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.

Has anyone else noticed that Sentinels are gone(except for the Apoc Formation)?

Has it occurred to anyone that maybe the cards is not the full rule, and it is just shorthand? For example maybe in the full rule in the codex it says on a roll of 6 to hit. However on the card it just does the short hand so its easier to remember.

Until we see how it is written in the codex it is pointless to debate anything.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
See, there's another special rule you have to follow. And it's the one not in the BRB that applies to human beings called "Don't be a goober."

Eh, the RAW are wrong, but if they suggest anything it's that all shots are precision shots more than 6's are precision shots. But yeah, telling people they are goobers is totally a valid argument as to why they are wrong.

kir44n wrote:Dear lord, its not a loophole, its how the damn thing is written.

No. No it's not.

The sixes bit is part of the character rules, hence why it says "When a character rolls a 6 to hit, these are precision shots" End quote. It THEN goes on to explain that precision shots allow the shooter to allocate the shots. The order gives the unit precise shots, not Sniper, Not Character Shooting or anything else. Precise. Shots.

There's a very clear and distinct header for that section, which denotes that all of the language in that section applies to the term Precision Shots. You don't get to pick and choose parts of it based on context.

It says "all models have the Precision Shot special rule". Not that all of their shots are Precision Shots. Ilic's rule is not called Precision Shots. His is called "Sharpshot". A fairly silly term considering the noun would be Sharpshooter, not Sharpshot, but hey, it's GW. Sharpshot makes all of Ilic's shots (except snap shots) Precision Shots, meaning it bypasses the rules for obtaining Precision shots and goes straight to how they are allocated.

Nowhere on that order card does it say all models make Precision Shots. It just says they all get the Precision Shot special rule.

The only reason this is ambiguous is because the BRB has a section called "Special Rules" and it doesn't have a Precision Shot entry (so if you want to be a rules-lawyer, technically the order does nothing.) However, since there is a rule called Precision Shot, the Order card has to, by default, assume that every part of the header for Precision Shot applies, not just one part of it.

See, there's another special rule you have to follow. And it's the one not in the BRB that applies to human beings called "Don't be a goober."

 Leth wrote:
Has it occurred to anyone that maybe the cards is not the full rule, and it is just shorthand? For example maybe in the full rule in the codex it says on a roll of 6 to hit. However on the card it just does the short hand so its easier to remember.

Until we see how it is written in the codex it is pointless to debate anything.

This is a rumors and speculation thread.

Honestly I don't think its as strong as some of the other orders. I would personally take rank fire over it depending on the size of the squad in question. Same with "Forward for the Emprah".

I think it's likely that it either be FAQ'd or clarified somehow to only make shots precision shots on 6's, which will greatly nullify its effectiveness.

The new "precision shot" special rule may just be in the new edition rulebook. They have done that kind of forward writing before and it made little sense at the time it was released. The necrons come to mind.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:]Eh, the RAW are wrong, but if they suggest anything it's that all shots are precision shots more than 6's are precision shots

No. Not at all, using any logical or rational interpretation of the rules.

You can either A: Rules lawyer. Letter of the rules says there is no Precision Shot special rule, so the order does nothing.

Or you can B: assume that the Precision Shot special rule is the Precision Shots rule under characters, which has the stipulation that when 6s are rolled, you get to pick your target when allocating wounds.

Or you can C: assume that there is a Precision Shot special rule in the upcoming codex that we don't know of yet.


However, there is no D, where suddenly "Precision Shot special rule" becomes "Pick and choose whatever is the most advantageous language in the BRB under Precision Shots for characters". Seriously, there isn't one reasonable argument for that interpretation that isn't willfully ignoring how both the Orders Card and the only currently known rule for "Precision Shot(s)" are written. We know the content of the rule from the rulebook, and we know the context of the rule from Illic Darkspear. And we know the content of the card. It doesn't say "all shots from the ordered models are Precision shots" so the rule doesn't function like Illic Darkspear's Sharpshot. There's no arguing that it does. His rules are very specific. "shots fired by models." The orders card for "Take Aim!" is also very specific. It says "all ordered models" get "special rule" See, Ilic doesn't have to "get special rule" because he has it automatically by being a character. Every character uses Precision Shots. Illic is different by virtue of getting to break that rule. So even if we assume Precision Shot is equivalent to Precision Shots (a fair, but not necessarily correct assumption), they are still getting the rule and not simply the effects of the rule. Because they, very clearly and explicity with not a single iota of ambiguity, get the rule, they have to follow all of the stipulations of the rule. If we determine that rule is "Precision Shots" from the character section, then they have to follow all of it.

Otherwise you might as well save the weight carrying it around, ditch the BRB at home, and start making up the rules as you go along because it's not going to make any difference.

Ah, FAQs, I do miss those.

Fishborne wrote:The new "precision shot" special rule may just be in the new edition rulebook. They have done that kind of forward writing before and it made little sense at the time it was released. The necrons come to mind.

Precision shots is what the BRB calls an 'advanced rule'. the terms 'advanced rule' and 'special rule' are used interchangeably by every single codex printed in 6th edition. Best evidence tells us that advanced rules are also special rules. While the rule might be reprinted in the codex for ease of reference, I would not be surprised if it is not as most special rules from the BRB are not reprinted.

BlaxicanX wrote:I think it's likely that it either be FAQ'd or clarified somehow to only make shots precision shots on 6's, which will greatly nullify its effectiveness.

I doubt it, its fairly clear. They have the precision shot rule, witch means the wounds from shots with a 6 to hit are precision shots that may be allocated to the model of the shooting player's choice. The order does not make all of the shots in the unit precision shots. It gives the unit the unit the ability to get precision shots but to do so you still need to roll 6's.
Nothing ever gets FAQ'd any more, even something that will be highly contentious and potentially game breaking.

Wait a minute... so which one's the new IG codex? The Astra Militarum or the Militarum Tempestus? Or are neither of them the new codex, but both rather an expansion to the old one?

In all seriousness, with the rate that GW is releasing new books and supplements, I'm starting to get lost. Especially with them changing the names of things so they can get a firmer grasp of their IP. Granted, I don't play 40k anymore, so I'm somewhat out of the loop, but up until now, I've been at least keeping up with new releases, thanks to an interest invested into my old armies, as well as hopes that one day 40k might take a turn where it'd be worth playing again.

Wait a second... Those pictures of the Cadian Armoured fist. It says Shock Troops in the description, but those dudes look like vanilla cadian infantry to me. Did I miss something here?
Also, getting a bit lost here... Kasrkin, Veterans, Shock Troopers, Stormtroopers, Scions... how many units with the same tactical niche will the IG get...?

 Kosake wrote:
Wait a second... Those pictures of the Cadian Armoured fist. It says Shock Troops in the description, but those dudes look like vanilla cadian infantry to me. Did I miss something here?
Also, getting a bit lost here... Kasrkin, Veterans, Shock Troopers, Stormtroopers, Scions... how many units with the same tactical niche will the IG get...?

When launched as the original metals in 2nd Ed, all Cadian basic (or vanilla) infantry were known as Shock Troops.

Kasrkin were veteran, Storm Trooper type Cadians who first featured in one of Dan Abnett's Eisenhorn novels before making it into the Eye of Terror Cadian army list.

Kasrkin are not Storm Troopers/ Scions/ Tempestus, just highly trained and better armed and armoured Shock Troops.

Storm Troopers, now known as Scions/ Tempestus were also introduced alongside Shock Troops in 2nd Ed.

In fact, all of the 2nd Ed metals had a fancy name: Iron Guard, Desert Raiders, Jungle Fighters, Ice Warriors for Valhallans?

 Fishborne wrote:
The new "precision shot" special rule may just be in the new edition rulebook. They have done that kind of forward writing before and it made little sense at the time it was released. The necrons come to mind.

That's a good point.

 Fafnir wrote:
Wait a minute... so which one's the new IG codex? The Astra Militarum or the Militarum Tempestus? Or are neither of them the new codex, but both rather an expansion to the old one?

Astra Militarum Codex = New IG Codex
Militarum Tempestus = mail order only English only "Stormtrooper Codex"

And Sentinels are only missing on North American website, still available in Europe.

 Kroothawk wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Wait a minute... so which one's the new IG codex? The Astra Militarum or the Militarum Tempestus? Or are neither of them the new codex, but both rather an expansion to the old one?

Astra Militarum Codex = New IG Codex
Militarum Tempestus = mail order only English only "Stormtrooper Codex"

And Sentinels are only missing on North American website, still available in Europe.

You know, it was a lot better when everything came in just one book.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:]Eh, the RAW are wrong, but if they suggest anything it's that all shots are precision shots more than 6's are precision shots

No. Not at all, using any logical or rational interpretation of the rules.

You can either A: Rules lawyer. Letter of the rules says there is no Precision Shot special rule, so the order does nothing.

Or you can B: assume that the Precision Shot special rule is the Precision Shots rule under characters, which has the stipulation that when 6s are rolled, you get to pick your target when allocating wounds.

Or you can C: assume that there is a Precision Shot special rule in the upcoming codex that we don't know of yet.

Yes, yes there is a D, which using common English is the best interpretation. Read the paragraph under Precision Shot and note:

"If any of your character's shots roll 6 To Hit, these are Precision Shots. Wounds from Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice in the target unit"

Character's don't have "precision shot", if they roll a 6, the hit is a "precision shot", and the wound from the "precision shot" is allocated as you desire.

B really doesn't make any sense because you can't assume just because the heading is "precision shots" that EVERYTHING under is counted as a precision shot when they specifically tell you what is a precision shot. Compare this the actual special rules section, where every rule I've read actually says "units with X special rule" or "models who have X" or similar to that. For example: "If a weapon has the Sniper special rule blah blah blah".... Slow and Purposeful: "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule blah blah blah".... "Relentless models can blah blah blah". If you use the argument that everything under the heading is counted as the "Precision Shot special rule", then the order does nothing because it clearly states "If any of your character's..." and a regular infantry unit are NOT characters so the rule would have no effect.

Instead, you assume the plain English understanding of what a precision shot is: all shots are precision shots.

OR

You assume there's an error because they referred to a special rule that doesn't exist and thus invent what you want it to be.

OR

We wait for the codex and see what that says and restart this discussion then

In the grim darkness of the far future there is only RAW. The precision show debate can go to you make da call for an endless circle jerk/circular debate...same thing

New topic: Primaris, priests, and engineseers now all appear to be force org free limit 3 each per detachment.

Priests will probably be the same as AS keeping blobs deadly even if power weapons go up to 15 points.

Primaris psykers: This is pure speculation but I'm going to guess they are lvl1 psykers with only book powers from telep, tele, bio, and pyro with a big reduction in price. Stats will probably be lower than a 55 point lvl1 inquisitor so the price willprobably be lower. I'm guessing ld9, 2 wounds, 1 power, and about 5 to 10 points under a tzeentch herald.

Enginseer: No clue, but I'm going to guess same rules with a lower price.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Assume the plain English understanding of what a precision shot is: all shots are precision shots.

OR

You assume there's an error because they referred to a special rule that doesn't exist and thus invent what you want it to be.

OR

We wait for the codex and see what that says and restart this discussion then

^This.

Now can we please get on with discussing ANYTHING ELSE about the news and rumors on this topic.

I am very certain all sides have flushed out all of their reasoning any anything else is just restating old arguments or neigh-saying old arguments.

Edit: Got ninja'd

So in the title it says warlord traits but I can't seem to find them anywhere or is that just there because the white dwarf scan confirms new warlord traits?

The FW Hydra is 'out of stock' and missing from their updated catalogue - http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/downloads/product/pdf/f/Forge%20World%20Catalogue%202014-web.pdf

I am starting to doubt that we will retain the "combined squads" rule. I thought of this after seen that Commissars all get the aura of discipline rule, and are likely to be getting IC status. This would fit with an MSU approach to the Guard. It could also go a different way, where squads are bought as large units, instead of combining on deployment. Also, inability to blob would balance a lot of the ally abuse that can be done with the Guard, such as ATSKNF other special rules and things like 4++ saves from DA. Not saying that it is likely, just a possibility. Blob squads were a new thing in the 5th ed codex, so it isn't as if they have always been a part of the list.

As an aside, would this balance the precision shot order? It is brokenly good when done on a 50 man blob, but what if the max you can use it with is a ten man squad, or maybe some conscripts?

 Trickstick wrote:
I am starting to doubt that we will retain the "combined squads" rule. I thought of this after seen that Commissars all get the aura of discipline rule, and are likely to be getting IC status. This would fit with an MSU approach to the Guard. It could also go a different way, where squads are bought as large units, instead of combining on deployment. Also, inability to blob would balance a lot of the ally abuse that can be done with the Guard, such as ATSKNF other special rules and things like 4++ saves from DA. Not saying that it is likely, just a possibility. Blob squads were a new thing in the 5th ed codex, so it isn't as if they have always been a part of the list.

As an aside, would this balance the precision shot order? It is brokenly good when done on a 50 man blob, but what if the max you can use it with is a ten man squad, or maybe some conscripts?

Losing combined squad would spell the death of infantry platoons. In such an event:

1) Severely nerfs orders, now you can at best turn garbage into less-than-mediocrity, whereas a 30 man blob FRFSRF'ing could decimate even heavy infantry squads with lasgun fire.

2) Massive morale problems. You lose 3 Guardsmen in an infantry squad and you're taking an LD7 check. Keeping your squads within range of a Commissar would be difficult given how small the aura is and the Commissar and his unit won't be hard to wipe with concentrated fire in one shooting phase.

3) Vets will become the auto-take option as a result unless they get nerfed into oblivion

I don't think we will lose any of the FW units in the current Codex. With the rumor of new variants of tanks, I'm thinking they are going to open up all the IG FW units into the new codex. Salamanders and destroyers on the way! That would be the easy way out to add "new" units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Trickstick wrote:
I am starting to doubt that we will retain the "combined squads" rule. I thought of this after seen that Commissars all get the aura of discipline rule, and are likely to be getting IC status. This would fit with an MSU approach to the Guard. It could also go a different way, where squads are bought as large units, instead of combining on deployment. Also, inability to blob would balance a lot of the ally abuse that can be done with the Guard, such as ATSKNF other special rules and things like 4++ saves from DA. Not saying that it is likely, just a possibility. Blob squads were a new thing in the 5th ed codex, so it isn't as if they have always been a part of the list.

As an aside, would this balance the precision shot order? It is brokenly good when done on a 50 man blob, but what if the max you can use it with is a ten man squad, or maybe some conscripts?

The leaked rules for the scions suggest that at least a platoon as a single FOC will be remaining.

beast_gts wrote:
The FW Hydra is 'out of stock' and missing from their updated catalogue - http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/downloads/product/pdf/f/Forge%20World%20Catalogue%202014-web.pdf

That may or may not be significant. It could be out of stock because they are discontinuing it or it could be out of stock because it's going back to the design studio to have the master moulds repaired/remade.

 Sir Bubbles wrote:
Anybody feel like speculating what we'll be getting in the new IG battleforce/army set?

Sure. My guess:
Cadian command squad
3x cadian troop squads
Cadian heavy Weapon squad
Sentinel
Chimaera
Leman Russ
~ $200

On Precision shots- Regardless of the specific rule, it seems like people are assuming that the entire text of the rule is on the order card, and that the actual codex itself will not have a longer explanation, possibly clearing up the confusion.
[edit] Should have finished reading the thread. Leth brought up the same point.

 Trickstick wrote:
I am starting to doubt that we will retain the "combined squads" rule. I thought of this after seen that Commissars all get the aura of discipline rule, and are likely to be getting IC status. This would fit with an MSU approach to the Guard. It could also go a different way, where squads are bought as large units, instead of combining on deployment. Also, inability to blob would balance a lot of the ally abuse that can be done with the Guard, such as ATSKNF other special rules and things like 4++ saves from DA. Not saying that it is likely, just a possibility. Blob squads were a new thing in the 5th ed codex, so it isn't as if they have always been a part of the list.

As an aside, would this balance the precision shot order? It is brokenly good when done on a 50 man blob, but what if the max you can use it with is a ten man squad, or maybe some conscripts?

Not trying to sound like it's the end of the world, but losing the infantry platoon and the combined squad rule would probably be the last straw to make me drop the game for good, at least for my Ig army.

It would take some seriously cool stuff to convince me to stay if they did that.

But I doubt that would happen. FW still uses the infantry platoon for their stuff even in recent stuff.

2 special weapons max for vets though, that's very likely.

Insurgency Walker wrote:The leaked rules for the scions suggest that at least a platoon as a single FOC will be remaining.

MrMoustaffa wrote:Not trying to sound like it's the end of the world, but losing the infantry platoon and the combined squad rule would probably be the last straw to make me drop the game for good, at least for my Ig army.

I never meant to suggest that we would lose the platoon. The organisation of platoons has been an iconic part of the IG for a while. The scion rules from WD also, have a similar structure. I was simply talking about the combined squad rule. I do not think it is likely to go, but it is at least possible. Crazier things have happened in other codex releases. The most likely "nerf" that I can think of is losing the option to combine squads, replacing it with the ability to purchase 10-50 man units of Guard. Simplifies the rule but hurts tactical flexibility, which is a trait that the Guard are not renowned for.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
I am starting to doubt that we will retain the "combined squads" rule. I thought of this after seen that Commissars all get the aura of discipline rule, and are likely to be getting IC status. This would fit with an MSU approach to the Guard. It could also go a different way, where squads are bought as large units, instead of combining on deployment. Also, inability to blob would balance a lot of the ally abuse that can be done with the Guard, such as ATSKNF other special rules and things like 4++ saves from DA. Not saying that it is likely, just a possibility. Blob squads were a new thing in the 5th ed codex, so it isn't as if they have always been a part of the list.

As an aside, would this balance the precision shot order? It is brokenly good when done on a 50 man blob, but what if the max you can use it with is a ten man squad, or maybe some conscripts?

Not trying to sound like it's the end of the world, but losing the infantry platoon and the combined squad rule would probably be the last straw to make me drop the game for good, at least for my Ig army.

It would take some seriously cool stuff to convince me to stay if they did that.

But I doubt that would happen. FW still uses the infantry platoon for their stuff even in recent stuff.

2 special weapons max for vets though, that's very likely.

Thats how i look at it, FW seems to be the laboratory of testing new rules for regular armies. So stuff like tank orders, and 2 weapon vets seems entirely likely. Now we just need to dig around and see if DKoK or Elysians can take blob squads