Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

davethepak wrote:

balsak_da_mighty wrote:Oh I don't think that what they have is the best, its needs improvement. I am just not so sure this is the right thing to do. It really doesn't make sense to me. But nothing that has come down the rumor mill has.

Challenges....really!?

I can see a Tau Ethereal challenging a Demon Prince. Yeah right! Or that Tau Ethereal actually accepting that challenge. Its a waste of space in a rulebook. I don't see many people actually accepting it. When you can do that allready by moving your HQ into base with said HQ.

But I am just going to wait and see what the deal is.

Are you kidding? I totally hope the demon prince challenges my Tau, that way I can deny it and get out of combat!!!
Now, IC's HAVE to try and fight....my swarmlord can challenge someone out of range, or my crisis can hide....this is awesome.

I am sorry some people don't like change...

I don't like change that makes no sense. This is not hero hammer, It is warhammer.

Ok so your ethereal leaves the combat, now the prince just kills the squad. Which makes my point valid, its a waste of time to even challange. Yes I will agree that there are times where a challenge can be interesting or epic. Most of the time I see it as a exercise in futility. But we also don't know the full rules. You say the swarmlord cna challenge something out of its range. Do you know it can have that option? I didn't read or hear anything about that. But as I said I am going to wait and see what the deal is. But thanks for your comment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:I still can't believe it. People are still complaining saying this sucks without knowing how anything else works?

Ok but think of the opposite. People are excited about it with out knowing all the rules as well. It can go both ways. Right now its all opinions and no one can say either way unitl it comes out.

I still really fail to see why Tyranids care for anything like a "challenge". The codex itself has a Hive Tyrant betraying a challenge and The Swarmlord faking a challenge to get Marneus Calgar.

tetrisphreak 5th edition has been geared towards strong assault elements winning games. Disagree if you will but first consider this -- An army in 5th edition has but 1 shooting phase each game turn, but 2 Assault phases. In addition winning an assault can and often does result in a complete rout of the enemy unit (sweeping advance).

I don't know about you but 3rd and 4th edition was like this too. There were assaults in both players turns just like there are now. ALso sweeping advances. In fact it was nastier back then you had negatives to LD that you don't have anymore. Outnumbered, below half, plus models you lost. I don't see this as being a valid statement.

And so if assault is so hardcore then why is it that shooty armies like SW long fangs, razorspam, and Guard dominate 5th?

Yodhrin wrote:I'm not seeing an issue with that scenario you present, which is known in some circles as a "tradeoff", or "choice". Your unit is resilient against blast weapons, or it's better placed for an assault, that sounds like exactly the sort of on-the-board tactics which have been missing from 40K.

You can't be serious with that sentence.
Oh, you are? Really?

Even crunching the hormies up so that I'll get slaughtered by the first frag missle that comes my way (cause the game is totally lacking in those) I'll lose an inch for every rank you kill.
That's massive right now. And I don't see them adding that much speed to make up for it. The only "choice" is to not take the unit... which is essentially where they're at now anyway, but I was hoping 6th would change that. Ah well.

Frankly, I'm bored of Listhammer, and I'm bored of all the tablestop tactics being gamey; a version of 40K where unit placement and maneuver are more than an afterthought sounds brilliant to me - having to actually think about potential enemy flanking attacks, how to deploy units based on your enemy's army composition, being able to use ranged firepower to actually affect how your enemy is playing, and having to use the battlefield to set up successful assaults sounds much better than list tailoring, then having one army charge across the table full-tilt while the other shoots as many guns as possible at one unit after the other in turn.

If that's how my games went I'd be bored too. Thankfully they don't.

I like the sound of challenges. I've not watched the BoW vid, but as they were presented in other rumours, it adds a nice addition:
- If challenged, you can accept and the 2 characters duke it out - whoever wins wins the combat for their unit.
- If challenged, you can refuse and just fight normally.

To me, this means that someone like Tau or IG will still lose the combat either way, but otherwise it could speed up combats and add a nice cinematic feel.
Although, I'm not keen on the idea of it becoming even more Herohammer...

Regarding the 3rd video (Charge reactions / "Stand & Shoot"):
...
holy poop, flame templates are about to become vicious.
(and suddenly, we understand why Deathmarks can deep strike in enemy turns... also, my delicious Death&Despair squads are about to become exquisite).

Aaaaahhh. Smart for pointing out the death marks....

Sounds like GW doesn't want to sell assaulty horde armies anymore.

balsak_da_mighty wrote:

tetrisphreak 5th edition has been geared towards strong assault elements winning games. Disagree if you will but first consider this -- An army in 5th edition has but 1 shooting phase each game turn, but 2 Assault phases. In addition winning an assault can and often does result in a complete rout of the enemy unit (sweeping advance).

I don't know about you but 3rd and 4th edition was like this too. There were assaults in both players turns just like there are now. ALso sweeping advances. In fact it was nastier back then you had negatives to LD that you don't have anymore. Outnumbered, below half, plus models you lost. I don't see this as being a valid statement.

5th has toned down the assault in one very important aspect: no consolidation into nearby units. In 3rd once you won a combat, you would consolidate d6 inches. If that took you into another unit, hurray! More combat! (This was the reason that the Tau Etherial was so useful: you could determine when exactly to leave a combat as losing everyone on the opponant's turn WASN'T always the best course of action. You needed your turn to get the heck away from that figh before it boiled over into the rest of your lines.) In 4th, you got a d6 consolidation if you wiped the unit out, a 3" consolidation if you "merely" chased them down or failed to catch them. This lead to those who played gunlines to space units to try and work with the odds of avoiding that consolidation into nearby units. Now, you consolidate d6 every time, but can't hit a new unit. This is really the largest shift (IMO) towards shooting armies and away from the Assault dominated meta that mid-3rd was (late third was obviously the Iron Warriors all the time every time) and still carried significant strength well into 4th with Demon Bomb armies and the like. (Not to mention that brief time when the Tyranids had a frighteningly powerful book. Oh well!) Trust me, my current DE list would LOVE to be able to consolidate into fresh units. I might actually have Incubi survive to get two assaults. ("Wait, they just got Furious Charge? S5 power weapons on the charge? Oh hell no." *dakkadakkadakkadakka*)

Being able to consolidate into another combat was amazing. You could island hop from one assault to another. This seems to be much more of a defensive upgrade so people getting charged do more than just drop their pants, bend over and pray for the best. If we could have this AND consolidate into other combats, it'd be a sweet combo.

I honestly have not missed consolidating into other squads. It really hasn 't hindered the assault armies that much. You just have to plan and use tactics better.

The assault based armies that were once there really don't need to do that in my opinion. Orks can be more shooty now so don't need to assault as much. Nids are all big things now so thats not an issue. Dark eldar I can see getting hurt a bit, but they have so many units on the table its really a dmaned if you do dmaned if you don't situation. Marines are Marines not that they assault to much. I just don't see that it really has hurt anyone. In fact it really never made sense to me that you could do that in the first place. Glad its gone and hope it doesn't come back.

I'm not sure if challenging an opponent is ever all that useful, really. Two ICs with their retinues clashing together isn't that common of an occurrence, and even then it might be more to my advantage to reduce the amount of models in the combat by as much as I can, as opposed to risking a CC character's specialist-weapon attacks being lost hitting an invulnerable save or something. I don't see the rumor itself as incredible, but I'm unimpressed by its implications.

terranarc wrote:Being able to consolidate into another combat was amazing. You could island hop from one assault to another. This seems to be much more of a defensive upgrade so people getting charged do more than just drop their pants, bend over and pray for the best. If we could have this AND consolidate into other combats, it'd be a sweet combo.

As someone who played assault armies in 4th edition, I can say I don't miss this one iota. Consolidating into other combats was a horrible game mechanic since any army that was built on shooting would invariably be screwed the moment an enemy unit got near their lines. One squad of Khorne Berserkers charging a squad of Guardsmen on one end of the table shouldn't see them halfway across an empty table by the next turn.

Brother SRM wrote:

terranarc wrote:Being able to consolidate into another combat was amazing. You could island hop from one assault to another. This seems to be much more of a defensive upgrade so people getting charged do more than just drop their pants, bend over and pray for the best. If we could have this AND consolidate into other combats, it'd be a sweet combo.

As someone who played assault armies in 4th edition, I can say I don't miss this one iota. Consolidating into other combats was a horrible game mechanic since any army that was built on shooting would invariably be screwed the moment an enemy unit got near their lines. One squad of Khorne Berserkers charging a squad of Guardsmen on one end of the table shouldn't see them halfway across an empty table by the next turn.

I know right? And it was freaking glorious. No, sitting there out in the open dumbfounded after finishing off an enemy. Once you were in your enemy's face and in close combat, you were permanently there until you tabled the opponent or you died.
My problem with not being able to continue combat right after killing off an enemy squad is that if you win combat on your turn's assault phase, you're screwed. If you win assault on your opponent's phase, you'll just get into another combat.
Imo, its more sensical for ranged oriented armies to provide some kind of counter charge instead of going all ranged units and playing it PC RTS style. You've got ogryns, use them. But no, players would MUCH rather spend 200-400 points on more tanks, HWTs and other ranged units.
My view is, if you're going to take nothing but ranged units and then get rolled in close combat, I don't see much of a problem with that. Likewise, if an army of Khorne bezerkers loose a shootout with tau firewarriors and crisis suits, then oh well.

skoffs wrote:Regarding the 3rd video (Charge reactions / "Stand & Shoot"):
...
holy poop, flame templates are about to become vicious.

You guys need to quit looking at these rumors in isolation.

If stand and shoot is real, then flames will become a big advantage. But I would assume that you will still have to place the template without touching your own troops. So for templates to be effective, they will have to be in the front line.

And where do all your shooting casualties come from if these rumors are true?

The main complaint I had about consolidation being removed was that due to IgoYougo turns, it encouraged you to 'clip' assaults during your turn--in attempt to make sure combat was stalled until you could free up on their turn, then assault another unit. Even if I played a shooting army, I think I would rather consolidation be present and everyone go all in. Really, you just need to space your units a turn earlier--and this will likely do away with the human screen from assault/get rapid fired again tactic we see now...

AgeOfEgos wrote:The main complaint I had about consolidation being removed was that due to IgoYougo turns, it encouraged you to 'clip' assaults during your turn--in attempt to make sure combat was stalled until you could free up on their turn, then assault another unit. Even if I played a shooting army, I think I would rather consolidation be present and everyone go all in. Really, you just need to space your units a turn earlier--and this will likely do away with the human screen from assault/get rapid fired again tactic we see now...

So your complaint about the change was that the new rules actually required tactics and planning? I guess the no-brainer consolidate into another squad was easier.

balsak_da_mighty wrote:Nids are all big things now so thats not an issue.

Um. What?

terranarc wrote:
I know right? And it was freaking glorious. No, sitting there out in the open dumbfounded after finishing off an enemy. Once you were in your enemy's face and in close combat, you were permanently there until you tabled the opponent or you died.
My problem with not being able to continue combat right after killing off an enemy squad is that if you win combat on your turn's assault phase, you're screwed. If you win assault on your opponent's phase, you'll just get into another combat.
Imo, its more sensical for ranged oriented armies to provide some kind of counter charge instead of going all ranged units and playing it PC RTS style. You've got ogryns, use them. But no, players would MUCH rather spend 200-400 points on more tanks, HWTs and other ranged units.
My view is, if you're going to take nothing but ranged units and then get rolled in close combat, I don't see much of a problem with that. Likewise, if an army of Khorne bezerkers loose a shootout with tau firewarriors and crisis suits, then oh well.

It was terrible. 5th edition 40k treats close combat armies really well, and they certainly don't need the help. With the low cost and high speed of transports, the biggest hurdle for assault armies has been clambered over. They can get there reasonably intact and once there they can completely destroy anything in their way regardless. I do agree that the timing of winning assaults is wonky - it doesn't make much sense for a victory in your opponent's turn to be more beneficial than in your own. However, I'll take my Berserkers occasionally standing out in the open dumbfounded over them completely rolling my opponent's army. Considering there's even very viable multicharges in the rules, consolidating into other units is just taking things too far in the direction of assault armies. Going the route of "you didn't take Ogryns" isn't really fair since close combat is a designed weakness in many of the armies. IG, Tau, and often Marines and Necrons want to stay as far out of assault as possible. I'm saying this as someone who plays Chaos Marines with Khorne Berserkers, Orks, Marines that favor assaulting, and soon to be powerblob IG - consolidating into other units is terrible. The game's over the moment a decent assault unit hits the other army's lines.

Brother SRM wrote:

terranarc wrote:
I know right? And it was freaking glorious. No, sitting there out in the open dumbfounded after finishing off an enemy. Once you were in your enemy's face and in close combat, you were permanently there until you tabled the opponent or you died.
My problem with not being able to continue combat right after killing off an enemy squad is that if you win combat on your turn's assault phase, you're screwed. If you win assault on your opponent's phase, you'll just get into another combat.
Imo, its more sensical for ranged oriented armies to provide some kind of counter charge instead of going all ranged units and playing it PC RTS style. You've got ogryns, use them. But no, players would MUCH rather spend 200-400 points on more tanks, HWTs and other ranged units.
My view is, if you're going to take nothing but ranged units and then get rolled in close combat, I don't see much of a problem with that. Likewise, if an army of Khorne bezerkers loose a shootout with tau firewarriors and crisis suits, then oh well.

It was terrible. 5th edition 40k treats close combat armies really well, and they certainly don't need the help. With the low cost and high speed of transports, the biggest hurdle for assault armies has been clambered over. They can get there reasonably intact and once there they can completely destroy anything in their way regardless. I do agree that the timing of winning assaults is wonky - it doesn't make much sense for a victory in your opponent's turn to be more beneficial than in your own. However, I'll take my Berserkers occasionally standing out in the open dumbfounded over them completely rolling my opponent's army. Considering there's even very viable multicharges in the rules, consolidating into other units is just taking things too far in the direction of assault armies. Going the route of "you didn't take Ogryns" isn't really fair since close combat is a designed weakness in many of the armies. IG, Tau, and often Marines and Necrons want to stay as far out of assault as possible. I'm saying this as someone who plays Chaos Marines with Khorne Berserkers, Orks, Marines that favor assaulting, and soon to be powerblob IG - consolidating into other units is terrible. The game's over the moment a decent assault unit hits the other army's lines.

Well, this rumor is essentially in a vacuum right now. I'll be more interested in seeing how snapfire, transport rules, model removal and wound allocation changes before judging consolidation as a strong return.

Regarding the loss of sweeping advance, I do like how the armies that have to cross the table alive before they even start doing any damage get told to "use tactics better" by the gunline players who just sit there and don't even know how to handle one unit in their lines unless they're allowed to blast it with their entire army for a turn.

Now the gunlines are allegedly getting a free shot as a charge reaction and probably a whole extra free turn of shooting if the casualties really get removed from the front.

Unless GW decided they don't want to sell any horde armies at all anymore, I would expect not only sweeping advance to return, but also increased charge range (say... Move+2d6"... just a crazy thought)

Beasts of war didn't explain, confirm, or deny some very important details of WHFB challenges.

#1 Other characters or unit champions can accept in the place of the IC called out. So if Ghas charges into CSM and challenges a sorcerer then the sorcerer, Abbadon, or a unit champion (aspiring champion in the case of CSM) can accept the challenge in the place of a sorcerer, or the player can decline and then the sorcerer has to hide in the back ranks.

#2 Overkill generates combat resolution in a challenge. So if Ghas dumps 5 powerfist wounds into a 1 wound CSM aspiring champion during a challenge that's +5 combat resolution.

#3 Unit champs can issue and accept challenges, but can not be sent to the back ranks. So a space marine sergeant can ignore ghas without penalty if ghas calls him out, or could challenge ghas who would accept and generate a lot of combat resolution through overkill, but it would keep a several other marines alive.

At least that's how the system would work if it went by 8th edition WHFB rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

Davor wrote:So from the complaining I have been seeing on the interent, people don't want to think about placing their minis anywhere? Is that is why they don't want the front line being removed? So people don't want to think about, do I keep my Melta safe and losse a bit of distant or have him in the front to get a bit extra distance but maybe get shot at then?

No, but thanks for the accusation.

20 strong unit of hormagaunts, spread out for max coherency (because of blasts). It's not hard to drop a bunch of wounds on them. If you nuke the front rank they now have 3 inches to make up next turn (2 for the coherency, 1 for the base).

That's a bit more concerning than "I don't want to think about placing my minis anywhere".

That's my concern. If they massively increase speed, sure... fine. I don't expect that though.

I play nids as well. I thougnt that as well. If we dont get the speed increase, tnen yes that would be a major problem.
I wasnt attacking you. thanks for your explanaion.

Brother SRM wrote:It was terrible. 5th edition 40k treats close combat armies really well, and they certainly don't need the help. With the low cost and high speed of transports, the biggest hurdle for assault armies has been clambered over. They can get there reasonably intact and once there they can completely destroy anything in their way regardless. I do agree that the timing of winning assaults is wonky - it doesn't make much sense for a victory in your opponent's turn to be more beneficial than in your own. However, I'll take my Berserkers occasionally standing out in the open dumbfounded over them completely rolling my opponent's army. Considering there's even very viable multicharges in the rules, consolidating into other units is just taking things too far in the direction of assault armies. Going the route of "you didn't take Ogryns" isn't really fair since close combat is a designed weakness in many of the armies. IG, Tau, and often Marines and Necrons want to stay as far out of assault as possible. I'm saying this as someone who plays Chaos Marines with Khorne Berserkers, Orks, Marines that favor assaulting, and soon to be powerblob IG - consolidating into other units is terrible. The game's over the moment a decent assault unit hits the other army's lines.

5th edition craps all over assault armies with a combination of true line of sight making it difficult to close on the enemy without getting blown to pieces, transports being extremely cheap and plentiful which denies good assault targets and shooting armies being so commonplace. Combat armies absolutely need help, this is completely wrong.

The only time Imperial Guard armies got rolled by a single assault unit in 4th was when the Guard player didn't move his units in a way that prevented a consolidate into close combat. I played a highly aggressive Blood Angels army in 4th and the only time I was ever able to sweep through a Guard player's army was when he was too bad to understand that standing 6.1" away from the ongoing close combat would give him another chance to shoot at me. The good Guard players knew to send forward sacrificial units, pull back threatened ones, block with Chimeras and other tactical plays. 5th edition has removed that from being necessary since you can just sit in your Chimera and laugh while an assault squad has to A) get close enough to fire a meltagun at the transport B) Actually destroy the transport and then C) Be in charge range of the unit that was inside the Chimera. This is extremely rare because smart players know to place the unit piling out of the destroyed transport out of charge range if at all possible, leaving the close combat unit high and dry to be blown apart.

Katie Drake wrote:5th edition craps all over assault armies with a combination of true line of sight making it difficult to close on the enemy without getting blown to pieces, transports being extremely cheap and plentiful which denies good assault targets and shooting armies being so commonplace. Combat armies absolutely need help, this is completely wrong.

You must be playing a different game than the rest of us. How does the ability to shoot on average 0-5 models (usually 2) out of a squad of 5-16 end up being the better choice for a shooty army? If anything, cheap transports add to the firepower of armies NOT by transporting but by providing a mobile heavy weapon platform immune to small weapons fire. Cheap and plentiful transports (along with a generous damage table) help assault based armies survive the trek into the enemy's front ranks... and that's a much greater benefit relatively speaking.

warboss wrote:

Katie Drake wrote:5th edition craps all over assault armies with a combination of true line of sight making it difficult to close on the enemy without getting blown to pieces, transports being extremely cheap and plentiful which denies good assault targets and shooting armies being so commonplace. Combat armies absolutely need help, this is completely wrong.

You must be playing a different game than the rest of us. How does the ability to shoot on average 0-5 models (usually 2) out of a squad of 5-16 end up being the better choice for a shooty army? If anything, cheap transports add to the firepower of armies NOT by transporting but by providing a mobile heavy weapon platform immune to small weapons fire. Cheap and plentiful transports (along with a generous damage table) help assault based armies survive the trek into the enemy's front ranks... and that's a much greater benefit relatively speaking.

But in the end your still shooting and not assaulting? Which is the main point Katie Drake was making.

warboss wrote:

Katie Drake wrote:5th edition craps all over assault armies with a combination of true line of sight making it difficult to close on the enemy without getting blown to pieces, transports being extremely cheap and plentiful which denies good assault targets and shooting armies being so commonplace. Combat armies absolutely need help, this is completely wrong.

You must be playing a different game than the rest of us. How does the ability to shoot on average 0-5 models (usually 2) out of a squad of 5-16 end up being the better choice for a shooty army? If anything, cheap transports add to the firepower of armies NOT by transporting but by providing a mobile heavy weapon platform immune to small weapons fire. Cheap and plentiful transports (along with a generous damage table) help assault based armies survive the trek into the enemy's front ranks... and that's a much greater benefit relatively speaking.

I'm actually not completely sure what you're getting at with the second sentence. Do you mean that it's bad for shooty units to be in transports because then the entire unit can't fire at the same time? I'm a bit confused.

Transports don't just add firepower to the army so much as they make units not have to worry about being shot by small arms or getting assaulted. Part of what makes transports so good in this edition is the relative immunity that a transported unit gets as long as it stays embarked.

Transports help assault armies get across the table a bit yes, but there's still a two turn period where the assault units are moving instead of assaulting. Vehicles being hard(ish) to hurt doesn't matter as much considering that simply stunning the transport is enough to delay the assault unit for an entire turn unless they want to walk the rest of the way toward the enemy. There's a reason many of the top armies in this edition are mobile, transport-heavy shooting armies - because the current rules massively favor them.

Brother SRM wrote:

terranarc wrote:
I know right? And it was freaking glorious. No, sitting there out in the open dumbfounded after finishing off an enemy. Once you were in your enemy's face and in close combat, you were permanently there until you tabled the opponent or you died.
My problem with not being able to continue combat right after killing off an enemy squad is that if you win combat on your turn's assault phase, you're screwed. If you win assault on your opponent's phase, you'll just get into another combat.
Imo, its more sensical for ranged oriented armies to provide some kind of counter charge instead of going all ranged units and playing it PC RTS style. You've got ogryns, use them. But no, players would MUCH rather spend 200-400 points on more tanks, HWTs and other ranged units.
My view is, if you're going to take nothing but ranged units and then get rolled in close combat, I don't see much of a problem with that. Likewise, if an army of Khorne bezerkers loose a shootout with tau firewarriors and crisis suits, then oh well.

It was terrible. 5th edition 40k treats close combat armies really well, and they certainly don't need the help. With the low cost and high speed of transports, the biggest hurdle for assault armies has been clambered over. They can get there reasonably intact and once there they can completely destroy anything in their way regardless. I do agree that the timing of winning assaults is wonky - it doesn't make much sense for a victory in your opponent's turn to be more beneficial than in your own. However, I'll take my Berserkers occasionally standing out in the open dumbfounded over them completely rolling my opponent's army. Considering there's even very viable multicharges in the rules, consolidating into other units is just taking things too far in the direction of assault armies. Going the route of "you didn't take Ogryns" isn't really fair since close combat is a designed weakness in many of the armies. IG, Tau, and often Marines and Necrons want to stay as far out of assault as possible. I'm saying this as someone who plays Chaos Marines with Khorne Berserkers, Orks, Marines that favor assaulting, and soon to be powerblob IG - consolidating into other units is terrible. The game's over the moment a decent assault unit hits the other army's lines.

Oh that's funny, me too We play similar armies sir.
I do see your point though, I forgot about the multiassault rule. You'd end up being able to drag everyone into close combat. And with cheap transports, I guess I can see how someone can take 60 khorne berserkers in rhinos and just zerg rush with elite CC troops. This, I do not mind however since everyone at my local store plays space wolves with 15 longfangs or IG with stupid amount of tanks bubble wrapped by dollarstore IG blobs. So for the sake of furthering my own biased needs, I would support close combat consolidation.
Also, aside from tau, there really aren't many armies with a hole in CC. Even the necrons can field some nasty CC units now while other armies like DE don't give a two hoots since they're bloody fast anyway.
As far as armies that literally have a hole in CC like tau goes, a little OT but that feels like a design flaw. Most 40k armies are very well rounded and granted that some are better at X than Y, no one except for tau cannot x and I would expect this to be fixed next codex tbh.

For Drake's point, imo there's a huge imbalance between jump-pack-marine cost and rhino cost but less visible for blood angles. I would say this has more to do with unit cost in a way. It's most visible for chaos raptors (and I'd count those silly eldar swooping hawks in but they're not exclusively CC rush oriented like most jump jet units) where you simply get too little bang for buck. If they don't put in combat consolidation, but have all these crazy charge reactions, it'll just nerf them more.

d-usa wrote:

skoffs wrote:Regarding the 3rd video (Charge reactions / "Stand & Shoot"):
...
holy poop, flame templates are about to become vicious.

You guys need to quit looking at these rumors in isolation.
If stand and shoot is real, then flames will become a big advantage. But I would assume that you will still have to place the template without touching your own troops. So for templates to be effective, they will have to be in the front line.
And where do all your shooting casualties come from if these rumors are true?

This may be true but what they didn't say was WHEN your weapons fire and how far you can charge (with BoK's random charge distance rumor). If stand and shoot is done before the models get into base contact, then I can't see flamers being in range most of the time. Also, since shooting casualties are taken from the first row, you gotta wonder if you can stop a charge just by killing the guys in range for the charge. Also, you would HAVE to put them in the first row or carefully positioned in the 2nd unless they make a rule where your flamer template can touch your own guys.

Necrosis wrote:
But in the end your still shooting and not assaulting? Which is the main point Katie Drake was making.

Why on earth would I assault with a purpose built shooty army? Transports don't automatically change the inherent purpose of an army build. Her point is that assault based forces are at a disadvantage currently (with transports contributing to that imbalance) and I vehemently disagree with that notion.