pretre wrote:Did they put power blades from warp spiders in the BBB? Right now they aren't PW but give an extra attack and ignore armor saves (unlike banshees who have pw).
they are actually described as power weapons in the codex - "...twin power weapons fitted to the forearms...[they] confer +1 A and ignore armour saves." so I would assume they're AP3 melee weapons in line with the Unusual Power Weapon rule.
Slave wrote:Little confused here. Okay, so C:CSM demon princes are jump infantry.
Whats the fuss about? Does that mean they lose the monstrous creature status?
Flying MC's get skyfire, I get that, but what are the rest of the rules they lose that people are freaking for?
There are numerous differences between a flying monster creature and a monster creature with jump. Move distance, vector strike, specialized rules while swooping instead of gliding, etc. All of which are fantastic, and not offered in the CSM army at all when the same unit gets the option to take it in the Chaos Daemon army. The difference between having "jump" as a unit type, and being a Flying Monsterous Creature, is massive.
Well, necrons got a lot of love from this FAQ, which can be expected as it was the last codex of the cycle; and tau, which have been woefully ignored all through fifth, will see a lot more table time thanks to allies and the uber-stealth bump that stealth suits have received.
I started playing both of those armies before these updates, and now I get to really flex on my marine friends, which is a welcome change. Obviously, my eldar will be on the field a lot more now as well, even if just to support my tau.
I don't play nids, but would have liked to see tyranids improved by the faq or the book, especially since they had a hard time in 5e, but it's not unreasonable to assume that come the digital codex, they'll get some kind of bump...
Regardless, even though 6e wasn't the sweeping overhaul (pancake) I was looking forward to, it's definitely an improvement from 5e.
4/5 of my armies are better today then they were when I started playing, and with the new chaos stuff on the way, I'm pretty happy with my hobby at the moment.
junk wrote:and tau, which have been woefully ignored all through fifth, will see a lot more table time thanks to allies and the uber-stealth bump that stealth suits have received.
How do you figure? Why do so many people seem to be under the impression that better stealth suits are all it takes to "save" Tau?
They were crap before, and they're still crap now, because Tau don't need to waste slots for valuable crisis suits on anti-infantry firepower, which is all stealth suits are good at. They're more survivable now, but still useless.
pretre wrote:Did they put power blades from warp spiders in the BBB? Right now they aren't PW but give an extra attack and ignore armor saves (unlike banshees who have pw).
they are actually described as power weapons in the codex - "...twin power weapons fitted to the forearms...[they] confer +1 A and ignore armour saves." so I would assume they're AP3 melee weapons in line with the Unusual Power Weapon rule.
Described as is fluff. compare to banshee entry.
Meh, it's an old codex, all the wargear descriptions are still mixed in with the unit 'fluff' (hate that word, makes it seem the background is just inconsequential behind the numbers; but I digress ) unlike in the newer books. Either way, I'd be willing to bet money on them being interpreted that way in a further FAQ or the next codex.
junk wrote:and tau, which have been woefully ignored all through fifth, will see a lot more table time thanks to allies and the uber-stealth bump that stealth suits have received.
How do you figure? Why do so many people seem to be under the impression that better stealth suits are all it takes to "save" Tau?
They were crap before, and they're still crap now, because Tau don't need to waste slots for valuable crisis suits on anti-infantry firepower, which is all stealth suits are good at. They're more survivable now, but still useless.
At least they could potentially make decent allies.
But if I am reading this right, I can't believe more people aren't talking about this:
"Beasts of Nurgle.
Change the effects of Random Poisoned Attacks to read:
"At the beginning of each Fight sub-phase, roll a D6for each friendly Beast of Nurgle unit that is locked in combat. The result is the number of Attacks (before modifiers) that all Beasts of Nurgle in that unit have this turn. These Attacks have the poisoned (4+) special rule."
So, lets say you have 3 units of Beasts in melee, every single one of them gets D3 attacks?
Do they have to be in the same combat? It doesn't say you have to be...
Did Beasts of Nurgle just get 3 times better?
On this note, imagine you had the double FOC, and you took 6 units... dear god.
Do all missile launchers have the option of shooting the "flakk" missiles which can hit fliers? Or only the ones that specifically say they come with the flakk option? If it is the latter, does any missile launcher currently have this mode of firing?
Joe Mama wrote:Because I am a bit slow I have to ask...
Do all missile launchers have the option of shooting the "flakk" missiles which can hit fliers? Or only the ones that specifically say they come with the flakk option? If it is the latter, does any missile launcher currently have this mode of firing?
Nothing I've seen has the ability to shoot 'flakk' missiles, either by default or with a purchase. I have not looked through the FAQ's yet, downloading now.
Dracos wrote:Wychs also no have no answer to 2+ armour, where as before they could engage with an agonizer and 4+ dodge.
If wyches can indeed take any power weapon, as it looks like they can, then the power axe might help at least slightly against Terminators. Granted, you'd lose your Initiative advantage, but would gain Str 4 AP 2 attacks (.66 dead Terminators per turn by itself, a bit more if you score 2 to 5 on your combat drugs roll*).
* All of them help a bit, but "Painbringer" is the best, with it the average rises to 1,5 wounds before saves, so one dead Terminator after invulnerables.
Raikoh wrote:So I might have missed somebodies post...
But if I am reading this right, I can't believe more people aren't talking about this:
"Beasts of Nurgle.
Change the effects of Random Poisoned Attacks to read:
"At the beginning of each Fight sub-phase, roll a D6for each friendly Beast of Nurgle unit that is locked in combat. The result is the number of Attacks (before modifiers) that all Beasts of Nurgle in that unit have this turn. These Attacks have the poisoned (4+) special rule."
So, lets say you have 3 units of Beasts in melee, every single one of them gets D3 attacks?
Do they have to be in the same combat? It doesn't say you have to be...
Did Beasts of Nurgle just get 3 times better?
On this note, imagine you had the double FOC, and you took 6 units... dear god.
Yeah, I'm 90% sure you're not reading that right. You're not getting nd6 attacks per Beast of Nurgle, where n is the number of units.
1, Designate a unit.
2, Roll a d6 - this is the number of attacks Beasts in that unit have.
3, Move on to the next unit.
Raikoh wrote:So I might have missed somebodies post...
But if I am reading this right, I can't believe more people aren't talking about this:
"Beasts of Nurgle.
Change the effects of Random Poisoned Attacks to read:
"At the beginning of each Fight sub-phase, roll a D6for each friendly Beast of Nurgle unit that is locked in combat. The result is the number of Attacks (before modifiers) that all Beasts of Nurgle in that unit have this turn. These Attacks have the poisoned (4+) special rule."
So, lets say you have 3 units of Beasts in melee, every single one of them gets D3 attacks?
Do they have to be in the same combat? It doesn't say you have to be...
Did Beasts of Nurgle just get 3 times better?
On this note, imagine you had the double FOC, and you took 6 units... dear god.
Yeah, I'm 90% sure you're not reading that right. You're not getting nd6 attacks per Beast of Nurgle, where n is the number of units.
1, Designate a unit.
2, Roll a d6 - this is the number of attacks Beasts in that unit have.
3, Move on to the next unit.
To be fair, although you are most certainly right, grammatically there is no difference, I wonder if anybody will dare play it this way anyway...
junk wrote:and tau, which have been woefully ignored all through fifth, will see a lot more table time thanks to allies and the uber-stealth bump that stealth suits have received.
How do you figure? Why do so many people seem to be under the impression that better stealth suits are all it takes to "save" Tau?
They were crap before, and they're still crap now, because Tau don't need to waste slots for valuable crisis suits on anti-infantry firepower, which is all stealth suits are good at. They're more survivable now, but still useless.
At least they could potentially make decent allies.
Tau aren't "Saved"; what I said is that my Tau would see a lot more table time. With the upcoming massive Tau product release, and the hastings rumors about a new line of completed models + the fluffy Tau change, I think that Tau salvation is still forthcoming, but it's been prophesied.
Speaking of power weapons (well, I was anyway) I just noticed that due to the 'look at the model to see what kind it is' when wargear entries describe a generic power weapon, Avenger exarchs with the old shimmershield/power wpn combo get a power lance and +1S on the charge. Which is nice.
So what else we get? Faster vehicles with a jink save... wraithlords are fear-causing....jetbikes are T4...ummm, I'm struggling here...oh yeah, our swooping hawks get impact hits and their haywire grenades got much more useful. Does that make up for the changes to assault, most importantly the no charge after disembarking? Dunno yet, but one thing's for sure things just got a little harder for an army that was already unforgiving of fools and incompetents lol
Joe Mama wrote:Because I am a bit slow I have to ask...
Do all missile launchers have the option of shooting the "flakk" missiles which can hit fliers? Or only the ones that specifically say they come with the flakk option? If it is the latter, does any missile launcher currently have this mode of firing?
AS far as I've seen in the FAQs, no missile launcher has this currently. It's not clear from what I'm reading if *any* missile launcher can have this upgrade (which would make sense) or if it's something that specifically has to be in it's description.
Joe Mama wrote:Because I am a bit slow I have to ask...
Do all missile launchers have the option of shooting the "flakk" missiles which can hit fliers? Or only the ones that specifically say they come with the flakk option? If it is the latter, does any missile launcher currently have this mode of firing?
AS far as I've seen in the FAQs, no missile launcher has this currently. It's not clear from what I'm reading if *any* missile launcher can have this upgrade (which would make sense) or if it's something that specifically has to be in it's description.
Joe Mama wrote:Because I am a bit slow I have to ask...
Do all missile launchers have the option of shooting the "flakk" missiles which can hit fliers? Or only the ones that specifically say they come with the flakk option? If it is the latter, does any missile launcher currently have this mode of firing?
AS far as I've seen in the FAQs, no missile launcher has this currently. It's not clear from what I'm reading if *any* missile launcher can have this upgrade (which would make sense) or if it's something that specifically has to be in it's description.
The main Rulebook. I believe its page 57.
Which confirms that no missile launcher presently in the game has or can take flakk missiles.
Joe Mama wrote:Because I am a bit slow I have to ask...
Do all missile launchers have the option of shooting the "flakk" missiles which can hit fliers? Or only the ones that specifically say they come with the flakk option? If it is the latter, does any missile launcher currently have this mode of firing?
AS far as I've seen in the FAQs, no missile launcher has this currently. It's not clear from what I'm reading if *any* missile launcher can have this upgrade (which would make sense) or if it's something that specifically has to be in it's description.
The main Rulebook. I believe its page 57.
Which confirms that no missile launcher presently in the game has or can take flakk missiles.
Hm, is it really spelt with a double 'k' in the rulebook? (I won't be buying a copy any time soon so I can't check)
If it is then it seems tad weird they used an Ork style spelling if its meant to be a universal thing, though end of the day it could just mean that GW needs to hire a better spell checker.
Spartan089 wrote:Does anyone know if extra armor had been faq'd?
Extra Amour is now in the main rulebook. Converts Stunned down to Shaken.
That seems useless, the whole glancing to death seems too much of a Nerf. Extra armor should be that it ignores a glance result or something like that, then I think people would actually take it, now its an over priced useless upgrade.
All the space marine faq's say to refer to the 40K rulebook for psychic hoods. So they are limited to 6 inches for defence. But the space wolf faq doesn't say to do that. So do I still get the 24 inch range for my hoods. Sorry if this has been covered already.
Daston wrote:Some Ork units have lost the Waaagh! and Mob Special Rule :(
Uh, that happened when the codex was released, towards the end of 4th edition. It wasn't removing those rules, it was correcting a printing error on the description pages for certain units that shouldn't have had those rules in the first place.
For those who haven't spotted it yet, the new parts of the FAQs are the bits in pink. Everything else was already there.
I think most of us, deep down, knew that 6th ed would be unkind to xeno armies.
GW has initiated a subtle drift toward the outmoding of non-SM armies. Tyranids were the first victims. It's out of sheer stubborn love for the Nid concept or just spite for GW that anybody plays Tyranids anymore.
Just take a look at the whole 'power weapons = AP3' fiasco, for example. No other army in the entire game benefits from this as extensively as SMs... Cause, you know, they needed a huge buff.
Note, however, that if everybody just gives in and plays SMs, this rule is perfectly balanced.
All GW has to do is allow power weapons to modify 2+ saves to 4+, and everyone would shrug and say 'yeah I guess that's fair'. But that will never happen.
I won't be playing 6th. I wanted to buy the rulebook just for the reading, but with a $75 price tag, I can't justify the purchase. I might have at some point, but the SM cover tipped the scale out of GWs favor. I couldn't possibly care less about SMs. My care for them is already at Absolute Zero, it won't go any lower. And there doesn't seem to be room for non-SM players anymore. GW appears to be actually trying to crowd them out.
(This won't stop me from from occasionally voicing my cynicism here at Dakka. )
Archonate wrote:GW has initiated a subtle drift toward the outmoding of non-SM armies.
Very subtle, since (at least going by player complaints) it's been going on since 2nd edition.
All GW has to do is allow power weapons to modify 2+ saves to 4+, and everyone would shrug and say 'yeah I guess that's fair'. But that will never happen.
They tried that with Choppas in 3rd edition... and it was fairly widely reviled.
Ahriman is only Mastery level 3??
Would have guessed he was a 4 easy.
On the plus side mark of Nurgle bikers have a toughness of 6!
Stick a Chaos Lord on a bike & no instant death.
Epidemius has not been mucked with - yey! - so feel no pain on rolls of 3+ that can save against power weapons!
As a Nid and DE player I am a little underwhelmed with 6th. Will make the most of things though.
I did notice a change to a previous ruling in the DEFAQ, flicker fields can now be used to save vs imobilize results from difficult terrain. Not sure how useful that will be though.
... I’m not happy with 6th and given FAQ, because my army is not the best anymore and I would have to use my brain some point to win any game... not happy at all.
dpal666 wrote:So target lock is gone from the Tau, but Shadowsun has been written as "allowing her to target two seperate enemy units during each shooting phase"
Could this be a light in the tunnel for Tau?
Possibly in futurre updates.....
Never attribute to competence what can be explained by forgetfulness.
insaniak wrote:They tried that with Choppas in 3rd edition... and it was fairly widely reviled.
Because it didn't make sense.
My Choppa reduces your Termy armour to 4+ yet does nothing extra to that Storm Trooper. Wha...?
If it'd been -1 or -2 rather than a flat "Saves above 4+ are now 4+" the rule would have worked.
Tau Nerf Hell yah! Now we have more useless wargear than working wargear!
As far as I'm concerned the rules for 6th are really good. GWs execution though has made me put up my army for a while. The idea that each codex doesn't have a given Skyfire unit is really gakky design. This FORCES you to buy fortifications and allies. I for one will not buy into this mess, GW can count me as one less customer till they at least stop nerfing Tau and give us a reason to play such a backwards and archaic army.
Oh, sure Stealthsuits got a 2+ cover save now. Woopty, they are still horrifically overpriced for an 18" burst cannon.
Can I just say to all the ney-sayers:-
40K costs about £45 for the book every 5 years and is now only on v6.
An AutoCAD licence costs about £3500 and is now on v-god-knows and is still broken.
As long as the new rules don't actually make my models physically fall apart, I'm quite easy to please.
WHFB on the other hand...
Dantalian wrote:Tau Nerf Hell yah! Now we have more useless wargear than working wargear!
As far as I'm concerned the rules for 6th are really good. GWs execution though has made me put up my army for a while. The idea that each codex doesn't have a given Skyfire unit is really gakky design. This FORCES you to buy fortifications and allies. I for one will not buy into this mess, GW can count me as one less customer till they at least stop nerfing Tau and give us a reason to play such a backwards and archaic army.
Oh, sure Stealthsuits got a 2+ cover save now. Woopty, they are still horrifically overpriced for an 18" burst cannon.
You're not alone. I was also hoping d-pods would get at least Shroud. You can add those to the useless wargear list as skimmers have 5+ Jinx if they move 1".
bubber wrote:Can I just say to all the ney-sayers:-
40K costs about £45 for the book every 5 years and is now only on v6.
An AutoCAD licence costs about £3500 and is now on v-god-knows and is still broken.
As long as the new rules don't actually make my models physically fall apart, I'm quite easy to please.
WHFB on the other hand...
So as long as their is one product in the world that sucks and costs at least the same or more as verything else, everybody is justified with releasing gakky products?
Agamemnon2 wrote:Man, Incubi took a massive hit to the balls, not being able to hurt Terminators in close combat unless you buy squad leader with a demiklaive, which GW handily makes no figure for.
Not even the Decapitator has AP2 in close combat, so it looks like our best bet is to run and hide whenever Tinmen appear.
The whole FAQ is just awful, some examples:
They clarify Tormentor Grenade Launchers to be a leadership test in the errata, then proceed to change wordings in the amendments and refer to it once again as a morale check
They failed to address the Shadowseer's Veil of Tears ability, even though they did so in the Eldar FAQ and only had to copy and paste the answer across
They failed to address flickerfields, which as a 5+ Invulnerable save are largely useless with all moving Skimmers getting a 5+ save from their JinkHydra's Ignore the Jink save not the invul.
They said to Ignore the entry for a Voidraven's unit type, now the Voidraven technically has no unit type (not even Vehicle)Same with the Stormraven it is a flyer, they are telling you to ignore the Skimmer portion
just lazy, how could this be what they put out at a make or break time like the new edition?
Meh alot of things have not been answered.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Raikoh wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:
Joe Mama wrote:Because I am a bit slow I have to ask...
Do all missile launchers have the option of shooting the "flakk" missiles which can hit fliers? Or only the ones that specifically say they come with the flakk option? If it is the latter, does any missile launcher currently have this mode of firing?
AS far as I've seen in the FAQs, no missile launcher has this currently. It's not clear from what I'm reading if *any* missile launcher can have this upgrade (which would make sense) or if it's something that specifically has to be in it's description.
The main Rulebook. I believe its page 57.
The entry states that a Missile Launcher can choose this upgrade. The entry states that you must choose this upgrade. Since no codex has this in the FAQ as an update no codex has this option yet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Archonate wrote:
(This won't stop me from from occasionally voicing my cynicism here at Dakka. )
But how will you know what your talking about? Hmmmm general speculation with no real knowledge. . . .hmmmm does not seem like a good idea. . .
I have just played 4 games with this set of rules and I can say that it is not as bad as you think. Yes SM got a bit of power creep again but not many armies are as underpowered. This became a game of Tank and Assault Hammer to a game of Infantry and Shooting hammer (with a bit of flyers) it is not as bad as you make it out to be.
Dantalian wrote:Tau Nerf Hell yah! Now we have more useless wargear than working wargear!
As far as I'm concerned the rules for 6th are really good. GWs execution though has made me put up my army for a while. The idea that each codex doesn't have a given Skyfire unit is really gakky design. This FORCES you to buy fortifications and allies. I for one will not buy into this mess, GW can count me as one less customer till they at least stop nerfing Tau and give us a reason to play such a backwards and archaic army.
Oh, sure Stealthsuits got a 2+ cover save now. Woopty, they are still horrifically overpriced for an 18" burst cannon.
Oh, but it's okay though, because your army could still work as decent allies for everyone else.
So all you have to do now is keep a couple of your Tau units and then buy a whole new army and you're good!
Dantalian wrote:Tau Nerf Hell yah! Now we have more useless wargear than working wargear!
As far as I'm concerned the rules for 6th are really good. GWs execution though has made me put up my army for a while. The idea that each codex doesn't have a given Skyfire unit is really gakky design. This FORCES you to buy fortifications and allies. I for one will not buy into this mess, GW can count me as one less customer till they at least stop nerfing Tau and give us a reason to play such a backwards and archaic army.
Oh, sure Stealthsuits got a 2+ cover save now. Woopty, they are still horrifically overpriced for an 18" burst cannon.
Oh, but it's okay though, because your army could still work as decent allies for everyone else.
So all you have to do now is keep a couple of your Tau units and then buy a whole new army and you're good!
...
Bah I have Tau players at the FLGS I go to in Portland Or that beat most all competition, even people that have WON GT and the like, so complaining about your army is a complete waste of time. This edition made Tau a very powerful army. Just figure it out and one day it might just click for you.
We won't be able to tell how Tau have been affected for a bit yet, as we try out the new rules, but in 5th they were at a disticnt disadvantage. It didn't cause autolose, but you had to be either luckier or smarter than your oppoenent to win.
Ascalam wrote:Or they could just be astoundingly good/lucky..
Not all codexes are equal.
We won't be able to tell how Tau have been affected for a bit yet, as we try out the new rules, but in 5th they were at a disticnt disadvantage. It didn't cause autolose, but you had to be either luckier or smarter than your oppoenent to win.
We play every Wednesday and he has beaten everyone in the store either by a super wide margin (no army left on the board and MAYBE a single unit dead) or in the one instance he tied he was playing against the Main Guy of the store that everyone respects as the best in the store. This was in the last month. It is crazy. I love Tau but I know they are not that strong but having been in the Navy and around the world I have seen MANY great Tau players that wipe the board with the corpses of their opposition.
Ascalam wrote:Or they could just be astoundingly good/lucky..
Not all codexes are equal.
We won't be able to tell how Tau have been affected for a bit yet, as we try out the new rules, but in 5th they were at a disticnt disadvantage. It didn't cause autolose, but you had to be either luckier or smarter than your oppoenent to win.
We play every Wednesday and he has beaten everyone in the store either by a super wide margin (no army left on the board and MAYBE a single unit dead) or in the one instance he tied he was playing against the Main Guy of the store that everyone respects as the best in the store. This was in the last month. It is crazy. I love Tau but I know they are not that strong but having been in the Navy and around the world I have seen MANY great Tau players that wipe the board with the corpses of their opposition.
Really good players then.
It helps if you stick with one codex forever instead of codex-hopping to the current power codex.
You can really know what your codex can and can't do, if you play them long enough. It helps turn a mediocre codex into a playable one, but by the same token it turns an UBER codex even more uber.
Personally i rather like playing VS Tau. Always liked the race, and actually played them for a while. I can't help but feel bad for the power difference though. Maybe the next Tau codex will balance that up a bit.
All the have to do is put 60 orks between them, and whatever is trying to get to them.
Thank you for this post
However, nothing getting flakk missiles... hrmmmmmmmmmm. I guess I'll just have to hit flyers on a 6, eh?
Your new ork flyer has skyfire!!!
Everyone has a lot of new tools and you have to think outside the box to solve your problems.
Good point! So far, I haven't come up with anything (all drop pod BA army) but I wasn't trying to say the sky was falling, just that I may give up trying to find a way to fit skyfire into my theme. I had been hoping my dreadnought missile launchers would get it... but then again, dreading the devastator spam that would inevitably ensue if all MLs came with it (or could upgrade to it) so it might be a net win there
All the have to do is put 60 orks between them, and whatever is trying to get to them.
Thank you for this post
However, nothing getting flakk missiles... hrmmmmmmmmmm. I guess I'll just have to hit flyers on a 6, eh?
Your new ork flyer has skyfire!!!
Everyone has a lot of new tools and you have to think outside the box to solve your problems.
It's more the idea that most codices must turn to the allies and forts to do anything useful about aircraft that bothers me (and a lot of others). I have Tau, only tau, and I will buy only Tau with the exception of a farseer and rangers. When you choose to play a codex, "outside the box" shouldn't necessarily mean going to another codex that isn't yours in my opinion. I mean, with the current set up you either have to take a fort (which is limited skyfire) or take IG allies. And what do people who are desperate allies with IG do? What do Nids do?
People say that chaplain gives reroll to hit on shooting. I can't find that anywhere. Am I missing something? The FAQ only change chaplain to work only on SM units.
Dantalian wrote:And what do people who are desperate allies with IG do? What do Nids do?
Ignore the flyers and focus on the targets that they can kill?
Not everyone even has flyers at this point. So not everyone having Skyfire doesn't seem like that big a deal.
A lot more armies have fliers than armies that have skyfire. In fact the only ground unit with skyfire is the IG that I know of.
This edition is perfectly structured to get people to BUY MORE MODELS. GW may hate the 'veteran' gamers but they know how to sell models to people who want to 'keep up with the Joneses'.
god.ra wrote:... I’m not happy with 6th and given FAQ, because my army is not the best anymore and I would have to use my brain some point to win any game... not happy at all.
Both BT and Tau would've been better off with no FAQ at all, how is this not a valid complaint?
god.ra wrote:... I’m not happy with 6th and given FAQ, because my army is not the best anymore and I would have to use my brain some point to win any game... not happy at all.
Both BT and Tau would've been better off with no FAQ at all, how is this not a valid complaint?
I agree, I was not very happy with the Black Templars FAQ.
Ascalam wrote:Wouldn't be shocked if the Eldar eventually get the Firestorm (i think that's the name) from Epic. That was a dedicated AA platform IIRC.
SickSix wrote:A lot more armies have fliers than armies that have skyfire. In fact the only ground unit with skyfire is the IG that I know of.
But everyone has access to fortifications, no?
This still falls under the idea that I have no real choice in the matter, I am being forced into it.
And yes, that is figuratively forced into it, not literately because I know you will make a witty remark about that line.
Dantalian wrote:This still falls under the idea that I have no real choice in the matter, I am being forced into it.
Of course you have a choice... just as you have a choice to include weapons that can hurt a Land Raider, or not.
You can either adapt to the changing game, or you can keep playing your army as is and hope for the best. Or, of course, you can throw your toys out and stamp your feet.
Every time a codex is updated, the playing field changes, and players are forced to adapt to new rules, tactics and abilities. The only difference a new rulebook makes there is that everyone updates at once.
Just curious, but if, instead of giving you fortifications, they had released rules for a new, say, Broadside variant that has skyfire, would that have been more acceptable?
insaniak wrote:They tried that with Choppas in 3rd edition... and it was fairly widely reviled.
Because it didn't make sense.
My Choppa reduces your Termy armour to 4+ yet does nothing extra to that Storm Trooper. Wha...?
If it'd been -1 or -2 rather than a flat "Saves above 4+ are now 4+" the rule would have worked.
I'd also wager it was overturned because GW is very uncomfortable with advantages which target SMs.
Over the years SMs are being stripped of all weaknesses and disadvantages.
They've been getting more and better tanks, greater access to speed, ATSKNF, Less vulnerability to xeno strengths, better stealth, better SCs, and now better armor...
Have they lost anything? I'm no SM player so I honestly don't know...
Ozeo wrote:Anyone else ready for the hilarity that is 3 squads of long fangs allied with ig and having them issue on my command and bring it down?
No that is a new flavor of painful cheese that Broadsides just got taken away from them. This FAQ honestly buffed all Imperial lists and necrons, everyone else pretty much go get fethed.
Just a general question, since I saw Look out Sir mentioned earlier, with the Look out Sir being allocated to any model within 6", if an IC 'kills' enough models in his unit to lose coherency, does he automatically leave the unit? If not, will his "may leave the unit" be overridden by the "must move into coherency" in the next move?
I've seen a few suggestions that putting a tough IC at the front of a large unit be the best way getting to the other side of the board.
SickSix wrote:A lot more armies have fliers than armies that have skyfire. In fact the only ground unit with skyfire is the IG that I know of.
But everyone has access to fortifications, no?
This still falls under the idea that I have no real choice in the matter, I am being forced into it.
And yes, that is figuratively forced into it, not literately because I know you will make a witty remark about that line.
Make your own fortress, make your own fortifications, since you want Tau make it Tau'ish it is a little complicated but you will enjoy it more.
insaniak wrote:They tried that with Choppas in 3rd edition... and it was fairly widely reviled.
Because it didn't make sense.
My Choppa reduces your Termy armour to 4+ yet does nothing extra to that Storm Trooper. Wha...?
If it'd been -1 or -2 rather than a flat "Saves above 4+ are now 4+" the rule would have worked.
I'd also wager it was overturned because GW is very uncomfortable with advantages which target SMs.
Over the years SMs are being stripped of all weaknesses and disadvantages.
They've been getting more and better tanks, greater access to speed, ATSKNF, Less vulnerability to xeno strengths, better stealth, better SCs, and now better armor...
Have they lost anything? I'm no SM player so I honestly don't know...
Clearly you're not - unless by "Space Marine" you mean Blood Angel, Space Wolf or maybe even Grey Knight?
Dantalian wrote:This still falls under the idea that I have no real choice in the matter, I am being forced into it.
Of course you have a choice... just as you have a choice to include weapons that can hurt a Land Raider, or not.
You can either adapt to the changing game, or you can keep playing your army as is and hope for the best. Or, of course, you can throw your toys out and stamp your feet.
Every time a codex is updated, the playing field changes, and players are forced to adapt to new rules, tactics and abilities. The only difference a new rulebook makes there is that everyone updates at once.
Just curious, but if, instead of giving you fortifications, they had released rules for a new, say, Broadside variant that has skyfire, would that have been more acceptable?
If a "changing game" means "congrats, now buy part of a second army" then yes you are correct. All GW has done here is said that the codex you have been playing for years is no longer good enough, go get a second one now. That is complete crap to me.
I see no reason that every codex should not og gotten some form of AA. I mean that just seethes awful execution on GWs part. Or, as we all know, is just GW pretty much going into full money grab mode while they slowly slide on their total player base and sales.
I would not of been happy with broadsides being Skyfire at all. They are S10 AP1 and most flyers are paper. I would rather of had the Skyray go at it with S8 missiles that home in on markerlights. At least at that point I would have limited ammo and not just instantly blow up every flyer that arrives from reserves.
Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of buying cover and fortifications. My complaint is that half the codices out there have to do this with any chance of countering flyers.
Dantalian wrote:And what do people who are desperate allies with IG do? What do Nids do?
Ignore the flyers and focus on the targets that they can kill?
Not everyone even has flyers at this point. So not everyone having Skyfire doesn't seem like that big a deal.
Why are you guys so obsessed about skyfire? Are you saying flyers can't be hit with 6's either? Hitting with only 6's opens some interesting possibilities, like having no disadvantage for moving at full speed with all your units and just snap firing the weapons at them. A ground army can therefore react to the mobility of flyers rather quickly. A Chimera can move 12" and fire both its guns, while the passengers can shoot a heavy weapon and some special weapons out of the firepoints and also hit with 6's. For example, a Vet Squad with 3 Plasma Guns and an Autocannon in a Chimera can move 12" and shoot 3 times with multi-laser, 3 times with heavy bolter and either 3 or 6 times (24" reach total for the rapid fire) with plasma guns, and twice with the autocannon. That's 14 shots that hit with 6's and they'll average a single penetrating hit against a Doom Scythe. They cost 180 points total, pretty much the same as the Doom Scythe, while also providing a scoring infantry unit (I remind you that vehicles and flyers can't even contest objectives now) to the army. You take four or five similar squads and back them up with your own flyers and a couple Hydras and what's the problem? Where exactly would you need skyfire? IG can get three squadrons of Hydras and I still doubt anyone will take more than a single squadron because weapons with skyfire don't hit ground targets properly.
Twin-linked autocannons, twin-linked assault cannons, twin-linked anything, or just weapons with a high rate of fire otherwise like loota autocannons do solid damage against flyers. There are even some particularly weak flyers like the Stormtalon which for some unknown reason only got 2 hull points while every other flyer got 3 hull points and even super cheap skimmers like the Dark Eldar Raider got 3 hull points. This is a clear exception from the general GW rule that all change benefits Space Marines.
This is an edition of flyers no doubt so if there's any chance that your opponents might have a lot of them (you're going to a tournament for example) you need 3 flyers of your own and a bunch of weapons with a high rate of fire. Other than that, just focus on the mission objectives since an army with a lot of flyers will have very little in the way of objective scoring and objective denial units. That said, I'm not blind to the fact that some armies are very old and might not have enough firepower in general to be able to deal with this but let's face it, there was a lot of stuff they already couldn't deal with because of being so hopelessly outdated. When Dark Angels and Chaos Space Marines codices are released I'm sure both of them have flyers of their own and further increasing the amount of flyers in the game, and other units that can in turn fight them. The Flakk Missile for example is clearly reserved for one of them. I remember those twin-missile launcher Dreadnoughts being iconic to the Dark Angels, so maybe they'll get these missiles.
I'd also like to mention that assaulting in general has become slightly weaker. That's just a fact that you can read between the lines in all the rulebook sections. Even those Chimeras with firepoints will overwatch at a unit assaulting them. Everyone is naturally free to play any kind of army they like, but armies that focus nearly entirely on shooting will have very little disadvantages. If you have mainly an assault army and your opponent brings 10 flyers I'm sure there's not much you can do except run to the objectives and go to ground. Your army is simply dead now as a take on all comers list since it can't deal with flyers properly. Once again that said those types of armies already had many types of opponents they couldn't deal with properly. Some players just might not have known that because their regular opponents haven't been hard countering them. The game evolves and the pendulum keeps swinging.
Lastly, don't forget the new rule that if at the end of any game turn your opponent doesn't have any models on the table he automatically loses and the game ends. Full reserve/null deployment is therefore completely impossible and reserving most of your stuff is also very risky. This makes it impossible for full flyer Necron armies to go full reserve and just deploy turn 2 anywhere on the table, so they'll most likely deploy most of their troops on foot and just keep the vehicles themselves in reserve, and that's a different game altogether.
No, YOU think they're rubbish. Most people are hugely positive about the FAQs. Your mindset is to critisise everything GW do and you currupt everything to it. There are hundreds of points of information in the FAQs and you've picked on two or three and decided that they break the game.
The new rules editions make some things more viable, some things less viable. This is a concequence of a new ruleset. Everything can't be a winner...
read the CSm, and Deamons FAqs, and then come again saying that GW din't screw up their 6th ed Start...
Its done in a lazy manner,makes little sens, be it game mechanic wise or fluff wise, and its useless, or it hammers the said army harder into the ground...
I was eager to try to play in 6th after seeing the FAqs, but now i'm convinced to wait till the new codexes comes out...
You can't go full reserve, anymore. Only half of your army can be reserved. (pp.124)
Read the rules. You can go full reserve if your army consists of one HQ plus units that must start in reserve, like flyers, but you'll lose automatically at the end of turn one.
Dantalian wrote:If a "changing game" means "congrats, now buy part of a second army" then yes you are correct. All GW has done here is said that the codex you have been playing for years is no longer good enough, go get a second one now. That is complete crap to me.
You don't need to buy part of a second army to take fortifications...
I see no reason that every codex should not og gotten some form of AA.
They did.
Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of buying cover and fortifications. My complaint is that half the codices out there have to do this with any chance of countering flyers.
So have you considered that maybe you're overestimating just how large an effect flyers will have on the game?
Fortifications are great. Maybe even too good. You can fit 8 tanks or more behind a single 50 point Aegis Defence Line, and it'll give all of them 4+ cover saves during daylight and depending on range 3+ or 2+ cover saves during night fight.
Alternatively people will just see a horde of infantry with leather jackets there. If you get 50 guys there you only paid 1 point per model for Space Marine level armour saves.
You can't go full reserve, anymore. Only half of your army can be reserved. (pp.124)
Read the rules. You can go full reserve if your army consists of one HQ plus units that must start in reserve, like flyers, but you'll lose automatically at the end of turn one.
If someone fields that army, they deserve to lose automatically. ^_^
No, YOU think they're rubbish. Most people are hugely positive about the FAQs. Your mindset is to critisise everything GW do and you currupt everything to it. There are hundreds of points of information in the FAQs and you've picked on two or three and decided that they break the game.
The new rules editions make some things more viable, some things less viable. This is a concequence of a new ruleset. Everything can't be a winner...
read the CSm, and Deamons FAqs, and then come again saying that GW din't screw up their 6th ed Start...
Its done in a lazy manner,makes little sens, be it game mechanic wise or fluff wise, and its useless, or it hammers the said army harder into the ground...
I was eager to try to play in 6th after seeing the FAqs, but now i'm convinced to wait till the new codexes comes out...
Can you elaborate on this? All I took from the FAQ was Chaos Daemons were not joining up with allied characters.
If someone fields that army, they deserve to lose automatically. ^_^
Many of the Necron background stories in the codex actually teach us that a Necron invasion starts with dozens of waves of Doom Scythes. Once air superiority has been established the Night Scythes come in and use their invasion beams to teleport the infantry into the heart of the enemy. The new flyer armies are an accurate representation of the fluff. Therefore I'm a fluffbunny.
Archonate wrote:
Have they lost anything? I'm no SM player so I honestly don't know...
Clearly you're not - unless by "Space Marine" you mean Blood Angel, Space Wolf or maybe even Grey Knight?
Those are exactly what I mean... that's what I said: Space Marines.
Distinctions made under that designation are irrelevant when they all receive the same aforementioned advantages/lack of disadvantages.
Dantalian wrote:If a "changing game" means "congrats, now buy part of a second army" then yes you are correct. All GW has done here is said that the codex you have been playing for years is no longer good enough, go get a second one now. That is complete crap to me.
You don't need to buy part of a second army to take fortifications...
I see no reason that every codex should not og gotten some form of AA.
They did.
Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of buying cover and fortifications. My complaint is that half the codices out there have to do this with any chance of countering flyers.
So have you considered that maybe you're overestimating just how large an effect flyers will have on the game?
Let me support Insaniak on this, Do you think an ork player will care about hitting flyers? Not in the least.
If someone fields that army, they deserve to lose automatically. ^_^
Many of the Necron background stories in the codex actually teach us that a Necron invasion starts with dozens of waves of Doom Scythes. Once air superiority has been established the Night Scythes come in and use their invasion beams to teleport the infantry into the heart of the enemy. The new flyer armies are an accurate representation of the fluff. Therefore I'm a fluffbunny.
Ah, if only fluff were actually a determining factor in the creation of rules. But, they're not. So put a couple of units on the board, reserve all your fliers, and cope.
I run Deathstrikes, I paint my Valks in US Coast Guard colors, and I still haven't put any meltagunners in my army. If you're going to let 'fluff' ruin your enjoyment of the game...perhaps it is time for you to play a different game. I, however, suggest being a little more flexible, grab a tasty beverage, and relax. Worst case? Find a casual gamer group that will waive the 'automatic lose' rule, when you play that all-reserve Necron Army.
Enjoyment of the entire Hobby is what 6th edition is all about.
Find a casual gamer group that will waive the 'automatic lose' rule, when you play that all-reserve Necron Army.
I'm not sure what you're talking about anymore. I have no problems with the automatic lose rule, and I have no desire to reserve every unit. I am perfectly happy about deploying 20 Necron Warriors behind an Aegis Defence Line with a Comms Relay. I was merely replying to your inane statement that I deserve to lose because I play my army like it's designed (and written in the background) to be played.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:Are the psyker mastery levels annoying anykne out there? Swarmlord is ML 2, but zoanthropes are ML 1? Ezekiel is a cheif librarian at ML 1?
In 5th edition, the Swamlord could cast 2 powers a turn, while Zoans could cast 1. Ezekiel also, despite being a Chief Librarian, could only cast 1.
So they seem about right.
In Ezekiel's case, though, since there is a new codex coming, I would expect he will receive a bit of a buff.
read the CSm, and Deamons FAqs, and then come again saying that GW din't screw up their 6th ed Start...
I'm sorry but what? They get flying monstrosities (CD) that can smack flyers, fiends, seekers, and daemonettes has +1 on the pen chart and can glance things to death, oh and seekers get alpha strike on the charge for an additional damage, the crusher moves 6 + 2D6 now. Plague Bearers can move 6 + 2D6 after it's crappy movement rate, and can't lose his FNP unless it's a S10.
CSM got heavily buffed through some rules (Sure kharn got hit hard, but not everyone uses him!) Thousand Sons are now viable in an edition filled with 5+ cover saves (AP3 is now finally useful), 4++ that's not just an overpriced tax, psykers that can now take useful powers for cheap from three useful disciplines, sure they can't overwatch, but they can rapidfire and charge due to relentless.
Plague Marines have gained True T5, and Nurgle stacks for bikers, potentially making them actually useful (maybe not), defensive grenades within 8" gives them stealth should they be shot at by heavier weapons up close, and FNP not cut through by power weapons. They lost out a bit from it going from 4+ to 5+, but the gain is quite useful. Not to mention Typhus is FINALLY USEFUL at last since his 2+ now matters and he instant dies on a S10.
I like what they have done with the rules. Seems pretty well thought ouot and easy to understand. Again for the most part, GW did a good job.
Now with the FAQ's there are alot of problems with them for sure. I am expecting a bigger FAQ here pretty soon. Either in a WD or online. The Next issue of WD is supposed to have alot on the Allies and what not, might shed some light on the subject.
I see where they are trying to go, but lets hope they can get there pretty fast. My Orks are ok for the time being. I can see problems with others FAQ's and what not.
I think good things are on the horizon, just hope it is in view.
On a side note, with the lack of wound shenanigans Nob bikes got a hell of alot better being able to FNP against las-cannons and missles. That makes them just as nice if you ask me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote:
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:Are the psyker mastery levels annoying anykne out there? Swarmlord is ML 2, but zoanthropes are ML 1? Ezekiel is a cheif librarian at ML 1?
In 5th edition, the Swamlord could cast 2 powers a turn, while Zoans could cast 1. Ezekiel also, despite being a Chief Librarian, could only cast 1.
So they seem about right.
In Ezekiel's case, though, since there is a new codex coming, I would expect he will receive a bit of a buff.
Yeah I am expecting Ezek to be a beast, Mephiston level?
balsak_da_mighty wrote:I like what they have done with the rules. Seems pretty well thought ouot and easy to understand. Again for the most part, GW did a good job.
Now with the FAQ's there are alot of problems with them for sure. I am expecting a bigger FAQ here pretty soon. Either in a WD or online. The Next issue of WD is supposed to have alot on the Allies and what not, might shed some light on the subject.
I see where they are trying to go, but lets hope they can get there pretty fast. My Orks are ok for the time being. I can see problems with others FAQ's and what not.
I think good things are on the horizon, just hope it is in view.
On a side note, with the lack of wound shenanigans Nob bikes got a hell of alot better being able to FNP against las-cannons and missles. That makes them just as nice if you ask me.
Just as nice? Personally I think that's better then the old Shenanigans Nobs.
Also because you can easier glance things to death, the Dakka Guns on Bikers just because awsome for killing transports.
Am I reading this right? DE Reavers' Jink save is now 4+! And that they ignore Dangerous too! They've effectively just "became" worth their points now!
I am surprised at all of that gnashing of teeth about flyers. You people need to learn how to build armies.
Just about every army can pump out a ton of shots if they want to. Eldar have no weapons with skyfire, and they do not have any fliers. and they are not all whining about it. Heck, Tau at least can see in the dark at least with all of the nightfight that might be going on. What the Eldar do have are war walkers with a lot of strength 6 shooting to take down flyers.
Can’t Tau take a lot of TL Missile pods? Sure they will need “6”s to hit which seems only a little worse than their normal 4, 5 or 6s. Fire warriors can move and shoot strength 5 shooting for a total of 36” range which will knock down all flyers except stormravens. Heck, 3 broadsides with TL guns should hit a flyer once, and with strength 10 AP1 that will hurt.
Don’t come crying to the forum and say you don’t want to take this, or I don’t want to take that. You have the tools and it is up to you to use them. If you want to handicap yourself that if fine, but don’t whine about it.
I have a thousand sons army that I only want to take tzeentch demons with but tzeentch demons suck, and they add nothing to the thousand sons. Khorne would be much better, but I choose not to take them. I also am starting a pre-heresy thousand sons army that can’t take demon allies at all. I made those choices, and I am limiting myself, not complaining that GW did not make my army better in a FAQ.
read the CSm, and Deamons FAqs, and then come again saying that GW din't screw up their 6th ed Start...
I'm sorry but what? They get flying monstrosities (CD) that can smack flyers, fiends, seekers, and daemonettes has +1 on the pen chart and can glance things to death, oh and seekers get alpha strike on the charge for an additional damage, the crusher moves 6 + 2D6 now. Plague Bearers can move 6 + 2D6 after it's crappy movement rate, and can't lose his FNP unless it's a S10.
CSM got heavily buffed through some rules (Sure kharn got hit hard, but not everyone uses him!) Thousand Sons are now viable in an edition filled with 5+ cover saves (AP3 is now finally useful), 4++ that's not just an overpriced tax, psykers that can now take useful powers for cheap from three useful disciplines, sure they can't overwatch, but they can rapidfire and charge due to relentless.
Plague Marines have gained True T5, and Nurgle stacks for bikers, potentially making them actually useful (maybe not), defensive grenades within 8" gives them stealth should they be shot at by heavier weapons up close, and FNP not cut through by power weapons. They lost out a bit from it going from 4+ to 5+, but the gain is quite useful. Not to mention Typhus is FINALLY USEFUL at last since his 2+ now matters and he instant dies on a S10.
Without a point cost reduction, thousand suns will never be viable in comparison to other units with similar point costs. You will indeed be able to take more FNP checks, but will be failing them more often. I am still unclear about the ally rules and whether or not taking Epidemius will have any effect on this.
The issue is that the Chaos Space Marine Daemon Prince is not a Flying Monstrous Creature, and it's just a slap in the face to CSM who were already beaten around like a red headed step child.
The issue is that the Chaos Space Marine Daemon Prince is not a Flying Monstrous Creature, and it's just a slap in the face to CSM who were already beaten around like a red headed step child.
I am sorry but this is just plain entitlement, I don't mind them not being a FMC, for the major issues we'll be getting a new codex within a month or two, not to mention they didn't lose any effectiveness, has gained some power. Sure is it a bit unfair compared to CD? But however CD have already been beaten and left for dead, them getting it and not CSM won't make me complain to much.
Check the mysterious objectives out too if you haven't already. In 4 out of 6 missions the scoring unit that is controlling an objective will mostly gain additional benefits for it. If you roll for example a 3 on the chart the objective gives the controlling unit the option to use skyfire when shooting.
read the CSm, and Deamons FAqs, and then come again saying that GW din't screw up their 6th ed Start...
I'm sorry but what? They get flying monstrosities (CD) that can smack flyers, fiends, seekers, and daemonettes has +1 on the pen chart and can glance things to death, oh and seekers get alpha strike on the charge for an additional damage, the crusher moves 6 + 2D6 now. Plague Bearers can move 6 + 2D6 after it's crappy movement rate, and can't lose his FNP unless it's a S10.
CSM got heavily buffed through some rules (Sure kharn got hit hard, but not everyone uses him!) Thousand Sons are now viable in an edition filled with 5+ cover saves (AP3 is now finally useful), 4++ that's not just an overpriced tax, psykers that can now take useful powers for cheap from three useful disciplines, sure they can't overwatch, but they can rapidfire and charge due to relentless.
Plague Marines have gained True T5, and Nurgle stacks for bikers, potentially making them actually useful (maybe not), defensive grenades within 8" gives them stealth should they be shot at by heavier weapons up close, and FNP not cut through by power weapons. They lost out a bit from it going from 4+ to 5+, but the gain is quite useful. Not to mention Typhus is FINALLY USEFUL at last since his 2+ now matters and he instant dies on a S10.
Flying MCs do not get to shoot or assault enemy flyers normally. Daemons really have almost no way of dealing with flyer currently...other than taking a gun emplacement fortification. Daemonettes and Seekers will get pulped by overwatch. Plague Bearers are barely half as survivable as before.
I'm not going to go on about CSM since their codex is so near, but some things do seems weird. Kharn dropped to Ini 1 when necrons get to keep an AP 1 (!!!) CCW that goes at normal initiative is just mind-boggling. The least they could have down was to let him pick each turn, using his weapon as a power sword or a power axe. But being lazy always pays off immediately....
Slayer le boucher wrote: read the CSm, and Deamons FAqs, and then come again saying that GW din't screw up their 6th ed Start...
What on earth are you talking about?
I swear, it is like I am taking crazy pills.
I dont think daemons got any worse, losing +init on furious charge and getting just ap 3 combat weapons kinda sucks for the khorne fellows, but the whole army causes fear now and can have a chance of charging further. Thats not really bad Id say.
I do think nurlge armies are definately useless now though, cant run, fnp is 5+. But my tzeentch army I play normally should be fine I think.
Therion wrote:Lastly, don't forget the new rule that if at the end of any game turn your opponent doesn't have any models on the table he automatically loses and the game ends. Full reserve/null deployment is therefore completely impossible and reserving most of your stuff is also very risky. This makes it impossible for full flyer Necron armies to go full reserve and just deploy turn 2 anywhere on the table, so they'll most likely deploy most of their troops on foot and just keep the vehicles themselves in reserve, and that's a different game altogether.
Great points overall Therion, but I do have to point out- my drop pod army will still be null deploying (as long as I take a single HQ) and bringing down 6 pods turn 1 (since it's game turn, not player turn).
Also, I think TL Autocannons are a good call for shooting flyers, but don't the SM flyers have Armor 12? So would need 6's to hit, followed by 6's on the damage table to do anything other than strip off a hull point?
Without a point cost reduction, thousand suns will never be viable in comparison to other units with similar point costs. You will indeed be able to take more FNP checks, but will be failing them more often. I am still unclear about the ally rules and whether or not taking Epidemius will have any effect on this.
You thought that they would get a point reduction? Did anyone get a point reduction? Did DE venoms who now have flickerfields that everyone gets for free get a point reduction? Point costs arenot for a rulebook, that is for the codex.
Add to that Thousand Sons got better, not worse in the edition and their points did not change. Their sorcerers have access to more powers, they now have psychic defense on a 5+. The reduced cover saves makes there AP3 bolters and there 4+ Inv save better.
The issue is that the Chaos Space Marine Daemon Prince is not a Flying Monstrous Creature, and it's just a slap in the face to CSM who were already beaten around like a red headed step child.
Really? This is what has everyone's knickers in a twist? It might be because Chaos Demons have almost no shooting and have no way of dealing with flyers, while chaos space marines can shoot them out of the sky.
Here is something interesting for you:
A Winged Lash Demon Prince in the CSM codex will cost you 155 points
A Winged Demon Prince with Pavane and the same stats in the chaos demons codex will cost you 230 points.
When you start to pay 230 points for your DP then you can whine about how you are not a flying monstrous creature.
Unless I am mistaken, Tyranids have three guns that can take down a Vendetta:
Impaler Cannon - can field 9 of these max in one FOC.
Brainleech Worm - 18" range, at most 8 per FOC
Rupture Cannon - Assault 2, attached to a 265 point figure, at most 3 per FOC (depending on Brainleech numbers)
I understand the best way to deal with flyers is through torrent of fire, but there is no way Tyranids to field it. It seems like 2 Flyrants with Brainleech worms will be mandatory in every army?
Edit: I guess there is Zoanthropes with their Lance Psychic power too.
Flying MCs do not get to shoot or assault enemy flyers normally. Daemons really have almost no way of dealing with flyer currently...other than taking a gun emplacement fortification. Daemonettes and Seekers will get pulped by overwatch. Plague Bearers are barely half as survivable as before.
Flying mc's get VECTOR STRIKE. Which works on Flyers as listed, D3 + 1 strikes. I'm sure a Bloodthirster will do Fine in breaking one down.
Daemonettes and seekers get a +1 to cover saves against overwatch due to defensive grenades benefiting them, also what universe does a ton of rapid fire (at best, 20) BS1 shots will hurt them? 20 shots at BS1 from bolters will do 3 hits at a 16.67 hit rate killing about 1-3 models at just their basic 5++ save. That's not a massive amount.
Plague bearers will survive better against power weapons, which really was their main killer in 5th, as they often went to ground in cover so they had a good save to begin with, not to mention they gained an actual ability to fight for once due to SnP not hurting them as badly as it did before.
Without a point cost reduction, thousand suns will never be viable in comparison to other units with similar point costs. You will indeed be able to take more FNP checks, but will be failing them more often. I am still unclear about the ally rules and whether or not taking Epidemius will have any effect on this.
You thought that they would get a point reduction? Did anyone get a point reduction? Did DE venoms who now have flickerfields that everyone gets for free get a point reduction? Point costs arenot for a rulebook, that is for the codex.
Add to that Thousand Sons got better, not worse in the edition and their points did not change. Their sorcerers have access to more powers, they now have psychic defense on a 5+. The reduced cover saves makes there AP3 bolters and there 4+ Inv save better.
The issue is that the Chaos Space Marine Daemon Prince is not a Flying Monstrous Creature, and it's just a slap in the face to CSM who were already beaten around like a red headed step child.
Really? This is what has everyone's knickers in a twist? It might be because Chaos Demons have almost no shooting and have no way of dealing with flyers, while chaos space marines can shoot them out of the sky.
Here is something interesting for you:
A Winged Lash Demon Prince in the CSM codex will cost you 155 points
A Winged Demon Prince with Pavane and the same stats in the chaos demons codex will cost you 230 points.
When you start to pay 230 points for your DP then you can whine about how you are not a flying monstrous creature.
This man speaks the truth. Thousand Sons are currently the bees knees!
Surtur: I like how Grey Knights all have unique force weapons, which IRRC means they're all AP3. This makes me giggle.
Page 60 of 6thBRB specifically states that Force Axes and HALBERDS are treated as Axes.
So if I read this right, the Halberds drop the GK to I1, then the Codex rule for Halbereds add +2 to the Ini...giving a chart for GKs that goes like this:
Sword; I per user, S per user + buffs (hammerhand etc) AP3
Halbereds: I3 (I1 +2 per codex), S per user + 1 (axe) + buffs AP2
Hammer: I1 S per userx2 + buffs. AP2
Warding Staff...this could either fall under the Maul category or the "unusual weapon" category. I would defer it to the unusual category (AP3).
(EDIT) This would make sense considering the normal weapon for PAGKs is the sword, designed to kill MEQ. Other weapons have a base cost to them. Halberds to handle Terminators (but letting other MEQ hit you first) and Hammers to handle vehicles and MCs GKTermies are equipped from the outset with Halberds since they are set up to go after TEQ (Terminator Equivalent) based units while being able to survive almost anything a MEQ unit can throw at them.
Here is the thing on this. No one can predict all the crazy and haphazard things that go on. For instance, I played a game today where I Snap Fired my Missile launchers in my Dev squad and had the Sergeant use his Sigum on one of the guys, No one says that cant occur but the MRB is kind of vague.
No matter how many times you play test WAY to many things could occur each and every game due to the interaction of units and people. So complaining about needing an FAQ on the MRB is kind of pointless.
dkellyj wrote:Surtur: I like how Grey Knights all have unique force weapons, which IRRC means they're all AP3. This makes me giggle.
Page 60 of 6thBRB specifically states that Force Axes and HALBERDS are treated as Axes.
So if I read this right, the Halberds drop the GK to I1, then the Codex rule for Halbereds add +2 to the Ini...giving a chart for GKs that goes like this:
Sword; I per user, S per user + buffs (hammerhand etc) AP3
Halbereds: I3 (I1 +2 per codex), S per user + 1 (axe) + buffs AP2
Hammer: I1 S per userx2 + buffs. AP2
Warding Staff...this could either fall under the Maul category or the "unusual weapon" category. I would defer it to the unusual category (AP3).
pg 60 BRB Force stave +2 S, AP 4 Melee, Concussion, Force.
Alpharius wrote:
Clearly you're not - unless by "Space Marine" you mean Blood Angel, Space Wolf or maybe even Grey Knight?
I'd say with the most recent FAQ that BTs have definitely lost out. But then again, those Inferior Chapters who are not Ultramarines or Ultramarine fanboys are doomed to a slow extinction by word of Ward.
H.B.M.C. wrote:So Chaplains really have their Crozius' reduced to AP4? That sucks.
Yep...but they still provide quite the reroll buff to the rest of your unit...unfortunately Lightning Claws are AP3. Add a Chappy to a TH/SS unit and you rerolling all them misses and killing on 2s. Not to shabby. Shrike just took a serious hit along with LC Termies. Looks like the standard Terminator (Storm Bolter, PW Sgt, PF/CF dudes) are about to make a serious comeback as the standard unit since very few things now require the 3++ save.
H.B.M.C. wrote:So Chaplains really have their Crozius' reduced to AP4? That sucks.
Yep...but they still provide quite the reroll buff to the rest of your unit...unfortunately Lightning Claws are AP3. Add a Chappy to a TH/SS unit and you rerolling all them misses and killing on 2s. Not to shabby. Shrike just took a serious hit along with LC Termies. Looks like the standard Terminator (Storm Bolter, PW Sgt, PF/CF dudes) are about to make a serious comeback as the standard unit since very few things now require the 3++ save.
Shrike still has rending though, so not all is lost.
You don't re-roll al misses anymore with Preferred Enemy. You simply re-roll 1's to hit and wound. Just as a heads up. But I agree that standard Termies are going to make a comeback
dkellyj wrote:
Page 60 of 6thBRB specifically states that Force Axes and HALBERDS are treated as Axes.
So if I read this right, the Halberds drop the GK to I1, then the Codex rule for Halbereds add +2 to the Ini...giving a chart for GKs that goes like this:
The rules says, multipliers, then additions, and last fix value for all modifiers, so no it's still i1.
You don't re-roll al misses anymore with Preferred Enemy. You simply re-roll 1's to hit and wound. Just as a heads up. But I agree that standard Termies are going to make a comeback
Yea With my Blood Angels it is going to be all about the Sanguinary Guard Since they have 2+ with Fists or Axes, Vanguard Vets might actually become decent as well! Normal Termies will be beasts, moving up all game with a Priest in there as well and shooting a Cyclone Missile Launcher or Assault Cannon.
Also Stormravens zoom in turn 2ish turn 3 drops troops at the oppositions front door, troops are termies and a dread. . . god, evil!
Joe Mama wrote:Because I am a bit slow I have to ask...
Do all missile launchers have the option of shooting the "flakk" missiles which can hit fliers? Or only the ones that specifically say they come with the flakk option? If it is the latter, does any missile launcher currently have this mode of firing?
AS far as I've seen in the FAQs, no missile launcher has this currently. It's not clear from what I'm reading if *any* missile launcher can have this upgrade (which would make sense) or if it's something that specifically has to be in it's description.
The main Rulebook. I believe its page 57.
Which confirms that no missile launcher presently in the game has or can take flakk missiles.
Except for the very next line in that very same description AND the weapon profile entry in the back of the book.
Codex Dark Eldar Errata: webwayz are crazy waste of points. Make me breath in relief for not going on with my webway army project. I think Dark Eldar are doomed to be the most annoying shooty army in the game... for player and for opponent... At least now Dark Lances do BIG damage, easy.
Codex Space Wolves Errata: i dont have the rulebook, but someone can tell me wich is the new profile of power fist? (and if it have changed at all). Unwieldly proly mens "cannot get extra attack from second weapon" (so, no ini 1 for axes yay). If so, i can see some of my Wolf Guard getting axes instead of fists...
Codex Sisters of Battle: Sweet one, they give acts of faith to joined units/ICs o.O. And snapfire really make them stand assault better now, i really hope to use lots of flamers and dare my opponent to assault me (grim smile).
Automatically Appended Next Post: O, i forgot: I think Matt love necrons.
dkellyj wrote:Surtur: I like how Grey Knights all have unique force weapons, which IRRC means they're all AP3. This makes me giggle.
Reading the rules wrong makes you giggle?
Unusual Force Weapons are AP3 unless otherwise stated. All GK weapons are Unusual Force Weapons. But the Hammer is stated as following the rules of a thunder hammer. That's the otherwise stated that doesn't make it AP3, meaning it is AP2, Initiative 1, Strength x 2, all that stuff.
Joe Mama wrote:Because I am a bit slow I have to ask...
Do all missile launchers have the option of shooting the "flakk" missiles which can hit fliers? Or only the ones that specifically say they come with the flakk option? If it is the latter, does any missile launcher currently have this mode of firing?
AS far as I've seen in the FAQs, no missile launcher has this currently. It's not clear from what I'm reading if *any* missile launcher can have this upgrade (which would make sense) or if it's something that specifically has to be in it's description.
The main Rulebook. I believe its page 57.
Which confirms that no missile launcher presently in the game has or can take flakk missiles.
Except for the very next line in that very same description AND the weapon profile entry in the back of the book.
So the topic that the FLGS I play at has (the players that go to GT have this opinion not me.) is that because the MRB states that it is an optional upgrade and no codex has that upgrade yet, no missile launcher has that profile.
I on the other hand agree with you on this and say that they should since in the back they separate the weapons.
He tourney guys here are to big headed and are going by RAR and not RAW, they are not even giving an objective view of the rule.
imweasel wrote:Except for the very next line in that very same description AND the weapon profile entry in the back of the book.
Eh? Are you saying all Missile Launchers have a Flakk mode built-in? Or only some? How do you tell? Why does the text stay the Flakk option is an upgrade?
imweasel wrote:Except for the very next line in that very same description AND the weapon profile entry in the back of the book.
Eh? Are you saying all Missile Launchers have a Flakk mode built-in? Or only some? How do you tell? Why does the text stay the Flakk option is an upgrade?
Think about this then, why does the BRB actually show different weapon profiles for different missile launchers? Eldar ML are different then normal ML so adding 2+2 and we get that the words optional upgrade are the fluff portion of that rule while everything after that and the appendix in the back of the book is correct.
dkellyj wrote:Surtur: I like how Grey Knights all have unique force weapons, which IRRC means they're all AP3. This makes me giggle.
Reading the rules wrong makes you giggle?
Unusual Force Weapons are AP3 unless otherwise stated. All GK weapons are Unusual Force Weapons. But the Hammer is stated as following the rules of a thunder hammer. That's the otherwise stated that doesn't make it AP3, meaning it is AP2, Initiative 1, Strength x 2, all that stuff.
So what does that make the Stave? Is it ap3 or ap4? The stat for stave is ap4, as the regular stave in GK dex doesn't have ap value. It says the unusual force weapons are ap3.
imweasel wrote:Except for the very next line in that very same description AND the weapon profile entry in the back of the book.
Eh? Are you saying all Missile Launchers have a Flakk mode built-in? Or only some? How do you tell? Why does the text stay the Flakk option is an upgrade?
Are you saying the weapon profiles are wrong. As far as I can tell, there is only one shooting weapon that can buy a 'different' shell and thats a medusa. Notice whats missing from its profile that you have to pay for to get? The breech shell.
That very line could be refering to every other weapon in the game thats a specific type of ml.
Lysenis wrote:Think about this then, why does the BRB actually show different weapon profiles for different missile launchers? Eldar ML are different then normal ML so adding 2+2 and we get that the words optional upgrade are the fluff portion of that rule while everything after that and the appendix in the back of the book is correct.
imweasel wrote:Except for the very next line in that very same description AND the weapon profile entry in the back of the book.
Eh? Are you saying all Missile Launchers have a Flakk mode built-in? Or only some? How do you tell? Why does the text stay the Flakk option is an upgrade?
Are you saying the weapon profiles are wrong. As far as I can tell, there is only one shooting weapon that can buy a 'different' shell and thats a medusa. Notice whats missing from its profile that you have to pay for to get? The breech shell.
That very line could be refering to every other weapon in the game thats a specific type of ml.
I am sure its for future reference. It doens't seem to do anything as of yet. At least that is my thinking on the matter.
Lysenis wrote:Think about this then, why does the BRB actually show different weapon profiles for different missile launchers? Eldar ML are different then normal ML so adding 2+2 and we get that the words optional upgrade are the fluff portion of that rule while everything after that and the appendix in the back of the book is correct.
Therion wrote:I was merely replying to your inane statement that I deserve to lose because I play my army like it's designed (and written in the background) to be played.
According to fluff, a single Space Marine can take down a hundred men.
Lysenis wrote:Think about this then, why does the BRB actually show different weapon profiles for different missile launchers? Eldar ML are different then normal ML so adding 2+2 and we get that the words optional upgrade are the fluff portion of that rule while everything after that and the appendix in the back of the book is correct.
So all bolters can use Hellfire?
Or just those bolters that have the option?
The profile for Heavy Bolter in the the back of the BRB doesn't list Hellfire shells. The profile for ML does list Flakk missiles.
edit: Sorry, you said bolters, but Hellfire aren't listed in the boltgun profile either.
A question on failing combat and falling back. The new book (as far as i can read) says nothing about staying broken if a unit is within 6". It says you fall back 2d6, then on your next turn you reroll Ld (snakeyes if your below 25%...unless an IC is attached), normal Ld if above 25%.
If that is the case it makes Gazzy a real player again. No more shooting him up, hitting him with an IG-PBS, then escorting him and the Nobs off the board when he fails his Ld2 roll.
imweasel wrote:Except for the very next line in that very same description AND the weapon profile entry in the back of the book.
Eh? Are you saying all Missile Launchers have a Flakk mode built-in? Or only some? How do you tell? Why does the text stay the Flakk option is an upgrade?
Are you saying the weapon profiles are wrong. As far as I can tell, there is only one shooting weapon that can buy a 'different' shell and thats a medusa. Notice whats missing from its profile that you have to pay for to get? The breech shell.
That very line could be refering to every other weapon in the game thats a specific type of ml.
I'm saying if the text says "optional upgrade" or whatever the exact wording is, it is silly if the idea is the Flakk firing mode is 'Standard' according to the weapon profile. 'Optional' and 'Standard' are two different words with opposing meanings.
Archonate wrote:Over the years SMs are being stripped of all weaknesses and disadvantages.
They've been getting more and better tanks, greater access to speed, ATSKNF, Less vulnerability to xeno strengths, better stealth, better SCs, and now better armor...
Have they lost anything? I'm no SM player so I honestly don't know...
Tarantulas, Rapiers, the ability to carry Dreadnoughts and Terminators in rhinos, frag launchers on rhinos, salvo-firing missile launchers for dreadnoughts, 8" radius blasts for Cyclone missile launchers, Hellfire shells on all heavy bolters, Minefield-seeding whirlwinds, the ability to take power weapons on entire assault squads, the ability to take Apothecaries in every squad, the ability to double up on Assault Squads or Devastator squads, the ability to take Furious Charge on all Tactical and Assault squads, the ability to extend the game by an extra turn, the ability to take BP/CCWs on tactical squads, the ability to infiltrate Devastator and Tactical squads or give them Tank Hunters, Counter Attack or True Grit, and the ability to give Command and Veteran squads invulnerable saves... just off the top of my head.
Archonate wrote:Over the years SMs are being stripped of all weaknesses and disadvantages.
They've been getting more and better tanks, greater access to speed, ATSKNF, Less vulnerability to xeno strengths, better stealth, better SCs, and now better armor...
Have they lost anything? I'm no SM player so I honestly don't know...
Tarantulas, Rapiers, the ability to carry Dreadnoughts and Terminators in rhinos, frag launchers on rhinos, salvo-firing missile launchers for dreadnoughts, 8" radius blasts for Cyclone missile launchers, Hellfire shells on all heavy bolters, Minefield-seeding whirlwinds, the ability to take power weapons on entire assault squads, the ability to take Apothecaries in every squad, the ability to double up on Assault Squads or Devastator squads, the ability to take Furious Charge on all Tactical and Assault squads, the ability to extend the game by an extra turn, the ability to take BP/CCWs on tactical squads, the ability to infiltrate Devastator and Tactical squads or give them Tank Hunters, Counter Attack or True Grit, and the ability to give Command and Veteran squads invulnerable saves... just off the top of my head.
This makes me smile. The 4th ed dex for Marines was the best. It helped make some many different chapters it was insane.
Lysenis wrote:Think about this then, why does the BRB actually show different weapon profiles for different missile launchers? Eldar ML are different then normal ML so adding 2+2 and we get that the words optional upgrade are the fluff portion of that rule while everything after that and the appendix in the back of the book is correct.
So all bolters can use Hellfire?
Or just those bolters that have the option?
The profile for Heavy Bolter in the the back of the BRB doesn't list Hellfire shells. The profile for ML does list Flakk missiles.
edit: Sorry, you said bolters, but Hellfire aren't listed in the boltgun profile either.
Since I have been only able to use a friends rule book this statement reinforces my statement.
balsak_da_mighty wrote:So what does that make the Stave? Is it ap3 or ap4? The stat for stave is ap4, as the regular stave in GK dex doesn't have ap value. It says the unusual force weapons are ap3.
The Nemesis Force Stave? The unusual force weapon with a special rule (nemesis)? Looks like AP3 to me. Nothing in the warding stave rules states an AP value. And the only exception to get out of that category, to get out of AP3, is if the weapon entry states otherwise - like the hammer.
RogueRegault wrote:
The really bizarre thing is they removed Target Locks from the infantry armoury, but didn't remove them from the vehicle armoury or Commander Shadowsun.
Not really it is actually expected, remember this edition vehicles are papper thin, if they allowed to split fire 3 crisis suits would anihilate your oponents meq.
The problem with this theory is that the Space Wolves FAQ doesn't say "Long Fangs - Delete the entry for Fire Control". Tau splitting fire is not nearly as nasty as Long Fangs splitting, and there is nothing in the new rulebook that makes the Target Lock redundant.
It's a straight nerf because the idiot they put in charge of the Tau FAQ didn't really care to read the rules.
Also note that the Tau FAQ is missing the million dollar question "Do Seeker Missiles fired at Fliers hit at BS1 or BS5?"
RogueRegault wrote:
Also note that the Tau FAQ is missing the million dollar question "Do Seeker Missiles fired at Fliers hit at BS1 or BS5?"
Now this is just a bit of common sence. But to fire the missile you need to hit with the Marker light. So I would say markeright has to hit at BS1, if that hits then the missle would hit on BS5. You can't fire the seeker without the Marker.
Nothing on how 'Nids can benefit from Allied detachment. Too bad they could certainly use that extra Elite slot for sure.
Also the change for 'Nids and spore mine cluster nerfs Spore mines even more than their 10 point cost and non-vehicular damage does, instead of losing one model with scatter you lose the whole brood, ergh.
Skyfire is totally not fluffly at all its just merely balacning, real life example the German 8,8 anti-air gun was leg- wait for it-dairy for its ability to open up a Russian T34 tank with ease, being extremely accurate. If anything AA guns should have had the ability to hit ground troops with the accuracy.
Just to clarify, under the missile launcher entry in the new rule book, it clearly states that some units have the option to purchase Flakk missiles in their Codex i.e. Flakk missiles do not automatically come with missile launchers. You have to buy them as an upgrade and need the option to do so. This option will no doubt start in appearing in future Codexes, but doesn't exist at present.
warboss wrote:Hrmm... Logan Grimnar seems to have lost any utility with his special axe that allows him to choose between two profiles. Both a frost axe and powerfist (the two he can choose from IIRC) are unwieldy.
I don't have my book with me at the moment... the grey knight halberd acts as a special force weapon... how does that interact with AP and initiative as a force halberd/axe with the rulebook and special GK halberd rules?
He can use it as a Frost Blade meaning AP-3 str+1 or a Power Fist, making him still actually quite viable if not evenmore powerfull because of the protection he receives from 2+ save,
On the down side he can't kill shooting termies without probaly dieing in return, so stay away from PF and equivalents enmasse and he will rock most peoples socks.
Flashman wrote:Just to clarify, under the missile launcher entry in the new rule book, it clearly states that some units have the option to purchase Flakk missiles in their Codex i.e. Flakk missiles do not automatically come with missile launchers. You have to buy them as an upgrade and need the option to do so. This option will no doubt start in appearing in future Codexes, but doesn't exist at present.
I must have missed that part where it said in their codex.
Once again, right after the option to upgrade, it states you chhose what missile to fire and gives the profile you can choose from. The only other weapon I can think of that you can upgrade is the medusa. That upgrade is missing from its profile from the weapons profile in the rule book. The flakk missile isn't. I would say you get to use the flakk missile until it's faq'ed otherwise.
you only get extra attack with power fist if equip with another "specialist weapon"
So, taking a Power Axe is asking for S5/6, ap2 and the regular extra Attack? While the Power Fist will give you S6/8, ap2 and no extra attack from pistol? Booth at Ini 1?
I think Power Axes are my new prefered weapons...
Can someone please summarize the new close combat weapons profile? (Or leak them anyway)
You think it's a coincidence that Nob Bikers and Mega-Nobs have improved...
But are also insanely expensive cash-wise?
I'm glad i'll finally have a reason to use my 30 Meganobz outside of insanely fluff-build lists..
I'll be using Ghaz as a regular Megaboss though..
I'll definitely be trying out some biker armies with the new rules too...
Oh well I knew about Long Fangs I thought he meant other marines finally got the rule.
Secondly my friend plays Orks so what is the big improvement on Meganobz thats the 2+ save guys that roll for difficult terrain/slow and pourpouseful right? what is so good about them now?
You think it's a coincidence that Nob Bikers and Mega-Nobs have improved...
But are also insanely expensive cash-wise?
I'm glad i'll finally have a reason to use my 30 Meganobz outside of insanely fluff-build lists..
I'll be using Ghaz as a regular Megaboss though..
I'll definitely be trying out some biker armies with the new rules too...
Oh well I knew about Long Fangs I thought he meant other marines finally got the rule.
Secondly my friend plays Orks so what is the big improvement on Meganobz thats the 2+ save guys that roll for difficult terrain/slow and pourpouseful right? what is so good about them now?
2+ saves shrug power weapons (but not fists and Thammers) these days, so they are acres more survivable. Slow and Purposeful no longer kills your movement but prevents you from using snap fire, running or sweeping advancing.
imweasel wrote:I must have missed that part where it said in their codex.
Where else do units purchase equipment from?
The only other weapon I can think of that you can upgrade is the medusa. That upgrade is missing from its profile from the weapons profile in the rule book.
As I mentioned in the thread in YMDC, the Defiler in the previous Chaos Codex had the option to upgrade its battlecannon to indirect fire. The indirect fire profile was listed in the weapon summary with the regular battlecannon profile.
Being listed with the missile launcher doesn't make flakk something available to all. Without anything specifically saying that it is added to the two missile types available in the codex, I see no reason to assume that everyone should just get it automatically.
If you want a more recent example, use the Mawcannon from Codex: Chaos Daemons. The Soul Grinder gets one of the options and has to pay to get one of the others. All options are listed in the Main Rulebook reference.
The Dwarf Wolf wrote:The good about all units with 2+ saves now: their armor is hard to ignore.
Only if you are foolhardy enough to try meleeing things in 6th edition, they will still get blasted just as hard by all the AP1/2 ranged weapons that were left intact.
They still have 2 wounds, and snap fire will only be hitting on 6's. Unless i'm trying to assault full-sized units of fire dragons or flash gits i doubt it would make a difference on the way in to assault.
After the assault might be a different story..
Also remember that not all armies have a ton of AP 1 and 2 weapons. Against those Meganobz are going to be utter beatsticks.
The Dwarf Wolf wrote:The good about all units with 2+ saves now: their armor is hard to ignore.
Only if you are foolhardy enough to try meleeing things in 6th edition, they will still get blasted just as hard by all the AP1/2 ranged weapons that were left intact.
But in that case, you will probably be facing a 4+ cover anyway, and you will not have to many shoots to spare on a regular 12,5% chance of killing something (4+ to hit, 4+ to wond, 4+ to save, lets guess it is a 4+ to hit, 2+ to wound, 4+ to save, wich mean 20,8333%).
On 5th, that same 2+ save would be ignored by the AP2 shooting (they would have better targets), and targeted by any PW wielding bastard. That would be 3x the amount of attacks per round in the unit (tipical AP2 weaponry shoot 1 time per turn, tipical power weapon fighter have 2+1 attacks on charge), with no saves involved, the chance of killing something per blow is increased to 25% (at 4+ to wound), or 41,666% (on 2+ to wound).
And dont make that mistake, shooting is better now, and will have a greater role in the game, but melee still have its importance.
Can I build a 30" ruin and have my Ethereal 'leap down' from the top to kill himself? Is that legal?
Thought of the "All tau in a fish or with a Space Marine IC" plan as well I take it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
balsak_da_mighty wrote:
This makes me smile. The 4th ed dex for Marines was the best. It helped make some many different chapters it was insane.
Part of the reason I quit WH40k in the first place was because the 4e Imperial dexes were option after option after option and the Tau Empire Codex was "Let's slap together some rules for the current Forgeworld models and then kick off early to grab a pint at the pub."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whoadirty wrote:Unless I am mistaken, Tyranids have three guns that can take down a Vendetta:
Impaler Cannon - can field 9 of these max in one FOC.
Brainleech Worm - 18" range, at most 8 per FOC
Rupture Cannon - Assault 2, attached to a 265 point figure, at most 3 per FOC (depending on Brainleech numbers)
I understand the best way to deal with flyers is through torrent of fire, but there is no way Tyranids to field it. It seems like 2 Flyrants with Brainleech worms will be mandatory in every army?
Edit: I guess there is Zoanthropes with their Lance Psychic power too.
I think probably the best way for Tyranids to handle flyers is to swap psychic powers for TK rolls and hope for Crush and Objuration Mechanicum. Since OM is a Malediction, passing the psychic test means the flyer gets hit with a haywire grenade without needing to roll a shooting attack, which means 2-5 Glance 6 Pen. Crush is less useful but can at least be used for directed hits against special weapons troops as well.
Ascalam wrote:They still have 2 wounds, and snap fire will only be hitting on 6's. Unless i'm trying to assault full-sized units of fire dragons or flash gits i doubt it would make a difference on the way in to assault.
After the assault might be a different story..
Also remember that not all armies have a ton of AP 1 and 2 weapons. Against those Meganobz are going to be utter beatsticks.
*edit for spelling*
Don't forget that Nobz are now characters, so all of the can LOS each other to keep as many alive as possible, they can tag into challenges to save their wounded buddies, challenge spam like bosses to ensure that any character who might wreck the unit can only kill one of them, and all their attacks that aren't Snap Fire can be precision.
DaddyWarcrimes wrote:Don't forget that Nobz are now characters, so all of the can LOS each other to keep as many alive as possible, they can tag into challenges to save their wounded buddies, challenge spam like bosses to ensure that any character who might wreck the unit can only kill one of them, and all their attacks that aren't Snap Fire can be precision.
Meganobz aren't though, which I think is what Ascalam was talking about.
Also, I think a lot of players will begrudge you exploiting the fact that many of the squad leaders in the Ork codex share a name with an elites choice to claim the entire Nob Squad is characters, I certainly wouldn't think highly of someone actually trying to play this way, since it clearly seems like an oversight.
Given that paladins are characters, and non-squad leader wolf guard are characters, and warlocks are characters, it doesn't look like an oversight. And yeah, it is weird that MANz aren't characters but normal Nobz are.
Grey elder wrote:Skyfire is totally not fluffly at all its just merely balacning, real life example the German 8,8 anti-air gun was leg- wait for it-dairy for its ability to open up a Russian T34 tank with ease, being extremely accurate. If anything AA guns should have had the ability to hit ground troops with the accuracy.
Already pointed out, with videos, of both the 8.8 and the quad .50 Kraut Mower.
insaniak wrote:Where else do units purchase equipment from?
If they follow every other 40k product the unholy one has had a hand in, they can also buy from the core book if it lists an upgrade price (this is not new at all, BFG had this forever)
If they follow every other 40k product the unholy one has had a hand in, they can also buy from the core book if it lists an upgrade price
I can't believe people are even discussing this. The FAQs and erratas didn't say anything about Flakk Missiles at all. They didn't give us a single hint that anyone could upgrade their missile launcher to include these missiles, nor did it say that anyone was getting them free or otherwise automatically. The rulebook tells us that some (that means not all) missile launchers have the option to be upgraded to include Flakk Missiles. Since none of the missile launchers currently in the game have this option and the codex erratas did nothing to change this state, we have to assume it's an ammunition type to be implemented at a later date, possibly for just a single army.
If they follow every other 40k product the unholy one has had a hand in, they can also buy from the core book if it lists an upgrade price
I can't believe people are even discussing this. The FAQs and erratas didn't say anything about Flakk Missiles at all. They didn't give us a single hint that anyone could upgrade their missile launcher to include these missiles, nor did it say that anyone was getting them free or otherwise automatically. The rulebook tells us that some (that means not all) missile launchers have the option to be upgraded to include Flakk Missiles. Since none of the missile launchers currently in the game have this option and the codex erratas did nothing to change this state, we have to assume it's an ammunition type to be implemented at a later date, possibly for just a single army.
As I've already posted the spelling of 'flak' seems a little odd for a universal, cross-army thing.
To me it seems it might just be an Ork thing (considering they have a FW vehicle called the Flakk Wagon as it is), it makes sense considering the Imperium can quite easily just deploy Machine Spirit guided krak missiles or Hydras as Anti-Air weapons.
End of the day I could just be wrong, though I guess we'll find out when GWeventually releases the new Codexes.
DaddyWarcrimes wrote:Given that paladins are characters, and non-squad leader wolf guard are characters, and warlocks are characters, it doesn't look like an oversight. And yeah, it is weird that MANz aren't characters but normal Nobz are.
Again, where does it say that? All I can find is the errata that says Wolf Guard that are squad leaders also gain the Character unit type.
DaddyWarcrimes wrote:Given that paladins are characters, and non-squad leader wolf guard are characters, and warlocks are characters, it doesn't look like an oversight. And yeah, it is weird that MANz aren't characters but normal Nobz are.
Again, where does it say that? All I can find is the errata that says Wolf Guard that are squad leaders also gain the Character unit type.
In the table of stats at the back of the book that lists the type for each unit, there is an entry for Squad Leader which lists them as In(ch) for Infantry Character, and an entry for Wolf Guard which lists them as In(ch).
I see it now, thanks. Crazy. One might think it was an oversight as these models can be either a unit or a squad leader, but that excuse doesn't apply to Paladins, right?
DaddyWarcrimes wrote:Given that paladins are characters, and non-squad leader wolf guard are characters, and warlocks are characters, it doesn't look like an oversight. And yeah, it is weird that MANz aren't characters but normal Nobz are.
wait a minute... so GW drastically overhauled wound allocation, seemingly at least in part to eliminate the rise of complex multiwound units spreading wounds around, then gave the ability to do so back to Grey Knight Paladins and Ork Nobs, two of the worst offenders, while removing the requirement that the unit have complex wargear...
Hm, basicly no changes of consequence for Craftworld eldar. No flyers or anti aircraft; it would have been great to see the swooping hawks get a anti flyer role.
Fleet is a huge improvement for them, if you like footdar.
Also, Yriel still has a weapon that wound on 2+ and ignore armour, strike at I7. O dear.
Perhaps Footdar will be (even) more viable now (despite the banshees ap3 swords). Perhaps with some new psychic power to boost.
DaddyWarcrimes wrote:Given that paladins are characters, and non-squad leader wolf guard are characters, and warlocks are characters, it doesn't look like an oversight. And yeah, it is weird that MANz aren't characters but normal Nobz are.
wait a minute... so GW drastically overhauled wound allocation, seemingly at least in part to eliminate the rise of complex multiwound units spreading wounds around, then gave the ability to do so back to Grey Knight Paladins and Ork Nobs, two of the worst offenders, while removing the requirement that the unit have complex wargear...
They have a look out sir rule, but its nowhere as survivable as it was in 5th.
leohart wrote:They have to pass their 4+ lookout before they can put that wound on another dude.
But it's cheaper (no need to take excessive wargear just to differentiate models) and you get 50/50 odds of picking exactly where each wound goes. This sure brings my view of 6th down a few notches
Raikoh wrote:So I might have missed somebodies post...
But if I am reading this right, I can't believe more people aren't talking about this:
"Beasts of Nurgle.
Change the effects of Random Poisoned Attacks to read:
"At the beginning of each Fight sub-phase, roll a D6for each friendly Beast of Nurgle unit that is locked in combat. The result is the number of Attacks (before modifiers) that all Beasts of Nurgle in that unit have this turn. These Attacks have the poisoned (4+) special rule."
So, lets say you have 3 units of Beasts in melee, every single one of them gets D3 attacks?
Do they have to be in the same combat? It doesn't say you have to be...
Did Beasts of Nurgle just get 3 times better?
On this note, imagine you had the double FOC, and you took 6 units... dear god.
Yeah, I'm 90% sure you're not reading that right. You're not getting nd6 attacks per Beast of Nurgle, where n is the number of units.
1, Designate a unit.
2, Roll a d6 - this is the number of attacks Beasts in that unit have.
3, Move on to the next unit.
To be fair, although you are most certainly right, grammatically there is no difference, I wonder if anybody will dare play it this way anyway...
The important bit pointing you towards my interpretation is now highlighted like this in the original quote. If the nd6 theory were correct, that section would be different, possibly saying units.
I would agree that it is another example of an errata that could have been worded better, but you need a fair chunk of wishful thinking to distort the given wording to be nd6.
It looks like that a Long Fang pack can now fire at 3 targets if they want to, if they make the Leadership test for Split Fire. I can't find anything in the rules or SWFAQ to prohibit this from happening.
Zathras wrote:It looks like that a Long Fang pack can now fire at 3 targets if they want to, if they make the Leadership test for Split Fire. I can't find anything in the rules or SWFAQ to prohibit this from happening.
How about the fact that they don't have the Split Fire USR?
About Power Weapons: Have they said how you are supposed to price them, or are they just the standard cost and determined by what the model has/any special rules regarding the character?
And what's the deal with Axes? Why swinging at the same time as a Fist/Hammer? I'd rather have +1 strength AP3 @ current I with the axe (losing the option for being 'double armed' with a pistol or having the new 'Specialist weapon' USR) with the option to Two-hand it for AP2 @ I1 (gaining 1 attack...for some reason).
Why differentiate between a Chainsword and a close combat weapon? Both do the same AP.
I think they need to FAQ the "makes model strike at I1" (bulky, cumbersome, I forget off hand).
If my Terminators are striking at I1, then damn it I'll give them all fists so I'm at least hitting at S8...of course that makes me no better than the damned Loyalists, and lacking in many ways. Hoping for the new codex sometime soon....
My Sorceror with a Spear though got a boost, maybe D'ken will take the field now more often than Kharn.
Also, Crisis/Stealth suits and their "Thrust"(lol) move, do they have to move the entire 2d6 inches, or can they move up-to whatever the result was? I don't need my suits "Thrusting" themselves into the line of fire instead of where I want them to be hiding at...
Pardon me if someone has already hinted at this, or addressed it all together:
Are monstrous creatures normal melee attacks counted as just that? Are they no longer counted as power weapon attacks?
It seems kinda... silly to do that to a whole group of extremely spendy monsters (at least for Chaos Daemons) just to give them the ability to halve their attacks, double their strength, and hit at AP2.
Uriels_Flame wrote:Just reading the comments here (as I don't have the book yet) - but Paladins/Nobs can just have a pinball effect for shooting wounds?
I hit Nob 1, says look out sir, moves to next Nob 2 who also has LoS, who decides to move it to Nob 3 with LoS?
Or does it say you can only LoS one time?
Theres a rule if the unit is full of characters IIRC. But otherwise I don't see why you wouldn't just put it onto a model insteadof a character.
Beefwhistle wrote:Pardon me if someone has already hinted at this, or addressed it all together:
Are monstrous creatures normal melee attacks counted as just that? Are they no longer counted as power weapon attacks?
It seems kinda... silly to do that to a whole group of extremely spendy monsters (at least for Chaos Daemons) just to give them the ability to halve their attacks, double their strength, and hit at AP2.
MCs are always always ALWAYS striking at AP2, unless they have a weapon which makes them AP1. The 'Smash' USR gives them AP2 on their attacks, unless otherwise stated (the free extra I10 impact hits from jump MCs crashing into CC are AP- for example). Read the Smash USR carefully, you will see how the AP2 applies in general, not just for the special smash attack.
DaddyWarcrimes wrote:Given that paladins are characters, and non-squad leader wolf guard are characters, and warlocks are characters, it doesn't look like an oversight. And yeah, it is weird that MANz aren't characters but normal Nobz are.
Again, where does it say that? All I can find is the errata that says Wolf Guard that are squad leaders also gain the Character unit type.
In the table of stats at the back of the book that lists the type for each unit, there is an entry for Squad Leader which lists them as In(ch) for Infantry Character, and an entry for Wolf Guard which lists them as In(ch).
So thinking about that then they all have precesion shots/strikes. Can you say wrong? So I have a pally with a stave, getting 2++ save in CC. He can always save unitl he dies, if he dies. He just moves in to take the save.
Beefwhistle wrote:Pardon me if someone has already hinted at this, or addressed it all together:
Are monstrous creatures normal melee attacks counted as just that? Are they no longer counted as power weapon attacks?
It seems kinda... silly to do that to a whole group of extremely spendy monsters (at least for Chaos Daemons) just to give them the ability to halve their attacks, double their strength, and hit at AP2.
MCs are always always ALWAYS striking at AP2, unless they have a weapon which makes them AP1. The 'Smash' USR gives them AP2 on their attacks, unless otherwise stated (the free extra I10 impact hits from jump MCs crashing into CC are AP- for example). Read the Smash USR carefully, you will see how the AP2 applies in general, not just for the special smash attack.
That is much better, thanks for pointing that out to me! My Bloodthirsters got a little sad there for a minute, but that will cheer them right up.
Fayric wrote:Fleet is a huge improvement for them, if you like footdar.
Why do people keep saying this?
Im afraid that graf dont say anything unless you explain what 0-100 vs 0-18 is.
Anyway, the point is you can now shoot whatever you got and still assault 2d6" with doubble rerolls if you like. Basicly the same distance but with the small bonus of firearms first
Fayric wrote:
Im afraid that graf dont say anything unless you explain what 0-100 vs 0-18 is.
Anyway, the point is you can now shoot whatever you got and still assault 2d6" with doubble rerolls if you like. Basicly the same distance but with the small bonus of firearms first
It really isn't a hard one to figure out. 0-100 is the chance of you getting there in percentages and 0-18 is the distance in inches.
0-100 is your % chance to reach your target. 0-18 is the distance your target is from you. You're interested in the green and purple lines. In general, you're now around 20% less likely to get to your assault target. Hope you make those pistol shots count.
Fayric wrote:Fleet is a huge improvement for them, if you like footdar.
Why do people keep saying this?
That math was based on 2d6 with a flat re-roll of the full roll, It does NOT take into account Fleet's ability to re-roll an individual dice within the 2d6.
I mean, you are still probably worse off than before, I doubt even with the more complex re-rolling mechanic you can manage a 17% chance of producing a 12 on 2d6, but just be aware that the chart isn't accurate.
Uriels_Flame wrote:Just reading the comments here (as I don't have the book yet) - but Paladins/Nobs can just have a pinball effect for shooting wounds?
I hit Nob 1, says look out sir, moves to next Nob 2 who also has LoS, who decides to move it to Nob 3 with LoS?
Or does it say you can only LoS one time?
If your purpose is to try and put the game into an infinite loop for no reason... I don't know if there is a restriction on LOS but it does require a dice roll to succeed so there is that natural limit.
skarsol wrote:How would you even graph the option of rerolling only 1 die? But yes, it's not completely accurate, but the general trend is the same.
You can't really I don't think, one thing you can figure is, you have a 30.5% chance of rolling a 6 on at least one of the two dice in your first roll, and once you do that, you are effectively on the 5th edition gradient when you re-roll your other dice, so that's not too shabby.
edit: whoops bad maths originally, apparently I can do statistics but I can't add 5 and 6 together properly...
Fayric wrote:
Anyway, the point is you can now shoot whatever you got and still assault 2d6" with doubble rerolls if you like. Basicly the same distance but with the small bonus of firearms first
There is still a rule about only getting to reroll dice once.
A 25% chance of being as good as you were before isn't exactly awesome. And the addition of pistol shots is kinda a wash in view of the fact that your target is now firing back at you as well (Compare reduced BS to the likely that their weapons are better than yours if you're a primarily melee unit)
skarsol wrote:A 25% chance of being as good as you were before isn't exactly awesome. And the addition of pistol shots is kinda a wash in view of the fact that your target is now firing back at you as well (Compare reduced BS to the likely that their weapons are better than yours if you're a primarily melee unit)
Corrected my maths, was actually 30.5%.
I definitely don't like what overwatch means to melee units, especially the fact that it's all but impossible to deny it to your opponent, so far all I have found to counter it is charging within 8 inches with defensive grenades, and that's only good for a 6+ cover save, but I really don't think mobility is the big issue, I think fleeting units did okay out of 6th.
Do people even play this game? All I see all the time now is Mathhammer. No wonder everyone thinks as of as Geeks, Nerds or just plain Dorks when trying to play a game.
Alot of people have to Mathhammer everything. I wonder if you guys do this as well trying to get a girl. Like Sheesh, come on get a life.
I will do some math hammer. It has been proven lots of times Mathhammer doesn't work lots of times so no matter how good the odds mathhammer says something should work, it doesn't alot of times.
Uriels_Flame wrote:Just reading the comments here (as I don't have the book yet) - but Paladins/Nobs can just have a pinball effect for shooting wounds?
I hit Nob 1, says look out sir, moves to next Nob 2 who also has LoS, who decides to move it to Nob 3 with LoS?
Or does it say you can only LoS one time?
If your purpose is to try and put the game into an infinite loop for no reason... I don't know if there is a restriction on LOS but it does require a dice roll to succeed so there is that natural limit.
LOS says you can only redirect a wound once. So you can't continuously shift wounds around.
(As a side note, the only time multiple redirects would be useful is to move wounds from the front of a conga line to the back, via multiple characters along the way).
Oh, I agree that fleet wasn't crippled, I just object to the people saying the Fleet change was a big boost.
And yeah, Defensive grenades are good, but rare. They even explicitly FAQ'd them away from the melee units in the Demons codex, which is kinda a kick in the teeth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Davor wrote:Do people even play this game? All I see all the time now is Mathhammer. No wonder everyone thinks as of as Geeks, Nerds or just plain Dorks when trying to play a game.
Alot of people have to Mathhammer everything. I wonder if you guys do this as well trying to get a girl. Like Sheesh, come on get a life.
I will do some math hammer. It has been proven lots of times Mathhammer doesn't work lots of times so no matter how good the odds mathhammer says something should work, it doesn't alot of times.
Davor wrote:Do people even play this game? All I see all the time now is Mathhammer. No wonder everyone thinks as of as Geeks, Nerds or just plain Dorks when trying to play a game.
Alot of people have to Mathhammer everything. I wonder if you guys do this as well trying to get a girl. Like Sheesh, come on get a life.
I will do some math hammer. It has been proven lots of times Mathhammer doesn't work lots of times so no matter how good the odds mathhammer says something should work, it doesn't alot of times.
Go out and just play the game.
Coming up with a downright stupid comparison certainly does not help conveying your point.
I don't see how basing your decisions on rational reasons aka mathematics instead of going straight random makes you any more or less "nerdy". Mathhammer works ALL the time, jfyi, as it's basic mathematics. The problem is that some people assume that they will never fail a LD 10 roll because the chance to do so is really low. They forget that mathhammer tells you the average chance of happening.
Uriels_Flame wrote:Just reading the comments here (as I don't have the book yet) - but Paladins/Nobs can just have a pinball effect for shooting wounds?
I hit Nob 1, says look out sir, moves to next Nob 2 who also has LoS, who decides to move it to Nob 3 with LoS?
Or does it say you can only LoS one time?
If your purpose is to try and put the game into an infinite loop for no reason... I don't know if there is a restriction on LOS but it does require a dice roll to succeed so there is that natural limit.
LOS says you can only redirect a wound once. So you can't continuously shift wounds around.
(As a side note, the only time multiple redirects would be useful is to move wounds from the front of a conga line to the back, via multiple characters along the way).
Yes A wound. When you have Characters you have to do them one at a time, so I LOS, I save. Next wound I LOS and save. Next wound, I LOS and I save. You are only doing it once a wound.
RogueRegault wrote:
Also note that the Tau FAQ is missing the million dollar question "Do Seeker Missiles fired at Fliers hit at BS1 or BS5?"
The FAQdoes answer this.
Firing at a flier (without using the Skyfire rule) can only be done with Snapshots. Snapshot makes the firer shoot at BS1. The Tau FAQ states that Seeker missiles fire at BS5, even if the firing vehicle is reduced to BS1.
So once you Markerlight a flier (with Snapshots, since Tau currently have no Skyfire Markerlights), you can fire a Seeker at BS5. Then cross your fingers.
So now you allocate wounds closest to farthest - ignoring different combos of wargear. Doesn't that mean that a unit of 5 paladins or nobz will just end up with each one taking a wound (assuming you did 5 wounds)? Even if all 5 wounds go through you would still not kill a single model?
Noisy_Marine wrote:So now you allocate wounds closest to farthest - ignoring different combos of wargear. Doesn't that mean that a unit of 5 paladins or nobz will just end up with each one taking a wound (assuming you did 5 wounds)? Even if all 5 wounds go through you would still not kill a single model?
It's possible but unlikely since each LOS requires a roll.
Noisy_Marine wrote:So now you allocate wounds closest to farthest - ignoring different combos of wargear. Doesn't that mean that a unit of 5 paladins or nobz will just end up with each one taking a wound (assuming you did 5 wounds)? Even if all 5 wounds go through you would still not kill a single model?
So they have basically taken the the automatic wound shenanigans and applied a dice roll to each redirection. A 50% chance seems like a decent compromise given that not having it would seriously nerf paladins.
Noisy_Marine wrote:So now you allocate wounds closest to farthest - ignoring different combos of wargear. Doesn't that mean that a unit of 5 paladins or nobz will just end up with each one taking a wound (assuming you did 5 wounds)? Even if all 5 wounds go through you would still not kill a single model?
So they have basically taken the the automatic wound shenanigans and applied a dice roll to each redirection. A 50% chance seems like a decent compromise given that not having it would seriously nerf paladins.
My issue now is bascially every Pally has the Stave now(2++). As you can always redirect to it, with the right roll of course.
First of all, you can LOS as many wounds in a turn as you like. There is no restriction on this. The restriction is that you can only LOS a single wound once. What this means is that you cannot bounce a wound around a unit of characters until your opponent gets tired and throws you out a window. That is all. There is no other limitation.
Second, you have to keep in mind when wounds and saves are allocated.
If all the models in the unit will be using the same save, then you LOS and allocate the wounds all at the same time, AFTER any saving throws have been rolled (although supposedly before FnP).
If the models are going to have different saves, then you roll LOS for the first wound, allocate the wound, and THEN roll any applicable saves from the new receiving model, before repeating the process with the next wound. Also keep in mind that the shooting player gets to decide what order these wounds are saved in.
So although there's a lot of things to exploit and take advantage of with this new system, there are a few restrictions to keep in mind:
-This means that you may NOT use LOS to pass a better save on to models with weaker saves.
-This means that you may NOT use LOS to pile all the instant-death wounds on to a single model.
If you look at the previous fleet(run+charge), it's D6" + 6", think of the 6" as an automatic 6 in that 2D6", so really, I don't think 2D6" can in any way compare with the previous fleet.
Obviously, it's still a great addition for armies who didn't have fleet previously, but for the fleet armies, it's no doubt a nerf.
5th ed: D6 + 6", no shooting before assault(because you ran), average on the run should be 3", so, minimum distance is 7"(on a roll of 1), and average being 9".
6th ed: 2d6", shooting before assault, but average distance should be 7", and 8" with fleet(thanks to the maths of 1 of the dakka posters in that rumour thread, forgot his name though...)
Shooting before assault is only useful for units that can shoot, so... nids shooting?
Fafnir wrote:First of all, you can LOS as many wounds in a turn as you like. There is no restriction on this. The restriction is that you can only LOS a single wound once. What this means is that you cannot bounce a wound around a unit of characters until your opponent gets tired and throws you out a window. That is all. There is no other limitation.
Second, you have to keep in mind when wounds and saves are allocated.
If all the models in the unit will be using the same save, then you LOS and allocate the wounds all at the same time, AFTER any saving throws have been rolled (although supposedly before FnP).
If the models are going to have different saves, then you roll LOS for the first wound, allocate the wound, and THEN roll any applicable saves from the new receiving model, before repeating the process with the next wound. Also keep in mind that the shooting player gets to decide what order these wounds are saved in.
So although there's a lot of things to exploit and take advantage of with this new system, there are a few restrictions to keep in mind:
-This means that you may NOT use LOS to pass a better save on to models with weaker saves.
-This means that you may NOT use LOS to pile all the instant-death wounds on to a single model.
Sure but not in CC. There is no assaulting player can choose, its done at Int steps now. But that clearifies a bit.
So just looked it up, where do you get they have to have different saves to do so. Under the LOS rules on pg 16 of brb is says nothing about different saves. You just have to pass the 4+ to shed off the save to another.
Hey, heres a fun bit.
SW wolfguard are now characters.
Characters may allocate wounds themself if they roll 6es (with precicion shot rule).
Wolfguard can carry assaultcannons and cyclone missiles. Beware all fancy guys hiding in units.
Not to mention the advantage of having a terminator leading an assault with the new wound allocations.
Fayric wrote:Hey, heres a fun bit.
SW wolfguard are now characters.
Characters may allocate wounds themself if they roll 6es (with precicion shot rule).
Wolfguard can carry assaultcannons and cyclone missiles. Beware all fancy guys hiding in units.
Not to mention the advantage of having a terminator leading an assault with the new wound allocations.
True but they will have a slight drawback as the can't sweep as the terminator would be there, and they can't sweep. but everyhting else would work.
Does anyone else fell like GW did a little "modeling for advantage" with the new templates?
GW has a pic of the flamer template being used, and it looks like the silver "tip" is the part touching the firer?
Don't get me wrong, My PCS and Hellhound are all for it! But does that mean the silver around the edge of the
blast templates counts as hitting targets too?
Baronyu wrote:
5th ed: D6 + 6", no shooting before assault(because you ran), average on the run should be 3", so, minimum distance is 7"(on a roll of 1), and average being 9".
6th ed: 2d6", shooting before assault, but average distance should be 7", and 8" with fleet(thanks to the maths of 1 of the dakka posters in that rumour thread, forgot his name though...)
That doesn't sound right.
I haven't worked out all ways, but even taking a simpe strategy of rerolling 3s or less on either dice means that 54% of all assault rolls will be 9 or higher, with very few rolls being less than 6, so the average will be higher than 8, the modal is 10.
Then there is the impact of premeasuring, if you know exactly how far you have to make at the point of charge you can reroll dice accordingly.
Fayric wrote:Hey, heres a fun bit. SW wolfguard are now characters. Characters may allocate wounds themself if they roll 6es (with precicion shot rule). Wolfguard can carry assaultcannons and cyclone missiles. Beware all fancy guys hiding in units.
Not to mention the advantage of having a terminator leading an assault with the new wound allocations.
The SWFAQ clearly adds their becoming characters to the option to be squad leaders, which strongly suggests they aren't characters unless they become squad leaders, this one is much more clear cut than Nobs, they aren't meant to be characters when they are in a Wolfguard squad, you have to be being intentionally obtuse to claim otherwise.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alarmingrick wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:Only the inside of the templates counts.
Source: local GW employee.
Not the most reliable source.
He says one thing, this pic released by the company he works for would suggest otherwise.
you are using a picture where the guy isn't even measuring from the base of the model to prove a point about template use?
Fayric wrote:Hey, heres a fun bit.
SW wolfguard are now characters.
Characters may allocate wounds themself if they roll 6es (with precicion shot rule).
Wolfguard can carry assaultcannons and cyclone missiles. Beware all fancy guys hiding in units.
Not to mention the advantage of having a terminator leading an assault with the new wound allocations.
The SWFAQ clearly adds their becoming characters to the option to be squad leaders, which strongly suggests they aren't characters unless they become squad leaders, this one is much more clear cut than Paladins or Nobs, they aren't meant to be characters when they are in a Wolfguard squad, you have to be being intentionally obtuse to claim otherwise.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alarmingrick wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:Only the inside of the templates counts.
Source: local GW employee.
Not the most reliable source.
He says one thing, this pic released by the company he works for would suggest otherwise.
you are using a picture where the guy isn't even measuring from the base of the model to prove a point about template use?
Yeah, no, not gonna happen.
Just to be clear, I'm not advocating that it be done that way.
If you look at the pic, the barrel of the flamer is directly under the template edge.
The fact that pic is out there, means someone, somewhere, and maybe multiple times,
will try to pull it on others. I just wish they would a) make it clear, b) not release pics like that.
alarmingrick wrote: Just to be clear, I'm not advocating that it be done that way.
If you look at the pic, the barrel of the flamer is directly under the template edge.
The fact that pic is out there, means someone, somewhere, and maybe multiple times,
will try to pull it on others. I just wish they would a) make it clear, b) not release pics like that.
Oh okay, in that case I totally agree.
When I first noticed it I suggested to my friend I was going to home make a grey frame for my older green flame template with a 6 inch spike at the narrow end.
Sigvatr wrote:Only the inside of the templates counts.
Source: local GW employee.
Only the inside counts. If you look in the back of the rulebook, there are standard-sized templates to photocopy and cut out. In the product description in WD, it states, "Each templates INNER frame denotes a weapons blast area and is detailed with arcing lightning effects of blue crystal".
balsak_da_mighty wrote:
Sure but not in CC. There is no assaulting player can choose, its done at Int steps now. But that clearifies a bit.
Yes, wound allocation for shooting and CC is different. LOS mechanics are still the same, however.
So just looked it up, where do you get they have to have different saves to do so. Under the LOS rules on pg 16 of brb is says nothing about different saves. You just have to pass the 4+ to shed off the save to another.
The key word is "allocate." Look for the rules for normal wound allocation, and then look at the rules for wound allocation on models with different saves. You'll notice that you allocate the wounds in a different order according to the respective circumstances.
Davor wrote:Do people even play this game? All I see all the time now is Mathhammer. No wonder everyone thinks as of as Geeks, Nerds or just plain Dorks when trying to play a game.
Alot of people have to Mathhammer everything. I wonder if you guys do this as well trying to get a girl. Like Sheesh, come on get a life.
I will do some math hammer. It has been proven lots of times Mathhammer doesn't work lots of times so no matter how good the odds mathhammer says something should work, it doesn't alot of times.
Go out and just play the game.
"Mathammer" show you how your game is not working, or working. Any game designer do things like that, to assure the game will have the right ammount of chance he is willing to use in the game. Chance is not a exact thing, and al of us know how you can roll 3 1's in a row, against all odds, but "mathammer" is a way to predict the most common possibilitie...
I think we now know why the game get so lame... Ms ward probably see this "chance thing" in the same way as you...
Look at the dominat lists of 5th: all of them work around mat hammer dude...
Davor wrote:Do people even play this game? All I see all the time now is Mathhammer. No wonder everyone thinks as of as Geeks, Nerds or just plain Dorks when trying to play a game.
Alot of people have to Mathhammer everything. I wonder if you guys do this as well trying to get a girl. Like Sheesh, come on get a life.
I will do some math hammer. It has been proven lots of times Mathhammer doesn't work lots of times so no matter how good the odds mathhammer says something should work, it doesn't alot of times.
Go out and just play the game.
"Mathammer" show you how your game is not working, or working. Any game designer do things like that, to assure the game will have the right ammount of chance he is willing to use in the game. Chance is not a exact thing, and al of us know how you can roll 3 1's in a row, against all odds, but "mathammer" is a way to predict the most common possibilitie...
I think we now know why the game get so lame... Ms ward probably see this "chance thing" in the same way as you...
Look at the dominat lists of 5th: all of them work around mat hammer dude...
Exactly. If the rules behind a system are broken, then the entire system is broken. "Mathammer" just happens to be a very good way to analyze the rules of the system.
Baronyu wrote:
5th ed: D6 + 6", no shooting before assault(because you ran), average on the run should be 3", so, minimum distance is 7"(on a roll of 1), and average being 9".
6th ed: 2d6", shooting before assault, but average distance should be 7", and 8" with fleet(thanks to the maths of 1 of the dakka posters in that rumour thread, forgot his name though...)
That doesn't sound right.
I haven't worked out all ways, but even taking a simpe strategy of rerolling 3s or less on either dice means that 54% of all assault rolls will be 9 or higher, with very few rolls being less than 6, so the average will be higher than 8, the modal is 10.
Then there is the impact of premeasuring, if you know exactly how far you have to make at the point of charge you can reroll dice accordingly.
To get 9" average, you'd need to roll a 5 or a 6 on 1 of your D6, which is definitely not the average of a D6... Rolling 2 dice won't magically make that average higher. You should still be expecting 3 and 4 per dice, so 7 - 8.
I don't want to up this thread as well, but I'll stand by my view that 2D6" benefits MEq and other non-fleet assault units, but nerfed fleet assault units hard, they basically now do the same range as everyone else. So, I'm not saying 2D6" is absolutely horrible news for everyone, but it's definitely so for people who prefer solid numbers and previous fleet assault army owners.
I haven't worked out all ways, but even taking a simpe strategy of rerolling 3s or less on either dice means that 54% of all assault rolls will be 9 or higher, with very few rolls being less than 6, so the average will be higher than 8, the modal is 10.
Then there is the impact of premeasuring, if you know exactly how far you have to make at the point of charge you can reroll dice accordingly.
To get 9" average, you'd need to roll a 5 or a 6 on 1 of your D6, which is definitely not the average of a D6... Rolling 2 dice won't magically make that average higher. You should still be expecting 3 and 4 per dice, so 7 - 8.
Patently that is wrong for fleet, If I want to maximinse my chance of rolling 12" I will reroll either dice that isn't a 6. That gives me a 9.3% chance of 12", not 5.5%.
That post doesn't look at the affect of fleet on charge distance, it looks re-rolling the both of 2D6, now go and do the proper maths for fleet. Premeasuring will allow you to choose a reroll strategy that suits you, but as i noted if you reroll 3s or less then your modal average is 10.
edit:
If you reroll any 3 or less then you look like the following
Baronyu wrote:To get 9" average, you'd need to roll a 5 or a 6 on 1 of your D6, which is definitely not the average of a D6... Rolling 2 dice won't magically make that average higher. You should still be expecting 3 and 4 per dice, so 7 - 8.
Just a little correction: there is no avarage result for a dice roll, all the six results have the same chances to come.
The avarage of 2 dices works different because the number of combinations you need for some results, where the mid results are more common due to more possible combinations...
You can have a 7 with 6+1, 5+2, 4+3, 3+4, 2+5 or 1+6... but you can only get 2 and 12 with 1+1 and 6+6.
Baronyu wrote:To get 9" average, you'd need to roll a 5 or a 6 on 1 of your D6, which is definitely not the average of a D6... Rolling 2 dice won't magically make that average higher. You should still be expecting 3 and 4 per dice, so 7 - 8.
Just a little correction: there is no avarage result for a dice roll, all the six results have the same chances to come.
The avarage of 2 dices works different because the number of combinations you need for some results, where the mid results are more common due to more possible combinations...
You can have a 7 with 6+1, 5+2, 4+3, 3+4, 2+5 or 1+6... but you can only get 2 and 12 with 1+1 and 6+6.
The expected value of any single die roll in 3.5. 1+2+3+4+5+6 all divided by 6 =3.5 so you can expect when rolling a single dice to get 3.5 or somewhere between 3-4
skarsol wrote:That makes it an 18% chance to fail a charge that used to be guaranteed in 5th, right? (7 inches)
No, there is an 18% chance to fail a 7" charge if you reroll 3s or lower.
But in 6ed you know you need 7" as you can premeasure so you do not just go rerolling 3s or less, would you reroll the 2 if you intially rolled 6 + 2!.
The chance of failure to make 7" is about 13% I think .
youbedead wrote:The expected value of any single die roll in 3.5. 1+2+3+4+5+6 all divided by 6 =3.5 so you can expect when rolling a single dice to get 3.5 or somewhere between 3-4
The expected value of any single dice is between 1-6. There is an even distribution across all 6 numbers. You are talking mean average, but that is not the same as expected.
youbedead wrote:The expected value of any single die roll in 3.5. 1+2+3+4+5+6 all divided by 6 =3.5 so you can expect when rolling a single dice to get 3.5 or somewhere between 3-4
The expected value of any single dice is between 1-6. There is an even distribution across all 6 numbers. You are talking mean average, but that is not the same as expected.
You are confusing the common understanding of "expected" with the very real statistical understanding of "expected." It is the weighted average of all possible outcomes. Since all outcomes are equally likely, the weighted average is the same as the simple arithmetic mean.
youbedead wrote:The expected value of any single die roll in 3.5. 1+2+3+4+5+6 all divided by 6 =3.5 so you can expect when rolling a single dice to get 3.5 or somewhere between 3-4
The expected value of any single dice is between 1-6. There is an even distribution across all 6 numbers. You are talking mean average, but that is not the same as expected.
In my games, my expected die roll is 1, always 1, it has a 99% chance. I'll go back to the shame corner. :(
Nah, as The Dwarf Wolf kindly corrected me, but essentially still agreeing with my point, you're still expecting a better chance to get 7, rather than 9. What you're talking about is luck, a non-quantitive value, a placebo, what they're talking about, is maths, not a placebo.
What I was saying is, as The Dwarf Wolf pointed out, much better than I did(excuse time: I was on Skype), is that to get a roll of 7, you have all the possibility he listed, but to get a 9, as you've suggested to be the average, you'd be going for 6+3 and 4+5... Even with reroll, I wouldn't say that's gonna be as common as the possibilities listed by The Dwarf Wolf.
You don't get an "improved chance to roll higher" when you get a reroll, you get "another chance to roll higher", the dice doesn't say "oh, hey, I rolled a 3 last time, I must roll a 4+ to please my master!", that's why some units can make people reroll their invulnerable, it's not to give them a better chance at passing the invulnerable now, is it?
Baronyu wrote:You don't get an "improved chance to roll higher" when you get a reroll, you get "another chance to roll higher", the dice doesn't say "oh, hey, I rolled a 3 last time, I must roll a 4+ to please my master!", that's why some units can make people reroll their invulnerable, it's not to give them a better chance at passing the invulnerable now, is it?
In which case you are not talking about fleet at all, but just a reroll the 2D6. You need to reread fleet, as that is not how it works. I do have a higher chance of a higher roll than the average 7 because I have the ability to reroll just a single die. I can therefore choose to keep the 4+ I rolled and reroll the 3-, that skews my results significantly towards the top end of the 2-12 range.
What you're talking about is luck, a non-quantitive value, a placebo, what they're talking about, is maths, not a placebo.
I'm not talking about luck, I'm talking about probability, that was a part of maths when I was at school, I know education has gone down the pan in the intervening decades, but really!
The chance to roll a 10 is 18.75%, how is that not quantitive?
Vampirate of Sartosa wrote:So did anyone else notice that Waaagh!ing is now pretty much pointless?
Sure did! Anyone else notice how this edition slapped pretty much everything but Imperials and non Mat Ward codices with the good ole whiffle-nerf bat?
Only use i can think of for it would be for getting a footslogging horde a bit faster for a turn, to close with the enemy.
Still sucks
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr.Church13 wrote:
Vampirate of Sartosa wrote:So did anyone else notice that Waaagh!ing is now pretty much pointless?
Sure did! Anyone else notice how this edition slapped pretty much everything but Imperials and non Mat Ward codices with the good ole whiffle-nerf bat?
Lets just say that they have given up pretending it wasn't It's was IOM-Win (and Necrons, since Ward wrote them) in 5th too.
Baronyu wrote:You don't get an "improved chance to roll higher" when you get a reroll, you get "another chance to roll higher", the dice doesn't say "oh, hey, I rolled a 3 last time, I must roll a 4+ to please my master!", that's why some units can make people reroll their invulnerable, it's not to give them a better chance at passing the invulnerable now, is it?
In which case you are not talking about fleet at all, but just a reroll the 2D6. You need to reread fleet, as that is not how it works. I do have a higher chance of a higher roll than the average 7 because I have the ability to reroll just a single die. I can therefore choose to keep the 4+ I rolled and reroll the 3-, that skews my results significantly towards the top end of the 2-12 range.
Eh, this will be my last post on this, I did the same in the rumours thread, I'm not gonna make another 5th ed fleet vs 6th ed fleet argument in a thread that should be about a broader topic...
I am talking about fleet in 6th ed, I know you're talking about rerolling one die instead of two, should one of them be 4 or higher, but again, back to the original post of mine you quoted... 5th ed, we get 6" assault by default, so you can think of that as an automatic 6 on the 2D6", applying the same logic that you have here, that every face gets an equal chance(which is correct), then shouldn't the distance I get in 5th ed fleet be greater than what it is in 6th ed? Because I'm always rolling a die and add the result to a 6, while in your very own example just now, you're talking about D6 + 4(or higher), how is that gonna ever get better than a D6 + 6?!
And really, reroll makes sure you get another chance in not getting a bad assault, it doesn't improve it, because on the reroll, you still have the same chance to get the same result or lower, if we use your example, and re-roll on a 3, it doesn't magically go to a 4+, the chance of getting a 3 or lower is still there. So, ideally speaking, if you're aiming to be in assault as soon as possible, you'd want to be at a closer distance than you did before in 5th ed(strictly talking about fleet vs fleet), because the chance of failing an assault is reduced the closer you are. Afterall, failing an assault meant you're not gonna be in cover, given your opponent a free round of BS1 shooting, and... just... did nothing... Which kinda hurt for some assault units out there!!
I'm not saying fleet doesn't help at all, I'm saying comparing with 5th ed, fleet is a lot weaker. Look at DE, everyone has the chance to run as fast as them now, the most mobile army? Yeah, right...
I'm gonna skip the 2nd half of your post as it is just plain random personal insult that is out of nowhere, but good going there!
I am talking about fleet in 6th ed, I know you're talking about rerolling one die instead of two, should one of them be 4 or higher, but again, back to the original post of mine you quoted... 5th ed, we get 6" assault by default, so you can think of that as an automatic 6 on the 2D6", applying the same logic that you have here, that every face gets an equal chance(which is correct), then shouldn't the distance I get in 5th ed fleet be greater than what it is in 6th ed? Because I'm always rolling a die and add the result to a 6, while in your very own example just now, you're talking about D6 + 4(or higher), how is that gonna ever get better than a D6 + 6?!
And really, reroll makes sure you get another chance in not getting a bad assault, it doesn't improve it, because on the reroll, you still have the same chance to get the same result or lower, if we use your example, and re-roll on a 3, it doesn't magically go to a 4+, the chance of getting a 3 or lower is still there. So, ideally speaking, if you're aiming to be in assault as soon as possible, you'd want to be at a closer distance than you did before in 5th ed(strictly talking about fleet vs fleet), because the chance of failing an assault is reduced the closer you are. Afterall, failing an assault meant you're not gonna be in cover, given your opponent a free round of BS1 shooting, and... just... did nothing... Which kinda hurt for some assault units out there!!
I'm not saying fleet doesn't help at all, I'm saying comparing with 5th ed, fleet is a lot weaker. Look at DE, everyone has the chance to run as fast as them now, the most mobile army? Yeah, right...
At no point have I claimed that 6ed fleet is better than 5ed fleet. I have made no statement at all about what my thoughts on that are. That is a strawman in terms of our discussion, all I have done is point out the inaccuracy in 6ed fleets probabilities/averages that was in your post, all you have done since is try to say that I am wrong on that point and that the averages and probabilities are not what I said.
I'm gonna skip the 2nd half of your post as it is just plain random personal insult that is out of nowhere, but good going there!
There was nothing personal about my reply what so ever, An impersonal sarcastic reply to an indefensible statement, yes, personally offensive, how?
Vampirate of Sartosa wrote:So did anyone else notice that Waaagh!ing is now pretty much pointless?
Sure did! Anyone else notice how this edition slapped pretty much everything but Imperials and non Mat Ward codices with the good ole whiffle-nerf bat?
I don't know. I suppose I could say that....hmm...wait...no.
Was gonna say Orks got a boost but their army ability is a bit worthless and where some units got boosted others got ignored.
Tyranids got Psyker shenigans....if only any of their Psykers could cast a third of the abilities they have access too!
Chaos got a boost. Sort of. Khornate things got kicked but Nurgle got away all dirty.
All I say is allies - Typhus and Epidemius. Reach the magic number and Typhus becomes a GOD with 2+/5++/3+ FNP, Poison wounds on 2+ at AP2 and S5 with a force weapon. Or if he gets bored he could potentially put out 9 attacks.
Nurgle got away laughing.
Also, Chaos Spawn got kind of buffed? The wording on the FAQs is a bit vague - roll a D6 for each spawn, add them together, that is the total number of attacks the spawn get. .....Each? OH MY.
Vampirate of Sartosa wrote:So did anyone else notice that Waaagh!ing is now pretty much pointless?
Sure did! Anyone else notice how this edition slapped pretty much everything but Imperials and non Mat Ward codices with the good ole whiffle-nerf bat?
I don't know. I suppose I could say that....hmm...wait...no.
Was gonna say Orks got a boost but their army ability is a bit worthless and where some units got boosted others got ignored.
Tyranids got Psyker shenigans....if only any of their Psykers could cast a third of the abilities they have access too!
Chaos got a boost. Sort of. Khornate things got kicked but Nurgle got away all dirty.
All I say is allies - Typhus and Epidemius. Reach the magic number and Typhus becomes a GOD with 2+/5++/3+ FNP, Poison wounds on 2+ at AP2 and S5 with a force weapon. Or if he gets bored he could potentially put out 9 attacks.
Nurgle got away laughing.
Also, Chaos Spawn got kind of buffed? The wording on the FAQs is a bit vague - roll a D6 for each spawn, add them together, that is the total number of attacks the spawn get. .....Each? OH MY.
This is all preliminary. Let's give the rules about a month or so to work out and see how it works.
DaddyWarcrimes wrote:Don't forget that Nobz are now characters, so all of the can LOS each other to keep as many alive as possible, they can tag into challenges to save their wounded buddies, challenge spam like bosses to ensure that any character who might wreck the unit can only kill one of them, and all their attacks that aren't Snap Fire can be precision.
Meganobz aren't though, which I think is what Ascalam was talking about.
Also, I think a lot of players will begrudge you exploiting the fact that many of the squad leaders in the Ork codex share a name with an elites choice to claim the entire Nob Squad is characters, I certainly wouldn't think highly of someone actually trying to play this way, since it clearly seems like an oversight.
People were unjustly begrudging us for using the wound allocation rules, I wouldn't care less if they are now unjustly claiming that we are exploiting another rule.
Besides, ALL non-named squad leaders in the ork codex are nobz, and they are identical in fluff, model and stats. There is absolutely no reason why they suddenly shouldn't be characters anymore, just because there are a bunch of them in the same place.
DarkStarSabre wrote:Also, Chaos Spawn got kind of buffed? The wording on the FAQs is a bit vague - roll a D6 for each spawn, add them together, that is the total number of attacks the spawn get. .....Each? OH MY.
The wording isn't the best, but it is clear - people just keep reading too much into it. As I stated about the Beast of Nurgle earlier in the thread, use the following flowchart.
1, Designate a Chaos Spawn unit.
2, Roll a d6.
3, Congratulations! You've now determined the number of attacks models in that unit get this Fight sub-phase.
4, Pick your next unit of Chaos Spawn.
I'm not sure I'm following this wound allocation shanenigan conversation. Why do people assume that Paladins and Nobs in a Nob Squad are characters? Does it say that somewhere?
EDIT: (Ah, it's in the reference chart! Well those have never been trustworthy...)
I've never seen what generally happens when an edition updates before, so I've got a question:
I don't see any generalized FAQ for the core rulebook. Does this means that the old 5th Ed. core FAQ is now null & void? (I would assume so).
If that is the case, then are there any rules that prevent using abilities that require LOS which are not psychic shooting attacks while embarked in a vehicle?
Because if not, then Anrakyr the Traveller just became awesome again if he's able to use Mind in the Machine while embarked on a CCBarge, now that the previous FAQ is gone.
compare to banshee entry.
) unlike in the newer books. Either way, I'd be willing to bet money on them being interpreted that way in a further 
and their haywire grenades got much more useful. Does that make up for the changes to assault, most importantly the no charge after disembarking? Dunno yet, but one thing's for sure things just got a little harder for an army that was already unforgiving of fools and incompetents 
up this thread as well, but I'll stand by my view that 