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.
2018/09/29 15:04:57
Subject: Post FAQ Prediction - Astra Militarum Will Continue To Be Blamed
As happy as I am to see GW address the CP generation issue by nerfing grand strategist via tactical restraint rule, I don't see it addressing soup in any real tangible way. Armies like knights etc will still be taking bare minimum guard detachments for CP now that the CP cost of many stratagems have increased, increasing the reliance on CP from guard even more. The knee jerk reaction from the community will again be that guard are broken despite not topping any tournaments as a mono-army & only seeing representation from 2 of the 8+ regiments. The proposed solution will be to increase the cost of IG infantry squads/HQ choices despite the following being nerfed already:
Conscript nerf x2
Commissar nerf
Plasma gun nerf
Melta gun nerf
Astropath nerf
Primaris psycher nerf
Valhallan nerf
Manticore nerf
Ratling nerf
Wyvern nerf
Tarantula nerf
Half a dozen other nerfs I cannot be bothered to list
The problem is not IG. It is the way CP is acquired & allowed to be utilized. Until that is addressed, we will continue to repeat history.
2018/09/29 15:11:40
Subject: Re:Post FAQ Prediction - Astra Militarum Will Continue To Be Blamed
I think you're summarizing the collective nerfs into a recent problem is incorrect.
Some of the units were being abused because they're that good. Which was an issue in the beginning of 8th. But now they're in check.
The recent issue of CP farming I think has been handled decently. Soup being what it is, is what the issue is not so much CP farming. Without soup CP farming issue wouldn't exist.
I play an army that struggles to gain CP and I use it really quickly. Guard is one of the biggest culprits for CP farming, or was. If I had a way to get free CP, you bet I'd use it. But I don't because I'm not imperium.
2018/09/29 15:27:31
Subject: Post FAQ Prediction - Astra Militarum Will Continue To Be Blamed
Its simple
I look at my current tournament list (Custodes/IK/IG) and think. Can I get any better battalion in 312 points then:
Company Commander, Primaris Psyker
3x 10 guard
3x 3 Mortar Heavy Weapon teams
now that I don't really care about Grand Stratagist.
And the answer is no. Nothing is as point efficient as Guard..
2018/09/29 15:31:46
Subject: Re:Post FAQ Prediction - Astra Militarum Will Continue To Be Blamed
People have made their mind up about the Guard Boogeyman the same way people continue to revile Tau even an edition later for the sin of being good against Space Marines.
When CA no doubt makes CP in-faction only, people will still complain.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/29 15:32:47
2018/09/29 15:32:39
Subject: Post FAQ Prediction - Astra Militarum Will Continue To Be Blamed
IG is playing a whole different game than other codex, that said IG is strong as before.
3rd place league tournament
03-18-2018
2nd place league tournament
06-12-2018
3rd place league
tournament
12-09-2018
3rd place league tournament
01-13-2019
1st place league tournament
01-27-2019
1st place league
tournament
02-25-2019
2018/09/29 16:15:14
Subject: Re:Post FAQ Prediction - Astra Militarum Will Continue To Be Blamed
Arbitrator wrote: People have made their mind up about the Guard Boogeyman the same way people continue to revile Tau even an edition later for the sin of being good against Space Marines.
When CA no doubt makes CP in-faction only, people will still complain.
I present to you, or anyone else, the challenge.
Make a more effective battalion with a different codex for objective control and screening with some moderate power then:
Company Commander, Primaris Psyker
3x 10 guard
3x 3 Mortar Heavy Weapon teams
you have 312 points to play with.
Go prove me, and others, wrong that Guard is still the most cost effective way.
2018/09/29 16:24:21
Subject: Re:Post FAQ Prediction - Astra Militarum Will Continue To Be Blamed
Arbitrator wrote: People have made their mind up about the Guard Boogeyman the same way people continue to revile Tau even an edition later for the sin of being good against Space Marines.
When CA no doubt makes CP in-faction only, people will still complain.
I present to you, or anyone else, the challenge.
Make a more effective battalion with a different codex for objective control and screening with some moderate power then:
Company Commander, Primaris Psyker
3x 10 guard
3x 3 Mortar Heavy Weapon teams
you have 312 points to play with.
Go prove me, and others, wrong that Guard is still the most cost effective way.
Not imperium, so it doesn't really matter, but just for the challenge:
Jormungand
Neurotrope
Neurotrope
Ripper x3
Ripper x3
Ripper x3
Ripper x3
Ripper x3
305 points, 4 psy powers, 2 reroll psy auras, 45 T3 5+ fearless deepstriking wounds with objective secure and a profile that makes them extremely easy to put out of LOS.
Can't get any better than that for objective control.
2018/09/29 16:26:26
Subject: Re:Post FAQ Prediction - Astra Militarum Will Continue To Be Blamed
Arbitrator wrote: People have made their mind up about the Guard Boogeyman the same way people continue to revile Tau even an edition later for the sin of being good against Space Marines.
When CA no doubt makes CP in-faction only, people will still complain.
I present to you, or anyone else, the challenge.
Make a more effective battalion with a different codex for objective control and screening with some moderate power then:
Company Commander, Primaris Psyker
3x 10 guard
3x 3 Mortar Heavy Weapon teams
you have 312 points to play with.
Go prove me, and others, wrong that Guard is still the most cost effective way.
I have to second this. Before a recent GT I attended, I was trying to make my Space Wolves as efficient as possible with a small guard detachment. Every time I compared a guard unit to anything in my codex, the guard option was better for the points (barring a couple of HQs and Wulfen). Before long, I realized that the most efficient option was to remove every SW unit in the list and replace it with something from the IG book. It's bananas how good guard are at ITC missions in particular.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/29 16:27:12
2018/09/29 16:26:54
Subject: Re:Post FAQ Prediction - Astra Militarum Will Continue To Be Blamed
It would be nice if GW would do something to address Soup, as it has consistently been shown to be the real problem in 8th.
Reducing CP regeneration will just make Imperium armies even more reliant on the initial CP provided by cheap IG detachments.
What actually needed to happen was to make it that CP could only be spent by the same faction that generated it. So if an IG Battalion brings you 5CP, you have to spend that 5CP on IG Stratagems (or Rulebook Stratagems).
Ordana wrote: I present to you, or anyone else, the challenge.
Make a more effective battalion with a different codex for objective control and screening with some moderate power then:
Company Commander, Primaris Psyker
3x 10 guard
3x 3 Mortar Heavy Weapon teams
you have 312 points to play with.
Go prove me, and others, wrong that Guard is still the most cost effective way.
I'm not sure what point you're making here. No one is denying that IG is efficient.
What they're saying is that, if CPs generated by IG Battalions/Brigades could only be spent on IG Stratagems, then it might actually make them a less attractive (and certainly less necessary) inclusion for Imperium armies.
*Maybe* we'd still see them, but if you removed their ability to generate CP for IK or BA Stratagems, I think they would see a lot less play (outside of IG armies, obviously).
At the very least, it would be nice to see a rule that actually makes allies less-attractive, rather than more and more rules that solidify them as being the only army type worth playing.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
2018/09/29 16:27:04
Subject: Post FAQ Prediction - Astra Militarum Will Continue To Be Blamed
I have to second this. Before a recent GT I attended, I was trying to make my Space Wolves as efficient as possible with a small guard detachment. Every time I compared a guard unit to anything in my codex, the guard option was better for the points (barring a couple of HQs and Wulfen). Before long, I realized that the most efficient option was to remove every SW unit in the list and replace it with something from the IG book. It's bananas how good guard are at ITC missions in particular.
Then talk to the people making ITC missions.
2018/09/29 16:32:23
Subject: Post FAQ Prediction - Astra Militarum Will Continue To Be Blamed
I just checked what a cheap battalion would mean to each faction (results below, a few instances of slightly less cheap but way more functional units was taken). And in a way I feel that the FAQ might get things to work as intended. By that I mean it's clear that GW wanted all armies to have troops as a fundamental basis. With absolute CP limitations pure knights would be taken more which means you're up against a pure skew list with 9cp. IMO it's also more fluffy to see imperial allies for custodes and knights. Now I generally think that infantry squad, skitarii rangers (+tiny buff), and fire warriors (pulse rifles/blaster) should be 1 pt higher while space marines/scouts and necrons should be 1 pt lower to even the gap. I'm of the opinion that daemons might want 1-2cp for patrol with a full unit of troops as a special rule.
Astra Militarum 180pts high troop/hq synergy
Tau 189pts high troop/hq synergy
Adeptus Mech 199pts No troop/hq synergy
Drukhari wych 220pts Redundant hq w/ synergy
Tyranids 239pts Low synergy but psy
Genestealer c 256pts Redundant hq w/ synergy
Chaos SM 266pts Synergy enough
Daemons Nurg 282pts Redundant hq specific synergy
Craftworlds 290pts Synergy through psy
Imperial SM 299pts Very high synergy, ability wasted
Daemons Kho 322pts Redundant hq w/ synergy
Daemons Slaa 342pts synergy and psy
Daemons Tzee 366pts synergy and psy
Necrons 418pts Synergy is limited by model count
Custodes 712pts Redundant hq, synergy= 1/36 miss
So here we see that guard aren't the only ones that can be a cp boost, previously they were a renewable resource which made them far better at the job than mech. Also, it's worth asking if 30 sv5+ bodies with hq abilities that make them very very good at mass shooting is really worth less than 15 sv4+ bodies with better base shooting and no support what so ever from more expensive hqs.
2018/09/29 16:33:18
Subject: Post FAQ Prediction - Astra Militarum Will Continue To Be Blamed
Horrors and changecasters are pretty good and can fit in that point value. But the problem is that you shouldn't get cp for detachments. Detachments should cost cp. Cheap units get vastly more cp per point, which is silly.
2018/09/29 16:50:28
Subject: Re:Post FAQ Prediction - Astra Militarum Will Continue To Be Blamed
vipoid wrote: It would be nice if GW would do something to address Soup, as it has consistently been shown to be the real problem in 8th.
Reducing CP regeneration will just make Imperium armies even more reliant on the initial CP provided by cheap IG detachments.
What actually needed to happen was to make it that CP could only be spent by the same faction that generated it. So if an IG Battalion brings you 5CP, you have to spend that 5CP on IG Stratagems (or Rulebook Stratagems).
Ordana wrote: I present to you, or anyone else, the challenge.
Make a more effective battalion with a different codex for objective control and screening with some moderate power then:
Company Commander, Primaris Psyker
3x 10 guard
3x 3 Mortar Heavy Weapon teams
you have 312 points to play with.
Go prove me, and others, wrong that Guard is still the most cost effective way.
I'm not sure what point you're making here. No one is denying that IG is efficient.
What they're saying is that, if CPs generated by IG Battalions/Brigades could only be spent on IG Stratagems, then it might actually make them a less attractive (and certainly less necessary) inclusion for Imperium armies.
*Maybe* we'd still see them, but if you removed their ability to generate CP for IK or BA Stratagems, I think they would see a lot less play (outside of IG armies, obviously).
At the very least, it would be nice to see a rule that actually makes allies less-attractive, rather than more and more rules that solidify them as being the only army type worth playing.
Even if the Guard CP's were uneable I cannot get better board control with the Imperium Keyword for that few points.
Tournament armies will always need bodies to put on objectives.
And perhaps GW has done nothing to soup because they are ok with soup as it drives sales.
2018/09/29 16:57:50
Subject: Re:Post FAQ Prediction - Astra Militarum Will Continue To Be Blamed
Arbitrator wrote: People have made their mind up about the Guard Boogeyman the same way people continue to revile Tau even an edition later for the sin of being good against Space Marines.
When CA no doubt makes CP in-faction only, people will still complain.
I present to you, or anyone else, the challenge.
Make a more effective battalion with a different codex for objective control and screening with some moderate power then:
Company Commander, Primaris Psyker
3x 10 guard
3x 3 Mortar Heavy Weapon teams
you have 312 points to play with.
Go prove me, and others, wrong that Guard is still the most cost effective way.
Not imperium, so it doesn't really matter, but just for the challenge:
Jormungand
Neurotrope
Neurotrope
Ripper x3
Ripper x3
Ripper x3
Ripper x3
Ripper x3
305 points, 4 psy powers, 2 reroll psy auras, 45 T3 5+ fearless deepstriking wounds with objective secure and a profile that makes them extremely easy to put out of LOS.
Can't get any better than that for objective control.
Maybe, but that first list is paying most of it's points for the 3x3 Mortar squads, the list you posted has zero offensive output. That Guard Battalion is way better
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
2018/09/29 17:02:41
Subject: Post FAQ Prediction - Astra Militarum Will Continue To Be Blamed
Shas'O'Ceris wrote: I just checked what a cheap battalion would mean to each faction (results below, a few instances of slightly less cheap but way more functional units was taken). And in a way I feel that the FAQ might get things to work as intended. By that I mean it's clear that GW wanted all armies to have troops as a fundamental basis. With absolute CP limitations pure knights would be taken more which means you're up against a pure skew list with 9cp. IMO it's also more fluffy to see imperial allies for custodes and knights. Now I generally think that infantry squad, skitarii rangers (+tiny buff), and fire warriors (pulse rifles/blaster) should be 1 pt higher while space marines/scouts and necrons should be 1 pt lower to even the gap. I'm of the opinion that daemons might want 1-2cp for patrol with a full unit of troops as a special rule.
Astra Militarum 180pts high troop/hq synergy
Tau 189pts high troop/hq synergy
Adeptus Mech 199pts No troop/hq synergy
Drukhari wych 220pts Redundant hq w/ synergy
Tyranids 239pts Low synergy but psy
Genestealer c 256pts Redundant hq w/ synergy
Chaos SM 266pts Synergy enough
Daemons Nurg 282pts Redundant hq specific synergy
Craftworlds 290pts Synergy through psy
Imperial SM 299pts Very high synergy, ability wasted
Daemons Kho 322pts Redundant hq w/ synergy
Daemons Slaa 342pts synergy and psy
Daemons Tzee 366pts synergy and psy
Necrons 418pts Synergy is limited by model count
Custodes 712pts Redundant hq, synergy= 1/36 miss
That list sort of says it all. Tau is a close second, but they can't ally in to Knights. Mechanicus is, too, but has nowhere near the synergy as IG. Tyranids have a save that is half as good and the gun is less than half as useful unless you pay twice the cost of IS. Wyches ain't got guns.
2018/09/29 17:10:28
Subject: Re:Post FAQ Prediction - Astra Militarum Will Continue To Be Blamed
Ordana wrote: Even if the Guard CP's were uneable I cannot get better board control with the Imperium Keyword for that few points.
And this is why, as I've said over and over again, there needs to be an actual cost to taking Allies - so that you can't cherry-pick the best units from different books with no penalty over a mono army.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
2018/09/29 17:16:07
Subject: Re:Post FAQ Prediction - Astra Militarum Will Continue To Be Blamed
Ordana wrote: Even if the Guard CP's were uneable I cannot get better board control with the Imperium Keyword for that few points.
And this is why, as I've said over and over again, there needs to be an actual cost to taking Allies - so that you can't cherry-pick the best units from different books with no penalty over a mono army.
I'd also go so far as to say this is why the objective tokens/objectives themselves need to be reworked a bit. This is a great example of why objectives for certain armies need to be stressed vs others.
Marines shouldn't be trying to hold objectives in a building. They should be trying to sabotage those objectives or sever the chain of command of the opposing army. Tyranids should be trying to moving into the enemy territory while destroying units.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
2018/09/29 20:01:27
Subject: Post FAQ Prediction - Astra Militarum Will Continue To Be Blamed
Commissar Benny wrote: As happy as I am to see GW address the CP generation issue by nerfing grand strategist via tactical restraint rule, I don't see it addressing soup in any real tangible way. Armies like knights etc will still be taking bare minimum guard detachments for CP now that the CP cost of many stratagems have increased, increasing the reliance on CP from guard even more. The knee jerk reaction from the community will again be that guard are broken despite not topping any tournaments as a mono-army & only seeing representation from 2 of the 8+ regiments. The proposed solution will be to increase the cost of IG infantry squads/HQ choices despite the following being nerfed already:
Conscript nerf x2
Commissar nerf
Plasma gun nerf
Melta gun nerf
Astropath nerf
Primaris psycher nerf
Valhallan nerf
Manticore nerf
Ratling nerf
Wyvern nerf
Tarantula nerf
Half a dozen other nerfs I cannot be bothered to list
The problem is not IG. It is the way CP is acquired & allowed to be utilized. Until that is addressed, we will continue to repeat history.
Exactly.
Though for the cost, the loyal 32 is still the best source of not just CP, but screening, bubble wrap, and board control.
The problem is that soup isn't a problem and nobody likes to hear that. Some armies would not be competitive in any way without the basics.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/29 20:21:22
2018/09/29 20:21:23
Subject: Re:Post FAQ Prediction - Astra Militarum Will Continue To Be Blamed
Guardsmanwaffle wrote: I have looked at all the lists that placed in the top 3 of a Major or GT from January 2018 to July 2018 as listed on Blood of Kittens http://bloodofkittens.com/8th-edition-top-army-list-compendium/ and compiled all the lists containing any amount of Astra Militarum along with making a few notes about any standout units the list contained.
There are 3 mono guard lists that placed in the top 3 of a GT or Major between January and July. That's less top 3s than Tau and Tyranids. Guard is not dominating competitive warhammer, soup is dominating competitive warhammer, and that's any soup Imperial, Eldar, and Chaos are all widely out performing any mono faction lists.
Reposting a previous comment of mine. Bear in mind almost all of these lists were using Grand Strategist, Kurov's Aquilla, Veritas Vitae CP farm. With the recent changes to CP regen, these lists will have roughly half the CP they use to have available over the course of a game.
2018/09/29 20:22:50
Subject: Re:Post FAQ Prediction - Astra Militarum Will Continue To Be Blamed
Ordana wrote: Even if the Guard CP's were uneable I cannot get better board control with the Imperium Keyword for that few points.
And this is why, as I've said over and over again, there needs to be an actual cost to taking Allies - so that you can't cherry-pick the best units from different books with no penalty over a mono army.
What a quick way to invalidate large swaths of the imperial factions in the game.
2018/09/29 20:29:13
Subject: Post FAQ Prediction - Astra Militarum Will Continue To Be Blamed
The nerf to Fly has also now made IG even stronger, as conscript bubblewrap can now not only defend against ground units... but also flying assault units.
That's right, a cheap blob of conscripts can prevent Raptors, Warp Talons, assault marines...
Hell, that's not even that bad. Cheap conscripts can block JETBIKES. And Grav Tanks.
Valkyries.
A 200 point Heldrake, flying hundreds of meters above the battlefield, flying at near supersonic speeds, finding it's target and preparing to dive from above the clouds and pounce upon its prey... is blocked by a 30 point line of basic humans with potato guns.
2018/09/29 20:35:26
Subject: Post FAQ Prediction - Astra Militarum Will Continue To Be Blamed
Niiru wrote: The nerf to Fly has also now made IG even stronger, as conscript bubblewrap can now not only defend against ground units... but also flying assault units.
That's right, a cheap blob of conscripts can prevent Raptors, Warp Talons, assault marines...
Hell, that's not even that bad. Cheap conscripts can block JETBIKES. And Grav Tanks.
Valkyries.
A 200 point Heldrake, flying hundreds of meters above the battlefield, flying at near supersonic speeds, finding it's target and preparing to dive from above the clouds and pounce upon its prey... is blocked by a 30 point line of basic humans with potato guns.
Are you really charging anything with grav tanks or valkyries? Fly can still move over units in the movement phase.
2018/09/29 20:36:02
Subject: Post FAQ Prediction - Astra Militarum Will Continue To Be Blamed
Niiru wrote: The nerf to Fly has also now made IG even stronger, as conscript bubblewrap can now not only defend against ground units... but also flying assault units.
That's right, a cheap blob of conscripts can prevent Raptors, Warp Talons, assault marines...
Hell, that's not even that bad. Cheap conscripts can block JETBIKES. And Grav Tanks.
Valkyries.
A 200 point Heldrake, flying hundreds of meters above the battlefield, flying at near supersonic speeds, finding it's target and preparing to dive from above the clouds and pounce upon its prey... is blocked by a 30 point line of basic humans with potato guns.
*Insert big MASSIVE buzzer*
Units with Fly can still move over models during the Movement Phase.
You can't charge across a screen anymore, you can still move over it.
Page 177 – Moving
Change the second paragraph to read:
‘If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during
the Movement phase it can move across models and
terrain as if they were not there.’
2018/09/29 20:37:23
Subject: Post FAQ Prediction - Astra Militarum Will Continue To Be Blamed
Niiru wrote: The nerf to Fly has also now made IG even stronger, as conscript bubblewrap can now not only defend against ground units... but also flying assault units.
That's right, a cheap blob of conscripts can prevent Raptors, Warp Talons, assault marines...
Hell, that's not even that bad. Cheap conscripts can block JETBIKES. And Grav Tanks.
Valkyries.
A 200 point Heldrake, flying hundreds of meters above the battlefield, flying at near supersonic speeds, finding it's target and preparing to dive from above the clouds and pounce upon its prey... is blocked by a 30 point line of basic humans with potato guns.
*Insert big MASSIVE buzzer*
Units with Fly can still move over models during the Movement Phase.
You can't charge across a screen anymore, you can still move over it.
Page 177 – Moving
Change the second paragraph to read:
‘If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during
the Movement phase it can move across models and
terrain as if they were not there.’
Yes, duh, obviously. But the charge range is a massive part of a units movement. You're essentially saying "the rule is fine, it just means that fly units are now up to 12" slower than they once were but are still paying the same points cost, thats fine! (because I don't use fly units)".
Edit: Also, another glitch with this rule now means that units like jetbikes and DPs can no longer assault units that are hiding in ruins. Hide in a ruin and you're totally safe.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/29 20:40:49
2018/09/29 20:44:40
Subject: Post FAQ Prediction - Astra Militarum Will Continue To Be Blamed
Niiru wrote: The nerf to Fly has also now made IG even stronger, as conscript bubblewrap can now not only defend against ground units... but also flying assault units.
That's right, a cheap blob of conscripts can prevent Raptors, Warp Talons, assault marines...
Hell, that's not even that bad. Cheap conscripts can block JETBIKES. And Grav Tanks.
Valkyries.
A 200 point Heldrake, flying hundreds of meters above the battlefield, flying at near supersonic speeds, finding it's target and preparing to dive from above the clouds and pounce upon its prey... is blocked by a 30 point line of basic humans with potato guns.
*Insert big MASSIVE buzzer*
Units with Fly can still move over models during the Movement Phase.
You can't charge across a screen anymore, you can still move over it.
Page 177 – Moving
Change the second paragraph to read:
‘If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during
the Movement phase it can move across models and
terrain as if they were not there.’
Yes, duh, obviously. But the charge range is a massive part of a units movement. You're essentially saying "the rule is fine, it just means that fly units are now up to 12" slower than they once were but are still paying the same points cost, thats fine! (because I don't use fly units)".
Edit: Also, another glitch with this rule now means that units like jetbikes and DPs can no longer assault units that are hiding in ruins. Hide in a ruin and you're totally safe.
Thanks for assuming things but I play with combat jetbikes myself, and I think its fine. Screens should be able to screen.
And units with Fly can still very much charge a unit in a ruin. Why do you think they can no longer do so?