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.

beasts ignore terrain altogether!

I've discovered that if a rule change could possibly benefit Necrons in any way, in 6th edition it will.

Necrons release.
Community: "Wow - decent codex - not overpowered but has some strong combos and works well overall. Good job GW!"
GW: LOLNEWEDITION
Community: "Um. So everything we just said about the Necron codex? Yeah. What were you thinking?"

wyomingfox wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:1. Buffs to psykers. Tyranids can field what, 15 psykers in an army? Maybe more? They commonly field five or more-- more psykers than any other army.

If we took 9 Zoes, 2 HQ, and 6 Genestealer Broods with Broodlords, we would max out at 17 Psychers. We would also be tabled by turn 2. Most Tyranid players don't run Zoes or Broodlords due to thier expense. The most psychers you typically see is 5 and that is with Tervigon Spam lists. Otherwise 2-3 is more common. You are probably thinking of Grey Knights .

But I I took 2 Tyrants as HQs, a full brood of zoes, and a tervigon as a troop, thats 6

Quark wrote:Edit: double post?

Dakka is making ghosted double posts lately, has been for the entire weekend.

To your comment about shooting yourself out of assault range --it happens in 5e all the time. There are plenty of instances where i say "no, i don't want to shoot with that unit; i'd rather make sure i have range to assault."

Quark wrote:

Baronyu wrote:On the bright side, we now get to fire our pistols before charging!

I'll laugh the first time an assault unit shoots itself out of range. Unless it's me.

My guess is the assault phase would be a mini game turn.
1) Assualt unit
2) Charging unit fires pistols, charged unit overwatch
3) Start chopping things to bits

tetrisphreak wrote:

Quark wrote:Edit: double post?

Dakka is making ghosted double posts lately, has been for the entire weekend.

To your comment about shooting yourself out of assault range --it happens in 5e all the time. There are plenty of instances where i say "no, i don't want to shoot with that unit; i'd rather make sure i have range to assault."

A least allocation makes it less likely with the prised melta at the front.

GoDz BuZzSaW wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:

Quark wrote:Edit: double post?

Dakka is making ghosted double posts lately, has been for the entire weekend.

To your comment about shooting yourself out of assault range --it happens in 5e all the time. There are plenty of instances where i say "no, i don't want to shoot with that unit; i'd rather make sure i have range to assault."

A least allocation makes it less likely with the prised melta at the front.

Yeah meltas and flamers will still find their way to the fronts of squads. I foresee a lot of "Look out!" saves being taken on models holding the prized special weaponry.

With the new remove casualties from the front, I'm predicting the fall of the flamer (and liquefier, and anything else flamer like). The only reason you would NEED a flame template is if you play a redeemer or pyrovore or some unit thats either vehicle or pure flamer.

Flamers can still work fine not in the front of the unit. It just take some care with placement.

Actually, if we count the shooting we now get before an assault, what will the mathammer says about the wyches' chance? Assuming we're sending 10 wyches against a full 10 tactical squad...

Splinter pistol x 10 - 6.67 hits - 3.33 wounds - 2.22 dead marines after save

Amateur mathammer there, hope I've done it right... Now, I was gonna do the death count for wyches next, but my lack of experience is hurting me right now, as I have not an idea what a typical tact squad would take at 10 men, I'm assuming a flamer is mostly standard now with overwatch... So, if anyone could be so nice to finish this death count for me I'd be a very happy dark eldar...

Fetterkey wrote:

wuestenfux wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:You know, if your Wyches assault 10 Marines, you take a mighty 1.48 casualties with Feel no Pain up-- not exactly a devastating blow. As I said earlier, the impact of Overwatch is vastly overblown. Unless you're charging Burna Boyz, it's not something to really worry about.

Burna Boys are better shot down anyway.

Quite. In most games, Overwatch-- like Snap Fire-- will mean nothing but perhaps a few lucky hits over the course of a game, and the few units that are dangerous when overwatching can be dealt with by means other than assault.

It does however do away with the ridiculous level of abstraction involved with your unit just standing there, presumably discussing the merits of diesel or petrol engines in cars, while the enemy just charges in to hack you to bits!

It's definitely one of the better looking changes in this edition I think.

Pacific wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:

wuestenfux wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:You know, if your Wyches assault 10 Marines, you take a mighty 1.48 casualties with Feel no Pain up-- not exactly a devastating blow. As I said earlier, the impact of Overwatch is vastly overblown. Unless you're charging Burna Boyz, it's not something to really worry about.

Burna Boys are better shot down anyway.

Quite. In most games, Overwatch-- like Snap Fire-- will mean nothing but perhaps a few lucky hits over the course of a game, and the few units that are dangerous when overwatching can be dealt with by means other than assault.

It does however do away with the ridiculous level of abstraction involved with your unit just standing there, presumably discussing the merits of diesel or petrol engines in cars, while the enemy just charges in to hack you to bits!

It's definitely one of the better looking changes in this edition I think.

Does it really do away with the abstraction though? OH NO IM A WELL DRILLED AND EXPERIENCED SOLDIER AND THE ENEMY ARE 30 METERS AWAY FROM MEEEEE!!! LETS NOT HIT THEM! INSTEAD IM GOING TO NOT HIT A BARN DOOR SOMEWHERE FAR ABOVE THEIR HEADS!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I agree its better though

I don't think many players will stick their special weapons in the front. Even with Look out Sir rules, any chance of losing the useful model is to much of a chance to be worth taking.

Its definitely a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of system for flamers/melta. You want to be close so you can get range. The problem is, if you decide to stay close, you either will be a) vulnerable to return fire because you're in the front rank or b). vulnerable to blast because all of your guys are clumped up closely at the front of the squad's position.

I personally like the rule, because I can foresee it driving people to make manueverable armies. Right now, its all about volume of fire attempting to make the special weapon guys take wounds and fail saves. If casualities are directional, it will make the game about manuvering. Bikes, Scourges, infiltrators, etc all become very good at shooting squads; either risking the guy's special weapon or forcing him to position it awkwardly.

Did anyone find out what the force weapon ap is?

Just wondering what options to take on my Grey Knight Terminators before I put them together.

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Did anyone find out what the force weapon ap is?

Just wondering what options to take on my Grey Knight Terminators before I put them together.

Magnets!

I personally like the rule

I like the rule too because the whole 'hidden super weapon that always dies last' system has only ever benefited a handful of armies. Many specialist armies have the entire unit armed with the same expensive weaponry and always lose something of value when they lose a model. The ablative wounds concept is imbalanced because it doesn't treat everyone fairly.

Baronyu wrote:Actually, if we count the shooting we now get before an assault, what will the mathammer says about the wyches' chance? Assuming we're sending 10 wyches against a full 10 tactical squad...

Splinter pistol x 10 - 6.67 hits - 3.33 wounds - 2.22 dead marines after save

Amateur mathammer there, hope I've done it right... Now, I was gonna do the death count for wyches next, but my lack of experience is hurting me right now, as I have not an idea what a typical tact squad would take at 10 men, I'm assuming a flamer is mostly standard now with overwatch... So, if anyone could be so nice to finish this death count for me I'd be a very happy dark eldar...

Interesting, I never knew Space Marines failed 2 thirds of their 3+ saves on average.

Pacific wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:

wuestenfux wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:You know, if your Wyches assault 10 Marines, you take a mighty 1.48 casualties with Feel no Pain up-- not exactly a devastating blow. As I said earlier, the impact of Overwatch is vastly overblown. Unless you're charging Burna Boyz, it's not something to really worry about.

Burna Boys are better shot down anyway.

Quite. In most games, Overwatch-- like Snap Fire-- will mean nothing but perhaps a few lucky hits over the course of a game, and the few units that are dangerous when overwatching can be dealt with by means other than assault.

It does however do away with the ridiculous level of abstraction involved with your unit just standing there, presumably discussing the merits of diesel or petrol engines in cars, while the enemy just charges in to hack you to bits!

It's definitely one of the better looking changes in this edition I think.

You mean the abstraction where there was an entire section of the assault rules titled "Defenders React" which described the reaction that defenders had when assaulted which was to prepare properly for the ensuing combat and get to grips with their opponent.

Not to mention the entire turn structure is an abstraction for simultaneous events, so what you did while they charged you was shoot at whoever you shot in your previous turn.

I wouldn't mind this Overwatch change so much if it were done in lieu of the defenders fighting in the ensuing melee, not only does that make a lot more sense than what we have now, but it gives the shooty armies their defense against melee without skewing the balance of melee away from specialists and more towards all rounder units.

What I'm really dreading though, is when units with Counter Attack are still allowed to take their overwatch shooting, explain to me why some supposedly ferocious Space Wolves who leap headlong at their attackers should get to unleash an extra volley of bolter fire while doing so but my assaulting units aren't allowed to fire their weapons during the assault phase.

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Did anyone find out what the force weapon ap is?

Just wondering what options to take on my Grey Knight Terminators before I put them together.

I've got a bid of Sad Face Sydrome, I love Power Armoured GKs and they've taken a real hit, but now they could have a 4+ Inv in combat, Although i'd take Termie killing power over a 4+ inv any day

Charge at a squadron of three Punisher LRBs w/ Heavy Bolters and Heavy Stubbers..... watch unit get torn apart with SnapFire

Therion wrote:

I personally like the rule

I like the rule too because the whole 'hidden super weapon that always dies last' system has only ever benefited a handful of armies. Many specialist armies have the entire unit armed with the same expensive weaponry and always lose something of value when they lose a model. The ablative wounds concept is imbalanced because it doesn't treat everyone fairly.

I agree with you on the fact it doesn't treat eveyone fairly.. but just not in the way you are thinking.

When I think about alibative wounds, I think about one of the worst troop choices in the game... the SM tact squad. You are paying for... and MUST pay for, 8 very expensive alibative wounds.

I don't think any army truly LIKES alibative wounds. I don't think any ork player ever said "hmm, wish I had some normal boyz mixed in with my burnaz," or a DE player that didn't take 3-4 trueborn with blasters with zero alibatives.

So in my opinion, the new system actually treats these sort of alibative wound more fairly because now you know (provided you positioned properly) the enemy MUST kill 4 space marines before he gets your melta, rather than wound wrapping to get him. In my opinion is that before, it was somewhat unfair because many players HAD to take these lousy alibative wounds, that didn't want to take them at all.

edit: double post strikes again in this thread.

edit: and now my original quote/post disappeared.

N.I.B. wrote:
If FNP unlike currently won't work on Instant Death, along with nerfed cover saves, it sounds like GW have sold their last Tyranid Warriors and Raveners. That's basically a huge nerf to FNP overall, regardless if it gets a slight boost when used on MC's.

A shame, I really thought 6th ed would unlock the 75% of my codex that I can't deploy outside beer&pretzel games. Instead the viable pool of units got even smaller. Look how the mighty Genestealers have fallen.

Last I checked, FNP doesn't work versus ID currently so that's not a change. You're trading a 4+ that is negated by ap1-2 and power weapons for an otherwise always there 5+ (ID notwithstanding of course).

As for genestealers, I suspect their viability would hinge on the assault into cover rules. Does anyone know if you're still going last if you don't have frag grenade equivalents?

Drunkspleen wrote:

Pacific wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:

wuestenfux wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:You know, if your Wyches assault 10 Marines, you take a mighty 1.48 casualties with Feel no Pain up-- not exactly a devastating blow. As I said earlier, the impact of Overwatch is vastly overblown. Unless you're charging Burna Boyz, it's not something to really worry about.

Burna Boys are better shot down anyway.

Quite. In most games, Overwatch-- like Snap Fire-- will mean nothing but perhaps a few lucky hits over the course of a game, and the few units that are dangerous when overwatching can be dealt with by means other than assault.

It does however do away with the ridiculous level of abstraction involved with your unit just standing there, presumably discussing the merits of diesel or petrol engines in cars, while the enemy just charges in to hack you to bits!

It's definitely one of the better looking changes in this edition I think.

You mean the abstraction where there was an entire section of the assault rules titled "Defenders React" which described the reaction that defenders had when assaulted which was to prepare properly for the ensuing combat and get to grips with their opponent.

Not to mention the entire turn structure is an abstraction for simultaneous events, so what you did while they charged you was shoot at whoever you shot in your previous turn.

I wouldn't mind this Overwatch change so much if it were done in lieu of the defenders fighting in the ensuing melee, not only does that make a lot more sense than what we have now, but it gives the shooty armies their defense against melee without skewing the balance of melee away from specialists and more towards all rounder units.

What I'm really dreading though, is when units with Counter Attack are still allowed to take their overwatch shooting, explain to me why some supposedly ferocious Space Wolves who leap headlong at their attackers should get to unleash an extra volley of bolter fire while doing so but my assaulting units aren't allowed to fire their weapons during the assault phase.

If you had to choose between full shots at standard BS, or CC attacks, then instead of would make sense. Otherwise at BS1 99% of the time you'd be better off just trying to hit back anyway.

Now I wouldn't mind that either, as it would be more beneficial to my Tau, but hey.

When I think about alibative wounds, I think about one of the worst troop choices in the game... the SM tact squad

I think Grey Hunters or Blood Angel Assault Squads, some of the best troop choices in the game, that can spend 5 or 10 points for anti-tank versatility that in 5th edition stays with the squad untill the very last model.

Anyone got the new pen chart?

Drunkspleen wrote:

Baronyu wrote:Actually, if we count the shooting we now get before an assault, what will the mathammer says about the wyches' chance? Assuming we're sending 10 wyches against a full 10 tactical squad...

Splinter pistol x 10 - 6.67 hits - 3.33 wounds - 2.22 dead marines after save

Amateur mathammer there, hope I've done it right... Now, I was gonna do the death count for wyches next, but my lack of experience is hurting me right now, as I have not an idea what a typical tact squad would take at 10 men, I'm assuming a flamer is mostly standard now with overwatch... So, if anyone could be so nice to finish this death count for me I'd be a very happy dark eldar...

Interesting, I never knew Space Marines failed 2 thirds of their 3+ saves on average.

Oops, I did say it's noob mathammer!

So..hmm.. 1.11 dead after save? So... I don't think the death count would be that different for the wyches with only 1 dead marine then...

Mohoc wrote:Anyone got the new pen chart?

Yes, we've hidden in this thread's 80+ pages. Have fun finding it!

rigeld2 wrote:Necrons release.
Community: "Wow - decent codex - not overpowered but has some strong combos and works well overall. Good job GW!"
GW: LOLNEWEDITION
Community: "Um. So everything we just said about the Necron codex? Yeah. What were you thinking?"

This did make me giggle and nod a bit.

Too early to tell of course, but Necrons are looking incredibly strong. Both as an army and allies.

Anyone know if you can only use Allies if you are playing 2v2, or can it be used in casual 1v1 games? Or do both you and your opponent have to be using them? And does 'Unholy Alliance' mean that you'll probably have to make a sort of check to see if your allies start beating on your own dudes?

DarthDiggler wrote:I'm pretty sure most major North American tournaments will allow allies as some army books are unplayable without them. It's really not that bad in practice.

As for the Necron Phalanx being back, I thought losing an assault and getting the whole unit run down killed that unit? Are negative modifiers to morale in a losing assault gone? Otherwise I don't see 12 warriors and a Phaeron being around very long on the tabletop.

maybe not on foot, but a Ghost Ark filled with warriors and a couple of Lanceteks/StormTeks is now an anti-tank gunboat.

Zakriv wrote:Anyone know if you can only use Allies if you are playing 2v2, or can it be used in casual 1v1 games? Or do both you and your opponent have to be using them? And does 'Unholy Alliance' mean that you'll probably have to make a sort of check to see if your allies start beating on your own dudes?

Everything from the 'confirmed' says that the default list includes allies for every game.
So 1v1 pickup games at 1500pts.
Of course, every allied unit takes points away from your main army.

Battle Brothers = Work as a single unified force, ICs can join allied units, allied ICs can join main force units etc.
Allies of Convenience = Basically bringing 2 seperate armies, that work independantly.
Desperate Allies = If any allied units are within 6" of regular units at the start of a turn, they need to roll a D6 and on a roll of a 1, they just sit there and do nothing.