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.

rigeld2 wrote:

madtankbloke wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

The only options, as I see it, are to either allow shooting into combat, in which case the assault unit is no more vulnerable or punished for killing all it's foes than it would be for staying in combat, or allowing consolidation into combat, giving the assault unit a chance to remain engaged if it wipes out the enemy. IMO, allowing consolidation into combat is the best option, and given the hits assault units have already taken in this edition, I don't think it would be as game-breaking as it used to be.

The major problem with that, and i can see where you are coming from, is that it allows you to take what amounts to 4 actions each turn (move, shoot, assault, assault). This is an increase on the 3 (move, shoot, assault) an assault unit can usually make, and is double what a shooting unit can make (move, shoot). if you are all for the consolidating after a successful round of close combat, how about you also add in a rule where if you wipe out a unit in the shooting phase, all units that shot it get an additional round of shooting (because its pretty much the same thing).

Yeah, Genestealers, Hormagaunts and a few others have absolutely *stellar* shooting phases.

Guardsmen have equally stellar assault phases, just to play devil's advocate.

rigeld2 wrote:

madtankbloke wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

The only options, as I see it, are to either allow shooting into combat, in which case the assault unit is no more vulnerable or punished for killing all it's foes than it would be for staying in combat, or allowing consolidation into combat, giving the assault unit a chance to remain engaged if it wipes out the enemy. IMO, allowing consolidation into combat is the best option, and given the hits assault units have already taken in this edition, I don't think it would be as game-breaking as it used to be.

The major problem with that, and i can see where you are coming from, is that it allows you to take what amounts to 4 actions each turn (move, shoot, assault, assault). This is an increase on the 3 (move, shoot, assault) an assault unit can usually make, and is double what a shooting unit can make (move, shoot). if you are all for the consolidating after a successful round of close combat, how about you also add in a rule where if you wipe out a unit in the shooting phase, all units that shot it get an additional round of shooting (because its pretty much the same thing).

Yeah, Genestealers, Hormagaunts and a few others have absolutely *stellar* shooting phases.

lol yes overwatch isnt good enough, he needs triple shooting.

I can understand your argument, you want your assault units to do better, and not get shot to pieces in subsequent turns. But there are good reasons why you get shot to pieces in subsequent turns, and those reasons are why it probably wasn't a good idea to launch that particular assault in the first place.

I think its unrealistic to expect a single unit to carve a bloody path through an enemy army with almost no penalties, if you want an attack to succeed, you should attack in force, with multiple units, engaging multiple units, having softened up those units beforehand. I've seen assault units get chewed up because I, or my opponent attacked either too early, too late or unsupported and in the wrong place.

madtankbloke wrote:
I can understand your argument, you want your assault units to do better, and not get shot to pieces in subsequent turns. But there are good reasons why you get shot to pieces in subsequent turns, and those reasons are why it probably wasn't a good idea to launch that particular assault in the first place.

I think its unrealistic to expect a single unit to carve a bloody path through an enemy army with almost no penalties, if you want an attack to succeed, you should attack in force, with multiple units, engaging multiple units, having softened up those units beforehand. I've seen assault units get chewed up because I, or my opponent attacked either too early, too late or unsupported and in the wrong place.

I don't mean to harp on like a broken record here, but if you want an attack to succeed, attacking in force with multiple units is not the way to do it. Then you're more likely to wipe out the enemy, leaving yourself exposed. It's better to launch a weaker attack, that takes two turns to complete, leaving your forces protected in combat during the enemy turn.

I don't think anyone wants assault units to just do better, and not get shot to pieces in subsequent turns. The issue is that they only get shot to pieces in subsequent turns if they pull off an effective assault. If they perform poorly, they are safe. That's the issue for me. If I could, it would be beneficial for me to only roll a handful of my attacks and simply stop attacking with the rest of my models when I have reduced the enemy to one or two models.

I understand what you're getting at with the number of actions and engagements a unit can make in a turn, but I don't really see that as an issue for the most part. Certainly it's already possible for a single unit to assault multiple enemies in a single turn. It would definitely improve assault as a viable tactic, but given the general nerf to assault in this edition I don't think it would be as drastic as it used to be.

 Evertras wrote:

rigeld wrote:Yeah, Genestealers, Hormagaunts and a few others have absolutely *stellar* shooting phases.

Guardsmen have equally stellar assault phases, just to play devil's advocate.

Actually, no. Guard blobs are severely underestimated as assault units, and they have a pretty strong shooting phase as well.
There are a significant number of assault units that literally can't fire, meaning its really just another half movement phase.

When shooting units have a 0WS you can compare them to dedicated assault units.

kb305 wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I still fail to see the OP's statement that the assault rules are broken. Risky? yes, for certain units. Broken? nope.

ok then, i guess you wont mind if i only roll one half of my melee attacks. i dont want to do too well, im only aiming to kill part of your unit.

i wont be activating any of my special powers or psyker abilities either - again, im just aiming to kill part of your unit, being mediocre is best right now.

if you dont like the term broken how does nonsensical, stupid or terrible work for you?

wow. I have never heard anyone who builds an assault-heavy army (or any army with assault units) whine that the rules didn't make sense or were stupid.

Nonsensical would mean you were using something upon which to base a sensible close-combat situation... hmmmm, what could we do to compare? oh yeah, the real world. Let's give Spotsylvania Courthouse a try. The Federal army charged into the mule shoe salient to break the line, only to find themselves too far behind the broken line to be effective. Or Marathon, where an outnumbered Greek army allowed their center to fall to allow the Persians to over-extend and fall victim to a double-envelopment of their flanks.

Poor tactical choices don't make the rules "nonsensical, stupid... terrible" or "broken."

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Poor tactical choices don't make the rules "nonsensical, stupid... terrible" or "broken."

You're still missing the point. It's only a poor tactical choice if the unit performs well. If it performs poorly, it's a good tactical choice.

That's the part that grinds. Not that a unit can be punished for over-extending, but that it can only be punished when it performs well. If it performs poorly it is protected from its over extension.

 Kaldor wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Poor tactical choices don't make the rules "nonsensical, stupid... terrible" or "broken."

You're still missing the point. It's only a poor tactical choice if the unit performs well. If it performs poorly, it's a good tactical choice.

That's the part that grinds. Not that a unit can be punished for over-extending, but that it can only be punished when it performs well. If it performs poorly it is protected from its over extension.

It's not the unit that's being punished, its stupid tactical play by the player. Blow through a weak unit near one that can shoot you... And you get shot. Pace yourself, use challenges and appropriate support and you'll do fine. If this is too much nuance for you to grasp, play Grey Knights.

I can't imagine that you can't see the probable outcome and timing of an assault. Wishing that forces with guns don't get to use them at full effect is just silly. This reminds me of all the house rules that club vets make to protect their favorite force from changing meta... Which just causes stagnation and unimagnitive play, all to serve selfish TFG neckbeards.

I can predict the outcome. And then if I roll above average, I'm punished. That makes perfect sense, I must be a poor tactical player because I couldn't predict the exact dice rolls - only what is average. I'm sorry about that... Man. The games I'm losing because I can't predict the future.

rigeld2 wrote:
I can predict the outcome. And then if I roll above average, I'm punished. That makes perfect sense, I must be a poor tactical player because I couldn't predict the exact dice rolls - only what is average. I'm sorry about that... Man. The games I'm losing because I can't predict the future.

Well free consolidation is another roll of the die, you're screwed.

 Lobukia wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I can predict the outcome. And then if I roll above average, I'm punished. That makes perfect sense, I must be a poor tactical player because I couldn't predict the exact dice rolls - only what is average. I'm sorry about that... Man. The games I'm losing because I can't predict the future.

Well free consolidation is another roll of the die, you're screwed.

And on average, I'll get a 3" consolidation. But there's no punishment for rolling well on that - I don't have to move all 6 inches.
Rolling 8 Rends on 12 hits punishes me by leaving my Genestealers open to be shot at.

 Lobukia wrote:
It's not the unit that's being punished, its stupid tactical play by the player. Blow through a weak unit near one that can shoot you... And you get shot. Pace yourself, use challenges and appropriate support and you'll do fine.

I shouldn't be trying to manipulate the rules to do worse in combat. It's a derpy rule mechanic that rewards poor performance while punishing good performance.

 Kaldor wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
It's not the unit that's being punished, its stupid tactical play by the player. Blow through a weak unit near one that can shoot you... And you get shot. Pace yourself, use challenges and appropriate support and you'll do fine.

I shouldn't be trying to manipulate the rules to do worse in combat. It's a derpy rule mechanic that rewards poor performance while punishing good performance.

No, but you should know when you're over-committing (which is how over penetration and isolation by momentum works in RL too). Plus a challenge (if you win) almost guarantees an assault ending on your turn. Look, I blow through enemy units all the time, and get shot for it. But you had better believe that those units that could shoot at that assault squad are going to have some pie plates and fire brought down on them too. The current rules reward combined and supported assaults, which I think is good. We could add firing into combat and consolidating into another assault, or just leave it as it is and add neither. Again, I feel for Nids that don't want to run the monster zoo... but everyone else besides Chaos Daemons I know inside and out, and I truly believe that you're fine, or if not, it isn't consolidation into assaults that would fix anything. I don't know a nice, non-condescending way to say it, but you're just not playing supported, thought out assaults right, or very well if in 6th ed you think consolidating into combat is a good idea for adding balance or gameplay worth to 40k.

yes...I whole heartedly agree that my massive ork mobs should be able to roll an entire army once one gets into combat because I leapfrog from unit to unit without my opponent getting the chance to shoot me like 4th edition.

Sounds like a totally solid idea guys, lets make this happen.

lobukia can you be my 40k life coach? you are obvs a tactical genius.

they should add a new decoy skill.
your unit sets up one fake enemy and pretends to melee it.
you are therefore locked in combat and cannot be shot at.

or a "hold back" skill. your unit makes really bad melee attacks to prolong the combat therefore avoiding all shooting in your opponents next turn. a unit with "hold back" may reroll successful hits in assaults in an attempt to get misses instead. some say this is also known as a "disciplined and ordered charge".

sometimes you gotta hold back the rage and try to suck to avoid being shot at -Kharn the Betrayer

kb305 wrote:
lobukia can you be my 40k life coach? you are obvs a tactical genius.

they should add a new decoy skill.
your unit sets up one fake enemy and pretends to melee it.
you are therefore locked in combat and cannot be shot at.

or a "hold back" skill. your unit makes really bad melee attacks to prolong the combat therefore avoiding all shooting in your opponents next turn. a unit with "hold back" may reroll successful hits in assaults in an attempt to get misses instead. some say this is also known as a "disciplined and ordered charge".

sometimes you gotta hold back the rage and try to suck to avoid being shot at -Kharn the Betrayer

I've got a better idea....

Charge reactions, in the same way as you have in WHFB, that way, when your uberassault unit of doom decides to try to charge my whole army, my bait unit can decide to run away instead, leaving you isolated in front of my army, looking rather stupid, right before they get gunned down in a hail of bolter and plasma shots.

It doesn't take a genius to work out that if you are worried that winning an assault isn't a good idea, then assaulting in the first place probably isn't a good idea either. Rather than say how being unable to consolidate into combat isn't fair, think about how you can use your assault units effectively, alter your strategy, use tactics and supporting units. To give you a little piece of advice every EVE online player ever has gotten at some point..

Adapt or Die

madtankbloke wrote:
It doesn't take a genius to work out that if you are worried that winning an assault isn't a good idea, then assaulting in the first place probably isn't a good idea either. Rather than say how being unable to consolidate into combat isn't fair, think about how you can use your assault units effectively, alter your strategy, use tactics and supporting units. To give you a little piece of advice every EVE online player ever has gotten at some point..

Adapt or Die

You're still missing the point. It's not about whether launching the assault is a good idea, or whether the unit will be in trouble after it, or if it's over extended, or anything like that.

It's about the fact that derpy rule mechanics mean that a bad assault is always better than a good one. It's never beneficial for me to win an assault on the turn I launch it. It's always better to win the assault in the second round of combat.

That should never be the case. I should never be hoping (barring bizarre circumstance) for a poor result from my units. I should always be hoping for the best result. And not some fuzzy, tactical definition of 'best'. I should always be hoping for the maximum potential wounds to be inflicted.

 Kaldor wrote:

madtankbloke wrote:
It doesn't take a genius to work out that if you are worried that winning an assault isn't a good idea, then assaulting in the first place probably isn't a good idea either. Rather than say how being unable to consolidate into combat isn't fair, think about how you can use your assault units effectively, alter your strategy, use tactics and supporting units. To give you a little piece of advice every EVE online player ever has gotten at some point..

Adapt or Die

You're still missing the point. It's not about whether launching the assault is a good idea, or whether the unit will be in trouble after it, or if it's over extended, or anything like that.

It's about the fact that derpy rule mechanics mean that a bad assault is always better than a good one. It's never beneficial for me to win an assault on the turn I launch it. It's always better to win the assault in the second round of combat.

That should never be the case. I should never be hoping (barring bizarre circumstance) for a poor result from my units. I should always be hoping for the best result. And not some fuzzy, tactical definition of 'best'. I should always be hoping for the maximum potential wounds to be inflicted.

No one is saying that your assaults shouldn't succeed brilliantly. We're just saying that if you don't like what is waiting for you on the other side, that's on you, not the system. The enemy's forces also shouldn't be all consigned to a slow death because one squad was engaged with a Death Star. Nor should one good assault make you bullet proof. All I see are people asking for an old rule to return because they want an easy button.

And I'm saying, that given 6" movements and pretty linear unit specialties, planning for rolling the victims of your assaults should be pretty straightforward and just is a fundemental skill for 40k. Unfortunately the current rules allow your opponent a chance to have success with his units too.

To be clear, I don't hope for slow assaults that I win before my turn starts (though I like it when that happens). I just make sure that I've set up assaults that either leave me in a good spot when I'm done, or that I'm prepared to take fire as the cost for putting my army in range of enemy guns.

You're not being punished for success, you're just either being punished for not planning a turn beyond the assault, or your having to let your opponent have an effect on the game too.

To be clear, I'm not really for consolidate into combat. I just think its absolutely stupid that I get punished for rolling well and that I have to hope I do poorly the turn I assault.

And it's not lack of planning - I plan a couple of turns in advance. It's just dumb that I have to plan on taking a lot of fire if I do well as opposed to not worrying about the unit if I do poorly.

 Lobukia wrote:

You're not being punished for success, you're just either being punished for not planning a turn beyond the assault, or your having to let your opponent have an effect on the game too.

Rolling better than average DOES punish you for being successful, though.

rigeld2 wrote:To be clear, I'm not really for consolidate into combat. I just think its absolutely stupid that I get punished for rolling well and that I have to hope I do poorly the turn I assault.

And it's not lack of planning - I plan a couple of turns in advance. It's just dumb that I have to plan on taking a lot of fire if I do well as opposed to not worrying about the unit if I do poorly.

I think, if anything the shooty units are the ones getting screwed. Many systems allow a unit to do true overwatch: forgo shooting to light up the next unit that comes into range, or pick an opponent and just shoot them whenever you can next. If anything, assault units and their players should be thrilled that you get magic protection from fire because an assault happened to finish on an odd turn.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:

You're not being punished for success, you're just either being punished for not planning a turn beyond the assault, or your having to let your opponent have an effect on the game too.

Rolling better than average DOES punish you for being successful, though.

So maybe the house rule you're looking for is just do one assault phase a game turn instead of two? After all your units are getting x2 the use of shooty units? Then results would be the same no matter when you finished the combat?

 Lobukia wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:To be clear, I'm not really for consolidate into combat. I just think its absolutely stupid that I get punished for rolling well and that I have to hope I do poorly the turn I assault.

And it's not lack of planning - I plan a couple of turns in advance. It's just dumb that I have to plan on taking a lot of fire if I do well as opposed to not worrying about the unit if I do poorly.

I think, if anything the shooty units are the ones getting screwed. Many systems allow a unit to do true overwatch: forgo shooting to light up the next unit that comes into range, or pick an opponent and just shoot them whenever you can next. If anything, assault units and their players should be thrilled that you get magic protection from fire because an assault happened to finish on an odd turn.

Yeah, we should totally be grateful that we get something useful, it's not like shooting is much more powerful than assaults or anything...

 Lobukia wrote:


So maybe the house rule you're looking for is just do one assault phase a game turn instead of two? After all your units are getting x2 the use of shooty units? Then results would be the same no matter when you finished the combat?

And shooty units get to attack from a range while melee units don't. Could we please stop coming up with silly suggestions that ignore the fact that shooting is more powerful than assaults already?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

And shooty units get to attack from a range while melee units don't. Could we please stop coming up with silly suggestions that ignore the fact that shooting is more powerful than assaults already?

I have a wide selection of assault units available to me in a marine army, off the top of my head, only one of them doesn't have any shooting abilities.
Assault marines have flamers and plasma pistols, tactical terminators have heavy weapons and storm bolters, bikes have TL bolters and a selection of assault options you can use before you assault. pretty much every assault unit i can think of has a nice selection of nasty close ranged weapons at their disposal.

So, generally speaking, a dedicated assault unit can get up close, SHOOT and then assault, now in my book, thats far more utility than a dedicated shooting unit has right there. and yes, there are some units that can't shoot at all, but those are more the exception than the rule

madtankbloke wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

And shooty units get to attack from a range while melee units don't. Could we please stop coming up with silly suggestions that ignore the fact that shooting is more powerful than assaults already?

I have a wide selection of assault units available to me in a marine army, off the top of my head, only one of them doesn't have any shooting abilities.
Assault marines have flamers and plasma pistols, tactical terminators have heavy weapons and storm bolters, bikes have TL bolters and a selection of assault options you can use before you assault. pretty much every assault unit i can think of has a nice selection of nasty close ranged weapons at their disposal.

So, generally speaking, a dedicated assault unit can get up close, SHOOT and then assault, now in my book, thats far more utility than a dedicated shooting unit has right there. and yes, there are some units that can't shoot at all, but those are more the exception than the rule

The thing all of those, except the Terminators (which isn't an assault unit to start with, but whatever) have in common is that they have short-range firepower, and almost never any heavy firepower. The only time you're going to be firing that stuff, with the exception of the TL Bolters on Bikes (which, again, is a primarily shooty unit), is when you're about to assault someone anyway. Compare that to stuff that can sit back and fire all game without having to worry about getting into range first.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

The thing all of those, except the Terminators (which isn't an assault unit to start with, but whatever) have in common is that they have short-range firepower, and almost never any heavy firepower. The only time you're going to be firing that stuff, with the exception of the TL Bolters on Bikes (which, again, is a primarily shooty unit), is when you're about to assault someone anyway. Compare that to stuff that can sit back and fire all game without having to worry about getting into range first.

generally, battles start with just over 24 inches seperating the 2 sides, as most basic weapons have a 24 inch range, then you most certainly do need to move them to get into range, dedicated heavy weapons units will naturally have a longer range, but you will still have to move them sometimes due to LOS reasons.
I have always found Tactical Terminators to be very competent at assaulting things because of their save, their close combat weapons and their higher than average base attacks.

Most assault units have pistols, which aside from a few notable exceptions, have a 12 inch range. if you fire at your maximum range you are comfortably outside assault range (notwithstanding the 1/36 chance of rolling double sixes. Add on to that most assault units i have encountered have better than average access to close ranged assault weapons (although admittedly almost no access to heavy weapons) and quite often the combination of speed and nasty close ranged firepower means often you don't 'have' to assault.

If you do assault, then there will be 3 possible outcomes:

1) you win, your enemy runs away, or is killed to the last man
2) you draw and/or remain locked in combat
3) you lose, you run away or are killed to the last man

now, when you set up an assault, it behooves you to be prepared for each of those outcomes, its called planning ahead. its no good assaulting that squishy unit of guardsmen who just 'happen' to have wandered in front of abaddon, and his deathstar of doom, i mean, its obvious bait, you know whats going to happen, you don't even have to roll the dice (the guardsmen die).
if your plan is relying on just a single unit to remain unscathed, and in close combat the whole game, seriously, you need a new plan

madtankbloke wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

The thing all of those, except the Terminators (which isn't an assault unit to start with, but whatever) have in common is that they have short-range firepower, and almost never any heavy firepower. The only time you're going to be firing that stuff, with the exception of the TL Bolters on Bikes (which, again, is a primarily shooty unit), is when you're about to assault someone anyway. Compare that to stuff that can sit back and fire all game without having to worry about getting into range first.

generally, battles start with just over 24 inches seperating the 2 sides, as most basic weapons have a 24 inch range, then you most certainly do need to move them to get into range, dedicated heavy weapons units will naturally have a longer range, but you will still have to move them sometimes due to LOS reasons.
I have always found Tactical Terminators to be very competent at assaulting things because of their save, their close combat weapons and their higher than average base attacks.

Most assault units have pistols, which aside from a few notable exceptions, have a 12 inch range. if you fire at your maximum range you are comfortably outside assault range (notwithstanding the 1/36 chance of rolling double sixes. Add on to that most assault units i have encountered have better than average access to close ranged assault weapons (although admittedly almost no access to heavy weapons) and quite often the combination of speed and nasty close ranged firepower means often you don't 'have' to assault.

If you do assault, then there will be 3 possible outcomes:

1) you win, your enemy runs away, or is killed to the last man
2) you draw and/or remain locked in combat
3) you lose, you run away or are killed to the last man

now, when you set up an assault, it behooves you to be prepared for each of those outcomes, its called planning ahead. its no good assaulting that squishy unit of guardsmen who just 'happen' to have wandered in front of abaddon, and his deathstar of doom, i mean, its obvious bait, you know whats going to happen, you don't even have to roll the dice (the guardsmen die).
if your plan is relying on just a single unit to remain unscathed, and in close combat the whole game, seriously, you need a new plan

And none of this changes the fact that shooting is much, much more dominant than close combat. Would a buff to melee really be too much? In my opinion, no.

 Kaldor wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Poor tactical choices don't make the rules "nonsensical, stupid... terrible" or "broken."

You're still missing the point. It's only a poor tactical choice if the unit performs well. If it performs poorly, it's a good tactical choice.

That's the part that grinds. Not that a unit can be punished for over-extending, but that it can only be punished when it performs well. If it performs poorly it is protected from its over extension.

"the part that grinds"? That would be called risk. No battle occurs without it. Ever watch genestealers that didn't get the job done early? They get boring, great shock troops usually turn into slowly dwindling forces.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Poor tactical choices don't make the rules "nonsensical, stupid... terrible" or "broken."

You're still missing the point. It's only a poor tactical choice if the unit performs well. If it performs poorly, it's a good tactical choice.

That's the part that grinds. Not that a unit can be punished for over-extending, but that it can only be punished when it performs well. If it performs poorly it is protected from its over extension.

"the part that grinds"? That would be called risk. No battle occurs without it. Ever watch genestealers that didn't get the job done early? They get boring, great shock troops usually turn into slowly dwindling forces.

I'm with Kaldor on this one in that it just doesn't... make sense. Yes, it's a risk, but it's a risk that seems counterintuitive. If you do poorly, you are rewarded. If you do well, you're punished. A risk should have a punishment for when things go poorly, not for when they go well, at least for it to mesh in my head and (I presume) Kaldor's. It's outside of balance at that point. It's like Plasma Guns. If you roll a 1 to hit, BLAM. Cool, I get that, if something goes wrong (you roll a 1) you get punished. That's a risk that makes sense to me. If in assault, you hit and wound everything and it's a total slaughter... you die. What? That makes brainhurt occur for me. I kind of get the 'overextension' idea, and that makes it less brainhurt, but it still feels clunky to me.

But you don't die if you set up your assault well, using terrain to help protect your assaulters from enemy shooting if they do finish the assault on turn 1, using nearby supporting units to engage or threaten your opponent's available shooting support units, etc.

I get your point that it's counterintuitive. Think of it as a balancing mechanic; if you manage to kill the enemy in a single round of HtH, you've avoided suffering any further wounds from them in HtH in return. And the nature of the turn mechanic in 40k means that half the time (if you end an assault on your opponent's turn), you get a consolidate, a full move, and another chance to shoot and charge, with your opponent having no recourse or defense but Overwatch.

I do also think (unlike Lobukia) that overall maybe assault has been de-emphasized a bit excessively in this edition, but I agree with him that it's certainly still viable and useful.

Oh, I agree its still viable and useful.
It's just stupid that when I assault with Genestealers or Hormagaunts (for example) all I can do is hope I don't kill everyone in my turn. Because unlike many other assault units I don't have the armor save to survive, and consolidating into cover isn't possible most of the time.