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.

Why the heck are Void Lances assault 1 weapons? They can only be mounted on a vehicle where it doesn't matter? To taunt us?

**Please take with grain of salt, tis a rumor nothing more**

From what I've heard DE, GK and NE (Necrons) are all codex's written with 6th edition in mind. So maybe this affects vehicles in some way eventually?

**End Salt**

Could also be that they intend to bring more models with this profile, not sure I don't know the weapon (as I'm not a DE Player) and who all can equip it just some theories. At least it doesn't really matter since you can equip it regardless.

As far as I know the only reason for this is because all ranged weapons follow a specific profile setting and when they introduced this one they continued to follow that setting.

Think about this can you find any ranged weapon that exists that does not have one of the following; Pistol, Assault, Rapid Fire, Heavy, or Ordnance?

Yes, but why not heavy 1 like it's less powerful cousin the Dark Lance? If a darned kabalite warrior could rip one of these bad boys off a void raven, with the profile it has, it would literally be the best AT weapon an infantry unit could have, bar none. Arguably just the best infantry bound weapon overall, period.

BrainDeleted wrote:Yes, but why not heavy 1 like it's less powerful cousin the Dark Lance? If a darned kabalite warrior could rip one of these bad boys off a void raven, with the profile it has, it would literally be the best AT weapon an infantry unit could have, bar none. Arguably just the best infantry bound weapon overall, period.

I could agree to Arguably (personally I think Meltas would still have it AP1 and all)
That said though I think its just there to Irk us DE players ...

Like ServvsUmbrarum said, it might effect 6th edition.

There are a few seemingly idiotic wargear options in some of the newer codices, like Brotherhood Champions having Digital Weapons when their sword does the same thing better.

Grey Templar wrote:There are a few seemingly idiotic wargear options in some of the newer codices, like Brotherhood Champions having Digital Weapons when their sword does the same thing better.

Even if Digital Weapons had a set of rules in the 6th edition rulebook, without an immediate FAQ to errata the Digital weapons to the new rules(or an inclusion in the new rules that specifies the Rulebook version supersedes the Codex versions across the board); the Codex will still have rules that say the Brotherhood champions digital weapons are pointless will stand.

In other words there will be a conflict between the Rulebook and the Codex, and the codex is very specific so the Rulebook would have to be more specific.

I can see them doing something like changing the way defensive weapons work. Whether or not your vehicle can fire an additional weapon on the move should depend on the ease of firing the weapon, not its strength. Assault weapons on vehicles could be treated like defensive weapons are now, for example. Although with the Aerial Assault rule even that would be pointless for the Voidraven. Oh well.

Kommissar Kel wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:There are a few seemingly idiotic wargear options in some of the newer codices, like Brotherhood Champions having Digital Weapons when their sword does the same thing better.

Even if Digital Weapons had a set of rules in the 6th edition rulebook, without an immediate FAQ to errata the Digital weapons to the new rules(or an inclusion in the new rules that specifies the Rulebook version supersedes the Codex versions across the board); the Codex will still have rules that say the Brotherhood champions digital weapons are pointless will stand.

In other words there will be a conflict between the Rulebook and the Codex, and the codex is very specific so the Rulebook would have to be more specific.

Well, the only reason Digital Weapons don't stack with Annointed Blade is because you can't reroll and reroll. 6th edition may eliminate this.

On a similar note, Vulkan He'stan has both a MC Relic Blade, and digital weapons, which also do the same thing.

Grey Templar wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:There are a few seemingly idiotic wargear options in some of the newer codices, like Brotherhood Champions having Digital Weapons when their sword does the same thing better.

Even if Digital Weapons had a set of rules in the 6th edition rulebook, without an immediate FAQ to errata the Digital weapons to the new rules(or an inclusion in the new rules that specifies the Rulebook version supersedes the Codex versions across the board); the Codex will still have rules that say the Brotherhood champions digital weapons are pointless will stand.

In other words there will be a conflict between the Rulebook and the Codex, and the codex is very specific so the Rulebook would have to be more specific.

Well, the only reason Digital Weapons don't stack with Annointed Blade is because you can't reroll and reroll. 6th edition may eliminate this.

While part of me shudders at the thought, I can actually see such a thing being included in the rumored suite of changes to Independent Characters. Since GW supposedly wants to make characters more heroic, and we have rumors that ICs might be able to use both armor and invulnerable saves in the same phase, it's not entirely unbelievable that they might be able to re-roll a re-roll.

forruner_mercy wrote:On a similar note, Vulkan He'stan has both a MC Relic Blade, and digital weapons, which also do the same thing.

No they dont

MC = reroll a single "to hit"
DW = reroll a single "to wound"

Xca|iber wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:There are a few seemingly idiotic wargear options in some of the newer codices, like Brotherhood Champions having Digital Weapons when their sword does the same thing better.

Even if Digital Weapons had a set of rules in the 6th edition rulebook, without an immediate FAQ to errata the Digital weapons to the new rules(or an inclusion in the new rules that specifies the Rulebook version supersedes the Codex versions across the board); the Codex will still have rules that say the Brotherhood champions digital weapons are pointless will stand.

In other words there will be a conflict between the Rulebook and the Codex, and the codex is very specific so the Rulebook would have to be more specific.

Well, the only reason Digital Weapons don't stack with Annointed Blade is because you can't reroll and reroll. 6th edition may eliminate this.

While part of me shudders at the thought, I can actually see such a thing being included in the rumored suite of changes to Independent Characters. Since GW supposedly wants to make characters more heroic, and we have rumors that ICs might be able to use both armor and invulnerable saves in the same phase, it's not entirely unbelievable that they might be able to re-roll a re-roll.

Yup, which is why my GK Librarian with a Warding Stave makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. 2+/2++ save FTW!!!, and if he happens to be in a Paladin squad...

The only advantage the Voidraven could gain from it being an assault weapon is using one/two when moving flat out since it has aerial assault 0_o

One rumor I have heard about 6th is that they may rearrange how the phases are ordered, new way I heard being Move, Assault, Shoot but with all pistol and Assault weapons being allowed to be fired in the Assault phase. That is the only thing I can think as to why that weapon may be an Assault weapon.