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.

Ok, before we go diving right into this, I don't think it's perfect now. There are aspects to the rules where assaulters get the shaft, but there is also a reasonable assumption that assaulters deserved some of it.

I haven't run my Blood Angels much in 6th because I started Tau when the dex hit. But I think I understand the key differences from 5th to 6th. Here are the things I see people complain about that I find to be fair and balanced.

The Good

1. Overwatch - This is kind of a "duh" type of rule to me. Defenders defend, it makes sense in every way.

2. Removing models from the front - Here is the big one, it makes sense to remove models from the front.

3. Random assault range - Suck it up, we did last edition. Ok Ok not really, but assaults have to be able to fail. When combining this point and the last point I understand the frustration. But assaults can fail now and these points put together is what allows it to fail.

The Bad

1. Any restriction on assaulting from board edge/vehicles/whatever I'm missing - This sucks. Plain and simple. I'm not saying you can use the same rule set for assault if you allow this. But this isn't the place to discuss that.

I also just realized yesterday that the supporting fire rule is Tau specific. As Tau I don't assault so I did't know. Kind of a sucky rule.

Ok, this is how I interpret the rules and what they were trying to do. I think the devs simply wanted to make assaults a wild card instead of a guaranteed thing. And the succeeded in that. I crushed many, many, a dakka army in 5th because if I got a squad in their line it was GG. I didn't think it was fair then, but I was new and I needed the handicap. It seems the scope of the game has changed to be focused on the pew pew pew, and a lot of people don't like that. I however think it is a better game for it. If there is a "broken" aspect it lies above in the "bad" column. The rest is there to take the wind out of assault focused tactics, all of which was intentional.

This is why I think its better, and it's so simple it's stupid. When you shoot a gun, you roll dice to see if you hit or not. Now when you assault, you roll dice to see if you hit or not. And the argument will invariably arise that "that's not how assaulting works". Well I look at it like this, assaulting should be harder. When an assault succeeds it ties up both units until it is resolved, one turn or four. So it needed to be represented in the dice by the potency of the attack. It's hard to do now, but when you get in its still devastating, and is thus represented as so in the mechanic.

Alright! Have at me.

I agree with you. They just needed to make assault units cheaper. This would mean retconning costs from old codices if they wanted to nerf assault.

I frankly don't care so much about what is strong and weak as long as strong things are expensive and weak things are cheap.

Good point.

Your topics already got me in trouble once today.... I ain't biting this time.... Instigater!!!

3. Random assault range - Suck it up, we did last edition. Ok Ok not really, but assaults have to be able to fail. When combining this point and the last point I understand the frustration. But assaults can fail now and these points put together is what allows it to fail.

Here's the problem with this: assaults could already fail. That's why we roll to hit, to wound and allow armor saves. Also, assaulted units can hit back.

With shooting, you can't shoot back that turn, you have attacks that completely mitigate armor saves with no penalty (like striking last on a power fist) and a vast array of high-strength, high-AP shots.

Take dire avengers- troops that rend on a six to wound, often rerolling hits. And that's after you pop the 5-10 shot, AV 12 transport with a mobile cover save. And I don't get to "counter shoot" until my next turn.

Random assault range is like shooting with random range. It's not fun.

Imnewherewheresthebathroom wrote:
Ok, before we go diving right into this, I don't think it's perfect now. There are aspects to the rules where assaulters get the shaft, but there is also a reasonable assumption that assaulters deserved some of it.

I haven't run my Blood Angels much in 6th because I started Tau when the dex hit. But I think I understand the key differences from 5th to 6th. Here are the things I see people complain about that I find to be fair and balanced.

The Good

1. Overwatch - This is kind of a "duh" type of rule to me. Defenders defend, it makes sense in every way.

2. Removing models from the front - Here is the big one, it makes sense to remove models from the front.

3. Random assault range - Suck it up, we did last edition. Ok Ok not really, but assaults have to be able to fail. When combining this point and the last point I understand the frustration. But assaults can fail now and these points put together is what allows it to fail.

The Bad

1. Any restriction on assaulting from board edge/vehicles/whatever I'm missing - This sucks. Plain and simple. I'm not saying you can use the same rule set for assault if you allow this. But this isn't the place to discuss that.

I also just realized yesterday that the supporting fire rule is Tau specific. As Tau I don't assault so I did't know. Kind of a sucky rule.

Ok, this is how I interpret the rules and what they were trying to do. I think the devs simply wanted to make assaults a wild card instead of a guaranteed thing. And the succeeded in that. I crushed many, many, a dakka army in 5th because if I got a squad in their line it was GG. I didn't think it was fair then, but I was new and I needed the handicap. It seems the scope of the game has changed to be focused on the pew pew pew, and a lot of people don't like that. I however think it is a better game for it. If there is a "broken" aspect it lies above in the "bad" column. The rest is there to take the wind out of assault focused tactics, all of which was intentional.

This is why I think its better, and it's so simple it's stupid. When you shoot a gun, you roll dice to see if you hit or not. Now when you assault, you roll dice to see if you hit or not. And the argument will invariably arise that "that's not how assaulting works". Well I look at it like this, assaulting should be harder. When an assault succeeds it ties up both units until it is resolved, one turn or four. So it needed to be represented in the dice by the potency of the attack. It's hard to do now, but when you get in its still devastating, and is thus represented as so in the mechanic.

Alright! Have at me.

The problem people have is that, while the things you're listing as "Good" might make sense (as if consistency or realism have ever been important when it comes to GW rules), combined they make getting into an assault much more difficult, which has a very disproportionate effect on different armies. Even what you're listing as "Bad" (not assaulting from reserves, for instance) are not necessarily bad rules. I think those are ok rules. But once again, they matter way more for a few armies that used to need them.

People get that it's intentional, and 6th is designed to emphasize shooting. It doesn't mean it's a good design as it is. You say "suck it up", but it hits some armies hard while helping other armies a great deal and there isn't any way around that. So what you really mean is "suck it up and lose more", or at least "suck it up and face significant hurdles that my army doesn't ever have to worry about". If the game designers intended to make assault so much more difficult, they should have done two things:

Broadly, made sure codexes that rely on assault to a greater extent than others had ways to stay competitive, by whatever means make sense.

Specifically, looked at how they design/value things down to the individual level, where even within primarily shooty armies, in newly written codexes, you have units that are designed for assault but have no means of realistically ever getting there or doing any damage (like Howling Banshees).

TL;DR we know it's intentional to nerf assaults, but good intentions plus bad design result in it not being very fun to play against Tau for instance. Sorry.

Come on Watson I asked for it this time. I really did like what you said on the other topic. Whiners.

All I ask is the point cost of models directly reflect their performance on the table. That's it. If assault is great, then assault troops should be expensive. Just give me what I pay for. As a BA player, nothing could be further from the truth. The same is true for C:SM to an extent.

 3orangewhips wrote:

3. Random assault range - Suck it up, we did last edition. Ok Ok not really, but assaults have to be able to fail. When combining this point and the last point I understand the frustration. But assaults can fail now and these points put together is what allows it to fail.

Here's the problem with this: assaults could already fail. That's why we roll to hit, to wound and allow armor saves. Also, assaulted units can hit back.

With shooting, you can't shoot back that turn, you have attacks that completely mitigate armor saves with no penalty (like striking last on a power fist) and a vast array of high-strength, high-AP shots.

Take dire avengers- troops that rend on a six to wound, often rerolling hits. And that's after you pop the 5-10 shot, AV 12 transport with a mobile cover save. And I don't get to "counter shoot" until my next turn.

Random assault range is like shooting with random range. It's not fun.

Ok, but point is the assaulters are choosing that engagement with an often inferior squad. And what you are calling a failed assault isn't in the same context I'm using. So no they couldn't fail to (ok ok) achieve assault. If you where in range you got it, done and done. Now you won't necessarily make it into assault. That was a needed wild card.

Imnewherewheresthebathroom wrote:
Ok, before we go diving right into this, I don't think it's perfect now. There are aspects to the rules where assaulters get the shaft, but there is also a reasonable assumption that assaulters deserved some of it.

I haven't run my Blood Angels much in 6th because I started Tau when the dex hit. But I think I understand the key differences from 5th to 6th. Here are the things I see people complain about that I find to be fair and balanced.

The Good

1. Overwatch - This is kind of a "duh" type of rule to me. Defenders defend, it makes sense in every way.

Overwatch, by itself, would have been okay, but it's not by itself. It's part of a combined system that punishes an assault strategy. Plus, it's poorly implemented as snap shots (which are likewise, poorly implemented). snap shots are poorly implemented because they force all models to a similar state, regardless of where the model originated from.

Aside about sanpshots


Anyway, this ties in with...

2. Removing models from the front - Here is the big one, it makes sense to remove models from the front.

Well, no, it doesn't. I simply cannot agree with this statement, and it's a big part of why assault is so badly punished in 6th ed, and why the only units that find success in the assault phase are either incredibly resilient with rerollable 2++ saves, or consist of single models that don't lose inches when they take wounds.

So, you say it makes sense. What, from a fluff perspective? A bunch of guys are running across the field at you. Are you trained to shoot the guy in front of you, or the guy in the front of the line? Hrm... Do any of your shots arc at all? Why does a flamer remove the models closest to it, instead of the ones under the template? Why does a scattered template shot take front models instead of those under the blast? These are all realistic questions that directly speak to how it does not make sense to remove the closest model, and they're not even the strongest arguments against it in game terms.

In game terms, taking casualties from the front is a bad idea for two main reasons. First, it punishes any army that needs to close with the opponent to deal damage by putting extra distance between them and their opponents. Game ranges have been set for editions based on the idea of how many turns it takes to get somewhere. It should be no surprise that weapon ranges are all multiples of movement ranges.

Starting 24" apart, from 3rd to 5th (I'm not sure about 2nd"), a shooting army got either 2 or 3 turns to shoot an assault army before the charge took place. (Two if the assault army went first, three otherwise). Taking casualties from the front, as a single rule change, altered this dynamic from 2-3 turns to 3-4 turns, because the lead row of assaulters will be dead as they cross the field into gunfire. When the relative costs of shooting and assaulting have not changed, giving an entire extra turn of shooting throws this balance out of whack.

As I noted in the other thread, footslogging assault armies simply do not work in 6th ed, and this is a large part of why.

But, in addition, the casualty removal from the front mechanic introduces a certain 'gamey'ness to the game (heh), which feels wrong. We've all seen it, where you have a unit of relatively crunchy guys led by some sort of tank - a character with 4 wounds and a 2+ save. Shoot at this unit all you want, and it doesn't take wounds like it should. The last argument was about balance, but the game is still fundamentally a wargame, even if it's skewed towards shooty armies. But this... not only is it unrealistic ("there are 20 guys running at us, and one of them is armoured like a train, quick, everyone shoot that guy!"), but it turns the game from being a wargame into a game of tricks and combos. Troop maneuvering takes a backseat to finding the optimal tank character to take all the hits.

3. Random assault range - Suck it up, we did last edition. Ok Ok not really, but assaults have to be able to fail. When combining this point and the last point I understand the frustration. But assaults can fail now and these points put together is what allows it to fail.

You're making a claim ("Assaults can fail") with no explanation of why you believe this is a good thing. I don't think assaults should fail, outside of standard terrain movement modifiers, and here's why.

Lots of things can fail in the fluff, without benefiting the game. With pre-measuring as part of the game, a shooty army has no risk associated with its actions. You know before you take the shots if you're in range, even with guns with a 60" range. You know what could fail shooting a gun? You could have dud rounds. You could have gotten your powerpacks wet. You might need to reload. You might need to reload and be out of ammo. Your weapon barrel might have overheated. You might need to pee on your mortar. These all happen in war movies, they all make for good narratives. And, they all make for a poor gaming experience. You want your guys to be able to basic things without a d6 to see if God hates them. Can you imagine how much fun it would be to have to d6 every shooting action and fail on each '1' for one of the reasons above?

So it is with assaults. You have assault units in the game, and they're much harder to use than shooty units. You have to maneuver them into position, while they're being fired at. You need to have enough of them survive in order to have a chance of winning the assault, if you get to it. And so why should these assaults, these basic actions, require an innate chance of failure? Is it somehow more narrative to see a guy trip over his own shoelace from ten feet away from his opponent than it is to see the shooty guy's gun jam?

I call BS on that whole argument. If assaults need to be able to fail, then so does shooting. 6th edition allows the shooty army every advantage. They can pre-measure, so they know if they need to scoot up an inch to be able to double-tap their guns, or if they should drop back 4 inches to put more space between them and their foes.

Personally, I don't think random failures add to any aspect of the game. GW's crap at creating game balance though, so they mask it by throwing a million little random rolls all over the place to hide it.

Ok, this is how I interpret the rules and what they were trying to do. I think the devs simply wanted to make assaults a wild card instead of a guaranteed thing. And the succeeded in that.

If by succeeded at that, you mean that people stopped trying to make assault work, except with a very small subset of units, then I guess they succeeded. By any normal measure of success, however, they failed. They didn't make it a wildcard, they made it a horrible strategy to design an army around, compared to shooting. And that's incredibly evident, both playing games, and seeing what units people take and don't take anymore. Assault units, with the aforementioned exceptions of MCs and 2++ rerollables, are largely unused, even in casual play. They're just that bad. I play orks, my friend plays nids, and our armies have had to morph into shooty armies because normal assault just doesn't work anymore.

I crushed many, many, a dakka army in 5th because if I got a squad in their line it was GG.

Against someone who didn't know how to handle as assault unit in their lines, this could certainly happen. But, you still had to get there, and a good player would simply sacrifice a speedbump to your assault unit, and then shoot it some more the next turn.

It seems the scope of the game has changed to be focused on the pew pew pew, and a lot of people don't like that. I however think it is a better game for it. If there is a "broken" aspect it lies above in the "bad" column. The rest is there to take the wind out of assault focused tactics, all of which was intentional.

I don't have enough faith in the GW developers to believe it was intentional. I think it was an overreaction,and a poor application of fantasy rules to a setting that they weren't designed for. What's more, how can you look at a model range that is full of assault units that sit on shelves in 6th ed and claim that the game is better, or that it is not broken. Assault units are clearly designed to be a part of this setting. The rules do not allow them to be used as the background describes. That's the definition of a broken ruleset.

Martel732 wrote:
All I ask is the point cost of models directly reflect their performance on the table. That's it. If assault is great, then assault troops should be expensive. Just give me what I pay for. As a BA player, nothing could be further from the truth. The same is true for C:SM to an extent.

I feel your pain man my Angels are shelved to.

I have not played 6th edition but some of the weirdest things that I have seen coming from 3rd edition is how assault has changed.

Overwatch I don't mind as it was in 2nd edition (albeit in a different fashion) but the whole snap shot rules seem like they only exist as a "screw you". I don't get why it's straight up hit on a 6; it should be just a penalty (-1 BS or something, and no using special shooting rules e.g. rapid fire) so it makes it deadly to assault elite blasty units.

Removing models from the front seems silly, but without having actually payed I can't say more than a first glance; it seems to put an end to the idea that you could remove your special/heavy weapons last, which doesn't make sense.

Random assault move is IMO the stupidest of all. It makes no sense whatsoever and seems like they weren't even trying to hide the fact that assault was too powerful and was going to be nerfed to the ground. I would have preferred something like the old days, with set movement (and more for dedicated assault/jump troops) but maybe if you suffered a wound (or maybe even a hit?) from Overwatch you had to check to be pinned - in that way an assault unit could have its assault be stopped by a fusillade of fire, but if not they could get into assault range. As it stands, it seems like you just roll randomly to see how far you can actually move, so it punishes you for having dedicated assault troops as you can't assault from maximum range without being lucky, and that means an extra turn of having to weather shooting.

@Redbeard I appreciate you contributing to my topics. But I think you have a fundamental speed bump with the topic. And it boils down to you don't like the new rules. Which is fine, I welcome the argument.

Snapshots. I think it's fine, I understand your argument but do we need more rules?

Removing models from the front. This does in fact make sense, that's who dies first. Does it casterate assault, yes. And the argument about the tanking unit I don't understand. Yes he takes wounds first if he's out front, but in the old rules you put all the wounds on him anyway. So I don't understand the complaint. It's a pain in the arse for the defenders but its really a wash for the assaulters.

Templates. I put this in a new paragraph just for ease of reading. I guess I (read my flg) operate templates maybe differently than the rules state. We lay down the template then remove models from the front back for flamers and from the center out for blasts. I just thought that was the right way I guess. And it makes sense because that's how cover saves operate. I may have just blended the rules in my noggin. (Gameyness hah)

Assault can fail. I just don't think it should be automatic. My guns can miss. Also, assault has the added bonus of forcing the defending unit to remain engaged. If I shoot a big ass gun at you, move, engagement over. If you don't have enough terrain to hide behind, well that's up to you flg to hash out.

My blood angels. I was new so I played new players who didn't know how to handle much.

Faith in GW. I think your just griping here. Of course they intended to change the dynamics, did they do it well? Eeeeeeeehhhh, it's better, not quite there yet but, here's to 7th.

Again, thank you for contributing.

I handled assault lists fine in 5th edition. Yes, they were more potent, but having two squad of demons or whatever get to my army was not "game over". Just make sure they couldn't multi assault and shoot the crap out of them the next turn.

Assault's biggest hit was loosing sweeping advance. Not saying we should put it back in, but without sweeping advance, shooters have the upper hand. Period.

Shooters should have the upper hand. It's a sci-fi war game. The gun is mightier than the sword (which is actually a 40K Thought for the Day).

IMO, Assault Units should be units that *if* they manage to get into melee, they absolutely wreck face... but *getting* into melee should be a very difficult thing, especially if they are fighting enemies with ranged weapons.

Sorry, your chainsaw is an inferior weapon in modern warfare compared to a laser gun. But if you *can* hit the guy with the laser gun with the chainsaw, then he's fethed.

Assault units should rely either on numbers or heavy, heavy armor (or transports with such) to get to the fight... but that's a whole different can of rules-worms.

The argument for assault units having a place because they exist is a bit hypocritical. They scale has tipped to dakka but no further than it was listing the other direction before. Assault is out, dakka is in. It was just the opposite before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I hope they manage to find the middle ground in 7.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I couldn't agree more with you Psienesis.

Okay. I don't really have a problem with shooting having and advantage over assault. But units need to be priced accordingly then. Looking at you, DC.

 Psienesis wrote:
Shooters should have the upper hand. It's a sci-fi war game. The gun is mightier than the sword (which is actually a 40K Thought for the Day).

IMO, Assault Units should be units that *if* they manage to get into melee, they absolutely wreck face... but *getting* into melee should be a very difficult thing, especially if they are fighting enemies with ranged weapons.

Sorry, your chainsaw is an inferior weapon in modern warfare compared to a laser gun. But if you *can* hit the guy with the laser gun with the chainsaw, then he's fethed.

Assault units should rely either on numbers or heavy, heavy armor (or transports with such) to get to the fight... but that's a whole different can of rules-worms.

Dark eldar. No heavy transports, no large numbered assault units, and the ones who can wreck face in combat are 22 ppm, with a 3+, hardly heavy armoured, against overwatch from elite units, which they are meant to be taking down, especially elite ranged units with lots of shots, they crumple pretty quickly.

Imnewherewheresthebathroom wrote:
@Redbeard I appreciate you contributing to my topics. But I think you have a fundamental speed bump with the topic. And it boils down to you don't like the new rules. Which is fine, I welcome the argument.

Welcoming the argument would be to debate the argument, rather than whether you think I like it or not. You haven't commented on the failure of the ruleset to enable the models in the range to be useable.

Snapshots. I think it's fine, I understand your argument but do we need more rules?

What about different rules? What about BS-3 for snapshots, min bs1. That means that most race's basic troops are still hitting on 6's, but the exceptional shots in the galaxy are better at it.

Removing models from the front. This does in fact make sense, that's who dies first.

Why does that make sense? Have you ever watched a war movie? The guys in the front aren't necessarily the ones who get hit first. It's unnecessary and it makes no more sense than any other method.

Does it casterate assault, yes.

Well, there you have it. Assault is clearly too weak now, and you've pinpointed a rule that castrates assault. How can you argue that this is good.

And the argument about the tanking unit I don't understand. Yes he takes wounds first if he's out front, but in the old rules you put all the wounds on him anyway. So I don't understand the complaint. It's a pain in the arse for the defenders but its really a wash for the assaulters.

I suppose you are right about this, the old system had its flaws too. It would be nice to be able to focus-fire on armour saves as well as cover saves... Fair enough, I'll concede this point. However, I still believe that the casualties-from-front rule is responsible for roughly 30% more damage being dealt to footslogging assault units before they make it into combat, and that this extra damage (and movement required to get there) is the largest culprit in the castration of assault. I cannot see how you defend this.

Templates. I put this in a new paragraph just for ease of reading. I guess I (read my flg) operate templates maybe differently than the rules state. We lay down the template then remove models from the front back for flamers and from the center out for blasts. I just thought that was the right way I guess. And it makes sense because that's how cover saves operate. I may have just blended the rules in my noggin. (Gameyness hah)

The only rule difference for removing casualties for blasts or templates is due to barrage weapons. Non-barrage and blast weapons take the closest model, per usual. If you're doing something else, you're getting it wrong.

Assault can fail. I just don't think it should be automatic. My guns can miss. Also, assault has the added bonus of forcing the defending unit to remain engaged. If I shoot a big ass gun at you, move, engagement over. If you don't have enough terrain to hide behind, well that's up to you flg to hash out.

You're still not really explaining why you think assaults should fail. Because guns can miss? Close combat attacks can miss. Missing isn't the same as failing. Assault does have the added benefit of tying up a unit, but it has the added drawback of having to maneuver across the battlefield to be allowed to do it at all; guns can start shooting on turn 1.

Would you be in favour of a system where every unit that wanted to shoot had to roll 3+ to do so, or roll on another table that said what happened to them? (Gun jammed, out-of-ammo, etc). Do you think that would make the game more or less fun?

Faith in GW. I think your just griping here. Of course they intended to change the dynamics, did they do it well? Eeeeeeeehhhh, it's better, not quite there yet but, here's to 7th.

As you said, you're new. GW have to be the worst game designers I've come across in nearly 30 years of gaming. We play the game because the models are cool, and because we're pretty invested in them. It's just a shame that more models are shelf-sitters than playable. As you said, your BA are pretty craptastic in 6th ed. How is that you're defending the rules that made them so? Too young to have had the hope beaten out of you yet I suspect.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:


TL;DR we know it's intentional to nerf assaults, but good intentions plus bad design result in it not being very fun to play against Tau for instance. Sorry.

I play Necrons, and the last list I created to play the guys in my club was an Assault type list. I did okay against our Tau player. Supporting fire and the like are not what hurt me the most, it was AP2 no cover save fire, which would have been a hassle to deal with even with my shooty army. Once I got my guys in assault range, I lost quite a few to overwatch/supporting fire but I was able to kill a few units in the process. If his shooting prior to the overwatch had not been as effective, I think I would have won the game.

For Tau to maximize support fire, they have to bunch up. The club member who plays Space Marines also had an assault army, but he had orbital bombardment as well. That was a great combination, so I may try to have a large blase template or maybe a Doom Scythe in my next assault themed Necron army. The Tau player (with Eldar allies, of course) bunched up all of his guys, just like he did against me, behind an aegis defense line to get his 2+ cover saves and maximize supporting fire and the SM dropped the S10Ap1 large blast on him with a blessing that ignored cover (can't remember what). It was a mop-up operation after that.

War isnt' fair. Armies aren't balanced. That's just the way it is, find some combos that work and hope they work for more than a few games and then change them. It's fun. I'm seriously considering a Tyranid army next, especially since I hear nothing but complaints about their new codex and assault. Maybe I can pick up an army on ebay cheap, if everyone hates them.

 Psienesis wrote:
Shooters should have the upper hand. It's a sci-fi war game. The gun is mightier than the sword (which is actually a 40K Thought for the Day).

The best weapon in the most iconic sci-fi series of all time is a sword. In a vacuum, yes, a gun is mightier than a sword. But, we're playing in a game universe where there are flying spaceships, personal teleporters, and soldiers wearing heavier armour than tanks carry. This isn't 20th century earth.

You have to accept the basic premises of the universe that you're playing in. The 41st millenium is defined as a place where CC weapons have a place at the hearts of great battles. Does that make sense from a 21st century perspective? Probably not. But we don't have flying tanks and teleporters. The laser gun you describe means very little when the guy with the sword teleports in behind you.

Assault units should rely either on numbers or heavy, heavy armor (or transports with such) to get to the fight... but that's a whole different can of rules-worms.

Absolutely. Looking at the background, all the assault units in the different armies have ways to get into combat, but the rules fail to adequately allow for it in the game. And those failures are why 6th ed assault rules suck. What happens when you get there is fine, it's that the means to get there fail.

For example:

- Orks and Nids, assault hordes - there are more of them than you have bullets. This actually worked for the Zulus in the 1890s. It's a legitimate tactic, and has a basis in many sci-fi films, including Aliens and Starship Troopers.

The game would reflect this approach, without the casualties-from-front rule. The horde would get closer, with the dead littered behind them. As it stands, though, a good shooty army can keep any horde away indefinitely in 6th ed.

- Eldar, Dark Eldar - fly up on really fast spaceships, hope out with wyches and banshees...

Apart from how assaulting from transports was shut down in 6th ed.

- Teleporters, Daemons popping forth from the warp, and other surprise attacks.

In the novels, daemons rip through into ships and immediately start attacking. In the game, if you deep strike, in any way, you sit there for a turn, hoping to survive the shooters.

- Sneaky ninja types, outflanking, infiltrating, scouting...

Again, 6th ed nerfs this approach, by demanding that any of these approaches be subject to at least a full turn of fire, and then overwatch.

it does add a touch of realism and tactics to the game that simply was not there before.
1. The idea of a defender sitting there and saying "oh darn, here they come, lets just sit here and take it" just does not make sense. now them bring thier guns up and making snap shots does make sense. To be honest, Except for tau, it is not really effective anyway.
2. Model removal from the front also adds realism and tactics. It makes you actually THINK about where you put what model in the formation and adds in the realism of it snap shots actually stopping an assault once in a blue moon.
Random assault range. Again, it adds realism as soldiers do trip over rocks, dead bodies or even their own shoelaces when madly running and not looking where they are stepping. It also actually makes you think about what you are doing when you assault and use real tactics. Before, you only had to get a model close and it was a guaranteed get there in range. Now, you hafta take other factors into consideration such as placement of models and terrain and getting multiple models close.
'm sure that i am also not the only one who has gladly kissed the old rhino rush goodbye. Now THAT was broken. Even last edition of rushing up and just sitting still to rush out of it was broken. Now, assault armies are still powerful, the player just has to actually THINK and plan ahead now instead of just showing up, saying "I win because I have an assault army" and then walking back out with a 'win" under their belt.

Ways assault was nerfed this edition:

Random charge range

Casualties from the front

"chumping" the guy in the squad of hard hitting meelee with your no points cost upgrade seargent, thus reducing deserved casualties by 2 or 3.

Many weapons with ap 2 becoming 3, whilst adding more guns than ever to the game that have AP 2.

not picking your casualties, closest model may have your close combat weapon, and you need him in front to make use of his weapons. honestly the worst offender to assault being nerfed for my orks at least.

overwatch added. Specifically overwatch far superior in a very popular book that is essentially another round of shooting.

outflank being countered by interceptor. Even if you couldn't assault, they still had to waste their time on THEIR turn shooting at you. Now they kill you on YOUR turn, and even if they cant use that weapon, the can at least spend their turn repositioning, or even assaulting something else. horrible.

flamers causing wounds when you rush in automatically. charging the sternguard that just dropped down and toasted your ride? hope you enjoy 2-6 free shots that hit and some wounds with it. hope your not playing orks or nids, or that's basically another free round of shooting against you.

assault from outflank. This one I agree with. was far too powerful to come on and instantly be able to attack with no danger to the assault group. Could kill clutch units.

many many vehicles losing the ability to assault from, which in turn takes longer to get into meelee, which means more shooting casualties.

vehicles/transports being far easier to kill than previous editions, making assault again harder.

flyers changing game dynamics. Before assault and shooting were even, they could both conceivably kill anything in the game. Now there are things unable to be assaulted at all. so if your playing an assault army, and you find 3 helldrakes flying around, your gonna have a bad time.

honestly op I can tell you have very little experience with assault in general in this game, you missed 3/4 of the major issues this edition. And I bet I missed a few myself, this is just top of my head things.

Imnewherewheresthebathroom wrote:

 3orangewhips wrote:

3. Random assault range - Suck it up, we did last edition. Ok Ok not really, but assaults have to be able to fail. When combining this point and the last point I understand the frustration. But assaults can fail now and these points put together is what allows it to fail.

Here's the problem with this: assaults could already fail. That's why we roll to hit, to wound and allow armor saves. Also, assaulted units can hit back.

With shooting, you can't shoot back that turn, you have attacks that completely mitigate armor saves with no penalty (like striking last on a power fist) and a vast array of high-strength, high-AP shots.

Take dire avengers- troops that rend on a six to wound, often rerolling hits. And that's after you pop the 5-10 shot, AV 12 transport with a mobile cover save. And I don't get to "counter shoot" until my next turn.

Random assault range is like shooting with random range. It's not fun.

Ok, but point is the assaulters are choosing that engagement with an often inferior squad. And what you are calling a failed assault isn't in the same context I'm using. So no they couldn't fail to (ok ok) achieve assault. If you where in range you got it, done and done. Now you won't necessarily make it into assault. That was a needed wild card.

Either overwatch or random charge range would have done this, both is overkill.

Why is realism a desirable thing, in 40k? We are not playing historicals here. In years of playing RPGs and wargames, rarely have I sat back in satisfaction and said, "man, this realism is just invigorating!" If there is the opportunity to make something fun and entertaining while also making it realistic, then cool. But realism is a very poor goal by itself.

Why does "realism" only get to apply to one aspect of 40k? It would be "realism" that guns would run out of ammo or jam. It would be "realism" that a dark eldar warrior should have greater movement speed than a terminator. Please don't use the "realism" argument about a game with sentient fungus and magical space elves.

For 6th, there was a decision to weaken Assault, probably because it had been much stronger than shooting since 3rd. But they took it too far with all the changes. It would be nice for horde armies to be useable. Orks and Tyranids should allowed to be viable if they try to focus on CC.

To be honest overwatch doesn't make all that much sense. If that makes sense then guns should run out of ammo, jam, drop to the floor. They shouldn't take turns shooting at one another. Etc etc etc.

Why does it make sense to remove from the front? If the plasma gunner dies, why doesn't anyone else grab the important gun? Why is it that they always die from the front? Explosion hits? Die from the front. Flamer blasts through center? Side guys die. Why is it that the enemies don't move whilst being shot at? They never duck the guns never miss they just hit the first guy. In reality, it doesn't always hit the front guy. Often it does but not always. THe nuance of the previous edition was the random death was because the enemy was still charging forth to the enemy.

 StarTrotter wrote:
To be honest overwatch doesn't make all that much sense. If that makes sense then guns should run out of ammo, jam, drop to the floor. They shouldn't take turns shooting at one another. Etc etc etc.

Why does it make sense to remove from the front? If the plasma gunner dies, why doesn't anyone else grab the important gun? Why is it that they always die from the front? Explosion hits? Die from the front. Flamer blasts through center? Side guys die. Why is it that the enemies don't move whilst being shot at? They never duck the guns never miss they just hit the first guy. In reality, it doesn't always hit the front guy. Often it does but not always. THe nuance of the previous edition was the random death was because the enemy was still charging forth to the enemy.

What's even worse is that the rules used to support the idea of someone else picking up the gun, which is why those units were removed last. I guess they forgot how to do that....

 Psienesis wrote:
Shooters should have the upper hand. It's a sci-fi war game. The gun is mightier than the sword (which is actually a 40K Thought for the Day).

IMO, Assault Units should be units that *if* they manage to get into melee, they absolutely wreck face... but *getting* into melee should be a very difficult thing, especially if they are fighting enemies with ranged weapons.

Sorry, your chainsaw is an inferior weapon in modern warfare compared to a laser gun. But if you *can* hit the guy with the laser gun with the chainsaw, then he's fethed.

Assault units should rely either on numbers or heavy, heavy armor (or transports with such) to get to the fight... but that's a whole different can of rules-worms.

I am sorry but I must hault you to say this. You forget one vital key point. 40k isn't sci fi. It is Sci-Fantasy. It is grimdark fantasy medieval thrust into space. That's really in the end what 40k is. They don't try to really explain SM. They are beasts because they wanted to add something as pointless as spitting acid in to make them "crazy cool". This is a world where gibbering daemons flicker in and out of reality and orks throw themself together apparently. A realm where SM have plot armour except for when they aren't the main character (or the writer wants to tell a different story) going from honestly useless in the vast galaxy to being invinceable (I personally prefer them being a great shock force that is tanky enough to take some las shots and live but not walking gods that slap 100 guardsman solo. Also no 1 SM retaking a planet please)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 3orangewhips wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
To be honest overwatch doesn't make all that much sense. If that makes sense then guns should run out of ammo, jam, drop to the floor. They shouldn't take turns shooting at one another. Etc etc etc.

Why does it make sense to remove from the front? If the plasma gunner dies, why doesn't anyone else grab the important gun? Why is it that they always die from the front? Explosion hits? Die from the front. Flamer blasts through center? Side guys die. Why is it that the enemies don't move whilst being shot at? They never duck the guns never miss they just hit the first guy. In reality, it doesn't always hit the front guy. Often it does but not always. THe nuance of the previous edition was the random death was because the enemy was still charging forth to the enemy.

What's even worse is that the rules used to support the idea of someone else picking up the gun, which is why those units were removed last. I guess they forgot how to do that....

Obviously they didn't know the proper prayers and the greater good permits not for wielding such a important weapon

Imnewherewheresthebathroom wrote:
Ok, before we go diving right into this, I don't think it's perfect now. There are aspects to the rules where assaulters get the shaft, but there is also a reasonable assumption that assaulters deserved some of it.

The Good

1. Overwatch - This is kind of a "duh" type of rule to me. Defenders defend, it makes sense in every way.

2. Removing models from the front - Here is the big one, it makes sense to remove models from the front.

3. Random assault range - Suck it up, we did last edition. Ok Ok not really, but assaults have to be able to fail. When combining this point and the last point I understand the frustration. But assaults can fail now and these points put together is what allows it to fail.

The Bad

1. Any restriction on assaulting from board edge/vehicles/whatever I'm missing - This sucks. Plain and simple. I'm not saying you can use the same rule set for assault if you allow this. But this isn't the place to discuss that.

Alright Bathroom you asked for it. Ok people listen up and listen good. Assault is still dangerous as all get out. Much harder to get there granted but holy smokes it can ruin a turn or 4.... Ever had a great unit get tarpitted how frustrating. ..GRRRR... Frustrating. I play a lot of drop pod marines so this assault is dead/isn't viable stuff. I don't see it. I see vehicles getting wrecked from assault all the time. I see a lot of assault maybe I'm playing the game wrong hell I don't know.

1. Overwatch: Yeah its kinda messed up that WS7 hits at the same percentage that WS2 does during overwatch but lets face facts. If it hit at its real BS.... wait for it.... cmon its good.... here it comes.... ASSUALT WOULDNT EVEN BE IN THE GAME. Full stop end of story. You wouldn't want to charge Maugan Ra at WS7 6 S6 Rending shots. Now why would you charge him if he was shooting at full BS. It'd be pointless. Cuz it'd be dead. On the flipside would you really want to be assaulted and your guys stand there and take the charge and not shoot.... That's goofy... Is the hitting on 6's realistic for overwatch no but it is one thing... Simple and balanced for everyone... but Tau that is.

2.Removing models from front: Maybe I'm stupid maybe... But where the hell else you gonna take them from Einstein? You shoot at the closest target approaching you. Anyone with any military background knows that. Its one of the few realistic things in 40k.

3. Random Charge Range: This is the only legit complaint about assault. No one should fail a 3" charge but it happens. With that being said the only change I'd like to see here is D6 plus initiative. This punishes the slow people and rewards the fast people. Also give EVERYONE minimum charge range they will make. With that being said it ain't a big deal overall. Don't sweat charge range guys sweat getting to within a realistic range before charging. OHHH and stop shooting units that are 7" away you kill 2 models and now they are 10" away. You are an idiot. You don't get to cry about this.

Misc: Assaulting from Outflank/Infiltrating/Deepstrike/Drop pod

They could make rules for outflanking/deepstriking/drop pod assaults but I see why they didn't. Its easier to say NO across the board on this. Makes it simple and easy.
Not assaulting from infiltrate top of turn 1 well if you don't get why then try playtesting it. It'd make infiltrating models so damn silly I'd pull my hair out.
No assault from transports. Once again a rule could be made but it further complicates the game. Folks already cry about USR's and to much chaff in the rules. Why add more stuff to disagree about while I'm trying to roll dice and smoke some Tau rear ends. Would it be cool to do? Sure! It would be outstanding but I see crazy issues with it.