Tapeworm711 wrote:As a read "Patch Up" It doesn't seem to restrict the models to who's turn it is. It simply states "If a unit contains more than one wounded model,
it must carry out a Patch Up action."
Not "Your Models" or the currently player. I believe it happens to EVERYONES model, on EVERY consolidation phase.
Unless otherwise stated, you cannot perform an action in your opponent's turn.
Could be wrong though and I can see Patch Up occurring to all units anyway in any finalised rules.
Patch-up is Compulsory so it happens to everyone that it can apply to. Even if it is not your turn unless it says otherwise.
Regroup is also Compulsory, so by the same logic I would be able to perform it in my opponent's Consolidation phase.
Unless otherwise stated you cannot perform any action in your opponent's turn. I can't see anywhere where Patch Up is made an exception.
Dire Avengers will be able to get Overwatch, really fits their idea.
Swooping Hawks will be flyer hunters get anti aircraft weapons (st3 Haywire?) and keep their Haywire grenades and interception.
Dark Reapers will get their Missile launchers back.
All units will become fleet.
I expect all aspects to become super good at their one thing.
Jihadnik wrote:Sorry to be the guy who comes into the conversation several months after everyone else, but I really want to check these rules out and the initial link doesn't work for me. Anyone got a better one they could recommend?
Thanks dakka!
That's weird? Could it be an Aussie thing?(seriously, no shot intended!)
I just tried it and it worked for me?
Hmm, not sure, maybe...It just wouldn't load up correctly for me!
Just going to throw this out there once again, if anyone wants to take a crack at designing some of those missing diagrams, I'd love to add them to the pdf.
junk wrote:Just going to throw this out there once again, if anyone wants to take a crack at designing some of those missing diagrams, I'd love to add them to the pdf.
Why would anyone do that? How could anyone know what they would look like?
junk wrote:Just going to throw this out there once again, if anyone wants to take a crack at designing some of those missing diagrams, I'd love to add them to the pdf.
Why would anyone do that? How could anyone know what they would look like?
It isn't too tricky for most of 'em since examples are, by definition, explained in the rules somewhere. They simply serve to illustrate concepts discussed in the text in a visual way (helps some people learn 'em better). I had half a mind to add in diagrams, but I am no graphic designer so it is above me. Farthest I have gotten is rudimentary bookmarks and adding in some art assets (because I like my rules pretty damn it!). It would be awesome if the community got together and patched this doc up to make a new set of core rules.
With these rules the Eldar's primary troop choices will be jetbikes, 20 strong guardian squads and wraithguard. Guardians may not be great but they can come in large units which works for the new objective points scoring.
Actually, storm guardians with flamers and warlock might suprise a few people.
focusedfire wrote:With these rules the Eldar's primary troop choices will be jetbikes, 20 strong guardian squads and wraithguard. Guardians may not be great but they can come in large units which works for the new objective points scoring.
Actually, storm guardians with flamers and warlock might suprise a few people.
I think storm guardians will be surprisingly capable in this edition with the changes to flamers and fleet.
Dribble Joy wrote:
Regroup is also Compulsory, so by the same logic I would be able to perform it in my opponent's Consolidation phase.
Unless otherwise stated you cannot perform any action in your opponent's turn. I can't see anywhere where Patch Up is made an exception.
Right it is Compulsory, and it defines when it must happen.
Regroup:
"A character, usually the squad leader, in a broken
unit can attempt to regroup it by taking a Morale
Check (regroup) or Regroup test in his own
Consolidation phase if there are no enemies
within 12" of the unit." P. 54
Patch-up does not have this condition, therefore you must do it in every Consolation phase.
ShumaGorath wrote:
The problem is that assaults are too fast and effective and that in two editions they've taken assaults from being turn four to three to two without actually legitimately upping the firepower or resilience of ranged foot units in most books. Go play a tyranid swarm army with a non mech gunline now when they're slow. See how well that works out. Now take a turn away from that and give them +1 ballistic skill.
Shooting is actually a lot deadlier now. 5+ coversaves combined with it often being easier to hit stuff than before makes shooting even more deadly than now. Pinning is also awesome with these rules, which should help shooty armies such as tau, eldar and IG. Without assault getting a boost, 6th ed would be a total shooting gallery
Seems GW is making the game and units more balanced by making sure EVERYTHING is killier
It is sad that infantry heavy weapons are useless with these rules. I do hope they find a way to make them playable in the final version.
ShumaGorath wrote:
The problem is that assaults are too fast and effective and that in two editions they've taken assaults from being turn four to three to two without actually legitimately upping the firepower or resilience of ranged foot units in most books. Go play a tyranid swarm army with a non mech gunline now when they're slow. See how well that works out. Now take a turn away from that and give them +1 ballistic skill.
Shooting is actually a lot deadlier now. 5+ coversaves combined with it often being easier to hit stuff than before makes shooting even more deadly than now. Pinning is also awesome with these rules, which should help shooty armies such as tau, eldar and IG. Without assault getting a boost, 6th ed would be a total shooting gallery
Seems GW is making the game and units more balanced by making sure EVERYTHING is killier
It is sad that infantry heavy weapons are useless with these rules. I do hope they find a way to make them playable in the final version.
Im not sure if you meant heavy weapon teams as well but i hope so because i just finished modelling a gorgeous group of gunners.... feth it, il use em anyway!
I beleive that the heavy weapon teams problem can be mitigated, somewhat, by the strategic assets that you bid for or by loading them into a transport.
Bold or Stupid wrote:Dire Avengers will get their Missile launchers back.
I'm not sure which Eldar codexes you've been reading, but I don't recall Dire Avengers ever having access to missile launchers. Dark reapes had them in 2nd edition (and possibly in the list in the 3rd edition rulebook), but I'm fairly sure they've had Reaper Launchers since the 3rd Ed Codex: Eldar came out.
Bold or Stupid wrote:Dire Avengers will get their Missile launchers back.
I'm not sure which Eldar codexes you've been reading, but I don't recall Dire Avengers ever having access to missile launchers. Dark reapes had them in 2nd edition (and possibly in the list in the 3rd edition rulebook), but I'm fairly sure they've had Reaper Launchers since the 3rd Ed Codex: Eldar came out.
Shame I fully bookmarked the PDF file the other day. Took me about two hours, but is so worth it!
Do bookmarks get added to the pdf file itself? If so would any of the kind gentlemen who has bookmarked the file be willing to perhaps share with those of us with a more constrained schedule?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
focusedfire wrote:With these rules the Eldar's primary troop choices will be jetbikes, 20 strong guardian squads and wraithguard. Guardians may not be great but they can come in large units which works for the new objective points scoring.
Actually, storm guardians with flamers and warlock might suprise a few people.
I think storm guardians will be surprisingly capable in this edition with the changes to flamers and fleet.
No doubt, 2 WS 3 S 3 attacks vs the autohit flamer attacks is no contest at all. I'm curious whether Destructor can be used similarly being that it's a psychic power and not a weapon.
Shame I fully bookmarked the PDF file the other day. Took me about two hours, but is so worth it!
Do bookmarks get added to the pdf file itself? If so would any of the kind gentlemen who has bookmarked the file be willing to perhaps share with those of us with a more constrained schedule?
Yes, I've added them to the PDF. Just PM me your email address and I'll send it to you.
focusedfire wrote:With these rules the Eldar's primary troop choices will be jetbikes, 20 strong guardian squads and wraithguard. Guardians may not be great but they can come in large units which works for the new objective points scoring.
Actually, storm guardians with flamers and warlock might suprise a few people.
How do you predict jetbikes as being so great? Don't their weapons still suck, and multi-targeting does not buy them much. They are still very expensive, so you don't have a lot of bodies on the table.
ShumaGorath wrote: The problem is that assaults are too fast and effective and that in two editions they've taken assaults from being turn four to three to two without actually legitimately upping the firepower or resilience of ranged foot units in most books. Go play a tyranid swarm army with a non mech gunline now when they're slow. See how well that works out. Now take a turn away from that and give them +1 ballistic skill.
Shooting is actually a lot deadlier now. 5+ coversaves combined with it often being easier to hit stuff than before makes shooting even more deadly than now. Pinning is also awesome with these rules, which should help shooty armies such as tau, eldar and IG. Without assault getting a boost, 6th ed would be a total shooting gallery
Seems GW is making the game and units more balanced by making sure EVERYTHING is killier
It is sad that infantry heavy weapons are useless with these rules. I do hope they find a way to make them playable in the final version.
My army still doesn't put down enough shots to meaningfully dent a fast assault horde in one turn. It's just not logistically capable of causing the 100+ wounds I would need to halve an ork or nid horde in the time it took to reach me. Especially not tyranids who will be in my deployment zone often times before I even get a second shooting phase. I certainly couldn't force down a blood angel army. Defensive firing is just about the only thing that will make the gunline style of army viable again in these rules, at least until new codexes come out which give gunline armies alternatives.
IPS wrote:The new template/blast/rail weapons are your friend ; )
You easily kill 10+ horde models with one shot using those.
I could do that before, but even longfang spam with 15 missiles isn't going to kill more then 30 nids/orks with one round of firing (assuming an average of 3 hits per missiles and an average of 3+ to wound with no cover which is unrealistic). Codex marines have a significantly harder time bringing that level of firepower and it wouldn't even be enough for space wolves (though they're considerably more capable in close combat so for them at least it's not as important).
30 wounds might seem like alot, but thats going to effectively be my entire army shooting at one squad. Maybe I'll kill it, maybe not. Unfortunately that's a fifth of my opponents army. I'm going to be shaking hands with the rest of it the next turn.
So let's take a fairly common assault. We have 8 Wyches (Haywire Grenades, with Hekatrix with Agoniser, +1 STR combat drugs, no FnP, no FC) for 126 pts assaulting a Tactical Marines Combat Squad (1 Missile Launcher) for 80 pts. For the point of this discussion, let's not take into account the full point costs of the units and their needed transports.
With your suggested rules, the Marines get to shoot their weapons at the assaulting Wyches.
4 Marines with Bolters kill (4* 2* 2/3* 2/3= 32/9) about 3.5 Wyches.
1 Marine with Missile Launcher kills (1* 2/3* 5/6= 10/18) about half a Wych.
So before assault even start, half the Wych squad is dead.
The Wyches then strike first in assault.
3 Wyches with CC weapons kill (9*1/2*1/2*1/3= 9/12) about 0.75 Marines.
1 Wych with Agoniser kills (4*1/2*1/2= 4/4) about 1 Marine.
So two Marines will probably die.
The Marines turn afterwards.
3 Marines kill (3* 1/2* 2/3* 1/2= 6/12) about half a Wych.
So one Wych is likely to die.
The result: in my turn, in which I have the initiative and assault with a more expensive, dedicated assault unit, I lose more models and more points than my opponent does. Ironically, I would be better off shooting him with my assault unit. This would result in (8* 2/3* 1/2* 1/3= 16/18) about 1 dead Marine with no casualties of my own.
Yeah, it sure does suck that small, transport dependent, light assault units which are typified by the whych (and of which the whych is probably one of the only actually used in games examples) get screwed with these rules. I agree.
You want to do the math with 30 hormugaunts instead? 10 jet pack BA assault marines with a priest? 30 orks with a claw nob? Hell, how about you use a beastmaster or some incubi?
I stated before, there is a dichotomy. Either gunlines become unviable or small scale light assault units and armies dependent on them become unviable.
ShumaGorath wrote:Yeah, it sure does suck that small, transport dependent, light assault units which are typified by the whych (and of which the whych is probably one of the only actually used in games examples) get screwed with these rules. I agree.
You want to do the math with 30 hormugaunts instead? 10 jet pack BA assault marines with a priest? 30 orks with a claw nob? Hell, how about you use a beastmaster or some incubi?
I stated before, there is a dichotomy. Either gunlines become unviable or small scale light assault units and armies dependent on them become unviable.
Take your pick
It "sucks"? Really, that's your response? So you want to fix some fairly broken units, that are outperformed by units from their own codex, by totally annihilating any light assault unit in the entire game? Thank god you are not in charge of game balance. And to be honest, I think you should never try to, ever.
ShumaGorath wrote:Yeah, it sure does suck that small, transport dependent, light assault units which are typified by the whych (and of which the whych is probably one of the only actually used in games examples) get screwed with these rules. I agree.
You want to do the math with 30 hormugaunts instead? 10 jet pack BA assault marines with a priest? 30 orks with a claw nob? Hell, how about you use a beastmaster or some incubi?
I stated before, there is a dichotomy. Either gunlines become unviable or small scale light assault units and armies dependent on them become unviable.
Take your pick
It "sucks"? Really, that's your response? So you want to fix some fairly broken units, that are outperformed by units from their own codex, by totally annihilating any light assault unit in the entire game? Thank god you are not in charge of game balance. And to be honest, I think you should never try to, ever.
At this point I'm assuming you're too wrapped up in your bs or just don't care, but I've given you a clear and distinct choice. By upping the average movement speed of every unit in the game by 3 inches or more this edition has created a situation wherein line troops can and will be assaulted on average a turn earlier than they were in fifth. In fifth the average was turn 2 for fast units, three for everything else. In sixth it's looking like turn two for fast and three for everything else. This breaks the bank. Stand and shoot armies that survive through attrition or by disabling the enemy before they can reach the lines become totally unviable when 180 hormugaunts can assault them before they get a second shooting phase.
One hundred and eighty. Thats a 3 attack model for every point that that whych squad was. Can your wyches handle that gak? Can your dark eldar handle that gak?
So you know what? feth wyches. I don't care about wyches. Either a major archtype of army that has been in 40k since the beginning vanishes or a major archtype of unit that has been in 40k since the beginning vanishes. I chose the one that does't totally invalidate nearly every possible build of my army and you've chosen the one that doesn't invalidate one of the builds of yours.
I'm sorry, but are Wyches particularly good right now anyway? I've considered them a torrent unit: good at throwing wounds on things, but not the CC powerhouses they where in the 4th Ed. DE Codex.
EDIT: Ah, I see your point now. Yes, the new assault rules will shake things up, but to be fair, we have no idea if these rules are anywhere close to finalized.
And I realize no one likes being assaulted turn 2, with little they can do about it, but lets be honest here... gunlines wheren't great in 5th, and if your opponent is spending significant points on Hormagants and Raveners to get the "First turn charge LOLZ" then rest assured that the rest of the list will be lacking.
As far as the 180 Hormigaunts scenario, wouldn't you be able to wall yourself into a corner zulu style? I 'm just trying to understand how you wouldn't use someone with that many models own army against itself. Only give him a narrow front with sacrificial units, take flamers and blast weapons. Sure you might sacrifice a unit or two a turn to keep your line up but after a few turns wouldn't the gaunts be dead or nearly dead? What army are you playing that you wouldn't be able to deal with such a tactic?
Well, it was allways like that and will allways be that large hordes of units make you win the game.
If you manage to buy and paint 200 models, there you go, the victory is yours.
However it got a little bit more balanced with the blast weapons beeing more accurate and template weapons having range.
And especially for Tau with the new rail weapons,
even though they are mainly a weapon vs marine spams.
Also, be mobile. Use the new rapid fire to your benefit.
Thimn wrote:As far as the 180 Hormigaunts scenario, wouldn't you be able to wall yourself into a corner zulu style? I 'm just trying to understand how you wouldn't use someone with that many models own army against itself. Only give him a narrow front with sacrificial units, take flamers and blast weapons. Sure you might sacrifice a unit or two a turn to keep your line up but after a few turns wouldn't the gaunts be dead or nearly dead? What army are you playing that you wouldn't be able to deal with such a tactic?
Wouldn't that kill you on objective games?
Sure, you can wall up in a corner and hold that one objective, while the zulu of hormigaunts holds 2 more and wins the game.
Thimn wrote:As far as the 180 Hormigaunts scenario, wouldn't you be able to wall yourself into a corner zulu style? I 'm just trying to understand how you wouldn't use someone with that many models own army against itself. Only give him a narrow front with sacrificial units, take flamers and blast weapons. Sure you might sacrifice a unit or two a turn to keep your line up but after a few turns wouldn't the gaunts be dead or nearly dead? What army are you playing that you wouldn't be able to deal with such a tactic?
It's case specific, but any player spamming hormugaunts is going to have the doom of malantai and probably a mawloch, making corner castling pure suicide when I lose the back half of my army on one deployment while losing the front half in assault. It'll work much better againts orks due to their lack of blast weapons. BA's will probably just coat me in plasma canons if I try.
Concentrating a gunline into something denser than a neutron star is hurt significantly by the new blast rules (It used to be my favorite tactic against hordes). Even then, it'll probably fail since I won't be trading well shooting for assault since I'm going to be giving them near universal cover from my own models. Even a 5+ is still 33% reduced casualties. Gunlines weren't really viable in fifth, these changes are really just a nail in the coffin until new codexes come out that significantly reduce the cost of devastator and tactical equivalents or make them much better in close combat.
Thimn wrote:As far as the 180 Hormigaunts scenario, wouldn't you be able to wall yourself into a corner zulu style? I 'm just trying to understand how you wouldn't use someone with that many models own army against itself. Only give him a narrow front with sacrificial units, take flamers and blast weapons. Sure you might sacrifice a unit or two a turn to keep your line up but after a few turns wouldn't the gaunts be dead or nearly dead? What army are you playing that you wouldn't be able to deal with such a tactic?
It's case specific, but any player spamming hormugaunts is going to have the doom of malantai and probably a mawloch, making corner castling pure suicide when I lose the back half of my army on one deployment while losing the front half in assault. It'll work much better againts orks due to their lack of blast weapons. BA's will probably just coat me in plasma canons if I try.
Concentrating a gunline into something denser than a neutron star is hurt significantly by the new blast rules (It used to be my favorite tactic against hordes). Even then, it'll probably fail since I won't be trading well shooting for assault since I'm going to be giving them near universal cover from my own models. Even a 5+ is still 33% reduced casualties. Gunlines weren't really viable in fifth, these changes are really just a nail in the coffin until new codexes come out that significantly reduce the cost of devastator and tactical equivalents or make them much better in close combat.
Except your own units don't block line of sight or provide cover anymore. I guess heavy weapon squads get buffed in this edition.
Thimn wrote:As far as the 180 Hormigaunts scenario, wouldn't you be able to wall yourself into a corner zulu style? I 'm just trying to understand how you wouldn't use someone with that many models own army against itself. Only give him a narrow front with sacrificial units, take flamers and blast weapons. Sure you might sacrifice a unit or two a turn to keep your line up but after a few turns wouldn't the gaunts be dead or nearly dead? What army are you playing that you wouldn't be able to deal with such a tactic?
It's case specific, but any player spamming hormugaunts is going to have the doom of malantai and probably a mawloch, making corner castling pure suicide when I lose the back half of my army on one deployment while losing the front half in assault. It'll work much better againts orks due to their lack of blast weapons. BA's will probably just coat me in plasma canons if I try.
Concentrating a gunline into something denser than a neutron star is hurt significantly by the new blast rules (It used to be my favorite tactic against hordes). Even then, it'll probably fail since I won't be trading well shooting for assault since I'm going to be giving them near universal cover from my own models. Even a 5+ is still 33% reduced casualties. Gunlines weren't really viable in fifth, these changes are really just a nail in the coffin until new codexes come out that significantly reduce the cost of devastator and tactical equivalents or make them much better in close combat.
Except your own units don't block line of sight or provide cover anymore. I guess heavy weapon squads get buffed in this edition.
Do they not? Well thats good. Unfortunately they'll be dead because 4 plasma canons just landed on them from that storm raven which hits on a 2+. Or they'll be dead because a mawloch just surfaced and ate all of them. Or they'll be dead because the doom of malantai landed and caused roughly 20+ wounds since I had to corner castle and they made him do double wounds for every point i rolled over leadership. Or hey, can I shoot through assaults now? Maybe they'll just be useless in their entirety since I won't be able to see anything except the titannic sprawling combat involving 30 marines and hundreds of gaunts which will be larger than the sun and blocking all lanes of fire.
Either way this gak is academic. I can't do more wounds than 180 hormugaunts on me turn two. I can't. It's not physically possible. It's not something that a marine codex army can do. Thats ignoring entirely the other 800 points he's going to have in an average 1850 list. I wonder whats in there? Trygons? Tyrants? Maybe some carnifexes? I wonder if they'll feel left out since a little over half their army is all thats needed to beat all of mine since in three editions they've gone from moving 6 to eighteen inches in a turn while the marine hasn't changed at all.
So feth your wyches. I want defensive fire because I want an army that can actually play games of warhammer 40k. Does that suck because one of your many many codex options gets a lot worse? Yeah. I feel for you. But hey, at least you'll still have lots of other viable options.
I'd just like to point out that Wyches are SLOWER under these rules. Their maximum assault is 27" under 5th edition. That's a first turn charge. Not that it matters in this argument. Wyches aren't a super killy deathstar unit anyway. They're a basic assault unit with quasi-tarpit abilities.
Leggy wrote:I'd just like to point out that Wyches are SLOWER under these rules. Their maximum assault is 27" under 5th edition. That's a first turn charge. Not that it matters in this argument. Wyches aren't a super killy deathstar unit anyway. They're a basic assault unit with quasi-tarpit abilities.
Yeah wyches, truck boyz, assault scouts, and really any other transport dependent light assault unit gets hammered here. Wyches are kind of unique in that they were actually utilized in fifth, but they aren't alone.
Thats alot of doom and gloom. You are marines, its not like the Horms are going to roll over you in assault. Take some Land Raider Redeemers, Vulkan, and some flamers and go bug hunting if you don't want to be castled. 180 Horms is going to be 1200 pts, The Nid player isn't going to have that much left to get lots of fun units. If you go on the offensive with some terminators or even some assault units, you can very quickly lower the amount of gaunts on the table.
ShumaGorath wrote:So feth your wyches. I want defensive fire because I want an army that can actually play games of warhammer 40k. Does that suck because one of your many many codex options gets a lot worse? Yeah. I feel for you. But hey, at least you'll still have lots of other viable options.
It seems you have more of a problem with your own tactics than with the game rules. And want the game to fix this by implementing rules that support your style of play. I think that Marines are not at a terrible strategic disadvantage when faced with Tyranids currently, and not with these rules either.
Thats alot of doom and gloom. You are marines, its not like the Horms are going to roll over you in assault.
Assuming I've gotten one round of shooting and killed 10, thats 60 attacks at I5. 30 hits. If they were granted FC or poison thats 15 wounds. Half a tac squad is dead. The remaining marines will make 6 attacks, two of which are pfist. 3 hits, 1.22 average wounds and one pfist wound. Roughly 2.05 dead horms. I lose by 3, ATSKNF causes me to take critical hits. I'm down to like 2 marines. They have 18 gaunts.
So please. Tell me how they aren't rolling me over?
Take some Land Raider Redeemers, Vulkan, and some flamers and go bug hunting if you don't want to be castled.
You just described an army build of almost 1000 points and zoanthropes are quite good against LRs while being easy to fit in the remaining 800 points they have.
If you go on the offensive with some terminators or even some assault units, you can very quickly lower the amount of gaunts on the table.
I play tyranid swarms regularly. You should try doing that once in a while to see how well terminators stand up to 90 poisoned gaunt attacks. Protip, they die in two rounds on average rolls while being almost twice the cost of their killers squad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mandor wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:So feth your wyches. I want defensive fire because I want an army that can actually play games of warhammer 40k. Does that suck because one of your many many codex options gets a lot worse? Yeah. I feel for you. But hey, at least you'll still have lots of other viable options.
It seems you have more of a problem with your own tactics than with the game rules. And want the game to fix this by implementing rules that support your style of play. I think that Marines are not at a terrible strategic disadvantage when faced with Tyranids currently, and not with these rules either.
You clearly don't play those two armies than or you play a bog standard razorspam list. Razorspam isn't gonna work too well in sixth.
This seems to be case of you not wanting to adapt your play style to deal with a particular situation. You could respond with dreads to tie up the large guant squads, you can easily gun down zoanthropes, I know because it happens to mine all the time. You are just being overly negative and not trying to deal with the situation.
I'd be more concerned if someone brought 5 Tervigons to the field then 180 hormies.
Quick mental exercise. Marines can move 6" then fire 24" now, right? Whilst Hormagaunts charge 21" (don't have a regular nod opponent so forgive me if I'm a bit wooly)? So shouldn't it be possible (if not exactly easy) to shoot them for at least 2 turns, 3 if you get 1st turn?
Also don't forget about the Strategems. Strategems like Fire at Will and Preliminary bombardment should help thin those numbers down considerably (Prelim Bombardment can even get rid of some of the terrain they may be hiding behind). Even if you didn't get Strategems you're more than likely going first, so even your basic Guardsman is more than likely hitting the enemy units on 3 or better, and you're pretty much guaranteed 2 turns of shooting at them.
Hormagaunts will only be able to charge 18". They have fleet and bounding leap, but can't use both in the same turn.
Thimn wrote:Tyranids are one of the main armies I play
This seems to be case of you not wanting to adapt your play style to deal with a particular situation. You could respond with dreads to tie up the large guant squads, you can easily gun down zoanthropes, I know because it happens to mine all the time. You are just being overly negative and not trying to deal with the situation.
I'd be more concerned if someone brought 5 Tervigons to the field then 180 hormies.
I'm fully willing to change up my tactics, but "make a salamanders list" is what everyone was saying in fifth too. I'd rather shelve the army because frankly, that's not my army. I play nid hordes all the time. I gun down zoans all the time. The problem is that thats not a major part of the enemy force and they were overwhelming in fifth when I had an entire extra turn to shoot them. I don't play mechspam because it's lame. I play a mobile mixed arms force of the kind that is described in every single piece of space marine fluff ever written. If the only response to the fact that hordes got massively better is to mech up in an edition where that's no longer a viable strat for objectives (thus making me lose anyway) than I might as well sell the thing. It won't be fun to play and I don't feel like having to fight an uphill battle because of intense codex imbalance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Leggy wrote:Quick mental exercise. Marines can move 6" then fire 24" now, right? Whilst Hormagaunts charge 21" (don't have a regular nod opponent so forgive me if I'm a bit wooly)? So shouldn't it be possible (if not exactly easy) to shoot them for at least 2 turns, 3 if you get 1st turn?
No. with regular deployment horms will be on me turn two. I can't get in three shooting phases in two turn rounds.
ShumaGorath wrote:You clearly don't play those two armies than or you play a bog standard razorspam list. Razorspam isn't gonna work too well in sixth.
You are right, I don't play either. However, my question to you: shouldn't 20 hormogants roll over your tac squad in assault? Upgraded with FC and poison, that's like 160 points of gaunts that don't do any shooting. How is it justified that you kill half of them just because they assault you, which is the sole reason they exist?
ShumaGorath wrote:You clearly don't play those two armies than or you play a bog standard razorspam list. Razorspam isn't gonna work too well in sixth.
You are right, I don't play either. However, my question to you: shouldn't 20 hormogants roll over your tac squad in assault? Upgraded with FC and poison, that's like 160 points of gaunts that don't do any shooting. How is it justified that you kill half of them just because they assault you, which is the sole reason they exist?
Because if I don't I lose automatically. How is it justified that a 160 point horm squad (less than tacs) can beat them in combat at a rate of four to one while being half the point cost per model (thus winning eight to one) after taking the brunt of the squads entire shooting? It's not fair. At all. Statistically they win even with defensive fire. All the tyranid player has to do is push his models forward and play super smash brothers between dropping bucketloads of dice. There is not strategy and all he's going to have to do to beat me is show up. That is lame and stupid.
Defensive fire is about the only thing that gives me a chance since it gives me back the round of shooting that I'm losing in these new rules. Please, pay attention to that fact. I'm losing a turn of shooting. Defensive fire gives it back. I'm not getting extra shooting. They aren't at a sudden disadvantage. Without that turn I can't win. The codex I use becomes blatantly unviable against fast assault forces.
ShumaGorath wrote:
I'm fully willing to change up my tactics, but "make a salamanders list" is what everyone was saying in fifth too. I'd rather shelve the army because frankly, that's not my army. I play nid hordes all the time. I gun down zoans all the time. The problem is that thats not a major part of the enemy force and they were overwhelming in fifth when I had an entire extra turn to shoot them. I don't play mechspam because it's lame. I play a mobile mixed arms force of the kind that is described in every single piece of space marine fluff ever written. If the only response to the fact that hordes got massively better is to mech up in an edition where that's no longer a viable strat for objectives (thus making me lose anyway) than I might as well sell the thing. It won't be fun to play and I don't feel like having to fight an uphill battle because of intense codex imbalance.
Not much point getting your panties in a wad over rules that are possibly fake or at best an early playtest version.
Still, I'd be happy to take your minis off your hands if you can't stand them that much.
ShumaGorath wrote:You clearly don't play those two armies than or you play a bog standard razorspam list. Razorspam isn't gonna work too well in sixth.
However, my question to you: shouldn't 20 hormogants roll over your tac squad in assault? Upgraded with FC and poison, that's like 160 points of gaunts that don't do any shooting. How is it justified that you kill half of them just because they assault you, which is the sole reason they exist?
With FC and poison, hormies are 10 points each, so that original 30 man squad of hormies that Shuma discusses is 300 points. That would be 1.5 squads of marines with 2 flamers, 1 ML, and a PF. If going first and if simply firing bolters (ignoring frag grenades), 15 marines would kill 4 guants the first turn at 24" and 9 guants the second turn at 12" (assuming the hormies were able to seek 5+ cover both turns). 17 hormies left alive to assault at the bottom of turn 2, and because the SM would be in cover, they strike last. Using only normal CC attacks (no PF), 6 more dead hormies. 11 hormies strike back killing 4 marines. Hormies lose CC andlose 2 more models to fearless wounds. Hormies lost 210 points, marines lost 64 points.
If marines got overwatch automatically and went first, they would effectively get 3 shooting actions and wipe the hormies down to 8 models before CC took place. The SM would strike first due to cover and kill 6 more.
ShumaGorath wrote:You clearly don't play those two armies than or you play a bog standard razorspam list. Razorspam isn't gonna work too well in sixth.
However, my question to you: shouldn't 20 hormogants roll over your tac squad in assault? Upgraded with FC and poison, that's like 160 points of gaunts that don't do any shooting. How is it justified that you kill half of them just because they assault you, which is the sole reason they exist?
With FC and poison, hormies are 10 points each, so that original 30 man squad of hormies that Shuma discusses is 300 points.
I said FCor poison. They're redundant together. FC allows rhino popping poison is better for killing infantry. The squad I discussed is 240, which places it about on par with a standard tac marine loadout.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not much point getting your panties in a wad over rules that are possibly fake or at best an early playtest version.
Still, I'd be happy to take your minis off your hands if you can't stand them that much.
We'll see if it comes to that. This edition gives a lot of codexes a lot of love. Bog standard marines get virtually none (other than the thunderfire and conv beamer getting much better). But I'm vaguely confidant that they'd recognize that their flagship codex is the worst in the game and come out with a new one in short order. It usually gets a new book early in every edition anyway.
ShumaGorath wrote:Yeah wyches, truck boyz, assault scouts, and really any other transport dependent light assault unit gets hammered here. Wyches are kind of unique in that they were actually utilized in fifth, but they aren't alone.
Fleet is now a solid bonus, rather than a random amount.
Witches had a 12"+2"+Base-width+D6"+6 assault range; min 22, max 27.
Now they have 8"+16" (2 x (6+2)); 24", a mere half inch less than the average previously.
Orks in Trukks have the same currently.
Now they have a 23" assault, not exactly a huge nerf.
Also, if you declare an Assault action, but are not in range, you can choose to either perform a non-Assault action or choose to remain stationary, meaning if you fail the charge you can stay in the transport.
Some of these arguments are just weird. Gaunt-spam is like any other horde, still vulnerable to the same stuff and still good in the same situations. And the Argument against wyches also seems strangely pessimistic, charging out of a fast skimmer still provides a large threat range, and fleet is also, if nothing else, reliable.
The Tac marine hate seems to be unfounded because Marines got a whole lot of love in this version. The standard 10 tac squad with missile and flamer is a solid versatile choice which has been improved by the rapid fire and fire sweep rules, defensive fire rules, and the boosted ATSKNF rules, not to mention that drop pods are extra awesomesauce now.
I don't think Space Marine players will ever have to worry about not being competitive, they seem to have a way to take advantage of every change in the rules.
Dear God, people are still pretending you get Defensive Fire in response to an assault? There is NOTHING in the rules that supports this regardless of how much you wish it so.
Long story short, if you want to house-rule that your squads get Defensive Fire to every assault, automatically come with rocket launchers, and have 2+ invulnerable saves, or whatever house rules you wishlist, you're free to. I won't play with you, and others won't play with you. We'll play Warhammer 40,000 6thEdition instead.
ShumaGorath wrote:We'll see if it comes to that. This edition gives a lot of codexes a lot of love. Bog standard marines get virtually none (other than the thunderfire and conv beamer getting much better). But I'm vaguely confidant that they'd recognize that their flagship codex is the worst in the game and come out with a new one in short order. It usually gets a new book early in every edition anyway.
This edition massively, outrageously buffs my Space Marine army, which IMO is already quite strong. To be honest (and a little arrogant), I don't see myself losing many games against 5e style armies in the new ruleset. A LOT of adaptation is going to be required for most forces to compete in 6e, but my Space Marine list remains comparatively unchanged-- it sort of "lucked into" much more power than it already had, with only minor changes required.
Every edition tries just a little harder to expunge gunline, stand-and-shoot, armies. GW does not like that kind of game. At this point, you should stop being shocked about it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote: This edition gives a lot of codexes a lot of love. Bog standard marines get virtually none (other than the thunderfire and conv beamer getting much better).
ShumaGorath wrote:We'll see if it comes to that. This edition gives a lot of codexes a lot of love. Bog standard marines get virtually none (other than the thunderfire and conv beamer getting much better). But I'm vaguely confidant that they'd recognize that their flagship codex is the worst in the game and come out with a new one in short order. It usually gets a new book early in every edition anyway.
This edition massively, outrageously buffs my Space Marine army, which IMO is already quite strong. To be honest (and a little arrogant), I don't see myself losing many games against 5e style armies in the new ruleset. A LOT of adaptation is going to be required for most forces to compete in 6e, but my Space Marine list remains comparatively unchanged-- it sort of "lucked into" much more power than it already had, with only minor changes required.
What are you using thats getting better? Vulkan flamerspam gets a good boost, as do bike heavy builds (my conv beamer on a bike being a nice point of optimism). I agree that many 5E style armies won't be nearly so viable as they are now. My main point of contention is regarding the army types that by these rules will become incredibly strong and which weren't particularly viable previously (fast horde builds or jump pack heavy mass assault armies).
ShumaGorath wrote:
I said FCor poison. They're redundant together. FC allows rhino popping poison is better for killing infantry. The squad I discussed is 240, which places it about on par with a standard tac marine loadout.
You must be playing a different game from the rest of us or using an older edition codex. I can only get a tact squad up to 240pts with a plasma pistol powerfisting meltabomber teleport homering sergeant and a las/plas loadout on the squad (namely the most expensive options available)... that is hardly a "standard" loadout. The standard 10 man tact squad with flamer/heavy bolter is 170pts and is the best loadout vs the horm swarm you keep whining about. Padding your example with an extra 70pts doesn't do the discussion any justice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Absolutionis wrote:Dear God, people are still pretending you get Defensive Fire in response to an assault? There is NOTHING in the rules that supports this regardless of how much you wish it so.
Long story short, if you want to house-rule that your squads get Defensive Fire to every assault, automatically come with rocket launchers, and have 2+ invulnerable saves, or whatever house rules you wishlist, you're free to. I won't play with you, and others won't play with you. We'll play Warhammer 40,000 6thEdition instead.
While I agree that the rules don't allow auto-defensive fire vs assault without some other rule allowing it (like the strategem), I do think it would be a good idea for GW to allow it INSTEAD OF regular close combat attacks and prior to any done by the charging units. Instead of arming yourself with whatever close combat you have in prep for the assault, your squad would instead be firing at them while they're coming in. This would give some gunline squads like tacts and especially firewarriors a boot more oompf without having to change their actual unit specifics.
Some of these arguments are just weird. Gaunt-spam is like any other horde, still vulnerable to the same stuff and still good in the same situations.
Yep. Those situations are just going to have half as much time as they previously did to occur. Make no mistake, gaunt spam got a lot better in this edition.
And the Argument against wyches also seems strangely pessimistic, charging out of a fast skimmer still provides a large threat range, and fleet is also, if nothing else, reliable.
Wyches are either relatively unchanged or severely hampered depending on how defensive fire works.
The Tac marine hate seems to be unfounded because Marines got a whole lot of love in this version. The standard 10 tac squad with missile and flamer is a solid versatile choice which has been improved by the rapid fire and fire sweep rules, defensive fire rules, and the boosted ATSKNF rules, not to mention that drop pods are extra awesomesauce now.
Everything with a rapid fire weapon got the boost to that. They're still the worst MEQ troop choice. The missile launcher is nigh useless since it requires that the squad stay stationary which is much more dangerous now. The critical hit rules hurt them quite badly as well. Drop pods don't actually change much at all.
They're still bad. Nothing in the edition particularly helps them and the evasion, increased assault speed, and transport scoring changes hurt them badly.
I don't think Space Marine players will ever have to worry about not being competitive, they seem to have a way to take advantage of every change in the rules.
They haven't been particularly competitive for years so "ever' is a bit of a poor choice of words there. I think you were searching for "aren't going to become more uncompetitive".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
You must be playing a different game from the rest of us or using an older edition codex. I can only get a tact squad up to 240pts with a plasma pistol powerfisting meltabomber teleport homering sergeant and a las/plas loadout on the squad (namely the most expensive options available)... that is hardly a "standard" loadout. The standard 10 man tact squad with flamer/heavy bolter is 170pts and is the best loadout vs the horm swarm you keep whining about. Padding your example with an extra 70pts doesn't do the discussion any justice.
10 tacs, missile, combi melta, melta, pfist, rhino w/dozer. 250. 2-3 kill points. Fairly bog standard loadout.
ShumaGorath wrote:You clearly don't play those two armies than or you play a bog standard razorspam list. Razorspam isn't gonna work too well in sixth.
You are right, I don't play either. However, my question to you: shouldn't 20 hormogants roll over your tac squad in assault? Upgraded with FC and poison, that's like 160 points of gaunts that don't do any shooting. How is it justified that you kill half of them just because they assault you, which is the sole reason they exist?
Because if I don't I lose automatically. How is it justified that a 160 point horm squad (less than tacs) can beat them in combat at a rate of four to one while being half the point cost per model (thus winning eight to one) after taking the brunt of the squads entire shooting? It's not fair. At all. Statistically they win even with defensive fire. All the tyranid player has to do is push his models forward and play super smash brothers between dropping bucketloads of dice. There is not strategy and all he's going to have to do to beat me is show up. That is lame and stupid.
Defensive fire is about the only thing that gives me a chance since it gives me back the round of shooting that I'm losing in these new rules. Please, pay attention to that fact. I'm losing a turn of shooting. Defensive fire gives it back. I'm not getting extra shooting. They aren't at a sudden disadvantage. Without that turn I can't win. The codex I use becomes blatantly unviable against fast assault forces.
How do you justify that a dedicated assault squad completely takes out a ranged/static hybrid unit when you compare them mathematically in a void? I don't know, that sounds about right to me. Now, the problem is how Bounding Leap and Move Through Cover interacts, essentially completely removing movement penalties when assaulting - and I think here lies the problem. At 20" charge range for a two-base-attack infantry with Scything Talons, they are a bit cheap.
I don't quite see how a unit that is distinctly good should be compared to a unit with moderate problems (and for the sake of all that is holy, let's not repeat this exercise with ANY Eldar troop choice - we all know how that ends, ok?) when the decent unit is geared to handle the marines and the marines are not geared for anything special.
But just for the thought exercise, let's put some terrain on the table, giving the marines Alpha Strike. Additionally, let's stick down a supporting squad of Assault Marines. For the hell of it, let's give them a flamer.
ShumaGorath wrote:
I said FCor poison. They're redundant together. FC allows rhino popping poison is better for killing infantry. The squad I discussed is 240, which places it about on par with a standard tac marine loadout.
You must be playing a different game from the rest of us or using an older edition codex. I can only get a tact squad up to 240pts with a plasma pistol powerfisting meltabomber teleport homering sergeant and a las/plas loadout on the squad (namely the most expensive options available)... that is hardly a "standard" loadout. The standard 10 man tact squad with flamer/heavy bolter is 170pts and is the best loadout vs the horm swarm you keep whining about. Padding your example with an extra 70pts doesn't do the discussion any justice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Absolutionis wrote:Dear God, people are still pretending you get Defensive Fire in response to an assault? There is NOTHING in the rules that supports this regardless of how much you wish it so.
Long story short, if you want to house-rule that your squads get Defensive Fire to every assault, automatically come with rocket launchers, and have 2+ invulnerable saves, or whatever house rules you wishlist, you're free to. I won't play with you, and others won't play with you. We'll play Warhammer 40,000 6thEdition instead.
While I agree that the rules don't allow auto-defensive fire vs assault without some other rule allowing it (like the strategem), I do think it would be a good idea for GW to allow it INSTEAD OF regular close combat attacks and prior to any done by the charging units. Instead of arming yourself with whatever close combat you have in prep for the assault, your squad would instead be firing at them while they're coming in. This would give some gunline squads like tacts and especially firewarriors a boot more oompf without having to change their actual unit specifics.
I don't think that's necessary. Defensive fire is the balance for units being able to assault out of deep strike. It's a tricky balance, but I think it was well handled. Overwatch is one of those abilities that should be severely limited to a few unique characters, no more than 1 per codex. Shooting and assault are meant to be mutually exclusive, and any shift in favor of shooting is going to, too dramatically, hurt assault armies. The way that the rules stand now, heavy assault, heavy shooting, and balanced armies all have a fair shot against one another, and I think that is a testament to the graceful construction of this ruleset.
Obviously, people that are commenting on the imbalance of defensive fire need to go back and re-read the rules, assault is not at any point listed as a trigger for defensive fire.
For what it's worth, Furious Charge and Poison together can be rather useful, being when your Strength is equal to or greater than their Toughness, you get to re-roll to wound.
Absolutionis wrote:Dear God, people are still pretending you get Defensive Fire in response to an assault? There is NOTHING in the rules that supports this regardless of how much you wish it so.
Long story short, if you want to house-rule that your squads get Defensive Fire to every assault, automatically come with rocket launchers, and have 2+ invulnerable saves, or whatever house rules you wishlist, you're free to. I won't play with you, and others won't play with you. We'll play Warhammer 40,000 6thEdition instead.
While I agree that the rules don't allow auto-defensive fire vs assault without some other rule allowing it (like the strategem), I do think it would be a good idea for GW to allow it INSTEAD OF regular close combat attacks and prior to any done by the charging units. Instead of arming yourself with whatever close combat you have in prep for the assault, your squad would instead be firing at them while they're coming in. This would give some gunline squads like tacts and especially firewarriors a boot more oompf without having to change their actual unit specifics.
That's what pistols are for. Pistols have statlines now and their work in initiative order. You can also use flame-template weapons in close-combat with their special attack. It may be a "cool" idea, but it's not a "good" idea. For every unit that you think it'll help into balance, it'll break others.
No matter how much you love your Tactical Marines and think they should do everything, they should not win in Assault against Hormagants. Yes, Hormagaunts cost less, but that's because they're limited in their use.
Hormagaunts should be able to decently win any assault against Marines because Marines decisively and strictly win any firefight against Hormagaunts. That's why Hormagaunts are cheaper.
Tau have not had their new codex yet, and they don't even have a Codex Updates entry it's not right to break all of 6thEd just to accommodate one old army. For all you know, Tau will have an Overwatch fetish throughout every unit entry.
Ovion wrote:For what it's worth, Furious Charge and Poison together can be rather useful, being when your Strength is equal to or greater than their Toughness, you get to re-roll to wound.
But just for the thought exercise, let's put some terrain on the table, giving the marines Alpha Strike. Additionally, let's stick down a supporting squad of Assault Marines. For the hell of it, let's give them a flamer.
They'll probably maul the horm squad after they've mauled the tac squad. The problem with this theory is that first of all, standard marine assault squads are actually pretty bad. They have 2 attacks in close combat which is bad for the cost and they're paying for mobility that they aren't using. Once they break that horm squad (which isn't unlikely) they'll be standing there prone for a charge from another horm squad (or genestealers which would be a good followup since they're a turn 3 assaulter and are far more damaging).
The main problem with any scenario like this is that standard marines aren't particularly efficient for cost in either shooting or CC and when they're getting hit by dedicated CC units before they can employ their shooting they start to have major problems with recouping costs. The castle is an attrition formation designed around trading positively point for point by using ablative squads and firing to max effectiveness. The formation works almost the same in this edition as it used to, the enemy just reaches it a turn sooner which cuts out between 33% and 50% of the time it has to actually use its guns before it starts taking heavy losses.
Necrons can still work the castle tremendously well in the new edition thanks to their ability to suddenly re-position late game for objectives. Marines have neither the resilience or maneuverability 'crons have though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ovion wrote:For what it's worth, Furious Charge and Poison together can be rather useful, being when your Strength is equal to or greater than their Toughness, you get to re-roll to wound.
It's almost never needed though. One is almost always enough.
warboss wrote:While I agree that the rules don't allow auto-defensive fire vs assault without some other rule allowing it (like the strategem), I do think it would be a good idea for GW to allow it INSTEAD OF regular close combat attacks and prior to any done by the charging units.
This is possibly an interesting option, though it would make units deliberately weak in assault considerably better at it.
Hoping that your static gunline will be able to withstand a horde or mech based assault list simply through shooting can't be conductive to a strategic game system.
Manoeuvrability, support between units and tactics is what's needed if you want to make a shooting force work.
DarknessEternal wrote:
Bikes also go from good to awesome.
Why? They loose bonus T in close combat, they loose 3+ coversave from turboboost, everybody else can now also fire rapidfire weapons on the move and everything is much faster than before, making it more likely to be caught in assault (which they are now worse at). You are also likely to see less tanks, which is what bikes are best at killing.
@Shuma: Not changing your lists and tactics after a new edition equals to taking the choice of being less competitive. Your rant about hordes is ridicolous - hordes kind of live on the principle of the opponent not being able to kill them all. You could just as easily mention 200+ guardsmen hordes in 5th. Your gunline marines would struggle even more against such a list. There are reasons you just don't see these lists often however: they are expensive, time consuming to play and paint, and they have weaknesses against certain match-ups.
Shooting is awesome in 6th ed. If you actually try a few games with these rules, you will see that shooting is absolutely devastating. Yes, infantry heavy weapons have lost power. However, everything else has become much more deadly. Rapid fire is really good now - making marines much better, templates and blasts are now even better and coversaves/hit rolls are pretty much universially reduced. Power armour is also more valuable with these rules with the reduction in coversaves.
You have to be ready for stuff to die with these rules, as everything is killier. You will have to change your tactics and strategies to account for new rules and the tons of new builds made available with these rules. If you are super-worried about hordes, bring some thunderfires, they just became much better with these rules. If two of those isn't enough either, bring tons of typhoons - they also got better. If even that isn't enough, bring 10 sternguard with 2x heavy flamers and 8x combi-flamers, with the better rapidfire rules, sternguard just got better too. They will also rape those hordes in close combat with all those flamers, and poor whatever gets those 10 templates on themselves.
Change up your list, change up your strategy and change up your tactics and codex marines will do just fine. (they will probably get new rules quickly too)
Shuma, your whining is annoying and unsubstantiated, and your idea of proliferating defensive fire is horrible.
"Oh yeah, this is my 50 man IG blob with ML/plas. You want to charge? Ok lol, 50 lasguns fire 100 times and 20 of your assaulters die. Now I fire my special weapons..."
And let's not forget that you are whining about vanilla marines the codex with the (now even more buffed!) land raider redeemer, and the TFC which now scatters an average of oh, ZERO INCHES.
If you can't beat 180 ork horde with vanilla marines, you are doing it so wrong.
You must be playing a different game from the rest of us or using an older edition codex. I can only get a tact squad up to 240pts with a plasma pistol powerfisting meltabomber teleport homering sergeant and a las/plas loadout on the squad (namely the most expensive options available)... that is hardly a "standard" loadout. The standard 10 man tact squad with flamer/heavy bolter is 170pts and is the best loadout vs the horm swarm you keep whining about. Padding your example with an extra 70pts doesn't do the discussion any justice.
10 tacs, missile, combi melta, melta, pfist, rhino w/dozer. 250. 2-3 kill points. Fairly bog standard loadout.
So... you're using the "benefit" of the upgraded rhino to pad your points in the 240pt tact vs 240pt horm fight but never mentioned the rhino in any of your dozen posts about how overwhelmed the marines are in that fight?
In that case, you need to included the benefits of the rhino stormbolter firing at the horms for two turns and somehow figure out a way to calculate the added benefit of having the rhino simply BLOCKING the charge in the first place instead of counting it against the marines but ignoring it being for them also. Or simply revise your point total down to 210pts with the loadout you're using (I wouldn't call it standard but that's a judgement call.. the padded but ignored 40pts for the rhino is not) and redo the horms to the same point total for a more accurate assessment of what would happen.
Why? They loose bonus T in close combat, they loose 3+ coversave from turboboost, everybody else can now also fire rapidfire weapons on the move and everything is much faster than before, making it more likely to be caught in assault (which they are now worse at). You are also likely to see less tanks, which is what bikes are best at killing.
They're considerably harder to shoot.
@Shuma: Not changing your lists and tactics after a new edition equals to taking the choice of being less competitive. Your rant about hordes is ridicolous
Refusing to use the only realistic and viable cookie cutter build isn't ridiculous. It's dissapointing to me as a player that I would have to, but I don't think it's ridiculous that I refuse to counts as my entire force into salamander mech spam just because large swathes of my codex is 20-30% overcosted otherwise.
Your rant about hordes is ridicolous - hordes kind of live on the principle of the opponent not being able to kill them all. You could just as easily mention 200+ guardsmen hordes in 5th. Your gunline marines would struggle even more against such a list. There are reasons you just don't see these lists often however: they are expensive, time consuming to play and paint, and they have weaknesses against certain match-ups.
I know three separate people who own them. Guess they're more common out in the boondocks.
Shooting is awesome in 6th ed. If you actually try a few games with these rules, you will see that shooting is absolutely devastating.
Shooting for a gunline is unchanged. I get one shot at 24 with a bolter? Oh, I already had that. Woo. Hows the tac becoming better again?
Yes, infantry heavy weapons have lost power. However, everything else has become much more deadly.
If I played IG that would help me in some way. As it is it hurts me.
Rapid fire is really good now - making marines much better, templates and blasts are now even better and coversaves/hit rolls are pretty much universially reduced. Power armour is also more valuable with these rules with the reduction in coversaves.
I'm sure it'll be great when a still viable IG mech line blows me off the table with ap3 weapons that hit easier than before and I get less cover. I'm sure that'll help a lot.
You have to be ready for stuff to die with these rules, as everything is killier. You will have to change your tactics and strategies to account for new rules and the tons of new builds made available with these rules. If you are super-worried about hordes, bring some thunderfires, they just became much better with these rules. If two of those isn't enough either, bring tons of typhoons - they also got better. If even that isn't enough, bring 10 sternguard with 2x heavy flamers and 8x combi-flamers, with the better rapidfire rules, sternguard just got better too. They will also rape those hordes in close combat with all those flamers, and poor whatever gets those 10 templates on themselves.
I've done some of that already. You just described a 300 point sternguard unit thats worthless against non hordes. So I'm metagaming against specific opponents now? Wheres the all comers list in the space marine codex exactly?
Change up your list, change up your strategy and change up your tactics and codex marines will do just fine. (they will probably get new rules quickly too)
No. They won't. They haven't for years and they won't suddenly now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
warboss wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
You must be playing a different game from the rest of us or using an older edition codex. I can only get a tact squad up to 240pts with a plasma pistol powerfisting meltabomber teleport homering sergeant and a las/plas loadout on the squad (namely the most expensive options available)... that is hardly a "standard" loadout. The standard 10 man tact squad with flamer/heavy bolter is 170pts and is the best loadout vs the horm swarm you keep whining about. Padding your example with an extra 70pts doesn't do the discussion any justice.
10 tacs, missile, combi melta, melta, pfist, rhino w/dozer. 250. 2-3 kill points. Fairly bog standard loadout.
So... you're using the "benefit" of the upgraded rhino to pad your points in the 240pt tact vs 240pt horm fight but never mentioned the rhino in any of your dozen posts about how overwhelmed the marines are in that fight?
In that case, you need to included the benefits of the rhino stormbolter firing at the horms for two turns and somehow figure out a way to calculate the added benefit of having the rhino simply BLOCKING the charge in the first place instead of counting it against the marines but ignoring it being for them also. Or simply revise your point total down to 210pts with the loadout you're using (I wouldn't call it standard but that's a judgement call.. the padded but ignored 40pts for the rhino is not) and redo the horms to the same point total for a more accurate assessment of what would happen.
Its not padded. Without transport for the troops I've already lost (in fifth which is what makes the build standard), and honestly I'm not taking tacs at all in sixth anyway. Just minimum scout squads since everything can score.
ShumaGorath wrote:So I'm metagaming against specific opponents now? Wheres the all comers list in the space marine codex exactly?
I gave you two other totally viable options before the sternguard bomb. Notice how I said "if even that isn't enough''. While the sternguard example is going far, sternguard are not useless against other stuff than hordes. They have super-bolters which got a big boost with these rules too.
ShumaGorath wrote:Refusing to use the only realistic and viable cookie cutter build isn't ridiculous
Yeah... the cookie cutter suggestion I offered with thunderfire cannons and typhoons... I didn't mention vulkan with a word. Refusing to change your gaming style or list at all is ridiculous.
ShumaGorath wrote:honestly I'm not taking tacs at all in sixth anyway. Just minimum scout squads since everything can score.
Everything can score, but only scoring units get 3pts for objectives.
Everyone else seems pretty happy with the interplay between their marines and these rules. It's not like they've been crippled or nerfed by the rules; everything they could always do, they can do better. They are good in shooting, assault, and very survivable - it seems like you're upset that they don't auto-win.
ShumaGorath wrote:and honestly I'm not taking tacs at all in sixth anyway. Just minimum scout squads since everything can score.
Vehicles can't.
Plus, non-scoring units only get you 1 point a turn. Scoring units get you 3 plus 6 at the end of the game.
My tactics are going to change considerably;
I'm actually more interested in going second now if I think I can squeeze out enough SPs to nullify or hamper their first turn, 'wasting' their bid to go first.
My force has always relied more on shooting than people expect, now my wagons can unload the dakka while moving forward and my meganobs can affect more than one unit if I use Engage (kill one unit, shoot another).
If we're talking a mixed bag marine army against 180 hormagaunts and a prime (cheapest HQ we have), there are many other considerations that never make it into discussions like these.
I've had lists where I use 30 gargoyles and 30 hormagaunts. Even those 60 units are hard to fit onto the table without spreading out and covering my entire deployment area. If I don't spread out, small blasts are hitting 5/6 models instead of 3. Fitting 180 hormagaunts into your table corner would be comical honestly.
Also, horms cannot hurt Dreadnaughts or Land raiders. If your "balanced" vanilla marines list doesnt' include either one you're purposefully nerfing yourself. Throw one dread at a squad of 30 gaunts and they all die without scratching him. End of story. Tank shock your LR into the middle of them and fire away. The tyranid player will be lucky if he's got half his units by the time he reaches you, and if you're smart, you've spread out your tacs, not bunched them up. That way once I've finished one assault, I now have to run over to where your other marines are instead of immediately assaulting again.
180 horms with a single upgrade (8pts each) is 1440pts. If you can't fit blasts/flamers/dreads/LR's into a 1500 pt list, that's your mistake at list making, not a mistake of the new rules.
ShumaGorath wrote:and honestly I'm not taking tacs at all in sixth anyway. Just minimum scout squads since everything can score.
Vehicles can't.
Plus, non-scoring units only get you 1 point a turn. Scoring units get you 3 plus 6 at the end of the game.
I'm looking at that vs none. Scoring matches are a very uphill battle with codex marines, I'm going to have to hope I can outplay for KPs and use OPs as a bonus. I'm not under many illusions that it's getting easier for me in sixth, I'm just not going to fool myself into the belief that the tac unit is getting anything but worse in this ruleset (the heavy weapon rules and non transport scoring are very painful to a unit that basically lives in its metal box and prays late game).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nalathani wrote:If we're talking a mixed bag marine army against 180 hormagaunts and a prime (cheapest HQ we have), there are many other considerations that never make it into discussions like these.
I've had lists where I use 30 gargoyles and 30 hormagaunts. Even those 60 units are hard to fit onto the table without spreading out and covering my entire deployment area. If I don't spread out, small blasts are hitting 5/6 models instead of 3. Fitting 180 hormagaunts into your table corner would be comical honestly.
Also, horms cannot hurt Dreadnaughts or Land raiders. If your "balanced" vanilla marines list doesnt' include either one you're purposefully nerfing yourself. Throw one dread at a squad of 30 gaunts and they all die without scratching him. End of story. Tank shock your LR into the middle of them and fire away. The tyranid player will be lucky if he's got half his units by the time he reaches you, and if you're smart, you've spread out your tacs, not bunched them up. That way once I've finished one assault, I now have to run over to where your other marines are instead of immediately assaulting again.
180 horms with a single upgrade (8pts each) is 1440pts. If you can't fit blasts/flamers/dreads/LR's into a 1500 pt list, that's your mistake at list making, not a mistake of the new rules.
I'm pretty sure that many horms can ignore a land raider and one dread and stomp the piss out of the rest of a codex marine army without breaking a sweat. I've watched it happen several times. They're really not that hard to fit on a table side, especially with the swarmlord or trygons giving options for reserves. The 180 horms is more of an 1850 list, it wouldn't be needed in 1500. 120 with support would do the trick.
Ah yeah, tank shock. I had almost forgot about that!
Remember: The rhino got a huge buff. Now it is only 1 killpoint -- marine armies no longer have to worry about losing by having all their cheap tanks and drop pods blown up.
If you tank shock the hormagaunts and they can't escape the path, you just killed every one that couldn't make it.
Oh and now they're clustered up? You'll be hitting 6 or more gaunts with every blast from your thunderfire, with 100% accuracy. Average scatter distance: 1/3rd of an inch.
So maybe your rhino manages to flatten 2 gaunts, and your TFC kills... 17 more? So your 135 points of units (including your "worthless" rhino) killed 152 points of gaunts.
Boo hoo wah. Did I also mention all their Tyranid Monstrous Creatures now have a hell of a time getting cover, and you get +1 to hit them? Yeah, your long fangs now deal 3.5 MC wounds each to that nasty trygon, assuming it doesn't get cover, and it won't.
ph34r wrote:Ah yeah, tank shock. I had almost forgot about that!
Remember: The rhino got a huge buff. Now it is only 1 killpoint -- marine armies no longer have to worry about losing by having all their cheap tanks and drop pods blown up.
If you tank shock the hormagaunts and they can't escape the path, you just killed every one that couldn't make it.
Oh and now they're clustered up? You'll be hitting 6 or more gaunts with every blast from your thunderfire, with 100% accuracy. Average scatter distance: 1/3rd of an inch.
So maybe your rhino manages to flatten 2 gaunts, and your TFC kills... 17 more? So your 135 points of units (including your "worthless" rhino) killed 152 points of gaunts.
Boo hoo wah. Did I also mention all their Tyranid Monstrous Creatures now have a hell of a time getting cover, and you get +1 to hit them? Yeah, your long fangs now deal 3.5 MC wounds each to that nasty trygon, assuming it doesn't get cover, and it won't.
I don't play space wolves (space wolves are gonna love sixth, they do everything marines do for cheaper and aren't trash in CC) and the rhino trick is neat and could be pretty effective during the one turn that I get to try it. Unfortunately it's a one turn popasition and isn't much different than using a flamer command squad or stern squad for the same effect. Then again they could just assault it turn one and kill it if I'm throwing it out there. A 21" charge range gives them a lot of options and a 3.98 inch CC attack range lets them avoid clumping.
The doom of malantai is going to make thunderfires hard to utilize though. It'll kill the techmarine on average rolls and if I'm clustering to protect my back field valuables it's str10 blast which is now much more accurate is going to be exceedingly painful. Tyranids are a pretty total package against non mechspam armies in sixth.
Absolutionis wrote:That's what pistols are for. Pistols have statlines now and their work in initiative order. You can also use flame-template weapons in close-combat with their special attack. It may be a "cool" idea, but it's not a "good" idea. For every unit that you think it'll help into balance, it'll break others.
No matter how much you love your Tactical Marines and think they should do everything, they should not win in Assault against Hormagants. Yes, Hormagaunts cost less, but that's because they're limited in their use.
Hormagaunts should be able to decently win any assault against Marines because Marines decisively and strictly win any firefight against Hormagaunts. That's why Hormagaunts are cheaper.
Tau have not had their new codex yet, and they don't even have a Codex Updates entry it's not right to break all of 6thEd just to accommodate one old army. For all you know, Tau will have an Overwatch fetish throughout every unit entry.
There is a difference thematically between using your pistol in close combat versus firing a rifle just prior to the assault connecting. What units would this break with the new rules? As for the last part about the tau overwatch fetish, I do hope they have some vastly increased access to it instead of some hamfisted improvement to their actual close combat abilities. Giving them an armywide modified overwatch (allowing them if unengaged to shoot with defensive fire when assaulted at the expense of their close combat attacks) would go a long way towards making them competitive if the new rules are indeed legitimate. I don't think the tau should become yet another close combat focused force but instead should use their adaptive brains to somehow get around close combat (like with defensive fire), keeping their crappy stats but giving them the option to do something different. This is of course blatant wishlisting so don't anyone quote this as a rumor of any kind.
Dribble Joy wrote:
warboss wrote:While I agree that the rules don't allow auto-defensive fire vs assault without some other rule allowing it (like the strategem), I do think it would be a good idea for GW to allow it INSTEAD OF regular close combat attacks and prior to any done by the charging units.
This is possibly an interesting option, though it would make units deliberately weak in assault considerably better at it.
Hoping that your static gunline will be able to withstand a horde or mech based assault list simply through shooting can't be conductive to a strategic game system.
Manoeuvrability, support between units and tactics is what's needed if you want to make a shooting force work.
(Plus it's boring and unimaginative.)
I frankly don't see this as actually giving most of them the ability to actually win close combats but instead to simply weather a single assault round before risking getting destroyed (which is what currently happens). If you've got a 10 man firewarrior squad assaulted by a completely unoptimized 5 man assault squad (both 100pts), they each do roughly 2 casualties to each other during that first turn. After the initial charge, the balance swings towards the marines as the tau wouldn't get any shots but would be using their much worse close combat attacks instead and going last regardless even with the marines getting less attacks due to not charging. This is with a completely unoptimized assault squad with nothing but bolt pistols and only gets better (albeit for more points) with the usual loadouts of powerfists and plasma pistols.
Completely aside from that fact of not caring how the overall balance of the game is, take a look at regular, cheap Devastators with MLs; That's still a badly wounded Trygon/Beasty.
warboss wrote:I frankly don't see this as actually giving most of them the ability to actually win close combats but instead to simply weather a single assault round before risking getting destroyed (which is what currently happens). If you've got a 10 man firewarrior squad assaulted by a completely unoptimized 5 man assault squad (both 100pts), they each do roughly 2 casualties to each other during that first turn. After the initial charge, the balance swings towards the marines as the tau wouldn't get any shots but would be using their much worse close combat attacks instead and going last regardless even with the marines getting less attacks due to not charging. This is with a completely unoptimized assault squad with nothing but bolt pistols and only gets better (albeit for more points) with the usual loadouts of powerfists and plasma pistols.
But then there's also at least one round of regular shooting, two rounds could see the FWs easily deal with the marines before they hit combat. We can't simply take the assault potential in isolation.
Sustained fire to 18" if stationary might be interesting.
Completely aside from that fact of not caring how the overall balance of the game is, take a look at regular, cheap Devastators with MLs; That's still a badly wounded Trygon/Beasty.
True. The MCs are honestly not what worries me in this edition. It's the fast and numerous hordes.
ph34r wrote:If you don't have space wolves take thunderfires, or devastators with plasma cannons, or a redeemer, or just "guys in a rhino with flamers".
Flamers are buffed so much, you can tank shock right into a horde and kill everything with just a couple flamers.
+3 inches reeeaalllly isn't that much of a buff to flamers. They already have the vehicle mobility and if I'm deploying and firing templates (which would be preferable) then I'm not assaulting and using them in combat. The end result isn't much different than in fifth. I'll probably vaporize their first squad in my shooting phase and then the 90 models behind them hop my viable threat range for flamers directly into assault with the body of my army.
I can probably metagame a flamerfull army with thunderfires and metal boxes to clump and win in those scenarios, but I've been searching for a codex all comers list that wasn't vehicle heavy with vulkan and a cost effective list just isn't coming up. Too many of the required units are overcosted or under effective (devs, preds, CChq slots, mobile assault elements, etc).
Adding any range to template weapons, even 1" increases their effectiveness against hordes by a great deal, not having the template 'locked' to the base of the firing model is huge. Also, Firesweep is a huge buff; you're adding an average of +2 attacks on the charge.
Also, why is your 1 squad fighting the entire army by itself?
Adding any range to template weapons, even 1" increases their effectiveness against hordes by a great deal, not having the template 'locked' to the base of the firing model is huge. Also, Firesweep is a huge buff; you're adding an average of +2 attacks on the charge.
Also, why is your 1 squad fighting the entire army by itself?
It's not, but it's fighting the one viable target (the first wave). You're all theoryhammering gak that didn't work at all in fifth (while pretending it's old hat and obvious), ignoring the fact that I'm trying to build an all comers list, and assuming that if I can down one squad of the enemy the rest of it with it's 21" charge range somehow goes home instead of proceeding to stomp me from well outside flamer range. I can't flamer something from half a table away. They on the other hand can assault something half a table away. Thats why this gak doesn't work. The threat ranges are all out of wack.
You're also ignoring the fact that theres more in a fast horde than just line troops.
This conversation is pretty circular. This rough document is not the finished version, so I'm happy to wait and see how the meta works out. This conversation has run its course though. I don't like debating with 10 people at once.
Well, if you're building an all-comer's list, you should have some alternate means of dealing with hordes in there, instead of trying to defeat the entire army with a single squad of tac marines.
Your Blast markers have become more accurate, your template weapons have become deadlier, your vehicles are more resilient, your troops are harder to break than almost any other army excluding fearless units, you're getting more attacks in CC; if you do wipe out a unit on the assault you can still shoot, the enemies don't have the ubiquitous 4+ cover save anymore... I mean what else did you want? Tac marines that were immune to damage? Universal FNP? +6 attacks per model?
ShumaGorath wrote:
Its not padded. Without transport for the troops I've already lost (in fifth which is what makes the build standard), and honestly I'm not taking tacs at all in sixth anyway. Just minimum scout squads since everything can score.
It is padded as you're including the tank in the points cost but not considering its possible effects in the combat. Something about having cake and eating it too...
Either way, I'd be curious if those more learned than me in the ways of the rumored 6th edition rules could figure out how a typical fight with just a bog standard tactical squad of 10 with the freebie flamer/heavy bolter would do vs an equal point total of hormagants (170pts)... poisoned, furiously charging, or standard.. whatever is best for them with the new rules. Obviously this type of fight that would exclude any other parts of the armies involved isn't standard but sure would go a long way to understanding the mathhammer balance of the "new" rules using existing codicies.
There's no question that Tyranids got a huge boost using the 6e Rules, in fact most of the newer codexes benefit more than the older ones. I'm sure the next VSM codex will feature some new stuff that fits in the ruleset a little better, but I doubt there will be a magical upgrade to give standard tac squads +6 toughness and 12 extra attacks in CC.
ShumaGorath wrote:I'm looking at that vs none. Scoring matches are a very uphill battle with codex marines, I'm going to have to hope I can outplay for KPs and use OPs as a bonus. I'm not under many illusions that it's getting easier for me in sixth, I'm just not going to fool myself into the belief that the tac unit is getting anything but worse in this ruleset (the heavy weapon rules and non transport scoring are very painful to a unit that basically lives in its metal box and prays late game).
Scoring matches are VERY advantageous for Tactical Marines, especially compared to Grey Hunters, any Grey Knight unit, or Blood Angel Assault Squads. Tactical Marines can use Combat Squads to have a small heavy weapon detachment snipe at vehicles and score backfield objectives while the other half of the squad brings up the special weapons in a Rhino or Razorback (which can now move and fire its lascannon and twin-linked plasma). No other Marine unit can do this, except for scoring Sternguard (also only in Codex: SM) and I suppose Deathwing Terminators, who are extremely expensive for such duties.
If you're worried about being overrun by fast assault units, take Thunderfire Cannons and use the entangling rounds (which have now been vastly buffed both in damage and secondary effect) to slow your opponent's units. That horde is a lot less scary when they lose the ability to run and lose a sixth of their guys every time they move-- this alone should buy you a turn or two of additional shooting.
ShumaGorath wrote:
They'll probably maul the horm squad after they've mauled the tac squad. The problem with this theory is that first of all, standard marine assault squads are actually pretty bad. They have 2 attacks in close combat which is bad for the cost and they're paying for mobility that they aren't using. Once they break that horm squad (which isn't unlikely) they'll be standing there prone for a charge from another horm squad (or genestealers which would be a good followup since they're a turn 3 assaulter and are far more damaging).
By my count your Hall-Powerful 180x Hormagaunt Harmy of Hannihilation has thus far received support from The Doom of Malantai, a Mawloc, one or more of a Tyrant/Trygon/Carnifex, and now Genestealers. I may even have missed something else. How big of a game are we talking about here, and how come your lone 10 man tac squad has agreed to take on an entire Hive Fleet by itself? I guess sometimes you're better off knowing some fear...
ShumaGorath wrote: They'll probably maul the horm squad after they've mauled the tac squad. The problem with this theory is that first of all, standard marine assault squads are actually pretty bad. They have 2 attacks in close combat which is bad for the cost and they're paying for mobility that they aren't using. Once they break that horm squad (which isn't unlikely) they'll be standing there prone for a charge from another horm squad (or genestealers which would be a good followup since they're a turn 3 assaulter and are far more damaging).
By my count your Hall-Powerful 180x Hormagaunt Harmy of Hannihilation has thus far received support from The Doom of Malantai, a Mawloc, one or more of a Tyrant/Trygon/Carnifex, and now Genestealers. I may even have missed something else. How big of a game are we talking about here, and how come your lone 10 man tac squad has agreed to take on an entire Hive Fleet by itself? I guess sometimes you're better off knowing some fear...
Nah, just the doom and mawloch. The rest is "whatever they spend the remaining 4-6 hundred points on". The dooms like 135 with his space potato and mawlochs aren't too expensive either. I've been thinking mostly in the 1850-2000 range. 180 poisoned horms is 1440 which gives 560 left in 2000 or 410 in 1850. Honestly a smart player would probably just bring 120 and mix in stealers or other support units. They'll just get stuck in the pass at 180 and have to "wait their turn". 120 is more then enough to buffer in heavier assault elements and gouge most of a codex marine army anyway.
ShumaGorath wrote:The dooms like 135 with his space potato
Doom is not worth much in 6th. If he Pods next to people, he'll be killed by defensive fire before Spirit Leech can go. If he's walking, same.
Here's another funny fact that can't last: Every unit is lead by a squad leader. Every squad leader has directed hits in assault and with shooting within 12".
Carnifexes are units. Trygons are units. Dreadnoughts are units. Heck, Land Raiders are units. Everything's a sniper.
So you want hormagaunts to be horribly nerfed and useless like they are today?
If these new rules make nids into the swarm army supported by other stuff it has always been described as in fluff, I call that a huge win. Nids have never played as "advertised". In 4th, we had nidzilla. 5th got a little better, but not by much, now we have stealerspam. 6th sounds like it could make many more lists viable, and I would seriously love seeing the horde nid powerbuild across from my poor outnumbered guardsmen/marines for the pure cinematic effect.
Doom is very powerful with these rules, no doubt (probably borderline broken), but he is not the auto-answer to everything. There are ways to lessen the impact he has somewhat.
What does your list actually look like? You seem to be shooting down every unit offered. What units do you actually use?
ShumaGorath wrote:
They'll probably maul the horm squad after they've mauled the tac squad. The problem with this theory is that first of all, standard marine assault squads are actually pretty bad. They have 2 attacks in close combat which is bad for the cost and they're paying for mobility that they aren't using. Once they break that horm squad (which isn't unlikely) they'll be standing there prone for a charge from another horm squad (or genestealers which would be a good followup since they're a turn 3 assaulter and are far more damaging).
The main problem with any scenario like this is that standard marines aren't particularly efficient for cost in either shooting or CC and when they're getting hit by dedicated CC units before they can employ their shooting they start to have major problems with recouping costs. The castle is an attrition formation designed around trading positively point for point by using ablative squads and firing to max effectiveness. The formation works almost the same in this edition as it used to, the enemy just reaches it a turn sooner which cuts out between 33% and 50% of the time it has to actually use its guns before it starts taking heavy losses.
Necrons can still work the castle tremendously well in the new edition thanks to their ability to suddenly re-position late game for objectives. Marines have neither the resilience or maneuverability 'crons have though
you think Tac marines are the ones in trouble so far?? Tau Firewarriors ring a bell? ws2, bs3? 10 tacmarines in a transport cost ~210 and their relativly good. Relativly. as in tau fw in transport, build ut to the max of the squads strength almost the same, and a tac squad just wipes em off the board.
ShumaGorath wrote:The dooms like 135 with his space potato
Doom is not worth much in 6th. If he Pods next to people, he'll be killed by defensive fire before Spirit Leech can go. If he's walking, same.
Here's another funny fact that can't last: Every unit is lead by a squad leader. Every squad leader has directed hits in assault and with shooting within 12".
Carnifexes are units. Trygons are units. Dreadnoughts are units. Heck, Land Raiders are units. Everything's a sniper.
You can't defensive fire the potato. It's got he same rules the drop pod does.
180 horms, like 180 boyz, is actually quite easy to deal with if you know what you are doing.
They won't be the same when one of them has a 21 inch charge range. Boyz are solidly a third turn assault, horms are solidly two. Thats is a major difference in this ruleset.
So you want hormagaunts to be horribly nerfed and useless like they are today?
DarknessEternal wrote:Here's another funny fact that can't last: Every unit is lead by a squad leader. Every squad leader has directed hits in assault and with shooting within 12".
Carnifexes are units. Trygons are units. Dreadnoughts are units. Heck, Land Raiders are units. Everything's a sniper.
Intriguing. Squadron leaders are not characters, but I can't find anything else that says that any other single model unit is restricted from being a unit leader/character.
I can see this changing though.
ShumaGorath wrote:They won't be the same when one of them has a 21 inch charge range.
They are not Cavalry/Beasts, they are still M6 like normal infantry, plus:
Page 38 - Bounding Leap
Hormagaunts have the Fleet and Bounding Leap
movement special rules, but they cannot use both rules
in the same turn. Decide before declaring the Move
action which rule applies for this movement.
The thing I find funtastic is, whether this is real or not, even if this IS actually a GW creation, it's still early playtesting, so the final release good well look very different yet so, so many people are taking it as fact.
Ovion wrote:The thing I find funtastic is, whether this is real or not, even if this IS actually a GW creation, it's still early playtesting, so the final release good well look very different yet so, so many people are taking it as fact.
It's almost already a year old and 6th edition is nowhere in sight. At this point, it's more likely than not a GW produced document, but given that timespan, who knows what it actually means for 6th edition.
Lord Rogukiel wrote:I don't want 6th ed to come along. 5th ed is fine imo. 6th ed looks really complicated too...
You only have to get your head around the (rather simple) way 6th works and it suddenly becomes much easy a game.
As a generalisation, it's all about actions and whether or not a unit can perform them. The special rules then affect how those actions are performed and/or if they can be performed.
This structure makes the basic mechanics of the game much more intuitive than 5th and less ambiguous (in principle).
No longer do you need pages of paragraphs of exceptions and convoluted rules to describe something, each element of the rules is dealt with in it's own little, explicit section.
For example, rather than pages and pages on vehicles, you only need a list of rules that they have (and in many cases, share with a number of units), which you can look up.
Tapeworm711 wrote:They move 16" in non-assaulting turns. 18" in the turn they assault. So if they setup on the line, they can assault 2" from your back edge on turn 2.
Orks can be 4" from the back edge of the table starting from their table edge in two turns (flat out with red paint =21"+7"+16"=44", even if red paint does not work in a similar fashion to fleet that's 41").
As Assault Vehicles, Raiders can get a unit 30" (12"+12"+6") across the table in two turns.
Let's not even talk about DE and IG.
OK, that's not on foot, but it's not like they can't turn up in number.
DarknessEternal wrote:Bikes also go from good to awesome.
How do you figure?
What have bikes got now that makes them so awesome?
A very high evasion score when moving.
That is not enough to make up for all the other losses IMO. Fast close combat was always the bane of bikers, and now, all close combat is fast. Bikes are more resilient to shooting (but lost 3+ coversaves), but less to cc, and the meta that has been good to them with plenty of tanks will probably change drastically. Bikers are probably still playable, but awesome... no
I thought they had +2 evasion when moving and -2 when still? I was under the impression that they were one harder to hit then a running infantry squad.
Ovion wrote:The thing I find funtastic is, whether this is real or not, even if this IS actually a GW creation, it's still early playtesting, so the final release good well look very different yet so, so many people are taking it as fact.
Im not so sure there taking it as fact as much as just looking over the possibly" leaked" ruleset we have......what else is their to do untill 6th ed comes out... even if this is a fake( i doubt it) its still fun to mull over....
Dribble Joy wrote:Stationary +1 Massive +1 Jink -1 Swarm -1
That's all there is.
There's no differentiation between moving and running speeds? Huh. Yeah, bikes aren't lookin' too hot though the standoff eldar troop bikes with their shurikan canons are lookinga bit better by most counts (it makes JSJ less dangerous and since you can't last turn cap anyway the loss of the turbo move save is made redundant).
DarknessEternal wrote:Bikes also go from good to awesome.
How do you figure?
What have bikes got now that makes them so awesome?
Well, for one thing, 3 bikes will fire 3 twin linked bolters and 2 plasma guns at 24" range after moving 8".
That's just one thing.
Of course, that thing is meaningless as long as Directed Hits exist. While we're on the subject, Directed Hits is, by far, the worst rule in this document. It means no unit should ever take any upgrade that doesn't come on every model.
Directed Hits are dirt-easy to achieve and game-wrecking.
ShumaGorath wrote: Huh. Yeah, bikes aren't lookin' too hot though the standoff eldar troop bikes with their shurikan canons are lookinga bit better by most counts
DarknessEternal wrote:Bikes also go from good to awesome.
How do you figure?
What have bikes got now that makes them so awesome?
Well, for one thing, 3 bikes will fire 3 twin linked bolters and 2 plasma guns at 24" range after moving 8".
That's just one thing.
Of course, that thing is meaningless as long as Directed Hits exist. While we're on the subject, Directed Hits is, by far, the worst rule in this document. It means no unit should ever take any upgrade that doesn't come on every model.
Directed Hits are dirt-easy to achieve and game-wrecking.
I think that they are much harder to come by than you think. As I read it, its only Snipers, Squad Leaders and Characters. As well as Cover-Fire. This is granted to the squad leaders CC attacks (baring coarse, 2H, ect) as well as its shooting actions that are done at point blank range. (this I think is the confusion, that people think it applies to ALL unit's point blank shots)
Also they are negated by shelled, and intervening units (friend or foe).
They can however assault 16" and then shoot if the combat is finished. As they have relentless they can Sustained Fire any Rapid Fire weapons out to 18".
Eldar Jetbikes are essentially M10.
Warbikes aren't too bad off either, with a 4+ cover save as standard.
ShumaGorath wrote: Huh. Yeah, bikes aren't lookin' too hot though the standoff eldar troop bikes with their shurikan canons are lookinga bit better by most counts
No, they still look like expensive poo.
They're not a very expensive mobile anti infantry platform with pretty good range. In squads of 3 they're very easy to hide with LOS blocking terrrain and can fire down light transports with good odds. They were fragile to fire before and this helps a bit with that.
My only issue is that is pretty much makes models such as powerfist sergeant or powerklaw nob a nonissue for a lot of armies as they can be picked out before they ever get to swing, as they don't have their own armour group.
Redemption wrote:My only issue is that is pretty much makes models such as powerfist sergeant or powerklaw nob a nonissue for a lot of armies as they can be picked out before they ever get to swing, as they don't have their own armour group.
Nobs can take 'eavy armor -- giving him his own armor group
(shouldn't orks be referred to as an it, as they reproduce via spores)
Redemption wrote:My only issue is that is pretty much makes models such as powerfist sergeant or powerklaw nob a nonissue for a lot of armies as they can be picked out before they ever get to swing, as they don't have their own armour group.
Don't put your powerfist wielding sergeant in the front row than? Use that 3' attack radius, they can't direct target you in the back row, or just avoid being near that squad leader in CC.
As for fire outside of combat, just try to avoid MSU'ing and putting the wounds on the other 9 first.
As for directed fire outside of that, snipers are going to be deadly in this regard, as is anyone who can roll a buncha 6's. Though they only get one directed fire shot...Of course in this case, you can always put a small unit in front to provide cover saves.
Redemption wrote:My only issue is that is pretty much makes models such as powerfist sergeant or powerklaw nob a nonissue for a lot of armies as they can be picked out before they ever get to swing, as they don't have their own armour group.
Don't put your powerfist wielding sergeant in the front row than? Use that 3' attack radius, they can't direct target you in the back row, or just avoid being near that squad leader in CC..
Directed hits can be allocated to any model in that armour group, so hiding in the back does you no good.
Redemption wrote:My only issue is that is pretty much makes models such as powerfist sergeant or powerklaw nob a nonissue for a lot of armies as they can be picked out before they ever get to swing, as they don't have their own armour group.
Don't put your powerfist wielding sergeant in the front row than? Use that 3' attack radius, they can't direct target you in the back row, or just avoid being near that squad leader in CC..
Directed hits can be allocated to any model in that armour group, so hiding in the back does you no good.
Well..Try fighting a squad that uses a course, or two handed weapon than? So they cannot direct their hits. (Powerklaw nobz come to mind)
They also can't direct hits done with a basic weapon, as it counts as two handed as well.
I forget, can't sargeants take a combat shield, which would give them a 6++ save and make them their own armor group?
Actually yes, they give this example in the ruleset as well for armour saves.
Vanilla marines, BA, and DA can slap combat shields on their assault squad sgts, BT can put storm shields on them. SW can take storm shields on their wolf guard and insert them into the squad. Use scout snipers for your troops to knock out special weapons and sgts/squad leaders on the other side. Maybe not ideal, but you can get around the problem. I wouldn't fret too much. If this is a preview of what 6th is going to look like, GW won't leave their precious marines sucking wind for very long.
I keep seeing that flamers are now awesome - why is that? I see that they can blast through fire points in vehicles which is really handy but is that the only buff they get?
Also, I've seen a few mentions about Vulkan lists getting better - again, why? OK, flamers are meant to be better but Thunder hammers won't ID T4 HQs with more than 2 wounds and meltas AP1 isn't quite the same anymore. Buffing these weapons with twin linking is still really nice but what exactly is it in 6th that means a Vulkan list is better than 5th?
ColdSadHungry wrote:I keep seeing that flamers are now awesome - why is that? I see that they can blast through fire points in vehicles which is really handy but is that the only buff they get?
Also, I've seen a few mentions about Vulkan lists getting better - again, why? OK, flamers are meant to be better but Thunder hammers won't ID T4 HQs with more than 2 wounds and meltas AP1 isn't quite the same anymore. Buffing these weapons with twin linking is still really nice but what exactly is it in 6th that means a Vulkan list is better than 5th?
Flamers can be used in CC. They get D6 attacks at their strength and AP.
ColdSadHungry wrote:I keep seeing that flamers are now awesome - why is that? I see that they can blast through fire points in vehicles which is really handy but is that the only buff they get?
Also, I've seen a few mentions about Vulkan lists getting better - again, why? OK, flamers are meant to be better but Thunder hammers won't ID T4 HQs with more than 2 wounds and meltas AP1 isn't quite the same anymore. Buffing these weapons with twin linking is still really nice but what exactly is it in 6th that means a Vulkan list is better than 5th?
Flamers can be used in CC. They get D6 attacks at their strength and AP.
They also get an addition 6" inches if twin-linked
ColdSadHungry wrote:I keep seeing that flamers are now awesome - why is that? I see that they can blast through fire points in vehicles which is really handy but is that the only buff they get?
Also, I've seen a few mentions about Vulkan lists getting better - again, why? OK, flamers are meant to be better but Thunder hammers won't ID T4 HQs with more than 2 wounds and meltas AP1 isn't quite the same anymore. Buffing these weapons with twin linking is still really nice but what exactly is it in 6th that means a Vulkan list is better than 5th?
Flamers can be used in CC. They get D6 attacks at their strength and AP.
and Auto hit.
Luke_Prowler wrote:
They also get an addition 6" inches if twin-linked
matphat wrote:Shouldn't this make Grots even more important as super cheap screening units? They will count as a screen against directed hits, correct?
Intervening models give a screen against directed hits, yes.
Redemption wrote:Ah, I suppose that helps Orks at least, but it still leaves Powerfist Sergeants in the cold.
Really? You guys are complaining because a weapon more suited for Vehicle and MC combat is countered by the guys you shouldn't be using them against?
Uh, it doesn't matter what he's armed with, he's still at worst the third guy dead in his squad (after potentially the heavy and special weapon).
Directed Hits can be generated in nearly every attack sequence if you build you army for it (and you will). It means your Sergeants are dead and you can't ever take any upgrades unless it's for the whole unit.
It's possible this means people will play with entirely un-upgraded armies and rely on only their base gear/stats, but that doesn't seem like it'll fly with the player-base.
3rd edition sort of worked this way, but only in assault. No one ever upgraded anything on sergeant style characters then, since they were the first ones to die in assault. These rules allow it to be done from much further away, at lower risk, and against absolutely any upgrade. It's game-breaking.
Redemption wrote:Ah, I suppose that helps Orks at least, but it still leaves Powerfist Sergeants in the cold.
Really? You guys are complaining because a weapon more suited for Vehicle and MC combat is countered by the guys you shouldn't be using them against?
This rule set is all about give and take. PF are strong against Vehicles and MCs, and are weak against smaller faster targets. Sounds right to me.
I'm not complaining. Heck, I don't even play Orks or Space Marines.
But the same applies to a Wolf Guard with Wolf Claws, which are also Coarse weapons that can't use Directed Hits, but can be sniped out themselves. Or basically for any sort of squad leader or special weapon wielder that isn't a seperate armour group.
Redemption wrote:Ah, I suppose that helps Orks at least, but it still leaves Powerfist Sergeants in the cold.
Really? You guys are complaining because a weapon more suited for Vehicle and MC combat is countered by the guys you shouldn't be using them against?
Uh, it doesn't matter what he's armed with, he's still at worst the third guy dead in his squad (after potentially the heavy and special weapon).
Directed Hits can be generated in nearly every attack sequence if you build you army for it (and you will). It means your Sergeants are dead and you can't ever take any upgrades unless it's for the whole unit.
It's possible this means people will play with entirely un-upgraded armies and rely on only their base gear/stats, but that doesn't seem like it'll fly with the player-base.
3rd edition sort of worked this way, but only in assault. No one ever upgraded anything on sergeant style characters then, since they were the first ones to die in assault. These rules allow it to be done from much further away, at lower risk, and against absolutely any upgrade. It's game-breaking.
You'd need to be fighting snipers or an enemy with One directed shot upon getting 3 6's with covering fire.
And both can be stopped by using an intervening unit. Melee is a bit harder on them, but still, most weapons that really would do damage to a marine leader would be coarse weapons to begin with, lack of directed hits.
Also bear in mind that Characters only get Directed Hits if they are within point blank (12") or assault, so you won't see much of them at range.
Also remember that directed hits are chosen after saves are taken, and a character's hits are rolled separately.
So the chance of a unit leader/IC of sniping a particular model is small.
Obviously only seeing how it will play out in actual games will show if it becomes a regular feature of most games, but I can't see it being a game breaker, rather a situational tactic.
You realize that you are complaining about a codex that almost everyone universally agreed was hideously underpowered when it came out, right? I mean, c'mon. Tyranids got shafted hard with their new codex. I can't believe a Space Marine player is complaining about Tyranids being overpowered...
If this new edition buffs Tyranids in any way, shape, or form then I am very happy for them. Because, as of right now, they are borderline unplayable.
ColdSadHungry wrote:Also, which page of the PDF is it that gives templates an extra 3"?
It's in the TEMPLATES rules. Page 83. It's the rules about templates.
But you only get the 3" if no range is specified. Under flamers, the range is specified as 'template' so surely the range is the range of a template? Don't get me wrong - I'll be clipping some incinerators off my sprues if all this flamer goodness is true - but why is everyone assuming that the range 'template' equates to no range specified? Actually, I can see GW ruling specifically that incinerators don't count as flamers for these purposes.
ColdSadHungry wrote:Also, which page of the PDF is it that gives templates an extra 3"?
It's in the TEMPLATES rules. Page 83. It's the rules about templates.
But you only get the 3" if no range is specified. Under flamers, the range is specified as 'template' so surely the range is the range of a template? Don't get me wrong - I'll be clipping some incinerators off my sprues if all this flamer goodness is true - but why is everyone assuming that the range 'template' equates to no range specified? Actually, I can see GW ruling specifically that incinerators don't count as flamers for these purposes.
Because that rule is literally listed under the Template rule.
The 3" thing is probably due to the concerns that several template's have actual stats regarding range, some are 6" and the like. This way flamer's like from Bane wolves won't end up nerfed into a 3" range.
ColdSadHungry wrote:
But you only get the 3" if no range is specified. Under flamers, the range is specified as 'template' so surely the range is the range of a template? Don't get me wrong - I'll be clipping some incinerators off my sprues if all this flamer goodness is true - but why is everyone assuming that the range 'template' equates to no range specified? Actually, I can see GW ruling specifically that incinerators don't count as flamers for these purposes.
I still think it actually does mean they get the 3" extra, but I could definitely see a plausible argument for the Template=range reading.
ZebioLizard2 wrote:not all templates are 3', some are 6' and the like.
6 foot templates scare my Tyranids.
The shift key here sticks at college once in a while, didn't realize I had put foot marks instead since I thought I marked them up
I still think it actually does mean they get the 3" extra, but I could definitely see a plausible argument for the Template=range reading.
It really depends upon whether they gain an actual value for flamers in the updates. The bane wolf has a 6" range, but they may change standard flamers to lower than 3", unless they are keeping them the same as before, in which case it means they gain the 3" range. Which would make more sense since twin-linking gives them a 6" range.
DarknessEternal wrote:Directed Hits can be generated in nearly every attack sequence if you build you army for it (and you will). It means your Sergeants are dead and you can't ever take any upgrades unless it's for the whole unit.
You're right, but one important thing to consider is that you can also give armor upgrades to your Sergeants to avoid this effect ('eavy armor on Nobz, ghostplate for Dark Eldar, power weapons for just about anyone in CC) or deploy other units as screens to avoid Directed Hits on the rear units. Further, you can use Strategy Points to purchase the Shielded USR for important units, making them wholly immune to Directed Hits.
While the Directed Hits mechanic is indeed powerful and armies will adapt to be able to dish them out (I'll certainly be beefing up my unit of Scouts with sniper rifles) there are also counters to this mechanic that you'll be able to build into your lists as well.
ShumaGorath wrote:The dooms like 135 with his space potato
Doom is not worth much in 6th. If he Pods next to people, he'll be killed by defensive fire before Spirit Leech can go. If he's walking, same.
Here's another funny fact that can't last: Every unit is lead by a squad leader. Every squad leader has directed hits in assault and with shooting within 12".
Carnifexes are units. Trygons are units. Dreadnoughts are units. Heck, Land Raiders are units. Everything's a sniper.
The rules regarding squad leaders seem a bit poorly written. I fully expect them to change so that they indicate infantry only.
ShumaGorath wrote:The dooms like 135 with his space potato
Doom is not worth much in 6th. If he Pods next to people, he'll be killed by defensive fire before Spirit Leech can go. If he's walking, same.
Here's another funny fact that can't last: Every unit is lead by a squad leader. Every squad leader has directed hits in assault and with shooting within 12".
Carnifexes are units. Trygons are units. Dreadnoughts are units. Heck, Land Raiders are units. Everything's a sniper.
The rules regarding squad leaders seem a bit poorly written. I fully expect them to change so that they indicate infantry only.
You must choose one vehicle as squadron
commander. This model is the squad leader of the
unit. Note that the squadron commander is not a
character and therefore cannot cause directed
hits. Vehicles are not characters, meaning Vehicles cannot have directed hits due to not being characters, DCCW are coarse (can't direct target).
However, I cannot find anything for Trygon and Carnifexes...Is this a buff for monstrous creatures?
The one for vehicles was just hidden, but there's nothing I can find at all for Carnifex's and other Monstrous creature types.
The Directed Hit special rule cannot be used by
the following hits:
• Hits from weapons with one or more of the
following rules: coarse weapon, two-handed,
indirect, blast, template, rail.
• Hits caused by a unit that fires through an
intervening unit.
• Hits against units with the Shielded rule
DarknessEternal wrote:Directed Hits can be generated in nearly every attack sequence if you build you army for it (and you will). It means your Sergeants are dead and you can't ever take any upgrades unless it's for the whole unit.
You're right, but one important thing to consider is that you can also give armor upgrades to your Sergeants to avoid this effect ('eavy armor on Nobz, ghostplate for Dark Eldar, power weapons for just about anyone in CC) or deploy other units as screens to avoid Directed Hits on the rear units. Further, you can use Strategy Points to purchase the Shielded USR for important units, making them wholly immune to Directed Hits.
While the Directed Hits mechanic is indeed powerful and armies will adapt to be able to dish them out (I'll certainly be beefing up my unit of Scouts with sniper rifles) there are also counters to this mechanic that you'll be able to build into your lists as well.
However this means that you need to allocate wounds to his armour group if there is enough wounds. Which is worse if directed hits aren't in the equation.
DarknessEternal wrote:Directed Hits can be generated in nearly every attack sequence if you build you army for it (and you will). It means your Sergeants are dead and you can't ever take any upgrades unless it's for the whole unit.
You're right, but one important thing to consider is that you can also give armor upgrades to your Sergeants to avoid this effect ('eavy armor on Nobz, ghostplate for Dark Eldar, power weapons for just about anyone in CC) or deploy other units as screens to avoid Directed Hits on the rear units. Further, you can use Strategy Points to purchase the Shielded USR for important units, making them wholly immune to Directed Hits.
While the Directed Hits mechanic is indeed powerful and armies will adapt to be able to dish them out (I'll certainly be beefing up my unit of Scouts with sniper rifles) there are also counters to this mechanic that you'll be able to build into your lists as well.
However this means that you need to allocate wounds to his armour group if there is enough wounds. Which is worse if directed hits aren't in the equation.
Correct me if I'm wrong but.... You allocate wounds to Armour groups basically the same way we allocate wounds to wargear groups now. So that would mean you would have to cause 9 wounds to a 10 man tac squad, before you are forced to allocate one to the power sword srg.
So realy it would be no different from now. (Well. Unless the srg. is part of the same Armour group of course.)
Hull
The ‘body’ of a vehicle is called hull.
• The hull includes the fuselage, turrets, rudders,
engines, aerofoils, etc. and a walker’s torso,
legs, arms and head.
• Dozer blades, rollers and other ramming devices
in front of the vehicle are considered to be part
of the hull. Merely cosmetic spikes, etc. are not.
• Weapons are not part of the hull, but their
mountings and sponsons are. This rule is
intended to ensure that players don’t get
penalised for having impressive gun barrels.
• Exhausts, sails, crew, antennas, barrels, extra
ammo, etc are not part of the hull.
Emphasis mine.
Hypothetically, if you really wanted to lose friends, does this mean that you could cover the hull of a vehicle entirely in fuel barrels so that it couldn't be targeted for LOS reasons? Just leave the gun barrels sticking out so that the vehicles can shoot and you are sweet.
A horrendous abuse of RAW, but it would be funny to see on the table to get revenge on a rules lawyer.
Hey guys, not sure what to make of this, but I just talked to my GW sales rep and asked him about the leaked rules. He said they had asked the UK about the leak and to validate if it was true. My rep told me that they said 100% that the rule set is NOT theirs and that it was someones home brew.
Not sure if the company would tell him the truth either way, but I figured I would post what little information I could gather. I do however hope the rules are legit, because I think their amazing.
Bad_Sheep37 wrote:Hey guys, not sure what to make of this, but I just talked to my GW sales rep and asked him about the leaked rules. He said they had asked the UK about the leak and to validate if it was true. My rep told me that they said 100% that the rule set is NOT theirs and that it was someones home brew.
Not sure if the company would tell him the truth either way, but I figured I would post what little information I could gather. I do however hope the rules are legit, because I think their amazing.
Thanks for the bit of info, that has actually been stated many times in this thread so far. GWUK sent out a message to its stores to say that the rules are not official. Most people dismiss that as another "not space hulk" fiasco.
Bad_Sheep37 wrote:Hey guys, not sure what to make of this, but I just talked to my GW sales rep and asked him about the leaked rules. He said they had asked the UK about the leak and to validate if it was true. My rep told me that they said 100% that the rule set is NOT theirs and that it was someones home brew.
Not sure if the company would tell him the truth either way, but I figured I would post what little information I could gather. I do however hope the rules are legit, because I think their amazing.
Here is a good question. When the 5th ed rules were leeked a few mounths before their full release.... What was the same response to the same question?
If they confirmed they were the real rules? Then cool beans. Never would of expected them to owe up to thier mistakes and be on the level. So in that case then yes, what you said is legit info.
If GW claimed the leaked 5th ed rules were in fact not thier's? Well... Asking GW dosen't mean anything, since GW would say the rules aren't legit either way....
Ah thank you so much. Sorry, I did't have the time to read the thread in its entirety. I was hoping that was the case.
The only thing that made me somewhat believe him was the fact that he had deterred me away from ordering units that would be the "competitive" ones for 6th. From a business perspective, that seemed very odd considering I would have stocked the shelves creating more hype around certain rules and units. He then told me he didn't want stores to "waste" money thinking they were 6th and then get stuck with a lot of unwanted product. It was odd, but I'm going to agree with the mass, its still the legit rules.
@Lockark - I wasn't running Warhammer for a store when 5th hit. I couldn't answer you that.
Bad_Sheep37 wrote:The only thing that made me somewhat believe him was the fact that he had deterred me away from ordering units that would be the "competitive" ones for 6th. From a business perspective, that seemed very odd considering I would have stocked the shelves creating more hype around certain rules and units. He then told me he didn't want stores to "waste" money thinking they were 6th and then get stuck with a lot of unwanted product. It was odd, but I'm going to agree with the mass, its still the legit rules.
Or maybe he's trying to keep you on the straight track now so you keep buying units as usual... and you have to buy new units when 6e hits to soup up your army to match the new power of different units
Bad_Sheep37 wrote:Ah thank you so much. Sorry, I did't have the time to read the thread in its entirety. I was hoping that was the case.
The only thing that made me somewhat believe him was the fact that he had deterred me away from ordering units that would be the "competitive" ones for 6th. From a business perspective, that seemed very odd considering I would have stocked the shelves creating more hype around certain rules and units. He then told me he didn't want stores to "waste" money thinking they were 6th and then get stuck with a lot of unwanted product. It was odd, but I'm going to agree with the mass, its still the legit rules.
@Lockark - I wasn't running Warhammer for a store when 5th hit. I couldn't answer you that.
No prob. In all honesty I can't remember for the life of me, so was hopeing someone could answer that. =P I still remember the "not space hulk" fieasco my self. So that's why I don't put much stock in what GW says. To me they would say "not ours" either way, so dosen't prove or disprove anything.
In the guy/GW's defense. The "6th rules" are most likely a draft of 6th ed if they are legit. Somethings that seem realy good now, might not be so later. The leaked 5th ed rules weren't 100% what 5th ed was after all. They also probly are worried about sales dropping off due to players "taking a break" waiting for the new edition. Bunch of us at my LGS are taking a break from 40k for now, and playing fantasy and some non-GW games our selves.
ph34r wrote:Or maybe he's trying to keep you on the straight track now so you keep buying units as usual... and you have to buy new units when 6e hits to soup up your army to match the new power of different units
The amount of 12 years olds that Games Workshop have trained up into thinking that the Pyrovore is the greatest unit ever made is truly terrifying....
ph34r wrote:Or maybe he's trying to keep you on the straight track now so you keep buying units as usual... and you have to buy new units when 6e hits to soup up your army to match the new power of different units
The amount of 12 years olds that Games Workshop have trained up into thinking that the Pyrovore is the greatest unit ever made is truly terrifying....
ph34r wrote:Or maybe he's trying to keep you on the straight track now so you keep buying units as usual... and you have to buy new units when 6e hits to soup up your army to match the new power of different units
The amount of 12 years olds that Games Workshop have trained up into thinking that the Pyrovore is the greatest unit ever made is truly terrifying....
ph34r wrote:Or maybe he's trying to keep you on the straight track now so you keep buying units as usual... and you have to buy new units when 6e hits to soup up your army to match the new power of different units
Im new to this forum and have been absolutely addicted to reading this thread
I really hope these are a good representation of the 6th edition rules.
The reason Im posting is because I have a question regarding warlocks with channelled witchblades and fortune cast on them.
Will this mean that you can channel the witchblades to reroll your 4++ and cast fortune on them to reroll the failed result of the first reroll?
I really hope so
As the rules currently stand (and even in the Leaked version) any dice may only be re-rolled one time. The 2nd re-roll stands as the result, pass or fail. So no, it does not seem that a channeled witchblade with a fortuned warlock will have a triple-roll effect.
DarknessEternal wrote:Directed Hits can be generated in nearly every attack sequence if you build you army for it (and you will). It means your Sergeants are dead and you can't ever take any upgrades unless it's for the whole unit.
You're right, but one important thing to consider is that you can also give armor upgrades to your Sergeants to avoid this effect ('eavy armor on Nobz, ghostplate for Dark Eldar, power weapons for just about anyone in CC) or deploy other units as screens to avoid Directed Hits on the rear units. Further, you can use Strategy Points to purchase the Shielded USR for important units, making them wholly immune to Directed Hits.
While the Directed Hits mechanic is indeed powerful and armies will adapt to be able to dish them out (I'll certainly be beefing up my unit of Scouts with sniper rifles) there are also counters to this mechanic that you'll be able to build into your lists as well.
However this means that you need to allocate wounds to his armour group if there is enough wounds. Which is worse if directed hits aren't in the equation.
Correct me if I'm wrong but.... You allocate wounds to Armour groups basically the same way we allocate wounds to wargear groups now. So that would mean you would have to cause 9 wounds to a 10 man tac squad, before you are forced to allocate one to the power sword srg.
So realy it would be no different from now. (Well. Unless the srg. is part of the same Armour group of course.)
Most armies don't have sargents that can take an armour upgrade.
IG certainly don't. Sniper rifles could kill a commissar and all the sargents in a turn, then make the blob pin and never get up. So, yeah.
You realize that you are complaining about a codex that almost everyone universally agreed was hideously underpowered when it came out, right? I mean, c'mon. Tyranids got shafted hard with their new codex. I can't believe a Space Marine player is complaining about Tyranids being overpowered...
If this new edition buffs Tyranids in any way, shape, or form then I am very happy for them. Because, as of right now, they are borderline unplayable.
Which puts them in the same boat as codex marines incidentally. Both perform almost identically in major competitive events. If you can't believe that a space marine player is complaining then you probably don't pay attention to the marine codexes. They aren't all gray red or silver, some of them are pretty terrible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wrath wrote:
Redemption wrote:Ah, I suppose that helps Orks at least, but it still leaves Powerfist Sergeants in the cold.
Really? You guys are complaining because a weapon more suited for Vehicle and MC combat is countered by the guys you shouldn't be using them against?
This rule set is all about give and take. PF are strong against Vehicles and MCs, and are weak against smaller faster targets. Sounds right to me.
They shouldn't cost so many points in that case, but they do. It's problematic. It would be ok if they were worse against general infantry in combat because they're less nimble if they didn't cost a significant amount of points to purchase as far as weapon upgrades go, but they're clearly more expensive than alternatives.
Joey wrote:
Most armies don't have sargents that can take an armour upgrade.
IG certainly don't. Sniper rifles could kill a commissar and all the sargents in a turn, then make the blob pin and never get up. So, yeah.
If you have a power weapon (With no specail effects) you get a parry save. It's a ++6Sv. Witch means the Srg. in IG squads have a +5/++6 save if he has a power sword, witch makes him a different Armour group.
If you can take a power sword for your Srg, you can make his Armour class different.
Basically power fists got got REALLY bad, unless you can somehow give your guy a different Armour sv besides from a power sword.
DarknessEternal wrote:Directed Hits can be generated in nearly every attack sequence if you build you army for it (and you will). It means your Sergeants are dead and you can't ever take any upgrades unless it's for the whole unit.
You're right, but one important thing to consider is that you can also give armor upgrades to your Sergeants to avoid this effect ('eavy armor on Nobz, ghostplate for Dark Eldar, power weapons for just about anyone in CC) or deploy other units as screens to avoid Directed Hits on the rear units. Further, you can use Strategy Points to purchase the Shielded USR for important units, making them wholly immune to Directed Hits.
While the Directed Hits mechanic is indeed powerful and armies will adapt to be able to dish them out (I'll certainly be beefing up my unit of Scouts with sniper rifles) there are also counters to this mechanic that you'll be able to build into your lists as well.
However this means that you need to allocate wounds to his armour group if there is enough wounds. Which is worse if directed hits aren't in the equation.
Correct me if I'm wrong but.... You allocate wounds to Armour groups basically the same way we allocate wounds to wargear groups now. So that would mean you would have to cause 9 wounds to a 10 man tac squad, before you are forced to allocate one to the power sword srg.
So realy it would be no different from now. (Well. Unless the srg. is part of the same Armour group of course.)
Most armies don't have sargents that can take an armour upgrade.
IG certainly don't. Sniper rifles could kill a commissar and all the sargents in a turn, then make the blob pin and never get up. So, yeah.
Buy some conscripts, make a shield wall with them. Don't want to do that? Use another weaker squad to play human shield wall for more important squads, Or just use your tanks for the 5+ cover save.
Joey wrote:Most armies don't have sargents that can take an armour upgrade.
IG certainly don't. Sniper rifles could kill a commissar and all the sargents in a turn, then make the blob pin and never get up. So, yeah.
You're right, but you don't need armor upgrades on sergeants to counter Directed Hits-- it just happens to be one way of doing so. You could instead line up a Conscript squad, cheap Infantry squad without upgrades, etc. in front of your assault blob, preventing the enemy snipers from using Directed Hits against you by providing a screen. Once you make it to assault, the parry saves from the power weapons on your Sergeants and Commissar kick in, putting them in a separate armor group and preventing them from being singled out by enemy unit leaders and characters.
ShumaGorath wrote:If you can't believe that a space marine player is complaining then you probably don't pay attention to the marine codexes. They aren't all gray red or silver, some of them are pretty terrible.
You're certainly right that Space Marine armies are less common at tournaments these days than Grey Knights, Space Wolves, or Blood Angels, but keep in mind that that's comparing three army lists to one army list. I would naturally expect there to be roughly 3x the number of non-vanilla SM players than vanilla SM players (and in fact slightly more, given the existence of Codex: Black Templars and Codex: Dark Angels). That said, high level players do very well indeed with vanilla SM-- I believe Ben "spacecurves" Mohile won or placed multiple GTs this year with an unconventional Vulkan list, for instance.
If you look at this list from Blood of Kittens, you'll see 3 Space Marine players winning major events on the circuit-- indeed, Space Marines are tied for second place with Orks, with only Space Wolves doing better, and only then by one result. Tyranids didn't even make it to the list.
I Just saw this here. So I got a few questions. What is with this evasion thing now!? It sounds like a massive pain in the butt! I mean if something has like evasion X and nothing in your army has a BS that can hit it does that mean that your only option is to assault it or what?
Also whats the deal with titans and Flyers? I DO NOT WANT THEM IN MY BASIC 40k GAME!
40k games give me a headache enough with all the odd rules people try to freaking do! I cant compete with people dropping freaking str 10 AP1-2 blasts that cost their freaken psychers inside of transports 100 freaken points and all the other jerk arsery stuff people do to me already. How am I suppose to keep up with air planes and a titan shanatigans?
I have the feeling that 40k is gonna become 40k Apocolypse and all those apoco models and rules are being combined. If so than I might quite 40k depending on how it all feels after the dust settles.
yup! I was right. Super Heavies and Gargantuans and flyers and Cold Blood a Lizardmen Ability. So they are essentially doing away with Apoloclypse rules and making warhammer 100% apocolypse game rules with some modified turn rules a few new stuff to make things fresh and fun and tons of extra added in stuff to confuse us..
Field Gen wrote:I Just saw this here. So I got a few questions. What is with this evasion thing now!? It sounds like a massive pain in the butt! I mean if something has like evasion X and nothing in your army has a BS that can hit it does that mean that your only option is to assault it or what?
Also whats the deal with titans and Flyers? I DO NOT WANT THEM IN MY BASIC 40k GAME!
40k games give me a headache enough with all the odd rules people try to freaking do! I cant compete with people dropping freaking str 10 AP1-2 blasts that cost their freaken psychers inside of transports 100 freaken points and all the other jerk arsery stuff people do to me already. How am I suppose to keep up with air planes and a titan shanatigans?
I have the feeling that 40k is gonna become 40k Apocolypse and all those apoco models and rules are being combined. If so than I might quite 40k depending on how it all feels after the dust settles.
I'm pretty sure you're not going to have to worry about any of those things you're concerned with. Also, xanax.
Lockark wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but.... You allocate wounds to Armour groups basically the same way we allocate wounds to wargear groups now. So that would mean you would have to cause 9 wounds to a 10 man tac squad, before you are forced to allocate one to the power sword srg.
Power Swords don't provide saves to shooting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
junk wrote:Question, is there anything preventing teleporting directly into CC?
Yes, you still can't make contact without an Engage, Charge, or Charge by Chance (which is from Rams).
Lockark wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but.... You allocate wounds to Armour groups basically the same way we allocate wounds to wargear groups now. So that would mean you would have to cause 9 wounds to a 10 man tac squad, before you are forced to allocate one to the power sword srg.
Power Swords don't provide saves to shooting.
That's correct. Parry saves from power weapons only put you in a separate armor group in assault. This can in some ways be a boon, since it means you can't be torrented by shooting, but it also renders you vulnerable to Directed Hits from snipers or Covering Fire.
You're certainly right that Space Marine armies are less common at tournaments these days than Grey Knights, Space Wolves, or Blood Angels, but keep in mind that that's comparing three army lists to one army list. I would naturally expect there to be roughly 3x the number of non-vanilla SM players than vanilla SM players (and in fact slightly more, given the existence of Codex: Black Templars and Codex: Dark Angels). That said, high level players do very well indeed with vanilla SM-- I believe Ben "spacecurves" Mohile won or placed multiple GTs this year with an unconventional Vulkan list, for instance.
If you look at this list from Blood of Kittens, you'll see 3 Space Marine players winning major events on the circuit-- indeed, Space Marines are tied for second place with Orks, with only Space Wolves doing better, and only then by one result. Tyranids didn't even make it to the list.
That list was about as unconventional as putting sugar in your coffee. Vulkan with tac squads running combi meltas and flamers, a thunderfire, assault terms with hammers, a libby, and some typhoon speeders is hardly unconventional. When I close my eyes and imagine a salamanders army it's pretty much what I see in my head. I'd say micheal ruskas list was stranger, mixed marine armor with preds, dreads, thunderfires, and vindicators is a much more unusual build to use within the generic marine codex.
Either way, two out of the three armies shown utilize vulkan (who himself is singnificantly undercosted given that he's an incredible force multiplier in the meta and within that codex). I don't want to use vulkan. I have a charcharadons army, if I'm going to powergame it a bit for better success I'd be better off building an identical blood angels list and using the savings in cheaper dev squads and upgrades to throw in some priests to give universal FNP (having more deep-strike accurate and scoring assault troops that end up being cheaper than in C:SM is a nice bonus).
I've repeated several times in this thread that there is sort of a monobuild that C:SM can put out that can have some pretty good success. It involves vulkan, th/ss, mobile combis and assault weapons with multi meltas in tac squads (which are taken in two mounted squads and no more), with some typhoon speeders for popping long range opponants and a thunderfire for dealing with or slowing threatening hordes/deathstars. It's been floating around for years and used to have a lot more success back in its heyday. I'm aware that it's there, but it's not greatly representative of the codexes quality at large since it requires a specific force multiplier character and specific comp choices to function well. It has some major weaknesses too.
I will confess that I was unaware of wins other than molies though. I had that one painted as kind of a fluke, but maybe theres more legs left in the old vulkan list than I had thought.
I read through the character sheet and the orks section and nothing has changed. So what is the deal with that codex update. JOTWW, Waaagh and all that works the same as it did before.
ShumaGorath wrote:I've repeated several times in this thread that there is sort of a monobuild that C:SM can put out that can have some pretty good success. It involves vulkan, th/ss, mobile combis and assault weapons with multi meltas in tac squads (which are taken in two mounted squads and no more), with some typhoon speeders for popping long range opponants and a thunderfire for dealing with or slowing threatening hordes/deathstars. It's been floating around for years and used to have a lot more success back in its heyday. I'm aware that it's there, but it's not greatly representative of the codexes quality at large since it requires a specific force multiplier character and specific comp choices to function well. It has some major weaknesses too.
Ah, cool. In my area, lists like Mr. Mohile's are less common-- while I've seen a lot of Vulkan armies with TH/SS termies, taking heavy bolter Razorbacks over Rhinos or Plaserbacks, Thunderfire cannons over Dakka predators, Typhoon rather than Tornado speeders, Attack Bikes, or normal/"Phobos" Land Raiders instead of Redeemers or Crusaders would all be considered unusual choices.
One other interesting army list I've seen is that of Dameon Green, who won the Colonial GT with this unusual force. I think that Codex: Space Marines has a lot of versatility out there and that there's hope beyond the monobuild.
In addition to all the above, I've anecdotally heard of Shrike builds doing very well, and I've personally enjoyed some modest success with my own Marines (who don't have any special characters, just a barebones Librarian) at the local/RTT level. Are Grey Knights and other new armies powerful? Sure, but I think the Space Marines codex is much more adaptive than one might expect. Fundamentally speaking, the Combat Tactics/Chapter Tactics rule allows Space Marine armies to change all or almost all their units to fit into a new paradigm, and most armies don't have that luxury.
Ah, cool. In my area, lists like Mr. Mohile's are less common-- while I've seen a lot of Vulkan armies with TH/SS termies, taking heavy bolter Razorbacks over Rhinos or Plaserbacks, Thunderfire cannons over Dakka predators, Typhoon rather than Tornado speeders, Attack Bikes, or normal/"Phobos" Land Raiders instead of Redeemers or Crusaders would all be considered unusual choices.
They've been the choices that seem to have been faring well in tournies the last few years in my observation. The thunderfire has sheer superiority and firepower over the dakka pred and it's ability to slow oncoming units is a great aid against hordes/deathstars. Attack bikes can almost always pay for themselves with vulkan if directed carefully as well. Twin linking makes them a vastly more reliable unit. The typhoons and phobos are there to de mech at range or gun down dangerous pockets in spread armies. The vulkan lists AT is very short range and it needs alternatives.
One other interesting army list I've seen is that of Dameon Green, who won the Colonial GT with this unusual force. I think that Codex: Space Marines has a lot of versatility out there and that there's hope beyond the monobuild.
I kinda suspect that the thunderfire is the hidden gem in these lists that's helping them keep up with ork hordes and draigowing simultaneously. I'm still surprised these lists aren't being knocked out of contention by mechspam guard or msu wolves, but it's possible they aren't fighting them.
In addition to all the above, I've anecdotally heard of Shrike builds doing very well, and I've personally enjoyed some modest success with my own Marines (who don't have any special characters, just a barebones Librarian) at the local/RTT level.
I used shrike until recently. He works ok, there are neat tricks you can pull (flanking cyclone missiles!), but without th/ss spam it's hard to make fleet viable or useful in the build.
Are Grey Knights and other new armies powerful? Sure, but I think the Space Marines codex is much more adaptive than one might expect. Fundamentally speaking, the Combat Tactics/Chapter Tactics rule allows Space Marine armies to change all or almost all their units to fit into a new paradigm, and most armies don't have that luxury.
Thats true in theory, though I find that the chapter tactics don't diversify very well. Vulkan is blatently useful, but marneus, ld10, stubborn, fleet, and flanking don't really do a tremendous amount for the army. ATSKNF makes ld 10, stubborn, and auto morale passing kinda pointless, and the codex isn't good enough in combat outside of th/ss for fleet to be great either. Assault marines could make great use of it, but they lose to many non dedicated assault squads in the game at cost.
Stubborn in 5th is great because of things like weaken resolve and fear the darkness. THSS termies are a brick, but get them running and you escort them off the table. Because of this potential threat, and the normal benefit of not running or taking fearless saves in combat, stubborn has a nice place in 5th ed.
Anyway, the rules I am not happy with are directed attacks and multitrack.
As some have said, directed attacks can be amazing or amazingly useless. Sniping PF sarges and heavy weapons from a squad with relative ease with some armies seems silly. Yes, there are some counters, but no counter is 100% effective all the time.
On the flipside, some units, either by design or gameplay trick like screening units, become immune to directed hits. In this case, you trivialize directed hits, and if they are trival then what is the point of having them?
Thus, the way I see it, either they are too good, breaking game balance, or useless, adding a complex mechanic with lots of following rules that does nothing. In both cases that is bad game design. I expect this to have been changed in the playtest phase, as it does not fit with the feel of the rest of the rules.
4th ed had a better rule in my opinion that was also simpler. If you deal enough wounds to fully saturate a squad, then you can make 1 model in the squad take a save. How I would change this rule to fit with 6th is that each time you fully saturate an armor group, you can pick 1 model within that group that rolls seperately. The defending player chooses which wound gets allocated, unless there are directed wounds, in which case the defending player may only choose from the directed wounds.
What this change does is make directed wounds only hit one model at a time, and ONLY if an armor group is fully saturated. If you cant fully saturate an armor group, then there are simply too many models in the unit shielding the leader/heavy weapon. Thus, in the example of sniping out a powerfist sarge, you can still do it, and directed weapons still are good, but you cant do it with a single shot, directed or not--the defending squad knows enough to keep sarge safe.
After all, if an intervening squad can protect the defending unit's sarge, why can the defending unit do the same?
Compel wrote:The amount of 12 years olds that Games Workshop have trained up into thinking that the Pyrovore is the greatest unit ever made is truly terrifying....
With some of these 6th Ed. rules, the Pyrovore is looking pretty good...
Dribble Joy wrote:
Also remember that directed hits are chosen after saves are taken, and a character's hits are rolled separately.
Not if he has the same armor.
I mean the attacks caused by a character.
That's irrelevant. The save grouping is all the matters. Also, very few Directed Hits are going to be allowing armor saves.
I wasn't talking about whether or not a character is eligible for being selected as a casualty as a result of Directed Fire, but the circumstances under which they can perform them and the unlikelihood that they will cause any wounds.
Field Gen wrote:I read through the character sheet and the orks section and nothing has changed. So what is the deal with that codex update. JOTWW, Waaagh and all that works the same as it did before.
Waaagh is actually notably different now. Firstly, one has to declare it at the beginning of the turn, but most importantly, instead of just allowing your infantry to assault after they run, it now adds +2" to their base movement value.
This means that units looking to charge get a 14" assault radius, but it ALSO means that units that don't want to get into combat still get to move 8" for whatever reason, which is nice.
You're generally going to want to combine it with trukk delivery, for a 22" radius delivery. 14" trukk move (with red paint), and 8" disembark engage (since you now move your models from the exit points of hte transports). It's generally the best way to recreate the current non-waaaagh delivery options, which was 13" move, 2" disembark, 6" assault. (21" delivery radius).
In regards to Directed Wounds, just giving my nobs Eavy Armour allows them to be buried again as they are now - having to kill off the entire unit to get to him. Since the player with directed hits can only allocate those hits within the armour group I'm allocating wounds to, as long as I'm not allocating wounds to the nob's armour group, he's untouchable.
It's also nice that immobilizing vehicles has a much more dramatic effect. Currently, it meant I auto hit with my PKs in CC, but with the new rules it has the additional danger of being easier to hit in ranged as well. My Lootas hitting immobalized tanks on 3+ is groovy, by grots hitting them on 2+ is bloody fantastic.
5+ KFF is completely dissolving my attempts to actually GET to the enemy, though :(
Dribble Joy wrote:You can only disembark at combat speed. So Engage has a 'range' of 7" + 8" = 15". Charge gives you 7" + 16" = 23".
Yeah, I see it now - just too used to moving 13" and jumping out. So, I see that units can charge out of an open topped vehicle, meaning that, as you say, 7" movment, plus 12" charge = 19" non-waaagh threat range, and a 23" waaagh threat range.
Dribble Joy wrote:It's still a 5+ save that most vehicles won't get, though hopefully the KFF BM will become less ubiquitous and other HQs will pop up more often.
Oh I agree - and it does excite me to see myself challenged in finding a new way to play my race. But at the same time I'm scratching my head to think of ways to keep my vehicles intact during that perilous period of time before my first wave (trukks) hit the lines. My kanz, grot tanks, and Battlewagon are all "massive", so opponents will be hitting them with +1 BS. But yes, it's all about learning to adjust!
The Pyrovore is a train wreck that wont be saved by 6th ed.
Shuma - about Space Marines - speaking as a Tyranid player, imo vanilla SM is the weakest 5th ed codex. I can count the number of my losses against SM on two fingers. With that said, Tyranids have more hard counters popular in tournaments - DE Venomspam, GKs and perhaps SWs to some degree. And I'd wager that a Hormagaunt horde itsn't really tournament viable in 5th ed. While it might suck that they happen to counter the list you chose to play, and that your friend happen to play them, sounds more like bad luck than anything else. Kind of silly to complain about Tyranids, in the view of how GW has treated the army and us who plays them.
If there is anything I wish with my Nids, it is to be able to field a competitive horde, instead of Hive Guard/Genestealer spam. When I started the hobby I jumped on Tyranids, I imagined them as the premiere horde army of 40K, like in Starship Troopers. Found out it wasn't really viable. I really hope that 6th ed brings in more viable ways of building Nid lists.
But I agree with you that vanilla SM doesn't get enough whining.
ShumaGorath wrote:Either way, two out of the three armies shown utilize vulkan (who himself is singnificantly undercosted given that he's an incredible force multiplier in the meta and within that codex). I don't want to use vulkan. I have a charcharadons army, if I'm going to powergame it a bit for better success I'd be better off building an identical blood angels list and using the savings in cheaper dev squads and upgrades to throw in some priests to give universal FNP (having more deep-strike accurate and scoring assault troops that end up being cheaper than in C:SM is a nice bonus).
Why do you whine and whine when clearly all you need to do is swap books? Why try to play space sharks in a codex that does not support the correct play style? And then why complain so loudly about how the sky is falling? Insane. Switch books, try a couple games.
ph34r, I'd put it in a different way, but to the same effect.
Some units will be less balanced than others. There is little point in forcing others to adapt to these units, just as there is little relevance in discussing it in this thread here beyond what we have already done so far - beyond establishing the fact that they aren't as glorious as their points might indicate.
Proposed Rules forum is that way, over where most discussion regarding what can be done with Pyrovores and Guardians are taking place (and oddly enough also the place where the shortcomings of units such as Long Fangs are being attempted to be mended, I know it's a silly place).
Dribble Joy, I didn't notice the changes to Melta. Will be an interesting read once I get home. Especially since I happen to play a race that typically fields entire squads with them
Mahtamori wrote:Dribble Joy, I didn't notice the changes to Melta. Will be an interesting read once I get home. Especially since I happen to play a race that typically fields entire squads with them
Tanks get -1 on the damage table. AP1 nullifies this.
Aside from that AP1 has no affect on other vehicles.
That rule alone is why I hope this is true, if only to hear the cries of anguish of those who worship the meltagun as if they were holy relics. WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW?!
Luke_Prowler wrote:That rule alone is why I hope this is true, if only to hear the cries of anguish of those who worship the meltagun as if they were holy relics. WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW?!
He's in your base, killing your tanks with his meltagun.
I just realized how balls-to-the-walls crazy the Emperor's Champion would be at killing MEQ infantry with these rules (better than he already is, mind you!). As is, the one threat to the Champ sweeping his way through squads are power fists; if he can go for them first and remove them...
AlmightyWalrus wrote:I just realized how balls-to-the-walls crazy the Emperor's Champion would be at killing MEQ infantry with these rules (better than he already is, mind you!). As is, the one threat to the Champ sweeping his way through squads are power fists; if he can go for them first and remove them...
There's a reason he's called the Emperor's Champion.
Had a quick gander on the leaked rules last night, and what interested me most was the change to ork red paint job.
It says that a vehicle with RPJ adds +1 to its move characteristic, so I'm under the impression that the new move system doubles/triples the move characteristic, so when we move double our move, we actually gain 2" from RPJ rather than 1 (as it now specifies that we add 1 to MV, not add 1" to total move).
Leigen_Zero wrote:Had a quick gander on the leaked rules last night, and what interested me most was the change to ork red paint job.
It says that a vehicle with RPJ adds +1 to its move characteristic, so I'm under the impression that the new move system doubles/triples the move characteristic, so when we move double our move, we actually gain 2" from RPJ rather than 1 (as it now specifies that we add 1 to MV, not add 1" to total move).
It's not entirely clear, but given the Fleet precedent, it seems so.
Does anyone know the exact wording of the GW denial that this is 6th Edition ?
I would be interested in the wording they use as if its a flat out denial that this was anything at all to do with them , a playtesting draft etc , and it turned out to be a basis for the 6th edition after all , then their credibility would be down the tubes and they could rightly be called lying scumbags .
Mahtamori wrote:Dribble Joy, I didn't notice the changes to Melta. Will be an interesting read once I get home. Especially since I happen to play a race that typically fields entire squads with them
Tanks get -1 on the damage table. AP1 nullifies this.
Aside from that AP1 has no affect on other vehicles.
Hm...
Open topped = No -1 damage chart bonus for tanks
AP1 = No -1 damage chart bonus for tanks
So they do not stack? Oh hello there my sexy open topped deffrollawagon. It seems like you won't be getting +2 to the damage chart anymore.
Dynamix wrote:Does anyone know the exact wording of the GW denial that this is 6th Edition ?
I would be interested in the wording they use as if its a flat out denial that this was anything at all to do with them , a playtesting draft etc , and it turned out to be a basis for the 6th edition after all , then their credibility would be down the tubes and they could rightly be called lying scumbags .
If it's a playtest version then it's 'not' the 6th Ed. rules, and therefore any denial is technically correct.
terranarc wrote:Hm...
Open topped = No -1 damage chart bonus for tanks
AP1 = No -1 damage chart bonus for tanks
So they do not stack? Oh hello there my sexy open topped deffrollawagon. It seems like you won't be getting +2 to the damage chart anymore.
ShumaGorath wrote:Either way, two out of the three armies shown utilize vulkan (who himself is singnificantly undercosted given that he's an incredible force multiplier in the meta and within that codex). I don't want to use vulkan. I have a charcharadons army, if I'm going to powergame it a bit for better success I'd be better off building an identical blood angels list and using the savings in cheaper dev squads and upgrades to throw in some priests to give universal FNP (having more deep-strike accurate and scoring assault troops that end up being cheaper than in C:SM is a nice bonus).
Why do you whine and whine when clearly all you need to do is swap books? Why try to play space sharks in a codex that does not support the correct play style? And then why complain so loudly about how the sky is falling? Insane. Switch books, try a couple games.
I have switched and played a few test games. I would probably switch fully but I don't want to be the guy powergaming an out of codex army for better tournament performance. I don't like that guy. It would be easier for me at this stage if they had not come out with a Charcharadons chapter master in the Badaab War 2 books that is specifically for codex marines. I'm sort of caught between a rock and a hard place. I made that purchase and styled my army specifically for a the chapter, but I can't use that purchase or the specific weird trappings of the army out of codex. It just so happens that the codex is kinda lame. I complain about the sky falling specifically because I don't feel like being auto KO'd against my friends tyranid swarm army in sixth. It's almost impossible to beat without a mechanized msu list as is, the new edition takes fast assault armies and puts them over the top in my view.
If this is really just a fan's house rules, said fan should contact me, with a view to getting them published as generic future wargames rules (no specific-universe IP involved; use any models you like).
I don't believe I will have to put my money where my mouth is, though.
Hmm, correct me if I'm wrong here, but these new rules look like they might really hurt low save, low toughness asault units. I'm thinking in particular of Wyches. As far as I can tell, there is no way to get them into combat without them receiving defensive fire. That's a lot of shots potentially coming in before they strike, with no cover save to boot. Now, I don't pretend to have a perfect knowledge of these rules as I'm just working around them, but here's how this seems to me.
Unit of 10 Wyches assaults 10 un-upgraded Guardsmen. In they come, and here comes the Defensive Fire. 20 shots, hitting on 4s+s, 10 hits, 5 wounds, good chance of no saves. That's reduced the effectiveness of the squad by 50% on the charge, not even taking into account firing in other rounds. The Wyches attacks have dropped from 30 to 15. I can't help but feel this is going to be very damaging to the squishier of the assault units.
junk wrote:HTJ Defensive fire is not Triggered by assault.
Then what is it triggered by? This sentence in the rules for Defensive Fire gives me pause.
If the responding unit was assaulted by the
target unit and it was not locked in combat
previously, it can shoot at the target unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You know what, it looks like the unit would need the Overwatch special rule to do that. I suppose it remains to be seen who will get Overwatch.
ShumaGorath wrote:
I have switched and played a few test games. I would probably switch fully but I don't want to be the guy powergaming an out of codex army for better tournament performance. I don't like that guy. It would be easier for me at this stage if they had not come out with a Charcharadons chapter master in the Badaab War 2 books that is specifically for codex marines. I'm sort of caught between a rock and a hard place. I made that purchase and styled my army specifically for a the chapter, but I can't use that purchase or the specific weird trappings of the army out of codex. It just so happens that the codex is kinda lame. I complain about the sky falling specifically because I don't feel like being auto KO'd against my friends tyranid swarm army in sixth. It's almost impossible to beat without a mechanized msu list as is, the new edition takes fast assault armies and puts them over the top in my view.
We all have to adjust to new rulesets when they arrive. Fast assault armies are intimidating, but you do have countermeasures available. More importantly, Your VSM picked up a few neat assault tricks yourself. Like Assaulting out of Gate of Infinity. Heroic Deep Striking vanguard squads (still overpriced IMO, but not bad). Scout moves are much better. Entangling weapons. More accurate blast markers, more deadly templates, more effective tank shocks. It's definitely an uphill battle, citing the restrictions you're applying for thematic reasons to your own army; but that's going to happen. Other armies will be completely unimpressed by tyranid swarm lists.
junk wrote:HTJ Defensive fire is not Triggered by assault.
Then what is it triggered by? This sentence in the rules for Defensive Fire gives me pause.
If the responding unit was assaulted by the
target unit and it was not locked in combat
previously, it can shoot at the target unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You know what, it looks like the unit would need the Overwatch special rule to do that. I suppose it remains to be seen who will get Overwatch.
Correct, it's deceptively written, but that section that you're quoting is actually listed under 'exceptions' to events that trigger defensive fire actions, and serves to clarify that you can 'still' perform defensive fire actions if you are assaulted.
To reassure you, it's meant as a clarification for defenders having the "overwatch" special rule.
Anyway, V6 will put more emphasis on units having good saves rather than not, because of weaker cover saves and less ubiquitous mechanization.
I wonder if carapace armour for IG veterans would become a viable upgrade ? Absolutely love those freaking cool Kasrkin models.
Well, that's a relief, I must say. That was starting to look like an end for viable assaults for a moment there, but in fact it's just a rather interesting rule. Phew!
4+ armour certainly seems a lot more worthwhile to me, with the worldwide cover save dropping as it is.
ShumaGorath wrote: Huh. Yeah, bikes aren't lookin' too hot though the standoff eldar troop bikes with their shurikan canons are lookinga bit better by most counts
No, they still look like expensive poo.
I like them...
I think 6th ed will take a bit more getting used to than the transition from 4th to 5th ed. Alas, here I was just having finished getting 1500 points of Dark Angels ready for gaming.
htj wrote:Well, that's a relief, I must say. That was starting to look like an end for viable assaults for a moment there, but in fact it's just a rather interesting rule. Phew!
4+ armour certainly seems a lot more worthwhile to me, with the worldwide cover save dropping as it is.
Indeed. Still not sure if carapace is worth it, what with 6e being defcon: everybody dies, even for marines.
htj wrote:Well, that's a relief, I must say. That was starting to look like an end for viable assaults for a moment there, but in fact it's just a rather interesting rule. Phew!
4+ armour certainly seems a lot more worthwhile to me, with the worldwide cover save dropping as it is.
Indeed. Still not sure if carapace is worth it, what with 6e being defcon: everybody dies, even for marines.
True enough. It's too early to say really; or at least I feel that way. I'm loathe to start making decisions on play before knowing whether these rules are complete and genuine.
junk wrote:We all have to adjust to new rulesets when they arrive. Fast assault armies are intimidating, but you do have countermeasures available. More importantly, Your VSM picked up a few neat assault tricks yourself. Like Assaulting out of Gate of Infinity. Heroic Deep Striking vanguard squads (still overpriced IMO, but not bad). Scout moves are much better. Entangling weapons. More accurate blast markers, more deadly templates, more effective tank shocks. It's definitely an uphill battle, citing the restrictions you're applying for thematic reasons to your own army; but that's going to happen. Other armies will be completely unimpressed by tyranid swarm lists.
For sure. My army-- without substantial changes of any kind-- can now reliably charge with 10 Assault Terminators on turn 1. Way I see it, that's going to give almost any opponent pause.
Depends on what Stratagems they take. At least one prevents a turn 1 charge by infiltrators. There seems like a lot of internal balance in these rules. In that way it feels like 8th edition WFB. Lots of things seem powerful, but counters exist to hose down armies that go too far.
so.. according to the new rules (unless I missed something which is completely possible), units disembark in movement phase and embark during consolidation phase. would this mean that a squad could jump out and then back into the transport in the same turn assuming the squad made no other movement action?
Dribble Joy wrote:
If it's a playtest version then it's 'not' the 6th Ed. rules, and therefore any denial is technically correct.
Thats why I enquired as to the exact wording - if it was a simple " These are not the 6th edition rules " then agreed , they could get away with denial .
If its a " These rules are not playtesting or draft 6th Ed rules and have nothing to do with GW " then while I can understand wanting to keep a lid on things , it would still be lying .
Starless Night wrote:so.. according to the new rules (unless I missed something which is completely possible), units disembark in movement phase and embark during consolidation phase. would this mean that a squad could jump out and then back into the transport in the same turn assuming the squad made no other movement action?
Ian Sturrock wrote:If this is really just a fan's house rules, said fan should contact me, with a view to getting them published as generic future wargames rules (no specific-universe IP involved; use any models you like).
I don't believe I will have to put my money where my mouth is, though.
And this is why I don't think its a fan-ruleset.
If it was, then we would see someone stepping forward to claim credit.
Considering how good these rules are, I'd be willing to invest in that venture.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dynamix wrote:And get whacked with GW Lawyers ?
By exchanging some terms with a home-brewed proprietary lexicon changing the document into a unique IP, combined with any public denial of GW that these rules are somehow owned by them, would make for a relatively unassailable position.
junk wrote:Considering how good these rules are, I'd be willing to invest in that venture.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dynamix wrote:And get whacked with GW Lawyers ?
By exchanging some terms with a home-brewed proprietary lexicon changing the document into a unique IP, combined with any public denial of GW that these rules are somehow owned by them, would make for a relatively unassailable position.
How I would laugh !
Edit :However isnt this a good reason for them being fake ? wouldnt GW risk these rules being stolen by a denial ?
Actually, the lines in Defensive Fire regarding assaulting units clarifies what happens if a unit is allowed to Defensive Fire on an assaulting unit manages to kill off all models that would reach them.
We're still in the dark if Overwatch will be the only way to get Defensive Fire as a reaction to being assaulted, there may still be upcoming codexes with special rules that allow models to Defensive Fire, so the rules take this into account and explain "if the models that had enough assault distance to reach the Defensive Firing are killed, no assault happens."
I just played a game of 6th edition, 1850 points, Orks versus Tau. Tau won seize ground 52 to 8. Brutal slaughter, board was completely devoid of Orks by the end of turn 5. Luckily, my Tau list transforms very well for those sorts of opponents in 6th edition, clearly his Ork list did not.
Dynamix wrote:
Edit :However isnt this a good reason for them being fake ? wouldnt GW risk these rules being stolen by a denial ?
If the rules are real and they say they are fake, that does not give up copyright protection. What we are talking about is a scenario where they aren't real and GW can't prove they are AND they denied it.
If they deny it, but then in court they can produce proof that they really were theirs, then no, they don't lose IP protection.
Ian Sturrock wrote:If this is really just a fan's house rules, said fan should contact me, with a view to getting them published as generic future wargames rules (no specific-universe IP involved; use any models you like).
I don't believe I will have to put my money where my mouth is, though.
And this is why I don't think its a fan-ruleset.
If it was, then we would see someone stepping forward to claim credit.
I had a funny thought.
GW has denied the leaked rules, right? They've done it before. I get that.
But what if this really isn't theirs and they're using our reactions as a live lab?
They're watching how everybody loves/hates certain changes, additions, etc....
And lets face it, nobody believes them when the say one way or another.
Ian Sturrock wrote:If this is really just a fan's house rules, said fan should contact me, with a view to getting them published as generic future wargames rules (no specific-universe IP involved; use any models you like).
I don't believe I will have to put my money where my mouth is, though.
And this is why I don't think its a fan-ruleset.
If it was, then we would see someone stepping forward to claim credit.
I had a funny thought.
GW has denied the leaked rules, right? They've done it before. I get that.
But what if this really isn't theirs and they're using our reactions as a live lab?
They're watching how everybody loves/hates certain changes, additions, etc....
And lets face it, nobody believes them when the say one way or another.
I honestly think this is just a playtesting version, so that's why they said it wasn't real.
Fetterkey wrote:For sure. My army-- without substantial changes of any kind-- can now reliably charge with 10 Assault Terminators on turn 1. Way I see it, that's going to give almost any opponent pause.
I'm intrigued. The potential charge range of termis (out of a land raider) is actually less (12"+6", opposed to 12"+2"+Base width+6").
Unless you're talking about some weird Shrike shenanigans.
junk wrote:Considering how good these rules are, I'd be willing to invest in that venture.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dynamix wrote:And get whacked with GW Lawyers ?
By exchanging some terms with a home-brewed proprietary lexicon changing the document into a unique IP, combined with any public denial of GW that these rules are somehow owned by them, would make for a relatively unassailable position.
How I would laugh !
Edit :However isnt this a good reason for them being fake ? wouldnt GW risk these rules being stolen by a denial ?
Now your thinking. Want to publish a generic rules set and sue GW if they release a set 90% similar to yours?
Quick! Someone notify chapterhouse. Oh what sweet irony
Fetterkey wrote:For sure. My army-- without substantial changes of any kind-- can now reliably charge with 10 Assault Terminators on turn 1. Way I see it, that's going to give almost any opponent pause.
I'm intrigued. The potential charge range of termis (out of a land raider) is actually less (12"+6", opposed to 12"+2"+Base width+6").
Unless you're talking about some weird Shrike shenanigans.
Probably something involving librarians deep striking them onto homing beacons from scouts or scout bikes first turn.
ShatteredBlade wrote:
I honestly think this is just a playtesting version, so that's why they said it wasn't real.
It may be some sort of advanced W40k test version, with a lot of ideas coming directly from brainstorming and inspiration from other systems, and written by some sort of studio's tactical genius (Crrrreeeed !)
Then, it would be juged as too complicated or too much different from conventional W40k. So a rewrite with a lot of chopping would be demanded by GW bosses.
Finally a V6, significantly rewritten and toned down would hit the stores by July, with a bunch of not risky and timid changes.
ShatteredBlade wrote:
I honestly think this is just a playtesting version, so that's why they said it wasn't real.
It may be some sort of advanced W40k test version, with a lot of ideas coming directly from brainstorming and inspiration from other systems, and written by some sort of studio's tactical genius (Crrrreeeed !)
Then, it would be juged as too complicated or too much different from conventional W40k. So a rewrite with a lot of chopping would be demanded by GW bosses.
Finally a V6, significantly rewritten and toned down would hit the stores by July, with a bunch of not risky and timid changes.
If the real 6th ed turns out to be just 4th ed with a different hat on, I might be having a sale of my armies.
ShumaGorath wrote:Probably something involving librarians deep striking them onto homing beacons from scouts or scout bikes first turn.
Scout moves are 12", units using a Beacon must be placed within 6". So yes, you do have roughly a 25" (including base width) 'assault range' with Gate of Infinity (power is used at the beginning of the movement phase).
Hang back a few inches and you should be OK if you think they are going to pull this trick.
ShumaGorath wrote:Probably something involving librarians deep striking them onto homing beacons from scouts or scout bikes first turn.
Scout moves are 12", units using a Beacon must be placed within 6". So yes, you do have roughly a 25" (including base width) 'assault range' with Gate of Infinity (power is used at the beginning of the movement phase).
Hang back a few inches and you should be OK if you think they are going to pull this trick.
Can a libby join the squad that shrike infiltrates? If so thats effectively 10 assault terms on the opposing board edge almost anywhere first turn.
ShumaGorath wrote:Can a libby join the squad that shrike infiltrates? If so thats effectively 10 assault terms on the opposing board edge almost anywhere first turn.
Infiltrators do not benefit from Beacons unless they have Deep Strike. Alas, getting a beacon that far across the board for the beginning of turn one isn't possible.
A Libby can Gate a unit anywhere on the table anyway.
Rented Tritium wrote:
If they deny it, but then in court they can produce proof that they really were theirs, then no, they don't lose IP protection.
Thats interesting considering the current dispute with Chapterhouse . I guess the GW denial could be used against them but the playtesters and staff would be able to attest to GW IP ownership / origin I suppose , but if someone was to publish first , is this like Science papers where the first to publish gets the credit ?
Anyway , fun to hypothesise , but the above isnt going to happen , shame , that would have been amusing
ShumaGorath wrote:Can a libby join the squad that shrike infiltrates? If so thats effectively 10 assault terms on the opposing board edge almost anywhere first turn.
Infiltrators do not benefit from Beacons unless they have Deep Strike. Alas, getting a beacon that far across the board for the beginning of turn one isn't possible. A Libby can Gate a unit anywhere on the table anyway.
Gate has a 24 inch range and scouts with a land speeder storm can be virually anywhere on the board on turn one (holding a teleport homer). If the libby can infiltrate with shrike with a squad of assault terms they can also be anywhere on the board assaulting turn one. It's kind of a wacky and expensive combo though.
Seriously, how cool is the Special Training stratagem? If your enemy brings a ton of tanks, give a few key units Tank Hunters. If your enemy goes crazy with snipers, Shield your key units. All you've got to do is bail out first. If the opponent bails first, you at least get to control turn order. A lot of the other stratagems seem custom made to mitigate spamming and gimmick lists. It's brilliant game design, allowing armies that don't have a hard counter to a powerful meta list bring something to the table to take the edge off. All rolled into a rule that limits the power of winning the first turn roll. I am impressed.
Biophysical wrote:Seriously, how cool is the Special Training stratagem? If your enemy brings a ton of tanks, give a few key units Tank Hunters. If your enemy goes crazy with snipers, Shield your key units. All you've got to do is bail out first. If the opponent bails first, you at least get to control turn order. A lot of the other stratagems seem custom made to mitigate spamming and gimmick lists. It's brilliant game design, allowing armies that don't have a hard counter to a powerful meta list bring something to the table to take the edge off. All rolled into a rule that limits the power of winning the first turn roll. I am impressed.
I'll be impressed if GW actually ever releases it.
and scouts with a land speeder storm can be virually anywhere on the board on turn one (holding a teleport homer).
Reserves are deployed before the movement phase, but after scout moves (which are 12" standard). So you can't zip the scouts forward and DS a unit onto them in the same turn.
If the libby can infiltrate with shrike with a squad of assault terms they can also be anywhere on the board assaulting turn one. It's kind of a wacky and expensive combo though.
Infiltrate is no longer closer to the enemy, it's auto-DS on turn one. So those infiltrating termis won't need the libby anyway.
Or am I missing something? (tad drunkypoos at the mo)
Biophysical wrote:Seriously, how cool is the Special Training stratagem? If your enemy brings a ton of tanks, give a few key units Tank Hunters. If your enemy goes crazy with snipers, Shield your key units. All you've got to do is bail out first. If the opponent bails first, you at least get to control turn order. A lot of the other stratagems seem custom made to mitigate spamming and gimmick lists. It's brilliant game design, allowing armies that don't have a hard counter to a powerful meta list bring something to the table to take the edge off. All rolled into a rule that limits the power of winning the first turn roll. I am impressed.
I know, that's what I've been saying. It's a great element to the game system that not only gives players a consolation for going second, brings up a whole extra tactical aspect to the game and is something almost unique in wargaming.
I really hope it stays, the whole bidding process I can foresee to be epic fun on it's own.
ShatteredBlade wrote: I honestly think this is just a playtesting version, so that's why they said it wasn't real.
Even if it were exactly what was sent to the printers (will be sent, how long before release do they do this?) GW would deny it right up until release day. GW similarly denied the 5th edition leak and denied that the "mystery box" was Space Hulk right until the day they announced that it was, in fact, Space Hulk. GW's denial really doesn't mean anything one way or the other.
alarmingrick wrote: I honestly think this is just a playtesting version, so that's why they said it wasn't real.
Even if it were exactly what was sent to the printers (will be sent, how long before release do they do this?) GW would deny it right up until release day. GW similarly denied the 5th edition leak and denied that the "mystery box" was Space Hulk right until the day they announced that it was, in fact, Space Hulk. GW's denial really doesn't mean anything one way or the other.
You're giving me credit for something i didn't say?!? And honestly, as sloppy as somethings are in this version it can't be what's coming out.
I still have a doubt about how outflanking is supposed to work, please clarify this.
When the unit arrives, it is placed within 6” of one of the short table edges.
Does this mean that this arrival replaces unit's movement, or it is a bonus to his initial placement, and outflanker can now move normally, charge, go flat-out... ?
alarmingrick wrote:You're giving me credit for something i didn't say?!? And honestly, as sloppy as somethings are in this version it can't be what's coming out.
Sorry, screwed up deleting most of the quote tree.
Of course it isn't, but that's not that point. Even if the exact PDF that were sent to the printers were leaked, GW would deny that it's actually 6th edition. The guy I quoted was looking for a way GW could deny and it and not be lying which isn't remotely necessary because GW has been more than willing to lie about leaks in the past.
I would like to focus on mechanized troops viability and usefulness in V6. How you would see it in this new version ?
Here are some of my thoughts and observations : V5 is a huge step forward favouring embarked troops, nearly any-time, anywhere from V4. Part of this fact is due to almost immunity to incoming fire, and very limited inconvenience if the transport get destroyed. In V5, a wrecked transport only inconvenience is the pinning test. Fearless units suffer nothing. Disembarked troops may be placed as you wish in a zone within 2inches + base diameter of any exit points, pretty nice guarantee for troopers.
How much this safety is about to change in V6 ? Maybe we can expect a swing of the pendulum from GW .
In this playtest V6 an exploded transport produces roughly two critical wounds on average on a unit of 10/11/12 embarked troops. Very few units have invulnerable saves, so that is two kills, but on to positive side, you are not likely to lose special weapons. You can allocate them on normal dudes. Now, if their taxi is exploded or wrecked, the troop is automatically shaken (fearless does not comes into play here). Meaning : • It cannot perform Support actions. • It cannot conduct Run/Cruise, Charge, Ramming and Flat out moves. • Models in a shaken unit cannot use the multitargeting rule. Hence they can only perform a single Shooting action per turn.
So they can engage enemies, or move 6 inches and shoot, but assault units will experience difficulties in their task. I will now examine what is supposed to happen if the transport gets destroyed without explosion, is it as safe as before ? The unit always have to make an emergency disembarkation following these guidelines (p.124) :
Place one model in contact with an unblocked access point (or where it had been some seconds ago) and place the rest of the squad following the rules for deep strike in critical range (page 140). The unit doesn’t scatter. If the transport was a vehicle, models can be placed on the wreck. The unit should be in a tight, circular formation after an emergency disembarkation from a wrecked vehicle.
One model juste in front of the exit, an hexagon of six models in base contact with him, the rest further in a second circle. This would look like this for a unit of 10 veteran guardsmen getting out of their wrecked Chimera :
But for a 10 SM unit bailing out of their destroyed rhino, it would just look the same, you only get the choice of which one of three exits is used. Following the ' grape shaped layout ' from rules of deep-strike, you have to place at least two models of the first circle above the wreck. Guess it will be a bit tricky during the course of a battle ! Be careful with your miniatures ! What happens next ? Well let's follow the rules referred in p.140 as said in previous paragraph, noteworthy : Models that are placed using this method and landing in rough terrain must take a dangerous terrain test.
And obviously, you are in presence of rough terrain in this case. Seems those two models standing on top of chimera's hull have to pass the test ! Just two ? Well, now we should have a look at the rules of area terrain (p.42) : If the base, body or hull of a model touches the footprint of a terrain feature or any component of the terrain feature itself, the model is said to be ‘within’ terrain. It does not matter if the unit is in front, inside or behind the feature as long as it is in contact with the terrain.
Grumble... so that's 3 more models (the reference one of deep-strike, plus two neighbours are in direct contact with the wreck), for a total of 5 who have to pass this test !
More to come !
Do wrecks rules have changed by the way ? Well let's check this in p.115 :
Wrecks Unless stated otherwise, a wrecked vehicle should be marked with some cotton wool smoke and flames and left on the table. It continues to block line of sight as if it were intact but counts as both difficult and dangerous terrain, and provides a Cover Save of 5+.
Aaaargh ! On their following turn, if you want to move this poor unit out of fuming transport , it's another dangerous test, roll the dice ! And you will certainly do so for tactical reasons, or due to extreme vulnerability of the unit if they stand still like this ! Finally, you will roll quite as much as if the transport was exploded right away, meaning 10 or a few less ! So, if you had a bad luck previously and lost a few models, you would obviously have assigned the critical hits to those within the wreck, in order to roll less dice on the second dangerous terrain test.
On top of that, in either case, during opponent shooting phase, your troops being in grape layout are a juicy target for missile launchers, plasma cannons etc... Weapons which are much more precise in this edition.
Fielding 10-strong squads in those rolling boxes will become significantly more dangerous. Two critical hits + shaken status are not something to be neglected.
I would like to focus on mechanized troops viability and usefulness in V6. How you would see it in this new version ?
Here are some of my thoughts and observations :
V5 is a huge step forward favouring embarked troops, nearly any-time, anywhere from V4. Part of this fact is due to almost immunity to incoming fire, and very limited inconvenience if the transport get destroyed.
In V5, a wrecked transport only inconvenience is the pinning test. Fearless units suffer nothing.
Disembarked troops may be placed as you wish in a zone within 2" + base diameter of any exit points, pretty nice guarantee for troopers.
How much this safety is about to change in V6 ? Maybe we can expect a swing of the pendulum from GW .
In this playtest V6 an exploded transport produces roughly two critical wounds on average on a unit of 10/11/12 embarked troops. Very few units have invulnerable saves, so that is two kills, but on to positive side, you are not likely to lose special weapons. You can allocate them on normal dudes. Now, if their taxi is exploded or wrecked, the troop is automatically shaken (fearless does not comes into play here).
Meaning :
• It cannot perform Support actions.
• It cannot conduct Run/Cruise, Charge, Ramming
and Flat out moves.
• Models in a shaken unit cannot use the multitargeting
rule. Hence they can only perform a
single Shooting action per turn. So they can engage enemies, or move 6" and shoot, but assault units will experience difficulties in their task.
I will now examine what is supposed to happen if the transport gets destroyed without explosion, is it as safe as before ?
The unit always have to make an emergency disembarkation following these guidelines (p.124) :
Place one model in contact with an unblocked
access point (or where it had been some seconds
ago) and place the rest of the squad following the
rules for deep strike in critical range (page 140).
The unit doesn’t scatter. If the transport was a
vehicle, models can be placed on the wreck. The
unit should be in a tight, circular formation after
an emergency disembarkation from a wrecked
vehicle.
This would look like this for a unit of 10 veteran guardsmen getting out of their wrecked Chimera :
But for a 10 SM unit bailing out of their destroyed rhino, it would just look the same, you only get the choice of which one of three exits is used.
Following the " grape shaped layout " from rules of deep-strike, you have to place at least two models of the first circle above the wreck. Guess it will be a bit tricky during the course of a battle ! Be careful with your miniatures !
What happens next ? Well let's follow the rules referred in p.140 as said in previous paragraph, noteworthy :
Models that are placed using this method and landing in rough terrain must take a dangerous terrain test.
And obviously, you are in presence of rough terrain in this case. Seems those two models standing on top of chimera's hull have to pass the test !
Just two ? Well, now we should have a look at the rules of area terrain (p.42) :
If the base, body or hull of a model touches the
footprint of a terrain feature or any component
of the terrain feature itself, the model is said to
be ‘within’ terrain. It does not matter if the unit is
in front, inside or behind the feature as long as it
is in contact with the terrain.
Grumble... so that's 3 more models (the reference one of deep-strike, plus two neighbours are in direct contact with the wreck), for a total of 5 who have to pass this test !
More to come !
Do wrecks rules have changed by the way ? Well let's check this in p.115 :
Wrecks Unless stated otherwise, a wrecked vehicle should
be marked with some cotton wool smoke and
flames and left on the table. It continues to block
line of sight as if it were intact but counts as both
difficult and dangerous terrain, and provides a
Cover Save of 5+.
Aaaargh ! On their following turn, if you want to move this poor unit out of fuming transport , it's another dangerous test, roll the dice ! And you will certainly do so for tactical reasons, or due to extreme vulnerability of the unit if they stand still like this !
Finally, you will roll quite as much as if the transport was exploded right away, meaning 10 or a few less ! Meaning if you had a bad luck previously and lost a few models, you would obviously have assigned the critical hits to those within the wreck, in order to roll less dice on the second dangerous terrain test.
On top of that, in either case, during opponent shooting phase, your troops being in grape layout are a juicy target for missile launchers, plasma cannons etc... Weapons which are much more precise in this edition.
Fielding 10-strong squads in those rolling boxes will become significantly more dangerous. Two critical hits + shaken status are not something to be neglected
.
Wow. you put alot of work into that. Nicely done.
But you missed the biggest problem:
If you move it, you can fire 1 weapon out of a fire point.
Bye-bye IG mechvets.....
Throw 10 melta bombs (Better than the meltagun's if the vehicle has moved normal speed)
Guardsmen are WS3, so they hit a moving vehicle on 6s. Though you're probably right.
Blow up vehicle (Probably)
Shoot and Demo-charge the nicely clumped previous occupants.
Or just move 6 and then get out 6 and shoot
Remember that if you block their access points then they are subject to Trapped and you get to DF (or CbC) them as they pile out . Then you can shoot something else too .
Throw 10 melta bombs (Better than the meltagun's if the vehicle has moved normal speed)
Guardsmen are WS3, so they hit a moving vehicle on 6s. Though you're probably right.
Blow up vehicle (Probably)
Shoot and Demo-charge the nicely clumped previous occupants.
Or just move 6 and then get out 6 and shoot
Remember that if you block their access points then they are subject to Trapped and you get to DF (or CbC) them as they pile out . Then you can shoot something else too .
WS 1 with the melta bomb, actually. Fighting against intractable opponents apparently makes you WS 1. Still, a 6 if it moved, auto if it didn't or is immobile/stunned.
The down side is that you can't shoot a vehicle to stun it and then follow up with melta bomb attacks. I think that this, combined with hulk giving vets effective 2+ to hit with their melta guns, so you are hitting with 15/6 meltas, instead of 10/6 meltas in close combat.
If you can manage to drive-by a stunned or immobile vehicle though... hop out, 10 melta hits, shoot the guys that stumble out, get back in your chimera.
ph34r wrote:WS 1 with the melta bomb, actually. Fighting against intractable opponents apparently makes you WS 1. Still, a 6 if it moved, auto if it didn't or is immobile/stunned.
I don't spend much time on Warseer. They know claim they were right all this time that this is a fake. So where is their proof? I haven't seen any "Proof" yet that this is a fake.
I've noticed that the super-heavy rules don't mention anything about Stunned/Shaken results affecting just one weapon. So all you have to do to neutralise the whole thing is glance it.
Super-Heavy vehicles have a -3 on the damage table that is cumulative with a glance's -2. -5 on the damage chart means a glancing hit can only 'shake' a super heavy. Currently the only super heavy in the regular 40K game is the Necron Monolith that ignores shaken on a 2+ roll.
So no, you can't just 'glance' a superheavy and expect it to be non-functional.
A shaken Baneblade will be able to fire a lascannon, or a twin-linked heavy bolter. Oh no. It looses MT so it can't sit still to fire it's main gun either.
But for a 10 SM unit bailing out of their destroyed rhino, it would just look the same, you only get the choice of which one of three exits is used.
Following the ' grape shaped layout ' from rules of deep-strike, you have to place at least two models of the first circle above the wreck. Guess it will be a bit tricky during the course of a battle ! Be careful with your miniatures !
What happens next ? Well let's follow the rules referred in p.140 as said in previous paragraph, noteworthy :
Models that are placed using this method and landing in rough terrain must take a dangerous terrain test.
regardless of if this is real or not, I haven't seen the community this amped up in a while. I stopped playing the game after the grey knights codex fiasco, and see no reason to ever play another 5th edition game.
I am really digging these new rules rumors, but if they don't turn out to be true, I could really see some folks ignoring the 6th edition rule set to play these alternative rules.
gannam wrote:regardless of if this is real or not, I haven't seen the community this amped up in a while. I stopped playing the game after the grey knights codex fiasco, and see no reason to ever play another 5th edition game.
I am really digging these new rules rumors, but if they don't turn out to be true, I could really see some folks ignoring the 6th edition rule set to play these alternative rules.
I agree, I am trying to get my club to play these rules. Sadly I think "if it's not GW" they will not play it.
Davor wrote:I don't spend much time on Warseer. They know claim they were right all this time that this is a fake. So where is their proof? I haven't seen any "Proof" yet that this is a fake.
Imho, if that was a fake, the person who made it would undercover her self long time ago (obviously if you put so much work into such grate game mechanic, and everybody love it!, you would want to became a "famous" to gaming society, would you?)
Other reason is that these rules are very consistent, not many mistakes in terms game-flow-logic, also Necron's codex makes more sense now, Monolith and its Heavy rule, Night scythes lots of points and only AV11???, yes, but in 6th is going to be an Flyer with AV6.
C'tan and his ignoring of difficult terrain + possibility of giving him defensive and offensive grenades (why would you give him this in 5th???)
and finally canopek spyders - MC with going to ground rule!
Haven't read much of this thread but figured I'd add this.
I emailed GW today asking permission to post the document on a website so that everyone could download it, asked if I'd get in trouble if I did so.
Figured if they said I'd get in trouble then this thing is the real deal, if not I guess it's a fake.
This is the reply I got:
Thanks for the email, this rule set is an unofficial rule book and is no way the next edition of Warhammer 40,000, but rather a fan made parody. Our Legal team is already aware of this and is currently looking into the source, as it may confuse players when we do release a 6th edition of Warhammer 40,000.
As things stand the current 5th Edition rulebook applies until we release 6th edition, we recommend ignoring this fan made parody.
How much this safety is about to change in V6 ? Maybe we can expect a swing of the pendulum from GW .
Hopefully toward the middle. The effect on transported units if their vehicle was destroyed was a joke in 5ed. It was however too much in 4ed, primarily the rediculous rules that forced you to disembark on any pen and the entanglment rukes. Somehere between the two would be great imo.
--I think the shaken rules is a nice compromise. This is really a nice change overall in these rules -- a middle ground between being unable to act at all and having limited actions was needed for a long time.
--They shored up the rules as far as affect and how long it lasts. 5ed makes no sense now in that regard, "yeah I emergency disembark -- but the effect only lasts this turn, so I shoot/assault your dudes" dumb.
--The removal of auto destroying units that cannot disembark is a good change, make em work more for it.
--The increase in dangerous terrain tests as noted is quite a few and is maybe a bit excessive. I think removing the test when they are placed would balance it.
--Note also that for tanks you should be getting destroyed less often, even with being hit more readily. That -1 on the damage chart is huge! So while the results are more detrimental, it seems to balance out to me.
If you move it, you can fire 1 weapon out of a fire point.
Bye-bye IG mechvets...
RTFM. You can disembark and embark on the same turn. Threat range is improved if you want to stay in your tank.
Actually those templates become irrelevant with the new rules. 5ed asks you to place a crater the size of the vehicle -- hence why BTP and others have created these markers. That is removed in this pdf 6ed, nothing is placed if the vehicle blows up. If its wrecked, you have to leave the vehicle itself (to block los, etc).
MadCowCrazy wrote:Haven't read much of this thread but figured I'd add this.
I emailed GW today asking permission to post the document on a website so that everyone could download it, asked if I'd get in trouble if I did so.
Figured if they said I'd get in trouble then this thing is the real deal, if not I guess it's a fake.
This is the reply I got:
Thanks for the email, this rule set is an unofficial rule book and is no way the next edition of Warhammer 40,000, but rather a fan made parody. Our Legal team is already aware of this and is currently looking into the source, as it may confuse players when we do release a 6th edition of Warhammer 40,000.
As things stand the current 5th Edition rulebook applies until we release 6th edition, we recommend ignoring this fan made parody.
We hope this helps.
Regards
"Move along, nothing to see here..."
Also, they never actually told you that you can or cannot post it.
MadCowCrazy wrote:Haven't read much of this thread but figured I'd add this.
I emailed GW today asking permission to post the document on a website so that everyone could download it, asked if I'd get in trouble if I did so.
Figured if they said I'd get in trouble then this thing is the real deal, if not I guess it's a fake.
This is the reply I got:
Thanks for the email, this rule set is an unofficial rule book and is no way the next edition of Warhammer 40,000, but rather a fan made parody. Our Legal team is already aware of this and is currently looking into the source, as it may confuse players when we do release a 6th edition of Warhammer 40,000.
As things stand the current 5th Edition rulebook applies until we release 6th edition, we recommend ignoring this fan made parody.
We hope this helps.
Regards
GW still isn't a reliable source on this either, they have outright lied to the community too much to be trusted on the matter. Especially since, if it were an actual leak, they would be served well by denying it.
When a company screws up their best tactic is usually to evade and lie until they can fix it up out of the public eye.
If GW hadn't have lied to us about previous releases and the veracity of the info we had gleaned on them prior to release then we may have had some goodwill on this. But they have a bad track record at this point and just can't be trusted as a verifiable source.
The fact that they didn't actually answer your question (they never actually said yes or no) and slipped in that their lawyers are still looking in to it is par for the course. Unfortunately this doesn't tell us much, only that GW are acting slippery. The wording of the e-mail just doesn't give much away but the language is obviously diversionary.
You could take it at face value, they said it was a parody made by fans after all. But GW have been known to lie and the rest of the language of the e-mail gives me pause. If it is a parody then why does GW care? They haven't hunted anyone else down for making fakes or even fan dexes. But to still have their lawyers hunting the source after two weeks seems a bit suspect.
In the end we still don't have anything conclusive I'm afraid. Until an actual hoaxer steps forward or until 6th is released we just wont know.
This is not a fake. However, this is a earlier version of the rule book, might even been a very early one because alot of the rules will not be in the real 6th ed rulebook
MadCowCrazy wrote:Haven't read much of this thread but figured I'd add this.
I emailed GW today asking permission to post the document on a website so that everyone could download it, asked if I'd get in trouble if I did so.
Figured if they said I'd get in trouble then this thing is the real deal, if not I guess it's a fake.
This is the reply I got:
Thanks for the email, this rule set is an unofficial rule book and is no way the next edition of Warhammer 40,000, but rather a fan made parody. Our Legal team is already aware of this and is currently looking into the source, as it may confuse players when we do release a 6th edition of Warhammer 40,000.
As things stand the current 5th Edition rulebook applies until we release 6th edition, we recommend ignoring this fan made parody.
We hope this helps.
Regards
Isn't it funny that big part of the community considers this "parody" a set of rules much more compelling than 5th ed?
MadCowCrazy wrote:Haven't read much of this thread but figured I'd add this.
I emailed GW today asking permission to post the document on a website so that everyone could download it, asked if I'd get in trouble if I did so.
Figured if they said I'd get in trouble then this thing is the real deal, if not I guess it's a fake.
This is the reply I got:
Thanks for the email, this rule set is an unofficial rule book and is no way the next edition of Warhammer 40,000, but rather a fan made parody. Our Legal team is already aware of this and is currently looking into the source, as it may confuse players when we do release a 6th edition of Warhammer 40,000.
As things stand the current 5th Edition rulebook applies until we release 6th edition, we recommend ignoring this fan made parody.
We hope this helps.
Regards
gg warhammer. You were fun until Mat Ward came along and now the best thing that's ever happened to 40k ends up being fake. Back to PC games.
