How important is the concept of close combat in 40k?

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.

**Archon_Zarbyrn**

Hi everyone, was just thinking about how each edition since 5th has IMO been having a larger focus on powerful ranged weapons over assault. Yet every time I think of 40k I can't help, but imagine things like a squad of banshees paralyzing then tearing through a marine squad. Yet in the rules trying to recreate that scenario is quite difficult due to the many issues assault units have to deal with, cover, lack of assault transports etc. So my question is, how important is close combat in 40k for you and do you think the rules reflect this aspect well?

**jonolikespie**

I think it is quite important, one of the things that distinguishes 40k from other sifi is that so much of it is really just medieval fantasy in space. Sure Star Wars and others have had iconic melee weapons in a sifi setting but for 40k the concept of it is just so much larger, you have entier armies trying to get into melee against a gunline with tanks and lasers.

Without the focus on melee then 40k loses most of what sets it apart from other sifi.

As well the best models and artwork are of characters with their melee weapons out, no one cares about the marine captain and his storm bolter, but if that storm bolter goes in his off hand and he is waving a sword then suddenly that is iconic.

I also do not feel this is represented well at all on the table and I consider that a huge shame.

**TheCustomLime**

Most warfare in 40k is ranged or desperate assaults. Heroic fights between dedicated assault units with powerful close combat weapons is very much in the minority. Don't forget that most battles in 40k is Imperial Guard versus Rebels/Orks.

**koooaei**

Mellee is still very important on tabletop. It's hard to remember the last time tactical marines didn't end up wrecking some transports with krak nades or finishing off a guard squad in mellee. It's rare but at least a couple mellee combats happen almost every game. Unless it's tau vs eldar or something like this.

And this makes CC special. It's usually not a no-brainer option unless it's a 2++ rerollable star or something. Mellee is a tactical decision.

**ShaneTB**

There's never been a lack of CC in the games I've played since starting up the hobby again.

One thing that stood out in the OP was this:

Archon_Zarbyrn wrote:
Yet in the rules trying to recreate that scenario is quite difficult due to the many issues assault units have to deal with, cover...

We follow the BRB setup rules with each game. Pick an army. Cover at least 25% of the table with scenery (hills don't count), then take it in turns to place the scenery. Roll for mission. This keeps it fresh and at times you'll have to adapt with your army due to the mission type. LOS blocking terrain is key to CC happening. You wouldn't take a CC army onto an open plain when the enemy has long ranged weapons; doesn't make sense to do that in 40k.

And overwatch is a psychological thing. I've charged a huge blob of Orks with rapid fire before and only lost a few Daemonettes (not a lot considering the vast amount of dice flying about).

CC is often the most exciting part. Even when losing against the odds or having that one beak-headed marine somehow hold up a wave of Flesh Hounds for multiple rounds on his own - it's entertaining.

**Melevolence**

ShaneTB wrote:
There's never been a lack of CC in the games I've played since starting up the hobby again.

One thing that stood out in the OP was this:

Archon_Zarbyrn wrote:
Yet in the rules trying to recreate that scenario is quite difficult due to the many issues assault units have to deal with, cover...

We follow the BRB setup rules with each game. Pick an army. Cover at least 25% of the table with scenery (hills don't count), then take it in turns to place the scenery. Roll for mission. This keeps it fresh and at times you'll have to adapt with your army due to the mission type. LOS blocking terrain is key to CC happening. You wouldn't take a CC army onto an open plain when the enemy has long ranged weapons; doesn't make sense to do that in 40k.

And overwatch is a psychological thing. I've charged a huge blob of Orks with rapid fire before and only lost a few Daemonettes (not a lot considering the vast amount of dice flying about).

CC is often the most exciting part. Even when losing against the odds or having that one beak-headed marine somehow hold up a wave of Flesh Hounds for multiple rounds on his own - it's entertaining.

Orks with Rapid Fire? What codex was that guy using? Because I want it.

**ShaneTB**

Melevolence wrote:

Orks with Rapid Fire? What codex was that guy using? Because I want it.

They don't have it? Ha. I'll make sure to double-check that next time we play. He plays Marines and Orks, possibly got confused.

**Archon_Zarbyrn**

jonolikespie wrote:
I think it is quite important, one of the things that distinguishes 40k from other sifi is that so much of it is really just medieval fantasy in space. Sure Star Wars and others have had iconic melee weapons in a sifi setting but for 40k the concept of it is just so much larger, you have entier armies trying to get into melee against a gunline with tanks and lasers.

Without the focus on melee then 40k loses most of what sets it apart from other sifi.

As well the best models and artwork are of characters with their melee weapons out, no one cares about the marine captain and his storm bolter, but if that storm bolter goes in his off hand and he is waving a sword then suddenly that is iconic.

I also do not feel this is represented well at all on the table and I consider that a huge shame.

Exactly one of the biggest appeals of 40k to me besides the grimdark setting and various factions is the utterly brutal melee combat that is involved. In in the art there a heavy emphasis on showing vicious assaults versus shootouts. Even the rules are geared with a melee focus, the entirety of a unit's stat line outside of BS is used in close combat versus only BS, toughness, armor and leadership in the shooting phase. Yet GW seems to think that melee is some super OP thing that needs to be constantly nerfed again and again both in the core rules and the army books. Never before have armies had access to the huge amounts of firepower available today, yet melee units are constantly priced higher and have more restrictions placed on them than shooting. Why is it ok for a newly arrived unit to shoot and wipe out a squad yet allowing assault from reserves is considered OP?

**Deadshot**

ShaneTB wrote:
Melevolence wrote:

Orks with Rapid Fire? What codex was that guy using? Because I want it.

They don't have it? Ha. I'll make sure to double-check that next time we play. He plays Marines and Orks, possibly got confused.

They do have Assault 2 weapons, so its effectively the same for Overwatch purposes.

**MWHistorian**

Conceptually, CC is probably more important than shooting. The heroes clash in war-winning duels, a sea of heretics crash into loyalist lines that hold until reinforcements, Khorne berzerkers charge through gunfire to leap into the Imperial Guard's trenches and casue untold bloodshed. Etc, etc.
Game mechanic wise, CC is bordering on pathetic.

**Da Butcha**

Close combat should be important in 40K, because in the scale of the game, the battles fought are almost skirmish-level combats, where close-range firefights and melee combats should occur. These are fights at pistol ranges. The battlefield (table) is so small that most infantry can cross the entire battlefield in 7 turns, even if they don't run. That's a small area to fight over. It's not Epic, and the true 'long range' artillery that shows up in the game is so long-ranged that it overshoots most boards!

Sadly, the double whammy of random charge ranges and overwatch fire (among other things) really hits most melee armies hard, along with the increasing prevalence of AP 2 and 3 weaponry. Top that off with the inability to assault out of most vehicles, even when stationary, and melee units really seem weak.

Actual example:

Orks step out of an 'ard cased looted wagon. They cannot charge.
--Opponent can shoot them in his turn.
Orks charge. Opponent can shoot them in the ork turn. Nearest models die and orks fail the charge.
--Opponent can shoot them in his turn.
Orks charge again, and opponent can shoot them in the ork turn.

That's a (almost) worst-case scenario (I left out failing a morale check or two), but still, you get the point. These orks are within charge range, and they can get shot FOUR times before they cross 12". Even in the best case, these orks get shot TWICE no matter how close they are to the enemy. Admittedly, some of that is snap shooting, but this stuff really hinders the execution of CC in 40K.

**Melissia**

It's very important to the lore. Guardsmen affixing bayonets to help them counter charging Orks with choppas is one of the core concepts that makes 40k awesome.

**Johnson & The Juice Crew**

Which rulebook edition was it that stopped units from assaulting straight out of transports? Back when units could, you would load all your marines onto rhinos and let the slaughter begin so I can see the reasoning behind that particular change

Reading these new rules about random charge distances though... I will stick to old sschool 'always charge Up to 6" '

I think cc is what makes 40k. I'm like the sm sergeant in the first dawn of war cinematic. I just charge for the sake of it regardless of how overmatched my guardsmen are

**Brother SRM**

Johnson & The Juice Crew wrote:
Which rulebook edition was it that stopped units from assaulting straight out of transports? Back when units could, you would load all your marines onto rhinos and let the slaughter begin so I oupdated see the fairness

Reading these new rules about random charge distances though... I will stick to old sschool 'always charge Up to 6" '

3rd edition was the last time you could. The Rhino Rush was pretty gruesome. 5th let you assault out of stationary vehicles, which I wish they'd bring back.

As for random charge distance, the average roll on two dice is a 7, so generally it can work out just fine. I've only failed one or two charges in 6th/7th that weren't really ballsy 8-9+ inch charges.

I think assaults are really important to 40k as a whole. I've played other games with a strong shooting emphasis and you often can end up with two units shooting at each other from cover, and nobody really dying. Or, if one unit breaks cover, it'll just be unceremoniously cut down. Assault keeps the game mobile, keeps it exciting, and keeps it from turning into that with most matchups. It's super important to the character of the game.

**Deadshot**

Johnson & The Juice Crew wrote:
Which rulebook edition was it that stopped units from assaulting straight out of transports? Back when units could, you would load all your marines onto rhinos and let the slaughter begin so I can see the reasoning behind that particular change

Reading these new rules about random charge distances though... I will stick to old sschool 'always charge Up to 6" '

I think cc is what makes 40k. I'm like the sm sergeant in the first dawn of war cinematic. I just charge for the sake of it regardless of how overmatched my guardsmen are

5th Edition allowed it if stationary, or when moving if you had an assault vehicle or open-topped.
6th Ed prevented it unless you had an Assault Vehicle (including Land Raiders and all Open-topped), unless you were also coming from reserve or a flyer.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother SRM wrote:
Johnson & The Juice Crew wrote:
Which rulebook edition was it that stopped units from assaulting straight out of transports? Back when units could, you would load all your marines onto rhinos and let the slaughter begin so I oupdated see the fairness

Reading these new rules about random charge distances though... I will stick to old sschool 'always charge Up to 6" '

3rd edition was the last time you could. The Rhino Rush was pretty gruesome. 5th let you assault out of stationary vehicles, which I wish they'd bring back.

As for random charge distance, the average roll on two dice is a 7, so generally it can work out just fine. I've only failed one or two charges in 6th/7th that weren't really ballsy 8-9+ inch charges.

I think assaults are really important to 40k as a whole. I've played other games with a strong shooting emphasis and you often can end up with two units shooting at each other from cover, and nobody really dying. Or, if one unit breaks cover, it'll just be unceremoniously cut down. Assault keeps the game mobile, keeps it exciting, and keeps it from turning into that with most matchups. It's super important to the character of the game.

This right here. Played a game at the weekend of about 3K points of Orks vs my Marines. We were still doing 6th Ed with old ork codex but it was an intense, brutal and very enjoyable game. Came down to turn 6. I had 2 Terminators, an Ironclad, 3 Tact Marines from one squad, 3 from another, a captain, an assault marine and my Honour Guard carrying the Banner of the Emperor Ascendant. He ened with 3 partially damaged Dakkajets. In the dead pile included Ghaz, 6 Meganobs, plenty of Lootas, a Big Mek, some Nobs, plenty of Grots, 5 Battlewagons, a Land Raider redeemer, a Vindicator, a bunch of Tact Marines, a Stormraven, a Stormtalon, 5 Assault marines and 3 Honour Guard, 3 Termies, 5 Scouts, Kantor and Lysander, who went down to the MANz after the most brutal and exciting combat I have ever seen vs Ghaz.

**Kangodo**

Really important!
Gunline armies are not the most interesting games to play for me.
Even with my Necrons I tend to go for mobility and always include assault in my list.

One time I made an almost melee-only list to play against Orks

I just barely won on objectives, we slaughtered each other and it was so much fun!

**Forgemaster Argos**

Extremely important. Nothing beats assault terminators rolling over guardsmen... that's pretty messy. Tons of fun for me and the other guy was laughing too as his Valhallans were ground under giant metal boots. Good times.

**Archon_Zarbyrn**

I figured as much, close combat is a key aspect of 40k and something that appeals to a lot of people. If that is the case then why are the rules becoming more favorable to shooting and punishing to assault?

**Melissia**

It'll change back the other way eventually, in an edition or two.

**MWHistorian**

Melissia wrote:
It'll change back the other way eventually, in an edition or two.

Next year then?

**Psienesis**

Archon_Zarbyrn wrote:
I figured as much, close combat is a key aspect of 40k and something that appeals to a lot of people. If that is the case then why are the rules becoming more favorable to shooting and punishing to assault?

Because GW does not play the game the way most of its customers do.

**StarTrotter**

Archon_Zarbyrn wrote:
Hi everyone, was just thinking about how each edition since 5th has IMO been having a larger focus on powerful ranged weapons over assault. Yet every time I think of 40k I can't help, but imagine things like a squad of banshees paralyzing then tearing through a marine squad. Yet in the rules trying to recreate that scenario is quite difficult due to the many issues assault units have to deal with, cover, lack of assault transports etc. So my question is, how important is close combat in 40k for you and do you think the rules reflect this aspect well?

Because GW doesn't care much for balance. They change rules to change them for better or worse. Close combat is vital to 40k as it really is just sci fantasy. In the grand scheme of things, from a technical point, guns are arguably more important. Almost every army (bar Chaos Daemons) will reliably use shooting weapons either to destroy their foes or soften them up for the assault. That said, close combat is perhaps most central to the game when it comes to the reality that it is what is written about most. The iconic clash of hero to hero (most commonly with swords and some gun of some sort) in a duel in the center of brutal death. Dark Eldar, CSM, Blood Angels, SW (supposed to), BT (when they had their own), Nids, Orks, and Chaos Daemons, arguably GK as well, all favor or heavily rely upon CC for their fighting. All factions have guns, so too do all factions have some version of CC (despite Kroot failing at assault and being amazing snipers). Overall, I think the most important thing to point out is that the chainsword is just as iconic as the bolter.

**Archon_Zarbyrn**

StarTrotter wrote:
Archon_Zarbyrn wrote:
Hi everyone, was just thinking about how each edition since 5th has IMO been having a larger focus on powerful ranged weapons over assault. Yet every time I think of 40k I can't help, but imagine things like a squad of banshees paralyzing then tearing through a marine squad. Yet in the rules trying to recreate that scenario is quite difficult due to the many issues assault units have to deal with, cover, lack of assault transports etc. So my question is, how important is close combat in 40k for you and do you think the rules reflect this aspect well?

Because GW doesn't care much for balance. They change rules to change them for better or worse. Close combat is vital to 40k as it really is just sci fantasy. In the grand scheme of things, from a technical point, guns are arguably more important. Almost every army (bar Chaos Daemons) will reliably use shooting weapons either to destroy their foes or soften them up for the assault. That said, close combat is perhaps most central to the game when it comes to the reality that it is what is written about most. The iconic clash of hero to hero (most commonly with swords and some gun of some sort) in a duel in the center of brutal death. Dark Eldar, CSM, Blood Angels, SW (supposed to), BT (when they had their own), Nids, Orks, and Chaos Daemons, arguably GK as well, all favor or heavily rely upon CC for their fighting. All factions have guns, so too do all factions have some version of CC (despite Kroot failing at assault and being amazing snipers). Overall, I think the most important thing to point out is that the chainsword is just as iconic as the bolter.

While I will agree that GW could do a better job at balance, I don't think the edition updates have been just random changes. Each edition update usually takes things that were wonky with the last edition and fixes them. For example from 5th to 6th getting rid of insanely tough vehicles could be, getting rid of certain deathstars etc. A course each edition also has new problems, but unless the gaming community joined together to make their own ruleset I not sure how this can be avoided. Or they could allow the top hardcore players to do their playtesting with the goal of trying to break the game as much as possible that way they could see what is open to being abused and what inst.

**ClassicCarraway**

Archon_Zarbyrn wrote:
I figured as much, close combat is a key aspect of 40k and something that appeals to a lot of people. If that is the case then why are the rules becoming more favorable to shooting and punishing to assault?

I'm of the mind that the rules aren't really favoring shooting and punishing assaulting. If anything, its finally evened out the overall power of both. In editions past, assault was too easy to pull off and grossly overpowered, when it really should be a bit of a challenge for the reward a successful assault provided. Heck, 3rd and 4th edition favored assault so much it was largely impossible to play a shooty army like Tau and have any success.

6th edition elevated shooting a bit, while only downgrading assaults slightly with random charge range (some don't even consider this a downgrade), challenges, and no consolidating into another unit after winning a combat. Overwatch is a nice idea, but unless you are facing a squad full of template weapons or a packed-in Tau army, its effectiveness is questionable. 7th has helped even it out more by allowing wounds to spill over from challenges and giving more units Hammer of Wrath.

The rules themselves don't really favor one combat method over the other. The problem is with certain codex rules that tend to break the balance and skew the entire army toward shooting and being decidedly far harder to assault than they should be (looks squarely at Tau and Eldar).

**Archon_Zarbyrn**

ClassicCarraway wrote:
Archon_Zarbyrn wrote:
I figured as much, close combat is a key aspect of 40k and something that appeals to a lot of people. If that is the case then why are the rules becoming more favorable to shooting and punishing to assault?

I'm of the mind that the rules aren't really favoring shooting and punishing assaulting. If anything, its finally evened out the overall power of both. In editions past, assault was too easy to pull off and grossly overpowered, when it really should be a bit of a challenge for the reward a successful assault provided. Heck, 3rd and 4th edition favored assault so much it was largely impossible to play a shooty army like Tau and have any success.

6th edition elevated shooting a bit, while only downgrading assaults slightly with random charge range (some don't even consider this a downgrade), challenges, and no consolidating into another unit after winning a combat. Overwatch is a nice idea, but unless you are facing a squad full of template weapons or a packed-in Tau army, its effectiveness is questionable. 7th has helped even it out more by allowing wounds to spill over from challenges and giving more units Hammer of Wrath.

The rules themselves don't really favor one combat method over the other. The problem is with certain codex rules that tend to break the balance and skew the entire army toward shooting and being decidedly far harder to assault than they should be (looks squarely at Tau and Eldar).

You forgot to mention the other changes to assault from 5th to 6th, open transports exploding now does str 4 hits instead of str 3, no assaulting from a non assault transport even if it didn't move that turn, you can no longer assault from reserve even via webway portal, casualties are removed from the direction of the shooter instead of player's choice, no longer gaining a bonus attack if you multi-charge no longer being able to assault after running if you had fleet, and the general lowering of cover saves. All these changes plus the general increase in the firepower has resulted in many melee units simply incapable of doing their job. I can't say much about 4th meta, but during 5th shooting was dominate due to mass vehicle spam things like 3 squads of long fangs, manticores and such made a mockery of many units, outflanking and such were some of the only tools an assault focus player had against gunline/parking lots. Regarding overwatch remember not everyone plays space marines, many units don't have a 3+ armor save to protect them and will torn to shreds by overwatch.

**ClassicCarraway**

Archon_Zarbyrn wrote:
ClassicCarraway wrote:
Archon_Zarbyrn wrote:
I figured as much, close combat is a key aspect of 40k and something that appeals to a lot of people. If that is the case then why are the rules becoming more favorable to shooting and punishing to assault?

I'm of the mind that the rules aren't really favoring shooting and punishing assaulting. If anything, its finally evened out the overall power of both. In editions past, assault was too easy to pull off and grossly overpowered, when it really should be a bit of a challenge for the reward a successful assault provided. Heck, 3rd and 4th edition favored assault so much it was largely impossible to play a shooty army like Tau and have any success.

6th edition elevated shooting a bit, while only downgrading assaults slightly with random charge range (some don't even consider this a downgrade), challenges, and no consolidating into another unit after winning a combat. Overwatch is a nice idea, but unless you are facing a squad full of template weapons or a packed-in Tau army, its effectiveness is questionable. 7th has helped even it out more by allowing wounds to spill over from challenges and giving more units Hammer of Wrath.

The rules themselves don't really favor one combat method over the other. The problem is with certain codex rules that tend to break the balance and skew the entire army toward shooting and being decidedly far harder to assault than they should be (looks squarely at Tau and Eldar).

You forgot to mention the other changes to assault from 5th to 6th, open transports exploding now does str 4 hits instead of str 3, no assaulting from a non assault transport even if it didn't move that turn, you can no longer assault from reserve even via webway portal, casualties are removed from the direction of the shooter instead of player's choice, no longer gaining a bonus attack if you multi-charge no longer being able to assault after running if you had fleet, and the general lowering of cover saves. All these changes plus the general increase in the firepower has resulted in many melee units simply incapable of doing their job. I can't say much about 4th meta, but during 5th shooting was dominate due to mass vehicle spam things like 3 squads of long fangs, manticores and such made a mockery of many units, outflanking and such were some of the only tools an assault focus player had against gunline/parking lots. Regarding overwatch remember not everyone plays space marines, many units don't have a 3+ armor save to protect them and will torn to shreds by overwatch.

You are correct, I did gloss over some elements that were scaled back with 6th, but some of those don't specifically target assault units per say, such as transports exploding at S4. Tankbustas die just as easily as slugga boyz from that one. But the fact that so many of those elements were removed and assault can still be pretty effective goes to show you how OP assault was in 3rd and 4th (didn't play 5th).

As for OW being negligible, I wasn't referring to Space Marines in particular. OW fire just doesn't produce enough hits/wounds to effectively diffuse most assaults. Sure, when the range is a stretch it might cause an issue, but those are unreliable charge attempts even before OW.

Now, I will readily admit that it is harder to make an assault-based army work unless said army was designed from the ground up for assault. Chaos Daemons, Orks, and Nids are all in a good position to build a successful assault army. Marines and Eldar have it a bit harder because they can't deal with casualties as well or hit quite as hard once in assault as those other armies, but assault can still be a powerful tool for them when the ideal situation presents itself.

**AlmightyWalrus**

ClassicCarraway wrote:
Archon_Zarbyrn wrote:
I figured as much, close combat is a key aspect of 40k and something that appeals to a lot of people. If that is the case then why are the rules becoming more favorable to shooting and punishing to assault?

I'm of the mind that the rules aren't really favoring shooting and punishing assaulting. If anything, its finally evened out the overall power of both. In editions past, assault was too easy to pull off and grossly overpowered, when it really should be a bit of a challenge for the reward a successful assault provided. Heck, 3rd and 4th edition favored assault so much it was largely impossible to play a shooty army like Tau and have any success.

6th edition elevated shooting a bit, while only downgrading assaults slightly with random charge range (some don't even consider this a downgrade), challenges, and no consolidating into another unit after winning a combat. Overwatch is a nice idea, but unless you are facing a squad full of template weapons or a packed-in Tau army, its effectiveness is questionable. 7th has helped even it out more by allowing wounds to spill over from challenges and giving more units Hammer of Wrath.

The rules themselves don't really favor one combat method over the other. The problem is with certain codex rules that tend to break the balance and skew the entire army toward shooting and being decidedly far harder to assault than they should be (looks squarely at Tau and Eldar).

Shaking out this excellent post by Ailaros:

Ailaros wrote:
Time to shake this out again:

Ailaros wrote:
Godless-Mimicry wrote:Actually they are pretty straight forward; here's a look at what assault lost, and what it gained.

It's actually worse than that. To take your list and expand...

RELATIVE BUFFS FOR SHOOTING

- Your charge distance is at the mercy of the dice. I have seen several assaults that would have been in range in 5th fail in 6th.

- You can no longer run and assault with Fleet.

- Grenades got nerfed for assaulting through terrain.

- Assault grenades no longer hurt vehicles.

- Overwatch

- And, because it really needs to be mentioned twice given the scope of the rule, transported units can overwatch if their transport gets charged, walkers can overwatch, and flamers are overwatch BEASTS. There is now literally no point in attempting to assault a unit of burnaz.

- A unit type that IS IMMUNE TO CLOSE COMBAT was born and became a staple in many lists (fliers)

- You can't assault out of a non-assault vehicle ever and that includes when it is destroyed on you

- Multi-charges were nerfed

- Challenges killed a lot of the potential of combat beast characters

- You can't assault on the turn you come on from reserves

- You can't assault if you Infiltrate or Scout and go first

- The distance from which an assault vehicle brings you closer to the enemy is reduced

- Some random objectives half your assault range

- Furious Charge got nerfed

- Wound allocation forces you to take the models from the front as casualties, this makes an assault unit take an extra turn(s) of being exposed to gunfire before they can get stuck in.

- Wound allocation means that hidden weapons upgrades are no longer hidden. You only need to kill a squad to the point where the upgrade model is the closest to something. This is very easy to achieve with deepstriking.

- Loss of by-unit cover in favor of by-model cover destroys the ability for foot hordes to advance upfield.

- Addition of focus fire

- Addition of Precise Shot.

- Worsening of cover. Intervening units only give 4+, hills no longer area terrain, etc.

- Power weapons got screwed up. Either Ap3, or I1, take your choice...

- You can no longer disembark after moving more than 6" in a transport (killing mech assault units).

- grenades can now be thrown.

- walkers can no longer tie up squads in close combat.

- grenades now work against monstrous creatures in close combat. This hurts dedicated assault units relative to basic infantry that have no desire to be in close combat.

- pre-measuring makes it much easier to make sure shooting weapons are in range, while not helping assault units make it into assault more reliably.

- rapid fire now puts more shots out on the move.

- you can now move and fire heavy weapons. This and the above change to rapid fire mean that you can now back up away from assault units while still shooting.

- parts of a squad can now move without affecting the accuracy of heavy weapons.

- old wound wrapping gotten rid of. I'm glad, but for the purposes of this discussion, it is a boost to shooting more than assaulting.

- pile-in moves reduced to 3" from 6".

- unengaged models in a unit that is locked in close combat must now move closer to the enemy units. Used to capture objectives far away while in close combat with this one in 5th.

- barrage weapons may now fire within their minimum ranges.

- barrage weapons no longer lose strength against vehicles from off-center scatters.

- artillery units got MUCH more survivable.

- models with two pistol weapons can now fire them both.

- vehicles can shoot all weapons at cruising speed.

- in order to charge a vehicle, you must have some way of damaging it.

RELATIVE BUFFS FOR ASSAULT

- hypothetical increase of maximum charge range from 6" to 12". Given that assault range is no longer reliable, I still consider this more of a nerf than a buff. I mean, if you're 12" away, are you really going to attempt to charge? The most likely result is that your opponent will get some free overwatch, and you're still not making it into close combat.

- hammer of wrath.

- assaulting vehicles now gives you much better chance to hit.

- rage rule change

- gets hot now affects those rare vehicles that have it

So, some of these changes are more important than others, and you can uselessly nit-pick them all you like, but the fact is that there were 39 rule changes to make shooting better, and arguably up to 5 rule changes that make assault better.

Put another way, for every rule that made assault better, there were EIGHT rules that make shooting better.

6th ed is a shooting edition. End of.

And that's just the changes in 6th ed. 5th ed also whacked assaulty armies a lot, what with the introduction of real transports acting as automatic speedbump, the lack of consolidating from one close combat into another, etc.

One could make the argument that close combat was overpowered in 4th edition, but assault needed in that case to be toned down a bit, not had its manhood chopped off with a pair of rusty pliers and being forced to watch romantic comedies.

Further, see my sig. 5th was already a shooting edition before 6th came around and shot assault in the kneecaps. Even in 4th Fish of Fury and Trifalcon lists were dominant, not melee ones.

**Archon_Zarbyrn**

ClassicCarraway wrote:
Archon_Zarbyrn wrote:
ClassicCarraway wrote:
Archon_Zarbyrn wrote:
I figured as much, close combat is a key aspect of 40k and something that appeals to a lot of people. If that is the case then why are the rules becoming more favorable to shooting and punishing to assault?

I'm of the mind that the rules aren't really favoring shooting and punishing assaulting. If anything, its finally evened out the overall power of both. In editions past, assault was too easy to pull off and grossly overpowered, when it really should be a bit of a challenge for the reward a successful assault provided. Heck, 3rd and 4th edition favored assault so much it was largely impossible to play a shooty army like Tau and have any success.

6th edition elevated shooting a bit, while only downgrading assaults slightly with random charge range (some don't even consider this a downgrade), challenges, and no consolidating into another unit after winning a combat. Overwatch is a nice idea, but unless you are facing a squad full of template weapons or a packed-in Tau army, its effectiveness is questionable. 7th has helped even it out more by allowing wounds to spill over from challenges and giving more units Hammer of Wrath.

The rules themselves don't really favor one combat method over the other. The problem is with certain codex rules that tend to break the balance and skew the entire army toward shooting and being decidedly far harder to assault than they should be (looks squarely at Tau and Eldar).

You forgot to mention the other changes to assault from 5th to 6th, open transports exploding now does str 4 hits instead of str 3, no assaulting from a non assault transport even if it didn't move that turn, you can no longer assault from reserve even via webway portal, casualties are removed from the direction of the shooter instead of player's choice, no longer gaining a bonus attack if you multi-charge no longer being able to assault after running if you had fleet, and the general lowering of cover saves. All these changes plus the general increase in the firepower has resulted in many melee units simply incapable of doing their job. I can't say much about 4th meta, but during 5th shooting was dominate due to mass vehicle spam things like 3 squads of long fangs, manticores and such made a mockery of many units, outflanking and such were some of the only tools an assault focus player had against gunline/parking lots. Regarding overwatch remember not everyone plays space marines, many units don't have a 3+ armor save to protect them and will torn to shreds by overwatch.

You are correct, I did gloss over some elements that were scaled back with 6th, but some of those don't specifically target assault units per say, such as transports exploding at S4. Tankbustas die just as easily as slugga boyz from that one. But the fact that so many of those elements were removed and assault can still be pretty effective goes to show you how OP assault was in 3rd and 4th (didn't play 5th).

As for OW being negligible, I wasn't referring to Space Marines in particular. OW fire just doesn't produce enough hits/wounds to effectively diffuse most assaults. Sure, when the range is a stretch it might cause an issue, but those are unreliable charge attempts even before OW.

Now, I will readily admit that it is harder to make an assault-based army work unless said army was designed from the ground up for assault. Chaos Daemons, Orks, and Nids are all in a good position to build a successful assault army. Marines and Eldar have it a bit harder because they can't deal with casualties as well or hit quite as hard once in assault as those other armies, but assault can still be a powerful tool for them when the ideal situation presents itself.

For excellent post Walrus have an exalt! That list shows exactly all the issues assault units now have to deal with and why it can be so frustrating to play a melee focused army.
For open topped I was mostly talking about how now DE have to deal with their easily killed transports now wounding everyone on a 3+, especially when you have either 5+ or 6+ saves, then GW decided to make it so flamers can hit units in open topped transports. It one thing to bring an overpowered element in line with the rest of the game, but it feels like GW just won't stop hammering nerf after nerf on assault. Especially when it such a important aspect of the setting to many of its players.

**Gerst**

Forgemaster Argos wrote:
Extremely important. Nothing beats assault terminators rolling over guardsmen... that's pretty messy. Tons of fun for me and the other guy was laughing too as his Valhallans were ground under giant metal boots. Good times.

Genestealers are even better. More attacks, and fleet to get from combat to combat. Not that Genestealers in general are any good anymore, but once they're actually in combat, nothing is quite so satisfying.

**ragazzacane**

In short, and by short I mean without any complaining *cough, assault is very important still. It is a tactical decision and a tool. A drop pod of 3 Melta Wolves gets to freely drop out of the sky (ignoring any attempt to plan and position) and ruins my Serpent. Now, do I turn around and shoot those poor 3 wolves or take some shots at the Rhino charging down the field? As an Eldar player I am basically REQUIRED to turn and kill those 3 Wolves. Otherwise those 3 jerks WILL murder the 10 juicy guardians that were inside.

Assault is not how you win. I don't care what anyone says, at my FLGS I have not lost to an assault list in the 7 months i have been playing. It should be used to provide 'cover' for your big guns and weaker units, to protect your back line, ( I am NOT deep striking warp spiders within 12 of even 3 Assault termies) or to take objectives. (Bikers) There just isn't a point where you should assume your blob of Berserkers will survive the 20 s4 shots coming it's way. Now to be fair, as an Eldar player I am spoiled in AP2. But realistically, what wins? 20 Boys or 10 generic Marines? They will take rapid fire twice before getting into CC, then get beat at their own game. There just is no greater use to assault units than to provide your shooting with what it doesn't have. The ability to move around the board at will, and the ability to both soak up/force fire and an opportunity to actually remove a units shooting, BEFORE having killed the unit off. You HAVE to respond to an assault threat, no matter how medial, because you lose your shooting phases if you don't. Which in itself is a way they provide 'cover', forget line of sight, you can;t shoot because you can't see past my chainblade.

We can talk about how cool it used to be till we are blue in the face, but the question asked was about it's CURRENT relevance imo.