Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:IT'S A TRAP!!!

Really, what do most people care? I'm into FOW these days anyway. And to be honest, even if 6th becomes the complete opposite of this, people will rush out to buy it.

Not a fan of the evasion thing. In the grim darkness of the far future, surely weapons have sophisticated trackers.

And yet in the grim darkness of the far future a guardsman can't hit the bastion he's standing a foot from 50% of the time. Surely the system is a stupid and unrealistic abstraction as is.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Really, what do most people care? I'm into FOW these days anyway.

Really, why do you care if you're so into FOW?

Guys, this can sound silly, but i found one extra argument that can prove this is GW, it is very small, bu very "GWish":i dont remember the page itself, but there is a place where the text reer to the models in the table and reads something like "...you warhammer 40k with models made of plastic and resin..."

The funny part here is that it dont say anything about lead or metal, just plastic and resin. I know it sound silly, but who will say i dont sound GW?

Among that, if this system is better, why keep playing the official 40k? Its just a matter of adaptation and fanwork

Maelstrom808 wrote:

ColdSadHungry wrote:The defensive fire thing - other than deep striking and a couple of other rarely occurring incidents, you need the overwatch rule. Since only Coteaz has it right now, that can only mean that in future codices, certain units will be given it creating a huge imbalance in the game between those codices that have it and those that don't.

This is another pointer to the rules not being any where near the final version (I don't think it's fake, rather a playtest or beta version) because I can't believe that such a big game mechanic will not be available to so many armies. I that that the leaked FAQs are very much incomplete and that the final versions of them will include updates to unit types, advising what USR each unit type has. At least, that's what I hope!

Or....codex writers will recognize that it would create a huge imbalance and not give it to every Tom, Dick and Harry unit. Considering the rareity of it on units and the many ways they have available to bypass it in the other situations where it can become available, I think the writer(s) understand how easily it can shift the balance of power.

Ah, I wasn't thinking it was going to be liberally sprinkled across all unit types from every codex. But if it's only going into codices that come from now on, it does mean that Necrons, GK, DE, BA, SW, Nids, Guard and Sisters won't get it (except for Coteaz in the GK codex). Others like Orks may not see it for quite some time. That's a lot of armies to be completely left out of the overwatch loop. Obviously I'm only speculating but it's things like this that lead me to believe that the leaked FAQs are nowhere near complete.

decoste007xt wrote:There would be so many imbalances and complications that it would ruin 40k until every codex was re-written to reflect these rules.

No, this 6th Ed. will correct many of the imbalances that are present in 5th. Generally speaking, these rules make spam armies very inefficient as just about every race will have multiple ways of killing one-hit-wonder armies. These rules will create the need to every army to be a jack-of-all-trades list, or at least do two or three things very well.

decoste007xt wrote:Also with tiered systems of fearlessness, EW, and Psykers you would think NEcrons would hint on this. Theres no tiered systems in their codex and they just got released, what are they just boned now?

Thanks to Strength D weapons in Apoc (which seems to be amalgamated with the standard game now) there are already tiers of Eternal Warrior. And Psykers have always had tiers, they just weren't called tiers. Psykers always had a mastery level of 1, SW Rune Priests could upgrade to be mastery 2, and characters like Mephiston were always mastery 3. This is just a unified rating system.
I'm 99% sure its a fake.

Leth wrote:Banshees being able to assault out of a wave serpent that moved 12

Erm....

I went through the Eldar alterations and I certainly can't find any suggestion that Waveserpents are Assault Vehicles.

Fast vehicles can perform Stationary actions when moving at Combat speed, and normal Shooting actions at Cruising, but they are still bound by the restriction that you cannot disembark at Cruising speed.

As they are also not open-topped, you are restricted to a Combat or Engage action after disembarking from a moving transport.

Giving your Banshees a princely 'assault range' of 16" starting on foot (2 x (6+2)), or 14" from a transport (6+6+2).

Absolutionis wrote:

ph34r wrote:As a guard player with a ton of guardsmen, this is a life saver.

Agreed. As a Tyranid player that uses Hormagants, it's also a Godsend.

Move: Move 6".
Shoot: Roll 3d6, probably move 5" or 6".
Assault: Move 6"

I love it, for the Horms it means Either a 18inch charge or a 16inch run move, both of which ignore terrain. Raveners just got even beefier with a 21inch charge that ignores terrain.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dribble Joy wrote:

Leth wrote:Banshees being able to assault out of a wave serpent that moved 12

Erm....

I went through the Eldar alterations and I certainly can't find any suggestion that Waveserpents are Assault Vehicles.

Fast vehicles can perform Stationary actions when moving at Combat speed, and normal Shooting actions at Cruising, but they are still bound by the restriction that you cannot disembark at Cruising speed.

As they are also not open-topped, you are restricted to a Combat or Engage action after disembarking from a moving transport.

Giving your Banshees a princely 'assault range' of 16" starting on foot (2 x (6+2)), or 14" from a transport (6+6+2).

I read that as a fast skimmer moves 8, the fleet banshees Engage moves for 8 so the same as a 2x charge move, however if the Sgt is within 3 inches of the skimmer base during the consolidation phase the unit can embark back onto the vehicle

Gonna make small Firedragons squads great so they can hop out kill and reboard in the same player turn

IPS wrote:If your oppenent is mad enough to give you 12 sp for the first turn...^^

Then again in games like Tau vs IG on a rather open board I can easily see a 12 sp bet...
I mean you can litterally whipe the opponent off the board with your first turn. 0o

At the same time this would also make him pretty useless if you took something like camouflage. Your whole army gets veiled (2) meaning he would have a maximum engagement range of 24" on his first turn.

Fascinatingly enough, if February's Tyranid releases indeed include the Cerebore, this 6thEd leak is all but confirmed as authentic.

Absolutionis wrote:Fascinatingly enough, if February's Tyranid releases indeed include the Cerebore, this 6thEd leak is all but confirmed as authentic.

I've heard people say that a lot but I don't see how...is the Cerebore mentioned in the pdf and I'm just blind?

CT GAMER wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:Looks pretty legit to me actually. Nice change to sweeping advance for necrons. Puts them on par with everyone else and only makes it easy for the enemy to get away from lower initiative units.

Ork rokkits still AP3 yet marine power armour went to 2+ We might as will use them as clubs now...

If this were true what is the point of fielding terminators? I suspect it will stay at 3+

Absolutionis wrote:Fascinatingly enough, if February's Tyranid releases indeed include the Cerebore, this 6thEd leak is all but confirmed as authentic.

People keep repeating this, but what's keeping GW from stopping or delaying the Cerebore's release, if the Cerebore does exist and was to be released this Feb to begin with? Either way it neither proves nor disproves anything as far as I can tell. Also, though I quoted you Absolutionis, I am not directing this towards you specifically.

Project2501 wrote:

Absolutionis wrote:Fascinatingly enough, if February's Tyranid releases indeed include the Cerebore, this 6thEd leak is all but confirmed as authentic.

People keep repeating this, but what's keeping GW from stopping or delaying the Cerebore's release, if the Cerebore does exist and was to be released this Feb to begin with? Either way it neither proves nor disproves anything as far as I can tell. Also, though I quoted you Absolutionis, I am not directing this towards you specifically.

Why would they delay something people will pay money for?

Dytalus wrote:

Absolutionis wrote:Fascinatingly enough, if February's Tyranid releases indeed include the Cerebore, this 6thEd leak is all but confirmed as authentic.

I've heard people say that a lot but I don't see how...is the Cerebore mentioned in the pdf and I'm just blind?

It is. It's on the page under Transports, first paragraph.

Project2501 wrote:

Absolutionis wrote:Fascinatingly enough, if February's Tyranid releases indeed include the Cerebore, this 6thEd leak is all but confirmed as authentic.

People keep repeating this, but what's keeping GW from stopping or delaying the Cerebore's release, if the Cerebore does exist and was to be released this Feb to begin with? Either way it neither proves nor disproves anything as far as I can tell. Also, though I quoted you Absolutionis, I am not directing this towards you specifically.

It the Cerebore is released in February, it pretty much says this 6thEd rulebook is authentic GW stuff or the faker not only has a lot of time on their hands, but they're an absurdly good guesser.

Supposedly there's a "surprise" next month and there have been rumors of a WD-included Tyranid Model.

Regardless, if there is no Cerebore/Transportofex, it doesn't prove or disprove anything, obviously.

Drachii wrote:

Project2501 wrote:

Absolutionis wrote:Fascinatingly enough, if February's Tyranid releases indeed include the Cerebore, this 6thEd leak is all but confirmed as authentic.

People keep repeating this, but what's keeping GW from stopping or delaying the Cerebore's release, if the Cerebore does exist and was to be released this Feb to begin with? Either way it neither proves nor disproves anything as far as I can tell. Also, though I quoted you Absolutionis, I am not directing this towards you specifically.

Why would they delay something people will pay money for?

Why did they delay that Eldar Jetbike that had been revealed for 5 years?
Because Games Workshop.

Why did they delay Tyranids second wave?
Because Games Workshop.

Perhaps GW likes to sit on stuff hoping it'll hatch.

MakersHitstheMark wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:Looks pretty legit to me actually. Nice change to sweeping advance for necrons. Puts them on par with everyone else and only makes it easy for the enemy to get away from lower initiative units.

Ork rokkits still AP3 yet marine power armour went to 2+ We might as will use them as clubs now...

If this were true what is the point of fielding terminators? I suspect it will stay at 3+

Looked like a typo to me. in the example under that chart they use a 3+ save

Oh yeah. I missed that typo:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common Mistakes:
1- Your opponent's unit does not get a free "defensive fire" just because you charged them.

2- The points costs listed next to each weapon in the book refers purely to the strategem that summons buildings; nothing more.

3- The stats listed for krak grenades and frag grenades being used in close combat refer only to them being used in close combat against units such as vehicles and MCs. It has nothing to do with missile launchers.

4- If your army doesn't have a Codex Update, don't have wild conjectures yet. Sisters of Battle on forward are too recent of Codecies to have been considered for the Summer 2011 release of this .pdf.

5- The rephrasing of the meaning of "Heavy" is just a casual mention. Considering the datemark of this .pdf is well before the Necron Codex release, the meaning of 'heavy' is well subject to change. Note that Necrons don't even have a Codex Update section yet.

6- "Flyer" is not a unit type. It's not listed as a unit type. The heading you see listed as "Flyer" is a set of rules for movement.

7- Only units that underwent a "Flyer" move are immune to assault from non-jump non-airborne units. Not all Skimmers have this immunity.

8- "Critical Hit" is just a keyword for an automatic-wound that ignores armor. It has nothing to do with conventional dice rolls.

9- The 10" Apocalypse Template being used against swarms is just a hasty copy+paste from the evasion chart likely done purely for templating.

10- This is quite likely an incomplete draft or a playtest ruleset. It's not finalized. The formatting and such are very well subject to change.

11- Power armor Space Marines do not have a 2+ armor save. It's a type corrected/contradicted shortly thereafter and the Codex Updates mention nothing of the kind.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another possible typo is the Monstrous Close Combat Weapon that I have seen several people post about

In the profile it says 2S with an AP of 2
but right under it when it explains what the Cleave ability is the example is 2D6 + Strength

So either the 2S thing is a typo which I think most likely is the case, as that would make the Strength of all Montrous Creatures not matter (They would all be 10)

Or when Monstrous Creatures attack vehicles they suddenly get weaker, which I doubt

Absolutionis wrote:

Dytalus wrote:

Absolutionis wrote:Fascinatingly enough, if February's Tyranid releases indeed include the Cerebore, this 6thEd leak is all but confirmed as authentic.

I've heard people say that a lot but I don't see how...is the Cerebore mentioned in the pdf and I'm just blind?

It is. It's on the page under Transports, first paragraph.

So it is. My bad. I'd actually read that bit before, I just completely skimmed over mention of the Cerebore.

SoulGazer wrote:

Overwatch makes it so you can perform a Defensive Fire action even if you are not assaulted. If an enemy unit ends a move action within 12" of you, you can shoot it on the enemy turn. Any unit that gets assaulted can fire on the assaulting unit no matter what(unless they're already in CC.) Overwatch is just an icing on the cake type rule.

You sir are correct. If anyone has said otherwise they are not reading the rules correctly. Which is odd because these rules are very well written and clear.

Fafnir wrote:Little less than halfway through the book right now, but it looks to really favour hordey armies so far. Considering GW, not surprised.

The one thing I'm really miffed about is that with the wound allocation being fixed, my two favourite units, Nobz and Paladins, are no longer viable in a competitive environment. I understand that wound allocation needed to be fixed, but on a personal note, the two armies that I actually play frequently are now no longer any good.

For Orks that isn't necessarily true yet. Nobs can be base armor 6+, heavy armor 4+, and I suspect that mega armor because an option +2 instead of being its own listing. Also don't forget cyborg +5. You can still play games with it. Just a different set of rules.

Noir Eternal wrote:Another possible typo is the Monstrous Close Combat Weapon that I have seen several people post about

In the profile it says 2S with an AP of 2
but right under it when it explains what the Cleave ability is the example is 2D6 + Strength

So either the 2S thing is a typo which I think most likely is the case, as that would make the Strength of all Montrous Creatures not matter (They would all be 10)

Or when Monstrous Creatures attack vehicles they suddenly get weaker, which I doubt

I read it as S = S of the weapon, which is 2x the S of the MC, but it could be taken either way.

Noir Eternal wrote:
So either the 2S thing is a typo which I think most likely is the case, as that would make the Strength of all Montrous Creatures not matter (They would all be 10)

Actually there is no where in the rules that I have found where the old rule of 10 as a max result is maintained so the weapons in question are Strength=2Xd6+6 now.

Noir Eternal wrote:Another possible typo is the Monstrous Close Combat Weapon that I have seen several people post about

In the profile it says 2S with an AP of 2
but right under it when it explains what the Cleave ability is the example is 2D6 + Strength

So either the 2S thing is a typo which I think most likely is the case, as that would make the Strength of all Montrous Creatures not matter (They would all be 10)

Or when Monstrous Creatures attack vehicles they suddenly get weaker, which I doubt

The weapon's strength is two times the model's strength. So when the weapon rolls 2D6 + Strength, it's the weapon's strength, which in this case is double the model's strength.

theunicorn wrote:

Absolutionis wrote:

ph34r wrote:As a guard player with a ton of guardsmen, this is a life saver.

Agreed. As a Tyranid player that uses Hormagants, it's also a Godsend.

Move: Move 6".
Shoot: Roll 3d6, probably move 5" or 6".
Assault: Move 6"

I love it, for the Horms it means Either a 18inch charge or a 16inch run move, both of which ignore terrain. Raveners just got even beefier with a 21inch charge that ignores terrain.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

How is it balanced where you can get into combat so easily on turn 1?

STUCARIUS wrote:

Noir Eternal wrote:
So either the 2S thing is a typo which I think most likely is the case, as that would make the Strength of all Montrous Creatures not matter (They would all be 10)

Actually there is no where in the rules that I have found where the old rule of 10 as a max result is maintained so the weapons in question are Strength=2Xd6+6 now.

Page 28 Right side under Characteristic Modifiers

2xD6+6 um what?

STUCARIUS wrote:

SoulGazer wrote:

Overwatch makes it so you can perform a Defensive Fire action even if you are not assaulted. If an enemy unit ends a move action within 12" of you, you can shoot it on the enemy turn. Any unit that gets assaulted can fire on the assaulting unit no matter what(unless they're already in CC.) Overwatch is just an icing on the cake type rule.

You sir are correct. If anyone has said otherwise they are not reading the rules correctly. Which is odd because these rules are very well written and clear.

Yup, quite clear that you don't get defensive fire unless you are being Rammed, Deep Strikers land within 12" or you have Overwatch.

Billagio wrote:

theunicorn wrote:

Absolutionis wrote:

ph34r wrote:As a guard player with a ton of guardsmen, this is a life saver.

Agreed. As a Tyranid player that uses Hormagants, it's also a Godsend.

Move: Move 6".
Shoot: Roll 3d6, probably move 5" or 6".
Assault: Move 6"

I love it, for the Horms it means Either a 18inch charge or a 16inch run move, both of which ignore terrain. Raveners just got even beefier with a 21inch charge that ignores terrain.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

How is it balanced where you can get into combat so easily on turn 1?

How are you getting into combat T1 with a 21" charge?

Same way you do now, Spearhead diagonals are the easy one.

STUCARIUS wrote:You sir are correct. If anyone has said otherwise they are not reading the rules correctly. Which is odd because these rules are very well written and clear.

Please, please explain, quote, lay out and provide detailed reasoning as to why this is the case, because the paragraph on p56 (document page 77) is a condition of how the action is performed, not a trigger for DF itself.

Dribble Joy wrote:
The weapon's strength is two times the model's strength. So when the weapon rolls 2D6 + Strength, it's the weapon's strength, which in this case is double the model's strength.

I don't think so, there is no reason to make the jump that its the weapons strength and not the models.

As well as on page 101 under their close combat special rule, it gives the weapon profile again without the 2x Strength to also lead to the fact the the weapon only gives AP2 and 2D6 armour pen


Of course, play it how you think right but I feel there is more evidence to it not being 2S