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.

To stay on topic (hint hint), I would suggest that when setting up the tables, it is sometimes fun to try playing on a feral world. We used to have fun doing that asa matter of fact. A castle in the center of the table can be a lot of fun to play around. and you can set up a canmpaign where a feral agri world is being fought over. The castle walls block los very well and allow for some interesting aspects to be added to the game.

Large projects can also be fun for clubs to work on together. I realize space is often an issue but custom tables added to the collection can make a difference (as they will inevitably be used in tourneys). Ditches. tranches and so forth built into the table can offer some strategy in terms of 'can I make it to the next ditch or will I be stuck out in the open". My local shop has a table with a huge trench/river from one end to the other big enough to drive a land raider through. We often roll to see what it will be before the game 1- open 2,3- difficult 4,5- dangerous and 6- impassible (neding a bridge). Assaulty armies will hide out of sight in it and rush out onto their opponants. I enoy using the random terrain chart in the book. Different players will push for it to be different things depending on their army.
My personal goal is to build a trench network to match the wall of martyers to enpand it without having to spend as much $.

Note, ANY strategy or tactic has flaws. The one who says that flaws don't exist is a fool. Likewise, the one relying on a flaw to coincide witht their strengths is also a fool. a flaw is something that can possibly go wrong under special circumstances. As there is no "perfect" strategy or tactic waing around for one will mean you will never play a game. heck, even if everything goes right for you, the dice can fail you and you still lose. That does not make the strategy or tactic useless or invalid. to be honest, in order to "exploit" a flaw, you have to have full disclosure of the enemies strategy and army list before the game and tailor your list to exactly counter and exploit said flaw or the flaw will not even be an issue.

One interesting effect of the new Inquisition Codex is that it could give MEQ (excluding CSM) some much needed defence against plasma weapons. Ulumeathi Plasma Syphons and a chance of 4++ without having to pay for troops that don't fit into the list is going to make Black Tides (and/or stuff like Honour Guard) quite a bit more survivable, especially against Tau. While I remain sceptical that it'll be enough, I'll gladly take it.

 EVIL INC wrote:
To stay on topic (hint hint), I would suggest that when setting up the tables, it is sometimes fun to

Note, ANY strategy or tactic has flaws. The one who says that flaws don't exist is a fool. Likewise, the one relying on a flaw to coincide witht their strengths is also a fool. a flaw is something that can possibly go wrong under special circumstances. As there is no "perfect" strategy or tactic waing around for one will mean you will never play a game. heck, even if everything goes right for you, the dice can fail you and you still lose. That does not make the strategy or tactic useless or invalid. to be honest, in order to "exploit" a flaw, you have to have full disclosure of the enemies strategy and army list before the game and tailor your list to exactly counter and exploit said flaw or the flaw will not even be an issue.

given my success generally involve the sabotage and derailment of my opponents plans I can agree with this and that's why I still use cc units but shooting is always a better investment of points it even rolls better, at its best shooting can hit on a 2+ the best roll you can get for cc is a 3+ even if you are WS10 fighting blind men you cant do better than a 3+ hit (unless your kharn). all cc does for me is prevent a unit shooting, its hard to outshoot a riptide but tie it in cc for 5 turns and he's no longer a problem. I like useing white scars chapter tactics so that I can get out of cc situations and so keep on shooting.

in to 41st millennium if you want a man dead you shoot him, not club him to death

also I fail to see where this has gone of topic all we are doing is pointing out your not as correct as you think you are

 Blackskull wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
To stay on topic (hint hint), I would suggest that when setting up the tables, it is sometimes fun to

Note, ANY strategy or tactic has flaws. The one who says that flaws don't exist is a fool. Likewise, the one relying on a flaw to coincide witht their strengths is also a fool. a flaw is something that can possibly go wrong under special circumstances. As there is no "perfect" strategy or tactic waing around for one will mean you will never play a game. heck, even if everything goes right for you, the dice can fail you and you still lose. That does not make the strategy or tactic useless or invalid. to be honest, in order to "exploit" a flaw, you have to have full disclosure of the enemies strategy and army list before the game and tailor your list to exactly counter and exploit said flaw or the flaw will not even be an issue.

given my success generally involve the sabotage and derailment of my opponents plans I can agree with this and that's why I still use cc units but shooting is always a better investment of points it even rolls better, at its best shooting can hit on a 2+ the best roll you can get for cc is a 3+ even if you are WS10 fighting blind men you cant do better than a 3+ hit (unless your kharn). all cc does for me is prevent a unit shooting, its hard to outshoot a riptide but tie it in cc for 5 turns and he's no longer a problem. I like useing white scars chapter tactics so that I can get out of cc situations and so keep on shooting.

in to 41st millennium if you want a man dead you shoot him, not club him to death

also I fail to see where this has gone of topic all we are doing is pointing out your not as correct as you think you are

You're not wrong about the hit roll in combat. I don't know what they were thinking! My best guess is they thought high-WS characters would also have multiple attacks and it was meant to balance that a bit. No, it doesn't make much sense to me either, but I'm fumbling to explain why they would load such a penalty on close combat like that.

I don't care how many penalties they give CC, as long as models pay the appropriate cost for CC abilities. They do not.

Saying assault is dead in 40k is like saying that no one plays the game anymore. The Tau & IG Are basically the only two armies that abandon close combat in favor of shooting, and even the IG still have a modicum of assault potential.

I'll agree that assaults are less popular in 6e than 5e, but that's mostly the result of a single rule (Not being able to assault from reserves) That rule pretty much removes the most common use for the Outflank special rule, among others.

However, close combat still occurs and it's still just as lethal as it was before.

The problem with assaulting has not changed in 6e. It existed in 5e as well. That problem is delivery. Honestly I find the whole concept of overwatch to be a bit superfluous since there are only a small selection of units that aren't going to get shot before charging anyway.

If you have a wall of Space Marines and I am trying to charge assault that with some Ork Boyz or a squad of Assault Marines, I still have to get them to you somehow. If that means flootslogging it across the board than you get plenty of time to shoot that squad to bits before the become a threat. Alternatively, if I pile my guys into a Trukk or a Rhino, I still have to get to you, and even when I do I have to disembark (can't assault) and just sit there uselessly for a turn while you get to shoot me. (not actually the case with the boyz since trukks are open-topped but that's actually my point).

Dark Eldar and Orks are the only two armies in the game that can reliably deliver a close combat squad to engage without getting shot to bits. Overwatch or not. The Land Raider being an assault vehicle is moot since the damn thing costs 250 points base and is a massive fire magnet (in a world with increasingly easy access to high S low AP weapons).

Assaulting in 40k has just undergone a shift. It is now more of a "side effect" of shooting, not the thing that you shoot at to keep from happening

 En Excelsis wrote:

Assaulting in 40k has just undergone a shift. It is now more of a "side effect" of shooting, not the thing that you shoot at to keep from happening

I agree with most of what you're saying, but I'm not sure how CC is a side effect of shooting.
If you mean it in that it's a secondary function of your units, then I'll agree, but how I read it it looked like: "You do some shooting and kills stuff, but you'll get stuck in h2h".

Which didn't make much sense.

 Blackskull wrote:

in to 41st millennium if you want a man dead you shoot him, not club him to death

also I fail to see where this has gone of topic all we are doing is pointing out your not as correct as you think you are

no one is saying (or has ever said) that shooting someone in 40k is not more efficient than clubbing him to death. it is a science fiction game where the gun is king. my point is that it SHOULD be more gun oriented. that is what my detracters disagree with. They are upset that the current edition has brought guns to be more effective and are argueing to make close combat more effective than guns) and are railing that close combat is dead and no longer plays a part in the game.
My view is that they are wrong in this. Close combat is still a valid and vial part of the game (even for the shooty units) and that those who wish to field units specially designed for close combat over shooting can still use them and have them "do thing". Yu may feel that I am "not as correct as I think I am" in this statement but I have proven myself to be correct in this many times not only on here but in games and tournaments.

Believe it or not, You CAN still use close combat units. You will often find that the old no brainers have been replaced with new ones in this and you may find that you have to be more strategic and tactical than before (more in keeping with realism and the fluff) but it is still possible to do it. As already mentioned, proper terrain set up can assist with this along with specific tactics and strategies. For example the slingshot effect a chaos player can use to safely get a lord into combat without him taking a single shot (although as with any other tactic, there are counters that can sometimes be used). Another example is the denied flank to cut the enemy army in half where you overwhelm the half you target and force their other half to lose turnsbringing itself to bear and by then, it is seriously out"gunned" and easily overwhelmed. These are just two examples of possible ways to more effectively use your close combat elements that many players are finding difficult to use. As mentioned ad nausiam, that is the purpose of the thread, to discuss actual tactics and strategies to assist with this.

 EVIL INC wrote:
They are upset that the current edition has brought guns to be more effective and are argueing to make close combat more effective than guns) and are railing that close combat is dead and no longer plays a part in the game.

 Selym wrote:

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.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 Blackskull wrote:

in to 41st millennium if you want a man dead you shoot him, not club him to death

also I fail to see where this has gone of topic all we are doing is pointing out your not as correct as you think you are

no one is saying (or has ever said) that shooting someone in 40k is not more efficient than clubbing him to death. it is a science fiction game where the gun is king. my point is that it SHOULD be more gun oriented. that is what my detracters disagree with. They are upset that the current edition has brought guns to be more effective and are argueing to make close combat more effective than guns) and are railing that close combat is dead and no longer plays a part in the game.
My view is that they are wrong in this. Close combat is still a valid and vial part of the game (even for the shooty units) and that those who wish to field units specially designed for close combat over shooting can still use them and have them "do thing". Yu may feel that I am "not as correct as I think I am" in this statement but I have proven myself to be correct in this many times not only on here but in games and tournaments.

Believe it or not, You CAN still use close combat units. You will often find that the old no brainers have been replaced with new ones in this and you may find that you have to be more strategic and tactical than before (more in keeping with realism and the fluff) but it is still possible to do it. As already mentioned, proper terrain set up can assist with this along with specific tactics and strategies. For example the slingshot effect a chaos player can use to safely get a lord into combat without him taking a single shot (although as with any other tactic, there are counters that can sometimes be used). Another example is the denied flank to cut the enemy army in half where you overwhelm the half you target and force their other half to lose turnsbringing itself to bear and by then, it is seriously out"gunned" and easily overwhelmed. These are just two examples of possible ways to more effectively use your close combat elements that many players are finding difficult to use. As mentioned ad nausiam, that is the purpose of the thread, to discuss actual tactics and strategies to assist with this.

Okay my apologies but what in the bloody world of insanity does whether shooting should or should not be king. And why it should be more oriented to one thing or another. Might I remind you that 40k has never been realistic with constant portrayals of clooose combat, races that thrive in cc, factions that fluff wise crash in from meteors or just pop out from the warp to run a sword or hatchet or whatever through your face. 40k has never been sci fi as much as it has been sci fantasy. For bloody sake, we have wizar- psykers of all things! Also you claim that people want cc to be more effective. To be blunt, I don't want it to be. I want them to be equal! When you have orks, DE, daemons, BA, Nids, CSM, etc... when so many races show obvious favoratism to close combat, shooting shouldn't be the paramount. Now, I will concede, most armies should have some form of shooting whilst a few factions having very little in forms of cc is fine! Humans are weak and are prone to guns to make up for our own flaws and that is fine. I don't want assault to auto curb stomp shooting. If I could, I'd like a game where it really comes down to that last model. My favorite memory was when I was new to the game. I decided to play orks (had a small set of them) against my friend's new IG. We went at it his guardsman holding firm shooting my models to bits whilst I would shoot back with the small amount of support I had left before using close range fire (I like to call it assault . It's not cc but it is to an extent connected to cc) before charging in and fighting in cc. In the end, I won with a single ork boy surrounded by the carnage of many guardsman and orks. Those are the battles I love! I don't want to pick cc and feel like I am cheating a victory nor do I want to feel like just because I am picking to specialize in CC I am to some extent making myself nerfed to an extent.

Also CC isn't a valid option for all shooting units in the majority of times. It's a risk that can bring profit but often comes at its own costs. Why would my tau want to charge a single guardsman? I'd rather just overwatch him. If I try to assault, I risk missing the charge or worse yet charging them, killing the unit, and being in the open. Also you keep on claiming so many of us are claiming CC is dead. It isn't! Nobody said it is dead here. Did people say it is generally inferior? Yes. Because it is. There are certain cc units that work. That being said, it's extremely limited in numbers to a very small minority (for example for chaos it really is csm bikers, abbaddon (debatable), daemon prince (sometimes considered overpriced), spawn, and chaos lord (particularly bikers and juggerlords). These things function but many other cc elements are absolutely pathetically useless and provide little to no use. And that's only csm. It's not dead by any means but that doesn't mean that currently it is the inferior of the two types. Also claiming you have evidence from tournies and games mean little when we can note that tau are the dominant lords of tournaments and are shooty and the top cc are either deathstars that are just so stupidly invincible it is maddening or are chaos daemons (which are arguably deathstar and thanks to the new inquisitor that is rumoured to be on many lists it might kill one or two of the big chaos assault tactics). Also, you never answered my question of where the heck is this creature that has 44 s5 rending attacks that you posted long ago before you decided to make this close combat thread.

Also for all the tactical claims of cc as it fits with 40k... Let's look at it. IG, decide to send waves of bodies to clear explosives.... send waves of guardsman to get to the enemy in cc. Chaos Daemons. These guys don't just hide in cover all the time. No, these guys flicker in and out of reality darting around playing with your fears and making you go mad. Your bullets phase through them as they cackle or giggle madly. Your bro psyker suddenly has a headache before a giant daemon pops out of his head whilst a daemon suddenly pops up right before you a giant warp hole torn right behind you as legions of daemons pour out to feast on your soul so close that you can't even pull up a gun before their blade is swinging down upon you. Tyranids? They can use tactics yes.... but tyranids often just send wave after wave of cc nids to rip you apart using supporting fire to destroy tanks and the sorts. Orks? Waz dat? Ya want tactics? Well here's it. We iz da meanist greenest of da orks and we gonna krump em good let's do it WAAAGH! *charges at foe madly due to being fearless a giant green tide to sweep away the foe), etc.

Now the final part does have merit. Terrain can be used to CC armies and the slingshot has its uses. The problem comes down to not all tournaments have equal distribution of terrain, not all shops allow you to just plunk down your own terrain, not everyone wants to be stuck with the slingshot tactic, some tournaments have far too little terrain... Along with that, we might be grand strategists but there is also an equal chance our foe (let is claim he is shooting oriented dramatically so IG, Tau, maybe Eldar) is equally knowledgeable and sets up to counter our own set up of terrain. This is quite the possibility not to mention not all of these things seem fair when playing against a friend or just having fun with a pick up game against certain opponents that might not want such a competitive game where terrain set up is a part of the challenge. Heck, I admit I know how to but I prefer narrative terrain. I purposefully set up death zones where units can't have cover and have to brave walking over open death zones to another location but I also make sure that there is cover to hide in. When I can find LOS obstruction, I purposefully make sure to place it in the middle so that the assault army can at least have some of their units near the foe. That being said, it doesn't quite solve the problem for more hoardy armies (and trust me there are certain times where lots of terrain has fethed me over as well as times where tau guns have pushed back ork tides).

Anyways any ideas how to possibly use inquisitors as a support agent? Perhaps use them to double the shooting aspect so that a small segment of your total army is more capable of taking down priority targets with tons of anti-infantry weapons to get yoru units in to fight?

So you have decided to backtrack and deny your earlier posts. Good. Exactly what tactic or strategy does that post have to help players better use their close combat units?

A tactic I have sen players use that I consider a "jerk move". is to put a long los blocking hill (impassible as well) across the front of an enemy deployment zone to effectively cut it off altogether from setting a gunline up on it and ten assaulting over it in the game with jump pack equipped troops.

Once I had a guy insist that fortifications be placed before terrain. to demonstrate how this could be abused, I set a huge rock up directly in front of his ADL quad gun so that it could only see side to side and behind it. He was not a happy camper and never insisted on that again so far as I know.

 EVIL INC wrote:
So you have decided to backtrack and deny your earlier posts. Good. Exactly what tactic or strategy does that post have to help players better use their close combat units?

A tactic I have sen players use that I consider a "jerk move". is to put a long los blocking hill (impassible as well) across the front of an enemy deployment zone to effectively cut it off altogether from setting a gunline up on it and ten assaulting over it in the game with jump pack equipped troops.

Once I had a guy insist that fortifications be placed before terrain. to demonstrate how this could be abused, I set a huge rock up directly in front of his ADL quad gun so that it could only see side to side and behind it. He was not a happy camper and never insisted on that again so far as I know.

For the love of.... NOBODY said cc was dead here. NOBODY! Please stop going on and conflating being inferior as = dead.

Anyways, keep in mind I don't have the rulebook at hand, if memory serves me fortifications are placed before terrain as RaW. many people have loathed this as what you said is exactly what enemies would do. It's one of the parts that people raged at the most for such a long time. And oh my gosh that is a bloody jerk move. So make it almost impossible to shoot and then fly over and slaughter. Yeah that's just a cheap tactic.... which I have a feeling is something most of us here don't want to do simply because it sorta dirties the victory. Although perhaps to a certain extent (if willing to accept such tactics), it would be possible to use such a structure (although smaller), as a way to limit their deployment into an option of being split up by way of hill or limiting movement and then using threaet overwhelm by way of isolation to crush them perhaps throwing a priority target in the other direction to make either choice costly (I always liked making my LoC a giant beat of a monster that could tank shots. Was it perfect? No. If they were wise they would have just focused on the rest of my army. It was more of me thinking of having fun messing around with my favorite model in the game (fluff not model). What happened was entertaining though. Even against a foe I often to consider a very sound opponent that knows how to play the game, even he succamb to fear and terror and tried to kill the thing. Unlike many of my other foes, he realized his flaw and promptly struck the rest of my army down (he ended up winning by a single point. I had a skull cannon and full wound LoC and he a warrior and termegaunt. One more turn and I would have won curses!). Others though often would panic and try to kill it off. I suppose this is the same thing that many tau use to their benefit when deploying riptides )

 EVIL INC wrote:
no one is saying (or has ever said) that shooting someone in 40k is not more efficient than clubbing him to death. it is a science fiction game where the gun is king. my point is that it SHOULD be more gun oriented. that is what my detracters disagree with. They are upset that the current edition has brought guns to be more effective and are argueing to make close combat more effective than guns) and are railing that close combat is dead and no longer plays a part in the game.

Last time you said this I asked for you to find the quote and post it. Have you yet? Or are you pretending and misstating yet again?

Once again, close combat is a valid and ital. part of the game. Even a lowly guard infantry unit will often find itself engaged in close combat on occasion.
true, some of the old no brainers that were always taken have been made obsolete and players will need to find the new no brainers to use when considering an assault unit. Some would say thatthis might even be done on purpose in order to force players to buy more models. As to the veracity of that, who can say

One of the things thatcan be done to assist in assaulting is the placement of different models within the unit as they advance. often, models within a unit will be equipped differently and you want to protect your heavy hitters from being one of the few picked off before you close. You don't really want your powerfist armed sarge running up front, you might want him further towards the rear where only a rare precision shot from a character model or sniper rifle could reach him. I usually run my crusaders up front with the death cult assassins running behind them. little tings like that can make a big difference when you hit the enemy lines.

On a side note, this thread is dedicated to giving specific tactics and strategies that can be useful in helping assault units be more useful and more effectively used under the rules of the current edition and codex. If you want to discuss how dead close combat is or how shooting is so much more powerful then before or whatever other unrelated topics you have spammed page after page with, start another thread as it has no place here.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Once again, close combat is a valid and ital.

yes, CC is in some ways valid. It is not vital, however. An army that takes nothing but gunpower has a fair chance of winning.
Aside from daemons, an army with nothing but melee units is hardly going to find any success.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:
If you want to discuss how dead close combat is or how shooting is so much more powerful then before or whatever other unrelated topics you have spammed page after page with, start another thread as it has no place here.

 Selym wrote:

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.

Units are charged too many points for their CC abilities in 6th ed. That's why I say "assault is dead'. Because bringing assault based units that aren't of a certain elite few result in an overcosted list, and a serious disadvantage in combat.

Start a thread if you wish to discus that topic. It is not related to this conversation. this army is also not about armie dedicated soley to assault units. it is about how to use the assault units that are taken more effectively.

To stay on topic, I won m most recent tournament using an assaulting grey knight army (may last opponent that I almost tabled as well as roundly defeating was a wave serpent elder list). I took a huge gamble and combined in guard allied to provide most of the heavy shooting. The gamble I took was using a manticore. Had my shots deviated in a bad way, I could have done some serious damage to myself instead of hammering/softening up the enemy. The allies (while often broken) can help you have unit combinations that were not otherwise possible. For example, I can use thebest shooty aspects of my guard combined with the best assault aspects of my grey knights to work together in such a way that the combination is as or more effective than each separately depending upon the situation.

But if they are overcosted, why take them to begin with?

 EVIL INC wrote:

that is what my detracters disagree with. They are upset that the current edition has brought guns to be more effective and are argueing to make close combat more effective than guns) and are railing that close combat is dead and no longer plays a part in the game.

Please sir! Evil Inc is making up stories again!

Look - we've all been asked to keep on topic and I'm sure we're all willing to do that but every second post by you contains this sly little swipe at other people claiming that people are saying "close combat is dead" and other crap. Just stop it before this thread derails again. Learn to play nice. Or you could (though this must be the ninth time you've been called on it), actually point out where any of your "detracters" (sic) have said any such thing. You just absolutely are incapable of leaving well alone, aren't you?

Just come discuss it in the thread I made.

I still assert that assault is dead for 85% of units. The chosen few units like hounds and 2+ rerollable units can still assault effectively, but they are an outlier.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Once I had a guy insist that fortifications be placed before terrain. to demonstrate how this could be abused, I set a huge rock up directly in front of his ADL quad gun so that it could only see side to side and behind it. He was not a happy camper and never insisted on that again so far as I know.

Is this another of your "4+ cover save" moments? You're supposed to place fortifications before terrain. That's the rules. Pg. 120.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 StarTrotter wrote:
Anyways any ideas how to possibly use inquisitors as a support agent? Perhaps use them to double the shooting aspect so that a small segment of your total army is more capable of taking down priority targets with tons of anti-infantry weapons to get yoru units in to fight?

Inquisitors themselves, maybe. Haven't really looked at them yet. But servo skulls that you can get with them - they can help you deep strike more accurately. You have to manage to stop your opponent from removing it before needed, but with judicious placement of the skulls (they are so cheap it is insulting), you can sometimes get a significantly more reliable Deep Strike with them.

Nasser, Exactly how do you get a 4+ cover save out of that. that was me demonstrating to him WHY you put terrain down BEFORE fortifications. If you wanted to let him shoot through the rock for a 4+ save oromething that would be up to you and him if that had ben you playing him in that particular game.
try to keep on topic. You've been warned multiple times for straying.

Star, I hae not seen the new inq codesome insight. How effective are the servo skulls at denying infiltration locations to units such a rangers and so forth? I think the use of them in certain situations could help prevent an opponent from infiltrating into spots that would help them expand their fire lanes and possibly keep routes open to you.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Nasser, Exactly how do you get a 4+ cover save out of that. that was me demonstrating to him WHY you put terrain down BEFORE fortifications.

You don't put down terrain before fortifications. You're playing it wrong. RAW states that you place all fortifications first, and then start deploying terrain. This is the case for all standard missions and I already gave you a page reference in my original post. I'll do so again - page 120 in the main book. The part about this being another "4+ cover save" is a reference to earlier in the thread where very much appeared to think the common cover save was 4+ rather than 5+ (you still haven't had the grace to admit you were wrong, btw). I was just highlighting that your advice contained a fundamental rules error which could mislead someone.

 EVIL INC wrote:
If you wanted to let him shoot through the rock for a 4+ save oromething that would be up to you and him if that had ben you playing him in that particular game.

As explained above, you haven't understood what I was writing. So I'll take this opportunity to ask you again to take a less condescending tone toward other people and stop telling them to leave the thread, that other people should ignore them, etc.

 EVIL INC wrote:
try to keep on topic. You've been warned multiple times for straying.

I'm pretty darn certain that correcting rules errors you are advising people on is "on topic" and I accept my shared part in earning that thread warning earlier and apologise to the general readership, but please don't try to make it all about me. You make it sound as if a mod has sent me personally a warning. I've received none at all. Just that reminder from the mod to all of us to keep it on topic. So how about you leave the mod'ing to the mods. You've been presuming to issue warnings to other posters who disagreed with you throughout this thread. Maybe don't do that? And if you wanted to actually keep things on topic, rather than posturing that you do in order to look like a victim, you'd stop throwing in all these little baiting comments putting words into other people's mouths. Do you think you're going to get other people into mod trouble? Is that what the baiting is about? All you'll achieve is to get a thread locked when it should be about giving advice out.

As much as you might think it to be otherwise, there are more cover saves than just 4+. There are 6+ down/up through 2+ as well. My harker mob actually gets a2+ without goin to ground through the use of an ADL, stealth and camo. Shooting through a unit at another gives the target unit a 5+ save. better if they have stealth or camo or some other modifier.i have tried to explain that the use of cover can help keep a unit alive longer. the better the save, the more chances it has of staying alive. check it out sometime and you will see that your units usually end up living longer.

So your saying that it is illegal to place a rock outcropping in front of an ADL gun to block it's los across the field if terrain set up allows for it and the oponant left room for me to do so? Where is that at on page 120. I musta missed it. Doing that as a demonstration of why I think terrain should go down first is within the rules. The very fact that players can abuse it in that fashion is one of the reasons why I feel this way.Another is that it just doesn't make sense. I see the forests or mountains being in place centuries (or millennia) before I come to fight this battle.

This being said, that is a way to put a damper on a gunline army. If they put a defence down such as an ADL and you are then able to block it off to where it's gun cant see to shoot or something is in front of the wall blocking the shots of anyone standing behind it, you can make the points spent on it be wasted. this is of course a lil harder to do against the bigger items like the fortress of redemption.

yes, mods have been here twice asking people to stay on topic. I have done so throughout. you menton unrelated topics. Remember, this thread is about HELPING players better use the close combat units they have. Discuss tactics and strategies on that topic instead of personal attacks. I would be more than happy to see this thread locked so that I can start it fresh (hopefully without the flames, trolling and off topic spamming).

 EVIL INC wrote:
So your saying that it is illegal to place a rock outcropping in front of an ADL gun to block it's los across the field if terrain set up allows for it and the oponant left room for me to do so? Where is that at on page 120. I musta missed it. Doing that as a demonstration of why I think terrain should go down first is within the rules. The very fact that players can abuse it in that fashion is one of the reasons why I feel this way.Another is that it just doesn't make sense. I see the forests or mountains being in place centuries (or millennia) before I come to fight this battle.

So now you're saying you don't feel like it should be that way, when before you seemed certain the rules didn't allow it.
Perhaps you could be more clear in the future as to what rules you're making up and what rules are actually rules?

Because the actual rules say to place fortifications first.

(hopefully without the flames, trolling and off topic spamming).

Only if you don't post in it.

Martel732 wrote:
Units are charged too many points for their CC abilities in 6th ed. That's why I say "assault is dead'. Because bringing assault based units that aren't of a certain elite few result in an overcosted list, and a serious disadvantage in combat.

OH! OH! THERE IT IS!! HE SAID IT! EVERYONE POINT FINGERS! :O

Ok, can we can get over who said it and back onto the subject of making close combat somewhat effective? Also, just on a side note, and I hate contributing to the mayhem, but I can at least feel good I've stayed on point, been constructive and at least semi-entertaining somewhere along the line, I'd like to add this: Reecius has a thread up right now about how you can screw shooters over in Close Combat. ;>> From Frontline Gaming? Yeah, he's posting a series of vids right now with some "dirty tactics" including a lot of good mess about how to cripple Tau with their own guns. lol

For you guys crying "Inferior! I can't do it!!" you should probably go look around for some inspiration. I know I was feeling down and I'm a newb who started early this year....buuuuuuuuuuuut....you know, I changed my panties and started being awesome again. Just sayin'

.
..
...

and THAT'S trolling. XD Not really, still of merit and on point. Infact, here is that link to Reecius' videos. Enjoy.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/559590.page

 EVIL INC wrote:

So your saying that it is illegal to place a rock outcropping in front of an ADL gun to block it's los across the field if terrain set up allows for it and the oponant left room for me to do so? Where is that at on page 120. I musta missed it. Doing that as a demonstration of why I think terrain should go down first is within the rules.

No. He's not. He was telling you that RAW states that you place fortifications before terrain. Nothing more, nothing less.

 EVIL INC wrote:

yes, mods have been here twice asking people to stay on topic. I have done so throughout. you menton unrelated topics. Remember, this thread is about HELPING players better use the close combat units they have. Discuss tactics and strategies on that topic instead of personal attacks. I would be more than happy to see this thread locked so that I can start it fresh (hopefully without the flames, trolling and off topic spamming).

You seem to forget Evil Inc that it has been your posts that keep derailing the thread. Your posts constantly contain objectionable content such as:
-Ad hominen
-Straw man
-Incorrect, Misinterpreted or Imaginary rules
-Wild Accusations
-Telling people to leave the thread just because they disagreed with you.

Unfortunately, fortifications do go down before terrain. I've had my quad gun blocked many times. That's why I've switched to a comms realy build.

If the point of this thread is to advise new players on how to most effectively use their assault-oriented armies than the only real advise you can give them is to practice.

There is no "right" way to do it. There are melee units in every codex and using them or not is up to the player who has to pay out the money and dedicate the time (which is substantial) to assemble and prepare them for the game. Armies are not made by accident. Barring the starter sets most armies are custom tailored from the get go to suit a specific purpose. If a player has created an assault force and doesn't know how to use it, they may be better off trying something else.

Also bear in mind that the Tau are a pretty recent release and they are perceived (incorrectly but that another thread for another time) to be the dominant shooty army. This has a lot of the game mechanics related to shooting at the forefront of people's minds. It's normal. We are overdue for an Ork and a Tyranid codex. Both of which I am certain will have plenty of new and exciting ways to get your units into the gore-spattered, bone grinding close combat assaults that make 40k what it is.

Just be patient. In time the Flavor-of-the-month-ness of the Tau will wear thin and people will remember that there is more to the game than pointing big guns down the table and hoping that people forgot how to melee.

 Selym wrote:

1. No. He's not. He was telling you that RAW states that you place fortifications before terrain. Nothing more, nothing less.

2. You seem to forget Evil Inc that it has been your posts that keep derailing the thread. Your posts constantly contain objectionable content such as:
-Ad hominen
-Straw man
-Incorrect, Misinterpreted or Imaginary rules
-Wild Accusations
-telling people to leave the thread just because they disagreed with you.

T1. There is nothing wrong with me placing a rock outcropping in front of an ADL gun to demonstrate the reason why I personally feel that terrain should be deployed first. the rules allow for me to do this. Normally, I would not have but in that particular game, I was demonstrating a point. if you think that this is a jerk play, rest ased, then I gree. if you think it should not be llwed, contact GW to explain it to them. Flaming me for it here does not chage that it is aploythat is expoitable.
2. each ad every single one f my posts has been on topic in spite of your aempts to derail it with flames and trolling in an effort to get it closed because I started the thread. the things, you accused me of doing are in all actuality what YOU are doing. No one s telling anyone to leave the thread for disagreeing with them except yourself. I have asked people to post thingstht are totally unrelated to the thread in threads where they belong or to keep the personal threats and insults out of the thread. the thread is about helping people more effectively use their close comba units and this is a topic that you have not even a single time addressed.

once more, to stay on topic. has anyone besides myself here tried the denied flank strategy? This has workd well for me on many occasions. What I am more interested in, how do you feel it would work on a vanguard deployment. I understand you could throw it out the window with hammer and anvil of course but am curious about using it with vanguard. anyone have experience with that?

Martel732 wrote:
Unfortunately, fortifications do go down before terrain. I've had my quad gun blocked many times. That's why I've switched to a comms realy build.

how often do you have this happen to you/ I've never really seen players do that. I only did it the once to make a point of what COULD happen. In the local tourneys, the tables are preset to save time so it isn't an issue then and in friendly games, our locals aren't usually jerk enough to do it.