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.

 Kain wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
Can anyone explain to me why I would want to field Dev-Centurions /w Grav when I can get the same amount of shots from a cheaper and better CCS on Bikes?

Easy! Because as it now stands, Command Squads can't take special weapons (including grav guns), only comb-weapons.

I think they FAQ'd that not too long ago.

Oh... I see. In that case the answer is probably Baledrakes.

 AtoMaki wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
Can anyone explain to me why I would want to field Dev-Centurions /w Grav when I can get the same amount of shots from a cheaper and better CCS on Bikes?

Easy! Because as it now stands, Command Squads can't take special weapons (including grav guns), only comb-weapons.

Already errataed.

 AtoMaki wrote:
Easy! Because as it now stands, Command Squads can't take special weapons (including grav guns), only comb-weapons.

Do people actually read FAQ's or am I the only one?

Because bikes can't run Grav Amp's which let you reroll to wound?

 Sasa0mg wrote:
Because bikes can't run Grav Amp's which let you reroll to wound?

Or re-roll the pen. Dev-Centurions will wreck stuff...if its in range, anyway. 30 inches seems pretty good though. Just beware the riptide sitting 60 inches away with his "I Hate You" pie plate of doom.

MadmanMSU wrote:

 Sasa0mg wrote:
Because bikes can't run Grav Amp's which let you reroll to wound?

Or re-roll the pen. Dev-Centurions will wreck stuff...if its in range, anyway. 30 inches seems pretty good though. Just beware the riptide sitting 60 inches away with his "I Hate You" pie plate of doom.

Luckily, you can put a telekine dome on your Cents if you're really nervous, and you have a second wound, and there's no way for the Riptide to bring down an S10 hit to ID the thing.

Along with using Tigurus to help get some Divination in there (Or ally in a DA librarian)

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Orks still have stuff like Meganobz, IG have plenty of vehicles and the Grav weapons are really effective against Wave Serpents (due to not giving a cover save and not caring about the Serpent Shield), Wraithknights, and Wraithguard.

Does it?

They ruled that you can take an invulnerable save against failed dangerous terrain, which is also not a glancing or penetrating hit.

If that is the case, Grav weapons cause damage, do not have 'ignores cover' and do it during the shooting phase. I don't know how they will rule it, but the ruling in the Dark Eldar book implies they may not circumvent cover or invuns.

 Daba wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Orks still have stuff like Meganobz, IG have plenty of vehicles and the Grav weapons are really effective against Wave Serpents (due to not giving a cover save and not caring about the Serpent Shield), Wraithknights, and Wraithguard.

Does it?

They ruled that you can take an invulnerable save against failed dangerous terrain, which is also not a glancing or penetrating hit.

If that is the case, Grav weapons cause damage, do not have 'ignores cover' and do it during the shooting phase. I don't know how they will rule it, but the ruling in the Dark Eldar book implies they may not circumvent cover or invuns.

Cover is not an invulnerable save. The FAQ regarding invulnerable saves on dangerous terrain has no bearing in the discussion.

 tetrisphreak wrote:

 Daba wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Orks still have stuff like Meganobz, IG have plenty of vehicles and the Grav weapons are really effective against Wave Serpents (due to not giving a cover save and not caring about the Serpent Shield), Wraithknights, and Wraithguard.

Does it?

They ruled that you can take an invulnerable save against failed dangerous terrain, which is also not a glancing or penetrating hit.

If that is the case, Grav weapons cause damage, do not have 'ignores cover' and do it during the shooting phase. I don't know how they will rule it, but the ruling in the Dark Eldar book implies they may not circumvent cover or invuns.

Cover is not an invulnerable save. The FAQ regarding invulnerable saves on dangerous terrain has no bearing in the discussion.

That doesn't matter, as it is still a save; just one that applies only against shooting attacks (which grav shooting attacks are).

Also, some vehicles have invulnerables. Are these in effect against Grav?

It does bear relevance as all saves trigger in the same way apart from specifics (cover vs shooting only, armour is negated by AP etc..) - this is an example of a save working against something that isn't a 'penetrating or glancing hit' - instead it is against a damage result. Because of that precedence, the fact that cover saves are saves and you apparently get saves against any sort of damage (as per FAQ) it is completely relevant, because Grav does not have anything that intrinsically ignores cover (models with Toughness get cover saves), so it may be a rules 'easter egg' that they ignore cover and invulnerables (which are treated the same) on vehicles.

 Daba wrote:
That doesn't matter, as it is still a save; just one that applies only against shooting attacks (which grav shooting attacks are).

It applies to more than just shooting attacks.

Also, some vehicles have invulnerables. Are these in effect against Grav?

RAW no.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Daba wrote:
That doesn't matter, as it is still a save; just one that applies only against shooting attacks (which grav shooting attacks are).

It applies to more than just shooting attacks.

Also, some vehicles have invulnerables. Are these in effect against Grav?

RAW no.

Which is why the precedent set by the Dark Eldar FAQ muddles things up. There is a clear case of something not a glancing or penetrating hit being 'saved'.

This is something that has to be FAQed, and one changed because there is either an unintentional 'ignores saves' on the weapons or the Dark Eldar ruling is wrong.

Note that I am simplifying the statement about cover against shooting, as the details are irrelevant. The fact it is a save and follows the save mechanics (along with Invulnerables and Armour) is what is important here.

 Daba wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Daba wrote:
That doesn't matter, as it is still a save; just one that applies only against shooting attacks (which grav shooting attacks are).

It applies to more than just shooting attacks.

Also, some vehicles have invulnerables. Are these in effect against Grav?

RAW no.

Which is why the precedent set by the Dark Eldar FAQ muddles things up. There is a clear case of something not a glancing or penetrating hit being 'saved'.

This is something that has to be FAQed, and one changed because there is either an unintentional 'ignores saves' on the weapons or the Dark Eldar ruling is wrong.

Note that I am simplifying the statement about cover against shooting, as the details are irrelevant. The fact it is a save and follows the save mechanics (along with Invulnerables and Armour) is what is important here.

You do realize that GW changes rules in FAQs, right?
They changed the rule to allow Flickerfields to help against DT immobs. Perhaps because DE were so reliant on vehicles? Who knows - it was a rules change.

It wasn't an errata where they change rules though, but the FAQ section of the document where they 'clarify' what rules do.

 Daba wrote:
It wasn't an errata where they change rules though, but the FAQ section of the document where they 'clarify' what rules do.

And they've changed rules there as well. Multiple times in fact.
Assuming otherwise means you're just not informed as to how GW works.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Daba wrote:
It wasn't an errata where they change rules though, but the FAQ section of the document where they 'clarify' what rules do.

And they've changed rules there as well. Multiple times in fact.
Assuming otherwise means you're just not informed as to how GW works.

Changing rules and how they work goes in the errata section of the documents. Changing how rules have 'always' worked without changing the rules themselves goes in the FAQ section. This is the latter.

So if the rulebook says: No.
And they FAQ it as: Yes.

That doesn't mean the FAQ changed the rules?

 Daba wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Daba wrote:
It wasn't an errata where they change rules though, but the FAQ section of the document where they 'clarify' what rules do.

And they've changed rules there as well. Multiple times in fact.
Assuming otherwise means you're just not informed as to how GW works.

Changing rules and how they work goes in the errata section of the documents. Changing how rules have 'always' worked without changing the rules themselves goes in the FAQ section. This is the latter.

Q: When making a Shooting attack against a unit, can Wounds
from the Wound Pool be allocated to models that were not within
range any of the shooting models when To Hit rolls were made (i.e.
half the targeted model are in the shooting models’ range, and half
are not)? (p15)
A: No.

Show how this is supported in the BRB. Hint - you can't. They changed the rules.

Q: Does Shadow in the Warp affect psykers who are taking a Psychic
test whilst embarked within a transport vehicle? (p33)
A: Yes.

Prior to January of last year, that FAQ answer was No. One of these two answers was not how the rules have 'always' worked. Please use the rules to demonstrate which one.

You are incorrect. FAQs can and do change rules. There's more, but these are the two most obvious.

You're saying I'm incorrect but agreeing with the point I was making. I wouldn't have put 'always' in inverted commas if I meant it literally.

They 'change' the rules to show how they 'always' work (they didn't always work that way) with the FAQ.

With the Dark Eldar inv. save against immobilised, it does not work per BRB but was FAQed so now it does. But they didn't 'change' any of the rules per se, which would be an errata. It just 'always' worked that way in GW land (and by 'always' I mean it wasn't).

My main point where this stems from is that that made a precedent with the FAQ meaning we have no idea how Grav weapons 'are meant to' interact with saves until they FAQ it.

So they do change rules, but they don't?

Regardless - the fact that they can change rules in FAQs was what I said and you disagreed with.

i imagine they'd FAQ the grav guns against vehicles, no matter which way it actually is.

Its a unique situation that is, at least far as i can tell, impossible to defend in a way to get your saves. RAI i would say they get saves, cuz thats just insane to bypass even an invul save regardless of needing a 6 or not.

I would expect a FAQ to state whether they do or do not get a save fairly quickly. Much like Tau got FAQ'd pretty fast about the whole dual-weapon not twinlinked loadout since the wording allowed it but everyone is stuck on the old rules denying it. They had to FAQ it to clear it up as it was a huge deal.

There's a lot of Grav gun threads out there guys, You can argue raw there.

At the moment as it stands though Grav guns are very powerful, with most players agreeing that 2 hits that roll 6's will cause 3 hull points of damage and ignore cover. This makes them a competitive choice on relentless models and things that don't need to move.

Back on topic (this is imo)

Hq - Having the chapter master on bike is interesting, and can gve a squad a little more punch over a captain, either way both are competitive on bikes as you need them to make bikes troops. Other HQ choices are nothing amazing, libarians missed out on prescience, and chaplains still don't know what to do with themselves in 6th.

Elites - Sternguard, podded or otherwise are still competitive due to their versatility and number of special weapons.

Troops - errrm tacticals I guess, not like you have much choice (Non BT player here), unless you are including...

Troops/ fast attack - Bikes. With their cheap cost these guys are pretty decent. With Whitescars chapter rules they are fantastic. Abuse their cheap cost and relentless grav guns for some easy tactical advantage.

Heavy support - Thunderfire cannons, still murder GEQ, and put enough plates down to worry other targets. Wound allocation rules in 6th still hep them a lot.

I'm sure I've missed stuff, but these are what came to me off the top of my head.
Assault cents are a big no, ranged ones im not too sure about. Grav cannons put out a hell of a lot of pain, but a plodding 6 move a turn along with range 24 guns limits them. I see a lot of people buying landraiders and putting tigurus with them to babysit. But I have to ask how points efficient this is?

Well i find that the CM on a bike can be a beatstick. Bikes as troops are quite good with grav rifles vs MCs and tanks, and TFCs are great vs hordes. But overall i'm not really impressed by the new codex.

DevCents are very Marmite/Vegemite.

I've seen some sick things that they can do armed with Grav and LC/ML.

IF should auto include the LC/ML versions as they are nothing but pure filth.

Accurate and powerful.

The grav and LC are in the same "slot".

I can't quote the earlier poster but in regards to hunters...

The hunter is a s7 ap2 armourbane weapon. You will pen almost anything you hit, and with ap 2 it's not 16% chance to blow it up its 33%.

The other thing to factor in is that the hunter has a longer range and it can destroy skimmers much easier than the stalker. You do not snap fire against skimmers with sky fire, you use your full BS. When you factor in Tau, Eldar and Crons, and how many skimmers you see in meta, the hunter is FAR superior for killing these.

Take a standard annihilation barge. You see 2-3 in almost every necron list. The stalker can only glance this vehicle unless somehow you hit the rear av. The hunter however will pen it with just average rolling. It's open topped and with ap 2 you are looking at a +2 on the damage roll. That's a 50% chance to blow it up with just average rolls (jink save notwithstanding).

Skimmers are the main vehicle you see these days because with the exception of some choice CSM vehicles everything doesnt have a save at ALL unless its in cover - so Jink saves it is!

As a Tau player im usually fielding 1-7 skimmers depending on my tactic. I always have an Ionhead, for some reason i consider it a must-take it always seems to do more than the "technically" more powerful Riptide for me lol. But i also like the 5 Piranha trick or the occational Skyray/Railhead. Field those Hunters against me and im going to hate you lol

Well last night I was fiddling with the new SM codex and a neat little army was:

khan, 5x 5 man bike squads with 2 grav guns, 1 grav pistol and a fist, supported by 3 storm talons with mixed loadouts.

So khan, 25 bikes, 3 storm talons, and 15 grav weps for 1485 pts.

Interesting potential

Good luck finding all those grav bits.

 gossipmeng wrote:
Well last night I was fiddling with the new SM codex and a neat little army was:

khan, 5x 5 man bike squads with 2 grav guns, 1 grav pistol and a fist, supported by 3 storm talons with mixed loadouts.

So khan, 25 bikes, 3 storm talons, and 15 grav weps for 1485 pts.

Interesting potential

What the, that sounds even scarier than the Ork Speed Freekz list with a Wazdakka!
No fair! lol