junk wrote:I was really hoping 6e would be more similar to Pancake edition... those rules, for what they are, are amazing in comparison to 5e, and with the exception of the obtuse flyer rules, were fantastic.

It would have been a much ballsier move for GW to incorporate more of the Pancake stuff into 6e, like the simplified turn order with all movement taking place in the first phase of a turn, the evasion rules, and the lethal outflank/deep strike stuff combined with the reaction rules. I have played a lot of Pancake games and really enjoy that ruleset, even with the holes.


That being said, I do like the 'cinematic' wound allocation, in theory, and as far as I can tell, the allies stuff looks fun for players like me, more johnny than spike, and I'm looking forward to seeing the campaign and custom scenario support.

I'd like to see a renegade edition combining the best of pancake with 6e, provided the 6e rules turn out to be underwhelming once all of our $100 rulebooks arrive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My tyranid friends are still optimistic that the promise of "designed with 6e in mind" means that some heretofore unobfuscated (real word?) section of the rulebook comes to light with exciting new options for them. At the current level of revelation there are still some opportunities for optimism.

The time of the pancake edition has not yet come.
It would be much better than the upcoming <insert-name> edition.

Xca|iber wrote:

junk wrote:According to what we've seen, allies come with a compulsory 1 HQ and 1 Troop minimum.

Matt.Kingsley wrote:And I'm guessing that units that 'are treated as a HQ/Elite?Troop?FA/HS but do not fill up a force organisations slot' or dedicated transports don't count towards the minimum?

@junk: Thanks, that's what I thought.

@Matt.Kingsley: We'll see. GW has been notoriously silent on this issue except for the case of the BT Emperor's Champion, but it's been hard setting a precedent with that particular HQ because it's compulsory in armies of a certain size. They might cover it in an FAQ, but I'm not holding my breath.

What was said abot the EC?
As with this new edition I'm planning SM (Crimson Fists) with Allies, and I've been thinking (after reading a ton of fluff) I'd like BT (I mean, they are both Son's of Dorn, both started as Crusade Fleets) namley BECAUSE of the Emporers Champion

junk wrote:My tyranid friends are still optimistic that the promise of "designed with 6e in mind" means that some heretofore unobfuscated (real word?) section of the rulebook comes to light with exciting new options for them. At the current level of revelation there are still some opportunities for optimism.

A bloke on BolS with the rulebook is hinting that MC's will get some kind of EW. Unfortunately it's not MC's that need EW, I can count on one hand the times I've lost a MC to Instant Death in 5th ed. It's the entire T4 range of models that you never see on the tabletop that needs EW, now that Instant Death is more prevalent than ever.

But here's to hoping!

junk wrote:My tyranid friends are still optimistic that the promise of "designed with 6e in mind" means that some heretofore unobfuscated (real word?) section of the rulebook comes to light with exciting new options for them. At the current level of revelation there are still some opportunities for optimism.

All this says to me is that your friends have deluded themselves into thinking that the Tyranid Codex was designed with 6th Ed in mind.

I'm curious if they're going to create exceptions for units like sanguinary priests, are they going to start turning up attached to IG Platoons?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

junk wrote:My tyranid friends are still optimistic that the promise of "designed with 6e in mind" means that some heretofore unobfuscated (real word?) section of the rulebook comes to light with exciting new options for them. At the current level of revelation there are still some opportunities for optimism.

All this says to me is that your friends have deluded themselves into thinking that the Tyranid Codex was designed with 6th Ed in mind.

Again, it's optimism in the face of adversity, which could be considered noble or foolish, depending on which side of history you stand on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

N.I.B. wrote:

junk wrote:My tyranid friends are still optimistic that the promise of "designed with 6e in mind" means that some heretofore unobfuscated (real word?) section of the rulebook comes to light with exciting new options for them. At the current level of revelation there are still some opportunities for optimism.

A bloke on BolS with the rulebook is hinting that MC's will get some kind of EW. Unfortunately it's not MC's that need EW, I can count on one hand the times I've lost a MC to Instant Death in 5th ed. It's the entire T4 range of models that you never see on the tabletop that needs EW, now that Instant Death is more prevalent than ever.

But here's to hoping!

As a guy who plays against nids quite a bit, the number of times I've ID'd a tervigon was a determining factor in the decision to shelve my GK for 'repainting'...

I'm curious if they're going to create exceptions for units like sanguinary priests, are they going to start turning up attached to IG Platoons?

I was just thinking the same thing. I have a feeling there will be a lot in the FAQ/Erattas. That broad "all friendly models within...", I would hope is changed to friendly BA unit. But who knows. I'm a Guard player, but I swore off the Infantry horde, and honestly don't want to run cheese.

N.I.B. wrote:

junk wrote:My tyranid friends are still optimistic that the promise of "designed with 6e in mind" means that some heretofore unobfuscated (real word?) section of the rulebook comes to light with exciting new options for them. At the current level of revelation there are still some opportunities for optimism.

A bloke on BolS with the rulebook is hinting that MC's will get some kind of EW. Unfortunately it's not MC's that need EW, I can count on one hand the times I've lost a MC to Instant Death in 5th ed. It's the entire T4 range of models that you never see on the tabletop that needs EW, now that Instant Death is more prevalent than ever.

But here's to hoping!

looking at the rules for MC's now and there is no mention of eternal warrior, so think that guy is leading you astray

junk wrote: Unfortunately it's not MC's that need EW, I can count on one hand the times I've lost a MC to Instant Death in 5th ed.

You don't play Nids do you....

Matt.Kingsley wrote:

What was said abot the EC?
As with this new edition I'm planning SM (Crimson Fists) with Allies, and I've been thinking (after reading a ton of fluff) I'd like BT (I mean, they are both Son's of Dorn, both started as Crusade Fleets) namley BECAUSE of the Emporers Champion

EC currently satisfies the requirements for the compulsory HQ. Nothing is said about any of the other "free-slot" HQ choices, and the fact that the Emperor's Champion must be taken above 750 points makes it difficult to gauge the intent of the FAQ (that is, it's hard to tell whether the FAQ is to prevent BT players from being punished above 750pts, or whether it's a broad statement about free-slot HQs).

junk wrote:Again, it's optimism in the face of adversity, which could be considered noble or foolish, depending on which side of history you stand on.

Of which side of reality you stand on.

N.I.B. wrote:A bloke on BolS with the rulebook is hinting that MC's will get some kind of EW.

Claiming to have a rulebook and then only dropping hints is a fantastically obvious way to out oneself as both narcissistic and full of gak.

Awesome people like Rattman deliver on their claims. That BoLS person is either a troll or just as useless as one.

Actually, Ork slugga boyz in a battlewagon should still be alright for assaulting. They move 13" for a couple of turns, move 6" into a vaguely 45 degree position, pile out and still will most likely be close enough to have a reasonable chance to charge. Also, there will be 20 of them, so a few overwatch casualties will not spoil their fun much, considering they have 4 attacks each on the charge. I just hope they didn't do anything to nerf the KFF with regard to vehicles.

The "takes no slot" priests and tech priests in IG can also be used as the required HQ, I would hope that it would work for the allied chart as well.
I for one am very pleased that my vehicles with heavy flamers will be able to roast a few scarabs before they get pulled apart, hopefully i kill enough so that the almost guaranteed explosion (in my experience at least) might finish them off.

Why assault flamy tanks when you can Gauss them to death

Because one squad with Gauss cant drop 4 vehicles at one.

Unless IG allies get some kind of limitation in the FAQ, 1 HQ + 1 troop is going to be God-sent to some armies that lacked numbers. Blob + commissar + hwt + swt (snipers) under an IC that grants FNP or other similar nastiness is going to be fun .

M.

but 1 tank can't flame a warrior squad 12" away, while it can destroy an entire scarab swarm about to assault it

N.I.B. wrote:Unfortunately it's not MC's that need EW, I can count on one hand the times I've lost a MC to Instant Death in 5th ed. It's the entire T4 range of models that you never see on the tabletop that needs EW, now that Instant Death is more prevalent than ever.

I think someone has never had their Swarmlord charged by a popular brand of silver space marines!

Honestly out of all the various tweaks, buffs and nerfs, this is my biggest annoyance with 6e. The nid codex is so lop-sided against certain other codexes thanks to the poorly thought-out ID rule because you have to write-off half your units from turn 1. It's not even a difficult issue to solve either. They could either:

a) bring back EW as a benefit of Synapse
b) include EW as a buff from a psychic power (such as Catalyst or Endurance)
c) Replace ID with variable wounds based on weapon strength like 2e:
S1-5: 1 wound
S6-8: D3 wounds
S9-10: D6 wounds
ID / Force weapons: 2D3 wounds

Wrath wrote:

Nightbringer's Chosen wrote:Actually, I think you can only Overwatch Template, not snap shot. But I may be wrong.

Yea, snap fire is all weapon types and over watch is no Blast, D3 template hits.

Doh! I was wrong here. Nightbringer has it spot on.

No blast or Template for Snap-fire, and Templates are D3 on Overwatch.

xttz wrote:

N.I.B. wrote:Unfortunately it's not MC's that need EW, I can count on one hand the times I've lost a MC to Instant Death in 5th ed. It's the entire T4 range of models that you never see on the tabletop that needs EW, now that Instant Death is more prevalent than ever.

I think someone has never had their Swarmlord charged by a popular brand of silver space marines!

Honestly out of all the various tweaks, buffs and nerfs, this is my biggest annoyance with 6e. The nid codex is so lop-sided against certain other codexes thanks to the poorly thought-out ID rule because you have to write-off half your units from turn 1. It's not even a difficult issue to solve either. They could either:

a) bring back EW as a benefit of Synapse
b) include EW as a buff from a psychic power (such as Catalyst or Endurance)
c) Replace ID with variable wounds based on weapon strength like 2e:
S1-5: 1 wound
S6-8: D3 wounds
S9-10: D6 wounds
ID / Force weapons: 2D3 wounds

I like that a lot. Every time in 5th that I've faced Tyranids, I've had to deal with 4-6 T6 monstrous creatures. This would make them less than the unstoppable wall of flesh that they are now, especially when insulated from assault by a hundred gaunts.

Xca|iber wrote:

Matt.Kingsley wrote:

What was said abot the EC?
As with this new edition I'm planning SM (Crimson Fists) with Allies, and I've been thinking (after reading a ton of fluff) I'd like BT (I mean, they are both Son's of Dorn, both started as Crusade Fleets) namley BECAUSE of the Emporers Champion

EC currently satisfies the requirements for the compulsory HQ. Nothing is said about any of the other "free-slot" HQ choices, and the fact that the Emperor's Champion must be taken above 750 points makes it difficult to gauge the intent of the FAQ (that is, it's hard to tell whether the FAQ is to prevent BT players from being punished above 750pts, or whether it's a broad statement about free-slot HQs).

Thanks! Now I need to get a-planning...

Ascalam wrote:And of course you do need to pummel them with S8 to even glance

They'll still be plenty sturdy, but not as indestructable to some armies as before.

S8? Pff, S4 is enough for us


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ryan_A wrote:

wuestenfux wrote:
But now a stun result is only achieved by a penetrating hit, while a glancing hit only removes a HP. E.g., for a lascannon you need to roll a 6 to penetrate a LR.
Hence, extra armor will get more overpriced than it is now, and it is already overpriced in the current ed.

Ah, I see how they decided to make extra armor more useless than ever:
GW writer 1: Hey Now that only pens get a roll on the damage table, extra armor isn't as valuable, should we buff it or lower the cost?
GW writer 2: Meh, lets just do nothing with it and make it completely useless
GW writer 1: Meh, alright.

FAIL

Same with Phaeron. Even WORSE because the very same writer fethed this up.

Wait, I just came to think. With the uncontrollable movement removed from rage, and the nerf to power weapons, which means that you can take a regular 2+ save and FnP in addition more often, does this means that a unit of MANz lead by Grotznik would be an extremely survivable and hard-hitting unit?
Someone please confirm this, because then I know what I will be getting for my Orks.

God, your right!

Do assaults, or charging specifically, require LOS?

Random tidbits from: http://natfka.blogspot.nl/2012/06/6th-edition-q-and.html

* MCs with wings can use Vector Strike to hit flyers;
* Flyers cannot be hit by blast, large blast and template;
* Rending is AP2, auto-wound on a 6 on the to-wound roll;
* A non-infiltrate IC can deploy with infiltrators;
* First turn assault disallowed when scouting or infiltrating;
* Infiltrate appears the same when deploying;
* Scouts redeploy 6" when infantry, MC and walker, 12" otherwise, must remain 12" away from enemies;
* Stormraven has 3 hull points;
* Bikes turbo boost 12", jetbikes 24", eldar jetbikes 36", are relentless;
* Gets hot will now give a vehicle a glancing hit on a to hit of one and a further role of 1, 2 or 3.

Mandor wrote:* A non-infiltrate IC can deploy with infiltrators;

Hmm, so, does this mean I can deploy a Haemonculus with my Mandrakes? If so... nice. Easy way to place a webway portal up afield. Of course, mandrakes are rather lackluster even then.

Mandor wrote:
* Gets hot will now give a vehicle a glancing hit on a to hit of one and a further role of 1, 2 or 3.

More from: http://natfka.blogspot.nl/2012/06/6th-edition-q-and.html
* chariots move like normal vehicle of specified type;
* chariots if skimmer, gets sweep attacks like Necron CCB equal to number of attacks in profile of one passenger (the "rider");
* chariots can charge in CC, the "rider" is considered in base to base with everything that the chariot is in base to base with;
* chariots' "rider" is considered fearless and gets D6 hammer of wrath attacks at I10 at STR6 AP- when "charging";
* chariots' "rider" is targeted as if in CC, unclear if the chariot is/can be;
* chariots can't do challenges, no locked in combat after, gives +1 armour save to the "rider" in CC;
* rest of crew on chariots is ignored for CC;
* heavy vehicle moves 6", can never turboboost (editor: all other vehicles can turboboost 6" now);
* heavy vehicle is always considered stationary when firing.

Edits on challenges and targeting in CC for chariots!

Mandor wrote:More from: http://natfka.blogspot.nl/2012/06/6th-edition-q-and.html

* Gets hot will now give a vehicle a glancing hit on a to hit of one and a further role of 1, 2 or 3.

* heavy vehicle moves 6", can never turboboost (editor: all other vehicles can turboboost 6" now);
* heavy vehicle is always considered stationary when firing.

Oh dear, than means that my LR Executioner could destroy itself quite easily. Oh well, at least that fits with the fluff

Do you think that the "heavy" rule would replace the current "lumbering behemoth" rule on LR's? Or would they stack, so a Leman Russ Battle Tank could move 6", Fire ordnance at regular BS, and then fire three heavy bolters are regular BS as well?

I'm curious over what all this means for superheavies. Anyone want to hazard a guess? is it just a matter of piling on some more hull points and the "Heavy" subtype?

H.B.M.C. wrote:

junk wrote:My tyranid friends are still optimistic that the promise of "designed with 6e in mind" means that some heretofore unobfuscated (real word?) section of the rulebook comes to light with exciting new options for them. At the current level of revelation there are still some opportunities for optimism.

All this says to me is that your friends have deluded themselves into thinking that the Tyranid Codex was designed with 6th Ed in mind.

lol, everything that came out during 5th was designed for 6th, don't you know. And everything that came out during 4th was designed for 5th. Etc.

So I'm guessing the CCB will be FAQ'd to be a chariot?

Matt.Kingsley wrote:So I'm guessing the CCB will be FAQ'd to be a chariot?

That seems like a safe assumption.

Yeah, since the only other chariot-types in 40k are Demonic Heralds, who don't even have models.

Any word on gamer's edition shortages? My local store says GW is making it up to people.

Agamemnon2 wrote:Yeah, since the only other chariot-types in 40k are Demonic Heralds, who don't even have models.

I'm guessing the Dark Eldar Venom might also become a chariot.

warpcrafter wrote:
I like that a lot. Every time in 5th that I've faced Tyranids, I've had to deal with 4-6 T6 monstrous creatures. This would make them less than the unstoppable wall of flesh that they are now, especially when insulated from assault by a hundred gaunts.

I think it balances out MC's with vehicles quite nicely - high strength weapons have the same odds of one-shotting them as they do for tanks (rolling high wounds compared to high damage).

Mandor wrote:Random tidbits from: http://natfka.blogspot.nl/2012/06/6th-edition-q-and.html

* First turn assault disallowed when scouting or infiltrating;

Oh hello there pointless melee nerf.

More from: http://natfka.blogspot.nl/2012/06/6th-edition-q-and.html
* Template and ordnance, blast cannot be fired as snap shots, any weapon that does not use ballistic skill (e.g. monolith portal) cannot be snap fired.

Bonde wrote:Wait, I just came to think. With the uncontrollable movement removed from rage, and the nerf to power weapons, which means that you can take a regular 2+ save and FnP in addition more often, does this means that a unit of MANz lead by Grotznik would be an extremely survivable and hard-hitting unit?
Someone please confirm this, because then I know what I will be getting for my Orks.

Damn, I just checked my codex, and Grotsnik doesn't "suffer" from rage, it's currently still his own special rule that tells him to move towards and charge towards the closest enemy model. He would still be very hard to field with MANz due to SnP. If it does get FAQ'd to just being rage, MANz would get too good with 5 PK attacks each on the charge, a 2+, 5+ FnP and a 5++, so it probably won't.

Bonde wrote:Damn, I just checked my codex, and Grotsnik doesn't "suffer" from rage, it's currently still his own special rule that tells him to move towards and charge towards the closest enemy model. He would still be very hard to field with MANz due to SnP. If it does get FAQ'd to just being rage, MANz would get too good with 5 PK attacks each on the charge, a 2+, 5+ FnP and a 5++, so it probably won't.

Yeah, remember that if it sounds too good, it'll only happen if you are a Marine army.

It could have been a good move from GW, as those recently finecasted MegaNobz would be extremely useful all of a sudden.
On the topic of MANz, any news on how and if Slow and Purposeful has been changed with all the new movement rules? I coulden't find it in the first post.

Bonde wrote:Oh dear, than means that my LR Executioner could destroy itself quite easily. Oh well, at least that fits with the fluff

Unless they change it in the errata the Executioner Plasma Cannon doesn't have Gets Hot!, thankfully.

Matt.Kingsley wrote:So I'm guessing the CCB will be FAQ'd to be a chariot?

I really hope then that these new chariot rules grant line of sight to the passenger of the chariot it so Anrakyr can use mind in the machine while sweeping.

junk wrote:As a guy who plays against nids quite a bit, the number of times I've ID'd a tervigon was a determining factor in the decision to shelve my GK for 'repainting'...

Outside fighting GK's, how often did it happen? GK's aren't that popular in my region, and the few games I've had against them I've won. Bubblewrapping my MC's and drowning everything except Purifiers in small critters has worked fine. Also, SitW makes it harder to get off the Force weapon check (not counting Brotherhood Banner ofc).

I've been playing Nids competitive since just before the 5th ed codex and I can tell you that MC's die mainly from missile/las/plas spam, and Eternal Warrior doesn't help one bit with that. A generic invulnerable save for MC's would be so much better than the very situational need of EW.

Btw, Necron Lord with Sempiternal Weave on CCB = 1+ armour save. Yay.

So if a 5 on the damage chart is Immobilized and a 6 is an Explosion, no more marines cowering out of sight behind a wall of dead Rhinos? Definitely a plus in my book

More from: http://natfka.blogspot.nl/2012/06/6th-edition-q-and.html
* Deny the witch does not work on force weapons;
* Deny the witch only works on offensive powers that target enemy units;
* Special characters can be used as allies;



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Angel_of_Rust wrote:So if a 5 on the damage chart is Immobilized and a 6 is an Explosion, no more marines cowering out of sight behind a wall of dead Rhinos? Definitely a plus in my book

Wrecked is the result of loss of hull points now. And glances and penetrates remove hull points (with glances, you don't roll on the damage table). So no change there I'm afraid.

Mandor wrote:* Special characters can be used as allies

Eldrad in every army!

Due to the changes to disembarking, they'll be less likely to hide behind a wall of living rhinos however...

Just Dave wrote:Due to the changes to disembarking, they'll be less likely to hide behind a wall of living rhinos however...

Rhino moves 6, guys disembark in front, shoot, then Rhino goes Flat Out in the shooting phase to cover them.

N.I.B. wrote:

junk wrote:As a guy who plays against nids quite a bit, the number of times I've ID'd a tervigon was a determining factor in the decision to shelve my GK for 'repainting'...

Outside fighting GK's, how often did it happen? GK's aren't that popular in my region, and the few games I've had against them I've won. Bubblewrapping my MC's and drowning everything except Purifiers in small critters has worked fine. Also, SitW makes it harder to get off the Force weapon check (not counting Brotherhood Banner ofc).

My biggest issue with GK was always the Paladin deathstar - they can counter everything nids can bring. There's always a Brotherhood Banner to bypass SitW. If you try to hit first with Genestealers they will sit in area terrain or use Quicksilver to wipe you out first. MC's that can break their armour will get hit by I6 halberds first and ID'd before they can strike. Nids have virtually no AP2 weapons to shoot them with too - the Zoanthrope is quickly countered by Aegis / Psychic hood. Paroxsym will have trouble too, since chances are there's a Dreadnought with Reinforced Aegis nearby. And of course Fearless wounds meant that termagant tarpits didn't last too long.

Wound allocation in 6e will make bubble-wrapping harder, since you can't choose where casualties will happen as easily letting them burn a path through.

On the bright side, there's a few changes in 6e to improve matters. Fearless wounds are apparently gone. Some of the new psychic powers are much better by virtue of being buffs you can put on your own units, which makes them harder to nullify. Invisibility is huge, and I'm sure that new telekenisis power granting a 5++ bubble will help.

N.I.B. wrote:I've been playing Nids competitive since just before the 5th ed codex and I can tell you that MC's die mainly from missile/las/plas spam, and Eternal Warrior doesn't help one bit with that. A generic invulnerable save for MC's would be so much better than the very situational need of EW.

EW is more for protecting Warriors/Shrikes/Raveners etc from said missile spam. They can't even use the new FNP for that because lawl ID. I'm also sure I'm not the only one who finds it odd that the premiere (280pt) Tyranid melee unit can be killed in 1 hit in melee.

Who knows, with all the vehicle changes maybe the metagame will see less missiles, making Warriors viable. Maybe.

Sidstyler wrote:

Mandor wrote:* Special characters can be used as allies

Eldrad in every army!

Or Imotekh, with Night Fight.
Or Mephiston, with Sanguinary Priests.
Or Bjorn, with re-rolling 1st turn.

Should Calgar's god of war work with other armies, that could be 'interesting'...

Mandor wrote:More from: http://natfka.blogspot.nl/2012/06/6th-edition-q-and.html
* Template and ordnance, blast cannot be fired as snap shots, any weapon that does not use ballistic skill (e.g. monolith portal) cannot be snap fired.

Nice to see that the death ray wont be able to shoot when zooming/evading then

xttz wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:
I like that a lot. Every time in 5th that I've faced Tyranids, I've had to deal with 4-6 T6 monstrous creatures. This would make them less than the unstoppable wall of flesh that they are now, especially when insulated from assault by a hundred gaunts.

I think it balances out MC's with vehicles quite nicely - high strength weapons have the same odds of one-shotting them as they do for tanks (rolling high wounds compared to high damage).

By "Balance" you mean "remove any viability of MCs," right? Do remember how much more vulnerable MCs are than vehicles, who often can be immune to vast arrays of weaponry. Most MCs can get wounded by a lasgun. Also, let's not forget the vast speed difference between the a stock vehicle and a stock MC, with the vehicle having a much more potent weapon in many (not all) cases, either in range or in strength or AP.

xttz wrote:

Mandor wrote:Random tidbits from: http://natfka.blogspot.nl/2012/06/6th-edition-q-and.html

* First turn assault disallowed when scouting or infiltrating;

Oh hello there pointless melee nerf.

I'm not sure this is so pointless... I've had my hive guard taken out of battles by an infiltrating squad of scout bikers, forcing me to set them up in a position where they won't be effective or I must shield them with other units that will end up in the same problem, but can at least have a chance to fight back; usually that other unit is not as resilient to weapons fire, and I am still now forced to deal with the squad that's assaulting me, and I'm lacking any sort of counter. Even if I win, the loss of firepower for dealing with that, either by response or deployment, basically makes sure I'm stuck playing reactively, rather than being able to take a proactive stance.

tedurur wrote:

Mandor wrote:More from: http://natfka.blogspot.nl/2012/06/6th-edition-q-and.html
* Template and ordnance, blast cannot be fired as snap shots, any weapon that does not use ballistic skill (e.g. monolith portal) cannot be snap fired.

Nice to see that the death ray wont be able to shoot when zooming/evading then

It will shoot the death ray when zooming, but not the turn after it has evaded. Evading (similar to going to ground) gives you the 'you can only snap fire next turn' restriction. 'Zooming' is just the standard movement mode of flyers, and they fire four weapons with full BS when zooming.

Turn 2 Necrons: Doom Scythe enters play, moves 36", fires death ray and tesla destructor.
Turn 2 Enemy: Doom Scythe gets shot at by survivors, it decides to evade against the hits to benefit from cover saves (which improve during the night).
Turn 3 Necrons: Doom Scythe can turn 90" degrees, move over 18", and snap fire with tesla destructor, but it decides to zoom off the board into safety (this was the suggested strategy in White Dwarf for this exact scenario).
Turn 4 Necrons: Doom Scythe enters play, moves 36", fires death ray and tesla destructor.

Sidstyler wrote:

Mandor wrote:* Special characters can be used as allies

Eldrad in every army!

Epidemius Death Guard HOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Look forward to the world of 2+ wounding, armour ignoring everything.

Just Dave wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:

Mandor wrote:* Special characters can be used as allies

Eldrad in every army!

Or Imotekh, with Night Fight.
Or Mephiston, with Sanguinary Priests.
Or Bjorn, with re-rolling 1st turn.

Should Calgar's god of war work with other armies, that could be 'interesting'...

Guide and Fortune only work on Eldar. Calgar's God of War requires combat tactics.

I expected as much from both. That's why I personally would be more concerned about the other three. Or Fateweaver...?

/sigh. reading though 15 pages of posts of "IG and Chaos?! WTF - it does not SAY traitor guard!!" When I could've just hit "Filter" on rattmans posts.

Why all the panic about Allies? In theory it buffs everyone? Every army has the option to take something they didn't have before/dont have in their current Codex.

Why can't people just look at the Allies thing and accept that some peopel will abuse it (/gasp! surely not). I woudl think the majority of people (myself and my gaming group included) will use it in a fluffy/cinematic manner. It is their to open more options and potentially make it more fun! dont liek it? dont use it! personally i dont see myself ever using allies for my Necrons outside of apoc games where it woudl be a 2v2 game anyway.

/end rant Sorry, that's been building up for a while now



@rattman - could you clarify if Beasts have any modifier to their charge range? Everyone now gets 2D6 and Fleet lets you reroll one of those, what about Beasts with Fleet (see Scarabs). if Beasts dont get soem sort of bonus to charge that could be quite a nerf to Scarabs..

5th ed = 6" move, D6" Fleet, 12" charge - (max 24")
6th ed = 6" move (?), 2D6 Charge (with re-roll) - (max 18"?)

Everyone now gets 2D6 and Fleet lets you reroll one of those, what about Beasts with Fleet (see Scarabs). if Beasts dont get soem sort of bonus to charge that could be quite a nerf to Scarabs..

It was said earlier that cavalry ignores difficult terrain when charging, and beasts ignore difficult terrain completely. Cavalry and beasts move 12" in 6th edition, and charge 2D6" like others, and with a re-roll, just like jump infantry. So, the only difference in movement between jump infantry and cavalry is that jump infantry ignores terrain when moving, and cavalry ignores it when charging.

Praxiss wrote:Why all the panic about Allies? In theory it buffs everyone? Every army has the option to take something they didn't have before/dont have in their current Codex.

Yep. Tyranids totally got buffed by their ability to take Sweet FA.

Sidstyler wrote:Eldrad in every army!

He's already in every Eldar army, so why not every every army?

DarkStarSabre wrote:

Praxiss wrote:Why all the panic about Allies? In theory it buffs everyone? Every army has the option to take something they didn't have before/dont have in their current Codex.

Yep. Tyranids totally got buffed by their ability to take Sweet FA.

That's because Nids are already overpowered....*ducks*

I think the Allies idea is nice and fluffy but in any sort of 'Friendly' game nothing was stopping you from doing this already and in 'Competitive' games people will use it to be dicks...

I can only assume that GW has gotten bored with the idea of the Tyranid army, and are thus urging players to find new armies to play so they can squat the army.


"Who squats the squatters?" or somesuch.

I hate it because it's lazy and stupid. GW simply doesn't feel like trying to fix all the gakky codices they've made, so this is their solution: let everyone take what they need from the much superior Imperial codices and there you go, "fixed". Everyone has to buy more models, "balance" is finally sort of achieved because now everyone can use everything...fluff is a joke now because my Tau and Dark Eldar can ally with fething daemons, but hey...

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:Eldrad in every army!

He's already in every Eldar army, so why not every every army?

Yes!

Still not paying $80 for the rulebook, though. Not unless I fall ass backwards into money sometime in the next few days.

Mandor wrote:More from: http://natfka.blogspot.nl/2012/06/6th-edition-q-and.html
* chariots move like normal vehicle of specified type;
* chariots if skimmer, gets sweep attacks like Necron CCB equal to number of attacks in profile of one passenger (the "rider");
* chariots can charge in CC, the "rider" is considered in base to base with everything that the chariot is in base to base with;
* chariots' "rider" is considered fearless and gets D6 hammer of wrath attacks at I10 at STR6 AP- when "charging";
* chariots' "rider" is targeted as if in CC, unclear if the chariot is/can be;
* chariots can't do challenges, no locked in combat after, gives +1 armour save to the "rider" in CC;
* rest of crew on chariots is ignored for CC;
* heavy vehicle moves 6", can never turboboost (editor: all other vehicles can turboboost 6" now);
* heavy vehicle is always considered stationary when firing.

Edits on challenges and targeting in CC for chariots!

Looking forward to CCB becoming a chariot then. So, say, can you move over a unit aka sweep it, then turn around and assault? O-o

Yay for 2+ Overlord even without Weave, no locked in combat means that I can still shoot stuff / snap fire?

xttz wrote:

N.I.B. wrote:I've been playing Nids competitive since just before the 5th ed codex and I can tell you that MC's die mainly from missile/las/plas spam, and Eternal Warrior doesn't help one bit with that. A generic invulnerable save for MC's would be so much better than the very situational need of EW.

EW is more for protecting Warriors/Shrikes/Raveners etc from said missile spam. They can't even use the new FNP for that because lawl ID.

Duh, that was my point...

N.I.B. wrote:It's the entire T4 range of models that you never see on the tabletop that needs EW, now that Instant Death is more prevalent than ever.

The BolS guy is hinting that Tyranid MC's will be FAQed to get some kind of EW. And EW is wasted on MC's, it's the T4 models who needs it. Tyranid MC's need a generic invulnerable save.

Did they really change Furious charge to not give +1 Init? Quite a big nerf to things like blood angels, orks and bloodcrushers if so.

Mandor wrote:More from: http://natfka.blogspot.nl/2012/06/6th-edition-q-and.html
* Deny the witch does not work on force weapons;
* Deny the witch only works on offensive powers that target enemy units;
* Special characters can be used as allies;

Thank god, my Hammerhand and others will be safe from jammyness!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RandyMcStab wrote:

DarkStarSabre wrote:

Praxiss wrote:Why all the panic about Allies? In theory it buffs everyone? Every army has the option to take something they didn't have before/dont have in their current Codex.

Yep. Tyranids totally got buffed by their ability to take Sweet FA.

That's because Nids are already overpowered....*ducks*

I think the Allies idea is nice and fluffy but in any sort of 'Friendly' game nothing was stopping you from doing this already and in 'Competitive' games people will use it to be dicks...

I totally agree, Nids needed a nerf after dominating an edition where Vehicles were key to success in most games.

Oh wait, They don't have any.

I may have missed the answer but I sure don't see it in the tons of summaries on the first page. Has it not been even asked how consolidation works? Can you consolidate into a new CC?

Seems to me with overwatch being able to really negate assaulting (by killing close models) it would seem pretty important if you could balance this out by consolidating into new enemies.

streamdragon wrote:I can only assume that GW has gotten bored with the idea of the Tyranid army, and are thus urging players to find new armies to play so they can squat the army.


"Who squats the squatters?" or somesuch.

Spoiler:

This is not a serious post

When you eat the Squat, you become the Squat.

Kirasu wrote:I may have missed the answer but I sure don't see it in the tons of summaries on the first page. Has it not been even asked how consolidation works? Can you consolidate into a new CC?

Seems to me with overwatch being able to really negate assaulting (by killing close models) it would seem pretty important if you could balance this out by consolidating into new enemies.

Consolidate is D6, cannot consolidate into a new enemy. So it remains the same as in 5th.

Bonde wrote:Wait, I just came to think. With the uncontrollable movement removed from rage, and the nerf to power weapons, which means that you can take a regular 2+ save and FnP in addition more often, does this means that a unit of MANz lead by Grotznik would be an extremely survivable and hard-hitting unit?
Someone please confirm this, because then I know what I will be getting for my Orks.

No, because Grotsnik does not have the Rage USR.

GoDz BuZzSaW wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

RandyMcStab wrote:

DarkStarSabre wrote:

Praxiss wrote:Why all the panic about Allies? In theory it buffs everyone? Every army has the option to take something they didn't have before/dont have in their current Codex.

Yep. Tyranids totally got buffed by their ability to take Sweet FA.

That's because Nids are already overpowered....*ducks*

I think the Allies idea is nice and fluffy but in any sort of 'Friendly' game nothing was stopping you from doing this already and in 'Competitive' games people will use it to be dicks...

I totally agree, Nids needed a nerf after dominating an edition where Vehicles were key to success in most games.

Oh wait, They don't have any.

Actually, the more I theoryhammer it, the more I think the hull points rule is really going to boost Tyranids.

Mandor wrote:

Kirasu wrote:I may have missed the answer but I sure don't see it in the tons of summaries on the first page. Has it not been even asked how consolidation works? Can you consolidate into a new CC?

Seems to me with overwatch being able to really negate assaulting (by killing close models) it would seem pretty important if you could balance this out by consolidating into new enemies.

Consolidate is D6, cannot consolidate into a new enemy. So it remains the same as in 5th.

So with changes to fleet, overwatch and random charge ranges there doesn't seem a big reason to bring any kind of foot based charging units. Guess they were too powerful.

Kirasu wrote:

Mandor wrote:

Kirasu wrote:I may have missed the answer but I sure don't see it in the tons of summaries on the first page. Has it not been even asked how consolidation works? Can you consolidate into a new CC?

Seems to me with overwatch being able to really negate assaulting (by killing close models) it would seem pretty important if you could balance this out by consolidating into new enemies.

Consolidate is D6, cannot consolidate into a new enemy. So it remains the same as in 5th.

So with changes to fleet, overwatch and random charge ranges there doesn't seem a big reason to bring any kind of foot based charging units. Guess they were too powerful.

It makes me laugh how half of people are claiming that foot lists got nerfed, the other half are claiming that mech got nerfed.
Make your minds up guys

Kirasu wrote:

Mandor wrote:

Kirasu wrote:I may have missed the answer but I sure don't see it in the tons of summaries on the first page. Has it not been even asked how consolidation works? Can you consolidate into a new CC?

Seems to me with overwatch being able to really negate assaulting (by killing close models) it would seem pretty important if you could balance this out by consolidating into new enemies.

Consolidate is D6, cannot consolidate into a new enemy. So it remains the same as in 5th.

So with changes to fleet, overwatch and random charge ranges there doesn't seem a big reason to bring any kind of foot based charging units. Guess they were too powerful.

I blame the Genestealers.

This edition really seems to be the edition of shooting.

Guard Tarpit powerblobs are the way forward it would seem.

gorgon wrote:

GoDz BuZzSaW wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

RandyMcStab wrote:

DarkStarSabre wrote:

Praxiss wrote:Why all the panic about Allies? In theory it buffs everyone? Every army has the option to take something they didn't have before/dont have in their current Codex.

Yep. Tyranids totally got buffed by their ability to take Sweet FA.

That's because Nids are already overpowered....*ducks*

I think the Allies idea is nice and fluffy but in any sort of 'Friendly' game nothing was stopping you from doing this already and in 'Competitive' games people will use it to be dicks...

I totally agree, Nids needed a nerf after dominating an edition where Vehicles were key to success in most games.

Oh wait, They don't have any.

Actually, the more I theoryhammer it, the more I think the hull points rule is really going to boost Tyranids.

While the hull points are definitely a nerf to vehicles, overall I don't think Tyranids are gaining any ground. S8 weapons will still insta-gib warriors, raveners, shrikes, Doom, zoanthropes, venomthropes, biovores, lictors, and pyrovores (lol, like people take pyrovores...). While I agree that vehicles were tough for Tyranids to deal with, they were far from the only issue that nids had in 5th and I think most of those issues remain unchanged, along with a few new issues.

Therion wrote:

Everyone now gets 2D6 and Fleet lets you reroll one of those, what about Beasts with Fleet (see Scarabs). if Beasts dont get soem sort of bonus to charge that could be quite a nerf to Scarabs..

It was said earlier that cavalry ignores difficult terrain when charging, and beasts ignore difficult terrain completely. Cavalry and beasts move 12" in 6th edition, and charge 2D6" like others, and with a re-roll, just like jump infantry. So, the only difference in movement between jump infantry and cavalry is that jump infantry ignores terrain when moving, and cavalry ignores it when charging.

Ah, i must have missed the 12" movement bit. Thanks.

So 6th ed Scarabs....

Move 12", Charge 2D6 (with one reroll) - ignore all terrain. (min 14", max 24")

So considering the Fleet D6 was random before they have coem out more or less the same I guess. (i'll leave it to someone brainier than i to do the mathhammer, life's too short)

d-usa wrote:

streamdragon wrote:I can only assume that GW has gotten bored with the idea of the Tyranid army, and are thus urging players to find new armies to play so they can squat the army.


"Who squats the squatters?" or somesuch.

Spoiler:

This is not a serious post

When you eat the Squat, you become the Squat.

No. You are thinking of Kroot.

I like the fact that Jumpers/Fleet can re-roll one or both of the 2d6 charge dice (is that correct?). It really helps ensure that those units' charge ranges are far less random.

Joey wrote:

Kirasu wrote:

Mandor wrote:

Kirasu wrote:I may have missed the answer but I sure don't see it in the tons of summaries on the first page. Has it not been even asked how consolidation works? Can you consolidate into a new CC?

Seems to me with overwatch being able to really negate assaulting (by killing close models) it would seem pretty important if you could balance this out by consolidating into new enemies.

Consolidate is D6, cannot consolidate into a new enemy. So it remains the same as in 5th.

So with changes to fleet, overwatch and random charge ranges there doesn't seem a big reason to bring any kind of foot based charging units. Guess they were too powerful.

It makes me laugh how half of people are claiming that foot lists got nerfed, the other half are claiming that mech got nerfed.
Make your minds up guys

It is possible for both to be nerfed.

lord_blackfang wrote:

Just Dave wrote:Due to the changes to disembarking, they'll be less likely to hide behind a wall of living rhinos however...

Rhino moves 6, guys disembark in front, shoot, then Rhino goes Flat Out in the shooting phase to cover them.

No, just as now, models cannot embark onto or disembark from a vehicle that goes flat-out in the same turn. IE if your Grey Hunters hop out of their ride, the rhino is disallowed from moving any further in the shooting phase.

Joey wrote:

Kirasu wrote:

Mandor wrote:

Kirasu wrote:I may have missed the answer but I sure don't see it in the tons of summaries on the first page. Has it not been even asked how consolidation works? Can you consolidate into a new CC?

Seems to me with overwatch being able to really negate assaulting (by killing close models) it would seem pretty important if you could balance this out by consolidating into new enemies.

Consolidate is D6, cannot consolidate into a new enemy. So it remains the same as in 5th.

So with changes to fleet, overwatch and random charge ranges there doesn't seem a big reason to bring any kind of foot based charging units. Guess they were too powerful.

It makes me laugh how half of people are claiming that foot lists got nerfed, the other half are claiming that mech got nerfed.
Make your minds up guys

The feeling i am getting is the nerfs apply to more to dedicated armies (both mech and foot). It seems that if you take a mix of foot and mech you can get the best of all the buffs. I realise that, as a 'cron player i am a little spoilt for choice...

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

d-usa wrote:

streamdragon wrote:I can only assume that GW has gotten bored with the idea of the Tyranid army, and are thus urging players to find new armies to play so they can squat the army.


"Who squats the squatters?" or somesuch.

Spoiler:

This is not a serious post

When you eat the Squat, you become the Squat.

No. You are thinking of Kroot.

2004: "Where are the Squats?" "Tyranids ate them!"

2012: "Where are the Tyranids?" "Kroot ate them!"

Kirasu wrote:
So with changes to fleet, overwatch and random charge ranges there doesn't seem a big reason to bring any kind of foot based charging units. Guess they were too powerful.

Don't know about too powerful. It does make things difficult (or at the very least entirely non-competitive) for CC specialists with armor saves of 4+ and worse. Couples with the changes to power weapons making it so that even the sargeant-equivalent won't scratch hgh-value targets, I'm not sure if they have any point anymore.

The changes to Fleet would seem to hurt orks with regards to their wwaarrgghh ( sp ..? I more or less know how to spell it, but am unsure how to stop spelling it ) right ?

Shrike seems fairly pointless too now I guess ?

Mandor wrote:Consolidate is D6, cannot consolidate into a new enemy. So it remains the same as in 5th.

I haven't seen anything about consolidating after wrecking a vehicle... Is that still a no-go? (Scarabs await an answer with bated breath.)

Natfka has a Q and A blog post - i believe it's been brought up but this caught my eye:

natfka's anonymous poster wrote: Two of the recurring questions are wound allocation and how assaults out of open topped vehicles work.

Wound allocation:
choose the model closest to the firing unit. this model then takes a wound. if it passes it takes another wound, this continues until that model fails. his wounds are reduced by one. If this reduces his wounds to 0 he is removed as a casualty. you then pick the next closest model to the firing unit and repeat the process. This process is essentially the same if you have different armour saves/toughness/wargear/weapons. So it is the closest model that matters. So potentially one model could take 20 wounds for an entire squad - go space wolf terminator squad leaders...

tetrisphreak wrote:Natfka has a Q and A blog post - i believe it's been brought up but this caught my eye:

natfka's anonymous poster wrote: Two of the recurring questions are wound allocation and how assaults out of open topped vehicles work.

Wound allocation:
choose the model closest to the firing unit. this model then takes a wound. if it passes it takes another wound, this continues until that model fails. his wounds are reduced by one. If this reduces his wounds to 0 he is removed as a casualty. you then pick the next closest model to the firing unit and repeat the process. This process is essentially the same if you have different armour saves/toughness/wargear/weapons. So it is the closest model that matters. So potentially one model could take 20 wounds for an entire squad - go space wolf terminator squad leaders...

Oh man...I'm not sure if this is a good thing, or a bad thing.
Its an improvement over its predecessor and it does make sense but still...

Does GW understand that the wound allocation rules make no sense ? lol.. come on, all weapons fire at the same time yet they ALL hit the same guy until he dies and then they magically change direction to hit the next closest guy?

What was so wrong with 4th edition where you hit everyone in range of the weapon and you just roll saves?

Just popped into my flgs on my lunch I over heard
"are you coming in Friday for you pre-order ~ we have them already but can't give them out yet."

poor guy couldn't get in before the shop closes so will have to pick it up on the day of release.. so what was the point of pre-order?

Kirasu wrote:What was so wrong with 4th edition where you hit everyone in range of the weapon and you just roll saves?

Range and rhino sniping. People positioned their models so they could only hit/see the models in your unit they wanted to kill. It was silly.

I don't think I have seen anything on doubling out models will that be in 6th ed?

pretre wrote:

Kirasu wrote:What was so wrong with 4th edition where you hit everyone in range of the weapon and you just roll saves?

Range and rhino sniping. People positioned their models so they could only hit/see the models in your unit they wanted to kill. It was silly.

\

Sadly it's been stated a few other places that models out of the firing unit's LOS and Range cannot die to ranged attacks. The rhino snipe might not be completely gone.

streamdragon wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

d-usa wrote:

streamdragon wrote:I can only assume that GW has gotten bored with the idea of the Tyranid army, and are thus urging players to find new armies to play so they can squat the army.


"Who squats the squatters?" or somesuch.

Spoiler:

This is not a serious post

When you eat the Squat, you become the Squat.

No. You are thinking of Kroot.

2004: "Where are the Squats?" "Tyranids ate them!"

2012: "Where are the Tyranids?" "Kroot ate them!"

That would actually be hilarious. A bunch of chicken aliens eating bug aliens xD
And then the Orks eat the Kroot, the SoB eats the Orks (Fried mushrooms are tasty ^^) and the DE eat the SoB (No, not that way. Bad brain). And then Slaanesh eats the DE, who is then beaten up by Khorne.
I would continue, but I ran out of ideas.

Yes I understand sniping was silly but that's an easy fix to do. This new system makes even less sense. Hit models in range, assign hits.. Done (Dont even have to limit it to LOS to avoid sniping)

MDizzle wrote:I don't think I have seen anything on doubling out models will that be in 6th ed?

Instant death is double toughness and force weapons. I've also heard that toughness modifiers (like bikes and mark of nurgle) factor in for instant death, so nothing short of s10 will double out nob bikers. <--based on memory of what i've heard, hopefully not wrong but i won't say that is 100% the truth unless rattman or someone else with a BRB confirms.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:Natfka has a Q and A blog post - i believe it's been brought up but this caught my eye:

natfka's anonymous poster wrote: Two of the recurring questions are wound allocation and how assaults out of open topped vehicles work.

Wound allocation:
choose the model closest to the firing unit. this model then takes a wound. if it passes it takes another wound, this continues until that model fails. his wounds are reduced by one. If this reduces his wounds to 0 he is removed as a casualty. you then pick the next closest model to the firing unit and repeat the process. This process is essentially the same if you have different armour saves/toughness/wargear/weapons. So it is the closest model that matters. So potentially one model could take 20 wounds for an entire squad - go space wolf terminator squad leaders...

Oh man...I'm not sure if this is a good thing, or a bad thing.
Its an improvement over its predecessor and it does make sense but still...

So you have to roll individual saves and remove wounds one at a time? This is really going to slow things down isnt it? Im thinking of the times I get like 12-15 wounds on a unit with a large mob of shoota boyz...

Kirasu wrote:Does GW understand that the wound allocation rules make no sense ? lol.. come on, all weapons fire at the same time yet they ALL hit the same guy until he dies and then they magically change direction to hit the next closest guy?

What was so wrong with 4th edition where you hit everyone in range of the weapon and you just roll saves?

I never played 4th...but after 5th i'll tell you this: I'll gladly take terminator-shield allocation vs "i've got a wauugh banner so i'm different" allocation. here's why: I can move my units to fire at the wolf guard, so that the terminator is NOT the closest model, in which case the game has an element that is within my control. In 5th, if the opponent took different smatterings of 5 point war gear (i did it with crisis suits too, i'll admit :-() i had no control over the allocation process that resulted in 5 wounds yet no dead models = no loss of unit efficiency.

So again, it might not be an ideal system but i'll take it. Plus it makes sense that overall guys in front die first. The wolf guard terminator in a unit of power armor grey hunters isn't an every game situation, and with movement can be mitigated by the opponent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CT GAMER wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:Natfka has a Q and A blog post - i believe it's been brought up but this caught my eye:

natfka's anonymous poster wrote: Two of the recurring questions are wound allocation and how assaults out of open topped vehicles work.

Wound allocation:
choose the model closest to the firing unit. this model then takes a wound. if it passes it takes another wound, this continues until that model fails. his wounds are reduced by one. If this reduces his wounds to 0 he is removed as a casualty. you then pick the next closest model to the firing unit and repeat the process. This process is essentially the same if you have different armour saves/toughness/wargear/weapons. So it is the closest model that matters. So potentially one model could take 20 wounds for an entire squad - go space wolf terminator squad leaders...

Oh man...I'm not sure if this is a good thing, or a bad thing.
Its an improvement over its predecessor and it does make sense but still...

So you have to roll individual saves and remove wounds one at a time? This is really going to slow things down isnt it? Im thinking of the times I get like 12-15 wounds on a unit with a large mob of shoota boyz...

Let's be fair - If the closest models have the same armor save you can roll them as now, and just pluck models from closest backwards.

CT GAMER wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:Natfka has a Q and A blog post - i believe it's been brought up but this caught my eye:

natfka's anonymous poster wrote: Two of the recurring questions are wound allocation and how assaults out of open topped vehicles work.

Wound allocation:
choose the model closest to the firing unit. this model then takes a wound. if it passes it takes another wound, this continues until that model fails. his wounds are reduced by one. If this reduces his wounds to 0 he is removed as a casualty. you then pick the next closest model to the firing unit and repeat the process. This process is essentially the same if you have different armour saves/toughness/wargear/weapons. So it is the closest model that matters. So potentially one model could take 20 wounds for an entire squad - go space wolf terminator squad leaders...

Oh man...I'm not sure if this is a good thing, or a bad thing.
Its an improvement over its predecessor and it does make sense but still...

So you have to roll individual saves and remove wounds one at a time? This is really going to slow things down isnt it? Im thinking of the times I get like 12-15 wounds on a unit with a large mob of shoota boyz...

Well, they do have low saves, like +6 or 4+, so it can't be that bad.
At least its a bit more straight forward this time around, as opposed to tinkering around with who-got-what piece of wargear.
Besides, it provides an emphasis on positioning and ergo tactics.

GW has pictures of a battle where IG has allied Daemons. Just saying.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/wnt/blog.jsp?pid=2800004

tetrisphreak wrote:
Let's be fair - If the closest models have the same armor save you can roll them as now, and just pluck models from closest backwards.

Yup. If my blob takes 20 wounds and it's obvious that the sargent/specials are at the back, I can roll them all in one go and just take away from the front as many models as I lost.
I actually quite like this.

Jesus that's a terrible rule.

What's so hard about:

Roll To Hit.
Count hits.
Roll To Wound.
Count Wounds.
Roll Saves.
Count failed saves.
Remove models, starting with closest. Only remove those in LOS and range to the firing unit.

I never played 4th...but after 5th i'll tell you this: I'll gladly take terminator-shield allocation vs "i've got a wauugh banner so i'm different" allocation. here's why: I can move my units to fire at the wolf guard, so that the terminator is NOT the closest model, in which case the game has an element that is within my control. In 5th, if the opponent took different smatterings of 5 point war gear (i did it with crisis suits too, i'll admit :-() i had no control over the allocation process that resulted in 5 wounds yet no dead models = no loss of unit efficiency.

I agree, 5th ed was also silly.. They could always take the good aspects for each edition to create a better version instead of constantly changing the entire thing.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:Natfka has a Q and A blog post - i believe it's been brought up but this caught my eye:

natfka's anonymous poster wrote: Two of the recurring questions are wound allocation and how assaults out of open topped vehicles work.

Wound allocation:
choose the model closest to the firing unit. this model then takes a wound. if it passes it takes another wound, this continues until that model fails. his wounds are reduced by one. If this reduces his wounds to 0 he is removed as a casualty. you then pick the next closest model to the firing unit and repeat the process. This process is essentially the same if you have different armour saves/toughness/wargear/weapons. So it is the closest model that matters. So potentially one model could take 20 wounds for an entire squad - go space wolf terminator squad leaders...

Oh man...I'm not sure if this is a good thing, or a bad thing.
Its an improvement over its predecessor and it does make sense but still...

So you have to roll individual saves and remove wounds one at a time? This is really going to slow things down isnt it? Im thinking of the times I get like 12-15 wounds on a unit with a large mob of shoota boyz...

Well, they do have low saves, like +6 or 4+, so it can't be that bad.
At least its a bit more straight forward this time around, as opposed to tinkering around with who-got-what piece of wargear.
Besides, it provides an emphasis on positioning and ergo tactics.

Im talking about when I unload a hail of shots on a unit with a large mob of 30 thirty shoota boyz: 60 shoota shots. Say I get 20-35 wounds on a power armour unit led by a model in terminator armour who is also the closest model...

potentially 35 rolls made one at a time until he dies...

This sounds glacial...

Wont we be seeing Allied models that can get 2+ armour saves (and other goodies) bought and put in units to use as wound allocation speedbumps?

... double post fix ....

CT GAMER wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:Natfka has a Q and A blog post - i believe it's been brought up but this caught my eye:

natfka's anonymous poster wrote: Two of the recurring questions are wound allocation and how assaults out of open topped vehicles work.

Wound allocation:
choose the model closest to the firing unit. this model then takes a wound. if it passes it takes another wound, this continues until that model fails. his wounds are reduced by one. If this reduces his wounds to 0 he is removed as a casualty. you then pick the next closest model to the firing unit and repeat the process. This process is essentially the same if you have different armour saves/toughness/wargear/weapons. So it is the closest model that matters. So potentially one model could take 20 wounds for an entire squad - go space wolf terminator squad leaders...

Oh man...I'm not sure if this is a good thing, or a bad thing.
Its an improvement over its predecessor and it does make sense but still...

So you have to roll individual saves and remove wounds one at a time? This is really going to slow things down isnt it? Im thinking of the times I get like 12-15 wounds on a unit with a large mob of shoota boyz...

I don't see why you couldn't just roll the dice together as long as they all have the same armor save. You then just remove a number of closest models equal to the number of saves failed (assuming obviously that they're 1 wound models).

streamdragon wrote:
2004: "Where are the Squats?" "Tyranids ate them!"

2012: "Where are the Tyranids?" "Kroot ate them!"

Tyranids get eaten by Zerg, thus sealing Andy Chambers new role.

Kirasu wrote:Does GW understand that the wound allocation rules make no sense ? lol.. come on, all weapons fire at the same time yet they ALL hit the same guy until he dies and then they magically change direction to hit the next closest guy?

It's assumed that the guy at the front is absorbing fire until he drops, and then any subsequent fire hits the guys behind him. It's only really an issue if you have a unit with a different armour save at the front though, which should only apply to things like IC's or other special leaders.

However I would like know if it's still possible to play wound games with repositioning models. Say you have a Nob with 1 wound left at the front of the unit, and next turn you shift the unit around so he's now at the back. Does this mean he stays alive the next time the unit comes under fire?

H.B.M.C. wrote:Jesus that's a terrible rule.

What's so hard about:

Roll To Hit.
Count hits.
Roll To Wound.
Count Wounds.
Roll Saves.
Count failed saves.
Remove models, starting with closest. Only remove those in LOS and range to the firing unit.

And that is how the vast majority of shooting will be resolved. Only time that this will be different is in complex units with variable saves.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Jesus that's a terrible rule.

What's so hard about:

Roll To Hit.
Count hits.
Roll To Wound.
Count Wounds.
Roll Saves.
Count failed saves.
Remove models, starting with closest. Only remove those in LOS and range to the firing unit.

That IS what the rules are. You've just re-worded them

CT GAMER wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:Natfka has a Q and A blog post - i believe it's been brought up but this caught my eye:

natfka's anonymous poster wrote: Two of the recurring questions are wound allocation and how assaults out of open topped vehicles work.

Wound allocation:
choose the model closest to the firing unit. this model then takes a wound. if it passes it takes another wound, this continues until that model fails. his wounds are reduced by one. If this reduces his wounds to 0 he is removed as a casualty. you then pick the next closest model to the firing unit and repeat the process. This process is essentially the same if you have different armour saves/toughness/wargear/weapons. So it is the closest model that matters. So potentially one model could take 20 wounds for an entire squad - go space wolf terminator squad leaders...

Oh man...I'm not sure if this is a good thing, or a bad thing.
Its an improvement over its predecessor and it does make sense but still...

So you have to roll individual saves and remove wounds one at a time? This is really going to slow things down isnt it? Im thinking of the times I get like 12-15 wounds on a unit with a large mob of shoota boyz...

Well, they do have low saves, like +6 or 4+, so it can't be that bad.
At least its a bit more straight forward this time around, as opposed to tinkering around with who-got-what piece of wargear.
Besides, it provides an emphasis on positioning and ergo tactics.

Im talking about when I unload a hail of shots on a unit with a large mob of 30 thirty shoota boyz: 60 shoota shots. Say I get 20-35 wounds on a power armour unit led by a model in terminator armour...

potentially 35 rolls made one at a time until he dies...

This sounds glacial...

Derp, sorry. I misunderstood
Yeah, that does sound time consuming. Still, at least the high (or is it low? You know...bad at killing) AP weapons can actually do something other than lowering the probability of a model getting removed.
And think about, there is now a reason to flank the enemy, as then you can target the weaker elements of a squad. Actual tactics ^^.

warboss wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:Natfka has a Q and A blog post - i believe it's been brought up but this caught my eye:

natfka's anonymous poster wrote: Two of the recurring questions are wound allocation and how assaults out of open topped vehicles work.

Wound allocation:
choose the model closest to the firing unit. this model then takes a wound. if it passes it takes another wound, this continues until that model fails. his wounds are reduced by one. If this reduces his wounds to 0 he is removed as a casualty. you then pick the next closest model to the firing unit and repeat the process. This process is essentially the same if you have different armour saves/toughness/wargear/weapons. So it is the closest model that matters. So potentially one model could take 20 wounds for an entire squad - go space wolf terminator squad leaders...

Oh man...I'm not sure if this is a good thing, or a bad thing.
Its an improvement over its predecessor and it does make sense but still...

So you have to roll individual saves and remove wounds one at a time? This is really going to slow things down isnt it? Im thinking of the times I get like 12-15 wounds on a unit with a large mob of shoota boyz...

I don't see why you couldn't just roll the dice together as long as they all have the same armor save. You then just remove a number of closest models equal to the number of saves failed (assuming obviously that they're 1 wound models).

See my follow up ost, that wasnt what i was referring to.

xttz wrote:
It's assumed that the guy at the front is absorbing fire until he drops, and then any subsequent fire hits the guys behind him. It's only really an issue if you have a unit with a different armour save at the front though, which should only apply to things like IC's or other special leaders.

However I would like know if it's still possible to play wound games with repositioning models. Say you have a Nob with 1 wound left at the front of the unit, and next turn you shift the unit around so he's now at the back. Does this mean he stays alive the next time the unit comes under fire?

I'd guess so. But that sort of scenario is probably pretty rare. If you can only take one wound from a round of shooting, you deserve to lose anyway

d-usa wrote:And that is how the vast majority of shooting will be resolved. Only time that this will be different is in complex units with variable saves.

Correct, if all saves are the same there's no difference between doing them one at a time or just rolling everything and removing the closest guys.

Wolf Scouts sneaking in the enemy zone and snipig the leader hiding there? Almost like it is supposed to work!

warboss wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:Natfka has a Q and A blog post - i believe it's been brought up but this caught my eye:

natfka's anonymous poster wrote: Two of the recurring questions are wound allocation and how assaults out of open topped vehicles work.

Wound allocation:
choose the model closest to the firing unit. this model then takes a wound. if it passes it takes another wound, this continues until that model fails. his wounds are reduced by one. If this reduces his wounds to 0 he is removed as a casualty. you then pick the next closest model to the firing unit and repeat the process. This process is essentially the same if you have different armour saves/toughness/wargear/weapons. So it is the closest model that matters. So potentially one model could take 20 wounds for an entire squad - go space wolf terminator squad leaders...

Oh man...I'm not sure if this is a good thing, or a bad thing.
Its an improvement over its predecessor and it does make sense but still...

So you have to roll individual saves and remove wounds one at a time? This is really going to slow things down isnt it? Im thinking of the times I get like 12-15 wounds on a unit with a large mob of shoota boyz...

I don't see why you couldn't just roll the dice together as long as they all have the same armor save. You then just remove a number of closest models equal to the number of saves failed (assuming obviously that they're 1 wound models).

Oh yeah, that works perfectly.

Joey wrote:That IS what the rules are. You've just re-worded them

Are you just blind or... blind? Was this not just posted:

Wound allocation:
choose the model closest to the firing unit. this model then takes a wound. if it passes it takes another wound, this continues until that model fails. his wounds are reduced by one. If this reduces his wounds to 0 he is removed as a casualty. you then pick the next closest model to the firing unit and repeat the process. This process is essentially the same if you have different armour saves/toughness/wargear/weapons. So it is the closest model that matters. So potentially one model could take 20 wounds for an entire squad - go space wolf terminator squad leaders...

Did ya miss that Joey? Sure seems like you did.

reds8n wrote: The changes to Fleet would seem to hurt orks with regards to their wwaarrgghh ( sp ..? I more or less know how to spell, but am unsure how to [b]stop]/b] spelling it ) right ?

Shrike seems fairly pointless too now I guess ?

Pretty much, yes. Waaagh! does give orks a little reliability, and it does at least effect the Dakkajets in a meaningful way. Overall, though, I'd rather have 6 + 1d6 than 2d6 reroll the lowest die. If I've done my probability stuff right (which I probably haven't since it's been 10 years...) there's only a roughly 30% change of getting at least one 6 on 2d6, even with the reroll.

No idea on Shrikes, only because I never used them in the first place.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Joey wrote:That IS what the rules are. You've just re-worded them

Are you just blind or... blind? Was this not just posted:

Wound allocation:
choose the model closest to the firing unit. this model then takes a wound. if it passes it takes another wound, this continues until that model fails. his wounds are reduced by one. If this reduces his wounds to 0 he is removed as a casualty. you then pick the next closest model to the firing unit and repeat the process. This process is essentially the same if you have different armour saves/toughness/wargear/weapons. So it is the closest model that matters. So potentially one model could take 20 wounds for an entire squad - go space wolf terminator squad leaders...

Did ya miss that Joey? Sure seems like you did.

Rolling them all at once is the same as doing that, if they have the same armour save. Think...

No surprise at all that people with poor reading comprehension are the first to call "broken".

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Joey wrote:That IS what the rules are. You've just re-worded them

Are you just blind or... blind? Was this not just posted:

Wound allocation:
choose the model closest to the firing unit. this model then takes a wound. if it passes it takes another wound, this continues until that model fails. his wounds are reduced by one. If this reduces his wounds to 0 he is removed as a casualty. you then pick the next closest model to the firing unit and repeat the process. This process is essentially the same if you have different armour saves/toughness/wargear/weapons. So it is the closest model that matters. So potentially one model could take 20 wounds for an entire squad - go space wolf terminator squad leaders...

Did ya miss that Joey? Sure seems like you did.

So you can roll them all together, then remove wounds for wound/model for model starting with the closest. Only exception will be guys with different saves.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Joey wrote:That IS what the rules are. You've just re-worded them

Are you just blind or... blind? Was this not just posted:

Wound allocation:
choose the model closest to the firing unit. this model then takes a wound. if it passes it takes another wound, this continues until that model fails. his wounds are reduced by one. If this reduces his wounds to 0 he is removed as a casualty. you then pick the next closest model to the firing unit and repeat the process. This process is essentially the same if you have different armour saves/toughness/wargear/weapons. So it is the closest model that matters. So potentially one model could take 20 wounds for an entire squad - go space wolf terminator squad leaders...

Did ya miss that Joey? Sure seems like you did.

Rolling saves all at once achieves the same result as long as the unit's armor/cover/best save is all identical. In cases with characters getting a Look out! roll, or having a better/worse save than the rest of the group, you've gotta slow down and resolve that particular model before moving on.

However, compared to the wound allocation of now, taking time to count men in a squad, count out their wargear differences, and roll each model separately does take longer than i presume this will.

Wound allocation closest until it fails?


Sem. Weave/Phase Shifter Necron Lord leading the way--with an attached Chron. Cryptek.



If the Barges get the chariot rules, it makes Trazyn the Troll more interesting as well.

pretre wrote:

Just Dave wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:

Mandor wrote:* Special characters can be used as allies

Eldrad in every army!

Or Imotekh, with Night Fight.
Or Mephiston, with Sanguinary Priests.
Or Bjorn, with re-rolling 1st turn.

Should Calgar's god of war work with other armies, that could be 'interesting'...

Guide and Fortune only work on Eldar. Calgar's God of War requires combat tactics.

A) What unit would you possibly want to fortune even more than your footslogging seer council? (assuming you bring one as allies.)
B) Assuming you bring Eldrad and about 8 warlocks you can have Fortune, Doom, 3 rolls from Eldrad on the psyker table (by chucking guide, mind war, and eldritch blast) plus 2 destructor warlocks, 1 enhance, 1 embolden, then buy four more 5 point emboldens for another 4 rolls on the table. Eldrad + Seer Council will be making a guest appearence in a lot of armies.

Also, I like the idea of infiltrating a webway portal with a cheap squad of mandrakes. Especially if allies can enter them as well. It doesnt say Dark Eldar, just reserves in general enter there.

I'm also liking the look of Eldar Vibro Cannons; 3 Auto glances at 36 inches for 150 points.

Joey wrote:Rolling them all at once is the same as doing that, if they have the same armour save. Think...

But the point I think HMBC is making is that it is needlessly complicated if they DON'T have the same saves. Which, lets face it, is extremely common.

I was pretty excited about 6E till I saw that Nids can't ally with anyone. It would have been really nice to use this is my ork army...

streamdragon wrote:

reds8n wrote: The changes to Fleet would seem to hurt orks with regards to their wwaarrgghh ( sp ..? I more or less know how to spell, but am unsure how to [b]stop]/b] spelling it ) right ?

Shrike seems fairly pointless too now I guess ?

Pretty much, yes. Waaagh! does give orks a little reliability, and it does at least effect the Dakkajets in a meaningful way. Overall, though, I'd rather have 6 + 1d6 than 2d6 reroll the lowest die. If I've done my probability stuff right (which I probably haven't since it's been 10 years...) there's only a roughly 30% change of getting at least one 6 on 2d6, even with the reroll.

No idea on Shrikes, only because I never used them in the first place.

Shrike is the chapter master of the Raven Guard chapter - he lets all space marines exchange combat tactics for the fleet USR. Also he has a jump pack.

Fleet isn't useless though - if you're not going to charge having a re-roll to your run move is helpful as well.

Sorry, I know we're on wound allocation now, and I have missed most of the psychic power questions, but I couldn't find the specific answer I was looking for so I apologize if it's a repeat -

Concerning Perils of the Warp, is there any point where a psyker will not gain the benefit of a dedicated save to negate perils?

example -

Eldrad casts fortune, rolls triple sixes thanks to his runes. In fifth edition, he would then have a chance to negate this with his Ghost helm (Specifically worded to negate perils of the warp on a roll of 3+). Does this remain true in sixth?


Reason I ask, is that someone told me today that a certain level of psyker can not stop a perils, even with specific wargear, to represent their flux on the warp? Seemed like a load to me, but I wanted to ask just to be sure!

Holy crap, I just realized something.
If I were to put a Necron Lord with res orb, a phase shifter and sempiternal weave in a unit of shield guard, you have pretty much the ultimate bullet shield.
Small arms? 2+ saves. Heavy weapons? 3+ saves? You finally killed him? Good job! Now he has a 50% chance of coming back! He's dead now? Ok, have fun with the T5 Necrons with 3+/4++ saves


For extra lulz, put him in a 20 man warrior squad that has a couple of GA behind them.

streamdragon wrote:

reds8n wrote: Shrike seems fairly pointless too now I guess ?

No idea on Shrikes, only because I never used them in the first place.

They *could* have alot of potential with Boneswords. Hammer of Wrath could give a free I10 hit that ignores armour, followed by them attacking at normal init as apparently jump infantry ignore terrain on charging.

But that's all depending on how the FAQ comes down. The current RAW text says they can, but that's never stopped GW nerfing Tyranids before.

Thunderfrog wrote:

A) What unit would you possibly want to fortune even more than your footslogging seer council? (assuming you bring one as allies.)
B) Assuming you bring Eldrad and about 8 warlocks you can have Fortune, Doom, 3 rolls from Eldrad on the psyker table (by chucking guide, mind war, and eldritch blast) plus 2 destructor warlocks, 1 enhance, 1 embolden, then buy four more 5 point emboldens for another 4 rolls on the table. Eldrad + Seer Council will be making a guest appearence in a lot of armies.

Eldrad must dump ALL his powers to roll 4 times on either of the psychic lores Eldar have available. Same as any other psyker wishing to 'swap out'

UltraPrime wrote:

Joey wrote:Rolling them all at once is the same as doing that, if they have the same armour save. Think...

But the point I think HMBC is making is that it is needlessly complicated if they DON'T have the same saves. Which, lets face it, is extremely common.

If they have different saves, then we were playing wound allocation games anyway and it would take just as long.

xttz wrote:

streamdragon wrote:

reds8n wrote: Shrike seems fairly pointless too now I guess ?

No idea on Shrikes, only because I never used them in the first place.

They *could* have alot of potential with Boneswords. Hammer of Wrath could give a free I10 hit that ignores armour, followed by them attacking at normal init as apparently jump infantry ignore terrain on charging.

But that's all depending on how the FAQ comes down. The current RAW text says they can, but that's never stopped GW nerfing Tyranids before.

Hammer of Wrath is a hit per model at I10, using their strength but AP-, so bonesword shrikes wouldn't ignore armor at I10. They'll ignore armor at I5, though.

streamdragon wrote:

gorgon wrote:

GoDz BuZzSaW wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

RandyMcStab wrote:

DarkStarSabre wrote:

Praxiss wrote:Why all the panic about Allies? In theory it buffs everyone? Every army has the option to take something they didn't have before/dont have in their current Codex.

Yep. Tyranids totally got buffed by their ability to take Sweet FA.

That's because Nids are already overpowered....*ducks*

I think the Allies idea is nice and fluffy but in any sort of 'Friendly' game nothing was stopping you from doing this already and in 'Competitive' games people will use it to be dicks...

I totally agree, Nids needed a nerf after dominating an edition where Vehicles were key to success in most games.

Oh wait, They don't have any.

Actually, the more I theoryhammer it, the more I think the hull points rule is really going to boost Tyranids.

While the hull points are definitely a nerf to vehicles, overall I don't think Tyranids are gaining any ground. S8 weapons will still insta-gib warriors, raveners, shrikes, Doom, zoanthropes, venomthropes, biovores, lictors, and pyrovores (lol, like people take pyrovores...). While I agree that vehicles were tough for Tyranids to deal with, they were far from the only issue that nids had in 5th and I think most of those issues remain unchanged, along with a few new issues.

I don't know if I would have put IK in the top 5 issues for Tyranids in 5th edition before GK came along. I mean, if you can't get any mileage out of units like Raveners, you're doing something wrong.

The primary problem in my experience was the difficulty they had reliably opening vehicles, and how that drastically affected army construction. If all the Tyranid anti-infantry S4-S6 firepower can more reliably wreck light transports (and the math says it's a big improvement), it's a real gain for the army. I had too many games in which I just needed one or two transports to crack so I could get stuck in and start getting traction. Hull points might be enough to provide that extra boost. Ultimately I think we'll see transport spam decline drastically, which will also push the metagame into a friendlier position for the Tyranid army.

I also think we need to wait to see the FAQ. Tyranids made huge gains in the pancake edition, but a decent chunk of that was due to changes in their FAQ. I'm not exactly optimistic that this will happen, given the way that GW left most of the best stuff from pancake on the cutting room floor. But it's still possible.

We also really do need to keep in mind that improvements aren't always obvious. The consensus on Dakka (including some good players) was that 4th edition Tyranids were uncompetitive. That is, until people started figuring out Nidzilla.

d-usa wrote:If they have different saves, then we were playing wound allocation games anyway and it would take just as long.

Not really. The amount of ways you can get different saves in a single unit are usually few and far between, and getting more than two different types of saves is even harder. In fact, I don't know why this has become so difficult. The process was easy even back in 3rd Ed. Unit has differing saves? Ok. Allocate hits before rolling To Wound. So if you got 20 hits on a unit with 10 models and there are 7 models with a 4+ save and 3 models with a 3+ save, you allocate 6 hits to the 3+ saves and the remaining 14 to the 4+ saves, then roll to wound for each group, then roll saves on those wounds, then remove models.

Not rocket surgery.

tetrisphreak wrote:

streamdragon wrote:

reds8n wrote: The changes to Fleet would seem to hurt orks with regards to their wwaarrgghh ( sp ..? I more or less know how to spell, but am unsure how to [b]stop]/b] spelling it ) right ?

Shrike seems fairly pointless too now I guess ?

Pretty much, yes. Waaagh! does give orks a little reliability, and it does at least effect the Dakkajets in a meaningful way. Overall, though, I'd rather have 6 + 1d6 than 2d6 reroll the lowest die. If I've done my probability stuff right (which I probably haven't since it's been 10 years...) there's only a roughly 30% change of getting at least one 6 on 2d6, even with the reroll.

No idea on Shrikes, only because I never used them in the first place.

Shrike is the chapter master of the Raven Guard chapter - he lets all space marines exchange combat tactics for the fleet USR. Also he has a jump pack.

Fleet isn't useless though - if you're not going to charge having a re-roll to your run move is helpful as well.

He was talking about Tyranid Shrikes....

Red Corsair wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:

streamdragon wrote:

reds8n wrote: The changes to Fleet would seem to hurt orks with regards to their wwaarrgghh ( sp ..? I more or less know how to spell, but am unsure how to [b]stop]/b] spelling it ) right ?

Shrike seems fairly pointless too now I guess ?

Pretty much, yes. Waaagh! does give orks a little reliability, and it does at least effect the Dakkajets in a meaningful way. Overall, though, I'd rather have 6 + 1d6 than 2d6 reroll the lowest die. If I've done my probability stuff right (which I probably haven't since it's been 10 years...) there's only a roughly 30% change of getting at least one 6 on 2d6, even with the reroll.

No idea on Shrikes, only because I never used them in the first place.

Shrike is the chapter master of the Raven Guard chapter - he lets all space marines exchange combat tactics for the fleet USR. Also he has a jump pack.

Fleet isn't useless though - if you're not going to charge having a re-roll to your run move is helpful as well.

He was talking about Tyranid Shrikes....

Kay'van shrike has a jump pack AND fleet. shrikes do not have fleet. I am willing to bet he meant the chapter master, not the winged warriors.

100%, what made Tyranids, I think, better in Pancake edition was the Reserve rules and change to ID.

Hands down. Actually getting to play models (Lictors?!) for Reserves and Warriors/Shrikes/Raveners/Lictors/Ect are not just being removed by single shots that can be spammed.

Reserves are a 3+ on turn 2, 3+ on turn 3, and automatic on turn 4. Nice changes there, hive commander is a great upgrade now!

Here is a list of CC weapons and their AP values:

Chainfist AP2
chainsword AP-
Eviscerator AP2
Heavy Chainsword AP5
Dreadnought CCW AP2
forcesword AP3
force axe AP2
Force stave AP4
Lightning Claw AP3
Power Klaw AP2
Power fist AP2
Power sword AP3
Power axe AP2
Power maul AP4
Power lance AP3/4 (first turn/subsequent)
Thunder hammer AP 2
Witchblades AP-

Power swords do not provide 5++

Power Mauls are AP4? Looks like I'm snicking off some CSM termi weapons this week and replacing them...

Still no Chainaxes?!Meh

Who the heck has Heavy Chainswords?

Berserkers in the next CSM Codex, I guess?

One more bit - the QnA poster from Faeit 212 says that units coming in from reserve may not charge, nor use powers/abilities that activate 'at the start of the turn'. He could not find an exception for outflanking units.

tetrisphreak wrote:Reserves are a 3+ on turn 2, 3+ on turn 3, and automatic on turn 4. Nice changes there, hive commander is a great upgrade now!

Here is a list of CC weapons and their AP values:

Chainfist AP2
chainsword AP-
Eviscerator AP2
Heavy Chainsword AP5
Dreadnought CCW AP2
forcesword AP3
force axe AP2
Force stave AP4
Lightning Claw AP3
Power Klaw AP2
Power fist AP2
Power sword AP3
Power axe AP2
Power maul AP4
Power lance AP3/4 (first turn/subsequent)
Thunder hammer AP 2
Witchblades AP-

Power swords do not provide 5++

Awww...So my hyperphase swords can't chew up termies then.
Looks like scytheguard has a use after all other than vehicle busting.

Vaktathi wrote:Power Mauls are AP4? Looks like I'm snicking off some CSM termi weapons this week and replacing them...

Dude, I have a unit of 9 all with Mauls... metal ones

tetrisphreak wrote:

Kay'van shrike has a jump pack AND fleet. shrikes do not have fleet. I am willing to bet he meant the chapter master, not the winged warriors.

Indeed, sorry for the confusion.

.. I guess if you can still outflank with infiltrate he's not too bad perhaps.

Vaktathi wrote:Power Mauls are AP4? Looks like I'm snicking off some CSM termi weapons this week and replacing them...

AP 4 but +2 Strength and strike at initiative.

Just sayin'....

lord_blackfang wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:Power Mauls are AP4? Looks like I'm snicking off some CSM termi weapons this week and replacing them...

Dude, I have a unit of 9 all with Mauls... metal ones

Hey, my 10 point Rough Riders sympathise.
No, wait

... it looks like the much touted AP to CC weapons is nothing but another nerf to CC. Power weapons lost their power, and everything else is still AP useless. There isn't a font large enough to express the magnitude and the sadness of my /sigh. Why do you hate CC armies Gw? Do you just want me to rebase my orks and de on squares?

And the wound allocation brings up more shenanigans. Say I fire 16 poison shots and two blasters into a wolfguard squad with one terminal and the rest in power armor. Does the termie get to eat the poison first (rolling one dice at a time... /sigh)? Or do I get lucky and he eats.the blasters first so I can resolve my small arms fire against the 3 ups?

tetrisphreak wrote:

Thunderfrog wrote:

A) What unit would you possibly want to fortune even more than your footslogging seer council? (assuming you bring one as allies.)
B) Assuming you bring Eldrad and about 8 warlocks you can have Fortune, Doom, 3 rolls from Eldrad on the psyker table (by chucking guide, mind war, and eldritch blast) plus 2 destructor warlocks, 1 enhance, 1 embolden, then buy four more 5 point emboldens for another 4 rolls on the table. Eldrad + Seer Council will be making a guest appearence in a lot of armies.

Eldrad must dump ALL his powers to roll 4 times on either of the psychic lores Eldar have available. Same as any other psyker wishing to 'swap out'

And warlocks don't get to swap for powers on the table. Just farseers.

tetrisphreak wrote:Shrike is the chapter master of the Raven Guard chapter - he lets all space marines exchange combat tactics for the fleet USR. Also he has a jump pack.

Fleet isn't useless though - if you're not going to charge having a re-roll to your run move is helpful as well.

Hah, whoops! I thought he said Shrikes (as in the Nid FA choice), not Shrike...

And true, Fleet isn't useless, but Waaagh! as an ability is certainly far less useful than it was. It used to reliably give you the ability to run and still charge, which was far more useful when you were almost, but not quite sure, you had that predefined 6" charge range. Now you get the reroll, true, but it's still not a guarantee of success.

xttz wrote:

streamdragon wrote:

reds8n wrote: Shrike seems fairly pointless too now I guess ?

No idea on Shrikes, only because I never used them in the first place.

They *could* have alot of potential with Boneswords. Hammer of Wrath could give a free I10 hit that ignores armour, followed by them attacking at normal init as apparently jump infantry ignore terrain on charging.
But that's all depending on how the FAQ comes down. The current RAW text says they can, but that's never stopped GW nerfing Tyranids before.

Hah, I wasn't the only one! Shrikes I can see some use for, if only because it gives you a synapse group that can get stuck in quickly to support your gaunts that tend to range ahead of the rest of your battle group. They'll still get smacked around by power fists and the like, and with no characters in our units we won't be able to challenge to mitigate the damage that they do, but enh... not really any different in that regard.

Also indications are that...

tetrisphreak wrote:

xttz wrote:

streamdragon wrote:

reds8n wrote: Shrike seems fairly pointless too now I guess ?

No idea on Shrikes, only because I never used them in the first place.

They *could* have alot of potential with Boneswords. Hammer of Wrath could give a free I10 hit that ignores armour, followed by them attacking at normal init as apparently jump infantry ignore terrain on charging.

But that's all depending on how the FAQ comes down. The current RAW text says they can, but that's never stopped GW nerfing Tyranids before.

Hammer of Wrath is a hit per model at I10, using their strength but AP-, so bonesword shrikes wouldn't ignore armor at I10. They'll ignore armor at I5, though.

What he said.

gorgon wrote:I don't know if I would have put IK in the top 5 issues for Tyranids in 5th edition before GK came along. I mean, if you can't get any mileage out of units like Raveners, you're doing something wrong.

The primary problem in my experience was the difficulty they had reliably opening vehicles, and how that drastically affected army construction. If all the Tyranid anti-infantry S4-S6 firepower can more reliably wreck light transports (and the math says it's a big improvement), it's a real gain for the army. I had too many games in which I just needed one or two transports to crack so I could get stuck in and start getting traction. Hull points might be enough to provide that extra boost. Ultimately I think we'll see transport spam decline drastically, which will also push the metagame into a friendlier position for the Tyranid army.

I also think we need to wait to see the FAQ. Tyranids made huge gains in the pancake edition, but a decent chunk of that was due to changes in their FAQ. I'm not exactly optimistic that this will happen, given the way that GW left most of the best stuff from pancake on the cutting room floor. But it's still possible.

We also really do need to keep in mind that improvements aren't always obvious. The consensus on Dakka (including some good players) was that 4th edition Tyranids were uncompetitive. That is, until people started figuring out Nidzilla.

My experience is apparently very different than yours, as my regular opponents rarely fielded the parking lots that I understand plagued the tournament scene (which I avoid like the plague...). For instance, my group rarely uses special characters, but in a game where my opponent and I decided to break that mold, my Doom of Malan'Tai was one shotted by a krak missle before he even got to go. True, the MCs are safe for the most part but things like melee warriors (which I love the concept of) are nigh worthless with missles/pulse lasers/power fists around. Raveners, as a fast moving threat, are constantly eating krak salvos because opponent's realize they have time before the MCs hit. I agree that vehicles were and are a major issue for Nids, since our ranged anti-tank is weak and after popping a transport in melee we tend to get shredded by said transports occupants. I just don't see that single issue being much of a boost to nids.

I agree that the FAQ will have a lot of 'make or break' answers in it. 100% agree. But I don't really forsee a lot of those answers dealing with issues that are at the heart of the codex, rather than in the rules of the edition. (Lack of any invulnerable save on HQs, for instance.) Hopefully at the very least, they'll reverse the idiotic decision not to let a Prime join a unit of warriors in their Spore though...

And honestly, I'm not sure how anyone could have written 4th edition nid book off. Not in the slightest. Even without Nidzilla, that book was competitive and, at the very least, fun to use. When my gaunts were all stolen I bought close to 200 more. Then the current codex released, and they've been on their sprues gather dust ever since.

Are you implying that the game devs said "Wait a second! It makes no sense for a terminator to go down against an elf whip! We better nerf all power weapons next edition in order to amend this gaping plot hole."

Oh you would be surprised.
The very same morons gave us things that nobody will ever, for no reason what so ever, use. (like psilencers, legion of the damned, jump vanguards etc etc).


Anyone know how overwatch and snap fire works regarding:
1: Twin linked weapons
2: Mastercrafted weapons

Also under force weapons it says that the GK codex should treat their as it says in the codex so how is a warding stave treated? It is AP4 like in the rulebook or does it work like a powerweapon since the rule book refers to the GK codex?

It would be weird if the warding stave, that already is overpriced not only looses its AP2 but also its AP3. Not worth taking and will end up in the big pile of dung along things like psilencers but then again it´s the GW dev team we are talking about so whats new.

Goresaw wrote:... it looks like the much touted AP to CC weapons is nothing but another nerf to CC. Power weapons lost their power, and everything else is still AP useless. There isn't a font large enough to express the magnitude and the sadness of my /sigh. Why do you hate CC armies Gw? Do you just want me to debase my orks and de on squares?

And the wound allocation brings up more shenanigans. Say I fire 16 poison shots and two blasters into a wolfguard squad with one terminal and the rest in power armor. Does the terminal get to eat the poison first (rolling one dice at a time... /sigh)? Or do I get lucky and he eats.the blasters first so I can resolve my small arms fire against the 3 ups?

Why didn't you position yourself so that you were closer to the 3+ models? Dark Eldar are known for great speed and maneuverability. Failing to do so makes you a bad player, actually. Not bad rules.

tetrisphreak wrote:One more bit - the QnA poster from Faeit 212 says that units coming in from reserve may not charge, nor use powers/abilities that activate 'at the start of the turn'. He could not find an exception for outflanking units.

The tyranid nerfs continue! I think someone in the Ivory Tower of GW HQ must have gotten beat over and over again by nids and deemed them too powerful.

lord_blackfang wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:Power Mauls are AP4? Looks like I'm snicking off some CSM termi weapons this week and replacing them...

Dude, I have a unit of 9 all with Mauls... metal ones

And that's why I'm glad I have over 60 of the buggers for my Extinction Angels. Time to rejig squads for specific purposes!

Pyriel- wrote:Anyone know how overwatch and snap fire works regarding:
1: Twin linked weapons
2: Mastercrafted weapons

Also under force weapons it says that the GK codex should treat their as it says in the codex so how is a warding stave treated? It is AP4 like in the rulebook or does it work like a powerweapon since the rule book refers to the GK codex?

It would be weird if the warding stave, that already is overpriced not only looses its AP2 but also its AP3. Not worth taking and will end up in the big pile of dung along things like psilencers but then again it´s the GW dev team we are talking about so whats new.

In one of the videos, one of the GW folks mentions twin-linked weapons being able to reroll, even during BS1 snapfire shots. I assume Mastercrafted will work similarly, but you'll have to wait for the FAQs to be 100% sure.

And to the second, I suspect that the FAQ will answer your question as well. Sorry :-\

Pyriel- wrote:Also under force weapons it says that the GK codex should treat their as it says in the codex so how is a warding stave treated? It is AP4 like in the rulebook or does it work like a powerweapon since the rule book refers to the GK codex?

It would be weird if the warding stave, that already is overpriced not only looses its AP2 but also its AP3. Not worth taking and will end up in the big pile of dung along things like psilencers but then again it´s the GW dev team we are talking about so whats new.

Somebody is grumpy this morning.

Warding Stave would be a non-standard power weapon, presumably. The book lists those as counting as Power Swords (so AP3).

Pyriel- wrote:

Anyone know how overwatch and snap fire works regarding:
1: Twin linked weapons
2: Mastercrafted weapons

Also under force weapons it says that the GK codex should treat their as it says in the codex so how is a warding stave treated? It is AP4 like in the rulebook or does it work like a powerweapon since the rule book refers to the GK codex?

1 & 2.) Re-roll as normal, hit on 6's

warding stave: you get a 2+ INVULNERABLE save in cc. That alone is worth the upgrade.

Double post fun

Vaktathi wrote:Power Mauls are AP4? Looks like I'm snicking off some CSM termi weapons this week and replacing them...

...and I seriously like how my termis look as is. That's why adding rules for different types of power weapons is really getting under my skin. I haven't played yet, but it seems completely unnecessary... did anyone have complaints about how power weapons worked before?

tetrisphreak wrote:

Goresaw wrote:... it looks like the much touted AP to CC weapons is nothing but another nerf to CC. Power weapons lost their power, and everything else is still AP useless. There isn't a font large enough to express the magnitude and the sadness of my /sigh. Why do you hate CC armies Gw? Do you just want me to debase my orks and de on squares?

And the wound allocation brings up more shenanigans. Say I fire 16 poison shots and two blasters into a wolfguard squad with one terminal and the rest in power armor. Does the terminal get to eat the poison first (rolling one dice at a time... /sigh)? Or do I get lucky and he eats.the blasters first so I can resolve my small arms fire against the 3 ups?

Why didn't you position yourself so that you were closer to the 3+ models? Dark Eldar are known for great speed and maneuverability. Failing to do so makes you a bad player, actually. Not bad rules.

I believe someone mentioned that you have to take the saves in AP order, lowest to highest. So that terminator armour would eat the blaster, if they fail their 5++ then one of the goons also gets blasted before the rest of the unit eats splinter fire. Obviously if they make their 5++ then they have to take another hit from the blaster before absorbing splinter fire.

Goresaw wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:

Goresaw wrote:... it looks like the much touted AP to CC weapons is nothing but another nerf to CC. Power weapons lost their power, and everything else is still AP useless. There isn't a font large enough to express the magnitude and the sadness of my /sigh. Why do you hate CC armies Gw? Do you just want me to debase my orks and de on squares?

And the wound allocation brings up more shenanigans. Say I fire 16 poison shots and two blasters into a wolfguard squad with one terminal and the rest in power armor. Does the terminal get to eat the poison first (rolling one dice at a time... /sigh)? Or do I get lucky and he eats.the blasters first so I can resolve my small arms fire against the 3 ups?

Why didn't you position yourself so that you were closer to the 3+ models? Dark Eldar are known for great speed and maneuverability. Failing to do so makes you a bad player, actually. Not bad rules.

Wow, nice unwarranted attack on my generalship.

You miss the point. I mean in general. Replace DE with a tac squad with a Las cannon, or IG vets with a lmelta guns. The point remains.

Yeah i re-read that and it came off pretty accusatory. Sorry. Point being - tactics will be involved on both sides of the table. Snipe off that wolf guard with a lascannon razorback before shooting with the tactical squad. Take a meltagun unit/plasmagun unit and shoot the terminator, then let the thunderfire cannon rain down. Or just shoot the squad as it stands, and be glad that his 2+ armor is forced to take saves until it dies. his power armor guys will be easier to kill next round.

again, sorry for the dig earlier. I just really subconsciously hate DE thanks to one of our local players who uses them....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gorechild wrote:
I believe someone mentioned that you have to take the saves in AP order, lowest to highest. So that terminator armour would eat the blaster, if they fail their 5++ then one of the goons also gets blasted before the rest of the unit eats splinter fire. Obviously if they make their 5++ then they have to take another hit from the blaster before absorbing splinter fire.

That is something I had NOT heard yet. I like it...

With the new Wound Allocation I also see a lot of Storm Shields for Wolf Guard. I also see some very interesting “Wound Shenanigans”. Take some would scouts and arrange your front line like this.

Wolf Scouts without Special Stuff
WGBL or Wolf Priest: Runic Armor and two Wolves [On Point]
Wolf Guard with Storm Shield
Rest of the Wolf Scouts

Anpu42 wrote:With the new Wound Allocation I also see a lot of Storm Shields for Wolf Guard. I also see some very interesting “Wound Shenanigans”. Take some would scouts and arrange your front line like this.

Wolf Scouts without Special Stuff
WGBL or Wolf Priest: Runic Armor and two Wolves [On Point]
Wolf Guard with Storm Shield
Rest of the Wolf Scouts

Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait! The guys with SHIELDS & tougher armor actually walk in front of the rest of the squad?? Preposterous!

LOL i like the idea. it's 'cinematic' so that seems to be the buzz word for 6th.

Anpu42 wrote:With the new Wound Allocation I also see a lot of Storm Shields for Wolf Guard. I also see some very interesting “Wound Shenanigans”. Take some would scouts and arrange your front line like this.

Wolf Scouts without Special Stuff
WGBL or Wolf Priest: Runic Armor and two Wolves [On Point]
Wolf Guard with Storm Shield
Rest of the Wolf Scouts

I have no idea how many armies can take mixed units like that. Guard can't, the SM codexes that I know can't (SM, BA, GK, DA).
How many points are you paying for those ablative wounds?

You know what really gets me about this stupid new wound method we have in 6th edition, is that the leaked rules had a perfectly good solution to complex multiwound units by including a part in the player turn where you consolidated your partially wounded models into wholly unwounded and wholly dead models, such that you could never end a player turn with more than 1 partially wounded model in any unit, bam problem solved, and it takes so little extra time "I'm pulling these 3 nobs out of the squad, these 3 over here are back to full wounds".

Bam, suddenly you don't have these silly deathstar units exploiting the multiwound allocation mechanics to live far longer than they were ever meant to.

Instead, I think they have almost ruined the ruleset with these new closest first mechanics which as soon as you mix armour slows the game down drastically, not to mention it still requires (from the sounds of things) a forgiving outlook on realism because my understanding is it still will use majority toughness, not to mention it really isn't that realistic or even cinematic for the closest guy to ALWAYS be the first one to die.

More than anything else, more than arguments over tanks being too weak, more than debates about flyers being too strong, more than discussions of the relative merits and flaws of the allies rules, this is where Games Workshop have failed in implementing 6th edition.

Joey wrote:

Anpu42 wrote:With the new Wound Allocation I also see a lot of Storm Shields for Wolf Guard. I also see some very interesting “Wound Shenanigans”. Take some would scouts and arrange your front line like this.

Wolf Scouts without Special Stuff
WGBL or Wolf Priest: Runic Armor and two Wolves [On Point]
Wolf Guard with Storm Shield
Rest of the Wolf Scouts

I have no idea how many armies can take mixed units like that. Guard can't, the SM codexes that I know can't (SM, BA, GK, DA).
How many points are you paying for those ablative wounds?

Storm shields are usually 20-30 points apiece depending on who they're being equipped on.

tetrisphreak wrote:

Gorechild wrote:
I believe someone mentioned that you have to take the saves in AP order, lowest to highest. So that terminator armour would eat the blaster, if they fail their 5++ then one of the goons also gets blasted before the rest of the unit eats splinter fire. Obviously if they make their 5++ then they have to take another hit from the blaster before absorbing splinter fire.

That is something I had NOT heard yet. I like it...

I'm sure it was back in this thread somewhere, dont know who said it though. I'm not even going to bother looking back through thousands of posts for it now though

You're right though, if this isnt the case it will be really easy to abuse if you just stick an cheap artificer/terminator armour HQ with a fancy squad. Then outflanking will actually have some significance.

tetrisphreak wrote:

Joey wrote:

Anpu42 wrote:With the new Wound Allocation I also see a lot of Storm Shields for Wolf Guard. I also see some very interesting “Wound Shenanigans”. Take some would scouts and arrange your front line like this.

Wolf Scouts without Special Stuff
WGBL or Wolf Priest: Runic Armor and two Wolves [On Point]
Wolf Guard with Storm Shield
Rest of the Wolf Scouts

I have no idea how many armies can take mixed units like that. Guard can't, the SM codexes that I know can't (SM, BA, GK, DA).
How many points are you paying for those ablative wounds?

Storm shields are usually 20-30 points apiece depending on who they're being equipped on.

Right, but the WGBL or Wolf Priest with Runic and Wolves is spendy. That's prob 120-140 points right there. WG with SS and Combi-Melta is another 58 points. The WS themselves are usually only 100. So you're making a mini deathstar for one unit.

Wait, so people are saying that Scouts and Infiltrators can't assault on the first turn and that Outflankers can't assault on the turn they come in?

Thank the Emperor. Sixth edition best edition. Getting assaulted by things you can't possibly avoid is completely unfun.

tetrisphreak wrote:

Kirasu wrote:Does GW understand that the wound allocation rules make no sense ? lol.. come on, all weapons fire at the same time yet they ALL hit the same guy until he dies and then they magically change direction to hit the next closest guy?

What was so wrong with 4th edition where you hit everyone in range of the weapon and you just roll saves?

I never played 4th...but after 5th i'll tell you this: I'll gladly take terminator-shield allocation vs "i've got a wauugh banner so i'm different" allocation. here's why: I can move my units to fire at the wolf guard, so that the terminator is NOT the closest model, in which case the game has an element that is within my control. In 5th, if the opponent took different smatterings of 5 point war gear (i did it with crisis suits too, i'll admit :-() i had no control over the allocation process that resulted in 5 wounds yet no dead models = no loss of unit efficiency.

So again, it might not be an ideal system but i'll take it. Plus it makes sense that overall guys in front die first. The wolf guard terminator in a unit of power armor grey hunters isn't an every game situation, and with movement can be mitigated by the opponent.

I agree the guys at the front should die, but maybe it should be done a little differently such as allocation remains the same, but rather than the opposing player deciding how to allocate it goes Nearest - Furthest as this buffs power armoured guys considerably compared to say, those who carry special weaps or just models in general with a worse save.

Drunkspleen wrote:You know what really gets me about this stupid new wound method we have in 6th edition, is that the leaked rules had a perfectly good solution to complex multiwound units by including a part in the player turn where you consolidated your partially wounded models into wholly unwounded and wholly dead models, such that you could never end a player turn with more than 1 partially wounded model in any unit, bam problem solved, and it takes so little extra time "I'm pulling these 3 nobs out of the squad, these 3 over here are back to full wounds".

Bam, suddenly you don't have these silly deathstar units exploiting the multiwound allocation mechanics to live far longer than they were ever meant to.

Instead, I think they have almost ruined the ruleset with these new closest first mechanics which as soon as you mix armour slows the game down drastically, not to mention it still requires (from the sounds of things) a forgiving outlook on realism because my understanding is it still will use majority toughness, not to mention it really isn't that realistic or even cinematic for the closest guy to ALWAYS be the first one to die.

More than anything else, more than arguments over tanks being too weak, more than debates about flyers being too strong, more than discussions of the relative merits and flaws of the allies rules, this is where Games Workshop have failed in implementing 6th edition.

Sigh.
95% of games do not involve any mixed armour save units at all, and the ones that do will rarely take so many wounds that it becomes an issue. Taking 20 lasgun wounds? Fair enough. Realistically it's much more common to take smatterings of a few wounds from multiple sources.
I for one am greatly looking forward to the new rules, since shooting at an enemy will actually reduce the chance of them being able to charge you...

Fetterkey wrote:Wait, so people are saying that Scouts and Infiltrators can't assault on the first turn and that Outflankers can't assault on the turn they come in?

Thank the Emperor. Sixth edition best edition. Getting assaulted by things you can't possibly avoid is completely unfun.

As if 'Nids couldn't be made any worse.

Dem Genestealers just got raped

Fetterkey wrote:Wait, so people are saying that Scouts and Infiltrators can't assault on the first turn and that Outflankers can't assault on the turn they come in?

Thank the Emperor. Sixth edition best edition. Getting assaulted by things you can't possibly avoid is completely unfun.

edit: NM

Also, you can just bubble wrap against scouts and infiltrators or use pushback units, etc.

No worries. I feel you. DE are an amazingly beat face army that can absolutely destroy some armies. On he other hand, its a terribly bad army against some. Its a joke army against IG and GK. This editition doesn't look like its going to bring any consistency to.that.

Drunkspleen wrote:this is where Games Workshop have failed in implementing 6th edition.

Jeeze man, the book isn't even on sale yet, you might want to calm down. We'll have to give it 3-4 months at the very least before we can tell if the rule set is a flop, when people are used to playing it and there a a couple of 6th ed codex's released (not just this "with 6th in mind" stuff) people will be abe to make rational decisions as to wether its failed or not.

GoDz BuZzSaW wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:Wait, so people are saying that Scouts and Infiltrators can't assault on the first turn and that Outflankers can't assault on the turn they come in?

Thank the Emperor. Sixth edition best edition. Getting assaulted by things you can't possibly avoid is completely unfun.

As if 'Nids couldn't be made any worse.

Dem Genestealers just got raped

One man's drug is another bug's rehab...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:Wait, so people are saying that Scouts and Infiltrators can't assault on the first turn and that Outflankers can't assault on the turn they come in?

Thank the Emperor. Sixth edition best edition. Getting assaulted by things you can't possibly avoid is completely unfun.

edit: NM

Also, you can just bubble wrap against scouts and infiltrators or use pushback units, etc.

tetrisphreak wrote:One more bit - the QnA poster from Faeit 212 says that units coming in from reserve may not charge, nor use powers/abilities that activate 'at the start of the turn'. He could not find an exception for outflanking units.

...yeah. About that....

Joey wrote:Sigh.
95% of games do not involve any mixed armour save units at all, and the ones that do will rarely take so many wounds that it becomes an issue. Taking 20 lasgun wounds? Fair enough. Realistically it's much more common to take smatterings of a few wounds from multiple sources.
I for one am greatly looking forward to the new rules, since shooting at an enemy will actually reduce the chance of them being able to charge you...

Cool, 95% of games do involve sergeants who you will end up rolling one at a time for them because of their "look out sir" ability.

Just in for a quick snipe against Tyranids before dinner - no, you wont be able to consolidate after popping vehicles in combat in this edition either. Those Genestealers will be neatly gathered up for template funsies.

Gorechild wrote:Jeeze man, the book isn't even on sale yet

Yes it is

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440160a&prodId=prod1620012a

Fetterkey wrote:Wait, so people are saying that Scouts and Infiltrators can't assault on the first turn and that Outflankers can't assault on the turn they come in?

Thank the Emperor. Sixth edition best edition. Getting assaulted by things you can't possibly avoid is completely unfun.

You couldn't deploy a bit further forward? You just had to deploy right on the table edge?

Plenty of ways of avoiding it. Bubble-wrapping units, actually being mobile or deploying a bit further in....

Drunkspleen wrote:

Joey wrote:Sigh.
95% of games do not involve any mixed armour save units at all, and the ones that do will rarely take so many wounds that it becomes an issue. Taking 20 lasgun wounds? Fair enough. Realistically it's much more common to take smatterings of a few wounds from multiple sources.
I for one am greatly looking forward to the new rules, since shooting at an enemy will actually reduce the chance of them being able to charge you...

Cool, 95% of games do involve sergeants who you will end up rolling one at a time for them because of their "look out sir" ability.

The sergeant will not be the closest model to *every* firing unit the enemy shoots with. Unless he's the only model in the squad that is.

Pyriel- wrote:

Are you implying that the game devs said "Wait a second! It makes no sense for a terminator to go down against an elf whip! We better nerf all power weapons next edition in order to amend this gaping plot hole."

Oh you would be surprised.
The very same morons gave us things that nobody will ever, for no reason what so ever, use. (like psilencers, legion of the damned, jump vanguards etc etc).

Hey...I thought the last two on that list were pretty cool...and I use them sometimes

Everything new slows the game down. we play 5 games and we are back up to speed. that is nothing new. I think we are going to start actually playing adjust our lists and enjoy this edition.

Assault Armies. Pretty much everything is faster, it will only take one turn of movement in a vehicle to be in assault range. A fast skimmer can move up to 30 if I recall correctly. That is you in their deployment zone turn 1. A fast vehicle moves 24. Now orks are in the enemy zone turn one. And the regular vehicles can move 18. So move 18, disembark 6, assault 2-7. Second turn assaults are pretty much guaranteed now, even if the vehicle goes down since you are not relying on the vehicles movement beyond the first turn.

Even on foot you are getting 6 + 7 on average(assuming no fleet), then another 6 which puts you at 5 inches out of their deployment zone on turn two. Now yes some people in the front will die but that is much further than the 12 inches + 3 and 1/2 inches would would have now.

My friend who has yet to lose with his tyranids in this edition is actually looking forward to these changes and has not really heard anything that is not mitigated by something else. The fact that MCs are looking a lot better is really awesome in his book and the tyranids get a huge boost from this. We still need to see all the reserve mechanics but it will be cool to see how they function

Hmm...It sounds like I just found an even better use for those neophytes! Run them up front and let them take the shots for my initiates. Almost always keep the PF or melta alive.

*At least one of my armies became nasty...time for more shooty BT!

tetrisphreak wrote:The sergeant will not be the closest model to *every* firing unit the enemy shoots with. Unless he's the only model in the squad that is.

He also won't be the furthest from every firing unit, and if you put a decent volume of fire on a squad you will inevitably get to the sergeant and the game will grind to a screeching halt.

Drunkspleen wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:The sergeant will not be the closest model to *every* firing unit the enemy shoots with. Unless he's the only model in the squad that is.

He also won't be the furthest from every firing unit, and if you put a decent volume of fire on a squad you will inevitably get to the sergeant and the game will grind to a screeching halt.

I see your point but that is hyperbole. It'll be no slower than now once it's in practice, because now you roll separate for the sarge anyway and tons of units with min/maxed wargear roll separately for every member of the squad.

I hate to admit it, but the more I keep stewing over 6th, the more I think GW is going to succeed in making me buy new toys. The ally rules are going to lead to ridiculous combos of craziness, and as a competitive guy that's going to mean big things for me. From the fun side though... I'm totally going to be buying some Orks to ally with my CSM. I'll likely be buying some IG to ally with my CSM. As the rules currently sit, it would be silly for me NOT to buy Epidemius and some other Daemon toys to ally with my CSM. I guess the moral of the story is this: Sometimes a sub-great rule set doesn't matter, take my money GW.

Leth wrote:Even on foot you are getting 6 + 7 on average(assuming no fleet), then another 6 which puts you at 5 inches out of their deployment zone on turn two. Now yes some people in the front will die but that is much further than the 12 inches + 3 and 1/2 inches would would have now.

How are you working out 6 + 7 + 6? Can you still move in the assault phase if you're not specifically charging something? Is it still possible to Run and assault?

tetrisphreak wrote:One more bit - the QnA poster from Faeit 212 says that units coming in from reserve may not charge, nor use powers/abilities that activate 'at the start of the turn'. He could not find an exception for outflanking units.

If that's true, the Dark Eldar WWP is RIP as well. Then, all of Dark Eldar assault is truly dead.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Gorechild wrote:Jeeze man, the book isn't even on sale yet

Yes it is

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440160a&prodId=prod1620012a

.....way to overlook the "This product is available to advance order" and "This product launches on the 30th June" parts, today is the 27th. Good try though

tetrisphreak wrote:I see your point but that is hyperbole. It'll be no slower than now once it's in practice, because now you roll separate for the sarge anyway and tons of units with min/maxed wargear roll separately for every member of the squad.

The difference is now, you quickly assign all the wounds, and roll your sarges 1 maybe 2 wounds separately, which in practice, generally means simultaneously with different coloured dice, meanwhile, the sum total of your squad that is standing behind your sergeant also take 1 or 2 wounds each, and you roll their 8 or so saves simultaneously too, now instead of that happening, you are potentially rolling 10 dice, 1 at a time, in a row, because your sergeant has become the closest, without the option to speed it up through the use of different coloured dice.

It is worse.

Mandor wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:One more bit - the QnA poster from Faeit 212 says that units coming in from reserve may not charge, nor use powers/abilities that activate 'at the start of the turn'. He could not find an exception for outflanking units.

If that's true, the Dark Eldar WWP is RIP as well. Then, all of Dark Eldar assault is truly dead.

Cross fingers for errata and /or FAQ to allow the Webway Portal to work as designed.

Edit - Or it could be a push from GW to encourage players to take larger units. More models in the squad = better able to stand up against enemy firepower. Obviously it would require players to own more infantry models as well, which = $$ for GW. With all the talk of how 40K and Fantasy are melting the lines between one another, it would certainly fit. In 8th WFB units got bonuses for being way larger too.

Edit 2 - Models failing a dangerous terrain test will get their armor or invulnerable saves (best applies as normal)

Any word on what Rending dose?

Drunkspleen wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:The sergeant will not be the closest model to *every* firing unit the enemy shoots with. Unless he's the only model in the squad that is.

He also won't be the furthest from every firing unit, and if you put a decent volume of fire on a squad you will inevitably get to the sergeant and the game will grind to a screeching halt.

Okay I want you to make a unit and actually sit down and try rolling it. Come up with whatever scenario you wish, instead of doomsaying actually roll it.

Trust me I did it for most of my units. It really isnt that bad.

Got a guy with multiple wounds? Roll that many dice at once

If the unit doesnt have mixed armor(which is most of the time) it is going to go way faster than now

For sergeants, if they have the same armor save here is a quick solution. Roll all the armor saves at the same time. Take off all the failed. Once you get to the sergeant roll the remaining wounds in Look out sirs. if even one is failed remove him and any remaining casualties. Very simple and quick.

If he has a different armor save then in those rare occurrences it will take a little longer. Boo freakin HOO

Edit:
Let me create the scenario

You have a squad of 10 space marines that takes 25 wounds(whatever we are doing extremes here since that seems to be where the problem is coming from) they fail 7 saves. So 7 models are going to be removed. Now the sergeant is the third one from the front. So the first 2 marines die. Now you have 5 wounds left. Take 5 look out sirs. If he fails one of them the sergeant is going to die anyway. Now if you make them all remove 5 other marines. If you fail one remove the sergeant and 4 other marines. I am failing to see where the problem is?

So still no assault out of Deep Strike? Well Daemons just got worse. Now they DS, get shot, attempt to assault, get shot on the way in, if they fail then get shot again!

MDizzle wrote:Any word on what Rending dose?

Unchanged from 5th

Drunkspleen wrote:... not to mention it still requires (from the sounds of things) a forgiving outlook on realism because my understanding is it still will use majority toughness...

I think someone posted a bit back that since you were hiting the single closest model majority toughness is gone now in favor of wounding against the closest models profile after you do hits.

I could be wrong, as that would be pretty slow.

"Okay I have 20 hits. Your closest guy is T4. Let me roll to wound against t4 one at a time and you save against it until you die, then we move forward to the next model."

Besides, IC's using Look Out Sir! to pass wounds down the line will be slow enough.

Rivet wrote:So still no assault out of Deep Strike? Well Daemons just got worse. Now they DS, get shot, attempt to assault, get shot on the way in, if they fail then get shot again!

They should have made it so that units can assault out of deep strike / outflank, but get overwatch fire at full BS. Pancake edition, where art thou?

Mandor wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:One more bit - the QnA poster from Faeit 212 says that units coming in from reserve may not charge, nor use powers/abilities that activate 'at the start of the turn'. He could not find an exception for outflanking units.

If that's true, the Dark Eldar WWP is RIP as well. Then, all of Dark Eldar assault is truly dead.

So much for that plan. At least I don't have to buy Grots now. Off to the tactics forum...

Drunkspleen wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:The sergeant will not be the closest model to *every* firing unit the enemy shoots with. Unless he's the only model in the squad that is.

He also won't be the furthest from every firing unit, and if you put a decent volume of fire on a squad you will inevitably get to the sergeant and the game will grind to a screeching halt.

A screeching halt?

Really?

"Okay, new closest model is your sarge. He's somehow got a better armor save than the rest of your squad, so lets do him real quick. There's 4 bolter wounds left to resolve."

Rolls 3 dice, Sarge died on third roll

"Okie doke, 1 wound left to roll for super-noob."

Supernoob lives!

"Alright, next squad...."

Takes what, 5 seconds?

Any news on pinning is it pretty much the same aka useless against most armies still. What makes me say that is tau carbines cannot compare to the now move and shoot rifles.

Anyone know if the weapon profile has changed for the Tau Rail Gun?

azala wrote:Did they really change Furious charge to not give +1 Init? Quite a big nerf to things like blood angels, orks and bloodcrushers if so.

And Termagaunts who are really good when in buff range from mummy, in 6th ed they wont be hitting before MEQ. Not a big hit, but still a slight nerf. Same goes for the Trygon who wont be able to clean out tactical squads before they get return attacks anymore.

Thunderfrog wrote:A screeching halt?

Really?

"Okay, new closest model is your sarge. He's somehow got a better armor save than the rest of your squad, so lets do him real quick. There's 4 bolter wounds left to resolve."

Rolls 3 dice, Sarge died on third roll

"Okie doke, 1 wound left to roll for super-noob."

Supernoob lives!

"Alright, next squad...."

Takes what, 5 seconds?

first of all he doesn't need a better armour save, just to have fancy enough wargear that a player would use "look out sir" to save him,

secondly, it's still not an improvement, it's still worse than last edition where you would just say "the wounds are allocated this way" and then roll 4 dice all at once.

I was thinking about the comment made “Everything Just Got Nerfed”. This I think will make for quicker [and bloodier] games. To me this is a good thing, especially for Time Limit Games. We have been playing 2,000 point games, mostly 2x2. Most of the time we get to Turn 3 or 4 before someone has to leave and the game has to end. With the high body count we might finish the games quicker.

Think about this: My Guard Squad is assaulted by 10 Wyches, I get my Snap Fire/Overwatch Fire and lets say I manage to kill off 1 of them. Close Combat Starts, the Hekatrix single out the Commissar, the Commissar is most likely going to die, so he is not going to get a return shot. Then the Wyches go next kill off 6 Guardsman, leaving 4 Guardsmen left, who some of them might not even get a return strike. Lets say the Sergeant manages to kill one more. I still lose the Assault by 5, making my LD 3 for the Moral Test. So the Guardsmen try to run, we both roll for the Sweeping advance, I roll a d6+3 and the Wyches roll 1d6+6, most likely the Wyches win finishing off the guard, leaving 8 Wyches to continue on. Same thing with Genestealers.

tetrisphreak wrote:Reserves are a 3+ on turn 2, 3+ on turn 3, and automatic on turn 4. Nice changes there, hive commander is a great upgrade now!

Here is a list of CC weapons and their AP values:

Chainfist AP2
chainsword AP-
Eviscerator AP2
Heavy Chainsword AP5
Dreadnought CCW AP2
forcesword AP3
force axe AP2
Force stave AP4
Lightning Claw AP3
Power Klaw AP2
Power fist AP2
Power sword AP3
Power axe AP2
Power maul AP4
Power lance AP3/4 (first turn/subsequent)
Thunder hammer AP 2
Witchblades AP-

Power swords do not provide 5++

How does this change the metagame for Grey Knights? AP3 Force Weapons are a big nerf. I know Grey Knights needed a bit of a nerf but perhaps that is going too far. In combat against other terminator they will get mauled by the looks of it. Normal Termies get AP2 powerfists, thus ignoring 2+ armour saves and also Thundanators get AP2 weapons to go along with their Storm Shields. Meanwhile Force Weapons will do jack against them. If you even equip all your Grey Knight Termies with Daemonhammers hten that only puts them on par with normal termies. Against Thundanators they just don't stand a chance. Also not to mention Paladins will get instakilled against them.

As far as I can see Thundanators are going back to the top of the chain. They will get their 2+ armour save against most things in CC and will be taking their 3++ save a lot less. I'm lucky I have some of those for my BA but I now worried about my GKs.

DarkStarSabre wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:Wait, so people are saying that Scouts and Infiltrators can't assault on the first turn and that Outflankers can't assault on the turn they come in?

Thank the Emperor. Sixth edition best edition. Getting assaulted by things you can't possibly avoid is completely unfun.

You couldn't deploy a bit further forward? You just had to deploy right on the table edge?

Plenty of ways of avoiding it. Bubble-wrapping units, actually being mobile or deploying a bit further in....

Scout Bikers at present can use Infiltration and Scouts to assault regardless of where someone deploys. In many situations you don't have the option to not be on an edge-- Spearhead deployments, for instance, or almost anyone against Wolf Scouts or Snikrot-- and not all armies have access to bubblewrap units to counter these attacks. Overall, I think it's simply good design to prevent units from assaulting in contexts where the opponent has no chance to deal with them. Allowing such assaults is unfun and needlessly favors certain armies. I was glad to see Callidus Assassins lose their ability to charge out of Reserves, and I'm glad to see that the other units that have this ability might be similarly thwarted in 6th edition.

Fetterkey wrote:
Scout Bikers at present can use Infiltration and Scouts to assault regardless of where someone deploys. In many situations you don't have the option to not be on an edge-- Spearhead deployments, for instance, or almost anyone against Wolf Scouts or Snikrot-- and not all armies have access to bubblewrap units to counter these attacks. Overall, I think it's simply good design to prevent units from assaulting in contexts where the opponent has no chance to deal with them. Allowing such assaults is unfun and needlessly favors certain armies. I was glad to see Callidus Assassins lose their ability to charge out of Reserves, and I'm glad to see that the other units that have this ability might be similarly thwarted in 6th edition.

With allies, everyone (except Tyranid) has access to the best (cheapest) bubble wrappers: IG!

Fetterkey wrote:Scout Bikers at present can use Infiltration and Scouts to assault regardless of where someone deploys. In many situations you don't have the option to not be on an edge-- Spearhead deployments, for instance, or almost anyone against Wolf Scouts or Snikrot-- and not all armies have access to bubblewrap units to counter these attacks. Overall, I think it's simply good design to prevent units from assaulting in contexts where the opponent has no chance to deal with them. Allowing such assaults is unfun and needlessly favors certain armies. I was glad to see Callidus Assassins lose their ability to charge out of Reserves, and I'm glad to see that the other units that have this ability might be similarly thwarted in 6th edition.

Why though, you get your chance to shoot them when they charge you, why do you need a whole free shooting phase too?

Everyone just loves to hate on GW because they have no lives

Anyways, anyone know what the puppet master does?

tetrisphreak wrote:

Mandor wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:One more bit - the QnA poster from Faeit 212 says that units coming in from reserve may not charge, nor use powers/abilities that activate 'at the start of the turn'. He could not find an exception for outflanking units.

If that's true, the Dark Eldar WWP is RIP as well. Then, all of Dark Eldar assault is truly dead.

Cross fingers for errata and /or FAQ to allow the Webway Portal to work as designed.

Edit - Or it could be a push from GW to encourage players to take larger units. More models in the squad = better able to stand up against enemy firepower. Obviously it would require players to own more infantry models as well, which = $$ for GW. With all the talk of how 40K and Fantasy are melting the lines between one another, it would certainly fit. In 8th WFB units got bonuses for being way larger too.

Edit 2 - Models failing a dangerous terrain test will get their armor or invulnerable saves (best applies as normal)

Too bad DE can't take these huge squads everyone else can...20 max (I believe) on wyches and thats 200 pts without upgrades. With no assault DE need that FAQ to be amazing or else we are essentially the same speed (if not slower than necrons ) as everone else with a reroll, but horrible armor, toughness and none of the bodies everyone else has. I'm not liking the dictates my army list will be taking. I used to run somewhat of a balnced list between venom spam and wych cult, but had a fun WWP coven list. Looks like (if this is true mind you) that it's straight venom spam now...ugh.

xttz wrote:

MDizzle wrote:Any word on what Rending dose?

Unchanged from 5th

I thought i read a few pages back that it was auto wounding on 6.

Isn't that different from 5th, in you still got an invul. save.

Doesn't auto-wound mean no save at all?

Drunkspleen wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:Scout Bikers at present can use Infiltration and Scouts to assault regardless of where someone deploys. In many situations you don't have the option to not be on an edge-- Spearhead deployments, for instance, or almost anyone against Wolf Scouts or Snikrot-- and not all armies have access to bubblewrap units to counter these attacks. Overall, I think it's simply good design to prevent units from assaulting in contexts where the opponent has no chance to deal with them. Allowing such assaults is unfun and needlessly favors certain armies. I was glad to see Callidus Assassins lose their ability to charge out of Reserves, and I'm glad to see that the other units that have this ability might be similarly thwarted in 6th edition.

Why tough, you get your chance to shoot them when they charge you, why do you need a whole free shooting phase too?

Don't play dumb. BS1 shooting doesn't really deter anyone, or at least not anyone who's good at math.

With Over Watch sticking it further to Daemons (If they cannot assault out of Deep Strike), is there anything that will save them? What is this Fear ability all Daemons are rumored to be getting?

Necronic Angel wrote:

xttz wrote:

MDizzle wrote:Any word on what Rending dose?

Unchanged from 5th

I thought i read a few pages back that it was auto wounding on 6.

Isn't that different from 5th, in you still got an invul. save.

Doesn't auto-wound mean no save at all?

No. It means you take a wound without an armor save. There's a difference.
The operative word there is armor.

Necronic Angel wrote:

xttz wrote:

MDizzle wrote:Any word on what Rending dose?

Unchanged from 5th

I thought i read a few pages back that it was auto wounding on 6.

Isn't that different from 5th, in you still got an invul. save.

Doesn't auto-wound mean no save at all?

Auto-wound refers to a wound regardless of toughness - so S3 rending weapons can hurt T8 on a 6.

Rivet wrote:With Over Watch sticking it further to Daemons (If they cannot assault out of Deep Strike), is there anything that will save them? What is this Fear ability all Daemons are rumored to be getting?

When you assault a unit they have to take a LD test, if they fail it then they strike at I1. AFAIK

Drunkspleen wrote:
Bam, suddenly you don't have these silly deathstar units exploiting the multiwound allocation mechanics to live far longer than they were ever meant to.

I read 5th edition wound allocation rules the other day. They meant it. They are very specific about what you do and they even show in the example that models with different weapons count as different types for wound allocation.

Gorechild wrote:

Rivet wrote:With Over Watch sticking it further to Daemons (If they cannot assault out of Deep Strike), is there anything that will save them? What is this Fear ability all Daemons are rumored to be getting?

When you assault a unit they have to take a LD test, if they fail it then they strike at I1. AFAIK

So nothing to save them from being shot to death when they arrive and then having those that survive shot again on the charge? I really hope GW plans to fix Daemons with their new codex whenever the heck that is due out...

Okay lets put this "woe is me" overwatch to the math shall we?

10 marines with missile launcher and melta gun firing on 10 marines that assault them.

16 bolter shots 8/3 hit 4/3 wound 4/9ths of a wound

Gonna combine the missle/melta for easier math

1/3 hit, 5/18 wound
So 8/18s + 5/18s = 13/18s

Congratulations you have killed just over half a marine with a full strength squad

tetrisphreak wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:The sergeant will not be the closest model to *every* firing unit the enemy shoots with. Unless he's the only model in the squad that is.

He also won't be the furthest from every firing unit, and if you put a decent volume of fire on a squad you will inevitably get to the sergeant and the game will grind to a screeching halt.

I see your point but that is hyperbole. It'll be no slower than now once it's in practice, because now you roll separate for the sarge anyway and tons of units with min/maxed wargear roll separately for every member of the squad.

But now you just stick all the wounds on and then roll. So that sergeant has to make 2 saves, done. That guy with the meltagun has to make 2 saves, done and so on and so forth.

Now it'll be: that sergeant makes one save, done. He now makes one save, done. He now makes one save, done. He now dies, on to the next guy and repeat.

Fetterkey wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:Scout Bikers at present can use Infiltration and Scouts to assault regardless of where someone deploys. In many situations you don't have the option to not be on an edge-- Spearhead deployments, for instance, or almost anyone against Wolf Scouts or Snikrot-- and not all armies have access to bubblewrap units to counter these attacks. Overall, I think it's simply good design to prevent units from assaulting in contexts where the opponent has no chance to deal with them. Allowing such assaults is unfun and needlessly favors certain armies. I was glad to see Callidus Assassins lose their ability to charge out of Reserves, and I'm glad to see that the other units that have this ability might be similarly thwarted in 6th edition.

Why tough, you get your chance to shoot them when they charge you, why do you need a whole free shooting phase too?

Don't play dumb. BS1 shooting doesn't really deter anyone, or at least not anyone who's good at math.

Not the point. You often get to shoot me before I can do anything about it. Why then is it not okay for me to charge you before you can do anything about it?

Something about turnabout and fair play.

elrabin wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:
Scout Bikers at present can use Infiltration and Scouts to assault regardless of where someone deploys. In many situations you don't have the option to not be on an edge-- Spearhead deployments, for instance, or almost anyone against Wolf Scouts or Snikrot-- and not all armies have access to bubblewrap units to counter these attacks. Overall, I think it's simply good design to prevent units from assaulting in contexts where the opponent has no chance to deal with them. Allowing such assaults is unfun and needlessly favors certain armies. I was glad to see Callidus Assassins lose their ability to charge out of Reserves, and I'm glad to see that the other units that have this ability might be similarly thwarted in 6th edition.

With allies, everyone (except Tyranid) has access to the best (cheapest) bubble wrappers: IG!

What? are they cheaper than Grots?

Leth wrote:Okay lets put this "woe is me" overwatch to the math shall we? ... Congratulations you have killed just over half a marine with a full strength squad

Assaulting is useless in 6th edition! GW hates my army!

streamdragon wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:Scout Bikers at present can use Infiltration and Scouts to assault regardless of where someone deploys. In many situations you don't have the option to not be on an edge-- Spearhead deployments, for instance, or almost anyone against Wolf Scouts or Snikrot-- and not all armies have access to bubblewrap units to counter these attacks. Overall, I think it's simply good design to prevent units from assaulting in contexts where the opponent has no chance to deal with them. Allowing such assaults is unfun and needlessly favors certain armies. I was glad to see Callidus Assassins lose their ability to charge out of Reserves, and I'm glad to see that the other units that have this ability might be similarly thwarted in 6th edition.

Why tough, you get your chance to shoot them when they charge you, why do you need a whole free shooting phase too?

Don't play dumb. BS1 shooting doesn't really deter anyone, or at least not anyone who's good at math.

Not the point. You often get to shoot me before I can do anything about it. Why then is it not okay for me to charge you before you can do anything about it?

Something about turnabout and fair play.

Because when I shoot with one unit, usually it does not remove an entire unit. When you assault entire units disappear. Bit of a difference

Rivet wrote:

Gorechild wrote:

Rivet wrote:With Over Watch sticking it further to Daemons (If they cannot assault out of Deep Strike), is there anything that will save them? What is this Fear ability all Daemons are rumored to be getting?

When you assault a unit they have to take a LD test, if they fail it then they strike at I1. AFAIK

So nothing to save them from being shot to death when they arrive and then having those that survive shot again on the charge? I really hope GW plans to fix Daemons with their new codex whenever the heck that is due out...

I have done fine with Daemons in 5th and with Reserves coming faster and easier in 6th that will help them. If you are getting shot that much you are doing it wrong and Snap Fire/Overwatch is at BS1, that won't stop me from charging anything with my Daemons.

Fetterkey wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:Scout Bikers at present can use Infiltration and Scouts to assault regardless of where someone deploys. In many situations you don't have the option to not be on an edge-- Spearhead deployments, for instance, or almost anyone against Wolf Scouts or Snikrot-- and not all armies have access to bubblewrap units to counter these attacks. Overall, I think it's simply good design to prevent units from assaulting in contexts where the opponent has no chance to deal with them. Allowing such assaults is unfun and needlessly favors certain armies. I was glad to see Callidus Assassins lose their ability to charge out of Reserves, and I'm glad to see that the other units that have this ability might be similarly thwarted in 6th edition.

Why tough, you get your chance to shoot them when they charge you, why do you need a whole free shooting phase too?

Don't play dumb. BS1 shooting doesn't really deter anyone, or at least not anyone who's good at math.

Unless you're assaulting a unit of Ork shoota boys or anything with a reasonably large unit size and rapid fire weapons with something with a low armour save, such as DE.

20 boys = 40 shots
40 shots = 7 hits
7 hits = 4 wounds, with no armour save, removing from the front.
That's quite a nasty chunk taken out of the front of your combat unit (almost half if the wyches were riding in a Raider), which could make you fail the assault and be left stranded to be shot on the Orks turn with his full BS2 and then get charged by him instead.

Leth wrote:Okay lets put this "woe is me" overwatch to the math shall we?

10 marines with missile launcher and melta gun firing on 10 marines that assault them.

16 bolter shots 8/3 hit 4/3 wound 4/9ths of a wound

Gonna combine the missle/melta for easier math

1/3 hit, 5/18 wound
So 8/18s + 5/18s = 13/18s

Congratulations you have killed just over half a marine with a full strength squad

I personally like the Over Watch rule, however, for a Daemon player, The entire army has to deep strike, only half of it arrives first turn. The army spends a full round getting shot at because they cannot assault out of Deep Strike. Now the survivors get shot at again. Granted it is at BS 1 there is a strong chance that they will not lose anymore models, but even losing 1 additional model, in combination with all those most likely lost during the turn waiting around after Deep Strike, just makes them worthless or forces them to field a lot of additional models they are already lacking the ability to afford.

Leth wrote:Okay lets put this "woe is me" overwatch to the math shall we?

10 marines with missile launcher and melta gun firing on 10 marines that assault them.

16 bolter shots 8/3 hit 4/3 wound 4/9ths of a wound

Gonna combine the missle/melta for easier math

1/3 hit, 5/18 wound
So 8/18s + 5/18s = 13/18s

Congratulations you have killed just over half a marine with a full strength squad

Ugh...try doing it with something that isn't MEQ on MEQ. We don't all play only marines. Try a flamer and a missile firing on something like DE with T 3 and a 6+ armor (essentially nothing). Now however you have just proved why I can't take 10 DE warriors w/ rifles, blaster, and DL and overwatch against marines.

Edit: What the ... double post...now it's gone?

Leth wrote:

streamdragon wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:Scout Bikers at present can use Infiltration and Scouts to assault regardless of where someone deploys. In many situations you don't have the option to not be on an edge-- Spearhead deployments, for instance, or almost anyone against Wolf Scouts or Snikrot-- and not all armies have access to bubblewrap units to counter these attacks. Overall, I think it's simply good design to prevent units from assaulting in contexts where the opponent has no chance to deal with them. Allowing such assaults is unfun and needlessly favors certain armies. I was glad to see Callidus Assassins lose their ability to charge out of Reserves, and I'm glad to see that the other units that have this ability might be similarly thwarted in 6th edition.

Why tough, you get your chance to shoot them when they charge you, why do you need a whole free shooting phase too?

Don't play dumb. BS1 shooting doesn't really deter anyone, or at least not anyone who's good at math.

Not the point. You often get to shoot me before I can do anything about it. Why then is it not okay for me to charge you before you can do anything about it?

Something about turnabout and fair play.

Because when I shoot with one unit, usually it does not remove an entire unit. When you assault entire units disappear. Bit of a difference

That depends entirely on the units in question, which I assume you know. Vehicles, for instance, might easily be destroyed (or at least disabled) in a single salvo. And it might just be my awful luck, but I've rarely completely destroyed a unit in a single player turn of CC. The enemy usually has at least 1 turn to either pile more dudes in and tarpit me, or to get away so when I do destroy a unit my forces are just standing there preparing to eat more bullets than a Matrix movie.

The next purchase for my Tau army is going to be a Farseer. Guide, Doom, Spirit Stones, Rune of Warding and Witnessing. Pretty good fit!

A Town Called Malus wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:The sergeant will not be the closest model to *every* firing unit the enemy shoots with. Unless he's the only model in the squad that is.

He also won't be the furthest from every firing unit, and if you put a decent volume of fire on a squad you will inevitably get to the sergeant and the game will grind to a screeching halt.

I see your point but that is hyperbole. It'll be no slower than now once it's in practice, because now you roll separate for the sarge anyway and tons of units with min/maxed wargear roll separately for every member of the squad.

But now you just stick all the wounds on and then roll. So that sergeant has to make 2 saves, done. That guy with the meltagun has to make 2 saves, done and so on and so forth.

Now it'll be: that sergeant makes one save, done. He now makes one save, done. He now makes one save, done. He now dies, on to the next guy and repeat.

So let's take your example and imagine 10 wounds against a 5 man combat squad with a servant and a meltagun (I picked 10 because you wouldn't allocate 2 wounds to your special weapon or sergeant unless you had to.

5th edition: allocate your wounds (2 wounds to each model)
1) roll for sergeant
2) roll for special weapon
3) roll for other guys.

6th edition: closest 1st
1) roll sergeant, pass
2) roll sergeant, pass
3) roll sergeant, pass
4) roll sergeant, fail
5) roll everybody else.

Congratulations, you had to make 5 seconds to make 5 rolls instead of 3.

This also has the potential to make shooting deadlier and more effective. Why should we allocate two wounds to a model when the first failed save would kill it, leaving the extra wound to be assigned to somebody else.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Joey wrote:Sigh.
95% of games do not involve any mixed armour save units at all, and the ones that do will rarely take so many wounds that it becomes an issue. Taking 20 lasgun wounds? Fair enough. Realistically it's much more common to take smatterings of a few wounds from multiple sources.
I for one am greatly looking forward to the new rules, since shooting at an enemy will actually reduce the chance of them being able to charge you...

Cool, 95% of games do involve sergeants who you will end up rolling one at a time for them because of their "look out sir" ability.

Figuring out how to divide up dice in the current edition takes way longer than simply picking up some dice and rolling them. You won't have to go "uhhh right so I assign 3 there...and 2 there" etc. Just roll until you hit a sargent, then lump roll.
Or say you have three normal guys ahead of sargent, roll three. If they all pass, roll three again. If not, roll for whatever's left.
This is way quicker than 5th edition.

Somebody is grumpy this morning.

Damn straight I´m grumpy this morning.
We thought boat and razorspam and minmaxed squads were boring, lame and killing the fun of this game.
I had hopes that 6ed would make it a bit more fun with less gakking spam and more actual foot troops/minis on the table.

Then I saw an example list made by "Therion" of with what we know of 6ed the new spam cheese will look like:

HQ
Orikan the Diviner: 165p
Overlord, Warscythe, MSS: 115p
Harbinger of Destruction, Solar Pulse: 55p
TROOPS
5 Warriors, Night Scythe: 165p
5 Warriors, Night Scythe: 165p
5 Warriors, Night Scythe: 165p
5 Warriors, Night Scythe: 165p
5 Warriors, Night Scythe: 165p
5 Warriors, Night Scythe: 165p
HEAVY SUPPORT
Doom Scythe: 175p
Doom Scythe: 175p
Doom Scythe: 175p

Total Points: 1850

Nice, GW, very nice. Thanks for killing the hobby by replacing a line of razorbacks with ten times worse crap. At least the razors didnt need a 6 to be hit with.
This whole desperately-need-to-sell-new-molds over actual balance and fun is going to far.

Unless something drastic is introduced that we just dont know anything about (not likely) these are the new tournament armies.