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.

40k isn't realistic and doesn't try to be. GW wants to sell fancy new models which so far are mostly gunboats ergo lots of shooting. However Daemons, Blood Angels,, Orks, and Nids have been short range shooting and assault focused and for all the crying over shooting Daemons are still easily one of the most powerful armies despite their shooting being finicky at best.

Of course Daemons are just one of the four sacred assault armies, when the Blood Angels, Orks, and Tyranids get their updates expect assault to come back with a vengeance.

Heck, most assault armies have problems fending off big bricks of flesh hounds who can tear gunlines to ribbons or fight kitted out Nob Bikerz who can crash into a gunline in no time flat and power klaw your unit into oblivion.

Funny how Epic Armageddon manages to be a great game, fast playing intuitive and fun.
Far less complicated than 40k, and it is realistic and based on modern warfare.
But then Epic was written for game play , not promoting the latest releases above all else.

IMO, if 40k rules were based on E.A and had detail added, it would result in a better balanced game .

Gwyidion wrote:
Assault isn't helped by a lot of factors. One that is prevalent in my meta is playing the game with almost no cover on the table.

The Book guidelines are 25% cover (it should fill up one quarter of the table) - the tables around my area often have half that, often with no LoS blocking terrain.

Try reading your rulebook again, and realise that was left behind with 5th edition. The book has an entirely new method of setting up tables now.

Spartak wrote:

Psienesis
I'm not sure I would consider Khornate Daemons, Orks, or certain SM variants to be "inhuman monstrosities", but they certainly do give the assault build a go.

if Khornate Daemons and Orks aren't inhuman monstrosities IDk WTF is...

Both Orks and Bloodletters (Bloodthirsters, too, but they are very tall) are humanoid (two arms, bipedal, a head) and... really... not that good as individuals at the basic level. You can kit them out with stuff and work with other units/ICs to make them much better, of course, but "out of the box" are... kinda mediocre. CSM are definitely "human"(ish) monstrosities, as are the standard SM, really.

"Inhuman Monstrosity" is, to me, the aforementioned Bloodthirster, pretty much all Tyranids, Squiggoths, C'Tan shards. Any Monstrous Creature, really, or something that is both non-humanoid and, also, equipped with an impressive statline.

They're just revising all the shooty armies first!! The meta will shift once the actual hordes get updated.