correct. With 3+ saves (and hopefully at least a 5++ cover) you should be okay to survive one round of fire.
47 models isn't a lot though. (or maybe I'm used to my Nids)

Remember that, no matter how tempting, don't fire the turn you Deep Strike in. Your list should always run to make sure the right guys are in line to die (ie not special weapons) and spread out from blast weapons.

What models are you going to have start on the board? In 6th edition you can't have everything in reserve.

rigeld2 wrote:

rhysgm wrote:
I was thinking Deep strike behind cover, next turn jump and assault.

Behind Line of Sight blocking terrain and you're pretty much correct. With 3+ saves (and hopefully at least a 5++ cover) you should be okay to survive one round of fire.
47 models isn't a lot though. (or maybe I'm used to my Nids)

Remember that, no matter how tempting, don't fire the turn you Deep Strike in. Your list should always run to make sure the right guys are in line to die (ie not special weapons) and spread out from blast weapons.

What models are you going to have start on the board? In 6th edition you can't have everything in reserve.

Yeah I wanted everything in reserve, I could have death company out as they're not scoring and would provide a good distraction, then deep strike behind enemy lines

You should familiarize yourself with the Reserve rules -

You can have no more than 50% of your army in Reserves.
If you have no models on the table at the end of any game turn you lose.

rigeld2 wrote:
You should familiarize yourself with the Reserve rules -

I know, I've never actually used deep striking before or reserves for that matter.


I guess keeping all 4 units on the table from the start and jumping up the board using the cover save. Avoiding LOS to shooters.

Primary objectives for me would be scoring troops. And just ignore/aviod, HS/FA/Elites. Secondary objective I guess would be game objectives.

Also I haven't actually played a game since 4th, I'm a returning player. But I don't get the advantage of challenges, should I be challenging better IC's than my chaplains. If they have just a squad leader, should I not be challenging, and if a sarge challenges me, should I be accepting.

The way I'm seeing it is, I don't want my IC to die against a superior unit but also I don't want to waste all of his attacks on just a Marine with a better Ld.

rhysgm wrote:
This thread is quite disturbing to me, my current project is solely based around 2,000 points of BA assault squads. I'm hoping I haven't wasted a lot of time, buying, converting and painting my soldiers that will be ineffective in all but casual games.

What tactics would you suggest for;

3x10 man Assault sqauds, with a Priest and Chaplain/Reclusiarch attached.

10 man Death Squad with Lamartes attached.

All with Jump packs, Priests and Sarges have powerfists (x7). There's a Thunder hammer and inferno pistol in the death squad and plasma pistols as my special weapons.

47 marines all with; Decent of Angels, Liturgies of Blood, Feel No Pain, Furious Charge plus some others rules I can't remember.

I was thinking Deep strike behind cover, next turn jump and assault.

What if there is no cover that's in a good place to DS behind? Trying to be aggressive with DS reserves has always been marginal at best.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rhysgm wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You should familiarize yourself with the Reserve rules -

I know, I've never actually used deep striking before or reserves for that matter.


I guess keeping all 4 units on the table from the start and jumping up the board using the cover save. Avoiding LOS to shooters.

Primary objectives for me would be scoring troops. And just ignore/aviod, HS/FA/Elites. Secondary objective I guess would be game objectives.

Also I haven't actually played a game since 4th, I'm a returning player. But I don't get the advantage of challenges, should I be challenging better IC's than my chaplains. If they have just a squad leader, should I not be challenging, and if a sarge challenges me, should I be accepting.

The way I'm seeing it is, I don't want my IC to die against a superior unit but also I don't want to waste all of his attacks on just a Marine with a better Ld.

Marine ICs in general are pretty bad. Biker captains are sweet now because they make bikes troops. BA have no such rule. All BA ICs are now overcosted horribly.

The answer to your challenge question is "It depends."

Do they have a beatstick character that will wipe out your unit in one turn? Is it your turn or theirs? Do you have a beatstick character? Do you want this assault to keep going?

If they have a beatstick and charged you, don't challenge - you'll probably lose the combat anyway, so you want to fall back out of the assault to be able to shoot them. If they have a beatstick and you charged them, challenge. You'll reduce their beatstick to only killing one model during your turn, he'll finish off the unit on his turn and you get another turn to respond to the threat.

rhysgm wrote:
This thread is quite disturbing to me, my current project is solely based around 2,000 points of BA assault squads. I'm hoping I haven't wasted a lot of time, buying, converting and painting my soldiers that will be ineffective in all but casual games.

What tactics would you suggest for;

3x10 man Assault sqauds, with a Priest and Chaplain/Reclusiarch attached.

10 man Death Squad with Lamartes attached.

All with Jump packs, Priests and Sarges have powerfists (x7). There's a Thunder hammer and inferno pistol in the death squad and plasma pistols as my special weapons.

47 marines all with; Decent of Angels, Liturgies of Blood, Feel No Pain, Furious Charge plus some others rules I can't remember.

I was thinking Deep strike behind cover, next turn jump and assault.

Don't panic yet. Your troops are both fast and pretty hardy. Now if you had a massive investment in Storm Guardians, you might be concerned, but jet-powered super-humans encased in ceramite armour, these should be pretty good at surviving into close combat. Just make good use of LOS-blocking cover and be patient enough to time your advance to best advantage, not just bounce your way straight toward a gunline.

I want to test out an imperial guard list that actually takes advantage of Creed's for the honor of cadia special order. Something along the lines of using a combined squad of 5 infantry squads that contains a commissar and a priest with evisorator. 50 guards men with Furious charge, fearless, stubborn re-rolling to hit melee attacks could be a fun list for sure.

Majsharan wrote:
I want to test out an imperial guard list that actually takes advantage of Creed's for the honor of cadia special order. Something along the lines of using a combined squad of 5 infantry squads that contains a commissar and a priest with evisorator. 50 guards men with Furious charge, fearless, stubborn re-rolling to hit melee attacks could be a fun list for sure.

Give each Sgt a power axe - I've heard this can be unexpectedly effective

You may also want to consider recycling conscripts w/Chenkov [I'm still never sure that's his name...]

I confirm the axes. At initiative 3 and the preponderance of assault grenades, chances are, you are swinging last anyway so you might as well take the axes for the strength and ap bonus. I put them on my crusaders as well.

I haven't read most of the last 9 pages, but just wanted to point something out that came up another thread...


Turn 3 is pretty much the universal assault turn for most assault units. People seem to think that if an assault unit can't get to the enemy before turn 3, then its not viable. This is sadly myopic, and completely wrong. Now, there are some very fast assault units that can apply pressure turn 2, and using these can allow time for your turn 3 assaulter to get to the point of attack. In short, though, the number one area I see people consistently mess up with the assault phase is patience. Allow your units time to all get into position as safely as possible, and then strike. Patience, patience, patience.

Of course, this brings in another issue that any good assault unit needs. Ways to stay alive before you get to assault. Whether it be resiliency mechanics, LOS blocking units, or whatever, you need to minimize shooting cassualties as much as possible. This is why the Land Raider and Monolith are two of the most under appreciated units in the entire game. They are giant, incredibly difficult to kill, LOS blocking walls. Use them. Particular the LR, its a frikken assault vehicle. Use it.

ShadarLogoth wrote:
I haven't read most of the last 9 pages, but just wanted to point something out that came up another thread...


Turn 3 is pretty much the universal assault turn for most assault units. People seem to think that if an assault unit can't get to the enemy before turn 3, then its not viable. This is sadly myopic, and completely wrong. Now, there are some very fast assault units that can apply pressure turn 2, and using these can allow time for your turn 3 assaulter to get to the point of attack. In short, though, the number one area I see people consistently mess up with the assault phase is patience. Allow your units time to all get into position as safely as possible, and then strike. Patience, patience, patience.

Of course, this brings in another issue that any good assault unit needs. Ways to stay alive before you get to assault. Whether it be resiliency mechanics, LOS blocking units, or whatever, you need to minimize shooting cassualties as much as possible. This is why the Land Raider and Monolith are two of the most under appreciated units in the entire game. They are giant, incredibly difficult to kill, LOS blocking walls. Use them. Particular the LR, its a frikken assault vehicle. Use it.

Apart from the fact that the LR costs 220-250 points base, and redeems about half that, even when it manages to let off an assault unit.
LR's tend to be a rather ineffective vehicle, despite being an assault vehicle.

A model /unit does not have to "personally" kill it's points worth to be effective (although a land raider can easily do it). It's effectiveness is also shown in units that it helps to weaken and the boost it gives to other units and the ways in which it helps other units be more effective and kill more than their points worth. It can also be considered effective if it helps win a game without killing a single points worth of models (think a 80 point guard unit outflanking and hiding in an enemy deployment zone for linebreaker).
ShadarLogoth , Your spot on.

The mathhammer is strong, and we like having those hard numbers in front of us, but ultimately it is a generals decisions that decide whether he got his men killed frivolously or not.

For example, say I take a group of Khorne Berzerkers in a Land Raider with Kharne (because that's something I want to do. Or how about 3 LR's packed with Khorne Berzerkers? ) and more berzerkers behind the LR's gaining LOS blocking cover.

And let's say you're awesome and you stop my Land Raiders just outside of their designated drop zone. Let's say I can only burn 2 out of 3 Overwatches with my 60 berzerkers, divided into squads of 10, 3 of which in LR, 3 out.

Just the fact that the LR's denied your squads the ability to completely mow down those Berzerkers otherwise. How many points is that worth? Or even better than that, how many points is it worth your enemies even paying attention to them in the first place and not the Vindicators that creeped up with them.

From a points perspective, these may be the worst examples ever, but the idea remains. How many points did you "give up" to deny your opponent even more, turns before?

And a Land Raider is nothing to shrug at. 14av all the way around is tough business, especially with the worst of upgrades and the like. (Daemon Possession, etc)

When we design lists, we can only play the probabilities. And the probabilities are, that in any given situation, a squad good at shooting is more useful than a squad good at assault in 6th edition. The current top lists don't really assault at all.

Martel732 wrote:
When we design lists, we can only play the probabilities. And the probabilities are, that in any given situation, a squad good at shooting is more useful than a squad good at assault in 6th edition. The current top lists don't really assault at all.

This is true of combat in nearly all forms. However, the lethality of close combat is still something to be praised, even if actually getting into close combat is next to impossible.

Ex: If you've got a squad of shooters that have been chewing up my assaulters for two turns, and on turn three I'm finally going to get to put my teeth back into you and I do, there is a very good chance I will wipe your shooters off the map in the first combat engagement. This is why I like Berzerkers now because they are geared up for ending that fight on the charge. And if I win combat, you'd better be a marine because if you run and I catch you, good by squad.

I didn't really appreciate this aspect of the assault until I watched a game between a mechanized IG company and a Cultist CSM Army. He put 30 cultists in front of an IG Walker with the hopes of tarpitting the unit, and he did for a turn until the Walker won combat and caught them with an Sweeping Advance, which was horrible for the CSM because he just lost 30 cultists for taking action. lol

THAT is the true lethality of close combat. Yes, shooting is far more dependable, but close combat can eat your lunch in a matter of a single dice roll.

I would say it depends. Your gun squad may be better or more lethal at some things but the close combat squad will better or more lethal at others. Given the small table size along, you find close combat troops a lot more effective than you would think. What it comes down to is how good of a player you are and what strategies and tactics you employ compared to those of your opponent. The luck of the dice, of course, also plays a part.

I would much rather have my unit be stuck in combat during my opponent's shooting phase and then break free during their assault phase than eliminate them on the charge.

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:
I would much rather have my unit be stuck in combat during my opponent's shooting phase and then break free during their assault phase than eliminate them on the charge.

That is ideal, of course, but sometimes the dice gods just want you to be awesome for a little while. XD

 EVIL INC wrote:
A model /unit does not have to "personally" kill it's points worth to be effective (although a land raider can easily do it). It's effectiveness is also shown in units that it helps to weaken and the boost it gives to other units and the ways in which it helps other units be more effective and kill more than their points worth. It can also be considered effective if it helps win a game without killing a single points worth of models (think a 80 point guard unit outflanking and hiding in an enemy deployment zone for linebreaker).
ShadarLogoth , Your spot on.

This pretty much gets to the bottom line. Until people can remove themselves from the paradigm where the grand total of a units contribution is assessed by "what did it kill," units like LRs and Monos will be rated considerably lower then reality indicates. Both units open up a variety of strategic and tactical options that will directly result in you winning more games. Putting an accurate point value on that can be difficult, but this simply cannot be overlooked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

That is ideal, of course, but sometimes the dice gods just want you to be awesome for a little while. XD

No doubt, and that's what magnifies the "lethality of close combat" you were alluding to above. Ideally, once your CC hits there lines, you should be able to bounce from unit to unit destroying them while suffering minimal casualties in return. Turns 1, 2 favor shooting, but turns 3, 4, and 5+ should favor CC, if you designed your list and employed your tactics properly. Of course, it never hurts when the dice are on your side as well.

ShadarLogoth wrote:


This pretty much gets to the bottom line. Until people can remove themselves from the paradigm where the grand total of a units contribution is assessed by "what did it kill," units like LRs and Monos will be rated considerably lower then reality indicates. Both units open up a variety of strategic and tactical options that will directly result in you winning more games. Putting an accurate point value on that can be difficult, but this simply cannot be overlooked.

This is false thinking. A unit is based on several factors, the predominant ones being its resilience and firepower, with mobility being another factor. Don't fool yourself or anyone onto thinking that sub optimal units will magically become better if you are a better player than your opponent. This whole forum revolves around tried, true, tested tactics/builds that utilize the best available unit for the given purpose. Don't hand wave away point values, as they limit your ability to bring certain combinations to the table. These 'strategic' and 'tactical' options some units deliver are hard to justify in a general meta where shooting is king and the top armies can field armies that will easily out shoot any close combat army.

Selecting units that have a good value for their points is part of being a good player. Don't pick of bunch of crap like berserkers and then expect to magically push the plastic better. I'm pretty certain I can wipe up berserkers with my lowly BA, much less the power codices. The opportunity cost for assault is just so high now.

This is false thinking. A unit is based on several factors, the predominant ones being its resilience and firepower, with mobility being another factor.

Okay, well, LRs start off pretty darn high on all of those, so, we're doing good there I guess.

Don't fool yourself or anyone onto thinking that sub optimal units will magically become better if you are a better player than your opponent.

Don't fool yourself into thinking your appraisal of "sub optimal" is definitive or accurately tested. Also, my "assumptions" have absolutely nothing to do with my opponent. The Land Raider gives you options that would simply not exist if it wasn't there. This is completely about you, and the tools you have at your disposal to win games. What your opponent is doing, what list he is bringing, how he is using said list...all of those factors are irrelevant to the fact that you have choices that didn't exist previously.

This whole forum revolves around tried, true, tested tactics/builds that utilize the best available unit for the given purpose.

Sure, which has a tendency to lead to group think and poor appraisal of units that aren't "tried" as much as the others. MVB just won a tournament against the best players on the east coast with an LR in his list. It wasn't just some shoe horn addition, either. It was a crucial part of his victory in every game he played. Point being, very often the collective notions surrounding units that aren't used often is simply myopic and wrong.

Don't hand wave away point values, as they limit your ability to bring certain combinations to the table.

I was doing nothing of the sort. I'm merely pointing out that there is much more to those point values then "what can it kill" and "what can it survive."

These 'strategic' and 'tactical' options some units deliver are hard to justify in a general meta where shooting is king and the top armies can field armies that will easily out shoot any close combat army.

When these "strategic" and "tactical options DIRECTLY impact shooting, by keeping bullets away from the unit inside, as well as keeping bullets away from any units behind it....then, yeah, I would say they are pretty relevant.

Selecting units that have a good value for their points is part of being a good player. Don't pick of bunch of crap like berserkers and then expect to magically push the plastic better. I'm pretty certain I can wipe up berserkers with my lowly BA, much less the power codices. The opportunity cost for assault is just so high now.

Gravy. I play an almost pure assault army with my Necrons. That's right, my "not good at CC" army. And it works incredibly well. The tools are there for most codices, irridisunregardless of anyone being cognizant of their existence.

Necrons haven't been "not good at CC" since their new codex. Wraiths are amazing, DLords are amazing, anything with a Warscythe is amazing...

ShadarLogoth, You are correct. This is part of the reason why many players who used to "rule the tables" with the close combat armies are unable to do so now while those who look at the larger picture and are able to more effectively use their units both shooty and assault are still able to "rule the tables" with their assault style armies. I started this thread to help the former become more like the latter.

 EVIL INC wrote:
ShadarLogoth, You are correct. This is part of the reason why many players who used to "rule the tables" with the close combat armies are unable to do so now while those who look at the larger picture and are able to more effectively use their units both shooty and assault are still able to "rule the tables" with their assault style armies. I started this thread to help the former become more like the latter.

When did people ever "rule the tables" with assault armies in 5th? Everyone was spamming vehicles, which CC was awful at handling, and everyone was taking MSU to get more Razorbacks/Venoms/InsertTransportWithGunHere. CC had its place, but shooting was dominant by far. There's a reason the two (arguably) builds that stayed the most dominant were IG leafblowers and Long Fang spam, and it's not because they were the best at CC.