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.

Martel732 wrote:
Many, many more are reporting success with gun lines.

I don't see more people reporting success with "gunlines" than assault armies. Actually, it's mostly mobile short-ranged shooting armies (Tau commanders, deep striking scions spamming plasmaguns, MSU mechanized SoB, etc) reporting success-- and these aren't gunlines, and many of their players have stated their biggest threat doesn't come from another shooting army but rather a well played melee army (such as genestealers or horde boyz).

Martel732 wrote:
Also remember I typically play against people who are very proficient.

Comparatively speaking, I'm sure.

I gotta be honest, I don't even know what that looks like. I think lists need a minimum threshold of standoff weapons in 8th. Because things like plasma bugs happen. That makes melee really hard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Many, many more are reporting success with gun lines.

I don't see more people reporting success with "gunlines" than assault armies. Actually, it's mostly mobile short-ranged shooting armies (Tau commanders, deep striking scions spamming plasmaguns, MSU mechanized SoB, etc) reporting success-- and these aren't gunlines, and many of their players have stated their biggest threat doesn't come from another shooting army but rather a well played melee army (such as genestealers or horde boyz).

Martel732 wrote:
Also remember I typically play against people who are very proficient.

Comparatively speaking, I'm sure.

Genestealers and horde boyz are way more efficient than marine assault units.

It's even more likely we're operating at a level you don't understand, hence you think BA are still viable in their current form in 8th. They aren't.

Martel732 wrote:
It's even more likely we're operating at a level you don't understand

Holy crap lol. I can't even finish reading your post without bursting in to laughter.

Oh i thought we were talking about marine assault armies, not nids and orks. I assume they are better at it.

I didn't bring them up.

Marine assault elements are still paying for stats they really can't use well like BS. It all goes back to 40K heavily punishing generalists, regardless of what some posters will have you believe. Marines were a crap list in 6th/7th without magical formations of free units and superfriends death stars. BA were the embodiment of that, having no useful formations, nor any death stars. Because the marine statline was/is not efficient.

You want specialists. It's why Eldar have been strong since... forever it seems. IG now have specialists aplenty. That's why they dominate.

Problem is mainly assault marines imo. Rly underwhelming dps for being put in really high danger.

Vanguards and DC are better, but still not competitive against the best units in the game. Plasma scions, for example, will always be able to first strike them. They also just don't have the killing power to get through Orks/gaunts/conscripts/brimstone horrors.

jcd386 wrote:
Oh i thought we were talking about marine assault armies, not nids and orks. I assume they are better at it.

I was talking about assault as a whole. That said, this:

jcd386 wrote:
I'd be curious to see what people would consider a competitive marine melee focused army, because I'm not sure i see it.

Is a good question.

How do you define "melee-focused"? Do they have to have jump packs and absolutely no shooting?

Right now, most things that can equip jump packs actually benefit more from being in a rhino.

A very important thing to consider in the shooty vs assaulty is the LOS blocking terrain in your metas. It makes a huge difference on the effective of shooting armies.

We need the sweet spot, because too much terrain empowers the artillery of the IG. This is a very rare situation, imo.

Apparently, a lot of people put tons of LoS blocking terrain on the board, when I've never seen GW itself do that. GW prefers area terrain, or terrain that has lots of gaps like windows and holes blasted in to walls.

IMO, GW has it right. There should be more area terrain than LoS blocking terrain; unless you're playing with city fight rules, LoS blockers should be the exception, not the norm.

That's the functional equivalent of planet bowling ball, though. As I said, BA really need LoS to hide jumpers, but not so much that artillery becomes immortal.

Martel732 wrote:
That's the functional equivalent of planet bowling ball, though.

Not really. Because having a lot more area terrain means you ahve a lot more protection vs shooting units, especially marines with their small squad sizes (just try getting a cover save with 30 boyz on the move!). Having a lot of area terrain benefits assault armies more than shooting armies when using the basic terrain rules, and still arguably benefits assault armies more than shooting armies when using the advanced rules (though it's more even there, since woods, craters, and obstacles halve charge distance, though the latter only against specific kinds of units and they don't provide cover).

Having mostly LoS blocking terrain, to the point that your enemy can position multiple tanks in such a way taht they cannot be fired at by any single unit in your deployment zone, is definitely overdoing it.

I agree with Martel, area terrain doesn't help assault marines anymore than it did in past editions. they don't have the survivability to jump across the table and make it into CC with enough bodies to not only defeat the squad your aiming at, but continue on to more. You need to be able to not get shot with LoS blocking terrain. Frontline discussed this today and was saying the exact same thing. Tables need a couple large pieces of LoS blocking terrain or games are too up and down.
Tabled one game, table your opponent the next.

At least back in 5th, DC had a 5+ FnP on top of their armor save. That was barely enough to see them into CC, now with terrain in it's current incarnation, +1 to armor save ain't going to do gak for them against squads of rapid firing plasma and armies of conscripts pouring shots into them. Your just going to lose too many guys to be effective.

Short of Khorn berzerkers, marines just aren't the greatest CC units, they don't have the numbers, stats or rules.

We need some pretty damn good rules in the codex if anyone expects our assault to be very good, or competitive.

It's almost like i've played with these guys a lot.

bobafett012 wrote:
, now with terrain in it's current incarnation, +1 to armor save ain't going to do gak for them against squads of rapid firing plasma and armies of conscripts pouring shots into them.

Raising an MEQ's 3+ save to 2+ means it will take on average 50 shots for a conscript to deal one damage to it (50 shots, 16.667 hits, 5.556 wounds, 0.924 kills, rounded up to one to be generous to the conscripts). So if the conscript squad is completely undamaged-- which is incredibly unlikely, in spite of Martel's incessant whining about conscripts supposedly being nigh unkillable it's quite easy to cause them enough casualties to noticably reduce their firepower with anything even so simple as bolter shock-- it might on average kill two marines who are in cover within 12" of the conscript squad. This compared to out of cover where they might kill just shy of four marines. So... it actually does help against conscripts. It helps a lot, in fact, basically cutting their damage output in half.

Rapid fire plasma is still a problem of course; the cover save goes from 0.694 to 0.556 kills per rapid fire overcharge-- not a substantial increase compared to the conscripts, but it's still noticeable in that you get a 5+ save instead of a 6+. Being so terrified of the enemy forces that you forego smart tactical decisions doesn't make you a good commander. Massed low-power shooting is exactly the kind of thing that cover saves help against, especially for MEQ.

Cover is great, and if you can be in it, you should be.

Cover reduces damage to marines by:
AP-: 50%
AP1: 33%
AP2: 25%
AP3: 20%
AP4: 16%

But, you have to have a lot of on foot marines in your army to really start noticing / taking advantage of the savings.

In mech lists, i don't think i have much more than 10 marines down on the table at a time, so most lists can probably kill them, cover or no, even if it takes them 100% or 50% more fire power to do so than if they weren't in cover. Then whatever left over anti infantry fire they have mostly bounces off my tanks. So did cover help? Sure but not much. I'd still try to get in it, though.

If you have 70 marines on foot, cover becomes a lot more noticable, as there isn't anything else to shoot at, so you really get to make the most out of the cover, reducing the incoming damage to your army by x% depending on the AP of the weapon. Losing 60 marines to bolters goes down to 30 if you are in cover. Assault cannons killing 60 goes to 40. This can be game changing as it means a large percentage of your army still alive.

This is why it's usually a good idea to either go mostly tanks or mostly infantry, since you can mostly ignore a lot of the enemy firepower.

 Melissia wrote:

bobafett012 wrote:
, now with terrain in it's current incarnation, +1 to armor save ain't going to do gak for them against squads of rapid firing plasma and armies of conscripts pouring shots into them.

Raising an MEQ's 3+ save to 2+ means it will take on average 50 shots for a conscript to deal one damage to it (50 shots, 16.667 hits, 5.556 wounds, 0.924 kills, rounded up to one to be generous to the conscripts). So if the conscript squad is completely undamaged-- which is incredibly unlikely, in spite of Martel's incessant whining about conscripts supposedly being nigh unkillable it's quite easy to cause them enough casualties to noticably reduce their firepower with anything even so simple as bolter shock-- it might on average kill two marines who are in cover within 12" of the conscript squad. This compared to out of cover where they might kill just shy of four marines. So... it actually does help against conscripts. It helps a lot, in fact, basically cutting their damage output in half.

Rapid fire plasma is still a problem of course; the cover save goes from 0.694 to 0.556 kills per rapid fire overcharge-- not a substantial increase compared to the conscripts, but it's still noticeable in that you get a 5+ save instead of a 6+. Being so terrified of the enemy forces that you forego smart tactical decisions doesn't make you a good commander. Massed low-power shooting is exactly the kind of thing that cover saves help against, especially for MEQ.

Mathhammer is great, I it use all the time, but i've also played so many games since the late 90's and understand how straight math doesn't paint the whole picture either. Your scenario assumes the best case for those BA jumpers, that there is in fact area terrain right near by that conscript blob (or any unit for that matter), they take only 1 round of shooting , no overwatch, no HQs that provide auras like re-roll 1's for their shooting, no orders to provide re-rolls for wounds or shooting, You know what's even better than losing 1-4 marines to massed fire or plasma etc weapons? Losing none because you can jump behind a building that blocks line of sight to some or all units.

This is all really beside the point anyways, my point was that shooting overall, not just conscripts is currently going to make playing assault JP BA armies an uphill battle at best unfortunately. They don't have the punch that dedicated CC units have, they don't have the survivability either, just as it has been the last few editions of 40k for the BA jumpers armies. Actually, I don't know much about 7th because i didn't play in that edition but from what I've read, BA were bottom tier in 7th, and they were definitely bottom tier in 6th.

jcd386 wrote:
Cover is great, and if you can be in it, you should be.

This is why it's usually a good idea to either go mostly tanks or mostly infantry, since you can mostly ignore a lot of the enemy firepower.

Of course, I don't anyone is advocating not using cover every chance you get, we're mainly talking about LoS blocking terrain because losing zero units compared to any is better.

The problem with the mostly tanks or mostly infantry with BA jumpers is that you have no answer to high toughness monsters/vehicles etc. It's even worse now because with this 9" DS, you will not be able to DS in close enough to utilize things like melta and such and anything important will be bubble wrapped anyhow.

bobafett012 wrote:
Your scenario assumes the best case for those BA jumpers

Your complaints about them assumes the worst, which is not helpful at all-- and furthermore, mine actually assumed the best case scenario in that the conscripts haven't taken any damage whatsoever. By rounding up I actually gave conscripts the benefit there. RErolling 1s to hit on those conscripts is a hilarious waste of an order.

And you know what's better for a shooty army than cover? Being able to hide their ignores-line-of-sight units behind terrain that makes them impossible to be shot at. And that's actually more useful to them than the assault army ,because of the assault army is hiding behind los blocking terrain, it's not doing any damage, where the ignores-los unit still is.

I'm not even disagreeing here, just trying to tone down the damn hyperbole. Jump ASM are definitely not the most powerful unit around. Especially not in that minimum 5-man squad with a bare bones sarge I see so often. I simply think they're still potentially useful.

You'd probably be better off with tacticals rather than ASM regardless-- tacticals have a better alpha strike than most people give them credit for (in fact, one of the better examples on how to kill a conscript squad in one turn involved a trio of tactical squads, people really underestimate TSMs); even barebones bolter shock to charge is equivalent to what assault marines get, except they do more damage before overwatch than the asm do, though they do less damage in subsequent turns of combat... and that's before you add in equipment. Put a pair of squads in a rhino or one squad and a character in a razor, and they're just as mobile. Can still even use them as an assault unit, you just need to make sure to preface their assault with a round of shooting.

bobafett012 wrote:

The problem with the mostly tanks or mostly infantry with BA jumpers is that you have no answer to high toughness monsters/vehicles etc.

Thats wrong.

p5freak wrote:

bobafett012 wrote:

The problem with the mostly tanks or mostly infantry with BA jumpers is that you have no answer to high toughness monsters/vehicles etc.

Thats wrong.

Sorry, said that wrong, mostly tanks can easily deal with high toughness, mostly jumpers can't

Chaplain will be if you want more dmg, priest if you want to rez, but rezzing is kinda meh on DC. But you should be planning to buff more than 5 guys to justify the character investment for just 5 guys they might as well go alone then. If your on foot Corbulo > Chaplain the rez is 75% success with re-roll and bonus attacks on sixes. But then again on foot Meph can give 4++ and +1 attack and does good dmg himself.

Dedicated elite assault units are in a bad spot atm, hopefully the codex will address that.

(no aura)

VS MEQ:
15 Powersword attacks: 4,17
15 Poweraxe attacks: 4,444

VS Conscripts:
15 Powersword attacks: 6,667
15 Poweraxe attacks: 6,667

VS Dreadnought/Rhino
15 Powersword attacks: 2,78
15 Poweraxe attacks: 2,22

Vs TEQ
15 Powersword attacks: 3,33
15 Poweraxe attacks: 3,33

Vs Bike MEQ:
15 Powersword attacks: 2,78
15 Poweraxe attacks: 3,33

(Chaplain re-roll aura)

VS MEQ:
15 Powersword attacks: 5,56
15 Poweraxe attacks: 5,93

VS Conscripts:
15 Powersword attacks: 8,889
15 Poweraxe attacks: 8,889

VS Dreadnought/Rhino
15 Powersword attacks: 3,70
15 Poweraxe attacks: 2,96

Vs TEQ
15 Powersword attacks: 4,44
15 Poweraxe attacks: 4,44

Vs Bike MEQ:
15 Powersword attacks: 3,70
15 Poweraxe attacks: 4,44

(Priest str aura)

VS MEQ:
15 Powersword attacks: 5,56
15 Poweraxe attacks: 4.44

VS Conscripts:
15 Powersword attacks: 6,667
15 Poweraxe attacks: 8,33

VS Dreadnought/Rhino
15 Powersword attacks: 2,78
15 Poweraxe attacks: 2,22

Vs TEQ
15 Powersword attacks: 4,44
15 Poweraxe attacks: 3,33

Vs Bike MEQ:
15 Powersword attacks: 4,17
15 Poweraxe attacks: 4,44

bobafett012 wrote:

p5freak wrote:

bobafett012 wrote:

The problem with the mostly tanks or mostly infantry with BA jumpers is that you have no answer to high toughness monsters/vehicles etc.

Thats wrong.

Sorry, said that wrong, mostly tanks can easily deal with high toughness, mostly jumpers can't

Thats still wrong.

@ Melissia: are you using a full CC list? My only two victories have been achieved via a simple and sad shooty list like if I was an ultramarine: the other 8 games I tried to play as a blood angel and got tabled.
We re a group of around 10 people playin the game, two of them started back in 4th edition and they all agree that our index is quite garbage. My buddy tried 4 games with BA and got also tabled and he decided to bench them and carry on with his tyranid army.
However I'm open-minded and if you re having great success with your CC list, I want to try it out too.

Here is a batrep showing how "great" assault termis are. Two 5 model units with claws did 0 damage, 400pts wasted. The ones with SS and TH did pretty good, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ1aZrPNvQM

I have no faith in the codex to fix a thing. Just like the 7th ed codex.

p5freak wrote:

bobafett012 wrote:

p5freak wrote:

bobafett012 wrote:

The problem with the mostly tanks or mostly infantry with BA jumpers is that you have no answer to high toughness monsters/vehicles etc.

Thats wrong.

Sorry, said that wrong, mostly tanks can easily deal with high toughness, mostly jumpers can't

Thats still wrong.

No it's very correct, and has been for a long time. At least before with the old DS rules you could risk the mishap to get close, now armies just spread out squads to deny DS anywhere of substance. I played many games now in 8th where my opponents just deployed squads like cultists or the like and i literally didn't have anywhere that was 9" away to DS. If you try to jump across the board, they just get shot to pieces before you get there.

The current cover rules often force you into the choice of staying in cover or getting into optimal assault position. LoS blocking is so much better for assault units, especially jump assault units.

bobafett012 wrote:


No it's very correct, and has been for a long time. At least before with the old DS rules you could risk the mishap to get close, now armies just spread out squads to deny DS anywhere of substance. I played many games now in 8th where my opponents just deployed squads like cultists or the like and i literally didn't have anywhere that was 9" away to DS. If you try to jump across the board, they just get shot to pieces before you get there.

Those units needing captain babysitters makes them so inefficient.