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.

ph34r wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Oh my, you don' get to automatically win games based on the fact that you underpayed for everything in your cheesy chimera spam melta vet army. That's teeerrrrribbbbllllle.

Bad player complaining about IG?

ShumaGorath wrote:Codex marine player here. I pay 250 for a fist, meltagun, and a missile launcher in a rhino. What does a melta vet squad in chimera cost again?

Confirmed.

Yes, clearly the observation of cost inequality in the codexes of 40k makes me a bad player. Clearly Codex Marines and IG are equal. One of them has definitely not placed in major tournaments an order of magnitude more often then the other while being well regarded as full of undercosted and overpowered units.

Clearly I am a terrible player, melta vets aren't undercosted and tactical squads are totally viable. Those crocodile tears are still flowing.

Seriously though. The amount of exaggeration you are employing to make IG seem unrealistically OP is staggering. Marines are just as powerful if not more than IG, you just have to try a little harder than the awful 250 point full rhino build.

Sorry, I didn't say codex space wolf marines, or blood marines. I didn't even say Gray marines. So hey, if you have some sort of staggering superbuild for tac marines do share. Does it involve vulkan? It probably involves either vulkan, black templars, or a fan codex. That or you're just trolling me.

ShumaGorath wrote:Yes, clearly the observation of cost inequality in the codexes of 40k makes me a bad player. Clearly Codex Marines and IG are equal. One of them has definitely not placed in major tournaments an order of magnitude more often then the other while being well regarded as full of undercosted and overpowered units.

Clearly I am a terrible player, melta vets aren't undercosted and tactical squads are totally viable. Those crocodile tears are still flowing.

Vanilla marines don't win by stuffing rhinos full of tacticals and pretending they are SW, BA, of mech vets. Vanilla marines win by playing to their strengths: vulkan/hammernators/librarians, biker armies, and shooting based mech.

ShumaGorath wrote:Sorry, I didn't say codex space wolf marines, or blood marines. I didn't even say Gray marines. So hey, if you have some sort of staggering superbuild for tac marines do share. Does it involve vulkan? It probably involves either vulkan, black templars, or a fan codex. That or you're just trolling me.

The staggering superbuild for tac marines is don't rely on your tac marines being the best troops in the game.

Vanilla marines don't win by stuffing rhinos full of tacticals and pretending they are SW, BA, of mech vets. Vanilla marines win by playing to their strengths: vulkan/hammernators/librarians, biker armies, and shooting based mech.

But they still have to because objectives often times exist in places that aren't your own table corner. Thats probably why they don't often win those games. As for their strengths, the vulkan/hammer build with melta spam is about it and even it doesn't really cut it these days since it's pretty weak to non meched GK builds. Librarians in the codex marine book are awful when compared to every other form of librarian, and their shooting mech builds are bad when compared to identical builds in every other marine codex outside of dark angels because it is the same thing but more expensive

The staggering superbuild for tac marines is don't rely on your tac marines being the best troops in the game.

Yawn. The only real trick in codex space marines is that of being identical but more expensive then four other codexes in the game. Vulkan almost catches the army up, but until troops and long range firepower aren't needed in an army then it won't be enough. Fortunately sixth edition seems like it might just do that.

So i was looking over the rules for Transport Vehicles and cross-referencing the Open-topped rules. There's nothing that lifts the 1 model per squad shooting restriction from an open-topped vehicle, if it moves. If it remains stationary all units may fire, just like now. Otherwise, you're just getting one shot out if you move.

Has anybody found a statement that refutes this that I overlooked? I think Necrons and DE are in the same boat (pun intended) as Space Marines and Guard if their rides scoot around the table. 6th edition seems to want to dissuade people from hiding in METAL BOXES all day, and I wholeheartedly approve.

ShumaGorath wrote:But they still have to because objectives often times exist in places that aren't your own table corner. Thats probably why they don't often win those games. As for their strengths, the vulkan/hammer build with melta spam is about it and even it doesn't really cut it these days since it's pretty weak to non meched GK builds. Librarians in the codex marine book are awful when compared to every other form of librarian, and their shooting mech builds are bad when compared to identical builds in every other marine codex outside of dark angels because it is the same thing but more expensive

Getting objectives on the other side of the table is hard for all shooting based armies.

Librarians? Null zone.

ShumaGorath wrote:Yawn. The only real trick in codex space marines is that of being identical but more expensive then four other codexes in the game. Vulkan almost catches the army up, but until troops and long range firepower aren't needed in an army then it won't be enough. Fortunately sixth edition seems like it might just do that.

That's just like, your self-defeatist opinion, man.

I look forward to fighting 6e marines with my DE and neo-IG.

I think that 5th was basically IG's, Space Wolves, and to an early extent, Orc's time to shine. Much in the same way that Nidzilla and Eldar enjoyed 4th, they were alot more meh in 5th.

Expect the same for IG, Longfang spam, and recently popular Draigowing/alot less recently Nob biker spam. It's a seemingly natural cycle for codex' to fall off the power radar between editions. Meltavets are a prime example.

Palindrome wrote:GW apparently saying that it is fake but I can easily see this as being damage control due to their contract with New Line Cinema (one of the stipulations of which is allegedly that they don't leak any information regarding the Hobbit). GW are also the type of company that likes to aggressively control its IP and web presence.

I don't buy the New Line Cinema connection. In order to time things for a November 2012 release with the first half of the movie, designers will have been working on models long before now. That means that they've had production photos for months already (filming ends in March).

I think your second point is spot on... GW does aggressively control it's IP (to the point of not letting retailers use images of their product online!) What benefit do they gain from acknowledging that it's a leak (even an early version)?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Painnen wrote:I think that 5th was basically IG's, Space Wolves, and to an early extent, Orc's time to shine. Much in the same way that Nidzilla and Eldar enjoyed 4th, they were alot more meh in 5th.

Expect the same for IG, Longfang spam, and recently popular Draigowing/alot less recently Nob biker spam. It's a seemingly natural cycle for codex' to fall off the power radar between editions. Meltavets are a prime example.

In general, I think that we'll be playing 6th edition for a lot longer than we played 5th. This leaked document shows a real focus on creating many, many different ways to play the game. So many, that I don't think it'll be possible to get bored! No special book needed for Apoc, CoD, or Planetstrike. I think that 'Chapter Approved' will come back in the form of Forgeworld. It's almost like GW has decided "we want to focus on models, so we'll produce a ruleset that we don't need to keep tweaking!"

Getting objectives on the other side of the table is hard for all shooting based armies.

It's not hard for the guard, it's not hard for space wolves, it's not hard for dark angels, it's not hard for necrons, it's not hard for dark eldar, it's not hard for regular eldar. Who is it hard for? Tau? is that a joke?

Librarians? Null zone.

Null zone is only realistically viable as a psychic power in support of th/ss termies. It aids them in making the best out of their limited high power attacks. It's also why you see the librarian piled in with vulkan which further enhances their ability to deal damage. Thats the monobuild. It's also boring and I don't play salamanaders. Null zone is almost useless in most other scenarios as generic marines don't bring the level of ap1-2 to that makes it functional or worthwhile outside of combat and they don't possess any other worthwhile CC units in the codex.

A SM librarian is significantly less useful then a BA or GK libby (in fact it's straight up more expensive then the GK libby while worse) and it's significantly worse then a rune priest or the special character variations of those. The thing about this game is that other codexes exist, and when a librarian is bad compared to alternatives in other books then it is bad period. Is it required? Yeah, against the current meta. But then space marines do exceptionally poorly in current tournament meta and do generally poorly outside of it as they can't deal with hordes very well.

That's just like, your self-defeatist opinion, man.

And it's one that reality backs up pretty well. I attend tournaments actively. I've placed second quite a few times (and first a few), but it's rare for me to be able to muscle into high standing. Being mathematically unable to beat IG mech parking lots or draigowing is pretty damning, even my local FLGS has plenty of those.

I look forward to fighting 6e marines with my DE and neo-IG.

Me too. I'll enjoy having a version of 40k which isn't decided after armies are deployed but before the first turn is taken.

You know, I don't care my Orks got nerfed. It's just nice to see Imperial players complain for once.

Luke_Prowler wrote:You know, I don't care my Orks got nerfed. It's just nice to see Imperial players complain for once.

I don't understand how orks got nerfed in this edition. It keeps getting brought up, but I don't see how. They're faster, they hit from farther away, they hit harder. The core troops seems to have gotten purely better.

Quick question on bikes. They have fast and multi-targeting (1). The rules for multi-targeting say that you may double the shooting actions when a fast unit moves at stationary, combat, or crusing speed, correct? So a unit of 4 SM bikers, with a 1 Meltagun and an Attack Bike with a Multimelta, could do either:

Move up to 16", shoot 5 TL Bolters and the Melta weapons at a single target

Move up to 16", use Divide Fire and shoot 3 TL Bolters at one target, and the Melta weapons at a second

edit: wait, bikes are no longer Relentless. So the Multimelta can only be fired when moving Combat speed (up to 8"), correct?

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Quick question on bikes. They have fast and multi-targeting (1). The rules for multi-targeting say that you may double the shooting actions when a fast unit moves at stationary, combat, or crusing speed, correct? So a unit of 4 SM bikers, with a 1 Meltagun and an Attack Bike with a Multimelta, could do either:

Move up to 16", shoot 5 TL Bolters and the Melta weapons at a single target

Move up to 16", use Divide Fire and shoot 3 TL Bolters at one target, and the Melta weapons at a second

edit: wait, bikes are no longer Relentless. So the Multimelta can only be fired when moving Combat speed (up to 8"), correct?

Well the way I read it Fast alone allows the unit to basically 'pretend' it went one speed slower when moving. We were trying to figure out why the DE venom, for instance, couldn't fire both splinter cannons on the move (as it could in 5th) unless it went combat speed. Now it makes more sense - the Multi-Targeting(x) rule specifically states that Multi-target units that are fast may double their shooting actions whether they were stationary, combat speed, or even cruise speed. Which means a DE Venom can move 16", one model inside may fire, and the 2 splinter cannons on the vehicle can shoot. They've gained 4" of maneuverability...damn.


Slowpoke, as to your scenario - the unit must only sacrifice 1 shooting action to split fire amongst multiple targets. A bike squad so described Could shoot 4 TL Bolters and 1 Multi Melta at up to 5 targets, or 5 bolters and the MM all at a single target.

Edit -- Yes you're right, no relentless anymore so they need to go 8" and count as stationary (thanks to fast) to fire the MM. But otherwise they can lay down quite a few bolters on the move.

Actually they're slower in some cases (since you can't run in cover so you must move 6) hit the same distance (a charge is 12'') and in some cases weaker (slugga boys get nothing new besides the 6 ap CCW and shooting with the pistol, which is most cases is no help, while shoota boys are weaker because they can no longer soften a unit up with shooting on the same turn and don't get an extra attack because they don't have a CCW)

Luke_Prowler wrote:Actually they're slower in some cases (since you can't run in cover so you must move 6) hit the same distance (a charge is 12'') and in some cases weaker (slugga boys get nothing new besides the 6 ap CCW and shooting with the pistol, which is most cases is no help, while shoota boys are weaker because they can no longer soften a unit up with shooting on the same turn and don't get an extra attack because they don't have a CCW)

Simply standing in area terrain no longer confers a generic cover save - Running is a better option in this ruleset and hiding *behind* terrain will help you survive longer. Also while you cannot run/cruise through area terrain (unless you have the Move Through Cover special rule) you can still charge through terrain as long as you contact the enemy with the movement given. If the charge is failed, you may do a different move action that does not have the 'assault' type, so you could then do a run or combat around/into terrain to wait the oncoming enemy.

Seriously this edition is way more strategic than 5th ever was. It's just going to take time for people to wrap their minds around it which is perfectly okay..especially considering these are at BEST playtest rules. I do believe they're real though so i'm prepping myself for the next edition now.

Well, there's a meltagun one one of the regular bikers too. He can fire both his guns (the meltagun and TL bolters) even when moving up to 16" now, correct - unless they divide fire, in which case he can only fire one. If this is the case, it looks like Wazdakka may actually fire his KMB for once.

Is the question about Relentless right? If that's true, Attack Bikes take a bit of a hit - I could see Heavy Bolters coming back into the vogue.

Another question. Bikes and Jump infantry no longer suffer any additional penalties for moving through Difficult Terrain, right? No Dangerous Terrain tests?

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

Another question. Bikes and Jump infantry no longer suffer any additional penalties for moving through Difficult Terrain, right? No Dangerous Terrain tests?

Can't end a run/cruise in area terrain, or go through it in the case of bikes. However just ending in the terrain with a combat/engage/charge has no dangerous test associated.

I believe GW wants us to start assigning dangerous terrain on the battlefield, in addtion to wrecked vehicles. Exploded vehicles no longer become craters, as well. With the overall change to cover saves that bit saves the players a lot of hassle in getting around the battlefield.

tetrisphreak wrote:

Luke_Prowler wrote:Actually they're slower in some cases (since you can't run in cover so you must move 6) hit the same distance (a charge is 12'') and in some cases weaker (slugga boys get nothing new besides the 6 ap CCW and shooting with the pistol, which is most cases is no help, while shoota boys are weaker because they can no longer soften a unit up with shooting on the same turn and don't get an extra attack because they don't have a CCW)

Simply standing in area terrain no longer confers a generic cover save - Running is a better option in this ruleset and hiding *behind* terrain will help you survive longer. Also while you cannot run/cruise through area terrain (unless you have the Move Through Cover special rule) you can still charge through terrain as long as you contact the enemy with the movement given. If the charge is failed, you may do a different move action that does not have the 'assault' type, so you could then do a run or combat around/into terrain to wait the oncoming enemy.

Seriously this edition is way more strategic than 5th ever was. It's just going to take time for people to wrap their minds around it which is perfectly okay..especially considering these are at BEST playtest rules. I do believe they're real though so i'm prepping myself for the next edition now.

And I do understand all that, I have read the thing. I'm just saying from a mechnaical stand point, Orks didn't get quite as much as some other armies did, not enough to off set what they lost.

On the other hand, I forsee warbiker armies becoming very powerful, with nob bikers coming back for anna go

tetrisphreak wrote:I believe GW wants us to start assigning dangerous terrain on the battlefield, in addtion to wrecked vehicles. Exploded vehicles no longer become craters, as well. With the overall change to cover saves that bit saves the players a lot of hassle in getting around the battlefield.

That sounds right, looking at the terrain chart on page 46, Razor Wire in particular. This is actually the biggest reason why I would think this is a fake document, however - GW has been pretty consistent in ruling Razor/Barbed wire as difficult only, not dangerous. It's not like barbed wire typically takes anyone out of commision outside of very edge cases. Obviously that's not an attitude shared by most players, and I could see them changing that up if they want more Dangerous terrain on the table.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:I believe GW wants us to start assigning dangerous terrain on the battlefield, in addtion to wrecked vehicles. Exploded vehicles no longer become craters, as well. With the overall change to cover saves that bit saves the players a lot of hassle in getting around the battlefield.

That sounds right, looking at the terrain chart on page 46, Razor Wire in particular. This is actually the biggest reason why I would think this is a fake document, however - GW has been pretty consistent in ruling Razor/Barbed wire as difficult only, not dangerous. It's not like barbed wire typically takes anyone out of commision outside of very edge cases. Obviously that's not an attitude shared by most players, and I could see them changing that up if they want more Dangerous terrain on the table.

It took a lot of people out of commission in ww1 and 2. It was far from pleasant and the time it took to remove a squadmate from it was about the same amount of time it took a machine gun emplacement to kill everyone involved.

I always read that it was more of a slowing mechanism over a damage causing mechanism, but I could be wrong.

For those of you that were worrying, the relentless usr states that bikes ARE relentless(as well as jet-packs and MC's).

focusedfire wrote:For those of you that were worrying, the relentless usr states that bikes ARE relentless(as well as jet-packs and MC's).

Hooray for alpha quality rules, I guess. As is, I'd still say bikes are not relentless, as missing the special rule on both the unit type page and unit type chart is more authoritative than the flavor text in a rule. If we had some way of knowing which was the case first that'd be nice, though.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:I always read that it was more of a slowing mechanism over a damage causing mechanism, but I could be wrong.

It's a stopping mechanism. It forces ground infantry to either move around it or utilize engineers to remove it. Going through it will usually entangle a soldier and can cause them extreme injury if they thrash around like an idiot. During the time it took to remove it a defended position could easily set up to kill the infantry attempting to do so so it was usually only attempted while under cover or after the battle lines had moved away. It's not something soldiers would just jump over or step carefully around unless it was set up improperly.

In game terms you could generally assume that any model that "died" to barbed/razor wire are just lying there tangled up in it. It's hard to imagine that happening to a space marine or a genestealer, but then again if it didn't work on the enemy they wouldn't set it up so just imagine its some sort of mono filament laser-wire or something.

tetrisphreak wrote:So i was looking over the rules for Transport Vehicles and cross-referencing the Open-topped rules. There's nothing that lifts the 1 model per squad shooting restriction from an open-topped vehicle, if it moves. If it remains stationary all units may fire, just like now. Otherwise, you're just getting one shot out if you move.

Has anybody found a statement that refutes this that I overlooked? I think Necrons and DE are in the same boat (pun intended) as Space Marines and Guard if their rides scoot around the table. 6th edition seems to want to dissuade people from hiding in METAL BOXES all day, and I wholeheartedly approve.

This is correct. If a vehicle moves fast enough that it can't double it's own shots, the unit inside only gets a single shot, even with open-topped.

Anpu-adom wrote:

I don't buy the New Line Cinema connection. In order to time things for a November 2012 release with the first half of the movie, designers will have been working on models long before now. That means that they've had production photos for months already (filming ends in March).

A lot of this depends on what the contract with New Line Cinema contains. There could be serious consequences for GW if they leak information about the Hobbit even a day before the film is released and as such they would want to appear leak proof. This could just be internet wisdom of course.

Are we up to the rules discussion yet? Let’s open with Deep Strike. If you perform a critical distance DS (within 18" of an enemy unit) then you get to perform an Engage move after everyone has defensive fired. Also disembarking from vehicles allows units to also to do an Engage move.

So pretty much DS assaults are the go then?


Just read the Marine Codex update which specifically stops Drop Pod assault but what about other stuff like Terminators or Tyranid borrowing creatures.

That's a no to Tyranid mycetic spore DS assaults

Further more:
If you DS within 6" of an enemy unit does that allow a Charge by Chance by the enemy unit?

An interesting post from BoLS about the validity of the document

Now that is a lot of insider information there, such as exactly what software and versions of it GW internally uses. The problem is that the metadata embedded in the leaked files doesn't support any of those assertions. Also the version numbers listed make no sense compared to current versions of Acrobat, Indesign, Pagemaker, or QuarkExpress (the professional layout software packages for document creation).

Another poster said that the "Robert Smithe" listed is a layout employee in Lenton. Finally, the original file download links that appeared all over the place have been taken down over the last 24 hours.

GW has never lifted a finger whatsoever in the past when hoaxes appeared online (such as the fake Blood Angel codex).

Something very fishy is going on.

This lends credence to what Age of Egos said earlier in the post, that this may well be a semi-official job made at some point by an employee of GW (although we don't know if it has official sanction).
Perhaps a non design-studio staff member writes these rules, GW says "lol, no", he replies with "Damn your lack of sensitivity" and releases them onto the internet?

Although the removal of links makes you think that there is more to this document than that - Admittedly the fake BA codex was more obviously a fake with its 'Bat Riders' (although again it was apparently based on an earlier draft, and the writer argued for it's validity right until the actual book was released).

Interesting stuff, I'm keen to see how things develop. Certainly I could see this re-invigorating my interest in 40k, 5th edition is creaking like my Grandpa's 90 year-old knee joints at the moment.

Supersonic: Can this move start whilst you are on board at non supersonic or is this a move that requires you to be off board, complete your attack vector and then leave the table in another turn. Secondarily in para 3 under the supersonic rule it talks about not being able to leave the table a 2nd time, is this in 1 movement phase or for the whole game?

Is supersonic always on when you start with it?

lord_blackfang wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:So i was looking over the rules for Transport Vehicles and cross-referencing the Open-topped rules. There's nothing that lifts the 1 model per squad shooting restriction from an open-topped vehicle, if it moves. If it remains stationary all units may fire, just like now. Otherwise, you're just getting one shot out if you move.

Has anybody found a statement that refutes this that I overlooked? I think Necrons and DE are in the same boat (pun intended) as Space Marines and Guard if their rides scoot around the table. 6th edition seems to want to dissuade people from hiding in METAL BOXES all day, and I wholeheartedly approve.

This is correct. If a vehicle moves fast enough that it can't double it's own shots, the unit inside only gets a single shot, even with open-topped.

Edit -- Just had another look at the transport rules. Under the heading "shooting with embarked units" it says that if the transport cannot perform STATIONARY actions then the unit inside only gets 1 fire action. A fast transport can go it's regular speed (8" for skimmers/fast skimmers) and all the models allowed to fire (via fire points or open-topped) may shoot, still at 18". Being open-topped doesn't limit the range restriction on firing from inside a transport. I find that kind of strange and It may be one of the final changes we see in the real document.


Disembarking/Embarking in the consolidation phase - Are there any movement speed restrictions on embarking or disembarking as an action during the Consolidation phase. A vehicle that moves faster than combat speed, regardless of whether or not it has the fast rule, disallows units from making any move actions from within during the movement phase. What are the consolidation phase restrictions? (I'm about to go read them myself but as I was typing the question arose in my mind so i thought i'd ask it).

Edit 2 -- Just looked at consolidation phase, and somehow last night in our play-test of the system i completely misread it. There's no "disembark" part of the consolidation phase. You can only embark.

Edit 3 -- No speed restrictions on embarking within an empty transport, as long as it's done in the proper phase of the Game Cycle.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Codex marine player here. I pay 250 for a fist, meltagun, and a missile launcher in a rhino. What does a melta vet squad in chimera cost again?

Really? Take your Codex back. You got your points values wrong

And if you want to go down that route...

Chaos Marine player here. I pay even more for the same squad and don't get combat tactics or ATSKNF. In fact, to get anything similar I have to pay even more points.

So, stop that. Right now.