71151
Post by: Waaaghpower
So, this could just be my current local meta, but it seems to me that melee seems horribly undervalued almost everywhere on the interwebs. Why is it so bad? I'll admit that Overwatch can be a pain, but Close Combat is still a very viable asset if you use it properly. So why the hate?
11860
Post by: Martel732
Because of the casualties melee troops take just getting to assault range due to increased firepower of 6th edition. The overwatch is just insult to injury.
Furthermore, the people where I play know how to game the assault system and feed you a weak unit to assault so then you are just standing around to be shot off the table on their next turn.
75004
Post by: SheSpits
I havent played alot since sixth been focusing on painting. The games i have played though with my SW and orks was bad. Im a huge fan of close comba the having to roll for charge distance sucks. I come out over cove get overwatched then fail distance. Now my unit is in the open and screaming blow me up.
11860
Post by: Martel732
The fact that overwatch losses have to come off the front of the unit has made several of my assault fail. Going from say a 5" charge to an 8" charge is non-trivial.
25360
Post by: ductvader
Due to the constantly changing metagame and netlisting...shooting is much easier for the average player to win with by the power of Mathhammer while assault requires more depth of thought and strategy than can be displayed overall, or at least via text on the internet.
I often find that my most difficult and intelligent opponents are playing assault armies.
66457
Post by: Al2ies
I'm just wondering what they are going to Orks and their shooting abilities (if anything) when they finally are up for a revision. I hate being overwatched but the rulebook makes a great statement about it: "No army stands idly by while someone is charging in."
57646
Post by: Kain
The current wound allocation system and overwatch means that surefire assaults may not happen at all because your losses put you out of charge range. Random charge distances only further add insult to injury.
25360
Post by: ductvader
There are many things that have made assault and movement much better than it was before as well. Randomization of wounds, challenges, cover with 25% of a model hidden. An increased threat range on assaults...fleet working for running as well...
I personally believe the biggest/only real downside that assault got in 6th is focus fire.
57646
Post by: Kain
 ductvader wrote:There are many things that have made assault and movement much better than it was before as well. Randomization of wounds, challenges, cover with 25% of a model hidden. An increased threat range on assaults...fleet working for running as well...
I personally believe the biggest/only real downside that assault got in 6th is focus fire.
I ultimately think that fleet was nerfed in the long run. I miss my trygons being able to run and assault.
The outflanking nerf was also a colossal hit to my genestealers.
25360
Post by: ductvader
 Kain wrote:The outflanking nerf was also a colossal hit to my genestealers.
Fair point.
However I find myself now being able to get the charge with all my units...Turn 2.
I don't know if I was the only one in 5th where turn 3 was the biggest turn of the game...but fleet being able to move my units even faster turn one and then boosting my assaults to reliable 8-9" range...its turn 2 almost every game.
Not to mention the amazing effect this has on Slaanesh, Hormagaunts, and Battle Focused Eldar.
71151
Post by: Waaaghpower
I think the meta has certainly shifted towards small hard hitters as opposed to big swampy squads, (EG Nobz over Boys,) but if you use combat right it has loads of benefits. And to a couple of arguments...
'It's too easy too feed you a weak unit to assault...' So don't fall for the bait. You've got some shooting squad somewhere, right?Take care of the weak unit. If they asassault you with the weak squad, then you can kill them. If you're talking about tarpits, well, just make sure you don't walk into the painfully obvious trap.
'Overwatch makes assaults harder/taking models from the front...' If you're losing more than an inch or so from overwatch, something is wrong with your model placement or you are charging Tau and EVERYONE is overwatching. Besides, the average charge range is higher and any true assault unit typically has a rule making it better. (IE fleet.) It's true that bad dice can kill you, but that's true of anything.
'You take casualties from shooting before you even make it into combat...' Well, yeah. You weren't ever exempt from shooting just because you were an assault squad. How is this a new problem?
11860
Post by: Martel732
"However I find myself now being able to get the charge with all my units...Turn 2. "
Your opponents are forgetting to move backwards. I know my BA basically run away now in many of my builds. I surrender all the objectives and then try to shoot people off of them. Given the crappy throw weight of the BA, it's not that great, but its better than sending in gimped ASM to be mulched by pulse rifles and shoota boyz and now guardians.
25360
Post by: ductvader
Martel732 wrote:"However I find myself now being able to get the charge with all my units...Turn 2. "
Your opponents are forgetting to move backwards. I know my BA basically run away now in many of my builds. I surrender all the objectives and then try to shoot people off of them. Given the crappy throw weight of the BA, it's not that great, but its better than sending in gimped ASM to be mulched by pulse rifles and shoota boyz and now guardians.
I will say that while BA have this advantage with increased mobility, many armies are much more static for full firing effect...or need that dangerous 24" threat range to be effective
48746
Post by: Billagio
No assault from reserves, overwatch, random charges and removing from the front really hurt assault and benefits shooting/gunlines a lot. Assault is still good if you can get there since the armies that do well at shooting generally suck at assault (Tau, IG)
11860
Post by: Martel732
I don't think there's much stopping Tau or Eldar from backing up and firing. The change to rapid fire is also and indirect nerf on assault.
It doesn't help that marine ASM squads aren't the most efficient units ever to begin with. 3 attack on the charge is really bland.
24267
Post by: akaean
Honestly assault got hit kind of hard in 6th edition, and overwatch is only a small part of why that is. First of all, I felt like competitive 5th edition was more focused on shooting already, with assault lists really taking a back seat on the higher levels of game play. This is just because there are so many good shooting units, and its easier to focus fire on enemy targets with shooting oriented lists. Lists like the infamous leafblower and razor spam were both shooting centric.
But 6th Edition, far from equalizing assault armies, hit them with sevearl nerfs, which rendered pure assault squads more liabilities than anything else. I will list them off in no order of particular importance.
1) casualties from the front. In 5th when a unit got shot the casualties were generally removed from the back, allowing an assault unit to push forwards despite losses. Now whenever an assault unit gets shot at it must remove its casualties from the front- this pushes the unit further away each time they are shot and requires them to waste valuable movement regaining lost ground if they want to charge
2) Transport nerf. Before you could assault out of a transport that had not moved, or out of a wrecked transport. You can no longer do either meaning only open topped or assault ramp transports can reliably be used to get into assault.
3) random charge distance. If you fail a charge your assault unit will have its balls hanging in the wind, open to the full brunt of your opponents shooting.
4) Overwatch. this isn't too bad on its own, but it is amplified by reason 1, and reason 3. So casualties are removed from the front, meaning each loss from overwatch increases the charge roll needed, and in the case of a failed charge, your unit eats an overwatch, an additional round of shooting, and yet another overwatch.
The end result of this is that dedicated assault units are pretty much delegated to counter assault roles, and assault as a whole will only really happen at moments of opportunity between two primarily shooting focused units. That said, there are some great assault units currently, Spawn with a Chaos Lord are fast enough to catch things quickly, and lay the smack down, Daemons can overwhelm the opponent in melee, and things like Bikers are tough and durable enough to see combat against most foes.
But lists entirely reliant on close combat to win are severely gimped overall.
896
Post by: Hedgehog
There's another issue for many assault armies too - the inability to assault out of transports. This hurt all marine armies, especially when combined with hull points turning your rhinos into death-traps.
Add this to overwatch, random charge distances (specially through cover), improved rapid fire weapons, Tau JSJ or Eldar battle focus, and casualty removal from the front of unit, and it all adds up to an edition that very much works against assault armies that aren't extremely fast or incredibly tough.
The casualty removal change in particular is devastating - this effectively pushes you away from the enemy, meaning that it requires more turns to reach them. Bunch up to reduce your 'push-back' distance, and you become very vulnerable to blast templates.
52309
Post by: Breng77
There are several nerfs to assault
Random charge
Over watch
Rapid fire changing allowing kiting to be easier
No assaulting out of reserve
No assaulting out of transports.
Removal of fearless wounds
Change to regroup rules (can't chase people off the table any more)
Essentially there is no way to assault in the game without most enemies getting a minimum of 2 chances to shoot you (shooting phase + over watch). Which means you need durable or multiple assaulting units to get into the fight.
Throw armies like tau into the mix who remove a lot of the anti over watch tactics, cover etc. Makes it very difficult for units charging up the table.
57646
Post by: Kain
How is the removal of fearless wounds a nerf to assault? It let my Hormagaunts be much better mobile tarpits.
59923
Post by: Baronyu
Depends on which side you stand on, Kain, I much enjoyed removing ATSKNF/fearless unit with my I6+ DE in 5th ed.  Standing on the DE side, I see it as a nerf. I could totally understand how it's a buff for the other side though! On that note, ATSKNF denying sweeping advance, being counter-tarpitted by marines is dumb!  EDIT: Well, it's not, I can see how marines need ATSKNF, but I hate them, so there's that!
35316
Post by: ansacs
It is really a combination of rules:
The loss of by unit cover and focus fire. This means progressing across most boards will be painful and you will tend to take more casualties in your units than in 5th.
Front line casualties. This means that if you spread out to avoid blasts then I will kill more distance than you move most turns. Tau and IG use this to huge effect as they have a good mix of volume of fire and blasts.
These two points killed horde assault units and are why you do not see power blobbs.
No assault out of transports. This killed almost all CWE assault units and most other assault lists centered around transports. The exception being open topped and assault ramps which many armies don't get.
No assault from reserves. This destroyed DS and outflanking assault lists as they have to eat a turn of fire before even getting a chance to assault. This killed DE webway portal lists and many of the BA lists.
Variable charge distances did increase the overall charge threat range but they make it a much riskier proposition due to...
Overwatch, actually I consider this to be the least of the problems. The reserves, front rank casualties, and transports are much bigger problems for my lists. It can however kill a model or two and leave you outside assault range.
The meta shift to plasma did not help.
This basically leaves uber monsters and units fast/tough enough to get into combat. Unfortunately these things can have their own problems and not all armies have access to them.
I personally would not say assault is dead as is commonly stated on the internet. In the right lists and correct situations it can be extremely useful. You just cannot play solely to assault like you used to be able to do.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Assault is particularly nice against units that rely on cover saves for survivability.
69043
Post by: Icculus
I dont understand this thing about Orks having trouble in this edition. I just started this hobby at the beginning of 6th and have been using Orks, and have been having some awesome success.
Before I got my nob biker deathstar list together, a lot of my wins cam from just assaulting boyz out of Battlewagons or trukks. I found the BWs to be much better.
But to the OP. I think shooting should be stronger. You ever heard the "bring a knife to a gun fight" metaphor? Guns should prove strong, and if you charge across a field to an army of people with guns, you will get shot. That's real world warfare.
So if you want to assault, you need to figure out target priority, decoys, transportation, making use of cover/terrain.
You can get there, and you can kill. Just don't charge straight in. Thats what I tried to do with my Black Templars. They didnt make it. blobs got massacred. I am now working on deepstriking termies and drop pods to make the assault for these stronger.
34456
Post by: ColdSadHungry
Since 6th hit, none of the true assault armies have had a new codex. It's been all the shooty guys, or shooty/assault capable armies. Im pretty sure that when orks or BA get a new dex they'll have plenty of new tools to help them out.
Generally speaking though, I agree it's harder to assault with any old assault capable unit.
25360
Post by: ductvader
I don't understand this idea that charge distance is random.
It's not random...its probabilities...just like everything else in the game.
If it were truly random you would have an equal chance of assaulting 2" vs 7" vs 10".
Knowing the probabilities and how USRs affect them has in fact increased the assault range and threat of most assault units; meaning units dedicated to assault...this discounts most MEQ
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Look at Hormagaunts in particular...3 dice for run choose the highest...fleet lets you reroll each one individually...that almost a guarunteed 6...crazy movement...then you get to the assault turn and you're very likely to get a 9 or 10 with fleet.
896
Post by: Hedgehog
In fairness it should also be pointed out that there are a couple of improvements to assault - you can use grenades against MCs, and vehicles are easier to hit in CC.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Krak grenades for the Emprah!
5859
Post by: Ravenous D
If anyone here has failed a 5" charge against a unit in the open, you know exactly why this is the shooting edition.
59923
Post by: Baronyu
ductvader wrote:I don't understand this idea that charge distance is random.
It's not random...its probabilities...just like everything else in the game.
If it were truly random you would have an equal chance of assaulting 2" vs 7" vs 10".
Knowing the probabilities and how USRs affect them has in fact increased the assault range and threat of most assault units; meaning units dedicated to assault...this discounts most MEQ
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Look at Hormagaunts in particular...3 dice for run choose the highest...fleet lets you reroll each one individually...that almost a guarunteed 6...crazy movement...then you get to the assault turn and you're very likely to get a 9 or 10 with fleet.
The probability of making a charge is improved as you get closer, yes, but there is still a random element to it, until the edition where everything from movement distance to shooting distance are measured in dice, I wouldn't quite say it's "just like everything else in the game" because it isn't, if I move my blasterborns within 18", I know for certain that I'll hit, I wouldn't have to move to 12-13" just to get a better chance at landing a shot. The impact of this, however, varies from army to army.
My DE wyches, for example, actually lost some distance compared with 5th ed: due to how fragile they're, they're often deployed on transport and only disembarking for assault, and because I wouldn't want to fail an assault, leaving the unit in the open for a full turn of shooting, likely in the enemy's double-tap/assault range, I'd have to make sure I disembark within a safe distance(8" in the open, according to mathammers, rounded down, but +/- based on your personal taste), in 5th ed however, I'd be able to disembark at 9" and still feel safe(I have 67% chance at making that distance), so for my fragile wyches, I can't really take advantage of this "possible long range charge" even with fleet considered.
On the other hand, let's say Necrons wraiths + d-lord combo, I can say with certainty that I can take advantage of the "possible long range charge", because the unit is a lot tougher, even though it doesn't have fleet, I have no worries on overwatch hurting them, and since they're in the open already...
Now, you may say "but your wyches can shoot this edition!", and I'll reply: so could they last edition, the option to shoot and assault has always been there, but the option to run and assault is taken from us, so it's not like that wyches(or other assault units) have "earned" the ability to shoot and assault, they are just shooting and assaulting because they can no longer run and assault. And of course, there are units that can't even shoot, incubi or.... Hormagaunts...
Which bring us to your appended 2nd post about hormagaunts. You know what else is better than "almost a guarantee 6"? A guarantee 6. Think of 5th ed's static 6" charge as a guarantee 6, sure there is the random of run distance which you don't get a reroll on(unless USR), but you always get a 6, you can never fail a 6" charge, whereas this edition, you can, with or without fleet, if your fleet can "almost guarantee a 6", you're a wizard, a terrible one at that, why learn a spell that only grant a 6 on a reroll, and it's not even 100%? Go back to your wizard school and ask for a refund.
25360
Post by: ductvader
The comment abourt almost guaranteed 6 referred to run alone and how the army is now even faster in the movement phase as well as the assault phase.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
And as for the bladestorm comment, you don't know for certain you'll hit...you could miss every shot...just like you could roll a 2 for a charge...unlikely but possible
67466
Post by: scitech
I never liked the assault part of the game. We are in the far future and shooting should be deadly. I can see assault being huge but only if you get there. If a shooting army wants to assault, there should be a pinning mechanic. Fearless doesn't mean stupid. If a unit is pinned they shouldn't be able to over watch or be able to assault at their initiative. That could fix your assaults armies.
59923
Post by: Baronyu
ductvader wrote:The comment abourt almost guaranteed 6 referred to run alone and how the army is now even faster in the movement phase as well as the assault phase.
Do explain... I know beasts move faster, but what else is moving faster....?
ductvader wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
And as for the bladestorm comment, you don't know for certain you'll hit...you could miss every shot...just like you could roll a 2 for a charge...unlikely but possible
Shooting, same for any gun, but let's use bolter(default weapon, basically): At 24", I know I'll get 1 shot, then it's BS4 for to-hit, and then S vs T for to-wound, then it's whatever save is available, lastly we have FNP or RP or whatever.
Assault, let's just use plain CCW for the sake of default weapon: At 2D6" range, if I succeed on the roll, I get to assault, if not, I gave away a free turn of BS1(or higher if Tau) shooting at my unit, on my turn(and as explained, depending on unit in question, the impact could be huge for leaving a fragile blob in the open because of a factor that I have little control over), then it's WS vs WS for to-hit, S vs T for to-wound, then it's whatever save is available, lastly we have FNP or RP or whatever.
Can you really not see the difference here?
35316
Post by: ansacs
And you are comparing rolling to hit with rolling ranges. Think about if every army had veil of tears on their units, all of them. So every time you try to shoot at an enemy you had to roll range for it. Then you had to hit. Then you had to wound. Then saves had to be failed. Notice that the range roll would equate to a 1 or 0 relation where you either get to do damage or you get to stand there.
Probabilities are actually meaningless on a scale of less than 10,000 instances. Anything under that limit is essentially random. I tend to be a mathammer guy yet I have rolled 12 1's in a row. The probabilities say I probably should not see this in my entire life time. Yet, I have and it cost me a seer council in a single turn. Probability is a nice guide but the extreme cases have to happen too in a complete series.
Additionally, You can have a 58% chance to get 7"+ but that means you have a 42% chance to have less than that. With something like charge movement this can be a very large risk. Especially with wyches as pointed out above.
57646
Post by: Kain
scitech wrote:I never liked the assault part of the game. We are in the far future and shooting should be deadly. I can see assault being huge but only if you get there. If a shooting army wants to assault, there should be a pinning mechanic. Fearless doesn't mean stupid. If a unit is pinned they shouldn't be able to over watch or be able to assault at their initiative. That could fix your assaults armies.
You have a literal god formed out of angry people hitting things who craps out little angry ragemen riding metal rhinoceroses formed out of pure hate who can crush a liquid. Please tell me where realism enters the picture..
36694
Post by: invisiblade
Although assault hasn't been changed much besides rolled distance, shooting has got some major buffs that everyone here is pointing out. Although I preferred CC in 5th ed, simply because it worked, I like the idea more that shooting is more powerful in the 41st millennium. Even today swords and knifes and such for the army is really irrelevant, happens but not often. It also makes it slightly more realistic to kill guys up front or not behind cover with focus fire, cause that’s what happens.
So slightly sad that gone are the days of any unit just running into CC, but overall I think it’s a better move fluff wise. Orks/Tyranids will likely get better in CC with new dexs because that’s their fluff, but a space marine with a powerful bolter should be more deadly than one with a fist.
61374
Post by: Madcat87
 Icculus wrote:
But to the OP. I think shooting should be stronger. You ever heard the "bring a knife to a gun fight" metaphor? Guns should prove strong, and if you charge across a field to an army of people with guns, you will get shot. That's real world warfare.
Can people please stop saying things like this.
What makes sense in the real world should have little to no bearing on the mechanics of a game.
In SC2 it doesn't make sense that a group of marines with rifles can shoot down a battleship in orbit but it works gameplay wise.
70626
Post by: Dakkamite
 Al2ies wrote:I'm just wondering what they are going to Orks and their shooting abilities (if anything) when they finally are up for a revision. I hate being overwatched but the rulebook makes a great statement about it: "No army stands idly by while someone is charging in."
People don't stand idly by while being shot at either, yet thats how it works in-game.
It's "shooty edition" because of the double standard between assault and shooting.
>shooting has set ranges which it achieves every time, assault has random distance
>reaction fire against assault but not shooting
>shooting from deep strike, outflank etc but not assault
>shooting on first turn, assault cannot happen first turn even if you get close enough
18690
Post by: Jimsolo
 Madcat87 wrote: Icculus wrote:
But to the OP. I think shooting should be stronger. You ever heard the "bring a knife to a gun fight" metaphor? Guns should prove strong, and if you charge across a field to an army of people with guns, you will get shot. That's real world warfare.
Can people please stop saying things like this.
What makes sense in the real world should have little to no bearing on the mechanics of a game.
In SC2 it doesn't make sense that a group of marines with rifles can shoot down a battleship in orbit but it works gameplay wise.
Personally, I agree Madcat. Unfortunately, realism is like curry. Some people want a lot, other people, not so much. (I like my 40k like I like my Indian takeout: mild.) Assault oriented armies are a part of the game, and I don't think for a second that they should be sidelined in the name of realism.
On the other side of that, I started playing in 3rd edition, and I think this game has always had a slight favor towards assault based armies. I think Overwatch is one of the best changes made to the game so far. (Random charge ranges are another one.)
I play both units as well as armies that are assault oriented, and while I think the new edition has added a new degree of complexity, I don't think it's made these units/armies non viable by any stretch of the imagination.
59923
Post by: Baronyu
Fairly certain you can get first turn assault unless it's like an infiltrator unit, if someone deploys on their deployment zone's edge and I have my Baron beastpack on my deployment zone's edge, I'm going 2nd, and because that someone is also an idiot who then decide to move 12" forward toward my beastpack, I'm certain that I can charge him... But yeah, I don't think it will happen too often however. May be a drop pod scatter or something.
10086
Post by: Neconilis
ductvader wrote:The comment abourt almost guaranteed 6 referred to run alone and how the army is now even faster in the movement phase as well as the assault phase.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
And as for the bladestorm comment, you don't know for certain you'll hit...you could miss every shot...just like you could roll a 2 for a charge...unlikely but possible
One could also fail with every 'to hit' roll in an assault, the point is having the guaranteed opportunity to make those attack rolls in the first place.
73251
Post by: Overlord Thraka
I've never really had trouble with assault, and I've only ever played 6th. I prefer shooty and dakka.
782
Post by: DarthDiggler
Shooting is easier in 6th, but not better. Shooting is the dark side of the force. Quicker, easier, more tempting, but ultimately weaker.
Most people have trouble with assault because they are still playing 5th edition assault lists. 6th edition assault lists are an entirely different thing and are very effective.
6th edition assault units have never been faster. They are congregated mostly in the CSM and Daemon codex right now, but they will branch out
7403
Post by: Accipiter
One could also fail with every 'to hit' roll in an assault, the point is having the guaranteed opportunity to make those attack rolls in the first place.
The guarantee of being in the safety of close combat is of great importance. Otherwise, your assault might get mowed down by enemy fire. I for one would accept a malus to WS (or risk loosing an attack) if I could guarantee a 6" assault and making close combat.
71151
Post by: Waaaghpower
DarthDiggler wrote:Shooting is easier in 6th, but not better. Shooting is the dark side of the force. Quicker, easier, more tempting, but ultimately weaker.
The Dark Side is neither weaker nor stronger. Technically. But I see your point.
5046
Post by: Orock
I can see the ork assault rules in their book now.
For every 2 casualties suffered due to overwatch in the assault phase, add 1" to the charge distance.
For every 3 casualties suffered due to overwatch in the assault phase, each ork gains 1 attack.
The tears would be delicious.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Madcat87 wrote:In SC2 it doesn't make sense that a group of marines with rifles can shoot down a battleship in orbit but it works gameplay wise.
No, it's just a stupid gameplay element that only "works" if you completely ignore the fluff behind it. 40k is a game that's supposed to be all about the fluff, so maintaining some degree of realism is important. And the simple fact is that assault only happens in 40k because the game is not true 28mm scale. If you re-design the game so that movement and shooting distances are both at the correct 28mm scale assault will almost never happen.
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
ductvader wrote:There are many things that have made assault and movement much better than it was before as well. Randomization of wounds, challenges, cover with 25% of a model hidden. An increased threat range on assaults...fleet working for running as well...
I personally believe the biggest/only real downside that assault got in 6th is focus fire.
I wouldn't praise challenges so much. In fact, I would lean against it being praise worthy. It wrecks the power blob tactic, can curb MC assault units, and can downgrade some others as well as being a great stall tactic. Whilst random wounds in CC is good doesn't help the closest model suffers and finally in the old version if certain requirements were made, your entire group had cover instead of a model by model basis. Also I'd say fleet arguably got worse.
 ColdSadHungry wrote:Since 6th hit, none of the true assault armies have had a new codex. It's been all the shooty guys, or shooty/assault capable armies. Im pretty sure that when orks or BA get a new dex they'll have plenty of new tools to help them out.
Generally speaking though, I agree it's harder to assault with any old assault capable unit.
Actually this isn't so! Chaos Daemons are probably the most assault oriented army and, for the most part, can do it well enough.
No offense but my greatest question is.... why push for so much realism? This is the world where hqs for the most part seem bent towards close combat. This is the world where orks, Nids, Blood Angels, Daemons, certain CSM armies, certain SM armies, fluffy Space Wolves, arguably fluffy GK, DE, and a few other forces are supposedly built around assault. Some are oriented towards shooting to weaken and then executing whilst others are oriented towards just crashing in and slaughtering. This is a world where guns suddenly mystically become worthless past there range and somehow orks and space marines fire at the same overwatch capability. This is the world where reality defying daemons ignore bolter shots by fading in and out, nids evolve to resist things continuously, and orks get their head popped off and have a fellow ork grab it, plunk it back on, and as their good ol' buddy gets right back up! In fact, I'd argue that realistically air support and orbital bombardments should be more important if we wanted to go for realism and psykers should just ignore the battlefield with over the top nonsense magic (when deploying any lord of change or deploying ML4 psykers like Ahriman). Oh and titans shouldn't die to meltaguns. But 40k has never been realistic. Look at all Space Marines have! Look at the SoB faith system and then Celestine. Blind faith activating the full potential of humans or the power of the warp? Who knows. I will say this again and again. 3rd was not fun because, even if I prefer assault, it favoured assault far too much (I believe that was the edition). 6th edition has the same problem and both are just as revolting as the other to me. Finally, saying that you shouldn't be able to make an assault only army is balderdash when it is entirely acceptable to make a shooting only army. For pete's sake, the best a Daemon/Nid giant of doom can hit you on is a 3+ whilst shooting can get rerolls of 2+ to hit with a 2+ re-roll if their bs is high enough.
61374
Post by: Madcat87
 Peregrine wrote: Madcat87 wrote:In SC2 it doesn't make sense that a group of marines with rifles can shoot down a battleship in orbit but it works gameplay wise.
No, it's just a stupid gameplay element that only "works" if you completely ignore the fluff behind it. 40k is a game that's supposed to be all about the fluff, so maintaining some degree of realism is important. And the simple fact is that assault only happens in 40k because the game is not true 28mm scale. If you re-design the game so that movement and shooting distances are both at the correct 28mm scale assault will almost never happen.
Realism...In the year 40,000.
Please try again.
57646
Post by: Kain
Peregrine wrote: Madcat87 wrote:In SC2 it doesn't make sense that a group of marines with rifles can shoot down a battleship in orbit but it works gameplay wise.
No, it's just a stupid gameplay element that only "works" if you completely ignore the fluff behind it. 40k is a game that's supposed to be all about the fluff, so maintaining some degree of realism is important. And the simple fact is that assault only happens in 40k because the game is not true 28mm scale. If you re-design the game so that movement and shooting distances are both at the correct 28mm scale assault will almost never happen.
Kain wrote:scitech wrote:I never liked the assault part of the game. We are in the far future and shooting should be deadly. I can see assault being huge but only if you get there. If a shooting army wants to assault, there should be a pinning mechanic. Fearless doesn't mean stupid. If a unit is pinned they shouldn't be able to over watch or be able to assault at their initiative. That could fix your assaults armies.
You have a literal god formed out of angry people hitting things who craps out little angry ragemen riding metal rhinoceroses formed out of pure hate who can crush a liquid. Please tell me where realism enters the picture..
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Kain wrote:You have a literal god formed out of angry people hitting things who craps out little angry ragemen riding metal rhinoceroses formed out of pure hate who can crush a liquid. Please tell me where realism enters the picture..
Realism enters the picture when you fix the scale problems and it takes those assault units at least 10-20 turns to cross the space between deployment zones and get into combat. The only reason they can survive the charge through enemy fire to get into range is that the distances involved are not scaled correctly and it only takes 1-2 turns.
57646
Post by: Kain
Peregrine wrote: Kain wrote:You have a literal god formed out of angry people hitting things who craps out little angry ragemen riding metal rhinoceroses formed out of pure hate who can crush a liquid. Please tell me where realism enters the picture..
Realism enters the picture when you fix the scale problems and it takes those assault units at least 10-20 turns to cross the space between deployment zones and get into combat. The only reason they can survive the charge through enemy fire to get into range is that the distances involved are not scaled correctly and it only takes 1-2 turns.
Or the daemons just teleport in your face and butcher you anyway.
Standard logic does not apply to enemies who can break reality.
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
Peregrine wrote: Kain wrote:You have a literal god formed out of angry people hitting things who craps out little angry ragemen riding metal rhinoceroses formed out of pure hate who can crush a liquid. Please tell me where realism enters the picture..
Realism enters the picture when you fix the scale problems and it takes those assault units at least 10-20 turns to cross the space between deployment zones and get into combat. The only reason they can survive the charge through enemy fire to get into range is that the distances involved are not scaled correctly and it only takes 1-2 turns.
Kain! Take pride in the fact that fluff wise rippers should be crawling between nids and there should be so many nids that the enemy runs out of ammo extremely frequently (and evolve to ignore some of your guns or at least null much of the pain)
Except it doesn't. Daemons crawl out of the warp behind/infront/inyou, Tyranids leap out of bushes, baneblades drive out of newspapers, myotic spores drop from the sky, and berzerkers laugh as they ride inside of vehicles that are open topped to hop right out of to rip and maim and tear you in CC. Oh and did I forget to mention orks falling from the sky on meteors? And yet again this is arguing realism in a game where we have warp entities, tyranids that constantly evolve, and SPES Marines that have armour that fluff wise can ignore shells that would crush mortals. Whilst scaling is admittedly a problem (so too is the fact guardsman are the same height as IG), it doesn't change the fact that assault units aren't as dumb as that. Heck fluff wise nids would likely have rippers swarming across the floor whilst daemons have weird... abominations crawling swirling, hissing, and webbing you down whilst combat persists (or you are nurgle and laugh at the holes in your body).
63000
Post by: Peregrine
 StarTrotter wrote:Kain! Take pride in the fact that fluff wise rippers should be crawling between nids and there should be so many nids that the enemy runs out of ammo extremely frequently (and evolve to ignore some of your guns or at least null much of the pain)
And then realism enters the picture again and nuclear weapons incinerate the whole mess in one shot. Swarms of melee Tyranids only "work" because GW conveniently pretends that heavy weapons don't exist.
Except it doesn't. Daemons crawl out of the warp behind/infront/inyou, Tyranids leap out of bushes, baneblades drive out of newspapers, myotic spores drop from the sky, and berzerkers laugh as they ride inside of vehicles that are open topped to hop right out of to rip and maim and tear you in CC.
Ah yes, the magic "they just appear next to you" argument where we pretend that nobody ever uses IR cameras/radar/etc to spot those stealthy units, proper AA weapons (even 1950s-era SAMs would make a drop pod assault suffer 99% casualties before a single pod hits the ground), or just shoots that open-topped vehicle with a guided missile from several miles away.
And yet again this is arguing realism in a game where we have warp entities, tyranids that constantly evolve, and SPES Marines that have armour that fluff wise can ignore shells that would crush mortals.
So you agree then that a single grot should kill a titan 100% of the time if they fight?
57646
Post by: Kain
Peregrine wrote: StarTrotter wrote:Kain! Take pride in the fact that fluff wise rippers should be crawling between nids and there should be so many nids that the enemy runs out of ammo extremely frequently (and evolve to ignore some of your guns or at least null much of the pain)
And then realism enters the picture again and nuclear weapons incinerate the whole mess in one shot. Swarms of melee Tyranids only "work" because GW conveniently pretends that heavy weapons don't exist.
Except it doesn't. Daemons crawl out of the warp behind/infront/inyou, Tyranids leap out of bushes, baneblades drive out of newspapers, myotic spores drop from the sky, and berzerkers laugh as they ride inside of vehicles that are open topped to hop right out of to rip and maim and tear you in CC.
Ah yes, the magic "they just appear next to you" argument where we pretend that nobody ever uses IR cameras/radar/etc, proper AA weapons (even 1950s-era SAMs would make a drop pod assault suffer 99% casualties before a single pod hits the ground), or just shoots that open-topped vehicle with a guided missile from several miles away.
And yet again this is arguing realism in a game where we have warp entities, tyranids that constantly evolve, and SPES Marines that have armour that fluff wise can ignore shells that would crush mortals.
So you agree then that a single grot should kill a titan 100% of the time if they fight?
Typically when a Tyranid Swarm is in full swing, they've destroyed your space fleet, and they can deploy anywhere they want, including right on top of you.
Also, nice to see that you're ignoring my point that Daemons can simply teleport or drive anyone who looks at them mad or crawl out of your psyker's head to spite your silly laws like reality.
As for SAMs, even hitting a missile at Mach 3 is highly difficult for any non specialized system. Hitting something dropping in at meteorotic velocity has been repeatedly shown to be next to impossible with anything short of anti-ballistic missile systems, which are only intended for weapon systems ridiculously larger than a drop pod. A drop pod only slows down to somewhat reasonable speeds in the very final stretches of it's deployment, well below the minimum ceiling of most SAM weapons.
Humans would be reduced to jelly by the sudden deceleration, but space marines aren't human.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Kain wrote:Typically when a Tyranid Swarm is in full swing, they've destroyed your space fleet, and they can deploy anywhere they want, including right on top of you.
Well, if you want to look beyond the scale of the 40k battlefield and talk about the strategic situation then Tyranids don't exist at all since eating planets is a net loss in energy (so the swarm shrinks every time it eats a planet). Not that they'd bother anyway, since the idea of an alien swarm from outside the galaxy eating us and borrowing our DNA is significantly less plausible than you successfully mating with a tree.
Also, nice to see that you're ignoring my point that Daemons can simply teleport or drive anyone who looks at them mad or crawl out of your psyker's head to spite your silly laws like reality.
Of course I'm ignoring it because it's a blatant "it's magic, it does whatever the plot wants it to do".
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
Peregrine wrote: StarTrotter wrote:Kain! Take pride in the fact that fluff wise rippers should be crawling between nids and there should be so many nids that the enemy runs out of ammo extremely frequently (and evolve to ignore some of your guns or at least null much of the pain)
And then realism enters the picture again and nuclear weapons incinerate the whole mess in one shot. Swarms of melee Tyranids only "work" because GW conveniently pretends that heavy weapons don't exist.
Except it doesn't. Daemons crawl out of the warp behind/infront/inyou, Tyranids leap out of bushes, baneblades drive out of newspapers, myotic spores drop from the sky, and berzerkers laugh as they ride inside of vehicles that are open topped to hop right out of to rip and maim and tear you in CC.
Ah yes, the magic "they just appear next to you" argument where we pretend that nobody ever uses IR cameras/radar/etc to spot those stealthy units, proper AA weapons (even 1950s-era SAMs would make a drop pod assault suffer 99% casualties before a single pod hits the ground), or just shoots that open-topped vehicle with a guided missile from several miles away.
And yet again this is arguing realism in a game where we have warp entities, tyranids that constantly evolve, and SPES Marines that have armour that fluff wise can ignore shells that would crush mortals.
So you agree then that a single grot should kill a titan 100% of the time if they fight?
Awww ye' cause orks are da best! Joking aside, well if we want to go there.... why not just exterminatus every planet and nuke everything else? Who cares about the ground fights when we can just grab artillery, air planes, and space ships. Forget soldiers they are an idiotic idea and should never have been used against such threatening enemies we shall throws this away and blow our enemies up with nukes. Also would every army be able to constantly IR for everything? And this is an epic scale army. We have to have some suspension of disbelief or things, as you mentioned, like a single pod landing would never land. So what? Should we never play landing pads. And daemons? Can you really easily counter them hopping out of... thin air? Or hopping out of your local psyker and phasing in and out of reality as you see your gun shots fly straight through them and then shoot a million mutating mind bullets of doom!
And no I'm not saying a single grot killing a titan is good. Heck I have a problem with meltaguns effectively popping titans (though it is funny thinking of a guardsman popping a titan with a melta). Realism is nothing I want. A bit of authenticity? Most certainly. I want my marines to feel like every man's death means something. I want my guardsman to be flung at the enemy with casual disregard as artillery fires from the sky and my DKoK die with a smile on their face (if they can even smile) knowing they did good for the emperor.
Finally, if you are going to ignore chaos popping up, then we should bring up an important question. Why argue about any of this? Realistically Titans shouldn't even work! IG mortallity rate is so high they should be whiped out. The SM on the table die in droves to the point where if every time they fell they died, space marine chapters would be lost in only a few games.
57646
Post by: Kain
Peregrine wrote: Kain wrote:Typically when a Tyranid Swarm is in full swing, they've destroyed your space fleet, and they can deploy anywhere they want, including right on top of you.
Well, if you want to look beyond the scale of the 40k battlefield and talk about the strategic situation then Tyranids don't exist at all since eating planets is a net loss in energy (so the swarm shrinks every time it eats a planet). Not that they'd bother anyway, since the idea of an alien swarm from outside the galaxy eating us and borrowing our DNA is significantly less plausible than you successfully mating with a tree.
Also, nice to see that you're ignoring my point that Daemons can simply teleport or drive anyone who looks at them mad or crawl out of your psyker's head to spite your silly laws like reality.
Of course I'm ignoring it because it's a blatant "it's magic, it does whatever the plot wants it to do".
This is a setting that runs on comic book science where magic is very much real with real and actual malevolent gods. Both are integral to the setting and without it you'd just have HALO without the Flood and more catholicism references. Which would be boring. But you seem to want an Arthur C. Clarke novel with more violence rather than 40k.
I mean, why should the forces of Chaos who live in a place where neither time nor space exist in a way we understand even care about the laws of physics? When so much as gathering in a single place in large enough numbers causes virtually all laws of reality to completely break down.
59721
Post by: Evileyes
A few thing's have diminished it.
1. Heldrake was the death of the marine assault armies, blood angels assault marines, for instance. Now that's out of the way
2. Vehicles are unreliable. And many assault armies rely on vehicles to get them to the front. With the weight of fire on the table, it's not hard to take out an assault unit's transport before they can get into position .
3. Unit's that don't need transports for assault, don't have the numbers needed to survive. It used to be, that ork boyz diddn't need transports, because there was so many, that they would get across the board by turn 4 and still have enough to cause havoc. Generally, if you are not in assault by turn 4 now, you will die before you get there. Hence all the talk of turn 2 assaults being powerfull, but otherwise not so much.
So yeah, assault units are bad because-
It's too slow. If it's not too slow-
It relies on a vehicle to transport it. If it doesn't rely on a vehicle-
It's a unit paying for mobility, and resilience, and killing power all in one, meaning it will cost more points than it's shooting equivalent, which will not necessarily need mobility or resilience, or power, due to sheer weight of numbers.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Kain wrote:As for SAMs, even hitting a missile at Mach 3 is highly difficult for any non specialized system. Hitting something dropping in at meteorotic velocity has been repeatedly shown to be next to impossible with anything short of anti-ballistic missile systems, which are only intended for weapon systems ridiculously larger than a drop pod.
Nope. Hitting incoming mach 3 targets is trivially easy when they're on a ballistic trajectory (and a drop pod will effectively be on a ballistic trajectory). Do some basic math, and put a block of metal in its path. We were successfully getting direct contact hits on incoming ICBM warheads (which are significantly smaller than a drop pod) with 1950s technology. I can see an IG army being vulnerable to drop pods since they seem to be stuck in WWII at best, but Tau/Eldar/Necrons would effortlessly turn a drop pod assault into a rain of space marine fragments.
A drop pod only slows down to somewhat reasonable speeds in the very final stretches of it's deployment, well below the minimum ceiling of most SAM weapons.
Which makes it even worse then, since the kinetic energy involved in the collision makes a warhead redundant. To be a difficult target you need to have maneuvering, not just speed directly at the launcher, and drop pods don't. Automatically Appended Next Post: StarTrotter wrote:And no I'm not saying a single grot killing a titan is good. Heck I have a problem with meltaguns effectively popping titans (though it is funny thinking of a guardsman popping a titan with a melta).
Why are you talking about realism in 40k? Automatically Appended Next Post: Kain wrote:This is a setting that runs on comic book science where magic is very much real with real and actual malevolent gods. Both are integral to the setting and without it you'd just have HALO without the Flood and more catholicism references. Which would be boring. But you seem to want an Arthur C. Clarke novel with more violence rather than 40k.
IMO demons are the least fun part of the setting. Demons and Tyranids IMO are the stupid armies you have to put up with because it's rude to refuse to play against people over their army choice, if GW removed both of them from the game entirely I'd be very happy.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Peregrine wrote:Which makes it even worse then, since the kinetic energy involved in the collision makes a warhead redundant. To be a difficult target you need to have maneuvering, not just speed directly at the launcher, and drop pods don't.
Well, the most difficult target is one your SAM can't see, and as 'auspex' technology appears to be extremely primitive radar, that may be why drop pod assaults work. I also think you're overestimating our success rate with ballistic kill vehicles a little.
Nevertheless, it's irrelevant. Drop pod assaults happen all the time in fluff, as does melee combat. It's impossible to be both realistic and based on the established fluff.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
 Seaward wrote:Well, the most difficult target is one your SAM can't see, and as 'auspex' technology appears to be extremely primitive radar, that may be why drop pod assaults work. I also think you're overestimating our success rate with ballistic kill vehicles a little.
"Can't see" is an absurd thing to say about a drop pod coming in at the claimed speeds. It doesn't matter how well you stealth your drop pod against radar if you're glowing bright as the sun in IR, and that's an inevitable consequence of moving that fast in air.
Now, this might be a problem for the average IG unit where advanced technology is rare and the primary AA unit is armed with "dumb" autocannon shells, or against orks that just throw up a wall of bullets in the general direction of a target, and a drop pod assault would be a terrifying threat to those armies. But against Tau/Eldar/Necrons, which have technology way beyond modern levels, a drop pod is just an easy target for the Sky Ray network.
Nevertheless, it's irrelevant. Drop pod assaults happen all the time in fluff, as does melee combat. It's impossible to be both realistic and based on the established fluff.
Obviously they happen, my point is that they happen because of a combination of 40k having ridiculous scale inconsistency and GW selectively ignoring any weapons or technology that would interfere with the plot. I don't expect GW to remove assault entirely, but complaining that it isn't as important as shooting is just silly. Screaming idiots with chainswords exist on the tabletop, but they don't need to be 50% of the game.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Peregrine wrote:"Can't see" is an absurd thing to say about a drop pod coming in at the claimed speeds. It doesn't matter how well you stealth your drop pod against radar if you're glowing bright as the sun in IR, and that's an inevitable consequence of moving that fast in air.
Now, this might be a problem for the average IG unit where advanced technology is rare and the primary AA unit is armed with "dumb" autocannon shells, or against orks that just throw up a wall of bullets in the general direction of a target, and a drop pod assault would be a terrifying threat to those armies. But against Tau/Eldar/Necrons, which have technology way beyond modern levels, a drop pod is just an easy target for the Sky Ray network.
Maybe, maybe not. I've seen precious little about IR-based self-guidance in any army, truth be told.
But again, it's irrelevant. We're talking about a setting where aerial/void conflicts aren't the BVR battles they realistically would be, where fungus monsters regularly attack humanity, where lasers recoil when fired, etc. Realism's never been the goal. Even internal consistency's a considerable stretch, given the fluff variations.
People want armies that make big brass ball pushes across the field to punch people in the face. They want them to be as effective as they were. There's nothing unreasonable about that nor, given the setting wherein Guy A can kill Guy B by thinking about it really hard, nothing unrealistic about it, either.
57646
Post by: Kain
Seaward wrote: Peregrine wrote:"Can't see" is an absurd thing to say about a drop pod coming in at the claimed speeds. It doesn't matter how well you stealth your drop pod against radar if you're glowing bright as the sun in IR, and that's an inevitable consequence of moving that fast in air.
Now, this might be a problem for the average IG unit where advanced technology is rare and the primary AA unit is armed with "dumb" autocannon shells, or against orks that just throw up a wall of bullets in the general direction of a target, and a drop pod assault would be a terrifying threat to those armies. But against Tau/Eldar/Necrons, which have technology way beyond modern levels, a drop pod is just an easy target for the Sky Ray network.
Maybe, maybe not. I've seen precious little about IR-based self-guidance in any army, truth be told.
But again, it's irrelevant. We're talking about a setting where aerial/void conflicts aren't the BVR battles they realistically would be, where fungus monsters regularly attack humanity, where lasers recoil when fired, etc. Realism's never been the goal. Even internal consistency's a considerable stretch, given the fluff variations.
People want armies that make big brass ball pushes across the field to punch people in the face. They want them to be as effective as they were. There's nothing unreasonable about that nor, given the setting wherein Guy A can kill Guy B by thinking about it really hard, nothing unrealistic about it, either.
Actually BFG makes it very clear that most space combat does in fact take at BVR.
73107
Post by: machineuk
It seems to me that overwatch in this edition is a horribly broken game element.
When you consider that we are playing a turn based game and that each turn represents a certain amount of time, the argument that troops wouldn't stand idly by when someone charges at them becomes redundant.
Overwatch effectively allow troops to fire twice in a turn, what part of being charged at enables someone to move and think twice as fast as everybody else?
The original overwatch in 2nd edition was gained by giving up the chance to shoot in your turn to shoot in your opponents, the only thing troops give up currently is the full BS, when certain race specific rules allow troops to fire at full BS what are they giving up?
the other side of the argument that troops would fire at troops charging at them would be that what stops them from firing in your opponents turn?
example:
we deploy armies and i take the first turn
i move my unitsand shoot at yours
in your turn you move your units and then i announce that im going to fire at them again.
no one would accept that as part of the game, so why accept overwatch as it is?
63000
Post by: Peregrine
machineuk wrote:It seems to me that overwatch in this edition is a horribly broken game element.
You're right, it is. It should be done at full BS to represent the fact that over the length of a 40k turn you'll have plenty of time to aim properly at an incoming assault unit.
When you consider that we are playing a turn based game and that each turn represents a certain amount of time, the argument that troops wouldn't stand idly by when someone charges at them becomes redundant.
This is why 40k needs to drop the current system of alternating turns and move to a unit-by-unit activation system. Unfortunately GW is too lazy to make this kind of comprehensive change, so they'll just add on random extra rules to the existing mess.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Kain wrote:
Actually BFG makes it very clear that most space combat does in fact take at BVR.
Does it? I didn't know that. It's good to hear, given that Black Library tends to depict void battles as Age of Sail reenactments.
Aerial battles are still my big gripe, though, given my background.
52309
Post by: Breng77
People,do realize,that assault exists because some people feel it is fun. I have no desire to play the game of modern warfare. We don't even really need models for that at all, we just bomb each other and that is all.
To people saying shooting should be better, I disagree as long as Gw creates armies that are almost entirely reliant on cc. Perhaps like so e you want those to be gotten rid of so we can all play gun line shoot Fest. But having played games very close to that they are not enjoyable.
For those saying the game should be realistic it is a game...involving science "fantasy". People have "magic powers" , we have grown near perfect 8 foot super humans.
Arguing that well technology means x army would never exist...it is fantasy people. S you use IR to spot the approaching nids, well they keep sending bugs, and eventually evolve to chameleon their heat signature and blend in. Or you nuke the, but like the cockroach they develop a resistance....or you know maybe someone does not want to nuke a city or whole planet all the time.... Automatically Appended Next Post: Peregrine wrote:machineuk wrote:It seems to me that overwatch in this edition is a horribly broken game element.
You're right, it is. It should be done at full BS to represent the fact that over the length of a 40k turn you'll have plenty of time to aim properly at an incoming assault unit.
When you consider that we are playing a turn based game and that each turn represents a certain amount of time, the argument that troops wouldn't stand idly by when someone charges at them becomes redundant.
This is why 40k needs to drop the current system of alternating turns and move to a unit-by-unit activation system. Unfortunately GW is too lazy to make this kind of comprehensive change, so they'll just add on random extra rules to the existing mess.
Actually considering that the turns don't occur I. Real time overwatch should not be done at all. Essentially to imagine the battlefield all of the action is already happening simultaneously, so allowing a unit to shoot at a unit running toward them, and then do it again seems silly, if those this occur in the same game turn.
57646
Post by: Kain
Seaward wrote: Kain wrote:
Actually BFG makes it very clear that most space combat does in fact take at BVR.
Does it? I didn't know that. It's good to hear, given that Black Library tends to depict void battles as Age of Sail reenactments.
Aerial battles are still my big gripe, though, given my background.
BFG also has very clear scaling that makes it so that even "knife fight" ranges are at distances greater than the diameter of a planet.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
Peregrine has pretty much laid down a perfect argument for 40k not having an ounce of realism at all. We have a fun, grim-dark Universe at hand, why spoil it with something unnecessary as realism?
Oh, and assault armies are part of the fluff. Calling them unfluffy is like calling gravity unfair. The tabletop is just a representation of the fluff, not vice versa. I don't want be painting my army if I have to outnumber guardsmen 1:100 with my orks on the tabletop like fluff tells me.
72945
Post by: Baktru
machineuk wrote:It seems to me that overwatch in this edition is a horribly broken game element.
When you consider that we are playing a turn based game and that each turn represents a certain amount of time, the argument that troops wouldn't stand idly by when someone charges at them becomes redundant.
Overwatch effectively allow troops to fire twice in a turn, what part of being charged at enables someone to move and think twice as fast as everybody else?
The original overwatch in 2nd edition was gained by giving up the chance to shoot in your turn to shoot in your opponents, the only thing troops give up currently is the full BS, when certain race specific rules allow troops to fire at full BS what are they giving up?
the other side of the argument that troops would fire at troops charging at them would be that what stops them from firing in your opponents turn?
example:
we deploy armies and i take the first turn
i move my unitsand shoot at yours
in your turn you move your units and then i announce that im going to fire at them again.
no one would accept that as part of the game, so why accept overwatch as it is?
Seeing as how that is exactly how Advanced Squad Leader works, I strongly disagree.
It's a mechanic that I don't think would work in 40K, but it does exist, succesfully, in other games.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
It's still amusing that your guardsmen would only start shooting if the orks actually charge at them, but wouldn't fire a single shot if the orks move right into their faces and open fire with their shootas.
68972
Post by: Slaanesh-Devotee
I find the term verism more useful than realism. We all know the game is unrealistic in many ways. However, there should be a sense that the rules and fluff hold together and reflect each other in a reasonable way. Therefore, assault tactics, rules and units should be a reasonable choice.
50698
Post by: Dracoknight
 Jidmah wrote:Peregrine has pretty much laid down a perfect argument for 40k not having an ounce of realism at all. We have a fun, grim-dark Universe at hand, why spoil it with something unnecessary as realism?
Oh, and assault armies are part of the fluff. Calling them unfluffy is like calling gravity unfair. The tabletop is just a representation of the fluff, not vice versa. I don't want be painting my army if I have to outnumber guardsmen 1:100 with my orks on the tabletop like fluff tells me.
The argument that i agree with the most...
Let a game be a game, adding realism seem more like a uneeded or even unwated change to the whole tabletop series.
( And a list i can think of if we add realism: Ammo counts, Model stamina, Model Hunger ( Tyranids anyone? ), Vehicle errors after a move ( mud in tracks, crack in road, bump that causes stuff ), no characters without helmets, no wolves, no green men, etc. etc. etc. )
1943
Post by: labmouse42
Assault armies are in a tough spot in 6th edition right now. There are some excellent shooting armies out there that can cause you problems. If you are going to build an assault force,what you need to do is make sure they meet the following criteria.
Limit incoming damage before they can assault
This can be done by setting yourself up for a turn 2 assault (spawn, etc). This can be done by deep striking all your assault units on turn 2 and then assaulting on turn 3. This can be done by casting invisibility on your units. It can be done by keeping your stuff in land raiders, etc.
The key here is simple -- you need to make sure your not shot off the table before you can get into assault! If your just walking up units across the board, you can expect to have big problems. This is why green tide armies are having problems today. Its because they are walking across and getting shot up before they can get into assault.
The exception to this is if your running a counter-assault unit. A counter-assault unit can be slower. For example, I bring a GUO as a counter-assault unit, and it works great. I don't need to have it be that fast because its job is to detur anything that gets close.
Present overwhelming threat
You cannot bring 2 units of CSM bikes and 2 units of CSM blocks on foot. That does not work. The units are wiped out to quickly. You need to have all your assault units hit at the same time and overwhelm your opponents with target saturation.
Dealing with screens
You need to have a plan when someone brings 100+ kroot in front of their fire warriors. The idea of the screens is that you wipe them out on your turn, then you get shot in the face again on the following turn. By increasing the turns until your into an assault where you are impacting your opponents offensive capability for one turn, he is doubling the amount of damage your army takes before getting into assault. In other words, instead of having one turn to shoot your army, he has two turns to do so..
Have some shooting
You can't throw just a ton of assault units on the board and call it a day. A good assault army needs shooting elements. For example, what happens when there is a kroot screen in front of a fire warrior army? You get shot up on turn one, kill all the kroot on turn 2 in your assault, then get shot to bits on turn 3. If you have some shooting, you can shoot a hole in the kroot and then assault the juicy units behind.
Limit Bad Luck
You don't want to say 'Well, I know that on average I should make a 6" assault, so I'll plan for that". The minute you do that, you will roll nothing but 5s. To help mitigate this,always get as close as possible when assaulting -- which is why fast moving troops are invalueable.
On the other hand, when assaulting targets with provide a limited or no overwatch threat -- like vehicles, there is little reason not to assault them at long ranges. While its rare, I've made a 11" assault through difficult terrain before. When it does happen, it can be a game changing moment
75089
Post by: BunnyCommando
 Ravenous D wrote:If anyone here has failed a 5" charge against a unit in the open, you know exactly why this is the shooting edition.
Try failing a 3" charge with a fleet unit. Clearly I had not sacrificed enough small children to the dice gods that week.*
*Disclaimer: no small children were hurt in the making of this sacrifice
59330
Post by: Saythings
Some of this thread needs to go to " 40k Background". Actually most of it does To add to the thread: I'd say more Shooting-Oriented Armies have been updated to 6th standards than CC-oriented. This might have something to contribute to the large amount of shooting lists. Daemons and CSM are slowly shifting to more CC lists. After BT and BA get updated, you might start seeing more assaults in your meta. Tau got some nerfs on some of their stronger weapons. You might see the same for IG. Changing the assault armies, as well as, changing the pure shooting armies will always change the meta.
61164
Post by: Goat
I don't know about the rest of you but I've been assaulting and having a blast doing it ever since the 2 chaos books came out.
52309
Post by: Breng77
Saythings wrote:Some of this thread needs to go to " 40k Background". Actually most of it does
To add to the thread: I'd say more Shooting-Oriented Armies have been updated to 6th standards than CC-oriented. This might have something to contribute to the large amount of shooting lists. Daemons and CSM are slowly shifting to more CC lists. After BT and BA get updated, you might start seeing more assaults in your meta. Tau got some nerfs on some of their stronger weapons. You might see the same for IG. Changing the assault armies, as well as, changing the pure shooting armies will always change the meta.
That is only slightly true in 6th Ed we have had CSM (mostly CC/ or at least close quarters shooting.), Daemons (mostly Close combat), Dark Angels (shooty), Tau (shoooooty), Eldar (Shooty). So yes 3/5 of releases have been for shooty armies.
Limit incoming damage before they can assault
This can be done by setting yourself up for a turn 2 assault (spawn, etc). This can be done by deep striking all your assault units on turn 2 and then assaulting on turn 3. This can be done by casting invisibility on your units. It can be done by keeping your stuff in land raiders, etc.
The key here is simple -- you need to make sure your not shot off the table before you can get into assault! If your just walking up units across the board, you can expect to have big problems. This is why green tide armies are having problems today. Its because they are walking across and getting shot up before they can get into assault.
The exception to this is if your running a counter-assault unit. A counter-assault unit can be slower. For example, I bring a GUO as a counter-assault unit, and it works great. I don't need to have it be that fast because its job is to detur anything that gets close.
I agree with most everything you have said in your post. And while this is true, Tau and Eldar make this very difficult. Turn 2 assault is great, except when you wipe a screen and get shot again. Deepstriking might work if Tau did not Interceptor your stuff, then shoot it again. Invisibility was amazing, unitl Tau and Eldar largely ignored it. It is still good against many armies but it leaves you with bad matchup issues. Same is true for land raiders, they are great until someone has the answer to them.
I was very much more about making assaults works prior to Tau and Eldar, now while my list is still "non-shooting heavy" it is also not "assault based"
67268
Post by: Art_of_war
The simple fact is shooting is far more efficient at killing things than assault is, however in saying that assault is worth it providing you have the capacity to get the killy unit into combat in such a way, as to not get yourself blown to bits next turn.
That is the situation we are dealing with, its made assault far more of a risk, rather than the simple zerg rush that seemed to occur in 5th, and in some cases it couldn't be stopped quickly enough. Now assaults have to be planned far better and a few don't get it, take hammernators as an example. They are still very useful, it just requires a bit of timing to get them and their landraider transport to the spot where they can cause havoc. Not as I've encountered, getting across the board (despite my best efforts  ) and then the payload duly killing a chimera before the whole lot gets screwed over in my turn, a shocking waste 
Just my humble opinion 
24267
Post by: akaean
My Slaaneshi CSM are very assault Oriented with several dedicated shooting Elements. I've had a lot of fun with them, but oftentimes I feel like I have an uphill match against a lot of opponents- especially since I hate Heldrakes and refuse to run even one.
Except for a small block of Spawn, most of my assault units are also shooting units, Raptors (I converted them with Scourge wings and they are too awesome not to field) with Melta, and Bikers with Melta. Often times these units feel like shooting units first and assault units second, which gives a bit more duality to them and I feel that helps them succeed in 6th edition. Shoot Shoot Shoot, then close in when there would be an advantage in Close Combat (which is usually as soon as reasonably possible)
The problem is that my Slaaneshi CSM is not a competitive army (not enough Heldrake, too much focus on close combat and close combat upgrades), and i have several really rough matchups against Tau and Eldar shooting. I just don't have enough covering fire from Noise Marines and Obliterators to keep up, and my fast MSU assault units, while they punches hard, doesn't have much staying power against upgraded overwatch or the sheer fire power of dakka serpents.
When I want to bring a more competitive army, I look to my Eldar, and if I need to play at a really high level I look to my Eldar with an allied Vendetta filled with Vostoryans and an Aegis Line. Shooting, and especially highly mobile shooting is ruling the game right now. If Jump Infantry could assault Fliers (hit on a 6 or something) that might help some units like ASM see some playtime with their Krak Grenades, but as it stands when things get real, 40K is just a game of shooting, target priority, and fire lanes. Which is too bad, because I really enjoy my CSM, and have more fun fielding them than my other armies... Maybe there is a reason I have been gravitating more towards Fantasy of late, where close combat really matters.
42043
Post by: cowmonaut
Waaaghpower wrote:So, this could just be my current local meta, but it seems to me that melee seems horribly undervalued almost everywhere on the interwebs. Why is it so bad? I'll admit that Overwatch can be a pain, but Close Combat is still a very viable asset if you use it properly. So why the hate?
I would say you are imagining things. The thing is that anyone who is running a "pure assault" army isn't going to do very well since they are crippling themselves. Most competitive lists have a component that can handle themselves in the assault phase. They just aren't dedicated to it due to how useful shooting is. This just isn't 3E anymore, and hasn't been for a while. Since 4E the rules have been pushing armies that used their guns to the top of the charts. Even 5E was more focused on shooting, though that was partially because of the way the vehicle rules worked and how many you saw on a table. All the little bumps to shooting over the years have finally made it a good choice, as you'd expect from a futuristic Sci-Fi wargame. Movement has always been the most important phase, but ignoring any phase is a damn stupid idea. Assaults are still important, and tend to be fairly decisive in the last two editions. Particularly with Challenges now a thing. If you are incapable of handling yourself in the Assault Phase, you have a glaring weakness that many lists will be able to exploit. The last game I played I was winning for most of the game (First Blood and Warlord; wiped out a Farseer, The Baron, and 18 Hellions on Turn 1 plus some victory points from destroying a Heavy Support choice) all thanks to my shooting, but it started to go pear shaped as the game progressed due to my opponent's own shooting capabilities. He was going to edge out a victory by 1 point, until the assault phase in the last two turns where a lone Wulfen model wiped out a small unit of Trueborn followed by a small unit of Eldar Jetbikes, contesting the objective he needed to win the game. So I'll stand by my statement. If you ignore any phase you will suffer. The assault phase in any given game can be just as important as the shooting phase, but none of them are as important as the movement phase.
59923
Post by: Baronyu
I guess if you count JSJ, pure shooty army does use that "assault phase".
51295
Post by: Nightwolf829
Assault has been downgraded extremely hard by 6th edition and because of that many players have removed assault elements from their lists entirely. When this happens I find that new players (not usually veterans) lose fear of what can happen in assault and thus do not know the tricks to maneuver around it or even know that they need to properly avoid it. I find that it leads to "surprise" situations where performing a carefully planned assault has shock value due to players being unaware of what a dedicated assault units can actually do.
Case in point I have had several players march their armies near point-blank with my Dark Eldar lately. Partly to get around the night-shields after I snipe their heavy weaponry and partly to get within double tap range of my squishy things. Since my army still retains some dedicated combat units (although much reduced from their 5th edition glory) it is literally as though someone is passing me a free meal.
@Realism: If we want to play this game then I suggest half of an Imperial Guard opponents vehicles should break down due to terrible chassis and track design. I would like my ravagers to be able to move, shoot, move to represent blowing through an intersection at insane speeds on an anti-grav cushion and picking off battle tanks leisurely as they do so due to the biologically super-human reflexes inherent to my space-elves. They themselves are a biological weapon designed by the old-ones.
I would also like combat to make sense too. Outflanking units, ambushing units, and assault vehicles should be a thing. Guns are bad and stupidly dangerous, so you need to find a way around them. A unit with an auspex jamming device hiding in a building to ambush an unlucky foe, a unit with auspex dampening armor sneaking up the sides to close with your rear command group, or a vehicle that is either heavily armored, stealthy, or maneuverable enough to deliver the goods should do the trick, but none of these is really reflected because games-workshop wants to give a player an opportunity to react. When in fact the unit being hit should not have that option all of the time.
69430
Post by: Wilytank
Ravenous D wrote:If anyone here has failed a 5" charge against a unit in the open, you know exactly why this is the shooting edition.
Is the glass half empty or half full?
25360
Post by: ductvader
Fliers aren't helping the shootiness of 6th either...they're pure shooty units that 95% of the time can only be taken down with shooting. Before fliers you could make a list without a gun in it and still wreck face.
55033
Post by: LValx
This has been beat to death a million times on this forum.
Assault got worse. I think that is just about undeniable. RCL, Overwatch, Fearless Tarpits, Wound Allocation, etc.
It's more useful to do what labmouse did and talk about how you CAN make it work.
Assault still works and at a better rate than I think many folks realize. The Daemon codex is very, very good. It has some bad match-ups (Tau, probably Mechdar) but against most other armies it is a tough out. Between Gifts/Psychic Powers/Grimoire you can make fast units incredibly durable. Consider 20 Flesh Hounds with a Grimoire on them (Fateweaver can make it VERY reliable). Few armies can kill that squad in one shooting phase, especially the armies who are good but not great at shooting.
Biomancy Nids are very good, with the right combination of powers and savvy play they will be able to hit home. BW Orks are still viable. I love using Meganobz, I find them to be quite effective and cost-efficient. Tau and Eldar both have difficulty dealing with AV14 at range (and that also includes just about every other army in the game, barring Guard). Paladins still work very well and once they reach the opponents lines they can often do ridiculous amounts of damage. Wraith lists are common for a reason. Seer Councils and Beastpacks with psychic buffs will roll most armies. Screamers with a 2++, BloodCrushers or Fleshhounds with a 2++, etc.
There are a TON of decent assault options out there. As was the case in 5th, assault still tends to be more cataclysmic than shooting, so if you can hit home you will generally do well. There are options. Just consider the things that Labmouse pointed out. You need durability, speed, overwhelming targets and efficient ways to clear bubble wrap (Ignores cover is big for this).
57646
Post by: Kain
The Eldar have problems with AV14?
My wife just uses Brightlances and they pop like candy.
25360
Post by: ductvader
Tau isn't even that bad an opponent for assault...strength of fire is not equivalent to weight of fire...I rolled a Tau player with 18 Raveners, 9 Shrikes, and filled in the gaps with Hormagaunts.
Yes there was some telekinesis and biomancy buffing...but like LValx said...when assault hits home...it really hits home.
57646
Post by: Kain
ductvader wrote:Tau isn't even that bad an opponent for assault...strength of fire is not equivalent to weight of fire...I rolled a Tau player with 18 Raveners, 9 Shrikes, and filled in the gaps with Hormagaunts.
Yes there was some telekinesis and biomancy buffing...but like LValx said...when assault hits home...it really hits home.
Tau not being able to pour on weight of fire? In what universe?
11860
Post by: Martel732
That's not what I've seen from Tau. The riptides make short work of FNP ASM, even with max spacing.
25360
Post by: ductvader
Tau don't shoot very much...not like guard with guns tucked under therir guns that are already tucked under their guns.
Tau is all about the S5 weaponry...as opposed to the IG guard blobs of triple shotting lasguns for 4 points or whatever a piece
57646
Post by: Kain
ductvader wrote:Tau don't shoot very much...not like guard with guns tucked under therir guns that are already tucked under their guns.
Tau is all about the S5 weaponry...as opposed to the IG guard blobs of triple shotting lasguns for 4 points or whatever a piece
Ever seen how they can get three shots out of dirt cheap fire warriors? Or even more? And the dirt cheap kroot pouring out bolter fire out of their butts? And missilesides having truly absurd amounts of dakka?
Oh the Tau can most certainly bring out more Dakka.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Tau...... don't shoot very much? I need to pass that memo to all my dead ASMs.
25360
Post by: ductvader
For sure they have force multipliers...but I have never been impressed by the weight of fire.
Personally I could just land 20 devilgants on Tau and outdo them
Don't get me wrong...I am not saying they don't shoot a lot. They're just easily outdone in number of shots.
57646
Post by: Kain
ductvader wrote:For sure they have force multipliers...but I have never been impressed by the weight of fire.
Personally I could just land 20 devilgants on Tau and outdo them
Don't get me wrong...I am not saying they don't shoot a lot. They're just easily outdone in number of shots.
36 S7 AP4 shots, per heavy slot, every turn.
That is an unholy load of high-mid strength shots.
25360
Post by: ductvader
IG, GKs, DA, Orks, Bugs, can all get guns cheaper...and so they have more
I don't know what the issue is...I am not in any way saying Tau sucks at shooting...they're really good...at mid strength
But they lack number of shots in general...so assault based armies that don't care whether you're shooting a lasgun or a lascannon...work better against them.
57646
Post by: Kain
ductvader wrote:IG, GKs, DA, Orks, Bugs, can all get guns cheaper...and so they have more
I don't know what the issue is...I am not in any way saying Tau sucks at shooting...they're really good...at mid strength
But they lack number of shots in general...so assault based armies that don't care whether you're shooting a lasgun or a lascannon...work better against them.
I'm not sure if an Ethereal and fireblade can stack, but if they do, you can toss out 48 shots from a firewarrior squad of 12 for a low price.
And with just the Ethereal, all the Tau near him can also fire an extra shot at rapid fire range. 36 shots per unit at 15'? Crap that's enough to completely wipe out a Gant squad before they can even get close enough to fire with some markerlights.
62226
Post by: Glocknall
ductvader wrote:IG, GKs, DA, Orks, Bugs, can all get guns cheaper...and so they have more
I don't know what the issue is...I am not in any way saying Tau sucks at shooting...they're really good...at mid strength
But they lack number of shots in general...so assault based armies that don't care whether you're shooting a lasgun or a lascannon...work better against them.
This is actually wrong. Certain Tau lists might not bring weight of fire, namely plasma/melta crisis lists, but most competitive Tau players are bringing lots of cheap kroot who shoot better than marines w/ markerlights, firewarriors, misslesides, etc.
When thinking within the context of assault, an Ethereal can add an extra shot to all Kroot, FW, and PF units withing 12". Combined with supporting fire makes it nearly impossible to nakedly charge a Tau gunline.
30830
Post by: Purple Saturday
I primarily played 2nd edition and 3rd edition, but I've played a few games of 6th edition now. I don't believe there is a problem with 6th edition being a shooting edition. 3rd edition was definitely an assault edition (I missed all of 4th and most of 5th, though 5th seemed also to favor shooting).
Random charge range brings back some of the unpredictable fun that used to course through 40k in 2nd edition.
What does bother me, as a prime example of GWs often lazy rules design, is the way they are treating Overwatch so far. The rule itself works fine: units being charged get in a hasty round of fire at incoming opponents--no heavy weapons, very low probability to hit, more a psychological deterrent than anything. But, as in the case with Tau, to show how "shooty" the army is, not only do they get awesome shooting units, they get upgrades to their Overwatch capabilities that are super easy to take full advantage of.
As other "shooty" armies come out, they will no doubt also have ways to bolster their Overwatch capabilities in superior or more cost effective ways. GW will then likely give purer assault armies (Orks and Tyranids) ways to either negate these bonuses or units that can circumvent Overwatch. Each army will in turn be the star of this new sub-phase.
If they had planned ahead, they could have gotten by without having to escalate these capabilities. But that is their MO, always has been to a degree, sometimes it's just much more blatant. And that is frustrating.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
Time to shake this out again:
 Ailaros wrote: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.
And that's just the changes in 6th ed. 5th ed also whacked assaulty armies a lot, what with the introduction of real transports acting as automatic speedbump, the lack of consolidating from one close combat into another, etc.
One could make the argument that close combat was overpowered in 4th edition, but assault needed in that case to be toned down a bit, not had its manhood chopped off with a pair of rusty pliers and being forced to watch romantic comedies.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
I'd argue that it isn't assault that's "dead", but rather MEQ assault that's dead. If you're not a Thunderwolf Cavalry-dude or a Juggerlord/Spawn you just aren't fast enough to get into CC unless you're in a Land Raider, which is likely to cost more than the squad inside. Templars generally aren't fast or durable enough to get into CC with more than a few lucky surviving marines, even with Righteous Zeal, and Blood Angels, while faster, don't have the numbers. The massive proliferation of MEQ-murdering munitions in 6th edition (Heldrakes, Riptides, every shooting unit in the Eldar Codex) further serves to dampen the power of the Templars and Blood Angels. Space Wolves don't really care, they're pretty damn awesome at shooting, get T-wolf Cavalry and 2+ save sergeants to tank stuff and have (arguably) the best Psykers in the game.
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
I wouldn't say that either. No assault is truly dead. It just arguably isn't as good as simply shooting. Look at orks. Most orks seem to be opting for shooting bar elite assault units (bikers) which are similar to SS/TH hammernators and juggerlords in the fact the rest isn't really worth it.
70357
Post by: anonymou5
Assault isn't dead. This is a shooting edition, but assault still works. Assault marines may be dead, but that's more a function of marines in general getting a huge nerf
I have run a pack of flesh hounds in at least fifty games now, and only once have they failed to eliminate at least one unit in assault. Which, ironically, was against another daemon player who used his three grinders to dictate my Hound's movement and then killed the squad with a pair of Lords of Change (in assault no less.)
I've had games where they took a gun lines worth of fire and were forces to kill something small and weak (scouts, reave jetbikes, etc), but even then, the fear of assault bought my other units time to maneuever
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Peregrine wrote: Madcat87 wrote:In SC2 it doesn't make sense that a group of marines with rifles can shoot down a battleship in orbit but it works gameplay wise.
No, it's just a stupid gameplay element that only "works" if you completely ignore the fluff behind it. 40k is a game that's supposed to be all about the fluff, so maintaining some degree of realism is important. And the simple fact is that assault only happens in 40k because the game is not true 28mm scale. If you re-design the game so that movement and shooting distances are both at the correct 28mm scale assault will almost never happen.
Most people are aware of your hatred of assault. We're sorry you dislike it. Could you please drop the off topic rants long enough for us to have a real discussion?
713
Post by: mortetvie
Assault is still very much alive, it's just different. There is a lot more shooting to worry about so Assault needs to be worked out more carefully and is still very powerful as you can't be shot while in combat and you have a chance at wiping out a whole unit with just a failed morale test and a successful sweeping assault roll..
Simply blindly charging at the first target that presents itself doesn't quite cut it like it did in 3rd/4th so the better players with assault elements in their armies are the ones that successfully maximize the assault phase while the other players cry while they utilize bad tactics or just have bad dice I guess...
38817
Post by: dracpanzer
To me the biggest problem with overwatch is that "go to ground" still allows a unit to fire it. The biggest problem with assaults is that if you do actually get into it, it isn't usually as effective as you'd like it to be. While they should be hard to pull off, a successful assault should be decisive, that round, One side or the other should get wiped out, or shoved off the terrain they're on. Maybe skip the Leadership check for the loser and just move to sweeping advance? If a unit gets wiped out in your army by a bunch of chain axe wielding maniacs, units close by should take notice, and be afraid. Maybe a successful sweeping advance causes Leadership checks in nearby units?
Take overwatch away from units that have gone to ground, and allow assault type armies ways to pin through volume of fire or special effect.
As it is though, my Daemons are pretty good at assaults even amidst a horde of Tau and Eldar armies. Just wish the ability to do so didn't come with such a huge model increase.
33125
Post by: Seaward
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:I'd argue that it isn't assault that's "dead", but rather MEQ assault that's dead. If you're not a Thunderwolf Cavalry-dude or a Juggerlord/Spawn you just aren't fast enough to get into CC unless you're in a Land Raider, which is likely to cost more than the squad inside. Templars generally aren't fast or durable enough to get into CC with more than a few lucky surviving marines, even with Righteous Zeal, and Blood Angels, while faster, don't have the numbers. The massive proliferation of MEQ-murdering munitions in 6th edition (Heldrakes, Riptides, every shooting unit in the Eldar Codex) further serves to dampen the power of the Templars and Blood Angels. Space Wolves don't really care, they're pretty damn awesome at shooting, get T-wolf Cavalry and 2+ save sergeants to tank stuff and have (arguably) the best Psykers in the game.
I think this is the most accurate assessment. There are still assault armies that do well, they're just not under the umbrella of the most popular faction in the game, which makes it seem as though assault in general sucks.
As an SM (and variant) player who enjoys assault, I can admit what I really mean is that I would find it very difficult to run an assault-oriented Marine army in the current edition.
|
|
