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.

One sweeping advance per unit per turn might be ok. Base it off an initiative test and disallow multicharges on it.
HTH needs some form of boost.....

I think what's being suggested is not you consolidate into another combat and ACTUALLY FIGHT, you just consolidate into another unit and stay locked, fighting on the next turn.

Rather than buffing melee with "consolidate into new combat" I'd rather buff them with, say, a rule that's called 'Blitz', or something similar, which forces any unit to snap fire against your newly consolidated melee unit if they are within 12" and have LOF to the unit, ONLY works if you win the very first assault phase which you declared assault so it doesn't punish you for killing a unit the moment you touch it which then leaves you wide open, which leads to bizarre unit building were you design a unit and hope to kill just enough to matter but not enough to win first round of combat.

Furthermore nerf overwatch in its current state, as it stands it's a mindless no-brainer choice whether you want to overwatch or not, there's currently downside to declaring overwatch and it needs to be like the intercepter rule, were you lose your next shooting phase.

If you're only hitting on 6s *and* losing your next shooting phase, then one might as well not have overwatch at all.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If you're only hitting on 6s *and* losing your next shooting phase, then one might as well not have overwatch at all.

Good, less useless dice rolls that slows the game down while having either too much effect or none at all.

Indeed.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think what's being suggested is not you consolidate into another combat and ACTUALLY FIGHT, you just consolidate into another unit and stay locked, fighting on the next turn.

This is what I was suggesting. Like it was in...gosh, 5th edition?

Unit A charges Unit B. Unit A wins combat, sweeping advances, and destroys Unit B. Unit A is then able to consolidate into Unit C, who had the misfortune of being within range of Unit A. Next turn, Unit C cannot fire because it is locked into close combat with Unit A. Unit A does not have additional attacks for charging, but combat resolves as if it were the second round of combat (no extra attacks for charging, no diminished initiative, etc.).

Altima wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think what's being suggested is not you consolidate into another combat and ACTUALLY FIGHT, you just consolidate into another unit and stay locked, fighting on the next turn.

This is what I was suggesting. Like it was in...gosh, 5th edition?

Unit A charges Unit B. Unit A wins combat, sweeping advances, and destroys Unit B. Unit A is then able to consolidate into Unit C, who had the misfortune of being within range of Unit A. Next turn, Unit C cannot fire because it is locked into close combat with Unit A. Unit A does not have additional attacks for charging, but combat resolves as if it were the second round of combat (no extra attacks for charging, no diminished initiative, etc.).

That's not how it worked in 5th..?

 Zewrath wrote:

Altima wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think what's being suggested is not you consolidate into another combat and ACTUALLY FIGHT, you just consolidate into another unit and stay locked, fighting on the next turn.

This is what I was suggesting. Like it was in...gosh, 5th edition?

Unit A charges Unit B. Unit A wins combat, sweeping advances, and destroys Unit B. Unit A is then able to consolidate into Unit C, who had the misfortune of being within range of Unit A. Next turn, Unit C cannot fire because it is locked into close combat with Unit A. Unit A does not have additional attacks for charging, but combat resolves as if it were the second round of combat (no extra attacks for charging, no diminished initiative, etc.).

That's not how it worked in 5th..?

3rd edition had it like that, 4th edition I'm unsure of it.

Consolidate-into-new-combat was probably the most complained-about thing in the 4e core book.

 Ratius wrote:
One sweeping advance per unit per turn might be ok. Base it off an initiative test and disallow multicharges on it.
HTH needs some form of boost.....

I agree with this, if you give every ork unit in the game +3 initiative. Otherwise this just benefits SMs and Eldar.. the two weakest armies in the game....wait.....

Yeah, consolidations into new combats were possible in 3E and 4E, and had lots of issues, particularly in conjunction with some of the terrain rules, and resulted in some assault units never facing a single round of fire and killing a new unit every turn.

Removing it was a good move for the game, but they really do need to reintroduce assaulting out of stationary transports and from walk-on reserve. That was unnecessary.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:

Altima wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think what's being suggested is not you consolidate into another combat and ACTUALLY FIGHT, you just consolidate into another unit and stay locked, fighting on the next turn.

This is what I was suggesting. Like it was in...gosh, 5th edition?

Unit A charges Unit B. Unit A wins combat, sweeping advances, and destroys Unit B. Unit A is then able to consolidate into Unit C, who had the misfortune of being within range of Unit A. Next turn, Unit C cannot fire because it is locked into close combat with Unit A. Unit A does not have additional attacks for charging, but combat resolves as if it were the second round of combat (no extra attacks for charging, no diminished initiative, etc.).

That's not how it worked in 5th..?

3rd edition had it like that, 4th edition I'm unsure of it.

4th you consolidated and got to fight again. Repeat until either you don't kill them all or they run out of things to consolidate into.

Sure would be nice to have force organization slots matter once again. And maybe infantry being viable instead of MCs.

Sure would be nice to have force organization slots matter once again.

I'm with you. Formations can be neat, but they take a lot of planning and pro/con list-building decisions away since you can often just have whatever you want and get some nifty bonus for doing so. I preferred it much simpler. Unfortunately, GW has found a way of essentially adding DLC to a tabletop game, and I can't see them straying from that model.

Formations absolutely need to be revisited by GW, just as the community really needs to get behind Unbound as a preferred way to play.

Formations are fine. There's only a few offenders. Formations are more balanced than C:Eldar for sure.

I'd like to see some Kill Team rules that allow for a PvE experience in a tabletop game where me and my mom can team up against enemies who are controlled by dictated reactions to the players' choices rather than either player's direct whims. Like, just an option for WH40k that involves something that isn't player-versus-player.

If you're wondering who else that would be useful for, well, basically anyone who ever wanted a solo version of WH40k comes to mind.

Anything that gives freebies is not fine, getting free abilities/wargear/units/etc in this way is fundamentally bad game design. Formations, multiple detachments, and unbound all really need to go, though I'd agree that if the other two exist that banning Unbound is ridiculous.

As long as the WK is 295 pts, we might as well have formations too. There is nothing more game breaking than miscosted units. Not free rules, not free abilities, nothing. Because people exascerbate the miscosting by spamming those units.

Martel732 wrote:
As long as the WK is 295 pts, we might as well have formations too. There is nothing more game breaking than miscosted units. Not free rules, not free abilities, nothing. Because people exascerbate the miscosting by spamming those units.

Well the WK being absurdly underpriced is something that absolutely should be fixed as well, that's an inexcusable game design issue, but getting to play a 2500pt army vs a 2000pt army because of formations is also just as broken.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
As long as the WK is 295 pts, we might as well have formations too. There is nothing more game breaking than miscosted units. Not free rules, not free abilities, nothing. Because people exascerbate the miscosting by spamming those units.

Well the WK being absurdly underpriced is something that absolutely should be fixed as well, that's an inexcusable game design issue, but getting to play a 2500pt army vs a 2000pt army because of formations is also just as broken.

Yes, but you can only get that bonus once. By the time you add up the miscostedness of the Eldar, my BA at 2K are fighting a 4K list. If you've got miscosted units, formations are just icing.

If a player owns X, Y & Z, nobody should give him grief if he wants to play them together. That's the entire point of the game. He might not get any bonuses, but GW is absolutely right that Unbound should be a primary and preferred way to play.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If a player owns X, Y & Z, nobody should give him grief if he wants to play them together. That's the entire point of the game. He might not get any bonuses, but GW is absolutely right that Unbound should be a primary and preferred way to play.

I'm gonna grief people for WK/scatbike until they are fixed. I don't care how much someone likes those models. They ruin afternoons.

Yeah, because a single WK and trio of scatbikes wrecks Superfriends and Gladius... :eyeroll:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Yeah, because a single WK and trio of scatbikes wrecks Superfriends and Gladius... :eyeroll:

Superfriends and gladius I don't have? And they never come in singles or in trios. Dual WK and dozens of bikes is more like it. Because it multiplies the undercostedness to create a list with ar more points than some free Rhinos.

Except, that's not what you wrote. You wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If a player owns X, Y & Z, nobody should give him grief if he wants to play them together. That's the entire point of the game. He might not get any bonuses, but GW is absolutely right that Unbound should be a primary and preferred way to play.

I'm gonna grief people for WK/scatbike until they are fixed. I don't care how much someone likes those models. They ruin afternoons.

You didn't specify dual WK nor dozens of bikes. You simply wrote "WK/scatbike" which match the "single WK and trio of scatbikes" that I called out. If you wanted to talk about something different, you should have been clearer.

The fact is, you have Red Marines. Superfriends and Gladius are options for you. And those builds are just as effective in the tournament environment that you care so much about.

Insert Orks, or Dark Eldar or whatever. Even non-gladius marines. Compared to the rest of the game, Eldar are almost universally undercosted, with some models being worse offenders than others. Eldar need serious nerfs across the board to even consider even minor buffs at this point. Take them back to 6th ed minus the crazy ass wave serpent and then we can talk.

Martel732 wrote:
Eldar need serious nerfs across the board to even consider even minor buffs at this point.

Rangers, Banshees and Storms? Nope.

I've got another view on the Gladius. Prior to the introduction of that detachment, no one was bringing to tournaments Marine lists that consisted primarily of Tac, Dev, and Assault Squads. One might take from this that they are overcosted compared to other units in the game.

Formations give an incentive to play armies that are thematically representative of what factions typically field. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.