So Assault Armies Are Dead, Huh?

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.

**Ailaros**

You've got it backwards. After exactly one pass through the rulebook when 6th came out, it was immediately obvious that assault armies were toast.

The rules killed assault, so I stopped assaulting, not the other way around.

Plus, this isn't the first time this thread has come up either. I'd direct you to my comments here.

You mention overwatch, fleet assault ranges, and grenades, which are the three tiniest reasons assault was killed off. Well, if your opponents know how to really use overwatch, that can still be rather a thing. In any case, what killed off assault was fundamental changes to the way that cover and wound allocation works, amongst other, much, much more serious reasons than lack of grenades for some armies.

And that's challenges just getting to assault. The moment you play against someone who practices proper displacement and find that you kill off two whole models before assault is forced to an automatic end due to pile-in restrictions, and you'll see just how absurdly awful close combat is anymore.

**-Loki-**

Ailaros wrote:
In any case, what killed off assault was fundamental changes to the way that cover and wound allocation works

Focus firing can be negated with support - the most obvious now is psychic powers. The most obvious being Endurance and Telekine Dome. There's not much point focus firing to negate a 5+ cover save when the unit still has a 5+ FNP or Invulnerable save.

Removing models from the front is only a problem on paper. In play, an assault army should be offering so many targets that they either remove enough from one unit to prevent that assault and eat other assaults, or remove not enough from numerous units and each assaults.

Sure, Guard armies focused around a large blob are going to suffer. Handy hint - Guard blob armies aren't the entirety of the game.

Ailaros wrote:
And that's challenges just getting to assault. The moment you play against someone who practices proper displacement and find that you kill off two whole models before assault is forced to an automatic end due to pile-in restrictions, and you'll see just how absurdly awful close combat is anymore.

And with good movement, support and your own good placement you can ensure an assault doesn't end like that.

I mean, if you don't want to learn how to assault properly and make changes to your army to transition to 6th editions altered assault mechanics, that's cool. You don't have to.

But continually spouting 'assault is dead because I read the rules' is just getting irritating.

**Ailaros**

And it's just as irritating to hear "be a better player, and you can get around it".

You should always assume that your opponent is as competent as you are. For everything you do in the movement phase, your opponent can undo in their movement phase. For everything you do in your list that supports other units in your list, your opponent is also able to support their own units.

You can't just wave your hands and get rid of fundamental, structural changes to the way that 40k rules have changed. Playing against bad players who can't figure out how to apply new rules, even many months out doesn't change the basic facts of it all.

**davethepak**

A lot of interesting points, and counter points.

Just have to say, that any player who becomes “used” or relies upon a particular strategy, may feel very compromised when those things change.

Sounds like there are a lot of differing opinions here, and THAT is your answer.
(hint: if assault were really dead, there would be no debate…).

Anyone who thinks it is…I will play you for drinks. Don’t worry, I like cheap stuff…

**sLeEpYrOcK**

I played a pretty much full assault army against of de against vanilla shooty marines and won, due to my warlord assaulting a flyer out of the air, was awesome.

Edit; two days ago this battle was played, so I think they still work, just not as beastly as before

**juraigamer**

Seaward wrote:
juraigamer wrote:
Assault forces are on par with shooty forces now. A good assualt army player doesn't care and will kill you when he/she gets there. My CSM are assault only, they only have problems with GK.

How do you make that work, out of curiosity, with only the one assault vehicle in the codex?

Well Firstly I run foot CSM, lotsa regular CSM guys. 30+ normally. I also have a team of raptors and/or 5 spawn I run from time to time as well. These are normally backed up by obliterators to deal with problems like tanks and MC's.

When I take my possessed, they go in the landraider. When I take my 4-5 terminators, they go in the landraider. Everything else walks.

I primarily play with nurgle and khorne marks, both happen to help me get to close combat. Also of note all my marines have bolter, pistol and CCW.

Basically I present infantry with one av 14 vehicle, sometimes I run my 3 hellbrutes with power scourges as well. Rarely I run my three hell drakes.

Simply, I overwhelm. While I own 21 plague marines, they don't hit the table that often, it's not enough bodies to make it across the field normally.

That's really all there is to it. Lots of guys, kill priority targets, keep moving forward.

**Fafnir**

Ailaros wrote:
All right, I've got to defend the opposite opinion here. Yes, assault armies really are dead. The only real exception is armies based around the top few assault units like wraiths.

For every rule that they added that could in any way possibly be construed as beneficial to assault, they added eight rules that are strongly in favor of shooting. Add to this the fact that foot hordes really don't work nearly as well, and that you can't move more than 6" and disembark from transports, and you basically kill off any army builds that were seriously good in assault in 5th.

It's not that assault was amazing in 5th, and it's gotten brought down to normal in 6th. It's that assault was reasonably possible, but inferior to shooting in 5th, and anybody who could do assault well then were wiped out.

It is still possible to get into assault in 6th edition, and, as mentioned, there is a tiny pool of units that can still do well here, but for most armies, building a list dedicated to assault is a quick route to a lost game.

It should only take you roughly one game of moving your assault units forward only to lose your cover saves to focus fire, and have casualties taken from the front (thus delaying when you make it in), and rolling poorly on a charge range just to eat overwatch and regular shooting twice just so that you can run into a speedbump (like a transport) and be slaughtered by a third round of shooting for you to realise that assault is pretty much a non-option. At least, nothing to build your army around.

This is essentially the nature of assault in 6th edition.

Assaulting itself isn't completely useless, but the best assault units are going to be well-rounded, counter assault units that can also bring potent shooting to the table, using their close combat potential as more of a threat than an actual weapon.