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.

DarknessEternal wrote:There's never an advantage to swinging slower with Combat Drill.

Saturating armour groups, forcing people to put wounds on those other models.

Look Out Sergeant only punishes you. The column next to it already gives models a 5+ cover save if there's intervening units.

Models without a base grant a cover save of 5+ to
models partially hidden by them. If a model is
invisible to the squad leader of the firing squad
because it is completely concealed by a model
without a base, it gets the normal 4+ cover save
for invisible models.

Tapeworm711 wrote:As a read "Patch Up" It doesn't seem to restrict the models to who's turn it is. It simply states "If a unit contains more than one wounded model,
it must carry out a Patch Up action."

Not "Your Models" or the currently player. I believe it happens to EVERYONES model, on EVERY consolidation phase.

Unless otherwise stated, you cannot perform an action in your opponent's turn.
Could be wrong though and I can see Patch Up occurring to all units anyway in any finalised rules.

DarknessEternal wrote:Look Out, Sergeant and Combat Drill are totally pointless.

There's never an advantage to swinging slower with Combat Drill.

If all your models strike before or after the opponents models, you can let all your models strike at the same iniative step, so your opponent can't play wound allocation games as much. And of course, it speeds up the game.

Look Out Sergeant only punishes you. The column next to it already gives models a 5+ cover save if there's intervening units.

No, you only get a cover save if the intervening units doesn't have a base, so basically, vehicles except walkers and skimmers.

Edit: ninja'd

Tapeworm711 wrote:As a read "Patch Up" It doesn't seem to restrict the models to who's turn it is. It simply states "If a unit contains more than one wounded model,
it must carry out a Patch Up action."

Not "Your Models" or the currently player. I believe it happens to EVERYONES model, on EVERY consolidation phase.

Reread page 74. Right under the Consolidation Phase, it says "...Choose one unit that can act in this turn and perform the actions in the order they are presented...". The chart to the right of this sentence has the action "Patch Up", so following this logically, only units that can act this turn can Patch Up.

Edit: Interestingly, this allows you to take multiple wounds in the opponents Shooting and Assault phases while keeping them alive until your Consolidation phase. In an example, I have a squad of 3 Tyranid Warriors who took 2 unsaved Dark Lance shots, I placed 2 wounds on two different Warriors. During my turn, I Engage a close Wych squad with all the Warriors, getting their full attacks. I take another wound from the Wyches, giving a total of 5 on the Warriors. I finally lose one during my Consoliation phase for Patch Up.

Zyllos wrote:

Tapeworm711 wrote:As a read "Patch Up" It doesn't seem to restrict the models to who's turn it is. It simply states "If a unit contains more than one wounded model,
it must carry out a Patch Up action."

Not "Your Models" or the currently player. I believe it happens to EVERYONES model, on EVERY consolidation phase.

Reread page 74. Right under the Consolidation Phase, it says "...Choose one unit that can act in this turn and perform the actions in the order they are presented...". The chart to the right of this sentence has the action "Patch Up", so following this logically, only units that can act this turn can Patch Up.

Technically, those models did act as they used "Strike" in close combat. But im not sure thats enough of a distinction. So you may be right.

New FAQ: Lash requires a to hit roll.

This FAQ: Lash hits automatically.

Make that of what you will.

Also, Shuriken Catapults are laughably terrible as a basic weapon under these rules.

So, no different from nowadays then?

DarknessEternal wrote:

Also, Shuriken Catapults are laughably terrible as a basic weapon under these rules.

So nothing has changed.

ShumaGorath wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

Also, Shuriken Catapults are laughably terrible as a basic weapon under these rules.

So nothing has changed.

Bolters shoot twice as far. And a Shuriken Catapult won't be providing any attacks, since Eldar don't carry CCWs.

Yes, yes, Eldar are blowtacular. That's true under any ruleset.

DarknessEternal wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

Also, Shuriken Catapults are laughably terrible as a basic weapon under these rules.

So nothing has changed.

Bolters shoot twice as far. And a Shuriken Catapult won't be providing any attacks, since Eldar don't carry CCWs.

Yes, yes, Eldar are blowtacular. That's true under any ruleset.

Your contention is that this makes guardians worse. Guardians are already awful and remain unchanged in this ruleset. At least other aspects of the codex get significantly better. Thats more than I can really say from the perspective of the generic marine dex.

That is something I wanted to ask, how do pistols work again?

Take Wyches for example, when they assault, do they gain +1 attack (CCW + pistol) and the additional attack uses the pistol profile? Do they either gain +1 attack -OR- 1 attack with their pistol profile? Or is it something else entirely different?

DarknessEternal wrote:Look Out, Sergeant and Combat Drill are totally pointless.

There's never an advantage to swinging slower with Combat Drill.

Look Out Sergeant only punishes you. The column next to it already gives models a 5+ cover save if there's intervening units.

Not True;
1. Acting slower in initiative can change wound allocation in your favor, it won't come in handy that often, but It isn't 'pointless', it's just a nice option to have.
2. Look out Sergeant Grants intervening models with a 3+ invulnerable save if they have superior armor to the target squad, that seems like a significant benefit to me.

- wow, sleep ninja'd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zyllos wrote:That is something I wanted to ask, how do pistols work again?

Take Wyches for example, when they assault, do they gain +1 attack (CCW + pistol) and the additional attack uses the pistol profile? Do they either gain +1 attack -OR- 1 attack with their pistol profile? Or is it something else entirely different?

Pistols allow you either use them as a secondary weapon for +1 attack,
OR you can use a pistol as a primary weapon and make a number of attacks equal to the pistol (#) value [usually 1] instead of your statline attacks, using the profile of the pistol.

Ok, so do you use WS or BS for that pistol attack?

Zyllos wrote:That is something I wanted to ask, how do pistols work again?

Take Wyches for example, when they assault, do they gain +1 attack (CCW + pistol) and the additional attack uses the pistol profile? Do they either gain +1 attack -OR- 1 attack with their pistol profile? Or is it something else entirely different?

If you claim a pistol as a secondary weapon, you get an extra attack with the primary weapon (unless the primary is Course or Two-Handed). If you claim the pistol as the primary weapon, you attack with the combat profile of the pistol (for a Splinter Pistol, S X, AP 5, Combat, Pistol 1, Poison (4+)). You only get a number of shots as indicated by the number after Pistol, and can only get an extra attack if you have a second similair pistol.

Zyllos wrote:Ok, so do you use WS or BS for that pistol attack?

WS

Redemption wrote:

Zyllos wrote:That is something I wanted to ask, how do pistols work again?

Take Wyches for example, when they assault, do they gain +1 attack (CCW + pistol) and the additional attack uses the pistol profile? Do they either gain +1 attack -OR- 1 attack with their pistol profile? Or is it something else entirely different?

If you claim a pistol as a secondary weapon, you get an extra attack with the primary weapon (unless the primary is Course or Two-Handed). If you claim the pistol as the primary weapon, you attack with the combat profile of the pistol (for a Splinter Pistol, S X, AP 5, Combat, Pistol 1, Poison (4+)). You only get a number of shots as indicated by the number after Pistol, and can only get an extra attack if you have a second similair pistol.

Zyllos wrote:Ok, so do you use WS or BS for that pistol attack?

WS

You still can get the assault bonus.

ShumaGorath wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

Also, Shuriken Catapults are laughably terrible as a basic weapon under these rules.

So nothing has changed.

Bolters shoot twice as far. And a Shuriken Catapult won't be providing any attacks, since Eldar don't carry CCWs.

Yes, yes, Eldar are blowtacular. That's true under any ruleset.

Your contention is that this makes guardians worse. Guardians are already awful and remain unchanged in this ruleset. At least other aspects of the codex get significantly better. Thats more than I can really say from the perspective of the generic marine dex.

This might be true, but the benefits that a Guardians unit gains from the Warlock upgrade are significant. Channel for a re-rollable invulnerable save and Psychic Counter add a degree of durability to the unit. Add on the S7 upgrade to the Starcannon and the nerf that cover saves as a whole have taken (to 5+) and Guardians just got a little more stylish.

Tapeworm711 wrote:

Redemption wrote:

Zyllos wrote:That is something I wanted to ask, how do pistols work again?

Take Wyches for example, when they assault, do they gain +1 attack (CCW + pistol) and the additional attack uses the pistol profile? Do they either gain +1 attack -OR- 1 attack with their pistol profile? Or is it something else entirely different?

If you claim a pistol as a secondary weapon, you get an extra attack with the primary weapon (unless the primary is Course or Two-Handed). If you claim the pistol as the primary weapon, you attack with the combat profile of the pistol (for a Splinter Pistol, S X, AP 5, Combat, Pistol 1, Poison (4+)). You only get a number of shots as indicated by the number after Pistol, and can only get an extra attack if you have a second similair pistol.

Zyllos wrote:Ok, so do you use WS or BS for that pistol attack?

WS

You still can get the assault bonus.

Exactly. In case of Wyches, depending a bit on drug rolls, you are better off using pistols on the charge vs T5+ opponents.

Gavin Thorne wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

Also, Shuriken Catapults are laughably terrible as a basic weapon under these rules.

So nothing has changed.

Bolters shoot twice as far. And a Shuriken Catapult won't be providing any attacks, since Eldar don't carry CCWs.

Yes, yes, Eldar are blowtacular. That's true under any ruleset.

Your contention is that this makes guardians worse. Guardians are already awful and remain unchanged in this ruleset. At least other aspects of the codex get significantly better. Thats more than I can really say from the perspective of the generic marine dex.

This might be true, but the benefits that a Guardians unit gains from the Warlock upgrade are significant. Channel for a re-rollable invulnerable save and Psychic Counter add a degree of durability to the unit. Add on the S7 upgrade to the Starcannon and the nerf that cover saves as a whole have taken (to 5+) and Guardians just got a little more stylish.

The channel is for the Warlock only, not the squad, and with the new wound allocation system that doesn't really add a whole lot of durability since the system is made to protect the Warlock at the expense of his squad.

What I mean to say, the unit is not completely without use, but there is absolutely nothing which merits a cost of 8 points, and I'm inclined to agree with what DarknessEternal is hinting at - Guardians have become even less cost effective.

Mahtamori wrote:

What I mean to say, the unit is not completely without use, but there is absolutely nothing which merits a cost of 8 points, and I'm inclined to agree with what DarknessEternal is hinting at - Guardians have become even less cost effective.

Eldar are also rumored to be in the pipeline for an update. Maybe, and this is pure conspiracy, these rules were playtested with a new version of the eldar codex. One never knows.

Of course, having an assault 2 weapon to shoot en masse when those move 18" nids come barreling across the field (and where you might not want to assualt) is really a good thing.

Mahtamori wrote:

Gavin Thorne wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

Also, Shuriken Catapults are laughably terrible as a basic weapon under these rules.

So nothing has changed.

Bolters shoot twice as far. And a Shuriken Catapult won't be providing any attacks, since Eldar don't carry CCWs.

Yes, yes, Eldar are blowtacular. That's true under any ruleset.

Your contention is that this makes guardians worse. Guardians are already awful and remain unchanged in this ruleset. At least other aspects of the codex get significantly better. Thats more than I can really say from the perspective of the generic marine dex.

This might be true, but the benefits that a Guardians unit gains from the Warlock upgrade are significant. Channel for a re-rollable invulnerable save and Psychic Counter add a degree of durability to the unit. Add on the S7 upgrade to the Starcannon and the nerf that cover saves as a whole have taken (to 5+) and Guardians just got a little more stylish.

The channel is for the Warlock only, not the squad, and with the new wound allocation system that doesn't really add a whole lot of durability since the system is made to protect the Warlock at the expense of his squad.

What I mean to say, the unit is not completely without use, but there is absolutely nothing which merits a cost of 8 points, and I'm inclined to agree with what DarknessEternal is hinting at - Guardians have become even less cost effective.

They've never been cost effective. They've been a bad unit since the third edition rulebook. Nothing is changing here, and while the rapid fire change might make them seem less viable, the changes to FNP and wound allocation are even bigger meta shifters and those don't effect them in the slightest. They'll still serve alright as a late game unit to wander on the board from reserve and take an objective, and if defensive fire vs assaults turns out to be a universal rule they'll be quite prickly to attempt to break in combat.

The name of this thread is excellent.

Also, if the template changes are even close, it looks like I may have to stop mocking the stranglewebs.

heh

ShumaGorath wrote:and if defensive fire vs assaults turns out to be a universal rule they'll be quite prickly to attempt to break in combat.

Defensive Fire cannot be used in response to an assault.

ShumaGorath wrote:They've never been cost effective. They've been a bad unit since the third edition rulebook. Nothing is changing here, and while the rapid fire change might make them seem less viable, the changes to FNP and wound allocation are even bigger meta shifters and those don't effect them in the slightest. They'll still serve alright as a late game unit to wander on the board from reserve and take an objective, and if defensive fire vs assaults turns out to be a universal rule they'll be quite prickly to attempt to break in combat.

They'll still be good for last minute objective capping, not that last minute objective capping will be nearly as good. Now you want to hold objectives every turn.

Absolutionis wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:and if defensive fire vs assaults turns out to be a universal rule they'll be quite prickly to attempt to break in combat.

Defensive Fire cannot be used in response to an assault.

He did say if. I still firmly believe that the intent is to get defensive fire as a response to being assaulted, it just makes sense and is how it works in other wargames. It also ramps up the lethality of the game like the new assault and falling back rules do.

I do however relent that assault is currently not the trigger. So am not trying to start an argument here.

The rules don't state anywhere that Defensive Fire is triggered by assault. I know these are playtest rules, but you really can't firmly believe something is meant to be there when there is absolutely no existence of it anywhere in the book.

The only instance discussing Defensive Fire and assault explains how to resolve Defensive Fire (a shooting action) if the firing unit is being assaulted.
This bit is only there for those units with Overwatch. Overwatch units are able to use Defensive Fire in response to an assault because Assaults begin with movement in the movement phase.
Essentially, OVERWATCH is the rule allowing Defensive Fire, and MOVEMENT is the trigger. Assault itself is not a trigger nor is it stated as a trigger anywhere.

Absolutionis wrote:The rules don't state anywhere that Defensive Fire is triggered by assault. I know these are playtest rules, but you really can't firmly believe something is meant to be there when there is absolutely no existence of it anywhere in the book.

The only instance discussing Defensive Fire and assault explains how to resolve Defensive Fire (a shooting action) if the firing unit is being assaulted.
This bit is only there for those units with Overwatch. Overwatch units are able to use Defensive Fire in response to an assault because Assaults begin with movement in the movement phase.
Essentially, OVERWATCH is the rule allowing Defensive Fire, and MOVEMENT is the trigger. Assault itself is not a trigger nor is it stated as a trigger anywhere.

Fortunately not. If this would be implemented, it would make over half the armies in 40k unplayable.

So, finally got the chance to try the rule set out. Orks versus Farsight Tau.

It was very interesting - it quickly became apparent that, under this ruleset, I'd have to drastically change how I play Orks.

Opponent bet 15sp, I bailed and bought first turn nightfighting, counter offensive (my army counts as having moved at the start of the game), and gravity clamps (enemy army counts as being in difficult terrain first turn). Those first two seem *essential*, particularly against Tau.

Still, with the new Preferred Enemy rules, hist Black Sun filters, and my kanz and tanks being easier to hit, combined with his use of the new Rail rule... it was quite intimidating. Tau are suddenly rather nasty. Due to movement rules, he was able to gauge how to properly stay away from my army to avoid assaults - though I myself was getting to grips with the new mentality arround how to use Trukks and disembarking units efficiently, so I was floundering about mostly.

My Grot Tanks hitting other tanks on 3+, and my lootas hitting them on 4+, was quite a fantastic experience, though.

Directed wounds... was nasty when I remembered that all characters, including squad leaders, dealt them in all their attacks, so my Nobs were being sniped constantly.

I also did then realize that vehicle squadron leaders deal Directed Wounds as well, which was neat.

And the scatter rules... oh my... it was fantastic. Highly, highly reliable now.

Naturally, we did spend a lot of time hunting for rules, but it certainly felt faster.

Generally, as an Ork player, with the list I was using in mind, it's quite a shift, hard to spot the pros and cons - but it was certainly nowhere near as potent as the boost it gave the Tau player.

No, Mandor, it would make a significant amount of melee oriented units nearly as cost-efficient as Guardians currently are. However, I can see Defender Guardians gaining Overwatch where most units do not. (Or a complete overhaul of Shuriken Weapons, tying together Ghost's rumours regarding Eldar)

The problem is that giving Overwatch (or rather Defensive Fire) as a universal rule would significantly alter a lot of armies. Since GW is historically quite bad at writing FAQs and historically tend to release codexes at a goelogical pace, you can't alter the rule set fundamentally - which is sort of fun how the playtest rules both do and do not do this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kharrak wrote:Directed wounds... was nasty when I remembered that all characters, including squad leaders, dealt them in all their attacks, so my Nobs were being sniped constantly.

I also did then realize that vehicle squadron leaders deal Directed Wounds as well, which was neat.

Well... only if shooting at a target within 12", melee with one-handed weapons, or if the character forgoes attacking to use Covering Fire.

Dribble Joy wrote:

Tapeworm711 wrote:As a read "Patch Up" It doesn't seem to restrict the models to who's turn it is. It simply states "If a unit contains more than one wounded model,
it must carry out a Patch Up action."

Not "Your Models" or the currently player. I believe it happens to EVERYONES model, on EVERY consolidation phase.

Unless otherwise stated, you cannot perform an action in your opponent's turn.
Could be wrong though and I can see Patch Up occurring to all units anyway in any finalised rules.

Patch-up is Compulsory so it happens to everyone that it can apply to. Even if it is not your turn unless it says otherwise.

Mahtamori wrote:No, Mandor, it would make a significant amount of melee oriented units nearly as cost-efficient as Guardians currently are. However, I can see Defender Guardians gaining Overwatch where most units do not. (Or a complete overhaul of Shuriken Weapons, tying together Ghost's rumours regarding Eldar)

Let's see, here's a small list of units that would become totally useless (or in some cases even more totally useless ) if you would be able to shoot them when assaulted.

Codex Chaos Daemons: Bloodletters, Daemonettes, Flesh Hounds, Fiends, Seekers.
Codex Dark Eldar: Wyches, Hellions, Incubi, Mandrakes, Bloodbrides, Wracks, Harlequins.
Codex Eldar: Howling Banshees, Striking Scorpions, Harlequins.
Codex Tyranids: Warriors, Raveners, Hormagaunts, Genestealers, Lictors, Gargoyles.

I guess I'll give my 2 cents about this "leak." After considering it for awhile, I must say I like most of what's presented in this document. I won't comment on the document's validity.

Despite my overall good impressions, I find the consistency of the document very lacking. Most of the most contentious issues from 5th edition are covered very clearly, but many of the new mechanics and changes being introduced, such as "Actions," changes to the cover system, and some of the changes to blast/template/exotic weapons are all a bit difficult to read. Errors that really shouldn't be in anything but the coarsest of 1st drafts are everywhere (2+ Power armour? that should have been caught upon typing, but I digress...).

One other gripe I have is that the Instant Death/Eternal Warrior interaction is not very clearly stated. The system (as I understand it) is fine, it's just not presented very well. It isn't very clear whether EW(1) negates wounds from high-S weapons, even if such a weapon inflicts ID(2) or (3) by some means.

That is: does an S10 Force Weapon which inflicts ID(2) from the Channel power inflict 1+1 or 1+3 wounds on a T4, EW(1) model? A simple "models with EW never suffer more than 1 additional wound from higher levels of ID" OR "if the weapon's ID level is greater than the target's EW level, treat the model as if it did not have the EW rule at all" would easily fix this issue, depending on which result was desired. Meh, I guess I just feel like it's vague enough to potentially cause more than a few arguments during a game.

All things considered though, I'm reasonably satisfied with the general direction these rules take the game. In other words, I'm happy if these are an indication of what 6th ed will be like, but I'll be pretty disappointed if the final product isn't significantly cleaned up compared to this draft.