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.

Kharrak wrote:

With the talk on the Swarmlord, I looked it up and they also screwed up the Swarmleader rule.

So... the only way to get Furious Charge (and use it), according to that amendment, would be to cast it on a unit, then have the unit not do anything that turn, then have the unit charge in your next turn?

No, you'd have to be playing a mission that allowed for the alternative UGO-IGO player turns.

Maelstrom808 wrote:No, you'd have to be playing a mission that allowed for the alternative UGO-IGO player turns.

Ah, I hate to nitpick again, but this keep cropping up, I think it was even in the BoW video.

IGOUGO is the normal way of playing 40k, I do everything then you do everything.
Going back and forth unit by unit is usually called "alternate activation."

Swarmlord gets slightly better (imo more due to moving/assaulting 12"), but he will still be overpriced and far from one of the best HQs in the game.
Don't forget his reroll table edge for Outflank will be useless, and you're paying points for it.
And his SitW range will still be 12", like today.
I can't see why you'd want to take him over a Tyrant with Preferred Enemy bubble and a 2+ save.

Lint wrote:From the fellas at Beasts of War...

Man, what a Bad video. Make your homework First.

OH, BoW would never get anything done if they did that.

lord_blackfang wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:No, you'd have to be playing a mission that allowed for the alternative UGO-IGO player turns.

Ah, I hate to nitpick again, but this keep cropping up, I think it was even in the BoW video.

IGOUGO is the normal way of playing 40k, I do everything then you do everything.
Going back and forth unit by unit is usually called "alternate activation."

Nitpicking is what we do here




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Agamemnon2 wrote:OH, BoW would never get anything done if they did that.

Heheh...although I did steal their Tyranid paint scheme, so I gotta give em a pass every now and then

Lint wrote:From the fellas at Beasts of War...

I want that 48minutes of my life back. What a waste.

Actually, talking of that BoW video, what do people think of the stratagems bidding process? I kind of agree with the guy on the left in that I'd rather just bid nothing and then bail out. I'd basically keep it to me going second and to hell with the stratagems no matter how good they may be because I don't want to concede any to my opponent. And with deep striking now looking so good with strike forces, why not go second?

N.I.B. wrote:Swarmlord gets slightly better (imo more due to moving/assaulting 12"), but he will still be overpriced and far from one of the best HQs in the game.
Don't forget his reroll table edge for Outflank will be useless, and you're paying points for it.
And his SitW range will still be 12", like today.
I can't see why you'd want to take him over a Tyrant with Preferred Enemy bubble and a 2+ save.

There's a use for him with Trygon tunnels I guess. After emerging drop Leech Essence and Paroxysm to weaken nearby units, then he just needs to withstand a turn of fire with Shieldwall in time to do a 12" charge. They really should have given him EW to better distinguish him from the regular Tyrant though.

N.I.B. wrote:Swarmlord gets slightly better (imo more due to moving/assaulting 12"), but he will still be overpriced and far from one of the best HQs in the game.
Don't forget his reroll table edge for Outflank will be useless, and you're paying points for it.
And his SitW range will still be 12", like today.
I can't see why you'd want to take him over a Tyrant with Preferred Enemy bubble and a 2+ save.

Hey Nib you from The Tyranid Hive as well? I would take him because I like him and have fun. I am not a competitive player, so I don't look at things as "over costed" but what I think is "cool" and "having fun with".

I guess it is how we look at the game.

Davor wrote:

N.I.B. wrote:Swarmlord gets slightly better (imo more due to moving/assaulting 12"), but he will still be overpriced and far from one of the best HQs in the game.
Don't forget his reroll table edge for Outflank will be useless, and you're paying points for it.
And his SitW range will still be 12", like today.
I can't see why you'd want to take him over a Tyrant with Preferred Enemy bubble and a 2+ save.

Hey Nib you from The Tyranid Hive as well? I would take him because I like him and have fun. I am not a competitive player, so I don't look at things as "over costed" but what I think is "cool" and "having fun with".

I guess it is how we look at the game.

Ok I guess I was jumping to conclusion but he seems to be a character that benefited from these rules but then again I looking at my poor poor Ghazzy.

Project2501 wrote:I want that 48minutes of my life back. What a waste.

You mean you actually sat down and watched it? Ha ha ha ha.

Next time play it in the background while you do something worthwhile

ColdSadHungry wrote:Actually, talking of that BoW video, what do people think of the stratagems bidding process? I kind of agree with the guy on the left in that I'd rather just bid nothing and then bail out. I'd basically keep it to me going second and to hell with the stratagems no matter how good they may be because I don't want to concede any to my opponent. And with deep striking now looking so good with strike forces, why not go second?

Again, things like this are what's reinforcing my feeling that this is a pre-playtesting draft of 6E. I suspect that the bidding mechanism did not survive contact with gamers and got excised.

lord_blackfang wrote:

Absolutionis wrote:A model with a Force Weapon (ID2 when channeled) at Strength 7 hitting a T3 model with EW(1) would deal 3 wounds.

Two wounds. One for the hit and one for exceeding Toughness by 4.

Yes, but wrong way round. The model's EW(1) would negate the extra wound for the higher strength but an extra wound because of the weapon's ID(2).

(Unless ID(2) would negate the EW(1) completely and trigger the extra wounds from both the strength and force weapon effects, doing three wounds in total.)

ColdSadHungry wrote:Actually, talking of that BoW video, what do people think of the stratagems bidding process? I kind of agree with the guy on the left in that I'd rather just bid nothing and then bail out. I'd basically keep it to me going second and to hell with the stratagems no matter how good they may be because I don't want to concede any to my opponent. And with deep striking now looking so good with strike forces, why not go second?

The guy 'explaining' the gambit does a terrible job if it.

As to nid DS shenanigans, again the strike force rules will help you, several unit popping up at the same time will be of great use since a unit can only DF at one unit arriving by DS. Or you can split off you Lictor(s) as another strike force, take advantage of cover and/or Veiled(3) and use them as a beacon for the second force.
I can see Nids being very sneaky and good at causing panic and paranoia in your opponent (as they should).

Agamemnon2 wrote:Again, things like this are what's reinforcing my feeling that this is a pre-playtesting draft of 6E. I suspect that the bidding mechanism did not survive contact with gamers and got excised.

I hope not, I really like it actually.

Want 1 minute back myself actually. I watched one minute, and takes that long to explain that no one knows who definitely made the rulebook. Wait...I did that in about two seconds. Hm. :/

So the must have item for Tau is the Command and Control node then.

Allows alll units within 12" to use Directed Fire.

Carbines would be good here, directed fire to kill the high leadership model (assuming enough hits) and then the pinning check.

Also assuming that these are real.

Cheers

Andrew

I hope this is true, I love this book, whomever wrote it, and I'm really excited about using these rules. Even if this turns out to be an abandoned early draft, It's certainly complete enough for some casual play.

lord_blackfang wrote:

Project2501 wrote:I want that 48minutes of my life back. What a waste.

You mean you actually sat down and watched it? Ha ha ha ha.

Next time play it in the background while you do something worthwhile

Unofficial 'long lunch' at work. It's either watch it or never watch it and getting time alone at home with a family is friggin' impossible. :(


@Bloodlance: In my specific case, I did not watch the video to find out who created the ruleset (I couldn't care less who did, it works and I like it), rather, I watched it in the hope that there was going to be a playtest of the rules with explanations by people 'in the know' of gaming. That was my folly.

Dribble Joy wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:

Absolutionis wrote:A model with a Force Weapon (ID2 when channeled) at Strength 7 hitting a T3 model with EW(1) would deal 3 wounds.

Two wounds. One for the hit and one for exceeding Toughness by 4.

Yes, but wrong way round. The model's EW(1) would negate the extra wound for the higher strength but an extra wound because of the weapon's ID(2).

(Unless ID(2) would negate the EW(1) completely and trigger the extra wounds from both the strength and force weapon effects, doing three wounds in total.)

ID(2) circumvents EW(1) completely, but at strength 7 versus toughness 3 it will only cause one additional wound. The rule merely guaranteers at least one wound at any strength, but you have to exceed the model's thoughtless by 5 to get another one.

Similarly, an ID(3) weapons in the same situation would still get only 1 extra wound.

His Master's Voice wrote:ID(2) circumvents EW(1) completely, but at strength 7 versus toughness 3 it will only cause one additional wound. The rule merely guaranteers at least one wound at any strength, but you have to exceed the model's thoughtless by 5 to get another one.

Similarly, an ID(3) weapons in the same situation would still get only 1 extra wound.

So three then (initial wound, +1 for 4 points of strength higher and +1 for ID(2)).

ColdSadHungry wrote:Actually, talking of that BoW video, what do people think of the stratagems bidding process? I kind of agree with the guy on the left in that I'd rather just bid nothing and then bail out. I'd basically keep it to me going second and to hell with the stratagems no matter how good they may be because I don't want to concede any to my opponent. And with deep striking now looking so good with strike forces, why not go second?

I actually prefer going 2nd when I play my Necrons, so in most circumstances I'm thrilled with the idea of bidding 0 or 1 and then letting most opponents give me 2 or 3 stratagem points. However, against Tau & IG I think I would be willing to pay a lot just to ensure they they don't get to go first. Overall, I'm neutral to it. I think I like the idea of some mission having stratagem points and some not, because it's not a mechanic that I would want to play with 100% of the time.

Dribble Joy wrote:

His Master's Voice wrote:ID(2) circumvents EW(1) completely, but at strength 7 versus toughness 3 it will only cause one additional wound. The rule merely guaranteers at least one wound at any strength, but you have to exceed the model's thoughtless by 5 to get another one.

Similarly, an ID(3) weapons in the same situation would still get only 1 extra wound.

So three then (initial wound, +1 for 4 points of strength higher and +1 for ID(2)).

No. The original wound fails it's save, then ID(2) negates EW(1) and inflicts an additional wound, no matter the weapons strength, unless the weapon strength is high enough to cause more than one wound as an effect of ID. Ergo

ID(2), strength 6 against EW(1), toughness 3 - 2 wounds

ID(2), strength 7 against EW(1), toughness 3 - 2 wounds

ID(2), strength 8 against EW(1), toughness 3 - 3 wounds

ID(2), strength 9 against EW(1), toughness 3 - 4 wounds

and

ID(3), strength 6 against EW(1), toughness 3 - 2 wounds

ID(3), strength 7 against EW(1), toughness 3 - 2 wounds

ID(3), strength 8 against EW(1), toughness 3 - 3 wounds

The rule, as I read it, is a guarantee of at least 1 ID wound, not an extra wound on top of the ones you inflict based on strength/toughness difference.

Keatonic wrote:



This is on page 33, btw.

I know it is a bit late, but I think that is a typo. PA is 2+ in the chart, but in the text just below the chart it talks about it being 3+.

His Master's Voice wrote:

Dribble Joy wrote:

His Master's Voice wrote:ID(2) circumvents EW(1) completely, but at strength 7 versus toughness 3 it will only cause one additional wound. The rule merely guaranteers at least one wound at any strength, but you have to exceed the model's thoughtless by 5 to get another one.

Similarly, an ID(3) weapons in the same situation would still get only 1 extra wound.

So three then (initial wound, +1 for 4 points of strength higher and +1 for ID(2)).

No. The original wound fails it's save, then ID(2) negates EW(1) and inflicts an additional wound, no matter the weapons strength, unless the weapon strength is high enough to cause more than one wound as an effect of ID. Ergo

ID(2), strength 6 against EW(1), toughness 3 - 2 wounds

ID(2), strength 7 against EW(1), toughness 3 - 2 wounds

ID(2), strength 8 against EW(1), toughness 3 - 3 wounds

ID(2), strength 9 against EW(1), toughness 3 - 4 wounds

and

ID(3), strength 6 against EW(1), toughness 3 - 2 wounds

ID(3), strength 7 against EW(1), toughness 3 - 2 wounds

ID(3), strength 8 against EW(1), toughness 3 - 3 wounds

The rule, as I read it, is a guarantee of at least 1 ID wound, not an extra wound on top of the ones you inflict based on strength/toughness difference.

huh, you know I think you are right.

Rulebook wrote: It loses one additional Wound,
unless its Strength is high enough to cause the
loss of more than two Wounds anyway.

A higher EW rating still reduces a ID to a single wound, right?
As in a ID(1) str. 10 hit still only inflicts one wound on a EW(2) toughness 3 model?

AndrewC wrote:So the must have item for Tau is the Command and Control node then.

Allows alll units within 12" to use Directed Fire.

Carbines would be good here, directed fire to kill the high leadership model (assuming enough hits) and then the pinning check.

Also assuming that these are real.

Cheers

Andrew

C&C node only allows unit to use directed hits when firing through intervening units. So they still need to be able to use Directed Fire in the first place. It doesn't give them that rule.

Oops, reading failure on my part. I did think it was too good to be true. :(

Cheers

Andrew

I just noticed that the tau rules updates don't actually explicitly give Railguns the rail rule ? lol... Assuming they do get it though, solid shot railguns seem to become ridiculously accurate. As discussed earlier, with 72" maximum range and an average deviation of less than an inch from the target point at MAXIMUM range, a railgun will be a guaranteed hit. At 2+ to wound everything, ignoring armor saves, doing 4 wounds to T4 models with no saves...

However, it looks like vehicles in general are much more survivable. Significantly the AP1 and Open-Topped bonuses only apply to TANKS now, and only apply once: previously, a railgun against an open-topped vehicle or tank would destroy on a 3+: now, its 5+. Most tanks require a natural 6 to wreck. AP1 will wreck a closed-top tank, open-topped tank, and any variety of open topped/closed topped other vehicle with equal ease(/difficulty)

Steelmage99 wrote:A higher EW rating still reduces a ID to a single wound, right?
As in a ID(1) str. 10 hit still only inflicts one wound on a EW(2) toughness 3 model?

ID has to have a higher tier than EW to nullify it. So ID(1) doesn't nullify EW(1).

I am looking forward to running my scythe spam list under these rules, if things pan out the way I think.