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.

Hi guys,

This is a bit of a spin-off from the rather contentious Tau thread that's currently running over on the discussions forum. I personally believe that a lot of the problem people have with Tau is not inherent to the Tau codex itself, but the fact that it is so difficult to get across the table and exploit their vulnerability to close combat. It seems like a number of the other contributors to that thread were also saying similar things.

With that in mind I would propose that units should be allowed to assault out of any vehicle that has remained stationary or moved less than combat speed, but with the attack counting as a disordered charge through difficult terrain, To my mind this would bring back the utility of transport vehicles, whilst not being over powered or negating the premium paid for genuine assault vehicles.

So, what do you think?

Or simply make it a tactical decision.

Units that disembark from a non-open-topped/assault vehicle, can declare an assault the same turn, by doing this, they focus all their attention and skill to running and engage their targets, so they can't do anything during the shooting phase of the same turn.

 Slayer le boucher wrote:
Or simply make it a tactical decision.

Units that disembark from a non-open-topped/assault vehicle, can declare an assault the same turn, by doing this, they focus all their attention and skill to running and engage their targets, so they can't do anything during the shooting phase of the same turn.

That is a false drawback. If something is going to be assaulting, shooting is either going to be a secondary concern or detrimental because it will adversely impact the charge distance.

This does nothing to make it a tactical decision.

You could allow assault out of non-assault/open-top vehicle as just reduce them to int. 1

Allow assaults from stationary vehicles, allow assaults from outflank (and reserves in general), allow consolidation into combat X times per turn. Mix and match depending on how much help you think melee needs. The two first are probably fairly uncontroversial anyway, considering it wasn't OP in 5th, before shooting got buffed.

Maybe make assaulting after disembarking into a disordered charge?

Imperial Deceit wrote:
You could allow assault out of non-assault/open-top vehicle as just reduce them to int. 1

I don't like this as it's still too powerful, especially in armies that always strike last anyway.

That was why I suggested it also counts as disordered, because you lose your bonus attack for charging IIRC.

I was thinking of allowing charging after running and making charge 4d3.

I would personally like to see charging from a vehicle at combat speed or less being a disordered charge (so no charge bonuses including furious charge, is that right?).

It is a bit of hit for some units like blood claws and berzerkers who get extra charge bonuses but it has got to be better than standing around like a goon for a turn to get shot.

Actaully I was thinking of units being able to move or charge [not both] when they get out of a vehicle.

 sing your life wrote:
Actaully I was thinking of units being able to move or charge [not both] when they get out of a vehicle.

Should have been clearer in my original post, but yes, this is what I intended.

Making it easier to charge in a lot of situations would help; in 5th edition you could Run and Charge in the same turn if you had Fleet of Foot, and in the last Space Marine Codex Vanguard Veterans could charge instead of shooting after Deep Striking. Putting those rules back on more units in addition to permitting units to charge out of more vehicles would make assault much more viable in the face of Overwatch.

 Jadenim wrote:
Hi guys,

This is a bit of a spin-off from the rather contentious Tau thread that's currently running over on the discussions forum. I personally believe that a lot of the problem people have with Tau is not inherent to the Tau codex itself, but the fact that it is so difficult to get across the table and exploit their vulnerability to close combat. It seems like a number of the other contributors to that thread were also saying similar things.

With that in mind I would propose that units should be allowed to assault out of any vehicle that has remained stationary or moved less than combat speed, but with the attack counting as a disordered charge through difficult terrain, To my mind this would bring back the utility of transport vehicles, whilst not being over powered or negating the premium paid for genuine assault vehicles.

So, what do you think?

I like this a lot, this is what GW should have done. Maybe even going at I 1 also would be a draw back like that other guy said.

Imperial Deceit wrote:
You could allow assault out of non-assault/open-top vehicle as just reduce them to int. 1

^^ this ^^

*and* turn it into a "Disordered Charge", meaning that under no circumstances can you gain charge bonus, OR multi charge.

Basically applying a bunch of negative penalties are good draw backs imo.

Want to take it further for the defenders? Give them an option to overwatch the transport instead of the charging models before they disembark; doing so would allow you one shot, a grenade, to hopefully mess up the inside of the transport. Rolling a six would pin the assaulting squad inside the transport meaning they can't do anything for the entire turn. Would be similar to a death or glory attack.

Kinda dis-engaging the brain/finger filter and just letting it flow.

Probably wouldn't work, sounded kinda cool in my head.

I would treat charging after disembarking from a stationary vehicle as moving through DT (so init 1 and 3d6 discard highest) and a disordered charge, letting abilities that ignore those rules continue to do so.

You'd need Heroic Intervention, Move Through Cover, and Assault Grenades to get through all of those disadvantages. Vanguard Vets would possibly worth their points with this.

Our group decided that both ways, i.e. always able to assault into another unit after combat or never being able to were BOTH extreme circumstances. So we compromised and allow it part of the time.

If a unit rolling its consolidation move after winning a combat is in range of another enemy unit, it may attempt to lock the new unit in close combat. However, the enemy unit may try to avoid getting locked by rolling a die - if the roll is higher than the consolidation roll, the victorious unit may not engage a new enemy unit.

I had the idea that if a Charge roll wasn't enough to get into combat then the charging unit was still allowed to move up to half the charge distance towards the unit they wanted to charge. Overwatch would be resolved as normal and so the charging unit never took a chance when they opted for a charge instead of a Run move this turn.
This would make it that move easy to charge the next turn and the enemy would still have a chance of shooting at them again.

Counting it as a Disordered charge is not a good idea.

Specially for Zerkers..., 3 of their rules can't be used if they make a disordered charge...

I think they fixed close combat. I'm not real keen on re-breaking it.

There is no need to house rule CC. 6th ed made it on par with shooting. The changes to fearless, charge range, weapon AP and various other boosts such as movement changes made melee a very viable option.

It's just sad that few have noticed that. Tau can't shoot you to death if you're in melee.

EVIL INC wrote:
I think they fixed close combat. I'm not real keen on re-breaking it.

Are...are you serious?

Fifth edition was by and large a shooty edition of MSU transport spam. Sixth is home of the 2++ re-rollable deathstars that are good at shooting and assault, as well as Eldar/Tau gunlines. There isn't a single codex currently strong enough to field an assault army that could even rival what Eldar and Tau can put out in the shooting phase, assuming both players have equal skill.

Assault took a heavy beating this edition. Shooting is king, especially coupled with the prevalence of Eldar and Tau everywhere ignoring cover, and even Grav weapons in C:SM.

On topic, giving back assault from outflank/reserves/infiltrate and transports that haven't moved would put some teeth back in. Don't know how much, but I'd start from there and play test.

Taking a heavy beating in order to make it more balanced and unbroken does not mean it is weakened to the point of uselessness. While before it was the no brainer option to just take a bunch of close combat guys for the autowin, you are now forced to play intelligently using tactics and strategy regardless of what style army you use..

EVIL INC wrote:
Taking a heavy beating in order to make it more balanced and unbroken does not mean it is weakened to the point of uselessness. While before it was the no brainer option to just take a bunch of close combat guys for the autowin, you are now forced to play intelligently using tactics and strategy regardless of what style army you use..

When you say before, are you speaking of 5th? An edition ruled by MSU Razorback spam and cheap transports? Even the dedicated assault armies still laoded up on as many good shooting options as possible.

Close combat has taken a significant nerf over the course of two edition now, made worse by the relative power levels of shooting centric armies versus close combat ones.

If you somehow believe assault is even in the same league as shooting, please point out which codices are fielding the best assault armies, and why all the top tournament armies are Eldar, Tau, Daemons or some allied combination of them.

There's a reason you're one of very few people to even think assault is balanced. You haven't discovered something no one else has seen, or developed a strategy we just can't comprehend. There are players significantly better than you or I who play this competitively at large tournaments against equally skilled players fielding the best lists possible. The overwhelming consensus is that shooting is king and assault takes a back seat.

I think EVIL INC was specifically referring to Tau with the "take a bunch of close combat guys for the autowin" comment.

EDIT: Fighting Tau, to clarify.

Yes, tau specifically are the broken shoothy army.
All told, bringing close combat to where it should be is not a bad thing. Where in previous editions (5th included although 5th was not as bad as earlier ones) close combat was the number one game winning way to win, the current edition requires that close combat use tactics and strategy instead of just taking a bunch of close combat units and running towards the enemy.
It is a science fiction game with guns. Shooting and shooting combined with assault is supposed to be more powerful than pure assault. Pure assault should play a part where it can be a game changer if used correctly but it should not be the only way to win. You will notice that even elder and daemons have a combination of shooting and close combat elements and that the winning armies make an effect use of the two elements combined.
Winning should require a combination of all game elements working together. This is something a lot here have forgotten. Another thing is that it is a GAME. There is no need to get bent outta shape over it.

My Genestealers getting shot to death immediately after Outflanking would disagree that close combat was the "number one game winning way to win". I think the line of Imperial Guard tanks would disagree, too.

Ignore Evil Inc, he believes all editions had the came CC as 3rd edition. He derailed another post like this a while back as well, he honestly believes 5th edition assault beat out mech, razorbacks, and shooting, despite the prevalence of things like Razorback wolves, razorback SM, Psybolt dreadnoughts and dakkadreads in general.

Even 4th edition was mostly about shooting.

I think the main problem with CC is that the dedicated CC units just aren't good enough at it, or if they are, they're not good enough at getting there. Apart from Assault Terminators. The lack of ability to charge after deep striking/outflanking/disembarking in general is a serious problem - while shooting units suffer absolutely no penalty in exactly the same situation.

Take Tyranid Warriors, for example. They're pretty terrible, honestly. Building them for close combat is basically pointless because they will only get there if you are incredibly lucky. However, they are excellent in close combat. Even Genestealers, which used to be the premier close combat unit in 40k, have serious problems.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
I think the main problem with CC is that the dedicated CC units just aren't good enough at it, or if they are, they're not good enough at getting there.

Nah, the main problem with CC is that GW has made a shooting-focused game (as a scifi wargame should be) but keeps making units/armies that have to assault to do anything. The solution is to reduce the percentage of each army that is spent on dedicated assault units and make it more proportional to the usefulness of CC.