Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Simple question. I keep hearing people say that the Run rule somehow magically makes all Assaulty units better, but with everything going mechanized, how much does it actually benefit? I'll give an example from a game I played last night: my horde of 20 Berzerkers were running towards my opponent's guardsmen (Dawn of war deployment, so I was 21-22" away to begin with I think). They move forward and roll a 1 on their run roll. The next turn they advance, my lash sorc tries to lash from within the wreckage of his freshly Exploded rhino, and Perils' himself. They advance again, fire pistols, but are still 7"out. They're getting whittled down by two Russes and two squads of guardsmen, some kind of vet people plus a Chimera with multilaser and some Grenadiers I think. By the time I get to the unit to assault, I have 7 left and they make short work of unit 1. They get shot at again. They make short work of unit 2. Rinse and repeat. By the end of the game, with 15 sequential armor saves, I end up holding an objective which is surrounded by guardsmen (that are just barely outside 3") with 2 Berzerkers. It just seems to me that the loss of consolidating into combat and the horribly simplified weapon skill chart (I now get hit on a 4+ instead of a 5+) more than negate any edge Assaulters get from run. Little things like pistols not having the option to rapid fire and not getting bonus attacks unless I have two of the same special weapon also hurt. Is there anyone who disagrees? What do you think?

I'd like to point out that the WS chart has been the same since they put it back in the game at the beginning of 3rd ed.

Remember that the "no bonus attacks" only applies to power fists, lightning claws, and thunderhammers, unless you have two different special CC weapons.

Honestly, I think that 5th ed has brought a good balance to CC and shooting. You NEED CC to be able to reliably remove an enemy unit from an objective, but as you pointed out, there's really very little way to prevent a CC unit from being shot at repeatedly as works through one enemy unit at a time.

Sounds to me like youre upset because you ran your berserkers at two leman russes, then were surprised when you lost a few.

Assault was always way more powerful than shooting, mainly because you cant shoot in your opponents turn.

For one, I'm not upset. I don't think a balance is a bad thing at all. And no, if anything I'm surprised my 'zerkers lasted at all.

And the WS chart is not the same. In 4th you actually compared WS, now the other guy always gets 4+ to hit you unless your WS is double theirs.

Either way, I can say that shooty lists scare me a little more now.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:And the WS chart is not the same. In 4th you actually compared WS, now the other guy always gets 4+ to hit you unless your WS is double theirs.

Errr, Just like in 4th? And 3rd? And you do realise that if A's Weapon Skill is Great than B's, A hits B on a 3+, JUST LIKE 3rd AND 4th!

-Checks to make sure I am still on the right Planet-

I have all the books, and in every one the chart is the EXACT same. Were it not for the fabled GW Lawyer Squad™©® who are the most voracious in Europe, and second only to the Scientology™©® ones Globally, I'd be able to post up the images of them to prove it to you.

I have to agree that this does sound like a "Whaaaa My 'zerkers Ran at a Leman Russ and Died" cry-fest.

Actually close combat is better than shooting in 5e. Everything pretty much gets a cover save now and you can go to ground if it gets really hairy. The multi charge is the way to quickly win a game... Charge multiple units the same turn and if you win combat all of your opponent's units are forced to make their morale tests at minus the number of wounds you beat them by... Assuming all of the units were part of the same combat. Even if they are ferless then your opponent has to make more armor saves if they lose the combat. Assaulting single units is better for taking an objective away from the opponent. Mech lists are better in that it adds mobility to an army but if if the transports are assaulted then you are hitting them on their rear armor... Not everyone is taking landraiders en masse. I think the game has moved into what I call a bubble game... Objectives are all placed close together and you end up with the majority of both armies clustered around them... This what makes units such as the Fateweaver and Dante/Corbulo so powerful... They can effectively juice the vast majority of their friendly units since everything is so tightly packed. It's kind of crazy but a lot of games go down that way. If your army is better at assault than your opponent's the best thing to do is cluster your objectives close to theirs. This also means that you can easily reach another assault since everything is tight.

As far as shooting goes you need to be able to lay down a lot of dakka to get some wounds through the plethora of cover saves. Mech lists that can move and shoot can effectively be played as a mobile gunline which means if you target the closest units not in cover they get no cover saves.

It seems like these days people are more interested in metagaming army lists and eschew the use of any viable tactics using their list as a hammer to pound the opponent into submission. It's okay but if there are rep armies that match up fairly equal then tactics will see the way to victory. I have played a lot of games with my Blood Angels in 5e... originally I ran with a mobile gun line but then decided to switch over to pretty much a pure assault army. Both lists are effective but I found playing to the assault role is stronger more often than driveby shooting attacks.

G

Gwar! wrote:
I have to agree that this does sound like a "Whaaaa My 'zerkers Ran at a Leman Russ and Died" cry-fest.

Fine, next time I won't give an example, since no one can seem to get past that. Like I said, I'm surprised they even survived and I was lucky. Why would I be whining about a good thing? And last edition, if a unit with WS 4 attacked a unit with WS 5, they had to get a 5+ to hit. That's different now.

@Green Blow Fly: Thanks for actually stating an opinion.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Gwar! wrote:
I have to agree that this does sound like a "Whaaaa My 'zerkers Ran at a Leman Russ and Died" cry-fest.

Fine, next time I won't give an example, since no one can seem to get past that. Like I said, I'm surprised they even survived and I was lucky. Why would I be whining about a good thing? And last edition, if a unit with WS 4 attacked a unit with WS 5, they had to get a 5+ to hit. That's different now.

@Green Blow Fly: Thanks for actually stating an opinion.

Assumption: "Last Edition" refers to 4th edition.
Assertion: Weapon Skill 4 Attacking Weapon Skill 5 needed 5+ to hit
Conclusion:


I'll say it like i said before, it's the EXACT same as 5th. I'm actually gonna say sod it, Fair use and all that jazz. If the Mods need to nerf me they will:

I even added little red lines to make it easier to see!
You are whining because you don't know how to play assault Armies. That's pretty obvious now.

It depends what army you're playing. For example, you may have two Lash DPs, 4x7 plague marines and 9 Obliterators, but that won't save you from 300+ lasguns and nine Leman Russes.

Wow, I guess I was wrong. I really seem to remember it being the other way, and I'm not sure why. And NO, I AM NOT WHINING!! I understand that having a horde vs. a template is a bad idea. God forbid I was trying to play something fun and different. "I don't know how to play assault armies." Really? If you're pull your head out of your Gwarse for a second you'd realize that I never said "Waaah!", or implied it, once! I was simply asking what people thought! As far as the point I was wrong about, yeah, I was wrong, and if it really helps you out, you were even right. I have no problem with that. Just as a poll, if I hadn't mentioned the Russ would that take people off their high horse? Or maybe it's because I mentioned Lash? Seriously.

Assault got more lethal being based on wounds inflicted by each force and the moral tests taken at leadership-wounds lost by.

Shooting got a nerf because of all the cover saves.

Play Guard for a month and try to tell me shooting is stronger than assault in 5th.

I'd wager shooting is so nerfed that it's easier to kill TANKS in CC thanks to the abundance of grenades and hitting on back armor!

Assault > Shooting in 5ed.

The fact that one unit can assault multiple units and sweep them all at once shows this rather clearly.

Add in Run! and all the 4+ cover saves and it is hard for shooting to be as effective.

The only saving grace is the fact that you can not consolidate into assault.

Whinehammer: 40K

IN THE GRIM DARKNESS OF THE FAR FUTURE, THERE IS ONLY COMPLAINING!!!!

augfubuoy wrote: it's easier to kill TANKS in CC thanks to the abundance of grenades and hitting on back armor!

As it should be. Much easier to stuff a bomb down a hatch then shoot into it...

CT GAMER wrote:

augfubuoy wrote: it's easier to kill TANKS in CC thanks to the abundance of grenades and hitting on back armor!

As it should be. Much easier to stuff a bomb down a hatch then shoot into it...

There's a reason why tanks fear urban environments.

From my observations of games played by others, assault is slightly better than shooting. Once you get into close combat, a unit can inflict some massive damage. But it takes time to get across the field, taking fire the whole way. If you are going behind cover, you certainly aren't making a straight line towards either an objective or an enemy unit. Maybe that is why there is perceived to be more mechanized lists. APCs can deliver those assault troops through the fire.

From the games I've played, I'm honestly finding that shooting is far more important in 5th than it was in my games in 4th. Now, that may be because my army composition is growing or maybe I'm getting better at the game, I don't know.

Increasingly though, I'm finding that while the assault phase tends to finish things up, the battle is really won during the movement and shooting phases due to positioning and ensuring that opponents only survive an assault phase for as long as I want them to survive. At any rate though, I'd label assault as the 'finishing phase' rather than the most important.

I would say assults are benifited more by the 5th edition rules. I base my opinion off of multi-assults, and the way assults effect moral. Shooting took a big hit from not only the 4+ cover but the fact that you no longer add negative modifiers to a units LD when they take 25% or more shooting casulties. Its much easier to break a unit in assult than via shooting for now. I'm sure there will be a balancing act when more traditionally shooty armies besides guard (tau, eldar, de, some nid lists) are revamped for 5th edition rules.

Indeed. If you look at guard, you notice a LOT of things that ramp up the shooting to compensate for so many cover saves. FRFSRF (allong with pretty much all the orders, Twinlinking stuff (more hits to offset cover) and One that rerolls cover saves specifically), Lumbering Beheamoth, Hydras, Hellhounds and variants, Several Weapons that ignore Cover Saves. So yeah, once we get all the codex's updated, it should be balanced out.

Assault beats shooting because one unit of 30 orks that costs the same as a unit of 12 firewarriors with Shas'ui and 2 gun drones starting 30" away will assault and kill them all within (assuming the average of 3.5 " per run phase) 4 turns if the Tau try to shoot them to death. 4 turns of shooting with 12 tau against slugga boyz will result in an average of 22 kills over the course of the boyz advance including one rapid fire before contact. Then the Orks charge and utterly rape the Fire Warriors causing 18 kills. In one turn they managed to cause nearly as many kills as the Tau unit did in 4 from shooting. That is of course not counting the chance that the orks can save themselves from a couple of shots because of cover on the board. Starting behind a hill for example or perhaps behind a wall. In any event thats why assault rocks.

That's the fault of having an old bad codex, not as a result of 5th edition though.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Wow, I guess I was wrong.

You probably misapplied the Strength vs. Toughness table to the Weaponskill Table.

malfred wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Wow, I guess I was wrong.

You probably misapplied the Strength vs. Toughness table to the Weaponskill Table.

Yes, but that's a pretty big mistake to make... especially since the rolls to wound have used the EXACT SAME CHART since, oh, 1987.

Okay then lets do a tac squad, vs 30man slugga boyz squad with a nob. Tac squad 4 rounds of shooting and one at less than 12". 8 bolters (assuming you took a flamer and HB and the sarge has a bolter as well) does ~13.5 kills, the HB does 6 kills, the flamer does 4. (and thats being generous as to not have been charged and still get the HB+flamer shot they would have had to be 7 inches away) thats only 23.5 kills. For the assault the SM stirke first with 3 kills. That leaves 4 Orks and the nob left. Oks do ~1.3 kills and the nob gets 1-2 kills. That leaves almost a dead tie, and will probably be continued into the next round, at which point the orcs will die. (Which frankly surprised me.) But if they could get one turn behing cover, (which isn't that hard in 5th edtion) they would have an extra 4 orcs, then the space marines lose.

So, many, things... WRONG!

Firstly, why are you assuming every firefight boils down to one squad vs. one squad. If that's how it happens where you play I wanna get there ASAP. Might be able to win a few more games.

Secondly, 30 orks with Nob+Bosspole+Powerclaw total up to 220 points to a Space Marines 170, so it is an unfair comparison. Work out 21 Boyz + Nob and see what the result is.

Thirdly, to go back to the "1 on 1" magic game you play, if I see a Mob of 30 Orks running for my gunline, I don't just go, "oh well, never mind. I turn and I fire my Whirlwinds at it or try and get a dreadnought to do some damage, or do something to slow it down.

The Nob don't have no Boss Pole or Powerklaw.

As for vacuum, yah I realise that I used a vacuum to represent the differences, but in rebuttal to your Whirlies blowing stuff up. Well go and meet some Nob Bikers... As for the Dread, by by as soon as it gets into combat with more than one Nob, or I stick a Warboss in there as well, you can only kill one of them.

So wait, I offer a counter to Foot Slogging Ork Boyz and you say that Nob Bikers instantly Invalidates it? What?

Not quite, what I was saying was that because you offered a counter that I didn't propose to begin with in my simulation I immediately proposed another counter. Its cheap but what the heck.