Is assault based pure DE viable

Thor665 wrote:

Because there are ways to overcome the limiters to assault, and generally the best way is to not need a transport, to be tough enough to handle overwatch and a few rounds of shooting, and to be able to assault effectively.

And my mentality, if I'm not playing for fun, is why waste the effort and time trying to make something work, like assault, when better options are available. With the exception of either some spectacular rolls on the opponents part, or focus firing, a ravager is going to do it's job every game, a talos won't, trueborn will do their job every game, incubi won't.

Beasts and bikes are pretty good assault units, but it's going to be at least two turns before they do any damage, and after that there's no gaurantee they'll be in position to do it again.

The only other army I play around with is CSM and while Nurgle Spawns are really, really tempting, and honestly a very good assault unit, I'd rather take the heldrake in it's spot.

I'd argue the talos has done its job every game I've taken them - but then I take them as a fire magnet!

That's why I said incubi and not grotesques, ha, they always do their job too, which is to act as a wound sponge for my HQ. Assaulting is their second function.

Crazy_Irish wrote:

I at least two editions, I currently equate them with playground slappy slappy fighting, in fact possibly t support the statement that a competitive pure DE CC army is not viable, but that should not stop us from trying to find a pure DE CC army that can work ;-)

I'm in

Elzadar wrote:

Crazy_Irish wrote:

I at least two editions, I currently equate them with playground slappy slappy fighting, in fact possibly t support the statement that a competitive pure DE CC army is not viable, but that should not stop us from trying to find a pure DE CC army that can work ;-)

I'm in

Well I think that quote didn't make it through the warp correctly ;-) but I'm glad that your with me!

So back on track: "... that should not stop us from trying to find a pure DE CC army that can work..."

Would it be wrong to try to mitigate some problems regarding Assault?

I was thinking about a Khymerae squad as it has a very large charge range and might lock things in place for Incubi or other units without grenades to come in and kill them? I know their invul went down but their T went up, so it evens out in the end.

Could Reavers not do quite the same? With their 3+ jink FnP and T4 they are quite resilient vs Overwatch, even one Flamer would only inflict 1 wound on average.

I have the feeling that in general those weaknesses of assault are magnified by most on this forum to emphasis the importance of shooting. Maybe that is due to my lack of competitive play lately.

Another thinking path I have is to include an Seer Council for buffing and debuffing and making that one assault do work beneficial for one turn and thus changing up whole the dynamics and expected efficiencies.

All in all DE are a "difficult to master" army as you can't afford to make mistakes but if you manage to make the pieces of the puzzle fit, you can really surprise friend and foe and take the win in an unmatched manner.

I'm starting to realizing that they may not actually be a point to any of our assault units, since whatever our assault units can do, our shooting infantry can do better.

I wouldn't go that far - assault can still do things that shooting can't. I'm thinking here about catching the opponent in a sweeping advance of course - in that respect I've had all sorts of achievements, like a single Warrior wiping out a 10 strong unit of termagants by causing 1 wound (they were out of synapse range).

Quote :

I'm starting to realizing that they may not actually be a point to any of our assault units, since whatever our assault units can do, our shooting infantry can do better.

Assault ignores cover and generally more decisive. You do damage 2 phases a turn, forcing insta-kill mechanic on non fearless units, while preserving your own unit with game-mechanic save (cant shoot into close combat) in the case you are winning the assault.

So no - assault pretty much *can* do what shooting, any shooting can not.

My next game I'm going to try 4 squads of 10 wyches with hekatrix with agoniser maybe blast pistol for shiggles, some grots, incubi, ravagers, reavers and venoms with perhaps some hellions thrown in. No idea when I next play but that is what Im going to do! Table or be tabled I think!

When Harlies gets released we will have some proper CC for a change. Like what Wyches should be, if they wont change rules much.

Raider based furious charge, rending, 5++ invul, 4 atacks, assault grenades. Sounds like fun.

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

I wouldn't go that far - assault can still do things that shooting can't. I'm thinking here about catching the opponent in a sweeping advance of course - in that respect I've had all sorts of achievements, like a single Warrior wiping out a 10 strong unit of termagants by causing 1 wound (they were out of synapse range).

Also you can't tarpit other units with shooty units easily. Tau especially suffer from that.

Late to the party here, but I just wanted to chime in with something slightly different.

I find including no assault units in my army to be... freeing, for lack of a better word.

Whenever I include assault units, I have to be constantly comparing stats - WS, S, T, I, A, weapons, etc, etc. with my opponent's stuff to determine who has the stronger assault units, which ones I can likely beat, which ones will beat me, how much damage mine are likely to take. I just feel like there's a whole lot of comparing and such.

But, if all my army is shooting, suddenly I don't care in the slightest about his combat stats. I don't plan to win any combats, so his stats are basically irrelevant. I don't need to worry about getting my melee units into combat with his squishier units, whilst keeping them away from his stronger melee units or any such. I can just concentrate on my ranged weapons and his toughness/saves. So much simpler.

Take what you will from this, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

You definitely make a good point.

I've found the same, and I've also found that the games tend to go far faster (not just because the assault phase was essentially empty) but because a single assault can take quite a while, with all the initative steps. attacks etc.

Also, with shooting units - you get them in range, they do their thing, the enemy takes their saves and you move on. With assault you're constantly having to make sure your guys get into charge range. hope they survive overwatch, hope they make the charge distance, hope they dont overkill to be left in the open and get shot next turn. Making sure they don't run on the turn you want them to charge etc.

But I will say, that some of my most absolute exciting moments in this game have been during assaults and not shooting unfortunately. once you start having assaults that you are more used to (so comparing stats isnt much of a chore anymore, as you know how they compare by memory by then) they can be incredibly exciting and fun. Not to mention they can sometimes give you more bang for your buck than shooting, in the cases of sweeping advances and getting essentially more movement/further up the board than they would've had if they did not charge etc.

But I definitely agree that pure shooting is a lot less to worry about, and probably more efficient in most cases.

and for all those situations - I give you grotesques. Basically, unless your opponent is Grey Knights, throw them in there, they're awesome.

Caldria wrote:

But I will say, that some of my most absolute exciting moments in this game have been during assaults and not shooting unfortunately.

That's an interesting point. I'd agree actually - even for my IG, the most epic moments usually involve my Lord Commissar dong something impressive in combat (I think his best was taking out 3 terminators).

I think combat just feels more 'involved'. Any idiot can fire a plasmagun, but it takes a lot more skill to kill with a sword.

Caldria wrote:

once you start having assaults that you are more used to (so comparing stats isnt much of a chore anymore, as you know how they compare by memory by then) they can be incredibly exciting and fun.

Just a small point, but it's not so much the comparisons themselves that are a pain, but rather their necessity - if you see what I mean.

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

and for all those situations - I give you grotesques. Basically, unless your opponent is Grey Knights, throw them in there, they're awesome.

I seem to frequently end up against enemies that can inflict unpleasantness back on grotesques. Necron Destroyer-/over-lords with MSS, Warbosses with S10, TWC with S10, Warbosses with ID on 6s, Dreadnoughts etc.

Based on my games, DE have only two really effective assault units: Grotesques and Talos. And both units are most effectively run in Coven supplement formations, i.e., Grotesquerie, Dark Artisan, Corpsethief Claw (expensive but absolutely amazing against any opponent not spamming Force/Grav), and maybe Reavers with CC. Unless you are willing to just run all of those formations in multiples, points allowing, then I don't think pure assault DE is that viable. I do, however, think DE can use the aforementioned units to complement their shooting in a really balanced, synergistic way. In fact, I think DE's ability to present viable threats which must be dealt with in both shooting and assault are one of the strengths of the army.

The Shredder wrote:

Just a small point, but it's not so much the comparisons themselves that are a pain, but rather their necessity - if you see what I mean.

Yeah I get you. It is more freeing as you said, last game I had I decided to just have a shooty archon with blaster and portal in a raider with blaster trueborn. (generally If I have any assault element, my HQ/warlord would be equipped for assault with said assault unit - besides reavers etc. love them, though if our Succy could take a jetbike, man I'd definitely give that a go) So I just had an entirely shooty army and the game felt less constrictive in a way.

Also yeah, taking grotesques from the coven supplement are a must. whether its from the formations or just the detachment.

The PfP table from the main codex is wasted on them. And the pfp table from the covens supp solves one of their biggest weaknesses on turn 2 already (turn1 with a haemy). The only problem I've found then, is that I've never felt the need to run 2 grotesque units, I'd only ever take one unit and put my succubus with them. And to do that I'd have to take from the detachment, which means I'm forced to take a unit of wracks which I'm not a fan of. or take that second grot squad (at which point I'd just take the formation)

Also, the talos formations are soooo good. giving the talos some mobility that it really needs. My favourite is the dark artisan (on paper) but I've yet to see it mulch things up on combat. My opponents just tend to avoid it. I drop down with the portal flame a few guys get some decent kills etc. and then they are basically just area denial for the center of the board generally. At least it helps me deny Slay The Warlord since my haemy with them is usually the warlord

Caldria wrote:

Also yeah, taking grotesques from the coven supplement are a must. whether its from the formations or just the detachment.

The PfP table from the main codex is wasted on them. And the pfp table from the covens supp solves one of their biggest weaknesses on turn 2 already (turn1 with a haemy).

Indeed (though beware of MSS ).

But, yeah, the coven pfp table just helps them so much.

Caldria wrote:

The only problem I've found then, is that I've never felt the need to run 2 grotesque units, I'd only ever take one unit and put my succubus with them. And to do that I'd have to take from the detachment, which means I'm forced to take a unit of wracks which I'm not a fan of. or take that second grot squad (at which point I'd just take the formation)

Interesting that you bring that up, because I'm basically the same in that I'd rather have a single unit of Grotesques, though I'd still want coven ones.

Although, if I do take the detachment, it's not the Wracks I object to (I can at least do something with a small Wrack squad) so much as the second Haemonculus. I mean, I can probably find *something* for him to do, but I wish there was a way to just save those 70+pts.

Caldria wrote:

Also, the talos formations are soooo good. giving the talos some mobility that it really needs. My favourite is the dark artisan (on paper) but I've yet to see it mulch things up on combat. My opponents just tend to avoid it. I drop down with the portal flame a few guys get some decent kills etc. and then they are basically just area denial for the center of the board generally. At least it helps me deny Slay The Warlord since my haemy with them is usually the warlord

The Shredder wrote:

Although, if I do take the detachment, it's not the Wracks I object to (I can at least do something with a small Wrack squad) so much as the second Haemonculus. I mean, I can probably find *something* for him to do, but I wish there was a way to just save those 70+pts

This soooooo much

I think having parts of your army active in the assault phase is a good thing.


With that said, I think a viable assault list is basically something like Space Wolves. TWC are one of the few assault units that are truly scary. Dark Eldar don't get units that are durable, fast, and extremely hard hitting. In addition being cheap per wound is pretty great. And ensuring that they stand up to things like GK is a good thing.

Izathel wrote:

I think having parts of your army active in the assault phase is a good thing.

Tactically, fluffwise or for fun?

Izathel wrote:

With that said, I think a viable assault list is basically something like Space Wolves.  TWC are one of the few assault units that are truly scary.  Dark Eldar don't get units that are durable, fast, and extremely hard hitting.  In addition being cheap per wound is pretty great.  And ensuring that they stand up to things like GK is a good thing.

Well, in general, assault units need three things to work:
- They need to be fast (both to get there ASAP and also so they can catch fast targets).
- They need to hit hard (Otherwise, what are you using them for?) Though, I'd also add that they should be able to handle *any* unit in combat - not just infantry. If you have a melee unit, the last thing you need is your opponent being able to lock them down with a Sentinel or somesuch.
- They need to be resilient (Using melee means you can't rely on cover, transports etc. and also that you're getting within rapid fire range of your opponent.)

TWC have all 3 - they're beasts so have 12" moves, ignore difficult terrain and have Fleet. They're T5 with 2 wounds apiece and 3+ saves (with the option of Storm Shields). And, they have 5-6 S5 Rending attacks each on the charge.

Now, with our army, it would be logical for out assault units to have 2/3 of those traits - being fast and hitting hard (as befits a glass cannon).

Instead though, most of our units barely manage 1/3 - being fast (often thanks to our transports) and nothing else. And, even speed is debatable when our initiative is so easily compromised by cover. Survivability is obviously atrocious for everything bar grotesques. But, the real problem is in how hard we hit. Most of our assault units are S3-4 - and usually without any special rules. Whats. The. Point. Why am I bothering with this crap when I can just shoot enemies for equal or better effect? GW seems to think that we shouldn't be able to take a beating, but also that we shouldn't be able to do damage either. Hell, even if they don't want to give us high strength, where's Shred? Where's poison 2+? Where's Rending? Where's *anything* to make our combat units actual threats? And you'll note that these aren't even breaking GW's new nonsense 'no interesting rules' rule - they're all from the damn rulebook.

The Shredder wrote:

Well, in general, assault units need three things to work:
- They need to be fast (both to get there ASAP and also so they can catch fast targets).
- They need to hit hard (Otherwise, what are you using them for?) Though, I'd also add that they should be able to handle *any* unit in combat - not just infantry. If you have a melee unit, the last thing you need is your opponent being able to lock them down with a Sentinel or somesuch.
- They need to be resilient (Using melee means you can't rely on cover, transports etc. and also that you're getting within rapid fire range of your opponent.)

Why do you need to be fast? Why do you need to be resilient? Because if you're not, you will get shot off the board by superior range.

And therein lies the problem I have with assault. Time. Rarely will your assault unit do anything first turn, and in our case that's ample time to blow their transport out from under them negating their speed. Of course you can deepstrike, but that means your assault unit won't be doing anything until the third or fourth turn. And I simply don't like that. In a group like grotesques, where I have inserted my HQ, I don't like that I have close to 300 points not doing anything but getting into position for 2-4 turns. If assault were just super good, i.e. they brought back consolidating into assault or something I'd use it more. As it stands I always feel like I'm paying points for an inferior strategy, in other words, bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Expletive Deleted wrote:

Why do you need to be fast? Why do you need to be resilient? Because if you're not, you will get shot off the board by superior range.

And therein lies the problem I have with assault. Time. Rarely will your assault unit do anything first turn, and in our case that's ample time to blow their transport out from under them negating their speed. Of course you can deepstrike, but that means your assault unit won't be doing anything until the third or fourth turn. And I simply don't like that. In a group like grotesques, where I have inserted my HQ, I don't like that I have close to 300 points not doing anything but getting into position for 2-4 turns. If assault were just super good, i.e. they brought back consolidating into assault or something I'd use it more. As it stands I always feel like I'm paying points for an inferior strategy, in other words, bringing a knife to a gun fight.

I agree with you.

As it stands, I feel that any assault unit has to do far more damage than a shooty one, just to be worth considering. They just have too many downsides if all they can do is what my shooty units already do.

Though, what's weird is that even though shooting was dominating in 5th, GW still apparently thought that melee was too strong.

I mean, what did melee do in 5th? A lot of AP2 attacks and ignore cover.

So, what happened in 6th/7th? Melee lost a great deal of AP2, whilst shooting stuff gained a whole lot of AP2 *and* many armies also got the ability to ignore cover (so, what's the point of assault again?). And, of course, there were also the more general nerfs - random charge length, overwatch, casualties removed from the front etc.

I love that we're in the age of Riptides (72" S8 AP2 pie plates), Wraithknights (36" S10 AP2 instant death weapons), Dreadknights (30" move, S6 AP4 torrent flamer and S7 AP4 Rending 6-shot or large-blast gun, S10 Force weapons in melee), yet our S3 T3 Archon isn't allowed a single AP2 melee weapon. Wouldn't want things to escalate, now, would we?

The Shredder wrote:

I love that we're in the age of Riptides (72" S8 AP2 pie plates), Wraithknights (36" S10 AP2 instant death weapons), Dreadknights (30" move, S6 AP4 torrent flamer and S7 AP4 Rending 6-shot or large-blast gun, S10 Force weapons in melee), yet our S3 T3 Archon isn't allowed a single AP2 melee weapon. Wouldn't want things to escalate, now, would we?

Aw man, that made me laugh, and then I realised how true it was, and it made me sad.