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.

 Jambles wrote:
The day he was always waiting for...

Spoiler:

Yep, this is a big boost for transport-based assault armies. The idea of having the trukks hit the lines first, then the boyz on the following turn? Now that's good stuff.

Indeed, my custom Sgt Chronos tank commander is very happy indeed

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:
So with the info released about movement, and with all the info about how much shooting has been buffed, any unit in the game can now disengage while the rest of the army can now shred the enemy CC unit to diced confetti.

RIP CC armies.

Diengaging keeps e unit that backed up from shooting unless they have a special rule that let's them (like Fly or Walking Battleship).

If you read my post, I stated 'the rest of the army can now shred the enemy CC unit'.

I couldn't care less about my guardsmen not getting to shoot the unit they disengaged from, when the rest of the army is fully capable of doing so, unless the rules says the CC unit you disengaged from is immune. I'm quite surprised at why this isn't fully obvious to people.

It's been mentioned before, but I would expect there to be some CC units which can disengage and move away after making their attacks.

Also, not sure how this situation is different to now where if a CC unit wipes out a unit they're locked in combat with they're vulnerable.

You should rather be asking why are you comparing those things? One scenario is about overkill, the other is about units being well and alive who just goes like "nope!", walks away almost AoS style out of combat and almost completely negatives all the downsides about being in CC and robs you of the safety of being in CC, which is a safety almost anyone who plays a CC army plans for.

 Deadshot wrote:
I' a few pages behind but to address this, it did matter about where he was standing. See, when he stood an inch (or several meters in scale) to the right, he was firing at the side armour with a very steep angle, meaning the force of the round was not being applied perpendicular to the armour, but rather, closer to parrallel, so much force is lost. Step several meters (an inch) to the right and now you can fire at the vehicle closer to "face on" and apply much more force in the direction you need it to go, which is through the armour and into the (fuel cell, ammo, passenger, etc).

No, I meant an actual inch in scale. On the tabletop the weapon might even be pointing at the very same spot of the vehicle without a visual difference in angle. You cross a magic line by a hair and suddenly the chimera folds like paper instead of having the tough armor of battle tanks.

Over the course of the last three editions I have experienced dozens of discussions about an sixteenth of an inch about whether that one guy holding the melta gun was in the vulnerable ark of a vehicle or not.
I have experienced multiple players cheating during their deep strike deployment, while disembarking from a transport, even nudging models 'accidentally' while they thought no one is looking just to get into the "right" facing.

In addition, what's so vulnerable about there rear part of a battlewagon? There is nothing there that couldn't be accessed better from the side, in some configurations there is literally nothing to shoot there at all except for the armored part of the tracks and an exhaust pipe.

The rule is just as unrealistic as the new implementation - except it is terribly written and thus does not work at all in actual games. And please draw that diagram for a wave serpent, a battlewagon with deff rolla and a soul grinder, put it on YMDC and see if anybody disagrees.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:
So with the info released about movement, and with all the info about how much shooting has been buffed, any unit in the game can now disengage while the rest of the army can now shred the enemy CC unit to diced confetti.

RIP CC armies.

Diengaging keeps e unit that backed up from shooting unless they have a special rule that let's them (like Fly or Walking Battleship).

If you read my post, I stated 'the rest of the army can now shred the enemy CC unit'.

I couldn't care less about my guardsmen not getting to shoot the unit they disengaged from, when the rest of the army is fully capable of doing so, unless the rules says the CC unit you disengaged from is immune. I'm quite surprised at why this isn't fully obvious to people.

If the only target worth shooting at is a single close combat unit, then your opponent has more problems than you shooting at them.

That strawman is almost on a fascinating level.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Yonasu wrote:
If charging out of rhinos is possible you can bring your little rhino pet into the melee to help you punch stuff. I see no rule saying you cant ride it into battle as well, so why not have rhino saddles?

No seriously how is this immersive at all? It's just dumb.. And if you get stuck in combat with a rhino and have to leave fight and cant shoot? Cmon...

Yes, because the fact that tank shock makes more sense is stupid. The fact that your tank can run people over while they try to stick grenades toit is stupid. Because running people over as a moving wall of metal to support the squishier elements who need to get into combat is stupid. Because adding new tactical options that make assaulting stronger is stupid. Because making wargear like the Rockgrinder and Deff Rolla is stupid.

Because making the game more balanced, more tactically interesting and making transports more important than just a temporary bunker is totally stupid, right?

Just because you have some kind of weird dislike for the game making things work in a way that makes the game better doesn't make it bad. A rhino leading a charge for a squad of Marines is no different than a Carnifex leading one for Hormagaunts. It's sound tactics to use somethhing durable to take punishment and lock up an enemy umit so a squishier unit can get locked in.

Dude are you drunk? what the hell are you even talking about?
It's a miniature game mechanic that i dont feel represent the game world. How hard is that to handle? Did GW cure cancer and saved your granny so that now you cant even conceive of anything they do can be criticized?
And YES, it's really dumb that you bring your APC into combat with you trying to nudge the infantry to death. In every battle every time (which will happen)
Hell you have the rhino charging first to eat the overwatch, its gonna be silly.
But nah i guess you play with pine cones and just worry about stats right?

 Jambles wrote:
The day he was always waiting for...

Spoiler:

Yep, this is a big boost for transport-based assault armies. The idea of having the trukks hit the lines first, then the boyz on the following turn? Now that's good stuff.

Following turn? Have the boyz hop out, run some stuff over by charging with the trukk and get the boyz in that turn.

 Zewrath wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:
So with the info released about movement, and with all the info about how much shooting has been buffed, any unit in the game can now disengage while the rest of the army can now shred the enemy CC unit to diced confetti.

RIP CC armies.

Except, you know, for that rule that wyches have that stops falling back from happening.
A rule that may quite possibly show up on other units, or variations of that rule

Right.. gakky units you don't want in CC anyway cause they are a waste of time, punch like a wet paper bag, no inv save against now unlimited overwatch, now have a chance to MAYBE remain stuck in CC. Yeah, what a buff.

You do know wyches are getting buffed, right? And you missed my point; there are ways to stop disengaging.

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:
Also want to point out that if a transport maanges to unload its close combat cargo close to an enemy and is still alive after that, it will still be able to charge a completely different target than the cargo, tie down another unit and force them to waste a turn retreating and doing nothing, likely even on the same turn as the unloading.

That's a great point, and might be a valid tactic presuming there aren't any other rules interactions we don't know about. It's an especially cool visual for things like Ork trukks, though their fragility might make them vulnerable to overwatch.

Mostly I'm excited about the possibilities this opens for a new Buggy kit. Assault buggies kitted out with melee weapons would be fantastic!

 Zewrath wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:
So with the info released about movement, and with all the info about how much shooting has been buffed, any unit in the game can now disengage while the rest of the army can now shred the enemy CC unit to diced confetti.

RIP CC armies.

Diengaging keeps e unit that backed up from shooting unless they have a special rule that let's them (like Fly or Walking Battleship).

If you read my post, I stated 'the rest of the army can now shred the enemy CC unit'.

I couldn't care less about my guardsmen not getting to shoot the unit they disengaged from, when the rest of the army is fully capable of doing so, unless the rules says the CC unit you disengaged from is immune. I'm quite surprised at why this isn't fully obvious to people.

If the only target worth shooting at is a single close combat unit, then your opponent has more problems than you shooting at them.

That strawman is almost on a fascinating level.

You mentioned that your entire army wpuldmbe able to shoot that single unit, I was poiinting outthat if the only target for an entire army is a single unit there is more going wrong for your opponent than just getting shot at.

Finally all those destroyer blades on Chaos vehicles might be worth more than just "counts-as-dozer-blade".

 Kanluwen wrote:
You know that ANYONE can fall back right?

(...)

So your argument is that, for whatever reason, you think the keyword "Fly"(which they've talked about or mentioned multiple times before the T'au article and never mentioned this ability before) allows for a unit exiting a Combat to act normally during their turn...rather than there being a bespoke rule like "Bonding Knife Ritual" that Frankie forgets to mention?

Again: if it's such a huge deal that "Fly" lets you do this, you'd think that kind of thing would have been mentioned elsewhere too. Because "Fly" is NOT a faction exclusive keyword to the T'au or their Crisis Suits.

What on Earth are you on about? Literally read the quote:

they have the Fly keyword? This allows them to Fall Back from combat and still shoot at full effect.

If "fly" was just referring to their ability to fall back there's no reason for it to be mentioned at all. If fly isn't allowing the unit to fall back and fire using "and still" is nonsensical. The sentence cannot be read in any other way at all. No, I don't think the Frankie, having explicitly called out a key word, meant that "they have the fly keyword which I'm going to mention randomly with no cause to do so, and also the can fall back and shoot normally due to another rule I'm not going to mention, also using the words 'this' as well as 'still' makes no sense at all lol". I don't even understand HOW it can be read like that. When he says "this allows", it's very painfully obvious that he's referring to the thing he just said. When he says "and still" it very clearly means that the reason they can do it is because of the thing mentioned immediately prior. It's black and white.

EDIT:
Also:

which they've talked about or mentioned multiple times before the T'au article

In which article prior to this have they ever mentioned the fly keyword?!

Warhammer 40,000 Plenty of breadcrumbs.....

Oh, ok, tomorrow's article is on Close Combat Weapons...


from facebook responses

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:
So with the info released about movement, and with all the info about how much shooting has been buffed, any unit in the game can now disengage while the rest of the army can now shred the enemy CC unit to diced confetti.

RIP CC armies.

Except, you know, for that rule that wyches have that stops falling back from happening.
A rule that may quite possibly show up on other units, or variations of that rule

Right.. gakky units you don't want in CC anyway cause they are a waste of time, punch like a wet paper bag, no inv save against now unlimited overwatch, now have a chance to MAYBE remain stuck in CC. Yeah, what a buff.

You do know wyches are getting buffed, right? And you missed my point; there are ways to stop disengaging.

You do know wyches aren't getting any buffs, right? There's a DE focused article you might wanna read, they have the same rules with inv saves that doesn't work against overwatch, logically they are still S/T3, and since initiative are dead, your not even striking first most of the time, like before.
Unless they actually make the phantasm grenade launcher work exactly like it should, no overwatch (same treatment their favoured eldar got with banshees), they are essentially a dead unit. We've spent the last 3 editions proving, with theorycrafting, exactly why wyches are terrible in CC so unless they get some really radical buffs and changes, they are still the same trash level.

Well, except for the part that says they are among the most improved units in the game, sure, no buffs.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:
So with the info released about movement, and with all the info about how much shooting has been buffed, any unit in the game can now disengage while the rest of the army can now shred the enemy CC unit to diced confetti.

RIP CC armies.

Diengaging keeps e unit that backed up from shooting unless they have a special rule that let's them (like Fly or Walking Battleship).

If you read my post, I stated 'the rest of the army can now shred the enemy CC unit'.

I couldn't care less about my guardsmen not getting to shoot the unit they disengaged from, when the rest of the army is fully capable of doing so, unless the rules says the CC unit you disengaged from is immune. I'm quite surprised at why this isn't fully obvious to people.

If the only target worth shooting at is a single close combat unit, then your opponent has more problems than you shooting at them.

That strawman is almost on a fascinating level.

You mentioned that your entire army wpuldmbe able to shoot that single unit, I was poiinting outthat if the only target for an entire army is a single unit there is more going wrong for your opponent than just getting shot at.

That means the rest of my army is now able to shoot it, not going to shoot it. There's a big difference there.

Eyjio wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You know that ANYONE can fall back right?

(...)

So your argument is that, for whatever reason, you think the keyword "Fly"(which they've talked about or mentioned multiple times before the T'au article and never mentioned this ability before) allows for a unit exiting a Combat to act normally during their turn...rather than there being a bespoke rule like "Bonding Knife Ritual" that Frankie forgets to mention?

Again: if it's such a huge deal that "Fly" lets you do this, you'd think that kind of thing would have been mentioned elsewhere too. Because "Fly" is NOT a faction exclusive keyword to the T'au or their Crisis Suits.

What on Earth are you on about? Literally read the quote:

they have the Fly keyword? This allows them to Fall Back from combat and still shoot at full effect.

If "fly" was just referring to their ability to fall back there's no reason for it to be mentioned at all. If fly isn't allowing the unit to fall back and fire using "and still" is nonsensical. The sentence cannot be read in any other way at all. No, I don't think the Frankie, having explicitly called out a key word, meant that "they have the fly keyword which I'm going to mention randomly with no cause to do so, and also the can fall back and shoot normally due to another rule I'm not going to mention, also using the words this as well as still make no sense at all lol". I don't even understand HOW it can be read like that. When he says "this allows", it's very painfully obvious that he's referring to the thing he just said. When he says "and still" it very clearly means that the reason they can do it is because of the thing mentioned immediately prior. It's black and white.

So, again, why was this USR keyword doing this amazing thing not mentioned anywhere else? Why wasn't it mentioned during the Dark Eldar faction focus for Scourges? For Eldar for their Jetbikes? Chaos Daemons for Princes or Tzeentchian stuff? During the Movement phase article early on?

It's not like people have been, y'know, complaining that Frankie's "Faction Focus" articles have been less than well written since the CSM one he wrote...

Really like how they are doing vehicles. I am sure there is some formula they are using to try and get the combined facings turned into Toughness.

So we have the Annihilation Barge 11/11/11 turn into T6 8 wounds 4+
Leman Russ 14/(13/12)/(11/10) Turned into T8 12 wounds 3+
Dreadnaught 12/12/10 Turned into T7 8 Wounds 3+

We also have not seen what the equivalent of the skimmer rule might be. It could just be that they gain the FLY USR which would work fine as far as I am concerned.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Well, except for the part that says they are among the most improved units in the game, sure, no buffs.

Sorry mate, have you actually read all the articles from this guy? Legit question here. According to him, everything is buffed, amazing and is now going to be awesome. Look at the changes on the LRBT battle cannon. It's literally trash now and can barely put out over 1,5 unsaved wounds on average, even against favourable targets.
Safe to say that him stating that a unit is going to be "great again" has to be taken with grains of salt.

 Leth wrote:
Really like how they are doing vehicles. I am sure there is some formula they are using to try and get the combined facings turned into Toughness.

So we have the Annihilation Barge 11/11/11 turn into T6 8 wounds 4+
Leman Russ 14/(13/12)/(11/10) Turned into T8 12 wounds 3+
Dreadnaught 12/12/10 Turned into T7 8 Wounds 3+

We also have not seen what the equivalent of the skimmer rule might be. It could just be that they gain the FLY USR which would work fine as far as I am concerned.

Could of sworn there was something about jinking adding to your armor save or something?

 Jidmah wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
I' a few pages behind but to address this, it did matter about where he was standing. See, when he stood an inch (or several meters in scale) to the right, he was firing at the side armour with a very steep angle, meaning the force of the round was not being applied perpendicular to the armour, but rather, closer to parrallel, so much force is lost. Step several meters (an inch) to the right and now you can fire at the vehicle closer to "face on" and apply much more force in the direction you need it to go, which is through the armour and into the (fuel cell, ammo, passenger, etc).

No, I meant an actual inch in scale. On the tabletop the weapon might even be pointing at the very same spot of the vehicle without a visual difference in angle. You cross a magic line by a hair and suddenly the chimera folds like paper instead of having the tough armor of battle tanks.

Over the course of the last three editions I have experienced dozens of discussions about an sixteenth of an inch about whether that one guy holding the melta gun was in the vulnerable ark of a vehicle or not.
I have experienced multiple players cheating during their deep strike deployment, while disembarking from a transport, even nudging models 'accidentally' while they thought no one is looking just to get into the "right" facing.

In addition, what's so vulnerable about there rear part of a battlewagon? There is nothing there that couldn't be accessed better from the side, in some configurations there is literally nothing to shoot there at all except for the armored part of the tracks and an exhaust pipe.

The rule is just as unrealistic as the new implementation - except it is terribly written and thus does not work at all in actual games. And please draw that diagram for a wave serpent, a battlewagon with deff rolla and a soul grinder, put it on YMDC and see if anybody disagrees.

The rules are an abstraction that requires you to assume that the 1 inch on the tabletop is enough to represent a few metres to get a proper angle on the vehicle.

The second part has 2 subparts

i) Cheating is cheating, people nudging the models are cheating and that's that. Rules expect you to follow them, not to break them. The rules are not the issue if someone breaks the rules.

ii) Spirit of the game. The developers and rules do not account for inch-tight asshats and rules lawyering, 1 millionth of an inch measurements, and general unfriendliness. It certain doesn't expect opponents to argue about whether this 0.1" puts it in the side ark or the rear arc or the front arc. In 5th, it said that if you couldn't agree, roll off or give the cover save 5+ or something (basically, just stop arguing its a game ladies). Up until now its been marketed as a beer and pretzels game with beer and pretzels solutions; Friendly disagreement and willingness to concede a slight advantage in favour of having fun, or roll off


The rear armour on tanks is lighter due to the front being the thing that is heading into enemy fire. At least, Tiger II has heavier frontal armour than rear, and GW took most of its Imperial tank design from WW1 and 2 tanks over model vehicles to add to that stagnant Grimdarkness. The rear armour is designed to represent vulnerable fuel cells, exhaust pipes and other side things. You mention an exhaust pipe on a battle wagon. Presumably belching out highly flammable fossil fuel fumes that would surely explode if someone were to launch a cascade of star-hot gas at it?


I would happily except I need pictures of all those. I've nicked a random image of a falcon from Google but not many people give a bird's eye view of battle-wagons or Soulgrinders so providence of one would be much appreciated!

 Zewrath wrote:
...your not even striking first most of the time, like before...

What you're experiencing is a fundamental misunderstanding of how close combat turn order works now. Check out the Close Combat community article then try again. Chargers strike first.

 Zewrath wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Well, except for the part that says they are among the most improved units in the game, sure, no buffs.

Sorry mate, have you actually read all the articles from this guy? Legit question here. According to him, everything is buffed, amazing and is now going to be awesome. Look at the changes on the LRBT battle cannon. It's literally trash now and can barely put out over 1,5 unsaved wounds on average, even against favourable targets.
Safe to say that him stating that a unit is going to be "great again" has to be taken with grains of salt.

Found the hyperbolist that doesn't play the game.
If the LRBT only does 1.5 wounds now (which is shoddy fething math to be sure mate), it'll be more than it has done in 3 editions. Seriously, simmer down. Your negative levels of NA are lethal.

Just a reminder that the Q&A starts in about 15 minutes...

 Zewrath wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Well, except for the part that says they are among the most improved units in the game, sure, no buffs.

Sorry mate, have you actually read all the articles from this guy? Legit question here. According to him, everything is buffed, amazing and is now going to be awesome. Look at the changes on the LRBT battle cannon. It's literally trash now and can barely put out over 1,5 unsaved wounds on average, even against favourable targets.
Safe to say that him stating that a unit is going to be "great again" has to be taken with grains of salt.

So that's the basis of your argument? "I don't trust what this guy says, therefore the rules must be gak?"
I'm assuming then you already know the new special rules, the effects of the combat drugs (if applicable. They better be in. That's like, a wych thing) and the new statline, to be so adamantly certain that he's over hyping it?
It could be that's he's exaggerating. It could also very well be that he's right.

 Zewrath wrote:
That means the rest of my army is now able to shoot it, not going to shoot it. There's a big difference there.

Point is the threat of being shot is not really a real problem.

Just because you MIGHT shoot, doesn't mean you SHOULD, WOULD or CAN actually choose to shoot that unit.

Flooding target priority has always been the defense mechanism of assault focused armies. So has hitting multiple targets at the same time. The ideal charge would have everyone of my assault units in close combat at the same time. Assuming I'm not ganging up on my targets, that'd mean for every unit I have in combat, that's one less you have to shoot with, even if you back up to shoot. If I consolidate into nearby units during my moves that'd pull even more units out of the shooting as well. And if I don't do that, certain armies (hordes basically) can wrap most units to keep them stuck in combat unless they have a movement rule that let's them hop over intervening models.

You present something that's a problem only in specific instances, and frankly I don't share your pessimism.

The game isn't even out yet and has been reworked from the ground up, but you want to insist that assault is dead because of a rule that could potentially be an issue in certain circumstances.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Eyjio wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You know that ANYONE can fall back right?

(...)

So your argument is that, for whatever reason, you think the keyword "Fly"(which they've talked about or mentioned multiple times before the T'au article and never mentioned this ability before) allows for a unit exiting a Combat to act normally during their turn...rather than there being a bespoke rule like "Bonding Knife Ritual" that Frankie forgets to mention?

Again: if it's such a huge deal that "Fly" lets you do this, you'd think that kind of thing would have been mentioned elsewhere too. Because "Fly" is NOT a faction exclusive keyword to the T'au or their Crisis Suits.

What on Earth are you on about? Literally read the quote:

they have the Fly keyword? This allows them to Fall Back from combat and still shoot at full effect.

If "fly" was just referring to their ability to fall back there's no reason for it to be mentioned at all. If fly isn't allowing the unit to fall back and fire using "and still" is nonsensical. The sentence cannot be read in any other way at all. No, I don't think the Frankie, having explicitly called out a key word, meant that "they have the fly keyword which I'm going to mention randomly with no cause to do so, and also the can fall back and shoot normally due to another rule I'm not going to mention, also using the words this as well as still make no sense at all lol". I don't even understand HOW it can be read like that. When he says "this allows", it's very painfully obvious that he's referring to the thing he just said. When he says "and still" it very clearly means that the reason they can do it is because of the thing mentioned immediately prior. It's black and white.

So, again, why was this USR keyword doing this amazing thing not mentioned anywhere else? Why wasn't it mentioned during the Dark Eldar faction focus for Scourges? For Eldar for their Jetbikes? Chaos Daemons for Princes or Tzeentchian stuff? During the Movement phase article early on?

It's not like people have been, y'know, complaining that Frankie's "Faction Focus" articles have been less than well written since the CSM one he wrote...

Well, to be fair, in those other articles, I don't think they mentioned those units in the preview (I didn't read the Chaos Daemons one, so maybe they did talk about them there). However, for Tau, they highlighted one of the more iconic units in their dex to showcase that rule. Possibly because Tau suits -don't like- being in CC. Whereas things like Scourges, DP's, Tzeentchian Daemon stuff, aren't nearly as fethed when that happens to them.

I can see both sides to the argument here, but I'm actually leaning a bit more to the side of the keyword "Fly" handing XV-8's this ability, which will very likely affect drones as well, since we can see they also have that keyword.

Yonasu wrote:
If charging out of rhinos is possible you can bring your little rhino pet into the melee to help you punch stuff. I see no rule saying you cant ride it into battle as well, so why not have rhino saddles?

I can totally see Angry Marines doing that!

FYI Live 40K FAQ in 10mins

https://www.facebook.com/WarhammerTVteam/videos/379597632435221/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED

 Jambles wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:
...your not even striking first most of the time, like before...

What you're experiencing is a fundamental misunderstanding of how close combat turn order works now. Check out the Close Combat community article then try again. Chargers strike first.

To add on to the reply: the units they don't are either dedicated close combat units (Banshees, Slaaneshi daemon units) or have special wargear to negate that (Lash Whips).

Fight Phase order is:
1. All Chargers
2. Alternating Activation for all other engaged units.

Yes, you can interrupt the first part ONCE a turn with a single unit for 2 Command Points, which could help weaken the opponent's punch, but that is hardly going to negate the charge bonus.

They're on live now on Facebook