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.

If any of you played competitively you invariably know that shooting was the dominate trait of winning armies 5th edition. Psy-spam lists, long fangs, leaf blowers. In the end the assault armies when they did show up required a bit more luck that shooting armies which were consistently good. 6th edition actually accentuates this and widens the gap between assault and shooting. After about 25 6th ed games between myself and friends, all of us playing competitively for 10 years +, we have highlighted why shooting will continue to dominate. While the edition is still young and much more testing is left to come here are the changes that have made assault worse and shooting better.

Movement rules-allowing models to reposition and not having to move heavy weapons

Rapid fire - move and full length shot

Overwatch fire - a free shooting phase at BS 1 is fantastic especially in rapid fire range.

Casualties off the front - in about half of our games a casualty to overwatch has made a charge fail. A failed charge equates to not just one extra round of shooting but three. Overwatch shooting on the failure. Next opponent turn shooting. Overwatch again for new charge attempt.

Wound allocation - we have done this several times since casualties are off the front and wound allocation happens at the shooters whimsy, lets say there were 3 models to get to before your T4 character starts taking look out sirs. You have 10 S4 wound and 2 S8 wounds you can apply s4 wounds until the 3 models in front are dead then apply the 2 S8's in the hope of instant death the character on a failed look out sir.

Random Charge - many of the theorists will tell you that random charge length was an improvement but they are completely wrong, random charge length while it averages to 7 inches does not guarantee 6 or even 5 inches. The price for failing a charge is usually so high that you would be better off with a fixed charge distance vs. a random.

Pre-measuring - guns for the most part do not have random range, charges do. Add in changes to rapid fire and casualties you can tee up an 11 1/2 inch rapid fire or 23 1/2 inch (against jump) and almost guarntee no retaliation for two turns.

Multi-assault change - Many assault armies especially ones like orks utilized multi-assault to deal with the I have been getting shot for two turns points deficit. With the loss of charge bonus on multi-assault it allows your opponent to play tighter and focus fire without the worries. Don't forget multiple units overwatch shooting you as well.

Rally within 6. If you don't get a wipeout rallying is much easier now for an additional two rounds of shooting, rapid and overwatch on follow up charge.

Transport changes force you to take very expensive assault vehicles or very flimsy open topped. No more charging out of a parked transport or even charging the turn after it explodes.

Outflank changes no charging from reserves

No Retreat removal - no more penalty for being fearless makes combats drag on longer than before.

Power weapon changes - reduction of ap on certain power weapons like the swords and mauls have allowed some tactical gaps to emerge

Cover changes - assault armies take more casualties now coming in

Challenges - challenges are a big time fail for assaulting armies. The challenge allows the shooting army to isolate and insulated against your billy bad ass if character if need be. You charge in and declare a challenge with the space blender with 6 attacks re-rolling everything and S10 etc and your shooting opponent is allowed to chump him by sending sarge and limiting him to 1 wound, the counter is you don't challenge and if he is the only character your opponent can challenge him and again limit him to one wound.

The best armies will be shooting infantry with bad ass anti-assault characters, the necrons come to mind.

I realize we are only 1 week into 6th, but so far shooting armies are the clear winners of this rules rewrite, in particular shooting armies that do it with infantry rather than vehicles. The current win-loss of shooting vs. assault armies is a shut out vs. assault armies. Tyranids with their flying MC's are the only army that came close to a win, and unfortunately the grounded rules really seemed to f-them.

No. The best armies will be the ones with the newest codex like always....

I am sure when the CSM codex comes out 'zerkers will own everything in their path...

Its GW nothing is balanced and if you don't like it wait 5 minutes and the rules will change to something different....

Clthomps wrote:No. The best armies will be the ones with the newest codex like always....

I am sure when the CSM codex comes out 'zerkers will own everything in their path...

Its GW nothing is balanced and if you don't like it wait 5 minutes and the rules will change to something different....

This is a bit of an over simplification.

New dex's do not always dominate, look at Guard and SW were some of the first 5th ed dex's and are still quite dominate. Then Nids followed and it is arguably one of the worst. At adepticon 300+ 40k player 0 tyranid players. The new codexs are not always powered up as suggested.

Yeah, 6e definitely gives a big bird to assault armies though most won't admit it. I've also noticed nobody noticing assault weapons getting gimped. Take Tyranids for example. All of their weapons are short ranged and on the weaker side (for the most part) which was balanced by them all being assault allowing for more mobility. But now rapid fire has gained mobility while keeping it's range, though assault weapons remain the same, which definitely puts another dent in armies based on assault. Heck, even heavy weapons are allowed to move and get a chance at shooting. The addition of forts is also a dent in assault armies, sure assault armies can use them too but with their inherently inferior BS ratings, and for the same points too.

Ya, did a 1000 point game SM/DA vs. Orks, and the orks lost, not brutally lost, but on turn 6 Orks were tabled and one squad of SM tac marines were still standing.

tgf you've pretty much hit the nail on the head here. My CSM army was a VERY assault oriented army with plenty of support infantry as a fail safe. My DP was tarpitted by Ork Nobz for 4 turns for example, even with support. When an assault army comes up against a gunline army the battle is already over after the 1st turn regardless of who goes first. Assault armies are a huge risk now, unless they can horde up with enough infantry to shrug off the insane amount of casualties from shooting. And I really don't see 'zerkers getting any more of a buff for this edition. Over watch doesn't have a huge impact on assaults, unless it gets that 1 kill which drops you out of charge reach and then its basically won the game...
So this edition is clearly gunhammer...

Assault has been gimped, at least in my first impression of 6E.

Assault armies no longer can...

1. Charge out of reserve, ala Wolf Scouts, Deep Strike Terminators, Dark Eldar Webway.

2. Charge from transports. Goodbye move 12", disembark, fire pistols, assault.

3. Characters must get into B2B if possible. Power Fists become a lot more difficult to use since there's a good chance they'll be killed before a single strike.

4. AP2 and high toughness becomes a lot more difficult thanks to power weapons being AP3.


I will say that transports are actually a little more survivable thanks to hull points. Gone are the days of Immobilising a transport on the first turn from a single glancing hit. While they're easier to Wreck by lower strength weapons, it requires more shots to do it.

StoneRaizer wrote:Assault has been gimped, at least in my first impression of 6E.

Assault armies no longer can...

1. Charge out of reserve, ala Wolf Scouts, (1)Deep Strike Terminators, Dark Eldar Webway.

2. Charge from transports. Goodbye move 12", disembark, fire pistols, assault.

3. (2)Characters must get into B2B if possible. Power Fists become a lot more difficult to use since there's a good chance they'll be killed before a single strike.

4. AP2 and high toughness becomes a lot more difficult thanks to power weapons being AP3.


I will say that transports are actually a little more survivable thanks to hull points. Gone are the days of Immobilising a transport on the first turn from a single glancing hit. While they're easier to Wreck by lower strength weapons, it requires more shots to do it.

Alright, to address a couple points here:

1. You could NEVER assault out of Deepstrike unless you were Vanguard vets.

2. So, what, like in 5th edition? Use look-out sir and plan accordingly.

You were also never ever able to charge out of a transport that moved if it wasn't an assault vehicle or opentopped. In those cases it was move 12", disembark 1.99, charge 6. Now you move 6" and disembark 6", so it's only a loss of only 2 inches pre-charge.

It should be worth noting that you now always hit vehicles on at least 3+. This is a buff to CC armies. Of course, it's canceled by not being able to assault flyers at all, so.

tgf wrote:
Wound allocation - we have done this several times since casualties are off the front and wound allocation happens at the shooters whimsy, lets say there were 3 models to get to before your T4 character starts taking look out sirs. You have 10 S4 wound and 2 S8 wounds you can apply s4 wounds until the 3 models in front are dead then apply the 2 S8's in the hope of instant death the character on a failed look out sir.

Random Charge - many of the theorists will tell you that random charge length was an improvement but they are completely wrong, random charge length while it averages to 7 inches does not guarantee 6 or even 5 inches. The price for failing a charge is usually so high that you would be better off with a fixed charge distance vs. a random.

I concur with your conclusion, but not every point here.

You're doing wound allocation wrong. You must resolve all of a group of wounds at once. So you resolve either all the s4 wounds or all the s8 wounds first. If you use s4 wounds to clear out chaff then you finish resolving those before you can touch the s8 ones.

Also, theory actually tells you that the chance of charging less is sufficiently large that it's a nerf. 5" or less is 5/18 chance. The theory says it's a lot worse unless you're charging 2" or you're fleet. We theorists actually hate random charge distance because you can only guarantee making 2" and 'same or better' still has a large chance of failure.

Yeah, to be honest i am rather dissapointed with 6th, in fact the only improvement i see over 5th is the standarization of terrain setup and rules, and even that could be improved easily.

-Shooting isfar too dominant compaired to meele, rapid fire needed the boost it got, frankly in 5th rapid fire only amounted to satic firing which sucked, how ever the rest of the nerfs to assault were excesive.

I have been plaing fantasy since 5th and 40k since 5th as well, i can with out a doubt say this are the worst set of rules i have seen so far, i am borderline no liking them at all, the game will loose all variety, it will be all about infantry gunlines combined with flyers which are the only vehicles worth taking, which is another thing i disslike, GW wanted to sell flyer, ok, there was no need to completelly destroy the rest of the vehicles to do so, this is why people do not appreciate GWs changes to the rules, because all to often they are simple dick moves like this to sell crap and they ruin the game in the process.

GreyHamster wrote:
Also, theory actually tells you that the chance of charging less is sufficiently large that it's a nerf. 5" or less is 5/18 chance. The theory says it's a lot worse unless you're charging 2" or you're fleet. We theorists actually hate random charge distance because you can only guarantee making 2" and 'same or better' still has a large chance of failure.

I disagree, its overall a buff

5" or less may be a 27% chance (5/18) but 4" or less spikes down to 16% (3/18)
Having a 72% chance of it being 6" or more, and a 83% chance of it being 5" or more is pretty massive

Not to mention that 58% of the time you will be assaulting more than 6"

Now whether you want to be in the Mercy of the Dice Gods is another question

Assault needed to be dialled back, since 3rd edition it was a case of who could bring the most power weapon attacks to bear.

Also while shooting is more fluid regrouping and the like is better and vehicles are more resilient to glances so have gotten a buff in some ways. You aren't stunlocked in the same way.

Phototoxin wrote:Assault needed to be dialled back, since 3rd edition it was a case of who could bring the most power weapon attacks to bear.

Also while shooting is more fluid regrouping and the like is better and vehicles are more resilient to glances so have gotten a buff in some ways. You aren't stunlocked in the same way.

You dont use many av11/12 vehicles i take it... they dont get stuned they get removed from the table, such an improvement....

Er I play dark eldar so I have quite a few av 10/11...

Phototoxin wrote:Er I play dark eldar so I have quite a few av 10/11...

Then stop deluding yourself?, Vehicles dont get stuned or shaken, you keep glancing it until you wreck it and move on. Only against [silly people] that dont focus fire, vehicles are latibely more functional, though my venerable drednought would like to dissagree...

Your maths is quite right there Talamare, you do have a greater chance of the higher charge distance, but you have to contend with the overwatch. All it takes is a single casualty to (in some circumstances) stop a game deciding assault. This change has steeped assaults more into the defenders favour, making those in cover almost impossible to shift now.

EDIT: Assaulting into cover is a near suicidal task already, now your gona be shot at on the way in as well as punked when you get there. Really the only thing that will be happening in a 40k game is shooting as those who assault do so at their own peril...

tgf wrote:If any of you played competitively you invariably know that shooting was the dominate trait of winning armies 5th edition.

This is your opinion.

My opinion is that yours is erronious and [edited by Moderator].

What is my opinion?

5th was dominated by Assault armies that just also happen to have had cheaper vehicles and rediculously good shooting. Used to be, GW designed armies with trade-offs, not so much in 5th ed.

To my point.

The list of dominating armies:
SM's at first....They are WS4 BS4 S4 T4 I4 and have 3+ save. They recieved Vehicles that were way cheaper than before and got combat squads that let them exploit some of the new mission rules(KPs). Also, introduced the Razor spam list to 5th ed.


Second, was the only true shooty army that dominated, the IG. Why was this so?
I think it is because they got a codex designed to work in 5th. They also got a few tennet breaking features like:
A) Firing out of the top hatch of their chimeras without the vehicle becoming open-topped.
B)HellHounds and their variants becoming fast vehicles when they are a more heavily armoured (And therefore "more heavy") versions of the chimera chassis.
C) Vendetta/Valks moving flat-out and still deploying their passengers
D) Tank Squadrons

On top of this, they recieved a massive points reduction on thier core units/vehicles.


Third, was Space Wolves. Arguably one of the best cc armies in the game. Also happen to have one of the best shooty units in the game(Long Fangs). If the Space pups had to rely upon their shooting alone they weren't that great(Watched people make that mistake and suffer for it). Having both great shooting and awsome cc is what made them excel.


The next release was Tyranids and they sucked. Why, was it because they were assault oriented? Or was it because GW just screwed up with a last minute FOC nerf? Or did GW just screw up?
I'm inclined to the latter, though if they had just made lictors FA and had not nerfed the Spods. they would have been scary.

So this is one Assault army that didn't do well but, I did not hear anyone blame it on shooting, Most I heard were complaing that GW just fumbled the ball on how the dex/army was written/released.


Fourth to dominate was the BA's. A fast assault army with cc monster Special characters. They also got Rhino/Razor spam like the other 2 SM dex's, only faster. BA was is and always will be an assault army.


5th to dominate was DE.. Hhmmm. A fast assault army able to spam lots of cheap vehicles/ transports that were *Gasp* BS4 gun platforms.


6th to dominate was the Grey Knights Again, a new SM codex but this time full of better than TEQ and had/has awsome cc and shooting.


I will ignore the SoB, GW did so it is OK for me to do so also.


Finally came Necrons but they were just starting to shine when 6th hit. Don't think that I can make the claim that they dominated in 5th.


Only 2 non- SM armies that shined in 5th, IG and DE and the DE were used as an assault army first and a shooting army second.

Of the SM chapters that dominated, only GK could build and somewhat rely on a shooty list. The others were nothing special without their CC units and ability.


My last point is that if 5th was truly dominated by shooting, then why wasn't Tau one of the Top-tier armies?

My first 6th ed game was against Grey knights, and I have to disagree with you. Granted, it was a draw in that neither side was able to claim an objective, I was quite pleased by my stabby units. My Stormboys tarpitted a unit of PAGK for three turns before finally finishing them off. Granted, there were only three remaining out of 20 at the end of the game, but they did their job. My Nobs destroyed a dread and a unit of Paladins before Draigo killed my Warboss. Yes, my Lootas did smash a Storm Raven out of the sky in one turn and reduce a terminator squad to below 50%, but that was expected. I will continue to field armies that are a mixture of shooting and close combat, just like I always have. Monotone armies are easy to predict and kill. Stay agile, stay dangerous. WAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGHHH!!!!!!

So if this is such a huge leap from 5th, why are we not hearing from more Tau players that their armies suddenly got a lot more powerful?

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:So if this is such a huge leap from 5th, why are we not hearing from more Tau players that their armies suddenly got a lot more powerful?

We got better, but not enough to correct 4th unit pricing. i think that we will be on the bottom end of middle tier but we might make it back to the top of mid-tier if enough of us old players dust of our tricks from 4th ed that are still viable.

Honestly, it helped but not as much as it helped the Necrons and some newer codices.

If I wanted to play Fantasy, I would unpack them from my basement. I want to play 40k. These rules are not what we wanted in a game. GW will take the money that we all just paid them and buy a new mansion. Then they will change the rules again to buy themselves a house in the Virgin Islands.

Captain Avatar wrote:

tgf wrote:If any of you played competitively you invariably know that shooting was the dominate trait of winning armies 5th edition.

The list of dominating armies:
SM's at first....They are WS4 BS4 S4 T4 I4 and have 3+ save. They recieved Vehicles that were way cheaper than before and got combat squads that let them exploit some of the new mission rules(KPs). Also, introduced the Razor spam list to 5th ed.

These are a shooting army, the razor spam is a shooting army other wise it would be rhino spam... combat squads allowed for a assault half and a shooting half of the squad. So really at best these armies were 50/50

Captain Avatar wrote:Second, was the only true shooty army that dominated, the IG. Why was this so?
I think it is because they got a codex designed to work in 5th. They also got a few tennet breaking features like:
A) Firing out of the top hatch of their chimeras without the vehicle becoming open-topped.
B)HellHounds and their variants becoming fast vehicles when they are a more heavily armoured (And therefore "more heavy") versions of the chimera chassis.
C) Vendetta/Valks moving flat-out and still deploying their passengers
D) Tank Squadrons

On top of this, they recieved a massive points reduction on thier core units/vehicles.

You said it, these guys are a shooty army

Captain Avatar wrote:
Third, was Space Wolves. Arguably one of the best cc armies in the game. Also happen to have one of the best shooty units in the game(Long Fangs). If the Space pups had to rely upon their shooting alone they weren't that great(Watched people make that mistake and suffer for it). Having both great shooting and awsome cc is what made them excel.

Yeah, these guys were shooting too. Long fang spam was shooty, grey hunters with weapon upgrades were more close range fire fights than assault so that's a little bit middle of the road again. Really SWs were a shooting army that could give as good as it got in close combat. That doesn't make them an assault army.

Captain Avatar wrote:
The next release was Tyranids and they sucked. Why, was it because they were assault oriented? Or was it because GW just screwed up with a last minute FOC nerf? Or did GW just screw up?
I'm inclined to the latter, though if they had just made lictors FA and had not nerfed the Spods. they would have been scary.

So this is one Assault army that didn't do well but, I did not hear anyone blame it on shooting, Most I heard were complaing that GW just fumbled the ball on how the dex/army was written/released.

I'm not even touching these guys....

Captain Avatar wrote:
Fourth to dominate was the BA's. A fast assault army with cc monster Special characters. They also got Rhino/Razor spam like the other 2 SM dex's, only faster. BA was is and always will be an assault army.

Ok these guys are assault, always have been always will be, but their success had help from the FNP bubble effect, giving them greater survivability against enemy shooting.

Captain Avatar wrote:
5th to dominate was DE.. Hhmmm. A fast assault army able to spam lots of cheap vehicles/ transports that were *Gasp* BS4 gun platforms.

Ok yes these guys are good in assault there is no denying that, but they could also be pretty hideous shooters too with their poisoned weaponry. It was about a 60/40 mix of assault and shooting when it came to what I saw being used. But that doesn't rule them out as shooters only makes them slightly in favour of assault.

Captain Avatar wrote:
6th to dominate was the Grey Knights Again, a new SM codex but this time full of better than TEQ and had/has awsome cc and shooting.

These guys can be absolutely criminal when it comes to a shooting army. Psifle dreads, purgation squads that could shoot stuff they couldn't see, dreadknights with their heavy psycannon/gatling psilencer combo, hell standard squads being able to use S5 stormbolters was bad enough. The thing with GK was that they didn't have to assault to win, they could just as easily mow you down from a distance. But when they did assault... they did it well... not just good, horrendously good. So more often than not most damage was done before assaults even began. I'd say that classifies them as shooters.

Captain Avatar wrote:
Finally came Necrons but they were just starting to shine when 6th hit. Don't think that I can make the claim that they dominated in 5th.

Yes they were late bloomers, but there is no denying they are shooters. They have some mean assault in there, but lets face it, serious ranged fire power trumps it.

Captain Avatar wrote:
My last point is that if 5th was truly dominated by shooting, then why wasn't Tau one of the Top-tier armies?

Because the Tau codex is so old that it truely sucked to be them? Or maybe because they were so far gone from flavour of the month that there was only a few dedicated Tau players? Or maybe because they have the weakest capability in assaults that armies being out shot by them could just fall back to kicking their teeth in up close and personal like? There are plenty of reasons why Tau weren't dominant, take your pick, or think up another one, the point is they weren't dominant because they aren't dominant, they are kinda like a one-trick pony in that sense...

MJThurston wrote:If I wanted to play Fantasy, I would unpack them from my basement. I want to play 40k. These rules are not what we wanted in a game. GW will take the money that we all just paid them and buy a new mansion. Then they will change the rules again to buy themselves a house in the Virgin Islands.

I feel that I have to state quite clearly that the "We" MJThurston is refering to does not include me. I love it. Even better than second edition.

Yes, I just wrote that. Deal with it.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:So if this is such a huge leap from 5th, why are we not hearing from more Tau players that their armies suddenly got a lot more powerful?

Tau did get quite a bit better, our one an only tau player got a win again, I don't think he had one in almost 2 years. They are still over costed but drones being characters and the new jet pack rules made suit armies quite good again, top tier no, but playable you bet.

@ captain avatar - I am disappointed you felt the need to hurl insults my way then essentially prove my point.

Out of all the armies you listed everyone of them with the possible exception of blood angels was a shooting build. If an armies theme is assault oriented, and they use shooting to win, long fangs, razorspam, psyspam, venomspam did they win the game in the assault phase or the shooting phase? I think my original point still stands and is even reiterated by your post shooting is dominate. Necrons did not have enough time to flourish in 5th but after their codex release they had several top finishes in GT and the number 1 seed at adepticon. If you want you could even add them to the shooting is dominate argument but I felt there was not enough data with them to really put them on the pile new dexes have a learning curve associated with them and sometimes they are successful till people adapt to tricks or an FAQ comes out and fixes issues (scarab conga).

Hmm, running across open ground into the face of a buncha dudes with machine-laser-rocket-shooty-guns is a bad idea. Who knew?!

Not everyone likes fantasy so why make it into 40k? The witch rule of rolling a D6 is like needing a 6 on one dice for your dispel dice.(exaggerated greatly) Challenging is exactly like fantasy (not sure which rule set had it that no wounds carry over.) and just kills assault armies. This is no way fair in this game system. "You mean I just got into assault after all the anti-assault rules and then you can hide behind a seargeant?" That's fair! Oh your whole unit is seargeants? So I can only kill one at a time.

With 3 glancing hits killing all vehicles I see even more 3 squads of longfangs murdering people.

MJThurston wrote:Challenging is exactly like fantasy and just kills assault armies...

Then it's not like Fantasy. The key problem I can see with challenges is that there is no equivalent to the overkill rule from fantasy. If it were exactly like fantasy, then it would be a lot more forgiving to assault specialists.

htj wrote:

MJThurston wrote:Challenging is exactly like fantasy and just kills assault armies...

Then it's not like Fantasy. The key problem I can see with challenges is that there is no equivalent to the overkill rule from fantasy. If it were exactly like fantasy, then it would be a lot more forgiving to assault specialists.

This is exactly what we have experienced being able to sacrifice a naked sarge to limit SoWB or Mepheston to one wound is quite beardy in terms of controlling a blender.

tgf wrote:

htj wrote:

MJThurston wrote:Challenging is exactly like fantasy and just kills assault armies...

Then it's not like Fantasy. The key problem I can see with challenges is that there is no equivalent to the overkill rule from fantasy. If it were exactly like fantasy, then it would be a lot more forgiving to assault specialists.

This is exactly what we have experienced being able to sacrifice a naked sarge to limit SoWB or Mepheston to one wound is quite beardy in terms of controlling a blender.

Mm-hmm. I've got dark images of my Bloodthirster being stuck in endless fights with Sergeants whilst lucky mooks jeer and throw rocks at him.

The witch rule of rolling a D6 is like a dis-spell roll.

First off it's just dispel, two that's not even remotely how dispelling works in fantasy. It's like saying Ward saves are the exact same as Invulnerable saves.

"You mean I just got into assault after all the anti-assault rules and then you can hide behind a seargeant?" That's fair!

Should assault with more than one model than.