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.

Obviously you never faced lists like orks or bugs or space wolves and so forth. They all have close combat elements that helped them to rule the tables.
Your view of "if even a single model in the entire has so much as a blowgun, it is a shooty army and I will blame my loss on that single blowgun" attitude is what is at the crux of the matter. Close combat requires strategy and tactics. It also requires a coherency with guns (40k is a science fiction setting where guns DO exist) to work the two elements together to win games.
I would suggest that you play fantasy but you will find guns, artillery, bows and yes, even blowguns there as well.

Bugs did not "rule the tables" in 5th.
Orks did well and were a mix of CC and shooting.
Space wolves were primarily shooting (for the best builds) with enough CC to make people stay away.

Keep your rose colored glasses on, but 5th was not the CC paradise you keep saying it was.

Well if you have enough close combat now adays you can win it just takes more skill to use them properly and more specialized units.

No one ruled tables in 5th with CC. Not the Tyranids. Not the BA. One big reason was SW. Another was IG leafblower.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Obviously you never faced lists like orks or bugs or space wolves and so forth. They all have close combat elements that helped them to rule the tables.
Your view of "if even a single model in the entire has so much as a blowgun, it is a shooty army and I will blame my loss on that single blowgun" attitude is what is at the crux of the matter. Close combat requires strategy and tactics. It also requires a coherency with guns (40k is a science fiction setting where guns DO exist) to work the two elements together to win games.
I would suggest that you play fantasy but you will find guns, artillery, bows and yes, even blowguns there as well.

I usually ripped Orks and bugs apart with razor spam. Does that sound like CC was a problem?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer222 wrote:
Well if you have enough close combat now adays you can win it just takes more skill to use them properly and more specialized units.

Is there a skill that makes Tau and Eldar roll poorly? Because that's the only relevant "skill" I can think of. It's not like Starcraft where I might be able to out-micro a superior force. The "I go You go" format really limits how much input I can have compared to Starcraft.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Obviously you never faced lists like orks or bugs or space wolves and so forth. They all have close combat elements that helped them to rule the tables.
Your view of "if even a single model in the entire has so much as a blowgun, it is a shooty army and I will blame my loss on that single blowgun" attitude is what is at the crux of the matter. Close combat requires strategy and tactics. It also requires a coherency with guns (40k is a science fiction setting where guns DO exist) to work the two elements together to win games.
I would suggest that you play fantasy but you will find guns, artillery, bows and yes, even blowguns there as well.

The Orks where everyone took Shootas, the Bugs where Hive Guard were mandatory and the Space Wolves that spammed Long Fangs (seriously, I even mentioned them!!) and Razorbacks, preferring to shoot people to pieces because they have Counter-Attack?

Yes, close combat requires strategy and tactics, but no matter how much strategy or tactics you put into it you can't change the fact that shooting is inherently much more powerful, and was so in 5th edition too.

Apparantly, we have a few who are new to the hobby. Welcome aboard. those of us who have been around a while and have a working knowledge of the game are always happy to see new faces to teach the hobby to.

You might want to stay on topic though .

That being said. close combat starts when you build your list. You need to ensure that you have a good balance of what you will need. this includes both guns and "swords" (even bugs, orks and space wolves with their longfangs had close combat elements in their lists that were essential to win). This is when you start to build your strategy as well. This unit will provide covering fire for this other unit as it advances. otherwise, the enemy will be able to fire at the advancing unit indescrimanantly. This unit will drop pod in and provide aeither a distraction or outright blast away and get to assault in the following turn while yet another unit of ymgarles will pop out of the terrain and get a free assault at any nearby units without even having to walk there and so on and so forth.

Then, there is the terrain set up. Creating fire lanes for your own units while also creating free passage routes for your advancing units and so on.

Then comes the tactics which come into play after the game starts. that further help to win. For example, using land raiders or rhinos to block line of sight to units, using screening units and so forth to protect your more valuable units to ensure they get where they need to be to be effective.

There are many on the boards who have been around a while and know and agree what I am talking about. these are the tournament winners and players with high win ratios who are able to winwith either a shooty or assault army or trade lists with opponants and win using either one (you might actually try this sometime as it is an excellent training tool to help you overcome your weaknesses as a player).

ignore these who spam "close combat is dead!!!!", "close combat is weak!!!!!" and "all shooty armies get the autowin!!!". these vocal few have been proven wrong and are only spamming in hopes GW will listen to them and go back to the "good ol days" where you the specific strategies and tactics they learned worked so they don't have to learn to play and win under a more balanced and realistic edition of the game.Close combat is not dead. It still plays a valid and essentially vital role in the game of 40k where it often decides who wins or loses a game. You also need to remember to play wo win instead of playing to annihilate the enemy. As you can see, many who play only to annihilate the enemy will often complain that close combat has been killed because they actually need to use strategy and tactics to win. Remember main and secondary objectives when doing this as well and you will win more games as well.
Killing almost an entire enemy army does not get you the win if they hold the majority of objectives, have gained first blood, achieved linebreaker and slain your warlord because they still win and you still lose.

I agree with the guy above.

"Killing almost an entire enemy army does not get you the win if they hold the majority of objectives, have gained first blood, achieved linebreaker and slain your warlord because they still win and you still lose."

It's really hard to hold objectives when you're dead.

The people pimping CC here are really underestimating the buckets of dice being throw around in the shooting phase. And 10 shooter models can usually HTH 2 CC models to death after crippling them via shooting. Even Tau. The entire claim seems to revolve around a critical mass of LOS blocking terrain. The fact that CC needs this to be viable, to me, means its inferior. In 3rd edition, where CC was actually overpowered, the assault armies worked fine on an empty table.

You will notice that I said 'almost" the entire enemy army.
While yes, it is possible to win by tabling someone but you can (although apparently, many do) rely on tabling the other player each and every single game you ever play. The smarter money is usually bet on the player that uses strategy and tactics to play towards the objectives of the scenario in order to have the higher score. that's how tournaments are won.

The people pimping shooting here are really underestimating terrain, cover and LOS along with the buckets of dice thrown around in the assault phase . And 10 shooter models cant usually HTH 20 CC models to death after being unable to effectively shoot at them because of the use of tactics. Even Tau are required to use strategy and tactics to effectively make the best of their guns. The entire claim seems to revolve around a critical mass of LOS blocking terrain or area terrain or the ability to use pods or transports or screening cover and so on and so forth. The fact that CC needs this to be viable, to me, means it plays a valid and vital role in the game. I just don't see a unit of ymgarls stopping an inc away from the rear army of a 3 tank unit of manticores and saying to one another "We cant assault this, it has a gun on it" . I see them assaulting and wiping the entire unit out.

most people believe cc is dead and im happy to let people think it is

I've been having a lot more success with assault marines because many opponents don't have / aren't bringing stuff to deal with it. I've only had this 10 man squad for a couple of weeks and it upsets people greatly when they leap into backlines and remove the heavy support fire and more importantly this edition anti aircraft fire. I own a complete stormwing (storm raven and 2 storm talons) and it removes what ever I don't want of the table nice and easy. it would be impossible to field though if it wasn't for the efforts of my assault squad in wreaking quad guns and the squishy guys that most people buy to man them. due to delayed reserves rolls my squad actually managed to kick some cultists off the gun and fire it into the face of his helldrake, most lolsy game ever.

I will never win a game purely through might of cc but it is an element of the game that if you don't use, will see losing a lot of games you play. unless your tau as you outgun everything.

Slayer222 wrote:
Well if you have enough close combat now adays you can win it just takes more skill to use them properly and more specialized units.

Absolutely correct. I've never said otherwise - I play Tyranids so I'm very familiar with what a CC army needs to win.

I'm not sure "more specialized units" is what you need really - you just need speed and resiliency.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Apparantly, we have a few who are new to the hobby. Welcome aboard. those of us who have been around a while and have a working knowledge of the game are always happy to see new faces to teach the hobby to.

You might want to stay on topic though .

That being said. close combat starts when you build your list. You need to ensure that you have a good balance of what you will need. this includes both guns and "swords" (even bugs, orks and space wolves with their longfangs had close combat elements in their lists that were essential to win). This is when you start to build your strategy as well. This unit will provide covering fire for this other unit as it advances. otherwise, the enemy will be able to fire at the advancing unit indescrimanantly. This unit will drop pod in and provide aeither a distraction or outright blast away and get to assault in the following turn while yet another unit of ymgarles will pop out of the terrain and get a free assault at any nearby units without even having to walk there and so on and so forth.

Then, there is the terrain set up. Creating fire lanes for your own units while also creating free passage routes for your advancing units and so on.

Then comes the tactics which come into play after the game starts. that further help to win. For example, using land raiders or rhinos to block line of sight to units, using screening units and so forth to protect your more valuable units to ensure they get where they need to be to be effective.

There are many on the boards who have been around a while and know and agree what I am talking about. these are the tournament winners and players with high win ratios who are able to winwith either a shooty or assault army or trade lists with opponants and win using either one (you might actually try this sometime as it is an excellent training tool to help you overcome your weaknesses as a player).

ignore these who spam "close combat is dead!!!!", "close combat is weak!!!!!" and "all shooty armies get the autowin!!!". these vocal few have been proven wrong and are only spamming in hopes GW will listen to them and go back to the "good ol days" where you the specific strategies and tactics they learned worked so they don't have to learn to play and win under a more balanced and realistic edition of the game.Close combat is not dead. It still plays a valid and essentially vital role in the game of 40k where it often decides who wins or loses a game. You also need to remember to play wo win instead of playing to annihilate the enemy. As you can see, many who play only to annihilate the enemy will often complain that close combat has been killed because they actually need to use strategy and tactics to win. Remember main and secondary objectives when doing this as well and you will win more games as well.
Killing almost an entire enemy army does not get you the win if they hold the majority of objectives, have gained first blood, achieved linebreaker and slain your warlord because they still win and you still lose.

Oh, for god's sake. Here we go again.

Stop being so condescending, being in the hobby for longer than others does not make you automatically right. Nor does it mean that they have zero experience.

Aside from getting seriously sidetracked with your arguments, we've been fairly on track here. Any post that even vaguely debates the viability/tactics/builds/use of CC is an On-Topic post, due to the fact that this thread is called "Close Combat". Not "Evil Inc knows everything, therefore your argument is invalid".

Yes, CC power does start when you build your list. However, due to the points efficiency imbalance between many CC units and Dakka units, it is often a better choice just to go for the guns (which tend to allow you to begin killing from turn 1, while taking equal or less damage than the CC units).
While terrain setup can help you, half of the terrain is placed by your opponent, who will undoubtedly do his/her best to make your CC units die on the way up. Additionally, it is not an uncommon practice for tournament tables to have the terrain setup before the battles begin, with the terrain set up to not allow either side any particular advantage.

Yes, tactics can help you in many situations. But, there will always be situations where your LR didn't fit into the list particularly well or it got shot out too early etc. You can't place all your hopes in one very expensive vehicle, and hope to come out on top all the time. I haven't covered the full extent of this part of the debate, as I feel others will do it better than I.

And on to my main point:

Not one of us have ever claimed that CC is dead, or that shooty = autowin. We have, however, given strong evidence that CC is for the most part far inferior to Shooting, and until we see the next Ork codex, we're unlikely to see any change in the matter.

" because of the use of tactics"

Please explain these magic tactics. Making a board into a hedge maze is not a "tactic". I still think there are too many cases where terrain makes assault armies worse. Plus, shooting doesn't have to table you. Just kill/cripple your scoring units.

"ymgarls"

They have a very special rule that makes them much more effective at assault.

Its seems we'll need to agree to disagree on this. I don't fear your assault elements, because most of them will be dead before they get to my list. If I built my list correctly.

Currently at the highest level of competative play (GTs) there is really only one or two lists that reliably place well (in the top 10) that heavily rely on assault, those are jetseer council and beast pack, both units rely on re-rollable saves to get into combat and as a result are obscenely tough, basically impossible to kill under most circumstances, on top of that they're also very mobile and have other advantages, eg the beastpack has a huge footprint which aids board control and allows for insane multi assaults. Plus both are usually backed up by massed wave serpents, wraithknights, nightspinners and/or allied tau for insane volume fire or high precision ignores cover shots.

I think this says a lot about the current state of close combat, you just don't regularly see the typical sort of cc focused armies in the top slots at tournaments because of the firepower available to certain armies combined with no first turn assault, no assault from reserves, tau's ability to overwatch at bs with pretty much their whole army, assault units and upgrades being often overcosted.

Yes cc can still work but not at the highest level of play and in that case only with one or two lists. Your cc army still stands a chance in casual games as long as your gaming group doesn't adhere closely to the top level meta. Where I play its a mixed bag there's some that run fluffy DC BA with lots of lots of dreads or massed thunderwolves SW but there's also waveserpent spam players against whom an assault based army doesn't stand a chance.

Best way to stop an enemy from shooting you is CC.

Most common trends today are for shooting armies.

Therefore, CC used correctly utterly destroys most armies today.

I play with some of the top 25 players in the country when it comes to 40k, including a guy who ranked 9th at the last adepticon. I go after them with melee from time to time, it works. Net lists be damned.

 juraigamer wrote:
Best way to stop an enemy from shooting you is CC.

Most common trends today are for shooting armies.

Therefore, CC used correctly utterly destroys most armies today.

I play with some of the top 25 players in the country when it comes to 40k, including a guy who ranked 9th at the last adepticon. I go after them with melee from time to time, it works. Net lists be damned.

The trend exists because more often than not, the shooting army can cripple the hand to hand army before they do enough damage to matter. Even BA work better now as a shooting army. My win rate went up significantly when I stopped trying to punch people.

 Selym wrote:

Oh, for god's sake. Here we go again.

Stop being so condescending, being in the hobby for longer than others does not make you automatically right. Nor does it mean that they have zero experience.

Aside from getting seriously sidetracked with your arguments, we've been fairly on track here. Any post that even vaguely debates the viability/tactics/builds/use of CC is an On-Topic post, due to the fact that this thread is called "Close Combat". Not "Evil Inc knows everything, therefore your argument is invalid".

Yes, CC power does start when you build your list. However, due to the points efficiency imbalance between many CC units and Dakka units, it is often a better choice just to go for the guns (which tend to allow you to begin killing from turn 1, while taking equal or less damage than the CC units).
While terrain setup can help you, half of the terrain is placed by your opponent, who will undoubtedly do his/her best to make your CC units die on the way up. Additionally, it is not an uncommon practice for tournament tables to have the terrain setup before the battles begin, with the terrain set up to not allow either side any particular advantage.

Yes, tactics can help you in many situations. But, there will always be situations where your LR didn't fit into the list particularly well or it got shot out too early etc. You can't place all your hopes in one very expensive vehicle, and hope to come out on top all the time. I haven't covered the full extent of this part of the debate, as I feel others will do it better than I.

And on to my main point:

Not one of us have ever claimed that CC is dead, or that shooty = autowin. We have, however, given strong evidence that CC is for the most part far inferior to Shooting, and until we see the next Ork codex, we're unlikely to see any change in the matter.

Remember to keep this on topic and leave the trolling (you post is positively dripping with it) out of the posts.
Due to the new edition and the changes within codexes as they are brought out,some units DO become obsolete and not worth their points. This in turn means that they see less action and players are forced to buy new models and replace their old favorites with new units that are more cost effective. just because your old favorite builds were very specific units (such as berserkers) are "phased out" in this way does not mean close combat is dead and no longer part of the game or EVER a viable option to use in the game ever. Just splurge and buy some spawn whichone of the newer chaos close combat workhorses and learn new tactics. Some players do indeed just replace with all shooty units totally disregarding close combat. those players lose thier games.
Each player gets to set up terrain when setting up the board. While your opponent will often set up their pieces to try to gain an advantage, you get to set it up to gain an advantage for you as well. You may be surprised by this evidently but your opponent is NOT allowed to remove or move what you place on the board. therefore, that LOS blocking rock outcropping will still be there at the start of the game even if your opponent placed a single non-los blocking mud puddle next to it.
You assume that there is only a single way to use close combat. yes, a land raider might help in one game but it might not in the next. this back and forth affects ALL armies and army types to where you will have easy games and hard games. that's jst the way it is.
You repeat over and over how useless close combat is and howit is dead but you are dead wrong. Close combat is STILL a valid and vital aspect of the gamewhere it can be the difference between winning and losing.
the point of the thread is to discuss tactics and strategy in regards to close combat, not be spammed with someone going on and on claiming it is dead and that there are no strategies or tactics that could ever make it be useful. if you feel that way, go post in a different thread as you obviously have nothing constructive or educational to add while having the attitude that you already know it all. I don't know it all but want to share what I do know and to learn from those who have something to teach me.

Currently, you see more shooty style armies (due to the shiney new stuff syndrome because those are the more recent codexes released) but even those have close combat elements within them playing roles that are vital to their success. (barring tau for the most part). Even elder have elements that include close combat. For example, the wraithknight, avatar, banshees, scorpians and even jetseer councils. Looking at the tournament scene, most players have a fairly good idea of what their local players play. For example, where I go to tourneys at, I can bet on at least 2 necron players and 2 tau players with a smattering of marine types and an elder. Most players change their lists upof course so assuming you know what list they are going to useis out of the question but it may affect what you bring. I try to bring something for everyone, a well rouinded list, rather than assume what I'll be facing and end up facing something totally different and getting screwed.
To also assist in keeping my post on topic, I will note that with 6th edition, I converted many of my crusaders. Where before they all had power swords, a full half of them now carry power axes. Simply because chances are, I'll be swinging last anyway, I might as well get an advantage in ap/strength in doing so. just one of many small things that can add up to make an army more effective in close combat.

Of course, just as Gardiner demonstrated recognizing multiple intelligences can assist a teacher to better teach by "reaching" more of their students, I have noticed that many players have different playstyles and ways of thinking. this will cause them to perform better using different styles within dfferent editions. if you find that you are better at using shooty, use shooty (but still recognize that assault is still effective and that others are just as good at assault as you are at shooty. Likewise reversed. personally, I do better as a shooty but by urposely training my assault skills, I have learned to be proficient with either.

 EVIL INC wrote:

Remember to keep this on topic and leave the trolling (you post is positively dripping with it) out of the posts.

Please explain how a post talking about CC is off-topic and trolling.

Some posters are really showing their age here( young). This isn't the school yard kids. Unless you've got something worthwhile and constructive to say about close combat, leave it out.

Cheers

Jamo wrote:
Some posters are really showing their age here( young). This isn't the school yard kids. Unless you've got something worthwhile and constructive to say about close combat, leave it out.

Cheers

What you mean every single poster in here? Considering the fact it is this many pages in and its still bickering... let's be honest nobody that talks in here has any excuse for the amount of repetitive trite that has occured (also I admit using young as a derogatory term is pure idiocy in my opinion. As though childhood is bad and being an adult is some grand merit that should immediately cast aside youth. I know I'm off topic but I must say this especially as you yourself have deviated from the topic. Also, the debate is due to the fact that they are arguing over the merits of CC. EVIL posts something and others deny it poking holes in it. He says it again as well as adding more things others and the same join in leading to an eternal cycle. Is it great? Not really... but the problem comes from bricks smashing upon eachother).

So we have it based, terrain can help CC. That being said, shooting can also manipulate terrain to their benefit. Serpents are nasty for eldar. That being said, lots of LOS obstruction really helps that. Perhaps another way to counter these popular units is to use a very fast force to keep their face towards you and not be as maneuverable. This doesn't really solve the problems some assault armies (mainly the slower ones) experience but it is of important note. I think most of us can agree that a pure assault (for the most part) won't work all that well in this meta. A synergy of shooting and CC is what is required for the most armies and that is what we need yet we need to figure out how to make sure it doesn't play second fiddle to the shooting aspect. how can we make nids not rely as heavily on mc spam? What exactly should we do to think of tactics for orks. What of meq marines that have to trudge across the battlefield on boots? Or perhaps some ways to mitigate the edition's ease at which you can pop rhinos. Any ways to get daemons that are hordy to deal with anti horde ranged combat? Etc. (just some things to jump on)

Well said Trotter!!!!

 EVIL INC wrote:

Remember to keep this on topic and leave the trolling (you post is positively dripping with it) out of the posts.

Enough. Either point to a genuine example of trolling or stop using the term.

Furthermore, despite being called out on it multiple times you stick to the strawman that we're saying that CC is useless. I won't bother explaining the point again, just read earlier posts if you're interested.

As further proof that CC is worse than shooting, consider the following: most army books can build successful lists that include little or no CC. The only Codex I can think of that can do the opposite (that is, a majority-CC list that is as strong as a majority-shooting list from the same Codex) is Daemons (possibly 'Nids as well). It's not that CC is bad, it's that it's worse than shooting most of the time, and riskier to boot!

This, in turn, is made worse by GWs rules for melee units in 6th ed Codices so far. The only powerful melee units in C:CSM are in the HQ slot (Raptors and Bikes can work due to speed and/or resilience, but are merely OK). C:SM have some strong CC units but no way to deliver them reliably without Land Raiders (with the exception of biker CMs). DA have really expensive bikes (which are probably better at shooting anyway) that die like normal bikes. Tau aren't a melee army, which leaves Eldar, where nothing comes close to matching the Wave Serpent, not even the Seer Council. Daemons do CC fine.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Remember to keep this on topic and leave the trolling (you post is positively dripping with it) out of the posts.

Actually, it was yourself that began this again with the same strawmen again and the same condescending presenting yourself as wiser and better than others telling people to ignore other poster's opinions, again. The post that re-started this was filled with little digs at those who had disagreed with you with comments like

EVIL INC wrote:ignore these who spam "close combat is dead!!!!", "close combat is weak!!!!!" and "all shooty armies get the autowin!!!". these vocal few have been proven wrong and are only spamming in hopes GW

Who amongst the people you keep attacking has ever said any such thing? None. Not to mention your repeated attacking other people by calling them trolls, pretending they're victimising you. You absolutely cannot leave well enough alone, can you? You disagree? You object to this? Then a simple, very simple, ludicrously simple request - point to where Selym or rigeld2 have said any of the hysterical sounding comments you put in quote marks above. Show where they have even said as much in other words.

Your habit is obvious and repetitive in this thread - put words in other people's mouth and tell people to ignore them (despite that I have found their opinions informative and useful). Repeatedly trying to make out people with reasonable posts as trolls is, itself, trolling. And you couldn't even help yourself from re-starting it by including unprovoked digs at people.

Tell you what, as an attempt to get this back on track, why don't you post an assault focused list so that we have something specific to consider, instead of vague generalities. Say 2,000 points. Are you willing to actually do that? Then we would be able to talk specifics.

How do I use this terrain that everyone's been talking about?

As so far I've just seen "use more terrain/ use terrain to get cover saves".

Could I have some advice on when it's good/bad to jump in terrain, how do i maximise the effectiveness of certain pieces e.g. LOS blocking? etc.

If there has been something on how to use terrain my bad.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
How do I use this terrain that everyone's been talking about?

As so far I've just seen "use more terrain/ use terrain to get cover saves".

Could I have some advice on when it's good/bad to jump in terrain, how do i maximise the effectiveness of certain pieces e.g. LOS blocking? etc.

If there has been something on how to use terrain my bad.

Well there's a couple of different stages. First of which is placement. If you know that you're going to be advancing on the enemy (and this goes for purposes of CC or just because you're stronger at short-range shooting), you want to keep in mind lines of advance when you're putting down the terrain. Ideally, you're trying to stagger is so that you're not advancing in clear fire-lines of the enemy. You'll probably want it middle of the table-ish, so that it doesn't become useless on your first turn once you moved past it, and so that the enemy can't void it by just moving past it themselves quickly. A gunline enemy will be trying do the opposite - they'll want clear avenues of fire that you'll have to walk down getting shot at. Fortunately the method of alternating terrain gives an advantage to the one that wants to block, really. Of course often people may create "narrative" terrain which just looks good to everyone. And that's cool. But on the assumption that for the purposes of this thread we're being competitive, then assume Alternating Terrain. Each 2x2' section gets its D3 pieces of terrain. A "piece" is defined in the book as something either substantial (a ruin, building, forest) or three smaller pieces such as battlefield debris. Really, you're probably hoping for the big stuff. So if you have some or are choosing terrain from a big box, grab the LOS-blocking stuff for the most part. Area terrain is actually quite nice in that it gives you cover saves from within it, but it's a negative in that it can slow you down. Really, you want area terrain for things that will sit there and shoot out. It's also horrible to charge enemies in difficult terrain, especially without grenades. You probably have grenades on your assault units, but you might not. (Banshees have no grenades, for example. :( ). Either way, if your opponent is planning to sit there and kill you as you walk towards her, she'll be trying to grab lots of area terrain and stick it near her end. If you can, grab it first and stop her doing that. Or at least get it a bit further forward so she has to come forward closer to you or may choose not to. Some area terrain will block LOS, some will not. So it's really your call.

Now all of the above may sound a bit mean and underhand. It may also be influenced by cases where players set up terrain before choosing ends (though that is not RAW). But I'm assuming competitive play in all of the above.

The next stage is about using it in play. That's tricky. If you're facing a gunline opponent then really it's as simple as trying to advance as far forward as you can with something in between you and their nastiest guns. But - and it's worth emphasizing this - if you're planning to just get close and then run out and attack the opponent, you're very likely to just get chewed up. Really you need either an alternate threat to distract their firepower, or you use your CC unit as a second punch - get some regular infantry up in their face and start softening them up. Also, watch out for sacrificial units from your enemy where they give you something you'll slaughter in a single round and then stand around in the open waiting to be shot to pieces. But if you're not facing a gunline enemy, but someone who will be racing for you mid-game (and objectives of course), try and anticipate where they're going and get your CC unit lying in wait for them. If you're tucked away behind a big building, they can't shoot at you, and when they advance into range - you get them (but again, watch out for sacrificial units placed just to get you out in the open). Placing objectives ties into this. An objective in Difficult Terrain is perfect for shooty opponents to go and sit on and very bad for CC units to grab late game. But an objective next to LOS-blocking cover is perfect for CC units to advance towards and then charge at the last moment. (Though we're assuming scoring CC units, of course). So even pay attention when placing objectives.

As others have said in this thread, cover is a very useful part of getting units into threat range (whether that be Guardians with 12" shuriken range or CC troops), but it's only something that can give you an advantage. Personally, I have come to the conclusion that an assault-focused army is at a disadvantage (barring the odd exception of type or scenario). However, I find it a very useful supplement to my main army. If I can tuck some CC troops behind a big bit of LOS-blocking terrain and ambush the enemy as they advance, or keep them near my gunline as counter-assault, that's awesome. Also they can be great mid-game when you're up in the enemy's face and they no longer have a well-organized gunline to mow down CC troops with. But as something to lead with, even well-placed terrain can only do so much.

I hope that is of some help. Not sure it's that useful. Just some quick thoughts.

Another thing about terrain is to counter what an opponent will put out. a gunline army player wil often put out a single mud puddle as their choice in an area that they want to remain open. You can counter this in turn with a huge L shaped impassible rock outcropping that blocks los, effectively cutting the board in half. these two single pieces of terrain alone can turn the tide of a game before even considering even the other pieces of terrain that you put down afterwards. Then, consider your army build. If you have outflankers/scouters you might want to set up some sort of cover for them to move into when they arrive. Many players will hide behind the excuse of "we don't have los blocking terrain". Well, don't blame that for your loss. BUILD some terrain. Growing up, we didn't have terrain. We used stacked cassette tpe cases and paperbacl books and stuff like that to play around.

Of course, terrain can also affect and assist you in other ways too. Area terrain will usually give you a 5+ cover save (there are ways to make it a 4+ or better under different situations despite the fact of some here denying that). making use of this can help your units survive the trip across the field.and some armies like bugs laugh at difficult terrain. Of course, some will say that cover is useless cause everythingin the game ignores cover. that is a crock. not every weapon ignores cover and if someone stocks up on cover ignoring weapons than they are weakening a different aspect of their army that you can exploit.

When considering ruins, remember that if an enemy fires barrages such as manticore or morter shots, it will always hit the top floor. This means your guys on the ground level will be safe from those weapons.

Shooting is better than close combat in general. As you can see, they throw out these weak strawman arguments to distract you but it IS a science fiction game where guns exist. Those SHOULD be your first weapon to use but use them know that if you are facing a decent opponent, the guns will eventually be set aside and there will be fighting up close and personal. It is a no brainer that it is better to kill your enemy from a distance. However, if your enemy is a smart player, they will eventually reach you despite your best efforts. Despite what they say, close is a valid and vital part of the game. taking units who main purpose is to "wreck face" is always a smart move. Not to say that your entire army should be that but just saying that it should be a part of your army to use when possible.

There have been numerous other instances of tactics and strategies given to assist you in this but understand that there are counters to everything in this game. We can metagame and say, well if you take that, I will take this to counter you and so on and so forth till the cows come home. At the end of the day, no two games are exactly alike, you are not supposed to know your opponant's list down to the last point of wargear beforehand so you can tailor to counter it, you both get to set up terrain, dice rolls are random (supposedly) and stuff happens.. So what you do is use strategy and tactics to strengthen probobalities to favor you. If you have shooty elements, you want to strengthen aspects that will help those units and if you have assault units, you want to do the same for them. the players who is most able touse strategy and tactics to do this will usually win.

You're not even reading our posts, and somehow we're the trolls.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You're not even reading our posts, and somehow we're the trolls.

Hes trying to pretend that we didn't notice the "flaws" in his earlier posts.

I think the point has been made there, yes ?

If we could return to the topic at hand.

EDIT: Posted at same time as mod.