DarkStarSabre wrote:Tyranids can not get 7 HS/Elite/FA choices. They cannot get 5 HQ choices. They cannot get 14 Troops choices. Even if some of these are from different armies it's still a big deal.

And it will hurt. Like buggery.

Yeah, because you can fill all those slots at 2000 points.

Drunkspleen wrote:
It is not classed as Heavy (note: it's a vehicle type, not a USR)

The Executioner Plasma Cannon is just "Heavy 3, Blast"

Cheers man, good to hear the Executioner is still alive and kicking.

pretre wrote:Yeah, because you can fill all those slots at 2000 points.

I can fill the Elites at like 500.
Find a Tyranids list that doesn't try to, actually.

kirsanth wrote:

pretre wrote:Yeah, because you can fill all those slots at 2000 points.

I can fill the Elites at like 500.
Find a Tyranids list that doesn't try to, actually.

well yeah, the 3 get filled pretty quick. It is pretty unusual to see a full 2 HQ, 3 Elite, 3 FA, 3 Heavy army and it would be crazy to see 5 HQ, 7 Elite, 7 FA, 7 Heavy at 2000 points. Not sure of any army who could do it.

The point is that other armies have a bigger chart to utilize.

If your army needs that 4th slot of, say, Heavy Support at ANY level, it's there - unless you play Tyranids.

pretre wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

pretre wrote:Yeah, because you can fill all those slots at 2000 points.

I can fill the Elites at like 500.
Find a Tyranids list that doesn't try to, actually.

well yeah, the 3 get filled pretty quick. It is pretty unusual to see a full 2 HQ, 3 Elite, 3 FA, 3 Heavy army and it would be crazy to see 5 HQ, 7 Elite, 7 FA, 7 Heavy at 2000 points. Not sure of any army who could do it.

Imperial Guard technically could but it wouldn't be very good.
7 single hydras, 7 scout sentinals, 7 barebones stormtroopers, 5 CCSs.

pretre wrote:

DarkStarSabre wrote:Tyranids can not get 7 HS/Elite/FA choices. They cannot get 5 HQ choices. They cannot get 14 Troops choices. Even if some of these are from different armies it's still a big deal.

And it will hurt. Like buggery.

Yeah, because you can fill all those slots at 2000 points.

As a Tyranid player I can fill a good chunk of those in fact.

What's more disturbing is how cheap and cheerful SW and allies will be. Longfangs are already rather cheap with missile launchers. Expect more of them with something backing them up.

It does not matter whether any army can or should fill the whole chart.

Almost every army I have seen fills one of the sections.

Seriously, find a competitive Tyranid list with space left for another Elite at any point level. And now Tyranids are the only army in the game that cannot add another Elite pick to their army.

I just made an 8 HQ list for Space Wolves that would be so fun to play, even in defeat.

8 x Wolf Guard Battle Leader. Runic Armour, Frost Blade, Storm Shield
8 x 5 Man Grey Hunter, 2 flamers
2 x 5 Man Long Fangs, 4 ML
(10 points spent on something at random for the extra FOC)

I don't play SW and I very much doubt anybody would be overly afraid of this army but man, I'd love to play it!

Looking forward to gaming with this edition

IronNerd wrote:
I feel like this whole deal has been seriously under-discussed. 2000 point games are the norm around here, and the FOC changes change the game even more than allies IMO. Heck, combine two Primary and two Secondary detachments and you could have 8 Heavy Support (or FA, or Elite, but I play Iron Warriors...) in a 2000 point game... compared to 3 now. Granted, I'd need to seriously skimp points in other places, but the amount of firepower there is staggering.

So play 1999pts

kirsanth wrote:It does not matter whether any army can or should fill the whole chart.

Almost every army I have seen fills one of the sections.

Seriously, find a competitive Tyranid list with space left for another Elite at any point level. And now Tyranids are the only army in the game that cannot add another Elite pick to their army.

To be fair, it's only because the Tyranid elites choices themselves are really good.

It's not like you can ally with another codex and take MORE Hive Guard/'Thropes.

Griever wrote:To be fair, it's only because the Tyranid elites choices themselves are really good.

It's not like you can ally with another codex and take MORE Hive Guard/'Thropes.

Or because so many other options in the codex are NOT good, that is also possible.

I would love to have a sniper unit for my Tyranids from IG, or somesuch - it's actually the one thing I miss most, and it would be from Elites.

Think about SW Heavy Support.
Sure, they cannot get more Long Fangs, but that does not mean SW will not want to use a slightly less efficient (than LF) HS option to use a Russ, or something. It actually allows the use of MORE LFs.

Or heck, a non-dedicated Landraider.
lol

Griever wrote:

kirsanth wrote:It does not matter whether any army can or should fill the whole chart.

Almost every army I have seen fills one of the sections.

Seriously, find a competitive Tyranid list with space left for another Elite at any point level. And now Tyranids are the only army in the game that cannot add another Elite pick to their army.

To be fair, it's only because the Tyranid elites choices themselves are really good.

It's not like you can ally with another codex and take MORE Hive Guard/'Thropes.

No, it's because the Tyranid elite choices are pretty much mandatory. Hive Guard and Zoanthropes are pretty much the only real options for dealing with vehicles outside of melee- which was difficult as vehicles were prone to zipping off and about. They're not really good.

You have Hive Guard. And Zoanthropes.
Lictors are pretty much ignored.
Pyrovores.....hahahahahaha.
Ymgarls are neat for what they do but conventional Genestealer spam got the job done just as well.
Venomthropes suffered the same ID issues as Warriors, Shrikes and Raveners.

xttz wrote:

IronNerd wrote:
I feel like this whole deal has been seriously under-discussed. 2000 point games are the norm around here, and the FOC changes change the game even more than allies IMO. Heck, combine two Primary and two Secondary detachments and you could have 8 Heavy Support (or FA, or Elite, but I play Iron Warriors...) in a 2000 point game... compared to 3 now. Granted, I'd need to seriously skimp points in other places, but the amount of firepower there is staggering.

So play 1999pts

I wasn't complaining, I was just saying that it changes the game in such a huge fashion. Plus, I've always found the knee-jerk reaction fix (Don't like what happens at 2000, play 1999!) to be... silly. It may lead to more 1850 games in the area, but I don't expect there will be many 1999 games played. Luckily enough I've been playing Chaos (IW specifically) for a long time, so I've got enough Oblits to field 4 full units, then I can still add on my two Vindicators... *shudder*

IronNerd wrote:

Ovion wrote:Ok, small update:
This is exactly how the FoC is now:

Spoiler:

I feel like this whole deal has been seriously under-discussed. 2000 point games are the norm around here, and the FOC changes change the game even more than allies IMO. Heck, combine two Primary and two Secondary detachments and you could have 8 Heavy Support (or FA, or Elite, but I play Iron Warriors...) in a 2000 point game... compared to 3 now. Granted, I'd need to seriously skimp points in other places, but the amount of firepower there is staggering.

Sounds fun doesn't it!

The difference between Long Fangs and Devastators will become Dramatic very quickly after the 1st time wounds are suffered.

Let’s keep this simple:
You have two units, a 10 Man Missile Launcher Devastator Squad and a 6 Man Long Fang Missile Launcher Pack.
Devastators: You can place 5 Meat Shields close to the enemy to protect your Sergeant and Missile Launchers.
Long Fangs: You have No Meat Shields.

Devastators: You may use “Look Out Sir!” to protect your Missile Launchers.
Long Fangs: You have your Pack Leader to take a Hit for your Missile Launcher, no wait it I do that I loose fire control, witch is why I took them in the 1st place.

DarkStarSabre wrote:Hive Guard and Zoanthropes are pretty much the only real options for dealing with vehicles outside of melee- which was difficult as vehicles were prone to zipping off and about.

Exactly - allowing a ranged anti-tank in HS (for example, and yes, I know Tyrannofex, I use them regularly, the point still stands) for Tyranids would allow OTHER elites to actually be used. Maybe even Pyrovores.


Ok, maybe hyperbolic, but we will never know.

Davylove21 wrote:I just made an 8 HQ list for Space Wolves that would be so fun to play, even in defeat.

8 x Wolf Guard Battle Leader. Runic Armour, Frost Blade, Storm Shield
8 x 5 Man Grey Hunter, 2 flamers
2 x 5 Man Long Fangs, 4 ML
(10 points spent on something at random for the extra FOC)

I don't play SW and I very much doubt anybody would be overly afraid of this army but man, I'd love to play it!

Looking forward to gaming with this edition

The only problem with this list is that Every WGBL needs to have diffrent gear.

Also

The difference between Long Fangs and Devastators will become Dramatic very quickly after the 1st time wounds are suffered.

Let’s keep this simple:
You have two units, a 10 Man Missile Launcher Devastator Squad and a 6 Man Long Fang Missile Launcher Pack.
Devastators: You can place 5 Meat Shields close to the enemy to protect your Sergeant and Missile Launchers.
Long Fangs: You have No Meat Shields.

Devastators: You may use “Look Out Sir!” to protect your Missile Launchers.
Long Fangs: You have your Pack Leader to take a Hit for your Missile Launcher, no wait it I do that I loose fire control, witch is why I took them in the 1st place.

I can finally make a real iron warrior army with guardsman slaves and some big guns. Ah ya.

Anpu42 wrote:The difference between Long Fangs and Devastators will become Dramatic very quickly after the 1st time wounds are suffered.

Let’s keep this simple:
You have two units, a 10 Man Missile Launcher Devastator Squad and a 6 Man Long Fang Missile Launcher Pack.
Devastators: You can place 5 Meat Shields close to the enemy to protect your Sergeant and Missile Launchers.
Long Fangs: You have No Meat Shields.

Devastators: You may use “Look Out Sir!” to protect your Missile Launchers.
Long Fangs: You have your Pack Leader to take a Hit for your Missile Launcher, no wait it I do that I loose fire control, witch is why I took them in the 1st place.

This is the exact same as it is now. No meat shields and the first guy to die loses you fire control.

kirsanth wrote:

DarkStarSabre wrote:Hive Guard and Zoanthropes are pretty much the only real options for dealing with vehicles outside of melee- which was difficult as vehicles were prone to zipping off and about.

Exactly - allowing a ranged anti-tank in HS (for example, and yes, I know Tyrannofex, I use them regularly, the point still stands) for Tyranids would allow OTHER elites to actually be used. Maybe even Pyrovores.


Ok, maybe hyperbolic, but we will never know.

You use Tyrannofex. I found Trygons much more preferable. That and the amount of ID wandering about with some silver armoured stick wielders or some S&M elves with bondage power whips wounding on 4+ made a land raider+ costing I1 monstrous creature pretty much worthless, even if he stayed at the rear. Something would just fly across or teleport across and grind him down. At least the Trygons took the fight to them and helped with target saturation.

Anpu42 wrote:Let’s keep this simple:
You have two units, a 10 Man Missile Launcher Devastator Squad and a 6 Man Long Fang Missile Launcher Pack.
Devastators: You can place 5 Meat Shields close to the enemy to protect your Sergeant and Missile Launchers.
Long Fangs: You have No Meat Shields.

While true, it should be noted that the "meat shields" that would be in the LF could also have missile launchers, making them much more useful for what the squad is used for.

Anpu42 wrote:The difference between Long Fangs and Devastators will become Dramatic very quickly after the 1st time wounds are suffered.

Let’s keep this simple:
You have two units, a 10 Man Missile Launcher Devastator Squad and a 6 Man Long Fang Missile Launcher Pack.
Devastators: You can place 5 Meat Shields close to the enemy to protect your Sergeant and Missile Launchers.
Long Fangs: You have No Meat Shields.

Devastators: You may use “Look Out Sir!” to protect your Missile Launchers.
Long Fangs: You have your Pack Leader to take a Hit for your Missile Launcher, no wait it I do that I loose fire control, witch is why I took them in the 1st place.

Thats always been the case, the 5 meat soaks cost the regular dev squad so much that you could only field 2 of your dev squads vs. 3 full long fang squads, with points to spare... You have always been able to easily plink the long fangs away. Their benefit comes from cost (cheap) and volume of quality missile fire that can split.

I am going to bubble wrap my devastators with fire warriors.

Nagashek wrote:
I think the odds per broadside are actually much higher than that. it's a 4/9 chance per Broadside to take a hull point, so 4 of them would do it, even if you didn't get the penetrating 6 to destroy the vehicle. 8/9 to hit, 1/2 to glance or pen. Or 8/9 to hit, 1/3 to pen, then 1/2 to destroy. That's where it looks like you need 6 of them, but well before 6 you will have stripped off all the hull points. Boom.

Really?

4/9 for an individual Broadside to glance/pen. So with 6 Broadsides, that's 2.67 glance or pens.
8/54 for an individual Broadside to pen and roll an Explode result. So with 6 Broadsides, that's .888 Explode results.

It's around 40% for your first salvo of 3 Broadsides to wreck the Land Raider.

Land Raiders were already pretty scary against Tau. They took a lot of firepower to stop or destroy in 5th. With the glancing changes and the lack of S8/S9/melta weaponry in the Tau army, Land Raiders are now more resilient to Railguns and a lot harder to stop.

AV13 and 3 hull points is much more manageable. But AV14 and 4 hull points is actually quite strong.

White Ninja wrote:I can finally make a real iron warrior army with guardsman slaves and some big guns. Ah ya.

Im facing that on Sunday.

Thrawn2600 wrote:I am going to bubble wrap my devastators with fire warriors.

Only gives the devs a 5+ cover save, so meh.

elrabin wrote:

Nagashek wrote:
I think the odds per broadside are actually much higher than that. it's a 4/9 chance per Broadside to take a hull point, so 4 of them would do it, even if you didn't get the penetrating 6 to destroy the vehicle. 8/9 to hit, 1/2 to glance or pen. Or 8/9 to hit, 1/3 to pen, then 1/2 to destroy. That's where it looks like you need 6 of them, but well before 6 you will have stripped off all the hull points. Boom.

Really?

4/9 for an individual Broadside to glance/pen. So with 6 Broadsides, that's 2.67 glance or pens.
8/54 for an individual Broadside to pen and roll an Explode result. So with 6 Broadsides, that's .888 Explode results.

It's around 40% for your first salvo of 3 Broadsides to wreck the Land Raider.

Land Raiders were already pretty scary against Tau. They took a lot of firepower to stop or destroy in 5th. With the glancing changes and the lack of S8/S9/melta weaponry in the Tau army, Land Raiders are now more resilient to Railguns and a lot harder to stop.

AV13 and 3 hull points is much more manageable. But AV14 and 4 hull points is actually quite strong.

With ap1 retaining its ability to kill (+2 to the chart but the chart needing a 6 to go boom) its really a wash. Hull points also give it another avenue to be dealt with. Its still a stout tank, it just might not be a value buy given how expensive it + cargo usually is.

Can someone answer what the "default" cover save is?
I know it's 4+ for ruins but what about for rocks, rubble, etc?
And/or out of sight models.

5+

DarkStarSabre wrote:
No, it's because the Tyranid elite choices are pretty much mandatory. Hive Guard and Zoanthropes are pretty much the only real options for dealing with vehicles outside of melee- which was difficult as vehicles were prone to zipping off and about. They're not really good.

You have Hive Guard. And Zoanthropes.
Lictors are pretty much ignored.
Pyrovores.....hahahahahaha.
Ymgarls are neat for what they do but conventional Genestealer spam got the job done just as well.
Venomthropes suffered the same ID issues as Warriors, Shrikes and Raveners.

There are some changes that will force some re-evaluating to this list. With the change to Outflank, regular genestealers can't assault as they arrive, and are very vulnerable to being shot. However the Ymgarl rules seem to exempt that, and they can still assault as they appear. It's just a pity they can't take a Broodlord too!

Venomthropes could be neat with alongside the new Shroud USR from psychic powers, resulting in a 3+ cover save.

Aaaaand finally Deathleaper has an amusing niche use. Got a troublesome enemy psyker to deal with, like Mephiston or Draigo? Take Deathleaper, reduce their leadership by D3 and hide off the board so they can't remove the penalty. Now laugh as SitW does its work.

lazarian wrote:
With ap1 retaining its ability to kill (+2 to the chart but the chart needing a 6 to go boom) its really a wash. Hull points also give it another avenue to be dealt with. Its still a stout tank, it just might not be a value buy given how expensive it + cargo usually is.

The problem is Rails are less killy. Their damage is the same on pens, but glances can no longer stun, immobilize, or wreck. Tau don't typically bring melta (aside from 1 or 2 Piranhas that are used for movement blocking), and there's zero S8/S9 weapons (aside for those so-often-used Seeker missiles). No Power Fists, either.

Don't get me wrong -- I like the changes. And I think EMP grenades or allies are a fine way for Tau to deal with AV14 (if it's even needed). I'm just disagreeing with the statement that Broadsides are now better against LRs than they were in 5th.

It is much harder to hide off the board now as the roll to come in is lower.

xttz wrote:
There are some changes that will force some re-evaluating to this list. With the change to Outflank, regular genestealers can't assault as they arrive, and are very vulnerable to being shot. However the Ymgarl rules seem to exempt that, and they can still assault as they appear. It's just a pity they can't take a Broodlord too!

So now there will be one less viable Elite choice? Na. I just doubt they will outflank as often.

xttz wrote:Venomthropes could be neat with alongside the new Shroud USR from psychic powers, resulting in a 3+ cover save.

The random one you can't plan for?

xttz wrote:Aaaaand finally Deathleaper has an amusing niche use.

Deathleaper hasn't changed - its just too expensive for what it does. It can straight up win/tie objective games, but that is also a gamble - and not new.

lazarian wrote:

Anpu42 wrote:The difference between Long Fangs and Devastators will become Dramatic very quickly after the 1st time wounds are suffered.

Let’s keep this simple:
You have two units, a 10 Man Missile Launcher Devastator Squad and a 6 Man Long Fang Missile Launcher Pack.
Devastators: You can place 5 Meat Shields close to the enemy to protect your Sergeant and Missile Launchers.
Long Fangs: You have No Meat Shields.

Devastators: You may use “Look Out Sir!” to protect your Missile Launchers.
Long Fangs: You have your Pack Leader to take a Hit for your Missile Launcher, no wait it I do that I loose fire control, witch is why I took them in the 1st place.

Thats always been the case, the 5 meat soaks cost the regular dev squad so much that you could only field 2 of your dev squads vs. 3 full long fang squads, with points to spare... You have always been able to easily plink the long fangs away. Their benefit comes from cost (cheap) and volume of quality missile fire that can split.

Yes, but is 1 Squad worth it as an ally. You need a HQ and a Troop, that’s a lot of point for 5 Missile Launchers.
Now if you are going to do it I would go with:
Wolf Priest [Goes with the Long Fangs]
A Grey Hunter Pack [In a Pod or Rhino]
A Mixed Long Fangs of Missile Launchers [for AAA] and Las-Cannons.

Now you a really powerful Ally for about 500-600 points

pretre wrote:It is much harder to hide off the board now as the roll to come in is lower.

Bring a Skyshield landing platform, or whatever its called, if you plan to. It allows reroll of successes too.

kirsanth wrote:

pretre wrote:It is much harder to hide off the board now as the roll to come in is lower.

Bring a Skyshield landing platform, or whatever its called, if you plan to. It allows reroll of successes too.

Oooh, neat.

Hmmm, 8 iron Warrior heavy Support Slots....plus Allied IG heavy Support Slots...

Vindicators, Defilers and Russes (or Manticores/Bassies), oh my!

DEATHSRIKES!!!!

With my Chaos !

Anpu42 wrote:The difference between Long Fangs and Devastators will become Dramatic very quickly after the 1st time wounds are suffered.

Let’s keep this simple:
You have two units, a 10 Man Missile Launcher Devastator Squad and a 6 Man Long Fang Missile Launcher Pack.
Devastators: You can place 5 Meat Shields close to the enemy to protect your Sergeant and Missile Launchers.
Long Fangs: You have No Meat Shields.

Devastators: You may use “Look Out Sir!” to protect your Missile Launchers.
Long Fangs: You have your Pack Leader to take a Hit for your Missile Launcher, no wait it I do that I loose fire control, witch is why I took them in the 1st place.

You can't "Look Out Sir" missile launchers, only characters get that benefit, which does not include normal devestators with special weapons.

elrabin wrote:

Nagashek wrote:
I think the odds per broadside are actually much higher than that. it's a 4/9 chance per Broadside to take a hull point, so 4 of them would do it, even if you didn't get the penetrating 6 to destroy the vehicle. 8/9 to hit, 1/2 to glance or pen. Or 8/9 to hit, 1/3 to pen, then 1/2 to destroy. That's where it looks like you need 6 of them, but well before 6 you will have stripped off all the hull points. Boom.

Really?

4/9 for an individual Broadside to glance/pen. So with 6 Broadsides, that's 2.67 glance or pens.
8/54 for an individual Broadside to pen and roll an Explode result. So with 6 Broadsides, that's .888 Explode results.

It's around 40% for your first salvo of 3 Broadsides to wreck the Land Raider.

Land Raiders were already pretty scary against Tau. They took a lot of firepower to stop or destroy in 5th. With the glancing changes and the lack of S8/S9/melta weaponry in the Tau army, Land Raiders are now more resilient to Railguns and a lot harder to stop.

AV13 and 3 hull points is much more manageable. But AV14 and 4 hull points is actually quite strong.

Did you take into account a railgun blowsup tanks on a 4,5 or 6 on pen hit??
Without running the math I would have thought broadside squad with target arrays and twin linked with +2 on damage chart have a far higher chance to blow up a tank then 40%. very high chance to hit what is is 89%, 50% chance just to get a glance and 50% chance any pen hits blow up the tank.

Praxiss wrote:Hmmm, 8 iron Warrior heavy Support Slots....plus Allied IG heavy Support Slots...

Vindicators, Defilers and Russes (or Manticores/Bassies), oh my!

You still using the 3.5 Chaos Codex?

Joey wrote:Ohhh so if you want the second detachment, you need another HQ and two troops. Makes sense, though not much of a detriment for most armies.

Hardly surprising since that how it's been for the past 14 years.

lord_blackfang wrote:

Joey wrote:Ohhh so if you want the second detachment, you need another HQ and two troops. Makes sense, though not much of a detriment for most armies.

Hardly surprising since that how it's been for the past 14 years.

Woah woah woah. No using common sense!

Pottsey wrote:
Did you take into account a railgun blowsup tanks on a 4,5 or 6 on pen hit??
Without running the math I would have thought broadside squad with target arrays and twin linked with +2 on damage chart have a far higher chance to blow up a tank then 40%. very high chance to hit what is is 85%?, 50% chance just to get a glance and 50% chance any pen hits blow up the tank.

Yep.

With a Targeting array, to-hit is 8/9
Against AV14, 5+ pens. So 1/3 of the hits pen.
4+ Explodes. So 1/2 of the pens kill the vehicle.

= 8/54 for one Broadside to Explode a LR.

Three broadsides is 4/9 expected Explode results. And the probability that three Broadsides Explode a LR is (1-(1-8/54)^3) = .382

kirsanth wrote:

pretre wrote:It is much harder to hide off the board now as the roll to come in is lower.

Bring a Skyshield landing platform, or whatever its called, if you plan to. It allows reroll of successes too.

Actually that's the Comms Relay, which is an option for the Bastions and Aegis Defence Lines, the Skyshield platform primarily functions to allow you to bring in deep striking models without scattering.

Praxiss wrote:Hmmm, 8 iron Warrior heavy Support Slots....plus Allied IG heavy Support Slots...

Vindicators, Defilers and Russes (or Manticores/Bassies), oh my!

It's only 6 Iron Warrior heavy slots, then 2 more from some IG friends. Regardless, it sounds like heaven to me! Am I crazy, or did I read in the mass of rumors (who can keep up at this point) that for purposes of vehicle penetration, the entire large template counts as full strength now? If that's the case, I will 100% be taking an allied Manticore along...

pretre wrote:It is much harder to hide off the board now as the roll to come in is lower.

His "Where'd it go?" special rule let's you remove him from the board in any movement phase and go back into reserve. He never has to be on the board in an enemy turn if you don't want him to be.

kirsanth wrote:

xttz wrote:Aaaaand finally Deathleaper has an amusing niche use.

Deathleaper hasn't changed - its just too expensive for what it does. It can straight up win/tie objective games, but that is also a gamble - and not new.

The new part is the 3 extra Elite slots making him a more viable option.

IronNerd wrote:

Praxiss wrote:Hmmm, 8 iron Warrior heavy Support Slots....plus Allied IG heavy Support Slots...

Vindicators, Defilers and Russes (or Manticores/Bassies), oh my!

It's only 6 Iron Warrior heavy slots, then 2 more from some IG friends. Regardless, it sounds like heaven to me! Am I crazy, or did I read in the mass of rumors (who can keep up at this point) that for purposes of vehicle penetration, the entire large template counts as full strength now? If that's the case, I will 100% be taking an allied Manticore along...

The whole template is full str.

xttz wrote:The new part is the 3 extra Elite slots making him a more viable option.

Extra detachments are not new. Playing with them would be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drunkspleen wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

pretre wrote:It is much harder to hide off the board now as the roll to come in is lower.

Bring a Skyshield landing platform, or whatever its called, if you plan to. It allows reroll of successes too.

Actually that's the Comms Relay, which is an option for the Bastions and Aegis Defence Lines, the Skyshield platform primarily functions to allow you to bring in deep striking models without scattering.

Right. . . .my bad. That's even cheaper, then, iirc.
Thanks!

Byte wrote:

IronNerd wrote:

Ovion wrote:Ok, small update:
This is exactly how the FoC is now:

Spoiler:

I feel like this whole deal has been seriously under-discussed. 2000 point games are the norm around here, and the FOC changes change the game even more than allies IMO. Heck, combine two Primary and two Secondary detachments and you could have 8 Heavy Support (or FA, or Elite, but I play Iron Warriors...) in a 2000 point game... compared to 3 now. Granted, I'd need to seriously skimp points in other places, but the amount of firepower there is staggering.

Sounds fun doesn't it!

Does this mean at 2000pts I will need two HQs and four troop choices? If thats the case then you may as well take the allies since you only need one HQ and 1 troops choice for them.

at 2000 points, you'd need to take 2 Primary detachments to get the 2nd Allies slot.

kirsanth wrote:

pretre wrote:It is much harder to hide off the board now as the roll to come in is lower.

Bring a Skyshield landing platform, or whatever its called, if you plan to. It allows reroll of successes too.

I'm only operating based on the screenshot of the page with Skyshield Landing Pad in the new rulebook and it doesn't say anything about reserves at all, except that your deep strikers don't scatter if they land on it. Where does it say that reserves can be re-rolled?

DarthOvious wrote:
Does this mean at 2000pts I will need two HQs and four troop choices? If thats the case then you may as well take the allies since you only need one HQ and 1 troops choice for them.

The second Primary Detachment is optional, so you won't be *forced* to take 2 HQs and 4 Troops. However, if you do, then you open yourself up to being able to take 6 HS, 6 FA, and 6 Elite. It's definitely a good thing that it still takes troops to score, or I would foresee people skimping severely to get as many toys as possible... Who am I kidding, people are going to do that anyway.

DarthOvious wrote:

Byte wrote:

IronNerd wrote:

Ovion wrote:Ok, small update:
This is exactly how the FoC is now:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

I feel like this whole deal has been seriously under-discussed. 2000 point games are the norm around here, and the FOC changes change the game even more than allies IMO. Heck, combine two Primary and two Secondary detachments and you could have 8 Heavy Support (or FA, or Elite, but I play Iron Warriors...) in a 2000 point game... compared to 3 now. Granted, I'd need to seriously skimp points in other places, but the amount of firepower there is staggering.

Sounds fun doesn't it!

Does this mean at 2000pts I will need two HQs and four troop choices? If thats the case then you may as well take the allies since you only need one HQ and 1 troops choice for them.

You can only take the second secondary detachment if you've taken a second primary detachment, so to have a access to every possible heavy support slot you'll need 2 HQs and 4 troops from your primary force and 2 HQs and 2 troops from your secondary force.

Anpu42 wrote:The difference between Long Fangs and Devastators will become Dramatic very quickly after the 1st time wounds are suffered.

Let’s keep this simple:
You have two units, a 10 Man Missile Launcher Devastator Squad and a 6 Man Long Fang Missile Launcher Pack.
Devastators: You can place 5 Meat Shields close to the enemy to protect your Sergeant and Missile Launchers.
Long Fangs: You have No Meat Shields.

Devastators: You may use “Look Out Sir!” to protect your Missile Launchers.
Long Fangs: You have your Pack Leader to take a Hit for your Missile Launcher, no wait it I do that I loose fire control, witch is why I took them in the 1st place.

But Long Fangs are cheaper by a mile aren't they? Even with a normal wolf guard to be the second meat shield.

DarthOvious wrote:

Byte wrote:

IronNerd wrote:

Ovion wrote:Ok, small update:
This is exactly how the FoC is now:

Spoiler:

I feel like this whole deal has been seriously under-discussed. 2000 point games are the norm around here, and the FOC changes change the game even more than allies IMO. Heck, combine two Primary and two Secondary detachments and you could have 8 Heavy Support (or FA, or Elite, but I play Iron Warriors...) in a 2000 point game... compared to 3 now. Granted, I'd need to seriously skimp points in other places, but the amount of firepower there is staggering.

Sounds fun doesn't it!

Does this mean at 2000pts I will need two HQs and four troop choices? If thats the case then you may as well take the allies since you only need one HQ and 1 troops choice for them.

You can but don't have to. It would allow you to take two ally detachments and expand your fast Hvy and elite slots to six for your primary detachment.

Has anyone seen any updates / changes to tank shocking / Ramming?

Inquiring deff rollas want to know!

The only noteable change to Ram/Tank Shock I can see is a change to the wording on the skimmer save.

now it is "Cover saves from the Jink special rule can be taken against glancing and penetrating hits caused if a vehicle is rammed"

which would mean the save is worse than the old 3+, and I believe if a skimmer got Deffrolla'd you would have to save against the ram, and each of the S10 Deffrolla hits individually.

Drunkspleen wrote:and I believe if a skimmer got Deffrolla'd you would have to save against the ram, and each of the S10 Deffrolla hits individually.

Oh noes!

Not again!

IronNerd wrote:I feel like this whole deal has been seriously under-discussed. 2000 point games are the norm around here, and the FOC changes change the game even more than allies IMO. Heck, combine two Primary and two Secondary detachments and you could have 8 Heavy Support (or FA, or Elite, but I play Iron Warriors...) in a 2000 point game... compared to 3 now. Granted, I'd need to seriously skimp points in other places, but the amount of firepower there is staggering.

There's been at least a few pages devoted to it in the thread but they're hard to get to once you reach 100+ pages. I suspect we'll be seeing alot of tournies at 1999pts instead of 2,000 or simply flatout not allowing multiple detachments and allies.

warboss wrote:

IronNerd wrote:I feel like this whole deal has been seriously under-discussed. 2000 point games are the norm around here, and the FOC changes change the game even more than allies IMO. Heck, combine two Primary and two Secondary detachments and you could have 8 Heavy Support (or FA, or Elite, but I play Iron Warriors...) in a 2000 point game... compared to 3 now. Granted, I'd need to seriously skimp points in other places, but the amount of firepower there is staggering.

There's been at least a few pages devoted to it in the thread but they're hard to get to once you reach 100+ pages. I suspect we'll be seeing alot of tournies at 1999pts instead of 2,000 or simply flatout not allowing multiple detachments and allies.

I think I would actually be dissapointed if they did that. At this point, these are the standard rules. (Well, in a couple days anyways.) Why not change with the new edition and just accept things are different? Sure there will be some janky stuff but there's always been janky stuff. I'd be a little dissapointed if a 6th ed tourny didn't use all the 6th ed basic rules.

warboss wrote:

IronNerd wrote:I feel like this whole deal has been seriously under-discussed. 2000 point games are the norm around here, and the FOC changes change the game even more than allies IMO. Heck, combine two Primary and two Secondary detachments and you could have 8 Heavy Support (or FA, or Elite, but I play Iron Warriors...) in a 2000 point game... compared to 3 now. Granted, I'd need to seriously skimp points in other places, but the amount of firepower there is staggering.

There's been at least a few pages devoted to it in the thread but they're hard to get to once you reach 100+ pages. I suspect we'll be seeing alot of tournies at 1999pts instead of 2,000 or simply flatout not allowing multiple detachments and allies.

I suspect you're right. For what it's worth, I would MUCH rather have a tournament disallow allies and additional detachments than go to 1999 points. There's something about that approach that seriously grinds my gears...

Drunkspleen wrote:

N.I.B. wrote:Please, Poison, how does it work. Can you still reroll to wound in combat if your strength is equal or higher than target's toughness?

It's all essentially the same as last edition. You do still get the re-roll.

The guys on Warpshadow are saying that it's changed so that a S9 Carnifex with 4+ poison would wound T4 on a 2+, then get the reroll. If true, this is a buff to poison and I can see it becoming more common on Trygons and Tyrants.

Why would you give a S9 model 4+ poison anyway when they will normally wound on better than that anyway.

Even when I do not like the rules, I like changing them less.

I may whine that you get allies and I don't but no way I am going to refuse to play people with legal lists, and I doubt I would start attending modified "40k" tourneys instead because I thought I would lose at a real game of 40k.

Bloodhorror wrote:at 2000 points, you'd need to take 2 Primary detachments to get the 2nd Allies slot.

Ah, so this only when taking allies. So the normal chart for one army will still be One HQ and two troop choices at 2000pts?

Praxiss wrote:Why would you give a S9 model 4+ poison anyway when they will normally wound on better than that anyway.

Rerolls, if the above quote is correct.

kirsanth wrote:Even when I do not like the rules, I like changing them less.

I may whine that you get allies and I don't but no way I am going to refuse to play people with legal lists, and I doubt I would start attending modified "40k" tourneys instead because I thought I would lose at a real game of 40k.

+1 It's always a pet peeve of mine when the standard suggestion is "Just houserule that" or "Just don't use that rule". I play a game with standardized rules that I will follow, and I expect my opponents to follow them as well. Good, bad, or indifferent, I'd rather play with what's official.

OOh. Question regardign glancing hits and Hull points..

Does the rulebook mention Super Heavies at all? We've all been waiting to see if Entropic Striek gets FAQ's vs super-heavies....what about gauss induce glancing hits?

I'm assuming these do nothing agsainst Structure Points and just auto remove Hull Points. Which means that for SuperHeavies you still roll on the damage table as normal for Glancing Hits.

Thunderfrog wrote:

warboss wrote:There's been at least a few pages devoted to it in the thread but they're hard to get to once you reach 100+ pages. I suspect we'll be seeing alot of tournies at 1999pts instead of 2,000 or simply flatout not allowing multiple detachments and allies.

I think I would actually be dissapointed if they did that. At this point, these are the standard rules. (Well, in a couple days anyways.) Why not change with the new edition and just accept things are different? Sure there will be some janky stuff but there's always been janky stuff. I'd be a little dissapointed if a 6th ed tourny didn't use all the 6th ed basic rules.

Because not all change is for the better? I started playing 40k with the switch to 3rd edition and remember the lists of restrictions that used to accompany tourny advertisments. No this WD list, no this codex list, no this chapter approved unit.. etc. All that stuff was official and (for a while) without needing any consent. I'm glad that GW is trying something new but I would have strongly preferred if they made this stuff optional or had simply upped the point minimum to 3,000 (or 2,501+). 3k was already an accepted game size for wacky stuff due to apocalypse and most people would have hardly batted an eyelash at allies and extra force orgs there.

Not only that, but at 2,000 points I can't see people constantly filling out 8 HS slots or what have you. Nids would be able to do elites, but by the time you've paid for the 6 HQs and 6 troops required to actually field a primary and secondary detachment, along with primary and secondary allies detachment, I don't see a whole lot of points left for most armies. If they do have a ton, it means their scoring Troops choices are likely very weak.

lord_blackfang wrote:

Joey wrote:Ohhh so if you want the second detachment, you need another HQ and two troops. Makes sense, though not much of a detriment for most armies.

Hardly surprising since that how it's been for the past 14 years.

I wasn't aware that the past 14 years allowed you to double the FOC, have I been playing it wrong?

Joey wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:

Joey wrote:Ohhh so if you want the second detachment, you need another HQ and two troops. Makes sense, though not much of a detriment for most armies.

Hardly surprising since that how it's been for the past 14 years.

I wasn't aware that the past 14 years allowed you to double the FOC, have I been playing it wrong?

If you wanted two detachments, you took two FOC. That's always been that way. 5th ed even talks about it for larger games, taking two FOC detachments. 6th just codifies it better.

So, for the record, it sounds like 6th could be good, and I was right to come out of retirement.

A question for everyone: Were people gripped by panic because they generally feared the direction they thought 6th was going in, or was it just an opportunity for nerd rage?

Anyway, I do like the fortification rule. Makes sense for iron warriors players.

I do like the hull points rule as well. Makes sense. I'm reading a book about tank tactics in WW2 and having land raiders/leman russes that size makes no sense from a military point ov view. Way to big a profile for anti-tank guns.

Any word on that old favourite the vortex grenade? Even if they only used the small blast template I'd be a happy man if they've put that in 6th.

Vortex Grenades are generally Apoc only.

Joey wrote:I wasn't aware that the past 14 years allowed you to double the FOC, have I been playing it wrong?

Check page 87 of the 5e rules.

Hmm just thought about the second FOC at 2000pts.

How would unit limitations imposed by characters impact on the units in the second detachment?

So if I had my Primary Detachment led by Farsight and he filled his allowed amount of Broadsides and Hammerheads (1 unit of each) could I take more of these units in the second detachment?

Would the members of the second detachment still get Preferred Enemy against Orks, or the free Bonding Knives?

Looks like the Tau FAQ is gonna have to clear a lot of stuff up.

streamdragon wrote:Not only that, but at 2,000 points I can't see people constantly filling out 8 HS slots or what have you. Nids would be able to do elites, but by the time you've paid for the 6 HQs and 6 troops required to actually field a primary and secondary detachment, along with primary and secondary allies detachment, I don't see a whole lot of points left for most armies. If they do have a ton, it means their scoring Troops choices are likely very weak.

Have faith in your fellow minmaxing gamers. Someone somewhere will find and post a completely broken list that is only possible with the switch to 2 force orgs and allies. It may take a few months but the cheese will eventually flow.

warboss wrote: Someone somewhere will find and post a completely broken list that is only possible with the switch to 2 force orgs and allies. It may take a few months

Why would it take so long? Do you expect it to only be from the next codex?

Wait, stop the presses. People will make broken army lists? When did this start???

warboss wrote:

streamdragon wrote:Not only that, but at 2,000 points I can't see people constantly filling out 8 HS slots or what have you. Nids would be able to do elites, but by the time you've paid for the 6 HQs and 6 troops required to actually field a primary and secondary detachment, along with primary and secondary allies detachment, I don't see a whole lot of points left for most armies. If they do have a ton, it means their scoring Troops choices are likely very weak.

Have faith in your fellow minmaxing gamers. Someone somewhere will find and post a completely broken list that is only possible with the switch to 2 force orgs and allies. It may take a few months but the cheese will eventually flow.

I'm sure it will. Granted, I've never figured out how people manage to keep the 5man GH squads I constantly see in lists alive, so it's possible someone will post the broken list and I'll go "wth?".


That might also be why I have a horribly lopsided losing record though.

kirsanth wrote:

Joey wrote:I wasn't aware that the past 14 years allowed you to double the FOC, have I been playing it wrong?

Check page 87 of the 5e rules.

The same page also states that you must agree with your opponent about the number of detachments and recommends considering the rule at 2,500pts and up. While I haven't gotten my hands personally on the new book, the reports seem to indicate that no "agreement" is needed any longer and the point total has decreased to 2,000. Multiple detachments went from an option to use in large games that are not the norm to a standard choice in standard sized games. That's a key difference.

warboss wrote:

streamdragon wrote:Not only that, but at 2,000 points I can't see people constantly filling out 8 HS slots or what have you. Nids would be able to do elites, but by the time you've paid for the 6 HQs and 6 troops required to actually field a primary and secondary detachment, along with primary and secondary allies detachment, I don't see a whole lot of points left for most armies. If they do have a ton, it means their scoring Troops choices are likely very weak.

Have faith in your fellow minmaxing gamers. Someone somewhere will find and post a completely broken list that is only possible with the switch to 2 force orgs and allies. It may take a few months but the cheese will eventually flow.

Bare minimum units of Fire Warriors with 2 Aegis Defence Lines or 2 Fortresses.

You can fit 3 units in one of the Frotresses which costs 220 points right? That 220 points is cheaper than 3 Devilfish (even without any upgrades), has better AV and a more powerful gun .
Then we just max out Elites with Crisis Suits and Heavy Support with Broadsides and Hammerheads and Skyrays (if they get Skyfire).

warboss wrote:The same page also states that you must agree with your opponent about the number of detachments and recommends considering the rule at 2,500pts and up.

You already need to agree with your opponent to play a game. Now the same is true at 2k+

editing to clarify:
This will not change most pick-up games, and I doubt tourneys, but we shall see.

Currently if someone says "want to play 3k with 2 detachments?" I generally say "No I only have lists with one detachment." That's probably not going to change, except "3k" is now "2.5k".

It may start to be more common to be asked, but it does not change who responds positively.

That said, it may be more common now to be asked, but if people are only showing up with what amounts to almost Apoc sized armies and without being willing to play smaller games - they are in the same boat as they are now.

kirsanth wrote:

warboss wrote:The same page also states that you must agree with your opponent about the number of detachments and recommends considering the rule at 2,500pts and up.

You already need to agree with your opponent to play a game. Now the same is true at 2k+

Yes, and you can also refuse to play all people wearing a blue shirt... neither of which help the discussion here. No one is disputing that you can refuse to play anyone for any reason so let's not bring up that red herring. The discussion is about the significant changes to the "standard" game most players encounter and the adoption of previously optional rules that required consent into it.

I suppose opening the second FOC chart does open the way to, kind of, ally with yourself (codex wise).


So have your primary force of Ultramrines with IG Allies.....hit 200 points and bring in your support army of Salamandres (same codex) and more IG.

6 wraiths with 2 attached destroyer lords with the option to still take 2 overlords for double royal courts.... Tasty

It still does not change (one of) the actual issue with allies though. Regardless of how many FO charts are used, one single army gets less possible units due to less slots available on that chart.

gorgon wrote:The guys on Warpshadow are saying that it's changed so that a S9 Carnifex with 4+ poison would wound T4 on a 2+, then get the reroll. If true, this is a buff to poison and I can see it becoming more common on Trygons and Tyrants.

Right, I was looking at it from a Dark Eldar perspective, yes, poison now allows you to use your strength instead of the poison if your strength has a better chance to wound, and the re-roll doesn't seem to be contingent on using the actual poison roll, so that does indeed seem to be a correct interpretation of the rule.

pretre wrote:

Praxiss wrote:Why would you give a S9 model 4+ poison anyway when they will normally wound on better than that anyway.

Rerolls, if the above quote is correct.

poison all ready does that if I remember correctly.

Drunkspleen wrote:

gorgon wrote:The guys on Warpshadow are saying that it's changed so that a S9 Carnifex with 4+ poison would wound T4 on a 2+, then get the reroll. If true, this is a buff to poison and I can see it becoming more common on Trygons and Tyrants.

Right, I was looking at it from a Dark Eldar perspective, yes, poison now allows you to use your strength instead of the poison if your strength has a better chance to wound, and the re-roll doesn't seem to be contingent on using the actual poison roll, so that does indeed seem to be a correct interpretation of the rule.

So an Archon using an Agoniser and Soul Trap just became awesome. Kill one IC or MC and trap its soul to become S6 with S7/S8 on the charge once you get up to Furious Charge from Power from Pain (which comes first, the double strength from Soul Trap or the +1 from FC?). Wounding most normal stuff on 2s with a re-roll, anything T6 is wounded on a 4+ with a re-roll and anything higher is still just wounded on a 4+. Kill another IC or MC and double it again, now he's S10 and wounding pretty much everything on 2s with a re-roll.

Ouch.

balsak_da_mighty wrote:

pretre wrote:

Praxiss wrote:Why would you give a S9 model 4+ poison anyway when they will normally wound on better than that anyway.

Rerolls, if the above quote is correct.

poison all ready does that if I remember correctly.

You do, but a 4+ poison does not currently wound on 2+ for a carnifex. Which people are saying it now will.

Well, despite what everyone else is saying, I'm still pressing ahead with my racial purity rule.

Also, I'm going to try and persuade my gaming group to limit army selection to 1500 point games and limit the chart to a max of:

1 HQ, 4 troop choices, 3 fast attack, 2 Heavy support, 1 elite, and 1 fortification and NO allies!!! This could make for exciting and tense games. Finally, I don't need any pedants pointing out any flaws with the above!!

kirsanth wrote:

warboss wrote:The same page also states that you must agree with your opponent about the number of detachments and recommends considering the rule at 2,500pts and up.

You already need to agree with your opponent to play a game. Now the same is true at 2k+

editing to clarify:
This will not change most pick-up games, and I doubt tourneys, but we shall see.

Currently if someone says "want to play 3k with 2 detachments?" I generally say "No I only have lists with one detachment." That's probably not going to change, except "3k" is now "2.5k".

It may start to be more common to be asked, but it does not change who responds positively.

That said, it may be more common now to be asked, but if people are only showing up with what amounts to almost Apoc sized armies and without being willing to play smaller games - they are in the same boat as they are now.

I can only comment about my own experiences. I personally have played a few games versus the types of armies that will be allowed as standard with these new rules and they have universally been the opposite of fun when I brought my normal one detachment lists. Facing a 6 heavy support force with a current edition normal army generally leads to a one sided battle regardless of tactics (usually in favor of the 6 HS). Right now, it's normal to NOT bring that type of force but will soon be normal a that does indeed change who responds positively. I don't like the idea of multiple detachments at 2k (2.5k would be my personal minimum as that is when a player starts to actually need it) and don't like the idea of allies at all... but I'll have to frequently say "yes" with this new edition. I generally don't find a line of players at my FLGS just waiting for a game... excluding a player with a legal list containing items I don't like will frequently mean that I just travelled 25 miles to sit for a few hours in a different chair instead of playing. I suspect most people are in that same boat and will be defacto forced into responding positively.

warboss wrote:I can only comment about my own experiences. I personally have played a few games versus the types of armies that will be allowed as standard with these new rules and they have universally been the opposite of fun when I brought my normal one detachment lists. Facing a 6 heavy support force with a current edition normal army generally leads to a one sided battle regardless of tactics (usually in favor of the 6 HS). Right now, it's normal to NOT bring that type of force but will soon be normal a that does indeed change who responds positively. I don't like the idea of multiple detachments at 2k (2.5k would be my personal minimum as that is when a player starts to actually need it) and don't like the idea of allies at all... but I'll have to frequently say "yes" with this new edition. I generally don't find a line of players at my FLGS just waiting for a game... excluding a player with a legal list containing items I don't like will frequently mean that I just travelled 25 miles to sit for a few hours in a different chair instead of playing. I suspect most people are in that same boat and will be defacto forced into responding positively.

I do not disagree, but that line of reasoning goes both ways.

If you are the only guy with a single detachment army, I even agree. The people I see bringing that many models are the same set that are entirely willing to play just about anything.

The people willing to play only the single huge list they brought are already in an odd spot for pick-up games.

Editing to add:
I say that as one who regularly brings like 5k+ points of models with me and has many lists that I let my opponent choose from.

I may end up with multi-detachment lists too now, and really it may be more fun that way. It really isn't why I was talking about them. heh

A Town Called Malus wrote:So an Archon using an Agoniser and Soul Trap just became awesome. Kill one IC or MC and trap its soul to become S6 with S7/S8 on the charge once you get up to Furious Charge from Power from Pain (which comes first, the double strength from Soul Trap or the +1 from FC?). Wounding most normal stuff on 2s with a re-roll, anything T6 is wounded on a 4+, with a re-roll and anything higher is still just wounded on a 4+.

Ouch.

Agonizers aren't poison weapons, you would have to use a Venom Blade, in which case, there's really no hidden benefit here, since you could have done the same thing in 5th edition.

edit: A Haemonculi can pull it off with a Flesh Gauntlet, which has the added benefit of Instant Deathing the IC or MC needed to get the strength bonus, but you don't get the armour penetration of an agonizer.

pretre wrote:Wait, stop the presses. People will make broken army lists? When did this start???

Seriously. It doesn't matter what the army comp rules are. There's always going to be a way to figure out how to make a very strong army list. Some lists are just going to be better than others.

kirsanth wrote:

warboss wrote:I can only comment about my own experiences. I personally have played a few games versus the types of armies that will be allowed as standard with these new rules and they have universally been the opposite of fun when I brought my normal one detachment lists. Facing a 6 heavy support force with a current edition normal army generally leads to a one sided battle regardless of tactics (usually in favor of the 6 HS). Right now, it's normal to NOT bring that type of force but will soon be normal a that does indeed change who responds positively. I don't like the idea of multiple detachments at 2k (2.5k would be my personal minimum as that is when a player starts to actually need it) and don't like the idea of allies at all... but I'll have to frequently say "yes" with this new edition. I generally don't find a line of players at my FLGS just waiting for a game... excluding a player with a legal list containing items I don't like will frequently mean that I just travelled 25 miles to sit for a few hours in a different chair instead of playing. I suspect most people are in that same boat and will be defacto forced into responding positively.

I do not disagree, but that line of reasoning goes both ways.

If you are the only guy with a single detachment army, I even agree. The people I see bringing that many models are the same set that are entirely willing to play just about anything.

The people willing to play only the single huge list they brought are already in an odd spot for pick-up games.

Do you consider 2k to be a huge list? Locally and on the internet, it seems to have become a defacto standard over the past dozen years of game size creep. In my experience, the only people who don't want to play that size have been those on a time crunch (second game of the night and they have to leave in less than 2 hours) or those just starting out in the game or a new army (and they don't have the figs necessary). I've never found myself to be in an odd spot for games at that size.

Drunkspleen wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:So an Archon using an Agoniser and Soul Trap just became awesome. Kill one IC or MC and trap its soul to become S6 with S7/S8 on the charge once you get up to Furious Charge from Power from Pain (which comes first, the double strength from Soul Trap or the +1 from FC?). Wounding most normal stuff on 2s with a re-roll, anything T6 is wounded on a 4+, with a re-roll and anything higher is still just wounded on a 4+.

Ouch.

Agonizers aren't poison weapons, you would have to use a Venom Blade, in which case, there's really no hidden benefit here, since you could have done the same thing in 5th edition.

In 5th poison attacks always wounded at a set X+. Seems 6th is letting you wound at STR or X+ which ever is better. Really does make atoxin sacs on 'fex actually reasonable instead of a 10 point nerf.

balsak_da_mighty wrote:

pretre wrote:

Praxiss wrote:Why would you give a S9 model 4+ poison anyway when they will normally wound on better than that anyway.

Rerolls, if the above quote is correct.

poison all ready does that if I remember correctly.

Because they also get their normal to wound roll in 6th. So 2+ with rerolls.

Hmmm.... question! Very minor thing about allies.

Suppose a mostly Death Guard army decide to take Daemons as allies and they take Epidemius. Do the kills of the Plague Marines count for Epy's tally?

And if so, does the 3+ Feel no Pain gained from it ignore the normally 5+ Feel no Pain from the new rulebook?

That would seem to be the case as that is his Special Rule

warboss wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

warboss wrote:I can only comment about my own experiences. I personally have played a few games versus the types of armies that will be allowed as standard with these new rules and they have universally been the opposite of fun when I brought my normal one detachment lists. Facing a 6 heavy support force with a current edition normal army generally leads to a one sided battle regardless of tactics (usually in favor of the 6 HS). Right now, it's normal to NOT bring that type of force but will soon be normal a that does indeed change who responds positively. I don't like the idea of multiple detachments at 2k (2.5k would be my personal minimum as that is when a player starts to actually need it) and don't like the idea of allies at all... but I'll have to frequently say "yes" with this new edition. I generally don't find a line of players at my FLGS just waiting for a game... excluding a player with a legal list containing items I don't like will frequently mean that I just travelled 25 miles to sit for a few hours in a different chair instead of playing. I suspect most people are in that same boat and will be defacto forced into responding positively.

I do not disagree, but that line of reasoning goes both ways.

If you are the only guy with a single detachment army, I even agree. The people I see bringing that many models are the same set that are entirely willing to play just about anything.

The people willing to play only the single huge list they brought are already in an odd spot for pick-up games.

Do you consider 2k to be a huge list? Locally and on the internet, it seems to have become a defacto standard over the past dozen years of game size creep. In my experience, the only people who don't want to play that size have been those on a time crunch (second game of the night and they have to leave in less than 2 hours) or those just starting out in the game or a new army (and they don't have the figs necessary). I've never found myself to be in an odd spot for games at that size.

At my FLGS 2k are big games, most just play around 12-1500 points. Only the regular tourny players play 2k or bigger. I can field almost 5k nids, but still prefer 12-1500 games.

In fantasy, folks just play 2999 or disallow "grand armies". It's pretty much a non-issue there.

Like I said, it's really going to be the S6 stuff that benefits from poison if true. They won't have to sacrifice gribbly-smiting power for the ability to cut T6+ stuff down.

RiTides wrote:In fantasy, folks just play 2999 or disallow "grand armies". It's pretty much a non-issue there.

Every tournament and event already lists the maximum points cost for armies in their announcement or rules pack, and like you said it won't be hard to add "single FOC" or "single FOC and no allies" to the sentence.

RiTides wrote:In fantasy, folks just play 2999 or disallow "grand armies". It's pretty much a non-issue there.

I don't play fantasy. What are the differences at 3000pts and with "grand armies"?

Black Templars require the Emperor's Champion if your army is more than 750 points.

If I only take 500 points of Black Templars as allies with a 2000 point Imperial Guard List, will the Emperor's Champion be required (My army is 2000 points) or not (The Black Templars are only 500 points)?

My gaming group have a cap of 1500 pt games.
We are already talking about disallowing allies, as we are almost to a man, completely done with our armies, and no one is especially interested in buying more models, and staring some kind of stupid arms race to get the "perfect" allies list going.
I'm lucky in that I have a group of people who are happy with this idea.

So I read a while back that ICs get Infiltrate if the squad they joined have it. Has there been any word on whether this applies to other USRs, such as Stealth or Rage? Or do the joined unit lose their USR?

I bring lists up to 3k regularly.

I have not refused to play people with 1500 just because I have a 3k list, though.

If you are the only player in your area/store/house that has (only) a single detachment army list, I can see the issue.

Otherwise it is no different than using a hard-as-nails tourney list at pick-up games; it's fine so long as both players are aware and agreeable.

The other analogy is special characters - especially in Fantasy - people sometimes play games without them. I am collecting an army around a SC and default it into every list I start. Since I am aware that people are sometimes uncomfortable with them I also have lists without.

Same for 40k. I like to use the Swarmlord or the Parasite of Mortrex (or both ), but at least one person I have met prefers not to use SC in 40k even, so I started making lists without them for 40k as well.

I do not see the difference - SC are not "opponent's permission" in WHFB either.

Therion wrote:

RiTides wrote:In fantasy, folks just play 2999 or disallow "grand armies". It's pretty much a non-issue there.

Every tournament and event already lists the maximum points cost for armies in their announcement or rules pack, and like you said it won't be hard to add "single FOC" or "single FOC and no allies" to the sentence.

True. But I can already see some competitive gamers crying, "Comp!" over tournaments that impose restrictions like that. I'm not supporting or opposing the position, but I can see folks complaining that, "These are in the latest ruleset - restricting them is tailoring the game to TO's vision of the 40k universe, not GW's vision." By the same token, though, TO's will also need to decide how to handle 'Mysterious Terrain' in their games. I can see most running the tournaments without it, or specifying it for only certain missions. It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out in the tournament community.

Death By Monkeys wrote:True. But I can already see some competitive gamers crying, "Comp!" over tournaments that impose restrictions like that.

Having a points limit for the army list is not really comp, and does avoid at least part of the issue.

streamdragon wrote:Not only that, but at 2,000 points I can't see people constantly filling out 8 HS slots or what have you. Nids would be able to do elites, but by the time you've paid for the 6 HQs and 6 troops required to actually field a primary and secondary detachment, along with primary and secondary allies detachment, I don't see a whole lot of points left for most armies. If they do have a ton, it means their scoring Troops choices are likely very weak.

Even without allies and an extra FOC it looks like you can have 6 heavy supports in 2000pts. There are some really cheap heavies out there. At 135 a piece a SOB army could have 6 exorcists for only 810, still leaves 1190 for a decent army. Or a guard army could spend 1350 for 18 griffons, say good bye to your green tide This is going to make things real interesting to see what people come up with.

Mr. S Baldrick wrote: At 135 a piece a SOB army could have 6 exorcists for only 810,

Muhahahahahah. Of course, my back will hate me for it, but whatever.

kirsanth wrote:

Death By Monkeys wrote:True. But I can already see some competitive gamers crying, "Comp!" over tournaments that impose restrictions like that.

Having a points limit for the army list is not really comp, and does avoid at least part of the issue.

That is true. It might encourage more 1750 and 1850 point tournaments to avoid the issue entirely. There are a lot of tournaments out there running the 2000 pt level, though.

pretre wrote:

Mr. S Baldrick wrote: At 135 a piece a SOB army could have 6 exorcists for only 810,

Muhahahahahah. Of course, my back will hate me for it, but whatever.

Can you just imagine? 6 D6 exorcist missiles a turn. “I’m sorry was that pile of molten ceramite you GK army”

Question. Rumor around my FLGS is that MC attacks are only AP2 if they use a Smash attack. Can anyone verify/deny this?

Mr. S Baldrick wrote:

streamdragon wrote:Not only that, but at 2,000 points I can't see people constantly filling out 8 HS slots or what have you. Nids would be able to do elites, but by the time you've paid for the 6 HQs and 6 troops required to actually field a primary and secondary detachment, along with primary and secondary allies detachment, I don't see a whole lot of points left for most armies. If they do have a ton, it means their scoring Troops choices are likely very weak.

Even without allies and an extra FOC it looks like you can have 6 heavy supports in 2000pts. There are some really cheap heavies out there. At 135 a piece a SOB army could have 6 exorcists for only 810, still leaves 1190 for a decent army. Or a guard army could spend 1350 for 18 griffons, say good bye to your green tide This is going to make things real interesting to see what people come up with.

SM allied with Blood Angels - 6 SM Dakka Preds, 2 BA Dakka Preds, 2 BA Baal Dakka Preds = 1000 pts. That's a lot of AV13 Dakka!

htj wrote:So I read a while back that ICs get Infiltrate if the squad they joined have it. Has there been any word on whether this applies to other USRs, such as Stealth or Rage? Or do the joined unit lose their USR?

This seems to be blatantly incorrect, unless I am missing something.

The Infiltrate USR says as a footnote "An Independent Character without the Infiltrate special rule cannot join a unit of Infiltrators during deployment"

the confusion seems to come from the wording of "Units that contain at least one model with this special rule are deployed last..." etc, but as I see it, you still can't put the IC in with them.

Mr. S Baldrick wrote:
Even without allies and an extra FOC it looks like you can have 6 heavy supports in 2000pts. There are some really cheap heavies out there. At 135 a piece a SOB army could have 6 exorcists for only 810, still leaves 1190 for a decent army. Or a guard army could spend 1350 for 18 griffons, say good bye to your green tide This is going to make things real interesting to see what people come up with.

And after you spend the minimum to make it a legal list (650 on 2 Confessors and 4 Sisters Squads), that leaves you with a whopping 540 to spend on rides, upgrades, and useful troops.

And god forbid a Horde army ever show up on the other side of the table.

reaverX wrote:Question. Rumor around my FLGS is that MC attacks are only AP2 if they use a Smash attack. Can anyone verify/deny this?

I made the same mistake at first too, it's because Smash grants the MCs their AP2, but the wording is "All of the close combat attacks, except Hammer of Wrath Attacks, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP 2"

So even when not performing a Smash attack, it is still AP 2.

So, Grey Knights, Necrons, Orks all have no battle brothers.
Does anyone think this will impact the power balance in allied games?
It's very obvious that having your allies as brothers has massive positive impact on your army, and has not a single detriment.
I think it's a big problem that they went fluff for the allies, but make to attempt to shore up the imbalances it will cause.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Obviously, this includes Tyranids, but that goes without saying at this point.

Drunkspleen wrote:

reaverX wrote:Question. Rumor around my FLGS is that MC attacks are only AP2 if they use a Smash attack. Can anyone verify/deny this?

I made the same mistake at first too, it's because Smash grants the MCs their AP2, but the wording is "All of the close combat attacks, except Hammer of Wrath Attacks, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP 2"

So even when not performing a Smash attack, it is still AP 2.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Death By Monkeys wrote:

Mr. S Baldrick wrote:

streamdragon wrote:Not only that, but at 2,000 points I can't see people constantly filling out 8 HS slots or what have you. Nids would be able to do elites, but by the time you've paid for the 6 HQs and 6 troops required to actually field a primary and secondary detachment, along with primary and secondary allies detachment, I don't see a whole lot of points left for most armies. If they do have a ton, it means their scoring Troops choices are likely very weak.

Even without allies and an extra FOC it looks like you can have 6 heavy supports in 2000pts. There are some really cheap heavies out there. At 135 a piece a SOB army could have 6 exorcists for only 810, still leaves 1190 for a decent army. Or a guard army could spend 1350 for 18 griffons, say good bye to your green tide This is going to make things real interesting to see what people come up with.

SM allied with Blood Angels - 6 SM Dakka Preds, 2 BA Dakka Preds, 2 BA Baal Dakka Preds = 1000 pts. That's a lot of AV13 Dakka!

I'm not sure, but I don't think that example is legal.

Ok, instead of dupe response I'll ask a question. Having read over the reveals in the OP and the last bunch of pages, I don't think I saw anything about ID and wound allocation. Any changes to that? I would image no. Follow up question, are there spillover wounds from challenges? Say an IC without an invulnerable save is hit and wounded with 4 S10 attacks... would any of these spillover to the squad?

So did anyone pay for advanced shipping? And if so did you get your book already?

Mr. S Baldrick wrote:Even without allies and an extra FOC it looks like you can have 6 heavy supports in 2000pts. There are some really cheap heavies out there. At 135 a piece a SOB army could have 6 exorcists for only 810, still leaves 1190 for a decent army. Or a guard army could spend 1350 for 18 griffons, say good bye to your green tide This is going to make things real interesting to see what people come up with.

elrabin wrote:
And after you spend the minimum to make it a legal list (650 on 2 Confessors and 4 Sisters Squads), that leaves you with a whopping 540 to spend on rides, upgrades, and useful troops.

And god forbid a Horde army ever show up on the other side of the table.

Pretty much this. While 6 excorcists pumping out 6d6 S8 AP1 missles is sweet, no doubt about that, I wouldn't call it an impressive list. You have relatively weak troops with almost no options and only 25% of your points left to spend on things like Dominions, rides or special weapons for your sisters, etc. etc.

matphat wrote:So, Grey Knights, Necrons, Orks all have no battle brothers.
Does anyone think this will impact the power balance in allied games?
It's very obvious that having your allies as brothers has massive positive impact on your army, and has not a single detriment.
I think it's a big problem that they went fluff for the allies, but make to attempt to shore up the imbalances it will cause.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Obviously, this includes Tyranids, but that goes without saying at this point.

Going to be honest, I suspect Eldar got BiA with Tau/DE because otherwise the only BiA options are IoM armies, and Chaos/Daemons. As it stands, Orks and Necrons stand to gain far less from Allies than other armies do, excpting Tyranids of course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeffDred wrote:

Death By Monkeys wrote:

Mr. S Baldrick wrote:

streamdragon wrote:Not only that, but at 2,000 points I can't see people constantly filling out 8 HS slots or what have you. Nids would be able to do elites, but by the time you've paid for the 6 HQs and 6 troops required to actually field a primary and secondary detachment, along with primary and secondary allies detachment, I don't see a whole lot of points left for most armies. If they do have a ton, it means their scoring Troops choices are likely very weak.

Even without allies and an extra FOC it looks like you can have 6 heavy supports in 2000pts. There are some really cheap heavies out there. At 135 a piece a SOB army could have 6 exorcists for only 810, still leaves 1190 for a decent army. Or a guard army could spend 1350 for 18 griffons, say good bye to your green tide This is going to make things real interesting to see what people come up with.

SM allied with Blood Angels - 6 SM Dakka Preds, 2 BA Dakka Preds, 2 BA Baal Dakka Preds = 1000 pts. That's a lot of AV13 Dakka!

I'm not sure, but I don't think that example is legal.

It is. The Baal preds are FA slots. Of course, that army has 1000 points to field 4 HQs and 6 troops, so...

So, these are the reserves rules regarding only being able to put half your army into reserves, I've been having a discussion regarding what impact it has on a Unit with a Dedicated Transport that is a Flyer, since the Flyer is forced to be held in reserves, but the unit normally would not be.

"When deploying their armies, players can choose not to deploy up to half of their units (rounding up) keeping them as Reserves to arrive later. Units that must start the game in reserve are ignored for the purposes of working out how many other units may do so. A unit and its Dedicated Transport are counted as a single unit for these purposes. Independent Characters are also counted as a single unit regardless of whether they have joined another unit or not. During deployment, when declaring which units are kept as Reserves, the player must clearly explain the organisation of his reserves to the opponent"

Lets say I have a Necron Overlord, a footslogging Warrior unit, and 3 units of Warriors all with Night Scythe Transports, what is allowed to go into reserve in peoples opinions?

Drunkspleen wrote:So, these are the reserves rules regarding only being able to put half your army into reserves, I've been having a discussion regarding what impact it has on a Unit with a Dedicated Transport that is a Flyer, since the Flyer is forced to be held in reserves, but the unit normally would not be.

"When deploying their armies, players can choose not to deploy up to half of their units (rounding up) keeping them as Reserves to arrive later. Units that must start the game in reserve are ignored for the purposes of working out how many other units may do so. A unit and its Dedicated Transport are counted as a single unit for these purposes. Independent Characters are also counted as a single unit regardless of whether they have joined another unit or not. During deployment, when declaring which units are kept as Reserves, the player must clearly explain the organisation of his reserves to the opponent"

Lets say I have a Necron Overlord, a footslogging Warrior unit, and 3 units of Warriors all with Night Scythe Transports, what is allowed to go into reserve in peoples opinions?

Based on what you have posted I would think, the 3 Scythes with passengers have to reserve. It looks like you could argue that as the
sythces are ignored and you count Dedicate transport and attached unit as single unit, then the 3 attached warriors are ignored. At that point you can either reserve the overlord or the Footcron.

Joe Mama wrote:Ok, instead of dupe response I'll ask a question. Having read over the reveals in the OP and the last bunch of pages, I don't think I saw anything about ID and wound allocation. Any changes to that? I would image no. Follow up question, are there spillover wounds from challenges? Say an IC without an invulnerable save is hit and wounded with 4 S10 attacks... would any of these spillover to the squad?

ID is just part of the normal wound allocation method of closest to furthest now, the player removing models as a result of unsaved wounds gets to choose the order the wounds are taken in, which is to say, you can choose to take the Strength 8 shot at the start and instant death the first guy, or you can choose to leave it for later, whenever you pull up that wound, whatever model is closest at the time checks if it will cause Instant Death to them, so if you have mixed toughness, you can try to intentionally put the high strength hits on the tougher guys who won't suffer Instant Death.

There's nothing forcing attacks to only hit the models in the Challenge beyond the rule saying they are only in base contact with one another, so as far as I can tell, once a participant in the Challenge is slain, excess wounds will spill over onto squad members within 2 inches of the character who has died.

the 3 Warrior Units and Night Scythes MUST start in reserves, unless the Warriors are not starting in the Transports.

If you start them "out" of the Nightscythes you then have 5 Units, so 3 units may be kept in reserve. Your lord counts as 1 of these regardless if he joins any of the warrior units.

If your Warriors do start "in" the Nightscythes, then you have 2 units in your force "Units that must start the game in reserve are ignored for the purposes of working out how many other units may do so" so your lord or your foot warriors could be in reserve, but not both, regardless if the Lord has joined the warriors.

Blood Lord Soldado wrote:the 3 Warrior Units and Night Scythes MUST start in reserves, unless the Warriors are not starting in the Transports.

If you start them "out" of the Nightscythes you then have 5 Units, so 3 units may be kept in reserve. Your lord counts as 1 of these regardless if he joins any of the warrior units.

If your Warriors do start "in" the Nightscythes, then you have 2 units in your force "Units that must start the game in reserve are ignored for the purposes of working out how many other units may do so" so your lord or your foot warriors could be in reserve, but not both, regardless if the Lord has joined the warriors.

Even if you started the warriors out of the Nightscythes, you would still have only 2 units: "A unit and its Dedicated Transport are counted as a single unit for these purposes." Assuming the NSs are DTs for the warriors (I haven't read the necron codex), you have 5 units to start:

Overlord
FootCrons
Warriors w/ DT
Warriors w/ DT
Warriors w/ DT

3 of those units are ignored: The flyers rule that they MUST start in reserve overrides the warriors' general rule of MAY start in reserve. As the warriors and their DT are treated as a single unit for those purposes, they don't count for determining the number of units you have to start. So you have 2 - the Overlord and the Footcrons. Thus you may keep 1 unit in reserve if you wanted.

Now, you could opt to not deploy any of the warriors in their Transports, in which case you would have 5 units to deploy, but you would still only be able to keep 1 unit in Reserve, so you'd be deploying 4 units and rolling reserves for the 3 DTs and the remaining reserved unit.

I have to say I was not excited about 6th until I read about allies and the changes to the FOC. The rest of the stuff I could take or leave, but some change ups to seeing the same old lists day in and day out will liven things up. Of course this might change after a few months when people realize the best 3 or 4 deathstar builds for tournaments.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:Ok, instead of dupe response I'll ask a question. Having read over the reveals in the OP and the last bunch of pages, I don't think I saw anything about ID and wound allocation. Any changes to that? I would image no. Follow up question, are there spillover wounds from challenges? Say an IC without an invulnerable save is hit and wounded with 4 S10 attacks... would any of these spillover to the squad?

ID is just part of the normal wound allocation method of closest to furthest now, the player removing models as a result of unsaved wounds gets to choose the order the wounds are taken in, which is to say, you can choose to take the Strength 8 shot at the start and instant death the first guy, or you can choose to leave it for later, whenever you pull up that wound, whatever model is closest at the time checks if it will cause Instant Death to them, so if you have mixed toughness, you can try to intentionally put the high strength hits on the tougher guys who won't suffer Instant Death.

Interesting. I thought in shooting the low AP shots are allocated first. Seems not the be the case in CC.

There's nothing forcing attacks to only hit the models in the Challenge beyond the rule saying they are only in base contact with one another, so as far as I can tell, once a participant in the Challenge is slain, excess wounds will spill over onto squad members within 2 inches of the character who has died.

Sounds about right. I must admit I don't have a good handle on the challege rules at all. I am sure they are explained in this monster thread somewhere.

Drunkspleen wrote:"When deploying their armies, players can choose not to deploy up to half of their units (rounding up) keeping them as Reserves to arrive later. Units that must start the game in reserve are ignored for the purposes of working out how many other units may do so. A unit and its Dedicated Transport are counted as a single unit for these purposes. Independent Characters are also counted as a single unit regardless of whether they have joined another unit or not. During deployment, when declaring which units are kept as Reserves, the player must clearly explain the organisation of his reserves to the opponent"

That's good to know. I think I could still reserve almost 75% of my Tyranid army.

streamdragon wrote:
Overlord
FootCrons
Warriors w/ DT
Warriors w/ DT
Warriors w/ DT

3 of those units are ignored: The flyers rule that they MUST start in reserve overrides the warriors' general rule of MAY start in reserve. As the warriors and their DT are treated as a single unit for those purposes, they don't count for determining the number of units you have to start. So you have 2 - the Overlord and the Footcrons. Thus you may keep 1 unit in reserve if you wanted.

Now, you could opt to not deploy any of the warriors in their Transports, in which case you would have 5 units to deploy, but you would still only be able to keep 1 unit in Reserve, so you'd be deploying 4 units and rolling reserves for the 3 DTs and the remaining reserved unit.

Even if the 3 units with the scythe are not exempted, in that you have 5 units ignoring the flyers, you can deploy half rounded up in reserve (so that's 3). Where this becomes an issue is if you didn't have the unit of FootCrons, then you'd have to keep 1 out of the transport and deploy it on the table with the lord.

Following the example of Pred wall of death (SM + BA), in the elite slots, take all the techmarine you can and join them in 2 squads of servitors. Each techmarine can tend to one vehicle and the repair is automatic.

Winning.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:Ok, instead of dupe response I'll ask a question. Having read over the reveals in the OP and the last bunch of pages, I don't think I saw anything about ID and wound allocation. Any changes to that? I would image no. Follow up question, are there spillover wounds from challenges? Say an IC without an invulnerable save is hit and wounded with 4 S10 attacks... would any of these spillover to the squad?

ID is just part of the normal wound allocation method of closest to furthest now, the player removing models as a result of unsaved wounds gets to choose the order the wounds are taken in, which is to say, you can choose to take the Strength 8 shot at the start and instant death the first guy, or you can choose to leave it for later, whenever you pull up that wound, whatever model is closest at the time checks if it will cause Instant Death to them, so if you have mixed toughness, you can try to intentionally put the high strength hits on the tougher guys who won't suffer Instant Death.

There's nothing forcing attacks to only hit the models in the Challenge beyond the rule saying they are only in base contact with one another, so as far as I can tell, once a participant in the Challenge is slain, excess wounds will spill over onto squad members within 2 inches of the character who has died.

So... in that case... there's a reason to take Clawed Fiend T5 W4 in a DE beast unit?

Tactically speaking, you place the Clawed Fiend closet to the enemy to soak up the big bad shots? One thing I wasn't too clear... are wounds allocated still? Or, is it that the closest model continually takes the wounds until it dies???

Blood Lord Soldado wrote:the 3 Warrior Units and Night Scythes MUST start in reserves, unless the Warriors are not starting in the Transports.

I think even this part is debatable. You could argue that the rule implies that if you put a dedicated transport into reserve, the passengers MUST be in reserve as well. Since Drop Pods and Night Scythes have to start in reserve, this interpretation means that any attached squads would also have to start every game in reserve instead of having the option of deploying on board. Then the whole unit, vehicle and cargo, would be ignored as far as the cap is concerned. It also means that if you have a character and 6 squads with dedicated flyers in your army and nothing else, you can go full reserve because you can reserve 0.5 units (the character is the one counted in the cap) but it gets rounded up to 1, but it also means that even if you wanted to put the squads on the table, you wouldn't be allowed to.

The only other alternative to me is that passengers with dedicated flyer are ignored altogether no matter if the passengers are deployed on the board or not. So in an army with character, 3 units of footsloggers, and 4 units of passengers with dedicated flyers, the 4 units and their vehicles are ignored from our calculation and from the others we see that we have to deploy a combination of 2 units from the character and 3 units of footsloggers.

whembly wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:Ok, instead of dupe response I'll ask a question. Having read over the reveals in the OP and the last bunch of pages, I don't think I saw anything about ID and wound allocation. Any changes to that? I would image no. Follow up question, are there spillover wounds from challenges? Say an IC without an invulnerable save is hit and wounded with 4 S10 attacks... would any of these spillover to the squad?

ID is just part of the normal wound allocation method of closest to furthest now, the player removing models as a result of unsaved wounds gets to choose the order the wounds are taken in, which is to say, you can choose to take the Strength 8 shot at the start and instant death the first guy, or you can choose to leave it for later, whenever you pull up that wound, whatever model is closest at the time checks if it will cause Instant Death to them, so if you have mixed toughness, you can try to intentionally put the high strength hits on the tougher guys who won't suffer Instant Death.

There's nothing forcing attacks to only hit the models in the Challenge beyond the rule saying they are only in base contact with one another, so as far as I can tell, once a participant in the Challenge is slain, excess wounds will spill over onto squad members within 2 inches of the character who has died.

So... in that case... there's a reason to take Clawed Fiend T5 W4 in a DE beast unit?

Tactically speaking, you place the Clawed Fiend closet to the enemy to soak up the big bad shots? One thing I wasn't too clear... are wounds allocated still? Or, is it that the closest model continually takes the wounds until it dies???

Closest model until it dies, then the next one and so on and so forth until all the saves are the same.

If my memory serves me right when the force organisation chart was first introduced you could only start a second one when you filled all the slots from the first one and then had to still follow the organisation rules ie the second one had to have a hq and two troop choices before addind anything else...

Mick

BlueRift wrote:

streamdragon wrote:
Overlord
FootCrons
Warriors w/ DT
Warriors w/ DT
Warriors w/ DT

3 of those units are ignored: The flyers rule that they MUST start in reserve overrides the warriors' general rule of MAY start in reserve. As the warriors and their DT are treated as a single unit for those purposes, they don't count for determining the number of units you have to start. So you have 2 - the Overlord and the Footcrons. Thus you may keep 1 unit in reserve if you wanted.

Now, you could opt to not deploy any of the warriors in their Transports, in which case you would have 5 units to deploy, but you would still only be able to keep 1 unit in Reserve, so you'd be deploying 4 units and rolling reserves for the 3 DTs and the remaining reserved unit.

Even if the 3 units with the scythe are not exempted, in that you have 5 units ignoring the flyers, you can deploy half rounded up in reserve (so that's 3). Where this becomes an issue is if you didn't have the unit of FootCrons, then you'd have to keep 1 out of the transport and deploy it on the table with the lord.

Not in my understanding, no.

A. Overlord
B. FootCrons
C. Warriors w/ DT
D. Warriors w/ DT
E. Warriors w/ DT


1. When deploying their armies, players can choose not to deploy up to half of their units (rounding up) keeping them as Reserves to arrive later.
2. Units that must start the game in reserve are ignored for the purposes of working out how many other units may do so.
3. A unit and its Dedicated Transport are counted as a single unit for these purposes.
4. Independent Characters are also counted as a single unit regardless of whether they have joined another unit or not.

You agree there are 5 units in that army list, based on the rule #3, correct? That gives us 5 units. Now, according to rule #2, we ignore 3 of those units: C, D and E. That leaves us 2 units. Half of 2 is 1, so we can choose to either keep the footcrons in reserve, or the lord. IF we decide not to start any of the warriors in their DTs, we still don't have 5 units because those warriors are still exempt due to rule #3, which says nothing about whether or not those units start in their DTs, just that IF they have a DT, the unit and the DT count as 1 unit for determing unit count.

If we didn't have the footcrons (unit B), we would be able to keep the entire force in reserve as we have 1 single unit: the overlord. By rule #4 he counts regardless of whether he joins a unit. But, because rule #1 says to round up to determine how many units we can keep in reserve, we are able to take our 1 unit and keep it in reserve.

Theoretically, this would allow the sample Necron army (minus footcrons) to null deploy.

darn so no Ic's joining infiltrators, I am a sad panda.

So can I get the wording on who gets to allocate the order that saves are taken against shots? I heard the firer gets to allocate the order, but now i am hearing that the receiver gets to allocate, anyone get some confirmation for me?

Just for aesthetics.

You agree there are 5 units in that army list, based on the rule #3, correct? That gives us 5 units. Now, according to rule #2, we ignore 3 of those units: C, D and E. That leaves us 2 units. Half of 2 is 1, so we can choose to either keep the footcrons in reserve, or the lord. IF we decide not to start any of the warriors in their DTs, we still don't have 5 units because those warriors are still exempt due to rule #3, which says nothing about whether or not those units start in their DTs, just that IF they have a DT, the unit and the DT count as 1 unit for determing unit count.

If we didn't have the footcrons (unit B), we would be able to keep the entire force in reserve as we have 1 single unit: the overlord. By rule #4 he counts regardless of whether he joins a unit. But, because rule #1 says to round up to determine how many units we can keep in reserve, we are able to take our 1 unit and keep it in reserve.

Theoretically, this would allow the sample Necron army (minus footcrons) to null deploy.

I agree with you 100%, but I refer you to the other interpretation that infantry always have to deploy in the same manner as their transport does. If you reserve your transport (and in the case of Night Scythes and Drop Pods you must reserve it) the squad goes into reserve too whether you like it or not. You can do null deployments that way too if your army includes only a hero and then units with dedicated flyers, plus other flyers.

Therion wrote:

Blood Lord Soldado wrote:the 3 Warrior Units and Night Scythes MUST start in reserves, unless the Warriors are not starting in the Transports.

I think even this part is debatable. You could argue that the rule implies that if you put a dedicated transport into reserve, the passengers MUST be in reserve as well. Since Drop Pods and Night Scythes have to start in reserve, this interpretation means that any attached squads would also have to start every game in reserve instead of having the option of deploying on board. Then the whole unit, vehicle and cargo, would be ignored as far as the cap is concerned. It also means that if you have a character and 6 squads with dedicated flyers in your army and nothing else, you can go full reserve because you can reserve 0.5 units (the character is the one counted in the cap) but it gets rounded up to 1, but it also means that even if you wanted to put the squads on the table, you wouldn't be allowed to.

Not quite the way I read it, only because the rule says nothing about them being required to deploy in their DT. The DT MUST go in reserve, but the warriors are under no such obligation. They simply don't count against your number of units, which makes sense because then any unit with a DT would basically count as 2 units being kept in reserve.

edit: just realized my two posts conflict. Ignore the last sentence of my first post.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

whembly wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:Ok, instead of dupe response I'll ask a question. Having read over the reveals in the OP and the last bunch of pages, I don't think I saw anything about ID and wound allocation. Any changes to that? I would image no. Follow up question, are there spillover wounds from challenges? Say an IC without an invulnerable save is hit and wounded with 4 S10 attacks... would any of these spillover to the squad?

ID is just part of the normal wound allocation method of closest to furthest now, the player removing models as a result of unsaved wounds gets to choose the order the wounds are taken in, which is to say, you can choose to take the Strength 8 shot at the start and instant death the first guy, or you can choose to leave it for later, whenever you pull up that wound, whatever model is closest at the time checks if it will cause Instant Death to them, so if you have mixed toughness, you can try to intentionally put the high strength hits on the tougher guys who won't suffer Instant Death.

There's nothing forcing attacks to only hit the models in the Challenge beyond the rule saying they are only in base contact with one another, so as far as I can tell, once a participant in the Challenge is slain, excess wounds will spill over onto squad members within 2 inches of the character who has died.

So... in that case... there's a reason to take Clawed Fiend T5 W4 in a DE beast unit?

Tactically speaking, you place the Clawed Fiend closet to the enemy to soak up the big bad shots? One thing I wasn't too clear... are wounds allocated still? Or, is it that the closest model continually takes the wounds until it dies???

Closest model until it dies, then the next one and so on and so forth until all the saves are the same.

Whoa... that is an interesting mechanic...
*Pondering*

streamdragon wrote:

Therion wrote:

Blood Lord Soldado wrote:the 3 Warrior Units and Night Scythes MUST start in reserves, unless the Warriors are not starting in the Transports.

I think even this part is debatable. You could argue that the rule implies that if you put a dedicated transport into reserve, the passengers MUST be in reserve as well. Since Drop Pods and Night Scythes have to start in reserve, this interpretation means that any attached squads would also have to start every game in reserve instead of having the option of deploying on board. Then the whole unit, vehicle and cargo, would be ignored as far as the cap is concerned. It also means that if you have a character and 6 squads with dedicated flyers in your army and nothing else, you can go full reserve because you can reserve 0.5 units (the character is the one counted in the cap) but it gets rounded up to 1, but it also means that even if you wanted to put the squads on the table, you wouldn't be allowed to.

Not quite the way I read it, only because the rule says nothing about them being required to deploy in their DT. The DT MUST go in reserve, but the warriors are under no such obligation. They simply don't count against your number of units, which makes sense because then any unit with a DT would basically count as 2 units being kept in reserve.

I hope you're right, I have no problems with that logic like I said, but you can see that it can be read the other way too? I think the sentence saying that they are counted as a single unit could be understood to imply deployment as a whole, instead of just the way they count towards the cap.

A Town Called Malus wrote:Closest model until it dies, then the next one and so on and so forth until all the saves are the same.

Two points -
If some big honking thing is swinging with ID causing attacks, I would think those unsaved wounds would spill over and not disappear.

If in one initiative phase of CC the attackers have both AP- and AP3 weapons (power weapons), how is this allocated to the other side? Do the PW dudes put their wounds on those closest to each of them (if so, then wouldn't they have to roll separately)? Does the AP- dude put his wounds on the enemy closest to him? Or does the defender pick?

I think with this edition, we will see a lot more conversions from the conversion heavy community! This pleases me to no end! I can now run Sister of Battle "Terminators" in my army with some nice ally choices

Just out of curiosity, does the rulebook (for those who have seen it) say anything about Boneswords?

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that lowest ap shots are allocated first... Makes sense so people (sw I'm looking at you) cannot have 1 model soak up all the high ap shots before going down. Otherwise things like wolfguard terminators w/ ss's would be op

Vaktathi wrote:Just out of curiosity, does the rulebook (for those who have seen it) say anything about Boneswords?

I am a Tyranid player and this question simply confuses me. They are listed in the codex, not the rules and do not reference rules from the main book. They are not power weapons, they ignore saves.

editing to add:
At best worst it will be FAQ they are simply force weapons or something asinine.

Any mention of how GK Force Weapons will work? I saw that picture that mentions that the rules for Force Weapons depends on what the model looks like so where does this leave Grey Knight Halberds and such? It says to ignore the rules in the main rulebook if the codex has its own relevant rules for the Force Weapons...so I'm rather confused.

Well hopefully FAQs will be up on friday(since our aussie friends should have theirs in time for release)

Also I believe force weapons operate the same as their power weapon equivalents with the force modify added. So swords are AP 3, Staves are Ap4 +2 strength, halberds are a no idea, Hammers x2 strength ap 2 concussive

In response to below I expect warscythes to be AP2 since we can safely assume they were worded for 6th edition and they made a clear distinction between no saves and power weapons. Bone Swords have similar wording but no idea for sure until the FAQ. However they released a finecast kit so I am sure they will be AP 2

I am amazed and intrigued how tyranid players seem to want to hang onto that shred of hope that boneswords will somehow be specially exempt based on stringent and pedantic wording arguements.

While I would love for my boneswords to be AP2, the reality is that they will probably be AP3 like every other weapon that currently ignores armor saves, but doesn't drop you to I1.

FTR i wont likely be playing in many of the really big tournaments so the double FOC abuse wont really effect me. I DO however really like the inclusion of fortifications and allies.

I guess i am starting a demons army after all especially with whet epiditimus does for plague marines.

Altruizine wrote:Dear Rulebook Crew,

In the screenshot of the Fortifications rule it says, [b]"Fortifications count against the terrain density limit (discussed later) of the 2' by 2' area in which the majority of the Fortification lies."[/b[

Whoa, what? Terrain density limit? Can someone unpack that for me?

Have they finally standardized the amount of terrain you need to have on the board instead of just giving a limp recommendation for 25%?

Can anybody answer this?

streamdragon wrote:I am amazed and intrigued how tyranid players seem to want to hang onto that shred of hope that boneswords will somehow be specially exempt based on stringent and pedantic wording arguements.

While I would love for my boneswords to be AP2, the reality is that they will probably be AP3 like every other weapon that currently ignores armor saves, but doesn't drop you to I1.

I do not get this either. Power weapons have a rule that is changing. Weapons with their own rules are still weapons with their own rules. If any ALSO reference power weapons, I could almost see an issue - but only sort of if I squint.

So in regards to the allies chart on page one from the rulebook, the red squares are titled "come the apocalypse" does that simply mean they can never ally with another force or is that hinting at updated Apoc rules to allow these combos to see the light of day?

Alright, let me refine my question. Wound allocation in shooting supposdely is closest model first, low AP first. In CC I am a bit confused. I see something listed in the OP about guys being removed from the "front rank". Ok, but who gets to decide which ones?

GK SS dudes Assault other dudes, in a perfect horizontol line:

XXXXXXXX
YYYYYYZ

The GK, the Xs, all have AP3 swords. Z on the enemy side is a special shooty weapon dude, or Z can be a hammer. GK rolls to hit and wound. Where do the wounds go? Who gets to decide? If "no one" decides, if it truly is closest model, then how do we know that the X's on the right hit? They could have missed, whiffed with their attacks, which means Z could be safe. We don't know unless we roll each GKSS guy separately.

So how does this thing go? Anyone with the book want to clear this up?

Bluetau wrote:So in regards to the allies chart on page one from the rulebook, the red squares are titled "come the apocalypse" does that simply mean they can never ally with another force or is that hinting at updated Apoc rules to allow these combos to see the light of day?

Apocalypse rules already let anything "ally" with anything. There are absolutely no limits.

Bluetau wrote:So in regards to the allies chart on page one from the rulebook, the red squares are titled "come the apocalypse" does that simply mean they can never ally with another force or is that hinting at updated Apoc rules to allow these combos to see the light of day?

They cannot ally.

Bluetau wrote:So in regards to the allies chart on page one from the rulebook, the red squares are titled "come the apocalypse" does that simply mean they can never ally with another force or is that hinting at updated Apoc rules to allow these combos to see the light of day?

You cant ally period. Friendlies and crazy team games notwithstanding.

whembly wrote:
So... in that case... there's a reason to take Clawed Fiend T5 W4 in a DE beast unit?

Tactically speaking, you place the Clawed Fiend closet to the enemy to soak up the big bad shots? One thing I wasn't too clear... are wounds allocated still? Or, is it that the closest model continually takes the wounds until it dies???

You don't even need it to be closest. According to the rules "when multiple enemy models are closest, the controlling player chooses which model is allocated to wound."
You can't use Clawed Fiend though because of the majority Toughness rule.....
You need something with a better save.

EDIT: This also applies to Joe Mama

streamdragon wrote:I am amazed and intrigued how tyranid players seem to want to hang onto that shred of hope that boneswords will somehow be specially exempt based on stringent and pedantic wording arguements.

While I would love for my boneswords to be AP2, the reality is that they will probably be AP3 like every other weapon that currently ignores armor saves, but doesn't drop you to I1.

The glimmer of hope here is that Warscythes are worded in exactly the same way, and we know that the Necron codex was written with 6e in mind. If they plan to reduce Warscythes to AP3 for the same reason, why weren't they just made as power weapons?

We can't rule out two different FAQs of course, it's not the first time GW have made the same decision two different ways when nids are involved.

xttz wrote:

streamdragon wrote:I am amazed and intrigued how tyranid players seem to want to hang onto that shred of hope that boneswords will somehow be specially exempt based on stringent and pedantic wording arguements.

While I would love for my boneswords to be AP2, the reality is that they will probably be AP3 like every other weapon that currently ignores armor saves, but doesn't drop you to I1.

The glimmer of hope here is that Warscythes are worded in exactly the same way, and we know that the Necron codex was written with 6e in mind. If they plan to reduce Warscythes to AP3 for the same reason, why weren't they just made as power weapons?

We can't rule out two different FAQs of course, it's not the first time GW have made the same decision two different ways when nids are involved.

Do we have any indication that Warscythes are meant to be AP2? I know there was a table elsewhere in this thread, but I honestly can't find it now. (Do Warscythes drop you to I1? I don't know necrons...)

Maige wrote:EDIT: This also applies to Joe Mama

The controlling player of the unit taking the wound? Or the player controlling the unit who is attacking? How do we know where the attacking hits /wounds are coming from?

In an assault situation like the one below (Unit of Xs attacks Unit with Ys and Z):

XXXXXXXX
YYYYYYZ


How do we do it?

Maige wrote:

whembly wrote:
So... in that case... there's a reason to take Clawed Fiend T5 W4 in a DE beast unit?

Tactically speaking, you place the Clawed Fiend closet to the enemy to soak up the big bad shots? One thing I wasn't too clear... are wounds allocated still? Or, is it that the closest model continually takes the wounds until it dies???

You don't even need it to be closest. According to the rules "when multiple enemy models are closest, the controlling player chooses which model is allocated to wound."
You can't use Clawed Fiend though because of the majority Toughness rule.....
You need something with a better save.

EDIT: This also applies to Joe Mama

I thought one of the folks having the book said that the "majority of Toughness" rule isn't in 6th???

Well I have my copy of the book. Shiny

Optimus save us from uncertainty and answer our questions please

kirsanth wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:Just out of curiosity, does the rulebook (for those who have seen it) say anything about Boneswords?

I am a Tyranid player and this question simply confuses me. They are listed in the codex, not the rules and do not reference rules from the main book. They are not power weapons, they ignore saves.

I get that, but was just wondering if there was anything anyway, since consistency and clarity are not hallmarks of GW rules and given the massive changes to CC weapons as a whole just figured I'd ask.

Anybody in Canada/USA who preordered get their books yet? Mine shipped out on Monday so I'm hoping to have it before the Canada long weekend.

Vaktathi wrote:I get that, but was just wondering if there was anything anyway, since consistency and clarity are not hallmarks of GW rules and given the massive changes to CC weapons as a whole just figured I'd ask.

I guess. . . It just seems the sort of thing for an FAQ to the codex rather than a rulebook statement that may cause confusion when the codex IS updated. Though I do agree that that sort of logic has been blatantly avoided before.

I pre-ordered the ultimate bundle, but the GW site says my order is still "being processed." Wtf GW!?

StoneRaizer wrote:Anybody in Canada/USA who preordered get their books yet? Mine shipped out on Monday so I'm hoping to have it before the Canada long weekend.

Unless it arrived today, not yet. I got my shipping message on the 25th.

Lorizael wrote:Well I have my copy of the book. Shiny

Lucky duck lol
I'm still waiting for mine, don't even think its been dispatched yet
How'd you receive yours so early?

streamdragon wrote:

xttz wrote:

streamdragon wrote:I am amazed and intrigued how tyranid players seem to want to hang onto that shred of hope that boneswords will somehow be specially exempt based on stringent and pedantic wording arguements.

While I would love for my boneswords to be AP2, the reality is that they will probably be AP3 like every other weapon that currently ignores armor saves, but doesn't drop you to I1.

The glimmer of hope here is that Warscythes are worded in exactly the same way, and we know that the Necron codex was written with 6e in mind. If they plan to reduce Warscythes to AP3 for the same reason, why weren't they just made as power weapons?

We can't rule out two different FAQs of course, it's not the first time GW have made the same decision two different ways when nids are involved.

Do we have any indication that Warscythes are meant to be AP2? I know there was a table elsewhere in this thread, but I honestly can't find it now. (Do Warscythes drop you to I1? I don't know necrons...)

listed as a CCW that gives +2 S, disallows armor saves, and adds +2d6 to armor pen

i don't think that they'll be changed to AP3, since they aren't power weapons like HPS or Rods of Covenant

MPJ wrote:

Lorizael wrote:Well I have my copy of the book. Shiny

Lucky duck lol
I'm still waiting for mine, don't even think its been dispatched yet
How'd you receive yours so early?

He broke into the warehouse and stole the one which was about to be dispatched to you

A Town Called Malus wrote:

MPJ wrote:

Lorizael wrote:Well I have my copy of the book. Shiny

Lucky duck lol
I'm still waiting for mine, don't even think its been dispatched yet
How'd you receive yours so early?

He broke into the warehouse and stole the one which was about to be dispatched to you

Considering how much gamers want to get their hands on the new book, I wouldn't be surprised lol

Edited twice because I've lost my ability to spell it seems

streamdragon wrote:I am amazed and intrigued how tyranid players seem to want to hang onto that shred of hope that boneswords will somehow be specially exempt based on stringent and pedantic wording arguements.

While I would love for my boneswords to be AP2, the reality is that they will probably be AP3 like every other weapon that currently ignores armor saves, but doesn't drop you to I1.

'nid players are used to not getting any GW love and being overlooked. I think the shred of hope is that GW will, again, forget about us and our special rules . This especially since they don't appear to have fixed Lictors, ID on ALL our T4 models, and nerfed stealers, hormagaunts, trygons, and raveners with the run/fleet rule. Here's hoping for the FAQ

BTW, I do agree with you that they will likely be FAQd to be treated like power weapons or force weapons.

Pics of the Psychic disciplines:

http://imgur.com/a/UnXKB

kirsanth wrote:
Seriously, find a competitive Tyranid list with space left for another Elite at any point level. And now Tyranids are the only army in the game that cannot add another Elite pick to their army.

You can't add another Tyranid elite slot, regardless. As of right now, you can double the number of tyranid elites you have at 2k. You don't need a random allotment of howling banshees on top of that to do well here. Use your other points to buff your elite squads and get more target saturation on the field, you'll be fine. Allies are a mess your better off avoiding anyways.

Altruizine wrote:Pics of the Psychic disciplines:

http://imgur.com/a/UnXKB

Wow... I'd been too lazy to look through the new powers (in rumor form...) until now. Some of these are MEAN!

Hollowman wrote:You can't add another Tyranid elite slot, regardless. As of right now, you can double the number of tyranid elites you have at 2k. You don't need a random allotment of howling banshees on top of that to do well here. Use your other points to buff your elite squads and get more target saturation on the field, you'll be fine. Allies are a mess your better off avoiding anyways.

My point was a few pages back apparently and you missed it.

Apologies if this has been asked already but I'm curious whether there has been any news regarding Forgeworld's army lists and 6th Ed?

Looking at possibly getting back into 40K and hope to use the Death Korps list.

I wonder what is AND THEY WONT GO DOWN or w/e it is under the Biomancy FNP power.

Tyrs13 wrote:I wonder what is AND THEY WONT GO DOWN or w/e it is under the Biomancy FNP power.

Regenerate wounds.

warboss wrote:

RiTides wrote:In fantasy, folks just play 2999 or disallow "grand armies". It's pretty much a non-issue there.

I don't play fantasy. What are the differences at 3000pts and with "grand armies"?

Fantasy has some inbuilt composition rules.

Most people are aware that you have to spend 50% of your points on troops and are limited on special and rare %'s.

Furthermore, until 3000 points, you can only have 2 copies of each rare choice and 3 copies of each special choice. They don't like spamming of the same cost efficient unit over and over. And Rare is where most of the really good stuff is. At 3000 points, the limits on repeats are doubled. Some things, like chaos spawn, have special rules, which say "Two copies of this unit count as one special choice" but thats the rare exception.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Maige wrote:

whembly wrote:
So... in that case... there's a reason to take Clawed Fiend T5 W4 in a DE beast unit?

Tactically speaking, you place the Clawed Fiend closet to the enemy to soak up the big bad shots? One thing I wasn't too clear... are wounds allocated still? Or, is it that the closest model continually takes the wounds until it dies???

You don't even need it to be closest. According to the rules "when multiple enemy models are closest, the controlling player chooses which model is allocated to wound."
You can't use Clawed Fiend though because of the majority Toughness rule.....
You need something with a better save.

EDIT: This also applies to Joe Mama

1) I remember looking at the pics of the combat and wounds allocation. I was pretty sure it said that when two models were equidistant from the shooting units closest model, you randomly roll to allocate wounds between them until there was a closest model.

2) I thought majority toughness was out now.

Pictures are back up @

http://s279.photobucket.com/albums/kk159/MrMoat/Warhammer/

I am at work right now however I will upload all requested photos when I get home. If you have a request that will kill a squabble on this forum please pm me.

Anyone know what the carrier is for standard shipments in the US? Should I be bugging my mail-lady or my ups-dude daily?

Is there a list of how many hull points each vehicle has or is that going to be in the FAQ?

BladeWalker wrote:Anyone know what the carrier is for standard shipments in the US? Should I be bugging my mail-lady or my ups-dude daily?

Its useally been delivered by Fedex for me, in MD.

pretre wrote:

Tyrs13 wrote:I wonder what is AND THEY WONT GO DOWN or w/e it is under the Biomancy FNP power.

Regenerate wounds.

Holy ... cow.

These powers just trump any of the old powers.

streamdragon wrote:

xttz wrote:

streamdragon wrote:I am amazed and intrigued how tyranid players seem to want to hang onto that shred of hope that boneswords will somehow be specially exempt based on stringent and pedantic wording arguements.

While I would love for my boneswords to be AP2, the reality is that they will probably be AP3 like every other weapon that currently ignores armor saves, but doesn't drop you to I1.

The glimmer of hope here is that Warscythes are worded in exactly the same way, and we know that the Necron codex was written with 6e in mind. If they plan to reduce Warscythes to AP3 for the same reason, why weren't they just made as power weapons?

We can't rule out two different FAQs of course, it's not the first time GW have made the same decision two different ways when nids are involved.

Do we have any indication that Warscythes are meant to be AP2? I know there was a table elsewhere in this thread, but I honestly can't find it now. (Do Warscythes drop you to I1? I don't know necrons...)

The Necron codex all but clarifies it for you. In the Wargear section, the Hyperphase sword states that it "counts as a power weapon". However, the Warscythe makes no mention of being a power weapon, and explicity states that it "allows no armour saves of any sort". So unless the wording is wildly inconsistent even within a single codex, then I believe it is easy and fair to assume that while the Hyperphase Sword will be AP3, the Warscythe will still remain AP2 and retain its 2d6 armour pen.

Mick A wrote:If my memory serves me right when the force organisation chart was first introduced you could only start a second one when you filled all the slots from the first one and then had to still follow the organisation rules ie the second one had to have a hq and two troop choices before addind anything else...

That was a common assumption, but not actually the rule.

It was 3rd edition that introduced the FOC, and it simple allowed you to add a second chart for games of more than 2000 points. 4th edition increased the threshold to 2500.

There ya go, Tyranid players: The psyker power "Iron Arm". Now your MCs don't get ID'd and it's really freaking tough to wound them. Endurance and Warp Speed also make some MCs a little scary, too.


ALSO: I would love to know what "Strikedown" refers to, as well as the "Beam"-type of weapon (but I'm sure we can guess it's like the Death Ray or JotWW)

I'm curious -- do the rules for Deep Strike deny assaulting after arrival? I know you can't assault when arriving from reserves, but if DS doesn't specifically deny it, then it means you could assault after using GoI...

azazel the cat wrote:There ya go, Tyranid players: The psyker power "Iron Arm". Now your MCs don't get ID'd and it's really freaking tough to wound them. Endurance and Warp Speed also make some MCs a little scary, too.

Assuming the dice gods like you and that's what you get, but yeah, it's a very beneficial power


Automatically Appended Next Post:

elrabin wrote:I'm curious -- do the rules for Deep Strike deny assaulting after arrival? I know you can't assault when arriving from reserves, but if DS doesn't specifically deny it, then it means you could assault after using GoI...

I believe it's already been mentioned you can't unfortunately

azazel the cat wrote:There ya go, Tyranid players: The psyker power "Iron Arm". Now your MCs don't get ID'd and it's really freaking tough to wound them. Endurance and Warp Speed also make some MCs a little scary, too.

Iron arm and Warp Speed only targets the psyker, so can't be used on Carnifex, Trygon, Mawloc, or Tyrannofex. Tervigon shouldn't be in combat to need it. Could be useful for Swarmlord or a CC Tyrant though.

as far as wounding with multiple weapons goes, verbatim from shooting:

"Roll To Wound - Remove any dice that failed to hit and roll the remaining dice again.
- The player controlling the shooting unit can choose the order in which different groups of wounds are allocated (see page 15)."

bigpig wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:There ya go, Tyranid players: The psyker power "Iron Arm". Now your MCs don't get ID'd and it's really freaking tough to wound them. Endurance and Warp Speed also make some MCs a little scary, too.

Iron arm and Warp Speed only targets the psyker, so can't be used on Carnifex, Trygon, Mawloc, or Tyrannofex. Tervigon shouldn't be in combat to need it. Could be useful for Swarmlord or a CC Tyrant though.

Swarm lord and CC tyrant maybe they have pretty good powers. But your missing the Broodlord. That's where he's rolling.

Altruizine wrote:Pics of the Psychic disciplines:

http://imgur.com/a/UnXKB

Telepathy will be akin to Trolling on Genestealers.
Biomancy will be trolling on Tervigons and HTs.

azazel the cat wrote:There ya go, Tyranid players: The psyker power "Iron Arm". Now your MCs don't get ID'd and it's really freaking tough to wound them. Endurance and Warp Speed also make some MCs a little scary, too.


ALSO: I would love to know what "Strikedown" refers to, as well as the "Beam"-type of weapon (but I'm sure we can guess it's like the Death Ray or JotWW)

The issue with this is that MC's and Tyranid's don't just benefit from these powers, almost every gets them.

Acardia wrote:. But your missing the Broodlord. That's where he's rolling.

Look at Telepathy again. Read Invisibility.

DarkStarSabre wrote:

Acardia wrote:. But your missing the Broodlord. That's where he's rolling.

Look at Telepathy again. Read Invisibility.

Unfortunately, Invisibility is a Warp Charge 2 power - which presumably means that only Mastery lvl 2 Psykers can cast it.

DarkStarSabre wrote:

Acardia wrote:. But your missing the Broodlord. That's where he's rolling.

Look at Telepathy again. Read Invisibility.

SAw that one, however the whole lore isn't great at he only rolls two. The entire Biomancy list is solid, Enfeble makes all gaunts much better. plus it synergizes with hemorage, not even counting the two cc powers. It's very solid.

Indeed. So I noticed. Hmm. Time to assign a Flyrant Telepathy to buff his outflanking stealer buddies!

Maige wrote:
Just for aesthetics.

What about the greater than 2000 point FOC stuff? Secondary Primary Detachments.

solles wrote:as far as wounding with multiple weapons goes, verbatim from shooting:

"Roll To Wound - Remove any dice that failed to hit and roll the remaining dice again.
- The player controlling the shooting unit can choose the order in which different groups of wounds are allocated (see page 15)."

SWEET. Thank you for clarifying.


What happens in CC? Don't see how 'closest to furthest' would work there...

Byte wrote:What about the <2000 point + FOC stuff? Secondary Primary Detachments.

That is the chart for under 2000...

Joe Mama wrote:

solles wrote:as far as wounding with multiple weapons goes, verbatim from shooting:

"Roll To Wound - Remove any dice that failed to hit and roll the remaining dice again.
- The player controlling the shooting unit can choose the order in which different groups of wounds are allocated (see page 15)."

SWEET. Thank you for clarifying.


What happens in CC? Don't see how 'closest to furthest' would work there...

"-If all the Wounds caused at this Initiative Step have the same saving throws taken against them, roll all of the saves at once and allocate the unsaved Wounds, one at a time, to the enemy model closest to the models that are attacking at the current Initiative step (see page 25).
-When multiple enemy models are closest, their controlling player chooses which model is allocated the wound
-If the Wounds caused have different saving throws taken against them, allocate them to the closest model one at a time, and roll the model's saving throw (if it has one) before moving on to the next Wound. Once a model has a Wound allocated to it, you must continue to allocate Wounds to it until the Wound pool is empty or it is removed as a casualty."

credit for this info goes to primalexile. i'm reading off the clips he posted in his photobucket

Joe Mama wrote:

solles wrote:as far as wounding with multiple weapons goes, verbatim from shooting:

"Roll To Wound - Remove any dice that failed to hit and roll the remaining dice again.
- The player controlling the shooting unit can choose the order in which different groups of wounds are allocated (see page 15)."

SWEET. Thank you for clarifying.


What happens in CC? Don't see how 'closest to furthest' would work there...

CC it is base to base with the model attacking at that initiative first

insaniak wrote:

Byte wrote:What about the <2000 point + FOC stuff? Secondary Primary Detachments.

That is the chart for under 2000...

Fixed for my intent.

....Woah.

If it's gone base to base for CC then it is a world of hurt for Powerfists. Going to be some crafty positioning going on there. Get a power weapon in with the Power Fist or Axe guy and splat him before he strikes. Ouch.

The only ones who generally got away are Plague Marines who have a FNP that works against everything bar ID! And if Toughness modifiers count for ID then they're pretty much immune up to S10!

Byte wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Byte wrote:What about the <2000 point + FOC stuff? Secondary Primary Detachments.

That is the chart for under 2000...

Fixed for my intent.

Then I think it would be the same chart twice, if one decides to take it.

DarkStarSabre wrote:....Woah.

If it's gone base to base for CC then it is a world of hurt for Powerfists. Going to be some crafty positioning going on there. Get a power weapon in with the Power Fist or Axe guy and splat him before he strikes. Ouch.

The only ones who generally got away are Plague Marines who have a FNP that works against everything bar ID! And if Toughness modifiers count for ID then they're pretty much immune up to S10!

No way is CC B2B only. You can't be telling me that my PK Nob has to be in B2B to attack. If so, he'll never attack with his I1

MunkeyKungFu wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:

solles wrote:as far as wounding with multiple weapons goes, verbatim from shooting:

"Roll To Wound - Remove any dice that failed to hit and roll the remaining dice again.
- The player controlling the shooting unit can choose the order in which different groups of wounds are allocated (see page 15)."

SWEET. Thank you for clarifying.


What happens in CC? Don't see how 'closest to furthest' would work there...

CC it is base to base with the model attacking at that initiative first

For wound allocation? So in my earlier scenario, attacks (which are all power weapons) need to be rolled separately because they come from different people!?!? Madness!

XXXXXXXX
YYYYYYZ

The X's, the GKs with power weapons, attack the Y/Z squad (they are both lined up exactly as pictured). I can't roll all the power weapon attacks at once, because then I wouldn't know if the two X's on the far right made any hits. If they whiffed, then Z is safe. Which means I would have to roll them separately?

Basically if they're all pws, then you take em all at once. It only changes if, say, 1 wound is a pw and 4 are normal. Then you could roll the normal ones one at a time til you fail, more to the next, etc. Until all wounds are done.

Works the same as shooting basically. Also, you allocate closest to the squad, so basically you always kill the first rank first.

DarbNilbirts wrote:

Byte wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Byte wrote:What about the <2000 point + FOC stuff? Secondary Primary Detachments.

That is the chart for under 2000...

Fixed for my intent.

Then I think it would be the same chart twice, if one decides to take it.

Wow...

I am trying to see the rules out of the book.

This.

Dantalian wrote:So I just got back from the store with a copy of 6th here and I'm reading the Rapid Fire rules and it states:

Rapid Fire weapons are very common and usually come in the form of semi-automatic rifles. Their versatility means they can be fired effectively 'from the hip' when a squad is advancing, spraying shots into the enemy whenever they present themselves, or instead, used for aimed single shots against targets at greater distances.

A model armed with a Rapid Fire weapons can fire two shots at a target up to half the weapon's maximum range away. Alternatively, it can instead fire one shot at a target over half the weapon's range away, up to the weapon's maximum range.

If the shooting Rapid Fire weapons is found to be partially within half range of the target, the firing models within half range fire two shots, while those further away fire one.

Models that shoot with Rapid Fire weapons in the shooting phase cannot charge in the ensuing Assault Phase.

So unless I missed something, you can't move and shoot at max range with Rapid Fire weapons as people have been reporting.
Edit* Wait it doesn't list restrictions on movement, so I guess it is true.

Wait, it seriously says "half range" instead of 12"? FCW just got a buff.

Are all of the psychic disciplines the same, flat cost, or do you pay different amounts to roll on, say, the Telepathy and Divination tables?

Joe Mama wrote:

MunkeyKungFu wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:

solles wrote:as far as wounding with multiple weapons goes, verbatim from shooting:

"Roll To Wound - Remove any dice that failed to hit and roll the remaining dice again.
- The player controlling the shooting unit can choose the order in which different groups of wounds are allocated (see page 15)."

SWEET. Thank you for clarifying.


What happens in CC? Don't see how 'closest to furthest' would work there...

CC it is base to base with the model attacking at that initiative first

For wound allocation? So in my earlier scenario, attacks (which are all power weapons) need to be rolled separately because they come from different people!?!? Madness!

XXXXXXXX
YYYYYYZ

The X's, the GKs with power weapons, attack the Y/Z squad (they are both lined up exactly as pictured). I can't roll all the power weapon attacks at once, because then I wouldn't know if the two X's on the far right made any hits. If they whiffed, then Z is safe. Which means I would have to roll them separately?

posted verbatim above. basically, since in your example they're all closest, you roll all your attacks, then your opponent allocates them as he sees fit, doing one at a time for each model until they die

solles wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:What happens in CC? Don't see how 'closest to furthest' would work there...

"-If all the Wounds caused at this Initiative Step have the same saving throws taken against them, roll all of the saves at once and allocate the unsaved Wounds, one at a time, to the enemy model closest to the models that are attacking at the current Initiative step (see page 25).
-When multiple enemy models are closest, their controlling player chooses which model is allocated the wound
-If the Wounds caused have different saving throws taken against them, allocate them to the closest model one at a time, and roll the model's saving throw (if it has one) before moving on to the next Wound. Once a model has a Wound allocated to it, you must continue to allocate Wounds to it until the Wound pool is empty or it is removed as a casualty."

credit for this info goes to primalexile. i'm reading off the clips he posted in his photobucket

So my GK standing a line, facing the enemy all have power weapons. They all roll to hit together, and roll to wound together. Since everyone is in a line, no one is closer or further than anyone else, the dude getting attacked gets to allocate the wounds. Ok, I guess. That means the Z guy, the special weapon guy is probably safe. But what about something like this:


X X X X XX
XY Y Y Y Y X
Z


If this is reproduced right on your screen, only one attacker, one X is "closest" to the Z model. The entire rest of the X squad is closer to the Y guys. How do we allocate the wounds now? Remember all the X's have the same weapon and are striking at the same initiative step. What's "closest" here? Do I need to roll some of the X attacks separately to deal with this?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zid wrote:Basically if they're all pws, then you take em all at once.

But that doesn't make sense in light of the "closest" or "first rank" rule. See my most recent example.

RogueRegault wrote:
Wait, it seriously says "half range" instead of 12"? FCW just got a buff.

Gonna go out on a limb here and say the whole, "move and shoot" deal is bigger than an extra 3" on the double tap.

I liked all those videos on page 1...

Why does Phil Kelly move and talk like he has been taking speed?

matphat wrote:
No way is CC B2B only. You can't be telling me that my PK Nob has to be in B2B to attack. If so, he'll never attack with his I1

Unless no one is left or further then 3" he should be able to attack. At each Ini step you get a pile in move of 3".

Altruizine wrote:Pics of the Psychic disciplines:

http://imgur.com/a/UnXKB

They'll probably need to FAQ enfeeble. I can see some nasty combos using the toughness reduction to ID MCs.

Joe Mama wrote:<example>

X X X X X
XY Y Y Y Y X
Z

If this is reproduced right on your screen, only one attacker, one X is "closest" to the Z model. The entire rest of the X squad is closer to the Y guys. How do we allocate the wounds now? Remember all the X's have the same weapon and are striking at the same initiative step. What's "closest" here? Do I need to roll some of the X attacks separately to deal with this?

I'm sure there's a definition in the book, but according to the pics primalexile posted, "the closest model to a unit" is the one whose distance to any individual model in the unit is shortest. In your example, all of the Y's and the Z are B2B with someone in X, so they are all closest. In this case, the controller of the Y/Z unit would allocate the wounds.

wound allocation text - http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v61/munkey/?action=view¤t=IMG_1842.jpg

RogueRegault wrote:
They'll probably need to FAQ enfeeble. I can see some nasty combos using the toughness reduction to ID MCs.

Is that bad?

Wrath wrote: At each Ini step you get a pile in move of 3".

AH! I had not seen that rule yet! Great GooglyMoogly that's awesome.

bigpig wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:There ya go, Tyranid players: The psyker power "Iron Arm". Now your MCs don't get ID'd and it's really freaking tough to wound them. Endurance and Warp Speed also make some MCs a little scary, too.

Iron arm and Warp Speed only targets the psyker, so can't be used on Carnifex, Trygon, Mawloc, or Tyrannofex. Tervigon shouldn't be in combat to need it. Could be useful for Swarmlord or a CC Tyrant though.

Iron Arm would be pretty good on a Tervigon if only for the toughness increase to protect them from missile spam or invulnerable to small arms. Plus it's worth remembering that with the new wound allocation, it's easier to cut a path through a termagant screen and get into melee with the Tervigon. In those situations EW will protect you from force weapons.

Also imagine getting Iron Arm (Eternal Warrior) on DoM

DarkStarSabre wrote:Indeed. So I noticed. Hmm. Time to assign a Flyrant Telepathy to buff his outflanking stealer buddies!

I'm pretty sure the Swarmlord is the only level 2 nid psyker. It's a bit of a risk to take him just to get that power when he can do so much with biomancy instead.

MunkeyKungFu wrote:wound allocation text - http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v61/munkey/?action=view¤t=IMG_1842.jpg

Cool. When I am not at work and able to see that it I am imagine it will be quite helpful.

Wow those new powers... how do you get these again?

Do they replace all the current psyker powers everyone has, or are they in addition?

daedalus-templarius wrote:Wow those new powers... how do you get these again?

Do they replace all the current psyker powers everyone has, or are they in addition?

You can opt to trade in all your current (codex) powers for the new random ones. If you do you get to roll once per power you're replacing.

daedalus-templarius wrote:Wow those new powers... how do you get these again?

Do they replace all the current psyker powers everyone has, or are they in addition?

i think it was stated certain models can forego their codex powers for an equal amount of rolls on these tables, restricted by codex as per the chart on page 1

Regardless of if one person is closer to another member of the unit. It is always treated from the closest model to the closest model. Those are the only ones used for wound removal.

So in CC the base to base models are always used as the ones who are closest to the unit.

Divinations primary power is really really good. Its basically guide but better since it lasts longer than the coming shooting phase

Any word on the ability to swap powers? For divination I could see getting the primary and the first power being a reliable thing to want to have

Also can you roll and then swap for the primary?

DarkStarSabre wrote:....Woah.

If it's gone base to base for CC then it is a world of hurt for Powerfists. Going to be some crafty positioning going on there. Get a power weapon in with the Power Fist or Axe guy and splat him before he strikes. Ouch.

The only ones who generally got away are Plague Marines who have a FNP that works against everything bar ID! And if Toughness modifiers count for ID then they're pretty much immune up to S10!

Actually, like bikes, it only works up to St8. If it'll ID you without the Mark of Nurgle, it'll still ID you.

And, the best way to deal with Power Klaws/Fists are to challenge them with a guy with a Power Sword. Or even without - Just taking the Power Klaw/Fist out of the combat for a round is awesome.

Can you challenge more than once if they refuse? Since, if they refuse, they can't attack that turn, and if you can do it for every round of combat...

Heh.

I wonder if future codexes include army-specific lores of psionics. Like, I could see Chaos having three god-specific lores with stuff like Lash, Stream of Corruption and some chaos-spawnifying in them.

Leth wrote:Regardless of if one person is closer to another member of the unit. It is always treated from the closest model to the closest model. Those are the only ones used for wound removal.

So in CC the base to base models are always used as the ones who are closest to the unit.

What is "It"?


I am just trying to wrap my brain around this stuff. When shooting at a unit, allocation is from closest model in the shooting unit to closest model in the shot at unit. Cool. Sniping of special weapons can be done, depending on where the enemy is firing from. In CC it seems like "sniping" won't happen, unless the assaulters generate more wounds than the number of defenders "closest" to the assaulters. Otherwise the defender will never allocate wounds to the special weapon guy.

mattyrm wrote:I liked all those videos on page 1...

Why does Phil Kelly move and talk like he has been taking speed?

It has something to do with his divine voice needing to be modulated so that it is audible on human frequency levels.

Ok, so, without seeing the Ork FAQ, Will Nobz in boyz mobs be challengeable?

Agamemnon2 wrote:I wonder if future codexes include army-specific lores of psionics. Like, I could see Chaos having three god-specific lores with stuff like Lash, Stream of Corruption and some chaos-spawnifying in them.

If choas do have random psychic powers (plase lt it be no so!) there would have to be 4 lores, T, S, N and Undivided

dude... new psy powers.. Tigurius.... god damn, he has ALL the SM powers... thats alot of rolls on the tables

Joe Mama wrote:

Leth wrote:Regardless of if one person is closer to another member of the unit. It is always treated from the closest model to the closest model. Those are the only ones used for wound removal.

So in CC the base to base models are always used as the ones who are closest to the unit.

What is "It"?


I am just trying to wrap my brain around this stuff. When shooting at a unit, allocation is from closest model in the shooting unit to closest model in the shot at unit. Cool. Sniping of special weapons can be done, depending on where the enemy is firing from. In CC it seems like "sniping" won't happen, unless the assaulters generate more wounds than the number of defenders "closest" to the assaulters. Otherwise the defender will never allocate wounds to the special weapon guy.

My impression:

Base to base models are the closest, so all of them must be remove first (during every initiative step). So if there are only three troopers and a special weapon in B2B, and four wounds are dealt, the special weapon will be lost. If there are three troopers in B2B, and the special weapon is the next closest of those models outside of B2B, he will also be lost.

matphat wrote:Ok, so, without seeing the Ork FAQ, Will Nobz in boyz mobs be challengeable?

Yes, but they may be able to refuse without losing their attacks (an independent character who refuses a challenge can be barred from participating in the combat that turn).

I haven't seen final confirmation on this, but it's how it works in Fantasy.

Can you snap fire psychic powers (witchfire in particular) and can you overwatch psychic powers?

can IC "look out sarge" other IC?

Looking at the (possibly illegal) pictures of the rule book linked by primalexile, I am very surprised to see that you perform overwatch shooting BEFORE you roll to see if you get in base contact for charging.

I play Tau and even I will feel bad when I shoot the crap out of someone (relatively) then they don't even get to assault me.

Formosa wrote:dude... new psy powers.. Tigurius.... god damn, he has ALL the SM powers... thats alot of rolls on the tables

It doesn't work like that. The newest WD has rules for how many each psyker gets.

BlueRift wrote:Looking at the (possibly illegal) pictures of the rule book linked by primalexile, I am very surprised to see that you perform overwatch shooting BEFORE you roll to see if you get in base contact for charging.

I play Tau and even I will feel bad when I shoot the crap out of someone (relatively) then they don't even get to assault me.

this is the same as fantasy, its a risk to charge a shooty unit but the reward is that you get to chop em up if you do

Also do Malediction/Blessing last the entire game, or just for the turn?

How does combat resolution work?

I always hated how during multi assaults, if you could get a single unit to multi assault two or more units, that single unit will most likely just kill all of the other units due to resolving all the combat into one giant combat.

But, with there being no "No Retreat" rules for Fearless, this might be fine if the rule is still in the game.

Joe Mama wrote:

Leth wrote:Regardless of if one person is closer to another member of the unit. It is always treated from the closest model to the closest model. Those are the only ones used for wound removal.

So in CC the base to base models are always used as the ones who are closest to the unit.

What is "It"?


I am just trying to wrap my brain around this stuff. When shooting at a unit, allocation is from closest model in the shooting unit to closest model in the shot at unit. Cool. Sniping of special weapons can be done, depending on where the enemy is firing from. In CC it seems like "sniping" won't happen, unless the assaulters generate more wounds than the number of defenders "closest" to the assaulters. Otherwise the defender will never allocate wounds to the special weapon guy.

If the unit is saving against the same AP attacks (say AP- against power armour) then you just roll all the saves together and then when removing casualties they come out of base to base first, then the guys next closest to the models and so on untill all the unsaved wounds are dished out.

If you have models attacking with weapons with different AP values then those attacks are allocated to either the model they are in base contact with, or the next closest model to them if they aren't in B2B. If there are multiple models in the same distance then the player getting attacked gets to allocate the wounds.

So say your unit of Wyches did 10 normal wounds on the Space Marine unit and 2 Power Weapon wounds. The two enemy models closest to the power weapon, be that base contact or otherwise, will be removed as casualties (if more than two are closest then the space marine player decides which two are killed). Then the Space Marine player will roll all the saves for the normal ten wounds and remove his casualties, taking models who are in base contact first and if they all die then taking working backwards, removing the models from those closest to the Wyches until all the unsaved wounds are allocated.

Formosa wrote:

BlueRift wrote:Looking at the (possibly illegal) pictures of the rule book linked by primalexile, I am very surprised to see that you perform overwatch shooting BEFORE you roll to see if you get in base contact for charging.

I play Tau and even I will feel bad when I shoot the crap out of someone (relatively) then they don't even get to assault me.

this is the same as fantasy, its a risk to charge a shooty unit but the reward is that you get to chop em up if you do

In fantasy it WORKS though as only a few units have shooty weapons per army
where as in 40k, pretty much every unit has guns, except a majority of the daemon as well as a good amount of the 'nid dex

while the rule is cool, it will probably be a bit too OP, especally against horde-shooty armies, like guard, shoota boyz and cron warrior spam

Plus the negatives of charging multiple units are pretty big this edition.

Formosa wrote:

BlueRift wrote:Looking at the (possibly illegal) pictures of the rule book linked by primalexile, I am very surprised to see that you perform overwatch shooting BEFORE you roll to see if you get in base contact for charging.

I play Tau and even I will feel bad when I shoot the crap out of someone (relatively) then they don't even get to assault me.

this is the same as fantasy, its a risk to charge a shooty unit but the reward is that you get to chop em up if you do

Wait, from Fantasy, I thought the unit charging has to move into range before your "Stand and Shoot" reaction will work. So if you declare "Stand and Shoot" with some throwing weapons and they roll a 2 on the dice and never get within range of you, you will not be able to do your ranged attacks.

Formosa wrote:

BlueRift wrote:Looking at the (possibly illegal) pictures of the rule book linked by primalexile, I am very surprised to see that you perform overwatch shooting BEFORE you roll to see if you get in base contact for charging.

I play Tau and even I will feel bad when I shoot the crap out of someone (relatively) then they don't even get to assault me.

this is the same as fantasy, its a risk to charge a shooty unit but the reward is that you get to chop em up if you do

yes but the difference is in fantasy not every unit is a skirmishing unit thusly you have flanks and advantages from assaulting said flanks also not every guy would be able to fire due to ranks soo not really the same. Not sayin I think the rule is all bad but I think it is a poor comparison.

I can just see someone charging a unit into 2 horde units and dying...

I can also see a dreadnought trying to assault a bunch of necron warriors, overwatched and gaussed to destruction

Matt.Kingsley wrote:I can just see someone charging a unit into 2 horde units and dying...

I can also see a dreadnought trying to assault a bunch of necron warriors, overwatched and gaussed to destruction

That would indeed be quite sad

Formosa wrote:

BlueRift wrote:Looking at the (possibly illegal) pictures of the rule book linked by primalexile, I am very surprised to see that you perform overwatch shooting BEFORE you roll to see if you get in base contact for charging.

I play Tau and even I will feel bad when I shoot the crap out of someone (relatively) then they don't even get to assault me.

this is the same as fantasy, its a risk to charge a shooty unit but the reward is that you get to chop em up if you do

Except in Fantasy taking casualties from a Stand and Shoot doesn't have the possibility of reducing your charge range.

I think they should have had the fantasy method. Declare Charge, declare reaction, roll charge range, if they are within charge range then the charge succeeds, roll for overwatch attacks, removing casualties as normal, move chargers ignoring actual distance as we already know they make it.

Matt.Kingsley wrote:I can just see someone charging a unit into 2 horde units and dying...

I can also see a dreadnought trying to assault a bunch of necron warriors, overwatched and gaussed to destruction

Or even just lose a hull point and not successfully assault the squad.