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.

Fafnir wrote:Also, Draigowing will be more reslient then ever, so long as you can keep Draigo up front. With LOS, you can spread wounds around however you want without having to equip each Paladin differently, and with LOS, you can choose to have Draigo eat all the pesky S8+ weaponry fired at him, instead of being forced to have him take one and spread the others. FNP is considerably weaker (and I would argue not worth taking), but that's not enough to cripple the build.

Just keep Draigo up front, and Draigowing should still work fairly well.

FNP got worse but better. You can now use it on anything except for weapons/attacks that would cause instant death.

Sasori wrote:Halberds are AP3, it says under the force weapon rules, at least from my understanding of how the following is worded:

"If a Force weapon has it's on unique close combat rules, treat it as an Ap3 Melee weapon with the additional rules and Characteristics presented in it's entry"

Except in the power weapon descriptions they say, if the weapon is a HALBERD or axe, it is treated as an axe.

Are there any other Halberds besides what GK use in the entirety of 40k?

If that is the case, its +1s 1I+2; which isn't bad.

I don't see why'd they specially call out Halberds in the rules for axes; but I guess we will have to wait for the FAQ.

daedalus-templarius wrote:

Sasori wrote:Halberds are AP3, it says under the force weapon rules, at least from my understanding of how the following is worded:

"If a Force weapon has it's on unique close combat rules, treat it as an Ap3 Melee weapon with the additional rules and Characteristics presented in it's entry"

Except in the power weapon descriptions they say, if the weapon is a HALBERD or axe, it is treated as an axe.

Are there any other Halberds besides what GK use in the entirety of 40k?

If that is the case, its +1s 1I+2; which isn't bad.

I don't see why'd they specially call out Halberds in the rules for axes; but I guess we will have to wait for the FAQ.

Ok but a Halberd is a Force weapon, first and foremost right? Being a power weapon, is just being a byproduct of being a Force weapon.

It's really not worth arguing. Because of the ambiguous language that GW chooses to use, we can't possibly know either way until the FAQ comes out.

But in my reading of medieval military tech, it seems to me that the strength of the halberd or poleaxe came from its Swiss army knife configuration that allowed it to have reach, which is useful as a cavalry deterrent, and its ability to crack open armor with the hammer/pickaxe end located opposite the axehead.

Despite their name Nemesis Halberds are not actually a halberd (an axe and a spear tip on a polearm) per se but sword lances like the Naginata. While they still packed quite some punch they weren't designed to simply crush an enemies massive armor with sheer force like an Euroean halberd but rather to easily cut off the legs of horses and men while still being as deadly as a Katana with longer reach. Unlike the unwieldy halberds sword lances are extremly fast weapons (I like to think that's where the +2 I buff is coming from) in the hand of a skilled fighter, just watch a youtube video of any naginata-do fight.

Something else which hasn't been mentioned yet: In the new rules models equiped with DCCWs double their strength just like when using a Power Fist. Nothing about only walkers being affected. Seems like the Doomfists will be the to go weapons of Dreadknights again.

Fafnir wrote:It's really not worth arguing. Because of the ambiguous language that GW chooses to use, we can't possibly know either way until the FAQ comes out.

I don't know, I think it's pretty specific.

I mean, the GK's don't have "Force Halberds" They have "Nemesis Force Halberds" which bestow the extra rule of adding +2 init. It seems very clear, RAW right now, that it's an AP3 Force weapon, as the NFH is very specific, while the "Force Axes/Halberds" are a lot more general, since it's quite likely that future pyskers will have the options of getting a Force Axe, stave, or Maul.

Sasori wrote:

Fafnir wrote:It's really not worth arguing. Because of the ambiguous language that GW chooses to use, we can't possibly know either way until the FAQ comes out.

I don't know, I think it's pretty specific.

I mean, the GK's don't have "Force Halberds" They have "Nemesis Force Halberds" which bestow the extra rule of adding +2 init. It seems very clear, RAW right now, that it's an AP3 Force weapon, as the NFH is very specific, while the "Force Axes/Halberds" are a lot more general, since it's quite likely that future pyskers will have the options of getting a Force Axe, stave, or Maul.

And GW ruled directly against RAW for falchions. It could just as easily go in either direction.

Fafnir wrote:

Sasori wrote:

Fafnir wrote:It's really not worth arguing. Because of the ambiguous language that GW chooses to use, we can't possibly know either way until the FAQ comes out.

I don't know, I think it's pretty specific.

I mean, the GK's don't have "Force Halberds" They have "Nemesis Force Halberds" which bestow the extra rule of adding +2 init. It seems very clear, RAW right now, that it's an AP3 Force weapon, as the NFH is very specific, while the "Force Axes/Halberds" are a lot more general, since it's quite likely that future pyskers will have the options of getting a Force Axe, stave, or Maul.

And GW ruled directly against RAW for falchions. It could just as easily go in either direction.

They didn't - the 'pair of falchions' gave +1 attack, you were not getting 2x single falchions to give +1 attack for an extra ccw and +1 attack for the rule.

Similarly the NFW follow their own rules and are AP3 - you cannot have your cake and eat it by applying both sets of rules.

Phototoxin wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

Sasori wrote:

Fafnir wrote:It's really not worth arguing. Because of the ambiguous language that GW chooses to use, we can't possibly know either way until the FAQ comes out.

I don't know, I think it's pretty specific.

I mean, the GK's don't have "Force Halberds" They have "Nemesis Force Halberds" which bestow the extra rule of adding +2 init. It seems very clear, RAW right now, that it's an AP3 Force weapon, as the NFH is very specific, while the "Force Axes/Halberds" are a lot more general, since it's quite likely that future pyskers will have the options of getting a Force Axe, stave, or Maul.

And GW ruled directly against RAW for falchions. It could just as easily go in either direction.

They didn't - the 'pair of falchions' gave +1 attack, you were not getting 2x single falchions to give +1 attack for an extra ccw and +1 attack for the rule.

Similarly the NFW follow their own rules and are AP3 - you cannot have your cake and eat it by applying both sets of rules.

They did rule against the RAW with Falchions as we beaten to death quite vividly in the discussion thread. The opposition to +2A quite simply had no argument to stand on while those in favor had a rock solid case. GW just arbitrarily ruled it the way they did.

Quite simply, this is a sticky situation here. RAW is clear that NFWs are all AP3(except for Daemonhammers and Doomfists) but GW could very well FAQ that. It is fairly clear that they intended NF Halberds to be Force Axes, but got the rules messed up again.

Only time will tell what GW will do with this, but till they do I will play it as if they were axes(+1Str and I1+2), unless my perusal of the rule book later tonight reveals new information.

I'm surprised you're actually willing to play 6th ed without FAQs. Too much stuff that just won't work right, as far as I'm concerned. Even if GK was written for 6th.

Grey Templar wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

Sasori wrote:

Fafnir wrote:It's really not worth arguing. Because of the ambiguous language that GW chooses to use, we can't possibly know either way until the FAQ comes out.

I don't know, I think it's pretty specific.

I mean, the GK's don't have "Force Halberds" They have "Nemesis Force Halberds" which bestow the extra rule of adding +2 init. It seems very clear, RAW right now, that it's an AP3 Force weapon, as the NFH is very specific, while the "Force Axes/Halberds" are a lot more general, since it's quite likely that future pyskers will have the options of getting a Force Axe, stave, or Maul.

And GW ruled directly against RAW for falchions. It could just as easily go in either direction.

They didn't - the 'pair of falchions' gave +1 attack, you were not getting 2x single falchions to give +1 attack for an extra ccw and +1 attack for the rule.

Similarly the NFW follow their own rules and are AP3 - you cannot have your cake and eat it by applying both sets of rules.

They did rule against the RAW with Falchions as we beaten to death quite vividly in the discussion thread. The opposition to +2A quite simply had no argument to stand on while those in favor had a rock solid case. GW just arbitrarily ruled it the way they did.

Quite simply, this is a sticky situation here. RAW is clear that NFWs are all AP3(except for Daemonhammers and Doomfists) but GW could very well FAQ that. It is fairly clear that they intended NF Halberds to be Force Axes, but got the rules messed up again.

Only time will tell what GW will do with this, but till they do I will play it as if they were axes(+1Str and I1+2), unless my perusal of the rule book later tonight reveals new information.

So, despite the fact that by RAW, it's wrong (A fact which you admit) You're still going to purposely play it incorrectly? That's called cheating.

I suspect the "falchions give +1 attack" people simply got tired of arguing. Without a preset limit it's too easy for a person to keep repeating the same argument till the other people give up, then claim victory. Happens a lot on the internet.

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:I suspect the "falchions give +1 attack" people simply got tired of arguing. Without a preset limit it's too easy for a person to keep repeating the same argument till the other people give up, then claim victory. Happens a lot on the internet.

Or, you know, they were wrong. That happens too.

So Paladins aren't as hosed as people thought...

Turns out that every Paladin model is considered a character... and gets "Look Out, Sir!" The shenanigans will continue! /lol

Gornall wrote:So Paladins aren't as hosed as people thought...

Turns out that every Paladin model is considered a character... and gets "Look Out, Sir!" The shenanigans will continue! /lol

Holy gak serious?

lol

Gornall wrote:So Paladins aren't as hosed as people thought...

Turns out that every Paladin model is considered a character... and gets "Look Out, Sir!" The shenanigans will continue! /lol

Where is the confirmation for this?

Fafnir wrote:

Gornall wrote:So Paladins aren't as hosed as people thought...

Turns out that every Paladin model is considered a character... and gets "Look Out, Sir!" The shenanigans will continue! /lol

Where is the confirmation for this?

Paladins count as infantry characters, and thus, may make a look out sir! on a 4+ even if the unit is comprised of nothing but characters. page 16/26

Are characters eligible recipients of Look Out Sir! wounds though?

Andy06r wrote:Are characters eligible recipients of Look Out Sir! wounds though?

Yes, otherwise a Unit that was comprised completely of characters wouldn't be able to.

It specifically states that other characters may take the wound.

Andy06r wrote:Are characters eligible recipients of Look Out Sir! wounds though?

Yes, although you may only pass a wound once.

And what I'm asking is, where does it confirm that Paladins are characters?

Because if that's the case, they just got all kinds of ridiculous; with precision strikes, individual challenges (and the ability to hide fragile ICs from challenges...) and a bunch of other nice bonuses.

Fafnir wrote:

Andy06r wrote:Are characters eligible recipients of Look Out Sir! wounds though?

Yes, although you may only pass a wound once.

And what I'm asking is, where does it confirm that Paladins are characters?

The Appendix on page 410.

Fafnir wrote:

Andy06r wrote:Are characters eligible recipients of Look Out Sir! wounds though?

Yes, although you may only pass a wound once.

And what I'm asking is, where does it confirm that Paladins are characters?

Because if that's the case, they just got all kinds of ridiculous; with precision strikes, individual challenges (and the ability to hide fragile ICs from challenges...) and a bunch of other nice bonuses.

In the back, under their entry it has INF(CH)

For real?!!

I don't have access to the appendix.....

Can we get a quote confirm?

Ah, that would explain a fair bit. The "version" of the book I am currently reading does not seem to contain that section...

Well, Paladins are still wicked. Nice to hear that.

I was just planning on forcing wound allocation via LOS on Draigo, but now that I can do it with any model in the unit (albeit with somewhat lower rate of success), that makes things considerably easier. Especially since I don't have to be so strict about covering my sides/rear.

Fafnir wrote:Ah, that would explain a fair bit. The "version" of the book I am currently reading does not seem to contain that section...

huehuehuehuehuehue same here.

If it is true then Draigowing just got BETTER.

Oh boy...

Maige wrote:For real?!!

I don't have access to the appendix.....

Can we get a quote confirm?

I have the rulebook, and I just gave you what it says in the entry.

Maige wrote:

Fafnir wrote:Ah, that would explain a fair bit. The "version" of the book I am currently reading does not seem to contain that section...

huehuehuehuehuehue same here.

If it is true then Draigowing just got BETTER.

Oh boy...

Draigowing was never the prize pig of the GK codex. It packs a lot of survivability and raw killpower, but has virtually no mobility and its presence on the table is limited to a single quarter at a time. I would argue that Paladins are actually decently balanced, all things considered.

The main offenders are really purifiers and Psyriflemen. Purifiers are simply some of, if not the best infantry in the game, all while being priced very competitively, and Psyriflemen require no explanation.

Fafnir wrote:

Maige wrote:

Fafnir wrote:Ah, that would explain a fair bit. The "version" of the book I am currently reading does not seem to contain that section...

huehuehuehuehuehue same here.

If it is true then Draigowing just got BETTER.

Oh boy...

Draigowing was never the prize pig of the GK codex. It packs a lot of survivability and raw killpower, but has virtually no mobility and its presence on the table is limited to a single quarter at a time. I would argue that Paladins are actually decently balanced, all things considered.

The main offenders are really purifiers and Psyriflemen. Purifiers are simply some of, if not the best infantry in the game, all while being priced very competitively, and Psyriflemen require no explanation.

Not to mention the fact that you have to roll a 4+ to transfer the wound.

Yeah I think it's well established that Crowewing > Draigowing but I still used the Pallies because they appealed to me for other reasons.

@Sasori (my favourite Akatsuki member btw)

With the INF(CH) thing, does that apply to any other units you can see? Does it also apply to plain Terminators?

Does this mean that rolling wounds on Paladins will be unbelievably tedious?

Shoot a paladin squad with 30 bolters, getting 20 wounds.

Will you have to 4+ LOS, allocate, and then roll to wound EACH wound (or in batches of two if the lead man has both wounds remaining?).

/Groans