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.

junk wrote:
and despite complaints from Ork and GK players, I still think that Nobs and Paladins are both going to be powerful units.

Powerful and efficient are two entirely different things. yes, Paladins and Nobz will hit like trucks. But their cost is no longer justified in a competitive environment.

Skimmed through the rulels and it looks to boring as it doesn't have pictures or anything. Also, to the guy who said tactical marines and ig don't have ccw's. Imperial guardsmen do.

Tactical vanilla marines don't have CCW's - they punch their enemies to death. To ignore the glorious 6+ armor save, they'd have to use their bolt pistols in CC.

Assault marines and Grey hunters, on the other hand, have bolt pistols and CCW's. no armor save for orks there.

Grey Templar wrote:It is in line with the GK psychic buff powers that only last one player turn.

Are you seriously claiming that bonuses to Initiative and Strength that apply in assault are equivalent to re-rolling armor on your own turn?

Sorry for my facepalming slowness but I can't find it. Is it on the GW website or is it elsewhere?

Maybe this should help clear the air. http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/leaked40k-heretics-rulebook-real/

For me it boils down to: the rules change, my armies need tweaking/rebuilding, no way I can afford that, the end.

You cant afford a hundred bucks to tweak and change? What do you do when a new codex comes out?

psyklone wrote:For me it boils down to: the rules change, my armies need tweaking/rebuilding, no way I can afford that, the end.

So you are a super hardcore tourney-only player then? But you can't afford to change out a couple units to remain the absolute best list. which probably won't be apparently for many man months after 6e releases?

psyklone wrote:For me it boils down to: the rules change, my armies need tweaking/rebuilding, no way I can afford that, the end.

So it sounds like you are no longer a paying customer? I don't think they really can sustain a business model on people not buying things when they change stuff though.

Maybe this should help clear the air. http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/leaked40k-heretics-rulebook-real/

interesting read actually. I really actually like the "herectic" version though. I was really hoping that they'd start letting in things like superheavies though. It'd spice things up alot! I've got an itch to field a baneblade >.<

Assuming that this is the 6th edition rulebook alpha, and not someone with a lot of free time on their hands and a lot of imagination...

Things I like
1) I like fleet giving a standard 2" increase to movement. It simplifies things a great deal.
2) I like the idea of snipers pinning units more easily if they force multiple tests.
3) I like hull breach. If your hitting one vehicle again and again, its nice to get some traction on destroying it.
4) I like the removal of +1 for open topped on the damage chart. It toughens up the dark eldar paper airplanes just a little bit, and makes ork truuks more viable.
5) I like vehicle squadren rules. It encourages people to squadren their vehicles.
6) I like the downgrade of cover. Everything getting a 4+ in 5ed is a bit much.


Things I don't like
1) Every unit getting a guaranteed 6" run means that all armies increased in speed. This weakens armies who focus on speed such as Eldar or Bikes. As you pay a premium for speed, I think it undervalues those armies.
2) I don't like the idea of snipers taking out enemy heavy/special weapons. Why the hell would a marine leave a melta gun on the ground when there is a tank barreling twords them? That's is why you take off non special weapons first.
3) I also don't like sniping PF's or other squad leaders. 40k is a heroic game, and it does not meet a heroic feel if you pluck off the PF seargents with infantry. I can see an assassin doing it, but not rank and file snipers.
4) Non-marine armies being destored if they fall back within 12" of an enemy. Really? Did the marines need something else to make them better?

4) I like the removal of +1 for open topped on the damage chart. It toughens up the dark eldar paper airplanes just a little bit, and makes ork truuks more viable.

It's sorta a backwards change, you still technically get an extra -1 if you are not open topped but this would definatly help open topped vehicles survive better. The +1 makes them much more squishy though I do have to comment that necron vehicles would really start to border on the cheese side of things with 13 armor, fast, skimmer, attacking on movement, and shooting phases, and assault out of it, and also living metal, now suddenly even more sturdy (compared to now but relatively the same vs other tanks)

Not exactly clear how multi-targeting would affect their shooting though. Since fire points are all unlimited, do you still have the same fire point destroyed result from a weapon's destroyed result on the damage chart? Do you limit the number of weapons by the vehicle's multi-targeting value? (of which we still don't know). Is that the end of the 110 flamer hits by a squad of scorchas in a trukk?

labmouse42 wrote:
4) Non-marine armies being destored if they fall back within 12" of an enemy. Really? Did the marines need something else to make them better?

Read that rule again: you're destroyed if you're within 12" at the end of your movement phase. You just have to fall back during your movement phase and make sure you've gotten away.

Also, stop bashing marines. It's not cool, never was.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

labmouse42 wrote:
4) Non-marine armies being destored if they fall back within 12" of an enemy. Really? Did the marines need something else to make them better?

Read that rule again: you're destroyed if you're within 12" at the end of your movement phase. You just have to fall back during your movement phase and make sure you've gotten away.

Also, stop bashing marines. It's not cool, never was.

If your within 12" of an enemy at the end of your movement phase -- thats a very easy thing for any good player to ensure happens.

I bash marines and I play marines. That makes it ok.

Fafnir wrote:Powerful and efficient are two entirely different things. yes, Paladins and Nobz will hit like trucks. But their cost is no longer justified in a competitive environment.

Then those in competitive environments can stop buying them. QED. PLenty of other units competitive players won't take because they don't feel it gives them bang for their buck. That is their choice to ignore those units in deference to being "gotta win! gotta win! gotta win!". I do just fine playing an army from a codex that people consider useless in the competitive environmnent and prove those naysayers wrong all the time. The opinions of die hard competitive players do not define the game, nor even the competitive environment completely. They are shaded by their own likes and dislikes more than actual practice...

Skriker