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.

1. As said before, a LR increases a units cost by two folds yet only matches a shooting units damage when hitting the lines. Also, a LR isn't competitive because it is expensive and is not reliable, if someone has a decent anti-tank weapon it's gone almost 90% of the time.

MVB won a tournament with some of the best players on the east cost with a LR. LR's are quite good in 6th edition. Quite good. The amount of anti-tank in the current meta that can reliably kill an LR is very, very low. In short, this comment is kind of ridiculous. Sorry bud.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

And bloodcrushers! Why.... why do you cost so much? Oh and berzerkers are generally concidered not worth it. From my observations, the cc units that do it well are super mobile and preferably durable as well. Assault isn't dead... that being said it certainly is at its lowest point.

Bloodcrushers are a template that needs proper synergism to get the most out of. Just like the Screamer star that is so popular. You can do very similiar things with the Crushers. Different, but you get the same net results. Why haven't you seen that yet? Because tournament players, with a few exceptions, are very conservative, and will only invest their time and money into proven formulas. Using "why haven't you seen it in a tournament?" as some sort of standard of objectivity is carelessly myopic (you didn't say that yourself, StarTrotter, but others have).

Where do sm ccw scouts in a heavy flamer lss stand? I've been thinking about one or two units to help clear objectives late game or to possibly mop up depleted units. My list includes primarily bikes,stormtalons and tfcs. Vet sarge upgrade could be worth it for this situation. They're not hugely survivable but are very mobile and if you pick your targets wisely could pay off.

Anyone have experience with them?

Jamo wrote:
Where do sm ccw scouts in a heavy flamer lss stand? I've been thinking about one or two units to help clear objectives late game or to possibly mop up depleted units. My list includes primarily bikes,stormtalons and tfcs. Vet sarge upgrade could be worth it for this situation. They're not hugely survivable but are very mobile and if you pick your targets wisely could pay off.

Anyone have experience with them?

If run in multiples they could probably make a nice mobile flanking force (but you would need at least 3, and expect one to die before you get there). If you are using a lot of bikes you can get a good amount of force concentration and threat overload, so that's pretty good. Again, you'll win against fire warriors, cultists and non-PW guard, Necron warriors at a push. 5 guys is usually not enough to do more than take on the weakest units. They are certainly pretty good, and the 12"+2d6 threat range is nice, but you need you pick your targets.

EVIL INC wrote:
This is why I started this thread. To help people learn to overcome how close combat has been toned down from being way overpowered to simply awesomely powerful.

This again? See my sig for my opinion of that sort of sentiment. I'm having difficulties agreeing with your points when your basic premise is that CC went from OP to good, when it went from good to mediocre at best. It's not that melee is impossible, it's that shooting (with the exception of a few units) is better and not as vulnerable to the whims of the dice gods.

I only have 2 problems with CC rules in 6th. The random charge range, and the fact that 1 character can assault a mob of 20, win a round of combat and then immediately obliterate the unit with a sweeping advance.

I believe very strongly that random charge ranges need to be removed from the game, or at the very least there be a reasonable minimum charge range with a randomness on top of that, and that a sweeping advance should never kill more models than the winning unit has attacks in their profile.

I feel that the issue with close combat is that most units have a really hard time getting there in the first place. Berzerkers are the prime example in that you either take a Land Raider (doubling the cost) or you walk, doing nothing most of the game. There really should have been some sort of Khornate assault vehicle. Same with Templars; with the loss of RZ we're slower into CC in an edition where only speedy or ultra-tough units get into CC.

Further, I'd argue that the various MEQ assaulty armies (CSM, BA, BT) are doing the worst, because 3+ saves aren't worth squat anymore. Between Heldrakes, Riptides, Shuriken weapons and Grav/Plasma spam, there's not much one can do as a MEQ player forced to footslogging or pay for a LR. As has been noted, Seer Councils, FMCs and Daemons (I.e. non-MEQ assault units) seem to be holding up decently. This ties in to the fact that assault armies are less reliable; (relative) elite armies are also by definition more vulnerable to flubbing dice rolls than more horde-centric armies (Seer Councils and Screamerstars get concistency from rerollable saves).

@ EVIL INC:

Now that I'm genuinely interested in listening to you, what say we make up for our poor argumentative skills, and just go with a Q&A session?

Here are some questions for you:

1) What would you consider to be a highly competitive list?

2) What kind of terrain density is commonly applied to a 40k gaming table?

3) What is the most common cover save?

4) What are the numerical odds of killing a rhino?

With each edition, we find some units get "left out" while others get "extra helpings". In this edition, berserkers are one of te units that get left out. However, as with every other edition, you find that they have been replaced with a different unit that is just as good. if you were a conspiracy (as I am in this case), You would think that this was on purpose to get players to buy more models. I have seen stores go out of business because after people built their armies, they stopped buying models and GW is in the business of selling models. So I think that they purposely switch units around like this. So in last edition a khorne berserker army woulda been really powerful as an effective close combat army. This edition, they might be meh at best and lose out to the spawn monstrous daemonic tank close combat army. This does not mean that close combat is dead, it means that if the berserker heavy chaos player wants to remain at the top they need to buy a whole new set of models and learn now ways to effectively use his new units.

The random charge range has actually been a boon to assaults. Before most assaults were initiated 2 to 3 inches from the target unit, 6 inches if the player was really shortsighted and even then, only because they were too lazy to reach across the table another couple inches while the unit still had movement left over. Now the ability to assault a full 12 inches makes the turn one assault even easier than before. Of course, the average assault distance remains 2 to 3 inches where you will usually make it even if you roll snake eyes.

Indeed, I think the MEQ armies are finding it a little less easy to win out. Again, we go back to finances. GW has made their fortune off of the space marine. Now, they are finding that with plastics and resin, they are able to make money off of the non-meq armies as well. Especially so when they can charge just as much for a 10 man squad that costs half as many points. I myself remember longing for a guard army back when the mordians came out and even buying 3 units of them before my money gave out. When apocalypse came out and they had the infantry company deal? I got it for Christmas that year and have completed my guard since then. So yes, marines are getting a little less love.

I just disagree with you. The purpose of this thread is to prove why and to help players cope with the new edition and keep their close combat armies just as effective as before. (although as we have seen, it may mean having to buy different close combat models or learning new builds, strategies and tactics.

Selym, If you can keep it civil and stay on topic, you are welcome.
1. There are competitive lists that are both shooty and assault. There is a list building section of the forum.
2. Check out the rules section. There is asset method of setting up terrain that allows both players to set the table up which generally keeps one side from having a total advantage.
3. I have found it to be a 4+ but the actual cover save is based on terrain or what you are using for cover. It is even possible to artificially create a 4+ save while running across a wide open field.
4. It depends on what you are hitting it with. A monstrous creature is more likely to that a guardsman while a melta gun is more likely to than a las gun. If you have to do mathhammer to play the game, you are defeating the purpose of the game which is having fun. Not once have I ever played mathhammer, instead I used overall strategies and tactics to win games and it works out well for me. However, I am sure that if you want to start a mathhammer thread where people figure the exact odds and percentages possible for different dice rolls, you will get a lot of people willing to take part in that discussion. However, it is a different discussion that what we are having here.

Some snippage included:

EVIL INC wrote:

1. There are competitive lists that are both shooty and assault. There is a list building section of the forum.
3. I have found it to be a 4+ but the actual cover save is based on terrain or what you are using for cover. It is even possible to artificially create a 4+ save while running across a wide open field.

You misunderstand my question...

1) What do you specifically think is a powerful list, in your opinion?

And regarding (3), isn't the most common save a 5+, as the rules state that as the standard?

 Selym wrote:
Some snippage included:

EVIL INC wrote:

1. There are competitive lists that are both shooty and assault. There is a list building section of the forum.
3. I have found it to be a 4+ but the actual cover save is based on terrain or what you are using for cover. It is even possible to artificially create a 4+ save while running across a wide open field.

You misunderstand my question...

1) What do you specifically think is a powerful list, in your opinion?

And regarding (3), isn't the most common save a 5+, as the rules state that as the standard?

Hm, I could see it being 4 for most armies as many people will instinctively deploy in better cover and stick to it whenever possible.

How many games occur where the trees are entirely avoided as a ruin was "nearby enough"

 ductvader wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Some snippage included:

EVIL INC wrote:

1. There are competitive lists that are both shooty and assault. There is a list building section of the forum.
3. I have found it to be a 4+ but the actual cover save is based on terrain or what you are using for cover. It is even possible to artificially create a 4+ save while running across a wide open field.

You misunderstand my question...

1) What do you specifically think is a powerful list, in your opinion?

And regarding (3), isn't the most common save a 5+, as the rules state that as the standard?

Hm, I could see it being 4 for most armies as many people will instinctively deploy in better cover and stick to it whenever possible.

How many games occur where the trees are entirely avoided as a ruin was "nearby enough"

I wouldn't know, I have a limited supply of terrain pieces/types.

There is a specific forum section for list building. This thread is not about building lists or what are good lists the very specific purpose of the thread is to demonstrate ways to use your assault troops more effectively.
Yes, the average cover save is still 4+ when you add in the fact that shooting through your own units confers a 4+ save to the enemy target (this does not include other members of the same unit firing but rather separate friendly units) and that shooting through enemy units also provide a 4+ cover save (exploitable by assault armies to give themselves a 4+ cover even while out in the middle of an open field).

Fair point....my local store has a certain allowance of GW prize support that goes into terrain if we don't manage to pull together a tournament every quarter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EVIL INC wrote:
There is a specific forum section for list building. This thread is not about building lists or what are good lists the very specific purpose of the thread is to demonstrate ways to use your assault troops more effectively.
Yes, the average cover save is still 4+ when you add in the fact that shooting through your own units confers a 4+ save to the enemy target (this does not include other members of the same unit firing but rather separate friendly units) and that shooting through enemy units also provide a 4+ cover save (exploitable by assault armies to give themselves a 4+ cover even while out in the middle of an open field).

Tyranids do this all the time via venomthropes.

4+ then FnP and many more bodies.

Sorry, double post

EVIL INC wrote:
The random charge range has actually been a boon to assaults. Before most assaults were initiated 2 to 3 inches from the target unit, 6 inches if the player was really shortsighted and even then, only because they were too lazy to reach across the table another couple inches while the unit still had movement left over. Now the ability to assault a full 12 inches makes the turn one assault even easier than before. Of course, the average assault distance remains 2 to 3 inches where you will usually make it even if you roll snake eyes.

First, turn one assaults are actually harder than before, not easier (despite the 12" potential distance). Not being able to assault from Infiltrate or Scout does that. And since you have to get at least a 25" move + charge it's pretty difficult.
Second, no - it's worse. I regularly had 4-5" charges in 5th. Why? Because that's how far it was out of cover. Genestealers had to/have to hug cover as even the lowly Bolter APs them.

3. I have found it to be a 4+ but the actual cover save is based on terrain or what you are using for cover. It is even possible to artificially create a 4+ save while running across a wide open field.

No, the most common cover save is 5+. Ruins provide a 4+ but those are rare overall and shouldn't be counted on.

4. It depends on what you are hitting it with. A monstrous creature is more likely to that a guardsman while a melta gun is more likely to than a las gun. If you have to do mathhammer to play the game, you are defeating the purpose of the game which is having fun. Not once have I ever played mathhammer, instead I used overall strategies and tactics to win games and it works out well for me. However, I am sure that if you want to start a mathhammer thread where people figure the exact odds and percentages possible for different dice rolls, you will get a lot of people willing to take part in that discussion. However, it is a different discussion that what we are having here.

No - it's the same discussion. You're saying assault isn't bad and - using math - it's possible to prove that it's a bad idea to attempt it. And maybe mathhammer isn't fun for you - it is for me.

The problem is that this statemet:

The random charge range has actually been a boon to assaults. Before most assaults were initiated 2 to 3 inches from the target unit, 6 inches if the player was really shortsighted and even then, only because they were too lazy to reach across the table another couple inches while the unit still had movement left over. Now the ability to assault a full 12 inches makes the turn one assault even easier than before. Of course, the average assault distance remains 2 to 3 inches where you will usually make it even if you roll snake eyes.

Is counter intuitive to this statement:

The purpose of this thread is to prove why and to help players cope with the new edition and keep their close combat armies just as effective as before.

A turn one assault is not any easier than before. Anybody who tries to assault from 12" away in anything other than a last ditch attempt to contest an objective in the final turn is an idiot.

While the average assault range remains the same as before, the problem with the new rules is that you now have to factor the risk into things, where before there was none.

In 5th, if you were 5.9" away and wanted to assault, there was nothing stopping you. In 6th, if you're 5.9" away, you have to consider that this random dice roll might not come up with the numbers you need, resulting in you eating a turn of overwatch and still not making the assault. The result is that people play their assault units safer and only charge when they can stack the odds of actually making the charge in their favour (i.e charge re-rolls from fleet, being with 2-3", using units that have a higher base move speed to counteract the manouvering time).

While you can make a 12" charge, it's so incredibly unlikely that for all intents and purposes, the new charge range might as well be 4-6", since nobody with any sesne is going to attempt a charge beyond that range and risk not making it.

The game is about control. Controlling your positioning. Controlling your firepower and target priority. Controlling your probability/risk. Random charges reduce that control element, so the natural compensation is to mitigate that loss of control by stacking the odds - i.e not making charges that have a 50% or lower chance to succeed. I.e not making dumb charges from beyond 4-6" (dependant on your assessment of the risk). If you are assaulting from exactly 6" away, you are literally flipping a coin to determine the fate of your unit. Beyond that range and the odds get worse and worse.

While games are occasionally won on hail marys they are much more frequently won on units performing consistently. That's the core foundation that competitive lists are built on. Risk mitigation and consistency.

EVIL INC wrote:
Yes, the average cover save is still 4+ when you add in the fact that shooting through your own units confers a 4+ save to the enemy target (this does not include other members of the same unit firing but rather separate friendly units) and that shooting through enemy units also provide a 4+ cover save (exploitable by assault armies to give themselves a 4+ cover even while out in the middle of an open field).

Absolutely incorrect. If you don't know the rules how can you form a valid opinion on how well assault is doing?

Actual Rules p18 wrote:If a target is partially hidden from the firer's view by models from a third unit (models not from the firer's unit, or from the target unit) it receivers a 5+ cover save.

rigeld2 wrote:

EVIL INC wrote:

4. It depends on what you are hitting it with. A monstrous creature is more likely to that a guardsman while a melta gun is more likely to than a las gun. If you have to do mathhammer to play the game, you are defeating the purpose of the game which is having fun. Not once have I ever played mathhammer, instead I used overall strategies and tactics to win games and it works out well for me. However, I am sure that if you want to start a mathhammer thread where people figure the exact odds and percentages possible for different dice rolls, you will get a lot of people willing to take part in that discussion. However, it is a different discussion that what we are having here.

No - it's the same discussion. You're saying assault isn't bad and - using math - it's possible to prove that it's a bad idea to attempt it. And maybe mathhammer isn't fun for you - it is for me.

It's also possible to prove the opposite.

The problem with comparing shooting and assault is that you're thinking of them as separate whereas they are usually heavily heavily integrated with one another.

 ductvader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

EVIL INC wrote:

4. It depends on what you are hitting it with. A monstrous creature is more likely to that a guardsman while a melta gun is more likely to than a las gun. If you have to do mathhammer to play the game, you are defeating the purpose of the game which is having fun. Not once have I ever played mathhammer, instead I used overall strategies and tactics to win games and it works out well for me. However, I am sure that if you want to start a mathhammer thread where people figure the exact odds and percentages possible for different dice rolls, you will get a lot of people willing to take part in that discussion. However, it is a different discussion that what we are having here.

No - it's the same discussion. You're saying assault isn't bad and - using math - it's possible to prove that it's a bad idea to attempt it. And maybe mathhammer isn't fun for you - it is for me.

It's also possible to prove the opposite.

The problem with comparing shooting and assault is that you're thinking of them as separate whereas they are usually heavily heavily integrated with one another.

And where they're heavily integrated it can make for a decent list.
But I think it's less "usually" than you think.

The keys for an assault army are, in order:

Resiliency - how long you can take fire and stay a viable unit
Speed - how fast you can get in assault
Blenderness - how good you are in assault.

You can be an absolute blender unit that is relatively fast (Infiltrate with Fleet) but if you can't take bolter shots you're relegated to the shelf.

rigeld2 wrote:

 ductvader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

EVIL INC wrote:

4. It depends on what you are hitting it with. A monstrous creature is more likely to that a guardsman while a melta gun is more likely to than a las gun. If you have to do mathhammer to play the game, you are defeating the purpose of the game which is having fun. Not once have I ever played mathhammer, instead I used overall strategies and tactics to win games and it works out well for me. However, I am sure that if you want to start a mathhammer thread where people figure the exact odds and percentages possible for different dice rolls, you will get a lot of people willing to take part in that discussion. However, it is a different discussion that what we are having here.

No - it's the same discussion. You're saying assault isn't bad and - using math - it's possible to prove that it's a bad idea to attempt it. And maybe mathhammer isn't fun for you - it is for me.

It's also possible to prove the opposite.

The problem with comparing shooting and assault is that you're thinking of them as separate whereas they are usually heavily heavily integrated with one another.

And where they're heavily integrated it can make for a decent list.
But I think it's less "usually" than you think.

The keys for an assault army are, in order:

Resiliency - how long you can take fire and stay a viable unit
Speed - how fast you can get in assault
Blenderness - how good you are in assault.

You can be an absolute blender unit that is relatively fast (Infiltrate with Fleet) but if you can't take bolter shots you're relegated to the shelf.

I think you forgot about synergy / force multipliers.

Otherwise I agree with the above.

I can't tell you the number of times that Venomthropes, and Harpies have won me assaults simply by being in them...not necessarily by their damage output.
Or even the Broodlord activating Aura of despair to affect combats that are nearby even if he's not in them.

Synergy in assault is very important...it is those rock/paper/scissors "deathstar" assault units that go solo that I think are often the weakest in assault.

50% of assaults are initiated within 3 inches so the only way to fail it is is you roll snake eyes, Most of the rest are initiated within 6 inches and only the very rare gamble assaults are initiated from further. So overall, if you are able to roll a seven or higher on the assault dice, your going to make it further than in previous editions on first turn assaults. An assault army will have multiple units doing so the more than likely, at least one of them will make it with the others rolling in on turn 2.

The common cover save is still a 4+ regardless of what some people claim, this has been proven and examples given to allow you to even artificially create a 4+ cover out of thin air.

So Apok what your post essentially says is that in 5th edition you were guaranteed a win by using an assault army while in 6th you have to actually use tactics and roll the dice. That is not nerfing close combat, it is bringing it to within a reasonable level to make the game balanced. This thread is dedicated to helping players learn to minimize the risks to help them remain on top. And again, most assaults were initiated with 3 inches before so the random range essentially is done to make you think while still giving you an extremely good chance of getting into combat.

Rigeld, wholly covered and partially covered are two separate things. A good player can wholly cover a unit with a screening unit. For those who are unable to figure out how, a 5+ save against a las cannon by an entire unit in the middle of an open field is still pretty dam good.

Ductvader, absolutely correct.

Rigeld, this is where we go back to GW being in the business of selling models. Rules for different models and units change forcing you to buy new ones to fill the roles others used in previous editions.

However, we seem to have gotten off topic. The topic is providing specific tactics and strategies to maximize assault units rather than discuss the merits of assault. To discuss merits of assaulting there are other threads to do that.

All right.

Anyone want to hit on different tactics for different assault units?

Beasts
Jump units
Fleet units
Swarms
Bikes
MCs
FMCs
Chariots

I guaruntee there are more categories but I went to the immediate "oddities"

EVIL INC wrote:
The topic is providing specific tactics and strategies to maximize assault units rather than discuss the merits of assault.

Alrighty, on that subject:

Let's say I have a CSM army.

And let's say that my opponent has a gunline involving six LRBT's of various types, lots of IG with heavy weapons, and an ADL.

How do you suggest getting into melee with some of that?
And can you answer the question without telling me to put Khorne Berserkers in a Land Raider, because that thing is far too overcosted.

EVIL INC wrote:
50% of assaults are initiated within 3 inches so the only way to fail it is is you roll snake eyes, Most of the rest are initiated within 6 inches and only the very rare gamble assaults are initiated from further. So overall, if you are able to roll a seven or higher on the assault dice, your going to make it further than in previous editions on first turn assaults. An assault army will have multiple units doing so the more than likely, at least one of them will make it with the others rolling in on turn 2.

No. You will not make a fist turn assault by rolling a 7. Absolutely guaranteed. Using that statement to support your argument brings your entire argument down.

The common cover save is still a 4+ regardless of what some people claim, this has been proven and examples given to allow you to even artificially create a 4+ cover out of thin air.

Citation required. Please enlighten me.

So Apok what your post essentially says is that in 5th edition you were guaranteed a win by using an assault army while in 6th you have to actually use tactics and roll the dice. That is not nerfing close combat, it is bringing it to within a reasonable level to make the game balanced. This thread is dedicated to helping players learn to minimize the risks to help them remain on top. And again, most assaults were initiated with 3 inches before so the random range essentially is done to make you think while still giving you an extremely good chance of getting into combat.

No, he's not saying that. In 5th edition you still had to have a solid shooting base most of the time - very few CC-only armies did well. In 6th edition you have to have more shooting because assault isn't as reliable.

Rigeld, wholly covered and partially covered are two separate things. A good player can wholly cover a unit with a screening unit. For those who are unable to figure out how, a 5+ save against a las cannon by an entire unit in the middle of an open field is still pretty dam good.

As far as the actual rules are concerned no, wholly covered and partially covered are the same. Please provide rules support.

Rigeld, this is where we go back to GW being in the business of selling models. Rules for different models and units change forcing you to buy new ones to fill the roles others used in previous editions.

Jokes on them - I have ~5k points of nids so I haven't had to buy new ones for a while.

However, we seem to have gotten off topic. The topic is providing specific tactics and strategies to maximize assault units rather than discuss the merits of assault. To discuss merits of assaulting there are other threads to do that.

You're providing tactics and strategies that are incorrect and will lead unaware players into problems. You're saying that any problem with an assaulting army lies in the player - which is incorrect.

rigeld2 wrote:

EVIL INC wrote:
50% of assaults are initiated within 3 inches so the only way to fail it is is you roll snake eyes, Most of the rest are initiated within 6 inches and only the very rare gamble assaults are initiated from further. So overall, if you are able to roll a seven or higher on the assault dice, your going to make it further than in previous editions on first turn assaults. An assault army will have multiple units doing so the more than likely, at least one of them will make it with the others rolling in on turn 2.

No. You will not make a fist turn assault by rolling a 7. Absolutely guaranteed. Using that statement to support your argument brings your entire argument down.

Who in the world is planning on a fist turn assault? (DE aside)

Anyone worth their salt in assault knows that turns 2 and 3 are the key assault turns.

 ductvader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

EVIL INC wrote:
50% of assaults are initiated within 3 inches so the only way to fail it is is you roll snake eyes, Most of the rest are initiated within 6 inches and only the very rare gamble assaults are initiated from further. So overall, if you are able to roll a seven or higher on the assault dice, your going to make it further than in previous editions on first turn assaults. An assault army will have multiple units doing so the more than likely, at least one of them will make it with the others rolling in on turn 2.

No. You will not make a fist turn assault by rolling a 7. Absolutely guaranteed. Using that statement to support your argument brings your entire argument down.

Who in the world is planning on a fist turn assault?

EVIL INC, apparently.

 ductvader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

EVIL INC wrote:
50% of assaults are initiated within 3 inches so the only way to fail it is is you roll snake eyes, Most of the rest are initiated within 6 inches and only the very rare gamble assaults are initiated from further. So overall, if you are able to roll a seven or higher on the assault dice, your going to make it further than in previous editions on first turn assaults. An assault army will have multiple units doing so the more than likely, at least one of them will make it with the others rolling in on turn 2.

No. You will not make a fist turn assault by rolling a 7. Absolutely guaranteed. Using that statement to support your argument brings your entire argument down.

Who in the world is planning on a fist turn assault? (DE aside)

Anyone worth their salt in assault knows that turns 2 and 3 are the key assault turns.

I bolded the sentence where he is.

Selym, have you tried using spawn? A large unit with a mark of nurgle are VERY hard to kill off. With a monstrous daemon prince or other nasty close combat guy sitting at the back, it is very easy to slingshot yourself into combat. String them across. Only a single one needs to make it and with their high toughness and wounds, even that gunline would be hard pressed to kill more than 3 which means turn two, you are in close combat.
You might also try assaulting with multiple units. Make him choose what units he will shoot at. Done correctly, he will do either a little damage to all your units or a lot of damage to one leaving the rest unscathed. As soon as you get one unit there, he is dead and just doesn't know it yet with his small warm body count and it will just be a matter of you mopping up his tanks.
Instead of just throwing up your hands and giving up, expand your tactics and strategies. The bad thing about it's inconsistencies is that it changes the dynamics. There have been editions where I was almost ready to give up but slogged through and educated myself (often through enduring ass beatings lol). One thing I would suggest would be to metagame yourself. Set up a variety of set ups and how a gunline would set up in in. Then circle the table and measure out taking ranges and such. Would give you a chance to get "visuals" without the pressure of actually being in a game. That helped me wrap my mind around a few things.

rigeld- You are saying that it is absolutely impossible to reach close combat EVER by rolling a seven? Going by your own theory, it would also therefore be impossible to do it by rolling a 6 then. last edition the range was six which means you are more likely to do it by rolling a seven. the issue is not guaranteeing you get a first turn assault. It is getting into assault and doing damage once there. if you have to wait till turn two, then so be it. We are discussing ways to help you learn to do so.
Citation... check out the rulebook. There are three versions of it. The big hardback (which I bought just to have, the little one that comes in the starter box (that's the one I take to tourneys) and the new hardback just the rules one. I don't have a copy of that one but I will assume it's just a fancy version of the one that comes in the starter set.
I was correct in paraphrasing Apok
My own chaos army was large like that. Was much fun to pull it out to play and watch the faces of the youngsters when they saw my old rtb01 models and wondered what my cannon of khorne (vindicator) was and where it came from.
I and others are actually providing tactics and strategies that are correct and will assist them in winning games. Your view that the skill level of the player means nothing in the game is easily disproved. take any person, lets say a 5 year old child who has never even heard of wargaming and hand them a tau codex (because that one actually IS broken in terms of shooting) and tell them to buid a tournament army on their own. When they are done (if they even get that far), play them a game with your tournament army list of bugs. According to you, the child will win every time because tau being shooty auto wins the game with skill, army build, tactics and strategy playing no part in it at all.

if you don't have actual tactics or strategies to post, post somewhere else because that is the purpose of THIS thread.

here is how I have been having sucess with assault based armies:

basically, start off with what turn your entire army can assault.

because you do not want some assaulting turn 1, some turn 2, some turn 3, you need it all to hit at once, and sooner rather then later.

so for my GK's, its easy, everyone has a teleporter, and can be in CC turn two ,or kite and outshoot, its the least CC orentated army i play that still gets into CC often on purpose

for my orks I either run a total footslogger list, that will most likely get to charge turn 3 with waaagh, and has sooooo many freaking boys, that I can give every one of em a 5++ with mad doc, and still outnumber people 3-1. they dont have enough bullets to kill that many orks by turn 5, let alone turn 3. generally this strat leaves me with the entire board under my control, but I dont table the opponent as often.

or everyone in battle wagons + trukks + bikes, and everything I put on the board can be in combat turn two. some armies really do have enough firepower to cripple enough transports first turn taht this might not work 100%... but i tend to table or come close to it with this one. luckily I havnt played any armies with this strat that spam str8+ shots, even against centurion spam, I only lost two units of bikes + one BW before everything got to charge, and I had 2nd turn too!


other then that, if you are not making the army around CC, its best left to a few counter charge units or beat stick IC's that can supplement shooting armies.

50% of assaults are initiated within 3 inches so the only way to fail it is is you roll snake eyes, Most of the rest are initiated within 6 inches and only the very rare gamble assaults are initiated from further. So overall, if you are able to roll a seven or higher on the assault dice, your going to make it further than in previous editions on first turn assaults.

You don't seem to understand that that 7" assault range you rolled is worthless if your unit is 3" away from your target.

If, to practically guarantee you succeed a charge, you must be within 3", then it doesn't matter if the actual dice you roll are 2d20. If you have to be within 3" of your target then you have to move your unit that distance away before you attempt to charge. At that point a roll of 12 or 8 or 5 is irrelevant. You are close enough to make the charge regardless of the roll.

Hence you have mitigated the risk, but in doing so, restricted your guaranteed charge range to 3", rather than the guaranteed charge range of 6" that was present in 5th.

It doesn't matter what you can maybe roll if the dice gods favour you. What matters is that for you to make the decision to assault, your unit must meet certain personally determined criteria. For many players that criteria is 'Succeed in the charge', and the only way to guarantee a successful charge is to be closer than you used to have to be.

Lets look at it another way.

If I asked you to choose between the following units, which would you pick:
a) A unit that can kill 20 models per turn, but each turn you must flip a coin. If the result is heads, the unit can do nothing that turn. If the result is tails, the unit kills 20 models that turn.
b) A unit that can kill 10 models per turn. There are no conditions that must be met for this to happen. It will kill 10 models every turn without fail.

So do you pick consistency or inconsistency, and why?


edit: And no, you're not correct in paraphrasing me at all. You're actually managing to completely miss/sidestep the point.