# Assault is dead? (from BoLS)



## neferhet (Oct 24, 2012)

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2013/10/is-assault-dead-in-40k.html

Just wanted to share this article from BoLS. Nice read, for me.

I do feel too that assault has been shunned away with too much emphasys, in this 6th edition. As for me, i never leave home without my assault specialist. Assault is not just crushing enemyes: its about contesting objectives and disturb shooting.

What do you guys think about assault?


----------



## Ratvan (Jun 20, 2011)

By all accounts its not the crushing blow that it apparently was in 5th, but coming into 40k from a WHFB background I still see it as being a large part of the game. If I can wipe out or pin a SCORING unit in place thats one less objective grabber.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

I don't think there's any arguing that shooting got stronger. But one if the benefits of close combat hasn't changed. 

In close combat, I still have potentially twice the number of opportunities to kill the enemy. I can kill them in my assault phase, and in their assault phase.


----------



## Squire (Jan 15, 2013)

Kreuger said:


> I don't think there's any arguing that shooting got stronger. But one if the benefits of close combat hasn't changed.
> 
> *In close combat, I still have potentially twice the number of opportunities to kill the enemy. I can kill them in my assault phase, and in their assault phase.*


Yea, people seem to forget this. Rapid fire weapons are good but getting to shoot, charge and attack twice before your next turn comes around has its benefits too, and a unit leader with a power fist charging could deal out seven S8 attacks in one game turn, which is more than the guy with the missile launcher will do. More than a unit of long fangs will do for that matter


----------



## neferhet (Oct 24, 2012)

Squire said:


> Yea, people seem to forget this. Rapid fire weapons are good but getting to shoot, charge and attack twice before your next turn comes around has its benefits too, and a unit leader with a power fist charging could deal out seven S8 attacks in one game turn, which is more than the guy with the missile launcher will do. More than a unit of long fangs will do for that matter


very much agree. The real pain for a former assault fanboy as myself is made by some of the new shenanigans the shooty armyes are getting to boost their "reactive" shooting: against charges and against deepstrikers or outflankers. Where this kind of tools where seldom seen past years, the Tau (may the gods bless them with spawnhood) have now become pretty much a bag-full of this kind of tricks and i can see how things are going to be even "worse" when the new IG codex is going to hit the board. Mind you, i'm not ranting. I'm just saying that in my opinion, assault have been nerfed a little, and on the other hand reactive shooting (or shooting in general) has been upgraded and made stronger. 
I no longer see hand to hand as a central part of the game. now it has become an aspect. a facet between others. Wich may even be a good thing... for the sake of me, i cannot really well remember how was the game in 2nd edition, but in 3rd i recall there was a lot more hack and slash than 4th-5th and now 6th. or am I wrong?
maybe there is an "intelligent design" in GW's plan: making WHFB the realm of swords and WH40K the realm of bolters? 

Besides. Have you ever tried to field a fully cc army? how does it fared under the new rules? Every time i try to make a full cc list my brain just screams in anger and forces me to add some long range heavy support...


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

Kreuger said:


> I don't think there's any arguing that shooting got stronger. But one if the benefits of close combat hasn't changed.
> 
> In close combat, I still have potentially twice the number of opportunities to kill the enemy. I can kill them in my assault phase, and in their assault phase.


Plus you can kill a few models then destroy the unit in a sweeping advance. That's a pretty massive advantage, and something shooting is incapable of.


----------



## iamtheeviltwin (Nov 12, 2012)

neferhet said:


> Mind you, i'm not ranting. I'm just saying that in my opinion, assault have been nerfed a little, and on the other hand reactive shooting (or shooting in general) has been upgraded and made stronger.


This is by design. CC was different in 2ed it was basically a large scale skirmish game. With the change from 2ed to 3ed, where the game design was based around large unit battles like WHFB (and unit standardization), assault became the center of the game (most likely unintentionally). It has taken 3 more editions of the game to finally tone assault down, but I think now that shooting and assaulting are fairly well balanced. Shooting is easier and more predictable (from a Mathhammer perspective). Assault, while harder to get into, is riskier but has higher rewards. 

The only thing in the general Meta right now that is making shooting seem far more powerful is that the general meta (and the tournament scene specifically) have not also adjusted to the higher terrain density that is recommended and encouraged by the rules. Just upping the terrain count by 2-3 pieces and adding a LoS blocking piece or two changes the game for shooting units considerably.

I run a heavy CC Eldar army and am competitive against any army I have faced. What I don't do is rely on CC to be my only tool, I support it with Long Range Fire support, disruption units, and a mix of very fast and moderately fast units that attract fire until the Hammer falls. Which is what I would recommend for any "all-comers" army list. 

One of the best ways to deal with fragile, firepower heavy armies (Tau and IG) is to beat their face in with a stick (the other is large cover ignoring template weapons). 

Assault isn't "dead", the Khorne Berzerkers riding forward in a wall of rhinos (or insert any scouting, outflanking, or deep striking assault unit) and launching into assault with no risk is dead and that is a good thing.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

The enemy can't hurt you back when you're shooting at them, and you can disable portions of their army in the crucial first few turns. Assault takes time to initiate, which gives your opponent options in howe he redeploys to deal with it. Shooting punishes deployment mistakes, removes the deadliest units without engaging them, and is generally superior.

You can win games through shooting, but assault? Not so much. You will almost always come up against someone who's better at you in assault unless you're a maxed out unit of Wraiths or Paladins with attached Draigo and Librarian or something silly like that. If you come across Draigowing with your close combat army, you're in trouble, because you have to deal with them when they're strongest and they remove your strengths through Grenades. If you're a shooting army, you can generally deal with them in short order. The reverse is not true for the opposite scenario, however; you can't deal with a powerful shooting unit through combat just because it's combat (of course, you can technically deal with anything in combat if you're packing 30 Deathwing Knights or something, but I'm talking efficiency/practicality here) - your best chance of taking down a Riptide is not through charging it, because it's tough, could beat you, and it'll kill what you throw at it while running away like the giant cowardly Tau it is. You have to shoot it, or throw very expendable units at it to force it into either poor target priority or combat.

Midnight


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

In the article it says that there's two main changes to the assault phase, being Overwatch and random charge ranges. I would add that CCWs have AP values was another massive change. No longer can any old power weapon cleave down your 2+ armour save unit.

Being a BA player I definitely felt the shift in potency of the assault phase. My lists changed, but still remain highly CC oriented because that's where the strength of the BA lies. I have implemented different sorts of backline options for them, most of which have been successful, but still the majority of my army is made for charging in. I typically face Necrons, Tau, CSM, and IG and still come out on top focusing on getting my guys up in the enemy's face off the hop much like the boxing in tactic they describe in the article. The assault phase is still viable for game changing fun, but it's in a different faculty from before. It's a bit less point and shoot grin than in 5th edition for sure.


----------



## neferhet (Oct 24, 2012)

iamtheeviltwin said:


> The only thing in the general Meta right now that is making shooting seem far more powerful is that the general meta (and the tournament scene specifically) have not also adjusted to the higher terrain density that is recommended and encouraged by the rules. Just upping the terrain count by 2-3 pieces and adding a LoS blocking piece or two changes the game for shooting units considerably.


THIS. Crap, I've never clearly understood how much this was a huge problem, not only in competitive enviroment but also in friendly games, until recen times. A battle is seriously influenced by the board composition. In a "shooty" edition like 6th the board should very well be far different from the set-ups we used to see in older edition battlefields (lots of cover on the board edges and a big white space in the middle...in my experience at least). The "build a story" thing would really help us here, placing terrain with our opponent to set up a narrative battlefield, where every army can have its sweet spot.
Good point, man.



ntaw said:


> In the article it says that there's two main changes to the assault phase, being Overwatch and random charge ranges. I would add that CCWs have AP values was another massive change. No longer can any old power weapon cleave down your 2+ armour save unit.


And that, imo, is a very good point in favour of specialized and tough cc units (*cough* terminators *cough*) They are now just stronger, due to the fact that, as you say, a simple powersword cannot mow them down like pretty flowers. my idea is that what makes your cc units harder to quash, also helps the assault phase outcome. So, maybe we are going to use a more specialized tool for cc and not just every unit 

Love the good points all of you guys have brought up!


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

ntaw said:


> I would add that CCWs have AP values was another massive change. No longer can any old power weapon cleave down your 2+ armour save unit.


What?

Oh, wait, yes, I'd forgotten the lesser races are using AP values. Silly little cattle.

Midnight


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

MidnightSun said:


> I'd forgotten the lesser races are using AP values


....I don't even know what this means. What army doesn't have AP values for CCWs?


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

ntaw said:


> ....I don't even know what this means. What army doesn't have AP values for CCWs?


Dark Eldar are either 'Ignore Armour Saves' or AP2. Oh, yeah, they get Agonisers as well, but all the important stuff is still Ignores Armour (Klaives, Demiklaives, Huskblades, Lelith Hesperax off the top of my head).

Midnight


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

Guess I gotta learn me some different armies, eh? I think DE are the ones I have the least to do with in all reality. Thanks for clearing that up for me! k:


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Just found this. I think it's pretty good.

Midnight


----------



## Avorez (Oct 12, 2013)

I feel like the higher emphasis on shooting has really solidified for me the perception of 40k being a WW1 styled-game. 

Really, the evidence is there and more importantly, the game and cultural styles of some of the races, (IG, Tau, and Orks in particular) not to mention the looks of some vehicles brings the idea of WW1 era weapons and armor. 

On a separate note, I have switched from Chaos to Tau mainly for this reason. I used to play Chaos (unsuccessfully) and now I'm switching to Tau and have seen much greater success. Mainly thanks to them fitting into my play style and what not.


----------



## Squire (Jan 15, 2013)

Another benefit of CC is hiding your expensive units in combat. A shooty unit can be shot by anything, but reach combat and you can be more selective over who hits back. Shooting units can certainly use line of sight blocking terrain to limit what comes their way, but if there's enough terrain then the balance between shooting and combat is already being balanced.

I understand there was a high level (?) US tournament recently where the top three armies were daemons, daemons then tyranids. IIRC Tau (despite their codex) didn't fare as well as expected because the tables were well covered with terrain

Just found the article. Tau's highest ranking was 10th

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2013/10/and-now-40k-meta.html



MidnightSun said:


> The enemy can't hurt you back when you're shooting at them, and you can disable portions of their army in the crucial first few turns. Assault takes time to initiate, which gives your opponent options in howe he redeploys to deal with it. Shooting punishes deployment mistakes, removes the deadliest units without engaging them, and is generally superior.
> 
> You can win games through shooting, but assault? Not so much. You will almost always come up against someone who's better at you in assault unless you're a maxed out unit of Wraiths or Paladins with attached Draigo and Librarian or something silly like that. If you come across Draigowing with your close combat army, you're in trouble, because you have to deal with them when they're strongest and they remove your strengths through Grenades. If you're a shooting army, you can generally deal with them in short order. The reverse is not true for the opposite scenario, however; you can't deal with a powerful shooting unit through combat just because it's combat (of course, you can technically deal with anything in combat if you're packing 30 Deathwing Knights or something, but I'm talking efficiency/practicality here) - your best chance of taking down a Riptide is not through charging it, because it's tough, could beat you, and it'll kill what you throw at it while running away like the giant cowardly Tau it is. You have to shoot it, or throw very expendable units at it to force it into either poor target priority or combat.
> 
> Midnight


I would have thought the most efficient way of dealing with a riptide is getting something with an ID causing weapon into combat with it. Easier said than done, but with shooting you'd have to hammer away for a long time with multiple units. Maybe I'm looking at it too much from my nid perspective, but for me I'd try to charge it with my flyrant asap. That's quite a specific case because my hive tyrant is kitted out unusually (wings, 2x scything talons, toxin sacs, implant attack) but you could do the same thing with a bloodthirster too. Or a great unclean one if you can catch it. ID aside pretty much any CC monstrous creature could hack it to death without shooting support (avatar, keeper of secrets, daemon prince, wraithknight, trygon, CC tervigon etc)

Other good ways would involve massed poison or rending attacks


----------



## neferhet (Oct 24, 2012)

MidnightSun said:


> Just found this. I think it's pretty good.
> 
> Midnight


That is a very clever article. The 5+ cover save is another serious point in favor of "shooting wins"


----------



## "Mad" Larkin (Sep 23, 2013)

The AP-component in CC in 6th is really something you have to consider when making your list. Although i havent played them in 6th i think Eldar might be capable of more than most people think. Like the DE they have some interesting AP2-upgrades for Exarchs, and unlike most armys, these weapons wont strike at initiative 1 (Scorpionclaw, Executionerblade and the sword for the Dire Avenger Exarch which causes ID).

I have to try that for myself, but in my head that sounds not at all a bad idea.


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

This editions rules for combat definately made the footslogging horde of orks a lot less reliable, with the change to fleet shafting the waaagh being the main culprit although lower cover saves,defensive flamers and a few other bit's luckily there are a few other things in the book that makes up for it and ork defensive fire is not much different from their normal shooting so it's not all bad but for an army that was mainly designed from both fluff and game mechanics to be a combat force this is not the edition for orks.


----------



## revilo44 (Sep 17, 2010)

I have to say I don't like assaulting that much as it never really goes well when I do it , at least with shooting you men don't die as well.


----------



## Squire (Jan 15, 2013)

neilbatte said:


> This editions rules for combat definately made the footslogging horde of orks a lot less reliable, with the change to fleet shafting the waaagh being the main culprit although lower cover saves,defensive flamers and a few other bit's luckily there are a few other things in the book that makes up for it and ork defensive fire is not much different from their normal shooting so it's not all bad but for an army that was mainly designed from both fluff and game mechanics to be a combat force this is not the edition for orks.


Ork boyz are still a force to be reckoned with in my opinion. Their price compares with guardsmen and termagants yet with both shooting and combat they bring more to the table. Snapshotting hardly hurts them either thanks to their low BS, so the introduction of overwatch certainly doesn't seem like a net negative to them. I look forward to them receiving a new codex though. If the meta reflected the actual 40k universe more closely then there'd be way more ork and IG players

If it were up to me every new player would have to pay their dues with either orks or IG, maybe for at least the first year. If my dictatorship were organised enough I could insist on at least 100 games at 1500 points or more before 'unlocking' the other factions


----------



## lokyar (Apr 24, 2011)

Since I am a hot-blooded assault player i'm kinda sad. I understand assault was quite powerfull and had to be nerfed (even though i dont like it).
my solution is to stick everything in transports with dozer blades, stick them in heavy cover and flat out through any intervening terrain to get my target. (also for riptides: yay for nemesis daemon hammers)


----------



## Iraqiel (May 21, 2008)

Also, note how damnably effective assault now is against vehicles. Why, my guard have suffered handily at the blows of terminators, dreadnaughts, orks, krak grenades... sigh.


----------



## neferhet (Oct 24, 2012)

Ah, the krak grande tossing has become so popular amongst my traitor marines! Every short distance assault has its grenade launched! A really cool addition, that has been! yes indeed.


----------



## Brother Dextus (Jan 30, 2013)

As a BT player, I find that the assaulting units (~75% of my army) are now ALWAYS in expendable transports. Get them to the frontline, cleave through scoring units and leave the heavy weapons to shoot at the enemy combat units. 

I have changed my deployment, but not the overall strategy. The champion rocking around challenging enemy characters is also a mega bonus.


----------

