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.

lord_blackfang wrote:It certainly can't shoot backwards. The marker thing is a restriction (it can't fire at anything further than 2" from the marker) not a permission to fire at targets near the marker regardless of other circumstances.

Yeeeaaaah, I thought us much, but in the end I decided to keep the game flowing instead of getting bogged down in rules talk, so we just allowed it to work that way (not bothered, it's all a learning process as far as I'm concerned).

I suppose that means that, if using Super Sonic, it's going to be tricky for it to fire on units close to the board edge, since it has to move at least 12" back on?

Kharrak wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:It certainly can't shoot backwards. The marker thing is a restriction (it can't fire at anything further than 2" from the marker) not a permission to fire at targets near the marker regardless of other circumstances.

Yeeeaaaah, I thought us much, but in the end I decided to keep the game flowing instead of getting bogged down in rules talk, so we just allowed it to work that way (not bothered, it's all a learning process as far as I'm concerned).

I suppose that means that, if using Super Sonic, it's going to be tricky for it to fire on units close to the board edge, since it has to move at least 12" back on?

Come in from the other board edge.

If a model moves at supersonic speed, place two
markers at the start of the move to mark the
attack vector of the fighter. An entry marker can
be placed on any table edge in the front arc of
the model. The second marker, called ‘attack
marker’, can be placed anywhere in the front arc
of the model. If the model is not a vehicle and has
no Armour Value facings, use a 90° arc.

The model cannot turn during the complete
movement. Move the aicraft straight forward
until it reaches the table edge and leaves the
battlefield to change direction. Place the model
back on the table in contact with the entry
marker so that it faces directly towards the attack
marker. This does not count as arriving from
reserves. Move the model straight forward as far
as you like but at least 12”. The aircraft can even
move beyond the attack marker. It cannot leave
the tabletop a second time.

Thus the area in which you can attack is quite limited, since you must place both the entry point and attack marker in the front arc of the flyer before it moves off the table.

Dribble Joy wrote:If a model moves at supersonic speed, place two
markers at the start of the move to mark the
attack vector of the fighter. An entry marker can
be placed on any table edge in the front arc of
the model. The second marker, called ‘attack
marker’, can be placed anywhere in the front arc
of the model. If the model is not a vehicle and has
no Armour Value facings, use a 90° arc.

The model cannot turn during the complete
movement. Move the aicraft straight forward
until it reaches the table edge and leaves the
battlefield to change direction. Place the model
back on the table in contact with the entry
marker so that it faces directly towards the attack
marker. This does not count as arriving from
reserves. Move the model straight forward as far
as you like but at least 12”. The aircraft can even
move beyond the attack marker. It cannot leave
the tabletop a second time.

Thus the area in which you can attack is quite limited, since you must place both the entry point and attack marker in the front arc of the flyer before it moves off the table.

Aye, you are basically limited in "zig-zagging" between table edges when moving flyers. But still, they get to shoot a whole bunch and are hard to hit, for the most part.

mortetvie wrote: But still, they get to shoot a whole bunch and are hard to hit, for the most part.

Except against rail weapons... <shudder>

Rail weapons still have to roll to hit. And if they miss they scatter up to 10".

airmang wrote:Rail weapons still have to roll to hit. And if they miss they scatter up to 10".

Except that 10" is only at the end point of their range, which is generally a table length.
In fact as shots which scatter 'off' the table are stopped at the table edge, rail target points ideally will be placed at the table edge:
- 1/6 of the time (against flyers) they will hit directly
- 5/12 of the time they will scatter off the edge and thus not be moved at all
- 5/24 of the time they still scatter more parallel to the shot (and thus minimise/negate deviation) than they will parallel to the shot
- the target point is ideally placed at maximum range of the tank whilst the target is most likely at half range, meaning that the scatter distance is effectively halved
- flyers are on the largest bases in the game and so would almost need a full 10" of scatter perpendicular to the rail to be missed anyway

If these rules are real, I honestly only expect to miss my rail targets once in 10 games.

Yeah. The ability to just overshoot with your railgun, and have the scatter be basically meaningless, is incredibly OP.

I like the attempt to give the Tau something game-changing, however i think the scatter rules and the indefinite length are a bad method of doing so.

Didn't think about the craziness of the marker stopping at the table edge would cause. Guess I know who I'll send my doom scythe/razor wings /voidravens after first. Or at least angle the flyer so it'll be the only thing hit.

got my first game in under the Pancake Rules...my Dark Eldar vs. Chaos Daemons. I won 79-29.

gotta say everything was on edge. i knew i was ahead on the annihalation part of the objectives but was behind 14-3 in objective based points going into the 6th turn.

my strategy was to table my opponent...starting with his limited scoring troops. fateweaver couldn't be on both sides of the board so i was able to kite well enough on the edges while he kept the big nasties alive in the center.

no glaring mistakes but as my opponent didn't get his perfered wave, it limited him to only one scoring troop for too many turns to build a lead on me.

crazy game though! was seriously worried I waited too long to commit to the objectives.

Annihilation becomes more important than objectives in larger point games using the sample missions in the book; They do make it pretty clear though that other game types will be forthcoming. Thanks to the well defined nature of the mission rules as they're stated, coming up with a variety of scenarios should be easy.

From what I've seen so far, games trend quickly; as inertia is hard to reverse without some tactical genius. An early lead can be very destructive if the aggressor knows how to press the advantage.

---

The rail rules are a pretty insane upgrade for some already powerful weapons (especially if the pathfinder Rail Rifle counts as a rail weapon). Tau have suffered in 5e, as it favors assault over shooting; but the rail rules actually limit viable builds rather than improve them.

Railspam lists will be the default tau lists, and 9 broadsides with target locks can pretty much cluster up mid field on any kind of high-ground terrain feature, bubblewrapped by kroot, and just wipe out anything that gets close, denying any critical range deep strikes with a disgusting defensive fire salvo.

9 railguns was already a nice heavy support, but now that rail guns, well positioned, can chop through multiple models, thats just gruesome.

As a tau player, suffice to say, I'm not going to complain too loudly though.

junk wrote:Annihilation becomes more important than objectives in larger point games using the sample missions in the book; They do make it pretty clear though that other game types will be forthcoming. Thanks to the well defined nature of the mission rules as they're stated, coming up with a variety of scenarios should be easy.

From what I've seen so far, games trend quickly; as inertia is hard to reverse without some tactical genius. An early lead can be very destructive if the aggressor knows how to press the advantage.

---

The rail rules are a pretty insane upgrade for some already powerful weapons (especially if the pathfinder Rail Rifle counts as a rail weapon). Tau have suffered in 5e, as it favors assault over shooting; but the rail rules actually limit viable builds rather than improve them.

Railspam lists will be the default tau lists, and 9 broadsides with target locks can pretty much cluster up mid field on any kind of high-ground terrain feature, bubblewrapped by kroot, and just wipe out anything that gets close, denying any critical range deep strikes with a disgusting defensive fire salvo.

9 railguns was already a nice heavy support, but now that rail guns, well positioned, can chop through multiple models, thats just gruesome.

As a tau player, suffice to say, I'm not going to complain too loudly though.

Not to mention the fact that overwatch is most likely going to make an appearance in the new Tau codex, along with the other goodies it provides. I want to see a battlereport with the new rail rules to make sure.

I'm less concerned about overwatch, if it remains an ability limited to a handful of special characters or uniques, it's a cool ability; I don't really see it ending up as a spammable ability; and if it does, it will likely undergo a rule change limiting it in some other way.

What I love about 6e is the foundation of the rules, not the specific iterations of them; for example the tiered EW and ID, tiered Veiled, and whatever other tiered rules they have seem unnecessary; while they don't detract from the game, they don't seem to fit in as smoothly as the overarching rules.

junk wrote:I'm less concerned about overwatch, if it remains an ability limited to a handful of special characters or uniques, it's a cool ability; I don't really see it ending up as a spammable ability; and if it does, it will likely undergo a rule change limiting it in some other way.

What I love about 6e is the foundation of the rules, not the specific iterations of them; for example the tiered EW and ID, tiered Veiled, and whatever other tiered rules they have seem unnecessary; while they don't detract from the game, they don't seem to fit in as smoothly as the overarching rules.

You do realize that we don't know if these are the rules, or even the foundation for them, right?
I'm mean noone knows for sure. and we may not until it comes out. Well, unless Kroothawk finds something....

Yes , Alarmingrick. The enjoyable part of this speculation for me is operating under the assumption that this is an actual GW document, even if some outdated draft. Had we all simply accepted that this document was a fraud then we could all just resume our typical bitching and moaning about our unfair treatment at the hands of our abusive overlords.

junk wrote:Yes , Alarmingrick. The enjoyable part of this speculation for me is operating under the assumption that this is an actual GW document, even if some outdated draft. Had we all simply accepted that this document was a fraud then we could all just resume our typical bitching and moaning about our unfair treatment at the hands of our abusive overlords.

Hold on Junk. Say that outloud. Seems wrong....

I wasn't trying to be a buzz kill. my bad. Just making sure you didn't know something i didn't!

Hopefully Kroothawk will beat BoK, Warseer, etc... to the punch as far as the validity of this document. I like getting my news here first.

Just want to point out that, daft as it may seem, Tau don't actually have any weapons with the rail special rule. Not yet, anyway. It's very possible that only the largest version of the Railgun might get it. In fact I believe that was one of the very early Tau rumours floating around.

They clear that up in the section on rail weapons, specifically citing Tau weapons.
Rail
Some arcane weapons fire high powered shots
that are nigh unstoppable. Even several meters of
stone are pierced with ease. Psionic lances, alien
sonic weapons and of course the Tau weapons of
the same name count to the most common
weapons of this type


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This states, though not explicitly, that Railguns and Rail Rifles have the Rail rule.

Game rules should not operate based on implicit assumptions, though. They must be codified, unequivocal and free of any ambiguity.

Right, they shouldn't, no one here is going to disagree with that.
Your signature suggests that this isn't the first thing you've taken issue with regarding 40k.

junk wrote:They clear that up in the section on rail weapons, specifically citing Tau weapons.
Rail
Some arcane weapons fire high powered shots
that are nigh unstoppable. Even several meters of
stone are pierced with ease. Psionic lances, alien
sonic weapons and of course the Tau weapons of
the same name count to the most common
weapons of this type


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This states, though not explicitly, that Railguns and Rail Rifles have the Rail rule.

That's not actually a rule, though. That's a fluff description. At best it hints at what's to come in a future codex, presumeably with greatly increased cost.

I know it's silly fussing over prerelease rules. At this points they're all houserules, so play it whatever way you and your opponent are happy. However, I wouldn't consider it a fair playtest of 6th if you're playing with weapons that don't (yet) exist in the game.

Leggy wrote:

junk wrote:They clear that up in the section on rail weapons, specifically citing Tau weapons.
Rail
Some arcane weapons fire high powered shots
that are nigh unstoppable. Even several meters of
stone are pierced with ease. Psionic lances, alien
sonic weapons and of course the Tau weapons of
the same name count to the most common
weapons of this type


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This states, though not explicitly, that Railguns and Rail Rifles have the Rail rule.

That's not actually a rule, though. That's a fluff description. At best it hints at what's to come in a future codex, presumeably with greatly increased cost.

I know it's silly fussing over prerelease rules. At this points they're all houserules, so play it whatever way you and your opponent are happy. However, I wouldn't consider it a fair playtest of 6th if you're playing with weapons that don't (yet) exist in the game.

Actually that IS a rule. It clearly states that Tau weapons with Rail in there name use the following rules.

Given that the Tau are rumoured to be the next xenos with a new codex, which will likely be this Spring, I am certain that those weapons in question will all have a nice, bold "Rail" special rule attached, not unlike "Gets Hot" or "Arc"

"It clearly states" must be the most frequently misused phrase in this entire thread.

Leggy wrote:"It clearly states" must be the most frequently misused phrase in this entire thread.

Rail:
"Psionic lances, alien sonic weapons and of course the Tau weapons of the same name count to the most common weapons of this type."
PDFhammer p. 65 <86>

It's ok, we can keep quoting word for word it till you understand. It takes some longer than others.

azazel the cat wrote:Given that the Tau are rumoured to be the next xenos with a new codex, which will likely be this Spring, I am certain that those weapons in question will all have a nice, bold "Rail" special rule attached, not unlike "Gets Hot" or "Arc"

I don't know it is looking pretty bleak. If BT do in fact get a WD Codex it might happen. However, with new focus on LotR material the release schedule just picked up some clutter.

I would not be surprised if they gave Tau a WD codex and BT an actual Codex.

Wrath wrote:

Leggy wrote:"It clearly states" must be the most frequently misused phrase in this entire thread.

Rail:
"Psionic lances, alien sonic weapons and of course the Tau weapons of the same name count to the most common weapons of this type."
PDFhammer p. 65 <86>

It's ok, we can keep quoting word for word it till you understand. It takes some longer than others.

Feel free to quote it as many times as you like. It does not make it a rule. It's still fluff. Until the "rail" special rule is included in the weapon profile of Railguns or Rail rifles they simply don't have the rule.
Thank you for including the insult, also. It makes me feel less spiteful for adding you to my ignore list.

Leggy wrote:Feel free to quote it as many times as you like. It does not make it a rule. It's still fluff. Until the "rail" special rule is included in the weapon profile of Railguns or Rail rifles they simply don't have the rule.
Thank you for including the insult, also. It makes me feel less spiteful for adding you to my ignore list.

IMO trying to interpret early draft rules strictly as written is not helpful. They are early, incomplete, and rough. Whether you believe that line is flavor or not, it's clear that it is intended for the Rail Rifle and Rail Gun (solid shot) to be Rail weapons. Since it's obvious this is the intent, it is likely that Rail will be added to the weapon types of these two weapons in the new codex or in the codex update.

Edit: Assuming, of course that pancake is legit, and that Rail stays a special rule.