Is 40K Really a "Screw You" to Assault?

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.

**Valkyrie**

Since the arrival of 6th Edition, the general consensus on 40k has been that it is game suited to ranged combat, and good ol' melee has been nerfed to the extreme. I'm still struggling to see why this is the case, as so far it seems that the only major nerf we've had to assault is Overwatch. Yes, there are minor quips as well such as transports too but is it really fair to assume that an army based around melee combat is automatically destined to lose?

Overwatch: Sure, it can hurt in some cases, but the odds of you taking massive losses to Overwatch really that high? A Tactical Marine trying to kill a Chaos Marine via Overwatch has a 1/36 chance of actually doing any damage. In such an assault with 10 guys charging, then yes, you may take 1, maybe 2 casualties occasionally. Unless you're against Tau, which to be fair, suck in melee anyway so this is their compensation, Overwatch really shouldn't put much of a dent in your assault.

Varying charge range: Bit annoying I know, but it's a double-edged factor. Yes you might roll 2" for assault, much shorter than you could in 5th, but likewise you could roll for a 12" charge, double what you could previously do.

Transports: I can see how this would be annoying. Not being able to assault from a transport even if it's stationary is rather messed up, but there are other ways you can get around this such as Deep Striking, using faster troops, or even using transports anyway and shielding them from return fire before they assault.

I've just listed a couple of reasons why I've heard that Assault is dead. I'm not claiming those counterarguments as fact, I just want to start a discussion, because as I see it, assault really isn't as bad as it's made out to be.

**curran12**

Was Assault nerfed? I think that is a pretty undeniable fact.

Was it ruined? Nah. That's the internet echo-chamber effect going on where the loudest are the right-est.

**Eldarain**

Casualty removal from the front combined with random charge distance was the biggest blow.

Not being able to assault out of anything that isn't an assault vehicle along with the weakening of transports through the hull point system didn't help.

Assault isn't dead but if you aren't a FMC, Beast, or Cavalry it's definitely not the most effective way to go about your business.

**juraigamer**

I've been winning more it seems with melee forces than shooting ones. Granted, only my tau are mostly shooting, but since I can win melee with riptides, why not?

**Paradigm**

In a word, no. Assault is certainly no longer the dominant factors in 40k like it was in 5th ed, but it is still far from dead. As anecdotal evidence, most of my games are generally feature a good number of assaults, usually from both sides depending on the opponent, and these are often the deciding factor. Assault out of vehicles is a change I've not really found to affect me (although I was never a fan of transports at all in 5th).

Looking at it more mathematically and objectively, Overwatch is rarely a significant factor, and while it does tone down assaults, the potential for damage is fairly low. Charge range is now statistically 1" further than before on average, and in you are just as likely to roll 12 as you are 2.

Finally, the other think to bear in mind is that the real 'assault' codexes (nids, orks, BA, possibly SW and DE) have not yet been updated, but you can bet that when they do, they'll get some kind of buff to their assault prowess, just as the likes of tau and eldar have to shooting. Once nids are out, and orks are rumoured to be close behind, expect the meta will be a very different place.

**Talore**

Another way that assault was hurt was that you can't assault the turn your unit enters the table anymore, which really hurt a lot of outflankers in particular.

**Brother SRM**

It isn't the deciding factor in 40k anymore but it's still viable. Overwatch is a joke unless you have some serious buffs to it via psychic powers or some kind of army abilities.

And that's a good point Paradigm - a lot of assault heavy armies haven't even been redone yet. I guess Chaos Marines are an assault-heavy army, but they're having a bit of trouble.

**JPong**

Paradigm wrote:
Looking at it more mathematically and objectively, Overwatch is rarely a significant factor, and while it does tone down assaults, the potential for damage is fairly low. Charge range is now statistically 1" further than before on average, and in you are just as likely to roll 12 as you are 2.

This is more than a bit of a dishonest way of looking at it. A roll of a 12 is less likely to be required (it is however always a success) as a roll of a 2 is likely to screw you over (how many 1-2inch charges are you doing after all?). No one is declaring charges at 11-12 inch charge range, hell, most probably don't declare charges over 7. And overwatch doesn't need to be massive to have an effect. Removing one casualty from the front can, and often will, bump the needed charge roll up a whole number. Going from needing 5 or more to 6 or more is 4 roll possibilities lost. 6 to 7 is even worse, at 5 roll results. Even a 7inch charge is risky with a 41.7% chance of failure. It's not like these dedicated assault units have the means to survive being left in the open after all.

**AtoMaki**

Brother SRM wrote:

And that's a good point Paradigm - a lot of assault heavy armies haven't even been redone yet. I guess Chaos Marines are an assault-heavy army, but they're having a bit of trouble.

Chaos Daemons are an almost exclusively assault army, and they are doing fine. Thankfully to FMCs, Beasts and Cavalries but hey, they are still doing fine.

**Redbeard**

There are a lot of small factors that all work together to screw over assault.

Overwatch, as JPong notes, can take away the model who would make it into combat. Drawing casualties from the front means you have more total inches of movement required before contact.

Other small things that add up:

- Hammer&Anvil deployment, which can greatly increase the distance between deployment zones

- First Blood objective, which is far less likely to be decided in an assault

- Challenges, which can blunt the effectiveness of certain assaults

- AP on power weapons means they're less overall effective

- Shooting is more powerful. Pre-measuring allows your opponent to maximize models in-range, move&shoot rapid fire at range, move&snapshot heavy weapons, focus-fire causes more casualties, cover is not as strong overall.

- Flyers can't be hit in assault, meaning an all-assault army has a huge weakness. This then requires removing assault elements to add shooty things to deal with aircraft.

I don't think any of these, alone, would have killed off assault as a viable strategy (perhaps flyers), but taken together, we're left with a game that really doesn't favour assaults. In general, you're better off buying more guns than you are taking an assault unit.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, yeah, and "Disordered Charges" taking the teeth out of multi-assaults is another one of the little things that add up.

**Paradigm**

Redbeard, a lot of the things you mention don't ruin assault, just add an element of change to it. For example, challenges just mean you have to be more careful about keeping more characters in the squad, and the AP changes to power weapons just means you can't take on TEQ with impunity now. But frankly, killing 2+ save models in CC was rarely the best idea in 5th anyway.

The thing to bear in mind was that in 5th, assault was the dominant force, thanks to rapid-fire weapons being less useful, guaranteed charge ranges and no penalty for multi-assaults. While it's now less good, it's still a significant force, just more balanced than it was previously.

**JPong**

Paradigm wrote:
The thing to bear in mind was that in 5th, assault was the dominant force, thanks to rapid-fire weapons being less useful, guaranteed charge ranges and no penalty for multi-assaults. While it's now less good, it's still a significant force, just more balanced than it was previously.

I keep seeing this everywhere, but no one ever backs it up. Fifth was a shooting edition. Shooting won tournaments. Imperial Guard blew everything away. Even traditionally good close combat armies, like Space Wolves and Blood Angels, won the game in the shooting phase. Did everyone forget how Fifth actually played, or am I just crazy? It was nearly all tanks and armour. Tanks don't CC. Infantry were taken sparingly and preferably only if they could shoot (hint Long Fangs). Even Orks made the switch to shootas instead of choppas.

Where is everyone getting this Close Combat was OP in Fifth? Decisive, sure. But the assaulted army wanted it to be decisive. That way they could shoot the guys that did assault. It was one of the big advantages of multiple small units.

**sing your life**

curran12 wrote:
Was Assault nerfed? I think that is a pretty undeniable fact.

Was it ruined? Nah. That's the internet echo-chamber effect going on where the loudest are the right-est.

most of my games have ended with some big assualt.

**Paradigm**

What you are doing is confusing the two powerhouses of 5th, Vehicles/transports and assault. You tended to see a lot of armour in tournaments simply because the lack of HP for vehicles and the way glancing worked made them far more survivable. As such vehicles that could shoot and survive made it into tournament lists, but on the other end of the scale, of the two competitive styles of IG, one focused on armour, but the other focused on assault with power blob.

Your ork point is just statistics, in either edition shootas gave you more shots/attacks over a given period of several turns.

Rapid-fire changed for the better, in 5th the lack of ability to move and fire made them far more situational.

SW won by shooting simply because they could shoot as well as they could assault thanks to counter attack, so could fire rapid, get charged and be no worse off.

**ComTrav**

I suspect that they will 'rebalance' this by giving out assault units that are undercosted or have some crazy special rules.

This is basically what they did in cavalry in WHFB 8th.

**JPong**

Paradigm wrote:
What you are doing is confusing the two powerhouses of 5th, Vehicles/transports and assault. You tended to see a lot of armour in tournaments simply because the lack of HP for vehicles and the way glancing worked made them far more survivable. As such vehicles that could shoot and survive made it into tournament lists, but on the other end of the scale, of the two competitive styles of IG, one focused on armour, but the other focused on assault with power blob.

And those power blobs did so well in tournaments, and all those vehicles were taken for the CC ability? No, they weren't. They were taken because they could shoot. Infantry were taken if they could shoot well, and opened up dedicated transports that could shoot.

Paradigm wrote:
Your ork point is just statistics, in either edition shootas gave you more shots/attacks over a given period of several turns.

And you are acting like they didn't take it all for shooting. They took lootas galore and shootas. Because shooting was better. They actually had some of the best assault potential in Fifth, but they weren't winning tournaments with it.

Paradigm wrote:
Rapid-fire changed for the better, in 5th the lack of ability to move and fire made them far more situational.

So they went from near ubiquitous to near ubiquitous. They got buffed, but I haven't argued anything about them or whether they needed it or not. It just further hurts assault as now they can be shot at full strength while chasing down that tactical squad, yay.

Paradigm wrote:
SW won by shooting simply because they could shoot as well as they could assault thanks to counter attack, so could fire rapid, get charged and be no worse off.

No, they won shooting because they could put 30 rockets down field. The fact that they could hold their own in assault just made the further OP. Proof that they weren't winning by assault is they were couldn't shoot and charge. If they got into the choice between the two, they would shoot, no questions asked, because even 10 rockets has a good chance of doing damage.

Everything revolved around the shooting phase. Armies with poor shooting did poorly. Armies with great shooting did great.

**Ailaros**

Ailaros wrote:

RELATIVE BUFFS FOR SHOOTING

- Your charge distance is at the mercy of the dice. I have seen several assaults that would have been in range in 5th fail in 6th.

- You can no longer run and assault with Fleet.

- Grenades got nerfed for assaulting through terrain.

- Assault grenades no longer hurt vehicles.

- Overwatch

- And, because it really needs to be mentioned twice given the scope of the rule, transported units can overwatch if their transport gets charged, walkers can overwatch, and flamers are overwatch BEASTS. There is now literally no point in attempting to assault a unit of burnaz.

- A unit type that IS IMMUNE TO CLOSE COMBAT was born and became a staple in many lists (fliers)

- You can't assault out of a non-assault vehicle ever and that includes when it is destroyed on you

- Multi-charges were nerfed

- Challenges killed a lot of the potential of combat beast characters

- You can't assault on the turn you come on from reserves

- You can't assault if you Infiltrate or Scout and go first

- The distance from which an assault vehicle brings you closer to the enemy is reduced

- Some random objectives half your assault range

- Furious Charge got nerfed

- Wound allocation forces you to take the models from the front as casualties, this makes an assault unit take an extra turn(s) of being exposed to gunfire before they can get stuck in.

- Wound allocation means that hidden weapons upgrades are no longer hidden. You only need to kill a squad to the point where the upgrade model is the closest to something. This is very easy to achieve with deepstriking.

- Loss of by-unit cover in favor of by-model cover destroys the ability for foot hordes to advance upfield.

- Addition of focus fire

- Addition of Precise Shot.

- Worsening of cover. Intervening units only give 4+, hills no longer area terrain, etc.

- Power weapons got screwed up. Either Ap3, or I1, take your choice...

- You can no longer disembark after moving more than 6" in a transport (killing mech assault units).

- grenades can now be thrown.

- walkers can no longer tie up squads in close combat.

- grenades now work against monstrous creatures in close combat. This hurts dedicated assault units relative to basic infantry that have no desire to be in close combat.

- pre-measuring makes it much easier to make sure shooting weapons are in range, while not helping assault units make it into assault more reliably.

- rapid fire now puts more shots out on the move.

- you can now move and fire heavy weapons. This and the above change to rapid fire mean that you can now back up away from assault units while still shooting.

- parts of a squad can now move without affecting the accuracy of heavy weapons.

- old wound wrapping gotten rid of. I'm glad, but for the purposes of this discussion, it is a boost to shooting more than assaulting.

- pile-in moves reduced to 3" from 6".

- unengaged models in a unit that is locked in close combat must now move closer to the enemy units. Used to capture objectives far away while in close combat with this one in 5th.

- barrage weapons may now fire within their minimum ranges.

- barrage weapons no longer lose strength against vehicles from off-center scatters.

- artillery units got MUCH more survivable.

- models with two pistol weapons can now fire them both.

- vehicles can shoot all weapons at cruising speed.

- in order to charge a vehicle, you must have some way of damaging it.

RELATIVE BUFFS FOR ASSAULT

- hypothetical increase of maximum charge range from 6" to 12". Given that assault range is no longer reliable, I still consider this more of a nerf than a buff. I mean, if you're 12" away, are you really going to attempt to charge? The most likely result is that your opponent will get some free overwatch, and you're still not making it into close combat.

- hammer of wrath.

- assaulting vehicles now gives you much better chance to hit.

- rage rule change

- gets hot now affects those rare vehicles that have it

So, some of these changes are more important than others, and you can uselessly nit-pick them all you like, but the fact is that there were 39 rule changes to make shooting better, and arguably up to 5 rule changes that make assault better.

Put another way, for every rule that made assault better, there were EIGHT rules that make shooting better.

6th ed is a shooting edition. End of.

Not to mention the codices that have come out since 6th. Eldar and especially tau make a mockery of assault. Or, really, any game mechanic that isn't rolling dice to see if you damage something.

**zephoid**

Seems a lot of people here are taking the "well, i assaulted something and won in this edition, so assault isnt bad" route in this thread. Instances dont make good points.

Assault was 2nd rate in 5th, but it had its moments. All the big armies (guard, SW, GK) were so shooty that it was hard to close the gap, and two of them were actually decent enough in melee to deter you from closing.

6th did a few things to change the game that havent been mentioned:

1: Cover. With a 4+, you could be shooting at each other a while before units died. With a 5+, things die a lot faster to shooting, making shooting more valuable and assaulting to deny cover less valuable. Also the inclusion of ignore cover weapons further reduced the necessity for assaulter to remove those 2+ and 3+ cover save units.

2: fleet no longer being all that fleet: a lot of assault units were fleet. In 5th that was huge, since you added about 3.5" to your assault move. In 6th, its more like an additional 2" and you could actually roll less on the fleet reroll. It was also not uncommon for beasts to go 24" in a turn if they got that 6 rather than the near impossibility of it happening now.

3: casualties from the front: This, combined with overwatch, means you are losing a lot of the ability to close the gap when spread out to mitigate blast effectiveness. If you spread each unit 1.5" from the next, you are losing about 2" charge range with just a few casualties. Before you lost nothing.

4: fliers made it necessary to shoot. You cant assault fliers, and they are a big part of this game now. Helldrakes eat most assault units, so you NEED to have a solution to them.

5: outflank nerfs. Just look it genestealers. The inability to assault out of outflank or on first turn infiltrate just ruined a lot of assault armies.

All of these turn into this: if you want to assault in 6th, you have to be able to tank damage. Glass cannon assaulters are dead and rotting. A large portion of the assaulters in the game were mid quality or glass cannon assaulters, meaning they are gone. Therefore, you see far less assault. They do exist, but outside of MCs, 2++ demons, terminators in land raiders, or the thousand gaunt nid swarm you wont see much of any effective assault. Even with those lists, shooting is still a large portion with only a small portion of the list actually devoted to melee.

**Redbeard**

Paradigm wrote:Redbeard, a lot of the things you mention don't ruin assault, just add an element of change to it.

Did you even read my post? It wasn't a list of things that ruined assault, it was a list of things that, when taken all together, ruin assault. Individually, not one of those things would have doomed assault armies. But when you have to work harder and take more casualties to get into assault and then do less damage once you're there, it's hard not to see this as a nerf.

The thing to bear in mind was that in 5th, assault was the dominant force, thanks to rapid-fire weapons being less useful, guaranteed charge ranges and no penalty for multi-assaults. While it's now less good, it's still a significant force, just more balanced than it was previously.

You didn't play in a lot of competitive 5th ed games, did you? 5th ed was not about dominant assaults, it was about MSU shooting, and the survivability of underpriced transports with guns on them. 5th ed wasn't called the parking lot edition for nothing, chimeras and razorbacks were far more dominant than any assault army.

**JPong**

Redbeard wrote:
You didn't play in a lot of competitive 5th ed games, did you? 5th ed was not about dominant assaults, it was about MSU shooting, and the survivability of underpriced transports with guns on them. 5th ed wasn't called the parking lot edition for nothing, chimeras and razorbacks were far more dominant than any assault army.

I don't get this. There has been some sort of revisionist history going on here (and other places) every time this topic comes up. They all just keep swearing that Fifth was assault oriented. Even assault armies were taking troops so they could get more razorbacks or rhinos or psyweapons. There is a reason Tyranids did poorly in this "assault" edition, and it has nothing to do with their assault units being bad in the context of Fifth.

**Grey Templar**

Melee combat is still definitely very much alive.

Shooting simply got better and melee got worse. That doesn't mean melee is horrible. Melee was so good in 5th it could stand to take a hit and still be decent.

All the rule shift has done is mean that its wise to bring a balanced list with both shooting and melee(if possible)

**Paradigm**

@Redbeard: I did read your post, but what I was saying is that even with all these factors combined, assault is still a viable and important part of the game, and a change is not a nerf. YOu just have to adopt a different approach, and be more careful with what you charge. Assault is still just as viable as ever it was.

And no, I did not play competitively at all in 5th (or 6th, for that matter), but from what I saw of the competitive scene, and from my own experience in a semi-competitve meta, assault was generally preferable to shooting if I had the choice. And against the likes of mech IG or Razor-spam, I imagine assaulting them was potentially more effective than trying to outshoot them.

The point I am trying to make is simply that assault has not received the 'screw you' that is mentioned by the OP. It is still viable, and will become more so. The trend of this edition has been the shooty armies getting better at shooting, so I fully expect the assault armies to get better at assault.

**Ailaros**

JPong wrote:I don't get this. There has been some sort of revisionist history going on here (and other places) every time this topic comes up. They all just keep swearing that Fifth was assault oriented.

Yeah, I really don't get this either. It's like 6th ed is balanced now because it saved us from 40k being only an assault game all the time.

As much as some people would really like to believe this, it is SO untrue. Assault armies were workable, but they were hardly overpowered. Imperial guard in 5th edition was one in which you could play power blobs if you wanted to, but guard in 5th edition was way, WAY more all about leafblowers. It's like people are blocking out kan walls and razorspam and venom spam and a whole bunch of others in some desperate bid to feel justified that 40k has become a boring gunline game, because that's how it's "supposed" to be.

But the rosy tints are even worse when you keep going back. People are somehow remembering 4th edition and thinking "consolidate into close combat ZOMG WAY TOO CHOPPY!!!". And they forget what it was like to play against SMF gunlines, and they forget what Tau gunlines could do in 4th edition. There were definitely more choppy armies in 4th but that's because, GASP!, you could actually win a game with close combat in 4th edition. That doesn't change the fact that 4th ed was just as much about shooting as assault.

**ZebioLizard2**

Grey Templar wrote:
Melee combat is still definitely very much alive.

Shooting simply got better and melee got worse. That doesn't mean melee is horrible. Melee was so good in 5th it could stand to take a hit and still be decent.

All the rule shift has done is mean that its wise to bring a balanced list with both shooting and melee(if possible)

Not really, it got hit hard enough. All that got better was shooting, it just simply swapped from Mech based gunline shooting with Razorbacks and other such things to more less transport based.

And no, I did not play competitively at all in 5th (or 6th, for that matter), but from what I saw of the competitive scene, and from my own experience in a semi-competitve meta, assault was generally preferable to shooting if I had the choice. And against the likes of mech IG or Razor-spam, I imagine assaulting them was potentially more effective than trying to outshoot them.

That's..Not comparable and it's a poor anecdotal at best.

The point I am trying to make is simply that assault has not received the 'screw you' that is mentioned by the OP. It is still viable, and will become more so. The trend of this edition has been the shooty armies getting better at shooting, so I fully expect the assault armies to get better at assault.

Chaos space marines aren't exactly thrilled being in the middle here .

But the rosy tints are even worse when you keep going back. People are somehow remembering 4th edition and thinking "consolidate into close combat ZOMG WAY TOO CHOPPY!!!". And they forget what it was like to play against SMF gunlines, and they forget what Tau gunlines could do in 4th edition. There were definitely more choppy armies in 4th but that's because, GASP!, you could actually win a game with close combat in 4th edition. That doesn't change the fact that 4th ed was just as much about shooting as assault.

Don't forget Tau Fish of Fury, and Eldar Skimmerspam.

**macexor**

While I see less assault units being fielded (BA assault space marines for example) I see a great deal of deathstar units that revolve around melee.
During last six tournament games I faced twice a Daemon player with either Flesh Hound with a Khorne Herald unit or Screamerstar, 1 Necron player with Wraiths and 1 Eldar player who deployed Jetseer Council.

I think that assault itself isn't dead. It's only that it is usually 1 big, tough and fast squad that, if not countered, can single-handedly wipe out your entire army.

**JPong**

Ailaros wrote:
JPong wrote:I don't get this. There has been some sort of revisionist history going on here (and other places) every time this topic comes up. They all just keep swearing that Fifth was assault oriented.

Yeah, I really don't get this either. It's like 6th ed is balanced now because it saved us from 40k being only an assault game all the time.

As much as some people would really like to believe this, it is SO untrue. Assault armies were workable, but they were hardly overpowered. Imperial guard in 5th edition was one in which you could play power blobs if you wanted to, but guard in 5th edition was way, WAY more all about leafblowers. It's like people are blocking out kan walls and razorspam and venom spam and a whole bunch of others in some desperate bid to feel justified that 40k has become a boring gunline game, because that's how it's "supposed" to be.

But the rosy tints are even worse when you keep going back. People are somehow remembering 4th edition and thinking "consolidate into close combat ZOMG WAY TOO CHOPPY!!!". And they forget what it was like to play against SMF gunlines, and they forget what Tau gunlines could do in 4th edition. There were definitely more choppy armies in 4th but that's because, GASP!, you could actually win a game with close combat in 4th edition. That doesn't change the fact that 4th ed was just as much about shooting as assault.

All that seems to matter to them is that Mephiston won games but lets ignore the fact that he didn't win tournaments.

**Rustican**

In 4th edition assault was predominant. You could wipe out a unit in assault and consolidate in another unit and lock them into close combat. You could easily roll through a whole army this way with a dedicated assault unit.

5th edition toned that down. You could no longer consolidate into another unit so if you wiped out someone in close combat you just sat there for a round of shooting. Ig and SW dominated with their superior shooting so other armies compensated. Vehicles were more durable and became mobile bunkers. Assault was still viable though with the help of 4+ cover saves from intervening models and the ability to outflank and assault from reserves.

6ed the trend continues more drastically.
Assault out of vehicles and from reserves is no longer possible. Rapid fire rules changes make base shooting units better and more flexible. Easier to fall back while sustaining fire.

Random assault ranges hurt a lot. On average you have a 7" average assault which is in theory better than the flat 6" you got in 5th. I see people say "well now you have 12" assault, that's better". I think that is idiocy. In general no one is going to declare a 12" assault and open them selves up to over watch on the slim chance they can make it. Or unless they have no other choice to. In general people are going to only attempt to assault what they think they can reach. Finally, I've already seen games were a 3" assaults failed due to double ones. Shooting units have no restrictions where they just suddenly not shoot. Pre measuring and set weapon ranges allow them to set up optimally to do the most damage. Assault units even with the best set up can catastrophically fail due to bad luck.

**easysauce**

yeah assault got hit with the nerf bat really hard...

orks are a shooty army... AGAIN... after edition after edition keeps trying to fix that....

hopfully the new dex's will do somthing to mitigate it, but its quite boring with EVERYONE playing gun lines...(at least competitively) at tournaments....

which wouldnt be so bad if there were VIABLE/reliable ways to get stuff into combat before they get shot to bits.

i feel I am at a significant handi cap with my CCW orks, or marines, or anything CCW, and I have been playing since 3rd ed, it never felt this gimped for CC before.

**Redbeard**

Grey Templar wrote:Melee combat is still definitely very much alive.

Shooting simply got better and melee got worse. That doesn't mean melee is horrible. Melee was so good in 5th it could stand to take a hit and still be decent.

All the rule shift has done is mean that its wise to bring a balanced list with both shooting and melee(if possible)

This is all wrong. Those assault armies that are working are really not bringing much shooting, relying on FMCs to handle fliers for the most part. And even in 5th, assault took a backseat to shooting, so to say it could lose more and still be viable is just wrong.

Paradigm wrote:
And no, I did not play competitively at all in 5th (or 6th, for that matter), but from what I saw of the competitive scene, and from my own experience in a semi-competitve meta, assault was generally preferable to shooting if I had the choice. And against the likes of mech IG or Razor-spam, I imagine assaulting them was potentially more effective than trying to outshoot them.

Actually, switching your own army to a similar shooty army was the most effective solution. Armies that people would typically think of as assaulty, like blood angels, space wolves, and grey knights (and dark eldar) relied on shooting to win games in 5th.

The point I am trying to make is simply that assault has not received the 'screw you' that is mentioned by the OP.

Trying and failing. It has been screwed over, and no amount of gloss-coating it will change that.

It is still viable, and will become more so. The trend of this edition has been the shooty armies getting better at shooting, so I fully expect the assault armies to get better at assault.

You're awful optimistic. I'm not seeing it.

**JPong**

Redbeard wrote:

It is still viable, and will become more so. The trend of this edition has been the shooty armies getting better at shooting, so I fully expect the assault armies to get better at assault.

You're awful optimistic. I'm not seeing it.

If they do actually fix it with future codex releases, it's going to be in the most horribly broken band-aid solution ever. It will pretty much have to be "all these assault units ignore the rulebook, here are their rules for assaulting instead." And that's the worst part of it. Assault armies won't become good with the rules, they will become good in spite of the rules.