Assault Grenades

I, like many of you, have noticed the frequent lack of Assault Grenades on the units in our new Codex we generally agree want or need them. It's like they're trying to fool us into fielding moar wyches or something, because, grenades!
So yeah there is a definite quantifiable concern there. I'm with you, I'd love to have some kind of old-style PGL for our Incubi and such, and a fleshy haemovore-bomb (???) for our Covenites. Sadly we haven't got either.

But one thing I've noticed that I don't quite understand is people from various tournament scenes bemoaning this loss as horrendous and crippling.
I mean... your enemies have to actually be IN terrain for this to be an issue. Right? I've seen pictures of plenty of different tournament tables. One little ruin per DZ, a forest or two in inconvenient locations, maybe one BLOS in the middle next to the 1/2" high hill to make you feel better all splayed across planet bowling-ball. So what's the issue? There is next to no terrain for your targets to hide in.
Admittedly I haven't been to too terribly many tourneys but have seen loads of batreps.
Regular tourney-goers please feel free to chime in and gainsay me on this one.

My local group enjoys throwing up a whole pile of terrain. Lots of height and half-decent BLOS, and we feel that that works for us to make games more interesting. Therefore for me not having frags is occasionally actually a problem. That said, I find myself not charging into terrain all that often, and the times I do it tends not to be an issue. Sure the fire warriors or devastator squad or broadsides or lootas or guardians or heavy weapons teams hiding in ruins will hit first in CC. But they aren't really anything to be scared of getting hit by. I'd even go so far as to say their overwatch is scarier, and that happens to your face regardless of assault grenades. The units that you really DON'T want to do their stabbing before you tend not to live in terrain in my experience. They're running across the table on the path of least resistance (read; around terrain), longing to caress your organs with their killy-bit of choice.

So the question is;
In-Game, how serious of an issue are you finding the lack of assault grenades to be? I'm curious to collate data about your experiences, not theories, and the whys of it.
Is the lack of assault grenades the cause of lost DE models and units losing combat? Is it hurting us enough to lose matches?

Thanks for bearing with me!

Laughingcarp wrote:

In-Game, how serious of an issue are you finding the lack of assault grenades to be? I'm curious to collate data about your experiences, not theories, and the whys of it.
Is the lack of assault grenades the cause of lost DE models and units losing combat? Is it hurting us enough to lose matches?

Well, a quick glance at any and all tournament pictures I have taken tells me that there is a lot more terrain on average in my tourney scene than what you described.

Honestly - most tournaments are perfectly able to put out terrain, what they usually drop the ball on is LOS blocking terrain. There is often low ruins and scrubby craters galore, but very little that actually requires maneuver to get around or the ability to actually hide from shooting behind.

Second off - let's discuss the *purpose* of assault. It has a couple of goals, and I'll loosely outline them;

1. Locking down units so they cannot shoot/move/assault other things.
2. Killing things - most notably the ones you can't/have trouble to shoot to death for whatever reason.

At the end of the day those two things are what assault is about. That's two jobs, and that's the goal of basically any assault unit.

#2 tends to include...well, things that are in cover. That's one of the goals of assault. Oh, is that blob IG squad with Heavy weapons teams a threat to your boats? Are they sitting there in ruins with 4+ saves versus your venoms and gunboats? Okay, send in some Incubi to shred them in assault - now watch as the Incubi eat overwatch and then every single swing of the mook Guardsmen and watch as 3-4 Incubi die before they even get a chance to try to engage a mook unit. Huzzah. Thanks assault unit, good work on that one!

Also, I have to admit, i don't know where you play where people don't get in terrain - where I play that's basic strategy 101 with any shooting unit. Lootas? In cover. Dev squad? Start them in cover. HWT? Those boys are hugging some cover. Centurions? Better believe there big backside is plopped down to get a cover save to protect them from lances. Et al and ect.

So, yes, I have experienced my opponents in terrain and I expect it to come up about once per game for any assault element I happen to be playing. So, for me, it very much matters if an assault unit has grenades because that effects what it can or cannot deal with - lack of grenades means that there is an entire set of targets (anything in terrain) where suddenly my assault unit will be sub par at accomplishing the only given goals an assault unit has in the game. That's not good value, and thus I tend not to take them unless the initiative issue is able to be balanced in some manner.

I don't have specific examples, because I avoid units that would give me these problems. But I assuredly assault into and through terrain on a regular basis in both friendly and competitive play and always expect to have to do so.

--------

The thing is I find your entire premise here flawed - we only have one assault unit (not counting HQs) that even has assault grenades. Wyches. No one is calling them good (without being on some very designer drugs). So it's not assault grenades = good assault unit. It is lack of assault grenades = weakening an assault unit.

Grots people call good. No grenades.
Wracks people call okay. No grenades.
Wyches people call bad. Grenades.
Incubi people seem to have mixed feelings on. No grenades.
Hellions people call bad. No grenades.

Now, look at the statlines of the non-grenade units (we'll just all agree Wyches suck and move on )
The ones that people call bad or questionable are, across the board, possessing of *high* initiative values and *low* durability capabilities.
The ones that people call okay are the reverse, they have moderate imitative and high survivability.

THAT is the issue.

When I am paying for a fast and fragile assault unit, I am willing to accept that it is fragile and will be broken if hit, but I paid to have it be fast in order to balance this issue. Lack of assault grenades makes me slow whenever one of my guys has to hop over a hedge on the way to the assault - removing the entire concept of the unit of being fast from the equation and leaving them simply fragile. This is no bueno!

We can then tighten this up to clarify the most loved, least loved, and most debated;

Grots - slow, not fragile, hard hitting.
Wyches - not slow, fragile, not hard hitting.
Incubi - semi-slow, semi-fragile, semi-hard hitting (all factors depend on target and terrain)

So people don't like wyches because it doesn't matter if you're fast if you die easy and barely hurt your foe.
People do like Grots, because you can be slow as long as you're hard to hurt and inflict a lot of damage.
People are conflicted on Incubi because they are unreliable.

People complain about the grenades because if they hadbeen included it would make the Incubi more reliable (you would still need to be mindful of target and wargear, but could not worry about terrain) and that bothers them because they want Incubi to be good, but are left with uneasy feelings towards them due to their unreliability (in any given game they could be all stars - or total chumps, depending on factors as simple as the board setup)

When I read the title of the thread I thought to myself, "Oh man, Thor is going to have an aneurysm when he sees this!"

LC- I see your point on this one, I see Thor's points also. I truly can't understand why ImperialastramilitarumGIJoeman comes standard with assault grenades while a raiding alien with hyperfast reflexes that gets off on slaughtering less races with advanced technology brings.....nothing. I agree that most tournaments in this area also feature battles on planet bowling ball where it doesn't matter quite as much.

Evil Space Elves wrote:

When I read the title of the thread I thought to myself, "Oh man, Thor is going to have an aneurysm when he sees this!"

XD it's a bit like baiting him into this thread ;-)

On the topic, it is true, Thor, that Deva, Cents and HWT will be hugging for cover and everyone is agreeing with you, even Laughingcarp ;-) what he says that the usually scary assault unit will be on its way to your side trying to not use cover as it slows them down. Thus if you engage them, you will not need be grenades. The question is, why not shoot them ;-)

But as it stands, I think ESE has summed it up nicely, it is not understandable why GI Jo has assault grenades and Incubi don't - that is, in for fluff reasons. It may be for balancing..... Close combat XD

Crazy_Irish wrote:

Evil Space Elves wrote:

When I read the title of the thread I thought to myself, "Oh man, Thor is going to have an aneurysm when he sees this!"

XD it's a bit like baiting him into this thread ;-)

Crazy_Irish wrote:

On the topic, it is true, Thor, that Deva, Cents and HWT will be hugging for cover and everyone is agreeing with you, even Laughingcarp ;-) what he says that the usually scary assault unit will be on its way to your side trying to not use cover as it slows them down. Thus if you engage them, you will not need  be grenades. The question is, why not shoot them ;-)

Exactly - and we have no assault units that lack grenades that I would want to toss at an assault unit of another army in the open or not besides Grots, and Grots can handle having to go through the cover anyway.

Incubi are chumps versus an assault tooled unit.
Same with Hellions.
Same with Beasts (though I might, in very specific setups).
Same with Mandrakes (though they are only an assault unit in the magical insane world of the GW design team).

Wyches might be okay at that, though they have grenades, but only if the assault unit lacks overwatch and also as long as all you want to do is hug them for a while.

Also, if my opponent leaves an elite assault unit sitting around in the open...I'm probably, as you said, just going to shoot it to death.

In the last codex when I ran Beasts I sent them at the units hiding in cover because not only could they dominate and run through the Devs, HWTs, Cents, etc. in CC but my shooting was not as effectual against those units because if they GtG for a 2+ I don't really want to shoot at them. IF a big scary unit is hanging out in the middle of the board without cover, I am going to shoot them with everything.

With our high Int. guys, having grenades tips the scale in our favor because we are so fragile. Now our high Int. guys stand around until all of their guys have struck before our fragile guys can strike. But our guys aren't around to strike due to them being fragile. Units like Grots don't care because they are tough and can take it. Outside of Grots, none of our units have real staying power and are hurt with the lack of grenades.

Speed is our weapon. Sitting around taking it like a chump is not something we can do.

Firstly Thor665, thank you for that awesome summary of the hows & whys! Awesome read.
IIRC in the podcast you said you're North American SW, yeah? From what I've heard lots of the bigger name brand tourneys are held over there, so maybe that dedication is exactly why you're seeing more terrain than I am in the northern prairies where we farm ice and snow, or ESE where he is.

I feel my argument kinda stands that assault grenades aren't entirely needed vs the previously mentioned artillery-type units, even though as you've explained our units would be more acceptably worth their points if they had frags. And don't forget that even ork boyz have assault grenades stock nowadays!
And so it comes down to the scary enemy assault units that AREN'T hiding in terrain because they want all of our squishy organs.
With those you guys have kind of nailed it down to "Can I shoot it like crazy first?" And then allowing an assault to mop up if necessary.

I agree with this statement in its entirety:

Thor665 wrote:

Now, look at the statlines of the non-grenade units (we'll just all agree Wyches suck and move on )
The ones that people call bad or questionable are, across the board, possessing of *high* initiative values and *low* durability capabilities.
The ones that people call okay are the reverse, they have moderate imitative and high survivability.

THAT is the issue.

When I am paying for a fast and fragile assault unit, I am willing to accept that it is fragile and will be broken if hit, but I paid to have it be fast in order to balance this issue. Lack of assault grenades makes me slow whenever one of my guys has to hop over a hedge on the way to the assault - removing the entire concept of the unit of being fast from the equation and leaving them simply fragile. This is no bueno!

We can then tighten this up to clarify the most loved, least loved, and most debated;

Grots - slow, not fragile, hard hitting.
Wyches - not slow, fragile, not hard hitting.
Incubi - semi-slow, semi-fragile, semi-hard hitting (all factors depend on target and terrain)

So people don't like wyches because it doesn't matter if you're fast if you die easy and barely hurt your foe.
People do like Grots, because you can be slow as long as you're hard to hurt and inflict a lot of damage.
People are conflicted on Incubi because they are unreliable.

People complain about the grenades because if they hadbeen included it would make the Incubi more reliable (you would still need to be mindful of target and wargear, but could not worry about terrain) and that bothers them because they want Incubi to be good, but are left with uneasy feelings towards them due to their unreliability (in any given game they could be all stars - or total chumps, depending on factors as simple as the board setup)

SCP Yeeman brings up the thought of Beasts, which I'm not entirely sure how they work as is.
Does the sentence in the Beasts' movement description apply to initiative as well? "Beasts are not slowed by difficult terrain (even when charging)..." As I read it it probably only applies to the 2" charge penalty for charging into terrain, but I've never played beasts so I don't actually know. And I guess this interpretation would apply to MC's Move Through Cover rule as well?

Laughingcarp wrote:

Firstly Thor665, thank you for that awesome summary of the hows & whys! Awesome read.
IIRC in the podcast you said you're North American SW, yeah? From what I've heard lots of the bigger name brand tourneys are held over there, so maybe that dedication is exactly why you're seeing more terrain than I am in the northern prairies where we farm ice and snow, or ESE where he is.

I'm N.America SE - FLorida to be precise. Though from what I've heard I am indeed in the "Bible Belt" of competitive play in N.America which continent is likewise considered probably the most competitive play environment worldwide, so I like to feel I came by my insanities honestly

Laughingcarp wrote:

Does the sentence in the Beasts' movement description apply to initiative as well? "Beasts are not slowed by difficult terrain (even when charging)..." As I read it it probably only applies to the 2" charge penalty for charging into terrain, but I've never played beasts so I don't actually know. And I guess this interpretation would apply to MC's Move Through Cover rule as well?

The relevant rule quote is here;

To represent this, if at least one model in the
charging unit moved through difficult terrain as part of its charge move, all of
the unit’s models must attack at Initiative step 1, regardless of other Initiative
modifiers, even if the charging unit is not slowed by difficult terrain.

Short answer - it is of no help

Hah that's what I get for not reading both sides of the rule. Ah, GW. Thanks man!

SE, gotcha. Insanities be bygones, it's awesome to have someone with your level of tournament experience to give the rest of us an insight into the competitive mindset and point of view!

Thor665 wrote:

Wracks people call okay. No grenades.

who in the name of god things wracks are ok?

It caused me physical pain to buy the box for bits yesterday.

I for one love me some wracks. So do many of the people who enjoy the Coven supplement. They don't look spectacular on paper but they perform if you use 'em right.

Evil Space Elves wrote:

When I read the title of the thread I thought to myself, "Oh man, Thor is LC- I see your point on this one, I see Thor's points also. I truly can't understand why ImperialastramilitarumGIJoeman comes standard with assault grenades while a raiding alien with hyperfast reflexes that gets off on slaughtering less races with advanced technology brings.....nothing. I agree that most tournaments in this area also feature battles on planet bowling ball where it doesn't matter quite as much.

Because even with Assault Grenades those Imperials still have garbage int. I fault the Eldar, not the Imperials. They want to cling to cover as much as possible in any situation. Standard Asault Grenades aren't impressive as weapons on their own, as well. A Plasma Grenade is still a big deal on certain scales. The lone surviving Wych can toss it into a group of MEQs and punch above his or her weight.

As for tournament terrain, it is a triple issue. Someone has to make that terrain out of pocket and on their own time. The second is the absolute bellyaching that tournament players engage in when there is too much terrain breaking up LoS. Most TOs try for a middle ground and end up giving favor to the shooting armies by default. Third, and this is not as standard, is when players get to arrange terrain the shooting guy will jam all his pieces in the back corner so he can play point and click.

Laughingcarp wrote:

I for one love me some wracks. So do many of the people who enjoy the Coven supplement. They don't look spectacular on paper but they perform if you use 'em right.

I play a Cabal, so I'm not really into this kind, but I always enjoyed the wracks. May it be fluff,
or their rules,
I wanted some. I even got the haemi for them(instead of the lesser archon), to explain it fluffy...
I never glued, or painted, them. I had no time.

Wracks are awesome. Clever Handle, feel free to post them to me once you've taken the bits!

this isn't the thread for it, but I just don't see how wracks are awesome - survivability hardly beyond a guardsman, horrible damage output per point in shooting, and in CC with only S3 you're poison is barely effective - sure its great once you have furious charge - if you're assaulting guardsmen, firewarriors or other eldar... but compared to oh, say... a Lhamian, who for the same points cost wounds on a 2+, has a chance to inflict instant death, gets the same benefit from furious charge, comes equipped with a 5+ save in addition to the eventual FNP, and has grenades and a shooting attack....

wracks just fall short by every measure.

1) You have T4 so it takes S8 to ignore FNP on them - stops things like Baleflamers and Serpent Shields.
2) You have poison 4+ so you can duff up literally anything in close combat.
3) You have to take a few units if you play Covens (which I do).
4) Llamaens aren't a 'core' unit, you can only have one unit of them per Archon.

Overall you seem very MEQ fixated with your thinking.........

Timatron wrote:

4) Llamaens aren't a 'core' unit, you can only have one unit of them per Archon.

Uh, you can take as much as you please if you take an Archon.
Same goes for the other court of the Archon units.

@OP,

regarding grenades - I find that I'll echo Thorr in that when you need grenades, you really need grenades.... want to assault that unit of crisis suits / broadsides sitting in cover? (well why?) but charging into a unit w/ multi-attack S5 models that strike first is bad news for dark eldar units of any kind, except maybe grotesques. Long fangs / devastators? Sure, they have relatively few attacks, but if you take 8 swings, that's 3 wounds (4 hits, 3 wounds, conservative math), that's usually 2-3 dead dark eldar models (1 incubi...) before you get to swing... so now how much damage output do you have? Lets assume we're talking incubi - each survivor may kill 1 marine on the charge, so you're looking at 3 dead marines.... and probably stuck in combat. Next turn you kill 2 more marines & have probably broken the squad so good job. Now lets assume that's wyches or Wracks - well you probably didn't kill 3 marines, and you probably lost 2 models, next turn you're going to struggle to kill those 3 marines again, and will still lose 2 models.... you may have stopped shooting from that devastator / longfang squad, but you didn't get there to stop incoming fire turn one, and there's a good chance they got to fire turn 2 as well (if your opponent isn't an idiot & deployed deep / used screening models, etc). So.... yay?


Now, as to models that want to push into the midfield - most of them are going to do so inside transports. Well, transports that explode no longer leave craters, but really, we're still playing a game where dark eldar are wrecking more vehicles than we explode, so you've carefully positioned your assault models, unfortunately you wreck the transport & your opponent piles out onto the otherside.. Now one of your assaulting models clips the wreckage and you're at I1 again.... bad news.

the lack of assault grenades is absolutely unexcusable, unless you've somehow found a way to build an effective DE list that uses wyches or grotesques to pin an assault in place T2, to supply a follow up charge T3 utilizing beasts or incubi - but at that time you've committed more than 250 points to a single assuault that has lasted more than 1.5 full game turns! WOW inefficient when instead you could have simply brought that much poison & rapidfired!

Timatron wrote:

1) You have T4 so it takes S8 to ignore FNP on them - stops things like Baleflamers and Serpent Shields.

leaving you relying upon a 5+ FNP, but still coupled with next to no damage output unless in combat, and even then..... wyches have better survivability IN COMBAT since they get a 4++/5++ whereas wracks only have their 6+/5++ - wyches, despite only being S3, have an alpha strike potential since they have I6 & grenades

Timatron wrote:

2) You have poison 4+ so you can duff up literally anything in close combat.

until whatever you're fighting survives, since you're only I4 and lack grenades, then punches you back... you're now back to relying upon your 5+ save which is no good.

Timatron wrote:

3) You have to take a few units if you play Covens (which I do).

fair enough - but that's the equivalent of saying "thousand sons are good because I'm playing purist thousands sons so that's the only choice I have..."

Timatron wrote:

4) Llamaens aren't a 'core' unit, you can only have one unit of them per Archon.

Neither are wracks - they're elites, so generally speaking you're limited to 3, unless you're looking at formations or unbound, at which point in time you may as well take the units of the archon's court for all the reasons I list above.

Timatron wrote:

Overall you seem very MEQ fixated with your thinking.........

I don't know what you mean by this? if you mean to imply as an opponent - I would suggest also necrons, crisis suits, all space marines, and orks are T4 so you're not getting your rerolls - so again, wounding on a 2+ w/ a 6 causing instant death is better than wounding on a 4+ every time.

Further, is anybody in the world going to dispute that paying 75+ points for (2) BS4 shots is a good deal? Nobody's taking that bet.

as I said above, this isn't the thread for this discussion, if you want to continue this debate (again) we can jump over to the "wracks - WTF?" thread (or whatever it's called) and restart the discussion over tehre. Else we can simply agree to disagree