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.

mercury14 wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
"Borderline useless"?

Are you serious? Them no longer ignoring invulnerable saves makes them "borderline useless"?

Come on.

So D-Weapons allow cover saves now? Everything is going to GTG in cover an get a 3+ save from D death. That's a colossal nerf.

And what about Imperial Knights, they fail in CC to a whole lot of things now.

Until we see the full picture, how can you make that assumption?

mercury14 wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
"Borderline useless"?

Are you serious? Them no longer ignoring invulnerable saves makes them "borderline useless"?

Come on.

So D-Weapons allow cover saves now? Everything is going to GTG in cover an get a 3+ save from D death. That's a colossal nerf.

And what about Imperial Knights, they fail in CC to a whole lot of things now.

It's been confirmed that D-weapons which roll a 6 ignore invuln saves, the part regarding cover saves is still unconfirmed. It MIGHT work like this:
1 = No wound
2-5 - X Wounds with invuln and possibly cover allowed
6 = X wounds with no save possible

Good to see they have cleared up the blessing stack arguement. Knew it would go that way and thats how I have always played it but its good to finally get a clear rule on it, I can still see people arguging the fact though!. The mulitple targets for PSA is crazy though!.

 xttz wrote:

mercury14 wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
"Borderline useless"?

Are you serious? Them no longer ignoring invulnerable saves makes them "borderline useless"?

Come on.

So D-Weapons allow cover saves now? Everything is going to GTG in cover an get a 3+ save from D death. That's a colossal nerf.

And what about Imperial Knights, they fail in CC to a whole lot of things now.

It's been confirmed that D-weapons which roll a 6 ignore invuln saves, the part regarding cover saves is still unconfirmed. It MIGHT work like this:
1 = No wound
2-5 - X Wounds with invuln and possibly cover allowed
6 = X wounds with no save possible

Indeed you don't get cover in Close Combat so the Knight is not as worried as ranged D weapon users ...........................

I thought ranged D weapons were considered totally broken and unplayable until now?

They are. So I'd be questioning anyone who's seriously upset at them getting a much-deserved "nerf".

If I had to guess I'd say they were a proud new revenant owner until that rumor came to light.

Even if the rules stay roughly the same, a Knight gets 1+d3 Wounds in per punch, requiring the same number of invul saves from the target. Unless your opponent has good rerollable Invul saves, he still is going to punch straight through them.

mercury14 wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
"Borderline useless"?

Are you serious? Them no longer ignoring invulnerable saves makes them "borderline useless"?

Come on.

So D-Weapons allow cover saves now? Everything is going to GTG in cover an get a 3+ save from D death. That's a colossal nerf.

And what about Imperial Knights, they fail in CC to a whole lot of things now.

Invuls =/= Cover

D Weapons allow invuls now, except on a roll of a 6.
Unknown if they allow cover, though that is unlikely; D weapons never allowed cover, not even in 4th ed.

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
I hope to God the rumors about Ignore Cover only reducing 2 to the cover save is true (even if now the name makes no sense). Tau need the nerf hammer bad (and they'll still be on top with the all other toys they have/buffs to overwatch)

I do not understand why people want that so much. Are my flamethrowers so powerful that they need some more nerf on top of the huge range reduction that will very likely prevent me from one-shooting any unit, ever? Or you think the once-per-game, Ld-test required AoF of my melta dominion is too powerful? Or do you want to nerf my army because of a problem with Tau markerlight rather than an errata on Tau markerlight?


That stupid decision to allows a unit to be the target of multiple cumulative blessings opens for so much abuse it is not even funny.

I am sure flame weapons will get something like "No cover saves may be taken" instead of the ignore cover rule.

They are allowed to be targetted by multiple different blessings but may not stack the same blessing more than once. Not seeing where the issue is here.

 Juicifer wrote:
Interesting that the casualty removal seems to be the same. Probably not happy news for Orks.

Not for my Boyz nor my Dark Kin.

GW talks a lot about Cinematic and Narrative but neither of these terms really correlate to hiding my big bad behind waves of minions instead of clawing it's way to the front to get at it's prey...

Ah well, not the end of the world.



On another note, whoever said D Weapons were useless now just made my day... Something that had broken the game, effectively, received a reduction in capability, still leaving it highly lethal, and it's 'useless'...

The pendulum swings, eh!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

I do not understand why people want that so much. Are my flamethrowers so powerful that they need some more nerf on top of the huge range reduction that will very likely prevent me from one-shooting any unit, ever? Or you think the once-per-game, Ld-test required AoF of my melta dominion is too powerful? Or do you want to nerf my army because of a problem with Tau markerlight rather than an errata on Tau markerlight?


That stupid decision to allows a unit to be the target of multiple cumulative blessings opens for so much abuse it is not even funny.

Could you please stop complaining about your army? I think every single post you've made in this thread refers to it.

The chance to D weapons was entirely necessary. They were stupidly overpowered before.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The chance to D weapons was entirely necessary. They were stupidly overpowered before.

I'm massively surprised they were changed so soon after the last Apoc book, especially considering the rules were reprinted in the Knight codex and some Forge World books. Makes me wonder if super-heavies and GCs will get any tweaks.

The original D weapon rules were created for Apocalypse, by the Forge World team.

I don't think they envisioned them being added to the standard game of 40k and when they were, I would suppose they were a bit startled and perhaps made some helpful suggestions about toning them down, ASAP...

That would be my guess.

 xttz wrote:
I'm massively surprised they were changed so soon after the last Apoc book, especially considering the rules were reprinted in the Knight codex and some Forge World books. Makes me wonder if super-heavies and GCs will get any tweaks.

I'm massively surprised we're getting a new edition so soon after the previous edition, especially considering Escalation/Stronghold Assault were printed just recently and this new edition will contain their rules.

So I guess anything is possible when you need to make a full-year sales report look good.

When my grandchildren get their toy soldiers out, they have no FOC, it's just pew pew, and "my bazooka just blew up your tank".
When GW takes away rules and restrictions, just to sell more models. We are not playing a game, games have rules. We are playing toy soldiers. If I want to play toy soldiers I can go to poundland, and buy them.

 loki old fart wrote:
When my grandchildren get their toy soldiers out, they have no FOC, it's just pew pew, and "my bazooka just blew up your tank".
When GW takes away rules and restrictions, just to sell more models. We are not playing a game, games have rules. We are playing toy soldiers. If I want to play toy soldiers I can go to poundland, and buy them.

So Apocalypse games are just playing toy soldiers and making "pew pew" noises?

Glad to know my 7,000 point game was just Cowboys and Indians the Board Game.

 streamdragon wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
When my grandchildren get their toy soldiers out, they have no FOC, it's just pew pew, and "my bazooka just blew up your tank".
When GW takes away rules and restrictions, just to sell more models. We are not playing a game, games have rules. We are playing toy soldiers. If I want to play toy soldiers I can go to poundland, and buy them.

So Apocalypse games are just playing toy soldiers and making "pew pew" noises?

Glad to know my 7,000 point game was just Cowboys and Indians the Board Game.

Depends. If you rolled dice to determine the amount of pew-pews, then it was a game.

 SarisKhan wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
When my grandchildren get their toy soldiers out, they have no FOC, it's just pew pew, and "my bazooka just blew up your tank".
When GW takes away rules and restrictions, just to sell more models. We are not playing a game, games have rules. We are playing toy soldiers. If I want to play toy soldiers I can go to poundland, and buy them.

So Apocalypse games are just playing toy soldiers and making "pew pew" noises?

Glad to know my 7,000 point game was just Cowboys and Indians the Board Game.

Depends. If you rolled dice to determine the amount of pew-pews, then it was a game.

That would require rules, and apparently without the FOC it's just "pew pew" noises .

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The original D weapon rules were created for Apocalypse, by the Forge World team.

I don't think they envisioned them being added to the standard game of 40k and when they were, I would suppose they were a bit startled and perhaps made some helpful suggestions about toning them down, ASAP...

That would be my guess.

Nope, there was no such things as D weapons on IA stuff before Apoc was released, which was written by the core design studio (both iterations of it).

D weapons were already overpowered and undercosted in the original Apoc book and then the studio just made them BETTER while not adjusting their points cost at all.

The horrible D weapon situation lays solely at the feet of the core design studio.

Can "pew pew" please be a USR, I would love to say this unit has assult 3 str 4 pew pew lasers

 zammerak wrote:
Can "pew pew" please be a USR, I would love to say this unit has assult 3 str 4 pew pew lasers

The higher pitched the PEW the lower the AP. Your basic "pew" being AP - ... whereas your PEEeeeewww!!1 grants AP3.
Only dogs can hear the AP1 pew pew lasers.

In an unbound list do allies follow the force org or could I take say 3 jetseers in my DE army?

Well, as the army trying to DtW don't get the same number of dice of its enemy (only the d6), I'm better off getting psyker allies...

Shingen wrote:
In an unbound list do allies follow the force org or could I take say 3 jetseers in my DE army?

You cannot take allies for an unbound army, nor fortifications or lords of war. Only formations

 Vector Strike wrote:
Well, as the army trying to DtW don't get the same number of dice of its enemy (only the d6), I'm better off getting psyker allies...

Shingen wrote:
In an unbound list do allies follow the force org or could I take say 3 jetseers in my DE army?

You cannot take allies for an unbound army, nor fortifications or lords of war. Only formations

Yeah but seeing that you can take anything from any book you can ally with in an Unbound army, with no restrictions of the FoC...

So you could just take 3 of anything anyway?

Yup...



Really?...

Psy powers arn't allready annoying enough, they made it worse?...

Yup thats a good thing that Psykers needed, thanks to be thinking for my World Eaters, bunch of gakkers...

I really hope that they FaQ MoK to give the "Pyskers brain go boom" rule..., a Psyker looks at your Khorne unit funny?, he gets 2D6 Perils of the Warp rolls on the chart and loses his pants...

Hehe

im putting 10 missile long fangs in groups of 2 in my daemons army, shut up! Im forging a narrative here!

I more or less posed that as a question to Shingen, to ask why he was asking that --- You know what? I don't even know anymore.

...What's going on?

Found on Feat212;

I picked up the White Dwarf today, and just want to let you know through a cursory run through that most of the meat has already been picked clean from the mag for this week except for a couple minor details such as Unit Coherency is increased to 6" when measured vertically and Split Fire no longer requires a leadership check.
Something else is that they mention that charging through difficult terrain is -2" not moving through difficult terrain.

Also found this on BoLS.