well someone was telling me in a 40k game last Saturday that 6th edition was 40K moving toward a shooting based game. Were a shooty army has all the power and hand to hand armies are going to be going away because of the rules of 6th edition.

his prof of game going to a shooting army are god and hand to hand armies die.
1. Snap shot
2. Air crafts
3. Flying monstrous creatures.
4. power weapon AP ratings
5. Hand to hand rules
6. Challenge rules.

I didn't want to start an argument with my fellow Chaos player, so I just let it go, but I say that the game has balanced out a little, but hand to hand did get some boost too, with the 2d6 assualt range, and snap shot are at BS1 needing 6's to hit.

Going to write up an new Army list for Chaos to be hand to hand and able to compete in 6th edition.

This has been discussed ad nauseam.

Good luck with an assaulty Chaos army. Vehicles with dirge casters will be your friend.

yeah thinking about starting some converting terms into mutilators, but first I need to get some Warp talons, since I don't have raptors It just be better to wait till they are released form games workshop.

Of course I guess I could use the Doomwing I had custom built to stand in for a Heldrake, I mean didn't want to have to explain my reasoning for a flier with a flamer, and then try to tell them the doomwing which was a games-workshop idea was a flier with a flammer type weapon, but the Heldrake has a flammer type weapon and is a flier.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Power Scourges on the Defielers made them very nice, I found the -1d3 ws very helpful, of course it is nice when the chaos player charges me with his Helbrute and I roll a 3(5) and he becomes WS 1 and he needs 5 to hit.

I think that 6th definitely turned into a more shooting-heavy game, but assault isn't out and out screwed like some people say it is. You can't assault out of a stationary vehicle, snapshots are a deterrent, and the prevalence of targeted shooting can occasionally shut down your sergeants and heavy hitters. However, the average charge length is longer, even with the chance to fail. Challenges are interesting and I'd say can be a buff to assaults, since certain units can really benefit from it. Changes to grenades are also a big deal.

Go by the BRB with d3 pieces of terrain on each 2'x2', including some large LoS blocking piece, the assaut nerf should not be that apparent (I guess). As for me I don't care, I will play assault Nids anyway from time to time, obviously with FMCs to have any chance.

daniel79 wrote:I didn't want to start an argument with my fellow Chaos player, so I just let it go, but I say that the game has balanced out a little, but hand to hand did get some boost too, with the 2d6 assualt range, and snap shot are at BS1 needing 6's to hit.

These aren't benefits to assault though. In 5th you knew you would have your 6", but now you are completely at the mercy of the dice, even if the average is an inch more than before, and as for the BS1 argument, that's hardly a boost since in 5th they couldn't overwatch at all.

No, 6th is very much a shooty game, and your friend nailed down the reasons very well (though he forgot to add that grenades got nerfed when it comes to characters in units). I was loathe to accept that when 6th first came out but after playing enough and a few tournies I can't say I disagree anymore. Some assault elements can still work if done right, but shooting has become the dominant phase.

Yep, go with either quantity or quality, but shooting is king right now.

Assaults still have their place, though.

In 5th, if you weren't guard then shooting was sub par.

Now shooting is in the level with melee, not better.

I keep rolling over people with my CSM foot list, in both the old book and the new one. Also my mono-nurgle demons are doing just fine, if not better, and they are 95% melee.

I am still a big fan of assaulting, heck, all I own are slugga boyz!

The majority of my games are against Tau and I feel that 6th has balanced the assault more (though I miss my I3 on the charge!).

well at least I can use my custom built doomwing as a daemon engine....

I was getting tired of explaining to people how a flamer works on a fighter.... (warp fire is "Magic" and not bound by the laws of physics) but now that Heldrake's autocannon can be upgraded to Baleflamer for free.

 juraigamer wrote:
In 5th, if you weren't guard then shooting was sub par.

Now shooting is in the level with melee, not better.

I keep rolling over people with my CSM foot list, in both the old book and the new one. Also my mono-nurgle demons are doing just fine, if not better, and they are 95% melee.

Razorback GK disagreed with you, as did the other 'back or venom spam lists. Entire lists built around outshooting, usually with one or two units, max, that could handle melee.

6e is Dakkahammer.

6 Edition has moved to shooting, but do not discount Assault Armies. I brought a 2000 points Black Templars list with almost all assault oriented squads and beat a player with the new Chaos Codex and a very shooty list. Field Craft can have a lot to do with the game and how assaulting goes.

I would agree that shooting is much more powerful in 6th, but assaults still can and do change the course of games. I have played two games so far where I was getting beaten into the ground until a unit or two got into assault. Granted they were against Tau and Guard, but the fact that I was able to get into assault with enough guys to do anything gives me the sense that assault is far from being as dead as people seem to think.

I'm still doing quite fine with my Tyranids doing a lot of assaulting. Granted, my army does a lot of shooting as well. Tyranids came off a bit better on the whole charge distance thing with the majority of the army having Fleet, which makes assaulting a lot more reliable.

But every time I hear someone say the Overwatch completely neuters assault, I have to wonder if they're remembering to resolve it as Snapfire. I've never lost more than a few Gaunts to Overwatch, certainly never enough to even drop me out of assault range. I really haven't found it to be the game changing rule it's claimed to be.

People have been saying assault was "dead" since the end of the Rhino Rush, and every time they've said it they've been wrong. I don't see 6th edition as being any different.

Assault isnt dead, you still have to account for it - but the balance is now shooting over assault, for the main game

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Assault isnt dead, you still have to account for it - but the balance is now shooting over assault, for the main game

This.

To say assault is "dead" is just overreaction.

Assault isn't dead, just nerfed. Dakka got improvements, Assault got nerfs.

If Dakka got buffs and Assault stayed the same, Assault falls behind.

If Dakka stayed the same and Assault gets nerfed, Assault falls behind

If Dakka got buffs and Assault got nerfs, Assault falls farther behind.

No way to debate that without making things up.

 60mm wrote:
Assault isn't dead, just nerfed. Dakka got improvements, Assault got nerfs.

If Dakka got buffs and Assault stayed the same, Assault falls behind.

If Dakka stayed the same and Assault gets nerfed, Assault falls behind

If Dakka got buffs and Assault got nerfs, Assault falls farther behind.

No way to debate that without making things up.

Assault also got buffs, though. Things aren't as straightforward as a lot of people seem to think.

 Kingsley wrote:

 60mm wrote:
Assault isn't dead, just nerfed. Dakka got improvements, Assault got nerfs.

If Dakka got buffs and Assault stayed the same, Assault falls behind.

If Dakka stayed the same and Assault gets nerfed, Assault falls behind

If Dakka got buffs and Assault got nerfs, Assault falls farther behind.

No way to debate that without making things up.

Assault also got buffs, though. Things aren't as straightforward as a lot of people seem to think.

Do tell.

 Kingsley wrote:
Assault also got buffs, though. Things aren't as straightforward as a lot of people seem to think.

It depends on the army and unit you're talking about, you can't honestly tell me that DE assault side has gotten better... We've even lost 2" in maximum assault distance, and gained a huge random range that has made assault way too risky for our fragile units(namely the wyches/bloodbrides)... Though, I'm not complaining about the 6" disembark, that 2" disembark was hell enough for my wyches last edition, especially with me being an idiot and always moving way too close...

On the other hand, non-fleet armies have gained some potentially longer charge!

Baronyu wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
Assault also got buffs, though. Things aren't as straightforward as a lot of people seem to think.

It depends on the army and unit you're talking about, you can't honestly tell me that DE assault side has gotten better... We've even lost 2" in maximum assault distance, and gained a huge random range that has made assault way too risky for our fragile units(namely the wyches/bloodbrides)... Though, I'm not complaining about the 6" disembark, that 2" disembark was hell enough for my wyches last edition, especially with me being an idiot and always moving way too close...

On the other hand, non-fleet armies have gained some potentially longer charge!

Some things got better, some things got worse. On the subject of things that have gotten better for DE assault-- your haywire grenades are MUCH more lethal now that glancing hits actually damage vehicles significantly, and you hit with those on a minimum of 3+ rather than a minimum of 6+. Fleet now helps you on turns that you don't charge by allowing you to reroll movement distances. Assault didn't get nerfed across the board like some people think, nor did it get buffed across the board-- there are tradeoffs now.

 Kingsley wrote:

Baronyu wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
Assault also got buffs, though. Things aren't as straightforward as a lot of people seem to think.

It depends on the army and unit you're talking about, you can't honestly tell me that DE assault side has gotten better... We've even lost 2" in maximum assault distance, and gained a huge random range that has made assault way too risky for our fragile units(namely the wyches/bloodbrides)... Though, I'm not complaining about the 6" disembark, that 2" disembark was hell enough for my wyches last edition, especially with me being an idiot and always moving way too close...

On the other hand, non-fleet armies have gained some potentially longer charge!

Some things got better, some things got worse. On the subject of things that have gotten better for DE assault-- your haywire grenades are MUCH more lethal now that glancing hits actually damage vehicles significantly, and you hit with those on a minimum of 3+ rather than a minimum of 6+. Fleet now helps you on turns that you don't charge by allowing you to reroll movement distances. Assault didn't get nerfed across the board like some people think, nor did it get buffed across the board-- there are tradeoffs now.

That helps specific armies and the changes to assault distance and fleet have reduced the reliable assault range of fleet units, that math has been done.

What can you provide that improves Assault, across the board.

 60mm wrote:
What can you provide that improves Assault, across the board.

Uh, nothing? I just said that assault was neither buffed nor nerfed across the board, so I'm not sure why you would ask me for examples of how it was...

Fearless wounds, for certain units, is about the only across the board improvement. If you survive the I steps you will still be around to fight next turn, which is generaly an improvement

 Kingsley wrote:

 60mm wrote:
What can you provide that improves Assault, across the board.

Uh, nothing? I just said that assault was neither buffed nor nerfed across the board, so I'm not sure why you would ask me for examples of how it was...

Random Assault range and Fleet changes have reduced the reliable distance for Assault. That is a nerf.

But, let's pretend that those both stayed the same from 5e and Assault distance and fleet received no changes.

Overwatch, Rapid Fire changes and Wound Allocation from the front all hurt Assault. Even if Assault wasn't touched, those changes to dakka that directly effect it, directly nerf it. Not sure how you miss Overwatch being an Assault nerf, as it is only applied against assaulting units.

What about Disordered Charge, explain how that is not a nerf to Assault across the board? Forgot about that one?

If you can refute these with math or direct quotes from the rulebook showing these interpretations to be false, I will gladly agree.


Nosferatu, while the Fearless wounds change is a buff for some units in Assault, it is not an Assault buff as it has no effect on the vast majority of units

Well I finished up my assault Chaos force, it is not along the fluff, but i just used the models I owned, wish I had plague Bearers.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/482706.page#4873997

 60mm wrote:
Random Assault range and Fleet changes have reduced the reliable distance for Assault. That is a nerf.

Not across the board. I personally think Fleet is better now since it works both on the turn you charge and turns that you don't. Random assault range has increased the average charge length.

60mm wrote:Overwatch, Rapid Fire changes and Wound Allocation from the front all hurt Assault. Even if Assault wasn't touched, those changes to dakka that directly effect it, directly nerf it. Not sure how you miss Overwatch being an Assault nerf, as it is only applied against assaulting units.

The expected value of Overwatch is very low in most cases, and many units-- most notably all non-Walker vehicles-- can't do it at all. Further, its effects can be mitigated through smart play.

60mm wrote:What about Disordered Charge, explain how that is not a nerf to Assault across the board? Forgot about that one?

Easy, it does nothing in most cases. Most assaults aren't multi-assaults, and many multi-assaults aren't affected. A Wych squad charging two Chimeras doesn't care that it's a Disordered Charge, since haywire grenades give you one attack just the same.

60mm wrote:Nosferatu, while the Fearless wounds change is a buff for some units in Assault, it is not an Assault buff as it has no effect on the vast majority of units

Neither does Overwatch, but you aren't willing to discount that. As I said earlier, things didn't get better or worse across the board, but rather in subtle ways.

It's easy to say "assault got nerfed" or "shooting got buffed," and it's hard to say "Dark Eldar Wyches are in some respects a riskier unit now because Overwatch introduces high variance to results when charging normal units, but changes to vehicles make their Haywire Grenades both more accurate in most cases (and much more accurate in the case of walkers and vehicles moving fast) and more damaging, so on net they are more effective against vehicles but riskier against infantry."

However, the second statement is more true than the first, so putting in the effort to understand things on a deeper level can be quite informative and useful.

 Kingsley wrote:

 60mm wrote:
Random Assault range and Fleet changes have reduced the reliable distance for Assault. That is a nerf.

Not across the board. I personally think Fleet is better now since it works both on the turn you charge and turns that you don't. Random assault range has increased the average charge length.

And on the turn you assault, you have no guarantee you can charge a unit 4" away.

Kingsley wrote:
The expected value of Overwatch is very low in most cases, and many units-- most notably all non-Walker vehicles-- can't do it at all. Further, its effects can be mitigated through smart play.

Just because you think the impact of a nerf is very low, does not mean it is not a nerf. I've seen several assaults fail because of overwatch.

60mm wrote:What about Disordered Charge, explain how that is not a nerf to Assault across the board? Forgot about that one?

Kingsley wrote:
Easy, it does nothing in most cases. Most assaults aren't multi-assaults, and many multi-assaults aren't affected. A Wych squad charging two Chimeras doesn't care that it's a Disordered Charge, since haywire grenades give you one attack just the same.

In "most" cases for who? That's funny that you could only pull up Wyches and Haywires again. Find one unit uneffected by this in the Tyranid Codex. Your answer to a nerf to multi-assault is that most assaults aren't multi-assaults. So hence the nerf disappeared? And "many assaults" are multi assaults against vehicles close together but not in squadrons?!? This is the most laughable one of all!

60mm wrote:Nosferatu, while the Fearless wounds change is a buff for some units in Assault, it is not an Assault buff as it has no effect on the vast majority of units

Kingsley wrote:
Neither does Overwatch, but you aren't willing to discount that. As I said earlier, things didn't get better or worse across the board, but rather in subtle ways.

There are units that have a special rule that allows them to assault without receiving Overwatch? Do tell.

Kingsley wrote:
It's easy to say "assault got nerfed" or "shooting got buffed," and it's hard to say "Dark Eldar Wyches are in some respects a riskier unit now because Overwatch introduces high variance to results when charging normal units, but changes to vehicles make their Haywire Grenades both more accurate in most cases (and much more accurate in the case of walkers and vehicles moving fast) and more damaging, so on net they are more effective against vehicles but riskier against infantry."

However, the second statement is more true than the first, so putting in the effort to understand things on a deeper level can be quite informative and useful.

Try using anything but Wyches with Haywires. Try all this for Hormagants for example. You have not, and cannot, dispprove these nerfs exist. All you can do is say that you don't think they're that bad. Does not change it from being a nerf.


TLDR
This argument is still revolving around one dispute. Are there any nerfs that Assault received across the board. You could not deny Overwatch, only said you don't think it's that bad. You couldn't disprove Disordered Charge, again only stating you think it's not that bad. Find me units that have the ability to Assault that are exempt from these rules and you win the debate. Problem is, you can't. The only codex released since 6e has no units that are exempt from these rules, which is the only possibility. But please, continue to flail.

That's why I always maintain that it's "assault wyches" that are dead, "HWG wyches" are our new hope.

In any case, just to add to nosferatu1001's point: ATSKNF also denies sweeping advance, which I'd consider quite a big buff for the marine armies' assault... And possibly a "buff" if you're working with the "I don't want to slaughter them all...yet" tactic that we assault DE are so fond of(I'm not wise enough to speak for other codex).

...If only DE sells just as good...

 60mm wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

 60mm wrote:
Random Assault range and Fleet changes have reduced the reliable distance for Assault. That is a nerf.

Not across the board. I personally think Fleet is better now since it works both on the turn you charge and turns that you don't. Random assault range has increased the average charge length.

And on the turn you assault, you have no guarantee you can charge a unit 4" away.

Kingsley wrote:
The expected value of Overwatch is very low in most cases, and many units-- most notably all non-Walker vehicles-- can't do it at all. Further, its effects can be mitigated through smart play.

Just because you think the impact of a nerf is very low, does not mean it is not a nerf. I've seen several assaults fail because of overwatch.

60mm wrote:What about Disordered Charge, explain how that is not a nerf to Assault across the board? Forgot about that one?

Kingsley wrote:
Easy, it does nothing in most cases. Most assaults aren't multi-assaults, and many multi-assaults aren't affected. A Wych squad charging two Chimeras doesn't care that it's a Disordered Charge, since haywire grenades give you one attack just the same.

In "most" cases for who? That's funny that you could only pull up Wyches and Haywires again. Find one unit uneffected by this in the Tyranid Codex. Your answer to a nerf to multi-assault is that most assaults aren't multi-assaults. So hence the nerf disappeared? And "many assaults" are multi assaults against vehicles close together but not in squadrons?!? This is the most laughable one of all!

60mm wrote:Nosferatu, while the Fearless wounds change is a buff for some units in Assault, it is not an Assault buff as it has no effect on the vast majority of units

Kingsley wrote:
Neither does Overwatch, but you aren't willing to discount that. As I said earlier, things didn't get better or worse across the board, but rather in subtle ways.

There are units that have a special rule that allows them to assault without receiving Overwatch? Do tell.

Kingsley wrote:
It's easy to say "assault got nerfed" or "shooting got buffed," and it's hard to say "Dark Eldar Wyches are in some respects a riskier unit now because Overwatch introduces high variance to results when charging normal units, but changes to vehicles make their Haywire Grenades both more accurate in most cases (and much more accurate in the case of walkers and vehicles moving fast) and more damaging, so on net they are more effective against vehicles but riskier against infantry."

However, the second statement is more true than the first, so putting in the effort to understand things on a deeper level can be quite informative and useful.

Try using anything but Wyches with Haywires. Try all this for Hormagants for example. You have not, and cannot, dispprove these nerfs exist. All you can do is say that you don't think they're that bad. Does not change it from being a nerf.


TLDR
This argument is still revolving around one dispute. Are there any nerfs that Assault received across the board. You could not deny Overwatch, only said you don't think it's that bad. You couldn't disprove Disordered Charge, again only stating you think it's not that bad. Find me units that have the ability to Assault that are exempt from these rules and you win the debate. Problem is, you can't. The only codex released since 6e has no units that are exempt from these rules, which is the only possibility. But please, continue to flail.

Dirge Caster units within 6" can no overwatch fire, and if you are already engaged in hand to hand you can not over watch fire. since switch to 6th edition it just matters who you charge 1st.

daniel79 wrote:Dirge Caster units within 6" can no overwatch fire

That is a piece of wargear for vehicles for CSM. No unit has the ability to avoid Overwatch as I stated. It effects all assault across the board.

daniel79 wrote:
and if you are already engaged in hand to hand you can not over watch fire.

Point? The unit that charged said unit already got Overwatched.

I think assault has been appropriately diminished. This is a sci-fi game. Shooting should be dominant. Melee should be a risky endeavor... Frankly it should be harder than it currently is, but that would nullify an enjoyable aspect of the game and many interesting units as well.
A unit of DE Wyches charging a unit of Tau Firewarriors should be blasted to ribbons by pulse rifles before they ever close distance... But that's a little TOO lopsided.
Assault needs some sort of edge, but it shouldn't be as utilized as it has been previously.

Your friend is right, you are wrong. 6th edition 40K is model placement and shooting.

 60mm wrote:

daniel79 wrote:Dirge Caster units within 6" can no overwatch fire

That is a piece of wargear for vehicles for CSM. No unit has the ability to avoid Overwatch as I stated. It effects all assault across the board.

daniel79 wrote:
and if you are already engaged in hand to hand you can not over watch fire.

Point? The unit that charged said unit already got Overwatched.

Over watch does very little to a charging terminator squad....

only there is exactly two armies that use mass terminators for it to be a problem . if someone has a list build and cant deal with a single unit of terminators in 6th where +2 sv is very good , then his overwatch not hurting terminators much is the least of his problems.

I see it this way . shoting has 3 random rolls to get effect . hit/wound/save. assault has 4 . charge/hit/wound/save. in any game less random effects is better.. Specialy when most armies that are shoty , are not tau or IG . charging SW or 10-12 csm is not auto win in assault .

 -Loki- wrote:


But every time I hear someone say the Overwatch completely neuters assault, I have to wonder if they're remembering to resolve it as Snapfire. I've never lost more than a few Gaunts to Overwatch, certainly never enough to even drop me out of assault range. I really haven't found it to be the game changing rule it's claimed to be.

They most likely assaulted Tesla Immortals

It's hilarious when your enemy charges a unit of 10 immortals only to get hit by 6 hits in return...once made it to a ridiculous amount of 18 hits

5th edition was already a dominantly shooty game. 6th edition took it a lot further.

6th edition is a game of shooting, flying, and tarpits.

Daniel - say that to flamers of tzeentch. Ouch.

Kingsley - my average charge range, in the open, was 6" in 5th edition. It was also the population. I could not miss an assault 5.9" away in 5th, i can in 6th. That loss of reliability is huge, and is a strict nerf.

 60mm wrote:
And on the turn you assault, you have no guarantee you can charge a unit 4" away.

So assault has to deal with some of the same uncertainties as shooting now in exchange for its greater reward? Color me shocked.

60mm wrote:Just because you think the impact of a nerf is very low, does not mean it is not a nerf. I've seen several assaults fail because of overwatch.

And I've never lost a model to it. While technically a nerf, its impact on most units is absolutely minimal. In fact, it can be a blessing in disguise. I recently played against someone who took flamers rather than plasma guns on his Imperial Guard blob so that it could be better at Overwatch-- however, this decreased its overall firepower and the fact that he was playing to Overwatch meant that his actual ability to shoot my down was greatly decreased.

60mm wrote:Your answer to a nerf to multi-assault is that most assaults aren't multi-assaults. So hence the nerf disappeared?

Correct. A nerf to something that doesn't happen essentially doesn't matter. For instance, if they nerfed charges that contacted four or more units, nobody would care because those charges don't happen. Multi-assaults themselves are rare and often they are not affected by the change anyway.

60mm wrote:And "many assaults" are multi assaults against vehicles close together but not in squadrons?!? This is the most laughable one of all!

Good players often use vehicles, especially empty transports, as blocking elements to prevent you from assaulting more important units. In 5th edition, the fact that you had to hit those vehicles on sixes made this tactic extremely powerful. In 6th edition, it's easier to hit those vehicles, and the Disordered Charge change does almost nothing to help them, since most of the time you'll be using grenades against them anyway.

60mm wrote:Nosferatu, while the Fearless wounds change is a buff for some units in Assault, it is not an Assault buff as it has no effect on the vast majority of units

It's interesting that you recognize that changes that have no effect the vast majority of the time don't count as true buffs or nerfs when it supports your argument, but not when it's against it.

 Kingsley wrote:

 60mm wrote:
And on the turn you assault, you have no guarantee you can charge a unit 4" away.

So assault has to deal with some of the same uncertainties as shooting now in exchange for its greater reward? Color me shocked.

What kind of weapon are you firing where you don't know the range before you shoot?

In fact, there are no longer any uncertainties to shooting in 6th edition, with the advent of pre-measuring.

 Kingsley wrote:

 60mm wrote:

60mm wrote:Your answer to a nerf to multi-assault is that most assaults aren't multi-assaults. So hence the nerf disappeared?

Correct. A nerf to something that doesn't happen essentially doesn't matter. For instance, if they nerfed charges that contacted four or more units, nobody would care because those charges don't happen. Multi-assaults themselves are rare and often they are not affected by the change anyway.

Multi-assaults happen lots if you build and plan for them. My Paladinstar and Nobstar armies relied heavily on setting up strong multi-assaults to win games. A lot of times I'd clean up entire sections of a table in a single turn. It certainly wasn't rare when I played for it.

60mm wrote:And "many assaults" are multi assaults against vehicles close together but not in squadrons?!? This is the most laughable one of all!

Good players often use vehicles, especially empty transports, as blocking elements to prevent you from assaulting more important units. In 5th edition, the fact that you had to hit those vehicles on sixes made this tactic extremely powerful. In 6th edition, it's easier to hit those vehicles, and the Disordered Charge change does almost nothing to help them, since most of the time you'll be using grenades against them anyway.

That depends entirely on what's assaulting what. Besides, it's always been optimal to shoot down vehicles instead of assaulting them, this has never changed.

60mm wrote:Nosferatu, while the Fearless wounds change is a buff for some units in Assault, it is not an Assault buff as it has no effect on the vast majority of units

It's interesting that you recognize that changes that have no effect the vast majority of the time don't count as true buffs or nerfs when it supports your argument, but not when it's against it.

Kingsley - multi assaults are rare?

The many hundreds I performed in 4th and 5th must have been imaginary.

And don't even get me started on the good ol' Death Company Slingshot of Rage (TM).

 Archonate wrote:
I think assault has been appropriately diminished. This is a sci-fi game. Shooting should be dominant. Melee should be a risky endeavor... Frankly it should be harder than it currently is, but that would nullify an enjoyable aspect of the game and many interesting units as well.
A unit of DE Wyches charging a unit of Tau Firewarriors should be blasted to ribbons by pulse rifles before they ever close distance... But that's a little TOO lopsided.
Assault needs some sort of edge, but it shouldn't be as utilized as it has been previously.

Once a poster said explained how melee makes sense.

The is nothing scifi in ranged weapons. The point is to use weapons that penetrate enemies armor. In the 41st millenium people have pretty good armor and it makes sense trying to kill them with swords that can penetrate that armor.

 Kingsley wrote:

 60mm wrote:
Assault isn't dead, just nerfed. Dakka got improvements, Assault got nerfs.

If Dakka got buffs and Assault stayed the same, Assault falls behind.

If Dakka stayed the same and Assault gets nerfed, Assault falls behind

If Dakka got buffs and Assault got nerfs, Assault falls farther behind.

No way to debate that without making things up.

Assault also got buffs, though. Things aren't as straightforward as a lot of people seem to think.

Actually they are pretty straight forward; here's a look at what assault lost, and what it gained.

Cons:

- Your charge distance is at the mercy of the dice
- You can no longer run and assault with Fleet (and currently end up with a lower movement average than before in that regard)
- Grenades got nerfed for assaulting through terrain in that they only work for the models wielding them unlike before where one model with grenades benefitted the whole unit
- Overwatch returned
- A unit type that can't be assaulted was born and became a staple in many lists (flyers)
- 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 (formerly move 12" and disembark 2", now move 6" and disembark 6" not accounting for terrain)
- Some random objectives half your assault range
- Furious Charge got nerfed

Pros:

- Assaulting vehicles is better (but still not a valid form of anti-tank, a concept that is not as important anymore either)
- Hammer of Wrath

Top all that off with the various boosts to shooting (Snap Shots, lesser cover, etc.) and it becomes pretty straight forward, whatever way you want to slice it.

And for the record, the idea that multi-assaults were rare is laughable. It could be seen at any real tournament you went to, and all good players used it to great effect. My Purifiers are certainly laughing their asses off at the concept.

illuknisaa wrote:The is nothing scifi in ranged weapons. The point is to use weapons that penetrate enemies armor. In the 41st millenium people have pretty good armor and it makes sense trying to kill them with swords that can penetrate that armor.

Actually a propelled exloding shell is much more likely to penetrate armour than a sword. There's a reason why war switched to firearms so quickly in the real world.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

illuknisaa wrote:The is nothing scifi in ranged weapons. The point is to use weapons that penetrate enemies armor. In the 41st millenium people have pretty good armor and it makes sense trying to kill them with swords that can penetrate that armor.

Actually a propelled exloding shell is much more likely to penetrate armour than a sword. There's a reason why war switched to firearms so quickly in the real world.

Keep in mind, a power sword is different from a conventional sword. Hence why melee combat would be relevant in a sci-fi universe where everyone has 3" thick armour.

Of course, you also forgot to list that power weapons got massively nerfed as well, which is also pretty relevant to any assault specialist.

Simply put, in 6th edition, close combat does less damage, is harder to get into, and is easier to defend against, and gained almost nothing to make up for it, while shooting got much more powerful in a lot of meaningful ways, while losing nothing.

Multi-assaults are typically only executed in the case of Nob Bikers and the like (which aren't viable thanks to the removal of wound allocation) or against people who don't understand the concept of blocking. Remember, you aren't the one who gets to choose whether or not you multi-assault, your opponent is.

text removed.
Reds8n

 Kingsley wrote:
Multi-assaults are typically only executed in the case of Nob Bikers and the like (which aren't viable thanks to the removal of wound allocation) or against people who don't understand the concept of blocking. Remember, you aren't the one who gets to choose whether or not you multi-assault, your opponent is.

Are you talking 5th or 6th? Because that's not how it worked in 5th.

 Fafnir wrote:
Keep in mind, a power sword is different from a conventional sword. Hence why melee combat would be relevant in a sci-fi universe where everyone has 3" thick armour.

Except it wouldn't. Even ignoring nuclear weapons (or melta guns, which easily cut through tank armor) at some point the momentum of a shot becomes high enough that even if your armor holds you're going to die. All of that momentum has to go somewhere, and what's left is going to be a perfectly intact set of armor that they hose out for the next guy.


Assaulting only makes "sense" because weapon ranges are not 28mm scale in 40k. If you scaled up the distances to match the size of the models you'd find the game almost entirely based on shooting, with maybe a very rare case where you'd assault a unit in a trench/bunker/etc that can't just be smashed by artillery. Dedicated assault armies would be shot to death before getting onto the same 6x4 table as their target.

Which is a good thing for assault-happy armies that in the 40k universe, most general-use small arms aren't at such a power-level yet. And Space Marines are likely engineered to be able to withstand such weaponry to begin with (at least, the more basic stuff, we all know what happens when a Smurf eats a Melta gun) Also keep in mind that not all aliens are as fragile as a human in their physiology. A pissed-off Ork or Nurgle devotee wouldn't have too much trouble shrugging off some truly volatile fire, especially if there were hordes of them (which Orkz are more than happy to attack in).

Besides, even if you do put the scale in a more realistic environment, keep in mind that many battles in the world of 40k would take place in densely populated urban environments, which would force many close quarters encounters. In a hive city, you'd probably be doing just as well to carry a good close-combat weapon as you'd be to carry a gun, albeit for different uses.

That said, ranged weaponry is obviously the more practical form of combat. But if we really want to argue semantics, we could start asking why so many battles even take place on the ground to begin with, and why Battlefleet Gothic isn't the flagship game of the 41st millennium.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
Multi-assaults are typically only executed in the case of Nob Bikers and the like (which aren't viable thanks to the removal of wound allocation) or against people who don't understand the concept of blocking. Remember, you aren't the one who gets to choose whether or not you multi-assault, your opponent is.

Are you talking 5th or 6th? Because that's not how it worked in 5th.

I can't recall the last time that someone has executed a multi-assault against me in fifth OR sixth edition (units with characters don't count)-- I think maybe once at the Bay Area Open two years ago against a squad and immobilized vehicle? It's not exactly a normal state of affairs, assuming proper planning.

In my humble opinion, army based 40k is correctly scaled when played at Epic size.

There's not enough Epic around. We need more Epic.

Those who think that assault is still viable should clearly try to play a Melee centric Ork army...

Overwatch :

_Yes, Overwatch kills. Sometimes, losing 1 model means losing 1 inch, and failing the charge. And when you have a T-shirt save, Wall of Death really means "WALL-OF-DEATH". Oh, did I mention that we're Init 2 ? Well, now my Trukk boyz lose on average 2 models when they try to charge a Tactical squad, then the Marines get to strike and kill another 2 Boyz, who are now 7+Nob. Which leads me to the 2nd point :

Challenges :

_PK Nob gets challenged by MEQ sergeant : if the Nob declines, he's out. If he accepts, he risks being killed before he gets to strike. If he wins, he only killed 1 model, despite having 4 attacks. It's a lose-lose-lose situation. The same problems exists for our Warbosses, who get to kill a measly sergeant with their 6 S10 attacks, while they should have crushed half the squad. Oh, did I mention that when the Marine Sergeant dies, the squad can choose to run away, and is now free to shoot you in the face ? Even if you sweep them, all you won is another round of combat, without the bonus attack from the charge.

_Boyz get charged by [Wraithlord, Dreadknight, Tervigon, Hive Tyrant, etc...]. [Creature] issues challenge. Now it's the same as above, but you can't even hope to win the challenge. And either way, you're now stuck in CC with something you can't hurt, but since you're Fearless there's nothing you can do but die.

Foot-slogging assault units :

_As it's been said before, casualties removed from the front makes them completely useless. It took me 3 turns to move less than 15" in a recent game against Blood Angels, because of a single Baal Predator...

Trukk assault :

_Assault from Reserves is no longer possible, which means that your Trukks have to be on the table for at least one turn before you can charge. Unless you run 9 Trukks, they'll get blown up.

Assaulting vehicles :

_Still the same cr*p : you wrecked the vehicle ? Passengers disembark and shoot and / or assault you. You blew up the vehicle ? Get ready to lose at least 5 Boyz in the explosion. Then the passengers disembark and shoot and / or assault you. You didn't wreck nor blow up the vehicle ? Passengers disembark and shoot and / or assault you.

Multi-assault :

_You "can't recall the last time that someone has executed a multi-assault against you" ? Well, good for you if you only play with non-competitive people. I happen to play Orks, and multi-assault was my bread and butter. I can hardly remember a game where I didn't do it, jumping out of a Battlewagon with 20 Slugga boyz to engage 2 or more ennemy squads. Now it's over. Oh, by the way :

Charging after Tank shock / Ram :

_Yeah, no longer possible. It's not like our whole army relied on opening ennemy transport vehicles with Deffrolas before assaulting the content isn't it ?

Sorry for the rant, I've been shuting my mouth ever since 6th edition came out, but it had to come out eventually...

 Nym wrote:


Charging after Tank shock / Ram :

_Yeah, no longer possible. It's not like our whole army relied on opening ennemy transport vehicles with Deffrolas before assaulting the content isn't it ?

Well, obviously this was taken out, because a mob of Orkz leaping from their vehicles onto the enemy craft after it's been crippled by a massive blow to finish off the trapped occupants in their sudden and desperate last stand is not cinematic at all, and does very little to build a narrative.

Now, gunlines, that's a story.

 Nym wrote:
You "can't recall the last time that someone has executed a multi-assault against you" ? Well, good for you if you only play with non-competitive people. I happen to play Orks, and multi-assault was my bread and butter. I can hardly remember a game where I didn't do it, jumping out of a Battlewagon with 20 Slugga boyz to engage 2 or more ennemy squads. Now it's over.

On the contrary, most of the games I've played have been in a tournament setting. The thing is, players don't "just multi-assault you." They have to get to you first, and since you have a movement phase as well as the enemy, you can throw your units forward to block enemies from charging multiple units. These techniques have been bread and butter for Tau players for a while, but other armies can use them just as effectively. Remember, games are usually won or lost in the movement phase.

And, again, multiassaults were certainly not "rare", as you claimed. Tank shocking makes a mockery of blocking units, as do JI, etc.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Nym wrote:


Charging after Tank shock / Ram :

_Yeah, no longer possible. It's not like our whole army relied on opening ennemy transport vehicles with Deffrolas before assaulting the content isn't it ?

Well, obviously this was taken out, because a mob of Orkz leaping from their vehicles onto the enemy craft after it's been crippled by a massive blow to finish off the trapped occupants in their sudden and desperate last stand is not cinematic at all, and does very little to build a narrative.

Now, gunlines, that's a story.

Exalted.... But i just made myself sad too...

Since I play an Guard Artillery Park/Gunline, my opinion might be a teensy bit skewed and become the Devil's advocate here. Though Assault did get nerfed, Shooting needed a buff, and it did, and I think its fantastic.

While your complaints are valid, however, I think your aiming a little short on where the nerfs are really hitting you.

Games Workshop did a really poor transition into the 6th Ed with the Codex FAQs. It says in the BRB that units can be exempt from the assault limitations (like units outflanking and charging the turn they arrive) if it's in the units profile, but the units you'd think that would get these exemptions would appear in their appropriate Codex FAQ, but they didn't.

A prime example is the tranferring of flyers from IA. Each army in Imperial Armor has an Anti-Aircraft option (whether or not they're effective/poor is not relevant) and Interceptor Aircraft (Like the Imperial Lightning). But the units that recieved the Skyfire USR were amazingly small. Out of all the armies I believe only three managed to get an anti-aircraft weapon/option (not inlcuding the buyable fortifications), which in my eyes was a poor transition from IA to the Regular Game.

What I'm trying to say is that while some rules did nerf assault (like not being able to assault from a stationary vehicle) are valid (and wanted ), others simply exist because Games Workshop did a very poor job updating the invidual Codex', so we have to wait for 6th Edition versions to come out, for us to buy... *Sigh*

_PK Nob gets challenged by MEQ sergeant : if the Nob declines, he's out. If he accepts, he risks being killed before he gets to strike. If he wins, he only killed 1 model, despite having 4 attacks. It's a lose-lose-lose situation. The same problems exists for our Warbosses, who get to kill a measly sergeant with their 6 S10 attacks, while they should have crushed half the squad. Oh, did I mention that when the Marine Sergeant dies, the squad can choose to run away, and is now free to shoot you in the face ? Even if you sweep them, all you won is another round of combat, without the bonus attack from the charge.

_Boyz get charged by [Wraithlord, Dreadknight, Tervigon, Hive Tyrant, etc...]. [Creature] issues challenge. Now it's the same as above, but you can't even hope to win the challenge. And either way, you're now stuck in CC with something you can't hurt, but since you're Fearless there's nothing you can do but die.

Challenges work both ways, and if you have an assault oriented character that can challenge a Commissar or Tau Shas'ui or even a named character thats weaker, you have the advantage. You can effectively eliminate characters that provide buffs for their entire army (such as leadership value or some other special rule) quite easily.

And let's not forget about Precision Strikes, where if your character rolls a 6 he can place it on a model within reach.A good roll and you can snipe enemy characters before they even get to attack.

_As it's been said before, casualties removed from the front makes them completely useless. It took me 3 turns to move less than 15" in a recent game against Blood Angels, because of a single Baal Predator...

Between moving 6" and running an extra D6 makes me think you're exaggerating about a single Baal Predator. But it makes sense that you would take casualties from the front since you're running at pointed guns screaming at the top of your lungs.

I think they wanted players to try and diversify their armies instead of having straight shoot/assault ones. I don't really know much about Ork Ranged Weaponry, but I'm sure they have units to cover your advance? Sometimes I think you assaulties get sour from the bad experiences, and simply pass over the times your experience was better.

And while the 2d6 charge is a change, isn't the average charge 7" now? Sure you can dote about rolling lower, but what about the times you leap forward 12" like a beast?

Sorry for the rant, I've been shuting my mouth ever since 6th edition came out, but it had to come out eventually...

I think there's more risk/reward for assaulting armies and them maybe having to grab some ranged units to soften up their foes, but outside of that I believe it's the rather poor transferrance from 5th to 6th in the individual Codex FAQs that are causing most of your gripes...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Daniel - say that to flamers of tzeentch. Ouch.

I play daemons of Chaos Tzeentch, the most shooty of the Chaos daemon army, of course I still take hand to hand units, but the fear of blood letters just means everyone shoots at the Bloodletters instead of my horrors... but my horrors just die when they get charged.

Kingsley - my average charge range, in the open, was 6" in 5th edition. It was also the population. I could not miss an assault 5.9" away in 5th, i can in 6th. That loss of reliability is huge, and is a strict nerf.

daniel79 wrote:
Kingsley - my average charge range, in the open, was 6" in 5th edition. It was also the population. I could not miss an assault 5.9" away in 5th, i can in 6th. That loss of reliability is huge, and is a strict nerf.

It's made up for by gains in other areas. For instance, Fleet is now much more reliable an ability because it works while you aren't charging, preventing the "oh, I rolled a 1 for my run move" problem. The benefits of Fleet while charging, of course, should be quite obvious.

I couldnt miss a charge in the open from 6" away in 5th. I can now. That is a huge issue.

@KplKeegan

Now, I'll start with I'm not the most knowledgable when it comes to WH40k.

While I do agree that shooting needed a boost, there's no need to go all the way in scale, in term of game balance, we do have to live with these changes for an entire edition, you know, or until the next wardex that will inevitably have a special character who painted the Sistine Chapel's painting in his enemy's heart while watching a football game and fighting the entire warp on his own, with a fork, then he probably punched the warp so hard he rolled it back several hundred years, causing the CSM codex to not be as powerful as people wished it to be...

The 2D6 charge thing, well, it has been covered many times since 6th ed launch really, and in this thread:

Non-fleet armies gained the potential to charge further, but also the potential to undercharge. Fleet armies, often with poor shooting options(ie none) on their assault units, have actually lost some charge distance and gained the chance to shoot, if they have any guns at all. The ability to reroll run when the unit is too far back only matters for those who don't run them in transports, I can't say how many fleet armies out there don't run transport for their assault units, but I certainly can say DE isn't one of them. The higher end of the 2D6 is nice if your army can afford the free overwatch round you're giving to the opponent. Granted, overwatch hits on a 6 except for specific weapons, but for some armies out there(read: not marines), they take whatever that go through the overwatch net, and I can tell you that, as DE, I'd say the safe assault distance has actually dropped for us, we'd want to be closer to limit the chance of giving free overwatch away, taking damage and failing the charge. If you're charging with TH/SS termies(footslogging for whatever reason!), knock yourself out, charge at 12", try your luck!

As for "making people play a more diverse army", well, is that really the case? The 2 armies I play, DE and necrons, can both be run as pure shooting, I can't really speak for necrons, but DE-wise, pure shooty list definitely are streets ahead of hybrid or assault list for them.

TL;DR version: Shooting buffs is fine and all, but there is no need to nerf assault to this point.

How the hell did shooting need a boost? The top armies of 5th edition were all shooting based. Shooting didn't need any buffs at all. Bad shooting armies needed rebalancing.

Top armies of 5th edition:

Imperial Guard (anything really)
Space Wolf Longfang Spam
Blood Angel Tank Spam
Grey Knight Psycannon/Rifleman Spam
Grey Knight Inquisition Spam
Dark Eldar Venom Spam
Necron Stuff

Oh true, while typing, I forgot DE venomspam was also the top tier of 5th ed(along with all the other pure shooting lists), got distracted by my thoughts on how rapid fire gotten more useful this ed and forgot about everything else. ...

 Fafnir wrote:

 Nym wrote:


Charging after Tank shock / Ram :

_Yeah, no longer possible. It's not like our whole army relied on opening ennemy transport vehicles with Deffrolas before assaulting the content isn't it ?

Well, obviously this was taken out, because a mob of Orkz leaping from their vehicles onto the enemy craft after it's been crippled by a massive blow to finish off the trapped occupants in their sudden and desperate last stand is not cinematic at all, and does very little to build a narrative.

Now, gunlines, that's a story.

LMAO!!! Exalted.

Yeah, as mentioned ^ . . . how did shooting need a boost when shooting was king in 5e? Remember the assault lists taking tourneys in 5e? Neither do I. Remember them taking even half of the tourneys? I don't either. If shooting was weak in your 5e experience, you have a bizarre meta.

6th edition moved to Shooting, bought a condo, joined the local PTA, and does volunteer work at the Wounded Khorne Berzerker ward...

Godless-Mimicry wrote:Actually they are pretty straight forward; here's a look at what assault lost, and what it gained.

It's actually worse than that. To take your list and expand...

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.

Seems I forgot a lot, so cheers for that one. Seems my point was more potent than I had thought at the time.

"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. "

You had to do this in 5th, and 4th - a post resolution pile in, following the charge rules.

I really don't see what the problem is with moving towards shooting, even as a Tyranid player. All armies, even Tyranids and Orks, have ample shooting ability. While some armies are able to pile far more effective shooting in, it's not like even those two armies lack for decent shooting.

You didn't actually. In 5th edition it went like:

- those that can reach base contact must move to do so

- those what can't reach base contact, but can move to be within 2" of a unit that is in base contact must move to be within 2" of a unit in base contact.

- those who can't do either simply must stay in coherency.

Which meant that if you had a huge squad (say, 30 sluggas, or a large power blob), you could easily have some number of models that, even after a 6" charge had no way of getting to within 2" of a model in base contact. Those guys could then use their pile-in move to go wherever they wanted, so long as they didn't get too close, and so long as they maintained coherency.

 -Loki- wrote:
I really don't see what the problem is with moving towards shooting, even as a Tyranid player. All armies, even Tyranids and Orks, have ample shooting ability. While some armies are able to pile far more effective shooting in, it's not like even those two armies lack for decent shooting.

That would be great if there weren't units like Hormagants and Genestealers out there.

 Kingsley wrote:
Assault didn't get nerfed across the board like some people think, nor did it get buffed across the board-- there are tradeoffs now.

Between this and other threads, I am convinced that you don't play the same game as the rest of us. Whether assault is dead is debatable, but the fact that it's significantly worse off than in 5th ed is not. Being unable to assault from reserve means that there are entire categories of assault models that used to have a means to get to the fight and no longer can. Flyers means that an assault army either has to fear the skies, or dilute itself with shooty units. Ailaros did a good job breaking down the numerous changes that all slightly weaken assault. The combined effect of these changes is significant.

That's not to say you can never get into assault, or that doing so will not win you a game. It's just a weaker strategy than in 5th.

Archonate wrote:I think assault has been appropriately diminished. This is a sci-fi game. Shooting should be dominant.

Quick, name the most iconic weapon from the most iconic sci-fi franchise ever. If you didn't say lightsaber, you're lying to yourself. The neat thing about sci-fi is that it provides reasons that assault would work. Teleporting. Materializing from the warp. Coming out of a webway portal. Cruising into enemy lines in a flying tank. Arriving from under the opponent in a tunnel. Having enough bodies that your opponent runs out of bullets...

Don't forget that as recently as 1900, hand-to-hand armies defeated modern (for the time) armies equipped with cannon, rifles and rocket batteries. (See Battle of Isandlwana). And the Zulus didn't have teleporters or flying tanks.

 60mm wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
I really don't see what the problem is with moving towards shooting, even as a Tyranid player. All armies, even Tyranids and Orks, have ample shooting ability. While some armies are able to pile far more effective shooting in, it's not like even those two armies lack for decent shooting.

That would be great if there weren't units like Hormagants and Genestealers out there.

You have shooting options in other slots. You've got a unit with a 2 shot krak missile that doesn't need LOS. You've got the only S10 AP1 lance in the game. You've got brainleech devourer toting MCs. Tyranids don't lack for shooting - people just don't like to see the options, because the melee units are more fun.

Personally, I've never seen Tyranids as a melee only army. They've always had ample short-mid ranged firepower to soften up enemies before the assault hits. What they've always lacked is long range firepower and effective anti-tank firepower. 5th edition fixed that somewhat with Hive Guard, 6th edition fixed it further with Hull Points. The amount of short-mid ranged anti-infantry firepower Tyranids can do is quite scary, and they have the means to get them in range with mycetic spores.

Yes, but that's not what he's talking about. He's talking about assault options in general. What about them, why even take them anymore?

Fafnir wrote:why even take them anymore?

As far as I can tell, there are four reasons to bother with assault anymore.

#1 - you can shred the hell out of vehicles once you get over there.

#2 - sweeping advance. Kills them dead.

#3 - once you get stuck in, you get to attack on both your turn AND your opponent's turn. With shooting, you only get to attack during your own.

#4 -

That fourth reason by Ailaros is the reason why I still take assault units
Despite all the nerfs and changes, I dont think assault is dead, because assault can still be a decisive aspect of a game. This was the case in 5th, and that hasnt really changed in 6th. What has changed is that full-on assault armies are going to struggle without the support needed to get them into combat to make a difference.

#5 - Area denial/counter assault. Drop a squad of Deathwing terminators on an objective (in cover) and watch as your opponent is reluctant to bring anything within 12-18" of the squad. It won't win the game alone, but it can do a lot to support a more fragile shooting army (for example, mech vet IG).

#6 - Because sometimes shooting just can't get the job done. Say it's late in the game, and you need another objective. If you have nothing but IG veteran squads or Tau in midfield you have lots of firepower, but if you can't get the job done with shooting (for example, a unit with a few models out of LOS) you aren't going to get that objective. On the other hand, a squad of Deathwing with cyclone missiles and storm bolters is still an adequate shooting unit, but can also advance that last 6" and wipe the survivors off the objective.

#7 - Objective claiming. A unit with decent assault abilities can move up and claim objectives without fear of #6 from your opponent (or at least make them pay enough to do it), while a more fragile shooting-only unit can expect to get charged and wiped out if they move up for an objective too early. This is especially true if, like terminators, they're also durable against shooting and staying at long range probably won't deliver enough firepower to kill them.

Of course pure assault armies are still terrible, but there can be a good reason to include a unit with assault capability in your list, especially if it can also shoot at least reasonably well.

The thing is, the units that could possibly be useful for assault purposes also double as extremely solid shooting units as well. I remember running my Draigowing list a while back, and despite the fact that the unit was packed with close combat kill potential, but in almost every game they were involved in, they would never actually end up in assault.

As with 5th edition, the best assault units will be those that don't have to actually be in combat to be useful.

Which begs the question: why the hell does GW keep pumping out dedicated close combat powerhouses when the game itself heavily discourages their use? If they're going to push the game along this route, I'd rather they take the space spent on dedicated close combat wastes to be used for some more varied and interesting shooting options. Or at least combined-arms options.

 Fafnir wrote:
As with 5th edition, the best assault units will be those that don't have to actually be in combat to be useful.

Exactly. Even if the shooting isn't as good as a dedicated shooting unit, it still does something while waiting for the right circumstances to assault and avoids being dead weight for most of the game like pure assault units.

Which begs the question: why the hell does GW keep pumping out dedicated close combat powerhouses when the game itself heavily discourages their use? If they're going to push the game along this route, I'd rather they take the space spent on dedicated close combat wastes to be used for some more varied and interesting shooting options. Or at least combined-arms options.

Because it's cinematic.

 Peregrine wrote:

Because it's cinematic.

Cop-out buzz word for poor game design.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Because it's cinematic.

Cop-out buzz word for poor game design.

You mean excellent game design concept that is necessary if you want to forge a narrative in the grim and dark world of Warhammer (tm) 40k (tm).

 Redbeard wrote:

Don't forget that as recently as 1900, hand-to-hand armies defeated modern (for the time) armies equipped with cannon, rifles and rocket batteries. (See Battle of Isandlwana). And the Zulus didn't have teleporters or flying tanks.

Or did they? *dramatic music*




On a more serious note, your post is excellent and can't be repeated enough. Shooting weapons are, as of 2012, vastly superior to melee weapons because they're much more powerful and they do their stuff from far away. Suppose someone invented some sort of armour (let's call it... Power Armour!) that makes the wearer virtually invulnerable against small-arms fire. Then suppose that the best way to get through that armour is to use a matter-distrupting field (let's call it a Power Weapon) that we don't yet have the technology to put in shooting weapons, but that we CAN turn into a melee weapon. Is melee really such a bad idea all of a sudden, when everyone is effectively immune to everything less than a cannon shell to the face?

Ranged weapons are not per definition superior to melee weapons, there's a reason that knights could exist and be effective on the battlefield despite the bow existing, it's not until technology evolved to counter their defenses that they went out of fashion. The offensive part of the arms race is currently leagues ahead of the defensive part, but if the defensive part overtook the offensive part to the point where you had to get up close and personal to kill your foe then melee would become much more common again.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Is melee really such a bad idea all of a sudden, when everyone is effectively immune to everything less than a cannon shell to the face?

Yes, because then you just start issuing everyone with plasma guns which DO ignore marine armor. Or you just have an army consisting of one spotter and a dozen Basilisks 20 miles away.

 Peregrine wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Is melee really such a bad idea all of a sudden, when everyone is effectively immune to everything less than a cannon shell to the face?

Yes, because then you just start issuing everyone with plasma guns which DO ignore marine armor. Or you just have an army consisting of one spotter and a dozen Basilisks 20 miles away.

What good is that spotter when the guys in Power Armour deploy via teleporters, drop pods or jump packs straight into the Basilisks? Furthermore, Plasma Guns are rare. Like, really rare. That's like saying that we should stop building tanks today, because we could just give every soldier a railgun.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
What good is that spotter when the guys in Power Armour deploy via teleporters, drop pods or jump packs straight into the Basilisks?

"FIRE ON MY POSITION."

*second squad of Basilisks fires*

*battery commander awarded posthumous promotion and medal*


Of course drop pods are a joke, 1950s ABM technology could deal with them easily. Add proper air defense to an army and the only thing drop pods are good for is seeing how fast you can get an entire space marine chapter killed. And jump packs aren't much better, they don't have the range to jump directly into a fight, and deploying from aircraft means exposing your transport to enemy fire (and transports generally don't evade fire very well), or staying at high altitude and turning the incoming marines into practice targets for the nearest Hydra battery.

Furthermore, Plasma Guns are rare. Like, really rare. That's like saying that we should stop building tanks today, because we could just give every soldier a railgun.

More like because we can give every squad an anti-tank missile, which pretty much limits the usefulness of tanks to invading third-world countries which don't have advanced anti-tank missiles.

PS: plasma is only rare if you're IG. Tau/Eldar/DE have no problems building all the plasma they could ever want.

 Peregrine wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
What good is that spotter when the guys in Power Armour deploy via teleporters, drop pods or jump packs straight into the Basilisks?

"FIRE ON MY POSITION."

*second squad of Basilisks fires*

*battery commander awarded posthumous promotion and medal*


Of course drop pods are a joke, 1950s ABM technology could deal with them easily. Add proper air defense to an army and the only thing drop pods are good for is seeing how fast you can get an entire space marine chapter killed. And jump packs aren't much better, they don't have the range to jump directly into a fight, and deploying from aircraft means exposing your transport to enemy fire (and transports generally don't evade fire very well), or staying at high altitude and turning the incoming marines into practice targets for the nearest Hydra battery.

Furthermore, Plasma Guns are rare. Like, really rare. That's like saying that we should stop building tanks today, because we could just give every soldier a railgun.

More like because we can give every squad an anti-tank missile, which pretty much limits the usefulness of tanks to invading third-world countries which don't have advanced anti-tank missiles.

PS: plasma is only rare if you're IG. Tau/Eldar/DE have no problems building all the plasma they could ever want.

Fine, forget the 40k stuff. Suppose someone invents a suit of armour that protects you from all small-arms fire and that allows you to fly across the battlefield at high speeds. No known hand-held anti-infantry weapon does enough damage to reliably damage the wearer of this armour. The armour is easy to manufacture and is issued en-masse to soldiers. Soon after, someone invents a type of device that can cut through the armour without any problem. Due to the unique way this device works, it is too unstable to be fired from a ranged weapon, and as such it is turned into a series of melee devices instead. You're not going to issue anti-tank rockets as standard weapons to everyone in an army, so there you go. Melee is viable again.

 Peregrine wrote:

"FIRE ON MY POSITION."

*second squad of Basilisks fires*

*battery commander awarded posthumous promotion and medal*

"Unable to comply, commander. We are under attack ourselves!"

Debating on grounds of realism in a game of psychics, daemons, men that can take cannon shells to the face and generally defying physics in every which-way, always + +

If you are debating melee being "dumb" in 40k . . . have you stopped to ponder the fact that 40k is futurisitc fantasy? It isn't sci-fi by a long shot and has as much to do with reality as LoTR and Snow White.

Assault hasn't been nerfed so much as it is now on a level playing field with shooting. At least in my experience, you now have to think about who and how you want to charge. I would not say assault is dead, by any means, it's just riskier then it was in the last editions. While I still miss the 4th ed consolidate into another unit, it meant that the second your squads hit a tightly packed IG or Tau or even Eldar gunline, the game was over. Now, at least it seems, shooty armies now have a chance to do some damage to an assault unit in the " assault phase" rather than just getting completely wiped.

Did you miss the part where 5th edition was completely dominated by shooting armies?

 Fafnir wrote:
Did you miss the part where 5th edition was completely dominated by shooting armies?

^

 Fafnir wrote:
Did you miss the part where 5th edition was completely dominated by shooting armies?

Not at all. I do kind of miss "Nidzila though. Oh wait, no I don't!

 Fafnir wrote:
Did you miss the part where 5th edition was completely dominated by shooting armies?

I remember space wolves spamming long fangs, also GK which is a mid range shooting army, and Nercons, which is a shooting army, also IG, which is a shooting army.

Codex release scheduled does not make the edition shooting heavy. 5th was the edition of metal boxes.

If anything, forgetting that 6th gave larger charge ranges, impact hits, and various rules helping charge range rolls, it seems very balanced between shooting and melee.

 juraigamer wrote:

If anything, forgetting that 6th gave larger charge ranges, impact hits, and various rules helping charge range rolls, it seems very balanced between shooting and melee.

Unreliable charge distances, casualties from the front, Overwatch, Rapid Fire changes, not charging out of stationary vehicles and a whole host of other nerfs disagree with your assessment.

Honestly, I can't see any intelligent reason to actively move towards an assault other than tarpitting anymore.

Being able to do well in assault is a nice little bonus now. That's it.

 juraigamer wrote:
Codex release scheduled does not make the edition shooting heavy. 5th was the edition of metal boxes.

If anything, forgetting that 6th gave larger charge ranges, impact hits, and various rules helping charge range rolls, it seems very balanced between shooting and melee.

I think the huge ass list posted just one page ago (here) disagrees with you.

Yes, it was edition of metal boxes, shooting metal bawkses.

I don't know what you mean in the "release schedule" part. Even armies that supposed to be CC focused (SW, GK?) were known from incredible shooting capabilities.
Also, edition is not only the rulebook. The units themselves: their rules and pricing can make edition shooting no matter how good close combat is in base rules.
Shooting armies will be there after the edition shift. Shooting heavy in 5th will be shooting heavy in 6th. All the changes noted by Ailaros will only reinforce this.

What do you all suppose prompted these changes to the Assault phase? I'm wholly unfamiliar with it, but I heard that random charge lengths are also in WHFB. Is it as much of an issue in that system?

That doesn't account for the other unfavorable changes, though, and while I hope that as we get more updated codices these problems will disappear, they probably won't.

In fantasy the random charge distance is added onto the unit's base movement, which ranges from 3" (dwarfs) to 10" (fliers) and maybe more (daemons?). That means you have a potential charge of 15" for dwarfs, and are guaranteed to get 5".

40k your guaranteed charge is 2". As the gf would say, that's not very satisfying. Your mighty Space Marines run slower than a dwarf. That said, if you start 8 inches from the enemy, move then assault, you're guaranteed to get in, just don't shoot.

Of course fantasy is a melee game, where ranged units are generally overpriced, ineffective or prone to blowing up. Not that there's anything wrong with your warpfire thrower blowing up, best thing for it. 40k is a shooting game, where it is quite possible to fill every slot with a guy with a gun.

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:
In fantasy the random charge distance is added onto the unit's base movement, which ranges from 3" (dwarfs) to 10" (fliers) and maybe more (daemons?). That means you have a potential charge of 15" for dwarfs, and are guaranteed to get 5".

40k your guaranteed charge is 2". As the gf would say, that's not very satisfying. Your mighty Space Marines run slower than a dwarf. That said, if you start 8 inches from the enemy, move then assault, you're guaranteed to get in, just don't shoot.

Of course fantasy is a melee game, where ranged units are generally overpriced, ineffective or prone to blowing up. Not that there's anything wrong with your warpfire thrower blowing up, best thing for it. 40k is a shooting game, where it is quite possible to fill every slot with a guy with a gun.

Well my fantasy army is like 80+% shooty.... heck I lose once hand to hand starts.... of course have to hope the trees slow the enemy advance slow enough that they are dead before they get to charge. wood-elves are finesse, and hand to hand is like a hammer....

 60mm wrote:
have you stopped to ponder the fact that 40k is futurisitc fantasy? It isn't sci-fi by a long shot

Uuuhh, dude?... Sci-Fi is futuristic fantasy... Pretty much by definition.
Whoever told you that there's a difference between futuristic fantasy and sci-fi has deceived you... I'm sorry.

I'm happy to see shooting become more dangerous. In a game where everybody is packing heat, it was ridiculously under used before. People with swords running at people with guns are going to get shot. People with guns are going to take pot shots when they can. This is why 6th ed feels a little more organic and less mechanical.

 Archonate wrote:
Uuuhh, dude?... Sci-Fi is futuristic fantasy... Pretty much by definition.
Whoever told you that there's a difference between futuristic fantasy and sci-fi has deceived you... I'm sorry.

I disagree..
Science fiction vs futuristic fantasy.
The first is based on what could possibly, eventually, similarly look like to our future universe. The second is just any crap that comes to mind in futuristic setting.
SF has a big focus on technology itself, FF just uses it to tell a fantasy story.
Star Trek vs Wh40k. Those are not the same.

Close combat is much more viable in Wh40k than it is in our universe. Because it's not pure SF.

 Archonate wrote:

 60mm wrote:
have you stopped to ponder the fact that 40k is futurisitc fantasy? It isn't sci-fi by a long shot

Uuuhh, dude?... Sci-Fi is futuristic fantasy... Pretty much by definition.
Whoever told you that there's a difference between futuristic fantasy and sci-fi has deceived you... I'm sorry.

I'm happy to see shooting become more dangerous. In a game where everybody is packing heat, it was ridiculously under used before. People with swords running at people with guns are going to get shot. People with guns are going to take pot shots when they can. This is why 6th ed feels a little more organic and less mechanical.

Science fiction is largely based on writing rationally about alternative possible worlds or futures.[2] It is similar to, but differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation).

For many users of the term, however, "science fantasy" is either a science fiction story that has drifted far enough from reality to "feel" like a fantasy, or a fantasy story that is attempting to be science fiction. While these are in theory classifiable as different approaches, and thus different genres (fantastic science fiction vs. scientific fantasy), the end products are sometimes indistinguishable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fantasy

Your trying to deceive others aren't you heretic?

The game always should have been more shooting oriented (like it used to be). The fact that they moved away from that trying to make the game quicker by creating melee bloodbaths was always pretty silly.

6th Edition is really just 40K going back in the direction towards what it should be.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
The game always should have been more shooting oriented (like it used to be). The fact that they moved away from that trying to make the game quicker by creating melee bloodbaths was always pretty silly.

6th Edition is really just 40K going back in the direction towards what it should be.

Going back to melee-centric armies being worse by definition (never mind that they were behind as it was)? Yeah, that makes sense. /sarcasm

Especially when GW keeps trying to push tonnes of melee based characters and units.

There'd be no problem with 40k being a completely shooting oriented game, if GW actually treated it like one.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
The game always should have been more shooting oriented (like it used to be). The fact that they moved away from that trying to make the game quicker by creating melee bloodbaths was always pretty silly.

6th Edition is really just 40K going back in the direction towards what it should be.

Used to be? There was plenty of melee combat back in RT and 2nd edition, most of the worst Eldar combo's involved getting in your face, and beating it in.

 Archonate wrote:

 60mm wrote:
have you stopped to ponder the fact that 40k is futurisitc fantasy? It isn't sci-fi by a long shot

Uuuhh, dude?... Sci-Fi is futuristic fantasy... Pretty much by definition.
Whoever told you that there's a difference between futuristic fantasy and sci-fi has deceived you... I'm sorry.

Not a big reader I take it. The word "science" in sci-fi means it attempts to have as much plausible basis as possible. Hence the inclusion of the word scientific. Fantasy means the exact opposite, things that are entirely fantasy. As that word also implies directly. This is why it's sci-fi and no sci-fan. Fiction can be 100% plausible, so can fill the requirement of being science-fiction. Fantasy, however, cannot be scientific as it is literally opposite, based on the premise of tossing science out the window. Thinking sci-fi is fantasy is like asking for hot ice, or a silent musical.

40k is fantasy because it has demons, psychics, etc. It is futurisitic because it is in the future. It is furturistic fantasy. Science, and logic, have no place in 40k. If you do not believe me, consult a literature professor. You will hear the same thing.

Sorry, peeve of mine; confusing fantasy and science.

I'll agree that the game has certainly moved to a larger advantage to shooting. But I have had more games decided by assaults in 6th ed than haven't. Getting a squad of Honour Guard or Slaanesh Terminators into combat has decided quite a few battles.

People just seem to be fielding fewer "counter assault" units and that is opening the door for exploiting that weakness.