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.

Trasvi wrote:I just noticed that the tau rules updates don't actually explicitly give Railguns the rail rule ?

Main rulebook does.
p. 65
Psionic lances, alien sonic weapons and of course the Tau weapons of
the same name count to the most common weapons of this type.

Maelstrom808 wrote:I am looking forward to running my scythe spam list under these rules, if things pan out the way I think.

I was planning that when they come out anyways so it will get even better if these be true.

Hello Dakkites

This thread and the document that spawned it is really thought provoking.

I would like to add this question to the discussion:

Given that the force org section did not have the chart attached --my copy doesnt-- and the text states that "some units like the Baneblade of the
Imperial Guard take up two selections of a given type"

Will we have a special super heavy slot? or as some other threads talked about you could sacrifice an unused FA slot for another heavy or super heavy slot?

So will GC creatures and super heavies take 3 slots, and 2 respectively?

Also I noted the new Gunship vehicle type. Is this adding fuel to the rumoured SM flyer or will this description be given to Valkries and Thunderhawks?

Great discussion all lets keep it going!

Cheers

Mongo

Since I was talking about the sisters earlier, I only just noticed this (and posted it on 4chan too)

The Immolator "lost" it's ability to move 12" and fire it's heavy flamer in the new codex. This was universally seen as a dick move on GW's part, even if it was kinda undercosted for the effect.

However, since the new rules for TL heavy flamers is instead of their old re-roll wounds, they now reach 9" from the hull before shooting the template. Which relativly equates to 12" from the initial position before the tanks movement AND the 3" range a flamer now gives.

This... might actually be evidence of intelligent forethought on GW's part.

I can't believe I said that.

mongo8089 wrote:Hello Dakkites

This thread and the document that spawned it is really thought provoking.

I would like to add this question to the discussion:

Given that the force org section did not have the chart attached --my copy doesnt-- and the text states that "some units like the Baneblade of the
Imperial Guard take up two selections of a given type"

Will we have a special super heavy slot? or as some other threads talked about you could sacrifice an unused FA slot for another heavy or super heavy slot?

So will GC creatures and super heavies take 3 slots, and 2 respectively?

Also I noted the new Gunship vehicle type. Is this adding fuel to the rumoured SM flyer or will this description be given to Valkries and Thunderhawks?

Great discussion all lets keep it going!

Cheers

Mongo

I think the superheavies would be too much for a normal game, but maybe games over 2500 getting a single superheavy "slot"?
They don't give us much to go on, but I suspect that they will still stay Apoc only, which isn't a bad thing.

mongo8089 wrote:

Also I noted the new Gunship vehicle type. Is this adding fuel to the rumoured SM flyer or will this description be given to Valkries and Thunderhawks?

Note that the Tau Hammerhead is already considered a "gunship", it's hard to tell exactly what they mean until a final version is released or pictures are added (unlikely)

mongo8089 wrote:Hello Dakkites

This thread and the document that spawned it is really thought provoking.

I would like to add this question to the discussion:

Given that the force org section did not have the chart attached --my copy doesnt-- and the text states that "some units like the Baneblade of the
Imperial Guard take up two selections of a given type"

Will we have a special super heavy slot? or as some other threads talked about you could sacrifice an unused FA slot for another heavy or super heavy slot?

So will GC creatures and super heavies take 3 slots, and 2 respectively?

Also I noted the new Gunship vehicle type. Is this adding fuel to the rumoured SM flyer or will this description be given to Valkries and Thunderhawks?

Great discussion all lets keep it going!

Cheers

Mongo

I would think it would mean multiple slots of the same FOC. for example 2 HS slots for a Baneblade instead of 1.

Hi Swara

Tks for the reply.

GW wants the new "standard" game to be 2k points. Most tourneys in my area are a minimum of 1500 and many 1850. I dont feel this is a big leap. Thus ... is there enough room at this point level for these models?

I am sure IG players are just itching to put in a Baneblade along with a Leman Russ or two -Squadroned most likely--

I dont know if the point values have changed..but if memory serves and a Baneblade is 500 pts. Is it that bad to have one at 2k.. when I know many marine players who could/do field two LR's for slightly more points?

Moving away from specifics.. would this rule set provide the balance to bring a Super Heavy of some sort, pay the points and slots for it, understanding that it is powerful yet it will also be a fire magnet?

Would this be more of a gambit than bringing really strong SC to a 1k escalation league?

mongo8089 wrote:Moving away from specifics.. would this rule set provide the balance to bring a Super Heavy of some sort, pay the points and slots for it, understanding that it is powerful yet it will also be a fire magnet?

Superheavies are not particularly balanced.
Forge World concerns itself primarily with making great models, second with telling a good story, and third with writing the rules.

The rules are there for if you want to field them and to remain consistent. There have been several instances such as the Reaver, Heirophant, Land Raider Achilles, etc that have been noticeably powerful.
The rules aren't there to provide a 'balanced' game. They're there if you want to have fun with your awesome model. Hence they require the opponent's permission. Most friends will agree to play with a Forge World model so long as you don't use it as a crutch to win and/or you're willing to negotiate house-rule adjustments for the future or something.

Not likely to happen in tournaments or competitive play.

If anything, the 6thEd rulebook is making an attempt at combining the Apocalypse Rules into the base rulebook do the rules are all consolidated.

mongo8089 wrote:Hello Dakkites

This thread and the document that spawned it is really thought provoking.

I would like to add this question to the discussion:

Given that the force org section did not have the chart attached --my copy doesnt-- and the text states that "some units like the Baneblade of the
Imperial Guard take up two selections of a given type"

Will we have a special super heavy slot? or as some other threads talked about you could sacrifice an unused FA slot for another heavy or super heavy slot?

So will GC creatures and super heavies take 3 slots, and 2 respectively?

Also I noted the new Gunship vehicle type. Is this adding fuel to the rumoured SM flyer or will this description be given to Valkries and Thunderhawks?

Great discussion all lets keep it going!

Cheers

Mongo

mongo8089 wrote:Hi Swara

Tks for the reply.

GW wants the new "standard" game to be 2k points. Most tourneys in my area are a minimum of 1500 and many 1850. I dont feel this is a big leap. Thus ... is there enough room at this point level for these models?

I am sure IG players are just itching to put in a Baneblade along with a Leman Russ or two -Squadroned most likely--

I dont know if the point values have changed..but if memory serves and a Baneblade is 500 pts. Is it that bad to have one at 2k.. when I know many marine players who could/do field two LR's for slightly more points?

Moving away from specifics.. would this rule set provide the balance to bring a Super Heavy of some sort, pay the points and slots for it, understanding that it is powerful yet it will also be a fire magnet?

Would this be more of a gambit than bringing really strong SC to a 1k escalation league?

I think that this ruleset is intended to be all-encompasing for everything from small skirmish games to classic 2k or so to full blown Apoc battles. At the moment though, we are looking at an incomplete set of rules. There is much that is still missing when it comes to missions and force organization. I think that either written by GW or some guy in his mom's basement, if we were to see these rules completed, there would be missions and rules with allowances for super-heavies in "normal" 40k, but at much higher point levels. Under 3k or so, I still don't believe it's balanced to completely open the doors on super-heavy units. I think it's just a case of having to wait and see what happens.

One nitpick though...Gunship, in this ruleset, is a special rule, not a unit type.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Swara wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:I am looking forward to running my scythe spam list under these rules, if things pan out the way I think.

I was planning that when they come out anyways so it will get even better if these be true.

Yeah same, I'm either going to get the GW models, or if I don't like them/they are rediculously priced (even for GW), I'm going to pick up some Cylon Raider models that will be far cheaper and will be hitting shelves about the same time. When this ruleset came out, it made me REALLY hope these are the real deal...I'm just looking at a few adjustments to the list to work within this ruleset a little better.

Maelstrom808 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Swara wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:I am looking forward to running my scythe spam list under these rules, if things pan out the way I think.

I was planning that when they come out anyways so it will get even better if these be true.

Yeah same, I'm either going to get the GW models, or if I don't like them/they are rediculously priced (even for GW), I'm going to pick up some Cylon Raider models that will be far cheaper and will be hitting shelves about the same time. When this ruleset came out, it made me REALLY hope these are the real deal...I'm just looking at a few adjustments to the list to work within this ruleset a little better.

I'm really hoping they are 40ish bucks.. especially since you can fit 12 in a standard army : P

Maelstrom808 wrote:I think that this ruleset is intended to be all-encompasing for everything from small skirmish games to classic 2k or so to full blown Apoc battles. At the moment though, we are looking at an incomplete set of rules. There is much that is still missing when it comes to missions and force organization. I think that either written by GW or some guy in his mom's basement, if we were to see these rules completed, there would be missions and rules with allowances for super-heavies in "normal" 40k, but at much higher point levels. Under 3k or so, I still don't believe it's balanced to completely open the doors on super-heavy units. I think it's just a case of having to wait and see what happens.

That's one of the things I'm uncertain about... Monoliths and LRs are the lowest-tier of Super-Heavy in this book... but they're more than acceptable at all points levels. In fact, it's tough to compare them in any way to a Baneblade, but this book seems to be placing them there. Maybe super-heavies with more than 1 structure point will be reserved for larger games?

Swara wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Swara wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:I am looking forward to running my scythe spam list under these rules, if things pan out the way I think.

I was planning that when they come out anyways so it will get even better if these be true.

Yeah same, I'm either going to get the GW models, or if I don't like them/they are rediculously priced (even for GW), I'm going to pick up some Cylon Raider models that will be far cheaper and will be hitting shelves about the same time. When this ruleset came out, it made me REALLY hope these are the real deal...I'm just looking at a few adjustments to the list to work within this ruleset a little better.

I'm really hoping they are 40ish bucks.. especially since you can fit 12 in a standard army : P

$25 for those re-imagined cylon raider models I'm looking at converting

azazel the cat wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:I think that this ruleset is intended to be all-encompasing for everything from small skirmish games to classic 2k or so to full blown Apoc battles. At the moment though, we are looking at an incomplete set of rules. There is much that is still missing when it comes to missions and force organization. I think that either written by GW or some guy in his mom's basement, if we were to see these rules completed, there would be missions and rules with allowances for super-heavies in "normal" 40k, but at much higher point levels. Under 3k or so, I still don't believe it's balanced to completely open the doors on super-heavy units. I think it's just a case of having to wait and see what happens.

That's one of the things I'm uncertain about... Monoliths and LRs are the lowest-tier of Super-Heavy in this book... but they're more than acceptable at all points levels. In fact, it's tough to compare them in any way to a Baneblade, but this book seems to be placing them there. Maybe super-heavies with more than 1 structure point will be reserved for larger games?

Well, the issue with the Baneblades and such is they have no current place in a standard FOC. Once there are clear rules on using them within one, I think they will be okay.

I noticed FNP (now being a 'Rigid Save') can't be used against AP3 weapons either (in addition to the usual ID, PW and AP1/AP2 weapons). Interesting.

I think the problem with having Super-Heavys in a normal 40k game is the fact that not all races have something viable to put in the slot. Granted, that may change as 6th ed codices are released (if Super-Heavys are in); but it still seems beyond unbalanced to include them.

triplare wrote:I noticed FNP (now being a 'Rigid Save') can't be used against AP3 weapons either (in addition to the usual ID, PW and AP1/AP2 weapons). Interesting.

If, by "interesting", you actually mean "awesome".

Yeah. A buff to hotshot lasguns and vespid, while missile launchers and battle cannons are basically unchanged since they usually have double toughness anyway.

Maelstrom808 wrote:

Swara wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Swara wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:I am looking forward to running my scythe spam list under these rules, if things pan out the way I think.

I was planning that when they come out anyways so it will get even better if these be true.

Yeah same, I'm either going to get the GW models, or if I don't like them/they are rediculously priced (even for GW), I'm going to pick up some Cylon Raider models that will be far cheaper and will be hitting shelves about the same time. When this ruleset came out, it made me REALLY hope these are the real deal...I'm just looking at a few adjustments to the list to work within this ruleset a little better.

I'm really hoping they are 40ish bucks.. especially since you can fit 12 in a standard army : P

$25 for those re-imagined cylon raider models I'm looking at converting

azazel the cat wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:I think that this ruleset is intended to be all-encompasing for everything from small skirmish games to classic 2k or so to full blown Apoc battles. At the moment though, we are looking at an incomplete set of rules. There is much that is still missing when it comes to missions and force organization. I think that either written by GW or some guy in his mom's basement, if we were to see these rules completed, there would be missions and rules with allowances for super-heavies in "normal" 40k, but at much higher point levels. Under 3k or so, I still don't believe it's balanced to completely open the doors on super-heavy units. I think it's just a case of having to wait and see what happens.

That's one of the things I'm uncertain about... Monoliths and LRs are the lowest-tier of Super-Heavy in this book... but they're more than acceptable at all points levels. In fact, it's tough to compare them in any way to a Baneblade, but this book seems to be placing them there. Maybe super-heavies with more than 1 structure point will be reserved for larger games?

Well, the issue with the Baneblades and such is they have no current place in a standard FOC. Once there are clear rules on using them within one, I think they will be okay.

The baneblade has far more firepower then it's cost warrants. It's roughly the cost of 2.5 leman russes but is capable of dealing and absorbing vastly more damage than it's little brothers with their two battle canons and heavy bolters. Apocalypse superheavies are not balanced by really any of the metrics 40k measures.

Well I to have read them.

To me they look more fan made then official leaks ( the bad grammar kinda gives it away ), but as Kroothawk said this was also the case with 5e leaks that were true at the end.

I would like for this to be official release, because they are so cool and improve the game in my opinion.
If they are fan-made in the end GW should seriously hire this guy/guys who made them. They rock

Considering the overall possitive reaction the leaked rules have gotten, even if they are fake it's a message to GW of what we actually want

Played a 500 point game with Tyranids vs DE today using the new rules. Spent extra time setting up the game, going over the bidding process, looking at stratagems ETC but overall the gameplay flowed pretty well. Switching the shooting and assault phases will be one of the biggest things to get used to, but otherwise the changes were implemented pretty easily.

I didn't take pictures for a batrep since the game was so small, but basically it came down to the last turn, my hive tyrant died to some splinter rifle fire, then my tyrant guard charged on my turn and got the 2 VP I needed to break the tie, so i won 25-23. A very close game from beginning to finish, and things in this game system DIE QUICKLY. If you're a person who gets emotionally attached to your troopers and tanks on the field, this isn't the edition for you -- we were both pulling models left and right. I thoroughly enjoyed the overall experience and I'm looking forward to getting more people in my local gaming group into using these rules for casual games. Hell, we may do a tournament if we can get enough adventurous gamers interested.

I haven't gone through these rules as thoroughly as I would've liked due to schoolwork, so it has left me with a few questions. I'm not sure if I'm understanding this properly, but does a transported unit gain/maintain the Relentless USR as long as the transport hasn't moved more than 6"? Does this mean that an IG Heavy Weapons team for example can shoot out of a Chimera's top hatch even if the Chimera has moved? While embarked troops can no longer hold objectives, it seems like they can advance towards said objectives while laying down more fire (albeit moving at a slower pace). It definitely seems like a good tradeoff, but again, if someone could shed some insight on the matter it'd be great.

Also, since AP3 now ignores FNP, are Thousand Sons more useful now? It seems like this in conjunction with most cover being 5+ now means they are a bit less of a niche unit in general and more useful against Blood Angels or other Chaos lists specifically (Plague Marines immediately come to mind) and. Anyone willing to discuss?

Luke_Prowler wrote:Considering the overall possitive reaction the leaked rules have gotten, even if they are fake it's a message to GW of what we actually want

Or what the vocal crowd on Dakka Dakka actually wants.

Thousand suns marines are significantly improved in theory with:
-less pervasive cover
-more powerful rapid fire rules
-a squad based psyker that can cancel enemy psychic powers
-the ability to ignore FNP

They're starting to look pretty golden.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

puma713 wrote:

Luke_Prowler wrote:Considering the overall possitive reaction the leaked rules have gotten, even if they are fake it's a message to GW of what we actually want

Or what the vocal crowd on Dakka Dakka actually wants.

Most of the blogosphere and forums seem to have similar opinions on the issue. We're not special snowflakes this time.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

puma713 wrote:

Luke_Prowler wrote:Considering the overall possitive reaction the leaked rules have gotten, even if they are fake it's a message to GW of what we actually want

Or what the vocal crowd on Dakka Dakka actually wants.

Most of the blogosphere and forums seem to have similar opinions on the issue. We're not special snowflakes this time.

My point was, the people that either don't care enough or are unhappy with these changes aren't nearly as excited and vocal about it as the people who want the changes to be moving forward. A lot of the folks on a separate forum that I frequent are not happy with the changes, but they're not on Dakka or BoK or BoLS ranting about it. They're waiting to see.

Gus_Papas wrote:I haven't gone through these rules as thoroughly as I would've liked due to schoolwork, so it has left me with a few questions. I'm not sure if I'm understanding this properly, but does a transported unit gain/maintain the Relentless USR as long as the transport hasn't moved more than 6"? Does this mean that an IG Heavy Weapons team for example can shoot out of a Chimera's top hatch even if the Chimera has moved? While embarked troops can no longer hold objectives, it seems like they can advance towards said objectives while laying down more fire (albeit moving at a slower pace). It definitely seems like a good tradeoff, but again, if someone could shed some insight on the matter it'd be great.

Also, since AP3 now ignores FNP, are Thousand Sons more useful now? It seems like this in conjunction with most cover being 5+ now means they are a bit less of a niche unit in general and more useful against Blood Angels or other Chaos lists specifically (Plague Marines immediately come to mind) and. Anyone willing to discuss?

Apparently, a unit inside a transport does count as relentless. Meaning you can fire heavy weapons despite the vehicle moving and rapid fire triggers at 18". But firepoints are difficult to shoot from, so no weapon can be fired more that 18" away from the hull of the transport. Also, there is limits on how many shooting actions an embarked unit can perform, namely if the tank can only make one shooting action (shaken or moved at combat speed) the unit embarked can only make one shooting action. If the tank cannot fire any weapons (moved at cruising speed, took enough weapon destroyed wounds to disable shooting entirely, stunned) then the embarked units cannot shoot through the firepoints either.

While we're on the topic of transport vehicles, what does "Ranges (including point blank ranges) are measured from the transport’s hull, body or base." mean? If I have a model with a Plasma Gun embarked and wants to fire out of the top hatch of a Rhino, does the Plasma Gun count as being in range if the target unit is 18" away from the front of the Rhino, so long as the target is visible from the fire point? Does a Flamer have a 3" bubble all the way around the Rhino where you can place the template?

The range of the weapons mounted on a tank are now measured from the hull or base of the weapon.
This makes sure that weapon ranges are universal despite awesome of flavorful poses or weapon positions.
However, a weapons line of sight isn't from the hull. It is however measured from the weapons mounting, not the tip of the barrel.
To prevent any orks from building super crazy long barrels to have a few extra inches of range on their weapons.
Though orks could probably still manage to get extra range out of it, they are orks after all.

So measure from the hull/base for range, measure from the weapon's mounting for LoS.

So no more Tau battlesuits, long barreled IG tanks, and custom weapon barrels holding their guns really far infront of them to gain extra range (even if they are just normally designed to look like they stick out forward)
Also, yeah, looks like a flamer from a rhino (since it's fired from a firepoint which is the top hatch of the tank) has about that 3" bubble of range.

otakutaylor wrote:So no more Tau battlesuits, long barreled IG tanks, and custom weapon barrels holding their guns really far infront of them to gain extra range (even if they are just normally designed to look like they stick out forward)
Also, yeah, looks like a flamer from a rhino (since it's fired from a firepoint which is the top hatch of the tank) has about that 3" bubble of range.

If people local to you were doing that with Tau battlesuits, they didn't know the current rules very well. Just like any other infantry subtype model, you measure range for battlesuits from the base and not the tip of any go-go-gadget-plasma gun.

Sorry, I dunno much about Tau, I just know they have awesome looking big guns and I've seen people debate firing from weapons for measurements on some units.