Definitely Not a Leaked 6th Rulebook, Don't Even Bother Looking

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.

**ShatteredBlade**

Wow..so..uhh..are we going to get back to 40k yet? I'm still curious as to how terminators perform in 6th ed.

**crisps not chips**

xttz wrote:This conversation is 100% boring.

i agree 86.7%.
Are russes good then?

**ShumaGorath**

crisps not chips wrote:
xttz wrote:This conversation is 100% boring.
i agree 86.7%.
Are russes good then?

Moreso then before against everything except orks/tyranids. Even against those races the -1 on the damage table is an immense buff.

**alarmingrick**

Okay, on the math issue. You're both pretty, let's move on.

ShumaGorath wrote:Tanks are safer in this version of the game.

Pretend i'm slow( a stretch, i know!), how are they safer? Their EV doesn't help, and their(everyones!) cover saves got a little worse.

**ChocolateGork**

IPS wrote:Ok played two games with Tau vs Eldar and Marines.
Both rather small games, 1000p and 500p.

Standart missions with objectives and all.

Game vs eldar was really fun, some great changes,
it takes some time get used to Banshees charging 16".. ><
Rangers are pretty cool too.
It is really really hard to miss shots with a fire prism.
Jetbikes are pretty hard to hit.

On the Tau side:
Had a list with an Ethereal, some Pathfinders with Rail Rifles, Broadsides with Advanced Stabilization Systems
and Commander with Command and Control Node. (rest was FW, Kroot, some battlesuits)

Rapid fire while on the move is nice to have, but kinda makes Pulse Carabines useless.
Battlesuits with the relentless rule are also cool.
I likes the 2d6 fall back, makes battlesuits actually more interesting.

Railguns are awesome, might even be abit too strong... (see the marine battle)
I can see turnament lists consisting of 6 Broadsides with Shild drones and Stabilizers and 9 Sniper Drones.

Did not really use any directed hits vs Eldar, so the ccn was kinda useless.
The Ethereal died rather late in the game, but he really pays off.

Also the Fire at will stratagem is kinda hard to use. Not really benefited me in this game.

Vs Marines..
Well, not really much to say there, 500p marines with two 10 man tactical squads.
500p Tau: one Broadside with ass, Pathfindes with Rail Rifles, two FWsquads, Commander and Ethereal.

Marine took first round, I took the Gravity Traps to keep them at distance.
My opponent made some serious mistakes with formations.
Two railrifles and my Broadside wiped them off the board by turn two... no casulties on the Tau side barring the Ethereal.
edit: (oh and the battlefield was stuffed with terrain pieces, so enough cover for the marines)

Yes it was mainly the fault of the marine player, but still such power against marines,
I doubt they implement that into the final rulebook. ><

Correct me if im wrong but i don't think any of the current tau weaponry was given the rail special rule.

**ph34r**

ShumaGorath wrote:Not in any discussion or workflow that I've ever experienced. Then again, it could be totally commonplace to you. The only problem there is that we're not you or your colleagues and the way you post about the mathematics seems unprofessional and lazy.

This amazes me! I must ask, what similar area of work are you in?

I am sorry that my discussion of Warhammer 40,000 statistics was "unprofessional and lazy". Maybe if you focused less on trying to sling insults at me and 4 more seconds reading my initial posts you would not have been so confused.

I also note that you have gone back and edited all your posts to seem less like you were jumping to the wrong conclusions

**ShatteredBlade**

alarmingrick wrote:Okay, on the math issue. You're both pretty, let's move on.

ShumaGorath wrote:Tanks are safer in this version of the game.

Pretend i'm slow( a stretch, i know!), how are they safer? Their EV doesn't help, and their(everyones!) cover saves got a little worse.

I'd say let us reserve judgement for a few games, I"m curious to see what is going to happen at NewWorld.

**ShumaGorath**

alarmingrick wrote:Okay, on the math issue. You're both pretty, let's move on.

ShumaGorath wrote:Tanks are safer in this version of the game.

Pretend i'm slow( a stretch, i know!), how are they safer? Their EV doesn't help, and their(everyones!) cover saves got a little worse.

Tanks (with the tank keyword) get a universal -1 on their damage table. Thus if you roll a 5 it becomes a 4 a 4 becomes a 3 and so on. Nat 6's still kill.

**ChocolateGork**

These rules should help reduce the amount of razorbacks we see fielded when you can get a vindicator for 40 points more that does a lot more.

**ph34r**

ChocolateGork wrote:Correct me if im wrong but i don't think any of the current tau weaponry was given the rail special rule.

As far as I know the Rail attribute is not covered in the FAQ. So, RAW Tau do not have Rail "currently".

**alarmingrick**

ShumaGorath wrote:
alarmingrick wrote:Okay, on the math issue. You're both pretty, let's move on.

ShumaGorath wrote:Tanks are safer in this version of the game.

Pretend i'm slow( a stretch, i know!), how are they safer? Their EV doesn't help, and their(everyones!) cover saves got a little worse.

Tanks (with the tank keyword) get a universal -1 on their damage table. Thus if you roll a 5 it becomes a 4 a 4 becomes a 3 and so on. Nat 6's still kill.

But hitting it on 2+ being the new norm means alot of shots at rolling on that damage table.

**ShumaGorath**

This amazes me! I must ask, what similar area of work are you in?

I do graphic design and app development. Statistical discussion is pretty important to the second.

I am sorry that my discussion of Warhammer 40,000 statistics was "unprofessional and lazy". Maybe if you focused less on trying to sling insults at me and 4 more seconds reading my initial posts you would not have been so confused.

You put an insult in every single post you made. This is a pretty pot kettle black scenario. Hell, you just insulted me again. There's some cognitive dissonance going on here methinks.

I also note that you have gone back and edited all your posts to seem less like you were jumping to the wrong conclusions

I edit every post that I make. They all have edits. Go back and take a look. Generally I post quickly then add things or make spelling corrections. Get used to it, it's just whats gonna happen.

**ph34r**

ChocolateGork wrote:These rules should help reduce the amount of razorbacks we see fielded when you can get a vindicator for 40 points more that does a lot more.

I doubt it. Now las/plas razorbacks can run around all day shooting both guns. Vindicators seem like they might take the back seat to the new, similarly more mobile predator.

**tetrisphreak**

The Monstrous CCW strikes at 2xstr, AP2

Vs Vehicles MC's get S + 2D6

A MC's Str in CC is 2xStr thanks to the MCCW. Therefore most if not all MC's are s10 in CC whether it be infantry or vehicles.

Look at how another similar weapon works and you'll understand better.

Infantry strike at vehicles and get Str + D6 to penetrate.
A sergeant with a powerfist strikes at 2xStr

When the powerfist goes against a vehicle he uses 2xStr + D6 to penetrate.

**crisps not chips**

azazel the cat wrote:
ph34r wrote:
xttz wrote:This conversation is 100% boring.
Relative to it's previous boring level, or to absolute boring

Ah, you ninja'd me

Anyway, does anyone have an answer to my question, before it was buried in statistics?

Does a tank with the behemoth special rule lose that rule if an Entropic Strike reduces its AV to less than 14?

I don't have an answer, but i would say that the spirit of the rule would mean that the russ keeps it's behemoth status. After all, the rule is about categorising vehicles, specifically ones that are large enough to have a crew that can operate it as a weapons platform. That should not diminish because the armour has been weakened.

**ShumaGorath**

alarmingrick wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
alarmingrick wrote:Okay, on the math issue. You're both pretty, let's move on.

ShumaGorath wrote:Tanks are safer in this version of the game.

Pretend i'm slow( a stretch, i know!), how are they safer? Their EV doesn't help, and their(everyones!) cover saves got a little worse.

Tanks (with the tank keyword) get a universal -1 on their damage table. Thus if you roll a 5 it becomes a 4 a 4 becomes a 3 and so on. Nat 6's still kill.

But hitting it on 2+ being the new norm means alot of shots at rolling on that damage table.

True, but most of the games armies were already hitting on a 3+ anyway. The increase in the number of shots that will land from MEQs is 16.7%, but the number of rolled results that result in the death of the vehicle is halved (see these phear? They're qualifiers that enable discussion!). Orks and some tyranids will hit much more often. Melta drops will be more powerful due to the short range rules, but the new transport rules make them harder to pull off for all races.

**ph34r**

You put an insult in every single post you made. This is a pretty pot kettle black scenario. Hell, you just insulted me again. There's some cognitive dissonance going on here methinks.

Hardly. Calling you confused is not an insult, or else what would you call your situation with regards to my explanations? If you were not confused with my wording then surely you would not have had any problems understanding it? Now I'M confused.

I edit every post that I make. They all have edits. Go back and take a look. Generally I post quickly then add things or make spelling corrections. Get used to it, it's just whats gonna happen.

And some of those edits include extra sentences to avoid seeming like some jerk who is jumping to conclusions over nothing

**tetrisphreak**

crisps not chips wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
ph34r wrote:
xttz wrote:This conversation is 100% boring.
Relative to it's previous boring level, or to absolute boring

Ah, you ninja'd me

Anyway, does anyone have an answer to my question, before it was buried in statistics?

Does a tank with the behemoth special rule lose that rule if an Entropic Strike reduces its AV to less than 14?

I don't have an answer, but i would say that the spirit of the rule would mean that the russ keeps it's behemoth status. After all, the rule is about categorising vehicles, specifically ones that are large enough to have a crew that can operate it as a weapons platform. That should not diminish because the armour has been weakened.

Since the behemoth rule does not say, "As Long As a vehicle has front armor 14 it gets MT(3)", they do not lose the rule if entropic strike reduces their armor to below 14.

That being said with the -1 and -3 modifiers to the damage table thanks to tank and super-heavy rules (respectively) entropic strike is looking to be still one of the most reliable tank-killing special rules that exists in the game.

Go necrons!

**ShumaGorath**

ph34r wrote:
ChocolateGork wrote:These rules should help reduce the amount of razorbacks we see fielded when you can get a vindicator for 40 points more that does a lot more.
I doubt it. Now las/plas razorbacks can run around all day shooting both guns. Vindicators seem like they might take the back seat to the new, similarly more mobile predator.

Vindicators already lived in the garage for most marine dexes anyway. Their much harder to neuter with one weapon destroyed result now at least, and they can still move and fire since they have two fire actions.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ph34r wrote:
You put an insult in every single post you made. This is a pretty pot kettle black scenario. Hell, you just insulted me again. There's some cognitive dissonance going on here methinks.
Hardly. Calling you confused is not an insult, or else what would you call your situation with regards to my explanations? If you were not confused with my wording then surely you would not have had any problems understanding it? Now I'M confused.

I edit every post that I make. They all have edits. Go back and take a look. Generally I post quickly then add things or make spelling corrections. Get used to it, it's just whats gonna happen.
And some of those edits include extra sentences to avoid seeming like some jerk who is jumping to conclusions over nothing

Actually, a lot of them were me adding snide comments, but thats impossible to prove after the fact

.

**ph34r**

ShumaGorath wrote:True, but most of the games armies were already hitting on a 3+ anyway. The increase in the number of shots that will land from MEQs is 16.7%, but the number of rolled results that result in the death of the vehicle is halved (see these phear? They're qualifiers that enable discussion!). Orks and some tyranids will hit much more often. Melta drops will be more powerful due to the short range rules, but the new transport rules make them harder to pull off for all races.

Oooh, intentionally spelling my name wrong. The moral high ground!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:Actually, a lot of them were me adding snide comments, but thats impossible to prove after the fact .

Good to know you are following Dakka Rule 1!

**ShumaGorath**

ph34r wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:True, but most of the games armies were already hitting on a 3+ anyway. The increase in the number of shots that will land from MEQs is 16.7%, but the number of rolled results that result in the death of the vehicle is halved (see these phear? They're qualifiers that enable discussion!). Orks and some tyranids will hit much more often. Melta drops will be more powerful due to the short range rules, but the new transport rules make them harder to pull off for all races.
Oooh, intentionally spelling my name wrong. The moral high ground!

I'm not gonna go back and figure out where the number is. I don't actually care enough to do that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ph34r wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:True, but most of the games armies were already hitting on a 3+ anyway. The increase in the number of shots that will land from MEQs is 16.7%, but the number of rolled results that result in the death of the vehicle is halved (see these phear? They're qualifiers that enable discussion!). Orks and some tyranids will hit much more often. Melta drops will be more powerful due to the short range rules, but the new transport rules make them harder to pull off for all races.
Oooh, intentionally spelling my name wrong. The moral high ground!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:Actually, a lot of them were me adding snide comments, but thats impossible to prove after the fact .
Good to know you are following Dakka Rule 1!

Now who is editing to add snide comments?

**ShatteredBlade**

It is kind of sad that, once again, my Devastators will be shelved. The Predator looks like a better bet.

**Squidmanlolz**

ph34r wrote:
ChocolateGork wrote:Correct me if im wrong but i don't think any of the current tau weaponry was given the rail special rule.
As far as I know the Rail attribute is not covered in the FAQ. So, RAW Tau do not have Rail "currently".

It was never explicitly stated, however the rulebook entry for rail weapons lists Tau weapons "of the same name" as examples of rail weapons.

**ShumaGorath**

ShatteredBlade wrote:It is kind of sad that, once again, my Devastators will be shelved. The Predator looks like a better bet.

I agree. codex devs need a significant price reduction to be at all functional in this new edition methinks. They needed it for fifth, but this is a nail in the coffin.

**tetrisphreak**

Squidmanlolz wrote:
ph34r wrote:
ChocolateGork wrote:Correct me if im wrong but i don't think any of the current tau weaponry was given the rail special rule.
As far as I know the Rail attribute is not covered in the FAQ. So, RAW Tau do not have Rail "currently".

It was never explicitly stated, however the rulebook entry for rail weapons lists Tau weapons "of the same name" as examples of rail weapons.

Implication of something like that is enough for me to allow it, seeing as how these are indeed for all intents and purposes playtest rules. Whether they're playtest rules for a new edition of 40k or some other unrelated yet very similar (and fun) game is irrelevant.

In that vein I will let any tau player I end up facing use the Rail rule with their Railguns and Rail Rifles, no questions asked.

**ph34r**

Squidmanlolz wrote:
ph34r wrote:
ChocolateGork wrote:Correct me if im wrong but i don't think any of the current tau weaponry was given the rail special rule.
As far as I know the Rail attribute is not covered in the FAQ. So, RAW Tau do not have Rail "currently".

It was never explicitly stated, however the rulebook entry for rail weapons lists Tau weapons "of the same name" as examples of rail weapons.

True. I would definitely not test these rules without Railguns having Rail, but I expect that particular rule will get fixed by the time 6e comes out, if this is indeed 6e.

ShumaGorath wrote:Now who is editing to add snide comments?

If saying that you are being rude qualifies as rude to you, I don't know what to do!

**ShatteredBlade**

"If saying that you are being rude qualifies as rude to you, I don't know what to do!"

No more Rhyming I mean it! Sorry sorry I could not resist an old movie reference. Anyways, So vindicators and Devasatators are back in the shelves again. Le sigh.

**ph34r**

ShatteredBlade wrote:No more Rhyming I mean it! Sorry sorry I could not resist an old movie reference. Anyways, So vindicators and Devasatators are back in the shelves again. Le sigh.

Maybe, but now your Vindicator gets -1 on the table from being a tank. Although since I don't think any rule gives it high multi-targeting, it might still be rendered useless by weapon destroyed results.

**Anvildude**

You guys are all missing the most important point!

Flash Gitz now have an effective BS of 3! Woo!

**Tapeworm711**

ph34r wrote:
ShatteredBlade wrote:No more Rhyming I mean it! Sorry sorry I could not resist an old movie reference. Anyways, So vindicators and Devasatators are back in the shelves again. Le sigh.
Maybe, but now your Vindicator gets -1 on the table from being a tank. Although since I don't think any rule gives it high multi-targeting, it might still be rendered useless by weapon destroyed results.

Actually a Vindicator could sustain 2 Weapon-Damaged results be fore not being able to shoot.

Its a Tank so it has MT(2). Each Weapon-Damaged result lowers MT by 1.

A unit with MT(0) can still shoot once. It just looses the ability to double its MT's (obviously)

Only while MT(0) and you sustain a Weapon-Damaged results do you lose your shooting for the game.