d-usa wrote:The new infiltrate rule seems pretty weak.
Basically an automatic 1st turn deep strike. So no moving, assaulting, etc...
And best of all, you get shot at for being too close!
Deepstriking is terrible now. Unless you deploy so far away that you might as well not have deep struck in the first place, you have a very good chance of getting riddled with bullets before you get a chance to actually do anything. Not to mention that you can no longer run to spread your unit out, leaving any unit that even attempts to deploy in such a manner fodder for any template weapon.
What about the part where deep strikers can make a Combat or Engage move on the turn they arrive? What about the part that they don't scatter and can be placed in coherency, not clumped up, if they are within 6" of a teleport homer or further than 18" from the enemy?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Interesting to see some ideas from Warpath make it into 40k (the reliance on unit leaders for line of sight and such)
They way I was reading it was that they could not do a Combat or Engage move, I will have to reread it.
A unit that is deployed via deep strike can be
placed anywhere on the table, as long as no
model is placed within 18” of an enemy model, in
impassable terrain or inside a transport, building
or fortifications that is already on the table. There
are no additional rules than that the unit may
perform no other Move action than Turn, Combat
move and Engage in this turn.
I could see this go either way, as it reads like there might be a punctuation mark missing.
Only being able to shoot fits the 5th Edition way of deep striking though.
Kind of curious how the Multi-Targeting (1) rule works with fast skimmer vehicles. I didn't see anything about defensive weapons on my first read through which implies a spade is a spade and only one weapon may be fired at run/cruise speed (16") and double that at stationary to combat speed (8")? My Venoms are very sadface.
5+ Parry on Banshees is shmexy though, as is their new 16" charge.
J.Black wrote:Looks more like a fanfic/wishlist.......
We're gonna have titans in standard rules now?
Actually this is possible me thinks. You see i've heard rumours that percentages are back in meaning if the points of something are too extreem you wouldn't be able to field it meaning titans are possible but you would need an equivalent Apoc sized army to go with it or else there would be no way you could field it.
This is so out there it could just be true. Maybe this explains why some entries in the new apocalypse 2 book aren't listed with a slot they are for the new super heavy support slot, say points allowance 2%(i.e. nothing unless it a really huge game).
Anyone see that outflank PLACES them within 6' of an edge so you cant line a short board edge to stop enemy's coming in.
ALSO it means that Genestelaers can be placed 6 inches forward then run 16 so they have an assault range of 28' on the turn they come in. AND outflank isn't randomized so Genestealer units can hit anywhere on the board except 16' in the middle....Tyranids are good again if these prove to be legit
FLESH & STEEL
Individual Shooting special rule
Mounted models benefit from the extra
protection offered by their mechanical ride. For
example, bikes are large, solid constructions, and
are often fitted with protective armour and
shields to deflect and absorb incoming fire.
Models with this special rule increases their
Toughness characteristic by 1 against Shooting
actions. Note that this increase makes the model
less susceptible to Instant Death as well (see page
36). They cannot use this bonus against any other
form of damage, though. In close combat the foe
targets the rider far more often than the machine
and often soldiers on bikes have to dismount
anyway when engaging enemies that are hidden
in terrain. The enhanced Toughness value is noted
in brackets in the model’s profile
I think this is simply based on the number of powers they can cast in a turn in the current Codexes, isn't it? I'd expect it to change when they are updated.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think we could really use some sort of chart regarding how many shots units can take. The way I read it, it's like this, but holy crap is it explained poorly:
Standard units: fire 1 weapon
Multi-Targeting (1): fire 1 weapon, or 2 weapons if stationary (or after a combat move if also Fast)
Multi-Targeting (2): fire 2 weapons, or 4 weapons if stationary (or after a combat move if also Fast)
etc.
Splitting fire against any number of targets costs 1 shot (after doubling for stationary)
Firing ordnance costs 2 shots (after doubling for stationary)
So a stationary Leman Russ, which has Multi-Targeting (3), could fire its ordnance gun and 3 other weapons, all at different targets.
A moving Russ could fire ordnance plus one other weapon at the same target.
"Weapon Destroyed" results only reduce Multi-Targeting by 1.
A Russ with 1 Weapon Destroyed could still fire ordnance and two guns (or one gun at a different target) if stationary, or just the ordnance on the move.
A Russ with 2 Weapon Destroyed could still fire ordnance if stationary, or 1 basic weapon on the move.
A Russ with 3 Weapon Destroyed can still fire one non-ordnance gun, whether stationary or on the move.
If its all True, Some True or None True...i'll most likely still play 40k...but man aren't rumors exciting!!! i just wanna get a bowl of pop corn Read the Down Load and This forum Topic all day long! This is all sincere...even though it sounds sarcastic
A unit that is deployed via deep strike can be
placed anywhere on the table, as long as no
model is placed within 18” of an enemy model, in
impassable terrain or inside a transport, building
or fortifications that is already on the table. There
are no additional rules than that the unit may
perform no other Move action than Turn, Combat
move and Engage in this turn.
I could see this go either way, as it reads like there might be a punctuation mark missing.
Only being able to shoot fits the 5th Edition way of deep striking though.
I read is as no Move action other than Turn, no Combat and no Engage actions either. You can still deploy in coherence and shoot with weapons not requiring the Stationary mode.
It could however be no Move actions other than Turn, Combat or Engage actions, which would cut sprinting and assaulting but would still give you the option of getting into combat, moving ans shooting. Obviously better.
Is it just me or does the non-scattering-but-still-in-coherency Deep Striking mean you could land a unit and conga line it across a table as long as each model remained in coherency of another?
lord_blackfang wrote:The leak thread has disappeared from Warseer with no trace. I believe this lends it some credibility.
Nah they're just afraid of GW-borne retribution. As soon as the mods here see it this'll probably get locked with a generic 'we do not endorse piracy' sticker in nice red text.
His Master's Voice wrote:
I read is as no Move action other than Turn, no Combat and no Engage actions either. You can still deploy in coherence and shoot with weapons not requiring the Stationary mode.
But it clearly says "no other Move action than Turn, Combat move and Engage". As in, you can make these 3 and no others. Note that this is consistent with disembarkation from moving closed-top vehicles, which also allows Combat and Engage moves.
Callidus and Marbo will probably have Deep Strike(Ambush) which allows them to be placed anywhere
Also, one little tidbit in the super heavy rules state that "Super-Heavy vehicles with a single structure point are referred to as "Heavy" which corresponds fairly well with the necron codex
His Master's Voice wrote:
I read is as no Move action other than Turn, no Combat and no Engage actions either. You can still deploy in coherence and shoot with weapons not requiring the Stationary mode.
But it clearly says "no other Move action than Turn, Combat move and Engage". As in, you can make these 3 and no others. Note that this is consistent with disembarkation from moving closed-top vehicles, which also allows Combat and Engage moves.
So everybodu else is getting buffed except orks who get a 5+ kff for everyone.
Ork armor 6+
IG flak armor 5+
SM power armor 2+ WTF?!?!?!
So I assault 5 man nilla squad with 12 orks (that is if I get to assault as I have 5+ cover save for a trukk and nob can be shot before he gets to cc). I get my ass kicked and if I don't flee fast enough I get wiped out.
His Master's Voice wrote:
I read is as no Move action other than Turn, no Combat and no Engage actions either. You can still deploy in coherence and shoot with weapons not requiring the Stationary mode.
But it clearly says "no other Move action than Turn, Combat move and Engage". As in, you can make these 3 and no others. Note that this is consistent with disembarkation from moving closed-top vehicles, which also allows Combat and Engage moves.
Indeed it does. I like that.
Which would make sense for Vanguard having Deep Strike (Heroic) which only allows them to avoid getting shot by defensive fire.. The actual rules for deep strike will allow them to assault
H.B.M.C. wrote:Is it just me or does the non-scattering-but-still-in-coherency Deep Striking mean you could land a unit and conga line it across a table as long as each model remained in coherency of another?
lord_blackfang wrote:The leak thread has disappeared from Warseer with no trace. I believe this lends it some credibility.
Nah they're just afraid of GW-borne retribution. As soon as the mods here see it this'll probably get locked with a generic 'we do not endorse piracy' sticker in nice red text.
H.B.M.C. wrote:
d-usa wrote:Well, is there any (c) GW on that piece of fan fiction?
Not having a copyright mark on it doesn't make it fake.
Sorry, I was trying to reply to your first statement about "we don't endorse piracy" sticker, ala "is it really piracy if we don't know 100% if it is real, it has no GW IP marks on in, and people think it is a hoax and can GW really own the IP to a hoax".
I do think it is pretty accurate, although I expect some small changes from the playtesting state it appears from.
d-usa wrote:Well, is there any (c) GW on that piece of fan fiction?
Not having a copyright mark on it doesn't make it fake.
But not having anyone to prove (or even say) they authored it makes it hard to say it's piracy.
Anyone could have written this.
Which is why you need to take your own dose of salt with it. I'm allowing myself a rare moment of optimism. Like others, if it does turn out to be fake, I may say "FU GW" and play with this version anyway.
-1 To dammage table if tank seems somewhat nonsensical if the table stays the same. Multi targeting (3) on AV 14 tanks would imply that I can flame a squad 3 times with the same flamestorm cannon. Yeah not really buying this. And a stationary Phobos pattern LR will pump out 12 TL lascannon shots which can possibly be used to target 2 different targets. And a Russ can chugg out 6 pie plates ect ect.
tedurur wrote:-1 To dammage table if tank seems somewhat nonsensical if the table stays the same. Multi targeting (3) on AV 14 tanks would imply that I can flame a squad 3 times with the same flamestorm cannon. Yeah not really buying this. And a stationary Phobos pattern LR will pump out 12 TL lascannon shots which can possibly be used to target 2 different targets. And a Russ can chugg out 6 pie plates ect ect.
I took it that Multi-targeting (3) would mean that you can split up the weapons between 3 different targets, not that you can use each weapon once on three different targets...
Edit:
Yeah, no shooting the same weapon x amount of times. From the Multi-Targeting (x) section:
A model with this special rule is able to perform
more than one Shooting action per turn and the
number given next to the special rule specifies
how many. For example, a model with multitargeting
(3) would be able to perform three
Shooting actions per turn. If its unit had remained
stationary, the firing model could even double
the number of Shooting actions. Models with the
Fast special rule can do this even if they have
cruised or charged. Note that the model still
cannot fire the same weapon twice.
If this is real, I think it is great that they are shaking things up a bit, and introducing new rules/changing ones that have persisted a long time. Certainly it would be great to have a game where it's harder to hit an infantryman running behind some bushes 60" away than the broad side of a parked land raider 3" away!
But I'm not sure if it's real or not, so I won't go around hypothesizing which units have gone up or down just yet.
tedurur wrote:-1 To dammage table if tank seems somewhat nonsensical if the table stays the same. Multi targeting (3) on AV 14 tanks would imply that I can flame a squad 3 times with the same flamestorm cannon. Yeah not really buying this. And a stationary Phobos pattern LR will pump out 12 TL lascannon shots which can possibly be used to target 2 different targets. And a Russ can chugg out 6 pie plates ect ect.
It says quite clearly you cannot fire the same weapon more than once which negates most of what you said. Coupled with the new hull breach which allows Crew Stunned to become a Destroyed Weapon, I don't think the -1 for tanks is too absurd considering their base EV is 2 which equates to a 2+ to hit for marines. It will also drop to 1 if it hasn't moved. Even Ork rokkits hit on a 3+ at that point. Not to shabby at all.
Edit: On a closer look it appears AP1 like Melta and Rail Guns will ignore this modifier as well.
I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:If this is real, I think it is great that they are shaking things up a bit, and introducing new rules/changing ones that have persisted a long time. Certainly it would be great to have a game where it's harder to hit an infantryman running behind some bushes 60" away than the broad side of a parked land raider 3" away!
But I'm not sure if it's real or not, so I won't go around hypothesizing which units have gone up or down just yet.
This is the thing, I think people's joy at being able to experience a new system is making them blind to the massive white elephants (several of them) standing in the room, trumpeting in their faces.
It's like everyone has simply forgotten the previous fake Nid and BA codecies, which produced a similar poo-storm. That this could well be the work of a scurrilous individual with too much time on their hands cannot be overlooked.
Personally, I think the redesign is far too radical for a company that has become increasingly conservative with it's rules updates. Each edition since 2nd, and this is the same with WFB, has changed the rules in smaller and smaller increments. And then we get something like this altering something as fundamental as the BS value to hit (which has existed with GW since the beginning)? I'm sorry but I don't buy it.
Shandara wrote:Do I read this right, but can all units now assault after they disembark from a moving vehicle (Combat speed)?
I can't find anything about most transports having to pivot and face their rear forward for optimum assaults though.
It also seems much more easy to block all access points, thus trapping a unit. Only need to have a model within 2" of each access point.
Leak wrote:If the transporting model has already conducted a Combat move in this game cycle, the disembarking unit can perform a Combat or Engage move of its own.
Sure seems that way. In most cases it will end up being the same distance as getting out beforehand and charging however it seems. It does give you the ability to fire if you sweep them in combat which is nice.
tedurur wrote:-1 To dammage table if tank seems somewhat nonsensical if the table stays the same. Multi targeting (3) on AV 14 tanks would imply that I can flame a squad 3 times with the same flamestorm cannon. Yeah not really buying this. And a stationary Phobos pattern LR will pump out 12 TL lascannon shots which can possibly be used to target 2 different targets. And a Russ can chugg out 6 pie plates ect ect.
It says quite clearly you cannot fire the same weapon more than once which negates most of what you said. Coupled with the new hull breach which allows Crew Stunned to become a Destroyed Weapon, I don't think the -1 for tanks is too absurd considering their base EV is 2 which equates to a 2+ to hit for marines. It will also drop to 1 if it hasn't moved. Even Ork rokkits hit on a 3+ at that point. Not to shabby at all.
Edit: On a closer look it appears AP1 like Melta and Rail Guns will ignore this modifier as well.
Heh, I guess thats what I get for only reading Reccius compilation of the rules
Page 72 of the PDF: Monstrous creatures come equipped with a 'monstrous weapon', which doubles strength, is AP2 and they still get Strength+2d6 against armour.
Strength 10 Daemon Princes. Strength 10 Greater Daemons. Strength 10 TMCs. all with 2d6 armour pen.
Titan weapons: Strength D.
For someone who hasn't played Apoc, what does strength D signify? Is it explained in the new rules anywhere?
Teh_K42 wrote:Page 72 of the PDF: Monstrous creatures come equipped with a 'monstrous weapon', which doubles strength, is AP2 and they still get Strength+2d6 against armour.
And suddenly Trygons became a whole lot more tasty.
Teh_K42 wrote:Page 72 of the PDF: Monstrous creatures come equipped with a 'monstrous weapon', which doubles strength, is AP2 and they still get Strength+2d6 against armour.
Strength 10 Daemon Princes. Strength 10 Greater Daemons. Strength 10 TMCs. all with 2d6 armour pen.
Nope. Monstrous Creatures don't necessarily have a Monstrous CCW. They have a generic ability that gives them AP2 and 2D6 pen, just like now, without the double strength.
illuknisaa wrote:So everybodu else is getting buffed except orks who get a 5+ kff for everyone.
Ork armor 6+
I'll do you one better. Basic CCWs have AP6. Go and look, book page 93, file page 72.
It sucks (glances at his 6+ gargoyles and gants), especially against imperial armies who's basic troops pretty much all have CCW, but almost all xenos armies basic troops are without CCWs except on units designed for CC. They just swing at S with no AP.
Teh_K42 wrote:Page 72 of the PDF: Monstrous creatures come equipped with a 'monstrous weapon', which doubles strength, is AP2 and they still get Strength+2d6 against armour.
Strength 10 Daemon Princes. Strength 10 Greater Daemons. Strength 10 TMCs. all with 2d6 armour pen.
Nope. Monstrous Creatures don't necessarily have a Monstrous CCW. They have a generic ability that gives them AP2 and 2D6 pen, just like now, without the double strength.
I hope this is an early testing or fake. These rules kick the crap outta my marines. Tank shocks causing critical hits (auto wound no armor) # of hits = how many models I touch, sweeping advance causing critical hits (goodbye combat tactics), rhino being useless in the face of flame templates with 80% of the top face being fire port, railguns + 1st turn deepstrike, nerfing the hell out of deepstrike with defensive fire ect
It seems that the rules presented here give a great advantage to the Tau and Tyranids. Railguns would be off the chart in terms of power. Warriors getting stealth buffs in how being assaulted gives you I 10 which lash whip would take away and the way ID is handled. There's also a lot of little weird things going on like the bolster weapon systems rule and the repair squadron rule that make techpriests and the like have a strong power curve for individual tanks and then suck for squads. The patch up rule is an interesting way to get around wound allocation, but feels odd. This is hardly a releasable version that we have our hands on. It's possible this is an experiment to see how much they could complicate the rules or this is a fake based on all of the rumors that have been buzzing around.
Teh_K42 wrote:Page 72 of the PDF: Monstrous creatures come equipped with a 'monstrous weapon', which doubles strength, is AP2 and they still get Strength+2d6 against armour.
Strength 10 Daemon Princes. Strength 10 Greater Daemons. Strength 10 TMCs. all with 2d6 armour pen.
Nope. Monstrous Creatures don't necessarily have a Monstrous CCW. They have a generic ability that gives them AP2 and 2D6 pen, just like now, without the double strength.
Monstrous Creature type wrote:Monstrous creatures have a Move value of 6. They
have the following special rules.
Special rules
• Monstrous • Massive see page 72
• Multi-targeting (2) see page 73
• Relentless see page 73
Monstrous Special Rule wrote:Models with this ability are always equipped with
a monstrous close combat weapon.Hence, they
attack with an AP of 2 and roll 2D6 for Armour
Penetration against vehicles when using this
weapon.
Monstrous close combat weapons wrote:Monstrous creatures wield huge weapons that
range from battleaxes to flails, claws and colossal
swords.
Name Range Strength AP Type
Monstrous weapon - 2S 2 Combat, Cleave
Cleave: Models roll an addition D6 for armour
penetration (2D6 + Strength) when attacking a
vehicle with a monstrous close combat weapon
Teh_K42 wrote:Page 72 of the PDF: Monstrous creatures come equipped with a 'monstrous weapon', which doubles strength, is AP2 and they still get Strength+2d6 against armour.
Strength 10 Daemon Princes. Strength 10 Greater Daemons. Strength 10 TMCs. all with 2d6 armour pen.
Nope. Monstrous Creatures don't necessarily have a Monstrous CCW. They have a generic ability that gives them AP2 and 2D6 pen, just like now, without the double strength.
According to these rules, yes they do. pdf page 80, document page 101. All MC have the monstrous rule, monstrous gives the monstrous CCW.
I like that my guard will not allow ork armor saves in h2h. Fun times. Makes me wonder if lasguns will be ap 6. Since im pretty sure a lasgun has more penatration then a knife.
I don't think it was a rules lawyer thing. It's pretty easy to miss things when you have to bounce between three different rule sections. I thought he was right until I read through it all again.
Ok, with thanks to poipo32, that's safely locked away on my hard drive now.
I skim read it and I'm kind of bemused. It certainly feels real in that there are lots of things there that you would expect to see, but it's also such a massive shake up which is completely out of character for GW these days. A lot of it made my head hurt too and I don't fancy reading it properly come summer (though I expect some efforts will be made to make it more comprehensible).
Check out pyrovores now. Can flame transports and auto hit with 1d6 attacks with no saves. Doom, warriors, ravagers and all MCs get boosts. A lot of guys stopped playing their nids, definitely gonna see them come back in a big way.
There also seems to be a typo with Jump infantry. In the detailed unit description it says they have move 9, but in the summary chart they only have move 8.
Move 9 makes sense, because that way they keep their 18'' charge.
INTIAL ACTIONS
After placing your reserves, you resolve every rule
that is due before any unit is moved. Start with
rules that are used ‘at the start of the game cycle’
if this is the first turn in the cycle. You can choose
the order in which you work these rules off.
When every such rule is resolved, continue with
rules that are done ‘at the start of the turn’ in a
similar fashion. Rules that are used ‘at the start of
the movement phase’ come last. A notable
exception is any rule that influences reserves.
These are resolved immediately before any
reserve rolls are made.
Yay!! Another common sense clarification....okay, this can't be written by GW.
Cerebrium wrote:Yep, wound allocation is "fixed". No more having to kill "10 nobz" to remove 5 of them.
That's what I thought. How that crap was left this ong is insane, but then again, it is GW!
Yeah because nob wound allocation shenanigans was really winning tournaments. If this Leak is the shape of things to come, why would anyone play Orks?
-Big Mek KFF doesn't give cove to vehicles
-Ghazghull's Waagh doesn't give fleet
-average cover save is 5+ now
-ccw's are AP6
-overwatch/defensive fire from anyone you try to assault
-direct hits to pick out the nob in the boy unit
-can only assault from open topped vehicles if it went combat speed
-oh yeah and no more wound shenanigans
Not sure on for a Flyrant for example in the case of:
The EV of a unit with at least one massive model
is modified by -1. Massive models are subject to
additional rules for ramming and the use of
grenades, as explained in the respective sections.
Flyer
Due to their high speed flyers have always an EV
of 6 that is not further modified.
Does that mean 6 - 1 or always 6?
Must be a GW document as
Against massive units and vehicles however,
inflicting damage with grenades is less abstract. A
well-placed grenade can often achieve a kill on a
vehicle or wound even the largest creature.
Mine: Melta bombs cannot be used against
models that are not vehicles
golden GW
I might be missing this but it looks as if close combat against Walkers changed to that you always hit on the rear armour? There doesn't seem to be a Walkers section.
Looks like you can now assault out of Rhinos too if you only move at combat speed.
Liking the new rules, if that’s indeed what they are, so far.
i think these rules all slow down the game a lot, have to wait and see. also not liking some of what im seeing when thinking about my orks but for tau i think it might be nice.
I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:If this is real, I think it is great that they are shaking things up a bit, and introducing new rules/changing ones that have persisted a long time. Certainly it would be great to have a game where it's harder to hit an infantryman running behind some bushes 60" away than the broad side of a parked land raider 3" away!
But I'm not sure if it's real or not, so I won't go around hypothesizing which units have gone up or down just yet.
This is the thing, I think people's joy at being able to experience a new system is making them blind to the massive white elephants (several of them) standing in the room, trumpeting in their faces.
It's like everyone has simply forgotten the previous fake Nid and BA codecies, which produced a similar poo-storm. That this could well be the work of a scurrilous individual with too much time on their hands cannot be overlooked.
Personally, I think the redesign is far too radical for a company that has become increasingly conservative with it's rules updates. Each edition since 2nd, and this is the same with WFB, has changed the rules in smaller and smaller increments. And then we get something like this altering something as fundamental as the BS value to hit (which has existed with GW since the beginning)? I'm sorry but I don't buy it.
Good point. The rules changes in this 'leak' would require at least a reprinting of every codex, or army lists in the big book. That would be a massive change of policy. I think it would be great if the game was redesigned and all the books set at a rebalanced level - but it seems like a long shot. I am leaning more and more to this being fake.
Cerebrium wrote:Yep, wound allocation is "fixed". No more having to kill "10 nobz" to remove 5 of them.
That's what I thought. How that crap was left this ong is insane, but then again, it is GW!
Yeah because nob wound allocation shenanigans was really winning tournaments. If this Leak is the shape of things to come, why would anyone play Orks?
-Big Mek KFF doesn't give cove to vehicles
-Ghazghull's Waagh doesn't give fleet
-average cover save is 5+ now
-ccw's are AP6
-overwatch/defensive fire from anyone you try to assault
-direct hits to pick out the nob in the boy unit
-can only assault from open topped vehicles if it went combat speed
-oh yeah and no more wound shenanigans
GW HATES ORKS!!!!
I havn't read it all yet but some of the new rules will favour swarms of cheap units in CC.
the "who can fight?" range in CC has been increased to all models within 3" of a unit member in contact with the enemy, instead of the current 2".
=MOAR BOYZ in CC per assault.
Cerebrium wrote:Yep, wound allocation is "fixed". No more having to kill "10 nobz" to remove 5 of them.
That's what I thought. How that crap was left this ong is insane, but then again, it is GW!
Yeah because nob wound allocation shenanigans was really winning tournaments. If this Leak is the shape of things to come, why would anyone play Orks?
-Big Mek KFF doesn't give cove to vehicles
-Ghazghull's Waagh doesn't give fleet
-average cover save is 5+ now
-ccw's are AP6
-overwatch/defensive fire from anyone you try to assault
-direct hits to pick out the nob in the boy unit
-can only assault from open topped vehicles if it went combat speed
-oh yeah and no more wound shenanigans
GW HATES ORKS!!!!
Run = x2 movement.
Fleet = +2m
Assault = x2 movement.
Means an entire ork army when they call the waaaaarrgghh can all charge 16″...
And they would of been getting there every turn before that at 12" a turn. So assuming 12" deployment they will be 40" onto the board by turn 2... Currently to do this you need to roll pretty much a 6 for the first turns run and a 6 for the second turns fleet, for every single unit individually...
Then again they cant fire and rapid fire/blast looks more effective against them so maybe its balanced but you would have ONE turn to shoot at them before they easily hit your lines enmass (if they go first). Good luck killing 130 orks in one turn.
There are some significant changes in this doc from the stuff that leaked months back. But I think enough is similar that slogging Orks and Tyranids will indeed see some significant improvement. The greater footspeed alone made a huge difference in the playtest game that Cruentus and I played previously.
-overwatch/defensive fire from anyone you try to assault
lol no
Overwatch is a special ability that is currently only on Coteaz and his unit, and can be bought as a strategem for units sitting on an objective.
Defensive fire only works if:
-a unit is being rammed
-a unit has trapped another unit in a wrecked transport
-a unit deep strikes within 12" of an enemy
-can only assault from open topped vehicles if it went combat speed
Yes, but you can do a Charge, which is double speed. So you're not actually losing any range compared to the old rules.
This hasn't hurt wound allocation on elite units, imo. You can still spread wounds around like crazy... just at the end of the turn, you have to consolidate wounds onto whole models, and remove them from units of your choosing. A little wacky, but you get to choose it all.
CT GAMER wrote: 1. Any tank with Armour 14 is a "beheamoth" and gets "multi-targeting".
2. close toped tanks confer a -1 on the damage roll table
Land raiders just got more badass
They needed something since each one of my broadsides will be hitting them 4 times a turn, each, with railguns.... yeah; let's just pause and thin about that for a minute. ahhh.
Actually the Multi-Targeting rule says you cannot use it to fire a weapon more than once- only fire additional weapons on the model.
Before you start to move the models you can measure where your models would finish their move. It is perfectly fine to measure a unit’s move in one direction, and then change your mind and decide to move it somewhere else or decide not to move it at all. You can decide whether you wish to go through terrain while you are measuring. However, you cannot change the declared Move action.
Shooting:
All weapons have a maximum effective range, which is the furthest distance they can shoot. If a target is beyond this maximum range, the shot misses automatically. This is why you have to choose your target before measuring the range.
It seems that according to the rules I can premeasure my assault moves but not my shooting. I'd have rather seen the prohibition on premeasuring done away with altogether, given the premeasuring already built into their RoB boards. It's not perfect but I can live with it.
Breotan wrote: I'd have rather seen the prohibition on premeasuring done away with altogether, given the premeasuring already built into their RoB boards. It's not perfect but I can live with it.
Yeah, and the pre-measuring already built into their deployment zones and standard board sizes too. Geeze.
mrfantastical wrote:
Yeah because nob wound allocation shenanigans was really winning tournaments. If this Leak is the shape of things to come, why would anyone play Orks?
-Big Mek KFF doesn't give cove to vehicles
-Ghazghull's Waagh doesn't give fleet
-average cover save is 5+ now
-ccw's are AP6
-overwatch/defensive fire from anyone you try to assault
-direct hits to pick out the nob in the boy unit
-can only assault from open topped vehicles if it went combat speed
-oh yeah and no more wound shenanigans
GW HATES ORKS!!!!
- KFF is silly on tanks, it only gives a 5+ to troops but a 4+ to tanks, makes no sense at all, also alot of things will be getting -1 to damage rolls such as canz
- Why should Orks have M8 when ghaz waaghs?
- Yes I an sure thats going to break the game with all 4 extra models you lose a game
- from what i read in the pdf overwatch is a special rule like rentless, its actually a rule cortez gets in place of his current rule, IE not everyone has it! defensive effects every assault army, its going to be justas painful for marines trying to charge a unit with plasma weapons.
- effects everyone, thankfully only snipers and characters have the rule
- why is that a bad thing....
- effects paladins as well
Against massive units and vehicles however,
inflicting damage with grenades is less abstract. A
well-placed grenade can often achieve a kill on a
vehicle or wound even the largest creature.
Mine: Melta bombs cannot be used against
models that are not vehicles
golden GW
Grenades can be used against MC but not Grenades with the Mine special rule. That seems pretty clear.
CT GAMER wrote: 1. Any tank with Armour 14 is a "beheamoth" and gets "multi-targeting".
2. close toped tanks confer a -1 on the damage roll table
Land raiders just got more badass
They needed something since each one of my broadsides will be hitting them 4 times a turn, each, with railguns.... yeah; let's just pause and thin about that for a minute. ahhh.
Actually the Multi-Targeting rule says you cannot use it to fire a weapon more than once- only fire additional weapons on the model.
I can't wait for the RAW uber alles crowd to get their hands on this one (assuming, of course it's a) legit and b) how the final rules read anyway).
"Note that the model still cannot fire the same weapon twice."
But it doesn't say I can't shoot the same weapon thrice (or 4 times, 5, etc...).
Cerebrium wrote:Yep, wound allocation is "fixed". No more having to kill "10 nobz" to remove 5 of them.
That's what I thought. How that crap was left this ong is insane, but then again, it is GW!
Yeah because nob wound allocation shenanigans was really winning tournaments. If this Leak is the shape of things to come, why would anyone play Orks?
-Big Mek KFF doesn't give cove to vehicles
The only mention I see of vehicles not getting cover is under the terrain rules in the vehicle section. If taken out of context I guess you could play it that way, but I think it's pretty clear that line is only meant for area terrain/interveaning models. If this is the real deal, I suspect that will be fixed by release or there will be a FAQ allowing the KFF to work as it should.
-Ghazghull's Waagh doesn't give fleet
Latro covered this nicely
-average cover save is 5+ now
True, but it hurts other armies (nids) just as bad.
-ccw's are AP6
Like I said before on this it sucks, but at least only imperial armies really have CCWs on non-assault based units.
-overwatch/defensive fire from anyone you try to assault
Uh, no. If I read everything correctly, overwatch is a special rule that the unit must have to give you the ability to use defensive fire if an enemy unit uses a move action within 12". No units in the game have it currently that I can think of, and I don't think it will be handed out like candy.
-direct hits to pick out the nob in the boy unit
Again, only if the firing weapon/model/unit has the direct hit special rule (sniper rifles do), and only if you allocate the wound to the Nob's armor group.
-can only assault from open topped vehicles if it went combat speed
True, but open topped vehicles allow you to make a charge action, instead of only an engage action. This effectively doubles your assault range, thus making up for the shorter move of the vehicle.
-oh yeah and no more wound shenanigans
True as well, but they are called sheninigans for a reason
GW HATES ORKS!!!!
Overall, the orks took a kick in the nuts that they shouldn't (assuming this is the real deal), but it's not quite as bad as you make out here.
Although it'd probably never work very well, this does get me excited for using a fluffy Tallarn Desert Raiders force... more reliable reserves, no randomised table edge for the Al'Rahem outflank, and then slipping squads off the table edge with the Tactical Withdrawal rule when it gets too dangerous to deny the VP... Sounds like a raid to me!
Some of the changes really do make me a bit worried for my orks though... particularly the KFF nerf (dang, had just finished painting one up!).
On the whole though I think this is going to make for a much better/more exciting game. Thumbs up GW!
I'm just looking forward to my deep-striking Grey Knight Terminator force bringing even more pain. I deepstrike 18-24" out, don't scatter, and open a whole 6-pack of whoop-ass shooting.
So, orks lose +1 WS from the Waaagh Banner (now an ordinary standard bearer), nob wound allocation, KFF 4+ cover saves to vehicles, armor saves on h2h...
And gain... Stompas? Not exactly a good trade but not bad either...
CT GAMER wrote: 1. Any tank with Armour 14 is a "beheamoth" and gets "multi-targeting".
2. close toped tanks confer a -1 on the damage roll table
Land raiders just got more badass
They needed something since each one of my broadsides will be hitting them 4 times a turn, each, with railguns.... yeah; let's just pause and thin about that for a minute. ahhh.
Actually the Multi-Targeting rule says you cannot use it to fire a weapon more than once- only fire additional weapons on the model.
I can't wait for the RAW uber alles crowd to get their hands on this one (assuming, of course it's a) legit and b) how the final rules read anyway).
"Note that the model still cannot fire the same weapon twice."
But it doesn't say I can't shoot the same weapon thrice (or 4 times, 5, etc...).
Valete,
JohnS
How do you fire three times without firing twice?
Anyone who tries to pull that isn't 'RAW uber alles'; they're an idiot.
So as far as I can tell you can pre-measure it, fail and still shoot later...
But I guess in the long run you can't shoot AND assault in the same turn as far as I can see.
So read the squad leader section and am still none the wise what constitutes a squad leader for a squad that doesn't have one (Necrons, Tyranids, Eldar without Exarchs/Warlocks, Orks without Nobz etc etc)
Ok just had a quick read through, but damn Tau get a HUGE boost.
The new rapid fire allone would make them at least 50% more usefull...
The new deepstrike mechanics with are also nice.
Will have a closer look at those leaks later, but I really hope they are true for now.
(extended charging ranges give me a bit of a headache tho >< )
It's legit, no viruses. has some pretty neat stuff in there... although I don't really know what to make of it. What is the context of this? Is it an experimental copy for GW staff members?
Flashman wrote:So read the squad leader section and am still none the wise what constitutes a squad leader for a squad that doesn't have one (Necrons, Tyranids, Eldar without Exarchs/Warlocks, Orks without Nobz etc etc)
p. 106
Nominate one model of the unit to be the squad leader when you pick your forces. If the unit entry in the army list features more than one profile, you have to choose a model that is represented by the bottommost line, or if you do not field such a
model, the next higher line.
Flashman wrote:So read the squad leader section and am still none the wise what constitutes a squad leader for a squad that doesn't have one (Necrons, Tyranids, Eldar without Exarchs/Warlocks, Orks without Nobz etc etc)
p. 106
Nominate one model of the unit to be the squad leader when you pick your forces. If the unit entry in the army list features more than one profile, you have to choose a model that is represented by the bottommost line, or if you do not field such a
model, the next higher line.
Hmm... ok. Not sure if I like this rule then. Can't really see a Necron Warrior or Termagant turning round and saying, "This way lads, follow me!"
One of the big problems with 5th ed is vehicles are too tough. With this ruleset it seems more in line but no totally fixed. Because tanks (a large percentage of all vehicles) are harder to damage but easier to hit they pretty much balance out except for the hull breach special rule which means they are slightly less surviable. However we may see less transports because combat tanks have gotten better with multi-targeting. Non tank vehicles remain pretty much the same but crap at shooting if they dont have aerial assault or gunship
I am writing these opinions without having looked at the FAQ's if someone could post a link to them then that would be great
With this rule set
SW are worse because fangs are worse, operating near the enemy is riskier because of better rapid fire and because they cant shoot then assault.
Grey knights i dont know much about but are maybe worse because of worse paladins and worse walkers
SM are better because of better outflanking bikes and better deep strike
DA are better because of better termies
BA are worse because of slightly worse FNP, worse assaulting , worse walkers and worse devs and maybe jump infantry with a slightly smaller charge range
BT are better because they are equally shooting and assaulting but footsloggers and termies are better now
Crons i dont know much about
Grey knights i dont know much about but are maybe worse because of worse paladins and worse walkers?
Tau are better becuase of better shooting phase placement, defensive fire, better rapid fire and better jump troops (Due to airborne units interaction with terrain and the better draw back special rules). Also twin-linked flame suits can hurt units and transports (Due to kickass flamer rules) buy hitting them from WAY back with a twin linked flamer)
Tyranids are better mostly because of better outflank and better instant death. And because the new running is more consistent so you can maintain a cohesive force.
Demons are better because of better MCs and maybe better deep strike
Eldar are better because of better shooting, fleet, squadrons are pretty good now (with the better open topped rules and the better squadron rules Vypers might actually be good). The fast skimmer tanks are both better and worse because Jink negates Massive but they dont have turbo-boosting so as gun platforms they are better but as transports they are worse
Dark eldar are better because they have better shooting in general though, and open-topped fast skimmer's without multiple weapons are REALLY GOOD! (because they have shadowfields jink makes up for the loss of turboosting) However ravagers are now crap (unless they have the aerial assault rule but for that they would probably need supersonic and I doubt they do but please correct me if i am wrong) so now DE players need to consider other HS options. ALSO because of more reliable reserves it means that webways may be useful now.
IG Mech is worse because of worse vehicles
IG Gunline is WAY BETTER
IG Aircav is same because of scout nerf (for them (only 12' is better for alot of other units)) but supersonic is cool.
Orks are worse because nobs are worse and currently they underperformed because of GK and DE
CSM remain pretty much the same because DP are better, their tanks are worse, plague marines are worse but power armour horde is now maybe playable.
I dont know much about the SOB
TANK TRANSPORTS got worse (Rhino's, Chimeras, Wave Serpents, Razorbacks) because of decreased survivability and no extra three inches when deploying from them. You have to move out of them and you can only do that if you move 6'
TANK GUN PLATFORMS got better (as long as you have multiple weapons) because of Multi Targeting
(Vanilla)VEHICLE GUN PLATFORMS got worse (Unless you have a single weapon)
(Vanilla)VEHICLE TRANSPORTS got slightly worse because of worse disembarkation
SKIMMER TANK TRANSPORTS got worse like normal tank transports
SKIMMER GUN PLATFORMS got worse (Unless you have a single weapon)
FAST SKIMMER GUN PLATFORMS got worse (Unless you have a single weapon)
FAST SKIMMER TANK GUN PLATFORMS got better (as long as you have multiple weapons)
FAST SKIMMER TRANSPORTS got worse because they lost turbo boost
FAST SKIMMER TANK TRANSPORTS got worse because they lost turbo boost
DARK ELDAR FAST SKIMMER TRANSPORTS got better because jink + Shadowfield makes up for loss of turbo boost and moving out of the transport is counteracted by getting double fleet move. So while an old assault range with fleet from an open-topped skimmer was 21'-27' inches and a current one is 24' the twenty 24' is reliable.
Sorry for the wall of text but that's my early take on codex power and vehicle power.
Did anyone else notice that in the "Codex Update" Tau are included, but Black Templars, Necrons, and Sisters are all absent?
I'm sure that it could be that BT and Sisters could have just been not added yet. Necrons may not need an update with their very recent codex, but it also stands to reason that BT may get a new codex before the release of 6th ed, thus negating the need for an update.
That also makes the point that (assuming this is all legit anyway), Tau will NOT be getting a new codex before the release of 6th Ed.
Skogkat wrote:Did anyone else notice that in the "Codex Update" Tau are included, but Black Templars, Necrons, and Sisters are all absent?
I'm sure that it could be that BT and Sisters could have just been not added yet. Necrons may not need an update with their very recent codex, but it also stands to reason that BT may get a new codex before the release of 6th ed, thus negating the need for an update.
That also makes the point that (assuming this is all legit anyway), Tau will NOT be getting a new codex before the release of 6th Ed.
That wouldn't make a lot of sense if this is a Playtest copy though, since they would need to playtest either the old rules or the new rules. I guess it is possible that there is a playtest copy of the unreleased BT with this somewhere, but that's unlikely.
Necrons would still need a FAQ update to make it fully compatable with this version of the rules. Look at the dark eldar update and the supersonic and aerial assault rules. Necrons have the exact same rules, so they would update them to new versions. I think that if this is legit, at the time of this file, the missing dexes were in development still.
pretre wrote: I guess it is possible that there is a playtest copy of the unreleased BT with this somewhere, but that's unlikely.
Why would that be unlikely? If play testers have access to beta rulebook (obviously), they should by all accounts have access to beta codices with which to test the rules.
It could well be that whatever flash drive was lost or "stolen" simply didn't have those files on. Or they were formatted differently and not attached. I feel sorry for GW. If this is all legit somebody is probably going to lose their job.
pretre wrote: I guess it is possible that there is a playtest copy of the unreleased BT with this somewhere, but that's unlikely.
Why would that be unlikely? If play testers have access to beta rulebook (obviously), they should by all accounts have access to beta codices with which to test the rules.
Because if you had the BT codex as well as the new rulebook, why wouldn't you release it?
@Shumagorath: Not sure that I buy the 'different format' argument, but it is possible.
pretre wrote: I guess it is possible that there is a playtest copy of the unreleased BT with this somewhere, but that's unlikely.
Why would that be unlikely? If play testers have access to beta rulebook (obviously), they should by all accounts have access to beta codices with which to test the rules.
Because if you had the BT codex as well as the new rulebook, why wouldn't you release it?
@Shumagorath: Not sure that I buy the 'different format' argument, but it is possible.
*shrugs* I was just listing some plausible possibilities. I'm sure the books will be released before the new edition. I'm expecting a much heavier codex release for 40k this year.
If this document is true to form, I will jump back into 40k with both feet. I haven't played since around June because I really don't care for the 5th Edition meta-game. When the drastic changes to WHFB were leaked before 8th Edition, I was filled with an impending sense of dread (which, for me at least, turned out to be entirely justified). Reading about these changes, I'm filled with more enthusiasm for 40k than I've had for a long time. Hopefully this leak proves to be genuine, because I miss miniatures gaming. If you'll excuse me, I need to go paint some Guardsmen.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Hmm, trying to find a clarification, but can't see it atm. Has anyone spotted if flying infantry count as flying for evasion purposes?
If you mean do they count as flyers to get the 6EV, no they don't.
On another subject, I did notice Tau did take a bit of a nerf. Currently if you want a battle suit to split fire from the rest of his unit, you only need a target lock. Witht this new ruleset, you need a multi-tracker and target lock.
Breotan wrote:It seems that according to the rules I can premeasure my assault moves but not my shooting. I'd have rather seen the prohibition on premeasuring done away with altogether, given the premeasuring already built into their RoB boards. It's not perfect but I can live with it.
Not really.. they have a blanket premeasuring statement now.
In general, players are not allowed to measure
any distances except when the rules call for it (e.g.
after declaring an assault or firing at an enemy, to
work out a rule’s area of effect, when deploying
their forces, etc).
God, I really hope the BT book gets leaked soon too-after reading this thing...I want my new BT. Of course, I think I can use current BT fairly well with these changes, if they're real.
The huge, important question is this though: Is anyone planning on playtesting any of these rules later? See how it works out and get a jump start on the edition? Let us know if they work well in practice, not just on paper. My buddies are excited and we're probably going to try it out at some point in the near future.
Also, I can't believe that just 15 or so hours after leak, we already have 15 pages and growing. You'd think we were all rabid vultures, waiting hungrily for information to change our gaming...oh...wait...
Skogkat wrote:Did anyone else notice that in the "Codex Update" Tau are included, but Black Templars, Necrons, and Sisters are all absent?
I'm sure that it could be that BT and Sisters could have just been not added yet. Necrons may not need an update with their very recent codex, but it also stands to reason that BT may get a new codex before the release of 6th ed, thus negating the need for an update.
That also makes the point that (assuming this is all legit anyway), Tau will NOT be getting a new codex before the release of 6th Ed.
The files are dated may 2011, meaning the second half of 2011 hadn't happened yet. So it seems likely (assuming they're real) that those codexes weren't actually nailed down yet when this was worked on last. So perhaps they were waiting to add necron until they were sure what was happening.
As for tau, either there isn't a codex before 6th edition, or they thought in may 2011 that there wouldn't or might not be. It's not a sure bet with all of the time passed.
Notod wrote:So templars are a go as next Codex, right? Also, is it me, or does this evasion thing, kinda make the game a hell of a lot more, balanced / stupid?
Balanced/stupid? I think it discourages parking lots and gunlines and encourages mobility, while giving you a risk/reward system with cover. I like it a lot.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Hmm, trying to find a clarification, but can't see it atm. Has anyone spotted if flying infantry count as flying for evasion purposes?
If you mean do they count as flyers to get the 6EV, no they don't.
On another subject, I did notice Tau did take a bit of a nerf. Currently if you want a battle suit to split fire from the rest of his unit, you only need a target lock. Witht this new ruleset, you need a multi-tracker and target lock.
They got better in most other respects, so it's not a huge nerf. Being stationary for firing purposes then still firing back is powerful.
Jodiju wrote:From what I can discern, 'flyer' is a unit type isn't it and so if a unit doesn't have 'flyer' in it's entry then it won't be EV 6.
Yeah, it will essentially apply only to actual "Flyer" unit types (mostly Apoc) and when units with the Supersonic rule make a supersonic move, they are considered flyers until the start of their next turn.
Notod wrote:So templars are a go as next Codex, right? Also, is it me, or does this evasion thing, kinda make the game a hell of a lot more, balanced / stupid?
Balanced/stupid? I think it discourages parking lots and gunlines and encourages mobility, while giving you a risk/reward system with cover. I like it a lot.
Being able to fire mutliple times is a risk/reward for movement as well. The game finally has decision making in it beyond target prioritization.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Hmm, trying to find a clarification, but can't see it atm. Has anyone spotted if flying infantry count as flying for evasion purposes?
If you mean do they count as flyers to get the 6EV, no they don't.
On another subject, I did notice Tau did take a bit of a nerf. Currently if you want a battle suit to split fire from the rest of his unit, you only need a target lock. Witht this new ruleset, you need a multi-tracker and target lock.
They got better in most other respects, so it's not a huge nerf. Being stationary for firing purposes then still firing back is powerful.
Oh I agree, and really you usually only gave one model in the unit the target lock, so you could do both as hard-wired on a team leader. Just something I saw that I thought I'd point out.
I'd say this thing represents at least 100 man-hours or more.
The telling thing is that the rules are pretty much complete, covering everything you'd need. Even copy/pasting/inventing from the earlier leaks, you'd spend a lot of time making sure the references between sections are all correct. In short you'd need to an awful lot of editing and checking. If one person could do all of that in 100 hours, maybe GW should hire him
Notod wrote:So templars are a go as next Codex, right? Also, is it me, or does this evasion thing, kinda make the game a hell of a lot more, balanced / stupid?
Balanced/stupid? I think it discourages parking lots and gunlines and encourages mobility, while giving you a risk/reward system with cover. I like it a lot.
When its spun like that it sounds great, but as a player who follows the ideals of run n gun till you can scrum em, it sounds bad, for the fact that when i do eventually scrum them, there forces may just be innumerable for my forces to take them,
This sounds a whole lot like AT-43. It wouldn't surprise me if GW just snatched up all the rules they liked because the system is dead. It was a good system and if GW just improves upon then I'll be very optimistic about 6th.
I didn't follow At-43, but it seems like they combined Apoc, Planet Strike, WHFB, and the move+move/move+shoot/shoot+shoot system that you find in a lot of games these days.
I'd say this thing represents at least 100 man-hours or more.
The telling thing is that the rules are pretty much complete, covering everything you'd need. Even copy/pasting/inventing from the earlier leaks, you'd spend a lot of time making sure the references between sections are all correct. In short you'd need to an awful lot of editing and checking. If one person could do all of that in 100 hours, maybe GW should hire him
Yeah, not only are the typos and formatting issues consistent with a group working on a shared document (the page number references drift a little and are often off by a page or two, owing to content having been added later) but the rules themselves are remarkably detailed with all the i-s dotted and the t-s crossed.
If it's a hoax, the perpetrator would have to have had a nearly encyclopedic knowledge of every codex and the ability to locate conflicts between them. If it's a hoax, this person really does need to get hired by GW. These rules are profoundly well engineered and have had a lot more thought put into them than the generalized rumors and guesses we've seen already.
Has anyone else noticed that these rules make it possible for a single unit to charge an enemy unit, destroy it, THEN shoot at an enemy transport and destroy it and THEN charge the guys inside all in one turn?
I believe you can do all this after deepstriking as well...
pretre wrote: I guess it is possible that there is a playtest copy of the unreleased BT with this somewhere, but that's unlikely.
Why would that be unlikely? If play testers have access to beta rulebook (obviously), they should by all accounts have access to beta codices with which to test the rules.
Because if you had the BT codex as well as the new rulebook, why wouldn't you release it?
@Shumagorath: Not sure that I buy the 'different format' argument, but it is possible.
Because you're lazy, or you didn't have access to it all, or you didn't care, or you forgot to copy paste that file, or it got corrupted, or it was a .cdr format and you didn't recognize it, or it's still in indesign, etc etc etc. :edit: The internet played a trick on me and i read and responded to the same post twice. Derp derp.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mike Leon wrote:Has anyone else noticed that these rules make it possible for a single unit to charge an enemy unit, destroy it, THEN shoot at an enemy transport and destroy it and THEN charge the guys inside all in one turn?
I believe you can do all this after deepstriking as well...
Can you prepare for an assault as well as charge at the same time? I thought they were conflicting.
I'd say this thing represents at least 100 man-hours or more.
The telling thing is that the rules are pretty much complete, covering everything you'd need. Even copy/pasting/inventing from the earlier leaks, you'd spend a lot of time making sure the references between sections are all correct. In short you'd need to an awful lot of editing and checking. If one person could do all of that in 100 hours, maybe GW should hire him
Yeah, not only are the typos and formatting issues consistent with a group working on a shared document (the page number references drift a little and are often off by a page or two, owing to content having been added later) but the rules themselves are remarkably detailed with all the i-s dotted and the t-s crossed.
If it's a hoax, the perpetrator would have to have had a nearly encyclopedic knowledge of every codex and the ability to locate conflicts between them. If it's a hoax, this person really does need to get hired by GW. These rules are profoundly well engineered and have had a lot more thought put into them than the generalized rumors and guesses we've seen already.
Let's see, who can we think of with "a nearly encyclopedic knowledge of every codex and the ability to locate conflicts between them", with a motive to cause a little stir in the Dakka community... uh, Gwar anyone?
Breotan wrote:It seems that according to the rules I can premeasure my assault moves but not my shooting. I'd have rather seen the prohibition on premeasuring done away with altogether, given the premeasuring already built into their RoB boards. It's not perfect but I can live with it.
Not really.. they have a blanket premeasuring statement now.
In general, players are not allowed to measure
any distances except when the rules call for it (e.g.
after declaring an assault or firing at an enemy, to
work out a rule’s area of effect, when deploying
their forces, etc).
Yea, I missed that one. Guess they channelled the ghost of Gary Gygax to help them with their rules layout/organization. :/
I'd say this thing represents at least 100 man-hours or more.
The telling thing is that the rules are pretty much complete, covering everything you'd need. Even copy/pasting/inventing from the earlier leaks, you'd spend a lot of time making sure the references between sections are all correct. In short you'd need to an awful lot of editing and checking. If one person could do all of that in 100 hours, maybe GW should hire him
Yeah, not only are the typos and formatting issues consistent with a group working on a shared document (the page number references drift a little and are often off by a page or two, owing to content having been added later) but the rules themselves are remarkably detailed with all the i-s dotted and the t-s crossed.
If it's a hoax, the perpetrator would have to have had a nearly encyclopedic knowledge of every codex and the ability to locate conflicts between them. If it's a hoax, this person really does need to get hired by GW. These rules are profoundly well engineered and have had a lot more thought put into them than the generalized rumors and guesses we've seen already.
Let's see, who can we think of with "a nearly encyclopedic knowledge of every codex and the ability to locate conflicts between them", with a motive to cause a little stir in the Dakka community... uh, Gwar anyone?
Yeah. Basically it's either them or it's GW. Those are the only real possibilities.
ShumaGorath wrote:I feel sorry for GW. If this is all legit somebody is probably going to lose their job.
This could be GW's way of establishing an "open playtest."
I don't think they're that sneaky.
Sneaky nothing. I don't mean the company itself. If my professional reputation depended on my rules being well-received by an extremely critical community, I'd want some wide-ranging feedback before going to press even if corporate was not down. I'm not saying I would leak it against the wishes of my superiors. Just that I would want some feedback.
Mike Leon wrote:Has anyone else noticed that these rules make it possible for a single unit to charge an enemy unit, destroy it, THEN shoot at an enemy transport and destroy it and THEN charge the guys inside all in one turn?
I believe you can do all this after deepstriking as well...
Where are you getting that you can assault the contents of a transport after it's been destroyed by shooting in the same turn?
...and charge has a very specific definition in this ruleset, so be careful how you use it when describing something.
If these are the rules I think a lot of the issues with complexity would honestly be solved by formatting. I'm finding the hardest part of reading these things the formating. Nothing is with anything else that applies to it. Streamline that and the rules seem alright. I'd certainly be down to play but I play Nids so I might be biased.
Sidenote I like the strategem idea, just not for tournament play.
If these are the rules I think a lot of the issues with complexity would honestly be solved by formatting. I'm finding the hardest part of reading these things the formating. Nothing is with anything else that applies to it. Streamline that and the rules seem alright. I'd certainly be down to play but I play Nids so I might be biased.
Entirely possible. Do you think GW has been exemplary in making well-formatted rule sets in the past?
I'm also thinking that these might simply be "Advanced 40k" rules and GW plans to release a cleaner, easier to understand set of "Basic Rules." Time will tell which one will dominate in the metagame.
Yeah, I kind of see the stratagem stuff either getting stripped or simplified in tournaments. It might be cool to give you a "each player picks x number of points worth" type situation, but I guess only time will tell on how balanced they end up being.
Agamemnon2 wrote:Hah. I note Warseer has banned even the discussion of these rules. Their mod policy has reached new lows of spinelessness and cowardice.
Always makes me glad I have my old Dakka account to use
Legit? Quite possibly. Wouldn't be the first time a whole edition has leaked, and the Text + Placeholders is the same format that Black Industries had their Dark Heresy playtest material in, so there's that
Could be fake, but it'd take a lot of coordinated effort. /tg/ could do it if a bunch of people worked together but they'd have a thread about it.
Agamemnon2 wrote:Hah. I note Warseer has banned even the discussion of these rules. Their mod policy has reached new lows of spinelessness and cowardice.
Always makes me glad I have my old Dakka account to use
Legit? Quite possibly. Wouldn't be the first time a whole edition has leaked, and the Text + Placeholders is the same format that Black Industries had their Dark Heresy playtest material in, so there's that
Could be fake, but it'd take a lot of coordinated effort. /tg/ could do it if a bunch of people worked together but they'd have a thread about it.
Want to repeat what Rented Tritium said:
The document seems to be from May 2011. Would be odd to make page references to Codices not yet published. So Necrons and SOB not covered is only natural.
Another thing:
Flyers is not a unit type. They remain skimmers or monstrous creatures or whatever. Only when they make the supersonic move (added in FAQ to Harpy), do they gain the special rules of being worse to be shot at etc.
Oh, and according to /tg/ the original distributor confirmed it to be a "playtester's rough draft".
If this whole BS versus evasion thing is real then Dark Eldar are going to be the most broken and overpowered army ever, and all my raiders will be useless because I wont have to be scared of my unit getting shot at anymore.
Although I havent downloaded and read it so this is going on what I have gathered from this thread.
Hm. I like some stuff from this leak. I also like strategems.
Thing that i really dont like are assault weapons. Seriously, dude with shotgun and CCW(IG Veteran) will have same count of attacks like sergeant with CCW and pistol. This is just sick.
If these are the rules I think a lot of the issues with complexity would honestly be solved by formatting. I'm finding the hardest part of reading these things the formating. Nothing is with anything else that applies to it. Streamline that and the rules seem alright. I'd certainly be down to play but I play Nids so I might be biased.
Sidenote I like the strategem idea, just not for tournament play.
I agree. It's intimidating initially, but really when you dig into it, it's far more intuitive than it appears at first. It is more complex, but not at the level I think some people may be thinking.
If these are the rules I think a lot of the issues with complexity would honestly be solved by formatting. I'm finding the hardest part of reading these things the formating. Nothing is with anything else that applies to it. Streamline that and the rules seem alright. I'd certainly be down to play but I play Nids so I might be biased.
Sidenote I like the strategem idea, just not for tournament play.
I agree. It's intimidating initially, but really when you dig into it, it's far more intuitive than it appears at first. It is more complex, but not at the level I think some people may be thinking.
100% yes. These rules are very very well done once you crack the surface. I was on the fence until I read 20 pages. This was written by a professional. The question is if they work for GW, but they are definitely a professional game designer.
Mantle wrote:If this whole BS versus evasion thing is real then Dark Eldar are going to be the most broken and overpowered army ever, and all my raiders will be useless because I wont have to be scared of my unit getting shot at anymore.
Although I havent downloaded and read it so this is going on what I have gathered from this thread.
Why? Base evasion for EVERYTHING is 3. Units with the massive rule get -1, stationary units get -1, moving units with jink get +1, swarms get +1, units that have moved supersonic (So units that have the flyer rules for the turn) always have 6
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pekly wrote:Hm. I like some stuff from this leak. I also like strategems.
Thing that i really dont like are assault weapons. Seriously, dude with shotgun and CCW(IG Veteran) will have same count of attacks like sergeant with CCW and pistol. This is just sick.
Sick is a bit far dont you think? That bonus goes away after the charge.
PITOLS! Are now cool! Being able to shoot your pistol in close is cool. Lets plasma pistols on wolf guard or khorne bezerkers be maybe viable.
-Big Mek KFF doesn't give cove to vehicles
-Ghazghull's Waagh doesn't give fleet
-average cover save is 5+ now
-ccw's are AP6
-overwatch/defensive fire from anyone you try to assault
-direct hits to pick out the nob in the boy unit
-can only assault from open topped vehicles if it went combat speed
-oh yeah and no more wound shenanigans
GW HATES ORKS!!!!
stormboyz move 9+d6 or charg 18+d6...
Vehicle squadrons (kans, buggis) ignore immobilized on a 2+ if they have 3 models...
Deepstrike rules mak weirdboyz interesting..
Artillery rules for big guns make them very hard to kill. If each gun has 3 crew they can each suffer 3 glancing/penetrating hits before being removed.
Ramming/tank shock now causes hits that ignore armor. Consider that = deffrolla...
ard case now makes armor of vehicle 11 unless its better. You can assault out of closed topped vehicles now btw..
weirdboyz also got a littl better
KFF still gives a cover save, it just doesnt give obscured. So vehicles get a 5+ cover save but not a 4+ from obscured.
I find it interesting that the page numbering starts at 22, implying there's quite a bit before the introduction page. Maybe the quickstart rules referred to in the introduction will be a very brief section at the front of the book?
pgmason wrote:I find it interesting that the page numbering starts at 22, implying there's quite a bit before the introduction page. Maybe the quickstart rules referred to in the introduction will be a very brief section at the front of the book?
I really like most of what I've read so far.
There are several page gaps. A lot of it is probably artwork and fluff.
You need look no further than the first 2 paragraphs of the "rulebook" to see this:
leaked rulebook, page 1 wrote:We recommend playing at least some games with
the basic rules to learn the core mechanics. Even
experienced gamers might want to switch back to
them when playing really apocalyptic games with
thousands of points. For this reason it is no shame
to come back to this book when you have some
games with the introductory rules under your
belt.
The rules presented here are the next step to
immerse yourself totally in the war-torn universe
of the 41st Millennium. It doesn’t matter if you
are a valiant tank commander, who vanquishes
droves of foes beneath the tracks of mighty tank
squadrons, a rising hero of many star systems,
who rallies fellow warriors of renown to its cause,
a far sighted field commander, who alters the
battlefield conditions to his favour before a single
shot is fired, or a sharpshooter, who holds the
enemy with supreme firepower at bay. This rule
set will give you the instruments to do all of this
and more.
I have highlighted a few places that reference returning to the "Basic rules"; which this would be if it were the 6th edition rules.
A little bit of time in actually reading Introductions and etc are usually much more illuminating in what a document is than going straight into the document and speculating wildly.
I just assumed that the "basic" rules would be included in the box-set instead of or with a complete mini-rulebook. Possibly taking a hint of old D&D with a basic, advanced and expert version.
Kommissar Kel wrote:This is not the 6th edition leaked rules.
You need look no further than the first 2 paragraphs of the "rulebook" to see this:
A little bit of time in actually reading Introductions and etc are usually much more illuminating in what a document is than going straight into the document and speculating wildly.
You read the first page and made your decision without seeing the rest?
Kommissar Kel wrote:This is not the 6th edition leaked rules.
You need look no further than the first 2 paragraphs of the "rulebook" to see this:
leaked rulebook, page 1 wrote:We recommend playing at least some games with the basic rules to learn the core mechanics. Even experienced gamers might want to switch back to them when playing really apocalyptic games with thousands of points. For this reason it is no shame to come back to this book when you have some games with the introductory rules under your belt.
The rules presented here are the next step to immerse yourself totally in the war-torn universe of the 41st Millennium. It doesn’t matter if you are a valiant tank commander, who vanquishes droves of foes beneath the tracks of mighty tank squadrons, a rising hero of many star systems, who rallies fellow warriors of renown to its cause, a far sighted field commander, who alters the battlefield conditions to his favour before a single shot is fired, or a sharpshooter, who holds the enemy with supreme firepower at bay. This rule set will give you the instruments to do all of this and more.
I have highlighted a few places that reference returning to the "Basic rules"; which this would be if it were the 6th edition rules.
A little bit of time in actually reading Introductions and etc are usually much more illuminating in what a document is than going straight into the document and speculating wildly.
This either suggests that this is simply a preparatory statement instructing people on how to handle the new edition or it implies that theres an abridged and introductory version of the game that will also be available. Perhaps being that missing first 22 pages.
Either way, I doubt the community playtest is for an abridged tutorial version of the game so thats not the one that would be presented at all here.
jspyd3rx wrote:Ugh, nid Doom just got a massive buff with the way instant death works. That creature is gonna be unstoppable:(
Did you see in the Nid update that he also does 2 wounds for each point they fail leadership by now instead of 1.
At a glance tyranids just became a powerdex of immense proportions, though there is significant minutia that we haven't experienced and the ranged game of 40k is a lot more lethal now then it was with this edition.
Kommissar Kel wrote:This is not the 6th edition leaked rules.
You need look no further than the first 2 paragraphs of the "rulebook" to see this:
leaked rulebook, page 1 wrote:We recommend playing at least some games with
the basic rules to learn the core mechanics. Even
experienced gamers might want to switch back to
them when playing really apocalyptic games with
thousands of points. For this reason it is no shame
to come back to this book when you have some
games with the introductory rules under your
belt.
The rules presented here are the next step to
immerse yourself totally in the war-torn universe
of the 41st Millennium. It doesn’t matter if you
are a valiant tank commander, who vanquishes
droves of foes beneath the tracks of mighty tank
squadrons, a rising hero of many star systems,
who rallies fellow warriors of renown to its cause,
a far sighted field commander, who alters the
battlefield conditions to his favour before a single
shot is fired, or a sharpshooter, who holds the
enemy with supreme firepower at bay. This rule
set will give you the instruments to do all of this
and more.
I have highlighted a few places that reference returning to the "Basic rules"; which this would be if it were the 6th edition rules.
A little bit of time in actually reading Introductions and etc are usually much more illuminating in what a document is than going straight into the document and speculating wildly.
That is entirely possible. It is also entirely possible (especially with the level of complexity taken up a notch or two) that the basic rules that they are refering to are an introductory rulebook..perhaps something that you might find in a starter set like AoBR. Many games have a basic and full rulebook to help ease players into the rules.
The simple fact is we just don't know. So rather than dismissing it out of hand, we are discussing the implications in case it's the real deal for a 6th edition book, and not a hoax or expansion.
Kommissar Kel wrote:This is not the 6th edition leaked rules.
You need look no further than the first 2 paragraphs of the "rulebook" to see this:
I have highlighted a few places that reference returning to the "Basic rules"; which this would be if it were the 6th edition rules.
A little bit of time in actually reading Introductions and etc are usually much more illuminating in what a document is than going straight into the document and speculating wildly.
Oh, the irony. It burns.
All the time in the world reading introductions will not help you if you lack basic comprehension skills and logic. The basic rules are the same. This document leaps to the beginning of the advanced rules. It's insanely obvious.
Note that the document begins on p22. I wonder what could be in those first 21 pages? Basic rules, perhaps?
A lot of pages are missing, e.g. all background and modelling stuff. Why not also the "first steps rules" chapter? Doesn't make sense to include that in the playtester draft.
jspyd3rx wrote:Ugh, nid Doom just got a massive buff with the way instant death works. That creature is gonna be unstoppable:(
Did you see in the Nid update that he also does 2 wounds for each point they fail leadership by now instead of 1.
At a glance tyranids just became a powerdex of immense proportions, though there is significant minutia that we haven't experienced and the ranged game of 40k is a lot more lethal now then it was with this edition.
Yeah, consider that MCs will get hit with even more of those krak missiles, and the gribblies will have to endure a turn of defensive fire before assaulting. This would seem to hit Genestealers fairly hard given their 5+ save. Think this lends itself to "wave" tactics, with large cheap units absorbing the defensive fire and tying up units, with more elite units ready to charge in the following turn.
Overall it seems a net gain for Tyranids at first glance, but there are some drawbacks in the equation.
evilsponge wrote:Considering how cagy GW has gotten about internal leaks I find it hard to believe this much information got on the internet
Volumes not really a big issue, these documents would all be collected together for most playtest uses. Their fairly unhelpful individually. All it requires is that someone steal a thumb drive, really.
jspyd3rx wrote:Ugh, nid Doom just got a massive buff with the way instant death works. That creature is gonna be unstoppable:(
Did you see in the Nid update that he also does 2 wounds for each point they fail leadership by now instead of 1.
At a glance tyranids just became a powerdex of immense proportions, though there is significant minutia that we haven't experienced and the ranged game of 40k is a lot more lethal now then it was with this edition.
Yeah, consider that MCs will get hit with even more of those krak missiles, and the gribblies will have to endure a turn of defensive fire before assaulting. This would seem to hit Genestealers fairly hard given their 5+ save. Think this lends itself to "wave" tactics, with large cheap units absorbing the defensive fire and tying up units, with more elite units ready to charge in the following turn.
Overall it seems a net gain for Tyranids at first glance, but there are some drawbacks in the equation.
Yeah, but there are also things like the "Look out, Sarge!" action that will help them out as well (also, lending to the wave attacks you described). The ID and reserve changes are simply huge though, and eliminate the vast majority of what was holding Nids back.
evilsponge wrote:Considering how cagy GW has gotten about internal leaks I find it hard to believe this much information got on the internet
Volumes not really a big issue, these documents would all be collected together for most playtest uses. Their fairly unhelpful individually. All it requires is that someone steal a thumb drive, really.
man, all this has me so excited! I generally liked 4th ed over 3rd, but couldn't stand 5th ed. 5th had some really awesome improvements, but it was so marred by things like TLOS, 4+ cover saves, bad wound allocation and cheap, hard to kill vehicles everywhere. Add in kill points, terrible basic missions and horrendous codex creep and I think I maybe played 2 dozen games total. These rules can't really solve the codex creep, but holy crap do they sound promising! REALLY hope this isn't a hoax!
Maelstrom808 wrote: Yeah, but there are also things like the "Look out, Sarge!" action that will help them out as well (also, lending to the wave attacks you described). The ID and reserve changes are simply huge though, and eliminate the vast majority of what was holding Nids back.
Movement is really the big one for me. Means stuff can get in charge position after 1 turn. Ya gotta really see Trygons moving 16" every turn guaranteed to fully appreciate it.
I'm pretty sure this would start a run on Hormagaunts. Termagants won't be able to stay in front of the faster stuff without slowing it all down. Fortunately I have a metric crapton of Hormagaunts.
evilsponge wrote:Considering how cagy GW has gotten about internal leaks I find it hard to believe this much information got on the internet
Volumes not really a big issue, these documents would all be collected together for most playtest uses. Their fairly unhelpful individually. All it requires is that someone steal a thumb drive, really.
True, maybe im just suffering from terrible GW ideas-itis cause those rules look really good
Kroothawk wrote:Another thing:
Flyers is not a unit type. They remain skimmers or monstrous creatures or whatever. Only when they make the supersonic move (added in FAQ to Harpy), do they gain the special rules of being worse to be shot at etc.
"Flyer" is a unit type.
Supersonic is only an ability granted to non-flyer Skimmers that allows them to act as a Flyer.
Other vehicles such as Marauders, Nightwings, Vampires, and other Apocalypse vehicles are likely still fliers unless they release an update for that.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:In the name of God, I urge my fellow Dakka members to watch this video. Never trust GW or internet leaks!
Chill, mate. A lot of bothans died to bring us this information.
I may actually play instead of just collect expensive plastic. To save me looking, do any guard units get defensive fire, or is it just strategem? I like the idea of deepstriking loads of stormtroopers, now, amongst all the other good shizzle.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Is there any indication of what rating the Valkyrie/Vendetta have regarding 'multi-targetting' or is their application of the Gunship rule pointess?
All Skimmers have an innate "Multi-Targeting (1)" for simply being a skimmer.
MasterSlowPoke wrote:
Absolutionis wrote:]"Flyer" is a unit type.
"‘Flyer’ is not a unit type. Instead, every unit that conducts a supersonic move becomes subject to the flyer special rule until its next turn." p126
Flyer is also not on the list of unit types.
Pardon me then. It's a movement special rule (pg54) akin to "fast" and "lumbering".
How this interacts with Imperial Armor units is up in the air.
I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:If this is real, I think it is great that they are shaking things up a bit, and introducing new rules/changing ones that have persisted a long time. Certainly it would be great to have a game where it's harder to hit an infantryman running behind some bushes 60" away than the broad side of a parked land raider 3" away!
But I'm not sure if it's real or not, so I won't go around hypothesizing which units have gone up or down just yet.
This is the thing, I think people's joy at being able to experience a new system is making them blind to the massive white elephants (several of them) standing in the room, trumpeting in their faces.
It's like everyone has simply forgotten the previous fake Nid and BA codecies, which produced a similar poo-storm. That this could well be the work of a scurrilous individual with too much time on their hands cannot be overlooked.
Personally, I think the redesign is far too radical for a company that has become increasingly conservative with it's rules updates. Each edition since 2nd, and this is the same with WFB, has changed the rules in smaller and smaller increments. And then we get something like this altering something as fundamental as the BS value to hit (which has existed with GW since the beginning)? I'm sorry but I don't buy it.
Good point. The rules changes in this 'leak' would require at least a reprinting of every codex, or army lists in the big book. That would be a massive change of policy. I think it would be great if the game was redesigned and all the books set at a rebalanced level - but it seems like a long shot. I am leaning more and more to this being fake.
This is where the codex updates in a separate PDF come in.
I agree that the new ruleset is too radical. It changes not only BS but also the dynamics of the game which seems to make up for a totally new game.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Is there any indication of what rating the Valkyrie/Vendetta have regarding 'multi-targetting' or is their application of the Gunship rule pointess?
MT1 by virtue of being fast skimmers, so that gives you six shooting actions if you are stationary, one if not.
Andrew1975 wrote:Anybody think GW did this on purpose just to keep people form posting on boards about failcast for a couple of days?
No, that's silly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maelstrom808 wrote:
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Is there any indication of what rating the Valkyrie/Vendetta have regarding 'multi-targetting' or is their application of the Gunship rule pointess?
MT1 by virtue of being fast skimmers, so that gives you six shooting actions if you are stationary, one if not.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Is there any indication of what rating the Valkyrie/Vendetta have regarding 'multi-targetting' or is their application of the Gunship rule pointess?
MT1 by virtue of being fast skimmers, so that gives you six shooting actions if you are stationary, one if not.
Aren't they fast, so would gain that if they go combat speed as well?
I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:If this is real, I think it is great that they are shaking things up a bit, and introducing new rules/changing ones that have persisted a long time. Certainly it would be great to have a game where it's harder to hit an infantryman running behind some bushes 60" away than the broad side of a parked land raider 3" away!
But I'm not sure if it's real or not, so I won't go around hypothesizing which units have gone up or down just yet.
This is the thing, I think people's joy at being able to experience a new system is making them blind to the massive white elephants (several of them) standing in the room, trumpeting in their faces.
It's like everyone has simply forgotten the previous fake Nid and BA codecies, which produced a similar poo-storm. That this could well be the work of a scurrilous individual with too much time on their hands cannot be overlooked.
Personally, I think the redesign is far too radical for a company that has become increasingly conservative with it's rules updates. Each edition since 2nd, and this is the same with WFB, has changed the rules in smaller and smaller increments. And then we get something like this altering something as fundamental as the BS value to hit (which has existed with GW since the beginning)? I'm sorry but I don't buy it.
Good point. The rules changes in this 'leak' would require at least a reprinting of every codex, or army lists in the big book. That would be a massive change of policy. I think it would be great if the game was redesigned and all the books set at a rebalanced level - but it seems like a long shot. I am leaning more and more to this being fake.
This is where the codex updates in a separate PDF come in.
I agree that the new ruleset is too radical. It changes not only BS but also the dynamics of the game which seems to make up for a totally new game.
Well 1) the game needs changes on this level imo, and 2) the last edition of fantasy apparently had changes on a similar scale.
The odds that a random fan could completely redevelop the game AND end up with something that appears this well thought-out and balanced are next to nothing.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Is there any indication of what rating the Valkyrie/Vendetta have regarding 'multi-targetting' or is their application of the Gunship rule pointess?
MT1 by virtue of being fast skimmers, so that gives you six shooting actions if you are stationary, one if not.
Aren't they fast, so would gain that if they go combat speed as well?
Rented Tritium wrote:The odds that a random fan could completely redevelop the game AND end up with something that appears this well thought-out and balanced are next to nothing.
I was considering doing it, but the time investment would be extreme and I don't want to be a nerd.
3. You can't fire the same gun multiple times. But you can spend1 MT to split fire and blow up 3 tanks.
How are fixed weapons ruled? Would it actually be capable of that or would they all have to be in a line?
I haven't looked at weapon mounts yet, but with the current 45 degrees for a hull mount, and a standoff range of up to 48", you should still be able to get three tanks in most cases if you have LOS.
Games Workshop has hired a new writer name John Rigid, whose first act was to invent a new save named after himself, in keeping with the precedent set by Mat Ward in the current Fantasy book.
Andrew1975 wrote:Anybody think GW did this on purpose just to keep people form posting on boards about failcast for a couple of days?
Honestly, I've seen company's do this before. They put out a "hoax" knowing that people are going to get it, try it and talk about it. It gives them a way to play test it before actually paying people, or distributing it to gaming groups. Real or not, some of the changes seem to benefit the game. The playability and speed factor are the things that concern me on a new edition. I can see some of the changes, but why try and reinvent the wheel?
If they leaked it themselves, they wouldn't sell any real rulebooks. We would all just update our 90% complete "playtest" copies when the real one came out.
Leaking on purpose would be a horrible business move.
Rented Tritium wrote:If they leaked it themselves, they wouldn't sell any real rulebooks. We would all just update our 90% complete "playtest" copies when the real one came out.
Leaking on purpose would be a horrible business move.
Ahh, yes, because pdf copies on the internet have completely stopped the sale of paper codexes and rulebooks in the past.
Rented Tritium wrote:If they leaked it themselves, they wouldn't sell any real rulebooks. We would all just update our 90% complete "playtest" copies when the real one came out.
Leaking on purpose would be a horrible business move.
If the edition has problems or plays poorly it also severely damages expectations for the update.
Rented Tritium wrote:If they leaked it themselves, they wouldn't sell any real rulebooks. We would all just update our 90% complete "playtest" copies when the real one came out.
Leaking on purpose would be a horrible business move.
Ahh, yes, because pdf copies on the internet have completely stopped the sale of paper codexes and rulebooks in the past.
Crappy scanned pdf copies are not freely distributed in rumor mills.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:If they leaked it themselves, they wouldn't sell any real rulebooks. We would all just update our 90% complete "playtest" copies when the real one came out.
Leaking on purpose would be a horrible business move.
If the edition has problems or plays poorly it also severely damages expectations for the update.
I'm reminded of Giant Solifuge in MTG. Several playtest cards from a set were leaked in very powerful forms and ended up getting printed weaker. It severely damaged player perception of the set.
Vertrucio wrote:Name one company that's done this before.
The facts are that very, very few companies ever leak their own stuff deliberately.
It almost never happens. People like to say it happens to sound cool and justify the leak, but companies do not leak their own stuff regularly.
Why? Because this is money. It's also a complete loss of control over a product and brand image.
If a company really wanted to do testing before a release, they'd go out and test it, not that difficult to do.
I can sense your condescending tone right from the get go. After spending the majority of my life playing RPG's, 30+ years now, and being retired from federal service, I can say without a doubt I've seen this before. It happens daily in the government realm, in technology (which I work in) and when I owned my hobby store. I have all the books I need on PDF, and have them in hard copy as well.
All I was saying is that it's entirely possible. Again, my opinion, not a fact.
I'm not getting too worked up about this... I'm fairly comfortable in what I'm about to say.
Last may, there was a rumor that the person directly responsible for 6th's re-write has since left the company and that the design had been complete for a long time. There was also a rumor about that time that states the the original design for 6th was more radical that the uppers at GW were comfortable with (hence, why the designer might have wanted to leave the company). That original design would have since been trimmed to be more in line with what we are currently playing.
I think that points to Alessio Cavatore as the original author. This might be a leak of his original work. It explains some of the weird word choice (Cavatore is not a native English speaker), as well as the large departure from 'Standard' 40k. (Didn't he make large changes to Fantasy when he was involved with the re-write of those rules?) It also explains the completeness, since this was document would have been in a form that could have been play-tested.
Anpu-adom wrote:Last may, there was a rumor that the person directly responsible for 6th's re-write has since left the company. There was also a rumor about that time that states the the original design for 6th was more radical that the uppers at GW were comfortable with (hence, why the designer might have wanted to leave the company).
Anpu-adom wrote:I'm not getting too worked up about this... I'm fairly comfortable in what I'm about to say.
Last may, there was a rumor that the person directly responsible for 6th's re-write has since left the company and that the design had been complete for a long time. There was also a rumor about that time that states the the original design for 6th was more radical that the uppers at GW were comfortable with (hence, why the designer might have wanted to leave the company). That original design would have since been trimmed to be more in line with what we are currently playing.
I think that points to Alessio Cavatore as the original author. This might be a leak of his original work. It explains some of the weird word choice (Cavatore is not a native English speaker), as well as the large departure from 'Standard' 40k. (Didn't he make large changes to Fantasy when he was involved with the re-write of those rules?) It also explains the completeness, since this was document would have been in a form that could have been play-tested.
It does have a bit of a similar feel to his work for mantic, if you took it to the opposite end of the complexity spectrum.
Anpu-adom wrote:I'm not getting too worked up about this... I'm fairly comfortable in what I'm about to say.
Last may, there was a rumor that the person directly responsible for 6th's re-write has since left the company. There was also a rumor about that time that states the the original design for 6th was more radical that the uppers at GW were comfortable with (hence, why the designer might have wanted to leave the company).
I think that points to Alessio Cavatore as the original author. This might be a leak of his original work. It explains some of the weird word choice (Cavatore is not a native English speaker), as well as the large departure from 'Standard' 40k. (Didn't he make large changes to Fantasy when he was involved with the re-write of those rules?" It also explains the completeness, since this was document would have been in a form that could have been play-tested.
This is interesting as warpath uses a very similar squad leader rule. However Cavatore usually simplifies rules, this is obviously more complex, but it also seams more comprehensive. Well until the rules lawyers get ahold of it.
Even though I have not read them, these rules are complete bull, because, put simply, too many people on this thread think they're good.
Wake up and smell the plastic glue dakka, cos not a week goes by without this site falling out over powerful codexes (a grey knight discussion went on for 40+ pages) and somebody moaning about something.
Most importantly, since when did GW write good rules? Tell me? Talk to me!!!
Rare are the instances when people on this site agree about something and rarer still are the instances of people agreeing on a job well done by GW. This has smokescreen written all over it. And yet, people with good sense and wisdom are being seduced. Even a cynic like H.M.B.C (who's views are insightful) is buying it.
As sure as i have a hole in my rear, these rules are fake and you can quote me on that!!
In other words, it's one big s*** sandwich and people have had a bite and are coming back for more.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Even though I have not read them, these rules are complete bull, because, put simply, too many people on this thread think they're good.
Wake up and smell the plastic glue dakka, cos not a week goes by without this site falling out over powerful codexes (a grey knight discussion went on for 40+ pages) and somebody moaning about something.
Most importantly, since when did GW write good rules? Tell me? Talk to me!!!
Rare are the instances when people on this site agree about something and rarer still are the instances of people agreeing on a job well done by GW. This has smokescreen written all over it. And yet, people with good sense and wisdom are being seduced. Even a cynic like H.M.B.C (who's views are insightful) is buying it.
As sure as i have a hole in my rear, these rules are fake and you can quote me on that!!
In other words, it's one big s*** sandwich and people have had a bite and are coming back for more.
Anpu-adom wrote:I think that points to Alessio Cavatore as the original author. This might be a leak of his original work. It explains some of the weird word choice (Cavatore is not a native English speaker), as well as the large departure from 'Standard' 40k. (Didn't he make large changes to Fantasy when he was involved with the re-write of those rules?" It also explains the completeness, since this was document would have been in a form that could have been play-tested.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Even though I have not read them, these rules are complete bull, because, put simply, too many people on this thread think they're good.
Oh Dakka. Never change.
I'm just kidding, dakka please stop having stuff like this on your site.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
warpcrafter wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:While not a "company" the US has on occasion drawn our attentions away from more pressing issues by various methods....Just saying.
I'm facepalming so hard I think it's going to give me brain damage.
Leave Shuma alone, he doesn't have much of a brain to begin with!
My time in off topic has already caused me to shatter my skull with facepalms several times. This site is going to get me killed. (keep quiet about this though, last time I pointed out someone trolling the person in question banned me and threatened to do it for two more months if I talked back!)
Automatically Appended Next Post: The new ID rulings mean that EW isn't required just to avoid hidden fists. This is a nice change since the chapter I play isn't blessed with unkillable godmen.
So I'm going second in an annihilation mission, I can reserve my whole army, guarantee that nothing shows up until the bottom of 'Game Cycle' 4, and that it all shows up together, and proceed to give my opponent a mere two turns to do any damage (while I get three).
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Even though I have not read them,
Let me go ahead and stop you right there. Can you tell me where you went wrong?
I"m really digging these new rules, and it is actually getting me excited for 40k again. Therefore, these rules are fake then. These are just too good for them to be real.
Redbeard wrote:I like the reserve rules presented here.
So I'm going second in an annihilation mission, I can reserve my whole army, guarantee that nothing shows up until the bottom of 'Game Cycle' 4, and that it all shows up together, and proceed to give my opponent a mere two turns to do any damage (while I get three).
Said it was Dawn of War... meaning that you start with 2 troops and a HQ on the board. Do you think you'll still be alive to see turn 4?
ShatteredBlade wrote: I"m really digging these new rules, and it is actually getting me excited for 40k again. Therefore, these rules are fake then. These are just too good for them to be real.
I think you may be confusing new and different with good. It is a little bit early to say that they are good or bad. There are a ton of interactions here that could cause some dramatic imbalance or a new era of balance.
Redbeard wrote:I like the reserve rules presented here.
So I'm going second in an annihilation mission, I can reserve my whole army, guarantee that nothing shows up until the bottom of 'Game Cycle' 4, and that it all shows up together, and proceed to give my opponent a mere two turns to do any damage (while I get three).
Said it was Dawn of War... meaning that you start with 2 troops and a HQ on the board. Do you think you'll still be alive to see turn 4?
Assuming Dawn of War still exists, deploying an HQ and 2 troops is the maximum you can start on the board. It is not mandatory to start them on the board, however. You are perfectly fine putting everything in reserve.
That would be an awesome move and sweet revenge by some pissed of designer that got fired. I'll leak my much better written rules just as GW is getting ready to release their new garbage edition.
I predict it now, the release of 6th gets pushed back as GW does some retooling ie gaks itslef and has to rewrite the entire new edition because it sucks compared to this!
Oh and there will be a price hike to recuperate all the lost resources put into the sad 6th that they were going to release.
Anpu-adom wrote:I'm not getting too worked up about this... I'm fairly comfortable in what I'm about to say.
Last may, there was a rumor that the person directly responsible for 6th's re-write has since left the company and that the design had been complete for a long time. There was also a rumor about that time that states the the original design for 6th was more radical that the uppers at GW were comfortable with (hence, why the designer might have wanted to leave the company). That original design would have since been trimmed to be more in line with what we are currently playing.
I think that points to Alessio Cavatore as the original author. This might be a leak of his original work. It explains some of the weird word choice (Cavatore is not a native English speaker), as well as the large departure from 'Standard' 40k. (Didn't he make large changes to Fantasy when he was involved with the re-write of those rules?) It also explains the completeness, since this was document would have been in a form that could have been play-tested.
Actually, I believe the rumor was the reverse -- that Alessio was a proponent of more streamlined rulesets, and that his departure opened up the possibility for more changes to the system.
Edit: So what's a "Zeal Bolt Pistol"? See page 96. A BT weapon?
Anpu-adom wrote:Last may, there was a rumor that the person directly responsible for 6th's re-write has since left the company. There was also a rumor about that time that states the the original design for 6th was more radical that the uppers at GW were comfortable with (hence, why the designer might have wanted to leave the company).
Wasn't this the story at the beginning of 4th?
This "rumor" is most likely the bastard child of tales that kept circulating around the time Andy Chambers left the company, about him wanting to push the game mechanics in an even more extreme direction compared to what 3rd edition brought. Supposedly the Starship Troopers rules set was close to what he wanted to do with 40k.
Also, as gorgon pointed out, Cavatore was a big streamlining proponent. This doesn't read like something he could write.
Redbeard wrote:I like the reserve rules presented here.
So I'm going second in an annihilation mission, I can reserve my whole army, guarantee that nothing shows up until the bottom of 'Game Cycle' 4, and that it all shows up together, and proceed to give my opponent a mere two turns to do any damage (while I get three).
Said it was Dawn of War... meaning that you start with 2 troops and a HQ on the board. Do you think you'll still be alive to see turn 4?
Dawn of war no longer exists as it does in fifth. It is a totally different scenario. Objectives are also handled differently in the edition. You have to be on an objective from the beginning of the turn to claim it, so an army coming on turn 4 is going to have major issues displacing one that has taken all this time to become entrenched. There is no random game length, it's always six, so you're only chance would be to move onto everything turn five and weather the storm until the end of six.
Confirms that the main developer left when his rules weren't approved (Alessio I assume, therefore the non-native-English bits).
BTW, if the rules content is true, maybe also this part of the leak at that time
As I am done with GW forever. I love the miniatures, I like the new rules (been pretty enthusiastic about it), but I hate the company, that makes them. If you knew what I know you would feel the same. GW doesn’t care for their customers one bit. The whole corporal culture is cynical as hell. The managers despise the hobby and all immatures who play it. There is a huge rift in the management and most of the executives that actually play the game have left or are leaving the company right now.
Confirms that the main developer left when his rules weren't approved (Alessio I assume, therefore the non-native-English bits).
BTW, if the rules content is true, maybe also this part of the leak at that time
As I am done with GW forever. I love the miniatures, I like the new rules (been pretty enthusiastic about it), but I hate the company, that makes them. If you knew what I know you would feel the same. GW doesn’t care for their customers one bit. The whole corporal culture is cynical as hell. The managers despise the hobby and all immatures who play it. There is a huge rift in the management and most of the executives that actually play the game have left or are leaving the company right now.
If this is what we are getting in 6th edition, I say go ahead and publish this now. The rules seem be better thought out and fixes a few of the problems i had with 5th.
I'm not sure how everyone is thinking that Wound Allocation shenanigans are over. Sure, Paladins and Nobz are all one "armour group" now, but the damage rules no longer tell you to remove whole models when dealing with units of multiple wound models.
So 5 failed saves on 5 Paladins is still 1 wound on each, not two and half dead (well, it's up to the controlling player).
*Assuming all of this is indicative of the final product in 6th ed.
Andrew1975 wrote:
I predict it now, the release of 6th gets pushed back as GW does some retooling ie gaks itslef and has to rewrite the entire new edition because it sucks compared to this!
Oh and there will be a price hike to recuperate all the lost resources put into the sad 6th that they were going to release.
I'm calling this one.
Is GW -that- keen on losing player base to Warmachine, Infinity...hell, even paper-rock-scissors? If so, they might want to see if their board members are buying stock in rival companies....
Their horrible player relations and obsession with being tight-lipped is a big factor in why the gamer base is so damn anxious.
Xca|iber wrote:I'm not sure how everyone is thinking that Wound Allocation shenanigans are over. Sure, Paladins and Nobz are all one "armour group" now, but the damage rules no longer tell you to remove whole models when dealing with units of multiple wound models.
So 5 failed saves on 5 Paladins is still 1 wound on each, not two and half dead (well, it's up to the controlling player).
*Assuming all of this is indicative of the final product in 6th ed.
Theres a part in there that say all wounds on models have to stacked onto single models at the end of the turn, so that only 1 model is left at best with wounds on it. So during your turn you have 5 with 1 wound, but in the end 2 still die and you have 2 left unwounded and 1 with 1 wound.
Xca|iber wrote:I'm not sure how everyone is thinking that Wound Allocation shenanigans are over. Sure, Paladins and Nobz are all one "armour group" now, but the damage rules no longer tell you to remove whole models when dealing with units of multiple wound models.
So 5 failed saves on 5 Paladins is still 1 wound on each, not two and half dead (well, it's up to the controlling player).
*Assuming all of this is indicative of the final product in 6th ed.
Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but you should read the "Patch Up" rules.
The annoying thing is, even though I don't know whether this is real or not, I'm going to be assuming it is and planning for it being true - damn you internet!
Xca|iber wrote:I'm not sure how everyone is thinking that Wound Allocation shenanigans are over. Sure, Paladins and Nobz are all one "armour group" now, but the damage rules no longer tell you to remove whole models when dealing with units of multiple wound models.
So 5 failed saves on 5 Paladins is still 1 wound on each, not two and half dead (well, it's up to the controlling player).
*Assuming all of this is indicative of the final product in 6th ed.
Theres a part in there that say all wounds on models have to stacked onto single models at the end of the turn, so that only 1 model is left at best with wounds on it. So during your turn you have 5 with 1 wound, but in the end 2 still die and you have 2 left unwounded and 1 with 1 wound.
Patch Up, compulsory action, pg76. No more than 1 mini per unit can finish the turn with less wounds remaining than their maximum.
Confirms that the main developer left when his rules weren't approved (Alessio I assume, therefore the non-native-English bits).
BTW, if the rules content is true, maybe also this part of the leak at that time
Heh, they're calling the leaked documents an out and out fake on their site now. They have a shorter memory than you, it seems.
Kroothawk wrote:
As I am done with GW forever. I love the miniatures, I like the new rules (been pretty enthusiastic about it), but I hate the company, that makes them. If you knew what I know you would feel the same. GW doesn’t care for their customers one bit. The whole corporal culture is cynical as hell. The managers despise the hobby and all immatures who play it. There is a huge rift in the management and most of the executives that actually play the game have left or are leaving the company right now.
I'm assuming this is a quote from Alessio? I hadn't seen that before. Out of curiosity, what was the context he provided this? Was it an editorial, or at a seminar of some sort?
I find the alleged new rules promising, and as I was planning on coming back to 40k anyway, this seems a great time to do so. Now let's just hope Chaos gets some love by the time 6th edition hits the shelves.
Xca|iber wrote:I'm not sure how everyone is thinking that Wound Allocation shenanigans are over. Sure, Paladins and Nobz are all one "armour group" now, but the damage rules no longer tell you to remove whole models when dealing with units of multiple wound models.
So 5 failed saves on 5 Paladins is still 1 wound on each, not two and half dead (well, it's up to the controlling player).
*Assuming all of this is indicative of the final product in 6th ed.
Yeah, there is no part saying to remove multiply-wound models as it is now. But this could still be added.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Dawn of war no longer exists as it does in fifth. It is a totally different scenario. Objectives are also handled differently in the edition. You have to be on an objective from the beginning of the turn to claim it, so an army coming on turn 4 is going to have major issues displacing one that has taken all this time to become entrenched. There is no random game length, it's always six, so you're only chance would be to move onto everything turn five and weather the storm until the end of six.
Redbeard wrote:
So I'm going second in an annihilation mission,...
Yup, reading comprehension is strong here.
What's more, if you read the document, and not the analysis others have posted, you'll see that you also get victory points for holding an objective at the end of the game - at double rate even. Page 136.
wuestenfux wrote: Yeah, there is no part saying to remove multiply-wound models as it is now.
Except that there is.
Patch Up Compulsory Action:
"If a unit contains more than one wounded model, it must carry out a Patch Up action. Choose one model that you deem to be too badly wounded to fight on and reduce its Wounds by one, even it is consequently removed as a casualty. This wound cannot be prevented by any kind of saving throw. In return, you can choose one model whose injuries turn out to be nothing more than a scratch for a mighty warrior like this and restore a single lost Wound, up to its starting number of Wounds. Repeat this until not more than a single model remains with less than its full Wounds.
Xca|iber wrote:I'm not sure how everyone is thinking that Wound Allocation shenanigans are over. Sure, Paladins and Nobz are all one "armour group" now, but the damage rules no longer tell you to remove whole models when dealing with units of multiple wound models.
So 5 failed saves on 5 Paladins is still 1 wound on each, not two and half dead (well, it's up to the controlling player).
*Assuming all of this is indicative of the final product in 6th ed.
Theres a part in there that say all wounds on models have to stacked onto single models at the end of the turn, so that only 1 model is left at best with wounds on it. So during your turn you have 5 with 1 wound, but in the end 2 still die and you have 2 left unwounded and 1 with 1 wound.
Patch Up, compulsory action, pg76. No more than 1 mini per unit can finish the turn with less wounds remaining than their maximum.
Andrew1975 wrote:
I predict it now, the release of 6th gets pushed back as GW does some retooling ie gaks itslef and has to rewrite the entire new edition because it sucks compared to this!
Oh and there will be a price hike to recuperate all the lost resources put into the sad 6th that they were going to release.
I'm calling this one.
Is GW -that- keen on losing player base to Warmachine, Infinity...hell, even paper-rock-scissors? If so, they might want to see if their board members are buying stock in rival companies....
Their horrible player relations and obsession with being tight-lipped is a big factor in why the gamer base is so damn anxious.
Well if the rumor is true that these are rules that GW declined, then the new 6th edition may be completely different and more in line with what they have done in the past, which in players estimates has generally been shoddy work. With the release of these rules GW may have to actually go back to the drawing board and or use these rules. As GW is already ramping up to the release of 6th this would definitely put a cramp in their release schedule costing them greatly.....knowing GW they would recoup those costs with a price increase as per standard GW policy.
Xca|iber wrote:I'm not sure how everyone is thinking that Wound Allocation shenanigans are over. Sure, Paladins and Nobz are all one "armour group" now, but the damage rules no longer tell you to remove whole models when dealing with units of multiple wound models.
So 5 failed saves on 5 Paladins is still 1 wound on each, not two and half dead (well, it's up to the controlling player).
*Assuming all of this is indicative of the final product in 6th ed.
Theres a part in there that say all wounds on models have to stacked onto single models at the end of the turn, so that only 1 model is left at best with wounds on it. So during your turn you have 5 with 1 wound, but in the end 2 still die and you have 2 left unwounded and 1 with 1 wound.
Patch Up, compulsory action, pg76. No more than 1 mini per unit can finish the turn with less wounds remaining than their maximum.
Ugh, why the hell is that on a separate page?
Why are profiles and special rules separate from the army list?
I like these rules, and plan to try them out soon.
I just hope the book has a decent Table of Contents and Index. Please.
Andrew1975 wrote:With the release of these rules GW may have to actually go back to the drawing board and or use these rules.
Why would they do anything of the sort? Why not just ignore it and go with what they have? Not like GW is known for caving from internet pressure for this kind of thing.
Andrew1975 wrote:With the release of these rules GW may have to actually go back to the drawing board and or use these rules.
Why would they do anything of the sort? Why not just ignore it and go with what they have? Not like GW is known for caving from internet pressure for this kind of thing.
Because of these play as well as they read, and give a more tactical and strategic game, then i'll use these instead of yet another derivation of 3rd-5th edition 40k.
If these are fake, I'd take em, change the wording a bit, et voila, a new ruleset on the market.
Personally I think I played about a dozen 40k games last year, I've been so hopped up on fantasy that it's got my drive, I think if this ends up being the rules I dunno what to do with myself.
Cruentus wrote:Because of these play as well as they read, and give a more tactical and strategic game, then i'll use these instead of yet another derivation of 3rd-5th edition 40k.
If these are fake, I'd take em, change the wording a bit, et voila, a new ruleset on the market.
That's kind of a big if right now (play as well as read). Example someone brought up on another forum, DE. Their vehicles are impossible to hit, don't have negatives from open-topped, move crazy distances, have an invulnerable save and everything in the army charges crazy distances out of those vehicles. Good luck dealing with that.
Also, I think you fundamentally misunderstand how GW works if you think they would change their entire strategy 6 months from a release for something that was leaked on the internet based on customer interest.
Andrew1975 wrote:With the release of these rules GW may have to actually go back to the drawing board and or use these rules.
Why would they do anything of the sort? Why not just ignore it and go with what they have? Not like GW is known for caving from internet pressure for this kind of thing.
Exactly. Companies would only usually go back to the drawing board if the leak might affect the sale of the leak item. In this case I don't see that being a factor. So far (and surprising for Dakka) the response seems to be fairly positive. Even if this was an unintentional leak I think GW would be happy with what they have, I can't see any company getting upset at this. As it's been said since when have .pdf rules stopped us from buying the real deal?
Zyllos wrote:The Patch Up part, why even include that if you could consolidate it into making it where you have to remove whole models of similar armor saves?
It's functionally different. With patch-up, they can finish the combat they're in.
Also, it shuts the door on any sort of unusual combo shenanigans potentially allowing it again.
Andrew1975 wrote:With the release of these rules GW may have to actually go back to the drawing board and or use these rules.
Why would they do anything of the sort? Why not just ignore it and go with what they have? Not like GW is known for caving from internet pressure for this kind of thing.
Because now there is a better product out that is free. If GW tried to release a more conservative upgrade of 5th instead of this, I don't see them selling many rule books. With this people have seen the future and the future looks good. They can't release a minor upgrade to 5th and label it 6th as this point. It would have to be as good or better than this leaked info.
Zyllos wrote:The Patch Up part, why even include that if you could consolidate it into making it where you have to remove whole models of similar armor saves?
It allows you wound allocation over the course of the turn but not between turns. (i.e. get shot and assaulted, still being able to swing no matter what and then pulling guys at the end).
Andrew1975 wrote:With the release of these rules GW may have to actually go back to the drawing board and or use these rules.
Why would they do anything of the sort? Why not just ignore it and go with what they have? Not like GW is known for caving from internet pressure for this kind of thing.
Because now there is a better product out that is free. If GW tried to release a more conservative upgrade of 5th instead of this, I don't see them selling many rule books. With this people have seen the future and the future looks good. They can't release a minor upgrade to 5th and label it 6th as this point. It would have to be as good or better than this leaked info.
Yeah, If this ends up being a rejected early version and the new one is more conservative, I can tell you that I would personally play my pick-up games with the "alessi 6th" rules rather than the real ones until such a time as codexes start breaking them.
Confirms that the main developer left when his rules weren't approved (Alessio I assume, therefore the non-native-English bits).
Didn't Priestly leave because he wasn't allowed to something radical with a game he pretty much invented?
Kroothawk wrote:
BTW, if the rules content is true, maybe also this part of the leak at that time
As I am done with GW forever. I love the miniatures, I like the new rules (been pretty enthusiastic about it), but I hate the company, that makes them. If you knew what I know you would feel the same. GW doesn’t care for their customers one bit. The whole corporal culture is cynical as hell. The managers despise the hobby and all immatures who play it. There is a huge rift in the management and most of the executives that actually play the game have left or are leaving the company right now.
A couple of weeks ago on "What's New Today", they showed pics of what was purportedly Mark Wells' Orc army.
Cruentus wrote:Because of these play as well as they read, and give a more tactical and strategic game, then i'll use these instead of yet another derivation of 3rd-5th edition 40k.
If these are fake, I'd take em, change the wording a bit, et voila, a new ruleset on the market.
That's kind of a big if right now (play as well as read). Example someone brought up on another forum, DE. Their vehicles are impossible to hit, don't have negatives from open-topped, move crazy distances, have an invulnerable save and everything in the army charges crazy distances out of those vehicles. Good luck dealing with that.
Also, I think you fundamentally misunderstand how GW works if you think they would change their entire strategy 6 months from a release for something that was leaked on the internet based on customer interest.
Oh, I know GW wouldn't change their schedule based on the apparent goodwill generated by a ruleset that was cautiously liked by the internet.
You mean unlike the current crop of really fast, long charge distance, pretty mich ignore blown transport DE with 5+ saves and wargear to reduce shooting ranges? Defensive fire alone by the target of the charge will do a lot of damage to DE units. I don't think it'll be that easy.
But again, thats just based on reading. I'm supposed to play 40k tomorrow, so maybe we'll try this instead.
The new wound allocation thing allows you to still do it the old way during combat to take advantage of the extra models if you could indeed ignore having to remove whole models. However, it does also state that armour groups that have multi wound models need to be considered as having a number of models equal to their number of wounds. You have to allocate wounds to each model which would mean allocating two wounds to a 2 wound model. Of course, both, one or neither of these could be saved.
I've not considered all of the possibilities yet but I'm sure hoping that this doesn't mean it's possible to win a combat with, let's say, 8 x 2 wound models left and have to go down to 7 during the patch up. It probably won't work out that way but who knows - someone will work it all out.
The patch up thing is done in the consolidation phase, too so during actual combat you don't have to worry about it. Whether it's better done this way, I don't know but it's certainly killed off things like Draigo wing.
Rented Tritium wrote:Yeah, If this ends up being a rejected early version and the new one is more conservative, I can tell you that I would personally play my pick-up games with the "alessi 6th" rules rather than the real ones until such a time as codexes start breaking them.
Cruentus wrote:You mean unlike the current crop of really fast, long charge distance, pretty mich ignore blown transport DE with 5+ saves and wargear to reduce shooting ranges?
Right, but now worse because it is really hard to even blow up their transports.
Rented Tritium wrote:Yeah, If this ends up being a rejected early version and the new one is more conservative, I can tell you that I would personally play my pick-up games with the "alessi 6th" rules rather than the real ones until such a time as codexes start breaking them.
Ahh the ol' "I'll move to Canada if..."
Good times.
playing with an alternate rules-set is not "moving to canada".
Zyllos wrote:The Patch Up part, why even include that if you could consolidate it into making it where you have to remove whole models of similar armor saves?
ColdSadHungry wrote:The new wound allocation thing allows you to still do it the old way during combat to take advantage of the extra models if you could indeed ignore having to remove whole models. However, it does also state that armour groups that have multi wound models need to be considered as having a number of models equal to their number of wounds. You have to allocate wounds to each model which would mean allocating two wounds to a 2 wound model. Of course, both, one or neither of these could be saved.
I've not considered all of the possibilities yet but I'm sure hoping that this doesn't mean it's possible to win a combat with, let's say, 8 x 2 wound models left and have to go down to 7 during the patch up. It probably won't work out that way but who knows - someone will work it all out.
The patch up thing is done in the consolidation phase, too so during actual combat you don't have to worry about it. Whether it's better done this way, I don't know but it's certainly killed off things like Draigo wing.
Slightly important to note that if the opponent is able to act and say... defensive fire a squad of paladins that just teleported onto the field, they have a slight advantage of being able to possible still be as effective come shooting time due to the wound consolidation happening at the end of the turn (due to patch up).
pretre wrote:That's kind of a big if right now (play as well as read). Example someone brought up on another forum, DE. Their vehicles are impossible to hit, don't have negatives from open-topped, move crazy distances, have an invulnerable save and everything in the army charges crazy distances out of those vehicles. Good luck dealing with that. ...
Well, open-topped does have a few disadvantages. One, template weapons not only hits the vehicle (Heavy Flamers can still Pin DE Raiders) but does d3 hits to the unit inside. Second, they do not gain the -1 to Vehicle Damage Roll for being a Tank (this will include the 3 Dark Lance DE vehicle). And Three, the Hull Breach rule makes low AV targets, or DE vehicles, extremely vulnerable to multiple hits, if they can hit (unless you keep rolling ones all day).
Rented Tritium wrote:playing with an alternate rules-set is not "moving to canada".
Quitting the game is moving to canada.
If you're playing with an alternate rule-set, you're not playing the game, now are you. So one could say that, since you no longer play the game, you quit.
So yeah, 6 months from now when all the folks who loudly proclaimed they would switch to this system if GW releases something else sheepishly go about playing their 6th Ed games as GW released them, my 'Moving to Canada' will be particularly appropriate just like the folks who never did get around to becoming expatriates.
Rented Tritium wrote:playing with an alternate rules-set is not "moving to canada".
Quitting the game is moving to canada.
If you're playing with an alternate rule-set, you're not playing the game, now are you. So one could say that, since you no longer play the game, you quit.
So yeah, 6 months from now when all the folks who loudly proclaimed they would switch to this system if GW releases something else sheepishly go about playing their 6th Ed games as GW released them, my 'Moving to Canada' will be particularly appropriate just like the folks who never did get around to becoming expatriates.
You are aware that there are threads on this very forum devoted to alternate codexes and rule sets that people are actually playing with.
You are aware that house rules exist currently which change basic components of the game.
Are those people not playing the game anymore?
Also, seriously, you are comparing playing with a different version of the main rulebook in a game about toy soldiers to picking up and moving one's self and all possessions to a different country. The difference in difficulty alone makes that a ridiculous comparison.
Yes, I am aware that people play old versions of the game and use fandexes, etc so on. They are largely in the minority when you look at the whole gaming populace. As a fandex player, it is unlikely that I can just walk into a store on a saturday or go to a RTT or a GT and play a game with my dex. The same will be true if I am a 2nd ed player or something similar. Anyways...
Rented Tritium wrote:Also, seriously, you are comparing playing with a different version of the main rulebook in a game about toy soldiers to picking up and moving one's self and all possessions to a different country. The difference in difficulty alone makes that a ridiculous comparison.
I'm comparing people who talk big about walking away from something and don't to people who talked big about walking away from something and didn't (folks who said they would move to Canada if X got elected). It's a silly shorthand for people who are all talk and no action. Apparently, that did not come across. Hopefully it has now.
pretre wrote:Yes, I am aware that people play old versions of the game and use fandexes, etc so on. They are largely in the minority when you look at the whole gaming populace. As a fandex player, it is unlikely that I can just walk into a store on a saturday or go to a RTT or a GT and play a game with my dex. The same will be true if I am a 2nd ed player or something similar. Anyways...
Rented Tritium wrote:Also, seriously, you are comparing playing with a different version of the main rulebook in a game about toy soldiers to picking up and moving one's self and all possessions to a different country. The difference in difficulty alone makes that a ridiculous comparison.
I'm comparing people who talk big about walking away from something and don't to people who talked big about walking away from something and didn't (folks who said they would move to Canada if X got elected). It's a silly shorthand for people who are all talk and no action. Apparently, that did not come across. Hopefully it has now.
Oh, so it was just a personal attack, then. Gotcha.
pretre wrote:Yes, I am aware that people play old versions of the game and use fandexes, etc so on. They are largely in the minority when you look at the whole gaming populace. As a fandex player, it is unlikely that I can just walk into a store on a saturday or go to a RTT or a GT and play a game with my dex. The same will be true if I am a 2nd ed player or something similar. Anyways...
Why? Does your FLGS say that you're not allowed to play with fandexes with friends or something?
That's not very friendly of them, man.
I'm comparing people who talk big about walking away from something and don't to people who talked big about walking away from something and didn't (folks who said they would move to Canada if X got elected). It's a silly shorthand for people who are all talk and no action. Apparently, that did not come across. Hopefully it has now.
Are you saying, then, that he won't use these rules if the real ones turn out to be different and not to his liking?
This is like that time people got mad at Horse E-books.
Are you saying, then, that he won't use these rules if the real ones turn out to be different and not to his liking?
It seems realistic that it was a bluff and that he wouldn't do that. That's just personal observation of how this community by in large likes to act though. Sound and fury signifying nothing.
Mantle wrote:If this whole BS versus evasion thing is real then Dark Eldar are going to be the most broken and overpowered army ever, and all my raiders will be useless because I wont have to be scared of my unit getting shot at anymore.
Although I havent downloaded and read it so this is going on what I have gathered from this thread.
Why? Base evasion for EVERYTHING is 3. Units with the massive rule get -1, stationary units get -1, moving units with jink get +1, swarms get +1, units that have moved supersonic (So units that have the flyer rules for the turn) always have 6
ahh see, I'd have known that if I downloaded it , that makes things seem a lot better actually! I was expecting there to be a set evasion for certain units or armies etc.
.
Ya gotta really see Trygons moving 16" every turn guaranteed to fully appreciate it.
, that makes things seem a lot better actually!