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.

 Seaward wrote:
Well, the most difficult target is one your SAM can't see, and as 'auspex' technology appears to be extremely primitive radar, that may be why drop pod assaults work. I also think you're overestimating our success rate with ballistic kill vehicles a little.

"Can't see" is an absurd thing to say about a drop pod coming in at the claimed speeds. It doesn't matter how well you stealth your drop pod against radar if you're glowing bright as the sun in IR, and that's an inevitable consequence of moving that fast in air.

Now, this might be a problem for the average IG unit where advanced technology is rare and the primary AA unit is armed with "dumb" autocannon shells, or against orks that just throw up a wall of bullets in the general direction of a target, and a drop pod assault would be a terrifying threat to those armies. But against Tau/Eldar/Necrons, which have technology way beyond modern levels, a drop pod is just an easy target for the Sky Ray network.

Nevertheless, it's irrelevant. Drop pod assaults happen all the time in fluff, as does melee combat. It's impossible to be both realistic and based on the established fluff.

Obviously they happen, my point is that they happen because of a combination of 40k having ridiculous scale inconsistency and GW selectively ignoring any weapons or technology that would interfere with the plot. I don't expect GW to remove assault entirely, but complaining that it isn't as important as shooting is just silly. Screaming idiots with chainswords exist on the tabletop, but they don't need to be 50% of the game.

 Peregrine wrote:
"Can't see" is an absurd thing to say about a drop pod coming in at the claimed speeds. It doesn't matter how well you stealth your drop pod against radar if you're glowing bright as the sun in IR, and that's an inevitable consequence of moving that fast in air.

Now, this might be a problem for the average IG unit where advanced technology is rare and the primary AA unit is armed with "dumb" autocannon shells, or against orks that just throw up a wall of bullets in the general direction of a target, and a drop pod assault would be a terrifying threat to those armies. But against Tau/Eldar/Necrons, which have technology way beyond modern levels, a drop pod is just an easy target for the Sky Ray network.

Maybe, maybe not. I've seen precious little about IR-based self-guidance in any army, truth be told.

But again, it's irrelevant. We're talking about a setting where aerial/void conflicts aren't the BVR battles they realistically would be, where fungus monsters regularly attack humanity, where lasers recoil when fired, etc. Realism's never been the goal. Even internal consistency's a considerable stretch, given the fluff variations.

People want armies that make big brass ball pushes across the field to punch people in the face. They want them to be as effective as they were. There's nothing unreasonable about that nor, given the setting wherein Guy A can kill Guy B by thinking about it really hard, nothing unrealistic about it, either.

 Seaward wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
"Can't see" is an absurd thing to say about a drop pod coming in at the claimed speeds. It doesn't matter how well you stealth your drop pod against radar if you're glowing bright as the sun in IR, and that's an inevitable consequence of moving that fast in air.

Now, this might be a problem for the average IG unit where advanced technology is rare and the primary AA unit is armed with "dumb" autocannon shells, or against orks that just throw up a wall of bullets in the general direction of a target, and a drop pod assault would be a terrifying threat to those armies. But against Tau/Eldar/Necrons, which have technology way beyond modern levels, a drop pod is just an easy target for the Sky Ray network.

Maybe, maybe not. I've seen precious little about IR-based self-guidance in any army, truth be told.

But again, it's irrelevant. We're talking about a setting where aerial/void conflicts aren't the BVR battles they realistically would be, where fungus monsters regularly attack humanity, where lasers recoil when fired, etc. Realism's never been the goal. Even internal consistency's a considerable stretch, given the fluff variations.

People want armies that make big brass ball pushes across the field to punch people in the face. They want them to be as effective as they were. There's nothing unreasonable about that nor, given the setting wherein Guy A can kill Guy B by thinking about it really hard, nothing unrealistic about it, either.

Actually BFG makes it very clear that most space combat does in fact take at BVR.

It seems to me that overwatch in this edition is a horribly broken game element.

When you consider that we are playing a turn based game and that each turn represents a certain amount of time, the argument that troops wouldn't stand idly by when someone charges at them becomes redundant.
Overwatch effectively allow troops to fire twice in a turn, what part of being charged at enables someone to move and think twice as fast as everybody else?
The original overwatch in 2nd edition was gained by giving up the chance to shoot in your turn to shoot in your opponents, the only thing troops give up currently is the full BS, when certain race specific rules allow troops to fire at full BS what are they giving up?

the other side of the argument that troops would fire at troops charging at them would be that what stops them from firing in your opponents turn?
example:
we deploy armies and i take the first turn
i move my unitsand shoot at yours
in your turn you move your units and then i announce that im going to fire at them again.

no one would accept that as part of the game, so why accept overwatch as it is?

machineuk wrote:
It seems to me that overwatch in this edition is a horribly broken game element.

You're right, it is. It should be done at full BS to represent the fact that over the length of a 40k turn you'll have plenty of time to aim properly at an incoming assault unit.

When you consider that we are playing a turn based game and that each turn represents a certain amount of time, the argument that troops wouldn't stand idly by when someone charges at them becomes redundant.

This is why 40k needs to drop the current system of alternating turns and move to a unit-by-unit activation system. Unfortunately GW is too lazy to make this kind of comprehensive change, so they'll just add on random extra rules to the existing mess.

 Kain wrote:

Actually BFG makes it very clear that most space combat does in fact take at BVR.

Does it? I didn't know that. It's good to hear, given that Black Library tends to depict void battles as Age of Sail reenactments.

Aerial battles are still my big gripe, though, given my background.

People,do realize,that assault exists because some people feel it is fun. I have no desire to play the game of modern warfare. We don't even really need models for that at all, we just bomb each other and that is all.

To people saying shooting should be better, I disagree as long as Gw creates armies that are almost entirely reliant on cc. Perhaps like so e you want those to be gotten rid of so we can all play gun line shoot Fest. But having played games very close to that they are not enjoyable.

For those saying the game should be realistic it is a game...involving science "fantasy". People have "magic powers" , we have grown near perfect 8 foot super humans.

Arguing that well technology means x army would never exist...it is fantasy people. S you use IR to spot the approaching nids, well they keep sending bugs, and eventually evolve to chameleon their heat signature and blend in. Or you nuke the, but like the cockroach they develop a resistance....or you know maybe someone does not want to nuke a city or whole planet all the time....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

machineuk wrote:
It seems to me that overwatch in this edition is a horribly broken game element.

You're right, it is. It should be done at full BS to represent the fact that over the length of a 40k turn you'll have plenty of time to aim properly at an incoming assault unit.

When you consider that we are playing a turn based game and that each turn represents a certain amount of time, the argument that troops wouldn't stand idly by when someone charges at them becomes redundant.

This is why 40k needs to drop the current system of alternating turns and move to a unit-by-unit activation system. Unfortunately GW is too lazy to make this kind of comprehensive change, so they'll just add on random extra rules to the existing mess.

Actually considering that the turns don't occur I. Real time overwatch should not be done at all. Essentially to imagine the battlefield all of the action is already happening simultaneously, so allowing a unit to shoot at a unit running toward them, and then do it again seems silly, if those this occur in the same game turn.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kain wrote:

Actually BFG makes it very clear that most space combat does in fact take at BVR.

Does it? I didn't know that. It's good to hear, given that Black Library tends to depict void battles as Age of Sail reenactments.

Aerial battles are still my big gripe, though, given my background.

BFG also has very clear scaling that makes it so that even "knife fight" ranges are at distances greater than the diameter of a planet.

Peregrine has pretty much laid down a perfect argument for 40k not having an ounce of realism at all. We have a fun, grim-dark Universe at hand, why spoil it with something unnecessary as realism?

Oh, and assault armies are part of the fluff. Calling them unfluffy is like calling gravity unfair. The tabletop is just a representation of the fluff, not vice versa. I don't want be painting my army if I have to outnumber guardsmen 1:100 with my orks on the tabletop like fluff tells me.

machineuk wrote:
It seems to me that overwatch in this edition is a horribly broken game element.

When you consider that we are playing a turn based game and that each turn represents a certain amount of time, the argument that troops wouldn't stand idly by when someone charges at them becomes redundant.
Overwatch effectively allow troops to fire twice in a turn, what part of being charged at enables someone to move and think twice as fast as everybody else?
The original overwatch in 2nd edition was gained by giving up the chance to shoot in your turn to shoot in your opponents, the only thing troops give up currently is the full BS, when certain race specific rules allow troops to fire at full BS what are they giving up?

the other side of the argument that troops would fire at troops charging at them would be that what stops them from firing in your opponents turn?
example:
we deploy armies and i take the first turn
i move my unitsand shoot at yours
in your turn you move your units and then i announce that im going to fire at them again.

no one would accept that as part of the game, so why accept overwatch as it is?

Seeing as how that is exactly how Advanced Squad Leader works, I strongly disagree.
It's a mechanic that I don't think would work in 40K, but it does exist, succesfully, in other games.

It's still amusing that your guardsmen would only start shooting if the orks actually charge at them, but wouldn't fire a single shot if the orks move right into their faces and open fire with their shootas.

I find the term verism more useful than realism. We all know the game is unrealistic in many ways. However, there should be a sense that the rules and fluff hold together and reflect each other in a reasonable way. Therefore, assault tactics, rules and units should be a reasonable choice.

 Jidmah wrote:
Peregrine has pretty much laid down a perfect argument for 40k not having an ounce of realism at all. We have a fun, grim-dark Universe at hand, why spoil it with something unnecessary as realism?

Oh, and assault armies are part of the fluff. Calling them unfluffy is like calling gravity unfair. The tabletop is just a representation of the fluff, not vice versa. I don't want be painting my army if I have to outnumber guardsmen 1:100 with my orks on the tabletop like fluff tells me.

The argument that i agree with the most...
Let a game be a game, adding realism seem more like a uneeded or even unwated change to the whole tabletop series.

( And a list i can think of if we add realism: Ammo counts, Model stamina, Model Hunger ( Tyranids anyone? ), Vehicle errors after a move ( mud in tracks, crack in road, bump that causes stuff ), no characters without helmets, no wolves, no green men, etc. etc. etc. )

Assault armies are in a tough spot in 6th edition right now. There are some excellent shooting armies out there that can cause you problems. If you are going to build an assault force,what you need to do is make sure they meet the following criteria.


Limit incoming damage before they can assault
This can be done by setting yourself up for a turn 2 assault (spawn, etc). This can be done by deep striking all your assault units on turn 2 and then assaulting on turn 3. This can be done by casting invisibility on your units. It can be done by keeping your stuff in land raiders, etc.

The key here is simple -- you need to make sure your not shot off the table before you can get into assault! If your just walking up units across the board, you can expect to have big problems. This is why green tide armies are having problems today. Its because they are walking across and getting shot up before they can get into assault.

The exception to this is if your running a counter-assault unit. A counter-assault unit can be slower. For example, I bring a GUO as a counter-assault unit, and it works great. I don't need to have it be that fast because its job is to detur anything that gets close.


Present overwhelming threat
You cannot bring 2 units of CSM bikes and 2 units of CSM blocks on foot. That does not work. The units are wiped out to quickly. You need to have all your assault units hit at the same time and overwhelm your opponents with target saturation.


Dealing with screens
You need to have a plan when someone brings 100+ kroot in front of their fire warriors. The idea of the screens is that you wipe them out on your turn, then you get shot in the face again on the following turn. By increasing the turns until your into an assault where you are impacting your opponents offensive capability for one turn, he is doubling the amount of damage your army takes before getting into assault. In other words, instead of having one turn to shoot your army, he has two turns to do so..


Have some shooting
You can't throw just a ton of assault units on the board and call it a day. A good assault army needs shooting elements. For example, what happens when there is a kroot screen in front of a fire warrior army? You get shot up on turn one, kill all the kroot on turn 2 in your assault, then get shot to bits on turn 3. If you have some shooting, you can shoot a hole in the kroot and then assault the juicy units behind.


Limit Bad Luck
You don't want to say 'Well, I know that on average I should make a 6" assault, so I'll plan for that". The minute you do that, you will roll nothing but 5s. To help mitigate this,always get as close as possible when assaulting -- which is why fast moving troops are invalueable.

On the other hand, when assaulting targets with provide a limited or no overwatch threat -- like vehicles, there is little reason not to assault them at long ranges. While its rare, I've made a 11" assault through difficult terrain before. When it does happen, it can be a game changing moment

 Ravenous D wrote:
If anyone here has failed a 5" charge against a unit in the open, you know exactly why this is the shooting edition.

Try failing a 3" charge with a fleet unit. Clearly I had not sacrificed enough small children to the dice gods that week.*





*Disclaimer: no small children were hurt in the making of this sacrifice

Some of this thread needs to go to "40k Background". Actually most of it does

To add to the thread: I'd say more Shooting-Oriented Armies have been updated to 6th standards than CC-oriented. This might have something to contribute to the large amount of shooting lists. Daemons and CSM are slowly shifting to more CC lists. After BT and BA get updated, you might start seeing more assaults in your meta. Tau got some nerfs on some of their stronger weapons. You might see the same for IG. Changing the assault armies, as well as, changing the pure shooting armies will always change the meta.

I don't know about the rest of you but I've been assaulting and having a blast doing it ever since the 2 chaos books came out.

Saythings wrote:
Some of this thread needs to go to "40k Background". Actually most of it does

To add to the thread: I'd say more Shooting-Oriented Armies have been updated to 6th standards than CC-oriented. This might have something to contribute to the large amount of shooting lists. Daemons and CSM are slowly shifting to more CC lists. After BT and BA get updated, you might start seeing more assaults in your meta. Tau got some nerfs on some of their stronger weapons. You might see the same for IG. Changing the assault armies, as well as, changing the pure shooting armies will always change the meta.

That is only slightly true in 6th Ed we have had CSM (mostly CC/ or at least close quarters shooting.), Daemons (mostly Close combat), Dark Angels (shooty), Tau (shoooooty), Eldar (Shooty). So yes 3/5 of releases have been for shooty armies.

Limit incoming damage before they can assault
This can be done by setting yourself up for a turn 2 assault (spawn, etc). This can be done by deep striking all your assault units on turn 2 and then assaulting on turn 3. This can be done by casting invisibility on your units. It can be done by keeping your stuff in land raiders, etc.

The key here is simple -- you need to make sure your not shot off the table before you can get into assault! If your just walking up units across the board, you can expect to have big problems. This is why green tide armies are having problems today. Its because they are walking across and getting shot up before they can get into assault.

The exception to this is if your running a counter-assault unit. A counter-assault unit can be slower. For example, I bring a GUO as a counter-assault unit, and it works great. I don't need to have it be that fast because its job is to detur anything that gets close.

I agree with most everything you have said in your post. And while this is true, Tau and Eldar make this very difficult. Turn 2 assault is great, except when you wipe a screen and get shot again. Deepstriking might work if Tau did not Interceptor your stuff, then shoot it again. Invisibility was amazing, unitl Tau and Eldar largely ignored it. It is still good against many armies but it leaves you with bad matchup issues. Same is true for land raiders, they are great until someone has the answer to them.

I was very much more about making assaults works prior to Tau and Eldar, now while my list is still "non-shooting heavy" it is also not "assault based"

The simple fact is shooting is far more efficient at killing things than assault is, however in saying that assault is worth it providing you have the capacity to get the killy unit into combat in such a way, as to not get yourself blown to bits next turn.

That is the situation we are dealing with, its made assault far more of a risk, rather than the simple zerg rush that seemed to occur in 5th, and in some cases it couldn't be stopped quickly enough. Now assaults have to be planned far better and a few don't get it, take hammernators as an example. They are still very useful, it just requires a bit of timing to get them and their landraider transport to the spot where they can cause havoc. Not as I've encountered, getting across the board (despite my best efforts ) and then the payload duly killing a chimera before the whole lot gets screwed over in my turn, a shocking waste

Just my humble opinion

My Slaaneshi CSM are very assault Oriented with several dedicated shooting Elements. I've had a lot of fun with them, but oftentimes I feel like I have an uphill match against a lot of opponents- especially since I hate Heldrakes and refuse to run even one.

Except for a small block of Spawn, most of my assault units are also shooting units, Raptors (I converted them with Scourge wings and they are too awesome not to field) with Melta, and Bikers with Melta. Often times these units feel like shooting units first and assault units second, which gives a bit more duality to them and I feel that helps them succeed in 6th edition. Shoot Shoot Shoot, then close in when there would be an advantage in Close Combat (which is usually as soon as reasonably possible)

The problem is that my Slaaneshi CSM is not a competitive army (not enough Heldrake, too much focus on close combat and close combat upgrades), and i have several really rough matchups against Tau and Eldar shooting. I just don't have enough covering fire from Noise Marines and Obliterators to keep up, and my fast MSU assault units, while they punches hard, doesn't have much staying power against upgraded overwatch or the sheer fire power of dakka serpents.

When I want to bring a more competitive army, I look to my Eldar, and if I need to play at a really high level I look to my Eldar with an allied Vendetta filled with Vostoryans and an Aegis Line. Shooting, and especially highly mobile shooting is ruling the game right now. If Jump Infantry could assault Fliers (hit on a 6 or something) that might help some units like ASM see some playtime with their Krak Grenades, but as it stands when things get real, 40K is just a game of shooting, target priority, and fire lanes. Which is too bad, because I really enjoy my CSM, and have more fun fielding them than my other armies... Maybe there is a reason I have been gravitating more towards Fantasy of late, where close combat really matters.

Waaaghpower wrote:
So, this could just be my current local meta, but it seems to me that melee seems horribly undervalued almost everywhere on the interwebs. Why is it so bad? I'll admit that Overwatch can be a pain, but Close Combat is still a very viable asset if you use it properly. So why the hate?

I would say you are imagining things. The thing is that anyone who is running a "pure assault" army isn't going to do very well since they are crippling themselves. Most competitive lists have a component that can handle themselves in the assault phase. They just aren't dedicated to it due to how useful shooting is.

This just isn't 3E anymore, and hasn't been for a while. Since 4E the rules have been pushing armies that used their guns to the top of the charts. Even 5E was more focused on shooting, though that was partially because of the way the vehicle rules worked and how many you saw on a table. All the little bumps to shooting over the years have finally made it a good choice, as you'd expect from a futuristic Sci-Fi wargame.

Movement has always been the most important phase, but ignoring any phase is a damn stupid idea. Assaults are still important, and tend to be fairly decisive in the last two editions. Particularly with Challenges now a thing. If you are incapable of handling yourself in the Assault Phase, you have a glaring weakness that many lists will be able to exploit.

The last game I played I was winning for most of the game (First Blood and Warlord; wiped out a Farseer, The Baron, and 18 Hellions on Turn 1 plus some victory points from destroying a Heavy Support choice) all thanks to my shooting, but it started to go pear shaped as the game progressed due to my opponent's own shooting capabilities. He was going to edge out a victory by 1 point, until the assault phase in the last two turns where a lone Wulfen model wiped out a small unit of Trueborn followed by a small unit of Eldar Jetbikes, contesting the objective he needed to win the game.

So I'll stand by my statement. If you ignore any phase you will suffer. The assault phase in any given game can be just as important as the shooting phase, but none of them are as important as the movement phase.

I guess if you count JSJ, pure shooty army does use that "assault phase".

Assault has been downgraded extremely hard by 6th edition and because of that many players have removed assault elements from their lists entirely. When this happens I find that new players (not usually veterans) lose fear of what can happen in assault and thus do not know the tricks to maneuver around it or even know that they need to properly avoid it. I find that it leads to "surprise" situations where performing a carefully planned assault has shock value due to players being unaware of what a dedicated assault units can actually do.

Case in point I have had several players march their armies near point-blank with my Dark Eldar lately. Partly to get around the night-shields after I snipe their heavy weaponry and partly to get within double tap range of my squishy things. Since my army still retains some dedicated combat units (although much reduced from their 5th edition glory) it is literally as though someone is passing me a free meal.

@Realism: If we want to play this game then I suggest half of an Imperial Guard opponents vehicles should break down due to terrible chassis and track design. I would like my ravagers to be able to move, shoot, move to represent blowing through an intersection at insane speeds on an anti-grav cushion and picking off battle tanks leisurely as they do so due to the biologically super-human reflexes inherent to my space-elves. They themselves are a biological weapon designed by the old-ones.

I would also like combat to make sense too. Outflanking units, ambushing units, and assault vehicles should be a thing. Guns are bad and stupidly dangerous, so you need to find a way around them. A unit with an auspex jamming device hiding in a building to ambush an unlucky foe, a unit with auspex dampening armor sneaking up the sides to close with your rear command group, or a vehicle that is either heavily armored, stealthy, or maneuverable enough to deliver the goods should do the trick, but none of these is really reflected because games-workshop wants to give a player an opportunity to react. When in fact the unit being hit should not have that option all of the time.

 Ravenous D wrote:
If anyone here has failed a 5" charge against a unit in the open, you know exactly why this is the shooting edition.

Is the glass half empty or half full?

Fliers aren't helping the shootiness of 6th either...they're pure shooty units that 95% of the time can only be taken down with shooting. Before fliers you could make a list without a gun in it and still wreck face.

This has been beat to death a million times on this forum.

Assault got worse. I think that is just about undeniable. RCL, Overwatch, Fearless Tarpits, Wound Allocation, etc.

It's more useful to do what labmouse did and talk about how you CAN make it work.

Assault still works and at a better rate than I think many folks realize. The Daemon codex is very, very good. It has some bad match-ups (Tau, probably Mechdar) but against most other armies it is a tough out. Between Gifts/Psychic Powers/Grimoire you can make fast units incredibly durable. Consider 20 Flesh Hounds with a Grimoire on them (Fateweaver can make it VERY reliable). Few armies can kill that squad in one shooting phase, especially the armies who are good but not great at shooting.

Biomancy Nids are very good, with the right combination of powers and savvy play they will be able to hit home. BW Orks are still viable. I love using Meganobz, I find them to be quite effective and cost-efficient. Tau and Eldar both have difficulty dealing with AV14 at range (and that also includes just about every other army in the game, barring Guard). Paladins still work very well and once they reach the opponents lines they can often do ridiculous amounts of damage. Wraith lists are common for a reason. Seer Councils and Beastpacks with psychic buffs will roll most armies. Screamers with a 2++, BloodCrushers or Fleshhounds with a 2++, etc.

There are a TON of decent assault options out there. As was the case in 5th, assault still tends to be more cataclysmic than shooting, so if you can hit home you will generally do well. There are options. Just consider the things that Labmouse pointed out. You need durability, speed, overwhelming targets and efficient ways to clear bubble wrap (Ignores cover is big for this).

The Eldar have problems with AV14?

My wife just uses Brightlances and they pop like candy.

Tau isn't even that bad an opponent for assault...strength of fire is not equivalent to weight of fire...I rolled a Tau player with 18 Raveners, 9 Shrikes, and filled in the gaps with Hormagaunts.

Yes there was some telekinesis and biomancy buffing...but like LValx said...when assault hits home...it really hits home.

 ductvader wrote:
Tau isn't even that bad an opponent for assault...strength of fire is not equivalent to weight of fire...I rolled a Tau player with 18 Raveners, 9 Shrikes, and filled in the gaps with Hormagaunts.

Yes there was some telekinesis and biomancy buffing...but like LValx said...when assault hits home...it really hits home.

Tau not being able to pour on weight of fire? In what universe?

That's not what I've seen from Tau. The riptides make short work of FNP ASM, even with max spacing.