Neffertech wrote:I'm confused why there is this long list of possible allies for all of the armies except for tyranids (who can't ally with anyone). It feels so arbitrary for to exclude one army for no real reason. Genestealer cults still exist in the fluff don't they? And isn't that just like an imperial guard army with tyranid allies?
Weird that Dark Eldar and Marines can work together but nobody can/will work with the Nids.
Guess they're the big bad villain now, since everybody can team up with an enemy to fight a bigger enemy. Tyranids must be everyone's worst enemy.
Well, how would a human communicate with Nids?
How would Tau communicate with Daemons, their minds barely register in the warp and Andy Hore claimed it was nigh impossible for such things to occur in the 'Dex
You could possibly explain it as Tau mistaking them for an alien race...until the truth comes out. They tried to make peace with the Necrons before they knew what they were.
coyotius wrote:You could possibly explain it as Tau mistaking them for an alien race...until the truth comes out. They tried to make peace with the Necrons before they knew what they were.
coyotius wrote:You could possibly explain it as Tau mistaking them for an alien race...until the truth comes out. They tried to make peace with the Necrons before they knew what they were.
What about the Hive Mind controlling the swarm to tell them not to attack a target? therefore leaving Guardsmen unharmed by the swarm, would the Guard still shoot the Nids or attack the enemy harming them?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
coyotius wrote:You could possibly explain it as Tau mistaking them for an alien race...until the truth comes out. They tried to make peace with the Necrons before they knew what they were.
coyotius wrote:You could possibly explain it as Tau mistaking them for an alien race...until the truth comes out. They tried to make peace with the Necrons before they knew what they were.
When was that?
Wasn't there a story about a Tau welcoming party for an awakening Necron lord that turned horribly wrong?
Neffertech wrote:I'm confused why there is this long list of possible allies for all of the armies except for tyranids (who can't ally with anyone). It feels so arbitrary for to exclude one army for no real reason. Genestealer cults still exist in the fluff don't they? And isn't that just like an imperial guard army with tyranid allies?
Weird that Dark Eldar and Marines can work together but nobody can/will work with the Nids.
Guess they're the big bad villain now, since everybody can team up with an enemy to fight a bigger enemy. Tyranids must be everyone's worst enemy.
Well, how would a human communicate with Nids?
How would Tau communicate with Daemons, their minds barely register in the warp and Andy Hore claimed it was nigh impossible for such things to occur in the 'Dex
You could possibly explain it as Tau mistaking them for an alien race...until the truth comes out. They tried to make peace with the Necrons before they knew what they were.
Daemons don't keep a corporeal presence unless it's part of a summoning or demonic invasion. They can't. A tau/demon combo wouldn't make any sense at all.
Neffertech wrote:I'm confused why there is this long list of possible allies for all of the armies except for tyranids (who can't ally with anyone). It feels so arbitrary for to exclude one army for no real reason. Genestealer cults still exist in the fluff don't they? And isn't that just like an imperial guard army with tyranid allies?
Weird that Dark Eldar and Marines can work together but nobody can/will work with the Nids.
Guess they're the big bad villain now, since everybody can team up with an enemy to fight a bigger enemy. Tyranids must be everyone's worst enemy.
Well, how would a human communicate with Nids?
How would Tau communicate with Daemons, their minds barely register in the warp and Andy Hore claimed it was nigh impossible for such things to occur in the 'Dex
You could possibly explain it as Tau mistaking them for an alien race...until the truth comes out. They tried to make peace with the Necrons before they knew what they were.
Daemons don't keep a corporeal presence unless it's part of a summoning or demonic invasion. They can't. A tau/demon combo wouldn't make any sense at all.
Who says the demons haven't already infested some gue'vesa?
Automatically Appended Next Post: No saying I like it...just trying to help the thought process.
Neffertech wrote:I'm confused why there is this long list of possible allies for all of the armies except for tyranids (who can't ally with anyone). It feels so arbitrary for to exclude one army for no real reason. Genestealer cults still exist in the fluff don't they? And isn't that just like an imperial guard army with tyranid allies?
Weird that Dark Eldar and Marines can work together but nobody can/will work with the Nids.
Guess they're the big bad villain now, since everybody can team up with an enemy to fight a bigger enemy. Tyranids must be everyone's worst enemy.
Well, how would a human communicate with Nids?
How would Tau communicate with Daemons, their minds barely register in the warp and Andy Hore claimed it was nigh impossible for such things to occur in the 'Dex
You could possibly explain it as Tau mistaking them for an alien race...until the truth comes out. They tried to make peace with the Necrons before they knew what they were.
Daemons don't keep a corporeal presence unless it's part of a summoning or demonic invasion. They can't. A tau/demon combo wouldn't make any sense at all.
Who says the demons haven't already infested some gue'vesa?
Of Course, because we all know Farsight is a Daemon...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
coyotius wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
coyotius wrote:
GoDz BuZzSaW wrote:
wuestenfux wrote:
Neffertech wrote:I'm confused why there is this long list of possible allies for all of the armies except for tyranids (who can't ally with anyone). It feels so arbitrary for to exclude one army for no real reason. Genestealer cults still exist in the fluff don't they? And isn't that just like an imperial guard army with tyranid allies?
Weird that Dark Eldar and Marines can work together but nobody can/will work with the Nids.
Guess they're the big bad villain now, since everybody can team up with an enemy to fight a bigger enemy. Tyranids must be everyone's worst enemy.
Well, how would a human communicate with Nids?
How would Tau communicate with Daemons, their minds barely register in the warp and Andy Hore claimed it was nigh impossible for such things to occur in the 'Dex
You could possibly explain it as Tau mistaking them for an alien race...until the truth comes out. They tried to make peace with the Necrons before they knew what they were.
Daemons don't keep a corporeal presence unless it's part of a summoning or demonic invasion. They can't. A tau/demon combo wouldn't make any sense at all.
Who says the demons haven't already infested some gue'vesa?
Automatically Appended Next Post: No saying I like it...just trying to help the thought process.
But the same process could be held to come to a conclusion for Nids allying, the Hive mind could gain control on some guys, or what i said earlier could happen.
coyotius wrote:You could possibly explain it as Tau mistaking them for an alien race...until the truth comes out. They tried to make peace with the Necrons before they knew what they were.
When was that?
Wasn't there a story about a Tau welcoming party for an awakening Necron lord that turned horribly wrong?
Hive Fleet Gorgon descended upon a Tau colony named Ka'mais. Fighting erupts between the nids and Necrons when they suddenly emerge from the Dead moon above the colony. The Tau celebrated their heroes saving them from the nids. Little did they know the Harvest of Ka'mais was beginning.
matphat wrote:Is anyone bothered by the fact that Allies are made available to an army based purely on the fluff, and that using the fluff as a basis for who can ally with who completely ignores the idea of game balance?
There is no way that the allies rules are balanced, and I dare say no way to balance the ally rules based on the fluff.
Example?
Look how many "brothers" various Sm chapters get, and then look at how say, Orks have none, and of course Tyranids actually have NO allies.
No one is bothered by this?
Proving it's not in fact made available based purely on fluff.
Else Tyranids would have IG, Eldar, Tau and Orks as possible allies for Genestealer Cults.
Heck, it wouldn't be far fetched to have Dark Eldar (taking advantage of a Tyranid invasion to pillage/plunder etc) or even Inquisition armies (pretty sure there's been been cases of Inquisitors having questionable pets).
Daemons don't keep a corporeal presence unless it's part of a summoning or demonic invasion. They can't. A tau/demon combo wouldn't make any sense at all.
Who says the demons haven't already infested some gue'vesa?
Ofcourse, because we all know Farsight is a Daemon...
Daemons don't keep a corporeal presence unless it's part of a summoning or demonic invasion. They can't. A tau/demon combo wouldn't make any sense at all.
Who says the demons haven't already infested some gue'vesa?
Ofcourse, because we all know Farsight is a Daemon...
Farsight isn't gue'vesa
My Sarcasm level must be too high if you didn't notice it...
Daemons don't keep a corporeal presence unless it's part of a summoning or demonic invasion. They can't. A tau/demon combo wouldn't make any sense at all.
Who says the demons haven't already infested some gue'vesa?
Ofcourse, because we all know Farsight is a Daemon...
Farsight isn't gue'vesa
My Sarcasm level must be too high if you didn't notice it...
I noticed it. It's just the sarcasm level you are on is the one where the sarcasm makes no sense.
Also, the Daemon codex explicitly states that any ALLIED units with 6" get the re-roll
Codex: Chaos Daemons page 49: "Because of the incredible prescience of the Oracle of Tzeentch, Fateweaver and all friendly units within 6" may re-roll all failed Armour, Invulnerable and Cover saves. However, for every unsaved wound suffered by Fateweaver, take a Ld test. If the test is failed, he retreats in shock and is removed as a casualty"
Where does it explicitly say 'ALLIED' again?
If you look at my post again, you'll note that it now says FRIENDLY. I edited that post about three minutes before yours, probably while you were furiously searching your Daemons codex so that you could prove me wrong.
I am definitely going to make an IG/ CSM(only thousand sons) army, and it is going to rule, if i cant use characters i will use arhimans model and say he is a sorceror lord. it will be legendary, plus i dont think people will accuse me of being WAAC if i use only thousand sons allies
I find it pretty funny that the main gripe about 5th edition was codex creep. GW did a pretty good job in my opinion of remedying that problem with the inclusion of allies. Now all people wanna do is complain about allies.
Neffertech wrote:I'm confused why there is this long list of possible allies for all of the armies except for tyranids (who can't ally with anyone). It feels so arbitrary for to exclude one army for no real reason. Genestealer cults still exist in the fluff don't they? And isn't that just like an imperial guard army with tyranid allies?
Weird that Dark Eldar and Marines can work together but nobody can/will work with the Nids.
Guess they're the big bad villain now, since everybody can team up with an enemy to fight a bigger enemy. Tyranids must be everyone's worst enemy.
Clearly Vanilla Marines should beable to get Tyranids as Allies, since Tigirius can talk/read the mind of the Hive Mind! And we all know Ultramarines would totally ally with the Tyranids.
Also, the Daemon codex explicitly states that any ALLIED units with 6" get the re-roll
Codex: Chaos Daemons page 49: "Because of the incredible prescience of the Oracle of Tzeentch, Fateweaver and all friendly units within 6" may re-roll all failed Armour, Invulnerable and Cover saves. However, for every unsaved wound suffered by Fateweaver, take a Ld test. If the test is failed, he retreats in shock and is removed as a casualty"
Where does it explicitly say 'ALLIED' again?
If you look at my post again, you'll note that it now says FRIENDLY. I edited that post about three minutes before yours, probably while you were furiously searching your Daemons codex so that you could prove me wrong.
I apologise that it took me three minutes to write down the exact quote so I wouldn't make any mistakes. However, if you scroll up, you'll notice that 4 minutes before you posted at all I had already said that of course it works because it says friendly units, which makes your entire reply pointless repetition which even was incorrect before you managed to edit it.
Drunkspleen wrote:
Yeah great, so Wyches can kill tanks now, big freaking deal, what they can't do is the thing they were designed to, which is be durable tarpit units, on account of, whenever you charge them at anything you have to expose them to a round of shooitng, shooting against which they don't have the durability they have in melee, meanwhile they have lost speed in comparison to other units since they can no longer run then assault, and pending the AP value on an Agonizer, potentially will hit softer than a wet noodle against many of the enemies they were meant to slowly be dragging down.
Most of this is a symptom not of Dark Eldar problems but of the wider problem which is why on earth did they see fit to hit melee with a sledgehammer, and render the idea of a close combat specialist all but pointless.
Fragile melee units that relied on a large threat range thanks to their fast vehicles to get them into melee untouched suffer particularly from the new rules.
I'm definitely worried about my melee units, but I'm not sure it's as doom and gloom as some folks think. I don't think it is clear exactly what open topped does yet, and for fleet units re-rolling 2d6 to charge is quite good - more reliable than run + charge, and strictly better than fleeting and attacking into cover. 10 Space Marines firing rapid fire bolters at bs1 into oncoming assault units will get about 2 hits on average (not wound, hit).
Transports are nerfed here, and units that rely on transports with them - but how major a nerf it's remains to be seen. The change to fleet mainly hurts assault units in making it much easier for them to be assaulted first - its harder to control ranges when everyone has the potential to move as fast as you. Snap fire barely factors in as a worry for me, apart from assaulting big ork/guard blobs.
We're still months out from really understanding how all the changes come together - we still haven't even seen the book.
Also, the Daemon codex explicitly states that any ALLIED units with 6" get the re-roll
Codex: Chaos Daemons page 49: "Because of the incredible prescience of the Oracle of Tzeentch, Fateweaver and all friendly units within 6" may re-roll all failed Armour, Invulnerable and Cover saves. However, for every unsaved wound suffered by Fateweaver, take a Ld test. If the test is failed, he retreats in shock and is removed as a casualty"
Where does it explicitly say 'ALLIED' again?
If you look at my post again, you'll note that it now says FRIENDLY. I edited that post about three minutes before yours, probably while you were furiously searching your Daemons codex so that you could prove me wrong.
I apologise that it took me three minutes to write down the exact quote so I wouldn't make any mistakes. However, if you scroll up, you'll notice that 4 minutes before you posted at all I had already said that of course it works because it says friendly units, which makes your entire reply pointless repetition which even was incorrect before you managed to edit it.
Wait, this was mentioned earlier but does powerfist no longer double strength/Init 1?
Bongfu wrote:
Grenades can be thrown! Only one guy per squad. Frag are Str3, Krak Str6, Plasma Str6.
Should've said this earlier. It should've been 1 grenade per 5 models
Bongfu wrote:
Can be repaired, a Techmarine can repair d3 hull points a turn.
Is this alongside or a replacement for repairing vehicle damages?
is it a choice?
Bongfu wrote:
Random Game Length is gone!!!
... how long is it then? depends on the mission?
Bongfu wrote:
Snipers - No Rending. On a 6 you pick the target.
I can understand with picking the target, but its a shame that models like Ratlings and Deathmarks are weakened because of this.
Bongfu wrote:
Str can now go above 10.
Seriously? Can someone please confirm this?
The Carnifex has been neglected so much, that if this is true it could possibly instant Toughness 6+/instant penetrate armour 14s with it's new "smash" ability.
Maybe they can be used again...
Seriously? Can someone please confirm this?
The Carnifex has been neglected so much, that if this is true it could possibly instant Toughness 6+/instant penetrate armour 14s with it's new "smash" ability.
Maybe they can be used again...
Their ability to kill vehicles wasn't what was keeping them off the field before.
Also, the Daemon codex explicitly states that any ALLIED units with 6" get the re-roll
Codex: Chaos Daemons page 49: "Because of the incredible prescience of the Oracle of Tzeentch, Fateweaver and all friendly units within 6" may re-roll all failed Armour, Invulnerable and Cover saves. However, for every unsaved wound suffered by Fateweaver, take a Ld test. If the test is failed, he retreats in shock and is removed as a casualty"
Where does it explicitly say 'ALLIED' again?
If you look at my post again, you'll note that it now says FRIENDLY. I edited that post about three minutes before yours, probably while you were furiously searching your Daemons codex so that you could prove me wrong.
I apologise that it took me three minutes to write down the exact quote so I wouldn't make any mistakes. However, if you scroll up, you'll notice that 4 minutes before you posted at all I had already said that of course it works because it says friendly units, which makes your entire reply pointless repetition which even was incorrect before you managed to edit it.
Theron ZINGING everybody as he's the Baus.
I'll consider myself zinged.
People are posting way too fast to this thread BTW.
So if I'm reading everything correctly, allies and the second FoC are only available at 2000+ points? My group normally plays 1850, so if that's correct we don't have to worry about allies.
Also, the Daemon codex explicitly states that any ALLIED units with 6" get the re-roll
Codex: Chaos Daemons page 49: "Because of the incredible prescience of the Oracle of Tzeentch, Fateweaver and all friendly units within 6" may re-roll all failed Armour, Invulnerable and Cover saves. However, for every unsaved wound suffered by Fateweaver, take a Ld test. If the test is failed, he retreats in shock and is removed as a casualty"
Where does it explicitly say 'ALLIED' again?
If you look at my post again, you'll note that it now says FRIENDLY. I edited that post about three minutes before yours, probably while you were furiously searching your Daemons codex so that you could prove me wrong.
I apologise that it took me three minutes to write down the exact quote so I wouldn't make any mistakes. However, if you scroll up, you'll notice that 4 minutes before you posted at all I had already said that of course it works because it says friendly units, which makes your entire reply pointless repetition which even was incorrect before you managed to edit it.
Theron ZINGING everybody as he's the Baus.
I'll consider myself zinged.
People are posting way too fast to this thread BTW.
IKR, i'll wake up tomorrow morning and i'll be at least 3 pages behind
Neffertech wrote:I'm confused why there is this long list of possible allies for all of the armies except for tyranids (who can't ally with anyone). It feels so arbitrary for to exclude one army for no real reason. Genestealer cults still exist in the fluff don't they? And isn't that just like an imperial guard army with tyranid allies?
Weird that Dark Eldar and Marines can work together but nobody can/will work with the Nids.
Guess they're the big bad villain now, since everybody can team up with an enemy to fight a bigger enemy. Tyranids must be everyone's worst enemy.
Clearly Vanilla Marines should beable to get Tyranids as Allies, since Tigirius can talk/read the mind of the Hive Mind! And we all know Ultramarines would totally ally with the Tyranids.
lol.
I enjoy the idea of allies, it does play into the fluff a lot more. Genestealer cults are an issue, but they're more an Inquisitor or Necromunda issue.. not really a 40k deal imo, so Nids not being able to ally with anyone makes sense...although Chaos is the big bad as represent by the fact they have as nearly a large a range of allies as anyone. The impreium have GK's, chaos have daemons. Loyalist's get guard and marines, so does chaos. yadda..yadda... (obviously their list of potential allies is not the foundation for my entire reasoning there, i'm more just trying to illustrate how the allies seem to represent a whole Chaos vs Imperium with the xenos in the middle and the Tyranids coming up from beneath situation).
Bongfu wrote: Snipers - No Rending. On a 6 you pick the target.
I can understand with picking the target, but its a shame that models like Ratlings and Deathmarks are weakened because of this.
Yeah it pretty much makes most snipers worse off than they were before if there isn't anything else to it.
They're better against any non MEQ squad and likely better against most MEQ as well. I'd rather snipe out the lord or cryptek from a squad then kill one or two extra warriors. I'd much rather kill off an ork nob (~60 points) then kill 3 boyz (~18 points). Hell, depending on results it's actually more cost efficient against many MEQ squads as well. 3 sixes equates to good odds of killing a marine sergeant, and since most are fist+combi and that's generally ~51 points vs ~45-48 for 3 marines it's actually a nice trade. Doubly so when you consider that the sarge is usually doubling the combat output of the squad he's in.
It just means you need to be a bit choosier with the sniper squads. They have the chance to excel well beyond what they had before now, but they aren't there to mow down terminators.
Ian Sturrock wrote:It'd be good to see Nids ally with Guard and vice versa, just to allow for Genestealer Cults.
Hopefully codexes from now on will have special sections that override the rulebook and state what can be allied where. It makes sense to have guard based genestealer cults, but the moment a carnifex gets in there it stops making sense. Most combos would require some soft restrictions, dark eldar with eldar only makes sense with an eldar corsair army and those don't feature farseers. Khornate daemons shouldn't join slaneshi chaos marines, etc. Sisters and black templars shouldn't be able to ally with any xenos force, let alone ones that feature psykers.
StoneRaizer wrote:So if I'm reading everything correctly, allies and the second FoC are only available at 2000+ points? My group normally plays 1850, so if that's correct we don't have to worry about allies.
The rumors point to no. Allies are available in games of all point levels. At 2000 points, the amount of stuff you can take doubles.
StoneRaizer wrote:So if I'm reading everything correctly, allies and the second FoC are only available at 2000+ points? My group normally plays 1850, so if that's correct we don't have to worry about allies.
Allies always available, second FoC at 2000pts:
see this for a lil extra clarification:
When do you usually get a mail order delivered to your home on these type of releases? I thought I remembered getting my 5th stuff on the Friday or maybe even Thursday of release week. Anyone remember that too or am I just having wishful thinking delusions?
BladeWalker wrote:When do you usually get a mail order delivered to your home on these type of releases? I thought I remembered getting my 5th stuff on the Friday or maybe even Thursday of release week. Anyone remember that too or am I just having wishful thinking delusions?
Depends on whom you ordered from. If you ordered from a 3rd party company, you have to wait until they get it then process and ship to you. If you order from GW directly, you have to wait for them to ship to you. They will probably start shipping on this Saturday, were I to guess.
Next Wednesday is a government holiday, so you won't get mail that day.
My hope regarding the 2,000 points = 2 FoC rumor personally, is that it requires the investment of 2k points before the next chart is opened, instead of being unlocked at a game set for a 2k cap
i.e. once you have bought 2k points of models for the list, you can then buy more in expanded slots.
haven't seen any confirmation in either direction on how this works
Hollowman wrote:I'm definitely worried about my melee units, but I'm not sure it's as doom and gloom as some folks think. I don't think it is clear exactly what open topped does yet, and for fleet units re-rolling 2d6 to charge is quite good - more reliable than run + charge, and strictly better than fleeting and attacking into cover. 10 Space Marines firing rapid fire bolters at bs1 into oncoming assault units will get about 1 hit on average (not wound, hit).
Open-topped lets you assault after disembarking from a transport. However, you cannot disembark at all if you move over 6". Being able to move 6" after disembarking is supposed to fix this, but conveniently leaves out the 3" deployment you get in fifth. How is 2D6 with reroll more reliable than 6+1D6? Supposedly attacking into cover is 3D6, remove the highest. Even with reroll that is not more reliable. Ten SM firing bolters at BS1 will get about 3-4 hits and these are free out of sequence damage. I'm getting punished for assaulting you in my turn with my assault unit. And those marines can still hit normally in assault after.
Hollowman wrote:Transports are nerfed here, and units that rely on transports with them - but how major a nerf it's remains to be seen. The change to fleet mainly hurts assault units in making it much easier for them to be assaulted first - its harder to control ranges when everyone has the potential to move as fast as you. Snap fire barely factors in as a worry for me, apart from assaulting big ork/guard blobs.
Fleet (and essentially the speed of the Eldar race) is useless when everyone potentially moves as fast as you. This situation has worsened with every edition of 40k since third. Movement is hardly an issue anymore, when any army in the game can be at any point of the table within a turn. However, it directly affects the armies that rely on that very same speed. Snap or defensive fire hardly has any effect on MEQ armies, but they hit Eldar and Dark Eldar just that much harder.
We're still months out from really understanding how all the changes come together - we still haven't even seen the book.
Agreed. However, the information we have received so far doesn't look that promising.
BladeWalker wrote:When do you usually get a mail order delivered to your home on these type of releases? I thought I remembered getting my 5th stuff on the Friday or maybe even Thursday of release week. Anyone remember that too or am I just having wishful thinking delusions?
Depends on whom you ordered from. If you ordered from a 3rd party company, you have to wait until they get it then process and ship to you. If you order from GW directly, you have to wait for them to ship to you. They will probably start shipping on this Saturday, were I to guess.
Next Wednesday is a government holiday, so you won't get mail that day.
Mail ordered straight from GW, hopefully they ship those when they ship the orders to the stores in time for release day.
@Bladewalker - well with 5th you probably did get it slightly early, as that was the norm back then on pre-orders.
Sadly since they changed to the White Dwarf one week till release method, they send things to get to you for the Monday, while those who preorder last minute, don't even get it sent from the warehouse until the monday.
I suppose there is a slim chance it might turn up on the Saturday, but I have a feeling they send via ups with a specific deliver day.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:@Bladewalker - well with 5th you probably did get it slightly early, as that was the norm back them on pre-orders.
Sadly since they changed to the White Dwarf one week till release method, they send things to get to you for the Monday, while those who preorder last minute, don't even get it sent to the monday after.
I suppose there is a slim chance it might turn up on the Saturday, but I have a feeling they send via ups with a specific deliver day.
That is because they want you to go to your FLGS to buy your copy.
solles wrote:My hope regarding the 2,000 points = 2 FoC rumor personally, is that it requires the investment of 2k points before the next chart is opened, instead of being unlocked at a game set for a 2k cap
i.e. once you have bought 2k points of models for the list, you can then buy more in expanded slots.
haven't seen any confirmation in either direction on how this works
From the chart that was posted a few posts before, it looks like 2k requires 2 HQ and 4 troops. No option or opting out. I dont know if I like this or not. Ill have to see how it plays out.
Kurce wrote:
I think the guy on Reddit said there are no strategems in 6th from what he could tell. Now that I think about it, almost everything you posted is at odds with what the guy on Reddit said.
So, given that, Nids are still terrible and random charge distance is dumb.
Haven't seen what the Reddit guy has been posting.
All I know is that my cousin had the rulebook in front of him at his FLGS.
Sooooo, don't know what to tell you mate.
My guess is your cousin needs to work on his reading comprehension.
The dude on reddit seemed borderline illiterate as well (why is it always these people that get the first rulebook?!) but still more convincing than your stuff (which is directly at odds with revelations from WD)
wuestenfux wrote:
Neffertech wrote:I'm confused why there is this long list of possible allies for all of the armies except for tyranids (who can't ally with anyone). It feels so arbitrary for to exclude one army for no real reason. Genestealer cults still exist in the fluff don't they? And isn't that just like an imperial guard army with tyranid allies?
Weird that Dark Eldar and Marines can work together but nobody can/will work with the Nids.
Guess they're the big bad villain now, since everybody can team up with an enemy to fight a bigger enemy. Tyranids must be everyone's worst enemy.
Well, how would a human communicate with Nids?
You don't need to communicate with someone to be their ally; you just need to be shooting at the same foe.
matphat wrote:Is anyone bothered by the fact that Allies are made available to an army based purely on the fluff, and that using the fluff as a basis for who can ally with who completely ignores the idea of game balance?
There is no way that the allies rules are balanced, and I dare say no way to balance the ally rules based on the fluff.
Example?
Look how many "brothers" various Sm chapters get, and then look at how say, Orks have none, and of course Tyranids actually have NO allies.
No one is bothered by this?
You just mentioned 40k products (a product of GW) and "balance" in the same sentence.
Not sure if you noticed that but I just wanted to point that out. Just in case you missed it. Just helpin' ya out.
BlueDagger wrote:Oh how I hope this is true. Eldar Pathfinders will suddenly become FANTASTIC with the ability to tag any model in a unit with multiple AP1 hits.
I've been thinking about this.
Too bad it is 1 in 36 shots for normal guys and 1 in 18 shots for the upgrades. When it works, it'll be great.
That is because they want you to go to your FLGS to buy your copy.
Aye I know, but sadly even for folks like me in Blighty, with our insane GW store coverage, that can be a bit of a jaunt. For folks in the US, its almost a laughable system.
Sigvatr wrote:Does anyone else think that the Phaeron upgrade is a 100% waste with the new rules?
As far as I got it, it simply allows you to assault after shooting...and who of us exactly planned to assault ANYTHING with Warriors or Immortals?
Also: really? No rending on snipers? Well, there's enough room on the shelf!
Man your necrons sure got nerfed hard, I'm so sorry that exactly one thing in your codex (which is an upgrade no less) isn't as useful now.
Let me get out my violin for ya
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARD!
I did not intend to say that Necrons were nerfed...they've been buffed a lot. I just wonder why despite being written for 6th, some parts become pretty useless, e.g. Phaeron and Deathmarks (unless you go for the cheese route aka template marks).
That is because they want you to go to your FLGS to buy your copy.
Aye I know, but sadly even for folks like me in Blighty, with our insane GW store coverage, that can be a bit of a jaunt. For folks in the US, its almost a laughable system.
Tell me... my FLGS is a 90 minute drive. Then again, my FLGS is the best game store in Georgia and is well worth the drive.
Codex SM is generally the first one released after an edition shift. i doubt you'll be waiting long..
Try waiting 10+ years for an update for yor army
Well BT need to be updated first, as do DA, tau, eldar, orks, tyranids and chaos so yeah, SM players will be stuck with useless tac squads taken just because they have to for many years to come.
And yes, I have been waiting long for an army update, I played GK since they were first released and it´s been a long wait.
Is Acute Senses -only- the Outflanking reroll, or does it also double as Night Vision.
Do Walkers explicitly have AP2 or somesuch, or is it still woefully easy to tie up a Triarch Praetorian?
Do Heavy vehicles (or vehicles in general) receive any additional protection against Deep Striking mishaps, or is it still too dangerous to Deep Strike a Monolith?
Also with Heavy vehicles, is there something about ignoring the "can't fire other weapons" part of Ordnance. Speaking of Ordnance, still roll 2 for damage and take highest?
Just how do Outflanking and Deep Striking work? I have my doubts that it's still the same as before, due to Bloodswarm nanoscarabs not making a whole lot of sense if the unit still just stands there for a turn. Same with Deathmarks and other, similar, 'reactive deep striking' abilities.
Is it actually 2000 points and over, or OVER 2000 points for the second FoC, since I'm seeing some conflicting reports and that's an easy to misquote rule.
Can strength indeed go over 10? Only seen one person mention it, but now I'm curious.
Just where is the AP2/AP3 line drawn for "power weapons"; this, I suspect, may require a lot of errata, since consistent wording is laughable over 10 years of codices. Most notable, is a Hyperphase Sword a "Power Sword"? Looks as much an axe as a sword, the rules just say it's a "Power Weapon", and the name has little bearing if it doesn't match either "Power Sword" or "Power Axe".
I may have to reequip my Lychguard. Or break out the Pariahs.
solles wrote:My hope regarding the 2,000 points = 2 FoC rumor personally, is that it requires the investment of 2k points before the next chart is opened, instead of being unlocked at a game set for a 2k cap
i.e. once you have bought 2k points of models for the list, you can then buy more in expanded slots.
haven't seen any confirmation in either direction on how this works
From the chart that was posted a few posts before, it looks like 2k requires 2 HQ and 4 troops. No option or opting out. I dont know if I like this or not. Ill have to see how it plays out.
It's gonna be awfully fun seeing six long fang squads and a hydra flak battery across the table in tourneys. Seven heavy support options is the new plaid. I get the distinct feeling this edition is going to make 1850 the defacto tourney standard points value since anything above that is going to get stupid.
Sigvatr wrote:Does anyone else think that the Phaeron upgrade is a 100% waste with the new rules?
As far as I got it, it simply allows you to assault after shooting...and who of us exactly planned to assault ANYTHING with Warriors or Immortals?
Also: really? No rending on snipers? Well, there's enough room on the shelf!
Man your necrons sure got nerfed hard, I'm so sorry that exactly one thing in your codex (which is an upgrade no less) isn't as useful now.
Let me get out my violin for ya
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARD!
I did not intend to say that Necrons were nerfed...they've been buffed a lot. I just wonder why despite being written for 6th, some parts become pretty useless, e.g. Phaeron and Deathmarks (unless you go for the cheese route aka template marks).
Actually deathmarks being nerfed? if you mark the unit, wounding on twos, and then picking which models take the wounds? how is that bad? chances are you'll get a couple sixes in a game if you counted on rending originally anyway, so that point seems a little moot to me...
Im guessing I missed the part where you can move and rapid fire 24" has been confirmed?
BlueDagger wrote:Oh how I hope this is true. Eldar Pathfinders will suddenly become FANTASTIC with the ability to tag any model in a unit with multiple AP1 hits.
I've been thinking about this.
Too bad it is 1 in 36 shots for normal guys and 1 in 18 shots for the upgrades. When it works, it'll be great.
That is what guide or doom are for I haven't seen anyone confirm if that "6" is on To Hit or To Wound. If it's To Wound they are sitting waaay pretty.
I'm starting to feel that preordering the collector's edition was a waste of time and money lol Even though 40K is set in the future and guns should be paramount, I LOVE assaulting, running in and chopping up the enemy, but maybe GW don't want me to do that any more
Without the book actually being in our hands, these rules are still rumours, regardless of the accuracy, so things may still change and/or the updates could lessen the 'nerfs'
That being said, if the rules are genuine and there aren't any remedies in the updates, maybe saying goodbye to a game I've been playing since third is appropriate
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy more shooting armies too, but when it seems my favourite armies Dark Eldar and Tyranids are being made somewhat redundant, especially against MEQ (which I usually face), it's hard to stay invested in the game
I want at some point to collect Necrons, but I don't want to feel forced into doing so, as I do feel now, but hell, guess its a damn waiting game now
Just wish I didn't have to potentially lose £80 just to find out my armies suck lol
kirsanth wrote:It is kind of like GW went out of their way to prevent me from wanting to buy more 40k stuff.
Odd.
Who knew that collecting Tyranids would be a money saving venture.
Me: "New stuff?"
GW: "Not for you."
Me: "Ok."
I predict that Harpies will be a must have. And I'm not kidding, I have a feeling that they'll make it so that every Tyranid player wants 3 of them. Or more at 2000+!
Regarding Genestealer Cults, the problem is that they really are their own army, at least they were as they were represented in the past. They're not Tyranids plus IG. Either someday they'll get a real codex or they won't. Scale isn't the issue, as GCults have been known cause planetary-level rebellions. It's fluffilogically correct for Tyranids not to have allies. Whether it's fair or balanced to approach game design that way...well, enough people have already said their peace on that.
I'm also kinda surprised at the missions. I've never seen a "carry the football" scenario executed well.
We've heard that fast vehicles can go flat out and that's 18". Do we know how far the fast skimmers (not flyers) can move when flat out? I've heard both 24" and 30" but I've no idea what the truth is.
ShumaGorath wrote: I get the distinct feeling this edition is going to make 1850 the defacto tourney standard points value since anything above that is going to get stupid.
StoneRaizer wrote:So if I'm reading everything correctly, allies and the second FoC are only available at 2000+ points? My group normally plays 1850, so if that's correct we don't have to worry about allies.
Allies always available, second FoC at 2000pts:
see this for a lil extra clarification:
Spoiler:
So based off that FOC is it safe to assume that any game at 2000+ points will require the use of the double FOC meaning a minimum of 2hq and 4 troops from your army plus the 1 HQ and troop for allies if you choose to use them?
If that's the case then an army with allies at 2000 would require 5 troops and 3 HQ minimum, right?
gorgon wrote:I predict that Harpies will be a must have. And I'm not kidding, I have a feeling that they'll make it so that every Tyranid player wants 3 of them. Or more at 2000+!
Regarding Genestealer Cults, the problem is that they really are their own army, at least they were as they were represented in the past. They're not Tyranids plus IG. Either someday they'll get a real codex or they won't. Scale isn't the issue, as GCults have been known cause planetary-level rebellions. It's fluffilogically correct for Tyranids not to have allies. Whether it's fair or balanced to approach game design that way...well, enough people have already said their peace on that.
I'm also kinda surprised at the missions. I've never seen a "carry the football" scenario executed well.
'As they were represented in the past' is fairly immaterial now, since they haven't been represented in years. True, they're not really Tyranids + IG, they're really more IG + Genestealers. Well, with Genestealers in the Nid book...
Take your IG army, grab a Tyranid Prime, Genestealers + Broodlord, Ymargl Genestealers... Look! A genestealer cult.
Actually deathmarks being nerfed? if you mark the unit, wounding on twos, and then picking which models take the wounds? how is that bad? chances are you'll get a couple sixes in a game if you counted on rending originally anyway, so that point seems a little moot to me...
Im guessing I missed the part where you can move and rapid fire 24" has been confirmed?
2+/3+ saves everywhere, that's what rending helped a lot with. Point is: you can already choose your target pretty well with the new "remove closest model" rule and I'd rather deny the enemy's armor save than choosing who to hit...at least against the enemies I'm up against most of the time...aka tin cans. Lots of them. A whole f-ing lot.
Therion wrote:We've heard that fast vehicles can go flat out and that's 18". Do we know how far the fast skimmers (not flyers) can move when flat out? I've heard both 24" and 30" but I've no idea what the truth is.
Fast skimmer can move 12" in the movement phase, 18" flat out in the shooting phase, for a total of 30".
Flat out for non-fast skimmers haven't been posted yet as far as I know.
I think I did read somewhere that non-fast (aka normal) vehicles can move D6 flat out in the shooting phase but have to test for dangerous terrain.
@streamdragon - As I noted in a thread in 40K General. I am wondering/partially hoping that with the allies system now in place. Special Characters might break the mold in future codexes.
For example, an Inquisitor Lord who can take Guard or other Marines as Battle Brothers. Or a Genestealer Primarch or Magus that can be taken as an ally to Imperial Guard players, but can only select Genestealers as his troops option, and take nothing further from the Tyranid book.
Not saying such a thing will hapen, but it is a possability with allies rules now in the big book.
Fast skimmer can move 12" in the movement phase, 18" flat out in the shooting phase, for a total of 30".
Big nerf number one to Necrons. Catacomb Command Barges do the sweeping attack in the movement phase, and a movement phase move of 12" is absolutely pitiful.
Imotekh just replaced the Overlords in a thousand Necron armies all over the world, and since Annihilation Barges were already replaced by Doom Scythes, the sales of that CCB/AB kit crashed.
MPJ wrote:I'm starting to feel that preordering the collector's edition was a waste of time and money lol Even though 40K is set in the future and guns should be paramount, I LOVE assaulting, running in and chopping up the enemy, but maybe GW don't want me to do that any more
Without the book actually being in our hands, these rules are still rumours, regardless of the accuracy, so things may still change and/or the updates could lessen the 'nerfs'
That being said, if the rules are genuine and there aren't any remedies in the updates, maybe saying goodbye to a game I've been playing since third is appropriate
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy more shooting armies too, but when it seems my favourite armies Dark Eldar and Tyranids are being made somewhat redundant, especially against MEQ (which I usually face), it's hard to stay invested in the game
I want at some point to collect Necrons, but I don't want to feel forced into doing so, as I do feel now, but hell, guess its a damn waiting game now
Just wish I didn't have to potentially lose £80 just to find out my armies suck lol
Your second sentence reminded me of a guy that my brother knows.
Him: "I will never play 40k to be honest."
Me: "Why?"
Him: "Because I refuse to play a game where forty-thousand years into the future, wars are still won by running across the battlefield and stabbing the other guy with a knife."
Me: "Hmm... you have a good point."
solles wrote:My hope regarding the 2,000 points = 2 FoC rumor personally, is that it requires the investment of 2k points before the next chart is opened, instead of being unlocked at a game set for a 2k cap
i.e. once you have bought 2k points of models for the list, you can then buy more in expanded slots.
haven't seen any confirmation in either direction on how this works
The guy on reddit with the book specifcially stated that Allies are always, and when you hit 2000pts you get a second FoC, which is just the 2HQ + 4 Troops min, then you can go nuts, that you don't need to fill the first list to 2k first.
I made this graphic
Spoiler:
based off the seemingly solid rumours I've seen about the foc (which I've been following semi-neuroticly because of allies)
I am mildly offended that the lack of Genestealer cults is offensive to me; I never liked them, but to have them denied at this level is basically spiteful.
Codex SM is generally the first one released after an edition shift. i doubt you'll be waiting long..
Try waiting 10+ years for an update for yor army
Well BT need to be updated first, as do DA, tau, eldar, orks, tyranids and chaos so yeah, SM players will be stuck with useless tac squads taken just because they have to for many years to come.
And yes, I have been waiting long for an army update, I played GK since they were first released and it´s been a long wait.
Wait dose needing a update and the time waited, have to do with when GW will make Codex? After the start set Armys, Codex:SM will be next.
MPJ wrote:I'm starting to feel that preordering the collector's edition was a waste of time and money lol Even though 40K is set in the future and guns should be paramount, I LOVE assaulting, running in and chopping up the enemy, but maybe GW don't want me to do that any more
Without the book actually being in our hands, these rules are still rumours, regardless of the accuracy, so things may still change and/or the updates could lessen the 'nerfs'
That being said, if the rules are genuine and there aren't any remedies in the updates, maybe saying goodbye to a game I've been playing since third is appropriate
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy more shooting armies too, but when it seems my favourite armies Dark Eldar and Tyranids are being made somewhat redundant, especially against MEQ (which I usually face), it's hard to stay invested in the game
I want at some point to collect Necrons, but I don't want to feel forced into doing so, as I do feel now, but hell, guess its a damn waiting game now
Just wish I didn't have to potentially lose £80 just to find out my armies suck lol
Your second sentence reminded me of a guy that my brother knows.
Him: "I will never play 40k to be honest."
Me: "Why?"
Him: "Because I refuse to play a game where forty-thousand years into the future, wars are still won by running across the battlefield and stabbing the other guy with a knife."
Me: "Hmm... you have a good point."
I can see his point, but assault as always been more fun than shooting, at least in my opinion
kirsanth wrote:I am mildly offended that the lack of Genestealer cults is offensive to me; I never liked them, but to have them denied at this level is basically spiteful.
The warlord traits make me physically angry. I think that more than anything else in this edition could drive me out of 40k. It's like everyones leader gets to feel like a chaos possessed marine now. I mean, what the hell. Furious charge in your opponants deployment zone and counter attack in yours is on the same d6. Those are diametrically opposed tactics and whether it's useful at all is based entirely on your army.
This edition is taking any semblance of army construction and tactics and it's throwing it out the goddamn window. GW is killing itself.
TedNugent wrote:From an RP standpoint, that would be silly. Bullets travel faster at closer ranges and you have a smaller time window in which to avoid what was an already very small time window. At point blank the impact from a bullet is almost instantaneous, whereas at maximum range you may have several seconds before impact.
This is totally wrong. It's possible to dodge gunfire at close range, because the angles involved mean that a smaller movement from you necessitates a larger movement from the gun tracking you. When Trinity said "Dodge this" in The Matrix, that was ironically one bullet that even a normal human could actually have dodged. Obviously, dodging after the shot is fired is impossible at close distances, but it's basically impossible at long distances too, and at close distances sudden movements may throw the attackers off.
TedNugent wrote:Then again, the idea of "hull points" is ridiculous from an RP standpoint, and it's in the game, so I don't know.
In real life, vehicle crews often abandon their tanks if they take one penetrating hit. Allowing vehicles to withstand multiple penetrating and glancing hits is generous from that perspective. If you don't like hull points, think of them as "crew morale points." For flyers, on the other hand, the idea of hull/"structural integrity" points actually makes sense.
TedNugent wrote:
Fetterkey wrote:If losing 2-3 toughness 3 models is a "devastating blow," go home and rethink your army list.
You must be kidding. It's an assault unit. To lose that many models -before- an assault in an assault unit is devastating, especially for a unit that relies on high initiative like Eldar. It could very easily shift momentum and allow another similarly costed unit to tip the balance.
That's simply ridiculous-- a certain number of casualties are naturally expected before you get into assault. If you think the rules should allow your assault units to charge without ever being exposed to danger on the way in, I think it's safe to say you're out of touch with game balance as a whole.
wuestenfux wrote:Well, I wouldn't care about losing 2 Wyches from a 10 men/girls squads. Winning also depends on when, where, and what to charge.
Quite.
N.I.B. wrote:If FNP unlike currently won't work on Instant Death, along with nerfed cover saves, it sounds like GW have sold their last Tyranid Warriors and Raveners. That's basically a huge nerf to FNP overall, regardless if it gets a slight boost when used on MC's.
FNP already doesn't work on Instant Death.
Goresaw wrote:I agree with you on the fact it doesn't treat eveyone fairly.. but just not in the way you are thinking.
When I think about alibative wounds, I think about one of the worst troop choices in the game... the SM tact squad. You are paying for... and MUST pay for, 8 very expensive alibative wounds.
You're still in a 5th edition mindset. Think 6th edition. Tactical Marines aren't ablative wounds anymore-- they can shoot their bolters at 24" on the move to provide effective anti-infantry fire.
A lot of the "sky is falling" stuff in this thread and elsewhere is grounded in lack of understanding of either the rules changes or the current rules. 6th edition looks, from where I'm standing, to be a breath of fresh air that will revitalize 40k as a whole. Before you start freaking out, just breathe, sit down, and think about it for five minutes. Everything is going to be all right...
Fast skimmer can move 12" in the movement phase, 18" flat out in the shooting phase, for a total of 30".
Big nerf number one to Necrons. Catacomb Command Barges do the sweeping attack in the movement phase, and a movement phase move of 12" is absolutely pitiful.
Imotekh just replaced the Overlords in a thousand Necron armies all over the world, and since Annihilation Barges were already replaced by Doom Scythes, the sales of that CCB/AB kit crashed.
Wow, never thought about that...12'' would require us to be in like max 6'' to the enemy...ehm...Please do not circumvent our word filter. Thanks. Manchu? I hope that this gets FAQ'd, else...footslog it is!
This is totally wrong. It's possible to dodge gunfire at close range, because the angles involved mean that a smaller movement from you necessitates a larger movement from the gun tracking you. When Trinity said "Dodge this" in The Matrix, that was ironically one bullet that even a normal human could actually have dodged. Obviously, dodging after the shot is fired is impossible at close distances, but it's basically impossible at long distances too, and at close distances sudden movements may throw the attackers off.
You don't dodge things before they are existent. To dodge something it has to be corporeal and imminent. Also, no one dodges bullets, you have to be aware of something to dodge it as well. Avoiding something and dodging it aren't the same.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I'm loving that tape measure. I'm tempted to buy it, not just for wargaming, but to walk around my local DIY store
Man i love it when kids get a grip on sarcasm.
Wait a minute, you were joking? right?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
This is totally wrong. It's possible to dodge gunfire at close range, because the angles involved mean that a smaller movement from you necessitates a larger movement from the gun tracking you. When Trinity said "Dodge this" in The Matrix, that was ironically one bullet that even a normal human could actually have dodged. Obviously, dodging after the shot is fired is impossible at close distances, but it's basically impossible at long distances too, and at close distances sudden movements may throw the attackers off.
You don't dodge things before they are existent. To dodge something it has to be corporeal and imminent. Also, no one dodges bullets, you have to be aware of something to dodge it as well. Avoiding something and dodging it aren't the same.
You're still in a 5th edition mindset. Think 6th edition. Tactical Marines aren't ablative wounds anymore-- they can shoot their bolters at 24" on the move to provide effective anti-infantry fire.
Why is it that 10 bolter wounds at 24" suddenly makes or breaks a unit? yeah, it adds a bit more utility. It doesn't revolutionize the unit or change its role. You're talking what, 2 dead guardsmen in cover? 1 dead Space Marine?
A lot of the "sky is falling" stuff in this thread and elsewhere is grounded in lack of understanding of either the rules changes or the current rules. 6th edition looks, from where I'm standing, to be a breath of fresh air that will revitalize 40k as a whole. Before you start freaking out, just breathe, sit down, and think about it for five minutes. Everything is going to be all right...
This is the refrain we heard with 4th, then 5th as well. I apologize for this, I don't mean to pick on you specifically, but this phrasing is something I want to address.
It's always going to "be a breath of fresh air", literally those *EXACT* words thrown about, that exact phrase brought out, every 4 years like clockwork. So far, we've had a lot of rules and mechanics changes, but the same types of systemic problems, even if the specific problems change, we never really end up with fewer or less intense problems. With 4E it was skimmers vs non-skimmers/rending/consolidations, with 5E it was transports, cover and KP's, with 6E it will likely be hull points and some other stuff. Notice that a lot of those are vehicle related, GW doesn't know what it wants vehicles to be and hasn't managed to fine a point they like since the 3E reboot.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:@Bladewalker - well with 5th you probably did get it slightly early, as that was the norm back them on pre-orders.
Sadly since they changed to the White Dwarf one week till release method, they send things to get to you for the Monday, while those who preorder last minute, don't even get it sent to the monday after.
I suppose there is a slim chance it might turn up on the Saturday, but I have a feeling they send via ups with a specific deliver day.
That is because they want you to go to your FLGS to buy your copy.
Vaktathi wrote:
It's always going to "be a breath of fresh air", literally those *EXACT* words thrown about, that exact phrase brought out, every 4 years like clockwork. So far, we've had a lot of rules and mechanics changes, but the same types of systemic problems, even if the specific problems change, we never really end up with fewer or less intense problems. With 4E it was skimmers vs non-skimmers/rending/consolidations, with 5E it was transports, cover and KP's, with 6E it will likely be hull points and some other stuff. Notice that a lot of those are vehicle related, GW doesn't know what it wants vehicles to be and hasn't managed to fine a point they like since the 3E reboot.
That's the GW way. Distract them from the original problems with new problems. From what I can see GW's using a plaster to fix a broken leg here.
streamdragon wrote: 'As they were represented in the past' is fairly immaterial now, since they haven't been represented in years. True, they're not really Tyranids + IG, they're really more IG + Genestealers. Well, with Genestealers in the Nid book...
Take your IG army, grab a Tyranid Prime, Genestealers + Broodlord, Ymargl Genestealers... Look! A genestealer cult.
And that's how everyone would ally those armies, right?
The ally system is what it is, and the state of GCults is what it is. I'd rather stick with 100% counts-as than get some kind of half-baked GCult that still needs counts-as, while opening the door to Tyranid armies with Hydras and IG armies with Hive Tyrants.
Like I said, GCults will either get a real army list someday or they won't.
Ok, usually I sneer at GW's goofy little gaming "extras" that incorporate their IP (hello "hand flamer" airbrush and "targeter" LoS finder), but... I NEED that tape measure like the breath of life itself.
It's been a good few years since anyone called me a kid.
Back OT. Surely by now somebody (or some ninjas) would have busted into the GW warehouse and looked through a rulebook. It's funny how people know everything about something months in advance, but when it's five days from going on sale, they're clueless.
Back OT. Surely by now somebody (or some ninjas) would have busted into the GW warehouse and looked through a rulebook. It's funny how people know everything about something months in advance, but when it's five days from going on sale, they're clueless.
Ummmmm, there's a guy on Reddit with the rulebook. There's a link earlier in the thread.
I do not think anyone has post this yet, its very short and gives little concrete but it does to me at least suggest possibly that allies will not be an optional rule but rather a core rule (whether or not that means core for most tourneys I do not know)
and yes I was just as vague as they were in their video but remember I am not GW
That's the GW way. Distract them from the original problems with new problems. From what I can see GW's using a plaster to fix a broken leg here.
I really just get the impression that in general, they don't know what they want the game itself to do either. We've got armies larger than Flames of War companies on tables at a scale way larger, with lots of mechanics more appropriate to a 10-20 model game, and the whole thing just feels more and more confused and without direction, like they're just throwing stuff at certain problems without testing the fix and throwing other stuff in because "it sounds cool" and sending it out the door.
And it's infuriating because they obviously put a ton of effort into a release like this and actually getting it right (or mostly so) wouldn't really be any more effort than the side-stepping and fumbling they've been doing.
This is totally wrong. It's possible to dodge gunfire at close range, because the angles involved mean that a smaller movement from you necessitates a larger movement from the gun tracking you. When Trinity said "Dodge this" in The Matrix, that was ironically one bullet that even a normal human could actually have dodged. Obviously, dodging after the shot is fired is impossible at close distances, but it's basically impossible at long distances too, and at close distances sudden movements may throw the attackers off.
You don't dodge things before they are existent. To dodge something it has to be corporeal and imminent. Also, no one dodges bullets, you have to be aware of something to dodge it as well. Avoiding something and dodging it aren't the same.
You dodge by moving like crazy when you see the gun come up. There are tons of YouTube videos out there of robberies, police encounters, etc. showing how this is possible.
Vaktathi wrote:It's always going to "be a breath of fresh air", literally those *EXACT* words thrown about, that exact phrase brought out, every 4 years like clockwork. So far, we've had a lot of rules and mechanics changes, but the same types of systemic problems, even if the specific problems change, we never really end up with fewer or less intense problems. With 4E it was skimmers vs non-skimmers/rending/consolidations, with 5E it was transports, cover and KP's, with 6E it will likely be hull points and some other stuff. Notice that a lot of those are vehicle related, GW doesn't know what it wants vehicles to be and hasn't managed to fine a point they like since the 3E reboot.
I think there is a constant arc of improvement from Rogue Trader to the present day, and that each edition has been better than the previous. 5th edition is clearly much more balanced than 4th edition. 6th edition looks to address the (relatively minor) balance issues with 5th edition while providing bold new options as well.
Gitkikka wrote:Ok, usually I sneer at GW's goofy little gaming "extras" that incorporate their IP (hello "hand flamer" airbrush and "targeter" LoS finder), but... I NEED that tape measure like the breath of life itself.
Haha I'm right there with you. I would have liked to see a more detailed Allies system put into place, whereby each army has limitations placed on what they have access to in each of the other codexes beyond a HQ/Troop than have at it system. Sadly GWs current Rulebook/Codex release scheme has led to the more open-ended system
gorgon wrote:I predict that Harpies will be a must have. And I'm not kidding, I have a feeling that they'll make it so that every Tyranid player wants 3 of them. Or more at 2000+!
Regarding Genestealer Cults, the problem is that they really are their own army, at least they were as they were represented in the past. They're not Tyranids plus IG. Either someday they'll get a real codex or they won't. Scale isn't the issue, as GCults have been known cause planetary-level rebellions. It's fluffilogically correct for Tyranids not to have allies. Whether it's fair or balanced to approach game design that way...well, enough people have already said their peace on that.
I'm also kinda surprised at the missions. I've never seen a "carry the football" scenario executed well.
'As they were represented in the past' is fairly immaterial now, since they haven't been represented in years. True, they're not really Tyranids + IG, they're really more IG + Genestealers. Well, with Genestealers in the Nid book...
Take your IG army, grab a Tyranid Prime, Genestealers + Broodlord, Ymargl Genestealers... Look! A genestealer cult.
Only we don't get to do that.
Not to mention lictors and other infiltrating species that would be stalking through the area reaping havoc. Plus stealer cults are not instanteously devoured in an invasion. Often when an splinter force draws near, the genestealer cults will begin creating havok upon the civilization so as to reduce the planet's defenses, as an invasion actually makes landfall and progresses, these activities only intensify. So there is no reason why an IG cult wouldn't spring forth from the ranks during a Tyranid raid on an imperial bastion, vicously attacking the defenders as the nid's scale the walls.
The warlord traits make me physically angry. I think that more than anything else in this edition could drive me out of 40k. It's like everyones leader gets to feel like a chaos possessed marine now. I mean, what the hell. Furious charge in your opponants deployment zone and counter attack in yours is on the same d6. Those are diametrically opposed tactics and whether it's useful at all is based entirely on your army.
This edition is taking any semblance of army construction and tactics and it's throwing it out the goddamn window. GW is killing itself.
This!
Besides the power level thing, should a cheap IGHQ get the same powers/abilities like a 1000 year old chaos marine sorceror?
Also I dont get the snap and overwatch things, apparently training and experience means NOTHING in the future when you sire your weapons while moving or while being assaulted.
A blind gakking grot has all of a sudden the same skill as a marine first company sergeant and the same chances to hit things.
w t f
Who has time to go through 94 pages? I'm too busy painting miniatures in order to shame people who are posting in that thread about unpainted armies in the discussion forum
If there is a link to the rulebook, then why are people still fretting about allies.
My view on allies is perfectly clear - ban the F*****s!!
I don't want to ally with orks, I want large templates landing on top of them. I don't want eldar in my IG army, I want to be greasing the axles of my tanks with them
The community is big enough and old enough to adapt to any GW ruling.
streamdragon wrote: 'As they were represented in the past' is fairly immaterial now, since they haven't been represented in years. True, they're not really Tyranids + IG, they're really more IG + Genestealers. Well, with Genestealers in the Nid book...
Take your IG army, grab a Tyranid Prime, Genestealers + Broodlord, Ymargl Genestealers... Look! A genestealer cult.
And that's how everyone would ally those armies, right?
The ally system is what it is, and the state of GCults is what it is. I'd rather stick with 100% counts-as than get some kind of half-baked GCult that still needs counts-as, while opening the door to Tyranid armies with Hydras and IG armies with Hive Tyrants.
Like I said, GCults will either get a real army list someday or they won't.
Fluff is malleable; that's the Golden Rule. Not long ago a Necron alliance with anybody would have seemed impossible, and now it's completely reasonable. Furthermore, there is no extant fluff that details exactly what happens when a Hive Fleet goes into full-scale conflict with a planet suffering a Genestealer infestation. All we have are a few lines that tell us a Cult's eventual doom is signaled by the arrival of a Hive Fleet. Nothing more detailed than that.
One half-page story about a Magus spreading the word that the creatures of the Hive Fleet were the avenging angels of the reborn Emperor would solve every conceivable background gap, with about as much effort as it takes to make a chunky post on Dakka.
So ultimately it's a missed opportunity. The rest of the allies matrix is extremely lenient, and much of it is no more eyebrow-raising than a full Tyranid/IG alliance would be. I don't see a good reason why Tyranids should have to live up to their fluff religiously while other armies have the flexibility and progressive, living background to justify odd alliances.
Pyriel- wrote:Besides the power level thing, should a cheap IGHQ get the same powers/abilities like a 1000 year old chaos marine sorceror?
Also I dont get the snap and overwatch things, apparently training and experience means NOTHING in the future when you sire your weapons while moving or while being assaulted.
A blind gakking grot has all of a sudden the same skill as a marine first company sergeant and the same chances to hit things.
w t f
I dislike the random general attributes in principle, but you're right the execution also seems to lack flavour. So bad in principle, and bad in execution.
The BS1 thing also seems very clumsy. I don't know a fix for it, but it really just feels like a way to give another shooting phase. Somehow my captain shooting his bolter at incoming assaulters has the same skill as an ork.
The more I read about this edition, the more pessimistic I am. I like the idea of hull points, and the buff to rapid fire. But my 30 wychs are really hurting in my DE army as far as I can tell. I'm going to reserve judgement until after I play some games, but many of the rules seem stupid. Don't even get me started with allies.
I think there is a constant arc of improvement from Rogue Trader to the present day, and that each edition has been better than the previous. 5th edition is clearly much more balanced than 4th edition. 6th edition looks to address the (relatively minor) balance issues with 5th edition while providing bold new options as well.
See, I personally never found 5E to be better than 4E ultimately, just different.
We had as many balance issues in 5E as we did in 4E, just with different things. 4E had assault cannon spam SM's, 3.5E CSM abuse/Lash-spam, invicible Eldar Skimmerspam, etc. whereas in 5E we had Razorfangwolf Spam, tankspam, Psybolt GK's, etc. In 4E we had issues where non-skimmer tanks and especially non-skimmer transports were of little or no value and weird "alpha/gamma" mission levels, and in 5E we had issues with KP's and wound allocation. Different issues, same problems.
If you're looking for a break from 5E's issues, yeah, 6E will probably deliver you from most of them, but there are several already apparent things that already look like they will be consistent bugbears, and unless GW does more to control their codex releases, the issues on that end won't stop either, so we'll end up with similar situations to 3E/4E/5E, even if the specifics are different.
You're still in a 5th edition mindset. Think 6th edition. Tactical Marines aren't ablative wounds anymore-- they can shoot their bolters at 24" on the move to provide effective anti-infantry fire.
Why is it that 10 bolter wounds at 24" suddenly makes or breaks a unit? yeah, it adds a bit more utility. It doesn't revolutionize the unit or change its role. You're talking what, 2 dead guardsmen in cover? 1 dead Space Marine?
A lot of the "sky is falling" stuff in this thread and elsewhere is grounded in lack of understanding of either the rules changes or the current rules. 6th edition looks, from where I'm standing, to be a breath of fresh air that will revitalize 40k as a whole. Before you start freaking out, just breathe, sit down, and think about it for five minutes. Everything is going to be all right...
This is the refrain we heard with 4th, then 5th as well. I apologize for this, I don't mean to pick on you specifically, but this phrasing is something I want to address.
It's always going to "be a breath of fresh air", literally those *EXACT* words thrown about, that exact phrase brought out, every 4 years like clockwork. So far, we've had a lot of rules and mechanics changes, but the same types of systemic problems, even if the specific problems change, we never really end up with fewer or less intense problems. With 4E it was skimmers vs non-skimmers/rending/consolidations, with 5E it was transports, cover and KP's, with 6E it will likely be hull points and some other stuff. Notice that a lot of those are vehicle related, GW doesn't know what it wants vehicles to be and hasn't managed to fine a point they like since the 3E reboot.
There are deeper problems at the core of 40k right now.
: Power creep and unchanged legacy units (tac marines, gaunts, guardians haven't changed since third and are awful)
: The schism between effective and noneffective firepower (A double tapping marine plasma gun does 1.11 wounds to another marine, a bolter does .222, one plasmagun marine does equivalent damage to 2.5 bolter ones and yet only costs about 30% more than a normal marine.) This is a direct imbalance that strongly favors min maxing (which is why you see it everywhere).
: The logical inadequacy of multipurpose units in a game that only lets you do single actions (why take a mixed unit like tacticals or guardians when it's own loadout is contradictory? Can't fire the special and heavy at the same time and neither one is going to be good at killing the thing the bolters are "good" at killing meaning the opportunity cost and thus point value of the weapons themselves is wasted). Again, this directly favors min maxing over taking multipurpose or resilient units.
: A turn has been removed from shooting since third due to running and combats have been made vastly deadlier, but only some specific units can take advantage. This means that orks hit a tau line a turn earlier and the tau lose the game by default, but tyranids gain little since their turn of impact didn't increase with the addition of the run rules. The way GW has made up for quicker impact of assault units has been to power up shooting dramatically. That makes the game an all or nothing affair of tabling vs getting tabled. It's like a giant slow tower defense game.
: Transports in defense break the logical flow of the firing phase because an entire 200+ point block of shooting will typically be utilized on a single transport while leaving the occupants unscathed to then utilize their own firepower on the return on a softer and more valuable target. Being forced to sink 8 bolters into the side of a vehicle so that I can also fire 2 meltaguns at it is stupid. It breaks the game. It has always broken the game. It directly favors MSU and min maxing. This wasn't a problem in fourth because transports were prohibitively expensive and anti vehicle weaponry was still cheap, but the opportunity cost of transports became too good and obvious when the majority of them dropped 33% or more in cost.
: etc, there are other issues like the lack of a functioning morale system with layers of non working patches, the fundamental imbalance caused by random reserve rolls, exceptionally poor basic mission and deployment design, blah blah.
Sixth edition addresses almost none of these points, adds a lot of uneeded randomness, and makes it easier to minmax through allies and expanded for org selection. It's putting (ugly) lipstick on a pig, this games designers have no idea what they're doing.
ShumaGorath wrote:The warlord traits make me physically angry. I think that more than anything else in this edition could drive me out of 40k. It's like everyones leader gets to feel like a chaos possessed marine now. I mean, what the hell. Furious charge in your opponants deployment zone and counter attack in yours is on the same d6. Those are diametrically opposed tactics and whether it's useful at all is based entirely on your army.
This edition is taking any semblance of army construction and tactics and it's throwing it out the goddamn window. GW is killing itself.
That's one way to look at it.
Alternatively, (particularly given how many people are complaining about allies unbalancing everything) it could be seen as GW's way of encouraging people to build more rounded lists.
Whether or not it will achieve that will obviously remain to be seen, of course.
Wow those rumors gave me a.... Yeah. Death company just became a WHOLE lot better! Tac marines got a lot better too! Wyches on the other hand got the banhammer to the face :( wonder if dodge works on overwatch shots....
ShumaGorath wrote:The warlord traits make me physically angry. I think that more than anything else in this edition could drive me out of 40k. It's like everyones leader gets to feel like a chaos possessed marine now. I mean, what the hell. Furious charge in your opponants deployment zone and counter attack in yours is on the same d6. Those are diametrically opposed tactics and whether it's useful at all is based entirely on your army.
This edition is taking any semblance of army construction and tactics and it's throwing it out the goddamn window. GW is killing itself.
The Warlord bonus should be thought of as a possible bonus. Not something to build the army around. It would be ABSURD to build your army a specific way and then depend on a random Warlord bonus roll.
Weird. The system showed a double post, when I went to edit it, it changed it to one post and deleted my old post.
Anyway.
40K is a creaky system, as Shuma says. The justification that GW are trying to "encourage" us to play rounded armies is ridiculous.
It is totally possible to create a system where the majority of units are viable and spam and min maxing is not encouraged- privateer press have done so, as have other wargames designers.
The GW designers don't seem to want to change the broken core mechanics, it's as simple as that. This is poor form because expecting players to exercise restraint in a game with winners and losers is asking for trouble, not to mention extremely subjective.
For example, I've seen a few people posting about how excited they are to be able to run nurgle demons with epidemus and chaos marines. I consider that to be exploitative as epidemus is balanced by the paucity of ranged weapons available to mono nurgle. The defence that it is fluffy holds no water- you could use Ku'gath or a GUO or a herald as HQ, and not get he exploit, but I have not seen any one of these "fluff" players suggest that.
Therion wrote:Big nerf number one to Necrons. Catacomb Command Barges do the sweeping attack in the movement phase, and a movement phase move of 12" is absolutely pitiful.
With an extra 6" movement, CCB's will at least get better positioning on the first turn. Plus, using Wraiths' and Scarabs' increased threat range to "encourage" units into the CCB's lessened threat range could make it a wash overall. As "that guy who always brings two CCB's," I can't say I'm thrilled about this change, but I think CCB's will have life yet (I'm also willing to admit they're pretty unreasonable in 5th...) Not sure that I find Imotekh any more appealing either. New Night Fight rules feel like a big "meh" in comparison to Night Fight in 5th.
ShumaGorath wrote:The warlord traits make me physically angry. I think that more than anything else in this edition could drive me out of 40k. It's like everyones leader gets to feel like a chaos possessed marine now. I mean, what the hell. Furious charge in your opponants deployment zone and counter attack in yours is on the same d6. Those are diametrically opposed tactics and whether it's useful at all is based entirely on your army.
This edition is taking any semblance of army construction and tactics and it's throwing it out the goddamn window. GW is killing itself.
The Warlord bonus should be thought of as a possible bonus. Not something to build the army around. It would be ABSURD to hope for a certain result.
Seems like you will have games were one side randomly hits the jackpot on one roll right at the start and gets a distinct advantage. Some games they will do nothing.
Its random for the sake of random. This is really the random = fun edition. If you don't agree that random = fun, you're going to have a bad time.
Da Boss wrote:The defence that GW is trying to persuade people, ever so gently, to take more rounded forces is ridiculous. If they just built a game that worked, people would do that ANYWAY. Players shouldn't have to be relied on to exercise restraint in a game that has a winner and a loser, because someone will always exploit.
And it's not impossible. I hate to bring them up but PP manage with Warmachine and Hordes to have a complex game with a large variety of units and combos that is pretty well balanced. It's not perfect but it is leagues ahead of 40K, simply because it is more solidly designed.
Again, I find myself nodding along with Shuma's post.
I find that happens a lot. Maybe we can pull a "Face Off" and switch him and Ward.
The warlord traits make me physically angry. I think that more than anything else in this edition could drive me out of 40k. It's like everyones leader gets to feel like a chaos possessed marine now. I mean, what the hell. Furious charge in your opponants deployment zone and counter attack in yours is on the same d6. Those are diametrically opposed tactics and whether it's useful at all is based entirely on your army.
This edition is taking any semblance of army construction and tactics and it's throwing it out the goddamn window. GW is killing itself.
This!
Besides the power level thing, should a cheap IGHQ get the same powers/abilities like a 1000 year old chaos marine sorceror?
Also I dont get the snap and overwatch things, apparently training and experience means NOTHING in the future when you sire your weapons while moving or while being assaulted.
A blind gakking grot has all of a sudden the same skill as a marine first company sergeant and the same chances to hit things.
w t f
Skilled or not, when you blindly take a shot your accuracy is crappy.
I play nerf / airsoft / etc, and if you take aim, you get to line up the shot (I'm actually a pretty good shot), but when I'm making a quick responsive shot, say as when someone with a sword leaps from behind a tree, my accuracy goes all to hell, mostly cos there's a guy with a sword right in my face.
Maybe at half BS would have been more realistic, but also being it's free shooting, BS1 is fine.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, again, I think the simplest, most elegant way to balance allies for Tyranids is to allow them to ally more 'nids, and just outright use them as extra slots.
(So 2-3 HQ, 0-4 Elites, 3-8 Troops, 0-4 Fast Attack, 0-4 Heavy Support and 0-1 Fort. / 3-5 HQ, 0-7 Elites, 5-13 Troops, 0-7 Fast Attack, 0-7 Heavy Support and 0-1 Fort. )
ShumaGorath wrote:. This wasn't a problem in fourth because transports were prohibitively expensive and anti vehicle weaponry was still cheap, but the opportunity cost of transports became too good and obvious when the majority of them dropped 33% or more in cost.
Don't forget that in 4th, any penetrating hit forced passengers to disembark, vehicles were killed on a 4+ pen and 6+ glance, all pen's also stunned, and passengers were automatically pinned if the transport died, passengers took wounds on a 4+ if the vehicle was destroyed and took wounds on 4+ with rerolls if it exploded. Also, vehicles couldn't get cover saves, they could only get "hull down" which downgraded a pen to a glance on a 4+. In addition to being more expensive, being unable to hold objectives while embarked, etc.
hence why you only saw transports on Skimmer armies where they couldn't be penetrated and typically had lots of wargear that ignored skimmer drawbacks, and they were non-existent anywhere else.
There was a lot more to 4E transport discouragement besides just cost and availability of AT weapons. They were either invincible skimmers or they didn't see the table.
whembly wrote:
At 2000pts, the FoC is doubled... could you drop in more awesome big bugs now? Or, ya'll can kinda do that now and it's now worth it?
Disclaimer: I'm a bug noob.. I like orks.. we eat bugs...
yes and no
Sure, you could run a ton of big bugs, a TON of them, but they are still a little overcosted it seems, gaining FNP against power weapons is a great boon though.
the real power is you now have 6 non troop slots for each, meaning armies that are heavy in one area (bugs, orks, tau, ect.) aren't as restricted as before.
And with flyer rules on Flying MC's, 4 flying tyrants seem a little wild.
Eldarain wrote:I find that happens a lot. Maybe we can pull a "Face Off" and switch him and Ward.
/shudder
Also, re overwatch/snapfire and relative BS. Remember that this is a game, a lot of things aren't necessarily realistic. Maybe if they moved to a D10 system, we'd have more variety in types of modifiers, but we're on D6. BS1 Snapfire representing the chaos of being assaulted is fine.
New rules seem good to me, I don't see a problem with them at all but I'm the type of person who'll find it funny to come up against this:
Jaws Priest
Jaws Priest
Jaws Priest
Jaws Priest
Grey Hunters w/ 2 flamers, PF, Wolf Standard, Drop Pod
Grey Hunters w/ 2 flamers, PF, Drop Pod (Deathwind)
Grey Hunters w/ 2 flamers, PF, Drop Pod (Deathwind)
Grey Hunters w/ 2 flamers, PF, Drop Pod (Deathwind)
Long Fangs 5x ML Long Fangs 5x ML Long Fangs 5x ML Long Fangs 5x ML Long Fangs 5x ML Long Fangs 5x ML
I don't know if that's even legal, tbh, but I just knocked it up in Battlescribe. Exactly 2000 points, can't see how I'd cope against that with my Crimson Fists
ShumaGorath wrote:The warlord traits make me physically angry. I think that more than anything else in this edition could drive me out of 40k. It's like everyones leader gets to feel like a chaos possessed marine now. I mean, what the hell. Furious charge in your opponants deployment zone and counter attack in yours is on the same d6. Those are diametrically opposed tactics and whether it's useful at all is based entirely on your army.
This edition is taking any semblance of army construction and tactics and it's throwing it out the goddamn window. GW is killing itself.
The Warlord bonus should be thought of as a possible bonus. Not something to build the army around. It would be ABSURD to build your army a specific way and then depend on a random Warlord bonus roll.
Yeah but how many Tau players will be glad they got Furious Charge on their commander? Probably none unless they're playing Farsight in which case he would become awesome (S6 and I6 on the charge with a Power Weapon? Yes please).
Davylove21 wrote:New rules seem good to me, I don't see a problem with them at all but I'm the type of person who'll find it funny to come up against this:
Jaws Priest
Jaws Priest
Jaws Priest
Jaws Priest
Grey Hunters w/ 2 flamers, PF, Wolf Standard, Drop Pod
Grey Hunters w/ 2 flamers, PF, Drop Pod (Deathwind)
Grey Hunters w/ 2 flamers, PF, Drop Pod (Deathwind)
Grey Hunters w/ 2 flamers, PF, Drop Pod (Deathwind)
Long Fangs 5x ML Long Fangs 5x ML Long Fangs 5x ML Long Fangs 5x ML Long Fangs 5x ML Long Fangs 5x ML
I don't know if that's even legal, tbh, but I just knocked it up in Battlescribe. Exactly 2000 points, can't see how I'd cope against that with my Crimson Fists
A hell load of Storm Talons and 6 DP-ing Sternguard would smash that.
Davylove21 wrote:New rules seem good to me, I don't see a problem with them at all but I'm the type of person who'll find it funny to come up against this:
I don't know if that's even legal, tbh, but I just knocked it up in Battlescribe. Exactly 2000 points, can't see how I'd cope against that with my Crimson Fists
Forget that
2x5 GH in Rhinos
6xTWC Lords
2xRune Priests
lol
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld2 wrote:
pretre wrote:@xttz: Most boring army ever. Also, what are you doing about vehicles?
CC them with one of the 10 Tervigons.
Or glance to death with the Str5 large blast they have.
How do you move through the sea of gaunts to assault the vehicles though? lol Just seems interesting but ultimately ineffective.
A Town Called Malus wrote:Yeah but how many Tau players will be glad they got Furious Charge on their commander? Probably none unless they're playing Farsight in which case he would become awesome (S6 and I6 on the charge with a Power Weapon? Yes please).
I think the idea is that you pick one of those three lists for your commander. The Tau commander wouldn't pick the personal list.
ShumaGorath wrote:The warlord traits make me physically angry. I think that more than anything else in this edition could drive me out of 40k. It's like everyones leader gets to feel like a chaos possessed marine now. I mean, what the hell. Furious charge in your opponants deployment zone and counter attack in yours is on the same d6. Those are diametrically opposed tactics and whether it's useful at all is based entirely on your army.
This edition is taking any semblance of army construction and tactics and it's throwing it out the goddamn window. GW is killing itself.
The Warlord bonus should be thought of as a possible bonus. Not something to build the army around. It would be ABSURD to hope for a certain result.
Seems like you will have games were one side randomly hits the jackpot on one roll right at the start and gets a distinct advantage. Some games they will do nothing.
Its random for the sake of random. This is really the random = fun edition. If you don't agree that random = fun, you're going to have a bad time.
I don't like the random Warlord power bit. But it is insane to claim "This edition is taking any semblance of army construction and tactics and it's throwing it out the goddamn window." Why would you not bother with tactics or army construction just because of a random roll for a Warlord power? Of course you would still bother with tactics and army construction. ShumaGorath made an absurd statement, one could even argue "nerdrage" or magical thinking.
ShumaGorath wrote:The warlord traits make me physically angry. I think that more than anything else in this edition could drive me out of 40k. It's like everyones leader gets to feel like a chaos possessed marine now. I mean, what the hell. Furious charge in your opponants deployment zone and counter attack in yours is on the same d6. Those are diametrically opposed tactics and whether it's useful at all is based entirely on your army.
This edition is taking any semblance of army construction and tactics and it's throwing it out the goddamn window. GW is killing itself.
The Warlord bonus should be thought of as a possible bonus. Not something to build the army around. It would be ABSURD to build your army a specific way and then depend on a random Warlord bonus roll.
I scratched my head over them too, then shrugged and decided it's a free bonus. A couple of the Strategic powers would be nice for one of my Tyranid builds. The others would be mostly useless, but I might as well just roll for that one power or two since there's no downside. Now what do they add to the game? I dunno. But c'est la vie.
All I'm going to say is the 2k Force Org chart....
*Trollface*
As a Tyranid player my biggest issue was the fact I was restricted to 6 troops choices before. 12? DIAMONDS.
But, no, I don't think we'll see a return of big bugs. Carnifexes are still horrendously overpointed for what they actually do and with the AP and penetration rules being questionable at the moment the Tyrannofex is looking more and more like an easter egg.
ShumaGorath wrote:. This wasn't a problem in fourth because transports were prohibitively expensive and anti vehicle weaponry was still cheap, but the opportunity cost of transports became too good and obvious when the majority of them dropped 33% or more in cost.
Don't forget that in 4th, any penetrating hit forced passengers to disembark, vehicles were killed on a 4+ pen and 6+ glance, all pen's also stunned, and passengers were automatically pinned if the transport died, passengers took wounds on a 4+ if the vehicle was destroyed and took wounds on 4+ with rerolls if it exploded. Also, vehicles couldn't get cover saves, they could only get "hull down" which downgraded a pen to a glance on a 4+. In addition to being more expensive, being unable to hold objectives while embarked, etc.
hence why you only saw transports on Skimmer armies where they couldn't be penetrated and typically had lots of wargear that ignored skimmer drawbacks, and they were non-existent anywhere else.
There was a lot more to 4E transport discouragement besides just cost and availability of AT weapons. They were either invincible skimmers or they didn't see the table.
I think you'd still see them were all those prohibitive rules still in the game. Firepower increased dramatically over the course of fifth edition. Walking squads across the table in the current meta is virtual suicide in a format where you can fit 15 missile launchers in 500 points and one IG tank can have five plasma canons. 35 points to negate an instance of incoming fire is exceptionally powerful. That 35 points is often times the difference between having or not having a squad at all, regardless of the state they are left in post transport death. If the transports got to travel their 12 inches at all thats an improvement vs the ~2 turns it would of taken the squad to walk there.
Imagine this, an assault squad gets first turn and moves up 12 inches, they are now 24 inches up the table. The halfway point. A longfang squad kills their transport and they are pinned. Contrast this to walking, first turn they walk then run for 9.5 inches. The longfang squad fires and kills ~4. That 35 point transport investment got you 2.5 inches farther up the board and saved four marines (a value almost twice the rhinos cost). Is it better to be farther up and pinned or free to move farther back with half a squad?
A Town Called Malus wrote:Yeah but how many Tau players will be glad they got Furious Charge on their commander? Probably none unless they're playing Farsight in which case he would become awesome (S6 and I6 on the charge with a Power Weapon? Yes please).
I think the idea is that you pick one of those three lists for your commander. The Tau commander wouldn't pick the personal list.
That's fair enough but there'll probably be some of those Personal bonuses which will actually help. Though Strategy is most likely to be the most useful of the commander bonuses. Hopefully it'll have something like accurate deep strike or calling in reinforcements.
ShumaGorath wrote:The warlord traits make me physically angry. I think that more than anything else in this edition could drive me out of 40k. It's like everyones leader gets to feel like a chaos possessed marine now. I mean, what the hell. Furious charge in your opponants deployment zone and counter attack in yours is on the same d6. Those are diametrically opposed tactics and whether it's useful at all is based entirely on your army.
This edition is taking any semblance of army construction and tactics and it's throwing it out the goddamn window. GW is killing itself.
The Warlord bonus should be thought of as a possible bonus. Not something to build the army around. It would be ABSURD to hope for a certain result.
Seems like you will have games were one side randomly hits the jackpot on one roll right at the start and gets a distinct advantage. Some games they will do nothing.
Its random for the sake of random. This is really the random = fun edition. If you don't agree that random = fun, you're going to have a bad time.
The funny thing is that it's diametrically opposed to the pancake edition that way. There must have been some interesting twists and turns involved with the development of 6th.
Joe Mama wrote:The Warlord bonus should be thought of as a possible bonus. Not something to build the army around. It would be ABSURD to build your army a specific way and then depend on a random Warlord bonus roll.
Yeah but how many Tau players will be glad they got Furious Charge on their commander? Probably none unless they're playing Farsight in which case he would become awesome (S6 and I6 on the charge with a Power Weapon? Yes please).
On many lists I run, most of the results in each of the three sections would be pretty much useless (or not any more helpful to me than they would be to your Tau). Thems the breaks I guess? I'm not a fan of random bonuses (or random psychic powers, do we have confirmation that the core ones are selected at random?).
edit : @ Joe Mama: I don't agree with Shuma as far as how extreme his statement is, but I do agree that some of these random factors, such as random powers, random terrain features and random traits (just the stuff I've seen so far) reduce the importance of strategy and increase the importance of getting a good roll. The sky isn't falling, but I sure don't like those clouds over there.
A Town Called Malus wrote:I think the idea is that you pick one of those three lists for your commander. The Tau commander wouldn't pick the personal list.
That's fair enough but there'll probably be some of those Personal bonuses which will actually help. Though Strategy is most likely to be the most useful of the commander bonuses. Hopefully it'll have something like accurate deep strike or calling in reinforcements.
Yeah, I'd never roll on Personal with Tau. That's just me.
ShumaGorath wrote:The warlord traits make me physically angry. I think that more than anything else in this edition could drive me out of 40k. It's like everyones leader gets to feel like a chaos possessed marine now. I mean, what the hell. Furious charge in your opponants deployment zone and counter attack in yours is on the same d6. Those are diametrically opposed tactics and whether it's useful at all is based entirely on your army.
This edition is taking any semblance of army construction and tactics and it's throwing it out the goddamn window. GW is killing itself.
The Warlord bonus should be thought of as a possible bonus. Not something to build the army around. It would be ABSURD to hope for a certain result.
Seems like you will have games were one side randomly hits the jackpot on one roll right at the start and gets a distinct advantage. Some games they will do nothing.
Its random for the sake of random. This is really the random = fun edition. If you don't agree that random = fun, you're going to have a bad time.
I don't like the random Warlord power bit. But it is insane to claim "This edition is taking any semblance of army construction and tactics and it's throwing it out the goddamn window." Why would you not bother with tactics or army construction just because of a random roll for a Warlord power? Of course you would still bother with tactics and army construction. ShumaGorath made an absurd statement, one could even argue "nerdrage" or magical thinking.
random assault rolls, random terrain, random and very powerful leader traits, exceptionally exploitable allies and force org options. I could take a mixed arms assault force, try and position myself as best I can, play to the best of my ability to the games objectives or I could just take six long fang squads and three hydra flak tanks, ignore half the games rules, and table you in short order. This edition is breaking any sense of competition 40k could have. Tactics won't survive the dramatically increased randomness and army construction won't survive the opportunity cost of multi codex min maxing and force org shenanigans.
On the plus side iron warriors can finally have their three basilisks and 18 transforming gun terminators again. Remember how fun that was?
ShumaGorath wrote:There are deeper problems at the core of 40k right now.
: Power creep and unchanged legacy units (tac marines, gaunts, guardians haven't changed since third and are awful)
I don't know too much about Gaunts, but I find Tactical Marines very effective-- thanks largely to changes they've seen since third edition-- and Reecius might have a few words for you about Guardians-- I believe his Footdar made it to the BoLSCon top 8 last weekend before he dropped out due to illness.
ShumaGorath wrote:: The schism between effective and noneffective firepower (A double tapping marine plasma gun does 1.11 wounds to another marine, a bolter does .222, one plasmagun marine does equivalent damage to 2.5 bolter ones and yet only costs about 30% more than a normal marine.) This is a direct imbalance that strongly favors min maxing (which is why you see it everywhere).
How is it unbalanced that weapons specialized against certain targets are good against those targets?
ShumaGorath wrote:: The logical inadequacy of multipurpose units in a game that only lets you do single actions (why take a mixed unit like tacticals or guardians when it's own loadout is contradictory? Can't fire the special and heavy at the same time and neither one is going to be good at killing the thing the bolters are "good" at killing meaning the opportunity cost and thus point value of the weapons themselves is wasted). Again, this directly favors min maxing over taking multipurpose or resilient units.
I just don't find that true. What are the best Troops units in the game right now? Most would say Plague Marines or Grey Hunters, both of which are multipurpose units that can function well at both shooting and assault. Plague Marines are also one of the most resilient units in the game. Further, new rules like Combat Squads allow you to use both special and heavy weapons effectively, and if you want a unit that's truly focused on killing infantry, flamers synergize with bolters just fine.
ShumaGorath wrote::A turn has been removed from shooting since third due to running and combats have been made vastly deadlier, but only some specific units can take advantage. This means that orks hit a tau line a turn earlier and the tau lose the game by default, but tyranids gain little since their turn of impact didn't increase with the addition of the run rules. The way GW has made up for quicker impact of assault units has been to power up shooting dramatically. That makes the game an all or nothing affair of tabling vs getting tabled. It's like a giant slow tower defense game.
This was a problem in 3rd and 4th edition thanks to units consolidating into new assaults, but it is now only against unskilled players that this is threatening. By using screening units, you can mitigate the assault danger. Ironically, Tau are one of the armies that do this best, with Kroot screens and Piranhas to block off enemy movement and absorb initial assaults and keep the guns firing.
ShumaGorath wrote::Transports in defense break the logical flow of the firing phase because an entire 200+ point block of shooting will typically be utilized on a single transport while leaving the occupants unscathed to then utilize their own firepower on the return on a softer and more valuable target. Being forced to sink 8 bolters into the side of a vehicle so that I can also fire 2 meltaguns at it is stupid. It breaks the game. It has always broken the game. It directly favors MSU and min maxing. This wasn't a problem in fourth because transports were prohibitively expensive and anti vehicle weaponry was still cheap, but the opportunity cost of transports became too good and obvious when the majority of them dropped 33% or more in cost.
So the fact that taking armored vehicles to transport and protect your guys protects them "breaks the game?" I don't think so. If anything, I'd say fourth edition transports were expensive and unreliable deathtraps that were far worse for the game than anything 5th edition transports do is.
ShumaGorath wrote:: etc, there are other issues like the lack of a functioning morale system with layers of non working patches, the fundamental imbalance caused by random reserve rolls, exceptionally poor basic mission and deployment design, blah blah.
The morale system is more or less fine, though Leadership should probably be dropped by one across the board. The missions and deployments are also basically fine-- note that several major tournaments have literally just played the missions and deployments from the books and been okay.
ShumaGorath wrote:Sixth edition addresses almost none of these points, adds a lot of uneeded randomness, and makes it easier to minmax through allies and expanded for org selection. It's putting (ugly) lipstick on a pig, this games designers have no idea what they're doing.
Sixth edition addresses almost all of these points. It brings buffs to Tactical Marines, buffs to basic Rapid Fire weapons, buffs to multipurpose units (Snap Fire/Overwatch), nerfs to shooting lethality relative to assault (only models in range/only models in LoS is a giant nerf to shooting), nerfs to transport resilience, and new missions and deployments.
Overall, there aren't really deep problems at the core of 40k right now, and 6th edition does a good job of addressing the minor issues that do exist while also adding new and cinematic mechanics and units. In fact, I'd say that the biggest problem with 40k right now is the fact that mechanized armies can bring their own cover/terrain to the field in the form of vehicles, while nonmechanized armies cannot. This creates an imbalance that favors mechanized armies when playing with inadequate terrain, and sadly tournaments are often known for featuring inadequate amounts of terrain, so this imbalance persists even in tournament play.
However, this is, of course, corrected by 6th edition allowing players to purchase fortifications for their armies. No longer do your IG Heavy Weapon Squads (for instance) end up screwed when the TO sees fit to supply you with Warhammer Fantasy tables-- now, you can bring terrain with you that will guarantee you at least some measure of cover. This is IMO one of the most significant improvements to the game in some time, and I'm looking forward to seeing it play out. The fact that this change opens cool new modelling opportunities is just the icing on the cake.
ShumaGorath wrote:. This wasn't a problem in fourth because transports were prohibitively expensive and anti vehicle weaponry was still cheap, but the opportunity cost of transports became too good and obvious when the majority of them dropped 33% or more in cost.
Don't forget that in 4th, any penetrating hit forced passengers to disembark, vehicles were killed on a 4+ pen and 6+ glance, all pen's also stunned, and passengers were automatically pinned if the transport died, passengers took wounds on a 4+ if the vehicle was destroyed and took wounds on 4+ with rerolls if it exploded. Also, vehicles couldn't get cover saves, they could only get "hull down" which downgraded a pen to a glance on a 4+. In addition to being more expensive, being unable to hold objectives while embarked, etc.
hence why you only saw transports on Skimmer armies where they couldn't be penetrated and typically had lots of wargear that ignored skimmer drawbacks, and they were non-existent anywhere else.
There was a lot more to 4E transport discouragement besides just cost and availability of AT weapons. They were either invincible skimmers or they didn't see the table.
I think you'd still see them were all those prohibitive rules still in the game. Firepower increased dramatically over the course of fifth edition. Walking squads across the table in the current meta is virtual suicide in a format where you can fit 15 missile launchers in 500 points and one IG tank can have five plasma canons. 35 points to negate an instance of incoming fire is exceptionally powerful. That 35 points is often times the difference between having or not having a squad at all, regardless of the state they are left in post transport death. If the transports got to travel their 12 inches at all thats an improvement vs the ~2 turns it would of taken the squad to walk there.
Imagine this, an assault squad gets first turn and moves up 12 inches, they are now 24 inches up the table. The halfway point. A longfang squad kills their transport and they are pinned. Contrast this to walking, first turn they walk then run for 9.5 inches. The longfang squad fires and kills ~4. That 35 point transport investment got you 2.5 inches farther up the board and saved four marines (a value almost twice the rhinos cost). Is it better to be farther up and pinned or free to move farther back with half a squad?
Oh, I don't disagree, only pointing out that Transports were utter garbage in the previous editions for other reasons as well that also helps explain their increased popularity, given that they're no longer more of a liability and danger to the squad than the threats they face without one. There was of course also the (very necessary IMO) change to assaults that prevented consolidation into new combats, often resulting in situations where a unit would literally never face enemy fire the entire game.
pretre wrote:@xttz: Most boring army ever. Also, what are you doing about vehicles?
Aside from the fact that it's a gimmick list that would never make it further than Vassal, I'd probably roll 30 times on the new Lore tables. Vortex of Doom baby....
Shuma, less "nerdrage" please. I feel like you are frothing at the mouth when I read your posts. I split your comment in two to highlight the lack of coherency in your own argument. (Less rage, more cold logic next time please):
ShumaGorath wrote:random assault rolls, random terrain, random and very powerful leader traits, exceptionally exploitable allies and force org options. .... Tactics won't survive the dramatically increased randomness and army construction won't survive the opportunity cost of multi codex min maxing and force org shenanigans.
ShumaGorath wrote:I could take a mixed arms assault force, try and position myself as best I can, play to the best of my ability to the games objectives or I could just take six long fang squads and three hydra flak tanks, ignore half the games rules, and table you in short order. This edition is breaking any sense of competition 40k could have.
LOL, wut? Why did this middle sentence of yours contradict the rest of your argument? If everything is random, then how could that list do so well? There's no competition because really powerful lists with allies can be built? Doesn't that just mean that the WAAC lists will have to change from the way they are now? They'll be competition, it will just be with different lists than there are now.
Also, there is randomness in the game now. You play off probabilities. Now the chance of getting a 6 inch assault (or better) is X. You know that and plan accordingly. Just as you planned accordingly assaulting into difficult terrain, which wasn't a sure thing in 5th. Also, "random" terrain. You know the odds. You decide whether or not moving through the terrain is worth the risk. So what. Random itself isn't so bad, unless certain rolls can have a huge imbalancing effect on the game. Assault rolls and random terrain don't fall into that category, that's for sure.
Seems like 10 pages are added to this thread every day. I can't keep up :(
In other things, why do people keep suggesting so many 6-man long fang squads?!? 30 missiles isn't necessarily a game changer and so many small man squads are very expensive (both in points and cash) and can be dealt with easily (my executioner will make short work of them with 5 plasma cannons and a lascannon).
quilava1 wrote:Seems like 10 pages are added to this thread every day. I can't keep up :(
In other things, why do people keep suggesting so many 6-man long fang squads?!? 30 missiles isn't necessarily a game changer and so many small man squads are very expensive (both in points and cash) and can be dealt with easily (my executioner will make short work of them with 5 plasma cannons and a lascannon).
i didnt check this thread over the weekend because i only dakka at work...but it jumped from 39 to 85, i was like
on random terrain. I HATE it in fantasy, and just dont use it, i really hope the tournament scenes and people i play against feel the same because i HAAAAATTEEE random terrain
I don't know too much about Gaunts, but I find Tactical Marines very effective-- thanks largely to changes they've seen since third edition-- and Reecius might have a few words for you about Guardians-- I believe his Footdar made it to the BoLSCon top 8 last weekend before he dropped out due to illness.
And he did it by basing the army entirely on fighting grey knights. When he didn't fight them he lost. Also, I'll wait to see your tourney results when discussing tacticals. I haven't seen a well placing marine force with tactics that wasn't featuring vulkan in half a decade. They're bad.
How is it unbalanced that weapons specialized against certain targets are good against those targets?
Because they're good against everything else too. That plasma gun also kills orks better, tanks better, monstrous creatures better, everything better. It's not costed correctly, no special or heavy weapon is. The power of special and heavy weapons is mitigated by their total allowance, not their cost. Since allowance is based almost universally on squads taken and not squad size there is no incentive to ever not take minimum squads with maximum firepower. That's the entire basis of MSU. That was the entire basis of razorspam. The entire basis of why longfangs are overpowered. The basis of why IG vet squads (and the rest of that army) is too powerful. Every tourney powerful unit in the game spends its points in singular forms of offensive output.
I just don't find that true. What are the best Troops units in the game right now? Most would say Plague Marines or Grey Hunters, both of which are multipurpose units that can function well at both shooting and assault. Plague Marines are also one of the most resilient units in the game. Further, new rules like Combat Squads allow you to use both special and heavy weapons effectively, and if you want a unit that's truly focused on killing infantry, flamers synergize with bolters just fine.
The best troop unit in the game is the IG vet squad. The second best troop in the game is the inquisitorial henchmen squad. The utility and power of the plaguemarine squad didn't survive the introduction of the IG, wolf, or GK codexes.
Either way both units you just listed are specialized close support firepower units with no long range options and the ability to take multiple special weapons. Both are built to dump out of a transport and fire rather then be good at assaulting since both have assault defense built in. They are based on getting out out of a transport, double tapping, and then still being at near full effectiveness when they get assaulted. They aren't multipurpose, they just fulfill a role that effectively replaces most others (close fire support and anvil status).
This was a problem in 3rd and 4th edition thanks to units consolidating into new assaults, but it is now only against unskilled players that this is threatening. By using screening units, you can mitigate the assault danger. Ironically, Tau are one of the armies that do this best, with Kroot screens and Piranhas to block off enemy movement and absorb initial assaults and keep the guns firing.
Ironically tau still lose to every assault army in the game almost without question. Clearly "screening" isn't doing them a lot of favors.
The morale system is more or less fine, though Leadership should probably be dropped by one across the board. The missions and deployments are also basically fine-- note that several major tournaments have literally just played the missions and deployments from the books and been okay.
You love these rulesets without the ability to question, that is clear. How is a morale system fine when there are all of three codexes out of like 14 that even interact with it? If you discount codexes with access to ATSKNF and fearless you're left with tau, IG, sisters of battle and eldar. Also, the missions in third and fourth directly led to last turn skimmer objective claiming and the missions in fifth featured kill points and dawn of war. Both were plainly unbalancing.
Sixth edition addresses almost all of these points.
No, they just push some numeric values around a bit. Addressing these issues would require a revamping of the basic shooting and movement systems in a way that GW isn't willing to do. If anything shooting appears dramatically more powerful in sixth with the reduction of cover and the removal of easy wound allocation.
Overall, there aren't really deep problems at the core of 40k right now
I expect you would say that if the rulebook was just full of scorpions and asbestos. Some people can be pleased regardless of the reality.
Note on allies and fluff: fluff is broken already in most games...by the enemies...(how many times do gk fight gk in a tourney? Or space wolves vs. space wolves...etc.). So, what part don't we believe, that Calgar might not take help from aliens or that he would fight against imperial fists?
Ok, back to rumors:
So..rapid fire, where does it stand now; I could not find a confirmation in the reddit text either way.
Fliers: I think we will see them die a lot easier than people think, especially with their low armor (well, not IG, but you get the idea) and low hull points. Dunno, lets wait and play some games.
Nids: If every weapon in the book, any chance someone can look up boneswords in the back? Same thing with warscythes.
Could not find the NEW rules for skyshields: anyone have any idea?
I am excited about the game....maybe it will be better for my armies...maybe not. We shall see.
pretre wrote:I think the idea is that you pick one of those three lists for your commander. The Tau commander wouldn't pick the personal list.
That's fair enough but there'll probably be some of those Personal bonuses which will actually help. Though Strategy is most likely to be the most useful of the commander bonuses. Hopefully it'll have something like accurate deep strike or calling in reinforcements.
Yeah, I'd never roll on Personal with Tau. That's just me.
Just found the post in the OP listing the bonuses. Outflanking commander and crisis retinue could be good, same for making him a scoring unit.
The strategic ones look good except for that night fighting one. I'd rather be able to shoot the enemy on my first turn, thank you very much.
Joe Mama wrote:Shuma, less "nerdrage" please. I feel like you are frothing at the mouth when I read your posts. I split your comment in two to highlight the lack of coherency in your own argument. (Less rage, more cold logic next time please):
ShumaGorath wrote:random assault rolls, random terrain, random and very powerful leader traits, exceptionally exploitable allies and force org options. .... Tactics won't survive the dramatically increased randomness and army construction won't survive the opportunity cost of multi codex min maxing and force org shenanigans.
ShumaGorath wrote:I could take a mixed arms assault force, try and position myself as best I can, play to the best of my ability to the games objectives or I could just take six long fang squads and three hydra flak tanks, ignore half the games rules, and table you in short order. This edition is breaking any sense of competition 40k could have.
LOL, wut? Why did this middle sentence of yours contradict the rest of your argument? If everything is random, then how could that list do so well? There's no competition because really powerful lists with allies can be built? Doesn't that just mean that the WAAC lists will have to change from the way they are now? They'll be competition, it will just be with different lists than there are now.
Also, there is randomness in the game now. You play off probabilities. Now the chance of getting a 6 inch assault (or better) is X. You know that and plan accordingly. Just as you planned accordingly assaulting into difficult terrain, which wasn't a sure thing in 5th. Also, "random" terrain. You know the odds. You decide whether or not moving through the terrain is worth the risk. So what. Random itself isn't so bad, unless certain rolls can have a huge imbalancing effect on the game. Assault rolls and random terrain don't fall into that category, that's for sure.
The random systems aren't applied evenly. They effect assault and movement and leave shooting almost unscathed. You mitigate randomness by not engaging in activities that are disproportionately effected by randomness. WAAC lists don't really have to change much. 15 long fangs with razors is still that when it has a hydra battery behind it. Allies distills WAAC to an even more ludicrous degree by more than doubling the force org chart at 2k and allowing cross codex cherry picking of overpowered units.
I agree, random isn't bad unless specific rolls have a hugely imbalancing result on the game. Several of the warlord traits do, as do some of the random terrain rules. Random assault distances certainly does.
Does anyone have any rumors about chapters other than the Space Wolves and Blood Angels getting their own codex/rules in 6th edition?
I'm trying to decide between Iron Hands and Salamanders as my first army, and I'm leaning towards the bionic bros. Was hoping for some cool bionic only move(s).
KillJoyRobot wrote:Does anyone have any rumors about chapters other than the Space Wolves and Blood Angels getting their own codex/rules in 6th edition?
I'm trying to decide between Iron Hands and Salamanders as my first army, and I'm leaning towards the bionic bros. Was hoping for some cool bionic only move(s).
I really do like Vulkan's model though...
It's pretty unlikely that any chapter that doesn't already have a codex would get one.
Ironically tau still lose to every assault army in the game almost without question. Clearly "screening" isn't doing them a lot of favors.
Without question? Here is a Question: You have not run into many good tau players have you?
While it was quite the struggle, my beloved xenos did well in 5th - hopefully they will fare even better in 6th...it would not take much, a few basic changes, and maybe a new faq would do them well....but I diagress.
While I think a lot of this conjecture by experienced players may have some merit to it, it will be a while before we can truly assimilate what the new rules edition brings. I have some mixed feelings on a lot of things
Rumorwise: Anyone have anything on why shadowsun has gone finecast and farsight has not?
(or did I read that wrong anywhere?).
Finally, if all the weapons are in the codex, any chance we can someone how has a book to get readings on;
Kroot rifle, markerlights and the skyray?
(just in case it got skyfire...one can hope).
ShumaGorath wrote:The random systems aren't applied evenly. They effect assault and movement and leave shooting almost unscathed. You mitigate randomness by not engaging in activities that are disproportionately effected by randomness. WAAC lists don't really have to change much. 15 long fangs with razors is still that when it has a hydra battery behind it. Allies distills WAAC to an even more ludicrous degree by more than doubling the force org chart at 2k and allowing cross codex cherry picking of overpowered units.
I agree, random isn't bad unless specific rolls have a hugely imbalancing result on the game. Several of the warlord traits do, as do some of the random terrain rules. Random assault distances certainly does.
Alright, that was pretty good. Can't get into a wall o text battle right now. Random assault is not hugely imbalancing, that's just absurd (look up the % of time 6 **or higher** is rolled on a 2d6). Nor does random terrain. You should know the probabilities before you play, and know the risks, and then decide in game if the risk is worth it. I see a lot of changes, I don't see shooting being "unscathed." Different sure. Those long fangs will be camping in worse cover usually, so they'll die quicker. Using transports as mobile bunkers to shoot out of won't be as strong either. Will MSU be as good considering that concentrated fire from one direction will take out special weapons more easily than before (since wound allocation is closest to farthest).
ShumaGorath wrote:Allies distills WAAC to an even more ludicrous degree by more than doubling the force org chart at 2k and allowing cross codex cherry picking of overpowered units.
I think this is the most compelling statement in the whole thread.
ShumaGorath wrote:Also, I'll wait to see your tourney results when discussing tacticals.
Well, two days ago I won an "end of 5th edition" tournament with my vanilla Marines, earning me a free copy of 6th edition. It wasn't a GT, though, so maybe you won't count that.
ShumaGorath wrote:The best troop unit in the game is the IG vet squad. The second best troop in the game is the inquisitorial henchmen squad. The utility and power of the plaguemarine squad didn't survive the introduction of the IG, wolf, or GK codexes.
ShumaGorath wrote:Ironically tau still lose to every assault army in the game almost without question. Clearly "screening" isn't doing them a lot of favors.
ShumaGorath wrote:How is a morale system fine when there are all of three codexes out of like 14 that even interact with it?
I don't consider any of these statements true.
ShumaGorath wrote:If you discount codexes with access to ATSKNF and fearless
Why would you do that? ATSKNF isn't magic. In many cases, units that fall back keep falling back thanks to enemies within 6", ATSKNF or no ATSKNF. Similarly, having "access" to something is different than actually having it. In the tournament I played on Saturday, I killed enemy units by causing them to fall back off the table in all three of my games, two of which were played against Codices with access to ATSKNF or Fearless.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Sixth edition addresses almost all of these points.
No, they just push some numeric values around a bit.
That's because that's all that needs to be done. Most of these "problems" are overblown or outright fake.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Overall, there aren't really deep problems at the core of 40k right now
I expect you would say that if the rulebook was just full of scorpions and asbestos.
Actually, I consider myself pretty even-handed. I didn't enjoy the way things worked in late 3rd and early 4th edition, so I stopped playing the game. As things got better, I came back. If 6th edition were bad, I'd quit the game again. In a world that includes Dust Warfare, Infinity, MERCS, and so on, there's no reason (aside from the sunk cost fallacy) to feel beholden to GW's system. I freely invite you to quit the game if you actually think 6th edition is bad-- I don't enjoy playing with people who constantly complain about the ruleset anyway, and it sounds like you might be better served with other systems.
ShumaGorath wrote:Some people can be pleased regardless of the reality.
And some people can be mad regardless of the reality.
I have to say, I just have no excitement left for this edition of the rules. Nothing I've seen is encouraging me in any way. I don't want to give my Dark Eldar Vypers and a Warseer. I don't want to join my Guardsmen with Bloodletters. I never field psykers, and I'm not interested in starting now.
Frankly, the idea that the tournament metagame might be thrown into chaos is what's giving me at least a tiny bit of joy, but even then, I have no doubt the usual suspects will emerge victorious.
I know this is a bit early saying as 6th ed. isn't out yet but is there any rumours going round about when FAQs/erratas might actually be released?
I don't know if there has been a sort of bulk release after all the other editions previously so if any veterans can recall the last few editions that would be great!
Would it be expecting too much of GW for them to have sorted erratas out already?!
ShumaGorath wrote:Allies distills WAAC to an even more ludicrous degree by more than doubling the force org chart at 2k and allowing cross codex cherry picking of overpowered units.
I think this is the most compelling statement in the whole thread.
And yet it's completely irrelevant, as has been stated multiple times. People simply aren't going to play with doubled force organization charts, and if allies prove to be imbalanced TOs will likely drop them as well.
ShumaGorath wrote:Allies distills WAAC to an even more ludicrous degree by more than doubling the force org chart at 2k and allowing cross codex cherry picking of overpowered units.
I think this is the most compelling statement in the whole thread.
And yet it's completely irrelevant, as has been stated multiple times. People simply aren't going to play with doubled force organization charts, and if allies prove to be imbalanced TOs will likely drop them as well.
I'm not talking tourneys, I'm talking every day games at the local store.
If I don't want to play against double FoC or Allies. I have to turn down players who do. If this doesn't cause a schism in an already niche market that struggles for players a lot of places, I don't know what will.
For me, the biggest issues revolve around the AP power weapons. I own enough 40k to start my own god damn store, but I only own like 10 terminator models (metal GK ones) and some characters. If they both make standard power weapons not work against terminator armor and then turn around and make chainswords essentially power weapons against most xenos armies, I think I am done for an edition. I play mostly xenos armies, carting out my IG or old GKs for the occasional easy win. I don't want to play the same damn shooty necron list that everyone else is; I like my melecrons. But when even shooty terms flatly ignore power weapons, well I am back to shooting at them and spamming wraiths like every other army out there. I'd really like to play my mele warrior nid list, but boneswords are already overpriced enough without being unable to tackle terminators. Do we really need artificer armor to be this strong in the game?
The other thing that royally irritates me as a Nid player are the ally rules. I mean, seriously no one thought at its most basic level that one army not having access to the added slot choices would not create balance issues? And if you are Xenos, almost all of the alliance options are redundant things anyhow. Meanwhile MEQs get to plug their gaps with the IG and GK lists....
Don't really care about the rest of the changes, but damn Ward loves him some marines......
N.I.B. wrote:
If FNP unlike currently won't work on Instant Death, along with nerfed cover saves, it sounds like GW have sold their last Tyranid Warriors and Raveners. That's basically a huge nerf to FNP overall, regardless if it gets a slight boost when used on MC's.
A shame, I really thought 6th ed would unlock the 75% of my codex that I can't deploy outside beer&pretzel games. Instead the viable pool of units got even smaller. Look how the mighty Genestealers have fallen.
Last I checked, FNP doesn't work versus ID currently so that's not a change.
As for genestealers, I suspect their viability would hinge on the assault into cover rules. Does anyone know if you're still going last if you don't have frag grenade equivalents?
Oops, you're right I forgot that for some reason, thought FNP only was negated by attacks that negated armour saves. I knew there was a reason I don't use T4 multiwound models
When I said Genestealers have fallen, I'm talking about the significant nerf to Fleet. They lost a lot of average threat range in one fell 6th ed sweep, and have to eat that up with a scoop of nerfed cover saves on top. One of the few things in my army most of my opponents feared in 5th ed, was 20 infiltrated Genestealers in terrain, with FNP. That's 20 bodies with a 4+/4+ save and an 18" threat range who could use their Fleet move to strategically reposition themselves to either get out of terrain for a clean charge or move models into terrain if the enemy was too far away, to get a cover save. No more. Big nerf.
Btw am I the only one who's relieved that Tyranids won't be able to ally with anyone? The mere though of the Great Devourer bro-fisting with any other force in the universe makes me throw up a little in my mouth. The Tyranids should be feared by all, the ominous Shadow in the Warp, the end of everything living. And many players seem to fear Tyranids more than any other army. It's not based in the codex being OP (of course), but in how the models looks on the table and how different it plays. I think no allies is very fitting for Tyranids. I will gladly assume the role as the lone arch enemy of all things, the ultimate alien force.
ShumaGorath wrote:
The best troop unit in the game is the IG vet squad. The second best troop in the game is the inquisitorial henchmen squad. The utility and power of the plaguemarine squad didn't survive the introduction of the IG, wolf, or GK codexes.
YOU LIE, HOOKER! Obviously the IG Platoon is the best troop in the game. Three multiple melta/plasma units, three av 12 vehicles, and two objective holder squads in one troop slot <3<3<3<3<3<3
matphat wrote:I'm not talking tourneys, I'm talking every day games at the local store.
If I don't want to play against double FoC or Allies. I have to turn down players who do. If this doesn't cause a schism in an already niche market that struggles for players a lot of places, I don't know what will.
Why don't you just play 1500-1999 point games, where doubled FoCs don't exist? Also, keep in mind that Allies, at the store level, will likely be used to take fun/cool units rather than overpowered combos. If someone really wants to take an Inquisitor and single squad of Grey Knights with his Guardsmen, that's not exactly bad for the game.
ShumaGorath wrote:Also, I'll wait to see your tourney results when discussing tacticals.
Well, two days ago I won an "end of 5th edition" tournament with my vanilla Marines, earning me a free copy of 6th edition. It wasn't a GT, though, so maybe you won't count that.
Don't listen to Shuma, Fetterkey. Tacs are awesome, Combat squads + Combat tactics + the Space marine bullgak rule (ATSKNF) makes tacs quite abusable when you don't cripple them by taking Vulcan.
random assault rolls, random terrain, random and very powerful leader traits, exceptionally exploitable allies and force org options. I could take a mixed arms assault force, try and position myself as best I can, play to the best of my ability to the games objectives or I could just take six long fang squads and three hydra flak tanks, ignore half the games rules, and table you in short order. This edition is breaking any sense of competition 40k could have. Tactics won't survive the dramatically increased randomness and army construction won't survive the opportunity cost of multi codex min maxing and force org shenanigans.
On the plus side iron warriors can finally have their three basilisks and 18 transforming gun terminators again. Remember how fun that was?
...dont forget the random terrain.
And GW have the audacity to call this edition more strategy and less luck.
lol
Sixth edition addresses almost all of these points. It brings buffs to Tactical Marines
The problem is that it brings the same and very unneeded buffs to already OP crap like grey hunters!
There are deeper problems at the core of 40k right now.
: Power creep and unchanged legacy units (tac marines, gaunts, guardians haven't changed since third and are awful)
: The schism between effective and noneffective firepower (A double tapping marine plasma gun does 1.11 wounds to another marine, a bolter does .222, one plasmagun marine does equivalent damage to 2.5 bolter ones and yet only costs about 30% more than a normal marine.) This is a direct imbalance that strongly favors min maxing (which is why you see it everywhere).
: The logical inadequacy of multipurpose units in a game that only lets you do single actions (why take a mixed unit like tacticals or guardians when it's own loadout is contradictory? Can't fire the special and heavy at the same time and neither one is going to be good at killing the thing the bolters are "good" at killing meaning the opportunity cost and thus point value of the weapons themselves is wasted). Again, this directly favors min maxing over taking multipurpose or resilient units.
: A turn has been removed from shooting since third due to running and combats have been made vastly deadlier, but only some specific units can take advantage. This means that orks hit a tau line a turn earlier and the tau lose the game by default, but tyranids gain little since their turn of impact didn't increase with the addition of the run rules. The way GW has made up for quicker impact of assault units has been to power up shooting dramatically. That makes the game an all or nothing affair of tabling vs getting tabled. It's like a giant slow tower defense game.
: Transports in defense break the logical flow of the firing phase because an entire 200+ point block of shooting will typically be utilized on a single transport while leaving the occupants unscathed to then utilize their own firepower on the return on a softer and more valuable target. Being forced to sink 8 bolters into the side of a vehicle so that I can also fire 2 meltaguns at it is stupid. It breaks the game. It has always broken the game. It directly favors MSU and min maxing. This wasn't a problem in fourth because transports were prohibitively expensive and anti vehicle weaponry was still cheap, but the opportunity cost of transports became too good and obvious when the majority of them dropped 33% or more in cost.
: etc, there are other issues like the lack of a functioning morale system with layers of non working patches, the fundamental imbalance caused by random reserve rolls, exceptionally poor basic mission and deployment design, blah blah.
Sixth edition addresses almost none of these points, adds a lot of uneeded randomness, and makes it easier to minmax through allies and expanded for org selection. It's putting (ugly) lipstick on a pig, this games designers have no idea what they're doing.
QFT!
That´s what you get when actual rule and game balance need to step aside for certain model sales!
No, they just push some numeric values around a bit. Addressing these issues would require a revamping of the basic shooting and movement systems in a way that GW isn't willing to do. If anything shooting appears dramatically more powerful in sixth with the reduction of cover and the removal of easy wound allocation.
Exactly. On top of this is basically outright removes a number of units that from now on will never be seen on the tabletop, thus making the game even more predictable.
We certainly dont need MORE legion pf the damned crap that is never ever used due to overcosted values.
You have not run into many good tau players have you?
While it was quite the struggle, my beloved xenos did well in 5th
I have. They all to a man survived by cheap rules exploits (look up the old necron build by dash for a fun example) and insane spamming. Hardly anything fun and if this gak continues over to 6ed nothing is solved at all.
Alright, that was pretty good. Can't get into a wall o text battle right now. Random assault is not hugely imbalancing, that's just absurd (look up the % of time 6 **or higher** is rolled on a 2d6). Nor does random terrain. You should know the probabilities before you play, and know the risks, and then decide in game if the risk is worth it.
So why not also add in random shooting then?
Every unit that wishes to shoot can only range Xd6. That sound fun to you?
You should know the probabilities before you play, and know the risks, and then decide in game if the risk is worth it. I see a lot of changes, I don't see shooting being "unscathed.
Now who is contradicting ones self? If a 500 point assault terminator unit rolls double ones in an assault that is a quarter of an army failing to get to grips with an enemy. That is a single roll having a disproportionate and unblancing effect on the game. The presence of randomness doesn't need to be 1/0, the presence of randomness itself is enough. Probabilistic curves flatten in volume, but assault distance rolls will not be high enough volume to flatten, thus every roll will be very important. that 12 and that 2 will and and lose games and whenever it happens both players will feel cheated. In essence they were. The random nature of the game overwrote their own intentions for good or ill and took over. This doesn't happen as much in shooting or assault because averages appear in masses.
You should understand how randomness and statistical averages work.
Those long fangs will be camping in worse cover usually, so they'll die quicker
Yes, they'll die quicker to shooting. How is that not exactly what i said?
Using transports as mobile bunkers to shoot out of won't be as strong either.
It wasn't strong before. You don't get inside the razorback, you shield your long fangs from shooting by having them next to it and it shoots for itself.
Will MSU be as good considering that concentrated fire from one direction will take out special weapons more easily than before (since wound allocation is closest to farthest).
That doesn't really effect MSU more than wound allocation already did. The point of MSU is to do away with ablative models in the first place since they're dead weight.
To some one that has ACTUALLY READ OR SEEN the book, is it true that after X amount of glancing hits, the next glance WRECKS the vehicle?. That would pretty much kill this edition for me, i mean what is a futuristic battle game with out tanks or mechs...?
Yes, that appears to be the case. Every glancing hit takes off a hull point, when you run out of HP, you get wrecked. I'm looking forward to 10 necron warriors rapid firing land raiders into dust and ashes.
xxvaderxx wrote:To some one that has ACTUALLY READ OR SEEN the book, is it true that after X amount of glancing hits, the next glance WRECKS the vehicle?. That would pretty much kill this edition for me, i mean what is a futuristic battle game with out tanks or mechs...?
That's a great question I haven't seen answered yet. Necron glances to remove hull points is good---necron glances that remove hull points to 0 (which cause wrecks) is really good.
xxvaderxx wrote:To some one that has ACTUALLY READ OR SEEN the book, is it true that after X amount of glancing hits, the next glance WRECKS the vehicle?. That would pretty much kill this edition for me, i mean what is a futuristic battle game with out tanks or mechs...?
This is true, but glancing hits no longer cause vehicle damage results. This means individual lucky shots will be less effective, but vehicles won't be able to weather tons of glancing hits and stay alive like they can now.
a futuristic battle game with out tanks or mechs...?
Razor/Chimeraspam is dead. It's been mentioned a dozen or a couple dozen times in this thread. Vehicle durability dropped by something like 50%, and sometimes a lot more, depending on what is shooting. In 6th you'll use either flyerspam, infantryspam, or a combined arms approach.
Jump infantry assault armies aren't complaining either, considering their assault range used to be 18" and now it's ~21" on average while also gaining their free I10 attacks for every model.
Personally I'm intrigued in seeing what the metagame will look like in a half a year or a year because a lot of armies that aren't dominating now become better when their worst opponents disappear from the tournament circuit. An example of this would be Dark Eldar, who never had any trouble tabling non-mech Marines in just a few turns of shooting, but couldn't often crack their Razor boxes before all the paper planes were shot down. Naturally they had the exact same problem against the 15x AV12 vehicle IG armies but the situation was even worse.
I just don't understand the *need* to make assaulting prone to failing even in open ground. Why not make shooting units roll 2d6 if they are within 12" to see how far they can shoot? That's basically the same thing
If Unit A will kill unit B with shooting and unit B will kill unit A with assault.. yet unit B fails to assault 25% of the time then why would you ever take unit B over unit A?
It's a needlessly random rule since shooting was already better in 5th than assault!
Therion wrote:Vehicle durability dropped by something like 50%, and sometimes a lot more, depending on what is shooting. In 6th you'll use either flyerspam, infantryspam, or a combined arms approach.
Uh, what? Lots of vehicles got *more* resilient because they can no longer be suppressed by random lucky shots and penetrating hits are less likely to kill. Ordnance was also strongly buffed. Razorbacks (and to a lesser extent Chimeras) are probably dead in the water, but I think we'll still see lots of Rhinos, Predators, Leman Russes, and even Vindicators.
a futuristic battle game with out tanks or mechs...?
Razor/Chimeraspam is dead. It's been mentioned a dozen or a couple dozen times in this thread. Vehicle durability dropped by something like 50%, and sometimes a lot more, depending on what is shooting. In 6th you'll use either flyerspam, infantryspam, or a combined arms approach.
Durability isn't what made razorspam good. Distributed firepower is what made it good. The razorbacks exploded the first time they were shot anyway, the point was that the opponent could only shoot so many things a turn. This change doesn't really do much to negate that.
xxvaderxx wrote:To some one that has ACTUALLY READ OR SEEN the book, is it true that after X amount of glancing hits, the next glance WRECKS the vehicle?. That would pretty much kill this edition for me, i mean what is a futuristic battle game with out tanks or mechs...?
This is true, but glancing hits no longer cause vehicle damage results. This means individual lucky shots will be less effective, but vehicles won't be able to weather tons of glancing hits and stay alive like they can now.
In a world where plasma guns can fire and move and you have on demand long rage high strength firepower, there are no "Individual lucky shots".
I mean, i was looking for an answer from someone that had actually seen this with their own eyes, because it is a rather steep turn for the worst, vehicles were already paper thin in 5th, now they are not worth bringing to the table all together. Dont get me wrong, this does not affect me negatively, i play wolves, have more bodies than i could ever paint, and can field 10 hunter guys with 2 plasma guns for 160 points, which basically get all the rumored benefits from this edition so far, none of the drawbacks and are powerful and cheap enough to spam. But with out armor, this game is basically dead to me, there are far better gun line v gun line games out there.
LOL, the frothing at the mouth came back a little, I can see you need to wipe your mouth off again. Oh well. I shouldn't have such high expectations.
If a 500 point assault terminator unit rolls double ones in an assault that is a quarter of an army failing to get to grips with an enemy. That is a single roll having a disproportionate and unblancing effect on the game.
That can happen in 5th too with difficult terrain. Did you nerdrage about that? Missing with a melta gun at close range to a Land Raider can also have a "disproportionate" effect on the game, but what do you know, most shooting isn't auto-hit.
You should understand how randomness and statistical averages work.
Seriously? I mean really, are you going through some tough non-40k related issues? What the hell is the reason for a comment like that? I'm pointing out politely and in a half-silly manner how angry you are coming across, and you decide, on top of that seething rage, to throw out insults of my intelligence? Really? Perhaps you should step back and take a break friend.
Yes, they'll die quicker to shooting. How is that not exactly what i said?
Shooting is unscathed you claimed, yet things which camp in cover in order to shoot will die quicker? Ablative wounds for said campers will be far less effective? Seems shooting is going to be *different*, not unscathed as you claimed. Your word choice has been very poor today.
xxvaderxx wrote:In a world where plasma guns can fire and move and you have on demand long rage high strength firepower, there are no "Individual lucky shots".
What? Sure there are. Plasma guns are exactly the type of weapon that put out the "individual lucky shots" I'm talking about. Predators or Vindicators have front armor 13, but that one lucky 6 from a plasma or autocannon shot currently has a very high chance to silence them for a turn. In the new edition, the impact of that one shot won't be particularly significant.
The razorbacks exploded the first time they were shot anyway
That's just so much BS it's unreal. Do you need me to give you the statistical chances of a let's say a BS4 missile launcher, or a BS3 multi-laser, for killing an enemy Chimera or a Razorback? Really? They explode the first time they are shot at? So what will they do in 6th edition? Explode on their own?
By all means keep your eyes closed and keep playing what you were playing. It'll take some people longer to adjust to the changes.
Vehicles are now a lot closer to the durability of monstrous creatures. AKA not durable.
penetrating hits are less likely to kill
AP1 is more likely to kill than before. AP2 is as likely to kill as before. AP3, AP4, AP5 and AP6 are less likely to kill as before, while AP- is as likely to kill as before. I'm sure the AP3 missile batteries are crying themselves a river, considering 5 missiles nearly average an automatic Razorback death in 6th (2.22 hull point damage and ~2 rolls on the damage chart).
a futuristic battle game with out tanks or mechs...?
Razor/Chimeraspam is dead. It's been mentioned a dozen or a couple dozen times in this thread. Vehicle durability dropped by something like 50%, and sometimes a lot more, depending on what is shooting. In 6th you'll use either flyerspam, infantryspam, or a combined arms approach.
Frankly, I can't be bothered to rework my army lists. I don't have the time, the desire to paint or the money to spend on multiple new units.. I'll field the same goddamn no-wins bullcrap lists I've fielded through all of 5th, and if it turns out they get tabled on turn 2 instead of turn 4, whoop-de-****ing-doo. Maybe this time around, it'll be so much of a no-contest that my opponents will get fed up and quit the game because there's no challenge anymore. I don't care, and to an extent, GW has done nothing with their lackluster coverage to make me do so. They appear to have surrendered control of the narrative to internet forums like this one, where rumors and flawed metagame calculations run amok.
I only ever fielded a maximum one Leman Russ, one Chimera and one Griffon at any one time. They were already fragile, especially since Space Wolves usually showed up in a drop pod on turn 1 and fired meltas at my side armor. Why would I want to keep going if the units I like will only get weaker and weaker. I dread to think how badly the new rules will shaft Ogryns, just like every rules and codex change has since 2nd edition.
a futuristic battle game with out tanks or mechs...?
Razor/Chimeraspam is dead. It's been mentioned a dozen or a couple dozen times in this thread. Vehicle durability dropped by something like 50%, and sometimes a lot more, depending on what is shooting. In 6th you'll use either flyerspam, infantryspam, or a combined arms approach.
Jump infantry assault armies aren't complaining either, considering their assault range used to be 18" and now it's ~21" on average while also gaining their free I10 attacks for every model.
Personally I'm intrigued in seeing what the metagame will look like in a half a year or a year because a lot of armies that aren't dominating now become better when their worst opponents disappear from the tournament circuit. An example of this would be Dark Eldar, who never had any trouble tabling non-mech Marines in just a few turns of shooting, but couldn't often crack their Razor boxes before all the paper planes were shot down. Naturally they had the exact same problem against the 15x AV12 vehicle IG armies but the situation was even worse.
No...no it's not. Guard can field 12+ vehicles at 2,000 points, several of which are AV14. Don't tell me there are lists that can take out that level of armour that are not specifically designed to do so, and even highly tailored ones would struggle (plus if you tailor, I can tailor right back).
And at 2000+ I can field six leman Russes. Good luck glancing them to death
I mean, i was looking for an answer from someone that had actually seen this with their own eyes, because it is a rather steep turn for the worst, vehicles were already paper thin in 5th
I don't think you ever did the comparative math in volume firepower to take out a vehicle vs it's equal weight in marines. It takes about 9 missiles for a reliable kill on a rhino, 2/3 hits, 1/2 pens, 1/3 kills. That same 9 missiles will kill 5 marines. 5 grey hunters is 75 points, a rhino is 35.
When you look at chimeras the math is even better.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Therion wrote:
The razorbacks exploded the first time they were shot anyway
That's just so much BS it's unreal. Do you need me to give you the statistical chances of a let's say a BS4 missile launcher, or a BS3 multi-laser, for killing an enemy Chimera or a Razorback? Really? They explode the first time they are shot at? So what will they do in 6th edition? Explode on their own?
By all means keep your eyes closed and keep playing what you were playing. It'll take some people longer to adjust to the changes.
Oh my, someone is gonna tell me the math, how cute. You should probably learn to tell the difference between someone laying out mathematical averages for fire efficacy and someone giving a rough description of how the flow of battle actually works. They die the first time they're shot because the opponant uses his voluminous anti transport firepower to kill them. that firepower comes in sizeale bricks. 5 longfangs has over 50% chance to kill a rhino, thus "the first time they shoot". It takes "more than one shot". But "number of shots" and "when the shots are shot" are different things. The only units in the game which can singularly bring down transports while doing so en masse and are used as such are raiders and razorbacks. Those two units are core to the concept of MSU but are generally shot after the big guns take down primary targets.
So now, to 'wreck' a Rhino or Razorback with missiles by removing hull points is what... 9 missiles, 2/3 hit, for 6, 2/3rds of those are glance or better for AV 11, which is 4, which is one more hull point than the transports have. So 9 missiles should almost always do it.
Edited to add - Seems 7 missiles (* 2/3 to hit * 2/3 to glance or better) will average a removal of 3.11 hull points.
Joe Mama wrote:So now, to 'wreck' a Rhino or Razorback with missiles by removing hull points is what... 9 missiles, 2/3 hit, for 6, 2/3rds of those are glance or better for AV 11, which is 4, which is one more hull point than the transports have. So 9 missiles should almost always do it.
Yeah, light mech isn't really losing much here. MSU mechspam with an emphasis on long range firepower won't dwindle much. MSU mech spam reliant on drops like blood angel razorspam isn't gonna be happy though.
xxvaderxx wrote:In a world where plasma guns can fire and move and you have on demand long rage high strength firepower, there are no "Individual lucky shots".
What? Sure there are. Plasma guns are exactly the type of weapon that put out the "individual lucky shots" I'm talking about. Predators or Vindicators have front armor 13, but that one lucky 6 from a plasma or autocannon shot currently has a very high chance to silence them for a turn. In the new edition, the impact of that one shot won't be particularly significant.
Except that nobody brought them to the game exactly because they were unreliable, that's why all you saw was melta and melta bets, same goes for daka dreads v devastator with missiles. Now the tables have turned, enough st 7 shots will blow up almost any vehicle, Melta had a 12" range, with a an actually effective tank busting capability at 6". On the flip side, Plasma saturation will blow armor up at the 24" inch range, with doubling saturation at 12", meaning spreading the same amount of plasma is more effective than spreading the same amount melta since you can shot it sooner and is not a matter of quality but of saturation.
It is easier to saturate with 24" inch range, than close the gap to kill with a 6" range, same reasoning why we now use guns instead of swords, enough bullets in the air will kill you just as the as an axe to the teeth. Which again kill AR12 and bellow, only possible exception will be guard if they can spam chimeras enough, but i doubt it, and the rest might as will leave the toy cars at home.
.
Joe Mama wrote:So now, to 'wreck' a Rhino or Razorback with missiles by removing hull points is what... 9 missiles, 2/3 hit, for 6, 2/3rds of those are glance or better for AV 11, which is 4, which is one more hull point than the transports have. So 9 missiles should almost always do it.
Yeah, light mech isn't really losing much here. MSU mechspam with an emphasis on long range firepower won't dwindle much. MSU mech spam reliant on drops like blood angel razorspam isn't gonna be happy though.
I actually did better number crunching and the average to take out an AV 11 transport is 7 missiles. BUT, remember an individual glance does nothing. The razorback / rhino can still fire, they can both move. An individual missile is less likely to wreck the transport than before. BA might be a bit worse but ok, depending on how the fast vehicle rules work.
xxvaderxx wrote:Except that nobody brought them to the game exactly because they were unreliable, that's why all you saw was melta and melta bets, same goes for daka dreads v devastator with missiles. Now the tables have turned, enough st 7 shots will blow up almost any vehicle, Melta had a 12" range, with a an actually effective tank busting capability at 6". On the flip side, Plasma saturation will blow armor up at the 24" inch range, with doubling saturation at 12", meaning spreading the same amount of plasma is more effective than spreading the same amount melta since you can shot it sooner and is not a matter of quality but of saturation.
It is easier to saturate with 24" inch range, than close the gap to kill with a 6" range, same reasoning why we now use guns instead of swords, enough bullets in the are will kill you just as the as an axe to the teeth. Which again kill AR12 and bellow, only possible exception will be guard if they can spam chimeras enough, but i doubt it, and the rest might as will leave the toy cars at home.
.
Let's just say that my Predators are a lot happier with having to take 18 plasma gun shots to the front (assuming no cover) to drop their hull points and wreck them than they are with a melta squad moving up in a transport and blasting them in one turn. If people start reaching for plasma instead of melta, I'm going to start reaching for my Vindicators. Demolisher Cannons look a lot better when they don't get shut down by random glances.
I'm calling shenanigans on this. Otherwise, I'd like to introduce you to the Draigo+Mephiston+Logan deathstar
Challenges. Squad leaders can challenge squad leaders and ICs, stops combat for that unit except for the two combatants.
I really have difficulty believing this, as a Necron Lord w/ Warscythe & MSS will instantly make any unit un-assaultable. As great as that sounds, I don't buy it.
Agamemnon2 wrote:Yes, that appears to be the case. Every glancing hit takes off a hull point, when you run out of HP, you get wrecked. I'm looking forward to 10 necron warriors rapid firing land raiders into dust and ashes.
Didn't that already happen in 3rd & 4th Editions?
Agamemnon2 wrote:
Frankly, I can't be bothered to rework my army lists. I don't have the time, the desire to paint or the money to spend on multiple new units.. I'll field the same goddamn no-wins bullcrap lists I've fielded through all of 5th, and if it turns out they get tabled on turn 2 instead of turn 4, whoop-de-****ing-doo. Maybe this time around, it'll be so much of a no-contest that my opponents will get fed up and quit the game because there's no challenge anymore. I don't care.
I only ever fielded a maximum one Leman Russ, one Chimera and one Griffon at any one time. They were already fragile, especially since Space Wolves usually showed up in a drop pod on turn 1 and fired meltas at my side armor. Why would I want to keep going if the units I like will only get weaker and weaker. I dread to think how badly the new rules will shaft Ogryns, just like every rules and codex change has since 2nd edition.
So what you're saying is that essentially, you would be unhappy no matter what changed. 6th Ed. was a certaintly for a very long time, so why does the fact that rules have shifted seem to be such a shock? I don't mean to put you on the spot here, but this particular rage-post kinda jumped out at me in that it would have been posted irrespective of what the rules of 6th Ed. were, so long as they weren't literally 5th Ed. with alternate cover art.
Joe Mama wrote:So now, to 'wreck' a Rhino or Razorback with missiles by removing hull points is what... 9 missiles, 2/3 hit, for 6, 2/3rds of those are glance or better for AV 11, which is 4, which is one more hull point than the transports have. So 9 missiles should almost always do it.
Yeah, light mech isn't really losing much here. MSU mechspam with an emphasis on long range firepower won't dwindle much. MSU mech spam reliant on drops like blood angel razorspam isn't gonna be happy though.
I actually did better number crunching and the average to take out an AV 11 transport is 7 missiles. BUT, remember an individual glance does nothing. The razorback / rhino can still fire, they can both move. An individual missile is less likely to wreck the transport than before. BA might be a bit worse but ok, depending on how the fast vehicle rules work.
IF we assume average non tank busting infantry will be swapping they melta for plasmas, and plasma now being able to shot and move, those 7 shots do not amount to the same firepower they did in 5th, much less actually.
The razorbacks exploded the first time they were shot anyway
That's just so much BS it's unreal. Do you need me to give you the statistical chances of a let's say a BS4 missile launcher, or a BS3 multi-laser, for killing an enemy Chimera or a Razorback? Really? They explode the first time they are shot at? So what will they do in 6th edition? Explode on their own?
By all means keep your eyes closed and keep playing what you were playing. It'll take some people longer to adjust to the changes.
Vehicles are now a lot closer to the durability of monstrous creatures. AKA not durable.
You had some traction in the beginning but lost it with that last part. If you don't think the ability to guarantee surviving 3 or more anti-tank weapon hits/wounds is not durable along with 100% power even at a single wound left (whereas vehicles suffer stuns/shaken/weapon destroyed/immoblized).. I'm not sure what is. No vehicle in normal 40k can even be guaranteed to survive a single shot if the firer is lucky enough. I can't comment about the upcoming edition since I haven't seen the rules myself but MC have been just fine and dandy in the current edition.
azazel the cat wrote:So what you're saying is that essentially, you would be unhappy no matter what changed. 6th Ed. was a certaintly for a very long time, so why does the fact that rules have shifted seem to be such a shock? I don't mean to put you on the spot here, but this particular rage-post kinda jumped out at me in that it would have been posted irrespective of what the rules of 6th Ed. were, so long as they weren't literally 5th Ed. with alternate cover art.
Rage? No, there's no rage at all. What there is is resignation, boredom and tedium. "I don't care" is not the sentiment of a raging person.
I would have been satisfied with an edition that left me to play my lackluster armies in peace and at the same time did something about the incessant cavalcade of ridiculousness that's what my regular opponents take to the field these days. Not one where a Draigo + Mephiston tag team is a literal possibility and a chilling vision of things to come
Joey wrote:No...no it's not. Guard can field 12+ vehicles at 2,000 points, several of which are AV14. Don't tell me there are lists that can take out that level of armour that are not specifically designed to do so, and even highly tailored ones would struggle (plus if you tailor, I can tailor right back). And at 2000+ I can field six leman Russes. Good luck glancing them to death
5x Warriors w/ Night Scythe 5x Warriors w/ Night Scythe 5x Warriors w/ Night Scythe 5x Warriors w/ Night Scythe 5x Warriors w/ Night Scythe 5x Warriors w/ Night Scythe 6x Doom Scythe 1x Overlord w/ MSS, Warscythe & CCBarge 1x Overlord w/ MSS, Warscythe & CCBarge 2x Harbinger of Destruction w/ Solar Pulse
That's 2540 points. Granted, I'm working off of repeatedly-posted rumours here, and I still have a 5th Ed. mindset for obvious reasons. However, I still think your bravado is excessive, even for an IG player, because:
The fliers are reserved, and the turn they come in is the turn you get solar pulsed. You can't shoot anything beyond 36" under the new NF rules, and this list only needs 1 turn to make your parking lot simply cease to exist, thanks to the TL Tesla snapfire and the Death Rays. Anything that can skyfire will be destroyed first with no hesitation or difficulty. The CCBarges are useful as always, and any ground troops can just get assaulted by the Overlords, who will challenge your sergeants, and according to the rumours that challenge stops combat between the entire unit except for the challenged guys, who will then suffer the MSS 50% at Ld 10 and attack themselves before being Warscythed into ID.
xxvaderxx wrote:Except that nobody brought them to the game exactly because they were unreliable, that's why all you saw was melta and melta bets, same goes for daka dreads v devastator with missiles. Now the tables have turned, enough st 7 shots will blow up almost any vehicle, Melta had a 12" range, with a an actually effective tank busting capability at 6". On the flip side, Plasma saturation will blow armor up at the 24" inch range, with doubling saturation at 12", meaning spreading the same amount of plasma is more effective than spreading the same amount melta since you can shot it sooner and is not a matter of quality but of saturation.
It is easier to saturate with 24" inch range, than close the gap to kill with a 6" range, same reasoning why we now use guns instead of swords, enough bullets in the are will kill you just as the as an axe to the teeth. Which again kill AR12 and bellow, only possible exception will be guard if they can spam chimeras enough, but i doubt it, and the rest might as will leave the toy cars at home.
.
Let's just say that my Predators are a lot happier with having to take 18 plasma gun shots to the front (assuming no cover) to drop their hull points and wreck them than they are with a melta squad moving up in a transport and blasting them in one turn. If people start reaching for plasma instead of melta, I'm going to start reaching for my Vindicators. Demolisher Cannons look a lot better when they don't get shut down by random glances.
I do predict that is how it is going to turn out, you will drop your short range killer melta for a Jack of all trades vehicle softner plasma, will keep your now AR14 wrecking missile lunchers, and will ad either "long" range heavy hitting power in the form of vindis or tank hunter preds.
I know i will spam plasma with my hunters, keep my 15 missiles and add some either vindi or pred tank hunter. I dont see twin lass being of much use this edition since we (marines) cant spam it enough and lower and cheaper st which we CAN spam ends up doing the job just as well.
azazel the cat wrote:So what you're saying is that essentially, you would be unhappy no matter what changed. 6th Ed. was a certaintly for a very long time, so why does the fact that rules have shifted seem to be such a shock? I don't mean to put you on the spot here, but this particular rage-post kinda jumped out at me in that it would have been posted irrespective of what the rules of 6th Ed. were, so long as they weren't literally 5th Ed. with alternate cover art.
Rage? No, there's no rage at all. What there is is resignation, boredom and tedium. "I don't care" is not the sentiment of a raging person.
Fair enough. I may have confused exasperation with aggravation, and I apologize.
However, I think the rest of my question is still valid.
ShumaGorath wrote:Oh my, someone is gonna tell me the math, how cute.
Silence child, and pay some attention.
They die the first time they're shot because the opponant uses his voluminous anti transport firepower to kill them. that firepower comes in sizeale bricks. 5 longfangs has over 50% chance to kill a rhino, thus "the first time they shoot". It takes "more than one shot".
So your argument all along was that when multiple units of the enemy army, or just incredibly shooty units, pour their entire firepower against a 50 point Razorback, it dies, and that's what you call "dying the first time it's shot at". On what merits exactly are you arguing against anyone in this thread about the future of 40K or the metagame overall? It's more than hilarious that as an example you choose Long Fangs which can split fire, meaning, if before the enemy thought he would need 5 Long Fangs against a Rhino, he would now split fire the 5 missiles against two Rhinos and kill or remove wounds from both of them. I'm dying a little inside when even trying to figure out what your actual point is. What kind of garbage do you play against? Armies that brought three 'blocks' of anti-tank firepower, meaning that because you brought 8 Razorbacks you are at an insane advantage? That's your point?
I played IG which in 2K pts had:
CCS + 4 meltas in Chimera
CCS + 4 meltas in Chimera
PBS + 5 additional psykers in Chimera
PCS + 3 flamers in Chimera
Infantry squad + lascannon + flamer in Chimera
Infantry squad + lascannon + flamer in Chimera
Veteran squad + 3 meltas in Chimera
Vendetta + heavy bolters
Vendetta + heavy bolters
Vendetta + heavy bolters
3 Hydras
3 Hydras
Manticore
The strength of this army wasn't just that I had a lot of units. That's 17 AV12 vehicles by the way. It was because no matter what the opponent was choosing to fire at, it all had AV12 and was pretty much incredibly underpriced for the durability it had. I couldn't care less if some of my stuff was shaken or stunned because you couldn't suppress all my meaningful firepower anyway with just shooting. In following turns the shaken tanks would start shooting again and barely nothing ever died unless playing against similar power houses. Now if someone told me that all your stuff dies three times as fast, I would really be worried. You aren't, because you see some hidden strengths in the army that have nothing to do with the fact that it takes an absolutely ridiculous amount of firepower to destroy that amount of vehicles with cover saves and the infantry bunkering behind their rides. When you play this army in a mirror match against itself, but the opponent's vehicles die 50% easier, what do you think happens over 6 turns? I sincerely hope even you can figure this one out.
Now, as a follow-up, the reason for the death of Razorspam isn't only because their durability dropped more than ever before. There are other reasons, like the prevalence of flyers and their alpha strike capability, and the Razorbacks' inability to hit them.
You should probably learn to tell the difference between someone laying out mathematical averages for fire efficacy and someone giving a rough description of how the flow of battle actually works.
You tell me then how the flow of battle goes for 6 Razorbacks with GH, 3 Long Fang squads and 3 units of TWC and an assortment of heroes, against an army with 8 flyers like some of the lists me and Maelstrom have posted on the army lists forum. Many other types of lists than those will emerge, and the end result will be that Razorspam is simply gone from the competitive circuit. When even two army books build TAC lists that table Razorspams of all varieties in under four turns, that army is simply no longer viable and its' removal from the deck of competitive armies has further chain effects in the metagame. Feel free to rage against change. You'll just end up as one of those wash outs who have to copy a GT winner's list later.
What are each of the fortifications and what weapons/abilities do they bring to the table?
I KNOW this has been posted a million times but I cannot find it. Thanks!
Oh, and I actually bought an aegis defense line (riflemandreadnought conversion) and will that be of any use (the defense line)?
Joe Mama wrote:So now, to 'wreck' a Rhino or Razorback with missiles by removing hull points is what... 9 missiles, 2/3 hit, for 6, 2/3rds of those are glance or better for AV 11, which is 4, which is one more hull point than the transports have. So 9 missiles should almost always do it.
Yeah, light mech isn't really losing much here. MSU mechspam with an emphasis on long range firepower won't dwindle much. MSU mech spam reliant on drops like blood angel razorspam isn't gonna be happy though.
I actually did better number crunching and the average to take out an AV 11 transport is 7 missiles. BUT, remember an individual glance does nothing. The razorback / rhino can still fire, they can both move. An individual missile is less likely to wreck the transport than before. BA might be a bit worse but ok, depending on how the fast vehicle rules work.
IF we assume average non tank busting infantry will be swapping they melta for plasmas, and plasma now being able to shot and move, those 7 shots do not amount to the same firepower they did in 5th, much less actually.
I was talking about missiles versus AV 11. Takes less of them to reliably wreck a vehicle in 6th than in 5th, but a single missile in 6th is far less likely to to destroy a vehicle than before (since only a 6 on the pen chart destroys it).
Plasma has a longer range than melta, and I think may get + 1 on the damage chart for being AP2. It will be better at killing light transports than melta, that's for sure. How they'll shake out against tanks is another matter....
To some one that has ACTUALLY READ OR SEEN the book, is it true that after X amount of glancing hits, the next glance WRECKS the vehicle?. That would pretty much kill this edition for me, i mean what is a futuristic battle game with out tanks or mechs...?
It´s called a miniature tabletop game.
A nice change to all the idiotic my-line-of-vehicles vs your-line-of-vehicles and almost no actual miniatures ever seen.
I just don't understand the *need* to make assaulting prone to failing even in open ground. Why not make shooting units roll 2d6 if they are within 12" to see how far they can shoot? That's basically the same thing
If Unit A will kill unit B with shooting and unit B will kill unit A with assault.. yet unit B fails to assault 25% of the time then why would you ever take unit B over unit A?
It's a needlessly random rule since shooting was already better in 5th than assault!
Yeah, and then they call it more strategy and less luck.
What a load of gak.
If a 500 point assault terminator unit rolls double ones in an assault that is a quarter of an army failing to get to grips with an enemy. That is a single roll having a disproportionate and unblancing effect on the game.
That can happen in 5th too with difficult terrain. Did you nerdrage about that?
And now it will happen out in the open with no terrain even needing to interfere.
It´s called stating the obvious, not nerdraging or did you really need to nerdrage about his point?
The random Warlord Abilities and Psychic Powers just scream a return to 2nd Edition ways, and I have to tell you 2nd edition was a hell of a lot of fun.
I hated the 2ndition close combat rules, it was too unbalanced towards those with the higher weapons skill or initiative, but those were cleansed back in 3rd edition, so I'm actually looking forward to 6th Edition.
I managed to resist the fanboi urge to get the collector's ediion, but I'll just get my hardcover regular edition to tide me over untill the littlebook version shows up in September.
azazel the cat wrote:However, I think the rest of my question is still valid.
Scroll back up, then
Ah, I missed your edit. Fair enough, and to some degree (lots, actually) I share your sentiment. I actually fear the Draigo+Mephiston+Logan combo myself. What I don't understand is how this changes anything. You say that your lackluster army (your words) used to lose to your regular opponents. You still can. It's just a question of who you're playing with, and why you're playing as fodder for a WAAC competitive list, when you're only hoping for a beer & pretzels game.
My gripe with 6th, aside from the imblances of allies and double foc, is the damn weakness of vehicles now. Sure they should've been tonned down a bit. But to nerf them into the ground. I run iron warriors, I just painstakingly got together 12 rhinos for my 2000 point list, now I'm told they are as strong in game as the plastic they are made out of?! My iron warriors do not walk into battle they get there in iron armored transports. All the while people are jumping on the necron bandwagon. "Please tell me how you were Always a big necron fan". I want to play transports that don't blow up when a Necron sneezes on them because I want to New spam, I want to use them because they are fluffy for my army.
Something just occurred to me: if Dreadnoughts have 3 hull points, then the Venerable rule just became one of the most overpriced pieces of wargear in the game.
A. only talking about the assault failing, and not talking about the assault succeeding. I cant tell you the number of times I have been 13 or 14 inches out and had to take my unit else where and had my tactics turn around. I like the risk reward idea. Now an impossible charge becomes more likely. Also what is the chance of rolling a double 1, 3% ish?
B. Talking about all the combinations that are capable in the rules. Lets not talk about what other people are capable of playing, rather what combinations you would actually play.
I am happy that I can now create a pseudo deathwatch army. Get a xenos inquisitor and a small Grey Knights squad. Add them to my regular marines. It should be a lot of fun and I look forward to it. I think most armies get closer to each other in strength, and while most people see allies as a unbalancing factor. I truly believe that they can be a powerful balancing factor across the board as well.
"What I love about the new Allied Detatchment rules is, they capture a flavor of the WH40K universe."
What flavor is that? Bad? Terrible? 'Cause, you know, SoB with Eldar has been so prevelent in recent years. Same goes for that rich history of Tau summoning Daemons and Gretchin supporting Space Wolves!
"How many of the great battles in the history, which have featured not just one army but an alliance between two forces pressed against the enemy?"
Um... IG and Marines? Chaos and Daemons? Oh... and Blood Angels and Necrons.
I think he only remembers the most recent of these "great battles".
Frankly, the idea that the tournament metagame might be thrown into chaos is what's giving me at least a tiny bit of joy, but even then, I have no doubt the usual suspects will emerge victorious.
Are we still doing this casual vs. competitive echo chamber? I really wish jervis johnson had kept his big mouth shut over the whole thing cause now i have to read this
A. only talking about the assault failing, and not talking about the assault succeeding. I cant tell you the number of times I have been 13 or 14 inches out and had to take my unit else where and had my tactics turn around. I like the risk reward idea. Now an impossible charge becomes more likely. Also what is the chance of rolling a double 1, 3% ish?
B. Talking about all the combinations that are capable in the rules. Lets not talk about what other people are capable of playing, rather what combinations you would actually play.
I am happy that I can now create a pseudo deathwatch army. Get a xenos inquisitor and a small Grey Knights squad. Add them to my regular marines. It should be a lot of fun and I look forward to it. I think most armies get closer to each other in strength, and while most people see allies as a unbalancing factor. I truly believe that they can be a powerful balancing factor across the board as well.
Because people on the Internet love to focus on the negative as it's what everyone else is doing. It's mob mentality.
A. only talking about the assault failing, and not talking about the assault succeeding. I cant tell you the number of times I have been 13 or 14 inches out and had to take my unit else where and had my tactics turn around. I like the risk reward idea. Now an impossible charge becomes more likely. Also what is the chance of rolling a double 1, 3% ish?
B. Talking about all the combinations that are capable in the rules. Lets not talk about what other people are capable of playing, rather what combinations you would actually play.
I am happy that I can now create a pseudo deathwatch army. Get a xenos inquisitor and a small Grey Knights squad. Add them to my regular marines. It should be a lot of fun and I look forward to it. I think most armies get closer to each other in strength, and while most people see allies as a unbalancing factor. I truly believe that they can be a powerful balancing factor across the board as well.
Because people on the Internet love to focus on the negative as it's what everyone else is doing. It's mob mentality.
What else are you going to talk about? You can only post so many times about how you can't wait to give all your money up.
azazel the cat wrote:Something just occurred to me: if Dreadnoughts have 3 hull points, then the Venerable rule just became one of the most overpriced pieces of wargear in the game.
Lol, yeah, i had forgotten about this, it is so damn retardly expensive it is not even funny.
As to the how much softer AR13 and bellow now are, lets not also forget, that now you WILL be killed on the 3rd glance, and before you COULD survive a PEN, now after the 2nd glance your are toasted EITHER WAY.
Pyriel- wrote:
To some one that has ACTUALLY READ OR SEEN the book, is it true that after X amount of glancing hits, the next glance WRECKS the vehicle?. That would pretty much kill this edition for me, i mean what is a futuristic battle game with out tanks or mechs...?
It´s called a miniature tabletop game.
A nice change to all the idiotic my-line-of-vehicles vs your-line-of-vehicles and almost no actual miniatures ever seen.
I think the game you are looking for is called Necromunda, now Move along...
There should be a negative effect for you failing to get that charge though.
Because it allows, armies 12 inches out to be like what the hell lets go for it. And that I know of there is no minus to rolling under except you don't charge.
shank911 wrote:There should be a negative effect for you failing to get that charge though.
Because it allows, armies 12 inches out to be like what the hell lets go for it. And that I know of there is no minus to rolling under except you don't charge.
There is, you are target to snap fire either if you make it or not.
Eh, there's no negative effect now in 5th, I say we keep it that way. Not getting to assault seems like a negative enough thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xxvaderxx wrote:
shank911 wrote:There should be a negative effect for you failing to get that charge though.
Because it allows, armies 12 inches out to be like what the hell lets go for it. And that I know of there is no minus to rolling under except you don't charge.
There is, you are target to snap fire either if you make it or not.
A. only talking about the assault failing, and not talking about the assault succeeding. I cant tell you the number of times I have been 13 or 14 inches out and had to take my unit else where and had my tactics turn around. I like the risk reward idea. Now an impossible charge becomes more likely. Also what is the chance of rolling a double 1, 3% ish?
For me, when it comes to the random elements of the game, I'm going to plan on statistical averages. This means under the new rules, my assault moves are going to be based around getting my pieces within at least 7" and rolling statistcally average. So unless I'm absolutely desperate and making a hail mary play, any roll of more than 7" is rarely going to help me. On the other hand, if I get within 7" as I plan for and roll a 3 or 4, I get screwed. In other words a random charge on 2d6 is is going to hurt me far more often than it's going to help me.
A. only talking about the assault failing, and not talking about the assault succeeding. I cant tell you the number of times I have been 13 or 14 inches out and had to take my unit else where and had my tactics turn around. I like the risk reward idea. Now an impossible charge becomes more likely. Also what is the chance of rolling a double 1, 3% ish?
B. Talking about all the combinations that are capable in the rules. Lets not talk about what other people are capable of playing, rather what combinations you would actually play.
I am happy that I can now create a pseudo deathwatch army. Get a xenos inquisitor and a small Grey Knights squad. Add them to my regular marines. It should be a lot of fun and I look forward to it. I think most armies get closer to each other in strength, and while most people see allies as a unbalancing factor. I truly believe that they can be a powerful balancing factor across the board as well.
I can answer A in the viewpoint of a low T low Sv xenos player: DE.
Because fleet doesn't grant run + charge, in case you missed it. So, if we ignore the additional numbers from movement phrase, fleet assault units lost a guaranteed 6" on top of the 6" run, which would still get them to 12" charge if they're lucky, while non-fleet units all gained similar effect as 5th ed fleet units!
Strategically speaking, unless I'm very desperate in trying my chances, I'd never risk putting my fragile units in the open, this is why DE players either transport spam or WWP their CC units close, we don't have the luxury of power armour to stand in the open, enemies know that and will not hesitate in mowing our assault units down should they get the chance... And random distance is just GW's way to give them that chance. So instead of safely disembarking at 7" and knowing my wyches will be in assault, I now have to either get closer to reduce the chance of failing an assault, or to chance my wyches failing the assault and getting shot at in the open.
I'd say only very durable assault units(either through number or sv) would risk that 2D6" assault... Also, as someone mentioned, we have a chance at failing an assault, shooters don't need to chance their shooting, so why would anyone bring assault unit when shooting is more reliable? Providing you have the choice to go gunner army, of course.
These are all based on the rumours from this thread obviously, I'm still in denial...
Joe Mama wrote:Eh, there's no negative effect now in 5th, I say we keep it that way. Not getting to assault seems like a negative enough thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xxvaderxx wrote:
shank911 wrote:There should be a negative effect for you failing to get that charge though.
Because it allows, armies 12 inches out to be like what the hell lets go for it. And that I know of there is no minus to rolling under except you don't charge.
There is, you are target to snap fire either if you make it or not.
Oh right, and that..
Means your unit will be shot at with BS 1 at rapid fire range, regardless of whether you make it or not (templates rumor has it do 1d3 hits). Wont mind much if you are marines, but lower armor guys against bolters might, specially if you are left in the open and following that free shooting phase your opponent double taps your unit again this time at full BS.
Joe Mama wrote:Eh, there's no negative effect now in 5th, I say we keep it that way. Not getting to assault seems like a negative enough thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xxvaderxx wrote:
shank911 wrote:There should be a negative effect for you failing to get that charge though.
Because it allows, armies 12 inches out to be like what the hell lets go for it. And that I know of there is no minus to rolling under except you don't charge.
There is, you are target to snap fire either if you make it or not.
Oh right, and that..
Means your unit will be shot at with BS 1 at rapid fire range, regardless of whether you make it or not (templates rumor has it do 1d3 hits). Wont mind much if you are marines, but lower armor guys against bolters might, specially if you are left in the open and following that free shooting phase your opponent double taps your unit again this time at full BS.
Not to mention that you are now nice and open to the counter charge.
It's getting very snippy in here. I'm closing this thread for one hour; you can all go and cool down, and then we'll continue discussion of how the newest version of the rules for our toy soldier game are the [best|worst] thing to happen this decade.
Automatically Appended Next Post: That said, there is a lot of uneasiness going on in my local store as well. A lot of people thing Necros are going to dominate everything so hard that everyone else is going to have to slot in AA and Nightfight at every available slot.
While this isnt bad, that means that list building is going to go down a weird path, with a Rock Paper Scissors sort of feel.
Okay this thread has been re-opened for discussion, but please let's remember:
A) You are not looking at the full set of rules yet (that will be this Saturday when the book is available), so there will likely be all kinds of little nuances that may change your opinions on things.
B) Rules read in a vacuum often end up seeming quite different when you actually game with them on the table.
C) Tournament Organizers have in the past disallowed certain parts of the rules in order to appease player unease with parts of the game. There is no reason to assume that this wouldn't continue. So no matter how bad something may seem at first blush, if it really does turn out to be that way, then naturally tournament organizers will adapt and as always, in personal games house rules can be utilized to eliminate or change rules you hate.
D) Its a little early to have decided you love or hate something without having read the rules in entirety, so please try to keep the hyperbole to a minimum. And if someone does feel the need to take things to the extreme right now, it does no good to respond in kind calling them something negative because you disagree with their assessment.
So please stick to discussing the rumors, keeping in mind that (in most cases) you haven't read the full rules yet and you haven't played any games with said rules yet either.
I think the game you are looking for is called Necromunda, now Move along...
Think again.
You might want to epic, lots and lots of vehicles for you there and they are small so you can fit even more of them on a table.
Something just occurred to me: if Dreadnoughts have 3 hull points, then the Venerable rule just became one of the most overpriced pieces of wargear in the game.
Wow, good catch. Always thought the vens were overpriced as they were, now they will become pure ridicule unless properly FAQed.
Anyone here has a reasonable idea of what direction the new meta will take now when razorspam is probably gone?
Will we get clogged up in venom spams or IG-allies insanity?
I was thinking foot guard with some russes and venom spam.
youd have all bases covered.
Be a premium class shooting army, with all the str6 shots to kill rhino and anthing light, and then russes to take on better. Not to mention Hwy wep teams and such.
I was thinking foot guard with some russes and venom spam.
youd have all bases covered.
Be a premium class shooting army, with all the str6 shots to kill rhino and anthing light, and then russes to take on better. Not to mention Hwy wep teams and such.
yeah i kinda would like to know in entirety(sp) how best buddy allies work, i know some things transfer but what about others are they simply an extension of your army or still a seperate entity?
It's gonna be ok, we'll all figure out the new rules and a few months from now the game will be different and fun, or we'll all be building warmshordes...........
Edit for a......who goy us to 100pg??? This guy....
appearently if you cant hurt it in hth (dread, sentinel) whatever you can run away after hth, so tarpitting gets a big nerf. along with the witches they posted about earlier
im looking at brother corbulo (BA codex) and his reroll any dice once per game could be nice when choosing warlord traits, and or psychic powers
RegulusBlack wrote:everyone can run guard, so its kinda of a fallback, no brainer, default....
which kinda sucks cause i like my spec ops guard unit, now im just one of the masses.
I'm sorry, try that again? "Everyone" can't run Guard. Perhaps you mean to say that anyone can run Mech Plasma/Melta Vet Guard? That might be closer to the truth, but every Guard army is not a Vet Spam list.
Honestly, I'm curious to see how the new edition will affect the Guard scene. My group seems to be suggesting that PowerBlobs will be the way to go, muscling out MechSpam as the go-to build. Of course, that was from a discussion carried on before we knew that the Allies rules were officially in.
or SW as they have some of the cheaper Terminators (which seem to be more resilient in 6th)
Might be fun times for Loganwing although I am afraid Draigowing is dead.
Vanilla terminators will find some new life though, so it's not all bad for GK players.
Also, Draigo's still a monster, so he'll certainly be a viable character, even if he won't have a paladin deathstar to accompany him anymore.
That said, I won't say it's the curtain call for Paladins just yet. The Paladin death star is beyond dead, and the apothecary is no longer a viable option, but multiple small units of Paladins could end up becoming viable options, especially since Draigo's still a good pick no matter what. With the enhanced close combat resiliency granted to them in 6th, a unit of 3-4 Paladins will make for great tarpitting units, or for small assassination squads.
As a Grey Knight player who loves terminators and hates PAGK, I'm in no hurry to shelf my GKT.
I'm sorry, try that again? "Everyone" can't run Guard. Perhaps you mean to say that anyone can run Mech Plasma/Melta Vet Guard? That might be closer to the truth, but every Guard army is not a Vet Spam list.
im sorry if my meaning was unclear, i was referencing allies as in All codex's (cept Nids) can take guard allies.
Can't decide if I want to plan out an Infantry spam 1500 Marine List, or keep things in Rhinos still. I'm also not sure if I should use my Vindicators, since, Blast weapons got nerfed, and now scatter the full distance. Not to mention, 3 Glances wrecks the bugger.
Will Scout Snipers be worth it? Hitting on 4s and wounding on 4s, 9 shots, doesn't mean there's a lot of wounds.
What to do, what to do. Guess I should wait for the FAQs to figure out what has Skyfire and what doesn't, as well. If anything new will get added, that is.
RegulusBlack wrote:everyone can run guard, so its kinda of a fallback, no brainer, default....
which kinda sucks cause i like my spec ops guard unit, now im just one of the masses.
I'm sorry, try that again? "Everyone" can't run Guard. Perhaps you mean to say that anyone can run Mech Plasma/Melta Vet Guard? That might be closer to the truth, but every Guard army is not a Vet Spam list.
Honestly, I'm curious to see how the new edition will affect the Guard scene. My group seems to be suggesting that PowerBlobs will be the way to go, muscling out MechSpam as the go-to build. Of course, that was from a discussion carried on before we knew that the Allies rules were officially in.
Well, to be honest, unless something gets drastically FAQed out, those AR 12, 6s to be hit, with 3 linked lass cannons in the world of i touch you thrice and you are dead, all for 130 aka less than a devastor with 4 missile lunchers,, vendettas, do strike me as a the noob i win button.
yeah Vendetta's are stupidly good as far as we know. pity cause I initially thought of running an Air Cav list when i first got into the hobby about 9 months ago.
now i may be forced to do it.
may be a lot easier to run guard now as im htinking Vendetta/Manticore spam with blobs and Sang Priests.
Spartan089 wrote:My gripe with 6th, aside from the imblances of allies and double foc, is the damn weakness of vehicles now. Sure they should've been tonned down a bit. But to nerf them into the ground. I run iron warriors, I just painstakingly got together 12 rhinos for my 2000 point list, now I'm told they are as strong in game as the plastic they are made out of?! My iron warriors do not walk into battle they get there in iron armored transports. All the while people are jumping on the necron bandwagon. "Please tell me how you were Always a big necron fan". I want to play transports that don't blow up when a Necron sneezes on them because I want to New spam, I want to use them because they are fluffy for my army.
Well if you think those rhino hulls are/were a bad buy, then just think how bad a land raider is.
I can take 6 razorbacks and get change back for a total of 18hps in 6 different targets.
The LR only gets 4hps in a single target.
I think the game, IF the rumors hold true, is turning into rock/paper/scissors. If you want to avoid the necron glance to death lists, take pods, just don't run into that GK list.
Personally, I think foot slogging logan wing spam is going to be very strong. You can easily fit 30+ ml's in that list, or slightly less and take a lcLF squad, just in case you really want to pen vehicles instead of glancing them to death.
Personally, I think the biggest screw is going to be tank traps. If you can purchase them in sufficient quantities, you simply shut down ground transports. If used properly and if you can take enough, it will screw up drop pod dreads. I suppose furioso's will be more(?) desirable, but then they get glanced to death.
RegulusBlack wrote:yeah Vendetta's are stupidly good as far as we know. pity cause I initially thought of running an Air Cav list when i first got into the hobby about 9 months ago.
now i may be forced to do it.
may be a lot easier to run guard now as im htinking Vendetta/Manticore spam with blobs and Sang Priests.
Well, i would not count on Sangs FNP to be granted to allieds just yet, there might be some limitations in regards as to what allied skills and buffs allow you to do.
None the less, yeah guard kind of seems like a no brainer this edition, yet again...
I may have missed it; why are people declaring Paladins dead? Does some rule in particular reduce them to mewling kittens? Or is it more a shift in the meta?
I don't think the flyer transports will be all that great, if the rumors hold that is, and they have 2 hull points.
A hard sneeze, even needing 6's to hit, will make them cost prohibitive.
yeah they arent super strong per se, however 2x Vendetta's = 1 LR cost wise (same amount of HP combined) plus Vens can attack enemy air/Ground/ and transport with impunity.
not saying your wrong but, they seem to be a very good unit going forward.
So where is the guy with the book, is he not posting anything today
Nightbringer's Chosen wrote:I may have missed it; why are people declaring Paladins dead? Does some rule in particular reduce them to mewling kittens? Or is it more a shift in the meta?
I too don't understand how Paladins or ever Draigowing is dead. It simply requires a change in tactics like putting the apothacary (well maybe he's not worth the points anymore) and the brother banner guy in back, that or run them all in a straight line
"What I love about the new Allied Detatchment rules is, they capture a flavor of the WH40K universe."
What flavor is that? Bad? Terrible? 'Cause, you know, SoB with Eldar has been so prevelent in recent years. Same goes for that rich history of Tau summoning Daemons and Gretchin supporting Space Wolves!
"How many of the great battles in the history, which have featured not just one army but an alliance between two forces pressed against the enemy?"
Um... IG and Marines? Chaos and Daemons? Oh... and Blood Angels and Necrons.
I think he only remembers the most recent of these "great battles".
He was talking about real world battles like say the English and Americans vs the Germans. Although I agree with the rest of your stuff.
I forsee Blood Angles as the new ultimate army, with jump infantry getting so many buffs, and increased assault range.
I10 on charge and such they should be pretty darn amazing.
shank911 wrote:I forsee Blood Angles as the new ultimate army, with jump infantry getting so many buffs, and increased assault range.
I10 on charge and such they should be pretty darn amazing.
I wonder if warscythes count as power axes now....which would be fine, except for the Int 1....and if challenges really stop combat, lords w/scythes, sv 2+ and MSS are going to cause ALOT of cursing
That video look like it was a bit forced to me. Some forces defiantly should be able to ally, but it looks like most of the others got friends just so that they wouldn't feel left out or something.
Fetterkey wrote:
This is totally wrong. It's possible to dodge gunfire at close range, because the angles involved mean that a smaller movement from you necessitates a larger movement from the gun tracking you. When Trinity said "Dodge this" in The Matrix, that was ironically one bullet that even a normal human could actually have dodged. Obviously, dodging after the shot is fired is impossible at close distances, but it's basically impossible at long distances too, and at close distances sudden movements may throw the attackers off.
It's not totally wrong, for that to be totally wrong, the principle that I established would have to be wrong, which it isn't, shorter distances equal shorter travel times and larger targets due to the rules of perspective. I invite you to strike some bullseye plates at 50 yards and then move them out to 500 yards and then tell me which one was easier to hit. That's in addition to the fact that the laws of physics necessitate two things - 1 loss of velocity over distance due to air friction, 2, projectile drop, as well as wind drift. Not to mention, those very same angles cause small angular dissimilarities to be more pronounced at range. You may hit something with 6 MOA at 50 meters, but at 400 meters, good luck.
Plus, there's that whole thing that, it really doesn't matter how fast you are, your 10 miles per hour body weight (not considering the laws of inertia that make near-instantaneous movements impossible and speed a progressively acquired trait that has to be overcome in order to shift momentum) does not even remotely compare to the awesome speed of a 5.56 NATO cartridge traveling at 3000 feet per second.
Fetterkey wrote:
TedNugent wrote:Then again, the idea of "hull points" is ridiculous from an RP standpoint, and it's in the game, so I don't know.
In real life, vehicle crews often abandon their tanks if they take one penetrating hit. Allowing vehicles to withstand multiple penetrating and glancing hits is generous from that perspective. If you don't like hull points, think of them as "crew morale points." For flyers, on the other hand, the idea of hull/"structural integrity" points actually makes sense.
Ok, how many Tiger I crewmen abandoned their tanks after having multiple 2 pounder shells bounce harmlessly off their frontal armor? If that was the case, obviously, the rate of attrition among Tiger commanders would have been significantly higher than the roughly 6-1 average kill ratio sustained by all units of Tigers thru-out the war. Oh, not to mention, hull points are triggered on glancing hits, not penetrating hits in the 6th e rules according to the latest rumors I have read in this thread from a gentleman who supposedly has an advance copy. Which means in 6e we're talking about a shell bouncing off your frontal armor, failing to penetrate, and 3 of those at random angles and different impact locations cause your tank to inexplicably and spontaneously explode in spite of the fact that your 5 inch thick ceramite armor was never penetrated once. Tanks have to explode for a reason, typically because their gas tank was hit, ammunition storage ignited, some other vital and catastrophic event. Otherwise, more usually a penetrating shell would for instance decapitate the loader and take an arm off the tank commander.
Crewmen typically abandoned their tanks under these primary circumstances - 1 a lack of fuel, 2 a disabled tank, 3 burning smoke fumes
I'm not sure if you're familiar with the T-34/76 in Operation Barbarossa but the reports were that multiple hits from .5 cm shells were sustained by German Panzers before the T-34s carefully engaged them in turn.
Suffice to say, even if what you're saying is accurate, I'm totally unconvinced.
That's simply ridiculous-- a certain number of casualties are naturally expected before you get into assault. If you think the rules should allow your assault units to charge without ever being exposed to danger on the way in, I think it's safe to say you're out of touch with game balance as a whole.
You lose casualties due to in-sequence shooting. It's a turn-based game. You sustain casualties from in-sequence shooting. Adding out-of-sequence shooting into that, all sustained before you walk into assault, obviously fragments an already carefully aligned game balance. I can only suggest that you wait until the new rules are in play and you will see immediately what I'm talking about.
It's really in particular the fact that out-of-sequence defensive fire is triggered -by- an assault that makes the entire concept of a dedicated assault unit stupid if it cannot handily sustain the defensive fire and still overcome the assault phase.
shank911 wrote:I forsee Blood Angles as the new ultimate army, with jump infantry getting so many buffs, and increased assault range.
I10 on charge and such they should be pretty darn amazing.
I think they are improved, but I don't think BA is going to be the new ultimate army.
Now, if the rumors hold true about rage, well BA can do pretty good at just tabling opponents.
shank911 wrote:I forsee Blood Angles as the new ultimate army, with jump infantry getting so many buffs, and increased assault range.
I10 on charge and such they should be pretty darn amazing.
Yay!
On a side note and in general, there is a lot of nonsense going on in this thread, a lot of learned people talking politely, a lot of learned people going at each other and baiting, and some people just curious and asking questions. It's beginning to be a bit of a mixed bag, so, to no one in particular but for the general health of this thread and everyone's continued enjoyment of it, let's review 2 of our 3 rules.
Finally, given my 'job' here and after the great experience of Adepticon, I will be actually learning to play 40k for the first time this edition hopefully. I am very much looking forward to reading the thoughts of some of the great players running around this thread in the coming weeks... and figuring out how to build my BA, although it seems DC and jump packs are the way to go, with no razor spam... perhaps allied with GK or Codex to get some riflemen or other long distance punch into them? In any case, it is fun to be engaged in the edition launch instead of just casually observing. Thanks to everyone who is providing learned discourse, and especially to Kroothawk for keeping the first post awesome and up to date!
Nightbringer's Chosen wrote:I may have missed it; why are people declaring Paladins dead? Does some rule in particular reduce them to mewling kittens? Or is it more a shift in the meta?
Wound allocation destroys their durability, you can no longer spread the wounds across the unit in order to boost their resilience, and you can't feed all the ID wound to Draigo anymore either.
Because of that, it's impossible to justify the cost of Paladins anymore, at least in large squads. The Paladin deathstar is just a horrible idea now.
As I've said above, if Paladins are to have a future, it will be set up as multiple small units.
The more things change, the more they stay the same!
I haven't seen anyone confirm if that "6" is on To Hit or To Wound. If it's To Wound they are sitting waaay pretty.
Seriously? I mean really, are you going through some tough non-
