As expected. Hopefully the change from pancake edition to 6th edition will eliminate the more overt balance issues (outflankers, reserves in general, units with 22" charges ignoring difficult terrain) while still constituting an interesting switchup from 5th-- 5+ cover, Patch Up, Directed Hits, and the tank/melta changes alone should go a long way towards resolving issues with the game.

Isnt the main issue with reserves centered soley around the 'free' 6 inches they recieve when coming on the board?

In that case, wouldnt you just change it so they must declare their move on the board just like disembarking from an access point? AKA, you measure from the edge of the board, and declare your movement type. So genestealers have a 16 inch charge range, not a 22 inch range.

As for terrain, I agree that charging into/through terrain should have more of a penalty than providing the defending unit an alpha strike. In general, I feel that in lieu of striking in close combat with an alpha strike, units should have the option to shoot via defensive fire against units that made a charge move into a unit that is alpha strikings while moving through terrain.

Just got a chance to play the leaked rules. vanilla marines vs. chaos. it was the most thought provoking game of 40k in a very long time. all : in all i REALLY like the direction these rules take the game. I only hope that gw will keep the essence of play that this leak has taken us.

BEASTSOFWAR wrote:

ph34r wrote:That BoW article has basically zero substance.

What additional detail were you looking for?

Well, you literally just posted a whole ton of things we already knew and/or suspected. In fact the only "concrete" detail you have is that the phases will not switch order.

Legit everything else just sounds like educated guesswork:
EV is out: Then you say in extremely vague words how things the EV did before would remain the case.
No Unit by Unit Activation: we knew this
Garg Creatures/Titans to remain not standard: we knew this
Who is writing this: You say nothing on this
Will you need an update to the codex: we already knew this

What I find most interesting about the Pancake edition is that, aside from general formatting issues (and I know from attempting to create my own game how difficult those are to fix in the early stages) it reads a whole lot like the Fantasy rulebooks- with deliberate language, specific exceptions, and terminology standing in for vague, mis-interpretable fluff rules.

Very happy to see the dropping of evasion, it was a stupid stat that did literally the exact same thing as a BS modifer except required a ridiculous chart and value comparison. Also, having vehicles be hit on 2's by most armies isn't something really that we needed.

Vaktathi wrote:Very happy to see the dropping of evasion, it was a stupid stat that did literally the exact same thing as a BS modifer except required a ridiculous chart and value comparison.

My assumption when I saw it was that it was meant as a bridge to 7th edition - that we'd be seeing it get phased in to the stat line. It makes perfect sense that they'd do it the way that they did if it was the intent to expand on it in future rules.

Posit wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:Very happy to see the dropping of evasion, it was a stupid stat that did literally the exact same thing as a BS modifer except required a ridiculous chart and value comparison.

My assumption when I saw it was that it was meant as a bridge to 7th edition - that we'd be seeing it get phased in to the stat line. It makes perfect sense that they'd do it the way that they did if it was the intent to expand on it in future rules.

Eh, that assumes that they're thinking that far ahead (which, as we've seen with 3rd/4th/5th edition, likely isn't the case) and it's still rather unnecessary as they describe exactly how to use it as a BS modifier in the rules text. It's not like BS modifiers are hard and introducing a stat that would need to be changed/removed again in the next edition seems rather silly.

It's not actually a stat. For the most part the EV modifiers function just like a direct BS modifier, and the chart is only really needed for special cases (like flyers)

Not even sure this is accurate but hopefully this will help people out http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/leaked40k-heretics-rulebook-real/

Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:Not even sure this is accurate but hopefully this will help people out http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/leaked40k-heretics-rulebook-real/

I refer you to AresX8's post with the link on the previous page, the further post by Kroothawk with the text from the article (also on the previous page), and multiple posts on this page discussing said article.

Dysartes wrote:

Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:Not even sure this is accurate but hopefully this will help people out http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/leaked40k-heretics-rulebook-real/

I refer you to AresX8's post with the link on the previous page, the further post by Kroothawk with the text from the article (also on the previous page), and multiple posts on this page discussing said article.

Come now, everyone knows you only ever read the 1st page and just post anything you like

Earthbeard wrote:

Dysartes wrote:

Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:Not even sure this is accurate but hopefully this will help people out http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/leaked40k-heretics-rulebook-real/

I refer you to AresX8's post with the link on the previous page, the further post by Kroothawk with the text from the article (also on the previous page), and multiple posts on this page discussing said article.

Come now, everyone knows you only ever read the 1st page and just post anything you like

yeah sorry mates, 100 pages? too long for me too keep up just posting what i could when i could.

Earthbeard wrote:Come now, everyone knows you only ever read the 1st page and just post anything you like

The whole 1st page???? Are you kidding

Fetterkey wrote:As expected. Hopefully the change from pancake edition to 6th edition will eliminate the more overt balance issues (outflankers, reserves in general, units with 22" charges ignoring difficult terrain) while still constituting an interesting switchup from 5th-- 5+ cover, Patch Up, Directed Hits, and the tank/melta changes alone should go a long way towards resolving issues with the game.

The reserve rules are some of the best pieces of pancake. It is just so much more tactical than it used to be.

So they removed the funnier and intelligent parts of the edition!!
FICK JA! Guess it's more friendly to their 8 years old
space marine fan base now.
And suits their twisted marketing devoted mind.

I'm kinda curious what the real rulebook will be, but until then I will resume my feth GW attitiute.

Keeping it Move > Shoot > Assault is good though.

Stops it crippling every list that relies on BOTH shooting and melee to survive.

Ovion wrote:Keeping it Move > Shoot > Assault is good though.

Stops it crippling every list that relies on BOTH shooting and melee to survive.

Time and a place? Getting to do both each turn could be argued as too much flexibility. Having to choose between them would present it's own tactics.

My Coven relies on softening units with shooting then tying them up with my frankly small assault squads. I wouldn't be able to fit my army into my transports otherwise.

My coven would be restricted to a Webway Portal list, Foot list, or having to dedicate 3-4 units where previously 1 would be sufficent.

There's lists of this type for most armies, and changing it to a turn format where you're either defined as Assaulting or Shooting and little in between is kinda bleh.

Fetterkey wrote:As expected. Hopefully the change from pancake edition to 6th edition will eliminate the more overt balance issues (the virtual loss of cover saves for infantry, invulnerable tanks, Defensive Fire, missile spam getting even better) while still constituting an interesting switchup from 5th-- no random movement, the way you cannot claim objectives inside transports, Patch Up, and the new reserve rules alone, should go a long way towards resolving issues with the game.

I agree.

Ovion wrote:My Coven relies on softening units with shooting then tying them up with my frankly small assault squads. I wouldn't be able to fit my army into my transports otherwise.

My coven would be restricted to a Webway Portal list, Foot list, or having to dedicate 3-4 units where previously 1 would be sufficent.

There's lists of this type for most armies, and changing it to a turn format where you're either defined as Assaulting or Shooting and little in between is kinda bleh.

My army also often relies on pre-assault softening (DeffWing), but it can make things rather straight-forward - drive forward, get out, dakka, charge.

Along with Engage letting me shoot at a different target if I finish off the unit I assaulted (usually quite common) I also have to choose between sitting back and flying at the enemy. Yes it will make my army more challenging, but I don't mind that.

Also, if you think you're unhappy with it; what about GKs?

Dont you think that it helps balance the game a bit? If a whole armies worth of units gets to Shoot and Assault, you have basically no chance to retaliate (minus assault attacks).

It seems to me the game becomes MORE balanced and tactical when you have to choose one or the other. You still get bonus shooting if you manage to tear through a unit. As it stands now, Dedicated assault units are uneffected by this change, as are Shoot only units. Its just the hybrids that are effected. And they could use some toning down.



GKs will be just fine. They take a few hits in the leak (Force Weapons, Assault/Shoot, Psychic Counter), but they gain more attacks in close combat, ability to counter more psychic powers, Relentless transported psycannons, Multi-targeting Psyflemen, ranged Incinerators, incinerators in CC. I think they would be ok.

The assault then shoot mechanic in the pancake edition just seems right. Most assaults are one sided anyway where your deathstar or hammer wipes away an asymmetrical inferior. Being able to follow it up with shooting was strong. I was terrified at the prospect of a large paladin unit wiping out two units a turn instead of one (charge - clearing something then psycannon/stormbolter dakka at something else). Other big cc units could do the same thing. It also gave a reason for certain choices, for instance I play necrons and would actually pay points for my wraiths to have pistols in order to plink off a shot or two after they massacre their initial targets.

By sticking it back into the 5th mechanic it switches it to favoring msu chargers who rely on a few extra shots to make up for their lesser ability. I guess its ok, just seems bland. I am hoping for a nice shake up this edition not just some wallpaper. At the very least the deployment rules are the best part of this edition, being able to charge after deepstrike makes the Daemons instantly a strong army, but not broken.

But if they keep Deep Strike+Assault, then they have to keep Defensive Fire (if only for this instance, Overwatch can go).

Regarding the KFF 'nerf', I'd say it was a buff if anything.
You only get cover saves for being behind cover (like a barricade) - area terrain does not automatically give you it unless you're being hit by an indirect weapon. This means getting cover saves is very difficult in general, meaning that the KFF, relative to what other armies have available is seriously potent.

I figured that the change to move-assault-shoot was so that all movement could be taken care of with a single move in the movement phase. Not being able to soften up with shooting before an assault is disconcerting, but it feels worth it to simplify movement and speed things up. I hope it stays. Horde assault armies having to make 3 moves a turn is tedious.

Temujin wrote:Horde assault armies having to make 3 moves a turn is tedious.

And provides plenty of scope of 'inaccuracies'.

Single movement phase would get rid of this and speed up the game measurably for large figure-count armies.

sorry I havent been able to read all 100+ pages, but what armies do you guys think stand to get better and worse?

Most of them will get better, worse, or stay about the same; the rest won't.

The one move per round will also make horde armies a little more reasonable in tournament settings.

Also I missed this, but why the name pancake edition? Because it is all exciting at first, but by the end we are sick of it?

it's pancake because the original pdf file had a password. And that password was....


PANCAKE

fus roh dah

Mafty wrote:sorry I havent been able to read all 100+ pages, but what armies do you guys think stand to get better and worse?

It's more about the meta-game than anything else. I'd argue it delivers more in the way of internal balance - the various power builds take a hit while the less played lists get better.

Obviously that means that some armies are perceived as getting nerfed, due to the way the are predominantly played (IG mechvet spam for example).

ThatEdGuy wrote:The one move per round will also make horde armies a little more reasonable in tournament settings.

Also I missed this, but why the name pancake edition? Because it is all exciting at first, but by the end we are sick of it?

Pancakes are used instead of miniatuers....

alarmingrick wrote:

ThatEdGuy wrote:The one move per round will also make horde armies a little more reasonable in tournament settings.

Also I missed this, but why the name pancake edition? Because it is all exciting at first, but by the end we are sick of it?

Pancakes are used instead of miniatuers....

And you use hills of shaved butter and syrup pools as terrain.

I'd play a breakfast-based wargame.

ph34r wrote:I'd play a breakfast-based wargame.

All your bacon are belong to us......

Got to play with the leaked rules last night. First off, we finished two 1850pt games in under 3 hours with frequent references to the rulebook. Games go by really quickly primarily due to the amount of carnage taking place on the battlefield. I'm sure there's plenty of things we messed up, but overall it was really fun.

Mech Guard vs Blood Angels

Command HQ in Chimera
4x Meltavets in Chimera
1 Platoon HQ and 2 infantry squads on foot
2x Vendetta
2x Executioners
3x Hydras (squadroned)

Mephiston
10x Thunder Hammer Terminators w/ Priest
2x Dreadnoughts w/ Assault Cannon
2x 10 man Assault Squads w/ Priests, Meltaguns and Fist
2x Typhoons w/ Multimelta
2x 5 man Devastators w/ Missiles

Guard won first turn w/ Blood Angels getting Night Fight, and Tank Hunting Devastators. Vendetta scouted 12" forward, searchlighted the Devastators, and the Executioners vaporized one unit. We were operating under the assumption that since the blast rules do not say you can overlap templates (unlike 5th ed), I could not stack multiple hits. In practice, what happens is that the Executioner tends to hit every single model in a squad, but cannot really get more then the number of models in the squad, unlike 5th ed. It's more consistent damage since blast weapons rarely miss completely, but you can't put 30 odd wounds on a single squad anymore.

Other highlights on the first turn is having a Vendetta go supersonic, come in on the Blood Angel table edge and take out a Dreadnought from the rear. Mephiston then cast Wings (becoming Jump Infantry), charged the Vendetta, exploded it, which then took out a Terminator from shrapnel.

Side Note: Explosions are scary! Since they can (and do!) cause critical hits on vehicles, blowing up the center vehicle in a vehicle wall has a chance of chain reacting explosions down the line. Likely? No, but it is something to look out for.

Assault squads deep struck in close to the Guard line, triggering volleys of defensive first. First, although the Executioner may look scary as all else in this situation, blast weapons do not place templates in Defensive fire and units only get a single shooting action. So the Executioner fires 3 shots from the turret plasma cannon, but rolls to hit on BS. Mounted MechVet fire was a lot more effective, but enough Blood Angels survived to Engage, take out both foot infantry squads, then meltagun some Chimeras.

On the Guard turn, the Executioners tore the walking Terminators to shreds. Even spread out at max coherency, the multiple plasma cannons just walked blasts across the Terminator formation. MechVet Chimeras remained stationary and used triple meltas out the hatch to eliminate the Assault squads, with Hydras picking off the stragglers.

Note: Hydra squadrons are really powerful now. Being able to move and fire both autocannons due to Multitracking (2) means they no longer have to be stationary gun platforms (not that they were bad at that either). Targeters (hostiles count as stationary) means they hit on 3s and reroll due to twinlinking. Throw in ignoring most damage results on a 3 due to squadron discipline and they are very tough. Of course, in this game a single Typhoon shook one with a missile and I failed the squadron roll, resulting in all 3 being shaken. Then again, since they still have a single shooting action, they were able to blow the Typhoon away with 6 autocannon shots.

Game was pretty much over then as the Blood Angels really didn't have anything left. Mephiston jumped forward, killed a Chimera and then perished to multiple meltaguns to the face.

Random thoughts: Chimeras being to drive 6" forward and shoot both guns is pretty good. 3" extra range on Flamers is neat. There's a careful balance between driving forward and shooting a single meltagun out the hatch and staying still to unload with all three. Getting out of your ride to score points is scary as things deep strike/outflank and eat your squad out of nowhere. Marines hitting on 5s in close combat for moving tanks is good. Holy carp, Executioners are deadly against large squads. They're somewhat less deadly against small squads and against Mephiston, I ended up shooting the heavy bolter as I can only put one plasma cannon template over him. Tanks taking Shaken results doesn't really seem to matter too much as they can still fire a single weapon. Tanks taking Stunned results is bad bad bad. Extra Armour is looking really good right now.

More to follow with another game and more thoughts.

spmusubi wrote:*snip*

This is an example of the issues being discussed here.

Just going to throw this out there. I have manipulated the PDF to the point where it is fully editable. Just seeing if there is any interest in "Fixing" the PDF (because even those of us that love it, know there are a few things that are wrong / inconsistent)

I'm willing to put the time in to edit the document in such a away that we have a community version of this to play with.

This may all be a waste of time as 6th is here soon........but what if we dont like 6th, and these are better?


Any takers?

(or am I the only crazy one?)

Tapeworm711 wrote:Just going to throw this out there. I have manipulated the PDF to the point where it is fully editable. Just seeing if there is any interest in "Fixing" the PDF (because even those of us that love it, know there are a few things that are wrong / inconsistent)

I'm willing to put the time in to edit the document in such a away that we have a community version of this to play with.

This may all be a waste of time as 6th is here soon........but what if we dont like 6th, and these are better?


Any takers?

(or am I the only crazy one?)

if its fun, play it.

Round two, Mech Guard vs Deathwing

Command HQ in Chimera
4x Meltavets in Chimera
1 Platoon HQ and 2 infantry squads on foot
2x Vendetta
2x Executioners
3x Hydras (squadroned)

Belial
4x Terminator squads (including command one)
3x Typhoon w/ Multimelta
1x Godhammer Landraider
1x Crusader Landraider

Dark Angels win the bidding war and start first. Guard has All Units count as moving first turn, Tank Hunting Hydras (!!!) and a single reroll.

Land Raiders drive up on a side, collecting all sorts of damage results from the Hydras and Mechvets, but surviving to get to target. Having Mechvets jump out of their ride, meltagun the target, then jump back in is fairly silly, but it ended up getting them killed as the Terminators dismounted, charged the tank and destroyed it, THEN assaulted the Veteran squad through Charge by Chance. Since there's no need to assault straight in anymore, the Terminators easily zipped around to the rear of the Chimera to block the hatch and get into close combat w/ the infantry. This also saves them a turn of getting shot up as they're locked in close combat. The other Terminator squads used similar tactics and even in cases where the Chimera wasn't destroyed, if it was Stunned or Immobilized, the troops onboard couldn't get out OR shoot from the hatch.

What I should have done is use other vehicles to Ram the blocking Terminators out of the way, so the Vets could disembark and do their thing. We also had a Land Raider Ram a Chimera, but generally the vehicle on vehicle violence doesn't look all too impressive due to all the negative modifiers. It'd probably be more effective crushing non-tank vehicles.

The Executioners whittled the Deathwing squads down to single members, but once they're down to 1 or 2, you only get a single plasma cannon round on target, so they really became ineffective after burning down most of the squad. This was similar to the first game, and I think it's an interesting balancing mechanic. Also, you really can't get hits on other squads unless they're really close as you have to put subsequent blast templates covering the original squad as much as possible.

Pretty much the Deathwing Terminators just fought on the objectives, using Engage, Charge by Chance and Consolidate to wreck Chimeras, lock into infantry squads and then consolidate away in my turn. Very very effective tactic especially as they were gaining objective points at the same time. Also worth noticing that close combat troops can't explode tanks due to the -1 modifier, so there's no danger of having your own guys cut down by flying wreckage.

Although my infantry pretty much got wrecked, they didn't give up any victory points, as Terminators can't sweep and the survivors just ran off the board. We also noticed that after the initial fallback move, troops don't have to move towards their board edge and can in fact run in the completely opposite direction. As long as they stay out of 12" of an enemy, they can keep shooting the entire time too!

Vendettas that take a single Weapon Destroyed result become a one-gun platform, as they only have Multitracking(1) and once that's gone, they can't use Gunship to multiply their MT value.

Tanks are obnoxiously hard to kill now. They get loads of damage results piled onto them, but they just keep on ticking. Your basic tank takes 3 Weapon Destroyed results just to stop it from firing. We both had vehicles driving around with multiple damage dice on them, but rarely did anything ever die in a single volley. That -1 on the damage chart for being a tank really makes them tough. Of course, the guys inside aren't doing anything much, and not being able to score from inside a ride is huge. I really like being forced to make a choice on embarked/disembarked here. I think that the first Weapon Destroyed stripping the Multitracking rule altogether instead of reducing it by one is a bit better though (maybe). It also might work better if you could Hull Breach on the same volley, instead of needing a second series of results to get anything out of it.

i ended up losing the game 80-54, primarily because my infantry couldn't stand out in the open without getting hammered and his could. Charge by Chance against forcibly disembarked troops was huge also and really opens up a lot of possibilities for in-close assault troops. Driving in a solid vehicle wall is a way to mitigate getting your troops assaulted, but it opens you up to multi-assault and explosion chains. Choices, choices.

Will have some more games next week, so hopefully I can put some more thoughts down later. Real, fake or alpha-version, I really like the way this ruleset plays so far. Course, I also like 5th and 4th ed, so maybe I'm just easy to please.

Tapeworm711 wrote:Just going to throw this out there. I have manipulated the PDF to the point where it is fully editable. Just seeing if there is any interest in "Fixing" the PDF (because even those of us that love it, know there are a few things that are wrong / inconsistent)

I'm willing to put the time in to edit the document in such a away that we have a community version of this to play with.

This may all be a waste of time as 6th is here soon........but what if we dont like 6th, and these are better?


Any takers?

(or am I the only crazy one?)

I am in the camp of lets tweak these rules a little.

By making it editable do you mean that we would be able to take chunks of correlating text and putting it next to each other so there's minimal "turn to page xx" that would be excellent!
:mode on:
I however don't see a reason to make a "community tweak" of these beta rules. I understand the urge and want to do so for house rules and the like but keep in mind the leaked rules aren't written in stone by any means.
If "we" don't like the 6th ed. rules (or any for that matter) we have ALWAYS had the choice to play how we want, making house rules that would suit our gaming group's ideas of how 40k rules should be.
We also have the proposed rules section here (and on other sites, I'm certain) if we have ideas that we feel the community would benefit from.
I think that such proposals are best suited to when the new rulebook actually arrives. But as I stated earlier we have the option to use whatever rules our groups feel give the best wargaming experience to everyone in the group.
:mode off:

I like to browse the proposed rules sections to see what fellow members have to add to the game. If those of you who feel they want to tweak the 6th ed. rules I would love to see a thread of it in the proposed rules section.

So far what I have done is edit all the obvious errors (2+ Power Armour and the terrible math examples) Fixed some of the shading in the boxes and hyperlinked the entire document. So anywhere you see "See page XXX" you can click on it and it takes you to that page.



EDIT: But yes, I can move anything anywhere if need be. I can even add in the missing pictures if so desired.

Hyperlinking the document is exactly the fix I was hoping for.
I wouldn't worry about adding the pictures as they would serve to bulk up the file size and all many of us want is the rules. The pictures that GW will use are ones we've probably seen before so that may not be the best use of your abilities and free time.

Temujin wrote:I figured that the change to move-assault-shoot was so that all movement could be taken care of with a single move in the movement phase. Not being able to soften up with shooting before an assault is disconcerting, but it feels worth it to simplify movement and speed things up. I hope it stays. Horde assault armies having to make 3 moves a turn is tedious.

Note that while the new BoW rumour says that the turn order remains the same, nothing is said the about the movement. They could keep the one move mechanic while just resolving shooting before assaults. What I mean is that you still move at combat, engage or flat out and if you move the into btb then the assaulting unit does not get to shoot nor can the unit assaulted be targeted for shooting attacks.


(Not a shot at anyone) But I find it kinda funny that people aren't applying the same attitude towards these rumours that they do in the rules debate forum

focusedfire wrote:Note that while the new BoW rumour says that the turn order remains the same, nothing is said the about the movement. They could keep the one move mechanic while just resolving shooting before assaults. What I mean is that you still move at combat, engage or flat out and if you move the into btb then the assaulting unit does not get to shoot nor can the unit assaulted be targeted for shooting attacks.

This is true, and would in fact make choosing between assaulting and shooting even more nail-biting. As to whether which is a better mechanic I don't know.

Dribble Joy wrote:

focusedfire wrote:Note that while the new BoW rumour says that the turn order remains the same, nothing is said the about the movement. They could keep the one move mechanic while just resolving shooting before assaults. What I mean is that you still move at combat, engage or flat out and if you move the into btb then the assaulting unit does not get to shoot nor can the unit assaulted be targeted for shooting attacks.

This is true, and would in fact make choosing between assaulting and shooting even more nail-biting. As to whether which is a better mechanic I don't know.

I think I would prefer shooting after assault. It makes high output generalist units like terminators much more capable of functioning in their given role and it prevents the issue of the opponant drawing models from the front and thus preventing assaults. I hate that. I've hated that since I started playing this game. It's an awful and exploitative mechanic.

ShumaGorath wrote:I think I would prefer shooting after assault. It makes high output generalist units like terminators much more capable of functioning in their given role and it prevents the issue of the opponant drawing models from the front and thus preventing assaults. I hate that. I've hated that since I started playing this game. It's an awful and exploitative mechanic.

Assault > Shoot is more beneficial to shooting armies and Shoot > Assault is more beneficial to CC armies. <note: this is generalist because some hybrids favor one or the other>

A>S allows 1 more CC resolution before shooting so you have a better chance of getting to shoot at the units that assaulted you.

Anyone notice that since the 4th day of pancake heretic we haven't heard a peep about the next codex to be released.

Don't know if it is by design but this "leak" has been a very effective smoke screen for other things in the developmental pipeline. If GW ever needed something to stall their expectant consumer base with, this rumour would have been ideal.

Really I'm not trying to go all conspiracy theory here, but it does feel like GW has something that they don't want anyone focusing on. Speculation-(Maybe they are doing something with the LotR/Hobbit this month that they can't let anyone get wind of)

Anybody who plays Warhammer Fantasy knows that the shooting and magic phases happen before the assault, but the movement phase is where all charges are declared. The tactical decision of deciding whether or not to charge into a particular squad but being unable to fire into it with ranged weaponry is quite a tasty one indeed.

I can totally see 6th Ed Warhammer 40K going this route - using movement values associated in Pancake Edition to declare runs/charge moves/combat moves in the movement phase, then shooting at anything not locked in combat, then finally resolving the assaults triggered in the previous movement phase.

tetrisphreak wrote:Anybody who plays Warhammer Fantasy knows that the shooting and magic phases happen before the assault, but the movement phase is where all charges are declared. The tactical decision of deciding whether or not to charge into a particular squad but being unable to fire into it with ranged weaponry is quite a tasty one indeed.

I can totally see 6th Ed Warhammer 40K going this route - using movement values associated in Pancake Edition to declare runs/charge moves/combat moves in the movement phase, then shooting at anything not locked in combat, then finally resolving the assaults triggered in the previous movement phase.

I would expect that the two game systems would start to gravitate toward each other until eventually both Fantasy and 40k have the same rules system, such as with Warmachine/Hordes. If for no other reason than to increase sales, as a player that already understands how to play a game is far more likely to start an army for it. That is, more 40k players might be inclined to start playing Fantasy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also:

ThatEdGuy wrote:The one move per round will also make horde armies a little more reasonable in tournament settings.

Also I missed this, but why the name pancake edition? Because it is all exciting at first, but by the end we are sick of it?

Who gets sick of pancakes? Do you? Are you some sort of pancake-hater? If so, then we are not friends, sir.

If the BoW rumours are true and shooting is back before the assault (boooo!) maybe the Engage move will allow you to fire your weapons even if your engaged in CC.

Just a thought really.

focusedfire wrote:Anyone notice that since the 4th day of pancake heretic we haven't heard a peep about the next codex to be released.

Don't know if it is by design but this "leak" has been a very effective smoke screen for other things in the developmental pipeline. If GW ever needed something to stall their expectant consumer base with, this rumour would have been ideal.

Really I'm not trying to go all conspiracy theory here, but it does feel like GW has something that they don't want anyone focusing on. Speculation-(Maybe they are doing something with the LotR/Hobbit this month that they can't let anyone get wind of)

interesting but not the vibe I get from all this...

1) dude gets an invite to GW's "Make 6th Edition Party"
2) dude spends alot of time and effort putting together a playable new 40k rulebook.
3) GW likes the "go nuts" approach that they wanted everyone invited to take.
4) GW leeches 50% of this dudes ideas and ditches the rest.
5) dude is taken back, as he thinks (as do some of us here on dakka) that it's a great quasi-finished product. a few tweeks here and there, kinda salt to taste thinking and boom! big winner.
6) GW tells him that no, it's not a winner take all party but thanks for the ideas.
7) dude realizes that GW won't claim it, doesn't really REALLY care if some of the info gets out on the web, and abandons the project.
8) a couple months down the road, he's contacted by GW as they are finalizing their own version of 6th about some of his rules. dude brings out the info again and might let a friend in on it. fearing little as GW as moved in a totally different path with only minimal ammounts of his work...you get the leak.
9) now the dude might have made a friend in GW so he's not claiming it, knowing others had copies, and it can't be traced to him, and doesn't want to burn a bridge as a game designer only has so big of an audience to pitch ideas to.
10) hence, no one claims, the leak gets out, the dude gets a moderate amount of vindication by people liking his handiwork, and might privately use these endorcements to promote his future pitches to GW or whomever else is interested.

that's what I think is most likely.

Regarding the phases. Think they should keep it like it is in the pancake edition with a twist of fantasy.

All the movement, charges etc in the movementphase. Then shooting, thougth assaultweapons and pistols may be used before the closecombat begins when they charge.
Relentless makes heavy and rapid fire in to assault weapons when charging.

Normal shooting after that, but no charge and then shoot afterwards.

Then closecombat.

This way assaultarmies get their shoot-n-assault but they cant use the benefit to use other supportunits (devastators etc) to weaken a unit before another unit assaults it.

My two cents.

ShumaGorath wrote:

I think I would prefer shooting after assault. It makes high output generalist units like terminators much more capable of functioning in their given role and it prevents the issue of the opponant drawing models from the front and thus preventing assaults. I hate that. I've hated that since I started playing this game. It's an awful and exploitative mechanic.

And close combat armies taking casualties from the back to maintain their distance isn't? Since it would make more sense that the from line of models would BE SHOT FIRST as apposed to all the guys behind them.

Dantalian wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I think I would prefer shooting after assault. It makes high output generalist units like terminators much more capable of functioning in their given role and it prevents the issue of the opponant drawing models from the front and thus preventing assaults. I hate that. I've hated that since I started playing this game. It's an awful and exploitative mechanic.

And close combat armies taking casualties from the back to maintain their distance isn't? Since it would make more sense that the from line of models would BE SHOT FIRST as apposed to all the guys behind them.

So now that two guys died i suddenly can't fight their squad? Because I can't teleport an arbitrary 20 feet because the next closest guy is 22 feet I have to stand there and wait my turn while they fire machine guns into my face? This is all abstraction. None of it makes a tonne of sense. How about we got with the thing that at it's face isn't awful and stupid. No one likes having models taken from the front ranks just to deny an assault. It makes shooting before assault questionable which it should never be. It breaks immersion because it makes the game more about being careful about mechanics rather than logical situations.

It's always been a bad mechanic it always will. Taking models in assault from the back isn't exactly comparable. At least then you can thematically say that the press of combat is just moving people forward and that the ones that died were up there in the first place. There's no excuse for missing an unmeasured assault because you accidentally let your idiot trooper fire his pistol.

ShumaGorath wrote:

So now that two guys died i suddenly can't fight their squad? Because I can't teleport an arbitrary 20 feet because the next closest guy is 22 feet I have to stand there and wait my turn while they fire machine guns into my face? This is all abstraction. None of it makes a tonne of sense. How about we got with the thing that at it's face isn't awful and stupid. No one likes having models taken from the front ranks just to deny an assault. It makes shooting before assault questionable which it should never be. It breaks immersion because it makes the game more about being careful about mechanics rather than logical situations.

It's always been a bad mechanic it always will. Taking models in assault from the back isn't exactly comparable. At least then you can thematically say that the press of combat is just moving people forward and that the ones that died were up there in the first place. There's no excuse for missing an unmeasured assault because you accidentally let your idiot trooper fire his pistol.

Uhhh, I would imagine that if my gun line of men were being shot at and taking casualties, they would be dying from front to back. It would make no sense for an immobile squad to take casualties in the back of their ranks. Thus taking models from the front would be more "immersive."

But they aren't really there is the problem. Its an abstraction. The models are glorified wound counters and footprint markers.

You can justify whatever model dieing anyway you choose, whether that be shot first or from ricochet. The point is none of that matters as long is it doesn't interfere with the games mechanics.

Taking losses being a benefit and/or shooting more to kill less are abhorrently idiotic things that occur in 5th every game.

And the squads aren't really Stationary unless they've not moved the previous turn. Even then, you'd have the squad holding a position by having new troops move to the front of the position in order to prepare for the assault or shoot back, as opposed to staying further back, which is retreating.

[Edit: Ninja'd by Anvildude, we say practically the same thing]

I think you should always assign wounds by picking up the Die that failed each wound and rolling it like a bowling ball towards the squad, or just use a bowling ball, or a baseball bat. In fact, you should just play baseball or go bowling instead of playing 40k. Actually, both those sports are lame. Instead of playing 40k, everyone should play a homebrew variant of basketball that involves the following elements: Skydiving, Revolvers, and pirate ships.

junk wrote:[Edit: Ninja'd by Anvildude, we say practically the same thing]

I think you should always assign wounds by picking up the Die that failed each wound and rolling it like a bowling ball towards the squad, or just use a bowling ball, or a baseball bat. In fact, you should just play baseball or go bowling instead of playing 40k. Actually, both those sports are lame. Instead of playing 40k, everyone should play a homebrew variant of basketball that involves the following elements: Skydiving, Revolvers, and pirate ships.

Can we involve bikini-wearing sharks in that game? If so, I'm sold-Junk for the president of the NBA.

While saying that taking casualty's in the back in case of frontline gunning or otherwise with assault troops, you can assume and its not that far fetched that the ranks are filed, or that the guys standing in the back fil the line so that the gunline won't broke.

Same for assault troops, if they have casualty's they will run just as fast to get their.

I don't think this is a true issue or anything, just the way you see it, and how you imagine the reactions on a battlefield.

Well, with BOK newsest rumors which re-stated that the leak is a fake and Warseer's ever-reliable Hastings stating that BOK is pretty much on the ball, I think we can put a nail in this coffin.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/411404.page?userfilterid=24567

The birth of 5.5ed? Since so many people love these rules over the current set. Maybe it would be a mistake at this point for GW to completely ignore the mechanics proposed in this older test set.

wyomingfox wrote:Well, with BOK newsest rumors which re-stated that the leak is a fake and Warseer's ever-reliable Hastings stating that BOK is pretty much on the ball, I think we can put a nail in this coffin.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/411404.page?userfilterid=24567

I thought he was mainly talking about the starter box. Saying he also debunked the leaked ruleset is a bit daring ATM.

He has now confirmed exactly this:

Having re-read this thread I want to point out that I am only confirming the starter as DA vs chaos NOT the DA & CSM codex release dates. The next 40k releases are :- 'nids, SW, necrons (all models only no codex)

Okay, but then he adds:

BTW I'd also like to say the "leaked" 6th is a crock of **** an elaborate and well written crock but a crock non the less.

Ninja'd

Yeah, you may be right Kroot.

He did state the following inregards to the previous Tau, Eldar, BT rumors posted on Warseer.

75hastings69 wrote:

gunmnky wrote:No, there are rumors that may be complete fabrications about BT, Tau, Eldar, and Chaos. Strangers on the net don't trump White Dwarf.

Agreed (etc. etc.)

75hastings69 wrote:

jspyd3rx wrote:Wow, blown away by this news. Never saw that coming. How can there be absolutely zero rumors about DA and more about everything else?

Because about 80% of the stuff about everything else has been, without trying to cause upset, made up.

And Hastings just said this in reagrds to the DA rumored codex:

75hastings69 wrote:

Ba'al Starslayer wrote:My point exactly - I doubt DA will get a Codex before Templars. Harry's seen the models, and other sources have "confirmed" that they're coming soon (even if the specifics they delivered weren't accurate). I'm betting on Black Templars as the next Codex.

Has he????

I'll take that bet

- Starter Set includes Dark Angels vs. Chaos.

Called it.

- Chaos includes CSM, some traitor guard/cultists

Didn't expect cultists.

- and a CSM deadnought.

Nor this. It seems odd that consecutive sets would include similar vehicles.

Most of those rumours were by ghost21 who posted new facts every day on whatever fraction you liked, including Insectoids for Fantasy, Hrud Codex, and a whole list for Tau (after a while I was reluctant to post his stuff). If you take that away, the rest 20% are not that bad

(BTW: Hastings now explicitely says, he thinks the leak is a fake).

You know, I think I will stand by my previous statement

75hastings69 wrote:Lol, oh yea, sorry got a bit carried away

BTW I'd also like to say the "leaked" 6th is a crock of **** an elaborate and well written crock but a crock non the less.

Dammit Kroot stop ninjaing me

That's how it looks when ninjas discuss rumours

Kroothawk wrote:Most of those rumours were by ghost21

Yep, you can also add "The Dark General" to the list as well...

Well I spoke to my GW rep on the phone. The guy who works in sales.

He said the 6th ed rulebook wasn't a fake. What he did say, however, was that it was written by GW as an early playtest rulebook that was sent out to various playtesters and staff for review with the express understanding that many things were going to be trimmed out of the book.

He was mostly looking at the Evasion stat and the turn order listed in the book having already been eliminated from the 6th rulebook as it stands right now.

So it was a real 6th ed rulebook, but time marches on and it is no longer valid. How much of it has been invalidated since March is the only thing really up for debate

Celtic Strike wrote:Well I spoke to my GW rep on the phone. The guy who works in sales.

He said the 6th ed rulebook wasn't a fake. What he did say, however, was that it was written by GW as an early playtest rulebook that was sent out to various playtesters and staff for review with the express understanding that many things were going to be trimmed out of the book.

He was mostly looking at the Evasion stat and the turn order listed in the book having already been eliminated from the 6th rulebook as it stands right now.

So it was a real 6th ed rulebook, but time marches on and it is no longer valid. How much of it has been invalidated since March is the only thing really up for debate

So your sales person is in the know? Are we at least talking trade sales?

And this is basically just the BoW rumor.

Celtic Strike wrote:Well I spoke to my GW rep on the phone. The guy who works in sales.

He said the 6th ed rulebook wasn't a fake. What he did say, however, was that it was written by GW as an early playtest rulebook that was sent out to various playtesters and staff for review with the express understanding that many things were going to be trimmed out of the book.

He was mostly looking at the Evasion stat and the turn order listed in the book having already been eliminated from the 6th rulebook as it stands right now.

So it was a real 6th ed rulebook, but time marches on and it is no longer valid. How much of it has been invalidated since March is the only thing really up for debate

Now we know this statement is fake. We all know GW doesn't Playtest anything. Just kidding here in case anyone things i am serious. Thanks for sharing Celtic Strike. I tend to believe you than what they are saying on Warseer that it was just "a fake".

Kroothawk wrote:

(BTW: Hastings now explicitely says, he thinks the leak is a fake).

He thinks doesn't really mean he knows...

So until he clearly state that the Leakhammer is fake like in a kind of sentence like " i've seen/know the true 6th, and can declare that this leakhammer is fake" i won't buy it...

Now if he say so, then yeah no other choice.

Slayer le boucher wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:

(BTW: Hastings now explicitely says, he thinks the leak is a fake).

He thinks doesn't really mean he knows...

So until he clearly state that the Leakhammer is fake like in a kind of sentence like " i've seen/know the true 6th, and can declare that this leakhammer is fake" i won't buy it...

Now if he say so, then yeah no other choice.

Let's try again then

75hastings69 wrote:BTW I'd also like to say the "leaked" 6th is a crock of **** an elaborate and well written crock but a crock non the less.

Assuming that the rules are at least somewhat legitimate, I have a few questions about movement:

1) What exactly is an "Engage" move? A normal assault move that can be followed up by shooting if the assaulting squad begins the shooting phase not locked in combat?
2) What exactly is a "Charge" move? A double-distance assault move that prevents subsequent shooting?
3) Are Engage and Charge moves supplemented by the Fleet USR?
4) Are Engage and Charge moves available to everyone?

I'm only asking because per my current understanding, something like a hormagaunt or banshee would have a 32" effective assault radius (8" move + 8" run + 16" charge), which is way further than my Guardsmen can fire their lasguns (even with the new rapid fire rules).

If I'm right, then are you guys sure that defensive fire can't be used in assaults? Because as one of the only IG players in the world who owns a single chimera, it looks a little skewed to me atm.

Charge is a type of Move that lets you get into close combat. In these rules, you only move once, no matter what. You either Charge, which is Assaulting, Move regularly, or do a sort of Double Move, which replaces Running. So instead of Move during the Move phase, Run during the Shooting phase and Assault during the Assault phase, you just Move/Charge/Run during the Movement phase.

I_am_a_Spoon wrote:Assuming that the rules are at least somewhat legitimate, I have a few questions about movement:

1) What exactly is an "Engage" move? A normal assault move that can be followed up by shooting if the assaulting squad begins the shooting phase not locked in combat?
2) What exactly is a "Charge" move? A double-distance assault move that prevents subsequent shooting?
3) Are Engage and Charge moves supplemented by the Fleet USR?
4) Are Engage and Charge moves available to everyone?

I'm only asking because per my current understanding, something like a hormagaunt or banshee would have a 32" effective assault radius (8" move + 8" run + 16" charge), which is way further than my Guardsmen can fire their lasguns (even with the new rapid fire rules).

If I'm right, then are you guys sure that defensive fire can't be used in assaults? Because as one of the only IG players in the world who owns a single chimera, it looks a little skewed to me atm.

1-4 correct.

Your off on the Movement. Gaunts must choose between fleet and and Leap. So, 16" run or 18" charge?

Def-fire only works against Deep-strikers, in a Death or Glory attempt, and if the unit has Overwatch. If you have overwatch you can use it against assaults even if they end in B2B.

Hormagaunts can either run 16 inches (6 move +2 fleet x 2 for run)
or Charge 21 inches (7 for bounding leap, x 3 for bounding leap charge)

The rules for bounding leap gives them 7 movement and a x3 charge, but you can't add the +2 from fleet if you use bounding leap.

All the people freaking out about how fast horms can get into assault are using the 7 for bounding leap, adding 2 for fleet, and then multiplying by 3, giving a value of 27 inches.

Hormagaunts don't "move as cavalry" so don't get the 7" normal move. Their normal move is 6" so will charge 18" with Bounding Leap.

Dynamix wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
If they deny it, but then in court they can produce proof that they really were theirs, then no, they don't lose IP protection.

Thats interesting considering the current dispute with Chapterhouse . I guess the GW denial could be used against them but the playtesters and staff would be able to attest to GW IP ownership / origin I suppose , but if someone was to publish first , is this like Science papers where the first to publish gets the credit ?



Anyway , fun to hypothesise , but the above isnt going to happen , shame , that would have been amusing

*puts on IP/copyright specialist hat on* (and Hi, by the way eventually made my way from the FFG forums and elsewhere to Dakka - mainly due to Warseer looking like an elitist hole with mods with GW-based paranoia and power issues)

Basically, no. Whether someone else published it before GW would be entirely immaterial. If GW could pull out their manuscript/playtest document, and have their writers testify in court as to it's validity, GW would win any IP lawsuit, because denial of ownership of an item that is able to be covered by copyright does not void the copyright, as copyright always exists - you don't need to claim it, and you can't get rid of it once you have it (only exceptions being that if you write/draw/etc something as part of a job, your employer owns the copyright).

So yea, even with GW saying "Nope, it's not the real 6th ed", you will still be liable for breach of copyright law if you copied it if it does actually belong to GW. It doesn't matter what they say, in effect, it's what the truth is (whether it was written by GW or not) that matters. All that would have resulted from someone else publishing it without mostly rewriting it to remove every single IP reference would be that GW would sue them, win, and take all the profit they made from the rules, as well as damages, and possibly prison time for the person publishing it illegally (as this would be breach of copyright for commercial purposes, which is a HUGE no-no).

In my experience this looks like a playtest document, and a late stage one at that - from my work with several companies I playtest for, the vast majority don't bother with layout and the like until relatively late in the process, given how even a few changes to the document would require the whole thing to have to go through layout again. I'd bet on these being legit, and the end-product rules being relatively similar to what we see here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

timd wrote: I find the use of the word 'parody' in the GW response quite amazing. I'm assuming that since MadCowCrazy
is from Finland, he contacted GWUK. Perhaps GWUK legal does not know that parody is protected in the US? I would assume that it is also protected speech in the UK? As Nagashek says below, parody is protected speech in the US and if GW legal thinks its a parody, they should not have any problems with it being distributed on the net, or even printed out and sold as a parody

Nagashek wrote:Except, that if you did all that and called it a "Parody," you would legally have a leg to stand on as parody and satire are protected speech in the US. Since the GW rep called it "a parody work," you can probably redistribute it with impunity.

Pacific wrote:I find the use of 'parody' in the GW reply quite interesting. The word is imbued with a generally negative connotation, as though it is somehow a poor and shallow copy of a superior original. Not enough that they just say it is a fan made project..

The lady doth protest too much... and as many have said, it appears to be a big improvement of the current version of 40K. This GW response is probably closer to parody than the leak is.

Actually, in the UK, parody is still restricted by copyright in the same way as any work is restricted - it has no special legal standing here (yet, they're working on it), so the use of the term 'parody' is more than likely just them referring to it as a cheap immitation or fake, which is another meaning of the word 'parody'.

Just Googling it would have told you it means nothing, legally speaking, in the UK.

So am I the only one that feels the list of what was not being kept from this play test version was very specific. Like they never said anything about the strategem point system not carrying over.

Is this thing even a rumour any more?

Grey elder wrote:Is this thing even a rumour any more?

Well, it could still be an extremely elaborate hoax, or an early playtest version, or a late playtest version. We don't know.

some of the rules in it are really cool and I would like to see them.

But some of the stuff in this is just not believable - titans and superheavies in normal 40 k .....

Though forgeworld does have chaos dreadnaughts on it now that are halfway in size between the current ones and titans..... they could be the normal dreadnaughts with the titan close comat weapons attached as mentioned in the "leaked" test rules

Though it would be odd playing a 1000 point game where 888 points are taken up by my ANGRON

sumi808 wrote:some of the rules in it are really cool and I would like to see them.

But some of the stuff in this is just not believable - titans and superheavies in normal 40 k .....

Though forgeworld does have chaos dreadnaughts on it now that are halfway in size between the current ones and titans..... they could be the normal dreadnaughts with the titan close comat weapons attached as mentioned in the "leaked" test rules

Though it would be odd playing a 1000 point game where 888 points are taken up by my ANGRON

Really? Why necro a month old thread to reinstate something that has already been said countless times?

PhantomViper is exactly right.

Locking thread.