If they were to change some minor rules to the DP instead of 'Daemonic gifts' to 'wargear' it would reduce some minor effectiveness on the Grey Knights side not much though. I think they had some anti-Daemonic gift weapons of some sort
If they were to change some minor rules to the DP instead of 'Daemonic gifts' to 'wargear' it would reduce some minor effectiveness on the Grey Knights side not much though. I think they had some anti-Daemonic gift weapons of some sort
Originally Posted by IJW
"If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... It's a demon, kill it! Kill it with fire!"
That's what I thought, too. The models will still have rules, though they may be getting new versions of the models.Originally Posted by Erazmus_M_Wattle
Might this be a pointer towards the rumored hull points rules in 6th edition? The rumor says that each damage results strips off a hull point; if Demonic Posession still "ignores" shaken and stunned it would make vehicles having that a LOT more durable compared to others.Daemonic Possession will be the way to go with the new Codex and new Edition of rules!
Yeah I don't buy the hull point rumor, but if it does happen then possession will ignore the effect but the tank will still take the point.
Otherwise Chaos and GK would have the most powerful tanks in the game.
No Signature right now.
Much as I would love to see Nurgle Contemptors and Decimators with Hull Points (why won't they die!?) I doubt hull points are going to happen
Remnants: A log whereupon a veteran attempts to piece an army together from scraps and trades
Danger! May contain Oingo Boingo
If a Rhino has 3 according to all the rumors then a Land Raider would have what...6? If you went by comparison in the sizes of the models then the Land Raider would have at least 6. I can deal with that. My biggest beef with vehicles at the moment is that in close combat people are always hitting the back which is stupid. If Vangaurd Veterans do a Heroic Intervention to land in front of a Leman Russ and assault it they shouldn't be able to hit the back of the tank. That is something that is very broken in the game. Also, where are our corrupted Imperial Guard tanks at? Chaos takes over worlds protected by the Guard all the time and GW wants me to believe that they wouldn't use a squadron of Russes to crush what was left of the Guard...I know they could take Basilisk before but I want Chaos to be able to take more than just a Basilisk. Make them more points since a Marine is running it, I don't care as long as you give me the option. Think about it. A Rhino is playable by Marines of all varities, Sisters, and Chaos. Land Raiders are a big seller too, as well as Razorbacks. Why not make Battle Tank playble by another army? Sales for IG stuff would go through the roof and people wouldn't even be using it for IG but it wouldn't matter to GW because they are still making money...
Rumors say land raider has 4.
Taking commissions now. New website!
www.battleworthy-arts.com
That is beyond idiotic. How can a tank with armor 11 that is half its size only have 1 less hull point?
The whole rear armor deal is to represent the infantry hitting the under side/tracks of the tank where its armor is the the most thin as well as opening hatches and what not.
/end off topic.
/on topic.
Wonder if the rumored new land raider variant is a similar one to a loyalist one or one from left field. either way would be neat.
It's already got better armour. 1 more "wound" is probably enough.
The thing with this rumour of "hull points" is that no vehicle could have any less than 2 without becoming useless (any hit that removes a HP would destroy it), and they'd probably need at least 3 to be any good at all (to allow you to cop a couple of Weapon Destroyed results before losing the whole vehicle)
That said, the whole Hull Point thing is very tangential to these rumours. Probably best not to get too bogged down with it.
The armour difference remains vitally important.
Simply glancing a land raider requires specialist weaponry (s8+) Having a land raider have four hull points means it will take about ~36 s8 shots(at bs4) to wreck it. This is a huge drop from the current number of s8 shots needed to wreck a land raider(currently ~ 108) but is still more than the number of s9 shots needed to kill a land raider(currently ~24. And I'm only counting penetrating hits for this estimate) So the only weaponry the land raider really becomes more vulnerable to is s8. Even there, it really just smooths the curve between glancing and penetrating hits, which makes balancing things like gun strength vs AV easier. Meanwhile things with AV10 rears become a lot easier to kill in assaults with s4 then they currently are for everyone except genestealers (Who due to rending, still remain better at wrecking AV10 tanks in assault than other s4 troops)
So battletanks become a bit easier for some anti-tank weaponry to wreck and APC's become easier to kill in assaults. And one of the things most people agree is wrong with 5th is vehicles being too tough.
That said I do think land raiders deserve a 5th hull point, as I feel 4 smooths the curve a bit too much (it pretty much becomes linear 36s8 or 24s9 or 12s10. )
I'd like to see Daemonic possession ignore all damage results bar the hullpoints. It'd give chaos tanks a great 'Won't stop until it's dead' feel, by basically turning them into monstrous creatures.
And isn't the rumour about hull points based on the chaos book? I haven't heard anything putting them in the main rulebook. Could be they only come into play for daemonic posession and there has been a trend lately towards every new codex having it's own suite of special rules...
That'd be way too good to be true though.
One interesting aspect of Hull Points is that it could flip the balance of Living Metal vs Fortitude. Currently Fortitude has the upper hand as you just ignore all Stunned / Shaken at the end of the turn, while Living Metal makes you roll for each damage result. If LM also ignores the Hull Point damage, that would mean GK vehicles could still ignore the shaken but could be torrented down easier.
Draigo's Razor: When presented with multiple explanations for a new piece of 40K content, the most likely answer is the one intentionally designed to make you, personally, angry.
/////
Tales of the Seferim Sector: an ongoing series of narrative battle reports.
Kommanda Shinbash's Misfits - 1500 pt Orks
I was aghast at first with the LRs only having 4, but I guess it's 'Hull' not 'Mass'. I'd still be happier with 5, but 4's okay.
Dude, that'd be awesome if Daemonic possession made the vehicle the terminator, half blown apart and still crawling towards you on devastated treads.... So cool. I prolly wouldn't use it because the price would almost definitely be too high, but still.
Interesting thought.
A lot of these proposed rules involving marks, possession, and organisation are making me really excited, and anxious. More so than any army we've got a lot of stuff in our history that can make an appearance, and a lot of things that were thrown away, wrongly or justly. We have had all the parts to make a great book every edition, but it's never really come together, the execution on this book will make or break it to an extent that's just silly.
My only comfort in this is that the book can't be worse than what we have now. And I have complete faith in Kelly if he's writing it. The rumoured rules we're getting sound like his stuff.
But about the dragon thing: If we really are getting it, I'm totally game. It sounds a bit fantasy-ish, but I was thinking about the new mandatory 'big thing' that e'ery army gets nowadays and I was kinda confused because thematically we could go three routes: Mechanical, Daemonic, or a blend of the two. We already have a blended one with the defiler, but which would it be for the new thing? It's not just a simple question of "Do them both because then it appeals to everyone" because armies that use blended stuff don't necessaries use the other two, and vice versa. I'm personally a big fan of the blended variety, and I like Mechanical stuff, but not so much the daemonic theme. Either way, having two big things means that we cover all our bases, especially if the dragon has a more 'enfleshed' version, as it were.
Also, I wouldn't worry about it being called a 'dragon', half of the tyranid monsters could accurately be called a 'dragon'.
A melta to the face: if it's good enough for Huron, it's good enough for me.
Did you know I have a blog? Neither did I, but apparently it's here! I review codices, write unbalanced, childish homebrewed rules, and post articles of my painting, conversions, and writing.
Uh? I though this was the Chaos Codex rumours thread... What's all this nonsense about "hull points"?
This is the war-ravaged world of Warhammer, and there's only WAR!... and hammers.
An earlier rumor stated that Chaos Rhinos will be set up with 3 Hull Points that can be removed by Stuns and Shakes. It's supposedly also part of the 6th Edition set up, too, so it gets a little blurry as to its appropriateness.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
An VERY interesting rumor I was passed recently has to do with Chaos Legions/Daemons and new Apocalypse rules! For those of us who are avid Mega-Event players this is promising news! IF we get new Apocalypse II rules in the basic 6th Edition Rule Book it won't mean much, but IF we do get a new book for Apocalypse II then Chaos will have a large part to do with that, including sneak peeks at many new models on the horizon!!!
OH, and "dragon" vehicle is more then likely the new Daemon Engine i've been mentioning...
Army of the Southern Gate
theDarkGeneral
T'raj the Terrible
Khorne Legion Daemongorge
Thanks Dark General.
My Sons of Medusa Project Log
Omg a rumor in this thread! Thanks TDG
The filth of their visage is nothing compared to the filth in their hearts -
BasetheRuins 2nd Ed Black Legion
So either Apocalypse rules are going to be done either..
1. In the 6th edition rulebook
or
2. As a separate book to line up with 6th edition game mechanics
I'd rather have it as a separate book, honestly. The book is already going to be huge as is with the new 6th edition rules and fluff.. don't need to make it bigger with rules for superheavies and squadrons that you can't take in a regular 2000 point game.
What I am interested in, if there is going to be a WD article to update CSM to Codex Renegades, when will it be? Is it when the Legions Codex comes out, the month after, months after? (nothing would surprise me).
I think there is room for both Renegades and Legions, just like for Space Marines there is one generic Codex and about 4 other chapter specific codexs. I still have the IA Renegades article think Huron would make a good poster boy for it as well as exploring renegade companies/warbands from chapters of each Loyalist First Founding Legions.
I think Forge World would be smart to do a book like the Badab War ones on Renegade Warbands with Special Characters, perhaps exploring renegades from the Loyalist Legion idea mentioned above.
I hope GW do a lot of diversification and go away from “if its in a Codex its public knowledge” so you can have a lot of character defining rules and use FW etc as just because a Codex is out for years does not mean everyone is familiar with whats in it.
Posting Permissions
The Dude
||||||||||||||||| 
|#