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.

As after playing about a dozen or so games in the 6th edition of 40k something has struck me somewhat strangely… One of the running jokes, yet enjoyable things about 40k in the past was that in the 41st millennium we were still using bolters and pistols with poor targeting and difficulty through cover, ect. Basically, while the game of 40k existed in a futuristic setting it was still played very much like a WW2 style game with something of a balance between shooting and assaulting. Going back to when I started into the hobby with 2nd edition 40k and 5th edition WH Fantasy, both games played relatively similar.

However, it seems that now in the 6th edition of 40k and the 41st millennium the 40k game has discovered a vast amount of technology that greatly favors shooting-styled armies where the game of WH Fantasy has remained technologically firm as it should be in a fantasy setting…. To elaborate a bit more, 40k really favors shooting and this is especially true in the 6th edition when we have flyers that lay down crazy amounts of firepower and overwatch rules. Games of 40k just don’t have much in the way of hth combat anymore as whole units are focus-fired upon and decimated as they try to cross the table against Imperial and Xenos units that just rain fire down in buckets. On the other side of the coin, games of Fantasy are all about movement and matchups in hth. Most shooting-oriented armies like my Dwarfs are considered boring to play against due to their linear play style in an environment where everyone is eager to try out their toys and move horde-formation units into hand to hand combat.

Basically while I enjoy 40k and have played it for many years, I’m not really sure if I enjoy playing against the shooting builds of this edition that run so prominently in each competitive build. Maybe, I’m just now realizing how many other players have felt when playing against my Dwarfs in Fantasy… Regardless, one of the things I always enjoyed about the 3rd, 4th, and 5th editions of 40k was how you could still have a competitive build around a hth combat army in 40k and still have some success that I don’t think work in 40k today as much.

Maybe in 7th edition, Games Workshop will bring back the “Rhino Rush”?

Most of the new Codices have been for primarily "shooting-focused" factions so far (with the notable exception of Chaos Daemons, who to be fair can be very good in assault). Chaos Space Marines have always been a half and half force, and they too have some really good assault units.

Eldar, Tau and Necrons have always preferred to kill things with guns (and then occasionally use a precision assault to deliver a killing blow, especially Eldar).

I would imagine Space Marines will largely be similar to Chaos Space Marines in that they are a half and half force, but Orks, Tyranids, Space Wolves and perhaps Blood Angels will all likely come with a lot of assault love. Their older books are currently still working with old tools and those old tools by and large fail to overpower the new shooting tools.

As with all editions, give it time and perhaps things will shift.

Tyranids is using the old tools with a new flavor though...Biomancy alone has made Tyranids amazing at combat...as they should be...and has put the Swarlord as the near undisputed king of combat.

From time to time I find myself starting the game without a single weapon that has a range farther than "melee"

Bah.

People were crying out doom for assault based armies at the start of 6th, I'm ashamed to see they're still doing it today. Seems like most people think to be competitive you need to take 100% guns. I still run an almost completely assault based army with my Orks, and it's fared very, very well this edition. And as Xyptc says, we haven't seen the CC armies (Nids and Orks mainly) updated yet. So do your shooting while you can.

I personally think that ork waaughs are going to get old school fleet for that turn...making them much more dangerous in a world where no one else can do that.

7th edition will have drop pods that can combine to make a mecha drop pod!

Being an old time vet who is just getting into 6th edition, I completely agree. We can all point to situations where assaulting works, but shooting is a much, much simpler play-style to master now.

Back in 3rd edition, everyone would have been up in arms if there were so many weapons that shot 4+ strength 5-7 shots (or 12 strength 6 shots!). Remember how much everyone complained that the Starcanon had 3 (I think that's right, but my mind isn't as sharp as it used to be) shots back then? The Leman Russ was considered the high standard in powerful shooting, which seems quaint now. That combined with all the rules that allow extra volleys of fire, BS buffing, Interceptor, Overwatch, improvements to Rapid Fire etc it's just too easy to play a good shooting list.

Granted, you could argue that assault was way too powerful back in those days, but the pendulum has swung quite far the other way now.

They've mitigated the effects of the proliferation of multi-shot high strength, low AP a bit by handing out invulnerable saves left and right, which should indicate to everyone that things are out of whack (remember when Terminators didn't even have an invulnerable save? My Deathwing certainly do).

That said, I still think this edition is probably the best so far. There are just a few units (Wave Serpents, Riptides, Helldrakes, etc) that need to be toned down. They are just too good and essentially auto-includes now, which I think is bad for the game. I realize the Wave Serpent is the only dedicated transport that the Eldar can take. But why is it so much better than the Falcon AND cheaper???

The only way to really bring things into balance this edition, I've found, is to load the tabletop with as much LOS blocking scenery as possible. But this can get little contentious. Gun-line players have always felt like a courtesy hill in the middle of the table and some scattered trees is more than enough terrain. So it's a process of careful negotiations. But it keeps the game tactically complex and makes more play-styles viable.

Assault isn't helped by a lot of factors. One that is prevalent in my meta is playing the game with almost no cover on the table.

The Book guidelines are 25% cover (it should fill up one quarter of the table) - the tables around my area often have half that, often with no LoS blocking terrain.

Also, speaking from an eldar perspective, I think people are operating under the rubric of 5th edition wherein a single death-star unit could eat an army. That wasn't "close combat is functional" - that is "a single CC unit can win a game".

My eldar assault is strictly in a counter-assault role - a secondary role. It isn't designed to be a line-breaker hammer unit, and if used in that manner, it fails. However, as a countercharge unit - clearing a unit of engaged DAs or wraithguard, it is flat-out lethal.

The peak of assault armies was 5th, when a single unit of bike-nobs could clean up a table. That was absurd, and is still the standard by which assault armies are judged.

Assault still works - you just have to work harder for it.

All the above posters have discovered is that the game mechanics for ancient combat, are a bit rubbish when used with modern type units at anything more than skirmish level.

WHFB Skirmish Rules sort of worked OK for 2nd ed, due to low model count (more room to move into contact,) and more complexity in the game play.(To Hit Modifiers etc.)

When 40k moved to a Battle Game it should have been re written using modern game mechanics and resolution methods.IMO.
(EG found in rules written AFTER 1982.Like Epic, SM- Armageddon, Dirtside, Fast and Dirty,Stargrunt II,Challenger,etc.)

The current 40k rules make about as much sense as using Queensbury Rules for boxing, in a fire fight where participants are all armed with assault rifles.

In modern warfare,( WWII onwards,)warfare is an equal balance of Mobility to claim objectives, Firepower to control enemy movement , and Assault , to contest objectives.

40k has
0 stats for mobility,
1 stat for shooting.
4 stats for assault.
(And remaining 4 stats for unit survival T,W,Ld Sve, )

40ks meta game balance problems are simply from using in appropriate game mechanics .

Is no one placing terrain turn by turn and rolling for quadrants like the book says? This was a MASSIVE boost for my bugs.

Lanrak wrote:
All the above posters have discovered is that the game mechanics for ancient combat, are a bit rubbish when used with modern type units at anything more than skirmish level.

WHFB Skirmish Rules sort of worked OK for 2nd ed, due to low model count (more room to move into contact,) and more complexity in the game play.(To Hit Modifiers etc.)

When 40k moved to a Battle Game it should have been re written using modern game mechanics and resolution methods.IMO.
(EG found in rules written AFTER 1982.Like Epic, SM- Armageddon, Dirtside, Fast and Dirty,Stargrunt II,Challenger,etc.)

The current 40k rules make about as much sense as using Queensbury Rules for boxing, in a fire fight where participants are all armed with assault rifles.

In modern warfare,( WWII onwards,)warfare is an equal balance of Mobility to claim objectives, Firepower to control enemy movement , and Assault , to contest objectives.

40k has
0 stats for mobility,
1 stat for shooting.
4 stats for assault.
(And remaining 4 stats for unit survival T,W,Ld Sve, )

40ks meta game balance problems are simply from using in appropriate game mechanics .

You do have a stat for mobility, technically. It's in the unit profile and special rules.
Where are you getting 4 stats for assault? I'm counting 3 (I, S, A)

There's also transports and the run rule. 40k is more mobile than you think.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
All the above posters have discovered is that the game mechanics for ancient combat, are a bit rubbish when used with modern type units at anything more than skirmish level.

WHFB Skirmish Rules sort of worked OK for 2nd ed, due to low model count (more room to move into contact,) and more complexity in the game play.(To Hit Modifiers etc.)

When 40k moved to a Battle Game it should have been re written using modern game mechanics and resolution methods.IMO.
(EG found in rules written AFTER 1982.Like Epic, SM- Armageddon, Dirtside, Fast and Dirty,Stargrunt II,Challenger,etc.)

The current 40k rules make about as much sense as using Queensbury Rules for boxing, in a fire fight where participants are all armed with assault rifles.

In modern warfare,( WWII onwards,)warfare is an equal balance of Mobility to claim objectives, Firepower to control enemy movement , and Assault , to contest objectives.

40k has
0 stats for mobility,
1 stat for shooting.
4 stats for assault.
(And remaining 4 stats for unit survival T,W,Ld Sve, )

40ks meta game balance problems are simply from using in appropriate game mechanics .

You do have a stat for mobility, technically. It's in the unit profile and special rules.
Where are you getting 4 stats for assault? I'm counting 3 (I, S, A)

There's also transports and the run rule. 40k is more mobile than you think.

Weapon Skill. Which is the worst offender in terms of Assault vs Shooting. Having a high BS is much more useful and a lower BS much more detrimental than the comparable spread in WS.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Where are you getting 4 stats for assault? I'm counting 3 (I, S, A)

WS.

Purple Saturday wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
All the above posters have discovered is that the game mechanics for ancient combat, are a bit rubbish when used with modern type units at anything more than skirmish level.

WHFB Skirmish Rules sort of worked OK for 2nd ed, due to low model count (more room to move into contact,) and more complexity in the game play.(To Hit Modifiers etc.)

When 40k moved to a Battle Game it should have been re written using modern game mechanics and resolution methods.IMO.
(EG found in rules written AFTER 1982.Like Epic, SM- Armageddon, Dirtside, Fast and Dirty,Stargrunt II,Challenger,etc.)

The current 40k rules make about as much sense as using Queensbury Rules for boxing, in a fire fight where participants are all armed with assault rifles.

In modern warfare,( WWII onwards,)warfare is an equal balance of Mobility to claim objectives, Firepower to control enemy movement , and Assault , to contest objectives.

40k has
0 stats for mobility,
1 stat for shooting.
4 stats for assault.
(And remaining 4 stats for unit survival T,W,Ld Sve, )

40ks meta game balance problems are simply from using in appropriate game mechanics .

You do have a stat for mobility, technically. It's in the unit profile and special rules.
Where are you getting 4 stats for assault? I'm counting 3 (I, S, A)

There's also transports and the run rule. 40k is more mobile than you think.

Weapon Skill. Which is the worst offender in terms of Assault vs Shooting. Having a high BS is much more useful and a lower BS much more detrimental than the comparable spread in WS.

Gah dammit. Can't believe I forgot about that

Yeah, the weapon skill table doesn't make any sense.

You'd think that an Archon would be harder for a Ork to hit in combat than a Space Marine, but nope.

What it should be is:

if target WS < attacker's WS = 3+

if target WS is half or greater than half than the attacker's WS = 2+

if target WS is double or greater than double than the attacker's WS= 6+

if target WS = attacker's WS = 4+

if target WS > attacker's WS = 5+

So an Ork (WS4) would hit a guardsman (WS3) on a 3+, a FW (WS2) on a 2+, a Marine (WS4) on a 4+, an Archon (WS7) on a 5+ and an Avatar (WS10) on a 6+

... it should be noted that the reason guns remain the prevalent weapon in armed conflicts in the modern era is because they are very, very easy to operate and they kill other people very, very easily.

You *could* build a modern-day army of kung-fu masters armed with all kinds of crazy melee weapons and specializing in stealth tactics and night ops and such...

... but it's a whole lot easier to teach teenagers how to use an assault rifle over the course of a summer and send them on their way.

 Psienesis wrote:
... it should be noted that the reason guns remain the prevalent weapon in armed conflicts in the modern era is because they are very, very easy to operate and they kill other people very, very easily.

You *could* build a modern-day army of kung-fu masters armed with all kinds of crazy melee weapons and specializing in stealth tactics and night ops and such...

... but it's a whole lot easier to teach teenagers how to use an assault rifle over the course of a summer and send them on their way.

You don't take a knife to a gunfight and you don't take a gun to a nuclear war. This statement is kind of ridiculous. You could perhaps manage a cold war without guns or a similarly ranged weapon with similar rate of fire and ability to kill/maim but an actual war would boil down to your kung fu masters going in to a war zone and missiles landing in their vicinity and vaporizing them or at best them killing 1 squad member and the second guy shooting them from 10m away.

Overall CC actually makes more sense now seeing as the only units that are good at it are inhuman monstrosities capable of simply ridiculous feats or tricksie types that sneak up on you. In a world where people are shooting plasma at you, you better be a serious monster to run up to them and punch them to death. TBH I actually would prefer being able to assault out of transports and reserves and taking casualties from the back which would help CC armies significantly but overwatch is actually an interesting mechanic.

I do think i remember some hullabaloo when Starcannons changed from Heavy 2 to Heavy 3, or something like that. So quaint.

 ansacs wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
... it should be noted that the reason guns remain the prevalent weapon in armed conflicts in the modern era is because they are very, very easy to operate and they kill other people very, very easily.

You *could* build a modern-day army of kung-fu masters armed with all kinds of crazy melee weapons and specializing in stealth tactics and night ops and such...

... but it's a whole lot easier to teach teenagers how to use an assault rifle over the course of a summer and send them on their way.

You don't take a knife to a gunfight and you don't take a gun to a nuclear war. This statement is kind of ridiculous. You could perhaps manage a cold war without guns or a similarly ranged weapon with similar rate of fire and ability to kill/maim but an actual war would boil down to your kung fu masters going in to a war zone and missiles landing in their vicinity and vaporizing them or at best them killing 1 squad member and the second guy shooting them from 10m away.

Exactly my point, which is why assault-based armies are disadvantaged against armies that specialize in, or at the very least focus on, ranged combat. I imagine you've not read about the Montagnards during the Vietnam War? Dudes with knives can be a very effective fighting force, but they need to be *very* good at it, and conditions need to favor them significantly.

 ansacs wrote:
Overall CC actually makes more sense now seeing as the only units that are good at it are inhuman monstrosities capable of simply ridiculous feats or tricksie types that sneak up on you. In a world where people are shooting plasma at you, you better be a serious monster to run up to them and punch them to death. TBH I actually would prefer being able to assault out of transports and reserves and taking casualties from the back which would help CC armies significantly but overwatch is actually an interesting mechanic.

I'm not sure I would consider Khornate Daemons, Orks, or certain SM variants to be "inhuman monstrosities", but they certainly do give the assault build a go.

Well daemons are remarkably good at combat.

Orks and bugs have the wall of flesh going.

Marines walk around in armor that might as well make them miniturized walking tanks...its no wonder it often takes directional energy weapons to take them down when others are only bouncing bullets off their armor.

Vietnam is an interesting aberration of a "war". Any fight where one side is not allowed to engage beyond an imaginary line is going to be a pretty interesting fight. You are actually talking about a skirmisher force (Degar) operating as an attachment to a main battle force (Allies: US, etc.). This is a totally different proposition than your army of kungfu. Actually this is much like what works well in 40K right now...

Out of the options listed which ones are top tournament armies? None; khorn dogs, DP, Nids MC, ymarl stealers, Wraiths (necrons), Abaddon, and Wraithknights are top tier CC threates and they all are tricksie (ymarl stealers) or Monstrosities.

The top tier CC threats need speed and survivability. The horde options loose too much movement to taking casualties from the front. Now as a combined arms force the options you listed are fine but they need the shooting support and will not manage it on their own.

 ansacs wrote:
You don't take a knife to a gunfight and you don't take a gun to a nuclear war. This statement is kind of ridiculous. You could perhaps manage a cold war without guns or a similarly ranged weapon with similar rate of fire and ability to kill/maim but an actual war would boil down to your kung fu masters going in to a war zone and missiles landing in their vicinity and vaporizing them or at best them killing 1 squad member and the second guy shooting them from 10m away.

But you forget one important thing: This aren't just kung fu masters we are dealing with.

"A .75 caliber weapon, the Boltgun fires a self-propelled explosive 'bolt' which explodes with devastating effect once it has penetrated its target, effectively blowing it apart from the inside. Finely hand-crafted by Space Marine Forges or the Adeptus Mechanicus, Boltguns are heavy, sturdy weapons with a powerful recoil normal humans would find difficult to handle."
And to symbolize this power in the game, it hits at Strength 4!

Likewise, a Tactical Marine hits people in the face for Strength 4.
So one of these 'kung fu masters' has the same power in his punches as a .75 caliber self-propelled bolt.
And let's not forget the weaponry that allows them to smash through 365mm steel armour.

Kangodo wrote:

 ansacs wrote:
You don't take a knife to a gunfight and you don't take a gun to a nuclear war. This statement is kind of ridiculous. You could perhaps manage a cold war without guns or a similarly ranged weapon with similar rate of fire and ability to kill/maim but an actual war would boil down to your kung fu masters going in to a war zone and missiles landing in their vicinity and vaporizing them or at best them killing 1 squad member and the second guy shooting them from 10m away.

But you forget one important thing: This aren't just kung fu masters we are dealing with.

"A .75 caliber weapon, the Boltgun fires a self-propelled explosive 'bolt' which explodes with devastating effect once it has penetrated its target, effectively blowing it apart from the inside. Finely hand-crafted by Space Marine Forges or the Adeptus Mechanicus, Boltguns are heavy, sturdy weapons with a powerful recoil normal humans would find difficult to handle."
And to symbolize this power in the game, it hits at Strength 4!

Likewise, a Tactical Marine hits people in the face for Strength 4.
So one of these 'kung fu masters' has the same power in his punches as a .75 caliber self-propelled bolt.
And let's not forget the weaponry that allows them to smash through 365mm steel armour.

And he has detachable rocket fists to hit people from 400m away? Cause if he doesn't then the shooter should get to make ~100 attacks versus the SM A2 for charging.

It's important not to forget that ballistics arent the only thing that has advanced in this science fiction world...shielding and melee weapons have come a long way as well. As well as sheer amazing abilities...think about the ungodliness that are 10-level statistics I10 is superman fast...WS 10 is untouchable...like Draigo fluff good.

Anything above a 3 in this game really needs to be considered for what it truly is in this game....simply incredible.

 ansacs wrote:
Vietnam is an interesting aberration of a "war". Any fight where one side is not allowed to engage beyond an imaginary line is going to be a pretty interesting fight. You are actually talking about a skirmisher force (Degar) operating as an attachment to a main battle force (Allies: US, etc.). This is a totally different proposition than your army of kungfu. Actually this is much like what works well in 40K right now...

Out of the options listed which ones are top tournament armies? None; khorn dogs, DP, Nids MC, ymarl stealers, Wraiths (necrons), Abaddon, and Wraithknights are top tier CC threates and they all are tricksie (ymarl stealers) or Monstrosities.

The top tier CC threats need speed and survivability. The horde options loose too much movement to taking casualties from the front. Now as a combined arms force the options you listed are fine but they need the shooting support and will not manage it on their own.

And how many of those MCs fall to a few hits from a las-cannon? Most of them.

I'm not trying to defend Assault Armies here, I'm simply pointing out why assault armies in current-gen 40K have to either be *really good*, have the support of not-assault units, or get blown off the table.

 ansacs wrote:
And he has detachable rocket fists to hit people from 400m away? Cause if he doesn't then the shooter should get to make ~100 attacks versus the SM A2 for charging.

Don't underestimate the power of Power Armour and the Toughness of a Space Marine.
As I said earlier: .75 Caliber exploding bolts.
And those bolts still fail to wound a Marine half of the time and the Armour stops most of them.
Power Armour is made out of Ceramite. A Land Raider uses two of those layers.

Hmm.. I wonder what the statline for Iron Man would be in the WH40k-universe.
We all know how many hits he takes each story/movie.

Kangodo wrote:
Likewise, a Tactical Marine hits people in the face for Strength 4.
So one of these 'kung fu masters' has the same power in his punches as a .75 caliber self-propelled bolt.

Only because we're talking about a D6 system where the only way to get above "average" 3s is to go all the way to 4. With a more detailed scale marine fists might be more like STR 3.5, while bolters are STR 4.5. It's the same reason why an IG veteran (the lucky few survivors of a couple battles) and a marine sternguard veteran (the elite shooting unit in an army of superhumans with the best equipment and training) are both BS 4.

 ductvader wrote:
It's important not to forget that ballistics arent the only thing that has advanced in this science fiction world...shielding and melee weapons have come a long way as well.

Except that's not really what we see. Guns have no trouble killing things and the only reason melee "works" is that 40k's distance scale is a complete mess. Maximum weapon ranges are way too short and infantry movement distances are way too long for a 28mm game, if you scaled everything to true 28mm dedicated assault units would almost always be cut down long before they could get into melee range. And that's ignoring heavy weapons like mass artillery/orbital bombardment/etc which are far too weak compared to what they should be doing.

As well as sheer amazing abilities...think about the ungodliness that are 10-level statistics I10 is superman fast...WS 10 is untouchable...like Draigo fluff good.

And then an artillery shell lands nearby and kills the I10 WS10 superhuman. It doesn't matter if you're an absolute god of combat with a sword on a modern/future battlefield, all that superhuman ability just means you stab a random guardsman to death really well before being shot and killed by an enemy hundreds of feet (or dozens of miles) away.

Psienesis wrote:

 ansacs wrote:
Vietnam is an interesting aberration of a "war". Any fight where one side is not allowed to engage beyond an imaginary line is going to be a pretty interesting fight. You are actually talking about a skirmisher force (Degar) operating as an attachment to a main battle force (Allies: US, etc.). This is a totally different proposition than your army of kungfu. Actually this is much like what works well in 40K right now...

Out of the options listed which ones are top tournament armies? None; khorn dogs, DP, Nids MC, ymarl stealers, Wraiths (necrons), Abaddon, and Wraithknights are top tier CC threates and they all are tricksie (ymarl stealers) or Monstrosities.

The top tier CC threats need speed and survivability. The horde options loose too much movement to taking casualties from the front. Now as a combined arms force the options you listed are fine but they need the shooting support and will not manage it on their own.

And how many of those MCs fall to a few hits from a las-cannon? Most of them.

I'm not trying to defend Assault Armies here, I'm simply pointing out why assault armies in current-gen 40K have to either be *really good*, have the support of not-assault units, or get blown off the table.

Fair enough. I agree with you mostly though tyranids do CC to a tourney winning level even in the current meta. Daemons (khorne dog + FMC circus) also do this to a tourney level, they are fairly new so we will have to see if they win.

Kangodo wrote:

 ansacs wrote:
And he has detachable rocket fists to hit people from 400m away? Cause if he doesn't then the shooter should get to make ~100 attacks versus the SM A2 for charging.

Don't underestimate the power of Power Armour and the Toughness of a Space Marine.
As I said earlier: .75 Caliber exploding bolts.
And those bolts still fail to wound a Marine half of the time and the Armour stops most of them.
Power Armour is made out of Ceramite. A Land Raider uses two of those layers.

Hmm.. I wonder what the statline for Iron Man would be in the WH40k-universe.
We all know how many hits he takes each story/movie.

Again by your own words bolters and melee are the same strength and yet the bolter would get far more hits that a melee if the super soldier actually has to run up to the gun man. By your own estimation of same strength and damage per shot/punch the shooting wins out by a huge margin.

This all ignores the fact that missiles and artillery are being fielded on the battlefield and therefore in a "realistic" version of our favorite fantasy scifi game the average engagement distance should be miles and the melee would happen only with extremely careful planning or under extreme conditions. (a waagh or nid invasion might manage it as the orks pop up under your bunk mold and the nids are pooped out by a giant tank like monstrosity right into your gunline).

But Space Marines do not charge for miles to get into close combat.
They either teleport with their Terminator-armour, use Jump Packs to get close or they come in Drop Pods.

Space Marines are the 'SEAL-teams' of the Imperium.
They are the highly mobile strike forces who do the most dangerous missions.

Spartak wrote:

Psienesis
I'm not sure I would consider Khornate Daemons, Orks, or certain SM variants to be "inhuman monstrosities", but they certainly do give the assault build a go.