So, 6th edition. I remember shortly after 6th ed came out, a lot of folks were talking about what that means for assault versus shooting, principally revolving around Random Charge Length and Overwatch, with most people thinking it was a net nerf for assault based armies, but some folks pointed out that on average, you got 1″ extra when charging. (If you’re interested in other people’s thoughts, check out Kirby’s analysis here.)
Well, now we’re about a month and a half in, I’ve been through 2 tournaments myself (and hey, I qualified for Feast of Blades Invitational, yaaaaayyyy……….) and a number of weekly games, and I’ve had time to toss things around in my head a bit, and I’ve come to a conclusion:
Assault is significantly hurt in 6th edition, at least for expensive, elite armies (like Grey Kngihts) but it has little to do with Random Charge Length nor overwatch. It mostly has to do with Morale, Fearless, And they shall know no fear (ATSKNF) and wiping out units.
Let’s look at how things worked before and now, shall we? Rather than evaluate specific units and get bogged down in mathhammer, I’m going to keep it theoretical–the assaulting unit will be a generically good assault unit like Incubi, banshees, purifiers, genestealers, kitted out command squads or assault terminators (never mind that some of these units, such as incubi, are overcosted for what they do and terminators can’t sweeping advance) against different kinda of targets. We should probably further differentiate our assaulter into high quality attacks (basically anything with a power weapon) versus volume attacks (death company, ‘stealers, korne bezerkers, etc), but we’ll only mention the differences when it matters. The assumption here, btw, is that the assaulting squad is much more expensive and/or specialized than whatever it’s assaulting.
Now it should be mentioned that what most people are most concerned about in 6th with Close Combat are Random Charge Length and Overwatch, but those aren’t really the big factors that people think they are, though. People fear overwatch more than they should, I think. A tactical marine squad with bolters (rapid firing) will on average kill .56 of their fellow marines on overwatch and 1.67 of something lightly armored like orks…but there’s also going to be like 3 times as many orks (and we’re also not factoring in cover, if there is any). Flamers make overwatch a lot more dangerous, but even then it’s only .33 MEQs (marine-equivalents) or an even 1 of someone with a t-shirt save per flamer. Point is, unless there’s something special going on (LOTS of flamers, or something cool like the Foreboding that let’s you overwatch at full Ballistic Skill) overwatch just isn’t something to be afraid off in most cases.
Random Charge Length sounds like a big deal too, except that you have to consider that it occured most of the time previously…..any time you were charging through cover, which smart opponents would make sure happened. In fact, in not only does RCL give you slightly further charge range in open terrain, it gives you a LOT more average charge distance on average than you got in 5th. (Kirby and Friends have a ncie analysis of the who RCL thing, again, here)
No….again, the important thing is how combat resolution and morale works out. So let’s run through it.
In 5th:
Assault (quality or quantity, doesn’t much matter) unit hits Marines.
- Assaulter wins easily, 3 or 4 times as many wounds done as done back by Tactical Marines
- Marines may or may not run. Vanilla marines can in fact choose to run.
- If they run, and fail the initiative attack, the marines stay, but take 1-2 extra wounds. (No Retreat!)
- 10 man Tac squad is probably at least half down now, will be farily likely to be eliminated next turn
- If they run and get away, enemy consolidates, and is very likely within 6″. This means the marines continue to run next turn.
- It was usually possible to “escort them off the board”…a very annoying process, but it meant even squads with ATSKNF could be eliminated through combat results.
- If they pass their morale check (usually an even chance, base leadership is still high) they stick in and take less dmg, and the assaulter ahs another chance at it next round….they’ll break eventually.
Result: Heavy assault unit will usually break and kill (in some fashion) the infamously tough marines, often fairly quickly.
- Assaulter winds easily, 3 or 4 times as many wounds done as done back by Horde.
- Horde does not, cannot break.
- Horde unit takes some variable of extra wounds from No Retreat! (anything from 3-8 or so, typically), usually nearly doubling the number of wounds taken in total.
Result: Horde unit takes a little while to break, and burn rates will vary, but the elite assault unit can usually work it’s way through the horde in a couple phases, killing anything like a half to 2/3s the first phase, and finishing it off the turn after.
- Assaulter winds easily, 3 or 4 times as many wounds done as done back by Horde.
- Target unit is fairly likely to break (usually these are not high leadership units).
- If caught in the sweeping advance, dies.
- If not caught, likely within 6″, and cannot rally, may be escorted off board.
- If it sticks, everything is good, but subject to same punishment next turn.
Result: Very likely kills unit in one turn. This is actually bad, as expensive shooting unit is subject to getting shot in opponents turn.
I’m winging and estimating this partly on personal experience, but what do we see here? The hard assault squad kills Marines is maybe 1 or 2 assault phases (2 is preferred) but does kill them, kills the fearless horde in 2 or 3 (again 2 is preferred) and kills a squishy xenos opponent (the exact number doesn’t matter, actually) in usually 1 phase (which is often not ideal, but at least it’s dead).
But let’s look at it in….
6th
Assault (quality or quantity, doesn’t much matter) unit hits Marines.
- Assaulter wins easily, 3 or 4 times as many wounds done as done back by Tactical Marines
- Marines may or may not run. Vanilla marines can in fact choose to run.
- If they run, and fail the initiative attack, the marines stay, take no wounds. There is no penalty for attempting to run on purpose, using the combat tactics rule of Vanilla Marines.
- 10 man Tac squad is anywhere from 1/3-1/2 down now, depending on the exact assaulter involved.
- If they run and get away, enemy consolidates, and is very likely within 6″. This means nothing.
- Marines can, and will automatically rally, regardless of how close the enemy is.
- If they pass their morale check it is the same as if they had failed to run.
Result: The marines have a very decent chance to break and run, leaving them free to shoot the enemy in the face….which for your typical shooting marines is what they’d much prefer to do. The heavy assault unit has to kill each model individually, and their is no chance to neutralize them via breaking and “escorting them off the board”, and they kill the marines somewhat slower in CC.
- Assaulter winds easily, 3 or 4 times as many wounds done as done back by Horde.
- Horde does not, cannot break.
- That’s it, combat continues.
Result: Killing the squad will take something like twice as long as in 5th. Depending on the size of the squad and the number of attacks the assaulter has, the combat could take the whole game, but usually at least 3-4 phases (which often might as well be the whole game). Orks at least might break when brought below 10 models.
- Assaulter winds easily, 3 or 4 times as many wounds done as done back by Horde.
- Target unit is fairly likely to break (usually these are not high leadership units).
- If caught in the sweeping advance, dies.
- If not caught, can totally rally, but can only fire snapshots, making them relatively un-threatening.
- If it sticks, everything is good, but subject to same punishment next turn.
Result: Hey, this is almost exactly the same as 5th! (unit can rally while shooting, but shooting while falling back is nerfed) But you killed a much cheaper squad, and the opponent is free to shoot you up next turn. How awful that is depends upon who you are.
Generally speaking, we have a much different situation. Assaulting a squishy xenos (or IG) squad is the same (again, usually not worth getting shot up next turn but at least you kill them decisively) but hordes and marines are very different from before. Fearless hordes can almost always tie you up an infinitely long time (or effectively so). Against marines however, the change is almost more profound. Rather than being able to break the squad and keep them running, you basically have to kill each model individually, no different than through shooting. More to the point, running is only a good thing for marines, and they will do it any chance they get. If you’re assaulting them with a terminator unit, you can’t even try to catch them. Melta (plasma) gun in the face for you! Killing a marine squad, any marine squad, becomes a long, drawn out slog. There are still tricks you can play (falling back units automatically fail morale tests, so you can use that to make them fall back multiple times) but these are situational and finicky.
To re-cap, and reiterate, what didn’t matter much in the change in from 5th to 6th for assault?
- Overwatch
- Random Charge Length
- No more fearless (No Retreat!) wounds
- Ability to rally regardless of distance from enemy
- ATSKNF and combat tactics (which haven’t changed at all, but has become much better in light of the previous two changes, and that normal troops snapfire after rallying)
Once again, being a marine just gets better and better, all the time.
A note on fearless wounds (No Retreat!). Tyranid players rightly complained about this rule in 5th ed (Orks and Demons had less to complain about) particularly as it applied to every unit on the losing side– a tervigon taking wounds because a number of termagants died next to it was always a little silly. But a fearless horde, any fearless horde, no matter how cheap and sucky being able to tarpit any unit for the whole game seems equally silly. That’s why No Retreat! was added in 5th in the first place! Was there no happy medium that could be reached? I can think of 3 or 4 solutions right off the cuff. Realistically, fearless hordes just shouldn’t be as common as they are.
In conclusion
The thing about Close Combat in 5th was that it was generally considered an efficient way to wipe out squads quickly. Shooting was generally more useful and efficient, but most people wanted a few assault units around to kick people off their lawn (take an objective, get a kill point, take the quarter, whatever). Shooting was for many situations a better option, but assault was much more definitive.
Armies that were primarily assault based, but not fearless like wych squads are Blood Angels spent a good part of the game getting to the enemy, but when they did so, they could relatively sure the enemy was done, if they got there in sufficient numbers.
But that’s not really true anymore. The dedicated, hard assault squad is kinda done now, unless they’re just truly overwhelming (big deathstars mostly) that they really can kill 10 MEQs or 30 ork boys in 1-2 phases. Morale will no longer break these squads. Marines in particular have become slippery and annoying to deal with……they will always want to run, when possible, will succeed about half the time, and have no penalty for doing so. You will still see a few medium-heavy CC squads as a dedicated counter-attack unit, but it’s just not a great way to finish things off anymore. (unless they’re light, unarmored troops, and when were those a problem?)
Of course, for the fearless hordes (orks, tyranids, demons) things have only gotten awesome, at least as pure assault goes….generally speaking the cheap light things can hold things up until the big boys (nobs, MCs) get there to do the real damage.
6 Responses to “Assault versus shooting in 6th Ed 40k (and implications for Grey Knights)”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Excellent article!
Hadn't really thought about the implications of ATSKNF combined with the fact that you can now rally in 6 inches.
Thanks.
Yeah, I liked it at first, because, personally, I hate tank shock. It's happened one too many times that a very expensive unit has failed Leadership due to tank shock, and then been escorted off the board.
But for combat….it's a little lame.
Good analysis, although I think RCL is a little more relevant than perhaps you give it credit for; charging into difficult terrain is absolutely _atrocious_ now and is very, very likely to fail even at distances of 4-6" unless you have Fleet (all the more so because Move Through Cover is worthless in that regard.) Overwatch is often greatly overestimated but isn't usually all that dangerous- the problem is only those unusual times when the enemy rolls some sixes on his special weapons or whatever, which adds one more random chance for things to go wrong for an assault unit.
The changes to Fearless/No Retreat and rally distance are incredibly important in the game- they totally change how many things work. While I agree that perhaps more of a middle ground could've been found on No Retreat, Tyranids certainly needed the boost, as it's one of the few things they have going for them these days.
Eh, there are both upsides and downsides to RCL. Yeah, you fail sometimes, but you'll also make charges you never would. Whether you think that's better or worse seems to litterally be glass-half-full sort of thing–I hate it just because it's random, and I like to be in control of things.
But the point of this all was more to point out the futility of it all, how you are very unlikely to "break" a quad compared to before.
I think the point is that the randomness, in and of itself, is a downside- getting a guaranteed charge now is actually quite difficult. I mean, yeah, you were often going into terrain, especially against a mechanized army that was generating its own terrain, but charges in the open weren't THAT uncommon, and now even they are going to be quite variable. The fact that your 90% likely charge range is so short is a major hindrance; of course, you will also get random long charges, but especially on units that also want to be shooting at things you often won't be able to take advantage of this due to having to charge what you shot (which may be dead, out of range, not something you want to fight, etc.)
It is a lot harder to kill things in melee, though, you're entirely right- and with things being simultaneously easier to kill with shooting I think it's pretty clear where the balance lies.
See, all you're really saying is you're a glass half-empty sort of guy. (that's the pessimist one, right? I always get confused, because there's an assaumption that half is perceived more, or less? I dunno)