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.

ragazzacane wrote:
We can talk about how cool it used to be till we are blue in the face, but the question asked was about it's CURRENT relevance imo.

No, it was:

how important is close combat in 40k for you and do you think the rules reflect this aspect well?

To which the answer for me is: CC is integral to the 40k setting and the rules do *not* reflect this well. You answered a different question: "how effective is it currently" which we all know - limited and less than it used to be.

Still important.

need to make sure the 25% terrain is not sitting in the corners of the table, block some line of sight and fire lanes. most game I see is a clear middle of the table so CC is not as effective as everyone is just shooting across an open arcade.

I wonder how much of the imbalance could be addressed by evening out the rules for assault and shooting when coming out of transports.

Would it help if you could only fire snap shots on any turns when you couldn't assault? Snap shots out of transports, snap shots out of reserves, snap shots after deep strike?

(Of course, I also feel like deep striking is made a little too weak because of inability to assault, combined with mishaps, but that's another topic.)

There are units that are "geared towards" close combat, like your banshees, then there are units that are MADE for close combat, like slugga boyz. That's the reason you can get squads of 30 of them - you're gonna take a lot of shots and lose a lot of boyz before you get into close combat, but when you finally get there you're gonna ruin whatever you charged at (within reason). If you take a CC army up against a snooty army then you had better have a good plan of how you're gonna cross no-man's land. To make CC work you have to use proper war-tactics - decoys, outflanks (not the rule version) and pincer attacks. I think CC is the only think keeping strategy in the game. If you can't make a CC army work in close combat then you're not a good enough strategist, it's nothing to do with the game.

 aj laveaux wrote:
There are units that are "geared towards" close combat, like your banshees, then there are units that are MADE for close combat, like slugga boyz. That's the reason you can get squads of 30 of them - you're gonna take a lot of shots and lose a lot of boyz before you get into close combat, but when you finally get there you're gonna ruin whatever you charged at (within reason). If you take a CC army up against a snooty army then you had better have a good plan of how you're gonna cross no-man's land. To make CC work you have to use proper war-tactics - decoys, outflanks (not the rule version) and pincer attacks. I think CC is the only think keeping strategy in the game. If you can't make a CC army work in close combat then you're not a good enough strategist, it's nothing to do with the game.

This...this is so wrong on so many levels it isn't even funny.

Decoys, outflank, and pincer attacks are all psychological and do absolutely nothing when the only intelligence you are facing off against is the intelligence of the person standing across from you on the table. You can't fool someone into putting to much defense on the wrong side of the board because they have an overhead view of the map, they can SEE where your units are. And to say that Slugga Boyz are MADE for CC and Banshees aren't is...just..what?! If you CAN make a CC army work then that has more to do with the caliber of your opponent and not you, this game is not some grand strategist exercise, 40k is a game about throwing buckets of dice at each other and laughing about it. There is little in the ways of tactical decisions in this game and the only strategy comes in during list building, even then it usually boils down to a few obvious choices and a few obviously bad choices so it isn't that hard.

Back on topic;

Close Combat is pretty much what defines 40k, without it it would be a horribly generic sci-fi miniatures game where two people set up across the table from one another and just roll dice to see who wins. Have you ever watched a Tau vs IG matchup? Yeah, without assault the entire game would be that boring. Not to mention that almost every army has their named characters decked out for CC even armies like Tau and IG. This game is an epic space fantasy where heroes clash, not sci-fi where engagements take place over a couple of miles as long range weapons pound away at each other. Think about it like Star Wars, 40k is a grim dark version of Star Wars where the greatest warriors in the galaxy choose to run at each other with swords rather than fire an artillery barrage at the enemy position.

I think close combat is one of the most iconic elements of the 40k universe. Unfortunately the rules heavily favor shooting, leaving only a few armies with the chance to do damage in combat. Here's my rule suggestion: Make most transport vehicles assault vehicles. Do you think Space Marines just stand around after exiting a drop pod? Do rhino doors have a delicate 12 step door opening process?

Arbiter_Shade wrote:

 aj laveaux wrote:
There are units that are "geared towards" close combat, like your banshees, then there are units that are MADE for close combat, like slugga boyz. That's the reason you can get squads of 30 of them - you're gonna take a lot of shots and lose a lot of boyz before you get into close combat, but when you finally get there you're gonna ruin whatever you charged at (within reason). If you take a CC army up against a snooty army then you had better have a good plan of how you're gonna cross no-man's land. To make CC work you have to use proper war-tactics - decoys, outflanks (not the rule version) and pincer attacks. I think CC is the only think keeping strategy in the game. If you can't make a CC army work in close combat then you're not a good enough strategist, it's nothing to do with the game.

This...this is so wrong on so many levels it isn't even funny.

Decoys, outflank, and pincer attacks are all psychological and do absolutely nothing when the only intelligence you are facing off against is the intelligence of the person standing across from you on the table. You can't fool someone into putting to much defense on the wrong side of the board because they have an overhead view of the map, they can SEE where your units are. And to say that Slugga Boyz are MADE for CC and Banshees aren't is...just..what?! If you CAN make a CC army work then that has more to do with the caliber of your opponent and not you, this game is not some grand strategist exercise, 40k is a game about throwing buckets of dice at each other and laughing about it. There is little in the ways of tactical decisions in this game and the only strategy comes in during list building, even then it usually boils down to a few obvious choices and a few obviously bad choices so it isn't that hard.

I've managed to make all these tactics work Tarpitting works for outflanking, making your opponent think you're gonna charge a different unit works for pincers and i guess decoys work in my league because there are only 5 of us and we expect certain things from certain units and vehicles. Plus my league works on the rule-of-cool and is very fluff-based, so if you're gonna make a massive gun line then you'd better have tons of barricades and trenches to make it feel like the army has actually been camped there for months. I think because of that my view on 40k is different to most tournament players. But, that being said, we all still think our league's eldar player is the lamest person in the league.

Why?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 aj laveaux wrote:

Arbiter_Shade wrote:

 aj laveaux wrote:
But, that being said, we all still think our league's eldar player is the lamest person in the league.