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.

It's only dangerous if you don't understand how to move your shooting list.

You're not playing the game wrong; drop pod marines are effective. The problem is that their effectiveness falls off sharply against very astute Tau/Eldar/Daemon players and *there are no compensations in the marine book available*.

The amount of damage that I've seen Eldar do to drop marines on that dead turn before any assault is possible is literally insane. If you aren't suffering massive casualties on that dead turn, your Eldar opponents are frankly not playing their list correctly. That might be the disconnect. Any codex looks awesome against people who don't know what they're doing. Even BA.

well except that orks get more out of overwatch than marines and slow and purposeful don't even get to overwatch

Ok ok ok, so I'm starting to get the scope of the argument a little better here. But what I want to know is how many of you think assault was fine in 5th. Because it wasn't. It was incredibly powerful and the only way to avoid it was to run away. One false move in a dakka army was GG. All the arguments you make as to why it sucks or isn't fair now can easily be reworded as to why shooting sucked last Ed. Shooting armies were penalized for shooting, and many didn't have an answer for assault armies besides cross your fingers and dakka. Or I suppose gather dust.

You will never get the two mechanics on a completely even keel, but if one needs to take a backseat to the other it is in this world most assuredly assault riding in the back.

@Redbeard When it comes to battlefield casualties of an assault squad rushing a shooty squad, sure the guys in front don't always die first. But I'll tell you one thing, it's NEVER the guys in the back.

Assault was not that strong in 5th. I foiled it constantly. Shooting was king in 5th. Undeniably. If you think otherwise, you didn't really play against good players. Assault WAS incredibly powerful in 3rd and 4th. The edition you are actually describing is 3rd. A bit behind the times.

But again, I don't care about the strength of assault. I care about models performing according to their cost.

sLeEpYrOcK wrote:

 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.

Well, Point-Ears, learn to adapt to the nature of modern warfare. That paper mache armor you wear is nothing to the weapons of the Angels of Death.

... sorry, I have no pity for an army that tries to come to battle dressed in their underwear and then attack seven-foot-supersoldiers in power armor with pointy objects.

Though, again, this is what I meant by a different can of rules-worms. Armies like DE should have wargear available that makes assaults possible (shield generators, stealth fields, teleporters, whatever)... but that's beyond the scope here.

Assault wasn't that strong in 5th. Shooting was the king of 5th. It wasn't as dramatic but it was still quite there. 5th was the edition of dakka parking lots. Heck, if memory serves me even 4th wasn't the assault edition all claim it to be. Assault still was a winner but shooting was gaining some tracts back. 3rd was where you didn't want to play a shooty army in the slightest.

Also, you forget to mention that the loss of models from the back was not supposed to represent the shot hitting the furthest back dude. It was to represent that the plasma gunner died and a troop picked that gun up to continue onwards. It represented that army continuing to move forward as the enemy fires.

And i have a complaint about overwatch im just gonna put here. Where is the assault version of overwatch, why would the assault troops stand there And get shot while the shooting troops would not just stand there and get charged?

In no particular order:
1. A shooty opponent generally gets to reduce a percentage of an assaulty opponents army without suffering much in return. By turn 3 when most assaults can occur, this disadvantage in percentages has become huge.
2. Overwatch.
3. Removing models from the front.
4. Can only disembark if a vehicle has moved 6" or less.
5. Cannot assault from vehicles unless open topped or assault catagory.
6. Opentopped vehicles tend to be made of wet paper.
7. Assault vehicles tend to cost more than the unit they are transporting.
8. Random charge distances.
7. Counter-assault usr.
9. Jump shoot jump.
10. Extremely cheap high strength high rate of fire weapons avaliable.
11. Excessive amount of ignores cover weapons.
12. Focus fire.
13. Disorganised charges.
14. Unable to sweep into another combat.
15. Unable to charge from outflank.
16. Unable to charge from infiltrate on turn 1.
17. Unable to assault from reserve unless given a specific rule (only BA VV that I can think of)
18. Gunline army abilities to mass overwatch (IG platoons/tau supporting fire)
19. Huge amount of armies with access to prescience for rerolls to hit.
20. Assault units tend to be overcosted for what they achieve.
21. Shooting units can attack from turn 1 until turn 7. Assault units tend to be 2 or 3 turns max at efficiency (if they make it).
22. Shooting does not suffer return shots in own phase, assault does.

I can go on?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
23. Shooty units can stay in cover. Assault units cannot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
24. Objectives - shooty units are usually at an advantage when holding an objective. Assault units are being wasted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
25. Can measure shooting distances.

I think Polyranger just owned some faces there.

lobbywatson wrote:
2.Removing models from front: Maybe I'm stupid maybe...

Well, you said it...

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.

Well, let's see, you could, as the prior editions did, take them from anywhere in the unit, because it makes for a more fun game. And, if you're talking about a military background, when you're charged by a mob of people, and every soldier in your squad shoots the same guy, doesn't that mean that the next 10 all get to you unscathed?

We're not representing one-on-one shooting, we're talking about unit-on-unit shooting. Unless you squad is horribly inept, its members should be targeting different attackers, and when that's the case, what's to say that the one in front is the one who gets hit?

Maybe, for the sort of realism you describe, you should declare the target model for each of your shooters, prior to rolling any dice. And all your models can aim at the closest model, and resolve their hits against the closest model, and we'll see how well you do.

Of course that would make the game take much much longer, and you'd quickly learn that no, not everyone aims at the closest enemy model, some guys need to aim past him or you end up with one guy who is killed a lot, and the rest unscathed.

It's an abstraction. We abstract out the idea that one unit is shooting at another so that we don't have to pick targets and roll to hit and to wound independently for each guy. So why the belief that the closest guy is the one who needs to die. Allow that to be abstracted out too.

@Redbeard When it comes to battlefield casualties of an assault squad rushing a shooty squad, sure the guys in front don't always die first. But I'll tell you one thing, it's NEVER the guys in the back.

This was explained quite well in the 5th ed rulebook - you just imagine that guys further back take the place of guys further forward during the advance. It makes for a better game. At the end of the battle, the guys who got shot are at the back, and the guys who made it to enemy lines are in front - see how that works

;-)

I just realized that poll question is worded HORRIBLY.

I think the poll needs three options: 1) Yes, 2) No (Assault stronger), 3) No (Shooting Stronger).

kingleir wrote:
And i have a complaint about overwatch im just gonna put here. Where is the assault version of overwatch, why would the assault troops stand there And get shot while the shooting troops would not just stand there and get charged?

What are the assault troops going to do, wave their swords at them?

No what poly ranger did is make a list of things that make him sad, that make me happy. Seriously he has a lot of good points but he has a lot of things in there that really just balance the game.

I agree with about half of those gripes but the good still outweighs the bad for me.

And prescience is garbage. But that a can I'm not cracking open right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Kinglier Hah, ya there wasn't a lot of thought put into that. Sorry bud.

Imnewherewheresthebathroom wrote:
No what poly ranger did is make a list of things that make him sad, that make me happy. Seriously he has a lot of good points but he has a lot of things in there that really just balance the game.

I agree with about half of those gripes but the good still outweighs the bad for me.

And prescience is garbage. But that a can I'm not cracking open right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hah, ya there wasn't a lot of thought put into that.

You still have failed to demonstrate how assault was good in 5th. And with all the changes he listed, shouldn't assault marines have gotten a points adjustment?

For 5th ed - I think shooting was overall stronger, but there were still a number of viable approaches to playing assault-based-armies, and assault-units in hybrid armies.

Off the top of my head, some viable 5th ed armies included (at various times):

Nob bikers
Green tide horde orks
horde orks
Chaos Daemons of various stripes (fiends and crushers among others)
ambush nids
thunderwolf cavs
paladins (hybrid shooty/assault)
mech blood angels
descent of angels blood angels
wraith-spam necrons

And others I'm probably forgetting.

In 6th ed, I can count the number of viable assault builds on three fingers:
seer councils (And not really sure they assault that much)
screamerstar (and not really sure they do either)
FMC spam daemons

All the other assault builds I can think of get shot off the table.

 Psienesis wrote:

kingleir wrote:
And i have a complaint about overwatch im just gonna put here. Where is the assault version of overwatch, why would the assault troops stand there And get shot while the shooting troops would not just stand there and get charged?

What are the assault troops going to do, wave their swords at them?

2 Possibilities

1) Advance, like the BT used to do.

2) Seek out cover / try to evade (cover save, may stack with GtG)

 Redbeard wrote:
For 5th ed - I think shooting was overall stronger, but there were still a number of viable approaches to playing assault-based-armies, and assault-units in hybrid armies.

Off the top of my head, some viable 5th ed armies included (at various times):

Nob bikers
Green tide horde orks
horde orks
Chaos Daemons of various stripes (fiends and crushers among others)
ambush nids
thunderwolf cavs
paladins (hybrid shooty/assault)
mech blood angels
descent of angels blood angels
wraith-spam necrons

And others I'm probably forgetting.

In 6th ed, I can count the number of viable assault builds on three fingers:
seer councils (And not really sure they assault that much)
screamerstar (and not really sure they do either)
FMC spam daemons

All the other assault builds I can think of get shot off the table.

"

I agree with this in general.

To be fair I didn't need to put too much thought into it as it stares you in the face if you ever try and run an assault list and have played since 3rd. I also thought that quick numbered bullet points would make more of an impact then having to explain in detail why each one makes assault very difficult in 6th.
Im not saying assault is 'broken' as such... just instead is at a massive disadvantage compared to shooting. 6th rules encourages a stationary gunline that requires little thought (apart from target priorities) and lots of dice rolling instead.
And lastly, whilst individually each point may not be too huge a disadvantage, when put considered as a whole it paints a pretty bleak picture for assault.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry - just realised the 'lot of thought' comment wasnt aimed at me :-p...

Use the rhino delivery system.

Go as fast as possible and hope there is cover when you blow up lol.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

kingleir wrote:
And i have a complaint about overwatch im just gonna put here. Where is the assault version of overwatch, why would the assault troops stand there And get shot while the shooting troops would not just stand there and get charged?

What are the assault troops going to do, wave their swords at them?

2 Possibilities

1) Advance, like the BT used to do.

2) Seek out cover / try to evade (cover save, may stack with GtG)

If you're not BT, it's really hard to get someone to walk towards people shooting at them. I can see that as an option for certain armies (anything Marines, Necrons, Nids, Daemons, SOB for Repentia squads, since they're looking to die anyway)... but not as a USR or anything. IG, Tau, Eldar... these are people with strong self-preservation instincts, getting them to walk towards a bunch of people shooting at them would be really hard (also an out-of-phase movement which is a bit awkward).

I think that is already there with the GtG and Cover Saves. If you're already getting a cover save for being in a forest, you're not going to be in more forest because someone is shooting at you. The cover save is already representative of hiding behind trees and such.

 sfshilo wrote:
Use the rhino delivery system.

Go as fast as possible and hope there is cover when you blow up lol.

You still can't assault. Fail.

Martel732 wrote:

Imnewherewheresthebathroom wrote:
No what poly ranger did is make a list of things that make him sad, that make me happy. Seriously he has a lot of good points but he has a lot of things in there that really just balance the game.

I agree with about half of those gripes but the good still outweighs the bad for me.

And prescience is garbage. But that a can I'm not cracking open right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hah, ya there wasn't a lot of thought put into that.

You still have failed to demonstrate how assault was good in 5th. And with all the changes he listed, shouldn't assault marines have gotten a points adjustment?

I'm not sure what you mean by demonstrate. If you were in range you got the assault. Even a lowly squad of assault marines would devastate a gunline, then go on to chew on whatever was in sweep range after that. I'm speaking from my perspective playing BA in 5th, the untold devastation an alpha strike could and would do was silly.

If you can't concede to at least some of the new rules you are crossing in fanboy territory. Which is fine, but I don't feel bad for those who can't let others have their way at least a little.

I already said that I don't really care about the new rules that much. What I care is that the units that got hosed didn't get point reductions.

And there was no sweeping in 5th! Are you sure someone wasn't cheating? They had to spend a turn in regroup purgatory, where they usually died miserably. 5th edition was the start of "there is no problem that can't be solved by more dakka!"

BA couldn't assault from drop pods. Descent of Angels didn't let you do it either. How were doing this alpha strike and not gettign shot to pieces? Also, gun lines chose which units you assaulted, not you. They fed assault armies the expendable units and then shot them off the table afterwards.

I've been playing BA since 2nd and 3rd and 4th were the best editions for meq assault by far.

Drop the pods on the gunline and hide behind them. I plan on using similar tactics with my future grey knights.

As far as sweeping goes it never was personally an issue so I don't know. I was away from the hobby for 3 years so its foggy. My tactics were drop pods danger close, and assault termies on the armor. That usually was GG, one way or the other.

Imnewherewheresthebathroom wrote:
Drop the pods on the gunline and hide behind them. I plan on using similar tactics with my future grey knights.

As far as sweeping goes it never was personally an issue so I don't know. I was away from the hobby for 3 years so its foggy. My tactics were drop pods danger close, and assault termies on the armor. That usually was GG, one way or the other.

Drop pods provide cover, they don't block LOS. Against dakka that doesn't penetrate power armor, you just accomplished nothing.

Assault terminators were against lists without enough dakka. But against good lists, they meant as little as they do now.

Yeh sorry Imne... my list included changes going back to 4th and 3rd which probably caused sone confusion.
Thinking about it, I would say the inability to sweep into combat in 5th and the inability to assault from vehicles in 6th and the inability to disembark from vehicles moving over 6" I would catagorize personally as the biggest 3 nerfs to assault.

Sweep is the absolute worst. With sweep, the OP's statements are far closer to truth. The dead turn of "oh I'll stand around now" is 100% fatal.

If these hadn't have happened even if all the other things had, assault would still be viable competitively imo!