Jump to content

do regular grey knights get an invuln?


Zeratul29

Recommended Posts

Power armour GKs do not get an invulnerable save from their swords. The nemesis force swords add to an existing invulnerable save.

Parry is a rumoured rule for 6th edition.

The Parry rule are for Power Weapons, and Force Swords are not Power Weapons.

Power armour GKs do not get an invulnerable save from their swords. The nemesis force swords add to an existing invulnerable save.

Parry is a rumoured rule for 6th edition.

The Parry rule are for Power Weapons, and Force Swords are not Power Weapons.

"FORCE WEAPONS

Force weapons are potent psychic weapons only used by trained Psykers. They have the same effects as power weapons, but can also be charged with sprawling psionic energy that can instantly extinguish the life force of any opponent." - "Leaked" 6th Ed BRB, Pg.93

And on the same page it shows that they don't have the parry rule, whereas power weapons do as shown in the next column. What you're quoting is just the description and it is refering to the fact that force weapons are Strength S, AP 2. Even if it were true all NFW weapons have extra rules meaning they wouldn't get the parry rule anyway, as per the parry description on page 93.

There's some support they aren't Number6.

 

I don't think it's as clear cut as GW would like it to be.

 

But I guess we'll only know for sure when 6th is released.

 

Edit: And until 6th is released, what's the harm in discussing and digesting these 'leaks'? They've reinvigorated interest in 40k, and are quite a good rule set on thier own, even if they turn out to be nothing to do with the official release.

 

Besides, at the worst, they're a nice take on the things in rencet Codexes that don't currently makes sense, but will do in 6th.

 

Like Pefered Enemy and Heavy.

I agree: no real harm. But I do actually worry that people are starting to make army list decisions based on these PDFs. That's unwarranted. And GW has been definitive: these aren't the real rules. Read carefully and thoroughly, you can easily see copy-pasta of most of the rumors that have been floating around the interwebs for the past year + a massive increase in the number and complexity of special rules. It's that latter portion that is a particular clue as to their illegitmacy, IMHO.

What like IG in Dawn of War?

 

Seriously though, there is most likely some grain of truth in these rules. And I don't think *anyone* belives these are the bona-fide as will be released 6th edition rules.

 

But you'd have to have a *very* compelling arguement to suggest that this isn't some early play test document, and that 6th isn't going to function similarily to these rules.

 

No, you probably don't want to go out and buy a new PAGK box to make 4 Incinerator dudes and a NFF Justicar. But who's suggesting that anyway? ;)

Oddly enough, I've noted nothing from the "leaked" rule set would make me change the comp of my army, as my comp is already based on what I feel is the best I personally can do with the codex. The "leaked" ruleset only changes how I'd go about playing, not which units I'll be fielding.

 

From an outsider looking in, I'd be happy if the "leaked" rules do not go into effect for 40k, as there is nothing in the rule set that makes the game fasters. Everything is a special rule ... or has special rules ... or modifies other special rules. I'd rather play a simpler ruleset than one that requires me to put all my "special rules" on flash cards so I can reference them easier while playing (remember the card decks we had in 2nd ed?).

 

Back to the OP, it does appear that our NFWs will not benefit from the "parry" special rule, putting all of our NFS armed PAGK in a spot without an invul save, just like they currently are. And since no other troop selection can be armed with power weapons one every model, its a non-issue (ie, balanced).

 

SJ

But you'd have to have a *very* compelling arguement to suggest that this isn't some early play test document, and that 6th isn't going to function similarily to these rules.

It more strongly resembles a fandex than anything like what GW actually produces. (Again, see intricate interlinking of multiple new special rules.) That and GW says it ain't it. If neither of these convince you that it isn't even a playtest version ... I got nothin'. :) Seems obvious to me, though....

But you'd have to have a *very* compelling arguement to suggest that this isn't some early play test document, and that 6th isn't going to function similarily to these rules.

It more strongly resembles a fandex than anything like what GW actually produces. (Again, see intricate interlinking of multiple new special rules.) That and GW says it ain't it. If neither of these convince you that it isn't even a playtest version ... I got nothin'. :tu: Seems obvious to me, though....

 

 

It's a hell of a lot of effort for a fake, personally I come down on it being a very early test version, the sort of thing they would send out to the studio employees to test out before they spend the time and effort to spruce it up and do some formatting on the rules. The ruleset itself is fairly good, I've played a couple of test games with it and while there are some problems it's nothing some testing, re-writing and clarification wouldn't sort out.

 

Of course there's the possibility it's a fake but to be honest with the month of FOTR coming up there's not much 40k stuff to talk about. :P

It's a hell of a lot of effort for a fake, personally I come down on it being a very early test version, the sort of thing they would send out to the studio employees to test out before they spend the time and effort to spruce it up and do some formatting on the rules. The ruleset itself is fairly good, I've played a couple of test games with it and while there are some problems it's nothing some testing, re-writing and clarification wouldn't sort out.

 

Of course there's the possibility it's a fake but to be honest with the month of FOTR coming up there's not much 40k stuff to talk about. :P

You're talking about people who spend hundreds if not thousands of hours making army lists, building models, and painting models.

 

Spending 3-4 evenings to hack together a set of 40K rules that you've been ruminating over ever since 5th edition hit the streets almost 4 years ago is not really a stretch.

 

I'm far from the only person who recognizes that the "leak" is the work of a fan and not GW.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.