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.

 Lobukia wrote:

How to immediately lose all credibility in discussing 7th ed 40k... what?!

Why?

 Lobukia wrote:
and you play guard to boot.

Guard haven't been strong since 5th, what's your point exactly?

Here's the thing, assault as a mechanic *is* powerful. Assault:
- Denies cover
- Always hits vehicles on their rear armour
- Prevents the assaulted unit(s) from shooting in the enemy turn
- Prevents the assaulting unit from being shot in the enemy turn
- Can lock down multiple units as above
- Can immediately destroy any unit without Fearless/ATSKNF

Now, obviously, there are downsides to assault, compared to shooting:
- Short range
- Random charge length
- Overwatch
- etc.

The trouble is, these "downsides" often fail to balance assault. Instead, we have several assault units that are far too strong (TWC, Wraiths, WKs, DKs etc.), and many others that are bad to the point of being unusable (wyches, warp talons, possessed, genestealers, bloodbrides, some terminators, hellions etc.). My point is, the downsides to assault don't balance it - they just polarise assault units. Many units are punished far too much, whilst others barely notice the supposed downsides. e.g. compare the effect of overwatch against wyches (with their T3 and 6+ saves), to overwatch against Wraiths or TWC (T5, 3+ saves). Likewise, not being able to assault out of a transport hurts a lot of Chaos units, but again stuff like TWC, Wraiths, WKs and other units with 12" moves don't notice because they don't need transports in the first place. Finally, TWC and Wraiths are less likely to be bothered by random charge lengths because they both have 12" moves, ignore terrain penalties and have fleet to reroll one or both dice. In contrast, infantry with 6" moves and no fleet is much more likely to fluff a charge. And, whilst wyches have fleet, they can still be pushed back by overwatch and are basically dead if they fail the charge.

Basically, *if* you have the right units, assault is very strong indeed. If your army has stuff like genestealers, then the assault rules seem way too harsh. But, if you're against an army that uses one or more of the 'good' assault units, assault seems incredibly powerful.

Akiasura wrote:
Master, did you ever change your list in the way that was suggested? It might help out a lot with the assault elements of the enemy.

Yes I did and in all honesty there is feck all that Guard have that can deal with assaults. Unless that is you are willing to pay vast sums for some mediocre units.

Guard deal with assaults by shooting units that cant consolidate into another combat.

Martel732 wrote:
Guard deal with assaults by shooting units that cant consolidate into another combat.

And what happens if you have nothing left that can effectively shoot the target because you just lost half of it to the fisting that is assault?

 master of ordinance wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Guard deal with assaults by shooting units that cant consolidate into another combat.

And what happens if you have nothing left that can effectively shoot the target because you just lost half of it to the fisting that is assault?

You beg and plead with the God Emperor and ask him for an explanation of how such an unlikely turn of events happened.

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Guard deal with assaults by shooting units that cant consolidate into another combat.

And what happens if you have nothing left that can effectively shoot the target because you just lost half of it to the fisting that is assault?

You beg and plead with the God Emperor and ask him for an explanation of how such an unlikely turn of events happened.

No need, it was either a Nemesis formation of the Sauce Marines used lots of transports.

I don't see what free transports have to do with you losing half your models to the assault phase. Especially since those units aren't assault vehicles.

Also Nemesis strike force is strong because of deepstriking shooty and psychic units.

They can't even assault til turn 2.

The problem with guard is not that they get out-assaulted by assaulty armies. Its that they get out-shot by non-shooty armies.

 Lobukia wrote:

BTW, the assertion that assault armies are winning tourneys... here's the top 20 armies and their secondaries from the BAO. I don't see an overwhelming presence of assault codices here.

Daemons
Chaos Space Marines x2
Eldar x2
Skitarii
Cult mechanicus
Blood Angels
Space Marines x4
Tau x4
Orks x2
Imperial Knights x2
Imperial Guard x2
Tyranids
Space Wolves
Necrons

One will notice if you actually look at the armies themselves, the highest placing army with IG as a primary detachment (i.e. not a meatshield allied contingent) placed like 67th. At Adepticon I think the highest ranked one was 46th in qualifiers and there were none in the top 32 that went to championships.

However, as I've noted earlier in this thread, if you look at winning lists, you'll see CC many built around a core of very strong close combat. TWC/Biker deathstars, Wraithspam, etc.

While I won't hop in on the side that "assault is too powerful", assault units and assault centric armies are performing very well at high levels, while the ostensibly heavy shooting IG are...not

Another thing that needs doing is the removal of the "Units assaulting vehicles always strike the rear armour" nonsense.

You assaulted the front of my MBT. How the hell are you sticking your grenades on my rear armour (and please do not give me this 'It represents hitting the weak points BS - unless a vehicle is immobilised and not shooting at you boarding it or having enough time to wedge a grenade into a weak point are things that are impossible).

 master of ordinance wrote:
Another thing that needs doing is the removal of the "Units assaulting vehicles always strike the rear armour" nonsense.

You assaulted the front of my MBT. How the hell are you sticking your grenades on my rear armour (and please do not give me this 'It represents hitting the weak points BS - unless a vehicle is immobilised and not shooting at you boarding it or having enough time to wedge a grenade into a weak point are things that are impossible).

It's because the Assault Phase actually represents several minutes of real time (like every other Phase), and the assaulting infantry spread out and surround the vehicle. It's always going to have its "weak spots" pointed at someone.

 Psienesis wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Another thing that needs doing is the removal of the "Units assaulting vehicles always strike the rear armour" nonsense.

You assaulted the front of my MBT. How the hell are you sticking your grenades on my rear armour (and please do not give me this 'It represents hitting the weak points BS - unless a vehicle is immobilised and not shooting at you boarding it or having enough time to wedge a grenade into a weak point are things that are impossible).

It's because the Assault Phase actually represents several minutes of real time (like every other Phase), and the assaulting infantry spread out and surround the vehicle. It's always going to have its "weak spots" pointed at someone.

Not really because if you spend several minutes assaulting a vehicle supporting Infantry tend to blow you off. What you are describing would only really work against a crippled vehicle without support.

 master of ordinance wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Guard deal with assaults by shooting units that cant consolidate into another combat.

And what happens if you have nothing left that can effectively shoot the target because you just lost half of it to the fisting that is assault?

Then you positioned your units incorrectly. Unlike with a shooting army who chooses the targets independent of opponent input, an assault list MUST assault what is offered up as viable targets. Look, if I can do this with meqs, then you can do this with guardsmen. This is necessarily true due to the cost/wound differential.

I wouldn't be so adamant here but I've done exactly what I'm telling you to do with AN INFERIOR LIST. BA are not configured for shooting at all, yet I was able to rope-a-dope the GK with shooting and sacrificial squads. Because even BA have more squads than GK. Keep in mind that BA are *arguably* the WORST CODEX IN THE GAME.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Another thing that needs doing is the removal of the "Units assaulting vehicles always strike the rear armour" nonsense.

You assaulted the front of my MBT. How the hell are you sticking your grenades on my rear armour (and please do not give me this 'It represents hitting the weak points BS - unless a vehicle is immobilised and not shooting at you boarding it or having enough time to wedge a grenade into a weak point are things that are impossible).

No, that rule is fine. Krak grenades are already practically worthless, since marines don't live to get to assault the vehicle typically. MCs are the real assault threat, and they don't care about rear armor since they magically get two dice.

 Vaktathi wrote:

One will notice if you actually look at the armies themselves, the highest placing army with IG as a primary detachment (i.e. not a meatshield allied contingent) placed like 67th. At Adepticon I think the highest ranked one was 46th in qualifiers and there were none in the top 32 that went to championships.

11th actually. If you look at battlepoints, they were 11th (I don't think painting scores are relevant to this discussion). And Adepticon promotes a play style very hostile to the guard players, so it'd be an outlier not a good frame of reference (and its hardly at the ITC levels of balancing... I love Adepticon, but this past year's mission packet was a blast from the past)

Martel732 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Guard deal with assaults by shooting units that cant consolidate into another combat.

And what happens if you have nothing left that can effectively shoot the target because you just lost half of it to the fisting that is assault?

Then you positioned your units incorrectly. Unlike with a shooting army who chooses the targets independent of opponent input, an assault list MUST assault what is offered up as viable targets. Look, if I can do this with meqs, then you can do this with guardsmen. This is necessarily true due to the cost/wound differential.

I wouldn't be so adamant here but I've done exactly what I'm telling you to do with AN INFERIOR LIST. BA are not configured for shooting at all, yet I was able to rope-a-dope the GK with shooting and sacrificial squads. Because even BA have more squads than GK. Keep in mind that BA are *arguably* the WORST CODEX IN THE GAME.

Given that BA can actually out shoot IG I am not quite as surprised as one would expect.
The problem with having sacrificial units is that they buy you time to kill the enemy in your next turn which is great until.... Lasguns. Oh wow, such scary lasguns.... 20 shots to cause 3 wounds all of which where saved. Rinse and repeat. Oh look I cause a wou-oh wait sorry, he passed his FNP check.
I would also like to point out that piont for point you are getting a lot more from your MEQ's than I am from my Guardsmen.
Also offering up viable targets is rather hard when the enemy DS'd in to your flank, killed everything there and then forced you to reposition your rather static (Guard are THE most static army going) army to shoot the enemy. Throw away squads do nothing against Strength 7 flamers and Psycannons.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Another thing that needs doing is the removal of the "Units assaulting vehicles always strike the rear armour" nonsense.

You assaulted the front of my MBT. How the hell are you sticking your grenades on my rear armour (and please do not give me this 'It represents hitting the weak points BS - unless a vehicle is immobilised and not shooting at you boarding it or having enough time to wedge a grenade into a weak point are things that are impossible).

No, that rule is fine. Krak grenades are already practically worthless, since marines don't live to get to assault the vehicle typically. MCs are the real assault threat, and they don't care about rear armor since they magically get two dice.

Practically worthless? Your not even paying for them, unlike the Imperial Guard whom actually have to pay for the privileged of being able to carry them. That and given that under the current, sensless and pointless, rules you are glancing most vehicles on 4's. Vehicles suffer enough as it is, stop trying to make it more so.

"Given that BA can actually out shoot IG I am not quite as surprised as one would expect. "

Not even close. Either you don't know the BA codex at all, or you don't know your own.

". Lasguns. Oh wow, such scary lasguns.... 20 shots to cause 3 wounds all of which where saved. Rinse and repeat. Oh look I cause a wou-oh wait sorry, he passed his FNP check."

You shoot them with plasma, melta, and flamers. And, yes, lasguns.

"I would also like to point out that piont for point you are getting a lot more from your MEQ's than I am from my Guardsmen. "

No, I'm not. Especially against the ever-popular scatterlaser. Marines pay for a lot of assault twiddly bits that either a) don't get used or b) don't help against real assault units.

"Practically worthless? "

Yeah, I've been using them since 1994. And they rarely come up post 2nd ed

" enemy DS'd in to your flank, killed everything there and then forced you to reposition your rather static"

Set up better. If flamers worry you, wrap with tanks, not infantry. Kinda like I do. Go figure.

What is a lasgun?
4+ to hit, 5+ to wound?
So that's .16 wounds per shot assuming a marine?
A bolter wound be a
3+ to hit, 4+ to wound?
So that's roughly a .33?

So about twice as effective for more than two times the cost. Certain commands will help, and Ig benefit more from divination than marines do.

I'd need point costs to run vets with plasma guns (AFB) but is it really that much less?

Honestly outside of deathstars I'm having a hard time seeing guard lose to assault armies. Deep strike...if you are tank heavy and deploy poorly, or if they list tailor (all flamer or melta DS) I suppose.

Akiasura wrote:
What is a lasgun?
4+ to hit, 5+ to wound?
So that's .16 wounds per shot assuming a marine?
A bolter wound be a
3+ to hit, 4+ to wound?
So that's roughly a .33?

So about twice as effective for more than two times the cost. Certain commands will help, and Ig benefit more from divination than marines do.

I'd need point costs to run vets with plasma guns (AFB) but is it really that much less?

Honestly outside of deathstars I'm having a hard time seeing guard lose to assault armies. Deep strike...if you are tank heavy and deploy poorly, or if they list tailor (all flamer or melta DS) I suppose.

Bolters hit IG on a 3+ and wound on a 3+. Might want to redo your maths there.

It doesn't matter. The real damage is coming from plasma/melta/flamer. And surviving tanks.

Pack your troops in tightly where he physically can't reach with a flamer.

Did you play 5th? If not, that will explain why you haven't undergone the SW drop pod trial by fire. We lost so many games against SW drop pod until we figured out how to neuter it.

Martel732 wrote:
It doesn't matter. The real damage is coming from plasma/melta/flamer. And surviving tanks.

Pack your troops in tightly where he physically can't reach with a flamer.

Did you play 5th? If not, that will explain why you haven't undergone the SW drop pod trial by fire. We lost so many games against SW drop pod until we figured out how to neuter it.

I played 5th without any tanks and won. I know how to neuter the crap fest that is a drop army but the lack of firepower in the IG is what hurts it the most. I can not physically put enough firepower down range or reposition fast enough to deal with it.

 master of ordinance wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
What is a lasgun?
4+ to hit, 5+ to wound?
So that's .16 wounds per shot assuming a marine?
A bolter wound be a
3+ to hit, 4+ to wound?
So that's roughly a .33?

So about twice as effective for more than two times the cost. Certain commands will help, and Ig benefit more from divination than marines do.

I'd need point costs to run vets with plasma guns (AFB) but is it really that much less?

Honestly outside of deathstars I'm having a hard time seeing guard lose to assault armies. Deep strike...if you are tank heavy and deploy poorly, or if they list tailor (all flamer or melta DS) I suppose.

Bolters hit IG on a 3+ and wound on a 3+. Might want to redo your maths there.

I was comparing both to firing at a marine. Which I stated, but could have made more clear.
When comparing the effectiveness of a units firepower we assume the same target.

If we want to compare toughness things get dramatically more complex. Against plasma, scatter lasers, and other strong weapons, guardsmen are better if both have cover. Against small arms fire, guard do worse. It's hard to judge who is tougher.

We could run an analysis similar to what happened with dire avengers, where we take a similar point value of each with their typical load out and see how they do.
I'd need someone to make the units since I'm away from book at the moment.

" I can not physically put enough firepower down range or reposition fast enough to deal with it."

Yes, you can. Because BA can, and IG out shoot BA on a per point basis by a pretty wide margin.

If you knew how to neuter a drop list, you would be winning against GK, because GK aren't even that good in 7th. Far too many pts/wound in that list. And that's the only real tactic GK have: alpha strike and pray.

"I played 5th without any tanks and won."

You would have won even more with Chimeras in play. Granted, Chimeras are serviceable at best now, but with clever placement, you can present an AV 12 wall to most of the table. That's bad for GK.

I also find it almost impossible to believe that you were beating 5th ed SW with no tanks, but can't take on 7th ed GK with the entire IG codex. Especially considering most GK special rules are TOTALLY WASTED against the IG.

"I was comparing both to firing at a marine"

GK are even more vulnerable than marines, since they have the same defense, but cost more pts/wound.

Lasguns are supposed to be fired en masse with orders and psyker support to become better than bolters could ever hope to be.

FRFSRFing a blob within rapid fire range and rending will generally erase whatever scary assault unit is coming. Barring that use your artillery. Or Punisher Pask. Or use vets with special weapons in chimeras. Or cobscript blobs with priests.

There are options for IG to do well. They just aren't as apparent as other codexes because they require synergy.

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
Lasguns are supposed to be fired en masse with orders and psyker support to become better than bolters could ever hope to be.

FRFSRFing a blob within rapid fire range and rending will generally erase whatever scary assault unit is coming. Barring that use your artillery. Or Punisher Pask. Or use vets with special weapons in chimeras. Or cobscript blobs with priests.

There are options for IG to do well. They just aren't as apparent as other codexes because they require synergy.

A single medusa shot can cost the GK hundreds and hundreds of points. Nice paladins, bro!

"They just aren't as apparent as other codexes because they require synergy."

Synergy. That thing that the BA have virtually none of, since our priests got put in HQ. I knew there was something we were missing.

DoomShakaLaka wrote:Lasguns are supposed to be fired en masse with orders and psyker support to become better than bolters could ever hope to be.

FRFSRFing a blob within rapid fire range and rending will generally erase whatever scary assault unit is coming. Barring that use your artillery. Or Punisher Pask. Or use vets with special weapons in chimeras. Or cobscript blobs with priests.

There are options for IG to do well. They just aren't as apparent as other codexes because they require synergy.

That works well until DS GK units murder your command sections and psykers.

Martel732 wrote:" I can not physically put enough firepower down range or reposition fast enough to deal with it."

Yes, you can. Because BA can, and IG out shoot BA on a per point basis by a pretty wide margin.

If you knew how to neuter a drop list, you would be winning against GK, because GK aren't even that good in 7th. Far too many pts/wound in that list. And that's the only real tactic GK have: alpha strike and pray.

"I played 5th without any tanks and won."

You would have won even more with Chimeras in play. Granted, Chimeras are serviceable at best now, but with clever placement, you can present an AV 12 wall to most of the table. That's bad for GK.

I also find it almost impossible to believe that you were beating 5th ed SW with no tanks, but can't take on 7th ed GK with the entire IG codex. Especially considering most GK special rules are TOTALLY WASTED against the IG.

"I was comparing both to firing at a marine"

GK are even more vulnerable than marines, since they have the same defense, but cost more pts/wound.

Despite the masses of evidence otherwise? IG have struggled to even equal the firepower of MEQ codex's for a long time now.

I couldnt afford tanks at the time but I did get two Chimeras towards the end of it. They greatly improved my army. My trick was to dig in to cover and let them come to me.

GK are insanely tough if they get their psychic powers off first.

"GK are insanely tough if they get their psychic powers off first. "

No, they aren't. Their invuln gets one better. Yippee! Unless they get some lucky rolls on biomancy, that's it afaik. Just shoot them a little more to compensate.

"Despite the masses of evidence otherwise?"

How many IG players are disagreeing with your assessment at this point? Volunteering your best stuff for slaughter does not make your codex bad. Or as bad as you are making it out to be.

"That works well until DS GK units murder your command sections and psykers. "

Don't let them. It's literally that simple. If you really did well in 5th you would know that already. IG can force drop pods and deep strikers into some frustrating situations. Oh, and outflankers? Did I mention there are units covering my table edges making it illegal for you to enter the board? Also, don't forget drop pod traps. Those are hilarious.

Maybe he is referring to invisibility?

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Another thing that needs doing is the removal of the "Units assaulting vehicles always strike the rear armour" nonsense.

You assaulted the front of my MBT. How the hell are you sticking your grenades on my rear armour (and please do not give me this 'It represents hitting the weak points BS - unless a vehicle is immobilised and not shooting at you boarding it or having enough time to wedge a grenade into a weak point are things that are impossible).

It's because the Assault Phase actually represents several minutes of real time (like every other Phase), and the assaulting infantry spread out and surround the vehicle. It's always going to have its "weak spots" pointed at someone.

Not really because if you spend several minutes assaulting a vehicle supporting Infantry tend to blow you off. What you are describing would only really work against a crippled vehicle without support.

You somehow think 40K is supposed to be realistic in some way, shape, or form.

That's cute.

 Lobukia wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

One will notice if you actually look at the armies themselves, the highest placing army with IG as a primary detachment (i.e. not a meatshield allied contingent) placed like 67th. At Adepticon I think the highest ranked one was 46th in qualifiers and there were none in the top 32 that went to championships.

11th actually. If you look at battlepoints, they were 11th (I don't think painting scores are relevant to this discussion). And Adepticon promotes a play style very hostile to the guard players, so it'd be an outlier not a good frame of reference (and its hardly at the ITC levels of balancing... I love Adepticon, but this past year's mission packet was a blast from the past)

Looking at the LVO's battle points for the 2015 championship, I'm seeing a Dark Angels army in 11th place with an IG meatshield ally, not an army with IG as the primary detachment.

The highest placed army with IG as the primary detachment, by Battlepoints, was like 81st place (well, tied with several others, but waaaaaaaayyyy down there). The highest IG army with a secondary detachment that is at least another IG army (Tempestus allies) was like 123rd, and the highest IG army with no allies was 197th.


At Adepticon, looking just at battle points, in the qualifiers, the highest placed army with IG as the primary detachment was 56th, and there were none at all present in the finals.

 vipoid wrote:

The trouble is, these "downsides" often fail to balance assault. Instead, we have several assault units that are far too strong (TWC, Wraiths, WKs, DKs etc.), and many others that are bad to the point of being unusable (wyches, warp talons, possessed, genestealers, bloodbrides, some terminators, hellions etc.). My point is, the downsides to assault don't balance it - they just polarise assault units. Many units are punished far too much, whilst others barely notice the supposed downsides. e.g. compare the effect of overwatch against wyches (with their T3 and 6+ saves), to overwatch against Wraiths or TWC (T5, 3+ saves). Likewise, not being able to assault out of a transport hurts a lot of Chaos units, but again stuff like TWC, Wraiths, WKs and other units with 12" moves don't notice because they don't need transports in the first place. Finally, TWC and Wraiths are less likely to be bothered by random charge lengths because they both have 12" moves, ignore terrain penalties and have fleet to reroll one or both dice. In contrast, infantry with 6" moves and no fleet is much more likely to fluff a charge. And, whilst wyches have fleet, they can still be pushed back by overwatch and are basically dead if they fail the charge.

Basically, *if* you have the right units, assault is very strong indeed. If your army has stuff like genestealers, then the assault rules seem way too harsh. But, if you're against an army that uses one or more of the 'good' assault units, assault seems incredibly powerful.

I think this is really the issue that is dividing people so strongly. There are units that can practically assault every turn without any sort of drawbacks while still having a high expectation of winning those assaults. On the other side of the coin, we've got units which the fluff would describe as "assault" units, but on the actual table serve as little more than impotent scarecrows. As vipoid says, the trade-offs for having an assault focus does effectively nothing to balance such units - instead, it just divides them into "fantastic" and "glued to the shelf." To the former, allowing assault from deep strike would obviously be terrible, but for the latter, it might actually allow them to see some real use, competitively speaking (i.e. Assault Marines).

As I said before, I certainly wouldn't be upset about allowing more assault from deep strike, but what's more important is to give assault-focused units some more consistency across the board so that all assault units can feel like they have a role, not just a select few capable of dancing around the board like Hong Kong wire-fighting martial artists.

The funny thing is DS assault IS currently allowed and its still the weakest part of that formation by far. Unfortunately it's selectively allowed.

I wasn't that long ago that BA vanguard vets could still assault from reserves, wasn't all that good then and wouldn't be now.

For those arguing that assault is more powerful I agree it can be however, there are strategies that defeat assault that dont work against ranged attacks such as bubble wrapping whether it be fodder or dirt cheap transports.
Then take into account scatter and failed charge attempts. Ranged units don't need to roll for range or forfeit their shots.

Then consider an assault unit can assault 3 times a game if they're lucky. Ranged units shoot every turn from turn 1 usually hitting on 3s or better often with s6+ and even ap2. How do assault units compare? The vast majority doesn't. The ones that do are already decent and most off those can't ds anyway.

I suspect I play more assault units than many people and I do well with it, on terrain dense boards against balanced lists but let's be real assault can't compete with high end shooting lists and and a one time deep strike assault per unit isn't going to fix that. But it might bring a little more diversity or at least make some units half assed viable.