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.

So is ebay going to be flooded with chimeras and razorbacks now?

The funny part is there's a 54 page argument about rules that may or may not be real, from an unverified source.

Personally I'll wait till the books released, then buy and read that.

Ovion wrote:The funny part is there's a 54 page argument about rules that may or may not be real, from an unverified source.

Personally I'll wait till the books released, then buy and read that.

there's no real argument here...

really? I just skimmed several pages of back and forth about defensive fire o-o

AndrewC wrote:ON another note, it's nice to see my wish that terrain become part of your army choice (via a very strange mechanism but I can't have everything)

Also I can't believe that no-one has mentioned that the Monolith has MT-7, so as it's always counting as stationary what is it going to use 14 shooting actions for?

I've heard of redundancy but thats taking it a bit far.

Cheers

Andrew

Edit for typos.

I've mentioned it, but it was buried in posts about defensive fire, which seems to be largely broken down into two interpretations: those who play assaulty armies and those who play shooty armies.

But the Monolith MT(6). It has some other wonderful abilities as well, such as being able to ignore everything except for a natural 6 on the damage table, and being able to fire its Particle Whip (that now ignore FNP) as well as its flux arcs in the same turn, as well as its self-repair ability, even if the Monolith just performed a deep strike to get into range.

In fact, this is one of the main reasons why I'm hoping that these rules are legit.

Ovion wrote:really? I just skimmed several pages of back and forth about defensive fire o-o

I think that was his point

Rbb wrote:So is ebay going to be flooded with chimeras and razorbacks now?

Why? Razorbacks sound great under the new rules, because you can take the TL lascannon and still need at least 2 'weapon destroyed' results before it's wrecked

EDIT: Rhinos sound like they've taking a few hits now that they can be flamed via the firing points.

STUCARIUS wrote:Of course I did not think just an old rule like "Defensive Fire" could be misunderstood to start with but I am a self acknowledged idiot for thinking so.

It's not an "old rule" in 40k context. No version of the game has ever had anything like it.

I'm curious. How are, say, Wyches supposed to charge anything if every single assault results in them being cut down like wheat? That's right, they can't.

looks great but im disappointed in the codex update has no black templars and no chaos legions and also the fact you updated tau!!!!!!!!!! jk but the whole thing seems a little cray and i dont know if i can trust it

The Evasion things makes it seem that foor wyches are viable against dem pansy blue butt heads. (tau)

DreadlordME! wrote:The Evasion things makes it seem that foor wyches are viable against dem pansy blue butt heads. (tau)

How do you figure? By the time they'll be charging in on foot, they'll be EV 3 like any infantry, and so will be eating a fusillade at rapid-fire range. Even Guardsmen can butcher half a squad at that range, heaven help them if there's a flamer in the unit.

Ovion wrote:The funny part is there's a 54 page argument about rules that may or may not be real, from an unverified source.

It's actually gone in waves. The first 20 pages were people saying how awesome the rules were. The second 20 pages were an argument over how real the rules are. The final (nearly) 20 pages are about arguing over how defensive fire works.

So the next 20 pages after that will be about something different.

I've tried to read through the rules a couple of times to find these answers, but I can't seem to.

1. If my unit of retributors has been locked in close combat for 2 cycles a squad of gaunts. (dunno how they survived, they just did)
My turn starts and in the movement phase neither the gaunts on their previous turn nor my retributors on this turn have made a move action such as charge or engage.
Assault finally finished with my retri's forcing the nids to fall back.
The nids succeed on escaping sweeping advance and run away, and my girls consolidate.
Now that it is my shooting phase, are my sisters considered to be stationary?
Are the gaunts considered to be stationary?
Neither of us technically made a move action in our respective last movement phase, only consolidations so far which do not count as movement.

If yes, we're stationary, I can fire my heavy bolters AND the gaunts are at ev2 thanks to standing "still"
if no, I can't fire my heavy weapons despite not moving in my phase, and the nids are at ev3 as normal.

2. We've been depating defensive fire and overwatch a bunch, and there's still no agreement. I though it was return fire on assault at first, and yet now I think it's only when triggered and assault itself isn't a trigger. Regardless of if I'm right on this, the question is different.
Overwatch says you can shoot at a unit that ended his movement within 12" So if 3 squads of orks all stop at 11" away you can potentially fire at them all.
It also says you can still fire on a unit despite being locked in close combat with THAT unit.
Meaning if they assault you from farther than 12" away (some units can now) or they assault you and tie you up in close combat, you can still defensive fire.
However, what if they charged/engaged your neighboring squad that is within 12"?

Are they locked in combat, thus you cannot fire at them at that moment since you have to wait for them to finish moving?

3. I know there's plenty of rules on multi-trageting when it comes to shooting multiple targets, but is it written anywhere that you have to shoot the same unit you assaulted?
Since 5th says you have to assault the unit you shot at, I figured I'd ask if the reverse was true.
Example: I assault some guardsmen, I win combat, they die or fallback, am I required to shoot the fleeing guardsmen squad or may i shoot at something else instead?

4. My squad was riding inside a vehicle, and said vehicle gets blown to pieces thus forcing me to disembark.
Am I considered stationary, to have moved, or does it depend on the vehicles prior movement ?

I know it's silly to ask questions about these, but hey, maybe GW might see these and address the issue themselves before the book is released (if it's real) ^_^

<snip>

the first time through the book I got to the DF part and thought holy S assaulting is now a suicide run. My friend plays eldar and I just imagined by berzerkers charging guardians and running into 20 or 40 shots as they assault. I started thinking wow I really dont like this and about how I would have to retool my chaos army. Then I got to the part about actions during your opponents trun and thought oh I get it. The df entry is only describing how the df works not when you can use it. It seems exceedingly clear to me. I really dont get how your not getting this.

Stu (Jeff)

I'll give you all the credit you deserve, based on your career and experience, but this time I do think you might have it wrong. I'm not sure all of the previous explanations have been terribly coherent, but here's my take:

The text your are quoting from page 77 is not a "keystone mechanic". It is actually called an exception to the normal Shooting rules. This exception needs to be made, because otherwise, Defensive Fire would be negated completely by a successful charge, as the normal shooting rules don't allow you to shoot anymore once you are in base to base contact.

The inclusion of the list of exceptions is hope for the future. In the past, I would have bet GW would include a rule like Defensive Fire, and simply think it obvious that the unit would still get to shoot even if changed. Look at Jervis's last Standard Bearer article for an explanation of how designers play by RAI, not RAW. Perhaps they finally have a few WAAC playtesters to clear things up for them.

Then again, maybe this all just a hoax, but effectively exists as one hell of a resume for someone out there.

'How to troll an entire gaming community in 10 hours or less'

xD

I was curious, having not really read it over but skimmed here and there + this thread - if they DO switch the shooting and assault phases round, how will armies that currently rely on shooting the crap out of everything for damage then locking it assault to prevent return fire cope?

My Coven pretty much uses the shooting phase to unload every round it has into the enemy, then move Grotesques and Wracks in to mop up / tie down enemy squads so my paperthin vehicles have a better chance to survive the return fire from the enemy vehicles and now greatly reduced, if any non-vehicle units left.

The way I see it now, is that I can either A: burn my shooting targets. B: don't really get to assault...
C: Target in halves, 1 designated for shooting, 1 designated for assault, yet the ones being assault haven't been softened up for my frankly small squads, and/or there's a fair amount of return fire.

TL;DR How will units that rely on shooting THEN assaulting to survive... survive?

Which is why GW probably tried these rules and discarded them. A version transition where the entire metagame is thrown into chaos is not really int their best interests.

Ovion wrote:'How to troll an entire gaming community in 10 hours or less'

xD

I was curious, having not really read it over but skimmed here and there + this thread - if they DO switch the shooting and assault phases round, how will armies that currently rely on shooting the crap out of everything for damage then locking it assault to prevent return fire cope?

My Coven pretty much uses the shooting phase to unload every round it has into the enemy, then move Grotesques and Wracks in to mop up / tie down enemy squads so my paperthin vehicles have a better chance to survive the return fire from the enemy vehicles and now greatly reduced, if any non-vehicle units left.

The way I see it now, is that I can either A: burn my shooting targets. B: don't really get to assault...

TL;DR How will units that rely on shooting THEN assaulting to survive... survive?

It causes the player to define their army as "shooty" or "assaulty", for most armies it makes sense as they are already predefined (you don't see many shooty Nids or assaulty Tau).

Agamemnon2 wrote:Which is why GW probably tried these rules and discarded them. A version transition where the entire metagame is thrown into chaos is not really int their best interests.

You have it backwards: this is not really in the best interests of players who have purchased specialized army lists, as they will now have to buy new models to round out their armies.

This is absolutely in the best interests of GW just so long as you remember that GW is a company that sells models.


EDIT:

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?

When is the last time that?
A: People planned against a competitive Tyranid list
B: Fielded a bug list that was not stealer or tervigon spam

Now I can have a more diverse and balanced list

So for the TL;DR crowd (such as me) I have a broad question:

Is shooting emphasized over close combat again? I think for a futuristic sci-fi game, 40k's emphasis on melee combat is stupid.

Harriticus wrote:So for the TL;DR crowd (such as me) I have a broad question:

Is shooting emphasized over close combat again? I think for a futuristic sci-fi game, 40k's emphasis on melee combat is stupid.

Unclear at this time and covered a couple times so far.

Harriticus wrote:So for the TL;DR crowd (such as me) I have a broad question:

Is shooting emphasized over close combat again? I think for a futuristic sci-fi game, 40k's emphasis on melee combat is stupid.

It seems like a give and take between shooting and CC, they seem balanced and equally effective. Although, I haven't playtested these rules.

azazel the cat wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote:Which is why GW probably tried these rules and discarded them. A version transition where the entire metagame is thrown into chaos is not really int their best interests.

You have it backwards: this is not really in the best interests of players who have purchased specialized army lists, as they will now have to buy new models to round out their armies.

This is absolutely in the best interests of GW just so long as you remember that GW is a company that sells models.

But it's not in their best interests to rock the boat. GW has consistently taken less and less game-design risks with every core rules release since 40k third edition, and in the absence of evidence for the contrary, I do not suppose they've suddenly decided to throw caution to the wind. For them, the ideal scenario is to spend as little time and resources on updating the rules, but still consistently bring out a new edition every 4 years. Player retention is not a priority for them, GW's main customer base is expected to rotate out of the hobby constantly.

Agamemnon2 wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote:Which is why GW probably tried these rules and discarded them. A version transition where the entire metagame is thrown into chaos is not really int their best interests.

You have it backwards: this is not really in the best interests of players who have purchased specialized army lists, as they will now have to buy new models to round out their armies.

This is absolutely in the best interests of GW just so long as you remember that GW is a company that sells models.

But it's not in their best interests to rock the boat. GW has consistently taken less and less game-design risks with every core rules release since 40k third edition, and in the absence of evidence for the contrary, I do not suppose they've suddenly decided to throw caution to the wind. For them, the ideal scenario is to spend as little time and resources on updating the rules, but still consistently bring out a new edition every 4 years. Player retention is not a priority for them, GW's main customer base is expected to rotate out of the hobby constantly.

Huh? Did you track the changes in WHFB from v7 to v8?

Valete,

JohnS

Miniscule by comparison to this. If this were true, it would be the largest single change in any GW core game design since 1998, when 3E came out.

Regardless of this being legit or not, GW really should pay attention because a ton of rules and ideas are getting a crapton of playtesting/theorycrafting now. I imagine the actual books are likely heading to the printers now and it may be too late to change anything, but still....

Sephyr wrote:Regardless of this being legit or not, GW really should pay attention because a ton of rules and ideas are getting a crapton of playtesting/theorycrafting now. I imagine the actual books are likely heading to the printers now and it may be too late to change anything, but still....

I doubt anything's getting printed just yet, 6th edition is still a while away...

Agamemnon2 wrote:Miniscule by comparison to this. If this were true, it would be the largest single change in any GW core game design since 1998, when 3E came out.

So we are well over due. The best way for them to change the balance in codex and dump codex creep is to do exactly this. When third Ed came out every one went back to level more or less. This would do the same and sell them way more product. Your stance is absurd. So apparently they should never over haul the game ever again is what your saying?

Also, I laughed when people were surprised that GW called this a fake. What else were they gonna do? Hey guys, you got us, don't buy 6th, this is real.... Wow....

Agamemnon2 wrote:Miniscule by comparison to this. If this were true, it would be the largest single change in any GW core game design since 1998, when 3E came out.

Oh, so you're already aware of a precedent. Keep that in mind, and tell me again how it would never happen.