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.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Yeah but technically some armies like orks, nids and khorne armies are meant to charge across the board. Plus, you can't really take full advantage of cover as this would be slowing you down in most cases (ravenwing big exception: coz they are in insane). So if you want to assault an enemy without outflank, transports or deep strike then its really difficult.

Oddly for most of 3rd, 4th and even 5th this basically was my strategy. 3.5 marines and Templars. Get a load of nuttas with chainswords and charge. Tyranids, get some massive monsters and genestealers and charge. Dark Eldar get a ton of wyches in raiders and charge (granted the last one didn't really work that well and in 5th my nid army used trygons and outflanking stealers)

Tyranids have never been an army meant to charge across the board with little thought. Tyranids have always relied on shooting, in particular, short ranged anti infantry shooting, to soften targets before their units, depleted from being shot in return, can assault. People that relied on assault only Tyranid armies tended to lose. Assault for Tyranids is the finishing swing, but you need to get the opponent ready for that swing with a healthy amount of bad shooting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 60mm wrote:
Oh I'm not saying Tyranids don't have some good units, I love Ymgarls. I'm just saying that while the shift between shooting/assaulting may not particularly impact many armies negatively and instead forces new tactics, which i agree with, some armies are designed soley for assault. Like Tyranids. Giving supporting fire, softening targets, etc are all tactics that don't mean much when most of your guns have 12"-18" ranges. By the time most of my stuff gets close enough to shoot, they may as well assault so they don't subsequently get assaulted. We do have a few units that have some ok dakka, but very few, hence why everyone and their mom runs Hive Guard and Dakka Flyrants.

12"-18" is plenty for Tyranids because of the rate of fire they have. Deathspitters and Devourers put out 3-6 shots each, and while Fleshborers are only single shot, the quanity you can take them in easily makes up for it. When you have a squad of 20 Termagants dropping in a mycetic spore and unloading 60 S4 shots, you don't really need the range. When you have MC's putting out 12 twin linked S6 shots or 18 S5 shots, you again don't need the range. Those shots will soften a target nicely enough to get an assault unit in to finish it off. If you're worried about overwatch fire (which you really shouldn't be unless you're assaulting with 3 gaunts from 12" away), use those dropped Termagants or MC's to charge first and eat the ineffectual fire.

Tyranids are absolutely fine in 6th.

Anpu42 wrote:he had a pretty shooty Nid list before 6th.

-Loki- wrote:Tyranids have never been an army meant to charge across the board with little thought. Tyranids have always relied on shooting, in particular, short ranged anti infantry shooting.

I've got to agree with this. At least at our FLGS, nids have been considered a shooty army since they got their current codex.

That said, it's rather beside the point. In 5th edition, even if shooty bugs were better, you could still do some pretty mean choppy bugs as well. Of course, that was in a rules edition where if you charged a pile of hormagaunts into a battlewagon full of burnas, you would get a wrecked battlewagon, whose contents could get charged by another squad and wiped out. Try that in this edition, and all you've got is a bunch of crispy insect... lizard... things.

 felixander wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Well most cover tends to be 4+ anyway.

No, only ruins, ruined fortifications, and trenches.

And Ridgelines/Hill crests, Wreckage/Rubble, Tank Traps, Shrine to Chaos, Imperial Sanctuary, Barricades and walls, and Gun Emplacements to name a few others that give a 4+ cover save.

...or going to ground in basically any other terrain type.

Not that it really matters.

 Ailaros wrote:

Anpu42 wrote:he had a pretty shooty Nid list before 6th.

-Loki- wrote:Tyranids have never been an army meant to charge across the board with little thought. Tyranids have always relied on shooting, in particular, short ranged anti infantry shooting.

I've got to agree with this. At least at our FLGS, nids have been considered a shooty army since they got their current codex.

That said, it's rather beside the point. In 5th edition, even if shooty bugs were better, you could still do some pretty mean choppy bugs as well. Of course, that was in a rules edition where if you charged a pile of hormagaunts into a battlewagon full of burnas, you would get a wrecked battlewagon, whose contents could get charged by another squad and wiped out. Try that in this edition, and all you've got is a bunch of crispy insect... lizard... things.

Tyranids have always had powerful assault. However, they've been historically quite fragile outside of their MC's (and even they were always weak to concentrated anti tank firepower). Tyranid shooting is there to make sure what's left of the Tyranid army that reaches combat will do more than bounce off the enemy. If someone lets a Tyranid assault unit reach combat without taking casualties, they deserve the shredding they get.

Clearly there is debate on this topic, which is in one way a testament that "assault is dead" has been greatly exaggerated.

As someone who played shooty and assault in 5th, I still feel it is balanced - but others may not have the same experiences as I have.

Also, I do indeed play tyranids (and others) and the troubles they have in 6th is more based upon flyers than the shooty nature of the game, in my honest opinion.

Orks too had other problems late in 5th, and honestly, I feel their wound allocation (the nob not being able to easily use boys as a meat shield) loss is more harmful than any shooting in 5th.

I have found that overwatch (like many things in this game) is more of a psychological deterrent than a significant tactical element.

But, like many things - you don't have to beat the army, you have to beat the player - once they have given up...the game is yours.

I agree that "assault is dead" is an exaggeration, it's actually "pure assault list is dead".

I can't really speak for how well they were in previous eds, but as I've mentioned earlier, I just feel that if I could make a pure shooty list with zero counter-assault unit and play very well, I should also be able to build a pure assault list with no shooty unit to provide coverfire and do equally well, but this just isn't the case, as it currently is, pure shooty is possible, 80% shooty 20% assault too, you can go as far as 80% assault, but you can never get down to 100% assault and do well, you'll always need some shooty unit to provide support; part of the issue here is obviously that GW wants to push flyers down everyone's throat, and flyers are shooty naturally(vector strike is still rare, looking at Eldar's DE flyer, I doubt they have it either), being as uncreative as they currently are, any AA defence is also shooty...

Though my view is probably tainted, as, IMO, DE got hit quite hard on the assault side of thing(topic for another day!), and I'm still bitter about it. Even though we gained beast packs and EJB... But before anyone say "DE assault isn't dead.", I'll say, at risk of being a hypocrite as an assault supporter, "I know", I run a primarily shooty list with venoms, reavers and ravagers with beastpacks for assault.

I would say because of the loads of new rules that are directed towards shooting. Snapshot, Overwatch, and the cover rules. As well as the new Psychic phase and ability to take fortifications, not to mention the new flyers and all the weapons available to them. Personally I think there is a little too much going on the new edition, but that's just me.

Why would you want to play a game where running straight toward the enemy is a viable tactic?

Being forced to use and think about cover and build lists that compliment your style of assault is a good thing.

 Las wrote:
Why would you want to play a game where running straight toward the enemy is a viable tactic?

Being forced to use and think about cover and build lists that compliment your style of assault is a good thing.

Because playing a pure assault list means you can only charge forward in a straight line, ignoring terrains and what else. Yup. Just as pure shooty means you can only stand still and fire behind your ADL?

I don't see why designing a game where pure assault is possible is bad, don't you like variety? Also, there are people like me who like assaults/dealing with assaults with assaults.

 Las wrote:
Why would you want to play a game where running straight toward the enemy is a viable tactic?

Why would you wanna play a static gunline where you basically move nothing and just roll dice? Beats me but 40k sure does support it, which I have no problem with. I don't see why everyone thinks being shooty is a must-have when pure shooty gets no scorn.

 Las wrote:
Why would you want to play a game where running straight toward the enemy is a viable tactic?

Being forced to use and think about cover and build lists that compliment your style of assault is a good thing.

Becouse if you play your army right, you don't have to "Charge Strait at your Oppenent". You will make use of Terrain and "Manuver Warfare" to get at your opponent to Assualt him. That is were the fun is .

That's what I was gettin at. I meant that a the recent balance against pure assault has made the "run straight for the enemy" tactic unviable, which is great because it creates multidimensional play.

You're arguing my point. Assaults are about out maneuvering the enemy and making good use of supporting fire, which is as it should be.

 Las wrote:
That's what I was gettin at. I meant that a the recent balance against pure assault has made the "run straight for the enemy" tactic unviable, which is great because it creates multidimensional play.

You're arguing my point. Assaults are about out maneuvering the enemy and making good use of supporting fire, which is as it should be.

And shooting is still. "Sit there and shoot and roll dice while hiding in the back."

Why is assault the one that needs that nerfing? Can't even use vehicles for assault anymore.

 Peregrine wrote:
6th favors shooting, as a scifi wargame should. If you're going to assault you need to bring supporting shooting elements and have a plan besides "run forward as fast as possible across open terrain and charge", throwing a mass of models at the enemy and hoping for the best just gives the shooting army exactly what they want.

The world eaters seem to function just fine with a mass charge of bloodthirsty maniacs. Although they also have reality warping on their side, legions of daemons, and are fond of outright teleportation to get the cowards into axe range.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Las wrote:
That's what I was gettin at. I meant that a the recent balance against pure assault has made the "run straight for the enemy" tactic unviable, which is great because it creates multidimensional play.

You're arguing my point. Assaults are about out maneuvering the enemy and making good use of supporting fire, which is as it should be.

And shooting is still. "Sit there and shoot and roll dice while hiding in the back."

Why is assault the one that needs that nerfing? Can't even use vehicles for assault anymore.

The terrain I there for you as well. Making adequate use of cover can totally negate a gun line. Either your boards aren't set up properly or you're not taking the movement phase seriously enough, that's where games are won or lost for assault armies.

 Las wrote:
Why would you want to play a game where running straight toward the enemy is a viable tactic?

Being forced to use and think about cover and build lists that compliment your style of assault is a good thing.

Given that there is a literal god dedicated to bloody murder at close quarters who is the second strongest being in the setting short of the Hive Mind, aforementioned bloody slaughter should be happening more often. Khorne disapproves of static gunline play.

The enemies of khorne are going to do their darnedest to make it as hard as possible for his followers to get at them. You better learn some other ways of pilling up that throne than legging it across open fields or you're going to have a very thirsty blood god on your hands.

 Las wrote:
The enemies of khorne are going to do their darnedest to make it as hard as possible for his followers to get at them. You better learn some other ways of pilling up that throne than legging it across open fields or you're going to have a very thirsty blood god on your hands.

Khorne cares not from where the blood flows. That of his own followers serves him just as well. The very act of fighting empowers him. So even if you win, you still lose because you served Khorne's plans anyway. The whole point of Chaos is that you can't win or even break even. Even defeating their mortal followers and daemons just helps them anyway. Really all four of the current big bad factions (Necrons, Tyranids, Chaos, Orks) have already won, no matter what you do, they still gain.

Khornate units should at least be frenzied enough to start butchering people out of deep striking or from a rhino. Even if the berzerker literally has to burst from the sides of the Rhino like the Kool-aid man.

 Kain wrote:

 Las wrote:
The enemies of khorne are going to do their darnedest to make it as hard as possible for his followers to get at them. You better learn some other ways of pilling up that throne than legging it across open fields or you're going to have a very thirsty blood god on your hands.

Khorne cares not from where the blood flows. That of his own followers serves him just as well. The very act of fighting empowers him. So even if you win, you still lose because you served Khorne's plans anyway. The whole point of Chaos is that you can't win or even break even. Even defeating their mortal followers and daemons just helps them anyway. Really all four of the current big bad factions (Necrons, Tyranids, Chaos, Orks) have already won, no matter what you do, they still gain.

Khornate units should at least be frenzied enough to start butchering people out of deep striking or from a rhino. Even if the berzerker literally has to burst from the sides of the Rhino like the Kool-aid man.

Like the blood on my mom's cast after she slipped on the ice on the front porch! : D

Apparently the doctor who removed that cast was very confused as to why that cast had the words, "Blood for the Blood God" and an arrow pointing to the blood.

 Kain wrote:
Khornate units should at least be frenzied enough to start butchering people out of deep striking or from a rhino. Even if the berzerker literally has to burst from the sides of the Rhino like the Kool-aid man.

Must...model...

It's a shooting edition. Every codex that doesn't have the best shooting of the current codexes is at a disadvantage. If you aren't Tau that can up their BS and Ignore your cover then you can never win a shooting war. You also can't win by assaulting. If you try to deep strike they'll intercept you, and then you'll have to sit there for another turn, waiting. Try to close the gap on foot by taking cover? Now you've slowed yourself down for no benefit. You can't 'tactically maneuver' when every unit in the opposing army can obliterate you from a greater range, with higher strength weapons, that hit on 2's and give you no saves, cover or otherwise.

People say 'charging in a straight line across a field' devolves the game. I say 'sitting behind an ADL and rolling dice' devolves the game. Just so happens that this edition supports the crap out of the latter and nerfed the former.

Did shooting get better? Maybe. All I know is that both of my armies (Tyranids and Khorne CSM) have better battle records in 6th than they ever had in 5th. Nids are currently undefeated, and I tend to run an assault heavy army. Most people just forget the utility of different types of weapons. My nids, for example, load up on stranglers/stranglethorns to pin enemies before I assualt in. I make use of venomthropes finally to benefit from their coverbubble. Carnifexes are normally I1... so.. yeah. With the addition of biomancy and telekinesis, my bugs have superhuge durability against shooting, and their assault prowess faded little.
My Chaos, similarly, got faster, hittier (mostly) and cheaper. Even though I miss my berserkers losing most of their extended utility in CC, they still do their job of murder-that-thing-to-death. Maulerfiends are great CC walkers, and bikers have done me well so far. One of the biggest things I like is that specialist weapon is now generic, so LC/PF combo is seen on most of my champions to greatly increase their utility. 5 S9 AP2 hits on the charge has fairly reliably either popped or crippled any landraider I've come across.

I'll never disagree that shooting has gotten a whole lot better, assault is just as efficient as it used to be. People just need to use proper amounts of terrain and stop playing on golf courses. This is not BF: Bad company.

Berzerkers as a whole seem to have gotten the nerf bat. If 5e was Khorne's edition, then this one is Nurgle's.

I also agree assault isn't dead. I just think it has been ramped down too much. Now it's ok I can't take transports because they are less durable than a ork in area terrain. So anything that is moving at 6" is no longer a viable assault unit. If you don't A) move 12" or more in a turn B) have a high toughness C) have a lot of wounds or some combination of the three I view that unit as an inefficent assault unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 StarHunter25 wrote:
People just need to use proper amounts of terrain and stop playing on golf courses. This is not BF: Bad company.

QFT this is the largest imbalance you can bring upon yourself as an assaulty army. Just request to have more terrain on the field if it's a friendly game.

-Removed by Myself. Felt it might be too rude or incoherent my apologies-

 60mm wrote:

"Planning" assaults is largely a joke when you never know if you'll make it 2" or 12", it's always a huge gamble..

I play eldar, who have fleet which allows a more reliable charge.

 -Loki- wrote:

12"-18" is plenty for Tyranids because of the rate of fire they have. Deathspitters and Devourers put out 3-6 shots each, and while Fleshborers are only single shot, the quanity you can take them in easily makes up for it. When you have a squad of 20 Termagants dropping in a mycetic spore and unloading 60 S4 shots, you don't really need the range. When you have MC's putting out 12 twin linked S6 shots or 18 S5 shots, you again don't need the range. Those shots will soften a target nicely enough to get an assault unit in to finish it off. If you're worried about overwatch fire (which you really shouldn't be unless you're assaulting with 3 gaunts from 12" away), use those dropped Termagants or MC's to charge first and eat the ineffectual fire.

Tyranids are absolutely fine in 6th.

Yuck... this account of the volume of firepower Tyranids can put out does not please me. I really should convince my regular Tyranid opponent to run things other than genestealers in his troops slots to be more competitive. Genestealers are a fine unit, but when your troops section is 5 units of ~6 genestealers and a broodlord for each squad... well you play Tyranids, you know how much is going to be left by the time they get into combat, especially against my tau, unfortunately what gets through (usually a couple of brood lords with 1 or 2 wounds left) is actually enough to make me sad.

Get your models out on the side of their transport opposite to the enemy, then use the transport as cover for the advancing assault.

wilsjur wrote:

 60mm wrote:

"Planning" assaults is largely a joke when you never know if you'll make it 2" or 12", it's always a huge gamble..

I play eldar, who have fleet which allows a more reliable charge.

60mm plays nids, I believe...? So... yeah...

Fleet does not guarantee that your reroll will be better, unless you have "magical" dice. Thing is, having fleet only means you get a better chance at getting a slightly better roll than non-fleet unit usually do, I believe the mathammer comes to about 1" better, for fragile armies, most see that randomness as a big problem, since a failed charge meant you just gifted your opponent overwatch, and possibly left your unit in the open for the next turn of full BS shootings; not mistaking that you have to move the distance rolled even when failed, but talking about situations such as leaving transport(ie DE) or leaving covers and thought you could make that 6" charge but failed with rerolls. And to top it off, if you consider last ed's static charge distance of 6" as a permanent 6 in this ed's 2D6", then you add that D6" run to it.

Baronyu wrote:

wilsjur wrote:

 60mm wrote:

"Planning" assaults is largely a joke when you never know if you'll make it 2" or 12", it's always a huge gamble..

I play eldar, who have fleet which allows a more reliable charge.

60mm plays nids, I believe...? So... yeah...

Fleet does not guarantee that your reroll will be better, unless you have "magical" dice. Thing is, having fleet only means you get a better chance at getting a slightly better roll than non-fleet unit usually do, I believe the mathammer comes to about 1" better, for fragile armies, most see that randomness as a big problem, since a failed charge meant you just gifted your opponent overwatch, and possibly left your unit in the open for the next turn of full BS shootings; not mistaking that you have to move the distance rolled even when failed, but talking about situations such as leaving transport(ie DE) or leaving covers and thought you could make that 6" charge but failed with rerolls. And to top it off, if you consider last ed's static charge distance of 6" as a permanent 6 in this ed's 2D6", then you add that D6" run to it.

He never said fleet made assaults a guarantee, he said it makes them more reliable, which it does. Since Fleet lets you reroll any dice, not both, you can, for example, reroll a 1 when you roll a 1 and a 6, leaving the 6. As such, letting you pick which dice to reroll - either of them or both if needed, fleet does make assaults more reliable. No, it's not guaranteed, but it's a far sight better than jump packs 'reroll both' or, well, not having rerolls at all.

From personal experience, fleet has meant the difference of making an assault or not many times. I have also still failed assaults with the rerolls, but not as many as I would have failed without them.