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.
Refused flank only works against assault armies if you're a shooty army. Not worth it if you're planning to assault because Tau + Eldar just outrange you.
Note to the reader: my username is not arrogance. No, my name is taken from the most excellent of commanders: Lord Castellan Creed, of the Imperial Guar- I mean Astra Militarum - who has a special rule known only as "Tactical Genius"... Although nowhere near as awesome as before, it now allows some cool stuff for the Guar- Astra Militarum - player. FEAR ME AND MY TWO WARLORD TRAITS.
1. No. He's not. He was telling you that RAW states that you place fortifications before terrain. Nothing more, nothing less.
1. 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.
So then we're in agreement? You can ruin ADL and Quad Turret with Terrain? Because Forts go down first, then terrain? Great. Glad we got that settled. Now you two can stop kicking each other in the balls now. lol
Regardless of whether or not think it should be that way. It is. And I agree. What sense does it make that when we put together a planet (because that's essentially what you are doing when you create the battlefield at that time) we build buildings first, then rocks and trees and dirt and stuff like that. lol
More of that GW common sense. However, if we're talking "tactically" and trying to just play a game, then yeah, that's not that bad. A little douchy, sure, but we're talking about neutralizing some pretty powerful and game changing fortifications. I would think it would also make players be more crafty about how they set their forts. Like, instead of castling up in the corner where someone can stick a horseshoe around your fort, maybe you put it out towards the middle a bit more? Maybe you have a chain of ADL's instead of a box? Maybe we even zig-zag the chains to create firing lines. There are a lot of solutions like that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/26 19:28:58
"Well there's something I've been meaning to tell you about the college on the edge of the town. No one should ever go there. You know it's bad, bad, bad. It gets worse every school year, but man those freaking teachers are raaaaad! Yea-YEAH-yeah yeah." -Babycakes - China, Il.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/559359.page#6178253 <--Link to my CSM Army lists.
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.
I can't believe I'm having to address this again. Half my posts are about CC, the rest seem to be having to tell you that your petty posts are a problem.
1) Where did this thing even come from? Nobody is saying that it is wrong to place a rock in front of an ADL. If anything, we're trying to prove you right by saying that it is a legitimate move...
Correcting a previous rules misinterpretation is not flaming, and is an on-topic comment in any and all parts of the Tactics sub-forum.
2) Where have I used any of those childish tactics? And here is where I have been very much on topic:
Selym wrote: 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.
EVIL INC wrote: These others are saying that it is not possible to get cover saves with assaulting units as they cross the table. I have proven that it IS possible.
They have also made the claims that they are totally worthless. By all means, don't bother taking them when you play me.
Having read through this entire thread with interest, I have to say the above sums up why I'm having a problem with EVIL INC's posts. Nowhere in what I have read have Selym or rigeld said that it is "impossible" to get cover or that they are totally worthless. The above is putting your own words in someone else's mouth in order to make it easier to shoot them down. You've repeatedly accused them of being insulting and trolling and saying how you have "proved" them wrong. But as someone new to this site who knows no-one here and has just started reading this thread from the beginning, what I see is mostly reasonable posts and a lot of attempts by you to cast other posters as villains, to pretend that they are a minority who everyone else considers discredited and to drag the conversation down to the level of dick sizes. Just stop. Your attempts to try and pretend things are concluded or people think they're wrong are transparent and unhelpful. I'm an old player (from Rogue Trader days) who has taken a long absence and is now returning and I've found their comments helpful. It is not enough just to list ways of surviving into close combat if those ways don't work well or are very difficult to achieve. I need to know how viable tactics are. And both of their posts have been helpful to me as a returning player.
You are the one trolling by repeated straw-man'ing and changing of subject rather than admit a mistake. And I would love to see it stop whilst these other two posters are still remaining polite rather than lose their temper and sink to aggressive name-calling and mud-throwing as you have been.
For my own part, though I'm still gearing up to be good at sixth edition (there are still too many enemy troop types that I am unfamiliar with and I need more recent game experience at a high level), I'm coming to the opinion that for the most part, the best approach to Close Combat is to treat it as a follow-up punch or a defence force. Once I've started shooting up the enemy, then assault troops can make an excellent game-tipper. Similarly, if the enemy has encroached on my gun troops or is closing on an objective, some quality CC troops can really hit back hard. Close Combat is potentially very powerful. Get a small force of Wraith Blades mixing it up with a large number of lower quality troops and they can push back (and Sweeping Advance with some luck) many times their number. I'm finding the balance in my armies to be a small to medium smattering of quality CC amongst a non-CC focused list. If advancing, I keep my CC troops ready as a follow-up punch to drive people from objectives and if being advanced upon, they're ready to spring out on the enemy once they get too close and wreck the enemy's plans. As an advancing first strike approach, I am finding it hard to get them into combat without basically offering up a valuable gun-unit as a sacrifice. And the really good players wont fall for it anyway. Or simply have too much power. Close Combat benefits a lot from being a mid-game strategy.
I don't know what the others think of this. It's the impression of a returning old player trying to bring themselves up to speed on a new edition, but I'd be extremely interested and grateful to hear how it sounds (accurate or idiotic).
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.
Where are we trolling? Where are we trying to get the thread closed on purpouse? You've told us multiple times to stop disagreeing with you, we've called you out on being the one insulting several times and we've pointed out why your tactics don't work several times, which is helping people more effectively use their close combat units, as it points out that your tactics don't work.
Refused flank as a melee army trying to counter a shooty army doesn't do much, because they can still shoot you from the other flank. It works AGAINST melee armies because you're forcing half the melee units into your entire army, but you're not reducing shooting power by much.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
selym, you prove my point for me. ot a single word in your post regarding the topic of helping players better use assault units but plenty of unwarranted vitriol.. thank you
Walrus, at least you put in something regarding it. THIS post of yours addresses a possible weakness of a strategy without saying that there are no possible ones that could work.
I never claimed this was an end all be all strategy. 1. Remember, using assault troops more effectively is not an "us vs them" issue. It is also how to better use assault troops against other assault troops as well.
2.There are a few things to try when using this strategy. One is to assault the flank with the longest ranged weapons. For example, the flank where they have their basilisks set up. that way, you are nuetralizig their range and actually getting within their min range so they always deviate the full distance. another is to concentrate the objectives in the side you are going after first so that the rest of their army has to come after you or you win by default of holding the objectives.
Of course, this strategy just doesn't always work. you have to guage before a game and decide what you think will work or not.
Sometimes, it just is not feasible and you need to try something else (which is part of what this thread is about, getting a larger repartee of different things to try. You (or someone else) can pick apart any strategy or tactic and sh ow ways to neutralize them. however, you know as well as I that this is not always possible to put into practice. You cant change your army list halfway through a tourney to counter my strategy. This is why I don't mind that. it helps give us an idea of what to look at from both sides and how to tweak along the way.
Flat out saying "this will never work", its rubbish there are no possible ways to ever effectively use assault units" as selym and a few others are doing is not the way to go about this. the best way (I think) is to have as many different possibilities as possible given and discuss the pros and cons of each honestly and openly. As you mentioned, the denied flank can be weakened by planning ahead for the possibility, but then, this is where tactics come in because if you set up first and place your units to keep me from effectively using that tactic, you may be opening up the door for another that we ight discuss. You cant plan for and set up to deny ALL strategies and tactics, it is impossible.
BTW flat out telling me my "tactics don't work" is counterproductive. I have proven that they do. I have proven that they do by using them to win and place in regional tournaments as well as in countless friendly games. Now, telling me that they "don't always work" would be more accurate and I would agree with you on that because there have been many times when they let me down or were not applicable.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/26 20:13:14
clively wrote: "EVIL INC" - hardly. More like "REASONABLE GOOD GUY INC". (side note: exalted)
Okay, yeah, that works fine against Basilisks. What about scoot and shoot lists? More than Eldar can do that, too. It's just that Eldar are the best at it. Scoot and shoot's ability to delay assaults is really one of the things making assault units so overcosted.
EVIL INC wrote: 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?
Most of my opponents don't spread out enough for a denied flank to be effective. Plus I do a lot of deep striking so it's not that important.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EVIL INC wrote: I never claimed this was an end all be all strategy. 1. Remember, using assault troops more effectively is not an "us vs them" issue. It is also how to better use assault troops against other assault troops as well.
When assault troops aren't efficient (and they aren't overall) this is not the way to look at them. Using assault troops has to be looked at in a "How can I make sure these guys get to punch the other dude in the face?" method. You want to use your assault troops against their shooting troops, and your shooting against their assault - or your assault against their assault as a backup. Trading assault for assault and shooting for shooting is a bad idea in general.
2.There are a few things to try when using this strategy. One is to assault the flank with the longest ranged weapons. For example, the flank where they have their basilisks set up. that way, you are nuetralizig their range and actually getting within their min range so they always deviate the full distance. another is to concentrate the objectives in the side you are going after first so that the rest of their army has to come after you or you win by default of holding the objectives.
Ideally yes. I've never had that work in my favor, however.
Flat out saying "this will never work", its rubbish there are no possible ways to ever effectively use assault units" as selym and a few others are doing is not the way to go about this.
There you go lying again. Seriously - we aren't saying that. Selym isn't saying that. I'd say you were just mistaken but since you've been corrected so often it's just lying now.
BTW flat out telling me my "tactics don't work" is counterproductive. I have proven that they do. I have proven that they do by using them to win and place in regional tournaments as well as in countless friendly games. Now, telling me that they "don't always work" would be more accurate and I would agree with you on that because there have been many times when they let me down or were not applicable.
Gee, I wonder what we've been saying this whole time...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/26 20:22:24
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
Selym wrote: 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.
EVIL INC wrote: selym, you prove my point for me. ot a single word in your post regarding the topic of helping players better use assault units but plenty of unwarranted vitriol.. thank you
That's interesting... By that logic, every single post in all of this sub forum have been total unwarranted "vitrol".
And as far as a quick google can tell me, "vitrol" isn't even a real word... But I'll assume it's synonymous with "tripe".
Google wrote:
tripe
trʌɪp/Submit
noun
1.
the first or second stomach of a cow or other ruminant used as food.
2.
informal
nonsense; rubbish.
"you do talk tripe sometimes"
I'd also like to point out that I've been playing BA jump packers since 2nd edition. I know a thing or two about getting into HTH. And I'm telling you that the scoot and shoot armies are very good about avoiding it.
"Well there's something I've been meaning to tell you about the college on the edge of the town. No one should ever go there. You know it's bad, bad, bad. It gets worse every school year, but man those freaking teachers are raaaaad! Yea-YEAH-yeah yeah." -Babycakes - China, Il.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/559359.page#6178253 <--Link to my CSM Army lists.
Walrus, at least you put in something regarding it. THIS post of yours addresses a possible weakness of a strategy without saying that there are no possible ones that could work.
I never claimed this was an end all be all strategy. 1. Remember, using assault troops more effectively is not an "us vs them" issue. It is also how to better use assault troops against other assault troops as well.
2.There are a few things to try when using this strategy. One is to assault the flank with the longest ranged weapons. For example, the flank where they have their basilisks set up. that way, you are nuetralizig their range and actually getting within their min range so they always deviate the full distance. another is to concentrate the objectives in the side you are going after first so that the rest of their army has to come after you or you win by default of holding the objectives.
#ISaidItFirst 1) It doesn't really help against assault armies if you are an assault army. It just means they will be dictating the flow of battle.
2) But what if your opponent is mildly intelligent, and doesn't have one side where the guns are range 300", and one side range 6"? What if both sides are range 72"? Or 60"? (riptide and serpent spam respectively, of course).
3) Your opponent will place objectives so that he/she can hold them effectively. Even if you manage to make it all away across the board to take one flank with your scoring units, what are the chances those scoring units will last 5/6/7 turns of firepower from the other flank?
I'm going to try and sum up what others have been trying to say the whole thread:
•YES, ASSAULT *CAN* win the odd game, or with a bit of luck, the odd tournament.
BUT taking an assault army is, both statistically speaking and on the table, far less likely to win than a shooting army. The only exception is a gimmicky Daemons army. Reasons for this:
•Assault allows 1-3 turns for the opponent to shoot you unhindered, possibly more if they are mobile (bikes, serpents, riptides), plus overwatch.
•Assault relies on much more chance (2D6 charge range, for example)
•Your opponent can hit you back, and sometimes destroy depleted units (yes, even fire warriors!)
•~90% of assault units are way, way overcosted for what they do.
•The best assault builds (nids monsta-mash, FMC spam, screamer star, corn dogs) rely on random chance (psychic powers, Grimoire, warpstorm, spawning gants) and as such are less reliable.
•Assault units have to get close, putting them in "the kill zone" of many shooting units (like fire warriors).
I'm sure others could add to that list.
To clarify: YOU CAN WIN WITH ASSAULT. Just don't expect to do so often.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/26 21:54:16
Note to the reader: my username is not arrogance. No, my name is taken from the most excellent of commanders: Lord Castellan Creed, of the Imperial Guar- I mean Astra Militarum - who has a special rule known only as "Tactical Genius"... Although nowhere near as awesome as before, it now allows some cool stuff for the Guar- Astra Militarum - player. FEAR ME AND MY TWO WARLORD TRAITS.
EVIL INC wrote: Kindly try to stay on topic and leave the off topic lies and flames and such out of the thread. We have been through this many times before.
I'm sorry Evil Inc, but this post is wildly off topic. I don't see anything here about helping players learn how to do CC effectively
I think we can all agree (well...almost everyone) what makes a solid cc unit
1) speed
2) toughness
3) not being too Killy (you don't want to wipe a squad till 2 turns of combat statistically speaking)
What units fill those roles for most armies?
Daemons has been covered, so I won't do those
Eldar, I would say it's mainly the striking scorps. I actually really like them a lot for this, and have always enjoyed their models, even if they are over costed
CSM, it's mainly spawn and bikers, (possibly jump pack troops, never tried them) but this is due to the limited movement options. If the dreadclaw is allowed, plague marines, noise marines, termies, mutilators all become viable.
Nids, brood lord, ymgarl stealers, and tyrants with wings. Tevigrons with guants, but usually only if they get ignored. I like the idea of gargoyles but lack the models to try them out myself.
Those are all the models I own.
Side note, I am seriously starting to think Evil Is a troll I will see on 4chan or reddit. Maybe something awful
EVIL INC wrote: Kindly try to stay on topic and leave the off topic lies and flames and such out of the thread. We have been through this many times before.
I'm sorry Evil Inc, but this post is wildly off topic. I don't see anything here about helping players learn how to do CC effectively
I think we can all agree (well...almost everyone) what makes a solid cc unit
1) speed
2) toughness
3) not being too Killy (you don't want to wipe a squad till 2 turns of combat statistically speaking)
What units fill those roles for most armies?
Daemons has been covered, so I won't do those
Eldar, I would say it's mainly the striking scorps. I actually really like them a lot for this, and have always enjoyed their models, even if they are over costed
CSM, it's mainly spawn and bikers, (possibly jump pack troops, never tried them) but this is due to the limited movement options. If the dreadclaw is allowed, plague marines, noise marines, termies, mutilators all become viable.
Nids, brood lord, ymgarl stealers, and tyrants with wings. Tevigrons with guants, but usually only if they get ignored. I like the idea of gargoyles but lack the models to try them out myself.
Those are all the models I own.
Side note, I am seriously starting to think Evil Is a troll I will see on 4chan or reddit. Maybe something awful
You've got the right of it Akiasura.
A good melee unit consists of 3 properties; Delivery method/speed, Survivability/staying power and hitting power. Most good units are strong in all categories, but some can be good in only 1 or 2 and still be passable. These are all points based comparisons, so good speed for it's cost, good staying power for it's cost, and good hitting power for it's cost.
An example of a top speed/delivery unit is Ymgarl genestealers. Only having to weather 1 round of overwatch means they don't really need much survivability for their points (and lets face it, T4, with a 4+ save is crap for 23 points).
An example of a top "Staying power" unit is the screamer star or jetseer council. Being virtually indestructible means it doesn't matter that they aren't in melee ASAP, of it they get caught in the open. It also means they don't need to hit like trucks, as they can just grind away at enemy units over time.
An example of a top "hitting power" unit is Death cult assassins. Give them a power mace/sword and axe combo and a buff inquisitor and they will wreck almost anything in the game. Point for point they are one of the hardest hitting units in the game.
Other units are a combination of these strengths.
Khorne-dogs are fast being beast, and having scout, but not super fast. They are tough-ish (T4 W2, 5+ invul for 16 points is space marine level staying power) but not unkillable and they are hard hitting with furious charge and rage (4 S5 attacks on the charge), but not SUPER hard hitting. They are good in all the important categories, and that's why they are a solid unit. They also can be taken in large units, so can magnify the herald buffs even more than smaller units can.
On the flip side you have Assault marines. They are fast-ish, with jump packs, but not super fast. They aren't very survivable, with only a MeQ statline at 17 points each, and they aren't very hard hitting with only 2-3 S4 normal attacks. So pass in 1 category and fail in 2 makes a poor unit
Looking for Durham Region gamers in Ontario Canada, send me a PM!
See my gallery for Chapterhouse's Tervigon, fully painted.
and I do mean assault, as in 90% at least of the army is intended to get into CC.
there are two main principles you MUST adhere to when trying to make a sucessfull CC list:
1. you need a method, to get into CC, with 90% of your guys, ON THE SAME TURN (ie, dont mix it up between guys that can get into combat turn 1, 2 or three)
2. you need to be DURABILITY maxxed, much more so then dps maxxed. your durability also needs to be spread out between the methods (ie landraiders are one kind of durability, armour is another, sheer volume of #'s is another, ++ saves, SPEED)
of all the options for "durability" SPEED and #'s are the most important, but thats where what army you pick comes into play.
IE my GK assault list is all about speed, durability through decent armour saves
my orks are all about #'s, with durability through that, and battle wagons.
and I do mean assault, as in 90% at least of the army is intended to get into CC.
there are two main principles you MUST adhere to when trying to make a sucessfull CC list:
1. you need a method, to get into CC, with 90% of your guys, ON THE SAME TURN (ie, dont mix it up between guys that can get into combat turn 1, 2 or three)
2. you need to be DURABILITY maxxed, much more so then dps maxxed. your durability also needs to be spread out between the methods (ie landraiders are one kind of durability, armour is another, sheer volume of #'s is another, ++ saves, SPEED)
of all the options for "durability" SPEED and #'s are the most important, but thats where what army you pick comes into play.
IE my GK assault list is all about speed, durability through decent armour saves
my orks are all about #'s, with durability through that, and battle wagons.
I concur with this.
For my part, I'll list some things from the CSM dex that can assault quite effectively:
-Nurgle Bikers:
T6 and 12" movement per turn? Yes please! These guys are fast, tough, and can take meltaguns and melta bombs. Kit them suchlike, and take one large unit. They're rather bulky models, so your opponent is going to be concentrating on them while you do tactical things with the rest of your army... Such as herding the enemy into nice blobs for your heldrake.
-Spawn packs:
I have little to no expertise with these guys, but I'm told they're a right pain in the arse when maxed and thrown at the enemy. Top tip: Stick in a CL bike with the Black Mace to smash and obliterate!
-A Winged Daemon Prince:
One costly mofo, using him is an art. But when you get it right, whoo boy are you going to feth your enemy right up!
While it is tempting to have him fly in from reserves into the game, it can be more effective to start him on the board on T1 as flying, in the movement phase have him fly half way up the board, and then hide behind some LOS-blocking terrain (or failing that, something with a good cover save). Wait for turn 2, use him as a Jump MC, and start smooshing things.
Just remember not to max out his wargear, he'll rack up points faster than a Land Raider. It may be a good idea to balance him out by also taking quite a bit of cannon fodder in your army (Cultists).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/28 21:53:53
It's a little petulant (and confusing) to change the subject of the thread to "Closed" and delete the initial post just because some are disagreeing with you. I thought a mod had locked it! You don't own the discussion, you know? Aside from all the telling other people to leave the thread (a mod's job), changing it to closed is also trying to take over a mod's job. I'm finding several of the posts here useful. Can you change it back to "Close Combat", please? Otherwise people are going to think it's been locked when it hasn't.
On topic - easysauce: how competitive would you say your normal games are? Are they fairly casual or are you playing tournaments or competitive list builders with that assault army? There's no agenda behind that question, just curious. You seem to have taken the extreme other end of using Close Combat to me. I use it as a bit of salt throughout the army for opportunistically rolling up fragmented enemy units or as counter-assault. I'm curious to know how you think I (an Eldar player) would fair spamming Wraithblades (durable) in Wave Serpents. (N.b. I'd have a Spirit Seer to make them Troops). My feeling is I'd get gunned down, but if you can pull it off with Grey Knights. I'm assuming your GK are Terminator heavy? (I've never played against GK).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/28 23:21:56
What is best in life?
To wound enemy units, see them driven from the table, and hear the lamentations of their player.
its all shunt interceptors and dreadknights for the GK list, no termies, termies are slow, and very weak in the meta.
interceptors are good in CC, but more importantly, super FAST, and can STILL put out15+ wounds a turn easily at range, same kind of thing with the DK's.
won overall at a tourney with 70 people at it (about 35+ ish for 40k/fantasy) and have been regularly top 5 the past year with it.
its actually a hard army to use, you need to know what to steer clear of, and what NOT to get to close too, and all your distances for other armies threat zones. It literally will have a completly diff strategy against each army, most I need to get into CC ASAP with, some I have to shoot and scoot, some times lots of deep striking is needed. point is, with soo much mobility, combat squads, and a troop base that is generally good at anything, you play to your opponents weakness every time.
since most armies are very weak in CC, that tends to be something I utilize the most often.
But as a TAC list, it works very well against a lot of different armies. Its just so maneuverable with 90% of the army able to just move 30" and still shoot, +12" regular, and 99% of games are won or lost by positioning, and in the movement phase, everything else is just gravy.
I generally play people with more then 10 years experience, who are also placing top 10 regularly.
eldar assault is not something Ive looked much into, I know a lot about KILLIng pointy ears with my orks, guard or GK's, but not about playing them...
but your transport is not an assault vehicle, so whatever is in it, gets into combat turn 3 at the soonest, so unless its av 14 or gets good saves or something, or you have enough #'s to weather that 3 turns, and still have enough payloads to deliver... I think you might have lots of warith blades stranded mid feild.
If I made an eldar CC list, it would likely be :
as many jet bikes as I can, ( can be scoring no? 6 full units is actually pretty sweet)
as many warp spiders as I can,
fill out the rest with WS's with something scoring or niche filling in em
not sure how well it would work, dont really have the dex, but that would be where I would start...
easysauce wrote: its all shunt interceptors and dreadknights for the GK list, no termies, termies are slow, and very weak in the meta.
interceptors are good in CC, but more importantly, super FAST, and can STILL put out15+ wounds a turn easily at range, same kind of thing with the DK's.
won overall at a tourney with 70 people at it (about 35+ ish for 40k/fantasy) and have been regularly top 5 the past year with it.
its actually a hard army to use, you need to know what to steer clear of, and what NOT to get to close too, and all your distances for other armies threat zones. It literally will have a completly diff strategy against each army, most I need to get into CC ASAP with, some I have to shoot and scoot, some times lots of deep striking is needed. point is, with soo much mobility, combat squads, and a troop base that is generally good at anything, you play to your opponents weakness every time.
since most armies are very weak in CC, that tends to be something I utilize the most often.
But as a TAC list, it works very well against a lot of different armies. Its just so maneuverable with 90% of the army able to just move 30" and still shoot, +12" regular, and 99% of games are won or lost by positioning, and in the movement phase, everything else is just gravy.
I generally play people with more then 10 years experience, who are also placing top 10 regularly.
eldar assault is not something Ive looked much into, I know a lot about KILLIng pointy ears with my orks, guard or GK's, but not about playing them...
but your transport is not an assault vehicle, so whatever is in it, gets into combat turn 3 at the soonest, so unless its av 14 or gets good saves or something, or you have enough #'s to weather that 3 turns, and still have enough payloads to deliver... I think you might have lots of warith blades stranded mid feild.
If I made an eldar CC list, it would likely be :
as many jet bikes as I can, ( can be scoring no? 6 full units is actually pretty sweet)
as many warp spiders as I can,
fill out the rest with WS's with something scoring or niche filling in em
not sure how well it would work, dont really have the dex, but that would be where I would start...
Interesting. Thanks for the full reply. I've been toying with getting some Shining Spears. You're right - normal Jet Bikes are scoring for Eldar (which is probably the only reason you see them), but I have significant doubts about what they're like in CC. Yes, they have twin-linked assault weapons for softening the enemy up and they're decent compared to your average guardsman, but I don't think they're at all special in CC, just fast - as you said. Shining Spears however, can hit reasonably hard. They're weak in the second round of a combat as their laser lances only work well on a charge. However, if you buy an Exarch and buy him Hit and Run, they can keep breaking off and re-attacking. So they're not bad. They also have Skilled Rider so they get +1 on their Jink save. I'd like to get some for fluff reasons as they look good on the field. But it would be way too much of a gamble to go all in on them and build an army around them. I'm pretty sure I'd lose a number of games from such a gamble.
I think you're spot on about what would happen with a heavy investment of Wave Serpent mounted Wraith Guard. They're tough and hit hard, but they're no faster than regular troops and that hinders them a lot as a primary weapon. I think they make awesome defensive / counter-assault units, but I think for successful active assault, you really want something that is independently fast (i.e. not just riding a transport).
I'm not a gambler, I'm a calculated risk taker. Anything I use for primary assault, I want to have the Fleet rule. That way I have some confidence that I wont blow a critical charge with a low roll. Hence why I'm somewhat happier about taking dedicated CC units with Eldar (obv. doesn't apply to Wraith Blades, but I use them more cautiously).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EVIL INC wrote: I decided to re-open the thread. Figured why let a few people ruin the the fun for everyone because they are unable to admit when they are wrong? Hopefully, they will behave themselves now and allow us to remain on topic.
You can't re-open it because it was never locked. You just unhelpfully changed the thread title to "Closed". Might as well have changed the title of the thread to Jumbo and claimed it was an elephant. And you're baiting again.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/11/29 12:28:53
What is best in life?
To wound enemy units, see them driven from the table, and hear the lamentations of their player.
Selym, I have seen spawn packs used to great effect to slingshot chaos lords into battle from across the field without the lord having to worry aboutbeing shot at at all.
attach the lord to the spawn pack and sit him at the rear and then run the spawn pack across the field towards the enemy (Mark of nurgle works well on them with this). Even a tau army will be hard pressed to kill 3 of them before they hit the lines with the lord trailing in. Is worh the disordered charge to pile into multiple units and tie them up in this way to make it easier for the slower parts to reach unscathed.
one of the east coast chaps used it to great effect against me.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/11/29 14:45:22
clively wrote: "EVIL INC" - hardly. More like "REASONABLE GOOD GUY INC". (side note: exalted)
Any more nonsense from any poster and you'll be suspended.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
I've always liked shining spears, even back in 3rd edition when they were viewed as worse than they are now. Then again, my list was very atypical, with warp spiders and spears featuring as the mainstays, rather then reapers and banshees. I did well due to several transport rules not many people knew.
Nowadays, I think the spears are more limited, but only slightly. The loss of the higher Str and ignoring armor saves made them weaker, though skilled rider with jink saves helps a lot to make up for that. Still, very expensive
I'd prefer striking scorps. They have a lot of what a CC unit needs, and I think they only get overlooked because they aren't quite as fast as the rest of the army, and the eldar have one of the nastiest shooting forces around right now.
I have played with spawn and I find them good against many armies, though they tend to fall down against Tau and Dark eldar. The higher strength shooting combined with removing cover saves means they can put wounds down field easily, and for dark eldar poison shots love targets like spawn. My local meta has 2 dark eldar players so they rarely see play. Competing with fast attack, arguably the best slot of chaos, doesn't help them. If they had been elites I'd field them all day long and twice on Sundays.
The conga line isn't a bad idea, though getting a chaos lord into combat isn't what it used to be. Sm, necrons, Nids, orks (arguably), De, and Gk all have lords that can slap the chaos lord into the ground in a challenge, which, when he reaches the front, he must do.
Against Ig, sisters, tau, and eldar, he seems over the top. These units have few units that can nurgle spawn in combat, so The Lord isn't needed.
That really leaves BA and DA, maybe Wolves that the chaos lord is really needed against. Too...specific for me.
I really have been liking the slaanesh marked lord on a bike with the burning brand in a full size unit with the icon. Very expensive, but kinda solid with a lot of options. Falls down against 2+ saves, but I field vindis and oblits for that
I personally tend to agree that assault in sixth is weak (and that assault in fifth was not that great). Combat in sixth is more about locking up units and pinning them in spot since wiping an opponent just gets you shot off the board and hoping you win combat by one and your opponent roles under a seven on two d6 isn't a real reliable tactic.
However, one thing that has only been skimmed over through these twelve pages is terrain. It has generally been commented that LOS blocking terrain helps, but that it is dependent on where you go. I am surprised at how rarely players are willing to throw down terrain at their FLGS.
I just moved and at my previous FLGS boards were almost universally "open." Gunline guard and Eldar (this was primarily in fifth, so not so much Tau) dominated because boards were fields with patches of trees or two hills and a ruin. I moved a year ago and did not have a store in the town I moved to where I could play. One just opened and I have been working on donating and making terrain. I made six tree stands for under thirty dollars and I donated a bunch of ruins that I made for under five dollars each. Buildings/ruins can easily be made out of foamboard and spray paint with some gravel off the street. One four dollar board can make anywhere from two tall ruins or probably four or five ruins three to four inches tall, which will block LOS reasonably well. Some people might balk at spending money on this, but over the past fifteen years of my life I have spent thousands of dollars on this game. Twenty more to actually be able to play the army I want to isn't unwarranted.
This leads into issues of how terrain is placed. By the book is nice because it gives players a chance to set up based on their army and I think that is the best way (I see it as representing armies picking their positions before battle). However, it seems like too often at tournaments the boards are set up the opposite of what makes sense. Terrain is valley'd with large hills and ruins on the perimeters and low terrain and trees in the middle. This gives shooting armies too many opportunities to take the high ground. It is much more balanced to put two to three LOS or semi-LOS blocking pieces of terrain in the middle and lower pieces around the perimeter. Shooting armies should still be able to set up lines of fire, but not cover the board.
Eldar can be really good at close combat. You have the seer council, which is brutal. You also have dark eldar allies allowing you to bring beasts, which can easily be really good too.
The wraithknight is a great choice for cc eldar. You can run eldar + craftworld allies and bring 5 for a very nasty monster-list. Still room for some troops too.
Autarch with the cover-save relic and a laser lance is a great harassing close combat unit. Spears could probably work in the same role.
a1elbow wrote: I personally tend to agree that assault in sixth is weak (and that assault in fifth was not that great). Combat in sixth is more about locking up units and pinning them in spot since wiping an opponent just gets you shot off the board and hoping you win combat by one and your opponent roles under a seven on two d6 isn't a real reliable tactic.
However, one thing that has only been skimmed over through these twelve pages is terrain. It has generally been commented that LOS blocking terrain helps, but that it is dependent on where you go. I am surprised at how rarely players are willing to throw down terrain at their FLGS.
I just moved and at my previous FLGS boards were almost universally "open." Gunline guard and Eldar (this was primarily in fifth, so not so much Tau) dominated because boards were fields with patches of trees or two hills and a ruin. I moved a year ago and did not have a store in the town I moved to where I could play. One just opened and I have been working on donating and making terrain. I made six tree stands for under thirty dollars and I donated a bunch of ruins that I made for under five dollars each. Buildings/ruins can easily be made out of foamboard and spray paint with some gravel off the street. One four dollar board can make anywhere from two tall ruins or probably four or five ruins three to four inches tall, which will block LOS reasonably well. Some people might balk at spending money on this, but over the past fifteen years of my life I have spent thousands of dollars on this game. Twenty more to actually be able to play the army I want to isn't unwarranted.
Reading some posts here, it does make me wonder if a number of the complains about gunline Tau and Eldar are fuelled by low amounts of terrain. Not all, obviously - it's a powerful army approach, no doubt about it. But I wonder if the situation is exacerbated by people not following RAW for terrain. I quoted it earlier, but it bears repeating. By RAW, you're looking at 1d3 pieces of terrain per 2'x2' square, and a piece of terrain is defined as "a single substantial element such as a building or ruin or forest". Alternately to a single substantial element, the book says you can substitute "a cluster of three smaller pieces of terrain such as battlefield debris". I wonder how many of the people playing on a 6'x4' board have nine ruins or equivalent on the table? It's just a thought, but worth asking. Maybe I'll put that in a separate thread just to get some general feel for it. I'd be interested in the answer.
More like "REASONABLE GOOD GUY INC". (side note: exalted)
