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.

Yeah vindicators see some new legs with this change to the damage table.

These rules somehow manage to increase tank resilience while emphasizing units on foot in-game! I don't know what to think!

This is definately some interesting stuff.

ShatteredBlade wrote:"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.

"Anybody want a peanut?"

I love how Warseer is claiming it's a fake and they knew it so wouldn't let anyone disscuss it until now that it's verified to be a fake LOL.

Enigma Crisis wrote:

ShatteredBlade wrote:"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.

"Anybody want a peanut?"

Bwahaha, yes!

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.

Not at the expense of Razorbacks. Last I checked, you couldn't fit a combat squad inside a Vindicator.

And has anyone found any reference to Walkers being hit in CC on their front armour? I've been searching for it, but all I can find is the universal rule that all vehicles (of which Walkers are specified to be a sub-category) are always hit on their rear armour in CC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:I love how Warseer is claiming it's a fake and they knew it so wouldn't let anyone disscuss it until now that it's verified to be a fake LOL.

Dakka > Warseer

...also, it hasn't been verified to be a fake. My bet is on it being a playtest version of the real thing, and not even an early version at that.

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.

One weapon destroyed and it can't move and shoot, two and it can't shoot. If I understand the rules right that's still quite a bit better then before when one WD turned it into a rhino full of broken gun.

ShumaGorath wrote:

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.

One weapon destroyed and it can't move and shoot, two and it can't shoot. If I understand the rules right that's still quite a bit better then before when one WD turned it into a rhino full of broken gun.

You might have missed this on the bottom of the last page:

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.

Did I miss something, or do Walkers get hit on rear Armor in CC now? There does not seem to be anything that separates them from regular vehicles in this regard.

So far, there is no mention of it in the rules. It could be an ommision. But as the leak stands, yes they are hit on the rear.

I think it's the case as of now, but I'm sure it will change. This is a playtest document and there are a few things that will definitely be changing.

azazel the cat wrote:A submarine is 75% of the distance between the surface and the ocean floor. The captain orders a decrease in depth by 30%. Has the submarine crashed into the floor?

Answer: this is why qualifying is so important.

By my understanding, no, he has just gone down 30% when the 75% above him would be the 100% when using the increase in depth, so 130% of 75%

RedOnesGoFasta wrote:Did I miss something, or do Walkers get hit on rear Armor in CC now? There does not seem to be anything that separates them from regular vehicles in this regard.

Yep. A real problem for walkers, but hopefully not one that makes it to print.

Enigma Crisis wrote:

ShatteredBlade wrote:"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.

"Anybody want a peanut?"

"Anyone want a-" ah dang it! Beaten!

Man... some of the language in this thing is horrible. Case in point:

The rules for Shooting actions apply with the
following exceptions:
• If the responding unit was assaulted by the
target unit and it was not locked in combat
previously, it can shoot at the target unit. If the
units lose contact, follow the rules for lost
contact outside of the Assault phase as normal.

So... you can stand and shoot? I don't get this phrasing at all.

And defensive fire period is confusing. Even whether all units can DF on all deepstriking units is confusing. It reads like you pick one of the units that deepstruck... but can read the other way too.

Tapeworm711 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

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.

One weapon destroyed and it can't move and shoot, two and it can't shoot. If I understand the rules right that's still quite a bit better then before when one WD turned it into a rhino full of broken gun.

You might have missed this on the bottom of the last page:

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.

Ordnance takes up two shooting actions.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Tapeworm711 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

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.

One weapon destroyed and it can't move and shoot, two and it can't shoot. If I understand the rules right that's still quite a bit better then before when one WD turned it into a rhino full of broken gun.

You might have missed this on the bottom of the last page:

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.

Ordnance takes up two shooting actions.

Touche! I forgot that that weapon was Ord.

So you can take 1 Weapon Damage and still fire your Ord while stationary. So not quite as durable as I stated.

Some interesting stuff (apologies if these have already been noted; I've read through *most* of this thread but not all of it):


Imperial Guard players may want to start gluing heavy bolter sponsons onto their Vendettas

GUNSHIP
A model with this special rule can multiply the number of Shooting actions granted by the multitargeting
rule by 6 instead by 2 if it has remained stationary (fast models if they have performed a Combat or Engage move or have remained
stationary).

...so a Vendetta can move 6" , choose one Divide Fire action, and fire 5 weapons all at separate targets (!)
Nasty.


For Tyranids:

The Harpy got quite a boost.
- The Instant Death rules mean that it can't be wiped out by a single Strength 10 hit (only causes 2 wounds).

- It can drop its Spore Mines on a unit as it flies off the board with a Supersonic move, then enter back onto the board on the same turn and unload on a different unit (the one designated with its attack marker) with all of its blast weapons - all the while enjoying an Evasion of 6 against any unit more than three inches away from it.

Since models have a 360 degree field of vision unless otherwise specified, and there doesn't seem to be any other specification for Monstrous Creatures, you don't even have to be facing your marked target after the Supersonic move in order to shoot at it. The Harpy can Supersonic all the way back to the safety of the Tyranid deployment zone and still shoot its 36" range weapons "over its shoulder" at the marked unit. Thus keeping the Harpy relatively safe from any enemies being able to get within 3" to use "Incoming" to negate the Evasion 6.

This can of course only be done every second turn due to the inability to turn at all during the Supersonic move, but on the alternate turns the Harpy can "come about" and set up another good facing for its next Supersonic run.

So I havent read this myself, but my friend is looking through it and reading off some of the rules to me. Nor have I read many of the previous comments, but from what I'm hearing I'm calling BS. Some of the changes are too big for them to try to implement them in a single edition change. Some of the things just don't make sense in my opinion.

Deutchistan_General wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:A submarine is 75% of the distance between the surface and the ocean floor. The captain orders a decrease in depth by 30%. Has the submarine crashed into the floor?

Answer: this is why qualifying is so important.

By my understanding, no, he has just gone down 30% when the 75% above him would be the 100% when using the increase in depth, so 130% of 75%

New depth is 17.5% from sea floor, 30% of 25% is 7.5%.

Lord Graveline wrote:So I havent read this myself, but my friend is looking through it and reading off some of the rules to me. Nor have I read many of the previous comments, but from what I'm hearing I'm calling BS. Some of the changes are too big for them to try to implement them in a single edition change. Some of the things just don't make sense in my opinion.

Thank you for contributing that after having admitted to not reading the rules yourself, or the previous seventy pages.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ph34r wrote:

Deutchistan_General wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:A submarine is 75% of the distance between the surface and the ocean floor. The captain orders a decrease in depth by 30%. Has the submarine crashed into the floor?

Answer: this is why qualifying is so important.

By my understanding, no, he has just gone down 30% when the 75% above him would be the 100% when using the increase in depth, so 130% of 75%

New depth is 17.5% from sea floor, 30% of 25% is 7.5%.

So is that based on 75% from the floor, or 75% from the surface? If only I'd qualified it...

azazel the cat wrote:So is that based on 75% from the floor, or 75% from the surface? If only I'd qualified it...

75% from Atlantis.

azazel the cat wrote:A submarine is 75% of the distance between the surface and the ocean floor. The captain orders a decrease in depth by 30%. Has the submarine crashed into the floor?

Answer: this is why qualifying is so important.

A decreased depth is the same as rising towards the surface. New depth is 52,5% from ocean surface. Edit: this is, of course, assuming that "75% the distance between" is in relation to the ocean surface and is not using the ocean floor as value 0, so I'm going to just assume the sub is closer to the bottom.

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".

Eldar Vibro Cannons are rail.
Blood Angels Blood Lance have it's line resolved with the rail special rule.
Space Wolf Jaws of the World Wolf have it's line resolved with the rail special rule.
That is all I can find.

Edit 2: it's funny how the main rule pdf uses Tao weapons as obvious examples, though.

ph34r wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:So is that based on 75% from the floor, or 75% from the surface? If only I'd qualified it...

75% from Atlantis.

Damn, I thought it was unsolvable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To anyone (honestly) trying to answer my submarine question:

It has no answer because there are multiple variables that have not been qualified. I thought it was a fairly succinct point, however I stand corrected.

azazel the cat wrote:

Davor wrote:I love how Warseer is claiming it's a fake and they knew it so wouldn't let anyone disscuss it until now that it's verified to be a fake LOL.

Dakka > Warseer

...also, it hasn't been verified to be a fake. My bet is on it being a playtest version of the real thing, and not even an early version at that.

Personally, I go to Warseer for the rumours, but Dakka has the traffic for conversation.

And yeah, I agree that this is likely a recent playtest version - the rumours preceeding this being based on prior incarnations of playtest versions (the rumour dump on here on dakka, in the rumour summery thread). I can see the progress and clean-up between the two sets, "experimentive" things that didn't make it through, etc.

I found it weird how one person, claiming to have proof that this was fake, declared that the proof was that it was an older playtest version (1.5) and not the final playtest version (1.6). So his proof that it was fake, was saying it was official

Anvildude wrote:You guys are all missing the most important point!

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

Yeah, noticed this a while back as well! Quite eager to try them out now

From what I see from people's playtests though, Orks are relatively getting less out of the ruleset than many other races. I suppose they may finally be succumbing to being an "old" codex, about to be two editions old. But one can't judge yet - the final ruleset still needs to emerge, along with a nice proper Codex Amendment document.

Kharrak wrote:From what I see from people's playtests though, Orks are relatively getting less out of the ruleset than many other races. I suppose they may finally be succumbing to being an "old" codex, about to be two editions old. But one can't judge yet - the final ruleset still needs to emerge, along with a nice proper Codex Amendment document.

Question is; Do they need much out of it? Other armies are getting buffed or taking a hit, but little is happening to what generally regarded as one of the more balanced codexes out there.

Is there already an overview about the impact of the new ruleset to the different races out there?

Yeah, it's deffiately a case of "finally showing it's age". Orks as a whole wouldn't get nerfed too badly, there's even some plus, but some some of it's most powerful units got hit hard (Nobz, Shoota boyz, KFF Mek, Battlewagons) and what we got to compensate isn't neatly as good as what other codexes would get. Funnily, this 6th ed would make Ork more balanced internally (or at least from a glance) but poor when faced against other armies

I wouldn't say battlewagons are worse of, if anything they are better. Unlike tanks they don't take extra damage from AP1 weapons and allow units to run/charge from them.

Slugga boys are a more viable option again. Shootas will be harder to use, which is a good thing, but I don't think they'll be weaker per se.

The KFF was far too ubiquitous and frankly powerful with regards to vehicles and certainly didn't help with the mech meta.

As for nobs, well they probably needed WAC stuff taken away.
Nob bikers are much better against shooting with needing Str 9 to ID them, plus a cover save few people can attain. Also, as bikes, they can charge and then fire their dakkaguns in the same turn if unengaged.

I never said these were bad changes, mearly that they are the strongest units current in the codex currently and would be hurt from this leak.

A battlewagons as a transport did kinda get hurt. Since they're Tanks they get -1 to their evasion, meaning they'll get hit on +2s by anyone with BS 4 amd by everyone but orks if it stand still, and they don't get the -1 to vehicle damage unless they take a hard top. Dakkawagons, however, are now much better thanks yo having the lumbering rule