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.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 tauist wrote:
Yeah, you need to remember than "1-2 wounds remaining" in Kill Team means the model has sustained heavy injuries already, is barely standing etc so kinda makes sense that anyone attacking them will make short work of them. When a model is down to half their wounds, they are already considered to be seriously injured.

Just returned from the local GW with my copy of Octarius. The box is heavy as sin! Metal gauge is actually quite decent looking IRL, wouldn't mind getting another one of those..

Well the same half dead dude dodges krak missles just as well as if he were at full health tho.

Avoiding missiles by the virtue of lying half dead in a ditch is quite a bit easier than avoiding the dude standing on top of you with a stabby implement of violence in the same ditch when you are already weak. They are also slowed down and less able to relocate from under the fire when injured.

In the abstract, I like the dynamic that brings to the table in conjunction with the attrition heavy melee in general. You are encouraged to have a firefight that weakens targets which can then be dealt with a decisive charge. Full melee is mostly suicidal because you cannot easily escape being hurt yourself if there's no softening beforehand and going full shooting is in turn penalised by lacking the proper means for this swift breakthrough.

I REALLY wanted to like the new Kill Team system, as it would have been an excuse for me to throw a bit of money at GW for a few boxes of 40k models... but man, I couldn't even impulse buy the stuff for it after reading through downloaded rulebook PDFs, watching battle reports, and learning more about the system itself.

It really just feels like the rules writers just grabbed a bunch of stuff from Warcry, Star Wars: Legion, and Infinity without much understanding why those rules work in those systems.

The Kill Team construction is a huge missed opportunity, and the campaign system looks awful in comparison to the Soroth Kor campaign from Warcry... which isn't a 100% fair comparison since that was in the Tome Of Champions 2020 book, and before that Warcry campaigns really didn't interest me.

O give GW a lot of flak, but man I really wanted to love this release. Probably going to give the system a year or two to see if it even survives before I buy anything specifically for it. In the mean time, thankfully Stargrave has been a solid release for my gaming group.

I haven't found any real netlists yet but I'll be very interested to see whether toolbox or raw power is the way to go. I kinda imagine Dark Eldar might be real good with Lethal 5+ spam.

Honestly I think people are sleeping on Eldar. Especially with the tricks they can pull.

Harlequins though just seem quite mean at the moment along with Custodes.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Honestly I think people are sleeping on Eldar. Especially with the tricks they can pull.

Harlequins though just seem quite mean at the moment along with Custodes.

Custodes aren't nearly as scary as they seem in terms of playing the game. The Sisters of Silence are weaker than space marines in terms of defensive power, so they go down quick, and the custodes themselves can be chipped away at, especially in melee if you have the initiative. I can definitely see a Custodes going down to several charges from things like hormagaunts and cultists, and once one custodes is down, the other just won't be able to cap the objectives that it needs to to win the game.

IMO, Tyranid Warriors are much scarier, since they have lots of wounds as well, and can take a larger variety of weapons.

Good points. I can see the Golden Bois having a hard time against a Tyranid + gaunt spam team

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Honestly I think people are sleeping on Eldar. Especially with the tricks they can pull.

Harlequins though just seem quite mean at the moment along with Custodes.

Mean is right - run in teams of 8, sold in boxes of 6!

I have some of those RT era metal harlies lying around.. could the old models still be used for KT2? Are the weapon loadouts too different these days?

 tauist wrote:
I have some of those RT era metal harlies lying around.. could the old models still be used for KT2? Are the weapon loadouts too different these days?

Sure they can. It's pistols, swords and kisses all around, as in the olden days.

My LGS only received part of their order, Fedex/UPS fault. 22 Kill team boxes. 7 Compendiums. A bunch of sad people at the store today.

I was hoping to actually get to test the seemingly lackluster marine teams today. But since no one had the rules.

Even when I try to give GW a chance Murphy's Law itself steps in to stop me.

Played it yesterday. It was really fun. I had Tau and my opponent was DG. Since the beginning I though it would be an uphill battle to deal with so many 5+++ and Marines with 12 wounds... but in the end, the Tau firepower managed to deal with it quite well. I was on the verge of being tabled by the end of turning point 4 (made some movement mistakes), but I had way more points.

I seriously recommend people giving it a go!

My only 3 pet peeves are: the LoS rules could be reworked a bit to make them more concise, the pentagon REALLY should've been a hexagon (the guy that taught us the game yesterday kept calling the pentagon a 'hexagon' because, well... 6 inches = six sides, right?) and we completely forgot about the Injured thing - I don't think it was a necessary addition to the game.

SamusDrake wrote:
Putting aside crap list building and scandalous price for a moment...its alright. Infinite range for most ranged weapons is a definite improvement, along with cover and movement.

For £30, though, I'd expect to see a lot more game for the money such as alien beasts and a solo/coop feature for open play. A few factions to get started should be in there. In its current form it should have been a bundle with the essentials kit for £35.

The "launch box" is welcome enough, but not to the point where they bang on about it solid for three weeks. Its mainly aimed at Ork players( shout out to you, you magnificent people ) with some very niche Imperial Guard chaps who...sorry, but they ain't much to get excited about apart from...a friggin spade? Every other player has had nothing to be excited about apart from "expect new models once in a while" and a disgustingly high price tag for the rules and compendium.

Sadly, it has not been worth the wait and for now a hard pass.

FYI, someone on Reddit just posted their solo play rules
https://www.reddit.com/r/killteam/comments/pe9708/for_those_of_us_without_a_playgroup_or_busy/




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vector Strike wrote:
Played it yesterday. It was really fun. I had Tau and my opponent was DG. Since the beginning I though it would be an uphill battle to deal with so many 5+++ and Marines with 12 wounds... but in the end, the Tau firepower managed to deal with it quite well. I was on the verge of being tabled by the end of turning point 4 (made some movement mistakes), but I had way more points.

I seriously recommend people giving it a go!

My only 3 pet peeves are: the LoS rules could be reworked a bit to make them more concise, the pentagon REALLY should've been a hexagon (the guy that taught us the game yesterday kept calling the pentagon a 'hexagon' because, well... 6 inches = six sides, right?) and we completely forgot about the Injured thing - I don't think it was a necessary addition to the game.

I really recommend forgetting the shapes and just think of them as colours. Easier for my head to wrap around than shapes which dont make sense to the actual values. Black, White, Blue, Red.. much easier IMO

 tauist wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
Putting aside crap list building and scandalous price for a moment...its alright. Infinite range for most ranged weapons is a definite improvement, along with cover and movement.

For £30, though, I'd expect to see a lot more game for the money such as alien beasts and a solo/coop feature for open play. A few factions to get started should be in there. In its current form it should have been a bundle with the essentials kit for £35.

The "launch box" is welcome enough, but not to the point where they bang on about it solid for three weeks. Its mainly aimed at Ork players( shout out to you, you magnificent people ) with some very niche Imperial Guard chaps who...sorry, but they ain't much to get excited about apart from...a friggin spade? Every other player has had nothing to be excited about apart from "expect new models once in a while" and a disgustingly high price tag for the rules and compendium.

Sadly, it has not been worth the wait and for now a hard pass.

FYI, someone on Reddit just posted their solo play rules
https://www.reddit.com/r/killteam/comments/pe9708/for_those_of_us_without_a_playgroup_or_busy/




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vector Strike wrote:
Played it yesterday. It was really fun. I had Tau and my opponent was DG. Since the beginning I though it would be an uphill battle to deal with so many 5+++ and Marines with 12 wounds... but in the end, the Tau firepower managed to deal with it quite well. I was on the verge of being tabled by the end of turning point 4 (made some movement mistakes), but I had way more points.

I seriously recommend people giving it a go!

My only 3 pet peeves are: the LoS rules could be reworked a bit to make them more concise, the pentagon REALLY should've been a hexagon (the guy that taught us the game yesterday kept calling the pentagon a 'hexagon' because, well... 6 inches = six sides, right?) and we completely forgot about the Injured thing - I don't think it was a necessary addition to the game.

I really recommend forgetting the shapes and just think of them as colours. Easier for my head to wrap around than shapes which dont make sense to the actual values. Black, White, Blue, Red.. much easier IMO

I have heard it was originally just colours, until someone pointed out that they'd be shipping a unpainted grey plastic ruler and that colours would be open to abuse/cause problems with colour blind players, etc, and the shapes were a later addition to the system

drbored wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
It's intended to be its own system, but the primary market goal is absolutely 'to have a game present that people can play with warhammer 40,000 miniatures that only requires the purchase of 1-2 kits'.

If the 'meta' build for any given army requires a build that makes a person who bought 1 kit just almost always lose vs a person who bought 3-4 kits or who ebays a bunch of extra pieces, that is a failure of the system in GW's eyes (See: a million guardsmen with plasma guns.)

Ironically, that's a win in GW's eyes in terms of business perspective. Getting people to buy more kits to fill out more slots when a person only needs 1 model out of each kit is fantastic. That player might even be more likely to build the rest of the kit and have a 500 point force of something to play for 40k.

It's a failure in the Community's eyes, however, and to the 'skirmish wargaming' ethos of low investment need for your gaming fun.

I see people make this mistake a lot, in that they assume that GW's audience has achieved market saturation and is loyal enough that they won't leave, either. In reality, the "win" from GW's business perspective should consider whether a given decision grows or shrinks their market of active players who buy products, and weighs that against how much the decision in question promotes buying new products (and the price at which they're bought).

Very clearly, GW wasn't happy with KT18's performance in expanding their customer base with a skirmish product that could get new people into their IP and buying their models at all. Yes, they were able to use it to milk the whales they already had into buying 5-6 kits per new faction they wanted to take up, but the KT21 model is clearly pitched at making people more willing to build additional factions and convert board gamers and skirmish gamers from competing games over to GW customers. The bet is that the 2 boxes or so they buy per team (or boxed sets) from a bunch of new players will bring in more profit than a smaller market buying 5 boxes a player.

And quite honestly, playing the new product, I think it's likely to prove out. KT21 definitely competes favorably in tactical interest and game flow with other skirmish games that I've played, like X-Wing Minis, Malifaux, WWX, and so on, despite the simpler intra-roster diversity of the Compendium lists.

 Vector Strike wrote:
... and we completely forgot about the Injured thing - I don't think it was a necessary addition to the game.

Whoops, we did too!

 tauist wrote:
I have some of those RT era metal harlies lying around.. could the old models still be used for KT2? Are the weapon loadouts too different these days?

I run 'em in 40k.

Powerfist = Harlequin's Caress.
Hand Flamer = melta pistol

otherwise, basically, you're done.

Kaffis wrote:

drbored wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
It's intended to be its own system, but the primary market goal is absolutely 'to have a game present that people can play with warhammer 40,000 miniatures that only requires the purchase of 1-2 kits'.

If the 'meta' build for any given army requires a build that makes a person who bought 1 kit just almost always lose vs a person who bought 3-4 kits or who ebays a bunch of extra pieces, that is a failure of the system in GW's eyes (See: a million guardsmen with plasma guns.)

Ironically, that's a win in GW's eyes in terms of business perspective. Getting people to buy more kits to fill out more slots when a person only needs 1 model out of each kit is fantastic. That player might even be more likely to build the rest of the kit and have a 500 point force of something to play for 40k.

It's a failure in the Community's eyes, however, and to the 'skirmish wargaming' ethos of low investment need for your gaming fun.

I see people make this mistake a lot, in that they assume that GW's audience has achieved market saturation and is loyal enough that they won't leave, either. In reality, the "win" from GW's business perspective should consider whether a given decision grows or shrinks their market of active players who buy products, and weighs that against how much the decision in question promotes buying new products (and the price at which they're bought).

Very clearly, GW wasn't happy with KT18's performance in expanding their customer base with a skirmish product that could get new people into their IP and buying their models at all. Yes, they were able to use it to milk the whales they already had into buying 5-6 kits per new faction they wanted to take up, but the KT21 model is clearly pitched at making people more willing to build additional factions and convert board gamers and skirmish gamers from competing games over to GW customers. The bet is that the 2 boxes or so they buy per team (or boxed sets) from a bunch of new players will bring in more profit than a smaller market buying 5 boxes a player.

And quite honestly, playing the new product, I think it's likely to prove out. KT21 definitely competes favorably in tactical interest and game flow with other skirmish games that I've played, like X-Wing Minis, Malifaux, WWX, and so on, despite the simpler intra-roster diversity of the Compendium lists.

This is exactly my hope. The bad press and toxicity of some of the community isn't able to suppress the reality: the new KT 21 is actually a good game, and it's likely to expand into more things in the future.

One measure of GW's ethos that I think people don't understand is that they CAN'T release EVERYTHING all at once.

Let's say, for example, they decide to update the Firstborn Space Marines, get them all into new plastic, redo any leftover resin or pewter kits, update any of the oldest kits in the range, etc. It is much more likely that they'd split that sort of project into 3 waves, spread across a few years. Let's take, for example, the old Scout Marine and Terminator kits. Kits, that, by a few different measures, are old enough to be updated by now, especially since the models are out of scale at the very least.

In the community's mind, both kits should be updated immediately, to get it over with instead of dragging it out. In GW's mind, better to update one kit, let's say the Scouts, and then leave the other kit to update later. This spreads the profits out and keeps people engaged. If they release everything at once, they'll A. have nothing else to release in that faction for a longer period of time and B. have to make a larger investment in design, time, and warehouse space for such a large thing. This is why we saw the Lumineth come out in larger waves over a larger spread of time. This is why no faction is ever 'complete', as there will always be room to add in new things to the various factions.

Similarly, they applied this method to the Kill Team release. The community has been loud and clear: having to buy the Compendium to play with bland rules is not the way they'd prefer to play the game. Many players would much rather have all of the special rules available for their specific faction, right out the gate. But what does this do? If GW were to do that, then people would have nothing to look forward to, the game would be 'complete' with little else to add. This is why KT18 released expansions for Commanders and Elites, instead of having everything right at the start.

Is this a 'good' thing? Well, if you're a player, no, of course it isn't. You want to play with all of your toys right away, with all of the flavorful options that you'd expect or feel entitled to based on past releases. For the company, however, it's a necessary evil. Time and time again, the DLC method of releases, spreading profits over longer periods of time, is HOW IT'S DONE. Meeting shareholder expectations, having a reliable source of income, being able to control profits quarter to quarter to make sure they don't screw themselves over in any particular quarter or in any particular year (the amount of importance on Year-to-Date and Quarter earnings, especially in comparison to the previous year is stunningly important to most international companies), are all things that the company has to consider in order to keep their business running smoothly and without hiccups. Hiccups, even something as simple as failing to meet a quarter profit margin by 0.5%, is enough to cause shareholders to shift their interest elsewhere, especially in this volatile time.

So, as in many things these days, you've got a community that's hungry for more content but the company is drip-feeding that content. This practice, and the community's response to it, is what could kill a game despite the game having a good playing system, even if it's with simpler 'index' style rules.

And at the end of the day, you gotta ask yourself: What would you rather have? A relatively predictable string of releases? Or a completely unhinged practice of dumping more content than your wallet can handle, followed by long stretches of silence?

Having, a number fully fleshed out factions at launch isn't more than my wallet can handle because I'm still going to just buy 1, but I'm a lot less likely to buy into a game in the first place if all it can offer is starter box duels instead of a healty and diverse metagame (looking at you, every specialist game). Having me not play, or play using bare bones get-you-by rules and wondering if my faction will even see a release during the lifespan of a game (or an edition of a main game) isn't what I'd call "keeping me engaged".

There's a flockton of stuff GW could add to KT2, even without introducing any new models whatsoever. The only justification for not releasing more rules & datasheets for the game that I can reasonably accept is that GW needs to see how the community takes the initial content, and what happens when a meta settles in. If they are releasing stuff periodically instead of everything at once, it gives them a chance to react/tweak new rules content based on the performance of the earlier stuff.

You can alredy see some meta forming for the game on Reddit, for example. Certain Tac Ops & team builds becoming auto-take etc

 tauist wrote:
There's a flockton of stuff GW could add to KT2, even without introducing any new models whatsoever. The only justification for not releasing more rules & datasheets for the game that I can reasonably accept is that GW needs to see how the community takes the initial content, and what happens when a meta settles in. If they are releasing stuff periodically instead of everything at once, it gives them a chance to react/tweak new rules content based on the performance of the earlier stuff.

You can alredy see some meta forming for the game on Reddit, for example. Certain Tac Ops & team builds becoming auto-take etc

I think a lot of this is true and is part of the reaction to the failure of Apocalypse. They went ahead and released pretty much everything out the gate and didn't do much else with the game and it ended up collapsing in on itself. Which is sad because it was a great system. I think the way to go is to drip feed and adjust as time goes on to nurture the game and make sure it stays relevant and fresh in the players minds. Does this suck for us? Yes it does. I can at least comprehend this line of thought since they are a company that needs to make money.

 generalchaos34 wrote:

 tauist wrote:
There's a flockton of stuff GW could add to KT2, even without introducing any new models whatsoever. The only justification for not releasing more rules & datasheets for the game that I can reasonably accept is that GW needs to see how the community takes the initial content, and what happens when a meta settles in. If they are releasing stuff periodically instead of everything at once, it gives them a chance to react/tweak new rules content based on the performance of the earlier stuff.

You can alredy see some meta forming for the game on Reddit, for example. Certain Tac Ops & team builds becoming auto-take etc

I think a lot of this is true and is part of the reaction to the failure of Apocalypse. They went ahead and released pretty much everything out the gate and didn't do much else with the game and it ended up collapsing in on itself. Which is sad because it was a great system. I think the way to go is to drip feed and adjust as time goes on to nurture the game and make sure it stays relevant and fresh in the players minds. Does this suck for us? Yes it does. I can at least comprehend this line of thought since they are a company that needs to make money.

This ^

Sadly, the definition of 'support' for a game is to keep coming out with things. One-and-done games tend to not go very far, even if the content that they have is humongous.

KT21 isn't a good game. You and others may enjoy playing, and that's fine. But it is not a well-written, coherent ruleset with a clear vision.

When the game was announced, I crossed my fingers that it would provide a solid skirmish experience- customizability, more granular rules, more stuff to do during an activation, etc. Some of that is there- kinda. As usual, GW had some good ideas buried in there and botched the execution. Why play Kill Team when Malifaux and Infinity exist? All KT has going for it is being "Warhammer 40,000."

Could a veteran of the old kill team explain to me what the weaknesses of the old ruleset were?
Only having played the new kill team and just having read the rules of the old kill team...the old system at least appears to be way more interesting.

Tiberias wrote:
Could a veteran of the old kill team explain to me what the weaknesses of the old ruleset were?
Only having played the new kill team and just having read the rules of the old kill team...the old system at least appears to be way more interesting.

The scout and morale phases could have been better, but otherwise well regarded and the saving grace of 8th edition. Save for one or two models( sometimes felt guilty taking a Lictor ) it was well balanced. Not a perfect game, but it was a solid skirmish ruleset for 40K - without the need for 40K itself.

If you do go for KT'18 then try and stick to the core manual where possible. The additional expansions are very mixed in what they bought to the game, but the 2019 annual was pretty decent, along with a copy of Blackstone Fortress( and the WD rules for indoor combat ).

Not a veteran myself, but the main difference to the new one for me is that you rolled a lot of dice that never amounted to anything. The new rules seem to take reducing the luck factor by giving models 10 wounds instead of 1 but in return making wounding them much more likely.

I thought KT18 was a decent game, if the new edition wouldn't have came out I would still be playing it. But I must admit that KT2 seems to be even better than the old one, I like the 100% AA aspect and the Concealed/Engaged order paradigm.

 generalchaos34 wrote:
I think a lot of this is true and is part of the reaction to the failure of Apocalypse. They went ahead and released pretty much everything out the gate and didn't do much else with the game and it ended up collapsing in on itself. Which is sad because it was a great system. I think the way to go is to drip feed and adjust as time goes on to nurture the game and make sure it stays relevant and fresh in the players minds. Does this suck for us? Yes it does. I can at least comprehend this line of thought since they are a company that needs to make money.

To me Apoc was awful. I love big games. I have a big collection. I love Epic more than any other GW game. Apoc was dire. A big sprawling mass of very similar units. My Chimeras were the same survivability (bar the extra level of cards GW uses as a proxy for tactics) as my Leman Russ. I was expected to worry about whether I wanted to add a heavy stubber or not to a vehicle. There are many ways to do a mass battle game and retain the experience of commanding different types of units. Apoc failed to do so. According to one of the design staff this was because they were constrained by management decisions that wanted unit load out to matter and they used cards as a stand in for tactics given the small play area, proximity to the enemy and general saminess of the unit rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blastaar wrote:
KT21 isn't a good game. You and others may enjoy playing, and that's fine. But it is not a well-written, coherent ruleset with a clear vision.

When the game was announced, I crossed my fingers that it would provide a solid skirmish experience- customizability, more granular rules, more stuff to do during an activation, etc. Some of that is there- kinda. As usual, GW had some good ideas buried in there and botched the execution. Why play Kill Team when Malifaux and Infinity exist? All KT has going for it is being "Warhammer 40,000."

So whilst no one will disagree with the clarity of the rules (you get what you pay for it seems with rules presentation).

But game wise it delivers what I want from a GW skirmish game. To wit a fast playing game with roughly a dozen models a side that allows for multiple iterations to be played of an evening. It has tactical choices and objectives suitable for an hours play and has a meta component as I pick models from the 20 strong roster. I am happy with a simple set of action choices, they capture broadly what I want to do. You can use some narrative to make firing from cover leaning gingerly round the corner and emptying the magazine blindly rather than explicit rules.

If I wanted a detailed play experience I would go grab a WW2 game (actually I lie, I would play crossfire for WW2) or something like infinity. Or perhaps play bloodbowl.

Blastaar wrote:

KT21 isn't a good game. You and others may enjoy playing, and that's fine. But it is not a well-written, coherent ruleset with a clear vision.

When the game was announced, I crossed my fingers that it would provide a solid skirmish experience- customizability, more granular rules, more stuff to do during an activation, etc. Some of that is there- kinda. As usual, GW had some good ideas buried in there and botched the execution. Why play Kill Team when Malifaux and Infinity exist? All KT has going for it is being "Warhammer 40,000."

I'm not really familiar with KT19, but looking through the rules for KT21, I'd say that the big thing it has going for it that Infinity and Malifaux don't have is simplicity.

* Don't mess around with complicated movement, because if you try to move less than an inch for some reason that's going to get rounded up to a full inch.
* "Obscuring" is essentially: Don't mess around trying to figure out whether you can see through the window gaps. You can see through it if your target is within 3", or if the shooter is within 1". Otherwise, it's in the way and you can't.
* For the most part, you're just assumed to be in range.
* If you get into a group combat, there's a slight bonus that you can determine without needing to count Side A vs. Side B's numbers.

So probably a person can learn all of the rules in a few practice activations (or the first turn), and by the end of the game they'll be ready for the campaign system.

Infinity is a wonderful game, but it also has a huge front loaded amount of complexity that it exposes to the players. CB tried to make a simplified version of Infinity, and they ended up with something that still takes about a half dozen to a dozen games to understand.

Malifaux's also a wonderful game, but it completely lacks a campaign system. And it's one of the games where the interactions between model abilities is key.

Maybe GW's going to end up wrecking it with unnecessary complexity in expansions, or by not providing customizing for the Compendium factions fast enough.

 tauist wrote:
I thought KT18 was a decent game, if the new edition wouldn't have came out I would still be playing it. But I must admit that KT2 seems to be even better than the old one, I like the 100% AA aspect and the Concealed/Engaged order paradigm.

Literally the only thing I had a problem with about KT18 was the lack of support after the first year and a half. I know a lot of people talked about the issues of how many rolls you have to make to get nothing done, but I didn't see it as a huge issue, not game-breaking anyway.

If GW continues to support this new system, I'm sure it'll do well.

Playing again yesterday... I really look forward to a better laid out fan copy of the rules! I bet Wahpedia is as baffled as us currently!

Played 'stealers

The marine player hated it. I was essentially hidden the whole time until charging. I took heavy casualties when I wasn't hiding - (8 dead, 1 off the board), the marines lost 3, VP win was something like 12-9. But still he was just very frustrated. He couldn't flank my hiding spots thanks to the width of the board and my spacing, so it was just push up and charge.

Oh and Overwatch should have been named 'reaction fire' or similar. The amount of times people wanted to 'overwatch' against charging 'stealers was tiresome.