How to bring the fight back to 6th?

[Learn2Eel]

No, I mentioned small units of Marines, which I would define, given the range of 5-10 members, as either 5 or 6 man squads.

Original quote is from the OP, who mentions some claiming 'massiv mobs taken out by small units of marines'.

I repeated the use of the terms massive and small respectively.

Also, in your further (erroneous) example, whilst it's been a while since I looked over the Ork and Space Wolf codecies (I play neither) if I'm right in thinking, a Slugga Boy is....9 points, and even a Grey Hunter is just about double that...

6 points actually.

And actually, doing the numbers, if 30 Ork Boyz hit a 10-strong Grey Hunter unit of roughly equivalent points - i.e. mark of the wulfen and a power sword - then with Counter Attack, the Grey Hunters would put out around thirty to thirty five attacks (Mark of the Wulfen), of which half would hit - so we will say 16 - and a further half would wound, leading to around seven or eight dead Orks. That would leave twenty three or so Slugga Boyz fighting back ninety-two attacks, half would hit - so forty-six - and half would wound - twenty three - which assuming average saving rolls would see about eight Grey Hunters die.
Even with shooting thrown in (which opens up things like cover saves, line of sight, etc) it is definitely no guarantee the Grey Hunters would come out on top. Plus you would then have to account for the Ork shooting...

[SotonShades]

removed

Please tone down the aggression in your reply. There is absolutely no need for it in a simple debate about the relative merits and demerits of the Assault Phase of a wargame. I would also recommend that you improve your own reading comprehension skills before getting involved with a debate; I certainly agree with you that a 10-man Wolf Guard or Grey Hunter squad will muller a Mob of 30 Ork boys, perhaps being a relatively equal fight if they were 'Ard boys and had a 4+ save. However, a small Wolf Guard or Grey Hunter pack will still pose a significant threat to a mob of 30 boys, even discounting a few turns of shooting as the Orks close and Overwatch, which doesn't really reflect the nature of the game. It is a classic example of Games Workshop's approach to fixing rules issues; overcompensate the original issue, in this case assault being rather more effective than shooting, and effectively nullify certain types of army build.

Now, to the OP's point, what needs to be done? I play Orks myself, and regularly play against Tyranids. My initial response would be that most games of 40k do not use enough cover to keep the game balanced. There are far too many reasons to list here, but I feel GW is to blame. Ironically it is because they have produced too many nice terrain kits.

Back when I started playing 40k, there were loads of articles in White Dwarf, rulebooks and even codices giving you advice on how to build terrain; from simple hills and cardboard buildings to vast, army specific building complexes. I even still have a couple of the books GW published on the subject. Stores always had loads of tables with plenty of hand made scenery, giving great examples of what could be done cheaply and, better still, the people who had made it were right there in store, so could help you make your own. Now, GW's policy is to only use their own kits in store (which I guess I understand, to a point) and most hobbyists cannot afford to kit out whole tables like that. The staff are actively discouraged from advising people how to build their own terrain and often don't actually have the knowledge themselves, much less of local suppliers from whom you could purchase the necessary equipment and materials. Add to that the budgets for terrain being slashed and the staffers' time being filled with additional training and harsher sales targets and they have no real way to supplement the store's terrain.

White Dwarf and the rulebooks have also slowly reduce the amount of scenery in battle shots. It certainly makes it easier to photograph the models in the games or set-ups, but further compounds the belief that a lower amount of terrain is required. This has lead to a whole generation of gamers playing on very sparse battlefields. Combining this with the buffs from 6th Ed to shooting has made assault oriented armies extremely difficult to play in most cases. Throw some more LoS blocking terrain and a few more cover saves on the table, and the issue helps solve itself for very balanced games.

One final point, more to rle68 than anyone else. If you want your point to come across, please improve your spelling and use of punctuation. I fully realise that the internet is not a place where correct grammar is required 100% of the time, but a little attention will make your argument more clearly understood, harder to misinterpret and less likely to receive backlash from further posters.

[deinol]

The funny thing about sparse terrain is that the rule book says you should have 6-18 pieces of terrain on a standard field. The average 12 is a lot more than I see most people play with.

The main thing Orks and Tyranids need are 6th edition codices.

[chicop76]

I don't have problems assaulting with my nids. You still need shooting and disruptive units to tone done your units getting shot at.

With orcs I can't say. I can only speak for nids.

That being said I think it is a waste of time running genestealers unless you have a broodlord and the unit either have invisibility or endurance on it.

[Caitsidhe]

Is assault still possible? Yes. Are purely assault armies still viable? Doubtful, at least in my opinion. For better or for worst, this is the Edition of the gun. I still get in close combat all the time, but I will admit it is generally with a Daemon Prince (FMC variety). On rare occassion someone else manages to assault my guys or I go in myself. That kind of fight is normally what happens when someone is desperate.

[Mr Mystery]

I'm not sure it's even all that bad for assault armies.

They were spoiled rotten in 3rd, 4th and 5th, and mostly shooty armies struggled.

The boot isn't exactly on the other foot now, but you do have to sing for your supper.

[Lexington]

6th Ed increased charge range on average, and introduced overwatch. That's it.

Well, not quite - it also introduced and favors Flyers, which are usually immune to assault, made transports less survivable, and for the small increase in "average" charge range, introduced quite a bit of uncertainty to charging. This is an edition where shooting's definitely been favored over assault, especially since (as others have noted) far too many people play without the right amount of LoS-blocking terrain.

Overall, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, at least to my eye. Ranged weaponry should have a noted advantage over assault, and every army should have a decent shooting game. The problem is that several of the armies aren't currently set up to support this POV. Orks make out better than most in this, since they've got a surprising amount of firepower, but I feel bad for 'Nids, Templars and other HtH-oriented forces. Hopefully new Codexes will help out with this.

They were spoiled rotten in 3rd, 4th and 5th, and mostly shooty armies struggled.

3rd, yes - it was the age of the Rhino Rush.

4th, not really. The pendulum swung back to a point where transport vehicles were (with the late exception of Eldar skimmers) damn near unusable. Basalisk-heavy Iron Warrior armies dominated.

5th, definitely not. You had your exceptions, mainly in wound allocation-abusing units like Nob Bikers and Paladins, but it was the short-ranged shooty armies w/ assault cleanup capabilities - ie. Space Wolves and Grey Knights - that were the armies to beat at the time. Fairly decent balance if anything.

[Kevlarshark]

Most armies that beat face in CC in 5th will still beat face in CC in 6th.

It is not that the assault phase is less effective now...its that the shooting phase has been made more effective.

Secondary issue is that a Heavy CC army cannot dominate the game anymore. With fortifications,flyers and overwatch there are things that prevent a combat army from being the swiss army knife - able to kill every thing.
Now there are options for less combat oriented forces to channel/slow down/blast from the air - A paper for the CC rock.

[Charistoph]

There were several changes in 5th to 6th that rather balanced things out a bit. Shooting isn't necessarily stronger (aside from Flyers, obviously), just more available.

Assault gained a possibly longer charge range, but has to face Overwatch. Fearless no longer has No Retreat!, causing models dying off only because they lost a fight. Assault is still the only way to make a unit disappear while only causing 1 Wound to it.

Shooting gained Overwatch and Cover Saves were reduced for many terrain types, but was also added to Night Fighting, which can be available every game. You still have to make 25% casualties to have a chance to make them run. They can recover a lot easier than 5th, though. Introduction of the Snap Shot made some shooting possible, though still unlikely to cause a hit.

Edit: I was reminded about Fleet which is the only real nut punch to Assault without an added benefit.

[magickbk]

For many years, I've played with primarily shooting armies (Dark Angels, Tau, Imperial Guard), and I am now trying to build an assault-oriented army for variety and challenge. These are the issues I've seen:

Terrain - As has been mentioned, a lack of sufficient terrain is a huge issue, but even more so are the changes to LOS in regards to terrain. Many pieces that used to block sight no longer do, or are now to short to be effective given larger and taller models. While my main opponent is away on vacation, I am replacing a few pieces from my table that have served well for many editions, but no longer work the way they were intended.

Scoring Units - A huge flaw is that many armies have to choose assault units from their Troops choices, which means those units will not be likely to be going for objectives, since there are frequently other units better able to hold them. This need both reduces the number of assault units in the army due to needing some units to take objectives, and also makes it more difficult for those armies to take objectives, as they have fewer units to do it. These armies become a gamble between taking 1-2 objectives and trying to deny the rest.

Overwatch - It hurts lightly armored assault units, and frequently one of the balancing factors for assault-heavy units has been lighter armor.

Sweeping Advance - Back in the day, sweeping advances made it near impossible to keep an assault unit out of combat long enough to destroy it. It was too powerful, so it was removed, but now it becomes difficult to keep an assault unit in combat during enough of the game to make it effective.

Transports - Except for Land Raiders and Stormravens, the transports that you can assault out of are so fragile that they may be more of a death trap than staying on foot, depending on the aforementioned terrain.

How would I fix all this? There is no easy, one-stop fix. I think for the next edition, I would modify Overwatch so that you can't fire if the assaulting unit is within half the distance rolled on the charge dice, and I would allow consolidation after destroying an enemy to initiate combat with a new unit, with the assaulting unit not gaining any charge bonuses and the defending unit not firing overwatch, which was allowed back in 3rd edition.