winterman wrote:Lictors and alot of tyranid stuff will be interesting to see play out. Yeah they can assault after deployment, but have to weather defensive fire to do so (and remember, cover is only gonna give you a 5+ so 4+ with stealth). Proper deployment by your opponents will make that hard to do without getting blasted off the board. Its still a very cool change overall though and makes for games where a lot happens (what used to take 2+ player turns can happen in 1).
Personally I think that although all armies are going to be rethinked, tyranids are going to be more so espically null deployment and the swarmlord (he looking like one of the best HQ in game right now )
Slayer le boucher wrote:Saw something interessting in the PDF about the Codexes updates, in the Update on Grey Knights, there is a line who says " Page 54, ignore the Deamonbane rule altogether"...
First i though why, because thats the thing about Nemesis FW no?, then i checked the new rules regarding Force Weapons and saw that they now inflicted ID(2), wich means that a EW(1) models loses 2 Wounds, i'm i correct?
They lose 3 wounds total: 1 regular + 2 ID, because ID(2) completely overides EW(1).
Slayer le boucher wrote:Saw something interessting in the PDF about the Codexes updates, in the Update on Grey Knights, there is a line who says " Page 54, ignore the Deamonbane rule altogether"...
First i though why, because thats the thing about Nemesis FW no?, then i checked the new rules regarding Force Weapons and saw that they now inflicted ID(2), wich means that a EW(1) models loses 2 Wounds, i'm i correct?
They lose 3 wounds total: 1 regular + 2 ID, because ID(2) completely overides EW(1).
What, no. The level of ID has no bearing on the number of wounds lost. The only way ID can inflict +2 wounds is if its Strength beats Toughness by 5.
oldone wrote:How's do psyker stop overs powers? Is there anything about mutiple attempts?
If anyone casts a psychic power within 12" of any of your psykers, you roll a d6. The psychic power does nothing on a 5 or 6. This may only be done once ever for each individual power cast.
oldone wrote:Is there any change to shadow in the warp ?
Nope. Tyranids still force a Psychic Check on a 3d6.
oldone wrote:What level do of instant death do boneswords do? And the Swarmlord?
Unless specified, all Instant Death is lvl1. Boneswords are lvl1.
oldone wrote:What level of EW does Logan grimmar have? Space wolf chapter.master (wasn't sure on spelling)
Unless specified, all Eternal Warrior is lvl1.
oldone wrote:And finally how has the death leaper change ?
A lot. It has Veiled(3), it prevents enemies within 12" of using many cover-ignoring abilities, it acts as a beacon for deep strike, it can assault when deep striked (deep struck?), the really high WS actually matters, its 3Wd actually matters, and the new reserve rules make it such that you have much better control of when it appears.
Slayer le boucher wrote:Saw something interessting in the PDF about the Codexes updates, in the Update on Grey Knights, there is a line who says " Page 54, ignore the Deamonbane rule altogether"...
First i though why, because thats the thing about Nemesis FW no?, then i checked the new rules regarding Force Weapons and saw that they now inflicted ID(2), wich means that a EW(1) models loses 2 Wounds, i'm i correct?
They lose 3 wounds total: 1 regular + 2 ID, because ID(2) completely overides EW(1).
What, no. The level of ID has no bearing on the number of wounds lost. The only way ID can inflict +2 wounds is if its Strength beats Toughness by 5.
Gah, you are right. I keep f-ing that up, and I have no idea why.
oldone wrote:How's do psyker stop overs powers? Is there anything about mutiple attempts?
If anyone casts a psychic power within 12" of any of your psykers, you roll a d6. The psychic power does nothing on a 5 or 6. This may only be done once ever for each individual power cast.
...
oldone wrote:How's do psyker stop overs powers? Is there anything about mutiple attempts?
If anyone casts a psychic power within 12" of any of your psykers, you roll a d6. The psychic power does nothing on a 5 or 6. This may only be done once ever for each individual power cast.
I did notice that Tyranids, Eldar and a few other psychic powers have some nerfs related to how long they last. Catalyst now lasts until the end of the game cycle -- go 2nd and you won't have it in your opponents turn. Fortune now lasts until the end of the player turn. etc.
I dunno how I feel about that, unless somethings get tweaked at final release.
oldone wrote:How's do psyker stop overs powers? Is there anything about mutiple attempts?
If anyone casts a psychic power within 12" of any of your psykers, you roll a d6. The psychic power does nothing on a 5 or 6. This may only be done once ever for each individual power cast.
...
So you're saying it's a one time use?
You can do it more than once in a turn/game, but it means that if you are trying to cast a power within range of 5 psykers, only one can attempt to shut you down, and if he fails the rest are out of luck till you cast another power.
oldone wrote: the swarmlord (he looking like one of the best HQ in game right now )
Why?
The Swarmlord has:
+18" Shadow in the Warp
+Nullifies Psychic Powers on a 5+ within 12"
+Does not get gigastomped by Instant Death anymore
+Arguably may get double strength in close combat (S10) due to being an MC +It's WS of 9 means most enemies will be hitting it on a 5+ or 6+ in CC +Paroxysm got slightly better
Not the best overall, but got improved a lot primarily due to its Psychic Counter and resistance to ID.
winterman wrote:I did notice that Tyranids, Eldar and a few other psychic powers have some nerfs related to how long they last. Catalyst now lasts until the end of the game cycle -- go 2nd and you won't have it in your opponents turn. Fortune now lasts until the end of the player turn. etc.
I dunno how I feel about that, unless somethings get tweaked at final release.
Good catch. I agree the timing on those is pretty funky. I'd expect those to get get fixed in a final version or at least FAQ'd....or I hope so. It does seem like an intentional nerf.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Absolutionis wrote:
N.I.B. wrote:
oldone wrote: the swarmlord (he looking like one of the best HQ in game right now )
Why?
The Swarmlord has:
+18" Shadow in the Warp
+Nullifies Psychic Powers on a 5+ within 12" <---- 24"
+Does not get gigastomped by Instant Death anymore
+Arguably may get double strength in close combat (S10) due to being an MC +It's WS of 9 means most enemies will be hitting it on a 5+ or 6+ in CC +Paroxysm got slightly better
Not the best overall, but got improved a lot primarily due to its Psychic Counter and resistance to ID.
oldone wrote: the swarmlord (he looking like one of the best HQ in game right now )
Why?
The Swarmlord has:
+18" Shadow in the Warp
+Nullifies Psychic Powers on a 5+ within 12"
+Does not get gigastomped by Instant Death anymore
+Arguably may get double strength in close combat (S10) due to being an MC +It's WS of 9 means most enemies will be hitting it on a 5+ or 6+ in CC +Paroxysm got slightly better
Not the best overall, but got improved a lot primarily due to its Psychic Counter and resistance to ID.
And will die horribly to directed fire if it has the same save as the unit it's with.
There are two kinds of instant death now.
The first ID is when a weapon's strength is at least 4 greater than the enemies toughness. If it's 4 greater, 1 extra wound. 5 greater 2 extra wounds. and so fourth.
This is circumvented by having any level of eternal warrior because it makes you immune to the Instant death rule.
The second ID is as a weapon property, a particularly nasty disintegrating cannon or some such.
This weapon deals an additional wound of damage on any target it wounds, based on the strength of it's rule. ID (1) deals one additional wound.
Unless the strength of the weapon would already deal more wounds than this ID rule would cause. Such as firing a S10 ID(1) weapon at a T3 guardsman. He would take the excess wounds from the S of the weapon, and since they were more than the ID(1) rule, it is ignored for now.
If it was say, a S3 ID(1) weapon, it'd cause 1 additional wound on a hit, since the S couldn't possible outweigh it.
Eternal warrior may completely negate the strength based ID rule, but you must have a level of EW equal to the level of ID a weapon possess to ignore that effect.
An EW(2) with T4 get's blasted by a S10 ID(3) weapon. (probably mounted on a titan or something, jeez) His EW rule thankfully protects him from the 3 additional wounds he would take thanks to it being S10 over his T4. But since it also has ID(3) he is still focred to take 3 additional wounds since his EW(2) isn't strong enough to ignore the weapons property. He thus takes 4 wounds total.
agnosto wrote:Nice. Just let him play with 10 DCAs then; they'll either tie him up the whole game or kill him.
I really don't think they'll tie him up, since he forces re-rolls on invuln saves and will go first and they will have a heck of a time trying to hit him now. He's just way overpriced though.
otakutaylor wrote:Let's see if I understand this right.
There are two kinds of instant death now.
The first ID is when a weapon's strength is at least 4 greater than the enemies toughness. If it's 4 greater, 1 extra wound. 5 greater 2 extra wounds. and so fourth.
This is circumvented by having any level of eternal warrior because it makes you immune to the Instant death rule.
The second ID is as a weapon property, a particularly nasty disintegrating cannon or some such.
This weapon deals an additional wound of damage on any target it wounds, based on the strength of it's rule. ID (1) deals one additional wound.
Unless the strength of the weapon would already deal more wounds than this ID rule would cause. Such as firing a S10 ID(1) weapon at a T3 guardsman. He would take the excess wounds from the S of the weapon, and since they were more than the ID(1) rule, it is ignored for now.
If it was say, a S3 ID(1) weapon, it'd cause 1 additional wound on a hit, since the S couldn't possible outweigh it.
Eternal warrior may completely negate the strength based ID rule, but you must have a level of EW equal to the level of ID a weapon possess to ignore that effect.
An EW(2) with T4 get's blasted by a S10 ID(3) weapon. (probably mounted on a titan or something, jeez) His EW rule thankfully protects him from the 3 additional wounds he would take thanks to it being S10 over his T4. But since it also has ID(3) he is still focred to take 3 additional wounds since his EW(2) isn't strong enough to ignore the weapons property. He thus takes 4 wounds total.
Does that sound right?
Looks like it's all solid, except with ID (1-3), you only deal one extra wound regardless of the level. The level's only purpose is to overcome levels of EW. This is what I kept messing up earlier.
otakutaylor wrote:Let's see if I understand this right.
There are two kinds of instant death now.
The first ID is when a weapon's strength is at least 4 greater than the enemies toughness. If it's 4 greater, 1 extra wound. 5 greater 2 extra wounds. and so fourth.
This is circumvented by having any level of eternal warrior because it makes you immune to the Instant death rule.
I think this is the easiest way of looking at it:
1) Weapons that beat Toughness by 4 or more deal additional ID wounds
2) Weapons with the ID special ability always deal at least 1 extra wound regardless of Toughness, but may deal more if their Strength is high enough
3) Eternal Warrior negates all extra wounds from Instant Death of equal or lower level
That covers it all, I think. Just make sure not to confuse ID level with the number of wounds it inflicts, they are two different things that have nothing to do with each other. The level is only used to determine whether ID overcomes EW. The number of wounds depends solely on the comparison of Strength vs Toughness, except that weapons with the ID special property deal 1 additional wound even if their Strength isn't high enough.
otakutaylor wrote:Let's see if I understand this right.
There are two kinds of instant death now.
The first ID is when a weapon's strength is at least 4 greater than the enemies toughness. If it's 4 greater, 1 extra wound. 5 greater 2 extra wounds. and so fourth.
This is circumvented by having any level of eternal warrior because it makes you immune to the Instant death rule.
The second ID is as a weapon property, a particularly nasty disintegrating cannon or some such.
This weapon deals an additional wound of damage on any target it wounds, based on the strength of it's rule. ID (1) deals one additional wound.
Unless the strength of the weapon would already deal more wounds than this ID rule would cause. Such as firing a S10 ID(1) weapon at a T3 guardsman. He would take the excess wounds from the S of the weapon, and since they were more than the ID(1) rule, it is ignored for now.
If it was say, a S3 ID(1) weapon, it'd cause 1 additional wound on a hit, since the S couldn't possible outweigh it.
Eternal warrior may completely negate the strength based ID rule, but you must have a level of EW equal to the level of ID a weapon possess to ignore that effect.
An EW(2) with T4 get's blasted by a S10 ID(3) weapon. (probably mounted on a titan or something, jeez) His EW rule thankfully protects him from the 3 additional wounds he would take thanks to it being S10 over his T4. But since it also has ID(3) he is still focred to take 3 additional wounds since his EW(2) isn't strong enough to ignore the weapons property. He thus takes 4 wounds total.
Does that sound right?
Somewhat. There's really only one kind of Instant Death.
The Strength-four-greater-than-toughness Weapons act as if they had Instant Death (1) with the additional benefit of dealing extra wounds. The extra wounds issue is not innate on anything else.
There is no such thing as ID(3)
There's two levels of ID:
ID(1) is caused by weapons that say as such and special rules (such as double strength).
ID(2) is caused by weapons that say as such and special rules (such as blast weapons on swarms)
There are three levels of EW:
EW(1) ignores ID(1).
EW(2) ignores ID(2) on down
EW(3) simply can never be circumvented
That being said, yes. A model with a Force Weapon (ID2 when channeled) at Strength 7 hitting a T3 model with EW(1) would deal 2 wounds.
EDIT: it's two wounds.
winterman wrote:I did notice that Tyranids, Eldar and a few other psychic powers have some nerfs related to how long they last. Catalyst now lasts until the end of the game cycle -- go 2nd and you won't have it in your opponents turn. Fortune now lasts until the end of the player turn. etc.
I dunno how I feel about that, unless somethings get tweaked at final release.
With the talk on the Swarmlord, I looked it up and they also screwed up the Swarmleader rule.
Page 56 - Swarm Leader
At the beginning of its Shooting phase, the Swarmlord
can bestow one of the following special abilities onto
any one friendly unit within 18": Acute Senses,
Preferred Enemy or Furious Charge. These benefits last
until the end of the unit’s next turn or the end of the
current turn if the unit acts in the same turn as the
Swarmlord.
Agamemnon2 wrote:Hm, 4chan seems to think this is fake because of a very amusing detail: it's written in American English.
How so? Can you give some examples?
I didn't notice anything obviously "American" when I was reading through it, and while I could easily have missed something, I did a few quick searches and came up with nothing on them, either. Armour, flavour, and colour are in the document, but no armor, flavor, or color. I didn't find any oddities in common phrases like "to hand" vs. "at hand" or "turn about" vs. "turn around", and there was consistent use of "dice" as singular as well as plural.
However, I did notice a few places that struck me as written by a non-native-English speaker, where the word order was not grammatically incorrect, but more consistent with another language, rather than conversational English.
With the talk on the Swarmlord, I looked it up and they also screwed up the Swarmleader rule.
So... the only way to get Furious Charge (and use it), according to that amendment, would be to cast it on a unit, then have the unit not do anything that turn, then have the unit charge in your next turn?
if the rules were going to be this big of a change maybe it is smart of them to release an unofficial version that might have been changed a bit just so players can absorb some of these rules.
With the talk on the Swarmlord, I looked it up and they also screwed up the Swarmleader rule.
So... the only way to get Furious Charge (and use it), according to that amendment, would be to cast it on a unit, then have the unit not do anything that turn, then have the unit charge in your next turn?
No, you'd have to be playing a mission that allowed for the alternative UGO-IGO player turns.
Maelstrom808 wrote:No, you'd have to be playing a mission that allowed for the alternative UGO-IGO player turns.
Ah, I hate to nitpick again, but this keep cropping up, I think it was even in the BoW video.
IGOUGO is the normal way of playing 40k, I do everything then you do everything.
Going back and forth unit by unit is usually called "alternate activation."
Swarmlord gets slightly better (imo more due to moving/assaulting 12"), but he will still be overpriced and far from one of the best HQs in the game.
Don't forget his reroll table edge for Outflank will be useless, and you're paying points for it.
And his SitW range will still be 12", like today.
I can't see why you'd want to take him over a Tyrant with Preferred Enemy bubble and a 2+ save.
Maelstrom808 wrote:No, you'd have to be playing a mission that allowed for the alternative UGO-IGO player turns.
Ah, I hate to nitpick again, but this keep cropping up, I think it was even in the BoW video.
IGOUGO is the normal way of playing 40k, I do everything then you do everything.
Going back and forth unit by unit is usually called "alternate activation."
Nitpicking is what we do here
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Agamemnon2 wrote:OH, BoW would never get anything done if they did that.
Heheh...although I did steal their Tyranid paint scheme, so I gotta give em a pass every now and then
Actually, talking of that BoW video, what do people think of the stratagems bidding process? I kind of agree with the guy on the left in that I'd rather just bid nothing and then bail out. I'd basically keep it to me going second and to hell with the stratagems no matter how good they may be because I don't want to concede any to my opponent. And with deep striking now looking so good with strike forces, why not go second?
N.I.B. wrote:Swarmlord gets slightly better (imo more due to moving/assaulting 12"), but he will still be overpriced and far from one of the best HQs in the game.
Don't forget his reroll table edge for Outflank will be useless, and you're paying points for it.
And his SitW range will still be 12", like today.
I can't see why you'd want to take him over a Tyrant with Preferred Enemy bubble and a 2+ save.
There's a use for him with Trygon tunnels I guess. After emerging drop Leech Essence and Paroxysm to weaken nearby units, then he just needs to withstand a turn of fire with Shieldwall in time to do a 12" charge. They really should have given him EW to better distinguish him from the regular Tyrant though.
N.I.B. wrote:Swarmlord gets slightly better (imo more due to moving/assaulting 12"), but he will still be overpriced and far from one of the best HQs in the game.
Don't forget his reroll table edge for Outflank will be useless, and you're paying points for it.
And his SitW range will still be 12", like today.
I can't see why you'd want to take him over a Tyrant with Preferred Enemy bubble and a 2+ save.
Hey Nib you from The Tyranid Hive as well? I would take him because I like him and have fun. I am not a competitive player, so I don't look at things as "over costed" but what I think is "cool" and "having fun with".
N.I.B. wrote:Swarmlord gets slightly better (imo more due to moving/assaulting 12"), but he will still be overpriced and far from one of the best HQs in the game.
Don't forget his reroll table edge for Outflank will be useless, and you're paying points for it.
And his SitW range will still be 12", like today.
I can't see why you'd want to take him over a Tyrant with Preferred Enemy bubble and a 2+ save.
Hey Nib you from The Tyranid Hive as well? I would take him because I like him and have fun. I am not a competitive player, so I don't look at things as "over costed" but what I think is "cool" and "having fun with".
I guess it is how we look at the game.
Ok I guess I was jumping to conclusion but he seems to be a character that benefited from these rules but then again I looking at my poor poor Ghazzy.
ColdSadHungry wrote:Actually, talking of that BoW video, what do people think of the stratagems bidding process? I kind of agree with the guy on the left in that I'd rather just bid nothing and then bail out. I'd basically keep it to me going second and to hell with the stratagems no matter how good they may be because I don't want to concede any to my opponent. And with deep striking now looking so good with strike forces, why not go second?
Again, things like this are what's reinforcing my feeling that this is a pre-playtesting draft of 6E. I suspect that the bidding mechanism did not survive contact with gamers and got excised.
Absolutionis wrote:A model with a Force Weapon (ID2 when channeled) at Strength 7 hitting a T3 model with EW(1) would deal 3 wounds.
Two wounds. One for the hit and one for exceeding Toughness by 4.
Yes, but wrong way round. The model's EW(1) would negate the extra wound for the higher strength but an extra wound because of the weapon's ID(2).
(Unless ID(2) would negate the EW(1) completely and trigger the extra wounds from both the strength and force weapon effects, doing three wounds in total.)
ColdSadHungry wrote:Actually, talking of that BoW video, what do people think of the stratagems bidding process? I kind of agree with the guy on the left in that I'd rather just bid nothing and then bail out. I'd basically keep it to me going second and to hell with the stratagems no matter how good they may be because I don't want to concede any to my opponent. And with deep striking now looking so good with strike forces, why not go second?
The guy 'explaining' the gambit does a terrible job if it.
As to nid DS shenanigans, again the strike force rules will help you, several unit popping up at the same time will be of great use since a unit can only DF at one unit arriving by DS. Or you can split off you Lictor(s) as another strike force, take advantage of cover and/or Veiled(3) and use them as a beacon for the second force.
I can see Nids being very sneaky and good at causing panic and paranoia in your opponent (as they should).
Agamemnon2 wrote:Again, things like this are what's reinforcing my feeling that this is a pre-playtesting draft of 6E. I suspect that the bidding mechanism did not survive contact with gamers and got excised.
Want 1 minute back myself actually. I watched one minute, and takes that long to explain that no one knows who definitely made the rulebook. Wait...I did that in about two seconds. Hm. :/
I hope this is true, I love this book, whomever wrote it, and I'm really excited about using these rules. Even if this turns out to be an abandoned early draft, It's certainly complete enough for some casual play.
Project2501 wrote:I want that 48minutes of my life back. What a waste.
You mean you actually sat down and watched it? Ha ha ha ha.
Next time play it in the background while you do something worthwhile
Unofficial 'long lunch' at work. It's either watch it or never watch it and getting time alone at home with a family is friggin' impossible. :(
@Bloodlance: In my specific case, I did not watch the video to find out who created the ruleset (I couldn't care less who did, it works and I like it), rather, I watched it in the hope that there was going to be a playtest of the rules with explanations by people 'in the know' of gaming. That was my folly.
Absolutionis wrote:A model with a Force Weapon (ID2 when channeled) at Strength 7 hitting a T3 model with EW(1) would deal 3 wounds.
Two wounds. One for the hit and one for exceeding Toughness by 4.
Yes, but wrong way round. The model's EW(1) would negate the extra wound for the higher strength but an extra wound because of the weapon's ID(2).
(Unless ID(2) would negate the EW(1) completely and trigger the extra wounds from both the strength and force weapon effects, doing three wounds in total.)
ID(2) circumvents EW(1) completely, but at strength 7 versus toughness 3 it will only cause one additional wound. The rule merely guaranteers at least one wound at any strength, but you have to exceed the model's thoughtless by 5 to get another one.
Similarly, an ID(3) weapons in the same situation would still get only 1 extra wound.
His Master's Voice wrote:ID(2) circumvents EW(1) completely, but at strength 7 versus toughness 3 it will only cause one additional wound. The rule merely guaranteers at least one wound at any strength, but you have to exceed the model's thoughtless by 5 to get another one.
Similarly, an ID(3) weapons in the same situation would still get only 1 extra wound.
So three then (initial wound, +1 for 4 points of strength higher and +1 for ID(2)).
ColdSadHungry wrote:Actually, talking of that BoW video, what do people think of the stratagems bidding process? I kind of agree with the guy on the left in that I'd rather just bid nothing and then bail out. I'd basically keep it to me going second and to hell with the stratagems no matter how good they may be because I don't want to concede any to my opponent. And with deep striking now looking so good with strike forces, why not go second?
I actually prefer going 2nd when I play my Necrons, so in most circumstances I'm thrilled with the idea of bidding 0 or 1 and then letting most opponents give me 2 or 3 stratagem points. However, against Tau & IG I think I would be willing to pay a lot just to ensure they they don't get to go first. Overall, I'm neutral to it. I think I like the idea of some mission having stratagem points and some not, because it's not a mechanic that I would want to play with 100% of the time.
His Master's Voice wrote:ID(2) circumvents EW(1) completely, but at strength 7 versus toughness 3 it will only cause one additional wound. The rule merely guaranteers at least one wound at any strength, but you have to exceed the model's thoughtless by 5 to get another one.
Similarly, an ID(3) weapons in the same situation would still get only 1 extra wound.
So three then (initial wound, +1 for 4 points of strength higher and +1 for ID(2)).
No. The original wound fails it's save, then ID(2) negates EW(1) and inflicts an additional wound, no matter the weapons strength, unless the weapon strength is high enough to cause more than one wound as an effect of ID. Ergo
ID(2), strength 6 against EW(1), toughness 3 - 2 wounds
ID(2), strength 7 against EW(1), toughness 3 - 2 wounds
ID(2), strength 8 against EW(1), toughness 3 - 3 wounds
ID(2), strength 9 against EW(1), toughness 3 - 4 wounds
and
ID(3), strength 6 against EW(1), toughness 3 - 2 wounds
ID(3), strength 7 against EW(1), toughness 3 - 2 wounds
ID(3), strength 8 against EW(1), toughness 3 - 3 wounds
The rule, as I read it, is a guarantee of at least 1 ID wound, not an extra wound on top of the ones you inflict based on strength/toughness difference.
His Master's Voice wrote:ID(2) circumvents EW(1) completely, but at strength 7 versus toughness 3 it will only cause one additional wound. The rule merely guaranteers at least one wound at any strength, but you have to exceed the model's thoughtless by 5 to get another one.
Similarly, an ID(3) weapons in the same situation would still get only 1 extra wound.
So three then (initial wound, +1 for 4 points of strength higher and +1 for ID(2)).
No. The original wound fails it's save, then ID(2) negates EW(1) and inflicts an additional wound, no matter the weapons strength, unless the weapon strength is high enough to cause more than one wound as an effect of ID. Ergo
ID(2), strength 6 against EW(1), toughness 3 - 2 wounds
ID(2), strength 7 against EW(1), toughness 3 - 2 wounds
ID(2), strength 8 against EW(1), toughness 3 - 3 wounds
ID(2), strength 9 against EW(1), toughness 3 - 4 wounds
and
ID(3), strength 6 against EW(1), toughness 3 - 2 wounds
ID(3), strength 7 against EW(1), toughness 3 - 2 wounds
ID(3), strength 8 against EW(1), toughness 3 - 3 wounds
The rule, as I read it, is a guarantee of at least 1 ID wound, not an extra wound on top of the ones you inflict based on strength/toughness difference.
huh, you know I think you are right.
Rulebook wrote: It loses one additional Wound,
unless its Strength is high enough to cause the
loss of more than two Wounds anyway.
AndrewC wrote:So the must have item for Tau is the Command and Control node then.
Allows alll units within 12" to use Directed Fire.
Carbines would be good here, directed fire to kill the high leadership model (assuming enough hits) and then the pinning check.
Also assuming that these are real.
Cheers
Andrew
C&C node only allows unit to use directed hits when firing through intervening units. So they still need to be able to use Directed Fire in the first place. It doesn't give them that rule.
I just noticed that the tau rules updates don't actually explicitly give Railguns the rail rule ? lol... Assuming they do get it though, solid shot railguns seem to become ridiculously accurate. As discussed earlier, with 72" maximum range and an average deviation of less than an inch from the target point at MAXIMUM range, a railgun will be a guaranteed hit. At 2+ to wound everything, ignoring armor saves, doing 4 wounds to T4 models with no saves...
However, it looks like vehicles in general are much more survivable. Significantly the AP1 and Open-Topped bonuses only apply to TANKS now, and only apply once: previously, a railgun against an open-topped vehicle or tank would destroy on a 3+: now, its 5+. Most tanks require a natural 6 to wreck. AP1 will wreck a closed-top tank, open-topped tank, and any variety of open topped/closed topped other vehicle with equal ease(/difficulty)
Steelmage99 wrote:A higher EW rating still reduces a ID to a single wound, right?
As in a ID(1) str. 10 hit still only inflicts one wound on a EW(2) toughness 3 model?
ID has to have a higher tier than EW to nullify it. So ID(1) doesn't nullify EW(1).
Trasvi wrote:I just noticed that the tau rules updates don't actually explicitly give Railguns the rail rule ?
Main rulebook does.
p. 65
Psionic lances, alien sonic weapons and of course the Tau weapons of
the same name count to the most common weapons of this type.
This thread and the document that spawned it is really thought provoking.
I would like to add this question to the discussion:
Given that the force org section did not have the chart attached --my copy doesnt-- and the text states that "some units like the Baneblade of the
Imperial Guard take up two selections of a given type"
Will we have a special super heavy slot? or as some other threads talked about you could sacrifice an unused FA slot for another heavy or super heavy slot?
So will GC creatures and super heavies take 3 slots, and 2 respectively?
Also I noted the new Gunship vehicle type. Is this adding fuel to the rumoured SM flyer or will this description be given to Valkries and Thunderhawks?
Since I was talking about the sisters earlier, I only just noticed this (and posted it on 4chan too)
The Immolator "lost" it's ability to move 12" and fire it's heavy flamer in the new codex. This was universally seen as a dick move on GW's part, even if it was kinda undercosted for the effect.
However, since the new rules for TL heavy flamers is instead of their old re-roll wounds, they now reach 9" from the hull before shooting the template. Which relativly equates to 12" from the initial position before the tanks movement AND the 3" range a flamer now gives.
This... might actually be evidence of intelligent forethought on GW's part.
This thread and the document that spawned it is really thought provoking.
I would like to add this question to the discussion:
Given that the force org section did not have the chart attached --my copy doesnt-- and the text states that "some units like the Baneblade of the
Imperial Guard take up two selections of a given type"
Will we have a special super heavy slot? or as some other threads talked about you could sacrifice an unused FA slot for another heavy or super heavy slot?
So will GC creatures and super heavies take 3 slots, and 2 respectively?
Also I noted the new Gunship vehicle type. Is this adding fuel to the rumoured SM flyer or will this description be given to Valkries and Thunderhawks?
Great discussion all lets keep it going!
Cheers
Mongo
I think the superheavies would be too much for a normal game, but maybe games over 2500 getting a single superheavy "slot"?
They don't give us much to go on, but I suspect that they will still stay Apoc only, which isn't a bad thing.
Also I noted the new Gunship vehicle type. Is this adding fuel to the rumoured SM flyer or will this description be given to Valkries and Thunderhawks?
Note that the Tau Hammerhead is already considered a "gunship", it's hard to tell exactly what they mean until a final version is released or pictures are added (unlikely)
This thread and the document that spawned it is really thought provoking.
I would like to add this question to the discussion:
Given that the force org section did not have the chart attached --my copy doesnt-- and the text states that "some units like the Baneblade of the
Imperial Guard take up two selections of a given type"
Will we have a special super heavy slot? or as some other threads talked about you could sacrifice an unused FA slot for another heavy or super heavy slot?
So will GC creatures and super heavies take 3 slots, and 2 respectively?
Also I noted the new Gunship vehicle type. Is this adding fuel to the rumoured SM flyer or will this description be given to Valkries and Thunderhawks?
Great discussion all lets keep it going!
Cheers
Mongo
I would think it would mean multiple slots of the same FOC. for example 2 HS slots for a Baneblade instead of 1.
GW wants the new "standard" game to be 2k points. Most tourneys in my area are a minimum of 1500 and many 1850. I dont feel this is a big leap. Thus ... is there enough room at this point level for these models?
I am sure IG players are just itching to put in a Baneblade along with a Leman Russ or two -Squadroned most likely--
I dont know if the point values have changed..but if memory serves and a Baneblade is 500 pts. Is it that bad to have one at 2k.. when I know many marine players who could/do field two LR's for slightly more points?
Moving away from specifics.. would this rule set provide the balance to bring a Super Heavy of some sort, pay the points and slots for it, understanding that it is powerful yet it will also be a fire magnet?
Would this be more of a gambit than bringing really strong SC to a 1k escalation league?
mongo8089 wrote:Moving away from specifics.. would this rule set provide the balance to bring a Super Heavy of some sort, pay the points and slots for it, understanding that it is powerful yet it will also be a fire magnet?
Superheavies are not particularly balanced.
Forge World concerns itself primarily with making great models, second with telling a good story, and third with writing the rules.
The rules are there for if you want to field them and to remain consistent. There have been several instances such as the Reaver, Heirophant, Land Raider Achilles, etc that have been noticeably powerful.
The rules aren't there to provide a 'balanced' game. They're there if you want to have fun with your awesome model. Hence they require the opponent's permission. Most friends will agree to play with a Forge World model so long as you don't use it as a crutch to win and/or you're willing to negotiate house-rule adjustments for the future or something.
Not likely to happen in tournaments or competitive play.
If anything, the 6thEd rulebook is making an attempt at combining the Apocalypse Rules into the base rulebook do the rules are all consolidated.
This thread and the document that spawned it is really thought provoking.
I would like to add this question to the discussion:
Given that the force org section did not have the chart attached --my copy doesnt-- and the text states that "some units like the Baneblade of the
Imperial Guard take up two selections of a given type"
Will we have a special super heavy slot? or as some other threads talked about you could sacrifice an unused FA slot for another heavy or super heavy slot?
So will GC creatures and super heavies take 3 slots, and 2 respectively?
Also I noted the new Gunship vehicle type. Is this adding fuel to the rumoured SM flyer or will this description be given to Valkries and Thunderhawks?
Great discussion all lets keep it going!
Cheers
Mongo
mongo8089 wrote:Hi Swara
Tks for the reply.
GW wants the new "standard" game to be 2k points. Most tourneys in my area are a minimum of 1500 and many 1850. I dont feel this is a big leap. Thus ... is there enough room at this point level for these models?
I am sure IG players are just itching to put in a Baneblade along with a Leman Russ or two -Squadroned most likely--
I dont know if the point values have changed..but if memory serves and a Baneblade is 500 pts. Is it that bad to have one at 2k.. when I know many marine players who could/do field two LR's for slightly more points?
Moving away from specifics.. would this rule set provide the balance to bring a Super Heavy of some sort, pay the points and slots for it, understanding that it is powerful yet it will also be a fire magnet?
Would this be more of a gambit than bringing really strong SC to a 1k escalation league?
I think that this ruleset is intended to be all-encompasing for everything from small skirmish games to classic 2k or so to full blown Apoc battles. At the moment though, we are looking at an incomplete set of rules. There is much that is still missing when it comes to missions and force organization. I think that either written by GW or some guy in his mom's basement, if we were to see these rules completed, there would be missions and rules with allowances for super-heavies in "normal" 40k, but at much higher point levels. Under 3k or so, I still don't believe it's balanced to completely open the doors on super-heavy units. I think it's just a case of having to wait and see what happens.
One nitpick though...Gunship, in this ruleset, is a special rule, not a unit type.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Swara wrote:
Maelstrom808 wrote:I am looking forward to running my scythe spam list under these rules, if things pan out the way I think.
I was planning that when they come out anyways so it will get even better if these be true.
Yeah same, I'm either going to get the GW models, or if I don't like them/they are rediculously priced (even for GW), I'm going to pick up some Cylon Raider models that will be far cheaper and will be hitting shelves about the same time. When this ruleset came out, it made me REALLY hope these are the real deal...I'm just looking at a few adjustments to the list to work within this ruleset a little better.
Maelstrom808 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Swara wrote:
Maelstrom808 wrote:I am looking forward to running my scythe spam list under these rules, if things pan out the way I think.
I was planning that when they come out anyways so it will get even better if these be true.
Yeah same, I'm either going to get the GW models, or if I don't like them/they are rediculously priced (even for GW), I'm going to pick up some Cylon Raider models that will be far cheaper and will be hitting shelves about the same time. When this ruleset came out, it made me REALLY hope these are the real deal...I'm just looking at a few adjustments to the list to work within this ruleset a little better.
I'm really hoping they are 40ish bucks.. especially since you can fit 12 in a standard army : P
Maelstrom808 wrote:I think that this ruleset is intended to be all-encompasing for everything from small skirmish games to classic 2k or so to full blown Apoc battles. At the moment though, we are looking at an incomplete set of rules. There is much that is still missing when it comes to missions and force organization. I think that either written by GW or some guy in his mom's basement, if we were to see these rules completed, there would be missions and rules with allowances for super-heavies in "normal" 40k, but at much higher point levels. Under 3k or so, I still don't believe it's balanced to completely open the doors on super-heavy units. I think it's just a case of having to wait and see what happens.
That's one of the things I'm uncertain about... Monoliths and LRs are the lowest-tier of Super-Heavy in this book... but they're more than acceptable at all points levels. In fact, it's tough to compare them in any way to a Baneblade, but this book seems to be placing them there. Maybe super-heavies with more than 1 structure point will be reserved for larger games?
Maelstrom808 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Swara wrote:
Maelstrom808 wrote:I am looking forward to running my scythe spam list under these rules, if things pan out the way I think.
I was planning that when they come out anyways so it will get even better if these be true.
Yeah same, I'm either going to get the GW models, or if I don't like them/they are rediculously priced (even for GW), I'm going to pick up some Cylon Raider models that will be far cheaper and will be hitting shelves about the same time. When this ruleset came out, it made me REALLY hope these are the real deal...I'm just looking at a few adjustments to the list to work within this ruleset a little better.
I'm really hoping they are 40ish bucks.. especially since you can fit 12 in a standard army : P
$25 for those re-imagined cylon raider models I'm looking at converting
azazel the cat wrote:
Maelstrom808 wrote:I think that this ruleset is intended to be all-encompasing for everything from small skirmish games to classic 2k or so to full blown Apoc battles. At the moment though, we are looking at an incomplete set of rules. There is much that is still missing when it comes to missions and force organization. I think that either written by GW or some guy in his mom's basement, if we were to see these rules completed, there would be missions and rules with allowances for super-heavies in "normal" 40k, but at much higher point levels. Under 3k or so, I still don't believe it's balanced to completely open the doors on super-heavy units. I think it's just a case of having to wait and see what happens.
That's one of the things I'm uncertain about... Monoliths and LRs are the lowest-tier of Super-Heavy in this book... but they're more than acceptable at all points levels. In fact, it's tough to compare them in any way to a Baneblade, but this book seems to be placing them there. Maybe super-heavies with more than 1 structure point will be reserved for larger games?
Well, the issue with the Baneblades and such is they have no current place in a standard FOC. Once there are clear rules on using them within one, I think they will be okay.
I think the problem with having Super-Heavys in a normal 40k game is the fact that not all races have something viable to put in the slot. Granted, that may change as 6th ed codices are released (if Super-Heavys are in); but it still seems beyond unbalanced to include them.
triplare wrote:I noticed FNP (now being a 'Rigid Save') can't be used against AP3 weapons either (in addition to the usual ID, PW and AP1/AP2 weapons). Interesting.
If, by "interesting", you actually mean "awesome".
Yeah. A buff to hotshot lasguns and vespid, while missile launchers and battle cannons are basically unchanged since they usually have double toughness anyway.
Maelstrom808 wrote: Automatically Appended Next Post:
Swara wrote:
Maelstrom808 wrote:I am looking forward to running my scythe spam list under these rules, if things pan out the way I think.
I was planning that when they come out anyways so it will get even better if these be true.
Yeah same, I'm either going to get the GW models, or if I don't like them/they are rediculously priced (even for GW), I'm going to pick up some Cylon Raider models that will be far cheaper and will be hitting shelves about the same time. When this ruleset came out, it made me REALLY hope these are the real deal...I'm just looking at a few adjustments to the list to work within this ruleset a little better.
I'm really hoping they are 40ish bucks.. especially since you can fit 12 in a standard army : P
$25 for those re-imagined cylon raider models I'm looking at converting
azazel the cat wrote:
Maelstrom808 wrote:I think that this ruleset is intended to be all-encompasing for everything from small skirmish games to classic 2k or so to full blown Apoc battles. At the moment though, we are looking at an incomplete set of rules. There is much that is still missing when it comes to missions and force organization. I think that either written by GW or some guy in his mom's basement, if we were to see these rules completed, there would be missions and rules with allowances for super-heavies in "normal" 40k, but at much higher point levels. Under 3k or so, I still don't believe it's balanced to completely open the doors on super-heavy units. I think it's just a case of having to wait and see what happens.
That's one of the things I'm uncertain about... Monoliths and LRs are the lowest-tier of Super-Heavy in this book... but they're more than acceptable at all points levels. In fact, it's tough to compare them in any way to a Baneblade, but this book seems to be placing them there. Maybe super-heavies with more than 1 structure point will be reserved for larger games?
Well, the issue with the Baneblades and such is they have no current place in a standard FOC. Once there are clear rules on using them within one, I think they will be okay.
The baneblade has far more firepower then it's cost warrants. It's roughly the cost of 2.5 leman russes but is capable of dealing and absorbing vastly more damage than it's little brothers with their two battle canons and heavy bolters. Apocalypse superheavies are not balanced by really any of the metrics 40k measures.
To me they look more fan made then official leaks ( the bad grammar kinda gives it away ), but as Kroothawk said this was also the case with 5e leaks that were true at the end.
I would like for this to be official release, because they are so cool and improve the game in my opinion. If they are fan-made in the end GW should seriously hire this guy/guys who made them. They rock
Played a 500 point game with Tyranids vs DE today using the new rules. Spent extra time setting up the game, going over the bidding process, looking at stratagems ETC but overall the gameplay flowed pretty well. Switching the shooting and assault phases will be one of the biggest things to get used to, but otherwise the changes were implemented pretty easily.
I didn't take pictures for a batrep since the game was so small, but basically it came down to the last turn, my hive tyrant died to some splinter rifle fire, then my tyrant guard charged on my turn and got the 2 VP I needed to break the tie, so i won 25-23. A very close game from beginning to finish, and things in this game system DIE QUICKLY. If you're a person who gets emotionally attached to your troopers and tanks on the field, this isn't the edition for you -- we were both pulling models left and right. I thoroughly enjoyed the overall experience and I'm looking forward to getting more people in my local gaming group into using these rules for casual games. Hell, we may do a tournament if we can get enough adventurous gamers interested.
I haven't gone through these rules as thoroughly as I would've liked due to schoolwork, so it has left me with a few questions. I'm not sure if I'm understanding this properly, but does a transported unit gain/maintain the Relentless USR as long as the transport hasn't moved more than 6"? Does this mean that an IG Heavy Weapons team for example can shoot out of a Chimera's top hatch even if the Chimera has moved? While embarked troops can no longer hold objectives, it seems like they can advance towards said objectives while laying down more fire (albeit moving at a slower pace). It definitely seems like a good tradeoff, but again, if someone could shed some insight on the matter it'd be great.
Also, since AP3 now ignores FNP, are Thousand Sons more useful now? It seems like this in conjunction with most cover being 5+ now means they are a bit less of a niche unit in general and more useful against Blood Angels or other Chaos lists specifically (Plague Marines immediately come to mind) and. Anyone willing to discuss?
Luke_Prowler wrote:Considering the overall possitive reaction the leaked rules have gotten, even if they are fake it's a message to GW of what we actually want
Or what the vocal crowd on Dakka Dakka actually wants.
Thousand suns marines are significantly improved in theory with: -less pervasive cover -more powerful rapid fire rules -a squad based psyker that can cancel enemy psychic powers -the ability to ignore FNP
They're starting to look pretty golden.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
puma713 wrote:
Luke_Prowler wrote:Considering the overall possitive reaction the leaked rules have gotten, even if they are fake it's a message to GW of what we actually want
Or what the vocal crowd on Dakka Dakka actually wants.
Most of the blogosphere and forums seem to have similar opinions on the issue. We're not special snowflakes this time.
Luke_Prowler wrote:Considering the overall possitive reaction the leaked rules have gotten, even if they are fake it's a message to GW of what we actually want
Or what the vocal crowd on Dakka Dakka actually wants.
Most of the blogosphere and forums seem to have similar opinions on the issue. We're not special snowflakes this time.
My point was, the people that either don't care enough or are unhappy with these changes aren't nearly as excited and vocal about it as the people who want the changes to be moving forward. A lot of the folks on a separate forum that I frequent are not happy with the changes, but they're not on Dakka or BoK or BoLS ranting about it. They're waiting to see.
Gus_Papas wrote:I haven't gone through these rules as thoroughly as I would've liked due to schoolwork, so it has left me with a few questions. I'm not sure if I'm understanding this properly, but does a transported unit gain/maintain the Relentless USR as long as the transport hasn't moved more than 6"? Does this mean that an IG Heavy Weapons team for example can shoot out of a Chimera's top hatch even if the Chimera has moved? While embarked troops can no longer hold objectives, it seems like they can advance towards said objectives while laying down more fire (albeit moving at a slower pace). It definitely seems like a good tradeoff, but again, if someone could shed some insight on the matter it'd be great.
Also, since AP3 now ignores FNP, are Thousand Sons more useful now? It seems like this in conjunction with most cover being 5+ now means they are a bit less of a niche unit in general and more useful against Blood Angels or other Chaos lists specifically (Plague Marines immediately come to mind) and. Anyone willing to discuss?
Apparently, a unit inside a transport does count as relentless. Meaning you can fire heavy weapons despite the vehicle moving and rapid fire triggers at 18". But firepoints are difficult to shoot from, so no weapon can be fired more that 18" away from the hull of the transport. Also, there is limits on how many shooting actions an embarked unit can perform, namely if the tank can only make one shooting action (shaken or moved at combat speed) the unit embarked can only make one shooting action. If the tank cannot fire any weapons (moved at cruising speed, took enough weapon destroyed wounds to disable shooting entirely, stunned) then the embarked units cannot shoot through the firepoints either.
While we're on the topic of transport vehicles, what does "Ranges (including point blank ranges) are measured from the transport’s hull, body or base." mean? If I have a model with a Plasma Gun embarked and wants to fire out of the top hatch of a Rhino, does the Plasma Gun count as being in range if the target unit is 18" away from the front of the Rhino, so long as the target is visible from the fire point? Does a Flamer have a 3" bubble all the way around the Rhino where you can place the template?
The range of the weapons mounted on a tank are now measured from the hull or base of the weapon.
This makes sure that weapon ranges are universal despite awesome of flavorful poses or weapon positions.
However, a weapons line of sight isn't from the hull. It is however measured from the weapons mounting, not the tip of the barrel.
To prevent any orks from building super crazy long barrels to have a few extra inches of range on their weapons.
Though orks could probably still manage to get extra range out of it, they are orks after all.
So measure from the hull/base for range, measure from the weapon's mounting for LoS.
So no more Tau battlesuits, long barreled IG tanks, and custom weapon barrels holding their guns really far infront of them to gain extra range (even if they are just normally designed to look like they stick out forward)
Also, yeah, looks like a flamer from a rhino (since it's fired from a firepoint which is the top hatch of the tank) has about that 3" bubble of range.
otakutaylor wrote:So no more Tau battlesuits, long barreled IG tanks, and custom weapon barrels holding their guns really far infront of them to gain extra range (even if they are just normally designed to look like they stick out forward)
Also, yeah, looks like a flamer from a rhino (since it's fired from a firepoint which is the top hatch of the tank) has about that 3" bubble of range.
If people local to you were doing that with Tau battlesuits, they didn't know the current rules very well. Just like any other infantry subtype model, you measure range for battlesuits from the base and not the tip of any go-go-gadget-plasma gun.
Sorry, I dunno much about Tau, I just know they have awesome looking big guns and I've seen people debate firing from weapons for measurements on some units.
"If at least one engaged model in an assaulting unit is equipped with assault grenades the assaulted unit does not get the increased initiative from Alpha Strike. "
Can someone please explain this to me I am under the assumption what they mean to say is " yadah yadah yadah in the assaultedunit is equipped with assault grenades, the assaulting unit does not get the alpha strike bonus"
As it stands now, having assault grenades .... negates your own Alpha Strike bonus..
EDIT: oh now I get it, this is talking about units in cover, what about when Squad A assaults Squad B who is already in combat with Squad C? If Squad B has assault grenades, does squad A lose their bonus!?
ColdSadHungry wrote:Actually, talking of that BoW video, what do people think of the stratagems bidding process? I kind of agree with the guy on the left in that I'd rather just bid nothing and then bail out. I'd basically keep it to me going second and to hell with the stratagems no matter how good they may be because I don't want to concede any to my opponent. And with deep striking now looking so good with strike forces, why not go second?
Remember that, as things look now, your units count as stationary as the game starts - so the player going first is getting a massive boost to their shooting power. Going second is going to hurt - thus stratagems are an important balance.
alarmingrick wrote:I don't like going back to the whole 2nd ed. modifier for everything set up.
Whats next, Wargear cards?
To a degree, the Armoury sections which have been removed from almost all the Codexes were the replacement for Wargear cards.
Modifiers for everything allow for sliding scales, rather than an all-or-nothing approach. Let's take shooting as an example - regardless of your training, you're likely to find it easier to shoot at something the size of a Land Raider or Monolith than you are a single solitary Grot. As it stands in 5th edition, the size (and speed) of the target is ignored when determining how easy it is for you to shoot them, which isn't very realistic (and I acknowledge the futility of using realism in a 40k discussion). Under the proposed rules, it is easier to shoot a stationary Land Raider than it is a mobile Grot - which feels closer to how the situation would actually occur, at least in my opinion.
Equally, the same applies to armour penetration (which they have unfortunately not changed in this document) - as it stands, a Grot poking you with a stick is as likely to penetrate a suit of Terminator armour as a Battlecannon shell to the face...
Gus_Papas wrote:I haven't gone through these rules as thoroughly as I would've liked due to schoolwork, so it has left me with a few questions. I'm not sure if I'm understanding this properly, but does a transported unit gain/maintain the Relentless USR as long as the transport hasn't moved more than 6"? Does this mean that an IG Heavy Weapons team for example can shoot out of a Chimera's top hatch even if the Chimera has moved? While embarked troops can no longer hold objectives, it seems like they can advance towards said objectives while laying down more fire (albeit moving at a slower pace). It definitely seems like a good tradeoff, but again, if someone could shed some insight on the matter it'd be great.
Also, since AP3 now ignores FNP, are Thousand Sons more useful now? It seems like this in conjunction with most cover being 5+ now means they are a bit less of a niche unit in general and more useful against Blood Angels or other Chaos lists specifically (Plague Marines immediately come to mind) and. Anyone willing to discuss?
I think that Thousand Sons are looking great with these new rules. Being able to negate FNP is a bonus, but the big difference is the nerf to the ubiquitous cover save that made them kinda crappy. Were I to start a CSM army, Thousand Sons is the way I'd go. (mostly 'cause they look the coolest and aren't the crappiest anymore)
Jaon wrote:"If at least one engaged model in an assaulting unit is equipped with assault grenades the assaulted unit does not get the increased initiative from Alpha Strike. "
Can someone please explain this to me I am under the assumption what they mean to say is " yadah yadah yadah in the assaultedunit is equipped with assault grenades, the assaulting unit does not get the alpha strike bonus"
As it stands now, having assault grenades .... negates your own Alpha Strike bonus..
EDIT: oh now I get it, this is talking about units in cover, what about when Squad A assaults Squad B who is already in combat with Squad C? If Squad B has assault grenades, does squad A lose their bonus!?
My Necron Immortals are in cover, and your Blood Angels assault me. Normally, my guys would strike at I10 because you are assaulting into cover, but because you have those assault grenades, that bonus is negated and instead our units assault at their regular Initiative. It's exactly the same dynamic as the current system, except the Alpha strike means the defenders assault at I10 instead of the attackers assault at I1. Now, if your Blood Angels are already tied up in CC with Tom's Tau Firewarriors, (it's a team game) then my Necron Immortals can assault your Blood Angels at I10, and you cannot use your defensive grenades because you are already tied up in CC.
Does that make more sense?
alarmingrick wrote:I don't like going back to the whole 2nd ed. modifier for everything set up. Whats next, Wargear cards?
I would love to see wargear cards, considering most of the Necron wargear has no physical model to attach onto the figure, and a lot of it is intangible to begin with. As to the modifiers: I like this system. The to-hit modifiers for example is the only way to incorporate the idea of speed into the game. Otherwise, as I've said before, the mechanics just boil down to who holds the bigger stick. It creates a new element to unit design and army composition.
alarmingrick wrote:I don't like going back to the whole 2nd ed. modifier for everything set up. Whats next, Wargear cards?
Morale tests modified by casualties in close combat. Damage results modified by weapon and vehicle type. Movement speed (sorta) modified by terrain. Armour Penetration rolls modified by USR and special rules. Pinning tests modified by weapon type. To Hit rolls in close combat modified by opponents WS. To Hit rolls in close combat modified by vehicle speed-
A modifier to BS according to vehicle speed/size just completes the set, It doesn't show a radical departure in design philosophy.
alarmingrick wrote:I don't like going back to the whole 2nd ed. modifier for everything set up.
Whats next, Wargear cards?
Morale tests modified by casualties in close combat.
Damage results modified by weapon and vehicle type.
Movement speed (sorta) modified by terrain.
Armour Penetration rolls modified by USR and special rules.
Pinning tests modified by weapon type.
To Hit rolls in close combat modified by opponents WS.
To Hit rolls in close combat modified by vehicle speed-
A modifier to BS according to vehicle speed/size just completes the set, It doesn't show a radical departure in design philosophy.
...
Never said it was a radical departure in design. Just bitching because it's more modifiers. Is it not okay that i don't really want more?
Now, if your Blood Angels are already tied up in CC with Tom's Tau Firewarriors, (it's a team game) then my Necron Immortals can assault your Blood Angels at I10, and you cannot use your defensive grenades because you are already tied up in CC.
There is a bit of a mixed up here.
When a unit assaults a unit allready engaged in CC, this assaulting unit gets the Alpha strike.
But if the unit who you are assaulting have Genades, you can't have the Alpha strike.
Frag Nades negates the Alpha strike, be it when assaulting or assaulted.
Defensif nades are those who negates your +1 A for assault, those one , yes if the unit is allready locked in CC, they can't use them.
But Frag Nades(Assault grenades) always negates the Alpha strike.
His Master's Voice wrote:The rule, as I read it, is a guarantee of at least 1 ID wound, not an extra wound on top of the ones you inflict based on strength/toughness difference.
On closer reading, you're correct. I saw it as each of the two 'sections' of ID causing additional wounds in the their own right separately, but then I noticed -
If a model suffers an unsaved wound from an
attack with this trait, it loses one additional Wound,
unless its Strength is high enough to cause the
loss of more than two Wounds anyway.
So hitting a Captain with a Str 8 ID weapon still only causes 2 wounds.
This all means that Gazzy can't be one-shotted since he's T5 with four wounds (str 10 = +2 wounds).
Where do you get that assault nades negate alpha strike for attacking units?
As I read it they only effect the attacked unit.
(at least in the nade entry)
Now, if your Blood Angels are already tied up in CC with Tom's Tau Firewarriors, (it's a team game) then my Necron Immortals can assault your Blood Angels at I10, and you cannot use your defensive grenades because you are already tied up in CC.
There is a bit of a mixed up here.
When a unit assaults a unit allready engaged in CC, this assaulting unit gets the Alpha strike.
But if the unit who you are assaulting have Genades, you can't have the Alpha strike.
Frag Nades negates the Alpha strike, be it when assaulting or assaulted.
Defensif nades are those who negates your +1 A for assault, those one , yes if the unit is allready locked in CC, they can't use them.
But Frag Nades(Assault grenades) always negates the Alpha strike.
Please note the part where it says that you cannot use the grenades if you are already tied up in CC.
Now, if your Blood Angels are already tied up in CC with Tom's Tau Firewarriors, (it's a team game) then my Necron Immortals can assault your Blood Angels at I10, and you cannot use your defensive grenades because you are already tied up in CC.
There is a bit of a mixed up here.
When a unit assaults a unit allready engaged in CC, this assaulting unit gets the Alpha strike.
But if the unit who you are assaulting have Genades, you can't have the Alpha strike.
Frag Nades negates the Alpha strike, be it when assaulting or assaulted.
Defensif nades are those who negates your +1 A for assault, those one , yes if the unit is allready locked in CC, they can't use them.
But Frag Nades(Assault grenades) always negates the Alpha strike.
Please note the part where it says that you cannot use the grenades if you are already tied up in CC.
Now, if your Blood Angels are already tied up in CC with Tom's Tau Firewarriors, (it's a team game) then my Necron Immortals can assault your Blood Angels at I10, and you cannot use your defensive grenades because you are already tied up in CC.
There is a bit of a mixed up here.
When a unit assaults a unit allready engaged in CC, this assaulting unit gets the Alpha strike.
But if the unit who you are assaulting have Genades, you can't have the Alpha strike.
Frag Nades negates the Alpha strike, be it when assaulting or assaulted.
Defensif nades are those who negates your +1 A for assault, those one , yes if the unit is allready locked in CC, they can't use them.
But Frag Nades(Assault grenades) always negates the Alpha strike.
Please note the part where it says that you cannot use the grenades if you are already tied up in CC.
Indeed...,my bad
Heh, otherwise the rule would just read: "nobody gets to Alpha Strike against Space Marines. Ever."
EDIT: ...mind you, I could kinda see GW doing that.
Now, if your Blood Angels are already tied up in CC with Tom's Tau Firewarriors, (it's a team game) then my Necron Immortals can assault your Blood Angels at I10, and you cannot use your defensive grenades because you are already tied up in CC.
There is a bit of a mixed up here.
When a unit assaults a unit allready engaged in CC, this assaulting unit gets the Alpha strike.
But if the unit who you are assaulting have Genades, you can't have the Alpha strike.
Frag Nades negates the Alpha strike, be it when assaulting or assaulted.
Defensif nades are those who negates your +1 A for assault, those one , yes if the unit is allready locked in CC, they can't use them.
But Frag Nades(Assault grenades) always negates the Alpha strike.
Please note the part where it says that you cannot use the grenades if you are already tied up in CC.
Indeed...,my bad
Heh, otherwise the rule would just read: "nobody gets to Alpha Strike against Space Marines. Ever."
EDIT: ...mind you, I could kinda see GW doing that.
So what if you assault with two units against one in cover at the same But only one has grenades, let's say some space marines are in cover and I assault them with both my lictor and genestealers what happens?
oldone wrote:So what if you assault with two units against one in cover at the same But only one has grenades, let's say some space marines are in cover and I assault them with both my lictor and genestealers what happens?
If at least one engaged model in an assaulting
unit is equipped with assault grenades, the
assaulted unit does not get the increased
Initiative from an alpha strike.
Now, though this mentions models in a unit, it also simply states that if you are assaulted by a unit with frags, you cannot perform an Aplha Strike action.
Unless otherwise mentioned, it wouldn't matter that another unit without frags has assaulted you, the one with them prevents you from performing that action.
Took me a while to make it through all 64 pages of this thread.
I still think that this is indeed an early playtest version of the 6th edition rulebook, and the proposed evidence against it (IF it is even provided) doesn't convince me at the least. GW deliberately lied about 5th edition and Space Hulk, when everybody already knew they lied, so taking that GW denial email as proof is countered by experience.
For future reference I will copy these official Warseer statements just in case, this leak is indeed real and the Warseer mods are deliberately making false statements:
Wintermute wrote:Its now becoming widely known that the 'leaked' 6th Ed Rules pdf is a hoax.
We at Warseer were reluctant to discuss it because we very quickly recognised it for what it truly was.
Now its been identified for what it is we now are happy for it to be discussed on WarSeer, but only in this thread.
As usual any and all off-topic comments will be removed without warning.
As most, if not all of you, are now aware the GW are (rumoured) to be releasing the Sixth Edition of Warhammer 40,000 this year. The purpose of this thread is to have one point of reference on WarSeer for rumours relating to the new release.
Please note this thread is for the discussion of genuine 'rumours' and not for the discussion of the validity of 'leaked' ruleset which apparently is a hoax.
Any, and, all off-topic posts and spam will be deleted without notice.
The Dude
The WarSeer Inquistion
BTW both aggressively fought the posting of any rumours on Tervigons, Tyrannofexes and all other new non-Trygon monstrous creatures in the Tyranid Codex. All Tyranid rumour threads were banned completely on Warseer when people kept on posting Phil Kelly's early confirmation on new monstrous units "dwarfing the Carnifex".
Kroothawk wrote:Took me a while to make it through all 64 pages of this thread.
I still think that this is indeed an early playtest version of the 6th edition rulebook, and the proposed evidence against it (IF it is even provided) doesn't convince me at the least. GW deliberately lied about 5th edition and Space Hulk, when everybody already knew they lied, so taking that GW denial email as proof is countered by experience.
For future reference I will copy these official Warseer statements just in case, this leak is indeed real and the Warseer mods are deliberately making false statements:
Wintermute wrote:Its now becoming widely known that the 'leaked' 6th Ed Rules pdf is a hoax.
We at Warseer were reluctant to discuss it because we very quickly recognised it for what it truly was.
Now its been identified for what it is we now are happy for it to be discussed on WarSeer, but only in this thread.
As usual any and all off-topic comments will be removed without warning.
As most, if not all of you, are now aware the GW are (rumoured) to be releasing the Sixth Edition of Warhammer 40,000 this year. The purpose of this thread is to have one point of reference on WarSeer for rumours relating to the new release.
Please note this thread is for the discussion of genuine 'rumours' and not for the discussion of the validity of 'leaked' ruleset which apparently is a hoax.
Any, and, all off-topic posts and spam will be deleted without notice.
The Dude
The WarSeer Inquistion
BTW both aggressively fought the posting of any rumours on Tervigons, Tyrannofexes and all other new non-Trygon monstrous creatures in the Tyranid Codex. All Tyranid rumour threads were banned completely on Warseer when people kept on posting Phil Kelly's early confirmation on new monstrous units "dwarfing the Carnifex".
Yeah, the last thing they said to me when I uploaded Beasts Of War's review of the ruleset was "Warseer is more afraid of GW lawyers than your average forum" then BLAM thread closed.
People's capacity to believe that a creature in the distance that looks very much like a lion is actually a giraffe when told by someone else that it is a giraffe never fails to amaze me.
The case for this being an actual GW document, though not necessarily 'the' 6th Ed. rules is much, much stronger than the case that they are a hoax.
Kroothawk wrote:BTW both aggressively fought the posting of any rumours on Tervigons, Tyrannofexes and all other new non-Trygon monstrous creatures in the Tyranid Codex. All Tyranid rumour threads were banned completely on Warseer when people kept on posting Phil Kelly's early confirmation on new monstrous units "dwarfing the Carnifex".
Warseer got done by GWhardcore in the past, they don't want to be anywhere near this.
Dribble Joy wrote:Warseer got done by GWhardcore in the past, they don't want to be anywhere near this.
Then they should close the news&rumour forum alltogether instead of, as I assume, aggressively spreading false information.
They don't have to behave like Russian state TV dealing with critical information on Putin.
Dribble Joy wrote:Warseer got done by GWhardcore in the past, they don't want to be anywhere near this.
Then they should close the news&rumour forum alltogether instead of, as I assume, aggressively spreading false information.
They don't have to behave like Russian state TV dealing with critical information on Putin.
What they do makes it look like a cover-up,which only makes the information popup more and more as White Knights try to show people "the truth"
oldone wrote:So what if you assault with two units against one in cover at the same But only one has grenades, let's say some space marines are in cover and I assault them with both my lictor and genestealers what happens?
If at least one engaged model in an assaulting
unit is equipped with assault grenades, the
assaulted unit does not get the increased
Initiative from an alpha strike.
Now, though this mentions models in a unit, it also simply states that if you are assaulted by a unit with frags, you cannot perform an Aplha Strike action.
Unless otherwise mentioned, it wouldn't matter that another unit without frags has assaulted you, the one with them prevents you from performing that action.
Though it is a bit ambiguous.
Thank you for answering my question
Hey I haven't heard any mention of this anywhere but what is the case with muti-assault now?
oldone wrote:Hey I haven't heard any mention of this anywhere but what is the case with muti-assault now?
Pretty much as it is now. First model moved must be against the target unit, all others can be moved into other units while following the rules for moving assaulting models (finish move in coherency, reach BtB where possible).
p 31 of the PDF.
Something I saw before but forgot to mention:
You must bring the first model you move
into contact with the enemy unit.
So it doesn't necessary have to be the closest.
If this is not
possible, the model is not moved and the unit
may perform a different Move action that is not
an Assault move or remain stationary.
So if you fail an assault, it's not the end of that unit's turn .
Maybe,just Maybe GW was sick of all the leaks.
So they leak a document they know is fake to a few suspected departments.
One bogus one to the sculptors another to the painters and so on.
Then they see which BS rumor comes out and now they have really closed in on the leak.
oldone wrote:Hey I haven't heard any mention of this anywhere but what is the case with muti-assault now?
Pretty much as it is now. First model moved must be against the target unit, all others can be moved into other units while following the rules for moving assaulting models (finish move in coherency, reach BtB where possible).
p 31 of the PDF.
Something I saw before but forgot to mention:
You must bring the first model you move
into contact with the enemy unit.
So it doesn't necessary have to be the closest.
If this is not
possible, the model is not moved and the unit
may perform a different Move action that is not
an Assault move or remain stationary.
So if you fail an assault, it's not the end of that unit's turn .
Thank you again , I actually will get my first look tonight hense all the questions.
Eisenhorn wrote:Maybe,just Maybe GW was sick of all the leaks.
So they leak a document they know is fake to a few suspected departments.
One bogus one to the sculptors another to the painters and so on.
Then they see which BS rumor comes out and now they have really closed in on the leak.
Most companies already do this, but not with bogus rumors. You include a few key and recognizable spelling errors in the different copies you give different people of the regular rules. That way you keep doing your actual job and are not wasting time writing fake material just for this and you can tell by which misspelling shows up which end of the operation leaked it.
Eisenhorn wrote:Maybe,just Maybe GW was sick of all the leaks.
So they leak a document they know is fake to a few suspected departments.
One bogus one to the sculptors another to the painters and so on.
Then they see which BS rumor comes out and now they have really closed in on the leak.
But if they done this just to catch the leaks, and don't use these rules,
I will, Is there an IP on a rules set which "isn't" theirs? Really don't see this as being to catch leaks more over this is to see what the player base will think but then again this is GW when did it ever care?
Warseer being so forum nazi made me come over here instead. Wintermute, especially, is going overboard on this. Basically, you're not allowed to talk about it at all! Hell, if it's fake, then who cares, talk away! How/why exactly are they banning topics about something not real? Isn't that half the threads in the game
Topic: Do you think Guilliman could beat up Marneus Calgar?!?
Obviosuly it's pure speculation... SHUT THE THREAD DOWN NOWWWWWWW!
Talk about strange indeed. Play a game with these rules if you can manage -- they work. They work well. I anticipate having more fun and less min/max power-gaming with these rules. Full size squads are vastly superior to MSU units, I think.
Darnok wrote: No. Instead, you should broaden your horizon, and finally learn something about 40K.
Well I have not played much at all since 2nd edition. I lost interest with 3rd. (allthough I bought a special edition of 5th edition and gave it a go). BUT I must confess I am a little bit excited about 6th edition. it seems to have a bit more of the depth and detail that 2nd edition had ... so who knows?
BRING IT ON!
Perhaps not, either way, he mentions 6th should be more like 2nd, so hope still here if its fake?
tetrisphreak wrote:Full size squads are vastly superior to MSU units, I think.
I think that could depend on what kind of force you're running. Assault armies may well want to run multiple units to make the most of Alpha Strike.
For example: Big ork boy mob takes the charge from <insert general unit of doom> and then the Burnas pile in with their I10 power weapons.
It's been my limited play experience that MSU units won't survive 2 rounds of assault long enough for a counter-charge to occur, unless combat is a draw each time. A 5-man genestealer squad last night, for example, I managed to surround and wreck a venom in CC (Hitting on 4's vs moving vehicles is GREAT) and charge-by-chance the warriors that were inside. We resolved that combat (I lost one genestealer to dangerous terrain from the wreck) and it was a draw. In his turn i got assaulted by some wracks and since we were locked in CC he got the alpha strike vs me -- My stealers were toast. A larger squad could have A.) wiped out the warriors and not been locked in CC during the opponent's turn and B.) met the charge of wracks with enough force to win or draw combat.
Again, it's a LIMITED experience so far but I see the trend of taking full squads or nearly full squads with xenos armies, anyhow. Marines will probably still be okay MSU because of their 3+ armor.
Edit -- Consolidation moves (which is what a charge-by-chance is) ignore difficult/dangerous terrain tests. Might have made a difference, I'll have to remember that next time.
Multi-targeting allows you to split fire if you spend 1 shooting action to do so.
It also means that you can be stationary and double your MT value
Most vehicles have MT-1, tanks get MT-2, and big tanks with the behemoth special rule or av14 get MT-3. Super heavies get MT-6+ number of structure points.
It costs 1 MT point to split fire It costs 1 MT point to fire a regular weapon (vehicles are relentless so can fire heavy if they move) It costs 2 MT to fire an ordnance weapon It costs 4 MT to fire an ordnance Barrage weapon
When a vehicle suffers a weapon destroyed, No longer do you get to say "take off the big gun". Rather, their MT value is decreased by 1.
A vehicle with MT(0) can fire one weapon moving combat speed or stationary. A further Weapon Destroyed will completely prohibit the vehicle from firing.
TechMarines and other units with the 'repair' rule can bolster a vehicle by adding MT value to it, which can be helpful.
No weapon my fire more than once per shooting phase, regardless of the MT value.
A stationary Space Marine Predator with Twin-linked autocannons and 2 sponson-las cannons has MT(4) - normally 2, but was stationary so it doubled. The marine player then spends 1 MT point to split fire, and may use the other 3 remaining MT points to shoot each of the 3 weapons at any combination of 3 targets as long as they're in range. I.e. you can shoot 3 transports, each with one gun if you desire and have LOS.
Hopefully some of those points help you wrap your head round it.
Jaon wrote:I cant get my head around Multi Targeting.
It has levels...so what does MT1 mean?
I get that MT2 means it can fire two weapons, can it split fire? as the same suggests?
If you have an MT number and stay still you get to double it. So a walker (MT1) that stays still fire two weapons a tank (MT2) can fire 4 times. All of these have to be different weapons and some stuff- Ordinance barrages - take up multiple firings. I'm pretty sure you can target everything independently.
Jaon wrote:I cant get my head around Multi Targeting.
It has levels...so what does MT1 mean?
I get that MT2 means it can fire two weapons, can it split fire? as the same suggests?
MT(1) isn't a whole lot of use other than it means you get relentless.
Remaining stationary doubles your MT however, so you can make two shooting actions (or fire an Ordinance weapon).
Divide fire costs a shooting action, so most of the time with MT(1) it's not much use. If you stay still though, you can spend one action and fire at a different target from the rest of the unit you might be in (squadrons and MC units).
If you have MT(2) you can remain stationary (getting MT(4)) to either fire four weapons, an Ordinance Barrage weapon, two Ordinance weapons or spend one for divide fire and fire the remaining three at different targets.
For example:
A Predator has an autocannon and two heavy bolters and is a Tank so it has MT(2).
If it moves at Combat speed it may fire two of those. If it were in a squadron, it could spend one action to fire a single weapon at a different target.
If it stays stationary it gets MT(4). So it can spend one point to Divide Fire and fire it's three weapons at different targets.
Battle Wagons, Land Raiders and Leman Russes have front armour 14 and are therefore 'Behemoths' and come with MT(3).
Jaon wrote:I cant get my head around Multi Targeting.
It has levels...so what does MT1 mean?
I get that MT2 means it can fire two weapons, can it split fire? as the same suggests?
If you have an MT number and stay still you get to double it. So a walker (MT1) that stays still fire two weapons a tank (MT2) can fire 4 times. All of these have to be different weapons and some stuff- Ordinance barrages - take up multiple firings. I'm pretty sure you can target everything independently.
This makes the TLLC/HB predator more valiable, as it can split fire while stll shooting. Manticores and such need to stand still to generate enough MT to fire their weapon.
Jaon wrote:Thanks for the clarifications guys, I must have missed a chart somewhere.
Onto a completely different topic, I hope they change the rule "Enemy player gets to chose the squad leader who replaces the fall squad leader"
Isnt that a tad ridiculous? The enemy appointing the new squad leader of your Squad?
You didn't miss a chart - they need to create one and put it in the document because that makes comprehending the situation totally easier. Fast multi-targeting units double their value even when going combat speed or cruising/run speed. Only when flat-out do they lose the ability to shoot.
Squad leaders -- Well unless they're a character, all they do is direct fire and help decide whether or not the unit can embark so the enemy picking them has not much effect. The way armor saves are done now as long as your character upgrade has the same save as the unit, you won't be obligated to pull him until he's the last failed save. Directed fire (most commonly found in sniper rifles) can hurt here.
A grunt who gets field promoted to squad leader (aka he's not an upgrade character) can't rally the squad if they break. However the game designers felt that it would be a little unfair if there was no other way to regroup so they made the rule that if you embark in a transport during the consolidation phase, your squad auto-rallies regardless of casualties. Transports have changed from mobile bunkers laying down suppressive fire to hold objectives into short-term transports that can come in handy late game if you need to rally.
A lot of artillery vehicles become quite fragile in comparison with other vehicles as they generally have to spend all their shooting actions to fire their main weapons. A single Weapon Damaged result and they can't fire.
Dribble Joy wrote:A lot of artillery vehicles become quite fragile in comparison with other vehicles as they generally have to spend all their shooting actions to fire their main weapons. A single Weapon Damaged result and they can't fire.
Dribble Joy wrote:A lot of artillery vehicles become quite fragile in comparison with other vehicles as they generally have to spend all their shooting actions to fire their main weapons. A single Weapon Damaged result and they can't fire.
Unless you take a tech priest of sorts? Which I like because its seems really fluffy
Dribble Joy wrote:A lot of artillery vehicles become quite fragile in comparison with other vehicles as they generally have to spend all their shooting actions to fire their main weapons. A single Weapon Damaged result and they can't fire.
If they can fire their weapon directly, they're actually more resilient. Currently 1 Weapon Destroyed result means they can't shot their cannon, end of period. Getting a single Damaged - Weapons result just means they can't fire their weapon as Ordnance Barrage anymore, but can still fire as Ordnance when stationary.
Dribble Joy wrote:A lot of artillery vehicles become quite fragile in comparison with other vehicles as they generally have to spend all their shooting actions to fire their main weapons. A single Weapon Damaged result and they can't fire.
If they can fire their weapon directly, they're actually more resilient. Currently 1 Weapon Destroyed result means they can't shot their cannon, end of period. Getting a single Damaged - Weapons result just means they can't fire their weapon as Ordnance Barrage anymore, but can still fire as Ordnance when stationary.
I think (correct me if i'm wrong ) IG Artillery have a special rule prohibiting their guns from direct fire. However, open-topped no longer confers +1 to the damage chart. The vehicle game is getting tossed up a bit in both positive and negative.
Normally I get 1 weapon destroyed result and i'll take off the big gun. This ruleset basically ends up with the same result.
I really think GW has had some knowledge of putting this. Whether it being direct or indirect support. The only bases for this is that I think they do care for what all the players think and want to see how they will react to the rules. Not only that, but we as players will diligently dissect the rules and find issues of overpowering and under-powering that they may have not noticed there first couple times around. Granted they are smart but the mob is much smarted in this case because everyone will notice something that other may not. Also these forums are HUGE source of market research that is absolutely free to them.
I played WH40K way back in the mid 90's where there was over-watch, war gear cars, the Blood Thirster and Avatar had 10W and yes, you could play as squats. Since then I lost interest till I started reading the Horus Heresy books (which I absolutely love, yes pretty much all of them I love, go ahead you can judge). Now I have just been a sideline spectator till 6E rules come out and I can buy up and get back into gaming. I don’t know how much market share people liek me provide GW but these new rules will make me buy up and paint an army.
My last point is that in some of the books on WH40K, the authors give shout-outs to these forums. They not only want your feedback and constructive criticism, it has to make them smile that they have touched enough people to care. The mob is what is going to make 6E great. If GW wasn’t behind this leak at all, they better F-ing take notice. Because it is veteran players like you, newbs all around, and the reborn gamers that will be playing these for years to come. I can’t image they want to create a game and have us start these threads after it has come out.
Redemption wrote:If they can fire their weapon directly, they're actually more resilient. Currently 1 Weapon Destroyed result means they can't shot their cannon, end of period. Getting a single Damaged - Weapons result just means they can't fire their weapon as Ordnance Barrage anymore, but can still fire as Ordnance when stationary.
I've been through the rules but can't find anywhere in the PDF that says that Ord Barrage can be fired directly.
tetrisphreak wrote:How is that different from now?
It's no different than now, just compared with other vehicles in these rules, which have generally gained a lot with regards to firepower.
tetrisphreak wrote:I think (correct me if i'm wrong ) IG Artillery have a special rule prohibiting their guns from direct fire.
Only the Colossus, Griffon and Deathstrike Missile Launcher have that. The Basilisk, Manticore and artillery pieces from other codices such as the Whirlwind don't have that.
Dribble Joy wrote:I've been through the rules but can't find anywhere in the PDF that says that Ord Barrage can be fired directly.
Hmm, can't find it at first glance indeed. The current edition has it at least, and seems like an odd thing to remove. If I'll find it I'll let you know.
tetrisphreak wrote:How is that different from now?
It's no different than now, just compared with other vehicles in these rules, which have generally gained a lot with regards to firepower.
Point conceded - other types of vehicles have gained MT points so that they can take damage results and still fire at full effect. Ordnance barrage, however, has the benefit of being able to fire out of LOS. Park behind Dense terrain (awesome feature btw because sometimes TLOS makes the game way harder to play than it should) and you won't be subject to enemy firepower at all unless they have a similar weapon/outflanking.
Redemption wrote:Hmm, can't find it at first glance indeed. The current edition has it at least, and seems like an odd thing to remove. If I'll find it I'll let you know.
No worries. It's quite possible that it could make the final version anyway.
tetrisphreak wrote:Ordnance barrage, however, has the benefit of being able to fire out of LOS. Park behind Dense terrain (awesome feature btw because sometimes TLOS makes the game way harder to play than it should) and you won't be subject to enemy firepower at all unless they have a similar weapon/outflanking.
Oh of course.
What I'm liking most about these rules is that nothing seems to be 'useless'. Everything has it's use and you need to think about countering a huge variety of possibilities that the opponent could throw at you.
Walls wrote:Warseer being so forum nazi made me come over here instead. Wintermute, especially, is going overboard on this. Basically, you're not allowed to talk about it at all! Hell, if it's fake, then who cares, talk away! How/why exactly are they banning topics about something not real? Isn't that half the threads in the game.
They have a dedicated thread to the discussion of these rules now.
Thanks for the replies! I know relentless extends Rapid Fire range to 18", but how has Rapid Fire itself gotten better (or is this what you meant, Shuma)? Also, just so I know I'm understanding this; a unit can fire out of a transport but this uses one of the transport's MT points, and embarked units can only shoot out to 18". If the transport is stationary or has only moved 6", then the embarked squad benefits from Relentless. Since embarked units shooting is dependent on the MT points of the transport, if the transport suffers enough weapon destroyed results the squad cannot shoot. Is this correct?
Ive got a question. Since GW is saying this isnt a leak of their new 6th ed RB. Whats to stop someone from rewriting this doc removing all reference to GW IP, renaming, weapons etc, and releasing it as an original set of rules? If the actual book isnt going to be released til july someone or a small group would have plenty of time to do this and publish it as a pdf on any of the sites where you can buy rpg and game books in pdf format. I know theyed have no codices to go along with it but still. What would GW be able to do since theyve already denied its leaked from them? Just thinking evil thoughts
Gus_Papas wrote:@ ShumaGorath, otakutaylor, & azazel the cat
Thanks for the replies! I know relentless extends Rapid Fire range to 18", but how has Rapid Fire itself gotten better (or is this what you meant, Shuma)?
Well I don't think anyone has it yet, but Rapid fire can have ranks now.
Gus_Papas wrote:@ ShumaGorath, otakutaylor, & azazel the cat
Thanks for the replies! I know relentless extends Rapid Fire range to 18", but how has Rapid Fire itself gotten better (or is this what you meant, Shuma)?
Well I don't think anyone has it yet, but Rapid fire can have ranks now.
RF2 = 2 full, 3 12"
RF3 = 3 full, 4 12"
Also you can always fire one shot at full range with rapid fire, even if you move now. That's the biggest change, as non-relentless units can move-and-fire with rapid fire weapons. Relentless gains sustained fire at 18" instead of 12" and can fire heavy on the move.
Gus_Papas wrote:@ ShumaGorath, otakutaylor, & azazel the cat
Thanks for the replies! I know relentless extends Rapid Fire range to 18", but how has Rapid Fire itself gotten better (or is this what you meant, Shuma)?
Well I don't think anyone has it yet, but Rapid fire can have ranks now.
RF2 = 2 full, 3 12"
RF3 = 3 full, 4 12"
You can also move and fire at full range now can't you? I suppose thousand suns could do that before though.
Gus_Papas wrote:@ ShumaGorath, otakutaylor, & azazel the cat
Thanks for the replies! I know relentless extends Rapid Fire range to 18", but how has Rapid Fire itself gotten better (or is this what you meant, Shuma)?
Well I don't think anyone has it yet, but Rapid fire can have ranks now.
RF2 = 2 full, 3 12"
RF3 = 3 full, 4 12"
You can also move and fire at full range now can't you? I suppose thousand suns could do that before though.
yea, sry I had assumed that this was known already. =]
Well hi everyone, and I just wanted to say that I am done with warseer! Also, after playing with these rules with a friend, I am done with 5th edition as well!
So, after using Tau, Spacemarine (normal), Orks, and Imperial Guard, I have a fewbthings to say about this edition:
TAU: the new jump rules seem fine, no real problem with those, breaks the boring tactic of sitting behind a building and shooting things when you jump out and hiding again a tad more risky, and I noticed that moving in close to fire my plasma gun, melta, or twinlinked flamers for full erect and then moving back was a effective tactic, most of the time (not used dumbly). Firewarrior squads of 12infantry + a markerdrone proved to be one of the more effective weapons in your arsenal, and I need more of them. Moving 6" and fireing 30" with a chance to reduce EV by one was great, and sitting still in cover got them killed quick. Devilfish turned out to be a meh, still (atleast how I upgrade them) around a hundred and twenty point transport that 12 firewarriors can outperform. Pathfinders + railrifles =win and a really fun unit to play with, but because they are stationary they split fire ^_^ but hit on a 2+ by space marines and 3+ by guardsmen causes them to wilt under fire. :( railguns rarly deviate off target, so the units it targeted tended to make flames and billow smoke when hit. Piranhas are a must have due to jinking, and the increased move. Flechetes are nice addons, same with meltas.
SPACEMARINES: pistols in cc are a nice bonus, but honestly, moving around and shooting bolter and plasma at 24" is more preferable. Heavy weapons are kind of a nusanse in tac squads now, the game seems to me all about maneuvering, and you are punished for not being mobile (like devastators, they are all now about where you place them, that small armed fire won't be a threat, because Orks hitting your devys on a 4+ is embarrassing and deadly (lotta's deffguns). That said, an increase in plasma cannon devies and missile launcher devies will be more common due to deducted scatter. The thundercannon kicks ass, and whirlwind is more reliable, always handy. Landspeeders are more survivable now, I used them before, and will be enjoying them more so now. Landspeeder storms seem more like a support unit, and I have successfully used it to screen a landraider and provide protective support. I don't know about extra armour, I can't find the rules for it.
IMPERIAL GUARD: plasma vets might replace melta vets. Demo charges are unchanged in usage, and melta bombs look a little more deadly. Footsloggers are more effective if you constantly move them, sitting on your ass will lose you the game. Only keep your russes stationary if no imedate anti tank is in the area. Punishers cannon can hit stationary infantry on a 3+, slightly more effective. The nerf to outrageous cover saves mean the nova cannon isn't as devastating as it was previously. Battlecannons scatter less so they are more effective. Heavy weapon teams in general are more killable, so they don't last as long, due to them remaining stationary. Except the mortars. Oh good god at the mortars. Reduction of scatter, plus place the following blasts over themost models possible! ?! Crazy! Plus being out of sight so they can't be shot back at!?! They are very effective for the cost. Guard is very fun to play as.
SPACE ORKS: probably suffered the most. However, you force your opponent to constantly move or risk deffguns hitting tanks on 3+, and they can hit moving transports on a 4+. Killing tanks at range is easier for Orks. Killcannon upgrade on the battlewagon is useful now, because before, if it fired, then nothing else could, and it couldn't fire if moved. All changed now, makes it and looted wagons a more viable option. Also, grot arty has revived a huge boost, hitting tanks on 3 + and mortars being more effective. And they are more survivable (slightly). Recommend taking some. Orks infantry didn't recive a big buff like everyone else did, now everyone can move and shoot full range, and the two shot assault shoots are a little less effective. Burns are still fun, and nobs haven't really been nerfed that bad, our gaming group always played 4th edition wound allocation. So, less buffed, but still competitive. Nothing like a zapp gun to ruin your oppositions tanks!
One of my friends who plays eldar and marines took one look at the eldar faq and hated 6th edition.
he said something about ruining the fire axe, and eldrad. I don't play eldar, and I don't know if the eldar have truly been nerfed in 6th edition because I don't know how they currently benift in 6th edition. If someone could explain why they are worse and then put up some counter arguments on how they are better so I can tell him, that would be much appreciated!
Gus_Papas wrote:Also, just so I know I'm understanding this; a unit can fire out of a transport but this uses one of the transport's MT points, and embarked units can only shoot out to 18". If the transport is stationary or has only moved 6", then the embarked squad benefits from Relentless. Since embarked units shooting is dependent on the MT points of the transport, if the transport suffers enough weapon destroyed results the squad cannot shoot. Is this correct?
Not quite. The number of MT points the vehicle has is irrelevant, it's how many fire points it has that matters and no shooting actions are spent by the vehicle when passengers fire.
If the vehicle doesn't move (or more specifically, can perform Stationary actions), then you can fire as many weapons out of it as fire points, remembering that the embarked unit still has to fire at the same target, so not all fire points will be able to see them (open-topped vehicles have no fire points and all models can see from any point of the vehicle and number is not restricted).
If it moves at combat speed then one model many fire from the transport.
If the vehicle cannot perform shooting actions (through Weapons Damaged results, Stunned, Cruising speed, etc.) then no model may fire.
Fast transports can fire one at Cruising speed, none at Flat Out and as they can perform Stationary actions at Combat speed, all can fire (subject to firepoints and restrictions mentioned above).
Deutchistan, I spotted you mentioned that you had twin linked template weapons in the Tau list. You know that they no longer re-roll to wound?
Instead you add 6" to their range .
I don't have the rules with me... but here are a few questions.
As a daemons player, I am curious. Can you deepstrike and assault? I swear I read this but didn't see rules corraborating it.
Can you assault and then shoot if you wipe out the unit? Doesn't think make assault units even better since they potentially eliminate two targets at once? Assault a squad, kill it, melta gun a tank or shoot up a small support unit, heavy weapons team, etc...
Can you assault, shoot and then embark into a vehicle?
The new wound allocation seems to be pretty painful for HQs since you have to 'saturate' an armour group before allocating wounds to another and a multi wound model counts for as many troops as the number of wounds he has. So, a 4 wound model needs to have 4 wounds allocated to him for example.
Could this change see generic HQ choices with lots of wargear options become more important? Taking a HQ with a set weapons/armour load out may mean that he's the only one in his unit with his armour configuration whereas a generic HQ choice could be kitted out to match several other models in the group. It's going to be more painful for a named HQ that lets you 'take something as troops' etc (although some like Belial can still change their war gear) as something like a Draigo doesn't have the option to swap gear. With directed fire on top of the new wound allocation system, this could really make those expensive HQ choices really big targets.
Walls wrote:I don't have the rules with me... but here are a few questions.
As a daemons player, I am curious. Can you deepstrike and assault? I swear I read this but didn't see rules corraborating it.
Our understanding is that after a deep strike you can perform an Engage move action which can get you into combat.
Walls wrote:Can you assault and then shoot if you wipe out the unit? Doesn't think make assault units even better since they potentially eliminate two targets at once? Assault a squad, kill it, melta gun a tank or shoot up a small support unit, heavy weapons team, etc...
Yes, provided you Engage the enemy.
Walls wrote:Can you assault, shoot and then embark into a vehicle?
Walls wrote:As a daemons player, I am curious. Can you deepstrike and assault? I swear I read this but didn't see rules corraborating it.
You can perform a Combat move or Engage action after DSing. So if you land within you Move distance, you can enter assault.
Just remember that units within 12" of a DSing unit can perform Defensive Fire.
Can you assault and then shoot if you wipe out the unit? Doesn't think make assault units even better since they potentially eliminate two targets at once? Assault a squad, kill it, melta gun a tank or shoot up a small support unit, heavy weapons team, etc...
If you use the Engage action, yes.
Can you assault, shoot and then embark into a vehicle?
If the unit leader is within 3" of an access point on the transport in the Consolidation phase, yes.
ColdSadHungry wrote:The new wound allocation seems to be pretty painful for HQs since you have to 'saturate' an armour group before allocating wounds to another and a multi wound model counts for as many troops as the number of wounds he has. So, a 4 wound model needs to have 4 wounds allocated to him for example.
I didn't think this was right, but on re-reading the allocation rules, yes.
Interesting to see how this will play out, but it might make small uber units more dangerous to characters (which is a good thing).
His Master's Voice wrote:You saturate armor groups by assigning one wound to each model in the group. The number of wounds the model has on it's profile is irrelevant.
He picks one armour group and distributes
wounds to this group until the number of wounds
distributed to the group equals the number of
models in it. Models with multiple Wounds count
as a number of models that equals their
remaining Wounds for this purpose.
Walls wrote:Here's another in the sorta same lines: You can only chance charge a unit in the enemy's turn? So... ONLY on a death or glory or maybe Overwatch?
CBC can be done in the enemy's turn, or your own. Certain specific triggers allow it. Usually in the enemy turn it's triggered as a response to ramming/tank shock. In your own turn, you're explicitly allowed to charge by chance as a reaction to 'trapped' when you wreck a transport vehicle in close combat.
Walls wrote:Here's another in the sorta same lines: You can only chance charge a unit in the enemy's turn? So... ONLY on a death or glory or maybe Overwatch?
It's usually triggered by events in the enemies turn and it listed under the actions that can be performed then, but it is not prohibited from happening in your turn.
That said, there's currently only one example, and that's Trapped! When you block all access points to a unit that has to make an Emergency Disembarkation you may Charge-by-Chance it.
So: Assault vehicle - Kill vehicle - Charge-by-Chance occupants. If you made an Engage move and they're all dead/running, then you can shoot someone else.
I don't have the rules with me... but here are a few questions.
As a daemons player, I am curious. Can you deepstrike and assault? I swear I read this but didn't see rules corraborating it.
Yes using an Engage move. So gotta be within 6" after scatter for most dameon units, although 7 (beasts), 8 (fleet or jetbike) 9 (winged) for some of the others. You also have to weather Defensive fire from units within 12". So if you just plop down one unit in front of a gunline, every unit in 12" could fire. So gotta be smart, hit flanks and weak points or get more then one unit in range (a unit can only DF at one unit that arrived that turn).
Can you assault and then shoot if you wipe out the unit? Doesn't think make assault units even better since they potentially eliminate two targets at once? Assault a squad, kill it, melta gun a tank or shoot up a small support unit, heavy weapons team, etc...
Yup, assuming they have shooting and range and they used an engage move. It does sort of go back to 3ed where units could shoot one and charge another, except now the unit has to get through the cc first, which I think balances it. Also consider, engage moves are pretty short range. I think often times you will need the extra inches from a charge.
Can you assault, shoot and then embark into a vehicle?
Yes, could even throw in a disembark before the assault depending on the situation. However note that units in a vehicle cannot score VPs from objectives at the start of the turn.
The new wound allocation seems to be pretty painful for HQs since you have to 'saturate' an armour group before allocating wounds to another and a multi wound model counts for as many troops as the number of wounds he has. So, a 4 wound model needs to have 4 wounds allocated to him for example.
It is an interesting change. No more allocating a wound or two to draigo or similar as a way to make the unit he is with more resiliant. But you don't have to allocate to an IC that is a different armor group until all other armor groups are saturated, So its not that bad. Takes away some utility. It does mean they could be forced to take more saves if the unit gets hit with a ton of em. So I guess MSU and a character is a bit less resilient.
Which seems to be the point of these rules -- everything dies quicker to make the game faster.
Almarine wrote:So what's going on in this thread guys?
Worth reading 66 pages?
Lots of hypothetical discussion and arguments regarding the leaked rules. Overall some pretty good points have been raised, but pages 40-50 are basically an argument as to how defensive fire works and triggers LOL.
Since when could 2's hit ANYTHING? I believe, as other have stated, that this is probably just a playtest.
BS 5 and higher in the current rules ALWAYS hit on 2's
Most EV stats will be 3, look, it's the same to hit chart we're used to seeing if you look at the EV 3 line.
Swarms and Jinking units are harder to hit - Look at EV 4 (hint - it's BS-1)
Massive and Stationary units are easier to hit - Look at EV 2 (hint, it's BS +1)
This to-hit chart isn't as increasingly difficult to understand as you're making it seem.
Flyers get EV 6 for a turn - - Currently in apoc if you're fielding a flyer it's only hit on 6's unless you have AA guns.
Again, not as far a departure as you're making it out to be.
I will say that this book does have a LOT of balancing mechanics that should prevent old codexes from getting AS bad AS quickly as they have been. It looks like it's easier now for a bad list to still maybe pull it off with good strategy instead of being utterly steamrolled. That's a key ingredient for a healthier game right there.
FLG doesn't have any real evidence or anything, but there's nothing in these rules that out and out conflicts with what they're saying. These rules, if true, probably WOULD last longer and keep older books from getting bad as fast as they usually do.
Drachii wrote:http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2012/01/13/6th-ed-40k-rumors/
*Pours more fuel on the fire*
Here the full quote (should maybe added to title or first post):
Reecius wrote:So, we heard a doozy of a rumor today that I wanted to share with the community.
A source of ours who knows people who knows people, etc. often shares tidbits of juicy rumors. Today he and I were talking about 6th ed and whether or not the leaked rules were legit.
He told me that a friend of his who works for GW not only confirmed that this rule-set was legit, but that it was the culmination of a master plan, so to speak, that has been in the works for years.
Apparently, GW game design has wanted to get away from the edition cycle they’ve been in for the past 3 editions, and want to move towards a core rule set that they can rely on for a long period of time, updating with FAQ’s and Erratas as needed. They want to avoid sweeping changes that leave certain armies in the dust, and therefore with lagging sales.
This would allow them to focus on the model line to a greater degree, and to expand the game into different directions. They would be able to explore the game story both forwards and backwards, and a Warhammer 30K supplement was mentioned (which we’ve been hearing about multiple times). He also mentioned the possibility of progressing the story-line, which we have also been hearing from multiple sources.
The following are my thoughts on that information.
Forgeworld is already fleshing out the backstory with all of their preheresy and heresy era kits. It is not much of a stretch of the imagination to see FW doing a supplement for this period much as they did with the Badab War books, or at least making the models (Primarchs, anyone?).
This would allow GW to keep all books current, and to focus on the models, updating books as they need to.
Is this true? Who can say. Do I want it to be true? Yeah! It is criminal that GW has not made a game supplement for the most exciting part of the game background (Horus Heresy) and who wouldn’t want to use Primarchs and the Emperor and Horus in games? That would be awesome. Who wouldn’t want to see the story advance? That would be awesome, too!
And a lot of what we see in books that don’t make sense now, in the context of the new 6th ed rules we think are real, start to make sense. Maybe that is a case of fitting the system to the existing rules, or perhaps it was all part of a master plan. Who knows? Time will tell what we actually get, but all I can say is that I am very excited for what is to come.
What do you all think about this rumor? Would you like to see these things come true?
Mmm, I probably should've pasted that into my post. Ta, Krootzy. Maybe if we get enough of a threadnought going you can do another of your Rumour Thread Specials?
Fearless (2) In addition to the normal effects of Fearless, units
with the second level of this special rule
automatically pass Morale checks with the types
terror and pinning. For Morale checks with the
types ability and psychic, the model uses a
Leadership value of 10. Note that units with the
Fearless (2) rule can still be shaken due to other
causes than a failed Pinning test.
Models without Leadership value Models without Leadership values always have
the Fearless (2) special rule.
Vehicle psykers Vehicles have the Fearless (2) rule and therefore
use a Leadership of 10 for the purposes of Psychic
actions.
Page 60 - Crucible of Malediction Once per game, in its Shooting phase, a model with a
Crucible of Malediction may choose to open it. This is
an action with the types Shooting, Disembarked and
Disengaged. Every psyker within 3D6” of the bearer
must pass a Morale check (ability) or be removed from
play.
Aaaaaaaaand, we're back. Grey Knights, say hello to my little friend!
Just back from my first game. 1200 pts Orks vs Eldar.
It plays well, there are certainly interesting tactical choices to make now. The interesting this is that my opponent won although he had not read the leak and I had to walk him through the rules... so he certainly beat my with clever tactics and not by exploiting the system.
I also greatly enjoyed hitting on 3+ with my Tankbustas (stationary warwalkers)
As all the community right now (except for the change alergics maybe), i want this to be true, and i want it to be great and epic. It would be a great way or GW to change the situtation, and i would even start to like price hikes if that occured. Start Believing, we are seeying light in the future...
Fearless (2) In addition to the normal effects of Fearless, units
with the second level of this special rule
automatically pass Morale checks with the types
terror and pinning. For Morale checks with the
types ability and psychic, the model uses a
Leadership value of 10. Note that units with the
Fearless (2) rule can still be shaken due to other
causes than a failed Pinning test.
Models without Leadership value Models without Leadership values always have
the Fearless (2) special rule.
Vehicle psykers Vehicles have the Fearless (2) rule and therefore
use a Leadership of 10 for the purposes of Psychic
actions.
Page 60 - Crucible of Malediction Once per game, in its Shooting phase, a model with a
Crucible of Malediction may choose to open it. This is
an action with the types Shooting, Disembarked and
Disengaged. Every psyker within 3D6” of the bearer
must pass a Morale check (ability) or be removed from
play.
Aaaaaaaaand, we're back. Grey Knights, say hello to my little friend!
Are you saying the the Crucible affects all models in a unit? This is what it says in the new rulebook:
'If the unit is subject to a rule that affects psykers, the
controlling player chooses a focus model to be
affected instead of the unit. If a psychic unit is
accompanied by independent characters (or
another unit with the ability to join units), these
models count as separate units for the purpose of
this rule. For example, they use psychic powers of
their own separately, cannot be picked as the
focus model and do not contribute to the number
of models in the psychic unit if the effect of a
power depends on it.'
One model per squad in range would be affected basically, just as it is now. I know there's not much faith in GW around here but there's no way they'd create a mechanic that can eliminate an entire army on one failed morale test. That's why it doesn't work in 5th and doesn't in 6th either - it would just be too crazy.
ColdSadHungry wrote:Are you saying the the Crucible affects all models in a unit? This is what it says in the new rulebook:
'If the unit is subject to a rule that affects psykers, the
controlling player chooses a focus model to be
affected instead of the unit. If a psychic unit is
accompanied by independent characters (or
another unit with the ability to join units), these
models count as separate units for the purpose of
this rule. For example, they use psychic powers of
their own separately, cannot be picked as the
focus model and do not contribute to the number
of models in the psychic unit if the effect of a
power depends on it.'
One model per squad in range would be affected basically, just as it is now. I know there's not much faith in GW around here but there's no way they'd create a mechanic that can eliminate an entire army on one failed morale test. That's why it doesn't work in 5th and doesn't in 6th either - it would just be too crazy.
I'm saying it works on Psyker vehicles (again). And all GK vehicles are psykers (except for the Chimera I think).
ColdSadHungry wrote:Are you saying the the Crucible affects all models in a unit? This is what it says in the new rulebook:
'If the unit is subject to a rule that affects psykers, the
controlling player chooses a focus model to be
affected instead of the unit. If a psychic unit is
accompanied by independent characters (or
another unit with the ability to join units), these
models count as separate units for the purpose of
this rule. For example, they use psychic powers of
their own separately, cannot be picked as the
focus model and do not contribute to the number
of models in the psychic unit if the effect of a
power depends on it.'
One model per squad in range would be affected basically, just as it is now. I know there's not much faith in GW around here but there's no way they'd create a mechanic that can eliminate an entire army on one failed morale test. That's why it doesn't work in 5th and doesn't in 6th either - it would just be too crazy.
I'm saying it works on Psyker vehicles (again). And all GK vehicles are psykers (except for the Chimera I think).
Ah, forgive me then. I just had flash backs to all those arguments where people tried to convince everyone that the crucible took out entire squads and thought 'Oh no! Not this again!'. If it affects vehicles, then so be it. The GK took a bit of a nerf in this new book anyway and I don't have to defend my choice to play GK as much since people wouldn't be able to claim it's an auto win anymore.
I'm still curious to try out my Death Wing with 6th ed. From what I"ve read Terminators are going to die a lot faster, has anyone played 6th with Terminators yet?
ColdSadHungry wrote:Ah, forgive me then. I just had flash backs to all those arguments where people tried to convince everyone that the crucible took out entire squads and thought 'Oh no! Not this again!'. If it affects vehicles, then so be it. The GK took a bit of a nerf in this new book anyway and I don't have to defend my choice to play GK as much since people wouldn't be able to claim it's an auto win anymore.
No worries. I'm sure that if this is real, this particular jewel won't make the final cut. We're still talking about GW and their poster boys, after all.
Mandor wrote:I'm saying it works on Psyker vehicles (again). And all GK vehicles are psykers (except for the Chimera I think).
Yeah, seems like it. Still makes the wargear so situational though. You have get close to the GKs without getting shot up (and Coteaz has Overwatch now) or singled out with Directed Hits. Then you have to open it and hope you roll decent on your 3d6" range check. And even then, with a Leadership of 10, vehicles will only fail ~8% of the time.
It's good for a laugh every now and again, but it's certainly not some super counter against all Grey Knight armies.
Stationary vehicles have double MT'ing, and in most cases will be spliting there fire. If an infantry squad stays stationary, then do they get double MT'ing? (And therefore could split fire).
So an example: a squad of spacemarines with a melta, combimelta, and missile launcher fire at a Devilfish and wreak it with the meltas and missile launcher, then proceed to use the rest of the squads bolters to turn the tau inside that just disembarked into tuna?
And if not, would standing on an objective with fire at will stratagem in play allow you to do this?
Mandor wrote:I'm saying it works on Psyker vehicles (again). And all GK vehicles are psykers (except for the Chimera I think).
Yeah, seems like it. Still makes the wargear so situational though. You have get close to the GKs without getting shot up (and Coteaz has Overwatch now) or singled out with Directed Hits. Then you have to open it and hope you roll decent on your 3d6" range check. And even then, with a Leadership of 10, vehicles will only fail ~8% of the time.
It's good for a laugh every now and again, but it's certainly not some super counter against all Grey Knight armies.
Agreed. I just thought it was funny after all the discussion on Dakka about GK (vehicles) vs CoM and the GKFAQ afterwards. And even if this holds up, it won't be as dramatic as in Fifth, because a transported unit can still get out of a transport when it's removed from play (sorry, Lukas).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Deutchistan_General wrote:Stationary vehicles have double MT'ing, and in most cases will be spliting there fire. If an infantry squad stays stationary, then do they get double MT'ing? (And therefore could split fire).
So an example: a squad of spacemarines with a melta, combimelta, and missile launcher fire at a Devilfish and wreak it with the meltas and missile launcher, then proceed to use the rest of the squads bolters to turn the tau inside that just disembarked into tuna?
And if not, would standing on an objective with fire at will stratagem in play allow you to do this?
The squad would be able to split fire, as long as all or some models in it have MT in the first place (which infantry don't have normally). I'm sure all shooting still happens at the same time though, so shooting up a transported unit with the same squad still won't work.
Deutchistan_General wrote:Stationary vehicles have double MT'ing, and in most cases will be spliting there fire. If an infantry squad stays stationary, then do they get double MT'ing? (And therefore could split fire).
So an example: a squad of spacemarines with a melta, combimelta, and missile launcher fire at a Devilfish and wreak it with the meltas and missile launcher, then proceed to use the rest of the squads bolters to turn the tau inside that just disembarked into tuna?
And if not, would standing on an objective with fire at will stratagem in play allow you to do this?
Well, first of all, infantry squads don't get Multi-Targetting unless they have some special rule. But in the case your squad did have it, all shooting of a unit happens simultaneously, so you have to declare your targets before you roll any dice. As an embarked squad cannot be targetted, it isn't a valid target.
Ok played two games with Tau vs Eldar and Marines.
Both rather small games, 1000p and 500p.
Standart missions with objectives and all.
Game vs eldar was really fun, some great changes,
it takes some time get used to Banshees charging 16".. ><
Rangers are pretty cool too.
It is really really hard to miss shots with a fire prism.
Jetbikes are pretty hard to hit.
On the Tau side:
Had a list with an Ethereal, some Pathfinders with Rail Rifles, Broadsides with Advanced Stabilization Systems
and Commander with Command and Control Node. (rest was FW, Kroot, some battlesuits)
Rapid fire while on the move is nice to have, but kinda makes Pulse Carabines useless.
Battlesuits with the relentless rule are also cool.
I likes the 2d6 fall back, makes battlesuits actually more interesting.
Railguns are awesome, might even be abit too strong... (see the marine battle)
I can see turnament lists consisting of 6 Broadsides with Shild drones and Stabilizers and 9 Sniper Drones.
Did not really use any directed hits vs Eldar, so the ccn was kinda useless.
The Ethereal died rather late in the game, but he really pays off.
Also the Fire at will stratagem is kinda hard to use. Not really benefited me in this game.
Vs Marines..
Well, not really much to say there, 500p marines with two 10 man tactical squads.
500p Tau: one Broadside with ass, Pathfindes with Rail Rifles, two FWsquads, Commander and Ethereal.
Marine took first round, I took the Gravity Traps to keep them at distance.
My opponent made some serious mistakes with formations.
Two railrifles and my Broadside wiped them off the board by turn two... no casulties on the Tau side barring the Ethereal.
edit: (oh and the battlefield was stuffed with terrain pieces, so enough cover for the marines)
Yes it was mainly the fault of the marine player, but still such power against marines,
I doubt they implement that into the final rulebook. ><
Rail rifles hit all the models in a line at s6 ap3 correct? and ap3 now ignores FnP? And cover saves are mostly 5+ now? Yeah, that sounds like a pretty solid unit to me. Sniper Drones are going to be a great tactical choice while broadsides take apart the tanks. No more +1 for ap-1 but you can explode tanks with them if you roll a natural 6 on the damage chart (something only AP 1 weapons can do vs tanks).
Okay, thanks for the clarification (and now I know that I need to equip tau sergeants with some cool wargear)
Also, it apears that if you have the targeting array, you no longer get +1 bs, but always count target as stationary. I am asuming it doesn't work when targeting fliers with ion cannons, I would assume that you need AA as well. Or is that a different upgrade competely?
And on the topic of fliers, the way rail rules are described, I can target some infantry squad in the distance, roll the scatter, and have the line pass through the target that I really want to hit, a flier. That just sounds unrealistic to me, and even as a tau player, I hope that gets FAQed. Even jinking vechicals are hit. Something is op about the rail rules I think. I read the rules, I have them on my laptop, but sometimes I miss parts of an 130ish page rule book.
Also, the hydra, if I remember correctly (I don't have them in front of me now, they are at home) hydras AA rule counts them as EV 3. It also has the targeting special rule, which counts the target as stationary when it fires. Do those stack, or does one apply to fliers and one apply to ground units? (I hope the second one, or else hydras hitting fliers on a 3+, 4 twinlinked S7 shots!?! No one will want to verse my OP hydra flack tank. Hitting on a 4+ is good enough for me)
The Dwarf Wolf wrote:As all the community right now (except for the change alergics maybe), i want this to be true, and i want it to be great and epic. It would be a great way or GW to change the situtation, and i would even start to like price hikes if that occured. Start Believing, we are seeying light in the future...
I can't believe I would be saying this, but if this is true and it is 6th edition, i can swallow the GW price hikes as well. That would be collecting Tyranids and starting a new army for my son, Necrons with our Dark Angels.
If these rumours are false, I will not be able to swallow the GW price hikes. And if the 6th edtion rules are basically like 3rd to 4th to 5th, then it's goodbye 40K and move onto LotR and Hordes.
I am kinda curious how daemons really work in this edition. Alot of their power relied on them being able to get stuck in deep and close. Now, by these rules, everyone can shoot at every unit that deepstrikes in 12". That's instant death to every unit now, no? They'll be so whittled down that even being able to assault from the deepstrike won't matter. It was one thing before when you deepstruck everyone and then went to the next phase. This seems like as they drop in, they get shot... killing the Fateweaver bubble in a ways.
They don't have strong enough shooting to compensate for deepstriking back and moving up for the fight in later turns. Even the Strike Force for them doesn't matter as much if everything gets shot on landing.
Alot of people would say just DS out of 12" but there are too many fast vehicles and units to prevent that without being pushed to the back table edge.
I mean, let's face it, every edition has to have someone be the worst army. Daemons turn?
And the deepstrike rules really kill Drop Pod and DOA armies too by the looks of it... but at least those armies have other viable builds.
Walls wrote:I am kinda curious how daemons really work in this edition. Alot of their power relied on them being able to get stuck in deep and close. Now, by these rules, everyone can shoot at every unit that deepstrikes in 12". That's instant death to every unit now, no? They'll be so whittled down that even being able to assault from the deepstrike won't matter. It was one thing before when you deepstruck everyone and then went to the next phase. This seems like as they drop in, they get shot... killing the Fateweaver bubble in a ways.
They don't have strong enough shooting to compensate for deepstriking back and moving up for the fight in later turns. Even the Strike Force for them doesn't matter as much if everything gets shot on landing.
Alot of people would say just DS out of 12" but there are too many fast vehicles and units to prevent that without being pushed to the back table edge.
I mean, let's face it, every edition has to have someone be the worst army. Daemons turn?
And the deepstrike rules really kill Drop Pod and DOA armies too by the looks of it... but at least those armies have other viable builds.
Thoughts?
Not sure how it works. I thought there was no "you go, I go". so I can't see how they can shoot you when you deepstrike unless they say you can shoot your opponent on his turn. Also another thing to think about is if this is done, when does this shooting happen? On the opponents turn? If so when, before the DS unit gets to assault or after they assault when the shooting phase happens?
Walls wrote:I am kinda curious how daemons really work in this edition. Alot of their power relied on them being able to get stuck in deep and close. Now, by these rules, everyone can shoot at every unit that deepstrikes in 12". That's instant death to every unit now, no? They'll be so whittled down that even being able to assault from the deepstrike won't matter. It was one thing before when you deepstruck everyone and then went to the next phase. This seems like as they drop in, they get shot... killing the Fateweaver bubble in a ways.
They don't have strong enough shooting to compensate for deepstriking back and moving up for the fight in later turns. Even the Strike Force for them doesn't matter as much if everything gets shot on landing.
Alot of people would say just DS out of 12" but there are too many fast vehicles and units to prevent that without being pushed to the back table edge.
I mean, let's face it, every edition has to have someone be the worst army. Daemons turn?
And the deepstrike rules really kill Drop Pod and DOA armies too by the looks of it... but at least those armies have other viable builds.
Thoughts?
Okay so the current rules - You deep strike, and can do nothing other than run or shoot. Enemy turn rolls around and they shoot you to pieces, with target priority letting them roll through each unit as they need to. They also get to respond to your deep strikes by moving first, then firing at you, making it even harder for you as a daemon player to reach combat.
6th edition leak - You deep strike, as usual since you'll be in critical range. Any units within 12" still get a chance to shoot at you. However each unit can only defensive fire at ONE unit that deep struck that turn. If you get multiple units in critical range only one will be fired upon, the rest untouched. Move into assault with an engage move (6" with infantry, 8" with fleet infantry), and you're in close combat from the VERY START of the game.
This makes daemons better, not worse.
Edit - This doesn't even take into account having icons of chaos and subsequent reserves getting to deep strike with no scatter at all thanks to the Beacon rule.
Ohhhhhhhhhh... see, I just plead ignorance. I was thinking everyone got to DF at everyone all the time, essentially giving armies a ton of extra shooting phases.
So do you do all your deepstrikes, scatter, etc and THEN they get to pick who they DF on or do they decide as you land?
Walls wrote:Ohhhhhhhhhh... see, I just plead ignorance. I was thinking everyone got to DF at everyone all the time, essentially giving armies a ton of extra shooting phases.
So do you do all your deepstrikes, scatter, etc and THEN they get to pick who they DF on or do they decide as you land?
After all reserves come in and are placed you check to see which are eligible for defensive fire. Units pick one target they fire upon then. A deep strike mishap results in the unit being moved the shortest distance possible and getting the 'stunned' status (preventing them from assaulting/shooting that turn, but not destroying them outright or misplacing them on the field)
Edit - This doesn't even take into account having icons of chaos and subsequent reserves getting to deep strike with no scatter at all thanks to the Beacon rule.
Not to menton potential alpha strikes if the enemy is still tied in combat with the first wave deamons.
I know I may start that Slaanesh army I always wanted. Its only too bad that their Pavane happens after assaults now. Don't know what I would use it for
CajunMan wrote:Surrounded
If a single model of the unit is within 12” of an
enemy model that is not locked in combat at the
end of its own Movement phase, the whole unit is
destroyed.
Whoa. Bye Bye low leadership.
Sorry, what? If my lone Guardsmen survives behinfd a wall near a Terminator squad it could wipe them out? WHAT IS THIS?!
....and I'm pretty sure you can still use strike forces with demonic assault so you can pretty much guarantee everything will be on the board T2...or hold it in reserve till you think the best time to drop it would be.
I hope that gets canned or changed to 6" because 12" is far too easy a requirement to meet for an opponent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maelstrom808 wrote:....and I'm pretty sure you can still use strike forces with demonic assault so you can pretty much guarantee everything will be on the board T2...or hold it in reserve till you think the best time to drop it would be.
Can they? I don't own their book yet but wouldn't the wording for how they pick their halves mess that up? I mean, they don't even know what half will actually be in reserve
The biggest reason I think the so - called Leaked rules wont be substantially what 6th Edition looks like is that it appears from this thread the rules are too far different from 5th Edition .
Its far too much of a gamble for a public company with shareholders to take such a risk with what is their biggest line . I cant see 6th Edition being what seems far more a departure than 8th Ed WHFB wasfrom 7th .
Regardless of whether this ' leaked 6th ed ' is an early playtesting draft I cant see the final release being so radically different from 5th Ed as this 'leak' suggests
CajunMan wrote:Surrounded
If a single model of the unit is within 12” of an
enemy model that is not locked in combat at the
end of its own Movement phase, the whole unit is
destroyed.
Whoa. Bye Bye low leadership.
Sorry, what? If my lone Guardsmen survives behinfd a wall near a Terminator squad it could wipe them out? WHAT IS THIS?!
It's okay. To make you feel better, just stop and think how awesome PCSs loaded up with flamers just became for counter assaulting...or how terriffying a blob squad loaded up with power weapons and flamers can be.
Dynamix wrote:The biggest reason I think the so - called Leaked rules wont be substantially what 6th Edition looks like is that it appears from this thread the rules are too far different from 5th Edition .
I bet that's what people said at the end of 2nd edition too.
It's a risk for GW but also an opportunity. The rules seem to do a favor to all armies, even underdogs such as deamons. The market for marines get's saturated eventually, if the new rules increase sales of prior underdogs, it's only good for GW.
Maelstrom808 wrote:....and I'm pretty sure you can still use strike forces with demonic assault so you can pretty much guarantee everything will be on the board T2...or hold it in reserve till you think the best time to drop it would be.
Can they? I don't own their book yet but wouldn't the wording for how they pick their halves mess that up? I mean, they don't even know what half will actually be in reserve
It tells you all units start in reserve, so each half is in reserve at the very start, so they both can be given strike force. it ends up being redundant to the first group, but works great for the second.
Noir Eternal wrote:I know I may start that Slaanesh army I always wanted. Its only too bad that their Pavane happens after assaults now. Don't know what I would use it for
Push enemy units out of effective range to move/shoot at/assault you.
Much like the Hive Tyrant's power "paroxysm" it's gone from an offensive to a defensive power.
Dynamix wrote:Its different from 2nd to 3rd ed - more of a risk now
I agree it's a risk; I disagree that it is a bigger one. The 2nd to 3rd transition invalidated all codices and delivered a sub-par product in return (atleast at first glance).
CajunMan wrote:Surrounded
If a single model of the unit is within 12” of an
enemy model that is not locked in combat at the
end of its own Movement phase, the whole unit is
destroyed.
Whoa. Bye Bye low leadership.
Sorry, what? If my lone Guardsmen survives behinfd a wall near a Terminator squad it could wipe them out? WHAT IS THIS?!
This rule only applies to BROKEN units at the end of their own MOVEMENT phase. No longer is a broken unit forced to fall back directly towards it's own table edge every movement phase. Rather it's a single fall back move at the time the unit becomes broken, Then they are limited in what actions they can perform subsequently (if i recall they may not assault, use psychic powers, or use support powers). They can still combat move, or run, in a position where they are far enough away from the enemy to Rally (and not necessarily towards the edge of the table).
A broken unit may also voluntarily leave the table edge to prevent the enemy from earning a Kill point off of them.
Well the way you put the BROKEN rule it doesn't sound AS bad but I will want to play some games to determine whether or not if I like it.
I do like the possiblity to deny kill points though and that sounds like it would be the balancing factor to the seemingly OP 12" insta-gib from enemy units
Dynamix wrote:Its different from 2nd to 3rd ed - more of a risk now
But, GW needs a risk right now. The blog by Reecius, if true, confirms one of the main reasons that I have been entertaining the possibility of this being true. If I have read the talk on their financial reports right (and it's ENTIRELY possible I have not), GW is not doing great. They aren't going under anytime soon, but every report for the last year or two seems to show them making profit, but the overall sales stay stagnant or decline. So it's a cycle of raise prices to cover lost volume, lose more customers, raise prices to cover lost volume, etc....which is not sustainable over the long term. GW needs to shake the game up, and I think they know it. After taking a couple hours to read through the PDF and getting to know it, it lays the groundwork for a much broader, more dynamic game, with a lot more options in how it's played. It's a ruleset that has more action in the games, and with more emphisis on larger squads and nudging those squads to not stay cooped up in a transport all game, makes for a more visually impressive game. All of which is overall better for getting new players into the game.
I have a question, since many people take the GW denial emmail very seriously:
1.) Does anyone with GW connections remember, if GW send a similar email when the correct 5th edition playtest rulebook leaked? I remember asking a redshirt in January about 5th edition in July, and he denied it, and 5th edition came in July. Knowing how GW works, I think he received an official document on how to react.
2.) Has there been an email concerning Space Hulk?
BTW the 6th edition rules may look very different, but have a similar feel when actually played. The document explicitely says this as well.
tetrisphreak wrote:Multi-targeting allows you to split fire if you spend 1 shooting action to do so.
It also means that you can be stationary and double your MT value
Most vehicles have MT-1, tanks get MT-2, and big tanks with the behemoth special rule or av14 get MT-3. Super heavies get MT-6+ number of structure points.
It costs 1 MT point to split fire
It costs 1 MT point to fire a regular weapon (vehicles are relentless so can fire heavy if they move)
It costs 2 MT to fire an ordnance weapon
It costs 4 MT to fire an ordnance Barrage weapon
When a vehicle suffers a weapon destroyed, No longer do you get to say "take off the big gun". Rather, their MT value is decreased by 1.
A vehicle with MT(0) can fire one weapon moving combat speed or stationary. A further Weapon Destroyed will completely prohibit the vehicle from firing.
TechMarines and other units with the 'repair' rule can bolster a vehicle by adding MT value to it, which can be helpful.
No weapon my fire more than once per shooting phase, regardless of the MT value.
.
This is the line that causes me the most confusion. What then is the difference between MT(1) and MT(0)? MT(1) can fire 1 weapon moving combat speed or 2 weapons stationary? It just seems counter intuitive to me that you could be permitted to fire 1 weapon while moving combat speed, lose a charge of MT and still be able to fire 1 weapon whiel moving at combat speed.
Noir Eternal wrote:Oh perfect, I wasn't sure since its been awhile since I read the rule.
The problem I see then is that turn 2 you need a 5+ to get your strike force, thus making a 2/3 chance that on turn 2 you get no reinforcements at all
You get to roll three dice for your strikeforce as long as you have at least three units in reserve, and if any of them pass then the whole thing comes in.
Dynamix wrote:Its different from 2nd to 3rd ed - more of a risk now
But, GW needs a risk right now. The blog by Reecius, if true, confirms one of the main reasons that I have been entertaining the possibility of this being true. If I have read the talk on their financial reports right (and it's ENTIRELY possible I have not), GW is not doing great. They aren't going under anytime soon, but every report for the last year or two seems to show them making profit, but the overall sales stay stagnant or decline. So it's a cycle of raise prices to cover lost volume, lose more customers, raise prices to cover lost volume, etc....which is not sustainable over the long term. GW needs to shake the game up, and I think they know it. After taking a couple hours to read through the PDF and getting to know it, it lays the groundwork for a much broader, more dynamic game, with a lot more options in how it's played. It's a ruleset that has more action in the games, and with more emphisis on larger squads and nudging those squads to not stay cooped up in a transport all game, makes for a more visually impressive game. All of which is overall better for getting new players into the game.
Kroothawk wrote:I have a question, since many people take the GW denial emmail very seriously:
1.) Does anyone with GW connections remember, if GW send a similar email when the correct 5th edition playtest rulebook leaked? I remember asking a redshirt in January about 5th edition in July, and he denied it, and 5th edition came in July. Knowing how GW works, I think he received an official document on how to react.
2.) Has there been an email concerning Space Hulk?
BTW the 6th edition rules may look very different, but have a similar feel when actually played. The document explicitely says this as well.
Can't answer (1), but I've seen several people comment that GW sent out a mail to counter a leak about Space Hulk Anniversary edition, saying it wasn't true.
Maelstrom808 wrote:You get to roll three dice for your strikeforce as long as you have at least three units in reserve, and if any of them pass then the whole thing comes in.
I'm sorry explain this to me in detail again please?
You get 1 D6 per strike force right? So if you put 3 units into a strike force then your only generating one D6, at least that what I thought
Maelstrom808 wrote:You get to roll three dice for your strikeforce as long as you have at least three units in reserve, and if any of them pass then the whole thing comes in.
I'm sorry explain this to me in detail again please?
You get 1 D6 per strike force right? So if you put 3 units into a strike force then your only generating one D6, at least that what I thought
Actually you are right, I was thinking about a couple of reserve lists I have worked up that have the additional units outside the strike force.
The Comm LInk stratagem (1 point) gives you an additional reserve dice in your reserve pool - - When running an all reserve force that extra dice can come in mighty handy.
Now you could make a unit of 5 Plague Bearers for cheap and seperate them to generate an extra D6 so you would get two chances to bring in your strike force.
Which makes that tactic much more viable but still a bit risky
And then bring in the Bearers later for objectives
Kharrak wrote:Can't answer (1), but I've seen several people comment that GW sent out a mail to counter a leak about Space Hulk Anniversary edition, saying it wasn't true.
Damn, then I bought a fake Space Hulk
(BTW it was not exactly a leak, but Harry confirmed it 2.5 years before release, and noone doubts the pieman)
Noir Eternal wrote:Well the way you put the BROKEN rule it doesn't sound AS bad but I will want to play some games to determine whether or not if I like it.
I do like the possiblity to deny kill points though and that sounds like it would be the balancing factor to the seemingly OP 12" insta-gib from enemy units
Fall Back
Unit Type: Compulsory
A Fall Back move is a Consolidation. The unit adds
D6” to its normal Move value in inches for the Fall
Back move. Every model must end its movement
as near as the movement rules allow to its own
table edge.
Since fall back is in consolidation, then you can continue to run away in your movement phase to meet the 12" requirement. At the end of your movement phase you are destroyed if you are within 12" of the enemy. I think its more than enough chance to make the 12" requirement.
tetrisphreak wrote:The Comm LInk stratagem (1 point) gives you an additional reserve dice in your reserve pool - - When running an all reserve force that extra dice can come in mighty handy.
Good catch, wasn't thinking of using strategems for that.
Besides going 2nd for Daemons hardly makes a difference
Epicwargamer wrote:Fall Back
Unit Type: Compulsory
A Fall Back move is a Consolidation. The unit adds
D6” to its normal Move value in inches for the Fall
Back move. Every model must end its movement
as near as the movement rules allow to its own
table edge.
Since fall back is in consolidation, then you can continue to run away in your movement phase to meet the 12" requirement. At the end of your movement phase you are destroyed if you are within 12" of the enemy. I think its more than enough chance to make the 12" requirement.
Ok sounds good, I won't worry nearly as much about it then
ColdSadHungry wrote:The new wound allocation seems to be pretty painful for HQs since you have to 'saturate' an armour group before allocating wounds to another and a multi wound model counts for as many troops as the number of wounds he has. So, a 4 wound model needs to have 4 wounds allocated to him for example.
I didn't think this was right, but on re-reading the allocation rules, yes.
Interesting to see how this will play out, but it might make small uber units more dangerous to characters (which is a good thing).
His Master's Voice wrote:You saturate armor groups by assigning one wound to each model in the group. The number of wounds the model has on it's profile is irrelevant.
He picks one armour group and distributes
wounds to this group until the number of wounds
distributed to the group equals the number of
models in it. Models with multiple Wounds count
as a number of models that equals their
remaining Wounds for this purpose.
Important thing to note here is unless these hits are directed, you can still choose to completely ignore the character and place the successful wounds on other models. In the absence of directed hits the character is even safer than before. In current rules a 5 man strong squad with a 2 W character is dealt 10 wounds, the normal troopers take 8 saves and the character takes 2. If you fail three wounds and two of them happen to be the ones allocated to the character, tough luck he dies . With the new rules, you take 20 wounds on the armor grouping and if you fail three wounds, you chose which 3 models to remove. The only time they can force those wounds/saves onto the character or any specific model is using directed hits.
If you break off a close combat, you are broken.
But you can only fall back 12" max. (normally)
The enemy is no longer locked in combat after that.
Does that mean, if you do not regroup in your Consolidation phase, do not destroy the enemy unit in your shooting phase AND the enemy stays where he is, you're automatically destroyed the next round?
tetrisphreak wrote:The Comm LInk stratagem (1 point) gives you an additional reserve dice in your reserve pool - - When running an all reserve force that extra dice can come in mighty handy.
Good catch, wasn't thinking of using strategems for that.
Besides going 2nd for Daemons hardly makes a difference
It's prefered for an all reserve army in most cases, although the whole getting points for objectives every turn may impact that a bit.
IPS wrote:If you break off a close combat, you are broken. But you can only fall back 12" max. (normally) The enemy is no longer locked in combat after that.
Does that mean, if you do not regroup in your Consolidation phase, do not destroy the enemy unit in your shooting phase AND the enemy stays where he is, you're automatically destroyed the next round?
Unless you engage them again or consolidate into a transport I think.
I think a Daemon player would still be fine going second. As the first player still has to keep the objectives during the Daemon player's turn to gain the points
With some rules, the LRBT having sponsons will make sense. They could fire on 3 different targets.
But based on their EV, it makes them as good as dead if they do. Before you'd be wasting points at
worst. Now it could get you killed if you use your sponsons.
alarmingrick wrote:With some rules, the LRBT having sponsons will make sense. They could fire on 3 different targets.
But based on their EV, it makes them as good as dead if they do. Before you'd be wasting points at
worst. Now it could get you killed if you use your sponsons.
I'll be driving around in my plasmacutioners firing all barrels on full every turn.
alarmingrick wrote:With some rules, the LRBT having sponsons will make sense. They could fire on 3 different targets.
But based on their EV, it makes them as good as dead if they do. Before you'd be wasting points at
worst. Now it could get you killed if you use your sponsons.
I'll be driving around in my plasmacutioners firing all barrels on full every turn.
Realistically the majority of the game was already hitting them on a 3+, moving that to a 2+ for ranged firepower isn't a tremendous difference. You'll get hit 17% more often. Given that a glancing hit can't kill and even a lascanon needs a 6 followed by a 6 to kill a LR at range, I really don't think they're somehow getting more vulnerable.
alarmingrick wrote:With some rules, the LRBT having sponsons will make sense. They could fire on 3 different targets.
But based on their EV, it makes them as good as dead if they do. Before you'd be wasting points at
worst. Now it could get you killed if you use your sponsons.
I'll be driving around in my plasmacutioners firing all barrels on full every turn.
Realistically the majority of the game was already hitting them on a 3+, moving that to a 2+ for ranged firepower isn't a tremendous difference. You'll get hit 17% more often. Given that a glancing hit can't kill and even a lascanon needs a 6 followed by a 6 to kill a LR at range, I really don't think they're somehow getting more vulnerable.
I'm sure i'm just knee-jerking it. But time will tell.
IPS wrote:If you break off a close combat, you are broken.
But you can only fall back 12" max. (normally)
The enemy is no longer locked in combat after that.
Does that mean, if you do not regroup in your Consolidation phase, do not destroy the enemy unit in your shooting phase AND the enemy stays where he is, you're automatically destroyed the next round?
Unless you engage them again or consolidate into a transport I think.
Does this mean that we'll see lists full of empty dedicated transports whizzing around quickly picking units up and dropping them off everywhere?
alarmingrick wrote:With some rules, the LRBT having sponsons will make sense. They could fire on 3 different targets. But based on their EV, it makes them as good as dead if they do. Before you'd be wasting points at worst. Now it could get you killed if you use your sponsons.
I'll be driving around in my plasmacutioners firing all barrels on full every turn.
Realistically the majority of the game was already hitting them on a 3+, moving that to a 2+ for ranged firepower isn't a tremendous difference. You'll get hit 17% more often. Given that a glancing hit can't kill and even a lascanon needs a 6 followed by a 6 to kill a LR at range, I really don't think they're somehow getting more vulnerable.
I'm sure i'm just knee-jerking it. But time will tell.
Statistically against most armies the LR is harder to kill at ranged under this new ruleset. Can someone tell me if infantry still attacks them on rear armor? I couldn't find anything about that when skimming.
Statistically against most armies the LR is harder to kill at ranged under this new ruleset. Can someone tell me if infantry still attacks them on rear armor? I couldn't find anything about that when skimming.
The start of the turn sequence is now:
1) Place reserves;
2) Start of turn actions;
3) Start of movement actions;
4) Rest of movement phase.
This means that psykers coming from reserve can use start of turn/movement powers (go Eldar!) and Tyranids coming from reserve need to check for Instinctive Behaviour.
Dribble Joy wrote:Warseer got done by GWhardcore in the past, they don't want to be anywhere near this.
Then they should close the news&rumour forum alltogether instead of, as I assume, aggressively spreading false information.
They don't have to behave like Russian state TV dealing with critical information on Putin Superman.
There. I fixed that for you.
tetrisphreak wrote:Rail rifles hit all the models in a line at s6 ap3 correct? and ap3 now ignores FnP? And cover saves are mostly 5+ now? Yeah, that sounds like a pretty solid unit to me. Sniper Drones are going to be a great tactical choice while broadsides take apart the tanks. No more +1 for ap-1 but you can explode tanks with them if you roll a natural 6 on the damage chart (something only AP 1 weapons can do vs tanks).
Crap. I just realized that Heavy Destroyers only have a 2% chance of destroying an AV 14 tank now. (hit on a 2+, pen on a 6, explode on a 6)
Angel_of_Rust wrote:
Important thing to note here is unless these hits are directed, you can still choose to completely ignore the character and place the successful wounds on other models. In the absence of directed hits the character is even safer than before. In current rules a 5 man strong squad with a 2 W character is dealt 10 wounds, the normal troopers take 8 saves and the character takes 2. If you fail three wounds and two of them happen to be the ones allocated to the character, tough luck he dies . With the new rules, you take 20 wounds on the armor grouping and if you fail three wounds, you chose which 3 models to remove. The only time they can force those wounds/saves onto the character or any specific model is using directed hits.
If you suffer enough wounds then you still have to allocate to the character. If a 5 strong squad and a two wound character (with a different armour set) receive 7 wounds, then two still have to be put on that character.
IPS wrote:If you break off a close combat, you are broken.
But you can only fall back 12" max. (normally)
The enemy is no longer locked in combat after that.
Does that mean, if you do not regroup in your Consolidation phase, do not destroy the enemy unit in your shooting phase AND the enemy stays where he is, you're automatically destroyed the next round?
Remember that you can still move in the movement phase before checking to see if any unit is within 12".
Dribble Joy wrote:
If you suffer enough wounds then you still have to allocate to the character. If a 5 strong squad and a two wound character (with a different armour set) receive 7 wounds, then two still have to be put on that character.
I was assuming identical saves as that was the basis of the argument, a character with static wargear vs a generic and malleable HQ. Therein lies the tradeoff. If you have the same save combination, you can keep them protected from large batches of wounds, but they will be vulnerable to directed hits. If you spring for a combat shield, artificer armor, eavy armor type upgrade they will be much less vulnerable to directed hits, but will not be safe from large batches of wounds. Kind of a nice dichotomy so there is way to be completely safe from the danger of losing a sergeant or character.
azazel the cat wrote: Crap. I just realized that Heavy Destroyers only have a 2% chance of destroying an AV 14 tank now. (hit on a 2+, pen on a 6, explode on a 6)
However glancing hits will add up en masse thanks to the hull breach rule. You may not be able to *reliably* destroy AV14 "tanks" in one shot with heavy gauss, but it will handle non-tank transports just as easily as it does now. As for the big guns, stunlock them with gauss and hull breach them to death, if possible.
Oh, by the way, Canoptek Spyders are s10 in assault now thanks to Monstrous CCWs granting 2xStr. Say hi Mr. Landraider, I have 3 spyders who would like to tell you something (s10 plus 2d6 armor pen).
Ghost arks can also rapid-fire their gauss at 18", extending double-tap range.
Angel_of_Rust wrote:I was assuming identical saves as that was the basis of the argument, a character with static wargear vs a generic and malleable HQ. Therein lies the tradeoff. If you have the same save combination, you can keep them protected from large batches of wounds, but they will be vulnerable to directed hits. If you spring for a combat shield, artificer armor, eavy armor type upgrade they will be much less vulnerable to directed hits, but will not be safe from large batches of wounds. Kind of a nice dichotomy so there is way to be completely safe from the danger of losing a sergeant or character.
Ah, right right, sorry, yes.
And again yes, it's an interesting choice, especially for all-comer and/or tourney lists which in one instance be up against low number, high quality 'wounds' like GKs, or buckets of dice like Orks.
ShumaGorath wrote:Realistically the majority of the game was already hitting them on a 3+, moving that to a 2+ for ranged firepower isn't a tremendous difference. You'll get hit 17% more often. Given that a glancing hit can't kill and even a lascanon needs a 6 followed by a 6 to kill a LR at range, I really don't think they're somehow getting more vulnerable.
Depends how you want to look at it - the alternative is that my enemies miss half as often as they once did.
And moving from 3+ to 2+ is an improvement of 25%.
azazel the cat wrote: Crap. I just realized that Heavy Destroyers only have a 2% chance of destroying an AV 14 tank now. (hit on a 2+, pen on a 6, explode on a 6)
However glancing hits will add up en masse thanks to the hull breach rule. You may not be able to *reliably* destroy AV14 "tanks" in one shot with heavy gauss, but it will handle non-tank transports just as easily as it does now. As for the big guns, stunlock them with gauss and hull breach them to death, if possible.
Oh, by the way, Canoptek Spyders are s10 in assault now thanks to Monstrous CCWs granting 2xStr. Say hi Mr. Landraider, I have 3 spyders who would like to tell you something (s10 plus 2d6 armor pen).
Ghost arks can also rapid-fire their gauss at 18", extending double-tap range.
It's not a question of pen hits, it's the fact that you must roll a natural 6 or else suffer a -3 penalty. But here's an interesting question: if I have a Land Raider with AV 14, and a Scarab hits my with Entropic Strike once, that will reduce the AV to 13. Would that take away the Behemoth special rule, as the vehicle is no longer AV 14? or would the Behemoth rule stay, even if the Av is reduced? I'm thinking the rule would stay, but this is iffy. Otherwise, I am definitely going to start including a unit of 3x Scarabs in every Necron list, just to take out Super-Heavies.
Dysartes wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Realistically the majority of the game was already hitting them on a 3+, moving that to a 2+ for ranged firepower isn't a tremendous difference. You'll get hit 17% more often. Given that a glancing hit can't kill and even a lascanon needs a 6 followed by a 6 to kill a LR at range, I really don't think they're somehow getting more vulnerable.
Depends how you want to look at it - the alternative is that my enemies miss half as often as they once did.
And moving from 3+ to 2+ is an improvement of 25%.
Every point on a D6 is a 16.7% overall increase. The 25% is only a relative increase, and is a common mathematical error. That is, if I have 50% of a dollar, and I find 25 cents, I've increased my money by 50% but that doesn't mean I have 50% + 50% of a dollar. I now have 75% of a dollar.
ShumaGorath wrote:Realistically the majority of the game was already hitting them on a 3+, moving that to a 2+ for ranged firepower isn't a tremendous difference. You'll get hit 17% more often. Given that a glancing hit can't kill and even a lascanon needs a 6 followed by a 6 to kill a LR at range, I really don't think they're somehow getting more vulnerable.
Depends how you want to look at it - the alternative is that my enemies miss half as often as they once did.
And moving from 3+ to 2+ is an improvement of 25%.
But it's still only a 17% increase in actual hits from dice rolled while the destroyed and wrecked results are in most cases reduced by 50%. Tanks are safer in this version of the game. This will probably work out pretty well as most non tank vehicles move quickly anyway.
azazel the cat wrote:Every point on a D6 is a 16.7% overall increase. The 25% is only a relative increase, and is a common mathematical error. That is, if I have 50% of a dollar, and I find 25 cents, I've increased my money by 50% but that doesn't mean I have 50% + 50% of a dollar. I now have 75% of a dollar.
It is you who have erred.
If I have a 50% chance of success, and increase that to a 75% chance of success, my effectiveness did not increase by 25%, it increased by 50%. 75% effectiveness is 150% as powerful as 50% effectiveness.
azazel the cat wrote:Every point on a D6 is a 16.7% overall increase. The 25% is only a relative increase, and is a common mathematical error. That is, if I have 50% of a dollar, and I find 25 cents, I've increased my money by 50% but that doesn't mean I have 50% + 50% of a dollar. I now have 75% of a dollar.
It is you who have erred.
If I have a 50% chance of success, and increase that to a 75% chance of success, my effectiveness did not increase by 25%, it increased by 50%. 75% effectiveness is 150% as powerful as 50% effectiveness.
No. Your effectiveness between 3+ and 2+ is 66.8 to 83.5. A 16.7% increase. The relative effectiveness between the two totals is much larger, but that's not a useful metric for much of anything aside from measuring compounding interest or doing icnorrect math hammer.
azazel the cat wrote:Every point on a D6 is a 16.7% overall increase. The 25% is only a relative increase, and is a common mathematical error. That is, if I have 50% of a dollar, and I find 25 cents, I've increased my money by 50% but that doesn't mean I have 50% + 50% of a dollar. I now have 75% of a dollar.
It is you who have erred.
If I have a 50% chance of success, and increase that to a 75% chance of success, my effectiveness did not increase by 25%, it increased by 50%. 75% effectiveness is 150% as powerful as 50% effectiveness.
D6 rolls: 3+ = 66.7% chance 2+ = 83.3% chance
Are we not talking about the same thing here? There is no such thing as a 75% chance when rolling a single D6
EDIT: Perhaps I am mistaking in believing that this is what you were talking about: 3+ means you have 4 numbers of 6 to hit. That means increasing from a 3+ to a 2+ is a relative increase of 25% (one more number when you already have four) however this is only a 16.7% overall increase, as a 3+ gives you a 66.7% chance overall on a single D6, whereas a 2+ gives you an 83.3% chance overall on a single D6.
azazel the cat wrote:Every point on a D6 is a 16.7% overall increase. The 25% is only a relative increase, and is a common mathematical error. That is, if I have 50% of a dollar, and I find 25 cents, I've increased my money by 50% but that doesn't mean I have 50% + 50% of a dollar. I now have 75% of a dollar.
It is you who have erred.
If I have a 50% chance of success, and increase that to a 75% chance of success, my effectiveness did not increase by 25%, it increased by 50%. 75% effectiveness is 150% as powerful as 50% effectiveness.
D6 rolls:
3+ = 66.7% chance
2+ = 83.3% chance
Are we not talking about the same thing here? There is no such thing as a 75% chance when rolling a single D6
It was an example, one I hoped was simple enough to be understood. I obviously failed on that aspect.
ShumaGorath wrote:No. Your effectiveness between 3+ and 2+ is 66.8 to 83.5. A 16.7% increase. The relative effectiveness between the two totals is much larger, but that's not a useful metric for much of anything aside from measuring compounding interest or doing icnorrect math hammer.
83.5/66.8=1.25
2+ is 25% more effective than 3+. It is a 25% increase in effectiveness from the old value.
You can keep touting the flat 16.7% relative to 100% increase as much as you want, but it is not a useful number.
Example: you increase from a 16.7% chance to a 33.4% chance. This is a doubling of effectiveness, a 100% increase.
azazel the cat wrote:Every point on a D6 is a 16.7% overall increase. The 25% is only a relative increase, and is a common mathematical error. That is, if I have 50% of a dollar, and I find 25 cents, I've increased my money by 50% but that doesn't mean I have 50% + 50% of a dollar. I now have 75% of a dollar.
It is you who have erred.
If I have a 50% chance of success, and increase that to a 75% chance of success, my effectiveness did not increase by 25%, it increased by 50%. 75% effectiveness is 150% as powerful as 50% effectiveness.
D6 rolls: 3+ = 66.7% chance 2+ = 83.3% chance
Are we not talking about the same thing here? There is no such thing as a 75% chance when rolling a single D6
It was an example, one I hoped was simple enough to be understood. I obviously failed on that aspect.
150% effectiveness would imply that the effect is done 1.5 times. A 150% increase in effectiveness implies a 1.5* increase in the percentage of effectiveness that was stated. The increase in effectiveness between 25% and 50% is 25%. The relative increase in effectiveness is 100%.
You're mixing terminology and applying it wrongly/irregularly.
ShumaGorath wrote:No. Your effectiveness between 3+ and 2+ is 66.8 to 83.5. A 16.7% increase. The relative effectiveness between the two totals is much larger, but that's not a useful metric for much of anything aside from measuring compounding interest or doing icnorrect math hammer.
83.5/66.8=1.25
2+ is 25% more effective than 3+. It is a 25% increase in effectiveness from the old value.
You can keep touting the flat 16.7% relative to 100% increase as much as you want, but it is not a useful number.
...unless you are trying to build an army or play Warhammer 40k...
ShumaGorath wrote:No. Your effectiveness between 3+ and 2+ is 66.8 to 83.5. A 16.7% increase. The relative effectiveness between the two totals is much larger, but that's not a useful metric for much of anything aside from measuring compounding interest or doing icnorrect math hammer.
83.5/66.8=1.25
2+ is 25% more effective than 3+. It is a 25% increase in effectiveness from the old value.
You can keep touting the flat 16.7% relative to 100% increase as much as you want, but it is not a useful number.
...unless you are trying to build an army or play Warhammer 40k...
I'm trying to tell you that you are misleading yourself. I've give you examples of instances such as "50% more effective" or "twice as effective (100% more effective)" but you won't have them.
ShumaGorath wrote:150% effectiveness would imply that the effect is done 1.5 times.
Nope.
Yep. 100% effectiveness implies the effect occurs in it's totality fully. 150% implies an overage that is case specific. You need to utilize qualifiers better.
ShumaGorath wrote:150% effectiveness would imply that the effect is done 1.5 times.
Nope.
Yep. 100% effectiveness implies the effect occurs in it's totality fully. 150% implies an overage that is case specific. You need to utilize qualifiers better.
Still wrong. 100% of current effectiveness is just that. 150% of current effectiveness is an increase of 50%.
Are we not talking about the same thing here? There is no such thing as a 75% chance when rolling a single D6
3+ means you have 4 numbers of 6 to hit. That means increasing from a 3+ to a 2+ is a relative increase of 25% (one more number when you already have four) however this is only a 16.7% overall increase, as a 3+ gives you a 66.7% chance overall on a single D6, whereas a 2+ gives you an 83.3% chance overall on a single D6.
ShumaGorath wrote:No. Your effectiveness between 3+ and 2+ is 66.8 to 83.5. A 16.7% increase. The relative effectiveness between the two totals is much larger, but that's not a useful metric for much of anything aside from measuring compounding interest or doing icnorrect math hammer.
83.5/66.8=1.25
2+ is 25% more effective than 3+. It is a 25% increase in effectiveness from the old value.
You can keep touting the flat 16.7% relative to 100% increase as much as you want, but it is not a useful number.
...unless you are trying to build an army or play Warhammer 40k...
I'm trying to tell you that you are misleading yourself. I've give you examples of instances such as "50% more effective" or "twice as effective (100% more effective)" but you won't have them.
I'll stop caring if you are uninformed.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a statistician here! A master of the trade! One trained in the ways of the mathematical lexicon of statistics!
ShumaGorath wrote:150% effectiveness would imply that the effect is done 1.5 times.
Nope.
Yep. 100% effectiveness implies the effect occurs in it's totality fully. 150% implies an overage that is case specific. You need to utilize qualifiers better.
Still wrong. 100% of current effectiveness is just that. 150% of current effectiveness is an increase of 50%.
Oh, look. You used a qualifier. Do you know what the difference is between saying current and not saying current? The syntax of the mathematics you are describing. In other words IT IS A VERY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE. Please apply these terms universally and carefully, you are not using the qualifiers in a steady manner and they are exceptionally important when discussing this stuff.
ShumaGorath wrote:No. Your effectiveness between 3+ and 2+ is 66.8 to 83.5. A 16.7% increase. The relative effectiveness between the two totals is much larger, but that's not a useful metric for much of anything aside from measuring compounding interest or doing icnorrect math hammer.
83.5/66.8=1.25
2+ is 25% more effective than 3+. It is a 25% increase in effectiveness from the old value.
You can keep touting the flat 16.7% relative to 100% increase as much as you want, but it is not a useful number.
...unless you are trying to build an army or play Warhammer 40k...
I'm trying to tell you that you are misleading yourself. I've give you examples of instances such as "50% more effective" or "twice as effective (100% more effective)" but you won't have them.
I'll stop caring if you are uninformed.
If, by "uninformed" you mean "passed elementary school mathematics".
Yeah, I understand what Ph34r was saying now. Either he isn't aware that when you're dealing with relative terms, one should qualify them as such (which was my original question that was not answered) or else his understanding of math is very poor. It's one or the other, and I'm just happy that I figured out exactly what the hang-up was.
azazel the cat wrote:If, by "uninformed" you mean "passed elementary school mathematics".
If you took a bit more than elementary school mathematics you would probably have no problem understanding relative increases in statistics and how they are more useful than flat values. A person reading "16.7% better than 3+" will likely not realize that the number of hits he is inflicting increases by 25%.
Example: 6 rolls of 3+ hits four times. 6 rolls of 2+ hits 5 times. 5 is 25% more than 4. 25% is the more useful statistic.
azazel the cat wrote:Yeah, I understand what Ph34r was saying now. Either he isn't aware that when you're dealing with relative terms, one should qualify them as such (which was my original question that was not answered) or else his understanding of math is very poor. It's one or the other, and I'm just happy that I figured out exactly what the hang-up was.
Ah,
"he isn't aware that you should qualify them as such". Brilliant. It's taking your lack of understanding and turning it into my problem!
ShumaGorath wrote:Oh, look. You used a qualifier. Do you know what the difference is between saying current and not saying current? The syntax of the mathematics you are describing. In other words IT IS A VERY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE. Please apply these terms universally and carefully, you are not using the qualifiers in a steady manner and they are exceptionally important when discussing this stuff.
azazel the cat wrote:If, by "uninformed" you mean "passed elementary school mathematics".
If you took a bit more than elementary school mathematics you would probably have no problem understanding relative increases in statistics and how they are more useful than flat values. A person reading "16.7% better than 3+" will likely not realize that the number of hits he is inflicting increases by 25%.
Example: 6 rolls of 3+ hits four times. 6 rolls of 2+ hits 5 times. 5 is 25% more than 4. 25% is the more useful statistic.
Please just stop. No one here thinks the mathematics are hard. It's addition. We're not five. The problem is that you're not using qualifiers in your posts and you don't seem to understand the importance syntax has in mathematical discussion. You're being abusive and abrasive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ph34r wrote:
Tapeworm711 wrote:Going from 3+ to 2+ is in fact a 25% increase in effectiveness.
Can we move on now?
I'd love to, but the anti-math crowd probably has a few more rounds of slurs to sling at me to cover up their confusion.
You've never taken a college level statistics class, have you?
Tapeworm711 wrote:Going from 3+ to 2+ is in fact a 25% increase in effectiveness. Relative to its previous level of effectiveness
Can we move on now?
There. I fixed that for you. And yes, it is a very important distinction.
EDIT: That's the sort of error that sinks ships.
The words "Going from X to Y" IMPLIES a relative comparison. You don't need the extra statement.
When referring to a probability statement within a contained parameter, such as a D6, you absolutely do so as to avoid exactly the kind of confusion this has created. I admit I did not understand the the context in which Desartes had originally meant, as it was not specified.
Tapeworm711 wrote:Going from 3+ to 2+ is in fact a 25% increase in effectiveness. Relative to its previous level of effectiveness
Can we move on now?
There. I fixed that for you. And yes, it is a very important distinction.
EDIT: That's the sort of error that sinks ships.
The words "Going from X to Y" IMPLIES a relative comparison. You don't need the extra statement.
Yes. You do. There is more then one method of counting that increase. Hell, there are more then ten. It's an exceptionally important thing to differentiate, especially when stating the mathematics in a fashion that is both unhelpful and deceiving (as considering the increases in anything other then end results is).
ShumaGorath wrote:You've never taken a college level statistics class, have you?
I am an engineer
I can assure you that the way in which I presented relative increases is correct and commonplace. I am sorry that "an increase from 4/6 to 5/6" was confusing for you without "relative to its previous level of effectiveness"! I think we are on the same page now!
Tapeworm711 wrote:The words "Going from X to Y" IMPLIES a relative comparison. You don't need the extra statement.
A submarine is 75% of the distance between the surface and the ocean floor. The captain orders a decrease in depth by 30%. Has the submarine crashed into the floor?
I can assure you that the way in which I presented relative increases is correct and commonplace.
Not in any discussion or workflow that I've ever experienced. Then again, it could be totally commonplace to you. The only problem there is that we're not you or your colleagues and the way you post about the mathematics seems unprofessional and lazy.
I am sorry that "an increase from 4/6 to 5/6" was confusing for you without "relative to its previous level of effectiveness"!
It was hardly confusing. I've been arguing against your presentation of the information which has consistently been sloppy and amateurish. If you're an engineer then you should probably shape up on that, that stuff can get people killed if you're handling anything that moves.
I am under the assumption what they mean to say is " yadah yadah yadah in the assaultedunit is equipped with assault grenades, the assaulting unit does not get the alpha strike bonus"
