Interesting backtrack there.

What exactly was your point then?

Anything 'can' be better in ideal circumstances, with ridiculous luck.

Most internet forum reasoning tends to be of the 'average' or what is most often likely to happen, or is held as common wisdom.
Otherwise we're held ransom by endless anecdotes of 'that one time I rolled a 6' and vagarities like 'rubbish weapon X is awesome provided you always roll 6's'.

I was going to add that shooting (with ranged weapons) tends to be fairly ineffective when compared to assaults (CC + FF), because an assault all but guarantees a broken formation. The downside being that it may be the attacker that is broken.

Only after there are broken targets do ranged weapons count for much (in general, I know there are exceptions). Most ranged weapons only serve to prepare for an assault by applying BMs to the soon-to-be-assaulted formation.

As for FF-oriented units being more cost effective than CC-oriented ones, well, I don't think so. Comparisons between the different aspect warriors may strain logic, but there are plenty of other units to look at. Are assault marine formations too expensive for what you get? I'd say no. Are Devastator detachments too cheap? Again, I don't think so. And here is a good counter example: IG Rough Riders - a CC monster of a unit that most believe are underpriced.

The bottom line, I think, is that some units tend to be better performers than others. Sometimes they are the FF specialists, but not always. The solution is to take each case on an individual basis and try to 'fix' the ones that need fixing.

And don't get me wrong, I do believe that FF specialists have an advantage over CC specialists, but I think (for the most part) this is accounted for in the point costs of each formation. In any case, I've never had a problem getting my CC units in base-to-base contact. Sure, maybe 1 out of 4 units might not make it into B2B (and maybe orks have a harder time getting there than SMs and Eldar), but a CC unit that doesn't make it is still in FF range. An FF unit that doen't get into FF range doesn't get to throw any dice at all.

The rest of your post is well-written but this is a misleading tautology.

A CC unit that doesn't get into FF range also doesn't get to throw any dice at all.

The summarise:

In base-to-base- CC/FF get to fight, CC better.
In 15cm- CC/FF get to fight, FF better.
Out of 15cm- CC/FF do not get to fight.

A point of note is that you have to get within 15cm to get into base-to-base, you don't have to get into base-to-base to get within 15cm...

I think DS's point (and he can correct me if not) is that "CC specialists" tend to have very strong CC compared to the FF values of "FF specialists".  There are lots of FF units with 4s and a few with 3s and a few with extra attacks.  Most of the time, you're looking at .5 to .67 hits per unit on average.  CC specialists tend to have multiple attacks and/or values in the 3+CC range or better once you add in multiple attacks.  That means you're looking at .67 to 1 hit per unit or more.

Obviously, that's a very rough generalization and there are plenty of exceptions but the point holds in terms of overall trends.  Few FF specialists can reach the same effectiveness within a single assault as a CC specialist that pulls it off.

In other words, CC units are more specialized and harder to use but more deadly when that specialty comes to bear.

That doesn't necessarily mean overall balance is achieved, but surely you see where it's going.

_________________
Neal

I agree with DS and Neal on this.  It is difficult to gauge the actual balance (most of the time it is a matter of feel) because they are such different creatures.  The thing that most people overlook about CC troops is they deny their enemy the ability to use their FF, which means they are stuck with an inferior CC.  It is a double-plus for CC specialists.

A classic case is Shining Spears vs. Leman Russ.  SS CC on a 4+ with a lance weapon turning the Russes into 4+ regular armor (this makes the opposing sides' armor equal for purposes of the assault).  But it also forces the Russ into a 6+ CC that denies them their strength.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

Ah, when put that way I can understand.

I still can't bring myself to use Assault Marines anymore, preferring Devastators.

Having to get into base-to-base contact forces you to move within range of far more of the enemy formation (and so recieve far more return fire) than being for example 10cm away.
A Firefight unit can theoretically put all it's units within 15cm of one enemy unit, the enemy can then probably move a further 2-3 units into range. This is much better than ploughing into base-to-base and having the whole formation get it's shots in.

Also, the idea that CC formations are better at CC than FF formations are at Firefights works in reverse.
If you need to engage an enemy CC formation with CC troops you want to get into base-to-base, but enemy CC formations will also have additional MW attacks, characters, better CC and hurt you more.
Where a FF formation only needs to get into FF range of CC troops- neutering their bonuses, and reducing incoming fire- and equally, when they get into FF range of FF troops the FF troops won't have as harsh MW, characters, etc as CC troops.
In cases of CC vs CC and FF vs FF formations, both should be roughly equal, but CC will suffer harsher casualties to both sides.

This has the side effect that the Combat Res relies less on Blast Markers that the attacking player has set-up.

Thank you, Neal. Yes, that was my point. I guess I should have elaborated more in my original post.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart

I wasn't backtracking nor was I assuming incredible luck. Please don't accuse me of doing something I didn't do.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart

Perhaps, but there are many, many units that can choose whether or not they end up in B2B when making a charge move. Assault marines, rough riders, shining spears, any infantry in a transport, any infantry with infiltrator, etc can easily manage to make it into B2B at some point during a game. It is not lost on me that most of that list is comprised of the 'CC specialists'. And, that's not counting the countercharge move if the opponent prefers CC for some of his own troops.

But none of that really matters to the question at hand: Are CC specialists generally overpriced?

The simple answer to that is "no."

The more complex answer is that the question sets up a false dichotomy. There are some units that are overpriced, and there are some that are underpriced. It is clear to me that there are units that can be considered to be CC specialists that fall into both categories.

As for your aversion to Assualt Marines, I can't really speak to that. I find that they can be quite useful late in the game (after they having been whittled down) as both throw-away activations and as objective-contesting threats. Maybe using them that way seems gamey to you (it does to me) but that doesn't reduce their ability to sway a game. I certainly don't see how a unit of devs can cause as much concern to an opponent trying to secure objectives as a single assault unit that can move 105cm (The idea being that CC-specialists might have uses beyond assault).

Conversely, some armies have formations whose base contact abilities are significant enhanced by extra attacks and or MW, so it can be advantageous to get into base contact, even if the opposing formation has similar abilities.

Anyway, on the subject of close combat units being overpriced, I don't see it.  I'm rather happy with the performance of my Striking Scorpions, and my opponent seems to get more out of his Assault Marines than you do, so maybe it's just a question of personal preference, and different strategies and tactics.

_________________

Just calling it as I see it.



That statement is clearly misleading if it intended to say that shooting and firefighting is more effective, but close combat 'can' be more effective in rare circumstances. It reads far more that you consider CC to be 'far more effective'.
When called on it, you argued the definition of 'can' that rendered your strongly worded ('far more effective') previous statement pointless.



It is a shorter distance, and so easier to move into 15cm of an enemy unit than to get into base-contact. No amount of arguing will dispute that logic. I'm 30cm away, is it a shorter distance to get within 15cm (15cm) or to get within base contact (30cm).

If a Firefight orientated attacker allows the opponent to counter-attack into base contact (i.e. moved within 5/10cm) he deserves to lose the Engagement.

A formation with both CC and FF troops tends to be inferior to a purely CC or FF formation for the reasons you give amongst others- they allow enemy FF or CC troops to get some good use regardless of how you attack them.



105cm? Assault Marines can move 90cm at best.
I think your thinking of the formation that beats Assault Marines at this niche, the 35cm move Landspeeder. The Speeder can do this, can still shoot, can avoid CC to use it's MW Firefight, has Scout and has 1 more model than an Assault unit for 25pts more...

So CC troops can Engage, and grab objectives (March) and Support Fire poorly.
A Firefight (and almost always Firepower) unit can Engage, Sustain, Overwatch, Advance shoot, Double shoot, Supporting Fire well, and grab objectives.

Don't get me wrong, when I used Assault Marines I did have a straggler 1 unit left, which would rally and try to scurry after objectives. I found the Landspeeders could do this faster whilst being plain better in shooting, and Supporting Fire.



Eh? Not so much conversely, as rewording and repeating my statement?
Read through the thread- another poster stated that CC Troops do indeed tend to have more punch in Engagements (if they get into h2h) due to usually having more extra attacks and MW than equivalent FF Troops.
I argued that in this case CC Troops assaulting other CC Troops will recieve more casualties in return (from these extra attacks) than FF Troops assaulting other FF Troops (with less extra attacks, etc). Not only does this make the CC Troops more fragile, prone to Breaking and reduce their number but it means the Combat Res is more dependant on casualties (a factor both sides are equal in) than pre-Engagement set-ups (putting Blast Markers on the defender, etc) which the attacker should aim to utilise. It is in the defenders interests for combat to depend more on both sides casualties than pre-Engagement set-ups.

Hey man, nobody is trying to argue the fact that FF tends to be more useful than CC (in general). That wasn't the question that was asked, and that wasn't the question that people were trying to answer.

If you assume all else is equal, then yeah, FF units are better. But what everyone else is trying to point out is, all else is not equal. Far from it. Special abilities, overall army balance, and best case applications have more to do with the cost of a formation than the simple CC/FF comparison.

Going back to the Assault Marines - they have a better move rate than devs (so can move, countercharge, and disembark twice as far as devs), they can ride in T-hawks (meaning they can avoid enemy fire until they land - a land speeder can't do that), and they have fairly decent FF ability for a CC unit. Sure, their are other detechments that can do more, but Assault Marines are one of the cheapest detachment available. So, to say that they are overpriced will seem to be a stretch to most people.

I'd bet that if you make a list of all the CC-oriented units/formations along with their associated point costs, then that list will have the same ratio of overcosted/undercosted/just right as a list comprised of any other category of units/formations in this game.

No, I changed the perspective.  You were speaking from the point of view of attacking a unit with effective base contact units with a unit which has a FF value which either as good as, or superior to, its b/c value.  I turned this around, so that the unit initiating the engagement has a better b/c value, and associated abilities, than FF value, making it advantageous to enter base contact, regardless of the b/c abilities and value of the target formation.  In other words, I wasn't repeating that which you had said.



I already had before I posted my first reply.  I was making a point based on my own experience.

_________________

Your saying that a CC Troop should try to enter h2h with a defending FF Troop? I can't fault that if your are.

However my point is it is harder, and more detrimental for their health, for any formation to move into h2h with a defending formation than to simply move within 15cm of at least 1 enemy unit.

If you do get a CC Troop into h2h, bravo, they should do well against a FF Troop. It's just easier and safer (because less enemy can hit back) to get a FF troop into firefight range, than a CC troop into h2h.