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.

Can't assault out of a webway portal? FFS

Sigvatr wrote:

Thunderfrog wrote:Stupid ass Necrons. This edition had a lot of potential. Every ruling seems to be a big buff for them.

About time we get back from trash tier.

you mean like they have been since re-release?

Here is the real statment that is true, DA DW got a huge buff from almost the entire new ruleset, same with RW its about time we get back from the trash tier

Fafnir wrote:

matphat wrote:I don't feel like Orks did too bad really.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/456724.page

Orkz will do okay, but the Orkz I liked playing will not. Shame, really.

On a whole though, these FAQs are really poorly done. A lot of stuff is rushed or doesn't really make sense in context. Really a bad way to handle the launch of a new edition.

Also, Necrons are ridiculous now.

Man I remember the FAQ that you wrote, it was awesome.
Definitely better than the ones that GW released which have been generally very positively received by the community.

Joey wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

matphat wrote:I don't feel like Orks did too bad really.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/456724.page

Orkz will do okay, but the Orkz I liked playing will not. Shame, really.

On a whole though, these FAQs are really poorly done. A lot of stuff is rushed or doesn't really make sense in context. Really a bad way to handle the launch of a new edition.

Also, Necrons are ridiculous now.

Man I remember the FAQ that you wrote, it was awesome.
Definitely better than the ones that GW released which have been generally very positively received by the community.

You don't have to be Ceasar to understand Ceasar. Just because I don't write the FAQs doesn't mean I can't tell when they're bad. It's like saying I can't tell a good movie from a bad one because I've never directed one. Or that I can't tell crap food from good food because I don't cook.

I expect them to do a good job with their product because I pay them to when I buy their products.

whembly wrote:

streamdragon wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Holy crap...Flash Gitz now ignore cover.
They have suddenly gotten a hell lot cooler ^^

Flash Gitz are cooler, but unfortunately they're still in the over stacked Heavy Support slot.

Play 2k points.... you can buy BW for your gitz!

play 2k points and you get 2 FOC's, nid issues evaporate when you have pretty much infinite FOC slots.
orks? well Im not looking forward to trying to pull boy casualties out of base to base and then pile in a ton of guys, several times per close combat, if anyone can figure out an easier way of doing this i'm all ears.

Fafnir wrote:

Joey wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

matphat wrote:I don't feel like Orks did too bad really.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/456724.page

Orkz will do okay, but the Orkz I liked playing will not. Shame, really.

On a whole though, these FAQs are really poorly done. A lot of stuff is rushed or doesn't really make sense in context. Really a bad way to handle the launch of a new edition.

Also, Necrons are ridiculous now.

Man I remember the FAQ that you wrote, it was awesome.
Definitely better than the ones that GW released which have been generally very positively received by the community.

You don't have to be Ceasar to understand Ceasar. Just because I don't write the FAQs doesn't mean I can't tell when they're bad.

I expect them to do a good job with their product because I pay them to when I buy their products.

The FAQs are free. Do you have a problem with the models or the ruleset?
If you have a problem with the models, demand a refund. If you have a problem with the ruleset, don't buy the book and get your friends to play 4th/5th edition, whatever.
In fact in a couple of months the rulebook will basically be free with the new starter set.

A couple of other musings;


It appears Monstrous Creatures get cover saves from area terrain or intervening models. At least, at this point--I see nothing under Monstrous Creatures that disallows this. I would think that Tyranid players would rejoice at this--a flying Tyrant that needs 6s to hit, can jink for a 5+ save in the open--- and can claim cover if any units are between it and the shooter seems a great deal more survivable. Potentially even greater if Night Fight is in affect--Jink + Night Fight + 2d6 run = a monstrous horror in your face in a hurry---that's really tough to kill.

Night Fight Scythe spam seems like a lot of fun as well. Can't assault me, I'll block assault lanes with my base---oh and if you get several hits on my Scythe, I'll declare Evade which gives me a 3++. Snapfire the next turn on Twin Linked Tesla isn't that big of a deal either...

At least in theory

Looks like Yarrick won't be helping anyone out but the Guard.

So unfortunately i haven't got the new rule book yet, so can someone tell me what the new rage rule is please

+2 attack rather than +1 when charging into assault.

Joey wrote:
The FAQs are free. Do you have a problem with the models or the ruleset?
If you have a problem with the models, demand a refund. If you have a problem with the ruleset, don't buy the book and get your friends to play 4th/5th edition, whatever.
In fact in a couple of months the rulebook will basically be free with the new starter set.

The FAQs are free, but a service provided as an extension to the codecies and rulebooks which are paid for, and are done in the interests of maintaining the game for the purpose of making the books and rules viable to sell/be bought. In other words, they fix an otherwise broken product.

Furthermore, I am justified in my criticism of 6th edition, as it is an indicator of the direction that the public community at large (ie, the people I primarily play with) will end up going in. You can no longer go to any public game and request an earlier edition.

And lastly, there's nothing wrong with pointing something out for what it is: poorly written and rushed.

I love the rule book, but the FAQs are terrible.

Fafnir wrote:

Joey wrote:
The FAQs are free. Do you have a problem with the models or the ruleset?
If you have a problem with the models, demand a refund. If you have a problem with the ruleset, don't buy the book and get your friends to play 4th/5th edition, whatever.
In fact in a couple of months the rulebook will basically be free with the new starter set.

The FAQs are free, but a service provided as an extension to the codecies and rulebooks which are paid for, and are done in the interests of maintaining the game for the purpose of making the books and rules viable to sell/be bought. In other words, they fix an otherwise broken product.

Furthermore, I am justified in my criticism of 6th edition, as it is an indicator of the direction that the public community at large (ie, the people I primarily play with) will end up going in. You can no longer go to any public game and request an earlier edition.

And lastly, there's nothing wrong with pointing something out for what it is: poorly written and rushed.

No, YOU think they're rubbish. Most people are hugely positive about the FAQs. Your mindset is to critisise everything GW do and you currupt everything to it. There are hundreds of points of information in the FAQs and you've picked on two or three and decided that they break the game.
The new rules editions make some things more viable, some things less viable. This is a concequence of a new ruleset. Everything can't be a winner...

Joey wrote:
If you have a problem with the models, demand a refund. If you have a problem with the ruleset, don't buy the book and get your friends to play 4th/5th edition, whatever.
In fact in a couple of months the rulebook will basically be free with the new starter set.

So people can't be upset because their armies changed? We've all done our part funding the company and it's not like we're going there with torches, people are just venting. Now, can we get back to doing that without that faulty logic of "you don't write FAQs therefore you can't complain"? If it bothers you that much, don't post.

On topic, it seems that at least there's a reason to take DE Reavers with Heat Lances and a Squad Leader. And Scourges, perhaps.

I'm still hoping Agonizers and Klaives will get AP2.

And, I don't really get the power axe. It's got the same penalties as a Power Fist without being even half as good?

Destrado wrote:

Joey wrote:
If you have a problem with the models, demand a refund. If you have a problem with the ruleset, don't buy the book and get your friends to play 4th/5th edition, whatever.
In fact in a couple of months the rulebook will basically be free with the new starter set.

So people can't be upset because their armies changed? We've all done our part funding the company and it's not like we're going there with torches, people are just venting. Now, can we get back to doing that without that faulty logic of "you don't write FAQs therefore you can't complain"? If it bothers you that much, don't post.

New ruleset. Things change. Venting is fine I suppose.

Joey wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

Joey wrote:
The FAQs are free. Do you have a problem with the models or the ruleset?
If you have a problem with the models, demand a refund. If you have a problem with the ruleset, don't buy the book and get your friends to play 4th/5th edition, whatever.
In fact in a couple of months the rulebook will basically be free with the new starter set.

The FAQs are free, but a service provided as an extension to the codecies and rulebooks which are paid for, and are done in the interests of maintaining the game for the purpose of making the books and rules viable to sell/be bought. In other words, they fix an otherwise broken product.

Furthermore, I am justified in my criticism of 6th edition, as it is an indicator of the direction that the public community at large (ie, the people I primarily play with) will end up going in. You can no longer go to any public game and request an earlier edition.

And lastly, there's nothing wrong with pointing something out for what it is: poorly written and rushed.

No, YOU think they're rubbish. Most people are hugely positive about the FAQs. Your mindset is to critisise everything GW do and you currupt everything to it. There are hundreds of points of information in the FAQs and you've picked on two or three and decided that they break the game.
The new rules editions make some things more viable, some things less viable. This is a concequence of a new ruleset. Everything can't be a winner...

After reading 9 pages of Faq's postings in here, the senses is that the FaQ's were written poorly. and I agree with that assessment.

I'm just glad thousand sons and Stormtroopers are now finally useful.

Therion wrote:. Anti-aircraft guns are not used to effectively kill for example enemy infantry, and this rule represents that well.

Above statement is anything but true. While it holds for the game historically these kinds of vehicles are VERY effective against infantry and lightly armored vehicles. But I digress. Good to see the FAWS up so quickly hopefully they keep them updates as necessary.

I like how Grey Knights all have unique force weapons, which IRRC means they're all AP3. This makes me giggle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6P_sXbQtgc&t=8m52s

Thaylen wrote:

MoD_Legion wrote:

Snufflesms wrote:TAU Battlesuits can no longer take Target Locks, which means they cannot split fire between the suits. This is a massive hit to Broadsides.

I noticed this as well, unless there is a rule change somewhere that allows you to split fire. If not, its pretty fethed up :(.

Can someone confirm if you are now allowed to split fire by default in 6th edition? Because if this isn't the case, I can't see why GW would remove target locks.

Personally they were required for broadsides (and piranhas when I used them).

The really bizarre thing is they removed Target Locks from the infantry armoury, but didn't remove them from the vehicle armoury or Commander Shadowsun.

How are DE nerfed? I mean they lost some edge but they are hardly unusable/broken.... aside from that damned WWP ruling... heres hoping for v2 in the near future....

RogueRegault wrote:

Thaylen wrote:

MoD_Legion wrote:

Snufflesms wrote:TAU Battlesuits can no longer take Target Locks, which means they cannot split fire between the suits. This is a massive hit to Broadsides.

I noticed this as well, unless there is a rule change somewhere that allows you to split fire. If not, its pretty fethed up :(.

Can someone confirm if you are now allowed to split fire by default in 6th edition? Because if this isn't the case, I can't see why GW would remove target locks.

Personally they were required for broadsides (and piranhas when I used them).

The really bizarre thing is they removed Target Locks from the infantry armoury, but didn't remove them from the vehicle armoury or Commander Shadowsun.

Not really it is actually expected, remember this edition vehicles are papper thin, if they allowed to split fire 3 crisis suits would anihilate your oponents meq.

chaos0xomega wrote:How are DE nerfed? I mean they lost some edge but they are hardly unusable/broken.... aside from that damned WWP ruling... heres hoping for v2 in the near future....

Overwatch hurts wychs more than most units. Wychs taking 2, 3 or even 4 wounds when they are assaulting is a huge nerf, not only to their combat strength (they rely on striking at near full strength thanks to their high Initiative) but also their assault range (higher variance, slightly less than 5th with a likely further loss of range from overwatch). Wychs also no have no answer to 2+ armour, where as before they could engage with an agonizer and 4+ dodge.

Wychs were one of the main ways you could get away from venom spam.

WWP was another one.

Both these options are much less effective in 6th than they were in 5th.

The speed bonus that DE have in general has been diluted with giving all vehicles a flat out move. While they can still move farther, the difference has been reduced.

Essentially venom spam is really the only solid option left. We'll see if a hellion build gets added to that, but never the less certainly many options have been made weaker.

Therion wrote:

It's because you haven't read the rulebook. If your weapon has skyfire, you hit skimmers and flyers and flying MCs with normal BS, but you hit ground targets with 6's. Skyfire makes a weapon an anti-aircraft gun. Anti-aircraft guns are not used to effectively kill for example enemy infantry, and this rule represents that well.

Hah, tell that to the infantry and tankers during WWII who went up against the German 88's, or those quad 20mm anti-aircraft guns. Yeah, I KNOW 40K isn't reality, but that's not exactly a valid explanation as to why it's that way. I don't have a problem with it, since I'm pretty sure it was done for game balance purposes, but it probably means that Hydras will not be seen as much on the battlefield since their utility for taking out lighter armored units is now severely limited as compared to what it was before.

Sigvatr wrote:

Thunderfrog wrote:Stupid ass Necrons. This edition had a lot of potential. Every ruling seems to be a big buff for them.

About time we get back from trash tier.

Hi.

I'm a Tyranid. After your codex re-release I don't ever recall you being down here. With 6th I certain don't recall you coming down here. In fact, last I saw you were over there brofisting Blood Angels and Grey Knights while our Genestealer Cults have been forgotten for the 3rd edition in a row.

Marrak wrote:

You're forgetting the gun options for both, and being flyers aren't subject to the "only hit on 6." The harpy has an option for a twin-linked venom cannon, and the flyrant has either the venom cannon or twin linked devourers. The venom cannon can outright pen most vehicles, and the devs can have a decent chance of removing one or two hull points, depending if you take one or two pair. Also, if you're using your flyrant for synapse support, you're not getting the most out of him, but he's fast enough to get someplace to patch holes in enemy lines if your other synapse is taken out.

Flying Monstrous Creatures do not have the option to fire their weapons as Skyfire like Flying vehicles do.

streamdragon wrote:Holy messed up quotes Batman!

Marrak wrote:You're forgetting the gun options for both, and being flyers aren't subject to the "only hit on 6." The harpy has an option for a twin-linked venom cannon, and the flyrant has either the venom cannon or twin linked devourers. The venom cannon can outright pen most vehicles, and the devs can have a decent chance of removing one or two hull points, depending if you take one or two pair. Also, if you're using your flyrant for synapse support, you're not getting the most out of him, but he's fast enough to get someplace to patch holes in enemy lines if your other synapse is taken out.

I'm not forgetting them, they're just not that good. S6 for Devourer is the same str as their Vector Strike, so you're still rolling 6s just to glance. (After using your stellar BS of 3, mind you.) The Heavy Venom Cannon is literally the only weapon I can think of that still gets a penalty to the damage table. Sure, it'll glance (assuming you can hit with your BS3 and no twin link) fairly easily, but the HT/Harpy will run out of wounds before enemy fliers run out of HP it seems. I'm not saying it's not possible, just that our anti-air is probably the worst in the game. (Which is sort of ironic, considering the number of "flying" units we have...)

And I'm aware the Hive Tyrant isn't usually used for main Synapse. My point was when (not if) your other synapse goes down, if your HT is off chasing flyers shooting up your other stuff, they're not plugging that hole. (Although again, that might not really matter much anymore...)

Both of you need to read the rulebook before getting into arguments about non-existent rules. You especially, Marrak. If you're going to cite an advantage you might want to confirm that it, y'know, actually exists.

Flying Monstrous Creatures do not use their normal BS when shooting at a Flyer. This was a rumour. It is not in the actual rulebook.

Flyers can choose to adopt the Skyfire USR on a turn-by-turn basis, in order to hunt other Flyers. Flying Monstrous Creatures are not Flyers. They can't do this. Hopefully it will get FAQed at some later date.

Edit: lol, nice double-team, RogueRegault. He deserved it, though. There's nothing more infuriating than someone spouting off in absolute terms about rules they clearly haven't read for themselves yet.

Wow..

I... did not expect to see FAQs today.

Compel wrote:Hydra's did.

I've not found anything else relating to it so far.

No 'flakk missile' options either :(

Flak missiles are in the main rulebook missile launcher entry.

Many thanks for the link !!!!