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.

The rule in question is how pile-in and consolidation are phrased. You can move any model up to 3" as long as they are CLOSER to the opponent. You can pile-in and consolidate within 1" of enemies that you are not fighting with; this drags them into fighting. However, because you are not charging them, they don't get to overwatch against you. People have come to call this "sliding" into combat.

Putting them base-to-base and telling your opponent that the distance is 0 means they cannot move closer to you, as there is no amount of distance they can move that would put them closer to your model. Therefore, no such "sliding" is possible.

I actually wrote something about this in my Dragoon analysis on the first page. Go check it out.

yeah I know all of this sans calling it "sliding". I just wondered why you guys put an emphasis on this since this is a key mechanic (which I hate btw, I think its way too strong). Of course you are right that we need to block those charging units with something that can go base to base. Hence the swooping dive or intervening captain. (After reading those sentences I want to emphasize that I didnt want to sound arrogant but in written words it kinda does, so sorry for that one^^)
The consolidation/pile-in move is what kills Id say 90% of the Kastellans. There werent really many occasions where someone really charged directly into my bots. Another reason to not use the flamer on them I guess

The interesting thing with the captain is that he comes with 2 bases designs and i really like the "long board" one but damn, he gets so big that you cant put him anywhere with that thing.

Oh I see. But if he's already in base contact with you, he can't slide to another unit so why overlapping the base specifically ? Because measures are taken from the model, as it's a flying model ?

 Aaranis wrote:
Oh I see. But if he's already in base contact with you, he can't slide to another unit so why overlapping the base specifically ? Because measures are taken from the model, as it's a flying model ?

They mean touching. Your not actually allowed to overlap bases.

Ordana wrote:

 Aaranis wrote:
Oh I see. But if he's already in base contact with you, he can't slide to another unit so why overlapping the base specifically ? Because measures are taken from the model, as it's a flying model ?

They mean touching. Your not actually allowed to overlap bases.

Me: "I am going to normal move my vanguard because there are no enemy models within 1" of them due to deaths."
Opponent: "well I could have piled into your vanguard and prevent them from moving."
Me: "No you couldn't have. Your models have their bases literally underneath the clear base of my shield captain." // then I show the 0.5mm overlap i intentionlly had when I piled in my shield captain.

Then I move the vanguard and win the game with their shooting. Now yes, technically bases can't overlap. But I will continue to minorly overlap to keep opponents from trying to pull poop like that.

 Aaranis wrote:
Oh I see. But if he's already in base contact with you, he can't slide to another unit so why overlapping the base specifically ? Because measures are taken from the model, as it's a flying model ?

measuring from the base, line of sight from the model.

I would just tell them straight up: "Distance between my Shield-Captain and your model is 0." And wait them to acknowledge.

though I always have problems with positioning everything the right way before hand. Most people do know how to avoid Heroic Interventions and in the case with the shield-captain the clue is to avoid getting charged themselves while the robots get charged and there still has to be some room to put the captain.
DId I mention that I hate the close combat movement in this game?

What if you have a vehicle with a slanted hull you can definitely be touching it and underneath it

You would still be able to move any models in the second or subsequent rows of the unit anyway. This only affects units in base contact or where you measure to hull and the distance isnt clear.

Incidentally this is yet another rule for Fly to give an unfair advantage to. Whatever extra points flying units supposedly have to pay for their abilities, it isn't enough; Not by a long shot.

So I am attending to a more friendly kind of tournament next week and I want to play some mass infantry with Guardsman and Vanguards.
Which Forgeworld would you recommend? Graia or Metallica? I'm kind of leaning towards Metallica cause their WLT seems more beneficial?

Metallica. Graia doesn't benefit your vanguards if the enemy don't shoot them, and that's unlikely if you have guards. With Metallica vanguards become anoying enought to require some enemy atention. Move 9-10 and shoot that amount of dakka sounds nice, at least to grab objectives. Because at the end of the day the Infantry squads will be the ones who actually menace the enemy.


Talking (again) about our skitarii and AM infantry. With March FAQs and the rumored point increase from 4 to 5 pts for the basic guard, in what kind of position that let us 7/8 pts skitarii?

Zorninsson wrote:
Metallica. Graia doesn't benefit your vanguards if the enemy don't shoot them, and that's unlikely if you have guards. With Metallica vanguards become anoying enought to require some enemy atention. Move 9-10 and shoot that amount of dakka sounds nice, at least to grab objectives. Because at the end of the day the Infantry squads will be the ones who actually menace the enemy.


Talking (again) about our skitarii and AM infantry. With March FAQs and the rumored point increase from 4 to 5 pts for the basic guard, in what kind of position that let us 7/8 pts skitarii?

A better one with our global invulnerable saves, 3+ BS and better guns. Vanguard could become the next anti-charge unit, especially with the -1 T aura.

 lash92 wrote:
So I am attending to a more friendly kind of tournament next week and I want to play some mass infantry with Guardsman and Vanguards.
Which Forgeworld would you recommend? Graia or Metallica? I'm kind of leaning towards Metallica cause their WLT seems more beneficial?

How many points?

Of the two, I prefer Graia for a Skitarii footslogging army. The durability helps, and the ability to shoot in CC is great.

Suzuteo wrote:

 lash92 wrote:
So I am attending to a more friendly kind of tournament next week and I want to play some mass infantry with Guardsman and Vanguards.
Which Forgeworld would you recommend? Graia or Metallica? I'm kind of leaning towards Metallica cause their WLT seems more beneficial?

How many points?

Of the two, I prefer Graia for a Skitarii footslogging army. The durability helps, and the ability to shoot in CC is great.

2000 points. But isn't the falling back better, because so all of your units can shoot at your opponent and not only the ones which are tied up?

 kastelen wrote:

Zorninsson wrote:
Metallica. Graia doesn't benefit your vanguards if the enemy don't shoot them, and that's unlikely if you have guards. With Metallica vanguards become anoying enought to require some enemy atention. Move 9-10 and shoot that amount of dakka sounds nice, at least to grab objectives. Because at the end of the day the Infantry squads will be the ones who actually menace the enemy.


Talking (again) about our skitarii and AM infantry. With March FAQs and the rumored point increase from 4 to 5 pts for the basic guard, in what kind of position that let us 7/8 pts skitarii?

A better one with our global invulnerable saves, 3+ BS and better guns. Vanguard could become the next anti-charge unit, especially with the -1 T aura.

And yet, still terrible. Maybe if we were some form of Fearless. Still just can't see much reason not to run Guard, even at 5pt per dude.

Thoughts on how the new knights will change things?

gendoikari87 wrote:
Thoughts on how the new knights will change things?

yet another walker? Something between Knight and dragoon which i dont think we need at all.

Iago40k wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Thoughts on how the new knights will change things?

yet another walker? Something between Knight and dragoon which i dont think we need at all.

Literally zero stats on a model are determined by it being bipedal. Or mechanical, for that matter. Let's wait and see how it turns out before we get sassy.

Man you guys are as salty as my playgroup is about my new guard army. Hang in there admech will be back with fires in 2018

Why not another walker ? If every army had jet packs, flyers, psykers and good CC units this would get old pretty quickly. You chose an army partly because of its theme and aesthetics after all, and AdMech is all about relentless, slowly advancing firepower and atompunk stuff. Now I know they're not rightly translated into rules right now but let's wait for FoC and the March FAQ.

Sadly this flavour stuff I'm talking about is dying in 40k since 8th with the way allies are taken now, so you only see soup everywhere. And I do it moderately myself too.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
And yet, still terrible. Maybe if we were some form of Fearless. Still just can't see much reason not to run Guard, even at 5pt per dude.

At 5ppm for guardsmen, rangers would be about the same firepower and durability for cost, considering range, smaller unit size, armor/morale saves, better guns and higher BS for 2ppm. Wouldn't have as much of a foot print though. They are also notably cheaper MSU, 35 vs 50 points for msu, which makes CP easier to generate. I certainly wouldn't feel the need to use guardsmen at 5ppm, even if they are optimal it's by an extremely small margin.

SilverAlien wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
And yet, still terrible. Maybe if we were some form of Fearless. Still just can't see much reason not to run Guard, even at 5pt per dude.

At 5ppm for guardsmen, rangers would be about the same firepower and durability for cost, considering range, smaller unit size, armor/morale saves, better guns and higher BS for 2ppm. Wouldn't have as much of a foot print though. They are also notably cheaper MSU, 35 vs 50 points for msu, which makes CP easier to generate. I certainly wouldn't feel the need to use guardsmen at 5ppm, even if they are optimal it's by an extremely small margin.

It is the full package though. The CP recycling Commanders and three cheap squads makes for easy battalions and then you get access to Bassies. So, yeah... even closing the gap, we just don't shine that bright.

I'm just saying, that's not due to infantry squads being way better than ranger squads at 5ppm. If you want to be upset by the relic selection or basilisks vs onagers performance that's a different story.

Honestly, we do not need CP recycling so desperately as to require us to ally in guard at this point. We can field a 12 CP army using three battalions for less than 500 points, and have our own CP recycling trait. It's also really easy to field a brigade if you don't want to bring that many tech priests along (probably a good call, given servitors are marginally more useful and every bit as cheap).

Oh and fearless would be totally pointless for us regardless. We have cheap MSU that only gain a 50% increase in special weapons as squad size doubles. We can be immune to morale and a unit of 10 skitarii would still be outright disadvantageous except possibly in some methods of scoring, and even that trades durability in the scoring sense for CP efficiency and firepower. Given that a unit of 10 IG aren't much more durable than 5 rangers when everything is considered.... yeah I just don't see the logic.

We really don't have room to complain as an army, given we are a well balanced faction.

In my humble opinion the problem is not the external balance but the messy internal balance and lack of options and synergies.

Anyway. Let's imagine the new mini knight.

M12 WS3+ BS3+ S7 T7 W12 A3 L8 S3+

Invulnerable save 5+ against shooting attacks
Can do Heroic Intervention as a character if the friendly unit charged is an Knight of the same House.
Close combat weapon:
Vicious chainsword: Strenght +5 FP-3 D1d6
Stomp: Strenght User FP-1 D1 Special: Do 3 hit rolls for each attack made with this weapon.

Shooting weapon:
Melta blaster: Assault 1D3 Range 24 Strenght 8 FP-4 D1d6 Special: Roll 2 die and take the highest when determine the damage if the target is at half range or closer.

Probably another gun in the same plastic kit but I have no idea.

gendoikari87 wrote:
Thoughts on how the new knights will change things?

If anything, they might make Super-Heavy Detachments more viable. The only Knight list I can think of was the one with 3x cheapo Crusaders.

Zorninsson wrote:
In my humble opinion the problem is not the external balance but the messy internal balance and lack of options and synergies.

Anyway. Let's imagine the new mini knight.

M12 WS3+ BS3+ S7 T7 W12 A3 L8 S3+

Invulnerable save 5+ against shooting attacks
Can do Heroic Intervention as a character if the friendly unit charged is an Knight of the same House.
Close combat weapon:
Vicious chainsword: Strenght +5 FP-3 D1d6
Stomp: Strenght User FP-1 D1d3 Special: Do 3 hit rolls for each attack made with this weapon.

Shooting weapon:
Melta blaster: Assault 1D3 Range 24 Strenght 8 FP-4 D1d6 Special: Roll 2 die and take the highest when determine the damage if the target is at half range or closer.

Probably another gun in the same plastic kit but I have no idea.

Knights aren't characters unless they are warlords, so no heroic interventions. =(

It's also unlikely it will get Stomp.

Well, the stomp of the mini knight I thought is only 9 S7 FP-1 attacks. It kills only 2 marines or 4 orks with that.

Many models have two kinds of attack, like Mortarion, the Gorkanaut or some great daemons. I don't see it imposible.

But even it would be needed to play super heavy detachments I'm not sure if this mini knight should be tagged as "super heavy"

Wait did they release the stats of this thing or are you guys speculating?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
**nevermind, have answered my own question

Hey next week my LGS is hosting a Battle Royale on a new Armageddon-like Mechanicus terrain, with Kill Team rules, so I was wondering what would be nice to use as a list. Restrictions are as follow:

- 200 pts, 15 models max, no stratagems but Dogmas allowed;
- Characters aren't protected from shooting;
- Normal list building restrictions concerning sergeants, special weapons and so forth

There will be around 10 players, turn order will be random, and looots of scenery. I'm thinking about 5 Infiltrators with tasers, they're quite fast, can shoot decently, and hit hard in CC, albeit without any AP. And 2W each makes them appealing for Kill Team. But that's 110 pts, what do I fill the 90 other points with ? Thinking about a bunch of Rangers, one with an arquebus, and why not another with an arc rifle. I'm more tempted by the regular rifles and the arquebus to stay far away.

Is Celestine allowed?