Well, we playtested whatever this is at the LGS anyway.
It works pretty well. I'm tired and need to go to bed so I can't say anything too ridiculously detailed, but I'll sum it up a bit and give some quick observations.
We played a 1v1 game @1000 pts. My Blood Angels Sanguinary Guard Army vs my friend's Green Tide Orks.
The biggest surprise and ultimately the most noticeable impact on the game was the Tactical Gambit. It took us about a half hour just to figure out what the hell was going on there and who deployed when and how. The key is that you roll off to determine who deploys first, but then you bid strategy points on who actually takes the first turn. So my opponent won the roll off and chose to deploy first, but I won the bid, which meant that I got to look at how he was deployed and take the first turn. It was like I seized the initiative in 5th, so I had a big advantage...
...except he used all the strategy points to make his ENTIRE Ork army STUBBORN. You ever try killing a stubborn green tide with 16 gold space marines? I have. It ain't pretty.
It took us about 3 hours to play 5 turns. Almost all of that was searching through the rules. Actual time spent playing the game/ moving dudes/ rolling dice was very minimal. This ruleset moves much quicker than the 5th edition set. You wouldn't expect that from all the extra complexity, but it does. You only move units once per turn (for the most part) and that really speeds it up.
We didn't use any vehicles except for one ork buggy, which I destroyed by charging and attacking with infernus pistols in close combat, then shooting in the shooting phase with the same infernus pistols. I threw away 5 sanguinary guard to do it, but I wanted to see how the rules for all of that played out. The vehicle exploded and explosions are quite a bit more dangerous now. They basically work like 5th edition dangerous terrain checks. No armor saves.
He won in the end by charging his last 2 mobs of boyz (40 orks) in to alpha strike my last sanguinary guard that was tied up fighting a warboss with 1 wound left. Alpha strike is mean. Those boyz wrecked that Sanguinary Guard at I10.
Overall, I like this ruleset far more than the current 5th edition set. The best thing is just the lack of random dice rolls. It is subtle on paper but when we actually started moving dudes around it was like "wait I don't have to roll to run/move through terrain/charge" the movement values are arbitrary so you can plan everything ahead without worrying that 1 bad dice roll will ruin everything. You can premeasure movement and if you fail a charge it actually specifically states that you can choose to just move some other way. No more "Oops my unit is .01 inches out of charge range, guess they're screwed"
I like it a lot. Here's to hoping this is the real thing and not some internet hoax.
to be honest, this is one of the reasons I think that they are not fake, or if they are, somehow contain a lot of real stuff.
The changes in moving and taking out the randomness and measuring seem very similar to fantasy, and according to my friends who play it this has streamlined the game a lot.
However, I admit that I personally do not play fantasy (any more) so others who do, may have other opinions.
One final note: just as it says in the book, and this person's report confirms, one should not judge the simplicity/complexity until they actually play.
Squidmanlolz wrote:How long was it between the leaked "5th ed." and the real codex release?
Rumors based verbatim on the pdf started coming out early spring, like march and I think pdf leaked fully shortly after. 5ed released in July. So this is a tad earlier but in the general time frame.
Defensive Fire allows the unit to take a Shooting action. I've been through pretty much the whole document, but I can't find anything to say that that can't be anything other than a normal Fire action.
Covering Fire against DSing units? The Directed Hits rules don't mention Defensive Fire or DS, though as DF is a Support action, I'm wondering if there might be a clause about that.
To hold an objective, you must be within 3″ of it, outside of a transport, at the beginning of the turn, before reserve rolls, starting turn 2.
A unit can only hold one objective at a time. Vehciels can’t hold objectives. Scoring units get 3 VPs per turn, and 6 at game’s end!
Interesting victory conditions in objective-based games. I wonder if fragile Eldar will be able to hold an objective for one turn. In fact, getting VPs per turn makes the game tactically totally different.
I cant see how this leaked 6th Ed can be real, it has to be a fake.
Do you think they'd switch the phases up like that? Adding tiers of Eternal Warriors, Psykers, Fearlessness sounds silly an cumbersome.
Defensive Fire, Really? really? So 30 orkz charge my 7 Plague Marines i can just dump 2 full flamers into them, and 5 rapidfire boltguns? That hardly seems fair at all.
There would be so many imbalances and complications that it would ruin 40k until every codex was re-written to reflect these rules.
Also with tiered systems of fearlessness, EW, and Psykers you would think NEcrons would hint on this. Theres no tiered systems in their codex and they just got released, what are they just boned now?
To hold an objective, you must be within 3″ of it, outside of a transport, at the beginning of the turn, before reserve rolls, starting turn 2.
A unit can only hold one objective at a time. Vehciels can’t hold objectives. Scoring units get 3 VPs per turn, and 6 at game’s end!
Interesting victory conditions in objective-based games. I wonder if fragile Eldar will be able to hold an objective for one turn. In fact, getting VPs per turn makes the game tactically totally different.
This is very simmilar to one of chaos missions from the Battlemissions book. I played it a few times and consider it really good.
decoste007xt wrote:I cant see how this leaked 6th Ed can be real, it has to be a fake.
Do you think they'd switch the phases up like that? Adding tiers of Eternal Warriors, Psykers, Fearlessness sounds silly an cumbersome.
Defensive Fire, Really? really? So 30 orkz charge my 7 Plague Marines i can just dump 2 full flamers into them, and 5 rapidfire boltguns? That hardly seems fair at all.
There would be so many imbalances and complications that it would ruin 40k until every codex was re-written to reflect these rules.
Also with tiered systems of fearlessness, EW, and Psykers you would think NEcrons would hint on this. Theres no tiered systems in their codex and they just got released, what are they just boned now?
I'm 99% sure its a fake.
Remember, necrons are still only a 5th edition codex, they can't give away rules from the next edition, especially if the change is dramatic, it wouldn't make sense in the current rules. A lot of the new rules seem to make more sense to be honest, it seems to make everything more reasonable, more tactical and less-forgiving than the standard of 40k that we're used to.
decoste007xt wrote:I cant see how this leaked 6th Ed can be real, it has to be a fake.
Do you think they'd switch the phases up like that? Adding tiers of Eternal Warriors, Psykers, Fearlessness sounds silly an cumbersome.
Defensive Fire, Really? really? So 30 orkz charge my 7 Plague Marines i can just dump 2 full flamers into them, and 5 rapidfire boltguns? That hardly seems fair at all.
There would be so many imbalances and complications that it would ruin 40k until every codex was re-written to reflect these rules.
Also with tiered systems of fearlessness, EW, and Psykers you would think NEcrons would hint on this. Theres no tiered systems in their codex and they just got released, what are they just boned now?
I'm 99% sure its a fake.
Defensive Fire would be the Old Overwatch. It turned 2nd Edition into a Cold War Game and setting up fire lanes, etc. It wouldn't be bad if in the scenario you list above do not allow the marines to strike at the orks because they spent their time shooting...
To hold an objective, you must be within 3″ of it, outside of a transport, at the beginning of the turn, before reserve rolls, starting turn 2.
A unit can only hold one objective at a time. Vehciels can’t hold objectives. Scoring units get 3 VPs per turn, and 6 at game’s end!
Interesting victory conditions in objective-based games. I wonder if fragile Eldar will be able to hold an objective for one turn. In fact, getting VPs per turn makes the game tactically totally different.
This was my initial concern as well. My Saim-Hann list is going to play very differently. Sitting min-size squads of DA's with a Falcon or Wave Serpent to block LOS might work, but they'd fold to any firing or assault. On the plus side, the Power Weapon/Shimmer Shield option has become much more appealing.
Monoliths are now Super-heavies with 1 Structure point. They can DS safely and blast things easily. Not to mention Warriors aren't 100% guaranteed to crumble in CC anymore. There are more things to list, but there's no need. If this is what being boned feels like, I'd hate to think what being blessed feels like.
decoste007xt wrote:I cant see how this leaked 6th Ed can be real, it has to be a fake.
Nope
decoste007xt wrote:Do you think they'd switch the phases up like that?
Like 2nd edition? For 40k's 25th anniversary?
Yes.
decoste007xt wrote:Defensive Fire, Really? really? So 30 orkz charge my 7 Plague Marines i can just dump 2 full flamers into them, and 5 rapidfire boltguns? That hardly seems fair at all.
No. The PM can't just DF whenever it wants. RTFM.
decoste007xt wrote:There would be so many imbalances and complications that it would ruin 40k until every codex was re-written to reflect these rules.
Most recent ones already have, the Update fixes those that haven't, and the others will get new codexes soon.
decoste007xt wrote:Also with tiered systems of fearlessness, EW, and Psykers you would think NEcrons would hint on this.
They do. Heavily. See:
decoste007xt wrote:Theres no tiered systems in their codex and they just got released, what are they just boned now?
Opposite. DE, Necrons, GK, etc have all clearly laid the groundwork for these rules. Also see the Codex Update.
To hold an objective, you must be within 3″ of it, outside of a transport, at the beginning of the turn, before reserve rolls, starting turn 2.
A unit can only hold one objective at a time. Vehciels can’t hold objectives. Scoring units get 3 VPs per turn, and 6 at game’s end!
Interesting victory conditions in objective-based games. I wonder if fragile Eldar will be able to hold an objective for one turn. In fact, getting VPs per turn makes the game tactically totally different.
This was my initial concern as well. My Saim-Hann list is going to play very differently. Sitting min-size squads of DA's with a Falcon or Wave Serpent to block LOS might work, but they'd fold to any firing or assault. On the plus side, the Power Weapon/Shimmer Shield option has become much more appealing.
Dribble Joy wrote:Defensive Fire allows the unit to take a Shooting action. I've been through pretty much the whole document, but I can't find anything to say that that can't be anything other than a normal Fire action.
You can use either a Fire or Heavy fire. You get relentless for the action so hvy weapons are a go, you get sustained fire just because it is built into the rapid fire rules, and for template and blast attacks it has special rules under DF.
decoste007xt wrote:I cant see how this leaked 6th Ed can be real, it has to be a fake.
Do you think they'd switch the phases up like that? Adding tiers of Eternal Warriors, Psykers, Fearlessness sounds silly an cumbersome.
Defensive Fire, Really? really? So 30 orkz charge my 7 Plague Marines i can just dump 2 full flamers into them, and 5 rapidfire boltguns? That hardly seems fair at all.
There would be so many imbalances and complications that it would ruin 40k until every codex was re-written to reflect these rules.
Also with tiered systems of fearlessness, EW, and Psykers you would think NEcrons would hint on this. Theres no tiered systems in their codex and they just got released, what are they just boned now?
I'm 99% sure its a fake.
I like how people makes statements like this when they obviously din't read the whole subject or the whole ruleset...
A bit like someone who read the 3 first pages of the User manual of a Combat Aircraft and say" WTF how are you supposed to work that thing!?!"
I have to say that I have had a good look through these rules and the more I do I believe they are a genuine early draft of 6th Edition.
If they aren't they are a very elaborate, but very clever and informed fake. But I don't honestly believe that to be the case.
There are some very subtle returns to 2nd Edition. Let's face it, over the last several Codexes GW have introduced nostalgic nods to earlier editions with unit choices.
But things like to hit modifiers, parrying, overwatch, strategy cards etc seem to have all been retconned into these rules, and have been done very well.
But it's the fact that games will allegedly be much quicker that makes me believe these are real.
Quicker games means bigger games, which allows GW to sell more minis. Plus the fact that infantry are now much more viable, and that they are less resilient holding objectives means you need more of them.
It was always believed that this edition would encourage players to buy more infantry, and these rules seem to back this up.
Plus scenery seems to take a more active role, meaning GW can sell more kits.
I don't mean that in an entirely cynical way, I accept the the rules may be a way to push sales, but I do really like what I have seen so far.
However as I believe this is a very early draft I would anticipate some changes, but the bones are there in this document.
I for one am quite excited, 40K needed a change, and this does it whilst also harking back to the "good old days", which I think is a good thing.
As to the missile launcher nerf? Nerf? Long fangs can split fire and will hit tanks on 2+ (since they are 'massive'). How is that a nerf? If you fire frags at a horde you roll to hit and only scatter 2x the miss on a d6...so 2" or 4" max scatter vs hordes with a blast marker...again, not a nerf.
I call not being able to pen anything higher than av11 a pretty big nerf
edit: for people that missed it, krak is str6 ap 4 and frag str 3 ap 6 in the new rulebook
NOOOOOOOOO!
And the last competitive element of the Dark Angels book just goes 'poof!' No update to the codex on the horizon either. That is a really crappy change making Kraks S6 AP4. The rending rule hasn't changed AFAIK and is just as crappy as 5th ed so switching cyclones to assault cannons doesn't exactly excite me - it's basically a toss up between an extra 12" or a chance to rend on 4 shots. Wow. Plus I'd lose a thunder hammer and storm shield as well a a cyclone to take an ass can :( I'm gonna go read the PDF and try to find something that doesn't kill my Deathwing now....
EDIT* Just seen that it's actually only the grenades that have the crappy stats. Wow. crisis averted - Must admit that would have been a super nerf - ignore me anyway
I love the argument that tiered systems are too complicated.
We have them right now. They are just sucky and inconsistent with random codexes avoiding using keywords and random abilities "always" or "never" doing something. Codex writers are constantly pushing the limit by making things ignore other keywords.
decoste007xt wrote:
Defensive Fire, Really? really? So 30 orkz charge my 7 Plague Marines i can just dump 2 full flamers into them, and 5 rapidfire boltguns? That hardly seems fair at all.
Only if:
a) The 30 orks just arrived by deepstrike within 6" of your plague marines and made an engage move (not a charge - they can't charge after DS) to get into combat
or
b) Your plague marines have somehow gained the Overwatch special rule, which they don't have (for example by using the 'fire at will' strategem)
Otherwise you don't get to do defensive fire when getting charged.
As to the missile launcher nerf? Nerf? Long fangs can split fire and will hit tanks on 2+ (since they are 'massive'). How is that a nerf? If you fire frags at a horde you roll to hit and only scatter 2x the miss on a d6...so 2" or 4" max scatter vs hordes with a blast marker...again, not a nerf.
I call not being able to pen anything higher than av11 a pretty big nerf
edit: for people that missed it, krak is str6 ap 4 and frag str 3 ap 6 in the new rulebook
NOOOOOOOOO!
And the last competitive element of the Dark Angels book just goes 'poof!' No update to the codex on the horizon either. That is a really crappy change making Kraks S6 AP4. The rending rule hasn't changed AFAIK and is just as crappy as 5th ed so switching cyclones to assault cannons doesn't exactly excite me - it's basically a toss up between an extra 12" or a chance to rend on 4 shots. Wow. Plus I'd lose a thunder hammer and storm shield as well a a cyclone to take an ass can :( I'm gonna go read the PDF and try to find something that doesn't kill my Deathwing now....
Those are the stats for grenade launchers, not missiles.
Let's apply some logic and common sense here. In the past, people have highlighted the fact that Games Developers such as Chambers/PriestlyCavatore etc have wanted to be radical with 40k but the bosses refused. As a result, they left.
Now compare these rules with Chambers' Starship rules, (or whatever they are called, help me out here) Priestly's historical stuff, and the stuff Alessio did for Warpath. Are there similarities? Is there anything in the independant stuff to compare with these rules?
I know I've ranted on in the past about giving the hobby 200+ years and 4 wives or rubbish like that, but in all honesty, this is way to far out for GW. Look at their track record the past few years. As long as they're making cash, do they care? We know the answer. Don't be fooled by sentimental talk of 25th anniversary. 6th edition will be 5th with some minor tweaks. In their heart of hearts, most people know this.
If I'm right, people will be happy. If I'm wrong, a few geeks get upset, but most people will buy 6th even if it is a steaming pile. It's the beautiful poison
People are severely misreading the thread and making the same fundamental mistakes over and over.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common Mistakes: 1- Your opponent's unit does not get a free "defensive fire" just because you charged them.
2- The points costs listed next to each weapon in the book refers purely to the strategem that summons buildings; nothing more.
3- The stats listed for krak grenades and frag grenades being used in close combat refer only to them being used in close combat against units such as vehicles and MCs. It has nothing to do with missile launchers.
4- If your army doesn't have a Codex Update, don't have wild conjectures yet. Sisters of Battle on forward are too recent of Codecies to have been considered for the Summer 2011 release of this .pdf.
5- The rephrasing of the meaning of "Heavy" is just a casual mention. Considering the datemark of this .pdf is well before the Necron Codex release, the meaning of 'heavy' is well subject to change. Note that Necrons don't even have a Codex Update section yet.
6- "Flyer" is not a unit type. It's not listed as a unit type. The heading you see listed as "Flyer" is a set of rules for movement.
7- Only units that underwent a "Flyer" move are immune to assault from non-jump non-airborne units. Not all Skimmers have this immunity.
8- "Critical Hit" is just a keyword for an automatic-wound that ignores armor. It has nothing to do with conventional dice rolls.
9- The 10" Apocalypse Template being used against swarms is just a hasty copy+paste from the evasion chart likely done purely for templating.
10- This is quite likely an incomplete draft or a playtest ruleset. It's not finalized. The formatting and such are very well subject to change.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Let's apply some logic and common sense here. In the past, people have highlighted the fact that Games Developers such as Chambers/PriestlyCavatore etc have wanted to be radical with 40k but the bosses refused. As a result, they left.
Now compare these rules with Chambers' Starship rules, (or whatever they are called, help me out here) Priestly's historical stuff, and the stuff Alessio did for Warpath. Are there similarities? Is there anything in the independant stuff to compare with these rules?
I know I've ranted on in the past about giving the hobby 200+ years and 4 wives or rubbish like that, but in all honesty, this is way to far out for GW. Look at their track record the past few years. As long as they're making cash, do they care? We know the answer. Don't be fooled by sentimental talk of 25th anniversary. 6th edition will be 5th with some minor tweaks. In their heart of hearts, most people know this.
If I'm right, people will be happy. If I'm wrong, a few geeks get upset, but most people will buy 6th even if it is a steaming pile. It's the beautiful poison
Two important points here:
1) WFB received more than a tweak in 8th, so there's your case study.
2) If you play a game with these rules, it's still recognizably 40K. There are certainly some important changes (for the better, IMO). But the forward to vets in the intro section is correct that it's probably not quite as different as you think.
The defensive fire thing - other than deep striking and a couple of other rarely occurring incidents, you need the overwatch rule. Since only Coteaz has it right now, that can only mean that in future codices, certain units will be given it creating a huge imbalance in the game between those codices that have it and those that don't.
This is another pointer to the rules not being any where near the final version (I don't think it's fake, rather a playtest or beta version) because I can't believe that such a big game mechanic will not be available to so many armies. I that that the leaked FAQs are very much incomplete and that the final versions of them will include updates to unit types, advising what USR each unit type has. At least, that's what I hope!
ColdSadHungry wrote:The defensive fire thing - other than deep striking and a couple of other rarely occurring incidents, you need the overwatch rule. Since only Coteaz has it right now, that can only mean that in future codices, certain units will be given it creating a huge imbalance in the game between those codices that have it and those that don't.
This is another pointer to the rules not being any where near the final version (I don't think it's fake, rather a playtest or beta version) because I can't believe that such a big game mechanic will not be available to so many armies. I that that the leaked FAQs are very much incomplete and that the final versions of them will include updates to unit types, advising what USR each unit type has. At least, that's what I hope!
Or....codex writers will recognize that it would create a huge imbalance and not give it to every Tom, Dick and Harry unit. Considering the rareity of it on units and the many ways they have available to bypass it in the other situations where it can become available, I think the writer(s) understand how easily it can shift the balance of power.
Just as a mental exercise and assuming that the rules are fake, what if someone were to alter this rules set and claim that it is a fan-derived piece of work, that it is fake, and that it is simply a derivative work and in no way should be assumed to be a product of Games Workshop? Wouldn't that remove any objection Games Workshop has to folks distributing this rules set? I mean, the original copyright holder would be in a bit of a jam as they'd have to defend their copyright, but if it's a fan-derived piece of work distributed in this manner I have to imagine that they would have no objection ot the modification and expanded distribution, right?
Rafi wrote:Just as a mental exercise and assuming that the rules are fake, what if someone were to alter this rules set and claim that it is a fan-derived piece of work, that it is fake, and that it is simply a derivative work and in no way should be assumed to be a product of Games Workshop? Wouldn't that remove any objection Games Workshop has to folks distributing this rules set? I mean, the original copyright holder would be in a bit of a jam as they'd have to defend their copyright, but if it's a fan-derived piece of work distributed in this manner I have to imagine that they would have no objection ot the modification and expanded distribution, right?
Sorry but in each case its intellectual property of gw.
Rafi wrote:Just as a mental exercise and assuming that the rules are fake, what if someone were to alter this rules set and claim that it is a fan-derived piece of work, that it is fake, and that it is simply a derivative work and in no way should be assumed to be a product of Games Workshop? Wouldn't that remove any objection Games Workshop has to folks distributing this rules set? I mean, the original copyright holder would be in a bit of a jam as they'd have to defend their copyright, but if it's a fan-derived piece of work distributed in this manner I have to imagine that they would have no objection ot the modification and expanded distribution, right?
Anything that relates to GW's IP is seen as their property, they sued chapter-house studios for referencing the names of some of their products and profiting from selling conversion kits for said products.You would have to make your very own, original game to avoid GWs legal team.
hopefully its fake. Some things are interesting (snipers being able to pick who is wounded) but overall it kills the game and breaks game standards that have existed in 40k since 2ed edition ex: order of the turn. also the B.S. vs evasion is kind of dumb as well.
Rafi wrote:Just as a mental exercise and assuming that the rules are fake, what if someone were to alter this rules set and claim that it is a fan-derived piece of work, that it is fake, and that it is simply a derivative work and in no way should be assumed to be a product of Games Workshop? Wouldn't that remove any objection Games Workshop has to folks distributing this rules set? I mean, the original copyright holder would be in a bit of a jam as they'd have to defend their copyright, but if it's a fan-derived piece of work distributed in this manner I have to imagine that they would have no objection ot the modification and expanded distribution, right?
Anything that relates to GW's IP is seen as their property, they sued chapter-house studios for referencing the names of some of their products and profiting from selling conversion kits for said products.You would have to make your very own, original game to avoid GWs legal team.
Don't they have fandexes and other derivative works running around? I would imagine that chapter-house is being sued because they're profitting from a derivative work (at least according to GW's lawyers and all that good stuff). If there is no profit isn't this just fan-fiction? Again, assuming that you remove any claims that it's actually GW's rules system, so that you're not causing any confusion about where the rules came from.
Rafi wrote:Just as a mental exercise and assuming that the rules are fake, what if someone were to alter this rules set and claim that it is a fan-derived piece of work, that it is fake, and that it is simply a derivative work and in no way should be assumed to be a product of Games Workshop? Wouldn't that remove any objection Games Workshop has to folks distributing this rules set? I mean, the original copyright holder would be in a bit of a jam as they'd have to defend their copyright, but if it's a fan-derived piece of work distributed in this manner I have to imagine that they would have no objection ot the modification and expanded distribution, right?
This thought has been bouncing around my head for the last two days. I'm wondering how one would go about publishing this ruleset if it is indeed not GW's and derivative work sound like the best way to do it. Since it would be necessary to alter the material to divorce it from GW as much as possible, it would also be a derivative work from the original author if one cannot be found... I'm content to wait and see if it's 6e, but if it's not these rules should stay out there and see actual publishing.
jvry8c wrote:hopefully its fake. Some things are interesting (snipers being able to pick who is wounded) but overall it kills the game and breaks game standards that have existed in 40k since 2ed edition ex: order of the turn. also the B.S. vs evasion is kind of dumb as well.
Actually in 2E Assault moves were in the Movement phase soooooo these rules are more like 2E in that aspect.
jvry8c wrote:hopefully its fake. Some things are interesting (snipers being able to pick who is wounded) but overall it kills the game and breaks game standards that have existed in 40k since 2ed edition ex: order of the turn. also the B.S. vs evasion is kind of dumb as well.
Comments like this make me lol hard. Sure it creates some imbalances, especially with older books. But kills the game? Come on, have you even tried it?
And no, evasion is a great addition; being equally hard to hit a Land Raider and a Grot form the same distance, that is dumb.
Billagio wrote:I feel like with this rule set there is a huge boost for assault armys.
Like many things with this document, the PDF giveth, and the PDF taketh away. There are plenty of negatives to go with the positives. One of the biggest is you don't have a safety buffer of not getting shot up if you win an assault in your opponent's turn.
So guys this edition is it favouring assualty, shooty?
Mech or infantry?
tanks seem to get nerfed so you can't sit in your boxes and shoot but they have be made proper transports whos purpous is to transport uni in safty and unload them and let the guys inside charge someone.
Really, what do most people care? I'm into FOW these days anyway. And to be honest, even if 6th becomes the complete opposite of this, people will rush out to buy it.
Not a fan of the evasion thing. In the grim darkness of the far future, surely weapons have sophisticated trackers.
Yea this edition just keeps getting so much more amazing as I continue to read through it. Like I said earlier games are WAY faster. Eldar get a big boost. Banshees being able to assault out of a wave serpent that moved 12 with fleet then get a 20 inch assault. Cause crusing speed and combat speed are different for fast vehicles. So a ork could go 14 before disembarking and assaulting getting A 20 inch assault. Now all distances are measured from the access point, no free two inches. But still much better than before.
Also now with reserves not being a move on but getting placed it is not such a detriment as you dont count as moving when you place your reserves and they get to act fully in addition to starting 6 inches on the board. Outflanking tyranids anyone?
I cant wait to try out strike forces it adds a whole new level of tactical versatility to the game that just makes me happy.
Wrath wrote:I just realized that you get 2 chances to get out of HtH before your next shoot phase happens.
I am Tau and get charged on opponents turn, if I somehow manage to stay in combat then under 5th the chargers are safe from my shooting.
In 6th there will be another turn of CC for me to get wiped out/run away from AND THEN I can shoot them because Shooting is after Assaults.
Oh I like these rules!
For the people who ask why they bothered changing turn order, this is the answer.
The old way of getting screwed because you won a fight too early or too late is just stupid. It was arbitrary and punished players randomly. Similarly, the way objectives count only when you are on them at the end of the game is arbitrary. These two fixes make the game more interactive. We will actually be trying to win combats as fast as possible now. We will actually be trying to put dudes on objectives now. We're no longer going to be punished for doing the things we're supposed to be doing too quickly.
Also, there will be a LOT less of those situations where things go badly and snowball until you literally have no chances to do anything and have to just sit around waiting to get beaten.
Most of the things people are complaining about getting changed were absolutely stupid in 5th edition when you think about them critically.
I mean, many of the elements in here seem plausible and some actually look like well thought improvements on the current system.
The issue I have with it is that there are so many new things added in, and nothing from 5th really taken away that the whole system seems bloated.
I could see this being a middle of the road draft in which every concept has been amalgamated for play testing, which will then be pared down at a later date.
I guess the bottom line is that only time will tell (about 3 months for the official release right?)
Really, what do most people care? I'm into FOW these days anyway. And to be honest, even if 6th becomes the complete opposite of this, people will rush out to buy it.
Not a fan of the evasion thing. In the grim darkness of the far future, surely weapons have sophisticated trackers.
And yet in the grim darkness of the far future a guardsman can't hit the bastion he's standing a foot from 50% of the time. Surely the system is a stupid and unrealistic abstraction as is.
Guys, this can sound silly, but i found one extra argument that can prove this is GW, it is very small, bu very "GWish":i dont remember the page itself, but there is a place where the text reer to the models in the table and reads something like "...you warhammer 40k with models made of plastic and resin..."
The funny part here is that it dont say anything about lead or metal, just plastic and resin. I know it sound silly, but who will say i dont sound GW?
Among that, if this system is better, why keep playing the official 40k? Its just a matter of adaptation and fanwork
ColdSadHungry wrote:The defensive fire thing - other than deep striking and a couple of other rarely occurring incidents, you need the overwatch rule. Since only Coteaz has it right now, that can only mean that in future codices, certain units will be given it creating a huge imbalance in the game between those codices that have it and those that don't.
This is another pointer to the rules not being any where near the final version (I don't think it's fake, rather a playtest or beta version) because I can't believe that such a big game mechanic will not be available to so many armies. I that that the leaked FAQs are very much incomplete and that the final versions of them will include updates to unit types, advising what USR each unit type has. At least, that's what I hope!
Or....codex writers will recognize that it would create a huge imbalance and not give it to every Tom, Dick and Harry unit. Considering the rareity of it on units and the many ways they have available to bypass it in the other situations where it can become available, I think the writer(s) understand how easily it can shift the balance of power.
Ah, I wasn't thinking it was going to be liberally sprinkled across all unit types from every codex. But if it's only going into codices that come from now on, it does mean that Necrons, GK, DE, BA, SW, Nids, Guard and Sisters won't get it (except for Coteaz in the GK codex). Others like Orks may not see it for quite some time. That's a lot of armies to be completely left out of the overwatch loop. Obviously I'm only speculating but it's things like this that lead me to believe that the leaked FAQs are nowhere near complete.
decoste007xt wrote:There would be so many imbalances and complications that it would ruin 40k until every codex was re-written to reflect these rules.
No, this 6th Ed. will correct many of the imbalances that are present in 5th. Generally speaking, these rules make spam armies very inefficient as just about every race will have multiple ways of killing one-hit-wonder armies. These rules will create the need to every army to be a jack-of-all-trades list, or at least do two or three things very well.
decoste007xt wrote:Also with tiered systems of fearlessness, EW, and Psykers you would think NEcrons would hint on this. Theres no tiered systems in their codex and they just got released, what are they just boned now?
Thanks to Strength D weapons in Apoc (which seems to be amalgamated with the standard game now) there are already tiers of Eternal Warrior. And Psykers have always had tiers, they just weren't called tiers. Psykers always had a mastery level of 1, SW Rune Priests could upgrade to be mastery 2, and characters like Mephiston were always mastery 3. This is just a unified rating system.
I'm 99% sure its a fake.
I'm 99% sure you haven't read most 5th Ed. codices.
Overall, my understanding is that these rules will make the game very hyperbolic and dynamic. The current meta is a parking lot of transports with very little movement, and just shooting until the final two turns when what's still standing from those parking lots just drives over to objectives, and where a single CC death star unit can wipe the board because they can't be hurt while they're in CC.
With the new changes, large tanks are meant to be nigh-unkillable in the same sense that a WWII infantryman would look upon a Tiger tank with disdain. The movement is incredibly important as it will determine the effectiveness of shooting, because when shooting hits it generally does damage. The game has changed to emphasis movement to save your units rather than bunkering down in cover, and has hurt transports while simultaneously giving foot units a boon, which balances the mobility dynamic. There are multiple ways of dealing with the hidden power fists in units, and the changes to deep strike prevent anyone from having a stationary army.
Current 5th Ed.: a slow game of Rock'em-Sock'em Robots. You move your spammed big scary guys up in front of your opponent's big scary guys and then you see who's left to drive to the objectives when the dust settles. The three armies that do this the best are GK, SW and IG.
My impression of 6th Ed.: the game is fast-paced and emphasizes smart, mobile offensive play with a variety of units, and no unit is 'safe'. Because such a variety of units are required, I can't say that any army does this best as there are now many, many different ways to play the game and multiple viable tactics per army, thus making spam lists far less competitive. Just to back this up, compare a Necron list to a SW list. Count the number of different types of units in each. SW will have 4-5 different unit types on average, and Necrons will have 7-8 different unit types. The latter was designed with 6th Ed. in mind.
Leth wrote:Banshees being able to assault out of a wave serpent that moved 12
Erm....
I went through the Eldar alterations and I certainly can't find any suggestion that Waveserpents are Assault Vehicles.
Fast vehicles can perform Stationary actions when moving at Combat speed, and normal Shooting actions at Cruising, but they are still bound by the restriction that you cannot disembark at Cruising speed.
As they are also not open-topped, you are restricted to a Combat or Engage action after disembarking from a moving transport.
Giving your Banshees a princely 'assault range' of 16" starting on foot (2 x (6+2)), or 14" from a transport (6+6+2).
ph34r wrote:As a guard player with a ton of guardsmen, this is a life saver.
Agreed. As a Tyranid player that uses Hormagants, it's also a Godsend.
Move: Move 6".
Shoot: Roll 3d6, probably move 5" or 6".
Assault: Move 6"
I love it, for the Horms it means Either a 18inch charge or a 16inch run move, both of which ignore terrain. Raveners just got even beefier with a 21inch charge that ignores terrain.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dribble Joy wrote:
Leth wrote:Banshees being able to assault out of a wave serpent that moved 12
Erm....
I went through the Eldar alterations and I certainly can't find any suggestion that Waveserpents are Assault Vehicles.
Fast vehicles can perform Stationary actions when moving at Combat speed, and normal Shooting actions at Cruising, but they are still bound by the restriction that you cannot disembark at Cruising speed.
As they are also not open-topped, you are restricted to a Combat or Engage action after disembarking from a moving transport.
Giving your Banshees a princely 'assault range' of 16" starting on foot (2 x (6+2)), or 14" from a transport (6+6+2).
I read that as a fast skimmer moves 8, the fleet banshees Engage moves for 8 so the same as a 2x charge move, however if the Sgt is within 3 inches of the skimmer base during the consolidation phase the unit can embark back onto the vehicle
Gonna make small Firedragons squads great so they can hop out kill and reboard in the same player turn
IPS wrote:If your oppenent is mad enough to give you 12 sp for the first turn...^^
Then again in games like Tau vs IG on a rather open board I can easily see a 12 sp bet...
I mean you can litterally whipe the opponent off the board with your first turn. 0o
At the same time this would also make him pretty useless if you took something like camouflage. Your whole army gets veiled (2) meaning he would have a maximum engagement range of 24" on his first turn.
Absolutionis wrote:Fascinatingly enough, if February's Tyranid releases indeed include the Cerebore, this 6thEd leak is all but confirmed as authentic.
I've heard people say that a lot but I don't see how...is the Cerebore mentioned in the pdf and I'm just blind?
NecronLord3 wrote:Looks pretty legit to me actually. Nice change to sweeping advance for necrons. Puts them on par with everyone else and only makes it easy for the enemy to get away from lower initiative units.
Ork rokkits still AP3 yet marine power armour went to 2+ We might as will use them as clubs now...
If this were true what is the point of fielding terminators? I suspect it will stay at 3+
Absolutionis wrote:Fascinatingly enough, if February's Tyranid releases indeed include the Cerebore, this 6thEd leak is all but confirmed as authentic.
People keep repeating this, but what's keeping GW from stopping or delaying the Cerebore's release, if the Cerebore does exist and was to be released this Feb to begin with? Either way it neither proves nor disproves anything as far as I can tell. Also, though I quoted you Absolutionis, I am not directing this towards you specifically.
Absolutionis wrote:Fascinatingly enough, if February's Tyranid releases indeed include the Cerebore, this 6thEd leak is all but confirmed as authentic.
People keep repeating this, but what's keeping GW from stopping or delaying the Cerebore's release, if the Cerebore does exist and was to be released this Feb to begin with? Either way it neither proves nor disproves anything as far as I can tell. Also, though I quoted you Absolutionis, I am not directing this towards you specifically.
Why would they delay something people will pay money for?
Absolutionis wrote:Fascinatingly enough, if February's Tyranid releases indeed include the Cerebore, this 6thEd leak is all but confirmed as authentic.
I've heard people say that a lot but I don't see how...is the Cerebore mentioned in the pdf and I'm just blind?
It is. It's on the page under Transports, first paragraph.
Project2501 wrote:
Absolutionis wrote:Fascinatingly enough, if February's Tyranid releases indeed include the Cerebore, this 6thEd leak is all but confirmed as authentic.
People keep repeating this, but what's keeping GW from stopping or delaying the Cerebore's release, if the Cerebore does exist and was to be released this Feb to begin with? Either way it neither proves nor disproves anything as far as I can tell. Also, though I quoted you Absolutionis, I am not directing this towards you specifically.
It the Cerebore is released in February, it pretty much says this 6thEd rulebook is authentic GW stuff or the faker not only has a lot of time on their hands, but they're an absurdly good guesser.
Supposedly there's a "surprise" next month and there have been rumors of a WD-included Tyranid Model.
Regardless, if there is no Cerebore/Transportofex, it doesn't prove or disprove anything, obviously.
Drachii wrote:
Project2501 wrote:
Absolutionis wrote:Fascinatingly enough, if February's Tyranid releases indeed include the Cerebore, this 6thEd leak is all but confirmed as authentic.
People keep repeating this, but what's keeping GW from stopping or delaying the Cerebore's release, if the Cerebore does exist and was to be released this Feb to begin with? Either way it neither proves nor disproves anything as far as I can tell. Also, though I quoted you Absolutionis, I am not directing this towards you specifically.
Why would they delay something people will pay money for?
Why did they delay that Eldar Jetbike that had been revealed for 5 years?
Because Games Workshop.
Why did they delay Tyranids second wave?
Because Games Workshop.
Perhaps GW likes to sit on stuff hoping it'll hatch.
NecronLord3 wrote:Looks pretty legit to me actually. Nice change to sweeping advance for necrons. Puts them on par with everyone else and only makes it easy for the enemy to get away from lower initiative units.
Ork rokkits still AP3 yet marine power armour went to 2+ We might as will use them as clubs now...
If this were true what is the point of fielding terminators? I suspect it will stay at 3+
Looked like a typo to me. in the example under that chart they use a 3+ save
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common Mistakes: 1- Your opponent's unit does not get a free "defensive fire" just because you charged them.
2- The points costs listed next to each weapon in the book refers purely to the strategem that summons buildings; nothing more.
3- The stats listed for krak grenades and frag grenades being used in close combat refer only to them being used in close combat against units such as vehicles and MCs. It has nothing to do with missile launchers.
4- If your army doesn't have a Codex Update, don't have wild conjectures yet. Sisters of Battle on forward are too recent of Codecies to have been considered for the Summer 2011 release of this .pdf.
5- The rephrasing of the meaning of "Heavy" is just a casual mention. Considering the datemark of this .pdf is well before the Necron Codex release, the meaning of 'heavy' is well subject to change. Note that Necrons don't even have a Codex Update section yet.
6- "Flyer" is not a unit type. It's not listed as a unit type. The heading you see listed as "Flyer" is a set of rules for movement.
7- Only units that underwent a "Flyer" move are immune to assault from non-jump non-airborne units. Not all Skimmers have this immunity.
8- "Critical Hit" is just a keyword for an automatic-wound that ignores armor. It has nothing to do with conventional dice rolls.
9- The 10" Apocalypse Template being used against swarms is just a hasty copy+paste from the evasion chart likely done purely for templating.
10- This is quite likely an incomplete draft or a playtest ruleset. It's not finalized. The formatting and such are very well subject to change.
11- Power armor Space Marines do not have a 2+ armor save. It's a type corrected/contradicted shortly thereafter and the Codex Updates mention nothing of the kind.
Another possible typo is the Monstrous Close Combat Weapon that I have seen several people post about
In the profile it says 2S with an AP of 2
but right under it when it explains what the Cleave ability is the example is 2D6 + Strength
So either the 2S thing is a typo which I think most likely is the case, as that would make the Strength of all Montrous Creatures not matter (They would all be 10)
Or when Monstrous Creatures attack vehicles they suddenly get weaker, which I doubt
Absolutionis wrote:Fascinatingly enough, if February's Tyranid releases indeed include the Cerebore, this 6thEd leak is all but confirmed as authentic.
I've heard people say that a lot but I don't see how...is the Cerebore mentioned in the pdf and I'm just blind?
It is. It's on the page under Transports, first paragraph.
So it is. My bad. I'd actually read that bit before, I just completely skimmed over mention of the Cerebore.
Overwatch makes it so you can perform a Defensive Fire action even if you are not assaulted. If an enemy unit ends a move actionwithin 12" of you, you can shoot it on the enemy turn. Any unit that gets assaulted can fire on the assaulting unit no matter what(unless they're already in CC.) Overwatch is just an icing on the cake type rule.
You sir are correct. If anyone has said otherwise they are not reading the rules correctly. Which is odd because these rules are very well written and clear.
Fafnir wrote:Little less than halfway through the book right now, but it looks to really favour hordey armies so far. Considering GW, not surprised.
The one thing I'm really miffed about is that with the wound allocation being fixed, my two favourite units, Nobz and Paladins, are no longer viable in a competitive environment. I understand that wound allocation needed to be fixed, but on a personal note, the two armies that I actually play frequently are now no longer any good.
For Orks that isn't necessarily true yet. Nobs can be base armor 6+, heavy armor 4+, and I suspect that mega armor because an option +2 instead of being its own listing. Also don't forget cyborg +5. You can still play games with it. Just a different set of rules.
Noir Eternal wrote:Another possible typo is the Monstrous Close Combat Weapon that I have seen several people post about
In the profile it says 2S with an AP of 2
but right under it when it explains what the Cleave ability is the example is 2D6 + Strength
So either the 2S thing is a typo which I think most likely is the case, as that would make the Strength of all Montrous Creatures not matter (They would all be 10)
Or when Monstrous Creatures attack vehicles they suddenly get weaker, which I doubt
I read it as S = S of the weapon, which is 2x the S of the MC, but it could be taken either way.
Noir Eternal wrote:
So either the 2S thing is a typo which I think most likely is the case, as that would make the Strength of all Montrous Creatures not matter (They would all be 10)
Actually there is no where in the rules that I have found where the old rule of 10 as a max result is maintained so the weapons in question are Strength=2Xd6+6 now.
Noir Eternal wrote:Another possible typo is the Monstrous Close Combat Weapon that I have seen several people post about
In the profile it says 2S with an AP of 2
but right under it when it explains what the Cleave ability is the example is 2D6 + Strength
So either the 2S thing is a typo which I think most likely is the case, as that would make the Strength of all Montrous Creatures not matter (They would all be 10)
Or when Monstrous Creatures attack vehicles they suddenly get weaker, which I doubt
The weapon's strength is two times the model's strength. So when the weapon rolls 2D6 + Strength, it's the weapon's strength, which in this case is double the model's strength.
ph34r wrote:As a guard player with a ton of guardsmen, this is a life saver.
Agreed. As a Tyranid player that uses Hormagants, it's also a Godsend.
Move: Move 6".
Shoot: Roll 3d6, probably move 5" or 6".
Assault: Move 6"
I love it, for the Horms it means Either a 18inch charge or a 16inch run move, both of which ignore terrain. Raveners just got even beefier with a 21inch charge that ignores terrain.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
How is it balanced where you can get into combat so easily on turn 1?
Noir Eternal wrote:
So either the 2S thing is a typo which I think most likely is the case, as that would make the Strength of all Montrous Creatures not matter (They would all be 10)
Actually there is no where in the rules that I have found where the old rule of 10 as a max result is maintained so the weapons in question are Strength=2Xd6+6 now.
Overwatch makes it so you can perform a Defensive Fire action even if you are not assaulted. If an enemy unit ends a move actionwithin 12" of you, you can shoot it on the enemy turn. Any unit that gets assaulted can fire on the assaulting unit no matter what(unless they're already in CC.) Overwatch is just an icing on the cake type rule.
You sir are correct. If anyone has said otherwise they are not reading the rules correctly. Which is odd because these rules are very well written and clear.
Yup, quite clear that you don't get defensive fire unless you are being Rammed, Deep Strikers land within 12" or you have Overwatch.
ph34r wrote:As a guard player with a ton of guardsmen, this is a life saver.
Agreed. As a Tyranid player that uses Hormagants, it's also a Godsend.
Move: Move 6".
Shoot: Roll 3d6, probably move 5" or 6".
Assault: Move 6"
I love it, for the Horms it means Either a 18inch charge or a 16inch run move, both of which ignore terrain. Raveners just got even beefier with a 21inch charge that ignores terrain.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
How is it balanced where you can get into combat so easily on turn 1?
How are you getting into combat T1 with a 21" charge?
STUCARIUS wrote:You sir are correct. If anyone has said otherwise they are not reading the rules correctly. Which is odd because these rules are very well written and clear.
Please, please explain, quote, lay out and provide detailed reasoning as to why this is the case, because the paragraph on p56 (document page 77) is a condition of how the action is performed, not a trigger for DF itself.
Dribble Joy wrote:
The weapon's strength is two times the model's strength. So when the weapon rolls 2D6 + Strength, it's the weapon's strength, which in this case is double the model's strength.
I don't think so, there is no reason to make the jump that its the weapons strength and not the models.
As well as on page 101 under their close combat special rule, it gives the weapon profile again without the 2x Strength to also lead to the fact the the weapon only gives AP2 and 2D6 armour pen
Of course, play it how you think right but I feel there is more evidence to it not being 2S
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common Mistakes: 1- Your opponent's unit does not get a free "defensive fire" just because you charged them.
Actually yes they do. It is on rules page 77 and it is clear as crystal. Defensive fire has nothing to do with "Overwatch" Overwatch is a shooting special rule and is discussed on page 73.
All you need to do is read. These rules are SO SO clear and easy to follow. Come on people.
Yea you are right, we played that wrong. But still being able to go out of a fast transport that has moved is really good, especially for those units without fleet.
So the orks would get a 9 inch vehicle move before disembarking and assaulting. Still very powerful considering they can flat out 27 I believe. Still learning the rules so I might be a little off
and no defensive fire is only when it is triggered by other things. You do not get it just for an individual assaulting. That is only if you have the overwatch rule. It specifically says right above defensive fire that it is only when other rules allow you to do it. same with charge by chance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common Mistakes: 1- Your opponent's unit does not get a free "defensive fire" just because you charged them.
Actually yes they do. It is on rules page 77 and it is clear as crystal. Defensive fire has nothing to do with "Overwatch" Overwatch is a shooting special rule and is discussed on page 73.
All you need to do is read. These rules are SO SO clear and easy to follow. Come on people.
Yes, it's so easy to follow, and yet you get them wrong. The text on rules page 77 describes how you perform the defensive fire action. It doesn't actually give you permission to use the action.
Assuming you're refering to this:
Page 77 wrote:If the responding unit was assaulted by the
target unit and it was not locked in combat
previously, it can shoot at the target unit. If the
units lose contact, follow the rules for lost
contact outside of the Assault phase as normal.
you're taking the part out of context: it discusses how you're allowed to fire when defensive fire has already triggered, it doesn't discuss the triggers.
Noir Eternal wrote:I don't think so, there is no reason to make the jump that its the weapons strength and not the models.
As well as on page 101 under their close combat special rule, it gives the weapon profile again without the 2x Strength to also lead to the fact the the weapon only gives AP2 and 2D6 armour pen
The description could be more explicit I'll concede.
p101 states they always attack as is armed with a monstrous close combat weapon and thus roll 2D6 + S for penetration. Whether this refers to the model's strength or the weapon's strength is unclear.
p72 states that the weapon's strength is twice the user's, but again the Cleave rule is unclear as to if the penetration roll is with the weapon's strength or not.
Personally I think you're probably right, as it would essentially mean all MC roll 10 + 2D6 for penetration and are always S10 in combat, most likely the 2S is a typo.
STUCARIUS wrote:You sir are correct. If anyone has said otherwise they are not reading the rules correctly. Which is odd because these rules are very well written and clear.
Please, please explain, quote, lay out and provide detailed reasoning as to why this is the case, because the paragraph on p56 (document page 77) is a condition of how the action is performed, not a trigger for DF itself.
Really? You do not understand that the action is taking place during the opponents assault? There are NO restrictions on which units can shoot only the conditions. The freaking trigger is that your unit was charged/assaulted. It says in the very first bullet point "If the responding unit was assaulted by the target and it was not locked in combat previously, It can shoot at the target. "
THE FREAKING TARGET IS THE UNIT ASSAULTING IT!!!!! COME ON!!!!!!!
Deep breaths....in ....out..... sigh.......It says very clearly if the unit was assaulted....
The things you actually think, I guess, you are restricted to are not even mentioned in the rules at the point the rules for using Defensive Fire are listed.
ph34r wrote:As a guard player with a ton of guardsmen, this is a life saver.
Agreed. As a Tyranid player that uses Hormagants, it's also a Godsend.
Move: Move 6".
Shoot: Roll 3d6, probably move 5" or 6".
Assault: Move 6"
I love it, for the Horms it means Either a 18inch charge or a 16inch run move, both of which ignore terrain. Raveners just got even beefier with a 21inch charge that ignores terrain.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
How is it balanced where you can get into combat so easily on turn 1?
STUCARIUS wrote:There are NO restrictions on which units can shoot only the conditions.
Point out where.
The freaking trigger is that your unit was charged/assaulted.
Is it? Show us where.
It says in the very first bullet point "If the responding unit was assaulted by the target and it was not locked in combat previously, It can shoot at the target. "
Does that bullet point refer to triggering the action?
pretre wrote:Same way you do now, Spearhead diagonals are the easy one.
Even in Spearhead it is 24" or more to the opposite deployment zone with the exception of some very narrow corridors, but I guess it is possible. Aside from that though, I don't see it.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:[you're taking the part out of context: it discusses how you're allowed to fire when defensive fire has already triggered, it doesn't discuss the triggers.
It says right in the first bullet "If the responding unit (the one using defensive fire) was Assaulted... by the target unit it can shoot........"
How is that out of context?
Look......there is NO doubt that any unit that meets the criteria listed here and is assaulted or is subject to the other situations later mentioned in the rules and they meet the criteria listed on page 77 they can use defensive fire.
If that were not the case the game will not play. There would be no way for armies with lesser assault abilities to stay on the table. Your incorrect interpretation "BREAKS" the game. DOn't believe me? Try and play it both ways. One works, the other does not.
STUCARIUS wrote:You sir are correct. If anyone has said otherwise they are not reading the rules correctly. Which is odd because these rules are very well written and clear.
Please, please explain, quote, lay out and provide detailed reasoning as to why this is the case, because the paragraph on p56 (document page 77) is a condition of how the action is performed, not a trigger for DF itself.
Really? You do not understand that the action is taking place during the opponents assault? There are NO restrictions on which units can shoot only the conditions. The freaking trigger is that your unit was charged/assaulted. It says in the very first bullet point "If the responding unit was assaulted by the target and it was not locked in combat previously, It can shoot at the target. "
THE FREAKING TARGET IS THE UNIT ASSAULTING IT!!!!! COME ON!!!!!!!
Deep breaths....in ....out..... sigh.......It says very clearly if the unit was assaulted....
The things you actually think, I guess, you are restricted to are not even mentioned in the rules at the point the rules for using Defensive Fire are listed.
Calm. Down.
Defensive Fire lists only the exceptions to Shooting normally. In this case, the exception is you may shoot at the unit which charged you even if, at the end of their charge move, they are in contact with you. HOWEVER, it doesn't say the assault is what triggered it. The things which DO trigger Defensive Fire are clearly listed, and being assaulted is not one of them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common Mistakes: 1- Your opponent's unit does not get a free "defensive fire" just because you charged them.
Actually yes they do. It is on rules page 77 and it is clear as crystal. Defensive fire has nothing to do with "Overwatch" Overwatch is a shooting special rule and is discussed on page 73.
All you need to do is read. These rules are SO SO clear and easy to follow. Come on people.
I'm not going through this again. All I'll say is you are wrong, and if you read from about pg 47 or 48 of this thread, there is plenty of explaination as to why you are wrong.
STUCARIUS wrote:
Really? You do not understand that the action is taking place during the opponents assault? There are NO restrictions on which units can shoot only the conditions. The freaking trigger is that your unit was charged/assaulted. It says in the very first bullet point "If the responding unit was assaulted by the target and it was not locked in combat previously, It can shoot at the target. "
THE FREAKING TARGET IS THE UNIT ASSAULTING IT!!!!! COME ON!!!!!!!
Deep breaths....in ....out..... sigh.......It says very clearly if the unit was assaulted....
The things you actually think, I guess, you are restricted to are not even mentioned in the rules at the point the rules for using Defensive Fire are listed.
Sry man I do not agree. Right above it says "To represent this, units can perform the following actions in an enemy turn if and only if the rules explicitly allow it.". The words "If assaulted you may " do not appear. The words used are "If the responding unit was assaulted by the target unit and it was not locked in combat previously, " and since you may not issue Support or shooting actions <The Type of action that Def-fire is> in your opponents turn without a trigger you may not issue this action in response to enemy assault action without Overwatch.
Read the rest of the entire Defensive Fire entry and you will find out why.
Also, for you (and everyone else), press Ctrl + F to bring up the search function for PDFs. This brings a whole world of easy access to everything that pertains to any rule you wish to know about. Try 'defensive fire' and read everything each search result brings up.
STUCARIUS wrote:There are NO restrictions on which units can shoot only the conditions.
Point out where.
The freaking trigger is that your unit was charged/assaulted.
Is it? Show us where.
It says in the very first bullet point "If the responding unit was assaulted by the target and it was not locked in combat previously, It can shoot at the target. "
Does that bullet point refer to triggering the action?
Yes it establishes the base reason for Defensive FIre. The unit issuing defensive fire was assaulted. SO long as it does not violate the restrictions listed it can fire.
There are no limites on what type of unit or anything. Look GW is making the game WAY more deadly, if there is not balance on the side of the defender there are many armies that simply could not play under the new rules. Imagine IG armies under the new assault and movement rules not getting defensive fire.
STUCARIUS wrote:There are NO restrictions on which units can shoot only the conditions.
Point out where.
The freaking trigger is that your unit was charged/assaulted.
Is it? Show us where.
It says in the very first bullet point "If the responding unit was assaulted by the target and it was not locked in combat previously, It can shoot at the target. "
Does that bullet point refer to triggering the action?
Yes it establishes the base reason for Defensive FIre. The unit issuing defensive fire was assaulted. SO long as it does not violate the restrictions listed it can fire.
There are no limites on what type of unit or anything. Look GW is making the game WAY more deadly, if there is not balance on the side of the defender there are many armies that simply could not play under the new rules. Imagine IG armies under the new assault and movement rules not getting defensive fire.
How would it effect them at all? The game looks far more balanced now than it ever did, and IG will be plenty capable of shooting down incoming assaulters since I can't think of a situation where someone would get first turn charge even under the new movement rules. And besides, it's not like one good assault won't wreck some IG armies in 5th edition either. (On a side note, I love Wraiths. )
You are making the mistake of not reading the two lines right before the defensive fire entry. You dont even look at that entry until something says you may preform a defensive fire. So anything it says about firing in the entry is moot until you are able to access it as a option.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:[you're taking the part out of context: it discusses how you're allowed to fire when defensive fire has already triggered, it doesn't discuss the triggers.
It says right in the first bullet "If the responding unit (the one using defensive fire) was Assaulted... by the target unit it can shoot........"
How is that out of context?
Look......there is NO doubt that any unit that meets the criteria listed here and is assaulted or is subject to the other situations later mentioned in the rules and they meet the criteria listed on page 77 they can use defensive fire.
If that were not the case the game will not play. There would be no way for armies with lesser assault abilities to stay on the table. Your incorrect interpretation "BREAKS" the game. DOn't believe me? Try and play it both ways. One works, the other does not.
I've resisted jumping into this argument so far but since it's being so hotly debated, I thought I'd check for myself and I have to say that I can't agree with you Stucarius. You don't even need to consult the Defensive Fire rule. The Overwatch rule is all you need because it says
'OVERWATCH
Universal Shooting special rule
If an enemy unit ends a Move action within 12”, a
unit with this ability may perform a Defensive Fire
action and shoot at the intruding unit. If the unit
was assaulted by the enemy it can shoot
nonetheless. If the units lose contact, they
consolidate at the end of the phase as normal.'
The later entry for Defensive Fire merely explains what Overwatch allows you to do. Interestingly, you can only shoot if something ENDS a Move Action within 12"
You can't claim a trigger from the trigger effect itself. You require a trigger to be able to perform Defensive Fire. That trigger obviously can't be (the text in) Defensive Fire itself. So ignore what Defensive Fire says completely. Now go back through the PDF and check what triggers Defensive Fire. Hint: being assaulted is NOT one of them anywhere AT ALL.
Arguing about the inconsistencies of GW rules is usually a semi-waste of time.
Arguing about a possible leak of an early draft of GW rules is a tremendous waste of time.
Since the leak may or may not be a true indication of the new rules and regardless, you will only be playing it with friends until an official release (if there is one), no need to scream or argue with each other.
AgeOfEgos wrote:Arguing about the inconsistencies of GW rules is usually a semi-waste of time.
Arguing about a possible leak of an early draft of GW rules is a tremendous waste of time.
Since the leak may or may not be a true indication of the new rules and regardless, you will only be playing it with friends until an official release (if there is one), no need to scream or argue with each other.
AgeOfEgos wrote:Arguing about the inconsistencies of GW rules is usually a semi-waste of time.
Arguing about a possible leak of an early draft of GW rules is a tremendous waste of time.
Since the leak may or may not be a true indication of the new rules and regardless, you will only be playing it with friends until an official release (if there is one), no need to scream or argue with each other.
Well, GW is getting their play testing, aren't they =). I think they will have Defensive Fire/ Overwatch all worked out by the time the book is printed... lol.
STUCARIUS wrote:Yes it establishes the base reason for Defensive FIre. The unit issuing defensive fire was assaulted. SO long as it does not violate the restrictions listed it can fire.
There are no limites on what type of unit or anything. Look GW is making the game WAY more deadly, if there is not balance on the side of the defender there are many armies that simply could not play under the new rules. Imagine IG armies under the new assault and movement rules not getting defensive fire.
Re-reading the transport rules; the only way to enter a transport is via the consolidation phase, rather than being able to embark in that phase as an additional benefit.
Also, being able to move forward, jump out, shoot and jump back in is all well and good, but bare in mind that turning that rhino/chimera/waveserpent/falcon around to unload your melta-death means that it is very easy for any assaulting unit to block the access point(s), meaning if they tear it up in combat next turn, they will get to charge-by-chance/defensive fire the poor unfortunates as they stagger from the wreckage.
This makes assault lists much more effective against mech lists as they don't end up standing around like muppets in front of the guns after they tear the vehicles apart.
ON another note, it's nice to see my wish that terrain become part of your army choice (via a very strange mechanism but I can't have everything)
Also I can't believe that no-one has mentioned that the Monolith has MT-7, so as it's always counting as stationary what is it going to use 14 shooting actions for?
I've heard of redundancy but thats taking it a bit far.
AndrewC wrote:ON another note, it's nice to see my wish that terrain become part of your army choice (via a very strange mechanism but I can't have everything)
Also I can't believe that no-one has mentioned that the Monolith has MT-7, so as it's always counting as stationary what is it going to use 14 shooting actions for?
I've heard of redundancy but thats taking it a bit far.
Cheers
Andrew
Edit for typos.
I've mentioned it, but it was buried in posts about defensive fire, which seems to be largely broken down into two interpretations: those who play assaulty armies and those who play shooty armies.
But the Monolith MT(6). It has some other wonderful abilities as well, such as being able to ignore everything except for a natural 6 on the damage table, and being able to fire its Particle Whip (that now ignore FNP) as well as its flux arcs in the same turn, as well as its self-repair ability, even if the Monolith just performed a deep strike to get into range.
In fact, this is one of the main reasons why I'm hoping that these rules are legit.
Rbb wrote:So is ebay going to be flooded with chimeras and razorbacks now?
Why? Razorbacks sound great under the new rules, because you can take the TL lascannon and still need at least 2 'weapon destroyed' results before it's wrecked
EDIT: Rhinos sound like they've taking a few hits now that they can be flamed via the firing points.
STUCARIUS wrote:Of course I did not think just an old rule like "Defensive Fire" could be misunderstood to start with but I am a self acknowledged idiot for thinking so.
It's not an "old rule" in 40k context. No version of the game has ever had anything like it.
I'm curious. How are, say, Wyches supposed to charge anything if every single assault results in them being cut down like wheat? That's right, they can't.
looks great but im disappointed in the codex update has no black templars and no chaos legions and also the fact you updated tau!!!!!!!!!! jk but the whole thing seems a little cray and i dont know if i can trust it
DreadlordME! wrote:The Evasion things makes it seem that foor wyches are viable against dem pansy blue butt heads. (tau)
How do you figure? By the time they'll be charging in on foot, they'll be EV 3 like any infantry, and so will be eating a fusillade at rapid-fire range. Even Guardsmen can butcher half a squad at that range, heaven help them if there's a flamer in the unit.
Ovion wrote:The funny part is there's a 54 page argument about rules that may or may not be real, from an unverified source.
It's actually gone in waves. The first 20 pages were people saying how awesome the rules were. The second 20 pages were an argument over how real the rules are. The final (nearly) 20 pages are about arguing over how defensive fire works.
So the next 20 pages after that will be about something different.
I've tried to read through the rules a couple of times to find these answers, but I can't seem to.
1. If my unit of retributors has been locked in close combat for 2 cycles a squad of gaunts. (dunno how they survived, they just did)
My turn starts and in the movement phase neither the gaunts on their previous turn nor my retributors on this turn have made a move action such as charge or engage.
Assault finally finished with my retri's forcing the nids to fall back.
The nids succeed on escaping sweeping advance and run away, and my girls consolidate.
Now that it is my shooting phase, are my sisters considered to be stationary?
Are the gaunts considered to be stationary?
Neither of us technically made a move action in our respective last movement phase, only consolidations so far which do not count as movement.
If yes, we're stationary, I can fire my heavy bolters AND the gaunts are at ev2 thanks to standing "still"
if no, I can't fire my heavy weapons despite not moving in my phase, and the nids are at ev3 as normal.
2. We've been depating defensive fire and overwatch a bunch, and there's still no agreement. I though it was return fire on assault at first, and yet now I think it's only when triggered and assault itself isn't a trigger. Regardless of if I'm right on this, the question is different.
Overwatch says you can shoot at a unit that ended his movement within 12" So if 3 squads of orks all stop at 11" away you can potentially fire at them all.
It also says you can still fire on a unit despite being locked in close combat with THAT unit.
Meaning if they assault you from farther than 12" away (some units can now) or they assault you and tie you up in close combat, you can still defensive fire.
However, what if they charged/engaged your neighboring squad that is within 12"?
Are they locked in combat, thus you cannot fire at them at that moment since you have to wait for them to finish moving?
3. I know there's plenty of rules on multi-trageting when it comes to shooting multiple targets, but is it written anywhere that you have to shoot the same unit you assaulted?
Since 5th says you have to assault the unit you shot at, I figured I'd ask if the reverse was true.
Example: I assault some guardsmen, I win combat, they die or fallback, am I required to shoot the fleeing guardsmen squad or may i shoot at something else instead?
4. My squad was riding inside a vehicle, and said vehicle gets blown to pieces thus forcing me to disembark.
Am I considered stationary, to have moved, or does it depend on the vehicles prior movement ?
I know it's silly to ask questions about these, but hey, maybe GW might see these and address the issue themselves before the book is released (if it's real) ^_^
the first time through the book I got to the DF part and thought holy S assaulting is now a suicide run. My friend plays eldar and I just imagined by berzerkers charging guardians and running into 20 or 40 shots as they assault. I started thinking wow I really dont like this and about how I would have to retool my chaos army. Then I got to the part about actions during your opponents trun and thought oh I get it. The df entry is only describing how the df works not when you can use it. It seems exceedingly clear to me. I really dont get how your not getting this.
I'll give you all the credit you deserve, based on your career and experience, but this time I do think you might have it wrong. I'm not sure all of the previous explanations have been terribly coherent, but here's my take:
The text your are quoting from page 77 is not a "keystone mechanic". It is actually called an exception to the normal Shooting rules. This exception needs to be made, because otherwise, Defensive Fire would be negated completely by a successful charge, as the normal shooting rules don't allow you to shoot anymore once you are in base to base contact.
The inclusion of the list of exceptions is hope for the future. In the past, I would have bet GW would include a rule like Defensive Fire, and simply think it obvious that the unit would still get to shoot even if changed. Look at Jervis's last Standard Bearer article for an explanation of how designers play by RAI, not RAW. Perhaps they finally have a few WAAC playtesters to clear things up for them.
Then again, maybe this all just a hoax, but effectively exists as one hell of a resume for someone out there.
'How to troll an entire gaming community in 10 hours or less'
xD
I was curious, having not really read it over but skimmed here and there + this thread - if they DO switch the shooting and assault phases round, how will armies that currently rely on shooting the crap out of everything for damage then locking it assault to prevent return fire cope?
My Coven pretty much uses the shooting phase to unload every round it has into the enemy, then move Grotesques and Wracks in to mop up / tie down enemy squads so my paperthin vehicles have a better chance to survive the return fire from the enemy vehicles and now greatly reduced, if any non-vehicle units left.
The way I see it now, is that I can either A: burn my shooting targets. B: don't really get to assault... C: Target in halves, 1 designated for shooting, 1 designated for assault, yet the ones being assault haven't been softened up for my frankly small squads, and/or there's a fair amount of return fire.
TL;DR How will units that rely on shooting THEN assaulting to survive... survive?
Which is why GW probably tried these rules and discarded them. A version transition where the entire metagame is thrown into chaos is not really int their best interests.
Ovion wrote:'How to troll an entire gaming community in 10 hours or less'
xD
I was curious, having not really read it over but skimmed here and there + this thread - if they DO switch the shooting and assault phases round, how will armies that currently rely on shooting the crap out of everything for damage then locking it assault to prevent return fire cope?
My Coven pretty much uses the shooting phase to unload every round it has into the enemy, then move Grotesques and Wracks in to mop up / tie down enemy squads so my paperthin vehicles have a better chance to survive the return fire from the enemy vehicles and now greatly reduced, if any non-vehicle units left.
The way I see it now, is that I can either A: burn my shooting targets. B: don't really get to assault...
TL;DR How will units that rely on shooting THEN assaulting to survive... survive?
It causes the player to define their army as "shooty" or "assaulty", for most armies it makes sense as they are already predefined (you don't see many shooty Nids or assaulty Tau).
Agamemnon2 wrote:Which is why GW probably tried these rules and discarded them. A version transition where the entire metagame is thrown into chaos is not really int their best interests.
You have it backwards: this is not really in the best interests of players who have purchased specialized army lists, as they will now have to buy new models to round out their armies.
This is absolutely in the best interests of GW just so long as you remember that GW is a company that sells models.
ph34r wrote:As a guard player with a ton of guardsmen, this is a life saver.
Agreed. As a Tyranid player that uses Hormagants, it's also a Godsend.
Move: Move 6".
Shoot: Roll 3d6, probably move 5" or 6".
Assault: Move 6"
I love it, for the Horms it means Either a 18inch charge or a 16inch run move, both of which ignore terrain. Raveners just got even beefier with a 21inch charge that ignores terrain.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
How is it balanced where you can get into combat so easily on turn 1?
When is the last time that?
A: People planned against a competitive Tyranid list
B: Fielded a bug list that was not stealer or tervigon spam
Agamemnon2 wrote:Which is why GW probably tried these rules and discarded them. A version transition where the entire metagame is thrown into chaos is not really int their best interests.
You have it backwards: this is not really in the best interests of players who have purchased specialized army lists, as they will now have to buy new models to round out their armies.
This is absolutely in the best interests of GW just so long as you remember that GW is a company that sells models.
But it's not in their best interests to rock the boat. GW has consistently taken less and less game-design risks with every core rules release since 40k third edition, and in the absence of evidence for the contrary, I do not suppose they've suddenly decided to throw caution to the wind. For them, the ideal scenario is to spend as little time and resources on updating the rules, but still consistently bring out a new edition every 4 years. Player retention is not a priority for them, GW's main customer base is expected to rotate out of the hobby constantly.
Agamemnon2 wrote:Which is why GW probably tried these rules and discarded them. A version transition where the entire metagame is thrown into chaos is not really int their best interests.
You have it backwards: this is not really in the best interests of players who have purchased specialized army lists, as they will now have to buy new models to round out their armies.
This is absolutely in the best interests of GW just so long as you remember that GW is a company that sells models.
But it's not in their best interests to rock the boat. GW has consistently taken less and less game-design risks with every core rules release since 40k third edition, and in the absence of evidence for the contrary, I do not suppose they've suddenly decided to throw caution to the wind. For them, the ideal scenario is to spend as little time and resources on updating the rules, but still consistently bring out a new edition every 4 years. Player retention is not a priority for them, GW's main customer base is expected to rotate out of the hobby constantly.
Huh? Did you track the changes in WHFB from v7 to v8?
Regardless of this being legit or not, GW really should pay attention because a ton of rules and ideas are getting a crapton of playtesting/theorycrafting now. I imagine the actual books are likely heading to the printers now and it may be too late to change anything, but still....
Sephyr wrote:Regardless of this being legit or not, GW really should pay attention because a ton of rules and ideas are getting a crapton of playtesting/theorycrafting now. I imagine the actual books are likely heading to the printers now and it may be too late to change anything, but still....
I doubt anything's getting printed just yet, 6th edition is still a while away...
Agamemnon2 wrote:Miniscule by comparison to this. If this were true, it would be the largest single change in any GW core game design since 1998, when 3E came out.
So we are well over due. The best way for them to change the balance in codex and dump codex creep is to do exactly this. When third Ed came out every one went back to level more or less. This would do the same and sell them way more product. Your stance is absurd. So apparently they should never over haul the game ever again is what your saying?
Also, I laughed when people were surprised that GW called this a fake. What else were they gonna do? Hey guys, you got us, don't buy 6th, this is real.... Wow....
Agamemnon2 wrote:Miniscule by comparison to this. If this were true, it would be the largest single change in any GW core game design since 1998, when 3E came out.
Oh, so you're already aware of a precedent. Keep that in mind, and tell me again how it would never happen.
Agamemnon2 wrote:Miniscule by comparison to this. If this were true, it would be the largest single change in any GW core game design since 1998, when 3E came out.
It doesn't seem that far out from the recent edition of fantasy which was regarded as a huge change. Fantasy also needed it a hell of a lot less then 40k does.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Agamemnon2 wrote:Which is why GW probably tried these rules and discarded them. A version transition where the entire metagame is thrown into chaos is not really int their best interests.
A large shift in the metagame sells a lot of models encouraging players to field builds that aren't the cookie cutter crap that fifth has developed into. Whether its in their long term interests is up for hyperbolic debate since none of you are clairvoyant, but in the short term edition changes almost always bring significant profits in tabletop gaming, card gaming, and PnP games.
Squidmanlol wrote:
It causes the player to define their army as "shooty" or "assaulty", for most armies it makes sense as they are already predefined (you don't see many shooty Nids or assaulty Tau).
Skuppers armies that are meant to be both, or rely on a combination, such as assaulty armies with shooty transports.
People keep talking about change being bad for GW. You guys need to realize that 5th edition is not actually a healthy metagame in the long run. The samey-same cookie cutter gameplay and parking lots are great in the short term, but once everyone has a bunch of tanks, the game slowly starts to lose people. Games like this make money on occasional upheaval at just the right interval.
I hate to keep making the connection to wizards, but every time wizards changes everything up, magic has another golden age.
STUCARIUS wrote:Of course I did not think just an old rule like "Defensive Fire" could be misunderstood to start with but I am a self acknowledged idiot for thinking so.
It's not an "old rule" in 40k context. No version of the game has ever had anything like it.
I'm curious. How are, say, Wyches supposed to charge anything if every single assault results in them being cut down like wheat? That's right, they can't.
Its been around in fantasy for a while though. Its called "stand and shoot". Sort of like the new charging and marching rules were lifted directly from fantasy battle.
Agamemnon2 wrote:Miniscule by comparison to this. If this were true, it would be the largest single change in any GW core game design since 1998, when 3E came out.
One can quibble over what is or is not "minuscule", but the move to v8 definitely did change WHFB radically which cuts against the thesis that GW has done nothing other than take less and less design risks...
Sephyr wrote:Regardless of this being legit or not, GW really should pay attention because a ton of rules and ideas are getting a crapton of playtesting/theorycrafting now. I imagine the actual books are likely heading to the printers now and it may be too late to change anything, but still....
I doubt anything's getting printed just yet, 6th edition is still a while away...
Things happen quite a while out. Video games don't get completed on May 4th then shipped to stores May 7th, there's a three to four month period where the code is copied, discs are produced, cases are manufactured, and games are shipped. I would suspect that the same applies for this book. The rulebook gets finalized this month, the master copy gets copied and sent to the printers, then shipped out to all GW warehouses, stores, and LFGS's. I think if the rulebooks aren't already at the printers, they soon will be.
Honestly I'd say, after reading all these pages that the best evidence for this NOT to be real is that everyone likes it. It is accounted by most to appear well written, thorough, cool, fun, balanced, make a ton of sense, and allow a great variance of play at all levels of the game, with even allowing out dated books to shine nicely.
This has not been a hallmark of GW games design since before I started at 3e 40k (except on the Fantasy side, who most people felt was written by a wholly different group of people).
I'm just hoping that the real deal (whatever that turns out to be) is as good or better than this. If this is a real copy, great job, GW. If it's fake, well, you guys have a hell of a thing to live up to.
jvry8c wrote:hopefully its fake. Some things are interesting (snipers being able to pick who is wounded) but overall it kills the game and breaks game standards that have existed in 40k since 2ed edition ex: order of the turn. also the B.S. vs evasion is kind of dumb as well.
Oh you mean the mech meta and the predominance of wound shenanigans on units of multiwound minis? The predominance of melta weapons and autocannons in armies that can take them? Don't even get me started on the other issues....
@STUCARIUS: dude, are you really not getting this or are you just trolling?
He must be, either that or he hasn't realized that 95% of the posters in this thread are telling him he is wrong for a reason...
Anyone else find people arguing rules from a leaked playtest document hilarious?
and sad... dont forget sad...
ON another note, it's nice to see my wish that terrain become part of your army choice (via a very strange mechanism but I can't have everything)
well, not exactly... you can augment terrain via your army choice... MAYBE, but terrain is still something done outside of your army list
Wow this is just wonderful. We finally have a great set of rules and people who must have reading comprehension that is maybe 1st grade level are going to screw this game up just like they have the last two editions before it even gets released. This is greatest condemnation of the quality of gamers I have ever seen.
I have been playing tabletop Wargames for 36 years. Defensive fire is an old and true rule. You people are completely and totally reading all of these rules like a Baptist preacher justifying his hatred of homosexuals.
Don't worry about me. I generally stay away from this idiocy and I will re-establish my nonaligned policy.
It was that just for maybe 72 hours I had actually hoped that rules written clearly and well could not be misunderstood even by the people who brought us the INAT. But I guess that was just a pipe dream.
Play the stupid game this way. it will be fun. NOT!!!
This is what is called a "Keystone Mechanic" if you take it away or misapply it, the way many here are, and the game will not play in anything that comes close to balanced.
I do not have to worry about being right ow wrong. Reality will soon prove me right as you folks try to actually play this game while incorrectly using an old rule like Defensive Fire which I am sure the guys at the Studio thought was so completely self descriptive that not even 40K gamers could screw it up.
SURPRISE!!!! Go ahead. PLay the game where all units do not get defensive fire using the new mechanics for Assault and its aftermath. It will not take you long to catch on.
Of course I did not think just an old rule like "Defensive Fire" could be misunderstood to start with but I am a self acknowledged idiot for thinking so.
There is no requirement that one game designer stick to another prior interpretation of a rule with the same name. Keep on trollin'! If it makes you feel any better, i arrived at the same conclusion you did when I read the rules the first time... until I got to page 140. Its okay, I understand that finishing a book is 2nd grade level reading, if you haven't made it that far we understand...
When is the last time that?
A: People planned against a competitive Tyranid list
B: Fielded a bug list that was not stealer or tervigon spam
Uhhh hi? Homagaunt and shrike spammer here... oh and I use carnifexes and ymgarl stealers and the only shooting attacks in my force come from fex bio-plasma and a unit of zoanthropes...
as for the arguments that this would alter the meta and thats bad for GW: guess again. Its very very good for GW. The mech meta is unsustainable (as is any meta really), after 5 years of 5th edition veteran gamers have basically already bought all transports they need... what product has GW not really moved off shelves in a while? Infantry. People are more or less running min-max lists again, except this time its the minimum number of infantry figs you can take to get a nice transport for the unit as opposed to special/heavy weapons. GW stands to make serious money from renewed infantry sales, especially from Guard players who will soon find it more advantageous to play powerblobbed footguard lists and nid players that will see new utility from their Hormagaunts. Hell, even necron armies will see increased infantry sales as people wake up and smell the roses and realize that large warrior units are pretty damned good.
STUCARIUS wrote:Of course I did not think just an old rule like "Defensive Fire" could be misunderstood to start with but I am a self acknowledged idiot for thinking so.
It's not an "old rule" in 40k context. No version of the game has ever had anything like it.
I'm curious. How are, say, Wyches supposed to charge anything if every single assault results in them being cut down like wheat? That's right, they can't.
Its been around in fantasy for a while though. Its called "stand and shoot". Sort of like the new charging and marching rules were lifted directly from fantasy battle.
Except that not every single unit in fantasy has a shooting attack, and nearly every unit in fantasy is comprised of more than 10 models! Wyches (as a for instance) would be useless as hell. And if you think that it wouldn't be an issue for anyone else, tell me how Orks or Marines will feel after an attempted charge into Tau lines...
Why does everyone hate vehicles? Why do you want to play sci-fi games with infantry blocks? lol
In my opinion GW would be stupid to make vehicles gak and try to "push infantry sales" like what's being suggested here, simply because vehicle kits are big and expensive and everyone will want them. Your argument about "veterans" is also useless because it's been well-established that GW doesn't care about veterans, and new players don't have "all the transports they'll ever need".
I'm not sure I really get that either. Why would you want one to be "better" than the other anyway? Why do vehicles need to be nerfed to sell infantry? Make both of them worth taking and they'll both be worth buying. Right?
Maybe GW has been slowly preparing for this day? Maybe we are not all smarter then an entire division dedicated to making money...
Think about it, with every new release or redo, they take big infantry boxes and instead of giving you 20 infantry they give you 10 for the same price. Maybe this has been a long term goal of Gw, lets be honest here, GW may do dumb things in our eyes, but they know how to make money. No company sits here and says how can we make fast money, they plan for long term investments.
I don't think they roll into work and be like 'HEY LETS MAKE A NEW EDITION AND RELEASE IT NEXT MONTH!"
Sidstyler wrote:Why does everyone hate vehicles? Why do you want to play sci-fi games with infantry blocks? lol
Its not that we hate vehicles, its that we like infantry... you know, the models EVERY ARMY is required to have, but that rarely ever see the light of day because they are too busy hiding in metal bawkses? Yeah, those... 40k is world war 1/2 in space,not futuristic tank battles.
In my opinion GW would be stupid to make vehicles gak and try to "push infantry sales" like what's being suggested here, simply because vehicle kits are big and expensive and everyone will want them. Your argument about "veterans" is also useless because it's been well-established that GW doesn't care about veterans, and new players don't have "all the transports they'll ever need".
GW can make a lot more money selling infantry kits than it can selling transport models. An IG mechvets list is 6 boxes of infantry, 6 chimeras, a couple valks and maybe a leman russ... a footguard list is what 15 boxes of infantry squads minimum, plus another 5-6 boxes of heavy weapon squads for the same points value?
As for my argument about veterans being useless... its the exact reason why its valid. GW doesn't care about screwing us over, which is why they have no qualms with invalidating our existing forces and making us start anew. Really, the influx of new players isn't that big (and its actually driving the second hand market). The North Jersey gaming community has become quite 'nomadic' (due to the efforts of certain hobbyists) if you would care to use that term, and I and others frequent a variety of stores, about 6 in all. Across those 6 stores, I can count maybe 2 new players total in the past year, and neither one of them really stuck with the hobby (nor did they even come close to accumulating more than 1000 pts of stuff from what I can recall). Meanwhile in the past 6 months I alone have dropped about 300-400 dollars on GW product, and I know several other fellow hobbyists that have done the same if not more.
I'm not sure I really get that either. Why would you want one to be "better" than the other anyway? Why do vehicles need to be nerfed to sell infantry? Make both of them worth taking and they'll both be worth buying. Right?
Its not about making tanks worse, they are still going to be a powerhouse, its about making infantry the focus of the game as they should be, but the fact of the matter is the current meta is mech, everyone is maxing out on vehicles and min-maxing infantry to this end. These rules end that and make proper-sized infantry squads the norm again. Finally I won't get strange looks when I tell people I have a TEN man squad of Dire Avengers in that transport WITH AN EXARCH TO BOOT instead of the typical DAVU unit...
Sidstyler wrote:Why does everyone hate vehicles? Why do you want to play sci-fi games with infantry blocks? lol
In my opinion GW would be stupid to make vehicles gak and try to "push infantry sales" like what's being suggested here, simply because vehicle kits are big and expensive and everyone will want them. Your argument about "veterans" is also useless because it's been well-established that GW doesn't care about veterans, and new players don't have "all the transports they'll ever need".
I'm not sure I really get that either. Why would you want one to be "better" than the other anyway? Why do vehicles need to be nerfed to sell infantry? Make both of them worth taking and they'll both be worth buying. Right?
Actually, this is why I like these rules. Vehicles weren't nerfed hard. Their nerfing was very slight. To the point where I'm not even sure they were nerfed. But the ruleset, taken as a whole, now makes it just as viable to go with infantry as with mech spam now.
ShumaGorath wrote:A large shift in the metagame sells a lot of models encouraging players to field builds that aren't the cookie cutter crap that fifth has developed into. Whether its in their long term interests is up for hyperbolic debate since none of you are clairvoyant, but in the short term edition changes almost always bring significant profits in tabletop gaming, card gaming, and PnP games.
I'm clairvoyant.
...clairvoyant is a synonym for 'handsome', right?
Rented Tritium wrote:I hate to keep making the connection to wizards, but every time wizards changes everything up, magic has another golden age.
When did this happen, exactly? I stopped playing M:tG shortly after the Type II Academy decks fiasco.
Sidstyler wrote:I'm not sure I really get that either. Why would you want one to be "better" than the other anyway? Why do vehicles need to be nerfed to sell infantry? Make both of them worth taking and they'll both be worth buying. Right?
Because right now, vehicles are much better than infantry, so Nerfing the vehicles is levelling the playing field between the two. However, I don't really see any Nerfing happening; I actually just see vehicles taking on more specific roles as either tanks or transports rather than the end-all-be-all solutions they currently are. Additionally, I see infantry being given additional utility, and taking on more of a central role to be supported by mech, and not the other way around.
EDIT: Wow, Chaos0xomega ninja'd be big on this one.
I don't hate vehicles, quite fond of them actually, but I hate the utter dependance on them that 5th edition has brought. I don't want vehicles nerfed into the ground, and I don't think this ruleset does that. I want a better balance between foot lists and mech lists, which I think I see in this PDF.
Two things I'm curious about, and don't know if either has been brought up though I've read the large majority of the posts. If you look on page 96 (75 of the PDF) on the left it shows an example of the two statlines for a plasma pistol, one as a shooting weapon and one as a combat weapon. On the left it lists it as Rending while the chart on the right does not. I'm assuming it is omitted from the chart on the right as the low AP weaponry like melta is also rending. Makes plasma pistols on sergeants very attractive, especially when paired with a fist. Gives the option to slam with the coarse fist, or swap to a S7 plasma pistol which isn't a power weapon, but at least rends if you really need to apply some directed hits.
Also I know that only generic one handed power weapons allow the parry invulnerable save, which makes me curious with regards to banshees. With Mirrorswords on an Exarch, would the extra attack given deprive her of the parry save?
All in all I'm thrilled with the new rules and I'm glad to see upgrades that people didn't hardly even think about come to the forefront again like extra armor, plain old power weapons, plasma pistols, the eavy armor on nobs and such to change their armor group. Really makes use of a lot of the wasted depth the game already contains.
"Combat" entries are what you use when you use the weapon in close combat.
Yes, you lose the parry bonus on Mirrorswords as they have an additional rule. Also they are not power weapons, they just ignore armor saves..makes a difference now.
Posit wrote:
Actually, this is why I like these rules. Vehicles weren't nerfed hard. Their nerfing was very slight. To the point where I'm not even sure they were nerfed. But the ruleset, taken as a whole, now makes it just as viable to go with infantry as with mech spam now.
This. Vehicles are actually immensely dangerous now: being able to fire several weapons at once, with firing ports that grant relentless to embarked units (turning rhinos carrying Blastmater noise marines into mini-vindicators!), letting you move 6' and then disembark troops that can still assault 6"...and that mob of orks/zerkers punching your rhino open might not like when it explodes and insta-kills 15%+ of their horde!
I am a bit concerned about some things being -way- to easy to hit now: monstrous creatures, large tanks...any non-flyer within 12". Shooting seems to be outpacing melee, and I'm not sure melee is being given enough tools to keep up.
One thing I haven't been able to clarify is the Alpha Strike rule. The file is quite poorly organized and I haven't had time to read it calmly. Also, if there is a way for a unit to break a transport in CC and still assault the passengers (Charge by chance, perhaps?)
Maelstrom808 wrote:"Combat" entries are what you use when you use the weapon in close combat.
I understand this, my point is the "Combat" entry on the left side of the page lists S7 AP 5 Combat, Pistol 1 RENDING,Get's Hot! under the example of Plasma Pistol. If you look on the right side of the page, in the chart of pistols it is listed as S7 AP 5 Combat, Pistol , Get's Hot. It can't both have and not have rending so one of the listings must be in error.
And while I agree with you about the Mirrorsword issue, it seems kind of silly.
Alpha Strike is something a unit can perform against an enemy unit already in combat.
Say I have unit A tied up with your unit A from a previous combat. I bring in my unit B into the assault with your unit A. Since your unit A was already in combat, my unit B can strike at initiative 10.
basically if you assault a unit that is already locked you may alpha strike at I 10 as long as the unit doesn't have an ability that allows it to ignore terrain effects. also a unit with at least half of its models in terrain (cover) that isnt locked from a previous turn can alpha strike as well.
AresX8 wrote:Alpha Strike is something a unit can perform against an enemy unit already in combat.
Say I have unit A tied up with your unit A from a previous combat. I bring in my unit B into the assault with your unit A. Since your unit A was already in combat, my unit B can strike at initiative 10.
I love this rule. Adds a truly sexy sting onto a counter attack, especially from something like Khorne Berserkers (in my case).
Angel_of_Rust wrote:
Also I know that only generic one handed power weapons allow the parry invulnerable save, which makes me curious with regards to banshees. With Mirrorswords on an Exarch, would the extra attack given deprive her of the parry save?
Im sure if that was the case it wont be long until Eldar get a new codex after 6th anyway and it will be fixed in there (If these really are real).
chaos0xomega wrote:
Its not about making tanks worse, they are still going to be a powerhouse, its about making infantry the focus of the game as they should be, but the fact of the matter is the current meta is mech, everyone is maxing out on vehicles and min-maxing infantry to this end. These rules end that and make proper-sized infantry squads the norm again. Finally I won't get strange looks when I tell people I have a TEN man squad of Dire Avengers in that transport WITH AN EXARCH TO BOOT instead of the typical DAVU unit...
Another thing to chew on, the Exarchs for Fire Dragons, Banshees, and Dire Avengers all have a better armor save than their average squad mates. Always seemed kind of useless in the past with majority armor. Very, very awesome for dodging directed hits in this leak though.
I think vehicles are actually more lethal. Read the rules for ram, if you take a squad of leman russes they all count as moving simultaneously so you can form up and run over a 30 man mob of orks and if they don't make 6" range to escape it's a free crit. Crazy good.
I like how Monoliths got a major buff. When you look at how powerful they are, then look back to see its point cost reduction, and the fact that stuff can assault out of the portal, and it can deep strike without scattering.... man are we gonna be seeing a lot more of them.
Agamemnon2 wrote:Miniscule by comparison to this. If this were true, it would be the largest single change in any GW core game design since 1998, when 3E came out.
It doesn't seem that far out from the recent edition of fantasy which was regarded as a huge change. Fantasy also needed it a hell of a lot less then 40k does.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Agamemnon2 wrote:Which is why GW probably tried these rules and discarded them. A version transition where the entire metagame is thrown into chaos is not really int their best interests.
A large shift in the metagame sells a lot of models encouraging players to field builds that aren't the cookie cutter crap that fifth has developed into. Whether its in their long term interests is up for hyperbolic debate since none of you are clairvoyant, but in the short term edition changes almost always bring significant profits in tabletop gaming, card gaming, and PnP games.
I just realized I was reading every single post of yours now, Shuma. I totally agree! Guess I gotta take you off ignore. lol Not sure if I've changed or you have but, gimme five!
It sounds like the game is getting a heck of a lot more detailed on how things would really happen if it were real. Im really starting to like the sound of some of this stuff, hope its real
Maelstrom808 wrote:"Combat" entries are what you use when you use the weapon in close combat.
I understand this, my point is the "Combat" entry on the left side of the page lists S7 AP 5 Combat, Pistol 1 RENDING,Get's Hot! under the example of Plasma Pistol. If you look on the right side of the page, in the chart of pistols it is listed as S7 AP 5 Combat, Pistol , Get's Hot. It can't both have and not have rending so one of the listings must be in error.
And while I agree with you about the Mirrorsword issue, it seems kind of silly.
Good catch on the Plasma Pistol, I hadn't noticed that. I'd say yeah, it's just another of several typos. Hopefully this is the real deal and it will get fixed in the final version.
On the Mirrorsword thing, yeah, I think anything prior to this ruleset that has the "this weapon ignores armor saves" should probably go ahead and be defined as power weapons. The parry thing is kind of...meh. I don't really see the purpose it serves. Power weapons are already balanced against other things like powerfists and such by having a reduced point cost. I don't really see that they need to buff it any.
AresX8 wrote:Alpha Strike is something a unit can perform against an enemy unit already in combat.
Say I have unit A tied up with your unit A from a previous combat. I bring in my unit B into the assault with your unit A. Since your unit A was already in combat, my unit B can strike at initiative 10.
It can also be used by a unit that has at least half of it models in terrain, is not locked in combat already, and is being assaulted to give themselves I10.
There is also a rule called Combat drill on pg 60 that deals with Alpha Strike, but I haven't really got that one figured out yet.
Most of the Combat Drill text is a copy/paste error, I think. Only pay attention to the bottom paragraph. I'm not sure if it's a standard rule anyone can use or a special permission only rule like Overwatch.
MasterSlowPoke wrote:Most of the Combat Drill text is a copy/paste error, I think. Only pay attention to the bottom paragraph. I'm not sure if it's a standard rule anyone can use or a special permission only rule like Overwatch.
It looks like it's usable to everyone - it's not in one of the sections marked as special use only. It seems to primarily be a way of speeding up the game - it just lets you voluntarily lower your squad's initiative to the initiative of the lowest member and roll all your attacks at once. The only tactical advantage it actually gives is that it might force saturation of an armor group during wound allocation. Mostly though, I think it'll just be used to roll dice faster.
Yeah, I think you're right. It's nice to have that as a legal option - in 5th it was always annoying to roll everything other than the powerfist first.
And just to double check, none of the opposing player's units count as stationary during the first player's turn during the first game cycle, right?
Agamemnon2 wrote:Miniscule by comparison to this. If this were true, it would be the largest single change in any GW core game design since 1998, when 3E came out.
It doesn't seem that far out from the recent edition of fantasy which was regarded as a huge change. Fantasy also needed it a hell of a lot less then 40k does.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Agamemnon2 wrote:Which is why GW probably tried these rules and discarded them. A version transition where the entire metagame is thrown into chaos is not really int their best interests.
A large shift in the metagame sells a lot of models encouraging players to field builds that aren't the cookie cutter crap that fifth has developed into. Whether its in their long term interests is up for hyperbolic debate since none of you are clairvoyant, but in the short term edition changes almost always bring significant profits in tabletop gaming, card gaming, and PnP games.
I just realized I was reading every single post of yours now, Shuma. I totally agree! Guess I gotta take you off ignore. lol Not sure if I've changed or you have but, gimme five!
Don't worry I'll probably be banned again next week. This forum has an aversion to reality.
otakutaylor wrote:I've tried to read through the rules a couple of times to find these answers, but I can't seem to.
1. If my unit of retributors has been locked in close combat for 2 cycles a squad of gaunts. (dunno how they survived, they just did)
My turn starts and in the movement phase neither the gaunts on their previous turn nor my retributors on this turn have made a move action such as charge or engage.
Assault finally finished with my retri's forcing the nids to fall back.
The nids succeed on escaping sweeping advance and run away, and my girls consolidate.
Now that it is my shooting phase, are my sisters considered to be stationary?
Are the gaunts considered to be stationary?
Neither of us technically made a move action in our respective last movement phase, only consolidations so far which do not count as movement.
If yes, we're stationary, I can fire my heavy bolters AND the gaunts are at ev2 thanks to standing "still"
if no, I can't fire my heavy weapons despite not moving in my phase, and the nids are at ev3 as normal.
As i understand it no, for you to be able to use heavy weapons, you must be able to perform Stationary actions, wich you can't do before regaining Combat Stadiness in your Consolidation phase, thats how i get it.
And even if i'm wrong, a Fall back, is still a type of move, so those gaunts doesn't count as standing still.
3. I know there's plenty of rules on multi-trageting when it comes to shooting multiple targets, but is it written anywhere that you have to shoot the same unit you assaulted?
Since 5th says you have to assault the unit you shot at, I figured I'd ask if the reverse was true.
Example: I assault some guardsmen, I win combat, they die or fallback, am I required to shoot the fleeing guardsmen squad or may i shoot at something else instead?
Din't see anything of the like,might be wrong though.
By what i've seen so far there is no stipulation at necessarily shooting at the same unit you've assaulted - especially since it's quite possible for you to do an engage move, wipe out the unit in CC, then consolidate and be allowed to shoot...well the unit you assaulted is dust, so you'd effectively lose a shooting phase. This version of the rules seems to want to pack as much action in 6 turns as possible, with BOTH players taking massive casualties from the word Go. It'll make for more intense games, more fun, and less feelings of 'why did i even set my models up, i'm the only one packing them back in my bag' that some 5th ed games turn into.
AresX8 wrote:I like how Monoliths got a major buff. When you look at how powerful they are, then look back to see its point cost reduction, and the fact that stuff can assault out of the portal, and it can deep strike without scattering.... man are we gonna be seeing a lot more of them.
It is the perfect plan to sell new models that nobody will use after a short period of time. First release new codex, giving the monolith a nerf and adding cheap annihilation barges that many will want to use in their heavy slot. Fast forward six months or so, after the old necron players have traded/sold their monoliths and purchased annihilation barges and maybe a few doomsday arks, bring out sixth edition, making the monolith the best heavy support choice again, prompting the new necron players to purchase monoliths and shelf their barges/arks, and old necron players that traded/sold their 'liths to want to buy new ones.
McNinja wrote:Things happen quite a while out. Video games don't get completed on May 4th then shipped to stores May 7th, there's a three to four month period where the code is copied, discs are produced, cases are manufactured, and games are shipped.
actually games can take less then a month. code being copied takes less then an hour, pressing disks is fun to watch, they crank them out, cases are pre done, art is just printed and done... even more so if there is a release date and store shelf space bought, though most companies don't do that.
books, no idea how long that takes, i didn't work making books
either way, interesting read. i'll just play what the book says when it comes out (the few games i play a year)
It can also be used by a unit that has at least half of it models in terrain, is not locked in combat already, and is being assaulted to give themselves I10.
There is also a rule called Combat drill on pg 60 that deals with Alpha Strike, but I haven't really got that one figured out yet.
Compare a 200 point monolith under the new rules with the 'heavy' distinction to a 250 point land raider - the land raider doesn't stand a chance to survive compared to the monolith. I'm betting it won't retain a structure point as a super-heavy in the new rules once they are released (one of few changes i foresee happening).
Also melta needs clarification - it removes the -1 modifier for a tank, and adds nothing for other vehicles, I'm fine with that. However it has no effect on super-heavies that have a structure point? It should at least change the -3 to a -2 on the table, but I don't see that happening.
So doesn't a guy basically ALWAYS want to go first? Going second means you need to reserve everything big or get autohit.
Also... what are we missing in this? These are the advanced rules, so there is a basic ruleset as well. Do we think that will have basic missions? There HAS to be pitched battle somewhere. The missions as presented in the PDF make tourney play completely impossible. Plus, as noted above... right now whoever goes first gets such a huge bonus it's almost an autowin without your opponent reserving everything...
It can also be used by a unit that has at least half of it models in terrain, is not locked in combat already, and is being assaulted to give themselves I10.
There is also a rule called Combat drill on pg 60 that deals with Alpha Strike, but I haven't really got that one figured out yet.
AresX8 wrote:I like how Monoliths got a major buff. When you look at how powerful they are, then look back to see its point cost reduction, and the fact that stuff can assault out of the portal, and it can deep strike without scattering.... man are we gonna be seeing a lot more of them.
It is the perfect plan to sell new models that nobody will use after a short period of time. First release new codex, giving the monolith a nerf and adding cheap annihilation barges that many will want to use in their heavy slot. Fast forward six months or so, after the old necron players have traded/sold their monoliths and purchased annihilation barges and maybe a few doomsday arks, bring out sixth edition, making the monolith the best heavy support choice again, prompting the new necron players to purchase monoliths and shelf their barges/arks, and old necron players that traded/sold their 'liths to want to buy new ones.
Definitely sounds like something GW would do . Glad I hung onto the Monoliths I got in the Necron army trade for my Khador army.
In regards to Alpha Strike: I see it really helping low initiative armies. Look at this example:
A unit of Berzerkers are tied up with Whip Coil Wraiths. Lychguard go into the assault, strike at I10, and wipe out the Berzerkers.
Walls wrote:So doesn't a guy basically ALWAYS want to go first? Going second means you need to reserve everything big or get autohit.
I don't think the second player is hit with the -1EV penalty for being stationary on the first player's turn in the first game cycle.
Actually, yes he is. There is a 3 SP stratagem that prevents this, however.
And you're only looking at a -1 EV for being stationary...although that means many tanks are going to be hit on 2's with most anti-tank weapons at that stage. So, by going 2nd, you need to ensure that you're protected by spending some smart stratagem points. I prefer the one that gives your entire army Veiled(2) for one game cycle. That means nobody further than 24" can shoot you, thus keeping you safe (a-la' the necron solar pulse).
"Stationary: A unit that remained stationary in its last Movement phase suffers a -1 penalty to its EV."
The second player's units did not remain stationary in their last Movement phases (there wasn't a Movement phase at all), so this part doesn't apply. I think that Stategem is for armies with Fast Skimmers or Bikes to give them the Jink bonus.
AresX8 wrote:In regards to Alpha Strike: I see it really helping low initiative armies. Look at this example:
A unit of Berzerkers are tied up with Whip Coil Wraiths. Lychguard go into the assault, strike at I10, and wipe out the Berzerkers.
Indeed. Looks like my metal Flayed Ones (no way I'd buy that ugly, overpiced, finecast crap) will finally be useful. In two ways:
1 - Have them tie the unit up in CC and have Lychguards or anything else that does horrid damage Alpha Strike, or...
2 - Use Lychguards with Shields to tie the unit up, than Alpha Strike with 10 - Flayed Ones -> 40 attacks with S4. Wow.
The commander doesn't play sitting duck while waiting for the enemy to approach. Instead he orders his troops to rush the enemy with full speed. All friendly units count as having moved before the game until their first turn. Therefore, they have a better Evasion value than usual and vehicles are not hit automatically in close combat.
Moving doesn't increase your evasion value - rather, standing still reduces it. Vehicles are hit automatically if they were stationary. So, this essentially proves that without the stratagem your army counts as stationary at the start of the game. 2 options here - Make sure the bidding goes as high as 3 SP or more if you're that worried about getting alpha struck in the shooting phase, or make sure you're the one going first.
That doesn't change what the shooting rules say. Without that strategem, the second player's units do not count as either stationary or moving in the last turn, so nothing that depends on those conditions will trigger. With the strategem, everything counts as having moved, with the benefits that come with that (jink, vehicles in CC, etc).
It's something else that makes it pretty clear this is still a playtest version of the document - i can interpret this situation both ways. An explicit line of text needs to state whether or not units count as stationary before the start of the game. Until said line exists you and I both have valid points.
Agreed. I have a sneaking suspicion that the stategem text was written when the evasion chart looked more like this one from those rumors about half a year ago:
The commander doesn't play sitting duck while waiting for the enemy to approach. Instead he orders his troops to rush the enemy with full speed. All friendly units count as having moved before the game until their first turn. Therefore, they have a better Evasion value than usual and vehicles are not hit automatically in close combat.
Moving doesn't increase your evasion value - rather, standing still reduces it. Vehicles are hit automatically if they were stationary. So, this essentially proves that without the stratagem your army counts as stationary at the start of the game. 2 options here - Make sure the bidding goes as high as 3 SP or more if you're that worried about getting alpha struck in the shooting phase, or make sure you're the one going first.
I see this really taking up the number of deep strike armies that want to go second like BADOA lists. You know the stuff that wants to go first is going to bid high to ensure their first turn shoot the heck (not meaning rear) out of everything. So lets say they bit 10SP figuring most people will bid 5 sp only granting the person going 5sp, but if the BA player bids 0 this would give them 10 sp and make for some sick boosts to their army which can deep strike, get shot a little and then assault.
The commander doesn't play sitting duck while waiting for the enemy to approach. Instead he orders his troops to rush the enemy with full speed. All friendly units count as having moved before the game until their first turn. Therefore, they have a better Evasion value than usual and vehicles are not hit automatically in close combat.
Moving doesn't increase your evasion value - rather, standing still reduces it. Vehicles are hit automatically if they were stationary. So, this essentially proves that without the stratagem your army counts as stationary at the start of the game. 2 options here - Make sure the bidding goes as high as 3 SP or more if you're that worried about getting alpha struck in the shooting phase, or make sure you're the one going first.
I see this really taking up the number of deep strike armies that want to go second like BADOA lists. You know the stuff that wants to go first is going to bid high to ensure their first turn shoot the heck (not meaning rear) out of everything. So lets say they bit 10SP figuring most people will bid 5 sp only granting the person going 5sp, but if the BA player bids 0 this would give them 10 sp and make for some sick boosts to their army which can deep strike, get shot a little and then assault.
A-ha! but this clearly feeds the tactical gambit of the rules - If i know you have a DOA army I can bid lower and still expect to beat you!
This goes back to the whole princess bride poison scene again. Clearly I cannot bid that many points because I know you want to go second anyhow..but then You know I know so therefore I surely must bid that many points to ensure a first turn! Etc Etc - Circular Logic.
chaos0xomega wrote:I hereby proclaim that every game start with the line "It appears we have a Mexican standoff..."
This post has officially been exalted.
I LOL'ed. literally for once. I had the imagery in my head of two grizzled prospectors facing off, one saying to the other "I dare ya to bid first..I'll raise yer points each time!"
Hey guys,
Its been a while but I'd like to give a few observations.
1st) I really like the overall feel of this rumoured dex, but it needs to be finished before I'll be willing to give it a yea or nay.
2nd) The defensive fire thing is too muddled to say eother way due to some of the references made about it outside of the rule entries. IMO, the answer lies in the strategems where overwatch may be purchased for a couple of syrategy points. (Note* That when purchased as a strategy that both players get the nenefit.....very balanced I feel.)
3rd) Just a few pro's & cons I noticed:
Pro's;
A) Artillery rocks under these proposed rules(Especially the Eldar Support Platforms)
B) Crisis suits with plas will sustain fire @ 18" and don't have to dangerous terrain when in difficult terrain.
C) Tau stealthsuits will be useful.
D) Both Hammerheads and falcons will regain the fire power lost to 5th ed.
E) Coversaves are no longer redonculous under these rules and if the dis pods going to 5+ save is the price to be paid, then So Be It.
F) Really like the only one move a turn unless units have the draw back(?) rule.
Cons;
A) I hate the rail rules and how they make the railgun nerf the units equipped with them. The units that use these weapons need screening units which these proposed rules would make impossible. Basically units equipped with rail weapons will become very expensive throw away units. I also just don,t like how unrealistic the straight line mechanic is for a solid projectile that travels parrallel to the ground but raises and lowers in height depending on the unit it travels over.
This mechanism works fine for magical/warp/sonic effects but not for a rail shot. Because of This rule alone, I hope that this ruleset is either changed to ommit the rail rules or that the whole thise is just a hoax.
B) There is to much basic stuff missing, to much assumption that we know what is meant. If real, they need to clarify what constitutes having moved for the purposes of Evasion Value, simplified/clearer language on assault weapons being ised as secondary combat weapon(Do you get to shoot it?? Why did they out the shooting profile in that section??)3rd) and there are about a half dozen more.
C) Maybe it is in one of the ommitted diagrams but the rapid fire rules could be better written as well as the # of actions available versus how many are used(The Tau faq in the pdf didn't even come close to addressing how the multitrackers and target locks would need yo be purchased without our opponents screaming "shennanigans".
chaos0xomega wrote:I hereby proclaim that every game start with the line "It appears we have a Mexican standoff..."
This post has officially been exalted.
I LOL'ed. literally for once. I had the imagery in my head of two grizzled prospectors facing off, one saying to the other "I dare ya to bid first..I'll raise yer points each time!"
You can't have a Mexican stand off because the player who won the deployment roll has to make the first bid and the next bidder must either bid a minimum of 1 point higher or concede. Also the winner chooses who goes first, so if you bid nothing and lose on purpose (because you want to go second) the winner can make you go first - if he is smart enough to see what you are planning. It is quite complex.
I realize you were probably joking though.
But this is actually a pretty cool system. When we played it last night it took some time to get the bidding thing worked out and I made a huge error in bidding so high (since I was playing BADOA just like in your example). That is the more realistic problem with the system. Rather than a standoff situation you are more likely to have players that bid way too high or way too low and give a big advantage to their opponent. I like that though, because it is skill based. You need to know the game to know exactly what going first/second is worth to you. Way more interesting than rolling a stupid dice.
Theres also an element of poker to it, there is a certain element of figuring out what your opponents bid threshold is, i.e. the point at which they will willingly go second in exchange for the points (I'd say for the average player this will be around 2-4 points) and knowing how far you can push it before caving yourself so you get the points yourself (if you are so disposed).
focusedfire wrote:Cons;
A) I hate the rail rules and how they make the railgun nerf the units equipped with them. The units that use these weapons need screening units which these proposed rules would make impossible. Basically units equipped with rail weapons will become very expensive throw away units. I also just don,t like how unrealistic the straight line mechanic is for a solid projectile that travels parrallel to the ground but raises and lowers in height depending on the unit it travels over.
This mechanism works fine for magical/warp/sonic effects but not for a rail shot. Because of This rule alone, I hope that this ruleset is either changed to ommit the rail rules or that the whole thise is just a hoax.
Why do you feel that railguns are nerfed? I realize there is the potential issue of hitting your own units, but thing about this: Railgun range is 72". Your average scatter distance (with Bs4 vs Ev3) from the target point is 1". In the worst possible case you scatter 4" perpendicular to line of fire, but in most cases it will be far less (especially if the scatter points along the line of fire, so the angle deviation will be 0). That means that you will ALWAYS hit your target. Additionally, it means that with friendly models even 12" away and the target marker 72" away, you only need to leave a gap of 4/3" between your screening unit to never hit them either.
With these changed rules, a railgun is going to be doing ridiculous amounts of damage to multi-wound units as it deals somewhere between 2 and 5 wounds per hit with no armor saves and basically impossible to miss.
It is a little unrealistic in terms of hitting units at multiple levels, i grant you that, but it is far from a nerf.
IMO the biggest nerf to Tau is the DrawBack being a random 2D6". I get that on average we move further, but in the worst case we get 2" and are stuck in the open... with the amount of other randomness being removed I would have liked to see drawback being a varied parameter (ie, Drawback(7"), (3") or (2D6"))
Overall though, I feel like this ruleset is real. It looks to be about the state of readiness you'd expect from a year out from release. I imagine that a lot of rules would have been tidied up and clarified, but I wouldn't expect too many changes in text before this is sent to the typesetters.
If its not real, GW needs to halt all work they're doing on 6th ed and take a look at this document.
This doc has the overwhelming majority of Dakka praising it. For a community which is at best cynical of GW's actions, that is an amazing thing.
AresX8 wrote:I like how Monoliths got a major buff. When you look at how powerful they are, then look back to see its point cost reduction, and the fact that stuff can assault out of the portal, and it can deep strike without scattering.... man are we gonna be seeing a lot more of them.
It is the perfect plan to sell new models that nobody will use after a short period of time. First release new codex, giving the monolith a nerf and adding cheap annihilation barges that many will want to use in their heavy slot. Fast forward six months or so, after the old necron players have traded/sold their monoliths and purchased annihilation barges and maybe a few doomsday arks, bring out sixth edition, making the monolith the best heavy support choice again, prompting the new necron players to purchase monoliths and shelf their barges/arks, and old necron players that traded/sold their 'liths to want to buy new ones.
Good thing the CCB is still awesome.
Sephyr wrote:
Maelstrom808 wrote:
It can also be used by a unit that has at least half of it models in terrain, is not locked in combat already, and is being assaulted to give themselves I10.
There is also a rule called Combat drill on pg 60 that deals with Alpha Strike, but I haven't really got that one figured out yet.
Do assault grenades still cancel this?
I hope not, 'cuz I like the idea of someone having to at least think twice before assaulting Necrons in terrain. Also: Marines and their universal grenades.
tetrisphreak wrote:Compare a 200 point monolith under the new rules with the 'heavy' distinction to a 250 point land raider - the land raider doesn't stand a chance to survive compared to the monolith. I'm betting it won't retain a structure point as a super-heavy in the new rules once they are released (one of few changes i foresee happening).
I honestly believe that the Monolith will retain the structure point, just because the Monolith is listed as a "Heavy* " in the Necrons codex. The idea seems to be that shooting almost always hits the Monolith, but it can shrug off most hits.
Walls wrote:So doesn't a guy basically ALWAYS want to go first? Going second means you need to reserve everything big or get auto hit.
I think it adds balance for those who would otherwise want to gain the points and go 2nd
What's wrong with witches? All units with fleet move an extra 2", so they are movement 8. That means they charge 16. You can also get them feel no pain so they don't die horribly from shooting as they assault. Once they're in, they're in.
focusedfire wrote:Cons;
A) I hate the rail rules and how they make the railgun nerf the units equipped with them. The units that use these weapons need screening units which these proposed rules would make impossible. Basically units equipped with rail weapons will become very expensive throw away units. I also just don,t like how unrealistic the straight line mechanic is for a solid projectile that travels parrallel to the ground but raises and lowers in height depending on the unit it travels over.
This mechanism works fine for magical/warp/sonic effects but not for a rail shot. Because of This rule alone, I hope that this ruleset is either changed to ommit the rail rules or that the whole thise is just a hoax.
Two points I think you've not realized:
First, think of the geometry for the railgun. Use Pythagorean theorem. Side A is 72" long. The scatter maximum is 4". So that means the greatest angle of deviation is _________. (hint: you'll need a clear firing lane of less than 2" at 36" away, and less than 1" at 18" away)
Second, I don't think that infantry units block LOS anymore.
Now imagine three broadsides all side-by-side, basically cutting a swath down the battlefield. Personally, I think that these new rules make the tau positively terrifying, even with their current crummy codex; never mind the rumor that they'll get a shiny new one soon. A Tau army that goes first can basically wide out all the mech in the opposing army in one shot.
focusedfire wrote:Cons;
A) I hate the rail rules and how they make the railgun nerf the units equipped with them. The units that use these weapons need screening units which these proposed rules would make impossible. Basically units equipped with rail weapons will become very expensive throw away units. I also just don,t like how unrealistic the straight line mechanic is for a solid projectile that travels parrallel to the ground but raises and lowers in height depending on the unit it travels over.
This mechanism works fine for magical/warp/sonic effects but not for a rail shot. Because of This rule alone, I hope that this ruleset is either changed to ommit the rail rules or that the whole thise is just a hoax.
Why do you feel that railguns are nerfed? I realize there is the potential issue of hitting your own units, but thing about this: Railgun range is 72". Your average scatter distance (with Bs4 vs Ev3) from the target point is 1". In the worst possible case you scatter 4" perpendicular to line of fire, but in most cases it will be far less (especially if the scatter points along the line of fire, so the angle deviation will be 0). That means that you will ALWAYS hit your target. Additionally, it means that with friendly models even 12" away and the target marker 72" away, you only need to leave a gap of 4/3" between your screening unit to never hit them either.
With these changed rules, a railgun is going to be doing ridiculous amounts of damage to multi-wound units as it deals somewhere between 2 and 5 wounds per hit with no armor saves and basically impossible to miss.
It is a little unrealistic in terms of hitting units at multiple levels, i grant you that, but it is far from a nerf.
IMO the biggest nerf to Tau is the DrawBack being a random 2D6". I get that on average we move further, but in the worst case we get 2" and are stuck in the open... with the amount of other randomness being removed I would have liked to see drawback being a varied parameter (ie, Drawback(7"), (3") or (2D6"))
Overall though, I feel like this ruleset is real. It looks to be about the state of readiness you'd expect from a year out from release. I imagine that a lot of rules would have been tidied up and clarified, but I wouldn't expect too many changes in text before this is sent to the typesetters.
If its not real, GW needs to halt all work they're doing on 6th ed and take a look at this document.
This doc has the overwhelming majority of Dakka praising it. For a community which is at best cynical of GW's actions, that is an amazing thing.
My understanding is that the line may not pass over any friendly units while placing your shots. Combine that with an unreliable Drawback(?) Move and the fact that Tau players aren't going to want to use crisis teams as roadblocks for thier broadsides things start to get problematic.
The only solution I'm seeing are the gun drone squadrons and this seems sub-optimal.
As to the ruleset....I see this as possibly a win-win for 40Kthe players. If its treal then it stands to be a very refreshing change snd dare I say an improvement.
Edit to add:
Tavsi, I agree about the drawback rule. Personally, I think 6+d6" would have been better or maybe 3+d6" for balance.
Later
If fake, then this summer we will have 2 shiny rulesets to play with for the price of one. see win-win
zilegil wrote:Jidmha you genius as always. Nob bikers are going to be scary.
Explain? Wound groups are different there.
Jidmha was talking about about how, in the new rules set, if this is not a hoax, ID on nobs come in at str 9 rather than ten. He exsplained a few other things too. If you look back a you could read his post if you are indeed that bothered.
Just to point out - the printing process takes a considerably large amount of time. With something the size of a new edition book, it can take three to four months before things start to ship.
And, well, then you have shipping, which can take one to two months to deliver the content from the printers to the warehouses. Then you have a week or two for the contents to be delivered to all the GW outlets.
And considering a business would want everything to be ready, they start the process somewhat early to ensure that everything will be delivered and ready by the time the release date arrives.
Ultimately, I'd wager about a six to seven month processing time. As such, if the new Edition is indeed coming out in July, it's either already been sent to the printers, or it's going through final preparations of graphic design prior to being finalized and sent to the printers.
Either way, by now the rules (whichever they may be) would have been carved in stone and finalized.
Considering just how many "buffs" the sisters of battle would get in this new codex, and there are quite a few, it makes me wonder...
Was my WD codex also a playtest codex for 6th edition they released to test the new rules AND so that people wouldn't accidentally leak it and ruin 6th was written to sound and work in 5th as well?
Sisters are better in CC with pistols, have a number of different pistols, and have twin pistols.
Sisters have assault weapons and flamers.
Sisters make constant use of transport vehicles.
Sisters now have 6++ saves for avoiding critical hits.
Sisters have "normal" power weapons.
Sisters have jump troops, scout troops, walkers and tanks.
Sisters have bolters for rapidfire.
Sisters can give themselves special rules briefly, to better gauge their usefulness.
Sisters don't typically assault, but aren't miserable at it.
Quite a few of these are rather taste upgrades thanks to this 6th edition, and there's still more out there. Maybe after this draft of 6th edition was written, they wrote up the sisters to take advantage of as many new rules as they could so they had an army quite well suited to testing the game. Of course, maybe the reason we got a sisters WD is because they WERE written for this version of 6th, but they decided not to go with it (fired whomever they fired over it) and decided to cannibalize his work and poop out a sisters dex for begging fans.
All possible, I think, but I wonder if they're that smart.
chaos0xomega wrote:Theres also an element of poker to it, there is a certain element of figuring out what your opponents bid threshold is, i.e. the point at which they will willingly go second in exchange for the points (I'd say for the average player this will be around 2-4 points) and knowing how far you can push it before caving yourself so you get the points yourself (if you are so disposed).
Right on. And it's so much more interesting than a dice roll.
Indeed. And how you play the gambit will change depending on what type of army you're facing, the opponent and how much they want first turn.
IG gun lines I can see wanting to go first badly, so you might be able to wrangle more points out of them (getting them to 6 would be good, Camouflage would screw them over).
otakutaylor wrote:Considering just how many "buffs" the sisters of battle would get in this new codex, and there are quite a few, it makes me wonder...
Was my WD codex also a playtest codex for 6th edition they released to test the new rules AND so that people wouldn't accidentally leak it and ruin 6th was written to sound and work in 5th as well?
Sisters are better in CC with pistols, have a number of different pistols, and have twin pistols.
Sisters have assault weapons and flamers.
Sisters make constant use of transport vehicles.
Sisters now have 6++ saves for avoiding critical hits.
Sisters have "normal" power weapons.
Sisters have jump troops, scout troops, walkers and tanks.
Sisters have bolters for rapidfire.
Sisters can give themselves special rules briefly, to better gauge their usefulness.
Sisters don't typically assault, but aren't miserable at it.
Quite a few of these are rather taste upgrades thanks to this 6th edition, and there's still more out there. Maybe after this draft of 6th edition was written, they wrote up the sisters to take advantage of as many new rules as they could so they had an army quite well suited to testing the game. Of course, maybe the reason we got a sisters WD is because they WERE written for this version of 6th, but they decided not to go with it (fired whomever they fired over it) and decided to cannibalize his work and poop out a sisters dex for begging fans.
All possible, I think, but I wonder if they're that smart.
This is why I think that GW has this all fully planned out, there are a ton of useless units that now just became totally viable. Hell even a chaos spawn just became usable! Hell even think of pyrovores and the fact that they have normal power weapon attacks in CC, we all sat here and wondered WTF would they give something like him a power weapon, now we know.
Also I heard that Gw uses a very custom font for there books, it's been in all the BRB and codex's and it's not a font that anyone can have since Gw had it custom made, and apparently this leak has been created using the same font.
Directed fire: how will it work against wound allocation shenanigans? Example:
I have a Harbinger of Destruction (4+ armour save) leading a unit of Immortals (3+ armour save). If someone shoots at me with directed fire and target the Harbinger, can I allocate the wounds away from him and into the Immortals, since the armour saves are different?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ozeo wrote:Also I heard that Gw uses a very custom font for there books, it's been in all the BRB and codex's and it's not a font that anyone can have since Gw had it custom made, and apparently this leak has been created using the same font.
Ah-ha! Potential forensic evidence! Can anyone confirm this?
azazel the cat wrote:Directed fire: how will it work against wound allocation shenanigans? Example:
I have a Harbinger of Destruction (4+ armour save) leading a unit of Immortals (3+ armour save). If someone shoots at me with directed fire and target the Harbinger, can I allocate the wounds away from him and into the Immortals, since the armour saves are different?
By my reading, yes.
Ozeo wrote:Also I heard that Gw uses a very custom font for there books, it's been in all the BRB and codex's and it's not a font that anyone can have since Gw had it custom made, and apparently this leak has been created using the same font.
Ah-ha! Potential forensic evidence! Can anyone confirm this?
Interesting bit of evidence, and probably one of the stronger bits so far, but just like everything else, inconclusive. It's possible to duplicate fonts. Really, there's not going to be much that can conclusive at this stage. Whichever codex that gets released in March will be our best bet at giving a good probability of authentic/fake, when we see whether it contains the things this ruleset says it should (BTs have zeal pistols, or Tau have changed MP and BC).
edit: Ozeo, did this source happen to mention which font he was talking about? I just went through the fonts used, and they all appear to be publically available.
All so guys close combat weapons like bolt Pistols or and plasma pistols can now be used i inclose combat. Meaning a plasma pistol hit of a Str. 7 AP 2 in melee! more in line like the action movies now ;O)
Allso Note that terminators have relentless rule. It has changed abit in the way units having this rule can now use their heavy weapons or assault weapons as secondary weapon in close combat.
If i understood this right, that means termies can shoot their missiles or assault cannon in close combat instead of just hitting with powerfist??????!
akkados wrote:All so guys close combat weapons like bolt Pistols or and plasma pistols can now be used i inclose combat. Meaning a plasma pistol hit of a Str. 7 AP 2 in melee! more in line like the action movies now ;O)
Allso Note that terminators have relentless rule. It has changed abit in the way units having this rule can now use their heavy weapons or assault weapons as secondary weapon in close combat.
If i understood this right, that means termies can shoot their missiles or assault cannon in close combat instead of just hitting with powerfist??????!
Not quite right. Pistols have different stats when used as Combat weapons. The table in the rulebook shows these stats and most do not have a better AP than 5 including the Plasma pistol (PDF page 75). Additionally the secondary weapon is the weapon which allows +1 attack for two close combat weapons, much like a pistol in 5th. Allowing the use of Heavy and or Assault weapons doesn't allow them to be fired in CC, but to add that +1 attack for two weapons. Since most Termies with 1-handed weapons to benefit from the secondary weapon have a Power Fist, or Chainfist which are coarse weapons and require a second identical coarse weapon in order to benefit (PDF page 81), It doesn't really change much for them at all.
Edit: Also in the process of double checking this, it appears using a pistol as a Primary weapon in CC makes it a coarse weapon as well which disallows directed hit with them (PDF page 59). Guess they aren't as good as I originally thought.
akkados wrote:All so guys close combat weapons like bolt Pistols or and plasma pistols can now be used i inclose combat. Meaning a plasma pistol hit of a Str. 7 AP 2 in melee! more in line like the action movies now ;O)
Allso Note that terminators have relentless rule. It has changed abit in the way units having this rule can now use their heavy weapons or assault weapons as secondary weapon in close combat.
If i understood this right, that means termies can shoot their missiles or assault cannon in close combat instead of just hitting with powerfist??????!
If you read the PDF, a plasma pistol is S7 AP4 Rending when used in CC.
=P
akkados wrote:All so guys close combat weapons like bolt Pistols or and plasma pistols can now be used i inclose combat. Meaning a plasma pistol hit of a Str. 7 AP 2 in melee! more in line like the action movies now ;O)
Allso Note that terminators have relentless rule. It has changed abit in the way units having this rule can now use their heavy weapons or assault weapons as secondary weapon in close combat.
If i understood this right, that means termies can shoot their missiles or assault cannon in close combat instead of just hitting with powerfist??????!
Not quite right. Pistols have different stats when used as Combat weapons. The table in the rulebook shows these stats and most do not have a better AP than 5 including the Plasma pistol (PDF page 75). Additionally the secondary weapon is the weapon which allows +1 attack for two close combat weapons, much like a pistol in 5th. Allowing the use of Heavy and or Assault weapons doesn't allow them to be fired in CC, but to add that +1 attack for two weapons. Since most Termies with 1-handed weapons to benefit from the secondary weapon have a Power Fist, or Chainfist which are coarse weapons and require a second identical coarse weapon in order to benefit (PDF page 81), It doesn't really change much for them at all.
Edit: Also in the process of double checking this, it appears using a pistol as a Primary weapon in CC makes it a coarse weapon as well which disallows directed hit with them (PDF page 59). Guess they aren't as good as I originally thought.
However it DOES make Chaos Terminators insane as they come with Power Weapons as default and all their Combi-Weapons are Rapid Fire weapons.....
DarkStarSabre wrote:
However it DOES make Chaos Terminators insane as they come with Power Weapons as default and all their Combi-Weapons are Rapid Fire weapons.....
What makes them insane? They don't gain the parry thing because terminator armor already gives a 5++?
DarkStarSabre wrote:
However it DOES make Chaos Terminators insane as they come with Power Weapons as default and all their Combi-Weapons are Rapid Fire weapons.....
What makes them insane? They don't gain the parry thing because terminator armor already gives a 5++?
Relentless - being able to use Heavy and Rapid Fire weapons in assault as a secondary weapon. A basic Chaos Terminator has 3 attacks, 4 on the charge going by this. Give them the Icon of Khorne. 5 attacks per basic Terminator in an assault, bar anyone with a Power Fist/Chainfist.
akkados wrote:All so guys close combat weapons like bolt Pistols or and plasma pistols can now be used i inclose combat. Meaning a plasma pistol hit of a Str. 7 AP 2 in melee! more in line like the action movies now ;O)
Allso Note that terminators have relentless rule. It has changed abit in the way units having this rule can now use their heavy weapons or assault weapons as secondary weapon in close combat.
If i understood this right, that means termies can shoot their missiles or assault cannon in close combat instead of just hitting with powerfist??????!
If you read the PDF, a plasma pistol is S7 AP4 Rending when used in CC.
=P
Um, Black templar codex tells me AP 2 for plasma...
Miguelsan wrote:Starcannons back to S 7 plus rending and with the cover saves being reduced to 5+, they might find their way in an Eldar list.
M.
Not sure where you saw Rending for a Starcannon, my PDF shows S 7 instead of 6 and Assault 2 instead of Heavy 2 but no Rending. (PDF page 70)
akkados wrote:
Um, Black templar codex tells me AP 2 for plasma...
Again, pistols can now be used as a Primary CC weapon. When fired as a shooting weapon it is indeed S 7 AP 2. When used as a combat weapon it is S7 AP 5 (4 is wrong too) and unfortunately shows up as both Rending and not Rending. Probably an error of omission in the second case (PDF page 75).
DarkStarSabre wrote:
However it DOES make Chaos Terminators insane as they come with Power Weapons as default and all their Combi-Weapons are Rapid Fire weapons.....
What makes them insane? They don't gain the parry thing because terminator armor already gives a 5++?
Relentless - being able to use Heavy and Rapid Fire weapons in assault as a secondary weapon. A basic Chaos Terminator has 3 attacks, 4 on the charge going by this. Give them the Icon of Khorne. 5 attacks per basic Terminator in an assault, bar anyone with a Power Fist/Chainfist.
Wait my Head is spinning, I might misunderstand so the relentless adds +1 attack with Heavy weapons in CC? and termies only have 2 attacks on basic, didnt know chaos had 3 on basic.. Hmpf.
And units with standard chain sword and bolt pistol can now use their pistol with AP effect to good use in CC?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Angel_of_Rust wrote:
Miguelsan wrote:Starcannons back to S 7 plus rending and with the cover saves being reduced to 5+, they might find their way in an Eldar list.
M.
Not sure where you saw Rending for a Starcannon, my PDF shows S 7 instead of 6 and Assault 2 instead of Heavy 2 but no Rending. (PDF page 70)
akkados wrote:
Um, Black templar codex tells me AP 2 for plasma...
Again, pistols can now be used as a Primary CC weapon. When fired as a shooting weapon it is indeed S 7 AP 2. When used as a combat weapon it is S7 AP 5 (4 is wrong too) and unfortunately shows up as both Rending and not Rending. Probably an error of omission in the second case (PDF page 75).
Ah okay, but how wierd is it that a plasma gun losses AP strength at point blank range...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MasterSlowPoke wrote:
akkados wrote:Um, Black templar codex tells me AP 2 for plasma...
The Black Templar codex has rules for using a pistol in CC?
akkados wrote:Wait my Head is spinning, I might misunderstand so the relentless adds +1 attack with Heavy weapons in CC? and termies only have 2 attacks on basic, didnt know chaos had 3 on basic.. Hmpf.
He means that Relentless allows rapid fire and heavy weapons to be a secondary close combat weapon, which combined with the power weapon, gives Chaos Terminators 3 attacks normally ("basic" is not the right word here, which would imply that they have 3 attacks on their profile - which they don't).
Hmm. You could upgrade them all to Aspiring Champions and give them the Icon of Khorne for a total of 5 attacks without charging...
Wait my Head is spinning, I might misunderstand so the relentless adds +1 attack with Heavy weapons in CC? and termies only have 2 attacks on basic, didnt know chaos had 3 on basic.. Hmpf.
Correct. Assault type weapons can be used as a Secondary Weapon much like pistols are now (PDF page 58). The Relentless special rule extends that bonus to Rapid Fire and Heavy weapons both (PDF page 52), so Chaos Terminators have 2 attacks base, +1 for a Power Weapon (Primary Weapon) and a combi-bolter (Rapid Fire Secondary Weapon) + 1 for charging and the possible +1 for Mark of Khorne. Very similar to the old True Grit rule which allowed bolters and in some cases (Daemonhunters) Storm Bolters to apply for a Secondary weapon in certain cases.
Also worth noting is that Relentless extends the range of Sustained Fire (3 shots of Rapid Fire instead of 2) to 18 inches. Can anyone say plasma bomb?
akkados wrote:Well does a shoulder mounted Cyclone missile launcher count? I find that wierd tough.
While it should count, there are stipulations to as to what primary weapons can benefit. First off Coarse weapons which include Power Fists, Lightning Claws, Thunder Hammers, and Chain Fists require a second identical weapon to count as the Secondary Weapon. Additionally two-handed weapons cannot benefit, and in the case of a Storm Shield, you can never benefit from having a Secondary Weapon. It is a very constricting set of requirements which only lends itself to working well with a generic old Power Weapon which is neither Coarse nor two-handed. This is the reason for the Chaos Terminators example. Their base wargear when purchased is a Power Weapon and a Twin-Linked Bolter before upgrades.
Edit: More food for thought, a Deathwing Terminator Sergeant with his Power Sword, a Heavy Flamer, and a Cyclone Missile Launcher, could pair his Power Weapon with either the Heavy Flamer, or the Cyclone Missile Launcher to gain +1 attacks. He could also use his Heavy Flamer to inflict d6 autohits at S 5 AP 4 instead of his normal attack profile.
I must say that these rules seem professionaly written and Im rather excited to be trying them out in two days with an assault based CSM force. If these are indeed the workings of GW them mayhaps GW has finaly heard the importance of making a quality game. As if this pans out I think people would be more willing to buy more gw products as they finaly made a good system.
I sincerely hope this is legit and that gw finaly got its head out of its arse and decided they needed to make quality prducts.
Angel_of_Rust wrote: Sustained Fire (3 shots of Rapid Fire instead of 2)
Um, Sustained Fire is the thing that lets you shoot twice in the first place. It's not on top of rapid-firing. Rapid-firing doesn't exist.
My mistake, I didn't realize the Rapid Fire 2 example was a non-existing condition so far as current weapons and assumed it referred to bolters and the like. Regardless, Relentless allows Sustained Fire from 18" which is far enough that you can pod/deep strike outside of the 18" critical zone and not scatter, and make your move to be within Sustained Fire range.
GK also have some interesting combinations with the assault weapons granting +1 attack. A Purifier with Falchions would have 5 attacks on the charge which kind of makes them worth it at 5 points now since you'd only need 3 or 4 in a squad to put out loads of attacks. A warding stave doesn't count as 2 handed so that would get an extra attack, too. And the warding stave could become more useful because you may wish to replace the I6 halberds with falchions so an extra 2+ save in CC would be a good idea. And a purfier with no upgrades at all would now be base 3 attacks with the sword and at 24 points it's pretty good. It's just a shame that cleansing flame has taken a bit of a nerf, although since units engaged in CC are now within 3" of those in b2b with the enemy, you'll still get a good number of hits.
ColdSadHungry wrote:A Purifier with Falchions would have 5 attacks on the charge which kind of makes them worth it at 5 points now since you'd only need 3 or 4 in a squad to put out loads of attacks
Unfortunately this was the same argument for Falchions giving two attacks made when the codex first came out. The Falchions give +1 attack as per the FAQ and not +1 from the Falchions and an additional +1 for two weapons (Falchions in this case). I don't see how a Falchion and a Storm Bolter would be much different than a Falchion and a Falchion but I could be wrong.
Edit: However with this new rule it makes a NF Sword and a Storm Bolter grant the same number of attacks, AND the bonus invul in CC to boot for 5 fewer points. It would completely trivialize the Falchions as an option if it didn't work as you suggest.
Angel_of_Rust wrote:
Unfortunately this was the same argument for Falchions giving two attacks made when the codex first came out. The Falchions give +1 attack as per the FAQ and not +1 from the Falchions and an additional +1 for two weapons (Falchions in this case). I don't see how a Falchion and a Storm Bolter would be much different than a Falchion and a Falchion but I could be wrong.
Edit: However with this new rule it makes a NF Sword and a Storm Bolter grant the same number of attacks, AND the bonus invul in CC to boot for 5 fewer points. It would completely trivialize the Falchions as an option if it didn't work as you suggest.
The Falchion argument will actually still make sense now. When it was first argued they were said to be two close combat weapons. That was FAQd to that not being the case.
However, a Grey Knight Storm Bolter and one Single Handed CC Weapon should still grant +1 attack
If GW wanted them to be +1 attack in the new edition they should of said that Falchions counted as a 2-handed weapon, but that isn't the case. Now that could easily be updated in another FAQ/Codex Update but who knows.
You are right about the NF Sword though, seems like Falchions under 6th will need to grant +2 attacks or the swords would be better and cheaper. and a few pissed people for modeling falchions on their Grey Knights
Another thing that has been puzzling me is Witchblades. In the Eldar Codex Warlocks are listed as Psykers. With the new Channel ability rule, do they each have to individually Channel the Witchblade to turn it on? Being that GK can turn on all NFW with one focus or a character can Warlocks do the same with a focus or a Farseer? If so who can you choose the focus and does it waste the Psychic power of the whole unit or just the focus? It seems kind of BS that they would ALL need to channel to turn on their own individual Witchblades and not be able to use any of the Warlock Powers if they did so, but conversely, in a Jetseer council wouldn't that give you 7 or 8 backup "Fortunes" if the Farseers is countered?
Surtur wrote:Move or assault after deepstrike... OH HELLS YES
This has been something I can't seem to nail down - where does it say you can make a Charge or Engage move after Deep Striking? I know you can make a Combat Move if the unit arrived from inside a deep striking transport, and this piece of information:
There are no additional rules than that the unit may
perform no other Move action than Turn, Combat
move and Engage in this turn.
The wording on this is what's confusing me. Is it saying that's what one CAN'T do after deep striking, or is it saying that's all one CAN do after deep striking?
Surtur wrote:Move or assault after deepstrike... OH HELLS YES
This has been something I can't seem to nail down - where does it say you can make a Charge or Engage move after Deep Striking? I know you can make a Combat Move if the unit arrived from inside a deep striking transport, and this piece of information:
There are no additional rules than that the unit may
perform no other Move action than Turn, Combat
move and Engage in this turn.
The wording on this is what's confusing me. Is it saying that's what one CAN'T do after deep striking, or is it saying that's all one CAN do after deep striking?
If you read it as "may perform no other Move action(s) than Turn, Combat move and Engage in this turn." it seems as though the permissible Move options are being listed. I believe the s is only omitted because you can never perform multiple "Move actions", and thus implies you may make a single "Move action" from the list that follows it.
Kharrak wrote:The wording on this is what's confusing me. Is it saying that's what one CAN'T do after deep striking, or is it saying that's all one CAN do after deep striking?
The latter. It says that one can turn, combat move, or engage, but cannot take any other action of type 'move' than those three.
Maelstrom808 wrote:Besides that, if that were a list of things you can't do, then that would mean you can stil Charge or Run...which would be a little silly.
Thus my confusion :p
I just found they way it was worded to be exceedingly awkward, but thanks for clearing that up!
At the beginning of the Doom of Malan'tai’s Shooting
phase, every non-vehicle enemy unit within 6" of the
Doom of Malan'tai must take a Morale check (terror)
on 3D6. If the test is failed the unit suffers two wounds
for each point they failed by, with no armour saves
allowed.
So it only fires off in the owner's turn, but the effects are twice as deadly.
Has anyone considered the fact that this set of rules could be called: 'SmackCrasher 20000' and they could be used independently of what GW releases?
I mean, if they are good rules, then they are good rules... even if GW adds new models in the future, the rules contained in 'SmackCrasher 20000' could be applied to all new units.
If GW does not release something along the lines of this leak, I may not play 40k anymore. I was so pissed at 3rd, enjoyed 4th a little more, was okay with 5th, but this makeshift rulebook is what I want in a rulebook.
Sure some things could be better, but 5th was just so... easy. I like complexity. And after reading the book a few times, this makeshift rule set is not even that complex.
If this is GW product, which I believe it is, thank you Games- Workshop!!!!
In regards to assault after deep strike, refer to vanguard vets heroic intervention rule being changed to deep strike (heroic) and the change in the function of that rule. They may deploy in critical range but may not shoot in order to disallow defensive fire. Nothing about assaulting after deep striking which lends to the idea of all units being allowed to assault.
Angel_of_Rust wrote:
Correct. Assault type weapons can be used as a Secondary Weapon much like pistols are now (PDF page 58). The Relentless special rule extends that bonus to Rapid Fire and Heavy weapons both (PDF page 52), so Chaos Terminators have 2 attacks base, +1 for a Power Weapon (Primary Weapon) and a combi-bolter (Rapid Fire Secondary Weapon) + 1 for charging and the possible +1 for Mark of Khorne. Very similar to the old True Grit rule which allowed bolters and in some cases (Daemonhunters) Storm Bolters to apply for a Secondary weapon in certain cases.
Also worth noting is that Relentless extends the range of Sustained Fire (3 shots of Rapid Fire instead of 2) to 18 inches. Can anyone say plasma bomb?
Angel_of_Rust wrote:
Correct. Assault type weapons can be used as a Secondary Weapon much like pistols are now (PDF page 58). The Relentless special rule extends that bonus to Rapid Fire and Heavy weapons both (PDF page 52), so Chaos Terminators have 2 attacks base, +1 for a Power Weapon (Primary Weapon) and a combi-bolter (Rapid Fire Secondary Weapon) + 1 for charging and the possible +1 for Mark of Khorne. Very similar to the old True Grit rule which allowed bolters and in some cases (Daemonhunters) Storm Bolters to apply for a Secondary weapon in certain cases.
Also worth noting is that Relentless extends the range of Sustained Fire (3 shots of Rapid Fire instead of 2) to 18 inches. Can anyone say plasma bomb?
If only Chaos Terminators were relentless...
I believe it is Terminator Armor that makes them so.
Angel_of_Rust wrote: Sustained Fire (3 shots of Rapid Fire instead of 2)
Um, Sustained Fire is the thing that lets you shoot twice in the first place. It's not on top of rapid-firing. Rapid-firing doesn't exist.
Sustained fire gives you an additional shot at 12" (18" if you're relentless) above the number of shots listed on the weapon's profile. So Boltguns fire twice (being Rapid Fire 1).
Any weapons so far with Rapid Fire 2+?
Also, Sustained Fire? Yet another 2nd Ed. rule name cropping up.
Epicwargamer wrote:I believe it is Terminator Armor that makes them so.
Was it part of the new rules or FAQ? Chaos Terminators aren't relentless, at least not in their codex. They have a couple of relentless like abilities, but unfortunately don't have the actual rule.
N.I.B. wrote:I'm confused about stratagems - how do they work if I want to go second?
When I win the roll and have to start bidding?
When I lose the roll and bid second?
As far as I can see, when you lose you get the number of strategem points of the winner and the winner gets 25 percent of them if he rolls a 6 on a D6 (which seems to be a compensation for the initiative roll).
N.I.B. wrote:I'm confused about stratagems - how do they work if I want to go second?
When I win the roll and have to start bidding?
When I lose the roll and bid second?
Two players roll off to see who gets to choose deployment. The loser then bids stratagem points. The other player then either raises, or bails out. The player that bails out goes second, but is able to then spend the stratagem points. The other player is able to go first.
The player who want's to go first, has to essentially hold on to that first turn if he REALLY wants it. The other player has to try and tempt it from him. If the one player really, REALLY want's to go first, the other player will have the stratagems to potentially counter what the other player may have in store (since they want to go first so badly). Conversely, if you are robbed of the first turn, you will at least have stratagems to make up for it.
While you could easily just go "A MILLION STRATAGEM POINTS" to force the player to bail out, granting you the first turn, you have just awarded him a million stratagem points. As such, the player who raises first, doesn't want to raise too high either. It's an interesting balance.
N.I.B. wrote:I'm confused about stratagems - how do they work if I want to go second?
When I win the roll and have to start bidding?
When I lose the roll and bid second?
Two players roll off to see who gets to choose deployment. The loser then bids stratagem points. The other player then either raises, or bails out. The player that bails out goes second, but is able to then spend the stratagem points. The other player is able to go first.
The player who want's to go first, has to essentially hold on to that first turn if he REALLY wants it. The other player has to try and tempt it from him. If the one player really, REALLY want's to go first, the other player will have the stratagems to potentially counter what the other player may have in store (since they want to go first so badly). Conversely, if you are robbed of the first turn, you will at least have stratagems to make up for it.
While you could easily just go "A MILLION STRATAGEM POINTS" to force the player to bail out, granting you the first turn, you have just awarded him a million stratagem points. As such, the player who raises first, doesn't want to raise too high either. It's an interesting balance.
Pretty much dead on, only the winner of the deployment zone roll bids first, not the loser.
Nothing about the bidding process is mentioned to be done in secrecy - it's a back-and-forth transaction. Poker chips would be useful, or simply placing dice in the center of the table. Think like an ante in a poker game.
These 'rules' are interesting, but I think they're fake. Something about them seems very odd. It's like someone took every rumor and mashed them into a rules set. Everything in these 'rules' works exactly as how rumors have been described. It's just a little too implausible for me to believe. I think who ever did do this has a future in game design. There are definitely a lot of good mechanics in there.
wuestenfux wrote:Against IG, I'd bid at least 6 points to get access to camouflage.
All sorts of cheeky shenanigans are possible with the gambit, I'd bet 5 points just so he has to say 6 points, knowing I'll bail and take that stratagem .
oni wrote:These 'rules' are interesting, but I think they're fake. Something about them seems very odd. It's like someone took every rumor and mashed them into a rules set. Everything in these 'rules' works exactly as how rumors have been described. It's just a little too implausible for me to believe. I think who ever did do this has a future in game design. There are definitely a lot of good mechanics in there.
Not all of the rules exactly match the rumors but they are exceeding close.
Possibilities:
1: big fat phoney spent time getting them to werk together.
2: These are where the rumors came from.
See, oni, that's the problem for me that makes me think they ARE real - - The fact that the rules are well-put together, cohesive, and in many cases clear as to how units interact (as long as you give it a thorough read) tells me that it's had to have been done by a game designer. A fan making up their own set of rules, going just by rumors, would have so much trouble keeping them as tight as these it wouldn't be a very fun endeavor, I don't imagine.
The inclusion of Tesla weapons in the armory, talk of a tyranid 'cerebore' in the transport section (possible new 'nid kit next month), mention of super-sonic rules and the fact that 'heavy' vehicles are superheavies with 1 Structure point (necron Monolith has unit type Skimmer, Heavy), among other niggling facts show too much foresight to be a random rumor-monger's work.
Time will tell, I will be getting in some games with these rules myself (as my game group allows) and see just how well they play. Initial results from other people who have tried them out have all been positive, so at the bare minimum it'll be a good ruleset to have some fun games while waiting for 6th edition proper to come out, as well as give my tyranids some table time again without being wiped off of it.
So I have a null deployment army and want to go second. Unfortunately I win the deployment roll, and have to bid first. I bid 0 points. My opponent can then bail out and force me to go first anyway?
N.I.B. wrote:So I have a null deployment army and want to go second. Unfortunately I win the deployment roll, and have to bid first. I bid 0 points. My opponent can then bail out and force me to go first anyway?
What if we both bail out at zero points?
The winner of the bidding war actually chooses whether to go first or second. If you bid 0, and your opponent bails out (silly thing to do) then you get to say "OK, you go first, and You get zero stratagem points."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
zilegil wrote:Awe, the KFF save is reduced to s 5+ for vehicles. A lot of people will be upset.
Most cover saves for vehicles from special powers/rules is 5+ in all the newer codices. This just brings orks back to the status quo.
I think getting an automatic 12" run move every turn you're not going to be in CC, and an automatic 12" charge (16" with a waaaugh) will make green tide the better army to play than kanwall anyhow. No longer do you get cover saves just because you're getting shot at through a unit, either, so if you do a "look out, sergeant!" to get a cover save from the killa kanz, every 5+ you make will put a critical hit on the kanz..not a good use of walkers IMO.
these rules are going to shake up EVERYBODY's current competitive lists, though, so don't feel too bad about it as an ork player.
I'm not overly sad to see the the KFF get a downgrade, it was such a disgustingly good bit of kit that it became almost an auto-include in any list, competitive or not.
Only reason I didn't run one is because in a 'proppa' DeffWing, you can't have anything other than mega armoured units and wagons, so I 'had' to take two warbosses (though one was admittedly Gazzy).
N.I.B. wrote:So I have a null deployment army and want to go second. Unfortunately I win the deployment roll, and have to bid first. I bid 0 points. My opponent can then bail out and force me to go first anyway?
What if we both bail out at zero points?
The winner of the bidding war actually chooses whether to go first or second. If you bid 0, and your opponent bails out (silly thing to do) then you get to say "OK, you go first, and You get zero stratagem points."
Actually...it's conflicting in the rules...
CHOOSE DEPLOYMENT ZONE wrote:The players roll-off. The winner can choose his
deployment zone first.
DEPLOY ARMIES wrote:The player that has chosen the deployment zone deploys first.
WHO GOES FIRST? wrote:The player who won the tactical gambit bid starts
game cycle 1 with his first turn.
TACTICAL GAMBIT wrote:The player with the highest bid can
decide who goes first and where he deploys.
EDIT: Well, deployment is conflicting, not who goes first
first deploys first.
oni wrote:These 'rules' are interesting, but I think they're fake. Something about them seems very odd. It's like someone took every rumor and mashed them into a rules set. Everything in these 'rules' works exactly as how rumors have been described. It's just a little too implausible for me to believe. I think who ever did do this has a future in game design. There are definitely a lot of good mechanics in there.
Right first off, welcome ladies and gentlemen to the edition of xeno for the first few games, tyranids, dark eldar , eldar , tua and necrons got substanly better in these rules but I have a few inquires into the rules and the tyranids FAQ :
How's do psyker stop overs powers? Is there anything about mutiple attempts?
Is there any change to shadow in the warp ?
What level do of instant death do boneswords do? And the Swarmlord?
What level of EW does Logan grimmar have? Space wolf chapter.master (wasn't sure on spelling)
And finally how has the death leaper change ?
Thank you for any help you can give me
oldone wrote:Right first off, welcome ladies and gentlemen to the edition of xeno for the first few games, tyranids, dark eldar , eldar , tua and necrons got substanly better in these rules but I have a few inquires into the rules and the tyranids FAQ :
How's do psyker stop overs powers? Is there anything about mutiple attempts?
Psychic Counter
Model Type: Psychic, Disembarked
Psykers can try to counter enemy powers by
tapping into the warp and draining the energy
that charges the enemy psyker’s power or use a
direct psychic attack to distract him. Psykers
embarked on a transport cannot perform a
Psychic Counter.
If an enemy psyker is using one of his powers
within 24” of any psyker of your own, you can try
to cancel the power. Roll a D6. If the result is 5 or
higher, the psychic power is nullified and does not
take effect that turn. If you have several psykers
in range, or one of the psykers has a special rule
or wargear to nullify enemy powers, you can only
start one attempt to stop the power. If several
players in a multi-player game want to nullify the
power, choose one player randomly to attempt
the psychic counter.
Is there any change to shadow in the warp ?
Not at this time.
What level do of instant death do boneswords do? And the Swarmlord?
If it's not specified, it's ID(1)
What level of EW does Logan grimmar have? Space wolf chapter.master (wasn't sure on spelling)
Again, if not specified, EW(1)
And finally how has the death leaper change ?
Big changes in Lictors in general. +1 reserve bonus works while they are in reserve, can assault after deepstriking, ID is not as harsh on them. The changes specific to Deathleaper are pretty much just rewording his stuff to fit into the new rules. The only one really worth mentioning is "Where is it?" gives him Veiled (3)
I really think that this version is in fact a leaked version because there are just too many indicators (albeit circumstantial) that point to it being a leaked 6th ed.
I wanted to compile them here but running back through 60 pages of people crying about either directed fire or making useless statements such as "well its either fake or real," makes this task daunting if not practically impossible without losing ones sanity. Yet those examples are there, and there are many of them!
The only arguments that I've heard that attempt to denounce that its a leaked version have been rather weak overall, citing examples like, "it cant be because these rules are too good or two different," and "oh its GW they don't care!"
These types of rebuttals are truly ridiculous! Why would they not care about making money! If the development staff and the financial department actually put their heads together I would say that this is what would come: a game that incorporates more varying models, templates, terrain, dice etc... while making the ruleset complex, streamlined and well just making sense!
If in fact this was a small group of people that came up with this, don't you think they would be out in the open by now taking credit for this and trying to talk to GW into making a bit of moolah?
Also, I may be a bit biased but I'm thinking that Orks took the biggest hit here. Yet Ork models sell because they're Ork models! They have always been the impulse army because they are very different yet striking models compared to GW's other lines.
So as much as I hate to say it (because I love orks dammit) I think that this is the real deal, and I think it was intentional, a beta or pre-feedback if you will. All around, It just makes sense from a business standpoint! (whether GW or any other).
And to those of you who think they need a 6-7 month time frame to print and ship copies of a new rule set at only 140 pages? C'mon! As editor of my college paper we would run to print 200,000 copies of a 20-30 page paper in a night! I don't see the time your talking about being at all relevant, and that this leak has plenty of time to garner criticism and feedback before a final copy goes to print.
A small 20-30 page newspaper in a local run is hardly a good comparison.
You're talking about a couple of hundred pages with fluff and images, likely in hardback and paperback. And millions of copies.
All of which need to be processed, packed and shipped globally.
You'd want them in stores at least 3-4 days before the release date. To get the to the stores they need to be shipped from the printers, to a distributor. The Distributor needs to go through and sor t hte boxes to where they're going. The Distributor then needs to ship from the main center to the local centers, overseas orders need to be shipped and will take several weeks to arrive. Once they arrive at a local distribution center they need to be shipped to the store.
If you can print and finish 6,000,000 pages in a night, then lets assume a printing company has an average of 10,000,000 pages per day. That would be 50,000 books worth of pages a day, and 350,000 books in a week. For a million copies that's a month in and of itself.
6 Months would be a rather good turn around for a global release like this.
To keep things fair, you should always allow your
opponent to read your force roster before
starting to deploy the armies. In the same spirit,
always make clear to your opponent which squads
are embarked in which transport during the
game. Take the time to explain all the rules and
tricks of all your troops while deploying. You
want to win the game by outmaneuvering your
opponent and not by exploiting the fact that he is
unfamiliar with your Codex book.
Ovion wrote:A small 20-30 page newspaper in a local run is hardly a good comparison.
You're talking about a couple of hundred pages with fluff and images, likely in hardback and paperback. And millions of copies.
All of which need to be processed, packed and shipped globally.
You'd want them in stores at least 3-4 days before the release date.
To get the to the stores they need to be shipped from the printers, to a distributor. The Distributor needs to go through and sor t hte boxes to where they're going.
The Distributor then needs to ship from the main center to the local centers, overseas orders need to be shipped and will take several weeks to arrive.
Once they arrive at a local distribution center they need to be shipped to the store.
If you can print and finish 6,000,000 pages in a night, then lets assume a printing company has an average of 10,000,000 pages per day.
That would be 50,000 books worth of pages a day, and 350,000 books in a week. For a million copies that's a month in and of itself.
6 Months would be a rather good turn around for a global release like this.
I don't think the page count matters much, whether its 140 or 300- and I'm sure that both printing and shipping processes are a bit more streamlined these days, with the possibility of several companies handling both simultaneously. Also, keep in mind while say for example a single forgeworld order would take several weeks to ship to a US residence, Something of this magnitude would/should ship in far less time based on a contract for a bulk sized order. Regardless, I still believe there would be ample time to leak this and make further changes based on feedback and criticism etc... before the "rumored" release date in the summer.
but you know, maybe this was able to be leaked because the final copy has hit the printers... my god, the torture....
Thank you maelstrom808 , damit it appears if I can't use tonsvof +5 against psykers them again with shadow and +5 I.probably safe from psyker and will have to look up lictors then
Saw something interessting in the PDF about the Codexes updates, in the Update on Grey Knights, there is a line who says " Page 54, ignore the Deamonbane rule altogether"...
First i though why, because thats the thing about Nemesis FW no?, then i checked the new rules regarding Force Weapons and saw that they now inflicted ID(2), wich means that a EW(1) models loses 2 Wounds, i'm i correct?
Lictors and alot of tyranid stuff will be interesting to see play out. Yeah they can assault after deployment, but have to weather defensive fire to do so (and remember, cover is only gonna give you a 5+ so 4+ with stealth). Proper deployment by your opponents will make that hard to do without getting blasted off the board. Its still a very cool change overall though and makes for games where a lot happens (what used to take 2+ player turns can happen in 1).
We might as will use them as clubs now...
Marines and their universal grenades.
