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.

MarkyMark wrote:

 Byte wrote:
So I wonder if witchfire will have to snap fire after running?

The way it is written, it sounds like movement phase, then psyhic, then shooting.

Got it, thanks all.

I am miffed that snap shots are now easier to hit, It really hurts average BS armies and assault armies whilst giving the units with decent stats (normally the ones able to hold their own in combat) an extra chance to kill off their assaulter.

On the flip side I wonder if AA will remove all jink saves now, other wise whats the point of spending points on a AA weapon when you can just take a bunch of Havocs with Autocannons and hit on 5+ or a load of dark reapers etc.

 Ignatius-Grulgor wrote:


Are you talking about a page of 7th edition I've missed because I've got the book on my knee right now and it says D6+6 wounds, the ignores all saves is contained within the destroyer rule. I was just trying to ascertain where the talk of 7th edition D weapons ignoring invulns on a 6 was coming from, mostly cause I tend to use my daemons in apoc.

When you say you have the book on your knee, you mean Apocalypse, right? Because if you have the 7th edition book already you're about to suffer from a question avalanche

 Ignatius-Grulgor wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Ignatius-Grulgor wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Ignatius-Grulgor wrote:
So it could just be me but where exactly is this confirmation that 6's ignore invulns, because if it's the line I'm thinking of it doesn't say that at all, reads more like 'good luck passing 7-12 saves on each model' to me.

If you're talking about D weapons, it's because a 6 destroys the model, not gives X wounds. You can't save vs destroy.

You're thinking of stomp attacks, D weapons do D6+6 wounds on a 6 (unless you're a vehicle in which case it's explodes, or D6+6 HP for SH's). Unless there's another change I've somehow missed too.

No, if you read through the thread D weapons are 1: Nothing, 2-5: wounds that ignore cover, 6: destroy.

Are you talking about a page of 7th edition I've missed because I've got the book on my knee right now and it says D6+6 wounds, the ignores all saves is contained within the destroyer rule. I was just trying to ascertain where the talk of 7th edition D weapons ignoring invulns on a 6 was coming from, mostly cause I tend to use my daemons in apoc.

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
I'm even wondering if my Nightwing Interceptors would be able to survive on a 7th Edition table. Before, their speciality was that their Jinking save was awesome...now their rules create a save that isn't even helpful. A 1+ Cover while Jinking? Sure, it may be armor value 11...but only 2 Hull Points.

Tau Barracuda is in the same situation. 11 11 10, 2 HP, +1 to cover if Jink...

If jink is a 4+ Then these flyers get a 3+...how is that worse?

In my example it isn't worse, simply redundant since the Nightwing comes with 'Shrouded'.

Old Rules while Jinking: 5+ Jink, 3+ with Shrouded, 2+ with Agile.
New Rules while Jinking: 4+ Jink, 2+ Shrouded, 1+ with Agile.
So paying for Agile with no benefit.

Not a huge deal, but if flyers are getting hit hard to begin with....those little smaller nerfs will add up quick.

Khaine willing, they hit FMCs as hard as they hit flyers.

Agile still gives benefits. Shrouded gives you a basic 5+ cover out in the open, improved by one by "agile" , so that's a 4+ cover save without requiring to "jink".

From what I understand, the way new V7 jink save works, appears similar to how it is in V6 for fliers. It's not a passive capacity, but a reaction you can opt to make or not, when shots are incoming. There is no need to declare a jink, if your opponent fails to hit your flier / skimmer / bike.

 xttz wrote:

Spoiler:

 Ignatius-Grulgor wrote:

Are you talking about a page of 7th edition I've missed because I've got the book on my knee right now

I'm just going to assume that this is a typo.

Oh lord yeah no I meant the apoc one! That's what I get for being in a rush eh.

rigeld2 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Ignatius-Grulgor wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
[spoiler]

 Ignatius-Grulgor wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Ignatius-Grulgor wrote:
So it could just be me but where exactly is this confirmation that 6's ignore invulns, because if it's the line I'm thinking of it doesn't say that at all, reads more like 'good luck passing 7-12 saves on each model' to me.

If you're talking about D weapons, it's because a 6 destroys the model, not gives X wounds. You can't save vs destroy.

You're thinking of stomp attacks, D weapons do D6+6 wounds on a 6 (unless you're a vehicle in which case it's explodes, or D6+6 HP for SH's). Unless there's another change I've somehow missed too.

No, if you read through the thread D weapons are 1: Nothing, 2-5: wounds that ignore cover, 6: destroy.

Are you talking about a page of 7th edition I've missed because I've got the book on my knee right now and it says D6+6 wounds, the ignores all saves is contained within the destroyer rule. I was just trying to ascertain where the talk of 7th edition D weapons ignoring invulns on a 6 was coming from, mostly cause I tend to use my daemons in apoc.

I'm certain I've read in this thread that D weapons were changed to what I said.
Which is why people are saying they ignore invuls on a 6.

I'm not going to search through the thread to find it.

Yeah I keep seeing it repeated too I just couldn't see a source for it, guessing there were some crossed wires there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leggy wrote:

 Ignatius-Grulgor wrote:


Are you talking about a page of 7th edition I've missed because I've got the book on my knee right now and it says D6+6 wounds, the ignores all saves is contained within the destroyer rule. I was just trying to ascertain where the talk of 7th edition D weapons ignoring invulns on a 6 was coming from, mostly cause I tend to use my daemons in apoc.

When you say you have the book on your knee, you mean Apocalypse, right? Because if you have the 7th edition book already you're about to suffer from a question avalanche

Yeah I totally need to edit that before the barrage begins, though looking through too late eh .

Still knowing what my locals like it wouldn't surprise me if I got it early they always put white dwarfs out in the middle of the ruddy week.

 Ravajaxe wrote:

Spoiler:

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
I'm even wondering if my Nightwing Interceptors would be able to survive on a 7th Edition table. Before, their speciality was that their Jinking save was awesome...now their rules create a save that isn't even helpful. A 1+ Cover while Jinking? Sure, it may be armor value 11...but only 2 Hull Points.

Tau Barracuda is in the same situation. 11 11 10, 2 HP, +1 to cover if Jink...

If jink is a 4+ Then these flyers get a 3+...how is that worse?

In my example it isn't worse, simply redundant since the Nightwing comes with 'Shrouded'.

Old Rules while Jinking: 5+ Jink, 3+ with Shrouded, 2+ with Agile.
New Rules while Jinking: 4+ Jink, 2+ Shrouded, 1+ with Agile.
So paying for Agile with no benefit.

Not a huge deal, but if flyers are getting hit hard to begin with....those little smaller nerfs will add up quick.

Khaine willing, they hit FMCs as hard as they hit flyers.

Agile still gives benefits. Shrouded gives you a basic 5+ cover out in the open, improved by one by "agile" , so that's a 4+ cover save without requiring to "jink".

From what I understand, the way new V7 jink save works, appears similar to how it is in V6 for fliers. It's not a passive capacity, but a reaction you can opt to make or not, when shots are incoming. There is no need to declare a jink, if your opponent fails to hit your flier / skimmer / bike.

I thought Agile only kicked in when you Jink? So it didn't stack with Shrouded normally? If so, I've been boning myself on my Nightwings. :-P

 Ravajaxe wrote:

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
I'm even wondering if my Nightwing Interceptors would be able to survive on a 7th Edition table. Before, their speciality was that their Jinking save was awesome...now their rules create a save that isn't even helpful. A 1+ Cover while Jinking? Sure, it may be armor value 11...but only 2 Hull Points.

Tau Barracuda is in the same situation. 11 11 10, 2 HP, +1 to cover if Jink...

If jink is a 4+ Then these flyers get a 3+...how is that worse?

In my example it isn't worse, simply redundant since the Nightwing comes with 'Shrouded'.

Old Rules while Jinking: 5+ Jink, 3+ with Shrouded, 2+ with Agile.
New Rules while Jinking: 4+ Jink, 2+ Shrouded, 1+ with Agile.
So paying for Agile with no benefit.

Not a huge deal, but if flyers are getting hit hard to begin with....those little smaller nerfs will add up quick.

Khaine willing, they hit FMCs as hard as they hit flyers.

Agile still gives benefits. Shrouded gives you a basic 5+ cover out in the open, improved by one by "agile" , so that's a 4+ cover save without requiring to "jink".

From what I understand, the way new V7 jink save works, appears similar to how it is in V6 for fliers. It's not a passive capacity, but a reaction you can opt to make or not, when shots are incoming. There is no need to declare a jink, if your opponent fails to hit your flier / skimmer / bike.

Sadly it does not. Agile improves Jink saves, not cover saves in general.

 Vector Strike wrote:

Spoiler:

[spoiler]

 Ignatius-Grulgor wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Ignatius-Grulgor wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Ignatius-Grulgor wrote:
So it could just be me but where exactly is this confirmation that 6's ignore invulns, because if it's the line I'm thinking of it doesn't say that at all, reads more like 'good luck passing 7-12 saves on each model' to me.

If you're talking about D weapons, it's because a 6 destroys the model, not gives X wounds. You can't save vs destroy.

You're thinking of stomp attacks, D weapons do D6+6 wounds on a 6 (unless you're a vehicle in which case it's explodes, or D6+6 HP for SH's). Unless there's another change I've somehow missed too.

No, if you read through the thread D weapons are 1: Nothing, 2-5: wounds that ignore cover, 6: destroy.

Are you talking about a page of 7th edition I've missed because I've got the book on my knee right now and it says D6+6 wounds, the ignores all saves is contained within the destroyer rule. I was just trying to ascertain where the talk of 7th edition D weapons ignoring invulns on a 6 was coming from, mostly cause I tend to use my daemons in apoc.

Still waiting for an actual source on D weapons granting cover saves.

Not sure why this is being pushed around, the WD only mentions Invuln. You'd think they would have mentioned cover as well.

As for 6s, I'm sure 6's still ignore all saves.

First where has it been PROVEN you can take cover saves against D-Weapons? I just thought it was Invulnerable saves allowed only.

Second, so what if Cover Saves can be take. After all a blade of grass gave a cover save to the old Terror of the Deep rule a cover save and NOBODY except Nid players had any trouble with this.

Davor wrote:
First where has it been PROVEN you can take cover saves against D-Weapons? I just thought it was Invulnerable saves allowed only.

Second, so what if Cover Saves can be take. After all a blade of grass gave a cover save to the old Terror of the Deep rule a cover save and NOBODY except Nid players had any trouble with this.

If cover saves can be taken against D weapons then they're ridiculously weak now.

I was told by my GW sales rep who has seen the book that you will get cover saves against a D weapon unless a 6 is rolled.

That said.....they sort of let 10 guys look at a book for a couple of hours, and I take most info with a grain of salt. They are all off Thur/Fri for a long weekend of "training"/Teambuilding. Hopefully someone brings the new 40k book and they can all read it before I have to place orders on Monday. I have lots more questions.

 mikhaila wrote:
I was told by my GW sales rep who has seen the book that you will get cover saves against a D weapon unless a 6 is rolled.

That said.....they sort of let 10 guys look at a book for a couple of hours, and I take most info with a grain of salt. They are all off Thur/Fri for a long weekend of "training"/Teambuilding. Hopefully someone brings the new 40k book and they can all read it before I have to place orders on Monday. I have lots more questions.

So when a D weapon large blast hits a squad of 5 tac marines in a bush, it kills on average two guys. Assuming it doesn't scatter then it kills one or zero.

mercury14 wrote:



So when a D weapon large blast hits a squad of 5 tac marines in a bush, it kills on average two guys. Assuming it doesn't scatter then it kills one or zero.

Awesome.

Maybe people forgot D weapons ever existed in standard 40k games and the game can inch a little closer into the realm of sanity.

 Blacksails wrote:

mercury14 wrote:



So when a D weapon large blast hits a squad of 5 tac marines in a bush, it kills on average two guys. Assuming it doesn't scatter then it kills one or zero.

Awesome.

Maybe people forgot D weapons ever existed in standard 40k games and the game can inch a little closer into the realm of sanity.

If D weapons grant cover saves they'll be apocalyptically stupid.

mercury14 wrote:



If D weapons grant cover saves they'll be apocalyptically stupid.

Again,

Awesome

The game doesn't need D weapons. Nerfing them into oblivion is a step in the direction towards sanity.

If the -2 BS on snapfires are true, things like the Avatar of Khaine just became a nightmare if a flyer gets in range. Even if not in melta range, still hitting on 2's against flyers is pretty crazy.

D weapons giving cover are pretty much worse than normal str equivalents

THey're supposed to be strong. Giving invulns I'm ok with, cover is ridiculously stupid easy to get these days.

How are they worse? It's still better than S:10 isn't it.

DId anyone else notice that for Witchfire powers, or precise Witchfires (or whatever they are called), if you exceed the casting cost in Warp Charge, you get to choose your target?

So what the heck is the source for the rumor that overwatch/snap shots are now just a flat -2 to BS? Because there's a LOT of discussion about it in the tactics forum and I haven't seen any proof whatsoever that that is even a thing.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

cover is ridiculously stupid easy to get these days.

As is getting ignore cover.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
D weapons giving cover are pretty much worse than normal str equivalents

I keep seeing people say this.

How? Seriously - how exactly are they "pretty much worse" than a Str10 AP1 weapon? They pen on a 2-5 for any vehicle. They auto-kill on a 6. They throw tons of wounds on multi-wound models.

Str10AP1 blast against Carnifexes in cover? maybe 2 wounds, not even a dead Carnifex.
D blast against Carnifexes in cover? Likely at least one dead Carnifex.

Really, the best solution to D weapons was to keep ignoring invuln saves, but allow cover saves (except for hellstorms). That makes them the counter to rerollable deathstars, and you'd also have the option of using normal Ignores Cover weapons to counter cover-reliant units.

Of course it's possible that Ignores Cover itself will be nerfed to a -2 or something (and that's what D-weapons get). I'm not putting any money on it though.

Rugrud wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

cover is ridiculously stupid easy to get these days.

As is getting ignore cover.

Not everyone plays tau

 xttz wrote:
Really, the best solution to D weapons was to keep ignoring invuln saves, but allow cover saves (except for hellstorms). That makes them the counter to rerollable deathstars, and you'd also have the option of using normal Ignores Cover weapons to counter cover-reliant units.

Of course it's possible that Ignores Cover itself will be nerfed to a -2 or something (and that's what D-weapons get). I'm not putting any money on it though.

I'd be ok with one or the other, but not both being taken.

Honestly a giant titan killing weapon being ignored because a guy hid behind a fence post...srsly

It also seems like they took away SD as being a reasonable counter to invulnerable saves. I think they took the need bat a bit too hard to SD. The best part of SD, imo, was that it counterbalanced invulnerables. Allowing cover is even more silly. Probably should have been 4+ ignore invuln, always ignore cover.

I feel like my DE will be even weaker this edition given improved overmatched and skimmer nerf :/.

The solution for D weapons is to remove them entirely from normal games of 40k.

The solution for deathstars with absurd invulns is to address the source of those invulns, not create a weapon that ignores everything.

Deeply apologize for asking if already asked, but has there been any news about changes to assault? That to me, seemed to be in dire need of fixing...

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Honestly a giant titan killing weapon being ignored because a guy hid behind a fence post...srsly

Honestly a giant worm erupting from under ground being ignored because a guy hid behind a fence post... srsly.
Honestly a giant floating brain sucking the soul out of everyone around him being ignored because a guy hid behind a fence post... srsly.