6th edition rumour and news summary (1st post updated daily with new info!)

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.

**Dr. Delorean**

I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the "alliances" that can apparently exist (according to the GW website) are "Allies of Convenience", and have some kind of random factor which allows the alliance to deteriorate such that the allied units simply leave the board if certain factors exist (like you accidentally hit them with a blast weapon, they fail a Ld check at the start of the turn, etc etc etc)

Meanwhile, I'm trying to figure out how to destroy Therion's vendetta list. A few Interceptor lascannons and quad-guns oughta do it...

**Ferrum_Sanguinis**

Just preordered the standard edition rule book. I could've bought the collector's edition, but paying nearly double the price just for some fancy paper and a case didn't sit right with me. Plus I can use that money to but the new templates and the psychic powers cards...

**Noir Eternal**

Formosa wrote:
Doesnt every GW store have a computer now? it would be easy to put up a poster and say "40k update out now" and done, the better question is, if they did this wouldnt it invalidate the £20 codex i payed for?

Not entirely, and there are plenty of reasons GW doesn't do it. Now if the rulebooks were completely digital this wouldn't be a problem. But computer gamers know how patches piss off plenty of players every week while competitive games are constantly changing.
GW shouldn't put themselves into that kind of madness.
Possible to do yes, good idea? No, probably not

**Griever**

Formosa wrote:
Griever wrote:
Vladsimpaler wrote:
Noir wrote:
Sidstyler wrote:
Formosa wrote:its NOT, repeat NOT the rules that will be the problem, its the players.... YOU, not the rulebook, YOU are the one who will cheese it up and break the allies rules by having OVER 9000!!!!!! Spambacks, GW is not forcing you to take them or even use them, im ging to add some Stormravens to my ravenwing as its fluffy (DA will get a new flyer no doubt, but for the time being i must make do) and will add some MUCH needed punch to my overcosted underpowered army... but mainly... a black Ravenwing stormraven will look the shiz niz and what not

It is most definitely the rules that are the problem, because they allow this gak to happen. I don't know why that's so hard for people to understand. There's really no other way to explain it, you're just wrong, plain and simple.

It is not my responsibility to keep GW's game balanced, it's theirs.

Why do people keep saying "keep the game balanced", it wasn't before.

Until GW starts from the ground floor up, playtesting for a 2-3 year and releases the Core Book and every Codex at the same time, 40K will never be balanced. I don't know how else to explain it, you're just wrong, plain and simply... for excepting a balanced system with there track record..

Going to agree with Noir here. Plus Sidstyler you're coming off as massively abrasive, you need to calm down.

Even if Gee Dubya started from the ground up like you said, people would still find something unbalanced and people like Sidstyler would whine that it took GW 4 years to balance everything that that they still messed up. Chess is really the only game that I can think of that is truly "balanced". However on the other hand it has no flavor.

I will take an imbalanced ruleset with lots of cool, fun storytelling opportunities versus something that is highly balanced but lacks any sort of "feel" behind it.

Also I find it funny that a lot of people who disliked 5th (like myself) are really looking forward to 6th, whereas many who seemed to enjoy 5th are dreading 6th. I'm just glad that 40k is returning to its roots as opposed to becoming bland and boring.

4th and 5th edition 40k were just fine, the games worked pretty well. The balance issues came in that they quite blatantly write codexes to make the newsst ones the strongers will all the best toys so that every wants to sell their old stuff and buy another army. I can live with that stuff, the basic deisng of the game worked well.

People who say balance doesn't matter are kidding themself. I'm sure your really "fun" army is a blast to play when you line up against an army that crushes you without losing a single model, just because of a bad matchup. That's the life of a 40k Dark Eldar player, you either get tabled or crush your oppoenent based on their list. That's not FUN for anybody, I've been on both sides of that game, nobody likes getting destroyed and most people don't like face rolling somebody in a game just because of a bad matchup.

Now that take, and then add in the fact that not only do you have to balance codexes against each other, you'll have to balance every posible combination of stupid units between codexes as well.

My 40k community is tiny. I'll show up to a local shop once a month and nobody else will be there, I'll sit for an hour before just driving 30 minutes back home. I can't afford to turn down games from the 50% of people who are just going to take the wackiest gak (Eldar + Dark Eldar) just because it looks fun and works well on the tabletop. But I also will not play them, because that's not how the 40k universe works in my head, and that was the only thing keeping me in the game.

I would have already switched to a different game by now, but nobody plays WarmaHordes either.

Guess I'll have to try my hand at fantasy, at least they haven't gone completely daft.

yeah the new fantasy books seem to be trying to ... ballance the game, we can but hope 40k will go the same way

Yup, I'm not as big a fan of the game itself (I feel Fantasy is too staticy and that much of the game is decided after two turns in one or two big combats where you just roll dice), but the level of balance in the recent army books has been very impressive.

**Thunderfrog**

Sephyr wrote:Tongue planted somewhat in cheek, I have to say so far it looks like people claiming 6Th was going to be Imperial circular wankfest have been vindicated and get to post that on their blogs and facebook pages.

Marines get to have their cake and eat it too. They get powerfists, so they have a CC option against 2+ armor in CC, unlike many other armies. They can even spam AP thunder hammers with shields on assault termis so that CC is -always- viable for them, and get to tap IG, fellow chapters and GK to fill any gaps.

Necrons have gained a lot too, but that seems to have been a casual side-effect.

Orks, Eldar and Dark Eldar get taken down considerably. Their CC specialists now either lack the means to get into combat reliably, or their best way to deal with enemy CC specialists (Have fun plinking your pretty swords against terminators and artificer armor, Banshees and Incubi!)

Tyranids...wow. To think of the bullet i dodged when I skipped picking them as my first army a year and a half ago. I came so close.

We'll see how it develops. Maybe the faq and erratas will patch much of ths over. Not expecting it, but it would be nice.

This post is really fun of win. I'm even going to sig the first line. ; )

**Tresson**

Vladsimpaler wrote:
Lysenis wrote:
Pony_law wrote:Allies is a stupid concept game balance wise but smart from a sales perspecitve. We all know which of those 2 considerations win when GW makes a decision.

It will be fun times seeing IG armies with Th/ss termis or purifiers sitting near their lines. Or draigowing armies with 90 boys as well. I just can't see a way this could work without absolutely breaking the armies theselves. If allies are allowed in tournaments i predict we will never see a pure 1 codex army win another thing ever again. (i mean sonme of the things I'm imaging are so broke, but hey at least my SM can finally take longfangs, and fast vindicators)
YES! Now my outflanking Baal Predator with a Flamestorm cannon (or normal version) will have a Storm Talon as Escort! That way I can have it flying in, Then I can have Necron warriors to back up my assault marines. . .

Shoot me now and get it over with. . . .

Will do, at least then we won't have to deal with your incessant whining and poor attempts at sarcasm

Can we do it to you as well so we don't have to listen to your near constant bashing of posters you disagree with?

**spaceelf**

Formosa wrote:
yeah the new fantasy books seem to be trying to ... ballance the game, we can but hope 40k will go the same way

Well if they are trying, then they are failing miserably. Have you read the Ogre Kingdoms army book?

**Formosa**

Nvs wrote:WAAC lists are only truly an issue because they don't have a dedicated rules team. Instead they have 1 guy make one book, another guy make the next, and so on. And then when these 2 guys have different design philosophies, or are encouraged to create whacked out things to sell models, well then you're left with what we have now.

GW really should be trying harder to make their game viable in the competetive scene even if that meant they balanced around a specific point value and the game went completely nuts outside of that point range.

It's silly the way things have been going the past decade. I mean we're approaching the point where they may as well stop supporting 40k in its entirety and create a 30k horus heresy game.

when put like this i get you, but i still think your local comminity can help sort this out, im not stupid i can see how the allies rules will be abused, i just know that my local non-competative meta will not do so, like i said im lucky

Automatically Appended Next Post:

spaceelf wrote:
Formosa wrote:
yeah the new fantasy books seem to be trying to ... ballance the game, we can but hope 40k will go the same way

Well if they are trying, then they are failing miserably. Have you read the Ogre Kingdoms army book?

yes i have good sir, and my dwarfs punch them in the groin every time lol, now compare that ogres book to 7th Deamons... or even the helish nightmare that was the 3 chaos books when they could be combined, that was a quagmire i tell you lol

**Therion**

Dr. Delorean wrote:Meanwhile, I'm trying to figure out how to destroy Therion's vendetta list. A few Interceptor lascannons and quad-guns oughta do it...

You can only get one fortification with an Icarus lascannon, and the Manticores will level that pile of bricks

**Sidstyler**

Dr. Delorean wrote:and have some kind of random factor

Well, of course. That seems to be GW's way of "balancing" everything when they get stuck. "feth it, roll a d6 on it, let's move on to the next rule. feth it, roll a d6 on it, next one."

Vaktathi wrote:
Joey wrote:
Noir Eternal wrote:
That just shows me you basically have to result to sarcastic and completely un-realistic scenarios to show a rediculous point that makes 0 sense. Yeah, I definitely meant by using erratas to help game balance I meant constantly changing units to make them insanely powerful and that everyone should be constantly updating their rulebook.

What I meant (to clarify) is that GW, could/conceivably, use the errata to make small changes to rules that were unbalanced enough to affect the game negitively in a major way.

I never said that I thought they should, that I wanted them to, or that they were a horrible company becuase they did not use this option.

I only stated that it was a possibility, and that you saying that using an errata to fix rules being an impossibility was ludicrous.

It is ludicrous.
Most gamers don't even check the internet for information. If something has changed in their codex, how would they know?
What if they showed up for a battle and their opponent told them that their models actually cost a couple points more, or had a point less toughness? How would you know they were telling the truth?
Truth be told there's actually very few units that are so bad that they desperately need changing. Even if there are, GW fethed up, so only take them if you like them or for fluff reasons.
In an age when kickstarters are showing up every week for new games, when half the population has the internet in the palm of their hand, when an email address is more permanent than a home address, when GW has been using FAQ PDF's for years, when every other major game releases FAQ and Errata as online PDF's, when every major tournament is organized almost entirely online, when people shop stores across the entire *planet* for the best prices on models, players can't be bothered with internet errata?

And not just that, but most players, apparently.

I want to know who the feth can afford to play 40k, but not a computer. I'm dirt poor and I have a decent computer and an internet connection.

**ZebioLizard2**

spaceelf wrote:
Formosa wrote:
yeah the new fantasy books seem to be trying to ... ballance the game, we can but hope 40k will go the same way

Well if they are trying, then they are failing miserably. Have you read the Ogre Kingdoms army book?

They still lose quite a bit, it's not like they are 7th edition DoC or 7th edition DE or 7th edition VC.

There's also the fact they can be beaten with actual tactics, some thought into fighting them.

Having fought them with orcs, I can safely say they do not enjoy things that can hit before them with a ton of attacks.

**tuiman**

Charax wrote:those Codex FAQs are going to be BIG...

Initial thoughts:

- FnP being a 5+ kinda sucks, but being allowed Vs anything that isn't instant death is awesome. Bring on your power weapons!

- Vector Strike is nasty, but as it's not Smash it's not especially useful against vehicles unless you're using it with a very big Tyranid.

- Power axes sound fun, but nobody has the option yet. Hopefully that'll be in the FAQs rather than having to wait for a whole new codex.

- Eldar are pretty damn nasty. Warlocks in guardian units, with the power that lets you overwatch at full BS - not the squishy target they once were, and that's not getting into the four-foot distance on bikes or Ally possibilities.

The main rulebook has a bit at the back for Every weapon and unit in the game, so effectivley an erreta for all codex's.

Im sure therefore there will be a few power axes etc

**undertow**

StoneRaizer wrote: Yes, you can field Dark Eldar and Eldar in the same army against anybody you want, every single game you play, and the rules totally support this. It's utterly daft.

Yes, and on any given day you could be playing or witness a game where two GK armies, each led by Draigo are fighting to the death.

I'm very excited about the allies in 6th and can't wait to try it out.

**puree**

Griever wrote:
No, no it's not. I play tournaments all the time. I try to write lists that work well on the tabletop. I enjoy 40k as a game of tactics where I'm trying to out think my opponent, and I the closer and close games are, the more fun they are for me and my opponent. I am not a WAAC gamer, MOST tournament players aren't WAAC gamers. Look at the best players in the US, they're the nicest group of guys you'll ever meet. I'm sick of people who suck at tabletop games label the people who are better than them as WAAC gamers, that's insutling and completely ignoring.

Fun fact, if you balance the game for "WAAC" games, then you've just balanced the game for everybody. Like I said before, even your most laid back, beer and pretzels 40k gamers will NOT have fun if their army gets whiped off the table in two turns and they don't even get to do anything. That happened quite a bit in regular 40k, now it's going to happen even more.

I think we have different ideas of what WAAC means, I mean it in no negative way at all. To me it is simply meaning someone who is very competitive (and has nothing to do with whether they are nice guts or not). As opposed to someone who is less interested in the competitive aspect and just likes the fluff and background, play for the socialising/pizza and beer and doesn't really care too much if he gets hammered.

But your second point is exactly what I was referring to, if you don't design your game for the ultra hard core competitive (WAAC or whatever you want to call it) then you will not get a balanced game as those players will always find those imbalances that do exist.

So going back to my original point: GW are not, and have never, aimed at that market, they are aiming at teenagers who like shiny toys with big guns and the majority of whom will probably never go anywhere near a tourney.

If people want balance in the tourney scene then it is their responsibility to make it so, as they are the ones trying to take a game not designed with that in mind and use it in such a way. It is not GWs responsibility to make it tourney balanced if that is not where they are aiming their product.

**Joey**

Double post, the hell?

**Griever**

puree wrote:
Griever wrote:
No, no it's not. I play tournaments all the time. I try to write lists that work well on the tabletop. I enjoy 40k as a game of tactics where I'm trying to out think my opponent, and I the closer and close games are, the more fun they are for me and my opponent. I am not a WAAC gamer, MOST tournament players aren't WAAC gamers. Look at the best players in the US, they're the nicest group of guys you'll ever meet. I'm sick of people who suck at tabletop games label the people who are better than them as WAAC gamers, that's insutling and completely ignoring.

Fun fact, if you balance the game for "WAAC" games, then you've just balanced the game for everybody. Like I said before, even your most laid back, beer and pretzels 40k gamers will NOT have fun if their army gets whiped off the table in two turns and they don't even get to do anything. That happened quite a bit in regular 40k, now it's going to happen even more.

I think we have different ideas of what WAAC means, I mean it in no negative way at all. To me it is simply meaning someone who is very competitive (and has nothing to do with whether they are nice guts or not). As opposed to someone who is less interested in the competitive aspect and just likes the fluff and background, play for the socialising/pizza and beer and doesn't really care too much if he gets hammered.

But your second point is exactly what I was referring to, if you don't design your game for the ultra hard core competitive (WAAC or whatever you want to call it) then you will not get a balanced game as those players will always find those imbalances that do exist.

So going back to my original point: GW are not, and have never, aimed at that market, they are aiming at teenagers who like shiny toys with big guns and the majority of whom will probably never go anywhere near a tourney.

If people want balance in the tourney scene then it is their responsibility to make it so, as they are the ones trying to take a game not designed with that in mind and use it in such a way. It is not GWs responsibility to make it tourney balanced if that is not where they are aiming their product.

The funniest part about this is that this new edition will actually make the game even more fun for competitive gamers, since they can build even better, stronger lists with way more options than they could before. And the fluff bunnies get to figure out why the hell Orks are now the galaxies best friend and Eldar/Dark Eldar decided to set aside their difference to smack around some evil Space Marines.

**ZebioLizard2**

Griever wrote:
puree wrote:
Griever wrote:
No, no it's not. I play tournaments all the time. I try to write lists that work well on the tabletop. I enjoy 40k as a game of tactics where I'm trying to out think my opponent, and I the closer and close games are, the more fun they are for me and my opponent. I am not a WAAC gamer, MOST tournament players aren't WAAC gamers. Look at the best players in the US, they're the nicest group of guys you'll ever meet. I'm sick of people who suck at tabletop games label the people who are better than them as WAAC gamers, that's insutling and completely ignoring.

Fun fact, if you balance the game for "WAAC" games, then you've just balanced the game for everybody. Like I said before, even your most laid back, beer and pretzels 40k gamers will NOT have fun if their army gets whiped off the table in two turns and they don't even get to do anything. That happened quite a bit in regular 40k, now it's going to happen even more.

I think we have different ideas of what WAAC means, I mean it in no negative way at all. To me it is simply meaning someone who is very competitive (and has nothing to do with whether they are nice guts or not). As opposed to someone who is less interested in the competitive aspect and just likes the fluff and background, play for the socialising/pizza and beer and doesn't really care too much if he gets hammered.

But your second point is exactly what I was referring to, if you don't design your game for the ultra hard core competitive (WAAC or whatever you want to call it) then you will not get a balanced game as those players will always find those imbalances that do exist.

So going back to my original point: GW are not, and have never, aimed at that market, they are aiming at teenagers who like shiny toys with big guns and the majority of whom will probably never go anywhere near a tourney.

If people want balance in the tourney scene then it is their responsibility to make it so, as they are the ones trying to take a game not designed with that in mind and use it in such a way. It is not GWs responsibility to make it tourney balanced if that is not where they are aiming their product.

The funniest part about this is that this new edition will actually make the game even more fun for competitive gamers, since they can build even better, stronger lists with way more options than they could before. And the fluff bunnies get to figure out why the hell Orks are now the galaxies best friend and Eldar/Dark Eldar decided to set aside their difference to smack around some evil Space Marines.

Second one is easy, they have the harliquins and the laughing god trying to force them together without reconciling those differences between them, with the Harliquins being a bit scary enough to force them into "Temporary" Alliances, at least till the children of the laughing god are gone.

First one is also easy, there's alot of Ork Freebooters and mercenaries that will work for a bit of shinies and a nice Krump with some gits.

**leohart**

Back to the actual news and rumours, I have been following the reddit thread but I am still unable to figure out when is a fortification slot be deployed?

Do I deploy my bastion and then put down my objective? Is it part of the deployment of my force or is there a chance that my opponent might steal my table edge and get my fortification slot?

**Lukus83**

Based on how powerful the new flier rules seem to be I am fully expecting either:

1. A wave of new releases for each faction over the next year or so - fliers for factions currently without and new units with Skyfire specifically.

2. A load of FAQ/errata granting Skyfire to specific units.

If not then it's Necrons as the new poster boys for GW. In the grim darkness of the far future there is only...Necron WARriors.

**Fafnir**

Griever wrote:
The funniest part about this is that this new edition will actually make the game even more fun for competitive gamers,

I'd argue the other way around. The new allies system will quickly be broken down into a few utterly broken combinations that completely over centralize the game to the point where only those few combinations are truly viable, causing the game to stagnate into a boring mess.

Allies brings a lot of options to the table, and being able to augment your forces in such a way has a lot of potential to be really, really cool, but GW is being far too reckless in the implementation.

**Joey**

Fafnir wrote:
Griever wrote:
The funniest part about this is that this new edition will actually make the game even more fun for competitive gamers,

I'd argue the other way around. The new allies system will quickly be broken down into a few utterly broken combinations that completely over centralize the game to the point where only those few combinations are truly viable, causing the game to stagnate into a boring mess.

Allies brings a lot of options to the table, and being able to augment your forces in such a way has a lot of potential to be really, really cool, but GW is being far too reckless in the implementation.

I will repeat for the billianth time that this is nonsense. I've not seen a single OP list that's actually legal with the rules, and not as strong as existant one-army lists.

**puree**

Griever wrote:
The funniest part about this is that this new edition will actually make the game even more fun for competitive gamers, since they can build even better, stronger lists with way more options than they could before. And the fluff bunnies get to figure out why the hell Orks are now the galaxies best friend and Eldar/Dark Eldar decided to set aside their difference to smack around some evil Space Marines.

And people like me who couldn't really care either way will continue not to. Even before 6th came out I was going to be going to some doubles tourney with some dark eldar paired with my mates Space wolves, couldn't care 2 hoots whether it is fluffy or not. My mate bought some wolves cos he is in to viking style themes generally and I bought the DE for the models that I liked on getting back into 40k a couple of months back; Not a venom or raider in sight, though I do like the venoms so may get them, but the raiders have never done it for me aesthetically so my witches walk into combat or get shot to crap on the way.

Though as to the eldar dark/eldar bit, well my shiny new DE codex clearly says that they helped some eldar cos they found it amusing. So I don't wonder about it at all.

I'm obviously helping wolves cos we find it amusing to make them think we like them, give them false hope then render them down into lumps of useable flesh..

**Lou_Cypher**

Huh, these new allies rules interest me. Does this mean BFFs Eldar/Dark Eldar can have combinations like casting Fortune on Wyches and Vehicles, or Doom against people being assaulted by Incubi?

**tetrisphreak**

Joey wrote:
Fafnir wrote:
Griever wrote:
The funniest part about this is that this new edition will actually make the game even more fun for competitive gamers,

I'd argue the other way around. The new allies system will quickly be broken down into a few utterly broken combinations that completely over centralize the game to the point where only those few combinations are truly viable, causing the game to stagnate into a boring mess.

Allies brings a lot of options to the table, and being able to augment your forces in such a way has a lot of potential to be really, really cool, but GW is being far too reckless in the implementation.

I will repeat for the billianth time that this is nonsense. I've not seen a single OP list that's actually legal with the rules, and not as strong as existant one-army lists.

Homework assignments, people! Get your two best armies (or only army) and write a list with the following FOC at 2000 points (NO ALLIES at first)

2-4 HQ
4-12 Troops
0-6 Elite
0-6 Fast
0-6 Heavy

See if you can make a 2000 point list that will reliably win objective based games. Looks like 5 out of 6 games rely on some sort of objectives, so we need an even less shoot-it-to-death mentality. (side-note: tervigon tyranids do really well on objective missions).

The list has to fit the FOC and points allotment. Then look and see what you could remove, and if adding something as an ally that WON'T aid you with special abilities (no blood chalices, etc) actually makes the list harder or softer.

Let's give it a month or three before declaring the new system broken. all armies have access, all armies have a chance to counter-punch.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lou_Cypher wrote:Huh, these new allies rules interest me. Does this mean BFFs Eldar/Dark Eldar can have combinations like casting Fortune on Wyches and Vehicles, or Doom against people being assaulted by Incubi?

In a word, based on the 'allies of convenience' classification --no. You can doom the enemy, but you can't fortune wyches or guide trueborn.

**Sidstyler**

Lukus83 wrote:Based on how powerful the new flier rules seem to be I am fully expecting either:

1. A wave of new releases for each faction over the next year or so - fliers for factions currently without and new units with Skyfire specifically.

2. A load of FAQ/errata granting Skyfire to specific units.

If not then it's Necrons as the new poster boys for GW. In the grim darkness of the far future there is only...Necron WARriors.

I'd bet money on number 2 being the case, then. I'm sure new fliers will be coming out eventually, but AA spam is going to happen so fliers still won't be any good in the long run.

I'm reminded of people who, when 5th edition came out, thought that spamming nothing but troops was going to be a game-winning strategy since troops were the only scoring units: people talking about armies with 72 fire warriors for example. Turns out the opposite was true and vehicle-heavy armies were dominant. People are doing the same, here: "OMG guys fliers! FLIERS! Look at fliers! I'm gonna take nothing but fliers now!" Yeah, that's not gonna work.

Griever wrote:And the fluff bunnies get to figure out why the hell Orks are now the galaxies best friend and Eldar/Dark Eldar decided to set aside their difference to smack around some evil Space Marines.

What about Dark Eldar and Daemons, for that matter? That makes even less sense.

So anyway, anyone else getting the feeling that, with the new allies rules, they'd be better off buying into Space Marines and using their current xenos armies as allies for them instead? Everything about this new edition seems to be about making Space Marines even better than they are, and you're going to have to ally with an Imperial army anyway in order to get some kind of psychic defense if you play xenos.

**GalacticDefender**

I hope they come out with a paperback rulebook. I am not paying 75 dollars for a rulebook.

Based on the past, is a paperback rulebook generally released?

**tuiman**

Lukus83 wrote:Based on how powerful the new flier rules seem to be I am fully expecting either:

1. A wave of new releases for each faction over the next year or so - fliers for factions currently without and new units with Skyfire specifically.

2. A load of FAQ/errata granting Skyfire to specific units.

If not then it's Necrons as the new poster boys for GW. In the grim darkness of the far future there is only...Necron WARriors.

1. I agree entirely, harpy model must be due for release soon, also its not fair on those who dont have flyers yet, chaos, tau, wolves etc

2. it's called the main rulebook

every weapon and unit is redone to include the new rules, every single one, maybe why its so big

**dæl**

I don't get why people have a problem with eldar and dark eldar being allies, they see each other as cousins that have gone a bit "off track."

**Eldarain**

GalacticDefender wrote:I hope they come out with a paperback rulebook. I am not paying 75 dollars for a rulebook.

Based on the past, is a paperback rulebook generally released?

Should be a mini one in the introductory boxed set. Rumored for a September release I think.

**wyomingfox**

insaniak wrote:
JB wrote:Blasts use full strength against vehicles even if the center hole isn't over the vehicle?

They always used to. It was only with 5th edition that was introduced.

Actually that was introduced in 4th.