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.

All I'm going to say is the 2k Force Org chart....

*Trollface*

As a Tyranid player my biggest issue was the fact I was restricted to 6 troops choices before. 12? DIAMONDS.

But, no, I don't think we'll see a return of big bugs. Carnifexes are still horrendously overpointed for what they actually do and with the AP and penetration rules being questionable at the moment the Tyrannofex is looking more and more like an easter egg.

My personal plan - Flying Circus.

2 Winged Tyrants
Parasite of Mortrex
Termagants
Tervigon
Termagants
Tervigon
Hormagaunts
Hormagaunts
DS spinefist Rippers
DS spinefist Rippers
Gargoyles
Gargoyles
Shrikes

And some Zoeys,Venomthropes and more Zoeys. And a Doom.

If the ID rules have changed the way most are thinking? The Doom of Malantai just became an abomination.

Vaktathi wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:. This wasn't a problem in fourth because transports were prohibitively expensive and anti vehicle weaponry was still cheap, but the opportunity cost of transports became too good and obvious when the majority of them dropped 33% or more in cost.

Don't forget that in 4th, any penetrating hit forced passengers to disembark, vehicles were killed on a 4+ pen and 6+ glance, all pen's also stunned, and passengers were automatically pinned if the transport died, passengers took wounds on a 4+ if the vehicle was destroyed and took wounds on 4+ with rerolls if it exploded. Also, vehicles couldn't get cover saves, they could only get "hull down" which downgraded a pen to a glance on a 4+. In addition to being more expensive, being unable to hold objectives while embarked, etc.

hence why you only saw transports on Skimmer armies where they couldn't be penetrated and typically had lots of wargear that ignored skimmer drawbacks, and they were non-existent anywhere else.


There was a lot more to 4E transport discouragement besides just cost and availability of AT weapons. They were either invincible skimmers or they didn't see the table.

I think you'd still see them were all those prohibitive rules still in the game. Firepower increased dramatically over the course of fifth edition. Walking squads across the table in the current meta is virtual suicide in a format where you can fit 15 missile launchers in 500 points and one IG tank can have five plasma canons. 35 points to negate an instance of incoming fire is exceptionally powerful. That 35 points is often times the difference between having or not having a squad at all, regardless of the state they are left in post transport death. If the transports got to travel their 12 inches at all thats an improvement vs the ~2 turns it would of taken the squad to walk there.

Imagine this, an assault squad gets first turn and moves up 12 inches, they are now 24 inches up the table. The halfway point. A longfang squad kills their transport and they are pinned. Contrast this to walking, first turn they walk then run for 9.5 inches. The longfang squad fires and kills ~4. That 35 point transport investment got you 2.5 inches farther up the board and saved four marines (a value almost twice the rhinos cost). Is it better to be farther up and pinned or free to move farther back with half a squad?

pretre wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:Yeah but how many Tau players will be glad they got Furious Charge on their commander? Probably none unless they're playing Farsight in which case he would become awesome (S6 and I6 on the charge with a Power Weapon? Yes please).

I think the idea is that you pick one of those three lists for your commander. The Tau commander wouldn't pick the personal list.

That's fair enough but there'll probably be some of those Personal bonuses which will actually help. Though Strategy is most likely to be the most useful of the commander bonuses. Hopefully it'll have something like accurate deep strike or calling in reinforcements.

Dracos wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:The warlord traits make me physically angry. I think that more than anything else in this edition could drive me out of 40k. It's like everyones leader gets to feel like a chaos possessed marine now. I mean, what the hell. Furious charge in your opponants deployment zone and counter attack in yours is on the same d6. Those are diametrically opposed tactics and whether it's useful at all is based entirely on your army.

This edition is taking any semblance of army construction and tactics and it's throwing it out the goddamn window. GW is killing itself.

The Warlord bonus should be thought of as a possible bonus. Not something to build the army around. It would be ABSURD to hope for a certain result.

Seems like you will have games were one side randomly hits the jackpot on one roll right at the start and gets a distinct advantage. Some games they will do nothing.

Its random for the sake of random. This is really the random = fun edition. If you don't agree that random = fun, you're going to have a bad time.

The funny thing is that it's diametrically opposed to the pancake edition that way. There must have been some interesting twists and turns involved with the development of 6th.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:The Warlord bonus should be thought of as a possible bonus. Not something to build the army around. It would be ABSURD to build your army a specific way and then depend on a random Warlord bonus roll.

Yeah but how many Tau players will be glad they got Furious Charge on their commander? Probably none unless they're playing Farsight in which case he would become awesome (S6 and I6 on the charge with a Power Weapon? Yes please).

On many lists I run, most of the results in each of the three sections would be pretty much useless (or not any more helpful to me than they would be to your Tau). Thems the breaks I guess? I'm not a fan of random bonuses (or random psychic powers, do we have confirmation that the core ones are selected at random?).

edit : @ Joe Mama: I don't agree with Shuma as far as how extreme his statement is, but I do agree that some of these random factors, such as random powers, random terrain features and random traits (just the stuff I've seen so far) reduce the importance of strategy and increase the importance of getting a good roll. The sky isn't falling, but I sure don't like those clouds over there.

A Town Called Malus wrote:I think the idea is that you pick one of those three lists for your commander. The Tau commander wouldn't pick the personal list.

That's fair enough but there'll probably be some of those Personal bonuses which will actually help. Though Strategy is most likely to be the most useful of the commander bonuses. Hopefully it'll have something like accurate deep strike or calling in reinforcements.

Joe Mama wrote:

Dracos wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:The warlord traits make me physically angry. I think that more than anything else in this edition could drive me out of 40k. It's like everyones leader gets to feel like a chaos possessed marine now. I mean, what the hell. Furious charge in your opponants deployment zone and counter attack in yours is on the same d6. Those are diametrically opposed tactics and whether it's useful at all is based entirely on your army.

This edition is taking any semblance of army construction and tactics and it's throwing it out the goddamn window. GW is killing itself.

The Warlord bonus should be thought of as a possible bonus. Not something to build the army around. It would be ABSURD to hope for a certain result.

Seems like you will have games were one side randomly hits the jackpot on one roll right at the start and gets a distinct advantage. Some games they will do nothing.

Its random for the sake of random. This is really the random = fun edition. If you don't agree that random = fun, you're going to have a bad time.

I don't like the random Warlord power bit. But it is insane to claim "This edition is taking any semblance of army construction and tactics and it's throwing it out the goddamn window." Why would you not bother with tactics or army construction just because of a random roll for a Warlord power? Of course you would still bother with tactics and army construction. ShumaGorath made an absurd statement, one could even argue "nerdrage" or magical thinking.

random assault rolls, random terrain, random and very powerful leader traits, exceptionally exploitable allies and force org options. I could take a mixed arms assault force, try and position myself as best I can, play to the best of my ability to the games objectives or I could just take six long fang squads and three hydra flak tanks, ignore half the games rules, and table you in short order. This edition is breaking any sense of competition 40k could have. Tactics won't survive the dramatically increased randomness and army construction won't survive the opportunity cost of multi codex min maxing and force org shenanigans.

On the plus side iron warriors can finally have their three basilisks and 18 transforming gun terminators again. Remember how fun that was?

ShumaGorath wrote:There are deeper problems at the core of 40k right now.

: Power creep and unchanged legacy units (tac marines, gaunts, guardians haven't changed since third and are awful)

I don't know too much about Gaunts, but I find Tactical Marines very effective-- thanks largely to changes they've seen since third edition-- and Reecius might have a few words for you about Guardians-- I believe his Footdar made it to the BoLSCon top 8 last weekend before he dropped out due to illness.

ShumaGorath wrote:: The schism between effective and noneffective firepower (A double tapping marine plasma gun does 1.11 wounds to another marine, a bolter does .222, one plasmagun marine does equivalent damage to 2.5 bolter ones and yet only costs about 30% more than a normal marine.) This is a direct imbalance that strongly favors min maxing (which is why you see it everywhere).

How is it unbalanced that weapons specialized against certain targets are good against those targets?

ShumaGorath wrote:: The logical inadequacy of multipurpose units in a game that only lets you do single actions (why take a mixed unit like tacticals or guardians when it's own loadout is contradictory? Can't fire the special and heavy at the same time and neither one is going to be good at killing the thing the bolters are "good" at killing meaning the opportunity cost and thus point value of the weapons themselves is wasted). Again, this directly favors min maxing over taking multipurpose or resilient units.

I just don't find that true. What are the best Troops units in the game right now? Most would say Plague Marines or Grey Hunters, both of which are multipurpose units that can function well at both shooting and assault. Plague Marines are also one of the most resilient units in the game. Further, new rules like Combat Squads allow you to use both special and heavy weapons effectively, and if you want a unit that's truly focused on killing infantry, flamers synergize with bolters just fine.

ShumaGorath wrote::A turn has been removed from shooting since third due to running and combats have been made vastly deadlier, but only some specific units can take advantage. This means that orks hit a tau line a turn earlier and the tau lose the game by default, but tyranids gain little since their turn of impact didn't increase with the addition of the run rules. The way GW has made up for quicker impact of assault units has been to power up shooting dramatically. That makes the game an all or nothing affair of tabling vs getting tabled. It's like a giant slow tower defense game.

This was a problem in 3rd and 4th edition thanks to units consolidating into new assaults, but it is now only against unskilled players that this is threatening. By using screening units, you can mitigate the assault danger. Ironically, Tau are one of the armies that do this best, with Kroot screens and Piranhas to block off enemy movement and absorb initial assaults and keep the guns firing.

ShumaGorath wrote::Transports in defense break the logical flow of the firing phase because an entire 200+ point block of shooting will typically be utilized on a single transport while leaving the occupants unscathed to then utilize their own firepower on the return on a softer and more valuable target. Being forced to sink 8 bolters into the side of a vehicle so that I can also fire 2 meltaguns at it is stupid. It breaks the game. It has always broken the game. It directly favors MSU and min maxing. This wasn't a problem in fourth because transports were prohibitively expensive and anti vehicle weaponry was still cheap, but the opportunity cost of transports became too good and obvious when the majority of them dropped 33% or more in cost.

So the fact that taking armored vehicles to transport and protect your guys protects them "breaks the game?" I don't think so. If anything, I'd say fourth edition transports were expensive and unreliable deathtraps that were far worse for the game than anything 5th edition transports do is.

ShumaGorath wrote:: etc, there are other issues like the lack of a functioning morale system with layers of non working patches, the fundamental imbalance caused by random reserve rolls, exceptionally poor basic mission and deployment design, blah blah.

The morale system is more or less fine, though Leadership should probably be dropped by one across the board. The missions and deployments are also basically fine-- note that several major tournaments have literally just played the missions and deployments from the books and been okay.

ShumaGorath wrote:Sixth edition addresses almost none of these points, adds a lot of uneeded randomness, and makes it easier to minmax through allies and expanded for org selection. It's putting (ugly) lipstick on a pig, this games designers have no idea what they're doing.

Sixth edition addresses almost all of these points. It brings buffs to Tactical Marines, buffs to basic Rapid Fire weapons, buffs to multipurpose units (Snap Fire/Overwatch), nerfs to shooting lethality relative to assault (only models in range/only models in LoS is a giant nerf to shooting), nerfs to transport resilience, and new missions and deployments.

Overall, there aren't really deep problems at the core of 40k right now, and 6th edition does a good job of addressing the minor issues that do exist while also adding new and cinematic mechanics and units. In fact, I'd say that the biggest problem with 40k right now is the fact that mechanized armies can bring their own cover/terrain to the field in the form of vehicles, while nonmechanized armies cannot. This creates an imbalance that favors mechanized armies when playing with inadequate terrain, and sadly tournaments are often known for featuring inadequate amounts of terrain, so this imbalance persists even in tournament play.

However, this is, of course, corrected by 6th edition allowing players to purchase fortifications for their armies. No longer do your IG Heavy Weapon Squads (for instance) end up screwed when the TO sees fit to supply you with Warhammer Fantasy tables-- now, you can bring terrain with you that will guarantee you at least some measure of cover. This is IMO one of the most significant improvements to the game in some time, and I'm looking forward to seeing it play out. The fact that this change opens cool new modelling opportunities is just the icing on the cake.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:. This wasn't a problem in fourth because transports were prohibitively expensive and anti vehicle weaponry was still cheap, but the opportunity cost of transports became too good and obvious when the majority of them dropped 33% or more in cost.

Don't forget that in 4th, any penetrating hit forced passengers to disembark, vehicles were killed on a 4+ pen and 6+ glance, all pen's also stunned, and passengers were automatically pinned if the transport died, passengers took wounds on a 4+ if the vehicle was destroyed and took wounds on 4+ with rerolls if it exploded. Also, vehicles couldn't get cover saves, they could only get "hull down" which downgraded a pen to a glance on a 4+. In addition to being more expensive, being unable to hold objectives while embarked, etc.

hence why you only saw transports on Skimmer armies where they couldn't be penetrated and typically had lots of wargear that ignored skimmer drawbacks, and they were non-existent anywhere else.


There was a lot more to 4E transport discouragement besides just cost and availability of AT weapons. They were either invincible skimmers or they didn't see the table.

I think you'd still see them were all those prohibitive rules still in the game. Firepower increased dramatically over the course of fifth edition. Walking squads across the table in the current meta is virtual suicide in a format where you can fit 15 missile launchers in 500 points and one IG tank can have five plasma canons. 35 points to negate an instance of incoming fire is exceptionally powerful. That 35 points is often times the difference between having or not having a squad at all, regardless of the state they are left in post transport death. If the transports got to travel their 12 inches at all thats an improvement vs the ~2 turns it would of taken the squad to walk there.

Imagine this, an assault squad gets first turn and moves up 12 inches, they are now 24 inches up the table. The halfway point. A longfang squad kills their transport and they are pinned. Contrast this to walking, first turn they walk then run for 9.5 inches. The longfang squad fires and kills ~4. That 35 point transport investment got you 2.5 inches farther up the board and saved four marines (a value almost twice the rhinos cost). Is it better to be farther up and pinned or free to move farther back with half a squad?

Oh, I don't disagree, only pointing out that Transports were utter garbage in the previous editions for other reasons as well that also helps explain their increased popularity, given that they're no longer more of a liability and danger to the squad than the threats they face without one. There was of course also the (very necessary IMO) change to assaults that prevented consolidation into new combats, often resulting in situations where a unit would literally never face enemy fire the entire game.

pretre wrote:@xttz: Most boring army ever. Also, what are you doing about vehicles?

Aside from the fact that it's a gimmick list that would never make it further than Vassal, I'd probably roll 30 times on the new Lore tables. Vortex of Doom baby....

... Now that I think about it, if 2 FOC's becomes reality my admech GK-henchmen army might actually work!

I actually forgot all about allies.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Actually, is that going to break battlescribe? I'll be so annoyed if battlescribe just deuces itself because I'm allowed to make TauDar now

Anyone remember the millions of souls crying out in agony when 3E was released?

Shuma, less "nerdrage" please. I feel like you are frothing at the mouth when I read your posts. I split your comment in two to highlight the lack of coherency in your own argument. (Less rage, more cold logic next time please):

ShumaGorath wrote:random assault rolls, random terrain, random and very powerful leader traits, exceptionally exploitable allies and force org options. .... Tactics won't survive the dramatically increased randomness and army construction won't survive the opportunity cost of multi codex min maxing and force org shenanigans.

ShumaGorath wrote:I could take a mixed arms assault force, try and position myself as best I can, play to the best of my ability to the games objectives or I could just take six long fang squads and three hydra flak tanks, ignore half the games rules, and table you in short order. This edition is breaking any sense of competition 40k could have.

LOL, wut? Why did this middle sentence of yours contradict the rest of your argument? If everything is random, then how could that list do so well? There's no competition because really powerful lists with allies can be built? Doesn't that just mean that the WAAC lists will have to change from the way they are now? They'll be competition, it will just be with different lists than there are now.

Also, there is randomness in the game now. You play off probabilities. Now the chance of getting a 6 inch assault (or better) is X. You know that and plan accordingly. Just as you planned accordingly assaulting into difficult terrain, which wasn't a sure thing in 5th. Also, "random" terrain. You know the odds. You decide whether or not moving through the terrain is worth the risk. So what. Random itself isn't so bad, unless certain rolls can have a huge imbalancing effect on the game. Assault rolls and random terrain don't fall into that category, that's for sure.

Seems like 10 pages are added to this thread every day. I can't keep up :(

In other things, why do people keep suggesting so many 6-man long fang squads?!? 30 missiles isn't necessarily a game changer and so many small man squads are very expensive (both in points and cash) and can be dealt with easily (my executioner will make short work of them with 5 plasma cannons and a lascannon).

Insiders, any word on Forgeworld non-apoc becoming legal?

quilava1 wrote:Seems like 10 pages are added to this thread every day. I can't keep up :(

In other things, why do people keep suggesting so many 6-man long fang squads?!? 30 missiles isn't necessarily a game changer and so many small man squads are very expensive (both in points and cash) and can be dealt with easily (my executioner will make short work of them with 5 plasma cannons and a lascannon).

i didnt check this thread over the weekend because i only dakka at work...but it jumped from 39 to 85, i was like

on random terrain. I HATE it in fantasy, and just dont use it, i really hope the tournament scenes and people i play against feel the same because i HAAAAATTEEE random terrain

/nerdrage

Davylove21 wrote:I actually forgot all about allies.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Actually, is that going to break battlescribe? I'll be so annoyed if battlescribe just deuces itself because I'm allowed to make TauDar now

Worst case - just make 2 lists, 1 with the tau, 1 with the eldar.

I don't know too much about Gaunts, but I find Tactical Marines very effective-- thanks largely to changes they've seen since third edition-- and Reecius might have a few words for you about Guardians-- I believe his Footdar made it to the BoLSCon top 8 last weekend before he dropped out due to illness.

And he did it by basing the army entirely on fighting grey knights. When he didn't fight them he lost. Also, I'll wait to see your tourney results when discussing tacticals. I haven't seen a well placing marine force with tactics that wasn't featuring vulkan in half a decade. They're bad.

How is it unbalanced that weapons specialized against certain targets are good against those targets?

Because they're good against everything else too. That plasma gun also kills orks better, tanks better, monstrous creatures better, everything better. It's not costed correctly, no special or heavy weapon is. The power of special and heavy weapons is mitigated by their total allowance, not their cost. Since allowance is based almost universally on squads taken and not squad size there is no incentive to ever not take minimum squads with maximum firepower. That's the entire basis of MSU. That was the entire basis of razorspam. The entire basis of why longfangs are overpowered. The basis of why IG vet squads (and the rest of that army) is too powerful. Every tourney powerful unit in the game spends its points in singular forms of offensive output.

I just don't find that true. What are the best Troops units in the game right now? Most would say Plague Marines or Grey Hunters, both of which are multipurpose units that can function well at both shooting and assault. Plague Marines are also one of the most resilient units in the game. Further, new rules like Combat Squads allow you to use both special and heavy weapons effectively, and if you want a unit that's truly focused on killing infantry, flamers synergize with bolters just fine.

The best troop unit in the game is the IG vet squad. The second best troop in the game is the inquisitorial henchmen squad. The utility and power of the plaguemarine squad didn't survive the introduction of the IG, wolf, or GK codexes.

Either way both units you just listed are specialized close support firepower units with no long range options and the ability to take multiple special weapons. Both are built to dump out of a transport and fire rather then be good at assaulting since both have assault defense built in. They are based on getting out out of a transport, double tapping, and then still being at near full effectiveness when they get assaulted. They aren't multipurpose, they just fulfill a role that effectively replaces most others (close fire support and anvil status).

This was a problem in 3rd and 4th edition thanks to units consolidating into new assaults, but it is now only against unskilled players that this is threatening. By using screening units, you can mitigate the assault danger. Ironically, Tau are one of the armies that do this best, with Kroot screens and Piranhas to block off enemy movement and absorb initial assaults and keep the guns firing.

Ironically tau still lose to every assault army in the game almost without question. Clearly "screening" isn't doing them a lot of favors.

The morale system is more or less fine, though Leadership should probably be dropped by one across the board. The missions and deployments are also basically fine-- note that several major tournaments have literally just played the missions and deployments from the books and been okay.

You love these rulesets without the ability to question, that is clear. How is a morale system fine when there are all of three codexes out of like 14 that even interact with it? If you discount codexes with access to ATSKNF and fearless you're left with tau, IG, sisters of battle and eldar. Also, the missions in third and fourth directly led to last turn skimmer objective claiming and the missions in fifth featured kill points and dawn of war. Both were plainly unbalancing.

Sixth edition addresses almost all of these points.

No, they just push some numeric values around a bit. Addressing these issues would require a revamping of the basic shooting and movement systems in a way that GW isn't willing to do. If anything shooting appears dramatically more powerful in sixth with the reduction of cover and the removal of easy wound allocation.

Overall, there aren't really deep problems at the core of 40k right now

I expect you would say that if the rulebook was just full of scorpions and asbestos. Some people can be pleased regardless of the reality.

Oh dear, the wall-o-texts are increasing. I think I may have to go back to lurking here...

Note on allies and fluff: fluff is broken already in most games...by the enemies...(how many times do gk fight gk in a tourney? Or space wolves vs. space wolves...etc.). So, what part don't we believe, that Calgar might not take help from aliens or that he would fight against imperial fists?

Ok, back to rumors:
So..rapid fire, where does it stand now; I could not find a confirmation in the reddit text either way.

Fliers: I think we will see them die a lot easier than people think, especially with their low armor (well, not IG, but you get the idea) and low hull points. Dunno, lets wait and play some games.

Nids: If every weapon in the book, any chance someone can look up boneswords in the back? Same thing with warscythes.

Could not find the NEW rules for skyshields: anyone have any idea?

I am excited about the game....maybe it will be better for my armies...maybe not. We shall see.

see you all at the table...

pretre wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

pretre wrote:I think the idea is that you pick one of those three lists for your commander. The Tau commander wouldn't pick the personal list.

That's fair enough but there'll probably be some of those Personal bonuses which will actually help. Though Strategy is most likely to be the most useful of the commander bonuses. Hopefully it'll have something like accurate deep strike or calling in reinforcements.

Yeah, I'd never roll on Personal with Tau. That's just me.

Just found the post in the OP listing the bonuses. Outflanking commander and crisis retinue could be good, same for making him a scoring unit.

The strategic ones look good except for that night fighting one. I'd rather be able to shoot the enemy on my first turn, thank you very much.

Joe Mama wrote:Shuma, less "nerdrage" please. I feel like you are frothing at the mouth when I read your posts. I split your comment in two to highlight the lack of coherency in your own argument. (Less rage, more cold logic next time please):

ShumaGorath wrote:random assault rolls, random terrain, random and very powerful leader traits, exceptionally exploitable allies and force org options. .... Tactics won't survive the dramatically increased randomness and army construction won't survive the opportunity cost of multi codex min maxing and force org shenanigans.

ShumaGorath wrote:I could take a mixed arms assault force, try and position myself as best I can, play to the best of my ability to the games objectives or I could just take six long fang squads and three hydra flak tanks, ignore half the games rules, and table you in short order. This edition is breaking any sense of competition 40k could have.

LOL, wut? Why did this middle sentence of yours contradict the rest of your argument? If everything is random, then how could that list do so well? There's no competition because really powerful lists with allies can be built? Doesn't that just mean that the WAAC lists will have to change from the way they are now? They'll be competition, it will just be with different lists than there are now.

Also, there is randomness in the game now. You play off probabilities. Now the chance of getting a 6 inch assault (or better) is X. You know that and plan accordingly. Just as you planned accordingly assaulting into difficult terrain, which wasn't a sure thing in 5th. Also, "random" terrain. You know the odds. You decide whether or not moving through the terrain is worth the risk. So what. Random itself isn't so bad, unless certain rolls can have a huge imbalancing effect on the game. Assault rolls and random terrain don't fall into that category, that's for sure.

The random systems aren't applied evenly. They effect assault and movement and leave shooting almost unscathed. You mitigate randomness by not engaging in activities that are disproportionately effected by randomness. WAAC lists don't really have to change much. 15 long fangs with razors is still that when it has a hydra battery behind it. Allies distills WAAC to an even more ludicrous degree by more than doubling the force org chart at 2k and allowing cross codex cherry picking of overpowered units.

I agree, random isn't bad unless specific rolls have a hugely imbalancing result on the game. Several of the warlord traits do, as do some of the random terrain rules. Random assault distances certainly does.

Man, have do you wrote all that?

Does anyone have any rumors about chapters other than the Space Wolves and Blood Angels getting their own codex/rules in 6th edition?

I'm trying to decide between Iron Hands and Salamanders as my first army, and I'm leaning towards the bionic bros. Was hoping for some cool bionic only move(s).

I really do like Vulkan's model though...

KillJoyRobot wrote:Does anyone have any rumors about chapters other than the Space Wolves and Blood Angels getting their own codex/rules in 6th edition?

I'm trying to decide between Iron Hands and Salamanders as my first army, and I'm leaning towards the bionic bros. Was hoping for some cool bionic only move(s).

I really do like Vulkan's model though...

It's pretty unlikely that any chapter that doesn't already have a codex would get one.

Ironically tau still lose to every assault army in the game almost without question. Clearly "screening" isn't doing them a lot of favors.

Without question? Here is a Question:
You have not run into many good tau players have you?

While it was quite the struggle, my beloved xenos did well in 5th - hopefully they will fare even better in 6th...it would not take much, a few basic changes, and maybe a new faq would do them well....but I diagress.

While I think a lot of this conjecture by experienced players may have some merit to it, it will be a while before we can truly assimilate what the new rules edition brings. I have some mixed feelings on a lot of things

Rumorwise: Anyone have anything on why shadowsun has gone finecast and farsight has not?
(or did I read that wrong anywhere?).

Finally, if all the weapons are in the codex, any chance we can someone how has a book to get readings on;
Kroot rifle, markerlights and the skyray?
(just in case it got skyfire...one can hope).

ShumaGorath wrote:The random systems aren't applied evenly. They effect assault and movement and leave shooting almost unscathed. You mitigate randomness by not engaging in activities that are disproportionately effected by randomness. WAAC lists don't really have to change much. 15 long fangs with razors is still that when it has a hydra battery behind it. Allies distills WAAC to an even more ludicrous degree by more than doubling the force org chart at 2k and allowing cross codex cherry picking of overpowered units.

I agree, random isn't bad unless specific rolls have a hugely imbalancing result on the game. Several of the warlord traits do, as do some of the random terrain rules. Random assault distances certainly does.

Alright, that was pretty good. Can't get into a wall o text battle right now. Random assault is not hugely imbalancing, that's just absurd (look up the % of time 6 **or higher** is rolled on a 2d6). Nor does random terrain. You should know the probabilities before you play, and know the risks, and then decide in game if the risk is worth it. I see a lot of changes, I don't see shooting being "unscathed." Different sure. Those long fangs will be camping in worse cover usually, so they'll die quicker. Using transports as mobile bunkers to shoot out of won't be as strong either. Will MSU be as good considering that concentrated fire from one direction will take out special weapons more easily than before (since wound allocation is closest to farthest).

ShumaGorath wrote:Allies distills WAAC to an even more ludicrous degree by more than doubling the force org chart at 2k and allowing cross codex cherry picking of overpowered units.

I think this is the most compelling statement in the whole thread.