View Full Version : Is CC pointless in 6th Ed.?

13-09-2013, 12:04
I've read a few post lately with people saying that CC is pointless/useless in 6th Ed. and I'm interested in what people think. I've been stationed overseas for a bit and I haven't been able to play that many games in 6th Ed. so I'm not really that up on how effective or ineffective CC is.

13-09-2013, 12:20
No, but it's much harder to get there with enough strength and enough time left in the match to make a serious difference, between the several options for ignoring cover (and general lack of LoS blocking terrain on most tables), that most transported troops need a whole extra turn for unboxing compared to pre-6e, that combat characters generally lose a whole extra turn to a sacrificial challenge, plus casualties from the front leading to later infantry charges, and random charge range plus overwatch leading to more charges failing altogether, walkers being more vulnerable to melee grenades, etc etc.

There are still factions that can make viable pure melee or heavily melee leaning forces, but not as many as before, and 5e was already heavily skewed in favor of ranged tactics. Good melee units need to be fast, killy, and durable for the points, and anything that relies on a rhino to get to combat now fails the first measure.

An example of a faction that can still make melee-primary work is chaos daemons, either by spamming FMCs or by taking multiple units of hounds, seekers, fiends, and backing them up with support characters, grimoire, etc. An example of a previously melee leaning faction that can't make it work anymore is Chaos Space Marines - as they generally lack the speed, durability, and hitting power needed to overcome the kind of damage one is likely to suffer in the ranged game.

13-09-2013, 12:21
Its not the cake walk it was in 5th where your decent combat unit could roll up someones army. It has been nerfed hard this edition.

Saying that, it is doable and against some armies just one or two combat models hitting their lines can cause them to fold.

Problems to take into account

-shooting casualties taken from the front pushes unit back
-random charge distances
-overwatch fire, again taking casualties from the front
-less powerful sweeping advance rules

It depends on your armies, low armor low number units suffer hardest, things like banshees, low armour high number units suffer a bit, like orks and nids as they can soak the fire a bit. The tough combat units, like terminators, plague marines, necron jump things, big demons etc dont really have much of a change other than the random charge distances ruining their day.

13-09-2013, 12:31
CC still has a place in 40K. The quickest way to silence a gunline is to tie them up in combat.

I agree that Assaulty armies have it tough now but including a couple of CC units still makes sense for many armies. My Eldar army usually includes 1 dedicated CC unit (Striking Scorpions) and another unit or 2 that are decent in combat (often a Wraithlord). The Scorpions can infiltrate, move through cover and have a 3+ which mitigates (athough not eliminates) the problem of getting close to the enemy.

I don't expect them to roll my opponent's flanks unsupported but they can make a big distraction and cause a lot of damage if my opponent does not alter his plans to deal with them. They cost ~150 points depending on how many I take and what I give the Exarch (always a Claw :evilgrin: ) and they are usually worth it.

The Wraithlords are there to counter my opponent drop-podding Sternguard or anything similar near my lines. I am currently working on an Iyanden Wraithhost where the addition of Battle focus should enable them to act as full-fledged assault units by running after shooting.

13-09-2013, 12:44
It is less effective than in 5th, due largely to moral and power weapon changes, except against vehicles which get torn apart in combat.

For some units the only other change is sucking up a round of overwatch before an unpredictable charge that can easily leave them out to dry. Others however have seen their old deployment options removed from the game resulting in a significant loss of effectiveness (i.e. infiltrating/outflanking stealers or the unarmoured SoB units without access to assault vehicles).

So not worthless, but not as good. There are still a few armies that fold badly to it (notably sisters) but widespread ATSKNF, fearless, and moral rerolls make breaking most expensive units difficult and breaking cheap units usually just results in the assaulters getting shot up.

13-09-2013, 14:01
this is called internet wizdomz, which is based on hyperbolic exaggerations.

For example, saying power weapons got a big giant nerf and are not as good anymore. This is only true if you routinely find yourself facing armies of 2+ save units. They function the same with 3+ and worse. However, the internet claims that power weapons are now crap because you may run up against a unit of terminators and not be able to mow them down like you could last edition (and in internet talk, if a unit cannot do it all then it is the opposite... worthless)

Do you know why assault armies have it hard? Because typically people are playing on barren wastelands of tables with little to no cover, and its a rare sight indeed to see line of sight blocking terrain that's substantial. With that in mind, yes if you are playing on a barren wasteland table where your opponent can see 95% of your army and fire on it... assault armies will have it rougher.

Now barring all of the hyperbole you do find statements like this that are factual:

Problems to take into account

-shooting casualties taken from the front pushes unit back
-random charge distances
-overwatch fire, again taking casualties from the front
-less powerful sweeping advance rules

These are indeed things that make assault less of the no-brainer that it was in the past (which is I suppose what sparks people into saying that its pointless, since a tendency I note on the internet is if its not a guaranteed thing, then it is the opposite... ie: worthless)

Some pointers, observations, what have you:

* use proper terrain. If you don't have proper terrain, spend some time with your group and make proper terrain. It should provide cover and some of it should block line of sight to create firing lanes.
* step outside of the tournament hall, and you will find the game opens up exponentially in terms of what is viable. The internet defaults to tournament-speak, which is everything contained within a min/max environment.
* don't be afraid of not playing the game on easy mode.

My last army was a counter-assault force that was a mix of shooting and assault elements. I made it to our league's final table before losing to a flying demon circus because I didn't have anti-air elements. It was a 4 player battle (everyone for themselves) and the orks won overall but I had a good showing and that was against a mix of opponents ranging from casual to really competitive and really shooty heavy and my assault still worked, my power weapons still chewed up the enemy (i don't believe in the philosophy where if a unit cannot do everything that it is useless) and my army still functioned strongly as an army.

13-09-2013, 14:13
I'd say CC is far from pointless in 6th. I play a CC orientated tyranid army, and I probably do better now then I did in 6th. One thing I will admit is that my smaller creatures, such as hormagaunts, aren't as powerful anymore, but that is more than made up for by the biomancy weilding monstrous creatures. It's a rare battle where at least one of my psychic monsters don't have Iron Arm, which normally leads to it either walking across the table untouched by the majority of my opponents firepower, at which point it destroys squads singlehanded, or it becomes a fire magnet, leaving the smaller beasties to cross the board.

13-09-2013, 14:32
As far as I can tell it takes an extra turn compared to 5th edition to get into a position where you can reliably engage the enemy. The random charge range and Overwatch fire is a problem if you are starting your charge from 6" away, sure. But spending that extra turn to get closer should allow you to place multiple models within 2" of the target unit.

Taking that extra time to get into position means you suffer an extra round of shooting, and this is sure to be a problem if you've put all your eggs in one basket (i.e. by investing in a single powerful assault unit), and you have less time to roll up the enemy. It seems obvious to counter this problem by investing in more assault units, though this may mean compromising on quality.

Close combat is still a powerful game mechanic: Discounting various Morale effects (e.g. Fearless), a single model can wipe out an unlimited number of enemy models by causing but a single wound. Investing in assault units to take advantage of this, or even to just meet enemy assault units, is worth at least considering.


13-09-2013, 14:49
It will cost more than one turn to get closer for any unit that previously relied on non-open, non-assault transports to get into position. Again, not a big deal for something like flesh hounds or seekers, but basically a death sentence for things like berzerkers. Sure you still see plague marines, but they're not an assault unit, they're a shooty unit that has the option of launching an assault should the opportunity present itself. That's a big difference.

Taking more assault units often results in smaller units that kill less and die faster, and in no way compensates for the added turns of shooting / reduced turns of assault in a given game.

Again, it's not that assaulting in general is dead, but dedicated assault units or armies that rely on the assault phase as their primary victory condition? Those are much less feasible for most factions, particularly for those without ready access to open topped or assault transports, or several slots worth of efficiently priced assaulters with bike, cav, beast, or flying speed.

13-09-2013, 14:58
I do think plague marines are an assault unit even if that wasnt the intention, tough as nails, 4+ rerollable to wound or better vs most infantry in the game, fearless (iirc).

I find that assault can swing a game around faster that shooting, obviously barring leafblower tourney lists which can decimate you in a turn.

I agree with icedcrow said about games outside of tournies. When you are playing more casual you dont need everything to be optimised to a knife edge so slightly riskier tactics can still work.

colonel kane trine
13-09-2013, 15:12
Iv had alot of success with the ia12 necron list
2 dlords 4x15 flayers 3x6 wraiths 30 scarabs flyers/barges
Army wide rending pretty much and super fast with 18 3++ multi wound models.
Assault isnt dead if you have sensible terrain on the board

13-09-2013, 15:15
I used my plague marines pretty much exclusively to assault. And they were mounted in rhinos. I run 3 units of them in my normal list (3 units of 7). One is on foot. The other two in rhinos. Their job is a counter element that swings into position, disembarks typically into cover and then launches an assault.

Is it 100%? No. But then again I don't really care about that. If I'm around 6-7" from you I will try to assault you nearly every time. If I'm farther than 8" from you I will assault if its something I need, otherwise I will rapid fire on you. I typically don't ever have one element running by itself so the redundancy helps me as its not common that two of my units will fail assaulting if I'm 6-7" from you or less. I don't believe in the "get to within 4-5" before assaulting" philosophy as that is trying to circumvent the risk of failure by opening yourself up for another turn of shooting which would understandably result in a persistent amount of more casualties on your end.

Those are plague marines. Berzerkers are run like assault marines. I'd run them nearly the same way. I haven't used any in this edition as I typically run a themed list and khorne hasn't been a theme so I cannot comment past what I'd do on paper.

But again i also use appropriate terrain

13-09-2013, 15:26
Those are plague marines. Berzerkers are run like assault marines. I'd run them nearly the same way. I haven't used any in this edition as I typically run a themed list and khorne hasn't been a theme so I cannot comment past what I'd do on paper.You should give them a stab. Plague marines got off comparatively lightly with the assaulting from transports change, you really don't see the full effect of it with them.

13-09-2013, 15:41
CC is dead for those who refuse to adapt to 6ths methods. No longer can you just blindly charge at the enemy and expect it to go your way. I personally use a mix of assault and shooty in my forces because I think they've both got their own place in this edition.

13-09-2013, 15:57
My own experience with CC (as a squishy guard player with no commissars or blobs, and a rough rider squad so ineffectual that they have been renamed "Tesco's value minced beef") is that assault units do suffer more from fire power, but are absolutely brutal if well supported. One deathstar to rule them all is no longer practical, one mini-deathstar (star destroyer?) backed up by a pair of chaff mobs and some heavy fire power will still roll through most things happily. Provided you have appeased the dice gods sufficiently.

Another thing to bear in mind is that even an understrength dedicated assault unit is still more than capable of killing full strength troops and shooters, just due to bonus attacks, better equipment and various special rules. Beat the unit and it runs, you normally have sufficient initiative to catch them. If they stick it out, you are immune to shooting, and that unit is functionally gone, unable to hurt the rest of your army.

Basically, it feels like this addition was designed with the hope of encouraging a good balanced mix of troops, not single unit spam.

Didn't work, but good try!

Losing Command
13-09-2013, 16:13
Assault units can still do very well if you have some fire-support covereing them. People are crying rivers about random charge range being so bad (build a bridge already) but what everybody seems to forget is that in 5th edition you never charged from more than 6" away, and that everybody put their important units in terrain so you had to roll 2D6 for charge distance and pick the lowest of the 2. Basicly you had to be right in the face of the unit you wanted to charge to succesfully make it in there. Now that the standard charge range is 2D6 people try charging from much futher away than they used to, and if they fail the charge it is because 'random charge range sucks' :p Overwatch can be scary, but I've seen it happen often enough that Overwatch doesn't hit anything (mostly when my units get charged) and charging with different units first can keep your real melee units safe. Sometimes it is even better to charge in with your 'shooty' unit because they will get charged next turn by a unit that gets huge benefits from charging, like Khorne Berzerkers.
CC being pointless is just interwebz hysteria ;)

13-09-2013, 16:20
I actually quite like that you have to pick your fights in melee, it isnt simply a case of whoever has more power weapons wins. I dont expect any of my ranged units to be able to come out on top in every situation but there was nothing my grey knight terminators couldnt reliably charge and carve through in a turn. Now i have to pick ny fights more carefully.

Inquisitor Shego
13-09-2013, 16:25
My experience with CC is Daemons vs Space Marines. It is like smashing your head into a proverbial brick wall. On the plus side, nothing says adios like 20 Daemonettes launching 60 rending attacks on the charge, but ultimately I encounter my problems. Beyond overwatch, random charge ranges, lack of assault grenades, my main issues are ATSKNF and the one people swear will protect me: Cover.

With ATSKNF I find any marines I'm charging in combat promptly try and disengage, only to gun me down later. The daemonettes with initiative 5 aren't likely to let them go, but what should be a simple assault devolves into a quagmire where my horde promptly slow down. Then when it comes to assaulting their transports, the things love to explode and take another 4-6 daemonettes with them. Then there's cover, which is a double edged sword. On the plus side, I get to avoid being shot at, and benefit from cover saves. The downside is cover slows you down. My hordes of daemons are taking difficult terrain tests left right and centre, and getting pulled down to initiative 1 by the vile absence of anything beyond a skull cannon.

With ATSKNF (which also bypasses my daemonic rule of causing fear) we just have to grin and bear it. Marines have now for a long time proclaimed the morale phase has nothing to do with them. Also I believe in 6th ed, units can regroup even with an enemy within 6, so chasing your opponent off the table is now gone. With cover, I tend to have half my daemon army hiding in ruins, trying to weather the storm whilst the other half arrive from deep strike, disperse with a run move, and then by turn 3 eat your face off.

All in all though, with the exception of marine players, nothing brings about finality and conclusion like a well placed assault. Nothing tears a character to pieces, or makes him a craven coward like a well issued challenge. I was aware of these problems when I signed on with daemons, and god damnit, I'll be sticking it through. There's nothing wrong with assault. It's just the path that makes you work for your keep.

13-09-2013, 16:27
It's just the path that makes you work for your keep.

Absolutely. And makes you a better player for it as well, since it requires more than a functional pulse and the ability to chuckle under your breath.

13-09-2013, 16:37
i can assure you, CC is most certainly alive and kicking in my local meta. i regularly ream my way through my opponents' backline with normal scorpion squads with minimum fuss. chuck an exarch in there and karandras if you've got the points and woah nelly have you got a party!

13-09-2013, 19:06
CC is not at all pointless, it's just that the Mechanized assault is largely dead. Units with inherent speed, like Bikes or Jump infantry or Wraiths, are still able to engage very quickly (especially with how many Bike units can get Scout now and routinely get 4+ cover saves...) and make a wonderful mess of things.

Hell, CC is probably the easiest, most surefire way to kill many heavy tanks, as rear AV10+getting hit on 3's at worst (if not auto-hit) regardless of distance moved+HP's+more than half the basic troops in the game carry or can carry AT grenades=practical auto-kills of armor in CC (seriously, it's easier for a squad of marines to kill a moving Leman Russ Battle Tank or a flat out screaming holo-field protected Wave Serpent of Falcon in CC than it is to kill two opposing marines).

Assault units must be those with inherent speed and largely not reliant on transports, either because closed-top transports mean you have to wait until turn 3 typically to engage or the transport is just too damn easy to kill. Overwatch, aside from mass template wielding units, usually does not have a large effect on the outcome of a charge, while maximum and average charge distances are higher than in previous editions.

13-09-2013, 19:20
To build on what Vaktathi is saying, mechanized or foot assault can be viable if you pair it with those fast assault units to engage or destroy the heaviest ranged weapons the opponent can bring. They do need to wait till turn three to assault, but the transports can help shield them from incoming firepower (Provided they survive). Turn two the fast elements get stuck in, turn three the transported elements charge in to mop up or engage less potent shooting elements. Having some shooting elements is also very handy (Just like counter assault in a shooty army) to crack transports or take out the more powerful shooting units.

An army of nothing but Khorne Berzerkers is going to suffer considerably. An army with Khorne Berzerkers, CSM with Ubergrit and MoK, Bikers, Raptors and/or Spawn with MoK and perhaps some Havocs, Obliterators or walkers/gun tanks (If you went full mech) will fare much better.

13-09-2013, 21:13
Assoult is not dead, its simply diffrent than in the past.

I think that opinion came form players who run CC armies in past editions, and not yet come to terms with the fact that rules changed, and and a terrible imbalance between CC and shooting was tiped in favor of dakka, so now they are finaly ( kind of ) equal.

Assoult is still good, just to exploit its full potential, units must be handeld more cautiously.

13-09-2013, 23:15
Whilst assaults have been toned down a bit, any game decided purely on shooting is IMO dull as dishwater. In 5th shooting was just a softener before you launched a linebreaking assault at the enemy lines; in 6th assaults are not the mop which you use to clean up small units decimated by shooting.

As there are no Tau players in my group, we decided to houserule out overwatch completely and nobody has complained. I'd suggest this as a starting point if you can.

Fear Itself
14-09-2013, 05:34
and/or Spawn with MoK

Hate to nitpick, but why would you take MoK on spawns? Aside from having a juggerlord in there, of course.

Also, Daemons make for an excellent melee component when combined with C:CSM, who are lacking in deployment options for our 'killy' units.

14-09-2013, 06:27
Hate to nitpick, but why would you take MoK on spawns? Aside from having a juggerlord in there, of course.

Theme, pure and simple. :D You didn't think a fluff bunny like myself would run unmarked Spawn, did you? (Though I do run unmarked CSM in my Tzeentch list)

14-09-2013, 07:12
To be completely honest, it's probably not that assault is bad, but that shooting is measurably better. On principle, after playing some 6th ed games and seeing a lot of new codecies come out, I actually like the idea of a random element to charges. (It's not like we didn't have anything random about assault before. Fleet basically did the same thing in 5th, only with a 7" guarantee instead of 2". Also, if you screwed up a Fleet roll, you still had an entire Shooting Phase to react to it.) It gives the idea that the bog-standard units that are primarily for shooting, or even mixed-arms, should not be engaging in CC with the efficacy of units that are supposed to actually be good at it. It's basically the difference between Plague Marines, who can fight in melee, and Genestealers, who have no choice. When things come out like changes to Fleet and Beasts / Cav, Daemonettes getting +3 on any run, or White Scars getting Scout bikes and Str5 HoW, or the rumors that some Tyranids might be able to assault after a run, random charge distances open up brand new ways for assault units to be better than units that aren't meant to be good at assault, and in many different ways. This even applies to other shooty units, making them more interesting and opening up brand new worlds of complexity with the idea that, while most anybody can Overwatch, some units or builds are better at it (Tau, Ultramarine Devastators, anything with Template weapons, Divination psykers) and some are worse (anything with Slow and Purposeful). It's an idea that could've been great for the complexity, flavor, realism, and tactical well-roundedness of the game.

...Buuuuuut the idea was a massive failure due to a horribly biased and glacial execution. Much like how GW tried to shoe-horn Flyers into the core mechanics in their plodding one-codex-at-a-time pace (even as rapid as it was), the only races that really had the options to compete in the CC environment were the armies that were getting the new books. Comparing Daemons to Tyranids makes this line of reasoning especially sensible. If Tyranids had a modern codex, their assault options would probably be just as viable as Daemons. And look at what Daemonettes have:
-D6+3" run move
-3 attacks per model on the charge
-a 5++ save
-decent support units (anybody with a Grimoire, basically)
-access to allies for support (not a lot of allies, but they've got more options than Tyranids...)
-...and probably some more daemonic doo-dads that either (1) I just don't know about, or (2) can be rolled for on one of their kajillions of random upgrade tables.

If Tyranids had even half this stuff, then Daemons might not be so alone among the top-tier melee factions. But right now, the state of the game is that shooty units have been updated to have the tools to deal with assault armies that are appropriately competitive. Imagine what armies like Tau and Eldar are going to do to armies that don't have these bonuses. The fact that assault is getting largely kicked to the curb right now shouldn't really be that surprising. After all, not too long ago, shooting was in a similar position. Back in 4th, combat turned games into a slaughterhouse of blades because, at the time, the shooting armies (IG, Necrons, Eldar, Dark Eldar, ostensibly Grey Knights and Space Marines) were all quite overpriced and bad at their jobs, while melee armeis (Tyranids, CSM, Orks) were tearing people apart because they had a power level that was built for a shooting game that didn't exist yet. Especially back in late 4th / early 5th, I strongly contended that, for shooting to come back, the armies that were good at it would need to get new, modern codeices. After IG, Grey Knights, Necrons, Tau, and Eldar... yeah, I think it worked.

Core rules aside, melee codecies (and melee elements to mixed-arms codecies) are in some serious pain right now. The fact that Robin Cruddace thought a Carnifex should cost somewhere in the ballpark of a Blood Angels Tactical Squad, or that no Tyranid but the I1 Carnifexes needed an assault grenade option, or that the way to protect Tyranid Warriors from Instant Death without Eternal Warrior was to give them another wound, or the fact that Tyranids are the only army that gets utterly left out in the cold by the Allies Matrix... yeah, none of that helped, but Tyranids always get nerfed. I figured that out a couple of editions ago. Envy us not, Ork players. This is the double-edged sword to being the only xeno race to get a codex every edition: being the only race to be "rebalanced" every edition. And if there's any credence to the rumors flying around, Tyranids are about to get another visit from the Nerf Gods this November. Joy. Chaos Marines are more modern, and therefore less excusable, but I get the feeling that they're still paying for the sins of the Sirenprince and 3.5 Iron Warriors, though the Lash of Submission probably did not help their penance. Fortunately, CSM still have the accuracy, durability, and armory of a Space Marine to fall back on (well that and the Helldrake), and CSM are actually intended to be a mixed-arms army anyway. So it's not like they're a dead book without melee, even on their own. Other armies like Orks, Dark Eldar, and Blood Angels don't really have bad assault capabilities, but ones that are outdated and based on older core rules / mechanics / points costs. Just look at what an edition change did to Mephiston.

14-09-2013, 13:33
They have the heldrake, but really fall short of the space marine armory, especially when it comes to assault, and double especially when it comes to delivery methods for units or dueling kit for characters. MoN is nice, but it just doesn't compare to the typical sm faction's easy access to artificer armor, storm shields, eternal warrior, and the like. And CSMs don't have anything even remotely close to drop pods, crusaders, or storm ravens. Well, except for storm eagles in the latter case, but a lot of places still don't allow FW, so yeah.

More on topic, chaos marines can kind of do assault by taking multiple fast elements to cover the advance of mech squads (though berzerkers are pretty bad for the points even if you can get them to melee), but that cuts into heldrake slots, which are the only crutch keeping that book upright at all (even you say 'they have heldrakes'). You can bring in daemonic allies to cover the fast stuff, but once you start down that road, you very quickly end up running daemons primary, because if you're running an assault army, pretty much every CSM unit and character that you replace with a CD unit or character will be a fairly blatant improvement, until the only CSMs you have left are a smattering of allies mostly there for a drake and maybe a brand, not assault stuff at all. And again, daemons can still do assault primary. I don't think anyone can contest that. It's not in question.

It's not that CSMs as a faction can't put out some decent builds. As everyone says, 'they do have heldrakes'. But those builds are pretty monodimensional, and pure melee really isn't one of them from my experience.

14-09-2013, 17:57
CC is just as effective as before, if you manage to get into CC relatively unscathed. I haven't had problems with CC in this edition, but my CC units tend to be screened by close range fire units or terrain as I have done in past editions. CC hits just as hard per model as before for me outside of exceptions like power weapons versus 2+ saves. The chances of taking losses before CC is greater than before, but that can be mitigated and seems fitting to me for a futuristic game with guns.

14-09-2013, 19:46
6th is really about survivability over striking power, which is the reverse of 5th edition. The best CC units are the ones that survive shooting the easiest, it seems. For example, flying Hive Tyrants and Plague Marines are in fashion, while Berserkers and Genestealers are left on shelf.

And people saying 'Use more cover' is getting old. I use the D3 pieces per 2x2, and I still have to play monster mash because the little bugs get shot to pieces before they get anywhere close to combat. And even when they do get to combat, terrain comes back to bite them because, like most Xenos, they are lacking in grenades.

14-09-2013, 19:54
Not cover, terrain. And make sure it is the right size. The rulebook lists a terrain piece as "Substantial," such as "a building, forest or ruin" or three smaller pieces. A decent portion also needs to block line of sight. Also, don't rely so much on area terrain. Use walls or barricades, things that still make a difference against shooting but aren't going to slow people down too much or require grenades to assault into. Also, after terrain is set down, readjust (that is in the rules too) until it looks like the table is going to be fair and fun for both opponents.

14-09-2013, 23:43
Like an above poster said, its not that CC is bad...its the getting there into base contact. The interesting thing, as a chaos player, is that plague marines make much better CC troops than do berserkers. They can actually get into melee reliably (if you so choose to go that route) and do fairly well...while khorne's poster boys get mowed down in mass before they ever get into combat.

If you want dedicated melee, then you go daemons

14-09-2013, 23:46
The fact that Robin Cruddace thought a Carnifex should cost somewhere in the ballpark of a Blood Angels Tactical Squad, or that no Tyranid but the I1 Carnifexes needed an assault grenade option, or that the way to protect Tyranid Warriors from Instant Death without Eternal Warrior was to give them another wound, or the fact that Tyranids are the only army that gets utterly left out in the cold by the Allies Matrix..
Well, if we remember how terribly underpricded were nids monsters in 4th ed codex ( tyrant 85 pts, carnifex 80 ? ), an ability to field 8 monsters in relativly small pts, and synapse granting EW being one of most stupid rules of its times, tyranids desrerved some neff. Of course ( GW logic :p ) they swing balance far too hard. Add poor internal balance ( hive guard uber ales ), and we have nids in current shape.

And they will do that again, bacause current ruleset ( FMC, and Psychic powers especialy) also gives nids quite a punch. Not even close to Nekron/GK level, but bugs can be brutal and very hard to fight againts some armies.