No your not, I think everybody knows it's easier to trigger an even assault than to trigger one at 4+ advantage, but it's far riskier than a 4+ advantage assault too.
The even assault will fail to win as often as it wins but, as I've stated previously, players will only remember (and feel aggrieved by) the assaults that they feel went against them and had an effect on the result of the game.

This isn't what I'm talking about.

Rather, I'm claiming that the player who is behind can find a way to create "+0 assaults", by careful positioning of units to avoid supporting fire, or just by simply rushing an isolated formation. It takes a lot less skill to start an even engagement than one where you have the advantage.

Yeah, but the player making the comeback hasn't managed to actually turn the tide - he has only succeeded in turning it into a pure dice contest.

In my situation i originally posted, we had played for 2 hours, 1 and half of which i had been playing catch up (brilliantly imho ) following some poor judgement and luck in the first turn. It come down to the wire, i spring the trap that would have carried us into turn 4, and a probable enjoyable draw and instead it didn't work. With (as i remember it) a 4+ bonus going in, loosing would have been unlucky. Getting wiped out to the man, loosing the chance to contest the objective and my BTS gave an auto win on [u]one dice roll[/u]. It turned a hard fought and exciting game into a disappointment - we both felt cheated. Me of a fighting chance, he of a legitimate victory. He even suggested we reset and re-fought the assault...

Now, we both understood how ridiculously unlikely this result was. We both accept there should be a chance to win even a "dead cert." We both know the rules a have been play tested for ages - that's why i was surprised this hadn't been debated before (afaik.)

The problem was just the hack down hits - they seem disproportionately large compared with the hits gained in the actual assault. Therefore suggestion A. was to limit them to what someone had "earned" (as much as is possible.)

OK, let's start again. As much as I agree that assault resolution can be a bit too random for my tastes, the above paragraph is inconsistent.

You can't describe taking advantage of a situation that's been created by one player ('careful positioning of units to avoid supporting fire' and 'rushing an isolated formation') as less skillful play by the other player, they're taking advantage of bad posture in the other player's forces.

You can't describe taking advantage of a situation that's been created by one player ('careful positioning of units to avoid supporting fire' and 'rushing an isolated formation') as less skilful play by the other player, they're taking advantage of bad posture in the other player's forces.

So what your looking for is a way to reduce the chances of failure if the odds are well stacked in your favour? The other side is reducing the chance of a victory by a side that in reality would have little chance of winning?

I've highlighted a part of your post, that seems to me you may have got the assault rules wrong.

If your on a 4+ advantage and you roll double 1 on your combat resolution dice and you opponent managed to get a 6 you would only lose the assault by 1 and that would be how many extra units you would lose due to hack downs.
I can't see how this seems to be disproportionately high ,losing 1 stand in hack downs for a lost assault.

Now I'll be the first to admit that I've had games go south from a single assault (6 stands of prepped Mole Mortars vs my beloved Warp Spiders with two Exarchs and a Vampire wiped me out to the stand). But I've also had games go south because of a single Strategy roll, a single invulnerable save, etc. That's the nature of the game, and it is important to simply accept it and build your tactics around it (or throw caution to the wind, depending on your mood).

But that's my beef - the +0 assault is very risky, but if you're losing, why not?

As for what I remember - the only thing worse, for me, than winning a game because the dice suddenly turned hot and gave me a totally undeserved win, is where I'm on the receiving end of such a turnaround. I dislike both.

Just want to state that it's not something that happens all that often (I still play this game after more than a decade of EA!), but sometimes it does, and it leaves a bad taste.

I think I see where we may differ in views, you state results being changed in games where you were winning or losing. I would state they were games that were not yet won or lost.

If 1 assault can change things so much then "why not" attempt to win a game that isn't yet lost, or gamble to try to get a better result wether it be a smaller loss or draw.

History is littered with events,battles,skirmishes etc where forces that should be swept aside easily change the course of a war or battle, even though the the odds where heavily stacked in the enemies favour.

Nope - i had 4+ going in : No BMs/Less BMs/Inspiring/More Units

Scorpions hadn't have their spinach - lost 5:0 on casualties... I know - this was a freak event !

My problem is about the mechanic - Normally one die decides the hitting or death of one unit. If a whole fist of dice go against you then what can you do? Its luck.

However, with the resolution, 4 die effect the hitting and death of up to 5 units whether they are grots or aspect warriors... seems disproportionate (despite the probability rounding.)

Dice rolls are a part of the game. But the assault dice will always be one of the most important dice rolls in the game (it can kill multiple enemy units AND save several of yours!) - the effect of just that dice roll is out of proportion to anything else in the game, except maybe the activation roll for a big engagement action you've set up where a failure hangs the supporting formations out to dry. I don't like that roll either, but at least you can plan for having a reroll for it.