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.

It is my opinion that the new Battle Forged FOC is essentially unplayable in any games in which lists are not thoroughly pre-negotiated.

We thought Double FOC at 2000 points was broke before. Now we have unlimited FOC at any point level.

We thought 5 Riptides were bad before. How does 9 sound?

I'm sure my gaming group will houserule it in some fashion to make our games playable again. Are there people out there who are inclined to play it straight out of the rule book?

tag8833 wrote:
It is my opinion that the new Battle Forged FOC is essentially unplayable in any games in which lists are not thoroughly pre-negotiated.

We thought Double FOC at 2000 points was broke before. Now we have unlimited FOC at any point level.

We thought 5 Riptides were bad before. How does 9 sound?

I'm sure my gaming group will houserule it in some fashion to make our games playable again. Are there people out there who are inclined to play it straight out of the rule book?

Hell no.

tag8833 wrote:
It is my opinion that the new Battle Forged FOC is essentially unplayable in any games in which lists are not thoroughly pre-negotiated.

We thought Double FOC at 2000 points was broke before. Now we have unlimited FOC at any point level.

We thought 5 Riptides were bad before. How does 9 sound?

I'm sure my gaming group will houserule it in some fashion to make our games playable again. Are there people out there who are inclined to play it straight out of the rule book?

Who thought double force org was broken? Everyone freaked out about it the first month or two of 6th, actually got some games in, and then realized it was no big deal (not saying triple force org at 1850 won't be crazy, but lets give it some time... conventional wisdom was so wrong about double force org last time, after all).

May have missed it, but what happens after an FMC gets grounded? I saw that they can assault or be assaulted, but are they able to immediately start flying again on their next turn?

 rabidguineapig wrote:
May have missed it, but what happens after an FMC gets grounded? I saw that they can assault or be assaulted, but are they able to immediately start flying again on their next turn?

Yep, or they CAN assault.

Regarding the Combined Arms and FoC slots. If you have units from the same Faction do they work under one FoC? Say I have Black Legion Sorceror for my HQ and 2 Crimson SLaughter Chaos Marines as my Troops. Or would it be that each Codex got its own FoC?

MarkyMark wrote:

 rabidguineapig wrote:
May have missed it, but what happens after an FMC gets grounded? I saw that they can assault or be assaulted, but are they able to immediately start flying again on their next turn?

Yep, or they CAN assault.

Awesome, thanks again!

One faction.

IF using allies, they CANNOT have the same faction as those in your primary detachment, so no ally with yourself by the looks.

tag8833 wrote:
It is my opinion that the new Battle Forged FOC is essentially unplayable in any games in which lists are not thoroughly pre-negotiated.

We thought Double FOC at 2000 points was broke before. Now we have unlimited FOC at any point level.

This is GW way of telling all the 1999 +1 crowd they were doing it wrong

 Battlesong wrote:

See this is where us Tyranid players are looking at this wrong. We're not supposed to look at what's not in OUR codex, but we should see what is in OTHER codices; I mean we can now Forge A Narrative by using the CtA rules. Want Melta: Forge a Narrative by allying your Nids with some Salamanders - that makes sense, right? How about Lances, I'm sure that the Eldar would leve to lend their Lances to a Tyranid force....now that would be Narrative!

Are you completely unaware of what Genestealers do? Or are you just being deliberately obtuse because you think it's funny?

But if you cant ally with yourself then why be able to be battle brothers with yourself (ala nids)?

It seems odd that GW would say you cant Ally with yourself. Would you mind putting a pic of the detachment rules up?

Can somebody give more precise details regarding terrain. It was posted that AREA TERRAIN no longer exists. This could have very significant ramifications. Confirmation on this?

models in ruins are 4+ if you can see them fully or not, still 4+
area terrain is basically diffcult terrain still, but you have to be 25% obsurced to get a 5+ cover save


then you get to use the rules for it from battlefield terrain section, you get a 5+ for standing in it LOL
but it does say composition, Citadel wood....

 Lobukia wrote:

tag8833 wrote:
It is my opinion that the new Battle Forged FOC is essentially unplayable in any games in which lists are not thoroughly pre-negotiated.

We thought Double FOC at 2000 points was broke before. Now we have unlimited FOC at any point level.

We thought 5 Riptides were bad before. How does 9 sound?

I'm sure my gaming group will houserule it in some fashion to make our games playable again. Are there people out there who are inclined to play it straight out of the rule book?

Who thought double force org was broken? Everyone freaked out about it the first month or two of 6th, actually got some games in, and then realized it was no big deal (not saying triple force org at 1850 won't be crazy, but lets give it some time... conventional wisdom was so wrong about double force org last time, after all).

Plenty of people didn't like double force org at 2000pts. It's why so many tournies did 1999(+1)pts. Anything that allows you to spam the same stupid supposedly "elite" and rare overpowered thing OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER (two force orgs plus allies!) instead of encouraging diversity in the list is bad for random pickup games. Now you can add another OVER and OVER and OVER to that since you can feasibly get another 3 of whatever broken you wish in there with a third force org as long as you min/max the other choices. Balance within a codex has never been perfect but now has absolutely no reason to exist and gives GW and easy out since you can take pretty much anything from anywhere instead. Widening the "choices" of players as standard isn't the panacea that some folks think it is.

My question got buried several pages back, so I'll repeat it (along with another one).

Did the Sweeping Advance rules get cleaned up to end the SA versus Everliving debate; ie, does it give examples of special rules that can't be used or futher clarify if a rule that revives a model can be used or not.

Also, for Smash, is it truly double Strength or is it capped off at 10 as before?

 Sasori wrote:
Can you assault Via Outflank now?

I'm not sure if the assault from reserves has been covered and this is a rather monstrous thread.

Thanks Mark for the Necron info. I'm a bit undecided on the Chariot, especially since you can't disembark.

Tbf, CCB got a pretty big buff. 4++ Jinx instead of 5++ (3++ if flat-out?), vehicle damage table now going up to 7 with Living Metal ignoring most damage results and you can now get protection from getting shot at after swooping by going straight into melee. On the other hand, there still is the 100p tax for taking one. Hm.

 Vector Strike wrote:

mercury14 wrote:


Ah, so there's 5+ area cover after all

IIRC, any kind of terrain that obscures 25% or more of a model gives it 5+ cover now. What we lost was the type of terrain called 'Area Terrain' - the one that just having a toe inside gave 5+ cover AND +2 if you GtG. There isn't any kind of auto-cover now.
Oh and the disappearance of Area Terrain throws away the situation of having +1 or +2 for GtG in Ruins with Area Terrain. The only way to get +2 cover when GtG is with craters, barricades/defence lines or made-up terrain

Can someone with the book confirm how GTG and GTG in area cover (if there is such a thing) works?

str is capped at 10.

The rules for allied detachment is page 122.

All units chosen must have a different faction to any of the units in your primary detachment (or no faction).

Looks like you cannot ally with yourself, but as per my link to the blog earlier you can take mutlple FOCs in your primary detachment.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
Can you assault Via Outflank now?

I'm not sure if the assault from reserves has been covered and this is a rather monstrous thread.

Thanks Mark for the Necron info. I'm a bit undecided on the Chariot, especially since you can't disembark.

Tbf, CCB got a pretty big buff. 4++ Jinx instead of 5++ (3++ if flat-out?), vehicle damage table now going up to 7 with Living Metal ignoring most damage results and you can now get protection from getting shot at after swooping by going straight into melee. On the other hand, there still is the 100p tax for taking one. Hm.

Think it was stated that movement speed doesnt affect Jinx, its 4+ regardless of how fast you move.

MarkyMark wrote:
models in ruins are 4+ if you can see them fully or not, still 4+
area terrain is basically diffcult terrain still, but you have to be 25% obsurced to get a 5+ cover save


then you get to use the rules for it from battlefield terrain section, you get a 5+ for standing in it LOL
but it does say composition, Citadel wood....

Ah! That's what I was looking for. I thought someone had posted a few examples earlier in the thread somewhere but couldn't find them.

I highly doubt that most groups will have an issue saying "this thing that we always used as a wood? It now counts as a Citadel Wood".

How does Barrage interact with this then? Do you determine if the model is obscured from the final position of the center of the blast marker?

MarkyMark wrote:
models in ruins are 4+ if you can see them fully or not, still 4+
area terrain is basically diffcult terrain still, but you have to be 25% obsurced to get a 5+ cover save


then you get to use the rules for it from battlefield terrain section, you get a 5+ for standing in it LOL
but it does say composition, Citadel wood....

Do you mean models where LOS goes through ruins? Or based ruins? Can you even be in unbased ruins?

mercury14 wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:

mercury14 wrote:


Ah, so there's 5+ area cover after all

IIRC, any kind of terrain that obscures 25% or more of a model gives it 5+ cover now. What we lost was the type of terrain called 'Area Terrain' - the one that just having a toe inside gave 5+ cover AND +2 if you GtG. There isn't any kind of auto-cover now.
Oh and the disappearance of Area Terrain throws away the situation of having +1 or +2 for GtG in Ruins with Area Terrain. The only way to get +2 cover when GtG is with craters, barricades/defence lines or made-up terrain

Can someone with the book confirm how GTG and GTG in area cover (if there is such a thing) works?

There is no area terrain so no bonus for going to ground in what was once area terrain

basically GTG is flat +1 always.

 streamdragon wrote:

mercury14 wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:


So a unit in forest with modeled trees gets no cover save at all except for individual models which happen to be partially obscured? That seems silly.

Yes and no. I think the "Citadel Wood" model gets special rules giving everyone in the area a 5+ cover save. (I.e. the old cover rules; I suspect few groups will have issues using those same rules for their non-Citadel Wood models)

You have a unit of 10 dudes, 5 in the trees and 5 out of the trees. The 5 dudes out of the trees are closest to the enemy unit shooting at them. Those 5 dudes would not benefit from cover saves against enemy shooting, and would be the first 5 casualties removed.


At least in my understanding, keep in mind I don't have my book yet.

Ah, so there's 5+ area cover after all

Someone with the book would have to verify. I tried to search, but either I dreamed the post talking about terrain effects for specific GW terrain or search is broken.

Difficult terrain gives 5+

mercury14 wrote:

MarkyMark wrote:
models in ruins are 4+ if you can see them fully or not, still 4+
area terrain is basically diffcult terrain still, but you have to be 25% obsurced to get a 5+ cover save


then you get to use the rules for it from battlefield terrain section, you get a 5+ for standing in it LOL
but it does say composition, Citadel wood....

Do you mean models where LOS goes through ruins? Or based ruins? Can you even be in unbased ruins?

You will have to agree with your opponent if the base counts as the ruin or not.. If you are in a ruin say 2nd floor but not 25% cover you still get the ruin cover save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SeanDrake wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

mercury14 wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:


So a unit in forest with modeled trees gets no cover save at all except for individual models which happen to be partially obscured? That seems silly.

Yes and no. I think the "Citadel Wood" model gets special rules giving everyone in the area a 5+ cover save. (I.e. the old cover rules; I suspect few groups will have issues using those same rules for their non-Citadel Wood models)

You have a unit of 10 dudes, 5 in the trees and 5 out of the trees. The 5 dudes out of the trees are closest to the enemy unit shooting at them. Those 5 dudes would not benefit from cover saves against enemy shooting, and would be the first 5 casualties removed.


At least in my understanding, keep in mind I don't have my book yet.

Ah, so there's 5+ area cover after all

Someone with the book would have to verify. I tried to search, but either I dreamed the post talking about terrain effects for specific GW terrain or search is broken.

Difficult terrain gives 5+

Only if 25% cover by it.

MarkyMark wrote:
http://sanguinesons.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/biggest-change-in-7th.html

Something that has made me cry a little on the inside.

Yep, same as I have been saying.


6 flyrants
6 x 10 gaunts
2 crones

This is *battle forged* (Not saying it is a great list for winning.... just stupid that *this* is the 'restricted' version.)


Or my favorite so far, and if I can manage to pull it off...

4 Flyrants
4 x 10 gaunts

Chaplain Cassius
1 x 4 Tyrannic War Vets (Ultra marine formation)
6 Scouting Stormtalon gunships.


Yep, I plan on having Ultramarine Tyrannic war vets helping my Nid army kill space marines...

Because thats the way I Forge A Narrative!! <Drop Mic>

Was there confirmation on how Heavy vehicles work? Do they have any new interactions with Ordnance weapons?

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Battlesong wrote:

See this is where us Tyranid players are looking at this wrong. We're not supposed to look at what's not in OUR codex, but we should see what is in OTHER codices; I mean we can now Forge A Narrative by using the CtA rules. Want Melta: Forge a Narrative by allying your Nids with some Salamanders - that makes sense, right? How about Lances, I'm sure that the Eldar would leve to lend their Lances to a Tyranid force....now that would be Narrative!

Are you completely unaware of what Genestealers do? Or are you just being deliberately obtuse because you think it's funny?

Die handily to the ever present bolter fire?
Have you seen any genestealer armies in 6th?

SeanDrake wrote:


Difficult terrain gives 5+

So any model standing in difficult terrain gets a 5+ cover save just for standing in it?

Most tournies had been moving to a 2 detachment max after Adepticon so I expect a similar stance as we move forward with 7th.