6th Ed rumors and DE

pingualoty wrote:

lululu_42 wrote:

Warhammer 40,000 - Allied Detachments & Flyers

Stumbled on to this.

Tells us at most that allies is a concept and flyers go zoooom.....

Also tells us that they dont really care about fluff anymore...

Quote :

Yes, Eldar helping out Orks. Why? Well, you'll have to ask the Eldar that - they are nothing if not mysterious.

And that they want to sell models and a little thing like background shouldnt really get in the way...

Quote :

Incidentally, when the Stormtalon came out, many hobbyists asked us on Facebook if they could use it in their Black Templars/Space Wolves/Blood Angels army. Well now, if you pick it as an allied unit to your main army, the answer is very happily: yes.

And proof GW hasnt forgotten Waac players...

Quote :

The addition of allies to Warhammer 40,000 is a big deal for many of us, but for a myriad reasons. There are some of you that will want to add allies to your army to optimise the amount of damage that your force can do

Mandor wrote:

Arrex wrote:

Remember that all armies will be effected more or less equally by the new changes.

This is, of course, not true. Example: if you have an army that is primarily focused on assault (say: Tyranids) versus an army that is primarily focused on shooting (say: Imperial Guard) and you introduce more shooting (say: defensive fire) versus less assault (say: random charge length), then Tyranids will suffer more than Imperial Guard.

*Samuel L Jackson voice* "Well allow me to RETORT!"

1. We don't know that shooting will be worse or better than assault. In 3rd edition, assault was definitely overpowered, in the last two editions, it's been much more balanced. I expect the trend to continue with assault and shooting being roughly equal.

2. Believe it or not, the game is based on objectives most of the time. Warhammer 40K isn't about simply smashing the enemy army off the table. Even the most powerful army can only be in so many places at once, and with objectives designed intelligently, armies with less raw firepower but more mobility/durability/etc can outmatch them. If winning were based on a simple calculation of who has the stronger army, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Stonewall Jackson would never have won a single campaign.

3. I highly, highly doubt that GW is going to revamp the rules in such a way as to completely nerf certain armies and overpower others. The designers aren't stupid, they know better than to alienate customers by reducing any mainstream army to uselessness.

Finally, keep in mind the general scale of the game is going to be the same and no one should jump to conclusions. So let's look at charge length: In theory, new transports can only move 6 inches and then offload infantry. But I also seem to remember that you can unload these infantry 6 inches from the vehicle. Now you've got 12 inches total movement. Then you can run 2D6 to assault, netting you at least 7 inches most of the time, and up to 12 inches. Now you've got up to 24 inches total, whereas before, you might get 26 inches, depending on how much you cheated jumping your troops off the transport. So, total distance is about the same. Remember you can premeasure, this offsets random distance. (Add in bonuses too) So what was the nerf on transports again?

The only game balance concern I really have is allies, simply because there is no way enough playtesting was conducted to balance that. (Working off the assumption armies are internally balanced in the books) Seems like taking allies could lead to some insane combination armies, particularly if pyschic powers can be stacked. (probably why Tyranids can't take allies, as their leadership modifying abilities would stack with Primaris pyskers, etc) Dark Eldar are a great example of this, since allies would let you build forces that could combine extremely mobile firepower/shock troops with hard as nails Terminators and heavy tanks. For armies with close allies, it gets more insane with units combining, etc. Now that could unleash some highly "broken" armies.

Mandor wrote:

Arrex wrote:

Remember that all armies will be effected more or less equally by the new changes.

This is, of course, not true. Example: if you have an army that is primarily focused on assault (say: Tyranids) versus an army that is primarily focused on shooting (say: Imperial Guard) and you introduce more shooting (say: defensive fire) versus less assault (say: random charge length), then Tyranids will suffer more than Imperial Guard.

True, but do we know there's less assault? 2D6 averages 7" and can be 12". And there are changes to other aspects of assault, such as piling in. So until we've actually seen all the rules, and probably played them a few times, it's a bit early to be reaching conclusions about what will/won't happen in 6th.

Arrex wrote:

probably why Tyranids can't take allies

OR because tyranids are so utterly alien that they cant reasonably be negotiated with, or because they devour EVERYTHING they come across...

Arrex wrote:

Now that could unleash some highly "broken" armies.

I think everyone keeps forgetting that only FRIENDLY armies can actually affect each other, anything else is questionable, and some circumstances could result in armies and allies not doing anything because they hate each other so much. Everyone keeps talking about how awesome or necessary it's going to be to have a farseer. Bunk that. Fire dragons in my raiders, and wyches in wave serpents, and a wraithlord coming out of my WWP, thats what im looking forward to!

Ruke wrote:

Everyone keeps talking about how awesome or necessary it's going to be to have a farseer. Bunk that. Fire dragons in my raiders, and wyches in wave serpents, and a wraithlord coming out of my WWP, thats what im looking forward to!

You might have just convinced me to paint my Wraithlord.

Arrex wrote:

2. Believe it or not, the game is based on objectives most of the time. Warhammer 40K isn't about simply smashing the enemy army off the table. Even the most powerful army can only be in so many places at once, and with objectives designed intelligently, armies with less raw firepower but more mobility/durability/etc can outmatch them. If winning were based on a simple calculation of who has the stronger army, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Stonewall Jackson would never have won a single campaign.

I have about a 90% win rate. I'd say of that, probably 90% again is tabling. Winning with superior fire-power is probably the best way to win. Playing for objectives is only done between turn 5-7 when you've frak up turns 1-5 and you need to scramble a win as quickly as possible. Everyone I have ever played, who played for objectives, has got stomped.

Also, you're "simple calculation.. stronger army... doesn't always win.. etc." is flawed because military strength is the total of a huge amount of factors, including the mobility, resilience and even the generals; all of which you took out of the equation to make your point.

Evil Space Elves wrote:

You might have just convinced me to paint my Wraithlord.

Right? WLs can't be hurt by bolters, and most heavy weapons are going to need a 4+ to wound. Popping them out of a WWP will be much more effective than a talos (same story for wraithguard). And your haemun will be much more likely to reach where they want to put their WWP's in a wave serpent than a raider.

Things are starting to look elfy. XD

As a side note, from what I can gather from rumors, it seems like everything is going to have 3 hull points, things with 13+ av will get +1 hull point, and open topped will get -1. If this is the case, it could be a very good thing for us, not having a penalty (+1 like now) to the vehicle damage chart.

Ruke wrote:

Evil Space Elves wrote:

You might have just convinced me to paint my Wraithlord.

Right? WLs can't be hurt by bolters, and most heavy weapons are going to need a 4+ to wound. Popping them out of a WWP will be much more effective than a talos (same story for wraithguard). And your haemun will be much more likely to reach where they want to put their WWP's in a wave serpent than a raider.

Things are starting to look elfy. XD

As a side note, from what I can gather from rumors, it seems like everything is going to have 3 hull points, things with 13+ av will get +1 hull point, and open topped will get -1. If this is the case, it could be a very good thing for us, not having a penalty (+1 like now) to the vehicle damage chart.

Most are 3 with the big ones at 4, but vipers and venoms are 2 and maybe more.

IASGATG wrote:

Arrex wrote:

2. Believe it or not, the game is based on objectives most of the time. Warhammer 40K isn't about simply smashing the enemy army off the table. Even the most powerful army can only be in so many places at once, and with objectives designed intelligently, armies with less raw firepower but more mobility/durability/etc can outmatch them. If winning were based on a simple calculation of who has the stronger army, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Stonewall Jackson would never have won a single campaign.

I have about a 90% win rate. I'd say of that, probably 90% again is tabling. Winning with superior fire-power is probably the best way to win. Playing for objectives is only done between turn 5-7 when you've frak up turns 1-5 and you need to scramble a win as quickly as possible. Everyone I have ever played, who played for objectives, has got stomped.

Also, you're "simple calculation.. stronger army... doesn't always win.. etc." is flawed because military strength is the total of a huge amount of factors, including the mobility, resilience and even the generals; all of which you took out of the equation to make your point.

Doesn't sound like you're a tourney player....

Random charge range kinda sucks but in saying that we do now get the chance to charge more than 6". But as we all know Wyches don't like being left out in the open. I personally aren't going to risk it all too often.

I'm liking the shooting element moreso, infact whats taking my interest is the "no half strength on scattering Large Blasts against vehicles" rule change - I see our standard heavy slots being made up of minimum 2 Razorwings/Void Ravens with Shatterfields, Zooming on and lining up side armour against a blob of tanks and letting all 4 missiles rip - imagine, 3 direct hits on 3 vehicles on side armour, all from the one Flyer. Run 2 of them and thats your Razor spam, Chim spam, Spider/Scarabs taken care of.

Dealing with Night Fight will suck a bit, but both Flyers have Night Vision.....coupled with NightSheilds and the enemy having to shoot them back as BS1, not much is going to bring them down - just take out any Fortifications or anything with the SkyFire rule before they come on from Reserve......

Anyone got anything on Vehicle movements/disembarking etc.......thinking of WebWay depolyment ideas obv. If all vehicles are limited to 18" (36" for flyers) maybe a small Reaver squad may come on handy as a late game contestors....that its if they can still Turbo Boost......

Who's up for the DE and Eldar alliance!!! Let's kick those mon keighs out of the galaxy!! Eldrad, fire dragons, scouts and Wraithlords to everyone!!

You remember when allies where only for the Imperium (IG+GK, etc)? Now let's take our vengeance!!

@Ruke: Open topped still gets a +1 on the damage table.

@Sorrowshard: I'll just cherry pick myself through some of your points.

(G)Lances ;-) Have they gotten worse? No, but they also have not gotten Better. BUT weapons without AP2 or better have gotten worse, eg missile launchers and autocanons. So in comparison with all the other anti tank weapons, we got better, than some and are equally worse compared to others.

Hullpoints: Great things, especially for the fraction on the internet that complained about Lances only ever glancing. 3 glances and we can move to the next target.

AP? on our weapons. We know that Power weapons act as AP3 and we know that ower weapons are Power weapons, BUT we have special Power weapons, just as the Power Axe is a special version of the Power weapon.

And what does a power Axe do? +1S....wait a minute, doesn't that sound familiar ;-) Exactly Klaives. I can well imagen that they will be qual to power axes. I just fear the Ini 1 Part of the power axe...
So lets not freak out bevor we do not know the exact values of our weapons.

Sorrowshard wrote:

Eh this makes no sense , please explain ? snap fire is a bad jioke , woo sixes to hit ..... everyone else has TL guns or more shots or are cheaper or both , raider = crap in sixth.

I think you misunderstood him there. He talked about the passengers, and there i only know the dark eldar wo have acess to mass twin linked shots from inside a transport.
As the fast vehicles are able to fire up to 2 weapons with regular BS while moving 12", even our double SC vipers will feel no change in their shooting output.

Sorrowshard wrote:

dunno about you but to me a 3+ save on the majority of my opponents is just as hard to get rid of, sure anyone else without it took a hit .... but they were no an issue anyway ? so of no real benefit at all

Where does the 3+ come from? Did you mean the cover save while night fighting while 24"-36" away? Well good that Dark Eldar ignore night fighting all together(night vision), so its only a 5+ coversave, if the target is in cover... it aint so bad now is it?
And a 5+ coversave for 0Points is better that a 5+Inv. Save most of the times. in a regular 1500P game you get 80-100P more to spend.

And regarding the charge distances, Dark Eldar where pretty spoiled with their 29" charge (12"+2"turning+3"disembark+max6"fleet+6"charge). Now we have 3" less. or maybe a bit less, as we now have 2 dice to throw, even though we can reroll them.

Sure its a nerf, but as meantined we where very spoiled with our assault move, so its part of making the game a little more balanced ;-)

so lets keep it simple and don't wine about things we do not know of(AP Values etc)

sláinte

@1++:Goot point with the missiles there. i only feared the templets against us, S7 is pretty nice against vehicles. but not beeing DS2 or 1 makes them as good/bad as autocanons. still nice.

And reguarding the movement. is not up to 18" Max movement. Its. up to 12" for all vehicles in the movement phase, and any vehicle can go flat out 6" in the shooting phase. Land raiders, Rhinos, all of them. But fast skimmers have a flat ou move of 18" in the shooting phase, so 12" in movement phase and than additional 18" in the shooting phase to a total 30" in total.

Crazy_Irish wrote:

Hullpoints: Great things, especially for the fraction on the internet that complained about Lances only ever glancing. 3 glances and we can move to the next target.

HP's are our bread and butter IMO - glancing on a 2+ against AV12 and above, who else can do that - its just a pity we can't spam them like we can DL's or Splinter Cannons. But it doesn't mean that DL's are rended useless - success comes from volume of fire. As you rightfully said, 3 Glances, move on.

Wyches charging with Haywires in theory is good, can get 10 Haywires per squad charging out of a Raider, moving 12" then 18" which is further than what we do now. Once again setting up T2 assaults.

Has anyone heard of HP's on Dreads.....??? I'm guessing they'll have 4 HP's (AV12 and above)

I thought dreadnoughts were 3HP's, though can't remember where I saw that, sorry.

from BOLS lounge

krittoris wrote:

force weapons are as follows

grey knights force weapons are AP3 like power weapons

force staff - 2+ strength AP4
force axe - 1+ strenght, AP1, INITATIVE 1.
force sword - ap 3 normal initative.

grey knight and units or models with special force weapons do NOT follow this chart and use there codex versions.

to show what a force weapon type your using, you just look at the model and whatever it is modelled with is what you get, no points differential.

sooooooo GK have a lot of AP3 close combat weapons... but how many AP2??
The rest.. how many Force Axes do you see round there??? Maybe Wolves?? I dunno.


I'm starting to think that 2+ saves will be pretty solid, and that only powerfists and power axes (all thinks with initiative 1 right now) will be able to negate them. If you can kill them before they hit, your 2+ save char will stay safe.

1++ wrote:

Has anyone heard of HP's on Dreads.....??? I'm guessing they'll have 4 HP's (AV12 and above)

They also have 3. I think only Land Raiders, Defilers, the Deamon Defiler and Ghost Arks have 4.

Eldur wrote:

I'm starting to think that 2+ saves will be pretty solid, and that only powerfists and power axes (all thinks with initiative 1 right now) will be able to negate them. If you can kill them before they hit, your 2+ save char will stay safe.

Agree, 2+ will be the new black - and once again DL's will serve us well - maybe the odd Dissie Ravager for good measure too

Dissie Ravager wouldn't cancel FnP but bring more wounds. Depends how many tanks you would face to decide which one to use.

Inrit wrote:

Dissie Ravager wouldn't cancel FnP but bring more wounds. Depends how many tanks you would face to decide which one to use.

I think the point 1++ was making was that a dissie ravager would ignore terminator armour saves, so should give you a decent chance at killing 2-3 termies.

Problem is our Darklight is going to be kept busy elsewhere, termies are going to have to be torrented as the inevitable 3++ makes Dl's a waste. probably venom spam and a doomseer .....

Pretty annoyed that I'm going to be forced to use Eldar with my army to remain competitive .....

And why would you not want fire dragons ? they cost one more point than the damn blasters we buy for our trueborn and have a better save and a decent AT gun (still not clear if melta still has 2d6 @ 6" mind ...)

Essentially as it stands any of our units/characters get caught cold by termies are dead , the end.

I doubt we'll see many though ....

Sorrowshard wrote:

Problem is our Darklight is going to be kept busy elsewhere, termies are going to have to be torrented as the inevitable 3++ makes Dl's a waste. probably venom spam and a doomseer .....

Pretty annoyed that I'm going to be forced to use Eldar with my army to remain competitive .....

And why would you not want fire dragons ? they cost one more point than the damn blasters we buy for our trueborn and have a better save and a decent AT gun (still not clear if melta still has 2d6 @ 6" mind ...)

Essentially as it stands any of our units/characters get caught cold by termies are dead , the end.

I doubt we'll see many though ....

the problem is you are assuming that tank spam stays at its current level. We still dont know how the meta will change when the rules hit. Currently the Internets are screaming 6th will be "Foothammer" If so then our dark lances will have no problem shredding through squads of termies.

On top of that we dont know what our power weapons AP are going to be. Sure, they might be AP3, but they could be AP2 as well. We will have to wait and see the book and FAQs to make sure.

Currently it does seem like 2+ is going to amazing, but we know currently with enough splinterfire, everything goes down. I highly doubt our tactics are going to change that much, its just what units will be doing the killing.

That FnP is not cancled by DS1 and DS2 is a pretty big improvement to FnP units. Even our own. Now Grtoesques and Wraks have something against Powerweapons. Even if it's just 5+.

But it seems that ID still negates FnP so Lances are still pretty good against Termis with FnP. But they really are not that comon, so Dissi Ravangers are still good.

I think it will be interesting to see what combos will be played. Like some have sad, fire dragons are NICE for their price, but they need a transport.. their our Blaster Born are cheaper, and can stay further away.
18" with nightfighting is a 4+ Coversave...

So I was re-reading the VoidRaven rules and the Void Mine is looking waaaaay more useable now - as the Flyer rules allow them to Zoom 36" and fire everything - so dropping that mine on 10 Termies is gonna be brutal BUT the rule states that the bomber counts as using a weapon SO must we then shoot at the same unit as we just dropped the mine on?

Prolly too early to tell......

I Still think the mine is lame, it's always been lame, it's just not very potent compared to how it's cracked up to be and pitiful compared to what others get as heavy support choices (that are not even a single shot thing....)

I think the Raven is something that will need to be play tested a fair bit to really determine if its worthwhile, it's hard to tell atm.