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.

I opt to move 0.01".

Is it even worth arguing about? There is no practical difference between having to, but being able to choose as small a distance as you like, and being able to opt not to move at all.

Ok, me and phil kelly (and the rest of the devs) will just move 0.00001 inch.

edit: just saw Teg's post.

Right. But at that point, why are you even playing Black Templars to begin with? Just play vanilla marines.

Capt K

Shep wrote:Ok, me and phil kelly (and the rest of the devs) will just move 0.00001 inch.

edit: just saw Teg's post.

Maybe because sometimes you want to move and sometimes you don't?

Come on, I'm sure you could have answered your own question.

Well speaking as a person that has played Ultramarines and now plays Templars, usually you want to be zealing forward, which makes the idea of not moving forward counter intuitive to how Templars play.

Capt K

Yes, usually, but not all situations are usual. Maybe you are fighting stealer shock and need all the shooting opportunities you can get. Maybe a clown car has just parked some distance away from you and you think you can get away if you don't mindlessly zeal forward. And so on.

Charging with IG line squads is also counter-intuitive to how IG play, but every good IG player knows you sometimes need to do it.

As the guilty offending asker, I asked him point blank if this was the case and how the studio played it.

I've won games because I DIDN'T zeal into a unit which kept it scoring at the end of the game, so it DOES matter how it's played. There are LOTS of times that if you play it wrong that zealing can be used by your opponent to hurt you. Good opponents will, every time. Zeal is a BENEFIT that we PAY FOR.

That being said, I don't think that it's worth arguing about it during a tournament as you'll probably lose more sportsmanship scores from closed-minded players than you'll get from battle points. The best we can do is to spread the word so that it becomes common knowledge.

Sorry, did you just argue about how valid it is to force a BT army to run forward and that it makes sense tactically?

Gee, look at how awesome Khorne armies were last edition.

I think we're arguing about tactics now, which is another conversation entirely. Tegeus-Cromis is right though, that you must move an arbitrary distance up to the number you rolled, in inches.

As a BT player who has gone up against a Nightbringer on several occasions, I can tell you that it is definitely worth not charging in some circumstances. I know I've already declared my adherence to the style of Templars on more than one occasion, but there comes a point when it is plain stupid to charge forward when all that results is your models dying.

Not to say that it isn't a good idea to charge forward - I agree with CaptKaruthors in that Templars usually want to move closer to the enemy - it's just that sometimes you have to rationalize the act of zealing and think "maybe these Templars are smart enough to realize that Genestealers, Nightbringers, and Carnifexes are better off getting shot to death."

CK