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.

 Jaceevoke wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Jaceevoke wrote:
I love how people always paint PP as this example of a great company that loves it is fans, as if PP has not screwed over an entire community and refuse to admit that they sold out.

Oh go on, you can't leave us hanging here. At least back up your statement with a story.

Ever hear of Monsterpocalypse? probably not, it was a pre-painted miniature war-game, that was doing quite well with a good community tournaments held in major conventions and nice promos. Then back in 2010 they made a deal with dreamworks to make Monpoc movie, and after 2011 gencon it just stopped. Privateer Press still maintains that they are working on something but they said that 2 or 3 years ago, now the offical forums are nearly dead with only a few dedicated players left. Even the fan based tournament like the ones held be team Covenant are starting to go away.

But that isn't the bad part, I can understand if the game was costing them money to stop making it, but they have never admitted the game was dead. Leaving it in a sort of limbo for the players.There are some rumors, never confirmed though, that dreamworks offered them more money than they would have made off of MonPoc in a reasonable amount of time. Honestly I personally beleive this because I can not think of another reason as to why they did what they did. This is of course a rushed version and I'm sure if you looked into it you would find much better stated and more researched answers online.

Edit- I would like to point out that PP is still a good company, just not the perfect one everyone makes them out to be.

Interesting. I know only a small number of people who ever played it and the response was tepid from them. I have no other reference.

If PP started pulling the stunts GW does currently (inflated costs, closing all communication channels, shutting down company sponsored events, etc.) they'd buckle. It's the sheer weight of the IP and it's inertia that keeps GW rolling forward. That and the players are usually highly invested in armies to the sums of thousands of dollars. The psychological attachment to the monetary and time investment to the product also makes it hard to separate or to have the ability to rationally address the problems with the company. I know, I still have problems. I still want to go out and pick up some new GW toys, but then I remember I won't get any special treatment for doing so. That I am not considered a value customer for having already purchase thousands.

If they don't honor my loyalty, I won't honor their brand.

 Jaceevoke wrote:


Yes, but that is not 40k that is homebrew. And while there is nothing wrong with homebrew, thats not what you asked us. I you had asked us if homebrew 40k was bad the answer would most certainly be no, provided of course you have other people who will agree to it as well.

I don't think so. We are removing one aspect of a very detailed game, it's hardly homebrew. Fliers are a tiny percentage of the game.
I personally don't believe they belong in a game at this scale...transports and skimmers are fine, no reason to go further than that. What's next, making half the table ocean and include naval 40k too? (beach assault does sound fun though! )

bullyboy wrote:

 Jaceevoke wrote:


Yes, but that is not 40k that is homebrew. And while there is nothing wrong with homebrew, thats not what you asked us. I you had asked us if homebrew 40k was bad the answer would most certainly be no, provided of course you have other people who will agree to it as well.

I don't think so. We are removing one aspect of a very detailed game, it's hardly homebrew. Fliers are a tiny percentage of the game.
I personally don't believe they belong in a game at this scale...transports and skimmers are fine, no reason to go further than that. What's next, making half the table ocean and include naval 40k too? (beach assault does sound fun though! )

No flyers would be great, but it would also make someone sad if they wanted to play a flyer based army per the fluff (like Elysians).

Do you guys limit flying monstrous creatures, too?

6th edition, I'd agree, is a somewhat different game than before. I feel like GW is taking it in a new direction, and, naturally, hasn't quite hammered out what that direction is.

I feel sort of like 5th edition was Windows 98 and 6th ed is Windows 2000. Like the former was better because it was a hammered out version of what they were already doing, while the latter was worse because it was a different way of doing things that hadn't quite gelled. I guess only time will tell if 7th edition is the proverbial Windows XP. The polished version of its predecessor that, while bloated and imperfect, winds up becoming something of a gold standard.

But maybe it won't be. Who knows.

 Ailaros wrote:
6th edition, I'd agree, is a somewhat different game than before. I feel like GW is taking it in a new direction, and, naturally, hasn't quite hammered out what that direction is.

I feel sort of like 5th edition was Windows 98 and 6th ed is Windows 2000. Like the former was better because it was a hammered out version of what they were already doing, while the latter was worse because it was a different way of doing things that hadn't quite gelled. I guess only time will tell if 7th edition is the proverbial Windows XP. The polished version of its predecessor that, while bloated and imperfect, winds up becoming something of a gold standard.

But maybe it won't be. Who knows.

Not a bad analogy, and I share your hopes for 7th.

Wouldn't mind them figuring out what the feth they were going to do with it before they implemented the changes in both cases mind.

6th gave me the excuse I needed to quit the game. Yes, I do think it's "that bad". Casualties from the front is a good theory, but crappy in practice: "oh, I think THAT model is 1mm closer...you have to remove it." First and last game of 6th I played, that was a common occurrence. Then of course, there's too much stuff now. If you want to play an effective army, you need to get about 4 books and a dataslate. It's become more of a moneypit than it already was. No thanks, it was a fun run through the end of 4th and all of 5th. But this new game? Terrible. That is, of course, all personal opinion. Hull points are fine. Random movement I can learn to live with. But to combine random movement with overwatch AND removing casualties from the front...it's too much. Yes, I prefer to get into combat instead of sitting back and shooting like a pus-I mean, uh, Tau.

 Ailaros wrote:
6th edition, I'd agree, is a somewhat different game than before. I feel like GW is taking it in a new direction, and, naturally, hasn't quite hammered out what that direction is.

I feel sort of like 5th edition was Windows 98 and 6th ed is Windows 2000. Like the former was better because it was a hammered out version of what they were already doing, while the latter was worse because it was a different way of doing things that hadn't quite gelled. I guess only time will tell if 7th edition is the proverbial Windows XP. The polished version of its predecessor that, while bloated and imperfect, winds up becoming something of a gold standard.

But maybe it won't be. Who knows.

Very well said. I am afraid of what Win 8 version of 40K will be like then. *shudders*.

bullyboy wrote:

 Jaceevoke wrote:


Yes, but that is not 40k that is homebrew. And while there is nothing wrong with homebrew, thats not what you asked us. I you had asked us if homebrew 40k was bad the answer would most certainly be no, provided of course you have other people who will agree to it as well.

I don't think so. We are removing one aspect of a very detailed game, it's hardly homebrew. Fliers are a tiny percentage of the game.
I personally don't believe they belong in a game at this scale...transports and skimmers are fine, no reason to go further than that. What's next, making half the table ocean and include naval 40k too? (beach assault does sound fun though! )

I always liked how Battletech handled fliers. You basically get to do a "strafing run" every turn. Other than that it's just assumed the flyer goes so high and fast that it doesn't interact whatsoever with the rest of the battle unless you decide to try and shoot it down during the strafing run. If you want to have mixed aircraft and ground engagements the aircraft go on a completely separate map with a much bigger scale.

I do agree that 40k is rather suffering from GW getting rid of specialist games. If we could have 3 games: Necromunda style skirmish rules (only with more options for other 40k armies), 40k proper, and Epic; then we could have rules and models tailored more to each individual scale of combat. I honestly don't know why Games Workshop doesn't do something like that.

The core rules in 6th, in general, are good. The bad apples are crazy random charge range, your cover save being the same whether you can see 75% of a tank, or you can literally only see a speck of hull sticking out, random psychic tables that are supremely unbalanced with each other, battle brother shenanigans, BS1 snap shots even for amazing shooting characters, and the collection of assault nerfs, making the game more 1 dimensional than I'd like.

Aside from that, the only other issues that come up are codex related. The wave of underpriced high volume guns that wound all infantry on 2's and can take out light tanks via hull points, exceptional quality units in some certain armies, overpricing all over the place in some others... Certain troublemaker units that are worth their weight in gold on the table, way beyond what their points would suggest...

It's overall a small part of the game, but it's definitely there, we just need to reach in with a high detail brush and fix it.

 Marzillius wrote:
The evidence would be all the polls on Dakkadakka and other warhammer related sites about which edition was best. 6th was always the most chosen answer, and if I remember correctly the Dakkadakka poll had almost 3000 answers.

The current edition always gets the most votes in those polls. Probably as much because those who can be bothered voting are those who are currently enjoying the game as any other reason.


For me, the big issues are -

- horribly unclear rules with the studio having apparently given up completely on faq support.

- when they were doing faqs, faqs that 'clarified' rules in a way that went completely against the actual rules (Battlements, i'm looking at you!)

- Having to roll 30 saves one at a time due to LOS applying to wounding hits instead of unsaved wounds.

- Random Warlord tables that have equal chance of giving you something powerful, something mediocre, our something your Warlord already has

- The idiocy of rolling off to choose table sides before actually placing terrain...

- The addition of flyers, while having no corresponding ability added to all armies to actually combat flyers, without taking allies or fortifications.

- The addition of hull points making vehicles weaker with no corresponding drop in points.

- Snap Fire not applying to blast or template weapons rendering a large range of vehicle weapon options vastly worse than others

- random psychic power selection for anyone other than orks makes no sense.

- Battle Brothers.

- The apparently random allocation of large Walkers as either vehicles or monstrous creatures, made more frustrating by the huge gulf in effectiveness between the two classes.

- The addition of super heavies to the standard game, for the same problem as is caused by flyers.

- Lack of balance caused by the vastly different power levels between codexes, compounded by the allies rules. It seemed like fully half of the armies in the Adepticon Championships this year were some form of Tau/Eldar mash up, with most of those including Riptides and Wraithknights. That makes for a very boring gaming scene.

- Casualties from the front

- Random charge distance. I don't have a problem with the idea, but the minimum charge distance achieved by it needs to be more than two inches.

- Being able to see through area terrain

- 25 percent coverage for cover. Its a pain... 5th edition's cover rule was much simpler.

I think that's got most of it

6th has no major flaws that 5th, 4th and 3rd didn't have, we'll put it that way. I regard it as basically being 5th edition, but a little bit better. But, there's just more people online now, hence the internet rage machine being that much louder.

It has flaws those editions did not, but those editions had some flaws 6th does not.

 insaniak wrote:
5th edition's cover rule was much simpler.

I think that's got most of it

5th edition in general was much simpler. Let's roll back to that keeping some of the things better in 6E. Having a means to assault out of non-assault transports would be splendid.

Yeah, I forgot about the whole 'no assaulting on the turn you disembark, ever' thing...

Or assault off an outflank... because having your opponent way risk vs. reward of traversing a board edge when an assault unit could spring out from surprise is totally against A) narrative forging or B) stopping those pesky gunlines.

 TheKbob wrote:
Or assault off an outflank... because having your opponent way risk vs. reward of traversing a board edge when an assault unit could spring out from surprise is totally against A) narrative forging or B) stopping those pesky gunlines.

To be fair the potential of this goes to pretty stupid levels, especially since Battle Brothers are a game-changing thing now.

-Striking Scorpions
-Raven Guard Land Raider MEQ squads
-IG blobs
-Kommando guides for something like Ghazghkull/PK Warboss (unfortunately I only ever got to try this once)
-Wolf Scouts on your back board edge, charging into your tanks from behind

I even think Ymlgarl Genestealers in the 5th Ed Codex charging immediately after materialising in terrain or whatever they were rank amongst the single dumbest things I've played against, some of the others in memory being Mindshackle Scarabs, Wave Serpents and Riptides.

Oh, you brought Devastators? Screw you, you automatically lose that unit when my Genestealers appear, or have to put them out of cover, running away every other turn.

And while I detest the play style of Gunlines, adding in a broken alternative is not how you balance it out. That's GW's level of thinking.

I find myself avoiding 40k games where I can I just don't find it fun anymore, I like running assault armies and they've taken that from me in 6th.

Vehicles were too strong in 5th and hull points was a good idea done badly, monoliths and landraiders should have 5 or 6 hull points not 4, rhinos getting poped easy is fine it's a ox on treads but heavier vehicles like dreads and true tanks are not worth taking they die way too easy.

And I hate the whole DLC thing gw is doing now, they are killing the game.

I'm happier playing x-wing and battletech.

 insaniak wrote:
Yeah, I forgot about the whole 'no assaulting on the turn you disembark, ever' thing...

Because having every single assault army load itself into cheap transports, then drive up, pop smoke, disembark and charge, every single game, was a barrel of fun? Honestly I do think the pendulum has swung too far the other way - assault is way too nerfed in this edition - but this change in particular is one, imo, for the better.

KommissarKarl wrote:
6th has no major flaws that 5th, 4th and 3rd didn't have, we'll put it that way. I regard it as basically being 5th edition, but a thousand times worse. But, there's just more people online now, hence the internet rage machine being that much louder.

Fixed that for you.

 Fenris Frost wrote:
This thread is quite the cry-fest.

The game is the best it has ever been in a lot of ways but people don't want to acknowledge or objectively discuss any of the mechanics because they want it back how it was when they started because 2nd/3rd/4th/5th edition was CLEARLY superior.

Yawn.

Thank you, GW employee. Your entire post is full of illogical statements that reek of bias. So codex's are not balanced against each other, only balanced amongst units in their own books, and GW has said so multiple times? OK that does nothing to change the fact that this is a terrible system, and only strengthens any complaints that the game is unbalanced. On top of this, units in their own codexes are often terribly balanced towards each other. Have you read the 6th ed CSM or the Tyranid book bro? Only person who seems to be crying or raging in this thread so far is you, that comment about the 40k customer base... Wow, you have clearly had issues with some players before.




Anyway, on to my opinions on 6th - special rules are great and mean we have more than just unit that takes heavy weapon, unit that took a flames, unit that took CC, etc, it keeps unique and adds more to strategy. I also love AV and thinks its a great mechanic. I also like random chance, it helps counter min maxing among a bunch of other good things, as fenris frost actually quite accurately said IMO.

Things that need to be fixed IMO, is assault. I don't even think the combat table needs to be changed, cc units will still have the upper hand while denying shooting even if the roll differences aren't that pronounced, I think there needs to be better ways to make it to combat, be it vehicles or assaulting from reserves I don't know. Over watch is also stupid and fits the "changes for the sake of changes" category. Losing imitative based on cover is slowed as well.

Also,the amount of ignore cover out there is stupid. Design flaws like the amount of Low AP I could see happening accidently, but is also one of the bad things about 40k. The ignore cover one however is incredibly short sighted and tears holes through the fabric of game design. AP 2-3 should be few and far in between.

I think 6th is good but is critically in need of balancing fixes. It's undeniably and largely skewed towards shooting, a little skewed either way is fine but it's way too off the mark at the moment. Both shooting , armour, and assault needs fixing tho.

KommissarKarl wrote:

Because having every single assault army load itself into cheap transports, then drive up, pop smoke, disembark and charge, every single game, was a barrel of fun?

Where did I say that?

KommissarKarl wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Yeah, I forgot about the whole 'no assaulting on the turn you disembark, ever' thing...

Because having every single assault army load itself into cheap transports, then drive up, pop smoke, disembark and charge, every single game, was a barrel of fun? Honestly I do think the pendulum has swung too far the other way - assault is way too nerfed in this edition - but this change in particular is one, imo, for the better.

I'll agree with you on that being horrid in 3rd but I don't really remembering it being all that big during 5th. Maybe it was for a time but vehicles overtook it? Apologies. I could have sworn that last edition you could disembark out of a vehicle if it didn't move that turn and still assault (the removal of scoring whilst in a vehicle I personally think was a good idea)

Yeah, the 3rd Ed rhino rush was a little ridiculous, but being able to assault out of a stationary transport was fine.

I'd just like to see a release that didn't make me imagine GWs board sitting back and saying "let's see if those idiots will swallow THIS!"

I miss enjoying this game. I have hopes that someone else will buy GW and run it like a good business. Slim hopes, but hope nonetheless.

Until then it's Infinity or Firestorm Armada for me!

 Fenris Frost wrote:
This happens to deal with things people min-max, and it is a good way of including mechanics that do not need to be balanced against each other as tightly. Psychic powers are wildly different from each other and to balance them, they would have to be "equal"...making what we've had for two editions now, some powers way too good and other ones too crappy. The psychic powers are able to be a lot more spread out in terms of power level if you don't have the choice of which to have all the time (incidentally, kiss your Prescience goodbye come 7th, netlisters ). Generally this is a sensible design decision -- otherwise the definite best powers are all that ever get used and the Psyker HQs become way better than their counterparts because they always get an awesome ability that outclasses the other HQ's. I know, I know "they should make them equally valuable" well I'm sorry we're going to have to come to terms with the fact that a guy shouting out an order or holding a banner is going to need to be less useful than a guy warping reality so he can move faster than time and space is.

The thing is, this isn't a sensible design decision at all, because it means that your psyker varies wildly in power level from game to game with no corresponding variance in points cost. And in an edition that is so heavily focussed on narrative gaming, the idea that your Chief Librarian doesn't know how to use the same powers from one battle to the next is a little... peculiar.

The sensible way to balance it would have been to just have points costs for psychic powers as we do for weapon and wargear upgrades.

You bring this, the single most strategic aspect of gameplay in 6th edition, up right after saying the game has no genuine strategy? Point taken... Also in virtually every shooting situation and most assault situations, wound allocation is fast and easy now, compared to a min-maxing nightmare of weirdness last edition. This is a HUGE step forward, probably the best change of the edition as it makes so much more of gameplay fast and intuitive, AND adds strategic depth. Stop putting your HQ on the edge of your squads.

Yup, fast and easy... unless you have a character in the squad, at which point you're rolling saves one at a time because of Look Out Sir.

And again, in a game focussed so heavily on narrative, why can't other squadmembers pick up the melta gun or the standard when the guy carrying it dies (which was one of the reasons given in previous editions for being able to choose casualties yourself)?

When was the last serious need for an FAQ?

When was the last codex released?

This cesspool? If I were them I wouldn't spend money on this venomous, arrogant fanbase getting support either. 40k players are among the most disdainful I've ever encountered in tabletop gaming, so much so that I started my own club almost entirely as a refuge against people who play this game but hate it, and have been successful because of that. That shouldn't be a thing that happens.

It's always interesting that people are so willing to judge the 40K community based on their behaviour towards Games Workshop without ever looking at just why it is that way to begin with. There are all these other companies out there that manage to engage with their communities without anything like the level of complaint that gets thrown at GW... but that has to be something the community is doing wrong? There's no chance in your mind that the attitude of the community towards Games Workshop is a reaction to something GW have done?

This bit is mind-boggling to me. 6th Edition wound allocation is fast and easy in the majority of cases, almost intuitively so. I teach new players a lot and have seen people learn literally by saying only the words "It's the closest guy first" and being done with it. Actling like 5E needed a minor tweak is ridiculous, and the guys saying we should just pick who dies is even more ridiculous because it doesn't acknowledge the fact that there needs to be a way for us to intuitively and quickly threaten a unit's best models with strategic approaches and tactical skill. It makes it EASIER to remove casualties for a large unit, not harder. It was also revolutionary in that it made the positioning of important models matter more than ever before. How was this "change for the sake of change" when it is probably the source of almost all the on-the-table strategy? It's made model placement second in important only to list building, IMO.

It's a focus issue, more than anything. What Allessio largely did right with 5th edition was in realising that for the size the game had become, focussing on individual models just slows the game down. With a few exceptions (like wound allocation in mixed wargear units) 5th edition largely focussed on the unit level, rather than the individual model.

Then 6th ed came along, and rather than continue in that vein, it took a huge step backwards and made infividuals within the unit important again, despite the push once again for bigger and bigger games.

The individual placement of models within the unit shouldn't matter for this size game. You want quick and easy wound allocation? Just allow the owning player to remove models, and leave in the old Torrent of Fire rule and Precision Shots to allow the attacker to choose a casualty in specific situations. Then you avoid the old multi-wound wound allocations by requiring the player to place wounds on already wounded models first. Done. No more rolling 30 saves one at a time.

Practically everything is random? The terrain, psychic powers, and the charge range is random. Most of which were good changes as I've already described (the terrain changed because the same reason the psychic powers were, because we as players always min-max and you can't (really) min-max random things.

The new terrain rules I mostly like, although they can have some fairly significant effects on a game... I 'won' a game at Adepticon this year pretty much entirely as a result of the forests on the board causing my opponent to wipe out half of his own army...

But the combination of random charge range meaning you need to be within 2" of an enemy unit to guarantee an assault, combined with Overwatch and removing casualties from the front is just painful.

6th is the version with the least stupid immersion breaking meta-gamey crap going on...

6th is the version where apparently the narrative is what matters... and yet you can run an army of Eldar allied with Tau with an Inquisitor and an Imperial Knight tagged along for company...

Everything Insaniak said was spot on. 40k operates like a small skirmish game even though the sizes keep getting larger and larger and it's being pushed for large scale battles. For all the cries of "forge the narrative" the rules are as loose as can be and allow for insane combinations that, if some were to be believed, each player is meant to reel in instead of letting the rules do that.

40k really only has the lore going for it, and technically the quality of the figures but IMO there's too much quality for a 28mm figure and most of it gets lost in the shuffle or is just a pain in the behind to paint; there's zero reason an average grunt should have a crazy level of detail, especially not at 28mm. The rules fail from both a casual and competitive standpoint and the less said about GW's absolutely antithetical business practices compared to virtually every other large company now and throughout history the better.

And don't forget your ancient Eldar psykers whom have lived for centuries honing and controlling their powers, along with the Inquisitor that is likely a psyker and has been restricting himself as to not have his mind nommed by chaos all suddenly forget their tactical genius until the game begins along with not remembering what spells they know until they hcarge into the game. So narrative.

To be fair the potential of this goes to pretty stupid levels, especially since Battle Brothers are a game-changing thing now.

-Striking Scorpions
-Raven Guard Land Raider MEQ squads
-IG blobs
-Kommando guides for something like Ghazghkull/PK Warboss (unfortunately I only ever got to try this once)
-Wolf Scouts on your back board edge, charging into your tanks from behind

I even think Ymlgarl Genestealers in the 5th Ed Codex charging immediately after materialising in terrain or whatever they were rank amongst the single dumbest things I've played against, some of the others in memory being Mindshackle Scarabs, Wave Serpents and Riptides.

Oh, you brought Devastators? Screw you, you automatically lose that unit when my Genestealers appear, or have to put them out of cover, running away every other turn.

And while I detest the play style of Gunlines, adding in a broken alternative is not how you balance it out. That's GW's level of thinking.

I am going to second this. Assault is definitely underpowered and needs a boost, but I think the game should steer clear of any rule that takes a unit directly from reserves into assault. That just flips to current situation on its head, currently we have assault units that get shot to death before ever reach assault, reserves to assault would mean shooting units would get assaulting without ever having the chance to shoot back or even evade the assaulting unit (except for overwatch/interceptor, but I would prefer these rules were eliminated and just have ranged units fight assault units in the normal course of play). I think one of the best solutions in to restore LOS denial tactics by changing the LOS rules, that way it is possible to get assault units into assault intact by outmaneuvering the opponent, rather than having the assault unit magically show up out of nowhere to carry out the assault.

I think that very limited cases of "on board to assault" would be ok if over-watch continues to be a thing. Stuff like old school Ymgarls, deep striking death company, and other elite units could get a USR that lets them assault the turn they enter play. I would be perfectly fine with this. You pay a lot of points for an elite melee beatstick with a delivery mechanism. You deserve to have it delete an opposing unit before it gets wiped away.

What I don't want is to go back to the days when my Tau sat terrified in the middle foot of the table because my opponent's all outflanking genestealer army could charge in and eat everything forever and I couldn't do anything about it...and then the Doom came down.

I am currently wondering how this would combo with being able to consolidate into an assault. Maybe quite terrifying, but again I think I would be ok with it if the assault was not fought until the next assault phase (no, 3rd edition will not happen again darn it!). If you put your units within consolidate range then that's your own dang fault.

 dementedwombat wrote:
I think that very limited cases of "on board to assault" would be ok if over-watch continues to be a thing. Stuff like old school Ymgarls, deep striking death company, and other elite units could get a USR that lets them assault the turn they enter play. I would be perfectly fine with this. You pay a lot of points for an elite melee beatstick with a delivery mechanism. You deserve to have it delete an opposing unit before it gets wiped away.

What I don't want is to go back to the days when my Tau sat terrified in the middle foot of the table because my opponent's all outflanking genestealer army could charge in and eat everything forever and I couldn't do anything about it...and then the Doom came down.

I am currently wondering how this would combo with being able to consolidate into an assault. Maybe quite terrifying, but again I think I would be ok with it if the assault was not fought until the next assault phase (no, 3rd edition will not happen again darn it!). If you put your units within consolidate range then that's your own dang fault.

Honestly I sometimes just wish that sweeping advance would become more of a extra slaughter. Basically you either escape or you lose additional units. That way it wouldn't be as dramatically terrible if such things were added in. Perhaps I am thinking wrong on this though. I really can't quite say.