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.

Does fleet still allow you to charge after running, or does it allow you to reroll your run distance? Where does it say this in the rule book?

DaPino wrote:
Honestly, I think that consolidating into another enemy unit not only makes sense fluffwise, but also from a gameplay point of view. Anyone stupid enough to keep non-assault units within D6" of a combat deserves to get his army clubbed to death.

Yeah, right. I saw enough of it back then with 1st/2nd turn assaults from several units where there was simply nowhere to go that you weren't within consolidate range. Don't forget that the attacker could also position his units for the charge so that they were already at least a base closer to you if he did it right. Worst case you were tabled without ever getting to shoot a single enemy model. And even if you happened to be outside range this turn the area you could safely stay got smaller for every turn as they closed in from every direction.

 koooaei wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

DaPino wrote:
Honestly, I think that consolidating into another enemy unit not only makes sense fluffwise, but also from a gameplay point of view.

Anyone stupid enough to keep non-assault units within D6" of a combat deserves to get his army clubbed to death. On rare occasions, someone charges a unit and completely obliterates it in 1 turn. When that happens, there's a possibility of 2 units getting assaulted one after another but disordered charge is a thing so the only really thing you'd getting out of it is extra attacks.

I agree with this point, this one change alone could make a big difference. Even a charge distance of 6" + D6 I think is a good one. Limit overwatch to assault weapons only. Meh.

Yeah, no. It'd be too powerful. There are things that can get into combat very quickly and have higt charge ranges thanks to fleet and ignore terrain. Like beasts. Wraiths come to mind. Suggestions like: "just keep out of harm's way and spread your troops out keeping them apart from one another" won't work in larger games - you simply have no space to spread out and it's actually not always possible even on larger maps due to terrain.

And deathstar units that are impossible to kill in one go. What can, say, a not mobile shooty army do against them if it can't hault their advance with chaff?

I'm playing orks and even orks often have to protect themselves from charges using chaff units that block the path. And now you want to take those mek gunz, grots and smaller squads bauble-wrapping the important blobs out of the game.

It would be fine if we had explictly footslogging assaulters who do need something going for them. But when we have stuff that's in your face t2 and you even can't hault their advance...what'd be the point of shooting at all?

Then you should plan accordingly. Think less chaff, more tarpits. Wraiths may be tough as nails and quick as lightning.. But it's going to take them quite awhile to chew through 50 fearless conscripts, 30 boyz and a nob, as well as plenty of other units which either have the sheer weight of numbers / invulnerable saves to slow those units down. I personally would encourage it because it adds another intelligent aspect to building a stupid castle-and-shoot list besides "Bring lots of dakka in many small units". Getting the likes of Tau to spread their lines and think about how they position themselves would only benefit the game.

 morganfreeman wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

DaPino wrote:
Honestly, I think that consolidating into another enemy unit not only makes sense fluffwise, but also from a gameplay point of view.

Anyone stupid enough to keep non-assault units within D6" of a combat deserves to get his army clubbed to death. On rare occasions, someone charges a unit and completely obliterates it in 1 turn. When that happens, there's a possibility of 2 units getting assaulted one after another but disordered charge is a thing so the only really thing you'd getting out of it is extra attacks.

I agree with this point, this one change alone could make a big difference. Even a charge distance of 6" + D6 I think is a good one. Limit overwatch to assault weapons only. Meh.

Yeah, no. It'd be too powerful. There are things that can get into combat very quickly and have higt charge ranges thanks to fleet and ignore terrain. Like beasts. Wraiths come to mind. Suggestions like: "just keep out of harm's way and spread your troops out keeping them apart from one another" won't work in larger games - you simply have no space to spread out and it's actually not always possible even on larger maps due to terrain.

And deathstar units that are impossible to kill in one go. What can, say, a not mobile shooty army do against them if it can't hault their advance with chaff?

I'm playing orks and even orks often have to protect themselves from charges using chaff units that block the path. And now you want to take those mek gunz, grots and smaller squads bauble-wrapping the important blobs out of the game.

It would be fine if we had explictly footslogging assaulters who do need something going for them. But when we have stuff that's in your face t2 and you even can't hault their advance...what'd be the point of shooting at all?

Then you should plan accordingly. Think less chaff, more tarpits. Wraiths may be tough as nails and quick as lightning.. But it's going to take them quite awhile to chew through 50 fearless conscripts, 30 boyz and a nob, as well as plenty of other units which either have the sheer weight of numbers / invulnerable saves to slow those units down. I personally would encourage it because it adds another intelligent aspect to building a stupid castle-and-shoot list besides "Bring lots of dakka in many small units". Getting the likes of Tau to spread their lines and think about how they position themselves would only benefit the game.

I agree. Shooting will still be powerful, but assault armies will become alot more viable.

 Jayden63 wrote:
Third was clearly the assault king, and it could be abused something fierce. However, I think forth edition, even with the entrapment rules was the most favorable to assault vs shooty balance. It wasn't as overpowered as 3rd and as such made a hybrid shooty/assault armies much more viable. You didn't need to strongly focus on one or the other.

With the regularity of failing a 6" charge across open terrain (not including wounds due to overwatch) 27% of the time... 7th edition is not assault friendly no matter how you look at it.

7th is fething terrible for assault, I tried to make it work and unless you have fleet or a 12" move it is utterly pointless. Ive failed a 5" charge more than once, got shot up for my trouble and that was enough for me.

EDIT: and invisibility, which pretty much breaks any game it is used in anyway.

DaPino wrote:
Honestly, I think that consolidating into another enemy unit not only makes sense fluffwise, but also from a gameplay point of view.

Anyone stupid enough to keep non-assault units within D6" of a combat deserves to get his army clubbed to death. On rare occasions, someone charges a unit and completely obliterates it in 1 turn. When that happens, there's a possibility of 2 units getting assaulted one after another but disordered charge is a thing so the only really thing you'd getting out of it is extra attacks.

Um...did you play those earlier editions and with this mechanic? It was incredibly easy to abuse this. It's not at all uncommon for certain armies to not have the luxury of spreading out appropriately, either because they're fragile and need to stay in cover, are too numerous to do so, have awkward deployment zones, etc.

It was not at all unheard of to see an assault army never get shot at after turn 2, and I played (on both sides) several games where the assaulting side never was able to be shot at at all thank to 3E/4E terrain rules and consolidating into new assaults, and there wasn't much the losing side could do about it.

It'd be even worse now with Hammer and Anvil deployment type.

Let people shoot units engaged in combat with any rolls of 1 being hits to your friendly units. I think assault being immune to shooting is just plain silly especially when things like the nids would gladly chew through their own units to kill the enemy.

I think all the standing around doing nothing on turn 1 etc is there to prevent assault units from basking in that immunity. Take it away and those units being able to charge turn 1 or out of any vehicle becomes a significantly smaller problem.

Finally, I REALLY like the idea of a unit sacrificing it's shooting phase to go on overwatch. It allows a unit to move into a defensible position and then threaten anyone who moves too close next turn. Much more tactical. A far more interesting choice.

 Squidmanlolz wrote:
if I had to give the advantage to anyone in 7th edition, I would say that it's not necessarily the edition of shooters, it is the edition of speed.
Shooting units preform better than most assault units, however assault units with speed are good.
Fast moving units seem to be the key to 7th edition. You have your flyrants, wave serpents, wraiths, etc. To be a good unit, whether shooting or assaulting in 7th ed, you need to be moving fast, jinking, JSJing, etc.
7th edition is an edition of moving really fast.

I think you've got a very good point here. Speed matters a great deal in a game with relatively few opportunities to act, and the rules all favour units which have some form of extra mobility enormously; skimmers vs ground vehicles, FMCs vs MCs, JSJ units over anything that isn't. Considering the fast armies are also some of the most "buffable" via one means or another, they then often become the toughest as well. Wraiths, Eldar anything,etc, they're all super-hard to kill nevermind catch. An army with speed has choices; they can skirmish with enemy units, get into assault quickly, ignore combat and go for objectives in Maelstrom, etc. An army without good access to super-speedy and often tough units is locked in to a particular strategy for the game; footsloggers will only get to move, at absolute most 84'' in a 7 turn game if they roll 6s for every run move and do nothing else; Eldar jetbikes can move just under that in 2 turns, and are tougher than any foot unit. Beat units like Wraiths and Fleshounds can move that total distance in a game by default and still assault, etc.

 Vaktathi wrote:

DaPino wrote:
Honestly, I think that consolidating into another enemy unit not only makes sense fluffwise, but also from a gameplay point of view.

Anyone stupid enough to keep non-assault units within D6" of a combat deserves to get his army clubbed to death. On rare occasions, someone charges a unit and completely obliterates it in 1 turn. When that happens, there's a possibility of 2 units getting assaulted one after another but disordered charge is a thing so the only really thing you'd getting out of it is extra attacks.

Um...did you play those earlier editions and with this mechanic? It was incredibly easy to abuse this. It's not at all uncommon for certain armies to not have the luxury of spreading out appropriately, either because they're fragile and need to stay in cover, are too numerous to do so, have awkward deployment zones, etc.

It was not at all unheard of to see an assault army never get shot at after turn 2, and I played (on both sides) several games where the assaulting side never was able to be shot at at all thank to 3E/4E terrain rules and consolidating into new assaults, and there wasn't much the losing side could do about it.

It'd be even worse now with Hammer and Anvil deployment type.

The problem is now that elite melee units (which haven't been given thought since 4E) are now useless as they kill a unit and get shot up, which is counter-productive as now you have to finagle it so that you end up doing slightly LESS damage on your turn, and as a result makes assault even weaker.

As it is though, maybe there could be ONE consolidation charge but instead of being able to attack, they'd take overwatch and just get stuck in with neither side attacking, because as it is, Elite assault units are outright punished from killing in assault, while shooting has no issue of such.

Freezerassasin wrote:
So, I keep hearing people say over and over again on here and other forums that 7th is a "shooting edition". While I have no intention to discuss whether this is true, I have been wondering what people would call a "assault edition". What would need to change to make assault the top dog? Can you do it without making shooting worthless? What would allow a edition that was a healthy mix of both. Just curious about what people think.

3rd Edition was an Assault Edition.

In fact, if you have any qualms about the balance between shooting and assault and how 6th or 7th "nerfed" assault, then look back to 3rd Edition, which created the idea of an "assault army" in the first place.

3rd chopped effective ranges in half, increased movement by 1.5x-2x, and thus brought on an era of armies designed for close combat. In 2nd Edition, even Tyranids and Orks were shooting armies. Hand to hand troops like Genestealers were specialized units.

This fundamental game change created a perpetual lack of balance between "shooting armies" and "assault armies" because of the stark playstyle difference. Shooting armies like the Imperial Guard became heavily static. Reliant more on volume of firepower, and assault armies became entirely about movement. Imagine trying to balance a Historicals game where one side was playing WW2 Wehrmacht and the other side was playing Medieval French knights. Sounds impossible to balance? Thus the problem with 40K. Except 3rd Edition just tried to make the knights go faster and reduced the German shooting to the width of a soccer pitch.

When the game discouraged entire armies from shooting, it forever broke the balance in a game with guns. It will always be favored in one direction or the other. At least with it "imbalanced" in the favor of guns, it makes a little sense, lol.

3rd chopped effective ranges in half, increased movement by 1.5x-2x, and thus brought on an era of armies designed for close combat. In 2nd Edition, even Tyranids and Orks were shooting armies. Hand to hand troops like Genestealers were specialized units.

Wouldn't say that specifically as there was plenty of non-shooting units, but yeah BS3 orks with bolters and up to BS5 Warbosses.

Are we still trying to refute the premise that "7th Ed is an assault edition"?

Assault still has a place in 7th, but it's for Wraithknights, Imperial Knights, Dread Knights, Flying Hive Tyrants, Demon Princes, and the occasional special character.

"Assault Units"- those units specifically tailored for close combat, either with wargear or special rules- just don't cut it any more. More often then not, they serve as ablative armor for a special character or to "tar pit" an enemy unit. I can spend 200+ points on a Space Marine Assault unit with Jump Packs, give them as many P-Fists, T-Hammers, and what have you as possible, have a Librarian join them for another 150+ points, and have a unit that now costs over 350 points that will lose half its members before it even gets into assault, and if I somehow win an assault during my turn, will get shot to death on my opponents next turn. Or, I can just take an Imperial Knight that will shoot a bunch of stuff, get into close combat and pretty much stomp everything else, and then shoot some more. A close combat unit that somehow makes it into combat and wins is usually so broken that its effectiveness is somewhere around Gretchen level. That Imperial Knight? May have lost a HP or two, but still fully functional and ready to continue.

GW went out of their way in 7th to include some of the best assault rules yet, and the best wargear in the game is assault-centric. There are a ton of special rules for assaults, and challenges! Those are still a bit wonky, but way better then it was in 6th. Anyways, it's all a moot point as I can simply shoot you and the assault never takes place. :/

The only saving grace is Maelstorm missions and objectives. I might be able to shoot you off the table, but if you got more objectives then I did, it's a moot point.

GW went out of their way in 7th to include some of the best assault rules yet,

What? I'm sorry but after 5th I'm not sure what has been included to make some of the best assault rules after cutting transport/outflank assault.

I would think at the very least, if your transport's walls disintegrated (blew up) around you, you would be able to charge, assuming you weren't pinned or killed.

The shooting edition thing is not only the core rules, but a massive combination of those as well as popular units that benefit highly from those rules. I don't think "the edition balance" can be fixed by either core rules or codex rules alone. It's a whole bunch of different interactions that are multiplying their effects with each other.

Here is my opinion on the matter:

1) No assault unit should ever be able to charge Turn 1, as it is demoralizing to build a shooting army and then never have it shoot (except a dumbass overwatch).

2) No assault unit should be able to assault if it comes in from reserves (unless it comes in conventionally from its own board edge) - this makes deployment dumb. In 5th, you had to play a 2000pt game in a small 36" square in the middle of the table or get dogpiled by genestealers - that was not any fun.

3) No consolidating from combat-into-combat - having played in 3rd and 4th, I have flashbacks to when like, six khorne berzerkers obliterated most of an army in one assault phase, because the opponent simply lacked the space to spread out (foot guard).

Other than that, no worries! I am even okay with assaulting from transports, since at least you got hit by some bullets first (or at least your transports did).

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

GW went out of their way in 7th to include some of the best assault rules yet,

What? I'm sorry but after 5th I'm not sure what has been included to make some of the best assault rules after cutting transport/outflank assault.

There are now very clear and explicit rules on how to move to get into assault, who can fight, what they can fight with, initiative steps, wound allocation, functional grenades (though effective is not an adjective I would use for them...), clear rules on multiple unit assaults, leadership tests, fleeing, consolidation, and probably a few more I can't think of right now. Unless you never had an issue in 4th/5th of wound allocation shenanigans, "Hidden Power Fists", Special Characters that were always the last to die in the assault, what happens when three units are involved in the assault- what leadership value do you use? Do you roll sweeping advance for one unit, or both? Is the unit considered to win close combat, or just a "side"? I'm sorry, but 5th edition was a mess when it came to which model you move into close combat first, which models can fight, and things like the guy with a powerfist in base to base with an enemy model was never killed, but the five guys behind him who don't get to attack are all removed as casualties first.

It was a confusing mess when my Assault Marines and Chaplin with jump packs along with a Tactical marine squad managed to assault the same enemy squad. If I lost the close combat, whose leadership did I use? The lowest on the Tactical marines (LD8)? Or the Chaplin who was LD 10 and fearless? Well, his Fearless extends to the Assault Marines, but not the Tactical marines. So do I make two leadership tests? What happens if the Tactical marines fail? Can the enemy sweep them and still be engaged with the Assault marines? No matter how many wounds I took, I could "slough them off" onto the Tactical marines to preserve my Assault squad.

It got even worse when it came to multi-wound, multi-toughness, multi-WS models. No, 5th ed was a nightmare for close combat. Arguing that because you can't assault out of a transport anymore, or after a deepstrike, or when you outflank. Yes, those were awesome rules and I miss them as well, but it didn't make up for all the other issues that were never resolved in 5th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Here is my opinion on the matter:

1) No assault unit should ever be able to charge Turn 1, as it is demoralizing to build a shooting army and then never have it shoot (except a dumbass overwatch).

2) No assault unit should be able to assault if it comes in from reserves (unless it comes in conventionally from its own board edge) - this makes deployment dumb. In 5th, you had to play a 2000pt game in a small 36" square in the middle of the table or get dogpiled by genestealers - that was not any fun.

3) No consolidating from combat-into-combat - having played in 3rd and 4th, I have flashbacks to when like, six khorne berzerkers obliterated most of an army in one assault phase, because the opponent simply lacked the space to spread out (foot guard).

Other than that, no worries! I am even okay with assaulting from transports, since at least you got hit by some bullets first (or at least your transports did).

Oh, I remember a time when my unit of Space Wolf Blood Claws (15 got whittled down to 5) finally reached the Tau Firewarriors and proceeded to walk through three units of them over two turns. It was glorious and frightful at the same time, and I really felt bad for the Tau player. I really thought at the time that no unit, no matter how good in close combat they are, should be able to do that.

I like your rules! They make sense. I just wish GW would bring back the assault out of vehicles, deepstrike, and outflank again. Why not just make a blanket rule that says "No unit may ever assault on turn 1". Or at the very least, how about "If the transport hasn't moved, the passengers may disembark and assault if they wish to do so". I think that would go a long way to bringing a little more assault back into the game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Here is my opinion on the matter:

1) No assault unit should ever be able to charge Turn 1, as it is demoralizing to build a shooting army and then never have it shoot (except a dumbass overwatch).

2) No assault unit should be able to assault if it comes in from reserves (unless it comes in conventionally from its own board edge) - this makes deployment dumb. In 5th, you had to play a 2000pt game in a small 36" square in the middle of the table or get dogpiled by genestealers - that was not any fun.

3) No consolidating from combat-into-combat - having played in 3rd and 4th, I have flashbacks to when like, six khorne berzerkers obliterated most of an army in one assault phase, because the opponent simply lacked the space to spread out (foot guard).

Other than that, no worries! I am even okay with assaulting from transports, since at least you got hit by some bullets first (or at least your transports did).

"No assault unit should ever be able to quickly deploy, land an alpha-strike, or have a way to handle a tightly-packed-bluster-ball-of-MSU-death. I should always be able to blast choppy guys to rodent gak before they can touch me." That's literally all I see when reading this.

 Tamwulf wrote:

Oh, I remember a time when my unit of Space Wolf Blood Claws (15 got whittled down to 5) finally reached the Tau Firewarriors and proceeded to walk through three units of them over two turns. It was glorious and frightful at the same time, and I really felt bad for the Tau player. I really thought at the time that no unit, no matter how good in close combat they are, should be able to do that.

I like your rules! They make sense. I just wish GW would bring back the assault out of vehicles, deepstrike, and outflank again. Why not just make a blanket rule that says "No unit may ever assault on turn 1". Or at the very least, how about "If the transport hasn't moved, the passengers may disembark and assault if they wish to do so". I think that would go a long way to bringing a little more assault back into the game.

I'm genuinely confused as to what 3rd and 4th edition you guys were playing, because it sure as shingles wasn't the same one as me. As a guy who ran a CC army back then I just went and looked at the consolidation / sweeping advance rules in my 3rd and 4th ed BRB's (I have them on a shelf right above my desk with the rest of my 40k rule books).

In 3rd ed, when a unit lost combat and retreated, you didn't role to compare initiative but merely distance. The pursuing unit would chase the retreating one directly along their path of retreat (towards their board edge) for the distance rolled. You could engage another unit in this way, but they'd have to be standing between the unit that just lost combat and their route of preferred retreat.. I.E. it would be a tactical error on that player's part. Alternatively, the initial assaulted unit had to be completely wiped out with no models left standing - in that case the victor could sweep 2d6 inches where-ever they liked and engage new targets at a whim. The result was halved when moving through any kind of terrain.

Chew on that for a second, in order to truly benefit from the whole "sweeping advance into combat" and not just poor model control on your adversaries part you had to absolutely butcher a unit. Not one survivor. This is actually harder to do than you'd expect, especially against a competent enemy who understands how the rules work and would thusly try to tar-pit you.

In 4th ed the rules became slightly less random. You compared initiative and didn't move the models at all with regards to trying to "chase down" a fleeing foe, they just died or got away. If you managed to win that initiative contest or crush the unit entirely, you got to roll a d6 and move that far without worrying about difficult terrain, potentially engaging new combats. If the unit got away, you got to move a flat 3". Basically this made it so the victor could always move, but would wouldn't be able to move nearly as far. When we apply averages they'd move only a quarter of their potential in the last edition, under half of what was 'average' last time - though on the flip side they weren't punished for difficult terrain. Oh, they also didn't get any bonus attacks for charging, which is huge.

So many people, when referring to consolidating / sweeping into combats, make it sound like assault units would regularly launch themselves a good 12" after butchering one of your squads, re-engage another, and just leap-frog their way down the line. This could happen in third, but you had to have serious dice like and absolutely no terrain. Another exaggeration which I've seen made (but you two don't seem to be making) is that the new combat would begin immediately I.E. an assault unit butchers your entire army in one turn, moving from unit to unit in a never-ending killing spree. I won't deny that consolidating / sweeping in and out of combat was strong.. But what with over-watch, the addition of defensive grenades (didn't exist back then), hugely increased mobility, and some cataclysmic nerfs to assault units in other ways, it wouldn't be as broken as it was before. It would simply allow an assault player to not lose a unit for free simply because they performed well, which is absurd.

Assaulter armies really did used to be broken and you won't see me argue this. The combination of being able to assault from deep strike / infiltrate / out flank, combined with sweeping / consolidating into combat, the lack of over-watch, and the old LoS system back then which made terrain way rougher to shoot around / through made assault armies nightmarish. But now every single one of those things has been removed or changed in the favor of shooters as well as new stipulations and restrictions applied to those who want to get into assault. Giving back one of the "big three" in the form of alpha-strike assaults which can only be countered via positioning / overwatch, the ability to pile from combat to combat and punish poor unit placement, or terrain which makes shooting actually difficult and heavily punishes gun-lining would make the game a lot more balanced.

 morganfreeman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Here is my opinion on the matter:

1) No assault unit should ever be able to charge Turn 1, as it is demoralizing to build a shooting army and then never have it shoot (except a dumbass overwatch).

2) No assault unit should be able to assault if it comes in from reserves (unless it comes in conventionally from its own board edge) - this makes deployment dumb. In 5th, you had to play a 2000pt game in a small 36" square in the middle of the table or get dogpiled by genestealers - that was not any fun.

3) No consolidating from combat-into-combat - having played in 3rd and 4th, I have flashbacks to when like, six khorne berzerkers obliterated most of an army in one assault phase, because the opponent simply lacked the space to spread out (foot guard).

Other than that, no worries! I am even okay with assaulting from transports, since at least you got hit by some bullets first (or at least your transports did).

"No assault unit should ever be able to quickly deploy, land an alpha-strike, or have a way to handle a tightly-packed-bluster-ball-of-MSU-death. I should always be able to blast choppy guys to rodent gak before they can touch me." That's literally all I see when reading this.

"Assault units should have a way to quickly deploy, land an alpha strike, and murderize an entire unit in one turn all by itself, unsupported. I should always be able to murderize shooty guys to rodent gak before they can shoot me." That's literally all I see when people complain assault is underpowered.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Here is my opinion on the matter:

1) No assault unit should ever be able to charge Turn 1, as it is demoralizing to build a shooting army and then never have it shoot (except a dumbass overwatch).

2) No assault unit should be able to assault if it comes in from reserves (unless it comes in conventionally from its own board edge) - this makes deployment dumb. In 5th, you had to play a 2000pt game in a small 36" square in the middle of the table or get dogpiled by genestealers - that was not any fun.

3) No consolidating from combat-into-combat - having played in 3rd and 4th, I have flashbacks to when like, six khorne berzerkers obliterated most of an army in one assault phase, because the opponent simply lacked the space to spread out (foot guard).

Other than that, no worries! I am even okay with assaulting from transports, since at least you got hit by some bullets first (or at least your transports did).

"No assault unit should ever be able to quickly deploy, land an alpha-strike, or have a way to handle a tightly-packed-bluster-ball-of-MSU-death. I should always be able to blast choppy guys to rodent gak before they can touch me." That's literally all I see when reading this.

"Assault units should have a way to quickly deploy, land an alpha strike, and murderize an entire unit in one turn all by itself, unsupported. I should always be able to murderize shooty guys to rodent gak before they can shoot me." That's literally all I see when people complain assault is underpowered.

Your unit with scary guns can remove or cripple one of my units turn one. It can be buffed through a variety of means, depending on what army you play, to be given rending, ignore's cover, and other benefits to make sure it does this.

Why is me being able to do the same on a unit which has deep strike / infiltrate / scout (rules which I pay a points premium for) ? Especially when clever deployment can mitigate or remove the risk (Ignores cover removes the bubble-wrap factor for your shooters, where's my assault equivilent?), and in the case of deep-striking it runs a very real chance of dying or being delayed without a shot being fired?

I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to shoot your guns ever, that's silly. But it's equilly silly that you get horrifyingly powerful alpha strikes and can bypass all these rules I rely on to defend msyelf.. But then cry foul and anti-fun if I request the ability to have a trick or two up my own sleeve.

If it becomes an assault edition then snooty armies (IG and Tau) will become invalid so surely a balance would be better rather than just shifting the uncompetitive armies...

 morganfreeman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Here is my opinion on the matter:

1) No assault unit should ever be able to charge Turn 1, as it is demoralizing to build a shooting army and then never have it shoot (except a dumbass overwatch).

2) No assault unit should be able to assault if it comes in from reserves (unless it comes in conventionally from its own board edge) - this makes deployment dumb. In 5th, you had to play a 2000pt game in a small 36" square in the middle of the table or get dogpiled by genestealers - that was not any fun.

3) No consolidating from combat-into-combat - having played in 3rd and 4th, I have flashbacks to when like, six khorne berzerkers obliterated most of an army in one assault phase, because the opponent simply lacked the space to spread out (foot guard).

Other than that, no worries! I am even okay with assaulting from transports, since at least you got hit by some bullets first (or at least your transports did).

"No assault unit should ever be able to quickly deploy, land an alpha-strike, or have a way to handle a tightly-packed-bluster-ball-of-MSU-death. I should always be able to blast choppy guys to rodent gak before they can touch me." That's literally all I see when reading this.

"Assault units should have a way to quickly deploy, land an alpha strike, and murderize an entire unit in one turn all by itself, unsupported. I should always be able to murderize shooty guys to rodent gak before they can shoot me." That's literally all I see when people complain assault is underpowered.

Your unit with scary guns can remove or cripple one of my units turn one. It can be buffed through a variety of means, depending on what army you play, to be given rending, ignore's cover, and other benefits to make sure it does this.

Why is me being able to do the same on a unit which has deep strike / infiltrate / scout (rules which I pay a points premium for) ? Especially when clever deployment can mitigate or remove the risk (Ignores cover removes the bubble-wrap factor for your shooters, where's my assault equivilent?), and in the case of deep-striking it runs a very real chance of dying or being delayed without a shot being fired?

I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to shoot your guns ever, that's silly. But it's equilly silly that you get horrifyingly powerful alpha strikes and can bypass all these rules I rely on to defend msyelf.. But then cry foul and anti-fun if I request the ability to have a trick or two up my own sleeve.

"Your unit with Turn 1 deepstrike, infiltrate, or scout can remove or cripple one of my units turn 1. It can be buffed through a variety of means, depending on what army you play, to be given rending, re-rolls to hit, Smash, and other benefits to make sure it does this.

Why is me being able to do the same with a unit which has ignores cover / rending / twin-linked (rules which I pay a points premium for) ? Especially when clever deployment can mitigate or remove the risk (deep striking out of line of sight removes the ability for me to shoot you, where's my equivalent against close combat attacks?), and in the case of scattering blasts it runs a very real chance of hitting my own troops and killing them, especially at close, near-assault ranges.

I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to assault ever, that's silly. But it's equally silly that you get horrifyingly powerful unit-wiping potential that can bypass all of my shooting that I rely on to defend myself. But then cry foul and anti-fun if I request the ability to shoot units before the knock my teeth out."

I would be saying what I wrote above if turn 1 infiltrate/deep strike then assault were possible.

There are fundamentally two big things with CC that Shooting lacks, that sometimes gets missed.

First is control. If you engage and enemy unit in CC, it can't do anything else. It can't shoot. It can't move, and often can't cast any useful psychic powers or use things like Orders.

Likewise, there is no shooting equivalent of "sweeping advance". In CC, as long as I inflict one more wound than my opponent, even if it means I only inflicted a single wound and took none in return, I can force a morale test and potentially destroy the entire enemy unit. Shooting can't do that.

CC also has a huge leg up on anti-tank, getting to automatically hit the weakest armor facing and hitting on no worse than 3's (except against Walkers), and often with a far larger volume of attacks than one could ever hope for in shooting.

These things always have to be kept in ming.


There are issues with 7th edition in general, but there are still devastatingly effective CC components that routinely see top tables.

I honestly think the bigger issue is simply inflation. Just as you don't see IG armies doing well with platoons operating normally, you don't see units like Banshees or Assault Marines tearing it up either, and instead its reinforced fearless blob platoons and bikes that are taking the field successfully instead.

Indeed. Assault has far more control elements than shooting does. Assaulting a unit effectively cripples it, even if you do 0 casualties and both units just sit there with thumbs up their butts.

 Vaktathi wrote:
There are fundamentally two big things with CC that Shooting lacks, that sometimes gets missed.

First is control. If you engage and enemy unit in CC, it can't do anything else. It can't shoot. It can't move, and often can't cast any useful psychic powers or use things like Orders.

Likewise, there is no shooting equivalent of "sweeping advance". In CC, as long as I inflict one more wound than my opponent, even if it means I only inflicted a single wound and took none in return, I can force a morale test and potentially destroy the entire enemy unit. Shooting can't do that.

CC also has a huge leg up on anti-tank, getting to automatically hit the weakest armor facing and hitting on no worse than 3's (except against Walkers), and often with a far larger volume of attacks than one could ever hope for in shooting.

These things always have to be kept in ming.


There are issues with 7th edition in general, but there are still devastatingly effective CC components that routinely see top tables.

I honestly think the bigger issue is simply inflation. Just as you don't see IG armies doing well with platoons operating normally, you don't see units like Banshees or Assault Marines tearing it up either, and instead its reinforced fearless blob platoons and bikes that are taking the field successfully instead.

This. Could not have put it better myself. Assault is so much more dangerous than shooting, it SHOULD have more hoops to jump through as a result of all that increased lethality. Do I think the pendulum has swung too far? Yes, I do, but the answer isn't to have an edition where everything can assault on a deep strike. I think 5th edition struck a pretty good balance. I personally feel that assault should only ever be used to finish off a unit that's already been crippled by shooting, but I know that's not a commonly shared view on here.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
There are fundamentally two big things with CC that Shooting lacks, that sometimes gets missed.

First is control. If you engage and enemy unit in CC, it can't do anything else. It can't shoot. It can't move, and often can't cast any useful psychic powers or use things like Orders.

Likewise, there is no shooting equivalent of "sweeping advance". In CC, as long as I inflict one more wound than my opponent, even if it means I only inflicted a single wound and took none in return, I can force a morale test and potentially destroy the entire enemy unit. Shooting can't do that.

CC also has a huge leg up on anti-tank, getting to automatically hit the weakest armor facing and hitting on no worse than 3's (except against Walkers), and often with a far larger volume of attacks than one could ever hope for in shooting.

These things always have to be kept in ming.


There are issues with 7th edition in general, but there are still devastatingly effective CC components that routinely see top tables.

I honestly think the bigger issue is simply inflation. Just as you don't see IG armies doing well with platoons operating normally, you don't see units like Banshees or Assault Marines tearing it up either, and instead its reinforced fearless blob platoons and bikes that are taking the field successfully instead.

This. Could not have put it better myself. Assault is so much more dangerous than shooting, it SHOULD have more hoops to jump through as a result of all that increased lethality. Do I think the pendulum has swung too far? Yes, I do, but the answer isn't to have an edition where everything can assault on a deep strike. I think 5th edition struck a pretty good balance. I personally feel that assault should only ever be used to finish off a unit that's already been crippled by shooting, but I know that's not a commonly shared view on here.

Your point of view on assault is blatantly biased: there are lots of armies out there that rely (or should but it's simply ineffective) on assault primarily

Oh I certainly won't argue that, I'm definitely biased. Objectively though you really can't deny how much more lethal assault is, which is why I agree so much with Vaktathi's post.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
Oh I certainly won't argue that, I'm definitely biased. Objectively though you really can't deny how much more lethal assault is, which is why I agree so much with Vaktathi's post.

Depending, the issue is how much more lethal SOME assault units are which is the problem, no assault units are created equal in this edition and the one's that thrive are really, really good.

There's a powerful lethality based between something like a meleebrute (A3 100+ points), vs a unit of wraiths for example, or assault marines aren't exactly going to be scaring much at all.

Shooting is just as lethal, if not moreso the problem in general is specific units.

 morganfreeman wrote:

Then you should plan accordingly. Think less chaff, more tarpits. Wraiths may be tough as nails and quick as lightning.. But it's going to take them quite awhile to chew through 50 fearless conscripts, 30 boyz and a nob, as well as plenty of other units which either have the sheer weight of numbers / invulnerable saves to slow those units down. I personally would encourage it because it adds another intelligent aspect to building a stupid castle-and-shoot list besides "Bring lots of dakka in many small units". Getting the likes of Tau to spread their lines and think about how they position themselves would only benefit the game.

Firstly, castling up is allready a loosing strategy with maelstorm.

Secondly, how can, for example, tau bring tarpits without allies? They have only chaff.

While a simple d6 consolidation move into another combat could be fine and not overpowered on paper, it simply has a potential of being either completely useless or completely broken.

Take note that i'm playing footslogging assaulty orkses and i'm actually having more trouble against dedicated assault armies rather than dedicated shooting armies now. In 6-th where only the last turn, fb and linebreaker mattered shooters were over the top good. But now you can't just win games sitting there.

I think every army needs some sort of assault based transport if the rules don't change. At the moment my berzerkers get wiped out more times than not because they have to either stand in front of enemy fire when disembarking or walk slowly across the map. If at least I could take the LR as a transport for them to ride in on turn one, I would be happy. I also feel deep striking, which is already a risk, is just plain silly when your men just stand around. Essentially things like my Terminators (my favorite models) and my banshees just don't have a place in this game that can't be done better by something cheaper.

I don't really blame them, as it is, there is so much bloat I figure it is really hard to get things truly balanced but sometimes I just wonder if they take any time at all to look at what was wrong in the last edition and figure out a fix instead of just nerfing a codex and reciprocating the problem.

Special Melee weapons, while cool in theory, hurt assault. Used to be every power weapon was AP2 and swung at iniative unless it was some sort of power fist or something. With all the special stats now, what was once considered bog standard power weapon performance is restricted to character LOWs and stuff like that. Since lascannons and lances didn't get dropped to AP4, that hurt assault relatively.

Assault is deadlier now, which is better and worse. It used to be more difficult to destroy units in assault unless you had a big qualitative mismatch but now things get bad pretty quick, which resolves things faster.

Assault used to be relatively overpowered because you could pack in more special CCW than special ranged weapons, and the special CCWs were typically better than the ranged weapons. Plus, you got in assault fast, and if you planned assaults right you could be in combat dealing damage for 10 assault phases, whereas you had a maximum of 6 shooting phases. So there were some natural advantages to assault, but those have been nickel and dimed away. The addition of an entirely new model class to the game that is functionally immune to assault didn't help anything.